Motor doping thread

[sniper]

Re: Re:

yes but as discussed, for hesjedal to have doped wheels, we're not dependent on motors.

The magnetic type you mean? In the rim?

that's one theoretical possibility, yes.
according to at least one person close to the peloton, Greg Lemond, it's already been used by pros.

I call BS on Greg for that one. And if he really believes that then show us a working example. Highly theoretical and highly unlikely.

what do you make of hesjedal? his rear wheel drags over the ground for at least two seconds, then the bike starts spinning again to his own surprise.
explain that to me from a physics point of view.
and we have the gazzetta informant.
so two independent sources saying it exists, and one practical example on video.
i wouldn't discard this just yet.

 

[jyl]

The Gazetta article contains some obvious laughers. No one would use a chisel to cut open a carbon fiber frame. Go on, try it and count the fragments of splintered carbon fiber. You'd use a fine saw, possibly a cutting disc on a Dremel type tool.

 

[jyl]

Re: Re:

yes but as discussed, for hesjedal to have doped wheels, we're not dependent on motors.

The magnetic type you mean? In the rim?

that's one theoretical possibility, yes.
according to at least one person close to the peloton, Greg Lemond, it's already been used by pros.

I call BS on Greg for that one. And if he really believes that then show us a working example. Highly theoretical and highly unlikely.

what do you make of hesjedal? his rear wheel drags over the ground for at least two seconds, then the bike starts spinning again to his own surprise.
explain that to me from a physics point of view.
and we have the gazzetta informant.
so two independent sources saying it exists, and one practical example on video.
i wouldn't discard this just yet.

One plausible explanation is that one of Hesjesdahl's feet kicked the saddle as he was sliding and scrambling to get up. That would easily cause the bike to rotate as it did. Can't prove it, since feet and saddle are all out of sight (his body is in the way). But it is at least a plausible as a motor in the hub or rim, of a design that no-one has shown to be practical, that somehow switched itself on, not when the bike hits the ground but after a second's delay.

 

[sniper]

Re:

The Gazetta article contains some obvious laughers. No one would use a chisel to cut open a carbon fiber frame. Go on, try it and count the fragments of splintered carbon fiber. You'd use a fine saw, possibly a cutting disc on a Dremel type tool.

this is probably a fair point.
some "howevers":
1. where he talks about the chisel, he's not quoting the guru, so this could be a case of the journo trying (and failing) to fill in some gaps in the story
2. he says "tools, such as a chisel...", so he's not necessarily saying you're going to do it only with a chisel.
3. he talks about the chisel in relation to the motor. If this is varjas "silent pro" system we're talking about then the motor is going to go into the tube. You don't need to 'open' the frame for that other than taking off the saddle. Seems the journo got some things mixed up here.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
One plausible explanation is that one of Hesjesdahl's feet kicked the saddle as he was sliding and scrambling to get up. That would easily cause the bike to rotate as it did. Can't prove it, since feet and saddle are all out of sight (his body is in the way).

No, that's not a plausible explanation.
Look at the footage.
We see enough. He's not kicking his saddle, and even if he were, it could not explain the subsequent trajectory and accelleration of the bike.

But it is at least a plausible as a motor in the hub or rim, of a design that no-one has shown to be practical, that somehow switched itself on, not when the bike hits the ground but after a second's delay.

the electromagnetic system doesn't have to "somehow switch itself on".
and what "second's of delay" are you talking about? it starts spinning as soon as he unclips.

 

[Hawkwood]

Re: Re:

The Gazetta article contains some obvious laughers. No one would use a chisel to cut open a carbon fiber frame. Go on, try it and count the fragments of splintered carbon fiber. You'd use a fine saw, possibly a cutting disc on a Dremel type tool.

this is probably a fair point.
some "howevers":
1. where he talks about the chisel, he's not quoting the guru, so this could be a case of the journo trying (and failing) to fill in some gaps in the story
2. he says "tools, such as a chisel...", so he's not necessarily saying you're going to do it only with a chisel.
3. he talks about the chisel in relation to the motor. If this is varjas "silent pro" system we're talking about then the motor is going to go into the tube. You don't need to 'open' the frame for that other than taking off the saddle. Seems the journo got some things mixed up here.

