Cyclists drafting behind motorcycles: 5 criticisms, 5 answers.

On Dutch National Radio NPO Radio1, a motorcycle rider criticized our research on the aerodynamic benefits for a cyclist when drafting behind a motorcycle (17/7/2019, 21:44, https://www.nporadio1.nl/gemist). He especially heavily criticized Dutch (NOS) & Belgian (VRT – Sporza) tv commentators because during broadcasts they mentioned when motorcycles were riding to close to cyclists. While it actually is the task of scientists, engineers, journalists and tv commentators to provide correct information and to point to problems.

Criticism is welcome but arguments should make sense, should supersede emotion and should be based on knowledge of the issue at hand (incl. media items). Because this criticism was outed publicly, most arguments were incorrect and we were not invited to the interview (pity), we now also respond publicly. Below 5 items of criticism and 5 short answers.

CRITICISM 1: “Reality is different. We as motorcycle riders do not ride in wind tunnel”.

This is the classical comment to try to derail inconvenient wind tunnel test results. If one does not believe that wind tunnel tests are an accurate representation of reality, one should then also stop taking planes and driving over long-span bridges because these are designed & tested in wind tunnels (figure below)

CRITICISM 2: “The study did not consider side wind”.

We investigated the most common condition, i.e. no strong cross-wind. We stressed this in every press release and in every interview. There are an infinite number of conditions that can be studied. But we do not have infinite budget & infinite time... With an infinite workload we would probably not have been ready before the start of the Tour de France.

CRITICISM 3: “Motorcycle riders generally do not ride straight in front of the riders”.

This is incorrect. Often this is exactly what happens, and often there are even multiple motors providing a wind screen covering almost the entire road (see figure below). In addition, a slipstream is not straight line behind the motor but widens out, so there are also benefits in staggered position. Evidence below in top left figure.

CRITICISM 4: “You show a lack of respect for motorcycle riders”.

We primarily provide objective facts & figures. We have always stressed our respect for the cyclists, teams and motor riders. See excerpts in figure below from our press releases, webcasts, scientific article. We do not see how we could have been clearer.

CRITICISM 5: “We do not understand why this is not discussed with the UCI”.

On Dutch TV and in dozens of interviews in national and international newspapers and websites, I stated that we communicated this already to the UCI. They did not reply. The CPA (Cyclistes Professionels Associés) however has indicated to be very pleased with our research and is now working on it and are in touch with UCI trying to enforce changes in the regulations.

Finally, aero benefits for cyclists due to motorcycles are a real problem. It is a pity that the motor rider in the interview did not acknowledge the problem & condemn excesses. When ever did diminishing a problem bring us closer to a solution?

#TUEindhoven #Kuleuven #ANSYS #Cycling #Aerodynamics #LeTour #TDF2019 #CPA #CPAcycling #Motorcycle #Drafting #NOS #NOSwielrennen #NPO #NPOradio1 #VRT #Sporza #Sporza_koers

-------- END OF ARTICLE --------