dont really know where too start on this , we are always hearing about "cover" and "flotation" , just what do they mean ? you shoe with 3/4" section , you are asked to fit a shoe with more "cover " so you go up a section to 7/8" so the horse sits on the ground surface better and "floats" better therefore improving performance . Am I being told that a thin strip of steel 12" x 1/8" makes such a difference ? if you look at the footprints left in the ground surface there is no difference , are we kidding ourselves ? i am of the belief that the shoe is to protect the hoofwall , the thin i am talking about is on the inner edge , so what exactly is it protecting ? all you are doing is making a stone trap that will put pressure on the sole i am posting this to try and encourage debate , i prefer a wider web shoe but cannot give a reasoned case for why
chris we all have our own idea on what section to use for me i try and let the feet guide me for whats best. if i think a horse needs more cover for what ever reason i try and give it to him but go lighter as well, even if i have to make it from strange section.
I think sometimes a little bit can make a lot of difference. If my figures are correct, going from 3/4 to 7/8 will give about 16.66 % more cover. For a 12 inch section, 3/4 inch will give you 9 square inches of surface area. On 12 inches of 7/8 you will have 10.5 inches of material on the ground. Larger sections of course would yield greater surface areas. Regards
in my experience , when adding weight , by way of increasing material, more action is often created, reducing float, that said ,i ve never fully comprehended the use of a wide web shoe vs narrow for sole protection since the resulting action drives the hoof to the ground and reduces traction by the cover of the cutting action of the wall and wider surface of the steel............ tho the wide web will decrease "sink "into the surface, i think the more direct drive of the action negates it. ray
i give it what it needs too. but to add to the weight chat, does/can adding weight give the horse a more regular gate. might be a bad example but a flywheel helps to give an engine regular speed. it might help a gate thats winging a bit in front or back? or even smooth out an awkward gate?. maybe im just talking bs.
there might be more steel on the ground but you still only have the same amount of foot bearing surface whatever section of steel is nailed on ,
I've been thinking about this since Chris first brought it up. A hoof sinks into the ground by displacing and compressing the ground. When the ground is compressed to a point that no more compression is possible, the hoof stops sinking. Since the shoe is below the sole, the ground beneath the shoe compresses before the ground under the sole. So the ground beneath the shoe gets compressed more, and supports more of the weight of the horse. The wider the section, the less the the shoe has to sink into the ground to compress it to a point that the hoof stops sinking - the snowshoe effect. Thus, with more "cover", the less weight the sole has to bear. However, since the shoe sits on the wall, the wall takes on the weight that the sole would be bearing with a narrower section or barefoot. Also, more of the sole is protected with wider sections. This theory also explains why a narrower shoe gives more traction - it sinks deeper into the ground. Thoughts? Regards
thats more like the type of response i was looking for , I still dont believe that a wider section prevents the foot sinking into the ground as much as some would like us to think
i agree with W.H.F. , and to add that different surfaces will cause different "sinking affects" and then affecting HPA. i like to use on a couple or performance horses the kerckheart century supoort, cause from heels forward its like a concave section and heels back its full withed. and that causes support in the heel in soft going under foot. i don,t like to see strained or injured flexor tendons.
you still have the same foot/heel bearing surface though and the sinking effect is so minimal on landing , does it really have any real affect ? how does it compare to a horse that has no shoe ?
Which surface area would sink into the ground more under a thousand pounds of pressure. A 1 square inch object, or a 10 square inch object? If they were the same, snowshoes would never have been invented, and we could use skates instead of skis. Regards
the two cannot be compared Rick , nobody in the equine world has overcome the problems with snow , if you read my original post I was looking for debate on a subject that nobody so far can supply a definite answer for or against , this subject has been around for years , when questioned all the experts stand back and tell us we are wrong but they are right , look at the foot impressions left behind at a SJ comp , a cross country course , a dressage arena , after each individual has passed , measure depth of imprint , take note of competitor , go to stables and check shoes of each horse , now tell me those with wider section shoes did not leave the same depth imprints , you cant , i am not here to argue , i am trying to find others opinions , it would be prefferable to have hard fact , but it is not available from a true work perspective , i personally prefer a wider web but i believe that is probably more for the asthetics rather than the practical in most cases
Lets try this. On a hard surface, where the shoe couldn't sink, in a wider webbed shoe would have less PSI on it than a narrow shoe. Although all the pressure in either case would be transferred to the hoof area that was on the shoe, none of the pressure could be transferred to the non weight bearing area, ie the sole. In softer ground, some of the weight of the horse would be carried on the sole, as the shoe sunk into the dirt. If the narrow shoe sank into the dirt more than the wide shoe, wouldn't that cause more pressure on the sole? ( as well as better traction, think sliders in reigning horses ). Regards
sorry theoretical bs in my book , take a galloper , the one on a 3/4 web shoe seems to run better than one on a wider web and its not the weight that slows it down
Physics is factual, Rick is right. Just because you cannot perceve it to be so doesn't make it wrong. It's known that a black hole exists but I've not seen one. As regards your surface analogy there is masses of research being done on surfaces and the effect on footing. When you have spent hours looking at high speed analisys on the hoof and the gait, shoe differences on gait, stride length etc, analysed it with the latest software, done a statistical analysis of the the results then call it theoretical bs.
