Best rear light?

elyob said:

Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's
the best one out there at the moment?

The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
includes a reflector so that it's almost legal. The Halfords own brand
ultra-bright rear light makes a good supplement to this. Use the AU100
on your seat post in steady mode and clip the Halfords one to your rear
pocket, set on flash. You'll be both bright and minimalist in true
roadie fashion.

--
Dave...

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

elyob said:

Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's
the best one out there at the moment?

The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
includes a reflector so that it's almost legal. The Halfords own brand
ultra-bright rear light makes a good supplement to this. Use the AU100
on your seat post in steady mode and clip the Halfords one to your rear
pocket, set on flash. You'll be both bright and minimalist in true
roadie fashion.

That's a decent light, yes. It's the one I was thinking of. Now I'm looking
for SPD pedals. I'll be using my MTB SPD shoes as I can't see myself getting
proper roadie shoes quite yet. There are some Ritchey Pro V3 MTB pedals with
65% off on wiggle, but am unsure. I will only be using cycle shoes with this
bike.

Finally, I don't even know what sort of inner tubes to buy.... erm ..

dkahn400 said:

elyob said:

Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's
the best one out there at the moment?

"Best" requires definition of "best" of course: given that brightness,
compactness, battery life, ease of mounting etc. etc. are all
confounding factors it will mean different strokes for different folks.

Quoted message said:

The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
includes a reflector

Having said the above, I have one of these on the Brom and have been
very happy with it. I've recommended it a few times here and nobody has
confronted me with how useless the suggestion was yet...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:10:53 +0100, "elyob" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Looking at getting a new rear light for my new racing bike. What's the best
one out there at the moment?

There is no one right answer. But since two lights is better than
one, that is not a problem :-)

I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.

In addition I recommend a flashing light hung on your body (that's
legal, as is - supposedly - hanging it from the luggage of the bike).
The TL-LD600 works well for that. The more expensive TL-LD1000 is
very good and will work with one bank of LEDs flashing and the other
steady, but this lamp is too heavy to hang on your body (IMO) and is
not BS approved even in steady mode. The LD-600 is, to my eye, at
least as visible in flashing mode as the LD1000.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

elyob said:

That's a decent light, yes. It's the one I was thinking of. Now I'm looking
for SPD pedals. I'll be using my MTB SPD shoes as I can't see myself getting
proper roadie shoes quite yet. There are some Ritchey Pro V3 MTB pedalswith
65% off on wiggle, but am unsure. I will only be using cycle shoes withthis
bike.

If you're sticking with MTB shoes then at least consider Time ATACs.

The cleats will fit any SPuD compatible shoe but I find the pedals
engage more positively on the Times, there's no tension adjustment
necessary so one less thing to faff with and there's more float,
including lateral as well as rotational. They seem to be less prone to
popping out with worn cleats than SPuDs as well.

Quoted message said:

Finally, I don't even know what sort of inner tubes to buy.... erm ..

Shouldn't really matter for a spare. Then when someone has a load in a
sale (EBC usually have a pile of Specialized ones every Summer Sale, for
example) for £1 or whatever, buy a bag full.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

elyob said:

Now I'm looking for SPD pedals. I'll be using my MTB SPD shoes
as I can't see myself getting proper roadie shoes quite yet.
There are some Ritchey Pro V3 MTB pedals with 65% off on wiggle,
but am unsure. I will only be using cycle shoes with this bike.

If you're sticking with MTB shoes then at least consider Time
ATACs.

The cleats will fit any SPuD compatible shoe but I find the pedals
engage more positively on the Times, there's no tension adjustment
necessary so one less thing to faff with and there's more float,
including lateral as well as rotational. They seem to be less
prone to popping out with worn cleats than SPuDs as well.

However, elyob already has SPDs on his other bike and wants to be able
to use the same shoes on both bikes, at least for now. The Ritchey
pedals he's looking at are a good deal and will be fine for what he
wants to do. Most roadies tend to prefer Looks, or a Shimano
alternative with a bigger platform than the SPDs, but the difference in
practice is not that great. The SPDs, like the Times, have the
advantage that you can get off the bike and walk around like a human
being rather than a duck.

--
Dave...

Just zis Guy said:

I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.

On my Audax bike, I have two AU100s bolted on to a metal plate on the
back of the rack (ie "permanently" fixed for maximum legality). In
operation, I use one in flashing mode, one in steady mode. I also have
a rear dynamo light that came built in to the mudguard - that isn't
wired up, but I have been thinking of getting it connected just for
that extra bit of lighting overkill.

I'm not sure if the legality of the steady light is cancelled out by
the technical illegality of the flashing light, but I think at least I
have most bases covered.

d.

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
includes a reflector

Having said the above, I have one of these on the Brom and have been
very happy with it. I've recommended it a few times here and nobody has
confronted me with how useless the suggestion was yet...

My only issue with it is that multiple battery replacements eventually
lead to cracking of the lens by the lever point.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Just zis Guy said:

The more expensive TL-LD1000 is
very good and will work with one bank of LEDs flashing and the other
steady, but this lamp is too heavy to hang on your body (IMO) and is
not BS approved even in steady mode.

The '1000 has an extremely narrow beam. I wouldn't recommend this as a
sole rear light, but it makes an excellent supplementary light. Mount it
on the front and you can pretend to be KITT. ;-)

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

you know? said:

I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.

But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.

Also, has anyone actually tried to purchase the bracket that makes it
comply with BS? I've a nasty suspicion you'd be well into
blank-looks-territory if you tried it in any LBS L to me.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

At 06 Jul 2005 20:18:16 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Ian Smith
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would make sure that you have at least one lamp kitemarked to BS6102
Part 3, the Cateye TL-AU100 meets this. At least one cyclist has been
held to be partly to blame for his own demise when hit from behind
when using a non-approved (flashing) rear light, so this lamp should
be mounted using the optional rigid mounting bracket, and used in
steady mode for maximum anti-weasel performance.

Quoted message said:

But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.

A point I've made before. However, having a light certified as
complying with a later version of the standard cited might be
technically illegal, but it is very unlikely to be held to be
negligent. It is, after all, kitemarked BS6102/3, which is the
standard cited and noted in the Highway Code, and there is no
reference date on the moulding, so the degree of negligence actually
displayed by the cyclist could almost certainly be successfully argued
to be zero, since few if any cyclists could be expected to know the
difference.

Quoted message said:

Also, has anyone actually tried to purchase the bracket that makes it
comply with BS? I've a nasty suspicion you'd be well into
blank-looks-territory if you tried it in any LBS L to me.

You may well be right. I've usually mounted mine on rigid light
mountings on racks.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Mark Tranchant said:

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

The Cateye AU100 is pretty good. Attaches easily to your seatpost and
includes a reflector

Having said the above, I have one of these on the Brom and have been
very happy with it. I've recommended it a few times here and nobody has
confronted me with how useless the suggestion was yet...

My only issue with it is that multiple battery replacements eventually
lead to cracking of the lens by the lever point.

Very multiple battery replacements; you'd think 2 AA's would last a
bit longer...

Mark van Gorkom.

Just zis Guy said:

At 06 Jul 2005 20:18:16 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Ian Smith
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the following:

Quoted message said:

But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.

A point I've made before. However, having a light certified as
complying with a later version of the standard cited might be
technically illegal, but it is very unlikely to be held to be
negligent. It is, after all, kitemarked BS6102/3, which is the
standard cited and noted in the Highway Code, and there is no
reference date on the moulding, so the degree of negligence actually
displayed by the cyclist could almost certainly be successfully argued
to be zero, since few if any cyclists could be expected to know the
difference.

Unless someone goes and tells them it doesn't comply.

Is it not true that a light ratified to the standard of another EU country
(DIN being the norm) was considered as complying, or was that an
overoptimistic reading of the regulations that I heard?

--
Ambrose

At Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:49:49 +0000 (UTC), message
<[email hidden]> was posted by
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email hidden]>, including some, all or
none of the following:

Quoted message said:

Is it not true that a light ratified to the standard of another EU country
(DIN being the norm) was considered as complying, or was that an
overoptimistic reading of the regulations that I heard?

I think that is optimism.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Mark van Gorkom wrote:
[Cateye AU100]

Quoted message said:

Very multiple battery replacements; you'd think 2 AA's would last a
bit longer...

I get through a couple of sets in a typical /year/ for the one on the
back of the Brom. Sufficiently few that ICBA to look very seriously
into routing dynamo wiring from the SON that powers the front.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Just zis Guy said:

At 06 Jul 2005 20:18:16 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Ian Smith
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the following:

Quoted message said:

But still not weasel-proof performance, because it's still not legal
directly, because it's not the 'right' BS6102.

A point I've made before. However, having a light certified as
complying with a later version of the standard cited might be
technically illegal, but it is very unlikely to be held to be
negligent. It is, after all, kitemarked BS6102/3, which is the
standard cited and noted in the Highway Code, and there is no
reference date on the moulding, so the degree of negligence actually
displayed by the cyclist could almost certainly be successfully argued
to be zero, since few if any cyclists could be expected to know the
difference.

Unless someone goes and tells them it doesn't comply.

Is it not true that a light ratified to the standard of another EU country
(DIN being the norm) was considered as complying, or was that an
overoptimistic reading of the regulations that I heard?

Nearly, I believe. It's not deemed to comply with the BS, but it is
legal, provided it's an equivalent standard. You can't, for example,
claim that as Greece permits you to cycle with no light, when you've
got no lights fitted you're displaying lights ratified to the standard
of Greece, and therefore legal.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

At Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:38:38 +0100, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Very multiple battery replacements; you'd think 2 AA's would last a
bit longer...

Quoted message said:

I get through a couple of sets in a typical /year/ for the one on the
back of the Brom. Sufficiently few that ICBA to look very seriously
into routing dynamo wiring from the SON that powers the front.

Agreed. With my previous 15 mile round trip commute a set of AAs in
the AU100 would last most of a year and I'd get through only two sets
in the RealLITE, which is visible with the naked eye from space.

The main thing is to have two lights so if one does go flat (or fall
off) you still have something back there.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken