# Gemini Olympia 2100 Xm-L2



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

Anyone have the new Gemini?
They look interesting with big numbers from a pretty honest vendor.


----------



## Gharddog03 (Sep 25, 2013)

the mayor said:


> Anyone have the new Gemini?
> They look interesting with big numbers from a pretty honest vendor.


Not the newest version but I have two (2013) Olympia's and they are awesome.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

Think the 2014 model is worth an extra $50 over last years model? Is it truly 300 lumens brighter?


----------



## Gharddog03 (Sep 25, 2013)

blantonator said:


> Think the 2014 model is worth an extra $50 over last years model? Is it truly 300 lumens brighter?


No. Run an Olympia and a duo and you'll have a killer set up.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

IMO as a bar light I see little advantage to the additional lumens (I own 2 of the XML T6 version Olympia's and prefer them set @ 80%). Where I do see an advantage with the new lights more efficient emitter is lower running temp. (I live in the desert) and increased run time. (big advantage if you run a 4 cell battery). Run as a helmet light I usually use full power so I'm guessing I'd like more lumens but probably not as much as a narrower focused optic. All that considered it's not worth an upgrade to me but if it were a choice on a new purchase I'd definitely get the newest version.
Mole


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

blantonator said:


> Think the 2014 model is worth an extra $50 over last years model? Is it truly 300 lumens brighter?


 Last years model is a very good product and plenty of lumens. That been said last years lumen claims were quite overstated by Gemini. My Duo had claimed 1400 lumens when in fact it was measured just under 1100, same with the Olympia who's 1800 lumen claims measured out well under 1500 on MTBR's 2013 light shootout. Gemini however this year I saw on a website a few weeks back are making claims that this years lumen claims are based on measured outputs and have sent Francois their products for testing. If proven to be true claims the extra money in my opinion is well worth it as the output gains will be significant.


----------



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

Though I don't own a Gemini lamp I think getting an lamp with upgraded LED's is only important if ONE; you are a total light geek and just want the brightest output and TWO; You are into endurance events where the extra output at lower levels comes into play.

Both the Gemini's and the new Gloworm's have programmable mode levels. *I plan on testing the efficiency of the new XM-L2 ( U2 ) by comparing the previous GW to the new version.* I already know the new version is brighter. Now I want to know how much more efficient the lamp is when run on the lower levels. I will be testing the standard low settings using a two cell. _I figure the increase in efficiency will either translate one of two ways; either the new lamp will be slightly brighter and run about the same time OR output will be about the same for both lamps BUT run time on the newer lamp will be a bit longer._ Should make for an interesting test. As in all tests involving "run time" it will take some time so likely I will do it over the weekend...maybe.

Would be nice if someone else could do the same thing with the Gemini's Duo or Olympia's.


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

Thanks for your input, Cat.
I am looking for a good strong bar light...maybe...to replace my 3x XML clone( which has been great)>
If the light from the new Gemini is that much better...it would be worth it to me.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> Though I don't own a Gemini lamp I think getting an lamp with upgraded LED's is only important if ONE; you are a total light geek and just want the brightest output and TWO; You are into endurance events where the extra output at lower levels comes into play.
> 
> Both the Gemini's and the new Gloworm's have programmable mode levels. *I plan on testing the efficiency of the new XM-L2 ( U2 ) by comparing the previous GW to the new version.* I already know the new version is brighter. Now I want to know how much more efficient the lamp is when run on the lower levels. I will be testing the standard low settings using a two cell. _I figure the increase in efficiency will either translate one of two ways; either the new lamp will be slightly brighter and run about the same time OR output will be about the same for both lamps BUT run time on the newer lamp will be a bit longer._ Should make for an interesting test. As in all tests involving "run time" it will take some time so likely I will do it over the weekend...maybe.
> 
> Would be nice if someone else could do the same thing with the Gemini's Duo or Olympia's.


 Well Cat you hit the nail on the head with me for sure as I am a light geek!! But you did touch on a couple of important issues that lumens aside I really would like to se in my set up, and all systems in the future.

- Enough led efficiency that I could get the output I have now and run times, while stepping down a size in battery capacity reducing overall weight on my two set ups.

