Eyc headlight problem

On 4/5/2021 10:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 08:03:52 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 1:53:37 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
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 be
reserved for purists and regulatory agencies.
This is how a low and high beams, 400 dynamo, optional 400 extra battery
lumens, conversion looks like:
https://www.velomobilforum.de/forum/index.php?attachments/pxl_20210121_153046943-jpg.231317/

The beams look better in reality than they appear on youtube, but I cannot
recommend the upgrade to Jay because he seems mortally afraid of further
increasing his dynamo system's sunk cost (and because a Luxos not considered
watertight).

Mortally afraid is more like "it would be stupid." I have enough lights.

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. I'll wait for you at the bottom. 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.
Frank is not acquainted with Portland's exotic rain-forest, mountain-bunny
routes. If you are interested in a regular contest, ask a local, like your
son, to take the dyno lamp. Make sure you use Specialized's prototype Zn-C
matrix battery fork for extra power!
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.
When will you finally invite a few fixie-riding antifa for a blissful summer
of subbotnik road repairs?! Oh, wait, repairing and recreating historic
concrete plates is horrendously "CO2 emissions intensive." If you aren't Al
Gore, you simply won't get a permit.

They don't re-do concrete, at least not often in town -- it gets asphalt. One of my routes was repaved in the last year or so, but I think some of neighborhoods don't want repaving because the broken concrete roads act as natural speed bumps. Two, essentially parallel streets: https://tinyurl.com/4n2dfzp8 and next door: https://tinyurl.com/kdrfm2t8
Look out for the manhole down the street: https://tinyurl.com/8a8w383f

I have no idea why they paved one and not the other. I rarely go down those roads -- they're part of the return route from anywhere east, and my pre-plague commute home. I creep up them, LUXOS B blazing the way. This is where I see people's feet before the people -- or their dogs with lighted dog vests.

-- Jay Beattie.

I would comment that those are appallingly poorly built roads. It
appears that they simply laid concrete over an existing, probably,
dirt road. I would guess that the residents bitched about a dirt road
and so the highway department slapped some concrete down and said
"There! A paved road".

Apparently that happened here.

Our County Engineering office always has a booth at the annual county
fair. One year I asked about that - about the process by which farm
roads that were once gravel on dirt got paved.

The young engineers staffing the booth looked at each other, then
explained that long ago (maybe the 1950s or 1960s?) the guy who was
county engineer got re-elected by suddenly paving a huge number of
roads. But the "paving" was just dropping asphalt on top of existing
gravel, with no preparation at all.

I know our county is notorious for potholes. It's not unusual to follow
an ex farm road across our county line and see a huge difference in
pavement smoothness and quality.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, 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.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period.

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!

You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, 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.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period.

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!
You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike! Meanwhile, the rest of the non-lunatic world is out riding bikes -- on streets and doing fine. Some even have dreaded flashers . . . IN THE DAY TIME!!! SAFETY INFLATION!!! https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ZWEAA...wa/s-l1600.jpg

-- Jay Beattie

sms wrote:
On 4/5/2021 1:53 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:

This is how a low and high beams, 400 dynamo, optional 400 extra battery
lumens, conversion looks like:
https://www.velomobilforum.de/forum/index.php?attachments/pxl_20210121_153046943-jpg.231317/

That looks like something someone hand-built, modifying an existing
light. Where is the link to the forum post that has this image?

It's in the "Welcher Dynamo Scheinwerfer?" thread inside the forum's
Elektrik/Elektronik section, but there are no blueprints or schematics to
look at -- or to send to CCP 1/10 Cost Corp.

If you weren't too autistic to look a bit closer at the pcb, you would have
found the search term for YT, and hence, Mr. Schadt's homepage. No offense,
but I don't think his weekend microbusiness is set up to handle culturally
incompatible inquiries or nerve-wrecking suggestions from India or Scharfie
County.

Hopefully they included thermal sensors to automatically reduce power to
prevent overheating.

Probably, but if you are prone to overheating it, you are not in the
intended target group. It's an assembled conversion kit, the buyer won't
even receive a real manual, not French, not German, not even Mandarin.

It's an interesting concept but IMVAIO it's backward. Instead of adding
an optional battery to a dynamo light, it would be more logical (and
much less expensive) to add optional dynamo operating and charging to a
battery powered light. You can get a much more capable fully-featured
headlight, with internal Li-Ion batteries, for 1/3 to 1/4 the cost, and
a circuit to charge the batteries from the dynamo is trivial

(snip)

You are entitled to your opinion. Why don't you ask PJW about a rough
estimate on the total number of dynamo input adapter sets he has ever sold
to fit an early Hella battery LED lamp he offered? A dozen or two? I might
have seen one such adapter in the wild, in Europe, more than a decade ago.
I also do not believe in significant demand for high-wattage dynamos, not
even for ebikes: The moment a jurisdiction stops requiring a dynamo for
pedelecs, hardly anyone bothers to fit one (or more).

On 4/5/2021 10:04 PM, James wrote:

snip

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

You're using "F-Logic" of correlation not causation. Do you claim that
the reason that cycling rates are down (assuming the survey is accurate)
is because of helmet requirements and the availability of high-lumen
lights? Are there Australians that say, "screw the helmet requirement,
we'll own the libs by giving up cycling and eating junk food and
drinking Fosters?"

In terms of children cycling, Section 3.2 of the study states "A great
deal of cycling participation occurs among children, for whom much of
this riding occurs off public roads in parks and backyards. Such trips
are unlikely to be measured by any automatic or manual counting program.
A change in childhood cycling participation will have significant
effects on overall cycling participation but may not be detected as part
of counting programs."

You also can't really conclude that increases in injuries and fatalities
are due to changes in cycling rates. In the U.S. cycling participation
increased from 39.69 million in 2006 to 48.88 million in 2019 (2020 will
show an enormous increase but it's an outlier and it remains to be seen
if the increases will hold). Death rates for each year vary but don't
correlate with the increase in cycling rates. Some age groups had
increases while some age groups had decreases. The statistics don't
specify the number of cyclists in each age group. The fatality rates for
younger riders fell while the rates for older riders went up.
Speculation is that more helmet laws for those under 18 helped reduce
fatality rates in those groups, but this study doesn't prove that one
way or another.

Transportational cycling rates vary greatly based on factors unrelated
to safety equipment. I first visited China in 1987 and cycling rates
were extremely high. But that was because the only affordable
alternative to cycling was generally a public bus. Cycling rates are way
down now because all the large cities have extensive subway systems and
because the increase in wealth means more people have cars (generally
not used for commuting, but used for things like trips to Costco).
Climate change has also affected cycling rates in some locations. In
urban areas of the U.S. where cycling rates have increased by
substantial amounts it's because of the large increase in cycling
infrastructure.

A big push in my area is "Safe Routes to School." We have terrible
traffic jams around schools and a Catch-22 of parents driving crazily,
which makes parents reluctant to allow their children to walk or bike to
school. When one 8th grader e-mailed me about a problem near his middle
school (cars driving on the shoulder where cyclists want to ride) I
called the sheriff and asked for some enforcement in that area and they
came out and wrote a slew of tickets but we can't hire enough deputies
to patrol all the schools at peak times you need to put in traffic
calming that physically prevents the bad behavior.

On 4/6/2021 7:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike! Meanwhile, the rest of the non-lunatic world is out riding bikes -- on streets and doing fine. Some even have dreaded flashers . . . IN THE DAY TIME!!! SAFETY INFLATION!!! https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ZWEAA...wa/s-l1600.jpg

And somehow cycling rates in the U.S. continue to slowly increase!
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191204/participants-in-bicycling-in-the-us-since-2006/

2020 will likely show a huge increase but that will likely decline once
the pandemic is over, though hopefully not all they way down to the 2019
level. But you can be certain that there will be individuals that
cherry-pick statistics and look at a decrease from 2020 to 2022 and
proclaim that it's "Safety Inflation" that has caused the drop.

I still recall one anti-helmet website that first claimed that cycling
rates fell after a helmet law somewhere was adopted. When it was pointed
out that cycling rates actually increased they changed their narrative
to "well cycling rates increased slower than population increased so the
rate as a percentage of the population decreased even though the
absolute number increased." It's like dealing with Trump supporters,
facts and logic are of no use.

On 4/6/2021 10:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, 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.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period.

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!
You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike!

Did you ever wonder why indoor bicycling is as popular as it is?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/6/2021 12:40 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/6/2021 7:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton
bike!Â*Â* Meanwhile, the rest of the non-lunatic world is out riding
bikes -- on streets and doing fine.Â* Some even have dreaded flashers .
. . IN THE DAY TIME!!!Â* SAFETY INFLATION!!!
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ZWEAA...wa/s-l1600.jpg

And somehow cycling rates in the U.S. continue to slowly increase!
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191204/participants-in-bicycling-in-the-us-since-2006/

That shows a slight increase in _counts,_ not "rates." Rates implies a
denominator, usually population, for a per capita rate. Compare with
U.S. population growth and you'll not see any significant increase in
cycling _rates_.

