looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light onto the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much more expensive than what's currently offered?

Cheers

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:11:25 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light onto the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much more expensive than what's currently offered?
>
> Cheers

I suspect optics truly suited to lighting the road are much more expensive for a tiny company; and I suspect most
manufacturers of bike headlights are tiny companies.

Like a good optical system, I think the problem has many facets. First, unlike for motor vehicles for German bikes,
there are no legal requirements for bike light optics. It's "wild west," anything goes.

Second, consumers have no knowledge of the benefits of better optics. Plenty of people notice only total lumens.
By that standard, light going up into the trees is just as valuable as light going onto the roadway. Worse, we have
a few people like Scharf who characterize the most sophisticated and efficient bike optics - those the most like car
or motorcycle headlights - as being inferior. There's not much motivation for most companies to spend money.

Technically, I think good optics for LEDs are trickier than they used to be for incandescent bulbs, like halogens.
I always thought even the inexpensive Cateye headlights of old used to put the light pretty much where it needed
to go. They used parabolic reflectors and fairly easy to understand multi-facet lenses, which worked with the
almost point source of an incandescent bulbs. But LEDs are light emitting _surfaces_. I think it requires specialized
ray tracing software to design the reflectors. (Most LED headlights do the shaping with the reflector, not the lens.)

I've wondered if a tiny company could just copy the optics of, say, a high-end B&M headlight. ISTM a reflector shape
might be a hard thing to legally protect. But I know by experience that putting a different LED into a given
reflector does not produce the same light distribution.

- Frank Krygowski

On 28/02/2022 01:11, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days
> I can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that
> throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or
> expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light
> onto the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t
> hat much more expensive than what's currently offered?

Don't start me! Being constantly blinded by 3W LED fuckwits coming the
other way, and as you pass you see their lights don't even illuminate
the ground! Tbf, cargo bike riders, with e headlamp mounted very low
have a bad time with almost any light. I solved the problem on mine :-)

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:45:12 PM UTC-8, Tosspot wrote:
> On 28/02/2022 01:11, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days
> > I can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that
> > throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or
> > expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light
> > onto the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t
> > hat much more expensive than what's currently offered?
> Don't start me! Being constantly blinded by 3W LED fuckwits coming the
> other way, and as you pass you see their lights don't even illuminate
> the ground! Tbf, cargo bike riders, with e headlamp mounted very low
> have a bad time with almost any light. I solved the problem on mine :-)
I had some head and taillights that worked fine. There was one headlight for being seen and one to see with - a relatively sharply focused LED beam to the roadway in front of me that was adjustable for speed. The taillights were LED's behind a red lens. Trucks would pull far over to in recognition of me though as usual cars in the early morning were driven by pigs that wouldn't even drive in their own lanes.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:15:43 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:11:25 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light onto the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much more expensive than what's currently offered?
> >
> > Cheers
> I suspect optics truly suited to lighting the road are much more expensive for a tiny company; and I suspect most
> manufacturers of bike headlights are tiny companies.
>
> Like a good optical system, I think the problem has many facets. First, unlike for motor vehicles for German bikes,
> there are no legal requirements for bike light optics. It's "wild west," anything goes.
>
> Second, consumers have no knowledge of the benefits of better optics. Plenty of people notice only total lumens.
> By that standard, light going up into the trees is just as valuable as light going onto the roadway. Worse, we have
> a few people like Scharf who characterize the most sophisticated and efficient bike optics - those the most like car
> or motorcycle headlights - as being inferior. There's not much motivation for most companies to spend money.
>
> Technically, I think good optics for LEDs are trickier than they used to be for incandescent bulbs, like halogens.
> I always thought even the inexpensive Cateye headlights of old used to put the light pretty much where it needed
> to go. They used parabolic reflectors and fairly easy to understand multi-facet lenses, which worked with the
> almost point source of an incandescent bulbs. But LEDs are light emitting _surfaces_. I think it requires specialized
> ray tracing software to design the reflectors. (Most LED headlights do the shaping with the reflector, not the lens.)
>
> I've wondered if a tiny company could just copy the optics of, say, a high-end B&M headlight. ISTM a reflector shape
> might be a hard thing to legally protect. But I know by experience that putting a different LED into a given
> reflector does not produce the same light distribution.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Correction. I should have said "most _good_ LED headlights do the beam shaping with the reflector, not the lens." There are probably millions of bad LED bike headlights whose beams waste light on the tree branches instead of the road.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:11:25 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>> looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I
>> can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that
>> throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or
>> expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light onto
>> the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much
>> more expensive than what's currently offered?
>>
>> Cheers
>
> I suspect optics truly suited to lighting the road are much more
> expensive for a tiny company; and I suspect most
> manufacturers of bike headlights are tiny companies.
>
> Like a good optical system, I think the problem has many facets. First,
> unlike for motor vehicles for German bikes,
> there are no legal requirements for bike light optics. It's "wild west," anything goes.

To be fair what you want on the road vs off road is quite a different beam
shape, I have this.

<https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/Bike/Road/Strada-MK10-RS-Gun-Metal-Black>

Or rather its predecessor from a few years back. Even on high mode with
both LED’s engaged it gives a flat but reasonably wide beam, great for
lighting up roads be that tarmac or gravel (and in low is traffic friendly)
but even chucking power at it, it’s totally the wrong shape for anything
more technical. It can’t remotely keep light where your looking, where as
the, much cheaper MTB light, which even on low mode is very much not
traffic friendly, will keep light vaguely where your looking, and on high
will do quite well, as it has a wide circle beam with a middle spot which
for trails is a good beam shape.

If folks do much night riding (off road) tends to get quite expensive as
most folks would suggest helmet plus bar lights.
>
> Second, consumers have no knowledge of the benefits of better optics.
> Plenty of people notice only total lumens.

I noticed that the Strada though half the claimed lumens on road with both
at full chat it’s very close, the Strada gives a very even beam ie where as
the MTB there is a clear spot in the centre, ie much brighter in the
central beam than the edges.

For that reason the Strada always looks more powerful in beam shots which
it isn’t but it’s playing to its strengths.

Lumens is probably a fair measure of the light, with x lumens and generally
the beam shape you can generally know what the light will be like.

> By that standard, light going up into the trees is just as valuable as
> light going onto the roadway. Worse, we have
> a few people like Scharf who characterize the most sophisticated and
> efficient bike optics - those the most like car
> or motorcycle headlights - as being inferior. There's not much motivation
> for most companies to spend money.
>

> Technically, I think good optics for LEDs are trickier than they used to
> be for incandescent bulbs, like halogens.

Judging from house lighting I’d assume so yes.

> I always thought even the inexpensive Cateye headlights of old used to
> put the light pretty much where it needed
> to go.

Woefully underpowered even 15 years ago the lights I used compared to now!
Pre that I lived in a rural area so never really used bikes after dark.

>They used parabolic reflectors and fairly easy to understand multi-facet
> lenses, which worked with the
> almost point source of an incandescent bulbs. But LEDs are light emitting
> _surfaces_. I think it requires specialized
> ray tracing software to design the reflectors. (Most LED headlights do
> the shaping with the reflector, not the lens.)
>
> I've wondered if a tiny company could just copy the optics of, say, a
> high-end B&M headlight. ISTM a reflector shape

Depends on the market I guess I’d certainly want for the commute bike the
ability to have a higher beam shape than beam shots of B&M suggest since I
do have areas that use full beam, the light has a remote so I can flick it
from high/low ie knock it down if there are folks coming my way though the
parks.

