Eyc headlight problem

On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/4/2021 11:58 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/4/2021 7:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Personally, I don't care if someone wants more light that a dyno
produces, so long as it is pointed down, and the output is reduced in
shared facilities.Â* Those things are possible but just not practiced.
All cars come with high-beams, and we don't run around ranting about
high beams and how low beams should be enough.Â* Instead, we criticize
people who are constantly running high beams when it is unnecessary --
like in the MV version of a flat bike lane on a well-lighted street
with on-coming traffic.

Some sort of automatic dimming when there are approaching bicycles on a
narrow path would be nice. For wider roads, the cyclists will be toward
the right and if the light is properly aimed it won't be shining in the
eyes of oncoming traffic, whether bicycles or cars.

Except some people now call for bi-directional "cycletracks" at one side
of city streets. In that case, unthinking cyclists with hot, glaring
round beams will blind both oncoming cyclists and motorists.

It's the multi-use paths where I have an issue with dynamo lights. These
paths often have a lot of twists and turns as they navigate between
freeways, across railroad tracks, and over waterways. Some of the
overcrossings are not straight ramps but circular ramps. Some turns are
so sharp that they've installed mirrors so you can see oncoming bicycles
and pedestrians. Speeds are slow in many instances and the dynamo output
is too low for night riding on these paths.

My LED dyno lights give sufficient illumination down below walking
speed. If yours don't, you must be still using a halogen headlamp. (If
not, please tell us what you are using.)

Regarding tight turns in the dark: It's a minor problem, not a large or
difficult one. Dyno driven LEDs have plenty of excess lumens now.
Fancier optics and/or one or two side-firing LEDs could cure that
problem immediately.

The fact that this hasn't been done may indicate how few customers are
bothered by it.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Op zondag 4 april 2021 om 18:16:52 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

--
- Frank Krygowski

As someone who is perfectly OK with my dynohub light system I can understand that people have different needs. Bad night vision, climbs, down hills, lot of light distraction. As long as they don't blind other road users I don't mind other people use different and/or mor powerfull light systems. Maybe you should do the same.

Lou

On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 10:34:26 a.m. UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 6:45:00 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2021 8:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 4:32:13 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2021 12:57 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:


I think it was Jay Beattie who suggested the 800 lumen number. I
merely stole it from him. I agree that 800 lumens probably too much..
However, if such a high power dynamo product ever arrives on the
market, there will surely be a lumens war among vendors to see who can
advertise the largest number. At that time, 800 lumens will reserved
for purists and regulatory agencies.
Yep, safety inflation is real.

Since when is being able to see "safety inflation"? Let's go for a night ride sometime, you and your bottle dyno and light, and me and my whatever light I chose.
Fine. We'll do it around here, where the people I have ridden night
rides with all have had lights far less capable than those I use.
Somehow they think they can see with theirs. But they tell me they see
better with mine.

Here's the problem, Jay. "Seeing" is not a binary condition. One can see
better or not as well, depending on various factors - and lumen count is
only one of those factors. It's silly to claim a certain number of
lumens is necessary for everybody. (It's even sillier to claim a certain
number of Watts is necessary, as some others do.)

And demanding ever-increasing numbers _is_ safety inflation. Were you
riding at night ten years ago? 20 years ago? Were you really using 800
lumens then?
On flat roads and the bike path through South Waterfront I can get by with a little flea-watt flasher or a clip on flashlight from 1968 -- or my old Wonder Light. But that is not where I do (or did pre DST) most of my riding. Everything involves a descent, often on old broken concrete roads. I've done those on dyno only, and its inadequate except at a creeping pace.
Yes, I get that. You ride single track through forests, you climb stairs
carrying your bike, you have immensely steep hills and get off and walk,
you have to duck under twigs. I'm not denying that you're a hero.

But claiming or accepting that you're a hero comes with acknowledging
that most others are not!

You keep ignoring that I've said many times that dyno systems are not
what's best for off-road stuff. Could you please acknowledge that I've
said that, and move on? Then maybe we could restrict our discussion to
the conditions in which almost all cyclists actually ride.

Almost all bicyclists - even regular commuters - ride much more normal
routes and surfaces. They don't climb 20% grades on forest paths. They
don't need 800 lumens to see. They don't go blind with 750 lumens, or
even 75. Many of them actually use "flea watt" lights. Perhaps instead
of yelling at me, you should be yelling at them? "GET 800 LUMENS!!"
I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride -- and the implied or overt put-down of anyone who does not ride like you or use your equipment. Oh, and the incessant stories of the unique old guy with [fill in the blank old technology] who beat the uppity racer. Hey, I know a racer who rode a 24 hour race and kicked everybody's ass -- including old bearded guys with dynos.

And I don't know what type of riding most people do, and it really doesn't matter. I know what I do, and I know that my riding is not unique. Unlike you, I am not prescribing a light for anyone but me. And the deal with an 800 lumen light (which is not terribly bright) is that it is also a 300 and 500 lumen light -- and a flasher. A lot of high lumen lights are purchased because they have 4 hour run times at 300 lumens. They're cheap, simple and light.

