LEDs or not?

Stevie D [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Given how powerful the light from an LED headtorch is, why are bike
LED lights not up to the same standard?

Mine is!

Jon

Pete Biggs said:

Simon Mason said:

"Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Which is precisely what happened to my expensive Cateye EL300. It
probably would have survived if it hadn't immediately been run over.

How did that happen? Mine is held in place very firmly in its clamp.

I don't know about Dave's but there is a weakness with the design of EL300
and EL200. The brittle plastic base that slides onto the bracket can
disintegrate. I've heard of several cases where this happened. I was
skeptical until it happend to mine: a small bit chipped off after a while.

That's exactly what happened. The remnants of the body fitted back
onto the clamp and clicked in. With a bit of wiggling it was easy to
slide off. The replacement EL200 developed the same wobbliness and was
replaced by the shop. The replacement to the replacement has done the
same and I now hold it on with an elastic band which also stops the
appalling rattling.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:42:25 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I've seen this argued before. I don't believe it because a pretty
fundamental part of the equivalence would seem to be to me that teh
standard is cited in law.

In respect of rear lights it says:

" (b) the mark indicated in the specification for photometric and
physical requirements for lighting equipment published by the British
Standards Institution under the reference BS 6102: Part 3: 1986,
namely "BS 6102/3"."

And, amazingly, the Cateye TL-AU100 (an LED lamp) when used with its
optional rigid bracket is indeed kitemarked to this standard.

If only I hadn't lost the will to live several posts ago I am sure
that this would prove somebody wrong. Or right. Or something :-)

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 Washington University

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:50:05 +0100, Richard Bates
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If they are mounted on a luggage rack which I fitted AFTER I purchased
the bike, are they "mounted to the bike"?

Lamps to show a steady light
13.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no vehicle shall be
fitted with a lamp which automatically emits a flashing light.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in respect of-
(a) a direction indicator;
(b) a headlamp fitted to an emergency vehicle;
(c) a warning beacon or special warning lamp;
(d) a lamp or illuminated sign fitted to a vehicle used for
police purposes;
(e) a green warning lamp used as an anti-lock brake
indicator; or
(f) lamps forming part of a traffic sign.

So, arguably we could defend them as being "warning beacons or special
warning lamps", or we could use the old cyclists' standby of hanging
them on the luggage (which is how you get away with using red
reflective triangles on a bike).

Now I have to go away and find out the definition of "warning beacons
or special warning lamps"...

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 Washington University

you know? said:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:42:25 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I've seen this argued before. I don't believe it because a pretty
fundamental part of the equivalence would seem to be to me that teh
standard is cited in law.

In respect of rear lights it says:

" (b) the mark indicated in the specification for photometric and
physical requirements for lighting equipment published by the British
Standards Institution under the reference BS 6102: Part 3: 1986,
namely "BS 6102/3"."

And, amazingly, the Cateye TL-AU100 (an LED lamp) when used with its
optional rigid bracket is indeed kitemarked to this standard.

But the mark "BS 6102/3" does not eclusively indicate compliance with
BS 6102: Part 3: 1986, it indicates compliance with _any_ BS 6102:
Part 3, including ones that are not in themselves compatible with the
1986 edition.

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

Ian Smith said:

But the mark "BS 6102/3" does not eclusively indicate compliance with
BS 6102: Part 3: 1986, it indicates compliance with _any_ BS 6102:
Part 3, including ones that are not in themselves compatible with the
1986 edition.

True and in this case its the BS 6102: Part 3: 1995 that it is compliant
with. This one includes LEDs while the 1986 is restricted to filament lamps

Tony