Motor doping thread

Page 173 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Tienus said:
One of the videos you posted is made bij Rasmussen who was a team mate of Cancellara in 2010.

Those videos are not good copies of what happened and it has been discussed here multiple times before.
Most recent:
viewtopic.php?p=2205903#p2205903


It is exceptional that someone like Guimard speaks out like this.
Not sure citing the same people who are arguing this point in one thread is evidence of anything in another thread. Maybe a motor in Ryder's bike, but I have time for anyone who points out it's other than conclusive. What actually happens is that a moto appears to run it over before it stops. But that stop seems well within the range of the time needed for it to slow down. Doesn't really appear to slow down. Suspicious? Yes. Enough to draw a conclusion? Not for me.
The inconclusiveness of the video makes Guimard expressing his suspicions and calling it all the more meaningful. He probably wouldnt have if he wasn't sure these hub motors are (were) in use at the time.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
samhocking said:
You don't have any forces, you have a video. You don't know the length of his QR and stem and bar reach for a start. That makes a huge difference in my tests. At some angles you can't even get the wheel to touch the floor how you claim because the QR acts as a pivot point preventing it.
How would that affect the energy budget? In physics, you can save a lot of time by ignoring forces and all the integrals by using energy. If you have 1000 Joules, can you put a ping pong ball in orbit? The easy way to do it is to look at the initial and final states and calculate the energy requirements, both potential and kinetic. If it's within an order of magnitude "yes", then you do the math.

In Ryder's case, it simply doesn't work out. Both the energy requirements, and how the specifics shake out.

John Swanson
To make the physics work, you're having to assume bars, saddle width, reach, bar reach, lever position/reach, QR release, pedal position, pedal type etc are all ignored. The reality is as soon as you just pick up a bike and begin to play around simulating Ryder's crash changing all the above, you realise it's a lot more complicated than you can explain in physics. Just because a wheel on TV looks like it might be touching the ground doesn't mean it did. E.g. with a 120mm stem for about 180 degrees, my QR lever keeps the rear tyre about 3mm off the floor ignoring pedal. You can't see that in a low res video. Replace with my normal 140mm stem and longer reach bars and it touches for far more than 180 degrees. That's what I mean by a video and physics can;t tell you this. Go and play with a bike with different stems, saddles, bars and just play and you'll see it's not easily written off what you're seeing on the video.
It's a shame only a low res replay was ever shown.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
To make the physics work, you're having to assume bars, saddle width, reach, bar reach, lever position/reach, QR release, pedal position, pedal type etc are all ignored. The reality is as soon as you just pick up a bike and begin to play around simulating Ryder's crash changing all the above, you realise it's a lot more complicated than you can explain in physics. Just because a wheel on TV looks like it might be touching the ground doesn't mean it is. E.g. with a 120mm stem for about 180 degrees, my QR lever keeps the rear tyre about 3mm off the floor ignoring pedal. You can't see that in a low res video. Replace with my normal 140mm stem and longer reach bars and it touches for far more than 180 degrees. That's what I mean by a video and physics can;t tell you this. Go and play with a bike with different stems, saddles, bars and just play and you'll see it's not easily written off what you're seeing on the video.
It's a shame only a low res replay was ever shown.
And you'd be 100% wrong. Estimating nuclear yields from photos/video has been incredibly accurate using nothing more than dimensional analysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis In my own work, a colleague bypassed a stupendously hard hydrodynamic problem using that technique. (The problem was calculating splay of groups of picoliter drops in a high velocity airflow) Physics is physics. You don't need some stupid model to get an answer that tells you what you need to know.

John Swanson
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Sam, you can bend it like Beckham, all evidence considered it is still rather likely that small hub motors were a thing.

I doubt they still are, though. The word is they're outdated.

Meanwhile CN with an interesting piece on Lappartient and match fixing +illegal gambling.

A peloton sticking needles in their arms and fixing matches...but motors? Naah.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

sniper said:
You can bend it like Beckham, all evidence considered it is still rather likely that small hub motors were a thing.

I doubt they still are, though. The word is they're outdated.

Meanwhile CN with an interesting piece on Lappartient and match fixing +illegal gambling.

A peloton sticking needles in their arms and fixing matches...but motors? Naah.
Whadda ya mean? Garage tinkerers are putting 300 Watt motors in a skateboard wheel, so a 50 Watt hub motor is clearly insane... And I would never put it in the freehub. And I would never, ever use a stepper motor to avoid using gear reduction. Et cetera.

