Mechanical Doping update

natrix

Who's going to play the parrot???

ddraver

natrix wrote:

Who's going to play the parrot???

...I was thinking that, do you reckon the Parrot from Disney's Aladin is available?

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

Surely a pair of eyes and a wrench is all the kit they need.

However, if Gazzetta dello Sport want to buy a state of the art tester I have one. It may look like an old Nokia and lead gaffer taped to an indoor TV aerial but rest assured it cutting edge electromagnetic technology. Yours for just 25,000 euros.

They could try pressing any buttons and checking if the wheels spin round.

kleinstroker

If you regularly ride the same bike as all pro's do, then I'm sure you would notice an extra kilo or so when you picked the bike up and realise something was wrong. So Femke must have known the bike weighed a lot more than normal.

Lanterne_Rogue

stagehopper wrote:

There's a good (long) interview here from December with the UCI’s newish technical manager Mark Barfield on a wide range of subjects:

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/12/qa-with-uci-technical-manager-mark-barfield-weight-limit-disc-brakes-more/

It includes this on bike testing for motors:

We are changing the way we test. All I can tell you is it’s based on magnetic resistance. There is a lot of work to be done. We’ve done our first trial and we have more trials in February. Its first outing, fingers crossed, will be the World Cyclocross Championships ... we’ll probably do our first test in women’s racing next year because we need to extend. We now have the ability to test more bikes more often.

Does that quote - emphasis mine - provide an answer for those of us wondering why anyone might think they would get away without? If the UCI haven't been checking before at all, as this implies, then perhaps the calculation wasn't as stupid as it seems.

Obviously still quite stupid though...

darkhairedlord

underlayunderlay wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

There's a good (long) interview here from December with the UCI’s newish technical manager Mark Barfield on a wide range of subjects:

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/12/qa-with-uci-technical-manager-mark-barfield-weight-limit-disc-brakes-more/

It includes this on bike testing for motors:

We are changing the way we test. All I can tell you is it’s based on magnetic resistance. There is a lot of work to be done. We’ve done our first trial and we have more trials in February. Its first outing, fingers crossed, will be the World Cyclocross Championships ... we’ll probably do our first test in women’s racing next year because we need to extend. We now have the ability to test more bikes more often.

Does that quote - emphasis mine - provide an answer for those of us wondering why anyone might think they would get away without? If the UCI haven't been checking before at all, as this implies, then perhaps the calculation wasn't as stupid as it seems.

Obviously still quite stupid though...

You'd have to pretty stupid if the UCI had already said they were going to use it at 'cross worlds and do the women's racing, but then the whole family is starting to look like the Dingles from Emerdale (insert none-too clever soap family of your choice)

joelsim

natrix wrote:

Who's going to play the parrot???

Dan Martin could play the parrot. Not much time needed in make-up.

Mad_Malx

FJS wrote:

Friend Nico who claimed to own the bike should also feature. A former failed domestic pro, now owning a chips shop, very active in pigeon racing sport (not making this one up), and training with a 19 year old girl with a motor in his bike

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160201_02103070

do they test pigeons?

Richmond Racer 2

Mad_Malx wrote:

FJS wrote:

Friend Nico who claimed to own the bike should also feature. A former failed domestic pro, now owning a chips shop, very active in pigeon racing sport (not making this one up), and training with a 19 year old girl with a motor in his bike

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160201_02103070

do they test pigeons?

Oh God, it always comes full circle. Adri van der Poel's strychnine pozzie excuse of eating a pie made from his father-in-law's racing pigeon

WHAT IS IT WITH BELGIANS, DUTCH, CYCLING AND RACING PIGEONS

Lanterne_Rogue

darkhairedlord wrote:

underlayunderlay wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

There's a good (long) interview here from December with the UCI’s newish technical manager Mark Barfield on a wide range of subjects:

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/12/qa-with-uci-technical-manager-mark-barfield-weight-limit-disc-brakes-more/

It includes this on bike testing for motors:

We are changing the way we test. All I can tell you is it’s based on magnetic resistance. There is a lot of work to be done. We’ve done our first trial and we have more trials in February. Its first outing, fingers crossed, will be the World Cyclocross Championships ... we’ll probably do our first test in women’s racing next year because we need to extend. We now have the ability to test more bikes more often.

Does that quote - emphasis mine - provide an answer for those of us wondering why anyone might think they would get away without? If the UCI haven't been checking before at all, as this implies, then perhaps the calculation wasn't as stupid as it seems.

Obviously still quite stupid though...

You'd have to pretty stupid if the UCI had already said they were going to use it at 'cross worlds and do the women's racing, but then the whole family is starting to look like the Dingles from Emerdale (insert none-too clever soap family of your choice)

It might depend how eagerly they were following interviews with the UCI's technical bod on foreign websites, and presumably they were slightly preoccupied with the flap over parakeets? Not saying that they couldn't have known, but it seems possible (likely?) past experience perhaps led them to miscalculate.

Richmond Racer 2

^you'd have thought someone might have squawked

joelsim

Cancellara has his say (not much to be fair)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cancell ... ign=buffer

rob churchill

underlayunderlay wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

underlayunderlay wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

There's a good (long) interview here from December with the UCI’s newish technical manager Mark Barfield on a wide range of subjects:

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/12/qa-with-uci-technical-manager-mark-barfield-weight-limit-disc-brakes-more/

It includes this on bike testing for motors:

We are changing the way we test. All I can tell you is it’s based on magnetic resistance. There is a lot of work to be done. We’ve done our first trial and we have more trials in February. Its first outing, fingers crossed, will be the World Cyclocross Championships ... we’ll probably do our first test in women’s racing next year because we need to extend. We now have the ability to test more bikes more often.

Does that quote - emphasis mine - provide an answer for those of us wondering why anyone might think they would get away without? If the UCI haven't been checking before at all, as this implies, then perhaps the calculation wasn't as stupid as it seems.

Obviously still quite stupid though...

You'd have to pretty stupid if the UCI had already said they were going to use it at 'cross worlds and do the women's racing, but then the whole family is starting to look like the Dingles from Emerdale (insert none-too clever soap family of your choice)

It might depend how eagerly they were following interviews with the UCI's technical bod on foreign websites, and presumably they were slightly preoccupied with the flap over parakeets? Not saying that they couldn't have known, but it seems possible (likely?) past experience perhaps led them to miscalculate.

Dunno 'bout anyone else, but if I had a secret motor in my seat tube, I'd be googling 'UCI mechanical doping' every five minutes or so, just in case.

fleshtuxedo

rob churchill wrote:

Dunno 'bout anyone else, but if I had a secret motor in my seat tube, I'd be googling 'UCI mechanical doping' every five minutes or so, just in case.

What if you were preoccupied with planning a daring parakeet heist though?

keezx

TheBigBean wrote:

CUT
One option is to spend a couple of seconds scanning a bike for batteries, the other is to spend quite a lot longer taking it apart and looking in all sorts of hiding places. I know which of the two options I would prefer both as the examiner and as the UCI.

As very likely strong magnets are present in small motors, all you need is a compass...

rob churchill

New UCI technical reg: For the 2017 season teams will be required to ride Kirk Precision frames in all disciplines.

RichN95.

Here's a quick video I did of the App detecting a motor (includes background Simpsons)

http://youtu.be/m8U8oGuriKk

Macaloon

FleshTuxedo wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

Dunno 'bout anyone else, but if I had a secret motor in my seat tube, I'd be googling 'UCI mechanical doping' every five minutes or so, just in case.

What if you were preoccupied with planning a daring parakeet heist though?

Maybe they were battery parakeets and it's all part of the same caper.

Richmond Racer 2

Macaloon wrote:

FleshTuxedo wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

Dunno 'bout anyone else, but if I had a secret motor in my seat tube, I'd be googling 'UCI mechanical doping' every five minutes or so, just in case.

What if you were preoccupied with planning a daring parakeet heist though?

Maybe they were battery parakeets and it's all part of the same caper.

What if they were just after seed money?

ddraver

The van der Dreisschee's really have nothing to recommend the Belgian education system eh?

awavey

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

Surely a pair of eyes and a wrench is all the kit they need.

However, if Gazzetta dello Sport want to buy a state of the art tester I have one. It may look like an old Nokia and lead gaffer taped to an indoor TV aerial but rest assured it cutting edge electromagnetic technology. Yours for just 25,000 euros.

exactly, but people seem to have convinced themselves you need some future tech style Star Trek style tricorder, in exactly the same way a bike with wires sticking out the seat post and a slab of battery = invisible, because and I quote "well they could have used shielding technology", at which point my eyes glaze over and I mutter something about well we can always reconfigure the deflector array....

joelsim

"Parrots are the erythropoietin of the people"

Karl Merckx

imposter2.0

awavey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

Surely a pair of eyes and a wrench is all the kit they need.

However, if Gazzetta dello Sport want to buy a state of the art tester I have one. It may look like an old Nokia and lead gaffer taped to an indoor TV aerial but rest assured it cutting edge electromagnetic technology. Yours for just 25,000 euros.

exactly, but people seem to have convinced themselves you need some future tech style Star Trek style tricorder, in exactly the same way a bike with wires sticking out the seat post and a slab of battery = invisible, because and I quote "well they could have used shielding technology", at which point my eyes glaze over and I mutter something about well we can always reconfigure the deflector array....

Maybe if the frame was lead-lined..? hmmmm.....

joelsim

Imposter wrote:

awavey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is Femke Van den Driessche the sacrificial lamb to alert others that the UCI now has battery testing kit?

Surely a pair of eyes and a wrench is all the kit they need.

However, if Gazzetta dello Sport want to buy a state of the art tester I have one. It may look like an old Nokia and lead gaffer taped to an indoor TV aerial but rest assured it cutting edge electromagnetic technology. Yours for just 25,000 euros.

exactly, but people seem to have convinced themselves you need some future tech style Star Trek style tricorder, in exactly the same way a bike with wires sticking out the seat post and a slab of battery = invisible, because and I quote "well they could have used shielding technology", at which point my eyes glaze over and I mutter something about well we can always reconfigure the deflector array....

Maybe if the frame was lead-lined..? hmmmm.....

I think my Trek MTB's frame is lead-lined.

tailwindhome

Interesting comments from Wiggins.
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news ... cord-bike/

Sticky Bottle always get the Irish connection

RichN95.

cyd190468 wrote:

Surely the quickest way to detect hidden motors at pro level would be to have an x-ray like at airports that your bike must pass through as you enter the course. Carbon fibre is pretty x-ray transparent. Batteries and electric motors and wires not so much. It doesn't seem that hard to prevent.

They're bloody expensive and cumbersome though.

joelsim

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

FleshTuxedo wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

Dunno 'bout anyone else, but if I had a secret motor in my seat tube, I'd be googling 'UCI mechanical doping' every five minutes or so, just in case.

What if you were preoccupied with planning a daring parakeet heist though?

Maybe they were battery parakeets and it's all part of the same caper.

What if they were just after seed money?

They'd seen the evidence.

"Motor in the bottom bracket, motor in the bottom bracket..."

bompington

Surely it's not that an x-ray machine would be impossible, but that the devices mentioned previously (AM radio, compass, magnet on a stick, etc) would do the job just as well?
Correct me if I'm wrong, my A-level physics is a bit rusty to say the least, but where there are motors there are magnets, no? And a magnetic field is pretty easy to detect.

bobmcstuff

But if you can detect them just as easily with a cheap, light and portable magnetometer, why bother?

Macaloon

bobmcstuff wrote:

But if you can detect them just as easily with a cheap, light and portable magnetometer, why bother?

Finally. A reason for Snape to attend races.