1940's bicycle clothing

[Oculus Lights]

Anyone have pictures or know of vintage 40's clothing sources?
I'm seeking to assemble outfits to wear when riding and exhibiting my 1946 Schwinn.
Ideally, period era outfits in a style that would have been worn by a teenager, like my father would have when riding his bike in the the immediate post-WWII years.
tia, Barry

[Frank Krygowski]

I'd think any image archive showing kids clothing from that period would
suffice, because I doubt ordinary Americans of that time bought unusual
clothing to do ordinary bike riding.

You could search for images from American Youth Hostels, e.g.
http://www.vintagekidstuff.com/ayh/ayh.html

http://openarchives.umb.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15774coll32/id/3/rec/3

or this?
https://www.pinterest.com/vintagesandshoe/vintage-bicycles-photographs/
although that one seems to show a lot more girls than guys. Wonder why? ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

I can find plenty of photos and advertisements showing women riding
bicycles for the 1940's, but few showing men's fashions. My guess(tm)
is that teenagers did not dress specifically for cycling at the time.
They wore ordinary street, school, or work clothes when riding.
Something like this:
<https://i.pinimg.com/564x/eb/78/b5/eb78b5ce779b091a56a4f8eb2b1e3832.jpg>
Turned up cuffs on jeans were common. Horizontal striped shirts were
NOT and rarely appear in men's fashions (because it makes one look
short and fat). Replace with flannel shirt. Black and white tennis
shoes were everywhere. In some parts of the country, wearing a hat
outdoors was mandatory.

This photo might be closer to the mark.
<https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/23/71/0d2371ae82b3e23b4199ddf45714c4d3.jpg>

Please note that if you follow advertising drawings, you're likely to
be dressed in the manner of someone's illusion of how teenage bicycle
riders were expected to dress in the late 1940's, rather than how they
actually dressed, as seen in photographs instead of advertising
renderings. That's fine because the illusions or stereotypes are
often more convincing than reality. How convincing you're going to
appear as a teenager will be decided more by your acting abilities
than your choice of clothing.

Nobody went bicycle riding dressed like these drawings:
<https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/df/ed/6ddfed6681d4fcfc4ddd59e65b5ff1b3.jpg>
<https://i.pinimg.com/originals/70/01/f4/7001f4731c7448ccd3cca2b5c82b7999.jpg>
<https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ac/60/f7/ac60f702d68ad1ff433e36d6f6f4d809--s.jpg>
(Notice that the kickstands are on the wrong side of the frame).

It might be worth browsing through these images:
<https://www.pinterest.com/jason5266/classic-bicycle-advertising/?lp=true>
Again, the advertising drawings are the illusion, which is what you
want.

Don't forget the Bicycle playing card and clothes pin attached to the
front fork as a noise maker.

Good luck.



--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[AMuzi]

+1 on the black hi-tops, turned blue jean cuffs & baseball cap:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/53sports.jpg

Maybe not so much with the stripes. Real men rode in racing
jerseys with collars and front pockets:

https://legenducyclisme.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/barta.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[AMuzi]

On 1/16/2018 11:39 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

English children at 6:00, English cyclists at 6:18:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WohhLX_YLlE

[Joerg]

AFAIK they wore pretty much what they also wore off-bike:

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/C45NHY/unemployed-during-the-great-depression-around-1932-C45NHY.jpg

Back then people didn't have special cycling clothes. Most could only
afford some regular daily clothes and then one "Sunday's best" outfit
for church.

It's pretty much the same with me, by choice, I do not own cycling
jerseys and don't want any.

Road bikers wore sports outfits that could also be found on runners,
school kids during gym class and others:

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/durban-snell-parade1950.jpg

And oooh, no helmets. Danger ... :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Duane]

The front pockets were necessary to hold the cigs.

[Joerg]

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/1920-tour-de-france-photograph.jpg

No kidding, this happened in the 80's: We had just finished a new
medical ultrasound system which was mostly used in cardiology. A
customer in Eastern Europe who was asked for his opinion: "Well, it's a
great machine, super image quality but it does have one problem" ...
"What's that?" ... "There is no place to securely hold an ash tray".

