Cheap bright tail light

On 9/16/2014 7:39 AM, Joerg wrote:
AMuzi wrote:

snip

Same principle for road users, the actual riders feel that the expense
of a brighter light is reasonable and every year that expense and light
output on average increases. That's a crowdsourced data argument. Again
individuals may vary in their actual risks and also perceptions so YMMV.


Goes even for roads sometimes. One night I was coming back from a
meeting in town, pitch dark, on a main (paved!) thoroughfare through
town. Very slightly downhill, with me in the pedals at full bore, just
wanted to get home. Had a front light of around 250 lumens with the beam
nicely focused on the raod surface ahead. Then it happened on the narrow
bike lane of this road. Saw a large chunk of metal, too late, could not
stop in time and also not swerve because of cars next to me. On my MTB I
could have swerved through the ditch but this was my road bike.
*RAT-TAT-TAT* .. tchingalingaling ... barreled right over the debris.
Luckily I have Gatorskins on it and the tires held. After that I slowed
down substantially. Do we have to keep going slow because of inadequate
light?

So some day I'll even upgrade my old and seldom used road bike to
something well north of 500 lumens. This one doesn't necessarily need
high-beam although it would be nice.

Fortunately, at least part of AMuzi's statement is incorrect. The
expense of greater light output has been steadily decreasing. LEDs
coming down in price as light output goes up, and more competition in
lights, has driven prices down.

Magic Shine used to be seen as the low-cost alternative for quality
lights, and they are still a good choice because they provide after-sale
support with replacement parts and batteries, but even they are being
undercut now.

sms wrote:
On 9/16/2014 7:39 AM, Joerg wrote:
AMuzi wrote:

snip

Same principle for road users, the actual riders feel that the expense
of a brighter light is reasonable and every year that expense and light
output on average increases. That's a crowdsourced data argument. Again
individuals may vary in their actual risks and also perceptions so YMMV.


Goes even for roads sometimes. One night I was coming back from a
meeting in town, pitch dark, on a main (paved!) thoroughfare through
town. Very slightly downhill, with me in the pedals at full bore, just
wanted to get home. Had a front light of around 250 lumens with the beam
nicely focused on the raod surface ahead. Then it happened on the narrow
bike lane of this road. Saw a large chunk of metal, too late, could not
stop in time and also not swerve because of cars next to me. On my MTB I
could have swerved through the ditch but this was my road bike.
*RAT-TAT-TAT* .. tchingalingaling ... barreled right over the debris.
Luckily I have Gatorskins on it and the tires held. After that I slowed
down substantially. Do we have to keep going slow because of inadequate
light?

So some day I'll even upgrade my old and seldom used road bike to
something well north of 500 lumens. This one doesn't necessarily need
high-beam although it would be nice.

Fortunately, at least part of AMuzi's statement is incorrect. The
expense of greater light output has been steadily decreasing. LEDs
coming down in price as light output goes up, and more competition in
lights, has driven prices down.

Magic Shine used to be seen as the low-cost alternative for quality
lights, and they are still a good choice because they provide after-sale
support with replacement parts and batteries, but even they are being
undercut now.


For winter I am looking for a really high light output solution that is
rugged and doesn't cost exorbitant amounts of money. Their web site is
screwed up but from what I can see on those little pictures the lights
have that flimsy rubber band mounting "technique" versus a serious
bolted-on handlebar clamp:

http://www.magicshine.com/Product.aspx#cp12

At least some of them look like metal. Plastic would be quite useless on
a mountain bike.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 9/16/2014 1:01 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, September 15, 2014 6:40:00 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/15/2014 6:05 PM, sms wrote:

One genuine issue with bicycle infrastructure (bicycle lanes) is that
there are often overhanging branches that don't extend out into the
vehicle traffic lanes.

Got photos?
While bike lanes are not as popular here as in some areas, I don't
recall ever seeing such a low hanging branch. If one did occur, I'm
sure there would be complaints, and it would be removed.

IOW, I think you're inventing hazards, yet again.


Whenever you disagree with someones observations or statmentement you almost
always infer in some way that the person is lying about what they said.

And it's unthinkable that "guerrilla marketer" Scharf would ever say
anything that was untrue?

Scharf claims there are "often" branches hanging down to where they
smack bicyclists in the head in a dangerous manner - and that because of
that, one should buy one his Chinese flashlights instead of a proper
bike headlight.

His original claim (months ago) was that this happened on roads, until I
pointed out that tall trucks drive roads. Then he shifted, to claim
these really hazardous branches exist only above bike lanes - and that
they are "often" there.

Like it or not, I don't believe such hazards occur very "often," since
(for example) I've _never_ seen this happen. It's rare for me to be able
to reach above my head and touch even a leaf while riding on the road.

You might tell us about your own experience. How _often_ have you
almost banged your head on a branch while riding on the road or in a
bike lane? Has it been often, like once a week? Once a month? Or do
you have to think hard to remember even one close call?

There are people who revel in making bicycling sound really, really
dangerous, so it demands really unusual safety measures: glaring lights
front and back whenever the bike is in use, super-loud horns,
super-bright clothing at all times, styrofoam wrapping the head, elbows
and knees, special "safe" places to ride, defibrillators on bike trails,
next-of-kin contact information on the wrist, etc.

But this forum is the ONLY place I've seen anyone claim that there's a
significant risk in getting clubbed by low-hanging tree branches. I
don't believe the hazard is anything but rare, no matter what is said by
a Chinese light salesman.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/16/2014 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 7:08:16 AM UTC+2, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:00:58 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/15/2014 8:33 PM, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
While bike lanes are not as popular here as in some areas, I
don't recall ever seeing such a low hanging branch. If one
did occur, I'm sure there would be complaints, and it would
be removed. IOW, I think you're inventing hazards, yet again.

No, seen it myself, a lot. An example from Spokane, WA:
http://seeclickfix.com/files/issue_i...1/DSC_0083.JPG
Others: http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/377666
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29053105@N04/5609127887/ A scary
case on one of my weekly rides is a tree where three large
branches have been cut off but each still reach a foot or so
into the trail. If you hit that at full bore it can kill you
dead, as John Wayne would have said. It would be like smacking
into the end of a 4-by-4 at 15-20mph. If you are new to the
trail, ride at night and don't have high-beam lighting that
could spell trouble. Ok, this is technically a trail but it is
officially a bike connection.
Good job of finding photos, but where are those from? Is it one
from Washington State, one from Australia and one from Britain?
If so, it's in the same realm as fatal shark attacks - as in,
yes, it happens occasionally, but it's hardly common.


It was just a quick 15sec search, there are plenty more. I only posted
it because of the notion that Steven invented hazards while in reality
such hazards exist. I've encountered them many times and this included
situations where a bike path was so overgrown that I had to detour via
the turf.

Seriously now - you've encountered really hazardous overhead branches
"many times" on paved bike paths and on roads? How often does this
happen, and why would any such branches not be cleared in your area, as
they are everywhere I've ridden? Do motor vehicles not drive down the
roads? Do bicyclists at risk not complain, or even trim branches
themselves?

... And I was
speaking of roads, not trails.


All pictures I posted are from roads.

Nope. http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/377666 in Britain says "an old
railway line" and from the (sideways) photo, it's obvious that motor
vehicles haven't been driving there. And of course, it was fixed when
it was reported.

You're welcome to your own desires for off-road equipment, of course. Of
course, mountain bikers have been doing 24-hour races with off-the-shelf
stuff for 20 years now, so even that situation doesn't seem terrible.

But I don't like people exaggerating the minimal risks of riding on
roads. Bicycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend
it is.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/16/2014 10:52 AM, Joerg wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, September 12, 2014 3:46:01 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:

Joerg considered Sun, 31 Aug 2014
14:02:58 -0700 the perfect time to write:
Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sat, 30 Aug
2014 09:39:24 -0700 the perfect time to write:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
[...]
Many AA or AAA tail lights are quite bright especially on
trails and some are too bright for a following rider.
But you never know when they run out of juice because the
manufacturer's engineers can't get it into their heads that
there should be a charge level indicator. Technically a
piece of cake, you measure the voltage sag upon pulsing and
when that exceeds the 80% or whatever discharge mark let
the light flash a bit more irregular than usual. Then the
rider would still have time to get homes safely but would
know that a fresh set of batteries or a Li-Ion recharge is
required soon. When do they wake up?
They have. Bettery level indicators are so common that
they've made them a mandatory requirement (on those few bikes
where it's legal to not have a dynamo system) in Germany.
For the rear light? So why are all those sold over here in the
US sans low-batt warning? Including expensive ones.
Only on the front. But if you look after your batteries, carry
spares, and have redundant lights (I go for one flashing and one
solidly on, as a minimum) you shouldn't have a problem since
battery drain is so low on a rear light.




I always have tqwo independent tail lights because aside from
batteries

one could vibrate itself inoperable on a gnarly trail section.



And exactly that just happened, one tail light died :-(

Luckily I still had the other for the way back.


Why do you need a tail light at all when trail riding?


It's for the road sections that are part of almost every ride. I first
have to get to the trails which I sometimes use just like car drivers
use freeways. I gladly take a 1-2mi detour on roads to reach a trail
that let me do the rest of the journey far away from cars.

I leave the blinking tail light on even during the day. Also on trails.
If you crash real bad that greatly increases the chance that a rescue
helicopter crew finds you (using their night vision gear).


... On a dark
trail, your headlight is a pretty good indicator of your presence --
along with the clattering of chains, crushing of leaves, etc., etc.
http://reviews.mtbr.com/2012-bike-li...der-pro-3000-3


Now that is a decent front light! Although I won't spend $700. On a good
fork, yes, but not on a light.


In the dark woods, a guy with a stadium light is pretty noticeable,
even from behind, IMO.


Yes, but if the guy crashes badly the stadium light will snuff itself
out with 1-2h and then it's important that the li'l tail blinky-blink
keeps blinking. I saw a rescue video where this was how they found
stranded hikers in the woods, it was impressive.

So far I never came upon a situation like that but I did when hiking.
Guy was off the trail, lying on the ground on his back, unresponsive. No
lights, no nothing. I don't think they would have found him easily. He
was hardcore dehydrated and out of blood sugar so I slowly got all that
into him and he came to. I don't know what would have happened had he
remained there all night.


OK, that's a new one - you need a bright taillight so you can be spotted
by rescue helicopters. A keeper! ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2014 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 7:08:16 AM UTC+2, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:00:58 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/15/2014 8:33 PM, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
While bike lanes are not as popular here as in some areas, I
don't recall ever seeing such a low hanging branch. If one
did occur, I'm sure there would be complaints, and it would
be removed. IOW, I think you're inventing hazards, yet again.

No, seen it myself, a lot. An example from Spokane, WA:
http://seeclickfix.com/files/issue_i...1/DSC_0083.JPG
Others: http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/377666
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29053105@N04/5609127887/ A scary
case on one of my weekly rides is a tree where three large
branches have been cut off but each still reach a foot or so
into the trail. If you hit that at full bore it can kill you
dead, as John Wayne would have said. It would be like smacking
into the end of a 4-by-4 at 15-20mph. If you are new to the
trail, ride at night and don't have high-beam lighting that
could spell trouble. Ok, this is technically a trail but it is
officially a bike connection.
Good job of finding photos, but where are those from? Is it one
from Washington State, one from Australia and one from Britain?
If so, it's in the same realm as fatal shark attacks - as in,
yes, it happens occasionally, but it's hardly common.


It was just a quick 15sec search, there are plenty more. I only posted
it because of the notion that Steven invented hazards while in reality
such hazards exist. I've encountered them many times and this included
situations where a bike path was so overgrown that I had to detour via
the turf.

Seriously now - you've encountered really hazardous overhead branches
"many times" on paved bike paths and on roads? ...


Mostly in Germany, but sometimes here in the US as well. It's just that
this area has only few bike lanes. A bike lane that isn't there can't
overgrow.

Sometimes roads themselves overgrow, can be really bad in Britain, like
he

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/home...-leicester.jpg


... How often does this
happen, and why would any such branches not be cleared in your area, as
they are everywhere I've ridden? ...


The usual, fat gov worker pensions and then there is no money left to do
the service. Cuts have to be made and those are made where the least
resistance is expected. Just like we still pay a substantial assessment
for street sweeping but the sweep never comes anymore.


... Do motor vehicles not drive down the
roads? ...


They tend not to roll on the bike lanes out here. That could result in a
painful traffic ticket.


... Do bicyclists at risk not complain, or even trim branches
themselves?


Due to the spotty and very incomplete bike infrastructure not many
people use bicycles out here. Complaints are fairly useless, just like
they are when (as usual ...) traffic lights do not sense bicyclists and
you sit there for five minutes in front of a red light. "We'll have
someone check that out" and then nothing happens.

Trimming by bicyclists happens but mostly only on the trails. Mountain
bikers are usually much more dedicated to their environment.


... And I was
speaking of roads, not trails.


All pictures I posted are from roads.

Nope. http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/377666 in Britain says "an old
railway line" and from the (sideways) photo, it's obvious that motor
vehicles haven't been driving there. And of course, it was fixed when
it was reported.


Quote "The very useful bike lane". This is a bike lane, made from an
abandoned rail line as happens a lot lately. You were asking about
photos of overgrowth into bike lanes and path, so I provided you with some.


You're welcome to your own desires for off-road equipment, of course. Of
course, mountain bikers have been doing 24-hour races with off-the-shelf
stuff for 20 years now, so even that situation doesn't seem terrible.


All I wan't is that bicycle technology catches up to the quality level
of SUVs, trucks and dirt bikes. That is not too much to ask and it is
technically feasible. BTW, this doesn't only go for lighting. In the
first 500 miles that I owned the new MTB the following happened:

a. Busted a main pivot bearing (handled under warranty)

b. Broke the saddle (warranty exchange)

c. Busted the freehub (just got a new rear wheel under warranty)

d. Wore down one set of brake pads. Cost $15 plus tax. A set for my SUV
costs $17 and has so far lasted over 75,000 miles.

e. The rear tire is used up, $50. So I am trying a lower cost one
because the bike seems to cost more per miles than my car.

f. Broke light sets (so far always got my money refunded but it's annoying).

g. Tapered steerer bearings coming loose all the time. Can be readjusted
with ease but why is this not required on similar sized bearings on my SUV?

All this could be improved without too much engineering effort.


But I don't like people exaggerating the minimal risks of riding on
roads. Bicycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend
it is.


On roads it is dangerous. Bike lanes help a bit but a separated bike
infrastructure is much better. If more people would learn how to
properly handle mountain bikes this doesn't require more effort than
hacking a trail.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 9/16/2014 8:08 AM, Joerg wrote:
sms wrote:
On 9/16/2014 7:39 AM, Joerg wrote:
AMuzi wrote:

snip

Same principle for road users, the actual riders feel that the expense
of a brighter light is reasonable and every year that expense and light
output on average increases. That's a crowdsourced data argument. Again
individuals may vary in their actual risks and also perceptions so YMMV.


Goes even for roads sometimes. One night I was coming back from a
meeting in town, pitch dark, on a main (paved!) thoroughfare through
town. Very slightly downhill, with me in the pedals at full bore, just
wanted to get home. Had a front light of around 250 lumens with the beam
nicely focused on the raod surface ahead. Then it happened on the narrow
bike lane of this road. Saw a large chunk of metal, too late, could not
stop in time and also not swerve because of cars next to me. On my MTB I
could have swerved through the ditch but this was my road bike.
*RAT-TAT-TAT* .. tchingalingaling ... barreled right over the debris.
Luckily I have Gatorskins on it and the tires held. After that I slowed
down substantially. Do we have to keep going slow because of inadequate
light?

So some day I'll even upgrade my old and seldom used road bike to
something well north of 500 lumens. This one doesn't necessarily need
high-beam although it would be nice.

Fortunately, at least part of AMuzi's statement is incorrect. The
expense of greater light output has been steadily decreasing. LEDs
coming down in price as light output goes up, and more competition in
lights, has driven prices down.

Magic Shine used to be seen as the low-cost alternative for quality
lights, and they are still a good choice because they provide after-sale
support with replacement parts and batteries, but even they are being
undercut now.


For winter I am looking for a really high light output solution that is
rugged and doesn't cost exorbitant amounts of money. Their web site is
screwed up but from what I can see on those little pictures the lights
have that flimsy rubber band mounting "technique" versus a serious
bolted-on handlebar clamp:

Several people have reported removing the bracket that is secured with
the rubber bands and using a proper handlebar clamp. Magicshine makes
one, the MagicShine MJ-6079.

http://www.magicshine.com/Product.aspx#cp12

At least some of them look like metal. Plastic would be quite useless on
a mountain bike.

Yet most mountain bikers do perfectly well with plastic lights.

The 3W light from DealExtreme is extremely rugged
http://www.dx.com/p/3w-3-led-270-lumen-waterproof-flood-light-projection-warm-white-lamp-12v-47572
though at the expense of being rather heavy. Mounted to handlebars with
a steel clamp it would be ideal. I might put some thread lock on the
mounting screws from the bracket to the light though.

On 9/16/2014 9:28 AM, Joerg wrote:

The usual, fat gov worker pensions and then there is no money left to do
the service. Cuts have to be made and those are made where the least
resistance is expected. Just like we still pay a substantial assessment
for street sweeping but the sweep never comes anymore.

In our area, if you call to complain about low hanging branches, or a
bike lane, shoulder, or multi-use path that needs sweeping, they will
generally send out a crew to do it. But they don't have a regular
maintenance schedule for that sort of thing. There's not even enough
money to investigate non-felony crimes so the last thing they're going
to do is hire someone just to trim low branches.

sms wrote:
On 9/16/2014 8:08 AM, Joerg wrote:
sms wrote:
On 9/16/2014 7:39 AM, Joerg wrote:
AMuzi wrote:

snip

Same principle for road users, the actual riders feel that the expense
of a brighter light is reasonable and every year that expense and
light
output on average increases. That's a crowdsourced data argument.
Again
individuals may vary in their actual risks and also perceptions so
YMMV.


Goes even for roads sometimes. One night I was coming back from a
meeting in town, pitch dark, on a main (paved!) thoroughfare through
town. Very slightly downhill, with me in the pedals at full bore, just
wanted to get home. Had a front light of around 250 lumens with the
beam
nicely focused on the raod surface ahead. Then it happened on the
narrow
bike lane of this road. Saw a large chunk of metal, too late, could not
stop in time and also not swerve because of cars next to me. On my
MTB I
could have swerved through the ditch but this was my road bike.
*RAT-TAT-TAT* .. tchingalingaling ... barreled right over the debris.
Luckily I have Gatorskins on it and the tires held. After that I slowed
down substantially. Do we have to keep going slow because of inadequate
light?

So some day I'll even upgrade my old and seldom used road bike to
something well north of 500 lumens. This one doesn't necessarily need
high-beam although it would be nice.

Fortunately, at least part of AMuzi's statement is incorrect. The
expense of greater light output has been steadily decreasing. LEDs
coming down in price as light output goes up, and more competition in
lights, has driven prices down.

Magic Shine used to be seen as the low-cost alternative for quality
lights, and they are still a good choice because they provide after-sale
support with replacement parts and batteries, but even they are being
undercut now.


For winter I am looking for a really high light output solution that is
rugged and doesn't cost exorbitant amounts of money. Their web site is
screwed up but from what I can see on those little pictures the lights
have that flimsy rubber band mounting "technique" versus a serious
bolted-on handlebar clamp:

Several people have reported removing the bracket that is secured with
the rubber bands and using a proper handlebar clamp. Magicshine makes
one, the MagicShine MJ-6079.


Indeed. Seems to be plastic though and doesn't grip around the bar:

http://www.amazon.com/Release-Handle.../dp/B007IDOPIU


http://www.magicshine.com/Product.aspx#cp12

At least some of them look like metal. Plastic would be quite useless on
a mountain bike.

Yet most mountain bikers do perfectly well with plastic lights.


Not so much out here. Most have what I do: A light that looks like an
thicker flashlight, made from beefy aluminum and mounted via an ABS
handlebar holder.


The 3W light from DealExtreme is extremely rugged
http://www.dx.com/p/3w-3-led-270-lumen-waterproof-flood-light-projection-warm-white-lamp-12v-47572
though at the expense of being rather heavy. Mounted to handlebars with
a steel clamp it would be ideal. I might put some thread lock on the
mounting screws from the bracket to the light though.


At 3W it must be more that 270 lumens though, maybe that was a typo. The
U-bracket would quickly become crushed on a mountain bike. Best to have
a milled mount and with bigger screws.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

sms wrote:
On 9/16/2014 9:28 AM, Joerg wrote:

The usual, fat gov worker pensions and then there is no money left to do
the service. Cuts have to be made and those are made where the least
resistance is expected. Just like we still pay a substantial assessment
for street sweeping but the sweep never comes anymore.

In our area, if you call to complain about low hanging branches, or a
bike lane, shoulder, or multi-use path that needs sweeping, they will
generally send out a crew to do it. But they don't have a regular
maintenance schedule for that sort of thing. There's not even enough
money to investigate non-felony crimes so the last thing they're going
to do is hire someone just to trim low branches.


The tree at 2:20mins can give bicyclists you a good whack in the head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr0AUzDgPx0

While I do keep up the speed on overgrown trails I think this guy it nuts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1sS7ScVbnQ

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/