Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Sprint bikes

Started by Jenny Brien · · Last activity · 58 posts · 1,064 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
26 July 2006
Last activity
31 July 2006
Original author
Jenny Brien
Posts
58
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,064
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 41–58 of 58
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Quoted message said:


    As for the "propulsion" claim, there simply isn't any physics by which
    a jockey on the back of a horse can add to the force pushing the horse
    forward--that's entirely up to the horse's muscles. A jockey can
    encourage the horse, but even the whip is psychological.

    Maybe there is some physics which can make a horse faster with a
    jockey aboard...recently, some technologists examining ways of getting
    small amounts of electrical power (e.g. for communication equipment)
    from men carrying back packs (that would be soldiers, typically, but I
    don't think it was strictly a defence project) added suspension to the
    backpack so that it oscillated up and down. this oscillation drove a
    generator. The required gait modification actually improved the
    efficiency of walking. A similar effect is thought to explain how
    African women carry large loads on their heads without seeming to
    tire. It all has to do with the difference between machine and animal
    locomotion - people walking set up a series of coupled pendulums
    (pendula?), and tuning the masses can improve the efficiency.

    http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8874

    It is conceivable that the activity of a jockey on the back of a horse
    could have a similar effect, although I'm inclined to think that
    getting hit with a stick every few yards is a more significant effect.

    Kinky Cowboy*

    *Batteries not included
    May contain traces of nuts
    Your milage may vary

  2. Mark Hickey said:
    Quoted message said:

    On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:56:23 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Still,

    1) A horse with a jockey goes faster
    2) Jockeys are arguably the fittest athletes on the planet
    3) Why would they bother getting in shape (adding muscle and weight)
    if it didn't help?

    I dunno enough about horse racing to continue this thread, so I'll
    gladly give you the last word.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles

    Dear Mark,

    Er, jockeys are arguably the smallest athletes on the planet, barring
    midget wrestlers, but they are not noted for their fitness.

    Uh huh...

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    If you think of a question or comment, let's forget the last-word
    stuff. I'm sympathetic because I think that you're simply dead wrong
    in good faith, a situation that I know more about than--

    Er, that I've often heard of.

    Bill's right - you are a smarmy one.

    He positively oozes, doesn't he? "Smarmy" just seemed to be the best word
    for it.

  3. David Damerell said:

    Quoting Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    1) A horse with a jockey goes faster
    2) Jockeys are arguably the fittest athletes on the planet
    3) Why would they bother getting in shape (adding muscle and weight)
    if it didn't help?

    Grand Prix drivers are often very fit these days, and their cars go
    faster with a driver. Are you suggesting their muscular effort helps
    to propel the cars?

    The AHZs could use you in the lid wars! LOL

  4. On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:51:17 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:56:23 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Still,

    1) A horse with a jockey goes faster
    2) Jockeys are arguably the fittest athletes on the planet
    3) Why would they bother getting in shape (adding muscle and weight)
    if it didn't help?

    I dunno enough about horse racing to continue this thread, so I'll
    gladly give you the last word.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles

    Dear Mark,

    Er, jockeys are arguably the smallest athletes on the planet, barring
    midget wrestlers, but they are not noted for their fitness.

    Uh huh...

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    If you think of a question or comment, let's forget the last-word
    stuff. I'm sympathetic because I think that you're simply dead wrong
    in good faith, a situation that I know more about than--

    Er, that I've often heard of.

    Bill's right - you are a smarmy one.

    Whatever. I read a report decades ago on the subject, and a
    perfunctory google search turns up many references to the same
    concept. But I have no horse in this race (pun intended) so I'll
    simply ignore any other comments (partially because it's already taken
    much more time than it's worth, and partially because I simply don't
    care about the subject one way or the other).

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame

    Dear Mark,

    What would you call the attitude of someone who claims that "a
    perfunctory google search turns up many references to the same
    concept" without actually providing the search, much less explaining
    what "the concept" is?

    What are you saying that there are "many references" to?

    Yes, a horse with a jockey may be faster. References? (That would be
    due to psychology and being hit with whips.)

    No, jockeys are not arguably the fittest athletes on the planet.
    They're typically bulemic, dehydrated midgets in poor health. I
    provided a reference.

    No, they don't add muscle and weight. I provided a reference.

    And no, the jockey's antics do not propel the horse physically
    forward. If you have references to the concept, please provide them.
    It would be fascinating.

    An insult, a vague claim that alleged references support you, and the
    I-quit-I-don't-care-I'll-ignore-it signature don't add up to much ini
    the face of physics and specific references.

    I expected better from you. Hope it was just a bad day.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  5. Michael Press said:

    Here is a report of a 22 mile race won by a man versus
    horses.
    <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3801177.stm>


    That race used to be open to mountain bikers too.

    Quoted message said:

    From http://www.man-v-horse.org.uk/#what

    In 1985 mountain bikes were introduced to the race and Jacqui Phelan,
    US Ladies' Champion, was just minutes behind the first horse. In 1989
    Tim Gould, Cycles Peugeot UK, beat the horse by nearly 3 minutes. This
    was the first time the winning horse had been beaten by a mountain
    cyclist and Tim won £5,000 from William Hill for his fine achievement.
    The bookies also had to pay out a bonus in 1995 and 1996 when a relay
    team came home ahead of the first horse. Unfortunately, mountain bikes
    have not been allowed to participate in the races held since 1994
    because of an anomaly in the law, which forbids bicycles to race on
    bridalways. The Department of Transport has recognized this and
    proposals to change the law are being sought.

  6. Jenny Brien said:


    Michael Press said:

    Here is a report of a 22 mile race won by a man versus
    horses.
    <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3801177.stm>


    That race used to be open to mountain bikers too.

    Quoted message said:

    From http://www.man-v-horse.org.uk/#what

    In 1985 mountain bikes were introduced to the race and Jacqui Phelan,
    US Ladies' Champion, was just minutes behind the first horse. In 1989
    Tim Gould, Cycles Peugeot UK, beat the horse by nearly 3 minutes. This
    was the first time the winning horse had been beaten by a mountain
    cyclist and Tim won £5,000 from William Hill for his fine achievement.
    The bookies also had to pay out a bonus in 1995 and 1996 when a relay
    team came home ahead of the first horse. Unfortunately, mountain bikes
    have not been allowed to participate in the races held since 1994
    because of an anomaly in the law, which forbids bicycles to race on
    bridalways. The Department of Transport has recognized this and
    proposals to change the law are being sought.

    Dear Jenny,

    Nice link. I expect that the bicycles would win easily on flats over a
    long distance.

    But as for runners versus horses, I'm waiting for the race in which
    the human runners carry 10% to 20% of their own weight on their backs
    like the horse.

    Movies and modern recreation leave people unaware of the curse of the
    cavalry, which was finding and leading enough remounts to make
    operations possible.

    The spare horses had run, trotted, and walked just as far, but they
    were "fresh" because they had carried no rider.

    We don't see the remounts in the movies because the cavalry and the
    posse look better trotting along solo as if in a parade instead of
    leading a lot of spare horses.

    We don't see remounts in modern recreational riding because modern
    riders aren't willing to exhaust, ruin, and even kill their horses to
    make good time.

    For an interesting sidelight on horse versus man, consider the Pony
    Express:

    In a little while all interest was taken up in stretching our necks
    and watching for the "pony-rider"--the fleet messenger who sped across
    the continent from St. Joe to Sacramento, carrying letters nineteen
    hundred miles in eight days! Think of that for perishable horse and
    human flesh and blood to do! The pony-rider was usually a little bit
    of a man, brimful of spirit and endurance. No matter what time of the
    day or night his watch came on, and no matter whether it was winter or
    summer, raining, snowing, hailing, or sleeting, or whether his "beat"
    was a level straight road or a crazy trail over mountain crags and
    precipices, or whether it led through peaceful regions or regions that
    swarmed with hostile Indians, he must be always ready to leap into the
    saddle and be off like the wind! There was no idling-time for a
    pony-rider on duty. He rode fifty miles without stopping, by daylight,
    moonlight, starlight, or through the blackness of darkness--just as it
    happened. He rode a splendid horse that was born for a racer and fed
    and lodged like a gentleman; kept him at his utmost speed for ten
    miles, and then, as he came crashing up to the station where stood two
    men holding fast a fresh, impatient steed, the transfer of rider and
    mail-bag was made in the twinkling of an eye, and away flew the eager
    pair and were out of sight before the spectator could get hardly the
    ghost of a look. Both rider and horse went "flying light." The
    rider's dress was thin, and fitted close; he wore a "round-about," and
    a skull-cap, and tucked his pantaloons into his boot-tops like a
    race-rider. He carried no arms--he carried nothing that was not
    absolutely necessary, for even the postage on his literary freight was
    worth five dollars a letter.

