Review: Solidlights 1203d (long)

[SMS]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Clive George <[email protected]>:
>> Bollocks. But you know that already. Your definition of expert is "somebody
>> who agrees with SMS".
>
> Or "who can be quoted out of context to..."
>
> Ken Kifer is one of SMS's "experts" - now what kind of lights did Ken
> Kifer use all his life?

Ken Kifer is someone I admire because he was able to go beyond what we
see in this newsgroup. He didn't have the attitude of 'everyone should
do what I do because if they don't that somehow reflects negatively on
my choices,' and he didn't then come up with all sorts of bizarre
rationalizations to defend his actions." Ken understood what lights were
best for commuting, and what was best for touring. I corresponded with
him occasionally, though about other subjects, not lights.

He wrote: "For commuters, the best front light is the very bright
rechargeable lamp."

This is not out of context. You can read the entire statement at
"http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/traffic.htm" and scroll down
to _Be Visible, Night and Day_.

Each type of light and power source has its pros and cons. Being
self-powered and not having to charge batteries is a good thing. It
looks like the Solidlights make it possible to have a good beam for
cycling while not relying on batteries. Also read the review at
"http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/page4.htm" near the bottom.
Ironically, Peter White doesn't sell the SolidLight, at least not yet.

 

[Peter Clinch]

SMS wrote:

> Each type of light and power source has its pros and cons.

Indeed. But you persist in listing a "con" of dynamo setups is that
they're "inadequate" for things which Real People find, and have proven
them to be, completely adequate for.

> It
> looks like the Solidlights make it possible to have a good beam for
> cycling while not relying on batteries.

As do various other, considerably cheaper options on the market. How do
we know? People using them and finding them (and proving them in use)
to be perfectly adequate.

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]

Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>
>> Does the Fenix have an adjustable spot to flood lens like the Maglite?
>
> Don't even mention a maglite in comparison to a fenix. That's like
> comparing a candle to the landing lights of a 747.
> http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/fenix_l1dce-l2dce.htm

(Not sure if this got posted before, I didn't see it on my newsreader)

I went and picked up the L2DCE earlier tonight. It is an incredible
light. You're absolutely right about the comparison with a Mag-Lite LED
version being almost sac religious.

The pictures of it do not really give a good perspective of how small it
is. The guy from eLite was asking me if I was sure I wanted the bicycle
holders he sells
("http://www.eliteled.com/products/accessory/flholder.html") because the
Fenix diameter isn't wide enough for it to hold it. I bought it anyway,
as I can use a rubber spacer around the body of the flashlight. He was a
good guy, meeting me locally rather than insisting on shipping it the
mile from where he is located to my house.

The beam is very good for bicycling, with a strong spot beam but with
sufficient flood to illuminate to the sides.

I had been using a Streamlight Strion, and while slightly brighter in
spot mode than the Fenix (even though rated at only 116 lumens) it was
not as convenient as it used a proprietary Li-Ion battery, and the bulb
did not last all that long, only a few hundred hours.

I certainly can't see the advantage of the DiNotte over the Fenix L2D CE
which is rated at 135 Lumens at highest power (the L2D CE at mid power
is rated at 80 lumens). The DiNotte with the Luxeon 5W bulb is rated at
120 lumens. I know that DiNotte is using Cree LEDs in some new products,
but it apparently hasn't made it to their existing products.

I especially like the different available power levels and modes, as it
isn't necessary to use it at full power all the time.

The reviews I've read of the SolidLights indicate that they have optics
very much similar to what two Fenix lights would look like, a
symmetrical beam that doesn't have the issues that most lights designed
for dynamos have by necessity.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> Ken Kifer is someone I admire because he was able to go beyond what
> we see in this newsgroup. He didn't have the attitude of 'everyone
> should do what I do because if they don't that somehow reflects
> negatively on my choices,'

Then perhaps you should take him for a role model.

 

[SMS]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ken Kifer is someone I admire because he was able to go beyond what
>> we see in this newsgroup. He didn't have the attitude of 'everyone
>> should do what I do because if they don't that somehow reflects
>> negatively on my choices,'
>
> Then perhaps you should take him for a role model.

As far as lighting goes, I do. I have some dynamo lights which are fine
for touring in case I get caught out at night unexpectedly, and for
commuting I use what he recommends for the reasons he states.

