# Light Performance vs Price Analysis



## PiranhaFisher (Jul 27, 2009)

Haven't been on here in a while. I've been riding more lately, but it's been more commuter than anything. I've been trying to take it easy on my wrist since I broke it about a year ago and because I foolishly didn't strictly adhere to the the rehab.

Anyway, lighting where I have to ride isn't very good, I often have to go through construction zones at night and also wanting to try some light trail riding at night since I've never done it. So I decided to look for a good headlight. I like the setup MTBR uses for testing lights and they're consistent, so I used their numbers.

Attached is the excel file in a zipped folder I did all calculations in. There are four lights that are not included in the calculations, but are present in the table. Three didn't include price (which I guess I could look up, lol), and one does not have a measurement for Lux. If you sort any of the columns, it will change the results in the Max, Min, and Averages below the table (has to do with how the calculation is setup to not include the headlights with missing data points).

This is a scatter plot of the lights from the 2012 Bike Lights Shootout.










The first thing I calculated was the price per unit Lux. I was interested in the spread of this ratio to see if you get more output with higher cost. The red fields just indicate no data available.

Lower is better:
Max:........$15.45/Lux (Light and Motion vis360)
3rd Min:....$2.75/Lux (Niterider Pro 3000)
2nd Min:...$2.47/Lux (Dinotte XML-3)
Min:.........$1.81/Lux (Magicshine MJ-872)
Avg:.........$4.79/Lux









(in the following two tables, green means max and brown means min)

I then calculated the distance from each data point to the line of linear regression (not perpendicular, so the vertical difference) and found the max and min of the set. The max being the greatest positive distance from the linear regression line and same for the min. This means that the greater the distance for a given price yields a better output to price ratio.

Positive distance is better, negative distance is worse:
Max:........105.636 (Niterider Pro 3000)
2nd Max:...51.5675 (Magicshine MJ-872)
Min:.........-37.364 (Light and Motion Seca 1400)
Avg:............ .0183









The next calculation was a ratio of the distance mentioned above to price. Positive values indicate higher than average output vs price and negative values are a low output vs price.

Higher is better:
Max:........ .2787 (Magicshine MJ-872)
2nd Max:.. .1558 (Dinotte XML-3)
3rd Max:... .1509 (Niterider Pro 3000)
Min:......... -.4395 (Niterider Mako 1)
Avg:......... -.0212









So we see that the top two headlights based on these stats is the:
Niterider Pro 3000
Magicshine MJ-872

If you take a look at the trail High End and backyard High End shots, you can easily see how they demonstrate exactly what the numbers say. The Niterider Pro 3000 has the best light output out of the bunch. However, the Magicshine MJ-872 has the best bang per buck. Not to mention, the price difference between the two is a whopping $515.

*Trail:*

Magicshine MJ-872









Niterider Pro 3000









*Backyard:*

Magicshine MJ-872









Niterider Pro 3000









So out of all of these, my conclusion is the Magicshine MJ-872 is the one to go with, without breaking the bank. I know I shouldn't limit my headlight options to just the ones MTBR tested, but comparing test results from another site will not be an apples to apples comparison. Hope someone found this helpful/beneficial.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Nice man. I will send you my spreadsheets at the end of this week.

What I've come to realize is that my Measured Mtbr Lux setup is very good. We have some very good actual lumens data from the Lezyne lab and they corroborate my test lux data.

Measuring actual lumens is very difficult when the light is mounted outside the sphere because all the light has to go in the sphere and no light can leak out. With so many different light head shapes and sizes, this is difficult.

Putting the light inside the sphere is difficult too. The light head is usually black and will absorb some of the light in the sphere and corrupt the data. Ventilation is a problem too inside a sphere. One of the solutions is to use a big sphere (10 feet diameter) so the surface area of the light head is tiny in comparison. But these big spheres cost $200k plus.

Anyway, long story short, the Mtbr Lux readings you're using are good.

