The doped bike exists (video of pro version)!

[D-Queued]

Re:

so could motor be code for 1998 Armstrong in July? a full *** doping success. Like Froome in 2013

Funny they didn't talk about it then.

But, pretty sure that Lance is just about to claim he had Bilharzia.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

so could motor be code for 1998 Armstrong in July? a full *** doping success. Like Froome in 2013

Funny they didn't talk about it then.

But, pretty sure that Lance is just about to claim he had Bilharzia.

Dave.

what we do know, and we know for certain.

if there was a motor and a motor available for Prancestrong, PranceStrong uses the motor, tt and Alp d'Huez. he uses it.

That would be the most damning evidence AGAINST in the reiteration sequel comeback of Prancestrong tautology pleonasm

 

[sniper]

Interesting piece from 2010 (shortly before start of TdF):

- Lefevere demands the UCI investigates thoroughly, because "Boonen may have been robbed of a RvV victory, and the chances in PR would also have been different".
- prior to PR 2010, Guercilena (then at Quickstep) had told Lefevere about the existence of the Gruber system.
- Jean-Marc Vandenberghe, then Quick Step mechanic, had the following experience with the Gruber system, also prior to 2010:

"At first I laughed, until I started learning more about it, and learned that in fact it is feasible. Ok, it makes a zooming noise, but in the race that noise is cancelled out by the cheering crowd. So I think you can use it without being noticed. Mind: I'm not saying Cancellara did it, that would not be fair, but I do give the story the benefit of the doubt"
...
Vandenberghe tested the system on his own mountainbike: "the results are impressive", and so he contacted producer Gruber asking if it is possible to install the system on a race bike. "I've sent them my frame and I'm expecting it back soon. So Cassani with his movie he beat me to the punch."

The mechanic agrees with LEfevere: "It's the UCI's move now."
Whether the question marks surrounding Cancellara will ever be erased: "I hope it's not true", says Lefevere. "I once saw his test results when he was a junior at Mapei. So I know very well that he has a big engine. But if you add another engine to that, what you get is a supermotor"

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cnt/gvu2qtvuk

 

[sniper]

Checked the Durand clip again.
Correction of what I posted earlier:
Durand doesn't suggest the bidon functions as battery, that was my erroneous interpretation. The battery is indeed in the tube, as Cassani explains it.
Durand's attention for the bidon is merely because it provides additional evidence that the bike change was premeditated.

To me it's looking pretty darn real at present, everything makes sense,
but I could use more input/feedback.

Also read on a German forum (http://06.live-radsport.ch/thread2828_2/5_Mehrleistung_dank__MotorAntrieb_in_Sattelstuumltze.html) discussing it back in 2010:
- after the win in Flanders, on his homepage, Fabian made mention of the first bike-change (the one at 56 km before finish), but didn't mention the second bike change (only six km later), i.e. the premeditated one where he got his old bike back.
- Riis was asked about the bike change viz. the Breschel fiasco on two different occasions and provided two different answers: 1st time saying they had simply forgotten the mechanic (clearly bogus), another time saying the mechanic went away to fix the mechanical on Fab's bike;
- also interesting (though hear-say): after the finish of RvV, Cancellara/Quickstep were allegedly seen quickly swapping Fab's bike for another, which was then presented as the winner's bike (this post-finish bike swap is hear-say, but allegedly the post-finsih camera's did show Fab's winners bike without race number.

Anyway, if there is any substance to the rumors, it seems Riis was in on it.

(edit: the German forum also mentions the climb of the Muur in 2010 was 20% faster than the 2005 record, but I remember theHitch suggesting they went even faster next year or in 2012(?))

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Dave, you've made some great points as to why you think the 2010 jumps are feasible without motor.
But you're disregarding a lot of professional, cycling commentators' and fans' views with regard to those 2010 jumps from Cancellara when you claim that the 2010 jumps in PR and away from Boonen on the Mur weren't uniquely suspect.
Jacky Durand and Anthony Roux are on the record taking motorization as a plausible explanation for those jumps. Must be those bitter French riders again.
And I only just posted the live commentary to Fab's Mur performance from four different sources (English, Spanish, Dutch, Belgian). In each case the commentary is along the lines of 'unbelievable' and 'never ever seen this before'. At least two of those (the Dutch and the Belgians) were in the middle of praising Boonen as the favorite just before Fab drops him like a stone.
That 2013 RvV footage was a massive effort from Fab indeed, but very few would claim it is comparable to 2010 PR and RvV in terms of how unnatural it looks. For all I know he was using a motor in 2013 too, just saying that the 2010 footage shows by far the most unreal cycling jumps I have ever seen (followed very shortly by Froome Ventoux 2013 away from Contador).

Btw, I'd be interested to hear your view on Durand's view.

Unlike the professional commentators, I don't need to try and create a story. I'm just some anonymous dude on a cycling forum.

Why?

1. There are simply far more likely explanations than using a motor. Doping comes to mind. In fact, since discussing doping is something the commentators don't do, then discussion of a motor appears to be a BS excuse to avoid the real subject. It is arguably a twist on Omerta. Did any commentator even suggest that rather than a motor, there is a possibility, however remote, of Cancellera simply doping?

Oddly, doping has been confirmed as the core reason for virtually every other "alien" or "impossible" or "unbelievable" or "never been seen before" performance, ever.

2. Independent of what others have suggested, battery and motor technology hasn't had any marvelous breakthroughs. Especially not breakthroughs that are secret. Providing an inventor with the funds that would be required to create the uncreated would be far better spent with far greater leverage on simply doping.

3. Even with a motor, there are so many things that could go wrong, and so many implementation issues that #2 is much, much harder than it might appear.

4. Maybe I am alone, but in my minimal and sheltered experience, I have seen far too many folks do to me what Cancellera has done to others in these videos. This is the beauty of the element of surprise and of drafting in cycling.

Suggestions that it is easier to accelerate out of the saddle on rough road, like cobblestones, is folly.

ON cobbles and rough road, you want to stay seated for bike control reasons. Out of the saddle your bike is far more likely to bounce all over the place, minimizing or even undermining the additional effort.

Moreover, if you plan on an extended solo effort post acceleration you are far better off if you can pull the acceleration off while seated. Your heart rate will be lower, and you will recover faster, from the acceleration effort and you will be more likely to succeed and actually stay away. Particularly so if you are a heavier than average rider. This is Cancellera's primary strategy and strength, and he has fine-tuned it to an art.

Note that I would be quite happy if #2 were not the case, but it is.

Finally, I am ok with you not agreeing with me. I am not likely to change my opinion unless I see hard proof of a viable motor that really works. The videos provided don't demonstrate that.

Dave.

You really have to give up points 2 and 3. I previously gave a list of off the shelf parts (with links) that would cost a few hundred bucks and give a 150 Watt system that weighed two pounds. Things you or I could order today and have by the weekend. The only things missing would be the "brains" (a motor controller and microprocessor) and a mechanical interface to the bottom bracket. Both those things could be handled by enthusiasts with a month or two of free weekends.

The tech has advanced and by my earlier estimation the whole thing became feasible some time around 2008. The big ones were the availability of cheap and compact motors, and the advances in low power microprocessors.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

2008-ish sounds plausible.
Guercilena and the Quickstep mechanic both heard about the system in 2009.
Pinotti saw the system in 2010.
Cassani's vid is from 2010.
Rasmussen was offered the system in 2011-ish.
The fact that rumors surfaced within the peloton for the first time in 2010 (plus UCI's reaction to it) also speaks for the introduction of the system in or around that period.

 

[jens_attacks]

basically this motor thing entered the pro scene at the exact time they started to go slower uphill
perfect.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

...


You really have to give up points 2 and 3. I previously gave a list of off the shelf parts (with links) that would cost a few hundred bucks and give a 150 Watt system that weighed two pounds. Things you or I could order today and have by the weekend. The only things missing would be the "brains" (a motor controller and microprocessor) and a mechanical interface to the bottom bracket. Both those things could be handled by enthusiasts with a month or two of free weekends.

The tech has advanced and by my earlier estimation the whole thing became feasible some time around 2008. The big ones were the availability of cheap and compact motors, and the advances in low power microprocessors.

John Swanson

If it were that easy, someone would have done it commercially and it would be readily available. Look at all the hype and hoopla over the Segway, and all the recent interest and excitement in E-bikes.

Sorry, but something doesn't add up.

