Reading the discussion about having two different power sources, has anyone developed a dynamo lighting system that simply charges a battery or capacitor that powers a light? A system like that seems like it would solve the problem identified by cyccommute (the light cuts out when the bike stops). It seems like it would be very simlar to hybrid cars with regenerative braking (except the charging is during the acceleration, not deceleration, phase).

For the record I'm a commuter that sticks to the roads, and my $120 bike light battery just burnt out after a year. Not that I'm totally against batteries, but I'm not so ecstatic about having to shell out $120 a year for a new battery (plus $200+ for the initial cost of the light at deep discount) when I might be able to pay $200-$250 for a light that will last indefinitely. Maybe I'm just cheap, but that's 12 extra 6-packs of fancy beer I could be drinking.

They do this already. It is called a standlight. With LEDs they work very well, the light running on for several minutes after you stop. Both headlights and taillights are available with this option. Most of them use a super-capacitor.


To Richard Cranium, Those of us with very reliable dynos will say that your redundancies are generally unnecessary. Weight-weinies will complain that two lights with two battery sources are too heavy. Riders that want to light up the night will complain that two of their bright systems cost (and weigh) too much. It sounds less like you want opinions than you want us to discuss the merits of your system. Is this the "reputation on the forums" you speak of?

Edit: Since the demise of incandescents in portable applications, my need of redundancies has been reduced. If I'm going caving (spelunking), I'll bring an extra. In my case, I'm always packing a light, so I've got some built in redundancy with regards to my bicycle lighting.

Lighting systems are probably very much like most other bicycling gear - decided by personal whims and individual needs and budget. The only cyclists I've personally seen with identical bikes or gear have been married to each other. And often even married couples have different priorities regarding equipment.

Just because most cars have two headlights doesn't make all automotive headlights interchangable either. Almost every car manufacturer has their own idea of what an 'ideal' lighting system should be like - and it seems to change every year too.

I like what I'm using, but its overkill for most of my friends because they don't drive often at night wheras I do. Generators are OK but put a cap on how many watts you can drive, and sometimes I want to drive 40 to 60 watts. Batteries that'll do that for over 6 hours weigh about 2 lbs, but on an electric bike you can just tap into the electrical system so everything is relative.

The fact that there are so many options available is probably a pretty good indication that cyclists opinions about lighting system requirements vary widely.

Have a dual Halogen Schmidt E6 light setup to shed 50 for the primary
60 for the secondary
they are run in series, so the secondaries switch is on or bypass,
primary is on and off.

PM etc..
have 2 primaries , 1 of the other.
Peter White has the data and beam shots he is the importer.

I don't think the auto industry had it wrong. Auto standards, even when modernized, are burdened with history. Decades ago, auto headlights used lightbulbs which were probably (before my time) less than reliable. Then it moved to standard sealed beams, halogen bulbs, and halogen sealed beams, still less than stone-reliable or durable. Two lights were a necessity for the ability to drive after a single headlight or taillight failure. The driver was expected to get the car fixed promptly, but to be able to drive to a repair place.

Modern car headlights (HID or LED) are far more durable and reliable, so perhaps we're approaching the day when a single front light is adequate.

So the questions for a bike light are:

First, what are the functions and performance requirements for each function?
Can the functions be provided with a single front light? In other words, can a fixed light do everything, or is it necessary to have a helmet light as well?
Is the selected lighting technology reliable enough that you don't need redundancy?

For dyno-driven LEDs with quality cables and connectors and well-sealed electronics, probably redundancy isn't necessary, but if you think you also need a head-mount lamp for pointability, ... well, the fixed light can't provide that.

There are a lot of lighting functions and potential approaches to fulfilling them - for an entire bike, a single "best" system of lights that gives you all-year applicability, we have a pretty complicated engineering problem to solve.

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.

Depends. Different strokes for different folks, etc., etc.

I live in the Chicago area and night riding goes along with daylight changes, so Night riding is a 2 month or so dedicated activity and opportunistic the rest of the year. I ride road all year long and every Tuesday and Thursday night with a group. In the Fall when daylight gets too short (mid-September) for after work rides, we switch to paved trail, mix of road and trail and dedicated trail on cyclocross bikes. By early October, it's usually getting cold enough at night that a 2 hour ride after work is all that is practical. Depending on how fast Winter is approaching, we'll keep this up until mid- to late-November.