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

samhocking said:
It doesn't matter. My bike did exactly the same as Ryders first try and it doesn't have a motor, so i'm satisfied. You know like when I see a person riding a bike and balancing doesn't need explanation either.
It did not. Post a video and I will explain exactly why it didn't.

John Swanson
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
"Exactly the same". Errr. You just claimed you cant even see from the video what happens to his bike. Now suddenly you can? Mkay.
 
The only thing I will say is, assuming these wheels were not cheap, why didn't; they just install a simple mercury switch so when a rider crashes and horizontal, the power is cut? They spend hundreds of thousands on making them small and invisible, yet forgot to include a £10 Mercury Tilt switch for Eurosport viewers suspicions lol!
 
Re: Re:

Huapango said:
samhocking said:
You don't have any forces, you have a video. You don't know the length of his QR and stem and bar reach for a start. That makes a huge difference in my tests. At some angles you can't even get the wheel to touch the floor how you claim because the QR acts as a pivot point preventing it.
Ryder won the Giro d'Italia. Let that sink in for a minute.
Clearly he must have forgotten to charge the batteries for this La Vuelta where he was only 14th lol!
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
ScienceIsCool said:
samhocking said:
It doesn't matter. My bike did exactly the same as Ryders first try and it doesn't have a motor, so i'm satisfied. You know like when I see a person riding a bike and balancing doesn't need explanation either.
It did not. Post a video and I will explain exactly why it didn't.

John Swanson
Just use your own bike.
What you are trying to argue is the equivalent of watching a video of putting a lit match to the bottom of a pot of water and watching it boil. The energy requirements don't stack up. There needs to be another energy source. It just doesn't matter who made the pot, the exact alloy, or how much salt is in the water. Lid, no lid. Doesn't matter.

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
red_flanders said:
Tienus said:
One of the videos you posted is made bij Rasmussen who was a team mate of Cancellara in 2010.

Those videos are not good copies of what happened and it has been discussed here multiple times before.
Most recent:
viewtopic.php?p=2205903#p2205903


It is exceptional that someone like Guimard speaks out like this.
Not sure citing the same people who are arguing this point in one thread is evidence of anything in another thread. Maybe a motor in Ryder's bike, but I have time for anyone who points out it's other than conclusive. What actually happens is that a moto appears to run it over before it stops. But that stop seems well within the range of the time needed for it to slow down. Doesn't really appear to slow down. Suspicious? Yes. Enough to draw a conclusion? Not for me.
The inconclusiveness of the video makes Guimard expressing his suspicions and calling it all the more meaningful. He probably wouldnt have if he wasn't sure these hub motors are (were) in use at the time.
It's certainly worth noting. Not sure it changes my view much, but he's worth listening to.

Citing the idea that it's inconclusive as evidence that it's meaningful is certainly an...interesting...perspective.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
samhocking said:
ScienceIsCool said:
samhocking said:
It doesn't matter. My bike did exactly the same as Ryders first try and it doesn't have a motor, so i'm satisfied. You know like when I see a person riding a bike and balancing doesn't need explanation either.
It did not. Post a video and I will explain exactly why it didn't.

John Swanson
Just use your own bike.
What you are trying to argue is the equivalent of watching a video of putting a lit match to the bottom of a pot of water and watching it boil. The energy requirements don't stack up. There needs to be another energy source. It just doesn't matter who made the pot, the exact alloy, or how much salt is in the water. Lid, no lid. Doesn't matter.

John Swanson
No, I looked at Ryders specs of his bike. Luckily I have a 140mm -17 Arx Stem which is an usual bit of kit Ryder uses in 2014 because the 140 & 150mm only came in with Arx II and causes the bars ends to hit over the top tube which is not normally the case and why both his shifters are not parallel on the ground like you see in others simulating videos, because they are using shorter, standard stems), I had the same Pro Ergosums and borrowed my friends Cosmic Carbon Pro skewers and set the training bike up with a ton of drop almost the same as Ryders assuming he rides a 56/57. We then copied the crash and the bike spun around like in the video. We also strapped 50kg of sand to the bike while letting it drop over to simulate some force and also messed with me unclipping like Ryder does with his right fooot. It was immediately obvious with the sand, that it's actually really difficult to get the wheel to hit the ground with any force for any time, it just bounces, because no matter how we dropped the bike with the bars the same as Ryders, the pedal, Cosmic QR lever, saddle or the -17 Arx stem prevents it. While the wheel is spinning at 20-30mph we removed the sand and the bike then begun to spin around like Ryders as it did when I unclipped too. Doing this on my sloped drive or on flat tarmac made a fair bit of difference to how far/fast the bike rotated. It was more on the sloped drive. We couldn't get the wheel to stop spinning with the sand strapped to the bike unless we dropped it with bars and pedals not the same orientation as Ryders.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
You just said upthread the video is useless in that we can't even see if the wheel drags over the ground or not.
That being the case, how exactly did you manage to 'copy the crash'?
Also, you went to all that trouble to 'copy the crash' yet didn't take the effort of filming it with your cell phone?

Stop insulting brains, Sam.
 
The claim is the wheel hits the ground with enough force that a non-motorized rim would not still be spinnning. By setting up a bike the same as Ryders, we couldn't get the wheel to stop spinning with 50kg strapped to the frame. The points of levers, 140mm -17 stem, a ton of saddle drop, Garmin Vectors and Mavic QR prevents it. The wheel/bike just bounces and wheel carries on spinning.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
sniper said:
red_flanders said:
Tienus said:
One of the videos you posted is made bij Rasmussen who was a team mate of Cancellara in 2010.

Those videos are not good copies of what happened and it has been discussed here multiple times before.
Most recent:
viewtopic.php?p=2205903#p2205903


It is exceptional that someone like Guimard speaks out like this.
Not sure citing the same people who are arguing this point in one thread is evidence of anything in another thread. Maybe a motor in Ryder's bike, but I have time for anyone who points out it's other than conclusive. What actually happens is that a moto appears to run it over before it stops. But that stop seems well within the range of the time needed for it to slow down. Doesn't really appear to slow down. Suspicious? Yes. Enough to draw a conclusion? Not for me.
The inconclusiveness of the video makes Guimard expressing his suspicions and calling it all the more meaningful. He probably wouldnt have if he wasn't sure these hub motors are (were) in use at the time.
It's certainly worth noting. Not sure it changes my view much, but he's worth listening to.

Citing the idea that it's inconclusive as evidence that it's meaningful is certainly an...interesting...perspective.
Well, yeah, from where I'm sitting I would argue that someone like Guimard (or Gilbert's agent) has zero incentive to just speak up or throw around accusations about motors if he's not entirely sure they exist.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re:

samhocking said:
The claim is the wheel hits the ground with enough force that a non-motorized rim would not still be spinnning. By setting up a bike the same as Ryders, we couldn't get the wheel to stop spinning with 50kg strapped to the frame. The points of levers, 140mm -17 stem, a ton of saddle drop, Garmin Vectors and Mavic QR prevents it. The wheel/bike just bounces and wheel carries on spinning.
Right.
So now tell me why you attached any kind of value to Rasmussen's rebuttal in the first place?
Or were you just, well, you know...
 
I didn't attach any value, other than all road bikes will spin around with bars like that. The difference is the way Ryder's set-up allows the QR lever to take the impact of the wheel bouncing horizontally (the second visible bounce).

I would totally agree with ScienceIsCool that on most bikes with a standard 100-120mm zero degree stem and a spacer the rear QR is normally around 10mm off the ground in Ryders crash position and the wheel always touches the ground easily, but most importantly if Ryder was riding one, the rear wheel would take all the impact and probably stop spinning as claimed. However if you've ever set bikes up the way Ryder has his, with a massive 140mm stem that is -17 degrees like on his preferred -17 Arx he always rides and slam it down on that Cannondale Evo with his narrow Ergosum bars he uses the QR hits the ground not the tyres. At 20mph the bike will spin around once you remove the weight or unclip because the QR acts like a pivot, but if your leg is still under the bike or you remain unclipped, simply the fact your leg holds the bike up as your ankle is twisted over when you're horizontal and takes most of the weight of the bike.

I will do a video when I get the chance. I've still got the same 140mm stem, but I can't race in that extreme -17 position anymore so it's in the workshop somewhere.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
didn't attach any value? you posted them as counter evidence.
viewtopic.php?p=2206094#p2206094
I'm glad you now agree they're meaningless rebuttals. Insults to the brain, in fact. And an attempt at omerta from Rasmussen, because he definitely knows better. Now why would Rasmussen do that...
 
I'd also think about the hub Ryder has on his rear Cosmic Carbone. Seeing as he uses a QR and therefore the axle has to be hollow to accommodate it and allow wheel changes and high end hub like that is engineered to the limit of weight and strength anyway with not a lot to play with in terms of drillium efforts, there is about 8mm3 of free space to place a complete hub motor in. Essentially, to keep the Mavic hub looking the same, ignoring any other engineering challenges, Mavic leaves you about 1 sugar lump of air spread around the axle to build a motor into and a little bit around the freehub bearing maybe. I'd say it would be almost impossible to build a 10w in 1cm cylinder and limited by wrapping it around a QR Sqewer to boot (it's not much bigger than the vibrate motor in your phone for example although clearly not even high torque which is another factor altogether making it more difficult with limited space).

Also look at the stays of an EVO. With his 20mm of available rim depth on those wheels he crashed on to put coils or magnets or whatever around, the internal diameter of the Evo seat stay is about 5-6mm. So there is about 2 sugar lumps of space (air to build into) to complete the other half of the rim motor in the stay were the rim passes it as it revolves. The inside of the stays themselves are over 25mm away from the rim surface on an Evo and they are not parallel to each other either either.

Perhaps i'm naive, but I simply cannot see half of even a 10w motor with the torque required doable inside a 6mm tube of a seat stay 2cm long anymore than I can see a 10w motor inside 1cm3 of space available in Mavic Cosmic Carbon rear hub.

Hesjedels 2014 Mavic Cosmic Carbone Rear Hub


Hesjedels 2014 Cervelo RCA with +20mm gap between seat stay and rim


Theoretically they could use the chain stay too next to rim, but the Di2 cable goes through it, so would be very easy to inspect through bottom bracket anyway.
 
Re:

sniper said:
didn't attach any value? you posted them as counter evidence.
viewtopic.php?p=2206094#p2206094
I'm glad you now agree they're meaningless rebuttals. Insults to the brain, in fact. And an attempt at omerta from Rasmussen, because he definitely knows better. Now why would Rasmussen do that...
I honestly don't know what you're getting at. Their video's are not proof as I said, the stems are standard. The first video from Ferri 99 is what I watched 3 years ago that he posted. When I saw Hesjedels set-up in the first part of his video and notices he was unusual in riding a -17 stem (more usual today) with Erogosum narrow bars and this made me think, what effect this would have on the QR hitting the ground. I've road race and crashed bikes for 35 years I know how close the QR lever is to the ground and how difficult it is to scrape it in a crash, but Ryders set-up it would because I used to race that stem and you can ground the QR in a crash. Neither Rasmussen or Ferri 99 set their bike up like Hesjedel, so not evidence of what i;m talking about, simply evidence the wheel spinning, spins the bike around that's all.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
You're good at obfuscating.
Meanwhile, forget about the video.
I've already posted a photo of a motor that would give 20-40 watts for an hour with Di2 battery, that would fit neatly into a rear hub.
Also, when I say 'fits into', that's of course a misnomer. In reality you want the motor to *be* the rear hub, not fit it inside.
It's possible alright, and it's in fact the only plausible explanation I've heard of the heatsignal dissipated by Roglic' rear hub on the Stade 2 report.
With, yes, the heatsignal also spreading into the left seat stay, which can only be plausibly explained by a small battery being tucked away there.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

samhocking said:
The claim is the wheel hits the ground with enough force that a non-motorized rim would not still be spinnning. By setting up a bike the same as Ryders, we couldn't get the wheel to stop spinning with 50kg strapped to the frame. The points of levers, 140mm -17 stem, a ton of saddle drop, Garmin Vectors and Mavic QR prevents it. The wheel/bike just bounces and wheel carries on spinning.
If you couldn't get the wheel to touch the ground, how did you get the bike to spin? And with 50 extra kilos, are you saying the bike did spin eventually and it looked like Ryder's incident? Or Rasmussen's? Or something altogether different?

John Swanson
 
Re:

samhocking said:
It doesn't matter. My bike did exactly the same as Ryders first try and it doesn't have a motor, so i'm satisfied. You know like when I see a person riding a bike and balancing doesn't need explanation either.
Oh good that's the end of this discussion then. Why didn't you say this at the start and we all would have realised no motors have ever been used in the pro ranks and saved all the wasted debating.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY