 |
Re: [RC] [Guest] small horses and endurance - Heidi SmithRobin Sorensen robinsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx If I read the original post correctly, the author was concerned not just with the size of the horse, but also with the "dainty" build and the small feet. I would be very interested in the opinions of everyone on those issues. Robin Sorensen Substance should be proportionate to weight. So if horse weighs 700#, you don't expect it to have 8" bone or wear #1 shoes, either! At one point, Truman refreshed our mathematical memories by reminding us about cross sections of columns. So lemme see if I can get pi in the right places here..... The two relevant formulas here are that circumference = pi x 2r, and that area = pi x r squared. If the minimum desired bone for a 1000# horse is an 8" circumference, you plug that into the circumference formula to get the radius, and then you can figure the area. Then you would take the area times 0.7 to get the appropriate area for a 700# horse. Then you run back through the formulas again to get radius and get back to circumference. If I hit the right buttons on the calculator, this process tells me that the 700# horse should have a cannon circumference of 6.69" to have substance equivalent to a 1000# horse with 8" cannons. So while it may look "dainty" it may well be in perfect proportion and have plenty of substance to do the job. Heidi =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|