Motor doping thread

Page 90 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 17, 2016
56
0
0
Re:

sniper said:
it's no evidence of motordoping.
it's evidence of him changing his wheel for no apparent reason, and also seemingly lying about it or covering it up ("my dirty bike").
motorization is merely one possible explanation.
it would nicely explain (a) the wheel change and (b) his surprise win in one of the most prestigious races of the year, after an injury (iirc), and being up against doped-to-the-gills competitors.
if you have an alternative explanation that covers (a) and (b), I'd be happy to hear it.

Can't you see? It's a picture of a bike! How much more evidence of motor-doping do you need?

Not that any of you mental cretins care but there's a very good reason why the top men wouldn't be riding with a motor in their bike. Apart from the obvious weight costs, 99.999999% certainty of being exposed and much greater benefits of just taking drugs.

Would you risk the thing jamming when you're halfway up the Angliru?

Not going to happen, but the tinfoil crazies on here just have to keep going. Keeps them off the street and away from normal people though. Which is a good thing.
 
Dec 31, 2016
4
0
0
Unfortunately I feel that there will be no big name revelations in the forthcoming doc.

Deals and threat of expensive legal action will have been done in order to protect the guilty.

We had a case a few years ago in the UK where a footballer used his access to the highest court in the land and stopped the press naming him as a relationship cheat. And by access I mean he had the wealth to do it - if you have the money you can buy/threaten silence.

For the same reason all forms of doping exists, there is lots of money to be made for certain groups, we willl never know the wholle truth in this matter.

Sad times.
 
Aug 3, 2016
163
4
2,835
Tienus said:
The video quality is really poor but in the first seconds of this video he is also making movements with fingers from his left hand.
Tough one for me to see from this video quality. Therefor I suspend judgement.
But in general I think we should be very careful to not jump to conclusions from such rather vague pieces of evidence. It's valuable evidence for sure but it should be used together with other information to try to paint the bigger picture. If one strongly focuses on specific details while actively trying to find confirming evidence for a hypothesis or suspicion then the door is wide open for all kinds of human perception biases. Been there, done that.

Unless of course one such specific detail is so blatantly obvious that it really only allows for one possible explanation. But I don't think that these finger movements fall in this category. There are other possibilities like slightly adjusting the grip on the handle bar, quickly relaxing and stretching fingers that are somewhat cramping or inadvertent small spasm-like motions in the fingers that some get when bracing in agony for an extra effort (I do).
If Lance had some sort of switch there from 2000 to 2005 (which is silently implied by your other argument that there is no other good reason to use a downtube shifter) then we should be able to identify some sort of consistent pattern of suspicious finger movements prior to attacks or accelerations. Otherwise it remains weak evidence only. This should not be too hard as his attacks are very well documented on film. I'll probably watch some clips later and focus on his fingers - something I don't normally do.. :lol:



sniper said:
Then he just paces away without any extra effort that I can see.
But it's not exactly an alien jump either, is it? I think in this attack it's key that Heras deliberately lets the gap open quickly and kind of obstructs Beloki for the following couple of seconds. Beloki doesn't have it in him to jump after LA immediately and he's gone. I guess we all know from personal experience that losing the rear-wheel of the rider in front of you does damage that goes way beyond effects of drafting. Beloki then has to pace himself up the climb and the gap grows very slowly but steadily. It really looks completely "natural" to me. If I had to suspect a motor here then, consequentially, I'd had to do so literally in each and every case where one rider drops another one. Or just accelerates a bit.



