|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article
On 8/15/2013 6:36 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 8/14/2013 10:30 PM, sms wrote: On 8/14/2013 5:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote: To get back on topic, I WILL NOT COMPROMISE ON BEAM PATTERN and any light that goes on my bicycle will have some sort of horizontal cutoff if it is to be used as a primary on-road light. This should be no-compromise requirement #1. Not if you're interested in the optimal lighting setup in terms of illumination and safety. That is EXACTLY what I am interested, and you appear not to give a rat's ass about. The key thing is to understand why it's beneficial to illuminate not only the road in front of the bicycle, but also off to the sides and up. It's also key to understand the science behind the daytime use of lights for conspicuity. Understanding these two key facts is essential for those that do not want to be limited to sub-optimal lighting. The good news is that it's become a lot easier to research the facts on most any subject, thanks to the Internet. It's as if some people have a nostalgic attachment to being clueless, but it's really not necessary. Recall the whole debate on risk-compensation in relation to helmets, and the idea that non-helmet wearers compensate for the added risk by riding more carefully than non-helmeted riders (which isn't borne out by statistical data). Unlike with helmets, with lighting, you can actually _see_ the risk-compensation in action. I observe it on a daily basis, both while riding and driving. The cyclists with the poorer lighting ride slower, brake more, and are more likely to have to take evasive action against errant motorists than those cyclists that use proper lighting. In the daytime, the difference between those with a good LED flasher and those without, is incredibly stark. It's still necessary to be vigilant, even with proper lighting. Yesterday, it was clear that the driver of a vehicle backing out of a driveway was not looking for other traffic and expected everyone else, bicycle and motor vehicle alike, to get out of her way. Perhaps I should not have called her a communist as I rode past, but I don't think she heard me. You need to keep an open mind and base your decisions on facts. |
Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article
On 8/15/2013 12:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/15/2013 10:50 AM, sms wrote: On 8/15/2013 4:46 AM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 07:31:56 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: I'm betting that A Muzzi would LOVE to see cycle sales in the US reach German levels. I believe that bike sales in the U.S. are considerably higher, both in volume and dollar value, then German sales. A Muzi's shop would probably cease to exist if U.S. sales of bicycles fell to German levels. As would many other shops. Actually, in a way, it is going to cease to exist as he essentially abandons the brick and mortar business and moves the business to a village of less than 1000 residents to concentrate on online sales. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/yellow-jersey-waves-the-white-flag-on-state-street/article_8d5df87e-bb00-5a42-863b-368ad691c86c.html But to be fair, Phil is probably referring to per capita bicycle sales. Germany is #3 in per capita cyclists, though that doesn't necessarily track spending since transportational cyclists aren't buying $3000-4000 carbon fiber bikes. Japan is 7th, which probably explains why a store like Daiso has so much bicycle stuff. China is 10th. The U.S. isn't in the top 10. I wonder what's going on in Madison with bicycle shops. Yellow Jersey is leaving. Williamson Bicycle Works closed both stores in Madison. Online sales of parts and accessories are a constant topic in _Bicycle Retailer_ and it's amazing and sad to see the letters to the editor written about this subject because the solution usually sought by the shop owners is not a solution at all. Essentially it's: "if only the manufacturers would establish an enforce a prohibition on online sales and set minimum prices then every buyer would willingly come to our shop and pay whatever we charge." Sadly, it doesn't work that way. Nice straw man there.No rational person would hold that position. Sounds like some government employee's idea of how to get his brother in law a job regulating bicycle stores. My understanding of the CPSC requirement for reflectors was that at one time a requirement for lighting was seriously considered, but dropped under pressure from bicycle mfgrs. and retailers. In a way, I think that was the right move, as most people don't ride their bicycles at night. On the other hand, what's the point of just putting reflectors on, that's not sufficient after dark nor is it required in the daytime...? nate |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article
