Help Me Choose A Headlight

  • Thread starter Prisoner at War
  • Start date



On May 2, 9:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> That said, I can definately see the attraction of a hub powered
> light. Have you checked the resistance of the B&M when turned on by
> hand to get an idea how much drag there is? It's good to hear some
> people don't notice it when riding.
> Also, what's the weight penalty for a setup like this?

All the facts are here are at the B&M site:

http://www.bumm.de/index-e.html

Also Sheldon Brown and Peter White have information. Google for their
sites.

This is a good exercise for a spreadsheet. The difference in price for
the bottle vs. hub system is large, the system use is minimal (what %
of your riding is in the dark?) and the light generation is
comparable. For me the bottle made sense. I got the regular bottle not
the S6 or S12 (and I still cannot feel the drag.) The side benefit is
it makes the bike look a bit klutzier and therefore less attractive at
the bike rack <g>. The Dymotec with the LED is a 100,000 hour light
and it has circuitry to keep lite when you stop.

Your light options are the same whether you go bottle or hub...
 
Clive George wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> While it's true that a 2.4-3 watt dynamo powered lamp isn't going to
>> provide sufficient illumination in most situations
>
> Oh, you were doing so well until you said that...
>
> If you'd only put suitable caveats around your statements, such as SMS
> thinks the 2.4-3W lamps are insufficient, but there are an awful lot of
> people out there who find them perfectly adequate. I'm just about to go
> for a ride using mine on unlit rural roads. I'll probably get to about
> 40mph...

I have a semi-regular ride back from a pal's which takes me about
10 miles through unlit countryside, which can be pitch dark at
these latitudes for a good chunk of the year. It's downhill most
of the way, and there's no shortage of interesting bends. I do it
with a 2.4W dynamo powered lamp to show me the way, so either I
have amazing powers of ESP or Scharf is, once again and as usual,
wildly overstating his case (my wife needs the amazing powers of
ESP too, as she manages the same ride with a similar SON and
Lumotec Oval).
Granted I do take it slower than the same route in full daylight,
but considering we both own high powered rechargeable sets and
can't be bothered to supplement our dynohubs with them for that
trip there's a fairly good indication it really /does/ provide
sufficient illumination.
And that's not "most situations". It's darker and faster than
"most situations".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:45:27 -0400, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Clive George wrote:
>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> While it's true that a 2.4-3 watt dynamo powered lamp isn't going to
>>> provide sufficient illumination in most situations
>> Oh, you were doing so well until you said that...
>> If you'd only put suitable caveats around your statements, such as SMS
>> thinks the 2.4-3W lamps are insufficient, but there are an awful lot of
>> people out there who find them perfectly adequate. I'm just about to go
>> for a ride using mine on unlit rural roads. I'll probably get to about
>> 40mph...
>
> I have a semi-regular ride back from a pal's which takes me about 10
> miles through unlit countryside, which can be pitch dark at these
> latitudes for a good chunk of the year. It's downhill most of the way,
> and there's no shortage of interesting bends. I do it with a 2.4W
> dynamo powered lamp to show me the way, so either I have amazing powers
> of ESP or Scharf is, once again and as usual, wildly overstating his
> case (my wife needs the amazing powers of ESP too, as she manages the
> same ride with a similar SON and Lumotec Oval).
> Granted I do take it slower than the same route in full daylight, but
> considering we both own high powered rechargeable sets and can't be
> bothered to supplement our dynohubs with them for that trip there's a
> fairly good indication it really /does/ provide sufficient illumination.
> And that's not "most situations". It's darker and faster than "most
> situations".
>
> Pete.

They can really provide that much light? My Niterider classic dual beam
with 12W halogen isn't nearly enough for me, if I use the 12W setting.
I've gone HID because of that.

--
Bob in CT
 
On May 2, 4:50 pm, "Bob in CT" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> They [generators] can really provide that much light? My Niterider classic dual beam
> with 12W halogen isn't nearly enough for me, if I use the 12W setting.
> I've gone HID because of that.

