Mechanical doping. Wow.
Comments
-
Did this start yesterday by any chance?
As for the Twitter comment that it took 10 years before people believed about EPO, that's just plain wrong. It was accepted it was being used all along - if anything was doubted it was the extent and which riders were using it.0 -
There's no 'Wow' about it at all. It's just some chancer making claims that he's completely unable to back up. He refuses to show anyone one of these alleged bikes. Does anyone even have a photo of him? Any independent evidence of his existence?
And for alleged 17 year old technology it's unique in that no-one seems to have ever applied for any patents for it.Twitter: @RichN950 -
@oufeh · 16m 16 minutes ago
In l'Equipe piece on doped bikes, Contador is mentionned twice : being nervous about controls, and using his own wheels for TdF ITT in 09
Do you know why Contador had to use his own wheels? (Lightweight ones). Interesting story. Clue: Lance and JB's attempt to make their teammate lose. It's in the spoiler thread if you can get the search function to work.
Interesting claims from that Hungarian engineer though! 150k a pop for some. Check his bank balance then. Crazy that he is saying the UCI couldn't find it given its level of advancement!
Cookson article from earlier:
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/03/cooks ... ssibility/
It is why they took the entire bikes away from those two teams at MSR.Contador is the Greatest0 -
RichN95 wrote:And for alleged 17 year old technology it's unique in that no-one seems to have ever applied for any patents for it.
And decided to forgo the mass commercial exploitation of the invention“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
The article is in today's Equipe, not yesterday's.
Based on 100-150k Euros per bike, I don't think a patent is necessary.
I suspect we will hear much more about this over the coming days.0 -
This is stupid. It should be easy to tear a bike to bits and find any sort of hardware that isn't meant to be there, even if it is inside a wheel hub. There's no ambiguity involved. It should also be easy to obtain some documentary and/or physical evidence of these magical engines given there must be dozens if not hundreds of them knocking about if what he's claiming is even close to true. Sounds extremely unlikely, especially when combined with what is apparently the most altruistic engineer in world history.
Isn't it just supposed to be an eyecatching photoshop job?ddraver wrote:It's a cool xray
is nt it more likely to be a powermeter though?0 -
This is mention in CIRC is it not, that this is a very real possibility.0
-
And Ferrari has mentioned it to be a very real issue.
Discussions suggest that even the mechanics are unaware that the motor is there.0 -
Anyone got a translation?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
Where do the batteries for these live then?Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0
-
Being not very mechanically minded what am I supposed to be looking at in the L'Equipe photo? It looks like an electronic chipboard to me. That's not a motor, that's the kind of shizzle you find in your phone and... your power meter.Correlation is not causation.0
-
It's just something the graphics department knocked up.Above The Cows wrote:Being not very mechanically minded what am I supposed to be looking at in the L'Equipe photo? It looks like an electronic chipboard to me. That's not a motor, that's the kind of shizzle you find in your phone and... your power meter.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
It's just something the graphics department knocked up.Above The Cows wrote:Being not very mechanically minded what am I supposed to be looking at in the L'Equipe photo? It looks like an electronic chipboard to me. That's not a motor, that's the kind of shizzle you find in your phone and... your power meter.
Now that I understand. They could have put a real motor in there though, like this:
I am disappointed.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:Being not very mechanically minded what am I supposed to be looking at in the L'Equipe photo? It looks like an electronic chipboard to me. That's not a motor, that's the kind of shizzle you find in your phone and... your power meter.
The gist of the article is that the motors are so small and silent that they can be hidden anywhere and no-one would be able to detect them even if they took the whole bike apart.0 -
ddraver wrote:It's a cool xray
is nt it more likely to be a powermeter though?
More likely to be Photoshopped. Looks like L'Equipe got had yesterday and have reported it today. Isn't it L'Equipe that regularly report Vayer's mutterings as fact?
As pointed out, it would be too easy to catch anyone doing this if anyone truly suspected it was happening and as Rich says why would a company do the R&D to create a micro-motor then not market it to make a return on their investment? It could be revolutionary in providing low cost urban transport and earn them millions / billions!0 -
Joelsim wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Being not very mechanically minded what am I supposed to be looking at in the L'Equipe photo? It looks like an electronic chipboard to me. That's not a motor, that's the kind of shizzle you find in your phone and... your power meter.