And the word of the day is: XML 

fc


----------



## PiranhaFisher (Jul 27, 2009)

Cool, I look forward to it! :thumbsup:


----------



## rschultz101 (Oct 5, 2009)

watts wanted ,... wh
since all lights are powered by a battery,
it be pertinent to know, the actual power used.
I use a power meter for that.
initially for first 5 sec, gets you peak.
and after 5-7 min, when it's hot, 

on the battery a discharge curve measurement,
can now ballpark the runtime.
and with the light watts, 
running through the pct.cree.com calculator, 
gets you ballpark number on lumens, with compensation on optic loss, and drivers.

so power meter, watts-up, voltage * current = Wh ,
battery wh / light wh , ~ miles per gallon ,...

----
why so important, because , once you run out of juice, you got Zero (0) lumens !

cheers, Rob


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

wow, that's some detailed analysis! I'm guessing that you have more than a fair head for mathmatics 

I think these price/ performance analyses are great, but price and performance are not the only factors in buying a light (sometimes they're not even the most important). Harder to quantify factors such as beam shape, reliability, customer service back up and warranty are also very important, let alone the weight and runtime that Rob alluded to. There are already enough people reporting problems with both of the top lights to be wary about purchasing them.

For me, the Dinotte, Baja and Designshine lights a little further down the scale would be better options. You'd give up a little in terms out output per dollar but gain a huge amount of peace of mind in exchange.


----------



## mtb143 (Aug 26, 2007)

mattthemuppet said:


> wow, that's some detailed analysis! I'm guessing that you have more than a fair head for mathmatics
> 
> I think these price/ performance analyses are great, but price and performance are not the only factors in buying a light (sometimes they're not even the most important). Harder to quantify factors such as beam shape, reliability, customer service back up and warranty are also very important, let alone the weight and runtime that Rob alluded to. There are already enough people reporting problems with both of the top lights to be wary about purchasing them.
> 
> For me, the Dinotte, Baja and Designshine lights a little further down the scale would be better options. You'd give up a little in terms out output per dollar but gain a huge amount of peace of mind in exchange.


+1

This is very useful data, and thank you for organizing it so well. Prospective purchasers would do well to remember though, that this analysis takes into consideration only two variables (albeit the easiest two to quantify). If we bought cars this way (cheapest price for highest performance), we would all be driving Ariel Atoms 

For me, a quality beam pattern is more important than max output, but that's just my druthers, and a difficulty thing to quantify.


----------



## gcavy1 (Oct 21, 2009)

And what I notice is that lights are still quite pricey as a whole. I'm in the market for a light and need to stay around the 200 dollar mark (or less!) I notice that for a legitimate MTB light, there's only a couple of options. (Nightrider MiNewt, MagicShines, Nitelights). This also makes you wonder.
Is a $100 MagicShine or Nitelight worth the gamble in terms of reliability and service? You could buy two of them for $200.
My buddy has had a lot of problems with his MagicShine and another had his suddenly quit working recently, and what's the price of being left in the dark during a 24 hour race or an epic night ride?? 

I've used the MiNewt 600. Its a good little light, and I would hope it brings Nightrider's durability and service with it. But also found it just on the end of acceptable for brightness when night riding at speed. The run time is also a bit low. 

thoughts? Advice?


----------



## smoovranger (Mar 22, 2010)

I like the way you think PF! These blow my light spreadsheets out of the water...


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

Something else to consider is battery life. A super bright light might cut costs by not adding a bigger battery, leaving you with short run time. Perhaps lux minutes per dollar would be the most useful figure. Weight might also be a consideration.

Magic shine really blows things away for value, but some have had overheating problems on the 872. The older smaller 808 tends not to overheat though....although who knows...maybe it does and just doesn't have a protection mode. I doubt that's the case though because it has a pretty big heat sink for one LED.

@gcavy1: you think lights are expensive now...you should see how much it cost to get this kind of brightness 6 or 7 years ago. I recommend always riding with two lights, so select a price point where you can afford two. This gives you a backup, and having one on the bar and one on the helmet give you better depth perception and ability to see around corners.


