The third product for Velo Lumino: headlight mount for the fender

[somervillebikes]

The third product in the Velo Lumino line of lighting components and accessories is a neat little fender mount for headlights. This mount allows you to securely attach an Edelux I/II, Cyo/Cyo Premium, Eyc, or Supernova E3 to the front fender, in front of your rack and bag.

The headlight's mounting tab is held between two forked lobes, so the headlight's position can be adjusted without loosening the bolt. The mount attaches to the fender with two M3 bolts and a custom laser-cut stainless reinforcement plate from underneath the fender, which minimizes potential stress risers.

The mount was designed to route the headlight’s wires one of two ways— either externally, or internally through the bottom of the mount and the fender. With the latter, the wiring is completely concealed.

The mount is made from CNC-milled 6061 aluminum, and polished to a mirror finish. Both the mount and reinforcement plate are contoured to fit the curvature of most 40-60mm fenders ensuring a solid interface with the fender. 

The AT headlight fender mount is available right now on velolumino.com

Anton

velolumino.com

somervillebikes.wordpress.com

[Scott Stulken]

I know I'm kinda late on the reply, but that's really cool, Anton!  Flipping between "The Golden Age of..." and pictures of modern rando bikes, I've wondered why the ubiquitous fender-mounted lights gave way to rack-mounted ones.  People just want to make sure they're extra-secure?

- Scott

[somervillebikes]

Thanks, Scott. I'm guessing it's because most of those older fender-mounted lights you see were made specifically for fender mounting, whereas today's lights are made with generic mounts designed for a variety of mounting locations (fork crown, handlebars, rack, etc). Light manufacturers today would not sell many lights made specifically for fender mounting. It's a very narrow market niche.

Anton

velolumino.com

somervillebikes.wordpress.com

[Guy Washburn]

Anton, other than the definite coolness factor, isn't putting more weight on the fender just asking for increased fatigue related failure? The rack mounts are so much more solid, and because they are intended to be weight bearing, run no risk of breakage. I wonder the same thing about the MAP fender mounted light as well... It is not like fenders need more ways to fail.

[Jan Heine]

As to the historical perspective, I think most lights were fender-mounted because bikes didn't have front racks in the 1930s. So the obvious place to put the light is the fender. 

Once front racks became popular in the 1940s, it was an obvious choice to mount the light underneath the rack, where it's protected, rather than in the exposed location on the front fender, and where it won't get bumped by the handlebar bag when going over big bumps. The only disadvantage is that you need to route the lighting wires through the rack as well, which requires extra work when building the bike.

I am glad Anton offers a fender mount as a good alternative for mounting the light.

Jan Heine

Editor

Bicycle Quarterly

www.bikequarterly.com

[somervillebikes]

If the headlight is mounted just in front of a fender support, the risk of fatigue failure is pretty low. You certainly can't use it on an unsupported fender. But the advantage is a better beam-- most of the high quality lights on the market are designed to be higher than the side of a front rack. Placing the light in front of the rack brings it higher up, and also eliminates wheel shadow. 

Anton

velolumino.com

somervillebikes.wordpress.com

[Jan Heine]

Anton makes a good point - if you mount the light under the front rack, you need to place it "just right" to neutralize the front wheel shadow. The front wheel will still cast a shadow, but it's so far to the side that it's not where you even need to see - even during tight turns, you don't turn that sharply...

If you just mount the light anywhere under the front rack, you may well turn into the dark during right/left hairpin turns (depending on the light location). This is worse with wider tires, which cast a bigger shadow.

As to the beam shape, a slightly lower beam in my experience is actually an improvement. Most headlight beams, when mounted as intended, are too short - they are intended for city bikes ridden at 10 mph. Simply angling the light higher puts too much glare into the eyes of oncoming traffic. Lowering the light allows you to get a longer beam, while still having the cut-off (that you get with the best European lights) at just below eye level of oncoming traffic.

I've experimented a lot with light position since my light mount failed in PBP 1999. Back then, I rigged up a new mount from the parts of the broken one and attached it to the front dropout. I actually liked that better than the previous mount on the fork crown, so I had a light mount brazed to the dropout of my Rivendell. (Other Seattle Randonneurs, most notably Robin Piper, took this solution one step further and made the entire light/generator hub unit removable by putting the light mount on the front axle. From that came the well-known Nitto adaptors that allow you to mount a light on the front quick release.) When I then rode Alex Singers with the  light under the front rack, I found that this eliminated the wheel shadow – very pronounced with a front dropout mount – and provided the best solution so far. (By far the worst is mounting the light on top of the handlebars, where it coincides with your line of sight, so making it very difficult to see road irregularities and potholes.)

Jan Heine

Editor

Bicycle Quarterly

www.bikequarterly.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Brad]

Lighting under the rack requires two lights, one on each side of the tire.  One light can fill the shadow created by the other light and the tire and vice versa.  Balancing illumination requires a little bit of stage lighting type experience.
I have done this with two luminaires from LED Supply in Vermont and oval optics.  I like it, others may not.
I get illumination pretty much like a cars high beams.  The vertical angle of the beak is 8º.   The electronics are hidden in the steerer tube. 
I experimented all summer trying to build a single unit with everything inside and it lit up but the attachment process was a complete failure.  Mass and a lever and bolts and bumps. 

[Mark Bulgier]

Brad wrote:

> Lighting under the rack requires two lights, one on each side of the tire. 

Hmm, you and I have different definitions of the word "requires".   If you added "For me (Brad)" to the front of that sentence then I'd have no quibble with it, but as it stands, it sounds like it's trying to be a universal requirement.

I just mount the light far enough forward that the tire shadow is way outside the area I want illuminated. Doubling the weight and complexity would bring zero benefit, from my point of view.

I know in theory, the lights could be smaller and lighter if they were intended to be used as a pair, but no one makes lights like that – not  that meet my other requirements anyway.  And probably never will, since almost no one would buy dual headlights.  No company will invest in the engineering and other costs it would take to bring such a system to market.  By "my other requirements"  I mean basically a lamp with a beam as sophisticated as an Edelux or B&M IQ, but half the weight so there's no weight penalty to needing two of them.  Even then I'd probably prefer the simplicity of a single light.

Mark Bulgier
Seattle

[Brad]

Sorry for the univsersal pronouncement.
Maybe I should start making them.
I am working with TA racks, so getting far enough forward is a real challenge.

[Brad]

Lights.
I already make universal pronouncements.