Ryders crash -motor?

[Granville57]

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.

Priceless. I'm not sure that Ryder is doing himself any favors in that interview though.

1) Those ridiculous sunglasses only make him look ridiculous, and as if his hiding behind them. Does he have something to hide?

2) He portrays someone who is ignorant of the currently available technologies for powering a bicycle. He really should follow this thread more closely.

3) He's too defensive. He needs to channel more of his inner-Zabriskie. He missed a golden opportunity to make this whole thing funniER [see what I did there?]. He's almost able to laugh about it, and claims that the team laughed about it, but he appears genuinely PO'd at the press headlines. It's not that I can't understand his frustration, but really, he needs to firmly position himself in the comedy camp on this one and just roll with it. He could've won the hearts and minds of so many Clinicians in the process. But his barely concealed disgust? Dude, lighten up. The video is funny. Seize those extra 15 minutes of fame. Use that Canadian accent to your advantage! JV should be able to offer some good advice on maintaining a sense of humor.

 

[kielbasa]

This thread is looking less and less like this:

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

And more and more like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnUC5-ZFqvg

We already have threads like that. Just saying.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Jeez - give it a rest already.

Parker - why is it that you have such a problem with this being discussed?

If it's such a concern of yours, why don't you just not view the thread. It's not that hard, honestly - just don't click on it from The Clinic home page. It IS that simple.

As I posted in a previous post, as strange as this discussion is, I am finding it entertaining if nothing else, with great input from posters such as GoodTimes and such.

As I have also said in a previous post, if you're such a physics guru - please do go ahead and enlighten us with your brilliance and wisdom. Otherwise, why so glum, chum?

And for the record (once again, in case it wasn't clear the first 20 times I stated it...), I don't think there's a motor in the bike.

The fact that this has enough momentum (heh heh) to get more wide-spread media coverage is hilarious in it's own right.

 

[Parker]

Nope, wrong. Show me one post here where you support the "motor in the bike" argument.

You're asking me to post a "no motor, perfectly normal" example, so you go first.

tsk tsk.

Still waiting for a single post of mine that opposes or disagrees with another poster in this thread. Good luck!

Every single post by you in this thread. They all dispute people on one side, not the other

Here's another question you will avoid. Give a rough percentage as to where you opinions are on whether Hesjedal had a motor or not. 50-50? more or less?

Motor or no motor.

For me it is:
Motor: 0.05%
No motor: 99.95%
(And I think I'm erring on the side of caution with that 0.05)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I do find it curious that the only people (as far as I can tell) insulting posters directly are those in the "there is no motor" camp.

You guys may be right, but you need to lighten up and be more secure in your knowledge. If others wish to discuss it, nothing you can say or do will stop them from discussing it. Insulting them makes you look kind of insecure, like you have to resort to personal attacks because there's not enough weight in your other arguments. Ya know?

 

[kielbasa]

I do find it curious that the only people (as far as I can tell) insulting posters directly are those in the "there is no motor" camp.

You guys may be right, but you need to lighten up and be more secure in your knowledge. If others wish to discuss it, nothing you can say or do will stop them from discussing it. Insulting them makes you look kind of insecure, like you have to resort to personal attacks because there's not enough weight in your other arguments. Ya know?

I actually switched camps recently. I think it would've been so much fun had it been true, but once you think of the rear wheel as constantly spinning, the video starts to look quite ordinary.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Every single post by you in this thread. They all dispute people on one side, not the other

See. You are qualified - engineering or something, I think I wrote upthread, right? And English. Yet your reading comprehension is woeful.

I'm going to contribute to the discussion. I hope you can also do so, sans insults. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[GoodTimes]

Priceless. I'm not sure that Ryder is doing himself any favors in that interview though.

Really funny interview imo. you're right, he does get pretty PO'd towards the end.

BUT, Ryder corroborates the spinning wheel explanation.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I actually switched camps recently. I think it would've been so much fun had it been true, but once you think of the rear wheel as constantly spinning, the video starts to look quite ordinary.

Good on you.

 

[thehog]

Really funny interview imo. you're right, he does get pretty PO'd towards the end.

BUT, Ryder corroborates the spinning wheel explanation.

Those sunglasses, yes. Terrible.

Meanwhile Good Will Hunting has cracked the code...

 

[GoodTimes]

....Give a rough percentage as to where you opinions are on whether Hesjedal had a motor or not. 50-50? more or less?

Motor or no motor.

For me it is:
Motor: 0.05%
No motor: 99.95%
(And I think I'm erring on the side of caution with that 0.05)

I was already thinking about a poll! The discussion has maybe run it's course, but I'd be curious where people lie.

a) That aint right! That clip definitely shows a motor!
b) Hmmm.... pretty suspicious
c) It looks whack to me, but (captical E) Engineers have spoken, so who am I to argue
d) Ryder needs to learn how to laugh. Sure, the whole thing is completely nuts, but that's life.
e) Vino no need a motor. Vino bike go fast anyways...

I know where I'm voting (option e, need I say more )

 

[GoodTimes]

The fact that this has enough momentum (heh heh) to get more wide-spread media coverage is hilarious in it's own right.

QFT good one

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Priceless. I'm not sure that Ryder is doing himself any favors in that interview though.

1) Those ridiculous sunglasses only make him look ridiculous, and as if his hiding behind them. Does he have something to hide?

The body language when he is asked the question is interesting also - looks away completely from the interviewer.

If I project my own feel on this interview, that question makes me want to look the interviewer right in the eye and do a "dafuq? no."

 

[Granville57]

This thread is looking less and less like this:

And more and more like this:

You know what this thread reminds me of?

This:
What are these mysterious pills found on the roadside at Paris-Roubaix?

In that thread, there were valid questions being asked and interesting ideas put forth. But some folks were obsessed with shutting down the discussion and labeling anyone who was actually interested in discussing it as the lunatic fringe.

It was very interesting to watch the narrative change from definitive statements of:
It's nothing but a hoax!
Not admissible. Chain of custody!
It's a self-promotion scheme!

to

Oh, you see? The UCI confirmed the pills were perfectly acceptable.
He broke the law by transporting that vial across the border.
We told you so. Blah, blah, blah.

Some very interesting and informative discussions arose in the 2nd part though. And it was suddenly accepted that well, yes, there really was a vial of pills that fell from a rider's jersey mid-race, and the contents then ended up in the hands of the UCI but everything turned out OK.

But most people stopped asking some of the obvious questions.
Who was the rider?
Why did the vial say "Test Product"
Was the rider ever identified and/or notified by the UCI?

Now it is NOT my intention to rehash those arguments and questions here. That thread can easily be re-opened. But it demonstrated, as does this thread, the lengths that some would go to mock others simply for wanting to HAVE the discussion, only to then radically change their own narrative when certain (alleged) facts came to light.

And of course, all along the way, some people were simply incapable of injecting a bit of humor alongside serious discussions. It has to be all or nothing for some. Shades of grey are not allowed. A balanced perspective is not welcome.

I find it all to be most curious.

 

[kingjr]

If I project my own feel on this interview, that question makes me want to look the interviewer right in the eye and do a "dafuq? no."

That's exactly what I would do in his position if I had a motor in my bike.
The question didn't come out of the blue, he had time enough to prepare himself for it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That's exactly what I would do in his position if I had a motor in my bike.
The question didn't come out of the blue, he had time enough to prepare himself for it.

And what makes you look away like that? To me it felt weird. But I have already stated and state again - it's my subjective feels being projected.

 

[kingjr]

And what makes you look away like that?

It looks to me like a mixture of amusement and disbelief.

 

[kielbasa]

Those sunglasses, yes. Terrible.

Meanwhile Good Will Hunting has cracked the code...

The wheel must have been constantly spinning for that to work, which we have no visual evidence of. So let's do some calculations on how the pavement stopped or failed to stop the angular momentum of the wheel.

 

[Kicker661]

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?

A little scenario for you as i find your posts pretty awesome.


Not a high speed crash, something around 55-60km/h.

The time is 1 second where the rear wheel is sliding whilst in contact with the tarmac.