----------



## William_Cannon (May 5, 2009)

PiranhaFisher said:


> *Trail:*
> 
> Magicshine MJ-872
> 
> ...


Why is only the left side of the trail picture light up for the MJ-872? The right side seems really dark in comparison, especially when you compare the backyard shots.


----------



## skidad (May 23, 2005)

Not sure that trail shot of the 872 does it justice. Almost looks like an LED isn't working on the right side. The backyard shot is much better and looks like my MS 856 (the 872 clone in different housing)

The Nightrider 3000...it's just nutty bright.


Francois....Did you get the Gemini XERA yet? Look forward to your thoughts and test results on this tiny light.


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

gcavy1 said:


> And what I notice is that lights are still quite pricey as a whole. I'm in the market for a light and need to stay around the 200 dollar mark (or less!) I notice that for a legitimate MTB light, there's only a couple of options. (Nightrider MiNewt, MagicShines, Nitelights). This also makes you wonder.
> Is a $100 MagicShine or Nitelight worth the gamble in terms of reliability and service? You could buy two of them for $200.
> My buddy has had a lot of problems with his MagicShine and another had his suddenly quit working recently, and what's the price of being left in the dark during a 24 hour race or an epic night ride??
> 
> ...


I approached my decision using mostly the same thinking and landed on the DiNotte XML-3. $259. Check it out.


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

Love the analysis piranha. Rather than having every light head to head (let's face it, no one is deciding between the niterider 3000 and the Magicshine), perhaps you could group the lights by claimed lumen, in 200 lumen increments and show the top two in each category.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

skidad said:


> Not sure that trail shot of the 872 does it justice. Almost looks like an LED isn't working on the right side. The backyard shot is much better and looks like my MS 856 (the 872 clone in different housing)
> 
> The Nightrider 3000...it's just nutty bright.
> 
> Francois....Did you get the Gemini XERA yet? Look forward to your thoughts and test results on this tiny light.


No Gemini's yet. I haven't heard from them.

I might reshooot the 872. That trail shot is actually deeper on the right side. The foliage on the left side is closer than the right. So lights that are very wide and don't have a lot of throw will look much darker on the right.

fc


----------



## urmb (Oct 4, 2005)

No cygolites? Cygolite: MityCross LED


----------



## PiranhaFisher (Jul 27, 2009)

Thanks for the replies. Trust me, I do realize this is a limited analysis and these two factors are the starting point for me. I then look into the products themselves and start comparing things with less or no quantitative data; such as charging method, battery pack or stand alone, over heating issues, etc. Beam pattern is also very important, but is difficult to incorporate due to some not providing specs, different methods and thresholds for measurements, etc. I believe you have to do some sort of analysis in order to have a starting point and a kind of guide for what product to look at next.

If someone were to gather any additional specs (such as runtime and weight) I'd be willing to do another analysis. Unless fc's spreadsheets will include that data as well.

As far as grouping the lights into various performance ranges based on Measured Lux, that's why I provided the spreadsheet.  Not trying to be a smart ass; I'm just not personally interested in that breakdown. Everyone has their set of values and objectives and I think the only way to do analysis and accommodate almost everyone would be to have a database (just in Excel is fine) of all lights and all specs (or as many as possible) and vary the 'query' to get what you're looking for. This is essentially a data mining problem, but I digress.

In regard to the cygolites; unfortunately if MTBR didn't include them, they won't be present in this analysis. I'm sure that it would not be cost effective for them to include every bike light, test every one, and then do analysis on them. Not to mention they change just the next year, lol. 

And for anyone wondering, I absolutely love analysis and statistics. I am in my last year for my BS in Mathematics. But believe it or not, I have not taken any statistics or applied math courses; they're just not required and my graduating plan didn't allow time for them. I'm considering some graduate degree dealing with applied statistical methods which entails many professions, but I don't have any specific career goals in mind.


----------



## LiveFreeThenDie (Mar 21, 2010)

The Lezyne Superdrive at $110 and 50 measured lux is looking like another winner. Especially with the ability to use off the shelf 18650 battery.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Cool, nice analysis!
Would be nice to get the gemini xera in there, as you can get em for $149 and throw off a good amount of light.


