[Closed] And so it begins...? "mechanical doping" first?

Sorry, we've all experienced a bike behaving like one in the demo at some point.
Hesjedal's bike doesn't appear to do that.

Could be manipulated footage, technical limitations etc, but it's definitely odd all the same.

But UCI will pull the bike apart and find the offending items no?
I trust the UCI to be upfront and honest just like they have been over doping 😆

Very odd all the same

[quote=Rusty Spanner ]Sorry, we've all experienced a bike behaving like one in the demo at some point.
Hesjedal's bike doesn't appear to do that.

Oh [b]that[/b] Hesjedal clip. It's bollocks conspiracy theory stuff - yes Hesjedal's bike does do much the same as the one in the demo, what do you think the difference is?

For those thinking Hesjedal's bike had a motor, where exactly do you think the motor is?

[quote=Rusty Spanner ]Sorry, we've all experienced a bike behaving like one in the demo at some point.
Hesjedal's bike doesn't appear to do that.
Could be manipulated footage, technical limitations etc, but it's definitely odd all the same.
IIRC there was some analysis at the time showing that the camera angle was giving a false impression of the (actually quite considerable) camber. That would have an effect on the motion of his bike.

yes agree with you RS, as Hesjedal crashes, a lot of his weight/leg is on the bike, which will add pressure/friction tyre to slow it down, and as he getting up the bike is near enough stopped, then it speeds up......

Anyway as for Femke, if it is true it be a bit unfair to ban Belgium, as she normally rides under a trade team, her normal normal support crew/helpers would be there. (And if true there is more than one person involved and it be more likely it be them)

“The bike was in the pit but it is [belonging to] someone from her entourage, who sometimes trains with her"
Not the first time a coach/training partner has used a "electric" bike to keep up/do pace work, but why would it be in the pits!!

But from the first reports it soounded like her bike broke, went to the pits then UCI, looked at it (the broken one) and found issue with it.

Anyway just have to wait for UCI to release a proper report/press release (in English as it is the universal language of cycling)

I've never seen the clip of the guy demonstrating it on his driveway before, which is flat, and there was no motorcyclist there to run over his rear wheel,

I bet the rider of the motorbike has seen cycles go down in front of him before, he doesn't correct his line because bikes don't go down and then skim the Tarmac, then torque round on an axis against the gradient whilst appearing to pick up speed, I think it looks odd, of course that's just my opinion, I could watch the bloke on his drive try and convince me but my minds made up,

IIRC there was some analysis at the time showing that the camera angle was giving a false impression of the (actually quite considerable) camber.

Aracer, I said it looked odd, not that he was cheating.

yes agree with you RS, as Hesjedal crashes, a lot of his weight/leg is on the bike, which will add pressure/friction tyre to slow it down, and as he getting up the bike is near enough stopped, then it speeds up......

I'm sure this was done to death at the time, but just for old time's sake, have you seen how the seat-tube motors work? They don't spin the wheel at that sort of speed, they turn the cranks. Hesjedal's cranks remain stationary w.r.t. the bike, you can clearly see the pedal stays stationary relative to the seat tube, and likewise, you can clearly see that Hesjedal's foot stays clipped in (and not turning the cranks) whilst the rear wheel is dragging the bike around.

So if you believe that he had a motor, it must have been some hitherto unknown hub mounted motor, including battery, which is somehow so small that it doesn't raise any comment. And how would you switch such a motor without cables? 🙄

Aracer, Is that a tongue in cheek question or have you not read any of the links to wires from seats, seat posts and frames and not being able to get the crank arms or bottom bracket off?

At a guess I'd say the mechanical parts are located somewhere near the the pedals? Say maybe bottom bracket area as riders would probably benefit more from assistance pedalling than they would if you hid a worm drive in the head tube to assist with steering on the twisty bits? No.......

you can clearly see that Hesjedal's foot stays clipped in (and not turning the cranks) whilst the rear wheel is dragging the bike around.

However, as you say, the cranks remain stationary.
And the front wheel continues to roll downhill, which suggests, as above, camera flattening.

Still odd though.

When he goes down and the spinning rear wheel starts to drag the bike after it, his foot is still clipped in.

My point being IF he had a seat-tube mounted motor, it would need to drive the cranks round in order to drive the rear wheel. His foot being clipped in and not turning the pedals is going to prevent that (which is a moot point anyway as once he is unclipped and chasing the bike round in circles you can see that the pedals aren't turning).

I'd also like to say that I DO think Hesjedal was cheating, the fact that it's not been proven and that his pedals didn't move bare no credence to me as im fully aware of what goes on in professional sport,

At half 9 this morning everyone thought the Dane wasn't guilty, now she is, well not her in fathers eyes, and neither is his son, Neither are the Russian athletic team, all Rugby players are clean and so are footballers, the recent scandal surrounding tennis was a hoax, the Lance Armstrong fiasco was also a hoax oh and the moon is made from Green Cheese.

I bet Darts players aren't taking EPO?

Edited: I'd also like to say that the none pedal turning "Moot Point" is also bollox as the bike pivots round on the pedal they can't both turn, he goes down and the only thing going through his mind is Shoite, best get hold of this quick, he's been down before and kept control of the bike, it's not the first time he's come off, this looks like it takes him by surprise and makes him look like a novice.

Now it looks like some ones actually been caught with a device fitted in the frame and still there are people refusing to believe it. And this is why we see folk trying to argue innocence, simply because some one some where refuses to believe it's happening.

xyeti - Member
I bet Darts players aren't taking EPO?

Too soon, too soon, will be the cry.....

Not the first time a coach/training partner has used a "electric" bike to keep up/do pace work, but why would it be in the pits!!

electric as in a covertly mounted motor hidden within the frame, doubt that very much. They are commercially available (like the [url= http://www.vivax-assist.com/en/produkte/vivax-assist-4-0/vivax-assist_4-0.php ]Vivax Assist[/url]), but not cheap, would be far too much effort and investment for a pace bike when any other e-bike set up would do?

[img] [/img]

I'd also like to say that I DO think Hesjedal was cheating, the fact that it's not been proven and that his pedals didn't move bare no credence to me as im fully aware of what goes on in professional sport,

Wow, so guilty until proven innocent eh? 🙄

The batteries must have some serious power to be able to provide a meaningful advantage to power a bike and rider. At such a such a small size too so that they're (almost) hidden.

Don't the UCI do random bike weight checks too? Surely this advanced tech would weigh something noticeable?

Genuine questions.

LeeW, Cyclist did a test, which Vivax posted a copy of

yes Hesjedal's bike does do much the same as the one in the demo, what do you think the difference is?

Never seen the Hesjedal video before, nor the apologist spinning his wheel on his drive. The guy in his back garden isn't even close to replicating the conditions in the Vuelta. Try spinning the rear wheel up to speed and skidding it down the road for 20 feet and then show it continuing to spin with enough friction/momentum to turn the frame.

Not trying to be an ass, but genuine question, what do you think was driving Hesjedal's wheel? I'm not saying it's technologically impossible, but it would need to be a motor in the hub shell, complete with battery, and some sort of wireless switching as you couldn't have a cable. All of this in a package that nobody would notice?

Not to mention the apologist spinning the cranks a few times and laying the bike down on a relatively flat driveway would not have the same momentum as a bike travelling at what, 70/80km/h on a steep road?

Is it Occam's razor that says the simplest explanation is probably the right one? Someone has closely if not exactly replicated an occurrence which doesn't have another simple explanation, where's the controversy?

@LeeW- how much power would make a difference? Would a constant 40W for an hour make an also ran into an winner? The one linked above is set up for 200W and uses and external battery. Easy to get 40-100W for an hour with batteries inside the seat tube. I would wager that the BB manufacture is by far the most expensive and time consuming part. Give me one of those and I can pop together a motor, gearbox (which is going to be needed), batteries and controller in an afternoon.

13thfloormonk, if people are going to put themselves on the world stage and not expect people to question them? Then isn't there something fatally flawed in that? I can have an opinion on absolutely anything I want to.

So, Why can't I have an opinion on that. It's like watching Xfactor and saying....... She's shit she won't win! Then some one saying hang on the phone votes aren't in yet the lines aren't closed till 9:30 you can't possibly pass judgement from your own brain until Cheryll Cole comes back on at 10. That's just Crackers,

You will be telling me next Lord Coe shouldn't be in prison for taking bungs and covering up doping in Athletics.

You are also aware that people will do almost anything to win? And no one ever thinks they are going to get caught.

how much power would make a difference? Would a constant 40W for an hour make an also ran into an winner?

The margin between the top athletes would see someone with an extra 40W slaughtering the field. So I reckon 10W would make a difference.

The article also states you'd need a seriously modified frame to take all the extra forces from the equipment around the BB. I'm not saying it's impossible but I'm not sure the tech is available at the moment in the scale that professional athletes would need it to be for it to go unnoticed (Edit) in off the shelf frames.

I'd also like to say that the none pedal turning "Moot Point" is also bollox as the bike pivots round on the pedal they can't both turn

Eh?? Care to explain that one? The pedal stays stationary relative to the seat tube, therefore the cranks aren't turning and couldn't be driving the chain or rear wheel.

Now it looks like some ones actually been caught with a device fitted in the frame and still there are people refusing to believe it.

But there is no evidence to suggest that the 'device' that someone might have been caught with could have been used in Hesjedal's case. It's stretching reasonable suspicion into slight paranoia to suggest otherwise...

So, Why can't I have an opinion on that. It's like watching Xfactor and saying....... She's shit she won't win! Then some one saying hang on the phone votes aren't in yet the lines aren't closed till 9:30 you can't possibly pass judgement from your own brain until Cheryll Cole comes back on at 10. That's just Crackers,

*sigh*

Have an opinion, just have something to back it up with, all you've presented so far is, well, tinfoil hat territory combined with a desperate desire to believe ALL sportspeople are cheats.

Do you believe that a crank mounted motor is somehow magically turning Hesjedal's rear wheel even though the cranks aren't spinning?

If not, you are effectively arguing that DESPITE a fairly simple video proving that what happened to Hesjedal's bike is perfectly feasible and innocent, he is nonetheless cheating using some fantastic new hub mounted motor technology that nobody has seen before or since... 🙄

The problem with applying Occam's Razor is that the occurrence hasn't been replicated closely by any means. How about some fag-packet maths? Apologist's video has him hand-spinning the cranks at a cadence in the region of 180. Looking at the chain position, I'd say he's in either top gear or almost top gear. Assuming a 50/12 gearing, that's ~60mph. That bike, with the rear wheel spinning at 60mph and with no resistance put upon it from, say, sliding down the road for 20-odd feet or having the leg of a Tour rider weighing down on it via the crank, came to a stop in 2.5 seconds absolute tops.

The video of Hesjedal is a little trickier because it's been slowed down. At a rough guess it's at half speed, and a quick look using YouTube's 2x speed option would suggest that this is the case. He's travelling at ~30mph when he falls. At normal speed there are 3 seconds (6 seconds at video speed) that elapse between his rear wheel making permanent, speed-scrubbing contact with the road and the motorbike running it over, at which point it is very much still spinning. Approximately half of those 3 seconds have the wheel travelling very much against its will and with the weight of a leg pressing down on it, meaning more friction and therefore more speed scrubbed.

You're telling me it isn't suspicious that the rear wheel of a bike travelling - at the very best - half the speed of the one in apologist's video still has enough momentum to spin the frame long after the apologist's bike has stopped spinning?

So you think it has a hub mounted motor? In a normal hub shell?

Plus...

cheating using some fantastic new hub mounted motor technology that nobody has seen before or since... 🙄

Lee. If all you want is 10W for an hour I could fit that in a 27.2 seat tube. Frame modifications is major BS.

In fact just been out to the shed and pushed a motor, controller and suitable battery into the seat tube of an old Cannondale Jeckyl (it was handily placed) No reduction gearbox to hand but with that setup would easily give 10W for an hour.

So you think it has a hub mounted motor? In a normal hub shell?

You are also aware that people will do almost anything to win? And no one ever thinks they are going to get caught.

Most dopers are not total sociopaths, IMHO - they're normal people who progressively lie to themselves - maybe they think everyone is doing it, or they feign ignorance of what the team doctor is giving them, or they think that taking drug A, which is banned, is a relatively small step from taking drug B, which is allowed. Whatever, it's a slippery slope with a lot of rationalisations along the way.

But a motor in the bike? You're just a cheating scumbag and there's no telling yourself otherwise. If you're not some sort of psychiatric case I can't see how anyone could live with themselves doing that.

Sorry, there's just WAY to many ropey assumptions to take that fag packet maths seriously.

The way I see it:

Wow, that looks odd, maybe he's using one of those new fangled motors.

Oh, wait, here's a video showing something very similar without the use of a motor.

Oh, wait, the only known motor technology on the market couldn't be responsible AS HIS CRANKS AREN'T TURNING.

Dodgy maths and imagined technology vs. simple explanation. It's classic Occam's Razor.

"I cannot conceive of how this is possible" has never really been that solid a foundation upon which to base your beliefs.

😀

Haha! An excellent way to refute basic observation and engineering.

Do you have a more solid basis for your suggestion? Trying to calculate the kinetic energy of a spinning wheel from a 30 second youtube clip? 😆

Your "basic observation and engineering" amounts to applying the results of a 30 second video, in which almost none of the conditions are replicated, to another 30 second video and proclaiming that your opinion is correct. At least I've had a go at backing up my opinion.

Have a go at refuting my fag packet calculations then.

The batteries must have some serious power to be able to provide a meaningful advantage to power a bike and rider. At such a such a small size too so that they're (almost) hidden.
Don't the UCI do random bike weight checks too? Surely this advanced tech would weigh something noticeable?
Genuine questions.

Thinking about it you probably wouldn't need much in the way of battery capacity, maybe some sort of energy recovery on descents? we're not talking about powering the bike for the whole race, the odd little bit of powered assistance for some steeper climbs, bursts of few seconds, as someone above said an extra 10W can make all the difference.

On top of that there's quite a few places to hide additional components in a modern bike frame and it's easy enough to build a bike say 1kg under the regulation weight to then add your motor and battery to and drag it back over the limit... Your fine unless the commissar wants a proper poke about... Or some sort of pancake motor buried in a cassette or powertap hub? Who knows, it would need a fair bit of effort but such items can be hidden at least from a cursory inspection...

TBH though I can't see why a team would go to the trouble, once the UCI know what they're looking for, its going to be very difficult to hide it, it's not like labs [i]mixing up[/i] samples, it's a few physical objects, integrated into the bike which are going to be quite hard to remove post-race without raising some suspicions...

I would wait for a proper announcement from the UCI, but bet the bike was simply underweight.

Dodgy maths and imagined technology vs. simple explanation. It's classic Occam's Razor.

uphillcursing - Member

Lee. If all you want is 10W for an hour I could fit that in a 27.2 seat tube. Frame modifications is major BS.

In fact just been out to the shed and pushed a motor, controller and suitable battery into the seat tube of an old Cannondale Jeckyl (it was handily placed) No reduction gearbox to hand but with that setup would easily give 10W for an hour.

And you're still uphill cursing? 🙂

Surely you'd need to mod the frame to stop it spinning in the seat tube? The moment a cyclist paused or faltered on the cadence wouldn't it motor just spin around? Guess this is less of an issue in road cycling. Out of interest, what does your set up weigh?

Not being devils advocate, genuine questions.

Interesting as this STW handbags is the real question to be asking is:
If the battery and motor technology has been easily available for getting on ten years how cone this is the first person caught?

If races can be torn apart by an extra 10-20W there will have been many smarter people with a vested interest than me looking into this.

No, I might be engaged in this pointless argument at 1 am on a Sunday morning but I will not go as far as counting pedal revolutions and guessing gear ratios on a youtube video 😀

What I'm trying to get across is that you are arguing the existence of a fairly impressive bit of engineering on the basis that the video doesn't quite replicate the *exact* conditions of Hesjedal's crash.

I'm arguing that it's close enough to convince me.

I actually believe that if the technology existed to produce a hub mounted motor like that, we'd know it, it would require some pretty spectacular battery engineering.

Oh, and using a motor to cheat on a descent? Really? Are these guys really maxing out their gears and aerodynamics so much on the descents that they also need to resort to motors to eke out more speed?

Anyway, we're obviously never going to convince one another and I keep missing the goriest parts of Starship Troopers, so I'm going to concede defeat of sorts and leave 8)

Edit: DAMMIT, couldn't resist

What's the kooky name given to the process of deciding that it's too much trouble to look into some conundrum with an enquiring mind and instead proclaim that the explanation requiring the least amount of critical thought is the correct one?

It's called 'Common Sense' 😉

Still up.
1) spinning in the seat tube. Yes would need to be locked in place but there would not be a huge amount of torque. See the rubber O ring on that commercially available one. There is your locking mechanism.

2) weight. Hmmm remember that I have no BB bracket, locking mechanism or reducer gearbox. But let me go and look.

Back in 5

It's called 'Common Sense'

No worries. I wish I was watching Starship Troopers. Instead, this has kept me entertained during a Big Brother-a-thon omnibus catchup extra behind the scenes director's cut. To think I paid money for the TV and this is what it gets used for...

Battery 100g
controller 25g
motor 65g

Enough to give 10W for an hour assuming 25% losses.(which is frankly a huge overestimation)

[quote=xyeti ]Aracer, Is that a tongue in cheek question

Kind of...

[quote=xyeti ]At a guess I'd say the mechanical parts are located somewhere near the the pedals? Say maybe bottom bracket area

[quote=xyeti ]I'd also like to say that I DO think Hesjedal was cheating, the fact that it's not been proven and that his pedals didn't move bare no credence to me as im fully aware of what goes on in professional sport

...except it seems that despite you having worked out the motor would be at the BB driving the cranks, and acknowledging that the cranks aren't turning you still think he's cheating, because... well apparently because we know pros cheat!

I could pick your argument apart, but I covered it in my first post, it's conspiracy theory bollocks.

As for those suggesting a hub motor, no you couldn't fit a motor providing useful power into a normal hub shell. Check out the size of the motor pictured above designed to fit in a seat tube - not only is it wider than a standard hub shell, it's also about twice the length. What's more, the rear hub would be a stupid place to put the motor, as not only does it limit your packaging options, it also makes supplying the power a lot more tricky compared to a nice simple motor in the seat tube. There is absolutely no advantage to having one there - apart from the ability to spin up the rear wheel when the cranks aren't turning in order to provide the conspiracy theorists with material 🙄

I'd also like to say that I DO think Hesjedal was cheating, the fact that it's not been proven and that his pedals didn't move bare no credence to me as im fully aware of what goes on in professional sport

He wasn't. A motor hidden in the rear hub (which given the cranks not moving, is the only explanation) is simply beyond the scope of real-world technology. For instance:

*The motor would have to be small enough to sit somewhere between the axle and the hub body, 1cm diameter? Motors do exist in this size, but not ones that are capable of this kind of power, and not for the kind of budgets available to world tour teams. Nasa, maybe. F1, maybe. Vaughters and friends (a team that only 12 months ago had to merge with another team), no.

*How does the motor receive power form its battery? Sure there is a wire passed through the frame, then what? Down the skewer?

* If the above is true, then what if he needs a rear wheel change?Disconnect the wires? Leave them hanging? Risky, no?

* If the motor was activated by a button of throttle type thing, then surely (much like when you fall off a motorbike, and believe I have had plenty of practice) the first thing you do is TAKE YOU FINGER OFF THE BLOODY BUTTON.

* Additionally (and here is the most obvious point), why would our Canadian friend be giving himself an extra few watts DOWNHILL on CORNER ENTRY?

The bike accelerated by itself after being brought to a stop. Maybe unicorns farted, but my guess would be a motor/generator integrated into the back wheel. It could be triggered automatically at low speeds to give a boost on climbs, for example, by spinning quickly and then backpedalling for an instant. The crash would have replicated the signal to start the motor. It doesn't need to be a big battery, just enough to give a minute or two of boost on critical climbs, then to recharge on descents.

It could be triggered automatically at low speeds

He would look good when he stops to talk to the press (to discuss his win) and it carries on without him then....

and then backpedalling for an instant.

We are drifting into the absurd now...

then to recharge on descents

So we have a dynamo too? Surprised he isn't on a Dawes Galaxy tbh.

For those claiming motors in the hub take one apart, where would you fit the motor. There isn't a lot of space in there. Seeing the bb setup and the size to get something meaningful out of that inside a hub.

Hmmm, no idea but interesting to speculate, I'm inclined towards Hesjedal being a no as per cranks not moving. But I'm not certain that the lack of crank movement is as open and shut a point as it first appears.

If we were to assume that a rear wheel motor wasn't in play, and I've seen no evidence anywhere to indicate such a thing is possible. Then the motor would need to be a seat or down tube crank assist. The bike remains still while the riders foot is still attached. When the foot comes away the bike moves, seeming to accelerate, but the crank appears to remain fixed.

However is it possible that the motive power was the crank? Is there enough power, and traction from the non drive pedal, to rotate the bike around the crank rather than vice versa? Non drive pedal wedged into tarmac, heaviest part of the bike above it, crank trying to move? Then the net result would be the bike appearing to rotate while the crank doesn't. Put another way, if you set up a bike like this and then clamped it in a vice. On its side by the non drive pedal then turned on the motor. Would the bike spin around?

Of course it could just be gravity and momentum but the rear wheel does seem to be in ground contact for a longish time before it does its dance.

Everyone was laughing except the UCI Commissaires on the race. “Apparently they got a lot of messages from the public, so they had to come and investigate,” said Fernandez, “they came this morning and said that they had to look at the bikes. I think they were almost embarrassed, but they came along and had a look anyway.” And they found nothing.

No doubt the internet rocket scientists will claim the UCI found nothing because they were paid off not to look too closely, because they were in on it, obviously.

Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/ryder-hesjedals-clockwork-cervelo-uci-checks-garmin-sharp-bikes-134803#Lk6Lc8sZKv6R51rM.99

So even when the UCI checked the bike they couldn't find anything, a real conspiracy then.

I hope in this case they get the bike stripped, film it all and show the evidence.

For pure amusement I suggest that his brake blocks where magnets and there was a current passing through the rim.

How would a hidden motor help in a CX race? They are always running/carrying the damn things 😉

As for Millar etc yes a permanent ban. Then kids/coming up wouldn't even dare attempt it.

hora - Member
As for Millar etc yes a permanent ban. Then kids/coming up wouldn't even dare attempt it.

Taking the positives, cyclo cross just got its (probably) first ever mention on the radio 2 news!