|
[ Main index | Bicycle components tests |
|
German: Fahrradbeleuchtung| Dutch: Nederlandse versie van mijn fietsverlichtings test ] |
Note in German: Wer auf Deutsch lesen möchte lies bitte dies hier.
Latest updates
A list of all updates can be found here. What's in progress
What's to come:
News from manufacturers and other sources
More bike lamps, dynamos?I usually buy dynamo lamps with cutoff to try out, and ditto for dynamos. What I would still be interested in in trying out that I will not buy (as I wouldn't have a use for them for anything else but a test) is the Dosun D1 and B&M Big bang. Perhaps the Magicshine would be nice to get on loan again so I can make proper beamshots. So if you have an interesting/powerful lamp you can miss for a while send me an email! (probably only useful if you live fairly close to me, not too far from Leiden/Amsterdam in the Netherlands). Note for manufacturers:
|
These web pages are about 2 things: Dynamo based bicycle lighting (of which the headlamp has a cutoff), and seeing how that can and will improve. For the latter part I experiment with LED light colours, types, drivers, battery powered lamps and headlamps without cutoff. This also means experimenting with headlamps for mountainbiking, but it is not my intention to make an overview of lighting for nighttime mountain biking. I don't have enough headlamps to play with for that, and I would need to make a trip to suitable terrain for that which is not close to where I live. I do have a suggestion for a big improvement in MTB headlamps, as I told at the end of 2010 already on the page where I describe my experiences with the Lupine Betty, namely a cutoff beam with more light above the horizon. This would be much better as in particular the problem with symmetric beams is the overexposure of the near field, but also you don't need as much light going up as on the road/trail surface...
My original introduction of 2008: This is a test of bicycle lamps and related matters I came across, dealt with in a way it should be done, with subjects I've not come across in tests on the web and in particular bicycling magazines (e.g. the Dutch magazine 'Fiets'; I mention that magazine because on their web forum I suggested the methods in the list below as something they should use in tests/reviews; the lack of interest from them resulted in these webpages...). An example of something I didn't come across but that I find essential, is the vibration from the hub dynamo. Note that I only put stuff in this test that I bought or otherwise have regular access to. Other materials I judge on technical merit as best as possible.
Here's a list of essentials when examining bicycle lamps (I mentioned most of these points already on 2007.09.20 on the forum of the dutch bicycling magazine Fiets, i.e. http://forum.fiets.nl, in a discussion on lighting):
|
lumen = amount of light. lux = amount of light per square metre. (and candela = amount of light per steradian (solid angle)) |
Example: When lamp 1 has the same amount of lux as lamp 2, but lights up an area twice as large (assuming homogenous distribution of light, so each spot gets the same amount of light) then lamp 1 has an output twice that of lamp 2, i.e. the lumen number is twice as high.
N.B. I say in the above 'amount of light', but light is not static, so of course I should say something like lightcurrent, but the way I wrote it above is clearer and doesn't need a lot of explanation to see the difference between lumen and lux, which is what's most important.
So a lux rating determines on the distance at which you measure. In a divergent beam, it increases if the distance tot he measuring device is made smaller. When on these pages I mention the lux rating of a lamp, it will usually be with regard to the StVZO measurement setup, in which measures bicycle headlamps at 10 m distance, and the brightest part of the beam is that lamp's lux rating.
In the early 80s, halogen bicycle lamps were appearing. The were noticeably brighter, but in a city it really doesn't matter that much how much light you've got; By this I mean: More light is better, but poorly lit roads where you need a lamp to see the road (to avoid broken off branches etc.) are uncommon (in the Netherlands at least!). That was the case then as it is now, it was quite difficult then to find a bit of unlit road to compare a standard incandescent bulb to a new halogen one! In the city, the main advantage of plenty of light (plenty means much more than a halogen headlamp btw.) is comfort, it's easier on the eyes (e.g. car headlamps are less annoying as your eyes are accustomed to the amount of light from your own headlamp) and allows you to evade bad patches in the road.
Real progress was only made recently (ca. 2007), with high power LED lamps using in particular the Seoul P4 or Cree XR-E Q5. Examples of these are the Schmidt Edelux, Supernova E3, Busch & Müller IQ Fly (which was superseded since October 2008 by the IQ Cyo in the regular and near-field versions). On this webpage I started in 2008 with a describtion in particular the Schmidt Edelux that I had got since late July 2008, to give an impression of the amount of light such a headlamp gives, but more lamps and systems have been added in due course (esp. since summer 2010). At that time, pictures of the Edelux in action were hard to make with the digital camera I used then, the Fuji 2600z, as it doesn't have a manual mode (ISO, F, shutter time). Nightshots in general with the 2600z are poor without flash... Since summer 2010 I've got a new camera and a setup for making beamshots of dynamo lamps. Still, the description even without beamshots gave a good idea of the properties of this lamp. I was going to add my experiences with the Supernova E3 (symmetrical + asymmetrical lens versions) in October 2008, but I never got the lamps I ordered and as of June 2009 I decided not to waste my time with them any more.
The IQ Fly was the first lamp with such a power LED that was approved for StVZO and was followed by the Schmidt Edelux. StVZO are the German traffic regulations, which contain various rules for lamps. In particular the amount of light that may go above to horizon is very limited and this is a good thing as you can read in my review of esp. the Magicshine MJ-808 which has a symmetric beam and which under some circumstances really blinds oncoming traffic. The IQ Fly suffers from a few problems, the first being that of extreme ugliness ;-) The second that its LED is not cooled properly in the plastic housing (and that reduces the light output as LEDs give more light when they are cooler). The Edelux suffers from neither of those problems... The IQ Fly (2007) and Schmidt Edelux (2008) gave huge jumps in light output that made all halogen headlamps obsolete and finally made it possible to cycle safely at a high speed (30 km/h and more) on unlit- or parallel roads.
