by Franz Kelsch

There has been a tremendous change in the technology for cycling lights. My first light was big and bulky and the battery was the size of a water bottle and very heavy.  It was difficult to ride on a very dark road. H.I.D. lights were much brighter but were very expensive and somewhat fragile. What changed everything for the cyclists riding at night was the high powered LEDs.

My first LED light was produced by BR Lights, C2-H model, which I wrote about it in a prior entry. That light has served me well through two Furnace Creek 508 rides and a couple of Devil Mountain Double rides. I have used it also on several night rides, both road and mountain bike. The BR light is all in one package, both battery and light. That means it can only be mounted on the handlebar. When mountain biking at night, I wanted a helmet mounted light.  With the Hoodoo 500 coming up, I needed a second light since you need two independent lights to be able to ride at night without the van following you.

You can pay a lot of money for a LED light but there is no need to now days.  I had heard a lot about the MagicShine light, so I decided to order one from GeoManGear.com.  I bought their Racer’s special which came with a 2nd battery, helmet mount and cord extension, all for a price of $129.99.

I was impressed with GeoManGear’s service because the light arrive in just a couple of days to our Utah home.  That night I mounted the light on my helmet and went out for a test ride.  The MagicShine has a nice mounting system, using a single o-ring.  It comes with two o-rings, one for a standard size handlebar  and a larger one for an oversized handlebar.

The helmet mount attached to my helmet using Velcro straps. I then used the smaller o-ring to mount the light to the helmet mount.  I used the extension cord so I could put the battery in my rear pocket.

The light has 3 levels, along with some strobe effects.  This photo shows how much the trail was lit up using the three different settings.

Doing some tests while riding near, I felt comfortable riding at 25 mph using the brightest setting, about 16 mph using the middle setting and about 12 mph using the lowest setting.  I wish the lower setting was dimmer so I would have an option with battery saving for climbing, where I do not need as much light.

The light and battery were less than a pound, but still a bit heavier than my BR light.

They claim the MagicShine is 900 lumens but I highly doubt that figure since they lights from Hong Kong are almost always have over inflated ratings. I did a test comparing each light at their highest setting, middle setting and lowest setting.  At the highest setting, the BR light which is rated at 325 lumens, seemed about the same as the MagicShine.

At the other settings the MagicShine was brighter but that also means it does not have a setting that would allow to ride all night on a single battery.  With the BR light, I can ride all night since the middle setting will give me 9.5 hours and I would use the high setting (3.5 hours) only for descent and the lower setting (20 hours) for the climbs.  But at one third the price, the MagicShine is still a good deal.

What do I like about the MagicShine?

• Price
• Mounting is very easy using one of the two supplied o-rings
• Can be helmet mounted
• Spare battery at a reasonable price

What do I  not like about the MagicShine?

• You need to cycle through all the settings in order.  If you are riding and wish to switch from the middle setting to the high setting, you have go switch to low, then to strobe,  another strobe setting, then off.  That is not very appealing while riding if that is your only light since it goes to no light before you can turn it on high.  If you just want to turn the light off, hold down the button for 2 seconds.
• There is a single indicator of a low battery.  The BR light has 6 stage of colors to let you know where you stand.

I have not done any extensive testing yet of the MagicShine light.  I am interested in how long it will last on one battery on the various settings.  But those tests need to be done while riding because the light depends on that air flow for cooling.

Categories: Equipment
3 Comments »

by Franz Kelsch

For many years I used a Polar heart rate monitor for both running and later for cycling. Starting with the Polar 720i, then the 625X, with footpod, it seemed like an ideal way to keep track of my speed and distance on both the bike and running. However I had become progressively disenchanted with Polar as a company. Even to this day they do not support their products on the Mac operating system, something that Garmin now does with all their products. They also seem to have lost the technology advantage they once had by letting Garmin move ahead with the use of GPS technology. Garmin’s early GPS units were bulky and seemed quite impractical but with each new generation they have continued to advance and their GPS units now have become quite small.

I previously wrote about the Garmin Edge 500 compared with the Polar 625X for cycling. It turned out that the Garmin Edge 500, which was primarily built for cycling weights no more than the Polar 625X.  See my previous post for the detail comparison.

One of the nice features of the Garmin Edge 500 was the quick quarter turn mount. The new Garmin Forerunner 310X, has an optional “Quick release mounting kit” that is designed to convert their Forerunner running watches to use the same quarter turn mount, allowing you to use it on both your wrist and on the bike.