On 8/15/2013 1:23 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/15/2013 6:36 AM, Nate Nagel wrote: On 8/14/2013 10:30 PM, sms wrote: On 8/14/2013 5:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote: To get back on topic, I WILL NOT COMPROMISE ON BEAM PATTERN and any light that goes on my bicycle will have some sort of horizontal cutoff if it is to be used as a primary on-road light. This should be no-compromise requirement #1. Not if you're interested in the optimal lighting setup in terms of illumination and safety. That is EXACTLY what I am interested, and you appear not to give a rat's ass about. The key thing is to understand why it's beneficial to illuminate not only the road in front of the bicycle, but also off to the sides and up. It's also key to understand the science behind the daytime use of lights for conspicuity. Understanding these two key facts is essential for those that do not want to be limited to sub-optimal lighting. The good news is that it's become a lot easier to research the facts on most any subject, thanks to the Internet. It's as if some people have a nostalgic attachment to being clueless, but it's really not necessary. Indeed. I'm with you so far, save for the requirement for illuminating "up." A small amount of light above horizontal is beneficial, more than that is detrimental. This is a *huge* deal in automotive lighting circles and has been the subject of much discussion to the point that NHTSA actually had an open docket and requested public comment on glare related to headlamps and DRLs. Recall the whole debate on risk-compensation in relation to helmets, and the idea that non-helmet wearers compensate for the added risk by riding more carefully than non-helmeted riders (which isn't borne out by statistical data). Unlike with helmets, with lighting, you can actually _see_ the risk-compensation in action. I observe it on a daily basis, both while riding and driving. The cyclists with the poorer lighting ride slower, brake more, and are more likely to have to take evasive action against errant motorists than those cyclists that use proper lighting. In the daytime, the difference between those with a good LED flasher and those without, is incredibly stark. It's still necessary to be vigilant, even with proper lighting. Yesterday, it was clear that the driver of a vehicle backing out of a driveway was not looking for other traffic and expected everyone else, bicycle and motor vehicle alike, to get out of her way. Perhaps I should not have called her a communist as I rode past, but I don't think she heard me. You need to keep an open mind and base your decisions on facts. I will *never* accept that blinding other road users makes a good light. It's also been shown for years that a completely symmetric beam pattern puts way too much light in the foreground and not enough far out where you need it, thus making a rider think his lights are better than they are, thus throwing off the whole mental risk-calculation thing. What you really want is a reasonably sharp horizontal cutoff, but the brightest part of the light should be directly below that point, smoothly tapering down in output as you go down the wall from there (I'm assuming you're shining the light on a wall to evaluate beam output. If riding on the road, substitute "come towards the rider" for "go down the wall.") That way, the effective amount of light that returns to the rider's eyes doesn't drop off so dramatically as he looks farther down the road, nor is a great portion of the light coming out of the headlight wasted on illuminating the foreground, which a rider traveling at any decent speed ought to be ignoring anyway, keeping his attention farther down the road. This is an has been for years the way automotive headlights have been designed, and it is also the way that the better bicycle headlights have been designed. I suspect (and hope) with the introduction of higher-efficiency LED emitters we will see lights with similar beam patterns to the StVZO lights of today, but wider - which is really what the lights of a few years ago were lacking, but lights such as the Philips Saferide and B&M Luxos seem to be addressing, although I have not had the opportunity to try them. I would also love to see more higher-powered lights not necessarily aimed at StVZO countries and therefore not limited to only 2.whatever watts but still using a horizontal cutoff; unfortunately it seems that there's really not much will to do that as it's easier to just use flashlight optics and label the lights for "off-road" use (which isn't even required, sadly, as at least in the US there are no regulations at all on bicycle lights other than minimum conspicuity distance in some states.) nate |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article
On 8/15/2013 1:45 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
snip I will *never* accept that blinding other road users makes a good light. Nor does anyone here. Your error is believing that a symmetrical beam will blind other road users. Repeating it over and over again will not make it true. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article
On 15/08/13 16:25, Phil W Lee wrote:
sms considered Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:55:39 -0700 the perfect time to write: On 8/14/2013 6:10 PM, James wrote: On 15/08/13 10:06, Nate Nagel wrote: No, the problem is that you continue to push for your beloved yet inferior, rude, annoying, and dangerous when used with high power emitters symmetrical beam patterns. I wish you'd knock it the hell off with the bad advice and poor recommendations, you're doing everyone a disservice. There's enough people out there who apparently think that cyclists are annoyances on the road without you actually giving them good reason to think so. Any beam shape when improperly aimed can be a nuisance. A beam shape with more spill is better for off road night riding, seeing street signs and pedestrians, and being seen by vehicles from a wider angle. Off-road of course all lights have symmetrical beams, but as you point out, on-road there are significant advantages as well. Why is it then that these significant advantages