Lezyne Deca Drive 1500XXL Report

On 3/4/2017 7:38 AM, wrote:

snip

I'm tall and locally they stopped trimming trees so that my helmet got caught in the overhanging branches and nearly pulled me off the bike. One of the guys in the group called road maintenance and the next time down this hill the branches were trimmed 3 feet higher.

Yeah, in a lot of cities, you have to call to get these things taken
care of, they don't have the resources to drive around looking for
cycling hazards.

Ditto for illegal bicycle lane parking. They are probably tired of me
calling this in all the time, but they always respond. Even before I was
on the City Council they were very good about enforcement, but only if
someone called to complain.

On 3/4/2017 8:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

I periodically whack tree branches, too. After the recent snow storms, there were lots of tree branches hanging into the roadways. It was a real problem. Now the problem is residual blow-down and gravel -- which won't get swept for months.

You need to move to Frank's area of Ohio where the city does a really
good job of driving panel trucks down the right side of the street to
knock down low-hanging branches. They have a schedule for doing this,
similar to the street-sweeping schedule.

On 3/4/2017 10:09 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 12:36:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snipped a lot about lowhanging branches
I believe everyone outside this discussion group considers this a
negligible issue. Why is this group different??

--
- Frank Krygowski

Maybe it's because in OUR areas it is a thing we encounter frequently. The problem with you Frank is if you don't personally see something then in your mind it simply can not exist.

That's been going on in r.b.t. for as long as anyone can remember. "Well
I have never encountered X therefore no one else has ever encountered X
either." "I use X piece of equipment so it's the best choice for
everyone else no matter what."

I'm amazed that a simple post about my experience with a battery powered
light has digressed into a very long rehash of the old dynamo versus
battery debate. Like Jay, and others, I use both kinds of lights at the
appropriate times. Each has their pros and cons. Most of us can discuss
the equipment we choose to use without insisting that everyone else
should be using what we use, without making up silly stories about panel
trucks knocking down tree branches.

On 2017-03-03 11:48, sms wrote:
On 3/2/2017 10:53 PM, Barry Beams wrote:

Just a note about the L&M Urban's output being referenced. They
keep ~rated output for the first 30 seconds, then drop off sharply as
the unit heats way up. Most small single LED big bright spot beam
type lights dim with time similarly.
Any industry originated standard favors the 800 pound gorillas in
the industry who push the standard through. Like letting the
automobile industry declare what pollution control and gas mileage
standards should be. Or letting a billionaire who hasn't paid income
tax in 20 years declare what new tax laws should be.
So gross total lumens is the unit, instead of Beam Lumens and Field
Lumens, which much better represent a light's usable visibility. Beam
lumens rejects all rays less than 10% of the brightest. Field lumens
rejects all rays less than 50% of the brightest. Field lumens is the
best type of lumen measurement to use for bicycle headlights. Beam
Lumens still allows for an excessively bright spot, but cuts out much
of the stray rays that go out as glare. A Might Rider 1800, for
instance, might only measure 800 Field lumens and 500 beam lumens at
most. The Oculus' even beam will measure most likely at least 70% of
its total lumens Beam lumens and 90% as field lumens. The reason is
how even the beam is, without a bight center spot. so the max
brightness is very little brighter than most of the rest of the beam.
Also the standard makers want the light to be waterproof at 1 meter
depth of water, even though we don't bicycle underwater. An IP6 level
like I and many others use, allows for anything a bicyclist might
encounter in the rain, without harm or loss of function to the
light. See what Brian Bowling of Planet Ultra wrote in his review
about his ride with an Oculus in the rain. But at a much lower cost
to manufacture.

Yes, it's damn near impossible to cool these high-wattage single LED
lights since removing the heat from the semiconductor junction is so
difficult. The Oculus is impressive that you can remove so much heat
through heat-conductive plastic which has much lower thermal
conductivity that aluminum. Collimating a proper beam from a multi-LED
setup involves more complex optics. I see more LEDs with multiple
emitters in the higher wattage lamps.