I ordered the kit for about $25 from Amazon and received it today.  It comes with a wrist stap  (the part I was interested in) as well as a bike mounting kit and a back for the 310XT to convert it to the quarter turn mount.  Using only the strap I was able to attach the Garmin Edge 500 directly to my wrist.  The orientation on your wrist may not be the idea way, but it is workable.

It might look a bit geeky, but not as much as the early Garmin Forerunner running watches.

So how much does the strap add to the 2 oz. weight of the Garmin Edge 500?  Turns out not much, bringing the total weight from 2.0 to 2.6 oz.  The difference is less than the weight of the footpod I use with the Polar 625X.  It is almost the same as the 2.5 oz weight of the Garmin 310XT.

Is this combination the same as using the Garmin Forerunner 310XT?

Garmin Forerunner 310XT

If one is primarily focused on running, or on tri sports, then getting the Garmin 310XT might well be worth the price.  For those who are mostly focused on cycling and do some running, then the Edge 500 does work as a workable solution if you want a GPS to use on your runs.  It will not show your pace in any readout.  Even using the speed, in mph, is not very useful because it seems to be erratic.  But I found the pace readout on the Polar 625X to also be useless and ended up using the average speed over the course the of the run, which the Garmin Edge 500 will do.  So if you own a Garmin 500 and want to have some type of GPS unit for running, you can get there with a small investment.  Even without a footpod, it seems to be quite accurate and unlike the Polar 625X, the distance measurement does not seem to be greatly influenced by the pace being run. After the run, I can download the data to my Mac computer and see my average pace, and a map of the run.  It makes it much easier later on to remember where you actual ran.

You also get some features that the Garmin Forerunner 310XT lack, including barometric pressure altimeter and temperature readout, although I am not sure that the temperature reading on the Garmin Edge 500 is very accurate.  I realize that Polar has some newer running and cycling devices than the Polar 625X, but their unwillingness to embrace both the Mac and the standard Ant+ communication with their components, has kept me from spending any more money on Polar products.  They seem to have a lot of different products, too many in my opinion.  Try to pick out from the Polar offering and it is way too confusing.

Of course if you have no Garmin device now, you could go with the Garmin Forerunner 310XT, and use the Quick release kit to mount it on your bike or your wrist.  But I primarily bike and the Garmin Edge 500 is well suited for that.  You might also read my other post on using course on the Edge 500.

Categories: Equipment
No Comments »

Once point of confusion when people are deciding between the Garmin Edge 500 and 705, is the lack of maps on the 500. Some come to the conclusion that the Edge 500 provides no navigational features, which is not true.  Although you can not get a street level view, with the pre-plotted course shown, you can upload courses from either an existing workout or by mapping them in advance. You add the course in the Garmin Training Center program and then send it to your Edge 500.

After transferring the course to your Edge 500, select Training from the Menu, then select Courses

Next select the course file you wish to use.

Your Garmin now has three additional screens.

The first one shows the hill profile behind and ahead of you.  This is quite useful as you are making a long climb since you get a visual clue of the grade ahead.

The nextr screen which I use primarily is the course on a simplistic map.  You can use this to navigate you way along the course.

The arrow shows where you are and the line shows what is ahead.   If you look at the screen above, it is easy enough to see you bend to the left and then a right turn is coming.  The course keeps getting updated as you move along so you can tell you are getting close to the turn.  At the top of the screen, once you are on the course, it will show the total distance to the end of the course.  If you get off course, you will receive a warning message.  Even if you are off course, but near the course, you can see your location by the pointer and the course line off to the side, and easily find your way back.

The third new screen is only there if you take the time to enter course points in Garmin Training Center.  This involves entered every turn, picking an icon to show left, right, summitt, etc, and the name of the road you turn on.  You then get a live, constantly updated route sheet.

One problem I have noted is with an out and back course.  If you did not go fully to what it thinks is the turn around point, on the way back, it seems to think you are off course and wants you to return to the turn around, but the line still shows and you can follow it back.  It is just annoying to have it flash “off course”, then “found course”, repeatedly.

Categories: Equipment
5 Comments »

by Franz Kelsch, updated 4/1/2010

Why Measure Power?

There has been an evolution from using only using heart rate measurements for training purposes to measuring the power output of the cyclists. To meet this need training method several approaches have been taken to develop power meters than read out the power in watts, being applied to the pedals.  To read about the science being cycling power read this other post.

Two Components

Most power meters are in two components. There is the mechanism to make the reading using something like a strain gauge. This is either built into the crank, the hub or some other part of the bike where power being applied to the pedals can be measured or estimated. Then there is the computer head which is mounted on your bicycle handlebar where you get the reading. The computer heads offer other cyclometer features including speed, distance, heart rate and even GPS on some models. The communication between the two components is either via a wire or wireless.

ANT+Sport^TM is a 2.4 GHz wireless network with standardized communication between devices including bike power sensors, speed sensors, cadence sensors and heart rate straps. This allows separate manufacturers to independently develop sensors and computers, allowing you to pick and choose your favorites to create a system that meets your needs. For example if you have a Garmin Edge 705 GPS based cyclometer, or the newer Garmin Edge 500, which offers no power measurement sensor, it could be coupled with the SRM or Quarq crank to read out power and could be used instead of the computer heads offered by those companies.

Offerings

PowerTap:

This offering is from the Saris Cycling group (makers of the CycleOps cycling trainer). It uses a special hub and handle mounted computer to measure and display the power at the pedals. It requires a rear wheel with the PowerTap hub. There are wireless options. It adds weight to the bike due to the hub and the need to use a wheel that can accommodate the PowerTap hub. It is also expensive, especially for the wireless version. Although there is a 2.4 Mhz wireless option, it does not support ANT+Sport^TM so you are stuck using the PowerTap computer which really looks looks like a prototype built by an engineer for development and not a product ready for the mass market. It can be used on a bike trainer to measure your power output. Moving to another bike will require moving the wheel and the computer head.

Best For : Those looking for a reliable approach to measuring power and are willing spend considerable money and take a weight penalty.

SRM:

This offering is from Schoberer Rad Messtechni. It uses a special crank to measure the power to the pedals. There are a variety of versions to match some of the popular cranks, including DurAce and SRAM. SRM supports ANT+Sport so you can either use it’s computer head (which kind of looks like a prototype) or another device that supports ANT+Sport^TM such as the Garmin 705 Edge or iBike.

Best For: Due to the extreme expense it is geared toward professional cyclists or those who are prepared to spend as much measuring power as they might spend on a good quality road bike.

Polar:

This offering is from Polar, famous for heart rate monitoring. It uses a device to measure chain tension on the bike and transmit that to certain models of their heart rate monitor or cyclometers. It is can be difficult to calibrate and but once it has been it can have a reliable output. You do the power level read out on compatible Polar heart rate montiors (such as the 725i) or Polar Cyclometers. When used with the latest CS600 cyclometer, you can get an efficiency readout on the cyclometer. This efficiency is an estimate of what percentage of the calories being burned by your body go into moving your bike along, a step beyond just measuring power.

Best For: Those who use Polar advanced cyclometers or heart rate monitors and are looking for a lightweight and less expensive approach and are willing to go to the effort get it properly calibrated.

iBike:

This offering from Velocomp is a relatively new approach. It is different in that it does not directly measure your power output as is done with the above products. It measures the parameters of what you work against and then calculates what your power would need to be to achieve the speed you are going. Except for the front wheel pickup it is all contained in a well designed computer head that is about as large as the computer for the PowerTap and weights 100g. You can also easily transfer from bike to bike. It has some negatives. It can not be used to measure power on a bike trainer. It also seems to have a short battery life due to using a non rechargeable watch type battery. It needs to be mounted so it gets a clean air flow since it uses wind speed in it’s calculations so use with aerobars can be difficult. Cost: Moderate to Expensive.

Best For: Those who are looking for a less expensive and very lightweight approach to estimating power. Those with aero bars should look elsewhere.

Quarq:

This offering is from Quarq and uses a special crankset to measure the power, similar to the SRM approach. It offers ANT+Sport^TM compatibility. It’s computer head is one of the more sophisticated cyclometers you can buy and has a GPS option. Cost: Expensive

Vector:

A new type of power meeter called the Vector is being developed by Metrigear.  Vector is an embedded high-resolution force meter that calculates a cyclist’s power by measuring force applied to the pedals. It will use Ant+Sport to communicate with the user supplied head unit or GPS unit that supports Ant+.   It is an interesting concept that could have a significant impact on the market for cycling power meters.   This device has not been released as of April 2010 so real world tests are not yet available.  For those interested, please contact the Metrigear Webstie.

