|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On 22/01/2018 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2018 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Since you mention hub powered lights, how many lumens would you estimate (or calculate) that your dynohub can deliver? (Yes, I know that the brightest light is not always the best light). The hub nominally produces about 3 watts of power: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/Shimano3N70.php Assuming 100% conversion efficiency from hubs AC output to whatever current source powers the LED(s), and assuming 100 lumens/watt LED efficacy including the lens and reflector losses, the most that could be delivered is: Â*Â* 100 lumens/watt * 3 wattsÂ* = 300 lumens I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to have some more lumens even if I don't use them. Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology? "I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle wheel, but personally, I would like to have more than 48 spokes per wheel even if I never need them." Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How do you fit 62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of extra spokes from one spot on the rim to another spot on the rim. Sure, they're going in a direction that's totally useless, but it's still better, because, like, it's MORE! Just like lumens. 72 spoked wheel is a product: http://www.statussuspension.com/lowr...h-76-35-1.html Ya'll got that backwards. More ain't always better. Less spokes are better! https://www.ebay.com/itm/HED-3-TRI-S...-/282683418685 |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:13:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to have some more lumens even if I don't use them. Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology? Yes. I have an opinion about literally everything in bicycling and rarely fail to pronounce judgment at every possible opportunity. "I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle wheel, but personally, I would like to have more than 48 spokes per wheel even if I never need them." Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How do you fit 62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of extra spokes from one spot on the rim to another spot on the rim. Sure, they're going in a direction that's totally useless, but it's still better, because, like, it's MORE! Just like lumens. Amazing. This thread started off with a request for 1940's cycling attire and is now into counting spokes. In the distant past, I could count on at least three on topic comments before topic drift set in. Now we're down to one comment. Sigh. Need I recycle my past astute comments about seen versus be seen? Basically, if you want to be seen using a bicycle light, the intensity, pattern, flash/no-flash, side lighting, and such need to be considered. While brightness (lumens) is just one part of the puzzle, it's the one that sells overpriced lighting, so I guess it's important. If you just want to see in the dark, a kerosene or carbide lantern belching 40 lumens is probably sufficient. If you want to see ahead on a brightly lit street, more lumens doesn't buy you anything except the satisfaction of blinding homicidal drivers. One can probably get away with no headlight at all on a well lit street. For me (and probably only me) having extra lumens handy is useful because my eyesight is starting to deteriorate. I can't focus well on the color red, or in dim light. So, I need all the help I can get which means a light brighter than what a younger person might consider adequate. Similarly, if I weighed over 250 lbs, having more spokes available would probably be a good idea. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
https://www.google.com/search?gl=us&....0.QuHVPCiCgYU
modern ? Aero tight Prob find similar in wool at recycle Westchester royal oaks upper Hudson palm beach ... look for caps prob a cap collector N try the Gore tex site for one layer products |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
My first bicycle n shirt for I'D coming around the lake n down cherry Hill ...
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 1:56:07 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:13:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to have some more lumens even if I don't use them. Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology? Yes. I have an opinion about literally everything in bicycling and rarely fail to pronounce judgment at every possible opportunity. "I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle wheel, but personally, I would like to have more than 48 spokes per wheel even if I never need them." Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How do you fit 62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of extra spokes from one spot on the rim to another spot on the rim. Sure, they're going in a direction that's totally useless, but it's still better, because, like, it's MORE! Just like lumens. Amazing. This thread started off with a request for 1940's cycling attire and is now into counting spokes. In the distant past, I could count on at least three on topic comments before topic drift set in. Now we're down to one comment. Sigh. Hey, wait a minute. You're not supposed to complain about thread drift! That's the job of Sir Ridesalot! ;-) Need I recycle my past astute comments about seen versus be seen? Basically, if you want to be seen using a bicycle light, the intensity, pattern, flash/no-flash, side lighting, and such need to be considered. While brightness (lumens) is just one part of the puzzle, it's the one that sells overpriced lighting, so I guess it's important. Well, I'll admit it's important to those trying to sell the lights. But it's far from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when someone says "300 lumens aren't enough." As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus matters. If you just want to see in the dark, a kerosene or carbide lantern belching 40 lumens is probably sufficient. Actually, I've tried that. I own an antique kerosene headlamp, a very pretty lantern-shaped thing. I tried it out on our darkest neighborhood streets. Those riders of yore must have had eyes like owls! If you want to see ahead on a brightly lit street, more lumens doesn't buy you anything except the satisfaction of blinding homicidal drivers. One can probably get away with no headlight at all on a well lit street. For me (and probably only me) having extra lumens handy is useful because my eyesight is starting to deteriorate. I can't focus well on the color red, or in dim light. So, I need all the help I can get which means a light brighter than what a younger person might consider adequate. I know night vision tends to deteriorate, at least partly from the slow growth of cataracts. Those devils tend to diffuse light coming into the lens, sort of fogging things up. But I really doubt the solution is to pump out lots of unfocused lumens, which is what non-St-VZO lights do. Seems like you'd just be spraying lots of light in directions where it doesn't show the road, but contributes to the fog. My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose lights make it impossible to look back. - Frank Krygowski |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote: Amazing. This thread started off with a request for 1940's cycling attire and is now into counting spokes. In the distant past, I could count on at least three on topic comments before topic drift set in. Now we're down to one comment. Sigh. Hey, wait a minute. You're not supposed to complain about thread drift! That's the job of Sir Ridesalot! ;-) I was not complaining, just making an observation. I've also noticed that the further off topic the thread drifts, the more people add their comments. However, if the thread miraculously stays on topic, nobody says anything. Well, I'll admit it's important to those trying to sell the lights. But it's far from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when someone says "300 lumens aren't enough." Perception (impression) is everything. If I show up for a ride with the latest megalumen headlight, I win status points. Actually, 300 lumens in the forward direction is largely wasted. According to my limited readings, getting hit head on, ramming a brick wall, or riding off a cliff, are rather rate occurrences. All of these might benefit from better forward lighting, but would change the bicycle safety statistics very little. It is my unsubstantiated impression that most visibility related bicycle accidents arrive from the rear or from the sides. There is some interest in rear lighting, but for the most part, is rather limited. For example, I have yet to see anyone do much in the way of a controlled beam pattern for a rear light. Side lighting is almost non-existent. Yet, of the few near collisions that I have experienced, all of them came from the sides (usually from my right side by a vehicle coming from a side street). Yes, there are spoke and frame lights available, but when I tried to build one, I found that any lighting bright enough to be useful would also blind me when I look downward. As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus matters. Something is wrong here. A 10 watt halogen lamp is good for about 15 lumens/watt. Your friends light would therefore produce 150 lumens. Meanwhile, your vintage 2.4 watt dynamo powered LED might deliver 70 lumens/watt or 168 lumens. Your light would be about 10% brighter, which is not much. It's not focus but more likely a dead battery, rotten wiring, rotted switch, bad lamp connections, or a halogen bulb running cold. If you just want to see in the dark, a kerosene or carbide lantern belching 40 lumens is probably sufficient. Actually, I've tried that. I own an antique kerosene headlamp, a very pretty lantern-shaped thing. I tried it out on our darkest neighborhood streets. Those riders of yore must have had eyes like owls! Well, kerosene wick lanterns aren't as bright as carbide. However, kerosene mantle type lanterns (Coleman) are quite bright. Sorry, but I don't have numbers for those. The old time riders probably didn't have eyes any better than ours, but did have the benefit of not having to deal with so much light pollution from cars and street lights. When it was dark, it stayed dark, which allowed one's eyes to become accustomed to the darkness and therefore more sensitive. When I was young and stupid, I went for hikes in the mountains in the dark with only cigarette lighter for occasional illumination. I had to go slowly and carefully, but it was quite possible. But I really doubt the solution is to pump out lots of unfocused lumens, which is what non-St-VZO lights do. Seems like you'd just be spraying lots of light in directions where it doesn't show the road, but contributes to the fog. My eyesight problem is currently not much of a problem. There is a little fogging, but it will be many years before I have to do something about the problem. Meanwhile, getting a bit more light to work with helps a little. My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose lights make it impossible to look back. Yep, that's a problem. We can start by fixing the way we measure the front light beam pattern, and then apply the changes to the rear light. Currently, the front lighting is evaluated by the pattern it makes on the ground. That's important for seeing pot holes and obstacles on the roadway, but doesn't say much about how well the headlight illuminates any vertical obstructions. The rear light doesn't even have a footprint pattern on the ground mostly because illuminating the ground behind you does nothing useful (unless your bicycle has a reverse gear). So, rear lights are aimed from the horizon and up, landing directly in the face of riders and driver behind you. What's needed is very wide (about 180 degree) horizontal radiation pattern, and a very small (10 degree) vertical radiation pattern. Since the rear light does not involve any illumination issues (it's 100% be seen), it does not need to be very bright. Work beckons. End of rant for now... -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On 1/25/2018 9:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski [Lumen numbers are] far from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when someone says "300 lumens aren't enough." Perception (impression) is everything. If I show up for a ride with the latest megalumen headlight, I win status points. Actually, 300 lumens in the forward direction is largely wasted. According to my limited readings, getting hit head on, ramming a