[Oculus Lights]

Wow, what huge response. Plaid flannel shirt, cuffed chinos, black thin belt, and a brimmed beret (not what its called but never got to learn what that kind of hat is)
Black Converse sneakers with ?? what kind of sox?

Also love the Phil Rizzuto MVP Rolfast and Mickey Mantle glove promo ads.
Thx all, Barry

[retrog...@gmail.com]

FWIW, here's the start of the 1947 Bob Brown road race on Shattuck Ave. in Berkeley, CA:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrnfqhjgu32qlfx/1947_Bob_Brown_Race.jpg?dl=0

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:48:45 -0800 (PST), Oculus Lights
<he...@oculuslights.net> wrote:

>Wow, what huge response. Plaid flannel shirt, cuffed chinos, black
>thin belt, and a brimmed beret (not what its called but never got
>to learn what that kind of hat is)

It's not a beret. More like an "ivy newsboy cap":
<https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=ivy+newsboy+cap>

However, if you want to look like the drawing instead of the photo,
maybe a multi-colored propeller hat:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=propeller+hat&tbm=isch>

>Black Converse sneakers with ?? what kind of sox?

I still have a pair of such "tennis shoes". Center row, right side at
the end:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/shoes.html>

Socks were either white cotton or wool in assorted drab colors (brown,
gray, tan).

Welcome to retrocycling.

[Sepp Ruf]

Oculus Lights wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 3:41:11 PM UTC-8, Oculus Lights wrote:
>> Anyone have pictures or know of vintage 40's clothing sources?

> Wow, what huge response. Plaid flannel shirt, cuffed chinos, black thin
> belt, and a brimmed beret (not what its called but never got to learn what
> that kind of hat is)
> Black Converse sneakers with ?? what kind of sox?
>
> Also love the Phil Rizzuto MVP Rolfast and Mickey Mantle glove promo
> ads.
> Thx all, Barry

Glad you realized that your life is more than that light you build.

BTW, look who else is starting(?) to use diffuse reflection:
<http://flashlight.nitecore.com/render/w1280-q90/12.ILLUMINATION/18.BL/1.BR35/BR35_EN_15.jpg>

[Joy Beeson]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:39:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

> Turned up cuffs on jeans were common.

We rolled up our jeans because they were too long. Don't roll up
jeans that are already the correct length.

Nothing should be shorter than mid-shin. Exposed knees were indecent.

Most pants, particularly children's pants and everyday pants, were too
long so that one leg-length could be sold to everybody. The farm-wife
magazines urged women to cut off their husband's overalls, and not let
them fold up cuffs -- cuffs were dangerous around farm machinery.

Cuffs on girl's pants were not a problem -- if we wanted to play on
the machinery, we would be wearing play suits. (Matching shirt and
shorts made from chicken-feed sacks.) Jeans were for weenie roasts
and hikes.

The *younger* girls wore play suits. The two older wore bathing suits
because they wanted a tan, and traffic on our road increased
considerably when one of them was plowing.

I can't remember what I wore between play suits and house dresses. We
moved to Florida just then, so it was probably jeans for play.
Definitely dresses for school.

Women's jeans have long been extinct, replaced by "designer jeans" of
no use for riding bikes or picking strawberries.

Women's bikes were designed to accommodate skirts. When my older
sisters got bikes, Dad wouldn't let them get that kind because stuff
marketed to women isn't built properly. (This is still true today.)
When I grew old enough to ride, my uncle made me a bike out of the
good parts of the older girl's bikes. I like to never learned how to
ride, because I'm a good deal shorter than them, and it took me longer
to grow into it. I'd never heard of bike fit, and assumed that I was
a slow learner.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/



--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[AMuzi]

In those days, women's jeans had a side zipper or buttons
besides the pattern differences.

[John B.]

You wouldn't care to replace your Signature block with the Title "The
Old Sage" would you?

