Ryders crash -motor?

[westerner]

Regarding Ryders possessed bike looks odd, very odd. But from such a small clip I don't think anyone can definitively conclude motor/nonmotor. Especially Alex R with that irrelevant little experiment of his. To those jumping on that as "proof'', you are looking as simple as the guy who could not even figure out how to fill out his whereabouts forms.

However this has re opened the mechanical doping discussion and I think that's a good thing. The technology of small motors and batteries is only going to improve with time. With electronic shifting, bikes now have batteries (external and concealed) and wires and switches are normal to see. Maybe there will be a day when a bike with a small motor can come in around the uci legal bike weight limit? Even for a small watts/time boost it could be very useful eg saving legs to set up for a sprint.

If I was a rider/manager I would consider mechanical doping a very credible threat to the integrity of the sport and probably react more this way:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lefevere-takes-mechanical-doping-seriously

Than making a crude joke about it. Anyway, to each there own regarding taste.

For me the most credible evidence that Ryder had no motor in his bike is that JV actually let him do an interview about it. So far Ryder had never answered questions on camera about his doping, nor to a real cycling journalist.

As for Nathan Hass getting all upset about the media making up stories. Well he has some good examples around him on his team regarding making up lots of stories for the media. Maybe he should just ask his teammate Hesjedal to tell him the story again on why he gave up doping.

 

[Almeisan]

Well its a good thing we have all these engineers explaining whats happening cus now I think I get it....the only thing i'm not quite sure about is how an object with 0 movement and an object with 0 angular momentum... become an object that is accelerating and an object that has increasing angular momentum....doooo explain!!!

No reason to be spiteful towards others because YOU don't have an MSc.

 

[Master50]

Regarding Ryders possessed bike looks odd, very odd. But from such a small clip I don't think anyone can definitively conclude motor/nonmotor. Especially Alex R with that irrelevant little experiment of his. To those jumping on that as "proof'', you are looking as simple as the guy who could not even figure out how to fill out his whereabouts forms.

However this has re opened the mechanical doping discussion and I think that's a good thing. The technology of small motors and batteries is only going to improve with time. With electronic shifting, bikes now have batteries (external and concealed) and wires and switches are normal to see. Maybe there will be a day when a bike with a small motor can come in around the uci legal bike weight limit? Even for a small watts/time boost it could be very useful eg saving legs to set up for a sprint.

If I was a rider/manager I would consider mechanical doping a very credible threat to the integrity of the sport and probably react more this way:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lefevere-takes-mechanical-doping-seriously

Than making a crude joke about it. Anyway, to each there own regarding taste.

For me the most credible evidence that Ryder had no motor in his bike is that JV actually let him do an interview about it. So far Ryder had never answered questions on camera about his doping, nor to a real cycling journalist.

.

If by not a real cycling journalist you mean Jack Knox? He is part owner of a bike shop if seeing him work on the stores's computer is any indication. He may be a generalist in terms of his normal editorial but definitely a cycling enthusiast. A Fan boy? perhaps. I assume the legitimate cycling press guys are those who write only about cycling? You know Oprah never asks the hard questions either.

 

[claytoncoffelt]

And, of course, there's likely been little to no technological advancements in the intervening four years since that article...

A rear motor wheel could easily have been developed and would be a great solution to the UCI looking at the BB area. Making the movement of the cranks irrelevant. The wheel does appear to come to a complete stop making any momentum of the wheel argument invalid. A very light weight carbon wheel does not carry enough kinetic energy to make the bike peel out either. The rim and tire on Ryder's bike have almost no mass and almost no kinetic energy after the sidewall of the tire hits the ground and most of the energy is dissipated.The rear wheel in this case including the tire is only around 1000 grams most of which is the hub and cassette. I have worked in a bicycle store for most of 30 years and have never witnessed anything like what is pictured unless the wheel is powered.
It is not easy to come to the conclusion your favorite sport is about as real as the WWE.

 

[westerner]

If by not a real cycling journalist you mean Jack Knox? He is part owner of a bike shop if seeing him work on the stores's computer is any indication. He may be a generalist in terms of his normal editorial but definitely a cycling enthusiast. A Fan boy? perhaps. I assume the legitimate cycling press guys are those who write only about cycling? You know Oprah never asks the hard questions either.

Ok not sure how the Oprah bit is relavant, and this is a thread about the bike crash video. But to quickly address your question, yeah Jack Knox is definitely looking like a fanboy as you note in your post, and his article was what is commonly referred to as a 'puff piece'. Do ya think Ryder would grant an interview with someone like Kimmage - that could really sway me if he did. He won't even talk to the Canadian cycling magazines.

