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

Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 354 posts

Re: Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?

#41

Post by ahi »

floodfx wrote: post #35

Bikers and their teams are known for removing as much weight as possible from their bikes. Would love to see the math for weight/power/time ratio for a motor like this. Would it be worth it considering you'd have to expend additional watts lugging it around all stage? My guess is probably not. Especially on a mountain stage which is where the tour is really won or lost.

Theoretically, the motor would be most useful on the climbs of the mountain stages. On the flats a couple of hundred grams don't matter, especially when most of the leaders are hanging back in the group anyway.

That said, bikes can already be made under UCI weight minimums of 6.8kg. Yet from what I've seen, most tour bikes are in the 7-7.5kg range.

Re: Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?

#42

Post by LeifCarrotson »

floodfx wrote: post #35

Bikers and their teams are known for removing as much weight as possible from their bikes. Would love to see the math for weight/power/time ratio for a motor like this. Would it be worth it considering you'd have to expend additional watts lugging it around all stage? My guess is probably not. Especially on a mountain stage which is where the tour is really won or lost.

The difference between the top 0.0000001% of humanity and second place is very, very small. Fractions of a watt. Adding just 10W would be game changing, and modern lipos and brushless motors add far, far more power than their weight penalty subtracts.

Re: Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?

#43

Post by floodfx »

ahi wrote: post #33
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doping happens in all sports. It's pretty safe to assume that most/all top athletes are on something.

I replied directly to OP, but applies here as well. Cycling is far more specialized than other sports so the pay off for doping is greater.

Why is pay off greater in cycling than other sports? Salary of the top riders? Compared to say NBA players, pro cyclist make relatively little. Tadej Pogacar (best and top paid cyclist) makes about $8M (euros) in salary per year. Steph Curry (highest paid) NBA player makes $55M (dollars) in salary per year.

Re: Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?

#44

Post by jancsika »

jeffbee wrote: post #14
aaronrobinson wrote: post #6

Motor doping has been around for ages. Nothing new.

Yeah, it's so common that literally nobody in high-level road cycling has ever been found doing it. "Motor doping" is the chupacabra: universally feared, never seen. The math doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, with regards to how much energy you'd get out of some tiny battery vs. the amount you'd spend dragging the dead battery around France all day.

> The math doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, with regards to how much energy you'd get out of some tiny battery vs. the amount you'd spend dragging the dead battery around France all day.

But there's already evidence that some cyclists were at least dragging around exactly that much extra weight:

> In the 2015 Tour de France, bikes in the peloton were weighed before one of the time trial stages. French authorities told us the British Team Sky was the only team with bikes heavier than the rest—each bike weighed about 800 grams more. A spokesman for Team Sky said that during a time trial stage bikes might be heavier to allow for better aerodynamic performance. He said the team has never used mechanical assistance and that the bikes were checked and cleared by the sports governing body.[1]

That's 800 extra grams-- the same weight as Varjas' little hidden motor that he sold for $12,000.

I'd find it quite strange if you think a hidden battery-powered motor doesn't pass the smell test, but dragging around the same weight for "aerodynamics" does pass the smell test.

1: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-investigates-hidden-...

Re: Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?

#46

Post by floodfx »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #42
floodfx wrote: post #35

Bikers and their teams are known for removing as much weight as possible from their bikes. Would love to see the math for weight/power/time ratio for a motor like this. Would it be worth it considering you'd have to expend additional watts lugging it around all stage? My guess is probably not. Especially on a mountain stage which is where the tour is really won or lost.

The difference between the top 0.0000001% of humanity and second place is very, very small. Fractions of a watt. Adding just 10W would be game changing, and modern lipos and brushless motors add far, far more power than their weight penalty subtracts.

10W for a sustained time perhaps but these are looong climbs. Col de la Loze is 26.4km with an average gradient of 6.5%.

Re: Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?

#47

Post by jeffbee »

jancsika wrote: post #44
jeffbee wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's so common that literally nobody in high-level road cycling has ever been found doing it. "Motor doping" is the chupacabra: universally feared, never seen. The math doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, with regards to how much energy you'd get out of some tiny battery vs. the amount you'd spend dragging the dead battery around France all day.

> The math doesn't even begin to pass the smell test, with regards to how much energy you'd get out of some tiny battery vs. the amount you'd spend dragging the dead battery around France all day. But there's already evidence that some cyclists were at least dragging around exactly that much extra weight: > In the 2015 Tour de France, bikes in the peloton were weighed before one of the time trial stages. French autho…

Aero is basically the only thing that matters, second only to recruiting freak-show riders with horse lungs. These guys are averaging 40km/h. Have you seen Vingegaard's ridiculous mushroom helmet that's pushing the boundary between headwear and faring?

Re: Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?

#49

Post by xboxnolifes »

floodfx wrote: post #43
ahi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replied directly to OP, but applies here as well. Cycling is far more specialized than other sports so the pay off for doping is greater.

Why is pay off greater in cycling than other sports? Salary of the top riders? Compared to say NBA players, pro cyclist make relatively little. Tadej Pogacar (best and top paid cyclist) makes about $8M (euros) in salary per year. Steph Curry (highest paid) NBA player makes $55M (dollars) in salary per year.

Not money. It's highly specialized in what physically benefits it, so even a small doping on that specific physical attribute leads to significant advantage.

Re: Tour de France confronts a new threat: Are cyclists using tiny motors?

#50

Post by silverquiet »

floodfx wrote: post #35

Bikers and their teams are known for removing as much weight as possible from their bikes. Would love to see the math for weight/power/time ratio for a motor like this. Would it be worth it considering you'd have to expend additional watts lugging it around all stage? My guess is probably not. Especially on a mountain stage which is where the tour is really won or lost.

There is a minimum weight requirement for bikes. I remember reading somewhere that they actually add ballast to some of them because they can be made so light.
Post reply on HN