DynoHubs: What light bulbs/LED emitters?



P

(PeteCresswell)

Guest
What light bulbs/LED emitters are you powering with your
Sturmey-Archer Dynohub?

Front? Back?

I did the thing with the bridge rectifier to convert it's output
to DC - figuring I'd drive some LED emitters to get max light.

But I'm having problems with the voltage regulator part. I get
the circuit tuned to put out, say, 1.5 volts with 6 volts coming
in from a 4-battery test source and then when I put another
battery in series, the output voltage rises to 2.something.

Probably something dumb I'm doing in the regulator, and I expect
to do it right eventually.

But it got me to wondering how voltage-tolerant light bulbs and
LEDs are. My assumption going into this has been "not very",
but I don't have much to base that on.

Am I doing the voltage regulation piece in vain? Do I really
need regulation? When I hang a voltmeter on the DC output it
varies from 3 volts at a walking pace to about 20 volts on a
downhill.

So, bottom line, who is using what without toasting a lot of
bulbs yet getting plenty light?
--
PeteCresswell
 
On Mar 14, 1:36 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> What light bulbs/LED emitters are you powering with your
> Sturmey-Archer Dynohub?
>
> Front?   Back?
>
> I did the thing with the bridge rectifier to convert it's output
> to DC - figuring I'd drive some LED emitters to get max light.
>
> But I'm having problems with the voltage regulator part. I get
> the circuit tuned to put out, say, 1.5 volts with 6 volts coming
> in from a 4-battery test source and then when I put another
> battery in series, the output voltage rises to 2.something.
>
> Probably something dumb I'm doing in the regulator, and I expect
> to do it right eventually.
>
> But it got me to wondering how voltage-tolerant light bulbs and
> LEDs are.   My assumption going into this has been "not very",
> but I don't have much to base that on.
>
> Am I doing the voltage regulation piece in vain?  Do I really
> need regulation?   When I hang a voltmeter on the DC output it
> varies from 3 volts at a walking pace to about 20 volts on a
> downhill.
>
> So, bottom line, who is using what without toasting a lot of
> bulbs yet getting plenty light?
> --
> PeteCresswell


I was a liberal arts major, so I bought a Lumotec IQ Fly , crimped the
spade connectors, and plugged it into my SON. Piece of cake.

It's about as bright as my old 10W battery-powered Halogen NiteRider
system.
 
Per Hank:
>I was a liberal arts major, so I bought a Lumotec IQ Fly , crimped the
>spade connectors, and plugged it into my SON. Piece of cake.


Well, I majored in accounting.... and kept two checking accounts
so I could use one one month and the other the other month -
letting each run dry so I wouldn't have to deal with balancing a
checkbook.... Finally graduated, but the fact that I did was no
credit to the school...

Having said all that.... Thanks for the terminology. Googling
"Lumotec" led right to Peter White's page dedicated to generator
lighting.
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt-headlights.asp
--
PeteCresswell
 
"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Per Hank:
>>I was a liberal arts major, so I bought a Lumotec IQ Fly , crimped the
>>spade connectors, and plugged it into my SON. Piece of cake.

>
> Having said all that.... Thanks for the terminology. Googling
> "Lumotec" led right to Peter White's page dedicated to generator
> lighting.
> http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt-headlights.asp


Bike generators match very well to light emitting
diodes. Here's a account of some experiments I did which you might
find, um, illuminating. [ducking & running]
http://www.zefox.net/~bob/bicycle/

:cool:

bob prohaska
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Per Hank:
> >I was a liberal arts major, so I bought a Lumotec IQ Fly , crimped the
> >spade connectors, and plugged it into my SON. Piece of cake.

>
> Well, I majored in accounting.... and kept two checking accounts
> so I could use one one month and the other the other month -
> letting each run dry so I wouldn't have to deal with balancing a
> checkbook.... Finally graduated, but the fact that I did was no
> credit to the school...


How did you know when an account went dry?

--
Michael Press
 
On Mar 14, 8:36 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> What light bulbs/LED emitters are you powering with your
> Sturmey-Archer Dynohub?
>
> Front?   Back?
>
> I did the thing with the bridge rectifier to convert it's output
> to DC - figuring I'd drive some LED emitters to get max light.
>
> But I'm having problems with the voltage regulator part. I get
> the circuit tuned to put out, say, 1.5 volts with 6 volts coming
> in from a 4-battery test source and then when I put another
> battery in series, the output voltage rises to 2.something.
>
> Probably something dumb I'm doing in the regulator, and I expect
> to do it right eventually.
>
> But it got me to wondering how voltage-tolerant light bulbs and
> LEDs are.   My assumption going into this has been "not very",
> but I don't have much to base that on.
>
> Am I doing the voltage regulation piece in vain?  Do I really
> need regulation?   When I hang a voltmeter on the DC output it
> varies from 3 volts at a walking pace to about 20 volts on a
> downhill.
>
> So, bottom line, who is using what without toasting a lot of
> bulbs yet getting plenty light?
> --
> PeteCresswell


In the tradition established in this thread: I was educated as an
economist and psychologist and became an artist who occasionally
publishes books on engineering as well. But I do know a little about
electronics, in that I've worked for fifteen years or so with the
kilovolt thermionic tube amplifiers I design and build.

1. I'm assuming your Sturmey-Archer dynohub is rated the same as every
other dynohub, which is theoretically 6V 0.5A or 3W. It will in fact
probably deliver more as it is built to German regulations that demand
a high percentage of its total output at the equivalent of only 9mph.

2. The standard assignment of this power is 0.6W to the rear light and
2.4W to the front light; this assumes that the front light is halogen
and the rear a red LED, so, if you don't lead any power to the rear,
you can use a 3W front halogen.

3. Forget a dynopowered rear light of any kind. Even the best are
dangerous to your health. The expensive BUMM ones are not watertight
and the best of the rest, made by Basta (I have one they custom make
for Gazelle but it is basically just an aesthetic variation of their
best rear lamp) and by Spanninga (their Ultra; I have that one as
well) are merely better waterproofed, not more illuminative. I keep
them on my bikes simply because they came with the bikes. Even the
best of the dynodriven rear lights are little glimmers that you can
barely see across the street. None of the dyno-driven rear lights
flash, because it is streng verboten to have flashing lights in
Germany and The Netherlands, their prime markets.

4. Get a battery rear light. If you're rich, get a Dinotte rear light
(ask Jay; he has one), if not a Cateye TL-LD1100, which is pricey
enough. There is only one other taillight that is good enough for your
life and that's the Trek Disco Inferno, which is no longer made. The
Dinotte and the Cateye 1100 are *bright*, they cast very substantial
light to the sides as well as the rear, and they flash. Those are the
minimum requirements for good taillights, and they are the only ones
who truly meet them. The Cateye 1100 is bright enough to be seen in
bright sunlight; I use it as a daylight running lamp. It is supposed
to last 200 hours on a set of 2 AA batteries; I don't know how long
the batteries last in hours because I use rechargeables and swap them
out every three or four months or so.

5. Now you're ready to consider your front light. Your dynohub will
power halogen or LED lights that will give substantial light.

