So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 18 Sep 2007 16:01:56
From: SMS
Subject: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

I must get catalogs from Performance and Nashbar (same owner) twice a
week. Maybe it's the time of the season with it getting dark earlier,
but I've noticed that there seem to be a hell of a lot of new bicycle
lights coming on the market, especially new high-power LED lights that
must be using the Cree LEDs and claim to be as bright as an HID, i.e.
"http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=24466&subcategory_ID=4320".

It's also amusing to see the move back to metal cases as the LEDs
increase in power. Love those external heat sinks that they try to blend
in as part of the industrial design on
"http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=23115&subcategory_ID=4320".
Maybe they can do a heat pipe and use the waste heat for some sort of
heating system for winter riding.

Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for their
bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night riding, and
hopefully the prices will fall with all this competition.

Date: 24 Sep 2007 12:44:36
From: VBadJuJu
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:

>It's also amusing to see the move back to metal cases as the LEDs
>increase in power. Love those external heat sinks that they try to blend
>in as part of the industrial design on
>"http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=23115&subcategory_ID=4320".
>Maybe they can do a heat pipe and use the waste heat for some sort of
>heating system for winter riding.

I have the single version of this. I've never felt the heat sink get
warm and with the effect of air flow across the pod as you ride, it is
hard to see how it could. However, with all the circuitry housed in
the pod I think the heat sink is a matter of just in case.

If it offends anyone delicate sensibilities, I think the entire heat
sink collar comes off with a single screw.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 15:19:19
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:44:36 GMT, VBadJuJu <noone@home.com > wrote:

>I have the single version of this. I've never felt the heat sink get
>warm and with the effect of air flow across the pod as you ride, it is
>hard to see how it could. However, with all the circuitry housed in
>the pod I think the heat sink is a matter of just in case.

If you're going with the wind or standing still at a stoplight, for
example, there will be pure convection cooling rather than forced-air,
which might well make the heatsink a matter of necessity.

Jasper

Date: 26 Sep 2007 08:55:05
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:19:19 GMT, Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org >
wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:44:36 GMT, VBadJuJu <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>>I have the single version of this. I've never felt the heat sink get
>>warm and with the effect of air flow across the pod as you ride, it is
>>hard to see how it could. However, with all the circuitry housed in
>>the pod I think the heat sink is a matter of just in case.
>
>If you're going with the wind or standing still at a stoplight, for
>example, there will be pure convection cooling rather than forced-air,
>which might well make the heatsink a matter of necessity.

Still, I got to wonder how much of that "heat sink" look is
technically necessary, and how much of it is dramatic design for
marketing purposes.

Pat

Email address works as is.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 16:05:51
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

> mmmm ... Original 1972 Elephant Grass.
^^^^
I think I mean '73. Anyways, when PF
had just released "Dark Side of the Moon"
and Donovan's "Cosmic Wheels" had been
kicking around for a brief while.

That orig Elephant Grass on the Thai stick
made me what I am today. heh. I still get
flashbacks from it. Or from something.
That was back in the days when we wondered
how anyone could possibly attain the middle
name of "Millhouse". And Americans were
dying in Viet Nam because of national stupidity.

The Amchitka nuke test should have never happened.

cheers,
Tom
--
"Oh, what a lucky man he was"
-- Emerson, Lake & Palmer

Date: 23 Sep 2007 14:51:14
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

In article <1190296832.725348.219860@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > writes:
>
>
> mexicans

Iranians.

They use 'em to enrich U-238 and threaten the world.

Mexicans are tired of threatening the world.
Mexicans don't need no steenkin' nukes.

That A-mad-dinner-jacket Iranian president guy
does need to be taken down a peg.
I'd rather cream-pie him, than nuke him.
He needs some LSD. I could be his guide.
Throw on some Doobie Bros tunes, 'n we'd be off
'n runnin'. And some David Gilmour. And of course,
a bunch of obscure Beatles stuff, like "Dr Robert"
or that tune about the paper cup going across the
universe (Biff Rose did something similar, except
it was his sad tear instead of a paper cup traversing
through the universe.)

"I keep rollin', keep rollin', keep rollin' 'n
I can't stop ..."

Throw on some George Clinton tunes, and I could
take A-mad-dinner-jacket to the next planet.
And forgetfully/accidentally leave him there.

"Oops ... sorry."

mmmm ... Original 1972 Elephant Grass. Purple Kush
ain't a patch on it.

cheers, & funkadelia Rulez,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:55:47
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

In article <orrcf39op2tsl01ta7h4oe01ifk3o3lfvi@4ax.com >,
Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org > writes:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:14:38 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>There's no debate that the 3W dynamo lights provide a focused beam that
>>is probably the best use of its limited power.
>
> No they don't. My Lumotec illuminates outside the main beam fairly well.

As do my old U-100 headlights, which are just as adequate now
as they were "back in the day". Perhaps they're outdated, but
AFAIC, the Union 100 was a masterpiece of bike light technology.

They, as you know, like any other generator headlight (like yer
Lumotecs, Dymotecs and BiSy-s,) require a little bit of
intelligent aiming to get the bright spot where you want it on
the road, plus a sufficient aura of superfluous illumination.
It can be done. In fact it's trivial to do so.

Same as with car headlights.

I realize /you/ know that. Steve Scharf, OTOH, has some
strange notions.

