Ryders crash -motor?

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I posted this in the other thread, but it probably is better suited to this one. A person with a knowledge of physics put forth an argument based on conservation of angular momentum. I think zigmeister is right on this one.

https://twitter.com/EricGregg300/status/507692600740950016/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

In the video a few posts up, it's clear that the rear wheel (tire) comes into contact with the pavement at seconds 16 and 17. By second 19 all rotation of the bicycle has stopped and Ryder is no longer in contact with the bike. And then... Zoom!

So when you talk of conservation of angular momentum I have to ask, what momentum? The front wheel is contact with the ground and therefore has no angular momentum. The rear wheel has touched pavement twice and must have lost a considerable amount of angular momentum. The frame has stopped rotating and therefore has zero angular momentum. The bike is no longer sliding forwards and therefore has no momentum - ergo no possible source of angular momentum.

John Swanson

That is an interesting argument. I don't know enough physics to debate your point. Angular momentum would seem to be less, but would it be 0?

 

[Anaconda]

Re: Re:

Based on what reasoning? Calling something names doesn't discount it as evidence.

can you tell from the hesjedal vid if his rear wheel comes to halt or not before the bike starts spinning? a 'yes you can' or a 'no you cannot' will do.

1. The rear wheel definitely hits the ground. So experiments with spinning wheel in air and bike placed gently on the ground are just not realistic/relevant.

2. Ryder seems to come to a stop on his bum momentarily, then unclips. After that the bike certainly does appear to accelerate away from the fall line. Maybe that is a 45 degree banked corner and the TV camera flattens it out? Why does the bike not continue towards the guardrail? That the moto runs over it gives me reason to pause also. A professional driver would certainly have an instinctual reaction and should be guessing which way the rider and bike would fall as to avoid them. But bicycle went crunch.

I am also still open to it being an optical illusion. However can't say I've ever see a crash end quite like this one??? I actually think poltergeist is the most logical explanation for what we see in the crash video.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

I posted this in the other thread, but it probably is better suited to this one. A person with a knowledge of physics put forth an argument based on conservation of angular momentum. I think zigmeister is right on this one.

https://twitter.com/EricGregg300/status/507692600740950016/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

In the video a few posts up, it's clear that the rear wheel (tire) comes into contact with the pavement at seconds 16 and 17. By second 19 all rotation of the bicycle has stopped and Ryder is no longer in contact with the bike. And then... Zoom!

So when you talk of conservation of angular momentum I have to ask, what momentum? The front wheel is contact with the ground and therefore has no angular momentum. The rear wheel has touched pavement twice and must have lost a considerable amount of angular momentum. The frame has stopped rotating and therefore has zero angular momentum. The bike is no longer sliding forwards and therefore has no momentum - ergo no possible source of angular momentum.

John Swanson

That is an interesting argument. I don't know enough physics to debate your point. Angular momentum would seem to be less, but would it be 0?

That's a super easy test you could do to prove it to yourself either way. Spin up your rear wheel and tap it twice against asphalt. If it's still spinning, how fast? Remember that tires are designed to have a lot of friction when touching pavement...

John Swanson

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

1. The rear wheel definitely hits the ground. So experiments with spinning wheel in air and bike placed gently on the ground are just not realistic/relevant.

2. Ryder seems to come to a stop on his bum momentarily, then unclips. After that the bike certainly does appear to accelerate away from the fall line. Maybe that is a 45 degree banked corner and the TV camera flattens it out? Why does the bike not continue towards the guardrail? That the moto runs over it gives me reason to pause also. A professional driver would certainly have an instinctual reaction and should be guessing which way the rider and bike would fall as to avoid them. But bicycle went crunch.

I am also still open to it being an optical illusion. However can't say I've ever see a crash end quite like this one??? I actually think poltergeist is the most logical explanation for what we see in the crash video.

I can understand why the moto runs over the bike because it clearly does something that is strange to the eye. I think John makes good points about the equations. If an underlying assumption is inaccurate, it can throw off the resulting equation. That is very different than calling something pseudoscience though.

 

[Elagabalus]

Re: Re:

I posted this in the other thread, but it probably is better suited to this one. A person with a knowledge of physics put forth an argument based on conservation of angular momentum. I think zigmeister is right on this one.

https://twitter.com/EricGregg300/status/507692600740950016/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

In the video a few posts up, it's clear that the rear wheel (tire) comes into contact with the pavement at seconds 16 and 17. By second 19 all rotation of the bicycle has stopped and Ryder is no longer in contact with the bike. And then... Zoom!

So when you talk of conservation of angular momentum I have to ask, what momentum? The front wheel is contact with the ground and therefore has no angular momentum. The rear wheel has touched pavement twice and must have lost a considerable amount of angular momentum. The frame has stopped rotating and therefore has zero angular momentum. The bike is no longer sliding forwards and therefore has no momentum - ergo no possible source of angular momentum.

John Swanson

That is an interesting argument. I don't know enough physics to debate your point. Angular momentum would seem to be less, but would it be 0?

That's a super easy test you could do to prove it to yourself either way. Spin up your rear wheel and tap it twice against asphalt. If it's still spinning, how fast? Remember that tires are designed to have a lot of friction when touching pavement...

John Swanson

His cranks do not move. How does the motor provide the power to turn the back wheel if the chain (and crank) are stationary?

He's also freewheeling through the turn before he falls. He had the power assist turned off for the downhill and it turned itself on again?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

His cranks do not move. How does the motor provide the power to turn the back wheel if the chain (and crank) are stationary?

He's also freewheeling through the turn before he falls. He had the power assist turned off for the downhill and it turned itself on again?

the motor in the rear hub?

I think this is the striking element, Sniper, can you answer the rear hub motor dilemma pls?

because I thought the motors we were talking about in the other threads were around the axle... and bottom bracket, and turns the cranks...

so I am with Elagabalus on this...

 

[nightfend]

We haven't really reached the technological point where we can jam a motor and battery into a standard sized hub that looks like every other hub out there. The rear wheel motors that are available have huge batteries and are usually single speed wheels. It's a fun conspiracy theory, though.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

1. The rear wheel definitely hits the ground. So experiments with spinning wheel in air and bike placed gently on the ground are just not realistic/relevant.

I believe the descriptor you're looking for is, "idiotic."

 

[Oldermanish]

Re:

We haven't really reached the technological point where we can jam a motor and battery into a standard sized hub that looks like every other hub out there. The rear wheel motors that are available have huge batteries and are usually single speed wheels. It's a fun conspiracy theory, though.

This goes to my original argument that the crank applied some additional force on impact and could be stopped. I held that opinion for some time until, as I mentioned earlier in the thread; some guy passed me using a front-wheel motor. The hub was scarcely larger than a small standard size and the battery was a size that could almost fit inside a large stem. Not elegant but raised the possibility.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

I posted this in the other thread, but it probably is better suited to this one. A person with a knowledge of physics put forth an argument based on conservation of angular momentum. I think zigmeister is right on this one.

https://twitter.com/EricGregg300/status/507692600740950016/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

In the video a few posts up, it's clear that the rear wheel (tire) comes into contact with the pavement at seconds 16 and 17. By second 19 all rotation of the bicycle has stopped and Ryder is no longer in contact with the bike. And then... Zoom!

So when you talk of conservation of angular momentum I have to ask, what momentum? The front wheel is contact with the ground and therefore has no angular momentum. The rear wheel has touched pavement twice and must have lost a considerable amount of angular momentum. The frame has stopped rotating and therefore has zero angular momentum. The bike is no longer sliding forwards and therefore has no momentum - ergo no possible source of angular momentum.

John Swanson

That is an interesting argument. I don't know enough physics to debate your point. Angular momentum would seem to be less, but would it be 0?

That's a super easy test you could do to prove it to yourself either way. Spin up your rear wheel and tap it twice against asphalt. If it's still spinning, how fast? Remember that tires are designed to have a lot of friction when touching pavement...

John Swanson

His cranks do not move. How does the motor provide the power to turn the back wheel if the chain (and crank) are stationary?

He's also freewheeling through the turn before he falls. He had the power assist turned off for the downhill and it turned itself on again?

I think that the important thing is not "how", but "what" happened. Basically, the bike had next to no kinetic energy (second 19 of the above video) and then it began to accelerate around a pivot point (front wheel/handlebars/center of mass) driven by what could only be the rear wheel. Where did the kinetic energy come from? <shrug> That should be something that Ryder gets grilled on in every single encounter with a journalist. Considering what we all know, is it reasonable to expect he had a motor somewhere? Yup.

John Swanson

 

[jyl]

I mentioned this in the other thread (on the CX bike), but - something that happens, right when the bike starts to rotate, is that he is moving his legs from whatever position they were in during the crash, trying to get them under him so he can stand up. We can't see where his legs and feet are, or how they move, they are blocked by his body. One of his feet could have kicked the saddle, which could have made the bike rotate.

 

[Nicko.]

Re:

We haven't really reached the technological point where we can jam a motor and battery into a standard sized hub that looks like every other hub out there. The rear wheel motors that are available have huge batteries and are usually single speed wheels. It's a fun conspiracy theory, though.

The hub was never, ever the place to put a hidden motor. The argument that a hub motor wouldn't work is naive at best...

Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport has described a motor hidden in the seat tube and bottom bracket as ‘old doping’ suggesting that special wheels, able to produce 20-60 watts via electromagnetics and costing 200,000 Euro, are the most sophisticated form of mechanical doping currently in use in cycling

This seems it could explain Ryder's case.

Wait, wasn't this concept suggested already? In the very Clinic?
Oh yeah, a year-and-a-half ago, here:

That's an easy one, yes there is.
'All' electric rotational motors have a 'stator' and a 'rotor'.

I give you 'Frame' and 'Wheel'.
Put magnets in the rim and a series of coils in the wheel cutout of the frame, fire away

Or swap places, have the coils, batteries and electronics in the wheel. Very inconspicuous...

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1563149#p1563149

Summary: If you don't master the engineering and the ingenuity required for this level of cheating, don't argue what can and can't be done.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Summary: If you don't master the engineering and the ingenuity required for this level of cheating, don't argue what can and can't be done.

this.

and spot-on posts by Anaconda and Scienceiscool as well.


Some general points:

- don't know if Ryder used a motor, i think the vid is inconclusive, but it looks odd and as Scienceiscool says, in the context of what we know, yes, suspicion is more than warranted.
More to the point, the rebuttals from that Spanish youtuber, A. Rasmussen and that pseudo-physicist on twitter are either (a) breathtakingly stupid or (b) deliberateley disingenuous. (cf. the Walsh/Swart discussion: *** dumb or sold out?)
For A. Rasmussen, I hope it's (a). If it's (b), it could mean he's been using a motor himself and took the opportunity to apply omerta. It's sad to see so many fall for it. If anything, it's a valuable reminder of why so many in topsport get away with cheating of all kinds: because of the incredible amounts of gullibility among fans/journos. If ever there was a time and reasons to increase the burden of trust, now is it.

- As both Nick and Scienceiscool point out, not knowing how something is done, doesn't mean it's not being done. We've had that discussion many times wrt old school dopers such as Lance, Froome, Wiggins. The fact that we don't know the details of their cheating, doesn't mean they're not doped to the gills and getting help from UCI to cover their tracks. In most cases, the details only come out later (if at all).

 

[carton]

Anyone else finds it a little interesting that the two riders most widely suspected of mechanical doping, Hesjedal and Cancellara, are both now on Armstrong and Bruyneel's old team still sponsored by their old bike brand backers. I mean, I'm not saying that there's anything there, but the story seems to write itself?

And if that wasn't enough for a running theme, Guercilena cutting lines of questioning short with haughty semi-sarcastic comments further strikes up that ever-so-familiar tone.

Again, it's really weird place to be in cycling were the most convincing counter-melody to that is just how much they've thoroughly under-performed as of late.

 

[jyl]

Re: Re:

We haven't really reached the technological point where we can jam a motor and battery into a standard sized hub that looks like every other hub out there. The rear wheel motors that are available have huge batteries and are usually single speed wheels. It's a fun conspiracy theory, though.

The hub was never, ever the place to put a hidden motor. The argument that a hub motor wouldn't work is naive at best...

Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport has described a motor hidden in the seat tube and bottom bracket as ‘old doping’ suggesting that special wheels, able to produce 20-60 watts via electromagnetics and costing 200,000 Euro, are the most sophisticated form of mechanical doping currently in use in cycling

This seems it could explain Ryder's case.

Wait, wasn't this concept suggested already? In the very Clinic?
Oh yeah, a year-and-a-half ago, here:

That's an easy one, yes there is.
'All' electric rotational motors have a 'stator' and a 'rotor'.

I give you 'Frame' and 'Wheel'.
Put magnets in the rim and a series of coils in the wheel cutout of the frame, fire away

Or swap places, have the coils, batteries and electronics in the wheel. Very inconspicuous...

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1563149#p1563149

Summary: If you don't master the engineering and the ingenuity required for this level of cheating, don't argue what can and can't be done.

We are discussing this over at the other thread, e.g.
viewtopic.php?p=1860396#p1860396

You could build a "rim" drive motor, but not with components and frame that look like the normal ones on the WT bike. The problem is the distance between stays and rim, much too far for the concept to work. See post linked above.

Also
viewtopic.php?p=1860350#p1860350
viewtopic.php?p=1860114#p1860114
viewtopic.php?p=1860121#p1860121

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

I mentioned this in the other thread (on the CX bike), but - something that happens, right when the bike starts to rotate, is that he is moving his legs from whatever position they were in during the crash, trying to get them under him so he can stand up. We can't see where his legs and feet are, or how they move, they are blocked by his body. One of his feet could have kicked the saddle, which could have made the bike rotate.

a bit like this JYL?

...1.12 in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj8RIEQH7zA

 

[Benotti69]

And again the big mouths of anti-doping Millar and JV(apart from a bad joke) deafening us with their silence.

When ever sh!t gets serious in the cheating end of the sport of cycling JV thinks best to make jokes. I wonder will he claim the UCI's tablet had a 'calibration error' and it wasn't a motor at all!!!!!!

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

When ever **** gets serious in the cheating end of the sport of cycling JV thinks best to make jokes.

If pressed for details, I expect something along the lines of this from JV.

An interview with "Jonathan" Vaughters

CN: Let's start from the beginning. Could you state your first name for us please?

JV: Isaac

CN: Isaac? Your first name is Isaac?

JV: Isaac

CN: It's always been our understanding that your first name is Jonathan, are you now saying that isn't true?

JV: You asked my first name. Isaac was the first name that came to mind.

CN: So your actual first name isn't Isaac then?

JV: My first name? Isaac was one of the first names I was called when I was growing up.

CN: But is it your legal first name?

JV: I was named after my great grandfather's second cousin.

CN: And his name was Isaac or Jonathan?

JV: His name was Abraham

CN: Your great grandfathers's second cousin, whom you were named after, was named Abraham?

JV: No. My great grandfather's name was Abraham.

CN: Let's try this again. What is your first name?

JV: Most commonly, people refer to me as JV.

CN: But what is your first name? Most people have been led to believe that your first name is Jonathan.

JV: It's not the first name that my wife or son call me. Is that what you're asking me?

CN: If I called you "Jonathan," is that a name that you would recognize as being your first name?

JV: Not necessarily. My parents first choice for a name for me was Orville.

CN: So is that what your birth certificate says, "Orville"?

JV: Why would my birth certificate say ""Orville"? I never claimed that.

CN: Jonathan...

JV: Yes?

CN: Never mind

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

When ever **** gets serious in the cheating end of the sport of cycling JV thinks best to make jokes.

If pressed for details, I expect something along the lines of this from JV.

An interview with "Jonathan" Vaughters

CN: Let's start from the beginning. Could you state your first name for us please?

JV: Isaac

CN: Isaac? Your first name is Isaac?

JV: Isaac

CN: It's always been our understanding that your first name is Jonathan, are you now saying that isn't true?

JV: You asked my first name. Isaac was the first name that came to mind.

CN: So your actual first name isn't Isaac then?

JV: My first name? Isaac was one of the first names I was called when I was growing up.

CN: But is it your legal first name?

JV: I was named after my great grandfather's second cousin.

CN: And his name was Isaac or Jonathan?

JV: His name was Abraham

CN: Your great grandfathers's second cousin, whom you were named after, was named Abraham?

JV: No. My great grandfather's name was Abraham.

CN: Let's try this again. What is your first name?

JV: Most commonly, people refer to me as JV.

CN: But what is your first name? Most people have been led to believe that your first name is Jonathan.

JV: It's not the first name that my wife or son call me. Is that what you're asking me?

CN: If I called you "Jonathan," is that a name that you would recognize as being your first name?

JV: Not necessarily. My parents first choice for a name for me was Orville.

CN: So is that what your birth certificate says, "Orville"?

JV: Why would my birth certificate say ""Orville"? I never claimed that.

CN: Jonathan...

JV: Yes?

CN: Never mind

Nice summary. The JV avoidance algorithm can be applied to all of his interviews, until the SoL tolls it's just a dance.

 

[sniper]

clutching at straws, but could it be a similar system to hesjedals?

from Oufeh´s twitter

van Aert wheel spinning

https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/694792954330877952

 

[GJB123]

Video was dissected already.

viewtopic.php?p=1860606#p1860606

 

[sniper]

Video was dissected already.

viewtopic.php?p=1860606#p1860606

if he wasn't using a motor, he should be truly, i mean genuinely pissed off that the UCI forgot to check his bike.
the footage is circulating on the web and it's tainting his victory.

 

[GJB123]

Video was dissected already.

viewtopic.php?p=1860606#p1860606

if he wasn't using a motor, he should be truly, i mean genuinely pissed off that the UCI forgot to check his bike.
the footage is circulating on the web and it's tainting his victory.

Probably it is pretty annoying if it's not true (which I think it is), but is part and parcel of being in cycling that every and all things will be looked at in a different way now by most people not just some geeks in the Clinic. I also saw claims that Van der Poel must be using a motor which he dare not use in Sunday hence his ignominious defeat. People want to be fooled in to thinking there is nothing wrong as much as they want to be fooled into thinking everything and everybody is dirty. Black and white instead of shades of grey makes life a lot easier to deal with for most people.

 

[Benotti69]

Video was dissected already.

viewtopic.php?p=1860606#p1860606

if he wasn't using a motor, he should be truly, i mean genuinely pissed off that the UCI forgot to check his bike.
the footage is circulating on the web and it's tainting his victory.

Probably it is pretty annoying if it's not true (which I think it is), but is part and parcel of being in cycling that every and all things will be looked at in a different way now by most people not just some geeks in the Clinic. I also saw claims that Van der Poel must be using a motor which he dare not use in Sunday hence his ignominious defeat. People want to be fooled in to thinking there is nothing wrong as much as they want to be fooled into thinking everything and everybody is dirty. Black and white instead of shades of grey makes life a lot easier to deal with for most people.

But they are.

 

[sniper]

Video was dissected already.

viewtopic.php?p=1860606#p1860606

if he wasn't using a motor, he should be truly, i mean genuinely pissed off that the UCI forgot to check his bike.
the footage is circulating on the web and it's tainting his victory.

Probably it is pretty annoying if it's not true (which I think it is), but is part and parcel of being in cycling that every and all things will be looked at in a different way now by most people not just some geeks in the Clinic. I also saw claims that Van der Poel must be using a motor which he dare not use in Sunday hence his ignominious defeat. People want to be fooled in to thinking there is nothing wrong as much as they want to be fooled into thinking everything and everybody is dirty. Black and white instead of shades of grey makes life a lot easier to deal with for most people.

But they are.

Well at the very least this should be the common sense working hypothesis, based on the (recent) history of the sport, the money involved, the nature of the testing, etc.
UCI is not doing anything to disprove the hypothesis.