Ryders crash -motor?

[Parker]

On the contrary. We have a clear view of the pedals.

@ 0:12 Ryder unclips

by 0:14 the bike has rotated nearly 180º but the pedal still has not changed position. The view of the pedal is blocked by the moto's mirror after that point, but up until then, there is clearly NO movement of the pedal position.

Clicking through frame by frame only confirms this.

I would just like to say that if my life ever gets so empty that I am clicking through slow motion replays frame by frame in an effort to prove a lousy conspiracy theory that no-one sensible believes to anonymous people on a internet forum then I sincerely hope that someone sneaks up behind me and puts a bullet in my brain.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

*deleted by mod*

I see no difference between looking at the video and making comments on posts by people who have looked at the video. If anything, making predictable, disparaging comments is even less of a life than looking at a video of something interesting or unique.

Good luck with the operation.

 

[Parker]

I see no difference between looking at the video and making comments on posts by people who have looked at the video. If anything, making predictable, disparaging comments is even less of a life than looking at a video of something interesting or unique.

Yeah, but that's because you're thick.

 

[Archibald]

I've said this before, but I feel very strongly that if anyone were ever found to be mechanically doping their bike in the pro peloton, there would have to be lifetime bans for rider, mechanic and DS. No way such a thing could take place without the knowledge of at least those three people. No way.

It would be such an egregious distortion of the sport, so thoroughly premeditated and with such a high degree of complicity among such a trio (if not more people), that it would have to result in lifetime bans.

Otherwise, what would be the point of any rules whatsoever?

Bike doping = the worst of the cheating offenses.

not to mention the likelyhood of the bike manufacturer having a hand it the setup

Have a look at the 3 similar crashes off the time trial ramp...at 2 minutes 35secs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMH3T0EvduU

beginning to doubt the motor theory now....

try at 2.25 - watch the AG2R rider's bike in the middle of the field. Spin! Spin! Spin!

 

[Granville57]

Have a look at the 3 similar crashes off the time trial ramp...at 2 minutes 35secs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMH3T0EvduU

beginning to doubt the motor theory now....

What is special about those crashes? I don't see the bikes spinning on the ground like Hesjedal's?

There's nothing special about those crashes. In each and every one, the bikes travel in a totally predictable and sensible manner. Not to mention, there's only one TT ramp crash @ 2:35, (not 3) and it in no way simulates Ryder's crash. So I'm a bit by the link.

try at 2.25 - watch the AG2R rider's bike in the middle of the field. Spin! Spin! Spin!

It spins spins spins...away from the rider as one would expect. No boomerang effect there. Nothing unusual.

 

[the delgados]

33 Ryder Hesjedal (Can) Garmin Sharp @ 24:14.

The batteries don't work.

 

[Granville57]

33 Ryder Hesjedal (Can) Garmin Sharp @ 24:14.
The batteries don't work.

Of course they don't. They were run over by the motorcycle @ 0:14.

Haven't you seen the video?

 

[Kicker661]

try at 2.25 - watch the AG2R rider's bike in the middle of the field. Spin! Spin! Spin!

AG2R example rear wheel maintains full speed at say 60km/h before hitting the deck and spinning for 0.8 seconds and roughly 120 degrees.

Ryder example rear wheel slides on tarmac for 1 full second. There is 0.8 seconds where the bike virtually stops and Ryder unclips. After that there is 1.1 seconds where the rear wheel accelerates into a spin doing 180 degrees and only stopping because a motorbike crushed it.


If you watch this clip at real world speed it looks 100x worse than the slo-mo as you get a sense for just how quickly that bike took off from a standstill. It's pretty funny.

 

[sniper]

33 Ryder Hesjedal (Can) Garmin Sharp @ 24:14.

The batteries don't work.

but let's not use Ryder's race results of evidence of anything. if Hesjedal is using some kind of motorization technology, he'll hardly be the only one.
and yes, with JV reading in here on a daily basis, he'll no doubt have told Ryder to swap his 1.4 TSI for a non-motorized vehicle asap.

 

[sniper]

Well well, this seems to be picking up after all.
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Un-moteur-pour-hesjedal/496385
http://www.marca.com/2014/09/03/ciclismo/vuelta_espana/1409780490.html

Interesting that Maxime Bouet retweeted the L'Equipe article.

thanks.
you would think this puts some pressure on JV/Ryder (perhaps even on the UCI) to address the matter with some public statement.

 

[nomapnocompass]

I came to this thread thinking it was a bit of fun, instead I am faced with an embarrassing lack of simple physics knowledge.

- Ryder falls at perhaps 50km/hr
- The mechanism of the fall is poor friction with the road surface and loss of front wheel. Immediately on the bike contacting the ground the rear wheel is raised away from the ground and still spinning at close to the speed prior to the crash.
- The front wheel then turns 90° in the fork opposing such that the wheel is not rotating in the same plane as the forward momentum of the bike after the crash. The front wheel brakes suddenly as a result.
-The point of contact between the front wheel and the ground is now the pivot point. The rear of the bike still his energy in both the form of momentum and the rear wheel spinning and pivots around the front wheel. The principle is similar to a lorry jack-knifing.

If you think this is a motor in the bike then I am genuinely embarrassed for you.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I came to this thread thinking it was a bit of fun, instead I am faced with an embarrassing lack of simple physics knowledge.

- Ryder falls at perhaps 50km/hr
- The mechanism of the fall is poor friction with the road surface and loss of front wheel. Immediately on the bike contacting the ground the rear wheel is raised away from the ground and still spinning at close to the speed prior to the crash.
- The front wheel then turns 90° in the fork opposing such that the wheel is not rotating in the same plane as the forward momentum of the bike after the crash. The front wheel brakes suddenly as a result.
- The rear wheel drags along the ground, coming to a brief stop while Ryder unclips his foot.
-The point of contact between the front wheel and the ground is now the pivot point. The rear of the bike still his energy in both the form of momentum and the rear wheel spinning and pivots around the front wheel. The principle is similar to a lorry jack-knifing.

If you think this is a motor in the bike then I am genuinely embarrassed for you.

Fix that for you. Embarrassed for you that you didn't see that bit of the video, given it's slow motion and all.

 

[sniper]

I came to this thread thinking it was a bit of fun, instead I am faced with an embarrassing lack of simple physics knowledge.

- Ryder falls at perhaps 50km/hr
- The mechanism of the fall is poor friction with the road surface and loss of front wheel. Immediately on the bike contacting the ground the rear wheel is raised away from the ground and still spinning at close to the speed prior to the crash.
- The front wheel then turns 90° in the fork opposing such that the wheel is not rotating in the same plane as the forward momentum of the bike after the crash. The front wheel brakes suddenly as a result.
-The point of contact between the front wheel and the ground is now the pivot point. The rear of the bike still his energy in both the form of momentum and the rear wheel spinning and pivots around the front wheel. The principle is similar to a lorry jack-knifing.

If you think this is a motor in the bike then I am genuinely embarrassed for you.

no it is not. (i see DW already fixed it )

 

[Dear Wiggo]

no it is not. (i see DW already fixed it )

It's off the ground and then comes crashing back to the ground and is on the ground when he unclips.

 

[nomapnocompass]

Sources of that force:

- Rotating front wheel? Nope. That wouldn't create any torque.
- Some after-crash clipping out of pedals or kicking, etc? Nope. That would be an impulse that has a sudden rise in velocity and then a quick drop in speed as friction takes over.
- Motor driving the rear wheel? *ding* *ding* *ding* Yep. That fits perfectly. The wheel is driven, causing a torque which matches the motion you see in the video.

Slightly taken aback that you describe yourself as a physicist given that analysis.

There is no mention of the initial forward momentum in your analysis or the resultant conservation of momentum or analysis of the system as a series of connected bodies pivoting about a point.

As I said, I am genuinely embarrassed for you.

 

[Archibald]

It spins spins spins...away from the rider as one would expect. No boomerang effect there. Nothing unusual.

entire bike is flat so it slides as well - it does not have the front wheel at 90 degrees like Ryder's does which keeps the bike from sliding at the same time.
Could this be the key to our answer? is Ryder's front wheel what makes the slide of the bike rotate like it does? It does rotate around that turned front wheel...

 

[sniper]

the issue is being discussed on @inrng's twitter account.

to briefly single out one comment:

Why switch your motor on while descending? (assuming such a switch exists...)

i could imagine all kinds of dynamo-like technology that doesn't involve a switch.
and if there's a switch, as discussed, it could've turned itself on during the crash.

 

[jens_attacks]

Interesting that Maxime Bouet retweeted the L'Equipe article.

bruyneel and fortunato baliani join the sceptics side too

 

[Roude Leiw]

I am embarrassed for the battery manufacturer, Dan seems to run out of juice systematically 2km before the MTF, they should talk to Tesla Motors for some advice here...


Edited for typos

 

[heart_attack_man]

I came to this thread thinking it was a bit of fun, instead I am faced with an embarrassing lack of simple physics knowledge.

- Ryder falls at perhaps 50km/hr
- The mechanism of the fall is poor friction with the road surface and loss of front wheel. Immediately on the bike contacting the ground the rear wheel is raised away from the ground and still spinning at close to the speed prior to the crash.
- The front wheel then turns 90° in the fork opposing such that the wheel is not rotating in the same plane as the forward momentum of the bike after the crash. The front wheel brakes suddenly as a result.
-The point of contact between the front wheel and the ground is now the pivot point. The rear of the bike still his energy in both the form of momentum and the rear wheel spinning and pivots around the front wheel. The principle is similar to a lorry jack-knifing.

If you think this is a motor in the bike then I am genuinely embarrassed for you.

Let me start this by saying that I don't think there's a motor in the bike. Period.

Your simplistic statement above fails to address his unclipping and near stopping of the momentum of the bike, and the fact that the wheel would have lost a significant portion of it's rotational inertia by the time that he had unclipped and the bike zoomed off like it was on speed. Check at exactly 0:11 in the video. The wheel was in heavy contact with the ground. Whilst I will grant that Ryder was still sliding (only VERY slightly) when he unclipped (at 0:11), the rear wheel of the bike was in direct contact with the ground for quite a period at this point (the point at which he had slowed enough to unclip and stand up). If you watch on a loop from 0:09 - 0:13, and check the different parts of the image, it even looks stranger.

Immediately on the bike contacting the ground the rear wheel is raised away from the ground and still spinning at close to the speed prior to the crash.

With regards to this point, I may be going blind, but it doesn't look to me like the rear wheel is raised away from the ground at all. On initial impact at 0:08, yes, but it had recontacted the ground at 0:09 and remained on the ground until 0:12 when it went into runaway mode.

Everyone that comes in spouting about a lack of simple physics knowledge - go for it - enlighten us with your brilliance. There's been one excellent response regarding this, and it was interesting reading. I personally think there are too many variables to be able to come to any sort of conclusion, apart from that it definitely looks strange, and is up there with Wiggo's bike parking incident in ridiculousness.

And I still don't see why everyone thinks the entire premise is so funny / crazy / tin-foil-hat-wearing-numbnuts considering the technology undoubtedly exists and cyclists are known to cheat. As ridiculous as these threads are, I personally would welcome the chance to discuss them in a sensible way rather than feel like I was participating in some sort of freak show.

If I had have come in here 60 years ago and said that there was a shot that you could take that would give you the ability to push yourself so much further than you could ever dream of, and you WILL be able to smash your competitors, people would have said I was mad (and probably rolled up their sleeve at the same time).

ETA: What they said above!

 

[Cycle Chic]

not sure the rear wheel does actually stop still....its a continual movement and the unclipping of the shoe is done so quickly it doesnt SEEM to stop the wheel spinning.

 

[Cramps]

And I still don't see why everyone thinks the entire premise is so funny / crazy / tin-foil-hat-wearing-numbnuts considering the technology undoubtedly exists and cyclists are known to cheat.

I agree if the tech is there, someone will give it a try. But does the technology really exist to allow invisible assistance? You could hide the batteries and wires, but power assistance will require mods to the rear hub or crank -- in consumer models these are very conspicuous.

 

[heart_attack_man]

not sure the rear wheel does actually stop still....its a continual movement and the unclipping of the shoe is done so quickly it doesnt SEEM to stop the wheel spinning.

In theory I would agree, but the wheel was in contact with the ground for 2 seconds or longer, which was enough time for Ryder to come to a near complete halt and allow himself to unclip and stand up. So while it may not have come to a complete stop, it should have slowed enough so that it didn't take off making Ryder look like Benny Hill...

 

[heart_attack_man]

I agree if the tech is there, someone will give it a try. But does the technology really exist to allow invisible assistance? You could hide the batteries and wires, but power assistance will require mods to the rear hub or crank -- in consumer models these are very conspicuous.

I present exhibit A - commercialised and available for you to buy...

http://www.reefbikes.com.au/invisitron-r1-electric-bike-carbon-road-racing/

Imagine what a pro-team with a big budget can do.

Feel free to watch the youtube video at the bottom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBpwODvQXHU&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1G1ciUlLEY

I probably should add that I've posted this link a couple of times now, but only in the interests of this discussion. I am in no way affiliated ro do I give a rat's patooty about Reef. Never heard of 'em before my 5 second google of trying to see if there were something like this on the market.

 

[hrotha]

Jesus, dat site. "Lighter then most non electric bicycles"... "they wont even know your riding an e-bike"... "you can be the leader of the Peleton again".

Anyway, note they say their motor is so small "you cannot see it in this photo". That's a far cry from "invisible". Presumably, what a pro team could put together, while better than that bike, wouldn't be invisible either.