Ryders crash -motor?

[Dear Wiggo]

I thought this was interesting:

To disengage the motor you simply stop pedalling. You get a little bit of a jolt forwards from the pedals, similar to what you might get when you’re riding a fixed-gear bike for the first time and you forget to stop pedalling. Except in the case of the vivax Assist, the impetus from the motor stops immediately after that initial jolt, and you can then freewheel as normal.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes-exist-heres-how-they-work/

It adds around 110W at the crank.

Enough of a collision on the ground to momentarily short the "ON" connection to the motor, it kicks in, there's no pedaling so it almost instantly switches off, with a quick jolt to get the wheel back up to speed?

Just hypothesising, not convinced either way.

 

[blackcat]

I thought this was interesting:

To disengage the motor you simply stop pedalling. You get a little bit of a jolt forwards from the pedals, similar to what you might get when you’re riding a fixed-gear bike for the first time and you forget to stop pedalling. Except in the case of the vivax Assist, the impetus from the motor stops immediately after that initial jolt, and you can then freewheel as normal.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes-exist-heres-how-they-work/

It adds around 110W at the crank.

Enough of a collision on the ground to momentarily short the "ON" connection to the motor, it kicks in, there's no pedaling so it almost instantly switches off, with a quick jolt to get the wheel back up to speed?

Just hypothesising, not convinced either way.

has anyone had a look at the form and results of MAtti Breschel in that 2010 year before he crossed over to Rabobank. And there could be many reasons for that new threshold he hit, that did not include this technology, but I remember Breschel finding new legs, a new threshold, and being a player in the spring. like, top 10, player. Now, this just could be the androgen doping, nothing to do with sharing technology with spartacus.

but, a closer examination of Matti's northern classics competitiveness, versus his entire career, and then synchronizing the time period with spartacus, is more enlightening than just looking at Cancellara.

cos what Cancellara did, is possible by Cancellara and Boonen, p'raps, no-one else atm, but those guys hit other heights, so if anyone looks like they ride a motor, it would be their legs. but if you look at breschel and his performance over a period overcrossing the suspicions on cancellara.

 

[Ferminal]

Breschel was good in 2008 and 2009 too (he should never be top10 in Mendrisio). Those three seasons were probably the ones where Riis really put his foot down (maybe just in relative terms). Just look at riders like CAS, Bak, Arvesen, Larsson during those times. Even Kolobnev hasn't come close to what he was then. It took Fuglsang a few years and Astana.

Those would have to be some serious motors!

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Breschel was good in 2008 and 2009 too (he should never be top10 in Mendrisio). Those three seasons were probably the ones where Riis really put his foot down (maybe just in relative terms). Just look at riders like CAS, Bak, Arvesen, Larsson during those times. Even Kolobnev hasn't come close to what he was then. It took Fuglsang a few years and Astana.

Those would have to be some serious motors!

ok, ta, i stopped watching cycling about then. good to know it was not just 2010 spring, it puts his formline in perspective.

 

[ciranda]

That spring he had two thirds of a really good race, Vlaanderen 2010, where he matched Boonen on all hills, then had a puncture and the support car completely failed on the bike change. Since then he's had a number of serious injuries and freak accidents that have kept him out of many races. And also he's never been allowed to race three week races with Tinkoff, something he sees as important to get back to his former condition. The team in general makes really strange decisions about his race program, like how for instance last year he wasn't allowed to race Lombardia when he had condition from the World Championships.

It's more and more likely that he will never be so good again as that spring which is sad but not suspect. Mendrisio and the year before were not unusal, he has always been strong uphill and is always there in the World's no matter the course. Idk what you mean by top ten player, he gets top tens easily. This month he had a support role for Sagan in Vlaanderen and crashed out of Roubaix.

 

[Irondan]

That spring he had two thirds of a really good race, Vlaanderen 2010, where he matched Boonen on all hills, then had a puncture and the support car completely failed on the bike change. Since then he's had a number of serious injuries and freak accidents that have kept him out of many races. And also he's never been allowed to race three week races with Tinkoff, something he sees as important to get back to his former condition. The team in general makes really strange decisions about his race program, like how for instance last year he wasn't allowed to race Lombardia when he had condition from the World Championships.

