Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

[swhs]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

I'm looking forward to your pictures and description. If you write it in German all better for me ... ... and if you want to buy proper Müesli you have to come here next time ...

Updates here:

http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tests/verlichting/varia/philips_fietsverlichtingsdag_en.html

I'm still working on it sorting out pictures and writing down everything.

Btw., I usually don't get any feedback about suggestions I send (to various manufacturers) about my ideas on how to improve their products (esp. Saddles, bike computers, lighting of course). From most I never hear anything. The exceptions are Sunup and Philips. This day was organised after I sent my post-eurobike email with lots of suggestions to make a 'perfect' headlamp. The marketing people then decided to organise this day, to get feedback from various people on how to improve the product, make it more appealing and see what they would like to see changed. This is a cool attitude, and the testcenter Philips set up where you can loan a headlamp for a day is also cool, similar to what I do with leather saddles and headlamps (I let people ride on saddles and loan them if say a 10 km ride is not enough, with lights I can ride with customers and show the differences). Talking with the technical people really made me think they have the same no-nonsense approach as I have. Such as the claim of 'at least 270lm' of the LBL. Which is true and Philips was one of the first to give measured values. But also the way to compare headlamps. I use a switchbox to ride with 3-4 headlamps at the same time and switch between headlamps while riding. This is the only proper way to compare lightbeams, and when I said this, the engineer said he did exactly the same thing. Cool

My conclusion: It's going to take a while for products to improve, this is caused by lots of things, as a big large-volume company you can't quickly change your designs, this is something obvious in the DIY MTB lamps as well where all the commercial lights trail the DIY lights. But I'm very curious how the lamps will improve, and the way Philips are taking feedback seriously, is very cool.

Wouter

For mrradlos:
PS. Muesli in der Schweiz: Also, ein bisschen weit weg fuer einen Ausflug mit dem Fahrrad oder um 'mal mit dem Zug zu gehen', aber ich bin sicherlich interessiert zu sehen was die Schweiz zu bieten hat Das ist einer der Reizen von reisen in andere Laender: Das unbekannte entdecken...
PPS. Ein Bericht auf Deutsch koennte ich machen, aber uebersetzen kostet sehr viel Zeit, also, zuerst auf English, dan werde ich mal sehen ob ich das mache.

 

[HakanC]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

Very interesting.
Thank you for sharing with us.

 

[ttoshi]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

Is it possible that they might release an 80 lux version of their dynamo lamp?

Thanks,
Toshi

 

[mrradlos]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tests/verlichting/varia/philips_fietsverlichtingsdag_en.html

Thank you for sharing your impressions!

For mrradlos:
Also, ein bisschen weit weg fuer einen Ausflug mit dem Fahrrad ...

Just follow the river rhine, it's very nice to cycle along. I've done it once the other way round -down to the Netherlands - takes a few days though ...

 

[HakanC]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

In http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tests/verlichting/varia/philips_fietsverlichtingsdag_en.html
you write: the pedelec lamp will be offered loose for sale from March

Do you have any more information about the pedelec-light?

 

[swhs]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

In http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tests/verlichting/varia/philips_fietsverlichtingsdag_en.html
you write: the pedelec lamp will be offered loose for sale from March

Do you have any more information about the pedelec-light?

Well, I have one, but I fried it. Or it was defective. Not sure. A big shame as the first time I briefly tried it it seemed the wallshot was better than that of the Saferide 60/SLD with LBL driver.

I don't see a change in reflector, perhaps due to optimized placement of LEDs? Or just variation in lamps? The 2 SLDs I have are similar, another I tested was also similar, this pedelec lamp seemed to have a little wider beam and sharper cutoff.

Well, I can only cut this one open and hope the LEDs are not fried, to find out, until I can get another pedelec lamp.

The pedelec lamp runs on 5-48V, is essentially a souped up version of the Saferide 60 and has no button on top. On my Saferide 60 modification page you can see the beamshape of a SLD running at LBL power, which is not bad at all, better than I expected although I prefer the LBL's beam. I don't think the pedelec version will reach that brightness if it's only a SLD at higher power, as the SLD is 60 lux, and it is probably 95 lux or so at 0.70A (with LBL driver), but Philips claims 80 lux for the pedelec lamp.

So, I cannot say much yet about it yet, I can only give some hints as to possible performance from what I saw.

The e-bike version is quite different, needing to conform not to StVZO but ECE r113. I found that regulation online, or at least an older version + some updates so will analyse that later.

It seems the LBL will remain the best one as the e-bike version almost certainly hasn't got the reach of the LBL (50 lux), but its beam is very wide, even, with really sharp cutoff. Opening would be a problem again, are the LEDs running at full power? If not at 1A this would be a great headlamp.

Talking with the Philips engineer, he mentioned some decisions are also based on keeping distinct performance families, so perhaps that's also why they don't position the e-bike version as competition to that (or alternate version running the LEDs at max power which they probably aren't doing for an e-bike as you don't want to drain batteries which are also used for moving!

 

[Marcturus]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

Updates here:

http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tests/verlichting/varia/philips_fietsverlichtingsdag_en.html

Very interesting report, nice that they seemed to listen to you.

I really like that you suggested neutral white + a sawed-off LBL80 to them. I will finally buy some if they get their act together and heed your advice without deliberately micro-stepping the necessary improvements (as Philips is often accused of doing, see wake-up lights).

There are two issues I disagree with:
One, I feel that the marketing idea of distinct performance families does not make sense before one has made oneself widely known as the obvious choice. Philips' bicycle lights unit has not yet gotten there, we are already annoyed by the product names, and generally, the informed public has grown suspicious of any mega-corp's long-term commitment to niche markets. So I suggest they have their planned obsolescence and performance family planning staff take a back seat for a while, and simply focus on improving their products and distribution.

Two, while I disapprove of using only head-mounted lights in traffic, your approach to interpreting German StVO code seems questionable. Your personal definition of searchlights includes person-mounted flashlights, while disregarding the specific content in paragraph 52 of StVZO which relates to searchlights only in the context of powered-vehicle lights, while disregarding the bicycle-specific paragraph 67, and while disregarding the non-application of the current StVZO vis-a-vis pedestrians and non-regulated forms of transportation. Not applying the accepted set of methods used in jurisprudence, your interpretation fails to convince me.

 

[swhs]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

Very interesting report, nice that they seemed to listen to you.

I really like that you suggested neutral white + a sawed-off LBL80 to them. I will finally buy some if they get their act together and heed your advice without deliberately micro-stepping the necessary improvements (as Philips is often accused of doing, see wake-up lights).

There are two issues I disagree with:
One, I feel that the marketing idea of distinct performance families does not make sense before one has made oneself widely known as the obvious choice. Philips' bicycle lights unit has not yet gotten there, we are already annoyed by the product names, and generally, the informed public has grown suspicious of any mega-corp's long-term commitment to niche markets. So I suggest they have their planned obsolescence and performance family planning staff take a back seat for a while, and simply focus on improving their products and distribution.

So you mean you disagree with Philips, not with me?

I don't like how they go about keeping performance families apart, but I understand their position. If you're going to bring out another lamp that is much better than the others but cheaper, you will obviously kill of the more expensive lamp. As always, it's a case of making money and not killing off of your own markets. This is similar to cameras, where lots of low priced models are restricted on purpose, otherwise the high end models would not sell.

This means some people do not get the camera they want (such as myself), because you cannot find very compact/lightweight cameras that have good screens (AMOLED!) and full manual controls. I would like a camera like that and the Samsung ST70 (1/2.33 sensor) is barely worse in daily use than my EX1 (larger 1.1.7 sensor). So I'd like a ST70 with AMOLED, full manual controls but such cameras don't exist.

Two, while I disapprove of using only head-mounted lights in traffic, your approach to interpreting German StVO code seems questionable. Your personal definition of searchlights includes person-mounted flashlights, while disregarding the specific content in paragraph 52 of StVZO which relates to searchlights only in the context of powered-vehicle lights, while disregarding the bicycle-specific paragraph 67, and while disregarding the non-application of the current StVZO vis-a-vis pedestrians and non-regulated forms of transportation. Not applying the accepted set of methods used in jurisprudence, your interpretation fails to convince me.

I'm not disregarding anything I think.

1. Circular symmetric beams mounted on the bike are not acceptable as per StVZO.
2. Therefore you need to find a way to allow it, some mention of other lights. You can't say a light mounted on a helmet is acceptable because it is not mentioned in StVZO/StVO.

First of all It just doesn't work that way with adding things that change the appearance of a vehicle at night (adding headlamps, taillamps, etc. ) and esp. for symmetric beams. With lights you can only use things are are explicitly mentioned as acceptable.

The only way for vehicles seems to be as a Suchscheinwerfer, and lets be honest, this is what torches, flashlights are. You usually use them to search for things in the house, in the garden. It doesn't really matter though, because what is obvious is that a non-vehicle mounted light, or vehicle mounted light without cutoff that you can aim is a searchlight (not many cars have them I suppose, some old cars in the USA seemed to have them, I saw that in some old movies).

The vehicle mounted searchlight is in par. 52 section 2 and it's only for vehicles with licence plate, so if searchlights are not allowed on a bike, which they are not, then that only leaves room for non-vehicle mounted and thus non-StVZO. So you get to StVO which mentions searchlights. This ALSO governs the use of the vehicle mounted searchlights. So it doesn't really matter if the searchlight is vehicle mounted or not for actual use.

3. So it seems clear to me from all the rules that helmet lamps are only allowed as searchlights. If you think that only applies to vehicle mounted searchlight, I disagree. But also, if you think helmet mounted lamps are not searchlights I think you need to give a proper argument and also, the only conclusion then, is really that it's not allowed at all (to use it).

So my view from all the rules which make it clear that you can only use what is explicitly allowed, is this:
- Helmet lights can only be found in 1 category in StVO: Searchlights. These may not be used to illuminate the road.
- If you don't think a helmet light is a search light, then in that case use is not allowed because it's not mentioned as a allowable extra.

If you want to argue about pedestrians, then again, if those are walking with symmetric beams on a helmet, that is a searchlight, may not be used for long and may not shine on the road. Same common-sense thinking applies here: Anything that can blind traffic on the road is obviously not allowed. All the rules make this clear, saying 'well, it's not mentioned' is not going to fly.

A cyclist is not a pedestrian and there the rules are stronger. Even if not explicitly said so it's pretty clear that the searchlight rule totally kills off any excuse for using a helmet lamp. This is obvious because claiming you aim elsewhere, not in the eyes of opposing traffic, is NOT going to work. What if you need to look on the road e.g. to evade something, then blind opposing traffic while doing that who then run into what you're trying to avoid (like an unlit tank on the road, I read a fun story about that where a driver was found guilty of dangerous driving while trying to avoid an unlit (broken down I presume) tank on a German road. Ludicrous!)

There is a reason for not allowing symmetric beams and StVO par 17 perfectly complements the StVZO to actually regulate all light types. If you want to argue a symmetric helmet beam light is not a searchlight and thus allowed before a German court when you caused an accident, good luck! You're going to need it!

And about "Not applying the accepted set of methods used in jurisprudence, your interpretation fails to convince me.": I don't know what you mean by that. If you are a lawyer then you need to explain this otherwise, you need to give arguments and you have none. You only mentioned that I didn't mention certain things, but these are irrelevant, I thought that was obvious as explained above. The rules in StVZO/StVO are quite clear in what they want to achieve, and it mentions searchlights. Trying to get a lamp on a helmet as acceptable is not going to worrk and it's pretty clear why, as I explained.

But if you still disagree, then give me your arguments. ("your interpretation fails to convince me" is not an argument, it's copout for not doing analysis yourself. You may not intend it that way, esp. as you gave the StVZO paragraphs etc., but it looks a bit that way and I've seen it often enough where people cannot find counter arguments, then give some vague "your arguments are not good". Well, in all cases my arguments were good... So, the ball is in your court )

 

[Marcturus]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

Well, in all cases my arguments were good... So, the ball is in your court )

Well, I provided the hints I wanted to provide, and out of all the readers and bots, only one objected to my stunning display of logic. On fringe topics like this one, it's easy to fall prey to informal peer-review simply because extremely few other individuals are both able to comprehend AND interested enough to care in detail. If you wish to receive scholarly advice about your arguments in relation to the prevailing legal opinion, feel free to consult professionals who provide this service, Philips Automotive ought to be able to help you out with a contact.

 

[swhs]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

Well, I provided the hints I wanted to provide, and out of all the readers and bots, only one objected to my stunning display of logic. On fringe topics like this one, it's easy to fall prey to informal peer-review simply because extremely few other individuals are both able to comprehend AND interested enough to care in detail. If you wish to receive scholarly advice about your arguments in relation to the prevailing legal opinion, feel free to consult professionals who provide this service, Philips Automotive ought to be able to help you out with a contact.

I'm not interested in hints... I want proper arguments.

This is the problem: You can't get information from professionals for free. I'm not going to pay for advice: 1. Why would I do that? 2. Why would I need to? The law is supposed to be clear to everyone, though it often isn't but usually in technical stuff or convoluted systems that consist of a bunch of fairly ad hoc rules. But the latter is not the case here except for some regulations such as power used by a dynamo headlamp, but even that has clear reasons. For the first see the nonsense in StVZO/TA about how to aim the headlamp which makes no sense whatsoever, however, you can simply disregard that, aim the cutoff below the horizon which obviously is meant you should do, then opposing traffic will get into the less than 2 lux zone, so that should be ok. So you by common sense you still come to the righ conclusion. And you just know you can't aim a lmap into the eyes of opposiing traffic even though that stupid section in StVZO can be interpreted as such.

Here too: Symmetric beam lamps on helmets are in no way allowed because enough is written in the StVZO/TA to make clear what and why things are allowed, then trying go around it in a way which goes against everything StVZO/TA is meant to achieve will NOT work. This is what law explanations/law cases are about: Making clear or deciding how to interpret. Well, I don't need legal advice for that. That you think helmet lamps are ok because they are not mentioned as being a searchlight, as I said, good luck, and you will need it, as it goes against what the rules stand for.

 

[Marcturus]

Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

"It is easier to attract bees with honey than with vinegar."
Transmission over.

 

[Marcturus]

... and out.