Super bright flashing bloody lights

[Hot Flatus]

If that is 500 lumens then the 450 lumen dinotte must be about 250, and the "800 lumen" E3 triple a mere 150.

Or you might be mistaken. Only one of us has actually seen the light in question though 

[handcyclist]

That sounds to me the lights are aimed much too high, almost like a full beam, surely a "dipped" beam should be pointing down onto the road.

They are 'pointing down' on dip. Going from full to dip I can see the beam edge 'sweep' downwards. They are even self-levelling, to allow for different load weights. Of course, that just uses an average ride height to set the beam, so the bumpy road problem remains .... anyway, going OT a bit I guess.

I hate blinken cycle lights at the front too.

[Wendy]

If that is 500 lumens then the 450 lumen dinotte must be about 250, and the "800 lumen" E3 triple a mere 150.

Or you might be mistaken. Only one of us has actually seen the light in question though 

LOL, don't take it so personally! Magicshine are known for their rather ambitious lumen claims, AFAIK. Perhaps your light is the exception.  Anyway, not that it matters, as far brighter lights than yours shouldn't and aren't a dazzle problem.

[Tewdric]

The MTBR shootout measurements suggest that the MJ-808 I have just bought is about 500-600 lumens, rather than the 900 claimed.  It really is enough though.

http://reviews.mtbr.com/2011-bike-lights-shootout/2

[Hot Flatus]

If that is 500 lumens then the 450 lumen dinotte must be about 250, and the "800 lumen" E3 triple a mere 150.

Or you might be mistaken. Only one of us has actually seen the light in question though 

LOL, don't take it so personally! Magicshine are known for their rather ambitious lumen claims, AFAIK. Perhaps your light is the exception.  Anyway, not that it matters, as far brighter lights than yours shouldn't and aren't a dazzle problem.

I'm not taking it personally at all.  It matters not a jot what the claimed output is, what matters is how bright it is and it is bloody bright...far brighter than the Supernova which has a claimed brightness of 800.  Are Supernova also known for their ambitious claims.

I suspect that if I shone the thing in your face you'd change your mind about whether it is a problem or not.

[Kim]

I've just come back from a ride on barakta's recumbent trike.  It's the first time I've ridden a low 'bent in the dark.  When they're at your eye level (and espcially if there's mist in the air or your glasses are steaming up), even relatively crappy dipped headlights are infinitely more blinding than the most powerful bike lights I've encountered in the wild.  Not least because they come in pairs.

[Hot Flatus]

The floody lights that come against me are bright enough that I can't see anything on the unlit road I'm on, hence the 2 people who use them get an earful whenever we cross paths. I can't make out anything about them - girl/boy/mtb/roadbike - who knows. Pretty much all I can see is the white line on the road. Totally ridiculous.

If I see them far enough in advance, I'm going to take my ixon off and just point it at their face next time.

Nah.  If you absolutely insist on fucking up their shit you can borrow this...



(Sky Ray 3x XML-T6.  Claimed output of 3800 lumens.  Obviously bollocks, but really really bright)

[simonp]

I tried an experiment with a 2006 vintage Solidlights 1303 and if I was trying to look past them at oncoming car headlights, yes I could see them. They looked dim and yellow.  I couldn’t see anything else.

If you are very low down on a ‘bent then you are right in the beam of a dipped headlight. This is the whole point of dip - they are designed to put a lot of light in the right place. The fact that you are at the level of the lights defeats this design. It’s not an argument for running around everywhere on main beam, which is what unshaped beam bike lights are equivalent to (or indeed worse than in many cases).

[Mr Arch]

One side note on the OT of car dipped lights, whenever I am out in the car at night I take notice of where my dipped lights are pointing.  I will check the beam pattern cuts off well below the rear window of the first car ahead as a guage of the beam being horizontal or lower.

The height of bike lights can also be an issue.
Looking at my bike lights they are all bar mounted and significantly higher then car lights.  Therefore to have the equivilent of dipped lights with a horizontal cut off I would need to mount the lights lower lower down.
Currently, even with my 'dipped' light I have to point it low to ensure that it doesn't become dazzling as another road user gets closer.  I can't have it horizontal as it is eye level to car drivers.

I was thinking of maybe remounting lights at wheel height, on the forks, as was the case with old bikes.  That would sort out being able to have the lights pointing far enough ahead to make use of bright lights and still low enough, with the right beam pattern, to not dazzle drivers or recumbent riders.

[Kim]

I was thinking of maybe remounting lights at wheel height, on the forks, as was the case with old bikes.  That would sort out being able to have the lights pointing far enough ahead to make use of bright lights and still low enough, with the right beam pattern, to not dazzle drivers or recumbent riders.

Standard approach with dynamo lights, and with the B&M IQ reflector design it works very well.

I think getting dazzled is an occupational hazard on a low recumbent.  There's no practical way to avoid it.  But it does make me think about the other aspect of the lighting war: cars are getting taller.

[rogerzilla]

Dipped beams on a car are almost the same power as full beam (on Hella bi-xenon HIDs they're the same).  It's only the optics that are different.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I've just measured the lens of my Hope 1. It's less than 25mm diameter. Even car sidelights are bigger than that, and that's part of the reason bright bike lights can dazzle. It's not simply that they're putting out huge amounts of light - as has been noted they make less than car headlights - but that they concentrate it in a narrow area. We need to be spreading our light more cleverly - sideways a bit and limiting the height. It seems that B&M have started to do this, though I'm not sure how successfully. At the same time, for reasons already mentioned, a very sharp cut off can also be a problem. Surely a fuzzy cut off, fading over a short distance, could be made?

[Cudzoziemiec]

Look at the huge lenses on these 1930s lights. They probably didn't produce much light, but something that size would be less dazzling, unless aimed high, with today's outputs.

[simonp]

The Philips LED light I bought some months ago uses a similar reflector principle to the IQ lights but has two LEDs and perhaps 2-3x the frontal area. Experimenting with it, it's not remotely dazzling while putting out a great deal more light than the EDelux even on Eco mode (8h run time on 4xAa rechargeable). As far as I'm concerned this is a solved problem.

[border-rider]

Look at the huge lenses on these 1930s lights. They probably didn't produce much light, but something that size would be less dazzling, unless aimed high, with today's outputs.

Depends on the beam profile. A big diameter reflector that gives a really narrow searchlight beam can put more light intensity out than a wide-angle light that is smaller.

I used to have a big old torpedo dynamo light with just a 2.4 W incandescent bulb and a stupidly narrow beamwidth; it was entirely antisocial and also useless for illuminating the road

[Wendy]

The source diameter is largely irrelevant. What counts is the light intensity at your eyeball.

[Tewdric]

As far as I'm concerned this is a solved problem.

Don't you realise there's a war on?





 

[Kim]

We need to be spreading our light more cleverly - sideways a bit and limiting the height. It seems that B&M have started to do this, though I'm not sure how successfully.

Fairly successfully, but mainly through putting the vast majority of the light where it's wanted - on the road.  I wouldn't say their reflector makes it less dazzling if, for whatever reason, you do get an eyeful of it.  Probably the opposite.

Indeed, I don't rate the B&M lights particularly highly for side visibility, due to the general lack of spill (even on the 'R' variant).  This is probably why they've added extra 'be-seen' LEDs to the new version of the Cyo.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Look at the huge lenses on these 1930s lights. They probably didn't produce much light, but something that size would be less dazzling, unless aimed high, with today's outputs.

Depends on the beam profile. A big diameter reflector that gives a really narrow searchlight beam can put more light intensity out than a wide-angle light that is smaller.

I used to have a big old torpedo dynamo light with just a 2.4 W incandescent bulb and a stupidly narrow beamwidth; it was entirely antisocial and also useless for illuminating the road

Wouldn't it be easier to make a nice beam profile if you had more reflector and lens area to play with? Besides which, you often can see the lens and it's that very bright 'disc' of light that then dazzles. Also, a larger surface area is going to be better for getting noticed (I reckon). In Poland loads of people have old-style 2.4W incandescents (non-halogen) powered by bottle dynamos, so not particularly bright but the large lens size is easily seen. Which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean they can see well.

[Cudzoziemiec]

We need to be spreading our light more cleverly - sideways a bit and limiting the height. It seems that B&M have started to do this, though I'm not sure how successfully.

Fairly successfully, but mainly through putting the vast majority of the light where it's wanted - on the road.  I wouldn't say their reflector makes it less dazzling if, for whatever reason, you do get an eyeful of it.  Probably the opposite.

Indeed, I don't rate the B&M lights particularly highly for side visibility, due to the general lack of spill (even on the 'R' variant).  This is probably why they've added extra 'be-seen' LEDs to the new version of the Cyo.

Surely the point is that by directing the vast majority of the light on the road, no one's going to get an eyeful of it. Unless they're in a low recumbent. 

[Kim]

Surely the point is that by directing the vast majority of the light on the road, no one's going to get an eyeful of it. Unless they're in a low recumbent. 

Or there's a hill.  Or a pothole.  Or whatever.  See the above arguments about car headlights.

[border-rider]

Wouldn't it be easier to make a nice beam profile if you had more reflector and lens area to play with?

Depends on the reflector shape. You could make one that gave an almost-parallel beam, so even if the lens was 10 cm in diameter the intensity at a few metres away could be huuuuge

[DrMekon]

The Philips LED light I bought some months ago uses a similar reflector principle to the IQ lights but has two LEDs and perhaps 2-3x the frontal area. Experimenting with it, it's not remotely dazzling while putting out a great deal more light than the EDelux even on Eco mode (8h run time on 4xAa rechargeable). As far as I'm concerned this is a solved problem.

I can vouch for this - not dazzling at all, and the epic swathe of light it puts out makes it look more like a motorbike than a bike light. The fact it charges by USB too makes it the top battery light on my lust list. Sadly, my two hardy Ixons mean I have no possible justification to get one. Brilliant light tho.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The Philips LED light I bought some months ago uses a similar reflector principle to the IQ lights but has two LEDs and perhaps 2-3x the frontal area. Experimenting with it, it's not remotely dazzling while putting out a great deal more light than the EDelux even on Eco mode (8h run time on 4xAa rechargeable). As far as I'm concerned this is a solved problem.

I can vouch for this - not dazzling at all, and the epic swathe of light it puts out makes it look more like a motorbike than a bike light. The fact it charges by USB too makes it the top battery light on my lust list. Sadly, my two hardy Ixons mean I have no possible justification to get one. Brilliant light tho.

Is that this one?
http://shop.philips.com/store?Action=DisplayProductDetailsPage&Locale=en_GB&SiteID=rpeeub2c&productID=239216300
It quotes a mere 220 lumen, so if it is, it shows up how meaningless are the high lumen figures some manufacturers count.

[simonp]

That’s the one.

Downside is I managed to break the bracket quite quickly but i found you can buy those online, they are about £5.

I think it was cold weather plus ham fistedness, I bought a bunch of the brackets for spares and multiple bikes, and have not broken one since.

Some users (on this forum and elsewhere) have claimed it switches off too quickly but I have found it to deliver the claimed run times, and rode the entire Dunwich Dynamo using it.