Originally Posted by
Richard Cranium
Wow - I think we have the answers - some people think "dyno" - some people think "china-shine" LEDs on steroids and some people just don't care.
Having been "around the block" - and being an "early adopter" of bicycle lights - my first light was $5.95 6V dry cell in a metal box hooked to some brand of a sealed beam from Western Auto.... - woah but the kid down the street had a "Scwhinn branded" bottle generator? - All I can say is - we've come along way baby!
I'm not sure there is anyway to understand how or why a cyclist will place their interest or confidence in one light system over another. Clearly there is a demarcation between the type of rider who will accommodate a generator and light permanently mounted on a bike while others accept the need to care for batteries on a regular basis. (or re-supply)
However, my intent was to discuss how other cyclists would define what I "believe" to be any "all night" cyclist's necessities.
That being:
Two independent front lighting sources - powered and operated in a way in one of which is usable as an all purpose light.
Two independent rear lights - powered and operated in a way that one of the lights could possibly remain lighted all night.
The next big issue - coming up
I'd say, rather than define the system by its configuration, define it by the functions it will perform. What are the conditions in which you need illumination? What do you need to have illuminated? How bright? How far away? What must NOT be illuminated? What hazards can the lights cause, either by insufficient illumination of a part of the rider's field of view, or excessive illumination? What can we learn from regulations on bicycle and similar applications, such as automobile or motorcycle lighting standards?
But I'm a systems engineer and designer, so I would want to define the problem this way, and to define the problem before I define the system.
I really do think it's the only way to move in a straight line to an optimized solution.