Tienus said:
It looks like Lance used a downtube shifter from 2000 to 2005 (not in 1999) and then Astana in 2006.
I cant think of a good reason to do so.
That's interesting! How does it compare to context? Was Lance the only rider to use it? Or the whole USPS? What about other riders, teams and bike manufacturers? I'm also a bit surprised that they'd still use downtube shifters but I'm really not that familiar with typical bike setups around 2000. Has this been discussed before or is it your find? I mean if there was really absolutely no good reason to use a downtube shifter as you assume then it should have lead to a few raised eyebrows and questions already since it's so obvious, no? Not necessarily because of motor suspicion but just because it would be odd. But sometimes hiding in plain sight is a good strategy..



sniper said:
there was speculation on twitter that Floyd was at it, too.
I think the speculation emerged from the simple need to explain why Floyd never spilled beans about Lance's use of motors.
I guess the simpler explanation would be that neither of the two used a motor.. ;)
If solid evidence of Lance's motor use will be presented I'd be truly amazed indeed! Not because I think they wouldn't have been capable or willing to do it. But because it hasn't really surfaced already. Lance seems to not have been secretive about doping at all and relied heavily on omertà and his abuse of power and connections (i.e. corruption) to keep it under the rug. And being very confident doing so. But many knew. So if there was a motor, some must have known, too. Omertà worked until he went down. People confessed "everything" under oath in a federal investigation. A lot of people that were mightily p*ssed of by the bullying Lance took a run at him to throw him under the bus. But nobody even hinted at the motor? Floyd, Tyler and the others going a long way to take revenge (and to some extend genuinely trying to come clean as it appeared to me) but somehow they all conspire again to take the motor-thing to their graves?

I know you're disappointed, sniper, if this documentary would "only" confirm Lance's motor. But I think this would be quite remarkable on its own. Because it would either be a second conspiracy wave that was strong enough to survive this huge mess of federal investigations and all those personal conflicts. Or it would be an extreme inside job that almost nobody knew about. If we can believe Varjas then Ferrari only familiarized himself with motors like 3 years ago. So somebody else would have been the motoman. Both options would be somewhat interesting. And they would lead to follow up stories about more recent riders anyway, because (as it is with traditional doping doctors) the influential people in these shady businesses don't tend to change frequently. So if a supplier or middle-man from the Armstrong era is uncovered, some journalist or investigator will pick it up from there and sooner or later find trails and links to other riders (if this technological fraud is indeed happening in the peloton).

So I for my part would happily welcome any revelation. As long as it's tangible evidence and not just another one of those very vague stories that mainly state what "could be" or what "would be possible". We all know that by now. It's meaningless. Almost 50 years ago people flew to the moon. Anybody who needed to see a working prototype by Varjas first to acknowledge that someone with the means and the commitment would be able to put a few extra-watts into a bicylce clearly lacks imagination (to put it politely). And we also don't need to discuss Femke's example again and again to prove that there are people in sports who would use such a system to gain an advantage. We knew beforehand. It's really black and white with these motors - somebody uses it or not. The rest is irrelevant. All those documentaries so far were utter nonsense. The idea with the thermal camera was nice but what they made out of that was an insult of the spectator's intellect (at least mine).

Does anyone know whether this whole "motor-doping" thing has already been discussed in a broader public in the United States? Or has this been an European thing so far predominantly? In the latter case I could very well imagine that this upcoming documentary is just the US-version of the standard Varjas-BS-story. here a potential outline: introduction; a bit of Femke; a visit at Varjas in Budapest; demo of the products he sells (!); amazement and jaw-dropping everywhere; a bunch of anectotal evidence for its use in the peloton; switch to Armstrong; some crackpot showing his physiological calculations to prove missing watts although the error bars that he should have stuck to his numbers are already worth 4 motors; Betsy not ruling out motors; dramatic ending by leaving the question open "did armstrong really say the whole truth?"
 
Aug 3, 2016
163
4
2,835
Re:

Mnz123 said:
Unfortunately I feel that there will be no big name revelations in the forthcoming doc.
Deals and threat of expensive legal action will have been done in order to protect the guilty.
Can you provide more information or a source on this claim? Or is it just the usual generic blah to express frustration over "the system, politicians" and whatnot?

Offtopic:
Mnz123 said:
We had a case a few years ago in the UK where a footballer used his access to the highest court in the land and stopped the press naming him as a relationship cheat.
(...)
Sad times.
A footballer trying to deny the press from doing public shaming on a private matter. If that's the most compelling case of corruption that apparently you can name then you really live in good times, not sad times ...
 
Dec 31, 2016
4
0
0
Unfortunately I. can't provide any sources Tom, it's just my opinion based on years of cover ups/suppressing information (Lance's donations to UCI, Wiggins TUE).

My example of the footballer gagging the press was more to illustrate that if you have the means ie money, then you can buy or threaten silence - if the press were going to publish a story about me which I don't want them to, personal or in the public interest, I don't have the access to the type (expensive lawyers) of people that could arrange it for me. When you are a pro athlete earning millions of a large sponsor then you do have access.

By their very nature these deals are done behind closed doors so I guess I just need to have my opinion and you have yours - surely we still have free speech on forums... ;)
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
But in general I think we should be very careful to not jump to conclusions from such rather vague pieces of evidence. It's valuable evidence for sure but it should be used together with other information to try to paint the bigger picture. If one strongly focuses on specific details while actively trying to find confirming evidence for a hypothesis or suspicion then the door is wide open for all kinds of human perception biases. Been there, done that.
I fully agree.

If Lance had some sort of switch there from 2000 to 2005 (which is silently implied by your other argument that there is no other good reason to use a downtube shifter)
I'm open to other reasons/opinions.
Weight could be a reason. Some info about this:
http://felixwong.com/2010/11/tour-de-france-bicycles-historical-bike-weights/
http://www.velonews.com/2005/07/bikes-and-tech/tour-tech-talk-about-those-levers_8485

However there was allready the max 6.8 kg limit in place. Wheelsets below 900 grams where allready in use in the ninetees and I'm sur the bikes could have easily be tuned down to the limit.
http://www.ada.prorider.org/whatsnew.html

That's interesting! How does it compare to context? Was Lance the only rider to use it? Or the whole USPS? What about other riders, teams and bike manufacturers? I'm also a bit surprised that they'd still use downtube shifters but I'm really not that familiar with typical bike setups around 2000. Has this been discussed before or is it your find? I mean if there was really absolutely no good reason to use a downtube shifter as you assume then it should have lead to a few raised eyebrows and questions already since it's so obvious, no? Not necessarily because of motor suspicion but just because it would be odd. But sometimes hiding in plain sight is a good strategy.
I have posted links today to discussions in fora about the use of downtube shifters or old brake levers from that time. Linking it to possible motor use would be my find and I first thought of this yesterday. Again there might have been another reason why they used them. Pantani had the same setup in 1998 and since there was no weight restriction that explanation sounds more plausible to me.
http://www.oldbici.it/2015/10/bianchi-reparto-corse-mercatone-uno-tour-de-france-1998-pantani/
Even the Gewiss Balan squad in the famous 1994 LBL where using double downtube shifters while the team bike normally had STI.

Some of your questions I cant answer because I havent spent much time looking into this.
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
An explanation about the battery tech: if you want to drive a 200 Watt motor from a 7.4V battery it needs to supply more than 20 amps. For the regular cobalt oxide cathodes, the internal impedance prevents you from doing that. So new cathode materials were needed. The spinel materials used could provide the need amps (power density) but they weighed more, had lower capacity and were initially more expensive. However, they were light years ahead of NiMH technology. They were also the first steps at creating batteries for electric cars.

Even with spinel materials, generating 200 Watts is difficult. You'd need to run more batteries in series to boost the voltage. But... the charging circuitry has to monitor each of the series cells. This is more complicated and expensive. Now 50 to 60 Watts. No problem, The spinel cells can easily provide the 6 amps needed in a two cell configuration.

The only thing that's really changed in the last ten years is that everything has gotten dirt cheap. In 2000 a two cell pack would cost more than $100. Today, you can find a similar pack for $6 (TVC Mall)

John Swanson
Interesting.
Does that mean a bike with an enormous 15s power output like Varjas claimed is actually high-tech?
 
It would appear that only a few know history about doping in cycling,from the 30's and 40's on and little mention when Eddy got popped. Doping has been part of bike racing since bike racing. The police and criminal ramifications have always been part of it also.Lance raising the stakes was the game changer. Everything he did for cycling is now cancelled..the mechanical doping and Sky accusations are adding bags of sand to the sinking ship. Remove cycling from the Olympics..go with a football, basketball, NFL style governance and stop letting the splintered riders be represented by federations and get a couple of divisions of a professional cycling union.. they better hurry up.
 
