‘Technological fraud’ discovered at Zolder cyclocross worlds | Hacker News Reader

‘Technological fraud’ discovered at Zolder cyclocross worlds

velonews.competitor.com

Although this is the first time something like this has been found in competition, I can remember a few prior allegations or instances that many people have found suspicious. So I don't personally find this to be a complete shock.

One thing I find interesting, for road cycling at least, is that the UCI mandated weight minimums could make it easier for a rider to attempt something like this. Many of the bikes need weights in the seat tubes to bring them up to the minimum weight, so the extra weight of a motor and battery wouldn't stick out as much. If they were to lower the 6.8kg minimum, a bike with motor and battery might end up weighing noticeably more than the average bike in the peloton.

There have been lots of rumours of the last couple of seasons.

From Cancellara's Paris-Roubaix acceleration [1] to Ryder Hesjedal's [2] bike "moving on it's own", to even Chris Froome [3] Tour accusation it's been getting heated at the top levels.

The UCI introduced mobile scanning machines in 2010 [4] and this would be the first actual confirmed case.

[1] http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/06/news/cancellara-calls...

[2] http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/fresh-motori...

[3] http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/07/news/froome-driven-to...

[4] http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-start-bike-scanning/

For the video in the second link, I get the arguments about the camera angle possibly being misleading, but it looks pretty damning.

Yes it is rather. But the puzzle is, why be using power on a downhill freewheel ? Unless he switched the "on" button as he fell.

tbh it hasn't done him much good results wise, unless he was using it in the Giro 2012

The pedals don't move, which they would if it was the kind of motor used in the 'Zolder' bike.

Weight minimums are good for keeping a level playing field by keeping the cost to entry "low" by keeping it to the thousands. They're also good for safety reasons, both for the rider and others they might crash into; there's no incentive to try to cut too much weight in a way that could impact safety if there's a weight floor anyway.

The scanning is simply going to have to become pervasive.

Your arguments for the weight limit don't really hold up.

Manufacturers have used the "spare" weight for aero purposes - deep wheel rims, profiled tubing etc. The incentive to shave off grams is just as strong. Every gram saved by skimping on strength is a gram that can be used to reduce drag.

Safety has been dealt with by the certification scheme for frames and wheels. Every frame and wheelset used in a UCI sanctioned race has to be tested to UCI standards, so the weight is academic.

The technical playing field is far from level and costs have never been higher. The leading WorldTour teams can afford a lot of technology that's out of reach for Continental teams. Two aero bikes, two climbing bikes, a classics bike, a TT bike, eight different wheelsets, plus wind tunnel time to get it all working - that easily adds up to $100k per rider.

Minimum weights are used in all sorts of racing, from sailing to F1, both as a bulwark against technology costs and cutting corners on strength. Drag isn't much of an issue in cyclocross. It's the sort of thing you can throw money at for marginal advantage, but it doesn't make those who can afford it unassailable.

In cycling frame weight is not a big or factor. Wheel weight on the other hand is very noticeable.

Also note that frame efficiency is more important than its weight. For instance there were silly light, silly expensive bikes around which had crap performance, because they twisted like noodles in the wrong places.

Super light weight is a great magnet for dentists.

> safety reasons, both for the rider and others they might crash into

What is the benefit supposed to be of getting hit by a heavier bike?

That's not the concern. They were worried about manufacturers producing bikes that weren't structurally sound in a race to produce the absolute lightest bike. Imagine frames failing during descents.

There's an argument to be made that the technology has improved, and that the limit could be lowered.

It's not the weight of the bike. It's the risk of a "stupid light"[1] component failing when you're at the front of the peloton and taking out you and most of the riders behind you.

[1] A component which has had its strength and durability compromised in the interest of saving weight.

These arguments made sense when the limit was introduced. But the limit should be lowered now.

Weight minimums are good for keeping a level playing field by keeping the cost to entry "low" by keeping it to the thousands.

There are no bikes in the in the World Tour peleton that retail for under $10,000. You can easily build a sub 6.8kg bike for that.

They're also good for safety reasons, both for the rider and others they might crash into; there's no incentive to try to cut too much weight in a way that could impact safety if there's a weight floor anyway.

There's some truth in that, but the limit is way, way lower than where it is at the moment. The fact that weights are being added to push bikes over the limit has no safety impact.

At a guess, maybe it's a sign that drug testing actually is starting to make doping in cycling difficult and dangerous, pushing cheaters to look for an easier avenue.

Here's a good demonstration of the kind of tech we're talking about here from Greg LeMond https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKgJ_Uhwfno

Neat! I'm curious how much those kind of bikes cost, more for laziness than anything else ;)

Edit: http://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes-... - Has some cool photos on how they work

AUD $4,300 - eek!

Why not just buy an eBike, there's a few under $1500 in this best of, and one sub $500

http://electricbikereview.com/top-10-electric-bikes/

Yeah, the $3,500 ones are super-lightweight with hidden components. If you don't try to conceal the functionality of your e-bike, there are plenty at much lower price points.

Decent road bikes (the one that you use more than 10k miles per year) are more than $2000 on their own. The electrical components go on top of that.

For competition, it makes sense not to allow motors. But why is this also somehow taboo for recreational cyclists? That's something I never understood. They pay thousands for carbon fiber bikes and special wheels all to make pedaling easier, but they could spend a fraction of that on electric assistance which could have the same effect - do less work to ride the same distance.

It is absolutely not. In fact Specialized makes a couple models. They're a lot of fun, but don't have wide adoption because they're a bit clunky and certainly much heavier than many bikes. Plus they're quite expensive. The people spending that much on a bike aren't the casual riding type typically and are racing (where is is against the rules), and the casual riders rarely spend that much on a bike.

I think they get much more widespread adoption when the systems get lighter and cheaper.

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/electric

there's already several fairly refined e-bikes around, look at the offerings by Haibike for example, only a few models are available in North America, but in Europe there is a very large selection

http://www.haibike.de/produkte_liste_epower_en,3004.html

this said anecdotally I am seeing more and more people on e-bikes here in North America too, bike commuting every day these days at least a few times a week I get passed by somebody riding one of them, did not happen at all until a few years back

it's not taboo, it's just that the joy of cycling for a lot of recreational cyclists is in propelling yourself with your own power, suffering, finding your physical limits and pushing them, getting stronger, these sorts of things. sort of like asking why segways are taboo for cross country runners. e-bikes are just a benefit in utility, like you said, to get from point a to point b faster. but once you have electric assistance you're no longer truly cycling, you're doing something in between cycling and riding an electric vehicle. the ability to have assistance stops it from being an athletic experience, which defeats the entire purpose for a lot of people.

the other thing: a change in chainrings and cassette makes a much larger difference in "ease of pedaling" than a fancy carbon frame. if you buy a fancy carbon frame and carbon wheels the reason is to go faster while suffering just as much. want a easier time getting up hills, slap a mtn triple crankset, long reach derailleur, and wide cassette on your clunker. now you can exert yourself as little as you want and you spent $150 instead of $2000.

Where do you get the taboo from ?

eBikes are readily available in all sorts of styles, some can set you back $5000

http://electricbikereview.com/top-10-electric-bikes/

As long as they're not leading a group of other cyclists and I'm not having to try and keep up with their motor, there is no taboo in my area (Austin).

Not as hilarious as more low-tech cheating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E4vRtC7IcY

What am I looking for here?

The rider breaking away from the group while "talking to his team director" has his hand on the car.

Stuff like that happens a lot when taking a bidon from a car, or when talking to a doctor and is somewhat accepted, but this was deemed to be excessive.

To me, this fragment isn't that clear. Yes, he easily gets out of the group, but the others seem to slow down a bit, and he had more ambition to get back to the leading group because he was aiming for the overall win of the race. Also, he was the better rider in that group, and camera angle doesn't help.

He (for a large part thanks to hard work by his teammates) did manage to return to the leading group, though, and many in that leading group would have kept the speed high because they knew an important contender for the overall win was behind.

(info from http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nibali-disqualified-from-vue...)

At the 13 second mark you'll see the rider at the front of the pack, in light blue, getting approached by a car with the same colour scheme. Now try to keep your eye on that rider to the end of the video.

Thanks!

That is pretty shocking. Wouldn't all the other riders be pretty badly pissed off with that, or is it just something everyone gets up to when they can?

I am wondering how long before only one bike is allowed for the stage, and there are tamper-evident seals on the bottom bracket for all bikes.

This said I wonder what principle(s) the "handheld detector" was operating under, maybe it could detect the winding(s) of the electrical motor via inductance or something?

In cyclocross, a single bike is a non-starter. Muddy courses lead to frequent bike changes and fast pit exchanges are part of the sport (not unlike pit stops in F1). Even at the amateur level, the top racers have two bikes and a mechanic in the pit to hand-off and clean bikes when the racer swaps them out.

I think what the parent might be meaning is that a single manufacturer produces all the bikes, so they're exactly the same, there's tamper-evident seals, and the teams are given the bikes just before the race.

This sort of high-tech cheating reminds me of Smokey Yunick's various tricks ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick )

Way too much money in having the big name bike sponsors all involved.

UCI will be releasing more information tomorrow, so hopefully there will be pictures. This is huge news because while there have always been allegations, nothing has ever been confirmed. Seems like they used some handheld device to quickly check bikes that were in the pit.

Apparently they found a bike with a motor in it, in the pit of one of the riders : https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...

> “I feel really terrible,” Belgian national team coach Rudy De Bie told Sporza. “This is a disgrace. I never imagined something like this would happen to our team. Why would a rider do this? Especially at such a young age. And who is responsible for her? I’m embarrassed on her behalf.”

Oh yeah? I can't imagine such a cheat would pass overhead of the coach. It feels like VW executives saying it was a couple of zealous engineers..

Cycling (especially on a national team) isn't like other sports. Most riders have their own coach or trainer, and the national team only rides together for a few times a year.

For example, Lance Armstrong's "coach" Chris Carmichael (notoriously) had little to do with his training (Michelle Ferrari developed his training programs). Carmichael probably knew about his drug use, but it's likely there are plenty of other similar cases where a national coach had even less contact.

"National Coach" is often more akin to a manager/selector role.

Notably, in this case her father was her trainer. Apparently her brother is currently serving a suspension for EPO use[1].

[1] http://cyclingtips.com/2016/01/more-details-emerge-about-mot...

How much motor and battery can you get in a competition bike frame?

How much advantage can that provide, after taking into consideration the extra weight?

http://www.vivax-assist.com/en/produkte/vivax-assist-4-0/viv...

“This model has three settings,” he explained. “It produces between 50 to 75 watts for about an hour and a half, does 150 watts for an hour and in its highest setting, produces 250 watts for up to 30 minutes."

It can provide a substantial advantage at the high levels of competition.

for sure ... average power on a stage might be in the high 300 Ws for a tough mountain time trial, lower over the whole race when you're in the peleton, an extra > 50W or 0.5 W/kg would turn a nobody into a champion.

http://www.bicycling.com/training/fitness/trainingpeaks-powe...

http://sportsscientists.com/2011/07/the-tour-de-france-power...

http://sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-powe...

A 10% boost for an hour, or a series of short breaks without having to stop, could turn an almost-champion into a champion.

if by almost-champion you mean someone somewhere back in the pack. Relative to me the Cleveland Browns are almost Super Bowl champions!

Yep I misread "a nobody" as "nobody".

Wow. I never imagined an in-frame motor/battery would produce that much power.

250W for 30 minutes is more than most non-racing recreational cyclists can manage.

My first thought was that it should be impossible, too, but the answer is that the battery isn't in the frame. It's either in the saddlebag or (in the fancier version) disguised as a water bottle.

There's plenty of room in a frame for a battery. You don't need to run the motor 100% of the time - 1 minute bursts at critical times is more than enough.

Shimano, Campagnolo and SRAM all make batteries designed to fit in the seat tube for electronic gear shifting.

> Shimano, Campagnolo and SRAM all make batteries designed to fit in the seat tube for electronic gear shifting.

Electronic shifting uses almost no power; the derailleur just has to periodically move a few millimeters. There's absolutely no comparison.

In total, there is "plenty of room in a frame" and so it's probably theoretically doable, it would just require much more work to pack it with cells and wire everything up. The companies currently making these motor kits are probably using off-the-shelf battery packs.

Maybe you're right, though, that a smaller battery providing "bursts of power" would be enough to make a difference though.

Absolutely - in a climbing stage of le Tour, a racer would just need a few bursts to match the acceleration of the other tops riders as they try to drop the peloton on the steepest sections. 20-30s bursts, 100-200W, would be more than enough to stay in the race.

In something like cyclocross, the difference from a frame motor would probably be even bigger. The races are shorter (60 minutes vs 4-6 hours) and the power bursts are short and intense - power through a mud pit, stay on bike instead of running a super steep hill, etc.

Look at some of the brushless motors used in RC cars and planes ("drones" as the terminology seems to be today...) --- the power densities are absolutely amazing.

Here's a 4kW (more than 5HP!) motor that's less than 5cm in diameter and 10cm long:

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__21967__turnigy_c5...

One problem with fitting these into a bike is that they require plenty of active cooling to not overheat, but it shows that such power densities are definitely possible. Especially if for intermittent use with long periods of cooling. 4kW is also extreme overkill if all you're after is a small competitive advantage. As for batteries, 250W for 30 minutes is 125Wh, around the same energy as a typical 9-cell laptop battery.

Problem with those motors is you have to get from 10krpm down to 60-110rpm at the crank. This carries a surprisingly huge penalty in weight and efficiency, up to a point where it's a good idea to just choose a different motor.

Top professional cyclists can maintain a power output of around 400-450 Watts for short durations of a few minutes (5 minutes). 300 Watt levels can be maintained for time periods of a couple of hours (approximately).

It appears this type of bicycle motor can maintain 250 Watts for around 30 minutes.

Bottom line - it can make a massive difference to a cyclist performance.

I am inclined to believe her when she says it's not her bike. In legal terms, the chain of custody was likely broken, and a lookalike bike got accidentally brought to the officials.

We'll see soon enough. With the amount of cameras and witnesses around it shouldn't be too hard to get to the bottom of this.

It will be interesting to see how the battery was hidden.

In Dutch: http://www.demorgen.be/sport/van-den-driessche-fiets-is-van-...

Her bike or not, it simply being in the pits/paddock area of her team is enough for serious punishment [0]. It doesn't even have to have been ridden in the event. It's collective responsibility, basically.

[0] http://inrng.com/2016/01/the-electric-shock/

How could somebody have accidentally added a hidden motor and some electrical controls to a racing bike? Why would someone "on her team, who sometimes trains with her" have such a bike? It seems quite clear that either there was cheating, or a very inventive attempt to frame her.

> Why would someone "on her team, who sometimes trains with her" have such a bike?

She's a fast cyclist. The pace rider who trains with her may need some assistance.

However, that bike should have been painted bright pink so that it was obviously not a compliant race bike.

> How could somebody have accidentally added a hidden motor and some electrical controls to a racing bike?

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that's what I'm implying?

> Why would someone "on her team, who sometimes trains with her" have such a bike?

Because it's a bike from a previous season she sold to them (a well known practice that even pro teams engage in to make some money on the side from bikes they get from sponsors), and they added the motor? And it's not someone on her team.

> It seems quite clear that either there was cheating, or a very inventive attempt to frame her.

There's no logical necessity for choosing only those two scenarios. Here's another one: some guy bought an old bike of hers, added a motor so he could seem like a tough guy (in case he kept it secret), and it got mistaken for one of her bikes.

UPDATE: UCI confirms motorised doping uncovered at cyclo-cross World Championships

> Van den Driessche was eventually forced off her bike on the final lap when she was struck by mechanical problems and ended up walking with her bike. Her bike was taken for inspection along with several other bikes after the race. It gives Van den Driessche the dubious honour of being the first rider to be discovered to be using a motor.

Which is slightly different to yesterday when it was reported as being discovered in the pits.

Serious question: Why are cyclists such cheaters?

serious question: do you really think cheating is more prevalent in cycling than in other sports?

There's something that seems more egregious about it.

But I really don't know or care enough about sports to defend this position.

Let me introduce you to a little sport called baseball!

Also, I'm 99% sure the NFL's world is about to come crashing down when there is some sort of forced acknowledgement of how many players are taking HGH

American professional sports are commercial entertainment.

Cycling can't seem to decide whether it's a clean contest of human performance or a contest of artificial performance enhancement.

6000 calories of effort per day, 4-6 hours, for three weeks with two days off.

For the same reasons as every other professional sport. Money and fame.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com