- Cooler running leds so that I could also achieve the higher outputs while needing less airflow to keep the lamp heads cool based on same ambient temperature.

I do have poor night vision despite been a light geek so yes i'm guilty of dwelling on lumens however lumens are useless if their not delivered with quality in beam shaping and features such as UI and build.

I'm really looking forward to your tests results Cat-man-do and hope they show a significant improvement in efficiency with the new XM-L2's. Cheers!!


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

indebt said:


> -
> I do have poor night vision despite been a light geek so yes i'm guilty of dwelling on lumens however lumens are useless if their not delivered with quality in beam shaping and features such as UI and build.
> !


I'm in the same boat....bad night vision.
And as amazing...and cheap...as these clones are...I always want more light.
As happy as I am with the 3x clone....if the new Gemini ( or any light) is that much brighter...I would buy it


----------



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

indebt said:


> ....I'm really looking forward to your tests results Cat-man-do and hope they show a significant improvement in efficiency with the new XM-L2's. Cheers!!


Here's a quick comparison of the _two factory *sub-low modes ( *press and hold special low mode )_ ( [email protected] )



> 470 lux vs 570 lux


. The v3 is noticeably brighter. Likely there will not be much difference in run time BUT...that remains to be seen. :ihih:

When I finish the full test I will transfer the information over to the current thread on the Gloworm X2 v3.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

That's approx. 20% difference if drawing same current. Very impressive, thanx!!


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

What's going on with Gemini??? I see on the 2014 light shout out that the NEW Olympia despite it's 2100 lumen claims and new XM-L2 emitters has no measured improvement over last years model, this doesn't seem right and wonder if the light may have stepped down before the measurement was taken. The duo is only up marginally as well to 1208 lumens despite it's 1500 lumen claim. I'll have to mention it on the shoot out thread and maybe see if Francois can re measure.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

indebt said:


> What's going on with Gemini??? I see on the 2014 light shout out that the NEW Olympia despite it's 2100 lumen claims and new XM-L2 emitters has no measured improvement over last years model, this doesn't seem right and wonder if the light may have stepped down before the measurement was taken. The duo is only up marginally as well to 1208 lumens despite it's 1500 lumen claim. I'll have to mention it on the shoot out thread and maybe see if Francois can re measure.


link?


----------



## Gharddog03 (Sep 25, 2013)

blantonator said:


> link?


Yes Please.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

2014 Mtbr Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

found it.


----------



## Gharddog03 (Sep 25, 2013)

blantonator said:


> 2014 Mtbr Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review
> 
> found it.


Thanks, didn't know the did a new shootout. WoW lux is only up 12.


----------



## Gharddog03 (Sep 25, 2013)

2013 Olympia tunnel shot








2014 Olympia tunnel shot


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

It's hard to believe those photos are with the same settings with only 12 measured lumens separating the two. Sure makes the 2014 Olympia look well worth the upgrade despite the lumen claims. Beam pattern looks wide and even as well with good punch.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

doesn't look much different here


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

indebt said:


> It's hard to believe those photos are with the same settings with only 12 measured lumens separating the two. Sure makes the 2014 Olympia look well worth the upgrade despite the lumen claims. Beam pattern looks wide and even as well with good punch.


Sometimes....you have to look past the numbers.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

the mayor said:


> Sometimes....you have to look past the numbers.


the graph above disagrees. Looks like there are a few more lumens at the spot, but nothing anywhere else.


----------



## mtbRevolution (Aug 10, 2012)

indebt said:


> It's hard to believe those photos are with the same settings with only 12 measured lumens separating the two. Sure makes the 2014 Olympia look well worth the upgrade despite the lumen claims. Beam pattern looks wide and even as well with good punch.


I think most will agree with you the lumen count doesn't match the beamshot here. Something is amiss and I am sure Chris will be asking for a re-test. Not saying this is the case but if I had to guess and this is plain conjecture, I suspect the beamshot was taken first on Hi setting @ 100%. Between then and the sphere test Gemini's 10% incremental/decremental mode was accidently activated. The reading could be 70% of its actual Hi.


----------



## White Bear (Jun 12, 2013)

mtbRevolution said:


> I think most will agree with you the lumen count doesn't match the beamshot here. The reading could be 70% of its actual Hi.