I recall that many years ago, someone in this group was extolling LED
lights and their efficiency because there was no "white hot filament."
He had no knowledge of semiconductor physics or thermal management, and
did not understand the difficulty of removing heat from the
semiconductor junctions of LEDs. Unlike a filament bulb, the heat
doesn't radiate from the front of the LED, it radiates from the
semiconductor junction. The "white hot filament" has been replaced by a
semiconductor junction that also got extremely hot. There's no free
lunch when it comes to removing heat. If you look at some of the LED car
headlight retrofit kits they have elaborate thermal management
systems--some have fans
https://d114hh0cykhyb0.cloudfront.net/images/uploads/led-headlight-conversion-kit-9005-all-component.jpg,
some have enormous aluminum heat sinks, and some use braided heat sinks.


The trick is to use more than one LED. My MagicShine seems able to move
sufficient heat away from one lone Cree XM-L running at about 7.5W. I am
using them since about two years and they have to endure full power
while on county roads, even on 105F summer days. Though I do have to
make sure to ratchet down to 3.5W when riding very slowly or stopping
for more than a traffic light phase. Else the aluminum body of the light
becomes very hot to the touch. It probably has an overtemp shut-off but
so far that never came on.

If I wanted more than 1000 lumens I'd simply use two or more of these or
I'd buy a light that has several LEDs spread sufficiently apart from
each other.

It is also beneficial not to run LEDs at their abs max datasheet limit
the whole time. Per datasheet the XM-L can take 10W but on my bikes they
never get more than 75%.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 3/4/2017 11:44 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

If I wanted more than 1000 lumens I'd simply use two or more of these or
I'd buy a light that has several LEDs spread sufficiently apart from
each other.

It is also beneficial not to run LEDs at their abs max datasheet limit
the whole time. Per datasheet the XM-L can take 10W but on my bikes they
never get more than 75%.

On some lights the single LED gets so hot that it unsolders itself from
the board.

The newer lights are going to multiple LEDs as they improve performance
beyond what is possible with a single LED. Even the dynamo lights are
taking this approach now. Three seems to be the sweet spot for separate
LEDs. There are also the LED arrays with multiple emitters on a single
substrate (often a 3 x 3 array). This works since there is more area for
the thermal solution to connect too, and it may simplify the optics
since it's closer to a point source.

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 9:36:54 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/4/2017 11:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 7:38:57 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 8:41:26 PM UTC-8, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:14:17 -0800, sms
wrote:

It's unlikely that there's anyone else that has not ridden along a road
with low hanging branches.

I've ridden along many a road with low-lying branches, and once I had
to stop and lift my bike over a low-lying tree -- but I've never seen
a low *hanging* branch over a roadway.

Except maybe right after the derecho, when Park Avenue was full of
brush, but since there were wires tangled all through the mess, I
didn't get close enough to see whether any of the branches were
hanging.

--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site..

I'm tall and locally they stopped trimming trees so that my helmet got caught in the overhanging branches and nearly pulled me off the bike. One of the guys in the group called road maintenance and the next time down this hill the branches were trimmed 3 feet higher.

I periodically whack tree branches, too. After the recent snow storms, there were lots of tree branches hanging into the roadways. It was a real problem. Now the problem is residual blow-down and gravel -- which won't get swept for months.

I'm astonished. What's the "period" on "periodically" whacking tree
branches? How badly have you been hurt by these "whacks"? Where on the
road are you riding when that happens? What do the SUV drivers and
truck drivers do when they come to these tree branches? Do you know
cyclists who have been injured by these tree branch whacks? Is there no
agency that keeps the streets clear of such hazards? Why would people
not demand that?

I'm astonished because I live in an area that gets _far_ more snow than
you do. Our club has (at least) weekly rides through a forested
metropolitan park, which gets far less truck traffic than any ordinary
street. Yet I may duck thin twigs with wet leaves perhaps once per
year, but probably far less than that; and if I didn't duck, there would
be no consequences.