I started out several years ago with flashlights (Fenix L2D), moved up to cheap dedicated light (NR Sol) then graduated to a good dedicated bar light (BD Strykr) and now I'm back to flashlights. I've become a collector of them and like cehoward, I'm always looking for the perfect new light. Their flexibility and diversity means I have several lights for any type of riding and have spares to loan out for any ride. For early Spring and late Summer, I take one flashlight along on road rides for those times when we stretch the ride window into dusk/dark. On a warm night with limited daylight, this can go into a 1/2 hour or so after dark. In the Fall, two flashlights on the bars (1 Flood, 1 Throw), maybe another on the helmet and a couple of spare cells works just fine. I generally have at least one but more often two blinkies for the rear.

With advances in batteries and leds, I have 7-8 18650 torches that are perfect for my style of riding. My favorite is a relatively new player: 26650 Shadow JM07. This format is perfect for me. Bright, compact size and long run time. New models and new batteries coming out all the time. And they fit just fine on the bar with a Lockblock.

Even though I don't have it, I like Light and Motions Vis 360. It mounts to the helmet and has both a head and taillight that are controlled by one switch. It is USB rechargeable.

Next what I would like to see is something similar for the bike itself. Or maybe some way of turning the lights on with a single remote key fob.

Also maybe incorporating some sort of alarm system into the lighting system. I mean if we stop and think about it, either the head or taillight would be an ideal place to hide an alarm system.

Build it with rechargeable batteries, a charging port, key fob remote, 110 or better db siren, motion detector. Maybe an RFID tag reader.

Think about it, build an alarm with an RFID tag reader one could just about leave their bike unlocked, and anyone attempting to ride off without the RFID would set off the alarm. Or maybe some way to lock either the bottom bracket or rear hub so that it can't be ridden.

Of course along with the siren going off, that both the head and taillights should be programed to flash to attract attention.

SOrry, I know a little off topic, but if one stops and thinks about it, there is no reason for a lighting system to also serve as an alarm system as well.

Skipping the engineering challenges altogether, there's another really big question, particularly for North Americans. It took about 50 years after automotive headlights were invented for them to be adopted by industry, and North America is typically 25 years behind Europe in adopting updated lighting standards. How long should cyclists have to settle for what the cycling industry wants to sell them?

50 years? The first electric light bulb for automotive use was introduced in 1898 in the US...not even 50 years after the invention of the light bulb (1879 in the US) I didn't know that cars didn't have headlamps until 1948. All those round things on the front of cars from the 1908 Peerless to the 1948 Ford were just for show? Maybe they were just a place marker for when lights would be introduced. And those switches you pulled on the dash didn't turn on lights? And the illumination coming from the front of the cars was some kind of magic?

Peerless, an American company by the way, made the electric headlamp standard equipment in 1908. Ford put them on their Model T in 1915. Maybe the American's were 25 years behind Europe but that would mean that Europeans would have introduced the electric automotive light about 10 years before it was invented. Now that is forward thinking.

Well, ECE R20 was ratified in 1985 and is clearly a superior standard than SAE/DOT/FVMSS108. Not a single U.S.-made car has headlights that conforms to the higher standard. R20 defines better cutoff and allows for more light on the road by reducing glare above centreline. Also defines a wider pattern for clearer viewing of sidwalks and pedestrians. Only a triple-axis ellipsoloid reflector can produce such a lighting pattern. One of the major reasons the big-three blocked such standards, higher-cost and lower profit-margins. Then again, most U.S. consumers wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.

Other standards such as AFS (automatic leveling) have been around for over 25-years as well. Pack a bunch of groceries and passengers into your car and the headlights are now aimed 2-3 degrees above horizontal. Gee, would be nice if the headlights were smart enough to correct themselves.

Instead, we have ricer gang-bangers with illegal HID upgrades in their filament reflectors who think that blinding everyone on the road is cool. Yeah, very forward thinking.


