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
@Mr Blackbird where can I find photos of this study? Asking for a friend.
@Gd29 I was waiting for the classic "why don't we just ban driving completely by reducing the speed limit to 5mph or 0!" argument and here it is. The statistics are very clear on the benefits of reducing the speed limit from 30-20mph. It doesn't remove bad driving but it mitigates the damage. It also makes fuck all difference to journey times. Everything with driving is risk vs reward. Sure, dropping it to 10mph would save a lot more people but it would make travel by car ridiculous and have minimal benefit vs 20mph. The reward wouldn't be worth the cost.
@Gd29 "Speed limits are an ineffective tool when the problem is drivers not driving in an appropriate manner for the conditions and environment. Those drivers weren’t following the speed limit and/or paying sufficient attention anyway!" That is a question, not an assertion. What are the relative numbers of drivers who are eg. "don't care" criminals who may never have taken a test or are happy to take life, how many are "criminally negligent" eg. may have a licence and not intend to break the law regardless, but just aren't fussed about basic safe driving (maybe regularly drive while tired, never slow down when conditions require), how many are just normal humans (who occasionally make unfathomable mistakes)? What are the relative rates of collisions? What are the casualty outcomes? What effect does simply changing a number on a sign have? If any, why? (There's the psychological "anchoring effect", if 70% of people *are* below the limit does that slow down others, do the "don't cares" maybe just overtake dangerously (but would they anyway? ) ) etc. Reduced speed is a mitigation in that it leads to better outcomes in collisions, that's a known I believe. IIRC there's also agreement that it can mean that fewer collisions happen as there's more time to react. "If that is the problem and you don’t deal with it, but you want to keep reducing injuries/fatalities, you have to keep dropping speed limits until you prohibit road use entirely" "If" (plus as noted other safety measures are available)
@Rendel Harris - I think that driver must live near me.
@Gd29 it's good to "point out potential abuse of stats - and for "keeping it concise for the public" no doubt some measure of "lies, damn lies and statistics" applies. But unless you have your own analysis / evidence, this may sound like a "just asking questions!" rhetorical tactic.
@Gd29 exactly what variables / controlled experiments would suffice to convince you, and then how would you believe that would still hold in "real world" situations? We all know there are excellent ways to stop motoring-related KSIs - one being stop humans operating vehicles) but that isn't normally seen as realistic. Then there's another "remove the hazard" approach eg. completely isolate motorists from vulnerable road users (and "footways" alone might not be sufficient, as more people are killed there most years by drivers than eg. by cyclists in total, although that fact doesn't say much ). Though that by itself doesn't address motorists killing themselves / other motorists. Currently the UK - like many countries - is mostly doing a "remove the vulnerable road users" approach, partly by design but mostly indirectly by prioritising convenience for motoring (including journey time, which is seen to involve higher speeds).
Do you really need an AI tool to tell you that 80% of a cyclist's drag is the rider or that getting in a more streamlined position you'll reduce drag etc.? Fabulous for the professional riders who use this site but for the rest of us our money would be better spent on yoga or pilates classes to help you hold a more streamlined position in the first place.
Of course drivers need to be responsible and take care but we are in danger of getting a bit high and mighty when police raise issues like this. Since the clocks went back last weekend, I have been commuting home this week in the dark for the first time this year. I am gobsmacked by the number of cyclists I see who have no lights and no reflective gear, often with no helmets either. It's common sense to take precautions and we've got our head in the sand if we pretend all cyclists are taking appropriate steps to protect themselves and others.
@mdavidford was about to ask them if they thought the law should also been changed to ban the LAs from doing that, so as to save money...
@Rendel Harris sentencing is Monday. 15 yrs minimum (not premeditated) but multiple aggravating factors. 20+ feels appropriate