Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

The big road.cc lights test 2012

we've been in a tunnel with 41 of this year's front lights and the results are in.....

Well, here we are again. Waking up in the dark, riding home in the dark... it's lights time.

We've been busy getting some of this year's crop and the reviews will be going up through the winter. In the meantime, however, we thought we'd share our beam testing data with you so you have something to be going on with. We took all the lights that came into the office before the Big Test deadline – about 40 of them – and put them through their paces. The great thing about lights is that it isn't just subjective: you can measure the beam and take directly comparable photos of what it looks like, so we did. The results are available in the big road.cc light comparator at the bottom of the page. Rear lights are coming soon.

What did you do?

We've collected lots of beam data so you can compare and contrast the different lights. Light manufacturers use a number of different metrics to describe light output. Top of the pile right now is lumens, which is a measure of the total output of the light across the whole beam. Some cheaper lights use candlepower, candela or lux, which are measurements of the brightest part of the beam at a set distance. We've used lux here, but measured at a number of points across the width of the beam. That gives an indication of the brightness of the beam at the centre, the amount of peripheral light and the throw of the beam. Specifically, we measured the lux value of the beam at two metres distance, in 10cm increments from the centre of the beam to 1m from the centre, giving eleven readings.

This year we've also included data on the shape of the beam. Putting the brightest part of the beam at the centre, we measured the output at thirty-degree increments around the beam, at a distance of 50cm from the centre. That gives you a good idea of the pattern of the beam; most are more or less round, but some have more interesting characteristics.

To get a good idea of what the beam looks like, we set up a bike on a rig so that we could photograph the beams of all the different lights in a comparable way. We used a tunnel this year, because it has the advantage of always being dry and pitch black down there which means that we should be able to more easily add to this test when more lights come in; last year we found with outdoor shots that replicating the rig wasn't easy, as different conditions above gorund mean differing levels of ambient light and reflection from surfaces, even in the same spot. Each of the beam shots you can see above was taken using the same settings on the camera. Specifically, they're all shot from directly above the saddle, using a 28mm lens on a Canon EOS1100D (effective 45mm), shooting for 2s at f22 on ISO3200. If you fancy doing some of your own. So as much as they can be, they're directly comparable to one another. If one looks brighter than another, that's because it was. The two reflective jackets are at a distance of 15m and 30m, respectively, from the light. The reflective strips down the centre are at 2.8m intervals.

Is that it, then?

No, of course not. You can look through out Buyer's Guide for more information on what kind of lights will suit your riding. A super-bright beam isn't much use if the light ends up in a hedge after the first pothole, or fizzles out when it starts raining. We'll be subjecting all the lights to the rigours of the road.cc testing process and when we're happy that we've thrashed them they'll each get a full review. We'll include the comparison tool in each review too. In the meantime, we thought you'd like to see how they fared.

A word about logs

The graph displaying the beam data uses a logarithmic scale to display the output of the lights. If you understand or care about such things, here's why:

Firstly, light beams follow an inverse square law regarding the strength of the light at increasing distance, because they're illuminating a two-dimensional plane. So at twice the distance, the light beam is spread over four times the area. Consequently, a light that is measured as twice as bright at its centre won't let you see twice as far. The logarithmic scale produces a more realistic comparison because of this.

Secondly, the variations in the amount of peripheral light, though much smaller than the variations in the centre, make a big difference to how much peripheral vision you get. The logarithmic scale amplifies these differences relative to the centre of the beam, so it's easier to see which unit is putting out more light at the sides.

A word about the non-circular beam patterns

Some of the lights on test don't have a uniform circular beam pattern, with more light along the centre of the beam. Because of this, the beam values on the long graph are a bit inflated because there's more light concentrated in the axis we're measuring, and less illuminating the tree canopy. It doesn't skew the data hugely though, and the beam graph in conjunction with the beam shot  and beam shape should give you the whole story.

The comparator is below. Have fun!

If you have a nice big screen you can click here for the widescreen version (1400x1000px)

Dave is a founding father of road.cc, having previously worked on Cycling Plus and What Mountain Bike magazines back in the day. He also writes about e-bikes for our sister publication ebiketips. He's won three mountain bike bog snorkelling World Championships, and races at the back of the third cats.

Add new comment

52 comments

Avatar
Alpenglow | 11 years ago
0 likes

OK, you guys did a nice job with the photos and the side by side stuff, but you completely missed the boat in your comment "Some cheaper lights use candlepower, candela or lux, which are measurements of the brightest part of the beam at a set distance." You correctly state that light falls off per the square of the distance (Inverse Square Law), but what you missed is that the candela value is the number that is plugged into the ISL to determine how much light is on a surface at a given distance.

Lumens are not an accurate way to compare projected light. It's like this: I have a gallon of water, how deep is it? You can't say unless you know how big your bucket is. If these were LEDs that were to be used in table lamps (spreading light in all directions with no optics), lumen count is enough to compare them side-by-side.

What very few LED bike light manufacturers do is publish candela or candlepower values, which can be used to calculate footcandles (lumens/sq ft) or lux (per square meter) at a given distance. These numbers are really the only value that should be used, and we need to demand that manufacturers publish them. Instead, unfortunately, you discounted them in your introduction.

Think of candela or candlepower like water pressure from your garden hose. If you can set the spray to wide fan or narrow stream, the flow rate has not changed but the distribution has. A spot and a flood may have the same lumen package but will distribute their light very differently.

Unfortunately, by discounting this value, your article supports the manufacturers that publish only initial (not actual) lumens, and does not increase pressure on them to publish photometric data that they have.

Avatar
wodge | 11 years ago
0 likes

Where's the latest version of the Hope Vision One? As far as I'm aware this is still a very popular light choice, and has been in at least one previous roadcc test. Really disappointed that I can't compare the Lezyne models with the updated Hope Vision One.  2

Avatar
partsandlabour replied to wodge | 11 years ago
0 likes
wodge wrote:

Where's the latest version of the Hope Vision One? As far as I'm aware this is still a very popular light choice, and has been in at least one previous roadcc test. Really disappointed that I can't compare the Lezyne models with the updated Hope Vision One.  2

+1 on the lack of hope lights. I thought Exposure might have been included too. Fantastic test all the same. Any idea when the rear light test will be with us? I'm poised to buy some better rear end illumination!

Avatar
Tjuice | 11 years ago
0 likes

This is fantastic! Many thanks for the extremely hard work that must have gone into developing this. This must be the world's only bible for bike light choice.

Thoughts for further tests:
1) Would be awesome if possible to add some lights from previous years to act as a useful benchmark for those of us buying new lights (appreciate that this will depend largely on what you have lying around at any point in time, but that may be better than nothing)

2) Agree about the photo of the light from in front of the bike so you can see how much you will blind/be invisible to oncoming traffic

Amazing stuff. Hope this lives and grows for many years!

Avatar
rootes | 11 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Another year, another test missing the Philips SafeRide.

we did try, we can only test what we're sent

Yes shame to miss this as it is meant to be one of the few lights to be designed for the road more like a car or motorcycle light

BUT

great article and presentation! very useful.

Avatar
Chuffy replied to rootes | 11 years ago
0 likes
rootes wrote:
Quote:

Another year, another test missing the Philips SafeRide.

we did try, we can only test what we're sent

Yes shame to miss this as it is meant to be one of the few lights to be designed for the road more like a car or motorcycle light

BUT

great article and presentation! very useful.

We did test the Trelock 950 last year, which is very similar in concept. Awesome light.  16

Avatar
Roberj4 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Well done Road.CC it's a great test and should be rolled out every year or a permanent web feature. As a reward all Road.CC staff may have Christmas day off.

Avatar
jollygoodvelo | 11 years ago
0 likes

I've got a couple of the Ebay/DealExtreme Magicshine clones - one with a smooth mirror and one with light orange-peel effect mirror. I have one of them on the bar, one on a head mount (when off road only).

They are completely and totally amazing. Amazing enough that in the forest last night - under trees in the pitch dark - I was still bombing along at over 20mph in places although it was a bit muddy and I was taking it easy.

The smooth mirror is a bit better on road, it 'throws' better, but off-road the orange peel one is brilliant as it gives a smoother, wider field. £30 or so each and if one breaks I'll buy another - I can't imagine why anyone buys these £200-plus ones!

Avatar
MrSkeen89 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Thanks for this. Really a very helpful test!

Avatar
aslongasicycle | 11 years ago
0 likes

Extremely thorough. Brilliant, even.

Avatar
paulrattew | 11 years ago
0 likes

I've just recently bought the Magicshine. It's an awesome light but I was worried that it would blind oncoming motorists so I've added a bit of reflective plastic as a cowling to limit the beam a bit. This makes me much more comfortable using it as the last thing i want is for drivers to not see me because I've blinded them

Avatar
euanlindsay replied to paulrattew | 11 years ago
0 likes

Funny thing Paul, if the driver can't see they are meant to slow down.

Avatar
Rob Simmonds replied to euanlindsay | 11 years ago
0 likes
euanlindsay wrote:

Funny thing Paul, if the driver can't see they are meant to slow down.

And forcing oncoming traffic to slow down by shining a blinding light in their eyes is acceptable how?  39

Avatar
dave atkinson replied to paulrattew | 11 years ago
0 likes
paulrattew wrote:

I've just recently bought the Magicshine. It's an awesome light but I was worried that it would blind oncoming motorists so I've added a bit of reflective plastic as a cowling to limit the beam a bit. This makes me much more comfortable using it as the last thing i want is for drivers to not see me because I've blinded them

that's what i ended up doing with mine last year too.

Avatar
Sudor | 11 years ago
0 likes

Great comparative test - sets a new standard - please add the full exposure range though

Avatar
byke.com.au | 11 years ago
0 likes

Has the camera's white balance been set manually or left on automatic?

Keen to know if the variation in colour is entirely due to the different lights or not.

Avatar
pdw | 11 years ago
0 likes

Nice test, but I'm not sure about the tunnel for the beam shots - I'd rather see what they look like on the road.

Shame you couldn't get your hands on a SafeRide. There's a real shortage of lights with proper beam patterns suitable for use on the road.

Avatar
Cheesyclimber | 11 years ago
0 likes

This is great, one of the best and most comprehensive tests I've ever seen on the internet full stop.

Must have got a bit freaky being in that tunnel in the dark though!

Avatar
Michael5 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Fantastic test. Well done. I liked the old version, but this is miles better. Despite the flaws about bouncing light beams and all.

Avatar
steff | 11 years ago
0 likes

A pedant writes: it's worth pointing out that "Cree" in itself isn't a brand of light - they just make the actual LED devices and sell a wide range either as bare chips to solder to a board or as little PCB modules. Once you've picked your LED, you've got all the physical construction issues to deal with as well as cooling the chip and making a nice efficient constant-current power supply to drive the thing (if you hook it up directly to a battery it will try very hard to turn into a gas).

I got a couple of unbranded cree lights off eBay a while back - one was DOA (at the chip level), the other worked OK but the drive circuitry wasn't very good - got hot on a fresh battery and dimmed as it discharged. Caveat emptor and all that.

Avatar
Dr_Lex | 11 years ago
0 likes

Another year, another test missing the Philips SafeRide.

Avatar
dave atkinson replied to Dr_Lex | 11 years ago
0 likes
Dr_Lex wrote:

Another year, another test missing the Philips SafeRide.

we did try, we can only test what we're sent

Avatar
Dr_Lex replied to dave atkinson | 11 years ago
0 likes
Dave Atkinson wrote:
Dr_Lex wrote:

Another year, another test missing the Philips SafeRide.

we did try, we can only test what we're sent

Dave,
Thanks. That also explains why other "furren" but popular lights like Ay-Up are absent.
Nice coding to get the slick horizontal comparison!

Avatar
dave atkinson replied to Dr_Lex | 11 years ago
0 likes
Dr_Lex wrote:

Nice coding to get the slick horizontal comparison!

nice paying of $8 to get someone else's code, more like

 1

Avatar
PpPete replied to Dr_Lex | 11 years ago
0 likes

Agreed!
Although the bracket on the dyno version is a piece of s**t, the light itself is excellent, good switch, nice wide beam, good for seeing both verges on dark country lanes, and enough throw for normal speeds.
As a back-up I use one of the silly bright chinese "Cree" torches which has a narrow beam but enough throw for full speed descents. Makes a brilliant combination and for less money total than, say, a Strada.

Avatar
Gkam84 | 11 years ago
0 likes

I have Cree's, best lights I've had in many years, but they are VERY strong, thats my only worry with them, blinding other road users.

Avatar
russyparkin | 11 years ago
0 likes

shit the bed!

hope you patent this test. amazing!

@kie7077

the cree for most parts is not eu tested and is slightly dubious build quality versus some, i also wouldnt charge it out of my sight either, just in case..

i run the cree along with a Exposure joystick. I take the joystick waiting for the inevitable failure of the cree, i have to say this fear is fading fast though  1 the cree has not missed a beat and some chaps i ride with are on their 3rd season with them.

i took a punt and thought for £18 (got mine from china direct) if it only makes one winter i will be happy

in short there is no way its pumping out 12/1800 lumen but its plenty bright and i am getting 3 hours out of mine on full beam.

sites like this kind of cant review these things, abit like fake pinarellos etc.
they know they work im sure but the site will be funded by advert revenue and im sure legit and tested manufacturers would not support people advertising.

in short though a cree works fine, is nice and bright but always in the back of my mind is the sealing and build quality, so my trusty Exposure will always join it  1

russ

Avatar
stealth | 11 years ago
0 likes

I've just ordered one of the Chinese "Cree 1800 lumen" lamps from eBay. Several club-mates have them and are raving about them.

Avatar
Gkam84 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Did you turn the Knog Blinder on?  19  19

Avatar
kie7077 | 11 years ago
0 likes

I just got a £30 ebay light, claims 1800 Lumens (approx 18w), it might not be quite that bright but it's more than enough to cycle 20mph through a dark unlit park.

It withstood a 45min downpour in which I got soaked even with waterproof jacket.

'CREE XML XM-L T6 1800 LM LED' It comes with a recharger, the claimed battery length is 3hours on full. The flashing mode is strobe only, which you'd have to be a dangerous pest to use (doh). Takes several hours to charge.

Why pay £100 - £200 when you can get a good light for £30.

The ebay no' is 140744146377 and it's a UK seller.

Come on road.cc review this one, it's a bargain.

Pages

Latest Comments