You are reading a single comment by @Jon. and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Circumstantial evidence at best.
If indeed these motors have been used in competition they must be pretty sophisticated to remain undetected whilst dealing with the peaks and troughs of power output, as well as the hopping on and off the bike that you get in cyclocross. It's not climbing a mountain for an hour with a steady power output, that's for sure.
Jon.
hippy
OK, but this is veering calling correlation causation. Save a short bit at the top, Wyman's cadence is consistent, as is Simpson's. It looks like a fairly consistent gradient and at the start of a race I would expect that from the leaders.
As for the time gaps mentioned by Jon, that evidence falls down as soon as the riders are coming off that road section because gap has fallen very quickly. That single podium position is as easily chalked up to a perfect wave of form, course, weather and a spot of luck as it is to a motor. It's the kind of single podium position that has littered palmares around the world and only been followed up with a smattering of top tens and little else.
You can't really burn a witch based on performance shown in less than a minute of video from the start of the race. It's not even close to substantial evidence.
What's the motor that's been found? How is it actuated? What it the loading capacity? What does that mean for a course of the profile of the Kopperberg and has that been reflected for all of the times we know she was on that bike. i.e., did she ride that hill worse when we know she was on a different bike? That's the kind of information that will indicate that she used a motor, not this biased guesswork.