brick wall, or riding off a cliff, are rather rate occurrences. All of these might benefit from better forward lighting, but would change the bicycle safety statistics very little. It is my unsubstantiated impression that most visibility related bicycle accidents arrive from the rear or from the sides. AFAIK, data on that just isn't available. In fact, real data on nighttime bike lighting is really rare. I've looked. That's why I recommend having a friend ride your bike at night while you observe. There is some interest in rear lighting, but for the most part, is rather limited. For example, I have yet to see anyone do much in the way of a controlled beam pattern for a rear light. Side lighting is almost non-existent. Yet, of the few near collisions that I have experienced, all of them came from the sides (usually from my right side by a vehicle coming from a side street). Here, I have my usual problem. I can't remember having a near collision of any type at night. Instead, I've noted motorists waiting far longer than necessary to let me go past. As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus matters. Something is wrong here. A 10 watt halogen lamp is good for about 15 lumens/watt. Your friends light would therefore produce 150 lumens. Meanwhile, your vintage 2.4 watt dynamo powered LED might deliver 70 lumens/watt or 168 lumens. Why are you claiming nearly five times the efficiency for the dynamo light? They were both halogen bulbs. It's possible the dynamo light was designed to be a bit over-driven, but I can't see getting 70 lumens/Watt out of it. It's not focus but more likely a dead battery, rotten wiring, rotted switch, bad lamp connections, or a halogen bulb running cold. He called me to come over just after he bought the equipment. It was brand new. BTW, he kept it charged up for years, but almost never used it. He was quite disappointed in it. My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose lights make it impossible to look back. Yep, that's a problem. We can start by fixing the way we measure the front light beam pattern, and then apply the changes to the rear light. Currently, the front lighting is evaluated by the pattern it makes on the ground. That's important for seeing pot holes and obstacles on the roadway, but doesn't say much about how well the headlight illuminates any vertical obstructions. I know that Stephen M. Scharf claims his riding territory is studded with lots of stout branches waiting to take off his head. But I just don't believe it - unless he's a MUP-only rider or a committed gutter rider. Honestly, I don't believe it even then. I occasionally lead night rides on a MUP. When they slack off on maintenance there may rarely be some leaves near head level, but never anything substantial. And if you did find such an obstruction, why wouldn't you either report it to get it fixed, or just fix it yourself? Motorists wouldn't put up with such obstructions. The rear light doesn't even have a footprint pattern on the ground mostly because illuminating the ground behind you does nothing useful (unless your bicycle has a reverse gear). So, rear lights are aimed from the horizon and up, landing directly in the face of riders and driver behind you. I've tried hard to explain to one of my friends that having super bright taillights pointed upwards at 15 degrees or more does no good. Ideally, you want motorists to notice you from farther back. It does no good to shoot over their heads, and it's irritating as hell to a cyclist who is riding right behind you. ISTR a recent paper claiming that lights on the pedals or ankles are extremely conspicuous to motorists. It's the unique human bipedal motion - left, right, left, right - that we're hard wired to notice. But I suspect that pedal reflectors, or perhaps reflective tape on cranks or shoes would do as well, provided it was kept clean. Again: Having my bike checked out with the help of friends, family, club mates, etc. convinced me that there's no need to go crazy. I've also gotten spontaneous compliments from motorists and pedestrians. And that's been confirmed by at least occasional night commuting and riding for ... let's see ... I guess it was 32 years, until I retired. And I still ride for utility and fun at night. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 22:58:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/25/2018 9:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski [Lumen numbers are] far from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when someone says "300 lumens aren't enough." Perception (impression) is everything. If I show up for a ride with the latest megalumen headlight, I win status points. Actually, 300 lumens in the forward direction is largely wasted. According to my limited readings, getting hit head on, ramming a brick wall, or riding off a cliff, are rather rate occurrences. All of these might benefit from better forward lighting, but would change the bicycle safety statistics very little. It is my unsubstantiated impression that most visibility related bicycle accidents arrive from the rear or from the sides. AFAIK, data on that just isn't available. In fact, real data on nighttime bike lighting is really rare. I've looked. That's why I recommend having a friend ride your bike at night while you observe. There is some interest in rear lighting, but for the most part, is rather limited. For example, I have yet to see anyone do much in the way of a controlled beam pattern for a rear light. Side lighting is almost non-existent. Yet, of the few near collisions that I have experienced, all of them came from the sides (usually from my right side by a vehicle coming from a side street). Here, I have my usual problem. I can't remember having a near collision of any type at night. Instead, I've noted motorists waiting far longer than necessary to let me go past. As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus matters. Something is wrong here. A 10 watt halogen lamp is good for about 15 lumens/watt. Your friends light would therefore produce 150 lumens. Meanwhile, your vintage 2.4 watt dynamo powered LED might deliver 70 lumens/watt or 168 lumens. Why are you claiming nearly five times the efficiency for the dynamo light? They were both halogen bulbs. It's possible the dynamo light was designed to be a bit over-driven, but I can't see getting 70 lumens/Watt out of it. It's not focus but more likely a dead battery, rotten wiring, rotted switch, bad lamp connections, or a halogen bulb running cold. He called me to come over just after he bought the equipment. It was brand new. BTW, he kept it charged up for years, but almost never used it. He was quite disappointed in it. My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose lights make it impossible to look back. Yep, that's a problem. We can start by fixing the way we measure the front light beam pattern, and then apply the changes to the rear light. Currently, the front lighting is evaluated by the pattern it makes on the ground. That's important for seeing pot holes and obstacles on the roadway, but doesn't say much about how well the headlight illuminates any vertical obstructions. I know that Stephen M. Scharf claims his riding territory is studded with lots of stout branches waiting to take off his head. But I just don't believe it - unless he's a MUP-only rider or a committed gutter rider. Honestly, I don't believe it even then. I occasionally lead night rides on a MUP. When they slack off on maintenance there may rarely be some leaves near head level, but never anything substantial. And if you did find such an obstruction, why wouldn't you either report it to get it fixed, or just fix it yourself? Motorists wouldn't put up with such obstructions. The rear light doesn't even have a footprint pattern on the ground mostly because illuminating the ground behind you does nothing useful (unless your bicycle has a reverse gear). So, rear lights are aimed from the horizon and up, landing directly in the face of riders and driver behind you. I've tried hard to explain to one of my friends that having super bright taillights pointed upwards at 15 degrees or more does no good. Ideally, you want motorists to notice you from farther back. It does no good to shoot over their heads, and it's irritating as hell to a cyclist who is riding right behind you. ISTR a recent paper claiming that lights on the pedals or ankles are extremely conspicuous to motorists. It's the unique human bipedal motion - left, right, left, right - that we're hard wired to notice. But I suspect that pedal reflectors, or perhaps reflective tape on cranks or shoes would do as well, provided it was kept clean. A year or more I noticed that yes, the up and down motion of the feet on the pedals was very noticeable..... at least when the rider was wearing bright orange knee socks :-) I've never actually noticed any added visibility from the small reflectors I see on the usual "cheap as you can get" pedals I see on the usual bike :-) Again: Having my bike checked out with the help of friends, family, club mates, etc. convinced me that there's no need to go crazy. I've also gotten spontaneous compliments from motorists and pedestrians. And that's been confirmed by at least occasional night commuting and riding for ... let's see ... I guess it was 32 years, until I retired. And I still ride for utility and fun at night. As an aside, 32 years ago I never noticed that the lights on my bike were inadequate..... In fact even 40 years ago I didn't realize how poor they were. I just rode at speed at which I felt comfortable :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 7:58:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/25/2018 9:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski [Lumen numbers are] far from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when someone says "300 lumens aren't enough." Perception (impression) is everything. If I show up for a ride with the latest megalumen headlight, I win status points. Actually, 300 lumens in the forward direction is largely wasted. According to my limited readings, getting hit head on, ramming a brick wall, or riding off a cliff, are rather rate occurrences. All of these might benefit from better forward lighting, but would change the bicycle safety statistics very little. It is my unsubstantiated impression that most visibility related bicycle accidents arrive from the rear or from the sides. AFAIK, data on that just isn't available. In fact, real data on nighttime bike lighting is really rare. I've looked. That's why I recommend having a friend ride your bike at night while you observe. There is some interest in rear lighting, but for the most part, is rather limited. For example, I have yet to see anyone do much in the way of a controlled beam pattern for a rear light. Side lighting is almost non-existent. Yet, of the few near collisions that I have experienced, all of them came from the sides (usually from my right side by a vehicle coming from a side street). Here, I have my usual problem. I can't remember having a near collision of any type at night. Instead, I've noted motorists waiting far longer than necessary to let me go past. You are the super-luckiest rider I know. I just about got mowed down on Tuesday, riding home in a rainstorm at night when I went to jump across traffic. looked back -- street was clear back to a set of headlights fifty or more yards away, and then out of the gloom -- a black car with no lights on going full speed, not even incidental running lights. WTF? Pure luck that I saw it before taking the lane. Sometimes its the other guy's lights or lack of lights. Unlighted bikes and pedestrians in all black are a frequent hazard, particularly in the rain with wet glasses and glare from tail lights or headlights. On part of my ride home last night, I just gave into the fact that I couldn't see a f****** thing with an 800 lumen light, pouring rain and a broken road surface with rushing water like riding through a stream bed. The good part was that I was on a low-traffic climb on a tiny residential street. I could use either better night vision and windshield wipers on my glasses or a 2000 lumen light. On dry nights, the dyno is fine in most places. -- Jay Beattie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | May 14th 08 09:58 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Rides | 0 | May 14th 08 09:56 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Social Issues | 0 | May 14th 08 09:56 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | May 14th 08 09:55 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | May 14th 08 09:55 PM |