2011-7-27: As I told those who in 2008 wanted to wait with buying an Edelux because of the LED lightput increases they expected, a jump in lightoutput just couldn't be expected any more, and that turned out to be correct. The reason was simple: Huge jumps had already been made in the lightoutput of 'white' LEDs and similar improvements couldn't be expected in short term because LEDs are already fairly efficient (getting to about 30% of the theoretical maximum) which eliminates large jumps. Another reason is that the eye doesn't work linearly (a lamp must produce much more light on the same area to appear to be noticeably brighter). This is why as of mid 2011 there still aren't dynamo lamps that are really better than the Edelux. A factor that has helped the Edelux stay on top is the limitations of StVZO, in particular the 2.4W at 15km/h requirement (6Veff via dynamo), and that newer LEDs such as the XP-G and XM-L have a larger illuminating area which makes it hard to bundle the light with a reflector or lens. In the future more light will primarily come from going around the limitations in StVZO, for example by gaming the system or by not adhering at all to the rules of power output. For more information on that see my StVZO analysis page.
This section is the result of all experiences I had and the tests I did with dynamos and lamps. I would like to see the following:
See also: Vibrations caused by dynamo hubs
I like the Sunup rear-wheel generator but it should produce a bit more power at low speed. This will come in 2012. Further I would like to see more mounting options as I suggested to them (see my review of the Sunup DS)...
I would also like to see a generator that uses the brakedisc, e.g. with a special brakedisc with holes to mount neodymium magnets in, or perhaps just make a ring with magnets that attaches to the brakedisc. Then use a generator with a claw to extract power. This would be cool, but not new btw. The first Dutch bicycle computer, the IKU Cyclotronic from the 1980s used a magnet ring mounted on the front wheel both to count ticks for speed, and to generate power. It never needed a new battery... My dad bought one long ago, and I used it for years too (I still have it).
I see faults and possibilities to improve designs in all products I encounter. A number of my ideas and wishes are are decribed above, though not in detail. I would also like to see a completely modular lighting system where the headlamp and taillamp contain no electronics...
I give some manufacturers suggestions for improvements as well. Whether they use those is yet to be seen, but some give positive response to them. But I really want to do more, and I'm thinking of designing a reflector for a headlamp. The first thing I want to do this for is to see how difficult it is, using my own computer programs. I'm also thinking about a new headlamp mount and some other things. At the moment all just for fun, and theory, but perhaps more will come from it.
In some places mention is made that a beam with cutoff such as car headlamps have, and that all approved lamps for dynamos in Europe have, is better in fog as you will get blinded by a wall of light otherwise. I tested this in autumn 2009 in fairly heavy fog at night with a Schmidt Edelux and endof 2010 with a Lupine Betty 2011 and the results were clear: the output and beamshape of the lamp are not really an issue in the 'wall of light' phenomenon, the distance to your eyes of a reasonably bright light source is by far the biggest component. If that distance is about 60 cm you will not experience a wall of light. This means putting the headlamp on the handlebar is just about ok, slightly below would be my preference. See LED light colour, CRI and experiments.
Neutral white is superior to cool white and warm white under normal circumstances (dry and wet road), in fog warm white is best. Neutral white is the overal winner. See LED light colour, CRI and experiments.
Not considering fog, is having a lamp mounted low or high better? In early 2009 I already experimented with the Edelux comparing it at fork-crown height and at handlebar height. The results showed that for road use (not necessarily off-road), under normal conditions (no fog) it makes virtually no difference. Putting it higher should reflect back more light, but the difference is very small and I didn't really notice it (perhaps if I put them side by side I would). You can find recommendations for a lamp positioned low in various places, as this will give more shadows so you can actually see things (rocks, whatever) better. I'm not too sure it matters, it didn't really show in my tests... I have not experimented with a lamp positioned lower than fork-crown height (as is sometimes done on bicycles with a front rack).
So all in all, I recommend a lamp positioned at fork-crown height. Update (August 2010): After testing the Philips LED bike light, for more powerful headlamps handlebar height is a bit better as it lights up the road better, but to prevent problems in fog, perhaps mounting it just below the handlebar is the optimum height for such powerful lamps. I've yet to test the Philips LED bike light in the fog to see what happens.
About 0.60x - 0.70x of the light gets onto the road, or more accurately on spots below the horizon (which can be positions beside the actual road, and to positions very far ahead where it's not of use). The exact factor depends on how wide the beam angle is, and how far away you aim the centre of the beam, on the road. This can fairly easily be calculated with school level mathematics:
Intersect a cone (the lightbeam from the lamp) with a horizontal plane going through the centre of the lamp's front glass and the horizon; integrate to the get the area below the line which is the intersection of one of the cone's circles and this horizontal plane. Divide this by the circle's surface and you have the fraction of light getting on the road (or rather below the horizon). Here's a picture to make it clearer:
In the calculations where I got 0.60 to 0.70, I assumed a beam angle of ca. 10-25 degrees (total angle), a distance from the lamp to where the centre of the beam hits the ground of ca. 20 metre to 40 metre, and a mounting height of the lamp of about 1.0 m (handlebar mounted). This assumes a homogeneous lightbeam (even distribution of light). Note that when a lamp has a bright hotspot that shines completely on the road surface, the amount of light getting onto the road will obviously be higher than that of a homogeneous lightbeam.
So, a fairly large amount of light is wasted (for road use) by circular beams. But not just that: while a symmetric beam may put about 0.60 - 0.70 of its light on the road (well, more accurately on spots below the horizon, and a lot beside the actual road), that doesn't mean it's as good as a lamp with cutoff that produces the same amount of light as that 0.60 - 0.70 of the symmetric lamp. This is very clear from my comparisons of the Magicshine MJ-808 and Ktronik's triple dynamo powered XP-G with an Edelux. The Edelux is much better due to its even beam and longer throw. It's also brighter on most parts of the road that the Edelux's beam covers. The Magicshine and Triple XP-G of course light up much more beside what the Edelux lights up (but mostly in places where you don't need the light). From comparing the Edelux, Magicshine, Triple XP-G and Philips LED bike light and comparing my pictures of the latter with more pictures on the IBC forums (mtb-news.de), I estimate that a symmetric lamp must have ca. 3 to 4 times the power of an asymmetric lamp with cutoff, to light up the road as well (as useful) as that lamp with cutoff.
As to being able to see traffic signs etc., you don't need a circular beam for that, lamps such as the Edelux give plenty of spill light to light up traffic signs when aimed below the horizon.
The following pictures show, asuming the illuminated surface by the lamp is a rectangle, what happens to the beamshape of a lightbeam of a lamp that gets mounted at a height of 1.05 m instead of 0.75 m:
As φ1 = φ2, h1/d1 = h2/d2 = tan(φ), so d2=h2 x d1/h1, i.e. 1.4xd1. The same goes for the width of the beam, so for the surface: s2 = w2 x d2 = (h2/h1)2 x w1 x d1, so the beam is now spread over a surface that has 1.42 = 1.96 x larger area. This means the beam is only half as bright...
