IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 4/18/2019 2:03 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:49:58 PM UTC+1, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 8:25:34 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
On 15/04/2019 10:52, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 14.04.2019 um 00:21 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 6:10:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable are your
incessant claims that lights must be used in all conditions, day
or night;

Forget it. Just send him an OB soccer fan jersey so he can keep shouting
"Odense! Odense!" and "Danger! Danger!" also looking like a drunk tourist.
https://hummel.dk/produkter/ob-home-jersey-ss-18-19-202517-white-nautical-blue
(European size 3XL might just be large enough for a fat liar=politician.)

Do we know that Scharfie is a soccer fan? I would've though his children were all grown up when the soccer craze hit the US, which was the introduction to soccer of most people over there.

Whether Odense has a soccer team is something else I should know as my direct ancestor, Odin, the god of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain until they switched to Christianity, had his hall or seat there -- Odense is the modern version of Odin's See, in English Odin's Seat -- but as a retired rugby player I can't be bothered with soccer, or rugby for that matter, which I played only because it was compulsory at my house at my first university

Daylight running lamps has seemed eminently reasonable to Volvo for
two generations now.

To get bonus points in safety ratings, manufacturers have done and will do
what appears to make most business sense. When buyers are found to like
driving displaying Thor's magic hammer as their DRL, the DRL will be styled
accordingly. All perfectly reasonable.

Of course, you're right. But in the end that sort of marketing will give you a reputation as a panderer and do your shareholders income and stockholding harm. I had my advertising agency's walls covered with wallpaper which read, inter alia, "The housewife is not a moron. She's your wife."

Let's say that Volvo was forced by the Swedish government to provide
Daylight running lights (or do you have evidence that Volvo promoted
daylight running lights before the Swedish government made it
mandatory?).

daytime..., just sayin'

It might have been easier for engineering to sell a feature
world-wide that is mandatory in your home market as long as the
additional costs per unit are low.

No! That *can't* be the answer. Think of the [Andres] *children*

Thanks, Tosspot.

That Volvo, after it served on the school run, was a good fast cross-Europe touring car for a whole family, overnight from Cambridge to Juan-les-Pins -- after I positively located the rear axle and fitted a 5.7 litre Chevrolet V8 engine, and upgraded to "police pursuit" brakes; I'd ordered it new with the standard power steering deleted, so the steering was already suitable for what I intended. Since that big solid-looking estate weighed only 2800 pounds, with 300bhp and endless torque it was a fast car. I kept that car for 14 years, even though we only put about 3000m on it every year, until I went green in 1992 and sold all the cars as surplus to requirements.

Still, reading Rolf's remark again, I wonder if Rolf actually knows
whether daylight running lamps were forced on Volvo by the Swedish
government or whether it was their own initiative, subsequently taken up
by governments.

Lazy "Crickets" Rolf is not telling. So I "consulted" with two experts
after noticing DRL is not getting mentioned in all those lists of Volvo
safety milestones.

Thanks, Sep.

"People take a lot of voluntary steps to stay safe, says Saab safety expert
Christer Nilsson, 'They don’t wait until a safety measure becomes law. For
instance, when a 1960s Swedish study revealed that driving with headlights
on during the day reduced the risk of head-on collisions, people started
voluntarily driving with their headlights on during the day. In 1977 it
became law, but people had already been doing it for years.'"
https://www.drivingthenation.com/whats-sweden-got-to-do-with-it/

"In Sweden, the use of DRL has been compulsory for all motorized vehicles on
all roads during the entire year since 1977. Although there are no legal
requirements on how to switch on DRL, most modern cars are sold with an
automatic ‘on’ switch."
https://www.swov.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/rapport/r-2003-28.pdf
And it was indeed Kare Rumar who filled out that questionnai
"DRL was used as one of the measures to reduce crash probability already
during our switch over from left to right hand traffic 1967. In the
following years DRL was used by the army, the railways and some companies in
order to enhance road safety. Therefore the public was used to DRL and the
campaigning was not as strong as would have been necessary without that history.

Case closed unless

Well, now we know. I was right to remember it going back to the 1960's, and also right not to assume that the Swedish government was first on the ball -- DRL appears in the light (heh-heh) of your discoveries to have been a genuine populist upswelling which, unless you're an elitist snob like some here, is a smart reason to investigate the phenomenon with an open mind.

someone (Emmanuel B.?) ambushes some long-retired Volvo
engineer at the Volvo museum, and invests a can of domestically overtaxed
beverage to find out the rest of the story.

Crack on, Emmanuel!

Andre Jute
First, do no harm -- Hippocratic Oath


First item, 'futbol odense' search:
http://www.futbol24.com/team/Denmark/Odense-BK/results/

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

On 2019-04-05 14:39, Tosspot wrote:
On 05/04/2019 19.12, wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 6:38:55 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 2:21:39 PM UTC+2, Tosspot wrote:
Let the games begin!!!

I ride the IQ-X as it was cheaper by a fair mark than the Edelux,
and it's by far and away the best of many dynamo lights I've
used, if eye-wateringly expensive.

Any Edelux users out there? Anybody tried both?

I have a Edelux II on both my winter evening bikes. Very good
light, I 'upgraded' both with the new coax connector this winter.
Much easier wheel removal. I didn't try both, I buy just the best
light at that moment. I don't like plastic housings. My survived a
crash last winter.

Lou

https://www.darkerside.org/2017/02/b...dlight-review/

"Would I buy it again? Nope" - he thinks that the beam is too narrow
and the lack of a battery backup hinders visibility at a stop.

Can't say I think the beam is too narrow, but also I've never really
thought the stand light wasn't bright. The Edelux seems to have a 1F
5.5 capacitor, can't find what the B+M one uses.


My lighting systems have 18650 cells, eight of them on the road bike and
four on the MTB. So the light output is always the same. Why would
anyone want the light to dim down if waiting in the left-turn lane of a
busy intersection where drivers are known to "cut across" at times?

Mine also have much wider beams, like cars do. For that I needed to
install aftermarket lenses though.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 1:19:58 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/18/2019 2:03 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:49:58 PM UTC+1, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 8:25:34 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
On 15/04/2019 10:52, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 14.04.2019 um 00:21 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 6:10:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable are your
incessant claims that lights must be used in all conditions, day
or night;

Forget it. Just send him an OB soccer fan jersey so he can keep shouting
"Odense! Odense!" and "Danger! Danger!" also looking like a drunk tourist.
https://hummel.dk/produkter/ob-home-jersey-ss-18-19-202517-white-nautical-blue
(European size 3XL might just be large enough for a fat liar=politician.)

Do we know that Scharfie is a soccer fan? I would've though his children were all grown up when the soccer craze hit the US, which was the introduction to soccer of most people over there.

Whether Odense has a soccer team is something else I should know as my direct ancestor, Odin, the god of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain until they switched to Christianity, had his hall or seat there -- Odense is the modern version of Odin's See, in English Odin's Seat -- but as a retired rugby player I can't be bothered with soccer, or rugby for that matter, which I played only because it was compulsory at my house at my first university

Daylight running lamps has seemed eminently reasonable to Volvo for
two generations now.

To get bonus points in safety ratings, manufacturers have done and will do
what appears to make most business sense. When buyers are found to like
driving displaying Thor's magic hammer as their DRL, the DRL will be styled
accordingly. All perfectly reasonable.

Of course, you're right. But in the end that sort of marketing will give you a reputation as a panderer and do your shareholders income and stockholding harm. I had my advertising agency's walls covered with wallpaper which read, inter alia, "The housewife is not a moron. She's your wife."

Let's say that Volvo was forced by the Swedish government to provide
Daylight running lights (or do you have evidence that Volvo promoted
daylight running lights before the Swedish government made it
mandatory?).

daytime..., just sayin'

It might have been easier for engineering to sell a feature
world-wide that is mandatory in your home market as long as the
additional costs per unit are low.

No! That *can't* be the answer. Think of the [Andres] *children*

Thanks, Tosspot.

That Volvo, after it served on the school run, was a good fast cross-Europe touring car for a whole family, overnight from Cambridge to Juan-les-Pins -- after I positively located the rear axle and fitted a 5.7 litre Chevrolet V8 engine, and upgraded to "police pursuit" brakes; I'd ordered it new with the standard power steering deleted, so the steering was already suitable for what I intended. Since that big solid-looking estate weighed only 2800 pounds, with 300bhp and endless torque it was a fast car. I kept that car for 14 years, even though we only put about 3000m on it every year, until I went green in 1992 and sold all the cars as surplus to requirements.

Still, reading Rolf's remark again, I wonder if Rolf actually knows
whether daylight running lamps were forced on Volvo by the Swedish
government or whether it was their own initiative, subsequently taken up
by governments.

Lazy "Crickets" Rolf is not telling. So I "consulted" with two experts
after noticing DRL is not getting mentioned in all those lists of Volvo
safety milestones.

Thanks, Sep.

"People take a lot of voluntary steps to stay safe, says Saab safety expert
Christer Nilsson, 'They don’t wait until a safety measure becomes law. For
instance, when a 1960s Swedish study revealed that driving with headlights
on during the day reduced the risk of head-on collisions, people started
voluntarily driving with their headlights on during the day. In 1977 it
became law, but people had already been doing it for years.'"
https://www.drivingthenation.com/whats-sweden-got-to-do-with-it/

"In Sweden, the use of DRL has been compulsory for all motorized vehicles on
all roads during the entire year since 1977. Although there are no legal
requirements on how to switch on DRL, most modern cars are sold with an
automatic ‘on’ switch."
https://www.swov.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/rapport/r-2003-28..pdf
And it was indeed Kare Rumar who filled out that questionnai
"DRL was used as one of the measures to reduce crash probability already
during our switch over from left to right hand traffic 1967. In the
following years DRL was used by the army, the railways and some companies in
order to enhance road safety. Therefore the public was used to DRL and the
campaigning was not as strong as would have been necessary without that history.

Case closed unless

Well, now we know. I was right to remember it going back to the 1960's, and also right not to assume that the Swedish government was first on the ball -- DRL appears in the light (heh-heh) of your discoveries to have been a genuine populist upswelling which, unless you're an elitist snob like some here, is a smart reason to investigate the phenomenon with an open mind.

someone (Emmanuel B.?) ambushes some long-retired Volvo
engineer at the Volvo museum, and invests a can of domestically overtaxed
beverage to find out the rest of the story.

Crack on, Emmanuel!

Andre Jute
First, do no harm -- Hippocratic Oath


First item, 'futbol odense' search:
http://www.futbol24.com/team/Denmark/Odense-BK/results/

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

Mmm. I've been to Odense. But the visit was cultural, to hear a famous organist play a notable organ in one of the island's churches. Nobody mentioned football in my hearing.

Andre Jute
Zero street cred

On 4/18/2019 5:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

You can see how people rationalize their beliefs despite all evidence to
the contrary.

If it's a cold winter then they dismiss all the evidence regarding
climate change based on a single event, even though they really do
understand that all the scientific evidence supports the fact that
temperatures due to human activities. They have an agenda and all the
evidence in the world will not change that agenda.

While many cyclists don't like wearing helmets, and willingly accept the
extra risk, others can't get over the fact that an enormous body of
evidence supports the safety benefits of helmets and spend an inordinate
amount of time trying to attack studies that everyone else accepts are
statistically accurate. They do this because they need to justify their
actions to others, but the reality is that it's not necessary because
they are free to wear or not wear a helmet (at least as an adult in all
but a few countries).

With DRLs it's the same thing. Besides the bicycle-specific studies,
there are also the applicable studies of motorcycle DRLs, plus the
studies on conspicuity based on solid lights and flashing lights. Yet
for those that are invested, somehow, in not turning on their light in
the daytime, all the evidence will not change their stated belief, even
though they almost certainly do understand the benefits of DRLs. It's
even more odd because if they already have a light there's no downside
in turning it on. The best they can do when the facts are explained to
them is respond with hysterics like "Danger Danger" because they have no
evidence to support their beliefs.

On 4/17/2019 11:46 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 6:02:36 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

By contrast, that left cross scenario is only about 6% of car-bike
crashes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Guess I am extraordinary then. 50% of my personal car-bike crashes have been the left turn in front of me kind. Other 50% was a car pulling straight out in front of me from a side street.

No, that doesn't mean you're extraordinary. It's just that you are
looking at a tiny data set.

For an analogy, everyone knows flipping a coin has a 50-50 chance of
heads or tails. But if you flip a coin just twice, you shouldn't be
surprised to get two Heads in a row.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/18/2019 11:05 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/18/2019 5:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

You can see how people rationalize their beliefs despite all
evidence to the contrary.

If it's a cold winter then they dismiss all the evidence
regarding climate change based on a single event, even
though they really do understand that all the scientific
evidence supports the fact that temperatures due to human
activities. They have an agenda and all the evidence in the
world will not change that agenda.

While many cyclists don't like wearing helmets, and
willingly accept the extra risk, others can't get over the
fact that an enormous body of evidence supports the safety
benefits of helmets and spend an inordinate amount of time
trying to attack studies that everyone else accepts are
statistically accurate. They do this because they need to
justify their actions to others, but the reality is that
it's not necessary because they are free to wear or not wear
a helmet (at least as an adult in all but a few countries).

With DRLs it's the same thing. Besides the bicycle-specific
studies, there are also the applicable studies of motorcycle
DRLs, plus the studies on conspicuity based on solid lights
and flashing lights. Yet for those that are invested,
somehow, in not turning on their light in the daytime, all
the evidence will not change their stated belief, even
though they almost certainly do understand the benefits of
DRLs. It's even more odd because if they already have a
light there's no downside in turning it on. The best they
can do when the facts are explained to them is respond with
hysterics like "Danger Danger" because they have no evidence
to support their beliefs.



Thanks for the careful editing to keep th train of thought
in context.

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

No, motorcycles, scooters, ebikes, bikes, pedestrians and trikes all have in common small apparent object sizes compared to automobiles and trucks.
I’m not current on effective conspicuity research. On crash research, I respect, FK, that you refer to it, but as someone who did road safety research in the past, I’m aware of challenging differential selection problems, much greater now that ER care is so damned expensive.

