# Review Rokkes BLF01 cut-off beam light



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

Here'e the Amazon link:

https://www.amazon.com/ROKKES-USB-B...1500631809&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=rokkes+blfo1

I have been using this light for road use for a week. I have no affiliation with the seller. It is very impressive considering the low price for a true cut-off beam light, that is why I am reviewing it here. It has a good cut-off beam using a lens to accomplish this. I will be comparing it to a Philips Saferide 80. The price is less than $20 on Amazon.com, free shipping for Prime members or free shipping if you spend over $25 total.

The lens appears to be a cross between an aspheric and an elliptical. The Saferide achieves its cut-off with a complex shaped reflector.

The mount for the handlebars is aluminum which attaches to a plastic holder for the light. It has a quick release.

The battery appears to be a real pink Samsung 2600mAh battery. A real Samsung ICR18650-26F costs about $10 alone on Amazon. The integrated micro-usb charger terminates at exactly 4.2 volts. The battery is user replacable by removing 4 screws. The light stays in regulation from 4.2 until 3.7 volts. At 3.65 volts the battery charge indicator light turns red and the light slowly drops in brightness until 3.25 volts when it shuts off. No need for using protected 18650 batteries but they will fit inside just fine.

The battery current draw on high is 630ma. The current draw on low is 340ma. Blue angel eye current draw is 40ma. Pulse mode is between 560ma and 250ma. The pulse is probably useful during the day if the light is angled above the horizon. The lux readings are 2150 on high at 1 meter and 1130 on low at 1 meter. Cat-man-do, I used a calibrated Extech light meter to get some accurate readings this time. The display box the light comes in shows 20 lux so it is a little over spec after 1 minute. Now the Amazon ad claims 50 lux, but that looks like a very different lens than the one I received. A more focused lens will be much higher in lux measurements. If you only use one road light, the more spread out beam lens I received is actually better than the one that is shown on Amazon. See attached photos.

The only downside to this light so far is the mode switching. You have to switch from high - to low - to blue angel eyes - to pulse - to off. If you just leave the light on high or low the mode switching isn't a problem.

The throw is not as good as the Philips Saferide, but the Saferide was a $220 msrp bike light, not a $20 bike light. When both lights are aimed just below the horizon on a flat road, I have good visibility out to 100 feet on high with the BLF01 (2150 lux) and 130 feet with the Philips Saferide on low (2500 lux). By good visibility I mean I can tell a rabbit from a fox at those distances. If you ride MUPS or country roads for training this light imho is a great deal. I bought 2 for back-ups for my Philips road lights.


----------



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

Nice review gipsyman. Like what you said, this light could make a good back-up, something to loan out or for the kids to use. The fact that it compares to your modified Safelight says a lot. Nice that the battery can be swapped out although you might need a screw driver. 

I know I said I might buy one of these just to mess with but right now I already have a lot of lights to play with, other things to do and other needs at the moment. Sooner or later I might get around to it but not right now. I'd still like to see a real life wall shot just so I can see how dramatic the cut-off is.


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

Cat-man-do said:


> Nice review gipsyman. Like what you said, this light could make a good back-up, something to loan out or for the kids to use. The fact that it compares to your modified Safelight says a lot. Nice that the battery can be swapped out although you might need a screw driver.
> 
> I know I said I might buy one of these just to mess with but right now I already have a lot of lights to play with, other things to do and other needs at the moment. Sooner or later I might get around to it but not right now. I'd still like to see a real life wall shot just so I can see how dramatic the cut-off is.


Beam shots are definitely hard to do. A real life look at the beams in comparison to your other lights is the best way to go.

I hear you about all your other lights. I also own Gemini Olympias, Gloworms, Magicshine clones, nightfighters, and some of my own custom builds. This inexpensive light comes closest to a decent road cut-off beam though, if that is what someone is looking for.
The color temperature I measured at 4700 kelvin compared to 5100 kelvin for the SafeRide. No crappy blue or green light tints here. I don't have my calibrated Minolta colorimeter anymore but just measured the BLF01 with a phone app. I previously measured the SafeRide at an automotive instrument lab where I used to work.

Here are a few more wall shots showing the beam cut-off shapes.


----------



## 4004 (Mar 26, 2017)

StVZO-compliant light for under 20$? Seems like a good deal. Turns out you can do 300lm StVZO on a budget, albeit with cheaper materials. Although with this power, thermals probably not that much of an issue


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Im not seeing a cut off, looks like an elliptical beam thats been limited horizontally. 

Its actually looking exactly the same optic as Ravemen without the additional lens to create a true cut off (StVZO compliant requirement)

Cant go wrong if you need a cheap backup light. Looks decent enough. Thanks for the good review!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

RAKC Ind said:


> Im not seeing a cut off, looks like an elliptical beam thats been limited horizontally.
> 
> Its actually looking exactly the same optic as Ravemen without the additional lens to create a true cut off (StVZO compliant requirement)
> 
> ...


