Roadies, do you use rear-view mirrors

[Tom Sherman]

frkrygowHALTSPAM wrote:
>
> > By high speed I was referring to speeds in the 40+ mph (70+ kph) range, which are easily
> > attainable on a moderate hill.
>
> ??? You consider a 40 mph hill to be "moderate?" Damn! Where do you live, and what gearing do you
> use for the really tough uphills?

I live on the south side of the Quad Cities (Rock Island County, IL), and there are several hills
within a short riding distance where I can easily exceed 40-mph. I have exceeded 40-mph on rides in
other parts of Illinois including the greater Chicago area (Kendall and McHenry Counties). My bike
has a gear range of 19-120 gear inches (1.6-9.6m development), so I can winch myself up most hills
despite being overweight and out of shape.
>
> Some of my rides take me into territory which is officially part of "Appalachia." Still, hitting
> 40 mph is a pretty rare event, and such a hill is very tough to climb. I don't consider those
> "moderate."
>
> I'm prepared to be impressed by your answer!

You likely will not be impressed by my answer - it is simply a function of weight and frontal area,
as I happen to ride a r*c*mb*nt lowracer.
[1] Since I am not trying to start a flamewar, no claims, positive or negative, about overall speed
or average speed on Mr. Brandt's "technical descents", but I will say that I easily out-coast
upright tandems.

[2] <http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg>

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

 

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>>
>> Tom Sherman wrote: ...
>> > By high speed I was referring to speeds in the 40+ mph (70+ kph) range, which are easily
>> > attainable on a moderate hill.
>>
>> ... and a decent generator such as the SON can easily cope with this speed, from what I've heard.
>
> To clarify: my concern is having enough light to see the road, not burning out the hub from
> excessive speed.

Well, then, to follow up on my previous post. I have plenty of light descending at 35-40 mph on
twisty rural roads with my Schmidt SON and Lumotec Oval headlamp. I've ridden literally dusk to dawn
with it on several occasions as well as using it for those rides when daylight just doesn't last
long enough to get in a decent ride.

At PBP this year, I was amazed at the poor coverage of many battery powered lights, even those with
10-15-30 watts of output. My 3 watts lit the road better than those lights, which tended to have a
very bright pool of light right in front of the wheel, so bright that it worsened people's night
vision. I had people turn off their lights and follow me at night- partly to conserve batteries but
also commenting that they could see better with my system than theirs.

A good lighting system is not about turning night to day, as too many people seem not to understand.
It's about making the things you need to be able to see clearly visible. If your beam is too intense
and lights close objects too brightly, then you'll actually have *more* trouble seeing the road in
an effective manner because your eyes do not dark-adapt.

The Lumotec Oval and the Bisy lamps for the SON hub provide an effective beam distribution- broad
enough to see an entire two lane road from edge to edge, and brighter at the top to make distant
objects visible. Most high-power battery systems use a lamp designed for movie and slide projectors,
with an even circular field and a rather sharp drop-off outside of the cone of light. Such lamps
should be mounted very low- e.g., near the hub- and aimed nearly horizontal to be of best use;
unfortunately they are normally mounted on the handlebars.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>> > By high speed I was referring to speeds in the 40+ mph (70+ kph) range, which are easily
>> > attainable on a moderate hill.
>>
>> I've got a Schmidt SON hub and I routinely go 35-40 mph on descents with it. It works fine- why
>> do you think it wouldn't?
>
> But is the light output sufficient to see far enough ahead for safety at those speeds?

Yup- see my other long-winded post on the topic.

> I have ridden a bike with a SON hub and for most riding it would be fine. However, for a long ride
> in hilly terrain, I would want considerably more light on the road.

I used it on a 300 km, 400 km and 600 km brevet- the latter two including hours of night riding- and
PBP which involved riding through the night on very hilly roads. I thought it was just fine.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom Sherman wrote: ...
> >> > By high speed I was referring to speeds in the 40+ mph (70+ kph) range, which are easily
> >> > attainable on a moderate hill.
> >>
> >> ... and a decent generator such as the SON can easily cope with this speed, from what I've
> >> heard.
> >
> > To clarify: my concern is having enough light to see the road, not burning out the hub from
> > excessive speed.
>
> Well, then, to follow up on my previous post. I have plenty of light descending at 35-40 mph on
> twisty rural roads with my Schmidt SON and Lumotec Oval headlamp. I've ridden literally dusk to
> dawn with it on several occasions as well as using it for those rides when daylight just doesn't
> last long enough to get in a decent ride.
>
> At PBP this year, I was amazed at the poor coverage of many battery powered lights, even those
> with 10-15-30 watts of output. My 3 watts lit the road better than those lights, which tended to
> have a very bright pool of light right in front of the wheel, so bright that it worsened people's
> night vision. I had people turn off their lights and follow me at night- partly to conserve
> batteries but also commenting that they could see better with my system than theirs.
>
> A good lighting system is not about turning night to day, as too many people seem not to
> understand. It's about making the things you need to be able to see clearly visible. If your beam
> is too intense and lights close objects too brightly, then you'll actually have *more* trouble
> seeing the road in an effective manner because your eyes do not dark-adapt.
>
> The Lumotec Oval and the Bisy lamps for the SON hub provide an effective beam distribution- broad
> enough to see an entire two lane road from edge to edge, and brighter at the top to make distant
> objects visible. Most high-power battery systems use a lamp designed for movie and slide
> projectors, with an even circular field and a rather sharp drop-off outside of the cone of light.
> Such lamps should be mounted very low- e.g., near the hub- and aimed nearly horizontal to be of
> best use; unfortunately they are normally mounted on the handlebars.

Well, I got spoiled by driving a car with 4 110-W Hella lamps up front, so I understand the night
into day concept.

The real reason I want a really bright light has to do with the behavior of motor vehicle operators.
On issue is that many of them will not dim their high-beams for an oncoming cyclist. A quick flash
of an 80-W high beam would solve this problem (except for the idiots who never dim their lights).
The second is that many motor vehicle operators assume that all bikes move at 10-mph or less, so
they deliberately cut off cyclists when turning at or crossing intersections. Ir they think it is a
motorcycle approaching, they will assume it is moving at a typical motor vehicle speed.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

 

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> The real reason I want a really bright light has to do with the behavior of motor vehicle
> operators. On issue is that many of them will not dim their high-beams for an oncoming cyclist. A
> quick flash of an 80-W high beam would solve this problem (except for the idiots who never dim
> their lights). The second is that many motor vehicle operators assume that all bikes move at
> 10-mph or less, so they deliberately cut off cyclists when turning at or crossing intersections.
> Ir they think it is a motorcycle approaching, they will assume it is moving at a typical motor
> vehicle speed.

Yes, a really bright light does seem to command more respect from drivers. I have a Cateye dual
lamp system that is several years old, and the "bright" lamp was enough to get the point across to
most drivers.

 

[Bernie]

[email protected] wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.tech Bernie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>: [email protected] wrote:
>
>:>
>:>It needs a rack for a seven pound 12 volt battery, Needs bullet proof tires and tubes. Front
>:>suspension for those hard to see at night pot holes and drunks laying in the road. Also needs
>:>good lighting all the way around.
>:>
>:>
>:>Everyone should have a night bike.
>:>
>:>
>:>
>:>
>: Okay then, must agree. What's your lighting system? That 7 lb battery sounds worthwhile. Still
>: not happy with my own lighting. Bernie
>
>
>I have two VistaLite 300's in the rear and one 20 watt halogen spot in the front. The battery
>actally only weighs 5 pounds. (I checked)
>
> --------------------------------
> Bob Masse' [email protected]
>--------------------------------
>
>
>
So I'm assuming this is a home brew lighting system? I'm such an electrical/mechanical klutz I'd
prefer to buy one... Any advice? Bernie

 

[Carl Fogel]

"frkrygowHALTSPAM" <"frkrygowHALTSPAM"@cc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> > frkrygowHALTSPAM wrote: ... I find I do perfectly well at 20 mph
> >>and faster with my old Soubitez generator.
> >
> >
> > By high speed I was referring to speeds in the 40+ mph (70+ kph) range, which are easily
> > attainable on a moderate hill.
>
> ??? You consider a 40 mph hill to be "moderate?" Damn! Where do you live, and what gearing do you
> use for the really tough uphills?
>
> Some of my rides take me into territory which is officially part of "Appalachia." Still, hitting
> 40 mph is a pretty rare event, and such a hill is very tough to climb. I don't consider those
> "moderate."
>
> I'm prepared to be impressed by your answer!

Dear Frank,

I just had a nice post elsewhere from Tom about chains on his recumbent, with the same picture, so I
was curious about his reply here.

My more normally-shaped touring bike and daily ride seem to provide the same sort of figures. Tucked
in at the bottom of the long downhill from the ridge west of Pueblo, Colorado, on the highway to
Wetmore, I expect to hit 39 mph on a reasonably still day and 41-45 mph with a tailwind down the the
steep part of the descent, whose curve would not challenge a Greyhound bus

The road not only drops over the edge of a bluff above the Arkansas River, but curves down the face
of the bluff near projecting spur, so it's usually sheltered from tailwinds. My highest speed since
1986 is 54 mph.

An experiment last weekend showed that a 1984 hatchback Subaru in neutral coasts at about 40 mph
down the same section.

Intrigued, I cobbled together an inclinometer, having read Jobst Brandt's comments on grade
percentages. Instead of an effete Euro-style meter-bar, I used a five-foot piece of heavy-wall
straight plastic plumbing pipe, carving a chunk out 50 inches from the end and dropping an ordinary
carpenter's square through a slit in the lower half of the pipe. The built-in level and the pipe
cradling the square, along with the adjusting screw to lock the ruler, made it more convenient for a
clumsy oaf to use and the extra ten inches make it more accurate than a meter stick.
__
| |
| |<--50"------------------------------->
______ | |______________________________________
| \____|__| | level visible inside pipe |
| _____________________________________________________|
| | / 3" /
|__| /
\___touch road_____________________/

Half a dozen tests up the steep part showed three and a half inches of ruler sticking out below the
leveled 50 inches of pipe, so it's only a roughly 7% grade.

Trudging up this steep part, I use my 39 x 21 second gear on ordinary 700c tires and do about 10
mph. Tom's reply refers to "overweight and out of shape," but I prefer to think of myself as being
ready for a hard winter and in no danger of overtraining.

A steeper hill is two blocks from my house, an S-bend down a natural gully. The vertical drop is
much less, but I expect 35 mph on the run-out after touching the brakes around the blind curve at
the bottom and without any tuck. Going back up this, I use the same 39 x 21 second gear, but it's
harder. For some reason, I haven't used my inclinometer on it yet.

Much steeper drops are available on the road climbing the bluffs on the other side of the river, but
I never ride over there, goat-head stickers being far more numerous in that area.

Some day I ought to take a test run down Rock Creek Hill on the road to Beulah, where the highway
drops for about a mile in a long, straight grade (noticeably steeper than the one that I described)
as it dives over the edge of the bluff.

None of this, I expect, would impress people who ride in the actual mountains west of Pueblo or
California, nor would such U.S. mountain riders impress real Alpine riders.

As Jobst Brandt points out, typical U.S. passes permit railroads. (There's an annual road race up
Pikes Peak.) We have almost nothing like his pictures of the Stelvio Pass:

http://www.paloaltobicycles.com/alps_photos/i05.html

Note the bus or motor coach with the car stuck behind it, far below in the hairpin turn on the upper
right. This is the kind of descent where riders like Jobst burn up brakes and scare the wits out of
ordinary riders.

I suspect that we could build such roads here in the U.S., but simply lack the historical population
pressure to do so. The kind of true Alpine country that has held European villages for thousands of
years is mostly wilderness here in Colorado. No tracks, trails, or paths led from one valley to the
next for cattle or traders. The San Juans are the closest thing to the Alps in Colorado and are
practically uninhabited.

Carl Fogel

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:44:36 -0500, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

>A shy person responded:

Would you please do proper attributions? These are worse than useless. It lumps at least a quarter
of the non-regular posters into one attribution.

Jasper

 

[Ted Bennett]

Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:44:36 -0500, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >A shy person responded:
>
> Would you please do proper attributions? These are worse than useless. It lumps at least a quarter
> of the non-regular posters into one attribution.

Sheldon does that to gently chide those who avoid saying who they are. It's nice to know who we are
talking to, even if, for example, "Jasper" is not your real name.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

 

[Sorni]

"Jasper Janssen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:44:36 -0500, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >A shy person responded:
>
> Would you please do proper attributions? These are worse than useless. It lumps at least a quarter
> of the non-regular posters into one attribution.

You must forgive Sheldon; he's new around here. (Why, he even did a "test" post the other day!)

Bill "now go to a mall and heckle Santa why doncha" S.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> On the other hand, there are no bicycle generator lights suitable for high-speed use and none that
> will let one be comparable with the motor vehicles for light output.

That's all very true. But the trick is to not over-ride our lighting systems (no matter what they
are), and to not have unreasonable expectations of them. I could easily kill light bulbs with speed
in my old Union setup, if I wanted to. But *any* store-bought bicycle lighting system is going to be
limited, compared to broad daylight. And none of 'em is going to afford the same visibility as broad
daylight. It's just a matter of adaptation, and an understanding of the light's limitations. So, I
can't go full-bore at night with my old Union setup. But I can still go. And I can inexorably
approach my urban destinations all night long, without depleting batteries.

Just because generator-powered lighting slows one down somewhat, doesn't mean it's to be discounted
or discarded.

> Hopefully, small fuel cells will become available in the near future that would power the
> equivalent of an automotive headlight for at least 16 hours.

Then all kinds of lights would be so bright, we wouldn't need headlights at all. The amateur
astronomers would hate it almost as much as neon signs. Nobody would ever again be able to see the
magic & majesty of the auroras. We don't need to hork huge gobs of light onto the environment just
to keep off of each others' toes. And we don't have to be the brightest thing in the nocturnal
luminescence environment. That would just lead to the futility of an arms race.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On the other hand, there are no bicycle generator lights suitable for high-speed use and none
> > that will let one be comparable with the motor vehicles for light output.
>
> That's all very true. But the trick is to not over-ride our lighting systems (no matter what they
> are), and to not have unreasonable expectations of them. I could easily kill light bulbs with
> speed in my old Union setup, if I wanted to. But *any* store-bought bicycle lighting system is
> going to be limited, compared to broad daylight. And none of 'em is going to afford the same
> visibility as broad daylight. It's just a matter of adaptation, and an understanding of the
> light's limitations. So, I can't go full-bore at night with my old Union setup. But I can still
> go. And I can inexorably approach my urban destinations all night long, without depleting
> batteries.
>
> Just because generator-powered lighting slows one down somewhat, doesn't mean it's to be
> discounted or discarded.

Some of us are willing to put up with hard climbs for the much shorter rewards of a fast downhill
run. Maybe one has to ride an aerodynamic recumbent to really understand this (upright bicycles
exhibit less speed variation with terrain).

> > Hopefully, small fuel cells will become available in the near future that would power the
> > equivalent of an automotive headlight for at least 16 hours.
>
> Then all kinds of lights would be so bright, we wouldn't need headlights at all. The amateur
> astronomers would hate it almost as much as neon signs. Nobody would ever again be able to see the
> magic & majesty of the auroras. We don't need to hork huge gobs of light onto the environment just
> to keep off of each others' toes. And we don't have to be the brightest thing in the nocturnal
> luminescence environment. That would just lead to the futility of an arms race.

If cyclists had lights as bright as the motor vehicles, it would not make a significant difference
in the overall amount of light being emitted. And having one light equivalent to an automotive
headlight on a bicycle would hardly lead to a lighting arms race, especially as allowable headlight
wattage for motor vehicles are regulated by law in most places.

Speaking of amateur astronomers, I wonder what Jon Isaacs is up to? Maybe he is in one of the dark
spots? <http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0208/earthlights02_dmsp_big.jpg>

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Some of us are willing to put up with hard climbs for the much shorter rewards of a fast downhill
> run. Maybe one has to ride an aerodynamic recumbent to really understand this (upright bicycles
> exhibit less speed variation with terrain).

Gee whiz, Tom (I sorta feel like I'm talkin' to myself <g>). I didn't mean to argue with you. I just
wanted to express another angle as to needs 'n wants. I /do/respect yours, and others' as well.
Sometimes I even covet them

As for hard climbs, they just seem to keep coming, and coming. Bring 'em on, I sez <pant, pant,
huff, puff, pant, tongue- hanging-out, pant, pant>. It's so easy to find the hard way around. And so
hard to find the easy way around.

Still, I figure *all* bicycle lighting systems have limitations that can be accidentally over-ridden
in nighttime darkness by a well-energized rider.

>> > Hopefully, small fuel cells will become available in the near future that would power the
>> > equivalent of an automotive headlight for at least 16 hours.
>>
>> Then all kinds of lights would be so bright, we wouldn't need headlights at all. The amateur
>> astronomers would hate it almost as much as neon signs. Nobody would ever again be able to see
>> the magic & majesty of the auroras. We don't need to hork huge gobs of light onto the environment
>> just to keep off of each others' toes. And we don't have to be the brightest thing in the
>> nocturnal luminescence environment. That would just lead to the futility of an arms race.
>
> If cyclists had lights as bright as the motor vehicles, it would not make a significant difference
> in the overall amount of light being emitted. And having one light equivalent to an automotive
> headlight on a bicycle would hardly lead to a lighting arms race, especially as allowable
> headlight wattage for motor vehicles are regulated by law in most places.
>
> Speaking of amateur astronomers, I wonder what Jon Isaacs is up to? Maybe he is in one of the dark
> spots? <http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0208/earthlights02_dmsp_big.jpg>

Maybe he's riding around, instead of talking about riding around? But then, he's in a climate where
one can do that.

Speaking of climates, y'know those cheap, flimsy, black plastic, rectangular flower pot thingies
that annual bedding plants come in? They make pretty good toe clip covers. I stuck a couple on with
white glue. Contact cement would've probably been better, but I don't have any. At least they keep
the toes of my shoes dry. We've been deluged here lately. And I have to admit, I've been driven
indoors for a few days, by the precip.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[A Muzi]

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:44:36 -0500, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>A shy person responded:

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> Would you please do proper attributions? These are worse than useless. It lumps at least a quarter
> of the non-regular posters into one attribution.

I for one think Sheldon is exteremely polite toward cowardly posters who hide behind aliases. Would
you have him abet them?

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:24:39 GMT, Ted Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:44:36 -0500, Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >A shy person responded:
>>
>> Would you please do proper attributions? These are worse than useless. It lumps at least a
>> quarter of the non-regular posters into one attribution.
>
>Sheldon does that to gently chide those who avoid saying who they are. It's nice to know who we are
>talking to, even if, for example, "Jasper" is not your real name.

For one thing, it's not at all clear that "Ariel" is *not* her real name, and for another I prefer
to be able to use attributions for what they are meant to do: indicating who was speaking if a post
or two is missing from the feed. I'm not agitating particularly against Sheldon's personalised
attributions, hell, I kind of like them. But when "a shy person" in particular crops up, it can be
any one of hundreds of people, and then the purpose of attributing at all goes out the windows.

I suppose if Sheldon saw Hawk posting here he'd do the same, despite the fact that in a very real,
in-real-life way that *is* her name.

Jasper

 

[Anybody43]

[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote in message
> [email protected] (AnyBody43) wrote in message

[Mucho snipping ...]

> Dear Anybody (well, you know what I mean),
>
> That's a nice study to browse, quite readable. It
...
> Thanks for pointing out an enjoyable and interesting page. Carl Fogel

Glad you liked it. As for "Anybody", I needed an anonymous..ish "handle" in 5 seconds one afternoon
to try and get some Linux stuff sorted out and have never got round to doing a new one.

I got back into usenet news with rec.skiing.alpine and feel, after experiencing a bit of that
sinking feeling when I used my work e-mail, that for the present it is better to avoid posting real
addresses.

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:42:26 -0500, "frkrygowHALTSPAM" <"frkrygowHALTSPAM"@cc.ysu.edu> wrote:
>Tom Sherman wrote:
>> By high speed I was referring to speeds in the 40+ mph (70+ kph) range, which are easily
>> attainable on a moderate hill.
>
>??? You consider a 40 mph hill to be "moderate?" Damn! Where do you live, and what gearing do you
>use for the really tough uphills?

40mph is a normal hill around here. The gearing I use to get up those hills varies; early in the
ride, it's 38 by 25 (and I wish I had a granny); later in the ride it's step by step (walking).

>Some of my rides take me into territory which is officially part of "Appalachia." Still, hitting 40
>mph is a pretty rare event, and such a hill is very tough to climb. I don't consider those
>"moderate."

I find 40mph downhills on almost every ride I take. Going up them sucks; that's part of the reason I
don't use a bicycle to get places. I'd be so late and so sweaty that I should have just stayed home.

That's why a 9 speed cassette with one-tooth differences is useless for me, and a triple front
(maybe 32 x 42 x 53) with a wide-range rear (11-29 or better) would be perfect on my road bike.

Maybe you just need an aerobelly for getting down those appalachian hills.

>I'm prepared to be impressed by your answer!

I don't see what's so impressive about struggling and sweating to get up a hill and feeling like
**** by the time you get the chance to go down it. If I stopped and rested at the top of some of
those hills, and had a 53x11 or taller top end, I could probably hit 50 going down.

In fact, if there were no intersections or traffic lights for a couple miles east of my house, I'd
be living on a 40mph (or faster) hill. It certainly is a good argument for throwing the bike in the
truck and parking somewhere lower for a century attempt -- then I don't end up trudging up the last
couple miles, dead from riding all day.

In the flat midwest, I could probably do a century and a half. Here, I've been unable to
best 68 miles.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Java Man]

In article <[email protected]>, anybody43 @hotmail.com says...
> I got back into usenet news with rec.skiing.alpine and feel, after experiencing a bit of that
> sinking feeling when I used my work e-mail, that for the present it is better to avoid posting
> real addresses.
>
>
Amen!

Rick "Terrorist"

 

[Tom Sherman]

Rick Onanian wrote:
> ... In the flat midwest, I could probably do a century and a half. Here, I've been unable to best
> 68 miles.

I have been able to exceed 40-mph coasting in East Central Illinois. I also did a 40+ mile club ride
where I only used my middle chainring and 4 rear cogs (48-72 gear inches). It would be a great place
to ride a fixie.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

 

[Barry Davidson]

Greetings, If I could delurk for a mo'........ With the SON hub, a secondary light can be added to
supply a total 6W at high speeds.. The second light can be switched on when necessary and can be
pointed further ahead like a high beam. http://peterwhitecycles.com/Schmidt-Lumotec.asp I've been
using my Schmidt for touring and everyday utility for 3 yrs. The only caution about Schmidt and
speed is with the disc brake version. Heavy braking under load on fast descents will heat up the
disc which will in turn heat up th hub possibly damaging the magnets. Barry Davidson

-- Be Visible...Be Predictable...Be Aware Obey the rules of the road TransportationCyclist --cycling
as primary transportation http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/TransportationCyclist/

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > > By high speed I was referring to speeds in the 40+ mph (70+ kph) range, which are easily
> > > attainable on a moderate hill.
> >
> > I've got a Schmidt SON hub and I routinely go 35-40 mph on descents with it. It works fine- why
> > do you think it wouldn't?
>
> But is the light output sufficient to see far enough ahead for safety at those speeds?
>
> I have ridden a bike with a SON hub and for most riding it would be fine. However, for a long ride
> in hilly terrain, I would want considerably more light on the road.
>
> Tom Sherman - Planet Earth