There's no doubt that a generator light doesn't throw out as many
lumens as your Niterider, so in that sense, they don't provide as much
light.

But there's a lot more to it than raw lumen count. As mentioned many
times, there's the issue of optics, and optics make a huge
difference. Blasting light everywhere (or even blasting light out of
a typical MR-11 "spot" lamp) just wastes lots of energy - and
lumens.

The other issue mentioned by some is that too bright of a light can
sometimes make things worse. I think this is again dependent on
optics - but a super-bright spot on the road can conceivably close
down your irises, leaving you with worse vision overall.

I recall people telling about riding with a generator light, and
having rechargeable light fans following along behind. Putting the
right amount of light right where it's needed seems to work best.

In any case, I too am a guy who used a rechargeable setups for several
years, one being a commercial set, the other being a homebuilt. I
finally just left them at home. For me, the transition happened this
way: l'd take the rechargeable along on the daytime ride to work, and
on the nighttime return, I'd only turn it on if I thought my generator
light needed some help.

After riding seven miles in the dark and turning on the rechargeable
for only 100 yards or so, I decided to just leave it off and see how
it went. And it went fine.

I still have both rechargeable sets. They never get used at all,
except as "loaners" for friends.

Oh - sometimes one gets used to look for Great Horned Owls hooting in
the backyard. I do find it better for that application than a
generator light. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
SMS wrote:

> For example, the TrailTech MR11 size HID is rated at 500 lumens and
> draws 13 watts, and costs $115. I can buy a set of two MR16 housings, 10
> watt lamps (spot and flood), and can over voltage by 10% and be at over
> 500 lumens, for a lot less money. If I use only one at a time, the power
> consumption is actually a bit less than the HID.

Following up on my own post, I notice that TrailTech sells a complete
single lamp 13W/500 lumens HID system, including bar clamp that will fit
7/8" through 1.25" bars, a helmet mount, 13.2V/3.7AH NiMH battery
(49WH), and charger, for $200. This battery should run the light for
more than three hours.

See page 47 of "http://trailtech.net/media/catalog/TT-CAT-07_lowres.pdf"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob in CT" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:45:27 -0400, Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Clive George wrote:
> >> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>> While it's true that a 2.4-3 watt dynamo powered lamp isn't going
> >>> to provide sufficient illumination in most situations
> >> Oh, you were doing so well until you said that... If you'd only
> >> put suitable caveats around your statements, such as SMS
> >> thinks the 2.4-3W lamps are insufficient, but there are an awful
> >> lot of people out there who find them perfectly adequate. I'm
> >> just about to go for a ride using mine on unlit rural roads. I'll
> >> probably get to about 40mph...
> >
> > I have a semi-regular ride back from a pal's which takes me about
> > 10 miles through unlit countryside, which can be pitch dark at
> > these latitudes for a good chunk of the year. It's downhill most
> > of the way, and there's no shortage of interesting bends. I do it
> > with a 2.4W dynamo powered lamp to show me the way, so either I
> > have amazing powers of ESP or Scharf is, once again and as usual,
> > wildly overstating his case (my wife needs the amazing powers of
> > ESP too, as she manages the same ride with a similar SON and
> > Lumotec Oval).
> >
> > Granted I do take it slower than the same route in full daylight,
> > but considering we both own high powered rechargeable sets and
> > can't be bothered to supplement our dynohubs with them for that
> > trip there's a fairly good indication it really /does/ provide
> > sufficient illumination. And that's not "most situations". It's
> > darker and faster than "most situations".
>
> They can really provide that much light? My Niterider classic dual
> beam with 12W halogen isn't nearly enough for me, if I use the 12W
> setting. I've gone HID because of that.

There've been many discussions about this in this newsgroup over the
years, most of which degenerate into a shouting match. What I can say
from experience is that a good 3W dynamo system (in my case, a Lumotec
Oval Plus lamp and a Schmidt SON hub on one bike and a Lumotec standard
lamp with a Sanyo BB dynamo on the other) works fine. It gets a bit
washed out on urban streets with lots of headlights and street lights,
but is adequate. I have ridden dusk 'til dawn with these lights quite a
few times on dark rural roads including fast descents. They work fine,
I see well, and am perfectly comfortable with them.

