Ryders crash -motor?

[BigMac]

I don't know if this has been said here already, but it looks like optical illusion to me. The first moments of the video of the crash are in high slow motion, but once the moto gets closer to Ryder, it seems that the replay fastens up a bit, giving the ilusion that the bike propeled, even though it was already taking that spinning path, just looking slower due to less frames per second. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[peloton]

If there was a motor, be it anywhere, wouldn't the Garmin lads be winning more races?
Common sense says that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't know if this has been said here already, but it looks like optical illusion to me. The first moments of the video of the crash are in high slow motion, but once the moto gets closer to Ryder, it seems that the replay fastens up a bit, giving the ilusion that the bike propeled, even though it was already taking that spinning path, just looking slower due to less frames per second. Correct me if I'm wrong.

When hes stands up it's in slow motion still.

 

[Granville57]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

It was mentioned earlier upthread, but I just don't see it. If you watch Ryder's body movement throughout the clip, there doesn't appear to be any change to the speed of the frames.

What is a bit deceptive is the motion created by the movement of the moto. As the camera gets closer the perception of movement is altered a bit. Notice that the moto slows before running over Ryders' bike, but the bike is still accelerating at that point. If not for that moto or Ryder's interference, it seems the bike was going to spin 360º, which is the most bizarre aspect to all of this.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If there was a motor, be it anywhere, wouldn't the Garmin lads be winning more races?
Common sense says that.

You could say the same for their doping also. Unless your goal was to fly under the radar and do enough to sustain sponsorship.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It was mentioned earlier upthread, but I just don't see it. If you watch Ryder's body movement throughout the clip, there doesn't appear to be any change to the speed of the frames.

What is a bit deceptive is the motion created by the movement of the moto. As the camera gets closer the perception of movement is altered a bit. But keep in mind that the moto comes to a stop (or close to a complete stop as it runs over Ryder's rear wheel) but the bike is still accelerating all on its own. If not for that moto or Ryder's interference, it seems the bike was going to spin 360º, which is the most bizarre aspect to all of this.

And watching it repeatedly, the rear wheel is rubbing along the road as he slides. But the bike is stopped as he unclips. If the wheel was sustaining forward movement whilst the wheel was stopped against the road, that's a lot of inertia and would explain the acceleration as soon as he unclips.

I guess the question is whether the inertia of the wheel comes from the sliding + initial movement as he falls (with enough slipperiness to allow it to continue), or something built into the wheel.

For those of you saying the cranks aren't moving, or agreeing with those posters, the copenhagen wheel concetrates all the energy capture and return into the rear wheel. Albeit noticeably, but the concept is sound. Link: https://www.superpedestrian.com/

 

[Granville57]

If there was a motor, be it anywhere, wouldn't the Garmin lads be winning more races?
Common sense says that.

For the sake of argument, that would imply that other "lads" on the team had hidden motors as well.

One Ryder possibly experimenting with new technology would not necessarily make for a dominant team.

 

[D-Queued]

Having looked at this a few times, there appears to be 18-1/2 minutes of tape missing.

What happened to the missing 18-1/2 minutes?

Dave.

 

[Granville57]

Having looked at this a few times, there appears to be 18-1/2 minutes of tape missing.

You mean frames 208–211?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Frames 297 and 298 are exactly the same?
ETA: my video analysis mojo is 0, clearly. There appear to be a number of frames that are replicas of each other. Interesting to go through it frame by frame, though.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's also very quick, but I am kind of surprised Ryder is not turning his head to look at the motorcycle as it very nearly runs into the back of him / over his bike. Not enough frames, but he is very focused on his bike, despite the obvious motorcycle entering his grid square.

 

[Granville57]

Frames 297 and 298 are exactly the same?

NO. 283 and 284.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

NO. 283 and 284.

In Movie Studio platinum, the following frames appear identical - ie I can see no difference if I flick between the two:

266 & 267
270 & 271
278 & 279
297 & 298
301 & 302

etc

Different software apps probably have weird anomalies or something.

 

[D-Queued]

You mean frames 208–211?

No, I mean the missing 18 minutes: Final Nixon tapes to be released http://www.cbsnews.com/news/final-nixon-tapes-to-be-released/

You know. The part where they faked the moon landing.

