New Supernova E3 Triple
GPrince
Price near $300. According to Supernova suitable for fast offroad
riding, or road riding on roads with no traffic.
See http://www.supernova-lights.com/newsite/e3_triple.html
albert meerscheidt
The High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamp provides 675 lumens of intense natural light that is 3 times brighter than comparable halogen systems
Jason McPhate
Michel Gagnon
Has someone compared the Supernova E3 to the Schmidt E-deluxe in
comparable terms?
Quoting from memory,
Supernova states the total light output of the E3 Triple at 550 lm and
of the E3 (single) at 220 lm, while Schmidt states the amount of light
that illuminates a given point in front of the bicycle at 60 lx (cf.
graphical chart on the PDF of the E-3)
However, I wonder if someone has measured the amount of light that
illuminates a given point in front of the bicycle with the E3. It would
be really interesting to see how the current E-3, the new E-3
asymetrical and the E-3 Triple compare with the E-delux.
And one wonders how would look the E-3 Triple with an asymetrical beam.
P.S. I have seen the very informative page by Peter White:
http://peterwhitecycles.com/headlights.asp
Within the limitations of photography, it gives me a fairly good view of
what I would get from each headlight. But still, the added data would be
informative.
--
Michel Gagnon
Montréal (Québec, Canada)
pamela blalock
From: ran...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ran...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Michel Gagnon
Has someone compared the Supernova E3 to the Schmidt E-deluxe in
comparable terms?
...
However, I wonder if someone has measured the amount of light that
illuminates a given point in front of the bicycle with the E3
-----My Comments-----
I haven't taken any measurements. I don't have that kind of equipment. But I
will offer some subjective observations...
I recently got a loaner edelux to try out and used it on my 15 mile ride
home from work in the dark for about 10 days. After that I then passed it on
to my husband to try. I've been using an e3 since January.
I put the edelux on one of the Shimano computer mounts that PJW made up for
mounting these types of lights on a handlebar. My e3 is on an R+M mount and
sits below the handlebar. This is to say the edelux sat slightly higher than
my e3 normally does.
My commute starts out in an office park, then goes into a quiet and dark
residential neighborhood with a long climb and a fast descent and then a
gentle climb. This is followed by a couple of miles on the minuteman bike
path to bypass busy streets in Lexington. I exit the bike path onto a rocky
path next to a field behind a school. I have a little climb up the rocky
path to a paved sidewalk, then cross a main street and pick up the worst
roads of the commute. Lexington and Belmont like to dig little trenches in
the road, lay pipe and fill them back in leaving the replaced surface about
half an inch below the rest of the road. The trench is about 6 inches wide,
and in Lexington, in precisely the place I want to be. In Belmont, the
trench criss-crosses the lane, meaning I have to cross it! Belmont also has
a tendency to patch with potlumps, this is where they overfill the hole, so
when a plough comes along it hits the lump and tears out a bigger hole.
After years of doing this on Mill Street, they just recently resurfaced HALF
of it. After Belmont center, I am in an area with lots of congestion,
streetlights and impatient drivers, before I cross the river on a pedestrian
bridge with a point at the top and serious gradient on either side.
All this to say, this gives any light a good test.
Subjectively the lights are both very bright. They both outshine every other
light I have run from my Schmidt hub. The real difference is beam pattern,
and this is really a matter of personal preference.
The edelux has the asymmetrical beam pattern, which means it has a distinct
cutoff on four sides, and tries to keep light low. There is much more
spillage in front of the wheel than any of the other asymmetrical lights
I've used. (I used the first inolight and hated it, since there was NO light
in front of the wheel. I have the ixon and d'lumotec with the assymetrical
beam and they arehave some light spillage there and are much than the
inolight was, but I still prefer illumination right in front of my wheel).
