[Closed] And so it begins...? "mechanical doping" first?

And if he were using my battery frame/motor hub idea, Aracer?

[quote=Edukator ]A battery built into the frame, I'd use the chain stays or seat stays.

Hesjedal is on a Cervelo - seat stays seems likely 🙄

The motor would be integrated into the hub, there's more than enough space for a 10-20W motor.

No, there really isn't, not with a normal hub shell, and given the need for an axle in the middle. Check out the size of a Schmidt dynohub which nominally generates 3W - sure there are ways to do things a bit more efficiently given the budget, but that already uses high spec close to the state of the art parts, and any efficiency savings will be eaten up in providing the higher power output required before you can even think about making it 1/4 the size which is what you're effectively suggesting.

[quote=Edukator ]And if he were using my battery frame/motor hub idea, Aracer?

Which still fails because there's no reason to put the motor there rather than the BB - they're not interested in spinning the rear wheel without the cranks turning - and if you had one there you wouldn't even need a scanner you could just spot the larger than normal hub. The only reason they don't scan the hub (if they don't) is because it's so obvious there isn't a motor there, whilst there is space to hide one in the seat tube.

You're forgetting that those 3W are made at jogging pace and cycle races won at averages three times higher. The big problems with hub dynamos are the low rotation speed and low voltage. Use a Schmidt as a motor at 50km/h at a higher voltage and you'd get tens of watts. The limiting factor being melting the windings.

Sorry I'm late to this. Has anybody actually been busted for mechanical doping or are we just debating that old Hesjedal clip yet again?

*Pedant.. Isnt doping the consumption of a performance enhancing substance.
Using a motor is cheating not doping. /Pedant.

Any photos of the doped bike yet.??

Has anybody actually been busted for mechanical doping

Looks like her defense is that someone else put the bike into the pits for her, it wasn't one of her bikes and there was no intention that she ride it. Makes the idea of a lifetime ban quite difficult when you aren't the one responsible for checking your bikes. A little different from the situation where you are responsible for what you put into your body

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/35452791

Ok, thanks. So we're still at alleged and it wasn't a bike she actually rode. Still, an interesting development.

It's alleged she rode it I believe, the one defending her is her dad. There is also talk of a brother on epo.

I think you need to read the whole thread and all the links, Roverpig.

Right-oh. See you next week 🙂

What I find most shocking about this whole thread is the revelation that unicorns fart! 🙄

Smells of pudding & woodburners.
True fact.

Applying the evidential standards seen at some points in the thread, I'm going to look at this and conclude that cheating is rife in CX.

[img] [/img]

We don't see much of the pedal once he's unclipped but assuming he's in top gear the cranks would only have to rotate 30° for the rear wheel to move 1m roughly the distance we see it move before the pedal disappears from view. The more I watch the more I'm convinced the crank does rotate the required amount.

The more I watch the more I'm convinced the crank does rotate the required amount.

[quote=Edukator ]You're forgetting that those 3W are made at jogging pace and cycle races won at averages three times higher. The big problems with hub dynamos are the low rotation speed and low voltage. Use a Schmidt as a motor at 50km/h at a higher voltage and you'd get tens of watts. The limiting factor being melting the windings.

I wasn't forgetting that at all - I thought about adding a factor for that, but then remembered that the important bits of bike races, the bits where they might want to have the benefit of a motor are where they're going at speeds similar to what a Schmidt is specced at (which is rather higher than jogging speed). BTW the power generated by a hub dynamo is proportional to speed, so at 50km/h you'd still not get 10W out of one. So you're close to what you think is a useful power output, but still no closer to reducing the size to 1/4 in the way you're suggesting.

Though the limiting factor you mention there is interesting - how do you think you'd solve that issue, and what would it do for your packaging requirements?

It's alleged she rode it I believe, the one defending her is her dad. There is also talk of a brother on epo.

"The young Belgian Femke Van den Driessche said Sunday that the bike with a hidden motor that used during World cyclocross Espoirs Saturday in Heusden-Zolder, not his and that she was unaware of the presence of this motor.

" It was not my bike but that of a friend, the same as mine, but that ended up in my hands following a misunderstanding of an engineer ," she explained in tears during an interview with the Sunday Sporza chain.

" This is exactly the same as my current bike ," said Van den Driessche. " This friend went to inspect the course Saturday before filing his bike to the truck. A mechanic, thinking it was my bike, cleaned it and prepared me for the race. " (Google translated from rtbf.be)

" This is exactly the same as my current bike ," said Van den Driessche. " This friend went to inspect the course Saturday before filing his bike to the truck. A mechanic, thinking it was my bike, cleaned it and prepared me for the race. " (Google translated from rtbf.be)

[quote=Edukator - Troll]We don't see much of the pedal once he's unclipped but assuming he's in top gear the cranks would only have to rotate 30° for the rear wheel to move 1m roughly the distance we see it move before the pedal disappears from view. The more I watch the more I'm convinced the crank does rotate the required amount.

Really? Have you watched the original, rather than the poor quality clip as part of the demo?

You can quite clearly see that there is no movement of the crank at all, certainly nowhere near 30° (not to mention that the rear wheel moves far more than 1m, so you'd need close to 90° crank rotation even in top gear - BTW 36° required for 1m even in 53/11).

Though I presume now you're just living up to your STW forum status?

[quote=mikewsmith ]

" This is exactly the same as my current bike ," said Van den Driessche. " This friend went to inspect the course Saturday before filing his bike to the truck. A mechanic, thinking it was my bike, cleaned it and prepared me for the race. " (Google translated from rtbf.be)

Exactly my thoughts - the only reason for hiding it in that way is surely to cheat - given the issues over this, isn't it a bit stupid to have a bike around [b]exactly[/b] the same as hers where they might make this sort of "mistake".

yep it's isane. I image their bike sponsors will be with their lawyers right now. The whole team have to be in trouble.

I want to see the proof of this before I make any more comments..

Why haven't the UCI issued photos or a statement outlining the "motor" ? I see Cookson's issued a comment on Twitter "its plain to see it's a motor" Well Cooky, show us photo's then.. 🙄

When I heard about this first, last night, I thought it was something to do with her seat being too far forward or not the right kind of paint or some other idiotic rule the UCI have on the shape of a bike or its setup.

Wouldn't there be some additional drag when the motor isn't powered?

The only cyclists who would think that 'magical spinning bike' has a motor are ones who:

* Never rode freestyle bmx
* Don't crash much
* Never cycle at all

Bikes can do some weird things when their pilot leaves them unexpectedly.

some other idiotic rule the UCI have on the shape of a bike or its setup.

Cheater got caught....good.

There is no good reason to have a bike built like this AND stored in a contender's pits....hidden motor too, doesn't look good, it fact it looks like she cheated or was trying to cheat at some point in the race.

A coach or training partner would use a moped or just buy an E-bike rather than go to the time, effort and expense of concealing a motor!

This is something that has been rumored in cycling for some years now, makes you wonder about all other bike changes we've seen in major races over the past few years!?....if a 19yr old Belgian Cyclo-Cross rider is involved then how many of the big riders and teams have trialled this tech!?

Cycling seems to want to shoot itself in the foot at every twist and turn, riding a motorised bike is the lowest form of cheating, for me it's worse than doping.

Glad she got caught, hope the UCI start tearing bikes apart at the big races this year.

Wouldn't there be some additional drag when the motor isn't powered?

" It was not my bike but that of a friend, the same as mine, but that ended up in my hands following a misunderstanding of an engineer ," she explained in tears during an interview with the Sunday Sporza chain.

" This is exactly the same as my current bike ," said Van den Driessche. " This friend went to inspect the course Saturday before filing his bike to the truck. A mechanic, thinking it was my bike, cleaned it and prepared me for the race. " (Google translated from rtbf.be)

And "I did seem to feel suprisingly good on the day though, like I had a tailwind, which was odd to have at every point on the course.. "

Is this all real? Ha. A shame when we have a British World Champ from the same event and all this could get more media focus.

for me it's worse than doping.

Euro speaks sense, I have seen my bike do some proper weird stuff bailing out from trials moves beyond my skillset over the years!
Just because it looks a bit odd from one camera angle doesn't mean foul play...

As for this CX situation, IF her very dodgy explanation about it being an identical bike but with hidden motor and IF there is some legitimate reason for such a bike in thier fleet then I can't see any reason why said bike doesn't have a massive sticker saying ELECTRIC on it or a bright pink paint job to make sure that exactly this kind of mix up never happens.

All very dodgy...

[quote=scotroutes ]I thought the winner wasn't even using a CX bike?

You're working that out from a stock photo of her from a different race?

The odds of two people having the same saddle height/angle/stem length/bar height/brake position/bar type at professional level are so low she would have realised it wasn't her bike immediately.

aracer - Member
You're working that out from a stock photo of her from a different race?

so will it be Belgium banned from female U23 CX for 6 months then or all Belgium national teams banned from all male/female UCI Cycle races/events for 6 months? (When is Olympics)

I want to see the proof of this before I make any more comments.

Maybe releasing pics might give away the tech and how it might be better hidden next time? Maybe they are waiting for the sanctions process to be completed? Maybe check out her own (video) interview on Sporza where she comes out with the BS about it being someone who'd bought an old bike of hers and they'd fitted a motor to it? Quotes from the president of the UCI and the offending rider not enough - it's like Hora defending LA all over again 😉

The odds of two people having the same saddle height/angle/stem length/bar height/brake position/bar type at professional level are so low she would have realised it wasn't her bike immediately.

jameso - Member

for me it's worse than doping.

How so? I don't agree or disagree, just wondering.

I think it's easier to delude ourselves that physical doping could be the act of an individual, rather than something which must necessarily involve the organised and systematic collusion of a group of people at all levels within the team.

Someone wondered if the manufacturers were involved.
I doubt it, but it shows the impact this has on the way we think.

I think we all accept that human nature and ingenuity means that cheating is inevitable where money and status is involved.

Still enjoy watching though.

Still enjoy watching though.

Ah, so its her friends bike, that she brought to a race that her friend was in, she brought it into the team pits and no one said a word, This seasons bike just happens to be exactly the same as last seasons, no colour change, same gearing, same old wheels, apart from a motor that was fitted presumeably in the off season.

Presumably then? her mate isnt actually her mate at all. And there is some one who now has to admit to this and the reason for fitting for the motor, and for bringing it back to her? Maybe there was a warranty issue.

[quote=scotroutes ]Wouldn't there be some additional drag when the motor isn't powered?

I think there's a clutch, so the only additional drag would be from the drive cogs between that and the BB - given no load through those cogs, the drag should be pretty minimal.

The "It's not mine, it belongs to a friend" excuse doesn't work when mum discovers your porn stash, and it shouldn't work for bikes either...

Seems super fishy.

It cant be............. Motors in frames don't exist, i read that on here so it must be true, it cant be done, no one has the technical know how, expertise nor money to pull off such an elaborate hoax, I mean why would any one even bother when you can just drugs cheat and not get done.

There's no point even arguing, demand to see photographic evidence and in the event that none are produced claim innocence until proven guilty, i mean no one wanted to believe that Lance Armstrong was a cheating, lying bastard, so trying to convince people that there is battery hidden in a frame.......... your on a hiding to nothing.

Just bury your head in the sand, put your fingers in your ears and raise your arse in the air.

Its getting like RoadCC here. Tons of people jumping in with mindless opinion. About cheating? Have your say, I'm with you there but as yet there is nothing to say that she cheated.
Its going to be much harder with this. Currently there is absolutely nothing to stop you owning such a bike. You can take it to an event. A trifle silly I would think but that's not cheating.
If her father's statement is true, and why shouldn't it be, then she has broken no rules. Unless she has recorded somewhere an intent to cheat and then actually done then she hasn't cheated.
Everyone considers being naughty at some point. That doesn't make it happen.
Maybe she did ride it, that should be rather easy to prove bearing in mind the state of the track, but as I seriously doubt that anyone posting here knows that 100%, then evil supposition should shut up.