Edelux II at low speeds and walking.

Finally had the time to do this experiment. I waited, actually I took a
detour, till it got pitch dark and climbed a small hill at about 5 km/hr.
There were trees left and right so it was really dark. Conclusion: I can
NOT imagine that the light at that speed is not enough to avoid potholes or
other obstacles. It is of course dimmer, but as wide and as far as at 15
km/hr and up. For the record it was dry and don't wear glasses. On the
other hand I have the night vision of an 57 year old.
To my surprise walking was also OK. I think I could walk the stairs Jay
showed with the stand light. Finally I took a slightly dowhill offroad
shortcut of about 50 meters. It was challenging but I managed with my 28 mm
wide Continental 4 seasons tires.

--
Lou

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:58:11 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Finally had the time to do this experiment. I waited, actually I took a
detour, till it got pitch dark and climbed a small hill at about 5 km/hr.
There were trees left and right so it was really dark. Conclusion: I can
NOT imagine that the light at that speed is not enough to avoid potholes or
other obstacles. It is of course dimmer, but as wide and as far as at 15
km/hr and up. For the record it was dry and don't wear glasses. On the
other hand I have the night vision of an 57 year old.
To my surprise walking was also OK. I think I could walk the stairs Jay
showed with the stand light. Finally I took a slightly dowhill offroad
shortcut of about 50 meters. It was challenging but I managed with my 28 mm
wide Continental 4 seasons tires.

--
Lou

Any opinion as to how it compares to James' light: http://clevercycles.com/b-m-lumotec-...so-plus-80-lux

I don't want to make another wrong choice and enrage Frank (and my wife).

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/23/2014 4:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Any opinion as to how it compares to James' light: http://clevercycles.com/b-m-lumotec-...so-plus-80-lux

I don't want to make another wrong choice and enrage Frank (and my wife).

Heck, I'm not the least bit enraged. I'm just feeling sorry for you,
and I'm wishing you described your ultra-low-speed requirements before
buying your light.

Not that I would have been able to tell you that your headlight choice
wouldn't work. I have no experience with that model. But perhaps
others would know.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:58:11 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Finally had the time to do this experiment. I waited, actually I took a
detour, till it got pitch dark and climbed a small hill at about 5 km/hr.
There were trees left and right so it was really dark. Conclusion: I can
NOT imagine that the light at that speed is not enough to avoid potholes or
other obstacles. It is of course dimmer, but as wide and as far as at 15
km/hr and up. For the record it was dry and don't wear glasses. On the
other hand I have the night vision of an 57 year old.
To my surprise walking was also OK. I think I could walk the stairs Jay
showed with the stand light. Finally I took a slightly dowhill offroad
shortcut of about 50 meters. It was challenging but I managed with my 28 mm
wide Continental 4 seasons tires.

--
Lou

eDelux one... is OK for my use , sitting 30" up.

recently, got the golf ball sized Eyc T for the Brompton

it works quite well down that Low..

If you list complaints off your Dyna system's accoutrement ...switches, connectors, beam shapes, ergonomics..

and compare that list to a listing of accoutrement at Cateye...

what would the +/- be ?

On Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:37:15 AM UTC+1, wrote:
If you list complaints off your Dyna system's accoutrement ...switches, connectors, beam shapes, ergonomics..

and compare that list to a listing of accoutrement at Cateye...

what would the +/- be ?

That's an easy one, Gene. The Cateye would be dead meat. It just isn't in the same class for light output as a dynohub lamp. The one exception in the Cateye range was the rear lamp TL-LD1100 but that was overtaken by BUMMs Linetec rear lamps, ironically at a lower price than the Cateye.

Andre Jute

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:59:45 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 09:04, Lou Holtman wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:58:11 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Finally had the time to do this experiment. I waited, actually I took a
detour, till it got pitch dark and climbed a small hill at about 5 km/hr.
There were trees left and right so it was really dark. Conclusion: I can
NOT imagine that the light at that speed is not enough to avoid potholes or
other obstacles. It is of course dimmer, but as wide and as far as at 15
km/hr and up. For the record it was dry and don't wear glasses. On the
other hand I have the night vision of an 57 year old.
To my surprise walking was also OK. I think I could walk the stairs Jay
showed with the stand light. Finally I took a slightly dowhill offroad
shortcut of about 50 meters. It was challenging but I managed with my 28 mm
wide Continental 4 seasons tires.

