Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Technology

War on Hidden Motors Goes Undercover (reuters.com) 81

Posted by msmash from the mechanical-doping dept.
ItsJustAPseudonym shares a Reuters story:The International Cycling Union (UCI) has intensified its fight against mechanical doping, employing intelligence-driven methods to combat increasingly sophisticated alleged cheating in professional cycling. ItsJustAPseudonym adds: They call the use of hidden motors "mechanical doping". In 2010 it led to the ban of a rider from Belgium who had a hidden motor in her seat-tube during a cyclocross event.

"It's a bit of a technological arms race. Components are getting lighter, smaller. Easier to conceal, which is harder to detect", according to Nick Raudenski, the UCI Head of the Fight Against Technological Fraud.

War on Hidden Motors Goes Undercover More | Reply

War on Hidden Motors Goes Undercover

Comments Filter:

  • unsportsmanlike buttock comfort (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2025 @03:34PM (#65540176)
    You could just issue them all identical bikes at the starting line.

    • You could just issue them all identical bikes at the starting line.

      Like car races, bike races are not really competitions between individuals. Part of success is determined by the team is putting together a better bike.

      • Sure. But all that is weird and unrelatable to me. I don't care much about bike engineering or bike athleticism. But if I did care about one of them, I can't imagine caring about the other one.
        • Then why did you make your original post? You're clearly not interested and have no desire to understand why your suggestion is nonsense.

          Professional Cycling may not be your bag, but there are an estimated 470M fans of professional cycling, with the Tour de France reaching 1 billion viewers via TV and streaming. With that kind of reach, the sport is heavily sponsored for it's advertising value. There's a reason Lance Armstrong is a household name and is worth tens of millions of dollars, and there is

          • That's where I see the problem in the sport. Bicycling on a single-rider bike is inherently an individual sport. Differences in equipment are just a way for wealthy people and organizations to buy better results. "Strategy" in this sport is often on the edge of unsportsmanlike behavior, at least from my perspective. Teams deciding who should be the winner among those on the team, and whatnot. But monied interests like the status quo so it will stay like that.
            Cycling should be on the same field as singl

            • Bicycling on a single-rider bike is inherently an individual sport.

              There's a variable amount of truth to that, depending on the type of event. For example, the big stage races like the Tour de France have an enormous amount of teamwork involved. To be sure, the winners necessarily are tremendous athletes, but they also need to be on a good team.

          • There's a reason Lance Armstrong is a household name...

            I'm not into bicycle racing, so I have to ask: is he by any chance descended from Jack Armstrong [wikipedia.org]?

      • The SailGP sailboat racing teams run identical boats. The F50s are even all made in the same shop. That sets them apart from other racing games. In addition, all of the telemetry (and there's a lot) of each boat is available to all teams.

        The goal is to distill everything as much as possible so that only the skill of the sailors makes the difference.

        If you saw the movie, "Tenet", the sailing scene took place onboard an F50. With only a three person crew but, hey, it's a movie...

        Anyway... enough about sailboa

        • It's one way to go, but marketing bikes and driving the technology forward is an important part of most bike racing. And unlike other leagues like "stock" car racing, which uses cars built from the ground up, you can buy a bicycle that's pretty much like one the professionals use.

      • I guess but this isn't like F1 levels of engineering. Every major bike brand on the tour is going to have a carbon fiber frame, carbon wheels with carbon group sets from one of the 3 manufacturers (Shimano, Campy, SRAM) and the UCI still has rules the bikes have to fit within in terms of geometries.

        Like we can go to Trek, Look, Time, Specialized and look at their top end models, are they that different from each other? If there wasn't rampant cheating I'd say sure but here we are.

        It's a bit like music, you

        • True it is not at anywhere close to the level of F1's engineering but, like F1's engineering, I think it is good to encourage teams like this to innovate. A lot of F1's innovative features, like electronic gear selection, has made it into the cars we buy today and some of the tech developed to improve suspensions with a new kind of damper has made it into earthquake protection for buildings.

          Having a system which encourages companies to invest engineering in making something like a bike better is not a ba

          • Having a system which encourages companies to invest engineering in making something like a bike better is not a bad thing, and can not only benefit everyday bikes but may also have applications entirely outside of the cycling world.

            In that case, we should *encourage* cheating like this. It will spark innovation in motor and battery size and performance. In fact, I'd write the rules to say that the bicycle has to meet certain requirements for mass and volume, but beyond that anything is fair game. You want

          • Sure I just don't think there is nearly the degree of innovation in cycling as F1 to discount the idea of standardizing the racing bikes here. There have been 2 big innovations to pro-level cycling and I don't think either came from the teams but from those manufacturers. Carbon fiber and electronic shifting and both of those things were developed over 40 years ago but have become accessible in the last 10-20.

            Everything else is just making the same basic parts but lighter and stiffer and better.

            I mean the

          • I can't think of stuff that's benefited everyday bikes much. A lot of the stuff is counterproductive because it's less reliable and more finicky.

            The aero shit is fun. It doesn't make a lot of difference, but the internally routed cables can be a major pain to maintain (and so more expensive if you pay someone to do it). The pressed spokes are fine, I kind of want those, and the things like handlebars and seat posts shave seconds for a pro and defeat accessories.

            Electronic shifting... I think you'd have to b

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        "Part of success is determined by the team is putting together a better bike."

        False. Part of teams marketing bicycles to you is building an image of a better bike.

        • False. Part of teams marketing bicycles to you is building an image of a better bike.

          They are both true. With the marketing ingredient being both larger and of more importance to the money people. Having everyone ride the exact same bike would kill both.

    • Pro level bikes are often custom made for fit. Even amateurs often have to experiment with different stem sizes and crank arm lengths to get fit right. It would be luck of the draw whether the "off the rack" sizes worked for the competitors. Someone with unusually short/long limbs would be at a disadvantage.

      • Pro level bikes are often custom made for fit.

        And parts, like brakes, gear systems, etc... I have a friend who bikes competitively and his ride is carbon fiber with individually chosen parts, often from different countries. It cost him about $6k (US) to build.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by unrtst ( 777550 )

        Having a standard issue bike for all racers does not preclude doing a proper fit for each rider.You mentioned stem sizes and crank arm lengths... if you're aware of those components, you're probably also aware of how easy those can be changed (in most cases). The existing riders already have support teams and spare bikes and parts and are fully equipped to swap out those parts. Frame size and geometry would likely be a harder sell for the existing riders, and there's lots of variation there.

        If they did stan

        • If they issued the bikes in advance and allowed full fitting and training rides, then you are back to the same problem. Once the team can change things like cranks, they can theoretically change it to one with a hub motor and hide some batteries in the tubes.

        • I think in regards to the frame weight differences it would be interested to see if that matters on a relative basis. I ride a 53cm frame but someone riding a 61cm frame is likely already taller and heavier than me but also can probably input more force into the pedals so I wonder if it actually washes out in the end that the weight disadvantage is subsumed by the increased power of a larger rider?

          Especially when as you mentioned the minimum weight exists. Considering it's not uncommon today to build a bi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        at least they try really hard to convince you that it matters. The fact is that crank length has virtually no effect and "stem size" is trivially changed.

        The correct answer is to stop caring about bicycling competition. Cheating is pervasive in society today, stop being invested in bad faith activities.

        • They don't need to try to "convince me". I know this because I've done my own experimenting with bike fit. Even 1-2cm difference in stem length make a big difference in how comfortable I feel on a bike, which would impact my performance if I were racing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      You could just issue them all identical bikes at the starting line.

      That doesn't work, because if you haven't noticed, everyone is not the same. Despite even the US government trying to come up with a "completely average person" via the US Air Force (the USAF wanted to come up with a completely standardized cockpit and equipment, so they measured all their pilots to come up with the average person. They did this by capturing dozens of measurements and then finding the average (or more likely, mode). However,

  • Couldn't they pass all the bikes through a box that delivers a high-energy eletromagnetic pulse, or microwaves for a split second or something to destroy any electronics inside while leaving the mechanical things intact?

    Or course stuff like electronic derailleurs or cycle computers would have to be taken off first.

    • Just tear down the bike(s) of any winner and if any device is found they are disqualified from the race and banned for life from any others.

    • What I would do: Have the race sponsors dole out randomly selected identical bikes to each competitor just before the race. They could even use crappy Huffy bikes as long as they're all the same.

      That would kill two birds with one stone: Making sure that there's no cheating, and eliminating the ridiculous obsession the cycling world has with trying to create bikes that weigh only a few grams. As a bonus, the best *athlete* would probably win.

      • It's not just cycling, we should do that for all sports. Have everyone use the same equipment. Swimming? No you get the same swimsuit type made with the same material. Tennis? Same racquet. F1? Same car. Golf? That's not a sport, but still, same clubs. It really would bring sports back to athleticism and skill, not tech advancements. Unfortunately, sports equipment = money, and without the money from those sponsors, professional sports cannot exist.
        • Not only would this benefit the current game/sport, it would also allow us to understand how the game evolves over time. I want to see the Tour de France done with the same steel bikes and 5-speed hubs they were using in 1985, and see how the modern athlete's times compare. Maybe they'd be way worse. Maybe they'd be better, but then we'd know it was the athletes getting better and not the bikes.

          Imagine trying to do baseball stats if the distance between the bases was constantly changed over time.

      • The UCI already has a minimum weight limit for bikes. Pro-level bikes are already considerably heavier than they could be (like 30% or more from what is technically possible).

        Identical bikes wouldn't be fair because they would select for people with body types that maximize the identical bike. A 6'3 guy with a 35inch inseam would get destroyed by a 5'9 guy with a 30 inch inseam if they were all issued a "medium" size off the shelf bike because the tall guy wouldn't be able to fully extend his leg on the ped

        • OK, give them all one of those travel bikes that folds up into a suitcase. That way nobody would have the advantage of a good fit.

    • I expect it's quite a bit of effort to remove an electronic derailleur, and then put it back and recalibrate it.

      I'm a bit old skool and things it's a bit daft to be honest.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        Electric derailleurs do not require recalibration when remounted. It's very easy to do if you need to, but the fact is that it is not necessary.

        But yes, the idea is stupid, as is the assumption that everyone wants cheating to stop.

        • Unless they get knocked badly (which was always the source of recalibration before I gave up and went back to friction shifters). They certainly have controls for adjusting on board. Unless they actually detect the gear position laterally, but I wasn't aware they did that. Bit I've not been keeping track.

          • (which was always the source of recalibration before I gave up and went back to friction shifters)

            Why all the way back to paddles and not, say, indexed cable brifters? I have a bike (one of two) that is 6-speed friction and I like the paddles but not on my always this bike bike.

    • You propose a billion euro/dollar development of a military-grade weapon.
      1. Nobody would be crazy enough to operate it close to the public.
      2. As it is a dual-use technology (civilian + military applications), many national Cycling Federations (at least the 27 European ones) would have rules preventing the funding of such initiatives (since they all receive public money).
      3. Even if the UCI could bypassing its member federations, the parent organisation IOC has as its 1st principle "building a peaceful and be

    • Couldn't they pass all the bikes through a box that delivers a high-energy eletromagnetic pulse, or microwaves for a split second or something to destroy any electronics inside

      This would have to be pretty powerful to penetrate a metal frame and not only can you harden electronics against this but you can probably avoid them all together. Effectively all they need is a motor, a power source and a switch and any EM pulse powerful enough to destroy them will probably melt the frame.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        An EM pulse is a pulse, it would not last long enough to melt a frame.

        And frames are typically carbon fiber, not metal.

        And these motors may very well be brushless, thus requiring electronics for control.

        TLDR: Your comment was an inside-the-park home run of stupid, as was the comment you replied to.

    • the shifters are electronic nowadays

  • Automatic jail time? (Score:3)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2025 @03:50PM (#65540222)

    And a lifetime ban from professional sports.

    • Jail time and the public cost therein for violating a private sports organizations rules?

      Should we jail NBA 2K25 cheaters too? How about people who exaggerate on their resumes? Or people who photoshop their pictures on dating sites?

      • We aren't far from that now. Look at all the furor, at the highest political levels, over who is allowed to play on women's sports teams. Something obviously for whoever is hosting the game to decide, yet the idea that the law must be involved seems to be a foregone conclusion. It's not even discussed.

    • Meh, everyone in professional sports cheats. And The spectators want them to. Nobody wants to see you regular human beings doing regular human things. They want to see extraordinary Superman that don't exist in real life.

      Everybody is in on it but we all act aghast every time somebody gets caught cheating because that's part of the fun.

  • What if the motor is made out of meat (Score:3)

    by angryman77 ( 6900384 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2025 @04:06PM (#65540254)
    Somehow formed into the shape of muscles located in the legs of the cyclist?

  • Why does this so-called "sport" have so much cheating?!

    • I think because the difference cyclists at this level have between each other are so on the margins that small advantages are all it takes to go from middle of the pack to the top.

    • Every sport has a lot of cheating. The more money and/or prestige involved, the higher the incentive to cheat. Not sure what you mean by "so called sport". This is about as pure a sport as track and field, swimming, etc.. We're not talking about curling or trampoline acrobatics here. Most elite level sports have large numbers of top athletes that are doped to the limit of detectability. Careful schedules that taper off before a race or event can prevent even sophisticated anti-doping testing from catching t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kriston ( 7886 )

        I remember when "doping" meant getting an extra pint of blood transfused into the athlete's body. It's completely undetectable, but not good enough for today.

        Now "doping" means any kind of artificial performance-enhancing drug or method.

      • I was wondering about this "elite cycling is likely quite a bit cleaner now".

        Proof is simply performance, and mountain times in the Tour de France have slowed since the EPO days.

        Here's the analysis, scroll down to the graphs, they are very clear.

        https://archive.int.washington... [washington.edu]

    • No different from any other high-level sport. Weight lifting has steroid problems. Ball sports have both physical doping and spying allegations (such as the "sign stealing" scandal in Baseball). Auto racing has illegal modifications or things like fuel violations.

      Cycling is unique in that it is a human-powered mechanical device so there is potential for both mechanical and physical violations. Prior to the potential for motorization, there were also various other ways to have an illegal bike such as bikes u

    • Ask yourself what other sport has the physical demands of cycling.

      3 grand tours each year that are 2000 miles long...
      in 3 weeks...
      over 100 miles each day...
      over multiple mountains on any given day....
      while sprinting on flats at 40 mph.

      Plus dozens of day and several/day races.

      Marathoners are the only other mainstream sport close and that's generally pretty damned flat...lol

    • Do you ever follow any sports? Some people will cheat when they think they can get away with it. It doesn't even have to be sports, just life in general.

      Half of car racing is inspections before and after the race; it's created most of the rule book.
  • Wouldn't a clear bike fix this? Just force all top-level competition bikes to be clear or see-through, which allows for open visibility, which also means you can't hide a motor anywhere.

    • Sure, if you could invent a clear material that allows a 15lb bicycle with sufficient strength. A window would compromise the strength of a carbon fiber tube.

      • You can't make the carbon fibre clear? Is there no other material that would work? I honestly don't know, but it seems to be a reasonable solution, if you can see into the bike, you can't hide anything.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

          Carbon fiber is as black as graphite. Have you never seen the stuff for yourself? The epoxy can be clear but the CF cloth is very much not.

      • It doesn't have to be clear, just an open web frame with nowhere to hide a thing - no tubes only i-beams. We have the tech and apparently cyclists have the money or they wouldn't be throwing it into cheating.

    • Or keep the metal ones and use an airport X-ray scanner. Internet says they cost $40,000 (peanuts) https://simpleflying.com/how-m... [simpleflying.com]

      • Maybe require all bikes to be disassembled, and reassembled before the race, by an independent team, and held securely in storage, that way you couldn't hide anything in the bike beforehand. Apparently you can't make Carbon Fibre or other materials "clear" so that might not actually work, which I didn't know.

        • Disassembly and reassembly of each bike would likely be quite time consuming, and opens up the inspectors to some liability if the bike is not properly reassembled. Consider what could happen if improper reassembly results in failed brakes, a wheel coming loose, a seat falling off, or any of a number of failures.

          If going that far then consider the bikes being provided to the participants by those organizing the race. They'd be allowed some time for making their own adjustments, some familiarity rides, and

    • Wouldn't a clear bike fix this? Just force all top-level competition bikes to be clear or see-through, which allows for open visibility, which also means you can't hide a motor anywhere.

      I was thinking that required use of I-beams than pipes would remove the ability to hide a motor. It doesn't have to be I-beams, any similarly strong and light form that lacks internal hidden spaces would do. It would be trivial to have a visual inspection to rule out motors hidden in the frame.

      Or maybe the bikes must have holes drilled in the pipes to allow for visual inspections. It might take a kind of fiber optic device to conduct the inspection but that should be a small expense compared to other opt

  • Anyone else reminded of Monty Python? (Score:5, Funny)

    by blue trane ( 110704 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2025 @04:27PM (#65540322) Homepage Journal

    Morolowe: Yes, well, I mean, (clears throat) you know, four years ago, everyone knew the Italians were coating the insides of their legs with bolinaise, the Russians have been marinating themselves, One of the Germans, Biolek, was caught actually putting, uh, remolarde down his shorts. And the Finns were using tomato flavoured running shoes. Uh, I think there should either be unrestricted garnishing, or a single, Olympic standard mayonnaise.

    https://python.mzonline.com/sk... [mzonline.com]

  • Since such motors will generate a lot of heat, just have mobile FLIR/infrared cameras. It should be clearly visible.

    • Wow. I need to do that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Are you going to have a camera fixed on every bike in the race over several hours and 100+ miles? How are you accomplishing that?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by CQDX ( 2720013 )

        You put the cameras at the finish line, at mountain summits and intermediate sprint lines, where cheating would have the most benefit to the cheater.

  • Is there an article link or is this just a discussion topic?

  • At the race ... say, about 1/3 point, everyone stops at a checkpoint and swaps their bike with the person behind. Adjust your seat tube, bar height and seat-to-bar position, mount and cycle off, leaving the person following you to wait for his new bike to arrive.

    Personalised bike? Tough shit. You had a personalised bike for 1/3 of the race, and now it's down to you, the athlete, not your bike builder. I think it's called sport.

    For what it's worth, remember there are some motor formulae where every vehicle h

Slashdot Top Deals

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.

Close