----------



## Roadking1962 (Jun 22, 2009)

Great analysis.

The tough thing to factor in is quality.

I decided to avoid the Magicshine issues and went with a Dinotte XML-3. The quality is better and I expect a longer life.

I know some might think "what the heck" and buy 2 or 3 $100 dollar lights and just use a new one when one breaks, but I prefer one quality light that lasts for years.

Heat management is also an issue. Lots of those cheap lights have lousy heat sink designs and will not last and/or fry their electronics. Again, quality in design is key.


----------



## il2mb (Jan 27, 2005)

So I have a light that puts out well over 2k lumens, cost less than $150 and has been trail tested nearly 100 times without a fail. Beam pattern and tint are perfect. Where would it be on the chart?

Of course the light is a DIY. Previous owner of Lupine, Dinotte, light & motion, and several others. If you want to get the maximum performance at the cheapest price - build your own. All of the lights out there with the exception of the Magicshine are too expensive. However, the Magicshine's quality is below what a regular trail night rider would consider acceptable. I've seen them on the trail and more than once have had to give up my backup light. I understand not everyone can go the DIY route but it isn't as hard as one would think.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Sorry a bit off topic here, I would love to learn how to build my own lights to obtain the highest value in performance vs $$$, as an owner of lupine's and many other commercial products it does get very expensive. But what has stopped me from doing more than thinking about it it the equipment needed to machine the block of aluminum and the space for that equipment. I'm guessing you would need a lathe and drill press at the very least,and that in itslelf can be expensive?


----------



## PiranhaFisher (Jul 27, 2009)

LiveFreeThenDie said:


> The Lezyne Superdrive at $110 and 50 measured lux is looking like another winner. Especially with the ability to use off the shelf 18650 battery.


It's funny you should mention that because I actually went with this light about a month ago. I haven't added this to the spreadsheet, but I've sent francois a pm asking if he'd be willing to email me his spreadsheet and I'll do what I did here, plus a few more things.



Roadking1962 said:


> Great analysis.
> 
> The tough thing to factor in is quality.
> 
> ...


I agree. That's why I like to use this simply as a starting point to help narrow a range of options, then start looking into them individually. I certainly hope no one would merely decide just off of this type of analysis.



il2mb said:


> So I have a light that puts out well over 2k lumens, cost less than $150 and has been trail tested nearly 100 times without a fail. Beam pattern and tint are perfect. Where would it be on the chart?
> 
> Of course the light is a DIY. Previous owner of Lupine, Dinotte, light & motion, and several others. If you want to get the maximum performance at the cheapest price - build your own. All of the lights out there with the exception of the Magicshine are too expensive. However, the Magicshine's quality is below what a regular trail night rider would consider acceptable. I've seen them on the trail and more than once have had to give up my backup light. I understand not everyone can go the DIY route but it isn't as hard as one would think.


I would like to see this light and a DIY if you have one written up or if you followed one. Things that come to mind are; is it stand alone or does it require an external battery pack, what is the run time, how does it handle heat dissipation, etc.

As far as where it would fit on the graphs I posted, I couldn't say. The method and equipment you used to arrive at the 2K number is going to be different from how francois takes measurements, so it wouldn't be a good comparison.



indebt said:


> Sorry a bit off topic here, I would love to learn how to build my own lights to obtain the highest value in performance vs $$$, as an owner of lupine's and many other commercial products it does get very expensive. But what has stopped me from doing more than thinking about it it the equipment needed to machine the block of aluminum and the space for that equipment. I'm guessing you would need a lathe and drill press at the very least,and that in itslelf can be expensive?


