Ryders crash -motor?

[westerner]

This has been mention more than a few times already. I remember seeing that, maybe once, but could someone provide a link please?

I'm guessin' this is the bike parking incident being referred to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YKC_hDg2Zg

 

[krebs303]

Mirrored the fault and now visually we have verification. Look how the bike pulls Ryder up hill.
What goes up must come down
spinning wheel got to go round
Talking about your troubles it's a crying sin
Ride a painted pony
Let the spinning wheel spin

You got no money, and you, you got no home
Spinning wheel, spinning all alone
Talking about your troubles and you, you never learn
Ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel turn

 

[Bluenote]

Nothing suspicious about the Hesjedal crash except for the lack of intelligence and knowledge of some on this forum.

Another clip illustrating the principle of conservation of angular momentum in the rear wheel, this time during a TTT crash. The bike also suddenly flips direction at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7TWDNhWDlY ( 0:42 seconds in )

Yeah, I'm with you.

I had a bit of fun earlier with 'I'm drinking beers and see what I want to see and work the rules of physics backwards to fit my bias!'

But in serious, I don't think this video is conclusive, or even all that suspicious. I think it is incomplete, without context, and impossible to evaluate.

There are too many 'unknows' to say this video is 'proof' of anything.
But people look at the video and fill in the unknows with what they 'want' to see. Or make subconcious assumptions and are led astray.

Normally you sit down and say - here are the possible scenarios that could cause this (gravity, momentum, power from the unmotorized wheel, power from a motorized wheel, combinations of the above). Then you try to asses - or calculate - is gravity enough to make a bike slide down a hill?

But with so many unknowns, you can't really evalute the scenerios.

I think it's better to look at the video and say 'from this source, I can't determine x,y,z.' When enough key facts can not be determined, all you can say is 'this source isn't conclusive, I can not make a determination.'

We don't know
1) the speed Ryder was traveling
2) why he crashed
3) the coefficient of friction of the road
4) if the coefficient of friction of the road is consistent
5) the grade of the road
6) the cross slope of the road
7) if 5 and 6 are consistent
8) the weight of his bike and how it is distributed
9) if Ryder 'kicked' the bike forward when he unclipped
10) how much the video is 'distorted,' because it's shot from a moving motorbike.

If Ryder was riding slow, on a well tractioned road, that was uniformly flat - it'd be weird for his bike to move / slide / spin.

If he was traveling fast on a slippery road, with a lot of slope and cross slope - it would be normal to see all kinds of movement.

My background is track racing, so I've seen bikes - and riders - do much crazier things then this. If you've ever seen a cyclist get caught in a pile up, spin 'up' the track, but his bike spin 'down,' then he pinballs along the boards long after everyone else has slid down, finally slide head first down the banking, slide across the apron and finally stop in the grass - you don't forget it. (He only suffered a mild concusion.)

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Ya, it's hard to say. I think it comes back to my earlier point that it is more likely that the wheel retained sufficient energy, than it is that the bike had a motor.

I'll look at the video again tonight. I think it's possible to come up with a reasonable estimate of the energy loss between my proposed t_0 and t_1, based on: 1) the amount of time that the wheel is in contact with the ground, and 2) an estimate for the average amount of force between tire and ground during the crash. #2 will be more difficult to say definitively, but again, my burden here is pretty low -- I'm just trying to prove that its "possible" that the wheel had enough energy, not prove that it is "certain".

Right. My post was less a prompt to you, and more of a talking point for the discussion. The majority of the posters on the thread have already made a judgement without accounting for what makes this crash exceptional, and different than other examples.

I don't want to make up anyone's mind for them, but to say that this is and obvious, cut and dry case is not the case.

 

[scottg]

Ryders crank IS moving in fact. It just does not appear to be moving to the eye, because the frame of the bike is the one that is moving/pivoting in a 360 motion instead. Normally with an upright moving bike we can see the cranks moving because the frame appears stationary to the eye. However, when you reverse this by lying the bike on the ground and then have the cranks powering in a forward motion, the cranks do not move, or hardly move at all if you are in a 53x12 gear. The fact that the cranks appear to NOT be moving forward is due to the fact, that it is the bike frame that is doing the moving instead [in a circular motion as in the video]. Try it on your bike by lying it down in a 53x12 or big gearing. Put the cranks in the same position as Ryders and then with your hand power the crank forward, and at the same time pivot the bike as shown in the video. You will see that the cranks hardly move at all visually, but the bike frame itself is now what is moving circularly forward instead.
I say motor in the crank, just like what are being sold right now.

