Ryders crash -motor?

[Oldman]

Aw shucks.

Awwww. I see what Lance saw in...which one of us was it?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You have it all wrong as you go to someone with brains and pay them $100k to fabricate a one off system for you.

Have you seen what the hobby guys create nowadays? The hardcore guys create insane custom cars/trucks/planes from their garages fitted out like machinists.

You don't need a Billion dollar company to come up with this stuff. The parts already exist. The diffs in rc cars hitting 150km/h+ are a little bigger than 1cm3. The diff in my 15kg rc truck is about 1.5cm3 and that survived a massive amount of abuse time after time WAY more than what would be required for a burst system i am referring to. You don't need metals from Mars or anything exotic, the current stuff will handle it.

This reminds me of, "The Clear", a custom made steroid designed by a chemist in a lab somewhere random, used by a select group of athletes.

Completely undetectable.

Really appreciate your input, Kicker661.

 

[sniper]

Chris Boardman was talking about undetectable motorization and potential power sources in probikes back in 2010 already.

Speaking to the British newspaper Telegraph, Boardman said that in theory teams could use cutting-edge technology from Formula 1 to boost the power of any battery-powered motorized system. Boardman suggested they could even tap into the battery that was already used by several teams to power the front and gear changers on bikes.

"And don't forget electrically operated gears are legal these days so there is already a power source on many bikes."

"It would be very little trouble adapting a power source to give you maybe a couple of hundred watts for 20 minutes or so, which would basically gives you 40 per cent more power through the pedals in a time trial say. You could reduce that power and spread it over a longer period of time or go for one 'hit'. Its potential is obvious. You could use it when you are trying to establish a break or on the crux of the last climb of the day or maybe in the latter stages of a long time trial."

Boardman admits it would be difficult to detect if a rider uses a motor-powered bike.
...
"With little buttons controlling the gears these days I suspect it would also be pretty simple to disguise," Boardman said.

"There is not a shred of doubt that the technology exists to cheat in this way and that a rider could get a definite return from such cheating.

and of course UCI was desperate to catch those potential cheats.

UCI President Pat McQuaid has played down the possibility of riders using bikes fitted with hidden motors. "This is a story that has gone around the world like wildfire. Whereas there is no foundation for it," McQuaid told the Associated Press.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/boardman-warned-the-uci-of-risks-of-bike-doping

 

[Catwhoorg]

Would you like to provide us with a source for your information? It contradicts what I have read.

Are you interested in interacting with my analyis of these batteries, which corroborate my information?
http://www.batteryspace.com/high-pow...assed-3-0.aspx
http://www.vivax-assist.com/en/produ...ssist_4-0.html

Are you going to interact with the references to MIT presentations, or wikipedia?

Nissan's Leaf documentation (we have a couple of folks who have them at work).
Weight is also cited easily found online (here) Power is listed herealong with a corroboration of weight (Slightly different but close enough)

The Samsung Battery was actually from an amazon description.
I pulled mine out and weighed it, and found a significant error there the battery mass was 40g.
The capacity, voltage etc are actually printed on the side of the battery
That puts the charge density at 247 Wh/Kg

I'll edit my prior post with this corrected information.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Would you like to provide us with a source for your information? It contradicts what I have read.

Are you interested in interacting with my analyis of these batteries, which corroborate my information?
http://www.batteryspace.com/high-pow...assed-3-0.aspx
http://www.vivax-assist.com/en/produ...ssist_4-0.html

Are you going to interact with the references to MIT presentations, or wikipedia?

Neither of those linked directly to a battery.

http://www.batteryspace.com/hi-powerli-popacks.aspx

Does show 170 Wh/Kg Li-Ion batteries though.

 

[GoodTimes]

Neither of those linked directly to a battery.

http://www.batteryspace.com/hi-powerli-popacks.aspx

Does show 170 Wh/Kg Li-Ion batteries though.

Cheers.

To summarize, we've had several different people look up several different battery spec's, and conclude independently that a specific energy of 100 to ~ 250 Wh / kg is realistic. I think this is sufficient for the purposes of this thread.

 

[MacRoadie]

Unless you have an external battery source, there's (probably) no way you're going to get a hub motor that's small enough to do any good without someone noticing that your hubs are strangely oversized on only some of your teams' wheels....

I think you're looking at the problem from the wrong angle: in either the BB or hub scenario, for the system to work as efficiently as possible, the BB or hub axle actually becomes PART of the motor itself. The axle is the rotor, and the BB shell or hub body then becomes the stator. There would be no separate motor lodged somewhere in the frame.

Also, there's no need for any visible wiring either in the rear hub scenario: contacts built into the rear drop outs (one per side), which come into contact with the locknut at each end of the axle would provide current. Already pretty standard stuff for chargers on everything from vacuums to razors to cell phones.

All would require extensive modification to the frame, and obviously entail the involvement of the manufacturer, but mechanically doable.

 

[MacRoadie]

Awwww. I see what Lance saw in...which one of us was it?

Both...

 

[MacRoadie]

http://bicitruccata.com/

There is also this one

https://vimeo.com/104632715

Yes, there is a lot of talk about this. Some of the talk comes from people I respect and trust, but personally I don't buy it yet

Interesting stuff...

 

[Michele]

Roberto Damiani wrote an interesting tweet 1 or 2 days after the affair.

 

[Granville57]

Roberto Damiani wrote an interesting tweet 1 or 2 days after the affair.

OK. Without a link or possible translation, that doesn't give us much to work with. Does it?

 

[GoodTimes]

I think you're looking at the problem from the wrong angle: in either the BB or hub scenario, for the system to work as efficiently as possible, the BB or hub axle actually becomes PART of the motor itself. The axle is the rotor, and the BB shell or hub body then becomes the stator. There would be no separate motor lodged somewhere in the frame.

Also, there's no need for any visible wiring either in the rear hub scenario: contacts built into the rear drop outs (one per side), which come into contact with the locknut at each end of the axle would provide current. Already pretty standard stuff for chargers on everything from vacuums to razors to cell phones.

All would require extensive modification to the frame, and obviously entail the involvement of the manufacturer, but mechanically doable.

Was thinking the same, but havent had time to type it up. I would add that conducting electricity from the hub or bb to wherever is very easy. It could even be done with electrically conductive paint. You thought that was just a neat stripe painted on the frame.... it was actually conducting the power to the hub motor!

Having not done any serious research or calculations, I would be concerned as to whether a (small) hub motor is able to generate sufficient torque to add decent power while climbing a steep mtn, and speeds are slow. But, apart from that, all of this seems very technically feasible.

The other interesting thing that crossed my mind is the possibility of inductive charging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging). Battery pack in the jersey pocket... or even embedded into the ryder's body! Bike Seat / shammy as couplers. No worries about UCI finding that battery... Don't sign me up though, I don't think my boys would like the waste heat (or the high frequency emf...)!

 

[Gavandope]

Yup. I'm aware of your analysis (flawed assumptions of moment of inertia) and Rasmussen's useless demo (doesn't represent what happened - i.e., spin up the rear wheel and then drop/slide the bike onto the ground; it certainly won't spin the way Rasmussen's bike did...). My values for energy density come very directly from the link I sent. State of the art for a LiMnO2 (Manganese based Li-Ion) cell is roughly 100 Wh/kg. Lithium Cobaltite cells (same link) have roughly 200 Wh/kg energy density, but are useless for this type of application because they suffer from low ion mobility (i.e., high internal resistance) at high currents.

John Swanson

Another physics geek here - nuke is really my thing though but you don't get to QM without going past Maxwell This thread is a pretty entertaining read!

