Bicycle lighting question

Chris Zacho The Wheelman said:

Back when I was commuting to work daily and riding double centuries
every year, I plopped down the virtual cash on the necessity of an ultra
bright lighting system (NightSun). Even then, the thought of paying
$200+ for a bicycle light was more than slightly irritating. Automobile
headlights don't cost that much (and are much brighter to boot (yeah, I
know thy have access to more power!)). Even the "complete" headlights
(bulb and reflector) are 60% cheaper. So why do bicycle lights cost so
much?

Now we have the HID (arc) lights going for TWICE the price! I love the
idea of getting 30+ watts for 4+ hours run time on one charge, but I
still have to wonder at the price. Just what IS it that makes bike
lights so expensive?

Besides the fact that there isn't any less expensive competition from
Auto-Zone or X-mart, I mean.

- -

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

Making very small HID bulbs is very expensive because its done by hand. The fused quartz glass is much harder to work than regular glass and the arc length is very critical. As of current, there are no methods to mechanize the process as there is for automotive HID bulbs.

In a HID, there are three electrodes that must be positioned very carefully and then the bulb is "charged" with a mix of element to produce the desired color. If the arc length is too short, the bulb will burn out. Too long and the ballast will fry.

Then we have the ballast. This device can literally kill as the ignition sequence is very high and lethal voltage. Once lit, the ballast must then switch to 80-120 volts for output. It then must monitor the current constantly because if allowed to go to high, the bulb will burn out. If too low, the arc will extinguish. It alters the current by changing the voltage.

To do this, there is a feedback loop system, most often controlled by a very small programmable computer like a BASIC stamp. Yes, its a microprocessor controlled system and whoever programmed it spent good time writing the code. He get a cut for his efforts.

Wholesale price, in lots of 1000, for some of the popular bulb/ballast combinations is still over $100. Throw in the charger ($10-30), a good NiMH 4AH ($40), cords and cases ($10) and packaging etc and a wholesale COST is nearly $200.

HID lights require ballast circuits and are very precise instruments that
are hard to manufacture. Because of this they are expensive and fragile.

LED technology is really taking over. 3 watt emitters which are much more
efficient than halogens cost less than $15. I bought two 3 watt flashlights
from elektrolumens for $40 each. They have voltage regulators and run about
an hour on two NiMH AAs, which are easy to swap out.

"Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Back when I was commuting to work daily and riding double centuries
every year, I plopped down the virtual cash on the necessity of an ultra
bright lighting system (NightSun). Even then, the thought of paying
$200+ for a bicycle light was more than slightly irritating. Automobile
headlights don't cost that much (and are much brighter to boot (yeah, I
know thy have access to more power!)). Even the "complete" headlights
(bulb and reflector) are 60% cheaper. So why do bicycle lights cost so
much?

Now we have the HID (arc) lights going for TWICE the price! I love the
idea of getting 30+ watts for 4+ hours run time on one charge, but I
still have to wonder at the price. Just what IS it that makes bike
lights so expensive?

Besides the fact that there isn't any less expensive competition from
Auto-Zone or X-mart, I mean.

- -

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

(Robert Haston) said:

HID lights require ballast circuits and are
very precise instruments that are hard to
manufacture. Because of this they are
expensive and fragile.

Quoted message said:

LED technology is really taking over. 3
watt emitters which are much more
efficient than halogens cost less than
$15. I bought two 3 watt flashlights from
elektrolumens for $40 each. They have
voltage regulators and run about an hour
on two NiMH AAs, which are easy to
swap out.

How bright are they though? Granted, the six red LED's on my CatEye are
are dazzling. It isn't made for lighting the road. Very few are the
street lamps here in rural South Carolina...

- -

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

Chris Zacho 'The Wheelman said:

(Robert Haston) said:

HID lights require ballast circuits and are
very precise instruments that are hard to
manufacture. Because of this they are
expensive and fragile.

Quoted message said:

LED technology is really taking over. 3
watt emitters which are much more
efficient than halogens cost less than
$15. I bought two 3 watt flashlights from
elektrolumens for $40 each. They have
voltage regulators and run about an hour
on two NiMH AAs, which are easy to
swap out.

How bright are they though? Granted, the six red LED's on my CatEye
are are dazzling. It isn't made for lighting the road. Very few are
the street lamps here in rural South Carolina...

I bought one of these Electrolumens XM-3s for $45 shipped, too. Sufficient
for slower off-road riding, but might not cut it for faster speeds. The
throw is not too far... about 20 feet at most. I'm not sure about road
performance... the roads I was on were lighted, and the XM-3 didn't make a
huge difference in these areas.

All in all, not worth the cost. I would go for a 10 watt halogen instead.
The portability is nice, but the current through the circuit really needs to
go up for one to consider it usable in all conditions.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris

Zacho 'The Wheelman said:

How bright are they though? Granted, the six red LED's on my CatEye are
are dazzling. It isn't made for lighting the road. Very few are the
street lamps here in rural South Carolina...

I've been using the Nitehawk Digital Emitter for about a month now. On the
top setting on an unlighted road, this is what I find (approx 35kph, I have
good night vision and 20/20 generally):

Dry roads: I get about 5 - 6 seconds warning of small objects on the road.
Enough to comfortably avoid the obstacle.

Wet roads (it's been raining all day, but currently is not): 4 - 5 seconds,
I can avoid everything, but I do have to be alert and like to use the light
from passing cars to give me a chance to look ahead.

Heavy rain: Forget it. Even taking my clear glasses off I can only get
maybe a second's warning. Mind you we're talking situations where even car
lights are feeling dimmed.

I wouldn't use it offroad; the beam is too tightly focused.

Compared to the 6 watt halogen I had been using:

On dry roads, it's the same. The halogen had a wider beam, but it was
unecessary.

In the rainy conditions, I feel my halogen had more power, but I have to
admit I didn't use it as much in those conditions so I don't have a good
feel for it.

5+ hours on 4AA's is a major advantage, and it doesn't dim at the end of
the week; the halogen never got more than 2 hours on a heavy lead-acid and
was dimming noticeably by the end.

Basically, I find the led more than sufficient for "sane" night riding, and
not having to worry about the batteries is a major plus.

--
"Divide by cucumber error, please reinstall Universe and reboot"
-- Terry Pratchett, _Hogfather_

LED technology is really taking over. 3 watt emitters which are much more
efficient than halogens cost less than $15. I bought two 3 watt flashlights
from elektrolumens for $40 each. They have voltage regulators and run about
an hour on two NiMH AAs, which are easy to swap out.

how bright are they, compared to halogen? can you see a dark road well enough to ride?

In article <[email hidden]>,

anerobic said:

LED technology is really taking over. 3 watt emitters which are much
more
efficient than halogens cost less than $15. I bought two 3 watt
flashlights
from elektrolumens for $40 each. They have voltage regulators and run
about
an hour on two NiMH AAs, which are easy to swap out.

how bright are they, compared to halogen? can you see a dark road well
enough to ride?

LEDs are not more efficient(defined as lumens/watt) than halogens,
halogens have the edge when they are overvolted. Both LEDs and halogens
are considerably less efficient than fluorescents.

LEDs and fluorescents are difficult to focus into a beam narrow enough
to be useful for bike riding.

--
Ted Bennett
Portland, OR

Ted said:

LEDs and fluorescents are difficult to focus into a beam narrow enough
to be useful for bike riding.

LEDs are no harder to focus than incandescents. In fact they're probably
easier. Witness the Cateye TL1000, which is much more tightly focused than the
Micro II halogen. In fact, it's too tight.

Matt O.

Ted said:

LEDs are not more efficient(defined as lumens/watt) than halogens,
halogens have the edge when they are overvolted. Both LEDs and halogens
are considerably less efficient than fluorescents.

I think he meant battery use.
the leds and the halogen bulbs are about equal watt for watt. but I guess leds
vary quite a bit in quality. a couple of uk companies have a three led light
that works great on the road.
but led's need regulation and they need heatsinks

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ted said:

LEDs and fluorescents are difficult to focus into a beam narrow enough
to be useful for bike riding.

LEDs are no harder to focus than incandescents. In fact they're probably
easier. Witness the Cateye TL1000, which is much more tightly focused

than the

Quoted message said:

Micro II halogen. In fact, it's too tight.

Matt O.

I've used halogens and LEDs and I'm sticking with the LEDS.
See them here.

http://www.hyperactive.oz.nf/Luxeon/twin_luxeon_headlights.htm

Marty

Matt O'Toole said:

Ted said:

LEDs and fluorescents are difficult to focus into a beam narrow enough
to be useful for bike riding.

LEDs are no harder to focus than incandescents. In fact they're probably
easier. Witness the Cateye TL1000, which is much more tightly focused than the
Micro II halogen. In fact, it's too tight.

LEDs can be focused tightly, but I'm not aware of anyone producing an
LED headlight with a well-shaped beam.

Car headlights, motorcycle headlights, moped headlights, and even
tractor headlights shape the beams to light the road. The same is true
of most inexpensive bike headlights (like the incandescent Cateye
models). They don't use cone-shaped beams of light, because such a beam
wastes light and, if bright enough, can blind oncoming drivers.

Are there any LED headlights that use properly shaped beams - that is,
beams with flat upper cutoffs, that throw their light onto the road?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:06:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski:

Quoted message said:

Are there any LED headlights that use properly shaped beams - that is,
beams with flat upper cutoffs, that throw their light onto the road?

There are some attempts in this direction:

Busch&Mueller DLumotec Topal

Basta Pilot Steady

Trelock LS-600

Cateye HL-EL500G

The Cateye has the most extreme "shaped" beam - too narrow and short to be
useful in most circumstances (even when used to narrow shaped dynamo
headlamps).

Andreas

"Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Ted said:

LEDs and fluorescents are difficult to focus into a beam narrow enough
to be useful for bike riding.

LEDs are no harder to focus than incandescents. In fact they're

probably

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

easier. Witness the Cateye TL1000, which is much more tightly focused

than the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Micro II halogen. In fact, it's too tight.

LEDs can be focused tightly, but I'm not aware of anyone producing an
LED headlight with a well-shaped beam.

Car headlights, motorcycle headlights, moped headlights, and even
tractor headlights shape the beams to light the road. The same is true
of most inexpensive bike headlights (like the incandescent Cateye
models). They don't use cone-shaped beams of light, because such a beam
wastes light and, if bright enough, can blind oncoming drivers.

Are there any LED headlights that use properly shaped beams - that is,
beams with flat upper cutoffs, that throw their light onto the road?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

I use LED headlights and the beam shape is perfect for me.
Because they don't produce beam shapes to suit you doesn't mean they can't
produce good beam shapes.
15% of the population will not be happy no matter what you do to appease
them. It's the way people are.

Marty

I don't know if this is at all a useful observation for you, but having gotten totally frustrated at the short battery life of my super-high-end dual Niterider setup, I went out and sourced a really fine generator hub and light. It is amazing how bright it is. When turned off, you don't get any perceptible amount of drag. Obviously I would never use the hub for racing -- it weighs over a pound -- but that's the beauty of it, just swap the wheel out. It feels great to be generating my own power, too ... rechargeable lights are causing the power station to burn more coal and just polluting the air. All I'm doing is either (i) eating a little more, or (ii) getting there 1% slower.

Marty Wallace said:

"Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Are there any LED headlights that use properly shaped beams - that is,
beams with flat upper cutoffs, that throw their light onto the road?

I use LED headlights and the beam shape is perfect for me.

Are you frequently divebombed by bats, or something?

Quoted message said:

Because they don't produce beam shapes to suit you doesn't mean they can't
produce good beam shapes.

This is not a purely subjective matter. For road use there is no purpose
served in lighting up the sky.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

Marty Wallace said:

I use LED headlights and the beam shape is perfect for me.

You may have some unusual requirements. Or you may not realize the
difference an engineered beam shape can make.

Quoted message said:

Because they don't produce beam shapes to suit you doesn't mean they can't
produce good beam shapes.

There may be LED lights that produce a good beam shape. I just haven't
seen one yet. But let's think about what's really "good."

If a light source is putting out a certain number of lumens, you'll see
the road best if all those lumens hit the road at a reasonable range of
distances in front of you.

In practice, you want a small amount of light to "leak" out in other
directions, because you want to be visible to other road users - but
that doesn't take much. Light that goes above horizontal is completely
wasted, assuming you're riding on the road. Nobody on this planet sees
it! (It's mostly wasted for technical mountain biking too, since
overhead branches don't need as much light as the trail surface.)

Of course, you can point an un-engineered, cone-shaped beam downward;
but then you get a light patch which is extra bright close to the bike,
and not up to optimum brightness further down the road. This is
backwards of what's ideal.

It's best to have a beam with a flat cutoff, sending almost all light
onto the road. The top part of that beam should be more intense (larger
number of candela) and the bottom part somewhat less intense. This will
use the available lumens most effectively and produce a more evenly lit
surface, as viewed by the rider.

Quoted message said:

15% of the population will not be happy no matter what you do to appease
them. It's the way people are.

Maybe so. But there are too many cyclists who approach lights with a
"MORE IS BETTER!!!" philosophy, and they ignore the simple idea of
directing the light where it's really needed!

It seems odd to me; in every other aspect of cycling, people try for
maximum efficiency, and with good reason! Why is lamp design so ham-fisted?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Marty Wallace said:

I use LED headlights and the beam shape is perfect for me.

You may have some unusual requirements. Or you may not realize the
difference an engineered beam shape can make.

Quoted message said:

Because they don't produce beam shapes to suit you doesn't mean they

can't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

produce good beam shapes.

There may be LED lights that produce a good beam shape. I just haven't
seen one yet. But let's think about what's really "good."

If a light source is putting out a certain number of lumens, you'll see
the road best if all those lumens hit the road at a reasonable range of
distances in front of you.

In practice, you want a small amount of light to "leak" out in other
directions, because you want to be visible to other road users - but
that doesn't take much. Light that goes above horizontal is completely
wasted, assuming you're riding on the road. Nobody on this planet sees
it! (It's mostly wasted for technical mountain biking too, since
overhead branches don't need as much light as the trail surface.)

Well you're assuming I'm riding a road bike which I'm not. I ride enough
night time mountain bike riding to know your opinion is not only just an
opinion but a wrong one.

Quoted message said:

Of course, you can point an un-engineered, cone-shaped beam downward;
but then you get a light patch which is extra bright close to the bike,
and not up to optimum brightness further down the road. This is
backwards of what's ideal.

It's best to have a beam with a flat cutoff, sending almost all light
onto the road. The top part of that beam should be more intense (larger
number of candela) and the bottom part somewhat less intense. This will
use the available lumens most effectively and produce a more evenly lit
surface, as viewed by the rider.

A flat cutoff is the last thing I want. I want to be able to see trees and
branches as well when I'm riding on twisty tracks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

15% of the population will not be happy no matter what you do to appease
them. It's the way people are.

Maybe so. But there are too many cyclists who approach lights with a
"MORE IS BETTER!!!" philosophy, and they ignore the simple idea of
directing the light where it's really needed!

It seems odd to me; in every other aspect of cycling, people try for
maximum efficiency, and with good reason! Why is lamp design so

ham-fisted?

Quoted message said:

It's only ham-fisted in your opinion. Not everybody rides as if they have
blinkers on.

Quoted message said:

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Marty

Marty Wallace said:

"Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

If a light source is putting out a certain number of lumens, you'll see
the road best if all those lumens hit the road at a reasonable range of
distances in front of you.

Well you're assuming I'm riding a road bike which I'm not.

Frank made it perfectly clear he was discussing road riding early on when
he wrote;

"Car headlights, motorcycle headlights, moped headlights, and even
tractor headlights shape the beams to light the road."

.... before you got involved. You might as well respond to a complaint that
few bicycles for road use come with mudguards by pointing out that they
get clogged up with mud off-road.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

Marty Wallace said:

"Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Marty Wallace said:

I use LED headlights and the beam shape is perfect for me.

You may have some unusual requirements. Or you may not realize the
difference an engineered beam shape can make.

Well you're assuming I'm riding a road bike which I'm not. I ride enough
night time mountain bike riding to know your opinion is not only just an
opinion but a wrong one.

I was talking about road riding, and I'd guess 99% of night riding is
road riding. If your lights are designed for orr-road biking at night,
then as I said above, you may have some unusual requirements.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's best to have a beam with a flat cutoff, sending almost all light
onto the road. The top part of that beam should be more intense (larger
number of candela) and the bottom part somewhat less intense. This will
use the available lumens most effectively and produce a more evenly lit
surface, as viewed by the rider.

A flat cutoff is the last thing I want. I want to be able to see trees and
branches as well when I'm riding on twisty tracks.

I wonder if you've ever ridden trails at night with an optically
engineered headlight - that is, one that shapes the beam to focus on the
road? I ask because ISTM that even in mountain biking, you don't need
the upward light to be _nearly_ as bright as the downward & forward light!

If I were designing the optics for a mountain bike light, I believe I'd
use a much wider beam than for typical road lights, since for single
track work, I find my self making much slower, sharper turns than on the
road. I'd probably put a _little_ more light upwards than in a typical
road beam. But I certainly wouldn't light the trees as brightly as the
path! There's just no need for that, and doing so wastes either beam
width, or brightness, or battery life.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems odd to me; in every other aspect of cycling, people try for
maximum efficiency, and with good reason! Why is lamp design so
ham-fisted?

It's only ham-fisted in your opinion. Not everybody rides as if they have
blinkers on.

<sigh> I've got a couple of true antique bike lights, one from about
1900 and one from about 1950. Those antiques did not shape the beam -
they just put out a somewhat fuzzy cone of light.

The bike lights I've got from the 1960s all at least _try_ to shape the
beam to the task. Those from the 1970s do a very good job of putting
the light where it's really needed. And that remains true _until_ you
look at the super-expensive NightSun offerings and their MR-11 or MR-16
kin. Suddenly, the optical technology regresses to the level of 1900!

Yes, in my opinion that's ham-fisted. It's like adding a power assist
to a spoon brake, and claiming it's as good as the latest Campy road brakes.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]