Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries

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.


The usual reaction with many brand name lights is "Now WHAT do those
cost?!" and then people scope out Amazon, Walmart, Newegg, EBay and
others. Just like I did.

I don't think that people are quite as price sensitive as you may think.
People do research by reading reviews, then buy whatever suits them.


Some commuters maybe. IME the majority of riders is price-sensitive.
This includes serious riders who put on way more miles per year than I
do. The watch for sales like hawks. Then when their favorite tire,
chain, cassette, BB or whatever goes on sale they pounce and by a
serious stash. Those guys will not spend $200 on a light.


Unfortunately most shops aren't interested in stocking a very wide
selection. I looked for my Lezyne lights at local stores. One store
carried some Lezyne products, but not what I wanted.

I even found that no-name lights can be of better quality than name
brand lights that cost a lot more (not Trek though, I never had any of
theirs).

Yes, sometimes. But the no-name lights often come with batteries whose
capacity bear no relation to what's printed on them.


I can't confirm that. One light came with a battery, the other didn't
and I bought a much larger one anyhow because my road bike rides are
longer and sometimes, well, on roads. Yesterday I had to replenish
brewing stuff which was 37mi round trip. Half of the time the front
light was on full bore (8W), the other half it was off. The Li-Ion stack
voltage sagged from 8.06V to 7.88V over that whole time. Cut-off is at
6.7V so plenty of juice left. It would have sufficed for hours more. The
light including aftermarket lens cost me under $20 and the battery pack
also $20.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-02-15 23:13, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 07:57:11 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/14/2018 11:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 6:30:19 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:55:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/14/2018 5:08 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:43:14 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 2/13/2018 1:10 PM, jbeattie wrote:

When it comes to DRLs, correlation is about all we have. I haven't seen a single study where are driver claimed he or she saw a bicyclist and avoided an accident during daylight hours because of a light.

LOL, you're sounding like the people that think that there are entities
running around funding every possible double-blind study. They are very
good at trying to promote doubt with every study that proves something
that doesn't fit their agenda.

It's not just the Odense study on DRLs, it's also all the studies on
motorcycle headlights, both steady and modulated.

You don't view a study that was 100% financed and supported by
Reelight that. strangely enough, proved that using the Reelight magnet
powered light was Good! Good! Good! is just a tiny bit suspect?

Probably not as it supports YOUR assertions that bright lights make
Bikes safe. But I suspect that you never actually read the study, did
you? After all Reelight seems to be strangely reticent in announcing
the power of their lights. They only describe it as " a smart little
bike light with bright clear illumination".

But One does wonder how powerful a tiny little one LED lamp powered
by a magnet attached to the spokes really is?

Strange that someone who advocates large powerful bicycle lights would
be a proponent of such a tiny little light.

It's also laughable that Scharf (AKA "sms") has spent years telling us
that dynamo lights are totally inadequate. But he sings the praises of a
tiny light that blinks on only when a spoke magnet passes its little
pickup coil.

Ah but Scharf has become a politician, and everyone knows about
politicians....
--
Cheers,

John B.


Now, now. Steven should be congratulated for his public service. More people need to be involved in public service. However, I still think DRLs in sunny California are dopey.

-- Jay Beattie.


Well, there's Garibaldi and then there's Hugo Chavez.

Was Garibaldi selling bicycle lights?


Probably :-)

http://ciclofficinagaribaldi.it/

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2018-02-16 09:03, 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.


There will always be messed up "studies". It is not helpful to try to
find the few that are and ignore the vast majority of proper studies
which have proven time and again that daytime lights help.

BTW, my experience on bike paths is very different from yours. Some
riders do not turn off their lights there or forget but nearly all are
small handlebar lights with tiny batteries. Not blinding at all. There
are only very few riders like me who have powerful front lights with a
sizeable detached battery and those guys are generally considerate. We
turn them off on the MUP. If dreary or dark we turn them to a low
setting (that's why the lights have those). Maybe Californians and
Oregonians are different in that respect. Which would be weird because
we like similar kinds of beer.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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.

On 2/16/2018 12:21 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-16 09:03, 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.


There will always be messed up "studies". It is not helpful to try to
find the few that are and ignore the vast majority of proper studies
which have proven time and again that daytime lights help.

So where is this "vast majority of proper studies" that shows that
daytime lights help bicyclists? I've seen one crappy study funded by a
company giving away oddball blinkies and getting "Gee thanks, it works
great!" responses from the recipients. (Is there a Danish proverb
equivalent to "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"?)


BTW, my experience on bike paths is very different from yours. Some
riders do not turn off their lights there or forget but nearly all are
small handlebar lights with tiny batteries. Not blinding at all.

And yet we have people claiming simultaneously that the tiny Reelight
blinkies that imitate fireflies are super-effective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM6E5PBKPqg
while simultaneously telling us we need to have mega-lumen lights to be
safe, and that a properly engineered dynamo light is totally inadequate.

There
are only very few riders like me who have powerful front lights with a
sizeable detached battery and those guys are generally considerate. We
turn them off on the MUP.

I've been blinded by road riders with mega-lumen lights. The problem is
not confined to MUPs.

And about the wonderful protection, here's a recent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNnFXnt7Fuw

Gosh, this guy has the blinking front and rear lights people love. He
has an electric horn. He has a helmet camera. He has his own magic paint
stripe which makes him even safer. But somehow, edge riding in the door
zone still didn't work out.

It's almost as if a person needs to learn how to properly ride!


--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

-- Jay Beattie.

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.

On 2/16/2018 10:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

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

Just think, if the rather weak Reelights had such a big effect on the
reduction of collisions, how much bigger the reduction would be with
higher quality DRLs.

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
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â* ... 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?

--
- Frank Krygowski