Usually that means it is a lot harder than it appears. Meanwhile, there are better, cheaper and easier explanations: he dopes, his competition erred.

The 'controversy' comes across as sleight of hand that hides the real explanation.

Dave.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...


You really have to give up points 2 and 3. I previously gave a list of off the shelf parts (with links) that would cost a few hundred bucks and give a 150 Watt system that weighed two pounds. Things you or I could order today and have by the weekend. The only things missing would be the "brains" (a motor controller and microprocessor) and a mechanical interface to the bottom bracket. Both those things could be handled by enthusiasts with a month or two of free weekends.

The tech has advanced and by my earlier estimation the whole thing became feasible some time around 2008. The big ones were the availability of cheap and compact motors, and the advances in low power microprocessors.

John Swanson

If it were that easy, someone would have done it commercially and it would be readily available. Look at all the hype and hoopla over the Segway, and all the recent interest and excitement in E-bikes.

Sorry, but something doesn't add up.

Usually that means it is a lot harder than it appears. Meanwhile, there are better, cheaper and easier explanations: he dopes, his competition erred.

The 'controversy' comes across as sleight of hand that hides the real explanation.

Dave.

It's just a matter of economics. Consumers who want an e-bike want something that will last for an entire trip and come in at a price point that's quite low. The total market for a hidden e-bike motor with limited capabilities is pretty much restricted to shifty racers that are trying to cheat. There really is no secret sauce here. There are no barriers to building one of these things. None. Besides, Gruber already *has* made them available commercially (http://www.vivax-assist.com/en/unternehmen/340-New-Product) so there you go.

John Swanson

 

[ebandit]

motorised

http://www.limemotion-motors.com/

Mark L

 

[sniper]

Re:

basically this motor thing entered the pro scene at the exact time they started to go slower uphill
perfect.

the motor is not as romantic as doping, is it.

i think it was Cance 2010 and maybe one, two others who tried it, but that's guess work. In any case no reason to think motors are widespread. On the contrary.
It's common sense that the barrier for riders to use a motor will be much higher than the barrier to dope oldschool. This was also confirmed by Rasmussen and Boogerd in that dutch tv program from 2014. Said they would never ever think of using a motor. Makessense.
Cance and Riis seemed to have less scruples. Why? more guesswork.

But UCI bringing in scanners may well have had a scaring effect, and who knows how the peloton has solved the issue internally. As Roux indicated, 'dans le peloton, on ce parle'. Add to that the public insinuations from Lefevere, Durand and others, as well as the youtube vid fully exposing the Gruber system, and, well, I think that sums up why we're likely not seeing many motors.

 

[Merckx index]

I hadn't realized that there are two basic kinds of motors. The mid-drive motor is the one illustrated in the above links. It works through the drive train, so that when you turn it on, the pedals start turning, or turning faster. But there is also a hub drive--this I hadn't known about. It can be installed in either the front or rear wheel hub, and turns the wheel directly.

What I said earlier applies to the mid-drive motor, not to the hub drive motor. That is, a rider with a hub drive motor can go faster without pedalling faster or changing gears. So if a rider suddenly goes a lot faster and nothing else seems to change, this would be evidence of a hub drive motor.

The problem, though, as I understand it, is these motors are much heavier than the mid-drive motors. The minimum weight I've seen listed is about three kg, though this is for 250 watts, more than a rider would need to gain an edge in a race if sparingly used. Also, it's much harder to hide it. I think this is why the links in this thread have discussed mid-drive motors.

But if someone has more information about hub drive motors, I'd be very interested to hear. In particular, how small and light they could be made. Maybe 1-1.5 kg for 100 watts? However, the only way to hide it seems to be to use a rear hub drive underneath disk brakes. A very small rear hub drive might not be seen from one side, hidden by the freewheel, but would be visible from the other side. Certainly if the bike were being inspected, it would not be necessary to X-ray it.

The rear hub drive is better on hills, also, and safer (if the front hub drive isn't installed correctly, it's said the front fork can snap), but a major disadvantage of the rear hub drive is that removing the rear wheel, for a flat change, e.g., becomes a major hassle. Also, the rear hub drives are heavier, and I think are incompatible with some freewheels, often necessitating a complete gear overhaul to install one.

