• Test_Tickles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    That’s pretty cool. However, no human has ever won by more than 15min, and every horse has a 15min delay built into their times. So even the biggest winning margin of nearly 11 minutes would have lost to the horse if they had started at the same time.

    • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      This study analyzes historical results of three different man versus horse races (in Wales, in Virginia, and in California). The data shows that human performance decreases with temperature, but less so than horses, so that 30°C is approximately where the best humans can start outperforming the best horses that year.

      I would think that even with 15 minutes of intermittent pauses/checks, that time is still productive for cooling the animal and would add less than 15 minutes to the theoretical total if they were allowed to run the whole time.

      • Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        For it to be scientifically accurate of a comparison, the ratio of weight:human needs to be equal to that of rider:horse, not a direct flip.

        In case my phrasing is confusing, to illustrate what I mean here is an example: a 200lb horse carrying a 100lb human is equivalent to a 100lb human carrying a 50lb weight.

    • jboy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The Western States trail in the California Sierras used to be where a 100-mile horse race took place that horse and rider had to complete in 24 hours. At some point in the 1970s one of the riders decided not to take a horse, and he finished in 23 hours on foot. Now it’s an annual footrace that the winner finishes in about 14 hours.