Now also consider what happens when rotating that lamp at 1.05 m down, such that the cutoff line is at the same position where it was at 0.75 m, and take into account that the beam doesn't start directly underneath the lamp:
To be added: Discussion of shadows, which are bigger when the lamp is mounted at 0.75 m, which gives you information on the surface too.
What's clear from the above, that the reverse situation (putting a lamp meant for handlebar height, i.e. ca. 1.05m at 0.75m and rotating such that the cutoff is in the same position on the road) has some effects which can be very much undesireable:
After testing with the Philips LBL at 0.75 m I preferred it mounted at the original height...
In this case mounting a lamp meant for 0.75 but especially 1.05m will give a significant overexposure of the near field. I'm not sure how bad it really is. It might be better to find a way to mount the lamp higher, and in case of a enclosed trike, outside the body. As I don't ride recumbents/trikes, I cannot say much about this.
I am aware that 60 lux or more headlamps with a wide beam are not needed in most situations, but the problem is that bicycle lighting is not good enough for most situations. There are 2 cases:
So for bicycles we need either a 'being seen' low lux headlamp of which there are plenty to choose from, or a 100 lux headlamp like the LBL with a wide beam and ca. 270 lumen or more, which makes it possible to properly see everywhere. The latter does not (yet) exist in commercial dynamo lamps.
So what we need in new developments is strong headlamps that allow you to see everywhere, which means 100 lux dynamo headlamps with a beam similar to the Philips LBL, not yet-another 40 lux headlamp... I am aware that 40 lux headlamps were unheard of until the arrival of the IQ Fly, but lets be honest, before that all bicycle lighting was not adequate at all for just about any situation where you actually need to see the road! Therefore I would like to see headlamps that are good enough for all situations, as it is now technically possible! My LBL-dynamo has shown this...
2011-10-24: I got the following idea long ago when I was blinded once again by a headlamp that was not very powerful at all. It gives an argument for the use of 100 lux headlamps for use within a city, for a reason you wouldn't expect: A disadvantage of bicycle headlamps with a maximal intensity of 10-40 lux is that cyclists often set their angle badly such that opposing traffic gets the maximum of the lightintensity of that beam into their eyes. If the lightbeam had been stronger, they would more quickly set the angle correctly because with beams of 10-40 lux you don't see the cutoff height very well when using it within a city...
See further:
Note that all headlamps, and taillamps work equally well on a sidewall dynamo as on a dynamo hub. Even the K-tronik triple XP-G can be used with a standard dynamo.
What is apparant from my reviews, is how few good headlamps with cutoff for dynamo there are, and that even the best ones have fairly large weaknesses. We need more competition, and better headlamps! The LBL+special dynamo driver shows what's possible...
|
|
Tested: From July 2008 This headlamp was the best dynamo headlamp from mid 2008 to fall 2010. It's still an excellent choice but there are other options that are about as good. The Edelux, since ca. end of 2009, has a different reflector which has a longer beam (good) but also a big hotspot (very bad!) so in my view it's not as good any more as the one I tested. More details: Dynamo headlamp: Schmidt Edelux: description and review. |
|
|
Tested: From 22 October 2010. This headlamp is a one of the best currently available dynamo lamps with cutoff. Strong lightbeam up to ca. 45m, so it has a throw similar to the Edelux, too much light near the front wheel (but you only really notice this when switching to another headlamp while riding), no automatic on/off, mounting bracket is not stiff enough, lamp lets light go upward to your eyes (can be fixed with some black tape or paint). Due to the low price compared to the 2 main competitors (Edelux and E3 pro-StVZO) and as it's about as good as those 2, this lamp for me is the best value for money. More details: Dynamo headlamp: Philips Saferide LED dynamo: description and review |
|
|
Tested: From 17 Nov. 2010 The beamshape is nowhere near as good as that of the Edelux or Philips SLD, but it is relatively cheap and produces a strong, usable beam, so this a good choice if you're on a budget. More details: Dynamo headlamp: Trelock LS 885 |
|
|
Tested: 17 Nov. - 6 Dec. 2010 Worst bicycle headlamp I've ever seen despite the fact that it gives a wider and brighter beam than halogen lamps. The beam is a weird trapezoidal shape with very sharp cutoff and very sharply defined corners. These give a feeling of being trapped in a tunnel of light. I suppose it's hard to imagine that if you haven't experienced it. The sharp corners and the fairly strong hotspot attract your attention which is bad. The daylight running lights are annoying because of their colour (blue with a bit of purple), and because they are not diffuse and point sources of light. The beam is very weak, especially if you aim it far (so that you have light up to ca. 40m), it is much weaker than the Edelux, Philips SLD and Trelock LS885. More details: Dynamo headlamp: Müller IQ Cyo RT (= Cyo Nahfeld with daylight running lights) Note: This review is of course only relevant for the Cyo R and RT (for the R, disregard the parts in the review about the daylight running lights) which is the near field version of the Cyo (= 40 lux Cyo), not the Cyo sport (= 60 lux Cyo). The Cyo sport has the same beamshape as the Edelux and is almost as bright. |
|
|
Tested: 22 Dec. 2010 - 24 Jan. 2011 This headlamp is one the 3 top headlamps currently available and approximately equal to the other 2 which are the Edelux and Philips SLD (each has their strengths and weaknesses, so there are large differences in various aspects between them!). Good strong light beam to about 25 m (weak at longer distances, therefore I do not recommend this lamp for those who like to ride fast at night), not too much light near the front wheel, very weak standlight, no automatic on/off, the multimount is good (the also available bar mount is poor), expensive. More details: Dynamo headlamp: Supernova E3 pro StVZO |
|
|
Tested: Spring 2010 This headlamp is an example of obsolete technology... Not actually suited to riding on unlit roads, and not at all suited to riding on parallel roads where you're being blinded by car headlamps. The picture on the left was made on a wet road 3, its beam barely gets captured by the camera, the difference with good LED lamps is just astounding. It is obvious that even on a dry and ice free road, you don't get good/enough light. You should compare the beamshot with those I made of this lamp after modification with a neutral white LED on a wet road 2, which gave an enormous improvement. More details: Dynamo headlamp: Busch & Müller Lumotec oval senso plus: description and review |
|
Note: I didn't get a dynamo lamp for testing, only a battery powered one, but I think it has the same beam strength as the battery powered one. I will probably need to get my hands on a Saferide 40 dynamo and give that a proper review, as the battery one is surprisingly not bad at all ;-) |
|
Tested: Since 10 Feb 2012 Review in progress. More details: Dynamo headlamp: Herrmans H-diver |
Busch en Müller IQ Cyo: (not the Nahfeld/near-field version, and also not the 'T' version which is has daylight lights that only do 1 thing: annoy oncoming traffic): This has been available since early October 2008 and is an improvement on the IQ Fly. It has the same beam shape as an Edelux, but produces a little less light and is a lot uglier. The Cyo and recent Edelux'es have a hotspot in the middle which attracts your attention which is bad. The Cyo has an auto on/off but I don't know how good that is (in the Edelux it is useless as the light almost always goes on). It has no near-field light so all in all this lamp seems inferior to me on just about all points, including construction, to a Philips Saferide LED dynamo (unless you think the automatic on/off is very important).