 

[Von Mises]

Re: Re:

It appears to me you haven't yet shed your light on what is arguably Fab's most suspicious jump. The jump is 2:10 into the next video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7xjsPqHg3o
The good thing is we don't have to focus on clicking on the handle bars (as that isn't visible anyway). Would be interested to hear how real it looks to you in terms of accelleration plus cadence and gear choice.

It looks to me as though his speed/cadence goes way up in that jump, meaning he must have switched to a larger gear. No way I or I think anyone else can see in the video that he did change gears, but again, he would have to do that, motor or no motor. Any motor that goes through the drive train has to work like that.

I think I understand what's bothering you. It looks like magic. He doesn't seem to be doing anything different, but the bike goes faster. But if there is hanky-panky going on here, it has to be proven through physiology, not physics.

Imagine if you're riding with a group greatly inferior to you, staying up with them by pedalling in a relatively small gear without requiring much effort. You suddenly switch to a higher gear, without changing your cadence. You will shoot out from that group just as Cance does in that video. No motor necessary. The question is just whether Cance is physiologically capable of doing this, no question that the phenomenon is possible at lower speeds.

Thats what I saw too- Cancellara clearly accelerated. There is also optical illusion - 4 guys who were with Cancellara (2.10-2.12 in video) slowed down at the same moment when Cancellara accelerated, their cadence dropped, one of them almost stopped pedalling for a while, it all added to " looks like magic".

 

[sniper]

yes it looked like magic. Not just to me but also to Lefevere, Roux, Durand, a Quickstep mechanic, reporters, tv makers, and a whole bunch of anonymous internet wankers.
And then there were two other jumps in PR and RvV that looked like magic.
ow, and they did some magic with the mechanic as well, letting him disappear for a while. Breschel was most impressed.
not to mention Fab's magic clicking on his handlebars right when he jumps, more magic for which there is no other explanation than to accept that it's magic.
Such magic that both in RvV and PR the camera man couldn't follow.

Ow, and never mind that we have Pinotti, Rasmussen, Guercilena, the Quickstep mechanic, and Cassani on the record stating that motorized bikes were offered to them in and around 2010. Let's forget that and stick to the magic.

Von Mises, sorry for sounding a bit cynical. But really you should watch the Durand vid and let me know what you think. This may also interest you: http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/06/anatomy-of-cancellara-attack.html

@Merckxindex, great post, thanks for clarifying that. Very important distinction in the context of the discussion.
Maybe Hesjedal can tell you more about the hub drive motor. His cranks weren't spinning when his bike took off

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

I hadn't realized that there are two basic kinds of motors. The mid-drive motor is the one illustrated in the above links. It works through the drive train, so that when you turn it on, the pedals start turning, or turning faster. But there is also a hub drive--this I hadn't known about. It can be installed in either the front or rear wheel hub, and turns the wheel directly.

What I said earlier applies to the mid-drive motor, not to the hub drive motor. That is, a rider with a hub drive motor can go faster without pedalling faster or changing gears. So if a rider suddenly goes a lot faster and nothing else seems to change, this would be evidence of a hub drive motor.

The problem, though, as I understand it, is these motors are much heavier than the mid-drive motors. The minimum weight I've seen listed is about three kg, though this is for 250 watts, more than a rider would need to gain an edge in a race if sparingly used. Also, it's much harder to hide it. I think this is why the links in this thread have discussed mid-drive motors.

But if someone has more information about hub drive motors, I'd be very interested to hear. In particular, how small and light they could be made. Maybe 1-1.5 kg for 100 watts? However, the only way to hide it seems to be to use a rear hub drive underneath disk brakes. A very small rear hub drive might not be seen from one side, hidden by the freewheel, but would be visible from the other side. Certainly if the bike were being inspected, it would not be necessary to X-ray it.

The rear hub drive is better on hills, also, and safer (if the front hub drive isn't installed correctly, it's said the front fork can snap), but a major disadvantage of the rear hub drive is that removing the rear wheel, for a flat change, e.g., becomes a major hassle. Also, the rear hub drives are heavier, and I think are incompatible with some freewheels, often necessitating a complete gear overhaul to install one.

The typical hub has a very low volume and would be exceedingly tough (impossible) to fit the motor, gearing plus electrical connections in there. Hub motor drives use "pancake" motors that are flat (to fit in the hub's/wheel's width), but have a very large diameter in order to generate any kind of power. They're much heavier too for the same reason - they have to be quite big. The bonus is that they tend to be high torque, so minimal if any gearing is needed. Bottom line is that the only way to hide a hub motor is in a disc wheel.

BTW, it's pretty easy to add some smarts to a mid-drive as you call it. You just need to measure the motor load so that it's providing a constant torque rather than rpm and can cut out if the person stops pedalling.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

here, the battery is underneath the saddle, the motor itself is in the tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDMLzKeRN-Q

Tellingly, the producer/seller of that product complains that there is hardly any demand, and that the demand did not increase even after Di Luca's 2014 public talk of motors (see below**).
http://www.l1.nl/sport/241149-vraag-naar-fiets-motortjes-niet-gestegen
In other words, very much confirms Scienceiscool's assessment that "The total market for a hidden e-bike motor with limited capabilities is pretty much restricted to shifty racers that are trying to cheat."
There simply isn't much demand for small motors in bikes, and so the lack of commercialization has in this case nothing to do with the question of whether or not the technology is available.

**
In fact I wasn't aware of this. In the interview from 2014 where Di Luca famously said 90% of all riders still dope, he apparently also said that 150-watt motors are being used in the peloton, and he went close to accusing Sky of using motors (pointing out their fascination with the powermeter and maintaining 500 watt output uphill).
https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/shamed-di-luca-fires-bazooka-90-per-cent-161948379.html

 

[sniper]

breschel post-finish about bike change fiasco:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97MmSiBp1lM

 

[sniper]

http://www.dhnet.be/sports/cyclisme/jacky-durand-cancellara-n-a-pas-tout-dit-video-51b7980be4b0de6db983473e
in french, use google translate. summary: the only plausible explanation for the bike changes is that the mechanic took off to recharge or replace the battery.

I'm still waiting for people to address this. I want to know if there are other, similarly plausible explanations for the bike switches and the manner in which they happened.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

here, the battery is underneath the saddle, the motor itself is in the tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDMLzKeRN-Q

Tellingly, the producer/seller of that product complains that there is hardly any demand, and that the demand did not increase even after Di Luca's 2014 public talk of motors (see below**).
http://www.l1.nl/sport/241149-vraag-naar-fiets-motortjes-niet-gestegen
In other words, very much confirms Scienceiscool's assessment that "The total market for a hidden e-bike motor with limited capabilities is pretty much restricted to shifty racers that are trying to cheat."
There simply isn't much demand for small motors in bikes, and so the lack of commercialization has in this case nothing to do with the question of whether or not the technology is available.

**
In fact I wasn't aware of this. In the interview from 2014 where Di Luca famously said 90% of all riders still dope, he apparently also said that 150-watt motors are being used in the peloton, and he went close to accusing Sky of using motors (pointing out their fascination with the powermeter and maintaining 500 watt output uphill).
https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/shamed-di-luca-fires-bazooka-90-per-cent-161948379.html

Not questioning the market expertise of sniper and scienceiscool, but EB sales are well in the millions annually and grew 80% in the US in 2014.

Just saying.

Presumably a better product, more integrated design and a lighter battery and motor should appeal to someone. If it works.

Dave.

 

[sniper]

and there will most likely at some point be more commercial, more affordable, applications of smaller bike motors.
not yet though.

not sure how you go from that to claiming that the motorized bike does not exist in spite of several eyewitness reports to that extent from (ex-)pro's, newspaper articles explaining how it works, not to mention a tv show dedicated to showing how it works.
i'm really honestly not following your reasoning.

 

[blackcat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97MmSiBp1lM

 

[blackcat]

oh, i came to the breschel independent.

i wanted to see if i could find a crash from the 2006 Driedaagse de Van West Vlaanderen with Mcewen, and I found this that I thought SP might be interested in, and I see he had linked to it today for chrissakes!

 

[sniper]

 

[Microchip]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-checks-bikes-of-contador-hesjedal-and-gilbert-for-motors-at-giro-ditalia

 

[danielovichdk2]

The fact that some riders are going so fast that UCI need to check bikes for motors is as telling as it can be.

UCI could just as well say "geez you guys are going blazing fast, but since you're not doping anymore, something else is up".

Motors...hahaha...hilarious...what a joke!