Cheap Bike Lights? How much is cheap?

When i ride my bike at night I have front and rear lights. Some days at this time of year I drive my car with the headlights on, because it looks a bit dingy. If I was riding my bike in the same conditions I'd like to think that if I turned my lights on I'd be seen better, but if you're on a restricted budget, are there lights out there that can fulfil this? By the way, if you want to see the output you could expect from a branded light, try this front lights guide and comparison engine (and the same for rear lights )
I've done a bit of research on the online bike stores, plus the dreaded (by some) Ebay, and I've found some lights that could burn your retinas if you get too close for next to no money.
 

Some Rear Lights

If you want  really cheap, then the best place to go is a Chinese importer on Ebay. The obvious downside to this is the long wait (average about 3-4 weeks, Hong Kong can be quicker but not by much) and the unknown quality; and while they happily offer a refund, it's normally the case that you have to ship them back at your own expense. That said, if you're not so keen on having one sent in from the Orient, then you can usually find a local seller for a bit more cost.

Front lights can be little "be seen" flashers, useful if you only ride in well-lit areas, or as a second light (I always like to have a flasher and a brighter light on at the same time), or bigger, brighter units which can throw some light onto the ground in front of you. There has been a tendency of late for road cyclists to join the "photon arms race" and plonk insanely bright mountain bike-style lights on. Apart from probably being illegal in some countries, they can also annoy other road users, especially if they're badly adjusted. Now I'm guessing that your average traffic cop probably isn't going to pull you over for having too much light on your bike, but there are always the occasional jobsworth PCSO's that might try their luck. And as for annoying others, the argument that they "might be annoyed but at least they've seen you" is probably a valid one!

The latest in high tech?

Rear lights need only to "be seen", but the further away a driver can spot you the better. In the UK the law states that you must have pedal reflectors: if you're out at night as a cyclist or a driver you might have noticed a rider by their moving pedals before seeing their dim, unblinking rear light, so my advice is: have reflective stuff on the backs of your shoes and on your lower legs, and have your rear light on flashing mode. Some people think that asymmetrical flashing patterns are best, but I think any flashing is better than none.

The other factors that need to be taken into account when buying lights is: 
what powers them, and how waterproof are they?
Lights are generally powered by either AA's/AAA's, removeable lithium's or fixed lithiums with a USB plug. Each have their good and bad points. For instance, if your light takes AA's then you can always carry a spare set in case of emergencies, and if you want to help save the planet then modern rechargeable NIMH batteries will hold at least 3/4 of their charge for months at a time. Rechargeable lithiums, while more expensive, do last longer, particularly if you have a fair few watts of power being consumed, and again you can carry spares. USB charging seems to be the preserve of more expensive lights at the moment, and while many reviewers like them, I've had other electronic products that have an internal battery and I invariably end up with a power failure at some point.
As for waterproofing (and general wear and tear), I willingly concede that usually, the more you pay, the longer the lights will last. However, a little maintenance will keep your lights dry and snug. I always spray the inside of my lights with a little switch cleaner (WD40/GT85 style water dispersants work too) then let it dry before putting in the batteries, and I also grease the seals for extra protection - petroleum jelly is excellent for this.

Here are a few suggestions for "cheap as chips" lights. Remember, even if you've spent the earth on a set of retina burners, a cheap spare set could someday be a godsend!

I bought this little number for £2.65 as an emergency back up for my son. The rear light is basically a throw away item (if you have room on your bike it would probably do as an extra flasher), but if it's all you can afford then it at least makes you legal, but the front is actually quite a nice bright little "be seen" light. Add to that a UK seller who offers a year's warranty and you can't go wrong!

