Ryders crash -motor?

[Granville57]

If only there were a spectator filming it so we could get a 2nd viewing angle. Unfortunately I see no one on the grassy knoll...

A rare opportunity has slipped through our fingers. If Ryder had had an on-bike cam at that moment, we'd be watching the greatest footage of all time.

Imagine that camera just spinning 'round and 'round...

 

[Granville57]

Understanding Electric Bike Motors with Jim Turner of Optibike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL7tTUZCFDs

 

[Freddythefrog]

Hey Hoggy, I want to claim that motor being turned on when the bars smack the ground theory ! [but I haven't read all this thread so maybe somebody posted earlier than me !]

Motorised bikes !


Then I bumped into an engineer who designs miniature motors .....
Now that video is weird. Ignore the stuff about Ryder turning on the motor for the descent, that handlebar and left hand lever smack the ground with a hit. Where's the switch - I don't know but it is going to be somewhere where the rider has his hands normally, it is not going to be a toggle switch on a fascia with a label "on for turbo boost" so it could easily be damaged in the crash and turn on.

The leakage from the soigneurs over stopping the bus and everyone inside hooking up a blood bag and lying on the deck of the bus to transfuse was close to zero, so not expecting anyone to put up their hand anytime soon over this.

Just going to lurve listening to Ryder explain this away and JV. Talk to us man ! Tell us what is going on. This is cycling, anything whacky can happen and we will still be there to watch it. There can be a giant spring in the tubes. A mini compressor pumping the air in the frame upto 1200 psi on the descent all ready to unleash all via reverse action, in a sprint. Nothing would phase us. Let's hear it all.

 

[thehog]

Hey Hoggy, I want to claim that motor being turned on when the bars smack the ground theory ! [but I haven't read all this thread so maybe somebody posted earlier than me !]



The leakage from the soigneurs over stopping the bus and everyone inside hooking up a blood bag and lying on the deck of the bus to transfuse was close to zero, so not expecting anyone to put up their hand anytime soon over this.

Just going to lurve listening to Ryder explain this away and JV. Talk to us man ! Tell us what is going on. This is cycling, anything whacky can happen and we will still be there to watch it. There can be a giant spring in the tubes. A mini compressor pumping the air in the frame upto 1200 psi on the descent all ready to unleash all via reverse action, in a sprint. Nothing would phase us. Let's hear it all.

Yep, you called it first. I was banned so I only thought it in my head!

But it makes sense in terms of the manner in which the bike took off once he disengaged his pedal.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Two points I believe missed in the analysis thus far:

1. Ryder's foot is still locked in the pedal whilst on the ground. To unlock he has to pull his foot upwards toward his body. This would slow the bike and bring it forward to a stop, which it does. Once he unlocks his foot, the bike takes off in the the opposite direction of the action of pulling the foot upwards. As his leg is already twisted, he just needs to pull up to disengage rather then the normal twist right and up.

<Snip>

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1564412&postcount=230

Something I found odd in the footage - But when clipping out, you twist your foot and lift. At 10.5 secs he does exactly this, and you can see the resistance against the bike from his leg/foot (albeit minor). At this point, the rear wheel was also touching the ground, which would mean that the momentum of the bike would have been almost zero, and the wheel would have stopped (or almost stopped) spinning. For the bike to then gyrate like it did is, at a minimum, odd.

Good post, HAM.

 

[thehog]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1564412&postcount=230



Good post, HAM.

Would you look at that? All these great minds, thinking just like me

Next two graphics. Look at the distance of the bike from Ryder as it spins away as he gets up.

 

[barn yard]

while i am fairly sceptical of the whole motors in frames conspiracy, i have never seen a bike move like that before...

 

[hiero2]

The motor cyclist takes a line to avoid Ryder and the bike. He doesn't want to run over the wheel of the bike. He does run it over because the bike does something he doesn't imagine it can do in those circumstances - it rotates on the ground after Ryder and the bike have come to a halt.

Ryder reaches for the bike to pick it up. He reaches to where he can grab the saddle, only the saddle moves away from his hand even as he extends his arm within the limit of the arc of his reach, to get hold of it. He then has to adjust his position using has feet and legs, until he can make another attempt to reach for it. He wouldn't have reached for it the first time if he was expecting it to move. It did move and he did not expect it.