Re:

Mnz123 said:
Unfortunately I. can't provide any sources Tom, it's just my opinion based on years of cover ups/suppressing information (Lance's donations to UCI, Wiggins TUE).

My example of the footballer gagging the press was more to illustrate that if you have the means ie money, then you can buy or threaten silence - if the press were going to publish a story about me which I don't want them to, personal or in the public interest, I don't have the access to the type (expensive lawyers) of people that could arrange it for me. When you are a pro athlete earning millions of a large sponsor then you do have access.

By their very nature these deals are done behind closed doors so I guess I just need to have my opinion and you have yours - surely we still have free speech on forums... ;)
Except , in the instance you quote the press fought the footballer in a court of law, won, published and then had to print an apology to the woman allegedly involved in the matter.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

Tienus said:
ScienceIsCool said:
An explanation about the battery tech: if you want to drive a 200 Watt motor from a 7.4V battery it needs to supply more than 20 amps. For the regular cobalt oxide cathodes, the internal impedance prevents you from doing that. So new cathode materials were needed. The spinel materials used could provide the need amps (power density) but they weighed more, had lower capacity and were initially more expensive. However, they were light years ahead of NiMH technology. They were also the first steps at creating batteries for electric cars.

Even with spinel materials, generating 200 Watts is difficult. You'd need to run more batteries in series to boost the voltage. But... the charging circuitry has to monitor each of the series cells. This is more complicated and expensive. Now 50 to 60 Watts. No problem, The spinel cells can easily provide the 6 amps needed in a two cell configuration.

The only thing that's really changed in the last ten years is that everything has gotten dirt cheap. In 2000 a two cell pack would cost more than $100. Today, you can find a similar pack for $6 (TVC Mall)

John Swanson
Interesting.
Does that mean a bike with an enormous 15s power output like Varjas claimed is actually high-tech?
Not so much high tech as expensive. The engineering is well solved but it is more complicated. And I expect it would be tougher to embed it in a bike. Why bother when 60 Watts is already a huge advantage.

John Swanson
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Re:

Unchained said:
It would appear that only a few know history about doping in cycling,from the 30's and 40's on and little mention when Eddy got popped. Doping has been part of bike racing since bike racing. The police and criminal ramifications have always been part of it also.Lance raising the stakes was the game changer. Everything he did for cycling is now cancelled..the mechanical doping and Sky accusations are adding bags of sand to the sinking ship. Remove cycling from the Olympics..go with a football, basketball, NFL style governance and stop letting the splintered riders be represented by federations and get a couple of divisions of a professional cycling union.. they better hurry up.
Seriously you want cycling to move to a different structure and use three of the most corrupt sporting bodies around. Not sure are you being sarcastic but if you want to ensure cheating, bribery and corruption continue long term then work away.
 
Oct 21, 2015
341
0
0
Re:

sniper said:
convinced that it is related to motor use.

and that bit you just quoted is another good find that fits in nicely.

there was speculation on twitter that Floyd was at it, too.
I think the speculation emerged from the simple need to explain why Floyd never spilled beans about Lance's use of motors.
Iirc, Landis did in fact have a few unexplained bike switches in 2006 TdF.

Landis, Contador, and Cance pre-2010 might all be interesting to revisit.
And what about Rasmussen suddenly finding his TT skills in 2007.
Sastre 2008 has been mentioned as possibly suspect, too, either here or on twitter.
Floyd says you can all eat out his ***.

The only bike changes he remembers in TdF 2006 are stage 17 when he had a flat and the first ITT when his handlebar broke off.

You guys have really gone into full crazy conspiracy mode, and all because of a couple of sociopathic axe grinders [Looking at you Betsy and Greg] claiming martyrdom from Lance supposedly spreading rumors about them even as they did the same to Lance. The difference is that Betsy and her cabal [Looking at you Mike C. Callahan] continue to the present day.
 
