Brightest LED Headlight?

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

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

Horses for courses!

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

Matt O.

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

bob prohaska's usenet account said:

Quoted message said:

One of the reasons I prefer generator lights.

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

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

bob prohaska's usenet account said:

Quoted message said:

One of the reasons I prefer generator lights.

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

As Peter Cole wrote:
"I'm always surprised that so many serious cyclists who otherwise
recognize the equivalence of bicycles to other vehicles take exception
to lighting requirements. I wouldn't dare operate a motorcycle with a 3W
light, so I don't understand the recommendation to operate a bicycle (at
often similar speeds ) with such inadequate lights. Perhaps this was an
accommodation to the technological limitations of the past, but in these
times of readily available and relatively cheap, high-wattage
alternatives, it seems a bad way to go."

Quoted message said:

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

There is a 6W dynamo. I'm not sure that many people would be willing to
put up with the drag of a 10-15 W dynamo. Personally I would be willing
to do so, to get away from batteries.

The 3W standard is seen by some as having come about because it was the
minimum amount of light that was adequate for bicycling, when in reality
it's as you pointed out, it comes from what was possible to generate
from dynamos at the time.

SMS said:

bob prohaska's usenet account said:

Quoted message said:

One of the reasons I prefer generator lights.

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

As Peter Cole wrote:
"I'm always surprised that so many serious cyclists who otherwise
recognize the equivalence of bicycles to other vehicles take exception
to lighting requirements. I wouldn't dare operate a motorcycle with a 3W
light, so I don't understand the recommendation to operate a bicycle (at
often similar speeds ) with such inadequate lights.

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

frkrygow said:

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

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

--

David L. Johnson

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

David L. Johnson said:

frkrygow said:

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

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

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

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

focused. Optics really is important.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

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

Agreed again.

Quoted message said:

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

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, it will be a bit more work. Efficiency
will have to be on the level of a Schmidt SON or better. With modern
materials that's not out of the question. As a commuter and exercise
rider, not a speed rider, I'll accept a little more work.

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

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

bob prohaska

David L. Johnson said:

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

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

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

"bob prohaska's usenet account" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

focused. Optics really is important.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

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

Agreed again.

Quoted message said:

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

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, it will be a bit more work.
Efficiency
will have to be on the level of a Schmidt SON or better. With modern
materials that's not out of the question. As a commuter and exercise
rider, not a speed rider, I'll accept a little more work.

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

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

bob prohaska

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

Ken Freeman

Road Man said:

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

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

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

bob prohaska

Matt O'Toole said:

David L. Johnson said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

SMS said:

David L. Johnson wrote:

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

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

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

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

cheers,
Tom

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

frkrygow said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

Matt O.

Tom Keats said:

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

I think so too.

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

Matt O.

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

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

"bob prohaska's usenet account" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Road Man said:

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

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

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

bob prohaska

Road Man said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

Matt O'Toole said:

frkrygow said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

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

bob prohaska

bob prohaska's usenet account said:

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

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski