10 ms·

There are two videos on Youtube that have been regarded by bike fans as suspicous. I will let HN readers make their own minds up! https://youtu.be/8Nd13ARuvVE?

There are two videos on Youtube that have been regarded by bike fans as suspicous. I will let HN readers make their own minds up! https://youtu.be/8Nd13ARuvVE?t=3m35s https://youtu.be/8Nd13ARuvVE?t=3m35s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc I would love to hear smart people's thoughts!

bbarn 11y ago
Here's the thing. No one to date has actually been caught using one. The banned woman was caught having one, on a spare bike in the pit. She claims it's owned by a friend (who corroborated) and that her mechanics mistakenly put it in the pit, etc.. it's a pretty shaky story, but the fact remains they have never actually caught someone using one during a race. There's a large number of people who think it just wouldn't help that much. While 100 watts extra would be a game changer, the forced cadence, inability to manipulate the pedals, etc makes it potentially no help at all. As for those two videos.. Cancellara has been attacking like this for years. It's his style. He's also the 4 time world time trial (solo racing against the clock) champion, so he's exceptionally good at sustained high output power. Hesjedal and the spinning wheel.. Why wouldn't you turn off your motor on a descent is the only thing I'd say? I wouldn't put it past him, he was one of the Lance era EPO doping crew, I just don't buy it on that video. I've seen plenty of crashes in person where bikes did all kinds of weird things.
- dabeeeenster 11y ago
  On a long climb, timed right as part of an attack, it would definitely, definitely be a help. The difference between the top riders is so slim that it would without question make a difference, in my mind. I think the Cancellara video looks odd, but he is super-human... The Hesjedal video is just super weird. He could have knocked the motor on during the fall. He also gets up in a really suspicious manner IMO...
  - bbarn 11y ago
    By the way, have you seen this? I think it just came out a week or two ago.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5F5N6mFf0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5F5N6mFf0
  - johnbender 11y ago
    > The difference between the top riders is so slim that it would without question Exactly. In the first clip you posted, at the end in the tour of flanders when Cancellara attacks before the finish, neither his cadence nor his body position change as he accelerates. Further, the rider behind him who is undoubtedly an incredible athlete has to stand up just to keep his current pace. At the very least it's not hard to see why this looks suspicious.
  - alistairSH 11y ago
    In the Cancellara video, the riders around and in-front ease up a bit just as he accelerates. It does look odd, but he's a freak of nature when it comes to long, solo efforts. And, he rarely looks "out of sorts" on the bike. The only time I recall seeing him look completely gassed was after winning Paris-Roubaix a few years ago. And that was after he won and collapsed in the in-field.
- buro9 11y ago
  > Here's the thing. No one to date has actually been caught using one. Actually 6 weeks ago Femke Van den Driessche was caught with a motor in the Cyclocross World Championships. The UCI are pushing for a lifetime ban and a very hefty fine for Van den Driessche, so there is a significant disincentive: http://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/uci-seeking-lifetime-ban-and-50000-euro-fine-for-femke-van-den-driessche/ http://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/uci-seeking-lifetime-ban-and-...
  - davidw 11y ago
    > Actually 6 weeks ago Femke Van den Driessche was caught with a motor in the Cyclocross World Championships. He discussed that: she was not caught using one.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - buro9 11y ago
      That doesn't matter, the UCI code considers all equipment that a rider or team possesses within the confines of the race area as to be part of the equipment covered by the rules, and every rider and team knows this. The presence, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010. The use by a rider, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010. All teams must ensure that all their bicycles are in compliance with the provisions of article 1.3.010. Any presence of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, constitutes a technological fraud by the team and the rider. No rider brings into a competition area any equipment that they do not intimately know and they are fully aware that the UCI is going to have access to look at it all. Her excuse that it was a friend's is about as sound as Sharapova's excuse about doping yesterday. Possessing the bike, bringing it into a competition area, mixing it with competition equipment... it makes no difference whether or not anyone proves it was "used" (by any definition), the rules were explicitly clear.