Comparison Reviews:

• Power Tap vs. SRM vs. Polar at BikeTechReview
• Accuracy of PowerTap and SRM at Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise
• iBike Power Meter Reviews – paper that gathers references to many different reviews
• Measurement Comparison of Power Tap vs. iBike vs. Quarq
• Active.com review of iBike

Categories: Equipment
1 Comment »

by Franz Kelsch

For more than 20 years I have been a fan of Polar Heart Rate monitors, a company that was the pioneer in the field. Being one who both runs and cycles, I was happy when Polar came out with their tri-sports S625X watch. When coupled with the footpod and the bike sensors, I was able to measure speed and distance for both running and biking.

It is obvious to many that Polar seems to have lost it’s luster, being replaced by other companies, most notably by Garmin, who focused on GPS.  I did not have an interest early on because tests showed that the early running Garmin watches, which relied only on GPS, were not as accurate in tracking distance, as the Polar HRM was when using the footpod.  This was confirmed later when Garmin released a footpod for their subsequent running watches.

I liked the advantage of the 625X which I could move from bike to bike and to my wrist for running.  I could also download the data to my computer to not only track my progress, but analyze my workouts.  It was this later feature that started to become frustrating with the Polar.  My Polar 625X relied on the ancient IrDa method to transfer the data and also only worked under Windows.  Despite considerable talk on the various blogs, Polar has continued to ignore the Mac, which Garmin started to make software for their devices to run on both Windows and the Mac.

Garmin released the Edge 205/305 series and they looked appealing.  But I heard that the battery only lasted 10 hours, not long enough for some of the double centuries.  They then released the Edge 705, which supported maps, and with a longer battery life.  But the price seemed too high for me.  When Garmin released the new, smaller, Edge 500, I decided to make the purchase.  After a few days, I am ready to compare using it with my two Polar 625X HRMs.

Weight

Turns out that the new Edge 500 was the same weight as the my Polar 625X HRM.

Mounting

I always thought that the Polar watches were easy enough to move from bike to wrist to bike, but the Edge 500 is a dream, with a very clever bike mount that only requires a quarter turn.  My package included two bike mounts and a lot of the special o-rings that are used to attach the mount to the bike, either on the stem or handlebar.

ANT+ Devices

The Garmin Edge supports connection to ANT+ devices.  I purchased the bundle with the heart rate strap and the bike speed/cadence sensor.  Too bad that I could not use my Polar heart rate straps, which are excellent.  If you have a power meter that supports ANT+, you can pair it with the Edge 500.  Note that you can use the Garmin Edge 500 without the speed/cadence pickup since it will use the GPS to calculate speed/distance.  This works well when you have a GPS signal and there are not a lot of sharp bends.  I use this method to mount the Edge 500 on the rear of our tandem, where it replaced out Garmin eTrek GPS.

The speed/cadence sensor is a very nice single unit design that mounts on the chain-stay.  I had no issue with the transmission even though the pickup is quite a bit further away from the Edge 500 unit than is typical where you have a speed pickup mounted on the front fork.

Initial Setup

After charging the device for the recommended 3 hours and turning it on, I was put directly into the setup.  I noted how fast it found the satellites compared with my Garmin eTrek, even though I was indoors.  The setup involved entering your age, weight, height, etc.

Display

Then I went about modifying the display.  Similar to the Garmin hiking GPS units I have owned, I was pleased to find out you could select what data to put where you want it.  You are given 3 different pages you can switch between.  For each page, you can set from 1 to 8 data fields to view at one time.  If you select 5 or fewer fields, one field is displayed at the top in larger characters.

The number of different data you can pick from is amazing.

One thing I notice when setting up the Edge 500 was how difficult it was for me to read. I was not sure why since the size characters on the display were similar to my Polar HRM.  So I compared the two together, mounted on the bike.

The difference in the contrast is quite striking.  The Edge 500 has a contrast adjustment but that seemed to have little affect.  In all cases it was much easier for me to read the Polar 625X display.  Having used the Edge 500 on several rides now, I did note that reading anything but the large sized font at the top, is hard.  Those with better eyesight may not have an issue.

This image is from the Garmin website. I would like to know how they photographed it so the screen is so readable.

Data Download

After taking my first ride I was anxious to download from the device.  I installed the free Garmin Training Center software on my Mac.  I connected the Edge via a min-USB cord, and it was immediately found and the workout was brought in.  I was amazed how good this software was.

I find this layout much better than the Polar software, which mixes your speed, heart rate, elevation all on one graph.  Compare the above view with what I had with the Polar software shown below.

Web Based Options

Garmin also offers free web based software called Garmin Connect.  I gave that a try and the data from the Edge was brought in just as easily.

I tried some of the other web based applications.  One of particular note is Strava.  This site requires payment but does a good job of analyzing your data.

This site offers a very interesting feature.  When you upload your Edge 500 files to it, it can determine when you do certain climbs and then compares your times against other Strava users.  When I did the Metcalf Mauler ride, it knew I had climbed Metcalf and compared with other Strava users.  Too bad that I didn’t have this Garmin GPS device last year when I climbed Metcalf in 13:18, or I would be KOM on their page.

Conclusion

I am happy with my purchase of the Garmin Edge 500 and have taken the Polar speed sensor off my main bike.   It has found a home on the rear of our tandem, replacing the Gramin eTrex I was using.   Downloading the data is much easier, especially for Mac users since I no longer need to boot into Windows to get my data.  The options for analyzing the data is much greater.  I am disappointed in the screen readability.  I am not sure why Garmin can not use the same type of LCD screen that Polar uses, which would make it much easier to read while riding.  Having a GPS opens up a lot of possibilities, such as the automated climb time comparisons that sites like Strava offer.  For a very in-depth review of the Garmin Edge 500, read the blog posting by DC Rainmaker.

Categories: Equipment
11 Comments »

Yesterday my new BR Light arrived by FedEx, just in time to give it 45 minutes on the charger before I jumped on the bike and headed north to Morgan Hill for a ride up Henry Coe with the Nightriders. I waited until dark before I started the ride back home from Morgan Hill so I could test out the new light. I had purchased the C2-H model, which is a handle bar version and the model with the higher lumen (and shorter run time).

The light has three power settings, high, medium and stealth. I had them program my light so the stealth mode was at 5% instead of the normal 2% because when I tested it last Friday during the mountain bike ride, I didn’t feel the 2% would be adequate. I am glad I made that change.

Before I get into how the light performed on the road, in the dark, here are some interesting comparisons between my new light and an older 20/10 watt dual light system I have used in the past.

On the left is the new BR Light, which is all self contained in one unit. That means the mount, the light, the battery, the controller switch are all together. Compare that with my old light with a separate battery, a bag for the battery, cables to connect the battery to the light, a light mount, and a control switch I had to attach to the handle bar.

I weighed both setups (san chargers). The BR light weighed 14.2 oz (408 grams) while my old light came in at 2 lbs, 2.5 oz (992 grams) or more than twice the weight. My old light has two lights, a 10 watt and a 20 watt, for a total of 30 watts, but with both lights I can only get a couple hours of run time, even with that heavy battery.

The BR light is small enough and light enough to mount on the handlebar with no need for cords (note I have small hands).

I then did a very unscientific test and shined both lights in a dark room against the wall.

The BR light is on the left, the old light on the right. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that the BR light is much brighter and the light is whiter, which is easier to use on the road.

The mount for the light is attached to it. It is a clever all metal mounting system that I believe is very solid, even fully adequate for mountain biking. Once mounted, it is easy to move the light left or right as you are riding, to aim the beam. The light does not come off as quick as those lights that have a mount that stays on the bike such as my Cateye HL530, but then those mounts are often flimsy. The BR light is relatively easy to attach and remove and certainly faster and easier than setting up a light that has an external battery that you need to attach to the bike somewhere then wire it to the light on the handlebar.

Now back to my ride in the dark. I rode 13 miles in the dark, part through the city streets and about 10 miles on a road that had no street lights and enough times with no cars to test things out. I found that on high power the BR light has plenty enough light for me to go as fast as I wanted. I took my speed up to 30 mph on a short descent and felt fully comfortable.

On the medium setting the light is adequate for 20 mph, what I would usually do on a flat road. If the route was short enough I would still opt for the higher light setting, but the medium setting was fine, especially if the road has a white line to gauge off and is in reasonably good shape.

I had a short climb where I tested out the stealth mode (my light was set at 5%). I found it adequate, but barely, for climbing at up to 7-8 mph. I am glad I had them change the setting and maybe a slightly higher setting would be useful. In any case it is about as bright in the stealth mode as my Cateye HL530, which has a claim of 1,500 candlepower (a useless measurement in my opinion).

I feel that with this particular light, I could basically go all night on a single charge by using the medium setting for flats, the high power for descents and the stealth mode for climbing. The light has a 6 stage battery indicator. A colored LED goes from green (full power) to blinking green, then to orange, then blinking orange, then red, then blinking red. It is a clever system and very easy to see how much battery life left.

I found using the single control button on the light to work very well. It was very responsive.

If I owned a HID light I would make a direct comparison. When we did the night mountain bike ride last Friday we did an informal comparision with some HID lights on the ride and found the BR Light similar in terms of illumination. The BR light has the big advantage of using the new CRED LEDs which are very reliable and much more shock resistant than a HID light. The LED light turns on immediately and it is no problem to shut it off and back on as you wish.

I have a sophisticated light meter back from the early days of photography that will measure LUX, but I have to find some batteries first. They don’t make the mercury button batteries anymore for this device that is 25 years old. When I get it to work, I can do more testing.

In summary, I am very glad I bought the BR light.

Categories: Equipment
7 Comments »

I ride with a group called the Nightriders, who both road and mountain bike. Tonight I decided to join them for a night time mountain bike ride up Henry Coe, the largest State Park in California. I wanted to join the ride tonight because we were going to have guests from BR Lights come join us and bring some of their new lights for us to test out. I was in the market for a new light, needing something I could use for the Furnace Creek 508 in October and other events I want to do, in addition to the night mountain biking.

They let me try both the handlebar light (C2.1-H model) as well as the helmet mount light (Jen-H model) with the auxilary battery pack. I got the lights setup quickly due to a clever design for both the handle bar light and the helmet light. Unlike my existing lights that required me to first put an a handlebar bracket, attach the battery, attach the light, connect the light to the battery and finally attach the control buttons to the handle bar; this unit is all self contained so the battery and control switches are all in one unit. It makes the design look a bit boxy but I was pleasantly surprised that in the field when I had mounted the unit on the bike it didn’t look as big as I thought it would after looking only at their website.

The helmet light is a nice looking design, again all self contained. The only downside of this is that it is a bit heavy on the head, but not unreasonably so at only 300 grams.

We took off soon after 7 pm, with plenty of light to make the first climb. Kyle and Jeni, from BR Lights, were out in the front and I struggle to keep up with them even though we were on a fire road. I realized they were great mountain bike riders in addition to knowing a lot about LED light technology.

Kyle and Jeni from BR Lights

Franz with BR helmet light

As we reached the first regroup area it was getting dark and we had a chance to finally try out the lights.

After the rest of the group arrived we had a chance to compare the lights. Jim had a triple shot on his handlebar so we pointed it ahead to the right and I pointed the BR handlebar light to the left. You can see the comparison in this photo.

Comparison of BR Light (left) and Triple Shot (right)

The BR light was clearly brighter, not only over the wide area, but much brighter in the spot area.

Jim also had on one of the BR helmet lights while he hammed it up for the camera.

Jim with BR Helmet Light

We made our way to the tricky single track. Not being a real experienced mountain biker, I normally would have been very nervous doing this single track in the dark but I found the combination of the BR handlebar light and the BR helmet mounted light illuminated up things fully. I usually was running the handlebar light on half power and relying more on the helmet light, which seemed to work fine.

Both lights have a stealth mode, that sas some extremely long battery life. I tired that mode but found it too weak for anything other than maybe climbing on a road bike.

Some of the riders in our group were using HID lights. I didn’t see that they were any brighter than what I was using, which is quite a feat considering the BR Lights use CRED LEDs, are all self contained with a total weight much less than the HIDs and much greater durability.

It was well past 11 pm when we finished about a 20 mile ride.

I was so impressed with the BR Lights that I ordered the handlebar version (C2.1-H model) right away. I would like to buy the helmet light also but that would be a bit much for me right now, but I am tempted. I hope I get my new BR light quickly before the our big night mountain bike adventure in September.

Franz Kelsch

See also:

http://www.sports.franzkelsch.com

(my personal endurance sports website)

http://www.actc.org
(primary cycling club where you can contact me at webaster@actc.org)

Categories: Equipment
3 Comments »