# Bike Lighting Basics and StVZO Compliance



## steelhmr (Sep 30, 2011)

I came across this article and thought I would share it here to discuss: 

Views on Equipment Choices for Nighttime Cycling - Recumbent Journal. I disagree with some of the points, but mainly I was interested in comparing the advantages and disadvantages of cutoffs for road use.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

This discussion will be right up Androgen ally. Maybe he will chime in with his thoughts.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

I do believe there there are different things to consider when talking about beam cutoff and making comparison to car headlights. 

1) most all car headlights are professionally aligned at the factory. So even if you made bike lights with certain horizon cutoff, there will be too many factors to ensure the end user mounts it correctly etc. 

2) the distance from the drivers seat in a car to the area of needed visibility is much farther as compared to a bicycle and the seating position on the bicycle. 

3) no matter what you do the minute you mount a light onto a helmet all bets are off as people start moving their heads around to see this and that you are bound to get some shine into the eyes of others. 

4) some bikers need light above the horizon to ensure they don't get smacked in the face/head by low hanging branches etc. 

However I am a believer than manufactures can stop pushing for higher and brighter lights and instead start pushing for more efficient and better beam patterns (or even switchable beam patterns. I.e low beam and high beam type different patterns)


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> This discussion will be right up Androgen ally. Maybe he will chime in with his thoughts.


i browsed through that article - it is remarkably good.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

steelhmr said:


> mainly I was interested in comparing the advantages and disadvantages of cutoffs for road use.


there are only advantages really. that's why all cars have them.

the problem is that nobody makes such lights except to comply with German standards, and these lights for whatever reason end up being expensive and under-powered. maybe the German standard is too restrictive, or maybe there simply is no demand for a different type of light. consumer ignorance is a huge drain on progress. free market will not deliver what the consumer can't understand that he needs.

the Dosun is probably the best in terms of performance, but the charger is bad, and the battery mount is not fully secure. i don't think there is any STVZO light that i can actually recommend - they all suck basically - but it's nothing inherent to lights with cutoff - just the way market situation looks right now.

Seca 2000 Enduro is still the best road light in my estimate. Helmet mounted.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> However I am a believer than manufactures can stop pushing for higher and brighter lights and instead start pushing for more efficient and better beam patterns (or even switchable beam patterns. I.e low beam and high beam type different patterns)


i would prefer both. the brightest STVZO lights out today are in the 300-400 lumens range. car HID lights are 5,000 lumens or so, and often better shaped than the best STVZO bike lights. that's what ideally we need.

we can get away with a little less than that because we don't move as fast as cars, but still i don't see it as either-or. either beam shape or brightness. i want both. with L&M Seca you get pretty close to having both, but it has no cutoff of course. it simply has a nice beam, but it is mostly round - just slightly oval and with a bit extra spill on the bottom for near-field visibility.

the main obstacle is consumer ignorance. if consumers demanded bike lights with performance equal to the best car HID headlights they would get it. instead today a woman laughed at me when i suggested selling her my Philips Saferide for about $100 - she said she already has a light, and she bought it for $10 at the bike store. she looked very smug informing me of that. so long as civilians can't even understand that their 10 lumen lights with 5 degree beam width are inadequate there is little hope that we will soon see the kind of lights that would be a $1,000 option on a German luxury car ( not including battery, charger, housing, mount or cables ).

there is simply no limit to human stupidity. none. not my opinion - Einstein's. people will buy a car with $10,000 worth of safety features, then not be willing to spend more than $10 on bike safety while they are just as likely to get killed on the bike as in the car. there is no logic in this - it's just pure stupidity.

99 out of 100 people have no ability for analytical thinking at all - they simply copy each other in everything they do. they have concepts of how things "should be" which are not based on any sort of logic or analysis but only on the way things already are. to 99 out of 100 people the way things are and the way things should be is the same thing. and if somebody does something different they laugh. this is an evolutionary adaptation which allows humans to act as an orderly society through instinctively copy each other. unfortunately this means that an average person is not much more intelligent than an ant or a bee. the tendency of society to laugh at and attack anybody who actually uses his brain is also an evolutionary adaptation - a self defense mechanism for society as a whole. death is an evolutionary adaptation too believe it or not.

unfortunately for the masses, i have an ignore list


----------



## -Archie- (Aug 25, 2013)

androgen said:


> 99 out of 100 people have no ability for analytical thinking at all


And the rest 1 typically believe he is a rare genius...


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

androgen said:


> i would prefer both. the brightest STVZO lights out today are in the 300-400 lumens range. car HID lights are 5,000 lumens or so, and often better shaped than the best STVZO bike lights. that's what ideally we need.
> 
> we can get away with a little less than that because we don't move as fast as cars, but still i don't see it as either-or. either beam shape or brightness. i want both. with L&M Seca you get pretty close to having both, but it has no cutoff of course. it simply has a nice beam, but it is mostly round - just slightly oval and with a bit extra spill on the bottom for near-field visibility.
> 
> ...


Paragraph one and two: meds working well.
Paragraph three: meds wearing off
Paragraph four and five: meds totally ineffective.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

Vancbiker said:


> Paragraph one and two: meds working well.
> Paragraph three: meds wearing off
> Paragraph four and five: meds totally ineffective.


but it's true though - it's all up to the consumer demand.

look - people in US embraced the SUV, and totally rejected the Station Wagon and Hatchback. people in Europe on the other hand have embraced Station Wagon and Hatchback and rejected the SUV.

if this was Soviet Union, or North Korea, or modern-day Germany they could simply have a government committee that decides for you what you should use, but since we live in a ( relatively ) free country the obstacle of consumer stupidity and ignorance is insurmountable.

the people ( in America ) don't care if they NEVER go off-road in their SUV, they don't care if it guzzles gas, has poor handling, a tendency to roll over and no more actual cargo capacity or room than a station wagon - they WANT the SUV.

the people on MTBR might have legitimate need for an SUV but i guarantee you - 90% of the people here in Brooklyn that have SUVs have no use for them whatsoever. half of the SUVs and crossovers sold don't even have 4 wheel drive, because people who buy them don't even know what that is and if they knew they still wouldn't opt for it because they just drive their SUV to the grocery store and back.

instead people simply have an IMAGE in their mind of what their car should look like, and that image is a Land Rover. like that guy who ran over a bunch of Bikers in Manhattan who was driving a Land Rover - you think he uses that SUV to go off-road ? NEVER. everybody in NYC drives a Land Rover just because everybody else does.

and if you were to drive a car that doesn't fit the image people will laugh at you. nobody wants to be laughed at so everybody buys the Land Rover. simple as that.

same with bike lights - people have an image of what bike lights look like - and that image is a $10 blinky. so everybody gets a $10 blinky, because they all want to be like everybody else, and are afraid to be laughed at.

you know i'm right. humans are herd animals - it has been a known fact for thousands of years.

meanwhile in Europe people don't drive SUVs. why ? are roads different in a European city from New York City ? no. the image in people's heads of what a car looks like is different. they don't have an image of an SUV in their heads because people there don't drive SUVs and they don't drive SUVs because they don't have an image of an SUV in their heads. circular and illogical - human nature.

you are laughed at in New York if you drive a Smart Car. you are laughed at in Europe if you drive a Hummer. people just laugh at anything that is different. right now it is my lights that are different, but if everybody rode bikes with lights like mine then people who ride bikes with regular dim blinkys would be laughed at - guaranteed.

i just don't see the reason why i should be guided by other people's stupidity instead of my own intelligence


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

Interesting post Androgen.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

steelhmr said:


> I came across this article and thought I would share it here to discuss:
> 
> Views on Equipment Choices for Nighttime Cycling - Recumbent Journal. I disagree with some of the points, but mainly I was interested in comparing the advantages and disadvantages of cutoffs for road use.


Basically, I think it's a product of bureaucrats with too much time on their hands. I don't get blinded by car head lights, my bright bike lights (2400 lumen Wilma) have only elicited comments of "nice lights" or "where did you get those lights" from those who made comments to me.

My car has the cut off lights and it doesn't make any real difference in use as a driver. When I've observed, say, my wife driving my car towards me I don't notice any big relief from being "blinded" by this car's headlights than I would by another car's without the cutoff lights.

Finally, if you take a "symmetric" headlight like my Wilma 2400 and aim it straight out, then it's pretty bright to look at but it's almost completely useless as a headlight since the vast majority of it's photos are shot out into empty air and not on the pavement I'm riding on. If you aim it down a touch so that it IS useful, then even the top end of the beam (main part) is still aimed downward somewhat. So you basically have to be a complete idiot to ride with your lights where they are "blinding" to someone else.

As for tail lights, make them as bright with as many lumens as you can possible get in a currently available tail light and then aim it straight back horizontal to the road with as obnoxious of a flashing pattern as you can get. It's super bright, it creates a huge bloom of red around the cyclist and causes automobile drivers to treat the cyclist appropriately.

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> Basically, I think it's a product of bureaucrats with too much time on their hands. I don't get blinded by car head lights, my bright bike lights (2400 lumen Wilma) have only elicited comments of "nice lights" or "where did you get those lights" from those who made comments to me.
> 
> My car has the cut off lights and it doesn't make any real difference in use as a driver. When I've observed, say, my wife driving my car towards me I don't notice any big relief from being "blinded" by this car's headlights than I would by another car's without the cutoff lights.
> 
> ...


if your car has HID high beams ask your wife to flash them on a dark street at night, compare to low-beams and tell me you don't notice a great difference 

shaped beams have the potential to not only reduce glare, increase brightness, save battery weight and extend run times but also to produce more even lighting.

unfortunately no light exists that actually takes advantage of this potential.

Light & Motion Seca / Taz is a good compromise between a brute power dumb light like Lupine and an over-optimized and weak light like SafeRide. with Seca / Taz you get most of the power of Lupine / Exposure but with some of the advantages of beam shaping.

it would be nice to see more aggressive beam shaping from Light & Motion or more power from Philips Saferide but so far all the lights on the market fall far short of the potential modern technology has. on the whole i would say that Seca comes closest to realizing the potential of modern technology - closest, but not close.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Yes it does. But it's not blinding. And it's dark where I live - I live in the sticks.

If you stare at them, then it's hard to look at - sure. But who is stupid enough to do that? That's the first thing they teach new drivers in driver's ed not to do for night driving. 

None of the current crop of bike lights with the notable exception of *maybe* the new Betty is that bright. 

This is not a problem.

J.


----------



## regulation12 (Oct 11, 2012)

I don't think a headlight with cutoffs would still function right in a helmet. And looks like there's a dilemma about the brightness and the cutoffs. The brighter the light is, the harder to control the spill to create cutoofs unless to increase the size of the reflector. And we are talking a much bigger reflector here.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

regulation12 said:


> I don't think a headlight with cutoffs would still function right in a helmet. And looks like there's a dilemma about the brightness and the cutoffs. The brighter the light is, the harder to control the spill to create cutoofs unless to increase the size of the reflector. And we are talking a much bigger reflector here.


for cutoff to work well the light source must be lower than eye level of people who you're trying not to blind. that is one of the reasons i have a light with cutoff on the bar, and lights without cutoff on the helmet.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

It's just not a problem. There are *many* cars on the road with headlights that don't have a cut off and we don't see any problems and millions of people have survived it for decades upon decades. Bike lights are typically not even as bright as a car headlight so I think we are going to be just fine. Except the Germans for self induced reasons.

I do agree that there is a lot that can be done with beam shaping and I think we'll see a lot more of that in the next couple of years now that we are sort of hitting the sweet spot in the lumens wars such that light manufacturers will be looking for other ways to differentiate.

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> It's just not a problem. There are *many* cars on the road with headlights that don't have a cut off and we don't see any problems and millions of people have survived it for decades upon decades. Bike lights are typically not even as bright as a car headlight so I think we are going to be just fine. Except the Germans for self induced reasons.
> 
> I do agree that there is a lot that can be done with beam shaping and I think we'll see a lot more of that in the next couple of years now that we are sort of hitting the sweet spot in the lumens wars such that light manufacturers will be looking for other ways to differentiate.
> 
> J.


i don't think there are any OEM car headlights "without cutoff" in the sense that i think they all must be DOT approved.

now i have a friend who always installs aftermarket HID into his cars and i don't think he ever got pulled over for it, or for his illegally dark tint on the windows so there are certainly cars out there with beams "without cutoff" but i would estimate they are only about 1% of cars on the road.

i also disagree with the misinformation you continue spreading about car headlights supposedly being brighter than bike headlights as far as glare is concerned. that's not true because the cars with truly bright headlights like BMWs etc have both cutoffs and auto-leveling headlights, while normal car headlights have no more lumens than a powerful bike light and their beam is spread out wide side to side and even if there is no sharp cutoff it is still shaped to send most of the light down ( unless you drive with high beams on all the time, which by the way is illegal ).

go to image search ( google or bing ) and look up car headlight beams on garage wall - you will see that while there are differences between them they are all flat. meanwhile bike lights are all round ( except for STVZO lights ).

this means that in practice any XML light, even something like NiteRider Lumina, will be more glaring to car drivers than any car headlight unless you aim the light too low to be useful at high speed.

i DARE YOU to find a beam shot of OEM car headlights that is round in shape like your beloved Lupine !

you know John, a lot of your posts fall into 2 categories:

1 - "it's just not a problem" type of post

and

2 - "jeez, it's just not that hard to figure out" kind of post

well, it's just not that hard to figure out John - bike headlights are more glaring because they have a round beam, while car headlights have a flat beam, whether it has "cutoff" or not ...

as much as you would like you just cannot deny the fact that car headlights have "high" and "low" beams and driving with "high" beams is illegal in US. STVZO bike lights are "low" beam bike lights, while regular bike lights are "high" beam bike lights.

your talk about car lights not having "cutoff" is a matter of semantics - cars have the ability to switch between "high" and "low" beams, even cars with dim halogen lights have that ability. your Lupine does NOT. car "low" beams * in effect * have cutoff, whether you call it that or not - because if they didn't, then what would "high" beams be ?

* FLAWLESS VICTORY *

* ANDRO PATS HIMSELF ON THE BACK *

now, i * WANT * my bike light to look several times brighter than car headlights - i * WANT * to stand out for safety. but that's a different issue. if you said " i enjoy looking like UFO / Androgen and i can legally do it because bike lights are not regulated in US " then i would say fine - enjoy ! but what you're saying is that bike lights are not any more glaring than car headlights - when anybody who has used a recent crop of XML lights knows this is simply not true.

i wonder if it is possible to drive a car into that Tunnel that Francis uses to do MTBR Tunnel beam patterns - it would be nice if he did a few cars in there for reference next time, both on high and low beams.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> It's just not a problem. There are *many* cars on the road with headlights that don't have a cut off and we don't see any problems and millions of people have survived it for decades upon decades. Bike lights are typically not even as bright as a car headlight so I think we are going to be just fine. Except the Germans for self induced reasons.
> 
> I do agree that there is a lot that can be done with beam shaping and I think we'll see a lot more of that in the next couple of years now that we are sort of hitting the sweet spot in the lumens wars such that light manufacturers will be looking for other ways to differentiate.
> 
> J.


i will add to my previous post that i don't use cars as a reference point for the level of conspicuity i'm going for. that reference point for me is police car, fire truck and ambulance emergency lights.

and even with all those lights emergency vehicles rely primarily on the acoustical means of the siren to warn others of their approach. also emergency vehicles ( may be not fire truck ) use blue lights which especially stand out.

now blue lights are reserved for emergency vehicles so i won't use them, i'm obviously not going to be using the siren as i ride around, and finally i am just a lot smaller than a fire truck so i will always be many times harder to notice than an emergency vehicle even if i blink at the same level of glare.

blink is a key word there. a blinking light should be glaring because the objective is to be conspicuous. a steady light is meant to illuminate, where a shaped beam is advantageous, and excessive glare is undesirable.

i think it is better to have a non-glaring beam with cutoff coupled with a slow "beacon" type blink pattern on a super-bright glaring blinky than to simply have one glaring headlight. because the blink will get you noticed faster, while still allowing drivers to see the road in between blinks depending on blink pattern.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

androgen said:


> i also disagree with the misinformation you continue spreading about car headlights supposedly being brighter than bike headlights as far as glare is concerned. that's not true because the cars with truly bright headlights like BMWs etc have both cutoffs and auto-leveling headlights, while normal car headlights have no more lumens than a powerful bike light and their beam is spread out wide side to side and even if there is no sharp cutoff it is still shaped to send most of the light down ( unless you drive with high beams on all the time, which by the way is illegal ).
> 
> go to image search ( google or bing ) and look up car headlight beams on garage wall - you will see that while there are differences between them they are all flat. meanwhile bike lights are all round ( except for STVZO lights ).


Simply not true. Aim your bike headlight straight out - what good is it? Answer: None. If you aim it down the vast majority of the beam will be aimed at the road. What remains is tiny in terms of glare to a driver and is no more and very likely a lot less than what an oncoming car headlight will produce. Have you even gone out and looked at it on a bike?



> this means that in practice any XML light, even something like NiteRider Lumina, will be more glaring to car drivers than any car headlight unless you aim the light too low to be useful at high speed.


No. Again, see above.



> i DARE YOU to find a beam shot of OEM car headlights that is round in shape like your beloved Lupine !


Doesn't really matter for the reasons above AND for the simple reason that most bike lights are not even close to putting out anywhere near the light that a car headlight is REGARDLESS of where they are aimed. Only an idiot would aim it straight out.



> you know John, a lot of your posts fall into 2 categories:
> 
> 1 - "it's just not a problem" type of post
> 
> ...


Is this your superior intelligence and intellect swamping the rest of us out with it's good manners?



> as much as you would like you just cannot deny the fact that car headlights have "high" and "low" beams and driving with "high" beams is illegal in US. STVZO bike lights are "low" beam bike lights, while regular bike lights are "high" beam bike lights.


No, they aren not even close to low beams most of them - tending to be lower lumen count lights anyhow.



> your talk about car lights not having "cutoff" is a matter of semantics - cars have the ability to switch between "high" and "low" beams, even cars with dim halogen lights have that ability. your Lupine does NOT. car "low" beams * in effect * have cutoff, whether you call it that or not - because if they didn't, then what would "high" beams be ?
> 
> * FLAWLESS VICTORY *
> 
> * ANDRO PATS HIMSELF ON THE BACK *


:crazy:



> now, i * WANT * my bike light to look several times brighter than car headlights - i * WANT * to stand out for safety. but that's a different issue. if you said " i enjoy looking like UFO / Androgen and i can legally do it because bike lights are not regulated in US " then i would say fine - enjoy ! but what you're saying is that bike lights are not any more glaring than car headlights - when anybody who has used a recent crop of XML lights knows this is simply not true.


Do you have a driver's license? Do you ever drive at night? Millions of people do it (news flash here) EVERY SINGLE DAY and survive it. Anyone that went through drivers training in the US has been taught to not look at oncoming lights directly. And it works. Just don't stare at ANY bright light.

Amazing to me is that when I've had a number of people comment positively on my lights. I've never had a car flash it's lights at me and I've never felt like I'm being blinded when I'm passed by others with bright bike lights. How do you explain that? Isn't there supposed to be a Big Problem?

Yes, if you stare at my Lupine Wilma when on high when it's aimed dead level at you, you will see spots (you will exceed the dynamic range of your retina obviously). But you'd have to be an idiot to do that in practice. And anyone putting it on the bike that way would have to be an idiot.

If you pay attention to where you are going (presuming you're not attempting to run that cyclist over - Is that the problem?) then there is not a problem and it's about as big of a deal as passing another car on the road in the other lane.

And do the math on the lights and their beam patterns. A Wilma is a 26 degree beam. If I aimed it straight out (where it would be virtually a death ray by your reckoning) then presuming it's symmetric, half of the beam would go 13 degrees up and half would go 13 degrees down. If I aim my light 15 degrees down (and by eyeball, mine looks to be about that), I don't send anything downrange that doesn't hit the ground at some point. The nearest point of the beam will then hit about 7-8' away from the handlebars which is about where it actually is. The far end (top of the beam) will hit the ground about 100-115' out and is about just exactly what I see when I use my light - and that's why I bought a Lupine for the nice bright beam that goes about 8'-115' from my bike perfectly illuminating the road. Perfect.

That means that there is no direct light being aimed out at a driver who is coming down the road towards you unless he's laying on the ground between 8 and 115' in front of me. I haven't had that happen yet and I think I'm pretty safe in saying it's not going to happen.

Incidentally, if I did aim it straight out, as you seem to think is the proper way to use it, then the bottom edge of the beam would hit the pavement 17-18 feet out and the top end never would. What idiot would set up their bike for that to be the case? You'd get little to no utility out of the light. Dark for almost 20' in front of you and then limited lighting of the road beyond that. You'd have blown half the lumens (essentially) out of your light.

Like I said, this is not a problem. I'm surprised that self proclaimed superior intellect of yours couldn't figure this out.

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> Incidentally, if I did aim it straight out, as you seem to think is the proper way to use it, then the bottom edge of the beam would hit the pavement 17-18 feet out and the top end never would. What idiot would set up their bike for that to be the case? You'd get little to no utility out of the light. Dark for almost 20' in front of you and then limited lighting of the road beyond that. You'd have blown half the lumens (essentially) out of your light.
> 
> Like I said, this is not a problem. I'm surprised that self proclaimed superior intellect of yours couldn't figure this out.
> 
> J.


your light has a symmetrical beam that has 13 degrees of coverage on all sides from brightest point. the Seca is probably 20 degrees on the top, 25 degrees on the sides, and a full 90 degrees on the bottom. in other words i can aim the Seca at the horizon and it will still illuminate my front tire. in fact as mine is helmet mounted i can aim it at the horizon and still see my hands on the bar, as well as the front tire.

and why would anybody aim their light horizontally ? because unlike your inferior Wilma, good lights are designed to provide even coverage when aimed that way.

all good lights, whether car lights, STVZO lights, or Seca / NiteRider Pro 3600 are designed to be aimed horizontally.

when aimed horizontally a good light like Seca or NiteRider Pro 3600 will illuminate everything evenly - the ground ( from the front tire to horizon ), as well as all of the trees and branches overhead.

it doesn't matter John how many times you repeat that only idiots aim their lights correctly - that won't change the fact that your light is crippled by a useless beam. it's not the fault of the "idiots" that you are too ignorant to be able to choose a good light 

in practice since my lights are on the helmet i aim them horizontally when the pavement is good - this gives me better awareness of surroundings by not blinding myself with a bright patch of light in front of me. when the pavement gets rough i may slow down and aim the light down to look for cracks, potholes, broken glass etc.

generally speaking i aim the light wherever i am looking. if i'm looking straight ahead then i will point the light straight ahead. if i'm looking down i will point the light down. it's just not that hard to figure out John - i didn't realize it took a superior intelligence like mine to figure this out John ...


----------



## MaximusHQ (Aug 6, 2007)

I give this thread a 8 out of 10 for entertainment value. Ramp it up more to get it perfect 10.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> Incidentally, if I did aim it straight out, as you seem to think is the proper way to use it, then the bottom edge of the beam would hit the pavement 17-18 feet out and the top end never would. What idiot would set up their bike for that to be the case? You'd get little to no utility out of the light. Dark for almost 20' in front of you and then limited lighting of the road beyond that. You'd have blown half the lumens (essentially) out of your light.
> 
> Like I said, this is not a problem. I'm surprised that self proclaimed superior intellect of yours couldn't figure this out.
> 
> J.


consider the Seca beam:










and you will see it illuminates the ground directly below the handlebar as well as the ceiling of the tunnel at the same time. that's because it's not a Chinese light like Lupine.

in that picture the light appears to be aimed at the 1st cone, however if it was aimed at the bullseye there would still be plenty of light on the ground all the way to the front tire, and the benefit would be that the light on the ground would be more even.

somebody should give Francois the idea to do two beam shots per light - one aimed lower and one aimed higher.

as you saw from my video:






i don't have any problem in terms of a dark nearfield gap in my light coverage.

since i already have all the near-field lighting i need i don't see how not aiming the light down makes me an "idiot" ...


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

It's no different than aiming any light with a cutoff or not. Seriously, think about it. It's just a built in angle. So what? Aim that incorrectly and you have the same problem - and that would be an idiotic thing to do too.

I'm not going to do that math for you on this one because you apparently don't understand it, but by inspection (nightly) the beam width of the Wilma illuminates just about what my car headlights do - primarily in my lane with some minor overlap.

Interesting comment that a Lupine light is "crippled by a useless beam." Right. That's going to be news to Lupine and just about everyone that has one. This one goes into the "Asinine Remark" bin.

If I want to get a light that I can use to directly and brightly light my front tire and handlebars, which would be like shining a light on your steering wheel and hood, then I know who's recommendation to take. Otherwise, with just about any light (even with the surprisingly crippled Lupine beam, I now discover) I am able to see my hands and wheel indirectly lighted by sidespill which is as it should be. 

So I think you're way off in the weeds here, buck-o. And this still is not a problem.


J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> Incidentally, if I did aim it straight out, as you seem to think is the proper way to use it, then the bottom edge of the beam would hit the pavement 17-18 feet out and the top end never would. What idiot would set up their bike for that to be the case? You'd get little to no utility out of the light. Dark for almost 20' in front of you and then limited lighting of the road beyond that. You'd have blown half the lumens (essentially) out of your light.
> 
> Like I said, this is not a problem. I'm surprised that self proclaimed superior intellect of yours couldn't figure this out.
> 
> J.


maybe this screen shot from my last video can help you visualize it ...

note that my hands are lit up - that's from the Seca on the helmet ...


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

androgen said:


> consider the Seca beam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's being aimed for you. So you properly position it on your bars just like I do. You can just as easily improperly aim a Seca as a Wilma. I'm not sure why you don't understand this.

I can also see my front wheel and the area immediately in front of my wheel, but it's indirect lighting because the lumens and beam are downrange illuminating things I need to see that I can actually do something about. Try swerving around an object you didn't see until it was 3' in front of your bike while at speed - you can't. Too much light close in destroys your night vision.

The actual end result of the Wilma is not substantially different than this picture except it's brighter downrange because the Wilma is a significantly brighter light at 2400 lumens than your Secas (which is also a good light). Lupine is slightly less bright in the 0-8' range because that's in the sidespill and purposely not as bright. I would submit that the choice of lighting in the near field is a matter of personal preference and matters less in practice.

J.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

The seca may very well be a good light but illumination immediately in front of you provides no major value since your vision should be focused down road when moving. Most people when moving don't have the reaction time skills necessary to adjust for something they immediately see in front of the tire. They would have to see that object down stream first to adjust for it. 

Dark spots exist in all vehicles. The dark spot is the distance from the steering wheel to the where the headlights first illuminate. 

I think you both make good points. Androgen you want to illuminate the horizon so you don't run into branches (which is the main focus of a headlamp) but you don't mention that head lamps should possibly have a reverse cutoff so that up it shines upward away for. The horizon to focus on branches or trees and then your bar lights should have cut offs to focus downward. 

Some can say that in essence the lupine and all the other lights out there allow for that by letting the end user tilt their bar light down to provide the right amount of near field to far distance and then a headlight that the user can angle slightly upward to illuminate branches. 

Maybe the seca/niterider is trying to do the job of both lights at once and in doing so creates the blinding effect that you mention.

This 2 jobs in one can be seen as perfect for riding in the woods and such which is truly the primary focus of the design for those lights.


----------



## 6ix (Sep 12, 2013)

androgen said:


> "in that picture the light appears to be aimed at the 1st cone,"
> 
> "somebody should give Francois the idea to do two beam shots per light - one aimed lower and one aimed higher."
> 
> "since i already have all the near-field lighting i need i don't see how not aiming the light down makes me an "idiot" ..."


I know you are reading this like all supposedly ignored.

The Seca is aimed down fixed to a handlebar because night trail riding is about seeing obstacles and what's ahead *on the ground*. Helmet lights picks up overhead hazards or prepares yourself for what's to come. You are spending all that money lighting up nothingness in the city. Its not efficient and annoying to everyone you ride past.

Francois should only take shots aimed higher or horizontally if he's doing a shootout for Gyrocopter lights.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Good point, cue003. In other words, you may choose to aim it closer to horizontal for off road and farther from horizontal to down 15 degrees on road. One is obviously not worried with blinding anyone on the trail but definitely interested in seeing where the switchback suddenly turns or where that branch at head height is. On road, you're not worried about branches but you are worried about potholes and other pavement defects.

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> Interesting comment that a Lupine light is "crippled by a useless beam." Right. That's going to be news to Lupine and just about everyone that has one.


not really. i have read here on MTBR in the ( i belive ) "some Lupine news" thread of a Betty user thinking about dumping the Betty over the narrow beam with no spill ...



JohnJ80 said:


> If I want to get a light that I can use to directly and brightly light my front tire and handlebars, which would be like shining a light on your steering wheel and hood


it is rather amazing how you can be blind to the absurdity of what you are saying. the fact that cars have a hood that blocks nearfield view is precisely why car beams don't need to illuminate the nearfield, and why you can sometimes drive over a bottle getting out of parking ( if you park on NYC streets that is ) if you don't look under the car first. bikes don't have a hood and need lights that can provide nearfield light to assist with hopping over obstacles such as curbs and potholes - something you don't do in a car - in a car you just drive over the potholes, but on a road bike with 19mm tire this may not be advisable.

Seca spill is carefully calibrated so that it sufficient but not excessive and doesn't interfere with your ability to see far into the distance. I was actually quite impressed by how expertly this aspect of the design was nailed.

the Dosun isn't as expertly done - it's nearfield is over-blown causing the eyes to adapt to it and thereby reducing your ability to see far into the distance. however when combined a helmet mounted Seca which is conservative with its near-field spill ( when helmet mounted ) they balance out as you can see:


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> It's being aimed for you. So you properly position it on your bars just like I do. You can just as easily improperly aim a Seca as a Wilma. I'm not sure why you don't understand this.
> 
> I can also see my front wheel and the area immediately in front of my wheel, but it's indirect lighting because the lumens and beam are downrange illuminating things I need to see that I can actually do something about. Try swerving around an object you didn't see until it was 3' in front of your bike while at speed - you can't. Too much light close in destroys your night vision.
> 
> ...


while you can't swerve around something that's already in your near-field you can still prepare your body for the shock. simply transferring the weight from your saddle to the pedals would only require you to move half an inch but make a difference in the amount of shock transmitted to your spine when you hit that pothole which was already too late to swerve around.

for this reason i still want to have near-field lighting, but it must be not so bright as to compromise my night vision overall.

and even if you see the obstacle just a fraction of a second before impact and there is nothing you can do at all in the time BEFORE impact seeing what has happened can help your brain keep balance AFTER the impact because it will have more information sooner about what has happened when time counts.

finally not having a dark gap in front of you will simply improve your confidence and help you enjoy the ride more.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

6ix said:


> I know you are reading this like all supposedly ignored.
> 
> The Seca is aimed down fixed to a handlebar because night trail riding is about seeing obstacles and what's ahead *on the ground*. Helmet lights picks up overhead hazards or prepares yourself for what's to come. You are spending all that money lighting up nothingness in the city. Its not efficient and annoying to everyone you ride past.
> 
> Francois should only take shots aimed higher or horizontally if he's doing a shootout for Gyrocopter lights.


when somebody is on ignore list their posts are hidden by default and replaced with a button that allows you to view the post if you want. this way i get the choice to look at the post if i feel like it or not look at it if i don't. rest assured - you are all still on ignore list, but i sometimes take a peek.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

It's apparent to me that you do know much about Lupine lights. 

It's not dark in the near field, it's just indirectly lit with spill - it is done very well. And, 8' in front of you it is right in the beam. There is no issue with not being prepared for a hit - none at all.

The current Betty is a 26 degree light, that is not a "narrow" light. The older as in ancient history Bettys - like 4 or 5 years old - had much narrower beams in about the 15-18 degree range if I recall. They were also about 1800 lumens too. In their favor too, many of them can be upgraded to a wider beam of about 22 degrees, which few, if any, other lights are able to do. So, you pretty much have it way wrong again. Apparently here again, you did not have accurate information either and did not take the time to be correct.

You're operating on bad information and with only about 2/3rds of the information in the first place. You ought to go and figure it out first so you know what you are talking about. I get that you like your lights, and they are good lights, but that doesn't mean that everything else isn't. 


J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> It's apparent to me that you do know much about Lupine lights.
> 
> It's not dark in the near field, it's just indirectly lit with spill - it is done very well. And, 8' in front of you it is right in the beam. There is no issue with not being prepared for a hit - none at all.
> 
> ...


i'm tired. i'm going to go relax ...


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

This thread is so full of f'n noise.

Here's yer bottom line: look high and low and you will not find an accident caused by a cyclist's light, ever. I've tried, never found anything, not even an accident where the cyclist's light was a contributing factor.

Let us not regulate those things which do not pose any risk whatsoever.

Buy a bunch of lumens, aim them at the road, and ride your bike. And don't take your lead from the Germans - they live to regulate everything.

And to the poster who thinks 99 of 100 people can't think because they buy an SUV rather than a station wagon (which is what they really need according to you) - you're a sad, arrogant individual. 

Though of course I'm sure YOU need that 3rd bike, that 2nd TV, that game console, that boat, that new Iphone, that 6th pair of shoes, etc etc etc.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

canuckjgc said:


> Let us not regulate those things which do not pose any risk whatsoever.
> 
> Buy a bunch of lumens, aim them at the road, and ride your bike. And don't take your lead from the Germans - they live to regulate everything.


+1



canuckjgc said:


> And to the poster who thinks 99 of 100 people can't think because they buy an SUV rather than a station wagon (which is what they really need according to you) - you're a sad, arrogant individual.


+10


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

delllllete


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

androgen said:


> 99 out of 100 people have no ability for analytical thinking at all -





-Archie- said:


> And the rest 1 typically believe he is a rare genius...


thank you
I did not think you noticed.


----------