It's more and more likely that he will never be so good again as that spring which is sad but not suspect. Mendrisio and the year before were not unusal, he has always been strong uphill and is always there in the World's no matter the course. Idk what you mean by top ten player, he gets top tens easily. This month he had a support role for Sagan in Vlaanderen and crashed out of Roubaix.

I agree with you ciranda, Matti Breschel's just not that good anymore. I also agree that he was most likely doping in some way during his best years.

 

[blackcat]

I agree with you ciranda, Matti Breschel's just not that good anymore. I also agree that he was most likely doping in some way during his best years.

most likely?

certainly doping. they all are

 

[Bavarianrider]

Well, after today, i think there's no doubt left that Hesjedal did use a motor.
People didn't come up with any serious explanation for that bike movement, simply because you can't come up with one. However, people said, no it's impossible that someone would use a motor in a race.Well not so much it seems. It's very well possible, and it 's the one and only explanation for the movement of Hesjedals bike.

 

[Anaconda]

Well, after today, i think there's no doubt left that Hesjedal did use a motor.
People didn't come up with any serious explanation for that bike movement, simply because you can't come up with one. However, people said, no it's impossible that someone would use a motor in a race.Well not so much it seems. It's very well possible, and it 's the one and only explanation for the movement of Hesjedals bike.

“It’s the stupidest thing. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of,” he said, shaking his head. “It’s not possible. It’s just not possible.”
Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/05/news/hesjedal-bike-tested-for-motor-its-the-most-ridiculous-thing-ive-ever-heard-of_372016#CiGZxV4XabTSspi8.99

Both Boardman and Lemond said motors in bike were a threat. And then you have guys like Hesjedal vocally complaining about getting bikes their bikes controlled. And guys like Alex (can't figure out how to fill out a whereabouts form) Rasmussen giving 'proof' that Hedjedal did not use a motor in Spain. Anyway glad with proof motors have been found that these guys can just shut up. Although would be good if some journo has the guts to ask Hesjedal what he thinks about motors in bikes again.

The broader issue with cycling in general is that the old dopers have stayed in the sport (supported by fans, sponsors and the UCI) and many of them are now in control of teams, working in the media etc. There are guys like Hesjedal (I only doped as a mtn biker and went clean when I became a pro on the road) are still its "stars" and speaking for the sport. So many proven liars and nobody that really follows the sport is buying it. We have certainly seen that the young riders eg Femke and Gabriel Evans are not.

 

[Benotti69]

Vaughters, who has allegedly dedicated his life to anti-doping, has not said a peep. No one with have a brain cell would believe him now!

 

[doperhopper]

Re:

Vaughters, who has allegedly dedicated his life to anti-doping, has not said a peep. No one with have a brain cell would believe him now!

... with the emphasis on ALLEGEDLY (his business is rather about clean IMAGE, in line with the UCI's)

 

[sniper]

Well, after today, i think there's no doubt left that Hesjedal did use a motor.
People didn't come up with any serious explanation for that bike movement, simply because you can't come up with one. However, people said, no it's impossible that someone would use a motor in a race.Well not so much it seems. It's very well possible, and it 's the one and only explanation for the movement of Hesjedals bike.

“It’s the stupidest thing. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of,” he said, shaking his head. “It’s not possible. It’s just not possible.”
Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/05/news/hesjedal-bike-tested-for-motor-its-the-most-ridiculous-thing-ive-ever-heard-of_372016#CiGZxV4XabTSspi8.99

Both Boardman and Lemond said motors in bike were a threat. And then you have guys like Hesjedal vocally complaining about getting bikes their bikes controlled. And guys like Alex (can't figure out how to fill out a whereabouts form) Rasmussen giving 'proof' that Hedjedal did not use a motor in Spain. Anyway glad with proof motors have been found that these guys can just shut up. Although would be good if some journo has the guts to ask Hesjedal what he thinks about motors in bikes again.

The broader issue with cycling in general is that the old dopers have stayed in the sport (supported by fans, sponsors and the UCI) and many of them are now in control of teams, working in the media etc. There are guys like Hesjedal (I only doped as a mtn biker and went clean when I became a pro on the road) are still its "stars" and speaking for the sport. So many proven liars and nobody that really follows the sport is buying it. We have certainly seen that the young riders eg Femke and Gabriel Evans are not.

*like*

 

[Oldermanish]

Re:

Considering that at what rider effort could it contribute usefully in the best of circumstances? I've asked this before but how could you add a meaningful contribution to a rider putting out 300-400+ watts for any duration (or at all)? Assuming they could they'd need to mechanically supplement the effort in some way, wouldn't they?[/quote]

After following a larger guy up a 1k hill at my redline, catching him at the top to only find he had a very small motorized front hub....
The answer now is that it only has to last one key moment in a race. My position is changing on this years later!

 

[sniper]

Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport has described a motor hidden in the seat tube and bottom bracket as ‘old doping’ suggesting that special wheels, able to produce 20-60 watts via electromagnetics and costing 200,000 Euro, are the most sophisticated form of mechanical doping currently in use in cycling

This seems it could explain Ryder's case.

 

[zigmeister]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN7HjwZI-k0

Basic physics people...but as most of you on this forum are living on Mars...understandably things are different on that planet than Earth.

 

[sniper]

^ that's only been posted around seven times before, so thanks for putting it up again!
looking at it the eighth time, it still got as much to do with Ryder's case as it did the first time i watched it, which is

i don't know if Ryder had motorization, but that rebuttal is birdbrain stupid.

 

[Elagabalus]

Re:

^ that's only been posted around seven times before, so thanks for putting it up again!
looking at it the eighth time, it still got as much to do with Ryder's case as it did the first time i watched it, which is

i don't know if Ryder had motorization, but that rebuttal is birdbrain stupid.

I know you're not a cyclist but you can perform this experiment on any bicycle with a freewheel. Go ahead and see what happens.

Also, you saying something is stupid ain't much of an argument ...

 

[Escarabajo]

Like in the Superman movie, I don't know where I have been in the last two years. I thought the Cancellara incident was the last that I heard of it. I had no idea about the Hesjedal incident. I have heard the defense on it and I can conclude that this is very damning IMHO.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I posted this in the other thread, but it probably is better suited to this one. A person with a knowledge of physics put forth an argument based on conservation of angular momentum. I think zigmeister is right on this one.

https://twitter.com/EricGregg300/status/507692600740950016/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

[sniper]

Re:

I posted this in the other thread, but it probably is better suited to this one. A person with a knowledge of physics put forth an argument based on conservation of angular momentum. I think zigmeister is right on this one.

https://twitter.com/EricGregg300/status/507692600740950016/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

i think it would fit best in the pseudo-science thread.
like that vid above, it's birdbrain level of argumentation.
and yes, has been discussed before.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Based on what reasoning? Calling something names doesn't discount it as evidence.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Based on what reasoning? Calling something names doesn't discount it as evidence.

can you tell from the hesjedal vid if his rear wheel comes to halt or not before the bike starts spinning? a 'yes you can' or a 'no you cannot' will do.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I can't tell from the clips that I've seen.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

I posted this in the other thread, but it probably is better suited to this one. A person with a knowledge of physics put forth an argument based on conservation of angular momentum. I think zigmeister is right on this one.

https://twitter.com/EricGregg300/status/507692600740950016/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

In the video a few posts up, it's clear that the rear wheel (tire) comes into contact with the pavement at seconds 16 and 17. By second 19 all rotation of the bicycle has stopped and Ryder is no longer in contact with the bike. And then... Zoom!

So when you talk of conservation of angular momentum I have to ask, what momentum? The front wheel is contact with the ground and therefore has no angular momentum. The rear wheel has touched pavement twice and must have lost a considerable amount of angular momentum. The frame has stopped rotating and therefore has zero angular momentum. The bike is no longer sliding forwards and therefore has no momentum - ergo no possible source of angular momentum.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

I posted this in the other thread, but it probably is better suited to this one. A person with a knowledge of physics put forth an argument based on conservation of angular momentum. I think zigmeister is right on this one.

https://twitter.com/EricGregg300/status/507692600740950016/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

i think it would fit best in the pseudo-science thread.
like that vid above, it's birdbrain level of argumentation.
and yes, has been discussed before.

Yeah, that bit of calculation is really just the worst. I'm sure his heart was in the right place, but Ryder did not impart all his kinetic energy into the bike... Both he and the bike were or were nearly stationary before things took off. The only possible source of energy causing the rotation was from the rear wheel. The wheel that touched pavement twice and then came to rest while touching the pavement a final time.

John Swanson