Home
Verdict: 
A good product that works well as both a light and a camera – an innovative solution
Weight: 
291g
Contact: 
Cycliq Fly12
8 10

The Cycliq Fly12 is a really well thought out and practical light/camera combo. The brightness of the light is good, the camera records well and uploading footage is also nice and easy. Charging it could be easier, though, or at least quicker.

I have been using Cycliq's Fly6 for a couple of years and was excited to test out this front facing version, the Fly12.

> Find your nearest dealer here

The basis of the device is that it is both a 400-lumen front light and a 1080p camera. It is certainly larger than most other front lights I have used in the past, but markedly smaller than a light and camera on their own. So, how did it fare?

Cycliq Fly12 - front.jpg

Cycliq Fly12 - front.jpg

In terms of lighting, the Fly12 pumps out 400 lumens in a number of different sequences, including flashing, solid, intermittent and off. It works really well and even in the videos you can see the light bouncing off signs that are pretty far off. It works in all conditions and I found myself using it both in the dark and during the day as added visibility.

Cycliq Fly12 - in hand 2

Cycliq Fly12 - in hand 2

The second important element is, naturally, the camera, which I found to be really good. The video quality is strong, it picks up sound well, including conversations with those around me, and – most importantly – it keeps a steady picture rather than bouncing around all over the place.

Cycliq Fly12 - app footage

Cycliq Fly12 - app footage

As with the Fly6, my favourite feature is that, unlike most cameras, you don't need to worry about wiping the memory because it works on a constant loop. It means that once it has run out of space on the 16GB memory card, it simply deletes the last video and keeps working in that cyclical fashion. If you are in an incident, it automatically saves the 15 minutes before and after. This is done when the unit is turned over 45 degrees, triggering the system to save the footage if you are knocked off.

The lack of movement in the picture comes from the mount, which is similar to those used by GoPro. The Fly12 comes with two, one that goes around the handlebar and the other that can be used in a Garmin mount. It can also be used either above or below the bar, which is a nice touch. I used it both ways, but preferred it underneath simply because the unit is quite large and bar space is at a premium. It worked perfectly well in both positions. The only negative of having it beneath the bar is that you cannot see the indicator light to show when battery levels are low, although that being said, it gives you an audible indicator of the level with four beeps, one for every 25 per cent of battery life left.

Cycliq Fly12 - clamp.jpg

Cycliq Fly12 - clamp.jpg

One thing I particularly like about the Fly12 is that it doesn't look like a camera, something I really appreciate. You can get some snarky looks from people if you have a GoPro stuck on your helmet, but this gets rid of that issue.

As for battery levels, it's one of my bug bears. Not in that it runs out quickly – I believe Cycliq when it says the Fly12 has a 10-hour battery life, it seems relatively accurate – but in the time it takes to charge. I like to charge my USB lights on my computer at work, but with this I can charge it for hours and it won't be full unless I charge it from the plug overnight. It isn't a huge thing, but something to be aware of.

Uploading videos is simple and can be done in a couple of ways. You can put it onto the computer either by removing the MicroSD card or plugging it in with the supplied USB lead, and it can also be done through the app, by connecting your phone to the unit through WiFi. Getting it connected is simple and is done through one of the two buttons at the rear of the light. You can then edit in app, add tramlines and there's a neat Strava integration to overlay Strava stats onto the video. I found that the Strava integration worked well, but I struggled a little with the tramlines, which was a little frustrating. It can also be connected via Bluetooth to make changes to the settings on the unit.

Cycliq Fly12 - app settings

Cycliq Fly12 - app settings

It worked in all conditions and I used it while riding through floods on EU referendum day in London without it impacting at all. This is due to the innovative use of nano technology from Cycliq; it keeps out the water well and I didn't have any issues, even in some of the wettest conditions I have ridden in.

The unit also has a nifty security feature that tells you if your bike has been moved, as long as it is connected to your phone. It means you can turn your back on your bike during a coffee stop without getting paranoid about it being stolen; or at least you'll know if someone attempts it...

> Read more reviews of bike cameras here

Its RRP of £249 sounds expensive, but when you break it down and look at getting a good quality camera and light, it seems like a good deal. It's hard to compare it directly with anything else, simply because there is nothing similar currently on the market.

Overall, I really liked using the Fly12. It brings together a very good quality camera and bright light in a well-made package. Perhaps it could charge more easily and perhaps the editing on the app could be smoother, but these are minor issues in what is an innovative and well-thought-out product.

