Motor doping thread

[King Boonen]

Ok, this is getting really silly. Costa had just won the Queen stage of Bretagne. The guy was dead on his feet and people are expecting him to be capable of lucid thought? Plenty of times I've climbed off my bike, either out on the road or on the turbo, sat down and suddenly realised I need to stand, lie down, crouch, stretch, lean over on my bike and so on, then changed position, then again. The pedal hits the floor and turns the wheel, very slowly. If that's a motor they now have loads of different gearings and power settings (and based on that video the power setting/gearing it's currently in is "Waste battery for no benefit") as the videos we've seen of actual motors working provide a hell of a lot more power to the wheel than we see there.

 

[Ferminal]

Yeh I don't see much in this one, plus he was probably still off his head on whatever Axel cooked up for him that morning.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Ok, listen up all non-engineer-types:
before you think/say/decide "motor" when you see a wheel spin up in a CX race, you need to decide whether this 'motor' sits in the hub or the crank.
I'm leaving the rim-based wheels out out of this one (for obvious, physical reasons).

Crank motor:
high power (>200W) AND high wheel torque/traction force is possible, depending on gearing
rear wheel can spin/slip even when loaded
cranks MUST rotate in synchronicity with the rear wheel

Hub motor:
with the hub diameter limited to ~40mm, power is limited (<50W?) by the size constraints and the necessity of a gear box, axle and electrical stuff.
But the wheel torque/traction force is VERY limited since the peak RPM of the motor must be geared for peak wheel speed (50kph?).
That means that during acceleration after the turn at 15kph there might, maybe, be 20W available, or ~0.5 kgf of traction force.
Rear wheel CAN be driven without cranks moving
Rear wheel will NEVER spin/slip when loaded, only when lifted off the ground

If you want to call "MOTOR!", decide which motor type and check with the properties above before you go public.

Carry on.

I think this is key, doesn't really make sense if these incidents are under load.

Agreed. But the pieces of footage are not conclusive in this regard.
Right now, imo, the alarming thing about Van Aert is how easy it seems to be to find footage of his rear wheel spinning. It's turning into a matter of quantity.
Even if on closer inspection not all of those instances (perhaps none) require a motor-explanation, a motor would still help to explain them.
And it would also help to explain why Wout is able to dominate the field in a time where we can be quite sure that motors are being used in addition to regular rampant dope. If he doesnt have a motor, all these things (including his domination) become weird anomalies.

The other thing is that we don't really know where the limits are right now in terms of bike doping, even though Nicko and John a.o. are able to make very educated guesses.

 

[sniper]

Yeh I don't see much in this one, plus he was probably still off his head on whatever Axel cooked up for him that morning.

if motor doping is a real thing, I'd expect Axel to be on it like a fly on fresh...

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

Ok, listen up all non-engineer-types:
before you think/say/decide "motor" when you see a wheel spin up in a CX race, you need to decide whether this 'motor' sits in the hub or the crank.
I'm leaving the rim-based wheels out out of this one (for obvious, physical reasons).

Crank motor:
high power (>200W) AND high wheel torque/traction force is possible, depending on gearing
rear wheel can spin/slip even when loaded
cranks MUST rotate in synchronicity with the rear wheel

Hub motor:
with the hub diameter limited to ~40mm, power is limited (<50W?) by the size constraints and the necessity of a gear box, axle and electrical stuff.
But the wheel torque/traction force is VERY limited since the peak RPM of the motor must be geared for peak wheel speed (50kph?).
That means that during acceleration after the turn at 15kph there might, maybe, be 20W available, or ~0.5 kgf of traction force.
Rear wheel CAN be driven without cranks moving
Rear wheel will NEVER spin/slip when loaded, only when lifted off the ground

If you want to call "MOTOR!", decide which motor type and check with the properties above before you go public.

Carry on.

I think this is key, doesn't really make sense if these incidents are under load.