I still recall one anti-helmet website that first claimed that cycling
rates fell after a helmet law somewhere was adopted. When it was pointed
out that cycling rates actually increased they changed their narrative
to "well cycling rates increased slower than population increased so the
rate as a percentage of the population decreased even though the
absolute number increased." It's like dealing with Trump supporters,
facts and logic are of no use.

First, that paragraph is full of either imaginings or blatant lies. I
don't know what anti-helmet website Scharf is pretending to cite, but
there are reams of information rebutting his claims.

This article has copious citations at its end:
https://theconversation.com/ditching...-for-health-42

This site has what may be the greatest amount of data and analysis:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

Before anyone else tries to defend mandatory bicycle helmet laws as
Scharf is doing, they should read a selection of those references and data.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 10:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, 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.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period.

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!
You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike!
Did you ever wonder why indoor bicycling is as popular as it is?

No -- but if you're saying its because people are cowering in fear because of safety inflation, then you're out of touch with the gym scene. My brother went to spin classes with his wife, and he was a fearless three state old-guy DH champion and went to worlds. I've ridden many miles with him on the road. In fact, I rode with their spin instructor who placed in LoToJa. Strong guy -- one of the hardest centuries I've done in recent history. People have lots of social reasons for living the gym life . . . although some may be afraid of riding on the road. That has to be true statistically because some people were afraid of riding on the road even before flashers and helmets were even a thing.

And a lot of what you call safety inflation is people just not wanting to deal with traffic. It sucks dealing with traffic, dangerous or not. When it comes to picking routes, I take the one with the least traffic. Who wants to breathe exhaust and deal with the homicidal PU maniacs in the 'burbs. No amount of lane-taking makes that pleasant. "Position one!" [cough, cough, gag . . . as diesel PU number four passes within an inch, leaving a cloud of smoke]. People may prefer Plan B, i.e., not riding on the road. https://cloudfront.traillink.com/pho..._148788_sc.jpg Or Plan C. https://i1.wp.com/buckyrides.com/wp-...00%2C900&ssl=1 That also includes Plan D, which is usually low traffic. https://farm1.staticflickr.com/280/2...85fc52d273.jpg That's a great ride.

Which reminds me, I was riding on that road in the last picture (Marmot Rd.) with a friend of mine with whom I've been riding for 30 years. He now refuses to ride on Skyline because it is dangerous and refuses to ride the foot of SW Terwilliger -- preferring the adjacent path through the woods. https://tinyurl.com/85c27nx6 Totally reasonable fear. I now take the side path because climbing in the middle of a road with a blind turn and posted 45mph limit (actually 50) and twice the traffic of 20 years ago is objectively scary. Why bother. And to be honest, I usually skip the side path and go up a whole different road -- past the trestle house. https://tinyurl.com/vt3z3x3w Anyway, its not just a bunch of scared Nancies who want a facility or some option other than riding in traffic.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/6/2021 11:48 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

And a lot of what you call safety inflation is people just not wanting to deal with traffic. It sucks dealing with traffic, dangerous or not. When it comes to picking routes, I take the one with the least traffic. Who wants to breathe exhaust and deal with the homicidal PU maniacs in the 'burbs. No amount of lane-taking makes that pleasant. "Position one!" [cough, cough, gag . . . as diesel PU number four passes within an inch, leaving a cloud of smoke]. People may prefer Plan B, i.e., not riding on the road. https://cloudfront.traillink.com/pho..._148788_sc.jpg Or Plan C. https://i1.wp.com/buckyrides.com/wp-...00%2C900&ssl=1 That also includes Plan D, which is usually low traffic. https://farm1.staticflickr.com/280/2...85fc52d273.jpg That's a great ride.

True. The fastest routes for cycling around here are the expressways.
Few lights, wide shoulder, safe, and very direct. But it's very unpleasant.

In any case, cycling numbers continue to rise in the U.S. (even before
the pre-Covid surge), helmets continue to improve with MIPS becoming
standard even on lower-cost models
https://www.costco.com/freetown-gear-%2526-gravel-lumiere-mips-helmet.product.100587455.html,
lights continue to improve and get cheaper, bicycles continue to improve
(at least in some ways that improve safety), new cycling infrastructure
continues to be built. All much to the chagrin of those that would
prefer fewer cyclists be out there and make up fantastic fictional
stories to promote their personal agenda.

How much of the 2020 surge in cycling can be maintained? Some of the
surge was because of gyms being closed, some was because of a desire to
avoid public transit. A good article that examines what's happened in
New York City is at
https://medium.com/swlh/us-cities-sees-a-biking-surge-during-covid-19-a1195de97287.