Lights

I got to looking at the beam patterns of some lights for bicycles and also got to thinking about why so many of them have the upward light spill that some are so dead set against. I'm thinking that many manufactures design their lights fior as wide a market segment as possible rather than for a select few or niche market. Thuse the upward spill is useful for off-road riding and overgrown trails ridng and a wide beam is useful for seeing the entire width of a paved road.

I noticed that My CygoLite Rover II light has a shorter beam reach but far wider beam than does my magicshine knockoff. The MS is like a high beam and is great for seeing what's way down the road on the road but my CygoLite Rover II is better at lighting up the entire road.

Oh, The last few nights i've been asking drivers if i could ride towards them from the front and then from the rear to get their opinion on my light and to see if it was annoying or distracting. Every single one said that both the MS and CL were very bright and were quite distractinf and annoying when used on the flasdhing setting. The ONLY way to makethe light not annoying on flashing mode was to tilt it down so farthat it was basically aimed at the road right in front of the front wheel of my bicycle. That in turn made it annoying to me. I now run either of those lights on a constant steady-on beam and if i w ant a flashing light on the front at night for attention getting then run my small triple AAA battery owered light.

Cheers

On 2015-08-11 2:35 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I got to looking at the beam patterns of some lights for bicycles and
also got to thinking about why so many of them have the upward light
spill that some are so dead set against. I'm thinking that many
manufactures design their lights fior as wide a market segment as
possible rather than for a select few or niche market. Thuse the
upward spill is useful for off-road riding and overgrown trails ridng
and a wide beam is useful for seeing the entire width of a paved
road.

I noticed that My CygoLite Rover II light has a shorter beam reach
but far wider beam than does my magicshine knockoff. The MS is like a
high beam and is great for seeing what's way down the road on the
road but my CygoLite Rover II is better at lighting up the entire
road.

Oh, The last few nights i've been asking drivers if i could ride
towards them from the front and then from the rear to get their
opinion on my light and to see if it was annoying or distracting.
Every single one said that both the MS and CL were very bright and
were quite distractinf and annoying when used on the flasdhing
setting. The ONLY way to makethe light not annoying on flashing mode
was to tilt it down so farthat it was basically aimed at the road
right in front of the front wheel of my bicycle. That in turn made it
annoying to me. I now run either of those lights on a constant
steady-on beam and if i w ant a flashing light on the front at night
for attention getting then run my small triple AAA battery owered
light.


You can get a diffuser lens for MagicShine type lights. About $5 at
Amazon. I did not even ride a single mile without that because when I
walked up to my MTB with the light on full bore it was too blinding.
Also, this improves the side illumination which is important even for us
off-roaders since we want to see animals. The stupid kind that blindly
runs into a trail as well as the sneaky kind that lies there coiled up
and ready to strike.

They should sell those with diffuser lenses right off the bat.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

bats are selling diffusers ?

helps with the fungus epidemic ?

say how's the fungus situation in Cal ?

spored ?

On 2015-08-11 7:14 PM, wrote:
bats are selling diffusers ?

helps with the fungus epidemic ?

say how's the fungus situation in Cal ?

spored ?


Different kind of bat. The kind where it goes *POCK* and a large crowd
erupts into cheers.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

RainX diffuses. attracts some dirt but renews...as an experimental diffuser.

On 8/11/2015 4:39 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

You can get a diffuser lens for MagicShine type lights. About $5 at
Amazon. I did not even ride a single mile without that because when I
walked up to my MTB with the light on full bore it was too blinding.
Also, this improves the side illumination which is important even for us
off-roaders since we want to see animals. The stupid kind that blindly
runs into a trail as well as the sneaky kind that lies there coiled up
and ready to strike.

They should sell those with diffuser lenses right off the bat.

There are two issues with the "look at my lights and tell me if they
annoy you" type of approach. First, you're putting the idea into their
head that your lights might be annoying. Second, if you're riding
straight towards the vehicle, as the other poster said he was doing,
that's not how a vehicle driver would normally see a cyclist. The
cyclist would be 10-15 away from the drivers straight-on view (depending
on the width of the road).

Another issue is that lights with symmetrical beams are normally angled
slightly down so the road gets sufficient illumination. Not that
different from low beam headlights on vehicles.