The journalist has rehashed material from previous articles as I've mentioned before, for example the 20,000 euro high-end bike has now become a 200,000 one. The bit about the chisel is clearly a complete mix-up and suggests the journalist doesn't have a clue what he's writing about. The picture of the rim drive motorised rear wheel has been criticised on other forums for not showing any type of viable drive system.

 

[Hawkwood]

Re: Re:

The MIT motor is what is called a "pancake" motor because it's shaped like a disc. They've been around forever and I'm guessing what the MIT team was doing is finding ways to get sufficient torque out of it. Much, much more likely is that a hub motor is being used. My guess would be potted windings on the axle and the hub shell, run at very high voltage from a battery powered controller tucked into the frame. The only trick would be making sure you get a decent electrical connection from the dropout to the hub. It wouldn't be geared, so the setup would be low speed/high torque rather than something like the Vivax which can run at high rpm. That kind of motor is much easier to make. And I have no clue if you could build this hub motor to actually look like a "normal" hub.

John Swanson

I think the way to approach this would be to embed electrical contacts in each dropout, with the locknuts and axle completing the circuit, put the coil (windings) on the axle, with ferrous inserts or magnets in the hub shell. You'd need to electrically insulate the rest of the drivetrain. Problem is, the hub on a pro road bike is skinny, and the axle has to be hollow and mechanically strong enough for a rider bombing down a mountain at 60 mph. That leaves very little room for a motor to produce enough power to make the whole thing worthwhile. If we start seeing pro bikes with bizarrely large diameter rear hubs, then someone should go put a magnetometer next to the hub shell - or toss a paperclip at it.

Here's a typical pro bike rear hub (a Zipp):

Yep, and while some may say it's getting hung up on the 'how' the fact is you have to fit any motor into the one you posted or the one below which was what Hesjedal was using. I think it's pretty safe to assume that motor technology until now has been based on the seat post motor and drive method rather than rear hubs.

Edit: Here is a cross section of the Zipp hub.

A seach of images of Cancellara's bikes shows that apart from when he's using a disk, virtually every picture shows a skinny looking rear hub. In one image it's possible he was using a powertap hub, but it might just be the camera angle. Some posters are saying that inserting a hub motor into a disk would be easier as there's more space to hide one. The maximum width of a Zipp rear disk is 27.5 mm, so allowing for the thickness of the carbon there's not much room to put anything in. And many disks aren't hollow they've got foam or other material in them.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

...
One plausible explanation is that one of Hesjesdahl's feet kicked the saddle as he was sliding and scrambling to get up. That would easily cause the bike to rotate as it did. Can't prove it, since feet and saddle are all out of sight (his body is in the way).

No, that's not a plausible explanation.
Look at the footage.
We see enough. He's not kicking his saddle, and even if he were, it could not explain the subsequent trajectory and accelleration of the bike.

But it is at least a plausible as a motor in the hub or rim, of a design that no-one has shown to be practical, that somehow switched itself on, not when the bike hits the ground but after a second's delay.

the electromagnetic system doesn't have to "somehow switch itself on".
and what "second's of delay" are you talking about? it starts spinning as soon as he unclips.

First bold: Funny, you have all but stated yourself that you lack even the most basic knowledge of physics higher up in this thread

Second bold: What am I missing? You state on the one hand that it is a hub- or rim-motor that works independently from the crank but the wheel start spinning when he unclips. Why is the latter even of importance if the motor is not in the downtube driving the crank? Please explain, because I am lost (that or your arguments are al over the place).

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

The Gazetta article contains some obvious laughers. No one would use a chisel to cut open a carbon fiber frame. Go on, try it and count the fragments of splintered carbon fiber. You'd use a fine saw, possibly a cutting disc on a Dremel type tool.

this is probably a fair point.
some "howevers":
1. where he talks about the chisel, he's not quoting the guru, so this could be a case of the journo trying (and failing) to fill in some gaps in the story
2. he says "tools, such as a chisel...", so he's not necessarily saying you're going to do it only with a chisel.
3. he talks about the chisel in relation to the motor. If this is varjas "silent pro" system we're talking about then the motor is going to go into the tube. You don't need to 'open' the frame for that other than taking off the saddle. Seems the journo got some things mixed up here.

The journalist has rehashed material from previous articles as I've mentioned before, for example the 20,000 euro high-end bike has now become a 200,000 one. The bit about the chisel is clearly a complete mix-up and suggests the journalist doesn't have a clue what he's writing about. The picture of the rim drive motorised rear wheel has been criticised on other forums for not showing any type of viable drive system.

This exactly. And it is not uncommon when journalists write about things (i.e. physics) they know nothing about. Sad but true.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...
One plausible explanation is that one of Hesjesdahl's feet kicked the saddle as he was sliding and scrambling to get up. That would easily cause the bike to rotate as it did. Can't prove it, since feet and saddle are all out of sight (his body is in the way).

No, that's not a plausible explanation.
Look at the footage.
We see enough. He's not kicking his saddle, and even if he were, it could not explain the subsequent trajectory and accelleration of the bike.

But it is at least a plausible as a motor in the hub or rim, of a design that no-one has shown to be practical, that somehow switched itself on, not when the bike hits the ground but after a second's delay.

the electromagnetic system doesn't have to "somehow switch itself on".
and what "second's of delay" are you talking about? it starts spinning as soon as he unclips.

First bold: Funny, you have all but stated yourself that you lack even the most basic knowledge of physics higher up in this thread

Second bold: What am I missing? You state on the one hand that it is a hub- or rim-motor that works independently from the crank but the wheel start spinning when he unclips. Why is the latter even of importance if the motor is not in the downtube driving the crank? Please explain, because I am lost (that or your arguments are al over the place).

I'm a physicist. Ryder's bike movement is not explainable without an external energy source making it spin. Motor, aliens, solar flare. Doesn't matter.

John Swanson

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

...
One plausible explanation is that one of Hesjesdahl's feet kicked the saddle as he was sliding and scrambling to get up. That would easily cause the bike to rotate as it did. Can't prove it, since feet and saddle are all out of sight (his body is in the way).

No, that's not a plausible explanation.
Look at the footage.
We see enough. He's not kicking his saddle, and even if he were, it could not explain the subsequent trajectory and accelleration of the bike.

But it is at least a plausible as a motor in the hub or rim, of a design that no-one has shown to be practical, that somehow switched itself on, not when the bike hits the ground but after a second's delay.

the electromagnetic system doesn't have to "somehow switch itself on".
and what "second's of delay" are you talking about? it starts spinning as soon as he unclips.

First bold: Funny, you have all but stated yourself that you lack even the most basic knowledge of physics higher up in this thread

Second bold: What am I missing? You state on the one hand that it is a hub- or rim-motor that works independently from the crank but the wheel start spinning when he unclips. Why is the latter even of importance if the motor is not in the downtube driving the crank? Please explain, because I am lost (that or your arguments are al over the place).

I'm a physicist. Ryder's bike movement is not explainable without an external energy source making it spin. Motor, aliens, solar flare. Doesn't matter.

John Swanson

gravitational waves - is there anything this new discovery can't help explain?

 

[jyl]

Re: Re:

...
One plausible explanation is that one of Hesjesdahl's feet kicked the saddle as he was sliding and scrambling to get up. That would easily cause the bike to rotate as it did. Can't prove it, since feet and saddle are all out of sight (his body is in the way).

No, that's not a plausible explanation.
Look at the footage.
We see enough. He's not kicking his saddle, and even if he were, it could not explain the subsequent trajectory and accelleration of the bike.

But it is at least a plausible as a motor in the hub or rim, of a design that no-one has shown to be practical, that somehow switched itself on, not when the bike hits the ground but after a second's delay.

the electromagnetic system doesn't have to "somehow switch itself on".
and what "second's of delay" are you talking about? it starts spinning as soon as he unclips.