BTW - way back when, the U.S. was a leader in textiles, clothing and more recently consumer-electronics. Where are these leaders now? Heck, once upon a time, some far off middle-eastern country in the desert was at the top of civilization and could build great stone monuments that no one can replicate even today. Certainly don't see them claiming that fame to put themselves on top today eh?

Sure, and all of the headlight "blackout" masks that people had to mount on their cars during WWII were just, you know, IN CASE the war lasted until the headlight became standard issue. (/snarky)

And all those classic night time car chase scenes from gangster movies of the 30s and 40s were done with carbide lamps. I want me a set of those!

Well thanks for the updates and corrections - clearly most of the posts of this thread are from the veteran night-riding/commuting community.

The origin of this thread came to mind as a result of another "what's the best head light for "x-dollars?" posting.

And of course my one-track mind wanted to create a stream of thought that realizes that using up your bicycle lighting budget on a high quality, yet singularly-used headlight leaves the cyclist in the same precarious condition of anyone using a single headlight, cheap or expensive, - that is - unusual, yet possible catastrophic failure of the the light OR it's power source.

So anyway, if this thread results in any "newbie" being schooled about the need for a backup light or a dual tail light setup when thinking "new bike light" - then my work here is finished.

If other cyclists are content and confident of their single-power-source lighting systems -so be it.

As we all know - in the post 911 world - the facts change as we encounter them. (sarcasm intended)

You're very good at reading only what you want to see and ignoring everything else. I'm guessing you must really like to listen to yourself talk - probably because so few other people are.
As per the Wikipedia, which you probably sourced for the rest of that info: "The standardised 7-inch (178 mm) round sealed beam headlamp was introduced in 1940, and was soon required for all vehicles sold in the United States." Up to that point any electrical lights had been non-standard items produced by individual manufacturers and at times - were ...... optional. Gee - sounds a lot like the current situation in the bicycle industry.

Also as per that same article: "The first halogen headlamp for vehicle use was introduced in 1962 by a consortium of European bulb and headlamp makers. Halogen technology increases the efficacy (light output for given power consumption) of an incandescent light bulb and eliminates blackening of the bulb glass with usage. These were prohibited in the U.S., where non-halogen sealed beam lamps were required until 1978."

Actually the entire article paints a very unflattering picture of the US automobile industry as being anything but a leader in lighting technology but you can continue to live in your own little dreamworld if you want to.

Well, there are a lot of single engine airplanes out there. A lot of pilots are content in their single power source planes. Seems to me that with a bike, worst case scenario is you have to walk it. Plenty of people walk around at night with no flashlight.

If you want people to understand what you meant, you need to post what you meant and not claim you mean something else later. I always click on 'Reply with Quote' so that there's no ambiguity about what was in the original post. So that you can see your words again here's the important part of what you wrote (but you can scroll up to make sure I didn't quote you out of context):

Nothing in there about standardization. Nothing in there about halogen. Nothing in there about any of the stuff you listed above (again with the quote so that I don't misquote you). I can't read your meaning into something you didn't say. It did not take 50 years for the US automotive industry to adopt lights for automobiles. It may have taken 42 years (still short of 50 years) to adopt a standard headlamp size...which may have been a bad thing because 'standards' can (sometimes) stand in the way of innovation . Lights weren't 'optional' except at the very beginning of their introduction and became standard equipment very shortly after their introduction. Ford made them standard equipment by 1917...far short of the 50 year period you stated. And I doubt, highly, that you can find an example of any other manufacturer that was offering a car without headlamps much later than that.

On the rest of your above post, you are deflecting the issue so that you don't look the fool. I never said anything about US standards vs European standards or about the US automotive industry being a leader. I only addressed your error on it taking 50 years for lights to be accepted by US automobile manufacturers.

In terms of bicycle lighting, you seem to feel that the US method is the way to go. You have lights that are made by a US company without the highly shaped beams, cut-offs and reduced intensity that the Europeans require. The European style lights are available and could easily be adapted to run on batteries...if that's the way you want to go...but you choose (and complain about) the ones that blind other road users (according to you). There's a word for people who say one thing and do the opposite. I wonder what it is?

The real issue with bicycle lighting systems is very similar to seat-belts and airbags - most consumers don't really see them as anything but an additional unnecessary addition with no real advantages.