You don't need expensive tools to make your own light. I would suggest checking out the DIY sub forum: http://forums.mtbr.com/lights-diy-do-yourself/.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

LiveFreeThenDie said:


> The Lezyne Superdrive at $110 and 50 measured lux is looking like another winner. Especially with the ability to use off the shelf 18650 battery.


it sounds great until you look at the lumens over the course of the battery discharge - by the end of the runtime it's down to half it's starting output. I've no idea why, other than that the driver must have a huge voltage overhead for a direct drive light.

as for DIY, yep, check the forum, it's completely chock full of very helpful people. Here's my twin XM-L bar light
http://forums.mtbr.com/lights-diy-do-yourself/finally-real-light-tm-real-man-tm-713242.html
if I was paying market price for the Panasonic cells and had to buy my RC charger just for that light, I'd be looking at ~$170 all in for light, mount, 6 cell battery (2 1/2h full blast) and smart charger. Beautiful beam pattern, copes well with all but the hottest nights (it was struggling with the 35C/95% humidity nights this summer) and looks ugly as sin.


----------



## PiranhaFisher (Jul 27, 2009)

mattthemuppet said:


> it sounds great until you look at the lumens over the course of the battery discharge - by the end of the runtime it's down to half it's starting output. I've no idea why, other than that the driver must have a huge voltage overhead for a direct drive light.


Do you have a link for this graph? I think something like this comes down to philosophy of design and then expectation of performance by the end user. I would guess that Lezyne designed the light this way so that towards the end of the charge, you're not left without light. Whereas some manufacturers have the lights on a full output as long as possible and then no light at all (from graphs that I've seen). I personally prefer to have some light rather than none at all if need be, but that's why I purchased a secondary cell.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

it's on the 2nd page of each of the Lezyne lights in the shootout - here's the one for the minidrive, but it's the same deal for the others

Lezyne Mini Drive - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review | Page 2

I'm not sure it's a design feature as even in other direct drive torches/flashlights they don't go out of regulation until far later in the discharge curve - a li-ion cell shouldn't drop below the Vf of an XM-L until it's ~80% discharged. For li-ion full charge = 4.2V, half charge ~3.6V, full discharge = 3V and the Vf of an XM-L at 3A (way higher than they'll be driving it even in the top model) is 3.2V or so. I always thought linear regulators had tiny voltage overheads (0.1V or less), so those lumen curves make no sense to me.

What should be happening is that it should maintain full output for ~80% of the battery capacity, then slowly drop before going into the programmed flash fall back mode. A lot of people who build lights like that slow drop as it works as a capacity warning.


----------



## Baja Designs (Aug 3, 2010)

Uhhhh...wow. That is some serious work PiranhaFisher, amazing, my brain feels a little like it's a pretzel now. 

I am sure that most people understand that there is more (much more) to a light system and the purchase of such a piece of equipment. Luckily most riders realize that. You guys do realize that...don't you...:skep:


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

I think the photo settings were real great up until this year. The lights are getting so darn bright now that I think the standard settings are allowing the 1200+ lumen units with a lot of flood and not much throw to look like they project much further than they do from a bit of over exposure to use a film term.

I have to admit that I'm a bit picky about beam pattern. The original MS was way to spotty, the 872 is way too floody. I like the Xera frosted optic, the Baja Strykr with the oblong reflector, and the TridenX the best beam pattern wise. I'm about to build up an easy2led with an L332 I have kicking around and can't wait to try that out as well.


----------



## PiranhaFisher (Jul 27, 2009)

mattthemuppet said:


> it's on the 2nd page of each of the Lezyne lights in the shootout - here's the one for the minidrive, but it's the same deal for the others
> 
> Lezyne Mini Drive - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review | Page 2
> 
> ...


Ah, I see what you mean now. I hadn't seen the SuperDrive lumen vs time graph before. From what you were describing I thought it had a lengthy initial shelf and then dropped to a lower shelf in sacrifice of having a higher initial shelf. I should have waited in buying it, but no remorse here; it performs well enough for my needs, self contained, charges almost anywhere, etc.

Haven't heard from francois about that spreadsheet yet, lol. My hat goes off to that guy. He has done a wonderful job with the measurements and generating graphics. I only wish my day job was as much fun.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

well, it's still a cool versatile light that you can swap the battery out of in an instant, so I don't think you have much to worry about


----------

