Re: RC: Re: Best Condition

[Maureen Mathisen <blueoak@snowcrest.net>]

I am probablt  coming in late here about B.C.  Doesn't Oregon(at their
own region rides) give points for each horse you passed?  I always
thought that sounded more fair as in regions like the West, at some of
the really big rides,  you pass a lot more horses to get to B.C. than in
some other regions--especially to be a champion.  Now--I may be way out
of line here, and perhaps NO ONE does it this way.  Does anyone know?
Maureen

Susan Evans Garlinghouse wrote:
> 
> >From where I can see it it is the light weight that is being discriminated
> >against.  Again the ratio will take care of the heavy horse.  I do not see
> >what the argument is with the heavy horse.  Why would this discriminate
> them?
> > The rule is not accurately correct as it is.  And I still agree that if
> >there needs to be one then it should be based on percentage.
> 
> Well, one of the problems is that you can two horses carrying the same
> percentage but still not necessarily working equally as hard.  For example,
> let's say you have an 800-lb horse carrying a 160-lb rider with tack, or 20%
> ratio.  Take another horse that weighs 1200 pounds and carrying 240 lbs,
> also 20%.  Did both of these horses have exactly the same workload?
> Probably not.  Even looking ONLY at energetics, the larger horse would have
> to expend 50% more energy to travel exactly the same distance at exactly the
> same speed---yet the larger horse doesn't have 50% more muscle, a 50% larger
> digestive system to fuel those requirements, or 50% larger anything else.
> That's totally aside from the biomechanics of the increased concussion from
> the greater load (assuming both riders rode equally balanced).
> 
> Let's take that same 1200-lb horse and put a teeny-weeny 120-lb rider on
> him, a piddley 10% ratio.  If we gave points based on the ratio, this horse
> should get creamed because he's carrying so little.  But again,
> energetically if you crunch the numbers, he still had to expend 37% more
> energy than did the horse carrying a 20% ratio.  The energetics numbers are
> based on Pagan's published formula for energy expenditure, by the way, I
> didn't just make them up.
> 
> I truly appreciate your wanting to find a better way to judge BC, because I
> agree with you that the current system is not a fair one.  But before we
> propose replacing the existing system with a better one, I think we need to
> define one that truly is accurate and fair without becoming overly
> burdensome to ride management, don't you?  And unfortunately, the rider
> weight ratio issue just doesn't pan out in the statistics or once you factor
> in the physiology issues.
> 
> Still, great thread....(but then, I'm biased)> :-)
> 
> Susan Garlinghouse
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=