It is evidence. I had a totally boring day today. Some co-workers who report to me tried to make life difficult for others with petty gripes and failures to totally fulfill their team responsibilities. Some of my co-workers were helpful and a couple were as difficult as they always are. My boss spoke to me but was going through the motions. He wanted to know what trivia he could help me with and kept well away from any substantive issues. I rode to work and rode back. My bike did absolutely everything I expected it to do. The gears and brakes are fine. I switched on the computer and went around my favourite websites to see if anything odd had happened. Absolutely every single thing today happened like I expected it to happen.

I squeezed the toothpaste tube and toothpaste came out. I didn't reach for the teapot and see it roll away from my hand, so I had to step after it to get it.

Sorry to hear your life is so boring. But about as good a reason for the thread as any.

Have you looked into Ukraine news lately? Or Somalia? Might get a little entertainment there.

 

[D-Queued]

while i am fairly sceptical of the whole motors in frames conspiracy, i have never seen a bike move like that before...

You haven't watched the pro peloton much then.

You should watch it more. Always full of unreal performances.

Anyhow, this is what happens when two wheelers with real motors crash and spin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IzEdK7ARg8

FINALLY, as for this never happening in cycling????

Really???

Anyone remember this classic finish line stunt?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EaJMr26F5w

Except for the fact that the bike hits the barriers, it does pretty much exactly what Ryder's bike does.

Dave.

 

[Kicker661]

FINALLY, as for this never happening in cycling????

Really???

Anyone remember this classic finish line stunt?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EaJMr26F5w

Except for the fact that the bike hits the barriers, it does pretty much exactly what Ryder's bike does.

Dave.

Ryders bike stopped then went into a 360 spin by itself. That clip isn't even close.

Post a clip up where a bike has stopped then suddenly gone into a 360 spin without anything touching it.

Probably the closest you could get might be a crash on the velodrome with a fixed wheel?

 

[Avoriaz]

Ryders bike stopped then went into a 360 spin by itself. That clip isn't even close.

Post a clip up where a bike has stopped then suddenly gone into a 360 spin without anything touching it.

Probably the closest you could get might be a crash on the velodrome with a fixed wheel?

How about Wiggins bike parking itself in the Tour of Trentino?

 

[sniper]

Sorry to hear your life is so boring. But about as good a reason for the thread as any.

Have you looked into Ukraine news lately? Or Somalia? Might get a little entertainment there.

that's on the lame side, hiero2.

FINALLY, as for this never happening in cycling????

Really???

where does the indignation come from?
there've been rumors about motorized bikes for years.
i'd be highly surprised if this development hasn't been happening in the last decade or so in procycling, a sport with such high revenues.
the majority of cyclists is willing to blooddope for a better salary, but you think they will not put motors on their bikes? wow.

As for Ryder, he's about the last person I'd trust to voluntarily decline a small motor on his reer wheel if offered the opportunity. He's still not recovered from the Rasmussen revelations and looking for ways to prove the Giro wasn't a juicy accident.

This footage could be hot air.
or, it could a breakthrough in the fight against ongoing motorized cheating.

edit:

How about Wiggins bike parking itself in the Tour of Trentino?

you have a link?

 

[Cycle Chic]

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....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NMH3T0EvduU#t=155

 

[sniper]

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....

good finds,
though slightly different physics apply to the closed rear wheels.
and no need to doubt the motor theory. it's possible and i would be surprised if it isn't happening.
you may doubt of course that Ryder's footage is evidence.

 

[quarterpounder]

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

 

[GoodTimes]

My first post in the clinic...

I appreciate dry humor. So, when I read the first few pages of this thread, I was sure that it was a brilliant satire put on by the clinicians of themselves-- "No way they actually believe what they're writing... this is a big joke, and a funny one at that."

However, it has become clear to me that a majority of the contributors to this thread actually believe the tripe they are writing.

I can say, as a mechanical engineer, as a keen student of physics, as an avid cyclist, and as a skeptic about Ryder's ethical qualities, I categorically see nothing suspicious about the clip of Ryder and his bike whatsoever.

There may be motors in some pro bicycles at some races. I would be very surprised, but I think it may be possible. There may even have been a motor in Ryder's bike that crashed. That said, there is no evidence of this based on the footage that has been provided.

 

[thehog]

My first post in the clinic...

I appreciate dry humor. So, when I read the first few pages of this thread, I was sure that it was a brilliant satire put on by the clinicians of themselves-- "No way they actually believe what they're writing... this is a big joke, and a funny one at that."

However, it has become clear to me that a majority of the contributors to this thread actually believe the tripe they are writing.

I can say, as a mechanical engineer, as a keen student of physics, as an avid cyclist, and as a skeptic about Ryder's ethical qualities, I categorically see nothing suspicious about the clip of Ryder and his bike whatsoever.

There may be motors in some pro bicycles at some races. I would be very surprised, but I think it may be possible. There may even have been a motor in Ryder's bike that crashed. That said, there is no evidence of this based on the footage that has been provided.

All very well but perhaps explain why you think this is so, rather than "I'm a student of physics".

Your input would be most welcome.

 

[MrRoboto]

Why are everybody (admittedly skipped reading most pages) ignoring the fact that the wheel is spinning the wrong way if it was a motor? I'm pretty sure Ryder didn't want to go backwards.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

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....

That is a good video to look at: Rider goes off the ramp, tumbles. When the rear wheel lands on the ground, it moves forward with some speed until the rider's clipped-in leg holds it back. It then stops.

Ryder's situation is different. He falls, tumbles and spins. Things settle. Ryder unclips, then the bike starts to move. That is what is bizzare, that the bike went from rolling to falling/rotating to stationary, and then started accelerating again.

 

[GoodTimes]

All very well but perhaps explain why you think this is so, rather than "I'm a student of physics".

Your input would be most welcome.

Fair enough. I thought about my post, and find it perhaps hypocritical as I've always hated arguments from authority....

Let me define how I understand the positive argument that Ryder's bike was powered is constructed.

Let RB represent Ryder's Bike.

1. Ryder Crashed.
2. The behavior of RB during / after the crash was unusual:
a) RB came to a stop.
b) Ryder reached for RB.
c) Ryder was unable to grab RB, as RB accelerated.
d) Objects at rest tend to stay at rest...
e) RB did not stay at rest. That is unusual.
3. The best (or only?) explanation for this behavior is that the rear wheel was powered during the crash.
4. Since the wheel received power, and Ryder was not pedaling, the the only possible source of power to the rear wheel is a motor.

I see problems with many of the above points.
To 1: I do not dispute

I take exception to 2, 3, and 4.

Before I invest too much time, I'll let the above simmer. If somebody wants to modify, or correct my understanding, please feel free.

 

[hrotha]

However, it has become clear to me that a majority of the contributors to this thread actually believe the tripe they are writing.

Well, duh. The sceptics are generally not going to bother posting, or they won't keep posting the same thing over and over again, so eventually only those who believe or suspect there was a motor will stay.

 

[thehog]

Well, duh. The sceptics are generally not going to bother posting, or they won't keep posting the same thing over and over again, so eventually only those who believe or suspect there was a motor will stay.

A reasonable analysis looks at all the facts and makes a conclusion. An unreasonable analysis starts with a conclusion then sets off in search of any facts (even if misleading) that might possible support the conclusion.

 

[sniper]

Well, duh. The sceptics are generally not going to bother posting, or they won't keep posting the same thing over and over again, so eventually only those who believe or suspect there was a motor will stay.

speaking for myself, i see it as a possibility, not necessarily as a likelihood.
the possibility alone is reason enough to explore the issue.

edit:

A reasonable analysis looks at all the facts and makes a conclusion. An unreasonable analysis starts with a conclusion then sets off in search of any facts (even if misleading) that might possible support the conclusion.

this.

in any case, the word 'conspiracy' is completely misplaced here.
what would the conspiracy be? is blooddoping a conspiracy?

 

[GoodTimes]

All very well but perhaps explain why you think this is so, rather than "I'm a student of physics".

Your input would be most welcome.

Fair enough. I thought about my post, and find it perhaps hypocritical as I've always hated arguments from authority....

Let me define how I understand the positive argument that Ryder's bike was powered is constructed.

Let RB represent Ryder's Bike.

1. Ryder Crashed.
2. The behavior of RB during / after the crash was unusual:
a) RB came to a stop.
b) Ryder reached for RB.
c) Ryder was unable to grab RB, as RB accelerated.
d) Objects at rest tend to stay at rest...
e) RB did not stay at rest. That is unusual.
3. The best (or only?) explanation for this behavior is that the rear wheel was powered during the crash.
4. Since the wheel received power, and Ryder was not pedaling, the the only possible source of power to the rear wheel is a motor.

I see problems with many of the above points.
To 1: I do not dispute

I take exception to 2, 3, and 4.