A little more expensive set is this Smart Lunar 35 offering from High On Bikes on Ebay. They sell these for £23.95 buy it now, but I picked up one for auction for about £14. A well-built front light which is plenty bright enough for riding well-lit areas and the dinkiest little rear light which puts out a very respectable 1/2 a watt

Another offering from High On Bikes is this Raleigh-branded set consisting of a claimed 3 watt front light which should be plenty for the occasional darker route, and a 1/2 watt rear light. I've not tried this set out but the other Raleigh light (see below) I have is a very nice piece of kit. This set is currently only £11.95. Units can be bought separately from a company called On One

Talking of Raleigh, this is the light I have had on one of my bikes for a couple of months: two lights at a half watt each, set on alternating flash can be seen from space (okay slight exaggeration). This is so bright I happily use it during the day, safe in the knowledge that it can be seen from quite a distance. Available from High on Bikes (I'm not a rep, honest!) for £6.95 (I paid £12 for mine), but what looks like an identical version which goes by the wonderful moniker of "Phaart Bleep" can be bought for the princely sum of £4.99 from On One
although there is shipping on top of that unless you're buying some other stuff.

Similar to the above light and selling for £4.95 from an outfit called Absolute Cycles is the Etc Tailbright Duo. It's an altogether smaller unit than the raleigh, and if I'm honest a little cheaper feeling (just as bright though). However, I really like the fact that the whole front part lights up so you can see it if it isn't directly pointing at you, even from the side. It also has a very simple hook style attachment that makes it easy to swap from one bike to another. Along with its dinkiness, this makes it ideal as an emergency, carry with you sort of light.


Finally, if you fancy a bit of a punt, I've got a couple of Chinese options that you might want to consider. there's this:

On sale on Ebay for £2.78. I've not received mine yet but going by the picture it looks identical to the Raleigh/ Phaart offering above. I don't think a saving of barely a couple of quid for the pleasure of waiting up to a month for something which could be crap is really worth it, but my next offering is a bit of a diamond in the rough:

This light has two Cree LED's I'm not sure which ones they are; it has a claimed output of 3 watts, I don't know if this is accurate, but the battery drain time on high should give me a clue. It's certainly significantly brighter than those Ebay Cree torches (I have one of those as well), and it looks a whole lot nicer on my bike.
It takes three AAA's and has three modes high, low and flash. On high power, the light is plenty bright enough to see the road in front of you and the beam appears to be shaped so that not too much light is scattered upwards. All in all it's quite a nice little unit for the £8.50 I shelled out for it, and I don't suppose it'll be long before someone decides to import them wholesale and sell them from the UK [watch this space!]


I'm sure there are many other bargains to be had out there in ebay land; this is just a taster. I can't deny that in most cases if you pay more you will get better quality and longevity, but unless you need a small sun on your bars or helmet (i.e. if you're a mountain biker, or just want to seriously piss off other road users), a cheaper light will get you noticed, you can run several lights cheaply, and, in the bike light arms race nothing stands still: your £150 light that you bought yesterday could be obsolete tomorrow!

On buying a shiny new bicycle

I could probably say I am not a follower of fashion. If anything, I embody the fashion of anti-fashion. This can have implications..... for instance: after an accident where I broke my elbow and a couple of ribs, I lost my confidence and threw my bike [a very nice but unfashionably steel Raleigh racer from the early eighties] into the skip; and then, about three years ago I decided I'd quite like to take up cycling again.

A quick check of my (then) current circumstances (ten years older, five stones heavier, very unfit etc.) led me to think that drop handlebars were no longer an option; and besides, I thought - and this is where my keen sense of anti-fashion kicks in - "nobody seems to ride racing bikes these days."

Despite thinking that drops were no longer an option, I did know that I didn't want a cart horse of a hybrid/mountain bike with big knobbly tyres that need you to pedal down hills as well as up.

So I took my list of requirements: a road bike (for that's what they call racing bikes these days dear reader) with flat bars and skinny-ish tyres, and trawled the local bike shops (or LBS as we, ahem, cyclists say). This wasn't as straightforward as you would think: one callow youth in Leisure Lakes, on hearing my requirements, took one look at me and then spent about ten minutes explaining that what I actually needed was a hybrid... without mentioning that he thought I was too fat for a racing bike!

Unperturbed I found a bike online that I wanted, at about a third of the price in another LBS. It was a Claud Butler Chinook with flat bars and 23mm tyres. I was a little worried that the wheels wouldn't be er, wheel enough for the job of carrying my 18 stone frame around but I could always buy a stiffer back wheel if necessary.