Verdict

A good product that works well as both a light and a camera – an innovative solution

road.cc test report

Make and model: Cycliq Fly12

Size tested: 1080p

Tell us what the product is for, and who it's aimed at. What do the manufacturers say about it? How does that compare to your own feelings about it?

It is a front light and camera rolled into one package, for those who want to either incorporate two things into one or want a subtle camera without drawing attention to it.

It works for this, a subtle camera that also offers a strong light.

Tell us some more about the technical aspects of the product?

Video

Resolution

1920 x 1080 @ 45 fps

1920 x 1080 @ 30 fps

1280 x 720 @ 60 fps

1280 x 720 @ 30 fps

Video File Type: MP4

Encoding: h.264

Time Stamp: MMMM DD YYYY HH:MM:SS

Sensor Viewing Angle: Ultra Wide File Sizes: 5 Minute Files up to 750MB (1080@45fps)

Audio

Internal Microphone

Compression: 48KHz Samping Rate, AAC Compression, Auto Gain Control

Weight & Size

8.6oz / 244g

H: 2in / 51mm

L: 4in / 103.7mm

W: 2.3in / 60.9mm

Lighting

Solid, Flashing, Pulse and Studio

Battery

Charging Capacity: 4400mAh

Voltage 3.7v

Up to 10 Hours Run Time

Weather Proofing

Nano Technology

Dimming Settings

High, Medium, Low and Off

Memory

16GB Class 10 microSD Card Included (Supports up to 64GB)

Light Output

Up to 400 Lumen

Beam Length: up to 78ft / 24m

Connectivity

Bluetooth: 4.0 BLE

WiFi Streaming: 802.11 bgn

Ports

Charging: MicroUSB(USB2.0)

Connection: MicroUSB(USB2.0)

Memory: MicroSD

Rate the product for quality of construction:
 
8/10

Very well made both in terms of the body and also the bracket. Videos are stable and the unit stays on the bike well.

Rate the product for performance:
 
8/10

Performs very well, video and sound quality are strong and the lighting element is bright with a good variety of sequencing.

Rate the product for durability:
 
8/10

Seems well made and the nano technology makes it more or less waterproof, so likely to last a long time.

Rate the product for weight (if applicable)
 
5/10

At 291g it isn't the lightest, but at the same time a decent light and camera would probably be about the same, so hard to be too critical.

Rate the product for value:
 
6/10

Again, hard to say given it's a combination of a camera and a light, but going by the quality of both, I wouldn't say this is too much.

Tell us how the product performed overall when used for its designed purpose

Very well, it records good quality footage, the lighting works well, and it stays on the bike easily thanks to a strong mounting system.

Tell us what you particularly liked about the product

The revolving recording is a real highlight, much like the Fly6. The ability to just leave it on your bike is a real plus.

Tell us what you particularly disliked about the product

The charging can be a pain as it needs to be through a socket rather than computer USB unless you can wait for a long time for it to be fully charged.

Did you enjoy using the product? Yes

Would you consider buying the product? Yes

Would you recommend the product to a friend? Yes

Use this box to explain your score

It performs well, the app works nicely and it has decent lighting options. The videos look good, the sound is picked up well, and if you want to use an overlay then that works well too.

Overall rating: 8/10

About the tester

Age: 27  Height: 6 ft  Weight:

I usually ride: Cannondale Supersix Evo 6  My best bike is:

I've been riding for: 5-10 years  I ride: Every day  I would class myself as: Experienced

I regularly do the following types of riding: commuting, club rides, sportives, general fitness riding, fixed/singlespeed, mountain biking

George spends his days flitting between writing about data, running business magazines and writing about sports technology. The latter gave him the impetus (excuse) to get even further into the cycling world before taking the dive and starting his own cycling sites and writing for Road.cc. 

When he is not writing about cycling, he is either out on his bike cursing not living in the countryside or boring anybody who will listen about the latest pro peloton/cycling tech/cycling infrastructure projects.  

25 comments

Avatar
LegalFun [81 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes

With a battery capacity of 4400mah I would have thought that you could fast charge it in about 2hrs 15mins using a decent 2amp USB charger...

I guess the Fly12 must throttle the charge rate. Other than that and the high initial price, it seems like a good idea, and I might consider one.

Avatar
C.Gregs [19 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes
LegalFun wrote:

With a battery capacity of 4400mah I would have thought that you could fast charge it in about 2hrs 15mins using a decent 2amp USB charger...

I guess the Fly12 must throttle the charge rate. Other than that and the high initial price, it seems like a good idea, and I might consider one.

 

Must do as mine takes over 8 hours from my computer but around 5-6 using a wall socket.

Avatar
TypeVertigo [348 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes

Same comments about the charge rate. I'd have thought a high-current cellphone charger would have shortened the charge time.

To be fair though, I have a Cat Eye Volt 1200 with a 6.2Ah battery, and that takes 8 hours to charge from empty via a high-current charger. When charged via a USB 2.0 jack that time balloons to 14.

I would have liked to see at least 600 lumens out of the Fly12's front light, but everything else seems to be well done.

Avatar
LegalFun [81 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes

As a first foray into the Light + Camera combo market, it seems quite good.
I suspect that a mk2 version would boost light output, the camera specs and the battery but no product is perfect on first introduction.

Perhaps a Fly 12 Plus model with a higher output and perhaps image stabilisation at a higher price point would be a sensible addition to the lineup, as well as a Fly6 Plus.

Avatar
unconstituted [2355 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes

Really need footage of it picking up license plates to be convinced. I've a feeling it's not up to the job in anything but limited range of optimal conditions and speeds.

Avatar
handlebarcam [935 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes

So, if it can be used both above and below the handlebars, then the light and camera must both be angled straight ahead? That's certainly how it appears to be in the photograph. Which means either you'll be taking useless video of the tarmac in front of your wheel, or you'll be blinding oncoming cyclists, pedestrians and motorists with 400 lumens of light.

Also, it isn't surprising it is slow to recharge. In order to run both a HD camera and a powerful LED light, the battery must be more powerful than one that only has to do either. Which means it requires a high current to recharge at a reasonable rate. Most computer USB ports supply half or less the current of a USB charger that plugs into the mains.

Avatar
rix [162 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes
unconstituted wrote:

Really need footage of it picking up license plates to be convinced. I've a feeling it's not up to the job in anything but limited range of optimal conditions and speeds.

I have their Fly6 rear light/camera. I like it's simplicity of operation and battery life. Video is 720p and compression quality is not very good, although sufficient to register license plate nr. of the car that is about to hit you.

In comparison, 1st gen VIRB has much clearer picture and license plate numbers are readable from much further away.

Avatar
LegalFun [81 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes
handlebarcam wrote:

So, if it can be used both above and below the handlebars, then the light and camera must both be angled straight ahead? That's certainly how it appears to be in the photograph. Which means either you'll be taking useless video of the tarmac in front of your wheel, or you'll be blinding oncoming cyclists, pedestrians and motorists with 400 lumens of light. Also, it isn't surprising it is slow to recharge. In order to run both a HD camera and a powerful LED light, the battery must be more powerful than one that only has to do either. Which means it requires a high current to recharge at a reasonable rate. Most computer USB ports supply half or less the current of a USB charger that plugs into the mains.

 

Good point, I didn't think about the angle thing....

As for the battery, it is 4.4Ah whereas my iPad is 10Ah
My iPad charges from my computer in about 4 hours in a USB 3.0 but Inhave never tried it in a standard USB socket, so that may explain why a smaller battery takes so long to charge.
 

Avatar
Plasterer's Radio [289 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes

So, if it can be used both above and below the handlebars, then the light and camera must both be angled straight ahead? That's certainly how it appears to be in the photograph. Which means either you'll be taking useless video of the tarmac in front of your wheel, or you'll be blinding oncoming cyclists, pedestrians and motorists with 400 lumens of light. 

 

I have now been using mine since it was delivered in April and what you remark on hasn't been an issue for me.

Yes, you do need to angle the light down to prevent dazzle etc. The wide angle of the camera easily covers the road ahead in this position.

Avatar
cyclisto [192 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes

Buy a 10 quid e-bay torch with a 18650 battery and a GoPro and you are done

Avatar
bikebot [2120 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes
cyclisto wrote:

Buy a 10 quid e-bay torch with a 18650 battery and a GoPro and you are done

Well, even buy a decent 400-lumen front light, and a decent 1080 camera.  That's about £40-50 for the light, ~£100 for the camera.  Lots of good Chinese brand cameras such as Dazzne/SJCam that will do the job brilliantly for around £60 as well.