- kazinator 11y ago
  There is no forced cadence. The motor is not fixed at a particular RPM; if the motor were unloaded, it would spin a lot faster than it does. It supplies a certain amount of power, and the bike hits a certain ground speed, and through the gear ratio, that determines the motor's speed. If you only want to go that fast, then you don't have to crank the pedals, and it's awkward. However, you can crank the pedals to go even faster. That's the point of using the motor. You + motor is faster than you alone or motor alone. Or: you + motor requires a lot less effort on your part to maintain a certain speed than you alone. Suppose that you can go 30 mph, but with great difficulty and not for very long. Suppose that a given motor by itself can go 20 mph. If you use that motor and your own muscles together, you can go 30 mph with a lot less effort, and sustain it a lot longer. The cranking of your pedals and cadence will be natural; you're cranking 50% faster than what the motor can do by itself. It will be like cycling in the slip-stream of a truck, or down a slight downgrade. To the spectators, you will just look like a strong cyclist. About the 100W, almost any amount of cheat torque can make the difference between placing N-th and N+1st. Every second counts. Even a 2.5W power boost could be a game changer. If your muscles put out 250W, 2.5W is 1% more, which is significant. It's about 36 seconds shaved off a one hour haul. The game has changed from a neck-and-neck race to the front runner having a 36 second lead. A tiny, light-weight motor of just a few watts that would be useless in a commuting bike used by someone who is out of shape and cannot climb hills could nevertheless win trophies for a cheater. One minute you're racing just beyond your lactate threshold. Flip a concealed switch, and a tiny power boost drops you within your threshold.
  - ezzaf 11y ago
    This is a great description of why motors can make a big difference in racing. Even small differences in power output can make a big difference in an elite race where so little can mean the difference between winning and not. It's easy to imagine using a tiny motor (much smaller than the one mentioned in the article) could make the difference between winning and being an also ran. However I have to nitpick on one point: "Even a 2.5W power boost could be a game changer. If your muscles put out 250W, 2.5W is 1% more, which is significant. It's about 36 seconds shaved off a one hour haul." Air resistance is one the most significant factor affecting riders at race speeds, and its force increases at a much greater than linear rate. You'd need about 3% more power in your example to save 36 seconds. In a flat time trial over one hour, 1% extra power would actually save you closer to 12 seconds. That said, the Tour de France has been won by less.
mring33621 11y ago
That second one is either a motor or a flywheel. No way a normal road racing wheelset could spin a fallen bike like that. Just my gut talking, though. I could be wrong...
- Retric 11y ago
  Rotating a light bike like that takes a lot less energy than you might think. Kinetic energy is also V^2 and the out edge of that wheel is probably doing 30+mph as it's down hill, so IMO it's actually believable. Granted, it would be much easier to get a motor to do the same thing.
  - bch 11y ago
    Rotating a light wheel that takes less energy, too, but that means too that wheel isn't a big power store. A light weight wheel is precisely the opposite of a flywheel; it should stop nearly immediately because it's _not_ a heavy rotating mass with lots of stored energy. If we're talking about Ryder Hesjedals video, he's still attached (right foot) to his bike, everything appears to be static (he's not sliding anymore) and his rear wheel appears to be pressed into the ground. Then when he unclips his foot, his bike starts spinning around. Weird[0]. [0] Conclusion based on watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynLMfzLTc8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynLMfzLTc8M at 0.25 speed.
    - laxatives 11y ago
      A light wheel with low resistance, like a highly tuned performance bike, can hold energy for a long time. My entry level road bike will spin for well over a minute with a light tug, maybe equivalent to 5-10 mph. He's going well over 30 mph in that video. I'm not arguing whether this may or may not be an assisted bike, but what you're saying about a wheel is patently wrong.
      - bch 11y ago
        Are you talking about light resistance in the bearings? I think you are (forgive me if I'm wrong), but that doesn't matter. That is not an example of the wheel "doing work". That wheel in the video looked stopped at the end of the crash, and even if it wasn't stopped, the video looks really awkward. Sure, his crash started at 30mph, but ended at 0, and his wheel looks to be firmly placed on the ground, immobile. For sake of understanding though, it'd be interesting to know what power could be stored in a theoretical wheel that could stand in for Ryder's. Eg. a pair of Mavic Cosmic Carbone Ultimate[0] apparently weight 1185g. The rear will weight a bit more (because hub/drive/gears), although that weight will be at the center of the spin, so I _guess_ not contribute significantly to the velocity of the wheel (angular momentum). So, how many watts are stored in a ~700g wheel that was moving at 30mph? That will determine the ability to do work (like spin a bicycle on the pavement). [0] http://www.bikyle.com/MavicRoadWheels.asp http://www.bikyle.com/MavicRoadWheels.asp edit: expand point, suggest exercise
TheTon 11y ago
Here's Cancellara winning Strade Bianche this past Sunday: https://youtu.be/X8YJH23dIAc https://youtu.be/X8YJH23dIAc I think it looks pretty similar in terms of terrain, style, and effort, and it was a win over a tough field. With all the concern about mechanical doping, they checked his bike and there was no motor in it. Of course there's no way to know what happened in 2010 for sure, but he has shown he doesn't need a motor.
- brudgers 11y ago
  I remember watching Miguel Indurain blow past great climbers without leaving the saddle during the 1990's. His resting heart rate was recorded at 28 beats per minute. The best cyclists are outliers among outliers.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - TwoBit 11y ago
    surely indurain was doping, though.
    - Thimothy 11y ago
      As was every other cyclist back then. Look at the wiki, the guy was a horse.
- outericky 11y ago
  Yes, Fabian is a beast. While those older videos seem intriguing, he is definitely very talented. But like Lance showed us, you never can tell.
sharpercoder 11y ago
The second video is very suspicious. Cycle shoes attach to the pedal by a click system. When you fall, you usually detach from the pedal by one foot. The other one detaches very dependent on the situation, or not at all. You see this happening: Hesjedal falls, one foot clicks out. His second foot stays clicked in. After Hesjedal falls, you clearly see the kinetic energy stopped of the back part of the bicycle at one moment. This is because his pedal is still attached to his right foot. After he "clicks out", the back wheel seems to bring the back part of the bicycle in motion. This is unexpected; the back part of the bicycle does not posses any kinetic energy. Two other options exist for the bicycle movement to occur. 1) the left pedal is fixed to the connecting surface area (road) while the cranks still move. 2) the rear wheel still has kinetic energy (still turning). The first option simply does not occur, as the right pedal keeps its position relative to the frame of the bicycle (see later frames in the video). The second option would never transfer enough energy to the bicycle as to display the observed bicycle movement. Hesjedal is already lowering speed substantially since he needs to maneuver into the left sharp corner. His speed is 20KMPH max, I'd say probably around 15KMPH. That is by far and large not enough to make the whole bicycle want to spin around hile on the ground.
- pge 11y ago
  I think what creates the confusion in the hesjedal video is that he is on a steep slope, but the angle of the video obscures that. That explains both the spinning wheel (caused by the bike slipping down the slope a bit while the wheel was touching the ground, causing the wheel to spin) and his somewhat awkward motion when he stands up.
  - mrow84 11y ago
    What makes you say he was on a steep slope? Nothing about the background suggests that this is so (for example, all of the cars in the car park below). Also, if he was on a hill, the bike would have to have somehow had enough angular momentum to spin back up hill, as it appears to do in the later part of the clip.
hughw 11y ago
I believe Flandrian national feeling drove the Cancellara accusations. He just smoked home hero Boonen on the Muur. Nothing about that video is convincing. The hand movements look like shifts.
jdietrich 11y ago