6. For a start, if you ride faster than about 10mph, you can fit a
second halogen light and the dynobub will power both of them. A
circuit is on the netsite of a guy who comes to RBT, name of Marten I
think; possibly the firm is called M-Engineering. Peter White also has
a circuit. You don't need the expensive SON lights; all they are are
Bisy lights with switches, or BUMM lights with switches. You can buy
the cheapest BUMM (round) halogen lights and make your own switchbox
-- I made one with a three-position switch (off, one on, both on) in a
plastic pill container and sealed it with superglue and fixed it to
the handbars with a fat rubber band.

7. Or you might want to considering overvolting a single halogen lamp:
you get far more light and you won't blow a Philips MR16 or MR11
longlife unit --anyway, what do you care if you reduce a 3000 mtbf
lamp to 1500 hours of life if you get nearly twice as much light? The
trick is that you must be able to get them in the 6V versions to work
with your dynohub, and the 6V MR16 or MR11 are not easy to find, at
least not where I live. But, once you have the right voltage lamp,
they're incredibly easy to work with. I built a lamp with a common
decorating type of MR16, 12V 20W, by simply soldering wires to the
pins (you can buy plugs for the pins at any lamp store, electrical
goods store or hardware store but they're more expensive than the
lamps themselves which are supermarket items), glueing the lamp into a
small Roma tomato puree can (it is exactly the right size) and glueing
the wires into a hole in the back for strain relief; I overvolted it
with the 14.4V battery from my drill, and fixed it to the handlebars
with a clamp from a throwaway rear light I bought at the pound shop
(US "dime store") specifically for this purpose. It made a stunning
lamp, earning a lot of respect from drivers, and was capable of going
for a ten mile ride on narrow country lanes with the drill battery.
(Eventually I bought readymade lights because the package was cheaper
than buying suitable rechargeable batteries, charger, case and so
on.)


8. Or, in LEDs, you can fit as many low consumption LEDs as you can
power. Each LED drops y volts, so the total must add up to what your
dynohub produces or must be regulated. You might want to look into
buckpucks to get the voltage right. Frankly, I wouldn't mess with LEDs
unless I could get the latest and the best, together with some means
of focusing the light correctly, and were also willing to sacrifice an
existing set of lights with hefty, preferably cast ali, shells for
cooling the LEDs. I looked into LEDs and decided that BUMM's Fly IQ
(at the expensive end of their range, which is generally overpriced)
would probably in the end cost less than messing around trying to make
my own.

9. If you're cheap or poor, consider this. Plenty of RBT dickswingers
will now weight in with how fabulous their BUMM Fly IQ is; I have one
too and it is a good light. However. A couple of halogen 2.4W lamps --
because that is what I had at the time of the test; 2x 3W lights would
do better still -- made as much light as the Fly at any speed over a
crawl and could be better arranged because the two lamps had different
spreads. The problem with a single light, any single light but
especially those driven by dynohubs where the output is by definition
limited, is that it is optimized for some particular patch, and there
isn't enough power to light up everything. With two lights you can
light the hole in front of the bike as well as the distance, and by
angling the two lights carefully either have a smooth spread or
distribute the available light to suit your preference. Example: I
ride on narrow lanes with a high crown and a very sudden drop-off into
the ditch -- I want to see both sides of the lane close to the bike,
and on the downhill i want to see the curves well ahead; no one dynamo
light can do both; in fact, even in big battery lights I use two
separate lamps, each dedicated to one desirable purpose.

10. Lights are the last bicycle frontier. We hear a lot of talk from
the technofreakies about how dynamo lights are now so much better than
they were. But better isn't automatically good enough. The best dyno
front light is still only nearly as good as a 10W MR11 battery light
-- whereas I don't feel comfortable on any aspect of lighting (being
seen, having my space respected, seeing) with anything less than about
25W divided between two lamps. YMMV, of course.

11. In summary: I recommend the Cateye TL-LD1100 battery rear light,
and two cheap BUMM halogen lights driven off the dynamo at the front
with a homemade switch, supplemented in case of regular commuting or
any strenuous riding circumstances by a rechargeable battery front
light set .

12. A simple test of whether lights are good enough is to go to the
most dangerous road you ride on and check when drivers first see you
and how they react. If more than one out of ten drivers don't see you
and react appropriately until you sweep a light directly through his
eyes, the lights are not good enough. The most dangerous road I ride
at night is less than a minute from my house and is ideal for setting
up an experiment because it is dark and has a hill to define the
driver's first sight of the bicyclist. I found that with 10W of
illumination on the bike, drivers 180 yards away did not slow after
the crest, with 15W some slowed, with 25W almost all slowed, and the
idiots would slow instantly if I swept that much light through their
eyes at 100 yards. That's still less than a quarter the light output
of a car putting two 55W beams on high to warn another driver.

13. Good strong lights are useful in daylight too. The flashing Cateye
1100 persuades a lot of people to slow behind me and to give me a
wider berth than they did before I fitted that light. The key for a
cyclist is to be seen and thought about. (When Jay has a bit more
experience with his Electra, he will notice that his higher profile on
the bigger -- and clearly expensive -- bike earns him more courtesy
from drivers than was the case on his old folder.)

14. That applies to front lights as well. Example: Yesterday
afternoon, while I was riding down a hill on another narrow road with
parked cars on both sides, a driver coming from the front clearly
intended, despite the fact that I had right of way, to bull his way
past me by forcing me to stop and pull off. I switched on my front
lights as a warning that I had seen him and had no intention of giving
way, and he immediately had second thoughts, pulling out of my way
between two parked cars to give me the road. A woman who was driving
behind me also drove into the supermarket where I stopped. "You
frightened that pushy son of a ***** shitless," she said, laughing
aloud; it turned out he's her unloved neighbour and people have been
talking about his foul manners on the hill to the estate where they
live.

15. I'm planning on fitting a flashing high-power white or amber LED
at the front, to operate whenever I'm on the bike including daylight,
because the flashing Cateye red at the back has been so successful. I
just haven't worked out yet if it will battery driven or if I should
let the dynohub drive it. An attractive option would be a pair of good
LED lights, with additional electronics to flash one, switched to come
on in steady mode when required.

16. If you buy one of the German or Dutch rear lights I'm advising
against, don't bother to get the self-switching one. I have three, and
I take potluck about when any of them are in manual-on-off or auto-on-
at-dusk mode because I cannot work out how to switch the modes.
Furthermore, one of them at least does not meter light reliably and is
confused by the common sodium type of street lights, and the motion
sensor has been inoperative from new. (By contrast the light sensor on
my Cyber Nexus groupset on my Trek Navigator works flawlessly to
switch on my dynohub-driven front light at dusk and off again at dawn.
Shimano used to make a light sensor/switch combo that reputedly worked
well too with dynohubs, but it is a long time since anyone had stock
of it.)

HTH.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
 
Per Michael Press:
>How did you know when an account went dry?


I didn't. But alternating checkbooks every month kept the
amount of basic arithmetic necessary to balance to an absolute
minimum.
--
PeteCresswell
 
Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:05:42 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute:

>On Mar 14, 8:36 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What light bulbs/LED emitters are you powering with your
>> Sturmey-Archer Dynohub?
>>
>> Front?   Back?
>>
>> I did the thing with the bridge rectifier to convert it's output
>> to DC - figuring I'd drive some LED emitters to get max light.
>>
>> But I'm having problems with the voltage regulator part.


You don't need a voltage regulator - just a bridge rectifier, a smoothing
capacitor and up to four high-power LEDs (Luxeon Rebel, Luxeon K2, Cree
XRE, Seoul P4) in series. One of them as a rear light - all with
apropriate optics and heat sinks.

>> Am I doing the voltage regulation piece in vain?  Do I really
>> need regulation?  


No. Any regulation means losses. A classic Sturmey-Archer Dynamohub
delivers 300mA. If you only use LEDs which can cope with 300mA you are
fine.

>In the tradition established in this thread: I was educated as an
>economist and psychologist and became an artist who occasionally
>publishes books on engineering as well. But I do know a little about
>electronics


So - why do you answer?

>1. I'm assuming your Sturmey-Archer dynohub is rated the same as every
>other dynohub, which is theoretically 6V 0.5A or 3W.


This is wrong for the classic Dynahub, which is rated 6V-1.8W.

>3. Forget a dynopowered rear light of any kind.


Stupid advice.

>Even the best are
>dangerous to your health. The expensive BUMM ones are not watertight


Millions of BUMM rear lights are used in Germany and the Netherlands.
Water problems with their rear lights are very rare.

Problems with empty batteries in any kind of mobile device are more than
common. Most battery power LED rear lights don't last more than 20 hours
(some even less than 10h) until light output starts to drop.

>flash, because it is streng verboten to have flashing lights in
>Germany and The Netherlands, their prime markets.


Flashing lights should be reserved for special unusual situations. With
everyone around flashing bright - everyone will be anoyed.

>-- I made one with a three-position switch (off, one on, both on) in a
>plastic pill container and sealed it with superglue and fixed it to
>the handbars with a fat rubber band.


Wasn't it you who prefered watertight lighting devices? "Superglue" will
degrade soon when confronted with water for longer times.

>7. Or you might want to considering overvolting a single halogen lamp:
>you get far more light and you won't blow a Philips MR16 or MR11


Houshold lights with rotational symmetric optics are not appropriate for
vehicle applications. Anyway: There are no "MR16" or "MR11" lamps
available which are designed to be driven with the 300mA of a Dynohub.
Something more efficient should be choosen.

>8. Or, in LEDs, you can fit as many low consumption LEDs as you can
>power. Each LED drops y volts, so the total must add up to what your
>dynohub produces or must be regulated. You might want to look into
>buckpucks to get the voltage right.


Unneccesary for Dynohub use.

> I looked into LEDs and decided that BUMM's Fly IQ


A wise choice. The Fly IQ should work also with the Dynohub.

>9. If you're cheap or poor, consider this. Plenty of RBT dickswingers
>will now weight in with how fabulous their BUMM Fly IQ is; I have one
>too and it is a good light. However. A couple of halogen 2.4W lamps --
>because that is what I had at the time of the test; 2x 3W lights would
>do better still


This won't work with a 1.8 Watt SA Dynohub.

> -- made as much light as the Fly at any speed over a
>crawl and could be better arranged because the two lamps had different
>spreads.


Than - try two Fly IQs. Could be used in parallel (at slow speeds) or in
series (at higher speeds).

>10. Lights are the last bicycle frontier. We hear a lot of talk from
>the technofreakies about how dynamo lights are now so much better than
>they were. But better isn't automatically good enough. The best dyno
>front light is still only nearly as good as a 10W MR11 battery light
>-- whereas I don't feel comfortable on any aspect of lighting (being
>seen, having my space respected, seeing) with anything less than about
>25W divided between two lamps. YMMV, of course.


Why can millions of people ride save with dynamo light sets in central
Europe but you can't? Maybe your behaviour or your risk perception should
be altered.

>12. A simple test of whether lights are good enough is to go to the
>most dangerous road you ride on and check when drivers first see you
>and how they react. If more than one out of ten drivers don't see you
>and react appropriately until you sweep a light directly through his
>eyes, the lights are not good enough. The most dangerous road I ride
>at night is less than a minute from my house and is ideal for setting
>up an experiment because it is dark and has a hill to define the
>driver's first sight of the bicyclist. I found that with 10W of
>illumination on the bike, drivers 180 yards away did not slow after
>the crest,


Why should a driver which sees your 10W front light reduce his speed? He
is on the other lane - isn't he?

> with 15W some slowed, with 25W almost all slowed,


You are a real hero if you blind uncoming drivers/cyclists with your
battery lights without a clear cutoff above the horicon...

> and the
>idiots would slow instantly if I swept that much light through their
>eyes at 100 yards. That's still less than a quarter the light output
>of a car putting two 55W beams on high to warn another driver.


Usually the high beam is dipped when another vehicle comes to sight. How
do you dip your lights?

>13. Good strong lights are useful in daylight too. The flashing Cateye
>1100 persuades a lot of people to slow behind me and to give me a
>wider berth than they did before I fitted that light. The key for a
>cyclist is to be seen and thought about.


To be seen mostly belongs on a clear position on the road (read john
Forsteres Cyclecraft) - not on flashing like a cristmas tree.


>16. If you buy one of the German or Dutch rear lights I'm advising
>against, don't bother to get the self-switching one.


What should be the adavantage of a "self switching" rear light, when
everything is driven by the dynamo?

Andreas
 
On Mar 15, 1:10 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andreas Oehler <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Millions of BUMM rear lights are used in Germany and the Netherlands.
> > Water problems with their rear lights are very rare.

>
> Of course you're right. But in Germany and The Netherlands (note
> capitalization in English) the dealer and the manufacturer are down
> the road, in the US it is not so easy to get service, in parts of the
> US as we have heard recently conditions in winter are atrocious, and,
> anyway, why buy a light that is inadequate for local conditions
> (regardless of how well it sells at home) if in addition the makers
> cannot be bothered to make it watertight?


If, as Andreas states, water problems with these lights are very rare,
then Andre's final question is pointless. Instead of begging the
question, Andre should provide some evidence that the millions of
Germans and Dutch using these lights somehow haven't noticed that they
don't work in their rainy weather. Of course, that might be
difficult!


> > Flashing lights should be reserved for special unusual situations. With
> > everyone around flashing bright - everyone will be anoyed.

>
> You haven't put your mind in gear, Andreas. That may apply to the
> Germany and The Netherlands, where there are hordes of cyclists and
> the attitude of drivers is different. It doesn't apply where I live,
> it doesn't apply in the States. The cyclist on the road is minority
> exception here and in the States, not the majority, not even even a
> substantial presence. Think the matter through and you will see the
> sense of a flashing light to announce the exception -- the fact that
> the bicyclist in your words is a "special unusual situation".


Here in the US, the twinkling or flashing LED taillight has become the
nighttime signature of a cyclist (or at least, the subset that bothers
with lights at all). This has nothing much to do with driver
attitudes. It's simply because the brief flashing action allowed LEDs
to be bright while reducing battery drain, all at low expense. The
inexpensive LED units became so popular, they are now universally
recognized.

I don't find the flashing or twinkling (depending on the specific
unit) to be annoying. However, that's primarily because the intensity
is not out of control. Super-bright lights with bad optics can be
very annoying and very hard on everyone's nighttime vision, especially
if they flash.

> > Houshold lights with rotational symmetric optics are not appropriate for
> > vehicle applications.

>
> Really? You should tell that to the makers of hundreds of types of
> bike lights made with MR11 lamps. You can't tell that to me, and be
> believed, because I have MR11 lamps (made by One Electron) on my bike
> that work a treat, the prototypes I built were MR16 and worked
> brilliantly, and MR16 lamps are found on auxiliary lamps for
> automobiles that I notice are TUV approved. You're talking through the
> back of your neck, Andreas. Perhaps you have a commercial connection
> that inspires these distortions?


I agree with Andreas: rotationally symmetric beams on a road vehicle
are, at best, crude and ham-fisted. Their popularity with certain
unsophisticated consumers doesn't change that fact.

You simply don't need as much light going up into the sky as you need
downward onto the road; it's a waste. That should be obvious to
anyone. To put a finer point on it, it's better to have more
intensity closer to the horizon, to shine further down the road, and a
bit less to shine directly in front of the bike. You see an example
by shining your car's or motorcycle's headlamp at a wall. This optical
sophistication of a proper road light is a long way from the fuzzy
ball of light emitted by an MR bulb.

MR bulbs are designed for pattern-free illumination for overhead
projectors and for your wife's interior decorations, not for road
vehicles. No well-designed vehicle lights use them. Advocating them
for a bicycle - a vehicle whose reason for being is efficiency - is
silly.

> > Why can millions of people ride save with dynamo light sets in central
> > Europe but you can't?

>
> Because their situation is different. There are more cyclists, so
> drivers expect them. I am a lone cyclist in a sea of cars; no one
> expects me.


The "Omigod, cycling is REALLY dangerous HERE!!!!!!" stuff gets very
tiresome.

Most of my night riding is in a city and suburb where I am the lone
night cyclist. But I've just returned from a vacation to a place
where cycling (including at night) is _extremely_ popular, and I've
ridden in places that completely span those extremes.

With one exception, I've never been in a place where a legally lit
cyclist is not sufficiently conspicuous. I've satisfied myself
literally hundreds of times that I'm even more visible at night than I
am in daytime. (Coincidentally, a friend once told me he rides his
motorcycle only at night, for that reason.)

But like most cyclists, I am comfortable enough with my daytime
visibility. Unlike most cyclists, I've also verified my nighttime
visibility in various tests and workshops, in various street
conditions, using other motorists and cyclists as helpers. In all but
one situation, everyone participating has agreed that bog-standard
bike lights and reflectors are all that's necessary.

The exception? Riding in heavy fog in an environment where motorists
overdrive their headlights. Sadly, you will always have a contingent
of motorists who think 70 mph on country lanes in the fog is somehow
reasonable. Thick fog is the only time I actually obey the simple-
minded advice to "ride as if I'm invisible."

> You're an arrogant son of a *****, aren't you...


:) Unintended irony at its best!

- Frank Krygowski
 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 15, 1:10 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Andreas Oehler <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Millions of BUMM rear lights are used in Germany and the Netherlands.
> > > Water problems with their rear lights are very rare.

> >
> > Of course you're right. But in Germany and The Netherlands (note
> > capitalization in English) the dealer and the manufacturer are down
> > the road, in the US it is not so easy to get service, in parts of the
> > US as we have heard recently conditions in winter are atrocious, and,
> > anyway, why buy a light that is inadequate for local conditions
> > (regardless of how well it sells at home) if in addition the makers
> > cannot be bothered to make it watertight?

>
> If, as Andreas states, water problems with these lights are very rare,
> then Andre's final question is pointless. Instead of begging the
> question, Andre should provide some evidence that the millions of
> Germans and Dutch using these lights somehow haven't noticed that they
> don't work in their rainy weather.


I didn't say "millions of Germans and Dutch using these light somehow
haven't noticed that they don't work in rainy weather" -- you're
trying to put words in my mouth Krygo and then demanding I prove
something I didn't say. It is primary school debating trick, about the
level of your mentality.

> Of course, that might be
> difficult!


Not difficult at all, Krygo: I'll do better than that. Here is
evidence that an official independent body, the Dutch Cyclists'
Association
http://www.fietsersbond.nl/urlsearchresults.asp?itemnumber=3061&viewtype=popup
found the B&M (BUMM) D'Toplight Plus to have "low watertightness", in
Dutch "Enige minpunt is de lage waterdichtheid," (Ideomatically
translated as, "One negative mark is the lack of water resistance.")

> > > Flashing lights should be reserved for special unusual situations. With
> > > everyone around flashing bright - everyone will be anoyed.

> >
> > You haven't put your mind in gear, Andreas. That may apply to the
> > Germany and The Netherlands, where there are hordes of cyclists and
> > the attitude of drivers is different. It doesn't apply where I live,
> > it doesn't apply in the States. The cyclist on the road is minority
> > exception here and in the States, not the majority, not even even a
> > substantial presence. Think the matter through and you will see the
> > sense of a flashing light to announce the exception -- the fact that
> > the bicyclist in your words is a "special unusual situation".

>
> Here in the US, the twinkling or flashing LED taillight has become the
> nighttime signature of a cyclist (or at least, the subset that bothers
> with lights at all). This has nothing much to do with driver
> attitudes.


Who said it did, Krygo?

>It's simply because the brief flashing action allowed LEDs
> to be bright while reducing battery drain, all at low expense. The
> inexpensive LED units became so popular, they are now universally
> recognized.


Who said we're talking about about cheap blinkies? I'm recommending
two expensive flashing lights, the Dinotte and the top of the Cateye
range, the TL-LD1100. What's more, I specifically said that the cheap
**** you're talking about is not good enough. Stop trying to force a
discussion that is clearly over your head into something you can
understand.

> I don't find the flashing or twinkling (depending on the specific
> unit) to be annoying. However, that's primarily because the intensity
> is not out of control. Super-bright lights with bad optics can be
> very annoying and very hard on everyone's nighttime vision, especially
> if they flash.


> > > Houshold lights with rotational symmetric optics are not appropriate for
> > > vehicle applications.

> >
> > Really? You should tell that to the makers of hundreds of types of
> > bike lights made with MR11 lamps. You can't tell that to me, and be
> > believed, because I have MR11 lamps (made by One Electron) on my bike
> > that work a treat, the prototypes I built were MR16 and worked
> > brilliantly, and MR16 lamps are found on auxiliary lamps for
> > automobiles that I notice are TUV approved. You're talking through the
> > back of your neck, Andreas. Perhaps you have a commercial connection
> > that inspires these distortions?

>
> I agree with Andreas: rotationally symmetric beams on a road vehicle
> are, at best, crude and ham-fisted. Their popularity with certain
> unsophisticated consumers doesn't change that fact.


Yawn. True to your dishonest form, Krygowski, you've cut away the part
of my letter which makes clear that what Andreas is doing is saying:
These lights made by BUMM are good enough for Germans, so they should
be good enough for you, and me saying, ********.

Furthermore, if the legislators see fit to license lights, and I can
see they deliver more light than other lights, why should I, or anyone
else, not have the better lights rather than risk our lives on the
lesser output of lights a couple of internet clowns, one of them with
suspect commercial connections, want to push because they are on a
crusade against battery lights?

> You simply don't need as much light going up into the sky as you need
> downward onto the road; it's a waste. That should be obvious to
> anyone.


