Hazards of night cycling

[SMS]

Greens wrote:

> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light. It
> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
> disaster.

They should, IMVAIO, at least state the type of night cycling that the
light is appropriate for. There should be some sort of a standards
association that comes up with a rating system, i.e.

W-Suitable for well-lit roads at speeds up to 10 mph
M-Suitable for unlit roads at speeds up to 15 mph
S-Suitable for unlit roads at speeds up to 25 mph
O-Suitable for unlit off-road trails

You were going down a hill at 20 mph, in an area that apparently had no
street lights, with light that did almost nothing in terms of
illuminating the roads. You had a "be legal" light might be appropriate
for slow riding on well lit streets, where there is no need to
illuminate the road far ahead.

Look at the different types of cycling, and the different cycling
infrastructure when choosing a light.

In Amsterdam, where there is a big infrastructure of bicycle paths,
people use low power dynamo headlights and are just fine with them.

In well lit cities and suburbs where I live, a lot of commuters have
bought the Joe Breeze bicycles with hub dynamos and find them adequate
for most of their ride, and supplement them with a good battery powered
light when they have to go through unlit areas, especially on hills.

The area and speed you described would best be served by a high power
LED, halogen, or HID lighting system.

 

[Greens]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 26, 4:32 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> As it is, most of my cycling purchases make me want to put the
>> thing in a compactor and hide on the couch. Reading your **** about how
>> the
>> public needs to be lulled into a false sense of security certainly makes
>> me
>> want to hide.
>
> As I've said before, I really believe that's what you should do. As
> your posts continually show, cycling causes you great problems, worry
> and stress. I think you're among the small minority that can't handle
> it.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

The roads are made for citizens, Frank, not just the citizens that you feel
are worthy.

Cycling isn't for the few that meet your standards. Any of us can legally
ride a bike. It sounds like maybe you'd like some standards to be set. Is
that what you want, some minimum level of ability before a cycling license
is issued?

Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing. How odd
that out of everyone, you're the most dedicated to silencing people who
don't share your opinion. And you do it on a newsgroup which is a public
forum that's supposed to be open to all opinion. Sounds like you'd be more
at home in Stalin's Russia than on a modern newsgroup. There you could
control all speech and maybe even thought.

 

[Greens]

"_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:59:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>
>>
>> Your fifth mistake was coming here hoping to have everybody give you
>> hugs and encouragement, and make those bad people stop selling their
>> product. Sorry, but there's still some room for personal
>> responsibility in America, and "caveat emptor" still makes sense.
>>
>
> There's another, more fundamental mistake in "Greens"'s operation here -
> having an agenda to prove that cycling is "dangerous".

Your group's problem is that they fear the loss of their cycling freedoms.
You think that if attempts are made to by uncaring DOTs, you won't be able
to ride on a lot of roads. You'll be patrolled by cops, get tickets, need
insurance and so on. I fear that too, but I don't want it to scare me away
from ideas to make cycling safer for the general public.

Let me know if I'm wrong about this.

 

[Greens]

"Patrick Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:19:54 -0400, "Greens" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> There are "seeing" lights and "be seen" lights. The best rule of thumb
>>> is
>>> "never outride your lights". Sounds like you either had a "be seen"
>>> light
>>> where you needed a "seeing" light, or you were riding 20mph with a 10mph
>>> light.
>>
>>Again, should it be left up to the individual cyclist to think of when a
>>"be
>>seen" light or "seeing" light is necessary? Individuals don't have time to
>>test things extensively. They have to trust merchants and manufacturers.
>
> Interestingly enough, at least two stores (REI and Performance, IIRC)
> have been labeling their lights something like "seeing" and "be seen."
>
>>Those parties are only interested in making profits. The solution is
>>regulation.
>
> I agree completely. Let's put a regulation in place that usenet
> trolls like "Greens" should not be allowed to ride a bicycle.
>
> Pat
>
> Email address works as is.

Sounds like another guy who loves the freedom of cycling so much he's eager
to take it away from somebody who differs in opinion. Are you a freedom
loving fellow American? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 26, 12:42 pm, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > As I've said before, I really believe that's what you should do. As
> > your posts continually show, cycling causes you great problems, worry
> > and stress. I think you're among the small minority that can't handle
> > it.
>
> The roads are made for citizens, Frank, not just the citizens that you feel
> are worthy.
>
> Cycling isn't for the few that meet your standards. Any of us can legally
> ride a bike. It sounds like maybe you'd like some standards to be set. Is
> that what you want, some minimum level of ability before a cycling license
> is issued?

