Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

fittish.deadspin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 307 posts

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#241

Post by thesz »

bigiain wrote: post #159
rhizome wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it'll be like, "why can I only have two wheels?" Bicycle racing, whose equipment is required to have only one source of power, a certain minimum weight, and no disc brakes (and maybe a couple others) is probably one of the less-constrained pro sports.

Isn't there some secret conspiracy against recumbents? Some "tradition" rules disguising the "big diamond-frame" bike manufacturing cartel's absolute control over road racing rules, who know they'd get handed their asses by the Unix beard-o crowd on recumbents in a fair race? ;-)

The current bike rider position (on the diamond bike) makes riding less energy efficient, for one, and more agile - rider can more easily change direction or start sprinting or both.

All of this make bike riding sport more entertaining. I guess I can put it next to Formula 1 - low and high velocities, fast and slow turns, attacks, defense, etc.

The recumbent riding would be mostly technological and would have less action. I guess I can put it next to NASCAR - high velocities, slow turns, slow attacks.

I think that recumbent would be good for US, I also guess rest of world would prefer diamond bikes.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#242

Post by thaumasiotes »

dalke wrote: post #220
thaumasiotes wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> which of those two resulting races (humans with walking sticks vs monkeys with bicycles dimensioned appropriately to the monkeys) > Under UCI rules, cyclist aren't allowed to use aeroshells, and recumbent bicycles are also prohibited, even though both are much more "similar" to a bicycle than your proposed monkey with a walking stick. > If you want to run a race which allows a monkey with a walking stick to compet…

I want to argue that "similar" is irrelevant to the topic.

You just pointed out that the rules of bicycle races, as a class, are intensely concerned with what counts as a bicycle. This is a question of similarity.

More, it just illustrates my point that it is nonsensical to claim that "technology is not allowed to play a dominant role" in cycling. All of those rules are concerned with which technologies are required in a race (say, wheels), which are allowed, and which are forbidden. If you eliminated technology from cycling, cycling wouldn't exist. If you took an anything-goes approach, cycling again wouldn't exist -- you'd have racing, but nothing anyone would recognize as a bicycle.

And so immense amounts of attention and effort are devoted to the question of which technologies to use. Using the wrong one will get you disqualified. Abstaining from the wrong one will get you disqualified. The technological decisions made by rules committees govern the performance of the racers, and everyone knows and acknowledges that. This is a dominant role for technology. If you divide cycling as a sport into several parts, and one of those parts includes "technology", that part is much more important than every other part combined can be.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#243

Post by wiredfool »

lmm wrote: post #194
nradov wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the extra weight of a flywheel plus motor/generator would far outweigh any small advantage. The energy density is just too low for any flywheel small enough to fit on a bike. And the gyroscopic effects would mess with handling.

Citation? Flywheels can be very efficient especially with modern engineering. And it could be oriented so that the gyroscopic effects were stabilizing or destabilizing as desired, plus I think in any case riders would adapt quickly - I ride a "twitchy" bike with no front fork sometimes, and my old professor built a bike with a counter-rotating flywheel to disprove the myth that cyclists rely on gyroscopic effects to…

Prof Ruina? I loved his class.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#245

Post by jdietrich »

dalke wrote: post #167
thaumasiotes wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we vary a bicycle race one way, by replacing the bicycles with walking sticks, which require no technology as long as you're willing to put in the time to find one rather than carving it; and vary it another way, by replacing the cyclists with monkeys -- which of those two resulting races (humans with walking sticks vs monkeys with bicycles dimensioned appropriately to the monkeys) is more similar to a "bicycle ra…

> there is no actual line between the use of gears and the use of motors. There's a very clear line in this case. Cycling is a human powered sport. Battery, gasoline, nuclear, and other power sources are not allowed. This is why mopeds are not allowed. Also prohibited is temporary power storage like a capacitor or spring, which might be used for regenerative braking. You can put all the motors you want on your bike (…

In cycling culture, some things are definitely legal or illegal, but there's a considerable grey area of "don't take the piss". It's technically illegal to draft team cars, but you'll only get penalised if you're a jersey contender or you're being blatant about it. The sticky bottle and the magic spanner are the stuff of cycling lore.

That attitude partly explains the historical prevalence of doping. There was no honour in using drugs to win a race, but there was no dishonour in using drugs just to get through a tour. Nobody minded very much if a domestique took a few pep pills. Doping only really became a major issue after the Festina affair, when it transpired that leading riders from a successful team were systematically doping to win races.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#246

Post by driverdan »

ddispaltro wrote: post #125
bigiain wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why ban steroids? Why ban amphetamines? Whyban surgical modification? Why ban genetic engineering? Why ban motorised exo skeletons and nano technology? (I just read a great short story along these lines called ""Slipping" by Lauren Brookes - from the EFF'S PWNING TOMORROW short fiction anthology...)

You have to ban things that are outright bad for athletes. You also have to remember, given a competition people will do whatever it takes to win, because someone else will. So you have to draw the line somewhere.

> You have to ban things that are outright bad for athletes.

You're assuming all those things are bad for the athletes.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#247

Post by pge »

harlanlewis wrote: post #90
dclowd9901 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If technology is integral, then why ban motors at all? Small motors and powerful compact energy supplies are technological advancements.

It's hard to disagree from my own perspective of a commuting cyclist who would like to see racing drive cycling advancement in ways that trickle down to affordably solving the last mile(s) problem for the human race, but allowing more than a single human as the source of power would simply transform the sport into something else. It's not necessarily better or worse, but using a motor is a fundamentally different act…

As a fellow cycling commuter, I agree with your sentiment,but I would argue that the rules of cycling racing now prevent a much more innovative environment that could trickle down to us commuters. In particular, the frame shape limits that keep everything as a double diamond. For efficient human power, the best designs are usually recumbents, but very little money has gone into that area because recumbents are not allowed in races.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#248

Post by dalke »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #242
dalke wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to argue that "similar" is irrelevant to the topic.

You just pointed out that the rules of bicycle races, as a class, are intensely concerned with what counts as a bicycle. This is a question of similarity. More, it just illustrates my point that it is nonsensical to claim that "technology is not allowed to play a dominant role" in cycling. All of those rules are concerned with which technologies are required in a race (say, wheels), which are allowed, and which are f…

1.0001 is very close to 1. But if the rules say that the the value must be between 0 and 1 then the similarity doesn't matter. Only the rules, as interpreted by the judges, matter for the decision of if a motor or a monkey is allowed in the given race.

I believe you do not understand what "dominate" means in this thread. It's clear that technology is an essential component, not only for the bike, as you mentioned, but also the paved roads. It's clear that humans are an essential component, not only as a power source but also the efforts of many to develop better training methods.

It's also clear that the legal system is an important component, since the force of law helps keep people off the otherwise public roads during the races.

All of these are essential. Do you consider them all to be dominate?

I don't. Most people don't watch a bike race to see how well the road is maintained, or look at the barricades set up, or marvel at the supply chain to support a cyclist from stop to stop.

No, most of them are there to watch the riders, and to a lesser extent the gear. The Lugano charter makes it explicit that a UCI goal is to reflect a certain historical and sociological understanding of what cycling should be. It even says that the technology used should be subordinate to the physical qualities of the rider.

You can use a different interpretation of what "dominate" means, but note that your objection was an interpretation of a summary by jdietrich, who also provided a reference to the source document. Your interpretation since then is not compatible to the source document.

In my opinion, you misunderstood jdietrich's comment from the start and continue to argue against a viewpoint and interpretation that no one actually asserts.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#249

Post by lmm »

wiredfool wrote: post #243
lmm wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation? Flywheels can be very efficient especially with modern engineering. And it could be oriented so that the gyroscopic effects were stabilizing or destabilizing as desired, plus I think in any case riders would adapt quickly - I ride a "twitchy" bike with no front fork sometimes, and my old professor built a bike with a counter-rotating flywheel to disprove the myth that cyclists rely on gyroscopic effects to…

Prof Ruina? I loved his class.

No, Dr Hunt (see link in cousin). I actually only had him as a tutor but didn't want to complicate things.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#250

Post by wiredfool »

lmm wrote: post #249
wiredfool wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prof Ruina? I loved his class.

No, Dr Hunt (see link in cousin). I actually only had him as a tutor but didn't want to complicate things.

Ah. I see that now. I had Ruina for Dynamics, and talked a bunch with Jim Papadopoulos. Fun Times.
Post reply on HN