Domane

Bontrager: features

I will still keep my DesignShine 500 as the build quality is second to none.

But hats off to Bontrager for making a brighter light.

ItsJustMe

That's cool, but well designed lights in the range of 65 lumens have been available at around $30 for a year or more. The Performance Bike Axiom Pulse 60 is 60 lumens as is the Serfas USL-TL60 which is now I believe reduced in price to the $30 to $40 range.

It's good to have choices that are well made though.

The nice thing about these is that they retain the brightness of the Hotshot that's been the standard bearer for a few years, but with a far wider pattern.

I think 60 lumens is the new basic standard, really. I wouldn't want to ride with less. One of these lights with a wide pattern should probably take the "default taillight" flag from the Hotshot now (hopefully they'll come out with a new Hotshot model with a wider beam, because it's a nice light). The more companies making serious taillights the better.

I'm not sure even 60 lumens really counts as daylight visible though.

2manybikes

They already have. The Hot shot "Micro". It has a lens pattern that widens the beam. I have one, and also the Hotshot SL (looks the same but, slightly smaller than the Hotshot 2) Same LEDs. I have compared them from all angles behind the bike in the dark. The "Micro" has a much wider angle of full power visibility. Not quite the throw as the SL, but very very close. Still effective from a distance when viewed from straight behind.
It's also small and lightweight. I think I paid $27 plus shipping for mine.

Robot Check

ItsJustMe

Hm, 2 out of 4 reviews say the battery won't take a charge after only a few weeks' use. QC issues?

runner pat

I tested my Hotshot on beam spread. A driver who is positioned 10-12 feet offset from the beam center loses the high intensity when only 65-75 feet back.

Looigi

I would think full beam intensity wouldn't be needed at only 70 feet back. A car overtaking you at 30 mph covers that in under 2 seconds. Hopefully he got full beam intensity and is fully aware of your presence long before that.

2manybikes

Was it a micro or the SL ? The spread is different. My Micro does not do that. I did not measure the distance when testing the SL. I think 65-75 feet is pretty close. I'll try it again if it stops raining.

runner pat

It's the SL.

runner pat

Just to be clear, the passing driver has full intensity until that close.

2manybikes

The part you highlighted was about the micro. It has a lens that is extremely different. Look at the photo
here..... https://www.amazon.com/Hot-Shot-Produ.../dp/B00NLLQWNO

2manybikes

Dunno.
Could be they did not handle the battery correctly. Not fully charge it before first use? Let it drain down and left it down for a while? I don't know how old this product is, Lithium Ion batteries start to lose capacity after about three years even if not used.

I think this is where I got it for $27. CygoLite Bicycle Hotshot Micro 2watt Headlight LED Bike | eBay

runner pat

Sorry. I made a mess of the point I was trying to make which is that I feel the original Hotshot doesn't need a wider beam. I'd rather maintain the narrow beam and get more punch in the "hot zone". There's enough spread already for overtaking traffic to get very close before losing the brightest part of the beam.

2manybikes

You're no worse than I am with that kind of thing. I agree with you, but, the Micro is not bad. It also
helps my inner weight weenie. Oh, it's dark and foggy, I'm going to see how they do in the fog.

runner pat

I did that. The tule fog made a re-appearance this year.
At 50m visibility( road surface, cars, houses, etc.), the Hotshot was eye-punch bright out to 75m, bright at 100m, visible at 125m, barely visible at 150m. This was in daytime, the fog didn't linger through the day this year so I have no dark hour performance.

2manybikes

I just went out. The fog was not thick enough to make a difference. I also counted steps, I was testing them both from more like 100m away. They are absolutely as bright as the new fire engine and police car flashing lights.

bikemig 

The ad for this light is scary as heck. It shows a driver who is having fun being distracted while fooling around with a smart phone and suggests that this light will save your bacon.

Looigi

Yes. That's my point. At 70' and closer full beam intensity isn't needed and is too late.

ItsJustMe

I ride on roads where most cars are doing 60 MPH. Less than a second. If they're distracted or coming over a rise, they may be on me pretty fast. Also they're outside the Hotshot beam even farther out if going around long bends - there are several spots on my route where cars will be outside a hotshot beam until they've almost hit me. I use the hotshot only as a secondary light.

Looigi

The fact that 60 mph is 88ft/sec and 30mph is 44'/sec is worth contemplating. I want to give an approaching driver a minimum of ~5 seconds to see, recognize and start to react to my presence on the road. If they're closing at 30 mph, that at least 220' or 15 car lengths. That's also the distance they'll cover while glancing down at their smartphone for 5 seconds.

ItsJustMe

yeah, keep in mind that if there's oncoming traffic, they may have to slow down and wait behind you. Giving a driver running at 60 MPH one second to slow down to 15 to 20 MPH is requiring them to pretty much lock up their brakes and skid, because it'll take them half a second to get their foot on the brake if they react instantly and are very good drivers. Even 5 seconds is requiring them to brake pretty hard.

Add in the fact that most drivers don't react that fast, and half of them aren't even paying that much attention (or maybe hardly any at all) and I want them to be slapped in the face by my taillight at 1/4 mile. That's still only 15 seconds, but it's getting reasonable as far as giving them time to plan what to do when they get to you.

Domane

I wondered when someone was going to bring up driver reaction time. Normal reaction time for a driver in good conditions when they are paying attention is 2 seconds to 2.5 seconds at night time that goes up. Now factor in being distracted that 2 second reaction can very easily jump to 4 to 6 seconds at best case and even longer depending on how distracted the driver is. 6 Seconds at 30 MPH (44 feet per second) comes to 264 feet traveled before the driver start to actually start to slow or move over.

runner pat

Depends on what you're including in "reaction time".
Immediate response to a signal( like a starter's ******) is around .12 (elite athletes) to .35-.40 for mere mortals. Longer if you're drunk/drugged.
If you're including seeing a light and evaluating what you're seeing, I can understand the 2 seconds.

Part of the problem is our attitude towards driving competence is that 6 seconds of total voluntary (cell phone) distraction is acceptable.

Domane

Reaction time would be when you see the hazard combined with the time for you to process the information up to the point you actively are then taking evasive action be it swerving, braking or stopping. That is what the police are going to process as reaction time. That comes from 15 years in traffic homicide investigation. Impaired drivers will have longer reaction times. The very best of reaction times will only fall down to the 1.3 to 1.5 second area and that is knowing what the hazard is and anticipating it in advance. No matter what you do the brain still has to process the information of detecting the hazard even if you already know what and where the hazard is. The brain still has to send the signals to the body parts required to take evasive action. As much as people like to think they are lightning quick they will still at the very best and knowing in advance the hazard will only be at the 1.3 to 1.5 second area.

As for accepting cell phone distraction, I do not accept it, and the solution is very simple to end it. As soon as the phone detects it is moving it shuts down the ability to text, surf the internet and yes even phone calls if need be.

ItsJustMe

Bikes, especially in the dark, are going to elicit very long reaction times, because people simply do not expect to see them (in the US). They see a flashing light and it may take them quite a while to figure out that it's a bicycle. Reflectors on the wheels or pedals/ankles will help with that in the dark since it provides a distinctive and eye-catching movement display and people will twig to it being a bicycle faster.

I've personally had it take me 5 or more seconds to figure out that little red light up there is a bicyclist. In my experience, the dimmer the light, the longer it takes after you see it to determine that it's a bicycle. Really dim lights (I see a lot of people riding on dead blinkie batteries) sort of register as "huh, faint little light over there, wonder what it is?" but it doesn't grab my attention and say "I have to figure out what that is as a higher priority" when driving.

Joe Minton

I only just discovered this thread and apologize for waking the dead.

Domane: It is refreshing to 'hear' from a traffic professional, thank you.

As a court-qualified expert witness, I too have spent a lot of time investigating, dissecting and reporting about 'accidents'. Your numbers regarding reaction times are accurate and, to many of us, depressing --- it takes a long time for a brain to become alerted to a threat and, then, some more time to figure out what to do about it. Two to five seconds from alert to reaction time is generous. The two-second guy was looking for trouble when he/she found it. The five second guy is probably the norm.

In 1983 (or so) I participated in a reaction time study at the University of Southern California (USC). The study was administered by David Thom working under Prof. Hugh "Harry" Hurt (you may know about the Hurt Report) who chaired the safety college at USC.
They built a rig with a working motorcycle: The 'rider' sat on the bike and was asked to squeeze or grab & squeeze the front brake lever as quickly as he/she could after a light went on (bright and facing the 'rider'). I won't go into any more of the details and just say that the study was valid & would pass Popper's criteria for a scientific result. There were a total of 250 participants, most of whom were young university students.

Average reaction times for the reach/grab/squeeze portion of the study were about .800 second (as best I can recall). The average for the squeeze (hand already on the brake lever) was .400 second.
NOTE: These reaction times involved folks who were completely concentrating on presenting the quickest reaction times possible; the conditions for quick reaction time were optimal. Subsequent field testing showed that reaction times to unanticipated dangers were more likely to be 2.5 --- 6 seconds; it takes time to decide when a danger exists and what to do about it.


BTW: Court systems, for many decades and perhaps still, accept a driver reaction time of .75 to 1.5 seconds. This range was accepted from a university study that was fatally flawed: The participants 'knew' that they were going to be confronted with an 'emergency' and were prepared to react as quickly as possible when they saw 'it' as they drove the test car. Unfortunately, this set of reaction time numbers was embraced by the legal system for far too many years and great harm was done.

Joe