61–70 of 307 posts
I'm starting to think that all major sports are fake.
Though, not quite sure whether doping (mechanical or otherwise) counts as fake. It's just that the de facto regulations they abide by are different than the de jure regulations.
It would be more interesting if it was legal with some reasonable limitations. It could be one more reason for boosting the battery technology.
It would be more interesting if it was legal with some reasonable limitations. It could be one more reason for boosting the battery technology.
I think they should allow it, but only with capacitors that are shorted prior to start. This way, it can only be used to improve efficiency.
(They don't, because the regulations don't allow it.)
It's already a money-competition to see who can buy the best super-bike. Yes, you have to have a minimum weight, but that just means that you can take a superbike and spend the extra weight applying aerodynamic fairings whereas someone else has to spend that weight on their frame or whatever.
Just take the bike out of the picture entirely. You ride this bike. Or one of these three models. Or whatever.
the thing with mechanical doping is that if you aren't caught red-handed, you are free, with doping some races/competitions will freeze your samples and they can be tested years later to find out if you were using something that wasn't testable yet, but with mechanical doping, once you're done the race you're safe. And over a course of a grand tour stage, even if the boost is only 25W, it can easily make the differen…
Seems trivial to detect now though. It's no problem to just tear down the bikes of the first X finishers to look for mechanical aids. Detecting doping reliably is much trickier. edit: I think most high level bikes use carbon fibre frames? You could probably just use x-ray or ultrasound imaging to look for anything suspicious in the frame.
Cycling is a team sport, and the other riders on the team are tasked with taking the sprinter to the sprint by riding in the wind for them.
the thing with mechanical doping is that if you aren't caught red-handed, you are free, with doping some races/competitions will freeze your samples and they can be tested years later to find out if you were using something that wasn't testable yet, but with mechanical doping, once you're done the race you're safe. And over a course of a grand tour stage, even if the boost is only 25W, it can easily make the differen…
Seems trivial to detect now though. It's no problem to just tear down the bikes of the first X finishers to look for mechanical aids. Detecting doping reliably is much trickier. edit: I think most high level bikes use carbon fibre frames? You could probably just use x-ray or ultrasound imaging to look for anything suspicious in the frame.
Testers now have access to video endoscope equipment to inspect the inside of frame tubes and some kind of magnetometer device. Commissaires have the right to completely dismantle suspect bikes. Road racing bikes use carbon fibre for nearly all structural components, so ultrasound or x-ray would be perfectly viable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps implement something similar to the parc ferme rules in F1? Where the winning cars and impounded after the race for detailed inspection and measurements by the stewards to ensure that they comply with the thousands of regulations? Drivers have been disqualified in the past for a spoiler or brake caliper measurement that are millimetres out, and I remember Daniel Ricciardo was stripped of his podium here in Aus…
I think at this point the UCI do always inspect the winner's bike after each stage. Here's a scenario where a rider could avoid most scrutiny and get away with it.... Say a rider doesn't finish in the top 5 for any early stages but stays near the top of the pack time-wise. Meanwhile they are conserving energy e.g. through use of a motor during mountain stages. Then at the end, stop using the motor and have fresh legs…
Am I the only cyclist here? I can't imagine voluntarily putting batteries in my bike on a long, mountainous stage. There's no way the batteries will last, and then I'm stuck with dead weight. And, looking through the actual documentary, I didn't see any incontrovertable thermal proof of a battery in any racer. In the guy posing for a shot, yes, but not in the cyclists laboring up the hill.
Modern race bikes are already deadweighted to make it to the minimum weight, so it's not a question of making the bike heavier.
Just take the bike out of the race entirely. Declare a year in advance that the bike will be XYZ model Q so people can train on them, and the race maintains custody of all race bikes, spares, etc. It's already a money-competition to see who can buy the best super-bike. Yes, you have to have a minimum weight, but that just means that you can take a superbike and spend the extra weight applying aerodynamic fairings whe…
Am I the only cyclist here? I can't imagine voluntarily putting batteries in my bike on a long, mountainous stage. There's no way the batteries will last, and then I'm stuck with dead weight. And, looking through the actual documentary, I didn't see any incontrovertable thermal proof of a battery in any racer. In the guy posing for a shot, yes, but not in the cyclists laboring up the hill.