As usual, you misunderstand. I wasn't proposing you should be legally
forbidden to cycle. I was just stating that I believe you should
voluntarily give it up.

> Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing. How odd
> that out of everyone, you're the most dedicated to silencing people who
> don't share your opinion. And you do it on a newsgroup which is a public
> forum that's supposed to be open to all opinion. Sounds like you'd be more
> at home in Stalin's Russia than on a modern newsgroup. There you could
> control all speech and maybe even thought.

Don't you know anything about Usenet? You were supposed to invoke
****** and the Nazis, not Stalin's Russia! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

 

[SMS]

Greens wrote:

> Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing. How odd
> that out of everyone, you're the most dedicated to silencing people who
> don't share your opinion. And you do it on a newsgroup which is a public
> forum that's supposed to be open to all opinion. Sounds like you'd be more
> at home in Stalin's Russia than on a modern newsgroup. There you could
> control all speech and maybe even thought.

Hey, everyone's entitled to Frank's opinion.

 

[SMS]

Greens wrote:

> Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing.

Yes, setting an example is the way to promote cycling. After promoting
cycling in a recent Cub Scout meeting, as a way to reduce expenses, I
was somewhat embarrassed that I had driven to the meeting less than 1/2
mile away (I had a lot of materials to carry with me, but if I had a
trailer I could have carried them). Last night I hopefully set a better
example at a Pack committee meeting, by riding to the meeting at night
with a well lit bicycle (though helmet-less).

Personally, I _love_ night riding. I don't find it hazardous, but it's
because I've taken the necessary steps to reduce the hazards.

 

[Greens]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 26, 11:17 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 25, 2:05 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an
>> >> incident
>> >> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once
>> >> before.
>> >> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me
>> >> or
>> >> my
>> >> obsessions,
>>
>> > ... although the temptation is immense...
>>
>> >> rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales of
>> >> near disaster and disaster not averted.
>>
>> > IOW you want to do your usual job of trying to raise everyone's fear
>> > level. But I see from the discussion that you're not succeeding.
>>
>> >> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night?
>>
>> > No, I never have. And I've been riding, and often commuting, at night
>> > since about 1977.
>>
>> > - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> No. I'm not trying to raise fear levels. That wouldn't do anything for
>> me.
>> I'm a cyclist and I'm interested in talking to people who have also seen
>> the
>> dangers. It don't like to pretend that I'm all fearless and confident.
>> (not
>> that you do pretend. You may seriously be fearless and confident)
>>
>> Maybe you're athletic. Maybe that's why you don't get hurt. Have you ever
>> thought that not everyone has your abilities? Maybe fat, out of shape
>> types
>> come in here trying to get into cycling. You'd probably want them to
>> cycle
>> and exercise, but if they do and they get spooked by the dangers, you
>> want
>> them to shut the hell up and quite fear mongering!!! LOL BECUZ ITS NOT
>> DANGeROUSE graaaaaaaarrrrrrrr....
>
> If you want to lose weight and get a better handle on your biking,
> take a few months off and ride to South America or something. You only
> live once. But get a better light
>
> Like this guy:
>
> http://vikingbikersdiary.blogspot.com/
>
> Joseph
>

Hah, yea. Nice trip. I'll pack my bags.

 

[SMS]

Patrick Lamb wrote:

> I agree completely. Let's put a regulation in place that usenet
> trolls like "Greens" should not be allowed to ride a bicycle.

Come now, many companies, including CatEye, make lights that are
suitable for different situations. It's not an unreasonable idea that
they indicate which lights are appropriate for which riding situations
(though perhaps they feel there is some liability in doing this).

It's not really reasonable to think that every customer for bicycle
lights is well-versed in all the differences in illumination, beam
pattern, battery life, etc.

Rather than wait for government regulation, the industry should form its
own standards.

