Sinewave Beacon - not your ordinary headlight

Summer is nearly over, which means days will be getting shorter and if you plan riding your bike through winter you will need a decent headlight.

 

Beacon headlight (Source: Sinewave Cycles)

Beacon by Sinewave Cycles is a highly regarded dynamo headlight among American bikepackers, probably because it's one of few such lights made right here in USA. Plus, it's packed with features such as high power beam delivering a flux of 750 lumens, integrated USB charger, waterproofing, standlight, taillight output and more. Its three LEDs are enclosed in an anodized aluminum shell and there are no plastic parts anywhere in the light, so I'm pretty sure it's up to task of years of use (or abuse) during your bikepacking expeditions.

Backside with external power connector (left), USB charger output (middle) and main on/off switch (right). Two cables coming out of the unit are for the dynohub and a taillight. (Source: Sinewave Cycles)

 

I imagine if you heard about Beacon the most important question you want to have answered is - is it powerful enough to let you ride on forest trails in the middle of the night? The short answer is yes, but... it depends. If you're used to battery-powered headlights, you may be a bit disappointed. While batteries provide more-or-less constant voltage, dynohubs do the same only if they spin at constant (and high) speed. And here is the problem. I noticed that you can get high beam power only if you move at over 15kmh (9mph). At that minimum speed Beacon was certainly bright enough that I could easily navigate rocky forest singletrack. That is in good agreement with what Sinewave states on their website. Apparently, at over 8mph Beacon provides flux of 500 lumens, to eventually reach max. of 750 lumens at over 13mph.

But once the path you're on gets more technical and you slow down, the beam dims significantly to the point I wouldn't call it bright enough for off-road riding anymore. This isn't really the issue with Beacon but rather a limitation of all dynohubs. Fortunately, this is where the external power input feature comes handy. At this point you can plug in your external battery pack to Beacon and power it that way, basically abandoning the dynohub.

Now, let me tell you about my dislikes because there are a few. First of all is the price. At $350, it's clearly one of the most expensive headlights you can buy and probably the most expensive dynamo light I know. Of course, this high price is somewhat explained by the fact that Beacon is 100% US-made in small batches and that it carries an integrated charger on board. Once you take that into consideration, it's only a bit more expensive than other high-power headlights, but not 2 or 3 times more.

But the main issue I have with Beacon is it's beam pattern or rather lack thereof. According to Sinewave Cycles, Beacon has a symmetrical beam pattern which is an "ideal choice for off-road riding". Somehow, I'm not completely buying that explanation. The torch-like, omnidirectional pattern has no horizontal cut-off, which means that you will always be illuminating the road ahead of you as well as tree tops nearby. Even in a deep forest, I'm not entirely convinced this is a welcomed feature. I would much rather have less light coverage vertically and more horizontally, i.e. a wider beam. Maybe then I would've noticed that deer next to the road that scared me on my last ride. I understand though that it's just much easier to slap 3 LEDs together behind a piece of glass, than design a proper beam-shaping reflector.

This symmetrical beam becomes a real problem once you leave the dark forest and ride on a bike path. I had a cyclist yell at me "Too bright!" simply because my Beacon was blinding him. On my bike, this presents a major problem. My light is not handlebars-mounted but instead I have it mounted on the front rack. There is no way for me to reach there and cover it with my hand once I see approaching cyclist. Essentially, the only thing I can do is to significantly slow down, which would dim the light sufficiently that it will stop blinding others. However, that's not really a solution I would want to use frequently. I wish there was some kind of low power mode, when maybe only a single LED is on, just to be seen on a bike path and not blind others.

Likes:
+ powerful beam at 750 lumens
+ built-in USB charger
+ 100% waterproof
+ can be battery-powered
+ charger priority mode - you can charge devices and use light at the same time
+ standing light with built-in capacitor
+ taillight output
+ US-made, even better - made here in Massachusetts
+ custom colored finish available

Dislikes:
- omnidirectional beam without horizontal cut-off blinds others
- no low power mode for city use
- expensive?

Who is it for?

Beacon is clearly aimed at off-road riders, bikepackers and anyone who has to ride bikes in remote areas, further from civilization. For such applications, it's nearly perfect. But where it really fails is in-city use. Basically, be ready to be constantly reminded by others to "cover your light" or "turn it off".

I still very much like my Beacon and I think it's great... for what it's designed for. But part of me thinks that it's silly you pay $350 for a headlamp that turns out to be pretty much unusable on a bike path.

We need more dangerous roads!

I ride to work everyday (despite the heat), I ride for sport and I ride with kids. And the only thing that can truly ruin my day is... cars. Or drivers, actually. So, no - it's not the weather (A little summer rain can be welcomed in this heatwave). It's not even about facing road rage of some idiots on road. It's just about having to physically "share" the road space.
 
Some say that bicycles are vehicles so it's fair to expect cyclists to follow the same rules other vehicles follow. In other words - bike-specific road space (such as bike lanes) is pointless because if all vehicles on road are equal, then why designate some of this space to bikes, if they are not special? Right?

"Share the road" - they say. And then they give you this...

 

 which is why I would rather have this (at very least).

This approach is called vehicular cycling and it's a sound concept - on paper. Unfortunately, our reality is not black and white and decades of road transportation all over the world proved that vehicular cycling just doesn't work.

At all.

Well, in fact, it sort of does - in just one situation. On those narrow, neighborhood streets, where car traffic is severely slowed down by design (speed bumps, chicanes, etc.), there's really no need for a separated bicycle infrastructure. If cars are tamed and move not faster than 20mph (and usually even slower than that), bicycles can easily share the road with them.

But that's an exception. Meanwhile, vehicular cycling proponents would like to apply their ideas to all roads because bicycles are vehicles so why make an exception? Technically, they are right. Bicycles are vehicles, but they are not cars and as such, applying the same rules and privileges to both makes little sense. And it makes drivers crazy. Because if the same rules apply to everyone, then why cyclists can't use the full lane whenever they want, but are expected to ride "in the gutter"? At least, that's what most drivers want them to do. If you don't believe me, try riding your bike in the middle of the lane next time. We'll see how quickly you'll hear complains from passing drivers.

So there you go. Because virtually 100% of drivers break law (Show me one who always obeys speed limits), we - cyclists, need protection. We need safer streets and separated infrastructure. We really don't want to share road with cars (And don't even get me started on trucks). So how do we design safe streets?

"Share the road"? Not with you, maniacs!

The more I think about it, the more examples I see, the more collisions (often deadly) I read about, the more I come to conclusion that the only right answer is this - make them be afraid.

Make drivers afraid of the only thing they truly care about and are afraid to ruin - their cars!

That's right. Idiot drivers don't care if they hit you, don't care if they damage your bike, don't care if they break your leg, often don't even care much if you end up dead.

But they are afraid of damaging their cars (How many times have you seen an angry driver threatening a cyclist not to touch his car?). So this is the only way it will work. When we  design safe streets we need to think like drivers. The right question to ask is not how to make streets safer for pedestrians or cyclists, but how to make it "unsafe" for drivers. This could include narrower lanes, trees close to the road, chicanes, tight turns, speed bumps, etc. Only then drivers will have to put down their cell phones and look at the road, look for other people, bicycles, cars. We need more roads like these - "dangerous" roads.
 
It's the only thing that will make them pay attention.

Wet vs. dry - the yin and yang of chain lubricants

There is nothing worse in riding a bike than a flat tire and a squeaky chain. I discussed going tubeless to avoid the former, now it's time to discuss the matter of lubrication to avoid the latter.

First of all, let's hope you're not putting canola oil on your chain but you use something better. By better, I don't mean imported Italian extra virgin olive oil. I mean the proper chain lubricant.

During the last few years I've been using two different lubricants - Chain-L and Dumonde Tech Original. Now some of you might still think that it doesn't really matter what chain lube you use. You would be mistaken.

I'm not being paid to review here anything. The products mentioned were purchased with my own money and all I do is to share my opinion.

To save you time and get to the point, let me say that these two lubricants are like fire and water - completely different. How different? See for yourself:

As you can see, these two are the yin and yang of bicycle chain lubricants. Dumonde Tech is the typical dry lube - designed to dry out quickly, leaving a dry film that does not attract much dust. As such, it's perfect for dry and dusty conditions. Unfortunately, it wears out relatively quickly and requires more frequent re-application. Fortunately, thanks to its low viscosity it can be applied in a short time and it will dry out almost immediately. Just don't try to use it on a rainy day as it gets flushed out by water too easily. In fact, it's good to re-apply it every time after your chain gets soaked.

In short, I can't imagine a more perfect lube for dry conditions, if only it lasted a bit longer and didn't smell so bad (use it outdoors, not in your kitchen!).

On the other hand, Chain-L is a wet lube, meaning it creates an oily, sticky film that will last long time and won't get rinsed off by rain. Unfortunately, it also means that it attract dust like crazy and after riding on a dry, dusty road your bike chain may look like a breadcrumb-encrusted fillet. Because it's more viscous, it also takes more time to apply as you have to wait for it to soak into chain links.

Overall, it's a really good lubricant for those wet, soggy conditions. Just make sure you wipe off any excess from outside of the chain links. This will minimize dust collection and reduce overall mess.

Now you may think that you will have to buy both and apply them whenever weather changes, but I don't think this would be necessary. In general, if you don't like too much mess and avoid riding in rain, use something like Dumonde Tech. But if you ride in any weather and don't want to re-apply lubricant often - go with a wet lube like Chain-L. Switching from one to another makes no sense (unless you swap chains) but if you want to, in general it's no problem to use a wet lube over a dry lube but not vice versa.

I use Chain-L on my all-weather commuter bike. This way I'm ready for any conditions. I just need to remember to clean the chain once a while to avoid dust collection. I use Dumonde Tech on my recreation/exploration bike since I ride it mostly in the summer and on unpaved dirt roads. When necessary, I re-apply the lubricant every time the chain gets wet.

Back to the humid reality

"I'll be back" - it's what I said. Here I am after a short disappearance when I spent quality time with my family in Northern California. And it turned out that early July that place was clearly the best place to be. When Boston was cooking at 100F (38C) and Los Angeles was getting crispy in a 115F (46C) heat wave, the coast north of San Francisco has barely seen 70F (21C) - in the afternoon. Because early morning we needed heating on in our house since it was only 54F (12C) outside.

Now you will understand if I say that I would clearly move there if I could...

Meanwhile, when I was gone, the town of Arlington went through a small transformation - the Lime Bikes arrived! This dockless bike share system turned out to be quite popular initially, but we'll see how popular it would be after one year.

I see these green bikes everywhere in our town, but unfortunately, sometimes they end up being a bit abused. I guess, because of their dockless design, you can picture these bikes being dumped in a ditch and that's happening already. Hopefully, such cases will remain infrequent.

I have high hopes for Lime Bike and I wouldn't want them to share the fate of dockless scooters - now undergoing regulations in San Francisco and other cities. They are seen as "dangerous" and "disruptive", even though (truly dangerous) dockless cars roam freely through our cities and occupy astounding amount of space:

Anyway, summer is here, which means weather is unpredictable and you never know if it's going to be sunny or rainy. The only predictable thing in Boston in July is humidity - it's always high, which makes me not want to ride my bike this week. On the other hand, at least we don't have problems with wild fires in New England. It's just too moist for that.

Meanwhile, Greece is on fire, Sweden is on fire, Southern California is bone dry and at high risk, Arctic is melting and generally the whole world is roasting. But no worries. Thanks to our brilliant administration who proclaimed global warming a hoax, things will get better very soon. We all will soon be riding dockless bikes on car-free streets!

"I am just going outside and may be some time"

The last and only time Oates said those words he didn't return. Don't worry - I'm coming back. I'm just taking a short break for family vacation. More updates soon.

Meanwhile, please make sure you're having fun on your bike.

School's out for summer

I've been busy at work during the last few weeks and I didn't even realize that school year is about to end. This is good. This means that my quiet residential street will remain quiet even around 8am, which is when hordes of drivers rush to work after dropping their kids off at nearby school.
 
In July, not only my street is quieter in the morning but also much safer. We have no sidewalks in our neighborhood (since sidewalks are so non-American), so we walk to school in the street, risking to be flattened by an inattentive driver. I mentioned here earlier that I would gladly see a state-wide rule that no private cars can enter a perimeter of 500ft radius around school, which means kids would actually have to walk to get there, but that's wishful thinking. It will never happen.

I would think that replacing private cars with school buses could solve the problem, but if bus drivers are like this one from New Jersey, I'm much less enthusiastic about the idea. The 77-year-old driver (who shouldn't be even driving in his age, especially not children), had 14 (!) license suspensions and multiple speeding tickets, which was discovered only after he crashed with a truck on NJ highway, killing a student and a teacher in the process. This brings so many questions out of which the most important one is - how come we allow anyone to have 14 license suspensions and still drive a car, not to mention a frigging school bus?!