When I was a wee little fellow we were still on the farm and my mother
had, till she died, a photograph in the "picture album" of herself and
two filthy little creatures barefoot and clad in shorts. It turned out
that the before bedtime clean up consisted of being marched out to the
pump - mother's thumb and forefinger clenching the ear - and a good
scrub down with a bristle brush (while the brother pumped).
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 14:20:02 +0100, Sepp Ruf <inq...@Safe-mail.net>
wrote:

>BTW, look who else is starting(?) to use diffuse reflection:
><http://flashlight.nitecore.com/render/w1280-q90/12.ILLUMINATION/18.BL/1.BR35/BR35_EN_15.jpg>

Well, let's grind the numbers.
<http://flashlight.nitecore.com/ABOUT/LATESTRELEASE/20180110/>
<http://flashlight.nitecore.com/ILLUMINATION/BL/BR35/>
The basic specs are:
2x XM_L2(U2) LED's
1800 lumens total
7750 candelas
170 meters throw
6800 ma-hr battery
17 hrs runtime.

Data sheet:
<http://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampXML2.pdf>
The XM_L2(U2) at 3700-5000K, 2 Amps, and 85C delivers 728 lumens (see
Pg 3). At 2 amps, the voltage across the LED is 3.1 volts (see Pg 6)
for a power dissipation of:
2A * 3.1v = 6.2 watts per LED
There are two LED's and some loss from the reflector and lens. My
guess is about 15% loss for the tiny reflectors for:
728 * 0.85 = 619 lumens per LED
There are two LED's yielding 1240 lumens and 12.4 watts dissipation.
Efficacy for the XM_L2(U2) is therefore:
1240 lumens / 12.4 watts = 100 lumens/watt
which is about right. (Without the lens and reflector, efficacy would
be 117 lumens/watt which is about what I would expect).

Assuming they run the battery down to 10% capacity before pulling the
plug to save the battery, that would give:
6800 * 0.90 = 6120 ma-hr available
In terms of watt-hrs, that's
6.120 Amp-hrs * 3.6V(avg) = 22 watt-hrs
The LED's present a load of 12.4 watts resulting in a runtime of:
22 watt-hrs / 12.4 = 1.8 hrs
at full brightness.

So, the real output is 1240 lumens, not 1800 lumens
and the real max brightness runtime is 1.8 hrs, not 17 hrs.

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

I don't believe anyone who claims that a battery powered light that runs on 4 AA batteries have more effective light output after 1-2 hours than my dynohub powered Edelux II light from 10-15 km/hr and up.

Lou

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:10:15 -0800 (PST), lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:

>I don't believe anyone who claims that a battery powered light that runs
>on 4 AA batteries have more effective light output after 1-2 hours
>than my dynohub powered Edelux II light from 10-15 km/hr and up.
>Lou

My guess(tm) is the Nitecore BR35 runs on two 18650 LiIon cells, not
AA cells.
<http://flashlight.nitecore.com/render/w1280-q90/12.ILLUMINATION/18.BL/1.BR35/BR35_EN_15.jpg>
I didn't see this when I scribbled my previous rant, but the following
web page includes a chart of runtimes versus lumens at various levels
and modes:
<https://www.nitecorestore.com/NITECORE-BR35-Bike-Light-p/fl-nite-br35.htm>
$130 list.

Anyone done a teardown yet? The various documents seem to refer to
"battery" instead of "batteries" or "cells". That kinda suggests that
there is only one LiIon 18650 or maybe 26650 cell inside. 6800 ma-hrs
from a single cells seems like science fiction.

Since you mention hub powered lights, how many lumens would you
estimate (or calculate) that your dynohub can deliver? (Yes, I know
that the brightest light is not always the best light). The hub
nominally produces about 3 watts of power:
<http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/Shimano3N70.php>
Assuming 100% conversion efficiency from hubs AC output to whatever
current source powers the LED(s), and assuming 100 lumens/watt LED
efficacy including the lens and reflector losses, the most that could
be delivered is:
100 lumens/watt * 3 watts = 300 lumens
I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every
possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to
have some more lumens even if I don't use them.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Since you mention hub powered lights, how many lumens would you
> estimate (or calculate) that your dynohub can deliver? (Yes, I know
> that the brightest light is not always the best light). The hub
> nominally produces about 3 watts of power:
> <http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/Shimano3N70.php>
> Assuming 100% conversion efficiency from hubs AC output to whatever
> current source powers the LED(s), and assuming 100 lumens/watt LED
> efficacy including the lens and reflector losses, the most that could
> be delivered is:
> 100 lumens/watt * 3 watts = 300 lumens
> I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every
> possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to
> have some more lumens even if I don't use them.

Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology?

"I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle wheel, but
personally, I would like to have more than 48 spokes per wheel even if I
never need them."

Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How do you fit
62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of extra spokes from one
spot on the rim to another spot on the rim. Sure, they're going in a
direction that's totally useless, but it's still better, because, like,
it's MORE!

Just like lumens.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

72 spoked wheel is a product:
http://www.statussuspension.com/lowrider-bike-parts-72-spoke-front-20inch-chrome-lowrider-wheels-20inch-x-2-125inch-76-35-1.html

[Duane]

Ya'll got that backwards. More ain't always better. Less spokes are
better!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/HED-3-TRI-SPOKE-CARBON-AERO-700C-CLINCHER-8-9-10-SPEED-WHEEL-SET-CONTI-GATORSKIN-/282683418685

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:13:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every
>> possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to
>> have some more lumens even if I don't use them.

>Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology?

Yes. I have an opinion about literally everything in bicycling and
rarely fail to pronounce judgment at every possible opportunity.

>"I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle wheel, but
>personally, I would like to have more than 48 spokes per wheel even if I
>never need them."
>
>Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How do you fit
>62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of extra spokes from one
>spot on the rim to another spot on the rim. Sure, they're going in a
>direction that's totally useless, but it's still better, because, like,
>it's MORE!
>
>Just like lumens.

Amazing. This thread started off with a request for 1940's cycling
attire and is now into counting spokes. In the distant past, I could
count on at least three on topic comments before topic drift set in.
Now we're down to one comment. Sigh.

Need I recycle my past astute comments about seen versus be seen?
Basically, if you want to be seen using a bicycle light, the
intensity, pattern, flash/no-flash, side lighting, and such need to be
considered. While brightness (lumens) is just one part of the puzzle,
it's the one that sells overpriced lighting, so I guess it's
important. If you just want to see in the dark, a kerosene or carbide
lantern belching 40 lumens is probably sufficient. If you want to see
ahead on a brightly lit street, more lumens doesn't buy you anything
except the satisfaction of blinding homicidal drivers. One can
probably get away with no headlight at all on a well lit street.

For me (and probably only me) having extra lumens handy is useful
because my eyesight is starting to deteriorate. I can't focus well on
the color red, or in dim light. So, I need all the help I can get
which means a light brighter than what a younger person might consider
adequate. Similarly, if I weighed over 250 lbs, having more spokes
available would probably be a good idea.

[avag...@gmail.com]

https://www.google.com/search?gl=us&biw=360&bih=265&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=N01mWvGmH8nCjwPowbnwDg&q=+bicycle+clothing+antique&oq=+bicycle+clothing+antique&gs_l=mobile-gws-img.12...9449.10711.0.12419.5.5.0.0.0.0.248.1003.0j2j3.5.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-img..0.0.0....0.QuHVPCiCgYU

modern ? Aero tight

Prob find similar in wool at recycle Westchester royal oaks upper Hudson palm beach ... look for caps prob a cap collector

N try the Gore tex site for one layer products

[avag...@gmail.com]

My first bicycle n shirt for I'D coming around the lake n down cherry Hill ...

[avag...@gmail.com]

https://www.google.com/search?gl=us&tbm=isch&q=irish+bicyclist+at+pub&chips=q:irish+bicyclist+at+pub,online_chips:street,online_chips:hold&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGj9-MuuzYAhVP1WMKHQITBZUQ4lYIOCgA&biw=360&bih=560&dpr=3

So balmy like Alaska

[Frank Krygowski]

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 1:56:07 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:13:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >> I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every
> >> possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to
> >> have some more lumens even if I don't use them.
>
> >Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology?
>
> Yes. I have an opinion about literally everything in bicycling and
> rarely fail to pronounce judgment at every possible opportunity.
>
> >"I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle wheel, but
> >personally, I would like to have more than 48 spokes per wheel even if I
> >never need them."
> >
> >Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How do you fit
> >62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of extra spokes from one
> >spot on the rim to another spot on the rim. Sure, they're going in a
> >direction that's totally useless, but it's still better, because, like,
> >it's MORE!
> >
> >Just like lumens.
>
> Amazing. This thread started off with a request for 1940's cycling
> attire and is now into counting spokes. In the distant past, I could
> count on at least three on topic comments before topic drift set in.
> Now we're down to one comment. Sigh.

Hey, wait a minute. You're not supposed to complain about thread drift! That's
the job of Sir Ridesalot! ;-)

>
> Need I recycle my past astute comments about seen versus be seen?
> Basically, if you want to be seen using a bicycle light, the
> intensity, pattern, flash/no-flash, side lighting, and such need to be
> considered. While brightness (lumens) is just one part of the puzzle,
> it's the one that sells overpriced lighting, so I guess it's
> important.

Well, I'll admit it's important to those trying to sell the lights. But it's far
from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when
someone says "300 lumens aren't enough."

As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about
my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light
companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it
was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus
matters.

> If you just want to see in the dark, a kerosene or carbide
> lantern belching 40 lumens is probably sufficient.

Actually, I've tried that. I own an antique kerosene headlamp, a very pretty
lantern-shaped thing. I tried it out on our darkest neighborhood streets. Those
riders of yore must have had eyes like owls!

> If you want to see
> ahead on a brightly lit street, more lumens doesn't buy you anything
> except the satisfaction of blinding homicidal drivers. One can
> probably get away with no headlight at all on a well lit street.
>
> For me (and probably only me) having extra lumens handy is useful
> because my eyesight is starting to deteriorate. I can't focus well on
> the color red, or in dim light. So, I need all the help I can get
> which means a light brighter than what a younger person might consider
> adequate.

I know night vision tends to deteriorate, at least partly from the slow growth
of cataracts. Those devils tend to diffuse light coming into the lens, sort of
fogging things up.

But I really doubt the solution is to pump out lots of unfocused lumens, which
is what non-St-VZO lights do. Seems like you'd just be spraying lots of light
in directions where it doesn't show the road, but contributes to the fog.

My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded
by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose
lights make it impossible to look back.

- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Amazing. This thread started off with a request for 1940's cycling
>> attire and is now into counting spokes. In the distant past, I could
>> count on at least three on topic comments before topic drift set in.
>> Now we're down to one comment. Sigh.

>Hey, wait a minute. You're not supposed to complain about thread drift! That's
>the job of Sir Ridesalot! ;-)

I was not complaining, just making an observation. I've also noticed
that the further off topic the thread drifts, the more people add
their comments. However, if the thread miraculously stays on topic,
nobody says anything.

>Well, I'll admit it's important to those trying to sell the lights. But it's far
>from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when
>someone says "300 lumens aren't enough."

Perception (impression) is everything. If I show up for a ride with
the latest megalumen headlight, I win status points. Actually, 300
lumens in the forward direction is largely wasted. According to my
limited readings, getting hit head on, ramming a brick wall, or riding
off a cliff, are rather rate occurrences. All of these might benefit
from better forward lighting, but would change the bicycle safety
statistics very little. It is my unsubstantiated impression that most
visibility related bicycle accidents arrive from the rear or from the
sides. There is some interest in rear lighting, but for the most
part, is rather limited. For example, I have yet to see anyone do
much in the way of a controlled beam pattern for a rear light. Side
lighting is almost non-existent. Yet, of the few near collisions that
I have experienced, all of them came from the sides (usually from my
right side by a vehicle coming from a side street). Yes, there are
spoke and frame lights available, but when I tried to build one, I
found that any lighting bright enough to be useful would also blind me
when I look downward.

>As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about
>my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light
>companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it
>was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus
>matters.

Something is wrong here. A 10 watt halogen lamp is good for about 15
lumens/watt. Your friends light would therefore produce 150 lumens.
Meanwhile, your vintage 2.4 watt dynamo powered LED might deliver 70
lumens/watt or 168 lumens. Your light would be about 10% brighter,
which is not much. It's not focus but more likely a dead battery,
rotten wiring, rotted switch, bad lamp connections, or a halogen bulb
running cold.

