Eyc headlight problem

sms wrote:
On 4/12/2021 1:59 PM, wrote:

snip

My bike had old halogen bulbs on PBP 2007. I believe one of those two
lights was a special series light so the dyno would send power to one of
the lights first and then only send power to the second after getting up
to speed. I think B&M or whoever made the lights specifically made
those second lights to use in that way. But with my newer B&M LED
lights I just wired them parallel. No one bothered to make that special
second light for LED because everyone thought LED was good enough with
just one bulb. No need for two lights with LED unlike with halogen
where the second bulb in series was kind of necessary. Equal full power
to both lights simultaneously. Now at lower speed both lights are weak.
But since LED lights up at fairly low speeds, it only takes about 7-8
mph to get both LED lit up to full brightness. So no real downside
because I never ride slow enough to not get both lights going full brightness.


In honor of Frank I decided to stick my 12V tire-driven dynamo light set
on my beater bike. Very classic. But awful. At first I thought that I
had some kind of wiring problem because the output sucked so bad.

I hooked up a small 12V SLA battery and it brightened up considerably so
apparently the dynamo was not putting out enough current, though the
unloaded voltage exceeded 20 volts. The drag with the lights connected
was unbearable.

Going to give up on that experiment.


Certainly if you want more power out of a bicycle dynamo system, you’re
going to have to put more power into it. I’m imagining the setup on my
buddy’s Fiat 124 Spyder in the late 70s. Bosch halogen headlights, plus a
set of Bosch driving lights with the 100W halogen bulbs. Turned night into
day, but sucked a good 300 W out of the battery. LEDs are a game changer,
but you probably still aren’t going to want to have the dynamo sucking more
than 5-10 W out of your efforts, which might get you 500-1000 lumens,
which, if you have decent optics, should be more than enough for nearly
anybody.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:47:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/11/2021 8:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:22:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 19:23:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 6:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 16:01:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 2:34 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


I have yet to see a DRL that's visible to me BEFORE the bicycle and bicyclist are. The only time I notice a bicyclist with a headlight or tail-light on during the day is if they are in deep shade or if it's heavy overcast.

The VAST MAJORITY of bicyclists do NOT repeat, do NOT, need a DRL.

Agreed! Also, if cyclists ride more prominently in the lane, they're
even less likely to not be noticed by motorists.

The problem is, when people who buy a DRL get noticed, they say "Oh, he
noticed me because of my DRL" even if they would have been noticed
anyway. Confirmation bias in action.

But I have seen situations where a DRL was noticeable. The other day
we were driving back from Bangkok and because of the holiday traffic
started very early in the morning - sun just peeping over the horizon
- and met a bloke on a bicycle and yes the DRL did make him much more
noticeable.

As I've said, you can sometimes spot a bicyclist farther away because of
a DRL. But I've never observed an incident when the DRL made a
_practical_ difference. A cyclist doesn't need to be seen at the horizon.

I have. Twice. Each time it was cyclist riding the wrong way on the
side of the street. Both times were very early in the morning and if
he had some sort of light I would have seen him further enough away to
have easily avoided him rather then an "OH MY GOD" situation.

In my state, lights are required from sunset to sunrise. That's actually
a bit more strict than the law was a few years ago, when lights were
required from half an hour past sunset to half an hour before sunrise.
(Not that the laws are adequately enforced, mind you.) DRLs are lights
in use outside those times, or outside similar conditions.

If you're talking about "very early in the morning," so early that the
cyclist was not visible, he may well have been in violation of the law.
But that's a separate issue from "DRLs always for safety!"

Frank, whether or not the two bikes that I almost hit may or may not
been in violation of the law is meaningless, at least to me. But,
really, does that make a difference? Laying there with the broken leg
does one really feel better knowing that the guy what done it broke
the law?

As for DRL's I did research the subject and I find studies dating back
to the 1970's and which showed that the use of DRL's did reduce the
frequency of vehicle accidents, although the level of decrease did
vary from study to study.

But, perhaps more to the point you blithely ignore the fact that a
number of studied of bicycle accidents have shown that, in some cases
more than 50% of the accidents are the fault of the cyclist. Wouldn't
it be more productive, rather then rant and rave about DRL's, to
advocate riding a bicycle safely?

Taking your response from bottom to top: I have certainly NOT ignored
that half of bike crashes are cyclists' fault. I've agreed many times.
That's one reason I'm such a proponent of cycling education.

Well, I looked it up and in 2021 it is estimated that some 70% of the
U.S. population has, or will have, a auto driver's license and as
these people have to, I believe in all states, be tested in the
traffic code as well as the ability to drive it would seem that most
people do know the traffic code. But cyclists require further
training?

About DRL studies: I'm aware of only one that applies to bicyclists, and
it was ludicrously biased. As evidence of bias, its data claimed the
DRLs reduced even solo bike crashes. I don't believe motor vehicle DRL
studies have much applicability to bike crashes.

I see... There have been studies of DRL's on trucks, automobiles and
motorcycles that show that accidents are reduced for these vehicles
but you don't think that they are applicable to bicycles? Is this
because bicycles are so large and thus are visible even at long
distances?


And about the personal incidents you alluded to: I'm strongly in favor
of headlights and taillights during darkness or other low visibility
conditions. That's the pertinence of your crashes being caused by
illegal behavior, rather than lack of a _Daytime_ Running Light.

You are encroaching on Toms thesis... I said it and therefore it must
be true.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/12/2021 4:59 PM, wrote:

I am not an electrician. Never claimed to be. Except with house wiring. 110/220 switches, plugs, lights, outlets. On that I consider myself very competent in the practical work. Maybe not on the theory part. Never had any need to learn about 3 phase inverters since all my tools are single phase getting supply from single phase breakers.

These anecdotes are just to make you feel better about your electrical
knowledge:

I have a very good friend with a degree plus decades of experience in
Electrical Engineering. His company sends him around the country to do
lots of work with critical infrastructure control systems, etc. and he's
a very smart guy. But once when I was experiencing extremely weird
problems with a certain electric motor, I phoned him. He told me "I only
handle up to five volts."

Similarly, a different friend of mine had a lamppost in his front lawn
that he couldn't get to work. His degree is in chemistry, but he's
electrically competent. (I could give examples.) Except he couldn't get
the lamppost to work.

He said "It won't be a problem. My daughter just finished her degree in
Electrical Engineering, and she's going to live with us until she gets
her own place."

When she arrived, she told him "Dad, I'm not _that_ kind of electrical
engineer!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/12/2021 7:24 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/12/2021 1:59 PM, wrote:

snip

My bike had old halogen bulbs on PBP 2007.Â* I believe one of those two
lights was a special series light so the dyno would send power to one
of the lights first and then only send power to the second after
getting up to speed.Â* I think B&M or whoever made the lights
specifically made those second lights to use in that way.Â* But with my
newer B&M LED lights I just wired them parallel.Â* No one bothered to
make that special second light for LED because everyone thought LED
was good enough with just one bulb.Â* No need for two lights with LED
unlike with halogen where the second bulb in series was kind of
necessary.Â* Equal full power to both lights simultaneously.Â* Now at
lower speed both lights are weak.Â* But since LED lights up at fairly
low speeds, it only takes about 7-8 mph to get both LED lit up to full
brightness.Â* So no real downside because I never ride slow enough to
not get both lights going full brightness.


In honor of Frank I decided to stick my 12V tire-driven dynamo light set
on my beater bike. Very classic. But awful. At first I thought that I
had some kind of wiring problem because the output sucked so bad.

I hooked up a small 12V SLA battery and it brightened up considerably so
apparently the dynamo was not putting out enough current, though the
unloaded voltage exceeded 20 volts. The drag with the lights connected
was unbearable.

Going to give up on that experiment.

As I've said, I have two NOS 12V 6W bottle dynos in a drawer. I tried
one of them, briefly, on my mountain bike. It was terrible in many ways,
including the drag.

By contrast, for a while I used a 6V 3W roller dyno to power two halogen
bulbs plus a taillight. Output was thus about 12V, 6 W. The drag was
much less than that 12V bottle, and quite acceptable, indicating that
the big bottle was junk. However, with modern B&M LED lamps, I no longer
play around with such experiments. There's no need.

I suppose if I were competing in some ultra endurance event that
included lots of fast downhills, I might consider two B&M LED lamps
driven by one hub dyno. But my ultra days are long gone.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/12/2021 5:30 PM, wrote:


I'm going to argue with you Frank. About your car safety, convenience, improvement features you mention. Money. Most folks would say more is better when it comes to money. More money better. Safer cars better. Safer bicycle rides better. More lighting better. Is it inflation or better? Isn't making bicycling safer better? Kind of like more money is always better than less money? I know some folks say they have enough money. But if they could have more money wouldn't that be more enough? And better?

Sure, I'm happy to discuss - or "argue."

One of my major points is that (essentially) nothing comes free, or
without detriments of some kind. That includes money, at least in any
non-fantasy situation. It means more money is not always better.

In real life, what do you need to do to get more money? Possibilities
include work significantly harder or longer - which means having less
time to enjoy your money. Or invest where you've got the possibility of
significantly more gains - which normally means accepting greater risk
of losing money. Or engage in a wide variety of illegal activities -
which involves the possibility of prosecution, jail time, and generally
hanging around with some really unsavory characters.

Then there's the sociological fact that after a certain point where one
can afford necessities plus a few luxuries, more money doesn't seem to
confer more happiness. Research indicates it's just not that simple.

