Solteks vs PHIDs

[LDRydr]

None of this leaky reflectors of the Solteks

A quick email to [email protected] got me new o-rings to fix the leak problem, no charge. Pretty funny actually, two skinny little 4" o-rings in a baggie, put in a 5"x5"x5" shipping box filled with peanuts, shipped UPS. They could have put them in an envelope, but I guess the shipping department does what they're supposed to do.

 

[vectervp1]

Blah....blah.....blah..............
Da proof is in da pudding!

So how does the brightness and beam pattern compare to the Solteks, and PHIDs?

Which is exactly my original question. Iggy's photo tells the story. Zowie!!

It tells part of the story actually. Your seeing how bright the lights are, but if the beam pattern is too wide or too narrow, its may not be what your looking for. For example, if the beam is too wide, you may be able to light things up that are 90 degrees to your bike, but you won't be able to light something up 500 feet down the road. At the same time if the beam pattern is too narrow, you may be able to light up bambi on the road a full mile out, but you won't see jack squat on the sides of the road. From what I understand, the Soltek's do a good job overall, but have a bias to being a more narrow beam than some other lights.

What has kept me from buying them is the 2.5lbs each that would be hanging off of tabs designed to hold up 8oz mirrors.

 

[Warchild]

What has kept me from buying them is the 2.5lbs each that would be hanging off of tabs designed to hold up 8oz mirrors.

The "movement" that some Soltek owners have commented on when encountering rough roads, etc, is not the Skyway bracket jiggling about, as the Skyway bracket is a stout piece of kit.

Rather, it is the sub-frame itself that is flexing underneath. Which is a bit disconcerting.

The 'moment arm' effect created by the distance between the mirror mount points and the mount point of the 2.5lb weight is apparently significant. I want to suspect that this should still be okay as long as you are riding relatively smooth roads. But I am thinking it would likely be problematic to take this configuration down the Haul Road to Prudhoe Bay. :blink:

 

[Ignacio]

an ultra-small projector whose only significane drawback is that it is a unit with a conventional ballast on a relatively short leash . . . had 'em on the old Concours and unless the announcement is for something absolutely amazng, I'l have a set of them on the FJR when riding season comes along.

The other drawback of an "ultra-small" projector is that no matter how good the Hellas are in efficiency...they don't hold a candle to the Solteks for usable light cast down the road....or the FF200 for that matter. Those 6" and 5" wide reflectors are aerodynamic barn doors, but having compared these two to DE's...not even close.

The Solteks, hands down, produce the most usable photons down the road...like 1/2 mile....at Bambi.

 

[jwhite518]

The 'moment arm' effect created by the distance between the mirror mount points and the mount point of the 2.5lb weight is apparently significant. I want to suspect that this should still be okay as long as you are riding relatively smooth roads. But I am thinking it would likely be problematic to take this configuration down the Haul Road to Prudhoe Bay. :blink:

Which seems a bit odd, since Baja Designs markets the Fuego as an offroad light.

 

[ngarider]

clearly, what we need are lighter, brighter lights!

 

[Warchild]

The 'moment arm' effect created by the distance between the mirror mount points and the mount point of the 2.5lb weight is apparently significant. I want to suspect that this should still be okay as long as you are riding relatively smooth roads. But I am thinking it would likely be problematic to take this configuration down the Haul Road to Prudhoe Bay. :blink:

Which seems a bit odd, since Baja Designs markets the Fuego as an offroad light.

Well, in Baja's defense, these lamps are designed for trucks and the handlebars of an ATV... which results in no moment arm effect, compared to what we have when using them for a motorcycle application.....

 

[brazos parker]

Rather, it is the sub-frame itself that is flexing underneath. Which is a bit disconcerting.

Yikes! Does that mean the sub-frame needs to be inspected for cracks periodically?

 

[vectervp1]

Rather, it is the sub-frame itself that is flexing underneath. Which is a bit disconcerting.

Yikes! Does that mean the sub-frame needs to be inspected for cracks periodically?

If it was me, I'd be checking it out prior to every LD ride I took these on.

Of course if it was me, I would only have these beasts mounted when I was setting out on an LD ride, and would do without when I wasn't to help keep the stress off the subframe as much as possible. I may still go with the Soltek's and do this. It means I have to spend an extra 15 minutes mounting and aiming the lights before heading out on a long ride, but in the grand scheme of things, that's not too bad I suppose.

 

[dcarver]

What has kept me from buying them is the 2.5lbs each that would be hanging off of tabs designed to hold up Oz mirrors.

The "movement" that some Solute owners have commented on when encountering rough roads, etc, is not the Skyway bracket jiggling about, as the Skyway bracket is a stout piece of kit.

Rather, it is the sub-frame itself that is flexing underneath. Which is a bit disconcerting.

The 'moment arm' effect created by the distance between the mirror mount points and the mount point of the 2.5lb weight is apparently significant. I want to suspect that this should still be okay as long as you are riding relatively smooth roads. But I am thinking it would likely be problematic to take this configuration down the Haul Road to Prudhoe Bay. :blink:

Guess I'm the Guinea pig for this test. I ride 42 miles of pot holed dirt every week, at speed, and have no intentions of removing the Solteks. If the sub frame can handle my dirt road over a period of time I wouldn't worry.

I don't have enough dirt time yet to make the call but will keep ya'll posted.

 

[Joe2Lmaker]

Rather, it is the sub-frame itself that is flexing underneath.

Somebody figure out a way to brace the front cowling stay? A big U shaped stamping that comes up from underneath and boxes the right and left mirror mounting points together?

A week to 9 days left?

How about one clue each day for the next eight days?

 

[madmike2]

Rather, it is the sub-frame itself that is flexing underneath.

Somebody figure out a way to brace the front cowling stay?

You could probably build a brace in 2 pieces, flanged where it would go "through" the bodywork under the headlamps. Its hard to describe my idea, but similar to having a flanged joint on an automobile roll cage rather than punching a hole through the firewall.

Using this method you would have a center piece coming forward and down from the center of the cowling stay (placing it close enough to the bolt points to use their strength). You could then drill a hole through the lower front cowling {Part 24 #5JW-28351-01-P4 BODY, COWLING DPBML - Color Info (DPBMLARK PURPLISH BLUE METALLIC L:0865) for mjy '05} or use the "flange coupler" i mentioned and bend the tube up and between the headlamps to meet a piece that is boxing the two laux. lamp mounts.

It'd be an ugly piece...resembling a "cow catcher" or "Moose Guard" the Canadian truckers use. Talk about making the FJR look "industrial"!

Maybe a purpose made bracket that uses the front motormount bolts as an attachment point. Similar the the light brackets they make for the Connie, only a bit "higher". But even this idea would probably require some "plastic surgery".

I'm just thinking outside the box....

 

[Toecutter]

I'm just thinking outside the box....

Time to get back in, Michael....

 

[madmike2]

It'd be closer andperhaps stronger to to forward and "up", above the headlamps, but I think there is electronic bracketry there, and space is very limited.

 

[dcarver]

Aren't you all solving a problem that doesn't exist yet?

I am not convinced it's the inner bracket that's bending.

 

[madmike2]

Aren't you all solving a problem that doesn't exist yet? I am not convinced it's the inner bracket that's bending.

The fork headstock? More likely the "stay" (That's what Yamaha calls the fairing sub-frame) flexing outboard, where the mirrors bolt on.

I'm betting that if there is flex at that point, you can't tell in your mirrors because of the total vibration/oscillation of the entire bike. A rider might be able to tell on a road where there are small "jolts" because the movement by be telegraphed up the forks and you'd see themirrors move as the entire assembly flexed. Maybe. Perhaps. If it happens at all.

 

[Joe2Lmaker]

Aren't you all solving a problem that doesn't exist yet? I am not convinced it's the inner bracket that's bending.

The fork headstock? More likely the "stay" (That's what Yamaha calls the fairing sub-frame) flexing outboard, where the mirrors bolt on.

I'm betting that if there is flex at that point, you can't tell in your mirrors because of the total vibration/oscillation of the entire bike. A rider might be able to tell on a road where there are small "jolts" because the movement by be telegraphed up the forks and you'd see themirrors move as the entire assembly flexed. Maybe. Perhaps. If it happens at all.

Whatever it's called, inner bracket, front cowling stay 1 (part number 3P6-28356-00-00 for the '06), fairing sub-frame...

If the light brackets are rigid and the lights are moving, that's gotta be the piece that's flexing.

Are we down to a week to 8 days until the big mystery is revealed?

Warchild, do we get another clue today? huh? do we? huh? Puh-leee-ase!

 

[motorgod]

I'd rather go with these:

as opposed to the Solteks.

Buy them here Trail Tech

 

[LDRydr]

I'd rather go with these: as opposed to the Solteks.Buy them here Trail Tech

Time for another shootout? You have to see (ride behind) the Soltek's to realize just how much light they put out. Spend an hour or two at speed, in the middle of freekin' nowheresville Nevada, Utah or Colorado, then decide. I'm keeping my Soltek's, if something breaks I'll fix it.

 

[dcarver]

Aren't you all solving a problem that doesn't exist yet? I am not convinced it's the inner bracket that's bending.

The fork headstock? More likely the "stay" (That's what Yamaha calls the fairing sub-frame) flexing outboard, where the mirrors bolt on.

I'm betting that if there is flex at that point, you can't tell in your mirrors because of the total vibration/oscillation of the entire bike. A rider might be able to tell on a road where there are small "jolts" because the movement by be telegraphed up the forks and you'd see themirrors move as the entire assembly flexed. Maybe. Perhaps. If it happens at all.

Whatever it's called, inner bracket, front cowling stay 1 (part number 3P6-28356-00-00 for the '06), fairing sub-frame...

If the light brackets are rigid and the lights are moving, that's gotta be the piece that's flexing.

Are we down to a week to 8 days until the big mystery is revealed?

Warchild, do we get another clue today? huh? do we? huh? Puh-leee-ase!

I actually can hold that bracket in my hand, I have a spare.

I'll take a hard look at it this weekend, maybe put it in the vice, hang some static weight from it. Then dynamically test it by tying rope on the bracket and 2 or 3 pounds on the other rope end then drop the weight to see what bends. I'll photograph with 150mm high speed film, digitialized and sychronized to a nuclear clock to ensure accuracy, repeatability, adequate senstivity, and,maximum resolution and, of course, ensure all random errors are held to the minimum.

Or.. I'l just see if the freaking weld and/or base material breaks. Ain't science grand?