Apparently, Claud Butler's aren't fashionable any more - of course. But I liked it; although for the first couple of years of ownership it didn't get used much. However this summer I have ridden like the wind, we even took our bikes on holiday. Unfortunately we were at the highest point in quite a wide area, so wherever we went we had to cycle up hill to get home, leading to a complete hissy fit from me one day when we seemed to be going perpetually downhill on the way out, without even a pub at the end.

Despite loving my Chook (short for chinook - keep up), there are a couple of issues with it, not least the flat bars. As I previously mentioned, I thought I might be getting a little old for drop handlebars, but actually,  I've found that flat bars have only one position to hold them. After a few miles I was desperate for another position to relieve the pain in my hands, wrists and shoulders. Drop handlebars have several distinct holds which can alleviate the pressure on those areas. I find myself "holding" the bars by my fingertips to stretch my back and shoulders out, especially going up hill. By the way, did I mention I don't like going up hills? Yes? Okay then. Also, for a cheapish commuter, it was a surprisingly stiff set-up, with the combination of all aluminium frame and cheap 23mm tyres making every bump on the road feel like I was riding over cobbles. There's a pedestrian crossing on the way to my mum's which has one of those ultra grippy surfaces on it; the surface is largely destroyed, but in strips so it feels like your fillings are going to be rattled out as you ride over -  a bit like driving over a cattle grid. I should point out that the bike's ability to transmit every road blemish through its frame has been largely offset by buying some 25mm tyres.
And then there's the issue of its gearing: it's got a triple chainset (three chain rings at the front).. Now I don't have much experience of modern gearing, my last bike had only12 gears, pretty techno for 1981! However, no matter how much I adjust, I can get the two extreme chain wheels to work flawlessly, but the middle one, which of course I use most of the time, only has about three gears which don't make a noise. You can move the "chatter" to the top or bottom few gears, but I can't seem to index it across the board.
So my wish list for a shiny new bike would be: drop handlebars for more hand positions, comfortable, non-jarring ride, compact double chainset instead of triple, and a "granny" gear to help me up the hills.With a new 18 months interest free credit card winging its way to me, a set limit of £500 and a list of last year's models at clearance prices, I've spent hours of fun, comparing one to another, reading reviews and specifications, and whittling down the shortlist until I had only 3 or 4 of the best value and well regarded bikes left.

My shortlist was,

Genesis Volant 20; at the top of my price range at £499, but stuffed full of good gear componentry; unfortunately the size I think I need was out of stock by the time the credit card came through,

Genesis Volant 10; same frame as the above but slightly cheaper components; same price as above,

Vitus Zenium; an own brand from Chain Reaction, but warmly reviewed by the cycling press,

Giant Defy 3: has the advantage of a massive company with a lifetime warranty on the frame. Probably a bit too popular [fashionable?] for my taste

Felt Z95; my personal favourite along with the Genesis bikes; some very grudgingly good reviews.

In the end I went for the Genesis Volant 10

A very handsome choice though I do say myself. Only problem now is I've fallen out of love with my Chinook (it's much harder to pedal up hills than the Genesis) a bit. Anyway, a string of viruses leading to breathing problems has made me lay off the bikes for a while; a real shame since my fitness was getting so much better!
                    

Are you driving the ugliest car in Britain?

The Pontiac Aztek: contender for world's ugliest car? Definitely!

I have already mentioned my dislike of BMW X series "sport utility vehicles" (see "what does your BMW say about you?" ), my reasons were to do with the perceived aspirational view of their owners. Recently, my automotive ire has been stirred by the number of fugly cars that have been launched. Ugly cars are of course, not a new thing, after all, who among us didn't feel a little sick when they first saw the Austin Allegro or TR7 in bile green/baby poo brown?

In the last few years however, even the most aspirational of brands have brought out some shockingly ugly cars, particularly those manufacturers of SUV's. Previously, 4x4's were honest, utilitarian vehicles, their truck-like bodies were somehow comfortingly agricultural or would carry check-shirted men with cement dust on their boots and a hard hat on the dashboard. The advent of the "Chelsea Tractor" changed all that, making 4x4's trendy.

But now every manufacturer wants a slice of this SUV pie, and they've even invented a new category of vehicle that we didn't know we needed, which has had a particularly rich seam of ugliness mined in its name: the crossover!

So, cue the TOTP music and sit back for my top ten nominations of Britain's ugliest cars:





No 10
there's a new favourite in the charts - the Jeep Compass Rallye; Chrysler's amateurish crossover looks like a "futuristic" car from one of those low budget Sci fi TV movies. Imagine when it pulls away it makes a sort of electric turbine noise. I mean really! Who thought this was a good idea?

No9 - The first porsche in my list (yes there are more than one) the Panamera apparently drives beautifully, but very difficult to get into with your hands over your eyes; in case you catch a glimpse of it through your fingers, be assured it's only disgustingly ugly in its totality, there are bits of it that are just ordinarily ugly.

No8 - MPV's have a hard time looking good, the sheer size of them makes it difficult to look like anything other than a minibus. Their breadvan-esque chunkiness appeal to PSV licence holders and large families, but recently manufacturers have tried to make them a "lifestyle accessory". My choice in this category, the Fiat Qubo reflects both the looks, and the marketing department's desperate attempts to make it funky and youthful: Fiat, I don't care how many good-looking kitesurfers you drape around that monstrosity, I can still see it!

No 7 - the second of my Porsche choices, and first of the SUV's; yes, it's the Cayenne. Ugly, lacking in interior space, and yet i have a sneaky admiration for this gargantuan tank GTI.







No 6 - now we're really into crossover SUV territory: Subaru have a reputation for dodgy looking cars (remember the "google-eyed" Impreza of 2001?), but their chief designer must've spilt tea on the designs of the Tribeca and not noticed til it was in production. Truly awful.

No5 - BMW X1: Honey I shrank the X5! Hmm, less of a crossover, a lot less! If you think the One series is overpriced and a bit ugly, then go for the X1 it's a lot more of both! Here's a photo of it pretending to drive offroad.

No4 - Once upon a time the pickup was the territory of those check-shirted, salt of the earth, hard helmet types I mentioned earlier. The Mitsubishi L200 used to be one of those honest, hard workers, but these days you're just as likely to see it outside the wine bar. Seemingly styled on the classic Silver Cross pram.



No3 - even at these heady heights of design atrocity there aren't many cars that can be said to look ugly from all directions, but the Ssanyong Rodius is a worthy exception. The original design brief, apparently, was to capture the essence of a luxury yacht, unfortunately they got the yacht photos mixed up with pictures of a supertanker.

  




No2 - how do you get four elephants in a Mini? Easy, just keep pumping at that little icon of the 1960's until it looks like a bloated parody of its former self!

Enter the Mini Clubman: who ate all the pies?



 

And now the moment you've all been waiting for...drum roll please; open the gold envelope etc.


No1 - What could be so ugly that it makes you start in shock every time you see it? The Nissan Joke, er Juke of course! Auto Express describes it as a marmite car, I think it's more of a tuna, nutella and chilli pickle sandwich car. It's not so much a case of love it or hate it, when you see it you either yelp painfully or laugh out loud. man this car is fugly! If you're really brave (and don't have a weak stomach) you can click on the picture to see it in its full glory

There were a lot of contenders that didn't make my top ten, among them the Jeep Patriot, the Range Rover Evoque, Nissan Cube and Suzuki Wagon R.
Next time I might consider a World's worst list; will the Pontiac Aztek be on it? Hell, yes!

Minor gripes and a major oxymoron

Oxymoron first, spotted on Newsnight, 27th January:

In a piece about the newly unveiled I-Pad, Apple's new oversized "I-gantic-Phone" e-book reader (exhibited with a perfectly formatted New York Times on its screen),
technology consultant Chris Green was asked why, up to now, tablet format, e-book readers hadn't taken off.
"Well", he said, "they're a great idea on paper...".
Hmm, think I've found the problem there!



Pet gripe of the moment:

I first noticed Tony Blair using it, but it may have come from Mrs Thatcher's minions: when asked a difficult question, politicians say, in their most agressive manner, "Look", and proceed to tick off whichever questioner dared challenge their world view, no matter how warped or reactionary. For instance, if asked why they've allowed bankers to not only get away with bringing the world to its knees, but also let them make a tidy profit from our financial pain, a Labour minister might say "Look, bankers have suffered too you know. My brother-in-law nearly had to sell his third home in the Ardennes".
Politicians: please stop using this nasty, agressive attempt at control, it just makes you look ugly. Oh no sorry, the fact that you've got a face like a bulldog licking piss makes you look ugly.