Agreed. But the pieces of footage are not conclusive in this regard.
Right now, imo, the alarming thing about Van Aert is how easy it seems to be to find footage of his rear wheel spinning. It's turning into a matter of quantity.
Even if on closer inspection not all of those instances (perhaps none) require a motor-explanation, a motor would still help to explain them.
And it would also help to explain why Wout is able to dominate the field in a time where we can be quite sure that motors are being used in addition to regular rampant dope. If he doesnt have a motor, all these things (including his domination) become weird anomalies.

The other thing is that we don't really know where the limits are right now in terms of bike doping, even though Nicko and John a.o. are able to make very educated guesses.

His domination is not that apparent. For example he is well down on Van der Poel in in direct confrontations this year, In other words when both of them were at the start Van Aert lost more than he won. Also this kind of "domination" is not all un heard off. Rather the opposite. We have had domination in CX for most of the past decades. Liboton and Nijs immediately spring to mind, but also Niels Albert, Lars Boom, etc. have had periods of more or less dominating the field.

This does not detract from the possibility that he is using motors but his "domination" is not an anomalie and cannot be a contributing argument in the respect of using motors or not.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
His domination is not that apparent. For example he is well down on Van der Poel in in direct confrontations this year, In other words when both of them were at the start Van Aert lost more than he won. Also this kind of "domination" is not all un heard off. Rather the opposite. We have had domination in CX for most of the past decades. Liboton and Nijs immediately spring to mind, but also Niels Albert, Lars Boom, etc. have had periods of more or less dominating the field.

fair enough.

his "domination" is not an anomalie and cannot be a contributing argument in the respect of using motors or not.

It'd only be an anomalie if you assume motors are being used in the CX peloton in addition to PEDs, as you'd then have to explain how he's getting the edge against guys who are doing both motors and PEDs.

 

[Nicko.]

Re:

Ok, listen up all non-engineer-types:
before you think/say/decide "motor" when you see a wheel spin up in a CX race, you need to decide whether this 'motor' sits in the hub or the crank.
I'm leaving the rim-based wheels out out of this one (for obvious, physical reasons).

Crank motor:
high power (>200W) AND high wheel torque/traction force is possible, depending on gearing
rear wheel can spin/slip even when loaded
cranks MUST rotate in synchronicity with the rear wheel

Hub motor:
with the hub diameter limited to ~40mm, power is limited (<50W?) by the size constraints and the necessity of a gear box, axle and electrical stuff.
But the wheel torque/traction force is VERY limited since the peak RPM of the motor must be geared for peak wheel speed (50kph?).
That means that during acceleration after the turn at 15kph there might, maybe, be 20W available, or ~0.5 kgf of traction force.
Rear wheel CAN be driven without cranks moving
Rear wheel will NEVER spin/slip when loaded, only when lifted off the ground

If you want to call "MOTOR!", decide which motor type and check with the properties above before you go public.

Carry on.

Risk, reward and detection

Crank motor:
- with a crank motor you can power away from competitors, uphill or to create a gap
- the outcome can be observed by 'bone idle wankers'
- the motor is ~impossible to hide, should one look for it (i.e. remove the crank)

Hub motor:
- the hub motor can at best provide additional energy, leaving the rider fresher for the defining moments of the race
- the effect of the hub motor is completely invisible unless the ryder is separated from the bike
- the motor can be detected by thermal or electromagnetic sensors
- the hub needs to be dismantled to expose the motor to the eye
- batteries may be hidden in the rim and current may be routed through the spokes

Rim motor:
- ~same as hub motor
- harder to detect (thermal) or expose to the eye (e.g. electronics and batteries inside the rim, only magnets on/in frame/fork)
- easy to detect if you want and have the skills

 

[sniper]

Good stuff Nicko.
Interesting about additional batteries being hidden in the rim.
Which brings me to the question how can we be sure what kind if extra power a hub motor can deliver "at best".

 

[Tienus]

I like your (technical) posts Nicko.

If you want to call "MOTOR!", decide which motor type and check with the properties above before you go public.

