The first thing I thought when I saw this was “Really? No one could design a smaller & simpler unit than* that* for checking for motors?”
Does this mean the smaller, quicker iPad method of testing has been insufficient?
yes the iPad proved to be not reliable…
Well that sucks. I don’t foresee that technology trickling down to every cycling race and tri.
Wait…the UCI official tags the bike, and the rider or mechanic has 30 minutes to bring it to the machine?! If I heard that correctly, that seems…less than ideal.
Some manufacturer needs to develop a clear composite for their teams and be done with it.
Am I the only one that is annoyed by describing the use of motors as a form of doping? Cheating is cheating, plain and simple. Using motors is cheating, not doping. Doping is a form of cheating involving use of PEDs.
So cutting the course isn’t cheating, it’s “course doping”? etc. etc.
I don’t disagree, but I def. needed a short description for the post title.
Wait…the UCI official tags the bike, and the rider or mechanic has 30 minutes to bring it to the machine?! If I heard that correctly, that seems…less than ideal.
Or, just watch the mechanic remove the crankset for inspection.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. How long are they athletes on the bike after the race? If we are talking Tour level, they can just get bikes from team bus/car to warm down etc.
They have the podium within what 15-20 mins of the race being over right? Don’t know why they’d have a problem turning in a bike to get analyzed.
The issue is that it’s then going to create more longer day on the bike mechanic staff. Cyclists won’t have a care in world or even know. But this is likely to be like doping controls. Finisher place 148th isn’t going to need his bike checked. But final selection of 11 riders in breakeaway or winning move, ok let’s analyze those. Looks to take what 2-3 mins of actual analyzing per bike (didn’t see how long it actually takes to x-ray it).
So, what’s the complaint?
I’d rather run a bike thru that than tear down a bike to prove it.
I think a good deterrent would be to have manufacturers of bikes have some kind of carbon layup that makes it impossible to implement in the frame. Fill in that area where the motor would go. And if you try to remove that material in that area to make room, the design is such that it would destroy the frame.
This would create issues for Di2 batteries but they could always implement the Di2 battery in the stem instead or something.
Am I the only one that is annoyed by describing the use of motors as a form of doping? Cheating is cheating, plain and simple. Using motors is cheating, not doping. Doping is a form of cheating involving use of PEDs.
So cutting the course isn’t cheating, it’s “course doping”? etc. etc.
There seems to be at least one of you in every comment section, super upset at the terminology. 
I get your complaint. But the term is catchy, it’s super clear to everyone what it means, and I think it’s here to stay. So probably time to move on the to the “acceptance” stage of grief.
The iPads were never meant as a standalone solution. They are used to determine if the bike is suspicious and then the bikes had to be disassembled. The x-ray cabinet will actually speed this up, since you won’t need to tear down the bike to do the check if the cabinet is on site. The mechanics will be way less displeased that they have to bring a bike to a cabinet for a 5min scan, than to have to break down the bike for a check…
The issue with the ipads is that they struggled with some of the wheel based motor systems, but they are a pretty solid first form of screening.
The challenge with the rolling x-ray cabinets is the cost, meaning that there will likely be only a few units at the disposal of the UCI (and I assume that the ITU will likely get on board in the next year with those, given that they are already using the tablet scanners) to deploy to races. That doesn’t mean that they can’t do motor checks at other races using the tablets, and the old disassembly model for secondary checks.
The tablet scans are fast too, my bike was checked before worlds in Penticton, and I just had to remove my water bottles from the bike and then left my bike with the guy for like 3min while he did his scan, and then was good to go. Small price to pay for the piece of mind that it’ll be pretty hard for anyone to get away with using a motor in the race…
I think a good deterrent would be to have manufacturers of bikes have some kind of carbon layup that makes it impossible to implement in the frame. Fill in that area where the motor would go. And if you try to remove that material in that area to make room, the design is such that it would destroy the frame.
That’s probably the best idea I’ve heard so far. The only caveat would be a copycat one-off frame.
The first thing I thought when I saw this was “Really? No one could design a smaller & simpler unit than* that* for checking for motors?”
Does this mean the smaller, quicker iPad method of testing has been insufficient?
https://www.youtube.com/…-iRwwquk7v0&t=9s
My first thought was “I wonder if steel frames will make a comeback in pro racing now?” 
With this technology, why not just go full TSA and have them put their bikes on a conveyor belt at the end of the race and send them through the machine?
Nah, lithium nano-coating in the paint is where it’s at!
The machine looks about as fast and nimble as a circa 1995 CAT scan unit. No conveyer belts running through that thing.
I think they should have crowdsourced the design of the anti-motor machine. I just read that Starbucks is offering a $10 million challenge to solicit designs for a cup that’s easier to recycle. Now, I’m not saying the UCI has that kind of money to throw around, but that X-ray machine can’t possibly be making it to every race. There absolutely needs to be an affordable, portable technology that can make it into every race directors toolbox to prevent cheats. Including in sanctioned IM races if motors could be actually a reality in racing (yes I know about the 3 busts)!
The machine looks about as fast and nimble as a circa 1995 CAT scan unit. No conveyer belts running through that thing.
I think they should have crowdsourced the design of the anti-motor machine. I just read that Starbucks is offering a $10 million challenge to solicit designs for a cup that’s easier to recycle. Now, I’m not saying the UCI has that kind of money to throw around, but that X-ray machine can’t possibly be making it to every race. There absolutely needs to be an affordable, portable technology that can make it into every race directors toolbox to prevent cheats. Including in sanctioned IM races if motors could be actually a reality in racing (yes I know about the 3 busts)!
Aaah…but the use of a “Petite Curie” has such a French legacy…
https://history.aip.org/exhibits/curie/war1.htm
Seems like it’d be simpler to weigh bikes at the beginning of the season in full complement, possibly x-ray them once, and engrave the weight on the bike. Then each race the top finisher’s bikes get re-weighed and compared with the engraved weight. A discrepancy triggers a closer look.
That’s certainly a good theory. I feel like I’m thinking like a criminal here, but what’s to stop a team from adding the (equivalent) motor weight in lead shot for the pre-season weigh in. I think I need to take off my tinfoil hat now.