Regarding the first clip: Cancellara is the greatest time triallist in the history of cycling. Putting out immense amounts of power from a seated position is his raison d'etre. Regarding the second: That section of road is steep and banked. After Hesjedal unclips his right foot, the only points of contact between the bicycle and the road are the rear tyre and the rubberised hood on his brake lever. The bicycle is pulled downhill by gravity, but rotates around the brake hood because the friction there is greater than the friction at the rear hub.
- Havoc 11y ago
  >The bicycle is pulled downhill by gravity, but rotates around the brake hood Not convinced. The bike is close to stationary after the fall, then turns a full 180 and hits the next cyclist with quite a bit of force. Notice also that the back while is in constant contact with the road as it makes that 180 degree turn. Doesn't look gravity driven to me at all...
  - stouset 11y ago
    As I replied to the grandparent, rotating wheels carry enough rotational inertia to spin a lightweight bike. https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/?modal=true https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/?modal=true
    - gambiting 11y ago
      I feel like this should be obvious to anyone who has ever fallen off a road bike. I know I have, and this is very frequently what happens. But of course if someone has no experience riding bikes and views the video it looks like cheating.
- stouset 11y ago
  An even simpler explanation for the second clip is that a fast-rotating wheel has a decent amount of rotational inertia. https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/?modal=true https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/?modal=true
syassami 11y ago
re: Hesjedal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RngO2YlFYCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RngO2YlFYCA
grmarcil 11y ago
The Cancellara video looks a little odd just because of the dynamics of bike racing. If you interpret the video as Cancellara pulling away from other pros like that with everyone going full effort, it looks super human. In reality though, Cancellara pulls away from the group so quickly at 3:35 (the time you linked) because no one is trying to go with him at that moment. He's attacking with ~50km left, which is far enough from the finish at a major one-day race (Paris-Roubaix here) that the chances of the main group reeling him back in are pretty high (he did go on to win that day). As another rider in that group, you have two options when you see someone attack: A) try to go with Cancellara's move and hope that you can beat him one on one (unlikely, Cancellara is one of the all time greats and 2010 was a year of peak form for him), or B) stay with the pack and hope that you can collectively haul him back later in the race (now you've saved your own energy and Cancellara has spent some of his). Look at the lead rider in the pack (white jersey, blue shorts) at 3:46 as Cancellara goes past him. You can see him look back at the other riders in the group. He's checking to see if anyone else is deciding to do with Cancellara. No one else moves, so they maintain a steady pace, hoping to bring him back with option B. In the other video, Hesjedal's bike spins because of the road gradient and momentum in his still spinning wheel hitting the road as he stands up. Hard to see the slope of the road from the camera angle but they are on a steep descent. Mechanical doping is definitely a technological possibility and the UCI is starting to test bikes. That said, the "bike fans" who point to these videos out as evidence are conspiracy theorists. The explanations I wrote above are IMO pretty apparent to someone who has raced bikes before, but I can see how they look odd to a layman observer or a non-competitive cyclist (in the case of the Cancellara video especially). Edit: the race I was referring to was actually Paris-Roubaix, not Flanders. This article has some pretty good post-race interview commentary from Boonen and Cancellara himself about how the effort to chase him down sputtered because of a lack of cooperation, not ability: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/7578607/Paris-Roubaix-2010-Fabian-Cancellara-blows-away-rivals-to-win-second-successive-Classic.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/7578607...
rorykoehler 11y ago
I find his 2010 acceleration very unnatural. If you watch his win this past weekend and compare the effort made when accelerating it's like the difference between night and day. 2010 was too effortless even for someone of Cancellara's abilities. There was also the videos of him fumbling with something exactly where you would expect to hide a switch for the motor. All in all I reckon he did cheat with a motor in 2010 which is sad because initially I was amazed by his performance.