    He got but little frivolous correspondence to carry--his bag had
    business letters in it, mostly. His horse was stripped of all
    unnecessary weight, too. He wore a little wafer of a racing-saddle,
    and no visible blanket. He wore light shoes, or none at all. The
    little flat mail-pockets strapped under the rider's thighs would each
    hold about the bulk of a child's primer. They held many and many an
    important business chapter and newspaper letter, but these were
    written on paper as airy and thin as gold-leaf, nearly, and thus bulk
    and weight were economized. The stage-coach traveled about a hundred
    to a hundred and twenty-five miles a day (twenty-four hours), the
    pony-rider about two hundred and fifty.

    There were about eighty pony-riders in the saddle all the time, night
    and day, stretching in a long, scattering procession from Missouri to
    California, forty flying eastward, and forty toward the west, and
    among them making four hundred gallant horses earn a stirring
    livelihood and see a deal of scenery every single day in the year.

    We had had a consuming desire, from the beginning, to see a
    pony-rider, but somehow or other all that passed us and all that met
    us managed to streak by in the night, and so we heard only a whiz and
    a hail, and the swift phantom of the desert was gone before we could
    get our heads out of the windows. But now we were expecting one along
    every moment, and would see him in broad daylight. Presently the
    driver exclaims:

    "HERE HE COMES!"

    Every neck is stretched further, and every eye strained wider. Away
    across the endless dead level of the prairie a black speck appears
    against the sky, and it is plain that it moves. Well, I should think
    so!

    In a second or two it becomes a horse and rider, rising and falling,
    rising and falling--sweeping toward us nearer and nearer--growing more
    and more distinct, more and more sharply defined--nearer and still
    nearer, and the flutter of the hoofs comes faintly to the ear--another
    instant a whoop and a hurrah from our upper deck, a wave of the
    rider's hand, but no reply, and man and horse burst past our excited
    faces, and go winging away like a belated fragment of a storm!

    So sudden is it all, and so like a flash of unreal fancy, that but for
    the flake of white foam left quivering and perishing on a mail-sack
    after the vision had flashed by and disappeared, we might have doubted
    whether we had seen any actual horse and man at all, maybe.

    "Roughing It" XIII
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3177/3177.txt

    For a practical series of 10-mile stretches across every kind of
    terrain, there was no question which creature was faster.

    For longer stretches with human runners willing to nearly kill
    themselves pitted against horses ridden by kind-hearted owners, things
    get more interesting.

    Hi-Yo, Silver!

    Carl Fogel

  7. Quoted message said:

    Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you think of a question or comment, let's forget the last-word
    stuff. I'm sympathetic because I think that you're simply dead wrong
    in good faith, a situation that I know more about than--

    Er, that I've often heard of.

    Bill's right - you are a smarmy one.

    I have to appologize for my comment above... I misread your comment.
    I missed the humor and simply misread it. That happens to me in my
    pre-coffee newsgroup sessions occasionally.

    Quoted message said:

    No, jockeys are not arguably the fittest athletes on the planet.
    They're typically bulemic, dehydrated midgets in poor health. I
    provided a reference.

    If that were truly the case, and the jockey was just a lump of flesh
    required to stay on top of the animal and swing the occasional whip,
    I'd expect to see a large percentage of women jockeys at the highest
    level. Yet, I haven't (perhaps partially because I haven't looked,
    but I don't recall seeing a female winning jockey of any "major" horse
    race which is admitedly the only ones I'm likely to see).

    But again, these are just idle musings on a subject that is so far
    outside my experience or interest that it's a waste of keystrokes.
    Had it not been for my realizing my error in interpreting what was
    actually a self-depracating comment, I would have been "on my horse
    and out of this thread".

    Mark "Hiyo, silver bike" Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame

  8. On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:28:11 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >If you think of a question or comment, let's forget the last-word
    >stuff. I'm sympathetic because I think that you're simply dead wrong
    >in good faith, a situation that I know more about than--
    >
    >Er, that I've often heard of.

    Bill's right - you are a smarmy one.

    I have to appologize for my comment above... I misread your comment.
    I missed the humor and simply misread it. That happens to me in my
    pre-coffee newsgroup sessions occasionally.

    Quoted message said:

    No, jockeys are not arguably the fittest athletes on the planet.
    They're typically bulemic, dehydrated midgets in poor health. I
    provided a reference.

