Re: RC: RE: Fwd: physiology of weight

[Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@mindspring.com>]

The physics have been around since Newton and every experiment done has
validated work is equal to the mass times distance moved, mass being directly
proportional to weight. So there is nothing to discuss there. Some day take a
look at the flat rides vs. the difficult mountain rides. I think you will see a
difference in the distribution of the finsihing. On the flat fast rides, the
lighter riders can just let 'em run so to speak and this is where the effects of
weight take its toll.

On the difficult mountain rides then the hill is the great equalizer. A HW off
tailing up the hill is taking a lot less out of his horse than a FW riding up
the hill. Also a HW off walking his horse down the mountain is putting a lot
less stress on this horses legs (also and requiring less work ) than a FW riding
down a steep mountain. The 2001 NC was won by a HW. I think one of the big
reasons was he walked when no one could make time so he had a fresh horse where
everyone could make time. To some extend a very tough course, an inshape
thinking rider are the HW's biggest ally. On a course which is run in 3:30 to
4:00, it's belongs to the lightweights.

Truman

Mike Sofen wrote:

> Wonderful points, Truman.  But!  If weight were the only factor of
> importance, then ONLY FW/LW riders would ever top ten.  If the physics
> around carried weight are valid, then there is no way to compensate for it -
> it must be in effect for every rider and horse on every ride.
>
> My point - there must be some other aspects of the horse/rider equation that
> allow MW/HW riders to win and top ten events.  I would love to find out what
> those are.
>
> Mike Sofen
>