Agreed, and was ready to pull the trigger on a 2013, however if these photos are actually true, well guess what.


----------



## Gharddog03 (Sep 25, 2013)

Something isn't adding up. Just by going off the tunnel shots, the 2014 blows the 2013 version away.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

Gharddog03 said:


> Something isn't adding up. Just by going off the tunnel shots, the 2014 blows the 2013 version away.


I would take the 2013 to 2014 pictures with a grain of salt. if you look at the L&M TAZ 1200, same light from 2013 to 2014 they also look vastly different. I would only compare pictures from the same year, too many variables when looking at two years pictures.

check out the Taz 1200
Old: https://reviews.mtbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Light-Motion-Taz-12002.jpg
New: https://reviews.mtbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2014-MTBR-Tunnel-Test-LM-Taz-1200.jpg


----------



## Gharddog03 (Sep 25, 2013)

Maybe the "whiter" new led?


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

Gharddog03 said:


> Maybe the "whiter" new led?


or white balance of camera. I feel it's pretty unlikely that ALL the 2014 lights now dramatically whiter.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

the mayor said:


> Sometimes....you have to look past the numbers.


 Your right there,,,,,, and I do. However I kind of use measured lumens as the foundation of what i'm looking for, kind of like brake horsepower in a muscle car. Power or lumens only take you so far though,,,, you must have good delivery of the lumens, smooth&braud, with good punch. A good UI with the programmability that best suits the user. And for me build quality, as for where I ride and often solo I want the best chance I can get that my lights are going to get me home safe.:thumbsup:


----------



## White Bear (Jun 12, 2013)

indebt said:


> Your right there,,,,,, and I do. However I kind of use measured lumens as the foundation of what i'm looking for, kind of like brake horsepower in a muscle car. Power or lumens only take you so far though,,,, you must have good delivery of the lumens, smooth & broad, with good punch. A good UI with the programmability that best suits the user. And for me build quality, as for were I ride and often solo I want the best chance I can get that my lights are going to get me home safe.:thumbsup:


Well said, so what are you using (that has all those qualities)?


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I'll keep this short as I don't want to hijack this thread. I use two Betty-R-12's.


----------



## Gharddog03 (Sep 25, 2013)

indebt said:


> I'll keep this short as I don't want to hijack this thread. I use two Betty-R-12's.


:eekster:


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

indebt said:


> I'll keep this short as I don't want to hijack this thread. I use two Betty-R-12's.


Will you adopt me?


----------



## White Bear (Jun 12, 2013)

indebt said:


> I'll keep this short as I don't want to hijack this thread. I use two Betty-R-12's.


That oughta do it!



the mayor said:


> Will you adopt me?


Remember his name is "indebt"


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

LOL!! With the evolution of lights over the past few years you can now get crazy good set ups for lots less money than what I spent. I mean,,,, a pair of Olympia's are light weight very bright with the features I look for,, and the reliability of Chinese made lights if good quality control is managed can be quite good as is been proven by many brands.


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

Overstating lumens is dumb. Previous generation Gemini lights were overstated by:

Olympia: 18.5%
Duo: 22.1%
Xera: 18.1%

The new ones are overstated by:

Olympia: 29.7%
Duo: 19.5%
Xera: 16.9%

So, spending a lot on a new Olympia might not be a good idea since it only puts out 0.7% more lumens than the previous model (7.8% more lux - 141 versus 153).

The Xera is now the least overstated, claimed-lumen Gemini light at 16.9%. It also puts out more lumens/lux percentage wise versus the previous model: 11.8%/10% more lumens/lux.

I like my Gemini lights but wish they were more honest in their lumen claims.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I'm still perplexed by the Olympia's numbers and still believe something is up, I mean not getting even 500 lumens a piece out of the new XM-L2's is crazy. It's got to be that for what ever the reason the light was not operating at 100% output.

I'm with you too TCW that especially after over stating last years claims, i'm disappointed with the continuance from Gemini. I still really like their products though.