Since his feet are both obscured from view by his body during the critical period, we cannot say exactly what happened.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

...
One plausible explanation is that one of Hesjesdahl's feet kicked the saddle as he was sliding and scrambling to get up. That would easily cause the bike to rotate as it did. Can't prove it, since feet and saddle are all out of sight (his body is in the way).

No, that's not a plausible explanation.
Look at the footage.
We see enough. He's not kicking his saddle, and even if he were, it could not explain the subsequent trajectory and accelleration of the bike.

But it is at least a plausible as a motor in the hub or rim, of a design that no-one has shown to be practical, that somehow switched itself on, not when the bike hits the ground but after a second's delay.

the electromagnetic system doesn't have to "somehow switch itself on".
and what "second's of delay" are you talking about? it starts spinning as soon as he unclips.

First bold: Funny, you have all but stated yourself that you lack even the most basic knowledge of physics higher up in this thread

Second bold: What am I missing? You state on the one hand that it is a hub- or rim-motor that works independently from the crank but the wheel start spinning when he unclips. Why is the latter even of importance if the motor is not in the downtube driving the crank? Please explain, because I am lost (that or your arguments are al over the place).

I'm a physicist. Ryder's bike movement is not explainable without an external energy source making it spin. Motor, aliens, solar flare. Doesn't matter.

John Swanson

How about Ryder being the external energy source? See jyl's post.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The Gazetta article contains some obvious laughers. No one would use a chisel to cut open a carbon fiber frame. Go on, try it and count the fragments of splintered carbon fiber. You'd use a fine saw, possibly a cutting disc on a Dremel type tool.

this is probably a fair point.
some "howevers":
1. where he talks about the chisel, he's not quoting the guru, so this could be a case of the journo trying (and failing) to fill in some gaps in the story
2. he says "tools, such as a chisel...", so he's not necessarily saying you're going to do it only with a chisel.
3. he talks about the chisel in relation to the motor. If this is varjas "silent pro" system we're talking about then the motor is going to go into the tube. You don't need to 'open' the frame for that other than taking off the saddle. Seems the journo got some things mixed up here.

The journalist has rehashed material from previous articles as I've mentioned before, for example the 20,000 euro high-end bike has now become a 200,000 one. The bit about the chisel is clearly a complete mix-up and suggests the journalist doesn't have a clue what he's writing about. The picture of the rim drive motorised rear wheel has been criticised on other forums for not showing any type of viable drive system.

good post.
i guess there's a chance that the guru isn't italian, and things got lost in translation.
or the guru gave the journo only limited pieces of info, and the journo decided to fill in the holes.
or the story might be a fabrication from a to z.
agreed about the picture.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Second bold: What am I missing?

not little.

You state on the one hand that it is a hub- or rim-motor that works independently from the crank but the wheel start spinning when he unclips. Why is the latter even of importance if the motor is not in the downtube driving the crank? Please explain, because I am lost (that or your arguments are al over the place).

it = the bike

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
This exactly. And it is not uncommon when journalists write about things (i.e. physics) they know nothing about. Sad but true.

here's a precious example of a journo with the physical knowledge of a parakeet.
From the dutch journal Algemeen Dagblad:
http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1018/Wielrennen/article/detail/4238958/2016/02/05/Nauwelijks-bewijs-voor-mechanische-doping.dhtml

IT looks as if Hesjedals bike is driven while he's lying next to it. But however weird it may look: it's the result of a physical law. The rear wheel is simply spinning before the crash and continues to spin after the crash. When the wheel touches the ground, the bike starts moving again.

Riiight. Let's collectively pretend the rear wheel is not dragging over the ground for 2 or 3 seconds at least. After all, such drag would have no physical impact on the wheel whatsoever anyway.