--
Lou

Any opinion as to how it compares to James' light:
http://clevercycles.com/b-m-lumotec-...so-plus-80-lux

I don't want to make another wrong choice and enrage Frank (and my wife).


They use the same reflector, so the beamshape should be the same. From what
I read does SON something with the cooling of the LED with a little higher
light output as a result. The Edelux II is rated at 90 lux. I really don't
know if you could tell te difference. On my commuter I have a BM lamp with
the same housing as James' light. I don't like the plastic and the switch
is awful to operate, but that is just my opinion.


Yep, and you pay for the nicer housing, switch and 10lux. I tried to
buy the brightest good light at the lowest reasonable price. The
switch, plastic housing and 10lux less output seems like a fine
compromise to me.

But I wouldn't dream of telling you your choice was bad. On the
contrary, you likely appreciate the extras and are happy with the price.

We are both happy.

(BTW, I have no idea what you find awful about the switch. Not a
positive enough locator for the different positions? I don't have an
issue using it.)

--
JS

Economists and more so psychologists know that individual assessment of value isn't necessisarily entirely rational, no linear. There are enough people for whom the super reed switch, the stainless housing, and the extra power of the Edelux is worth the money to give Schmidt a living. I say, Viva la difference! Even though I'm too much the Calvinist to spend my own money on an Edelux when the equivalent Fly is a third or less the price...

AJ

Andre Jute schreef op 25-10-2014 5:03:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:59:45 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 09:04, Lou Holtman wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:58:11 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Finally had the time to do this experiment. I waited, actually I took a
detour, till it got pitch dark and climbed a small hill at about 5 km/hr.
There were trees left and right so it was really dark. Conclusion: I can
NOT imagine that the light at that speed is not enough to avoid potholes or
other obstacles. It is of course dimmer, but as wide and as far as at 15
km/hr and up. For the record it was dry and don't wear glasses. On the
other hand I have the night vision of an 57 year old.
To my surprise walking was also OK. I think I could walk the stairs Jay
showed with the stand light. Finally I took a slightly dowhill offroad
shortcut of about 50 meters. It was challenging but I managed with my 28 mm
wide Continental 4 seasons tires.

--
Lou

Any opinion as to how it compares to James' light:
http://clevercycles.com/b-m-lumotec-...so-plus-80-lux

I don't want to make another wrong choice and enrage Frank (and my wife).


They use the same reflector, so the beamshape should be the same. From what
I read does SON something with the cooling of the LED with a little higher
light output as a result. The Edelux II is rated at 90 lux. I really don't
know if you could tell te difference. On my commuter I have a BM lamp with
the same housing as James' light. I don't like the plastic and the switch
is awful to operate, but that is just my opinion.


Yep, and you pay for the nicer housing, switch and 10lux. I tried to
buy the brightest good light at the lowest reasonable price. The
switch, plastic housing and 10lux less output seems like a fine
compromise to me.

But I wouldn't dream of telling you your choice was bad. On the
contrary, you likely appreciate the extras and are happy with the price.

We are both happy.

(BTW, I have no idea what you find awful about the switch. Not a
positive enough locator for the different positions? I don't have an
issue using it.)

--
JS

Economists and more so psychologists know that individual assessment of value isn't necessisarily entirely rational, no linear. There are enough people for whom the super reed switch, the stainless housing, and the extra power of the Edelux is worth the money to give Schmidt a living. I say, Viva la difference! Even though I'm too much the Calvinist to spend my own money on an Edelux when the equivalent Fly is a third or less the price...

AJ


I'm 'çursed''with my background as a mechanical engineer. I see and
appreciate well made stuff.
About the switch it is hard to operate with gloves, it doesn't show
clearly in what position it is. The middle position is the 'on' marked
with a '1', the left position is marked as '0' and the right position is
also marked as '0'. WTF? I have some doubts about the water resistances.
The Edelux has a clear white dot on the housing which doesn't wear off,
the operating ring has a clear index and moving it clockwise from left
to right it goes from off to automatic to on. This more intuitive. It
would be strange the you have to turn your dial anti clockwise to
increase the volume of you radio. But as you pointed out it is just a
minor issue.

Lou

On Friday, October 24, 2014 11:17:46 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Andre Jute schreef op 25-10-2014 5:03:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:59:45 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 09:04, Lou Holtman wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:58:11 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Finally had the time to do this experiment. I waited, actually I took a
detour, till it got pitch dark and climbed a small hill at about 5 km/hr.
There were trees left and right so it was really dark. Conclusion: I can
NOT imagine that the light at that speed is not enough to avoid potholes or
other obstacles. It is of course dimmer, but as wide and as far as at 15
km/hr and up. For the record it was dry and don't wear glasses. On the
other hand I have the night vision of an 57 year old.
To my surprise walking was also OK. I think I could walk the stairs Jay
showed with the stand light. Finally I took a slightly dowhill offroad
shortcut of about 50 meters. It was challenging but I managed with my 28 mm
wide Continental 4 seasons tires.

--
Lou

Any opinion as to how it compares to James' light:
http://clevercycles.com/b-m-lumotec-...so-plus-80-lux

I don't want to make another wrong choice and enrage Frank (and my wife).


They use the same reflector, so the beamshape should be the same. From what
I read does SON something with the cooling of the LED with a little higher
light output as a result. The Edelux II is rated at 90 lux. I really don't
know if you could tell te difference. On my commuter I have a BM lamp with
the same housing as James' light. I don't like the plastic and the switch
is awful to operate, but that is just my opinion.


Yep, and you pay for the nicer housing, switch and 10lux. I tried to
buy the brightest good light at the lowest reasonable price. The
switch, plastic housing and 10lux less output seems like a fine
compromise to me.

But I wouldn't dream of telling you your choice was bad. On the
contrary, you likely appreciate the extras and are happy with the price.

We are both happy.

(BTW, I have no idea what you find awful about the switch. Not a
positive enough locator for the different positions? I don't have an
issue using it.)

--
JS

Economists and more so psychologists know that individual assessment of value isn't necessisarily entirely rational, no linear. There are enough people for whom the super reed switch, the stainless housing, and the extra power of the Edelux is worth the money to give Schmidt a living. I say, Viva la difference! Even though I'm too much the Calvinist to spend my own money on an Edelux when the equivalent Fly is a third or less the price...

AJ


I'm 'çursed''with my background as a mechanical engineer. I see and
appreciate well made stuff.
About the switch it is hard to operate with gloves, it doesn't show
clearly in what position it is. The middle position is the 'on' marked
with a '1', the left position is marked as '0' and the right position is
also marked as '0'. WTF? I have some doubts about the water resistances.
The Edelux has a clear white dot on the housing which doesn't wear off,
the operating ring has a clear index and moving it clockwise from left
to right it goes from off to automatic to on. This more intuitive. It
would be strange the you have to turn your dial anti clockwise to
increase the volume of you radio. But as you pointed out it is just a
minor issue.

Lou

Although water-resistance is not a minor issue. Having my light positioned above the fork crown subjects it to more water than being on my bars -- even with a full front fender. I seriously worry about my dyno hub and the deep puddles around here when the storm drains get clogged with leaves.

http://media.oregonlive.com/portland...100cf8cc87.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo-XnPJRJVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlCjMeEzuV0

Going on a rain ride on my supah-fine CAAD nine in a minute or two. The good part is that the guy I'm riding with won't throttle me because he has a CX race tomorrow.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, October 25, 2014 5:21:52 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 24, 2014 11:17:46 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Andre Jute schreef op 25-10-2014 5:03:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:59:45 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 24/10/14 09:04, Lou Holtman wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:58:11 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Finally had the time to do this experiment. I waited, actually I took a
detour, till it got pitch dark and climbed a small hill at about 5 km/hr.
There were trees left and right so it was really dark. Conclusion: I can
NOT imagine that the light at that speed is not enough to avoid potholes or
other obstacles. It is of course dimmer, but as wide and as far as at 15
km/hr and up. For the record it was dry and don't wear glasses. On the
other hand I have the night vision of an 57 year old.
To my surprise walking was also OK. I think I could walk the stairs Jay
showed with the stand light. Finally I took a slightly dowhill offroad
shortcut of about 50 meters. It was challenging but I managed with my 28 mm
wide Continental 4 seasons tires.

--
Lou

Any opinion as to how it compares to James' light:
http://clevercycles.com/b-m-lumotec-...so-plus-80-lux

I don't want to make another wrong choice and enrage Frank (and my wife).


They use the same reflector, so the beamshape should be the same. From what
I read does SON something with the cooling of the LED with a little higher
light output as a result. The Edelux II is rated at 90 lux. I really don't
know if you could tell te difference. On my commuter I have a BM lamp with
the same housing as James' light. I don't like the plastic and the switch
is awful to operate, but that is just my opinion.


Yep, and you pay for the nicer housing, switch and 10lux. I tried to
buy the brightest good light at the lowest reasonable price. The
switch, plastic housing and 10lux less output seems like a fine
compromise to me.

But I wouldn't dream of telling you your choice was bad. On the
contrary, you likely appreciate the extras and are happy with the price.

We are both happy.

(BTW, I have no idea what you find awful about the switch. Not a
positive enough locator for the different positions? I don't have an
issue using it.)

--
JS

Economists and more so psychologists know that individual assessment of value isn't necessisarily entirely rational, no linear. There are enough people for whom the super reed switch, the stainless housing, and the extra power of the Edelux is worth the money to give Schmidt a living. I say, Viva la difference! Even though I'm too much the Calvinist to spend my own money on an Edelux when the equivalent Fly is a third or less the price...

AJ


I'm 'çursed''with my background as a mechanical engineer. I see and
appreciate well made stuff.
About the switch it is hard to operate with gloves, it doesn't show
clearly in what position it is. The middle position is the 'on' marked
with a '1', the left position is marked as '0' and the right position is
also marked as '0'. WTF? I have some doubts about the water resistances..
The Edelux has a clear white dot on the housing which doesn't wear off,
the operating ring has a clear index and moving it clockwise from left
to right it goes from off to automatic to on. This more intuitive. It
would be strange the you have to turn your dial anti clockwise to
increase the volume of you radio. But as you pointed out it is just a
minor issue.

Lou

Although water-resistance is not a minor issue. Having my light positioned above the fork crown subjects it to more water than being on my bars -- even with a full front fender. I seriously worry about my dyno hub and the deep puddles around here when the storm drains get clogged with leaves.

http://media.oregonlive.com/portland...100cf8cc87.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo-XnPJRJVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlCjMeEzuV0

Going on a rain ride on my supah-fine CAAD nine in a minute or two. The good part is that the guy I'm riding with won't throttle me because he has a CX race tomorrow.

-- Jay Beattie.

You don't need to worry about your dyno hub being ruined by water unless you immerse it, and it should survive short immersions too. Heavy rain, splashing, rolling fast through deep water, and suchlike won't harm it.

The fender should protect a BUMM lamp too; it does in most installations. But if you intend immersing your BUMM lamp, or turning the bike upside down and powerwashing it (people do!), then you'd better tape up the bottom of the lamp. Ditto if your remove the fenders. The lamp is designed to be used with fenders and only one way up.

The SKS P65 fenders on my Kranich barely covers the 60mm Big Apples, but I haven't taped up any of my BUMM lamps, and never had a problem either. My SON and Shimano hub dynamos were several times submersed when in the harvest season on narrow lanes I jumped into the ditch, bike and all, when faced with speeding convoys of tractors and harvesters wider than the lane. No harm came to it. A cycle hub dynamo is for practical purposes probably as well sealed as a car's hub.

Andre Jute
Live dangerously, take your cycling holiday in West Cork