----------



## dirt-nerd (Aug 12, 2009)

I have the 2100 (over 6 night rides) and I like how it comes with the head band and mounts, it is nicely put together package but it's not putting out 2100 lumen that's for sure. I just don't like the beam I guess, it's not working for my eyes at all. I have a Baja Designs Strkr 2 on the bars also. The Olympia is not more than twice as bright as the Strykr.

I'm going to just spend some more for the Seca 2000 or Wilma 7 or 10 and give the Olympia 2100 to my son for a re-gift.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Sorry to hear your not happy with the new Olympia dirt-nerd. As for perception of brightness with any light upgrade, I had read some posts on this forum that for our eyes to perceive double the brightness you would need up to four times the actual lumens. That been said I hope Gemini chimes in on the results of the new Olympia. This is a $300 light and unless for what ever the reason the output doesn't measure much closer to their claims regardless if it is in need of a driver upgrade or whatever they may end up with a bust for this year and potential lost sales in the future as Gemini may loose the trust of some potential customers. I do like their products so I hope they resolve the discrepancy's.

The L&M or Wilma however are a whole new animal and regardless of your choice should be very happy with one of those products. Good luck!!


----------



## Gharddog03 (Sep 25, 2013)

indebt said:


> Sorry to hear your not happy with the new Olympia dirt-nerd. As for perception of brightness with any light upgrade, I had read some posts on this forum that for our eyes to perceive double the brightness you would need up to four times the actual lumens. That been said I hope Gemini chimes in on the results of the new Olympia. This is a $300 light and unless for what ever the reason the output doesn't measure much closer to their claims regardless if it is in need of a driver upgrade or whatever they may end up with a bust for this year and potential lost sales in the future as Gemini may loose the trust of some potential customers. I do like their products so I hope they resolve the discrepancy's.
> 
> The L&M or Wilma however are a whole new animal and regardless of your choice should be very happy with one of those products. Good luck!!


Well said:thumbsup:

I am very happy with my 2013 Gemini light but I will start looking into Lupine especially the Wilma.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

It wouldn't surprise me if this years Wilma turns out to be one of Francois's favorite lighting systems. It is a beast!!


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

Did you notice that Lupine was the only other brand that had overstated claimed lumens for each of their lights? By a lesser amount than Gemini, but still. 2 of the 6 Lezynes were overstated, and 2 of 7 NiteRiders were also overstated. That's assuming the measurement process is 100 percent accurate, and that the claims are for the minimum to expect with sample variation, rather than average.

No Olympia content, but I love my new Duo 1500 anyway. I don't do 2 light setups because I'm often running, skiing, etc as much as biking. For my uses as single light on the headband, it has the best beam shape/quality for me. That's judged by the beamshot photos on the mtbr shootout, Action LED's new graphs of lux vs. angle from center, and how happy I am with the actual beam in use.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Yes I noticed and am quite surprised considering how bang on Lupine's claims were last year. I think if claims were within a couple percent we would all be forgiving as a margin of error but as you mention there are some that have understated their claims as well by quite a margin.

I have last years Duo so I understand what it is you like about yours. It's a very nice set-up for sure and versatile.


----------



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

dirt-nerd said:


> I have the 2100 (over 6 night rides) and I like how it comes with the head band and mounts, *it is nicely put together package but it's not putting out 2100 lumen that's for sure. I just don't like the beam I guess, it's not working for my eyes at all.* I have a Baja Designs Strkr 2 on the bars also. The Olympia is not more than twice as bright as the Strykr.
> 
> I'm going to just spend some more for the Seca 2000 or Wilma 7 or 10 and give the Olympia 2100 to my son for a re-gift.


Not everyone is going to like the output from the XM-L2 ( T-6 ) LED's particularly when used with optics. Should still be brighter than the previous Olympia model just not as noticeable due to the warmer beam tint. Personally I don't own one but I would think it would be a great bar lamp.

Gemini should of waited for the availability of the XM-L2 ( U2's ). If they did I don't think people would of been questioning the brightness of the lamp.


