# Ravemen Cut-off beam lights



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

As requested, getting a new thread up for discussion on Ravemen's new lights that I carry.

To be clear I am the US based partner for Ravemen as of this last week (was formally Tigris99 for new visitors). And don't worry, videos will still come. I took the PR1200 out last night just tooling around on my fat bike. As always, I'm still a kid when I get a new light. So have to put them through their paces and share my experiences as well as the "boring technical details" that we all love 










www.rakclighting.com

On to the good stuff:

As is becoming known, Ravemen came up with their own version of cut-off beam lights. For those that don't fully understand what that is, think of your car or truck headlights on low beam. Then on high beam. Low is "low to the ground" and high beam is higher and further reaching. Same idea. Low is meant to avoid blinding oncoming traffic and keep the light down closer/wider where you need it.

Ravemen has done something very similar, just with PMMA optics and a "half lens" instead of a larger reflector.

MTBR is rather enthusiastic about the design and I find it different and an effective idea. Though my first lights that have had any form of cut-off beam.










A quick overview of Ravemen lights:
*Note: PR1200 is not available yet, will be come early spring

The numbers in the name designation of each light is the lumen output. ANSI certified output(this is just a standardize method of testing done by an approved third party). Example is CR500 is 500 lumens, PR1200 is 1200 lumens

All are USB rechargeable (totally self contained). No cells cant be changed as these were designed around being as small as possible with USB charging (both ways in the case of PR series)

Both have a USB remote with full mode cycling or a long press will "flash" for those that need to flash oncoming traffic. Its automatically max output while button is held then back to whatever mode you were in previously. Simple clicks of the remote button just cycle the regular modes.

CR series and PR series LOW BEAM share the same operation except the CR series has a fast flash mode as well. 4 steady modes then flash (single steady on with pulse for PR series, steady on with pulse or rapid flash with CR series)

Buttons glow in the dark but will turn red (except remote) when batteries are getting low.

Mount is universal across all lights, fit up to 31.8mm bars (no current 35mm support currently. I am using a Minoura extension on my fat bike right now to test the PR series off the road)



















CR300 and CR500 are the small single emitter lights meant for road/commuting use. Not recommended for trail use as they have a limited amount of throw. Work in a pinch (or as a bar light) but don't try them as a helmet light.

The PR600, PR900 and PR1200 are the dual emitter lights. They have one side that is the cut off beam and the other is a normal spot optic.

Other differences:

CR300 and CR500 are standard water resistant only. Dropped in a puddle or anything as long as usb cover is on/no remote, wont hurt it.

PR600, 900 and 1200 are water proof, without remote plugged in, up to 2 meters. USB ports are un-effected if they get wet but submersion more than a drop in a puddle, water may get past the inner seal. So if you expect to take a dip in a creek with one, have the remote removed and covers over the USB ports, beyond that not much to be concerned with.

PR series can also be used as a power bank to charge your phone in emergencies. Be advised, this will drain the batteries quickly, especially if light is on as well. Figure if you charge your phone at the same time your running the light, you wont even make half your run time. Especially smart phones.

PR 600/900/1200 have the high beam or "HiLo" function. What this is:
Low/ cut-off beam as I mentioned above is the same as that of the CR300 and CR500. But the PR series has a large button that not only turns the light on and off (press and hold) but also controls either low mode only or both on together. The second smaller button operates the mode options. Steady modes/flasher if low mode only or just 3 steady modes if both high and low are on. No high will not work by itself, only low will.

PR900 and PR1200 differ in their own way. This is more of a user preference against the PR600. But the small digital display. It displays the run time on the numbers in 0.0 or if run time is 10 hrs or above, 00. example would be either 1.5hrs or 15hrs. Just below that is a little pair of indicators (very small) that the one on the left will show amber colored and signify just low beam is active. The one on the right will come on in blue (so both are on) when you go to both high and low beams. REMOTE will only cycle through the modes (same operation as the small button) you cannot turn the light on and off or switch between high and low with the remote.

Here is a pic for size comparisons:










Some indoor beam shots to give you an idea of pattern and tint. Tint isn't a strong cool white but isn't neutral either. Say 5500-6000k. Not a lot of blue, the high beam shows a fair bit of yellow so the light isn't bad when blended with neutral white. I'll get better ones outside with a proper camera soon.










Cut off beam:









Both on for PR series:









Here's what all lights come with. Light, mount, selection of pads and a spacer for the mount, USB cord and USB remote:









Pic of remote set up on the PR1200:









Here is the mount itself, which does twist to adapt for curved bars:









Picture of the rear of the CR500 (300 is the same) and PR1200 (600 and 900 are the same):









Bare with me as I get all the details and pics loaded. More to come as I still need to do sphere testing.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Reserving this spot for videos and such (keep the first post from being a page long on its own)


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Ok here's my actual sphere readings, nice to see they are rather accurate (more dead on than expected). I did double check sphere calibration before testing.

CR300:

CR500: 494 lumens

PR600: 612 lumens

PR900: 886 lumens (been using and testing so probably I got dirt or something on the optics)

PR1200: 1191 lumens


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

In my opinion the choice made, "not to included a serviceable battery compartment" has nothing to do with size but looks more to do with "choice of features by design". If you have a battery access door ( in the rear of the lamp ) then you can't put the USB ports there. The LED display is also towards the rear of the lamp. If you want to keep the ports and display then yes, adding a battery compartment would likely require a complete redesign. Whether or not this precludes the unit would be bigger is anyone's guess. How much bigger (?) would be the real question. 

Self contained lamps by design are generally bigger than typical lamps that use remote batteries. This means they have a bigger footprint when on the bars ( or wherever you choose to mount them ). If you are the type of person who likes the idea of a self-contained lamp on the bars and don't mind the extra space required for their use, I don't see how "making the design more functional ( ie...having a serviceable battery compartment ) would be considered an over-all negative issue. My opinion is that if the body of the lamp was just a little bigger I doubt I would choose "not to use the lamp" because it was too big. I'd much rather have something that I could choose to use with a couple back up cells in case I wanted to do a ride that might require longer run time. I'll take "function over form" any time.

BTW, I'm not dissing your lamp. I might buy one if the reviews continued to be favorable. Currently I don't own a lamp with a cut-off design so I was thinking it might be nice to have one just so I see the beam pattern in person. 

Going forward, it might be a good idea in the future to include at least a port that would allow the connection of an external battery ( for back-up ) for those people who might want that feature. I doubt the extra port would add any additional size but it would require different electronics.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Cat,

battery backup isn't a big problem as its USB, it just doesn't allow for running while charging (not sure why, surprised when I found that out).

As for size increase to have replaceable cells, it would be pretty big to maintain both USB ports (be to able to operate as a powerbank). We know the size just for basic USB recharge and replaceable cells with the WIZ20. Would make for a pretty big light (by comparison) to maintain all functionality and move the USB ports to the front of the light. Think wiz20 but slightly bulkier and about 15mm longer. The ability to run while plugged into a USB power bank would be interesting. Guessing more complex circuitry though.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

The replaceable battery in the field feature is why I bought the Wiz20. I can thank you guys for talking me into it. 

I contacted Fenix about their BC30R light and the fact that it doesn't have replaceable batteries. They told me " send it in and we'll replace them for you" 

Bad choice on light design in not having replaceable batteries because A.) The batteries die in the field now what and B.) Now my light is gone for a week or more having the batteries replaced. 

Is it really that hard for the manufacturer to think of these simple things? Or is it easier just to make a disposable light? 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

It's the other features that make it difficult. I have a bc30r as well and that thing has just a ton of crap going on inside of it. Obviously they misunderstood your question though lol. They have a version that has replaceable cells.

Your cells won't sudden just stop working thank God (unless they go dead of course but you get a warning).

Though many of us like the option of changing our cells out how many actually worry about it compared to the few of us here. I've only ever changed cells in mine once other than at home. And that only happens when I forget to charge them. Other than that same cells in it for the last year Few guys posted in the wiz20 thread that they never bother taking the cells out. 

My thoughts behind things, every company goes for their own idea. Fenix has their fancy monster display, kind of bulky. Ituo is more simplistic, long, and user replaceable cells. These guys went with as small as possible with USB availability both ways on the dual lights. No fun if everybody made their lights the same way.

Same reason many of here like Cat, mole, Garry, myself etc have a rediculous number of lights. Variety to keep it interesting or lights that work better than others for what's being done.





Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Fenix does have one with replaceable cell but no USB charging. You need to buy a separate charger. 

Fenix should marry the features of the BC30 and BC30R into one light. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Can't marry a digital runtime display and replaceable cells. The display system has to be calibrated to specific cells and won't be accurate otherwise. Have a massive new world of people freaking out "I put these cheap cells in and it said I had 3 hrs when I turned it on, then died 45 minutes later"

Would work if people stuck with only good, new cells. I can just see the fall out in around here though. Look at all the threads of "I bought the cheapest entry level brand "x" bike and it's not holding up to racing on downhill parks or 10ft drops to flat"

Should add, the tech exists but adds complexity and cost to the light obviously. Maybe I'm over thinking it but we have seen the more simplistic systems being all sorts of weird on light heads depending on battery packs used.

There are other lights out there that are USB rechargeable and replaceable cells, but nothing I've seen that has a display and all that other stuff.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Don't need the runtime display. Just post the specs on battery life at each brightness setting.

I would have bought the BC30R if the batteries were replaceable.

I would have bought the BC30 if it had a USB recharge feature.

Ituo Wiz20 checked all the right boxes.


----------



## Dirt Road (Feb 6, 2016)

Those Fenix lights are neutral whites, I recall someone *****in bout the wiz20 and it's nw goodness....


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Guys, stay on topic please.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Yeah...still not quite a fan of the NW on the Wiz20 but overall it's a good light. In the photos above, the Ravemen looks to be a brighter white than the Wiz20


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

prj71 said:


> Yeah...still not quite a fan of the NW on the Wiz20 but overall it's a good light. In the photos above, the Ravemen looks to be a brighter white than the Wiz20


I just did a little wall shot comparison with some of my lights that are adjustable to approx. equal lux. My Ravemen PR900 is definitely whiter/cooler than my Wiz20 but a little warmer than my Gloworm X2 and noticeably warmer than an older Gemini Olympia I have. I mostly use my NW tint lights and since I have a choice it tells me that's what I prefer.
Mole


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

RAKC Ind said:


> Ok here's my actual sphere readings, nice to see they are rather accurate (more dead on than expected). I did double check sphere calibration before testing.
> 
> CR300:
> 
> ...


I here you on that. A finger smudge can cost you 50 lumens plus depending on the optic age (even just a few runs) sometimes will affect optic efficiency but I know you haven't had the light very long. Reran my tests last night and got same results, was expecting to see at least 950 lumens from the bounce test lux readings I got. Also haven't taken the bezel off yet but was wondering if the optics are available for purchase separately or if the standard Leddna or Gloworm style optics will fit?
Mole


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Mole

No on the separate optics and no the others don't fit. Their a few mm taller.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Whats the run time on high on the PR1200?


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

The PR1200 is in testing right now, not posting full specs until I know they aren't being changed. But expect it to be about 2 hours.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Testing? The website says "sold out". So a sold out light hasn't been tested yet?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Staypuft1652 (Oct 8, 2016)

The PR1200 hasnt been released yet.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Well then the website should say "Not Available Yet" Or "Available Spring 2017". Right now it says "sold out" which to me means they have already sold some. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

It does you just didn't click on the light itself.

www.rakclighting.com

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Yes. And it says sold out also.










Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Staypuft1652 (Oct 8, 2016)

I think its going to be a wee bit before the PR1200 is released. Maybe you could get someone to reflow some cool white XM-L2's in your wiz20.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

prj71 said:


> Yes. And it says sold out also.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Removed from website.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

*PR900 Review*



Beam pattern: Since the "cut-off" beam pattern is what this light is all about that's what I''ll talk about first. Imaginative manipulation of optics works very well at flattening the top of the beam pattern.









I consider the 400 lumen output too low for use in heavy traffic (would definitely look at the PR1200 if this is where you ride) but for side streets and bike paths the beam was surprisingly effective. Very nice flood beam and usable throw too. Clicking on the high beam (both emitters together) adds quite a bit more throw but in certain situations (uneven terrain) makes for an uneven beam (hot spots). Luckily for relative flat bike paths it's hardly noticeable. So would work for mtn. biking (adequate power, uneven beam not the best), is pretty much perfect for bike paths, in traffic would use high beam (both emitters) to make sure your adequately seen. Light intensity is also adjustable but I always used the highest setting for low (cut-off beam) and the two highest for high (both emitters). Would like to see the PR600's high beam as it looks it's set for 400 lumens (same as PR900) for the cut-off beam + 200 lumens (50% of PR900) for the spot and might provide a little smoother overall beam (I'm picky).

User interface: Lots of different settings but easy to figure out. Front button adjusts high (both emitters) or low (cut-off beam only), back button adjusts intensity levels and flash modes on the low setting (cut-off emitter only) and the remote has all the functions of the back button + when held down activates the 900 lumen mode till the remote is released. The one thing I wish Ravemen had included in the remote function would have been the ability to switch between both emitters and just the cut-off side. Luckily all the mode buttons are easy to use so 
it's not hard to do this with the front button you just have to take one hand off the bars to do it.

The rest: The light appears well made. Plenty of heat-sink area to keep it cool running. Mount is simple but functions well. Runtimes (mfg. claimed) are the best of Ravemen's light line and @ 2.5 hr. (800 lumen setting) very good for a self-contained light.

Very good first light effort so "Good Job Ravemen"!

Mole

*NOTE: This light was provided to me free of charge by RAKC Industries for review.*


----------



## Staypuft1652 (Oct 8, 2016)

MRMOLE said:


> Beam pattern: Since the "cut-off" beam pattern is what this light is all about that's what I''ll talk about first. Imaginative manipulation of optics works very well at flattening the top of the beam pattern.
> 
> View attachment 1119241
> 
> ...


Thanks Mole! That cut off beam looks very promising.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Staypuft1652 said:


> Thanks Mole! That cut off beam looks very promising.


This is my first experience combining an XP-G2 emitter with an elliptical optic and have to say it makes for an excellent flood beam for paved surfaces.
Mole


----------



## Staypuft1652 (Oct 8, 2016)

Yes this appears to be a great around town/path light. The 1200 should offer more usability as well.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

I can tell you the 900 and 1200 work well for bashing around on my fat bike. Since high speeds aren't really easy to accomplish on the river banks and such, 900 does well. Trails have been closed due to warm weather lately so not sure when I will be able to get either of them on the trail to see how I like them. Or videos for that matter.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Staypuft1652 (Oct 8, 2016)

RAKC Ind said:


> I can tell you the 900 and 1200 work well for bashing around on my fat bike. Since high speeds aren't really easy to accomplish on the river banks and such, 900 does well. Trails have been closed due to warm weather lately so not sure when I will be able to get either of them on the trail to see how I like them. Or videos for that matter.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


No doubt the 900 would do well as a bar lamp offroad as well. I may be looking at the 600 or 900 in the future as I am looking for a cutoff beam without going DIY or german.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

If your after just a cut off beam light the cr500 would do better. PR series you only get a portion of the lumen output. CR500 gives you an extra 100 lumens to the cutoff beam itself.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Staypuft1652 (Oct 8, 2016)

Good point thanks!


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Staypuft1652 said:


> Good point thanks!


Check out runtimes. CR500 is 1.6 hrs @ 500 lumens where as the 600/900 gets 3/4.5 hrs. @ 400 ea. I found the 400 lumen setting just fine and would value the extra runtime over the extra 20% power. Just my opinion though.
Mole


----------



## Dirt Road (Feb 6, 2016)

Well at this juncture, RACK Ind should offer emitter swaps as Action LED does.... I'd take a 1200 with xpg3 4500k !!! Ok I'll shut up now.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Can't. I don't have control over that, I can reflow NW emitters in (just did it to my PR1200 last night) but it'll cost you. And only on the PR series, CR series is too difficult to get into.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

PR900 did just fine on a little single track I did tonight. Used one of my old Olympia's for a helmet light and it was a good reminder why NW tint emitters are my favorite. Interested in hearing how your PR1200 works with the emitter reflowing you did and of course seeing sphere test numbers. Like I said the PR900 worked just fine on the trail but I'm betting I'd like it better (for trail use) with NW tint emitters (again, I'm picky).
Mole


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Just different tint. No effect on sphere readings really. Just a slight loss which was probably the fact I didn't use gloves when handling everything.

I wouldn't have bothered switching but I have no other cool white lights so off-road it gets a bit weird. Not bad from the ride I did last weekend but I definitely prefer my tints to match.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

RAKC Ind said:


> If your after just a cut off beam light the cr500 would do better. PR series you only get a portion of the lumen output. CR500 gives you an extra 100 lumens to the cutoff beam itself.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


Can you tell me if the CR500 has a "memory feature". (?) I'm thinking of buying one of these to supplement my road lamps when linking up roads with paved trails. Since I often ride with a back up torch on the bars this might work well ( as a replacement ) so I don't blind pedestrians when using the narrow paved trails. My intention is to pre-set the CR500 to a nominal setting of perhaps 250 lumen and then turn it off. When I see on-coming pedestrians I then turn off my main light and turn on the CR500 ( already pre-set to 250 ). Will the CR500 work like that or would I still have to cycle through the modes?


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Cat

Ya all the Ravemen lights have mode memory.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Got a coupon code that's good for a week or so:

"earlyspring"

10% off, only on the website though, www.rakclighting.com

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Pics from riding the river front bike path tonight with the PR900

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Most of my night riding lately has been longer pure trail rides and a lot more daylight rides too so my self-contained lights (PR900/Wiz20) have not been used much. I did get a chance to do a indoor run-time test though. 2:21 in highest steady mode (800 lumens) and according to my light-meter power levels stayed steady till just short of 2 hrs. Pretty close to the 2.5 hr. claim and something I'd been interested in checking since the OLED display never showed 2.5 hrs. of run-time when fully charged. Hope to get some more miles with the Ravemen PR900 next week, want to try some off road again but using my Xera instead of the Olympia as a helmet light. It rained all day today (I rode anyway) and is predicted to continue through tomorrow afternoon so I don't expect to get to the trails till the end of the week.
Mole


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

I know the feeling Mole. Except my issue is even though it's almost 70 during the day, trails are still way to wet to open up and ride. So stuck on pavement.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

*Top spill comparison*



Honda Element vs. Gemini Duo vs. Ravemen PR900 top-spill measured by light-meter @ 50'. Using my Honda elements low beam as a distance standard I aimed the Gemini Duo and Ravemen PR900 so the main beam intensity area landed at approx. the same distance (50') and took light-meter readings from eye level @ that distance to approximate what a on-coming pedestrian sees.

Honda Element:.......(3 lux/low beam)

Gemini Duo.............(31.9 lux/max intensity -1100 lumens)

Ravemen PR900:.....(4.7 lux/high commuter setting - 400 lumens, 20.9 lux/high setting - 800lumens).

I included the Duo to show how a typical bike light compares with a car and even though the Ravemen has less power than the other two to compare how they are all seen by a pedestrian. Walking back from taking the tests all the lights appeared bright but I could still see what was going on around me and what was behind the lights except with the Duo @ over 10 times the Elements top-spill. This is just for pedestrians though as on coming drives have the added protection of antiglare properties built into auto glass and would generally not be subjected to such direct aiming by the bike lights since they would be further over to the side of the road. Still easy to understand how you might get flashed by an auto driver on accation.
Mole


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Deleted


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Deleted


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Nice info Mole, must have had posting errors??? (Triple post).

Here's a pic from tonight's ride, rode the 20 miles north and back via the bike path. Had my GoPro take the photo while at speed. This is the PR1200. I forgot to take one while I was running the CR500 (ran it till I cleared the campgrounds along the river).










CR500 is plenty for normal cruising speeds, I even set it one step down from high for a bit to test it. And not the brightest flasher out there during the day but MORE than enough IMO. I asked a couple other ppl on the path how far out they saw me and they said as soon as I came into line of site.

Rode about 17 miles or so out in the middle of nowhere in the dark coming home thanks to a damn pinch flat. Both lights did great (with my Bolt as my taillight of course)

FYI we set a record high by alot (been setting record highs since the weekend) today, 76 degs..... It's usually not even barely above freezing. Some years it's been in the teens or lower for highs and a ton of snow on the ground. 20s and snow is the norm.

I got some video of playing with the high and low beams which I'll get posted in the next couple days. 40 miles doesn't sound like much but it's A LOT for my 280lb butt in one sitting. Especially pushing speeds of 17-25mph the entire ride.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> RAKC Ind said:
> 
> 
> > Nice info Mole, must have had posting errors??? (Triple post).
> ...


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

hi guys!!

Show and tell video


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> fc said:
> 
> 
> > hi guys!!
> ...


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

OK it looks like the PR1200s will be in stock at the end of the week

www.rakclighting.com

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## AZmuchacho (Nov 14, 2013)

will this be available via amazon.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

No it won't be on Amazon for a couple months (if it all).

Can be bought here

www.rakclighting.com

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Here's my new layout. Wanted to get it lower but with the bontrager integrated stem system my extension it soon short. Probably machine a new one to get the light where I want it.



















Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## GJHS (Jul 10, 2013)

Can the lens be rotated to mount it upside down?


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Nope would be like that if it could (can be done on the cr300/500 though)

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Run the light inverted under the bar if you want to see what it would look like. Curious what your trying to accomplish? 
Mole


----------



## bhocewar (Mar 15, 2009)

MRMOLE said:


> Run the light inverted under the bar...


Might want to accomplish just that, but with the correct beam orientation.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

RAKC Ind said:


> No it won't be on Amazon for a couple months (if it all).
> 
> Can be bought here:
> 
> ...


What are the run times? It's not listed there.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

It's the same as the pr900

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

And I'm supposed to know that how?


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

If I had the output mode/runtime chart it would be on the site, it's not there because I don't have it yet. So I answered your question instead of posting the chart.

Edit: Just found a reply to my email asking about Monday in my junk folder (not sure why as had a convo going via email but that email reply got tagged as spam). So chart will be on the page presently.


Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Oh as for the below the bars thing. I used to have it able to sit a bit lower but with the dual bontrager Blendr mount on my stem now the extension isn't long enough for the light to clear the mount so it sits almost level with the stem.

I did find that a standard aluminum 31.8 GoPro mount fits around my stem because instead of being just round and fat, it's oval shaped. Narrower in the middle so with longer screws it goes on no problem. But requires a series of extensions (too many pivot points) that can't handle the weight of anything beyond the cr500 without tilting badly on the first bump.

If you have a vanc mount and drill bits it is really easy to make a ravemen light GoPro mount compatible by disassembling the stock mount, making the hole in the vanc mount slightly larger and make a couple small holes for the pivot stops (ravemen lights rotate slightly right and left remember). Used stock screw and all to expirament with it. Allowed me to keep the quick release function of the light as well.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## GJHS (Jul 10, 2013)

MRMOLE said:


> Run the light inverted under the bar if you want to see what it would look like. Curious what your trying to accomplish?
> Mole


I was thinking of it as a low profile mount


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

can do what I did on my fat bike, the minoura mount that replaces a stem spacer. Works pretty well. But I have a TT bag on the road bike so no room for one of those mounts.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

This is as low as I could mount the PR900 with the extension mount I have. As you can see most of the top of the light needs to be exposed for access to control buttons and the OLED display so mounting it under anything or upside down won't work without compromises. PR600 is shorter and lacks the OLED display so it should be easier to mount lower.
Mole


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

RAKC Ind said:


> No it won't be on Amazon for a couple months (if it all).


Why no Amazon?


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Shipment just arrived, preorders for the 1200 will go out tomorrow (get shipping confirmations in a couple hours but too late to send out today)

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

*CR-500 mount failure; loose screw*

After just starting a short test ride for some of my new lights I happened to look down to notice that my Raveman CR500 was coming loose from the quick release mount. Then I made the mistake of not taking it off the mount when I first noticed it. A half mile later the lamp fell off the mount. Thankfully, the USB remote cable kept it from falling to the ground.

When I got home it was an easy fix. There is a small phillips-head screw that pushes up through the upper part of the clamp and into the unit that has the quick-release slide-mount. I remember tightening that screw when I first got the lamp so this ( apparently ) is a potential failure spot. I'm gonna try adding a little Locktite ( blue ) thread lock to see it this helps. Would be a damn shame to loose the lamp due to one lousy screw coming loose.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

prj71 said:


> Why no Amazon?


Bueller? Bueller?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

It's on Amazon now but your going to pay more going that route.


Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

I'll pay less since I have amazon card with points. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Actually prices on Amazon are going up on most things. We came to realize that those points are really doing no good because those costs seem to be passed to the sellers. So they charge more for products. Watched so many products go up over the last couple years. 

Need to replace something I break or whatever, look back at previous orders to find the exact item. Only to find that it's gone 3rd party only (from some random no name company) and/or price has gone up substantially.

That's why we don't have the card anymore. Might save a tiny bit but that's gone in interest unless we pay it off again before bill is do. Same thing happened to eBay a few years ago. Now eBay sucks. I maybe find 1 thing worth ordering off there every year or 2 anymore. Everything else is way more expensive. At least Amazon is still usually close in price to the rest of the market on many things so Prime makes it worth using still.



Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

Another excellent ride in with the Ravemen CR500 on the road setup. When I left the house I had the CR500 set on maximum output. Once I hit the paved trail I dropped it down a notch and rode the rest of the ride with that ( second to highest ) output. I had no problems seeing anything and this time I think I had the cut-off ( aim ) set up pretty good. 

The ride only lasted about an hour and the lamp never did drop into another ( low voltage ) warning mode ( stayed green the whole time ). With temps hovering around 60-57°F the lamp seems to handle cooler temperatures fairly well. So far I continue to be very impressed with the "Use-able output and beam pattern" that this little light provides.

FWIW, when I got home I set a timer on the lamp to see how long it would take to recharge...It took exactly 52 minutes to recharge to full power. I find this interesting because if I use this on one of my typical longer rides in the summer where I stop to get a bit to eat while on the road, if I carry a USB power adapter along I can add a bit more run time by charging the lamp while I chew on a snack and gulp down a drink. Not unusual for me to spend a half hour at a convenience store as I'm usually not in any big hurry.


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

*CR500; continued*

After a pretty cold ride last night I decided to see if I could take the front of the lens off the 500. Why? you may ask. Well, I happen to notice on mine that the lens was not exactly straight. Just off just a tad. Not really that noticeable when on the bike but I thought I'd give a try at fixing it if possible. It wouldn't turn by hand so I ( carefully ) tried to use some pliers. Damn, pliers didn't seem to work either but just before giving up I tried with my hand again and this time it came right off. 

So, I took off the lenses and also got a good look at the emitter. Not sure what it's using though. I reset the lenses and all looks good. Oh, BTW replacement of the emitter is do-able on these things.

The ride I took tonight was cold but it still amazes me how well this little light works. When I compare it to the Convoy S2 ( both on the bars ), the Convoy can beat it for throw but the beam pattern of the CR500 just continues to rock. I love the wide beam it throws out.

