Motor doping thread

[sniper]

Re: Re:

interesting tweet from someone who worked with Michael Barry for a season on a book.......

Glasgow Bike Station ‏@GlasBikeStation 2h2 hours ago
This bike has a secret stored within... a hidden motor! And the inventor claims that pro-cyclists have more than...


Camille @camillemcmillan 5:35 AM - 4 Feb 2017
@GlasBikeStation @edfoc what year is this ? this was happening years ago !

Maybe some peeps on twitter might want to DM Mr McMillan and find out how long ago and how he knew/knows....

Oh. My. God. I despair sometimes at the things that get posted as proof. Really. I think I need to get Prozac to sponsor me.

Where do I use the word proof?

I called it interesting. I said someone might ask how he knew/knows. Stop trolling.

I think we need to show some compassion here.
For some this motor thing must be pretty tough to stomach.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

interesting tweet from someone who worked with Michael Barry for a season on a book.......

Glasgow Bike Station ‏@GlasBikeStation 2h2 hours ago
This bike has a secret stored within... a hidden motor! And the inventor claims that pro-cyclists have more than...


Camille @camillemcmillan 5:35 AM - 4 Feb 2017
@GlasBikeStation @edfoc what year is this ? this was happening years ago !

Maybe some peeps on twitter might want to DM Mr McMillan and find out how long ago and how he knew/knows....

Oh. My. God. I despair sometimes at the things that get posted as proof. Really. I think I need to get Prozac to sponsor me.

Where do I use the word proof?

I called it interesting. I said someone might ask how he knew/knows. Stop trolling.

I think we need to show some compassion here.
For some this motor thing must be pretty tough to stomach.

Gosh. Sad news snipes: I fully believe motors exist. I fully believe motors have been used. I don't believe in the sort of people who can't read a simple Tweet without seeing in it that which they need to see confirm their worldview.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

People still don't get it.
Yes, theoretically, physics could explain this. Theoretically, physics could also explain the first and second time his wheel went crazy. And that is the issue. Can anyone point to similar crazy wheel behavior in CX? It doesn't happen very often, and curiously it has happened three times in one season to Van Aert. Three times his rear wheel seemed to have a mind of its own. I call BS.

People, eh! Yes, physics can explain it! Yes, there's a simple and obvious explanation! But! People! Motor doping! It's evidence! Believe!

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

People still don't get it.
Yes, theoretically, physics could explain this. Theoretically, physics could also explain the first and second time his wheel went crazy. And that is the issue. Can anyone point to similar crazy wheel behavior in CX? It doesn't happen very often, and curiously it has happened three times in one season to Van Aert. Three times his rear wheel seemed to have a mind of its own. I call BS.

People, eh! Yes, physics can explain it! Yes, there's a simple and obvious explanation! But! People! Motor doping! It's evidence! Believe!

You can't have studied physics, that much is clear. As physics never attempts to explain anything. It's mearly the study of matter, energy, and the interaction between them.

Physics is about asking fundamental questions and trying to answer them by observing and experimenting.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

People still don't get it.
Yes, theoretically, physics could explain this. Theoretically, physics could also explain the first and second time his wheel went crazy. And that is the issue. Can anyone point to similar crazy wheel behavior in CX? It doesn't happen very often, and curiously it has happened three times in one season to Van Aert. Three times his rear wheel seemed to have a mind of its own. I call BS.

People, eh! Yes, physics can explain it! Yes, there's a simple and obvious explanation! But! People! Motor doping! It's evidence! Believe!

It looks wrong from both an energy and momentum balance perspective. He's stopped pedalling, so there should be no energy input into the system. System in this case would be all the connected elements: bike, wheels, rider, etc. So with that in mind, any element that gains momentum or energy needs to take it from the rest of the system.

Okay, so what did we see? Rider stops pedalling after losing traction. The rear wheel starts spraying dirt and mud and appears to be spinning faster than before traction was lost. Could that energy have come from the rest of the system? No. That would require either the system to decouple (wheel comes loose) or for there to be a large shift or rotation in angular momentum. He kept upright and didn't slow down, so that's clearly not the case.

So where did the energy come from? An external or unaccounted source seems to be the likely answer. With that in mind, hub motor.

John Swanson

 

[Tom the Engine]

Re:

People still don't get it.
Three times his rear wheel seemed to have a mind of its own. I call BS.

I absolutely do get it but I call BS on this argument as well.

Theoretically, physics could also explain the first and second time his wheel went crazy.

No, physics could not just theoretically explain the first and second time. Physics has a very straightforward easy explanation that requires absolutely no exotic assumptions or any benefit of the doubt in favor of the rider.
1) The first one is a simple wheel spin in knee-deep mud (dramatic exaggeration). That's just what happens when you're almost standing still on an underground where the wheel has no traction whatsoever and you're pushing the pedals hard. (The remarkable thing there is that he doesn't lose his balance and is able to push it through without having to put a foot on the ground.) There is a reason most riders don't even attempt to ride this passage. And if you carefully look at the other riders in this video who do try to ride it you'd recognize that they do have wheel slips as well. Not as extreme as van Aert but they also significantly lose traction.
2) I've already written enough for the second one. A pedal gets forcefully pushed by 90 degrees and the back wheel starts spinning as a consequence. Seriously? I realize that people might be mislead by the visual effect caused by the three white texts written on the rim as they make the rotation look more prominent than it would be otherwise. But what the heck is crazy or suspicious about that?