I think overbright lights impair dark adaptation of the eye by making
nearby objects and the road immediately in front of the bike too bright.
Since you can't see effectively, you think you need to upgrade to a
brighter lights. Eventually you'll end up mounting a kleig light and
towing a gasoline powered generator. Most high powered lights have
inappropriate optics (they are often adapted from other uses, not
designed from the ground up as a bike light) and most are not designed
to be intelligently mounted on the bike. The light source needs to be
low- fork crown height or lower- to maximize its usefulness. Most
battery powered lights are designed to mount above the handlebar or-
even much worse- on your head.

There may also be differences in night vision that affect your
preference in lights. I seem to see well at night compared to many
people, although I have never had my night vision tested.
 
SMS wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> The Tungsten is more prone to breaking from the vibration in a bike
>> than in a car, and that is more than in a house light. Filaments burn
>> out in a supernova, LEDs may dim over years, and HIDs may dim just a
>> bit after a bunch of years.
>> Three different types of light.
>
> Personally, I'd rather over-voltage a quartz-halogen lamp to achieve the
> illumination level of HID, and carry a spare bulb for when it burns out
> in that supernova.

That works only if you have a sanitary, well clean, cloth to change the
bulb. The Quartz will shatter from the skin oils if you touch it.
>
> For example, the TrailTech MR11 size HID is rated at 500 lumens and
> draws 13 watts, and costs $115. I can buy a set of two MR16 housings, 10
> watt lamps (spot and flood), and can over voltage by 10% and be at over
> 500 lumens, for a lot less money. If I use only one at a time, the power
> consumption is actually a bit less than the HID.
>
> All this assumes that I actually need that much illumination. Personally
> I think that a lot of people are going way overboard on lighting. While
> it's true that a 2.4-3 watt dynamo powered lamp isn't going to provide
> sufficient illumination in most situations, there are fine
> quartz-halogen or xenon rechargaeable systems available for well under
> $100 that provide more than adequate illumination.

Since I don't blast through unknown territory at 25 MPH at night my main
use is for cars to see me. My LED Cateye gives me enough light for maybe
15 MPH safely. Faster and I might find a pothole the hard way. This may
sound a bit strange but my night vision is good enough that I can ride
trails by a full moon alone. That's a beneficial side effect of working
indoors with computers most of the time and wearing 10% pass polarized
UV blocker goggles in the day time.
Your needs may vary.
Bill Baka
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On May 2, 4:50 pm, "Bob in CT" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> They [generators] can really provide that much light? My Niterider classic dual beam
>> with 12W halogen isn't nearly enough for me, if I use the 12W setting.
>> I've gone HID because of that.
>
> There's no doubt that a generator light doesn't throw out as many
> lumens as your Niterider, so in that sense, they don't provide as much
> light.
>
> But there's a lot more to it than raw lumen count. As mentioned many
> times, there's the issue of optics, and optics make a huge
> difference. Blasting light everywhere (or even blasting light out of
> a typical MR-11 "spot" lamp) just wastes lots of energy - and
> lumens.
>
> The other issue mentioned by some is that too bright of a light can
> sometimes make things worse. I think this is again dependent on
> optics - but a super-bright spot on the road can conceivably close
> down your irises, leaving you with worse vision overall.
>
> I recall people telling about riding with a generator light, and
> having rechargeable light fans following along behind. Putting the
> right amount of light right where it's needed seems to work best.
>
> In any case, I too am a guy who used a rechargeable setups for several
> years, one being a commercial set, the other being a homebuilt. I
> finally just left them at home. For me, the transition happened this
> way: l'd take the rechargeable along on the daytime ride to work, and
> on the nighttime return, I'd only turn it on if I thought my generator
> light needed some help.
>
> After riding seven miles in the dark and turning on the rechargeable
> for only 100 yards or so, I decided to just leave it off and see how
> it went. And it went fine.

A half moon is plenty of light if your eyes aren't burned out by the day
time sun. The best I've managed is to ride by a 1/8th moon and stars.
Good enough to see the road but not too good for potholes. Good eyes are
your best, first priority.
Bill Baka
>
> I still have both rechargeable sets. They never get used at all,
> except as "loaners" for friends.
>
> Oh - sometimes one gets used to look for Great Horned Owls hooting in
> the backyard. I do find it better for that application than a
> generator light. ;-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
 
Bob in CT wrote:

> They can really provide that much light?

WHere "that much" means "quite sufficient" for road use if you're not
trying to maximise speed, yes, at least in my case. I'd want high power
rechargeables for off-road where you've got immediate route-finding
issues on the sub-meter scale, definitrely, but given a good quality
lamp (something like the D-Lumotec Oval is not just a cheap bulb wired
un in a box) the dynamo is enough for the road.

You can always go the twin lamp in series option as hub generators like
SONs are constant current devices, and these setups seem quite popular
on very long randoneuring runs, but I just don't feel the need.

One gotcha, do remember a small LED flashlight just in case you get a
puncture that needs fixing!

> My Niterider classic dual beam
> with 12W halogen isn't nearly enough for me, if I use the 12W setting.
> I've gone HID because of that.

I agree with other comments viz optics and over-bright, but in any case
"enough for you" and "enough for me" /could/ be different things. The
important thing is to note it is personal to some degree and shouldn't
be made a general case like some people try to do.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
SMS wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> For example, the TrailTech MR11 size HID is rated at 500 lumens and
>> draws 13 watts, and costs $115. I can buy a set of two MR16 housings,
>> 10 watt lamps (spot and flood), and can over voltage by 10% and be at
>> over 500 lumens, for a lot less money. If I use only one at a time,
>> the power consumption is actually a bit less than the HID.
>
> Following up on my own post, I notice that TrailTech sells a complete
> single lamp 13W/500 lumens HID system, including bar clamp that will fit
> 7/8" through 1.25" bars, a helmet mount, 13.2V/3.7AH NiMH battery
> (49WH), and charger, for $200. This battery should run the light for
> more than three hours.
>
> See page 47 of "http://trailtech.net/media/catalog/TT-CAT-07_lowres.pdf"

I've been using a 13 watt trailtech for about a year and a half now and
it hasn't missed a beat.
Very good value for money. I use a 11.1 volt 3.5 amp.hour lithium
battery and get a minimum of three hours use out of it.
I wouldn't hesitate to get another one.

Friday
 
Friday wrote:

> I've been using a 13 watt trailtech for about a year and a half now and
> it hasn't missed a beat.
> Very good value for money. I use a 11.1 volt 3.5 amp.hour lithium
> battery and get a minimum of three hours use out of it.
> I wouldn't hesitate to get another one.

That's good to know. There really is no reason for the insanely high
prices that some companies charge for HID lights.

Are you using the helmet mount light, or the chrome handlebar light?

Did you get the spot or the flood?

I think TrailTech needs to target some marketing and advertising toward
the bicycle community. Their complete HID system costs less than a good
dynamo system, and is far more effective.
 
SMS wrote:

> I think TrailTech needs to target some marketing and advertising toward
> the bicycle community. Their complete HID system costs less than a good
> dynamo system, and is far more effective.

Effective at what, though? Effective at excellent illumination with
juiced batteries? Yes. Effective at any illumination at all after
you've been running for longer than the batteries last? No. Effective
at any illumination at all if you didn't think to take your lights with
you and you're out later than you anticipated? No. Effective at any
illumination at all if your schedule was hectic and you just didn't get
round to recharging in time? No.

Saying "far more effective" than a dynamo setup without addressing what
dynamos can do that rechargeable setups don't is not doing anyone any
favours. Both can do what they do well better than the other, but a
sweeping "one is far more effective than the other, period" is, at best,
a foolish statement. I own both setups, so I can work from the
strengths of either as the job in hand suits. That the dynamo doesn't
do all the same jobs the rechargeables do doesn't detract from the fact
that on balance I find the dynamo systems far more useful and user
friendly, and that is a very, very important facet of how lighting
setups are "effective".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On May 3, 10:44 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Friday wrote:
> > I've been using a 13 watt trailtech for about a year and a half now and
> > it hasn't missed a beat.
> > Very good value for money. I use a 11.1 volt 3.5 amp.hour lithium
> > battery and get a minimum of three hours use out of it.
> > I wouldn't hesitate to get another one.
>
> That's good to know. There really is no reason for the insanely high
> prices that some companies charge for HID lights.
>
> Are you using the helmet mount light, or the chrome handlebar light?
>
> Did you get the spot or the flood?
>
> I think TrailTech needs to target some marketing and advertising toward
> the bicycle community. Their complete HID system costs less than a good
> dynamo system, and is far more effective.


Interesting. Thanks for the ref, guys.
 
On May 3, 10:56 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Effective at what, though? Effective at excellent illumination with
> juiced batteries? Yes. Effective at any illumination at all after
> you've been running for longer than the batteries last? No. Effective
> at any illumination at all if you didn't think to take your lights with
> you and you're out later than you anticipated? No. Effective at any
> illumination at all if your schedule was hectic and you just didn't get
> round to recharging in time? No.
>
> Saying "far more effective" than a dynamo setup without addressing what
> dynamos can do that rechargeable setups don't is not doing anyone any
> favours. Both can do what they do well better than the other, but a
> sweeping "one is far more effective than the other, period" is, at best,
> a foolish statement. I own both setups, so I can work from the
> strengths of either as the job in hand suits. That the dynamo doesn't
> do all the same jobs the rechargeables do doesn't detract from the fact
> that on balance I find the dynamo systems far more useful and user
> friendly, and that is a very, very important facet of how lighting
> setups are "effective".
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/


I like the idea of dynamos. I just want very bright lights. One day
I might even get both systems -- using the HID as a "back-up" or for
"emergency" situations. But if it's one or the other, I'm going with
HIDs for the time being. I'll navigate by the light of the moon and
stars -- or lonely corner street lamps, for that matter -- but for
those times I'd feel inclined to turn on my light, I want something
bright as heck. With HIDs, I even like the idea of them being like
car lights -- give other cars a pause, I imagine, the way my 'bent
certainly gives 'em a pause and slows 'em down some, usually.

Not arguing with you, Petey ol' boy (Goodness, no! LOL). Your points
are well-taken. I had certainly investigated the SON dynamo for my HP
Velo SMGTe initially. But for me -- and, I suspect, for most who are
"fearless" enough to not bother with helmets and yet could still find
the need at times for a headlight -- it's about the "YOOHOO!! I' over
here!" factor that you get from a light bright as The Second Coming.
^_^
 
On May 3, 11:22 am, Prisoner at War <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 3, 10:56 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Effective at what, though? Effective at excellent illumination with
> > juiced batteries? Yes. Effective at any illumination at all after
> > you've been running for longer than the batteries last? No. Effective
> > at any illumination at all if you didn't think to take your lights with
> > you and you're out later than you anticipated? No. Effective at any
> > illumination at all if your schedule was hectic and you just didn't get
> > round to recharging in time? No.
>
> > Saying "far more effective" than a dynamo setup without addressing what
> > dynamos can do that rechargeable setups don't is not doing anyone any
> > favours. Both can do what they do well better than the other, but a
> > sweeping "one is far more effective than the other, period" is, at best,
> > a foolish statement. I own both setups, so I can work from the
> > strengths of either as the job in hand suits. That the dynamo doesn't
> > do all the same jobs the rechargeables do doesn't detract from the fact
> > that on balance I find the dynamo systems far more useful and user
> > friendly, and that is a very, very important facet of how lighting
> > setups are "effective".
>
> > Pete.
> > --
> > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> > net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>
> I like the idea of dynamos. I just want very bright lights. One day
> I might even get both systems -- using the HID as a "back-up" or for
> "emergency" situations. But if it's one or the other, I'm going with
> HIDs for the time being. I'll navigate by the light of the moon and
> stars -- or lonely corner street lamps, for that matter -- but for
> those times I'd feel inclined to turn on my light, I want something
> bright as heck. With HIDs, I even like the idea of them being like
> car lights -- give other cars a pause, I imagine, the way my 'bent
> certainly gives 'em a pause and slows 'em down some, usually.
>
> Not arguing with you, Petey ol' boy (Goodness, no! LOL). Your points
> are well-taken. I had certainly investigated the SON dynamo for my HP
> Velo SMGTe initially. But for me -- and, I suspect, for most who are
> "fearless" enough to not bother with helmets and yet could still find
> the need at times for a headlight -- it's about the "YOOHOO!! I' over
> here!" factor that you get from a light bright as The Second Coming.
> ^_^

If you do go with some mega-bright, no-optics solution, please be
courteous with it.

Some of us have encountered cyclists with those systems approaching us
on bike trails, and have experienced being blinded. Some users have
bragged about car drivers flashing their brights, because of the glare
from those systems.

We don't need to get into lumen wars with other cyclists, or with car
drivers. For road riding, you need enough light on the road to see
the road, including potholes or trash. And you need enough light
going above the road to make you as conspicuous as you are in the
daytime, no more.

Those purposes require relatively little light output. You don't need
any more - and in particular, burning out people's retinas with
excessive above-the-road light is, at best, pretty rude. At worst,
it's dangerous for them and for you.

That's one reason automotive headlights, motorcycle headlights, and
well-designed bike headlights have a "cut-off" plane. Below that
plane, light going to the road is bright. Above that plane, light
going into others' eyes is much dimmer.

If your lights don't have optics that produce that sort of beam
pattern, please point them low enough to not blind other users.
Don't become the lumen equivalent of a Hummer driver, putting your
(supposed) safety and macho power above the safety of everyone else.

- Frank Krygowski
 
SMS wrote:
> Friday wrote:
>
>> I've been using a 13 watt trailtech for about a year and a half now
>> and it hasn't missed a beat.
>> Very good value for money. I use a 11.1 volt 3.5 amp.hour lithium
>> battery and get a minimum of three hours use out of it.
>> I wouldn't hesitate to get another one.
>
> That's good to know. There really is no reason for the insanely high
> prices that some companies charge for HID lights.
>
> Are you using the helmet mount light, or the chrome handlebar light?
>
> Did you get the spot or the flood?
>
> I think TrailTech needs to target some marketing and advertising toward
> the bicycle community. Their complete HID system costs less than a good
> dynamo system, and is far more effective.


I bought mine before they came out with a decent mounting system for it.
It was marketed as a motorbike helmet light so I made my own mount for
it which works extremely well, despite its bland looks.

I use the flood, most of my riding is done in the bush, but even on the
road you can see way ahead anyway.

I've got a little web page for it here with some photos.

http://www.hyperactive.oz.nf/Light5/Light5.htm

Friday
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> I think TrailTech needs to target some marketing and advertising
>> toward the bicycle community. Their complete HID system costs less
>> than a good dynamo system, and is far more effective.
>
> Effective at what, though? Effective at excellent illumination with
> juiced batteries? Yes. Effective at any illumination at all after
> you've been running for longer than the batteries last? No. Effective
> at any illumination at all if you didn't think to take your lights with
> you and you're out later than you anticipated? No. Effective at any
> illumination at all if your schedule was hectic and you just didn't get
> round to recharging in time? No.
>
> Saying "far more effective" than a dynamo setup without addressing what
> dynamos can do that rechargeable setups don't is not doing anyone any
> favours. Both can do what they do well better than the other, but a
> sweeping "one is far more effective than the other, period" is, at best,
> a foolish statement. I own both setups, so I can work from the
> strengths of either as the job in hand suits. That the dynamo doesn't
> do all the same jobs the rechargeables do doesn't detract from the fact
> that on balance I find the dynamo systems far more useful and user
> friendly, and that is a very, very important facet of how lighting
> setups are "effective".
>
> Pete.

I think you're being pedantic. Obviously some people want/need lots of
light that a dynamo can't provide and they shouldn't be berated for it.

As an aside, I think "dynamo" is an old fashioned word and it feels
funny typing it. I've never heard an electrical engineer use that word
but I suppose it does the job.

Friday
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Friday <[email protected]> wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> >
> >> I think TrailTech needs to target some marketing and advertising
> >> toward the bicycle community. Their complete HID system costs less
> >> than a good dynamo system, and is far more effective.
> >
> > Effective at what, though? Effective at excellent illumination
> > with juiced batteries? Yes. Effective at any illumination at all
> > after you've been running for longer than the batteries last? No.
> > Effective at any illumination at all if you didn't think to take
> > your lights with you and you're out later than you anticipated?
> > No. Effective at any illumination at all if your schedule was
> > hectic and you just didn't get round to recharging in time? No.
> >
> > Saying "far more effective" than a dynamo setup without addressing
> > what dynamos can do that rechargeable setups don't is not doing
> > anyone any favours. Both can do what they do well better than the
> > other, but a sweeping "one is far more effective than the other,
> > period" is, at best, a foolish statement. I own both setups, so I
> > can work from the strengths of either as the job in hand suits.
> > That the dynamo doesn't do all the same jobs the rechargeables do
> > doesn't detract from the fact that on balance I find the dynamo
> > systems far more useful and user friendly, and that is a very, very
> > important facet of how lighting setups are "effective".
>
> I think you're being pedantic. Obviously some people want/need lots
> of light that a dynamo can't provide and they shouldn't be berated
> for it.

He's not being pedantic. He's pointing out that there are way in which
dynamo (or "generator") lights are superior to battery powered lights.
The assumption that "more = better" with which battery light makers hawk
their wares has serious problems. The "effectiveness" of a light system
depends on more than the power consumed in making the light.
Effectiveness also depends on how that light is put on the road and how
well it lets you see.

For my needs, battery powered lights are not acceptable. I need enough
light to see the road, and I need it for 8 hours or more at a time. The
battery powered lights that have sufficient runtime don't provide enough
illumination. For someone riding single track at night, my light
systems wouldn't be adequate because they don't function well at 3 mph.

Everyone's gotta make a choice based on the uses to which they will put
their light. For me, a 3W dynamo powered system with optics designed
for use on a bicycle, properly mounted low on the bike, does the job.
YMMV etc.
 
Friday wrote:

> I've got a little web page for it here with some photos.
>
> http://www.hyperactive.oz.nf/Light5/Light5.htm
>
> Friday

Very nice. Now I see that they offer metal handlebar clamps in three
sizes, as well as the plastic adjustable clamp that comes with the
helmet kit.

I'm going to add some information about these lights to my web site,
"http://bicyclelighting.com" which gets a huge number of hits.
 
On May 1, 11:10 pm, Prisoner at War <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm wondering whether to get the Light & Motion ARC Li-Ion Ultra HID
> or the NiteRider Moab HID/LED. They're both the same price but the
> NiteRider burns over 50% longer at the same highest level of
> brightness (if I'm reading the specs right -- in which case I'm
> surprised Light & Motion haven't lowered their price at all; also, I'm
> not sure what it means for the NiteRider to be "HID/LED" [according to
> performancebike.com, anyway])....
>
> TIA, folks!

I hear Niterider's are good, but the following link seems to be best
light and less maintenance per dollar of any light I've investigated
yet.

http://www.bikemania.biz/FoxFury_Performance_Series_Bicycle_Light_System_p/foxfury_400-400.htm

$99 and 4-AA for around 6 to 8 hrs with few hour reserve at reduced
power. They've got one in different models with one made by Cree from
double to over triple that cost, but think it would just blind cars
and **** them off. But the expensive one is good to about 60mph, so it
can be used on many different powered vehicles, as auxillary lights
anyway for any vehicle. These are for fire departments and emergency
crews with different light models. This is cheapest one I've found so
far for the above model which seemed appropriate for bikes, 25mph and
wide track bright view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back