|
|
New B&M 100lux headlight.
|
New B&M 100lux headlight.
Is the aluminum cover a heat sink ?
|
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 21/11/17 23:34, James wrote:
https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html Had one for about a year. Very bright, good beam patter, seems waterproof. Has DLR which powers the rear light, senso, standlicht, usual B+M quality at a price. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
James wrote:
https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html The 70lux IQ-XS is the new one. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282737652060 It does look strikingly similar to the new (and cheaper) 60lux, no-lens Herrmans... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/272905413444 The beam, judging from the bumm site's 70 lux photo, looks pretty awful. https://www.bumm.de/en/products/dynamo-scheinwerfer/parent/167/produkt/167rtsndi-01-schwarz-167rtsndi-silber.html? Nice metal bracket though, not as likely to break as the original IQ-X's plastic one. -- "Great minds think alike, though fools seldom differ." |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 12:33:32 +0100, Sepp Ruf
wrote: James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html The 70lux IQ-XS is the new one. B&M makes the 100 lux version, why bother with a 70 lux? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282737652060 It does look strikingly similar to the new (and cheaper) 60lux, no-lens Herrmans... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/272905413444 The beam, judging from the bumm site's 70 lux photo, looks pretty awful. https://www.bumm.de/en/products/dynamo-scheinwerfer/parent/167/produkt/167rtsndi-01-schwarz-167rtsndi-silber.html? Nice metal bracket though, not as likely to break as the original IQ-X's plastic one. Good beam pictures from Peter White, although limited to the products he carries understandably enough. The 100 lub B&M uses the same reflector and LED as the Schmid eDelux II: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/headlights.php |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 12:33:32 +0100, Sepp Ruf wrote: James wrote: [100 lux IQ-X] The 70lux IQ-XS is the new one. B&M makes the 100 lux version, why bother with a 70 lux? Simply because I was suspecting James might have confused the two. (The 70 lux lamp looks cheaper to build. AAND more cuter, but they'll have to have to add glitter, hot pink and champagne anodized options.) Good beam pictures from Peter White, although limited to the products he carries understandably enough. The 100 lub B&M uses the same reflector and LED as the Schmid eDelux II: The IQ-X sure uses a different reflector and LED than used in both the Cyo-Premium & eDelux-II. http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/headlights.php He even has an extra b&m-hl page, but for quite a while has not displayed new beam photography of his own. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS B&M plays the lux only racket. But their lights are poor lumens/lux ratio. Lux only says the intensity at the brightest point anywhere in the beam. No mention if this is STVZO or not. Best guess is that it isn't. My STVZO working concept is more efficient than any STVZO beam currently on the market. It would need 18 watts for 100lux STVZO, and even that would probably not be able to stay under 2 lux on the horizon. ~65 lux at ~9 watts making 650+ lumens is about the ceiling for a single LED STVZO compliant light. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 02/12/17 12:33, Sepp Ruf wrote:
James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html The 70lux IQ-XS is the new one. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282737652060 It does look strikingly similar to the new (and cheaper) 60lux, no-lens Herrmans... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/272905413444 The beam, judging from the bumm site's 70 lux photo, looks pretty awful. https://www.bumm.de/en/products/dynamo-scheinwerfer/parent/167/produkt/167rtsndi-01-schwarz-167rtsndi-silber.html? Nice metal bracket though, not as likely to break as the original IQ-X's plastic one. I hate to disappoint, but that bracket is plastic. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 03/12/17 05:02, Oculus Lights wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS B&M plays the lux only racket. But their lights are poor lumens/lux ratio. Lux only says the intensity at the brightest point anywhere in the beam. No mention if this is STVZO or not. Best guess is that it isn't. https://www.bumm.de claim it is StVZO compliant. My STVZO working concept is more efficient than any STVZO beam currently on the market. It would need 18 watts for 100lux STVZO, and even that would probably not be able to stay under 2 lux on the horizon. ~65 lux at ~9 watts making 650+ lumens is about the ceiling for a single LED STVZO compliant light. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 10:39:17 AM UTC, Tosspot wrote:
On 03/12/17 05:02, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS B&M plays the lux only racket. But their lights are poor lumens/lux ratio. Lux only says the intensity at the brightest point anywhere in the beam. No mention if this is STVZO or not. Best guess is that it isn't. https://www.bumm.de claim it is StVZO compliant. You guessed wrong, Barry. I would be exceedingly surprised to discover that any BUMM lamp is not StVZO compliant. That is BUMM's USP or unique selling point and has always been. It is precisely this StVZO compliance that makes their lamps inferior to yours in output and superior to yours in beam shaping. Andre Jute Precision, even from traders, please! |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS Is there a power rating? 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright. I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance. My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 12/3/2017 4:28 PM, Oculus Lights wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS Is there a power rating? 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright. I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance. My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. It's not all that new, and it's not very well rated. The complaints I saw are a) the beam shape is too narrow, and b) the standlight is inadequate. Neither is surprising. Dynamo lights make trade-offs, and one major one is concentrating the limited available output into a narrow beam, which is a big compromise in terms of safety, both in seeing and being seen. The second is that the standlight is necessarily fairly weak because the internal battery or super-cap can't provide enough power. The only suitable dynamo light for use in the U.S., in a dynamo-only configuration, remains the Supernova E3 Triple 2. It has a proper beam, and is not StVZO compliant for on-road use in countries where StVZO compliance is mandatory. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:56:24 -0800, sms
wrote: On 12/3/2017 4:28 PM, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS Is there a power rating? 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright. I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance. My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. It's not all that new, and it's not very well rated. The complaints I saw are a) the beam shape is too narrow, and b) the standlight is inadequate. Neither is surprising. Dynamo lights make trade-offs, and one major one is concentrating the limited available output into a narrow beam, which is a big compromise in terms of safety, both in seeing and being seen. The second is that the standlight is necessarily fairly weak because the internal battery or super-cap can't provide enough power. The only suitable dynamo light for use in the U.S., in a dynamo-only configuration, remains the Supernova E3 Triple 2. It has a proper beam, and is not StVZO compliant for on-road use in countries where StVZO compliance is mandatory. Have you even looked at beam pictures? |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:21:44 AM UTC, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:56:24 -0800, sms wrote: On 12/3/2017 4:28 PM, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS Is there a power rating? 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright. I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance. My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. It's not all that new, and it's not very well rated. The complaints I saw are a) the beam shape is too narrow, and b) the standlight is inadequate. Neither is surprising. Dynamo lights make trade-offs, and one major one is concentrating the limited available output into a narrow beam, which is a big compromise in terms of safety, both in seeing and being seen. The second is that the standlight is necessarily fairly weak because the internal battery or super-cap can't provide enough power. The only suitable dynamo light for use in the U.S., in a dynamo-only configuration, remains the Supernova E3 Triple 2. It has a proper beam, and is not StVZO compliant for on-road use in countries where StVZO compliance is mandatory. Have you even looked at beam pictures? Thing is, I am a longtime user of BUMM lamps, because they come on the sort of bikes I buy, and I've even lashed out my own discretionary money for a few in the aftermarket, and I agree with Scharfie that the throw of the BUMM lamps sacrifice close spread for impressive distance. You can search for the photographs I published over the years; some on my page at my publisher.. If you search in this forum and elsewhere, I've said so for years. I'll say it again. BUMM lamps trade off the cyclist's safety by giving him light too far ahead to matter (except to the idiots who want to pretend they're "fast" who are perfectly well served by Edelux lamps, which are basically BUMM lamps in lycra for cafe racers) and stinting on the light where it matters, closer in where he can ride into the ditch (in my lanes) or through the glass (near the gutter on many city streets). I've also said for years, to a chorus of abuse from the usual RBT morons, that the BUMM horizontal cutoff endangers the cyclist's life on the roads because -- to take an instance from my own roads -- the cutoff is lower than most important signs, like STOP or YIELD, so the cyclist rides blithely into traffic which has a prior right of way and therefore, especially if the driver is local and familiar with the roads, traveling at a fair clip and less attentively than if approaching a known unmarked intersection. A few years ago, riding at night, I shot through a YIELD sign that my BUMM first series CYO didn't show me, and damn nearly became a statistic under a truck which had the right of way. Andre Jute It helps to put your mind in gear before you open your mouth, especially if all you will spout is some old enmity, rather than sense. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 12:29:00 AM UTC, Oculus Lights wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS Is there a power rating? 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright. I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance. My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. If you're old enough to remember when the Volkswagen Beetle had 6V lamps, that's the amount of light you get from the better BUMM lamps like the CYO series, though some of that power is wasted in hotspots that are the particular bugbear of the BUMM lamps for most of the people I know who use them, mostly tourers. As you can read elsewhere, I'm also unimpressed with the concentration of the light on a horizon that is well outside the reaction range, while stinting near field peripheral light which is much more important to many cyclists. In a single sentence: BUMM lamps, except to the passionate BUMMbuddies, have adequate since the first series CYO rather than sufficient. The fact that a choice has to be made between long throw and peripheral throw supports your thesis by suggesting that BUMM are pushing the limits of the current (and any foreseeable, because the German law limits them too) bicycle dynamos. BUMM has a battery lamp that produces 150 lux (claimed -- I haven't actually had my hands on the thing) and they used to sell an offroad battery lamp, 600 lumens, that made so much light that I would happily have put it on my Porsche in my rallying days, but today would get you arrested almost anywhere in Europe. When I borrowed one for a week, I discovered it also put out enough heat to keep your hands warm in winter, so there might be more light to be harvested from BUMMs reflector model by intelligent development. You might also want to discount anything you hear from idiots like Krygowski by the observable difference between an E-marked lamp on say a BMW and its American-approved and much dimmer version. Americans are used to, and expect, less light on the road than Europeans. Of course, the same applies in reverse: anything you hear from Europeans starts from a higher expectation of their lamps than Americans express. Personally, I'd be happy behind a bank of boss Cibies or with swivelling lamps (from Cibie, where else?) such as I was used to on my fave Citroen SM (a big GT with a Maserati engine and Citroen suspension; the swiveling lamps were of course banned in the US) in which through the night I'd average better than a ton all the way from the Forest of Devres where I then lived through France and down the spine of Italy, because I could see where I was going, and arrive at Nardo in the morning without a screaming migraine from eye-stress, ready to work. I was reminded of this when I read on another forum of the migraines the hotspots in his BUMM lamps give a bicycle tourer who likes riding through the night. Andre Jute Oh, to see, to see, and be safe -- why, I could go 5kph faster if I could only see where I'm going |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 12/3/2017 5:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:56:24 -0800, sms wrote: On 12/3/2017 4:28 PM, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS Is there a power rating? 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright. I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance. My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. It's not all that new, and it's not very well rated. The complaints I saw are a) the beam shape is too narrow, and b) the standlight is inadequate. Neither is surprising. Dynamo lights make trade-offs, and one major one is concentrating the limited available output into a narrow beam, which is a big compromise in terms of safety, both in seeing and being seen. The second is that the standlight is necessarily fairly weak because the internal battery or super-cap can't provide enough power. The only suitable dynamo light for use in the U.S., in a dynamo-only configuration, remains the Supernova E3 Triple 2. It has a proper beam, and is not StVZO compliant for on-road use in countries where StVZO compliance is mandatory. Have you even looked at beam pictures? Yes. The criticism was valid. Here is what the review stated: "The beam is too narrow In focussing all the output from the LED directly ahead to hit that magical 100 lux figure, B&M have made something akin to a laser… If it’s outside a narrow degree arc from the front, it’s going to be near invisible. Two examples. Take a standard lane-in-each-direction road, in complete darkness. If you’re cycling in the centre of the left-hand lane with the IQ-X, you may not see a road joining on your right as almost no light will reach the opposite verge. Or, take a winding single-lane road. As you lean the bike to take a right-hand bend, the right side of the beam dips too, and you cycle into complete darkness. I’ve often praised the way German light manufacturers make the best use of every photon by focussing the output into useful areas. With the IQ-X, B&M have gone too far." from https://www.darkerside.org/2017/02/bm-iq-x-dynamo-headlight-review/ |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 12/2/2017 8:02 PM, Oculus Lights wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS B&M plays the lux only racket. But their lights are poor lumens/lux ratio. Lux only says the intensity at the brightest point anywhere in the beam. No mention if this is STVZO or not. Best guess is that it isn't. My STVZO working concept is more efficient than any STVZO beam currently on the market. It would need 18 watts for 100lux STVZO, and even that would probably not be able to stay under 2 lux on the horizon. ~65 lux at ~9 watts making 650+ lumens is about the ceiling for a single LED STVZO compliant light. B&M could buy an integrating sphere and specify both lumens and lux. For obvious reasons they choose not to do so. The reports I've seen from users trying to estimate lumens on the B&M are a lot less than 650 lumens. I see most higher power lights now moving to multiple LEDs. I had one high power flashlight where the single LED got so hot that it unsoldered itself from the PC board. Similar to the problem that some laptops had with their graphics chips a while back. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 12/2/2017 8:02 PM, Oculus Lights wrote:
snip My STVZO working concept is more efficient than any STVZO beam currently on the market. It would need 18 watts for 100lux STVZO, and even that would probably not be able to stay under 2 lux on the horizon. ~65 lux at ~9 watts making 650+ lumens is about the ceiling for a single LED STVZO compliant light. Hint, hint: http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/80/CDBHD140L-G%20Thru.%20CDBHD1100L-G%20RevC-766480.pdf |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- This is my STVZO beam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXuE3JmBclM This light measured 325 lumens at Light and Motions lab about a year ago, from a single led. Different LEDs and higher power take this light up to twice the output. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 08:33:32 -0800, sms
wrote: On 12/3/2017 5:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:56:24 -0800, sms wrote: On 12/3/2017 4:28 PM, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS Is there a power rating? 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright. I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance. My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. It's not all that new, and it's not very well rated. The complaints I saw are a) the beam shape is too narrow, and b) the standlight is inadequate. Neither is surprising. Dynamo lights make trade-offs, and one major one is concentrating the limited available output into a narrow beam, which is a big compromise in terms of safety, both in seeing and being seen. The second is that the standlight is necessarily fairly weak because the internal battery or super-cap can't provide enough power. The only suitable dynamo light for use in the U.S., in a dynamo-only configuration, remains the Supernova E3 Triple 2. It has a proper beam, and is not StVZO compliant for on-road use in countries where StVZO compliance is mandatory. Have you even looked at beam pictures? Yes. The criticism was valid. Here is what the review stated: "The beam is too narrow In focussing all the output from the LED directly ahead to hit that magical 100 lux figure, B&M have made something akin to a laser… If it’s outside a narrow degree arc from the front, it’s going to be near invisible. Two examples. Take a standard lane-in-each-direction road, in complete darkness. If you’re cycling in the centre of the left-hand lane with the IQ-X, you may not see a road joining on your right as almost no light will reach the opposite verge. Or, take a winding single-lane road. As you lean the bike to take a right-hand bend, the right side of the beam dips too, and you cycle into complete darkness. I’ve