
Hidden motors for road bikes - soundsop
http://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes-exist-heres-how-they-work/
======
dabeeeenster
There are two videos on Youtube that have been regarded by bike fans as
suspicous. I will let HN readers make their own minds up!

[https://youtu.be/8Nd13ARuvVE?t=3m35s](https://youtu.be/8Nd13ARuvVE?t=3m35s)

and

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc)

I would love to hear smart people's thoughts!

~~~
bbarn
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't help that much.
While 100 watts extra would be a game changer, the forced cadence, inability
to manipulate the pedals, etc makes it potentially no help at all.

As for those two videos.. Cancellara has been attacking like this for years.
It's his style. He's also the 4 time world time trial (solo racing against the
clock) champion, so he's exceptionally good at sustained high output power.

Hesjedal and the spinning wheel.. Why wouldn't you turn off your motor on a
descent is the only thing I'd say? I wouldn't put it past him, he was one of
the Lance era EPO doping crew, I just don't buy it on that video. I've seen
plenty of crashes in person where bikes did all kinds of weird things.

~~~
kazinator
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 even faster.

That's the point of using the motor. You + motor is faster than you alone or
motor alone. Or: you + motor requires a lot less effort on your part to
maintain a certain speed than you alone. Suppose that you can go 30 mph, but
with great difficulty and not for very long. Suppose that a given motor by
itself can go 20 mph. If you use that motor _and_ your own muscles together,
you can go 30 mph with a lot less effort, and sustain it a lot longer. The
cranking of your pedals and cadence will be natural; you're cranking 50%
faster than what the motor can do by itself. It will be like cycling in the
slip-stream of a truck, or down a slight downgrade. To the spectators, you
will just look like a strong cyclist.

About the 100W, almost _any_ amount of cheat torque can make the difference
between placing N-th and N+1st. Every second counts.

Even a 2.5W power boost could be a game changer. If your muscles put out 250W,
2.5W is 1% more, which is significant. It's about 36 seconds shaved off a one
hour haul. The game has changed from a neck-and-neck race to the front runner
having a 36 second lead.

A tiny, light-weight motor of just a few watts that would be useless in a
commuting bike used by someone who is out of shape and cannot climb hills
could nevertheless win trophies for a cheater.

One minute you're racing just beyond your lactate threshold. Flip a concealed
switch, and a tiny power boost drops you within your threshold.

~~~
ezzaf
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 point:

"Even a 2.5W power boost could be a game changer. If your muscles put out
250W, 2.5W is 1% more, which is significant. It's about 36 seconds shaved off
a one hour haul."

Air resistance is one the most significant factor affecting riders at race
speeds, and its force increases at a much greater than linear rate. You'd need
about 3% more power in your example to save 36 seconds. In a flat time trial
over one hour, 1% extra power would actually save you closer to 12 seconds.
That said, the Tour de France has been won by less.

~~~
kazinator
Also, a boost gives you a tactical advantage: an advantage of psychology.

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.

------
whistlerbrk
A 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.)

~~~
sliverstorm
The same thing has been said about Formula 1- the cars are power-limited,
minimum-weight-limited, and so forth.

But even a cursory look at racing history explains why. Group B Rally springs
to mind. More power & lighter weight aren't really going to make racing that
much more interesting, just more deadly.

FIA has tried to shift innovation to other aspects, e.g. ruling that an engine
has to last at least two race weekends (setting a floor on durability
sacrifices).

~~~
jdietrich
All frames and wheels used in UCI-sanctioned races must pass UCI safety tests.
The weight limit was not introduced for safety reasons but as a result of the
Lugano Charter, which stated that technological development was inherently
antithetical to the sport of cycling.

C.f. the hour record. Until recently, the rules essentially stated "the hour
record must be attempted on a replica of Eddy Merckx's bike circa 1972". Rules
for the hour record banned streamlined helmets, aero bars, disk wheels and
frames with non-round tubing. These rules were introduced directly as a
reaction to the battle of engineering an ingenuity between Obree and Boardman.

[http://oldsite.uci.ch/imgarchive/Road/Equipment/The%20Lugano...](http://oldsite.uci.ch/imgarchive/Road/Equipment/The%20Lugano%20charter.pdf)

~~~
sliverstorm
Right, I'm not saying it's specifically about safety, rather that a battle of
technology was decided for some reason to be worse than the added marginal
excitement of lighter bikes. In F1 that reason was (originally) safety, in
bicycling it's something else.

------
pmontra
This is another method: wheel accelerated by induction, no gears, no noise.
[http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/electromagnetic-wheels-
are-t...](http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/electromagnetic-wheels-are-the-new-
frontier-of-mechanical-doping-claims-gazzetta-dello-sport/)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
and an "automatic transmission" that engaged when on a hill or sensed pedal
tension could eliminate the switch! Then it would be truly invisible.

------
orik
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.

~~~
jseliger
_I remember a Kickstarter that was popular that had a bicycle wheel with a
motor in it that you could fit most bikes_

Yeah. Kickstarter has had a lot of interesting bikes in the last year. One YC
company, Vanhawks ([http://vanhawks.com/](http://vanhawks.com/)), came up
through Kickstarter, and they've been shipping smart bikes in the last couple
months.

Still, prices among electrically assisted bikes remain high. For example, the
Faraday electric bike:
[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/faradaybikes/faraday-
co...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/faradaybikes/faraday-cortland)
starts at $2,700. It seems like they should be less expensive, but for
whatever reason few electric bikes have appeared in the U.S. for under $2K.

It seems like price is holding back electric bikes more than anything else.
The system discussed in the original article appears to be much more expensive
than an entire electric bike.

~~~
shpx
You can buy $200-400 conversion kits (and a battery) and convert a bike you
already own into electric.

[http://www.ebay.com/bhp/electric-bike-kit](http://www.ebay.com/bhp/electric-
bike-kit)

------
brianwawok
Called "Mechanical Doping", and people are getting busted for it in races

[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a19366/heres-
how-...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a19366/heres-how-that-
cyclist-hid-a-motor-in-her-bike/)

Sad sad world we live in

~~~
6stringmerc
I don't think it's sad, I find it evolutionarily appropriate. If there's
competition, there's drive to win, and in the drive to win, there are
temptations to gain an advantage, and where there are ways to get an
advantage, they will be used. From my years and years of review, study, and
use of PEDs I'm simply in awe of the dedication to cheating that is endemic in
cycling. It's quite fascinating, at least to somebody with no qualms about
integrity in that particular sport.

------
bliti
I'd never would have thought to use a worm ring geared motor hidden in the
frame. Reminds me of how nitrous bottles are hidden inside roll cages and
cooling systems in racing cars. Cheating is an art of itself.

~~~
arprocter
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Celica_GT-
Four#ST205_.2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Celica_GT-
Four#ST205_.281994-1999.29)

"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.""

~~~
bliti
More details on the illegal modification:
[http://homepage.virgin.net/shalco.com/tte_ban.htm](http://homepage.virgin.net/shalco.com/tte_ban.htm)

It is quite brilliant. Think of it as a software backdoor. :)

~~~
arprocter
The wording is a bit confusing - IIRC it was a way to bypass the restrictor
(which all cars were fitted with) to sneak more air into the engine.

~~~
bliti
Yes, it was a mechanical valve built into the area. If you've never had a
turbocharger in your hand it might be tricky to picture it in your head.

~~~
arprocter
I have; although I was under the impression that pressure is normally
regulated by the wastegate opening to allow exhaust to bypass the turbine - no
restrictor required

~~~
bliti
You can use the wastegate, a blow-off valve, or a restrictor to limit the
amount of boost (backpressure in the air intake side of the engine). The
wastegate controls how much the turbo spins and thus how much air it moves.
The blow-off valve leaks the pressurized air (think of letting pressure off of
a tire) into the atmosphere. The conventional use for a blow off is to relieve
the compressed air during engine vacuum. The restrictor works by limiting how
much air can enter the turbo. This means that the wastegate will be unaffected
because it will depend on how much boost exists in the intake manifold. A
retricted turbo will need to work harder for the same amount of boost (or be
more efficient).

------
davidw
By the way, since this thread seems to have attracted the interest of the HN
bike community, if anyone's ever here in Bend, Oregon, look me up. Always
happy to go for a bike ride - road or MTB.

No motors, please.

------
bartkappenburg
dutch bike sellers see an increase in sales in hidden motors after an athlete
was caught:
[https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...](https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&tl=en&u=http://nos.nl/artikel/2090793-verkopers-
van-fietsmotortjes-merken-femke-
effect.html%3Fnpo_cc%3Dna%26npo_rnd%3D391192662%26npo_cc_skip_wall%3D1&usg=ALkJrhjY16MaBIlRukms4E_w2zXxF7Jorg)

------
BorisMelnik
I just don't get how psychologically how these people are making this ok with
themselves. I almost get human doping (I don't approve it, but I get it) but
this is straight cheating.

~~~
Nelson69
There is next to no money in pro cycling. Sure there are a few very very elite
riders that make millions, maybe 10 to 20 of those. There are also the other
160 riders that start a grand tour. Read some of the documentation USADA put
out on Lance. Not about the doping, but like Dave Zabriskie was a legit world
class pro, he raced the Tour, and I think they listed is salary in those early
years as like $24k. Another name that comes to mind, Gilberto Simoni, as fine
a climber as has been, a grand tour winner, in his earlier years he worked as
a bike shop mechanic in the off season to pay his bills.

There is no TV money for the teams. The team sponsorships aren't even
guaranteed for any serious time. It's all about individual results in what is
really a team sport. And then the best years are during the college years for
everything else, close to no pros actually have college degrees or anything.
Worse, I can't think of a pro that came out of college and ever did anything
other than domestic racing. I mean, the team bikes are technically supposed to
go back to the sponsors according to most deals but everybody just sort of
knows that a lot of riders sell them to supplement their income, there are
even web stores that specialize in it.

Cheating is cheating, be it chemical or mechanical or whatever, but cycling
(like skiing, track and field, etc) is a perfect storm for it. If you do it
and don't get caught, you can get rich, like life changing rich. If you wash
out, not just did you lose what little paying gig you had, but you've probably
got limited options outside of cycling. I'd argue that other than the love of
the sport and sportsmanship, there are a lot of cyclists in a certain age
range that have no reason not to cheat one way or another.

~~~
BorisMelnik
wow really good point, never thought about the financial motivation especially
the motivation NOT to be broke

------
brianbolger
The guys at GCN have an interesting video on the practicalities of using one,
but conclude it's unlikely anyone in the Pro peloton are using it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5F5N6mFf0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5F5N6mFf0)

------
awqrre
This competitor claimed her motor equipped bike belonged to a friend [1]...

1\. [http://www.businessinsider.com/bike-investigated-
technologic...](http://www.businessinsider.com/bike-investigated-
technological-fraud-cycling-world-championships-cyclocross-2016-1)

------
njharman
Don't bicycle races have inspections? Safety or otherwise? I'm more familiar
with motorcycle and car races where there are long lists of "class", safety,
and weight requirements.

Would be trivial to detect either by weight or looking down seat tube.

~~~
davidw
Messing with the height of someone's seat by pulling it out before a race
would ... _not_ be seen very well. A lot of people can tell when it's off by a
few millimeters.

But yeah, they are doing inspections these days.

~~~
Grishnakh
Bike seat height adjustments are very simple: the seat is mounted on a tube,
which fits within the slightly larger seat tube and then is clamped.

Getting the exact same position is easy: just use a Sharpie marker on the
inner tube to show where it fits in the outer tube. Draw a second, vertical
line across both tubes to make sure the orientation is the same.

~~~
davidw
Yeah, but if you do that before a race... someone's going to do it quickly and
not do a great job. Like I said, it's not that difficult to detect a
difference of a few millimeters, and it's annoying.

------
wkimeria
Agreeing with people who comment just how important watts are in cycling.

I 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/...](http://www.americanroadcycling.org/articles/PSL/WiddersHump/WattsSpeed.htm)

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.

------
9erdelta
I gave up on paying any attention to the sport of cycling years ago. Everybody
who was winning or did something awesome turned out to be cheating. Seems like
that hasn't changed at all.

------
peter303
I read a good rider can sustain 250 watts for hours and peak at twice that.
(power is weight dependent) So if you have an effective 100 watt assist, that
can be helpful.

~~~
alistairSH
250 watts is an output a fairly average amateur racer will produce at
threshold (where threshold is their one-hour max sustained effort). The pros
are significantly higher than that (estimated 350W or more for the latest
batch of 1-hour records).

But, an extra 100 watts for even a few seconds can make a significant
difference. In cycling, staying in the draft is a major factor. If that short
burst of assistance helps a racer keep the wheel of the guy in front, it
conserves a lot of energy for later in the race.

~~~
revelation
The one hour _record_ is actually about 470W from Wiggins.

(Though not a record of power for a single hour, just distance ridden on a
track in one hour. But it ends up measuring more or less the same.)

~~~
alistairSH
Damn, the 350w was Jensie's estimated output (or maybe it was 375?). I knew
Wiggins went substantially faster, but didn't realize it translated to that
much more power. It's really nuts what these guys can do.

------
dheera
Let's forget about cheating on races. I want one for my commuting bicycle so
it still looks like a normal bicycle so thieves won't be interested in it.

~~~
frik
You may want a moped. And there are eletric powered mopeds as well (they
aren't that expensive).

------
rocky1138
Is there any way to scan these bikes for EMF radiation?

~~~
JonoW
Why don't they just weigh the bikes? Website states the motor weigh's 1.8kg,
that would be easy to detect surely? The component spec for the bikes of a
race team are probably fairly fixed, so shouldn't be hard to figure out what a
bike should weigh?

~~~
mikestew
The UCI limits the _minimum_ weight a bike must weigh. Carbon bikes and parts
can get a bike well below that minimum weight, such that some racers have had
to tape weights to the bike to get it up to weight when it didn't pass tech
inspection.

Now what if instead of taping weights to the bike...

------
julie1
Question : 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 motors. Technical means of cheating are just a side problem.

Maybe we should forbid professional competition to remove the incentive of
cheating.

~~~
awqrre
You cheat if you know that you have no chances of winning otherwise?

~~~
julie1
Exactly.

Is it because education make people lack of confidence in themselves or do
people adapt a rigged games?

My opinion is some kids especially introverted one lacking of self confidence
are put in a stressful competition early and education/society advocate early
results on strong competition. The race for the elite schools being at
kindergarden.

The culture of results coupled with a rigged system (the system enable
institutional cheats for some) result in the conviction of being right to
fight the system back by compensating for the one considering themselves
_unlucky_.

Our education is clearly creating the cheaters at my opinion. Corrupting the
expectations of kids about progress, merit, hard work and replacing it by
saying only the result matters.

The funny part is all these kids having paying loans for studies that enslave
them not only in debt but also breaking their mind. No educated kids have been
suing universities/banks for having scammed them by giving them false
information to engage them in life long debts.

Smart kids are not smart. Education has broken bright spirits.