Herrmans H-One S, 60 lux, integrated reflector. It's fairly cheap but it's also fugly like the IQ Fly. Introduced at Eurobike 2011. I heard its introduction has been delayed until at least end of 2011.
I got some questions about why I had not reviewed the Inoled (Extreme), so I will explain why it doesn't look interesting to me: The Inoled Extreme is not StVZO compliant but it has a cutoff. A low lux rating of 35 (manufacturer specification) means throw will be limited to about 35-40 m with low intensity at that distance (similar to the QL-269 and the E3-pro-StVZO). I also read in postings from ca. 2008 that overvoltage protection is not built in. I see 'inoguard' as an accesory on Inoled's website, so that hasn't changed. It is also apparently not as waterproof as it should be. But the price is ca. €109,- so I'm doubtful this lamp is worth it compared to the others I tested.
See Using a new dynamo LED driver, where I describe the future of dynamo lighting :-) E.g. running a Philips LBL on dynamo at 0.90A (yes!) and running a triple XM-L on dynamo at 0.90A (yes! 800 lumen for real).
 Index
|
 Dynamo's
|
For the setup on the wallshots/corner shots, see Camera settings, camera height, lamp height, and roads used to make beamshots. But, the test procedure for taillamps is still in its infancy. I'm still figuring out what's needed for a proper review. This really means, I'm doing all kinds of tests and making pictures under all kinds of circumstances. The fact that the test procedure is not yet fixed is also the reason that the criticism of some taillamps changed during the tests (in particular of the taillamps with incandescent bulb)...
To be done:
I already wrote in January 2011 before seriously starting my taillamp revies, that I think most taillamps are very poor. A big annoyance these days is the far too large intensity in candela, so not diffusely spread out light over a reasonable surface area. It is very annoying when riding behind someone with such a taillamp. I encounter more and more bicycles with annoying (bad!) taillamps. Do the makers of taillamps actually test their own products? Do they think it's pleasant riding behind such an annoying taillamp? They should read the following:
An example of a very poor taillamp is Supernova's taillamp. It has 3 bare 5 mm LEDs which are very annoying and make estimating distance extremely hard as these are 3 point sources of light that are very close together. It also has no retro-reflector which is important for safety in case of a electrical failure. These guys just don't understand taillamps at all.
An example of a good taillamp is B&M's Toplight line plus: Not annoying, very well visible.
Most other LED based taillamps are poor because of having a too bright point source.
Incandescent bulb based taillamps don't give much light but seem to put it where it's needed most (sideways test yet to be done though), even though they don't have a large illuminated area.
See also this theoretical section: taillamp considerations on what's good, bad and necessary.
Goal 1: To see how well visible they are at various distances.
Goal 2: Determine the difference between line taillamps and taillamps with large illuminated surface w.r.t. visibility and ability to estimate distance. I tested this by comparing the Line plus and Plateo xds (with obscured point source).
Goal 3: To see how well you can estimate distance.
The resultats are interesting (see here) and show that collimated light is needed for long range visibility, and for good close range visibility you need a large illuminated surface, and no bright point source!
|
|
Tested: From 17 Jan. 2011 Very little light with a 0.3 W bulb (those were used as well), with 0.6W it's not bad at all, better than the Basta Ray! Visibility from reflection to be tested. This old version of the SP 15 gives a view of what 1980s rear lamps were like (note that this taillamp is still available). It's still usable for modern bicycles but I would recommend the Line plus instead. After the long distance visibility test I have to say an incandescent taillamp is still very much recommendable and the most pleasant for following traffic... |
|
|
Tested: From 17 Jan. 2011 I was not impressed at first after making beamshot images, but after the long distance visibility test I have to say an incandescent taillamp such as this is still very much recommendable and the most pleasant for following traffic... Yes, despite giving apparently far less light than LED taillamps. It is less visible than the SP15 though (from some angles from the side). |
|
|
Tested: From 17 Jan. 2011 Small emitting surface, almost a point source, giving only a reasonable visibility, and also causes its annoyance to following cyclists, therefore not recommended. |
|
|
Tested: From 2008 This lamp gives a bright dot of light in the middle from the light coming almost direct from the LED, it's very annoying for people riding behind you. Visibility is no more than reasonable as just a small dot (almost a point source) is lit up. The H-track, line plus, flat S plus are all much better straight on and at 45°. A poor rear lamp because of the small emitting area which also causes the annoyance to other road users, therefore not recommended. |
|
|
Tested: From 17 Jan. 2011 Wide light with a bright dot in the middle from the LED as some of its light goes straight on. The latter is almost a point source and quite annoying for people riding behind you. Better than the Flat plus, but still a poor rear lamp because of its annoyance to other road users, therefore not recommended. |
|
|
Tested: From 17 Jan. 2011 Wide light, whether that's through an actual surface or bars doesn't seem too interesting to me (but tests yet to be done on the precise difference). What is noticeable is that the Toplight line plus is not annoying, no sparkling effects in your eyes at a short distance from the lamp, in contrast to the Toplight flat plus and the Toplight flat S plus. Sideways visibility ok, but could be better. Some people have problems with the standlight not working after a while, but I have no idea how common this defect is. In any event, this is my favourite of the B&M rear lamps. Recommended. |