 

[westerner]

http://sporten.tv2.dk/2014-09-04-hesjedal-griner-motor-beskyldninger-er-latterlige

Ryder addresses the bike motor allegations. Talks of crank motor, but not hub motor.

 

[Almeisan]

Look, something is a dynamic system. If a F1 car crashes and blows up in 10,000 bits, it is impossible to explain why part A gets its trajectory and part B some other trajectory.

Doesn't mean they don't obey the laws of physics.

 

[keldog21]

Yeh our "assisted bikes" are all crank driven so I don't see what the big deal is here cus my crank obviously is turning.....opps I probly shouldn't said that?? Well the UCI didn't say this wasn't an assisted bike legal event....so we justed assumed it would be A OK...my bad....

 

[TailWindHome]

Look, something is a dynamic system. If a F1 car crashes and blows up in 10,000 bits, it is impossible to explain why part A gets its trajectory and part B some other trajectory.

Doesn't mean they don't obey the laws of physics.

Nonsense
If you can't explain it I'm assuming my assumption is correct.

 

[quarterpounder]

This has been mentioned more than a few times already. I remember seeing that, maybe once, but could someone provide a link please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhdVr2Cn1OY

 

[cineteq]

So the motor didn't help Hesjedal keep up with Di Marchi? I guess it's not as good as Garmin thought.

 

[sniper]

http://instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/
Alex Rasmussen's take

RR, Rasmussen doesn't come close to addressing the real issue here, namely that Ryder's backwheel was in significant contact with the ground before it spun his bike 180 degrees.
looks a lot like motor-omerta to me.

Goodtimes,...

The video (as I see it) shows that friction with the road should have slowed the wheel down enough to loose enough of its energy to carry the bike. Then the bike takes off.

this indeed.

2) I have watched the clip of Ryder many, many times. But maybe I need to watch a few more hundred times to see if I can spot Alex Rasmussen holding the handle bars in place in order to facilitate a circular spin of the bike. It was also nice of Alex not to throw the rear wheel against the ground first, on its side, in order to interrupt the momentum, as was the case with Ryder. And of course there's the whole "unclipping the foot from pedal part" that Alex seems to have forgotten about as well.

So Rasmussen can wipe the smug look off of his face anytime. Unless he wants to actually simulate all the variables that are in play in Ryder's scenario.

Gee, a bike can be made to spin while holding the handlebars and not interrupting the rear wheel at all? Who would've thunk?

my thoughts exactly.

LOL. If Garmin had a motor in Ryder's bike, something tells me it wouldn't still be there. But that shouldn't stop the UCI from feeling intelligent about this whole thing.

Also, hrotha, I agree completely with your earlier point that bike doping would likely be viewed in quite the dim light by the rest of the peloton, as opposed to the omertà of blood doping.

the first is a good point.
the second, not sure.
look at Rasmussen. Is he half stupid or is he covering up for his former teammate?
And recall Cassani speaking about how widespread the use of motorized bikes has been in the past 10 years. Who picked up on that? Indeed, nobody.
Cancellara motorization rumors were hot as well. Did Cancellara get heat from anybody within the peloton? Of course not.

So the motor didn't help Hesjedal keep up with Di Marchi? I guess it's not as good as Garmin thought.

well he sure didn't suck at the start of the Vuelta. He started sucking as soon as motor-gate broke.

 

[GoodTimes]

...

My issue is that my viewing of the video shows Ryder's bike and back wheel sliding out through the fall, and until Ryder unclips. The back wheel is in contact with the ground the whole time. While Ryder unclips, the bike is stationary, with the wheel in contact with the ground.

The video (as I see it) shows that friction with the road should have slowed the wheel down enough to loose enough of its energy to carry the bike. Then the bike takes off.

RR, Rasmussen doesn't come close to addressing the real issue here, namely that Ryder's backwheel was in significant contact with the ground before it spun his bike 180 degrees.
looks a lot like motor-omerta to me.

Does somebody care to prove that the back wheel would have lost a significant amount of energy before Ryder unclips? Or are we left with nothing but vague speculation?

I can document that with reasonable assumptions, the backwheel can retain sufficient energy to cause the observed behavior. In my calculations, I assumed that the back wheel lost 75% of it's kinetic energy and that 25% of the initial kinetic energy is sufficient. Is somebody able to refute this?

I have shared this video with several colleagues who work in mechanical engineering. Two of us work with adhesion, wheel sliding, and friction on a regular basis. Without me poisoning the well, every single one of us has the same conclusion: this does not prove a motor, the back wheel could contribute the required energy to cause the observed affects.

I have stated before, but will underline the fact. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist to demonstrate that this video is evidence of a motor. As of yet, we have nothing but unqualified speculation.

The question is not whether or not this video consistent with the behavior of a bicycle being powered by a small hub (or crank) motor. The question is firmly whether or not this video proves a motor. As of yet, I am unconvinced. If somebody can answer the above questions, perhaps they will gain a shred of credibility. You are claiming a motor. I am claiming no motor. As with anything, the burden of proof is carried by the party that wants to make a positive claim.

Not that it's required to have an opinion, but I want to pose the question... Do any of the motor-conspirists have a university degree in Mechanical Engineering, Physics, or some other related field? Do we have anybody with significant experience working in a field that involves dynamics of mechanical systems? Do we have anybody in favor of the motor-theory that has any background whatsoever working with the scientific method or any familiarity with philosophy of science?

 

[pastronef]

well, looking at their tweets, Digger, Jonet, Vayerism and co are SURE Ryder has a motor in his bike

 

[Parker]

well, looking at their tweets, Digger, Jonet, Vayerism and co are SURE Ryder has a motor in his bike

That lot would be convinced by the existence of dragons if you could link them to cycling.

 

[sniper]

Does somebody care to prove that the back wheel would have lost a significant amount of energy before Ryder unclips? Or are we left with nothing but vague speculation?

do you care to prove it hadn't?
using your eyes and brains, vague speculation indeed.
that said, hardly anybody here seems convinced it's due to motorization.
the possibility alone is intriguing enough.
and your math, if you care to admit, is impressive but cannot debunk the possibility.

 

[GoodTimes]

Well... last post for now

do you care to prove it hadn't?

This evening, or possibly tomorrow evening I'll offer a bit of analysis that shows my assumptions regarding energy loss are reasonable.

This will not prove that it hadn't lost sufficient energy though. That has never been my intention (refer to burden of proof argument).

using your eyes and brains, vague speculation indeed.

I think what you're saying is that based on your eyes and brains you are confident that the back wheel would have lost significant energy during the crash. The eyes and brains of qualified engineers says that this is inconclusive.

My analysis assumed 75% energy loss. You would do well to demonstrate that significantly more than 75% of the energy would likely have been lost during this event.

Again, I say burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this is evidence.

and your math, if you care to admit, is impressive but cannot debunk the possibility.

I have never intended it to debunk the possibility. I admit that freely. As far as I can tell, it is possible that Ryder had a motor in his hub or crank, or whatever, and this caused his bike to pivot. This is possible. My contention is, and has always been, that the video in question does not show any evidence that supports this conclusion.

Consider it this way. I think just about every video I have ever seen in which somebody is riding a bicycle is consistent with the possibility of it having been powered by a motor.

Some guy is riding slowly? His motor broke.
Some guy is riding fast? He has a motor, it's working (very well).

Not that I am a fan, but I am thinking the next thing we'll be seeing in this thread is a video showing Froome coasting, for a brief amount of time, up a hill. This will prove that Froome has a motor too, and will be offered as proof of his bike doping and the only logical reason for his meteoric rise to stardom. I will offer analysis that shows that the video is consistent with the laws of physics, and mention conservation of momentum, and stuff like that. You will ask "ahh, but does your analysis prove that froome does not have a motor?". I will reply, no, no it doesn't. You will say "gotcha again, sucker. See? we have the possibility of motors everywhere". I will then reply "bud... not sure you're listening to me here, but I never said motors were not possible". And then we will repeat.

 

[GJB123]

do you care to prove it hadn't?
using your eyes and brains, vague speculation indeed.
that said, hardly anybody here seems convinced it's due to motorization.
the possibility alone is intriguing enough.
and your math, if you care to admit, is impressive but cannot debunk the possibility.

If you are in a hole first thing to do is stop digging.

 

[Benotti69]

If you are in a hole first to do is stop digging.

Hasn't stopped the sport of cycling for a 100 years....

 

[GJB123]

Well... last post for now



This evening, or possibly tomorrow evening I'll offer a bit of analysis that shows my assumptions regarding energy loss are reasonable.

This will not prove that it hadn't lost sufficient energy though. That has never been my intention (refer to burden of proof argument).



I think what you're saying is that based on your eyes and brains you are confident that the back wheel would have lost significant energy during the crash. The eyes and brains of qualified engineers says that this is inconclusive.

My analysis assumed 75% energy loss. You would do well to demonstrate that significantly more than 75% of the energy would likely have been lost during this event.

Again, I say burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this is evidence.



I have never intended it to debunk the possibility. I admit that freely. As far as I can tell, it is possible that Ryder had a motor in his hub or crank, or whatever, and this caused his bike to pivot. This is possible. My contention is, and has always been, that the video in question does not show any evidence that supports this conclusion.

Consider it this way. I think just about every video I have ever seen in which somebody is riding a bicycle is consistent with the possibility of it having been powered by a motor.

Some guy is riding slowly? His motor broke.
Some guy is riding fast? He has a motor, it's working (very well).

Not that I am a fan, but I am thinking the next thing we'll be seeing in this thread is a video showing Froome coasting, for a brief amount of time, up a hill. This will prove that Froome has a motor too, and will be offered as proof of his bike doping and the only logical reason for his meteoric rise to stardom. I will offer analysis that shows that the video is consistent with the laws of physics, and mention conservation of momentum, and stuff like that. You will ask "ahh, but does your analysis prove that froome does not have a motor?". I will reply, no, no it doesn't. You will say "gotcha again, sucker. See? we have the possibility of motors everywhere". I will then reply "bud... not sure you're listening to me here, but I never said motors were not possible". And then we will repeat.

Casting pearls before swine. I admire your patience though.

 

[Almeisan]

Nonsense
If you can't explain it I'm assuming my assumption is correct.

If we give you all the info about all the parts, I am sure you can calculate exactly how a F1 car should fragment into bits during a staged test crash.
And I am even more sure that prediction will match how it happens no matter how often we repeat the test crash.

 

[Almeisan]

http://instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/
Alex Rasmussen's take

Yeah, that's conservation of angular momentum. If you change the orientation of a wheel, it creates a force to account for the change in angular momentum you are causing, as it has to be conserved.

BTW, find 20 crazy bike crashes. Then try to repeat the mechanics of the bike for each and everyone of them. Let's see if it is possible to reenact one bike bounce. Just one!

Does every bike in existence have a random magical anti-grav generation within it?

 

[sniper]

...

we agree for the most part.
but stop the math already. it's slighlty inappropriate, since we lack the relevant data to do any reliable calculations of this sort.
i.e. we don't have any clue how much Ryder's reerwheel did or didn't slow down due to the contact with the road and Ryder's unclipping.
all we know with certainty is that plenty of observers with a sane pair of eyes seem to think his reer wheel slowed down considerably before it turned ryder's bike into a merry go round.
your math is irrelevant here. besides the point. etc.
hardly any of these observers is "confident", btw, as you put it. suspicious yes, confident no.

 

[AcademyCC]

This thread is a pile of balls. I came off 2 nights ago on a trail on my MTB and it stood up and started singing

 

[GoodTimes]

Well I just got back from a nice spin on my bike. It does not have a motor, so the light excercize has helped clear my mind and raise my spirits

we agree for the most part.
but stop the math already. it's slighlty inappropriate, since we lack the relevant data to do any reliable calculations of this sort.
i.e. we don't have any clue how much Ryder's reerwheel did or didn't slow down due to the contact with the road and Ryder's unclipping.
all we know with certainty is that plenty of observers with a sane pair of eyes seem to think his reer wheel slowed down considerably before it turned ryder's bike into a merry go round.
your math is irrelevant here. besides the point. etc.
hardly any of these observers is "confident", btw, as you put it. suspicious yes, confident no.

Respectfully, to the contrary, a back-of-the-envelope calculation with reasonable assumptions can often shed light on whether a complex scenerio is conceptually possible, or not. Such analysis will not prove something definitively, nor is it the sort of analysis upon which a bridge is built. However, it is relevent, and has it's place, and can be used to show that, as far as we know, it is *possible* for Ryder's bike to have behaved as observed without needing a motor. This has been my point all along.

I wonder, are you suspicious when you see a 5s video clip of a cyclist coasting in the peleton? Do you think that this is "possible evidence" of a motor? If not, why not? How is this scenario different from motor-gate?