Oct 21, 2015
341
0
0
Re:

Tienus said:
But in general I think we should be very careful to not jump to conclusions from such rather vague pieces of evidence. It's valuable evidence for sure but it should be used together with other information to try to paint the bigger picture. If one strongly focuses on specific details while actively trying to find confirming evidence for a hypothesis or suspicion then the door is wide open for all kinds of human perception biases. Been there, done that.
I fully agree.

If Lance had some sort of switch there from 2000 to 2005 (which is silently implied by your other argument that there is no other good reason to use a downtube shifter)
I'm open to other reasons/opinions.
Weight could be a reason. Some info about this:
http://felixwong.com/2010/11/tour-de-france-bicycles-historical-bike-weights/
http://www.velonews.com/2005/07/bikes-and-tech/tour-tech-talk-about-those-levers_8485

However there was allready the max 6.8 kg limit in place. Wheelsets below 900 grams where allready in use in the ninetees and I'm sur the bikes could have easily be tuned down to the limit.
http://www.ada.prorider.org/whatsnew.html

That's interesting! How does it compare to context? Was Lance the only rider to use it? Or the whole USPS? What about other riders, teams and bike manufacturers? I'm also a bit surprised that they'd still use downtube shifters but I'm really not that familiar with typical bike setups around 2000. Has this been discussed before or is it your find? I mean if there was really absolutely no good reason to use a downtube shifter as you assume then it should have lead to a few raised eyebrows and questions already since it's so obvious, no? Not necessarily because of motor suspicion but just because it would be odd. But sometimes hiding in plain sight is a good strategy.
I have posted links today to discussions in fora about the use of downtube shifters or old brake levers from that time. Linking it to possible motor use would be my find and I first thought of this yesterday. Again there might have been another reason why they used them. Pantani had the same setup in 1998 and since there was no weight restriction that explanation sounds more plausible to me.
http://www.oldbici.it/2015/10/bianchi-reparto-corse-mercatone-uno-tour-de-france-1998-pantani/
Even the Gewiss Balan squad in the famous 1994 LBL where using double downtube shifters while the team bike normally had STI.

Some of your questions I cant answer because I havent spent much time looking into this.
Andy Hampstem was the first to use a normal brake lever in place of his Dura Ace STI lever. That would have been in 1990. It was done for weight because the initial brifters were very heavy compared to normal levers. It was also thought that there was less of a chance of dropping the chain.

There was no weight limit in 1999. It started in 2000.
 
Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
An explanation about the battery tech: if you want to drive a 200 Watt motor from a 7.4V battery it needs to supply more than 20 amps. For the regular cobalt oxide cathodes, the internal impedance prevents you from doing that. So new cathode materials were needed. The spinel materials used could provide the need amps (power density) but they weighed more, had lower capacity and were initially more expensive. However, they were light years ahead of NiMH technology. They were also the first steps at creating batteries for electric cars.

Even with spinel materials, generating 200 Watts is difficult. You'd need to run more batteries in series to boost the voltage. But... the charging circuitry has to monitor each of the series cells. This is more complicated and expensive. Now 50 to 60 Watts. No problem, The spinel cells can easily provide the 6 amps needed in a two cell configuration.

The only thing that's really changed in the last ten years is that everything has gotten dirt cheap. In 2000 a two cell pack would cost more than $100. Today, you can find a similar pack for $6 (TVC Mall)

John Swanson
Yeh I completely agree a smaller motor running for longer would be better than the alternative, but if we're going by Cancellara and Froome, they seemed to have a very significant boost in power. I think the real issue is battery volume and making sure you get enough for a decent capacity (the bidon theory works here).
 
Re: Re:

DamianoMachiavelli said:
sniper said:
convinced that it is related to motor use.

and that bit you just quoted is another good find that fits in nicely.

there was speculation on twitter that Floyd was at it, too.
I think the speculation emerged from the simple need to explain why Floyd never spilled beans about Lance's use of motors.
Iirc, Landis did in fact have a few unexplained bike switches in 2006 TdF.

Landis, Contador, and Cance pre-2010 might all be interesting to revisit.
And what about Rasmussen suddenly finding his TT skills in 2007.
Sastre 2008 has been mentioned as possibly suspect, too, either here or on twitter.
Floyd says you can all eat his ***.

