Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Night vision goggles?

7K views 37 replies 20 participants last post by  abelfonseca 
#1 ·
Anyone ever tried biking with night vision goggles as a substitute to lights?
 
#7 ·
Might be viable in 20 years...maybe. Right now they're not ergonomic/comfortable and say goodbye to depth perception. And if someone goes by you with a HID light, you'd be completely blinded and unhappy as the goggles become one with your face and the nearest tree.

I don't think these will ever replace or even compete with lights.
 
#9 ·
Locoman said:
Might be viable in 20 years...maybe. Right now they're not ergonomic/comfortable and say goodbye to depth perception. And if someone goes by you with a HID light, you'd be completely blinded and unhappy as the goggles become one with your face and the nearest tree.

I don't think these will ever replace or even compete with lights.
I realise that it probably isn't the best option, and I'm not planning on trying it. It was more of a "would that work?" type of question. I didn't realise they had depth perception issues, and that pretty much makes them worthless for sports.

Thanks for all the replies :D
 
#10 ·
Most night vision goggles operate by magnifying ambient light, sometimes you'll hear them referred to as 'starlight scopes'. They do work remarkably well on the darkest of nights and the deepest of woods. When you see the grainy green night vision shots from Iraq, that's the technology. Problems with peripheral vision exist, as well as some issues with depth perception. On foot, not a real problem. Not a problem on a nice smooth bike path or road, but moving quickly on even slightly technical singletrack would be difficult. Thermal imaging is another type of night vision but not very portable or at all useful for biking. Depth perception/figure ground distinctions are problematic. Very useful for finding the bad guys (or even where they've been AFTER they've picked up and moved on). The heat signatures thermal imaging can pick up are amazing! So long story short: night vision not a good idea except perhaps on a nice broad city bike path. And as another poster mentioned - who wants to crash with that strapped to their face?
 
#11 ·
Stregone said:
You won't be blinded(well maybe your night vision will be shot for a little bit), but it could screw up the goggles.
Correct, they all have cutoff circuitry so they'll turn off when exposed to bright light. Unless you have fairly high end or military spec equipment a HID light coming your way will likely actually ruin your crappy Bushnell device. But it won't blind you, even for a little bit...
 
#13 ·
ya, there could be problems with vision, but anyway, i am an amature photographer and i was thinking about thrying them out because some come with adapters for SLR's. anyway, if you cant tell by me name, i like radios and im into homebrewing (building my own stuff). on the net there are schematics (Plans) for thermal imaging gogles W/ red dot BTW that claim all parts needed cost about 150 bucks, forgot where it was but just incase anyone wanted a cheaper way to try these out. ill probably end up testing them on a fire road or something, wish me luck when i get em, lol in like 5 years.

BTW the plans are kinda complicated, but just wanted to let u know
 
#15 ·
Stregone said:
You won't be blinded(well maybe your night vision will be shot for a little bit), but it could screw up the goggles.
American goggles would go Bzzzzzzt and burn out and need major repairs. Russian goggles would go click, and turn themselves off, and all you need to do is push the reset button on the thing. They're also a lot more durable and can run on commercially available batteries available the world over.
 
#16 ·
WOW ---- DeeEight...

you sure are one knowledgeable guy --even when it comes to US military equipment!

CPT Jack Shapiro
(Leaving for Iraq on SUNDAY!)

DeeEight said:
American goggles would go Bzzzzzzt and burn out and need major repairs. Russian goggles would go click, and turn themselves off, and all you need to do is push the reset button on the thing. They're also a lot more durable and can run on commercially available batteries available the world over.
 
#17 ·
Yeah Right

DeeEight said:
American goggles would go Bzzzzzzt and burn out and need major repairs. Russian goggles would go click, and turn themselves off, and all you need to do is push the reset button on the thing. They're also a lot more durable and can run on commercially available batteries available the world over.
I know there is a certain 'kewl' factor with Soviet era military equipment, but this statement is just stupid. FWIW, I almost got to come home from my 3 country tour (Gulf War) with a Afghanistan era Soviet night vision rifle scope. Think it was a NSPU - 3. Uncle Sam considered it contraband. Probably in some Colonel's office right now...
 
#18 · (Edited)
Its not a cool factor, its a design factor. Soviet gear was designed for use by undereducated, conscripted soldiers who didn't have time to muck around with specialized replacement parts or gear that wouldn't work in wide temperature extremes or be subjected to a lot of abuse. Thus they were designed to take standard AA size batteries for example, instead of a more unique battery like the american designs.

American gear (of the soviet era) was designed for use by soldiers with a lot higher basic education, who had the logistics support to allow for more specialized replacement parts, and they weren't being designed for some of the extreme conditions the soviets needed, JUST for within their own country. The US nightvision gear tended to gather the light better and have cleaner optics but were a lot more sensitive to sudden bright lights shined into the optics. And its not just night vision equipment where you see this, but in other gear too, which is why the kalishnakov designs are such a more widespread and popular assault rifle than the stoner designs are (but that's what happens when you compare a gun designed by a war experienced sergeant without an engineering degree, compared to a someone with an engineering degree but no war experience). Soviet gear also used to get more extensive testing and development so when it entered service would have fewer bugs/glitches cropping up among the troops.

Of course now the US gear has caught up on the reliability somewhat, and is tested better, but its still not always designed for the same extremes of reliability/operating conditions. Because while Eugene Stoner's designs skills were seen as amazing considering that his most famous rifle evolved into M16/M4 family, he designed it to use a gas-action mechanism around a western ammo that would lead to some glaring defects (like gas fouling of the mechanism due to the type of powder used in the cartridges) in the field. This is partly to blame on the ammo the US government had originally ordered (Stoner had specified a different type of powder be used) but it also is equally to blame on his gas-action design for the gun mechanism being rather intolerant of gas fouling.
 
#19 ·
DeeEight said:
Its not a cool factor, its a design factor. Soviet gear was designed for use by undereducated, conscripted soldiers who didn't have time to muck around with specialized replacement parts or gear that wouldn't work in wide temperature extremes or be subjected to a lot of abuse. Thus they were designed to take standard AA size batteries for example, instead of a more unique battery like the american designs.
<snipped rest>

To clarify, my statement had nothing to do with batteries, or relative merits of Soviet NVGs. I was refuting your absolute statement that an American made NVG would go "bzzzzzt" and need major repairs, while a Soviet one wouldn't. I'm well aware of the differences between Soviet and U.S. (and German and Israeli and U.K. and so on and so forth) equipment - from BDUs to APCs, MBTs, small arms, and even Aircraft. Bit of an occupational requirement for awhile... Don't know much about seaworthy craft though. :( Just didn't want someone to be misled they needed to go to redsoldier.com to buy night vision equipment lest they be stuck with useless Amerikan crap ;)
 
#21 ·
Even 10 years ago (I was in the service then), I had no issues with depth perception with them. They also used AA batteries (The US nvg's), dunno what D8 is talking about with that one...

Here's the thing about any Augmented imaging device (3d glasses, NVG's, etc..):

It's all about you. No one else, but you (well, and your parents for providing your genes). I cannot see 3D, but I have depth perception with NVG's.. figure that one out :confused:

I wonder if it has to deal with the perception of depth when playing games.. technically, there is no real depth on a monitor, just the illusion of depth. However, you subconciously imitate it when moving through the enviroment.. perhaps my brain just applied what it had been taught (through gaming on monitors) with the NVG's? Would seem like the same principle. But of course, I'm not a doctor or anything, so I have no clue.
 
#24 ·
It depends on your enviroment. Me personally? I wouldn't use them on a singletrack at all. On something a bit more open? Sure, I'd give it a go.

I suspect your biggest factor in using them is going to be the loss of periphreal vision more than anything. Chef is also right, they are a bit heavy-ish if you're not used to them.

There is always the 14/30 day return policy, right?

edit #4: If NVG's are not suitable for you, try using a light with a red filter in it. It will help illuminate your surroundings, but isn't as bright, nor does it ruin your night vision (pun intended :p)
 
#23 ·
For depth perception you need multiple tubes per eye. We curently use nvg's that use 2 tubes per eye that gives 95% more fov and much better depth perception, however they are quite large and cumbersome. Think of it as 4 an/pvs 14 stuck together at different angles.
 
#26 ·
From experiments I've done with cameras, you'll want a 130 degree horizontal FOV, and 80 degree vertical FOV, this should give you proper periphreal vision. There are university studies using "insect lenses" on cameras to increase the FOV on cameras, perhaps this will give a leap forward.

10-15 years and we should see something come out that will give better optics is my guess.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top