----------



## dirt-nerd (Aug 12, 2009)

indebt said:


> Sorry to hear your not happy with the new Olympia dirt-nerd. As for perception of brightness with any light upgrade, I had read some posts on this forum that for our eyes to perceive double the brightness you would need up to four times the actual lumens. That been said I hope Gemini chimes in on the results of the new Olympia. This is a $300 light and unless for what ever the reason the output doesn't measure much closer to their claims regardless if it is in need of a driver upgrade or whatever they may end up with a bust for this year and potential lost sales in the future as Gemini may loose the trust of some potential customers. I do like their products so I hope they resolve the discrepancy's.
> 
> The L&M or Wilma however are a whole new animal and regardless of your choice should be very happy with one of those products. Good luck!!


Thanks, that makes sense. I still think it's a great package, my bad eyes are going to need more light than I thought this year.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I know all about bad eyes,,,, I have poor night vision and guess it's my fifty year old eyes catching up to me. 

On the choices of L&M or the Wilma,, I haven't seen the L&M beam in person but consensus is it has the best beam in the business, that been said the Wilma's beam is no slouch and has an extra 100 lux output over the Seca 2000. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## stu06 (Dec 8, 2012)

I used to run an L&M Seca 1700 on the bar and I can tell you from experience that it has a nearly-perfect beam pattern (as demonstrated by the mtbr tunnel beam shot). However, due to the fact that I have impaired night vision, the throw was insufficient on fast, technical downhills. Two improvements that would make the Seca the ultimate bar light: (1) Significant increase in throw; (2) Remote control (dimming the light quickly for other trail users is difficult and dangerous at speed, particularly on rough sections).


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

I ended up ordering a 2013 Olympia, They are $215 (20% off) minus another 10% at action LED. That's $75 to another light. I considered a Seca and I get a pretty good deal on them through my shop, but they're too big, expensive and proprietary battery cable.


----------



## derekbob (May 4, 2005)

I just read the review of this light and the photo shows the box for a 1700 lumen Olympia. I'm wondering if this would explain lack of output. Seems like a major detail to overlook, but who knows?


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

Action LED should consider changing these statements:

"A triple CREE XM-L2 LED Light with 2100 lumens of actual output..."

"NEW for 2014, is the DUO LED Light System. Gram-for-gram, it is one of the brightest lights of the year delivering a staggering 1500 lumens and weighing only 63g for the Light Head...."

"With an output of 950 lumens (actual), you can be sure the XERA LED Light System will provide ample light for most uses...."

Can't figure why I'm this way but I like honesty. I must be a weirdo or something.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

derekbob said:


> I just read the review of this light and the photo shows the box for a 1700 lumen Olympia. I'm wondering if this would explain lack of output. Seems like a major detail to overlook, but who knows?


 Where did you see that?? The only review I could find with that 1700 lumen Olympia was in the 2013 review. 2014 review isn't out yet that i'm aware of. By the looks of it Gemini should have used that same box anyway for 2014.


----------



## derekbob (May 4, 2005)

indebt said:


> Where did you see that?? The only review I could find with that 1700 lumen Olympia was in the 2013 review. 2014 review isn't out yet that i'm aware of. By the looks of it Gemini should have used that same box anyway for 2014.


I can't find the link anymore. I remember it said under weaknesses the 2100 lumens are a gross overstatement. It was off to the side under popular mtbr articles iirc. I even posted a comment under the name "Some Dude" saying the box was for last years Olympia.


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

Here's the link. And yes...the box is for the 1700 model.
Review: Gemini Lights Olympia 2100 | Mountain Bike Review


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Wouldn't that be an over site if Gemini sent last years light by mistake, sure would explain the lack of improved output.


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

indebt said:


> Wouldn't that be an over site if Gemini sent last years light by mistake, sure would explain the lack of improved output.


Or if MTBR doesn't know what they are testing....


----------



## derekbob (May 4, 2005)

It looks like they re-used the pictures from last year's light shootout with the exception of the beam shots.


----------



## Gharddog03 (Sep 25, 2013)

:madman:


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

the mayor said:


> Here's the link. And yes...the box is for the 1700 model.
> Review: Gemini Lights Olympia 2100 | Mountain Bike Review


 Since Chris hasn't chimed in on our discussion it may be time for me to shoot him an email and see if he can maybe clear some things up. Or it could be that he is trying to do that before responding.


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

Or maybe he's thinking "eff it" and shutting the operation down.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

derekbob said:


> It looks like they re-used the pictures from last year's light shootout with the exception of the beam shots.


 +1
Good catch derekbob!! Having looked at both the 2014/2013 photo's, they look identical to me.


----------



## Swissam (Apr 8, 2008)

What's more shocking is the laziness and lack of skill from the local taggers/graffiti artists. NO NEW PAINT since last years scribbilings. Or do I smell a conspiracy?........


----------



## dgw7000 (Aug 31, 2011)

I really lose respect for Gemini for over rating their lights, I was going to try the new Olympia 2100. Not now when it's under 1500 L. One of the reason's I like Serfas so much they under rated their lights. I think I'll try the new Gloworm XS 2100 true L.- Can get Light head and everything but battery and charger for 220.00.


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

dgw7000 said:


> I really lose respect for Gemini for over rating their lights, I was going to try the new Olympia 2100. Not now when it's under 1500 L. One of the reason's I like Serfas so much they under rated their lights. I think I'll try the new Gloworm XS 2100 true L.- Can get Light head and everything but battery and charger for 220.00.


Did Gemini overstate?
Or was the test wrong?
Or a little of both?
Maybe ALL the tests are wrong?


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

The test was likely accurate. 100%, probably not, but probably could be verified within a couple percentage points with another integrating sphere. Remember last year they overstated by quite a bit, espcially on the Duo. Still, their lights are nice: really small, light weight, great no-frills programming, etc. It would be nice if all manufacturers would state lumens with at least 95% accuracy.

Remind me of Audio/Video gear and the watts per channel crap.


----------



## dgw7000 (Aug 31, 2011)

Don't get me wrong I do like my Duo and Xera, I feel they are well made and produce a nice clean spread. MTBR rated them, I also did my own testing !! They are over rated as far as output lumens in my opinion. Gloworm is better and has my trust !!


----------



## varider (Nov 29, 2012)

TCW said:


> Overstating lumens is dumb. Previous generation Gemini lights were overstated by:
> 
> Olympia: 18.5%
> Duo: 22.1%
> ...


I would say that you should use the actual lumen number as the base of the percentage calculation.

Gemini 1477 lumens measured, 2100 claimed

((2100-1477)/1477 ) *100 = 42.2 %

So it's overrated by 42%. It's still a good light though, and it comes in pretty high on the lumens-per-dollar chart that Fourtrax put together.


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

Ugh, right on varider, your math is an accurate description of the overstating of lumens. Disgusting. Definitely on par with Magicshine claims. Doesn't the 880 claim 2200 lumens but comes in around 1500 ish? MagicGeminiShine lights rule.

I just receommended a buddy get the 2013 Olympia/Xera but piece it together instead of buying the package deals.

I figured with the 10% off coupon the setup would cost $278 for both lights including 2 chargers, 2 4-cell batteries and an extension cord. He uses a Specialized helmet so direct mounting the Xera to a cross vent works fine. That's a lot of light for minimal dollars. I predict he gets a couple Solarstorm X2s for under $100 instead.


----------



## steelhmr (Sep 30, 2011)

Remember when "lux" was supposed to be more important than "lumens"? Compare the lux & lumens of the Gemini Olympia vs the Seca Race:

Lumens: 1477 vs 2022 (Seca Race has 36.9% more lumens)
Lux: 153 vs 170 (Seca Race has 11.1% more lux)
$/Lux: 1.96 vs 2.94 (*Seca Race costs 50% more $ per lux*)

It seems like the Olympia is being punished in these tests for having a wide & even beam pattern. Maybe someday when people say lux is more important they will actually mean it?


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

The lux rating does redeem it a bit. That's why I still recommend Gemini lights to friends. I really like my Olympia/Duo setup, my wife likes her Olympia/Xera setup. I was just disappointed the new verions didn't measure closer to spec in the integrating sphere. No reason to upgrade. Now, if there had been a 20% increase, like maybe actually getting close to 1800 real lumens, then I would've bought a couple new Olympias as soon as they became avaiable.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> Here's a quick comparison of the _two factory *sub-low modes ( *press and hold special low mode )_ ( [email protected] )
> 
> . The v3 is noticeably brighter. Likely there will not be much difference in run time BUT...that remains to be seen. :ihih:
> 
> When I finish the full test I will transfer the information over to the current thread on the Gloworm X2 v3.


