Does anyone have any experience using the OSIM igallop for equestrian fitness?
What is your experience and would you recommend it for occasional riders to improve their fitness between riding sessions?
Also what is the cost of this piece of equipment?
Incoming search terms:
Related Products:
i used it a couple times, and it did NO good for me whatsoever….. it just rocks back and forth supposedly helping your abs or whatever it targets. it didnt help me because it is NOT like a horse at all, i wouldnt reccommed it. as far as the cost goes it is about $600. i dont think it is really worth it personally. it just didnt do anything that helps horse riders.
i bought this piece of equipment! it cost me $200 and i believe it was on sale from $500. i have actually found it useless for riding since the “gaits” actually do not feel like a horses gaits at all and if you try to sit in a correct position it is uncomfortable. i even placed my saddle on it to see if it would help. it will keep your stomach in shape if you follow the video, but for riding, it is useless.
It does nothing for riding, at all. It costs around $500-$600. If you are gonna spend a lot of money, invest in something that is useful, like an equisizer. Although im sure the equisizer is out of your budget because it costs around $1200.
While fare structures that are proportional to the riders’ use of the system seem plausible, they do not achieve the basic objectives of a fare structure for a public agency.
The primary objectives of a pricing structure for a public agency should be firstly, to raise revenue in a way that is proportionate to the costs of providing the service, and secondly, to provide behavioral incentives (for both the agency and riders) to achieve the political purpose of the agency – in AC Transit's case, maximizing ridership. (Another kind of public agency, such as a water utility, might have political purposes that would not at all involve maximization of the use of the service provided.) It is also important that the payers (riders) find the structure easy to use and understand, and that it can be implemented by the agency at a reasonable cost, but both of these issues should be secondary – they should not be put first and allowed to guide the decision.
Note that the objectives of a public agency like AC Transit should not include maximizing revenue. If that were the objective, it should be adjusting fares in proportion only to the ability and willingness to pay, regardless of the actual cost of the service, and reducing service wherever it is unprofitable. But 80% of the district's revenue is in exchange for moving as many people as possible, and since trying to get as much money as possible out of riders is only going to discourage them from riding, doing so is contrary to AC Transit’s own best interests.
Raising revenue in proportion to the costs of providing service means the district has to relate the fare structure to those costs. While some extremely minor costs are associated with passenger-miles (cleaning, seat and window maintenance), and somewhat greater costs are associated with each passenger trip (farebox and door maintenance, additional operator time for heavy boarding, additional engine maintenance due to more frequent acceleration/stopping), the great bulk of the cost of providing bus service does not vary with these two factors. The cost of providing a bus is pretty much the same whether anybody is riding it or not.
Moreover, as odd as it might seem, the benefit of the bus system doesn’t really vary by the number of trips either. Even occasional riders need the buses to run all the time, to provide them the freedom to travel when and where they wish.
Undoubtedly some costs do vary in ways for which it would be possible to vary the fare accordingly. But I doubt that it’s practical to isolate these costs and relate these to the fare.
An example is the number of passengers per bus-hour – if the agency has to split the costs of operating a bus over twenty people instead of forty, it’s reasonable to expect those twenty people to pay an additional fare to pay for that service. This is, in fact, a better justification for the higher Transbay fare than the distance involved. Although this makes theoretical sense, as a practical matter I doubt this kind of variance would be acceptable to the public, and given the 20% farebox ratio I doubt any additional fare would pay for sufficient service to attract more riders than the higher fare would discourage.
The upshot is that it is the aggregate cost of operating the entire bus system that should be apportioned to riders – and that means charging a fixed cost to the rider for unlimited use during a reasonably long period: a 15-day or 31-day pass. It is not that these sorts of passes are necessarily preferable for riders. For some it will be, of course. But the key is that it is the way we can most closely have the fare be proportional to the costs – as well as encouraging ridership by removing the disincentive to ride that the cash fare represents.
Of course, it is not a good idea to eliminate one-ride cash or e-cash fares completely. But their use should be discouraged and use of 15- or 31-day passes encouraged. The relative price of passes should be reduced (from 40 to 30 or even 20 one-ride fares) and the passes should be actively marketed to those who currently use cash for more than a few trips per month. If people with low incomes, or children, or some other needy group tend to use cash rather than passes, that situation shoul dbe addressed directly and passes should be created that meet their needs, rather than simply accepting higher amounts of money from those who can least afford it.