This kind of reminds me of the poster who insisted that his dynamo
lights simply must be good because he told someone to drive toward him
and ask if they could see him. It was typical of the type of "research"
this poster was famous for, and of course the stated conclusion was
meaningless.

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 11:35:26 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 8/11/2015 4:39 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

You can get a diffuser lens for MagicShine type lights. About $5 at
Amazon. I did not even ride a single mile without that because when I
walked up to my MTB with the light on full bore it was too blinding.
Also, this improves the side illumination which is important even for us
off-roaders since we want to see animals. The stupid kind that blindly
runs into a trail as well as the sneaky kind that lies there coiled up
and ready to strike.

They should sell those with diffuser lenses right off the bat.

There are two issues with the "look at my lights and tell me if they
annoy you" type of approach. First, you're putting the idea into their
head that your lights might be annoying. Second, if you're riding
straight towards the vehicle, as the other poster said he was doing,
that's not how a vehicle driver would normally see a cyclist. The
cyclist would be 10-15 away from the drivers straight-on view (depending
on the width of the road).

Another issue is that lights with symmetrical beams are normally angled
slightly down so the road gets sufficient illumination. Not that
different from low beam headlights on vehicles.

This kind of reminds me of the poster who insisted that his dynamo
lights simply must be good because he told someone to drive toward him
and ask if they could see him. It was typical of the type of "research"
this poster was famous for, and of course the stated conclusion was
meaningless.

The OP me rode the same way straight towards the vehicle as I would have been had I been approaching them on the road from in front or from behind their vehicle.

Cheers

On 2015-08-12 9:52 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 11:35:26 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 8/11/2015 4:39 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

You can get a diffuser lens for MagicShine type lights. About $5
at Amazon. I did not even ride a single mile without that because
when I walked up to my MTB with the light on full bore it was too
blinding. Also, this improves the side illumination which is
important even for us off-roaders since we want to see animals.
The stupid kind that blindly runs into a trail as well as the
sneaky kind that lies there coiled up and ready to strike.

They should sell those with diffuser lenses right off the bat.

There are two issues with the "look at my lights and tell me if
they annoy you" type of approach. First, you're putting the idea
into their head that your lights might be annoying. Second, if
you're riding straight towards the vehicle, as the other poster
said he was doing, that's not how a vehicle driver would normally
see a cyclist. The cyclist would be 10-15 away from the drivers
straight-on view (depending on the width of the road).

Another issue is that lights with symmetrical beams are normally
angled slightly down so the road gets sufficient illumination. Not
that different from low beam headlights on vehicles.

This kind of reminds me of the poster who insisted that his dynamo
lights simply must be good because he told someone to drive toward
him and ask if they could see him. It was typical of the type of
"research" this poster was famous for, and of course the stated
conclusion was meaningless.

The OP me rode the same way straight towards the vehicle as I would
have been had I been approaching them on the road from in front or
from behind their vehicle.


From behind is often the most annoying. When people flick their
rearview mirrors into dimmed position that is a sign of excessive
blinding. I tend to go into the lane at traffic lights and line up with
the other vehicles, meaning sometimes I am right behind a passenger car.
With pickup trucks it doesn't matter as much.

From the front it also is not always a 10-15ft offset. For example,
when turning left I am often only 3-4ft offset from oncoming drivers and
that's a situation where one really does not want to be blinding the
drivers. What helps with a Cree XM-L at full blast is to turn the
handlebar slightly right until traffic is clear to complete the left
turn. That directs the brunt of the light output away from oncoming
traffic. Just a little courtesy that one can't do in a car.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 8/12/2015 10:08 AM, Joerg wrote:

From behind is often the most annoying. When people flick their
rearview mirrors into dimmed position that is a sign of excessive
blinding. I tend to go into the lane at traffic lights and line up with
the other vehicles, meaning sometimes I am right behind a passenger car.
With pickup trucks it doesn't matter as much.

I stay to the right at traffic lights unless I would be blocking a right
turn lane. But we normally have pretty wide shoulders here.

When I was driving in Ireland a week ago, the lanes are narrow and there
is often no shoulder so cyclists are in the lane a lot more.

From the front it also is not always a 10-15ft offset. For example,
when turning left I am often only 3-4ft offset from oncoming drivers and
that's a situation where one really does not want to be blinding the
drivers.

Yes, that's true, left turns are a different animal (or right turns in
countries where they drive on the wrong side of the road).

What helps with a Cree XM-L at full blast is to turn the
handlebar slightly right until traffic is clear to complete the left
turn. That directs the brunt of the light output away from oncoming
traffic. Just a little courtesy that one can't do in a car.

Perhaps, but my lights are already aimed so they don't shine directly
into the eyes or the rear view mirror of the driver. This whole
"experiment" was kind of like "let me shine this really bright light
directly at your face and you tell me if it bothers you." Not real world
at all.

On 8/12/2015 11:35 AM, sms wrote:


There are two issues with the "look at my lights and tell me if they
annoy you" type of approach. First, you're putting the idea into their
head that your lights might be annoying. Second, if you're riding
straight towards the vehicle, as the other poster said he was doing,
that's not how a vehicle driver would normally see a cyclist. The
cyclist would be 10-15 away from the drivers straight-on view (depending
on the width of the road).

I'll agree that the glare problem is not as great for a vehicle operator
in another lane. However, there are streets in many older cities that
are narrow enough (especially when parked cars take up space) that a
cyclist properly avoiding the door zone is aligned nearly enough with
the eyes of an oncoming motorist that he can blind the motorist.

And that's assuming a straight street. Obviously, if there's a bend
toward the cyclist's curb side, his headlight beam is glaring in others'
eyes even more.

But the situation is worse on paths, which tend to be narrower. That's
where I had my worst experience with an oncoming rider whose philosophy
(like that of "sms") was "F*ck your eyes, I want bright light everywhere."


Another issue is that lights with symmetrical beams are normally angled
slightly down so the road gets sufficient illumination. Not that
different from low beam headlights on vehicles.

sigh The trend these days, abetted by fear mongers, is to have super
bright lights so drivers can see them. Those people don't point their
lights down; they purposely point them at the eyes of oncoming traffic.

And BTW, when they do point them down, if they're observant enough,
they'll see that their round beam _is_ very different from the low beam
headlights on motor vehicles. Motor vehicle headlights distribute the
light evenly across the lane, just as the better German standard bike
headlights do. Round beam headlights, when tilted down, overcook the
pavement close to the cyclist (which harms night vision) and undercook
the road farther away. IOW, tilting the beam down destroys the beam's
"throw."

I led another night ride last week. It was smaller than usual, just
three other riders, all with round beam battery lights of various
powers. All made remarks about how much better my B&M Cyo was - remarks
like "I couldn't keep up with you on that road because I couldn't see
the bumps in time" or "I didn't want to ride anywhere except next to
Frank, because of his headlight." And this is a beam that does not
glare excessively in others' eyes. I've checked, of course.

This kind of reminds me of the poster who insisted that his dynamo
lights simply must be good because he told someone to drive toward him
and ask if they could see him. It was typical of the type of "research"
this poster was famous for, and of course the stated conclusion was
meaningless.

What Scharf (AKA "sms") is referring to are the night lighting workshops
I've done with my club. What we did was actually observe each others'
bike lights in a variety of situations, from a variety of angles, and
note the results. A big part of the exercise was letting members assess
their own bike's appearance when someone else rode it.

On one hand, the exercise was imperfect, in the sense that the observers
obviously knew ahead of time they were looking at a bicycle. The test
wasn't "blind" in that sense. OTOH, I don't believe Scharf has ever
done anything but mount glaring lights (and strobes, and flags) on his
bikes, then declare that they are obviously necessary.

BTW, I've got some papers on file (hardcopy) reporting on tests where
researchers did attempt "blind" tests of bike (and pedestrian) lights
and reflectors. They involved motorists driving closed circuits,
reporting on their detection of cyclists and walkers at the road's edge.
Even with the technology of the day (1970s, IIRC) it was clear that it
takes very little to make a cyclist adequately visible. Citations on
request.

And as mentioned, I've gotten quite a few spontaneous compliments on my
lights and reflectors. They're nothing very special (except for the B&M
Cyo headlight, perhaps). Yet I've had motorists tell me they spotted me
in the dark from half a mile back. I had a friend drive past me, then
pull over to ask about that amazingly bright light on my bike. (It was
a rear reflector.)

There's no need for Scharfian paranoia.


--
- Frank Krygowski