Motor doping thread

Page 189 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
terribleone said:
Since you are posting that here you are implying that it has something to do with a motor. How exactly is that driving anything? Plus, that's were chain catchers used to be before moving to the derailer mount.
Any fool can see that's an integrated motor/battery/2-speed gearbox. :Neutral:
 
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
terribleone said:
Since you are posting that here you are implying that it has something to do with a motor. How exactly is that driving anything? Plus, that's were chain catchers used to be before moving to the derailer mount.
I was just curious because as a long time tech geek, I've never seen a chain catcher underneath the bottom bracket like that. It's location doesn't really make sense to me. It looks like it would weigh more than a conventional derailleur fitted or dog tooth item. On a chain stay, yes. Attached to derailleur mount, yes, but never in THAT location.
 
Re: Re:

terribleone said:
jmdirt said:
terribleone said:
Since you are posting that here you are implying that it has something to do with a motor. How exactly is that driving anything? Plus, that's were chain catchers used to be before moving to the derailer mount.
I was just curious because as a long time tech geek, I've never seen a chain catcher underneath the bottom bracket like that. It's location doesn't really make sense to me. It looks like it would weigh more than a conventional derailleur fitted or dog tooth item. On a chain stay, yes. Attached to derailleur mount, yes, but never in THAT location.
I also don't see what this has to do with motor doping?

In the article they state there is a second piece in a more conventional position (They actually say near the bottom of the seat stay but I'm sure they mean seat tube). This piece looks like it's there to prevent chain suck, K-edge made something to do this for Ibis that fitted onto the BB and sat in a similar place. Maybe they have found that the Oval chainrings are prone to this happening? This is the K-edge device:

 
Re: Re:

terribleone said:
jmdirt said:
terribleone said:
Since you are posting that here you are implying that it has something to do with a motor. How exactly is that driving anything? Plus, that's were chain catchers used to be before moving to the derailer mount.
I was just curious because as a long time tech geek, I've never seen a chain catcher underneath the bottom bracket like that. It's location doesn't really make sense to me. It looks like it would weigh more than a conventional derailleur fitted or dog tooth item. On a chain stay, yes. Attached to derailleur mount, yes, but never in THAT location.
All dirt rigs used to have anti suck devices either mounted under the chainstay or the BB.

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachments/vintage-retro-classic/518070d1265319888-when-chainsuck-cured-trekantichainsuck.jpg
 
Re:

ebandit said:
Cycle Chic said:
Would it be possible to have a motor which could be put on and off the bike by the rider ? this would explain how motors are being used but not detected.
quoted for truth.....oops! the secrets out

if only I could think out of the box and have come up with this

Mark L
" You can activate it remotely by bluetooth or by a watch" Varjas says "It can be controlled from the team car and the rider may not even be aware that he has a motor. It could just feel like tey are having a very good day. That model is designed for high speeds, for time trials"

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum
 
Jun 13, 2009
74
1
8,685
Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?
 
Re:

Marmot said:
Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?
So what you're suggesting, basically, is some sort of thin robotic exo-skeleton powerful and strong enough to make a material difference to pedalling force but thin enough not to be obvious underneath closing designed to be worn as closely fitting to the body as possible? Hmm.
 
Cycle Chic said:
so Kwiatkowski slides out on a corner - HOW MANYS THAT NOW ? Froome uphill, Thomas sliding out on a corner and now Kwiatkowski on a roundabout - AND ITS ALL ON THE REAR WHEEL
Well, that's just as much a sign of a rider being jacked or overly pumped.

I am very skeptical about motors. Whatever is going on is the modern version of full genius though.
 
Jun 13, 2009
74
1
8,685
Re: Re:

simoni said:
Marmot said:
Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?
So what you're suggesting, basically, is some sort of thin robotic exo-skeleton powerful and strong enough to make a material difference to pedalling force but thin enough not to be obvious underneath closing designed to be worn as closely fitting to the body as possible? Hmm.
Yes. Of course, apart from the issue you mention, it also needs to look like something that could legitimately be there, just in case the wrong part of the clothing is torn open by a crash (e.g. kinesthetic tape). Clearly, it's not very plausible. But I wonder how much less plausible it is than squeezing a motor into a hub alongside everything else that needs to be in the hub, without the hub increasing in size to any meaningful extent.
 
Re:

Marmot said:
Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?
Please tell me this is satire :eek:
 
Cycle Chic said:
so Kwiatkowski slides out on a corner - HOW MANYS THAT NOW ? Froome uphill, Thomas sliding out on a corner and now Kwiatkowski on a roundabout - AND ITS ALL ON THE REAR WHEEL
Thomas was freewheeling too quickly into a corner and lost his front wheel. It was as natural a slide on a bike as you're ever likely to see :confused:
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Marmot said:
Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?
Please tell me this is satire :eek:
It's actually been in development since the 1950s. Dynamo Joe, they called him.

We've come a long, long way. Look at him now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3vfSQePcs
 
Marmot said:
Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?
When I first read this, I thought you were proposing technology that would send electrical signals to the muscles, forcing them to contract faster. But I think what you mean is a mechanical force—albeit resulting from electrical input—that acts upon the entire leg, and is independent of (though as you point out, in synchrony with) contractions of the leg muscles.

In addition to the problems mentioned by other posters, there seems to be a more fundamental one: for something attached to the leg to move the leg, it has to be attached to something else as well. E.g., forgetting all attempts at hiding, you could have a rod attached to the frame of the bike that would rotate, sort of like a super-crank. If the other end of the rod was attached to the rider’s leg, it would drive the leg up and down. This could in theory work because the movement is relative to something independent of the leg. In fact, mechanically, this would be analogous to a motor that turns the crank; the crank is attached to the rider’s leg, via the clip-on shoes, but is also attached to the frame of the bike. But if you have the apparatus attached only to the leg (or to clothing that in this context is part of the leg), I don’t understand how it’s going to move the leg. Move it relative to what?

At the very least, I think it would have to be attached to some part of the rider's upper body, which would function as the stationary point relative to which motion of the legs would occur.

Clearly, it's not very plausible. But I wonder how much less plausible it is than squeezing a motor into a hub alongside everything else that needs to be in the hub, without the hub increasing in size to any meaningful extent.
Well, I wonder how much less plausible old-fashioned chemical doping is than any kind of motor.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

Marmot said:
simoni said:
Marmot said:
Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?
So what you're suggesting, basically, is some sort of thin robotic exo-skeleton powerful and strong enough to make a material difference to pedalling force but thin enough not to be obvious underneath closing designed to be worn as closely fitting to the body as possible? Hmm.
Yes. Of course, apart from the issue you mention, it also needs to look like something that could legitimately be there, just in case the wrong part of the clothing is torn open by a crash (e.g. kinesthetic tape). Clearly, it's not very plausible. But I wonder how much less plausible it is than squeezing a motor into a hub alongside everything else that needs to be in the hub, without the hub increasing in size to any meaningful extent.
Short answer is no. Long answer is nope. Any type of reactive material has a small percentage of contraction. To make it useful you need the type of leverage that tendons and ligaments provide. Lots of other problems too.
 
I think Marmot might be onto something.

But rather than a mechanical exoskeleton, I think we might be talking a subcutaneous system, with a process driven by contraction and relaxation. The power circuitry could then be based elsewhere in the body, in the chest region, for example. And rather than needing recharging electrically, it could be replenished with organic matter. A further advantage is that this could be created from carbon based components, and therefore indetectable by the UCI scanning equipment.

Yep: I reckon they might all be using something like this.
 
Jun 13, 2009
74
1
8,685
Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
I think Marmot might be onto something.

But rather than a mechanical exoskeleton, I think we might be talking a subcutaneous system, with a process driven by contraction and relaxation. The power circuitry could then be based elsewhere in the body, in the chest region, for example. And rather than needing recharging electrically, it could be replenished with organic matter. A further advantage is that this could be created from carbon based components, and therefore indetectable by the UCI scanning equipment.

Yep: I reckon they might all be using something like this.
Very good ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY