Occams Razor says no.
A proper ebike won't stand a chance against the modern queen stage of the tour de france, even if ridden by a professional with appropriate gears otherwise, because the battery would run out half way on the first HC and it would just be a very heavy bike for the rest of the stage.
Same with a tiny motor - you gain tiny amount of force but you'll have to carry a full bidon with you on all the climbs, not to mention that the delicate mechanism can break easily.
I'd rather believe they're doping.
The bikes have a weight regulation that was set in the 90s, 6.8kg.
Ultra light bikes can be as light weight as 2.7kg. That gives 4kg to hide a battery and motor and still hit weight. A really good lithium battery offers 350 Wh/kg. 1kWh can grant 100 miles of range by itself.
That weight comes obvious in components. All teams are required to use widely available components and it's quite easy to spot one that's not normal. For the bike builds that are 4kg or even less, it's quite obvious that all components are non-standard.
You can save at max a bidon before rousing suspicion, and the whole operation is just not feasible in terms of cost vs. benefit.
> the whole operation is just not feasible in terms of cost vs. benefit.
Batteries and a motor are a huge benefit. Even if you can't squeeze in a full blown motor or 1kwh of battery, just getting an additional 200 or 300 kwh of assist in can make a huge difference.
As for cost, these guys are already doing crazy things like blood doping just to get a tiny edge.
By contrast, blood doping is much easier to get away with. Claim you had an altitude camp, inhaled CO or whatever, but you carry your blood with you.
A small motor had to fit in the tubes, somehow connect to a control, have to be integrated into the gearing which are constantly under about 300 W of torque and can be easily discovered via X-ray or maybe heat gun. That's a lot more risk vs. a much smaller reward since your laptop sized battery is likely less juice than a single energy gel.
While I don't believe they're being used to cheat in professional cycling, a motor would _definitely_ provide a massive advantage in a cycling race of any kind.
A motor easily provides enough power to overcome its weight, and they wouldn't need assistance for the entire race, just an edge at key moments.
motor yes, battery no.
Think of the riders themselves as incredibly efficient batteries and motors - they can also recharge at 120g carb/hour. The motor itself is just deadweight over most of this process.
But the weight doesn't matter most of the time - on flat sections and downhill, which are 90% of the distance covered, it's completely irrelevant.
For much of the stages, the top guys are not doing much work, they spare their legs for the climbs. They will hide in the pack, doing only very light work drafting. If you could put a smallish battery able to recharge on flat / downhill sections and only provides a boost on the critical uphill parts, that would be a massive advantage.
A lot hinges on this magical contraption that can both accept connection and command, deliver power in sufficient amount when needed while being integrated into the hub, light enough to hide in a bike and somehow even be able to recharge. Have you seen the ebikes that they sell and the hubs that they have?
Now it could definitely work if you only care about a single attack - not even a full climb, but maybe 200-300m where you want to distance your rivals, but the risk (not just of discovery, but of malfunction, etc) just doesn't seem to be worth it. There's domestiques for a reason.
Its real and I find it technologically fascinating as they were using the frame and wheel as motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_doping"Mechanical doping" what a nice way to say they're cheating
I think that's just a natural progression from the fact that doping was the main way to cheat in the past, so "mechanical" doping is just the new doping.
But also: no one's ever thought doping wasn't cheating anyway. It's certainly not a euphemism in cycling.
You wouldn't necessarily use mechanical doping to win the general classification, or even a particular stage.
More likely, you'd use it on select stages for very specific reasons... for example, a rider could use it to avoid the time cut on an ITT stage (effectively getting extra rest vs their competitors). Similarly, a pure sprinter could use it to stay in contention on a punchy "sprint" stage (like a stage that MvdP might be a favorite instead of a pure sprinter).
Edit - I don't think anybody is doing this at the top levels of pro cycling. Maybe in regional racing (masters, etc).
If I were responsible for a mechanical doping program, then I'd install the motors for the leadout and mountain domestique riders and leave the team leader clean. Who cares if they pay the weight penalty after peeling off if it means that they can provide extra support for those critical minutes?
> would just be a very heavy bike for the rest of the stage
Bikes in the Tour de France have a minimum weight of 6.8kg imposed by the UCI. So if you manage to build a normal bike that weights 5kg, you still have 1.8kg of weight available to try to add some more hidden power "without adding more weight to the bike" (small battery+engine, small compressed air tank, whatever).
> I'd rather believe they're doping.
Funnily enough, you're correct in your belief, even if by accident and in defiance of your own preconception. Mechanical doping is the topic your speaking about! :)
Here's some of the more obvious examples out there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSfLbALqUgM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZerARsCqAE
https://youtu.be/1CnyvcAFTlA?t=36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbg4BjZna4Y
This video covers a bit of the history of mechanical doping. https://youtu.be/JMZbU6on43k?t=610
A hybrid car trivially improves total energy input needed, since it replaces braking by generating heat by braking by storing energy later to be reused.
The same should he true here, right? The added energy needed to carry the weight of the motor would be easily overcome by the gains from regenerative braking?
Only if the motor were in the hub of the wheel, which given the typical size of the hubs, seems even less likely. Remember that bicycle drivetrains are typically one-way due to the ratchet, so you can't apply braking force via the chain.
Broadly speaking electric bikes don't use regenerative braking. It's not possible with a road bike drive train.
In any case, the weight of the motor is overcome by the motor itself, using the power stored in the battery.
These guys are not using their brakes nearly enough to make up for the amount of power they would use on the climbs, even on the descents.
Are you saying the physics of a bicycle are somehow different than a car going up and down hills? Or are you saying actually hybrid cars use more gasoline driving in hilly terrain as well, and their benefits only accrue in stop-go city traffic?
Physics and practical concerns are way, way different. You want to go as fast as possible down the descents in a bike race. You don't want to lose any kinetic energy and fall behind your opponents, so the only time you'd be using it is when you actually want to slow down. In a car, you might be braking/slowing down going downhill anyway, so that energy is better captured than used that moment.
There's also the matter of mass: lot more momentum/energy to be gained from a 1500kg car versus a 70kg bike + rider. That said, less energy needed for the motor so don't know how the math works out there.
Edit: all of this is moot anyway because of the point zettabomb made as well.
How much breaking is done during a race? Would a KERS style motor w/ capacitor be beneficial?
It would be extremely beneficial, but nearly impossible to integrate. Motors used for cheating in cycling are usually in the seat tube or down tube, where they can invisibly interface with the bottom bracket (between the pedals) and connect to batteries elsewhere in the frame. Because bicycles have a freewheel in the rear hub (chain doesn't move while coasting/braking)*, a KERS would have to be located in the tiny rear wheel hub.
*You can of course get a non-race bike with a fixed chain, but UCI rules require use of a freewheel.
Now I kind of want to see a separate Formula E style league that allows KERS
There is no way to do this unless the motor is inside the wheel hub and that would be instantly obvious - regular hubs are super thin and wouldn't fit a motor + capacitor inside them. And you'd need to tell it you want to brake somehow.
but cycling races are won by being able to put out a critical extra 50 watts for a few minutes at a key point in the race. I don't think anyone is trying to motor the whole way up a climb, but I can imagine how you could have a useful motor if you're just trying to run for ten minutes total? at that point it's analagous to the <250g drones that are out there.