The rotation of the wheel v direction of slide are not the same --> If a wheel is lifted off the ground, spun to 60km/h then the brakes applied to stop the wheel, how much pressure is required? How much pressure does the tarmac apply in comparison to brakes? Ie is your 75% to little given a 1 second contact slide?

If you go with your assumption of 25% energy left from the crash - the bike spins 180 degrees for 1.1 seconds before being stopped by the motorbike. For the 1.1 seconds, visually the wheel loses no momentum. The bike weighs 10kg, work your formula backwards and calculate what crash speed is required to generate that amount of energy --> 25% of energy accelerates a deadweight of 5kg (half bike weight i think you said?) for a minimum of 2 seconds (2 seconds assuming that's how long it would spin if the motorbike didn't hit it).


I reckon 99% it's physics then i multiply that by the fact for decades cycling has been filled with a massive number of cheats who always deny they cheat.

I find it all to be most curious.

I am very intrigued by it all. Is my world upside down where a $400,000 payment to a Doctor is considered normal but a $100 electronic device is space station theory?

 

[heart_attack_man]

<Snip>
And of course, all along the way, some people were simply incapable of injecting a bit of humor alongside serious discussions. It has to be all or nothing for some. Shades of grey are not allowed. A balanced perspective is not welcome.

I find it all to be most curious.

Concur, and well said, Granville57.

I am quite happy to sit with a very impartial view of what's happened and not really draw any conclusion yet - doesn't really worry me and I don't really care - I don't like those that come in attempting to throw their weight around without any just cause and attempt to shut down dialog and discussion. WTF? Who made them king of the Interwebz?

 

[kielbasa]

The wheel must have been constantly spinning for that to work, which we have no visual evidence of. So let's do some calculations on how the pavement stopped or failed to stop the angular momentum of the wheel.

Oops, spake to soon. Looks like people are already on it.

 

[Granville57]

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

Let's take a look-see at Twitterville.

‏@dwuori
Hesjedal is more than 23 minutes off the podium after 11 days. If he has a motor it needs tuning.
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE
https://twitter.com/dwuori/status/507493063766605824

Irony much? Yes, Velonews, the mighty exposers of THE TRUTH.



Smug: (and I'll get to that in a future post)

@philgaimon
Everyone who believes in the motor conspiracy also seems to have blatant misspellings in their tweets about it, if that tells you anything.
https://twitter.com/philgaimon/status/507665048610037760

Sensible:

‏@inrng
These conspiracy stories often tell us more about levels of trust in the sport than bike tech and hidden motors
https://twitter.com/inrng/status/507427460032770048

Shane Stokes, who I have a world of respect for, and whose contributions on many topics am I genuinely grateful for, is taking this WAY too seriously.

Retweeted by Shane Stokes
‏@qjnmh
@SSbike @TourDeJose anyone who doesn't know wheels tend to keep spinning after a crash has never ridden a bike or is an idiot. Or both
https://twitter.com/qjnmh/status/507473888683765760

‏@Vaughters
Dammit, @ryder_hesjedal, now I know what happened to my electric prostate stimulator! http://erectonus.com/
https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/507510491561082880

‏@Vaughters
Wanted: bicycle mechanic w electrical engineering and/or jet propulsion PhD. Highly confidential work. Must speak fluent Canadian.
https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/507486555796410368

Like I said, JV is able to maintain a healthy sense of humor. I wonder if he has Ryder's phone number?

 

[heart_attack_man]

Let's take a look-see at Twitterville.
Like I said, JV is able to maintain a healthy sense of humor. I wonder if he has Ryder's phone number?

That's fantastic - it really should have it's own hashtag...

 

[Granville57]

It looks to me like a mixture of amusement and disbelief.

Kind of like the way many people reacted to Ryder in the wake of Michael Rasmussen's allegations.

 

[Energy Starr]

Ok, you all convinced me, he has a motor in his bike. Wow, he still sucks even with a motor in his bike! You'd think he could at least pick up a stage or two. I wonder if I could. Stand by for me winning the Vuelta next year!