Are safer cars or bikes better? They wouldn't have been for me, since
any added safety features would have cost me more (money!) but I'd never
have gotten any benefit.

OK, I'll admit one exception: If my current hatchback came with a backup
camera, I'd not have put a dent in its plastic bumper. (The rear vision
in this car is dismally bad.) OTOH, I fixed it myself. Turns out
judicious work with a heat gun allowed me to push the dent back out.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/12/2021 9:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:47:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Taking your response from bottom to top: I have certainly NOT ignored
that half of bike crashes are cyclists' fault. I've agreed many times.
That's one reason I'm such a proponent of cycling education.

Well, I looked it up and in 2021 it is estimated that some 70% of the
U.S. population has, or will have, a auto driver's license and as
these people have to, I believe in all states, be tested in the
traffic code as well as the ability to drive it would seem that most
people do know the traffic code. But cyclists require further
training?

I'd say so. Licenses or no, far too many people think they can do
whatever they want on a bike - that rules don't apply.

After all, you're the one whose most frequently said half of deaths are
the cyclists' fault. Be careful not to argue against yourself.

About DRL studies: I'm aware of only one that applies to bicyclists, and
it was ludicrously biased. As evidence of bias, its data claimed the
DRLs reduced even solo bike crashes. I don't believe motor vehicle DRL
studies have much applicability to bike crashes.

I see... There have been studies of DRL's on trucks, automobiles and
motorcycles that show that accidents are reduced for these vehicles
but you don't think that they are applicable to bicycles? Is this
because bicycles are so large and thus are visible even at long
distances?

No, it's because bicycles don't _need_ to be visible at long distances.
For one example, consider motorcycle fatalities. The most common crash
type, IIRC, is when an oncoming motorist turns left across the path of a
motorcyclist. Motorcycle speeds mean long braking distances and no
chance to swerve defensibly. But bikes move more slowly and are more
maneuverable.

My closest call on a bike was that same situation, back when I still
rode too close to the road's edge. At the speed I was going I was able
to immediately turn into the same street the motorist was entering. I
stopped quickly and so did he. There was no contact. If I'd been on my
motorcycle I'd have hit him head on.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 8:47:38 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
He said "It won't be a problem. My daughter just finished her degree in
Electrical Engineering, and she's going to live with us until she gets
her own place."

When she arrived, she told him "Dad, I'm not _that_ kind of electrical
engineer!"
--
- Frank Krygowski

Yes I suspect its similar to a mechanical engineer not knowing how to repair a car. Mechanic! An electrical engineer does not mean they know how to wire a house.

On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 9:31:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2021 9:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:47:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Taking your response from bottom to top: I have certainly NOT ignored
that half of bike crashes are cyclists' fault. I've agreed many times.
That's one reason I'm such a proponent of cycling education.

Well, I looked it up and in 2021 it is estimated that some 70% of the
U.S. population has, or will have, a auto driver's license and as
these people have to, I believe in all states, be tested in the
traffic code as well as the ability to drive it would seem that most
people do know the traffic code. But cyclists require further
training?
I'd say so. Licenses or no, far too many people think they can do
whatever they want on a bike - that rules don't apply.

After all, you're the one whose most frequently said half of deaths are
the cyclists' fault. Be careful not to argue against yourself.
About DRL studies: I'm aware of only one that applies to bicyclists, and
it was ludicrously biased. As evidence of bias, its data claimed the
DRLs reduced even solo bike crashes. I don't believe motor vehicle DRL
studies have much applicability to bike crashes.

I see... There have been studies of DRL's on trucks, automobiles and
motorcycles that show that accidents are reduced for these vehicles
but you don't think that they are applicable to bicycles? Is this
because bicycles are so large and thus are visible even at long
distances?
No, it's because bicycles don't _need_ to be visible at long distances.
For one example, consider motorcycle fatalities. The most common crash
type, IIRC, is when an oncoming motorist turns left across the path of a
motorcyclist. Motorcycle speeds mean long braking distances and no
chance to swerve defensibly. But bikes move more slowly and are more
maneuverable.

My closest call on a bike was that same situation, back when I still
rode too close to the road's edge. At the speed I was going I was able
to immediately turn into the same street the motorist was entering. I
stopped quickly and so did he. There was no contact. If I'd been on my
motorcycle I'd have hit him head on.
--
- Frank Krygowski

I have a left turn in front of me crash story to tell. I was stopped at a traffic light. Red light for me and the car on the other side. I was going straight across the road. Car on the other side was turning left and turned left and hit me. It was about 6 PM in the evening, broad daylight. I ended up in the hospital for a night. Fractured collar bone. I don't recall the exact details of the crash. Whether I ran into the side of the car, front fender, and ended up on the hood and in the windshield. Or if the car bumper ran into me and flipped me up onto the hood and into the windshield. I did not have a front headlight. Do not know if that would have made the car see me on the other side of the road and not run me over.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:31:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2021 9:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:47:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Taking your response from bottom to top: I have certainly NOT ignored
that half of bike crashes are cyclists' fault. I've agreed many times.
That's one reason I'm such a proponent of cycling education.

