Hazards of night cycling

[Andy M-S]

On Sep 27, 11:15 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andy M-S wrote:
> > Hmmm...Impressive. Too bad they chose the FF Micro. I tried one, and
> > it pales (any all puns intentional) compared to a Lumotec.
>
> I've seen the FF Micro. Very impressive light, especially the optics,
> given the low price.

I've used both and compared the MicroFF to a Lumotec Round. At $15
(retail), the Lumotec Round *is* the price/performance leader--there's
no comparison. The MicroFF looks very cool, but just can't match the
Lumotec for delivered light. Not to mention the Lumotec's built-in
reflector.

 

[A Muzi]

SMS wrote:
> Greens wrote:
>
>> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
>> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
>> working for the life of the car.
>
> You're new here, huh?
>
>> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The
>> $400 lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money
>> for the kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of
>> jerk sends their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with
>> no lights? Look in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV
>> and a snowmobile. They've got the money. They just don't see the value
>> and they look at bikes as a toy.
>
> Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the
> bicycles to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An
> after-market accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs
> about $10 when included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing
> process. Even a 3W dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the
> manufacturing cost by more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked
> in. Attending the Taipei International Cycle Show and Interbike gives
> you a new appreciation for just how inexpensive many high margin
> accessories actually cost. But as long as their is no legislation
> requiring adequate lights, it's much cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at
> Night" sticker on the frame. Not that I favor such legislation.
>
> You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
> by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
> increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
> cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
> glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted
> for inflation have also fallen.
>
> OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
> night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH,
> without decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing
> to ride at night, which requires the effort of buying and installing
> lights. OTOH, some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even
> by riders that do ride a different type of bicycle at night.

Its' an argument some find seductive at first. As with mandated-items in
health coverage, aggressive zoning laws, etc, the simple effect is to
price large numbers of people out of the market altogether. The average
bike sold in USA is, what, $95 or $110? Mandated standards will drive up
'basic' unit cost just as any other mandate. Yeah, add another $50 to
that average bike and see how many bikes sell.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[A Muzi]

>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights

>> vey wrote:
>>> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
>>> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government,
>>> yet their standards are more stringent than any government standard.
>>> Would you like to see UL approve lights?

> A Muzi wrote:
>> No, I don't.
>> For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
>> various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And
>> you can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
>> lights end up at $50. Or more.

vey wrote:
> Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
> yet?

uh, bicycle lights? Range $4.95 to about $800 now....
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[A Muzi]

>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>>>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights

>>> vey wrote:
>>>> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
>>>> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government, yet
>>>> their standards are more stringent than any government standard. Would
>>>> you like to see UL approve lights?

>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> No, I don't.
>>> For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
>>> various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And you
>>> can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
>>> lights end up at $50. Or more.

> vey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
>> yet?

Andy M-S wrote:
> Bicycle brakes?

Brakes do have a standard. The year before that standard, a Famous
Consumer Rag tested three speed bikes, Columbia, Snyder, Murray, Huffy
and a Raleigh. The Raleigh was rated 'unacceptable' as the brakes were
deemed overly responsive _in comparison_ to the others. (!)

All those XMart bikes meet US government CPSC braking standards.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Gary Young]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:27:47 -0500, A Muzi wrote:

>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>>>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights
>
>>> vey wrote:
>>>> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
>>>> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government,
>>>> yet their standards are more stringent than any government standard.
>>>> Would you like to see UL approve lights?
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> No, I don't.
>>> For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
>>> various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And
>>> you can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
>>> lights end up at $50. Or more.

The CPSC regulates brakes, pedals, handlebars, stems, tires, wheels, hubs,
forks, frames, seats and reflectors:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/16cfr1512_04.html

By your reasoning, the minimum cost of a Wal-Mart bike would be at least
$500.

The CPSC also regulates helmets, yet you can get a basic helmet at
Wal-Mart for $15.


>
> vey wrote:
>> Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
>> yet?
>
> uh, bicycle lights? Range $4.95 to about $800 now....

Lots of bicycle lights are already built to government standards, just not
US standards. Most generator lighting systems, for instance, are built to
pass muster with German regulators.