Before I invest too much time, I'll let the above simmer. If somebody wants to modify, or correct my understanding, please feel free.

to 3: To my knowledge, there is no documented case of a pro being caught with a motor in their bike. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to defend the motor hypothesis. As can be shown below, there are rational explanations that do not require a motor.

to 2:
In summary, I believe that it's possible that Ryder's back wheel maintained a portion of it's angular momentum during the crash. Then, a small amount of friciton between wheel and pavement caused the bike to accelerate away from ryder.

1. Let t_0 represent the moment when Ryder loses control and begins to crash. Assume Ryder is moving at 60 kph (v_0) at time of crash [conservative, they are probably going faster].
2. Assume wheel diameter of 0.7 m (D_bw), radius of 0.35 m (r_bw), wheel mass of 0.9 kg (m_bw), and moment of inertia of 0.1 kg*m^2 (I_bw) [conservative estimate. I do not feel like experimenting to determine actual value. you can see a discussion here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=586625]
3. Assume bike has mass of 10 kg (m_b), center of gravity of bicycle is in geometric center of bicycle. This is not very important, but comes in a bit later on.
4. From 1 and 2: angular velocity of wheel at time of crash:
60 kph = 16.7 m/s
w_bw_0 = v_0/r_w
16.7 m/s / 0.35 m = 50 rad/s
5. Energy of back wheel at time of crash (E_bw_0): From 4, and 2:
E_bw_0 = 1/2 * I_bw * w_bw_0^2
E_bw_0 = 1/2 * (0.1 kgm^2)(50 rad/s^2)
E_bw_0 = 125 J

The above should not be contentious. This is just the kinetic (rotational) energy of the back wheel of Ryder's bike when he lost control and crashed, and some reasonable assumptions regarding bike geometry and mass. # 8, below, is the most liberal assumption that I'm going to make in this analysis. I think the assumption is plausible, which is all I think I need to discount the motor hypothesis.

6. Let the moment when ryder unclips his foot be referred to as t_1.
7. From the video, it appears that Ryder and his bicycle come to almost a complete rest at t_1. Hence, let v_1 = 0 km/h.
8. From watching video, it seems plausible that the back wheel of Ryder's bike did not make strong contact with pavement before he unclipped his foot.
8a. I note that for some time, his wheel did drag on the pavement sideways, so let's assume that the back wheel of ryder's bike lost half of it's angular velocity between t_0 and t_1.
8b. From 8a,
E_bw_1 = 30J.
w_bw_1 = 25 rad/s
also, let P_1 be momentum of system at time t_1. P_1 = I_bw*w_bw_1, = 2.5 Js.

9. Assume COF of wheel to road is 0.5.
10. (to derive the normal force of the back wheel on the road, we divide by 2, since we assumed COG of bike in geometric center. therefore back wheel is supporting 1/2 the mass of the bike)
Normal force of back wheel on road:
Fn_bw_1 = m_b *g / 2
= 10 kg * 10 m/s2 / 2
= 50N
11. force of friction of back wheel on road:
Ff_1 = FN_bw_1 * COF
= 25N
12. Linear acceleration of bicycle, caused by energy contributed by back wheel:
a_b_1 = Ff_1 / m_b
= 2.5 m/s2
Hence ryder's bike accelerated away from him. From the video evidence, it seems that my proposed rate of acceleration is within the right ballpark.

Let t_2 be the time when moto ran over ryders bike.

Equations that model the complete acceleration of Ryder's Bike between t_1 and t_2 go beyond the scope of this analysis. It is complicated by the fact that the back wheel has a discrete amount of energy, and so the force that it affects on the bicycle reduces with time. There are a few sanity checks that we can do though, to help show that the above analysis is valid.

I need to get going, but one easy sanity check I'll offer is a look at conservation of momentum.

Assume between t_1 and t_2, 25% of the systems momentum is lost to friction between bicycle and road.

Therefore, P_2 = .75* P_1 = 2 Js.

note: between t_1, and t_2, bicycle is pivoting on handlebars. Therefore only half of bike is moved by wheel, hence m_b/2:
V2 = P2 / (m_b /2)
= 2 kg m/s / 5 kg
= .4 m/s
= ~ 1.5 km/h

When ryder's bike gets hit, it's not going very fast. Is the rear wheel going faster than 1.5 km/h? maybe a bit. But a lot of my assumptions (especially, regarding loss of energy between t_0 and t_1) have been conservative.

It should be noted that I graduated a few years ago, and real - world engineering involves frighteningly little actual calculation and math, so I'm a bit rusty! I have not done a thorough review of the above, so if theres a typo or a small calculation mistake, please don't crucify me