Though with other elite racing sports such as F1 there has been dozens of 'improvements' such as the brake cooling system to name just one. With cycling the motor would certainly be feasible to assist in this day and age but we haven't got the battery technology powerful never mind small or light enough yet for them to be able to hide it properly - such as having the whole mechanism inside the frame when the carbon is cooked in the oven.

Though in the future if they can make a nano tokamak or thorium msr they can really fly up the big climbs

 

[GoodTimes]

Neither of those linked directly to a battery.

http://www.batteryspace.com/hi-powerli-popacks.aspx

Does show 170 Wh/Kg Li-Ion batteries though.

Cheers. I think we all broadly agree then that a realistic range of specific energy is somewhere between 100 and 250 Wh/kg. I'm inclined to believe the higher numbers myself, but think even the low end of this scale is technically practicable for a motor solution.

 

[GoodTimes]

Another physics geek here - nuke is really my thing though but you don't get to QM without going past Maxwell This thread is a pretty entertaining read!

Welcome to the party...

RE this statement:

we haven't got the battery technology powerful never mind small or light enough yet for them to be able to hide it properly - such as having the whole mechanism inside the frame when the carbon is cooked in the oven.

You sure? I think the conclusion of this thread is that a lithium ion battery would indeed be small and light enough to be hide-able in a bike frame (or other places, such as as a part of an electronic shifting system).

 

[Gavandope]

Welcome to the party...

RE this statement:


You sure? I think the conclusion of this thread is that a lithium ion battery would indeed be small and light enough to be hide-able in a bike frame (or other places, such as as a part of an electronic shifting system).

Using current battery technology I don't think it's quite there yet - 5-10 years possibly. The energy density needs to be much, much higher for the mass of the cell to be so light for needed for scrutineers not to notice. Hence the fusion/fission pun which are truly what I call energy dense.

Thing is unless the makers of the frame conspire to put the parts inside the carbon layers before baking it's a non starter. Even then with the frames weighing under 6kg and requiring weights either dropped into the saddle stem or under the bottle to meet the regs I would imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for experienced scrutineers to notice there is weight in this carbon frame where it shouldn't be. One x-ray or ultrasound test - busted.

 

[Catwhoorg]

The evolution of the thread has been interesting, looking at the technical abilities in the marketplace as of now, and I thank those who have contributed to that.

 

[D-Queued]

Welcome to the party...

RE this statement:


You sure? I think the conclusion of this thread is that a lithium ion battery would indeed be small and light enough to be hide-able in a bike frame (or other places, such as as a part of an electronic shifting system).

Sorry, I am not drinking the koolaid and that is not the conclusion of this thread.

That is the position being put forward by a minority. Said arguments including citations of Wikipedia as proof.

There does appear to be an increasing number of others with direct experience in electrochemistry and electrochemical devices that are not buying into the concept that batteries will soon be powering rocket lift-off.

Dave.

 

[Gavandope]

Sorry, I am not drinking the koolaid and that is not the conclusion of this thread.

That is the position being put forward by a minority. Said arguments including citations of Wikipedia as proof.

There does appear to be an increasing number of others with direct experience in electrochemistry and electrochemical devices that are not buying into the concept that batteries will soon be powering rocket lift-off.

Dave.

Bill Gates was correct, in fact optimistic when he said that all the batteries we have on this entire planet could only power the world for 10 minutes. A maglev rail gun powered sled could feasibly reach escape velocity into space but I wouldn't want to be inside it

 

[Semper Fidelis]

OK. Without a link or possible translation, that doesn't give us much to work with. Does it?

yeah it was all "Italian" to me.

No chance I will understand it. limited language skills ...including English.

Was it a reply to the Fake Frankie or was it something new?

 

[GoodTimes]

Sorry, I am not drinking the koolaid and that is not the conclusion of this thread.

That is the position being put forward by a minority. Said arguments including citations of Wikipedia as proof.

There does appear to be an increasing number of others with direct experience in electrochemistry and electrochemical devices that are not buying into the concept that batteries will soon be powering rocket lift-off.

Dave.

Hello Dave,

A straw man is a common type of fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.

Please review the actual requirements that I have stated as being relevant to the issue at hand. I think you'll find that they are far lower than rocket takeoff.

Please review the actual references that have been provided, by myself and others. I think you'll find many sources that go beyond wikipedia.

Please review the actual opinion of the people who have commented on the topic. Add up the actual yeas and nays. Where do you see a minority?

Earlier I made the summarizing statement:

"Cheers. I think we all broadly agree then that a realistic range of specific energy is somewhere between 100 and 250 Wh/kg. I'm inclined to believe the higher numbers myself, but think even the low end of this scale is technically practicable for a motor solution."

What aspect of this statement do you contest? Do you contest the specific energy, as stated here. Or do you contest the energy requirements of a motored solution? Or do you take issue with some other, as yet, undefined issue? In any case, I look forward to your reasoned response, and evaluating the references [be it quotes in this thread, or external sources] that you are able to provide.

As of now, we have your bare assertions, and are left to wonder what they are based upon.

regards

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sorry, I am not drinking the koolaid and that is not the conclusion of this thread.

That is the position being put forward by a minority. Said arguments including citations of Wikipedia as proof.

There does appear to be an increasing number of others with direct experience in electrochemistry and electrochemical devices that are not buying into the concept that batteries will soon be powering rocket lift-off.

Dave.

Just a question. What if they only needed the power for a very short period? I'm sure that has been asked here already or mentioned.

Just for a portion of a climb to gain that extra advantage or distance gap on the climb. Those video's that RR posted seemed to show a bike that can do it and I did not see any giant battery pack on them.

 

[Microchip]

...This is the motor that is perhaps the most advanced, smallest. The one that Cancellara and Lance are "Connected" to.

http://bicitruccata.com/

...

Didn't know Lance was connected to a motorised bike. Interesting.

I was wondering if the above website was made as a gimmick for the occasion) but info on them shows that they've been registered since 2009 and last updated in 2013. hmm....the topic is intriguing.

 

[Microchip]

"Your chance to win". Wow.

 

[D-Queued]

Hello Dave,

A straw man is a common type of fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.

Please review the actual requirements that I have stated as being relevant to the issue at hand. I think you'll find that they are far lower than rocket takeoff.

Please review the actual references that have been provided, by myself and others. I think you'll find many sources that go beyond wikipedia.

Please review the actual opinion of the people who have commented on the topic. Add up the actual yeas and nays. Where do you see a minority?

Earlier I made the summarizing statement:

"Cheers. I think we all broadly agree then that a realistic range of specific energy is somewhere between 100 and 250 Wh/kg. I'm inclined to believe the higher numbers myself, but think even the low end of this scale is technically practicable for a motor solution."

What aspect of this statement do you contest? Do you contest the specific energy, as stated here. Or do you contest the energy requirements of a motored solution? Or do you take issue with some other, as yet, undefined issue? In any case, I look forward to your reasoned response, and evaluating the references [be it quotes in this thread, or external sources] that you are able to provide.

As of now, we have your bare assertions, and are left to wonder what they are based upon.

regards

Feel free to inbox me.

As noted above, I am more than happy to provide plenty of references via inbox. In fact, I could probably cite more than one commercial effort that has failed or re-directed, and they weren't trying to hide the equipment in a racing bicycle.

Just because a small number of posters are trying to suggest something on this, or any other thread, does not make it a majority on this or any other thread. One of my favorite all-time bumper stickers was: "The Moral Majority is Neither". That applies here as well.

The most knowledgeable people I know, in this or most other domains, would almost certainly avoid the conversation altogether. What could they actually gain through participation?

Wikipedia cannot do justice to all of the practical design points that need to be addressed in this specific, and quite challenging, application.

Dave.