First Hidden Electric Motor In Cycling World Championship (cxmagazine.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Hidden Electric Motor In Cycling World Championship (cxmagazine.com)

Posted by timothy on Sunday January 31, 2016 @08:32AM from the thumb-on-the-scale dept.

An anonymous reader writes with the story that the world championship cyclocross competition this weekend in Zolder (Belgium) was scandalized by the first case of "mechanical doping." European champion Femke Van Den Driessche was caught with a bicycle with a hidden electric motor. From the article: The Union Cycliste Internationale said in a statement âoethat pursuant to the UCIâ(TM)s Regulations on technological fraud a bike has been detained for further investigation following checks at the Womenâ(TM)s Under 23 race of the 2016 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships. This does not concern any of the riders on the podium. Further details will be shared in due course.â

The Belgian media outlet Sporza reported that the Belgian Cycling Federation had confirmed that the detained bike belonged to Van den Driessche. Ironically, Van den Driessche had abandoned the race due to a mechanical issue shortly before the bike was scrutinised. Van den Driesscheâ(TM)s name did not feature in the official results on the UCI website on Saturday evening. Cyclocross Magazine adds some details.

51 of 262 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What's the deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 08:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why does cycling attract so much cheating?
Is it just more publicized than that in other sports? I mean, you don't hear about cheating nearly as much in other "sports" where they depend upon mechanical equipment... Nascar, F1, MotoGP, etc...
You'd think that Bill Belichick were the coach...
1. Re:What's the deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 09:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  it's one sport where physical attributes correlates almost 1:1 with performance. Like a wide receiver could dope in order to run faster but if he still can't catch the ball, what good does that do
2. Re:What's the deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 09:20 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I mean, you don't hear about cheating nearly as much in other "sports" where they depend upon mechanical equipment... Nascar
  Good thing you quoted it if you will mention nascar. If you can do it with a beer belly and 30kg extra weight around the midriff it is not a sport! The reason you see this in cycling is that it is a sport: your athletic ability is a key determinant of your success.
3. Re: What's the deal... by MasterOfGoingFaster · 2016-01-31 09:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because a tiny increase in power makes a huge difference in results. In F1, a 1 HP difference is not noticeable. In cycling, 1 HP makes you faster than a fully dopped Lance Armstrong in his prime.
  
  --
  Place nail here >+
4. Re:What's the deal... by linforcer · 2016-01-31 09:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  She. Not only does summary mention that this is the "Women's under 23", amusingly her first name is Femke which literally means "girl" or "little woman" (see French "femme")
5. Re: What's the deal... by George_Ou · 2016-01-31 09:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  A pro competitor at Tour de France averages 450 watts. Casual fit rider averages 220. That means having a mere half a horse power would let the casual rider win the Tour de France though you likely wouldn't be able to put in that much battery capacity for the entire ride unless you swapped the battery along the way. For competitive riders, just having a 100 watt motor that can turn on 10 minutes is enough to go from last place to first.
6. Re: What's the deal... by Type44Q · 2016-01-31 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  You really couldn't come up with a better thought-out response than that??
7. Re:What's the deal... by goarilla · 2016-01-31 10:10 · Score: 2
  
  amusingly her first name is Femke which literally means "girl" or "little woman" (see French "femme")
  
  It's a very common dutch name in Flanders.
  And in 2002 it was the 6th most used female babyname, coincidentally in that same year a new character named Femke appeared on a popular local tv soap.
8. Re:What's the deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 10:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Cyclist racer here. It's because the checks are stricter than any other sport. The doping controls are stricter and less excuses are accepted
  Dont fool yourself, the level of cheating is probably worse in just about any other pro sport. It's more cycling after a few dead riders got more serious about catching em.
9. Re:What's the deal... by lgw · 2016-01-31 10:26 · Score: 2
  
  And in 2002 it was the 6th most used female babyname, coincidentally in that same year a new character named Femke appeared on a popular local tv soap.
  The name "Teagan" or "Tegan" for girls appeared from nowhere in the 80s when a companion with that name showed up in Dr Who (4th and 5th Doctors). It was a very rare name before the 80s, but suddenly in the late 80s became a minor trend, peaking in 2010 (at 243rd in popularity by the random site I found - and occasionaly used for boys as well). The show didn't invent the name, but it might as well have.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
10. Re:What's the deal... by MightyMartian · 2016-01-31 10:39 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Motorized curling, perhaps.
  I'd actually get up at 3am to watch curling with jet fuel powered stones.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
11. Re:What's the deal... by ancientt · 2016-01-31 10:50 · Score: 2
  
  I didn't realize until now what I was missing from my life.
  
  --
  B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
12. Re: What's the deal... by George_Ou · 2016-01-31 11:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Regen on flat pedaling is stupid and goes along the lines of a perpetual motion machine. Much of the energy you pedal into the motor is lost in the form of heat and you won't get out what you put in. Reg on downhill would work and you don't need a more complex motor. All Brushless DC motors can regen when they're being forced to turn.
13. Re: What's the deal... by AK+Marc · 2016-01-31 11:42 · Score: 2
  
  Aside from being easily caught when people weigh your competition bike and find it weight 3x everyone else's, it'd be easy to hide a motor where an inspection wouldn't find it. Put it in the frame, by the bottom bracket, and have the electric motor directly drive the crank. Fill every spare section of space in the frame with batteries. You'd be able to get 100W for the uphills for even long races.
  
  If you want it to be undetectable, you need to hide the batteries in the water bottle, or on your body, with connections to the motor hidden (or possibly wireless). Easy to do, but nobody cares.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
14. Re: What's the deal... by kheldan · 2016-01-31 11:55 · Score: 2
  
  Hmm, yes and no. While the athleticism is absolutely necessary, the athleticism is actually the easy part of being a bike racer. Learning to race effectively and race smart is the harder part. A casual 'fit' rider, suddenly given a hundred or so watt mechanical advantage, would not win the TdF. They also wouldn't even come close to winning a finishing sprint.
  
  Of course what we're talking about here are Pro Cat-1 riders on the UCI world tour, literally the creme-de-la-creme of competitive cycling. They've all been riding/competing since they were young teens, and have worked their way up from the literal beginners' amateur category to the very top category, and this is now their day-job. They spend 30-35 hours a week training, have top-tier racing skills, and an entire team backing them up. It's so highly competitive that any small advantage they can get (shaving grams of weight off their bikes or off their own bodies, or in this case gaining a handful of extra watts of power, even if it's for a short period of time) can literally make or break their entire career.
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
15. Re: What's the deal... by George_Ou · 2016-01-31 12:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If they can fit battery, brushless controllers, and BLDC motors in a tiny 4 oz RC/Drone, they sure as hell can hide it inside a bike. A 100 watt ESP (Electronic Speed Control) can be extremely tiny and cheap. Do a quick search on Google or Hobbyking.
16. Re:What's the deal... by physicsphairy · 2016-01-31 12:23 · Score: 2
  
  Cycling is a bit special as a longer endurance sport. There's more to be gained from marginal benefits. That said, cheating is very wide spread. It's a constant race between athletes and analysts. You often can't detect a new strategy of cheating until someone is physically caught and then you can develop an analytical method to do so. Lance Armstrong was caught not by the technology of the time but by revisiting blood samples which had been stored. Athletes may content themselves with microdoping where they use very small doses of drugs or reserved blood to evade detection limits. It obviously is less effective, but they're looking for whatever edge they can get. With small alterations it becomes difficult to distinguish between artificial enhancement and genetic anomalies. If you don't hear about people cheating I think it has a lot to do with them getting very good at it.
  
  --
  When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
17. Re:What's the deal... by DeathElk · 2016-01-31 13:27 · Score: 2
  
  There is no more cheating in cycling than any other sport. For example, see the two major Australian football codes, which are using media and promotional ties to effectively sweep endemic drug cheating under the carpet. Or international athletics, of which the tip of the cheating iceberg has recently surfaced. The difference is that cycling is actively trying to eradicate cheating, thus the invasive scrutinising and drug tests.
18. Re:What's the deal... by stephanruby · 2016-01-31 14:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Is it just more publicized than that in other sports?
  Yes, it is. As a semi-professional swimmer, I am thankful no one has caught on my methane powered propulsion system yet.
19. Re:What's the deal... by stephanruby · 2016-01-31 14:08 · Score: 2
  
  Why does cycling attract so much cheating?
  It's the low barrier to entry.
  If I was the manufacturer of such a motor, I'd get in the race myself.
  The cost of entry is very low and the potential upside in free publicity (once caught) is super high.
20. Re: What's the deal... by unrtst · 2016-01-31 16:46 · Score: 2
  
  Aside from being easily caught when people weigh your competition bike and find it weight 3x everyone else's...
  On a story a few months back, there was talk about standardized sports equipment, and bicycling came up.
  The bikes they use have a minimum weight requirement. Off the shelf bikes of somewhat decent quality (ballpark of $4000) can EASILY weight in at less than the pro weights.
  I'm not sure how much you can get away with hiding, but they could definitely shave off a few pounds. If it's engineered well, the batteries and such could even contribute some to the structural integrity. You could easily spread out the battery load throughout the frame, so balance wouldn't be an issue.
  People have also kept referring to the drive hub (where the crank goes) as a good place for the motor. Personally, I'd favor the rear wheel. There's plenty of room inside the hub of the rear wheel (internally geared hubs have shown us that). The crank hub has to endure significant stress from pedaling. Lastly, it's a whole lot easier to "lose" the rear wheel (just get a flat and change it out on the way).
21. Re: What's the deal... by Dahamma · 2016-01-31 17:47 · Score: 2
  
  Regen on flat pedaling is stupid and goes along the lines of a perpetual motion machine. Much of the energy you pedal into the motor is lost in the form of heat and you won't get out what you put in.
  You are thinking solely in terms of mechanics and not biology. Siphoning off a few watts on a flat pedal to recharge when cyclists are normally conserving energy for the next climb anyway and then applying it when needed most can spread out the energy expended to make things more efficient.
  Try running a 5k sprinting until you can't run any more, and then walking until you recover and can sprint again vs just running at your maximum steady pace. I guarantee you the latter strategy gets you a better time.
  Losses from inefficiencies of the motor could make things less ideal, though that depends on the motor and considering it certainly isn't "stupid".
22. Re: What's the deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 18:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Forgot link. 930W at 3.4 oz or 96 grams, 100W obviously smaller. Don't know why you're arguing this can't be done since it already happened. One 26550 with 15 watt hours is enough to drive a 100W motor 9 minutes which is a massive advantage.
  http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__24433__NTM_Rotor_Drive_450_Series_1700KV_930W.html
23. Re: What's the deal... by Solandri · 2016-01-31 19:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A pro competitor at Tour de France averages 450 watts. Casual fit rider averages 220. That means having a mere half a horse power would let the casual rider win the Tour de France
  For those weak at the unit conversion, there's a nice rhyme for remembering it.
  
  In fourteen-hundred and ninety-two,
  Columbus sailed the ocean blue,
  Divide the year of his voyage by two,
  And you get the number of Watts in a horsepower.
24. Re: What's the deal... by George_Ou · 2016-01-31 20:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Again, using human power to turn a generator to fill a battery is a fool's errand. You're better off doing opportunistic regeneration on downhill and letting the person rest. Forcing a rider to output an extra 50 watts so that you can collect 30 watts in the battery is just idiotic. But the point was that even without regeneration, a single 26550 battery @ 98 gram and a 100 watt motor @ 50 grams is more than enough to win a race.
More details... by bluescrn · 2016-01-31 09:13 · Score: 5, Informative

There's some pics here showing how such a motor can be concealed surprisingly well:

http://cyclingtips.com/2015/04...
1. Re:More details... by Shinobi · 2016-01-31 09:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Read the fucking article he linked. It's clearly stated. As for the worth of it, that would depend on the stage. 110W, as referenced in that article, equates to about 0.148 horsepower and would definitely make up for the addition of a bit of extra weight on a stage with a lot of climbing.
2. Re:More details... by Vegan+Cyclist · 2016-01-31 10:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  To give the power (wattage) a little more context: typical pros can average 400-500w over an hour. If someone could add 110w to that, it's a massive gain. It can turn someone with mediocre fitness into a 'champion'. It can make the difference for a successful breakaway for sure. And at the very least, it will save a ton of energy. A famous cycling quote goes along the lines of 'it's not who's fastest who wins, it's who has the most energy at the end who wins'. It's pretty significant. (Also worth noting: the average person can average 100-150w over an hour.)
3. Re:More details... by Shinobi · 2016-01-31 10:14 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, the benefit is huge.
  Cassani stated, after testing a bike kitted out with a motor like that , that even at age 50, he could win a Giro stage with it.
Unfortunately there's no information by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-01-31 09:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Let me sum it up for you - here's the sum total of facts, all details included, from the article.
"A motor was found"
That's pretty much it.

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:Unfortunately there's no information by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 09:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Some more facts were published meanwhile. The bike in which the motor was found was not the bike she used in the race. But they found it in her supply tent. There are claims that a person from her entourage put the bike there after cleaning it, because he thought it was her bike, but in reality it was one of hers that she sold to a friend some time ago.
nascar has If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin' by Joe_Dragon · 2016-01-31 09:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

nascar has a saying If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.
Same things happens in lot's of other sports if you give some one 5 inches they will try to push it to 10 when the ref is not looking.
Re:Could be very interesting technology by ickleberry · 2016-01-31 09:34 · Score: 2

I think the market for electric bikes that sacrifice much performance for not looking like an electric bike from the outside is quite small. This thing is only 50-100w whereas you'd want at least 400w for a proper electric bike.
Re:Nitpicking by Black+Parrot · 2016-01-31 09:35 · Score: 2

Do you seriously hope to shame the editors with charges of amateurism?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Any pictures? by sumdumass · 2016-01-31 09:38 · Score: 2

There is a video on one of the sites linked to from the summery which shows what appears to be someone activating a switch under the weather guard on the left handlebar which spins the rear tire by itself.
Re:First? by whoever57 · 2016-01-31 09:40 · Score: 3, Informative

Different rider, but look what happens to the bike after the fall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:News for nerds? by ShaunC · 2016-01-31 09:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

ItÃ(TM)s a good story to demonstrate SlashdotÃ(TM)s lack of Unicode support. ThatÃ(TM)s a nerdy issue!

--
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Re:Nitpicking by Dr.+Spork · 2016-01-31 09:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

I remember plenty of Slashdot blurbs that consisted of several sentences lifted directly from the article, but giving no credit to TFA. Where I teach, that would be considered a case of representing someone else's words as yours, which is straightforward plagiarism, and gets you an unpleasant appointment with an assistant dean. So even though this execution isn't flawless, at least it clearly distinguishes the words of the blurb author and the article author. I consider that a huge step forward for Slashdot.
Re:How much would it help? by Vegan+Cyclist · 2016-01-31 10:09 · Score: 4, Informative

The bikes are about 16-18lbs. Even with the motor, just FYI. This technology already exists and you can read about it here: http://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes-exist-heres-how-they-work/

This thing can put out 110w over an hour. And it would help over an hour, for sure. The average pro can put out 400-500w over an hour. Add 110w to that? It's HUGE. It could put mediocre pros on the podium.

It's worth reading the article, there's a lot more to it too...her brother was also caught doping EPO. And claims it was her 'friends' bike...that just happened to get brought into the race. All pretty shady stuff.
Re:How much would it help? by Shinobi · 2016-01-31 10:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

One system mentioned has an effect of about 110W, with either 60 or 90 minute battery, total package weight with 60 minute battery is 1,8kg, with battery and motor all hidden away, wireless activation button etc.And yes, it can be disengaged.
Ironically, it's on the mountain stages it'd really help. 0.148hp for a total of 60 minutes during a stage can help you build a massive lead spread over a few climbs.
Also, look at some suspected motorized cheating like Fabian Cancellara in Roubaix-Flaanderen for example.
Links:
http://cyclingtips.com/2015/04...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re:Any pictures? by Richard_at_work · 2016-01-31 10:14 · Score: 2

The UCI have confirmed that a motor has been found, while Driessche is saying the bike is identical to her own, but actually owned by a friend who cycled the course before the event, and the bike just accidentally happened to be cleaned and tuned for her own use due to a mix up by a mechanic...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cyc...
Re:How much would it help? by Goonie · 2016-01-31 10:38 · Score: 2

Short version - heaps.
Longer version: 100 watts for 10 minutes in the context of an hour-long cyclocross race is enough to turn an also-ran into a winner. It would be decisive in most road races other than out-and-out bunch sprints as well.
As far as drag goes, that's negligible by all reports. Avoiding drag when a power source is not providing propulsion is a very well-studied problem.

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Re:First? by Shinobi · 2016-01-31 10:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yeah, a better example of highly suspicious and quite likely to be motor assisted cheating is Fabian Cancellara in Roubaix-Vlaanderen in the second part of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re:Simple solution, 100% effective by Goonie · 2016-01-31 10:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

The insides of a bike frame are extremely simple - they're just tubes - and the mechanical components in the frame (the "bottom bracket") comes in only a few standard designs. Any plausible motor and battery is going to be big enough to stick out like a sore thumb. So X-Raying would work, as would pointing an IR camera at the bike detect the motor in operation. You can't hide that much waste heat in that small an area. As for stock bikes, nice idea, but not practical. At the elite level (and even at the serious recreational level) riders often spend a lot of time and money customizing the fit of their bikes. Furthermore, much of the sport's funding comes from equipment manufacturers who would be more than a little peeved if athletes weren't using their expensive gear.

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Re:Any pictures? by Trongy · 2016-01-31 11:09 · Score: 2

The CX Magazine article said it best:
"As to why someone would bring an obviously illegal bike into the pits, even if not to be used, is inexplicable. It’s not much different than inviting an EPO user to bring vials over to your trailer that you don’t plan to use."
Re:Could be very interesting technology by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-31 12:09 · Score: 2, Informative
I think the market for electric bikes that sacrifice much performance for not looking like an electric bike from the outside is quite small. This thing is only 50-100w whereas you'd want at least 400w for a proper electric bike.
Huh?
- The market is huge (all those rich wankers that want to pose as professional riders and pay more than $8K AUD for their bikes). That's why Vivax, and others make good money.
- That motor is 200W (which is more than your fat arse would deliver to the pedals).
- Most countries put a 250W limit on ecycles - bigger motors make the bicycle a motorcycle.
But don't let the fact that you are consistently wrong change anything.
Cheating in other sports is part of the game by swb · 2016-01-31 14:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

And the cheating is so institutionalized that it has to be egregious before it becomes a problem.
Most team sports have this thing called a "penalty" or a "foul" where the offending team gets some small penalty or the offended team some small advantage -- fouls in basketball, the yellow flag in football, penalty box in hockey, balk in baseball.
There's just so much attempted cheating they've just made it part of the game -- intentional fouls are part of the late-minute strategy in basketball to stop the clock. In hockey, it's actually against the rules to beat the shit out of an opposing player yet it too is (although less so now) part of the game, down to "the enforcer" each team hires to intimidate members of the other team, up to and including beating the shit out of them once in a while.
In those sports only the most outrageous cheating becomes a scandal, like illegal hits in hockey that put someone in the hospital, hard fouls in basketball that result in an ejection or deflating the football (which, IMHO, couldn't have provided the advantage relative to the BFD it caused).
Re:How much would it help? by Vegan+Cyclist · 2016-01-31 15:06 · Score: 2

FYI, she actually didn't race the bike, she was found to have it as a spare in the pits. (If you're not familiar, in cyclocross racers will often have a spare bike...or five..in the pits. You can actually swap out a bike pretty fast, taking only an extra second or two for well-trained racers.)
Re:First? by gavron · 2016-01-31 18:22 · Score: 2

Right. She didn't read it.
Keep on trying to ask me to read the article you insist on not reading...
SHE DIDN'T RIDE IT.
SHE DIDN'T APOLOGIZE FOR RIDING IT.
SHE DIDN'T CONFESS.
IT'S NOT CONFIRMED
You made that stuff up in your post. And then you said you believe it.
Good for you.
Sucks, donut?
E
Re:First? by gavron · 2016-01-31 19:12 · Score: 2

Because it didn't. Read the article. Don't add extra words you think are missing from her sentences
YOU SAID she confessed.
She did not.
YOU SAID she admitted to riding it
She did not.
Seriously, go detach from reality on your own now. I CAN'T QUOTE A NEGATIVE but you have not at all quoted her agreeing with any of the stuff you made up.
E
Re:First? by michelcolman · 2016-02-01 00:36 · Score: 2

Your lack of reading skills is quite surreal, you know. Especially when you keep insisting you're right when you're obviously not. The words you added in square brackets are entirely your own fantasy yet you're using them to somehow "prove" your point?!
The (incorrect) summary of that article indeed says "the bike she was riding" but the actual text of the article (and any other source I've heard so far) makes it clear she did not actually ride that bike. After her chain broke, she "saw that bike standing there" (i.e. a different bike, not the one she was riding) and she didn't know how it got there. It belonged to a friend of hers, looked identical to her own, and was accidentally placed there by a mechanic who thought it was hers. She didn't know that her friend used a motor in his bike.
Now it's entirely possible that she's lying, and she did ride that bike on some other occasion during the season. But she never actually admitted to that.
By the way, I saw the actual interview in the original Dutch language, not some bad translation bordering on ambiguity. She clearly said she did not ride the bike. Her friend already apologized a hundred times for leaving his bike there. (That's not in the article, but was said in the actual interview).