Interesting bit of info about Mr Knox having a business interest in cycling. Perhaps he should have disclosed this information at the end of his article. I assume a real journalist probably would.

 

[keldog21]

Well all this talk is great...but I think the time has come for the Clinic to take concrete action! I figure if we steal one of those Garmin vans we could lure Ryder in with some blood bags and EPO.....Bam!!Got you!!

Hay guys whats goin on...?
Well looka here boyss ... we got ourselves a fancy pants Ryder!!!
Get the water board out!..we fixin on getting some answers....that's whats goin on...Your so done your gonna hav a change your name to Rode....you drinkin my whiskey kemosabe??

Shotgun....I called it first!

 

[hrotha]

A rear motor wheel could easily have been developed and would be a great solution to the UCI looking at the BB area. Making the movement of the cranks irrelevant. The wheel does appear to come to a complete stop making any momentum of the wheel argument invalid. A very light weight carbon wheel does not carry enough kinetic energy to make the bike peel out either. The rim and tire on Ryder's bike have almost no mass and almost no kinetic energy after the sidewall of the tire hits the ground and most of the energy is dissipated.The rear wheel in this case including the tire is only around 1000 grams most of which is the hub and cassette. I have worked in a bicycle store for most of 30 years and have never witnessed anything like what is pictured unless the wheel is powered.
It is not easy to come to the conclusion your favorite sport is about as real as the WWE.

How would a rear motor wheel work with the fact that wheels have to be changed very often in the middle of a race, often by neutral staff?

 

[GoodTimes]

... an iterative approach should yield a useful result. The method that I've come up with is as follows: ...

Derp. Over complicated...

1. From video, determine amount of time that rear wheel is in contact with pavement between t_0 (when Ryder begins his crash), and t_1 (when Ryder unclips his foot).
2. Assume an average force between wheel and road for the above duration. This can be based on assumptions of ryder and bike mass, some angles / geometry, and a healthy dose of engineering liberty
3. Assume a reasonable value for the friction between wheel and road. This should not be the most controversial part, as there are documented ranges fo values for this.

ok so far

4. Use an iterative, analytically, approach to track how the wheel energy is lost over, say, 10 discrete (linearized) steps between t_0 and t_1.

The calculations will done with an excel spreadsheet. They will be no more complicated than the calculations done on post 266, however it will be more lengthy.

The above, though, is not a trivial effort, and I got plenty else to do. If people are interested, then I might go for it, since it is an interesting topic. But, if theres no interest, I won't bother.

over complicated. a case where the rust is showing i'm afraid. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but some makes less blood than others...

I spent about 30 minutes today @ lunch, and just about finished building an excel model for this, then realized.... derp. Assumption 2, above, means it's gonna have linear acceleration, which means the problem is really easy to solve.

w_1=w_0-a_avg*(time wheel is in contact w/ pavement), where a_avg = Favg*COF*r_wheel/I_wheel. Done.

All we need is some video analysts to figgure out how long wheel is in contact /w ground, and we can have a party.

 

[Benotti69]

How would a rear motor wheel work with the fact that wheels have to be changed very often in the middle of a race, often by neutral staff?

Wheels from neutral cars are only required in breaks where team cars are stuck behind pelotons.

If someone was using a hub motor, they do have to consider the wheel change might be from a neutral car, but as soon as the opportunity arises getting a rear wheel from team car is also an option.

How many times would a rider puncture during a 3 week GT? I remember Armstrong didn't puncture once in 7 TdFs

 

[sniper]

Derp. Over complicated...
ok so far
over complicated. a case where the rust is showing i'm afraid. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but some makes less blood than others...

I spent about 30 minutes today @ lunch, and just about finished building an excel model for this, then realized.... derp.

w_1=w_0-a_avg*(time wheel is in contact w/ pavement), where a_avg = Favg*COF*r_wheel/I_wheel. Done.

All we need is some video analysts to figgure out how long wheel is in contact /w ground, and we can have a party.

basically what i've been saying. your math is impressive, but useless for determining the presence of a motor in this particular case. unless, indeed, we would know more precisely the amount of friction there was. bummer we don't and a video analyst i'm afraid will not be able to accurately determine it either. back to using that sane pair of eyes and half a brain most of us are endowed with.

edit: don't see this as me discouraging you to bring more math into the equation. by all means do. just my opinion that in this case it will not bring us closer to answering the question if there was a motor or not.

 

[GoodTimes]

basically what i've been saying. your math is impressive, but useless for determining the presence of a motor in this particular case. unless, indeed, we would know more precisely the amount of friction there was. bummer we don't and a video analyst i'm afraid will not be able to accurately determine it either. back to using that sane pair of eyes and half a brain most of us are endowed with.

edit: don't see this as me discouraging you to bring more math into the equation. by all means do. just my opinion that in this case it will not bring us closer to answering the question if there was a motor or not.

nah you missed the point. the Coefficient Of Friction between a rubber tire and pavement is a constant. It is tabulated in various textbooks, and readily available on the internet for your perusal.

The Force of Ryder's bike on pavement can be assumed with reasonable accuracy.

What I need, is the TIME, that the wheel is in contact with the pavement. For that, you gotta watch the video a few dozen times and add up all the little skids and bounces. That's where you come in, bubs. Thanks for volunteering

 

[sniper]

nah you missed the point. the Coefficient Of Friction between a rubber tire and pavement is a constant. It is tabulated in various textbooks, and readily available on the internet for your perusal.

The Force of Ryder's bike on pavement can be assumed with reasonable accuracy.

What I need, is the TIME, that the wheel is in contact with the pavement. For that, you gotta watch the video a few dozen times and add up all the little skids and bounces. That's where you come in, bubs. Thanks for volunteering

your proposal is clear and correct. i understand it perfectly (i think ).
i challenge the boldfaced assumption, however.
I don't think the force can be assumed with reasonable accuracy from the footage we have.
Or better, i don't think 'reasonable accuracy' will be accurate enough to determine the likelihood of motorization in this case.

btw, i'd volunteer anytime, if it wasn't for the ridicule i'd be facing from guys like Parker, shane stokes, a. rasmussen, and others who prefer we drop the topic all together.

 

[GoodTimes]

i challenge your bolded assumption though. I don't think the force can be assumed with reasonable accuracy from the footage we have.
Or better, i don't think 'reasonable accuracy' will be accurate enough to determine whether or not there was a motor.

You are absolutely right to question the phraise "reasonable accuracy". I guess it depends on what I mean by "reasonable" though... In this case I agree that 'Reasonable accuracy' will not be sufficient to prove that there was definitely not a motor. It will, however, support my position, which is to say that this video is completely consistent with no motor. This should be enough to prove that the video is not to be considered as evidence of a motor. Get it?

 

[sniper]

'Reasonable accuracy' will not be sufficient to prove that there was definitely not a motor. It will, however, support my position, which is to say that this video is completely consistent with no motor. This should be enough to prove that the video is not to be considered as evidence of a motor. Get it?

yes, i get it. in fact i got it the first time you posted it.
and as i said the first time i replied to it, no, imo it will not be accurate enough to support your position.

 

[MacRoadie]

What I need, is the TIME, that the wheel is in contact with the pavement. For that, you gotta watch the video a few dozen times and add up all the little skids and bounces. That's where you come in, bubs. Thanks for volunteering

But we also need to know the angular force with which the tire come into contact with the pavement, yes?

As a comparison, the now-famous Rasmussen video shows the wheel coming in contact with the floor with little force (Alex gently lays the bike on the floor). In the Ryder crash, we have the speed of the bike and the combined weight of the bike and rider and the angle at which the wheel comes into contact with the pavement to contend with. As an extreme, suppose Rasmussen was to slam the bike down hard against the floor, or be standing on the frame for a moment before he lets go).

I'm pretty sure you've accounted for this in other aspects of your calculations, but just confirming.

 

[GoodTimes]

But we also need to know the angular force with which the tire come into contact with the pavement, yes?
....

Angular force is a bit of a misnomer. We want to know the normal force. In Michael's experiment, this is easy to calculate. See post #266 where I calculate this, for the period of time after Ryder unclips his foot.

Regarding the determination of the normal force for the period of time before ryder unclips.... you are correct that it is a complex scenario. We do not have as much information as we would like, and cannot determine this with any certainty. At best, we can consider the variables you described, and come up with a reasonable approximation.

Currently, the argument in favor of this video being evidence of a motor, goes soemthing like this:
The back wheel would have lost too much energy. I know this... because of my eyes and my gut.

I say, well, I don't know if the back wheel would have lost too much energy. I don't trust your eyes or your gut. I'd like you to prove it.

We could stop there, and to a reasonable observer, I think it would be agreed that I'd already have won the argument. But, I want to go the extra mile, and give some additional supporting evidence to my claim, which is to say that this video is perfectly consistent with the behavior that we would expect ryder and his bike to have, with NO motor.

 

[sniper]

btw, to be sure, i challenge that we can prove this

this video is completely consistent with no motor.

but i fully agree with this:

the video is not to be considered as evidence of a motor.

the two statements aren't the same thing.

 

[MacRoadie]

Angular force is a bit of a misnomer. We want to know the normal force.

Understood. Perhaps a better question is, if in a perfect world normal force is perpendicular to the frictional surface, and applied force is parallel to the surface, if the angles of those respective forces are altered, does that affect the effect of that tire on the pavement?

