Bicycle Lights in Test: ÖAMTC Tested 21 Models

On one hand, ten LED sets with a front light (30 lux brightness) and rear light, priced up to 50 euros, which can be considered as starter sets. On the other hand, eleven pure front lights with 100 lux in the range up to 200 euros, which can be interesting as high-quality options for "heavy users". "All products meet the legal requirements - there are differences in handling, lighting properties, scope of delivery, and durability," summarizes ÖAMTC technician Dominik Darnhofer of the two test series. Overall, six "good", eleven "satisfactory", and four "sufficient" ratings were awarded. Details can be found on the mobility club's website.

Ten Affordable Bicycle Lighting Sets Tested: Two "Good", Seven "Satisfactory", and One "Sufficient"

In the sets, it was noticeable that even 30 lux brightness can sometimes dazzle more than front lights with 100 lux. "This is also due to the mounts - while many of the high-quality front lights are attached with fixed screwed base mounts, the affordable sets mainly use simple rubber mounts that need to be correctly aligned each time," explains Darnhofer. In the test, the battery status display was also in need of improvement in almost all models, which is important to avoid suddenly being in the dark. The set from Fischer stood out positively in this regard and, together with the best rear light including brake light, achieved an overall score of 2.3 ("good"). Also "good": the set from Sigma.

At the other end is the set from Decathlon, which did not meet the minimum lighting duration of five hours according to DIN and was therefore downgraded to "sufficient". In between, there is a wide range of seven lighting sets with the rating "satisfactory".

Eleven 100-Lux Front Lights Tested: Four "Good", Four "Satisfactory", and Three "Sufficient"

In the test of the eleven stronger front lights with 100 lux brightness, the model from Trelock impressed with good lighting properties (particularly low glare risk), comprehensive scope of delivery, and good durability ("good"). Also "good" and one of the most affordable models in the test: the model from Fischer. Furthermore, the front lights from Sigma and Acid also performed "good" in the test.

Only a "sufficient" rating was given to the models from Lunivo, Busch and Müller, and Lupine. The Lunivo did not meet the minimum lighting duration of five hours according to DIN 33958, the Busch and Müller model allowed water to enter during the rain test, leading to a defect. Finally, the Lupine model had its brightness reduced from 100 to 66 lux at high temperatures, which led to a downgrade.

In general, there were frequent deviations of the actual brightness from the stated 100 lux. This ranged from 15 lux less brightness in the Prophete model ("satisfactory") to 22 lux more in the Cateye model ("satisfactory"). The models from Supernova and Decathlon were also rated as "satisfactory".

Conclusion of the ÖAMTC Technician

"The lighting sets are affordable and serve the purpose of 'seeing and being seen'. Those who frequently ride on unlit routes should opt for stronger front lights. They are often equipped with more stable mounts that minimize misalignment of the lamps. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages - none was perfect in the test. Therefore, one should thoroughly compare which features are important for individual use before purchasing. After purchase, it is crucial to properly adjust the front light to avoid dazzling other road users."

More about cycling in Vienna

(Red)

This article has been automatically translated, read the original article here.