I'd love to see an upgraded version of the CR500. Maybe a 600 version with a bigger battery ( 2 hr run time on high ), a secondary aux USB port that could power the lamp with an external battery bank ( for those longer rides ). And, last but not least, a hidden menu for the flash modes! Give me those things in an upgraded version and I'd buy another so fast the magnetic strip on my credit card would be smoking it'd be moving so fast. :ihih:


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Cat, CR500 is xp-g2. Can't change for anything but another xp-g2. Driver is oddly calibrated from a very specific vF range. I tried an xp-g3 in mine. Get a flicker on high once emitters warms up. Put an xp-g2 back in and all was peachy.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

RAKC Ind said:


> Cat, CR500 is xp-g2. Can't change for anything but another xp-g2. Driver is oddly calibrated from a very specific vF range. I tried an xp-g3 in mine. Get a flicker on high once emitters warms up. Put an xp-g2 back in and all was peachy.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


Well I guess that helps explain some things. I thought it might be in the XP-G class but I wasn't sure. I guess that means it can't be in the 500 lumen range and explains why it can get the run time it does with the battery it uses. Still, the optics do an excellent job of spreading and using the available light. If a newer version were to use an XP-G3 in an advanced bin and they can size it for a bigger battery, I would still buy an upgraded one. They need to hide the flash menu though.

Anyway, I feel this light is small and useful enough for the classic weight-weenie to carry along for a late afternoon ride where he/she might finish the last hour after dark. Of course a fast road rider might be able to out-ride the useful throw so not the cup of tea for all road riders.

About the switch over to XPG3; maybe when you switch it to XPG3 the solder connection wasn't as clean. If so that would add a small voltage drop. I'm just wondering if the difference in VF drop between the two is that significant that it would effect the PWM circuit of the driver. Real shame if it doesn't work.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Xp-g3 has a substantially lower vF than xp-g2. Solder joint was good though (I have a reflow set up now), brand new emitter.

The only emitter change I've gotten by with was switching to NW in the pr1200 since I can't stand cooler tints off road. Not a fan on road either but I can deal with that.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

*@RAKC;* Since you sell these things I have a couple questions you might be able to answer.

I've been considering getting one of the two emitter versions...BUT....the only reason is because the two emitter versions have larger batteries and that means longer run times. While looking at the choices I couldn't help but notice that both the PR600 and 900 both are using XP-G2. Okay, the 900 has the larger battery but why are the outputs different? They both use the same emitter set-up and UI looks the same.

That said the CR500 I have lists the highest mode as 500 lumen but on both the PR600 and PR900 the emitter with cutoff optic ( on both ) _is listing high as only 400 lumen._.. Can you compare the outputs on the ( cut-off optic ) high settings and tell me if there is a "real difference" between the three I mentioned. I figured maybe they just over-rated the CR500 but if I bought a two emitter version I wouldn't want to have the output on the emitter with the cut-off beam actually have a lower output than the CR500 I currently own.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Actually a lot of difference between 600 and 900. 600 has no display and a fair bit smaller.

Smaller batteries means have to decrease drive current to maintain run time. Less drive current, less output.

As for the other question regarding cr500 vs the other 2 I have no idea why it's that way. I had assumed the cr500 does the same as the other, 100 lumens lower normal high mode with the extra "flash". Didn't even look at it till you mentioned it.

My 500 isn't charged ATM (used it last night) but if yours is just check to see if pressing and holding the remote button actually increases output or not. If it does then a typo (the charts are from Ravemen directly, not me), if not the the 900 will be lower.

But remember, no matter what the 600 will be lower. No way around that.

PR1200 is full on though, 600 per emitter. Drive current is almost identical to the 900 so there's gains to be had there.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

RAKC Ind said:


> Actually a lot of difference between 600 and 900. 600 has no display and a fair bit smaller.
> 
> Smaller batteries means have to decrease drive current to maintain run time. Less drive current, less output.
> 
> ...


With the CR500; If you set the lamp to high and then press/hold the remote, it doesn't do anything. If you are using a lower mode and press/hold the remote THEN the lamp goes to high as long as you hold it. Otherwise there is no momentary boost when in high mode, high is high. That's it.

Like I said before, I was considering either a PR600 or PR900, not because it has a total of 600 or 900 lumen but that the lamp can provide longer run times if just using the emitter that has the cut-off lens.

RAKC, would you do me a favor? Could you do an actual lux comparison of the CR500 ( high mode ) vs. the single emitter ( emitter with cut-off lens ) high mode of either the PR600 or the PR900. Not interested in the 1200 since it is in a class all it's own ( since it uses the XM-L2 emitters ). I suggest doing a direct line of sight comparison in the 3 meter range. If there's a noticeable difference in intensity between the lamps on high the lux meter will show it. Just make sure you set the meter up so that you get the brightest part of the beam to hit the meter. I'm kind'a hoping that all the lamps using the XP-G2's are the same ( when it comes to the cut-off emitter high setting )

A not too funny thing happened tonight while taking a nice little ride through my neighborhood. The CR500 doing it's thing set on medium while I use the Gemini Duo ( R ) when more light is appropriate. I was riding down one of the local paved paths of my community with the Duo on low. I saw a person ahead and immediately turned off the Duo ( CR500 on med or low ). Well as soon as I'm very close to the person ( dog walker ) this person turns on a very bright hand torch and points it right at me. This action might had caused me to run off the trail had it not been for the fact that I wear a helmet with a visor. It happened so fast I almost didn't didn't have time to respond. After I passed I started thinking about what just happened. _What kind of stupid ignoramus shines a high power torch directly at someone at close range._  The more I think about this the more it pisses me off. Next time I get something like that happen there's going to a confrontation. I'll be polite, but I ain'ta' gonna' let someone get away with that again without me giving them a piece of my mind.

Once again, finished one of my local circuits ( using mostly lower modes ) and never had the lamp go into the red voltage level warning.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Hey Cat, Here's a link to RAKC's sphere data. Realize it doesn't show what you specifically asked about but thought it might be of some use to you.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Nff8mIZ5B1HAPzWhPWXv4/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

From my experience with my PR900 Ravemen's lumen claims are pretty accurate. Curious why your not interested in the PR1200 as it seems that it would provide exactly what your looking for (more lumens/longer runtime)?
Mole


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Cat I don't have anything set up to test beam intensity at a distance.

But the charts on the site are pretty spot on. So your getting less lumens out of either. PR1200 is no different than the 900 except more lumens. Literally not a single difference besides emitter used. Which translates also to a slightly wider beam (noticeable on the High beam side). Beyond that you gain lumens and double your run time. Might also reduce the need for 2 separate lights as I have no issues doing 20-30 on my road bike with it.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Does the PR1200 have a smoother/more even combo beam? When using both emitters on my PR900 the XPG with the spot optic creates a pretty intense hot spot in the beam. Would think the XML equipped 1200 might have a smoother overall beam.
Mole


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

MRMOLE said:


> Hey Cat, Here's a link to RAKC's sphere data. Realize it doesn't show what you specifically asked about but thought it might be of some use to you.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Nff8mIZ5B1HAPzWhPWXv4/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0
> 
> ...


The graph only shows the total output of the lamps on their highest settings, not the highest output of the single emitter with the cut-off lens. Nothing wrong with the PR1200. The thing was I was trying to keep cost down and size. The PR600 has twice the run time of the CR500 ( if using just a single emitter with cutoff ) and the PR600 is very small. I like small when it comes to mounting things on the bars.

Of course if I'm just looking to double run time ( which I was ) I guess I could go ahead and follow my own advice and just buy another CR500. Since I don't do many road rides at night that last more than 3 hrs that could work for me. The CR500 lamp is very small and easy to carry in a pocket or my frame bag. Added plus I could charge one while the other is being used ( if needed ). Just need one of those MS USB adapters for my Gemini battery.

Right now I'm very pleased with how the CR500 is working out. If I just use it for low beam ( medium or low ) on my longer night road rides I should have no problem getting it to last the whole ride. I tend to run the Duo on low most of the time anyway and turn it off when I feel I need to. Of course if I don't need the added throw of the Duo I'll be fine with just the CR500.


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

RAKC; Have you thought about maybe trying to replace the XP-G2 in a CR500 with an XP-L? Heck, I might even try that myself.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Explained that earlier, you can't. It doesn't like the emitters being switched.

But I did try it and xp-l hi does nothing for output. Too low of current.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> Cat
> The graph only shows the total output of the lamps on their highest settings said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

RAKC Ind said:


> Explained that earlier, you can't. It doesn't like the emitters being switched.
> 
> But I did try it and xp-l hi does nothing for output. Too low of current.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


Looking at the data sheets I would think there would of been a bump. Comparing a typical XP-G2 to an XPL, if you do your best apples to apples comparison based on bin/temp rating ( @85C both ~ 5000-5500K outdoor white range ) and at around the same forward current ( ~1000ma )...at those ratings the XPL is about 80 lumen brighter.

Needs to be said though that you can't even get a XP-G2 in the 500 lumen range unless you push over 1.5A and that's with the brightest cool white bins. Then again, I doubt the CR500 pushes more than 1200ma simply because in order to get the run time for the 1700mAh battery to run 1.5 hr., that is what it would have to do.

I'd love to give an XPL retro fit a try but sadly I don't have the necessary tools. The emitter board on the CR500 has two little tiny holes in it designed to fit the lens holder. Would be hard to duplicate that on another board. I can't do reflow soldering but even if I could, with my eyes it would be really hard working on something that small. Not to mention I don't know if you could even do a reflow with an XPL onto a board designed for an XPG2. I guess I could try with just another board and somehow find a way to make the lens holder stay in place. I'll keep that idea on a back-burner for now.

Would be nice though to see a little bump in output but I would need at least an 80 lumen bump on high to make it worthwhile. Not that I need more on high but the increased output on the lower levels would be sweet.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Xp-l there should be a bump, I went HI cause i don't have any XP-Ls that aren't on pcbs already. Should have clarified that.

But yes you can reflow them, xp-l is the exact same as xp-g2 in that sense. Xp-l is taking the phosphor of an XM-L2 onto an xp-g2.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Alright guys, finally got a trail ride to put the pr1200 to the test. Little tough getting it to keep it from rotating on my spank oozy bars. In fairness had to tighten my brake and shifter levers more than usual to get them to stay put as well (xt shifter was a real pain on these bars)

But seeing as rough as my trail is, Eagle Point Park (the one I maintain and am expanding) the pr1200 did awesome as a bar light. Really like the beam pattern myself since the light isn't really high powered.

Here's a link to a clip from the video I recorded tonight. Sorry, forgot chest harness so got stuck with bar mount.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1838994209759438&id=1788167631508763

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## AZmuchacho (Nov 14, 2013)

RAKC....will hte pr1200 be available through amazon anytime soon?

How secure is that mount. Will hold solid with trail noise.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

It has been available on Amazon.

I haven't had issues with the mount depending on which bike. Really smooth bars it does move a bit so a piece of tube or the like is better to hold it solid. I have proper mountain bike lights so I I haven't ridden with this one much offroad, use it all the time for around town or just a quick ride at my home trail.

I wouldn't classify this light as one for purely a mountain bike use type light if you ride rough trails. It's more for an all around use.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

I'll 2nd RAKC's comments on the bar mount. Simple, solid, just won't work if you have 35mm bars.

I actually got to use my PR900 as a power bank last night. Was headed out for a night ride and noticed my camera's battery was totally depleted. Plugged it into the Ravemen in my pack and it was ready to go when I got to where I wanted to get the night shots.

Mole


----------



## Mr Bman (Jun 5, 2016)

I just have to chime in and say that Keith at RAKC Ind is great to deal with and knows lighting.


----------



## DJ Nully (Apr 19, 2017)

Hi,
I got my PR900 a week ago. Great lamp! I ordered mine from Alza.de for 76 € (incl Whitsun discount), which is a good deal. I guess I'm one of the first or maybe the first Ravemen lights owner here in Duesseldorf, NRW, Germany.
Greets from the host city of the Grand Depart


----------



## Big Tommy C (Apr 10, 2004)

Not that I like venting on an open forum, but I haven't had luck anywhere else, and I feel like I should at least leave some feedback.

I got the PR900 back in April, but never got to use it at night. I left it in the handlebar mount of my commuter bike when I had it on the rear rack of my car, and the mount snapped, leaving me with no light and half a mount.

I contacted support (though I don't know what I expected them to do about it -- maybe a replacement light and mount at a discount? At least change the manual to say "do not leave light on bike on car rack?) and got some guy in China. After I finally got him to understand the situation, he said I would have to speak with RAKC about it and gave me the site with contact info. The rmsupport address never replied and the address for [email protected] bounces because I guess he doesn't work there any more. RAKC.com itself is just a Google template.

The light seemed well-made (though the mount obviously wasn't), but the lack of post-purchase support is rather concerning. I mean, even a reply that said "You're out of luck" would be preferable to nothing at all.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Tommy, not sure what your looking at, seems that the home office gave you the way wrong information. My direct contact email you have there is actaully incorrect as is the website. @rakcindustries.com. as for the rmsupport email, I will get looking into that ASAP as that should be working fine.

I appreciate you coming here otherwise I wouldnt have known there were any issues (bad information given and improperly working customer service email)

Your well in your right to be upset, I would be to, I dont have your email (if you purchased via amazon you could have contacted us directly via there as well) but shoot me an email, will definitely get you taken care of.


----------



## Big Tommy C (Apr 10, 2004)

Thanks, PM sent


----------



## 4004 (Mar 26, 2017)

yeah, unfortunately the plastic mount system leaves much to be desired in an otherwise nice unit


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

4004 said:


> yeah, unfortunately the plastic mount system leaves much to be desired in an otherwise nice unit


Need someone to get me pictures and measurements of the mounting surface of the light body. Then I could see if it is reasonable to make a version of my GoPro adapters to fit. Then a person has nearly unlimited options for mounting.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

4004 said:


> yeah, unfortunately the plastic mount system leaves much to be desired in an otherwise nice unit


What's the issue your having with the mount?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 4004 (Mar 26, 2017)

RAKC Ind said:


> What's the issue your having with the mount?


myself? none. A mate got a PR1200, the model I was interested in as well, so naturally, I had a look and didn't like the mounting system. It's a pretty typical (even for more expensive lights) plastic mount with a fastener, and I don't like those too much


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Why dont you like plastic mounts? I guess that part Im a bit confused on. Is it just because their not aluminum?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

4004 said:


> myself? none. A mate got a PR1200, the model I was interested in as well, so naturally, I had a look and didn't like the mounting system. *It's a pretty typical (even for more expensive lights)* plastic mount with a fastener, and I don't like those too much


Get in touch with Vancbiker (post 102/this thread). I have several of his alloy custom GoPro style mounts and have been very happy with them (excellent quality/appearance). I also have a PR900 and have had no issues with the stock mount. It's probably as nice a mount as you'll be able to find in this price category.
Mole


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

RAKC Ind said:


> Why dont you like plastic mounts? I guess that part Im a bit confused on. Is it just because their not aluminum?


It's been kind of interesting hearing people's reasons for switching mounts. By far the most common is that lots find the common "rubber band" type mount to be troublesome. Plastic or alloy does not seem to matter to them, I sell about equal numbers. After that it's pretty close between folks that have small lights and want more cooling so the heatsink mount is their choice and others that have GoPro mounts already on the bike and would rather switch devices than mounts.

Some switch to GoPro mounting because it allows easier aiming than most OEM light mounts. I see this particularly for helmet lights. Some want to use their lights in conjunction with other devices like a Garmin. They'll use a K-edge combo mount with the Garmin on top and a light with a GoPro adapter mounted below.

There's also some amount of wow factor going on. I have sold many finned heatsink adapters to folks in Scandinavian countries . No real need for it, but it looks cool. Niterider Pro series lights have a pretty darn good factory mount, yet I sell a fair number of GoPro adapters for them.

At the end of it all, no mount is going to satisfy all users. I do think that the post where the mount broke while transporting the bike on a car rack has to be a fluke. If all Ravemen mounts were that fragile, there would be many posts complaining about failures


----------



## 4004 (Mar 26, 2017)

RAKC Ind said:


> Why dont you like plastic mounts?


I guess it's just personal preference, after having seemingly sturdy plastic mounts, start to wiggle, crack and so on. Of course, not all of them do that.
Thanks everyone for mount suggestions


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

4004 said:


> myself? none. A mate got a PR1200, the model I was interested in as well, so naturally, I had a look and didn't like the mounting system. It's a pretty typical (even for more expensive lights) plastic mount with a fastener, and I don't like those too much


I don't own the PR1200 but the plastic mount looks very much like the on the Raveman CR500 which I do own. Only problem I had with the mount was the screw that held the underside of slide-on mount in place. On mine this came loose and almost caused me to lose the lamp. Luckily for me the remote wire kept me from losing the lamp. When I got home I used some blue _Locktite_ thread lock to keep the screw from coming loose. Matter of fact I took it apart again last week just to make sure all was good and it was. Other than that I see no reason not to like the mount. Of course I would prefer Aluminum over molded plastic but as long as it all works I'm good with it. For a $50 lamp I think I got what I paid for.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

They all use the same clamp. I actually checked with them about it, assembly error. Supposed to be loctite on the screw threads, someone in assembly screwed up. Told me to warranty them if needed (person doesnt have loctite or super glue to put on the screw threads or looses the light because of it)


The problem with aluminum mounts is cost, their expensive.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

RAKC Ind said:


> .....Supposed to be loctite on the screw threads, someone in assembly screwed up. Told me to warranty them if needed (person doesnt have loctite or super glue to put on the screw threads or looses the light because of it)


If applying Loctite or similar anaerobic thread compounds, be sure to not get any on the plastic portions of the mount. They degrade many types of molded plastic.

Loctite Threadlocker Blue 242 from Loctite Adhesives


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

*Raveman CR-500 battery question*

I've been wondering what battery is used in the CR-500. Raveman website says it's a 1700mAh Li-ion. Could be it's using a Sanyo 18500 Li-ion cell which just so happens to be listed as 1700mAh. Just thought I'd mention that. An 18650 would be too big to fit in the lamp body.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

25 is the current number of lights I have. Some of them don't get used at all (unfortunately the most expensive is one of these) but most have some special characteristic that makes them the most appropriate tool for the job regularly. With the Ravemen PR900 you'd think its cutoff beam would be its nitche but that isn't what earns it regular use for me. Its ability to charge other USB devices is what make it my backup/emergency light of choice (I'm always forgetting to charge my cell phone so it saves me regularly). Only time it's not with me on rides is when I ride my plus bike (won't fit 35mm bars). So why is the cutoff beam not this light's outstanding feature for me? Optic compatibility/aim, UI issues (remote doesn't work for car like high/low beam changes), lack of tune-ability (can't purchase extra optics and option of running both emitters with cutoff beam would be nice).

*BETTER CURRENT RAVEMEN*

Since I already have a PR900 what I'd like is for Ravemen to *allow me to purchase an extra elliptical optic* in place of the spot. When aiming the light so the cutoff beam stays out of oncoming pedestrians eyes the spot is aimed way too low and creates too much glare (nasty hot spot) for my eyes anyway. Ditching the spot for an extra elliptical would smooth out the beam and still allow slightly more throw when aimed for the cutoff feature. 
*
BETTER FUTURE RAVEMEN*

1) Please alter the remote UI to allow user to toggle between the cutoff beam and both emitters or low/hi like a car. 2) lower the cutoff height to allow the spot to be aimed for most effective throw (and less foreground hot spot) while maintaining correct cutoff aim. This is a very nice well made light that would be a lot better with these minor tweaks IMO.
Mole


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Cat

No they dont use 18650 cells, cant remember the exact specific cell but they are smaller than 18650.

Mole, 

Ive left mine in just a "balanced" beam aim and left it. Havent gotten the looks that my other lights have so i figured its good enough. Interesting idea though. Having dual cut off would defeat the more all around ability of the light though. The optics thing is definitely an interesting idea Ill pass along.

The UI matter, I actually mentioned that to them a couple months ago. Basic mode cycling with it defeats the high/low beam design. Being able to flip back and forth via remote would be awesome! Ill mention it to them again now that Im not the only one that thinks that way.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

*Raveman inprovements*

In keeping with the last two posts;

I agree very much with MRM. The Raveman lights have a lot to offer but like MRM said there are a good number of issues that could make them SO much better.

*The Duel emitter Series:* The issues that MRM raised with the high beam optic is right on. They truly need a duel button remote so true high/low beam activation can be achieved by using just the remote. I also like the idea of being able to switch out the optic on the high beam for the same cut-off optic as the low beam. That would at least solve some of the aiming issues that Mole mentions. Of course a better option would require a whole new redesign if a new version included "an up/down adjustment wheel " for the high beam optic assembly. Personally though I think the "duel cut-off" optic idea would just be easier to implement and still keep the lamp in the same price range.

*Single emitter versions*: The biggest and most easiest change for the single emitter versions would be to change the UI so that all the flash modes be hidden from the regular steady output modes. _I suggest that this be done by pressing/hold the button ( from steady on ) maybe 5 seconds till the lamp starts to flash. At that point you could then implement any of the flash modes by a single press of any of the buttons and a Press/hold 5 sec. would bring the lamp back to the steady output menu._ Of course I'd love to see the 500 upgraded to include the ability to switch out the battery ( on the fly ). If _Raveman_ could implement "that", these things would fly off the shelves. Not to mention more money to be made because first, the lamp would definitely be worth more and second, the vendor gets to sell a package with an extra battery which brings in more cash. _Cateye_ sells a single optic bar lamp with replaceable battery and they ask $30 for just the ( *18500 ) battery.... ( *about $5-$10 on most other websites. ) I see no problem changing the design of the CR-500 ( Raveman's brightest single emitter lamp ) to accommodate an 18650 battery. Even if the battery could not be switched out it would make for a better all around lamp and provide much longer run times. If the lamp body had to be a half inch longer I think I could live with that. Last but not least, an upgrade to Cree XP-G3 for the CR500 should make the lamp even more efficient. :thumbsup:

*Other ideas:* For the Duel emitter 900 and 1200 series I like the idea of including _*four mini LED's_ on the underside of the lamp for "Flash modes" ( * or a short section of COB leds ). I mention this because I've noticed when using my CR-500 that the "Flash modes" are not very impressive. I think that a lot of that has to do with the fact that the lamp uses the cut-off lens which limits how effective the flash modes are. What works well for the steady beam ( by providing cut off ) doesn't work well for the flash modes. ( IMO )


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Ironically combo beam works great for me off-road!
Mole


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

*Taking it to the next level*

This is not so much addressing how to improve current Ravemen lights (I did that a couple of posts back) but looking ahead on how they might use the optic technology they developed to make a cutoff beam in other ways to manipulate where light is placed in the beam. Typical symmetrical beams spread the available light evenly in a circle (when shown on a wall) that's elongated because of the angle the light hits the ground. Think of the beam circle as a upper and lower hemisphere with 50% of the light in the bottom hemisphere (closest to the rider) and 50% in the upper hemisphere (furthest away from the rider). The bottom hemisphere will retain most of is semi-circle shape because the distance to where it contacts the ground is closer while the top hemispheres shape will be far more elongated creating a larger overall area in the top hemisphere. Larger coverage area + added distance the top hemisphere photons have to travel weaken beam intensity so perceived brightness of the main beam area will be skewed more towards the bottom hemisphere or closer to the rider. Aiming the light up for maximum perceived throw to the brightest part of the light we are wasting a good portion of the light produced by shining it up in the air. Seems to me if Ravemen can bend the light down in the top half of its cutoff beam to give a flat beam that they could also bend some of the light from the bottom hemisphere up (spot beam) to be most intense at the top of the beam and smoothly graduate it down as it get closer to the rider. With experimentation they should be able to create a smooth/even beam from rider to max. throw and since bigger portion of available light concentrated at top of beam not require aiming up and wasting available light. Would think this would actually increase perceived throw with same power output (unless efficiency is lost bending the light with optics). This would be most effective for bar mounted lights but don't know anyone who uses a Ravemen on the helmet anyway.
Mole


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

*( @MRM )*..Suppose to be some new upgrades to some of the Raveman lights, CR-500 in particular in the near future. Should be brighter with some surprises ( so I'm told ). We should start to see something by next month ( so I'm told ).

When it comes to the duel emitter series, like you I like the idea of just two of the standard cut-off optics for basic road use. Trying to create a different optic for a high beam runs the risk of ruining the over all beam pattern. To be done right a high beam optic needs to throw "almost all the light" into the distance. With the type of optics used in these kinds of lamps I don't know if that's possible.

When the upgraded version of the single emitter 500 comes out I'm hoping it will just be a bit brighter ( on high ), perhaps with longer run time...ie..bigger battery and lastly but more importantly, keeps all the flash modes out of the steady mode UI menu. Get it to run 500 lumen for almost two full hours and I'm happy. Keep the flash modes hidden and I'm dancing in the streets.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> Cat ( @MRM )..Suppose to be some new upgrades to some of the Raveman lights, CR-500 in particular in the near future. Should be brighter with some surprises ( so I'm told ). We should start to see something by next month ( so I'm told ).


Look forward to seeing what they send you. A few simple tweaks would improve functionality of these lights greatly.



> When it comes to the duel emitter series, like you I like the idea of just two of the standard cut-off optics for basic road use. Trying to create a different optic for a high beam runs the risk of ruining the over all beam pattern. To be done right a high beam optic needs to throw "almost all the light" into the distance. With the type of optics used in these kinds of lamps I don't know if that's possible.


Ya, a full cutoff PR 900 would be great (I wish they would even sell me another elliptical optic). More comfortable intensity level plus long runtimes of the PR900. About the combo beam, for me it's not that great right now. Cutoff part is good but spot is aimed too low if you want to take advantage of the cutoff beam. Giant hot spot (just like you get when you aim a spot beam too low) takes away from the rest of the beam. I've not see the PR600's combo beam (200 lumen spot/400 lumen cutoff) but think I would like it better than the PR900's 400 lumen/400 lumen split just because the hot spot would be less distracting. Off road the PR900 works great because there is no worry of having the cutoff portion above pedestrian eye level and the spot is aimed correctly for its throw capabilities. As for my speculation that it's possible to redistribute light to different parts of the beam. Don't know for sure until someone does it but wouldn't have posted about it if I didn't think it was possible. 75% of the emitters total output in the top 25% of the beam would be awesome and make a spot optic work better in any application IMO.



> When the upgraded version of the single emitter 500 comes out I'm hoping it will just be a bit brighter ( on high ), perhaps with longer run time...ie..bigger battery and lastly but more importantly, keeps all the flash modes out of the steady mode UI menu. Get it to run 500 lumen for almost two full hours and I'm happy. Keep the flash modes hidden and I'm dancing in the streets.


Hope you get you wish on this.
Mole


----------



## jkretsch (Jul 14, 2009)

Awesome thread on these lights! So much information, it's great! Last post was 2 months ago. What's the latest on the new version of the CR-500?