|
|
Tested: From 4 May 2011 Ring of light similar in style to B&M's Toplight line plus. Nicer than the Toplight flat plus for traffic following you, but not as good as the Toplight flat S plus. Sideways visibility is good. The direct light from the LED is far too intense (coming from a near point source) which is very annoying to following traffic (esp. cyclists at short distance) and spoils this lamp which would otherwise be very good. Not recommended. |
|
|
Tested: From 1 June 2011 Stripe of lines of light similar in style to B&M's Toplight line plus. Nicer than the Toplight flat plus for traffic following you but not that much, the direct light from the LED is pretty annoying for cyclists following you up a large distance. Also slightly better than Herrmans' H-track in that respect but not as good as the flat S plus and definitely not as good as the Toplight line plus. Sideways visibility is poor. Not recommended. |
|
|
Tested: From 1 June 2011 The whole reflector lights up which is good (a large illuminated surface is better than a bright point source), but the LED shines also directly towards following traffic at a ridiculous intensity, not diffusely spread over a larger area, which is goddamn annoying for anyone following you (this is a problem because on narrow cycle paths you can be stuck behind someone for a while). Sideways visibility is poor. All in all not recommended. I experimented by making the direct light from the LED more diffuse and make it a bit less bright and that made this lamp pretty good. More to be added including pictures of these experiments. |
|
|
Tested: From 13 Sep. 2011 This is another bad LED taillamp which lets the light of one of its LEDs go out directly in a cone which is very annoying to following traffic and makes estimating distance impossible. Not recommended. |
|
|
Tested: From 28 Nov. 2011 My favourite taillamp: Very well visible while not being too bright. Compared to the Toplight Line plus: side visibility is better, medium to short distance visibility is better because of the larger illuminating area and very long distance visibility (>100 m) is comparable. On the wallshot the lightoutput does not look impressive, but it puts the light where it's needed, better than any other taillamp I tested so far. So the light it puts out is used very efficiently... Recommended. |
|
|
Tested: From 5 Nov. 2011 Single LED as a point source, the LEDs output is diffused but not spread out over a larger re-emitting area. So it stays a point source and gets too bright at close range for following traffic. Distance estimation is also impossible because of the point source. |
|
|
Tested: From 5 Jan. 2012 The lamp has a single LED. The light is not made diffuse and a large part of the light shines as a point source as I already expected a while back when looking a bit closer at the picture on Axa's website. The illumination of the entire lamp is very weak, far dimmer than the Plateo. The point source is too bright at short distance and makes estimating distance impossible. |
|
|
Tested: From ca. 25 Jan. 2011? Summary to come |
See Cornershots, wallshots and visibility of taillamps.
The developments I read about in cycling magazines in the 90s, were about tiny improvements in regular sidewall dynamos. Union for example had a trio of light weight dynamos (late 90s?), not much was said about hub dynamos... I bought one of those Union dynamos, which was really poor. It wasn't the Turbo (which has an aluminium housing), which I wanted to buy but couldn't obtain despite my attempts to order it from various stores, but a cheaper all-black plastic version. After a short while, the bearings were shot and it jammed. Another one I got under warranty to replace the defective one, had the same problem. The poor efficiency was clear from how hot it got during a short (say 30 minute) night ride... I see you can still buy it from some places: union 6509, from sjscycles. Don't buy it! Another bad experience was with a Sanyo dynamo that I tried in the late 1990s: It had a rubber wheel, and could be used on either the tyre or the rim, but in the wet or when there was snow it was worse than useless slipping on both rim and tyre...
Dynamo hubs were in existence long before that time. Sturmey Archer had one already in 1936. Sturmey even made an interesting 3 speed rear wheel with included dynamo. Why oh why were sidewall generators (always slipping in the rain, mud, snow) still being used so much until recently? I did read that the Sturmey hubs couldn't supply more than 1.8W, and had some problems with their seals, but wouldn't such a hub always be better than a sidewall dynamo?
Dynamo hubs work in all weather conditions and are just about maintenance free, but they have a disadvantage that can be annoying: Vibrations in the handlebar. This depends on the dynamohub but also on the bike it is used in... Vibrations that a dynamo gives are always tested with the Edelux as a headlamp. Note that the electronics of the lamp influences the vibrations... See for example my page on experiments with LEDs where I wrote about the Frankenlamp with and without smoothing capacitor which gave a large difference in vibrations.
See Vibrations and other issues with dynamo hubs for more about the vibration issue.
See the dynamo comparison page for power output test results with the special dynamo driver. Results with a resistor as per StVZO to follow.
The following reviews are of all the dynamos I tried from ca. 2007 on. In general I would advise against any sidewall dynamo because of the problem of slipping in the rain, this despite possible vibration issues in the handlebar that you may get with a dynamo hub. If you really want a sidewall generator, the Axa HR is a good one with big wheel that doesn't slip quickly.
