New Front Light suggestions

[warthog1]

From another similar thread.

stvzo
German bicycle lighting standard written by non-cyclists designed to force cyclists to subject themselves to increased danger by requiring the use of sub-optimal bicycle lighting systems.
"Dude, your lights suck, no one can see you coming and you just ran into a low hanging tree branch."
"Sorry, I have decided to comply with the StVZO standard which is much more important than seeing or being seen."
"Dude, dump the StVZO lights and buy a good light."
"Never, the German way is the only way."
by sms88 October 22, 2013


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stvzo

I think the point is that unshaped beams are a PITA for people going the other way and make life more dangerous due to the glare they expose others to and the corresponding poor vision for a period of time.
The saferide 80 avoids that by shaping it's beam effectively. It is a bloody good light. They don't make it any more however
Not all StVZO lights suck.

[MattyK]

bike24 still has some stock...

[Carrots]

What was the final purchase Doc?

[Dr_Mutley]

I bought a Exposure Toro Mk6, it turned up, had a faulty switch... Returned to wiggle....

[Widget]

Hey guys,

bumping old thread, need some opinions. I'm buying some new tyres for my bike off wiggle, came just under free postage so I thought I might pick up a rear light and front light (mainly a rear), just something bright (strobing) for primarily day riding.

The lights I've eyed off are;

(FRONT/REAR) LifeLine Essential LED Safety Light Set

(FRONT/REAR) LifeLine USB LED Double Beam 30 Lumen Rear Light

(REAR) Cateye Rapid Mini RC Rear

I don't ride at night, so at this stage, riding low/no light most likely wont happen, the lights are more or else so others can see me.

I dont have much $$ at the moment, jsut wondering if anyone has any suggestions about the listed lights, or recommend an alternative? or maybe I should not buy at this stage, save late if there's some that are significantly better?

I currently have a rear light off ebay, http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/131065333943 ... EBIDX%3AIT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; have to say, its actually quite bigger than I thought it would be, looking for something smaller (half the size) and certainly brighter, though at this stage, I guess it flashes, though wouldnt say its the brightest.

Any suggestions on what to get, or even what to avoid, would be great!. I also heard to avoid an that uses the CR2032 button batteries as they wont be powerful.. is this the case or do you guys find them fine?

Thanks =)

[MattyK]

^ you need more light to be seen in daylight than at night time.

I would definitely NOT get the CR2032 battery version - no possibility to recharge. USB charging option, or standard AAAs, would be preferable.

I have liked Knog Blinder 1 lights on my roadie; discrete but pretty bright. A Blinder 4 would be pretty good I think.

[slowK]

What MattyK said. Brighter lights needed for daytime to overcome ambient light. And USB rechargeable is much less hassle than batteries.

I have the Lifeline USB 30 double beam you mention. I like it for a few reasons: USB rechargeable. Rubber strap attachment (easy to change between bikes, no clips left on the bike when not in use). Angled attachment so that when it's on a seatpost, it points horizontally back, not downwards. And the two lights flash at different frequencies, which creates a much more eye-catching pattern as they move in and out of phase. Much more noticeable than simple on-off steady blinking.

[Widget]

Thanks guys, much appreciated

I have the Lifeline USB 30 double beam you mention... And the two lights flash at different frequencies, which creates a much more eye-catching pattern as they move in and out of phase. Much more noticeable than simple on-off steady blinking.

So during daytime, it's good? Have you had any hassles with it?


Thanks again

[slowK]

No problems with it so far. Haven't ridden in heavy rain with it yet so can't comment on water resistance.

Its not the brightest light out there for daytime use. I mainly ride/commute in the early morning or evening when the ambient light is low, and its plenty bright for that.

If you really want a red light for daytime use, you may need to spend significantly more (maybe Exposure? Bontrager Flare?). Can't help you there.

For daytime visibility, I find hi-viz stuff more noticeable on other cyclists than a flashing red light. Especially on moving bits (e.g. socks/feet, or gloves when signalling - we notice movement more than static objects.

Ultimately (for visibility, not fashion) I think you need a mix of hi viz for daytime, as well as reflective stuff and flashing/"to be seen" lights for low light/night time.

[apsilon]

For daytime visibility, I find hi-viz stuff more noticeable on other cyclists than a flashing red light. Especially on moving bits (e.g. socks/feet, or gloves when signalling - we notice movement more than static objects.

I'm the opposite, i'll notice a flashing light hundreds of metres before I'll notice hi viz. Maybe partially because my eyes aren't the best and the hi viz is just lost amongst everything else but could also be because I've spent all day for the past 10 years around people with hi viz and have become a bit desensitised to it.

Agree that a mix of the two can't hurt.

[AUbicycles]

I would definitely NOT get the CR2032 battery version - no possibility to recharge.

This is a thread ressurection so I will put in some controversy and disagree.

A while back I would have agreed however the current generals of (decent brand) CR2032 powered LED flashers have surprisingly bright / visible light. No longer the dull lights, but it seems improved diods with a more piercing brighter light.

Without being a Knog ambassador, I purchased two of their simple flashers - frog strobe. These are different from older versions and as 'too be seen' lights in flashing mode, are pretty good. I am sure other brands have similar lights.

But.. for safety, it it worthwhile considering whether you should run with these lights alone. My typical setup on the front is a bright light and the flash is a secondary light, either as a backup or to run parallel (flashing while the big light is on) or during day time (when the big light is useless) as my visible flasher light for road users to spot me in their side and rear view mirrors before turning.

