Cateye Stadium 03 vs. Lumicycle Halide 2003



Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Drinky

Guest
Does anyone have views on how these things stack up against each other in terms of performance and
reliability in actual use. I'm particularly interested to know if the claimed burn times and battery
life (in terms of charging cycles) are for real.

£250+ for a front light is serious money and I'm very sceptical towards them representing good value
compared to a £15 halogen cheapo.
 
P

Peter B

Guest
"Drinky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Does anyone have views on how these things stack up against each other in terms of performance and
> reliability in actual use. I'm particularly interested to know if the claimed burn times and
> battery life (in terms of charging cycles) are for real.
>
> £250+ for a front light is serious money and I'm very sceptical towards
them
> representing good value compared to a £15 halogen cheapo.

I think the top-end lamps are aimed at 24 hour off-road event entrants or at least serious
off-roaders.

The 15 quid jobbies are probably fine for lit urban roads but sadly lacking for unlit country lanes
IME and totally useless off-road. <1>

For riding country lanes and perhaps a little off-road use I'm considering something around the
50-60 quid mark but will keep a Cateye 2.4w handy as a back-up.

<1> I once used a 2.4w unit for cycling through the tunnels on the Brampton Valley Way, may as well
have used a match :)

Pete
 
E

Elyob

Guest
"Drinky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Does anyone have views on how these things stack up against each other in terms of performance and
> reliability in actual use. I'm particularly interested to know if the claimed burn times and
> battery life (in terms of charging cycles) are for real.
>
> £250+ for a front light is serious money and I'm very sceptical towards
them
> representing good value compared to a £15 halogen cheapo.
>

I'm very happy with Lumicycle. If you've got any problems, they're there to help.

I use the 'normal' Lumi's, not sure why I'd want one of those really Halide lights for commuting
though ... :)
 
R

Richard Corfiel

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, elyob wrote:
> I use the 'normal' Lumi's, not sure why I'd want one of those really Halide lights for commuting
> though ... :)

Which do you use? There's a fair range, and 7deg spot sounds narrow.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a
one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.
 
G

Gonzalez

Guest
Drinky wrote:

>Does anyone have views on how these things stack up against each other in terms of performance and
>reliability in actual use. I'm particularly interested to know if the claimed burn times and
>battery life (in terms of charging cycles) are for real.
>
>£250+ for a front light is serious money and I'm very sceptical towards them representing good
>value compared to a £15 halogen cheapo.

I'm absolutely delighted with my Cateye Stadium.

I start work at 7.30am, and am home by 6.30pm, my commute is along well lit city roads, so that's
not a problem. However, my commute is only 5 minutes each way, and I like a good hour's cycle ride
after dinner. That doesn't happen very often in the winter months, and I put on stacks of weight.

Now with my Cateye Stadium I cycle happily along the Thames Path to my heart's content, and night is
turned into day.
--
remove remove to reply
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Drinky <[email protected]> wrote:

> Does anyone have views on how these things stack up against each other in terms of performance
> and reliability in actual use. I'm particularly interested to know if the claimed burn times and
> battery life (in terms of charging cycles) are for real.

I don't know about these units, but I do know a little about metal halide discharge lamps (which is
what I believe is lurking in there), and one thing to bear in mind is that they don't much like
switching on. In particular, you get incredible life if you switch one on and leave it forever, but
if you switch it on and off and on again and so on, the lifetime is much reduced.

Also, while they're striking teh arc, teh power consumption is higher than when running -
potentially, a start-up current around twice teh running current for teh first few minutes (and a
strike current of 25 x that for a few milliseconds). So, switching off and on, unless they're going
to be off for quite a while, might drain more battery than leaving them running.

And finally, you can't actually switch them off and on again immediately - they won't start if
they're too hot. If you switch them off, you need to let them cool down somewhat before it's even
possible to switch them back on.

I don't actually know to what extent these problems affect teh bike units - my interest is in higher
power units. I can imagine that the smaller, lower power units are less troublesome, at least in teh
last two issues, because running twice teh current for a minute or two may not be a big deal, and
being so small, they might cool down so quick that you never notice they won't re-light immediately.
I'd be interested to hear from someone who's actually used them whether these issues show up...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
A

Andy P

Guest
"Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote

> I'm absolutely delighted with my Cateye Stadium.
>
> I start work at 7.30am, and am home by 6.30pm, my commute is along well lit city roads, so that's
> not a problem. However, my commute is only 5 minutes each way, and I like a good hour's cycle ride
> after dinner. That doesn't happen very often in the winter months, and I put on stacks of weight.
>
> Now with my Cateye Stadium I cycle happily along the Thames Path to my heart's content, and night
> is turned into day.

What kind of reaction do you get from people coming the other way? Do they yell "Aargh me eyes"
before falling in the river or is it ok if angled towards the ground?
 
G

Gonzalez

Guest
Andy P wrote:

>"Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> I'm absolutely delighted with my Cateye Stadium.
>>
>> I start work at 7.30am, and am home by 6.30pm, my commute is along well lit city roads, so that's
>> not a problem. However, my commute is only 5 minutes each way, and I like a good hour's cycle
>> ride after dinner. That doesn't happen very often in the winter months, and I put on stacks of
>> weight.
>>
>> Now with my Cateye Stadium I cycle happily along the Thames Path to my heart's content, and night
>> is turned into day.
>
>What kind of reaction do you get from people coming the other way? Do they yell "Aargh me eyes"
>before falling in the river or is it ok if angled towards the ground?

Not many people walk along the Thames Path at 9pm. However, when I catch its reflection in the water
I go, "Aargh! me eyes" before falling into the water.

But seriously, I angle the lamp about 10 degrees down, as recommended, and all is well on
or off road.
--
remove remove to reply
 
A

Andy

Guest
"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Drinky <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have views on how these things stack up against each other
in
> > terms of performance and reliability in actual use. I'm particularly interested to know if the
> > claimed burn times and battery life (in terms
of
> > charging cycles) are for real.
>
> I don't know about these units, but I do know a little about metal halide discharge lamps (which
> is what I believe is lurking in there), and one thing to bear in mind is that they don't much like
> switching on. In particular, you get incredible life if you switch one on and leave it forever,
> but if you switch it on and off and on again and so on, the lifetime is much reduced.
>
> Also, while they're striking teh arc, teh power consumption is higher than when running -
> potentially, a start-up current around twice teh running current for teh first few minutes (and a
> strike current of 25 x that for a few milliseconds). So, switching off and on, unless they're
> going to be off for quite a while, might drain more battery than leaving them running.
>
> And finally, you can't actually switch them off and on again immediately - they won't start if
> they're too hot. If you switch them off, you need to let them cool down somewhat before it's even
> possible to switch them back on.
>
> I don't actually know to what extent these problems affect teh bike units - my interest is in
> higher power units. I can imagine that the smaller, lower power units are less troublesome, at
> least in teh last two issues, because running twice teh current for a minute or two may not be a
> big deal, and being so small, they might cool down so quick that you never notice they won't
> re-light immediately. I'd be interested to hear from someone who's actually used them whether
> these issues show up...
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|

Everyone I know who rides with Stadiums just leaves them on all the time during a ride as they're
aware of the issues you mention.
 
E

Elyob

Guest
"Richard Corfield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, elyob wrote:
> > I use the 'normal' Lumi's, not sure why I'd want one of those really
Halide
> > lights for commuting though ... :)
>
> Which do you use? There's a fair range, and 7deg spot sounds narrow.
>
12W spot for everyday, and extra 20W for full towpath .. *see me for a mile*
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
elyob wrote:
>
> The difference between 'the' & 'teh', made that difficult to read .. new keyboard? spell checker?

Its one of the few words that has to be spelt correctly as the following demonstrates:

Acocdrnig to an Elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a word dosen't mttaer, the olny
thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision.
The rset can be jmbueld and one is still able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.

I do wonder whether the people behind fcuk new that ;-)

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain
 
A

Ambrose Nankive

Guest
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> elyob wrote:
> >
> > The difference between 'the' & 'teh', made that difficult to read .. new keyboard? spell
> > checker?

People writing 'teh' is pretty common, though. I guess it's one of those things you might have to
get used to.

> Its one of the few words that has to be spelt correctly as the following demonstrates:
>
> Acocdrnig to an Elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a word dosen't mttaer, the olny
> thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision.
> The rset can be jmbueld and one is still able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.

The only people I ever knew who were working on that sort of stuff were at a Stocisth unviesitry,
however. I wonder whose work it's referring to (why don't chain emails have citations?). Also, I saw
it reprinted in a magazine with the word 'iopmrantt' spelt as 'iopmrentt'. Tsk, tsk.