I had a couple of interesting experiences the first night I rode with the
edelux. It took me a while to find just the right angle (up/down for the
light). If I had it too far out, the dark spot was too big and too dark. But
closer in meant it didn't light up vertical objects, like people walking on
the bike path, until I was really close. The path would be illuminated, and
if I was watching carefully I could see their shoes, but not the profile, if
you will. I wasn't right on top of people when I saw them, but just found it
a bit strange. I aimed the light further out, and saw people (as a vertical
person shaped object) sooner. But then I had a roller-blader with a
head-mounted light look me in the eye and yell at me for blinding her with
my light! In the 8+ months of using my e3 on this path, that has never
happened.
When I got home, I had John hop on my bike and ride toward me. Regardless of
where the light is aimed (closer in or farther out), if you look at the
bike, there is a very bright blinding spot in the middle of the handlebars.
This means you WILL be seen. The e3 is also quite noticeable for oncoming
eyes, but no one ever yelled at me with it :-)
Once home I tried adjusting the angle so the light went more to the right.
So the next night, pedestrians on the footpath in the residential area held
their hands to the eyes as I rode by! I have found that the pattern is such
that the light should just be aimed directly forward. The cutoffs on the
side just work better than having the light aimed slightly away from
on-coming traffic. I have my e3 ever so slightly to the right, and it works
out quite well. (I use v-brake pad washers to accomplish this)
So what's ironic is the edelux is the light that meets the German regs that
are geared more for bike path users and folks in more densely populated
areas, and for me it was actually more of a problem in those places.
I went back to my E3 Monday and do prefer its beam pattern. Maybe it is old
age, but I need to see the obstacles clearly right up till I steer past
them. I also like the tapering of light out to the sides. This actually
makes it less likely I blind someone on a sidewalk next to the road, plus
there isn't a distinct cutoff of light and dark. I like being able to see
street signs.
Both lights light the road up quite nicely. Both lights are brilliant at
crawling speed! The standlight on both is quite bright. The edelux does
weigh less, but has fewer mounting options, since it has to be mounted
upright and the mount is under the light. I have the side mount e3, so I can
mount it under the bars (with the light still rightside up). The e3 LED can
be upgraded, so if I want the 3 LED version or asymmetric version I can get
it without tossing my old light.
There were reports here of water getting in around the housing with an e3
upside down. Suggestions were made for addressing that issue. Mine actually
is mounted with the wires coming out the bottom. I've ridden through winter,
spring and a very wet summer with no issues. We have 4 e3's now, two for me,
one for John and one for the tandem.
Fire-sale on e6's!
pamela blalock pgb at blayleys.com
care-free in watertown, ma http://www.blayleys.com
papa...@comcast.net
> light I have run from my Schmidt hub . The real difference is beam pattern,
> and this is really a matter of personal preference.
>
> The edelux has the asymmetrical beam pattern, which means it has a distinct
> cutoff on four sides, and tries to keep light low. There is much more
> spillage in front of the wheel than any of the other asymmetrical lights
> I've used. (I used the first inolight and hated it, since there was NO light
> in front of the wheel. I have the ixon and d'lumotec with the assymetrical
> beam and they arehave some light spillage there and are much than the
> inolight was, but I still prefer illumination right in front of my wheel).
>
> I had a couple of interesting experiences the first night I rode with the
> edelux. It took me a while to find just the right angle (up/down for the
> light). If I had it too far out, the dark spot was too big and too dark. But
> closer in meant it didn't light up vert ical objects, like people walking on
> the bike path, until I was really close. The path would be illuminated, and
> if I was watching carefully I could see their shoes, but not the profile, if
> you will. I wasn't right on top of people when I saw them, but just found it
> a bit strange. I aimed the light further out, and saw people (as a vertical
> person shaped object) sooner. But then I had a roller-blader with a
> head-mounted light look me in the eye and yell at me for blinding her with
> my light! In the 8+ months of using my e3 on this path, that has never
> happened.
>
> When I got home, I had John hop on my bike and ride toward me. Regardless of
> where the light is aimed (closer in or farther out), if you look at the
> bike, there is a very bright blinding spot in the middle of the handlebars.