Another straw man argument. Remember, I've built those lights, and
used bought ones? I know that you point them downwards and most of the
light goes where it is wanted, in an oval on the road, with some
spilling onto the close hedge beside the road for orientation.
Whatever you're talking about, Krygo, might go down well with your
claque of the thicker apprentices but not with anyone who has
experience or his brain in gear and the faintest whiff of science in
his education.

>To put a finer point on it, it's better to have more
> intensity closer to the horizon, to shine further down the road, and a
> bit less to shine directly in front of the bike.


I want both and I get it, and enough of it with battery lights. The
point about the best and most expensive of those dynohub lights is
that none of them put out enough light. Let me repeat that: there is
no dynohub light that puts out enough light for any but the most
undemanding circumstances, like riding on the sidewalk or perhaps on
quiet, lit streets (where streetlight show you the gutter, because
most of those mickey mouse dynohub lights have a big hole in front of
the bike and zero spread of light close to the bike).

> You see an example
> by shining your car's or motorcycle's headlamp at a wall.


I don't have a car or a motorcycle, Krygo, and haven't since 1992. I'm
a responsible world citizen. Are you?

>This optical
> sophistication of a proper road light is a long way from the fuzzy
> ball of light emitted by an MR bulb.


Really? On the best European cars perhaps. My memory of American cars
is that they have useless lights.

In any event, what is the relevance of car lights to bicycle lights?
This is just so much smoke. The fact remains that dynohub lamps do not
put out as much light as a suitable battery light.

And MR lamps do not emit fuzzy light when you get into the wattages I
use; you must have cheaped out with the miserable low-wattage MR
lamps, Krygo, or skimped on overvolting them, or just not understood
what you were dealing with. Or, even more despicably, you're talking
**** without any experience at all. With which of these depressing
alternatives are you wasting my time this time?

> MR bulbs are designed for pattern-free illumination for overhead
> projectors and for your wife's interior decorations, not for road
> vehicles. No well-designed vehicle lights use them.


You cut away the bit where I said I saw MRxx auxiliary lights
certified by the TUV, the strictest of all the licensing bodies, for
use in Germany. Whether "well designed vehicles use them", meaning
cars, is an irrelevance, a smoke screen. What is relevant is that MRxx
put more light on the road than a Fly IQ, which is currently the best
of the dynohub lights.

And, of course, battery lights put the same amount of light on the
road when you're going slowly or standing still for however long.
Dynohub lights dim when you slow or die when you stop, or if fitted
with a capacitor burn for some short period of time.

>Advocating them
> for a bicycle - a vehicle whose reason for being is efficiency - is
> silly.


Says Frank Krygowski. That's a recommendation to do the opposite of
whatever Krygo recommends -- that way you can't go wrong.

>a bicycle - a vehicle whose reason for being is efficiency


****. The raison d'etre of bicycle is transport. What the owner uses
it for is at his own option. It is only the fascist racing faction of
cyclists who think every bicycle should be about efficiency. Thank God
they're in the minority or cycling might become really unpleasant.

> > > Why can millions of people ride save with dynamo light sets in central
> > > Europe but you can't?

> >
> > Because their situation is different. There are more cyclists, so
> > drivers expect them. I am a lone cyclist in a sea of cars; no one
> > expects me.

>
> The "Omigod, cycling is REALLY dangerous HERE!!!!!!" stuff gets very
> tiresome.


Where did you hear "Omigod, cycling is REALLY dangerous HERE!!!!!!",
********? Not from me you didn't. Again, you, Frank Krygowski, have
dishonestly cut away the context from my previous post so that you can
make a point totally at variance with what I actually said. Your
methods are puerile, Krygo; trying to make me discuss something I
neither said nor intended is a contemptibly transparent debating
trick. Shove it up your ass, sonny.

> Most of my night riding is in a city and suburb where I am the lone
> night cyclist. But I've just returned from a vacation to a place
> where cycling (including at night) is _extremely_ popular, and I've
> ridden in places that completely span those extremes.


Congratulations. So what?

> With one exception, I've never been in a place where a legally lit
> cyclist is not sufficiently conspicuous. I've satisfied myself
> literally hundreds of times that I'm even more visible at night than I
> am in daytime. (Coincidentally, a friend once told me he rides his
> motorcycle only at night, for that reason.)


This is getting more and more ridiculous. Soon, dear old Krygo, you
will tell us that you feel quite safe at the new moon with a totally
dark bicycle, which of course you ride helmetless and stark naked.
Pull the other-- er, well, don't pull anything, you'll get that wrong
too, and embarrass us all.

> But like most cyclists, I am comfortable enough with my daytime
> visibility.


"Like most cyclists" is a statement that requires proof. And even when
you prove it, why should that have the slightest influence on me, or
anyone else who believes that it is worth going the extra half inch?
Since when is "the lowest common denominator approves" a
recommendation, or even good logic: of course the lowest common
denominator approves; that is how it became the lowest common
denominator.

As for your personal opinion, you have zero credibility with me,
Krygo. You're an idiot and a fool, and an opinionated fool at that,
which makes you dangerous to yourself and to anyone who listens to
you.

> Unlike most cyclists, I've also verified my nighttime
> visibility in various tests and workshops, in various street
> conditions, using other motorists and cyclists as helpers.


You mean they were looking for you? That invalidates the test right
there. Why are you wasting my time with this ****, Krygo? If anyone
else put up that tacky, hollow argument, the better educated guys in
your gang would be all over him, so why do you think you'll get away
with it.

> In all but
> one situation, everyone participating has agreed that bog-standard
> bike lights and reflectors are all that's necessary.


You must clearly value your life very little, Krygowski. Perhaps
you're right; ask your wife. You and Andreas, who wants me to lower
the value I put on my life, should get together. You'd make a fine
pair of lowballers.

> The exception? Riding in heavy fog in an environment where motorists
> overdrive their headlights. Sadly, you will always have a contingent
> of motorists who think 70 mph on country lanes in the fog is somehow
> reasonable. Thick fog is the only time I actually obey the simple-
> minded advice to "ride as if I'm invisible."
>
> > You're an arrogant son of a *****, aren't you...

>
> :) Unintended irony at its best!


Once again this poor dumb wannabe polemicist Frank Krygowski has cut
away my text and context to make his own utterly irrelevant hostile
point.

Here's what really went down:
Andre Jute wrote:
> Because their situation [in Germany and The Netherlands} is different.
>There are more cyclists, so
> drivers expect them. I am a lone cyclist in a sea of cars; no one
> expects me.


Andreas Oehler replied impertinently:
> >Maybe your behaviour or your risk perception should
> > be altered.


Andre Jute wrote:
> You're an arrogant son of a *****, aren't you, telling me to stay off
> the roads and lower the value I put on my life and limb.


But the public laughingstock Frank Krygowski thinks that no one will
notice he hacked the context about to make his stupid little joke, and
then like a bad comedian added an unnecessary smiley and exclamation
mark to tell the whole world it is a joke, just in case they don't get
it:

> > You're an arrogant son of a *****, aren't you...

>
> :) Unintended irony at its best!


No, Krygo, you missed the point, as you always do: a gentleman never
offends anyone unintentionally. (That sentence is ironical too, though
not in a way you will ever understand, dear Krygo.) Not just one irony
but layers of ironies were intended, and delivered, and understood
where it matters, which isn't with you. So why don't you, dear Krygo,
butt out before you become the butt of the joke.

> - Frank Krygowski


Andre Jute
Who doesn't make unintentional jokes
 
On Mar 15, 7:24 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote yet another
of his ever-expanding tirades of insults. In the interest of brevity,
I'll respond to only a few points:

> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >

>
> > Here in the US, the twinkling or flashing LED taillight has become the
> > nighttime signature of a cyclist (or at least, the subset that bothers
> > with lights at all). This has nothing much to do with driver
> > attitudes.

>
> Who said it did, Krygo?


It was silly of you to challenge me on that paragraph, Andre. The
point of the paragraph was that I disagreed with Andreas on the issue
of flashing lights. You should have simply agreed with me.
Unfortunately, your bile overwhelmed you again. Calm down.

> > I agree with Andreas: rotationally symmetric beams on a road vehicle
> > are, at best, crude and ham-fisted. Their popularity with certain
> > unsophisticated consumers doesn't change that fact.

>
> Yawn. True to your dishonest form, Krygowski, you've cut away the part
> of my letter which makes clear that what Andreas is doing is saying:
> These lights made by BUMM are good enough for Germans, so they should
> be good enough for you, and me saying, ********.


I'm sorry if my trimming for brevity confuses you. I thought there
was only one poster here who couldn't understand that standard
practice.

However, while you have complained about others putting words in your
mouth, you seem to be doing the same regarding Andreas. His question
and suggestion were much more gentle than your distorted claim. The
original was:

"Why can millions of people ride [safely] with dynamo light sets in
central
Europe but you can't? Maybe your behaviour or your risk perception
should
be altered." [I think I've properly corrected his original "save",
in brackets.]

And indeed, it is a valid question. It's not uncommon for people in a
non-bicycling culture to have exaggerated ideas of bicycling danger,
and to contend that only extraordinary equipment can make one safe.
Perhaps you do need to revise your cycling behavior, if it's really
risky, or revise your perceptions, if they're really so fearful. It's
not that bad out there.

> > You simply don't need as much light going up into the sky as you need
> > downward onto the road; it's a waste. That should be obvious to
> > anyone.

>
> Another straw man argument. Remember, I've built those lights, and
> used bought ones?


As have I. And I've ridden with others who used them. And we've
examined their strengths and weaknesses. A workshop on bike lights
can be very educational.

> I know that you point them downwards and most of the
> light goes where it is wanted, in an oval on the road, with some
> spilling onto the close hedge beside the road for orientation.


Here's the problem with that strategy: The symmetrical beam of a non-
road-specific light (like an MR-16 or MR-11) is brightest at its
center. If you tilt the lamp to prevent shooting lumens at the stars,
you've got an overly bright patch of pavement close to the front of
your bike. This affects your night vision, in effect burning out much
of your peripheral vision. Furthermore, the beam doesn't penetrate
very far down the road, because the part that's left pointed down the
road is relatively dim.

Again, for road work you need moderate beam intensity closer to the
vehicle, since the distances, angles and visual requirements are all
not very extreme; you can make use of higher beam intensity close to
the horizon, to allow you to see further down the road; and you need
much, much less beam intensity above the horizon, since the light
hitting drivers' eyes comes direct from your lamp. It's very visible
to them without requiring much power.

Some trials with different equipment, with the help of some friends,
should make all that clear.

> >To put a finer point on it, it's better to have more
> > intensity closer to the horizon, to shine further down the road, and a
> > bit less to shine directly in front of the bike.

>
> I want both and I get it, and enough of it with battery lights.


And that's fine. I prefer generator lights because there is no hassle
about tending or replacing or charging or remembering batteries. My
bike is always ready to ride at night, at a moment's notice. I also
find the reliability is significantly higher in other ways.

However, I've long been amazed that optics are excellent in most
generator headlamps; optics are very good to excellent in many low-end
bike headlamps powered by disposable cells; but optics are almost
always junk in the pricey rechargeable bike lights. The design
philosophy seems to be "We got us a good battery, so it doesn't matter
where the light goes; we'll just pump out a lot of it." It's a
caveman approach to design.

If I were to go back to battery powered lights, I think I'd still use
a generator headlamp and power it with a battery. (In fact, I have
one friend who has used that strategy.)

> The point about the best and most expensive of those dynohub lights is
> that none of them put out enough light. Let me repeat that: there is
> no dynohub light that puts out enough light for any but the most
> undemanding circumstances, like riding on the sidewalk or perhaps on
> quiet, lit streets


Absolutely false. Nearly half the American RUSA contingent in the
last Paris-Brest-Paris competition used dynamo lights. And a post-
ride survey showed they were more satisfied with their lights than the
battery-powered group. See http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/BQPBPEquipsurvey.pdf

I think most would agree Paris-Brest-Paris is a bit more extreme than
sidewalk riding.

> > You see an example
> > by shining your car's or motorcycle's headlamp at a wall.

>
> I don't have a car or a motorcycle, Krygo, and haven't since 1992. I'm
> a responsible world citizen. Are you?


:) Were you a "responsible world citizen" when you drove your car 70
mph on a very narrow country lane, as you bragged? Or did the
authorities decide to make a responsible citizen out of you by
removing your operator's license for that offense?

In any case, you must be on speaking terms with _someone_ who owns a
modern car or motorcycle. Ask them to shine the headlights at a wall
for you. Note the efficient shape of the beam, the cutoff above the
horizon, the brighter intensity near the horizon.

> In any event, what is the relevance of car lights to bicycle lights?


The relevance is that car lights, and motorcycle lights, and even
moped and scooter lights, are designed to illuminate the road
efficiently without blinding other road users. Good quality bike
lights should do the same. In fact, given the practical necessity for
efficiency on a bike, they should pay even more attention to optics.
Pumping out unfocused mega-lumens (at cost of battery size, weight and
life) is like using 1/8" diameter spokes made of mild steel. It's
primitive and inefficient.


> ...you're talking **** ...
>
> ****.
>
> ...********...
>
> ... Shove it up your ass, sonny.
>
> You're an idiot and a fool...
>
> ... ****...
>
> ... poor dumb wannabe
>
> ... son of a *****, aren't you...
>
> ... butt out...


Andre, many of use know your style is to try to "win" by being
unbearably obnoxious. When we stop responding to you, as I will now,
it's not because your intellect has triumphed. It's because your
verbal diarrhea is too ugly to bother with.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 15, 6:48 pm, franky krygowski shatters another irony meter:

< Krygo babble snipped for brevity>


(Written to Andre Jute)


> When we stop responding to you, as I will now,
> it's not because your intellect has triumphed.  It's because your
> verbal diarrhea is too ugly to bother with.
>



Good Gawd, Franky!!! You really are totally lacking even a semblance
of self-awareness, aren't you?
 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> When we stop responding to you, as I will now,
> it's not because your intellect has triumphed. It's because your
> verbal diarrhea is too ugly to bother with.


Run, rabbit, run.

Below is Krygo's post in full for students of irony. One has to wonder
how long since there has been a mirror in Krygo's house: ten years
since he split the last one? I don't suppose Krygo can even spell
"intellectual dishonesty".

Andre Jute
Darwin's little helper

On Mar 16, 12:48 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 15, 7:24 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote yet another
> of his ever-expanding tirades of insults.  In the interest of brevity,
> I'll respond to only a few points:
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > Here in the US, the twinkling or flashing LED taillight has become the
> > > nighttime signature of a cyclist (or at least, the subset that bothers
> > > with lights at all).  This has nothing much to do with driver
> > > attitudes.

>
> > Who said it did, Krygo?

>
> It was silly of you to challenge me on that paragraph, Andre.  The
> point of the paragraph was that I disagreed with Andreas on the issue
> of flashing lights.  You should have simply agreed with me.
> Unfortunately, your bile overwhelmed you again.  Calm down.
>
> > > I agree with Andreas: rotationally symmetric beams on a road vehicle
> > > are, at best, crude and ham-fisted.  Their popularity with certain
> > > unsophisticated consumers doesn't change that fact.

>
> > Yawn. True to your dishonest form, Krygowski, you've cut away the part
> > of my letter which makes clear that what Andreas is doing is saying:
> > These lights made by BUMM are good enough for Germans, so they should
> > be good enough for you, and me saying, ********.

>
> I'm sorry if my trimming for brevity confuses you.  I thought there
> was only one poster here who couldn't understand that standard
> practice.
>
> However, while you have complained about others putting words in your
> mouth, you seem to be doing the same regarding Andreas.  His question
> and suggestion were much more gentle than your distorted claim.  The
> original was:
>
> "Why can millions of people ride [safely] with dynamo light sets in
> central
> Europe but you can't? Maybe your behaviour or your risk perception
> should
> be altered."    [I think I've properly corrected his original "save",
> in brackets.]
>
> And indeed, it is a valid question.  It's not uncommon for people in a
> non-bicycling culture to have exaggerated ideas of bicycling danger,
> and to contend that only extraordinary equipment can make one safe.
> Perhaps you do need to revise your cycling behavior,  if it's really
> risky, or revise your perceptions, if they're really so fearful.  It's
> not that bad out there.
>
> > > You simply don't need as much light going up into the sky as you need
> > > downward onto the road; it's a waste.  That should be obvious to
> > > anyone.

>
> > Another straw man argument. Remember, I've built those lights, and
> > used bought ones?

>
> As have I.  And I've ridden with others who used them.  And we've
> examined their strengths and weaknesses.  A workshop on bike lights
> can be very educational.
>
> > I know that you point them downwards and most of the
> > light goes where it is wanted, in an oval on the road, with some
> > spilling onto the close hedge beside the road for orientation.

>
> Here's the problem with that strategy:  The symmetrical beam of a non-
> road-specific light (like an MR-16 or MR-11) is brightest at its
> center.  If you tilt the lamp to prevent shooting lumens at the stars,
> you've got an overly bright patch of pavement close to the front of
> your bike.  This affects your night vision, in effect burning out much
> of your peripheral vision.  Furthermore, the beam doesn't penetrate
> very far down the road, because the part that's left pointed down the
> road is relatively dim.
>
> Again, for road work you need moderate beam intensity closer to the
> vehicle, since the distances, angles and visual requirements are all
> not very extreme; you can make use of higher beam intensity close to
> the horizon, to allow you to see further down the road; and you need
> much, much less beam intensity above the horizon, since the light
> hitting drivers' eyes comes direct from your lamp.  It's very visible
> to them without requiring much power.
>
> Some trials with different equipment, with the help of some friends,
> should make all that clear.
>
> > >To put a finer point on it, it's better to have more
> > > intensity closer to the horizon, to shine further down the road, and a
> > > bit less to shine directly in front of the bike.

>
> > I want both and I get it, and enough of it with battery lights.

>
> And that's fine.  I prefer generator lights because there is no hassle
> about tending or replacing or charging or remembering batteries.  My
> bike is always ready to ride at night, at a moment's notice.  I also
> find the reliability is significantly higher in other ways.
>
> However, I've long been amazed that optics are excellent in most
> generator headlamps; optics are very good to excellent in many low-end
> bike headlamps powered by disposable cells; but optics are almost
> always junk in the pricey rechargeable bike lights.  The design
> philosophy seems to be "We got us a good battery, so it doesn't matter
> where the light goes; we'll just pump out a lot of it."  It's a
> caveman approach to design.
>
> If I were to go back to battery powered lights, I think I'd still use
> a generator headlamp and power it with a battery.  (In fact, I have
> one friend who has used that strategy.)
>
> > The point about the best and most expensive of those dynohub lights is
> > that none of them put out enough light. Let me repeat that: there is
> > no dynohub light that puts out enough light for any but the most
> > undemanding circumstances, like riding on the sidewalk or perhaps on
> > quiet, lit streets

>
> Absolutely false.  Nearly half the American RUSA contingent in the
> last Paris-Brest-Paris competition used dynamo lights.  And a post-
> ride survey showed they were more satisfied with their lights than the
> battery-powered group.  Seehttp://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/BQPBPEquipsurvey.pdf
>
> I think most would agree Paris-Brest-Paris is a bit more extreme than
> sidewalk riding.
>
> > > You see an example
> > > by shining your car's or motorcycle's headlamp at a wall.

>
> > I don't have a car or a motorcycle, Krygo, and haven't since 1992. I'm
> > a responsible world citizen. Are you?

>
> :)  Were you a "responsible world citizen" when you drove your car 70
> mph on a very narrow country lane, as you bragged?  Or did the
> authorities decide to make a responsible citizen out of you by
> removing your operator's license for that offense?
>
> In any case, you must be on speaking terms with _someone_ who owns a
> modern car or motorcycle.  Ask them to shine the headlights at a wall
> for you.  Note the efficient shape of the beam, the cutoff above the
> horizon, the brighter intensity near the horizon.
>
> > In any event, what is the relevance of car lights to bicycle lights?

>
> The relevance is that car lights, and motorcycle lights, and even
> moped and scooter lights, are designed to illuminate the road
> efficiently without blinding other road users.  Good quality bike
> lights should do the same.  In fact, given the practical necessity for
> efficiency on a bike, they should pay even more attention to optics.
> Pumping out unfocused mega-lumens (at cost of battery size, weight and
> life) is like using 1/8" diameter spokes made of mild steel.  It's
> primitive and inefficient.
>
>
>
> > ...you're talking **** ...

>
> > ****.

>
> > ...********...

>
> > ... Shove it up your ass, sonny.

>
> >  You're an idiot and a fool...

>
> > ... ****...

>
> > ... poor dumb wannabe

>
> > ... son of a *****, aren't you...

>
> > ... butt out...

>
> Andre, many of use know your style is to try to "win" by being
> unbearably obnoxious.  When we stop responding to you, as I will now,
> it's not because your intellect has triumphed.  It's because your
> verbal diarrhea is too ugly to bother with.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
 
In article
<b0046018-b5e0-435f-93e4-ac7dd03fbfd9@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 15, 7:24 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote yet another
> of his ever-expanding tirades of insults. In the interest of
> brevity, I'll respond to only a few points:


A good idea.

> > The point about the best and most expensive of those dynohub lights
> > is that none of them put out enough light. Let me repeat that:
> > there is no dynohub light that puts out enough light for any but
> > the most undemanding circumstances, like riding on the sidewalk or
> > perhaps on quiet, lit streets


I see you suffer from the same misunderstanding as another poster here.

> Absolutely false. Nearly half the American RUSA contingent in the
> last Paris-Brest-Paris competition used dynamo lights. And a post-
> ride survey showed they were more satisfied with their lights than
> the battery-powered group. See
> http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/BQPBPEquipsurvey.pdf
>
> I think most would agree Paris-Brest-Paris is a bit more extreme than
> sidewalk riding.


It is, and Andre is just plain wrong yet again.
 
On Mar 15, 2:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>
> With one exception, I've never been in a place where a legally lit
> cyclist is not sufficiently conspicuous. I've satisfied myself
> literally hundreds of times that I'm even more visible at night than I
> am in daytime.


WTF?!?
 
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:19:47 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mar 15, 2:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> With one exception, I've never been in a place where a legally lit
>> cyclist is not sufficiently conspicuous. I've satisfied myself
>> literally hundreds of times that I'm even more visible at night than I
>> am in daytime.

>
>WTF?!?


Dear Dan,

I expect that Frank's point is that at night even a small light is
noticeable at a much greater distance than a larger ordinary object in
daylight.

Your computer screen probably has a small green power light that you
scarcely notice when the room is lit. Turn the lights off and notice
how visible even that tiny light becomes.

The contrast between a light and the dark background catches the eye.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
Per [email protected]:
>And that's fine. I prefer generator lights because there is no hassle
>about tending or replacing or charging or remembering batteries. My
>bike is always ready to ride at night, at a moment's notice. I also
>find the reliability is significantly higher in other ways.


What are you currently using for headlight/tail light?

Also, is it just tolerance for varying voltages that makes lights
electrically generator-specific?

--
PeteCresswell
 
On Mar 16, 9:54 am, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Per [email protected]:
>
> >And that's fine. I prefer generator lights because there is no hassle
> >about tending or replacing or charging or remembering batteries. My
> >bike is always ready to ride at night, at a moment's notice. I also
> >find the reliability is significantly higher in other ways.

>
> What are you currently using for headlight/tail light?


Let's see: On the two bikes I use most often at night, I've got Basta
Ellipsoid headlamps. Another bike has a Union headlamp. (I don't know
the model number - it's about 2.5" diameter, with an unusually convex
front lens.) My wife's bike has a Soubitez headlamp. There's also
the headlamp from a FER 2002 generator, and there's a tiny (maybe 1.5"
dia?) headlamp that's part of the Union "block" generator on a seldom-
used folding bike. These lights move around a bit from bike to bike,
depending on season, vacation trips, etc., and I've got others stored
in a drawer.

All these have halogen bulbs. Most are 2.4 watt, but overdriven by
virtue of having no generator taillight. One has a 3 watt bulb, but I
don't see much difference.

I like best the optics of that old Soubitez lamp, followed by the FER,
but I ride much more with the Bastas. The Union lamps are, I think,
not as good optically.

Usually I rely on LED blinky taillights powered by AA or AAA cells,
but my commuting bike also has a generator taillight. This too was
chosen for optics (improved over a previous tiny no-lens version), but
I can't tell you the brand. All bikes have various reflectors, but
nothing unusual.

> Also, is it just tolerance for varying voltages that makes lights
> electrically generator-specific?


I don't think that has much to do with it at all. Generator headlamps
are (almost always) separate units from the power source. If you use
a battery to pump 6 volts DC into a generator headlamp, it works just
fine, IME. But there are a couple uncertainties.

First, I've noticed that many of my 6V 2.4W halogen generator bulbs
have microscopic AC waveform icons stamped into the threaded base.
(Recall, bike generators are AC devices.) I don't know what could be
special about the bulbs for AC. Perhaps Andreas could tell us? But
again, I know they work with AC or DC. (Light Emitting Diodes are a
different matter, of course.)

Second uncertainty: If you decide to use a battery to power the good
optics of a generator lamp, you may be tempted to put in a more
powerful bulb. If you do, some lamps may have their plastic
reflectors damaged by the extra heat. It would depend, I suppose, on
the particular plastic they used for the reflector. I had that
problem way back when I hot rodded some non-generator handlebar-
mounted lamps. In that case, I cured it by using some silicone rubber
as thermal insulation between the bulb base and the reflector, taking
care to get the filament positioned properly at the focal point.

I've got an ancient Union generator headlamp with a metal reflector.
If I were to play around with battery power again, I'd use it.

- Frank Krygowski
 
In article
<14a59561-15a4-4312-b04a-c7612f9cf78f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > With one exception, I've never been in a place where a legally lit
> > cyclist is not sufficiently conspicuous. I've satisfied myself
> > literally hundreds of times that I'm even more visible at night
> > than I am in daytime.

>
> WTF?!?


WTF do you mean "WTF?!?" A bicyclist at night with a headlight and
taillight is more conspicuous than a cyclist riding during the day. Way
more contrast between a bright light and a dark background.
 
On Mar 16, 7:27 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:19:47 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 15, 2:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>
> >> With one exception, I've never been in a place where a legally lit
> >> cyclist is not sufficiently conspicuous.  I've satisfied myself
> >> literally hundreds of times that I'm even more visible at night than I
> >> am in daytime.

>
> >WTF?!?

>
> Dear Dan,
>
> I expect that Frank's point is that at night even a small light is
> noticeable at a much greater distance than a larger ordinary object in
> daylight.


****. A bicyclist on a proper (Dutch city) bike is a block over six
feet high by two feet wide right out in the middle of the lane. That's
as high as a Range Rover (actually, from my bike I look *down* on
Range Rovers) and a third as wide, visible from a very long way in
daylight. A twee little light in the dark is not visible at the same
distance and, in any event, at night mere visibility is worthless: the
light must be noticed and serve as identification and warning within a
reasonable stopping distance for a car. The best Dutch and German
taillights don't do that. These notes assume total darkness. The
position gets much worse in the presence of streetlights and store
lights and infinitely worse in the presence of moving car lights. Thus
the necessity for a strong light, for substantial light cast to the
side, for a flashing light.

> Your computer screen probably has a small green power light that you
> scarcely notice when the room is lit. Turn the lights off and notice
> how visible even that tiny light becomes.


Intelligent people don't look for some twee little light to tell if
their computer is switched on. They can see the huge, throbbing screen
is shining. That is what first attracts the eyes. There should be a
lesson even for you, dear Carl, in your own example.

> The contrast between a light and the dark background catches the eye.


Of course it does, if the light is strong enough to reach the
necessary distance, and still more if the light flashes. The question
is whether the lights Andreas was defending, which are Dutch and
German taillights of the BUMM type (which is the point on which Krygo
jumped in), reach far enough for a driver to notice and if necessary
to stop from a reasonable speed, and I say that they don't, even under
the ideal condition of total darkness. In lit areas and in traffic
they will be noticed only by drivers expecting cyclists and
consciously looking out for them. Those conditions don't apply where
the majority of RBTers ride. The advice given by the Krygo-Fogel gang
is therefore dangerous to life and limb.

> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


So nice to hear from you, dear Carl. But a word to wise, eh? If you
actually intend a comedy act, get a new scriptwriter. Right now you're
making ludicrous claims and being laughed out of court.

Andre Jute
Author of "The True Thoughts of Chairman Mao"