"cyccommute" <
[email protected]> writes:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> [email protected] writes: <snip> "Far, far superior" is only
>> an opinion, not a fact. I've got both of the lights whereof you
>> speak, and since getting the Schmidt and Lumotec I haven't used the
>> NiteRider except as a flashlight around the house. IMHO the
>> Schmidt is superior in both lighting and convenience. But how can
>> this be, you ask, since more is better and 15 watts is obviously
>> superior to 3 watts? Is there really no comparison? Let's put
>> that assumption to the test, shall we?
>
> Let's put some of your assumptions to the test shall we?
Always an excellent idea.
>> First, let's start with convenience. To use the NiteRider, I have
>> to plan ahead to make sure the battery is charged up. I can't just
>> go out for a night ride on a whim. To use the Schmidt, all I have
>> to do is pedal the bike and flip a switch. It's 8:40 at night as I
>> type this and I could go on a ride with my Schmidt in 15 minutes.
>> I'd need a lead time of four hours or more to go on a ride with the
>> NiteRider- so I could leave after midnight.
>
> Convenience: Batteries always ready to go. I have mutliple sets
> cobbled together from various sources. Charged, checked and
> exercised monthly. I can still be out the door in 15 minutes.
> Plus, if I want to go for a road ride, I can swap lights to the bike
> easily or if I want to ride a mountain bike I can change to that
> bike or any of the others in my fleet. Can't do that with a hub
> dynamo or easily with any other style.
You've demonstrated my point, thanks. You've got a lot less
convenience because you have to plan ahead, charge up all the
batteries, make sure you grab one that's charged when you decide to go
out for a ride, etc. You are correct in that going for a mountain
bike ride is less convenient with a hub generator, for two reasons.
First, my hub generator is built into a 700C wheel. Second, I don't
have a mountain bike. I do ride offroad on whatever bike I happen to
be on without worrying about it, but a hub generator is not a good
choice for slow off-road riding. I'd already mentioned that
limitation, which I am sure that someone of your astuteness already
noted. I'll happily stipulate that hub and bottle generators are not
a good choice for MTBs.
Oddly enough, though, by some miracle of technology called a "quick
release," I *can* easily swap wheels from one bike to the next. I
have a lamp mounted on several bikes and just swap the generator
hubbed wheel between them. That adds, oh, about 2 minutes to the prep
time.
>> Second, to use the NiteRider, I have to plan the distance of my
>> ride based on my estimate of the available battery life- which
>> changes with the temperature, how long it's been charging, etc. I
>> have to leave a margin of safety for flat tires or just guessing
>> wrong about battery life. With the Schmidt, I can ride whatever
>> length of time I feel like.
>
> Distance: Because I use my lights for transportation, I know how
> long I'm going to be out. If I want to be out longer or go for a
> recreational ride, I carry more batteries and I carry more then one
> light so that if I want I can extend the ride by using only one at a
> time.
So you're hauling several lighting systems around to make up for their
individual inadequacies. I guess that if that works for you, go for
it. But don't bother to make the claim that this is some sort of
equivalence to the convenience of a hub generator system (which I do
carry spares for- light bulbs which take 30 seconds to replace and
weigh a few grams apiece).
>> Third, the lamp for my NiteRider is (naturally) mounted on my
>> helmet, which puts the source of illumination above my eyes. This
>> results in decreased depth perception through washing out the
>> information needed about the road surface. The pool of light is
>> shorter, since it had to be pointed down at a sharper angle in
>> order to see the road in front of the wheel, which leaves the road
>> ahead unlit. There is an advantage in that the beam is pointed
>> with head movement, so the light tends to fall on whatever I am
>> looking at- but if I am looking away from the road, I lose
>> peripheral vision that might reveal something in the road that I
>> might hit. The lamp for my Schmidt is mounted at the fork crown,
>> giving a much longer pool of light that illuminates both the riad
>> right in front of my wheel as well as a block ahead. Since the
>> road is always illuminated, I have the advantage of being able to
>> see something in the road with peripheral vision if I am looking
>> away.
>
> I ride with a 15 watt NiteRider on my helmet all the time. If I
> lose the battery on that one I will transfer a handlebar lamps
> battery to helmet because I find it far more useful than the
> handlebar mount. I have never experienced any problems with depth
> perception from a helmet mounted lamp even when riding singletrack
> trails with lots of rocks. In fact, the higher mount makes for
> shorter shadows and I can pick out details better.
The reverse is actually true- the shorter shadows reduce the
visibility of surface textures. You're demonstrably incorrect on this
(see, for example, James J. Gibson's _The Senses as Perceptual
Systems_ and _The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception_ and Lloyd
Kaufman's _Perception: The World Transformed_). This also reduces
your depth perception, because most of our perception of depth is
actually related to textural information on the ground, not binocular
vision which ceases to be a significant factor in depth perception at
distances greater than about 50 meters. Humans can estimate far
greater distances quite accurately.
> With lights mounted on the handlebar and a helmet mounted light, I
> adjust the helmet light to shine in front of the handlebar light so
> I don't have any sort of problem with a sharp beam angle. No
> problems with peripheral vision either since the light goes where my
> head goes and will illuminate anything I want to look at.
So here you are using two light systems- a handebar light and a helmet
light- to make up for the deficiencies of both. This again
demonstrates the lack of equivalence and superiority of the generator
hub and low mounted, appropriately collimated headlamp. Although if
you mounted your handlebar light about a foot lower on the bike, you'd
make up for a lot of the it's problems.
>> Fourth, the NiteRider is so bright that it interferes with dark
>> adaptation by over-lighting close or reflective objects. This
>> actually makes it harder to see while riding at night, not better.
>> My Schmidt/Lumotec, providing less intense light but better
>> coverage, lets my eyes get dark adapted, so that 40 mph descents on
>> unfamiliar roads feel fine. People with normal night vision can
>> see with these lights just fine.
>
>> Fifth, the highly focused beam of the NiteRider doesn't illuminate
>> street signs unless I point the light at them (resulting in
>> dazzling brightness that makes it hard to see well for the next
>> couple of minutes). The Schmidt/Lumotec provides a wide enough
>> beam to allow me to at least see street signs and usually to read
>> them; since these often contain moderately helpful information,
>> IMHO this is good.
>
> Now this just doesn't make sense. How can the light interfere with
> dark adaptation by over lighting close objects AND not illuminate?
> I can illuminate a street sign from blocks away if needed and have
> done it often. Never had any problem with being blinded by flashing
> my light on a reflective sign either, even when riding along a dark
> creek park where they have lots of them to warn rafters of up coming
> hazards. (Are they reflective for those roving bands of night time
> watersports enthusiasts?)
One of the problems of these high powered lights is an overly tight
beam in a misguided effort to make as bright a pool of illumination as
possible. The tight beam illuminates in a small cone, which does not
include the street signs unless the light is pointed up at them and
off of the road. You are left having to decide which you want to see-
the road or things above the road or off to the side. My Lumotec,
having a broader and very even spread of light, doesn't make me have
to make such choices.
At PBP last summer, many folks using NiteRiders and the like (as well
as LED headlights, which have the same problem of a narrow beam) were
to be found riding behind guys like me with generators and Lumotecs.
We could see better than they could, and their actions demonstrated
this. They were also hauling at least one and usually two backup
batteries, and had to have more waiting at the bag drops- and they
were still stressed about their batteries running out before they got
to the next controle or the sun came up.
>> Sixth, I don't like the feeling of the battery cable running up the
>> back of my neck and the extra weight of the light on my helmet.
>> For that matter, I don't always wear a helmet to attach the
>> NiteRider to.
>
> Personal preference.
Indeed.
>> So, the Schmidt/Lumotec may not be the best choice for you for your
>> own reasons (e.g., off-road riding at slow speeds is not a
>> situation where the Schmidt works well). That's fine. But this
>> malarkey that the NiteRider is "far, far superior" is hogwash. It
>> does put out more light, but it is less useful than the Schmidt.
>
> You might want to add "for me" to that last statement. For Russell
> (and myself) the battery lights are "far, far superior" to dyanamos.
> I've tried them and not found them to be that useful. Bottle ones
> don't work on the steep sideways of mountain bike tires (tend to
> creep into the wheels). They don't work off-road. I have multiple
> bikes that I use and I might want to ride a mountain bike one day, a
> road bike the next or a fixed gear the next, so rather then having
> multiple dynamos, one set of lights (actually 3 lamps and several
> batteries)works out better for me and, perhaps, others.
But that wasn't what Russell said, was it? Nope. He said, as if it
were a fact, that NiteRiders were "far, far superior." I was just
pointing out that he is wrong. They may work better for him, but that
mere fact doesn't make them objectively or universally superior.
> So let's be careful with throwing around the "hogwash" comments,
> shall we?
What fun would that be? This is Usenet!