Personally, I don't care if someone wants more light that a dyno produces, so long as it is pointed down, and the output is reduced in shared facilities. Those things are possible but just not practiced. All cars come with high-beams, and we don't run around ranting about high beams and how low beams should be enough. Instead, we criticize people who are constantly running high beams when it is unnecessary -- like in the MV version of a flat bike lane on a well-lighted street with on-coming traffic.

-- Jay Beattie.

Precisely why I bought the external battery powered light that I did. On t he lowest setting I get a very long run time. Even on the middle setting I get a good run time. Another great thing about it is that I can see the road even if I'm crawling up a steep hill or stopped.

A big plus too is that I can switch that light over to a different bike if I want to.

Cheers

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call 'em what
you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't it proof that
the public highways are dangerious for cyclists?

The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public
roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths necessary?"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/3/2021 8:24 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 9:34:50 AM UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote:
sms wrote:
On 4/2/2021 11:59 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
sms wrote:
On 4/2/2021 9:00 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

I don't love it. I would love a dyno light with a solid 800 lumen
output, a little more upward spew and a stand light that was stronger
than the light on my give-away key chain from Wells Fargo -- and one
with a battery so I could use the light off the bike. We
transportational cyclists often need a light for use off the bike. A
flasher would be nice for dusk and dawn, but not required. And while
we're wishing, how about something lighter and more efficient than a
bunch of magnets whirling around. There must be some other way of harvesting electrons.

Such a light would be wonderful but it would be a stretch with a 6V/3W
dynamo, even at higher speeds where you can get more than 3 watts out of
it. Some LED makers are claiming 300 lumens per watt, at least in the
lab, but 200-250 lumens per watt are what is available commercially at
this time.

A 12V/6W hub dynamo (or even a 9V/4.5W hub dynamo) would make dynamo
lights with sufficient intensity more practical, including a beam
pattern where some upward spew would be possible. DRL flash capability
is trivial to add, as are internal batteries to be able to use it off
the bicycle. But there is just not much of a market for any of this.


You seem to have it stuck in your head that the internal impedance of a hub
generator is some immutable quantity and not a design parameter. Why not a
6V/12W hub dynamo? Hell, if you were willing to do frequency dependent
series capacitor switching, you can get a lot more than 3W out of a 3W
labelled hub.

Not stuck at all. The problem with that approach, and it's already been
done via lowering the impedance by putting two bulbs (or LEDs) in series
is that you don't reach sufficient power at lower speeds.

OK. First off, putting two LEDs in series raises the impedance, and it
works by allowing the voltage from the generator to go up. If you had a bit
of intelligent electronics (a frequency sensor with some hysteresis), you
could short out the second LED at low speeds where there isn’t enough
voltage to drive two in series.

Back in the days I experimented with halogen dyno lamps, I had two wired
in series with a switch that would short either one or the other for low
speed work, but have both in series at higher speeds.


Series being the electricity goes first to one LED and then to the second LED after the first is full.
Parallel being the electricity goes simultaneously to both LED at the same time.

Is parallel bad?
I have my two B&M LED lights in parallel from the Shimano dynohub. Seems to work just fine.

I'm surprised that seems to work fine. Series is normally considered
correct. It seems two identical lamps in parallel would each get 1/4
amp. LED headlights do better than halogen, etc. at low current levels,
but I'd have thought those would still be dim. If they're not, that's
interesting.

If I were you, I'd wire it with switches so I could change between the
two systems (series vs. parallel) while riding. Compare and report back!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/4/2021 5:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call 'em what
you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't it proof that
the public highways are dangerious for cyclists?

The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public
roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths necessary?"


+1, exactly.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/4/2021 2:00 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op zondag 4 april 2021 om 18:16:52 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

--
- Frank Krygowski

As someone who is perfectly OK with my dynohub light system I can understand that people have different needs. Bad night vision, climbs, down hills, lot of light distraction. As long as they don't blind other road users I don't mind other people use different and/or mor powerfull light systems. Maybe you should do the same.

Lou, I have never said I mind anybody using systems other than mine, IF
they don't dazzle other road users.

What I mind is people saying my system or similar systems can't be any
good. Jay mocks them as "mood lights" good only for slow level riding.
Scharf claims road cyclists get injured by tree branches due to StVZO
standards, or claims that he can't see when riding at low speed. Those
claims are false, and that's what I'm saying.

If you're complaining about intolerance, you're complaining about the
wrong people.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/4/2021 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call 'em what
you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't it proof that
the public highways are dangerious for cyclists?

That's what a certain cohort would have you believe. And it's generally
false. Yes, there are dangerous roads; but most roads are quite safe for
cycling.

The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public
roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths necessary?"

Most such facilities are not necessary. Many are worse than normal roads.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/4/2021 6:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:
I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the
incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy
something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only
to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably
give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in
many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again,
I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call
'em what
you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't
it proof that
the public highways are dangerious for cyclists?

That's what a certain cohort would have you believe. And
it's generally false. Yes, there are dangerous roads; but
most roads are quite safe for cycling.

The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public
roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths
necessary?"

Most such facilities are not necessary. Many are worse than
normal roads.


I believe this site is no longer updated for reasons other
than any lack of new examples:

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of.../March2019.htm

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971