>> If you just want to see in the dark, a kerosene or carbide
>> lantern belching 40 lumens is probably sufficient.
>
>Actually, I've tried that. I own an antique kerosene headlamp, a very pretty
>lantern-shaped thing. I tried it out on our darkest neighborhood streets. Those
>riders of yore must have had eyes like owls!

Well, kerosene wick lanterns aren't as bright as carbide. However,
kerosene mantle type lanterns (Coleman) are quite bright. Sorry, but
I don't have numbers for those.

The old time riders probably didn't have eyes any better than ours,
but did have the benefit of not having to deal with so much light
pollution from cars and street lights. When it was dark, it stayed
dark, which allowed one's eyes to become accustomed to the darkness
and therefore more sensitive. When I was young and stupid, I went for
hikes in the mountains in the dark with only cigarette lighter for
occasional illumination. I had to go slowly and carefully, but it was
quite possible.

>But I really doubt the solution is to pump out lots of unfocused lumens, which
>is what non-St-VZO lights do. Seems like you'd just be spraying lots of light
>in directions where it doesn't show the road, but contributes to the fog.

My eyesight problem is currently not much of a problem. There is a
little fogging, but it will be many years before I have to do
something about the problem. Meanwhile, getting a bit more light to
work with helps a little.

>My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded
>by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose
>lights make it impossible to look back.

Yep, that's a problem. We can start by fixing the way we measure the
front light beam pattern, and then apply the changes to the rear
light. Currently, the front lighting is evaluated by the pattern it
makes on the ground. That's important for seeing pot holes and
obstacles on the roadway, but doesn't say much about how well the
headlight illuminates any vertical obstructions. The rear light
doesn't even have a footprint pattern on the ground mostly because
illuminating the ground behind you does nothing useful (unless your
bicycle has a reverse gear). So, rear lights are aimed from the
horizon and up, landing directly in the face of riders and driver
behind you. What's needed is very wide (about 180 degree) horizontal
radiation pattern, and a very small (10 degree) vertical radiation
pattern. Since the rear light does not involve any illumination
issues (it's 100% be seen), it does not need to be very bright.

Work beckons. End of rant for now...

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/25/2018 9:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski

>> [Lumen numbers are] far

>>from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when
>> someone says "300 lumens aren't enough."
>
> Perception (impression) is everything. If I show up for a ride with
> the latest megalumen headlight, I win status points. Actually, 300
> lumens in the forward direction is largely wasted. According to my
> limited readings, getting hit head on, ramming a brick wall, or riding
> off a cliff, are rather rate occurrences. All of these might benefit
> from better forward lighting, but would change the bicycle safety
> statistics very little. It is my unsubstantiated impression that most
> visibility related bicycle accidents arrive from the rear or from the
> sides.

AFAIK, data on that just isn't available. In fact, real data on
nighttime bike lighting is really rare. I've looked. That's why I
recommend having a friend ride your bike at night while you observe.

> There is some interest in rear lighting, but for the most
> part, is rather limited. For example, I have yet to see anyone do
> much in the way of a controlled beam pattern for a rear light. Side
> lighting is almost non-existent. Yet, of the few near collisions that
> I have experienced, all of them came from the sides (usually from my
> right side by a vehicle coming from a side street).

Here, I have my usual problem. I can't remember having a near collision
of any type at night. Instead, I've noted motorists waiting far longer
than necessary to let me go past.

>> As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about
>> my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light
>> companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it
>> was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus
>> matters.
>
> Something is wrong here. A 10 watt halogen lamp is good for about 15
> lumens/watt. Your friends light would therefore produce 150 lumens.
> Meanwhile, your vintage 2.4 watt dynamo powered LED might deliver 70
> lumens/watt or 168 lumens.

Why are you claiming nearly five times the efficiency for the dynamo
light? They were both halogen bulbs.

It's possible the dynamo light was designed to be a bit over-driven, but
I can't see getting 70 lumens/Watt out of it.

> It's not focus but more likely a dead battery,
> rotten wiring, rotted switch, bad lamp connections, or a halogen bulb
> running cold.

He called me to come over just after he bought the equipment. It was
brand new.

BTW, he kept it charged up for years, but almost never used it. He was
quite disappointed in it.

>> My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded
>> by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose
>> lights make it impossible to look back.
>
> Yep, that's a problem. We can start by fixing the way we measure the
> front light beam pattern, and then apply the changes to the rear
> light. Currently, the front lighting is evaluated by the pattern it
> makes on the ground. That's important for seeing pot holes and
> obstacles on the roadway, but doesn't say much about how well the
> headlight illuminates any vertical obstructions.

I know that Stephen M. Scharf claims his riding territory is studded
with lots of stout branches waiting to take off his head. But I just
don't believe it - unless he's a MUP-only rider or a committed gutter
rider.

Honestly, I don't believe it even then. I occasionally lead night rides
on a MUP. When they slack off on maintenance there may rarely be some
leaves near head level, but never anything substantial. And if you did
find such an obstruction, why wouldn't you either report it to get it
fixed, or just fix it yourself? Motorists wouldn't put up with such

obstructions.

> The rear light
> doesn't even have a footprint pattern on the ground mostly because
> illuminating the ground behind you does nothing useful (unless your
> bicycle has a reverse gear). So, rear lights are aimed from the
> horizon and up, landing directly in the face of riders and driver
> behind you.

I've tried hard to explain to one of my friends that having super bright
taillights pointed upwards at 15 degrees or more does no good. Ideally,
you want motorists to notice you from farther back. It does no good to
shoot over their heads, and it's irritating as hell to a cyclist who is
riding right behind you.

ISTR a recent paper claiming that lights on the pedals or ankles are
extremely conspicuous to motorists. It's the unique human bipedal motion
- left, right, left, right - that we're hard wired to notice. But I
suspect that pedal reflectors, or perhaps reflective tape on cranks or
shoes would do as well, provided it was kept clean.

Again: Having my bike checked out with the help of friends, family, club
mates, etc. convinced me that there's no need to go crazy. I've also
gotten spontaneous compliments from motorists and pedestrians.

And that's been confirmed by at least occasional night commuting and
riding for ... let's see ... I guess it was 32 years, until I retired.
And I still ride for utility and fun at night.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

A year or more I noticed that yes, the up and down motion of the feet
on the pedals was very noticeable..... at least when the rider was
wearing bright orange knee socks :-)

I've never actually noticed any added visibility from the small
reflectors I see on the usual "cheap as you can get" pedals I see on
the usual bike :-)

>Again: Having my bike checked out with the help of friends, family, club
>mates, etc. convinced me that there's no need to go crazy. I've also
>gotten spontaneous compliments from motorists and pedestrians.
>
>And that's been confirmed by at least occasional night commuting and
>riding for ... let's see ... I guess it was 32 years, until I retired.
>And I still ride for utility and fun at night.

As an aside, 32 years ago I never noticed that the lights on my bike
were inadequate..... In fact even 40 years ago I didn't realize how
poor they were. I just rode at speed at which I felt comfortable :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

You are the super-luckiest rider I know. I just about got mowed down on Tuesday, riding home in a rainstorm at night when I went to jump across traffic. looked back -- street was clear back to a set of headlights fifty or more yards away, and then out of the gloom -- a black car with no lights on going full speed, not even incidental running lights. WTF? Pure luck that I saw it before taking the lane. Sometimes its the other guy's lights or lack of lights. Unlighted bikes and pedestrians in all black are a frequent hazard, particularly in the rain with wet glasses and glare from tail lights or headlights.

On part of my ride home last night, I just gave into the fact that I couldn't see a f****** thing with an 800 lumen light, pouring rain and a broken road surface with rushing water like riding through a stream bed. The good part was that I was on a low-traffic climb on a tiny residential street. I could use either better night vision and windshield wipers on my glasses or a 2000 lumen light. On dry nights, the dyno is fine in most places.

-- Jay Beattie

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/26/2018 10:29 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 7:58:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> Here, I have my usual problem. I can't remember having a near collision
>> of any type at night. Instead, I've noted motorists waiting far longer
>> than necessary to let me go past.
>
> You are the super-luckiest rider I know. I just about got mowed down on Tuesday, riding home in a rainstorm at night when I went to jump across traffic. looked back -- street was clear back to a set of headlights fifty or more yards away, and then out of the gloom -- a black car with no lights on going full speed, not even incidental running lights. WTF? Pure luck that I saw it before taking the lane. Sometimes its the other guy's lights or lack of lights. Unlighted bikes and pedestrians in all black are a frequent hazard, particularly in the rain with wet glasses and glare from tail lights or headlights.

I am lucky... or something. Only two moving on-road falls since I
started adult cycling in 1972. (That doesn't count the time I toppled
over while standing at a red light, or the falls I cheerfully endured in
my mountain biking days.)

Part of it could be conservative riding. I avoid riding on the edge of
traction. I do tons of "what if" thinking as I ride along. I'm
compulsive about watching the road surface, and so on. And part of it
could be education. (I always wonder if anyone else here has taken a
cycling class. I've taken several, and read and written a library on
riding well.)

But I'm sure a lot of it is environment. Much of your riding is in a
major city and in all weather. I'm in a smaller metro area, and I took
care to choose my commuting routes to avoid the densest traffic when
possible. Still, I've ridden a fair amount in Portland, plus in a bunch
of other big cities both in the U.S. and abroad.

> On part of my ride home last night, I just gave into the fact that I couldn't see a f****** thing with an 800 lumen light, pouring rain and a broken road surface with rushing water like riding through a stream bed. The good part was that I was on a low-traffic climb on a tiny residential street. I could use either better night vision and windshield wipers on my glasses or a 2000 lumen light. On dry nights, the dyno is fine in most places.

Yeah, I usually avoided night rides in pouring rain. But regarding the
800 lumen light, do keep in mind that a car's headlight beams aren't
visible in the conditions you describe. As mentioned, I recall shopping
on a rainy night, then getting into our car with my wife in a big plaza
parking lot. As I drove away, she said "Your headlights aren't on!" But
they were.

The light reflects forward off the horizontal film of water, instead of
backward off the texture of dry pavement. If the light doesn't reflect
back to your eye, it's not visible.

So I give you credit for riding in those conditions. Either that or I
advise you to think twice about riding in those conditions.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

If I don't ride in those conditions, I don't commute half the year.

In heavy rain, the problem is not only the diffraction of light off the wet surface but, for me, the diffraction of bright lights off the droplets on my glasses. Looking over my glasses, I lose far vision. I could wear contacts, but I prefer not to, and if its raining hard, by eyeballs get slapped without glasses. My waning night vision is a problem as are the blinding, super-bright bike and car headlights.

Bright point light sources make MUPS and cycletracks particularly dangerous because you get blinded and can't see pedestrians (who all wear black at night for some reason) or poorly lighted bicyclists. It's really bad on two-way separated cycle tracks with on-coming MV traffic on the roadway immediately to your right and headlights in your face. Another planning mistake.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Radey Shouman]

jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:

> On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 7:53:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/26/2018 10:29 AM, jbeattie wrote:

[ ... ]

Recently I've tried these visorgog things:

https://www.amazon.com/VISORGOG-Visorgog-Blue/dp/B001VINXOU

They're intended as laboratory wear, and I'm sure they look strange, but
they add some warmth and some protection from rain or snow and wind. I
wear mine over my usual glasses, and have attached a mirror to them.

The viewing surface slopes inward at roughly 45 degrees, and if water
does stick on them they're easier to wipe off with a glove than
eyeglasses are.

--

[Frank Krygowski]

Glasses are a real irritation in rain, even in daylight. I'm lucky in
that my distance vision is perfect, so I just take them off. I use a cap
with a brim to get some shielding both against rain and oncoming glare.

But I hardly ever ride at night in the rain. You're certainly dedicated.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Interesting idea. I may try them just to reduce the flow of tears in
cold weather.


--
- Frank Krygowski