Well, I looked it up and in 2021 it is estimated that some 70% of the
U.S. population has, or will have, a auto driver's license and as
these people have to, I believe in all states, be tested in the
traffic code as well as the ability to drive it would seem that most
people do know the traffic code. But cyclists require further
training?

I'd say so. Licenses or no, far too many people think they can do
whatever they want on a bike - that rules don't apply.

After all, you're the one whose most frequently said half of deaths are
the cyclists' fault. Be careful not to argue against yourself.

I don't believe that I am.
The most common reason for bicycle caused collisions in the L.S. study
was riding the wrong way. Does one require a master's degree in
bicycle riding to know that it is bad joss to ride the wrong way ?


About DRL studies: I'm aware of only one that applies to bicyclists, and
it was ludicrously biased. As evidence of bias, its data claimed the
DRLs reduced even solo bike crashes. I don't believe motor vehicle DRL
studies have much applicability to bike crashes.

I see... There have been studies of DRL's on trucks, automobiles and
motorcycles that show that accidents are reduced for these vehicles
but you don't think that they are applicable to bicycles? Is this
because bicycles are so large and thus are visible even at long
distances?

No, it's because bicycles don't _need_ to be visible at long distances.
For one example, consider motorcycle fatalities. The most common crash
type, IIRC, is when an oncoming motorist turns left across the path of a
motorcyclist. Motorcycle speeds mean long braking distances and no
chance to swerve defensibly. But bikes move more slowly and are more
maneuverable.

I tried looking up motorcycle accident data and found that nearly all
sites were lawyers essentially saying "come to us and we'll get you a
lot of money" but finally found a site
https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/...e/anatomy.html
that appeared to be reporting simple data without a viewpoint.
According to them 40% of all motorcycle accidents are single vehicle
accidents, 43% involved alcohol and 30% of the riders killed ware
unlicensed and only bout one-third of multi-vehicle motorcycle crashes
are a result of other motorists turning into the path of the
motorcycle.

And they go on to say that "Because of its size, an automobile is
easier to see. What a motorcycle sacrifices in weight, bulk, and other
crashworthiness characteristics is somewhat offset by its agility,
maneuverability, ability to stop quickly, and ability to swerve
quickly when necessary. "

My closest call on a bike was that same situation, back when I still
rode too close to the road's edge. At the speed I was going I was able
to immediately turn into the same street the motorist was entering. I
stopped quickly and so did he. There was no contact. If I'd been on my
motorcycle I'd have hit him head on.

I rode for a number of years and "wrenched" for a couple of guys that
raced and I can only remember two accidents where a motorcycle hit a
car, or vice versa. In one case the guy had a few beers and was coming
back to the school in the evening and because the street was one way
was riding the wrong way, down the sidewalk and a car entering from a
side street stopped for traffic on the main street and the guy hit
them broadside. The other case was a friend who was going down a hill
at what he stated was 100 mph and again a car pulled out and
apparently saw him and panicked and just stopped. He hit them broad
side.

He "knew" that he was going to die - hitting a car at 100 mph - so
just as he was going to hit the car he jumped up and over the car.
Broke both arms and a lot of scrapes and bruises but survived.
--
Cheers,

John B.

wrote:
On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 8:47:38 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
He said "It won't be a problem. My daughter just finished her degree in
Electrical Engineering, and she's going to live with us until she gets
her own place."

When she arrived, she told him "Dad, I'm not _that_ kind of electrical
engineer!"
--
- Frank Krygowski

Yes I suspect its similar to a mechanical engineer not knowing how to
repair a car. Mechanic! An electrical engineer does not mean they know
how to wire a house.


There are certainly a broad range of people calling themselves “electrical
engineers�, and the RF guys don’t know about power, and the digital guys
don’t really know analog. And it gets worse. My aunt was having a problem
with the outlets in her house. Every time she used an electrical appliance
she would unplug it immediately after she used it. That, plus her habit of
vacuuming multiple times a day meant that she wore out most of the outlets
in her house, to the point that power cords would just spontaneously fall
out of the outlet. My grandmother, who lived with her at the time said “Get
Ralph to fix it. He’s an electrician.� I considered the time it would have
taken to explain to my grandmother what I ACTUALLY do for a living, then
went to Home Depot, bought a box of new outlets, and just replaced them
all. To my Mom’s credit, after 33 years in the business, I think SHE has
some idea what I do for a living.