This third case now is really the only one that is somewhat strange to some extent. But you can't just throw in the other cases and then make an argument like: Three is the magic number, here we go.

It doesn't happen very often, and curiously it has happened three times in one season to Van Aert.

Wheels spinning and sliding on mud is not something that happens often..?
Selection bias maybe?

 

[Tom the Engine]

Re: Re:

The rear wheel starts spraying dirt and mud and appears to be spinning faster than before traction was lost.

The emphasized part is really the only thing we have to talk about (no need to invoke abstract conservation law statements). If that's indeed true then there's no doubt that an "external" force is driving the wheel.

But I simply can't see the rear wheel starting to spin faster in this front-view camera shot. Can you?
And about losing momentum: He does lose momentum. The question is: Is it enough? But that's so hard to tell from this camera angle from the front. And the other rider who could serve as a reference point does not have constant velocity either.

It's a tricky call. I'm not yet convinced either way.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

You can't have studied physics, that much is clear. As physics never attempts to explain anything.

I appear to have studied it more than you have, that much is evident.

 

[Nicko.]

Re: Re:

It looks wrong from both an energy and momentum balance perspective. He's stopped pedalling, so there should be no energy input into the system. System in this case would be all the connected elements: bike, wheels, rider, etc. So with that in mind, any element that gains momentum or energy needs to take it from the rest of the system.

Okay, so what did we see? Rider stops pedalling after losing traction. The rear wheel starts spraying dirt and mud and appears to be spinning faster than before traction was lost. Could that energy have come from the rest of the system? No. That would require either the system to decouple (wheel comes loose) or for there to be a large shift or rotation in angular momentum. He kept upright and didn't slow down, so that's clearly not the case.

So where did the energy come from? An external or unaccounted source seems to be the likely answer. With that in mind, hub motor.

John Swanson

I always respect your input here, but in this specific case I don't see what you see.

1st and 3rd guy stops pedaling (soft pedal through the whole incident). A turn is coming up, no?

'Motorboy' goes for the pass just before the brakepoint, hits a spot of wet mud, last pedal push then meets no inertia (only rear wheel), spins up, slides out, hooks up on grass again with new direction, recovers imbalance while rolling towards fence, all while 1st guy keeps soft pedaling (even braking?).

His velocity is substantially higher when he hits the mud spot, 1st guy doesn't add any energy during the whole event. No motor required...

Look at the 'foot speed' of 1st and 3rd guy.

Respectfully.
Nicko

 

[sniper]

To me and to a whole bunch of other folks it looks as if he is propelled forward after his wheel hits the bump. It looks like an increase in momentum. It looks like a motor.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

To me and to a whole bunch of other folks it looks as if he is propelled forward after his wheel hits the bump. It looks like an increase in momentum. It looks like a motor.

If 50 guys say the car is yellow, and two guys say it's green., well, it's probably yellow.

If millions of people centuries ago said the earth is flat and only very few that it is round, well, it's probably flat.....

 

[Tom the Engine]

Re:

If 50 guys say the car is yellow, and two guys say it's green., well, it's probably yellow.

Oh boy, think again about this argument. It's as stupid as it possibly gets.
(edit: I see that you've deleted this sentence from your post in the meantime. Good on you!)

I'm not even claiming anything. But you have to acknowledge that it's very hard to tell. We have moving camera angles that are from the front mostly. And reference points to compare to that are not steady themselves. Very bad circumstances to reliably detect small unnatural changes in momentum.

I have seen many people so far who have expressed their conviction that a motor has to be in play. But nobody of them has actually made a convincing argument for it.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Of those insisting a motor was used, a show of hands please: how many of you have actually ridden 'cross? Know from personal experience what happens in different situations on a 'cross course?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Of those insisting a motor was used, a show of hands please: how many of you have actually ridden 'cross? Know from personal experience what happens in different situations on a 'cross course?

Yes, because weekend cross guys are an intelligent bunch of people who understand the principles of physics, energy and inertia.

Good argument @#$%^ #$%@%#%!

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Of those insisting a motor was used, a show of hands please: how many of you have actually ridden 'cross? Know from personal experience what happens in different situations on a 'cross course?

Yes, because weekend cross guys are an intelligent bunch of people who understand the principles of physics, energy and inertia.

Good argument Captain Stupid!

I thought physics was no good here? Could you please try and be consistent, just a little, just within one twenty-four hour time period maybe, as a start? The experience thing, if people are saying something does not look normal, it's nice to know how they define normal: based on experience of doing; based on experience of watching; or just based on their own need to find evidence to support their beliefs. Or do you disagree with that too?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

To me and to a whole bunch of other folks it looks as if he is propelled forward after his wheel hits the bump. It looks like an increase in momentum. It looks like a motor.