For downhill cyclists, $160 Straitline pedals are something to lust after, and 55lbs isn't too much for a downhill bike to weigh. But for most commuters - a lighting system better cost less than $50 and weigh less than a pack of cigarettes.


For roadie addicts, Shimano' new Di2 systems have become the latest 'must-have' - to the point that its hard to keep up with demand. And thats in spite of a $2,000 price tag, a package that weighs 150g more than a cable system and mounts an ugly external battery to the down tube. But if a lighting system weighs more than 200g and costs more than $200 the same people start whining. And the battery better be integrated.


And many die hard touring cyclist have no issues lugging around 100lbs of light-weight equipment, but lighting is apparently extremely optional and major emphasis is put on high viz clothing than lights, and dynos are the top choice in spite of very limited power outputs.


Seatbelts, airbags, headlights, liability insurance, and mandatory inspections didn't used to be required items for automobiles either. Typically, most people left to make their own decisions, are just far too willing to take their chances with their own lives and everyone else's on the road. That doesn't seem to change when those same people get on a bicycle.

So perhaps the best definition of a bicycle lighting system might be 'a needlessly expensive optional accessory of limited value that at best sees only ocassional use'. A lot like a car radio but with absolutely no amusement value.

Danno, haven't seen you on the site for a while!

Any US automaker or company that sells cars in the US must satisfy the full set of FMVSS standards to be able to sell their products. if they can satisfy R20 or other ECE standards at the same time, great. Nothing but the business case prevents a car sold in the US from having automatic levelers, and light distribution that is closer to the ECE standards. While ECE is thought to be better, it gives you less light above the cutoff. Is that ok? Well, if you can't see street name signs and peds waiting to cross the street or about to jump off the curb in front of you (I live in a college town), maybe not.

The issue of non-compliant higher-performance headlights has been present at least since the early '70s, when I put Euro-spec H4 headlights on my Fiat 128. It had great illumination, I adjusted the lights for a just-below horizontal cutoff, and I liked them. Careful upgrades are as possible as dangerous ones. The rice-bangers you mention are taking an additional risk: fire or distortion in the plastic headlights that are rated well for halogen bulbs but underrated for HID bulbs. The shape of the HID light source is different from that of a halogen, so the same optics won't work correctly. Either way, the optics have to be matched to the bulb for proper light distribution.

Leveling? I'm pretty sure when I worked on a spec for a leveling actuator, it was for a US-market car. I don't expect an after-market leveler, if one exists, to work real well. I'd rather see a hand-crank used with some kind of twisting Bowden cable arrangement.

But suspension settling isn't a problem bikes have. We do have the problem of wanting to see the road surface well while not blinding oncoming drivers while giving the oncomings enough light (above the cutoff) to see us from any "relevant" angle, and being able to see pedestrians at/near the curb, traffic and street identification signage in pitch black with rain falling. That's really not a different set of design metrics from a car. The details of performance specs will be different, but the performance goals are the same. And seeing a deer before it wanders out in front of your bike would be a good thing as our suburbs continue to encroach on their habitat.

The problem with your logic is that lights aren't something that most people are going to have a need for. Most bicyclists don't ride after dark or even in that many low light conditions. Road riders who have their bike equipped with Di2 shifter systems aren't going to be riding around in the dark. Downhill riders may ride after dark but they are probably going to use lights if they do so. As a die hard touring cyclist, I don't tour in the dark and can think of few situations where I would. As a long time poster and reader on the touring forums, I doubt there are many tourists that would ride after dark. We tend to like to spend our nights sleeping.

Seatbelts and airbags have a purpose but if motorists only ever drove at 20 mph, they wouldn't need those items either. The best way of dealing with lights is to leave the choice to the individual cyclist who can tailor the lights to his (or her) needs rather then have someone define what they need. For example, a cyclist that rides in a rural area needs less light output than a cyclist that has to deal with the multiple light sources of an urban environment. An off-road cyclist needs more light and a light that functions without the wheel spinning on a dark trail than a cyclist riding a audax.

So you start off by saying "the problem with your logic....." and then proceed to substantiate everything I said. Thanks .... I guess.