A
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
> The only people I ever knew who were working on that sort of stuff were at a Stocisth unviesitry,
> however. I wonder whose work it's referring to (why don't chain emails have citations?). Also, I
> saw it reprinted in a magazine with the word 'iopmrantt' spelt as 'iopmrentt'. Tsk, tsk.
>

I'm not sure its referring to anyone's work in much the same way there was no quick brown fox or
lazy dog. Its just a text to illustrate the point.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain
 
P

Paul Lydon

Guest
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:41:54 +0100, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>elyob wrote:
>>
>> The difference between 'the' & 'teh', made that difficult to read .. new keyboard? spell checker?
>
>Its one of the few words that has to be spelt correctly as the following demonstrates:
>
>Acocdrnig to an Elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a word dosen't mttaer, the olny
>thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision.
>The rset can be jmbueld and one is still able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
>
>I do wonder whether the people behind fcuk new that ;-)
>
>
>Tony

Really?

Try this- jumbled with same rules...

Aiocdrncg to an Eignslh urviesitny sdtuy the oderr of lrtetes in a word dnseo't metatr, the olny
tinhg thta's itpmranot is taht the fisrt and lsat letetr of eervy wrod is in the cocrert piioostn.
The rset can be jlbuemd and one is siltl albe to raed the txet wuohtit dclftfuiiy.

I don't think that would be so easy to read if you hadn't first read the easier version above...

--
Paul Lydon Winster, Derbyshire, UK --> Remove the 'DELETE' in email address to reply <--
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Thu, 9 Oct, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Acocdrnig to an Elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a word dosen't mttaer, the olny
> thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision.
> The rset can be jmbueld and one is still able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.

But, there are orders where it doesn't work. In particular, if you arrange the words aaabcehilllpty
it seems to be much harder to read accurately and rapidly than if they are aaegnrrd in a sdeloppsuy
radnom oderr.

If one dabeeeillrty oabcefstus oens ideenntd maegsse whiitn the taertuxl paagsse with eaeglnotd,
caceilmoptd paghinrss bceemos paaccillrty ibilmopsse. In fact, the maegsse ndees ciinnostttug form a
vaabcloruy in wchih the wdors sceeeltd form the aaabillve pbeiiiilossts are jsut sghillty eaeglnotd
(caemoprd to aaegrve sailmnpg, adinoptg, pabelmrsuy, saaciistttl sailmnpg of an eeinstvxe reeioprrte
of wgiinrts) to make the reilnstug Egilnsh almost uaabdelnre, whiotut paceorrttd eaaiimnotxn of the
leertts and cdeiinnorsg eervy dceeirst paacgke scuh as an aaagnrm in ielstf.

For this reason, I am inclined to doubt the research as it has been presented. After all, if the
jumbled ordering of the letters must be a paacilrtur jumbled ordering, the oabeinorstvs peeenrstd
are, pabelmrsuy, qabeilnostue.

regards, Ian SMith

(ooh look, I've just noticed that "Ian SMith" fed to that script comes out as "Ian SMith")
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 9 Oct, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Acocdrnig to an Elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a word dosen't mttaer, the olny
> > thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot
> > ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is still able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.
>
>
> But, there are orders where it doesn't work. In particular, if you arrange the words
> aaabcehilllpty it seems to be much harder to read accurately and rapidly than if they are aaegnrrd
> in a sdeloppsuy radnom oderr.
>
> If one dabeeeillrty oabcefstus oens ideenntd maegsse whiitn the taertuxl paagsse with eaeglnotd,
> caceilmoptd paghinrss bceemos paaccillrty ibilmopsse. In fact, the maegsse ndees ciinnostttug
> form a vaabcloruy in wchih the wdors sceeeltd form the aaabillve pbeiiiilossts are jsut sghillty
> eaeglnotd (caemoprd to aaegrve sailmnpg, adinoptg, pabelmrsuy, saaciistttl sailmnpg of an
> eeinstvxe reeioprrte of wgiinrts) to make the reilnstug Egilnsh almost uaabdelnre, whiotut
> paceorrttd eaaiimnotxn of the leertts and cdeiinnorsg eervy dceeirst paacgke scuh as an aaagnrm
> in ielstf.
>
> For this reason, I am inclined to doubt the research as it has been presented. After all, if the
> jumbled ordering of the letters must be a paacilrtur jumbled ordering, the oabeinorstvs peeenrstd
> are, pabelmrsuy, qabeilnostue.

It would help if your original message was sensible english (the sentence If ... ibibmposse doesn't
make sense, I don't like your use of the word ciinnostttug there, the scuh looks like it shouldn't
be there).