> might be a hard thing to legally protect. But I know by experience that
> putting a different LED into a given
> reflector does not produce the same light distribution.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
Roger Merriman

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:42:47 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 16:11:23 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
> <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light onto the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much more expensive than what's currently offered?
> >
> >Cheers
> It's not the cost, but rather the physical size of the parabolic
> reflector. Cyclists prefer small headlights (less wind resistance).
>
> If you want a narrow beam, you will need to use a wide diameter
> parabolic reflector. Try your headlight in this calculator:
>
> "Beam angle calculator"
> <https://www.opticsforhire.com/led-beam-angle-calculator>
> Use the lower "reflector" calculator, not the TIR (total internal
> reflection) calculator.
>
> For example, my Cygolite Streak 280 has a 20mm diameter, 10mm high
> reflector, and a Cree XPG 2.1 x 2.1mm diameter LED. Plug in the
> numbers, the calculator returns:
> "Beam angle FWHM is 13.609 degrees spill light beam angle is 90.000
> degrees".
> In other words, the main beam is 13.6 degrees wide (at 1/2 power
> points), while there is spill light spread between -45 and +45
> degrees, which is what is the light leaking to the sides.
>
> If you want to make it narrower, all you need is a wider parabolic
> reflector. Let's try a mythical bicycle headlight and just scale the
> reflector to be 5 times as large.
> Reflector diameter = 100 mm
> Reflector height = 50 mm
> Same Cree XPG LED = 2.1 x 2.1mm
> This time, it produces:
> "Beam angle FWHM is 2.716 degrees spill light beam angle is 90.000
> degrees".
> The beam is now 2.7 degrees wide (at 1/2 power points) or 5 times as
> narrow. The spill angle is still the same because it's a function of
> the width to height ratio of the reflector. For example, if reduce
> only the reflector height to 10 mm, it produces:
> "Beam angle FWHM is 2.716 degrees spill light beam angle is 157.380
> degrees"
> a drastic increase in the spill angle.
>
> So, to narrow the beam, you narrow the reflector diameter. To reduce
> spill, you increase the height of the reflector.
>
> So, how does this work? If the LED was a point source of light, there
> would be no spill and the beamwidth would be zero degrees. However,
> the LED is not a point source and has a finite width (2.1mm). Light
> coming from one edge of the LED is reflected by the parabolic
> reflector differently than light coming from the opposite edge of the
> LED. The two rays do not focus to a point, or produce perfectly
> parallel reflections. The result is the beamwidth and spill as
> calculated.

I think that web calculator must apply only to old-style flashlight technology. My Busch & Muller
Cyo is ~40mm diameter and gives a wonderfully controlled beam. The B&M Eyc on my touring bike
is sort of rectangular, 25 x 25 mm and almost as good. It's plenty good enough for my use of that
bike.

The LEDs in these things fire sort of sideways into the reflectors, which are complex and not radially
symmetrical. They're certainly not simple paraboloids.

- Frank Krygowski

On 2/28/2022 12:03 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:11:25 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>> looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I
>>> can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that
>>> throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or
>>> expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light onto
>>> the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much
>>> more expensive than what's currently offered?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>> I suspect optics truly suited to lighting the road are much more
>> expensive for a tiny company; and I suspect most
>> manufacturers of bike headlights are tiny companies.
>>
>> Like a good optical system, I think the problem has many facets. First,
>> unlike for motor vehicles for German bikes,
>> there are no legal requirements for bike light optics. It's "wild west," anything goes.
>
> To be fair what you want on the road vs off road is quite a different beam
> shape,

Yes, of course. Mountain bikers in dense woods have to worry about
obstructions like branches at face height, about illuminating super
sharp turns at near zero speeds. Mountain bikers in open territory don't
have to worry about blinding other road users.

>> I always thought even the inexpensive Cateye headlights of old used to
>> put the light pretty much where it needed
>> to go.
>
> Woefully underpowered even 15 years ago the lights I used compared to now!
> Pre that I lived in a rural area so never really used bikes after dark.

Yes, back then we got by with far fewer lumens. Batteries were much more
primitive, and halogen bulbs were much less efficient than LEDs at
converting watts to lumens.

Still, I did lots and lots of night riding. And contrary to the "safety
inflation" claims of today, in those days I saw city cyclists'
headlights from plenty of distance, up to several blocks away. I'm not
aware of any great reduction in nighttime crashes attributed to modern,
more powerful bike lights.

>
>> They used parabolic reflectors and fairly easy to understand multi-facet
>> lenses, which worked with the
>> almost point source of an incandescent bulbs. But LEDs are light emitting
>> _surfaces_. I think it requires specialized
>> ray tracing software to design the reflectors. (Most LED headlights do
>> the shaping with the reflector, not the lens.)
>>
>> I've wondered if a tiny company could just copy the optics of, say, a
>> high-end B&M headlight. ISTM a reflector shape
>
> Depends on the market I guess I’d certainly want for the commute bike the
> ability to have a higher beam shape than beam shots of B&M suggest since I
> do have areas that use full beam, the light has a remote so I can flick it
> from high/low ie knock it down if there are folks coming my way though the
> parks.

Instead of pumping more and more research and marketing effort into more
and more lumens, I'd like to see a bit more sophistication in headlamp
design. A switchable high beam would sometimes be nice. I'd also like to
see a wider beam shaped not like a horizontal bar, but like a smile -
pointing upwards at the left and right extreme. This would do two
things: It would provide better illumination of the roadway during a
slow-ish sharp turn; and it would shine more brightly in the eyes of
motorists who are approaching the cyclist's path from a side street.

(Not that I've ever had a problem with that latter event.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/28/2022 12:03 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:11:25 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>>> looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I
>>>> can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that
>>>> throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or
>>>> expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light onto
>>>> the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much
>>>> more expensive than what's currently offered?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> I suspect optics truly suited to lighting the road are much more
>>> expensive for a tiny company; and I suspect most
>>> manufacturers of bike headlights are tiny companies.
>>>
>>> Like a good optical system, I think the problem has many facets. First,
>>> unlike for motor vehicles for German bikes,
>>> there are no legal requirements for bike light optics. It's "wild west," anything goes.
>>
>> To be fair what you want on the road vs off road is quite a different beam
>> shape,
>
> Yes, of course. Mountain bikers in dense woods have to worry about
> obstructions like branches at face height, about illuminating super
> sharp turns at near zero speeds. Mountain bikers in open territory don't
> have to worry about blinding other road users.
>
>>> I always thought even the inexpensive Cateye headlights of old used to
>>> put the light pretty much where it needed
>>> to go.
>>
>> Woefully underpowered even 15 years ago the lights I used compared to now!
>> Pre that I lived in a rural area so never really used bikes after dark.
>
> Yes, back then we got by with far fewer lumens. Batteries were much more
> primitive, and halogen bulbs were much less efficient than LEDs at
> converting watts to lumens.
>
> Still, I did lots and lots of night riding. And contrary to the "safety
> inflation" claims of today, in those days I saw city cyclists'
> headlights from plenty of distance, up to several blocks away. I'm not
> aware of any great reduction in nighttime crashes attributed to modern,
> more powerful bike lights.

In urban/street use, same with cars your lights are to be seen by, which
unless it’s raining even a very low powered light will do.

Realistically street lights provide enough light in most urban roads, I
only need to flick my light to high, ie to see by though the parks and
sometimes down the old cycleway, on the roads low is fine as the street
lights are good enough.

It’s country stuff need to see stuff, even then if the speeds are low can
get by with less.
>
>>
>>> They used parabolic reflectors and fairly easy to understand multi-facet
>>> lenses, which worked with the
>>> almost point source of an incandescent bulbs. But LEDs are light emitting
>>> _surfaces_. I think it requires specialized
>>> ray tracing software to design the reflectors. (Most LED headlights do
>>> the shaping with the reflector, not the lens.)
>>>
>>> I've wondered if a tiny company could just copy the optics of, say, a
>>> high-end B&M headlight. ISTM a reflector shape
>>
>> Depends on the market I guess I’d certainly want for the commute bike the
>> ability to have a higher beam shape than beam shots of B&M suggest since I
>> do have areas that use full beam, the light has a remote so I can flick it
>> from high/low ie knock it down if there are folks coming my way though the
>> parks.
>
> Instead of pumping more and more research and marketing effort into more
> and more lumens,

They aren’t they are simply buying more powerful LED’s and fitting them!

>I'd like to see a bit more sophistication in headlamp
> design. A switchable high beam would sometimes be nice. I'd also like to
> see a wider beam shaped not like a horizontal bar, but like a smile -
> pointing upwards at the left and right extreme. This would do two
> things: It would provide better illumination of the roadway during a
> slow-ish sharp turn; and it would shine more brightly in the eyes of
> motorists who are approaching the cyclist's path from a side street.
>
> (Not that I've ever had a problem with that latter event.)
>
>
It’s expensive for that level of design, look at my light, which is a
fairly small company, and yes some of it is that they are tough and
repairable.

My experience is that cars notice the light, possibly because even on low,
it lenses is reasonable big, ie not just a point of light, I’d be wary of
raising the beam throw for urban use, as it would be unpleasant for others,
and I suspect not needed.

I only need the higher and more powerful beam shape once not on the road.

Roger Merriman

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 9:13:54 AM UTC-8, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:42:47 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 16:11:23 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
> > <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light onto the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much more expensive than what's currently offered?
> > >
> > >Cheers
> > It's not the cost, but rather the physical size of the parabolic
> > reflector. Cyclists prefer small headlights (less wind resistance).
> >
> > If you want a narrow beam, you will need to use a wide diameter
> > parabolic reflector. Try your headlight in this calculator:
> >
> > "Beam angle calculator"
> > <https://www.opticsforhire.com/led-beam-angle-calculator>
> > Use the lower "reflector" calculator, not the TIR (total internal
> > reflection) calculator.
> >
> > For example, my Cygolite Streak 280 has a 20mm diameter, 10mm high
> > reflector, and a Cree XPG 2.1 x 2.1mm diameter LED. Plug in the
> > numbers, the calculator returns:
> > "Beam angle FWHM is 13.609 degrees spill light beam angle is 90.000
> > degrees".
> > In other words, the main beam is 13.6 degrees wide (at 1/2 power
> > points), while there is spill light spread between -45 and +45
> > degrees, which is what is the light leaking to the sides.
> >
> > If you want to make it narrower, all you need is a wider parabolic
> > reflector. Let's try a mythical bicycle headlight and just scale the
> > reflector to be 5 times as large.
> > Reflector diameter = 100 mm
> > Reflector height = 50 mm
> > Same Cree XPG LED = 2.1 x 2.1mm
> > This time, it produces:
> > "Beam angle FWHM is 2.716 degrees spill light beam angle is 90.000
> > degrees".
> > The beam is now 2.7 degrees wide (at 1/2 power points) or 5 times as
> > narrow. The spill angle is still the same because it's a function of
> > the width to height ratio of the reflector. For example, if reduce
> > only the reflector height to 10 mm, it produces:
> > "Beam angle FWHM is 2.716 degrees spill light beam angle is 157.380
> > degrees"
> > a drastic increase in the spill angle.
> >
> > So, to narrow the beam, you narrow the reflector diameter. To reduce
> > spill, you increase the height of the reflector.
> >
> > So, how does this work? If the LED was a point source of light, there
> > would be no spill and the beamwidth would be zero degrees. However,
> > the LED is not a point source and has a finite width (2.1mm). Light
> > coming from one edge of the LED is reflected by the parabolic
> > reflector differently than light coming from the opposite edge of the
> > LED. The two rays do not focus to a point, or produce perfectly
> > parallel reflections. The result is the beamwidth and spill as
> > calculated.
> I think that web calculator must apply only to old-style flashlight technology. My Busch & Muller
> Cyo is ~40mm diameter and gives a wonderfully controlled beam. The B&M Eyc on my touring bike
> is sort of rectangular, 25 x 25 mm and almost as good. It's plenty good enough for my use of that
> bike.
>
> The LEDs in these things fire sort of sideways into the reflectors, which are complex and not radially
> symmetrical. They're certainly not simple paraboloids.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

It wasn't that expensive, it cetainly was hard, and took hundreds of hours of design and test and simulation and redesign and prototyping to refine into a viable commercial product. Patenting the optics was relatively expensive.
Over a few years, the Oculus became the racers choice with many RAAM, World 24 Hour TT championship, and MTB 24 hour enduro wins.
But bike light companies have millions invested in infrastructure, tooling, packaging, and marketing. They would rather see me fail than take on redesign and licensing. One tried to declare that my patent couldn't work as written, then found itself "advised" not to make a light using any semblance of my optics, and then abandoned their efforts.

I sold out of the lights I had parts to make lights from as a result of being the official bike light of the RAAM events.
Covid -19 led to me needing to put marketing Oculus into hibernation. With the ultra-distance bike racing world getting fully ba k on its feet again, I'm getting inquiries into going back into production. But this time its only going to be as a hobby/ boutique light maker catering to special designs and requests. I think I've made the last of the 3000's. They were a great moneymaker, and proved the superiority of the optics and circuitry over other bike lights on the market at even twice or 3x the cost. But who ever cranks them up to 3000 anyway? It was an extreme proof of concept for the Oculus optic's viability and a miniaturized high intensity car headlight instead.
So Oculus is no headed toward a custom 1800 long burn, targeting where most RAAM, PBP, MTB enduro, and World 24 Hour racers can go 6.5 - 12 hours on a single battery or charge, with good visibility at the steady state speeds they're cruising at. In practice, I found that at RAAM and the 24 Hour events, racers were using the 5 or 10 hour settings already. So why not custom tune the power tables for the 10 or 15% less power to the LEDS where the human eye is seeing just as well, allowing for 15 - 20% longer battery burn instead? Basically what I did as a on-off ~700 lumen for 6-1/2 hours special power table for Martin Bendszuz. who then won the 24 hour world TT in 2017 using it. His only time putting a foot down off the bike was for a single battery change, < half a minute, that I did for him six hours into the race.
Along the way I got a licensing deal with a local silicon valley company that holds patents on the SF memory card among many other inventions. They repaired and modified the battery cover tooling and seal, and produced another run of battery covers so that I can continue making lights. Picture an Oculus' battery cover, now with a car taillight orange color and translucency, with a clear urethane seal and charging plug. Those are made already, and were tested out by a recent RAAM team, along with me sending them out to road testers who all found the orange illuminated battery cover being far more visible, for example, those two little orange dots on a L&M Taz.

Right when I feel like Oculus is just in hibernation wating for something next to come along, and life has gone back to be much more stable and less stressed as a professional computer geek again,.......

I've been approached about making an enduro customized design, like the 24 Hour Worlds winning lights with the higher power levels removed, and built onto a 1500's circuit instead of the 1800 (20% increased battery life), and using the (much more expensive) LEDs from the 3000 but at lower power levels that need lower voltage for the same light output. In this scenario, I won't be under the financial pressures, with me just making lights and others taking care of the operations and distribution. Meetings this week about it.
It won't be a cheap light to make, and if these people come up with a purchase order and down payment for a 100 light minimum, great. Otherwise I've learned not to let tire kickers waste my time. We shall see.

One viable optical design that could go deeper in the direction Ridesalot is moaning about the lack of, is a STVZO compliant beam configuration using only one LED, that casts a rainbow/ diamond ring shaped beam which doubles far exceeds other STVZO compliant lights' output and usable visibility. On the Oculus website, I have a video of lux testing to a STVZO target. Simply increasing the power with a different LED (that has the same beam pattern) takes that light well into the next upper class of street legal bike lights, but at half the production cost of the 500+ lumen style e-bike lights.

This list has discussed my Oculus optics before.

On 2/27/2022 6:23 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-6, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>> looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light onto the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much more expensive than what's currently offered?
>>
>> Cheers
>
> Could be the reflectors make the light seem brighter. The light appears bigger if its all spread out when looking at it. So buyers think they are getting more light. Quantity. As opposed to quality where the light is shined where the bicycle wheels travel.

The bicycle-specific headlights I have don't shine toward the sky. Even
flashlights with round beams just need to be aimed properly, slightly
down. You do want some spill to the sides and upwards to see what's off
to the side and things like street signs and low hanging branches.

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 12:11:25 AM UTC, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light onto the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much more expensive than what's currently offered?
>
> Cheers
>
1. The heavily marketed and widely trusted Busch und Muller (B&M, BUMM with the last M standing for Manufacture) lamps in their top range(s) have the LED shielded from the road and reflected onto the road by a reflector in the back of the lamp. Of course the BUMM lamps construction and functionality is heavily researched and tested for various purposes. Lesser manufacturers or Chinese copycats don't always know why they copy what they copy. Their "improvements" usually aren't.

2. The BUMM CYO was in the opinion of many the first bicycle lamp that wasn't lethally incompetent. It threw about as much light on the road as a 6V VW Beetle from long, long ago. Among other outstanding features, it concentrated the pitifully low power of the bicycle 3W generator (the ascent of better LEDs aiding, but that is another discussion) where it was wanted. That caused two versions of the CYO lamp to be offered, one suitable for commuters who wanted most of the light concentrated directly in front of them, and another for fast riders who needed to see further ahead. BUMM did this in the first pair of CYO lamps by designing different reflectors. Read the article Jeff linked to grasp that reflector design isn't a job for amateurs.

3. Note that even those, like me, who acclaimed the arrival of the CYO, criticized even the widest spread of the commuter lamps as not enough for riding on narrow ways like lanes with the ditch right beside the cyclist. Note further that there was strong criticism of the CYO not throwing light high enough to see road signs in good time. It would soon occur to stylists (note the pejorative choice of word) of lamps modeled on the CYO that they could differentiate "their" lamps by making the reflector a bit flatter so that more light was spread to the sides and upwards.

4. Note that even BUMM didn't have a complete grip on the "science" of bicycle lamp throw patterns. For instance the BUMM Fly E which was a lamp said by BUMM to be based on the first series CYO but operating at supplies up to the 42V delivery of nominally 36V bicycle batteries, had an atrocious hotspot which ruined this otherwise clever lamp for many of us right after puppy love grew old. There is an exact pattern of the throw pattern at close range on my study wall in http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLINGbuildingpedelec5.html
(note reducing intensities created by the trick reflector to the sides) and in
http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLINGbuildingpedelec6.html
you can see the various elevations of forward throw for different purposes BUMM thought the Fly E should have (and claims the first series CYO did have -- not so; I own both lamps), of which one will give the cyclist a migraine, and another is prime example of what Jeff means when he complains about wrongoes blinding him. I mention all this because it demonstrates that if even the BUMM engineers can't get it right every time, the copycat marketeers have fully as much chance of getting it right once in a thousand tries as a snowball in hell.

5. You pays your money and you takes your chances. BUMM lamps are expensive and often irritating to those of us who do our own thinking*, but unless you're Barry and willing to put in the work to design, build and sell a lamp that you think is better, BUMM lamps are the best you can buy, and even then you have to choose carefully, because all series of CYO are not the equally useful because at 3W their primary utility is achieved by compromising other desirable parameters and functions.

6. *...and what we're complaining about isn't always BUMM's applied science but their blind adherence to the motorcar-oriented thinking of German legislators, which imposes limits beyond the mere scientific unknowns and manufacturing compromises.

7. I had a perfect BUMM lamp on loan once. It was about 500W and intended for offload riders to turn night into day for dangerous forest descents, but I used to dream of fitting one on my daily bike to deal with discourteous and dangerous automobilists on small country roads. I demonstrated it to senior policeman who said, "Even offroad, we'd arrest you for blinding mountain goats."

8. If you're willing to carry suitable batteries, you can build lamps that throw as much light as you want where you want it very cheaply out of decorator track LED lamp globes and small tins for mounting convenience on the bike (I used small Roma Tomato paste tins with the MR16 and MR11 lamps glued in, a perfect match), and the throw pattern arranged to your heart's content by gluing on card to part of the lens. Of course, you'll waste some of the heavy batteries' power in blocking unwanted light, but you'll have the perfect cyclist's lamp. I cycled for years with such lamps I built myself, with the blocking plastic being cut down from the right-hand to left-hand drive headlamp adaptors of the Volvo estate we used for the baby's paraphernalia when we went to France for the winter. By using two lamps, MR11 and MR16, and a switch modded from an audio hi-fi project, I even had dimming lamps, like on a car. The point of the MR lamps is that you can get ones that work off 12V, which isn't a difficult to arrange a battery for, and small, about two inches across, and built of light plastic, so good for cycling.

9. It is worth keeping in mind that by European standards, automobile lamps that Americans find adequate, and by extension cycling lamps ditto, are atrociously limp. Just ask any chum who has gone to the trouble and expense of sourcing and fitting E-mark (European) headlamps to his car to explain the difference in utility and safety. This has an influence on what bicycle lamp marketers consider worth offering in the world's richest market.

10. The same unthinking acceptance of the low standard of American automobile lighting also had an influence on what of value one could learn about bicycle lamps here on RBT, with the usual backward-looking techies scornfully dismissing anyone who didn't find their filament lamps adequate as a troublemaker (and years later you discover they had quietly switched over to Cyo lamps anyway), and the BUMM lapdogs would label anyone who dared to think for himself "a troll". Indeed, standards of behavior were so low on RBT that no one, including those flaunting their self-acclaimed moral superiority, found it objectionable that a paid flunky of SON, totally dependent on BUMM for parts and patents for their own lamps, Andreas Oehler, came onto RBT to abuse any dissenters, certain he would find a chorus of fellow-travelers -- and by the evidence of the archives, he did.

Andre Jute
There are more wonders in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in thy philosophy, Horatio.

Am 28.02.2022 um 18:31 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> On 2/28/2022 12:03 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:11:25 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>>> looking at the many different bicycle headlights available these days I
>>>> can't help but wonder why so many of them have beam reflectors that
>>>> throw so much light skywards and to the sides. Is it that hard or
>>>> expensive to design a bicycle headlight that puts most of the light
>>>> onto
>>>> the road where the bicyclist needs it? Would such a light be t hat much
>>>> more expensive than what's currently offered?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> I suspect optics truly suited to lighting the road are much more
>>> expensive for a tiny company; and I suspect most
>>> manufacturers of bike headlights are tiny companies.
>>>
>>> Like a good optical system, I think the problem has many facets. First,
>>> unlike for motor vehicles for German bikes,
>>> there are no legal requirements for bike light optics. It's "wild
>>> west," anything goes.
>>
>> To be fair what you want on the road vs off road is quite a different
>> beam
>> shape,
>
> Yes, of course. Mountain bikers in dense woods have to worry about
> obstructions like branches at face height, about illuminating super
> sharp turns at near zero speeds. Mountain bikers in open territory don't
> have to worry about blinding other road users.

I've done some tests on that aspect in January while I aimed to "ride
one hour" on the way home from work on my gravel bike.

I was mostly going on (partly unknown) forestry roads, my road-legal
dynamo driven LED lights were sufficient to distinguish between grass,
gravel, hard dirt, sand pits while riding.
I had to call it quits once I hit a sand road, getting stuck. The dynamo
light is not up to "carry the bike 10m and find the right place to get
on the bike again", with the darkness around me as soon as I stopped.

Going on a simple "single trail" shortcut of a couple of hundred yards
length I had regularly used on the recument maybe 10 years ago, I was
suddenly surprised be a tree lying across the path. I had no problem
stopping ahead from 10 mph ahead ot the tree, carrying the bike over the
tree and continuing behind.

Obviously, for technical sections, the lighting demands are higher.

Rolf