Bike UI on *Flex drivers

[georges80]

I've had a comment from a bike rider that the steps in the UIB mode are a little 'big' from level 3 to level 4 to level 5 (in terms of current/light) and it would possibly make more sense to make the steps somewhat more linear (in current). The main issue was the large jump in current draw (from a runtime perspective).

Since all the steps are in firmware, I can easily enough change things if needed.

The steps are essentially the same for bFlex/nFlex/maxFlex and d2Flex. I think the steps make a lot of sense for UIP and UIF, but I'm open to suggestions for the UIB mode.

Right now the steps from 3 to 5 are pretty close to a doubling in current, i.e. if we pick say the 1A table, we have roughly 250mA, 500mA and 1000mA as the 3 steps.

So, folk that are using UIB in the 5 level mode (no duomode), any input on how the steps should be or are you happy as it is?

I'm happy to hear comments and to see if there is some overall 'average' consensus...

cheers,
george.

 

[StevelKnievel]

Most of my personal lights run *flex drivers setup with UIB 5 level multi mode and I think they are perfect as-is! The steps (except L1 to L2) appear evenly very spaced to my eyes. I only run the top level at high speeds or in really technical terrain and having the top three levels any closer together would be redundant IMO. (My dream would be a 3 level mode firmware with the equivalent of L1 - L3 - L5.) Dreams aside, I actually like the "big" jumps in the 5 level mode exactly because actively using them improves runtime so much. Knowing that bumping down a level will almost double the runtime of the light is nice, it makes it easy to estimate how much juice you have left after the first battery warning trips. I say leave it as it is, but I'm interested to hear other opinions on this.

Steve

 

[trout]

My personal preference is to use duo mode as I find multimode
a bit too much choice .

and where I have used multimode I am quite happy as it is .

 

[sendler]

Run time

For a racer, run time, versus battery weight, versus light output, is the key. You can never have too much light when racing. But you have to draw the line on added battery weight at some point. I would prefer linear steps of 20% for the max current setting and 20% level steps within those to allow fine tuning the maximum steady light setting to any given lap time ( 0r 2 lap intervals,ect.) As it is now, I have to choose from 50 minutes on 1000ma.-level5 and 2:20 on 1000ma-level4 or 1:20 on 750ma-level5 and 3:20 on 750ma-level4. The jumps are much too big for me. Luckily, 2 hours 20 minutes is what I need for my training loop but it would be nice to be able to dial up any run time I may want.

 

[Offroad'Bent]

Most of my personal lights run *flex drivers setup with UIB 5 level multi mode and I think they are perfect as-is! The steps (except L1 to L2) appear evenly very spaced to my eyes. I only run the top level at high speeds or in really technical terrain and having the top three levels any closer together would be redundant IMO. (My dream would be a 3 level mode firmware with the equivalent of L1 - L3 - L5.)
Steve

My light has the older Maxflex with UIB1, which has only 3 steps similar to what you describe, as well as the emergency ultralow setting. It's simple but fine. For long adventure races I use the mid setting, singletrack it's the high setting and during hike-a-bike sections where we're shoving bikes through the bush it's on low. In transitions, digging through food boxes and clothes, it's the emergency ultralow.

I guess I'm saying that I make use of all 3 levels I have. 5 even levels would be nice, but not essential.

 

[znomit]

Very happy with the settings as they are.
But yeah it is hard to guestimate real world runtimes with such large steps.
If you are going to change anything the battery cutoff....instead of turning the light right out ramp it down slowly first.

 

[StevelKnievel]

I should add that having the steps be evenly spaced visually is the #1 parameter to me, much more so than spacing the steps for runtime requirements (which I don't really understand, maybe I just need another explaination).

-Znomit-
Great idea with the ramp down! That would be awesome, even if it just knocked output down to L1.

 

[dom]

Hi George
Happy with the levels as they are, myself.

Ramp down off sound great too -though when my battery is getting flat on the bike -
the red led blinks for low voltage warning,so
it is just a matter of dropping levels each time it blinks.

Haven't had the power cut off yet as it is set to the very lowest the batteries should go.

Cheers
Dom

 

[marcopolo]

I take it it is not possible to have the current value steps programmable as an extra menu option?

 

[georges80]

Cutoff gives warning that it is coming and is intended as the last step to protect the batteries from damage. So, making it ramp down etc etc is just adding more complexity (testing, documentation etc). Cutoff should be set at the point that you consider you don't want to discharge the batteries below and you really want the light to turn off. It does allow you to turn it on again and will run for 1 minute before turning off again - so you have a way to 'limp' home if you really have to. Of course one would hope in this case you planned ahead and have a 2nd battery pack or 2nd light....

Making the 'levels' user programmable would mean a lot of new code and again testing & documentation. Even though it would offer the ultimate user configurability it also means that the menu becomes quite complicated since it would need to allow the user to do this for all 4 (or 5 for maxFlex) current tables and for each level and then do we also allow that in UIP and UIF? So many combinations to test & document...

It would be easier to just provide a menu that selects from 2 or 3 possible level profiles. i.e. you would select say the 1000mA table and then be able to select the existing level profile (rough doubling of current per level) or a more linear profile or etc.

Anyhow, I'll wait to see if there's a compelling reason to make any changes at all.

thanks for the input so far,
george.

 

[sendler]

2nd warning means stop.

If you are going to change anything the battery cutoff....instead of turning the light right out ramp it down slowly first.

That's your job. I have my second warning set for 3 minutes remaining. When I see that, it means STOP riding now and change batteries.

 

[bbgobie]

I think 5 levels is more than enough.
What would be usefull is 1400mA or 2800mA current output for MCE and or P7 LEDs!

 

[hootsmon]

I agree, 5 levels is plenty.

 

[cytoe]

How about a treo mode? I use duo mode over the 5 level because I don't like to hold down the button to cycle through them...also 5 levels are too much (IMHO) for biking. A low, medium, high would be great.

 

[sendler]

Set our own values for the levels

I take it it is not possible to have the current value steps programmable as an extra menu option?

That would be ideal for me to be able to choose the percentage of max to set for each level in increments of 10%.

 

[ifor powell]

I like the five levels as they are. knowing your doubeling the runtime each time you come down a level means you stand a chance of knowing how long you can stay out on a given set of batteries.

What I realy want to do is finish up the home made bike computer I am working on and then get that integrated with the flex as was discused some while back here. I am undecided as to wether to leave the firmware as is keeping the nice battery and thermal features and just have my bike computer manipulate the button input or blow it all away with my own firmware and get a more continuasly variable style, but that means more work if I want to keep the thermal managment and the like and be able to use it off the bike...

Ifor

 

[heatstroke]

I wouldn't mind seeing a minor change so that the current settings are related to uniform increases in Power (Vf x Current).
I'd propose each step be a 20% change in power so use approximately 250/350/600/800/1000/1200mA which would correspond to the following power steps (normalized to 100% at 1000mA)
22/37/57/79/100/122%

 

[georges80]

I wouldn't mind seeing a minor change so that the current settings are related to uniform increases in Power (Vf x Current).
I'd propose each step be a 20% change in power so use approximately 250/350/600/800/1000/1200mA which would correspond to the following power steps (normalized to 100% at 1000mA)
22/37/57/79/100/122%

That would make the levels not very noticeable. The human eye is reasonably logarithmic in response to light intensity. A 20% increase in what you call power (Vf x Current) would be barely noticeable to the human eye - that's the reason the steps are currently a doubling of current - that looks to the eye as a linear increase...

http://www.icaen.uiowa.edu/~aip/Lectures/eye_phys_lecture.pdf

cheers,
george.

 

[sendler]

Bright as possible without killing the battery

That would make the levels not very noticeable.

A trail rider on single track doesn't really want noticeable levels while riding except to try to get the most light on the ground that won't kill the battery before you get back. You crank it to max for a minute at a time on the fastest down hill sections(3 cree Q5 at 1000ma. and 7* lenses on the helmet is barely enough for fast sections and bad weather. Still slows lap times at night by 10%), and the rest of the time you try to find a setting to give the most light without killing the battery too fast. You can scrimp by going to 250ma on an easier road section if there are any but most of the time you want the "just right" run time setting which for me would be somewhere between 400-700ma. depending on what I am doing.

 

[StevelKnievel]

Re: Bright as possible without killing the battery

I'm a trail rider who rides very technical singletrack and I DO want noticeable levels!!! You need a bigger battery if you are really having runtime issues. Most of our rides are 3 to 4 hours in the dark and my tiny 7.4V 4800mAh Li-Ion battery makes the duration (my helmet light is the same as yours... 3x Q5). I use this setup all the time for riding and racing endurance events with no runtime issues.

Edit: A Fatman driver with a potentiometer for variable dimming will do what you want... you get infinite control over output from one knob so you can dial it up or down however much you want!