Getting back to Subject, I doubt that steady DRLs of either kind do much good for bicyclists. It may be worth pointing out for young ones that for motorcycles, running lights were for use in German cities at night instead of headlights in an era before motorcycles or scooters had turn signals which could be steadily lit as Americans called ‘parking lights.’ My BMW R26 had a small 5w bulb in the bottom of and illuminating the 175mm headlight cone.

IOW they were the functional equivalent of what marketers of low light output bicycle lamps sell for lit urban streets at night, ‘to-be-seen lights’.

Harry Travis
Portland OR

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 02:34:48 -0700 (PDT), incredulous
wrote:

No, motorcycles, scooters, ebikes, bikes, pedestrians and trikes all have in common small apparent object sizes compared to automobiles and trucks.
I’m not current on effective conspicuity research. On crash research, I respect, FK, that you refer to it, but as someone who did road safety research in the past, I’m aware of challenging differential selection problems, much greater now that ER care is so damned expensive.

Getting back to Subject, I doubt that steady DRLs of either kind do much good for bicyclists. It may be worth pointing out for young ones that for motorcycles, running lights were for use in German cities at night instead of headlights in an era before motorcycles or scooters had turn signals which could be steadily lit as Americans called ‘parking lights.’ My BMW R26 had a small 5w bulb in the bottom of and illuminating the 175mm headlight cone.

IOW they were the functional equivalent of what marketers of low light output bicycle lamps sell for lit urban streets at night, ‘to-be-seen lights’.

Harry Travis
Portland OR

The study, often quoted regarding always on DRLs is the
Danish study done at Odense involving something like 4,000 cyclists.
Some 2000 with the tiny little magnet powered Reelights and about
2,000 without. The study showed an amazing reduction in accidents in
those with the DRL's. In fact it also showed a reduction in solo
accidents.

The lights used were tiny little lights powered by two magnets
attached to the spokes that generated a flash as they passed the light
mounted on the hub bolts.

Given the tiny little "flea powered" lights and the fact that even
solo accidents decreased in the test group it seems likely that the
fact that one is participating in a safety study may tend to make one
ride differently.

I believe someone here posted some anomalies in how the study arrived
at certain figures but anomalies or not the study is often used to
justify DRL's.

Having said that it does seem that a rider on a dark colored bike
wearing a dark jersey is far more noticeable if he has some sort of
lights on the bike.

As for "studies" there have been several studies made that show that
autos pass a rider wearing a helmet closer than a cyclist not wearing
a helmet.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/...ing110906.html
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 4/19/2019 5:34 AM, incredulous wrote:
It may be worth pointing out for young ones that for motorcycles, running lights were for use in German cities at night instead of headlights in an era before motorcycles or scooters had turn signals which could be steadily lit as Americans called ‘parking lights.’ My BMW R26 had a small 5w bulb in the bottom of and illuminating the 175mm headlight cone.

Interesting. My 1972 BMW R75/5 has a similar little bulb in the
headlamp. I wondered what it was for. Thanks.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/19/2019 6:20 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

The study, often quoted regarding always on DRLs is the
Danish study done at Odense involving something like 4,000 cyclists.
Some 2000 with the tiny little magnet powered Reelights and about
2,000 without. The study showed an amazing reduction in accidents in
those with the DRL's. In fact it also showed a reduction in solo
accidents.

The lights used were tiny little lights powered by two magnets
attached to the spokes that generated a flash as they passed the light
mounted on the hub bolts.

Given the tiny little "flea powered" lights and the fact that even
solo accidents decreased in the test group it seems likely that the
fact that one is participating in a safety study may tend to make one
ride differently.

Indeed. On the desk in front of me, I have a very similar study on
bicyclist conspicuity: Lahrmann, et. al. "The effect of a yellow bicycle
jacket on cyclist accidents," Safety Science v. 108 pp. 209-217. They
compared a 3402 riders who were given bright yellow jacket with some
refective stripes, vs. a control group of 3391 cyclists.

Yep, the riders in yellow jackets had less "personal injury crashes" all
right. But again, they were also less likely to have "single party
crashes." IOW, wearing a yellow jacket apparently helps your balance!

To work the numbers a bit differently than usual, I used their
percentages to illustrate what would happen with 10,000 cyclists with
and without magic jackets. Within a year, of the 10,000 without jackets,
280 will fall off their bike and 240 will run into a pedestrian, other
bike, or car. Of those with the magic jacket, 240 will just fall and 130
will run into a ped, bike or car.

So for 10,000 cyclists the difference is 150 crashes. But some of those
benefits are not real, since a jacket isn't likely to affect a solo
crash. Maybe the real difference would be 125, as a guess?

125 out of 10,000. That's 1.25% benefit to the magic jacket.

Surely it's time to mandate them!


--
- Frank Krygowski