Lights: what's the running cost

I've always ridden with my lights on. I reckon it might help but you
never know.

In terms of petrol consumption what is the difference with or with
out?

and also on lights.... why do so few people use indicators? I think it
does not hurt to tell those around me what my plans are.

Whether they believe me is another matter.

In this part of the world, East Cent Scotland, they are either never
used or as a last thought just after a manoeuvre is initiated..

Aj

 

Too small to measure in real world conditions

Many drivers just use indicators as an alternative to looking.

 

The power consumption is marked on each bulb. I'd guess it was
insignificant relative to all the other things that consume petrol:
speeding, hard acceleration, lack of maintenance, luggage, unaerodynamic
clothing and generally riding like a ****. So much so, in fact, that some
bike manufacturers reckon they can get away with deleting the off switch.

You're on a bike. You could have a naked Nordic nubile on the pillion,
indicating with her norks, and you'd still be invisible. So why bother?

It's Porridgestan. They're all too drunk.

 

"used or as a last thought "

It's <pauses to check appostrophie use> the
same everywhere I have been in the UK.

I do not use indicators in general for lane changes
on motorways for example since I found (decades ago)
when I first started driving that from time to time
a following driver would cut me off when they saw the
indicator. I do not extend this to turning right
at traffic lights or anywhere else where the traffic
behind has to do anything or might reasonably
benefit from such a signal.

I think of them considering the the box on the
insurance form "Did you indicate" and indicating
at the last moment such that after the collision the
broken bulb can be forensically examined to show
that they were indeed indicating.

is to start to turn the wheel and, as the
indicator stalk is just about to pass out of reach
of the quarter-to-three hand, to flick on the indicator.
This is consistent with your observation.
I have never bothered to ask what was in anyones
head at the moment that the useless turn signal
came to life.

My method is of course not convenient for filtering
motorcyclists on the motorway but there were none
then where I was living.

 

Having a play in the car with some ecu data logging stuff, turning
lights on made no difference in the l/hr consumption rate.

I really wouldn't worry about it. Technically, the power will have to
be generated, but it's so little as to be negligable.

 

You will consume more, how much I can't be arsed to calculate.

Drivers? Isn't it obvious what they are going to do next?

Riders? We are invisible, why complicate matters further for the
drivers? And besides it costs petrol to use them.

 

Technically, negligible. Unless you also e.g. mainatain tyre pressures
within 1 psi of the most economical level, in addition to all the other
fuel saving parameters.

An other way of looking at it; on your bike about half the cost of when
running a car, but with a significantly better (five- ten- or
whatever-fold reduced risk) safety benefit.

 

70W is roughly 1/10th of a hp. Suppose there is an inefficiency of 50% in
generating electricity. That makes an (awesome) 0.2hp spent in lighting. If
the bike uses an average of 50hp, you spend 0.4% of the bike energy in
lighting. If you spend, say, 7 euros of fuel evey 100kms, that makes some 3
cents.

So, who cares?

 

So true... though I have never tried this particular setup myself.

 

Neither have I. But it's on the list.

 

When I indicate, I already own the space I'm going into. The message
conveyed by the indicator is, emphatically, not "Oh, I'm thinking of
changing lanes, if that's all right with you. No? Oh, well, maybe later."

The message is "Here is the news."

You seem to be saying that you've spent decades driving around without
learning anything.

 

Hankjam brought next idea :

Find out the Kilowatt output of your engine, then work out the total
consumption (wattage) of your lights when turned on. Later will be
something like 2x 65w + 2x 6w + 20w for panel lights etc. So call it
162 watts or 0.162 Kw extra load - an insignificant extra load for most
engines. Of course your engine does not run at its maximum Kw output
all of the time - you probably ride most of the time at less than 1/3
of its maximum power.

Simple laziness?

 

Is that like chatting up a member of the opposite sex?

 

I think I'll order one straight away, I might regret not having one.

Heh, after visiting darn sarf for a couple of days, I'm pretty sure
there are a lot more pissed drivers down here.

 

Sucking his keyboard for inspiration, Pip Luscher typed:

Or the same. This is 2007, you know.

 

Sorry mate, but that makes you a bit of a ****, imo. The whole driving
experience on motorways depends to a large extent on people behaving
sensibly and reasonably safely, including indicating where necessary
(which is pretty much always).
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

Teach a man to fish and he and his pikey mates will have the
river cleaned out in a day.

 

God, how the centuries fly.

 

I've always ridden with my lights on. I reckon it might help but you

i don't think this is true - the only way (i can think) you could possibly
use more petrol by having the lights on is if it creates an extra load on
the engine making it more difficult for the engine to turn (as for example
a belt-driven air conditioning compressor on a car does when it is
engaged).... unless you count the effect of the reverse thrust of the light
beam generated (!)
on a bike with stator/ flywheel setup to recharge the battery, i would have
thought a fixed load to the engine is created by the magnets on the flywheel
regardless of how or whether the generated power is utilised - often any
unused power generated will just be shunted to earth by the regulator as
heat when the lights are off anyway
might be wrong, i was once before
cheers,
andy

 

Of course it fucking is true. Do you honestly think that electricity is
an energy free by-product of the heat making process? The alternator is
spinning all the time the engine runs, this is all the time and friction
costs money. Additionally when you ask the alternator for energy in the
form of electricity you have to put some extra mechanical energy into it
this costs fuel. A vanishingly small amount as others have mentioned
but not free.

You still are.

 

Apart from the power consumed by the lights and battery charging,
IWHTthat the bulk of the energy lost by the relative movement of pole
pieces or magets is going to be stray eddy currents - the energy lost
overcoming the pull of the magnets as the poles move away from a
magnet will be recovered (more-or-less) when the magnet start
attracting the next pole piece in turn. The only other way I can think
of energy loss is hysteresis in the iron pole-pieces. No idea how much
that would be.

The regulator may or may not shunt energy, depending on how it works.

It could be: series resistance; shunt resistance, both, or in the case
of an XS750, neither - they don't have permanent magnets. The
regulator adjusts the output by adjusting the stator current instead.