|
Tested: From April 2007 to end of 2007 (when it was worn out). Very poor generator, will perhaps last one winter. More details: Union 8601 roller dynamo (bottom bracket dynamo) |
|
Tested: Autumn 2008 Too much vibration in the handlebar, even noticeable with lights off (on asphalt, you won't notice vibrations on poor roads such as tile paths, gravel, and very much worn unmaintened asphalt). Fairly expensive (ca. € 170,- to 220,- depending on colour and rim- or disc brake version). More details: Schmidt SON 28 hub dynamo |
|
Tested: From October 2008 to October 2010 (more than 15,000 km, of which at least 5000 km with lights on). Looks nice, cup and cone bearings. Less vibration in the handlebar than the SON 28. After 2 years having been used in all weather conditions (mostly bad as is usual in the Netherlands :) ) on a bike I use all year round, and that's usually outside, it still runs as if new. More details: Shimano DH-3N80 hub dynamo |
|
Tested: From August 2010 Looks nice, sealed cartridge bearings. Vibration in the handlebar at lower speeds than the Shimano DH-3N80 (19-25 km/h instead of ca. 22-28 km/h), for me makes this hub nicer to use. More details: Sanyo NH-H27 hub dynamo |
|
Tested: From 8 June 2011 (in progress) This is the nicest dynamo hub I've tested yet, because it has nearly no vibrations in the handlebar (using the Edelux headlamp as always). More tests with other headlamps etc. to come to see what happens then (with other dynamo hubs, the Edelux is the worst which is why it's the headlamp I always use to test for vibrations). It's also nice that this hub doesn't have earth on the axle and it looks nice :) More details: SP switchable hub dynamo PD-7 (=HB015) (this includes information about vibrations from dynamo hubs and how SP considered this in their designs) |
|
|
Tested: From 12 August 2011 (in progress) PD-8/PV-8 (3W version): The smallest, lightest and most efficient 3W dynamo hub. It looks nice and has no earth on the axle which is good. The vibrations in the handlebar are a bit stronger than with the PD-7 (HB015), which means the PD-7 (HB015) remains my favourite dynamo hub. More details: SP: Small hubdynamo: PD-8 and SD-8 |
|
Tested: Prototype received on 4 May 2011, tests delayed due to circumstances, started late July 2011. Doesn't make noise, works only on cassette rear hubs for use with rim brakes, no vibrations, a very nice alternative to a dynamo hub. Headlamps give about the same brightness as a dynamo hub from ca. 22-25 km/h. The main disadvantage is the low power at low speeds of ca. 5-10 km/h. More details: Sunup ds generator |
|
Tested: Very good report from Martin Dupont, dynamo has been in use for several years. Noise from the gearing which could become annoying, efficiency is almost as good as the best dynamo hubs. Auto on/off is impossible with a mechanical on/off switch unless you simply leave the clutch engaged but that negates the advantages of the clutch and gives gearing noise all the time. Laying a long cable to the handlebar for switch on/off operation gives clutter and added weight (still low compared to most dynamo hubs). More details: Renak Enparlite |
SRAM i-light D7: 36 pole dynamo hub. Because this has 36 poles, it could be vibration free on just about all bikes. Main bad point seems to be the efficiency (with light off too IIRC), and that will negate somewhat the advantage of more poles (see the differences of SD-8 and Sanyo NH-H27 with hubs that provide more power such as the PD-8 and Shimano DH-3N80, i.e. significant difference in power draw significanly influences vibrations). Test to come in 2012.
SONdelux (previously named SON20R). This dynamo hub has 26 poles just like the SON28, but supplies less power. The consequence of that should be less vibrations than with the SON28 (just like the SP SD-8 is vibration free, unlike the SP PD-8) but I heard from someone who has vibrations with the SONdelux, so a comparison against the SP SD-8 is in order... Test to come in 2012.
And the consequence of less power output is less loss, also with lights off, but that less power is supplied could be a disadvantage with the use of multiple LEDs and/or systems that extract power from the dynamo hub for USB devices, GPS systems, etc. See my experiences with the SP SD-8, and this section about vibrations and other issues with dynamo hubs for more on the lower power output of 2.4W hubs in a 622mm rim. Fairly expensive (ca. € 190,- to 240,- depending on colour and rim- or disc brake version).
Oh btw., when I looked at Schmidt's website for their claims on efficiency on the SONdelux (to compare with SP) I read this:
Der SONdelux ist der erste Nabendynamo, dessen Generator speziell für moderne LED-Scheinwerfer (wie Edelux und B&M Cyo) ausgelegt ist.
Translated (note: auslegen für = to design for (in capacity/ability)): The SONdelux is the first hub dynamo, whose generator is specially designed for modern LED lamps (such as the Edelux and B&M Cyo).
This is nothing more than a lie. They never designed the SONdelux for LED lamps, it's a 20 inch generator, which gives enough light with current LED lamps at low speeds so that it's now used in 622mm wheels for which it has a special StVZO approval in combination with the Edelux (and not in combination with any other headlamp!) since end of 2009. Note that the rename of the SON20R to SONdelux came after the approval, and that a rename does not make it a dynamo that's specially designed for LED lighting! It's just unbelievable that Schmidt dares to claim the SONdelux was specially designed for LED lamps!
SON28-new: End of August 2011 Schmidt will introduce a new hub dynamo, it looks like the SONdelux but with a real 3W according to the StVZO measurement method. This is a quite different dynamo than the SON28 but Schmidt thinks it a good idea to also call this dynamo the SON28 and they then rename the old version the 'SON28 klassik'. That's a lot fun (not): when someone mentions the SON28 you will allways need to ask if he really means the (new) SON28 or the old version. Great! (not) That's why I'm going to be contrary and call the new hub dynamo the SON28-new, and the SON28 means the old version for me.
A long time ago I used a battery powered headlamp + taillamp and with the headlamp I found it very annoying that the lamp couldn't go for more than 45 minutes on high after a while (battery capacity having decreased fairly quickly, this was a Specialized preview 2.5 with 4 x AA NiCads), that I always needed to check if the batteries were charged enough for the ride I wanted to do or routinely charge after each ride, and I regularly had problems esp. on long rides (45 minutes or more) with batteries that were nearly empty halfway. This meant I had to switch to low mode which was not enough to properly see the road and in some case I had no light at all on large sections of these long rides.
This was very annoying and I eventually just mounted a dynamo. I used a few types, all of which sometimes gave problems in rain or snow, esp. a Sanyo with rubber roller wheel that I bought was completely useless and I settled on an old 1980s one from my dad... Even with the occasional problem in the wet or snow, they were much less irritating than using a battery powered lamp. I like the comfort of the dynamo setup which is essentially having an always full battery. Also, my emphasis is on riding on-road, not off-road (mountainbike) so I prefer/need an asymmetric beam pattern in a lamp, which is why the following tests for me are more to see what's possible with bicycle lighting, not to see which one I would want to use on a daily basis.