Good luck to Cycliq, I like the company and that they're creating these products (slightly amazed that the Fly6 has no direct competiton, it's been around for awhile now). But this is an expensive item, and I hope they'll be able to widen their range or bring prices down quickly.

Avatar
Andrew Hagen [8 posts] 11 months ago
1 like
bikebot wrote:

Well, even buy a decent 400-lumen front light, and a decent 1080 camera.  That's about £40-50 for the light, ~£100 for the camera.  Lots of good Chinese brand cameras such as Dazzne/SJCam that will do the job brilliantly for around £60 as well.

Good luck to Cycliq, I like the company and that they're creating these products (slightly amazed that the Fly6 has no direct competiton, it's been around for awhile now). But this is an expensive item, and I hope they'll be able to widen their range or bring prices down quickly.

Hi Bikebot - you are correct about loads of other cheap products on the market however we are not trying to compete with them. Those products will do their job brilliantly as you say but the action camera has got serious limitations when it comes to using it for cycling.

If comparing apples with apples, you would get a top brand 400 lumen light (£45 as you suggested and weighing around 100g) and to top brand & second tier model action camera (£329 and weighing 147g). These solutions weigh more, cost more, take up more space on your bike, require individual charging, won't have endless looping recording or incident protection. With the iPhone app and Fly12 you can add your Strava metrics to video snippets, turn you bike into a bike alarm and include closs pass tramlines. 

When suggest it "is an expensive item" I have to put forward that there is no point of reference. It would be similar to saying any particular brand of bicycle or car is "expensive" without comparing it to something relative. You could argue that lights are lights and be not far from the mark with the devil in the detail (quality and brand of LED or lens etc) however, there is no £100 camera on the planet that can perform like Fly12 and when you consider all the things it does specifically for us cyclists then it stands alone as the best solution.

Whilst I am totally biased as the CEO of the company, I do not want to create a debate but I do encourage all the readers to research it for yourself and compare all the benefits of Fly12 against what you could buy to deliver the same outcome and I know you will agree that Fly12 is fantastic value as a cycling accessory for both safety and capturing all the action.

We do like to hear from our current and future customers as it helps us with future product development so thank you for your comments, we do take them on board.

Ride safe!

Avatar
bikebot [2120 posts] 11 months ago
1 like
Andrew Hagen wrote:

Hi Bikebot - you are correct about loads of other cheap products on the market however we are not trying to compete with them. Those products will do their job brilliantly as you say but the action camera has got serious limitations when it comes to using it for cycling.

Could you elaborate on those limitations?

Andrew Hagen wrote:

If comparing apples with apples, you would get a top brand 400 lumen light (£45 as you suggested and weighing around 100g) and to top brand & second tier model action camera (£329 and weighing 147g).

That's GoPro Hero4 pricing. With respect to road.cc, I don't think the review is attemting to assess its video quality against other high end action cameras, and I'd look first to a reviewer with experience of those for comparison.  The second tier certainly isn't £300+, you can pick up really good Contour or Sony action cameras for as little as £100.  I'm sure you're very aware of how much downward pressure there is on pricing in that market, as mirrored in the GoPro Inc share price in the last year.

Andrew Hagen wrote:

These solutions weigh more, cost more, take up more space on your bike, require individual charging, won't have endless looping recording or incident protection. With the iPhone app and Fly12 you can add your Strava metrics to video snippets, turn you bike into a bike alarm and include closs pass tramlines. 

Absolutely. You have a product which offers features and convenience in a nice package, and you've set a price for it.  Though in my experience, looped recording is actually very common.

Andrew Hagen wrote:

When suggest it "is an expensive item" I have to put forward that there is no point of reference. It would be similar to saying any particular brand of bicycle or car is "expensive" without comparing it to something relative. You could argue that lights are lights and be not far from the mark with the devil in the detail (quality and brand of LED or lens etc) however, there is no £100 camera on the planet that can perform like Fly12 and when you consider all the things it does specifically for us cyclists then it stands alone as the best solution.

For me it absolutely is an expensive product.  I'm not trying to make a movie, I wouldn't buy a GoPro Black, and I wouldn't buy an integrated product that's pitched at the level.  If you think that's what the market does want, great.  I'm just making it clear that because of the price, I'll stick to cheaper solutions for my own needs.  Clipping on two devices rather than one isn't that incovenient, and for most rides it's actually just one.

Andrew Hagen wrote:

Whilst I am totally biased as the CEO of the company, I do not want to create a debate but I do encourage all the readers to research it for yourself and compare all the benefits of Fly12 against what you could buy to deliver the same outcome and I know you will agree that Fly12 is fantastic value as a cycling accessory for both safety and capturing all the action.

We do like to hear from our current and future customers as it helps us with future product development so thank you for your comments, we do take them on board.

Ride safe!

Actually, not so much agreement on the fantastic value point  3

But good luck. As before, I wish you well.  It's product that I'm sure will still do well, plenty of cyclists less thrifty than me!

 

 

Avatar
Plasterer's Radio [289 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes
unconstituted wrote:

Really need footage of it picking up license plates to be convinced. I've a feeling it's not up to the job in anything but limited range of optimal conditions and speeds.

After using one since it's launch, I can confirm that the footage is excellent and you will have no problems reading a number plate. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter [671 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes
Plasterer's Radio wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Really need footage of it picking up license plates to be convinced. I've a feeling it's not up to the job in anything but limited range of optimal conditions and speeds.

After using one since it's launch, I can confirm that the footage is excellent and you will have no problems reading a number plate. 

Seconded

Avatar
mrchrispy [488 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes

Love my fly6 to bits....so much so I hate going out without it, it just nice knowing its there doing its thing. only complain is the battery seems to be loosing its mojo as its not lasting that long between charges.

Fly12 is certainly close to the top of my want list but I'm waiting to see what the mount options will be on my new ride (likely to have a H31 Ergocockpit).

Customer support has also been good from Cycliq when I have call to use them.

Avatar
maldin [146 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes
bikebot wrote:
Andrew Hagen wrote:

Hi Bikebot - you are correct about loads of other cheap products on the market however we are not trying to compete with them. Those products will do their job brilliantly as you say but the action camera has got serious limitations when it comes to using it for cycling.

Could you elaborate on those limitations?

 

I think the most obvious and signficant one would be battery life of the camera. Most action cameras have a short battery life. You turn them on only for the duration of the action you are recording.

The Fly12 is designed to last the duration of your entire ride. That in itself makes it (nearly?) unique. Given that its primary duty is to provide good (rather than great) quality to record safety incidents over the entire ride, it's pretty much the only camera that qualifies for many cyclist's rides (assuming you do 2-5hrs rides). I agree that if you only do a 30minute commute other camera's will likely last long enough and be cheaper.  

And for the record, no, I don't own one, can't quite afford the price at this point and would prefer a slightly smaller, lighter one without a light. However, I appreciate they need to focus on where the majority of the market - it appears to be a very good device. 

Avatar
Andrew Hagen [8 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes
bikebot wrote:

Could you elaborate on those limitations?

Andrew Hagen wrote:

Mainly battery life, continual looping, mounting stability and incident protection.

That's GoPro Hero4 pricing. With respect to road.cc, I don't think the review is attemting to assess its video quality against other high end action cameras, and I'd look first to a reviewer with experience of those for comparison.  The second tier certainly isn't £300+, you can pick up really good Contour or Sony action cameras for as little as £100.  I'm sure you're very aware of how much downward pressure there is on pricing in that market, as mirrored in the GoPro Inc share price in the last year.

Absolutely. You have a product which offers features and convenience in a nice package, and you've set a price for it.  Though in my experience, looped recording is actually very common.

Andrew Hagen wrote:

Looping functionality is something that action cameras are introducing but are not a native feature as in Fly12 & Fly6.

For me it absolutely is an expensive product.  I'm not trying to make a movie, I wouldn't buy a GoPro Black, and I wouldn't buy an integrated product that's pitched at the level.  If you think that's what the market does want, great.  I'm just making it clear that because of the price, I'll stick to cheaper solutions for my own needs.  Clipping on two devices rather than one isn't that incovenient, and for most rides it's actually just one.

Andrew Hagen wrote:

Sure thing, we understand that everyone has their own preferences. We have tried to make something that works for most people but understand it's not for everyone.

Actually, not so much agreement on the fantastic value point  3

But good luck. As before, I wish you well.  It's product that I'm sure will still do well, plenty of cyclists less thrifty than me!

[/quote]

Thanks Bikebot - hopefully in the future we can deliver something that suits you better! 

Avatar
bikebot [2120 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes
maldin wrote:

 

I think the most obvious and signficant one would be battery life of the camera. Most action cameras have a short battery life. You turn them on only for the duration of the action you are recording.