I disagree, not everyone has enough technical knowledge (including myself). I invite anyone to post there thoughts so we can discuss.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Ok, listen up all non-engineer-types:
before you think/say/decide "motor" when you see a wheel spin up in a CX race, you need to decide whether this 'motor' sits in the hub or the crank.
I'm leaving the rim-based wheels out out of this one (for obvious, physical reasons).

Crank motor:
high power (>200W) AND high wheel torque/traction force is possible, depending on gearing
rear wheel can spin/slip even when loaded
cranks MUST rotate in synchronicity with the rear wheel

Hub motor:
with the hub diameter limited to ~40mm, power is limited (<50W?) by the size constraints and the necessity of a gear box, axle and electrical stuff.
But the wheel torque/traction force is VERY limited since the peak RPM of the motor must be geared for peak wheel speed (50kph?).
That means that during acceleration after the turn at 15kph there might, maybe, be 20W available, or ~0.5 kgf of traction force.
Rear wheel CAN be driven without cranks moving
Rear wheel will NEVER spin/slip when loaded, only when lifted off the ground

If you want to call "MOTOR!", decide which motor type and check with the properties above before you go public.

Carry on.

Risk, reward and detection

Crank motor:
- with a crank motor you can power away from competitors, uphill or to create a gap
- the outcome can be observed by 'bone idle wankers'
- the motor is ~impossible to hide, should one look for it (i.e. remove the crank)

Hub motor:
- the hub motor can at best provide additional energy, leaving the rider fresher for the defining moments of the race
- the effect of the hub motor is completely invisible unless the ryder is separated from the bike
- the motor can be detected by thermal or electromagnetic sensors
- the hub needs to be dismantled to expose the motor to the eye
- batteries may be hidden in the rim and current may be routed through the spokes

Rim motor:
- ~same as hub motor
- harder to detect (thermal) or expose to the eye (e.g. electronics and batteries inside the rim, only magnets on/in frame/fork)
- easy to detect if you want and have the skills

The hub motor can have the battery anywhere in the frame. All you need are ring contacts at the dropout. It can also be geared, especially if you remove one set of bearings and use the volume provided by the freewheel shell. Lots of options, actually. So no, you wouldn't have a tiny amount of torque. A tiny amount of torque would be nearly as useless at riding speed as it would at stall. Power = T x w. If T is low, w has to be high but at riding speed it isn't. So it has to be geared to increase torque.

This, rather than any of the other objections, is why rim motors aren't a thing.

Also, a properly built hub motor is still the most consistent explanation with van Aert and Hesjedal.

John Swanson

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Re: Re:

Risk, reward and detection

Crank motor:
- with a crank motor you can power away from competitors, uphill or to create a gap
- the outcome can be observed by 'bone idle wankers'
- the motor is ~impossible to hide, should one look for it (i.e. remove the crank)

Hub motor:
- the hub motor can at best provide additional energy, leaving the rider fresher for the defining moments of the race
- the effect of the hub motor is completely invisible unless the ryder is separated from the bike
- the motor can be detected by thermal or electromagnetic sensors
- the hub needs to be dismantled to expose the motor to the eye
- batteries may be hidden in the rim and current may be routed through the spokes

Rim motor:
- ~same as hub motor
- harder to detect (thermal) or expose to the eye (e.g. electronics and batteries inside the rim, only magnets on/in frame/fork)
- easy to detect if you want and have the skills

very good

 

[Tienus]

https://www.instagram.com/p/nlfDmsoGws/?taken-by=tdwsport

Does this make any sense? Going Froome style on a TT bike, not sure if he is pedalling though.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

as we're (re-)analyzing more or less dodgy footage, there was this one from Adrien Costa:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZerARsCqAE
The dodgy thing, imo is *not* the spinning of his rear wheel (which may have been induced by the impact of the pedal on the ground), but how quickly he picks up his bike *after* he sees his wheel spinning.
He just crashed on the ground to catch a breath, then sees his wheel spinning and remarkably decides to stand up, pick up his bike and rest on it.