 

[GoodTimes]

yes, i get it. in fact i got it the first time you posted it.
and as i said the first time i replied to it, no, imo it will not be accurate enough to support your position.

Cheers... to be clear, this post is not meant to be derogatory. Just trying to understand your position, and ask you to think about it a bit. Not tryin to misrepresent you bud, just tryin to put forth my best understanding of your position.


So, my position is that the behavior in the video is consistent with the laws of physics, acting on Ryder and his bike, with no motor.

You think that I can't support that position by using a best-guess approach to the fundamental parameters, and then see how the laws of physics would carry them out. You think this because the best-guess approach is too hazy, and there's just too much uncertainty in my best-guess.

But, on the flip side, you also want to say that this video is suspicious. You say it's suspicious because you think the back wheel wouldn't have enough energy without a motor. You want to defend this position, based on the best-guess approach as well [ie, your eyes, brain, gut, etc].

But, I would like to point out, that you've already undercut the best-guess approach. I think the argument you're using against me is also a defeater to your own position. If you're right that I cannot accurately determine the parameters that are required to figure out if this thing needed a motor, then we have to dismiss it as evidence of a motor, out of hand, which is exactly what I've said all along.

Edit: from Sniper's latest post, I may be misrepresenting him in the above. I'll leave the post as written though, as the argument is relevant to the discussion.

 

[GoodTimes]

btw, to be sure, i challenge that we can prove this
but i fully agree with this:

the two statements aren't the same thing.

hmm, I suppose you're right.

To rephrase the first claim then, I should say:

"To the best of our knowledge or ability, this video is completely consistent with no motor".

But, I want to also point out, that the same statement would apply to every video you've ever seen of a cyclist riding with no motor.

 

[Granville57]

My first post in the clinic...

I hope you feel that you've found your new home now.

Excellent offerings thus far. Every one of them.

 

[RownhamHill]

So I've come late to this thread, and only read half of it, so don't know if this has been covered already, but. The video is no longer working when I try to access it.

Has anyone got another link, or has JV nobbled the internet?

 

[Granville57]

The video is no longer working when I try to access it.

Still works fine for me.

The original Steephill link:
http://www.steephill.tv/players/youtube3/?title=Ryder+Hesjedal+crashes+out+of+Stage+7+break+then+cameraman+drives+over+his+bike&dashboard=vuelta-a-espana&id=OBvgUBpJSkk&yr=2014

The same clip on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBvgUBpJSkk

The longer (and in my view more entertaining) version from Universal Sports:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk5e_XQnfp4

 

[GoodTimes]

I hope you feel that you've found your new home now.

Excellent offerings thus far. Every one of them.

It's wildly addictive. I'll probably have to quit cold turkey soon, less I go clinically insane.

 

[Bluenote]

Cheers... to be clear, this post is not meant to be derogatory. Just trying to understand your position, and ask you to think about it a bit. Not tryin to misrepresent you bud, just tryin to put forth my best understanding of your position.


So, my position is that the behavior in the video is consistent with the laws of physics, acting on Ryder and his bike, with no motor.

You think that I can't support that position by using a best-guess approach to the fundamental parameters, and then see how the laws of physics would carry them out. You think this because the best-guess approach is too hazy, and there's just too much uncertainty in my best-guess.

But, on the flip side, you also want to say that this video is suspicious. You say it's suspicious because you think the back wheel wouldn't have enough energy without a motor. You want to defend this position, based on the best-guess approach as well [ie, your eyes, brain, gut, etc].

But, I would like to point out, that you've already undercut the best-guess approach. I think the argument you're using against me is also a defeater to your own position. If you're right that I cannot accurately determine the parameters that are required to figure out if this thing needed a motor, then we have to dismiss it as evidence of a motor, out of hand, which is exactly what I've said all along.

Edit: from Sniper's latest post, I may be misrepresenting him in the above. I'll leave the post as written though, as the argument is relevant to the discussion.

This is what I was saying above about unknows. From just the video its impossible to know speed, angle of the road, etc...

So people fill these is with assumptions. As long as we all admit that assumptions are just that - creations by us - and not exactly what happened to Ryder's bike, we're OK. But when it cross over and assumptions are represented as fact (the wheel lost its movement, the road was incredibly slick, etc...), then we're not so OK.

It would be more accurate to say 'based on the assumptions I've made from the video, I'm suspicious that Ryder has a motor.' And not 'the video looks suspicious.'

This is interesting to me because of how our perspective can alter how we percive reality. A video (or photo) looks like concrete evidence, but doesn't include lots of relevant information, such as, does the wheel stop, how slick is the road, is the motor crank mounted or hub mounted, etc...?

So seeing is believing. Or not.