Ryders crash -motor?

[sniper]

when cancellara got accused, Cassani apparently spoke out.

former Italian professional rider Davide Cassani insists that such bikes have been used for a decade

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news...g-row-erupts-vuelta-crash-112916345--spt.html

Cassani full of **** or what?

 

[sniper]

The thing is all of these motors are pretty easy to spot. It doesn't take much ivestigation.

you sound like you got stuck in the first half of the 20th century.

And if someone is found with it then it's a life ban for them. The team will lose its licence (no chance of a lone rogue rider defence) and the manufacturer would probably be banned too with subsequent consequences.
A suitable risk to get in a breakway in the Vuelta? For all the money spent on the motor development why not hire better riders instead.

i assume this naive assumption results from your other assumptions that (a) motorization is consistently tested for by UCI and (b) it is easy to detect. Both (a) and (b) seem very premature assumptions to me.

So then you have to rely on some sort of UCI conspiracy.

some sort of uci conspiracy? hardly.
at best we have to assume that the UCI will not be happy to have any media outlet reporting about possible motorized bikes in the peloton.
not hard to assume at all.

 

[Cramps]

The above motor provides 80 kW, and the system weighs an (estimated on my part) 70 kg. Divide everything by 1000, and you could have a system able to provide 80W, at a mass of 70g. 80W is enough to turn a donkey into a racehorse!

Not an engineer, and curious -- do you need some kind of clutch to couple the motor to the rider's cranking power?

 

[Parker]

you sound like you got stuck in the first half of the 20th century.

I'll admit that I missed the invention of invisibility. It's a machine with parts. You can see them or feel them in the balance of the bike. The people who look at the bikes aren't as stupid as many of the posters on this thread

i assume this naive assumption results from your other assumptions that (a) motorization is consistently tested for by UCI and (b) it is easy to detect. Both (a) and (b) seem very premature assumptions to me.

No, it results from a mechanical engineering degree and twenty years working in associated fields

some sort of uci conspiracy? hardly.
at best we have to assume that the UCI will not be happy to have any media outlet reporting about possible motorized bikes in the peloton.
not hard to assume at all.

I doubt they care much about the story, which sensible people will dismiss quickly as a madcap conspiracy theory. The media may print a quick paragraph or two on their website for cheap clicks, but they won't follow it up, because they're not dumb or desperate.

 

[hrotha]

Spanish TV just asked Garmin DS Bingen Fernández about this.

They only found out about the controversy this morning on the newspapers (What? JV, you're slacking off).
Crank doesn't turn, wheel moves. Nothing to see here.
UCI might pay Garmin a visit to check their bikes (the way he worded it was ambiguous, it could be either that they'll definitely check their bikes, or simply that they invite the UCI to go take a look).

 

[sniper]

...
No, it results from a mechanical engineering degree and twenty years working in associated fields...

how does that degree allow you to know if the UCI consistently test for motorization.

 

[Parker]

how does that degree allow you to know if the UCI consistently test for motorization.

It doesn't. But I'm assuming that the commissaires have a functioning pair of eyes and a brain.

 

[GoodTimes]

Scaling doesn't work like that though does it? Distances, areas, masses etc. Some scale linearly, some as a square, some as a cube.
...

Scaling does not work like that. You're right.

But I'm also not a believer in the motorized bike conspiracy, and have presented a pretty rigorous disproof that has not be rebutted. So, maybe you should read my wheel-motor post with a grain of sarcasm

 

[Catwhoorg]

It doesn't. But I'm assuming that the commissaires have a functioning pair of eyes and a brain.

To be fair, that second is actually a stretch assumption for some of them.

 

[Parker]

But I'm also not a believer in the motorized bike conspiracy, and have presented a pretty rigorous disproof that has not be rebutted. So, maybe you should read my wheel-motor post with a grain of sarcasm

Fair enough. My mistake. It did look out of place with the rest of your posts.