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

There is no "new version" of the cr500. There is a cr900 out now

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

jkretsch said:


> Awesome thread on these lights! So much information, it's great! Last post was 2 months ago. What's the latest on the new version of the CR-500?


http://forums.mtbr.com/lights-night-riding/cat-review%3B-updated-2017-raveman-cr-900-google-page-ranking-1200-a-1056844.html

Mole


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Finally got Ravemen shipment, CR900 is really nice. Cant wait to give it a go on the road bike!









Also, seems my input to them about the remote wire being way too short was heard!

Have to get a picture, but just mounted on the road bike and remote is long enough to run along the bars and under my left hood, with a little to spare. Very nice considering there is no issues running the remote inside my bar mitts!!!

Thanks RAVEMEN, that was always an annoyance for me, have to move my hand to bear stem to reach remote.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

RAKC Ind said:


> I havent found a need for "high beam" on normal use, of course different when Im out on the Great River Trail. Out in the middle of no where a lot and some areas there I can hit over 30mph. PR1200 is just about right for that, if high/low switch could be done via remote it would be perfect since some of the route is on paved back roads. Has been met with a warm welcome by drivers when I can switch the high off.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Are they ever going to address that? Would be #1 on my wish list of improvements they could make and have seen similar comments by others. Would be such an improvement for its intended usage (road) plus the surprising fact that these make such good mountain lights, with that change who wouldn't want one!
Mole


----------



## jkretsch (Jul 14, 2009)

MRMOLE said:


> Are they ever going to address that? Would be #1 on my wish list of improvements they could make and have seen similar comments by others. Would be such an improvement for its intended usage (road) plus the surprising fact that these make such good mountain lights, with that change who wouldn't want one!
> Mole


I agree. I commute on a highly utilized paved public bike trail and having the ability to quickly toggle from high to low beam via the remote would be really handy.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

It would require a different remote entirely, and different internal design. Have to link a second button to the second button circuitry on the head.

Something we will no doubt see in the future but not something I would expect anytime soon. Probably because of meeting a price point I would gather. Who knows, maybe well see a 2 button wireless remote lol.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

*Ravemen mountianbike lights?*



So far these lights appear to be very well made and very reliable at a bargain price. I actually consider my PR900 to be a better mountain light than road light so would love to see them expand their line to include separate lighthead/battery pack style mountain lights. Any possibility of this happening?
Mole


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

They were working on one not sure what is happening with it though.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## stealman (Dec 20, 2008)

I am looking for a battery powered led light to use on a motocross motorcycle. I am getting a license plate for the bike so I can connect trails together by using the street. I need a head light to be legal. I am considering using the Raveman pr1200. Do you think that light will work well for that application? Other suggestions are welcome.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

stealman said:


> ....... I need a head light to be legal.


How "legal" do you want to be??

To truly be legal the headlight will have to be (assuming you are in the US) DOT approved. None of these LED lights will have a DOT approval. To have a front light that keeps the police off your case (unless they are bored or looking to pick on a dirtbiker riding on the street) it might get you by.

You'll need a tail light and brake light too and probably turn signals if you really want to be legal.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Nothing youll find here will be legal. An officer catches you trying to use a bicycle light to get by may be more inclined to give you a ticket instead of a warning for no headlight.

Since its a dirt bike it classifies as a motorcycle and is required to meet those laws. No bike light does, sorry.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## stealman (Dec 20, 2008)

I really just want to appear to be legal. I am going to use a battery powered tail light as well and hand signals. I wont be on the road much at all. One of the reasons for considering The Raveman light is because of how its advertised as being similar to a car headlight. Does any one know the criteria for a dot legal headlight on a motorcycle in the us?


----------



## stealman (Dec 20, 2008)

I just looked up dot requirements for motorcycle headlights and all it says is all motorcycles must have a light on at all times and must have a high and low beam. It seems like the raveman light would be legal.


----------



## Outbound (Aug 23, 2017)

stealman said:


> I just looked up dot requirements for motorcycle headlights and all it says is all motorcycles must have a light on at all times and must have a high and low beam. It seems like the raveman light would be legal.


They are right, it 100% would not be legal. Not to mention how fast you would outrun the lights. Lights also have to comply with FMVSS 108 and a few other legalities. FMVSS specifies the beam pattern and minimum brightnesses. Far better off picking up something like this for your bike.

https://www.diodedynamics.com/ss6-stage-series-6-white-light-bar-one.html


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

stealman said:


> I am looking for a battery powered led light to use on a motocross motorcycle. I am getting a license plate for the bike so I can connect trails together by using the street. I need a head light to be legal. I am considering using the Raveman pr1200. Do you think that light will work well for that application? Other suggestions are welcome.


If you are in the USA you really need to contact your local Motor Vehicle Department. You will need to have the motorcycle inspected by MVD agents. The agents will determine whether you are issued vehicle registration depending on whether you meet their compliance regulations. It once took 3 times in Arizona for me to register a brand new trailer because MVD was very picky. Good Luck!


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

Outbound said:


> They are right, it 100% would not be legal. Not to mention how fast you would outrun the lights. Lights also have to comply with FMVSS 108 and a few other legalities. FMVSS specifies the beam pattern and minimum brightnesses. Far better off picking up something like this for your bike.
> 
> https://www.diodedynamics.com/ss6-stage-series-6-white-light-bar-one.html


I'm going to stick my neck out here and say this light does NOT meet the requirements for stealman's needs. Note the language... "Driving/Auxiliary High Beam". This appears to read as 'Driving Beam' and 'Auxillary high Beam', but what they most likely mean is 'Driving High Beam' and 'Auxillary High Beam'.

For $80, I can guarantee this is just another of the thousands of LED 'Work Lights' on the market that make use of optics that were designed for flashlights. While it might make for a perfectly fine high-beam (I doubt it will have range), stealman still needs a dipped-beam lamp that won't get him pulled over, or run over by angry motorists.

stealman... why battery powered on a motorcycle? You can get a Hella 90mm Bi-Halogen Headlamp for $150 that handles both low and high and is made for vehicles, it would be both legal and durable enough for motor-cross use. I think the next closest option would be a Supernova M99 Pure ($280, 500lm) or Pro ($462, 1600lm) from Europe.

And you can also adapt some used optics from another motorcycle to yours.


----------



## stealman (Dec 20, 2008)

I need rechargeable battery powered light because the motorcycle does not have a charging system to handle the job


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

I can't think of any motorcycle that does not come with a system to operate the lights that is street legal, or maybe night legal.

Technicalities aside, if you aren't being a fool while riding on the street, you probably won't be noticed if your lights are what one would expect to see on a regular motorcycle. I'm not telling you to set up your bike illegally, but...

As it has an engine, weight shouldn't be too much of an issue. I'd suggest installing a 12V motorcycle battery and adding 12V LED headlamp, tail lamp/brake, and turn signals. There is a butt-ton of motorcycle LED components on Amazon:

4 LED Turn Signals - $10.89

LED Tail/Brake Lamp


You can get wiring, switches, flash controllers as well. They also have cheap LED headlamps for motorcycles that are stated to be DOT approved. Many of them a 'daymaker' lamps, 60-75W, so you'll need a pretty big battery to run them for any significant time.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Another matter is the concern of a light designed mainly for road cycling (more mellow mountain biking capable as well) handling that level of abuse. Ive ridden motocross (track and trail, not racing just riding with siblings that raced) and its hard on everything. Not sure how much I would trust a light duty bike light to handle that in the long term.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Outbound (Aug 23, 2017)

Flamingtaco said:


> I'm going to stick my neck out here and say this light does NOT meet the requirements for stealman's needs. Note the language... "Driving/Auxiliary High Beam". This appears to read as 'Driving Beam' and 'Auxillary high Beam', but what they most likely mean is 'Driving High Beam' and 'Auxillary High Beam'.
> 
> For $80, I can guarantee this is just another of the thousands of LED 'Work Lights' on the market that make use of optics that were designed for flashlights. While it might make for a perfectly fine high-beam (I doubt it will have range), stealman still needs a dipped-beam lamp that won't get him pulled over, or run over by angry motorists.
> 
> ...


Keep in mind, I did the optical design for those as well. 

It isn't just an off-the-shelf drop in optic, it was designed specifically to meet the high beam requirement. It won't satisfy a low beam, but two of the 6" bars do actually meet the legal requirements for auxiliary driving lights per the letter of the law in most states for vehicles

We have a smaller square/cube light light coming (from Diode) in a few months that might work better for a bike, (including a cutoff option) but currently the stage series is one of the better offerings for the price point.


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

Outbound said:


> Keep in mind, I did the optical design for those as well.
> 
> It isn't just an off-the-shelf drop in optic, it was designed specifically to meet the high beam requirement. It won't satisfy a low beam, but two of the 6" bars do actually meet the legal requirements for auxiliary driving lights per the letter of the law in most states for vehicles


If by 'auxillary' you mean 'high', then sure, they are legal, but this is moot. The OP stated intent to use roadways to move between trails. A dipped beam is required for this.

Too bad your new light isn't yet SAE certified!

EDIT: Actually, stealman is not the OP. The OP was detailing new lights in his lineup, and we have gone way off topic. Should move stealman's quest to another thread.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

FYI no aftermarket product is SAE certified, actually technically nothing is SAE certified, its all SAE Compliant. But has to be designed and tested to meet SAE standards by and entity that is SAE Certified (engineer that has expanded to becoming certified). Also applies to every aspect of a vehicle, not just lighting.

SAE Certification is for engineers in the automotive industry. Not any different really (in the basic sense) that certificates in any other specialty field that are expansions of college degree in said field.

Rigid claims certification but by definition its not accurate. Only that an SAE Certified engineer signed off that it is SAE/DOT compliant. But thats why their stuff is insanely expensive. And SAE compliance is grossly over rated (border line a marketing gimick as bad as cycling product marketing) as the only thing it really matters for, low beams/fog lights and marker/signal/brake lights. High beams its nothing more than dont be putting out too much light.

FYI Outbound is an automotive lighting (well optical side of thingd) engineer, he knows those regulations better than anyone here, its his day job.


By definition ALL RAVEMEN LIGHTS meet SAE/DOT regulations. Within lumen restrictions and have dipped beam if aimed correctly.

Most LED bike lights meet high beam headlight requirements (in a grey area so somewhat debateable) but more over like 99.9% of lights you buy aftermarket, would have to carry "for off road use only".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

RAKC Ind said:


> FYI no aftermarket product is SAE certified, actually technically nothing is SAE certified, its all SAE Compliant. But has to be designed and tested to meet SAE standards by and entity that is SAE Certified (engineer that has expanded to becoming certified). Also applies to every aspect of a vehicle, not just lighting.
> 
> SAE Certification is for engineers in the automotive industry. Not any different really (in the basic sense) that certificates in any other specialty field that are expansions of college degree in said field.


Ok... Certified to meet regulations, compliant with regulations... sounds like the only difference is one sounds more formal than the other, but thanks for the clarification.



RAKC Ind said:


> FYI Outbound is an automotive lighting (well optical side of thingd) engineer, he knows those regulations better than anyone here, its his day job.


I've been all over the OL thread, and participated in the webcast Q&A. His optics pedigree is very obvious to anyone that is not a delusional egomaniac. I believe we booted the delusional egomaniac in December.


----------



## Outbound (Aug 23, 2017)

Flamingtaco said:


> I've been all over the OL thread, and participated in the webcast Q&A. His optics pedigree is very obvious to anyone that is not a delusional egomaniac. I believe we booted the delusional egomaniac in December.


:lol::lol::lol:

To be fair, it did provide some entertainment. 

In regards to the whole SAE compliant vs legal vs whatever. It really is all marketing gimmicks. It's a self-regulating thing. SAE requirements are just suggestions and best practices as outlined by the Society of Automotive Engineers for things ranging from lights, structures, interior ergonomics, etc. While FMVSS are the federal requirements every vehicle has to meet in order to be sold.

When it comes to meeting FMVSS requirements for auxiliary and driving lights, actually a lot of off-road lights and bike lights would fail. There is a fairly wide width required and a foreground requirement as well. Most off-road stuff have a circular spot beam pattern of 5-10 degrees, same with most bike lights. This is an example of FMVSS 108 requirements:










Notice the requirement for Point 14, 1.5D and 2R, 15,000 cd is equal to 150 lux at 10m for the low beam. The OL Road series has about 165 lux at that location.

This is a pretty good primer.
https://www.truck-lite.com/content/news/sae-vs-dot-truth-about-lighting-regulations


----------



## Scott Novak (Mar 2, 2013)

Vancbiker & RAKC Ind,

A biggest issue that I have with ANY plastic on a bicycle is it's tendency to become brittle and crack at subzero temperatures. So if I see a plastic mount I'm very wary. 

Aluminum still has ductility at very low temperatures whereas most plastics do not.

I've got 4 Ortlieb panniers for my bike and so far I've had 16 of the plastic buckles for the straps crack and fail, all in subzero weather. I've had a plastic latch crack and also a plastic support rail crack, again in subzero weather.

The final catastrophic failure may not always happen in cold weather. But the crack usually starts in subzero weather and then propagates with stress until a catastrophic failure happens. And it's not just panniers. I've and other plastic parts crack in subzero weather.

Although, I've had no problems with the reinforced nylon body of my Fyxation Mesa pedals at temperatures as low as -15°F.

Plastic mounts may be fine for fair weather biking. But I see plastic mounts as eminent failure waiting to occur when the temperature drops below zero.

Scott Novak


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

Scott Novak said:


> Vancbiker & RAKC Ind,
> 
> A biggest issue that I have with ANY plastic on a bicycle is it's tendency to become brittle and crack at subzero temperatures. So if I see a plastic mount I'm very wary.
> 
> Aluminum still has ductility at very low temperatures whereas most plastics do not.