> This means you WILL be seen. The e3 is also quite noticeable for oncoming
> eyes , but no one ever yelled at me with it :-)
>
> Once home I tried adjusting the angle so the light went more to the right.
> So the next night, pedestrians on the footpath in the residential area held
> their hands to the eyes as I rode by! I have found that the pattern is such
> that the light should just be aimed directly forward. The cutoffs on the
> side just work better than having the light aimed slightly away from
> on-coming traffic. I have my e3 ever so slightly to the right, and it works
> out quite well. (I use v-brake pad washers to accomplish this)
>
> So what's ironic is the edelux is the light that meets the German regs that
> are geared more for bike path users and folks in more densely populated
> areas, and for me it was actually more of a problem in those places.
>
> I went back to my E3 Monday and do prefer its beam pattern. Maybe it is old
> age, but I need t o see the obstacles clearly right up till I steer past
> them. I also like the tapering of light out to the sides. This actually
> makes it less likely I blind someone on a sidewalk next to the road, plus
> there isn't a distinct cutoff of light and dark. I like being able to see
> street signs.
>
> Both lights light the road up quite nicely. Both lights are brilliant at
> crawling speed! The standlight on both is quite bright. The edelux does
> weigh less, but has fewer mounting options, since it has to be mounted
> upright and the mount is under the light. I have the side mount e3, so I can
> mount it under the bars (with the light still rightside up). The e3 LED can
> be upgraded, so if I want the 3 LED version or asymmetric version I can get
> it without tossing my old light.
>
> There were reports here of water getting in around the housing with an e3
> upside down. Suggest ions were made for addressing that issue. Mine actually
> is mounted with the wires coming out the bottom. I've ridden through winter,
> spring and a very wet summer with no issues. We have 4 e3's now, two for me,
> one for John and one for the tandem.
>
> Fire-sale on e6's!
>
>
> pamela blalock pgb at blayleys.com
> care-free in watertown, ma http://www.blayleys.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> TE>
roadijeff
> comparable terms?
in the recent RUSA magazine? The author said the Edeluxe blew the E3
out of the water.
With 3 LEDs the new version of the E3 might be brighter but at over
130 g total weight it is too heavy for the mounting location I've used
for over 5 years with my old Schmidt E6.
I wonder what Schmidt will come out with to counter the updated E3?
It will be an interesting winter.
WillemJ
see a picture with the new and optional asymmetrical lens: less
light wasted on the trees, and more on the road (like the edelux). The
page on the triple also mentions an asymmetrical lens, but does not
show it.
This new light poses an interesting choice for the brevet rider,
because the extra light output has to be generated by you the rider.
There is no free lunch, and a dual edelux (easily done, I am sure) or
a triple E3 mean that as wth the dual E6 route the rider will have to
produce something like 10-12 watt rather than the 5 watt or so of the
single headlight (I have no tech info so the numbers are a rough
guess). In the days of the E6 that made sense, but who wants to work
harder than 5 watt if that is enough to give you the light output of
an edelux? I would think the most competitive riders will instead
probably choose a Son 20R with one light.
Willem
WillemJ
see a picture with the new and optional asymmetrical lens: less
light wasted on the trees, and more on the road (like the edelux). The
page on the triple also mentions an asymmetrical lens, but does not
show it.
This new light poses an interesting choice for the brevet rider,
because the extra light output has to be generated by you the rider.
There is no free lunch, and a dual edelux (easily done, I am sure) or
a triple E3 mean that as wth the dual E6 route the rider will have to
produce something like 10-12 watt rather than the 5 watt or so of the
single headlight (I have no tech info so the numbers are a rough
guess). In the days of the E6 that made sense, but who wants to work
harder than 5 watt if that is enough to give you the light output of
an edelux? I would think the most competitive riders will instead
probably choose a Son 20R with one light.
Willem
On 11 sep, 21:28, roadijeff <roadij...@aol.com> wrote:
JBilinski
changes to a 'the sky's the limit' Watt light for fast descents where
there is a surplus of power available and a need for more light. This
could be automatic using the AC frequency or manual by the rider
switching in a 2nd light for fast descents.
Jacques
WillemJ
Andreas Oehler has tested a dual IQ Fly setup extensively:
http://fahrradzukunft.de/fz-0704/0704-05.htm and given their
similarity, the same would probably work to even greater effect with a
dual Edelux setup (one could write to Schmidt, I guess - they must
have tried it). Since Schmidt are so busy cranking up production they
may feel that a dedicated Edelux secundary with extra capacitor must
have a lower priority for the moment. Anyhow, since Edelux and E3 each
have their own strengths and weaknesses, a combination of an E3 for
lower speeds and an Edelux as a secundary - or the other way around -
may well be ideal (however, I am not sure if that would work - did
anyone try?).
The same www.fahrradzukunft.de website that published Andreas Oehler's
tests now also has a pretty exhaustive technical piece (in German) on
why lights with multiple leds are the current optimum, and includes a
spectacular home brewed example (4 Crees with simple symmetric lenses
for nearby, and 4 Crees in E6 optics for the distance). I am sure this
one easily beats
the Supernova E3 triple, at a fraction of the cost (if you are
confident you can build it - but the article has extensive
instructions and schematics to help you).
The beauty of the lights that have become available for the last year
is that, beginning with the IQ Fly, for the first time they have been
able to use the full output (up to about 7-8 watt in dual 12V mode) of
the Schmidt hub. The Edelux shows the tuning that is possible with
better engineering. The article I quoted also has a nice table of
historical gains in lumen per watt efficiency. Within the next few
years that could easily double again. So if I had to buy a new dyno
hub now (lasting me for a decade or so), I would go for the 20 inch
wheel variety, to reap the benefits of lower resistance. Plenty of
light there will be anyhow (even for my own bad night vision). After
this, the next round of relevant improvements in led's could well be
in the quality of the colour spectrum (still very discontinuous)
rather than the quantity of light as such.
For now my wife is very happy with the one Edelux that I could lay may
hands on (used with a Son 20).
Willem
WillemJ
same source, particularly on focussing leds.
Willem
On 13 sep, 09:46, WillemJ <willem.jong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess that is easily done with a dual high performance set up.
> Andreas Oehler has tested a dual IQ Fly setup extensively:http://fahrradzukunft.de/fz-0704/0704-05.htm and given their
> similarity, the same would probably work to even greater effect with a
> dual Edelux setup (one could write to Schmidt, I guess - they must
> have tried it). Since Schmidt are so busy cranking up production they
> may feel that a dedicated Edelux secundary with extra capacitor must
> have a lower priority for the moment. Anyhow, since Edelux and E3 each
> have their own strengths and weaknesses, a combination of an E3 for
> lower speeds and an Edelux as a secundary - or the other way around -
> may well be ideal (however, I am not sure if that would work - did
> anyone try?).
WillemJ
headlight, the IQ Cyo: http://www.bumm.de/index.html Optically, it is
available in two versions. The first is a 60 lux (better cooling?)
clear front glas version with a light pattern that looks like it is
much like the IQ Fly, but brighter (and perhaps just a bit more stray
light). The second is a 40 lux version with in-built reflector, and
using the extra light output to greatly improve near field
illumination. Prices only just a bit more than the IQ Fly. Time for
Schmidt to turn these two lights into a primary and a secundary
Edelux, I would think.
Willem
On 13 sep, 10:14, WillemJ <willem.jong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For those who want to roll their own: some more tech info from the
> same source, particularly on focussing leds.
> Willem
>
> On 13 sep, 09:46, WillemJ <willem.jong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess that is easily done with a dual high performance set up.
> > Andreas Oehler has tested a dual IQ Fly setup extensively:http://fahrradzukunft.de/fz-0704/0704-05.htm and given their
> > similarity, the same would probably work to even greater effect with a
> > dual Edelux setup (one could write to Schmidt, I guess - they must
> > have tried it). Since Schmidt are so busy cranking up production they
> > may feel that a dedicated Edelux secundary with extra capacitor must
> > have a lower priority for the moment. Anyhow, since Edelux and E3 each
> > have their own strengths and weaknesses, a combination of an E3 for
> > lower speeds and an Edelux as a secundary - or the other way around -
> > may well be ideal (however, I am not sure if that would work - did
> > anyone try?).
