JW.
What lights do you run now ?.
L.
Bike Forum
[closed]
Lights - what more do you want?
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
why square optics in a round hole
Posted 2 years ago # -
BB.
The round shape allowed me to use 6 LEDs and achieve a decent spread of light, getting light down to the front wheel without using strange shaped and potentially difficult to seal lenses.
Also, having a round design allows me the option to use some of those cutter MCPCBs and round optics too, but I don't think there is a 6 XPG MCPCB and optic available.
And, I quite like the look actually.
L.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@AndyP - 6hrs would be good. Weight of course a factor...
Pick any two from three:
* Long runtime
* Light weight
* High outputYou can get six hours runtime, but perhaps not on 'full beam'.
aye - so that's what I want from lights - all 3! any 2 from 3 is do-able at the moment. So in future I want to see full beam (as it'd just be on/off mode) for 6 hours, with a light weight. Get to work on it!
Posted 2 years ago # -
@fergusd
> Funny enough I was thinking about this auto high/low thing just the other
> day . . . speed is far too much of a pain in the arse to do . . . extra
> wires/sensors are pointless and reliability liabilities . . .Speed measurement is already built-in if you have a hub dynamo, you just measure the frequency of the output of the dynamo and calibrate that against wheel diameter. Can also do it with very little hassle and no extra sensors using a £40 GPS module. The third alternative is to have a wheel sensor and have the 'management' unit replace your cycle computer.
> however . . . vibration would work . .
Not on the road it wouldn't... would be very difficult to calibrate against speed (or even 'required light brightness').
Posted 2 years ago # -
@AndyP
> aye - so that's what I want from lights - all 3!
For what cost, realistically?
Posted 2 years ago # -
So for uphills they are low
Speed sensitivity better be bloody easy to override trail side. Just thinking of proper technical climbs where sometimes full power is more of a requirement than coming back down.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@GaryLake
Would be dead easy to override, just like a high-low switch.
Posted 2 years ago # -
If it's going to be so easy to override, and you'd do it often, then why does the speed sensing need to be there in the first place? To me it just seems like it's over-complicating things for very little practical benefit.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@ DoctorRad
Fair enough on the road comment, where I live the road, on a bike, at night, is where people go to commit suicide . . . hence it doesn't cross my mind . . .
Huge oercomplexity just adds cost and unreliability (or both) . . . a high/low/on/off switch is quite sufficient . . . with increasing run times as the tech improves you just don't need anything very clever . . .
Personally I think 2 hours run time is insufficient, I always want sufficient contingency such that I have a decent light to get off the hill if things go pear shaped . . . and that is what low power mode is for
Fd
Posted 2 years ago # -
@funkynick
I think there'd be a use for it, I'm obviously not the only person to have conceived of the idea of speed sensitive lights. For a lot of typical rides, I think it would be useful.
Often, it's not so much a change in brightness you need as much as a change in beam pattern. On a slow-speed technical climb, you might need a lot of light focussed close to the front wheel, whereas on a high speed downhill you'd want the beam to penetrate a lot further down the trail. Being able to adjust beam pattern with speed is therefore as relevant as being able to adjust brightness.
With an integrated GPS unit, you could even have the light unit remember settings for sections of your favourite ride or night laps of a 24 hour race.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Be good to have a "volume knob" to control the brightness so you could adjust it to what you need/want.
I'm sure Trout could do one that goes to "11" Spinal Tap stylee
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'd like a joystick with 600ish lumens, 8 hours burn time and a switch that is easy to operate with gloves on.
Posted 2 years ago # -
yes surly the tech exists to do speed sensative control
the beam focusing would be quite difficult as to alter the beam with leds would mean some sort of flexible optic as they dont work like an incan bulb where moving the reflector does the biz .Posted 2 years ago # -
@billyboulders
Yeah, I've thought about the 'volume knob' interface too, but it's the old pick any two from three: small, sealed and cheap. I think it would be a great way to do a user interface, but could be easily replaced by up/down buttons.
@beej
With current technology, for 600 lumens and 8 hours runtime, you're looking at six Li-ion cells. 3 LEDs for cool white, 4 for wamr white. In a joystick format, that would need to be about six inches long and 1.5 inches in diameter. Quite a chunky joystick, but do-able. With cool white LEDs, you could almost double the drive current for approaching 1000 lumens and 4-4.5 hr runtime. Could operate as a stand-alone unit, or in conjunction with external switches or management units. Food for thought.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@trout
I was thinking of doing variable beam pattern by having emitters with different beam optics and varying their relative intensity. Feasible?
Posted 2 years ago # -
DR Rac, yeah, i think that sort of idea would work quite well.
I would say the simplest thing would be to tap into the speedo signal and uses those pulses in a control circuit for the speed / beam pattern.
hmmmm lots of ideas .... but i'd never get round to them.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
