Old 10-11-09, 01:18 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 6,311
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 432 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by 2_i View Post
There is no good excuse for a lamp not to illuminate intermediate distances. Given, however, how many lamps fail to do that, this is apparently technically not that easy.
Personally, I wouldn't assume it was a technical issue (especially after they've gone to so much work to shape the beam), I would assume most of these companies believe consumers prefer to have more light up ahead rather than less light up ahead and more light close to the bike. Or alternatively, it's not unreasonable to think that perhaps they figure everyone buys lights based on the lumens/lux rating, and they can give it a higher lumen/lux rating by concentrating more farther ahead of the bike rather than lighting the area immediately in front of it, thus doing it for no reason other than marketing.

Originally Posted by 2_i View Post
I am certainly a slow rider and I am sure that matters.
I think this is most likely the crux of the issue. If I go twice as fast, I need to be able to see...twice as far ahead? The beam can have twice as big of a gap in front of it for me as it can for you. Likewise, what you consider "increase in the range that one anyway barely sees" is for me the part of the road I really need to be able to see when cruising down a hill, and it's rather nice when I'm on the flat, to.

Originally Posted by 2_i View Post
I fully agree with this. However, why not having a lamp that illuminates the intermediate distances as well?
Because on a dynamo light you only have so much power, so if you use light in one place that means you've lost it somewhere else.

I don't really disagree that it would be rather nice if they illuminated more of the road close to the bike. When I first got the light, I remember thinking that it would nice if that gap between the main part of the light and the front of the wheel were lit up about twice as much. But we disgree on whether this is a really important issue or just an annoyance.

Originally Posted by 2_i View Post
I do not think that peak illumination is in itself that important. Imagine that you use a laser with which you can beat any any other light source. So what, you will just see an illuminated point that brings you zero information about what is ahead of you. This is, of course, taking it to extreme, but I just want to make a point that lux # is not all that matters.
I think you missed the reason I was making the comparison. What I was saying is that while I haven't myself used the Cyo Nearfield (40 lux), I have used another light that has the same lux rating and uses the exact same beam pattern, minus the nearfield part. I used the lux rating simply to say that I used another light that should, theoretically, put out exactly the same amount of light as the Cyo nearfield. And I felt it didn't put out an intense enough light to really light up the road so I could see small hole, twigs, etc. I was saying that I imagine I would have the same feeling with the light intensity of the Cyo nearfield.

This also relates to why I would or wouldn't insist that the light lights that gap in front of the bike - I think it would nice if that area was lit up more (while you find it very important), but I wouldn't be willing to give up the greater intensity in the main area of the beam, which I find is very important (though you do not).

Seems like perhaps a good criteria for which version to choose might be "How fast do you typically ride?". Still, other people have certainly disagreed with me, but I personally felt that the Lumotec lights (that all share that same/similar beam pattern) that put out 40 lux didn't put out an intense enough light on the road for me to see obstacles clearly. You wouldn't be the first person to feel differently than I do, but that was my feeling having tried it.
PaulRivers is offline