Just one last thing:

Good luck Smellyhead!
Leah, my articulate and opinionated daughter (wonder where she gets that from?), is going for her University interview tomorrow, hoping to do broadcast journalism. Knock 'em dead, hon!

what does your BMW say about you?

We've all seen those pop psych quizzes where driving an "aspirational" car shows you're ambitious, hardworking and "like the good things in life" blah blah.
Having spent a whole day on the motorway a couple of weeks ago, I came to a few conclusions of my own, then did a little research into it.

I wasn't surprised to find that car makers employ their own psychological profiling to market their cars, known in the trade as psychographics. Some of the information that manufacturers gather can be quite specific, for instance, did you know that Honda Civic owners like to vacuum their garage? Well, I always suspected it, and I bet it doesn't surprise you! At the other end of the market, in the USA at least, the owner of a Porsche 911 is most likely to be aged 51 and either a doctor or a lawyer. Either way, best avoided at parties.
General Motors say the Cadillac Escalade means:

"You speak your mind and are unapologetic. You enjoy life and do a lot of entertaining. You seize life's opportunities. You think, "I have to be out doing something. I want to accomplish something." You take risks. You would rather fail than not try."

Strange, it doesn't mention that if you own an Escalade you are either a gangsta or a tosser, maybe both.
There are some stereotypes that appear to be mostly true when it comes to cars: it would be true to say that owners of "Chevrolets" [the old Daiwoo, not the actual American motors] don't care what they drive, they just need transport (if you've ever driven one you'll know this is true).

To paraphrase the Top Gear team, anybody that drives a BMW is a cock; I don't have an issue with BMW's in general, I know they are very nice cars to drive, but I'm not keen on the aspirational image they portray, and I know for a fact that as soon as people step into a BMW they become selfish and aggressive - if you're trying to turn right across a traffic jam the car parked across the junction will invariably be a BMW. But there is one type of BMW that I really don't understand: the X series of 4x4 "SUV".
For sure I've always suspected that the buyer of an X5 is a bit of a prick. they obviously think their vehicle is the most aspirational car on the planet, after all, why else would you spend a minimum of 40 grand on a 4x4 that gets stuck on the school playing field during sports day? Now before you start spouting figures at me, I know that most 4x4's don't go offroad, not even as far as the grass verge! But I'm sure a 4X4 owner would at least like to think that they could get to work if there's a dusting of snow; after all, if your nan's Subaru Justy, or even your cleaner's mini can do it, your X5 should be able to, surely?
Nope, not a chance! After a sudden snow storm a couple of years ago, the traffic on the A40 near me was still moving, albeit carefully, apart from a couple of X5's that had got stuck at a slight (and by slight I mean a pimple) incline, and had to be pushed off the road so that lesser vehicles could continue their journey!
Then there's the X6. I guess people who buy an X6 think they're more individual than the owner of an X5. Yes they really are extra special.
If there's a discrepancy between how X6 owners see their choice of car and how others see it, that's nothing to those poor unfortunates who invested in an X3 to improve their image; I have worked out a formula for this, and it goes thus:

a) anybody that drives a BMW X5 is a complete cock;

b) anybody that drives a BMW X6 is a delusional cock;

c) and anyone that drives a BMW X3 are completely delusional cocks.

I'm going to stick my neck out here: in my opinion, no-one would buy an X3 out of choice. I believe not one person would ever say "I bought the X3 cos it's 'nippier' and more suitable for me."
The fact is, a BMW X3 is what people buy when they want an X5 but can't afford it.
Having said that, I think the X3 is genuinely aspirational, in the sense of "not made it", the owners are probably insanely, perhaps psychopathically, jealous of X5 owners.

But, X3 owners, don't despair, for I bring tidings of joy and goodwill: don't envy X5 owners; take your green-eyed, monster goggles off and pity them. Yes, that's right. You see, actually the X3 is just as luxurious, nearly as roomy, not nearly as bad in trickier driving conditions, and a better all-round ride, according to some. Not to mention pots cheaper (not that the money argument cuts much ice with the aspirational "look how much I spent" types).

So next time someone tells you (know doubt with a suitable - if tiny - amount of pride) they drive an X5, fix them with your most sympathetic stare and say "Oh, you poor thing, would you like me to drive you to sports day?

To vacuumity and beyond

Tracey the partner has finally had enough. Of the old infirm vacuum cleaner that is. So yours truly was despatched post haste to the shop - or at least the virtual equivalent, whatever did we shopping hating males do before t'internet?
I know lots of people swear by their Dysons (to even have an opinion about a vacuum cleaner seems a little dodgy to me, but I'll come back to that later) but I think they'd have to do the cleaning themselves and make me a cup of tea to be worth the money a Dyson would set you back, so I was looking at something a little cheaper, say about £100-150.
Enter the Samsung er.. something or other (look, I don't know what flippin' model it is, unless it's got a cuddly name like "Sucky Bunny" or some such how am I supposed to remember?), same type of swirly technology and a five year - yes, that's right, FIVE years - full warranty, all for the princely sum of £129.99 with free delivery.
Now back to the geekiness of having an opinion about a vacuum cleaner. When I opened the box, I was greeted by.... a vacuum cleaner. OK, bit of an anti climax.
Let's rewind a bit and add some happening music; how about the theme from 2001 - A Space odyssey?

Right, when I opened the box, I was greeted by - Dah. - Dah. - Dah. -- DADAH!
A vision in shiny black, a cross between a Sony Walkman, a Maserati and the Starship Enterprise. Actually it looks a bit like the designer has said "Let's make it look like a Maserati", and the company Accountant replies "Too expensive. Can't you just ram it into a Playstation box? No-one'll know the difference". Yes, that's it, it's a game console, complete with Blue LED graphics and remote control. Yes, you heard me, remote control!

I could blah blah on about it's suction wattage, and its decibels etc.etc. but - remote control! What more is there to say?
Oh yeah, and it nags you when it's full. Just like our washing machine nags us when it wants to be emptied.
Bizarrely, and rather ironically, I've heard that Playstation 3's are rather good at gathering dust (due to their static properties - I'm not implying that nobody switches them on), so maybe I've hit on something important. QED, or in this case QVC!

celebrity culture - a new low

The Devil's publicity machine rolls on: we've had Jade's death, we've had Jordan's response (What dya mean, I can't pretend I'm dying? So how about I divorce the appendage?), we've seen "SuBo" turn from a plain, frumpy nutter to a famously plain, frumpy nutter who will be $8m better off if the US tour goes ahead (or somebody will be, she'll probably be detained under Section 3 of The Mental health Act). One would think Satan couldn't think up any worse for humanity, well never underestimate the evilness-ness of Lucifer and his PR hordes.

Check out the Cyrus family's latest moneyspinner: Miley's (she of the bad songs, claims of bisexuality and race hatred) bug-eyed little sister Noah.


I can't quite put my finger on why this leaves such an unpleasant taste in my mouth.
Is it because these two children are dressed as prostitutes?
Is it Noah's lollipop head?
Or is it because it looks like the Red Bull advert the company didn't want you to see?
No, it's because it made me throw up!

This is the worst, most depressing example of what is wrong with this world. Not only does it make acceptable the sexualisation of children, it also promotes crass consumerism, making chidren think that the wearing of high fashion is not only ok, but a necessity. Not to mention Red bull abuse - she looks like she's about to go into caffeine meltdown! Oh, and who's peddling this kiddy porn by any other name? None other than Disney! You can make up your own mind over whether Disney is the Devil's own corporation, I'm not prepared to comment given the relationship between lawyers and the powers of darkness.


Do you think Noah (or Noie as she likes to call herself - WTF?) and her cousin Emily Grace Reaves (Ems) are cute and lovely? If so you can comment here.

They look like future prime candidates for Celebrity Rehab to me; just give me something heavy to throw at them.
BTW, talking of heavy: Ems, you've got a bit of a paunch in some of those swimsuit photos love, time to lose a few pounds, or Miss Lollipop Head won't want to be seen with you in public.