    If that were truly the case, and the jockey was just a lump of flesh
    required to stay on top of the animal and swing the occasional whip,
    I'd expect to see a large percentage of women jockeys at the highest
    level. Yet, I haven't (perhaps partially because I haven't looked,
    but I don't recall seeing a female winning jockey of any "major" horse
    race which is admitedly the only ones I'm likely to see).

    But again, these are just idle musings on a subject that is so far
    outside my experience or interest that it's a waste of keystrokes.
    Had it not been for my realizing my error in interpreting what was
    actually a self-depracating comment, I would have been "on my horse
    and out of this thread".

    Mark "Hiyo, silver bike" Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame

    Dear Mark,

    Glad to learn that it was a misunderstanding--I've made worse
    mistakes.

    As for the unfair sex, as Bierce called them, I'm afraid that you're
    behind the times as far as horse-racing.

    Women are unlikely to compete against men in the Tour de France, but
    they've elbowed their way into the bulemic world of horse-racing quite
    nicely, considering that they weren't even allowed to ride in the U.S.
    until 1969.

    See this interview of Carol White, who rode over 750 winners in her
    21-year career:
    http://www.geocities.com/f_o_t_h/White-Page.htm

    You can see 85 women jockeys here, a number with over 1,000 wins:
    http://www.jockeysroom.com/WomenJockeys.htm

    And here's an article from 6 years ago:

    "Women jockeys win half of Turfway's card"

    Five female jockeys won six of Turfway Park's 12 races on Wednesday's
    card. Apprentice Kris Prather, leading rider at the current meet, won
    two of the races.

    The streak began in the first race when Prather guided Fairy Dust to
    victory to top an all-female trifecta with Bonnie Castaneda and Greta
    Kuntzweiler finishing second and third, respectively.

    Apprentice Jennifer Bramblett kept things rolling by taking the second
    race aboard Bold Adversary. Beth Butler won the fourth aboard Please
    Us. Prather took the sixth on Navy Seal with Kuntzweiler and Bramblett
    checking in second and third, respectively.

    Kuntzweiler won the seventh on City Fair, and Patti Cooksey wrapped up
    the women's dominance by winning the ninth on Traci's Trump.

    "We (female riders) have always ridden well," said Prather. "People
    are just starting to see that we are as good as if not better than
    some of the male riders, and we are getting better mounts. It is just
    going to progress and progress."

    Eight members of the local jockey colony are women.

    12/27/2000

    http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnewsarchive/ttodaysnewsviewarchive.asp?ArchiveDate=12/27/2000#8599

    In short, don't bet against a horse just because the jockey is a
    woman.

    If anything, the women are probably healthier than the men because
    they're more likely to make weight without vomiting, dehydration, and
    starving themselves.

    Unlike bicycling, the rider is far less important than what is ridden
    at the horse track.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  9. On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:37:32 +0100, Kinky Cowboy <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    it seems a track sprinter would be over 80m ahead of
    Michael Johnson after 19.32s

    Johnson might not beat even me over his distance; just checked the
    first 20s of the 10mile TT I did on Wednesday and I covered 199 yards
    from a standing start. Bear in mind that I was over geared for the
    distance and was saving my energy for the remaining 9.9 miles, so in a
    true run race even I, a fat and unfit veteran, could probably beat the
    best runner in history over 200m if I was allowed to ride my bike. I
    was well past 400m after 40s, so no runner could stay with me at that
    point.

    Kinky Cowboy*

    *Batteries not included
    May contain traces of nuts
    Your milage may vary

  10. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Quoted message said:

    But as for runners versus horses, I'm waiting for the race in which
    the human runners carry 10% to 20% of their own weight on their backs
    like the horse.

    I stand by my assertion. A man will out run an unmounted
    horse over distance.

    --
    Michael Press

  11. Michael Press said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Quoted message said:

    But as for runners versus horses, I'm waiting for the race in which
    the human runners carry 10% to 20% of their own weight on their backs
    like the horse.

    I stand by my assertion. A man will out run an unmounted
    horse over distance.

    Dear Michael,

    Standing and asserting is always fun, but I want to see actual running
    and fair play.

    Do you know of any reasonable distance races between an unburdened man
    and horse? Or a horse carrying a weight equal to 10% to 20% of its
    weight against a man doing the same?

    An obvious problem with the unmounted race is that the man would know
    that he was racing, while the unmounted horse would think it was just
    silly and probably wouldn't even head for the finish line--no contest
    at all.

