While everyone is bashing BUMM, we shouldn't forget that one of theirlamps is clearly the very best in the world

On 10/23/2013 09:02 AM, David Scheidt wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
:
: But even motoring high beams are shaped differently than the Chinese stuff Scharf sells, and differently than most modern American LED bike lights. Those really are just mindless round beams.

: I always thought high beams were mindless round beams. Maybe I should
: get a Chinese flashlight just to see what a real mindless round beam
: looks like. I could always use it as a (wait for it). . . flashlight! Go
: out and dazzle some Trick-or-Treaters.

automotive high beams are not just conical beams. There's a distinct
center weighting, and a bias against hitting the ground too near the
car (beacause, again, you want to see further ahead, so putting the
lumens in a cone over ights the near field, and under lights the far
field. There's also a bias towards lighting the right (in the US;
presumably nutjob drive on left countries do the opposite.). There's
lots of variation, though. It's typical for the left an right lights
to be different, too. And some aftermarket lights are just
cones, with a bit of central hotspot.


Not only center weighted but decidedly oval shaped as well, to provide a
little more vision side to side without over lighting the nearfield or
throwing light up in the sky where it isn't useful.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 10/22/2013 02:43 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:02:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50:00 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:



The StVZO standard was writeen back when the light output of
bicycle

lights was so low that the limited light available had to be
directed

only on the road directly in front of the bicycle.



Now, even with the same amount of available power, there's enough
light

available to put it everywhere it's useful. This includes the
road of

course, but it also includes peripheral illumination, off to the
sides

and slightly up.



More bull****. Modern motorcycles have no practical limit to the
power they can give to a headlight. Yet no modern motorcycle uses
a round, flashlight-style beam. They all use optics that put
almost all of the light on the road, where it does the most good,
and that graduate the road lighting so it's brightest down the
road, and decreasing smoothly closer to the vehicle so as to avoid
glaring hot spots.



When motorcycles come with Chinese flashlights clamped to their
handlebars, you'll have proved your case. Until then, we'll know
you're spouting nonsense as part of your "guerrilla marketing"
hoping to increase your click-through income.

But on a dark, twisting and empty country road, don't you use your
high beams? I do. The super-clipped low-beams are like looking
through a key hole and sometimes even disorienting when you're going
around tight, ascending and descending corners.

Beam shaping is to accommodate other drivers -- not because it is
somehow better at lighting the road. A super-bright round beam (e.g.
a high beam) does produce more light to see by. With a bike light,
though (like DS says), you only have so many watts, so you need to
put them where they are needed most -- on the road an appropriate
distance ahead of you. If I had unlimited watts and an empty road,
however, I would go with a traditional high beam. Look at your high
beam -- it doesn't really light the sky (assuming it is properly
aimed) but rather lights some of the sky and a lot more of the road,
which is particularly nice if you're moving at a good clip and the
road is not straight.

-- Jay Beattie.


Beam shaping is for both accomodating other road users and making the
most practical use of the lumens you have. Low beams have a cutoff so
as not to blind other road users, and at the same time try to put most
of their light right below the cutoff so as not to over light the
foreground (which can trick you into thinking that you can see better
than you really can - where you need the light is actually farther away,
not right in front of your vehicle/bicycle.) High beams are still
shaped; obviously other traffic is not a consideration, but they still
have a distinct oval pattern rather than a round one. Light going up
into the sky or down onto the ground isn't useful, but some light off to
the sides still is (e.g. deer spotting)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 10/22/2013 09:50 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/21/2013 7:46 PM, Dan wrote:

snip

I'm not agreeing with Steven's position, but the problem of bicycle
headlights carries a *huge* constraint (input power) differentiating
it from any of those other "vehicle" applications.

The StVZO standard was writeen back when the light output of bicycle
lights was so low that the limited light available had to be directed
only on the road directly in front of the bicycle.

Now, even with the same amount of available power, there's enough light
available to put it everywhere it's useful. This includes the road of
course, but it also includes peripheral illumination, off to the sides
and slightly up.

There's the false claims by some that with a symmetrical beam you're
"lighting up the sky." The reality is, of course, quite different. A
properly aimed symmetrical beam does not waste photons lighting up the
sky. Rather it's almost an ideal combination of road and peripheral
illumination. You can aim any light, even an StVZO compliant light,
incorrectly and end up "lighting up the sky" but there's no up side in
doing this.


Typically a flashlight beam is one of two types, either a round spot
beam or a sort of two stage "spot and spill" type, the latter being far
more common.

If you aim a light so that the "spot" is a few degrees down from
horizontal - where you really want it, to throw the spot as far down the
road as you can while having enough light return to you to see by, there
is a huge amount of light going up above horizontal (almost half of the
"spill") and either into the sky where it does no good, or worse yet
into the eyes of oncoming traffic. Additionally, you'd want the "spill"
to really only illuminate off to the sides, but not necessarily above or
below the spot. Widening and flattening the spot would also be
desirable. This is starting to sound very much like a DOT automotive
low beam...

The good news, if what Andre says is correct, is that BUMM realizes the
issues with their current generation of front lights and is redesigning
them to improve them, at least to the limit of what StVZO allows.

Of course they are, any decent company that plans to survive is going to
improve their product periodically to take advantage of technological
advancements.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 10/20/2013 5:19 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
While everyone is meanly bashing BUMM for being supinely law-abiding, we shouldn't forget that one of their lamps is clearly the very best in the world.

No one is bashing them for this.

But they could expand their market beyond countries with these
ill-advised laws by producing versions of their products that do not
sacrifice functionality. Companies do that sort of thing all the time.
With a micro-controller in so many products these days it's a pretty
simple matter to modify the code to enable or disable specific
functionality. In fact most battery powered lights have a
micro-controller already, and some have added user programmability.

Or they could do what Supernova did and offer a product "for off-road
use only," technically complying with the law and putting the
responsibility on the purchaser to not use the product in a way that
violates the law.

Andre Jute wrote:
While everyone is meanly bashing BUMM for being supinely
law-abiding,

That's only for a very specific "everybody"...

--
Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:06:00 PM UTC+1, Helmut Springer wrote:

Best regards

helmut springer panta rhei

Why are your pants rhea, Helmut?

On 10/23/2013 02:58 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2013 5:19 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
While everyone is meanly bashing BUMM for being supinely law-abiding,
we shouldn't forget that one of their lamps is clearly the very best
in the world.

No one is bashing them for this.

But they could expand their market beyond countries with these
ill-advised laws by producing versions of their products that do not
sacrifice functionality. Companies do that sort of thing all the time.
With a micro-controller in so many products these days it's a pretty
simple matter to modify the code to enable or disable specific
functionality. In fact most battery powered lights have a
micro-controller already, and some have added user programmability.

Or they could do what Supernova did and offer a product "for off-road
use only," technically complying with the law and putting the
responsibility on the purchaser to not use the product in a way that
violates the law.



Yes, certainly, because that has worked so well for the automotive
aftermarket industry.

The beam pattern requirements exist for a reason, even though you are
constantly arguing otherwise. Encouraging companies to flout the law
will result in the bicycle equivalent of every Honda Civic having a set
of faded, dim Altezza taillights.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:
Jay Beattie considered Tue, 22 Oct 2013

11:43:53 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:02:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50:00 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:







The StVZO standard was writeen back when the light output of bicycle



lights was so low that the limited light available had to be directed



only on the road directly in front of the bicycle.







Now, even with the same amount of available power, there's enough light



available to put it everywhere it's useful. This includes the road of



course, but it also includes peripheral illumination, off to the sides



and slightly up.







More bull****. Modern motorcycles have no practical limit to the power they can give to a headlight. Yet no modern motorcycle uses a round, flashlight-style beam. They all use optics that put almost all of the light on the road, where it does the most good, and that graduate the road lighting so it's brightest down the road, and decreasing smoothly closer to the vehicle so as to avoid glaring hot spots.







When motorcycles come with Chinese flashlights clamped to their handlebars, you'll have proved your case. Until then, we'll know you're spouting nonsense as part of your "guerrilla marketing" hoping to increase your click-through income.



But on a dark, twisting and empty country road, don't you use your high beams? I do. The super-clipped low-beams are like looking through a key hole and sometimes even disorienting when you're going around tight, ascending and descending corners.



Beam shaping is to accommodate other drivers -- not because it is somehow better at lighting the road. A super-bright round beam (e.g. a high beam) does produce more light to see by. With a bike light, though (like DS says), you only have so many watts, so you need to put them where they are needed most -- on the road an appropriate distance ahead of you. If I had unlimited watts and an empty road, however, I would go with a traditional high beam. Look at your high beam -- it doesn't really light the sky (assuming it is properly aimed) but rather lights some of the sky and a lot more of the road, which is particularly nice if you're moving at a good clip and the road is not straight.



When you can move a bicycle at a speed that corresponds to "at a good

clip" on a motorcycle, you'll have a case for a high beam on a

bicycle.



How many people do you know who can seriously propel a bicycle at a

speed that would outrun the capabilities of a motorcycle dipped beam?

On twisting dark road, I don't have to be going that fast to want a high beam, particularly when it is raining. It's really more to get the side spew so I can see where the road goes. With that said, a motorcycle low beam on my bike would be a great improvement over my current 750 lumen light.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 25/10/13 12:06, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:


How many people do you know who can seriously propel a bicycle at
a

speed that would outrun the capabilities of a motorcycle dipped
beam?

On twisting dark road, I don't have to be going that fast to want a
high beam, particularly when it is raining. It's really more to get
the side spew so I can see where the road goes. With that said, a
motorcycle low beam on my bike would be a great improvement over my
current 750 lumen light.


Speaking of lumens and the lumen wars (did Tolken or someone write about
them? Bah, I'll wait for the cinema version.)

http://supernova-lights.com/en/technology/lumen.html

I'd be real interested to know how many lumens your 750 lumen light
actually does produce under the same test conditions, and those Chinese
built jobs with thousands of claimed lumens output.

--
JS

On Friday, October 25, 2013 5:19:46 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:06:23 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:



On twisting dark road, I don't have to be going that fast to want a high beam, particularly when it is raining. It's really more to get the side spew so I can see where the road goes. With that said, a motorcycle low beam on my bike would be a great improvement over my current 750 lumen light.



If you really want that, there are ways to get it. Motorcycle headlights are sold on the open market, as are rechargeable batteries and suitable chargers. It's up to you to determine the boundary line between internet debate for debate's sake, and practical reality.



But note that not all "great improvements" are really necessary or desirable. I could make a great improvement in the strength of my wheels by installing motorcycle-gage spokes. I choose not to do that. The most satisfactory bicycle equipment is properly designed for the characteristics of bicycling. That's true of lighting systems, too.



- Frank Krygowski

What a pompass* this Krygowski is.

Andre Jute

*pompous asshole