The Fly12 is designed to last the duration of your entire ride. That in itself makes it (nearly?) unique. Given that its primary duty is to provide good (rather than great) quality to record safety incidents over the entire ride, it's pretty much the only camera that qualifies for many cyclist's rides (assuming you do 2-5hrs rides). I agree that if you only do a 30minute commute other camera's will likely last long enough and be cheaper.  

And for the record, no, I don't own one, can't quite afford the price at this point and would prefer a slightly smaller, lighter one without a light. However, I appreciate they need to focus on where the majority of the market - it appears to be a very good device. 

I would agree with that on battery life, but that does highlight it's appeal to a particular part of the market. I started using cameras for commuting, never really felt the need for the Sunday ride. I get two hours life on my current front camera, which is more than enough and I attach a power bank on longer rides. 

Genuinly curious what he saw as "serious limitations", as if there were many. I'm sure they've done their research, but...  they're all cameras, I'm not sure I can see what's that different about this camera to any others I've used. Looped recording, waterproof cases etc, are all very common. It does look nice.

The commuting market is where I suspect the majority of users are, but possibly not the early adopters. It's certainly where I would appreciate the convenience more. If I'm going to be on the bike for four hours plus, adding multiple devices doesn't bother me at all. It's the local errands and running to the shops where I want the simple device I can take on and off quickly.  The idea of leaving a small gadget worth £250 on the bike because it's got a bluetooth alarm that will alert me.... no, just no 

So, is the mass market really still people who use their bikes mainly for five hour rides and only stop for cake?

 

Avatar
gonedownhill [146 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes

Is it possible to turn the light down to a lower output? I have a 400 lumen front light and feel it is a bit overkill riding around my city, so usually turn it down to about half that and can still see it reflecting off signs 30m away even with it angled down.

 

This review would really have benefitted from some videos.

Avatar
Paul_C [496 posts] 11 months ago
1 like
Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Yes, you do need to angle the light down to prevent dazzle etc. The wide angle of the camera easily covers the road ahead in this position.

or they could have done what they do on the continent and have a lighting standard that insists on no dazzle which is achieved by beam shaping and a horizontal cutoff like a dipped beam...

Angling this one down does not prevent dazzle... the point source is too intrisically bright, not spread out over a large area...

Avatar
bikebot [2120 posts] 11 months ago
1 like
Paul_C wrote:
Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Yes, you do need to angle the light down to prevent dazzle etc. The wide angle of the camera easily covers the road ahead in this position.

or they could have done what they do on the continent and have a lighting standard that insists on no dazzle which is achieved by beam shaping and a horizontal cutoff like a dipped beam... Angling this one down does not prevent dazzle... the point source is too intrisically bright, not spread out over a large area...

That is my other reservation.  I feel a light "to be seen by" would have been a better choice for an integrated device, rather than more commuters with dick lights pointing at the horizon. I'm becoming quite fussy about beam shape, those Germans were onto something,

Avatar
Plasterer's Radio [289 posts] 11 months ago
1 like
gonedownhill wrote:

Is it possible to turn the light down to a lower output? I have a 400 lumen front light and feel it is a bit overkill riding around my city, so usually turn it down to about half that and can still see it reflecting off signs 30m away even with it angled down.

 

This review would really have benefitted from some videos.

 

Yes. It has 3 modes (plus off) for lighting. ON, flash & a diff flash. All 3 can be full, med or low.

I'd estimate they are 400lm, 200lm and 100lm.

I use the low one for normal use. It's enough to be seen by.

Avatar
Plasterer's Radio [289 posts] 11 months ago
0 likes
bikebot wrote:
Paul_C wrote:
Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Yes, you do need to angle the light down to prevent dazzle etc. The wide angle of the camera easily covers the road ahead in this position.

or they could have done what they do on the continent and have a lighting standard that insists on no dazzle which is achieved by beam shaping and a horizontal cutoff like a dipped beam... Angling this one down does not prevent dazzle... the point source is too intrisically bright, not spread out over a large area...

That is my other reservation.  I feel a light "to be seen by" would have been a better choice for an integrated device, rather than more commuters with dick lights pointing at the horizon. I'm becoming quite fussy about beam shape, those Germans were onto something,

Moan moan moan.

Avatar
bikebot [2120 posts] 11 months ago
1 like
Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Moan moan moan.

 

Well that was constructive.