 Hey Cat-man-do,, have you had any time to work on your testing as I haven't seen any action on the X2 v3 thread??


----------



## g_k (Jun 27, 2006)

TCW said:


> The lux rating does redeem it a bit. That's why I still recommend Gemini lights to friends. I really like my Olympia/Duo setup, my wife likes her Olympia/Xera setup. I was just disappointed the new verions didn't measure closer to spec in the integrating sphere. No reason to upgrade. Now, if there had been a 20% increase, like maybe actually getting close to 1800 real lumens, then I would've bought a couple new Olympias as soon as they became avaiable.


Hi. Are you running the 6 or 4 cell version. How are you satisfied with the runtimes?

BR


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

Four cell on all our Gemini lights. Run times are good. If it's a long ride then I'll run the Olympia at 80% to extend the times.


----------



## blackbean (Nov 20, 2012)

the mayor said:


> Did Gemini overstate?
> Or was the test wrong?
> Or a little of both?
> Maybe ALL the tests are wrong?


I think that the testing STANDARDS that MTBR uses and every manufacturer are most likely different. I think some of the lights could rate lower on the MTBR test because they take the measurement a little later than the manufacturer maybe would. The manufacturer rating might not include enough time for the light to warm up and power down a bit, where as the MTBR measurement might wait long enough for a light with poorer heat dissapation characteristics to capture the stepdown in output.

I could be completely wrong, but I think it's the difference in testing methods and timing. Fan speed and volume of airflow during the test alone could have a huge impact.


----------



## blackbean (Nov 20, 2012)

Gharddog03 said:


> 2013 Olympia tunnel shot
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think the difference in the actual light outputs are that big from 2013 to 2014 for the Gemini Olympia (pictured above). The lumen test at least says so.

I think the problem here is with the way the photo's are taken. If you look at the shots, the camera angle is completely different. The 2013 shot was taken from behind and to the left side of the light and the 2014 shot almost centered behind the light head. I think in 2013 they did not yet have a standardized way of where they placed the camera for the shot and this year I think they are doing a lot better in this respect.

The reviews still are pretty haphazard too but improving. For instance some bigger lights get knocked for being heavy, while other lights of the same or bigger size and weight does not. Or for instance in the case of the Halo it gets knocked for possibly being bad in wet or misty condition. I think MOST powerful lights mounted on the helmet (especially) would be bad under such conditions. In general, not the same aspects of the lights are compared and sometimes the plusses and minuses are very random for each light.


----------



## blackbean (Nov 20, 2012)

stu06 said:


> I used to run an L&M Seca 1700 on the bar and I can tell you from experience that it has a nearly-perfect beam pattern (as demonstrated by the mtbr tunnel beam shot). However, due to the fact that I have impaired night vision, the throw was insufficient on fast, technical downhills. Two improvements that would make the Seca the ultimate bar light: (1) Significant increase in throw; (2) Remote control (dimming the light quickly for other trail users is difficult and dangerous at speed, particularly on rough sections).


Stu, I think you might like the Lupine beam patterns a bit more. I think they are available with 3 different beam angles/width though. To my eyes the Lupine beams are shaped like a spot beam (it lights things up in a round or circular pattern) but the spot is pretty wide. Not as wide with the spread of a Seca (I don't think any light can beat the Seca in this respect) or most dedicated flood lights, but much wider than the typical spot. IMO it's a very good combination of throw and spread. With the light mounted on the lid I think you can work around the spread issue a bit easier than mounting it on the handlebar.


----------



## Tema (Mar 5, 2008)

I ordered a set of Olympia 2100 and Duo 1500 but I received two Olympias, one in the box with 2100 lumens printed on top and another in 1700 with a sticker on it saying upgraded to 1800. I guess the Duo was out of stock and for some reason I got the older Olympia instead for the same price without them asking me first.

Is there a way to tell which leds your Olympia has? By looking at the leds through the lenses they seem different; the 1800 version seems to have green background.

I haven't decided wheter to send the older Olympia back as I wanted a smaller head unit even though I guess the Olympia is not that much bigger or heavier. At least I'm going to compare their colour tint first.


----------