I've never come across "low overhanging branches" listed as a riding
hazard in any of the dozens of cycling books I own, nor in any of the
three or four cycling classes I've taken, nor in the curriculum guides
for the courses I taught, nor in any online instructional articles I'm
aware of.

I'm not saying it's impossible to come across a branch so low as to
constitute a hazard; but I think it's got to be about as rare as, say,
dodging a turtle crossing the road. Or in Portland, dodging a salmon
crossing the road.

I believe everyone outside this discussion group considers this a
negligible issue. Why is this group different??

I ducked twice today (bike lane) and had to take the lane on HWY 30 to get around a giant Laurel that had basically slid or grown across the bike lane.. In a rain storm. It was hailing before the rain. This is a little piece of my commute, and depending on the year and season, you can do a lot of ducking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuIEtk7nvAY

-- Jay Beattie

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 9:36:54 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/4/2017 11:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 7:38:57 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 8:41:26 PM UTC-8, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:14:17 -0800, sms
wrote:

It's unlikely that there's anyone else that has not ridden along a road
with low hanging branches.

I've ridden along many a road with low-lying branches, and once I had
to stop and lift my bike over a low-lying tree -- but I've never seen
a low *hanging* branch over a roadway.

Except maybe right after the derecho, when Park Avenue was full of
brush, but since there were wires tangled all through the mess, I
didn't get close enough to see whether any of the branches were
hanging.

--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site..

I'm tall and locally they stopped trimming trees so that my helmet got caught in the overhanging branches and nearly pulled me off the bike. One of the guys in the group called road maintenance and the next time down this hill the branches were trimmed 3 feet higher.

I periodically whack tree branches, too. After the recent snow storms, there were lots of tree branches hanging into the roadways. It was a real problem. Now the problem is residual blow-down and gravel -- which won't get swept for months.

I'm astonished. What's the "period" on "periodically" whacking tree
branches? How badly have you been hurt by these "whacks"? Where on the
road are you riding when that happens? What do the SUV drivers and
truck drivers do when they come to these tree branches? Do you know
cyclists who have been injured by these tree branch whacks? Is there no
agency that keeps the streets clear of such hazards? Why would people
not demand that?

I'm astonished because I live in an area that gets _far_ more snow than
you do. Our club has (at least) weekly rides through a forested
metropolitan park, which gets far less truck traffic than any ordinary
street. Yet I may duck thin twigs with wet leaves perhaps once per
year, but probably far less than that; and if I didn't duck, there would
be no consequences.

I've never come across "low overhanging branches" listed as a riding
hazard in any of the dozens of cycling books I own, nor in any of the
three or four cycling classes I've taken, nor in the curriculum guides
for the courses I taught, nor in any online instructional articles I'm
aware of.

I'm not saying it's impossible to come across a branch so low as to
constitute a hazard; but I think it's got to be about as rare as, say,
dodging a turtle crossing the road. Or in Portland, dodging a salmon
crossing the road.

I believe everyone outside this discussion group considers this a
negligible issue. Why is this group different??

On my part the trees were trimmed back to the bicycle lane and no further. They were not trimmed up high enough for a cyclist riding more than a 56 cm bike or so to miss.

This was on a downhill and so I was doing perhaps 30 mph when my helmet became entangled and almost pulled me off the bike.

And like I said, one of the group called the road maintenance and the next week they were trimmed far up and perfectly safe. I think that they were frightened of lawsuits.

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 9:43:42 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/4/2017 12:29 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 9:13:19 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/4/2017 10:28 AM, wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 11:37:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/3/2017 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 8:25:49 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/2/2017 7:14 PM, sms wrote:
You can take the lane, and not ride toward
the right, for as long as you survive doing that.

Speaking again about Stephen's apparent fear of leaving the gutter - He
and others with that fear should read this page:
http://www.bicycling.com/rides/safet...raffic/slide/1

"Your Definitive Guide to Riding your Bike in Traffic" includes things
like "when sharing the road where there is no separate bike lane or
shoulder, your first responsibility is to yourself and your own safety.
Your best bet is to ride in the lane's right wheel track so that you
have 2 to 4 feet of space from the edge of the road. This makes you more
visible to drivers, who typically will be looking for other vehicles in
that area of the road."

