Author Topic: Light testing - the results  (Read 71187 times)

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #100 on: December 06, 2008, 12:02:48 pm »
There was no manual.   Besides, I don't see how shortening a piece of wire by an inch is going to effect anything.

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #101 on: December 06, 2008, 06:37:58 pm »
Anyone here ... have any advice?

What peter white said

These modern LED lights need to have "exclusive" use of the dynamo.

The Inoled will pair up. This might be a by-product of the circuitry which allows the lights to run off either dynamo or battery.

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #102 on: December 06, 2008, 08:04:21 pm »
Anyone here ... have any advice?

What peter white said

These modern LED lights need to have "exclusive" use of the dynamo.

You generally have to connect a rear light to the front light, rather than directly to the dynamo.

The Schmidt website FAQ says that you can run 2 Edelux together, either in parallel or in series, but that you don't get any more light except for series over 20mph.

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #103 on: December 07, 2008, 01:24:06 am »
Anyone here ... have any advice?

What peter white said

These modern LED lights need to have "exclusive" use of the dynamo.

You generally have to connect a rear light to the front light, rather than directly to the dynamo.

The Schmidt website FAQ says that you can run 2 Edelux together, either in parallel or in series, but that you don't get any more light except for series over 20mph.

The main reason you have to connect the rear light via the front is because the front light is switched.  If you do not, then when the front light is switched off, the rear light has to limit the voltage all on its own, and generally they are not designed to do this, so they die.

The general principle was that the nominal 3W from the dynamo was split 2.4 on the front light and 0.6 on the rear.  When LED lights came along with their lower power consumption it was possible to put a 3W bulb in the front light and this worked well.

I note that the Edelux documentation claims it limits the voltage to the rear light to 9V.  Even though that is probably peak rather than RMS, that seems very high.

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #104 on: December 11, 2008, 08:49:31 pm »
I have a Lumicycle HID and an Inoled P7 which are both very powerful lights, It would be interesting to compare them to the others.  I wonder if I was to setup my own target how close the results would be if I had my camera on the same settings?  Is there much variance between cameras of different brands if they are on the same settings?

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #105 on: December 12, 2008, 05:53:16 pm »
The real surprise for me is that the Smart rechargeable lights were so damned bright in the centre of the beam.  They're the ones that SJS used to knock out for £35 with two incandescent lamps and a lead acid battery.  I only put them in the test for a reference point, but it would appear that battery powered incan lights are pretty damned good still
I'm still using them on my MTB, as is Mrs B (or Miss U, as she prefers). Got the NiCad version many years ago for £40-something, & the batteries are still OK. Rigged up dynamo headlamps to use the batteries on our road bikes, though I now have a much lighter LED alternative. Drawbacks are the weight of that bloody great NiCad, it taking up a bottle cage, & taking so long to charge.
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #106 on: December 12, 2008, 09:52:24 pm »
Here's a Yehuda Moon
Getting there...

hawkeye

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #107 on: December 12, 2008, 11:35:09 pm »
The real surprise for me is that the Smart rechargeable lights were so damned bright in the centre of the beam.  They're the ones that SJS used to knock out for £35 with two incandescent lamps and a lead acid battery.  I only put them in the test for a reference point, but it would appear that battery powered incan lights are pretty damned good still
I'm still using them on my MTB, as is Mrs B (or Miss U, as she prefers). Got the NiCad version many years ago for £40-something, & the batteries are still OK. Rigged up dynamo headlamps to use the batteries on our road bikes, though I now have a much lighter LED alternative. Drawbacks are the weight of that bloody great NiCad, it taking up a bottle cage, & taking so long to charge.
Mrs H and I use Smart incandescents, she with the 6+6watt setup and me with 6+10watt because I often ride with the tinted specs I use while swim teaching. The value-for-money weight-no-object choice I'd say.

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #108 on: December 17, 2008, 10:40:04 pm »
The test is in the Dec 2008 issue of Velovision:
VeloVision Online (it's just the contents page)

Charlotte

  • Dissolute libertine
  • Here's to ol' D.H. Lawrence...
    • charlottebarnes.co.uk
Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #109 on: December 17, 2008, 10:58:31 pm »
Fabulous  :)
Commercial, Editorial and PR Photographer - www.charlottebarnes.co.uk

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #110 on: February 27, 2009, 10:58:43 pm »
There's a PDF of a dynamo light test from the Nov-Dec 08 issue Aktiv Radfahren magazine on the Schmidt website, complete with beam shots, brightness/speed curves, computer interference distances etc.

http://www.nabendynamo.de/service/pdf/ar_11-12_2008.pdf

It does say that there's a dynohub test coming in the Jan/Feb issue - perhaps that will get linked somewhere?

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #111 on: March 18, 2009, 08:43:14 pm »
Googling bike lights throws up this thread and this blog ...



Apologies if someone has posted this before - I couldn't be bothered to read through the whole thread again!
Abnormal for Norfolk

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #112 on: March 18, 2009, 08:48:10 pm »
The real surprise for me is that the Smart rechargeable lights were so damned bright in the centre of the beam.  They're the ones that SJS used to knock out for £35 with two incandescent lamps and a lead acid battery.  I only put them in the test for a reference point, but it would appear that battery powered incan lights are pretty damned good still
I'm still using them on my MTB, as is Mrs B (or Miss U, as she prefers). Got the NiCad version many years ago for £40-something, & the batteries are still OK. Rigged up dynamo headlamps to use the batteries on our road bikes, though I now have a much lighter LED alternative. Drawbacks are the weight of that bloody great NiCad, it taking up a bottle cage, & taking so long to charge.
Mrs H and I use Smart incandescents, she with the 6+6watt setup and me with 6+10watt because I often ride with the tinted specs I use while swim teaching. The value-for-money weight-no-object choice I'd say.

The trouble is, people like me either:

1) use the bike daily and can't be bothered with a charging regime, unplugging things, bringing them in the house etc

2) sometimes ride all night

so I need a dynamo.
Never tell me the odds.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #113 on: March 19, 2009, 12:00:28 am »
I don't have to detach my battery lights from my bike because

a) I have power sockets where the bikes are stored
b) I got extension leads with my lights so the charger is plugged into the battery whilst it is still on the bike.

Plus the lighting system(s) will fit happily on any one of my three bikes, or Mrs J's or either of the kids bikes*. I'd need 6 dynamos to replicate that.

*Not that I'd let them use the lights, obviously - far too valuable!  ;D
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #114 on: May 18, 2009, 01:43:49 pm »
Is there a reason I can't see teh pictures at the begining of the thread ? :(
Have they timed out or am I being stupid.

Many thanks

paul
Sorting my life out, one shed at a time.

Zipperhead

  • The cyclist formerly known as Big Helga
Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #115 on: May 18, 2009, 01:47:37 pm »
Is there a reason I can't see teh pictures at the begining of the thread ? :(
Have they timed out or am I being stupid.

Are you looking from work and having them blocked by your work firewall?

The pictures are stored on picasaweb, I know that Iif I try and access it from work I get an message telling me that picasa is an online storage site and is blocked.
Our son does know who Boz Scaggs is, we've done ok as parents.

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #116 on: May 18, 2009, 02:34:52 pm »
Yes, I am trying ot access from work, so it is perhaps the firewall. I'll try form a different computer

Ta,
Sorting my life out, one shed at a time.

Treewheeler

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #117 on: May 25, 2009, 03:40:43 pm »
Look, save from reading everything that has happened since I left these shores and just tell me straight.
 Is it worth paying £70+ £5postage etc for a Solid light upgrade OR just buying a new Cyo...?

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #118 on: May 25, 2009, 04:09:15 pm »
The Cyo is brighter, I think, but some people have had trouble with water leaks.  The Solidlights aren't exactly immune from leaks either.
Never tell me the odds.

Treewheeler

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #119 on: May 25, 2009, 04:16:54 pm »
Brighter even with upgrade...?
 True my Solid light fills with moisture far too easily.

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #120 on: May 25, 2009, 04:18:54 pm »
I've got the Edelux which is basically only a slight upgrade compared to the cyo in terms of light output, so I think the cyo will be good in that respect.

As far as water ingress goes I don't know about the cyo.  I've yet to get my Edelux more than slightly wet so I've no idea about wet weather performance.

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #121 on: May 25, 2009, 04:21:23 pm »
Brighter even with upgrade...?
 True my Solid light fills with moisture far too easily.

Yes. Cyo is brighter than upgraded Solidlights.

However - they are very different lights. Upgraded Solidlights still have that diffuse glow of the original, whereas Cyo is harsher with more artifacts.

I've not had water trouble with either, though it's very dry here in Norfolk, so they don't get wet that often ;).

Charlotte

  • Dissolute libertine
  • Here's to ol' D.H. Lawrence...
    • charlottebarnes.co.uk
Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #122 on: May 25, 2009, 05:27:10 pm »
Tuggo - buy the Cyo.  I own both and In my opinion, it's a far better light all round and you can keep your un-modded Solidlight as a spare.  Or flog it.
Commercial, Editorial and PR Photographer - www.charlottebarnes.co.uk

DaveJ

  • Happy days
Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #123 on: May 25, 2009, 05:54:21 pm »
It would be useful to say which upgrade is being commented on.  Tuggo has asked about the Solidlights factory upgrade.  Some people on here have done their own upgrade to the latest LEDs for the Solidlights.

I think the factory upgrade for the Solidlights may be brighter than the homebrew version.  Was it Tiger who did the homebrew version and then once he's seen the factory upgrade on one of his lights, sent the one he had done the homebrew on for the factory upgrade?

And thats a third option, much cheaper to upgrade the LEDs in the Solidlights to Cree XRE yourself.

Dave

Re: Light testing - the results
« Reply #124 on: May 25, 2009, 06:08:25 pm »
Good point DaveJ. I was referring to the factory DB2 upgrade.