Brightest LED Headlight?

[Ed Light]

Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye the one?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Fight Spam:
http://bluesecurity.com

[Ron Hardin]

Ed Light wrote:
>
> Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye the one?

The EL-500 is as bright as I've seen, and I need 4 of them to get along
decently.

The advantage of LEDs is long runtime on the batteries, which of course
means that they don't put out much light, either.

There are supposedly brighter LEDs but they also have shorter lifetimes,
and less runtime, becoming really expensive bulbs in effect.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[Ed Light]

"Ron Hardin" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Light wrote:
>>
>> Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye the one?
>
> The EL-500 is as bright as I've seen, and I need 4 of them to get along
> decently.

Do you mean 4 side-by-side? What brand are they?

Thanks.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Fight Spam:
http://bluesecurity.com

[Gooserider]

"Ed Light" > wrote in message
news:J6WGf.32277$jR.29397@fed1read01...
> Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye the one?
>
>
Brightest? I think you have to choose between the Light & Motion Vega, the
DiNotte Ultralight, and the Blackburn X3. Cateye also has the Double and
Triple Shots. All are going to run you about $200. I have the DiNotte, and
it's very bright.

[mike]

"Ed Light" > wrote in news:J6WGf.32277$jR.29397
@fed1read01:

> Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye the one?
>
>

I don't know about the brightest, but this is has some nice pictures:
http://eddys.com/page.cfm?PageID=493
Mike

[rdclark]

Ed Light wrote:
> Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye the one?

The Luxeon-based single-LED lights, which come in 1 to 5 watt
varieties, seem to be the pick right now. They're brighter than the
units based on multiple small LEDs like the Cateye.

I have a Light & Motion Vega which I'd characterize as "just barely
adequate as primary lighting." That's pretty good for an LED, but you
can get more light for less money from traditional halogen units. The
Vega is roughly equivalent to a 10W halogen, gets equivalent run-times
as a lead-acid bottle battery, but is self-contained (no external
battery). This is a 3.5W Luxeon. I haven't seen the even pricier 5W
ones.

RichC

[David L. Johnson]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:09:59 -0800, Ed Light wrote:

> Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye the one?

No. The diNotte has a 5-Watt LED emitter, and is bright enough to see as
well as be seen. It is certainly brighter than a 10W halogen, and
comparable to a 15w halogen (my old NiteRider 15 had a brighter center
area, but was not as good away from that center region as the diNotte --
besides, it was never reliable and the diNotte is). It is also small,
light, and easy to mount/unmount. It isn't cheap, but cheaper than
anything else that bright.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
_`\(,_ | death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
(_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
-- J. R. R. Tolkein

[Neil Brooks]

"Ed Light" > wrote:

>Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye the one?

I'd look at -- at least /look at/ -- Lupine's line.

http://lupine.de/en/products/products.html

The Wilma 8 and Wilma 4 are likely to be as impressive as their Edison
10 that I use....

NB: You get what you pay for, though. ($$)
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

[Eric Babula]

mike > wrote in
:

> "Ed Light" > wrote in news:J6WGf.32277$jR.29397
> @fed1read01:
>
>> Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye
>> the one?
>>
>>
>
> I don't know about the brightest, but this is has some nice
> pictures: http://eddys.com/page.cfm?PageID=493
> Mike

Nice site! If only they had listed prices of each unit, too.

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

[Matt O'Toole]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:36:02 +0000, Gooserider wrote:

> Brightest? I think you have to choose between the Light & Motion Vega, the
> DiNotte Ultralight, and the Blackburn X3. Cateye also has the Double and
> Triple Shots. All are going to run you about $200. I have the DiNotte, and
> it's very bright.

If you shop around you can find the Vega for $130 or so.

For me the attraction is being self-contained, with no external batteries
or wires. If you're going to put up with that stuff, you'll get a lot
more bang for your buck with old technology (overdriven MR lamps,
etc.)

Matt O.

[David L. Johnson]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:02:19 -0500, Matt O'Toole wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:36:02 +0000, Gooserider wrote:
>
>> Brightest? I think you have to choose between the Light & Motion Vega, the
>> DiNotte Ultralight, and the Blackburn X3. Cateye also has the Double and
>> Triple Shots. All are going to run you about $200. I have the DiNotte, and
>> it's very bright.
>
> If you shop around you can find the Vega for $130 or so.
>
> For me the attraction is being self-contained, with no external batteries
> or wires. If you're going to put up with that stuff, you'll get a lot
> more bang for your buck with old technology (overdriven MR lamps,
> etc.)

I disagree. All batteries eventually need to be replaced. With special,
or even worse built-in, batteries, the light will be unusable when the
supply of batteries runs out. This happened with my NiteRider -- and no,
neither the company nor any secondary supplier I have looked at has a
replacement battery (4.5V NiMH "smart" battery -- heck even dumb is
unavailable).

the diNotte uses standard 1.3V AA-size NiMH batteries, 4 to a pack. I
have 16 replacements that I rotate in (and carry a spare set) for less
than $20. This is, IMO, good.

The diNotte is not much more than the Vega ($200 on sale), and is
considerably brighter. One poster said his Vega was marginally usable to
see the road. Nothing marginal about the diNotte. Plenty of light to see
and be seen.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. --
_`\(,_ | Michael Crichton
(_)/ (_) |

[Gooserider]

"David L. Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:02:19 -0500, Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:36:02 +0000, Gooserider wrote:
>>
>>> Brightest? I think you have to choose between the Light & Motion Vega,
>>> the
>>> DiNotte Ultralight, and the Blackburn X3. Cateye also has the Double and
>>> Triple Shots. All are going to run you about $200. I have the DiNotte,
>>> and
>>> it's very bright.
>>
>> If you shop around you can find the Vega for $130 or so.
>>
>> For me the attraction is being self-contained, with no external batteries
>> or wires. If you're going to put up with that stuff, you'll get a lot
>> more bang for your buck with old technology (overdriven MR lamps,
>> etc.)
>
> I disagree. All batteries eventually need to be replaced. With special,
> or even worse built-in, batteries, the light will be unusable when the
> supply of batteries runs out. This happened with my NiteRider -- and no,
> neither the company nor any secondary supplier I have looked at has a
> replacement battery (4.5V NiMH "smart" battery -- heck even dumb is
> unavailable).
>
> the diNotte uses standard 1.3V AA-size NiMH batteries, 4 to a pack. I
> have 16 replacements that I rotate in (and carry a spare set) for less
> than $20. This is, IMO, good.
>
> The diNotte is not much more than the Vega ($200 on sale), and is
> considerably brighter. One poster said his Vega was marginally usable to
> see the road. Nothing marginal about the diNotte. Plenty of light to see
> and be seen.

I like the DiNotte because it's very bright and has a small footprint. The
light itself sized between a C and D cell battery, and the stem mounted
battery pack is a very good idea. I also like the fact that it uses AA
rechargables. That made it easy to buy a second set to keep in my bag. I
rotate them through, but always have a fully charged spare. DiNotte is
introducing lithium ion version of the 5W and a 3W helmet light. They also
have a 3W taillight, but it looks like it will only be mountable on the
seatpost. That means no rack trunk, so not for me. Should be a super
taillight though.

[Gooserider]

"David L. Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:09:59 -0800, Ed Light wrote:
>
>> Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye the one?
>
> No. The diNotte has a 5-Watt LED emitter, and is bright enough to see as
> well as be seen. It is certainly brighter than a 10W halogen, and
> comparable to a 15w halogen (my old NiteRider 15 had a brighter center
> area, but was not as good away from that center region as the diNotte --
> besides, it was never reliable and the diNotte is). It is also small,
> light, and easy to mount/unmount. It isn't cheap, but cheaper than
> anything else that bright.

I had a Vistalite Code 15. It was a very bright light. Unfortunately, the
switches were wonky. I was having trouble with the light, and couldn't get
it to come on. I finally gave up trying and when I came home froom work the
lights were on. The light casing was so hot to the touch that I fear the
light could have ignited. Very scary, and the reason I put it in the junk
box.

[Ed Light]

"mike" > wrote in message
...
> "Ed Light" > wrote in news:J6WGf.32277$jR.29397
> @fed1read01:
>
>> Any ideas for a really bright LED headlight? Is the 5-led cateye the one?
>>
>>
>
> I don't know about the brightest, but this is has some nice pictures:
> http://eddys.com/page.cfm?PageID=493
> Mike

Thanks to the test images, I'm getting the Cateye EL-300. Looks like it will
get me home at night, for cheap.

This has really turned into an interesting thread!

I presently have the little tiny stap-on Cateye EL-400. I feel like I could
run into something riding by the freeway and fall in fron of a car. But it
makes a great pocket flashlight -- you can read by it wonderfully, with its
soft, wide beam.
--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Fight Spam:
http://bluesecurity.com

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>
> I disagree. All batteries eventually need to be replaced.

One of the reasons I prefer generator lights.

- Frank Krygowski

[Anthony Jones]

David L. Johnson wrote:
> The diNotte is not much more than the Vega ($200 on sale), and is
> considerably brighter. One poster said his Vega was marginally usable to
> see the road. Nothing marginal about the diNotte. Plenty of light to see
> and be seen.

I think 'considerably brighter' is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration.
There is an objective comparison here:

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=1377408

The centre of the Vega's beam is actually slightly brighter than the
Dinotte's, but the overall beam is significantly narrower.

Anthony

[Matt O'Toole]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:39:36 -0500, David L. Johnson wrote:

> I disagree. All batteries eventually need to be replaced. With
> special, or even worse built-in, batteries, the light will be unusable
> when the supply of batteries runs out. This happened with my NiteRider
> -- and no, neither the company nor any secondary supplier I have looked
> at has a replacement battery (4.5V NiMH "smart" battery -- heck even
> dumb is unavailable).
>
> the diNotte uses standard 1.3V AA-size NiMH batteries, 4 to a pack. I
> have 16 replacements that I rotate in (and carry a spare set) for less
> than $20. This is, IMO, good.

This doesn't worry me. I've built and rebuilt countless battery packs for
bike lights and other stuff, for myself and friends. Battery cells are a
commodity, and even "built-in" ones can be replaced easily. But not
everyone feels capable of doing this. I'm a tinkerer by nature. Most
people are not.

> The diNotte is not much more than the Vega ($200 on sale), and is
> considerably brighter. One poster said his Vega was marginally usable
> to see the road. Nothing marginal about the diNotte. Plenty of light
> to see and be seen.

The diNotte has better optics and more wattage. But for me the difference
isn't great enough to outweigh the Vega's self-contained convenience.

The diNotte looks like a great unit though. I wish they were available
when I was doing a lot of off-road riding in the evening. The beam is
wider, and the mount is undoubtedly more secure than the Vega's.

Horses for courses!

BTW, Nashbar has the Vega on sale for $130, before the 10% discount that's
running now. Of course that discount could be used for the diNotte too.

Matt O.

[bob prohaska's usenet account]

wrote:
>
> One of the reasons I prefer generator lights.

I share your sentiments, but 3 watts is a mighty feeble
light, even using Luxeon LED's. Certainly usable, but
it would burden the rider quite tolerably to go up by a
factor of three or four, and that would be a vastly
more useful light.

The three-watt standard was from the days when Alnico was
the best magnet material. Neodymium-iron is about ten times
better. I really wish somebody would offer a ten-to-fifteen
watt genset for bicycles. Unfortunately there's probably not
much money in that market.

bob prohaska

[Earl Bollinger]

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:39:36 -0500, David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>> I disagree. All batteries eventually need to be replaced. With
>> special, or even worse built-in, batteries, the light will be unusable
>> when the supply of batteries runs out. This happened with my NiteRider
>> -- and no, neither the company nor any secondary supplier I have looked
>> at has a replacement battery (4.5V NiMH "smart" battery -- heck even
>> dumb is unavailable).
>>
>> the diNotte uses standard 1.3V AA-size NiMH batteries, 4 to a pack. I
>> have 16 replacements that I rotate in (and carry a spare set) for less
>> than $20. This is, IMO, good.
>
> This doesn't worry me. I've built and rebuilt countless battery packs for
> bike lights and other stuff, for myself and friends. Battery cells are a
> commodity, and even "built-in" ones can be replaced easily. But not
> everyone feels capable of doing this. I'm a tinkerer by nature. Most
> people are not.
>
>> The diNotte is not much more than the Vega ($200 on sale), and is
>> considerably brighter. One poster said his Vega was marginally usable
>> to see the road. Nothing marginal about the diNotte. Plenty of light
>> to see and be seen.
>
> The diNotte has better optics and more wattage. But for me the difference
> isn't great enough to outweigh the Vega's self-contained convenience.
>
> The diNotte looks like a great unit though. I wish they were available
> when I was doing a lot of off-road riding in the evening. The beam is
> wider, and the mount is undoubtedly more secure than the Vega's.
>
> Horses for courses!
>
> BTW, Nashbar has the Vega on sale for $130, before the 10% discount that's
> running now. Of course that discount could be used for the diNotte too.
>
> Matt O.

I simply went to our local Batteries Plus store and the clerk there built be
a new battery pack for me, no problem.
He simply removed and replaced the NMH cells with loose ones they had on the
shelf. They have a nifty spot welder in the store and can cut and weld on
battery straps to connect the cells together as needed.
No big deal at all to get one made.
Some RC model airplane hobby shops stock NMH cells too, and you can get some
there, and put together a new pack yourself as well.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

bob prohaska's usenet account wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > One of the reasons I prefer generator lights.
>
> I share your sentiments, but 3 watts is a mighty feeble
> light, even using Luxeon LED's. Certainly usable, but
> it would burden the rider quite tolerably to go up by a
> factor of three or four, and that would be a vastly
> more useful light.

In practice (that is, riding side by side with other cyclists at night)
I find a 3 watt halogen in a headlight with _good_ optics to be
superior to any other light with less than 10 watts. In fact, I've
definitely ridden with a friend with a 10 watt system that couldn't
touch my 3 watt generator, because his light output was so poorly
focused. Optics really is important.

Some road riders may want more lighting than can be had from a system
like mine. Many others _think_ they do, assuming "watts" tell all, but
that's false. I almost never feel I need more.

I think we're just around the corner from much brighter generator
lights, using well-focused LED technology. When those come, I'll
probably still drive them from a generator, not a battery, for the lack
of hassle and the reliability.

>
> The three-watt standard was from the days when Alnico was
> the best magnet material. Neodymium-iron is about ten times
> better. I really wish somebody would offer a ten-to-fifteen
> watt genset for bicycles. Unfortunately there's probably not
> much money in that market.

I don't think that's the way it's going to go, personally. You won't
see fifteen watt generators because that's too much rider power to put
into lighting. It would make people's ride unacceptably harder.

Instead, I think we'll see 3 watt generators that illuminate the road
as well as current 15 watt halogen lights. We're not that far away
from that now, comparing merely halogen vs. halogen. (The difference,
again, is optics; almost all 15 watt systems waste 7 watts lighting up
the sky, instead of the road.)

- Frank Krygowski

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

SMS wrote:
> bob prohaska's usenet account wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> One of the reasons I prefer generator lights.
> >
> > I share your sentiments, but 3 watts is a mighty feeble
> > light, even using Luxeon LED's. Certainly usable, but
> > it would burden the rider quite tolerably to go up by a
> > factor of three or four, and that would be a vastly
> > more useful light.
>
> As Peter Cole wrote:
> "I'm always surprised that so many serious cyclists who otherwise
> recognize the equivalence of bicycles to other vehicles take exception
> to lighting requirements. I wouldn't dare operate a motorcycle with a 3W
> light, so I don't understand the recommendation to operate a bicycle (at
> often similar speeds ) with such inadequate lights.

Hmm. Those silly bicyclists also operate their bicycles without
motorcycle tires. And motorcycle brakes. What can they be thinking?

I believe they're thinking that the _don't_ often operate bicycles at
similar speeds to motorcycles. (On my BMW, 35 mph is slow. On my
bicycle, it's blazingly fast and very rare.) Consequently, there is no
need for a 4" wide tire, a brake that can stop me short from 70 mph, or
a headlight that can shine 1/4 mile down the road.

What _should_ be similar in bike headlights and motorcycle headlights
is optics - that is, putting the available light where it needs to go,
in the interest of efficiency, as is done on _all_ other vehicles.
Having a department store 15 watt bulb that sprays half its light into
the trees makes no sense, especially given the energy limitations of
bicycles.

- Frank Krygowski

[David L. Johnson]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:52:41 -0800, frkrygow wrote:

> What _should_ be similar in bike headlights and motorcycle headlights
> is optics - that is, putting the available light where it needs to go,
> in the interest of efficiency, as is done on _all_ other vehicles.
> Having a department store 15 watt bulb that sprays half its light into
> the trees makes no sense, especially given the energy limitations of
> bicycles.

Good point, but I think there will be some disagreement about what the
ideal focus should be. The Vega concentrates almost all of its light down
the road, so that you can miss (it seems from the pictures of the beam)
small obstructions on the road or anything peripheral to your direct path.
The DiNotte covers a lot more of these areas, as well as illuminating the
road ahead.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and
_`\(,_ | Excellence.
(_)/ (_) |

[Matt O'Toole]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:41:22 -0500, David L. Johnson wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:52:41 -0800, frkrygow wrote:
>
>> What _should_ be similar in bike headlights and motorcycle headlights
>> is optics - that is, putting the available light where it needs to go,
>> in the interest of efficiency, as is done on _all_ other vehicles.
>> Having a department store 15 watt bulb that sprays half its light into
>> the trees makes no sense, especially given the energy limitations of
>> bicycles.
>
> Good point, but I think there will be some disagreement about what the
> ideal focus should be. The Vega concentrates almost all of its light
> down the road, so that you can miss (it seems from the pictures of the
> beam) small obstructions on the road or anything peripheral to your
> direct path.
> The DiNotte covers a lot more of these areas, as well as illuminating
> the
> road ahead.

I like some spillover too. With all the light focused on the road, it's
easy to miss signs and overhanging branches.

Matt O.

[bob prohaska's usenet account]

wrote:
>
> focused. Optics really is important.
Agreed.

> I think we're just around the corner from much brighter generator
> lights, using well-focused LED technology. When those come, I'll
> probably still drive them from a generator, not a battery, for the lack
> of hassle and the reliability.

Agreed again.
>
> I don't think that's the way it's going to go, personally. You won't
> see fifteen watt generators because that's too much rider power to put
> into lighting. It would make people's ride unacceptably harder.

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, it will be a bit more work. Efficiency
will have to be on the level of a Schmidt SON or better. With modern
materials that's not out of the question. As a commuter and exercise
rider, not a speed rider, I'll accept a little more work.
>
> Instead, I think we'll see 3 watt generators that illuminate the road
> as well as current 15 watt halogen lights. We're not that far away
> from that now, comparing merely halogen vs. halogen. (The difference,
> again, is optics; almost all 15 watt systems waste 7 watts lighting up
> the sky, instead of the road.)

The trouble is that _some_ of the light needs to go up, to compensate
for bike lean and steering rake, so you can see the inside of turns.
The only alternative is lights that articulate with the steering or
"cornering lights" aimed up and out, which could be switched to the
steering, but that's getting awfully complicated for a machine that's
supposed to be the soul of simplicity.

I use cornering lights on my motorcycles and they help enormously
in hairpin twisties. They aren't linked to the steering, I have to
turn them on and off manually, and they're wasteful, in the sense
that they go on together, so the illumination of one is wasted.

The resulting pattern is a sort of vee, with the main light aimed
directly ahead and the cornering lights aimed up and out, for
illuminating turns. It's grossly inefficient, but motorcycles have
some watts to spare. Bicycles do not at 3 watts.

To my way of thinking a good light for a two-wheel vehicle needs
to be articulated to compensate for lean and steering angle. Then
it has a chance of being efficient. Failing that, fifteen watts
at low speeds seems to be a worthwhile endeavor.

bob prohaska

[SMS]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> Good point, but I think there will be some disagreement about what the
> ideal focus should be. The Vega concentrates almost all of its light down
> the road, so that you can miss (it seems from the pictures of the beam)
> small obstructions on the road or anything peripheral to your direct path.
> The DiNotte covers a lot more of these areas, as well as illuminating the
> road ahead.

With dynamo powered lights, it's necessary to focus the limited light
output directly on the road. It's a necessary compromise, but
unfortunately, as you point out, you really do want some peripheral
lighting. The reason that the higher power bicycle lights use the MR
series of lamps, is because of the precise matched optics, that use the
available light most efficiently. The dual lamp models are best, because
they usually have two different beam patterns, not just two different
levels of intensity, so depending on your surroundings, you can choose
the most efficient lamp for your needs.

Personally, I'd gladly trade some more drag for a more powerful dynamo,
but not everyone has the same needs (usually when I'm riding at night,
I'm not in a huge rush to get home). Until those more powerful dynamos
come along, anyone that wants good lighting for commuting has no choice
but to use battery powered lights.

[Road Man]

"bob prohaska's usenet account" > wrote in message
. com...
> wrote:
>>
>> focused. Optics really is important.
> Agreed.
>
>> I think we're just around the corner from much brighter generator
>> lights, using well-focused LED technology. When those come, I'll
>> probably still drive them from a generator, not a battery, for the
>> lack
>> of hassle and the reliability.
>
> Agreed again.
>>
>> I don't think that's the way it's going to go, personally. You
>> won't
>> see fifteen watt generators because that's too much rider power to
>> put
>> into lighting. It would make people's ride unacceptably harder.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. Yes, it will be a bit more work.
> Efficiency
> will have to be on the level of a Schmidt SON or better. With modern
> materials that's not out of the question. As a commuter and exercise
> rider, not a speed rider, I'll accept a little more work.
>>
>> Instead, I think we'll see 3 watt generators that illuminate the
>> road
>> as well as current 15 watt halogen lights. We're not that far away
>> from that now, comparing merely halogen vs. halogen. (The
>> difference,
>> again, is optics; almost all 15 watt systems waste 7 watts lighting
>> up
>> the sky, instead of the road.)
>
> The trouble is that _some_ of the light needs to go up, to
> compensate
> for bike lean and steering rake, so you can see the inside of turns.
> The only alternative is lights that articulate with the steering or
> "cornering lights" aimed up and out, which could be switched to the
> steering, but that's getting awfully complicated for a machine
> that's
> supposed to be the soul of simplicity.
>
> I use cornering lights on my motorcycles and they help enormously
> in hairpin twisties. They aren't linked to the steering, I have to
> turn them on and off manually, and they're wasteful, in the sense
> that they go on together, so the illumination of one is wasted.
>
> The resulting pattern is a sort of vee, with the main light aimed
> directly ahead and the cornering lights aimed up and out, for
> illuminating turns. It's grossly inefficient, but motorcycles have
> some watts to spare. Bicycles do not at 3 watts.
>
> To my way of thinking a good light for a two-wheel vehicle needs
> to be articulated to compensate for lean and steering angle. Then
> it has a chance of being efficient. Failing that, fifteen watts
> at low speeds seems to be a worthwhile endeavor.
>
> bob prohaska
>
>

Seems to me that a head-mounted light is one simple approach to an
articulated cornering light. An intense spot beam, perhaps?

Ken Freeman

[bob prohaska's usenet account]

Road Man > wrote:
>
> Seems to me that a head-mounted light is one simple approach to an
> articulated cornering light. An intense spot beam, perhaps?
>

Good point. I don't like the trailing wires, but hatlamps are one of
the better compromises possible.

Even so, humans are set up to use a wider field of view than 3 watts
can illuminate at any useful distance. More watts are worthwhile.

bob prohaska

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:41:22 -0500, David L. Johnson wrote:
>
> >
> > Good point, but I think there will be some disagreement about what the
> > ideal focus should be. The Vega concentrates almost all of its light
> > down the road, so that you can miss (it seems from the pictures of the
> > beam) small obstructions on the road or anything peripheral to your
> > direct path.
> > The DiNotte covers a lot more of these areas, as well as illuminating
> > the
> > road ahead.

Yes, there is some disagreement about the ideal beam shape. But IIRC
there are detailed German standards that work very well - far better
than the fog of light that comes out of the MR-based lights (even the
spot models). I'm sure Andreas can tell us about those German specs.

>
> I like some spillover too. With all the light focused on the road, it's
> easy to miss signs and overhanging branches.

There is no light that doesn't have "some spillover." In almost* every
bike headlight in the world, most of the light from the forward
hemisphere surrounding the filament does not hit the reflector. The
lens shapes it somewhat, but there's plenty of it to illuminate signs.

The generator lamp on my commuter easily lights up the stop sign at the
end of my street, not quite a quarter mile away. FWIW, at my typical
cycling speed, that's plenty of stopping distance. ;-)

And as I've mentioned many times, I know they are very conspicuous on
the road. I've been told that spontaneously by other road users, and
I've seen it for myself in night lighting workshops I've run, and in
other situations when I've had someone else ride my bike so I - or
others - could observe my lights.


* I have some ancient Cateye headlights, powered by two C-cells. They
came with 1.25 watt bulbs, IIRC. They feature a hemispherical
reflector in _front_ of the filament, to capture most of that spillover
light and funnel it back to the main reflector. Their beam is even
tighter than most, yet they also seem to have sufficient "spillover."
No matter how carefully they are designed, bike lights will never be as
directional as lasers.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

SMS wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I'd gladly trade some more drag for a more powerful dynamo,
> but not everyone has the same needs (usually when I'm riding at night,
> I'm not in a huge rush to get home). Until those more powerful dynamos
> come along, anyone that wants good lighting for commuting has no choice
> but to use battery powered lights.

If you really want a more powerful dynamo, get either a hub dynamo or a
bottom-bracket (i.e. roller) model. Wire two headlamps in series.
Above a certain minimum speed, the dynamo will be able to drive both
lamps.

I suppose you could do both: hub with its two lamps, roller with
another two lamps. Above about 14 mph, you'd have about 12 watts
output, and it would be focused about three times better than the
MR-style rechargeables. You'd see much, much better than almost any 20
watt lamp on the market.

I think it would be tremendous overkill, mind you! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Keats]

In article . com>,
writes:
>
> And as I've mentioned many times, I know they are very conspicuous on
> the road. I've been told that spontaneously by other road users, and
> I've seen it for myself in night lighting workshops I've run, and in
> other situations when I've had someone else ride my bike so I - or
> others - could observe my lights.

I think the larger surface area (relative to battery lights) of generator
headlight lenses contributes much to their visibility. And maybe their
identifiability as lights attached to moving vehicles.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Matt O'Toole]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:27:56 -0800, frkrygow wrote:

> There is no light that doesn't have "some spillover." In almost* every
> bike headlight in the world, most of the light from the forward
> hemisphere surrounding the filament does not hit the reflector. The
> lens shapes it somewhat, but there's plenty of it to illuminate signs.

Be careful. Although this is generally true, it isn't always, especially
lately. Some of the new LED models have laser-like, pencil-thin beams.
I'm sure this is partly to play tricks with brightness ratings in tests
-- but also just going overboard with a design mentality, that all light
should be focused in one small area.

> The generator lamp on my commuter easily lights up the stop sign at the
> end of my street, not quite a quarter mile away.

The spillover from my Cateye Micro isn't strong enough to
illuminate signs. Not so my Sunsport helmet light, with a similar
beam pattern, but twice the wattage.

> FWIW, at my typical
> cycling speed, that's plenty of stopping distance. ;-)

This is key! Your generator lights are probably designed to the German
standard, which in turn is probably derived from some assumption about
average speed.

Such lights are fine for me for riding around town on familiar roads, but
on trails or at higher speeds, forget it. I need more light.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:57:35 -0800, Tom Keats wrote:

> I think the larger surface area (relative to battery lights) of generator
> headlight lenses contributes much to their visibility. And maybe their
> identifiability as lights attached to moving vehicles.

I think so too.

I've noticed the larger MR16 Nightsun lights stand out a lot more
than the more common MR11 ones.

Matt O.

[Road Man]

Yes, the central or foveal cone of vision is about 3 degrees wide, the
next level (forgot its name!!) is about 15 degrees wide and gives away
some acuity. The remainder peripheral zone is what we primarily use
to guide cars in their lanes, day and night.

I think bike headlights really need to meet the pattern requirements
of car headlamps, with the edge kickups of motorcycle lights.
Unfotunately then the optical and electrical power requirements become
similar as well.


"bob prohaska's usenet account" > wrote in message
om...
> Road Man > wrote:
>>
>> Seems to me that a head-mounted light is one simple approach to an
>> articulated cornering light. An intense spot beam, perhaps?
>>
>
> Good point. I don't like the trailing wires, but hatlamps are one of
> the better compromises possible.
>
> Even so, humans are set up to use a wider field of view than 3 watts
> can illuminate at any useful distance. More watts are worthwhile.
>
> bob prohaska

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

Road Man wrote:
>
> I think bike headlights really need to meet the pattern requirements
> of car headlamps, with the edge kickups of motorcycle lights.

They would be better with _some_ engineered pattern. I don't think it
needs to be the same pattern as a car or motorcycle, since the
objectives are much different; but it doesn't make sense to waste
lumens.

> Unfotunately then the optical and electrical power requirements become
> similar as well.

Optical requirements are not very difficult. The cheapest Cateye
lights from 1985 had excellent, excellent optics, while selling for
less than $10.

The power requirements don't need to be similar at all. A 55 watt
headlight is adequate for a motorcycle at 50 mph or more. Why would a
bike at 15 mph need anywhere near that?

> > Even so, humans are set up to use a wider field of view than 3 watts
> > can illuminate at any useful distance. More watts are worthwhile.

This sounds like a theoretical objection from one who's never ridden
behind a decent generator headlight.

Don't envision the world at night to be impenetrable blackness except
where your beam shines. In real life, one can see off to the sides
with normal night vision.

Some posters in the past have noted that using excessively bright
headlights tends to ruin night vision. I haven't used such lights, so
I can't comment directly. But I know that since 1977 or so I have done
well with three watts. It's very, very rare for me to desire more.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:27:56 -0800, frkrygow wrote:
>
>
> > FWIW, at my typical
> > cycling speed, that's plenty of stopping distance. ;-)
>
> This is key! Your generator lights are probably designed to the German
> standard, which in turn is probably derived from some assumption about
> average speed.
>
> Such lights are fine for me for riding around town on familiar roads, but
> on trails or at higher speeds, forget it. I need more light.

They're better than that. My generator lights are fine for nighttime
cruises on relatively unfamiliar roads, too. I do well with them up to
at least 20 mph.

However, they're not good for the type of off-road riding I (rarely)
do. The relatively narrow beam won't light tight turns in single
track, and speed is often about zero, which makes light output about
zero.

For nighttime single track, a battery light with a wide beam is better.
For road work, at least for me, a generator light with good optics is
better.

- Frank Krygowski

[bob prohaska's usenet account]

wrote:
> I can't comment directly. But I know that since 1977 or so I have done
> well with three watts. It's very, very rare for me to desire more.

Ok, now tell us your daily carrot consumption 8-)
[sorry, couldn't resist] I average about one small carrot per
day, and I _know_ that's not enough!

In a more serious vein, your point about optics is well taken. The light
must be directed to where it's needed.

Unfortunately, with a light that leans left-to-right and also shifts up
and down the directional requirements change drastically from hard-left
to hard-right to straight-ahead. The lean effect isn't so big, but the
effect of steering rake is substantial. .

One solution is more lumens, scattered widely. Another is fewer lumens that
know where to go. I've thought about that in the context of motorcycles, and
it's kinda messy. On a bicycle I'm afraid it would be completely ridiculous.

bob prohaska

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

bob prohaska's usenet account wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, with a light that leans left-to-right and also shifts up
> and down the directional requirements change drastically from hard-left
> to hard-right to straight-ahead. The lean effect isn't so big, but the
> effect of steering rake is substantial. .
>
> One solution is more lumens, scattered widely. Another is fewer lumens that
> know where to go. I've thought about that in the context of motorcycles, and
> it's kinda messy. On a bicycle I'm afraid it would be completely ridiculous.

Actually, I've used headlights (both battery and generator) with
pivoting mounts. I'm playing with a new one on my commuter now. It's
more complication than what's absolutely necessary, but it's not too
difficult to do, and it's been kind of fun to play with.

The pivot axis needs to angle forward from the vertical. About 20
degrees seems to work well. When you bank into a sharp turn, twist the
light sideways. It shines upward (relative to the bike) and to the
side, and lights up the corner very well indeed. And though I haven't
used it this way, it should be very bright in the eyes of a motorist at
a cross-street stop sign.

- Frank Krygowski

[bob prohaska's usenet account]

wrote:
>
> Actually, I've used headlights (both battery and generator) with
> pivoting mounts. I'm playing with a new one on my commuter now. It's
> more complication than what's absolutely necessary, but it's not too
> difficult to do, and it's been kind of fun to play with.
>
> The pivot axis needs to angle forward from the vertical. About 20
> degrees seems to work well. When you bank into a sharp turn, twist the
> light sideways. It shines upward (relative to the bike) and to the
> side, and lights up the corner very well indeed. And though I haven't
> used it this way, it should be very bright in the eyes of a motorist at
> a cross-street stop sign.

This is interesting. Do you have any photos of the linkage?

bob prohaska

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

bob prohaska's usenet account wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I've used headlights (both battery and generator) with
> > pivoting mounts. I'm playing with a new one on my commuter now. It's
> > more complication than what's absolutely necessary, but it's not too
> > difficult to do, and it's been kind of fun to play with.
> >
> > The pivot axis needs to angle forward from the vertical. About 20
> > degrees seems to work well. When you bank into a sharp turn, twist the
> > light sideways. It shines upward (relative to the bike) and to the
> > side, and lights up the corner very well indeed. And though I haven't
> > used it this way, it should be very bright in the eyes of a motorist at
> > a cross-street stop sign.
>
> This is interesting. Do you have any photos of the linkage?

Sorry, no digital cameras live here.

It's not a linkage. It's just a near-vertical screw that the generator
headlight is attached to. Most headlights have a horizontal mounting
screw, so you need a sort of "L" shaped metal bracket to interface to
the 20-degrees-off-vertical screw.

My headlight's mounted to a little custom rack I made, above my front
fender and below my handlebar bag. The near-vertical screw protrudes
from that. It's got a plastic (polyethelene) washer above and below
the light's bracket, for smooth turning with an ability to stay in
place. A nylock nut on that screw holds the light bracket in place
with the right amount of friction. It hasn't been on there long, but
it seems to work well.

I'm playing around with a cable actuation from the handlebars. But
that's just to satisfy my inner geek. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

[bob prohaska's usenet account]

wrote:
>
> I'm playing around with a cable actuation from the handlebars. But
> that's just to satisfy my inner geek. ;-)

Your inner geek is wise. I think it would be a useful device.

My thoughts always worked in the context of a pivoting 3-point mount:
The top mount is ahead of the steering axis and fastened to the stem.
Two bottom mounts are links to points on the frame behind the steering
axis. As the steering turns left, the top pivot points the light up,
the lower pivots help to level it.

This is a nice 3D cad problem that I am not clever enough to solve.

A wide, flat fan of light is optimal for street riding. Cars do it
easily; they know where level is. Single track devices need a measure
of how much the vehicle is leaning. The steering angle is the only
measure available. On a heavy motorcycle it's a pretty good indicator,
on a bicycle it's less good, but the only one available.

I hope you get the cable actuator working!

bob prohaska

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

bob prohaska's usenet account wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm playing around with a cable actuation from the handlebars. But
> > that's just to satisfy my inner geek. ;-)
>
> Your inner geek is wise. I think it would be a useful device.
>
> My thoughts always worked in the context of a pivoting 3-point mount:
> The top mount is ahead of the steering axis and fastened to the stem.
> Two bottom mounts are links to points on the frame behind the steering
> axis. As the steering turns left, the top pivot points the light up,
> the lower pivots help to level it.

Hmm. I think we're beyond my ability to visualize things described on
Usenet.

>
> This is a nice 3D cad problem that I am not clever enough to solve.

FWIW, I find that lots of problems are best addressed by getting out
some scrap metal and experimenting.

Regarding the "roughly 20 degree" pivot angle for my headlight mount:
for a few months, when I was forced to sit in boring meetings, I'd
amuse myself by scratching out equations to determine the optimum pivot
angle. But equations related to bike balancing and steering are pretty
intractable.

I suppose I could have continued, using Maple or some other mathematics
package, but when I got serious about actually doing the mount, it was
simpler to do some trial and error, bending metal.

> A wide, flat fan of light is optimal for street riding. Cars do it
> easily; they know where level is. Single track devices need a measure
> of how much the vehicle is leaning. The steering angle is the only
> measure available. On a heavy motorcycle it's a pretty good indicator,
> on a bicycle it's less good, but the only one available.

I think it's going to be a compromise anyway. The lean angle of the
bike is a function of the lateral acceleration. That varies not only
with the curve's radius (hence, the steering angle) but with your
speed. So to do a precise job you'd need your linkage to somehow react
to both. Hmm... servo control off your cyclometer? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

[bob prohaska's usenet account]

wrote:
>
> I think it's going to be a compromise anyway. The lean angle of the
> bike is a function of the lateral acceleration. That varies not only
> with the curve's radius (hence, the steering angle) but with your
> speed. So to do a precise job you'd need your linkage to somehow react
> to both. Hmm... servo control off your cyclometer? ;-)
>

I'm not sure this is strictly true. The center of mass lean certainly
depends on speed, but the frame lean seems more tied to the curve radius.

Consider the problem of riding without hands: The bike can be accurately
steered by leaning, and there's a fairly close correlation between lean
angle and steering angle. This depends a lot on the bike's geometry and
tires: The bikes I rode as a kid were _easy_ to ride with no hands, the
elderly Cannondale I've had for the last 20-odd years is too squirrely
to ride hands-off for more than a few seconds.

On a motorcycle it's more obvious: one has to fight the steering's
tendency to straighten out if the lean is insufficient for the curve
radius. With enough lean, there's no force on the bars. I suspect the
same applies to a bicycle, but the forces involved are so small as to
require attention to notice. Bicycles are _easy_ to muscle.

Whether one could construct a useful self-leveling headlight on this
basis isn't obvious; on my Cannondale it would be fairly hard, on a
"beach cruiser" style bike it might work pretty well.

A crude estimate of the elevation dependence on steering angle
isn't too hard: If the rake is 10 degrees, we'd want ten degrees
of elevation with the steering at 90 degrees (!), for practical
steering angles a linear interpolation is good enough. Refining
the estimate to account for frame lean would increase this ratio
over one to nine, but would depend on other steering parameters
like trail and tire profile.

Adding a "twist" to the light to keep the pattern level does not
seem out of the question.

There are an awful lot of free parameters to confine. Maybe some
experimentation _is_ called for.

Thanks for reading, and your comments!

bob prohaska

[Bill Baka]

bob prohaska's usenet account wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>I think it's going to be a compromise anyway. The lean angle of the
>>bike is a function of the lateral acceleration. That varies not only
>>with the curve's radius (hence, the steering angle) but with your
>>speed. So to do a precise job you'd need your linkage to somehow react
>>to both. Hmm... servo control off your cyclometer? ;-)
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure this is strictly true. The center of mass lean certainly
> depends on speed, but the frame lean seems more tied to the curve radius.
>
> Consider the problem of riding without hands: The bike can be accurately
> steered by leaning, and there's a fairly close correlation between lean
> angle and steering angle. This depends a lot on the bike's geometry and
> tires: The bikes I rode as a kid were _easy_ to ride with no hands, the
> elderly Cannondale I've had for the last 20-odd years is too squirrely
> to ride hands-off for more than a few seconds.
>
> On a motorcycle it's more obvious: one has to fight the steering's
> tendency to straighten out if the lean is insufficient for the curve
> radius. With enough lean, there's no force on the bars. I suspect the
> same applies to a bicycle, but the forces involved are so small as to
> require attention to notice. Bicycles are _easy_ to muscle.
>
> Whether one could construct a useful self-leveling headlight on this
> basis isn't obvious; on my Cannondale it would be fairly hard, on a
> "beach cruiser" style bike it might work pretty well.
>
> A crude estimate of the elevation dependence on steering angle
> isn't too hard: If the rake is 10 degrees, we'd want ten degrees
> of elevation with the steering at 90 degrees (!), for practical
> steering angles a linear interpolation is good enough. Refining
> the estimate to account for frame lean would increase this ratio
> over one to nine, but would depend on other steering parameters
> like trail and tire profile.
>
> Adding a "twist" to the light to keep the pattern level does not
> seem out of the question.
>
> There are an awful lot of free parameters to confine. Maybe some
> experimentation _is_ called for.
>
> Thanks for reading, and your comments!
>
> bob prohaska
>
>
I have a Cateye with 5 white LEDs and 4 AA batteries and it works good
on paved roads coupled with a police like blinking Cateye rear light.
It is good to somewhat over 20 MPH on good roads and that is about all
I want to do at night anyway. This is in the country so standing out
against a lot of auto lights is not a concern, just seeing where I am going.
Bill Baka
P.S. It does great as a flashlight when off the bike.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

bob prohaska's usenet account wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's going to be a compromise anyway. The lean angle of the
> > bike is a function of the lateral acceleration. That varies not only
> > with the curve's radius (hence, the steering angle) but with your
> > speed. So to do a precise job you'd need your linkage to somehow react
> > to both. Hmm... servo control off your cyclometer? ;-)
> >
>
> I'm not sure this is strictly true. The center of mass lean certainly
> depends on speed, but the frame lean seems more tied to the curve radius.

Unless you're using some extreme "body English", your center of mass
lean angle should be the same as your frame lean angle.

Take your bike out and check out a given sharp curve (say, testing in
an empty parking lot) at very low speed and relatively high speed. I'm
sure you'll find differences in the frame's lean angle. I think you'll
probably see some difference in the steering angle, too.

- Frank Krygowski

[SMS]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:57:35 -0800, Tom Keats wrote:
>
>
>>I think the larger surface area (relative to battery lights) of generator
>>headlight lenses contributes much to their visibility. And maybe their
>>identifiability as lights attached to moving vehicles.
>
>
> I think so too.
>
> I've noticed the larger MR16 Nightsun lights stand out a lot more
> than the more common MR11 ones.

Yes, this is true. I wish that more manufacturers would switch to the
MR16 lamps, as the added size allows for better optics. I'm surprised
that no dynamo maker has gone this route as well.

[bob prohaska's usenet account]

wrote:
>
> Unless you're using some extreme "body English", your center of mass
> lean angle should be the same as your frame lean angle.

I'm suggesting "extreme body English", I guess. The rider
shifts position until the headlight pattern is level with
the road....

> Take your bike out and check out a given sharp curve (say, testing in
> an empty parking lot) at very low speed and relatively high speed. I'm
> sure you'll find differences in the frame's lean angle. I think you'll
> probably see some difference in the steering angle, too.

Well, certainly the steering head angle will be mostly related to the
curve radius. Most bicycles don't give a lot of steering reaction to lean,
in particular, mine.

You're right, it simply has to be tried. I've got the bike and the
lights, I just have to cobble up the mounting linkages.

thanks for reading!

bob prohaska