Also "When riding in a standard road lane, ride on the right, but not
too far right. Yes, this puts you closer to the flow of traffic, but
it's also safer because drivers will be less tempted to try to squeeze
past you. Not hugging the gutter also reduces your risk of getting
walloped when someone opens the door of a parked car. Claim the entire
lane, if that's what you need to ensure safety."

Every widely respected course or book on riding in traffic urges
cyclists to leave the gutter. But so many "expert" gutter bunnies think
they know better.

However, if you take the lane where necessary and move into the gutter to let traffic pass before assuming your lane again you'll find the drivers are a great deal more cooperative. Four years ago when I resumed riding after my head injury they were absolute murder. But by both demanding my right of way and yielding it to people who can travel faster where safe the quality of drivers around bicycles has greatly increased. On the ride I did yesterday only ONE driver was a smart ass and he was TWO lanes away from me.

I do share the lane to let motorists pass whenever that's safe to do so.
However, I'll never ride in the gutter. That's almost never really safe.

By moving into the gutter I didn't mean literally moving into the gutter but moving closer to the edge than you would normally ride in order to allow cars more room to pass. I still stay 3 feet out of the gutter since that's where all the glass is.

Agreed.

But if Scharf is worried about running into tree branches, he must be
much closer to the gutter.

Also, many times he's alluded to all the panic stops he's had to make
because of motorists pulling in front of him. That's very, very rare
for cyclists who ride in a visually prominent position.

--
- Frank Krygowski

In snow country you have the far worst possibility that if you take the lane without a LOT of room behind you that traction may not be good enough for a heavy vehicle to slow down enough. I have hit black ice and total control is lost but you have still remain upright and hope that you slide off onto more traction.

Riding is certainly trickier when there's the possibility of ice. But
the portion of the road least likely to have ice is the portion that
motor vehicle tires pass over. (That's also the portion that dries
soonest after a rain.) Being even slightly out of those tire tracks can
greatly decrease traction.

It has been my experience that car tires make little to no difference in the areas where black ice forms. The case in point it was 11 am and the temperature had been above freezing for several hours but that area was in shadow.

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 11:09:39 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 3/4/2017 7:38 AM, wrote:

snip

I'm tall and locally they stopped trimming trees so that my helmet got caught in the overhanging branches and nearly pulled me off the bike. One of the guys in the group called road maintenance and the next time down this hill the branches were trimmed 3 feet higher.

Yeah, in a lot of cities, you have to call to get these things taken
care of, they don't have the resources to drive around looking for
cycling hazards.

Ditto for illegal bicycle lane parking. They are probably tired of me
calling this in all the time, but they always respond. Even before I was
on the City Council they were very good about enforcement, but only if
someone called to complain.

I find that most people that are parked in the bicycle lane are temporary and I don't bother with them. Don't treat the entire road as if you owned it.. And you'll discover that the cars are more polite to you.

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 11:18:13 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 3/4/2017 10:09 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 12:36:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snipped a lot about lowhanging branches
I believe everyone outside this discussion group considers this a
negligible issue. Why is this group different??

--
- Frank Krygowski

Maybe it's because in OUR areas it is a thing we encounter frequently. The problem with you Frank is if you don't personally see something then in your mind it simply can not exist.

That's been going on in r.b.t. for as long as anyone can remember. "Well
I have never encountered X therefore no one else has ever encountered X
either." "I use X piece of equipment so it's the best choice for
everyone else no matter what."

I'm amazed that a simple post about my experience with a battery powered
light has digressed into a very long rehash of the old dynamo versus
battery debate. Like Jay, and others, I use both kinds of lights at the
appropriate times. Each has their pros and cons. Most of us can discuss
the equipment we choose to use without insisting that everyone else
should be using what we use, without making up silly stories about panel
trucks knocking down tree branches.

My hardy recommendation for steel bikes over carbon fiber is from long experience and near death experiences.