If U-100s had standlights they'd be even more grand than
they already are.

Augustin Fresnel knew what was what. At least, in a
pragmatic sense.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 20 Sep 2007 17:38:26
From:
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Sep 20, 9:55 am, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote:
>
>
> This is true, but many bike lights are so "well focused" that you can't
> see street signs or even parked cars. They do this so they can advertise
> better lumen ratings.

Sorry. You're making the same mistake Scharf makes. Focusing doesn't
change lumen ratings. (Neither does changing to a larger reflector.)

Lumens refers to the total amount of light emanating from a light
source. Focusing the light tighter concentrates the lumens, but
doesn't increase them.

This is why the manufacturer of a particular bulb can state the lumens
output of that bulb, without knowing what sort of reflector will be
placed around the bulb.

See, for example, http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/lumen.htm#HouseIncand
or http://www.megavolt.co.il/Tips_and_info/bulbs_at_glance.html

Of course, this is a technical detail, and we understood what you
meant even if you did use the wrong units of measurement. However, we
should expect a so-called "expert" like Scharf to get it right.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 20 Sep 2007 10:16:58
From: russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Sep 19, 2:51 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
> > With that in mind, why do you persist in advocating solutions which have
> > wasteful lenses?
>
> What you don't understand is that all that light is not "wasted." You're
> falling into the trap of misunderstanding of how lights work as both
> "seeing" and "being seen" devices, as well as ignoring the advantages of
> the symmetrical beam. You need to realize how important it is to have
> not only a spot beam, but the light up the periphery as well.
>
> Look at the Solidlights for example. Other than the 1103 model, they use
> two or three circular lenses which results in some overlap, but the
> resulting beam is still more symmetrical.
>
> Read the review at "http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/page4.htm"
> which states "The light is a symmetrical beam, rather than the focused
> beam of most of the lights designed for the Schmidt dynohub. But there
> is an advantage to this type of beam for PBP. One thing I have noticed
> recently is how well road signs reflect back. For PBP, this means the
> reflective arrows on route markings on signposts and in trees should be
> quite visible."

Don't know which PBP the people in the link above rode, but maybe they
changed where the route arrows are placed from their PBP to the 2007
version I rode. You had to have a helmet light to see the route
arrows on PBP 2007. They were frequently not too close to the road.
They were on top of sticks, signs, trees, etc. along the side of the
road. Somewhere. Anywhere from 5 feet to 25 feet from the side of
the road. No frame mounted bicycle light could illuminate an area big
enough to see all of them. Most sure, all no. I liked having the
ability to see any and all of the arrow route markers when coming to a
corner or turn. The Princeton Tec EOS Bike helmet light on medium
setting worked very well for finding the route markers at round
abouts, turns, intersections, etc. Powered by 3 AAA batteries. Same
Duracell batteries lasted the entire 20+ hours of night riding I did
over three days of PBP.

>
> It's great to see a device like the SolidLights 1203D on the market.
> Finally a company that "gets it" and produced a bright, safe, light for
> dynamo systems. Not cheap, but as Mike pointed out, with the relatively
> small quantities of each type of high-end light, the quantities aren't
> there to bring prices down.

Date: 21 Sep 2007 08:51:34
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

>
> Don't know which PBP the people in the link above rode, but maybe they
> changed where the route arrows are placed from their PBP to the 2007
> version I rode. You had to have a helmet light to see the route
> arrows on PBP 2007. They were frequently not too close to the road.
> They were on top of sticks, signs, trees, etc. along the side of the
> road. Somewhere. Anywhere from 5 feet to 25 feet from the side of
> the road. No frame mounted bicycle light could illuminate an area big
> enough to see all of them. Most sure, all no. I liked having the
> ability to see any and all of the arrow route markers when coming to a
> corner or turn. The Princeton Tec EOS Bike helmet light on medium
> setting worked very well for finding the route markers at round
> abouts, turns, intersections, etc. Powered by 3 AAA batteries. Same
> Duracell batteries lasted the entire 20+ hours of night riding I did
> over three days of PBP.
--------------
I also like the EOS for a helmet light
on brevets. I think I was one of the
first that got one, when they first came
out. I looked at the Princeton Tec web
site, and was kind of shocked at the low
lumen number it has. It sure seems
brighter than some frame mounted lights
I've had. In a pinch, you could
actually ride all night, with just that
light (road).

Date: 21 Sep 2007 08:42:47
From: SMS
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:

> I also like the EOS for a helmet light on brevets. I think I was one of
> the first that got one, when they first came out. I looked at the
> Princeton Tec web site, and was kind of shocked at the low lumen number
> it has.

That's true, but remember to distinguish between lumens, lux (and
wattage). a low (or high) lumen number can be misleading.

At "http://www.brillianz.co.uk/data/documents/Lumen.pdf", which is
entitled: "Lux, Lumen and Watts, What�s the Difference?," there is a
pretty good explanation.

"The difference between the lux and the lumen is that the lux
takes into account the area over which the luminous flux is
spread. 1000 lumens, concentrated into an area of one square
metre, lights up that square metre with an illuminance of 1000
lux. The same 1000 lumens, spread out over ten square metres,
produces a dimmer illuminance of only 100 lux."

> It sure seems brighter than some frame mounted lights I've
> had. In a pinch, you could actually ride all night, with just that
> light (road).

Hey, with some spare cells you could probably do that with the L2DCE if
you set it not at the highest output.

Last night I did a night ride with the Fenix L2DCE (thanks for turning
me on to this light!). Pointed slightly down (like a low beam
headlight), the beam pattern is almost ideal. A bright spot beam, but
with just about the right amount of peripheral illumination for road
signs, parked cars, and to let traffic approaching on side streets that
you're there. It's like the poor man's version of the SolidLight.

Steve
"http://bicyclelighting.com"

Date: 20 Sep 2007 16:01:25
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Sep 20, 10:00 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> mexicans

NOW THERE'S A GOOD IDEA FOR A NEW INTERACTIVE WEBSITE!

"dead mexicans"

a major category - "no batts"

local noise sez there were 2 last week?

Date: 20 Sep 2007 14:00:32
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

mexicans

Date: 20 Sep 2007 09:40:26
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:01:56 -0700, SMS wrote:

> I must get catalogs from Performance and Nashbar (same owner) twice a
> week. Maybe it's the time of the season with it getting dark earlier,
> but I've noticed that there seem to be a hell of a lot of new bicycle
> lights coming on the market, especially new high-power LED lights that
> must be using the Cree LEDs and claim to be as bright as an HID, i.e.
> "http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=24466&subcategory_ID=4320".
>
> It's also amusing to see the move back to metal cases as the LEDs
> increase in power. Love those external heat sinks that they try to blend
> in as part of the industrial design on
> "http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=23115&subcategory_ID=4320".
> Maybe they can do a heat pipe and use the waste heat for some sort of
> heating system for winter riding.
>
> Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for their
> bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night riding, and
> hopefully the prices will fall with all this competition.

Actually there are a lot of people buying these systems, and the more
expensive they are, the better they seem to sell -- especially in places
like southern CA, where there are so many mountain bikers with lots of
money to spend.

Powerful lights have made it more comfortable for people to ride before
and after work, and/or early and late in the day when it's cooler. I used
to do a lot of mountain bike rides in the evening myself, often finishing
after dark.

However I'm sure part of the attraction is the toy factor, with so many
neat things to buy, which people then want to go out and use. In some
places night riding has even been banned, to give the deer and coyotes a
rest from all the nitwits invading their habitat.

Yes, the market does seem crowded, with everyone trying to get into the
bike light business. I'm not sure what the attraction is. Even with so
many brands around now, it's rare to find a shop that carries anything but
Nightrider and Cateye. Selling bike lights would be a tough way to make a
living. But that never seems to stop people from trying, if it's what
they're interested in.

Matt O.

Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:35:42
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

Date: 18 Sep 2007 23:32:51
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

> Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for their
> bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night riding, and
> hopefully the prices will fall with all this competition.

It's not a lack of competition that's keeping prices up; it's the
relatively-small quantities being manufactured. No single manufacturer has
captured a large-enough share of the market to bring down costs. Nobody's
been willing to take the pluge (spending a whole lot of $$$) and really
mass-produce a high quality lower-cost system. Not even Cat-Eye, which seems
to not do well each time they come out with a higher-end system.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46f05894$0$27198$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>I must get catalogs from Performance and Nashbar (same owner) twice a week.
>Maybe it's the time of the season with it getting dark earlier, but I've
>noticed that there seem to be a hell of a lot of new bicycle lights coming
>on the market, especially new high-power LED lights that must be using the
>Cree LEDs and claim to be as bright as an HID, i.e.
>"http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=24466&subcategory_ID=4320".
>
> It's also amusing to see the move back to metal cases as the LEDs increase
> in power. Love those external heat sinks that they try to blend in as part
> of the industrial design on
> "http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=23115&subcategory_ID=4320".
> Maybe they can do a heat pipe and use the waste heat for some sort of
> heating system for winter riding.
>
> Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for their
> bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night riding, and
> hopefully the prices will fall with all this competition.

Date: 18 Sep 2007 18:17:28
From: SMS
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for their
>> bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night riding, and
>> hopefully the prices will fall with all this competition.
>
> It's not a lack of competition that's keeping prices up; it's the
> relatively-small quantities being manufactured. No single manufacturer has
> captured a large-enough share of the market to bring down costs. Nobody's
> been willing to take the pluge (spending a whole lot of $$$) and really
> mass-produce a high quality lower-cost system. Not even Cat-Eye, which seems
> to not do well each time they come out with a higher-end system.

I guess there's such a thing as too many players in the market.
Meanwhile, some of the high end 3W Cree LED flashlights are brighter
than the DiNotte lights, and combined with one of the many handlebar
clamps available you can have a good front light for $60 or so, one that
blows the low power CatEye lamps out of the water. Combine it with a
Trek Disco Inferno or a CatEye LD1000 and you can have a very good
system for under $100.

I was very impressed with the beam of the Fenix L2DCE, which has
sufficient peripheral illumination off to the side, in addition to the
powerful spot beam. You don't get that with most of the low-power
bicycle lights which often have a beam that is a compromise to focus the
limited output directly in front of the bicycle. It seems that many of
the bicycle lights are charging so much just because of the mount to the
bicycle, there's nothing so special about the lights themselves.

Maybe I'll restart the All Night Bicycle Rides I used to do for Western
Wheelers. They were great fun, and I was surprised at the turnout. I
expected three people and would often get thirty. It was as much a
lighting system comparison as a ride! Thank g-d the Donut Wheel is still
open 24 hours.

Date: 18 Sep 2007 23:33:11
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

In article <46f07857$0$27209$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for their
> >> bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night riding,
> >> and hopefully the prices will fall with all this competition.
> >
> > It's not a lack of competition that's keeping prices up; it's the
> > relatively-small quantities being manufactured. No single
> > manufacturer has captured a large-enough share of the market to
> > bring down costs. Nobody's been willing to take the pluge (spending
> > a whole lot of $$$) and really mass-produce a high quality
> > lower-cost system. Not even Cat-Eye, which seems to not do well
> > each time they come out with a higher-end system.
>
> I guess there's such a thing as too many players in the market.

Not according to classical economics. Looked at the DVD player market?

> I was very impressed with the beam of the Fenix L2DCE, which has
> sufficient peripheral illumination off to the side, in addition to
> the powerful spot beam. You don't get that with most of the low-power
> bicycle lights which often have a beam that is a compromise to focus
> the limited output directly in front of the bicycle.

Well, at least you're persistent in your apologism for the incompetent
grasp of optics exhibited by most battery powered light makers.

> It seems that many of the bicycle lights are charging so much just
> because of the mount to the bicycle, there's nothing so special about
> the lights themselves.

On this we agree.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:51:12
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:33:11 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net >
wrote:
>In article <46f07857$0$27209$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> >> Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for their
>> >> bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night riding,
>> >> and hopefully the prices will fall with all this competition.
>> >
>> > It's not a lack of competition that's keeping prices up; it's the
>> > relatively-small quantities being manufactured. No single
>> > manufacturer has captured a large-enough share of the market to
>> > bring down costs. Nobody's been willing to take the pluge (spending
>> > a whole lot of $$$) and really mass-produce a high quality
>> > lower-cost system. Not even Cat-Eye, which seems to not do well
>> > each time they come out with a higher-end system.
>>
>> I guess there's such a thing as too many players in the market.
>
>Not according to classical economics. Looked at the DVD player market?

In the DVD player market, there are only a couple of producers of
transports and a couple of producers of chipsets, and the rest is a fairly
trivial excercise in integration and ripping off software, with production
being easy and well-understood. Incidentally, the number of actual
factories/companies producing DVD players is at least an order of
magnitude below the number of OEMs selling designs, and *that*'s an order
of magnitude below the number of people rebranding the OEM designs with
their own name. Especially when you look mostly at the cheap far east
models, the Western brands usually make their own design and firmware (at
least), and mostly even their own PCB design -- but it still all gets put
together by that same set of factories in china.

The problem is that the high-end bicycle light business can't support that
many manufacturers and brands, and never will.

Jasper

Date: 19 Sep 2007 07:41:17
From: SMS
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46f07857$0$27209$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for their
>>>> bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night riding,
>>>> and hopefully the prices will fall with all this competition.
>>> It's not a lack of competition that's keeping prices up; it's the
>>> relatively-small quantities being manufactured. No single
>>> manufacturer has captured a large-enough share of the market to
>>> bring down costs. Nobody's been willing to take the pluge (spending
>>> a whole lot of $$$) and really mass-produce a high quality
>>> lower-cost system. Not even Cat-Eye, which seems to not do well
>>> each time they come out with a higher-end system.
>> I guess there's such a thing as too many players in the market.
>
> Not according to classical economics. Looked at the DVD player market?
>
>> I was very impressed with the beam of the Fenix L2DCE, which has
>> sufficient peripheral illumination off to the side, in addition to
>> the powerful spot beam. You don't get that with most of the low-power
>> bicycle lights which often have a beam that is a compromise to focus
>> the limited output directly in front of the bicycle.
>
> Well, at least you're persistent in your apologism for the incompetent
> grasp of optics exhibited by most battery powered light makers.
>
>> It seems that many of the bicycle lights are charging so much just
>> because of the mount to the bicycle, there's nothing so special about
>> the lights themselves.
>
> On this we agree.

Most of the dynamo headlights are very big compromises as well. However
with the low power battery powered headlights they make the mistake of
trying to project a beam that provides both peripheral and spot
illumination, without sufficient power. You end up with the worst of
both worlds. With most of the dynamo lights they're smart enough to give
up on peripheral illumination and just do a spot beam.

Date: 19 Sep 2007 20:13:33
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

In article <46f134bb$0$27252$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <46f07857$0$27209$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>> Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for
> >>>> their bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night
> >>>> riding, and hopefully the prices will fall with all this
> >>>> competition.
> >>> It's not a lack of competition that's keeping prices up; it's the
> >>> relatively-small quantities being manufactured. No single
> >>> manufacturer has captured a large-enough share of the market to
> >>> bring down costs. Nobody's been willing to take the pluge
> >>> (spending a whole lot of $$$) and really mass-produce a high
> >>> quality lower-cost system. Not even Cat-Eye, which seems to not
> >>> do well each time they come out with a higher-end system.
> >> I guess there's such a thing as too many players in the market.
> >
> > Not according to classical economics. Looked at the DVD player
> > market?
> >
> >> I was very impressed with the beam of the Fenix L2DCE, which has
> >> sufficient peripheral illumination off to the side, in addition to
> >> the powerful spot beam. You don't get that with most of the
> >> low-power bicycle lights which often have a beam that is a
> >> compromise to focus the limited output directly in front of the
> >> bicycle.
> >
> > Well, at least you're persistent in your apologism for the
> > incompetent grasp of optics exhibited by most battery powered light
> > makers.
> >
> >> It seems that many of the bicycle lights are charging so much just
> >> because of the mount to the bicycle, there's nothing so special
> >> about the lights themselves.
> >
> > On this we agree.
>
> Most of the dynamo headlights are very big compromises as well.
> However with the low power battery powered headlights they make the
> mistake of trying to project a beam that provides both peripheral and
> spot illumination, without sufficient power. You end up with the
> worst of both worlds. With most of the dynamo lights they're smart
> enough to give up on peripheral illumination and just do a spot beam.

Have you ever actually used a Lumotec headlight? There's a well defined
central area which is lensed in such a way that the top of the beam-
which illuminates the road farthest away- resulting in an evenly
illuminated patch of road. And there is adequate light to the sides to
see the edges of the road and a bit of the verge. Plenty of light in
the right places. I have had lots of people with 10W battery lights
following me because they can see better with my light than with theirs.

Date: 19 Sep 2007 20:02:09
From: SMS
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

Tim McNamara wrote:

> I have had lots of people with 10W battery lights
> following me because they can see better with my light than with theirs.

Of course you have Frank. Are these the same people that spontaneously
stop you to compliment you on your lights?

Date: 19 Sep 2007 23:05:28
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

In article <46f1e260$0$27193$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > I have had lots of people with 10W battery lights following me
> > because they can see better with my light than with theirs.
>
> Of course you have Frank. Are these the same people that
> spontaneously stop you to compliment you on your lights?

Pay attention, Steven. I'm not Frank. A downside of being contentious
is losing track of to whom you are talking.

But on that topic, I have also gotten spontaneous compliments on my
lights from non-bicyclists several times- car drivers and pedestrians
commenting on how bright my lights are. And I have gotten many comments
from beginning randonneurs during the night portions of rides. On half
a dozen or so brevets I have had riders ask to follow me because my
lights worked so much better than their NightRiders and whatnot. I like
the company so it works out OK.

Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:13:22
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-04218C.23052819092007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <46f1e260$0$27193$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> But on that topic, I have also gotten spontaneous compliments on my
> lights from non-bicyclists several times- car drivers and pedestrians
> commenting on how bright my lights are. And I have gotten many comments
> from beginning randonneurs during the night portions of rides. On half
> a dozen or so brevets I have had riders ask to follow me because my
> lights worked so much better than their NightRiders and whatnot. I like
> the company so it works out OK.

Sounds like a win for everyone!

Date: 20 Sep 2007 12:12:51
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

In article <KfmdneMSG4vJbmzbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Frank Drackman" <frankdrack@yahoo.com > wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-04218C.23052819092007@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article <46f1e260$0$27193$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> > <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But on that topic, I have also gotten spontaneous compliments on my
> > lights from non-bicyclists several times- car drivers and
> > pedestrians commenting on how bright my lights are. And I have
> > gotten many comments from beginning randonneurs during the night
> > portions of rides. On half a dozen or so brevets I have had riders
> > ask to follow me because my lights worked so much better than their
> > NightRiders and whatnot. I like the company so it works out OK.
>
> Sounds like a win for everyone!

Yes, it is. Riding for hours alone at night can be fun, but often it's
better with others along for the ride.

Date: 20 Sep 2007 04:17:43
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46f1e260$0$27193$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> I have had lots of people with 10W battery lights following me because
>> they can see better with my light than with theirs.
>
> Of course you have Frank. Are these the same people that spontaneously
> stop you to compliment you on your lights?

Can I be Frank too?

(must admit wife and I had a mutual "gosh, aren't our lights good" session
when we met each other coming home the other night. Both SON based 3W
halogen, one lumotech, one a plain old union lamp.)

clive

Date: 19 Sep 2007 16:27:53
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46f134bb$0$27252$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

> Most of the dynamo headlights are very big compromises as well. However
> with the low power battery powered headlights they make the mistake of
> trying to project a beam that provides both peripheral and spot
> illumination, without sufficient power. You end up with the worst of both
> worlds. With most of the dynamo lights they're smart enough to give up on
> peripheral illumination and just do a spot beam.

The beam pattern emitted by most of the non-bike-specific lamps - LEDs,
MR11, MR16 is pretty much circular. Ie rotate the thing, and it makes no
difference.

Thing is, for road riding at least, there's very little of interest in the
top 1/3 at least of the field of vision. In fact, most of the time there's
nothing at all. So why waste light sending it out there? Decent beam
focussing handles this, and it would help all lamps, not just dynamo ones.

With that in mind, why do you persist in advocating solutions which have
wasteful lenses?

clive

Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:51:55
From: SMS
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

Clive George wrote:

> With that in mind, why do you persist in advocating solutions which have
> wasteful lenses?

What you don't understand is that all that light is not "wasted." You're
falling into the trap of misunderstanding of how lights work as both
"seeing" and "being seen" devices, as well as ignoring the advantages of
the symmetrical beam. You need to realize how important it is to have
not only a spot beam, but the light up the periphery as well.

Look at the Solidlights for example. Other than the 1103 model, they use
two or three circular lenses which results in some overlap, but the
resulting beam is still more symmetrical.

Read the review at "http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/page4.htm"
which states "The light is a symmetrical beam, rather than the focused
beam of most of the lights designed for the Schmidt dynohub. But there
is an advantage to this type of beam for PBP. One thing I have noticed
recently is how well road signs reflect back. For PBP, this means the
reflective arrows on route markings on signposts and in trees should be
quite visible."

It's great to see a device like the SolidLights 1203D on the market.
Finally a company that "gets it" and produced a bright, safe, light for
dynamo systems. Not cheap, but as Mike pointed out, with the relatively
small quantities of each type of high-end light, the quantities aren't
there to bring prices down.

Date: 19 Sep 2007 23:35:56
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46f17d8a$0$27238$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> With that in mind, why do you persist in advocating solutions which have
>> wasteful lenses?
>
> What you don't understand is that all that light is not "wasted." You're
> falling into the trap of misunderstanding of how lights work as both
> "seeing" and "being seen" devices, as well as ignoring the advantages of
> the symmetrical beam. You need to realize how important it is to have not
> only a spot beam, but the light up the periphery as well.

How is lighting up the sky anything but wasting light? There's nothing there
to reflect back, there's nothing there which needs to see you.

FWIW my well-focussed B+M front lamp has no trouble with illuminating road
signs and "the periphery" - the sides need rather less light than the main
beam.

clive

Date: 20 Sep 2007 09:55:42
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:35:56 +0100, Clive George wrote:

> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46f17d8a$0$27238$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> With that in mind, why do you persist in advocating solutions which
>>> have wasteful lenses?
>>
>> What you don't understand is that all that light is not "wasted."
>> You're falling into the trap of misunderstanding of how lights work as
>> both "seeing" and "being seen" devices, as well as ignoring the
>> advantages of the symmetrical beam. You need to realize how important
>> it is to have not only a spot beam, but the light up the periphery as
>> well.
>
> How is lighting up the sky anything but wasting light? There's nothing
> there to reflect back, there's nothing there which needs to see you.

This is true, but many bike lights are so "well focused" that you can't
see street signs or even parked cars. They do this so they can advertise
better lumen ratings.

> FWIW my well-focussed B+M front lamp has no trouble with illuminating
> road signs and "the periphery" - the sides need rather less light than
> the main beam.

Well that's how it should be. I have an old Cateye Micro that's about
right -- with a bright center spot, and a large, dim peripheral ring that
lets me see signs, parked cars, and overhanging branches. I have a
Nightsun MR11 helmet lamp with a beam pattern nearly identical to the
Cateye's, just round instead of square. Superimposed on one another,
they're practically the same, but of course the Nightsun is much brighter.

I've done some work in automobile headlight development, and even those
are art as much as science -- too sharp a cutoff is undesirable.

Matt O.

Date: 20 Sep 2007 09:14:38
From: SMS
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> This is true, but many bike lights are so "well focused" that you can't
> see street signs or even parked cars. They do this so they can advertise
> better lumen ratings.

Bingo.

A lot of people don't understand the benefit of a _less_ focused beam,
they've been so brainwashed by statements of how great light A or light
B is because no light is "wasted" illuminating anything other than the
area directly in front of the bicycle.

There's no debate that the 3W dynamo lights provide a focused beam that
is probably the best use of its limited power. The SolidLight appears to
be the first light that can be powered by a dynamo that also provides a
beam that either on purpose or by accident, provides sufficient
peripheral illumination. There are lots of good battery lights on the
market that able to do this, as well as many el-cheapo lights that do not.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:55:05
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:14:38 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:

>There's no debate that the 3W dynamo lights provide a focused beam that
>is probably the best use of its limited power.

No they don't. My Lumotec illuminates outside the main beam fairly well.

Jasper

Date: 21 Sep 2007 06:28:46
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

SMS wrote:
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
>> This is true, but many bike lights are so "well focused" that you can't
>> see street signs or even parked cars. They do this so they can advertise
>> better lumen ratings.
>
> Bingo.
>
> A lot of people don't understand the benefit of a _less_ focused beam,
> they've been so brainwashed by statements of how great light A or light
> B is because no light is "wasted" illuminating anything other than the
> area directly in front of the bicycle.
>
> There's no debate that the 3W dynamo lights provide a focused beam that
> is probably the best use of its limited power. The SolidLight appears to
> be the first light that can be powered by a dynamo that also provides a
> beam that either on purpose or by accident, provides sufficient
> peripheral illumination. There are lots of good battery lights on the
> market that able to do this, as well as many el-cheapo lights that do not.

Good answer.
It's not what you can see that causes problems, but what you CAN'T see.

Dorfus

Date: 20 Sep 2007 12:18:12
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

In article <46f29c26$0$27243$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:

> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> > This is true, but many bike lights are so "well focused" that you
> > can't see street signs or even parked cars. They do this so they
> > can advertise better lumen ratings.
>
> Bingo.
>
> A lot of people don't understand the benefit of a _less_ focused
> beam, they've been so brainwashed by statements of how great light A
> or light B is because no light is "wasted" illuminating anything
> other than the area directly in front of the bicycle.

Again, have you *ever* ridden with a Lumotec? I get good central
lighting and enough peripheral lighting too. I don't know what fantasy
lights you are using, but obviously you need an upgrade. There are
indeed lights that overfocus the beam such as the Schmidt E6/BiSY, which
I don't care for because of that reason. But there are lights with
better beam patterns.

> There's no debate that the 3W dynamo lights provide a focused beam
> that is probably the best use of its limited power.

The power is the same, Steven. Do the math.

> The SolidLight appears to be the first light that can be powered by a
> dynamo that also provides a beam that either on purpose or by
> accident, provides sufficient peripheral illumination.

The difference is simply two lamps in one housing.

Date: 20 Sep 2007 07:25:04
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

> How is lighting up the sky anything but wasting light? There's nothing
> there to reflect back, there's nothing there which needs to see you.

> clive
-------------
Au contraire, riding in the dark with my
DiNotte on, something flew above my
helmet, and a little forward. If it
wasn't for my DiNotte lighting up the
sky, I wouldn't have seen it was a
Burger King Cup, full of ice, that was
thrown at me from some kids in a car
that just passed me. Without the
DiNotte, I wouldn't even known anything
was thrown at me.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:55:49
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:25:04 -0700, Crescentius Vespasianus
<jazzyboss@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>Au contraire, riding in the dark with my
>DiNotte on, something flew above my
>helmet, and a little forward. If it
>wasn't for my DiNotte lighting up the
>sky, I wouldn't have seen it was a
>Burger King Cup, full of ice, that was
>thrown at me from some kids in a car
>that just passed me. Without the
>DiNotte, I wouldn't even known anything
>was thrown at me.

And this helped you how?

Jasper

Date: 19 Sep 2007 17:27:16
From: SMS
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

Clive George wrote:

> FWIW my well-focussed B+M front lamp has no trouble with illuminating
> road signs and "the periphery" - the sides need rather less light than
> the main beam.

If it's aimed high enough to illuminate the signs, then it's not
sufficiently illuminating the road. If it's aimed low enough to
illuminate the road sufficiently far ahead then it's not sufficiently
illuminating the signs. There's no free lunch here.

Date: 20 Sep 2007 01:42:58
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46f1be13$0$27195$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> FWIW my well-focussed B+M front lamp has no trouble with illuminating
>> road signs and "the periphery" - the sides need rather less light than
>> the main beam.
>
> If it's aimed high enough to illuminate the signs, then it's not
> sufficiently illuminating the road. If it's aimed low enough to illuminate
> the road sufficiently far ahead then it's not sufficiently illuminating
> the signs. There's no free lunch here.

You don't need much light to illuminate road signs. Well, not here anyway -
they're properly reflective.

clive

Date: 20 Sep 2007 10:04:01
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:42:58 +0100, Clive George wrote:

> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46f1be13$0$27195$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW my well-focussed B+M front lamp has no trouble with illuminating
>>> road signs and "the periphery" - the sides need rather less light than
>>> the main beam.
>>
>> If it's aimed high enough to illuminate the signs, then it's not
>> sufficiently illuminating the road. If it's aimed low enough to
>> illuminate the road sufficiently far ahead then it's not sufficiently
>> illuminating the signs. There's no free lunch here.
>
> You don't need much light to illuminate road signs. Well, not here
> anyway - they're properly reflective.

Clive, you're spoiled. The UK is definitely at the forefront of traffic
engineering and safety. We (the US) could learn a lot from y'all.

Matt O.

Date: 20 Sep 2007 07:41:41
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

Clive George wrote:
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46f17d8a$0$27238$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> With that in mind, why do you persist in advocating solutions which
>>> have wasteful lenses?
>>
>> What you don't understand is that all that light is not "wasted."
>> You're falling into the trap of misunderstanding of how lights work as
>> both "seeing" and "being seen" devices, as well as ignoring the
>> advantages of the symmetrical beam. You need to realize how important
>> it is to have not only a spot beam, but the light up the periphery as
>> well.
>
> How is lighting up the sky anything but wasting light? There's nothing
> there to reflect back, there's nothing there which needs to see you.
>
> FWIW my well-focussed B+M front lamp has no trouble with illuminating
> road signs and "the periphery" - the sides need rather less light than
> the main beam.
>
> clive
>
>

Obviously you don't ride off road where things exist "up in the sky".

Dorfus

Date: 19 Sep 2007 20:16:23
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

In article <46f1b3fd$1_6@news.peopletelecom.com.au >,
Dorfus Dippintush <Dorfus.Dippintush@kippinbot.com > wrote:

> Clive George wrote:
> >
> > "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:46f17d8a$0$27238$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> Clive George wrote:
> >>
> >>> With that in mind, why do you persist in advocating solutions
> >>> which have wasteful lenses?
> >>
> >> What you don't understand is that all that light is not "wasted."
> >> You're falling into the trap of misunderstanding of how lights
> >> work as both "seeing" and "being seen" devices, as well as
> >> ignoring the advantages of the symmetrical beam. You need to
> >> realize how important it is to have not only a spot beam, but the
> >> light up the periphery as well.
> >
> > How is lighting up the sky anything but wasting light? There's
> > nothing there to reflect back, there's nothing there which needs to
> > see you.
> >
> > FWIW my well-focussed B+M front lamp has no trouble with
> > illuminating road signs and "the periphery" - the sides need rather
> > less light than the main beam.
>
> Obviously you don't ride off road where things exist "up in the sky".

We have all, I think, stipulated that generator lights don't work well
for off-road riding. The needs and conditions are much different than
with road riding.

Date: 20 Sep 2007 00:55:19
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

"Dorfus Dippintush" <Dorfus.Dippintush@kippinbot.com > wrote in message
news:46f1b3fd$1_6@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> Clive George wrote:
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:46f17d8a$0$27238$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>
>>>> With that in mind, why do you persist in advocating solutions which
>>>> have wasteful lenses?
>>>
>>> What you don't understand is that all that light is not "wasted." You're
>>> falling into the trap of misunderstanding of how lights work as both
>>> "seeing" and "being seen" devices, as well as ignoring the advantages of
>>> the symmetrical beam. You need to realize how important it is to have
>>> not only a spot beam, but the light up the periphery as well.
>>
>> How is lighting up the sky anything but wasting light? There's nothing
>> there to reflect back, there's nothing there which needs to see you.
>>
>> FWIW my well-focussed B+M front lamp has no trouble with illuminating
>> road signs and "the periphery" - the sides need rather less light than
>> the main beam.
>
> Obviously you don't ride off road where things exist "up in the sky".

You'll have missed the bit when I said I was talking about on-road riding.
Take a look a couple of messages back in the thread - I was quite explicit
about it.

cheers,
clive

Date: 19 Sep 2007 00:16:42
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46f07857$0$27209$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for their
>>> bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night riding, and
>>> hopefully the prices will fall with all this competition.
>>
>> It's not a lack of competition that's keeping prices up; it's the
>> relatively-small quantities being manufactured. No single manufacturer
>> has captured a large-enough share of the market to bring down costs.
>> Nobody's been willing to take the pluge (spending a whole lot of $$$) and
>> really mass-produce a high quality lower-cost system. Not even Cat-Eye,
>> which seems to not do well each time they come out with a higher-end
>> system.
>
> I guess there's such a thing as too many players in the market. Meanwhile,
> some of the high end 3W Cree LED flashlights are brighter than the DiNotte
> lights, and combined with one of the many handlebar clamps available you
> can have a good front light for $60 or so, one that blows the low power
> CatEye lamps out of the water. Combine it with a Trek Disco Inferno or a
> CatEye LD1000 and you can have a very good system for under $100.
>

So the 3W Cree flashlights are brighter than the DiNotte 200L, which has a
5W emitter putting out 200 lumens? It appears, from DiNotte's website, that
they are no longer producing a 3W light.

The future will be dominated by multi-emitter LED lights. $200 is not that
expensive, considering people will spend that much on less important bike
gear.

Date: 18 Sep 2007 17:50:06
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: So many new lighting systems, who's buying them all?

SMS wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Are there really that many people buying $200-400 lights for their
>>> bicycles? I hope that this signals a trend to more night riding, and
>>> hopefully the prices will fall with all this competition.
>>
>> It's not a lack of competition that's keeping prices up; it's the
>> relatively-small quantities being manufactured. No single manufacturer
>> has captured a large-enough share of the market to bring down costs.
>> Nobody's been willing to take the pluge (spending a whole lot of $$$)
>> and really mass-produce a high quality lower-cost system. Not even
>> Cat-Eye, which seems to not do well each time they come out with a
>> higher-end system.
>
> I guess there's such a thing as too many players in the market.
> Meanwhile, some of the high end 3W Cree LED flashlights are brighter
> than the DiNotte lights, and combined with one of the many handlebar
> clamps available you can have a good front light for $60 or so, one that
> blows the low power CatEye lamps out of the water. Combine it with a
> Trek Disco Inferno or a CatEye LD1000 and you can have a very good
> system for under $100.
>
> I was very impressed with the beam of the Fenix L2DCE, which has
> sufficient peripheral illumination off to the side, in addition to the
> powerful spot beam. You don't get that with most of the low-power
> bicycle lights which often have a beam that is a compromise to focus the
> limited output directly in front of the bicycle. It seems that many of
> the bicycle lights are charging so much just because of the mount to the
> bicycle, there's nothing so special about the lights themselves.
>
> Maybe I'll restart the All Night Bicycle Rides I used to do for Western
> Wheelers. They were great fun, and I was surprised at the turnout. I
> expected three people and would often get thirty. It was as much a
> lighting system comparison as a ride! Thank g-d the Donut Wheel is still
> open 24 hours.
-------------
Night riding is my favorite. On the
road, hell of a lot less cars to deal
with, and you get to play with lights,
rear lights, reflective gear, gives
cycling a whole different spin. People
are afraid of the dark, because they
don't have the right equipment, and they
think they're going to get run over. I
ride about 5000 miles a year in the
dark, and 5000 in the day, and the
number of close calls I've had with cars
is 5 to 1 daytime vs nightime. If you
have the courage to ride in the day, the
night is a piece of cake. One exception
is maybe Friday and Saturday nights, I
still try to avoid those. But I avoid
those driving too, a lot juiced up kooks
you see during those nights. People
throwing stuff at you and the like.
I think the economies of scale argument
on bicycle lights is bogus. Like the
fenix flashlight, is better built, won't
break, but yet costs 25% as much as bike
light with the same LED, with some
proprietary battery, that will break
eventually. It's called a rip-off.
Cateye's are still selling 1 watt Lux
LED's that are 5 year old technology.
They should be selling those for 20
bucks. I dropped one, and it broke,
that's how cheap it was, that's when I
said I'm not going to let them rip me
off anymore.