|
|
Tested: 1-21 August 2010 Best bike lamp I've ever seen (for on-road use), at a relatively moderate 270 lumen with its superb beam pattern and even illumination of the road surface it blows the Magicshine MJ-808, Edelux and Ktronik's dynamo powered triple XP-G away. It lights up the full width of the road (at least 7 metre) and throw is about 70 m. Bad points: There's still a electronic problem causing runtime to be just over an hour and on bad roads the lamp slightly rattles on the mount. More details: Philips LED bike light (battery powered): description and review + comparison with Edelux and other lamps |
|
|
Tested: 29 June 2011 - 4 Dec. 2011 Interesting in that it uses a Cree MC-E running at about 5W which should give a similar amount of light to the Philips LBL, but the reflector isn't able to put enough light at the top of the beam, which means little throw. For fast nighttime riders some 2.4W dynamo lamps such as the Edelux or Philips SLD are in fact better. For those who ride at a more leisurely pace at night (say 20 km/h) this lamp is suited very well. I would then only use the low beam, which gives a very wide, very even and very bright beam which lights up the road up to about 40m. More details: Q-lite QL-269 |
|
|
Tested: 28 Nov. 2011 - ... Summary to come... More details: Philips Saferide 40 battery |
|
Tested: ... Pedelecs are classed in 2 categories: The first is 25 km/h electric bicycles with pedal assist, the second is fast-pedelecs which can go up to 45 km/h, only allowed in some countries. This lamp is a souped up version of the Saferide 60). It was originally meant for OEMs only, but will be available for losse sale from March... Summary of experiences to come... More details: Philips Saferide 80 pedelec |
|
Tested: ... The e-bike headlamp needs to adhere to different rules than StVZO, namely ECE R113. E-bikes are electric bicycles that go without needing to pedal, and can go 40 km/h (I think). They are not allowed in all countries. The e-bike version has a smaller lamphead than the LBL (shorter as there are no internal batteries, but also less wide), uses Altilon LEDs and I'm curious how good the beam is. OEM only at the moment, but perhaps this lamp will become available for loose sale? Summary of experiences to come... More details: Philips Saferide e-bike |
The following are all battery powered headlamps with cutoff that might be competion to the Philips LBL.
Some people use headlamps with symmetric beam such as the Magicshine to give proper light on the road, but there is no good reason for doing so: There are good lamps for on-road use, i.e. of high quality and having a good light output with which one can safely cycle on unlit roads at speeds of 30 km/h and more, lamps for dynamo (esp. the Edelux, although more light would be more comfortable, in particular on parallel roads) and lamps that are battery powered (esp. the Philips LBL, and before that the B&M Ixon IQ which is similar to a Cyo but battery powered).
The following tests therefore were only of interest to me to see how well a symmetric beam lights up the road, and to study the differences between a symmetric beam and one with cutoff.
|
Tested: June 2010 MTB lamp, not suitable on public roads, doing so is dangerous and antisocial (at least in countries where car drivers aren't trying to kill cyclists, as some seem to want to do from what I read about the US and the UK; btw. I believe that a major influence on changing attitudes of people is children: Letting children ride to school on a bicycle, as is common practice in the Netherlands, would definitely help, not only in the attitude these children will have later in life, but this will undoubtedly have an immediate effect on what car drivers feel they can do...). Not better than an Edelux for on-road use. More details: Magicshine MJ-808 P7 LED lamp 10W: description and review + comparison with Edelux |
|
|
Tested: 17-29 Nov 2010 MTB lamp using 7 x XP-G cool white LEDs producing ca. 1850 lumen (claimed by manufacturer, but likely real). Illumination of the road surface is better than the Philips LED bike light by virtue of the enormous amount of light, but it's not a spectacular improvement and this only works when aiming the lamp far, otherwise the close-field is illuminated far too brightly. More details: Lupine Betty 2011 (7 x XP-G R5), for MTB use, no cutoff: description and review |
|
Tested: 1-21 August 2010 MTB lamp using 3 x XP-G cool white LEDs, this gives a lot of light powered by a standard dynamo, but for on-road use it's not suitable because of the beam that shines into the face of oncoming traffic (esp. cyclists will have problems with this, drivers in cars less so because they have powerful headlamps). Not actually better than an Edelux for on-road use. Especially disappointing is the short throw of about 40 m. For MTB use the Ktronik lamps are the best dynamo lamps you can buy. More details: Dynamo headlamp: Ktronik triple XP-G (cool white) lamp: description and review |
|
|
Tested: From 10 January 2011. MTB lamp using 3 x (XR-E or P4?) cool white LEDs that according to Supernova produces 550 lumen. In reality it probably produces about 270 lumen and that's an optimistic estimate. It is not very bright, esp. compared to the Ktronik triple XP-G. A regular headlamp with cutoff gives much more useful light for use on public roads and for MTB use the lamp seems to me far too dim. The 2010 version is undoubtedly better, but not much better considering the light measurements of Olaf Schultz (max. ca. 345 lumen at 40 km/h). |
In the 1980s here in the Netherlands circular reflection on tyres, rims or somewhere mounted on the spokes became mandatory. I didn't like the aluminium spoke mounted reflectors mounted on my bike, but tyres soon became available with reflection and when you needed a new tyre, you simply got one of those. Some rims were made with reflection stripes, I've seen stainless steel rims with them for example. They seem to last from my experiences, at least 15 years for a city bike that is kept mostly in a shed when you're at home, just like the reflection on the spoke reflectors. In any event, tyre reflection is the direction developments have gone and once the reflective layer gets loose from the tyre, the tyre is usally quite worn anyway.
Note that the regulators making these rules aren't stupid (or I should say: Not always stupid ;-) See my page on StVZO!). Some people complain about such requirements, say that they are useless, but side reflection does help to see cyclists on intersections where motorists otherwise might go faster thinking no one is there. Many headlamps and taillamp don't put out much light to sides, which is why this reflection helps. It also helps from behind to see that a cyclist ahead is starting to make a turn. For this, reflection on the tyre is also better than on the rim or mounted on the spokes, as the tyres are wider, thus reflective surfaces in case of rim-reflection or spoke mounted reflection will be partly hidden.
The up-down movement of the reflectors on the pedals is very noticeable while not being too distracting nor annoying, and makes it very clear there's a cyclist ahead. This works at long range with a car's high beam or at ca. 50 m with a car's low beam (depending on the beam). With a good bicycle headlamp such as the Edelux you will also notice the pedal reflectors from a large distance.
Unfortunaly, many pedal types only come with bolt-on reflectors which don't have a long lifespan. The Shimano PD-T780 is an exception. This is Shimano's latest cage+SPD pedal with internal reflectors. This makes it my preferred cage+SPD pedal (it works nicely in cage and SPD use, and is not all that heavy).
Camera settings, camera height, lamp height, and roads used to make beamshots
Pictures of lightbeams from headlamps. All (well, most) pictures of light beams from headlamps on one page. I need to update this page and really make it autogenerated as some pictures can only be found on the review pages of the E3-pro-StVZO and QL-269.
Pictures of lightbeams from taillamps. All pictures of light beams from taillamps on one page.
The videos on the page Videos of bicycle lamps in action are made with a relatively cheap camera the Samsung EX1 which has a bright F1.8 lens and a bigger sensor than compact cameras which makes the results it gives pretty good.
|
The colour usually chosen for LED bicycle lamps is cool white because that is the type of colour LED makers can produce most light output with, i.e. this is a 'bigger is better' choice, but it's more complicated than that. Neutral or warm white give better colour rendition for those colours that one sees at the edge of the paved road, and for mountain biking this means obviously a better colour rendition on the entire 'trail'. Ive been testing both with torches and LEDs mounted in a bicycle lamp. Also various experiments in fog to see how far a lamp should be from your eyes and which LED colour is better in those circumstances. For the complete story with experiments and pictures which will give you a view of the differences of these colours and of the advantages of neutral white compared to cool white, see LED light colour, CRI and experiments. |
See this page for various issues of lighting such as daytime lamps, correct adjustment of the light beam, etc.
StVZO bicycle lighting requirements
Power = k1 * v + k2 * v3 (when there's no wind)
where v = the speed, k1 and k2 are constants depending on tyres, bicycle shape, position of the cyclist, etc.
The constants k1 and k2 come from rolling resistance and the air resistance respectively. Assuming a rolling resistance of 30 Watt at 30 km/h, we can easily calculate the required power to pedal at another speed, or calculate the new speed when given a certain power. I will apply this to show how much influence the efficiency of a dynamo has, on cycling speed. Here I assume the use of 3 Watt lighting, so no use of e.g. 3 high power LEDs in series powered by the dynamo (which is possible)...
1. Take someone who rides at a brisk pace (as I usually do): Suppose I ride at 30 km/h, position a bit bent forward. This takes about 200 Watt (Note: This is on a standard bike with ca. 37mm tyres, fenders, racks etc. Not a road bike and especially not a time trial bike! Only then is it possible to go 30 km/h with about 120W. That is a figure I read in some test about bicycle lighting but which is irrelevant in case of lighting!).
Now suppose I switch on a regular dynamo with low efficiency that uses about 18 Watt at that speed. What will be the new speed given I've no more than 200 Watt to give? This can be solved with a 3rd degree equation (also assuming the dynamo drag is linear with speed), but I will approximate so you can get a feel for these things:
We are left with 182 W, the rolling resistance (+dynamo drag!) becomes just a little smaller (because the speed won't change much), so I will leave it constant. This means 182-30 Watt = 152 Watt is left to spend on air resistance instead of 170 W. Speed is linear with the 3rd degree root of the power available to overcome the air resistance, so v2/v1 = (152/170)^(1/3) = 0.963. This means the new speed is 30 * 0.963 km/h = 28.9 km/h (this is an approximation, with decreased rolling resistance you would get to about 29.0 km/h, which doesn't differ much, as was clear from the start).
Now use a hub dynamo with high efficiency, which takes up 8 W instead of 18 W (all at 30 km/h). New speed (same approximation) is then ca. 29.5 km/h. This differs just by 0.6 km/h from the regular dynamo... A tiny breeze will have more influence!
Finally, a switched off lamp on a bike with SON 28 dynamo hub, which takes 1.5 W at 30 km/h. New speed compared to a bike with standard front hub (assuming this has nearly zero resistance) is (168.5/170)^(1/3) * 30.00 km/h = 29.90 km/h. So, you lose at most 0.10 km/h by using the dynamo hub.
2. Now we take someone who rides slowly: Suppose I ride at 20 km/h without a dynamo (+standard 3 W lamp), then the required power is approximately: 20 W + (20/30)^3 * 170 = 70 Watt. N.B. This is the power for the same somewhat bent-forward position, but people who cycle slowly at about 20 km/h usually sit up fairly straight. I estimate that a total power of around 100 W is a more accurate amount in that case, which means the influence on speed by the hub dynamo is a little less than calculated here.
To cycle with dynamo on, only 58 W is left over (dynamo takes 12 W to power the 3W lamp at this speed), which gives a new speed of ca. 18.3 km/h
Now take a hub dynamo with high efficiency (5 W at 20 km/h). The new speed then becomes ca. 19.3 km/h. The difference is just 1.0 km/h compared to a regular dynamo...
Finally, a switched off lamp on a bike with SON 28 dynamo hub, which takes 1.0 W at 20 km/h. New speed compared to a bike with standard front hub (assuming that has nearly zero resistance) is (49/50)^(1/3) * 20.00 km/h = 19.87 km/h. So, you lose at most 0.13 km/h by using the dynamo hub.
As you can see, the faster you ride, the less the influence of the dynamo. The question is: Is a high efficiency dynamo of interest more to those who ride slowly or those who ride quickly? (answer: Those who ride quickly, as those who ride slowly don't ride slowly because it's hard to cycle faster but because they just ride at a slow pace; The fast riders want every bit of speed, but in my view it's not worth a lot of money as the speed gain is minimal at speeds of say 30 km/h).
The Philips headlamps are finally available in NL since mid 2011, the SP dynamo hubs and Sunup generator are not distributed much yet, so especially for those: Bicycle parts: lighting.
Manufacturers:
More information on dynamos and how much power you can extract from them (incl. circuits to use multiple LEDs):
Internet forums:
And then this:
If you want to critize something I wrote, feel free to send an email but I'm only interested in proper arguments, not things like "your reviews are biased because they don't agree at all with other reviews". That has nothing to do with being biased, because most other reviews are poorly done, so no wonder my conclusions differ...
See for more about this, Interpretation, objectivity, and comparison with other reviews.
Further note that my views are biased in some sense, namely the situation in the Netherlands and neighbouring countries, Belgium and Germany. There are large differences in behaviour in motorists in esp. UK, USA, Australia and other countries with fewer cyclists, where cyclists are seen as occupying 'their roads'. The sitatuation in a country influences a little bit what is acceptable as a lighting system, for example whether flashing is acceptable or not. With lots of cyclists, I would say it's not acceptable, and besides that it takes away the ability to estimate distance. A way to differentiate bike-car would be useful for large speed differences. But what besides flashing? Perhaps I should add a secion on different attitudes in different countries? But even when looking at different attitudes, the design principles for good lamps remain as I described...
List of changes on the bicycle lighting section of this website
| To email me go to the email page |
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 06:02:00 CET 2012