bbarn 11y ago

Here's the thing. No one to date has actually been caught using one. The banned woman was caught having one, on a spare bike in the pit. She claims it's owned by a friend (who corroborated) and that her mechanics mistakenly put it in the pit, etc.. it's a pretty shaky story, but the fact remains they have never actually caught someone using one during a race. There's a large number of people who think it just wouldn't help that much. While 100 watts extra would be a game changer, the forced cadence, inability to manipulate the pedals, etc makes it potentially no help at all. As for those two videos.. Cancellara has been attacking like this for years. It's his style. He's also the 4 time world time trial (solo racing against the clock) champion, so he's exceptionally good at sustained high output power. Hesjedal and the spinning wheel.. Why wouldn't you turn off your motor on a descent is the only thing I'd say? I wouldn't put it past him, he was one of the Lance era EPO doping crew, I just don't buy it on that video. I've seen plenty of crashes in person where bikes did all kinds of weird things.

dabeeeenster 11y ago
On a long climb, timed right as part of an attack, it would definitely, definitely be a help. The difference between the top riders is so slim that it would without question make a difference, in my mind. I think the Cancellara video looks odd, but he is super-human... The Hesjedal video is just super weird. He could have knocked the motor on during the fall. He also gets up in a really suspicious manner IMO...
- bbarn 11y ago
  By the way, have you seen this? I think it just came out a week or two ago.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5F5N6mFf0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5F5N6mFf0
- johnbender 11y ago
  > The difference between the top riders is so slim that it would without question Exactly. In the first clip you posted, at the end in the tour of flanders when Cancellara attacks before the finish, neither his cadence nor his body position change as he accelerates. Further, the rider behind him who is undoubtedly an incredible athlete has to stand up just to keep his current pace. At the very least it's not hard to see why this looks suspicious.
- alistairSH 11y ago
  In the Cancellara video, the riders around and in-front ease up a bit just as he accelerates. It does look odd, but he's a freak of nature when it comes to long, solo efforts. And, he rarely looks "out of sorts" on the bike. The only time I recall seeing him look completely gassed was after winning Paris-Roubaix a few years ago. And that was after he won and collapsed in the in-field.
buro9 11y ago
> Here's the thing. No one to date has actually been caught using one. Actually 6 weeks ago Femke Van den Driessche was caught with a motor in the Cyclocross World Championships. The UCI are pushing for a lifetime ban and a very hefty fine for Van den Driessche, so there is a significant disincentive: http://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/uci-seeking-lifetime-ban-and-50000-euro-fine-for-femke-van-den-driessche/ http://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/uci-seeking-lifetime-ban-and-...
- davidw 11y ago
  > Actually 6 weeks ago Femke Van den Driessche was caught with a motor in the Cyclocross World Championships. He discussed that: she was not caught using one.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - buro9 11y ago
    That doesn't matter, the UCI code considers all equipment that a rider or team possesses within the confines of the race area as to be part of the equipment covered by the rules, and every rider and team knows this. The presence, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010. The use by a rider, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010. All teams must ensure that all their bicycles are in compliance with the provisions of article 1.3.010. Any presence of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, constitutes a technological fraud by the team and the rider. No rider brings into a competition area any equipment that they do not intimately know and they are fully aware that the UCI is going to have access to look at it all. Her excuse that it was a friend's is about as sound as Sharapova's excuse about doping yesterday. Possessing the bike, bringing it into a competition area, mixing it with competition equipment... it makes no difference whether or not anyone proves it was "used" (by any definition), the rules were explicitly clear.
kazinator 11y ago
There is no forced cadence. The motor is not fixed at a particular RPM; if the motor were unloaded, it would spin a lot faster than it does. It supplies a certain amount of power, and the bike hits a certain ground speed, and through the gear ratio, that determines the motor's speed. If you only want to go that fast, then you don't have to crank the pedals, and it's awkward. However, you can crank the pedals to go even faster. That's the point of using the motor. You + motor is faster than you alone or motor alone. Or: you + motor requires a lot less effort on your part to maintain a certain speed than you alone. Suppose that you can go 30 mph, but with great difficulty and not for very long. Suppose that a given motor by itself can go 20 mph. If you use that motor and your own muscles together, you can go 30 mph with a lot less effort, and sustain it a lot longer. The cranking of your pedals and cadence will be natural; you're cranking 50% faster than what the motor can do by itself. It will be like cycling in the slip-stream of a truck, or down a slight downgrade. To the spectators, you will just look like a strong cyclist. About the 100W, almost any amount of cheat torque can make the difference between placing N-th and N+1st. Every second counts. Even a 2.5W power boost could be a game changer. If your muscles put out 250W, 2.5W is 1% more, which is significant. It's about 36 seconds shaved off a one hour haul. The game has changed from a neck-and-neck race to the front runner having a 36 second lead. A tiny, light-weight motor of just a few watts that would be useless in a commuting bike used by someone who is out of shape and cannot climb hills could nevertheless win trophies for a cheater. One minute you're racing just beyond your lactate threshold. Flip a concealed switch, and a tiny power boost drops you within your threshold.
- ezzaf 11y ago
  This is a great description of why motors can make a big difference in racing. Even small differences in power output can make a big difference in an elite race where so little can mean the difference between winning and not. It's easy to imagine using a tiny motor (much smaller than the one mentioned in the article) could make the difference between winning and being an also ran. However I have to nitpick on one point: "Even a 2.5W power boost could be a game changer. If your muscles put out 250W, 2.5W is 1% more, which is significant. It's about 36 seconds shaved off a one hour haul." Air resistance is one the most significant factor affecting riders at race speeds, and its force increases at a much greater than linear rate. You'd need about 3% more power in your example to save 36 seconds. In a flat time trial over one hour, 1% extra power would actually save you closer to 12 seconds. That said, the Tour de France has been won by less.

mring33621 11y ago

That second one is either a motor or a flywheel. No way a normal road racing wheelset could spin a fallen bike like that. Just my gut talking, though. I could be wrong...

Retric 11y ago
Rotating a light bike like that takes a lot less energy than you might think. Kinetic energy is also V^2 and the out edge of that wheel is probably doing 30+mph as it's down hill, so IMO it's actually believable. Granted, it would be much easier to get a motor to do the same thing.
- bch 11y ago
  Rotating a light wheel that takes less energy, too, but that means too that wheel isn't a big power store. A light weight wheel is precisely the opposite of a flywheel; it should stop nearly immediately because it's _not_ a heavy rotating mass with lots of stored energy. If we're talking about Ryder Hesjedals video, he's still attached (right foot) to his bike, everything appears to be static (he's not sliding anymore) and his rear wheel appears to be pressed into the ground. Then when he unclips his foot, his bike starts spinning around. Weird[0]. [0] Conclusion based on watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynLMfzLTc8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynLMfzLTc8M at 0.25 speed.
  - laxatives 11y ago
    A light wheel with low resistance, like a highly tuned performance bike, can hold energy for a long time. My entry level road bike will spin for well over a minute with a light tug, maybe equivalent to 5-10 mph. He's going well over 30 mph in that video. I'm not arguing whether this may or may not be an assisted bike, but what you're saying about a wheel is patently wrong.
    - bch 11y ago
      Are you talking about light resistance in the bearings? I think you are (forgive me if I'm wrong), but that doesn't matter. That is not an example of the wheel "doing work". That wheel in the video looked stopped at the end of the crash, and even if it wasn't stopped, the video looks really awkward. Sure, his crash started at 30mph, but ended at 0, and his wheel looks to be firmly placed on the ground, immobile. For sake of understanding though, it'd be interesting to know what power could be stored in a theoretical wheel that could stand in for Ryder's. Eg. a pair of Mavic Cosmic Carbone Ultimate[0] apparently weight 1185g. The rear will weight a bit more (because hub/drive/gears), although that weight will be at the center of the spin, so I _guess_ not contribute significantly to the velocity of the wheel (angular momentum). So, how many watts are stored in a ~700g wheel that was moving at 30mph? That will determine the ability to do work (like spin a bicycle on the pavement). [0] http://www.bikyle.com/MavicRoadWheels.asp http://www.bikyle.com/MavicRoadWheels.asp edit: expand point, suggest exercise

TheTon 11y ago

Here's Cancellara winning Strade Bianche this past Sunday: https://youtu.be/X8YJH23dIAc https://youtu.be/X8YJH23dIAc I think it looks pretty similar in terms of terrain, style, and effort, and it was a win over a tough field. With all the concern about mechanical doping, they checked his bike and there was no motor in it. Of course there's no way to know what happened in 2010 for sure, but he has shown he doesn't need a motor.

brudgers 11y ago
I remember watching Miguel Indurain blow past great climbers without leaving the saddle during the 1990's. His resting heart rate was recorded at 28 beats per minute. The best cyclists are outliers among outliers.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- TwoBit 11y ago
  surely indurain was doping, though.
  - Thimothy 11y ago
    As was every other cyclist back then. Look at the wiki, the guy was a horse.
outericky 11y ago
Yes, Fabian is a beast. While those older videos seem intriguing, he is definitely very talented. But like Lance showed us, you never can tell.

sharpercoder 11y ago

The second video is very suspicious. Cycle shoes attach to the pedal by a click system. When you fall, you usually detach from the pedal by one foot. The other one detaches very dependent on the situation, or not at all. You see this happening: Hesjedal falls, one foot clicks out. His second foot stays clicked in. After Hesjedal falls, you clearly see the kinetic energy stopped of the back part of the bicycle at one moment. This is because his pedal is still attached to his right foot. After he "clicks out", the back wheel seems to bring the back part of the bicycle in motion. This is unexpected; the back part of the bicycle does not posses any kinetic energy. Two other options exist for the bicycle movement to occur. 1) the left pedal is fixed to the connecting surface area (road) while the cranks still move. 2) the rear wheel still has kinetic energy (still turning). The first option simply does not occur, as the right pedal keeps its position relative to the frame of the bicycle (see later frames in the video). The second option would never transfer enough energy to the bicycle as to display the observed bicycle movement. Hesjedal is already lowering speed substantially since he needs to maneuver into the left sharp corner. His speed is 20KMPH max, I'd say probably around 15KMPH. That is by far and large not enough to make the whole bicycle want to spin around hile on the ground.