It's one of the reasons I make almost all versions of my GoPro adapters in aluminum. I do offer ABS plastic in a couple styles.

I've not yet had anyone report to me breakage of one of my ABS plastic adapters that was attributable cold embrittlement. I think that most of my customers that ride in extreme cold realize that plastic is not optimum for that use and order aluminum adapters.


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

Scott Novak said:


> Vancbiker & RAKC Ind,
> 
> A biggest issue that I have with ANY plastic on a bicycle is it's tendency to become brittle and crack at subzero temperatures. So if I see a plastic mount I'm very wary.
> 
> ...


I think maybe you should change your last name to , "Nanook"...

Don't know why but I think when it comes to plastic buckles, plastic buckles just break, regardless of temperature. Helmet mounts, battery bags, hydration back packs, I've had buckles break on all kinds of stuff. I think it more or less is just due to the stress we put on them and the fact that they are small. Likely cold isn't helping with that.

I can live with the fragility of plastic in the cold, it's my feet that fail me in cold weather.. Not to mention that my MTB shifters just go to sh** once it gets cold. My MTB has to be more than 12 yrs though so it might be time to replace my shifters. Likely the springs and ratcheting pieces inside the shifters are just worn. Not sure if they are serviceable ( Shimano Rapidfire 3 x 9's )


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> My MTB has to be more than 12 yrs though so it might be time to replace my shifters.


AND HELMET!!!
Mole


----------



## Wombat (Jan 25, 2004)

Cat-man-do said:


> My MTB has to be more than 12 yrs though so it might be time to replace my shifters. Likely the springs and ratcheting pieces inside the shifters are just worn. Not sure if they are serviceable ( Shimano Rapidfire 3 x 9's )


Off topic, but the grease in Shimano shifters usually hardens with age and when it's cold the ratchet often stops engaging. This even happens in Australia (down to -7°C)!

Pulling the cable screw out and then pumping in silicon lubricant fixes them for a few years.

Tim


----------



## Scott Novak (Mar 2, 2013)

Cat-man-do,

I never have problems with the buckles breaking in warmer weather. It's only when I use them outside in subzero weather. 16 buckles in all have broken. That's every buckle on the bags having broken twice. And if I had replaced the buckles sooner there would be even more buckles broken. I found a source of aluminum buckles that I will probably buy to replace them.

You only have to look at the many studies on plastics at colder temperatures to see how brittle most of the plastics become.

You hear claims about some plastics not needing lubrication. Tell that to the plastic wheels on my furniture dolly that start squealing like a banshee at subzero temperatures. I removed the axles and greased them with Redline CV-2 synthetic grease and the squealing stopped.

Regarding your shifters, it's the petroleum grease inside that gets thick at cold temperatures that is your problem. Solvent clean them and lube them with synthetic gear lube. I've repaired quite a few Shimano shifters just by solvent cleaning and using synthetic gear lube.

A better solution is to dump the Shimano shifters and replace them with SRAM trigger shifters, solvent clean them and lube them with synthetic gear lube. I think that the SRAM shifters have a superior less problematic design than most Shimano shifters.

I use full length brake and shifter cable housings and lube the cables with synthetic gear lube. It helps keep the water out and reduces the possibility of the cables freezing up.

I use synthetic gear lube for the derailer pivot points. For bearings I use Redline CV-2 synthetic grease.

I also have a suspicion that the petroleum based grease that is most commonly used also results in seal damage in subzero temperatures. That might explain why I've trashed Shimano UN-55 bottom brackets in a year's time. The seals crap out, water gets inside and the bearings rust.

But back to lighting issues in the cold.

Plastic does allow you to easily make almost any kind of shape that you want. The problem is that plastic doesn't always function reliably in cold weather.

Scott Novak


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Ya sub zero temps few plastics hold up very well. Fiber reinforced plastics hold up the best but are not used much in any products for this sport. And making stuff meant to flex while being reinforced is much more expensive (granted we arent talking several dollars. More like 0.10 instead of 0.05 a unit)

Sadly Cat is also right, plastic clips used on most cycling products dont hold up all that long overall. Almost like its all test in SoCal where it never really gets that cold.

Hell pay premium for gopro stuff, doesnt last any longer than the chinese stuff, especially when it gets cold. Had a clip snap after a handful of uses.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## randan (May 18, 2005)

Diggin out an old thread... 

Anybody knows if the Ravemen PR 1600 light can be mounted upside down using their Gopro mount so that the light can be positioned under a Garmin unit? Or will this interfere with the beam pattern? The buttons wouldn’t be easily accessible anymore but the light could still be controlled using the wireless remote.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

randan said:


> Diggin out an old thread...
> 
> Anybody knows if the Ravemen PR 1600 light can be mounted upside down using their Gopro mount so that the light can be positioned under a Garmin unit? Or will this interfere with the beam pattern? The buttons wouldn't be easily accessible anymore but the light could still be controlled using the wireless remote.


Mounting the light upside down would ruin the cutoff beam. I took the bezel off my PR900 to see if the lens cover could be reversed and optics switched but nothing is symetrical. Looks like the optics could be switched around and possible you could file the lens cover down and still get it to work BUT if it somehow gets damaged the light is trashed. Ravemen won't even sell you a spare optic or at least wouldn't sell me one the last time I inquired.
Mole


----------



## randan (May 18, 2005)

MRMOLE: Thank you for your answer. I did assume that the light couldn't be switched upside down, but the latest review on bikerumor.com says "An optional GoPro type mount to sling the PR1600 below one's handlebars is also available". But this seems not to be true. Thank you anyway.

https://bikerumor.com/2019/11/14/review-ravemen-pr1600-1600-lumen-dual-beam-headlight/#comments


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

I doubt that the reviewer understood the issue that upside down mounting would create with the beam pattern.

Not really applicable to the PR1600, but I have done custom mounts for shaped beam lights to use the GoPro mount on an "out front" type GPS/GoPro mount.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Vancbiker said:


> I doubt that the reviewer understood the issue that upside down mounting would create with the beam pattern.


Or maybe just saw the "upside down mount" label and just didn't bother to think it through.  Ravemen has 2 under-bar mounts, the one with the rubber bands for the round bodied CR series lights and the other for the symmetrical beam LR series lights. No option that I know of for the PR series lights except custom.
Mole


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

randan said:


> Diggin out an old thread...
> 
> Anybody knows if the Ravemen PR 1600 light can be mounted upside down using their Gopro mount so that the light can be positioned under a Garmin unit? Or will this interfere with the beam pattern? The buttons wouldn't be easily accessible anymore but the light could still be controlled using the wireless remote.


Looking at my PR-1200 I have to assume the 1600 is using the same one piece optic that covers both emitters. That being the case I would have to say no because the lens that provides the cut-off beam pattern would be turned upside down and send all the light from that emitter upward into the air.

That said you might try another alternative mounting solution by using a handlebar extension and positioning it so the PR-1600 sits just below your Garmin mount ( rightside up ). If this option works you also get the added advantage of being able to read the digital read out of the 1600.

Last but not least, the single cut-off lens on the Raveman CR-series lamps can be taken off and replaced upside down. I did this to one of my CR900's just to see if it was possible. Vancbiker ( another forum member ) is making Gopro mounts to retrofit the Raveman CR and PR series lamps. Of course the CR series ( wouldn't have the brightness, throw or runtime of the PR-1600 but I mention it only as alternative option.


----------



## randan (May 18, 2005)

Thanks for all your input guys. A guy in a german bike forum posted a solution for attaching an old Philips bike light below the handlebar using some brackets. Not the tidiest solution, but if it works why not.









Edit: Maybe one of these could be used. Instead of your arm sling the lamp through the strap? But I don't know how stable these mounts are.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

The wrist strap mount has the wrong part of the GoPro attachment. It has the 2 slot fitting and you need the 2 tab fitting to mate with the 2 slot fitting on the bar mount.

The solution using the hose clamps looks workable. Kind of janky but we've seen worse. Are the buttons on the top of the light flush or below flush so a clamped on bracket would not be pressing on them?


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

Vancbiker said:


> The wrist strap mount has the wrong part of the GoPro attachment. It has the 2 slot fitting and you need the 2 tab fitting to mate with the 2 slot fitting on the bar mount....


Actually I remember seeing a dual-sided plastic Gopro adapter that has both sides using the male tabs. Don't know where I seen them, Banggood?...Amazon?.......can't remember now.

The buttons on the lamp are in the front so the Velcro should work but it would still be a question of how tight it would hold the lamp and whether or not the added extension would bring about more movement ( vibration ) of the lamp. It would of course block off the digital display but with this type of mounting it would be hard to do it any other way.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Mount is a poor design for stability. If the Gopro interface were in the middle of the mounts base it might at least have a chance of working but the way it's set up there's little support to stop the mount and light from pivoting backwards (as pictured).
Mole


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Here's a mockup of an idea that would probably work. Orings hold the powerbank solidly to the light and the Vancbiker Gopro mount could be attached with a strong permanent adhesive. Hooked up with a short usb cable to one of the newer Ravemen lights would also add considerable runtime. If just looking for a mount solution a flat plate of aluminum or steel in place of the powerbank could also be bonded or screwed together withe Vanc mount. Would probably require smaller orings.
Mole


----------



## randan (May 18, 2005)

@MRMOLE: now this is a neat and simple solution!


----------



## dave_f (Mar 11, 2004)

Does anyone have personal experience with how the runtime indicator on the Ravemen lights deals with aging of the cells or cold temperatures? 

I have a PR600 where the cells are significantly aged. Where it originally would indicate >50% (green) for about 1.5h after a charge on single beam, it is now down to ~40min, less in the cold. Actual runtime could be longer than 2x40min, but if the indicator is red when I turn the light on, I have no way of knowing how much charge is left.

I suspect the green/red indicator is simply based on the cell voltage. Do the OLED runtime indicators on the larger models account for temperature and cell age, or are they only correct when the light is new/operating at room temperature?

I'm trying to decide whether to replace the cells in the PR600, move to a PR1200, or spend a bit more and get something with decent cell management and better output pattern, like the Lupine SL AF. Maybe it's worth spending more if the equipment lasts longer than 3 winters, but if I can spend less and get something that will do the job, that's worth considering.


----------



## garrybunk (Feb 12, 2014)

I would be surprised if the indicator light was based on anything more than the cells voltage. If it were me, I would replace the cells, and replace them with cells that are "high-discharge" (these will maintain higher voltage across the entire runtime). You might even end up with cells that have higher capacity (i.e. yield even longer runtime). One issue may be that you end up with the charge indicators not accurately displaying capacity because the new cells maintain higher voltage until the end and the indicators may have been "programmed" to follow the discharge curve of the OEM cells. I have no idea how easy it is to get to the cells nor how easy it would be to replace them. Beware that if it requires soldering directly to the cells that you'd have to be EXTEMELY careful and know what you are doing! 

-Garry


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Batteries have a limited number of charge cycles in them before they're worn out which in 3 yrs. may be the case depending on your usage frequency. No matter what the cause it sounds like your batteries are in bad shape. If you try replacing them let us know how that worked and what was involved please. If your happy with your light ebay has those currently for $27.48 with free shipping so may not be worth the hassle of trying to tear apart your current light.
Mole

https://www.ebay.com/itm/142796092721


----------



## garrybunk (Feb 12, 2014)

Oh, I didn't even check how much this light went for! Yeah - probably not worth the hassle to replace the batteries then! I'd still hold onto the other one for parts or when it's no longer available. FWIW- two high-discharge cells (unprotected) would only run about $15 from a US source and with shipping included. 

-Garry


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

garrybunk said:


> Oh, I didn't even check how much this light went for! Yeah - probably not worth the hassle to replace the batteries then! I'd still hold onto the other one for parts or when it's no longer available. FWIW- two high-discharge cells (unprotected) would only run about $15 from a US source and with shipping included.
> 
> -Garry


I'm curious what size batteries they use in the PR600. It's similar in appearance to my PR900 but has a much shorter length. Pretty sure it won't take a 18650. 
Mole


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Here's another super cheap deal on ebay currently. Ravemen CR500 + TR20 tail light for $19.99.
Mole









https://www.ebay.com/itm/142840430416


----------



## dave_f (Mar 11, 2004)

MRMOLE said:


> Batteries have a limited number of charge cycles in them before they're worn out which in 3 yrs. may be the case depending on your usage frequency. No matter what the cause it sounds like your batteries are in bad shape. If you try replacing them let us know how that worked and what was involved please. If your happy with your light ebay has those currently for $27.48 with free shipping so may not be worth the hassle of trying to tear apart your current light.
> Mole
> 
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/142796092721


Sounds like a good deal, but since the PR600 was discontinued at some point there is the risk of having two lights in need of new cells if these have been sitting for awhile.

I don't want to take my light apart until I have a working alternative, but once I have one I probably will. Hate to throw stuff out. I'd guess it has 2x18500.

Since no one has experience otherwise, I'll assume the runtime display on the Ravemen lights is just a voltage reading which may be accurate when the cells are new, but incorrect once they age.


----------



## MrGT (Aug 19, 2005)

I'm trying to decide whether to replace the cells in the PR600, move to a PR1200, or spend a bit more and get something with decent cell management and better output pattern, like the Lupine SL AF. Maybe it's worth spending more if the equipment lasts longer than 3 winters, but if I can spend less and get something that will do the job, that's worth considering.[/QUOTE]

I have two lights for sale.
Ravemen PR900
Magicshine Monteer 1400

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/1037059409961045/


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

dave_f said:


> Sounds like a good deal, but since the PR600 was discontinued at some point there is the risk of having two lights in need of new cells if these have been sitting for awhile.
> 
> I don't want to take my light apart until I have a working alternative, but once I have one I probably will. Hate to throw stuff out. I'd guess it has 2x18500.
> 
> Since no one has experience otherwise, I'll assume the runtime display on the Ravemen lights is just a voltage reading which may be accurate when the cells are new, but incorrect once they age.


Curious what you plan on doing at this point? Unfortunately the batteries do deteriorate with time in addition to use so I guess there is some risk with the ebay light. Same thing with the lights MrGT has although his Magicshine has replaceable cells and the PR900's have considerably longer runtimes (2.5 hrs. @ 800 lumens) than your 600 and you could have him do a runtime test on his lights to evaluate the batteries condition. Most of the newest Ravemen lights also have a charge while in use option which would allow you to supplement battery capacity with an external power source (powerbank/battery) so in the future as your battery deteriorates + for cold weather riding you'd be able to maintain your needed runtimes (would complicate mounting though). 
Mole


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

dave_f said:


> Since no one has experience otherwise, I'll assume the runtime display on the Ravemen lights is just a voltage reading which may be accurate when the cells are new, but incorrect once they age.


Technically, there should not be a change in the display as far as the cheaper models go ( that only use colored leds to display runtime ). Of course as the batteries age ( lose capacity ) or if temperature is a factor ( or both ) the voltage led's should change color sooner.

As for the Raveman models with the digital display, same as above but the digital display will change in half-hour increments up until you get to the point where you are using a mode that is in the last hour of run time. _When in the last hour the display will change in tenth's of an hour. _

Real shame these lamps don't allow for easy cell switch out. I'd love it if Raveman would design the CR-900 to use a replaceable 21700 or 18650 cell.


----------



## MrGT (Aug 19, 2005)

MRMOLE said:


> Curious what you plan on doing at this point? Unfortunately the batteries do deteriorate with time in addition to use so I guess there is some risk with the ebay light. Same thing with the lights MrGT has although his Magicshine has replaceable cells and the PR900's have considerably longer runtimes (2.5 hrs. @ 800 lumens) than your 600 and you could have him do a runtime test on his lights to evaluate the batteries condition. Most of the newest Ravemen lights also have a charge while in use option which would allow you to supplement battery capacity with an external power source (powerbank/battery) so in the future as your battery deteriorates + for cold weather riding you'd be able to maintain your needed runtimes (would complicate mounting though).
> Mole


Already tested the PR900 for run times. It performs as new.


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

MrGT said:


> Already tested the PR900 for run times. It performs as new.


So you replaced the batteries? Was it hard to do? Would love to see a youtube video ( or photos ) of someone who has done this.


----------



## MrGT (Aug 19, 2005)

Cat-man-do said:


> So you replaced the batteries? Was it hard to do? Would love to see a youtube video ( or photos ) of someone who has done this.


No, it's a relatively new and unused light.


----------



## angerdan (Sep 18, 2017)

RAKC Ind said:


> As is becoming known, Ravemen came up with their own version of cut-off beam lights.
> For those that don't fully understand what that is, think of your car or truck headlights on low beam.
> Then on high beam. Low is "low to the ground" and high beam is higher and further reaching. Same idea.
> Low is meant to avoid blinding oncoming traffic and keep the light down closer/wider where you need it.
> ...


These light don't offer real cut-off, just pseudo-cutoff.
Only reflector optics or lens optics can shape the beam so that there's a real (hard) cut-off.

There are several evolutions of bike lamps:


 flashlight body with mount for use on handlebar
 offroad mtb lamp with round shaped reflector and low luminous flux (<500lm)
 offroad mtb lamp with round shaped reflector and medium luminous flux (500 - <1000lm)
 offroad mtb lamp with round shaped reflector and high luminous flux (1000 - 4500lm) examples: YinDing, Lupine
 bicycle lamp with reflector optics/cut-off beam and low illuminance (<70lx) examples: B&M Ixon, Cateye HL-EL500
 bicycle lamp with reflector optics/cut-off beam and medium illuminance (70-150lx) examples: B&M Ixon IQ Premium, Cateye Volt 80
 bicycle lamp with reflector optics/dual beam and high illuminance (150-400lx) examples: B&M Ixon Space, Supernova M99 series



Outbound said:


> In regards to the whole SAE compliant vs legal vs whatever. It really is all marketing gimmicks.
> 
> When it comes to meeting FMVSS requirements for auxiliary and driving lights, actually a lot of off-road lights and bike lights would fail. There is a fairly wide width required and a foreground requirement as well. Most off-road stuff have a circular spot beam pattern of 5-10 degrees, same with most bike lights.


Thats true.


----------



## MrGT (Aug 19, 2005)

Quick reminder, I still have a PR900 brand new in the package for sale. Make reasonable offer!


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

angerdan said:


> These light don't offer real cut-off, just pseudo-cutoff.
> Only reflector optics or lens optics can shape the beam so that there's a real (hard) cut-off.
> 
> .


I beg to differ. RAKC is no longer posting on this forum so since I know a little something about the Raveman products I will defend his statements from the past: _ There is no such thing as a "Pseudo-cutoff"_ but this is just my opinion so take it as such. When it comes to lamps that provide so called cut-off, almost no two such lamps are designed the same or use the same optical set-up to get the job done.

When you shine a Raveman lamp up against a wall you clearly see a "well defined line" where most of the light is cut-off from. This does not mean that some of that light doesn't go over the cut-off line. This is no different than what you see with cars. Just like with cars you wouldn't want a bike light that was not visible beyond the cut-off. You want approaching traffic to see you beyond the cut-off but you don't want to blind them.

I've driven vehicles with very ( laser like ) sharp cut-off. With limited throw and too sharp a cut-off you end up missing a whole lot of stuff you need to see ( and let me tell you from first hand experience...that is scary as s**t ). Since I drive for a living I refuse to drive a vehicle with such a tight cut-off. The Raveman's do not provide "laser-like" cutoff but the beam pattern I would still call a cut-off type because the upper throw is extremely limited by the optics. Of that I am glad because it means ( when on the road ) on coming traffic can still see me a good ways off and I can still see some stuff beyond the cut-off ( although dimly ) which is exactly what I want.

Summing up; there are thousands of types of bike lights. I've only seen maybe a dozen or so battery powered lamps that provide some type of cut-off. With that said, "No two cut-off beam patterns are the same or use the same technique to achieve the cut-off effect". I've seen some lousy cut-off beam patterns. There are the ones that have cut-off but also dim spots and artifacts in the beam pattern or just too narrow to be as useful as other bike lights.

The cut-off optics of the Raveman's use a two-lens-in-one system. They are setup back to back. One lens widens the beam pattern and the other creates the limited upper cut-off. It is what it is. If you want to say that only lamps that use mirrored / reflective optics can create a cutoff beam pattern so be it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there aren't better cutoff beam patterns than what the Ravemans produce. If you buy something that cost hundreds of dollars you likely will get a better lamp. That doesn't mean the Raveman's are "fake or pseudo" cut-offs. It just means they found a way to create a beam pattern that is very useful, creates a wide and useful version of the cutoff effect and does so at a very affordable price point.


----------



## andychrist (Aug 25, 2011)

Well said, Cat!









Note the discontinuous beam of this Lumintop B01 bicycle flashlight, which supposedly meets STVZO standards. Who the hell could bear to ride like that?! Even my own crappy reflector shields do a better job. 

And yes, soft cutoff definitely the way to go, both for safety and visual comfort.


----------



## biking_tg (Dec 27, 2018)

Cat-man-do said:


> I beg to differ. [...] _ There is no such thing as a "Pseudo-cutoff"_ but this is just my opinion so take it as such. When it comes to lamps that provide so called cut-off, almost no two such lamps are designed the same or use the same optical set-up to get the job done.


There are only a limited number of ways (at least when we're talking high powered lamps >300 lm)


mechanical shield (HID/Halogen projector bulbs in cars) 
LEDs shining on a reflector ( to name a few: Outbound Focal Road, Supernova M99, Lupine SL-X, all B&M lights, Philips Saferide and its sucessors the Spanninga Axendo lights) 
 HID Bulbs or halogen bulbs in huge reflectors: Car lights or the B&M Big Bang 
(dual) lens systems with LED: Lupine SL(F), Exposure Optix Strasse and many modern LED car lights 
 combinations of the above: Lupine i.e. uses a glare shield in their SL-(F)'s to reduces glare above the cut-off; Herrmans combines (projector) lens systems with reflectors. 



Cat-man-do said:


> The cut-off optics of the Raveman's use a two-lens-in-one system. They are setup back to back. One lens widens the beam pattern and the other creates the limited upper cut-off. It is what it is. If you want to say that only lamps that use mirrored / reflective optics can create a cutoff beam pattern so be it.


The issue (imo) with the raveman cut-off system is, that the brightest spot of the light is not close to the cut-off line, where it should be to allow maximum glare-free illumination. Shown in this video, how an ideal glare-free light distribution should like is explained here
an english guy compared the Raveman PR1200 vs Lupine SL (with a very sharp cut-off)

to create an ideal glare-free beam with that LEDs ravemen uses, the optical system would need to be larger. Not saying the light doesn't have a cut-off, it is way better than using a conical beam shape, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Still decent light for the price



andychrist said:


> Well said, Cat!
> Note the discontinuous beam of this Lumintop B01 bicycle flashlight, which supposedly meets STVZO standards.


The discontinuous beam of the B01 isn't the real issue of this light, that darker spot is 2-3m in front of the bike, where (at least i riding often at speeds above 15 mph) the not much light is needed, as it is anyway mostly to late to react.
Regarding StVZO: that light doesn't meet the Standard. Main reason: brightest spot not directly below the cut-off. That also limits seeing in the distance. i tested that light



andychrist said:


> And yes, soft cutoff definitely the way to go, both for safety and visual comfort.


I agree, but only for the side of the light. The horizontal cut-off needs to be fairly sharp, see the link posted in reply to CAt

But we're diverting....


MrGT said:


> Quick reminder, I still have a PR900 brand new in the package for sale. Make reasonable offer!


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

biking_tg said:


> ]....The issue (imo) with the raveman cut-off system is, that the brightest spot of the light is not close to the cut-off line, where it should be to allow maximum glare-free illumination. Shown in this video, how an ideal glare-free light distribution should like is explained here
> an english guy compared the Raveman PR1200 vs Lupine SL (with a very sharp cut-off)
> 
> to create an ideal glare-free beam with that LEDs ravemen uses, the optical system would need to be larger. Not saying the light doesn't have a cut-off, it is way better than using a conical beam shape, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Still decent light for the price


Correct, the brightest part of the Raveman beam pattern "is not" directed more to the front. Not too many bike lamps designed to shape the beam pattern can do that with just one LED. Personally I've not found the Raveman beam pattern to create an over abundance of glare ( at least when I'm riding on the road ). Since most of the roads I ride on are dark colored, there doesn't appear to me to be a problem with feedback glare. That's also because the Raveman's lenses spread the beam pattern out pretty wide which helps limit glare ( when on the road ). Now when MTB'n it's a completely different environment. I've had problems with glare when using the Raveman's on trails. I figure this would be less of a problem if Raveman would chose to offer the PR series with the option for either bright white LED's ( as currently sold ) or NW LED's as a choice. If I could get another PR-1200 but with NW LED's I'd do so in a heartbeat.

The problem with having a lamp that has most of the light near the cutoff ( as you have suggested ) is that it creates a problem whenever you decide to use modes with less output. When you lower the output you're still going to need a decent amount of light close to the bike. If you lower the output on a lamp like that at some point the light directly in front of you would possibly become too dim to be useful... Assuming of course that if the lamp is only using a single LED there would be no way to make any adjustments to the closer part of the beam pattern unless you have a dual LED system, one that controls the light closer to the bike and another that controls the outer distance throw. Now throw in a circuit that automatically balances the two outputs so you always have enough light directly in front and then that kind of lamp begins to make more sense.

Personally I like having a bit of light directly in front of me. That's because sometimes I find I don't see stuff until I'm almost on top of them. Happens sometimes. With the Raveman CR900 I use for the road I see fine and rarely ( if ever ) have hit something in the road unexpected. Even when using one level down from high I can usually see and avoid any relevant obstacle before running over them ( as long as I'm not going more than 20mph )

Almost all lamps for cycling have their limitations. This is why I also use a secondary lamp ( Gemini Duo with remote ). If I feel the need for a high beam when riding road I have the remote switch inches away from my thumb.

Interesting video link you provided. Lupine SL A7 looks like a nice lamp. It does however..*cough*...cost almost $500 ( compared to ~ $80 for a CR-900 ). The Lupine optics almost completely cuts off any light reaching beyond the sides of the road. That being the case, you're not going to see that deer on the side of the road until it decides to bolt and run in front of you. Made me laugh when the guy leaned the bike over ( as if leaning into a high speed turn ). When he does this you almost find yourself in complete darkness which he found necessary to mention. So, summing up again, The Lupine had better throw and a well designed beam pattern so long as you don't make sharp turns or lean into a fast turn. I think comparing a single grape to a bag of apples enough for one post.


----------



## biking_tg (Dec 27, 2018)

Cat-man-do said:


> Correct, the brightest part of the Raveman beam pattern "is not" directed more to the front. Not too many bike lamps designed to shape the beam pattern can do that with just one LED.


More LEDs with that lens system wouldn't allow the brightest part directly below the cut-off. That is purely an issue of an unsuitable optical system (i.e. lens to small or LED die too big). The SL and the Outboud Focal Road have both multiple LEDs (each high intensity LEDs with ~1mm² die area) and all of them are assembled in one horizontal line and the brightest spot are just below the cut-off. Both lights have hugh lenses/teflectors compared to the LED die size. The same is valid for the B&M Ixon space.