Dave.

 

[mewmewmew13]

oh my

lol
was a sceptic..but the more I watch it the weirder it looks

 

[BigMac]

In Movie Studio platinum, the following frames appear identical - ie I can see no difference if I flick between the two:

266 & 267
270 & 271
278 & 279
297 & 298
301 & 302

etc

Different software apps probably have weird anomalies or something.

That is likely due to the process of slow motion used which is time stretching. Sometimes, depending on the original capture's frame rate, when stretching the video in order to slower it/make it longer in post processing, the software will insert/fabricate new frames between the ones that have actually been photographed but since those were never photographed, what will happen, sometimes, is that those are repeats of the preceding frames. The reason this only happens in some frames is because the process of slow motion is more often created by interpolating between frames. While the latter results in more smooth transitions, the software may apply both ''techniques'' to the same video, depending on the amount and quality of frames during it.

In this case, 'x' will be a repeat of the preceding frame. And the more it is streched, the more 'x's there will be. In this case, how a software reads the frames may also vary. Anyway, did you download the video?

 

[Kicker661]

In Movie Studio platinum, the following frames appear identical - ie I can see no difference if I flick between the two:

266 & 267
270 & 271
278 & 279
297 & 298
301 & 302

etc

Different software apps probably have weird anomalies or something.

Nah you can get it from rendering video in a different fps setting to how the camera originally recorded the footage. Given it was slowed down it can double the frame.

Ie if you record in 24fps and render in 30fps it will duplicate the frames to get the 30fps. Recording in 48fps for slow motion would be 60fps.

 

[Kicker661]

And watching it repeatedly, the rear wheel is rubbing along the road as he slides.

That's what i see and given Ryder+bike aren't doing mad 360s at 50km/h during the crash but instead slide straight the rear wheel would have the inertia wiped out. Before being ridden over that bike was going to do a 360 on it's own, WTF???

Over the years i laughed at people trying to build a case for a motorsied bike amongst the pro peloton but damn, this is pretty compelling.

When was the last time anyone saw a bike pretty much stop then do a 360 by itself?

We have had riders paying $400k to a Doctor to drug them up, store blood, transfuse it and put them on drugs designed for pregnant women. Perhaps a little motor in a bike isn't 'that' much of a stretch........

 

[BigMac]

Ok, watching it in HD it is clear that the rear wheel is moving forward until the end and making contact with the ground, which would cause the bike to spin in that particular direction. What looks like a small bike projection near the end can be caused by the fact that instantly previous to that, the front wheel tilted out slightly from the original position (to what can be a more friction-friendly position?) and also the handlebar (at least the right side of it), eventually, came up and stoped making contact with the ground. This fast change in attrition combined with the continous movement of the rear wheel might have triggered the increase in spinning speed. Of course, just another theory.

 

[hfer07]

I happened to come across this thread by accident ......

I mean ..... Really?

 

[mewmewmew13]

I happened to come across this thread by accident ......

I mean ..... Really?

i think a joke....
really

 

[Archibald]

No, I mean the missing 18 minutes: Final Nixon tapes to be released http://www.cbsnews.com/news/final-nixon-tapes-to-be-released/

You know. The part where they faked the moon landing.

Dave.

stupid me, I thought it was a reference to Contact, and was all set for a lame comment about it making contact...

... Of course, just another theory.

no, it's an unproven hypothesis
Ask Sheldon

 

[proffate]

it's not just the front wheel touching the ground.

Two questions for you:
1. what part of the bike do you think was touching the ground?
2. what did I say was touching the ground?

 

[proffate]

here's something to help you guys out (can't embed gifs)

the saddle is clearly not touching the ground
the pedal is clearly not touching the ground
right shifter is not touching the ground

only three points of contact, each wheel and the left shifter.

 

[D-Queued]

In Movie Studio platinum, the following frames appear identical - ie I can see no difference if I flick between the two:

266 & 267
270 & 271
278 & 279
297 & 298
301 & 302

etc

Different software apps probably have weird anomalies or something.

You went frame-by-frame, but missed the picture of the popcorn and soda?

How is that even possible?

Dave.