I had to look up that name. Incredible story!It would be like Rosie Ruiz type notoriety.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I had to look up that name. Incredible story!It would be like Rosie Ruiz type notoriety.
No you are not. Greg Lemond also suggested using power as a method of testing athletes, albeit a bit differently. This may be part of the way to go for WADA ... rather and a bio passport, cross correlate biological data with power and heart rate data. Certainly most people are using heart rate monitors and power meters in races. Might require some refinements in calibration process, but that would not be a bad thing (power meter calibration has been used to cheat in Zwift for example).I have been thinking about mechanical doping a lot lately. I have a simple solution that would seemingly outright prevent it:
Require HR, power, and speed data from all riders. It seems to me, if you use a thirty watt motor on a section of a climb, you would absolutely be able to detect it using the metrics above. For example, if a rider pulls away on a climb using a motor, the increase in speed should be reflected by an increase in power as well as heart rate. If watts stay the same, but speed significantly increases, there is obviously a motor at play. This seems quite fool proof to me. Am I missing something?
I have been thinking about mechanical doping a lot lately. I have a simple solution that would seemingly outright prevent it:
Require HR, power, and speed data from all riders. It seems to me, if you use a thirty watt motor on a section of a climb, you would absolutely be able to detect it using the metrics above. For example, if a rider pulls away on a climb using a motor, the increase in speed should be reflected by an increase in power as well as heart rate. If watts stay the same, but speed significantly increases, there is obviously a motor at play. This seems quite fool proof to me. Am I missing something?
I typed above that IMO the best time to use a motor is before critical times while you are in the platoon because any noise wouldn't be noticeable, and you would be fresher when crunch time came. If you are with a small group the noise and visual would be too obvious.I have been thinking about mechanical doping a lot lately. I have a simple solution that would seemingly outright prevent it:
Require HR, power, and speed data from all riders. It seems to me, if you use a thirty watt motor on a section of a climb, you would absolutely be able to detect it using the metrics above. For example, if a rider pulls away on a climb using a motor, the increase in speed should be reflected by an increase in power as well as heart rate. If watts stay the same, but speed significantly increases, there is obviously a motor at play. This seems quite fool proof to me. Am I missing something?
Cheating the meter seems like it would be the easiest of the cheats.
I typed above that IMO the best time to use a motor is before critical times while you are in the platoon because any noise wouldn't be noticeable, and you would be fresher when crunch time came. If you are with a small group the noise and visual would be too obvious.
How much would 180+ meters/monitors cost and how would races less well endowed than ASO's afford the cost?That true, but I think ASO or the UCI could provide the power meter/ heart rate to each rider.
Yes, but like that?......dramatic! but from a scientific perspective.....would a spinning wheel not be likely to
move a lightweight carbon bike across the road?
Mark L
Well, that's a grapes to watermelon experiment. Inertia is definitely at play in a crash, but shooting sideways across the road like that? Is it possible of course, is it a bit , yes.Drop a bike out of your car onto the ground at 30mph just after spinning the wheels up to 30mph and report back if the bike A. stopped dead or B. observed Newton's Laws of Motion.
The UCI should fund it, but I agree that hacking just seems too easy.How much would 180+ meters/monitors cost and how would races less well endowed than ASO's afford the cost?
Also, hacking. Like, d'uh.
Not being sarky here, I'm genuinely trying to engage with this idea but ...The UCI should fund it,
So those of you are convinced that this was a bike with a motor in it. Some questions
What was the plan? The big pay off that would make the gamble worth it?
The rider didn't get in the break, didn't chase the break and just sat in a peloton that got lapped by the break. And it's a small time race anyway. Why put a motor in the bike and do sod all with it?
This would never work anyway. I can’t even get my own HR monitor to work half the time I go up a climb, it just starts telling me I’m at 120HR when I’m completely maxed out and was at 140 on the flat. The evidence needed in court would never be enough. Look at Cancellara putting 30 seconds on Boonen in a minute, his HR is going to go up anyway, they will just point to that and say there’s no way to disprove anything.How much would 180+ meters/monitors cost and how would races less well endowed than ASO's afford the cost?
Also, hacking. Like, d'uh.
Testing.So those of you are convinced that this was a bike with a motor in it. Some questions
What was the plan? The big pay off that would make the gamble worth it?
The rider didn't get in the break, didn't chase the break and just sat in a peloton that got lapped by the break. And it's a small time race anyway. Why put a motor in the bike and do sod all with it?
Right, yes, we can all see how clever and sensible a suggestion that is.If it is too expensive, the teams can provide power meters.
What I love about this suggestion is that in 1924 Henri Pélissier told Albert Londres that such a day wold come, that riders would be weighed before the start of each stage. It's only taken the thick end of a century for someone to think it's sensible enough to proceed with.So make the riders weigh in with their bikes prior to every stage. That would make it easier to estimate power and spot data that is out of line.
I'm not the one who believes that motors are such a problem that you need to bring in a sledgehammer like you're suggesting.And if you believe that most of the teams would hack/cheat the data.....I'm not sure how you even watch this sport if that is honestly your outlook. Sure, a few teams/riders might, but not even close to the majority would. That is crazy talk.
Do the math for me, please, do the math. How much would each black box cost: €50? €500? And how many boxes would we need: 200? 500? 1000? 1,500? The first answer multiplied by the second answer will set the floor on how much such a system would cost. The cost of operating the system - people to collate and analyse the data - goes on top of that. Given the level of math required for them to AI the hell out of the data I doubt they'd be on minimum wage.I'm still not sure I even accept the premise that it would be too expensive.
The video got deleted. I called him out on it because he claimed his Superlight alloy that only he can get under a licence is invisible to UCI's Ultrasonic detectors and that's why the teams go to him to hide the motors. Anyone even remotely interested knows UCI do not use ultrasonic detectors.An engineer on YouTube called Hambini who makes his own bottom brackets and supplies pro teams has said in a video that he gets strange requests from the teams for when fitting the bottom brackets which lead him to believe teams were equipping frames with motors.
I've tried to find the video but it might deep in a 50 minute q and a.
The bike is actually on both wheels after the crash that's why. The front wheel has rotated all the way until bars hit top tube and so the front wheel then simply steers the bike as seen in the video from the inertia of the bike having been crashed at 57kph according to the rider.Well, that's a grapes to watermelon experiment. Inertia is definitely at play in a crash, but shooting sideways across the road like that? Is it possible of course, is it a bit , yes.
do you use a wrist monitor ? I never have any kind of problems with a chest oneThis would never work anyway. I can’t even get my own HR monitor to work half the time I go up a climb, it just starts telling me I’m at 120HR when I’m completely maxed out and was at 140 on the flat. The evidence needed in court would never be enough. Look at Cancellara putting 30 seconds on Boonen in a minute, his HR is going to go up anyway, they will just point to that and say there’s no way to disprove anything.
Testing.
So those of you are convinced that this was a bike with a motor in it. Some questions
What was the plan? The big pay off that would make the gamble worth it?
The rider didn't get in the break, didn't chase the break and just sat in a peloton that got lapped by the break. And it's a small time race anyway. Why put a motor in the bike and do sod all with it?
Yeah, do you have any issue with the chest monitor sliding down or losing place? It’s weird because the wrist monitor is usually accurate but oddly goes haywire almost every time I’m on a sustained climb.do you use a wrist monitor ? I never have any kind of problems with a chest one