Rear lamp: B&M Toplight flat S plus
Specifications:
StVZO approval no: K514 + K602
Mass: 70 g (with retaining nuts). When using the insert on the rear for 80mm bolt distance it will become several gram heavier...
Size: 110 mm width, 52.6 mm height, 20.5 mm thickness.
Light source: a red LED.
Mounting method: On the rear rack, 50 mm or 80 mm bolt distance (centre to centre) with inserts for the 80 mm distance (this means you can lose stuff over time, and if you want to mount it on a rack with 80 mm distance you may have lost the bits...).
Cabling/connectors: There are 2 connectors for 2.8 mm female plugs as used on standard double strand wires you can buy from a bike shop.
Price: ca. € 16,-
Pictures:
|
Beam shots
See the camera settings page for more on the setup and settings to make pictures of the beams of taillamps.
Out of a corner (showing how much light is cast upwards, forwards and to the sides) [ F3.9 & F1.8 ]:
Wallshot (showing the beam pattern):
Visibility from various angles (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°) [ 0.5m, zoom x3, F3.5, ISO80, 1/250s & 1/60s ]:
Comparing taillamps
Experiences
Wide light with a bright dot in the middle from the LED, it's 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.
This lamp, in contrast with the predecessor flat plus, has proper overvoltage protection that will last. So if the front lamp is defective (which normally has an overvoltage protection), you can still cycle on with just the taillamp working.
As to size and weight: It's amazing that this taillamp is about the same weight as the Basta Ray which is much bigger!
Annoying for following traffic until which distance?: ≈12m
Visibility: Surprisingly quite poor in the long distance visibility test, just like the Flat plus.
Visibility by reflection: To be tested.
Ease of connecting wires: Good for 2.8 mm plugs.
Design- and thus review considerations for taillamps
See Theory for taillamps.
Conclusion
Annoying for following cyclists, visibility is fairly poor as well, therefore: Not recommended.
Last modified: Tue Feb 26 18:32:37 CET 2013