And let's face it, all you need for the analysis is a pair of functioning eyes and some basic world experience. If you wanna call it physics, go right ahead.
And for a journo to fail in those regards is one thing; for A. Rasmussen to pretend there was no drag, that's something different altogether. Omerta? Or just birdbrain stupid?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Since his feet are both obscured from view by his body during the critical period, we cannot say exactly what happened.

everybody agrees 'we cannot say exactly what happened'.

but the 'kicking his saddle' theory can be discarded on the basis of pair of functioning eyes. We see him unclip. And kicking the bike/saddle would never explain the subsequent more or less smooth trajectory of the bike.
Ow, and we have three people on the record disagreeing with the 'kicking-saddle' theory.
1. The Algemeen Dagblad reporter quoted above
2. Alex "drag? what drag?" Rasmussen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dVh_x3YIhc
3. Some spanish bloke who similarly prefers to pretend the wheel didnt touch the ground:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN7HjwZI-k0

the one and only non-motordoping theory that strikes me as possible is that the wheel, despite the 2-3 secs of drag, maintains enough spin for it to make the bike move after Ryder unclips.
but that's a stretch, because the drag over the asphalt looks serious enough.
(and I assume you agree and hence came up with the 'kicking-saddle' theory)

 

[harryh]

Re: Re:

Ok guys the fun is over
Gazzetta source is the same hungarian engineer, varjas
From what i could gather, he likes a lot his name. He cpuld say some truths but a lot more bullshiit.

Thanks for the information. Using it I've found about three different versions of the same article going back a few years. The`facts' are changed, for example in an earlier version the high-end motorised bike costs 20,000 euros, in the recent one it's 200,000.

There is only a limited edition of these magical high-end motorised bikes created by this guru-geniuos-engineer István Varjas. When there is only a couple of them left their price will be 2,000,000 €. The last one could be worth of 20,000,000 €.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Ok guys the fun is over
Gazzetta source is the same hungarian engineer, varjas
From what i could gather, he likes a lot his name. He cpuld say some truths but a lot more bullshiit.

are you guessing or is this confirmed somewhere?
either way it makes sense.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

I'm just confused. Why is the UCI checking all (!) bikes at a French 2.1 race with mostly (Pro)Conti teams at the start, but not at the Tour of Qatar, which has many WT teams and some of the biggest riders?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

I'm just confused. Why is the UCI checking all (!) bikes at a French 2.1 race with mostly (Pro)Conti teams at the start, but not at the Tour of Qatar, which has many WT teams and some of the biggest riders?

And I hope they're not actually using a tablet's hall effect sensor to detect permanent magnets... They do realize that *induction* motors don't have magnets, right? It's right there in the name. If it ain't running, there's nothing to detect.

John Swanson

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

I'm just confused. Why is the UCI checking all (!) bikes at a French 2.1 race with mostly (Pro)Conti teams at the start, but not at the Tour of Qatar, which has many WT teams and some of the biggest riders?

And I hope they're not actually using a tablet's hall effect sensor to detect permanent magnets... They do realize that *induction* motors don't have magnets, right? It's right there in the name. If it ain't running, there's nothing to detect.

John Swanson

Well on the vids they used the tablet. It did look like they checked the bike very thoroughly, I give them that. Entire frame and wheels.

 

[LaFlorecita]

By the way, I'm not really familiar with the wheel doping. As it is an induction magnet, does that mean it starts to generate power when you spin the wheel? Because that's what they did.

 

[Teddy Boom]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

As it is an induction magnet, does that mean it starts to generate power when you spin the wheel? Because that's what they did.

The induction in an induction motor is for induced magnetic field in the material of the motor--so, there doesn't have to be any static magnetic field, the magnetic field can exist only when the motor is running.
(technically induced current, but that's a detail)

So I feel like that might not answer your question, I'll try again

You can have a motor with no permanent magnets at all. You have coils of wire around the outside. The spinning bit is just a chunk of metal that responds to the electro-magnetic field created by the coils. You use electronics to change the field of the coils in just the right way to make the spinning action work.

The sensor they are using could be 'inducing' a magnetic field itself though.. The sensor could output some kind of pulsed strong electromagnetic field, and then monitor for the relaxation of the field.. Almost like an MRI?

 

[The Carrot]

Apologies if posted previously. I thought this was good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqhX8-dazOo

The stickers on the 2nd bike the amateur rider uses made me smile.