Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors • Hacker News Board

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#271

Post by davidw » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 3:41 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #266

davidw wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video is old and has been debunked.

The only debunking I've seen is putting a spinning tire down in optimal conditions, which of course has it spinning like it did in the video. The video has the bike bouncing off the ground several times and coming to a complete stop on the ground in the rider's hands, and then him letting go and it spinning away. At that point, the tire should have stopped all of it's rotational inertia.

It's not like they're going slow in those races - the wheel probably had a lot of momentum.

In any event, reposting an old video, with a couple of grainy shots of unidentified riders whose bikes were not subsequently checked counts more as "casting aspersions" rather than "proof" in my book.

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if someone somewhere was cheating, but I've come to dislike these kinds of hit pieces.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#272

Post by Someone » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 3:46 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #120

dzhiurgis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest differentiator is height. I assume taller people have more muscle power hence should be put in different category.

Most champion cyclists aren't tall. What matters isn't power, but rather power to weight ratio.

That depends on the discipline. In general, track sprinters are heavyweights, kings of the mountains are flyweights.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#273

Post by usrusr » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 3:46 PM UTC

wycx wrote: post #233

usrusr wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people spend a lot of money to make them store just a tiny little less energy.

Except when they are chasing the hour record. Ondrej Sosenka ran 3.2 kg wheels in his 2005 hour record precisely for the flywheel effect.

Every tiny acceleration derived from a pedal stroke has to be transferred from bike to rider by hands and back. It's not "work" in the physical sense if you look at the bike as your frame of reference, but it requires biological effort nonetheless. As long as you don't need to brake, more storage in the wheels is better. This effect would be strongest in a climb, but there you certainly only want heavy wheels if you can compensate with a lighter frame or parts (and if the inevitable braking on the subsequent descent does not call for less storage).

But there's a catch: even on a track, lighter wheels will _feel_ faster, because you get stronger feedback from oscillations I'm your pedal stroke.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#274

Post by usrusr » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 3:50 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #270

usrusr wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The three weeks Grand Tours have nearly as many stages each as a full formula one season has race days. Asking to do a grande boucle without spares would be like asking formula one to go a whole season on a single set of tires - both would be perfectly possible with some adoption of hardware and tactics, but both would completely change the nature of the events. While promoting equipment durability is a reasonable go…

They could easily trade off at the beginning and ends of stages. Start the new day with the fresh bike. It's switching during the actual race that is very surprising to me that it's still allowed. Motorsports let them switch cars between races, and the Tour is hardly one single race. Like you said, it's basically an entire race season, just condensed to "stages". Restricting them to one bike per stage but letting the…

If the bike breaks mid stage, you either switch or you are DNF.

Except when you allow riders who did not finish one stage to continue on the next, which would be totally ridiculous in an endurance event. In that sense, The Tour very much _is_ a single race (for the rider, not for the bike(s)).

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#275

Post by terryf » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 4:12 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #260

na85 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because at some point it stops being fun to watch if your race from point A to B is won by a supersonic fighter jet. Also there's the pesky little problem of poor or up and coming athletes literally killing themselves to try to win big money, all for the benefit of some FIFA-alike and its sponsors.

>Because at some point it stops being fun to watch if your race from point A to B is won by a supersonic fighter jet. Not when the opponent pulls out a surface to air missile.

ha! This is exactly the kind of out-of-the box thinking that jet cycling needs!

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#276

Post by RIMR » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 4:14 PM UTC

azazqadir wrote: post #135

Johnny555 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racers are willing to put their health at risk with various performance enhancing drugs and procedures, putting a motor on their bike seems to pale in comparison.

Things people will do for money. You can write a book on it.

That would sell really well.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#277

Post by mmariani » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 4:33 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #16

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #14

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…

How long do they typically use a bike? For big races, it might not be entirely absurd to cut up the frame after the race, just to be sure.

Usually a bike frame is used during the course of a whole season except the rider crashes it. The other components are replaced as needed such as drivetrain, brake pads, cables, rims, and such.

Wouldn't be feasible nor sane to cut up a frame that costs around €5000.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#278

Post by todd8 » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

It's a sport. So the rules are the rules. Bringing a set of brass knuckles to a boxing match is just taking advantage of better equipment, but of course the people running the sport of boxing can define what's allowed and what's not. It might be interesting to have an unlimited class, whatever that would mean for cycling, but the sport of pro cycling gets to define what a legal bike for pro racing is, end of argument.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#279

Post by freehunter » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 4:54 PM UTC

usrusr wrote: post #274

freehunter wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could easily trade off at the beginning and ends of stages. Start the new day with the fresh bike. It's switching during the actual race that is very surprising to me that it's still allowed. Motorsports let them switch cars between races, and the Tour is hardly one single race. Like you said, it's basically an entire race season, just condensed to "stages". Restricting them to one bike per stage but letting the…

If the bike breaks mid stage, you either switch or you are DNF. Except when you allow riders who did not finish one stage to continue on the next, which would be totally ridiculous in an endurance event. In that sense, The Tour very much _is_ a single race (for the rider, not for the bike(s)).

Okay, so then allow for a bike switch if the bike breaks, as judged by a race official. One bike per stage doesn't seem like it would put too much strain on the hardware compared to one bike per year. Surely it would be possible to build bikes at a high enough quality that the number of DNFs would be so incredibly low as to be negligible.

I love these Internet arguments that are like "okay, we have to argue and nitpick until we come to an agreement, we are obviously authorities on the matter and now the rules will have to change IRL."

Imagine the existing rule was "one bike per stage". What would the arguments in favor of switching to "unlimited bikes per stage" be? And what would be the arguments in favor of keeping the existing rule? I mean, at some NASCAR races only 50% of the starting cars actually finish. Why shouldn't they allow drivers to grab a backup car and keep racing? Does the 24 Hours of Le Mans (another endurance race) allow for backup cars?

What's so bad about DNFs for equipment failures? Surely the bikes are a major component to the TDF, otherwise it would be a foot race.

Re: Thermal camera footage allegedly shows pro cyclists using motors

#280

Post by freehunter » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #271

freehunter wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only debunking I've seen is putting a spinning tire down in optimal conditions, which of course has it spinning like it did in the video. The video has the bike bouncing off the ground several times and coming to a complete stop on the ground in the rider's hands, and then him letting go and it spinning away. At that point, the tire should have stopped all of it's rotational inertia.

It's not like they're going slow in those races - the wheel probably had a lot of momentum. In any event, reposting an old video, with a couple of grainy shots of unidentified riders whose bikes were not subsequently checked counts more as "casting aspersions" rather than "proof" in my book. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if someone somewhere was cheating, but I've come to dislike these kinds of hit pieces.

Well obviously no one is being disqualified on this video alone. The idea is to draw attention to what could be a real issue.

But calling it debunked because of another video that is just as dubious seems a little like hand-waving. What's happening is that people are trying to get the officials to look into the idea that there may be tiny hidden motors in some bikes. And what you're doing seems like you're trying to avoid that from happening.