Looks to me, as soon as he sees his wheel spinning he has a brief heart attack thinking "christ on a bike didnt I switch of the engine?"

Certainly possible.
My first thought was that he probably realized that he should bring his bike into sight again with all those photographers taking pictures of him. Because giving your sponsors and suppliers public exposure in times of success is also part of being a pro - otherwise they might not be too happy with him..

Whatever the reason for picking up the bike, it is more than obvious that he puts the bike down on the pedal which then turns the back wheel. Do some people here even own bikes or ride, because some of the crap being put forward sounds like it is coming from people who have never owned a bicycle in their life. Definitely people who have never been at a cyclo-cross race in their life. Thats for sure.

How about Tilford? He has been racing bikes over 30 years, road, MTB and CX and he thinks it doesn't look natural.

http://stevetilford.com/2017/02/06/another-hidden-motor-suspicion/#comments

But hey come into the clinic and attack posters by accusing them over not knowing anything about bikes because some people just wont have 'their' sport trashed, yet it is the sport that trashes itself time and time again.

 

[StryderHells]

Re:

https://www.instagram.com/p/nlfDmsoGws/?taken-by=tdwsport

Does this make any sense? Going Froome style on a TT bike, not sure if he is pedalling though.

It is strange if he's pedaling but it's not the first time I've seen him hunched over the front of his TT bike

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

https://www.instagram.com/p/nlfDmsoGws/?taken-by=tdwsport

Does this make any sense? Going Froome style on a TT bike, not sure if he is pedalling though.

If he isn't pedalling then yes, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Mr.38%]

Re: Re:

How about Tilford? He has been racing bikes over 30 years, road, MTB and CX and he thinks it doesn't look natural.

http://stevetilford.com/2017/02/06/another-hidden-motor-suspicion/#comments

But hey come into the clinic and attack posters by accusing them over not knowing anything about bikes because some people just wont have 'their' sport trashed, yet it is the sport that trashes itself time and time again.

It's not "us against them" where the Clinic has the absolute truth. There are cases that make people scratch their heads like vA's triple and there is pure nonsense like accusing vdP and other incidents.

Nobody mentionend, where vA destroyed everyone, the Koppenberg Cross is perfect for a motor. I'm not implying he used one, though. I guess many here only watch CX races in GIFs.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Stop changing the subject

I think we're still talking about Hayman and motors.

- You inferred Hayman's performance was because he used a motor - Yeah have a motor and then wait to use in the last 200 metres - What dummy would follow this script.

If he used it *before* the sprint, it would still give him an advantage *during* the sprint. Every dummy can understand that. But how do you know what script he would have followed anyway?
And "last 200 meters"? Lol. This is 2017. Not 1998.
But as you seem to know how long his battery lasts, do expand.

My guess is motors probably work best in one day races, especially long and difficult one day races - So a PR would be a prime contender - But if you used a motor it would be used outside the velodrome, and probably more effective on asphalt as opposed to cobbles - It's not going to be used in a 200 metre sprint.

 

[Tienus]

If he isn't pedalling then yes, it makes a lot of sense.

I thought he might have been pedalling because of his crank position. The crank position in the other pictures is the same so he is probably not pedalling.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Stop changing the subject

I think we're still talking about Hayman and motors.

- You inferred Hayman's performance was because he used a motor - Yeah have a motor and then wait to use in the last 200 metres - What dummy would follow this script.

If he used it *before* the sprint, it would still give him an advantage *during* the sprint. Every dummy can understand that. But how do you know what script he would have followed anyway?
And "last 200 meters"? Lol. This is 2017. Not 1998.
But as you seem to know how long his battery lasts, do expand.

My guess is motors probably work best in one day races, especially long and difficult one day races - So a PR would be a prime contender - But if you used a motor it would be used outside the velodrome, and probably more effective on asphalt as opposed to cobbles - It's not going to be used in a 200 metre sprint.

