Re: Newbie query: why required weight?

[Teddy Lancaster <Teddy@runningbear.com>]

Bottom line....no matter what you've heard, we are NOT all equal and NEVER will
be.  That's why this sport is such a challenge.

Teddy


Robert Morris wrote:

> Joe & Ride camp:
>
> You state:>>> Sorry, Bob, but your physics is off.  Energy is only expended
> moving a
> > mass against resistance (such as gravity).  It takes more energy to
> > *lift* a given weight a given height, but not to move it horizontally.
> > All else being equal it takes no more energy to move 200 pounds one
> > *level* mile than to move 100 pounds one level mile.>>>
>
> This is absolutely correct but the horse in creating impulsion must lift
> the weight, total weight animal and rider, into the air and then push it
> forward so the factor of gravity, the overcoming of the movement from
> static to dynamic state and the like are repeated over and over. Then you
> have also introduced the factor of elevation change no matter how slight.
> So there is a very distinct "lifting a given weight a given height". That
> weight is the factor that brings forth the necessity for setting some
> standard such as the minimum 165 lb criteria.
>
> <<<Simple concept -- difficult to adjust for equitably in the real
> world.>>>
>
> Who ever said life was fair or equitable. The weight criteria is an attempt
> to level things out but will never come close to helping the way training,
> conditioning and desire to excel will. I have always ridden as a heavy
> weight but never felt it was a handicap. Gave up on the idea of winning
> when I found the "view" from further back was much better. That is why I
> now always let those sweet young things get ahead of me (including my
> wife).
>
> Bob Morris
> Morris Endurance Enterprises
> Boise, ID
>
> ----------
> > From: Joe Long <jlong@mti.net>
> > To: ridecamp@endurance.net
> > Subject: Re: Newbie query:  why required weight?
> > Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 11:35 AM
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:54:00 -0600, "Robert Morris"
> > <bobmorris@rmci.net> wrote:
> >
> > >OK let's get this discussion down to basics which is the expenditure of
> > >energy!
> >
> > >BTU's expended are a factor of the weight moved and the distance it is
> > >moved! (basic physics)
> >
> > Sorry, Bob, but your physics is off.  Energy is only expended moving a
> > mass against resistance (such as gravity).  It takes more energy to
> > *lift* a given weight a given height, but not to move it horizontally.
> > All else being equal it takes no more energy to move 200 pounds one
> > *level* mile than to move 100 pounds one level mile.
> >
> > >Therefore, a light weight horse with a light weight rider expends fewer
> > >BTU's than a heavy weight horse with a heavy weight rider. Now we know
> > >mechanics are introduced in that the very light weight horse cannot
> carry
> > >the very heavy weight rider. This is a mechanical limitation and while
> > >influencing the choice of horses, does not influence the basic formula
> of
> > >energy use.
> >
> > Aha ... all else is not equal.  Because of mechanical resistance
> > (friction) and the effort required to support the weight, what you say
> > above is true.  The question, though, is to what degree?  And don't
> > forget that a larger horse stores more BTU's in his body and is
> > generally able to expend more BTU's per hour.
> >
> > >The criteria for minimum weight is to influence that part of the formula
>
> > >regarding the use of energy. Trying to make the conditions as even as
> > >possible for every one on that course on that day. The uneven factor is
> the
> > >horse, and that is left to the discretion of the competitor. There is no
> > >limiting factor on the size, breed, sex or color regarding the horse.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > >Could any thing be simpler???
> >
> > Simple concept -- difficult to adjust for equitably in the real world.
> > Which is why I agree that a single minimum weight carried requirement
> > (in the neighborhood of 165 pounds) is the best we've found for major
> > events, and a few (IMO no more than three) weight divisions for the
> > rest of our events.
> >
> > I believe it would be sheer folly -- and doomed to failure -- to try
> > to adopt a weight handicapping system for endurance.
> >
> > A personal anecdote:  my most embarrassing moment on the Board came
> > during a discussion of weight divisions at a General Meeting (before
> > the membership) at a Convention.  Some fellow, in all earnestness, got
> > up and proposed a system of starting the heavy riders first, lighter
> > ones later, the lightest riders last, according to a formula of so
> > many minutes per pound.  I burst out laughing at the idea, it is so
> > wildly impractical over the varied distances, terrain, elevation and
> > weather that we ride.  Then I tried to apologize for laughing and only
> > made it worse.  : ^ (
> >
> > --
> >
> > Joe Long
> > jlong@mti.net
> > Business Page  http://www.mti.net
> > Personal Page  http://www.rnbw.com
> >