WillemJ
to the nearfield: http://www.swr.de/nachrichten/bw/-/id=1622/nid=1622/did=3921964/16l3px2/index.html
On 13 sep, 12:19, WillemJ <willem.jong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Technology keeps moving ahead: B&M have just anounced their new led
Jim Logan
standardized on decades ago: given enabling technologies, there is a role
for low beams and high beams. With the evolution of LED lighting a low beam
and high beam setup is now feasible for bicycles, though not yet readily
available commercially.
Much of the discussion goes to what is an effective high beam. However, for
me, what is critical for a low beam is that it is not washed out in the
glare of oncoming headlights. This is where this new generation of LED
headlights gets me the most excited, and eliminate the times I am most
terrified randonneuring: when I lose sight of the road due to oncoming
headlight glare.
Randonneurs are early adopters for the subtlety of the low beam/high beam
combination, since most other cyclists don't regularly do cross-country
travel across diverse terrain, or need to worry about cumulative power
consumption quite so much.
Jim Logan
Pittsburgh
-----Original Message-----
From: ran...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ran...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
No viruses found in this incoming message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.5.5
http://www.iolo.com
_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.5.5
http://www.iolo.com
WillemJ
bike lights: to get any light into the far distance, it has to be a
focussed light that does not waste any light illuminating the sky. So,
for us, the high beam (rotation symmetrical) lights function at close
range, whereas all (generator) lights that reach farthest (the E6 of
old, and now the Edelux) are of necessity low beams.
Since we have discussed dual headlight configurations, I think I owe
you an English summary of what is now on the Schmidt website in the
(German only FAQ section).
Dual Edelux will not give you a great deal more light. Parallel
connection may be used to provide an even wider illuminated area (10
degrees angle). Serial connection will reduce output at lower speeds,
more light than with a single Edelux only from about 30 km.
Combination of an Edelux and a IQ Fly will not work well in parallel,
since Edelux operates at slightly higher voltage. Serial connection
see dual Edelux.
Finally, an interesting option: a combination with an E6Z secundary.
Works if switched in series (as with the E6 primary). The in built
capacitor raises the output of the primary edelux from about 18 km. In
part because of this extra brightnes from the primary Edelux, the E6
only becomes visible from about 25 km, and only barely so. If one uses
the E6z, it should be pointed into the distance, and slightly higher
than de edelux.
So here we may have the answer to Jacques' wish for an extra light for
fast descents. From what I read, I would not buy an extra light for
it, but many here still have a secundary E6Z that thus effectively
comes for free. Using that light with its capacitor on fasts descents
may squeeze the very last bit of light out of an Edelux, and give just
that bit extra halogen light in the far distance. When I compared the
Edelux and the E6, I did get the feeling that the E6 indeed reached
just a bit further. So why not, if it is indeed only for fast descents
when energy is for free, and with a light that for many here is also
free. Has anyone tried it yet?
Willem
JBilinski
descents. The stopping distance of a bike supposedly goes up with the
square of the speed. This applies to the distance spent actually
slowing the bike down, not the reaction time to start applying the
brakes. So if you double your speed you need to be able to see a given
obstacle four times further in order to avoid it. Also to illuminate a
object at the same brightness at twice the distance you need a light 4
times as bright. That is the brightness of a light goes up with the
square of the object it needs to illuminate. This assumes a point source
of light which seems like a reasonable approximation for bike lights.
Put the two together and this means that the brightness of your light
should go up with the fourth power of your speed (unless I've made an
error in logic which is quite possible). So if your light is safe for a
max speed of 25km/hr you theoretically need one 16 times as bright at
50km/hr. So when are they going to start mass producing 80W LEDs :)
The good news is at higher speeds generators can generate nore power at
higher speeds, there is more cooling available at higher speeds, and the
efficiencies of LEDs are getting better all the time.
JBilinski
are going down hill your stopping distance is further increased due to
this. Anyways bright lights are good to have for descending at night.
Jacques.
TroyMcClure
moment on the market of superbright LED lights for dynohubs, simply
because there is little to no competition.
The Edelux might be nice, but SON has been unable to deliver for
weeks, and it doesn't really look like they're going to be able to
deliver anything at all in the next few months...
I wanted to get one, but I can't wait indefinitely for it, especially
since the day are seriously shortening now.
So I will probably get an E3 but this isn't street legal in Germany,
where I live. I was under the impression that the newer version with
asymmetrical lens would have the certification, but it doesn't and
that bothers me a bit.
Joe Gross
really exciting light.
According to Supernova the E3 Triple will only be available with a
symmetrical lens, which probably won't be legal in Germany either.
Here in the US where you can aim your light at the moon it will work
nicely. :)
I'm told they're using SSC P4 LEDs with whatever highest bin will be
available at the time.
Should be a really awesome light if you like the symmetrical lenses
(which I do).
They said it will ship October-November.
Personally I will probably replace the two Cree XR-E Q5 LEDs in my
homebrew setup with the new Cree MC-E 4-emitter lights once they're
available this fall.
At full speed my existing lights will produce about 200lm at 1A
each, consuming 3.7W each.
The MC-E LEDs max out at 600lm each at 700mA, consuming 9.5W, but I'm
sure the hub will be the limiting factor. I expect a practical limit
will be 350mA each, consuming 5W each, or 10W total, giving me about
700lm of light on fast descents.
The key to the MC-E is that LEDs are more efficient at lower current
than higher current. Putting 2x the power into an LED will generally
only produce about 1.7x the light. That means you're usually better
off running two lights at their base level and actually getting 2x the
light for 2x the power. It also gives you more options for aiming.
One of the great things about a hub generator is it tends to be
brights when you need it most going downhill and dimmer (ie: using
less power) when you don't need it uphill.
Joe
WillemJ
This is fascinating, but leaves me with two follow up questions about
the new Cree leds. Do I understand you correctly that these combine
two leds in one package of the same dimensions as the previous single
led package (each working more efficiently at lower current levels)?
And would this be a simple replacement for the likes of B&M and
Schmidt, where they can simply adopt the new package once it becomes
avaible, or would they need to redesign optics, electronics, or
fitting? In short, can we expect these to turn up soon?
Sorry if this betrays too much of my shocking ignorance.
Willem
Dark Horse
the XR-E's. There are two very nice things about them as opposed to
the SSC P7's.
First, the individual dies are all wired separately, so that the
builder can combine series and parallel in any combination
that suits, with the wiring outside the emitter.
Second, the footprint size is exactly the same, so existing optics
and PCB's will, to some extent, work.
Ledil: http://www.ledil.fi/
and Carclo: http://www.carclo-optics.com/home0.html
are making optics for the MC-E already, and I would expect the other
makers to follow.
I would not count on being able to retrofit, or at least not easily.
First, the 4-die emitters need 4x the voltage forward of a single-die
emitter. The Schmidt and the B&M are set up to supply a single die.
Second is thermal management. Despite the footprint size, the MC-E has
the same thermal footprint as 4 Cree R2 emitters and needs a much
larger heatsink than a single emitter.
I'd like to know where Joe is getting his numbers. My rough
calculations yield ~700Lm at 550Ma, before optical losses. Assuming
90% optical efficiency, that's 600+ lumens to the road.
Me LIKE.
Me BUILD.
WillemJ
so much wondering about upgrading (I am not a tinkerer), but rather
whether B&M and/or Schmidt would need to do a lot of redesign and/or
retooling to use these. As for the cooling, Schmidt clearly have a
headstart, but I don't know if that will be enough. They may now
regret that they did not opt for a bigger housing.