I remember a Kickstarter that was popular that had a bicycle wheel with a motor in it that you could fit most bikes. I'd be far more interested in a solution like this for a daily commute, seems very elegant.
Hidden motors for road bikes
121–130 of 149 posts
Re: Hidden motors for road bikes
#122Question : why do people cheat? Saying it is in the human nature is laughable. I see no one cheating at being poor sick, handicapped or being lazy. People only cheat because they don't care about winning for themselves. They have no personalities and are lost in the recognition of a mindless crowd as a substitute to self esteem. We have to focus society on individual realization to fight efficiently against hidden mo…
Re: Hidden motors for road bikes
#123I used to race (never made it out of CAT 5 cause I suck on hills, though I’m a very strong sprinter but I hate crits). Even a few watts can make a difference. Its the difference between being dropped when someone attacks on a climb and being able to hang on and recover. Biking is the ‘Cold Equations’ (old Sci-fi story that illiustrates the cruel implacability of science) of sports. The standard unit of currency in cycling is Watts per Kilo, essentially, now many watts per kilo you can maintain at your FTP (Functional Power Threshold). If you look at a chart of cyclists from CAT-5 (the lowest racing category, all the way up to Grand Tour Contender (realistic chance of winning one of the big 3 races, Giro, TDF or Vuelta), it ranges from about 1.8- 2.0 for an untrained casual cyclist, 2.5 Watts/Kg for a CAT 5 to 6.7 Watts/Kg for Grand tour contenders (The Lance Armstrong’s, Alberto Contador, Cadel Evans). 6.7 is the magic number. http://www.americanroadcycling.org/articles/PSL/WiddersHump/...
It is really hard to explain just how much different from you and I GC contenders are. I weight 70-75 Kg. At my fittest (down to 65 kg), I was probably putting out 3.5 watts per kilo (wasn’t racing at the time yet). You have 2 variables to play with, power, and weight. This is why pro cyclists are thin, and GC contenders cadaverously thin, especially before the big races. These guys weight 138 lbs (62 kilos) with an FTP of 420+. I’ve met Alberto Contador, I’m not a big guy (I’m 5,11), but next to him I seemed like a giant. I cannot even explain how insane their power figures are. When you’re riding at the pro level, especially at the Grand Tours, everyone you are riding with is a genetic freak (this is why EPO will not turn Joe six pack into the next Lance Armstrong).
At my fittest, I once rode with a woman who’d come 3rd in the U.S Nationals. And she totally shredded me. She was out for an easy/medium ride, I was hanging on, seeing dots in my peripheral vision and feeling like I was about to puke my heart out. And this was the easy part of the ride on a flat. Once we got to a hill I was dropped like a hot potato. This is also why you don’t accept invitations from strangers at parties that start ‘Hey, your wife tells me you ride. My friends and i are going on a ride tomorrow. Wanna join us?'
Someone else posted about riding with a cyclist who rode the TDF and who never finished because he absolutely sucked at riding (this is true of a lot of cyclists whose goals is to support their GC contender at all costs even if it means destroying themselves and their chances). It was a hilly competitive ride with the local fast guys. And he dropped them on the first long climb, and he wasn’t even going hard. Being a TDF rider who sucks in the climbs > 99.9995 of cyclists. It’s all relative.
At that level, the gap between the winner and the also runs can come down to the smallest difference. Tyler Hamilton lost the Giro because he bonked on the final climb. He had an energy gel in his pocket, but forgot to eat, and by the time he did, it was too late. All it takes is a few watts so a motor that can even give a cyclist an extra 5-10 watts is huge. This is why cyclists wear skin suits and even go to ridiculous lengths (apparently, on a flat 40K TT, shaving your legs vs not can gain you 1-2 seconds). Bike innovations, especially for aerodynamic frames are measured in watts saved. This is also why there is a lower limit on the weight of bike frames in UCI races (about 15 lbs), because frame makers would be tempted to make even lighter bikes to the point of danger cause a few lbs when you are already at 3% body fat can make a difference (an aside, for most cyclists, weight frame is overrated. Saving 3 lbs on the frame is much more expensive than shaving 3 lbs off your weight, or even 20 lbs). My road bike weighs 16.5 lbs, I’d be better served by losing 40 lbs off my body.
Also, no one is going to use this motors for flashy efforts that are obvious. All you need is to save 20-30 watts on a long stage, and arrive at the base of a climb fresher than your competitors, and then use it again when needed on the climb.
Re: Hidden motors for road bikes
#1241. http://www.businessinsider.com/bike-investigated-technologic...
Re: Hidden motors for road bikes
#125A few other commenters have touched on it, but I'll go ahead and say it -- the UCI really needs to drop the minimum weight limit which I think will be an effective disincentive (along with more draconian life time bans). They are artificially holding back the state of the art in a way that promotes cheating (if you need to add weight to your bike to make the limit, why not a motor instead of dead weight.)
Re: Hidden motors for road bikes
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no forced cadence. The motor is not fixed at a particular RPM; if the motor were unloaded, it would spin a lot faster than it does. It supplies a certain amount of power, and the bike hits a certain ground speed, and through the gear ratio, that determines the motor's speed. If you only want to go that fast, then you don't have to crank the pedals, and it's awkward. However, you can crank the pedals to go ev…
This is a great description of why motors can make a big difference in racing. Even small differences in power output can make a big difference in an elite race where so little can mean the difference between winning and not. It's easy to imagine using a tiny motor (much smaller than the one mentioned in the article) could make the difference between winning and being an also ran. However I have to nitpick on one poi…
Firstly, in a race, it is psychologically challenging to be the leader of the pack. Are you really faster than those behind you? Or are there opportunists nipping at your heels, wearing you down, who will surge by you when the goal is in sight? With a secret boost, you can overcome some of this uncertainty.
Likewise, you can use the boost to surge by opponents after tailing them for extended distances without the boost. When you surge by someone, it has a mentally devastating effect on them. You show that you have untapped reserves that they don't, which creates the belief that you cannot be beaten. In the absence of cheating, that belief is just a belief. The playing field is level: by trying to create the belief that you are stronger and faster, you're taking a risk (because it's not a given that you actually are; you're faking that out with a little surge that you could well pay for later.)
I believe that with a hidden motor, you can not only reduce your own race time, but make someone else's race time worse. You wear them down with an unrealistic pace, either as a leader or follower (pressure from the back) which you can then maintain yourself thanks to the motor, while they blow their race.
And then, here is the thing. If you win by tactics, that doesn't have to involve coming anywhere near the best time for that course or a world record etc. You get everyone to screw up, and then cross the finish first, but in some credible time that doesn't draw attention to your performance, seconds or minutes behind the best time that was ever observed on that course. That reduces the suspicion of any cheating, unless your splits over the course are scrutinized.
Re: Hidden motors for road bikes
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
That second one is either a motor or a flywheel. No way a normal road racing wheelset could spin a fallen bike like that. Just my gut talking, though. I could be wrong...
All know motors for race bikes rotate the cranks when engaged, and his are stationary. You can also see another example here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7TWDNhWDlY#t=41
Re: Hidden motors for road bikes
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Celica_GT-Four#ST205_.2... "During the 1995 World Rally Championship season, Toyota was caught using illegal turbo restrictors at the Rally Catalunya and were given a one-year ban by the FIA. FIA president Max Mosley called the illegal turbo restrictor "the most sophisticated device I've ever seen in 30 years of motor sports.""
See also the "McLaren Snorkel"[1] in Formula 1. Not actually cheating, but it was also a brilliant piee of engineering, and it was banned pretty quickly. TLDR: in F1 you're not allowed to have a variable rear spoiler (i.e. high downforce in corners but low drag on straights). But the rules only specified hydraulic or mechanical devices were banned. McLaren engineers came up with the idea to stall the rear spoiler on…
Re: Hidden motors for road bikes
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not my area of expertise, but to get things started, I went to a site[0] and looked up some formulas and specs, and came up with: outside circumference of wheel ~2200mm (700c wheel w/ tire) 30 mph == 0.5 mpm (Miles per minute). 0.5 mile == 804500mm a 2200mm circumference will need to roll ~365.68 times to cover that distance. If that distance is covered in 1 minute, that means 365.68 rotations per minute. Thi…
Or simpler, you can just run the experiment yourself. https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/?modal=true
I saw that earlier too, and forgot about it. So the question is less about whether its even possible, but whether or not it was likely in Ryder Hesjedal's circumstance. And the stakes, circumstances, etc aren't exceptional enough to warrant a commission.
Re: Hidden motors for road bikes
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the thing. No one to date has actually been caught using one. The banned woman was caught having one, on a spare bike in the pit. She claims it's owned by a friend (who corroborated) and that her mechanics mistakenly put it in the pit, etc.. it's a pretty shaky story, but the fact remains they have never actually caught someone using one during a race. There's a large number of people who think it just wouldn'…
There is no forced cadence. The motor is not fixed at a particular RPM; if the motor were unloaded, it would spin a lot faster than it does. It supplies a certain amount of power, and the bike hits a certain ground speed, and through the gear ratio, that determines the motor's speed. If you only want to go that fast, then you don't have to crank the pedals, and it's awkward. However, you can crank the pedals to go ev…
It's a 250W rated bunch of Chinese-sourced parts on a $50 eBay steel framed budget mountain bike.
It's _so_ hilarious to ride, a friend says "it make you feel like Lance Armstrong!". It just makes everything too easy. I barely ever take it out of top gear - I just lazily pedal up hills, zoom along the flat, and have to brake to stop feeling suicidal down hills. I'm an almost 50 year old overweight and out of shape guy, and I commute to work on it keeping up easily with the lycra-clad mamils on what look like $10K+ carbon-everything bikes - I've been doing it for a few years and it's _still_ so much fun passing them going up hills.
I can _easily_ believe even a fraction of the power I've got there would turn a midfield racer into a winner.
(For the record, I've got a 7 cell LiPo battery powering mine, and off a full charge I see 470W or so coming out of the battery accelerating up a medium incline. It tops out at 25kmh, and pulls barely 100W to do that on the flat, but it's _so_ noticeable accelerating away form stationary or up hills. It's _ really_ fun :-)