Cat-man-do said:


> The problem with having a lamp that has most of the light near the cutoff ( as you have suggested ) is that it creates a problem whenever you decide to use modes with less output. When you lower the output you're still going to need a decent amount of light close to the bike. If you lower the output on a lamp like that at some point the light directly in front of you would possibly become too dim to be useful... [...]
> Personally I like having a bit of light directly in front of me.


Well, preferences and tastes differ, for road/gravel use i don't need much in front of the bike. I seldom have the issue that i have too little light in front of the bike when i dim my SL(F), not even in the lowest mode (~170 lm). However I find it very hard to see things in the distance with lights with a beam pattern as the raveman has, when the output is dimmed. With my SL i can see well in the distance (90-150ft), irrespective of the output (450 lm or 850 lm; if there's no surrounding light (and the gravel is bright) even 170 lms are fine).
On the contrary, with my Outbound focal road, it is harder for me to see things in the distance, when there is more light background, as the OL overexposes the area in front of the bike (while it still has it brightest part at the cut-off)



Cat-man-do said:


> Almost all lamps for cycling have their limitations. This is why I also use a secondary lamp ( Gemini Duo with remote ). If I feel the need for a high beam when riding road I have the remote switch inches away from my thumb.


Remote switchable secondary lamp :thumbsup:, very considerate of you!



Cat-man-do said:


> Interesting video link you provided. Lupine SL A7 looks like a nice lamp. It does however..*cough*...cost almost $500 ( compared to ~ $80 for a CR-900 ).


For Lupine, you always pay an very solid premium, and you coudl debate endlessly whether it is justified ( i think it is partly justified). You could also compare the Raveman to an Outbound Focal Road (140 USD for the lighthead) or an B&M Ixon Space (~140 USD incl shipping from europe to us), but to my knowledge there is no such video comparison available...
Designing optical cut-off systems is costly, especially for high powered lights. Even shutter precision charges ~290 EUR for their newest high-end e-bike/battery powered light....



Cat-man-do said:


> The Lupine optics almost completely cuts off any light reaching beyond the sides of the road. That being the case, you're not going to see that deer on the side of the road until it decides to bolt and run in front of you.


You gonna see the deer at the sides (or at least it legs), because the beam is so incredible wide in the distance (at least 8-10m width), i doubt that the raveman does a better job there. Nontheless i agree, the beam edges on the sides are harsh. But as usual, in the video the edges appear harsher than they are.
The cut-off is harsh: yesterday i didn't notice a beautiful owl 40-45ft in front of me even though it was sitting on a branch at most 3 ft above the cut-off. Only noticed it when i switched on my high beam (and blinded the poor bird).



Cat-man-do said:


> Made me laugh when the guy leaned the bike over ( as if leaning into a high speed turn ). When he does this you almost find yourself in complete darkness which he found necessary to mention


The issues with turns is an issue that any light with a cut-off has, as the bike is leaning while turning. That is as well an issue with any motorcycle (unless you activate high beam in the sharp turn)... The only thing that helps here is a non-glarefree high beam (or a fancy holder with an integrated gimbal....)


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

biking_tg said:


> ....You're gonna see the deer at the sides (or at least it legs), because the beam is so incredible wide in the distance (at least 8-10m width),* i doubt that the raveman does a better job there*. Nontheless i agree, the beam edges on the sides are harsh. But as usual, in the video the edges appear harsher than they are.
> The cut-off is harsh: yesterday i didn't notice a beautiful owl 40-45ft in front of me even though it was sitting on a branch at most 3 ft above the cut-off. Only noticed it when i switched on my high beam (and blinded the poor bird).
> 
> *The issues with turns is an issue that any light with a cut-off has*, as the bike is leaning while turning. That is as well an issue with any motorcycle (unless you activate high beam in the sharp turn)... The only thing that helps here is a non-glarefree high beam (or a fancy holder with an integrated gimbal....)


Actually the Ravemans ( using single emitter ) do a half decent job of letting you see the deer at the sides of the road. _They will illuminate the whole deer_ but since deer are brown they are still sometimes hard to see. Sometimes I'll see their glowing eyes ( if they look my way ) but other times not if they are busy munching on roadside foliage.

The Raveman beam patterns are "very" wide directly in front of the bike. Until I actually used one while MTB'n I had no idea how useful that wide of a beam pattern could be. Really helps see things when making sharp turns ( if not using a helmet light at the time ).

On the road the Ravemans will illuminate an entire two lane road ( no medium strip and on an entirely dark road ). Sometimes this factor comes in handy, especially if you have to make a suddenly wide avoidance move. Last year I had a fox bolt across the road right in front of me when I was likely no more than 50 ft. away from where he was. He was coming from the opposite side of the road ( my left ) and I just caught enough of him out of the corner of my eye to be able react in time to avoid hitting him. I missed him as he passed about ten feet in front of my front wheel and I was moving fairly fast before I saw him. Fox can run very fast and they are very low to the ground. If I hadn't of seen him when I did I might have ended up hitting him. Need I say, that wouldn't of been good for either him or me.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Took my non-cutoff beam Ravemen LR800 on last nights 36 mile ride. Ravemen describes the beam as "flood with suitable throw" and while not a cutoff beam I would describe it as reduced top spill. 1.2/1.9 hr. Hi/Med. runtimes are on the short side but this is one of the Ravemen lights that has their battery assist feature (chargeable while in operation). I had one of my Ituo batteries hooked up using a Magicshine usb converter which theoretically would have give me over 7 hrs. of high mode operation and over kill for any night rides I've done to date. In actual operation this system won't keep up when in the hi mode but catches up fairly quickly in med. which is a very nice 5-600 lumen (measured) level. Interesting feature on this light that I initially thought was a bit strange is the side mounted power/mode control button. Made sense after I saw the upside down/under bar mount picture (same easy access mounted either way).









Still waiting on this "Ravemen lens clone" Magicshine RN1200. Will be interesting to see how it compares with the Raveemen lights. XP-L emitter/21700 batery/Garmin style mount are nice features. I ordered it about 6 weeks ago (ebay) and just last week tracking started to show in-transit so hopefull soon but I'm not holding my breath. Even if this ends up being a good light delivery is definitely going to be a sore spot since this is not a US market light and the Rockbros. site is the only one I know of currently that lists it.
Mole


----------



## garrybunk (Feb 12, 2014)

Hmm, so is that RN1200/800 not a real MagicShine product? A fake? I don't see it listed on MagicShine's own site! 

-Garry


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

garrybunk said:


> Hmm, so is that RN1200/800 not a real MagicShine product? A fake? I don't see it listed on MagicShine's own site!
> 
> -Garry


My Magicshine contact confirmed that it is one of their products that they don't market in the US. I asked about patent infringement on Ravemens lens design but all they would say is they don't market the RN series here. Looks like an Allty 1000 with a different front lens but weighs considerably more (about the same as the Allty 2000 I tested) and costs less. Hopefully the weight gain is from the use of less plastic in the construction as the Allty 2000 ran pretty hot for my climate.
Mole


----------



## duggum (Mar 5, 2020)

MRMOLE said:


> My Magicshine contact confirmed that it is one of their products that they don't market in the US. I asked about patent infringement on Ravemens lens design but all they would say is they don't market the RN series here. Looks like an Allty 1000 with a different front lens but weighs considerably more (about the same as the Allty 2000 I tested) and costs less. Hopefully the weight gain is from the use of less plastic in the construction as the Allty 2000 ran pretty hot for my climate.
> Mole


I'm giving this light some consideration, when you get it (hopefully it comes some time soon!) would you mind sharing your thoughts about it?


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

duggum said:


> I'm giving this light some consideration, when you get it (hopefully it comes some time soon!) would you mind sharing your thoughts about it?


I got it today! Won't be able to get to the RN right away though as one of the local bike shops was nice enough to lend me a Lumina 1800 as a test light and I'd like to get it back to them as soon as possible and will be concentrating on that first. Should have something on the RN in a couple of weeks.
Mole


----------



## duggum (Mar 5, 2020)

Cool, I don't mind waiting. It turns out that Magicshine is going to start selling this light in the US (they're taking pre-orders here: https://magicshine.us/product/rn-1200-bike-headlight/), so I don't mind waiting.

I might still buy from the eBay seller you bought from, who still has a couple of the lights left at a bit of a discount. If you get a chance, could you tell me if what you received looks new/opened/legit? I don't really want to pay the money for an engineering sample or something.

Thanks, and looking forward to your review in a few weeks.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

duggum said:


> Cool, I don't mind waiting. It turns out that Magicshine is going to start selling this light in the US (they're taking pre-orders here: https://magicshine.us/product/rn-1200-bike-headlight/), so I don't mind waiting.
> 
> I might still buy from the eBay seller you bought from, who still has a couple of the lights left at a bit of a discount. If you get a chance, could you tell me if what you received looks new/opened/legit? I don't really want to pay the money for an engineering sample or something.
> 
> Thanks, and looking forward to your review in a few weeks.


Definitely a production model. Be forewarned though, it took almost 2 mo. from the order date till I received it. 
Mole


----------



## duggum (Mar 5, 2020)

Hey, there's a sale running on the light on eBay that ends in less than a day. I don't mean to be impatient, but have you had a chance to do any rides with this light yet? If so what do you think? For $45 it's a pretty tempting light but I'd rather not buy it if I have to buy another light later.

Thanks!


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

duggum said:


> Hey, there's a sale running on the light on eBay that ends in less than a day. I don't mean to be impatient, but have you had a chance to do any rides with this light yet? If so what do you think? For $45 it's a pretty tempting light but I'd rather not buy it if I have to buy another light later.
> 
> Thanks!


https://forums.mtbr.com/lights-night-riding/self-contained-z-1105995.html#post14617039

Check out post #172 in the above linked thread. The RN1200 is a great light but not if your looking for something with a cutoff beam. 
Mole


----------



## duggum (Mar 5, 2020)

Thanks so much! I think I'm willing to take the chance that this'll work for me, my previous light, a Cygolite Expilion (stolen along with my old bike) didn't have much (if any?) of a cutoff, and I made that work.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that from you experience the light is more or less like a flashlight (i.e. an equal amount of light pointed down at the road and up into the sky. Is that right?


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

duggum said:


> Thanks so much! I think I'm willing to take the chance that this'll work for me, my previous light, a Cygolite Expilion (stolen along with my old bike) didn't have much (if any?) of a cutoff, and I made that work.
> 
> Just so I'm clear, you're saying that from you experience the light is more or less like a flashlight (i.e. an equal amount of light pointed down at the road and up into the sky. Is that right?


I wrote you a reply for this in the other thread where it's not off topic, especially if you have any more questions about the RN.
Mole

https://forums.mtbr.com/lights-night-riding/self-contained-z-1105995.html#post14619735


----------



## Cat-man-do (May 16, 2004)

duggum said:


> Hey, there's a sale running on the light on eBay that ends in less than a day. I don't mean to be impatient, but have you had a chance to do any rides with this light yet? If so what do you think? For $45 it's a pretty tempting light but I'd rather not buy it if I have to buy another light later.
> 
> Thanks!


FWIW, I thought I'd add my own two cents worth of opinion. I'm sure this MagicShine light is probably a decent self-contained light. It does use a bigger battery than most and that is a big plus. If you're looking for a self-contained lamp with a cool white output this might work for you. Having never seen one of these myself I'm going to assume the rippled part of the upper lens limits the upper part of the beam pattern. Would be nice to see an actual beam pattern ( both on wall and on a completely darkened road or trail ). ( MRM...hint, hint )

On the other hand if you intend to use for mountain biking I'd be inclined to consider a torch with a NW emitter. Years ago I bought a simple Conway S3 with NW emitter from Banggood. Likely it is only using a Cree XM-L T6 LED but the beam pattern is suprisingly wide considering that it is only a single emitter torch and using an OP reflector. Almost compares with my Gloworm X2 that also was ordered with NW emitters. To date the S3 I own has the warmest beam pattern of any torch I own so I figure it's in the 4000K-4500K tint range. Even though I only use it for back-up I could easily use it as a go-to bar lamp. Advantage of using any torch is of course you can replace the battery at any time and that is a major advantage over any ( sealed ) self-contained bike lamp.

Recently I ordered another brighter torch ( Fireflies E07 ) with Cree XP-L NW emitters ( 7-LEDs ) and 4000K tint emitters. Sadly on back order at the time so if I'm lucky it might ship by the end of this month. Didn't really need it of course but since the E07 can use 21700 batteries I thought I might actually be able to use this as a main bar light. That of course remains to be seen. Nice thing about the E07 is that the UI allows the user to set the output and modes up in a variety of ways. If it provides a nice wide beam pattern at the right NW tint I will be very pleased. Been checking my email every day and it still hasn't shipped. When it comes in I'll be starting a new thread.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> FWIW, I thought I'd add my own two cents worth of opinion. I'm sure this MagicShine light is probably a decent self-contained light. It does use a bigger battery than most and that is a big plus. If you're looking for a self-contained lamp with a cool white output this might work for you. Having never seen one of these myself I'm going to assume the rippled part of the upper lens limits the upper part of the beam pattern. Would be nice to see an actual beam pattern ( both on wall and on a completely darkened road or trail ). ( MRM...hint, hint )


Since I normally do my flat surface beam shots on my garage door (couldn't find any clear wall space large enough to handle the beam height also) and am unable to get out for a ride I hope this is good enough. Wouldn't fit on the garage door either from my normal distance but you can still see the general shape of the top spill on the catsclaw.
Mole


----------