That's fair enough although at this point I'm not sure if we should exclude any scenario.
That said, I agree intuitively with your assessment that a motor would be less useful in a full out sprint.
Cance 2010 gave us a good idea of when and where motors will be most effective.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Ok, listen up all non-engineer-types:
before you think/say/decide "motor" when you see a wheel spin up in a CX race, you need to decide whether this 'motor' sits in the hub or the crank.
I'm leaving the rim-based wheels out out of this one (for obvious, physical reasons).

Crank motor:
high power (>200W) AND high wheel torque/traction force is possible, depending on gearing
rear wheel can spin/slip even when loaded
cranks MUST rotate in synchronicity with the rear wheel

Hub motor:
with the hub diameter limited to ~40mm, power is limited (<50W?) by the size constraints and the necessity of a gear box, axle and electrical stuff.
But the wheel torque/traction force is VERY limited since the peak RPM of the motor must be geared for peak wheel speed (50kph?).
That means that during acceleration after the turn at 15kph there might, maybe, be 20W available, or ~0.5 kgf of traction force.
Rear wheel CAN be driven without cranks moving
Rear wheel will NEVER spin/slip when loaded, only when lifted off the ground

If you want to call "MOTOR!", decide which motor type and check with the properties above before you go public.

Carry on.

Risk, reward and detection

Crank motor:
- with a crank motor you can power away from competitors, uphill or to create a gap
- the outcome can be observed by 'bone idle wankers'
- the motor is ~impossible to hide, should one look for it (i.e. remove the crank)

Hub motor:
- the hub motor can at best provide additional energy, leaving the rider fresher for the defining moments of the race
- the effect of the hub motor is completely invisible unless the ryder is separated from the bike
- the motor can be detected by thermal or electromagnetic sensors
- the hub needs to be dismantled to expose the motor to the eye
- batteries may be hidden in the rim and current may be routed through the spokes

Rim motor:
- ~same as hub motor
- harder to detect (thermal) or expose to the eye (e.g. electronics and batteries inside the rim, only magnets on/in frame/fork)
- easy to detect if you want and have the skills

The hub motor can have the battery anywhere in the frame. All you need are ring contacts at the dropout. It can also be geared, especially if you remove one set of bearings and use the volume provided by the freewheel shell. Lots of options, actually. So no, you wouldn't have a tiny amount of torque. A tiny amount of torque would be nearly as useless at riding speed as it would at stall. Power = T x w. If T is low, w has to be high but at riding speed it isn't. So it has to be geared to increase torque.

This, rather than any of the other objections, is why rim motors aren't a thing.

Also, a properly built hub motor is still the most consistent explanation with van Aert and Hesjedal.

John Swanson

bumped for relevance.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Re: Re:

Stop changing the subject

I think we're still talking about Hayman and motors.

- You inferred Hayman's performance was because he used a motor - Yeah have a motor and then wait to use in the last 200 metres - What dummy would follow this script.

If he used it *before* the sprint, it would still give him an advantage *during* the sprint. Every dummy can understand that. But how do you know what script he would have followed anyway?
And "last 200 meters"? Lol. This is 2017. Not 1998.
But as you seem to know how long his battery lasts, do expand.

My guess is motors probably work best in one day races, especially long and difficult one day races - So a PR would be a prime contender - But if you used a motor it would be used outside the velodrome, and probably more effective on asphalt as opposed to cobbles - It's not going to be used in a 200 metre sprint.

That's fair enough although at this point I'm not sure if we should exclude any scenario.
That said, I agree intuitively with your assessment that a motor would be less useful in a full out sprint.
Cance 2010 gave us a good idea of when and where motors will be most effective.

It was pretty likely Hayman was going to beat Boonen in the sprint having seen the previous 15 minutes of that race. Boonen had already effectively done his sprint outside the velodrome when turning himself inside out just to get Hayman's wheel after one of his attacks in the finale.

