One of the reasons we wanted to get out and ride the Jole Rider relay was to put a few lights through their paces, and see what you get for your money with various options. We wanted to see how the beams of each light stood up in relation to one another, so we set up a bike at the edge of the course and shot each light with the same exposure as it lit up two reflective jackets, one at 10m and one at 20m. It was dark (natch) and we were tired, so apologies for a couple of the shots that are slightly blurred due to mist on the lens… We’ll be posting full tests of these units, but for now here are our (slightly blurred) findings from the night. One thing seems fairly obvious: LED lights will replace all other types of cycle light fairly soon. They’re solid state and hard to break, they don’t use much power, they run fairly cool, they’re tolerant of a wide range of voltages, they last for ages… what’s not to like? Halogen and HID lights still abound in the market, and they’re likely to be around for some time to come, but the best light now in pretty much every sector of the market now is an LED unit, and with China tooling up to pump more and more of the things out, and the advent of the new Cree bulbs which replace Luxeons as the standard, it’s becoming less and less appealing to look at any other technology. Some non-LED lights (such as the extraordinary B&M Big Bang) still hold their own, but the list is getting shorter each time a test happens. The light that most epitomised what’s right with the new LED units was the Ultrafire WF606A, which came zip tied to the helmet of secret road.cc weapon Anthony (yorkshire_pk_ripper on the forum) as they don’t come with a mount – they’re just sold as torches. He managed to get them for about £8 each, and though we couldn’t find them that cheap they’re certainly widely available for £15 or less. They run from 2 AA batteries and the beam is well focused – the glass lens is a nice touch. It’s more spot than flood so it works well as a headtorch, when you can direct the light where you need it. www.kaidomain.com
Beam test: Ultrafire WF606A
The other Cree unit, the Fenix L1D Q5 (£35), was also impressive, especially as it managed its very strong beam from just a single AA battery. Ok, so the run time suffers a bit but it’s no big deal to stuff a couple of extra batteries in your jersey Or, indeed, enough to ride all night. Like the Ultrafire the beam is well controlled (not quite as well controlled as the image might suggest – those dark shadows down the side of the beam are the tri-bars!) and plenty bright enough for most night-time road trips. Unlike the Ultrafire, it does come with a bike mount that’s simple and effective. The mount holds the light firmly (it’s super-light, so unlikely to move around much anyway) in a velcro loop. There’s no lateral adjustment, so you’ll need bars that point straight forward, not swept units. www.fenixtorch.co.uk
Beam test: Fenix L1D Q5
Brightest on test by a stretch were Knog’s Gator 605 set (£220), a top end system with a price to match. We all liked the chunky rubber design and the smart control panel, although the indicator lights did get a bit distracting at times. With two 3W heads – one spot and one flood, though there didn’t seem to be much to choose between them – and a round town light with flashing mode, they were quite capable of producing much more light than we needed for riding on the road, or a darkened airfield. Which begs the question: how much light do you need? Already people on the forum are telling of off-road night excursions with nowt but a cheap LED torch to light the way, and certainly I’ve relied on a Silva 3W headtorch for off-road duties on more than one occasion. What’s the extra £180 over two Ultrafires getting you? Well, it’s getting you a lot of nice industrial design and an expensive (in these times of shortage) Li-Ion battery. And probably a bit more light, but not much. And you can always get a third ultrafire. and a fourth. And fifth… www.knog.com.au
Beam test: Knog Gator 605
The Niteflux Vision Stick Photon 4 (£99) houses a 4W LED and a Lithium Ion battery in what’s basically a fairly beefy torch. The light separates at the head for charging, and cleverly you fit both ends into the bike mount and tighten – there’s no danger of the light falling off the mount. The Aluminium thread is a bit shallow, though, and is already starting to round off, so you need to be careful when putting the thing together. The beam is impressive (there’s a low 1W setting too that gives you 8hrs of light) and the whole package is nicely finished. Again, stacking up against the cheaper torches it’s losing out in terms of value, but at less than half the price of the Knog it’s more affordable to the commuting masses. www.fisheroutdoor.co.uk
Beam test: Niteflux Vision Stick Photon 4
And what of the Heath-Robinson own brand road.cc light? Well, apart from the resemblance to a bomb and the tendency of the end to fall off, it acquitted itself… okay. The beam was plenty enough to ride by, though the lens didn’t focus the light there was too well – too much around the edges and not enough in the middle. Mostly though, we were struck by the futility of trying to make something in your shed that’s not quite as good as something you can buy ready made for less money. We also tried a couple of town lights – the Knog Skink and the Cateye EL-220 – which both worked fine but are more for being seen than for seeing. Again, we’ll be testing them more throughly, and in their natural environment, soon. Beam tests for all these lights are in the Beam test gallery So what’s the conclusion? well, for most of you the conclusion is simple: go and buy cheap LED torches from t’internet and devise ways of fitting them to your bike. Or just do as Anthony did, and tie them to your helmet. You can spend more (much more), but for most riding on most bikes they’ll push out enough power to get you home without wrapping yourself round a tree/car/signpost. One thing that’s worth mentioning is that light manufacturers still aren’t making their systems visible from the side, as required by the British Standard that governs cycle lights. The Cateye was the exception here: all the others had little or no side visibility, and as such are technically not legal. This is forgivable for the cheap torches – they’re just torches after all, not specifically bike lights – but less so of the more expensive units.
- Tech News
- Features

How much light is enough? our findings from the 12hr…
Add as a preferred source on Google
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
No Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@chrisonabike Ah yes, the Monmouth Pl pump track. Apparently there is a bingo card of annoying bike infra features and someone was keen to get a full house. The good planners of Bristol were clearly envious and copied the design on Whiteladies Road this year
Also "if there is going to be cycle infra anywhere, it should be in the park". Having cycled in Bath a couple of times I can see where he's coming from (thinking about child and elderly relatives). I understand this as "this town's motor traffic is so out of control that even proper cycle infra (the whole raison d'être of which is 'motor traffic') doesn't make me think my relatives would be safe". That's pretty sad.
@slc when I last visited, it was more like humps - for the cyclists that is! Up and down at the "creative" bus stop "bypasses" (eg. on Monmouth Place). Edinburgh might be jealous with their "trap you in a "protected" bike lane when the bus pulls into it" efforts. Both are pretty hopeless.
Even Uk efforts to *improve* safety for all vulnerable road users neatly feed back to also dissuade vulnerable road users. Again improves those safety numbers... This happens because these are never allowed to "inconvenience" motoring (or - can't allocate too many thousands for that because this big road already costs millions). So rather than reduce and/or move the motor traffic, the "safer infra" becomes uninviting and inconvenient (see "wait 5 minutes at the lights", "dodgy underpass" and "concrete trenches in the sky" overpasses).
@belugabob seems the threads have got out of sync (as my browser shows 'em), but yes. A great way to improve the cycling KSI stats is to have no cyclists. Guaranteed zero cyclist KSIs! The UK hasn't got there (yet) of course, but along with reducing cyclist numbers another proven way is to reduce the interactions between cyclists and motorists. That has happened both in NL and also in most of the UK - but ... a bit differently here. The roads have become so uninviting to most that what cycling there is increasingly takes place in parks, along canals, or in people's garages. Good for those road safety figures though. And as long as we keep pointing at them (to the exclusion of anything else), we could keep "winning the argument"... all the way to having nobody travelling outside a motor vehicle - or outside at all. And think how many lives will be saved!
@wtjs "My only objection to the anti-helmet propaganda involves the notion that wearing a helmet makes the wearer more likely to suffer a collision and consequent head injury." I've never heard anyone claim this, perhaps you could post a few examples? What is demonstrably true, is that cyclists who wear helmets have more collisions, but no-one claims that they always involve the head. Given the levels of pro-helmet propaganda over the last thirty years, your claims of anti-helmet propaganda are risible. And I'm being very, very polite. "I resort to common sense to dispute this." No you don't. You merely assert something without evidence, and anyone resorting to the 'it's common sense' argument has already lost.
@Rendel Harris "I do try not to enter into discussion with you on this Bert, because I know you will never change your stance one iota, but I’ve crashed a motorcycle at around 35 mph and hit my head on the kerb hard enough to compress discs in my spine and tear neck ligaments but above the neck I came away with nothing worse than a mild concussion." That's BURT not Bert, and as for someone who will never change their stance, kettle, meet pot. Thanks for your anecdote, but as I'm sure you're aware, anecdotal evidence is evidence of absolutely nothing. That's the same as all those hundreds, if not thousands, of cyclists holding up a broken helmet claiming that it saved their life, when the death rate of cyclists does not fall with increased helmet wearing. "If you’re going to tell me that I could’ve done the same thing without a helmet on and walked away with the same injuries I’m going to have to say that’s nonsense." As you ought to know by now, wearing protective equipment influences behaviour. If you weren't wearing a helmet, would you have taken such risks? The answer, as I'm sure you know, is no. The evidence you provide does not prove that motorcycle helmets are effective in a direct impact at more than 16mph, it shows that helmets can reduce damage by being a sacrificial layer, not an impact absorber. You might be interested in the evidence about when helmets were made obligatory for motorcyclists in the UK: the deaths of motorcyclists fell immediately. But someone did a rather more rigorous analysis, and found that the helmets became magically effective between 10pm and 2am. Clearly they weren't magic, so something else was more likely to be the cause of reduced motorcyclist deaths, so what happened at the same time? The breathalyser. So motorcyclists and drivers weren't driving drunk, and the reduced deaths were nothing to do with helmets. The same effect has been observed in USA states, which were obliged to bring in motorcycle helmet laws or lose federal funding. The death rate didn't drop. Some of those states then withdrew the helmet law, amidst predictions of dead motorcyclists piled up on every corner, but the death rate in those states didn't rise. PPE for victims in a road scenario is largely irrelevant, as shown by the data, because those with more protection take more risks, and drivers take more risks around those perceived to be wearing protection. What really works is reducing risk, by segregation and making those posing the danger take more care. That is what has been shown to work, not more protection. Perhaps Rendel, we should all drive tanks? EDIT "Again, it’s clearly nonsense to say the helmet hasn’t worked when someone’s walked away from coming down headfirst on the tarmac from a height at high speed." I've just watched the video, and the vertical drop appears to be about 1.5m, so well within the capabilities of the helmet in a direct collision. The horizontal speed is irrelevant to the impact.
Mmm - it does seem to be perfectly fine as is, apart from the odd bicycle causing havoc, of course.
Bath's transport problems could be most effectively resolved by the introduction of some gentle curves https://youtu.be/CTQ-YljDT0I?si=VVccex3AJWDTLFhp
@Nigel Garage I suppose it's typical for an accountant to imagine that numbers explain everything. Numerous factors account for the Netherland's higher death rate per capita, the primary one being that 45% of the population cycles daily and cyclists, as we all know, are more vulnerable than car drivers. You can pretty much guarantee that if nearly 30% of trips made in Britain were made by bike, as they are in the Netherlands, our casualty figures would be higher. The fatality risk for cyclists in the UK is almost ten times that for car drivers/passengers, as it is in the Netherlands. I'm sure a beancounter like yourself can figure out that means that if cycling goes up, fatality numbers go up too. The UK frequently scores well on per capita road deaths because as a population we rely so heavily on cars rather than the more vulnerable forms of transport. You, with your strange autophilia (or is that autoeroticism?), probably imagine that's a good thing, but anyone with the wellbeing of the populace and the environment at heart does not.