I just wish you and a few others would take to heart his advice on the
best lights for commuting. I wish none you any harm, and the fact that
you've been lucky so far with low power lights does not diminish the
advice of Kifer and so many, many, other experts and organizations.

Just look at some the really idiotic statements that are made in this
lighting thread, and previous ones. Suddenly I'm now selling MR16 based
systems? Suddenly you only need good illumination when you're going down
a hill? And people think that this kind of **** convinces others!

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Kifer is someone I admire because he was able to go beyond what
>>> we see in this newsgroup. He didn't have the attitude of 'everyone
>>> should do what I do because if they don't that somehow reflects
>>> negatively on my choices,'
>>
>> Then perhaps you should take him for a role model.
>
>As far as lighting goes, I do.

Woosh!

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Ken Kifer is someone I admire because he was able to go beyond
> >> what we see in this newsgroup. He didn't have the attitude of
> >> 'everyone should do what I do because if they don't that somehow
> >> reflects negatively on my choices,'
> >
> > Then perhaps you should take him for a role model.
>
> As far as lighting goes, I do.

Perhaps in the choice of your lighting, but not in your attitude.

> I have some dynamo lights which are fine for touring in case I get
> caught out at night unexpectedly, and for commuting I use what he
> recommends for the reasons he states.
>
> I just wish you and a few others would take to heart his advice on
> the best lights for commuting. I wish none you any harm, and the fact
> that you've been lucky so far with low power lights does not diminish
> the advice of Kifer and so many, many, other experts and
> organizations.

Ken's choice of lights didn't save his life, tragically. As far as
being "lucky with low power lights," I have never ever had a close call
with a car while riding thousands of miles at night with my "low power
lights." It's not luck- it's that people can see me just fine with what
I am using and I can see just fine with what I am using.

> Just look at some the really idiotic statements that are made in this
> lighting thread, and previous ones. Suddenly I'm now selling MR16
> based systems? Suddenly you only need good illumination when you're
> going down a hill? And people think that this kind of **** convinces
> others!

Nope, we just don't engage in the circular logic you use.

 

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>> But you're still deperately ignoring anyone who feels that way. Why?
>
> I don't ignore them. But I would like them to stop making up all these
> stories and excuses.

Well, I don't recall making any up earlier, but if you want I have a
good one about some spider monkeys my daughters liked. I can't
guarantee the quality, they liked it, but at three and six they are not
exactly theatre critics.

I don't recall anyone making excuses either.

> If avoiding charging batteries, either out of necessity (multi-day all
> night rides) or out of a desire to avoid connecting a charger, then
> that's certainly a valid preference, however silly the latter may
> appear to some.

Well, I'm glad you merely think we're flighty nincompoops instead of
outright imbeciles. Your high estimation of our character shows your
genteel charm and manners.

> But stop it there. The endless rationalizations about how sufficient
> the illumination is are not something anyone that looks at the issue
> rationally actually believes.

Well, Man is the rationalizing animal. Regardless of that, I think it's
rather that you discount every experience except your own. I can't help
it you'd rather rationalize why everyone else is wrong, rather than
rationally listen to anyone else's thoughts.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have
a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."
-Dan Quayle

 

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Just look at some the really idiotic statements that are made in this
> lighting thread, and previous ones. Suddenly I'm now selling MR16 based
> systems?

Well, to be fair, they (incorrectly) said you *used* to sell them.

> Suddenly you only need good illumination when you're going down a hill?

Funny, noone said that in this thread. You should see a debate coach or
something, you seem to be incapable of staying on target.

> And people think that this kind of **** convinces others!

Well, some people [1] bring a small candle of illumination to the
argument. I welcome anyone who can civilly, reasonably hold a
discussion.

[1] I like to think this of myself.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"When you know not whereof you speak, your mouth is best used
for chewing."
-Slovotsky's Law # ?

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 14, 2:54 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Ken Kifer is someone I admire because he was able to go beyond what
> >> we see in this newsgroup. He didn't have the attitude of 'everyone
> >> should do what I do because if they don't that somehow reflects
> >> negatively on my choices,'
>
> > Then perhaps you should take him for a role model.
>
> As far as lighting goes, I do.

Except you continue your strong, distorted arguments against the
lighting system he used.

> I just wish you and a few others would take to heart his advice on the
> best lights for commuting.

I'm sure I knew Ken much better than most people posting here -
unless, that is, others corresponded with him frequently, as I did,
and unless others worked with him on websites, as I did, and unless
he'd planned to visit others on his tours, as he planned to visit my
wife and me. Sadly, he died before making it here.

Ken was a good man, and a very unusual one. He had his failings, and
he was not perfect - but none of us are perfect. He was not
infallible, but he was usually tolerant of others' opinions, and he
was usually open to changing his own opinion.

But I do think he'd be very riled at Steven M. Scharf using his name
in vain over one sentence. And I think that if he were in this
discussion, he'd be arguing against Scharf.

> I wish none you any harm, and the fact that
> you've been lucky so far with low power lights does not diminish the
> advice of Kifer and so many, many, other experts and organizations.

We've been "lucky"?

"Lucky" is when something happens once, or twice, or three times. But
when someone is "lucky" thousands of times in a row, with never an
incident of "unlucky," a rational person realizes it's not luck.

I've cycled at night using just my generator set thousands of times,
in all sorts of conditions - zero traffic to heavy traffic, total
darkness to well-lit streets, city and suburb and country roads and
bike paths. My success with these lights is not "luck." The same is
true for other generator users posting here.

> Just look at some the really idiotic statements that are made in this
> lighting thread, and previous ones. Suddenly I'm now selling MR16 based
> systems?

IIRC, the statement was that you _used_ to sell rechargeable MR-based
systems. The poster was wrong only in that your failed commercial
attempt involved a different lamp. You're obviously still prejudiced
in favor of the system you couldn't sell.

> Suddenly you only need good illumination when you're going down
> a hill?

My! You do set up lots of straw men, don't you? It's the same
technique you use when "arguing" on your website, where people can't
correct your false claims.

Why not use direct quotes, instead of putting words in people's
mouths?

> And people think that this kind of **** convinces others!

I'm not seeing many posters convinced by your ****.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:05:54 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]>
wrote:
>This has been humorous but silly. Battery lights are widely varied as
>are dynamo systems. There's more difference within each range than
>between the two groups as groups. Let's move on.

You've got to be kidding! It's autumn in the northern hemisphere! It
gets dark early! What, you think we'll all stop posting and go ride a
bike!! In the dark???



Email address works as is.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, SMS
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I don't ignore them. But I would like them to stop making up all these
> stories and excuses. If avoiding charging batteries, either out of
> necessity (multi-day all night rides) or out of a desire to avoid
> connecting a charger, then that's certainly a valid preference, however
> silly the latter may appear to some.
>
> But stop it there. The endless rationalizations about how sufficient the
> illumination is are not something anyone that looks at the issue
> rationally actually believes.

You do write a lot of bollocks, you know. In parts of the world where night
riding is something routine that everyone does (Holland, Denmark,
Germany), dynamos are almost universal. In parts of the world where night
cycling is rare and eccentric (Great Britain, the United States), dynamos
are rare /except/ among those groups of people who ride regularly at
night.

Why is this, do you suppose?

Do you think the Danes, the Dutch and the Germans are either poorer or less
technically advanced than the citizens of the United States? Do you think
they are genetically endowed with vastly better eyesight?

Or could it be that they've actually tried a properly set up dynamo system,
and know from experience that it is just enormously better and more
reliable than any battery system?

In the US you can get away with spouting arrant prejudiced nonsense about
dynamo lighting systems, and 99% of the time you get away with it because
no-one else has ever tried one either so they can't contradict you. In
Europe, however, we have tried them, we do know how good they are, and we
do know when someone is talking complete bollocks.

> The actual power source is immaterial, what matters is whether or not
> the power source is capable of powering adequate lamps. The experts
> agree that a very bright rechargeable battery powered lighting system is
> the best system for commuting, precisely because the dynamo systems
> cannot produce sufficient power.

Which experts are these? I'm just preparing to ditch my HID system in
favour of a dynamo for night commuting. Why? Better light, more
reliability.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
resin in the bottom of the toolbag.

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Which experts are these? I'm just preparing to ditch my HID system in
> favour of a dynamo for night commuting. Why? Better light, more
> reliability.
>

Now that is bollocks ;-) My HID system is very antisocial because it casts
shadows of all the riders in front that their lights don't alleviate - good
dynamo lights included. However for convenience without someone with a HID
around, dynamo lights are fine. There is the minor point on Scharf's
bollocks though that if you only have one light, anything more powerful
than a dynamo light is illegal in the UK.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Peter Clinch]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>> Which experts are these? I'm just preparing to ditch my HID system in
>> favour of a dynamo for night commuting. Why? Better light, more
>> reliability.
>>
>
> Now that is bollocks ;-) My HID system is very antisocial because it casts
> shadows of all the riders in front that their lights don't alleviate - good
> dynamo lights included.

Simon didn't define "better", you have made an assumption... Tell
me, does your HID light cast much of a shadow when the battery's
charging up indoors?

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/

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Simon Brooke wrote:
> I'm just preparing to ditch my HID system in
>favour of a dynamo for night commuting. Why? Better light, more
>reliability.

What do you mean by better light in this context? My opinion of HIDs
based purely on reviews is that without either a properly shaped
dipped beam or the ability to easily dim them (without significantly
shortening the life of the very expensive bulb), they are probably
unsuitable for road use with oncoming traffic. But I've never tried
one.

 

[SMS]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>> Which experts are these? I'm just preparing to ditch my HID system in
>> favour of a dynamo for night commuting. Why? Better light, more
>> reliability.
>>
>
> There is the minor point on Scharf's
> bollocks though that if you only have one light, anything more powerful
> than a dynamo light is illegal in the UK.

That's a confusing way to state it. You must have the low power light in
addition to any higher power lights you have. Hopefully this law will be
changed soon.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Simon
> Brooke wrote:
>> I'm just preparing to ditch my HID system in
>>favour of a dynamo for night commuting. Why? Better light, more
>>reliability.
>
> What do you mean by better light in this context? My opinion of HIDs
> based purely on reviews is that without either a properly shaped
> dipped beam or the ability to easily dim them (without significantly
> shortening the life of the very expensive bulb), they are probably
> unsuitable for road use with oncoming traffic. But I've never tried
> one.

Just so. Not much good for illumination in real road situations, dangerous
to oncoming traffic, expensive consumables, short run-time, not reliable.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
;; Voltaire RIP Dr David Kelly 1945-2004

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> Which experts are these? I'm just preparing to ditch my HID system in
>> favour of a dynamo for night commuting. Why? Better light, more
>> reliability.
>>
>
> Now that is bollocks ;-) My HID system is very antisocial because it
> casts shadows of all the riders in front that their lights don't
> alleviate - good
> dynamo lights included.

'more' != 'better'.

Using an HID (while it's running) your night sight is so shafted that you
can't see anything at all outside the illuminated area. This simply isn't
safe on rural roads. Furthermore, unless you have the beam angled so low
that it isn't giving you efficient ahead illumination, it's dangerous to
oncoming drivers, so the distance ahead you can see is actually less.

Fine off road, not a good option on.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; L'etat c'est moi -- Louis XVI
;; I... we... the Government -- Tony Blair

 

[Tony Raven]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>> Which experts are these? I'm just preparing to ditch my HID system
>>> in favour of a dynamo for night commuting. Why? Better light, more
>>> reliability.
>>>
>>
>> Now that is bollocks ;-) My HID system is very antisocial because it
>> casts shadows of all the riders in front that their lights don't
>> alleviate - good dynamo lights included.
>
> Simon didn't define "better", you have made an assumption... Tell
> me, does your HID light cast much of a shadow when the battery's
> charging up indoors?
>

Errhumm....he said "better light" which one presumes, in the context to
which he was replying, means the light it gives out is better. YMMV


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in newsndtr4-hf3.ln1
@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk:
>
> 'more' != 'better'.
>
> Using an HID (while it's running) your night sight is so shafted that you
> can't see anything at all outside the illuminated area. This simply isn't
> safe on rural roads. Furthermore, unless you have the beam angled so low
> that it isn't giving you efficient ahead illumination, it's dangerous to
> oncoming drivers, so the distance ahead you can see is actually less.
>
> Fine off road, not a good option on.
>

I think it must depend on what HID system you have. I get a good central
and plenty of peripheral illumination so I can see far more what is going
on than with my other lights and I have not encountered any problems with
car drivers complaining about it being too bright either. It allows me to
ride with much greater confidence than my old Niterider 20+12 system and
lots of people I ride with get very interested in getting one once they've
seen the illumination you get. YMMV

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell