This will be my last post on this subject, since you clearly feel the need to justify your preferences by falsely claiming some objective reason.
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
You may not consider leaving the batteries on the bike as mistreating them and you are not in the minority with respect to that issue but you would be wrong in thinking that. Most people think of batteries as...well...they don't think about them at all. That's what kills them. If anything, you diminished capacity was due more to the 115 F heat than the winter cold. The damage is cumulative and heat shortens Li-ion batteries quicker than cold does.
Any product that is designed to be used on an outdoor product should not require constant removal and storage indoors. So, no I (and most users as you admit) are not wrong. That is a weakness of the design.
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
I don't think you'll find too many people even on the Bike Forums that use dynamo lights. You guys are a minority...perhaps a little more vocal about it...but a minority nevertheless.
True, most of the members of BF are U.S. citizens and don't ride at night often, and can't justify the costs that the advantages a dyno setup provide or even the costs associated with a quality battery lighting system. Ask most German cyclists about what they use, where all bikes are required to have lights at all times? Also a fairly recent survey of raddoneurs (folks who ride routinely at night for long distances) in Bike Quarterly indicated that the choice of lighting was about evenly split between dyno and battery systems.
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
And you would be wrong about mountain bikes use off-road.
Doubtful. Indeed the 'style' of the mountain bike was so popular while the need was so small that a whole new category was created, the hybrid just to give the form to those who wanted it but didn't need it.
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
There's a couple of fallacies here. Let's start with the "spraying light into the sky" fallacy. The nice thing about light is that you can, for the most part, see where it is going. Conical beam lights on bikes may spread the beam around a little but, for the most part, the conical part of the lens is pretty small. Small cones tend to not have much spread. If you ride under something, you can see exactly where your beam is going. As long as my lights are aimed a couple of car lengths ahead of me, the amount of spill upward isn't all the great. My lights have a spread of 10 feet or less...remember I can see where the light goes...and given that about 2/3 of the lamp is aimed downwards that's not much sky illumination. If the beams are aimed more distantly, the light is pretty useless for actually seeing the road and then is just a brick that you carry along for training purposes.
Fallacy? You really don't know what your talking about. The conical light shape of nearly all battery lighting has a bright center spot. If that center spot is placed correctly so that its furthest point is just at or below the horizon then approximately 40% of the light output from the light is illuminating the area above the horizon. That is physics. If light is positioned so that the entire spot of light is on the ground, the brightest area occurs not nearest to you (good for slow riding) and not furthest from you (good for fast riding) but in between... So good for neither of the likely needed conditions, and particularly bad for fast riding since the intervening bright spot prevents discerning details in the darker areas at a distance. On the other hand nearly all dyno lights use much more sophisticated optics so that either the nearest or furthest can be properly illuminated, and at least one has adjusting optics that change the light pattern as your speed changes.
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
A second fallacy is that somehow "quality" equals more money. I've been running the "cheap Chinese lights" for about 4 to 5 years now. I've had 4 Magic Shines and 3 cheap Chinese knockoff that replaced the Magic Shines. I've had a single switch failure in all that time and that was easily rectified. The lights may be cheap but there's not a lot that can go wrong with them and they stand up to use. That's the reason that I advocate that people use them. At $25 per unit, even if there were a 75% failure rate, that's still cheaper than the so called "quality" lights. And I can have several multiples of lamps if I wish. And when something better comes along...greater output, better battery, better optics, etc... I feel a whole lot less pain in ditching lights than I would with the higher priced lights.
Fallacy? Hardly. Evident to anyone who has compared cheap products and more expensive ones. There is a world of quality difference between the Magic Shine (and its Chinese competitors) and better quality (and more expensive) lights. Speaking of the Magic Shine directly. They have a history of problems with the quality (and reliability) of the batteries and their connections. Indeed they had a massive recall not to long ago. I even believe you have mentioned that you use a different battery pack in part because of those 'issues'.
Clearly you understand that the quality is less for those cheaper lights (so not a fallacy) since your final statements in that paragraph boil down to they cost much less... That may be your most important criteria, but that isn't necessarily the case for others.
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
You need to read a little further. "Of that number, 14,000 tons are rechargeable." The vast majority of batteries that are disposed of are alkaline batteries. An alkaline battery is a zinc/manganese dioxide battery with a potassium hydroxide electrolyte. None of those components are dangerous or toxic. Manganese dioxide is the dark black stain you see on desert sandstone where the water runs. Zinc is the material used to galvanize steel and potassium hydroxide would be formed when you wet campfire ash. Not exactly the worst things you can run across.
The relative size of the waste between disposable and rechargable is irrelevant, particularly since the quote and reference was to refute your claim that batteries are dumped (regardless of type) in the traditional waste stream. The process for proper disposal is the same for both types in most communities in the U.S. A relatively cumbersome process that means most folks throw out their discarded batteries in the trash. Which is why I stated that dyno's have a eco advantage over battery based lighting. Your hoop jumps not withstanding, the point is clear and factual.
Unlike you I do not feel the need to claim my preference is objectively superior. A variety of factors should be judged individually to determine which style of light is chosen; however, unlike you I recognize that each style has its strengths and weaknesses. All of which should be evaluated before making such a choice.