have not been noticed by the manufacturers of every single motor vehicle manufacturer in the world? Motor vehicle manufacturers design for driving off road? Have you noticed the spotlights many people add to their cars for highway and off road use? http://www.xenonoz.com/spotlights.php http://www.4wdaction.com.au/forum/vi...939&view=print Do you think that's just for looks and they find the vehicle manufacturers lights sufficient? Some of it might be bragging rights, but I can assure you there are legitimate reasons. E.g., last weekend driving home from Euroa we had a roo cross the road just ahead. I saw it coming and slowed the vehicle enough even with the loaded trailer pushing to avoid bumping the roo off. Further a sambar deer stepped out in front of us. That was another close one. Others are not so lucky judging by the roadkill. Last night I took note of the low beam spill to the sides in particular from passing cars. It's quite significant off to the sides at probably 60 degrees from straight ahead. Far more light than from a "properly focused" bicycle light. Good for seeing "stuff" on the edge of the road, and for being seen. Now, I'm not saying Scharfie is all good to go with his MR16s and such, particularly if they're not aimed down a bit, but there is an argument for more light to illuminate to the sides and up into the air a bit. Actual users tend to agree. Remember, I've tried focused purpose built bicycle lights as well. -- JS |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article
On 8/15/2013 3:55 PM, James wrote:
On 15/08/13 16:25, Phil W Lee wrote: sms considered Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:55:39 -0700 the perfect time to write: On 8/14/2013 6:10 PM, James wrote: On 15/08/13 10:06, Nate Nagel wrote: No, the problem is that you continue to push for your beloved yet inferior, rude, annoying, and dangerous when used with high power emitters symmetrical beam patterns. I wish you'd knock it the hell off with the bad advice and poor recommendations, you're doing everyone a disservice. There's enough people out there who apparently think that cyclists are annoyances on the road without you actually giving them good reason to think so. Any beam shape when improperly aimed can be a nuisance. A beam shape with more spill is better for off road night riding, seeing street signs and pedestrians, and being seen by vehicles from a wider angle. Off-road of course all lights have symmetrical beams, but as you point out, on-road there are significant advantages as well. Why is it then that these significant advantages have not been noticed by the manufacturers of every single motor vehicle manufacturer in the world? Motor vehicle manufacturers design for driving off road? Have you noticed the spotlights many people add to their cars for highway and off road use? That's true. And as you point out, those lights are not solely for off-road use though you can buy super high-power lights for off-road use only. That's actually a good analogy since you can also buy super high power bicycle lights that are appropriate for off-road use only. But of course no one here has proposed that such lights be used for on-road bicycle use. The problem appears to be that those opposed to proper lighting have gotten it into their head that a symmetrical beam, without cutoff, is somehow guaranteed to be annoying to oncoming traffic, yet this is demonstrably not true. They keep repeating their mantra but it doesn't help their position. Last night I took note of the low beam spill to the sides in particular from passing cars. It's quite significant off to the sides at probably 60 degrees from straight ahead. Far more light than from a "properly focused" bicycle light. Good for seeing "stuff" on the edge of the road, and for being seen. Argh, please don't call those el-junko bicycle lights "properly focused" even in quotation marks! Now, I'm not saying Scharfie is all good to go with his MR16s and such, particularly if they're not aimed down a bit, but there is an argument for more light to illuminate to the sides and up into the air a bit. Actual users tend to agree. The MR16 LED lamps are all aimed slightly down. MR16s are particularly good for bicycling since they are available in a variety of beam shapes for different purposes. They are also waterproof, have excellent matched optics and reflectors. Remember, I've tried focused purpose built bicycle lights as well. As have I. I think those opposed to optimal lighting have never actually tried it. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-CompromiseRequirements" article
it's not an error; the lack of a cutoff is a serious problem when you get to higher light output levels. A high power LED light these days is encroaching on automobile headlamp output levels, at least old halogen ones. Recommending what is essentially a high beam is irresponsible and can not possibly end well. I'm a big fan of massive overkill, but not when it comes at the expense of other road users.
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-CompromiseRequirements" article
I have no problem with 'off road' lights used as high beams. But your primary, in town light needs to have some type of cutoff and preferably a beam pa5tern as I described in a previous post. Your beloved symmetrical beam lights are probably great for use as auxiliary lights for use when you're all by yourself and want to ride fast, but for in town use if they're bright enough to be useful for 'seeing-by' lights then they are also offensive to other road users.
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article
On 8/15/2013 8:49 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
John B. considered Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:46:54 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 07:31:56 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: John B. considered Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:40:07 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:09:26 +0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: Lou Holtman wrote: Duane wrote: On 8/14/2013 2:37 PM, sms wrote: On 8/14/2013 11:22 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: I rie my road bike quite some distance most days. I use it for transportation and I *"DO NOT WANT OR REQUIRE A HUB DYNAMO ON IT"* nor would I want to pay the extra $ for something I neither want or need. I'm sure that there are many other "Transportation" bicyclist who also do not need or want any lighting system on their bike. This is true. However it might be nice if bicycle manufacturers offered the option to substitute a dynamo hub wheel for a non-dynamo wheel at the time of purchase, for a nominal charge, for those that do want it; at least on models that would be likely to be used for transportational cycling. The problem is that most of us don't buy bikes from manufacturers. If the retail outlets want to offer that option I don't have a problem with that. Choice is a good thing. Otherwise, I'm with Sir R, here. Don't need it and don't want it. My lights are in my backpack on my commute unless I need them. If I'm off on a road ride on the weekend, they're still in my backpack but it's in the closet. I certainly don't want anything built into my bike. Where I have a problem is if I'm forced to use something that I don't need or want, especially not based on how someone else thinks I should use my bike. Do you really think the Germans and we, the Dutch, have dynohubs on our roadbikes, Atb's or crossbikes? We only think it is stupid to have battery powered lights on bikes which are regularly used when it is dark. Think of a family with three kids going to school on bike all with battery powered lights? You gotta be kidding. No I don't think that but some people here are calling for bikes to be "manufactured" with hub dynamos or for them to be mandated. I can't see the government making the distinction between a road bike and a commuter. I would guess that if bicycles were sold with a mandated dyno-hub and lights meeting some sort of "standard" there would be a huge outcry from the cycling brotherhood. We might ask A Muzi what he estimates a mandated lighting system might add to the price of a bike, but my guess would be that if it was a matter of government fiat, with manufacturers required to pass some sort of government inspection and gain government approval together with penalties for those who sold non-approved lighting, it would not be cheap. Then too, if one has a mandated requirement then one must have some sort of inspection function to ensure that "unsafe" systems are not being used, and of course, some sort of documentation that the inspection had been passed...... It's easy to find the illegal ones. They trail swearing and threats of justified violence in their wake. I'm betting that A Muzzi would LOVE to see cycle sales in the US reach German levels. I believe that bike sales in the U.S. are considerably higher, both in volume and dollar value, then German sales. Per capita? I'd be very very surprised. I had no idea but it seems roughly 82 million Germans buy about 4.05 million bikes (2011) or 1:20.25 while 330 million USAians buy about 12 million bicycles or about 1:27.5 ref page 19: http://www.coliped.com/docs/issuu/Eu...ion%202012.pdf (I assumed everyone who happens to be here, citizen or not, and all kinds of bicycles. No idea if population figures for Germany include aliens legal or otherwise, I'm not claiming any deep research or statistical rigor.) The E495 average price is a large number I think. Wow. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements" article
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:36:24 -0700 (PDT), N8N
wrote: I'm a big fan of massive overkill, but not when it comes at the expense of other road users. Did someone say overkill? Anything worth doing is also worth overdoing: http://tesladownunder.com/WorldsBrightestBike.htm Only 1,500 watt power cosumption. Probably won't work with a hub dynamo. 575W HID bike light http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxFiLtXUlho (2:30) For the ultimate hot spot. Hmmm... remember my idea of using a DIN rail for a lighting (and accessory) mount? Here's someone that did it using tubing instead of a DIN rail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf3pCHxiWwU -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Big drop in number of young people choosing to drive" | Doug[_12_] | UK | 5 | August 6th 11 09:44 AM |
Scientific American "A Twenty Five Cent Bicycle" and "An Electric Bicycle Lamp" 1896 | [email protected] | Techniques | 15 | December 16th 07 07:43 AM |
I do not... (was Wafflycat slammed as "nutter" in Obs article on Lycra Louts) | Helen Deborah Vecht | UK | 2 | June 5th 06 02:44 PM |
Wikipedia - Today's featured article - "The Bicycle" | hippy | Australia | 3 | March 31st 05 11:25 AM |