Motors on bikes (again)
Comments
-
Anyone with(out) an ounce of common sense would know that the oil companies buy up these motor and battery ideas....0
-
adr82 wrote:
Which is why the UCI inspections involve popping out the seatpost and cranks so they can check exactly those areas. Takes a few minutes, and when you see the sizes of the motors that are being used it's going to be immediately obvious if there's anything like that inside. External batteries are relatively easy to get rid of, a motor and battery that are basically moulded into your frame much less so. Some of them apparently require the frame to be cut apart to put them in place before it is repaired afterwards, so they're in there permanently after that. Not the type of thing you can quickly get rid of if you see the UCI inspectors approaching.DeVlaeminck wrote:I do think the technology is there - the link on page 1 is pretty much the finished article isn't it - I mean OK the battery is visible but then in a race situation you wouldn't need to produce the power for an hour so presumably it could be made significantly smaller to fit inside the seatpost or seat tube ?
Yes exactly if you take a bike apart they are easily detectable - but 4-5 years ago who was thinking of taking bikes apart to check for motors ?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:adr82 wrote:
Which is why the UCI inspections involve popping out the seatpost and cranks so they can check exactly those areas. Takes a few minutes, and when you see the sizes of the motors that are being used it's going to be immediately obvious if there's anything like that inside. External batteries are relatively easy to get rid of, a motor and battery that are basically moulded into your frame much less so. Some of them apparently require the frame to be cut apart to put them in place before it is repaired afterwards, so they're in there permanently after that. Not the type of thing you can quickly get rid of if you see the UCI inspectors approaching.DeVlaeminck wrote:I do think the technology is there - the link on page 1 is pretty much the finished article isn't it - I mean OK the battery is visible but then in a race situation you wouldn't need to produce the power for an hour so presumably it could be made significantly smaller to fit inside the seatpost or seat tube ?
Yes exactly if you take a bike apart they are easily detectable - but 4-5 years ago who was thinking of taking bikes apart to check for motors ?
Exactly.0 -
NorvernRob wrote:Has anyone found a picture of an actual, real life bike with everything hidden yet?
None of it makes any sense, not the figures that are being bandied about anyway. Take Hesjedal, are the team really going to spend 150 grand to put a motor in his bike knowing he isn't going to win the Vuelta anyway?
And then that 150 grand on the odd sale to a crooked cycling team would pale into insignificance compared to the money to be made on the worldwide market for something like that.
Where does the 150k come from, is that the cost of producing a small battery ? The link on the first page suggests a motor and battery can be bought for a few grand. That link also says there is an "invisible" option where the wires etc are pretty much hidden.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:NorvernRob wrote:Has anyone found a picture of an actual, real life bike with everything hidden yet?
None of it makes any sense, not the figures that are being bandied about anyway. Take Hesjedal, are the team really going to spend 150 grand to put a motor in his bike knowing he isn't going to win the Vuelta anyway?
And then that 150 grand on the odd sale to a crooked cycling team would pale into insignificance compared to the money to be made on the worldwide market for something like that.
Where does the 150k come from, is that the cost of producing a small battery ? The link on the first page suggests a motor and battery can be bought for a few grand. That link also says there is an "invisible" option where the wires etc are pretty much hidden.
I read it somewhere a few weeks ago. Maybe L'Equipe. That was for the whole shebang. Just one.0 -
What does 4 or 5 years ago have to do with anything? I'm talking about the current inspections. There's no way to tell what, if anything, was going on that long ago without getting your hands on some sort of positive proof. I'm sure it was possible to have a pretty well disguised motor installed 5 years ago if you really wanted to do so. I'm less convinced any top level pro riders would have been stupid enough to use them given the risk of being caught with one. You can appeal a doping test, but if someone did happen to notice something odd about your bike (maybe a motor getting noisier than intended, a stray wire, etc) then you have no way to contest it whatsoever.Joelsim wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:adr82 wrote:
Which is why the UCI inspections involve popping out the seatpost and cranks so they can check exactly those areas. Takes a few minutes, and when you see the sizes of the motors that are being used it's going to be immediately obvious if there's anything like that inside. External batteries are relatively easy to get rid of, a motor and battery that are basically moulded into your frame much less so. Some of them apparently require the frame to be cut apart to put them in place before it is repaired afterwards, so they're in there permanently after that. Not the type of thing you can quickly get rid of if you see the UCI inspectors approaching.DeVlaeminck wrote:I do think the technology is there - the link on page 1 is pretty much the finished article isn't it - I mean OK the battery is visible but then in a race situation you wouldn't need to produce the power for an hour so presumably it could be made significantly smaller to fit inside the seatpost or seat tube ?
Yes exactly if you take a bike apart they are easily detectable - but 4-5 years ago who was thinking of taking bikes apart to check for motors ?
Exactly.
Joel, again, as NorvernRob pointed out, if someone can produce a battery the size of a pinhead that'll power a bike for 30 minutes, that's a Nobel prize level breakthrough. It'd be a colossal advance in battery technology. If someone had done this, they would absolutely not be limiting themselves to selling it to a tiny market of cheating cyclists at 150K a pop. And this is not even getting into the similarly amazing and similarly tiny motor that IIRC was supposed to be part of the package as well! I've seen no evidence that the state of the art is much beyond this type of thing, which is on a totally different level.Joelsim wrote:I read it somewhere a few weeks ago. Maybe L'Equipe. That was for the whole shebang. Just one.0 -
At the time this whole thing blew up a former pro Davide Cassani showed a bike with a motor on Italian TV so the technology was there at the time and would have cost a lot less than 150k. The tech is there, it has been there for some time, it does not cost prohibitive amounts of money.
No it is not going to be hidden if you take the bike to bits - the argument about motors the size of pinheads may be fanciful but the idea that motors could have been used in the pro peloton is not that far fetched. If you take the Cancellara case the main risk of being caught would have been someone in on the project spilling the beans - in anything so new you would think someone might talk - it's that element that makes me think it's unlikely but it's certainly not impossible.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
When have I ever mentioned a battery the size of a pinhead? If no one is looking for a battery then it could have taken up a great deal of space in a tube. It's very different now they are looking out for it which, as I've said countless times in the above posts, is why they are very unlikely to find one now.0
-
Joelsim wrote:...according to speculation...I read it somewhere...0
-
Sure, not saying it does - 150K was the figure Joel brought up. It's obvious you can get the current state of the art kit for a few thousand and that's been true for years.DeVlaeminck wrote:At the time this whole thing blew up a former pro Davide Cassani showed a bike with a motor on Italian TV so the technology was there at the time and would have cost a lot less than 150k. The tech is there, it has been there for some time, it does not cost prohibitive amounts of money.
Exactly. That article in L'Equipe was talking about "undetectable" kit, something you couldn't find even if you cut the bike into pieces. That is clearly not what is actually available (or possible).ddraver wrote:you were talking about a battery and motor that was invisible to the human eye - my eyesight is far from good but I can see a pin head...0 -
ddraver wrote:you were talking about a battery and motor that was invisible to the human eye - my eyesight is far from good but I can see a pin head...
If you can find the post I wrote about it being invisible to the human eye then please do so.
All I have said is that I'm pretty sure that motors have been used in the past, hidden inside the frame somewhere. And that the authorities are unlikely to find anything now as the teams are not likely to risk it, knowing that they are being looked for.0 -
Joelsim wrote:ddraver wrote:you were talking about a battery and motor that was invisible to the human eye - my eyesight is far from good but I can see a pin head...
If you can find the post I wrote about it being invisible to the human eye then please do so.
You re better than that joel...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
And why are you 'pretty sure'? There is is absolutely nothing to suggest that it has been and no-one has shown a credible bike that would evade detection by a simple glance. Everything that has been put forward has been laughable (and largely by a single source that no-one has met and has no trace of his actual existance). The only thing to support your certainty is your imagination.Joelsim wrote:All I have said is that I'm pretty sure that motors have been used in the past, hidden inside the frame somewhere.Twitter: @RichN950 -
-
I'd still like to hear a pro mechanics view on how easy it would be to hide things.0
-
TheBigBean wrote:I'd still like to hear a pro mechanics view on how easy it would be to hide things.
The trick in hiding something is to put it where nobody would look ...0 -
Slowbike wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'd still like to hear a pro mechanics view on how easy it would be to hide things.
The trick in hiding something is to put it where nobody would look ...
Or knowing how long they have to look versus how long it would take to find it e.g. they won't dismantle the shifters in 20 mins.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Slowbike wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'd still like to hear a pro mechanics view on how easy it would be to hide things.
The trick in hiding something is to put it where nobody would look ...
Or knowing how long they have to look versus how long it would take to find it e.g. they won't dismantle the shifters in 20 mins.
Why look there? Should be only looking at either the pedal/cranks, or the wheels.
How else will the power be transferred?0 -
Bottom bracket/ seat post lower area. Nowhere else surely?0
-
0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Slowbike wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'd still like to hear a pro mechanics view on how easy it would be to hide things.
The trick in hiding something is to put it where nobody would look ...
Or knowing how long they have to look versus how long it would take to find it e.g. they won't dismantle the shifters in 20 mins.
Why look there? Should be only looking at either the pedal/cranks, or the wheels.
How else will the power be transferred?
It was more an example of somewhere hard to look, but you could hide a switch there. I'd just like to hear a pro mechanic talk on the subject to find out how long they think it would take to find some things.0 -
-
The only factor that makes me believe in the slightest that something might be going on is the marginal gains theory. A rider tucked in behind another, a rider putting down the power climbing or sprinting is going to be saving energy or burning it way, way beyond the capabilities of a motor. All I can imagine is the crank generates electricity which is stored within the frame material then fed to strategically placed magnets. Outcome? A rider whose balls that glow in the dark. UCI will develop a test fairly soon. :shock:'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0
-
Ferrari:I wonder if the inspectors checked, as well as frames, lenticular wheels and spokes, ideal structures where small motors can be hidden in the hubs...
http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=1580 -
It would be a laugh to try out a race where riders CAN use motors - the only rule being that they can only be charged by pedal power during the race - a bit like KERS in F1. So Cav could choose to spend energy on the flat charging his batteries to give him an explosive punch mid-climb.
I'll get my coat.....You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Daz555 wrote:It would be a laugh to try out a race where riders CAN use motors - the only rule being that they can only be charged by pedal power during the race - a bit like KERS in F1. So Cav could choose to spend energy on the flat charging his batteries to give him an explosive punch mid-climb.
I'll get my coat.....
All this battery talk is surely missing the solar panels in the jerseys and the piezo cells in the crotch-chafers. And some teams don't need to hide them.
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0
