Re: Battery replacement cost, another reason to prefer Cateye LD1100 over LD270
- From: Andre Jute <fiultra1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 29, 2:17 am, Nick L Plate <tj-j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Mar, 01:58, Andre Jute <fiult...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Cateye TL-LD1100 rear light takes 2x AA batteries which cost
possibly two bucks for ten or a dozen and last 120 hours on flash -- I
used to replace them once a month just to be certain and then once
every two months and more recently was waiting for rechargeables to
run out but lost track of usage at about 60 hours with the lamp still
strong. In any event, battery usage is hardy a consideration in owning
the lamp. The initial price is, though; it is listed at 57 Euro, which
is pricey but in my opinion worth it; discounters sell it in the
middle thirties.
As I've reported before, after my LD1100 got trashed in the
supermarket parking lot by a fat cow with her car door, I started
using the TL-LD270 which came in the pack with my HL-EL320 front
flasher. The LD270 is a satisfactory rear light; if I didn't know
about the 1100 I would probably give it full marks, and even against
the 1100 it gets 4 out of 5, considering only light output and
visibility, both of which are better than the specs would seem to
indicate. The 270 costs only 20 Euro or so, less at the discounters.
But the price advantage of the 270 falls down flat, disastrously, when
one has to fit new batteries. It was, stupidly, designed to take Size
N batteries.
As we have seen, using rechargeable batteries in my 1100 is
essentially a costless procedure. How do you allocate a per hour
charge to a pair of batteries that cost say 2 Euro 50 cents, last for
120 hours per charge, and can be recharged 500-1000 times? Add
something for mains electricity for recharging? Depreciate the capital
cost of the fifteen buck battery charger? Calculate a global
environmental cost for disposing of the dead batteries and add a
"Kyoto loading" of a trillion or two? The whole affair has enough
zeroes after the decimal point to make my head hurt.
Cateye's TL-LD1100 taillight is therefore essentially costless to run,
after you've made the capital investment of lamp, rechargeable
batteries and charger.
But the two N type batteries (not even rechargeable) in the 270 cost 5
Euro between them at the supermarket and last 60 hours. At two hours
of use per day, just the difference between a brilliant battery
specification for the 1100 and a stupid stupid stupid battery
specification for the 270 will pay for a new 1100 at the discounters
in six or seven months.
Or, to put it another way: After six months of use, the exceptionally
competent but initially expensive 1100 will be a cheaper rear light
than the cheap and cheerful 270.
Ouch! Only the desperately short of funds should buy Cateye's TL-
LD270. And then only until they can afford a TL-LD1100, at which point
it would be cost-effective to throw out the LD270. You can't even do
some poor cyclist a favour by giving the 270 to him -- it'll keep him
poor forever paying for those Size N batteries.
Andre Jute
A simple lesson in comparative economics. Wonderful thing, education.
So the fat cow paid for the broken lamp up front, did she?
Or have you not weighed in the probability of having the lamp broken/
stolen/malfunction ?
It's not so simple if you have no idea of the risk. Why not start
adding up the time you're saving by not having to recharge batteries?
The cost of common dry cell batteries is so low that unless you are
using rechargables with a low self drain, then overall you would be at
a disadvantage.
TJ
You're making this unnecessarily complicated, Trevor. I stuck
uncontroversially to costs no one could deny. But if we start
buggering around with opportunity costs ("the time you're saving by
not having to recharge batteries") we open ourselves to subjective
judgements of what people's time is worth.
I think it is enough to say that with either disposable or
rechargeable batteries the 1100 is an almost costless lamp to run
because AA batteries were chosen -- and the 270 is an expensive lamp
to run because Size N batteries were chosen.
In any event, since I have long since standardized on AA batteries, I
have about thirty in use at any one time and the ones for recharging
just pile up in the hook of my desk until there are 16, when I
recharge them all at once. It takes less than a twenty seconds to fit
them in the charger, and less than five seconds to remove them (hold
upside down over battery tub, shake). Two extra batteries every few
months make no difference one way or the other.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: No black cars in California, was Re: MS in Creationism
- Next by Date: Re: Battery replacement cost, another reason to prefer Cateye LD1100 over LD270
- Previous by thread: Re: Battery replacement cost, another reason to prefer Cateye LD1100 over LD270
- Next by thread: Re: Battery replacement cost, another reason to prefer Cateye LD1100 over LD270
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
