7 ms·

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 owne

by 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.

by bbarn 11y ago

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.