NJ highway school bus crash. I'm surprised there were only two fatalities. (Source: News 4 NY)

The answer is simple - we designed the entire transportation system in this country around cars, basically shooting everyone who's unable to drive (elderly, kids, etc.) in the foot. As such, anyone who can't or shouldn't drive, would be unable to get to work and provide to his family, which normalizes driving with suspended license as a relatively "minor" violation.

It turns out that it might actually be easier to lose your license not by driving like a maniac, but by simply not paying traffic tickets.

The only way to turn this around is to provide an efficient alternative to driving, predominantly in form of public transport - both short (street cars, buses) and long-distance (commuter rail, high-speed trains). Examples from other countries shows that it's still the best solution. Unfortunately, many Americans can't grasp this concept because they never had a chance to experience it. People who take MBTA trains every morning here in Boston think probably that inefficiency is inherent to public transportation and major delays must be  naturally occurring everywhere in the world.

S-Bahn (commuter rail) connects suburbs with Berlin Mitte (center).

But it doesn't need to be that way. For me, spending two years in Berlin was eye-opening - bus schedules at every stop, electronic displays showing time to next train at every station, dense network of connections from, to and within the city. Then, there were also bicycles, serving short distances well. All that meant I never really needed a car living there and that's because Germans know that there are better ways of getting around town than by car. 

Coming to Boston was quite a shock...

But some of you may say - why invest in expensive public transport that's so XX-century, when soon a XXI-century solution will arrive - the driverless cars! Unfortunately, I have bad news for you. Autonomous vehicles won't be here for quite a while and until then, XX-century public transport combined with XIX-century two-wheeled invention are still our best options.

Still the best way to move around city...

Bicycles for the unpaved - the "third way"?

Warning: This post contains a large amount of technical information, which means it can be digested only by real bike tech nerds.

I remember my teenage years in mid 90's when world of bicycles was very black and white. On one side we had mountain bikes with their slacker (at that time) head tube angles of 67-71 deg and on the other - road bikes with head tube angles of 73-74 deg and a classic "square" road bike geometry.

But with the arrival of gravel and adventure bikes and many more wheel and tire options, this bipolar world got a lot more complicated. Now it seems that should we be interested in riding on unpaved roads, the bicycle industry offers mainly two types of drop bar bicycles.

One is a gravel bike that is essentially a modification of a road or cyclocross bicycle with 71-72 deg head tube angle and more clearance for fatter tires. These very sporty bikes are typically chosen by folks interested in racing in events such as Trans Iowa or Dirty Kanza.

The other type comes from the old 50's French school of cycling and is embraced more by the adventurous people who are interested in randonneuring and touring. They firmly believe that a steep head tube angle of 73 deg combined with lots of fork rake, which results in low-trail geometry is superior to anything else.

But all this made me wonder - is there a third way? Can a bicycle be designed differently than either an agile gravel rig or a low-trail two-wheeler and still remain comfortable and stable over rough terrain?

This third way approach has been embraced by many small American custom frame builders. One of them, 44 Bikes, ran by Kris Henry, is located nearby in New Hampshire. Since my new bike came directly from his shop, I will use it as an example to describe what this third design option is.

If modern gravel bikes are still racing road bikes and modern low-trail bikes are in fact retro road bikes, my 44 Huntsman is somewhat a "mountain road bike". It borrows heavily from MTB world when it's required. This bike has a very slack head tube angle (By road bike standards!) of 70 deg, which combined with 45mm fork rake results in a high trail geometry and puts it almost in MTB category. Similarly, stem remains short at 80mm to keep steering more responsive. To compensate, top tube is slightly lengthened, in order to maintain proper distance between handlebars and saddle.

The rear triangle is perhaps more traditional, but still MTB-like with lower seat tube for increased standover and short-ish chainstays of 435mm. These allow for quicker turning without the long, "waggy" tail feeling but still provide ample clearance for 2.25" tires.

So is it maybe a mountain bike dressed up as a road bike? Well, not exactly. It's a pretty clever mix of both. Borrowing from it's road bike heritage, Huntsman has a larger bottom bracket drop of 70mm, meaning more stability and lower center of gravity. Also, bottom bracket shell is 68mm wide - another road standard.

This thing rolls on 650B (or 27.5") wheels and 2.20" tires. It's a good compromise between wheel diameter, weight and required space in frame and fork for fatter tires. As an added benefit, the wheel diameter is exactly the same as 700C wheels with 35-38mm tires, which means that theoretically I could swap my current wheels with more road-like ones in a few seconds, should I plan to ride on pavement only.

In terms of comfort and handling I have no complains. Thanks to lots of trail and wide tires it feels very stable over rough terrain. Because it handles a bit like a mountain bike, my Huntsman needs more steering input to guide front wheel. That's a good thing. The last thing you want on rough downhill at high speed is a floppy front wheel. This is also where the 46cm wide Salsa Cowchipper bars come handy.

As you can probably tell by now, the whole thing was designed more for comfort than speed. This is why the head tube is tall enough to place handlebars higher than on a regular road or cyclocross bike. With frame stack of 605mm I can keep my back a bit more upright and don't have to look at the front wheel all the time. And thanks to the slack head tube angle I can avoid annoying toe overlap even with very wide tires (and fenders) - something that many cyclocross and gravel bikes may struggle with.

There are also some minor details I'd like to mention, since many of them are non-standard in mass-produced bikes. The frame has provisions for 3 bottle cages but I requested the one on seat tube to be placed as low as possible. This is to make as much space under the top tube as possible, should I use a half frame bag at some point in the future.

There are full fender mounts on frame and fork but the one on seat stays has the screw hole aligned towards the wheel axle. Similarly, there is a hidden threaded hole under the fork crown. All this means that fenders can be bolted directly to the frame and fork without using any L-shaped brackets.

The fork comes with "everything but the kitchen sink" as Kris called it once. There are fender mounts, rack mounts, internal and external dynamo wiring guides.

I won't get into details about my component choices here, but one thing worth mentioning is the drivetrain. I debated whether I should build it as 1x11 speed, but ultimately decided to go 2x11 simply because it was cheaper (I could reuse a lot of parts from my old bike). As such, I'm running a wild mix of components: Shimano 105 (5800-series) shifters and rear derailleur, SRAM 11-32T cassette, Sugino OX601D crankset with 42/26T chainrings and Shimano Metrea front derailleur. You may scratch your head asking - "why?", but it's actually quite simple:

• I wanted to use Shimano STI shifters, not SRAM.
• I wanted to use 2x11 system with low gears that would work well with those shifters.
• Sugino crankset lets me run chainring combo I find most useful: 44/28T, 42/26T or anything similar.
• Metrea is the only front derailleur that works with 11-speed Shimano shifters and is designed for smaller size chainrings (that is, much smaller than 50T - the road "Compact").

It was fun putting it all together, although, certainly the most challenging part was... avoiding black color. Maybe that sounded a bit weird, but I simply had this particular color scheme on mind - rusted-looking frame and fork with most components in polished silver. The problem is - many modern components come only in black or dark grey. Those classic, high-polished parts are now quite rare and while I could find brakes, seatpost or stem in this finish, handlebars, cranks or derailleurs were pretty difficult to get. This is the reason why I had the handlebars powder-coated to match frame (Cowchipper bars are only available in black) and I ended up customizing many components by hand-polishing them: crank arms, brake adapters, derailleur cage and light mount - all of which weren't available in the finish I wanted.

Finally, to be completely honest, this bike is not without flaws. Well, maybe not flaws, but some minor drawbacks. First of all, it's noisy on pavement, which is clearly due to MTB tread pattern on Maxxis tires. And speaking about tires, I noticed that they pick up all dirt from road with ease and my bike ends up being sprayed with mud every time I ride (fenders, anyone?).

It's also not exactly lightweight. It carries lots of extras that many "regular" bikes lack - rack, basket, dynamo hub, lights, etc. With all that added junk my Huntsman reaches 12.7kg (28lbs) but if you want to compare it with other, similar bikes you would need to remove all these parts. Then you get a more manageable 11.6kg (25.5lbs), which is about the same as Salsa Fargo or Journeyman. These "issues" don't bother me much since it was never my intention to make this bike a fast, racing machine.

Unfortunately, if you want a bicycle designed and built this way, you would need to go custom and rely on small frame builders (Such as 44 Bikes from NH, Matter Cycles from CO or Sklar Bikes from MT). So far, none of the large bike manufacturers has embraced this design concept. Maybe they will. Soon?