If 50 guys say the car is yellow, and two guys say it's green., well, it's probably yellow.

If millions of people centuries ago said the earth is flat and only very few that it is round, well, it's probably flat.....

Best notes for missing the point.

If it looks unnatural to a shitload of people who ve watched a lot of cycling in their lives, well that's probably because it was unnatural.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

If it looks unnatural to a shitload of people who ve watched a lot of cycling in their lives, well that's probably because it was unnatural.

That (the bolded bit) has yet to be established. Based on the evidence, it's not a valid assumption...

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Of those insisting a motor was used, a show of hands please: how many of you have actually ridden 'cross? Know from personal experience what happens in different situations on a 'cross course?

Yes, because weekend cross guys are an intelligent bunch of people who understand the principles of physics, energy and inertia.

Good argument Captain Stupid!

I thought physics was no good here? Could you please try and be consistent, just a little, just within one twenty-four hour time period maybe, as a start? The experience thing, if people are saying something does not look normal, it's nice to know how they define normal: based on experience of doing; based on experience of watching; or just based on their own need to find evidence to support their beliefs. Or do you disagree with that too?

I've not said either way. I'm just laughing at your approach to science. It's comical.

Now, the term you're looking for is not "watching" but 'observation'. If you knew anything with respect to science, empirical evidence or otherwise, then you'd understand the basic phraseology.

But keep at it Captain, its entertaining watching you pretend to know what your are talking about.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Of those insisting a motor was used, a show of hands please: how many of you have actually ridden 'cross? Know from personal experience what happens in different situations on a 'cross course?

Yes, because weekend cross guys are an intelligent bunch of people who understand the principles of physics, energy and inertia.

Good argument Captain Stupid!

I thought physics was no good here? Could you please try and be consistent, just a little, just within one twenty-four hour time period maybe, as a start? The experience thing, if people are saying something does not look normal, it's nice to know how they define normal: based on experience of doing; based on experience of watching; or just based on their own need to find evidence to support their beliefs. Or do you disagree with that too?

I've not said either way. I'm just laughing at your approach to science. It's comical.

Now, the term you're looking for is not "watching" but 'observation'. If you knew anything with respect to science, empirical evidence or otherwise, then you'd understand the basic phraseology.

But keep at it Captain, its entertaining watching you pretend to know what your are talking about.

Take a chill pill Hoggy...

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Of those insisting a motor was used, a show of hands please: how many of you have actually ridden 'cross? Know from personal experience what happens in different situations on a 'cross course?

Yes, because weekend cross guys are an intelligent bunch of people who understand the principles of physics, energy and inertia.

Good argument Captain Stupid!

I thought physics was no good here? Could you please try and be consistent, just a little, just within one twenty-four hour time period maybe, as a start? The experience thing, if people are saying something does not look normal, it's nice to know how they define normal: based on experience of doing; based on experience of watching; or just based on their own need to find evidence to support their beliefs. Or do you disagree with that too?

I've not said either way. I'm just laughing at your approach to science. It's comical.

Now, the term you're looking for is not "watching" but 'observation'. If you knew anything with respect to science, empirical evidence or otherwise, then you'd understand the basic phraseology.

But keep at it Captain, its entertaining watching you pretend to know what your are talking about.

Take a chill pill Hoggy...

Medication not required. You're providing the giggles today :lol:

 

[sniper]

The evidence suggests fmk fails to grasp how knowledge comes about and developes.

In fact netserks flat world is a good example.
If the world was full of fmks in that period, which indeed it was, then people who questioned the world being flat would be cast aside as crazy conspiracists and heretics, which indeed they were. We owe the developmment of our knowledge in that period [world ain't flat afterall] to a minority of people capable of critical thinking.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

The evidence suggests fmk fails to grasp how knowledge comes about and developes.

In fact netserks flat world is a good example.
If the world was full of fmks in that period, which indeed it was, then people who questioned the world being flat would be cast aside as crazy conspiracists and heretics, which indeed they were. We owe the developmment of our knowledge in that period [world ain't flat afterall] to a minority of people capable of critical thinking.

As accurate an ability to read my mind as your ability to, well, read. Which is notoriously and shockingly poor. I work on evidence, not faith-based beliefs.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

For evidence to develop, you need to question and discuss. Anybody can have a look over in the "first EPO users" thread , or more generally at your posting history, and see for themselves that you are - for whatever reason - firmly opposed to that. It's an attitude some would call reactionary.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

For evidence to develop, you need to question and discuss. Anybody can have a look over in the "first EPO users" thread , or more generally at your posting history, and see for themselves that you are - for whatever reason - firmly opposed to that. It's an attitude some would call reactionary.

I look forward to the day when you learn what discussion means.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

For evidence to develop, you need to question and discuss. Anybody can have a look over in the "first EPO users" thread , or more generally at your posting history, and see for themselves that you are - for whatever reason - firmly opposed to that. It's an attitude some would call reactionary.

I look forward to the day when you learn what discussion means.

Actually, that's not true, not really. It'd be nice were it to happen, for sure, but honestly, it's not something I give a lot of mindspace to, it's not worth it.