 

[GoodTimes]

Not an engineer, and curious -- do you need some kind of clutch to couple the motor to the rider's cranking power?

My theorized wheel motor would not require a clutch. It would require a sophisticated electronic controller to drive the proposed caliper stator. This would need to be in phase with the angular velocity of the rear wheel. But, the angular wheel velocity is already measured by a bike computer...

Also, there would be a variable power control switch, similar to the accelerator on your (electric) car. By increasing current into the system, you increase power, but you speed the rate of battery depletion. So, for example you could have a 30W motor run for 2hrs, or a 60W motor run for 1 hour.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It doesn't. But I'm assuming that the commissaires have a functioning pair of eyes and a brain.

Spoken like someone who's never had a bike inspection before...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

My theorized wheel motor would not require a clutch. It would require a sophisticated electronic controller to drive the proposed caliper stator. This would need to be in phase with the angular velocity of the rear wheel. But, the angular wheel velocity is already measured by a bike computer...

Also, there would be a variable power control switch, similar to the accelerator on your (electric) car. By increasing current into the system, you increase power, but you speed the rate of battery depletion. So, for example you could have a 30W motor run for 2hrs, or a 60W motor run for 1 hour.

Several pro tour teams have asked that you transmit your contact information to me, so that I can pass it on to them...

...they don't like having direct links for certain...ahum.....marginal gains...

 

[Race Radio]

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

 

[Parker]

Spoken like someone who's never had a bike inspection before...

And you have have you? At World Tour level? They have idiots in blindfolds doing it, do they? Any decent mechanic could spot a motor on a bike inside 30 seconds.

 

[GoodTimes]

Several pro tour teams have asked that you transmit your contact information to me, so that I can pass it on to them...

...they don't like having direct links for certain...ahum.....marginal gains...

Ha, I build trains for a living bud. This bike stuff is eaaasy

I might be able to turn out a reasonable prototype with a budget of, say, 1, 2 mil?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Goodtimes, I did read your post earlier. 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.

 

[Granville57]

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

Perfect!

That addresses two issues in one.

1) Although I posted an earlier motorcycle clip to demonstrate the same, this video contradicts the skeptics who insisted that Ryder's bike would've had to have been in "reverse" in order to move in the direction that it does.

The directional spin of Ryder's bike is perfectly in line with what would've been the forward motion of his rear wheel, regardless of the source of that forward motion. So thank you, Alex Ramussen.

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?

 

[Granville57]

33 Ryder Hesjedal (Can) Garmin Sharp @ 24:14.

The batteries don't work.

Who's to say that Ryder wouldn't have been 54:14 back if not for some "help"?

And who wouldn't take a 30 min advantage in a GT?

 

[Granville57]

If you think this is a motor in the bike then I am genuinely embarrassed for you.

I'm more embarrassed for those who are desperate to shut down the conversation by providing contrary "evidence" that when viewed with any sort of rational mind, does absolutely nothing to reinforce their contrarian view.

(That is not directed at you, compass, I'm just making a larger point.)

 

[Granville57]

Sky's auto-parking system demonstrated by Wiggins last year was more impressive.

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

 

[Granville57]

Okay, I reverse my decision...

Did you reverse your decision before or after unclipping from this thread?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[GoodTimes]

Goodtimes, I did read your post earlier. 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.

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".

 

[Granville57]

Spanish TV just asked Garmin DS Bingen Fernández about this.

They only found out about the controversy this morning on the newspapers (What? JV, you're slacking off).
Crank doesn't turn, wheel moves. Nothing to see here.
UCI might pay Garmin a visit to check their bikes (the way he worded it was ambiguous, it could be either that they'll definitely check their bikes, or simply that they invite the UCI to go take a look).

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.

 

[Granville57]

Okey dokey folks, sorry for my machine-gun posting here this afternoon. I'm on limited time at the moment, and my laptop's battery is dying!

Please carry on.