 

[Greens]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 26, 2:34 pm, vey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying quailty
>> > levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but sold
>> > at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
>> > are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the cheap
>> > ones are good enough,
>>
>> Car headlights are *not* like everything else. Car headlight performance
>> is regulated by the US Department of Transportation. They must meet
>> minimum standards and be DOT approved. That's why even cheap ones are
>> "good enough." There's a reason they are regulated. It's because people
>> were getting maimed and killed by inferior lights that weren't "good
>> enough." No that long ago cars used bulbs like the kind found in the
>> tailights, but a little brighter. Those were not able to get DOT
>> approved.
>
> I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
> etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are ****.
> Reflector and lens design as well as bulb type are what make a light
> good or not. I was thinking about bare bulbs. When I lived in the US I
> got Euro-spec lights (reflectors, lenses, as well as high wattage
> bulbs) on (almost) all my cars. The focus is much tighter and the
> projection much further. They are more of an irritant to other drivers
> if they are out of alignment, but I'm the sort of guy who is careful
> about that sort of thing. On a recent trip to California I recall the
> lights on my borrowed US-spec 2007 BMW X3 as much worse than my cheap
> '98 Euro-spec Fiat.
>
> A modern US spec car (say a 2002 Jetta) does not use sealed beam
> lights. The lenses and reflectors are designed to meet US DOT
> regulations. If you take a trip to a Pep-Boys there are all manner of
> bulbs available to put in. Some are for sure ****, other not so.
>
>
>> >but that is because car driving is pretty
>> > similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.
>>
>> People drive in different ways, too. They drive on a variety of surfaces
>> and different cars have their headlights at different heights. Somehow,
>> the headlight manufacturer's have figured this out and design for it.
>
> Cars operate in a very well defined and known speed range. Most cars
> drive from 0-30mph in town, 40-50 when things are a bit more open, and
> 60-80 on the highway. There aren't many cars that don't get used in
> all those ranges. Bikes are different. Some never see speeds higher
> than 8mph! The needs of cyclists are much more varied IMO.
>
>
>> Sealed beams were a huge improvement because it gave the headlight
>> manufacturer control rather than the car maker. Bicycle light
>> manufacturers have the same control. They should use it.
>
> Sealed beam just eliminated rust on the reflector.
>
>> As a side note, have you noticed that Garrity doesn't make bicycle
>> lights? Neither does Dorcy. Nothing from SureFire or Mag. Not trying to
>> be argumenative, but why do you think that is?
>
> I don't know. Because it is a difficult product to do well and they
> don't want to make ****?
>
> Joseph
>
>
When it comes to safety features, I prefer that manufacturers assume that
the bicycle is going to be used in the most demanding conditions so that all
bikes are equipped with quality lighting whether they're going to be used at
night or not. Can you imagine cars being sold with no lights because the
owner thought he wasn't going to use it at night? The one cheapskate's
attempt at saving a few dollars can affect the safety of everyone on the
road.

For some unknown reason, being a cheapskate and scrimping on equipment is
tolerated among many of the cyclists here. It's no wonder the law doesn't
see you as reasonable, law abiding citizens when you have an accident. They
happily put the blame for accidents on the individual cyclist here in
America.

 

[SMS]

[email protected] wrote:

> I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
> etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are ****.

Sealed beams are not all that common any more on new cars. Most
headlights now use replaceable bulbs, and you can buy bulbs of various
quality.

You're correct that the DOT specs are often ****. One of the biggest
annoyances is how they've failed to regulate daytime running lights,
even though they are well aware of the problems. Some vehicle
manufacturers use the high beam bulbs at reduced brightness as the DRLs.
It's very annoying to other drivers, and the DOT knows it. But they are
controlled by the vehicle manufacturers and hence do nothing.

 

[Hank Wirtz]

On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > In my opinion.
>
> I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
> tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
> choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
> that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>
> That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
> lighting system.
>
> You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
> are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
> informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
> organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
> same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>
> I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
> a little less clear.

You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
website before:

http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htm to you before.

What's the first thing they have to say?

"Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"

 

[vey]

[email protected] wrote:

> I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
> etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are ****.

It doesn't matter whether you like or dislike the DOT standards, they
exist and have existed since 1940. Prior to 1940, manufacturer's
operated pretty much like the bicycle light manufacturer's do now.
Caveat Emptor and if you crashed, well it must have been operator error.

Now, we have people saying here, "Well, you should have known that the
light was ****." Why? If someone sells a safety device, like a fire
extinguisher, or a poison gas detector, or a GFCI receptacle, car
headlight, or a circuit breaker, or a fuse, or just about anything else
you can think of that has to do with safety, it has to meet some sort of
minimum standard, that being it is fit for a particular purpose.

But, if someone spends $30 on a light, they are suddenly supposed to
become an expert at optics? And miraculously "know" that the light isn't
fit for a particular purpose? Do you know what the UL standards are for
half the things you use that are UL listed? Why not?

I'm not an expert at headlights, but I don't have to be. I buy a
replacement when one burns out, and even if I buy the cheapest one the
discount auto store has, I know that it won't be so dim I can't see.

 

[Clive George]

"vey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Now, we have people saying here, "Well, you should have known that the
> light was ****." Why? If someone sells a safety device, like a fire
> extinguisher, or a poison gas detector, or a GFCI receptacle, car
> headlight, or a circuit breaker, or a fuse, or just about anything else
> you can think of that has to do with safety, it has to meet some sort of
> minimum standard, that being it is fit for a particular purpose.

Over here we've got standards for bike lights. SMS won't like them, but
that's his problem.

However it's not too difficult to do riding which requires more light than
the ones meeting the standards give - eg off-road. If somebody is riding
such that their light isn't good enough, it's their responsibility, not the
light manufacturer's.

cheers,
clive

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 26, 10:42 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 4:32 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> As it is, most of my cycling purchases make me want to put the
> >> thing in a compactor and hide on the couch. Reading your **** about how
> >> the
> >> public needs to be lulled into a false sense of security certainly makes
> >> me
> >> want to hide.
>
> > As I've said before, I really believe that's what you should do. As
> > your posts continually show, cycling causes you great problems, worry
> > and stress. I think you're among the small minority that can't handle
> > it.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> The roads are made for citizens, Frank, not just the citizens that you feel
> are worthy.
>
> Cycling isn't for the few that meet your standards. Any of us can legally
> ride a bike. It sounds like maybe you'd like some standards to be set. Is
> that what you want, some minimum level of ability before a cycling license
> is issued?
>
> Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing. How odd
> that out of everyone, you're the most dedicated to silencing people who
> don't share your opinion. And you do it on a newsgroup which is a public
> forum that's supposed to be open to all opinion. Sounds like you'd be more
> at home in Stalin's Russia than on a modern newsgroup. There you could
> control all speech and maybe even thought.

Wasn't it you that wanted to ban cars on some streets? That sounds
verymuch like something Stalin did do...

Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights to protect the
poor, unsuspecting public, who don't have the ability to evaluate a
product and use it intelligently. Absolutely, get the government
involved, that'll solve the problem(YIKES!!)...

 

[SMS]

Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> In my opinion.
>> I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
>> tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
>> choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
>> that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>>
>> That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
>> lighting system.
>>
>> You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
>> are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
>> informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
>> organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
>> same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>>
>> I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
>> power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
>> a little less clear.
>
> You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
> website before:
>
> http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htm to you before.
>
> What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"
>

I've quoted their page several times.

"http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/page4.htm"

 

[SMS]

Clive George wrote:
> "vey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Now, we have people saying here, "Well, you should have known that the
>> light was ****." Why? If someone sells a safety device, like a fire
>> extinguisher, or a poison gas detector, or a GFCI receptacle, car
>> headlight, or a circuit breaker, or a fuse, or just about anything
>> else you can think of that has to do with safety, it has to meet some
>> sort of minimum standard, that being it is fit for a particular purpose.
>
> Over here we've got standards for bike lights. SMS won't like them, but
> that's his problem.

LOL, it's not whether I like them or not, but the fact that they're
_minimum_ standards, not necessarily what makes sense.

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > In my opinion.
>
> > I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
> > tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
> > choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
> > that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>
> > That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
> > lighting system.
>
> > You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
> > are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
> > informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
> > organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
> > same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>
> > I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
> > a little less clear.
>
> You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
> website before:
>
> http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmto you before.
>
> What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"- Hide quoted text -
>

And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because? I
noticed the section discribing the box of NightRider lights and the
bad wiring and how the batteries have gone dead. For die-hards, you
would think they could have fixed the wiring and ordered a dozen (plus
one) sub-c batteries and built a new battery pack. It's easy, really
-- and pretty cheap. That's a simple light to work on. I've kept the
same light going for 15 years -- but I'm going brighter this year!

I might try a dynamo one day, but the nearly $300 hub price (exclusive
of lights and associated wiring) is daunting, particularly since I can
now take my light and move it from one bike to another rather than
buying a bunch of spendy dynamo hubs/lights, etc. It also is not very
useful when you need a light and your bike is not moving, like when
fixing a flat in the dark or walking a trail, etc. On the other hand,
it sucks when you forget to charge your batteries and you have to pick
your way home in the dark -- or with a back up LED light. I could see
this as a very tough and personal choice for many people. -- Jay
Beattie.

 

[Andy M-S]

On Sep 26, 4:05 pm, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > In my opinion.
>
> > > I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
> > > tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
> > > choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
> > > that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>
> > > That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
> > > lighting system.
>
> > > You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
> > > are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
> > > informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
> > > organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
> > > same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>
> > > I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > > power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
> > > a little less clear.
>
> > You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
> > website before:
>
> >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyou before.
>
> > What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> > "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because? I
> noticed the section discribing the box of NightRider lights and the
> bad wiring and how the batteries have gone dead. For die-hards, you
> would think they could have fixed the wiring and ordered a dozen (plus
> one) sub-c batteries and built a new battery pack. It's easy, really
> -- and pretty cheap. That's a simple light to work on. I've kept the
> same light going for 15 years -- but I'm going brighter this year!
>
> I might try a dynamo one day, but the nearly $300 hub price (exclusive
> of lights and associated wiring) is daunting, particularly since I can
> now take my light and move it from one bike to another rather than
> buying a bunch of spendy dynamo hubs/lights, etc. It also is not very
> useful when you need a light and your bike is not moving, like when
> fixing a flat in the dark or walking a trail, etc. On the other hand,
> it sucks when you forget to charge your batteries and you have to pick
> your way home in the dark -- or with a back up LED light. I could see
> this as a very tough and personal choice for many people. -- Jay
> Beattie.

$300 is a straw man--only SON hubs cost that much, and unless
everything on your bike is Dura Ace/Record, that seems kind of
pointless. Shimano Ultegra-level dynohubs are <$100, and you need a
front hub anyway, so knock off $30 (or so) that you'd be spending in
any evevnt and you're looking at $60-70 for a source of juice that
never needs to be plugged in. Add a light head for as little as $15
(if you know what you're doing) to as much as $100 (if you don't).
Granted, per bike. Still, that should make the choice a good deal
easier.

 

[SMS]

Jay Beattie wrote:

> And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because? I
> noticed the section discribing the box of NightRider lights and the
> bad wiring and how the batteries have gone dead. For die-hards, you
> would think they could have fixed the wiring and ordered a dozen (plus
> one) sub-c batteries and built a new battery pack. It's easy, really
> -- and pretty cheap. That's a simple light to work on. I've kept the
> same light going for 15 years -- but I'm going brighter this year!

It's true that the wiring problems they describe are vastly overblown.
You can have wiring issues with dynamo lights as well, and these
problems have often been mentioned in this group. You have a wiring
problem you fix it, it's not rocket science. On the systems I build for
my own and friend's use, I'm very careful to build with very reliable
wiring and connectors (all molded connectors, all connections both
mechanically and electrically secure, wires, strain-relieved, and
soldered joints covered with two layers of heat shrink).

One attraction of the lights like the Fenix Cree flashlight is that
there is _no_ wiring, it's self-contained. Still, you do need to
remember to take along a couple of spare AA batteries.

In the end (on page 4) they do end up with the best dynamo light
available, and that same company makes battery powered versions as well.

> I might try a dynamo one day, but the nearly $300 hub price (exclusive
> of lights and associated wiring) is daunting, particularly since I can
> now take my light and move it from one bike to another rather than
> buying a bunch of spendy dynamo hubs/lights, etc. It also is not very
> useful when you need a light and your bike is not moving, like when
> fixing a flat in the dark or walking a trail, etc. On the other hand,
> it sucks when you forget to charge your batteries and you have to pick
> your way home in the dark -- or with a back up LED light. I could see
> this as a very tough and personal choice for many people.

Remember, they have six wheels with the Schmidt hub! They were going to
do wheel swapping between bikes but soon realized that it wasn't practical.

I don't think it's as tough of a choice as you make it out to be. A lot
of it is dominated by cost, there aren't a lot of people that are going
to be buying the Schmidt hub, a new wheel, and the Lumotec or SolidLight
lamps. If cost weren't a consideration I would but a Schmidt hub and
SolidLight on every bicycle I own.