often praised the way German light manufacturers make the best use of every photon by focussing the output into useful areas. With the IQ-X, B&M have gone too far." from https://www.darkerside.org/2017/02/bm-iq-x-dynamo-headlight-review/ Interesting review, thank you for that. Not sure that the photo mimics how the human eye sees at night (always a problem with this sort of thing). Well, in any event there are wider beams if you wish. Scroll down to the eDelux II/B&M Premium CYO/etc.: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/headlights.php Scroll further down to the Schmidt eDelux, which is what I have on my bike now (eDelux II on the way as we speak for my other bike). I find the eDelux quite adequate for in town and rural night riding. Heck, I have ridden dusk to dawn with B&M halogen lights and been quite happy with them- used them for 300k, 400k, 600k and 1200k brevets on roads (my eyes are now 15 years older and don't see quite as well by those lights as they used to). Not bright enough and you don't see well enough; too bright and you don't see well either because near objects are too bright and interfere with dark adaptation. Too narrow causes the same sort of problem. The top of the beam should be brighter than the bottom. Some scatter to the sides is helpful, scatter above the horizon is not (I notice even my new Subaru has a sharp upper cutoff to the headlight beams). It's easy to get into thinking that brighter is always better, in which case one will ultimately ride only during the day in full sun. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 10:47:49 PM UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 08:33:32 -0800, sms wrote: On 12/3/2017 5:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:56:24 -0800, sms wrote: On 12/3/2017 4:28 PM, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS Is there a power rating? 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright. I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance. My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. It's not all that new, and it's not very well rated. The complaints I saw are a) the beam shape is too narrow, and b) the standlight is inadequate. Neither is surprising. Dynamo lights make trade-offs, and one major one is concentrating the limited available output into a narrow beam, which is a big compromise in terms of safety, both in seeing and being seen. The second is that the standlight is necessarily fairly weak because the internal battery or super-cap can't provide enough power. The only suitable dynamo light for use in the U.S., in a dynamo-only configuration, remains the Supernova E3 Triple 2. It has a proper beam, and is not StVZO compliant for on-road use in countries where StVZO compliance is mandatory. Have you even looked at beam pictures? Yes. The criticism was valid. Here is what the review stated: "The beam is too narrow In focussing all the output from the LED directly ahead to hit that magical 100 lux figure, B&M have made something akin to a laser… If it’s outside a narrow degree arc from the front, it’s going to be near invisible. Two examples. Take a standard lane-in-each-direction road, in complete darkness. If you’re cycling in the centre of the left-hand lane with the IQ-X, you may not see a road joining on your right as almost no light will reach the opposite verge. Or, take a winding single-lane road. As you lean the bike to take a right-hand bend, the right side of the beam dips too, and you cycle into complete darkness. I’ve often praised the way German light manufacturers make the best use of every photon by focussing the output into useful areas. With the IQ-X, B&M have gone too far." from https://www.darkerside.org/2017/02/bm-iq-x-dynamo-headlight-review/ Interesting review, thank you for that. Not sure that the photo mimics how the human eye sees at night (always a problem with this sort of thing). Well, in any event there are wider beams if you wish. Scroll down to the eDelux II/B&M Premium CYO/etc.: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/headlights.php Scroll further down to the Schmidt eDelux, which is what I have on my bike now (eDelux II on the way as we speak for my other bike). I find the eDelux quite adequate for in town and rural night riding. Heck, I have ridden dusk to dawn with B&M halogen lights and been quite happy with them- used them for 300k, 400k, 600k and 1200k brevets on roads (my eyes are now 15 years older and don't see quite as well by those lights as they used to). Not bright enough and you don't see well enough; too bright and you don't see well either because near objects are too bright and interfere with dark adaptation. Too narrow causes the same sort of problem. The top of the beam should be brighter than the bottom. Some scatter to the sides is helpful, scatter above the horizon is not (I notice even my new Subaru has a sharp upper cutoff to the headlight beams). It's easy to get into thinking that brighter is always better, in which case one will ultimately ride only during the day in full sun. And even then there are those who believethat you MUST use super-bright flashing lights in the daytime. What I like to see on a website is an image of the ACTUAL BEAM PATTERN on the road not a wall. Cheers |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:19:24 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: What I like to see on a website is an image of the ACTUAL BEAM PATTERN on the road not a wall. Cheers It's difficult to see variations in brightness on the roadway, where everything on the road, trees, sidewalk, cars, dirt, concrete, asphalt, street signs, and such, reflect light by varying amounts. For example, if the road was made from a glass mirror, you would see nothing because all the light would be reflected in the forward direction and none would be reflected back towards the rider. Vertical objects, like people and trees, appear brighter because more light is reflected. So, if you want a "realistic" test, you end up measuring reflectivity, not illumination. Peter White's photos seem to be close to the way you are asking. The problem is that it is difficult to see the variations in intensity. If I accentuate the difference in light intensity using pseudo color proportional to the (reflected) light intensity, I get a more interesting picture. You can more easily see the hot spot(s), pattern, beam width, and side lighting, like this: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/Front-Light-False-Color/index.html Each (pseudo) color has a corresponding lux (brightness) value (which I didn't bother trying to calculate). All the photos on the page are of the same headlight and were derived from the color photo on Peter White's web site. (Ignore pseudo-color-01.jpg, which is a duplicate of one of the others). Unfortunately, I've done nothing with this beyond the initial tinkering. If any one is interested in how this was done, I'll dig out the info and post it. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 12/4/2017 10:47 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 08:33:32 -0800, sms wrote: On 12/3/2017 5:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:56:24 -0800, sms wrote: On 12/3/2017 4:28 PM, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS Is there a power rating? 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright. I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance. My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. It's not all that new, and it's not very well rated. The complaints I saw are a) the beam shape is too narrow, and b) the standlight is inadequate. Neither is surprising. Dynamo lights make trade-offs, and one major one is concentrating the limited available output into a narrow beam, which is a big compromise in terms of safety, both in seeing and being seen. The second is that the standlight is necessarily fairly weak because the internal battery or super-cap can't provide enough power. The only suitable dynamo light for use in the U.S., in a dynamo-only configuration, remains the Supernova E3 Triple 2. It has a proper beam, and is not StVZO compliant for on-road use in countries where StVZO compliance is mandatory. Have you even looked at beam pictures? Yes. The criticism was valid. Here is what the review stated: "The beam is too narrow In focussing all the output from the LED directly ahead to hit that magical 100 lux figure, B&M have made something akin to a laser… If it’s outside a narrow degree arc from the front, it’s going to be near invisible. Two examples. Take a standard lane-in-each-direction road, in complete darkness. If you’re cycling in the centre of the left-hand lane with the IQ-X, you may not see a road joining on your right as almost no light will reach the opposite verge. Or, take a winding single-lane road. As you lean the bike to take a right-hand bend, the right side of the beam dips too, and you cycle into complete darkness. I’ve often praised the way German light manufacturers make the best use of every photon by focussing the output into useful areas. With the IQ-X, B&M have gone too far." from https://www.darkerside.org/2017/02/bm-iq-x-dynamo-headlight-review/ Interesting review, thank you for that. Not sure that the photo mimics how the human eye sees at night (always a problem with this sort of thing). Well, in any event there are wider beams if you wish. Scroll down to the eDelux II/B&M Premium CYO/etc.: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/headlights.php Scroll further down to the Schmidt eDelux, which is what I have on my bike now (eDelux II on the way as we speak for my other bike). I find the eDelux quite adequate for in town and rural night riding. Heck, I have ridden dusk to dawn with B&M halogen lights and been quite happy with them- used them for 300k, 400k, 600k and 1200k brevets on roads (my eyes are now 15 years older and don't see quite as well by those lights as they used to). Not bright enough and you don't see well enough; too bright and you don't see well either because near objects are too bright and interfere with dark adaptation. Too narrow causes the same sort of problem. The top of the beam should be brighter than the bottom. Some scatter to the sides is helpful, scatter above the horizon is not (I notice even my new Subaru has a sharp upper cutoff to the headlight beams). It's easy to get into thinking that brighter is always better, in which case one will ultimately ride only during the day in full sun. I did a short (15 mile) night ride with a friend last night. Usually I take my utility bike, set up with Shimano hub dyno and B&M IQ Premium, but last night I used a different bike with an old Union dyno and a B&M Eyc. My friend had some lower end battery headlight. He ended up shutting off his headlight on the bike trail portion of the ride. He was worried about his battery running out, and the Eyc beam was perfectly fine for both of us at speeds up to the 20 mph we hit on the downhills. -- - Frank Krygowski |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:40:39 AM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:19:24 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: What I like to see on a website is an image of the ACTUAL BEAM PATTERN on the road not a wall. Cheers It's difficult to see variations in brightness on the roadway, where everything on the road, trees, sidewalk, cars, dirt, concrete, asphalt, street signs, and such, reflect light by varying amounts. For example, if the road was made from a glass mirror, you would see nothing because all the light would be reflected in the forward direction and none would be reflected back towards the rider. Vertical objects, like people and trees, appear brighter because more light is reflected. So, if you want a "realistic" test, you end up measuring reflectivity, not illumination. Peter White's photos seem to be close to the way you are asking. The problem is that it is difficult to see the variations in intensity. If I accentuate the difference in light intensity using pseudo color proportional to the (reflected) light intensity, I get a more interesting picture. You can more easily see the hot spot(s), pattern, beam width, and side lighting, like this: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/Front-Light-False-Color/index.html Each (pseudo) color has a corresponding lux (brightness) value (which I didn't bother trying to calculate). All the photos on the page are of the same headlight and were derived from the color photo on Peter White's web site. (Ignore pseudo-color-01.jpg, which is a duplicate of one of the others). Unfortunately, I've done nothing with this beyond the initial tinkering. If any one is interested in how this was done, I'll dig out the info and post it. There certainly is difficulty with beam shots. It's tough to accurately represent what a person sees with their naked eye. And I suppose it's possible that people's night vision varies, so a beam shot that looks "right" to one person may look wrong to another. I imagine most people posting those images are trying their best, but I'll bet that their camera settings are mostly by guess and by golly. Even the split-screen comparison web pages suffer from this difficulty. They can show if one light is brighter than another, but it's