| [ Main index | Bicycle components tests | (Dynamo) bicycle lighting | Taillamps | | Dutch readers: Nederlands ] |
According to StVZO a taillamp may draw at most 0.6W + 20%, which means 0.72W and at 6V that gives a current of 0.120A. The minimum allowed is 0.6W -50% which means 0.3W and at 6V that gives a current of 0.050A.
| Taillamp: | Current at switching on: | Current after several minutes: |
|---|---|---|
| Lamps with incandescent bulb (SP 15, old Basta Ray, etc.) |
ca. 100 mA | ca. 100 mA |
| D-Toplight plus | >150mA | 30mA |
| Flat plus | >90mA | 48mA |
| Flat S plus | >100mA | 60mA |
| Line plus | 20mA | 20mA |
| H-track | >100mA | 64mA |
| Riff steady | 80mA | 47mA |
| Plateo xds | 75mA | 25mA |
| Mini plus | 16mA | 16mA |
| Lumiring | 52mA | 14mA |
| Ray LED | 65mA | 65mA |
| Spark steady | > 100mA | 51mA |
Several taillamps do not seem to conform to StVZO with respect to power (far too low), unless these taillamps draw more power when attached to an alternating current, I will check that. If they don't then the approving body has almost certainly looked at the amount of produced light and approved them despite a too low power consumption. The Philips Lumiring stays above required 50mA for quite a while until it drops.
Addition 2012-1-24: During the Philips bicycle lighting day I asked about this and it turns out the minimal current/power draw of a lamp is not looked at if the lamp produces enough light.
The first test was done at night 2011-8-18, it was raining and I was cycling from 100m towards the taillamps. The second test in the night of 2011-11-29 was with the Toplight Line plus (the best of the first test), the Philips Saferide Lumiring, and the Basta Ray LED. I did this test in 3 parts: Cycling from 100m to the lamp, walking from 100m to the lamp, and a comparison of visibility between the Line plus and the Lumiring with both lighting at the same time and riding towards them from 150m distance.
Goal 1: To see how well visible they are, and in case of taillamps that have an annoyingly bright point source of light, by covering that point source with black tape (to be done: or by making that more diffuse and dimmer with some semi transparant tape) to see how much or little influence this point source has on visibility.
Goal 2: Determine the difference between line taillamps and taillamps with large illuminated surface w.r.t. visibility and ability to estimate distance. I will test this by comparing the Line plus and Plateo xds. The latter with obscured point source (and to be done: diffused/dimmed point source).
| Taillamp | Visibility | Distance estimation (getting blinded by a point source?) |
|---|---|---|
| Spanniga 15 | Surprisingly good! I'd say at least as good as any except the Line plus. | Hard, size is too small. |
| Basta Ray | Not tested (the Spanninga 15 is very similar, and it was raining ;-)). | Not tested. |
| D-Toplight plus | Not tested because of the rain and because I had already tested the similar (point source of light) flat plus. | Not tested, but there is no doubt that this is impossible due to the point source of light. |
| Toplight flat plus | Poor! | Impossible because of the point source of light. Distance estimate at short distance is also impaired even if the cyclist is visible otherwise as the strong point source of light is dangerously blinding. |
| Toplight flat S plus (linetec) | Surprisingly also quite poor! The lines don't help much. Not sure why. | Very hard. |
| Toplight line plus (linetec) | Excellent from 100m to 0m, and never annoying. Well, too bright perhaps. The Spanninga 15 is actually nicer to ride behind and still almost as visible... | Hard |
| Herrmans' H-track | Reasonable. When the direct light from the LED is obsured the visibility is a lot less. It seems not enough lights goes backwards horizontally and actually, when I look at the beamshot again it seems to confirm this. The line plus is better visible at any distance. | Hard |
| Basta Riff steady | Reasonable, but less good than the H-track. I didn't think this taillamp was visible enough at 100m to warrant a test with obscured direct light from the LED. | Hard |
| Spanninga Plateo xds | Reasonable, but less good than the H-track. With the direct light from the LED obscured, this taillamp is very dim which means not enough light goes into lighting up the reflector. | Impossible because the point source overpowers the light from the reflector. Distance estimate at short range is also impaired even if the cyclist is visible otherwise as the strong point source of light is dangerously blinding. |
| Toplight mini plus | - (not yet tested, but undoubtedly poor as there is no optic to bundle the light) | Not tested, but there is no doubt that this is impossible due to the point source of light. |
| Philips saferide taillamp | Excellent from 100m to 0m, and never annoying. | Difficult but at short distances you do get the feeling of seeing a real object instead of just a bright light. The diffuse light and fairly large surface (only the Plateo has a larger illuminating surface but that's spoilt by the point source) work. |
| Basta Ray LED | Excellent from 100m to 0m, but too bright at short distances. | Impossible due to the point source of light, it also get too bright which hinders following traffic (esp. other cyclists) at short distances. |
Conclusion:
Visibility: The Spanninga 15 with 0.6W bulb is surprisingly good, and I think it's better visible than all LED taillamp except the Toplight line plus (not yet directly compared with the Lumiring). The Spanninga 15 has a more smooth lightouput (even distribution over a reasonable surface area) than the Line plus which makes it nicer to look at for following traffic while being almost as visible, so all in all it is still a very good taillamp, better than I thought before this test (because of the corner- and wall projection images). This probably means all incandescent taillamps are actually pretty good, much better than one might think... Sideways visibility test (what a driver in a car coming to an intersection sees) is yet to be done...
Distance estimates: I don't think these are possible very well even with the line plus. The Lumiring is slightly better, especially at close range. The very strong point source in the Plateo makes distance estimation with that taillamp just about impossible. Obscuring the point source gives a near perfect taillamp, which makes distance estimation also better than any other taillamp. The only problem is that it's fairly dim that way. As I thought before has been confirmed, the Plateo with a few small changes could have been superb, instead of poor. I will do another test with the Plateo with white tape to diffuse/spread the light from the point source and see how it performs then.
| To email me go to the email page |
Last modified: Tue Jan 24 14:49:24 CET 2012