pge 11y ago
I think what creates the confusion in the hesjedal video is that he is on a steep slope, but the angle of the video obscures that. That explains both the spinning wheel (caused by the bike slipping down the slope a bit while the wheel was touching the ground, causing the wheel to spin) and his somewhat awkward motion when he stands up.
- mrow84 11y ago
  What makes you say he was on a steep slope? Nothing about the background suggests that this is so (for example, all of the cars in the car park below). Also, if he was on a hill, the bike would have to have somehow had enough angular momentum to spin back up hill, as it appears to do in the later part of the clip.

hughw 11y ago

I believe Flandrian national feeling drove the Cancellara accusations. He just smoked home hero Boonen on the Muur. Nothing about that video is convincing. The hand movements look like shifts.

jdietrich 11y ago

Regarding the first clip: Cancellara is the greatest time triallist in the history of cycling. Putting out immense amounts of power from a seated position is his raison d'etre. Regarding the second: That section of road is steep and banked. After Hesjedal unclips his right foot, the only points of contact between the bicycle and the road are the rear tyre and the rubberised hood on his brake lever. The bicycle is pulled downhill by gravity, but rotates around the brake hood because the friction there is greater than the friction at the rear hub.

Havoc 11y ago
>The bicycle is pulled downhill by gravity, but rotates around the brake hood Not convinced. The bike is close to stationary after the fall, then turns a full 180 and hits the next cyclist with quite a bit of force. Notice also that the back while is in constant contact with the road as it makes that 180 degree turn. Doesn't look gravity driven to me at all...
- stouset 11y ago
  As I replied to the grandparent, rotating wheels carry enough rotational inertia to spin a lightweight bike. https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/?modal=true https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/?modal=true
  - gambiting 11y ago
    I feel like this should be obvious to anyone who has ever fallen off a road bike. I know I have, and this is very frequently what happens. But of course if someone has no experience riding bikes and views the video it looks like cheating.
stouset 11y ago
An even simpler explanation for the second clip is that a fast-rotating wheel has a decent amount of rotational inertia. https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/?modal=true https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/?modal=true

syassami 11y ago

re: Hesjedal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RngO2YlFYCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RngO2YlFYCA

grmarcil 11y ago

The Cancellara video looks a little odd just because of the dynamics of bike racing. If you interpret the video as Cancellara pulling away from other pros like that with everyone going full effort, it looks super human. In reality though, Cancellara pulls away from the group so quickly at 3:35 (the time you linked) because no one is trying to go with him at that moment. He's attacking with ~50km left, which is far enough from the finish at a major one-day race (Paris-Roubaix here) that the chances of the main group reeling him back in are pretty high (he did go on to win that day). As another rider in that group, you have two options when you see someone attack: A) try to go with Cancellara's move and hope that you can beat him one on one (unlikely, Cancellara is one of the all time greats and 2010 was a year of peak form for him), or B) stay with the pack and hope that you can collectively haul him back later in the race (now you've saved your own energy and Cancellara has spent some of his). Look at the lead rider in the pack (white jersey, blue shorts) at 3:46 as Cancellara goes past him. You can see him look back at the other riders in the group. He's checking to see if anyone else is deciding to do with Cancellara. No one else moves, so they maintain a steady pace, hoping to bring him back with option B. In the other video, Hesjedal's bike spins because of the road gradient and momentum in his still spinning wheel hitting the road as he stands up. Hard to see the slope of the road from the camera angle but they are on a steep descent. Mechanical doping is definitely a technological possibility and the UCI is starting to test bikes. That said, the "bike fans" who point to these videos out as evidence are conspiracy theorists. The explanations I wrote above are IMO pretty apparent to someone who has raced bikes before, but I can see how they look odd to a layman observer or a non-competitive cyclist (in the case of the Cancellara video especially). Edit: the race I was referring to was actually Paris-Roubaix, not Flanders. This article has some pretty good post-race interview commentary from Boonen and Cancellara himself about how the effort to chase him down sputtered because of a lack of cooperation, not ability: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/7578607/Paris-Roubaix-2010-Fabian-Cancellara-blows-away-rivals-to-win-second-successive-Classic.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/7578607...

rorykoehler 11y ago

I find his 2010 acceleration very unnatural. If you watch his win this past weekend and compare the effort made when accelerating it's like the difference between night and day. 2010 was too effortless even for someone of Cancellara's abilities. There was also the videos of him fumbling with something exactly where you would expect to hide a switch for the motor. All in all I reckon he did cheat with a motor in 2010 which is sad because initially I was amazed by his performance.