    If a large field of self-motivated runners who train regularly and
    carry nothing but light clothes and running shoes can barely beat a
    small field of lightly trained horses motivated only by horse-loving
    riders who weigh well over 100 pounds (not to mention tack) and aren't
    willing to treat the horses as harshly as any cavalry trooper, then
    you need something more than assertion to be convincing.

    To put it in perspective, any large human marathon field is likely to
    have runners vomiting and still pushing themselves onward in
    masochistic glory, while the others talk later at length about the
    pain.

    In contrast, a rider who tried to force an obviously ailing horse
    onward would be charged with animal cruelty, if not assaulted by the
    sea of runners around him.

    I've seen sheriff's deputies called out by well-meaning runners who
    saw a hard-ridden horse sweating. Having had nothing to do with
    horses, the runners had no idea where the phrase "in a lather" comes
    from and sincerely thought that the beast was dying at the hands of a
    cruel owner.

    Find some human distance records for trotting with a 20-lb pack, and
    you'll have more than assertion. Most people won't run a hundred yars
    with that much weight on their backs.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  12. Michael Press said:

    I stand by my assertion. A man will out run an unmounted
    horse over distance.

    There's a clear opening (so to speak) for a smart-assed remark here, but...
    Nah.

    Bill "it had to do with breeding" S.

  13. Michael Press said:

    Human runners can out run almost any animal over distance.
    Some say human runners can even out run dogs over
    distance, but I am not convinced.

    [snip]

    Dear Michael,

    You're right not to be convinced that human runners can beat dogs over
    distance. It belatedly occurred to me that the Iditarod would offer
    some interesting statistics.

    The best human marathon runners do just over 26 miles in just over 2
    hours, starting well-rested, pulling nothing, and facing pavement
    instead of the Alaskan wilderness. They average about 13 mph.

    http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/

    In 2006, winner Jeff King's 16-dog Iditarod team ran from Takonta to
    Ophir, a distance of 38 miles, in 1 hour, 59 minutes.

    The dogs averaged 19.20 mph, hauling King, his sled, and the heavy
    harness as they ran on packed snow, about 50% faster than the best
    marathon runners for about 50% more distance.

    The 16 dogs weren't well-rested marathon runners. They'd just run 436
    miles in five days.

    And the dogs weren't giving it everything they had. They had another
    676 miles to go.

    Between Cripple and Ruby, the 16-dog team averaged only 12.10 mph, a
    little slower than the world's best marathon runners. But they kept
    that pace up for 9 hours, 16 minutes, over a distance of 112 miles,
    more than four times as much as a marathon.

    http://www.johnnyseastriverlodge.com/alaska.html

    Here's a picture of the kind of dog that undoubtedly led the pack:

    http://tinyurl.com/hasg6

    (See London's "White Fang" for details.)

    If Siberian tales are true, people don't outrun wolf packs.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  14. Michael Press said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Quoted message said:

    But as for runners versus horses, I'm waiting for the race in which
    the human runners carry 10% to 20% of their own weight on their backs
    like the horse.

    I stand by my assertion. A man will out run an unmounted
    horse over distance.

    Dear Michael,

    It's still roughly 1,000 miles from Chadron, Nebraska, to Chicago,
    Illinois:

    http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&rmm=1&un=m&cl=EN&qq=hltF3hzNT9tNhURP0HLlhh9UYBmHRqyBceg4Gkon14D8uewLk7pjHQ%253d%253d&ct=NA&rsres=1&1y=US&1ffi=&1l=&1g=&1pl=&1v=&1n=&1pn=&1a=&1c=chadron&1s=ne&1z=&2y=US&2ffi=&2l=&2g=&2pl=&2v=&2n=&2pn=&2a=&2c=chicago&2s=il&2z=&r=f
    or http://tinyurl.com/pc58r

    The distance was likely even longer back in 1893 before highways
    straightened the route.

    At 5:34pm, June 13, 1893, nine riders, each with two horses, set off
    on the well-publicized thousand-mile race from Chadron to Chicago.

    "The race will be open to anyone riding western horses; horses must
    have been western born and bred; each rider will be permitted two
    horses to alternate riding and leading; only western cowboy stock
    saddles weighing at least 35 pounds will be used; rider, saddle and
    blanket are to weigh not less than 150 pounds."
    http://www.thelongridersguild.com/chadron.htm

    (Originally, starting time was idiotically set at 8am, but common
    sense prevailed and the riders left as things were cooling down in the
    Midwest summer instead of heading off into the worst of the day.)

    Here's a graph of modern Chadron temperatures:
    http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KCDR&SafeCityName=Chadron&StateCode=NE&Units=none&IATA=CDR
    or http://tinyurl.com/oeoxf

    Looks like the average high temperature for late June is around 90f.

    Early in the morning of June 27th, John Berry arrived in Chicago on
    Poison, having left his other horse behind.

    Berry and Poison covered 1,000+ miles in eight hours short of 14 days,
    about 70 miles per day, covering the last 150 miles in 24 hours.

    One rider was disqualified for cheating (he took a train), one fell
    out sick, and another had a horse go lame.

    For true distance riding like this, it was widely noted and confirmed
    by veterinarians that the riders did not push their horses hard, as
    often happened in short one-day races (as opposed to the modern horse
    versus human races mentioned elsewhere in this thread). Killing or
    ruining a horse for a single day's gain in an endurance race would
    leave the rider hundreds of miles short of the finish line.

    Here are those details:
    http://www.thelongridersguild.com/chadron2.htm

    I doubt that any human runners have ever covered 70 miles per day for
    two weeks in late June Midwest temperatures, particularly not if two
    of them had to share a load similar to the minimum weight for the two
    horses.

    But maybe someone will turn up something interesting.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  15. Quoted message said:

    I doubt that any human runners have ever covered 70 miles per day for
    two weeks in late June Midwest temperatures, particularly not if two
    of them had to share a load similar to the minimum weight for the two
    horses.

    But maybe someone will turn up something interesting.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

    http://www.bobbysrun.co.uk/amhist.html

    http://www.shoe-fitter.com/runusa.htm

  16. On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:00:21 -0800, "Andrew Lee"

    whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom said:
    Quoted message said:

    I doubt that any human runners have ever covered 70 miles per day for
    two weeks in late June Midwest temperatures, particularly not if two
    of them had to share a load similar to the minimum weight for the two
    horses.

    But maybe someone will turn up something interesting.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

    http://www.bobbysrun.co.uk/amhist.html

    http://www.shoe-fitter.com/runusa.htm

    Dear Andrew,

    Thanks--nice links.

    As far as I can see, the best modern trans-America runner is in the
    second link and did about 3,000 miles at a 70-mile per day clip, in
    46+ days:

    http://www.shoe-fitter.com/runusa.htm

    That's 3 times the distance of the 1893 horse race that I found and
    just about exactly as fast, so I'm wrong.

    But the runner ran on paved roads with modern support, neither of
    which existed in the 1893 race. His brother was right next to him on a
    bicycle and his parents were trailing along in a motor home.

    No one accompanied the horse racers and they and their horses ate,
    drank, and slept wherever they got lucky along the way for two weeks
    in the Midwest.

    The runner also ran unladen, as opposed to two horses sharing a
    minimum of 150 pounds of rider and tack.

    Back in the era of the 1893 horse race that I mentioned, the first
    link indicates that the runners were taking 80 days to cross the
    country, almost twice as long. See the table about 3/4 down the first
    link:

    http://www.bobbysrun.co.uk/amhist.html

    Today, of course, it would be hard to produce a comparable horse race
    across the country. Runners do well on pavement, but not horses.

    Now I get to wax hopeful again.

    Does anyone have links to any kind of human long distance running
    carrying a 20-lb pack?

    After all, the trans-America link that Andrew provided above certainly
    puts humans in a much better position versus horses than I thought.

    Again, the second link shows that I was wrong to scoff at 70 miles per
    day for a human runner for distance:
    http://www.shoe-fitter.com/runusa.htm

    (The Iditarod dogs still look unapproachable to human runners with
    their 19 mph average in two hours, pulling a sled and musher for 38
    miles on packed snow.)

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  17. Bill Sornson said:
    Michael Press said:

    I stand by my assertion. A man will out run an unmounted
    horse over distance.

    There's a clear opening (so to speak) for a smart-assed remark here, but...
    Nah.

    Bill "it had to do with breeding" S.

    "Family newsgroup, buddy." - Bill Sornson

    --
    Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

  18. Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:
    Bill Sornson said:

    Michael Press wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I stand by my assertion. A man will out run an unmounted
    horse over distance.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    There's a clear opening (so to speak) for a smart-assed remark here,
    but... Nah.

    Bill "it had to do with breeding" S.

    Quoted message said:

    "Family newsgroup, buddy." - Bill Sornson

    Exactly ;-)

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.