Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets - Is 100 lumens enough?

I have owned the Fenix L2D for more than a year now. I almost never run it on turbo mode. The 100 lumen mode is plenty bright in pitch dark conditions. Is there any point to me getting more lights if I never even use the turbo mode on my fenix? I ride all on city roads, so most of the time the light is washed out by street lights. But in abscence of street lights, 100 lumen mode is very bright.

Is 100 lumens enough?


The 100 lumen mode is plenty bright in pitch dark conditions.


Is there any point to me getting more lights if I never even use the turbo mode on my fenix?

If you think it is enough then surely it is ?

This depends on how much you value your safety and how fast you want to ride in the dark?

For me, I remember the days of the days of the wonderlite that probably put out about 10 lumens at best.. Now when I ride, I have a P7 and Q5 thrower in addition to a helmet light, all total around 700-800 lumens.. I consider this optimum for my safety on the road..

I would recommend to use the turbo mode, get some good nimh batteries and carry an extra set just in case you need them..

depends on how good your eyes are and how reflective your surrounding is.

Lumens are like bicycles... you can never have to many.

How fast are you riding?

How fast are you riding?

15 mph

It just depends on weather you want to avoid the pothole in the road or just hit it.

In my opinion, at 15mph you need more than a 100 lumen to avoid obstacles on the road.

15 mph

Would you go faster with more light?
Its hard to get a nice wide beam that overpowers moderate street lighting. 400 lumens +
You are in the large gap between see and be seen.

When the asphalt a mile hence starts to melt, THEN you have enough lumens.

When the asphalt a mile hence starts to melt, THEN you have enough lumens.

No. When the ground underneath the pavement melts to the mantle, you might have enough:thumb:

duke_of_hazard, the amount of light you need to see where you are going is very different from the amount of light that other road users need to see you. In a urban setting, 100 lumens gets lost in the traffic lights, headlights, walk lights, overhead lights, signs, etc. pretty easily and pretty quickly. Just because you can see the road doesn't mean that you can be seen. Powerful lights demand respect and trick people in cars into thinking that there is something coming that may cause them damage. They are less likely to pull out in front of you if they think you are a train:D

No. When the ground underneath the pavement melts to the mantle, you might have enough:thumb:

duke_of_hazard, the amount of light you need to see where you are going is very different from the amount of light that other road users need to see you. In a urban setting, 100 lumens gets lost in the traffic lights, headlights, walk lights, overhead lights, signs, etc. pretty easily and pretty quickly. Just because you can see the road doesn't mean that you can be seen. Powerful lights demand respect and trick people in cars into thinking that there is something coming that may cause them damage. They are less likely to pull out in front of you if they think you are a train:D

Good points , I had not thought about that.

Even with the L2D on turbo oncoming headlights overpower the eyes (yes, me not looking into them) and the pavement in front of me becomes a black void.

Good points , I had not thought about that.

And he's dead on. My ~500lumen HID gets this effect, but, I'm often wishing for more.

No. When the ground underneath the pavement melts to the mantle, you might have enough:thumb:

duke_of_hazard, the amount of light you need to see where you are going is very different from the amount of light that other road users need to see you. In a urban setting, 100 lumens gets lost in the traffic lights, headlights, walk lights, overhead lights, signs, etc. pretty easily and pretty quickly. Just because you can see the road doesn't mean that you can be seen. Powerful lights demand respect and trick people in cars into thinking that there is something coming that may cause them damage. They are less likely to pull out in front of you if they think you are a train:D


I can testify to that; With my P7 I now have cars waiting to back out of their driveway. Even with the L2D Q5 they would pull out. I can only imagine the kind of respect cyccommute gets with his setup. :)

I can testify to that; With my P7 I now have cars waiting to back out of their driveway. Even with the L2D Q5 they would pull out. I can only imagine the kind of respect cyccommute gets with his setup. :)

They react something like this

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee172/SeeThroughLeon/SirRobin1.jpg

and bravely run away:D

As much as I agree with the general consensus in geneeral, more lumens = better ride, if you're happy with your FENIX on HI, you should run it that way.

I think the fears of not being seen with 100 lumens up front are overblown. Consider that most "to be seen" cheaper bike lights don't even approach 50 lumens, and they're perfectly adequate for approaching vehicles to see you.

