A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old February 16th 18, 09:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,634
Default Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries

On 2/16/2018 1:28 PM, sms wrote:
On 2/16/2018 10:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/16/2018 9:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:49:50 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-15 12:16, sms wrote:
On 2/15/2018 9:35 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip
************************* ************************* ** ... Of course
we will soon see claims that this is all self-interest by Trek,
whose
sole aim is to sell more lights.


Everybody should know that such articles aren't very suited to
foster
sales of their own products but lights in general.

True. But it's a convenient excuse to dismiss the findings of such
article. Even though Trek is not a major supplier of bicycle
lights, you
can already predict the narrative that will spew forth. You saw it
already with the Odense study.


Yep, afterwards the usual denialist stuff roll in.

Any study showing that a little mag-dyno blinky decreased daytime
solo accidents by 27% is suspicious on its face. If that doesn't
raise an eye-brow, you don't have eye-brows.

I think, that as a lawyer, you likely understand that the fact that the
DRL is powered by a magnetic dynamo is irrelevant in terms of its
effectiveness. You probably also understand, unlike some others, that
correlation and causation are not the same thing.


O.K., let's put it this way -- a very low-powered flasher located at
hub height.

I have been saying correlation is not causation all along -- and thus
my comments about the Odense study. They assume that the data
establishes causation -- except when the data doesn't pass the smell
test. Here is the explanation given in the report for the reduction in
solo accidents:

"The self reporting of accidents is on the other hand somewhat
problematic. Prior to the study, it was expected that the bicycle
running lights would reduce the occurrence of multiparty accidents
involving cyclists. The initial results suggest that this is a very
likely outcome, as the accident rate is 45% lower for the treatment
group than for the control group, when all reported accidents are
taken into account, and 61% lower when only accidents with personal
injury is taken into account. The bicycle running lights were,
however, not expected to affect the occurrence of solo accidents, but
the initial results show; having made sure by closer examination of
the accident descriptions that the accidents in question are in fact
solo-accidents, that the accident rates for solo accidents are 24%
(all accidents) and 27% (person injury accidents) lower for the
treatment group than for the control group; the effects close to being
significant.

It is likely that this apparent effect on solo accidents of the
bicycle running lights actually reflect a systematic under-reporting
of accidents in the treatment group due to an inherent bias in favour
of the bicycle running lights amongst the members of the treatment
group. During the project, additional questionnaires were carried out
in order to evaluate the design and functionality of the bicycle
running lights. From the data gathered here, it is evident that the
members of the treatment group were very fond of the running light as
they found the bicycle running lights very convenient, e.g. they did
not have to buy batteries any more, they did not have to fear being
stopped by the police for having forgotten their bicycle lights, they
felt very safe with the bicycle running lights etc. As a consequence
it is likely that the treatment group has been somewhat strategic in
their reporting of accidents by omitting some of the minor bicycle
accidents; as reflected by the apparent under reporting of solo
accidents in the treatment group. The apparent effect for solo
accidents is almost the same for relevant subgroups of solo accidents,
see Table 9, which suggests that the underreporting is general and not
associated with certain solo accident types.

O.K., so could the same light-loving study group be under-reporting
multi-rider accidents?

61% reduction in PI accidents by using a weak hub-height blinky?
Hmmmm. I ride and drive around bikes all the time during the day, and
I've never seen a bike because it had a little Knog light. Not during
the day.

Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela):

Vertical angle 0°*** Horizontal angle
********************* −80°*** −20°*** 0°*** 20°*** 80°
Front light outer diode*** 0.02*** 0.22*** 4.43*** 3.74*** 0.05
Front light inner diode*** 0.05*** 0.59*** 5.50*** 2.15*** 0.05

The table doesn't even address vertical angle. I guess the cars are
really low to the ground in Denmark.


You can't know the reason. It's like the famous, oft-misquoted, Thompson
helmet study. Further "meta-analysis” reduced the claimed 85% reduction
to between 25% and 55%. But as one report admitted "Experiments on
people are unethical.* So researchers instead collect hospital data on
people involved in bicycle crashes." And left out of this kind of study,
by default, are all cyclists whose helmet mitigated the effect of the
crash to the extent that they never went to the hospital.


So in response to Jay's detailed remarks, you're switching topics to
defend a notorious pro-helmet study that even the federal government now
disowns? Because of a lawsuit threat, the NHTSA was force to admit the
Thompson & Rivara study does not meet the government standards for
accuracy. Almost 30 years of lack of corroboration finally had an effect.

Perhaps, Steven, you should stick to losing one argument at a time.


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #172  
Old February 17th 18, 03:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,771
Default Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:13:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/16/2018 12:33 PM, sms wrote:
On 2/16/2018 9:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:49:50 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-15 12:16, sms wrote:
On 2/15/2018 9:35 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip
************************************************** * ... Of course
we will soon see claims that this is all self-interest by Trek, whose
sole aim is to sell more lights.


Everybody should know that such articles aren't very suited to foster
sales of their own products but lights in general.

True. But it's a convenient excuse to dismiss the findings of such
article. Even though Trek is not a major supplier of bicycle lights,
you
can already predict the narrative that will spew forth. You saw it
already with the Odense study.


Yep, afterwards the usual denialist stuff roll in.

Any study showing that a little mag-dyno blinky decreased daytime solo
accidents by 27% is suspicious on its face. If that doesn't raise an
eye-brow, you don't have eye-brows.


I think, that as a lawyer, you likely understand that the fact that the
DRL is powered by a magnetic dynamo is irrelevant in terms of its
effectiveness.


The "magnetic dynamo" is one or two isolated magnets attached to the
spokes and passing a coil built into the light. You get either one or
two tiny pulses of electricity per wheel revolution. It's like a 4th
grade science fair project.

It can't possibly put out anywhere near the power of a real bike dynamo.
Yet you're the person who has spent years claiming that real bike
dynamos are completely insufficient.

Are you getting a commission on these things too?


A strange thing about the Reelight Study. The numbers appear to be
variables. In Reelight's documentation
https://www.reelight.com/pages/bike-safety

The lights "Reelight has proven that our induction lights reduce the
probability of accidents [...] by 47%* for accident with more than one
involved party.

Yet in another description, by a non Reelight source it states, "which
documented a 32 % decrease in the amount of bike accidents when fixed
mounted magnetic bike lights were used."
http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2010/09/29/reelight-3/


In the earliest reports I was able to find on the study the results
were stated to have been " The experiment resulted in a change in the
law in Denmark, flashing lights are now legal."

A study that, depending on where reported, varies by some 32% in
effectiveness, does not seem like a very authoritative source.

But accuracy aside both of the reports quoted above stated that
"Furthermore, 85%* of our induction light users have expressed to have
felt safer whilst riding in traffic.", which I believe is true, and is
exactly what the two most prominent California DRL adherents are
saying.... that with bright DRL's they feel safer.

Unfortunately feeling safe and being safe are not necessarily based on
the same conditions.

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #173  
Old February 17th 18, 11:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sepp Ruf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries

jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:


DRL


Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela):


As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident
data to conclute that.

Vertical angle 0° Horizontal angle
−80° −20° 0° 20° 80°
Front light outer diode 0.02 0.22 4.43 3.74 0.05
Front light inner diode 0.05 0.59 5.50 2.15 0.05


Only salesmen (including guerilla marketing expert dimwits) would call a 5
cd front light DRL. Present DRL on Danish streets is described in UNECE
Regulation 87: more than a factor 100 more intense at 0V-0H.

To be fair, quoting Reelight's FAQ, some of their cr*p might have gotten a
bit brighter:
quote
Hub Lights with flash (SL100) emits 29 cd from the front light and 10 from
the rear light.

Hub Lights with ReePower (SL120) emits approx. 24 cd from the front light
and approx. 8 from the rear light.
/quote

The table doesn't even address vertical angle. I guess the cars are really
low to the ground in Denmark.


(It's those crushing Socialist taxes!)

Not only the cars are low, but Sun is low on the horizon. Luckily, if you
don't mind a bit of extra weight on your bike, Joerg will help you build an
extra strong flasher for your safety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion
  #174  
Old February 17th 18, 05:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 2:21:48 AM UTC-8, Sepp Ruf wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:


DRL


Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela):


As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident
data to conclute that.


Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow!

-- Jay Beattie

  #175  
Old Yesterday, 02:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,634
Default Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries

On 2/17/2018 11:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 2:21:48 AM UTC-8, Sepp Ruf wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:


DRL


Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela):


As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident
data to conclute that.


Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow!


Yes. At about 4:00 and at about 6:00 in that video, you see the light
could be replaced by firefly in a jar.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #176  
Old Yesterday, 06:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
dave[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 20:28:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

DRL

Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela):

As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better
accident data to conclute that.


Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on
conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch
this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of
those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows
pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow!


Yes. At about 4:00 and at about 6:00 in that video, you see the light
could be replaced by firefly in a jar.


Nah. I've seen fireflies much brighter than that. And a firefly in a jar
is completely organic and recyclable. No plastics at all.
--
davethedave
  #177  
Old Yesterday, 01:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sepp Ruf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries

dave wrote:
On 17 Feb 2018 20:28:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


DRL

Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela):

As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better
accident data to conclude that.

Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on
conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch
this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of
those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows
pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow!


Dim; Flicker; View obstructed -- the Lucas three-way switch found a worthy,
automated heir.

Yes. At about 4:00 and at about 6:00 in that video, you see the light
could be replaced by firefly in a jar.


Had she opted for the plain "greenline" Marathon (or anything better)
instead of the extra diapered one she seems to be guerilla-marketing, she
could have invested the saved power in a "1.5 W" generator hub.

Nah. I've seen fireflies much brighter than that. And a firefly in a jar
is completely organic and recyclable. No plastics at all.


You aren't advocating cruelty to live animals, are you ?!?!2
  #178  
Old Today, 07:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,094
Default Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries

On 2/17/2018 8:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 2:21:48 AM UTC-8, Sepp Ruf wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:


DRL


Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela):


As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident
data to conclute that.


Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow!


Even if there were a double-blind study, with a huge statistical sample,
it would make zero difference because those that did not like the
results would still fabricate some narrative, however ridiculous, to
dismiss it. It's like explaining to an NRA member that selling AR-15s to
teenagers might not be a good idea--the response will be a nonsensical
diatribe about prescription drugs, mental illness, the removal of prayer
from public schools, the lack of worshiping Gods, the citing of knife
attacks, and of course "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

You have to remember that there aren't organizations, with piles of
money, chomping at the bit to fund studies that measure crashes versus
number of lumens, crashes of StVZO versus non StVZO compliant lights,
crashes per solid DRL versus crashed per flashing DRL versus crashes
versus no DRL, or any of the various studies that are demanded by those
that desperately argue against cyclists using adequate lights.

At some point, it's necessary to employ logic, extrapolation, and common
sense. For example, we all are aware of the benefits of DRLs on
motorcycles, and they are mandatory in many states. In Canada and some
other northern countries, DRLs are also mandatory for all motor
vehicles. Do the benefits of DRLs extend to other vehicles like
bicycles? Are you better off being more visible to other road users?

Any time an equipment manufacturer conducts a study, or makes any
statement about the positive effects of a product that they sell, there
will be those that insist that the only reason they are doing those
studies or making those statements, is to increase sales of their
product. Of course the reality is that when Trek states the benefits of
a DRL on their web site,
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/daytime_running_lights/ the reality
is that the reader is just as likely to buy some other brand of DRL if
they start doing any comparison shopping based on run-time, cost, and
effectiveness. The same goes with Reelights. The same thing holds if a
helmet manufacturer cites one of the many studies showing the benefits
of helmets in crashes; it might encourage the purchase of a helmet, but
not necessarily one from the manufacturer citing the study.

No one can dispute the safety benefits of products like helmets or DRLs,
so is it really unacceptable for manufacturers of those products to cite
studies that prove the benefits?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dynamo Lights viz Battery Lights in snow qand slush? Sir Ridesalot Techniques 6 March 4th 15 11:36 PM
Cheap lights using CR123 batteries Tom Anderson UK 3 January 18th 11 03:33 AM
Rechargable Cells/batteries for Lights Keiron Kinninmont Techniques 8 December 26th 06 12:58 AM
Lights without batteries? Steve Watkin UK 9 May 16th 06 10:04 PM
Rechargeable batteries with LED lights David Ward Techniques 8 March 17th 05 04:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.