hard to tell how bright is bright enough. I think they tend to push a "brighter is always better" attitude. I've decided that Peter White's photos do the job for me. I've bought several headlamps from him, and ISTM that the lights performed as I expected they would. And I appreciate your effort with the false color conversions, but personally, I find them hard to interpret. They can tell me how even the beam is, but I'd still have to guess at whether it's even or bright enough for me - or too too bright. - Frank Krygowski |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 03/12/17 22:35, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 10:39:17 AM UTC, Tosspot wrote: On 03/12/17 05:02, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS B&M plays the lux only racket. But their lights are poor lumens/lux ratio. Lux only says the intensity at the brightest point anywhere in the beam. No mention if this is STVZO or not. Best guess is that it isn't. https://www.bumm.de claim it is StVZO compliant. You guessed wrong, Barry. I would be exceedingly surprised to discover that any BUMM lamp is not StVZO compliant. That is BUMM's USP or unique selling point and has always been. It is precisely this StVZO compliance that makes their lamps inferior to yours in output and superior to yours in beam shaping. Who the **** is Barry? Andre Jute Bodgit Please, even from traders, please! |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 7:58:23 PM UTC, Tosspot wrote:
On 03/12/17 22:35, Andre Jute wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 10:39:17 AM UTC, Tosspot wrote: On 03/12/17 05:02, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS B&M plays the lux only racket. But their lights are poor lumens/lux ratio. Lux only says the intensity at the brightest point anywhere in the beam. No mention if this is STVZO or not. Best guess is that it isn't. https://www.bumm.de claim it is StVZO compliant. You guessed wrong, Barry. I would be exceedingly surprised to discover that any BUMM lamp is not StVZO compliant. That is BUMM's USP or unique selling point and has always been. It is precisely this StVZO compliance that makes their lamps inferior to yours in output and superior to yours in beam shaping. Who the **** is Barry? That's what everyone is asking. Andre Jute Bodgit Please, even from traders, please! My bodger, from WW2, doubles as a bayonet. Andre Jute I did own a grey flannel suit once. It was an ironic statement. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:19:24 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 10:47:49 PM UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote: snip Not bright enough and you don't see well enough; too bright and you don't see well either because near objects are too bright and interfere with dark adaptation. Too narrow causes the same sort of problem. The top of the beam should be brighter than the bottom. Some scatter to the sides is helpful, scatter above the horizon is not (I notice even my new Subaru has a sharp upper cutoff to the headlight beams). It's easy to get into thinking that brighter is always better, in which case one will ultimately ride only during the day in full sun. And even then there are those who believethat you MUST use super-bright flashing lights in the daytime. I'm not that overcautious, but I get the notion given the complete obliviousness of about 1/4 of the car driving population. They're looking at their phones, eating lunch, drunk, stoned, whatever. Anything but responsible behind the wheel. What puzzles me are the folks who only use a flashing light as a headlight in full darkness. WTF is up with that? What I like to see on a website is an image of the ACTUAL BEAM PATTERN on the road not a wall. Hence my reference of Peter White's page of beam photos. There are some other collections of beam photos out there on the interwebs. The challenge is setting the camera so that it sees approximately what the human eye does, not making the beam falsely bright or falsely weak. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:52:30 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: snip I did a short (15 mile) night ride with a friend last night. Usually I take my utility bike, set up with Shimano hub dyno and B&M IQ Premium, but last night I used a different bike with an old Union dyno and a B&M Eyc. My friend had some lower end battery headlight. He ended up shutting off his headlight on the bike trail portion of the ride. He was worried about his battery running out, and the Eyc beam was perfectly fine for both of us at speeds up to the 20 mph we hit on the downhills. When I attempted PBP in 2003, using a B&M halogen light with 3W bulb, there were a lot of folks with battery lights (usually badly mounted on handlebars and pointing right in front of the wheel) and lots of folks with dynamos. Some of the battery folks did the same, there was really plenty of light in a pack of 40 riders with headlights that if 10 of them were turned off visibility was still good. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 12/5/2017 11:58 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 03/12/17 22:35, Andre Jute wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 10:39:17 AM UTC, Tosspot wrote: On 03/12/17 05:02, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS B&M plays the lux only racket.Â* But their lights are poor lumens/lux ratio.Â* Lux only says the intensity at the brightest point anywhere in the beam.Â* No mention if this is STVZO or not. Best guess is that it isn't. https://www.bumm.de claim it is StVZO compliant. You guessed wrong, Barry. I would be exceedingly surprised to discover that any BUMM lamp is not StVZO compliant. That is BUMM's USP or unique selling point and has always been. It is precisely this StVZO compliance that makes their lamps inferior to yours in output and superior to yours in beam shaping. Who the **** is Barry? Barry manufactures the Oculus light, a very nice battery powered, self-contained, 1800 lumen battery powered light, and now there is a 3000 lumen model. Very well designed beam that doesn't suffer from the limitations of most dynamo lights. Oculus Lights https://www.oculuslights.net |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 04/12/17 11:28, Oculus Lights wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html Is there a power rating? One can safely assume it will work with any normal 6V/3W dynamo. 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright. I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Depends on how the light is focused. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance. My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. My B&M IQTec Premium is rated at 80lux. It also works with a 6V/3W dynamo. The light is focused to a very bright band just before the cut off, so that you can aim the light well in to the distance and achieve a relatively even illumination of the road surface over the entire distance. If yours is only reaching 33 lux, it is less well focused and more of a flood light. See images here. http://www.bentrideronline.com/messa...d.php?t=131473 -- JS |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 03/12/17 15:02, Oculus Lights wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS B&M plays the lux only racket. But their lights are poor lumens/lux ratio. Lux only says the intensity at the brightest point anywhere in the beam. No mention if this is STVZO or not. Best guess is that it isn't. My STVZO working concept is more efficient than any STVZO beam currently on the market. It would need 18 watts for 100lux STVZO, and even that would probably not be able to stay under 2 lux on the horizon. ~65 lux at ~9 watts making 650+ lumens is about the ceiling for a single LED STVZO compliant light. Nah, they just have a more intricate beam shape than ol' flood light Barry. -- JS |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 17:24:28 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote: On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:19:24 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 10:47:49 PM UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote: snip Not bright enough and you don't see well enough; too bright and you don't see well either because near objects are too bright and interfere with dark adaptation. Too narrow causes the same sort of problem. The top of the beam should be brighter than the bottom. Some scatter to the sides is helpful, scatter above the horizon is not (I notice even my new Subaru has a sharp upper cutoff to the headlight beams). It's easy to get into thinking that brighter is always better, in which case one will ultimately ride only during the day in full sun. And even then there are those who believethat you MUST use super-bright flashing lights in the daytime. I'm not that overcautious, but I get the notion given the complete obliviousness of about 1/4 of the car driving population. They're looking at their phones, eating lunch, drunk, stoned, whatever. Anything but responsible behind the wheel. What puzzles me are the folks who only use a flashing light as a headlight in full darkness. WTF is up with that? What I like to see on a website is an image of the ACTUAL BEAM PATTERN on the road not a wall. Hence my reference of Peter White's page of beam photos. There are some other collections of beam photos out there on the interwebs. The challenge is setting the camera so that it sees approximately what the human eye does, not making the beam falsely bright or falsely weak. I've always thought that all the discussion about Lummins, luxes, and whatever else, ignores what I suggest may be the most important fact, the ambient light. In a situation where there is no light, where one literally cannot see one's hand in front of their face, lighting a match provides a truly amazing amount of visibility. I've also noticed the reverse phenomena driving on roads with large overhead lighting. Gee, can hardly see any light from the headlights. I've always wondered about where people take the photos that they publish showing beam coverage :-) Deep in the jungle, on a moonless night, a candle and the mirror in your wife's Compact will show an amazing beam pattern :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:49:38 AM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 12/5/2017 11:58 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 03/12/17 22:35, Andre Jute wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 10:39:17 AM UTC, Tosspot wrote: On 03/12/17 05:02, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS B&M plays the lux only racket.Â* But their lights are poor lumens/lux ratio.Â* Lux only says the intensity at the brightest point anywhere in the beam.Â* No mention if this is STVZO or not.. Best guess is that it isn't. https://www.bumm.de claim it is StVZO compliant. You guessed wrong, Barry. I would be exceedingly surprised to discover that any BUMM lamp is not StVZO compliant. That is BUMM's USP or unique selling point and has always been. It is precisely this StVZO compliance that makes their lamps inferior to yours in output and superior to yours in beam shaping. Who the **** is Barry? Barry manufactures the Oculus light, a very nice battery powered, self-contained, 1800 lumen battery powered light, and now there is a 3000 lumen model. Very well designed beam that doesn't suffer from the limitations of most dynamo lights. but still is a battery powered light with the drawback of their limited running time which is the main reason for the people using dynamo lights not to chose for that option. Lou |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
|
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 04/12/17 17:33, sms wrote:
On 12/3/2017 5:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:56:24 -0800, sms wrote: On 12/3/2017 4:28 PM, Oculus Lights wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote: https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html -- JS Is there a power rating?Â* 100 lux at 10 meters, as the STVZO test requires, is exceedingly bright.Â* I'm hesitant to state they "must" be drawing at least so much power, but my gut feeling is that its in a range that a single LED can't handle. Anyone can rate a light without stating the distance.Â* My single LED 325 lumen measures 33 lux at 10, 500+ lumen measures 50 lux, and the best of the others on the market, such as Supernova's 205 lm that's standard equipment on many e-bikes, measure 25 lux at 10 meters, at most. It's not all that new, and it's not very well rated. The complaints I saw are a) the beam shape is too narrow, and b) the standlight is inadequate. Neither is surprising. Dynamo lights make trade-offs, and one major one is concentrating the limited available output into a narrow beam, which is a big compromise in terms of safety, both in seeing and being seen. The second is that the standlight is necessarily fairly weak because the internal battery or super-cap can't provide enough power. The only suitable dynamo light for use in the U.S., in a dynamo-only configuration, remains the Supernova E3 Triple 2. It has a proper beam, and is not StVZO compliant for on-road use in countries where StVZO compliance is mandatory. Have you even looked at beam pictures? Yes. The criticism was valid. Here is what the review stated: "The beam is too narrow In focussing all the output from the LED directly ahead to hit that magical 100 lux figure, B&M have made something akin to a laser… If it’s outside a narrow degree arc from the front, it’s going to be near invisible. Two examples. Take a standard lane-in-each-direction road, in complete darkness. If you’re cycling in the centre of the left-hand lane with the IQ-X, you may not see a road joining on your right as almost no light will reach the opposite verge. Or, take a winding single-lane road. As you lean the bike to take a right-hand bend, the right side of the beam dips too, and you cycle into complete darkness. I’ve often praised the way German light manufacturers make the best use of every photon by focussing the output into useful areas. With the IQ-X, B&M have gone too far." from https://www.darkerside.org/2017/02/bm-iq-x-dynamo-headlight-review/ That's on a recumbent. It is far lower than the light is designed for. Even on my Bullit I had to bodge higher mounts as the crown mount made the EYC useless. Mounted higher it's fine. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 12/6/2017 9:46 AM, sms wrote:
I'm sure we'd all run out and buy a dynamo light if it was possible to build one that was adequate for the riding conditions we experience. Unfortunately it isn't yet possible to build such a dynamo light. So how do you explain the several people here who have ridden successfully with only dynamo lights for decades? -- - Frank Krygowski |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:58:53 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/6/2017 9:46 AM, sms wrote: I'm sure we'd all run out and buy a dynamo light if it was possible to build one that was adequate for the riding conditions we experience. Unfortunately it isn't yet possible to build such a dynamo light. So how do you explain the several people here who have ridden successfully with only dynamo lights for decades? Excellent night vision? Brightly lit streets? Full moon? I need all the light that I can get when riding the gnarly single-track on my way home, being chased by cougars. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jgFVixm_e1c/hqdefault.jpg -- Jay Beattie. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 12/6/2017 12:58 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:58:53 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/6/2017 9:46 AM, sms wrote: I'm sure we'd all run out and buy a dynamo light if it was possible to build one that was adequate for the riding conditions we experience. Unfortunately it isn't yet possible to build such a dynamo light. So how do you explain the several people here who have ridden successfully with only dynamo lights for decades? Excellent night vision? Brightly lit streets? Full moon? I need all the light that I can get when riding the gnarly single-track on my way home, being chased by cougars. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jgFVixm_e1c/hqdefault.jpg -- Jay Beattie. For seeing add: familiar roads, slower speeds For being seen add: A large amount of luck, better drivers Also remember that many of the people posting the virtues of dynamo lights live outside the U.S., many in places with far better bicycle infrastructure and more enforcement of traffic lights. Some live in countries where high-quality bicycle lighting, with proper optics, is illegal. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 3:20:50 PM UTC-6, sms wrote:
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:58:53 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: So how do you explain the several people here who have ridden successfully with only dynamo lights for decades? Also remember that many of the people posting the virtues of dynamo lights live outside the U.S., many in places with far better bicycle infrastructure and more enforcement of traffic lights. Some live in countries where high-quality bicycle lighting, with proper optics, is illegal. I live in the USA. Not too far from the middle of the contiguous portion. I rode OK with a dynamo and two halogen bulbs for several years. Rode PBP in 2007 with that setup. PBP is in France. It was very RAINY during the night on that PBP. Somehow I made it OK. Then I got modern and put two LED lights on the bike. WooHoo. It was an improvement over halogen bulbs. Wasn't night and day improvement though. |
New B&M 100lux headlight.
On 12/6/2017 4:20 PM, sms wrote:
On 12/6/2017 12:58 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:58:53 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/6/2017 9:46 AM, sms wrote: I'm sure we'd all run out and buy a dynamo light if it was possible to build one that was adequate for the riding conditions we experience. Unfortunately it isn't yet possible to build such a dynamo light. So how do you explain the several people here who have ridden successfully with only dynamo lights for decades? Excellent night vision?Â* Brightly lit streets? Full moon?Â* I need all the light that I can get when riding the gnarly single-track on my way home, being chased by cougars. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jgFVixm_e1c/hqdefault.jpg -- Jay Beattie. For seeing add: familiar roads, slower speeds For being seen add: A large amount of luck, better drivers Ah yes. If you haven't died, it's because you were so brilliant in your personal choice of equipment. If someone else hasn't died, it's only because they are lucky. Gosh, hardly any bias there! My headlights have more than sufficed on familiar roads, on unfamiliar roads, on roads in other states and roads in other countries. And as I've mentioned many times, I've gotten spontaneous compliments on my lights from motorists and from pedestrians. Many of those compliments were back in the halogen bulb days, powered (as they are now) by dynamos. Also remember that many of the people posting the virtues of dynamo lights live outside the U.S., many in places with far better bicycle infrastructure and more enforcement of traffic lights. Some live in countries where high-quality bicycle lighting, with proper optics, is illegal. Far better infrastructure like the ordinary rural roads of Brittany, where they run Paris-Brest-Paris, and where randonneurs who have never before been there ride all night, many using dynamo lights? You're daft. I've ridden in about a dozen foreign countries. Almost all of that has been on ordinary streets and roads. It's pretty ignorant to believe or pretend that all of Europe has kiddie tracks along every road. -- - Frank Krygowski |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com