:) (Hooray for anagram programs)

cheers, clive
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > If one dabeeeillrty oabcefstus oens ideenntd maegsse whiitn the taertuxl paagsse with eaeglnotd,
> > caceilmoptd paghinrss bceemos paaccillrty ibilmopsse. In fact, the maegsse ndees ciinnostttug
> > form a vaabcloruy in wchih the wdors sceeeltd form the aaabillve pbeiiiilossts are jsut sghillty
> > eaeglnotd (caemoprd to aaegrve sailmnpg, adinoptg, pabelmrsuy, saaciistttl sailmnpg of an
> > eeinstvxe reeioprrte of wgiinrts) to make the reilnstug Egilnsh almost uaabdelnre, whiotut
> > paceorrttd eaaiimnotxn of the leertts and cdeiinnorsg eervy dceeirst paacgke scuh as an aaagnrm
> > in ielstf.
> >
> > For this reason, I am inclined to doubt the research as it has been presented. After all, if the
> > jumbled ordering of the letters must be a paacilrtur jumbled ordering, the oabeinorstvs
> > peeenrstd are, pabelmrsuy, qabeilnostue.
>
> It would help if your original message was sensible english (the sentence If ... ibibmposse
> doesn't make sense,

OK, would you prefer: If one dabeeeillrty oabcefstus oens ideenntd maegsse whiitn the paagsse with
eaeglnotd, caceilmoptd paghinrss it bceemos paaccillrty ibilmopsse to uadennrstd. I think you can
get the gist of that sentence anyway, it's the later sentences that get more difficult.

> I don't like your use of the word ciinnostttug there, the scuh looks like it shouldn't be there).

ciinnostttug looks OK to me. The problem with teh scuh is that my script apparently has a bug - it
seems to drop some two-letter words (which also damages the "If ... ibilmopsse" sentence). It should
read "eervy dceeirst paacgke OF scuh", referring back to the leertts. I was trying to avoid two many
occurrences of "wdors", which is fairly obvious.

> :) (Hooray for anagram programs)

Haoory for Perl, in this case.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> > "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > If one dabeeeillrty oabcefstus oens ideenntd maegsse whiitn the taertuxl paagsse with
> > > eaeglnotd, caceilmoptd paghinrss bceemos paaccillrty ibilmopsse. In fact, the maegsse ndees
> > > ciinnostttug form a vaabcloruy in wchih the wdors sceeeltd form the aaabillve pbeiiiilossts
> > > are jsut sghillty eaeglnotd (caemoprd to aaegrve sailmnpg, adinoptg, pabelmrsuy, saaciistttl
> > > sailmnpg of an eeinstvxe reeioprrte of wgiinrts) to make the reilnstug Egilnsh almost
> > > uaabdelnre, whiotut paceorrttd eaaiimnotxn of the leertts and cdeiinnorsg eervy dceeirst
> > > paacgke scuh as an aaagnrm in ielstf.
> > >
> > > For this reason, I am inclined to doubt the research as it has been presented. After all, if
> > > the jumbled ordering of the letters must be a paacilrtur jumbled ordering, the oabeinorstvs
> > > peeenrstd are, pabelmrsuy, qabeilnostue.
> >
> > It would help if your original message was sensible english (the
sentence If
> > ... ibibmposse doesn't make sense,
>
> OK, would you prefer: If one dabeeeillrty oabcefstus oens ideenntd maegsse whiitn the paagsse with
> eaeglnotd, caceilmoptd paghinrss it bceemos paaccillrty ibilmopsse to uadennrstd. I think you can
> get the gist of that sentence anyway, it's the later sentences that get more difficult.
>
> > I don't like your use of the word ciinnostttug there, the scuh looks like it shouldn't be
> > there).
>
> ciinnostttug looks OK to me.

No, still don't like it. ciinnostttug is a passive thing, whereas you're describing an active
process. cimnoopsg?

> > :) (Hooray for anagram programs)
>
> Haoory for Perl, in this case.

I was cheering them for doing my side of the job...

cheers, clive
 
P

Peter B

Guest
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I do wonder whether the people behind fcuk new that ;-)

Just who was or is their intended market? It's the kind of thing that would have made us snigger in
the fourth year at school in the late 60's, the mentality of an adult who thinks it's witty is
beyond me. Pathetic cnuts.

Pete
 
Status
Not open for further replies.