[il padrone]

But.. for safety, it it worthwhile considering whether you should run with these lights alone. My typical setup on the front is a bright light and the flash is a secondary light, either as a backup or to run parallel (flashing while the big light is on) or during day time (when the big light is useless) as my visible flasher light for road users to spot me in their side and rear view mirrors before turning.

Are you sure about that ??

[B&M iQ Cyo running off Shimano Alfine dynohub]



I run my dynamo headlight (B&M Luxos U) both night and day time, and I have found that it enables me to get greater recognition and willingness to give way from side-street entries and right-turning motorists. The solid bright beam leads to a momentary confusion that I am on a motorbike, and action to stop as a result.

[Ross]

DId anyone else read the lights shootout/review in RideOn magazine? Most of the front lights were only "to be seen" lights that would be totally useless out on a road with no street lights.

As part of the scoring now they take into account looks. Say What. What looks good to me looks crap to the next person and vice versa. What a silly criteria.

[MattyK]

Was that the one in conjunction with Choice magazine? Say no more...

[Ross]

Not sure if it had any connection with Choice, I was only skimming through the article in the newsagent. One interesting thing it did say is along the lines of Australia following Germany with their beam regs, so lights will have a shaped beam. Not sure what all the LBS' are going to do with the all the old unshaped lights, sell them to MTBers maybe?

[MattyK]

Seems to be Choice. My parents have a subscription, but I'm not even going to bother reproducing it here.

[Bunged Knee]

Seems to be Choice. My parents have a subscription, but I'm not even going to bother reproducing it here.

Not from Choice but only one reviewer is from Choice and the rest is from RMIT and BNV. RideOn magazine is published for Bicycle Network (Victoria)

Top 150 front and rear bike lights 2015. https://rideonmagazine.com.au/top-150-bike-lights-2015/

[RonK]

Seems to be Choice. My parents have a subscription, but I'm not even going to bother reproducing it here.

Not from Choice but only one reviewer is from Choice and the rest is from RMIT and BNV. RideOn magazine is published for Bicycle Network (Victoria)

Top 150 front and rear bike lights 2015. https://rideonmagazine.com.au/top-150-bike-lights-2015/

Seems to me the article is far more balanced than some of the comments posted here.

[MattyK]

Seems to me the article is far more balanced than some of the comments posted here.

They assess lights by how visible they appear to other observers. As far as I can tell they put zero emphasis on how well it illuminates your view while you're riding. So I totally disagree with their assessment method.

In Germany and Japan the rules for bicycle lighting are already thoroughly defined. The Germany regulations, in particular, require that a bicycle light does not spread above the ground ten metres in front of the bicycle.

In anticipation of the new Australian standard following this European lead, Ride On has adapted its test method this year to approximate the German regulations. All lights over 200 lumen output were angled down to focus at a point ten metres ahead. In this way the higher powered lights were made a bit more equivalent to those 200 lumens and less.

Pointing a light downwards does not make it compliant with German standards, they are talking out of their arses on that one.

[apsilon]

Pointing a light downwards does not make it compliant with German standards, they are talking out of their arses on that one.

I agree. As soon as I read that it meant the whole comparison was worthless IMO.

[Blakeylonger]

So I totally disagree with their assessment method.

Their entire methodology is flawed and laughable. As is the fact that they don't test dynamo lights anymore.

[RonK]

Seems to me the article is far more balanced than some of the comments posted here.

They assess lights by how visible they appear to other observers. As far as I can tell they put zero emphasis on how well it illuminates your view while you're riding. So I totally disagree with their assessment method.

LIke it or not, the assessment criteria are clearly stated and quite valid if limited.

[

In Germany and Japan the rules for bicycle lighting are already thoroughly defined. The Germany regulations, in particular, require that a bicycle light does not spread above the ground ten metres in front of the bicycle.

In anticipation of the new Australian standard following this European lead, Ride On has adapted its test method this year to approximate the German regulations. All lights over 200 lumen output were angled down to focus at a point ten metres ahead. In this way the higher powered lights were made a bit more equivalent to those 200 lumens and less.

Pointing a light downwards does not make it compliant with German standards, they are talking out of their arses on that one.

Oh? I don't see any claim in that quote that the methodology makes lights compliant with German standards.

[MattyK]

OK, they do state it's an approximation of the regulations. I am arguing that tilting the light down is absolutely nothing like the regulations. It resembles one poorly worded (as I understand it) part of the regulation with regards to how lights should be aimed, but tilting down a symmetric beam has a very different (and adverse) effect on the light for the rider.

[il padrone]

In Germany and Japan the rules for bicycle lighting are already thoroughly defined. The Germany regulations, in particular, require that a bicycle light does not spread above the ground ten metres in front of the bicycle.

In anticipation of the new Australian standard following this European lead, Ride On has adapted its test method this year to approximate the German regulations. All lights over 200 lumen output were angled down to focus at a point ten metres ahead. In this way the higher powered lights were made a bit more equivalent to those 200 lumens and less.

Pointing a light downwards does not make it compliant with German standards, they are talking out of their arses on that one.

+1

Conical beam is a conical beam. Angling it down will not change that, just give the rider significantly reduced lit vision


Conical beam





Shaped beam with horizon



From Singletrack

[RonK]

OK, they do state it's an approximation of the regulations. I am arguing that tilting the light down is absolutely nothing like the regulations. It resembles one poorly worded (as I understand it) part of the regulation with regards to how lights should be aimed, but tilting down a symmetric beam has a very different (and adverse) effect on the light for the rider.

As we have already established, the objective of the test methodology is to establish the visibility of the light to the observer, not the effectiveness to the rider.