The mega-lumens come in handy for YOUR better visibility. Unlike some on the forums, I believe that you should run just enough to make your ride enjoyable or at worst, tolerable. The FENIX is so great because it's so dang convenient - on/off in 2 seconds, and drops into your pocket. If you lose it, get another one for $50 or a knockoff Romisen for $25. I find myself using one Fenix on the head nearly exclusively for short local commutes.

My take - if you're happy with 100 lumens, run 100 lumens. It's simpler, cheaper, batteries will last longer, and perfectly safe. (Although you're probably the first I've seen who has the option of going Turbo and doesn't do it!)

100 lumens is not enough for street-lighted roads. Neither is 200 lumens.

I am under the impression that "be seen" lights are dimmer than "to see" lights. Some of these posts give me the impression it is the other way around.

I am under the impression that "be seen" lights are dimmer than "to see" lights. Some of these posts give me the impression it is the other way around.

It depends where you live/ride.

Out of town you don't need as much light to be seen as you do in town.

Obviously anyone giving advice is going to link their advice to their location/experience.

Traffic density is fairly low where I cycle, especially at night so my rear lights are set up to be seen, but my front lights are set up for unlit empty roads.

:)

I am under the impression that "be seen" lights are dimmer than "to see" lights. Some of these posts give me the impression it is the other way around.

It's a common mistake. I see it all the time in the urban setting I ride in...or I should say that I don't see it:rolleyes::D However, if you think it through, you can see the logic. In a rural setting, there are few other sources of light. A small light can be seen of a very long distance because it's the only one out there. No background to compete with. Mountain bikers usually have powerful lights to see objects that they are riding over but their needs are different from those of us riding on roads.

In an urban setting, there are...literally...hundreds of light sources that your lights have to compete with. It's extremely easy to get lost in the background. A puny little 'be seen' light is drowned out by all the other lights and isn't seen until those that you want to see it is right on top of you...not a good thing:eek: And considering that most drivers aren't looking for bicyclists during sunlit hours, they really aren't expecting some idiot on a bicycle in the middle of the night:rolleyes: You need something powerful and obnoxious to get their attention. Most bicyclists get that for their taillights and light up like a Christmas tree...I do;) But most of them miss the point for the front light and go with 'whatever'. Considering that getting hit from behind is a small fraction of the car/bike collisions while getting hit from a left turning car or a car pulling out from a cross street or driveway is a much higher percentage of car/bike collisions, you'd think that lighting up the front would be obvious but...

I disagree with the notion that you NEED megalumens up front to be seen.

I'm in LA, surrounded by car traffic, and the vast majority of commuters here are casual ones who only use cheapo LED front blinkers. I see 'em in traffic instantly, even with probably 50 lumens or less. The red rear blinkies are even more noticeable - the PB superflash is actually nearly overpowering at night if you pull up behind it, at that's likely no more than 50 lumens as well.

For sure though, those measly 50 lumens are worthless for you to see with, especially with oncoming car traffic. The 220 lumens of FENIX is more than enough for 15mph in traffic, and I could see how a conservating person could get by with 100 lumens (barely). While I agree that your bikelights are more challenged with carlights to compete with, the reality is that there's also more ambient light thrown by the carlights; it's not like you go blind as the cars go by.

I'd be happy to run thousands of lumens in the countryside with sparse traffic, but here in LA with moderate-heavy car traffic, you're just asking for some PO'D motorist to heckle you.

Although I agree in theory that more light should garner more motorist attention, in practice it hasn't played out that way for me.

When I use my HID on the road, I aim it at a pronounced downward angle to avoid the legal and safety implications of spraying glare at everyone. You guys probably do too.

When I use my little 1-watt LED I basically set it dead level since it's maybe 40 lumens tops.

From a being-seen standpoint, I'm not sure there's much difference at motorist eye level between a LED aimed at you and a HID aimed downwards.

But that doesn't completely explain it. The last time I was cut off by a motorist claiming not to see me, I was running my old over-volted 25W halogen system against a totally dark background in a residential sidestreet. Go figure.

I disagree with the notion that you NEED megalumens up front to be seen.

