# Drugs (PED's) vs Mechanical doping



## pittcanna (Oct 2, 2014)

Now we have a recognized case of mech doping; which is the worst offense?

Mech doping or PED's


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

My first thought was that mechanical doping has less uncertainty/grey area/room for excuses. Then, right on cue, "It's not mine..."


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

PEDs is worse. Why? Lasting, sometimes life-long effects/benefits.

These convicted dopers are hilarious calling for lifetime bans because of a motor that assists 100w for no more than an hour. It's no worse at all than what they did.

All cheaters should be handed lifetime bans, no exception.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Mech doping is worse, imo. They are both cheating and are wrong, but with a motor it is not even a purely human-powered competition anymore. Those saying it's only 100w, try to understand exactly what a motor can do at certain times of a race, maybe 100w can mean the diff between winning a world championship or not. I have a feeling the motor in question provides more power than that.


----------



## pittcanna (Oct 2, 2014)

Sort of relevant what a 28 volt drill can do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC3rB9f7DaU


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Mechanical doping is more effective. Based on my ego, I would rather lose to a guy on a moped than a doper. At least with a doper I have a chance. When a moped beats me and gets caught I can say, "Well obviously, look at the motor!" 

But is more effective worse? 

On the other hand, biological doping is more difficult to detect. The doper will always say its a false positive or they just started, or they were better naturally, etc. It is more insidious. There are more health risks. Et cetera.


----------



## config (Aug 16, 2002)

MMsRepBike said:


> All cheaters should be handed lifetime bans, no exception.


Couldn't agree more. 6-month or even a year suspension is a joke and definitely not a deterrent. That just gives them more time to think of ways to beat the system.


----------



## config (Aug 16, 2002)

pittcanna said:


> Sort of relevant what a 28 volt drill can do.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC3rB9f7DaU


Haha. I could just imagine the rider trying to fake a viscous cough (all the while trying to drown the motor whine) and dropping everyone in the process;-)


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

burgrat said:


> Mech doping is worse, imo. They are both cheating and are wrong, but with a motor it is not even a purely human-powered competition anymore. Those saying it's only 100w, try to understand exactly what a motor can do at certain times of a race, maybe 100w can mean the diff between winning a world championship or not. I have a feeling the motor in question provides more power than that.


oh heck, even if it puts out only 30 watts that could easily be the difference between winning and losing a sprint. Humans only put out 400W on tough mountain stages, and 1000W in a top level road sprint - add 3% (30 watts added to 1000 watts) to that and you go from photo finish loss to photo finish win.

However I cannot see these doped bikes providing more than momentary power bursts. because batteries are too heavy


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

I see them as the same thing - cheating, fraud. Stealing winnings from other competitors just like if someone printed up their own lottery ticket and claimed the prize, or even a bank employee embezzling funds.

and yeah lifetime ban. Look at the stakes - maybe Armstrong displaced some other legit competitor from making hundreds of thousands more than they did, and doing that often enough he banked 100M or more.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

BCSaltchucker said:


> However I cannot see these doped bikes providing more than momentary power bursts. because batteries are too heavy


and that boost the first 30 seconds in a CC race would be quite a few placings into the first turn.


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

I'm curious how the mechanized power is introduced into the system and overlapped with human power. If this only works when you're not pedaling and clutched-out then it's useless. If this adds power, then how does it work if your RPM's are bigger than the motors?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

BCSaltchucker said:


> However I cannot see these doped bikes providing more than momentary power bursts. because batteries are too heavy


But basic research shows that's not the case.


----------



## pittcanna (Oct 2, 2014)

mechanical doping isn't just limited to motors.

Any tech on the bike or and deviations from the UCI code is doping.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

pittcanna said:


> mechanical doping isn't just limited to motors.
> 
> Any tech on the bike or and deviations from the UCI code is doping.


I cant really agree with that. Up until recently saddle tilt was tightly controlled by UCI rules. I cant see that in the same category as a motor


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

32and3cross said:


> But basic research shows that's not the case.


actually, I have extensive experience in RC models using lithum batteries and brushless motors. We have to precisely design power systems for maximizing power and /or endurance for flying purposes. The math is very straight forward to battery choices. A 1 lb li ion battery is going to have about 5 AH at 12V, or 2.5 AH at 24V. 

so do the math

2.5 AH, 24 volts, 200 watts
= 16 amps cotinuous to sustain 200 watts

at 2.5 AH, that is only 0.14 hours

at 80% efficiency that is only 0.12 hours = 7 minutes, as an absolute maximum at 200 watts. and the rider has to haul the extra weight of this lipo + motor mechanism around for some race length (or in cyclocross, a lap or two)


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

9W9W said:


> I'm curious how the mechanized power is introduced into the system and overlapped with human power. If this only works when you're not pedaling and clutched-out then it's useless. If this adds power, then how does it work if your RPM's are bigger than the motors?


This technology is out there. 

I have had a lot of fun riding around on a pedal-assist Specialized Turbo. My girlfriend and I motorpace one another with it. It doesn't help much on descents or with a tailwind. But she can hold its top speed (limited to less than 30mph) intro cross-winds, up false flats, and on rolling terrain, which is certainly fast enough to put me into the red when I am trying to hold her wheel. She can easily break me off on any sustained climb. 

The Turbo is a heavy, consumer ready bike with a 4+ hour battery life. It has been available for over a year.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

BCSaltchucker said:


> actually, I have extensive experience in RC models using lithum batteries and brushless motors. We have to precisely design power systems for maximizing power and /or endurance for flying purposes. The math is very straight forward to battery choices. A 1 lb li ion battery is going to have about 5 AH at 12V, or 2.5 AH at 24V.
> 
> so do the math
> 
> ...


Who needs a 200 watt boost all at once? I will take 20 X 20 second bursts throughout the race. 

But smaller bursts of power would help a lot too. 20-50 watt boosts here and there throughout the race are enough.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

BCSaltchucker said:


> actually, I have extensive experience in RC models using lithum batteries and brushless motors. We have to precisely design power systems for maximizing power and /or endurance for flying purposes. The math is very straight forward to battery choices. A 1 lb li ion battery is going to have about 5 AH at 12V, or 2.5 AH at 24V.
> 
> so do the math
> 
> ...


Yup. The batteries small enough to hide inside a frame, and not be detected, aren't going to have the capacity for long term use. 

But 7min of 200watt power boosts will have dramatic consequences. Win a mountain stage. Edge out a sprint. Close a gap. Make a break away.

Edit: Isn't 200w @ 24v 8.3amps?


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

tlg said:


> Yup. The batteries small enough to hide inside a frame, and not be detected, aren't going to have the capacity for long term use.
> 
> But 7min of 200watt power boosts will have dramatic consequences. Win a mountain stage. Edge out a sprint. Close a gap. Make a break away.
> 
> Edit: Isn't 200w @ 24v 8.3amps?


you are right I think I was still thinking 12V lipo

so that makes the max runtime at 200 watts to ~14 minutes. Could maybe get a good climber a significant jump on the lead bunch for a km or two up a serious climb (when added to their normal threshold power)


I just picked a 2.5AH 24V lipo because that is about what you could easily fit in a downtube, only about one lb, and 24V is what they commonly use for conventional e-assist bikes of not very high power. And obviously they would not need as much AH for assist in a 200m sprint - but they might run into the discharge-rate limitations (or not?) 8 amp discharge is pretty low and not taxing on the lipo. based on what I have experienced from RC planes, which can have current flow rates of 30A or more easily

would be interesting to experience riding such a lightweight 'e-boost bike.' The ebike I built out of a Trek hard tail weighs about 50 lbs and range of maybe 20km (at 40kph though) on 12AH lifpo4 battery, but that is 4 year old and obsolete with low energy density


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

If it were legal, I don't think I would want to haul an extra pound all over a mountain stage for hours on end to have an extra 100w for 15 minutes. 

But I would be completely willing to haul an extra pound around on a flat-to-moderately hilly race or cyclocross course so that I could have a 50w when desired for a total of 15+ minutes. 

I use a power meter on every ride/race and can tell you that I've held a certain power such as 400w for 5 minutes and then start cracking. As my power drops to 375w, I'm on the back trying to hang on, then at 350w I'm watching them ride away. And almost invariably, they settle down to a pace that I could have held if I had just been able to stay in the group for another minute or two.

So having 50 more watts for the minute before I cracked and for a couple minutes after (total of 3 minutes) would likely make me a podium contender at the end of the race instead of off the back.

It is likely that 30-50w from time to time would be the difference between podium contender and mid-pack in cyclocross (where the device was found). Just use it out of slow corners for 5-10 seconds to get back up to speed. That would save SIGNIFICANT energy througout the race.

And you'd know exactly how many "matches" you had for the day vs the pesky unknowns of human physiology!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

BCSaltchucker said:


> actually, I have extensive experience in RC models using lithum batteries and brushless motors. We have to precisely design power systems for maximizing power and /or endurance for flying purposes. The math is very straight forward to battery choices. A 1 lb li ion battery is going to have about 5 AH at 12V, or 2.5 AH at 24V.
> 
> so do the math
> 
> ...


you really should watch a CC race once. would help. that boost on the first lap or two would hugely benefit the penalty of an extra trip to the pit. 
Or put it another way: being in top 10 versus bottom 10 for a few laps and tell me there's no difference in energy use to keep up. 
I cannot think of a single race I would not have taken two extra waterbottles on my back in trade for 7 minutes of 200w+.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

multirider said:


> If it were legal, I don't think I would want to haul an extra pound all over a mountain stage for hours on end to have an extra 100w for 15 minutes.
> 
> But I would be completely willing to haul an extra pound around on a flat-to-moderately hilly race or cyclocross course so that I could have a 50w when desired for a total of 15+ minutes.
> 
> ...


Once they successfully miniaturize a small fission reactor, you'l be able to get a megawatt or two. That should be adequate!

I agree with you that the cheaters are probably only expecting to use if for short bursts spread out over a wider period of time. I find it interesting that the UCI was so aggressive with this. I wonder if they had some intel that there were other motor-cheaters out there


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

multirider said:


> If it were legal, I don't think I would want to haul an extra pound all over a mountain stage for hours on end to have an extra 100w for 15 minutes.
> 
> But I would be completely willing to haul an extra pound around on a flat-to-moderately hilly race or cyclocross course so that I could have a 50w when desired for a total of 15+ minutes.
> 
> ...


Remember, many bikes now come stock at 11-12 pounds. You could have a 3-4 motor and stay under the weight limit.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

VeloNews today published an interview with Eddy Merckx where he came out in favor of a lifetime ban on mechanized dopers, so it is apparent that his answer to the OP question is that he feels mechanized doping is worse than the use of PEDs. 

Merckx calls for lifetime ban on motorized doping - VeloNews.com


“They should suspend them for life,” Merckx told reporters at the pre-race Tour of Qatar press conference. “For me, they should suspend them for life. This is the worst that they can do, they should just race motorbikes then.”


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

_The Vivax assist motor is rated at 200 watts (the maximum for e-bikes in Australia is 250W, beyond which they are classified as motorbikes) but in reality, we were told, the unit provides somewhere in the vicinity of 110W to the driveshaft. This is in addition to whatever the rider is pushing through the pedals.

There are two main battery options available: one that provides a total of 60 minutes of power assist and one that provides 90 minutes. The motor weighs 750g, the 60-minute battery accounts for 900g and the total package is 1.8kg. For the 90-minute battery option you’re looking at an extra 400g_

Hidden motors for road bikes exist ? here?s how they work | CyclingTips

loud though


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

DaveG said:


> I find it interesting that the UCI was so aggressive with this. I wonder if they had some intel that there were other motor-cheaters out there


Greg Lemond has been ranting about it for a year now. Now I know he has no pull in the UCI, but he does make a lot of noise and gets media attention. I think he was right to take on the problem to make folks aware of the evolving tech.

Hidden motor demonstration with Greg LeMond | CyclingTips


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

good find on their specifications. crazy heavy batteries though, adding 4 lbs to a bike is not gonna work for pro road cycling unless it is a flat time trial maybe. and they probably grossly overestimate the real life run times unless they mean using them for assist at even less than 100 watts

and yeah, given the noise of that one, no way anyone used such an unsophisticated unit as a cheating device.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> _The Vivax assist motor is rated at 200 watts (the maximum for e-bikes in Australia is 250W, beyond which they are classified as motorbikes) but in reality, we were told, the unit provides somewhere in the vicinity of 110W to the driveshaft. This is in addition to whatever the rider is pushing through the pedals.
> 
> There are two main battery options available: one that provides a total of 60 minutes of power assist and one that provides 90 minutes. The motor weighs 750g, the 60-minute battery accounts for 900g and the total package is 1.8kg. For the 90-minute battery option you’re looking at an extra 400g_
> 
> ...


I guess we should start getting suspicious when the peloton all start using saddle bags.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*why so dismissive*



BCSaltchucker said:


> good find on their specifications. crazy heavy batteries though, adding 4 lbs to a bike is not gonna work for pro road cycling unless it is a flat time trial maybe. and they probably grossly overestimate the real life run times unless they mean using them for assist at even less than 100 watts
> 
> and yeah, given the noise of that one, no way anyone used such an unsophisticated unit as a cheating device.


It appears that the UCI thinks riders would use them, and we have at least one rider who did. 4 pounds is not exactly a boat anchor. In the peloton you have riders ranging in weight by 40 lbs or more.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

DaveG said:


> It appears that the UCI thinks riders would use them, and we have at least one rider who did. 4 pounds is not exactly a boat anchor. In the peloton you have riders ranging in weight by 40 lbs or more.


yeah 100w would be almost 25% gain in power for a < 4% cost in total weight.


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

Doping is doping. It is cheating and should be viewed the same (mechanical or pharmacological). As I read this, I kept thinking about how people justified cheating previously, "everybody was doing it, so the best racer still wins". I would love to hear their belief on mechanical doping. Everybody has a motor, so the best racer still wins. It's all strategy in how they use the motor. 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the bikes with an internal motor weigh any more than those without (at least at the pro level). I remember seeing how technology has created a bike much lighter than the UCI limit. As such, many pro bikes have heavier components or weights added to their bikes. Simple solution, no weights, just add motor.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

BCSaltchucker said:


> Greg Lemond has been ranting about it for a year now. Now I know he has no pull in the UCI, but he does make a lot of noise and gets media attention. I think he was right to take on the problem to make folks aware of the evolving tech.
> 
> Hidden motor demonstration with Greg LeMond | CyclingTips


I thought the whole issue was a joke 5-6 years ago when Fabian Cancellara was accused of it. Not so sure now. 

And the extra weight? Not an issue. Don't UCI riders have a weight limit on their bikes of something like 16 lbs? I think a lot of them end up having to add weight to their bikes to stay above the limit.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

pmf said:


> I thought the whole issue was a joke 5-6 years ago when Fabian Cancellara was accused of it. Not so sure now.


I'm with you. I love watching Cancellara race, but the very dismissive attitude that he, Hesjedal, and others have to the very idea of a motor being used at the pro level is insulting. 

Cancellara shrugs off motor talk - VeloNews.com

If it were me, I wouldn't act like this is a joke because it looks absolutely possible that he used a motor. 

It sucks that almost everything in the sport has to be questioned as tainted or not.


----------



## JackDaniels (Oct 4, 2011)

They are both cheating. But take an elite amateur time trialer who has an FTP of 375w. He will podium state and possibly national events.

Give him 125 free watts and he probably wins the world TT and soundly beats Wiggins hour record. And if he happens to weigh 160 or less, he's probably beating Froome up Ventoux.

You can pump that same guy up with every PED known to man and he's still not gonna get a result at the world tour level.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

JackDaniels said:


> They are both cheating. But take an elite amateur time trialer who has an FTP of 375w. He will podium state and possibly national events.
> 
> Give him 125 free watts and he probably wins the world TT and soundly beats Wiggins hour record. And if he happens to weigh 160 or less, he's probably beating Froome up Ventoux.
> 
> You can pump that same guy up with every PED known to man and he's still not gonna get a result at the world tour level.


The system he'd need to accomplish those feats would not be concealable. The battery tech to drive 125w for an hour would be hard to hide. 

I can see a small system having big benefits in CX. A rider could get rests in places where others were working with something that would allow 6 x 30sec. @100w. That would be enough for a cheating rider to make an improbably hard attack late in the race. CX also allows for fast bike changes.

All that said, biological doping is worse. Without Doctor supervision riders were killing themselves to win bike races. The racing isn't meaningfully slower than it was in the late 90's so it stands to reason that it's still happening.


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

I'd bet they would go hand in hand. The user of either would blur the distinction.


----------



## mudge (May 15, 2010)

pittcanna said:


> Now we have a recognized case of mech doping; which is the worst offense?
> 
> Mech doping or PED's


Not doping, fraud. Or cheating, if you prefer. Misusing any word, like doping, diminishes its meaning.

When any sort of cheating is called 'doping', then true doping becomes no worse than 34mm wide tires


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I think cheating comes In many forms. There can be spontaneous cheating such as last year when Nibali latched onto the team car and they accelerated to get him back up to the front. It was a spontaneous decision but it also included the team as the were using a vehicle to cheat. He was disqualified and no team discipline that I know of. Doping is carefully planned and can involve the team or an individual or some team mates while others are not aware. Sneaky Pete motors is planned and would involve the team as the mechanic needs to prepare the bike. I cannot even imagine all the different ways that cheating occurs. Even the UCI has been accused of accepting bribes to cover up a positive test for Armstrong.

Careful monitoring and fair sanctions is what is needed. However even that can be crooked. Basically I have no clue what they should do or how it should happen. It's a big mess and I am glad that I am not part of it. However I will still watch the net and see who comes out on top of the races during the year. I do not want to sit on the couch and watch it as bike racing is boring to watch.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

mudge said:


> Not doping, fraud. Or cheating, if you prefer. Misusing any word, like doping, diminishes its meaning.
> 
> When any sort of cheating is called 'doping', then true doping becomes no worse than 34mm wide tires


Yes I agree but when they call using a motor a _mechanical fraud_, it makes having a motor sound no worse than 34mm tires. Or using a TT frame that is more aero than the 3:1 ratio.


----------



## mudge (May 15, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Yes I agree but when they call using a motor a _mechanical fraud_, it makes having a motor sound no worse than 34mm tires. Or using a TT frame that is more aero than the 3:1 ratio.


Fine. Call it cheating. Call it using a motor. Just don't call it doping. Of all the things it is, it isn't doping.


----------