The only bike changes he remembers in TdF 2006 are stage 17 when he had a flat and the first ITT when his handlebar broke off.

You guys have really gone into full crazy conspiracy mode, and all because of a couple of sociopathic axe grinderse [Looking at you Betsy and Greg] claiming martyrdom from Lance supposedly spreading rumors about them even as they did the same to Lance. The difference is that Betsy and her cabal [Looking at you Mike C. Callahan] continue to the present day.

Have to agree, Landis's hip was so bad a motor would have been counterproductive. Fully agree on Betsy et al. They are seriously hard up; the whole Lance motor thing just keeps the flame burning for them, which is beyond sad.
 
Re:

Tienus said:
I have posted links today to discussions in fora about the use of downtube shifters or old brake levers from that time. Linking it to possible motor use would be my find and I first thought of this yesterday. Again there might have been another reason why they used them. Pantani had the same setup in 1998 and since there was no weight restriction that explanation sounds more plausible to me.
http://www.oldbici.it/2015/10/bianchi-reparto-corse-mercatone-uno-tour-de-france-1998-pantani/
Even the Gewiss Balan squad in the famous 1994 LBL where using double downtube shifters while the team bike normally had STI.

Some of your questions I cant answer because I havent spent much time looking into this.
if I remember well, the only one with downtube shifters was Furlan. Argentin and Berzin used the ergopower shifters by Campagnolo (not STI)
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
DamianoMachiavelli said:
sniper said:
convinced that it is related to motor use.

and that bit you just quoted is another good find that fits in nicely.

there was speculation on twitter that Floyd was at it, too.
I think the speculation emerged from the simple need to explain why Floyd never spilled beans about Lance's use of motors.
Iirc, Landis did in fact have a few unexplained bike switches in 2006 TdF.

Landis, Contador, and Cance pre-2010 might all be interesting to revisit.
And what about Rasmussen suddenly finding his TT skills in 2007.
Sastre 2008 has been mentioned as possibly suspect, too, either here or on twitter.
Floyd says you can all eat his ***.

The only bike changes he remembers in TdF 2006 are stage 17 when he had a flat and the first ITT when his handlebar broke off.

You guys have really gone into full crazy conspiracy mode, and all because of a couple of sociopathic axe grinderse [Looking at you Betsy and Greg] claiming martyrdom from Lance supposedly spreading rumors about them even as they did the same to Lance. The difference is that Betsy and her cabal [Looking at you Mike C. Callahan] continue to the present day.

Have to agree, Landis's hip was so bad a motor would have been counterproductive. Fully agree on Betsy et al. They are seriously hard up; the whole Lance motor thing just keeps the flame burning for them, which is beyond sad.
Agreed it's pathetic.
She even appears as some kind of selfappointed antidoping specialist in a docu about blood doping at the 1984 La games, and even manages to trace that scandal back to Lance somehow.

I never thought Landis used a motor, don't get me wrong, but in current light it's difficult to exclude the possibility and so some speculation seems fair. Par for the course for procycling really.
Thanks for the feedback, Damiano. To be sure, Floyd is the man. End of.
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
Andy Hampstem was the first to use a normal brake lever in place of his Dura Ace STI lever. That would have been in 1990. It was done for weight because the initial brifters were very heavy compared to normal levers. It was also thought that there was less of a chance of dropping the chain.
Hampsten and Pantani pre 2000 using one downtube shifter makes perfect sense, saving up to 100grams.
I also read about the chain dropping or chain rubbing but this does not make much sense.

Armstrongs team was giving weight as the reason for using a downtube shifter. Even though his bike could easily weigh 6.8 with normal STI shifters.
http://www.velonews.com/2003/07/news/tour-tech-what-was-lance-riding_4647
This 145 grams of weight savings over current 5900 will allow Armstrong to run the full 2004 Dura-Ace STI shifting system and “sensible componentry and wheels” and still bring the overall weight of his ride right down to the UCI limit.
Why did he continue to use a downtube shifter until 2005?
If it was for weight than I think he was cheating. Riding an underweight bike or carrying something heavy in his bike.


http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/2006/features/singenberger1.html
We were far below the UCI limit, so we had to add weight to it. Our light bike is 6.2, 6.3 kilos.
(Floyds 2005 bike)

Basso winning the Giro and three stages while experimenting with a bike he never used before.
https://roadcyclinguk.com/news/racing-news/bassos-cervelos.html
Ivan rode the R3 in a couple of stages largely as an experiment. He had never ridden an R3 but had heard Cancellara and Kroon talk about it, so he wanted to try one out himself. It’s not a very useful bike for him as it falls below the UCI weight limit so he needs to add weights.
Cancellara's breakthrough was in 2006. It was also the first year he won Roubaix.


Ullrich's 2001 bike should also have been underweight if you look at the specs.
http://www.velonews.com/2001/07/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/tech-talk-ullrichs-superlight-ride-updated-text_1272
the aluminum main tubes have thinner walls, and the down tube is smaller diameter. As his climbing style is to stay seated, the lost torsional rigidity is a non-issue for him.
From my own experience with old alloy frames the stifness was a big issue in the descent not the climb. Maybe with more powerfull riders that is different.
Ullrich’s bottom bracket is a special superlight job with black cups and lightweight bolts holding on his Campy 177.5mm cranks, but I can’t tell the brand, and Telekom personnel would only say that it has a lighter titanium spindle than normal.
Interesting if you think of a Vivax style motor.
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
if I remember well, the only one with downtube shifters was Furlan. Argentin and Berzin used the ergopower shifters by Campagnolo (not STI)
That makes sense, ergopower was only just introduced at that time.

Would you risk the thing jamming when you're halfway up the Angliru?
Do you think thats why Andy lost the yellow to Alberto?
Or is that perhaps what happened to Lance when he allmost crashed a second time trying to catch up with Ullrich?
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
Di Luca also altering the inside of his brake/shift levers in 2007. Most likely for weight reduction.
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=29900
some comments:
DiLuca uses Record shifters with the Centaur bits in it. It makes for a lighter shifter and I guess a few climbers have it set up this way including Simoni. They were both riders testing QS in its proto stages and took advantage of the weight savings by going with the Centaur thumb shifter. Just a climber thing I guess.

Are those Cannondales so heavy (even in his kids size) then that he has to claw weight out of his shifters (removing some functionality) so make the bike as close to 6.8 as possible?

I cant believe they are that heavy, and his framesize isnt that big either, should be a light bike even without the mods.

The thread discussions continues on Paolini's bike
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/2007/probikes/?id=liquigas_cannondale_luca_paolini
There is tons of room to tune that machine sub 15. Mine sits 14.08 with my Zipp 303's and even with my everyday wheels (DT Swiss 1450's) I still sit at 14.8. :twisted:

Paolini's bike is quoted as weighing 7kg in the article. I dont know how they get that figure but it should definitely be sub 6 kg. If it was my bike I would therefore choose a comfy sadle. But this is what Paolini used:
http://www.gearreview.com/fizik_arione_k1.php
the K:1 isn't for everyone. However, if you lust after carbon, and shy away from long rides--or if you just have a rear-end of titanium--the K:1 delivers. Oh, and it is very beautiful indeed.
tbh I used even a lighter sadle which I really enjoyed. It was so thin that it was fexible. Downside was that it snapped after a couple of months of use.
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
Most teams ad weight to the rear chainstay via the bottom bracket.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pro-bike-peter-sagans-cannondale-supersix-evo/

Team liaison Rory Mason was quick to point out the custom solid steel spindle used on Sagan’s bike to bring it up to the UCI’s minimum weight of 6.8kg

A custom spindle is a bit suspiscious as it would be part of the drivetrain of a bracket motor.

“Last year we added the weight inside the seat tube,” Mason said. “But some riders – Ivan Basso, in particular – felt that the bike’s handling was affected by having the extra weight that high in the bike, so we moved it down.”

The seat tube is also a bit suspiscious if you ask me.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY