He mounted the light under the crankset, and used a little motor (scavenged from a model airplane servo) to scan the headlight left and right.
Wow
Bandgap Steve - who didn't really contribute much with that comment, but was amazed.
Last edited:
He mounted the light under the crankset, and used a little motor (scavenged from a model airplane servo) to scan the headlight left and right.
For the US, we need a beam & cutoff-like the StVZO spec but better, not just a flashlight firing forward and slightly downward. Something reflex based so you don't get the point source glare from the LED, like Philips SafeRide, and the like.
Blinking/flashing lights are for stationary objects. They never belong on the front, and should only be used on the rear if you are fixing a flat, etc.
For the first comment I totally agree, but the issue with that spec is that implementation to date works by blocking light. Whether a traditional reflector lamp (steal blocking cage around the sides and part of the front of the bulb) or a projector lamp (steal blocking flange in front of the bulb), as much as half of the total output of the light is lost.
For this issue alone, and also due to the nature of cycling needs, about the best we could do is to have some type of mechanism to block light from driver's eyes that can be disabled on the fly, so we aren't getting whacked with low hanging tree lims or bushes when we turn off onto a local trail, but blocking 50% of the light is going to have a HUGE impact on battery longevity when we try to compensate for reduced light with more LED's. As far as beam aim, good luck, so many cheap mounts out there that constantly slip... I always put my bar lights on the left side so I can aim them slightly away from oncoming traffic, but again, the lights are not spec'd for DOT use, the rules in place offer no guidance.
For the second comment, is there a ruling somewhere thay says blinking/flashing lights are for stationary objects, because if so, the police, fire department, works vehicles, and any driver trying to limp to the nearest garage is in violation.
While some states specify that cyclists on the road are to use a SOLID red read lamp, not all specify that it remain solid. I wouldn't want people dropping their red blinkies for a red DOT reflector as those suck if not aimed perfectly.
but I do suggest they run TWO rear lamps, one solid (brightest), one blinkie, because having a solid lamp provides better depth perception and tracking, and by golly, we also need blinkies to get their attention in the first place unless running a very high power rear lamp setup.
Uhm, what? Half the light is lost? In which lamps? Certainly not StVZO compliant lamps with a reflector, no light is lost there.
What is a red DOT reflector? In any event, any proper taillamp has a reflector that is in fact a retro-reflector, so aim is of not much importance.
I too think cyclists could do a lot to improve safety, for them and me. It seems they don't know how to light their bikes. I say they need at least a solid light on both front and rear, optionally a blinkie or two, and definitely a separately switched headlight, not more than 30 watts halogen or equivalent, wide, well controlled beam. Bikes also need lots of retro-reflective surface area. ...or at least that is what I found works best on my bike.
StVZO doesn't apply in the US, so our standards are not quite the same, however, it is very expensive to design and build a light that successfully utilizes all light from the source and does not overwhelm opposing traffic, so nearly all automotive headlamps use various methods to absorb light that would otherwise travel in nefarious directions.
StVZO doesn't apply in the US, so our standards are not quite the same, however, it is very expensive to design and build a light that successfully utilizes all light from the source and does not overwhelm opposing traffic, so nearly all automotive headlamps use various methods to absorb light that would otherwise travel in nefarious directions.
Low-beam reflector headlamps have to block all light exiting the lens directly from the bulb as this is too bright a source. Many also block some of the light exiting the sides of the bulb due to space or design constraints that limit the efficiency of the setup, resulting in stray light that must be controlled.
The 9007 bulb, seen in the first image, comes with an absorbing coating.
Popular in the 90's and 00's, many vehicles fitted with this bulb also had a blocking insert in the headlamp housing, seen in this image:
These inserts are not reflective on the bulb side, it would require too much definition on the insert to be cost effective. Prior to the use of higher resolution reflectors in the late 90's that permitted the disused of fluted lenses, most of the inserts were black oxide stamped steel brackets.
In this image we can see the shield in a projector lamp that makes it a low beam:
and the resulting cutoff, with an area circled that approximately indicates the focus of the lamp, to give an idea of the light that has been lost:
As probably one of the worst examples ever, my 95 Taurus used the 9007 bulb, which was rated at 1000lm +-15%. That meant a bulb could be as low as 850lm. The headlamps got so bad as they began to haze and the reflector began to lose reflectivity that Taurus owners must have accounted for a quarter of all hella projector module sales. I remember the first project to modify the halogen modules for HID bulbs. Fun days.
IIRC, a brand new housing was measured with a run of the mill bulb at 480 lumens OTT. BOTH headlamps put out less light total than the DOT spec rating for one bulb. Those were pathetic days.
Things have improved a lot, H9's produce more lumens (1250 nom, IIRC), and projector lamps are seeing higher implementation (although not always well executed), but the issue remains with bicycling to produce a system that is compatible with being on the road and providing enough light to be safe. I think the best option for the time being is to physically block emitted light once OTT, as getting mfg's to even consider complying with DOT (NHTSA) rules is a very long shot due to the costs involved. Yes, Phillips has done somethig, but they are a HUGE international company involved in ALL aspects of lighting and they own the automotive lighting realm. A golden savior might come in the form of optics designed for automotive use, but not the kind found in the LED aux lamps being sold everywhere now, but in access to optics produced for oem headlamp use.
This:
The off-axis drop-off is so tight, the passenger headlamp in a car will not provide a reflection for the driver. If the driver's headlamp is out, or poorly aimed, or if the reflector is poorly aimed (cheap mounts, and who ever bothers to square the damn thing by anything but sight?), you get zilch.
3M's conspicuity tape is worlds better, but reflective devices are only add-ons, we really need to use effective lights. No amount of high quality reflective device is going to provide visilbility to the guy in the mid 80's mercedes with one busted bulp and the other pointing 30º to the left and down, running off a corroded circuit that only supplies 6V to it. Or the guy in the jacked truck that only runs his fog lamps because for some reason it's the thing to not use your headlamps in a non-road legal jacked truck.
Automotive... and this is where you lost me. Are you talking about bicycle lights or car lights?
Do you mean there is no competition to Philips in automotive headlamp optics with cutoff?
How is it with motorcycles in the USA??
Actually, there is an issue, but first this: It seems to be a retro-reflector so should throw the light back into the same direction that the light came from. However, the problem is perhaps that the reflection is perhaps too much into that specific direction, so not diffuse enough, especially for shorter distances
Anyway, I was thinking about the same as what you mentioned below, that a more diffuse reflector might be desirable and I was also thinking of this reflecting tape... Perhaps a reflector should be a mix of such tight and very diffuse reflection.
Automotive.
okay. Can we stay on topic?
{automotive}
Flamingtaco, feel free to take your ideas to the general transportation lighting forum if you think you want to cover automotive as well as non-automotive. This bicycling section here tends not to get excited about lumen-killing projection lamps or dubiously reliable retroreflective devices.
No, just that they have a higher level of resources available to throw into LED reflector design.
There are four issues with DOT *mandated* reflectors for bicycles, which must be of the prismatic type.
1) The prisms are made of plastic that does not have a reflective backing. Some light passing through the reflector and is absorbed by the (typically) black plastic that it is attached to.
2) Reflectivity drops off quickly off-angle, as shown in this image:
3) They reflect very close to 0º, which causes problems when you are significantly off-angle from the light source. SUV's and trucks put you well off angle, as does having a mis-aimed driver headlamp.
4) The required rear reflector is red, absorbing a good bit of the spectrum of the source light. This is especially problematic with LED light sources (coming to a car near you!) as they may produce so little light in the red spectrum as to not reflect any useable light at all. I've noticed I cannot see the red part of the conspicuity stickers on the trailers at work with my bike lights.
The yellow reflectors are a lot brighter than the red ones, but again, off angle presents issues. They are useless, for example, when a cyclist has just cleared an intersection, and a driver is turning in behind the cyclist from the cyclist's left, especially when taking the left lane on a four lane road.
Now that diffuse reflectors are extremely efficient (consicuity tape, scotchlite fabric)... yes. I don't expect to ever see those two combined into one package in my lifetime, though. The DOT's given lip service on the bad headlamp specs for three decades, bikes aren't even on their RADAR.