I'm in LA, surrounded by car traffic, and the vast majority of commuters here are casual ones who only use cheapo LED front blinkers. I see 'em in traffic instantly, even with probably 50 lumens or less. The red rear blinkies are even more noticeable - the PB superflash is actually nearly overpowering at night if you pull up behind it, at that's likely no more than 50 lumens as well.

For sure though, those measly 50 lumens are worthless for you to see with, especially with oncoming car traffic. The 220 lumens of FENIX is more than enough for 15mph in traffic, and I could see how a conservating person could get by with 100 lumens (barely). While I agree that your bikelights are more challenged with carlights to compete with, the reality is that there's also more ambient light thrown by the carlights; it's not like you go blind as the cars go by.

I'd be happy to run thousands of lumens in the countryside with sparse traffic, but here in LA with moderate-heavy car traffic, you're just asking for some PO'D motorist to heckle you.

Do you see other riders with weak lights because you can see their lights or do you see them because you are looking for them? As cyclists, we watch for other bicycle riders...whether in our cars or on our bikes. We are just more aware of the other cyclists than most road users are.

I've never been hassled about my lights. I get comments but for the most part, drivers are expecting something much much larger when I go by them and they tend to be shocked by what they were waiting for. But they aren't PO'd about how bright my lights are. If anything, they are a little thankful because nobody but a true psychopath (and there are few of them, thankfully;)) really wants to cause harm to a fellow human. Hurting someone with an automobile is not an experience that anybody wants, trust me, I know.

IMO, dusk is when cyclists with more powerful lights are significantly safer. At night, motorists can see even faint lights (if they are looking) but at dusk it is very hard to see lights. Obviously a more powerful light would be good to have when it is completely dark (it really grabs the motorist's attention) but I think they become critical in sunrise/sunset conditions.

From a being-seen standpoint, I'm not sure there's much difference at motorist eye level between a LED aimed at you and a HID aimed downwards.



cyccommute had me convinced until you brought this up. Modern being-seen LEDs are rather focused and intense, even if they cast little light.

Just for reference, automotive headlamps in the EU spec (the ones with a cutoff and a kink going up toward the right) are supposed to place the cutoff on level ground at around 200 feet ahead of the vehicle. To get the spec intensity (pretty high!) at this distance it takes about 700 lumens. In terms of automotive response time and braking distance that's good to around 40 mph. For bikes we need let's say 30 mph obstacle detection, which is 75%, so I think a high-performance bike headlight system should have maybe 500 lumens. This assumes the bike headlamp system will have the same light light intensity and distribution pattern as the one for cars, which is really very wide in the EU spec.

So 100 lumens is not too much, compared with cars.

Just for reference, automotive headlamps in the EU spec (the ones with a cutoff and a kink going up toward the right) are supposed to place the cutoff on level ground at around 200 feet ahead of the vehicle. To get the spec intensity (pretty high!) at this distance it takes about 700 lumens. In terms of automotive response time and braking distance that's good to around 40 mph. For bikes we need let's say 30 mph obstacle detection, which is 75%, so I think a high-performance bike headlight system should have maybe 500 lumens. This assumes the bike headlamp system will have the same light light intensity and distribution pattern as the one for cars, which is really very wide in the EU spec.

So 100 lumens is not too much, compared with cars.

And assuming that the light is biased properly which it sure isn't.

I've always subscribed to the single steady front light doesn't do much. Flashing is what gets the attention.

And assuming that the light is biased properly which it sure isn't.

I've always subscribed to the single steady front light doesn't do much. Flashing is what gets the attention.


Agreed, aiming would become as big an issue for a bike as with a car, with such a lamp.

Agreed, aiming would become as big an issue for a bike as with a car, with such a lamp.

Bicycle lights are aimed differently than automobile lights. Since we aren't doing 60+ mph, we don't need our lights to go out 200 feet. My lights (much more than the 700 lumens that Road Fan quotes;)) are aimed not much more than 40 feet in front of me. They don't have a cut off and send out a cone of light but that isn't a problem given where we cyclists ride. I don't do much riding in the left hand tire track of the road...except while making left turns...so the huge amount of light I use isn't much of a problem with other road users.

I do take a layered approach to my lighting by using a wide flood that illuminates the ground a few feet in front of me, a spot that illuminates a tighter spot further out and a helmet light that throws a bit further out than the that. That way I have warning of upcoming hazards long before I get to them at almost any speed I can make the bike go at.

The other benefit of the layered approach is that cars can't quite figure out what all this light coming at them is;)

car low beam. high goes up to 150m

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Phare_code.png

car low beam. high goes up to 150m

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Phare_code.png

Looks interesting.

Why is the car on the wrong side of the road ?

you can always flip the image for right hand drive :lol:

Crap, if people can't even post pics to a forum correctly - what chance is there - of their answering a question correctly?

So this thread seems to be two questions. But its actually three.

How much light is need to guide a cyclist? How much light is necessary for a cyclist to be seen?

But the "real" question is: "Should a cyclist suppose a mounted head light to be the method to produce illumination to be recognized as a vehicle?

I concluded, many years ago, that "mounted lights" - especially with their beams focused on the ground before them are incapable of attracting the attention to be noticed by oncoming drivers in a variety of situations.

Discussing bicycle "lights" is lame. Discussing bicycle lighting "systems" that consider the incidental needs of a cyclist would be of much more valuable.

For me, a lighting system incorporates two independent, functioning tail lights (for fail over redundancy)- at least one, but two available or "on board," mounted front-facing head lamps, and the continuous use of a head or helmet-mounted lamp.

The features of lamp redundancy, and the ability to "aim" a light for "defensive purposes " are undeniable necessity if all situations are to be addressed.

None of these individual lamp need exceed 100 lumen, unless of course you intend to navigate trails at 50kph.

I did an experiment with the lights on my bicycle. I have three pretty decent, but rather cheap, rear blinkies. I have three of them, all running at the same time. I also have lots of reflectors, mostly car reflectors.

When my boys took pictures of me riding up and down the street, guess what? I noticed in the pictures that something was very bright! At first I thought the bright light was the blinkies, but you know what it was?

The reflectors on my bicycle are actually brighter, and show up better, than the blinkies!!! I even have a pair of shoes with bright reflectors on them! And people have commmented on how bright and visible my construction vest is!

I'll be honest ... I see many cyclists, or rather don't see them, riding around town at night, with no lights, maybe one small reflector. They are just an accident looking for a place to happen.

I've decided to invest as much as I can in lights, both front and back, but also more reflectors. I might even add lights on the pedals and spokes.

I don't want to become another statistic ... !!!

I recently bought a helmet light from Big 5, Coleman, 60 lumens. It's ok, but definitely not enough for me. My eyes are really bad, I just need the extra light. I don't think a 100 lumen helmet light would be enough for me either.

I'm thinking that for me at least 300 lumens is about as low as I should go, but that is for me to see the road, and hopefully avoid pot holes, and piles of stuff. The other day I was riding home with my son, both os us carrying lots of groceries, and I rode over something, have no idea at all what it was. I never even saw it!!! And my light was shining on the rode. I was traveling about 15mph when I ran over something.

Must have been some kind of heavy metal object .... I almost lost control and crashed, and there was lots of traffic ... !!!

I need lots of light. I would really like to have the 500 and even 600 lumens light in front, and at least three very bright tail lights, plus a helmet light, pedal lights, spoke lights, blinkie vest, and more reflectors.

What about light on the rims? Does anyone have lights on the rims? Frame lights? Other lights?

Bicycle lights are aimed differently than automobile lights. Since we aren't doing 60+ mph, we don't need our lights to go out 200 feet. My lights (much more than the 700 lumens that Road Fan quotes;)) are aimed not much more than 40 feet in front of me. They don't have a cut off and send out a cone of light but that isn't a problem given where we cyclists ride. I don't do much riding in the left hand tire track of the road...except while making left turns...so the huge amount of light I use isn't much of a problem with other road users.

I do take a layered approach to my lighting by using a wide flood that illuminates the ground a few feet in front of me, a spot that illuminates a tighter spot further out and a helmet light that throws a bit further out than the that. That way I have warning of upcoming hazards long before I get to them at almost any speed I can make the bike go at.

The other benefit of the layered approach is that cars can't quite figure out what all this light coming at them is;)

That makes good sense! I was thinking of attaching a light to the fork, another light (maybe two) on the handle bars, and using a helmet light in addition. There are so many unexpected obstacles along the way, not only directly in front of me, but on either side, so I want to see what is coming up, and also be seen by drivers, other cyclists, and pedestrians.

reflectors are over exaggerated at night time with the camera set to flash because of the very bright light and close proximity of the light source to the lens.
In real life they are not as bright.
Reflectors are less obvious with no camera flash and instead have the camera where your head would be, but put the light source, like a flashlight, where the headbeam would be.

go try and take a shot of your license plates at night with the camera flash. You'll note that license plates are actually legible under a car headlight.

A couple of days ago (at night) I pulled out of minor road onto a major (T junction) and noticed a cyclist almost on the bonnet of my car. He was turning into the junction.

I swerved and missed him and as I looked back I noticed he had one very dim rear blinky.

No reflectors were visible anywhere and he had no front light whatsoever, he was also wearing dark clothing.

Despite careful observation I didn't see him until he was nearly under the car.

And yes, my eyesight is fine.

Anyway, I know now exactly what what the minimum requirement is to have any chance of being seen. It's isn't dark clothing and a tired rear blinky.

:)

lumens are like bicycles... You can never have to many.

+1

on the bonnet of my car. He was turning into the junction.

I swerved and missed him and as I looked back I noticed he had one very dim rear blinky.



That could cost him his ninja status--he seems to qualify otherwise.

That could cost him his ninja status--he seems to qualify otherwise.

Maybe he wasn't aware it was there.

Seriously, even though I checked the junction I couldn't see him until he was less than 10' away.

:twitchy:

One thing I've noticed that haven't been brought up is the parallax angle between the eyes and light-source. I've found with helmet-mounted lights that shadows of bumps and pot-holes do not show up as prominently (because they're behind the object). The further away the light is from my eyes, the more obvious and easily seen the shadows are. So a 100-lumen light mounted on the helmet won't show the road-surface texture as well as having it mounted on the handlebar or fork-crown.

I just picked up a P7 light and IMHO, it's the best value in lighting on the market today. Not quite the claimed 700-800 lumens, but definitely 500 and about as bright as a 35-40w halogen. I was riding at dusk Saturday and I didn't notice it getting dark due to the street-lamps. When I got to an un-illuminated section of road, I turned my light on. And the cars on the OPPOSITE side of the street swerved off onto the shoulder! They thought some monster was coming at them! Yes, be very careful with your aim on a P7 light. ;)

I really like this thread, but is there anyway to get rid of the pic that has created havoc with the width of the post framing?

To answer the question originally posed:
"is 100 lumens enough"
The definitive answer is:
"Yes, if it's a rear light"

There, case closed.

One thing I've noticed that haven't been brought up is the parallax angle between the eyes and light-source. I've found with helmet-mounted lights that shadows of bumps and pot-holes do not show up as prominently (because they're behind the object). The further away the light is from my eyes, the more obvious and easily seen the shadows are. So a 100-lumen light mounted on the helmet won't show the road-surface texture as well as having it mounted on the handlebar or fork-crown.



I agree. There are many people who prefer to have a super bright spot on their helmet and a flood on the bars/fork. I reverse that. This keeps my helmet light from drowning out the shadows that my fork light casts that help to illuminte the surface texture and flaws, plus with a flood on the helmet as I turn my head things don't just pop into view, but were gradually illuminated as my head turns...it may not be what works for everyone, but it does for me.

No. When the ground underneath the pavement melts to the mantle, you might have enough:thumb:



I rather like the idea of looking at a car and having it melt.:beer:

plus with a flood on the helmet as I turn my head things don't just pop into view, but were gradually illuminated as my head turns...it may not be what works for everyone, but it does for me.

I guess it depends what other lights you are using.

I have a spot on my helmet and I can tell you that with a P7 on the bars there is so much light that nothing 'pops into view' because everything is well lit already.

However the spot does allow a good look where you are going when you turn and the possibility of inspecting anything you care to look at.

Oh yeah, and car drivers love it. :thumb:

I really like this thread, but is there anyway to get rid of the pic that has created havoc with the width of the post framing?

complain to this thread http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=508380&page=6

I for one, thought the filter was still in place to shrink it to 640pixel width.