Probably the most ridiculous performance I've seen given the circumstances (which in cycling is saying something). Remember this was virtually Hayman's first race for months after injury (apart from a couple of days in low grade spanish races). Even the best riders / dopers of all time generally needed racing and racing form to be able to win the best races

 

[Tienus]

The hub motor can have the battery anywhere in the frame. All you need are ring contacts at the dropout. It can also be geared, especially if you remove one set of bearings and use the volume provided by the freewheel shell. Lots of options, actually. So no, you wouldn't have a tiny amount of torque. A tiny amount of torque would be nearly as useless at riding speed as it would at stall. Power = T x w. If T is low, w has to be high but at riding speed it isn't. So it has to be geared to increase torque.

What are your thoughts on this?

https://youtu.be/g6r3ms5b2uI?t=11m25s
From around 11:25.
"Double the torque with a direct drive hub motor over a geared one" (Thats if I understand it correctly)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

The hub motor can have the battery anywhere in the frame. All you need are ring contacts at the dropout. It can also be geared, especially if you remove one set of bearings and use the volume provided by the freewheel shell. Lots of options, actually. So no, you wouldn't have a tiny amount of torque. A tiny amount of torque would be nearly as useless at riding speed as it would at stall. Power = T x w. If T is low, w has to be high but at riding speed it isn't. So it has to be geared to increase torque.

What are your thoughts on this?

https://youtu.be/g6r3ms5b2uI?t=11m25s
From around 11:25.
"Double the torque with a direct drive hub motor over a geared one" (Thats if I understand it correctly)

Seems that motor would be something that would work in a hub?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

The hub motor can have the battery anywhere in the frame. All you need are ring contacts at the dropout. It can also be geared, especially if you remove one set of bearings and use the volume provided by the freewheel shell. Lots of options, actually. So no, you wouldn't have a tiny amount of torque. A tiny amount of torque would be nearly as useless at riding speed as it would at stall. Power = T x w. If T is low, w has to be high but at riding speed it isn't. So it has to be geared to increase torque.

What are your thoughts on this?

https://youtu.be/g6r3ms5b2uI?t=11m25s
From around 11:25.
"Double the torque with a direct drive hub motor over a geared one" (Thats if I understand it correctly)

Torque will be proportional to the strength of the magnetic fields involved. Those are proportional to distance between coils/magnets, surface area of coils/magnets, #windings x current and then secondary things like temperature.

You could estimate what's theoretically possible by first calculating the most limiting variable. I'm thinking that's current. What kind of power can a reasonable battery pack generate? Based on what laptops can utilize, I'd say less than 100 Watts in a reasonable form factor.

100 watts across 4 wheels is 25 Watts per wheel. Sanity check time. Can you buy 25 Watt motors in roughly the volume of a skateboard wheel? Yes, I think so. At least it's very close.

So can you get a certain amount of torque? Well yeah. Torque is power dependent, but not power limited. T = P/w. It all comes down to engineering and how much you want to spend. For example you might need to use a ridiculous amount of current. In that case you'd need a good electrical engineer and a materials scientist to pick the right material for your coils. The limit in this case is that your speed (power output) will be limited to whatever 100 Watts allows.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

The hub motor can have the battery anywhere in the frame. All you need are ring contacts at the dropout. It can also be geared, especially if you remove one set of bearings and use the volume provided by the freewheel shell. Lots of options, actually. So no, you wouldn't have a tiny amount of torque. A tiny amount of torque would be nearly as useless at riding speed as it would at stall. Power = T x w. If T is low, w has to be high but at riding speed it isn't. So it has to be geared to increase torque.

What are your thoughts on this?

https://youtu.be/g6r3ms5b2uI?t=11m25s
From around 11:25.
"Double the torque with a direct drive hub motor over a geared one" (Thats if I understand it correctly)

Seems that motor would be something that would work in a hub?

When people say hub, they always think of the shell between the flanges. But there's a relatively big volume occupied by the freehub mechanism... I'd be shocked if a three person team couldn't have a functioning prototype in 6 months. This is something a university student team could do as a school project.

John Swanson