|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article
On 8/2/2013 6:42 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Yo, Scharfie. I agree with you, the EU-legal wide, flat beam shape isn't optimal. But Nate is right. You must find space in your 100 words to point out that the best lights available have some kind of a cutoff, and that they aren't available with a flashing mode. I have a zooming flashlight, branded by the German supermarket Lidl, with zoom and flash modes, and it throws nearly as much light as my BUMM IQ Fly driven off a 36V battery, and doesn't have the hotspot, but you put that flashlight on your bike in Germany, and you do not pass jaii. I think that some people's confusion is that they're thinking about 1000 lumen+ off-road bicycle lights with a symmetrical beam, used by mountain bikers, which would indeed be annoying to oncoming traffic. I'm talking about road-bike lights which are in the 200-600 lumen range where a symmetrical beam is far better than the StVZO compliant beams. For road riding, the EU-standard beams are definitely sub-optimal, even riders in the EU now find ways around them. Also, if there will be a bicycle revival, it will be an electric bike (pedelec) revival, so big-battery lamps like mine will become more commonplace. Maybe where you are, but they've been a huge flop in the U.S. despite a lot of effort by a lot of manufacturers, big and small. You may be right: the dynamo's time has come and gone unnoticed in the States. The only way the dynamo will be a success in the states is if bicycles ship with a dynamo wheel from the factory which adds only a few dollars to the cost of a wheel. When you have to buy a new wheel for a retail price of $100-300 you're eliminating 99.999% of the market for dynamos. If you leave out dynamo lamps, you run the risk of looking like an insular provincial idiot, and we already have enough of those on RBT. Your objection of expense holds zero water: that's an artifact of the congenitally expensive Peter White having the import agency for the best lamps, which started overpriced anyway at the BUMM factory. Hey, he's got to make a living. I don't think he's getting rich selling dynamo lights and hubs. One thing I've noticed though is a big increase in direct international sales. You see a lot of the higher end dynamos being shipped directly from Taiwan and China now. I never left out a mention of dynamos, but it was buried. I moved it to a more prominent place. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-CompromiseRequirements" article
On Friday, August 2, 2013 10:36:58 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 8/2/2013 6:42 PM, Andre Jute wrote: Yo, Scharfie. I agree with you, the EU-legal wide, flat beam shape isn't optimal. But Nate is right. You must find space in your 100 words to point out that the best lights available have some kind of a cutoff, and that they aren't available with a flashing mode. I have a zooming flashlight, branded by the German supermarket Lidl, with zoom and flash modes, and it throws nearly as much light as my BUMM IQ Fly driven off a 36V battery, and doesn't have the hotspot, but you put that flashlight on your bike in Germany, and you do not pass jaii. I think that some people's confusion is that they're thinking about 1000 lumen+ off-road bicycle lights with a symmetrical beam, used by mountain bikers, which would indeed be annoying to oncoming traffic. I'm talking about road-bike lights which are in the 200-600 lumen range where a symmetrical beam is far better than the StVZO compliant beams. For road riding, the EU-standard beams are definitely sub-optimal, even riders in the EU now find ways around them. "Far better?" By whose standards? Yours (and even then, you may be deceiving yourself) or oncoming traffic? Keep in mind that there are some odd perception issues going on with headlamps where a person can honestly believe that his headlights are excellent when they are not optiomal for seeing or the converse where a headlight may appear not that good but actually are better for seeing than one that appears better. I'm assuming that that is what's going on here. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article
On 8/3/2013 4:27 AM, Andreas Oehler wrote:
Fri, 02 Aug 2013 20:36:58 -0700, sms: I'm talking about road-bike lights which are in the 200-600 lumen range where a symmetrical beam is far better than the StVZO compliant beams. For road riding, the EU-standard beams are definitely sub-optimal, even riders in the EU now find ways around them. The strange thing is: Motorcycle and car manufacurers are still not "enlighted" by this idea. It may come as a surprise to you, but motor vehicles are not the same as bicycles. They are supposed to ride as far to the right as practical, they are slower, they are more vulnerable, and they ride in places where motor vehicles are not permitted such as separate cycling infrastructure. At least that's the way things work in the U.S.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article
On 8/3/2013 5:10 AM, N8N wrote:
"Far better?" By whose standards? Yours (and even then, you may be deceiving yourself) or oncoming traffic? Keep in mind that there are some odd perception issues going on with headlamps where a person can honestly believe that his headlights are excellent when they are not optiomal for seeing. Frank has believed this for years, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so I have to agree with you there. Except that's only what he posts here, it's highly likely that he doesn't honestly believe it. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-CompromiseRequirements" article
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 10:21:24 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 8/3/2013 5:10 AM, N8N wrote: "Far better?" By whose standards? Yours (and even then, you may be deceiving yourself) or oncoming traffic? Keep in mind that there are some odd perception issues going on with headlamps where a person can honestly believe that his headlights are excellent when they are not optiomal for seeing. Frank has believed this for years, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so I have to agree with you there. Except that's only what he posts here, it's highly likely that he doesn't honestly believe it. But here's what I really don't understand... you're consistently recommending a flashlight/symmetrical beam for road riding. That's essentially what a car driver would call a "driving light" with a little extra spill around the hot spot - or a light that is actually more tightly focused than a high beam. Great if you're on a deserted country road with nobody else around and traveling at high speed; very much less than ideal anywhere else. When riding a bicycle, what you really want is something more analogous to an automotive low beam headlamp - throw the light down the road as far as you can without offending other road users, meaning that what you really want is a rectangular or trapezoidal beam pattern with most of the light ending up in a horizontal line right under the cutoff (which should be aimed roughly straight ahead, but a few degrees down) then smoothly decreasing in intensity back towards you - so that from your perspective the road is illuminated with relatively even intensity. Too much foreground light can actually lull you into a false sense of security about your lights, thinking that they are better than they are, as they illuminate the road that you're just about to travel over really well, while perhaps not putting enough light out a few seconds ahead of you, where you really need to be looking. (this is exactly what I was alluding to in my previous post odd perception issues.) A little light above the cutoff is desirable to read road signs, identify obstacles, display your presence to other road users, etc. (as has been thrashed to death in the other thread) but in practice designers try to minimize this as much as possible and even so there's always enough light above horizontal to accomplish these goals. Unfortunately when it comes to bicycle lighting in the US, it seems like most of the products developed have been aimed toward the MTB crowd so we have ultra-high-power symmetrical beam lights with no thought at all given to on road use. Whereas in Europe, where bicycle commuting seems to be more common, there are actually regulations in place designed to make sure that the lights being used are considerate to other road users. Now I've probably given the impression that I consider StVZO lights to be the be-all and end-all of bike lights. I don't - those regulations artificially limit the amount of light able to be thrown out on the road by the 2.7W restriction for dynamo lights. Certainly more power could be used, but by the regs it is not. So the light designers, working under that constraint and the constraints of the available LED emitters, have to make some compromise - either they tighten up the beam pattern from what is optimal to put good light in the areas that are lit, or they produce a good beam pattern but not as much light as they could. However, I have hope that with increasingly more efficient LED emitters we may see in a few years really, really good StVZO headlights that one could use without feeling that any compromises were made at all (although we may actually have them and I just haven't tried them yet, being about 5 years behind in my own lighting purchases. e.g. the new B&M and Philips lights are apparently quite a bit better than anything I've used.) The reason that I am partial to StVZO lights, however, is it seems that in the current market one has to make a choice between StVZO and symmetrical beam lights as there just aren't any other options available, so StVZO it is as those lights come closer to the ideal beam pattern for on-road than any others available. Now for a dual beam setup, yes, a flashlight type beam is great for a "high beam" or off road light, although for typical bicycle speeds (almost never exceeding 30 MPH unless you're in far better shape than YT) I'd say that a lot of flashlights that I've seen could use to have less focus and a larger hot spot to be more usable for that use. nate |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements" article
N8N writes:
On Friday, August 2, 2013 10:36:58 PM UTC-5, sms wrote: On 8/2/2013 6:42 PM, Andre Jute wrote: Yo, Scharfie. I agree with you, the EU-legal wide, flat beam shape isn't optimal. But Nate is right. You must find space in your 100 words to point out that the best lights available have some kind of a cutoff, and that they aren't available with a flashing mode. I have a zooming flashlight, branded by the German supermarket Lidl, with zoom and flash modes, and it throws nearly as much light as my BUMM IQ Fly driven off a 36V battery, and doesn't have the hotspot, but you put that flashlight on your bike in Germany, and you do not pass jaii. I think that some people's confusion is that they're thinking about 1000 lumen+ off-road bicycle lights with a symmetrical beam, used by mountain bikers, which would indeed be annoying to oncoming traffic. I'm talking about road-bike lights which are in the 200-600 lumen range where a symmetrical beam is far better than the StVZO compliant beams. For road riding, the EU-standard beams are definitely sub-optimal, even riders in the EU now find ways around them. "Far better?" By whose standards? Yours (and even then, you may be deceiving yourself) or oncoming traffic? Keep in mind that there are some odd perception issues going on with headlamps where a person can honestly believe that his headlights are excellent when they are not optiomal for seeing or the converse where a headlight may appear not that good but actually are better for seeing than one that appears better. I'm assuming that that is what's going on here. I am having some perception issues understanding anything you just said. Nate, I commuted to work in the ~dark _with no headlight_ for some time before I got a lame 1-watt, which I thought was pretty darn good. I then rode another couple of years with another 1-watt. When I got my 2-watt I was blown away at how "excellent" it is. You gonna tell me it's not excellent? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements" article
On 2013-08-02 21:55:52 +0000, sms said:
I've been asked to write one of those articles with the format of "10 Things..." that magazines seem to adore these days. This is on the subject of buying bicycle headlights. I completed a first draft, and the earlier thread on "overhanging trees..." provided some good material and came just at the right time. The drawings I made are not what will be published, they have a graphic designer that will re-do them. The word count for each section is suppose to be not more than 100 words of text, though I think they'll give me a little leeway. Any comments are welcome. It's too long to post here, and the graphics won't show up, so I put the first draft up he http://nordicgroup.us/ten/ At the bottom of the article it says: Steven M. Scharf is one of Earth's leading experts on bicycle lighting. Can you change that into something like: Steven M. Scharf someone with a strong opinion about bicycle lighting. Thank you. -- Lou |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-CompromiseRequirements" article
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 12:26:49 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:
N8N writes: On Friday, August 2, 2013 10:36:58 PM UTC-5, sms wrote: On 8/2/2013 6:42 PM, Andre Jute wrote: Yo, Scharfie. I agree with you, the EU-legal wide, flat beam shape isn't optimal. But Nate is right. You must find space in your 100 words to point out that the best lights available have some kind of a cutoff, and that they aren't available with a flashing mode. I have a zooming flashlight, branded by the German supermarket Lidl, with zoom and flash modes, and it throws nearly as much light as my BUMM IQ Fly driven off a 36V battery, and doesn't have the hotspot, but you put that flashlight on your bike in Germany, and you do not pass jaii. I think that some people's confusion is that they're thinking about 1000 lumen+ off-road bicycle lights with a symmetrical beam, used by mountain bikers, which would indeed be annoying to oncoming traffic. I'm talking about road-bike lights which are in the 200-600 lumen range where a symmetrical beam is far better than the StVZO compliant beams. For road riding, the EU-standard beams are definitely sub-optimal, even riders in the EU now find ways around them. "Far better?" By whose standards? Yours (and even then, you may be deceiving yourself) or oncoming traffic? Keep in mind that there are some odd perception issues going on with headlamps where a person can honestly believe that his headlights are excellent when they are not optiomal for seeing or the converse where a headlight may appear not that good but actually are better for seeing than one that appears better. I'm assuming that that is what's going on here. I am having some perception issues understanding anything you just said. Nate, I commuted to work in the ~dark _with no headlight_ for some time before I got a lame 1-watt, which I thought was pretty darn good. I then rode another couple of years with another 1-watt. When I got my 2-watt I was blown away at how "excellent" it is. You gonna tell me it's not excellent? "adequate" maybe, depending on the perspective. Heck, I've ridden behind a 3W flashlight with a DX collimator that turned the beam pattern into a line before - actually worked surprisingly well and in some ways was superior to commercially available lights (and in some ways was inferior, as in the distinct *lack* of foreground light) When your choices are ride behind less than optimal lights and don't ride, I'll take the less than optimal lights any day so long as I feel they're good enough that doing so is not overly dangerous. But the title of the thread was "no-compromise" which of course can't possibly be accurate, otherwise we'd hire a lighting engineer to design the perfect bike headlight, cost be damned, with a limited run made just for the enlightened (heh) few cognoscenti, complete with ultra low drag hub dynamo with hard-chromed titanium balls lubricated with pressed baby seals and a neural interface to optimize the beam pattern as you ride. However, when an article says "no-compromise" and then recommends lights for which there are readily available, superior commercial alternatives, I have a hard time letting that go without comment. Someday I should learn to just shake my head and move on, but the problem with that is that then people might not learn about the superior alternatives available. nate |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements" article
Dan wrote:
N8N writes: On Friday, August 2, 2013 10:36:58 PM snip When I got my 2-watt I was blown away at how "excellent" it is. You gonna tell me it's not excellent? My Planet Bike 2. Watt 149 lumens is excellent. Does just what I need. Also comes off easily when I don't need it. So does my 1 watt flea. Does just what I need it to do. So it's also excellent. If you're happy with the price and it does what you want, I'd say it's excellent. -- duane |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements" article
N8N writes:
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 12:26:49 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote: N8N writes: On Friday, August 2, 2013 10:36:58 PM UTC-5, sms wrote: On 8/2/2013 6:42 PM, Andre Jute wrote: Yo, Scharfie. I agree with you, the EU-legal wide, flat beam shape isn't optimal. But Nate is right. You must find space in your 100 words to point out that the best lights available have some kind of a cutoff, and that they aren't available with a flashing mode. I have a zooming flashlight, branded by the German supermarket Lidl, with zoom and flash modes, and it throws nearly as much light as my BUMM IQ Fly driven off a 36V battery, and doesn't have the hotspot, but you put that flashlight on your bike in Germany, and you do not pass jaii. I think that some people's confusion is that they're thinking about 1000 lumen+ off-road bicycle lights with a symmetrical beam, used by mountain bikers, which would indeed be annoying to oncoming traffic. I'm talking about road-bike lights which are in the 200-600 lumen range where a symmetrical beam is far better than the StVZO compliant beams. For road riding, the EU-standard beams are definitely sub-optimal, even riders in the EU now find ways around them. "Far better?" By whose standards? Yours (and even then, you may be deceiving yourself) or oncoming traffic? Keep in mind that there are some odd perception issues going on with headlamps where a person can honestly believe that his headlights are excellent when they are not optiomal for seeing or the converse where a headlight may appear not that good but actually are better for seeing than one that appears better. I'm assuming that that is what's going on here. I am having some perception issues understanding anything you just said. Nate, I commuted to work in the ~dark _with no headlight_ for some time before I got a lame 1-watt, which I thought was pretty darn good. I then rode another couple of years with another 1-watt. When I got my 2-watt I was blown away at how "excellent" it is. You gonna tell me it's not excellent? "adequate" maybe, depending on the perspective. Heck, I've ridden behind a 3W flashlight with a DX collimator that turned the beam pattern into a line before - actually worked surprisingly well and in some ways was superior to commercially available lights (and in some ways was inferior, as in the distinct *lack* of foreground light) When your choices are ride behind less than optimal lights and don't ride, I'll take the less than optimal lights any day so long as I feel they're good enough that doing so is not overly dangerous. But the title of the thread was "no-compromise" which of course can't possibly be accurate, otherwise we'd hire a lighting engineer to design the perfect bike headlight, cost be damned, with a limited run made just for the enlightened (heh) few cognoscenti, complete with ultra low drag hub dynamo with hard-chromed titanium balls lubricated with pressed baby seals and a neural interface to optimize the beam pattern as you ride. However, when an article says "no-compromise" and then recommends lights for which there are readily available, superior commercial alternatives, I have a hard time letting that go without comment. Someday I should learn to just shake my head and move on, but the problem with that is that then people might not learn about the superior alternatives available. Now I get what you're saying. And it's all good, and I appreciate advancing the state of affairs, and putting it into practice in ways that will create economy of scale such that the current state of affairs (most of what I see showing up on bike racks outside workplaces are brand new hybrids with "be seen... maybe - in flashing mode" handlebar mounted lights). Until then, Pedro riding his crappy MTB to work is probably not going to have any light at all - or maybe a secondhand 1-watt, and most other "cyclists" just won't ride at night (their bikes will remain playthings to take out when it's convenient), and people will have the idea that anything that produces considerable lumens is superior, and... (The Luxos U turns me on, too - for the superior light and also the remote mode switch - looks like the state-of-the-art to me.) Good talk. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Big drop in number of young people choosing to drive" | Doug[_12_] | UK | 5 | August 6th 11 09:44 AM |
Scientific American "A Twenty Five Cent Bicycle" and "An Electric Bicycle Lamp" 1896 | [email protected] | Techniques | 15 | December 16th 07 07:43 AM |
I do not... (was Wafflycat slammed as "nutter" in Obs article on Lycra Louts) | Helen Deborah Vecht | UK | 2 | June 5th 06 02:44 PM |
Wikipedia - Today's featured article - "The Bicycle" | hippy | Australia | 3 | March 31st 05 11:25 AM |