The gist of the article is that the motors are so small and silent that they can be hidden anywhere and no-one would be able to detect them even if they took the whole bike apart.
0 -
Are they honestly saying that a team mechanic can't see or feel the weight of a motor powerful enough to increase the speed of an 80kg rider + bike, and the batteries needed to do so?Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0
-
Above The Cows wrote:RichN95 wrote:
It's just something the graphics department knocked up.Above The Cows wrote:Being not very mechanically minded what am I supposed to be looking at in the L'Equipe photo? It looks like an electronic chipboard to me. That's not a motor, that's the kind of shizzle you find in your phone and... your power meter.
Now that I understand. They could have put a real motor in there though, like this:
I am disappointed.
One of these might fit better.
Though to be honest, I'm only posting this to be able to use the word Wankel in otherwise polite conversation.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Snort, snigger and other Benny Hill type expletives.Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0
-
No, they're completely undetectable. The mysterious Hungarian says so. We can detect galaxies ten billion light years away and a variety of subatomic particles. But a motor in a bike? That's impossible, I'm afraid.Gweeds wrote:Are they honestly saying that a team mechanic can't see or feel the weight of a motor powerful enough to increase the speed of an 80kg rider + bike, and the batteries needed to do so?Twitter: @RichN950 -
And as we all know, "Discussions suggest" is the gold standard of evidence the world over, just beating "I know a guy who said" and "Everyone knows"...Joelsim wrote:Discussions suggest that even the mechanics are unaware that the motor is there.
This isn't like doping where you can get different experts arguing with each other over how to interpret a given dataset, or have to deal with differences between individuals. This is fitting some extra hardware onto a bike, it's either there or it isn't. You can't hide it once people know to look for it.
Do you have any idea how infeasible that is? An engine and battery that can be packed into a few cubic cm (or less?), that makes no noise and can supply enough power for enough time to make a difference to a pro cyclist? Does it also produce no heat? :roll:Joelsim wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Being not very mechanically minded what am I supposed to be looking at in the L'Equipe photo? It looks like an electronic chipboard to me. That's not a motor, that's the kind of shizzle you find in your phone and... your power meter.
The gist of the article is that the motors are so small and silent that they can be hidden anywhere and no-one would be able to detect them even if they took the whole bike apart.
Edit: seriously, if this guy can do what he claims, I think there's a Nobel prize in Physics waiting for him.0 -
Gweeds wrote:Are they honestly saying that a team mechanic can't see or feel the weight of a motor powerful enough to increase the speed of an 80kg rider + bike, and the batteries needed to do so?
And not market this in an environment where they can make money from this incredible nano technology. What's even more incredible than this is that some people seem to believe this actually exists :shock:0 -
adr82 wrote:
And as we all know, "Discussions suggest" is the gold standard of evidence the world over, just beating "I know a guy who said" and "Everyone knows"...Joelsim wrote:Discussions suggest that even the mechanics are unaware that the motor is there.
This isn't like doping where you can get different experts arguing with each other over how to interpret a given dataset, or have to deal with differences between individuals. This is fitting some extra hardware onto a bike, it's either there or it isn't. You can't hide it once people know to look for it.
Do you have any idea how infeasible that is? An engine and battery that can be packed into a few cubic cm (or less?), that makes no noise and can supply enough power for enough time to make a difference to a pro cyclist? Does it also produce no heat? :roll:Joelsim wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Being not very mechanically minded what am I supposed to be looking at in the L'Equipe photo? It looks like an electronic chipboard to me. That's not a motor, that's the kind of shizzle you find in your phone and... your power meter.
The gist of the article is that the motors are so small and silent that they can be hidden anywhere and no-one would be able to detect them even if they took the whole bike apart.
Don't ask me, I'm merely restating what has been suggested.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
No, they're completely undetectable. The mysterious Hungarian says so. We can detect galaxies ten billion light years away and a variety of subatomic particles. But a motor in a bike? That's impossible, I'm afraid.Gweeds wrote:Are they honestly saying that a team mechanic can't see or feel the weight of a motor powerful enough to increase the speed of an 80kg rider + bike, and the batteries needed to do so?
Well, apart from the xray in the article which detects it 0