On the other hand, manufacturers sometimes sell a substandard
version of their products in the US market (or so I understand having
spent some time lurking on the bikecurrent mailing list). Cateye battery
lights sold in the European market, for instance, sometimes have better
electronics so that the intensity of the light stays fairly constant over
the lifetime of the battery. If you want to test your hypothesis about
costs, that might be a good place to look.

 

[Andy M-S]

On Sep 27, 12:31 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
> >>>>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights
> >>> vey wrote:
> >>>> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
> >>>> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government, yet
> >>>> their standards are more stringent than any government standard. Would
> >>>> you like to see UL approve lights?
> >> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> No, I don't.
> >>> For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
> >>> various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And you
> >>> can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
> >>> lights end up at $50. Or more.
> > vey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
> >> yet?
> Andy M-S wrote:
> > Bicycle brakes?
>
> Brakes do have a standard. The year before that standard, a Famous
> Consumer Rag tested three speed bikes, Columbia, Snyder, Murray, Huffy
> and a Raleigh. The Raleigh was rated 'unacceptable' as the brakes were
> deemed overly responsive _in comparison_ to the others. (!)
>
> All those XMart bikes meet US government CPSC braking standards.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Scary.

OK...bicycle bells? Horns? (Especially helmet) mirrors?There can't
be a standard for those! I know reflectors are covered by the CPSC...

You know, there aren't that many bits of safety equipment *on* a
bicycle!

 

[A Muzi]

>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> And besides, if you did (say) install a permanent headlight on every
>>> bike, it would stop working in very short order. Batteries die even
>>> when not used. Contacts corrode.

> vey wrote:
>> C'mon. now you are getting stupid. Headlights burn out. Does this mean
>> cars shouldn't come with headlights?

SMS wrote:
> "_Getting_?" That threshold was passed years ago.
> What makes sense is a hub dynamo and good LED headlight. If included at
> the point of manufacture they'd add only a few dollars to the price of
> the bike. What makes hub dynamos and good dynamo-compatible LED lights
> so costly is that they're a low-volume specialty item.
> Look at the Joule hub used by Dahon.
> "http://www.speedmatrixdepot.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2&products_id=46".
> A $30 retail price for the hub _and_ a Hella FF Micro Halogen
> lightlight. This means that it has a manufacturing cost of somewhere
> around $5-7.
> A few manufacturers are starting to include a hub dynamo in some bicycles.

Yeah, since the 1920s at least.
Hint: the models with lighting systems cost more, hence sell in much
smaller numbers.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Greens]

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SMS wrote:
>> Greens wrote:
>>
>>> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
>>> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
>>> working for the life of the car.
>>
>> You're new here, huh?
>>
>>> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The
>>> $400 lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for
>>> the kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk
>>> sends their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no
>>> lights? Look in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a
>>> snowmobile. They've got the money. They just don't see the value and
>>> they look at bikes as a toy.
>>
>> Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the
>> bicycles to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An
>> after-market accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs
>> about $10 when included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing
>> process. Even a 3W dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the
>> manufacturing cost by more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked
>> in. Attending the Taipei International Cycle Show and Interbike gives you
>> a new appreciation for just how inexpensive many high margin accessories
>> actually cost. But as long as their is no legislation requiring adequate
>> lights, it's much cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at Night" sticker on
>> the frame. Not that I favor such legislation.
>>
>> You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
>> by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
>> increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
>> cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
>> glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted for
>> inflation have also fallen.
>>
>> OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
>> night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH, without
>> decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing to ride at
>> night, which requires the effort of buying and installing lights. OTOH,
>> some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even by riders that
>> do ride a different type of bicycle at night.
>
> Its' an argument some find seductive at first. As with mandated-items in
> health coverage, aggressive zoning laws, etc, the simple effect is to
> price large numbers of people out of the market altogether. The average
> bike sold in USA is, what, $95 or $110? Mandated standards will drive up
> 'basic' unit cost just as any other mandate. Yeah, add another $50 to that
> average bike and see how many bikes sell.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

You really think that charging an extra fifty dollars for a bike is going to
stop anybody from buying bicycles in the USA? I don't think so. Fifty bucks
is a tank of gas. It's no big deal.

 

[Andy M-S]

On Sep 27, 2:58 pm, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > SMS wrote:
> >> Greens wrote:
>
> >>> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
> >>> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
> >>> working for the life of the car.
>
> >> You're new here, huh?
>
> >>> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The
> >>> $400 lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for
> >>> the kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk
> >>> sends their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no
> >>> lights? Look in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a
> >>> snowmobile. They've got the money. They just don't see the value and
> >>> they look at bikes as a toy.
>
> >> Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the
> >> bicycles to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An
> >> after-market accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs
> >> about $10 when included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing
> >> process. Even a 3W dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the
> >> manufacturing cost by more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked
> >> in. Attending the Taipei International Cycle Show and Interbike gives you
> >> a new appreciation for just how inexpensive many high margin accessories
> >> actually cost. But as long as their is no legislation requiring adequate
> >> lights, it's much cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at Night" sticker on
> >> the frame. Not that I favor such legislation.
>
> >> You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
> >> by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
> >> increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
> >> cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
> >> glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted for
> >> inflation have also fallen.
>
> >> OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
> >> night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH, without
> >> decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing to ride at
> >> night, which requires the effort of buying and installing lights. OTOH,
> >> some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even by riders that
> >> do ride a different type of bicycle at night.
>
> > Its' an argument some find seductive at first. As with mandated-items in
> > health coverage, aggressive zoning laws, etc, the simple effect is to
> > price large numbers of people out of the market altogether. The average
> > bike sold in USA is, what, $95 or $110? Mandated standards will drive up
> > 'basic' unit cost just as any other mandate. Yeah, add another $50 to that
> > average bike and see how many bikes sell.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> >www.yellowjersey.org
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> You really think that charging an extra fifty dollars for a bike is going to
> stop anybody from buying bicycles in the USA? I don't think so. Fifty bucks
> is a tank of gas. It's no big deal.

It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?

 

[Greens]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greens wrote:
>
>> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
>> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
>> working for the life of the car.
>
> You're new here, huh?
>
>> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The
>> $400 lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for
>> the kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk
>> sends their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no
>> lights? Look in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a
>> snowmobile. They've got the money. They just don't see the value and they
>> look at bikes as a toy.
>
> Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the bicycles
> to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An after-market
> accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs about $10 when
> included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing process. Even a 3W
> dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the manufacturing cost by
> more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked in. Attending the Taipei
> International Cycle Show and Interbike gives you a new appreciation for
> just how inexpensive many high margin accessories actually cost. But as
> long as their is no legislation requiring adequate lights, it's much
> cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at Night" sticker on the frame. Not that I
> favor such legislation.
>
> You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
> by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
> increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
> cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
> glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted for
> inflation have also fallen.
>
> OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
> night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH, without
> decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing to ride at
> night, which requires the effort of buying and installing lights. OTOH,
> some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even by riders that
> do ride a different type of bicycle at night.

I think you've used up your month's allotment of "OTOH's".

 

[A Muzi]

>> Greens wrote:
>>> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
>>> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
>>> working for the life of the car.
>> You're new here, huh?
>>> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The
>>> $400 lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for
>>> the kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk
>>> sends their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no
>>> lights? Look in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a
>>> snowmobile. They've got the money. They just don't see the value and they
>>> look at bikes as a toy.

> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the bicycles
>> to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An after-market
>> accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs about $10 when
>> included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing process. Even a 3W
>> dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the manufacturing cost by
>> more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked in. Attending the Taipei
>> International Cycle Show and Interbike gives you a new appreciation for
>> just how inexpensive many high margin accessories actually cost. But as
>> long as their is no legislation requiring adequate lights, it's much
>> cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at Night" sticker on the frame. Not that I
>> favor such legislation.
>>
>> You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
>> by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
>> increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
>> cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
>> glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted for
>> inflation have also fallen.
>>
>> OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
>> night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH, without
>> decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing to ride at
>> night, which requires the effort of buying and installing lights. OTOH,
>> some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even by riders that
>> do ride a different type of bicycle at night.

Greens wrote:
> I think you've used up your month's allotment of "OTOH's".

Truman said he sought a one-armed economist, one who would not say...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[SMS]

Andy M-S wrote:

> It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?

The reason he bought an inadequate light was probably not the money, it
was that he didn't know any better. It might be unreasonable for every
consumer to become an expert for every item they buy.

Other industries set their own standards for products to aid consumers
in their buying decision. It actually helps sell more when you make it
easier for the consumer to make an informed decision.

Just put some basic information on the package:

Power source:

Run time:

Illumination Level:

Suitability:


REI at least provides some advice on lights on their site
"http://www.rei.com/learn/Cycling/rei/learn/cycle/bikeltf"

 

[vey]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 27, 8:17 am, vey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Patrick Lamb wrote:
>>
>>> It's really reasonable to think that a person riding a bicycle at
>>> night should modulate his speed so he doesn't over-ride his lights.
>> In the case of the light I bought, that would be zero MPH since it
>> didn't light up anything. And it was zero. I walked my bike until I got
>> under a street lamp and could see, then rode a bit and walked some more.
>>
>> When I got home, I took it off and shined it around a room. The walls
>> showed up perfectly, but the beam was so diffused, it didn't do anything
>> for the floor. So even if I had tried it out at the LBS I bought it at,
>> I wouldn't have known any better.
>
> How many miles of riding did you do before you realized you couldn't
> see??
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
>

As soon as I got into a dark area, I stopped. Then I walked until I got
near a streetlight and could see again.

 

[Andreas Oehler]

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:46:00 +0100, Clive George:

>
>
>Check out the rules in Germany. All utility-type bikes (don't know the exact
>rules - they do manage to exclude MTBs and racing bikes) must be fitted with
>lights, and they must be of a certain standard - and possibly need to be
>dynamos too. But that's a country where the bike isn't seen as a toy.
>
>OTOH the lamp you were using possibly meets the standards in place.

No. The Cateye EL300 is far from what's required in Germany. With fresh
batteries the EL300 reaches a maximum brightness of 4 lux in 10m distance
- quickly dropping to 2 lux. Minimum brightness requirement in germany is
10 lux. Cateye sold a special version - the EL300G with an efficient
switching regulator instead of the simple resistor inside the EL300 - but
still it is not allowed to be sold anymore.

If someone decides to use a EL300 as his only light, he has to go
appropate slow (not much more than walking speed). The EL300G is a nice
torch at home...

Andreas - using a hub generator and a modified LED-lamp myself

 

[Andreas Oehler]

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:32:16 -0700, SMS:

>
>What makes sense is a hub dynamo and good LED headlight. If included at
>the point of manufacture they'd add only a few dollars to the price of
>the bike. What makes hub dynamos and good dynamo-compatible LED lights
>so costly is that they're a low-volume specialty item.

Thats wrong. More than 50% of the bikes sold in germany come with a hub
generator today. An increasing part also comes with a LED headlight
already. Bike manufacturers buy hub dynamos for less than 10 Euro and LED
headlamps (like the Basta Pilot Steady) for about the same. Such bikes (7
speed hub gears, fenders, lights, usable brakes) come at around 200 Euro
here.

Andreas

 

[Shelly Shoreboss NoItAll]

"Andreas Oehler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:46:00 +0100, Clive George:
>
>>
>>
>>Check out the rules in Germany. All utility-type bikes (don't know the
>>exact
>>rules - they do manage to exclude MTBs and racing bikes) must be fitted
>>with
>>lights, and they must be of a certain standard - and possibly need to be
>>dynamos too. But that's a country where the bike isn't seen as a toy.
>>
>>OTOH the lamp you were using possibly meets the standards in place.
>
> No. The Cateye EL300 is far from what's required in Germany. With fresh
> batteries the EL300 reaches a maximum brightness of 4 lux in 10m distance
> - quickly dropping to 2 lux. Minimum brightness requirement in germany is
> 10 lux. Cateye sold a special version - the EL300G with an efficient
> switching regulator instead of the simple resistor inside the EL300 - but
> still it is not allowed to be sold anymore.
>
> If someone decides to use a EL300 as his only light, he has to go
> appropate slow (not much more than walking speed). The EL300G is a nice
> torch at home...
>
> Andreas - using a hub generator and a modified LED-lamp myself

Thanks for clearing that up.

This is a bit off topic, but since you're German perhaps you can verify
something for me. I heard that all dogs in Germany over 40 pounds must wear
muzzles. Is this true?

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:40:33 -0400, "Shelly Shoreboss NoItAll"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>This is a bit off topic, but since you're German perhaps you can verify
>something for me. I heard that all dogs in Germany over 40 pounds must wear
>muzzles. Is this true?

Dear Shelly,

Kinda-sorta:

http://www.ledogstop.com/ledogstop/LAW.html#GERMANY

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[vey]

Andreas Oehler wrote:
Minimum brightness requirement in germany is
> 10 lux.
>
> Andreas - using a hub generator and a modified LED-lamp myself

10 lux isn't very much. It should be considered a minimum, but I think
it is enough for a dark street. As I read the translated StVZO, that
minimum light must be there, but a more powerful battery light can be
added? Or perhaps the light can be exchanged for a stronger dynamo
powered one?

That's what I read.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 25, 12:05 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

This inflation calculator claims that lamp oil that cost $5 per gallon
in 1895 would cost $112.36 in 2006:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Given the current outrageous prices for whale oil, that may be a low
estimate.

Anyway, the following timely seasonal advice concerning bicycle lamps
should settle the lighting question on RBT, once and for all:

"TOURING ON A BICYCLE; Some Hints for Wheelmen Who Are to Take Autumn
Trips"

. . . Both lamp and bell should be part of the accoutrement of every
tourist, not solely because the ordinances of some towns require both,
but for the reason that when making your way along a country road at
night the bell may sometimes be indispensable as a substitute for a
lamp. The best of lamps yet made will not remain lighted when the wind
is frisky and sometimes when breezes blow and you are riding into a
stygian blackness a collision with some sleepy countryman may be
avoided by keeping your bell continually sounding.

The question of carrying fresh oil is a bothersome one. Those lamps
which burn pure kerosene can easily be refilled anywhere, but there
are only a few of this kind made, and as they are the most expensive a
comparatively small number is in use. As many riders not familiar with
household economy do not know the difference between kerosene lamps
and those for which a special oil is needed, and consequently get into
trouble trying to use kerosene when they should not, it may be well to
interpolate the information that only lamps so constructed as to
provide for a central draf will burn pure kerosene.

There are only a couple of this kind on the market, and an examination
of the lamp will quickly show whether there is a central air draft
from the bottom or a loose and performated cap about the wick sleeve.
If not, the lamp requires a special oil. The lamp oil sold in bicycle
stores is first rate, but it is sold at the rate of $5 a gallon, and
the smaller cans of it are inconvenient for packing, so that, on the
whole, it will be easier and just as cheap to buy oil as you need it
when touring. Only it must be borne in mind that it does not do to mix
oils, nor to refill with a new kind, even after emptying the
reservoir, unless you clean the tank thoroughly and put in a new wick,
or at least squeeze out and wipe dry the old wick. An extra wick,
therefore, is a good thing to have handy.

As to the kind of oil for renewing lamps, a mixture of two-thirds
kerosene and one-third sperm oil is excellent, and it is something
that can be obtained in the most primitive village. Every drug store
keeps the sperm oil, and grocers have the other. A mixture of one-
third cottonseed oil and two-thirds kerosene is favored by some, but
the highly carbonaceous character of the cottonseed extract causes a
thick crust to form on the wick. It can be rubbed off with the match
stick when lighting, but this mixture is very little cheaper than the
other, and the preference is not clear.

For one about to start on a trip, the wise plan would be to fill the
lamp with one or the other of these mixtures and stick to it.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B0DEFDB113DE433A25752C0A9669D94649ED7CF

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[vey]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 25, 12:05 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> This inflation calculator claims that lamp oil that cost $5 per gallon
> in 1895 would cost $112.36 in 2006:
>
> http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

A close reading of the article indicates that $5 was an exorbitant price
and came in inconvenient packaging. That is why the article continued to
explain other things that could be done.

Then as now, slap the word bicycle or marine or medical on something
common, and price jumps.