Yea, I don't know if the models which I received measure out to be true Stvzo compliant. Fortunately we don't have to deal with that bull here in the USA. It does have a good beam pattern, a little wider than my Philips SafeRide. It has much better throw than my Gloworm XS fitted with 3 wide angle optics which is a true elliptical pattern.

Something interesting I discovered yesterday. I had the micro-usb plugged in to charge the light and was able to operate all the modes. I measured 240ma at 121 volts a/c with a clamp on meter whether the light was on or off. I don't know if this is an approved way of using the light. I would contact the vendor and ask if it is alright to operate the lamp while externally powered. It certainly would extend the run time to the limit of the extra power banks that you intended to carry on a trip.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> gipsyman said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, I don't know if the models which I received measure out to be true Stvzo compliant. Fortunately we don't have to deal with that bull here in the USA. It does have a good beam pattern, a little wider than my Philips SafeRide. *It has much better throw than my Gloworm XS fitted with 3 wide angle optics which is a true elliptical pattern.*
> ...


----------



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

MRMOLE said:


> > Is this a misprint? I've run my GW XS setup this way before and this doesn't seem possible. Was the XS set on a very low power setting? Looking at the beam pictures I'm confused.
> > Mole
> 
> 
> LOL...Yeah, I was scratching my head over that myself but I don't own a Gloworm XS and if I did I wouldn't of run three flood optics. Hard to believe though that something with a wide 300 lumen beam pattern could out-throw a GW XS which is likely in the 2200 lumen range.


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

*Comparing throw*



mrmole said:


> > is this a misprint? I've run my gw xs setup this way before and this doesn't seem possible. Was the xs set on a very low power setting? Looking at the beam pictures i'm confused.
> > Mole
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

*Shaped beams*



Cat-man-do said:


> MRMOLE said:
> 
> 
> > LOL...Yeah, I was scratching my head over that myself but I don't own a Gloworm XS and if I did I wouldn't of run three flood optics. Hard to believe though that something with a wide 300 lumen beam pattern could out-throw a GW XS which is likely in the 2200 lumen range.
> ...


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> gipsyman said:
> 
> 
> > ;13259405]
> ...


----------



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

Thanks for the clarification gm. What you said about using cut-off beam pattern lights is very true. Too much light in the foreground can ruin night vision. This is why I don't use flood optics when mountain biking. I use the GW X2 on the bars, one intermediate optic and one spot. I let the ITUO XP-3 ( on the helmet ) do the job of illuminating the distance. Unless I'm riding all out I usually just ride with both lamps on medium. 

Oh, and speaking of ITUO, oh how I wish I could somehow get one of those cut-off optics for my Wiz-1. With a dedicated cut-off optic like the Raveman CR-500, the Wiz-1 would likely become my "Go to" road lamp.


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

MRMOLE said:


> > Thanks for the detailed response, glad I asked about this (much clearer now). I get the "too much light directly in front of the bike" problem as I have glare sensitive eyes. Agree that Gloworm XS W/elliptical optics is not the best road setup. XS wide angle may fit the description of "true elliptical" but I believe GW manipulated the elliptical design to make a more efficient off-road wide angle that minimizes the light waste of a symmetrical wide angle optic. Additional beam height compared to width may not make it a good road elliptical but but better fits the job it was designed to do. Makes me wonder if the GW CX elliptical is more road friendly.
> > Mole
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

*Beam patterns*



Cat-man-do said:


> Thanks for the clarification gm. What you said about using cut-off beam pattern lights is very true. Too much light in the foreground can ruin night vision. This is why I don't use flood optics when mountain biking. I use the GW X2 on the bars, one intermediate optic and one spot. I let the ITUO XP-3 ( on the helmet ) do the job of illuminating the distance. Unless I'm riding all out I usually just ride with both lamps on medium.
> 
> Oh, and speaking of ITUO, oh how I wish I could somehow get one of those cut-off optics for my Wiz-1. With a dedicated cut-off optic like the Raveman CR-500, the Wiz-1 would likely become my "Go to" road lamp.


I usually ride on medium too unless riding fast downhill sections. Up here in the mountains we have tall canopy Ponderosa pines with minimal undergrowth so spots work well mtn biking. It is dark forest up here and the light seems to get sucked up because there are only spaced out tree trunks to reflect light off of. There are also bears in my neighborhood and along the back water roads I ride on. Three were spotted in the last month alone. I want to see them and the mountain lions before they see me. During dry years like this year, the beasts come looking for easy meals because their normal food is scarce. Your dogs, cats and food bowls are all easy pickings for them if left unattended. My friend Gerry was trapped in her car for several hours while camping because the keys were in her tent when a hungry bear came tearing through. I live a half a mile from the Fort Apache res. border. i don't carry bear spray while riding because the chances of me crashing and bursting the spray can on myself are too great.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

gipsyman said:


> MRMOLE said:
> 
> 
> > For an elliptical, GW lenses have the best optimized beam I have ridden with in the past 10 years. I haven't tried all Carlco, Cute or other lenses but for an off the shelf light, GW did a great job minimizing light waste whether it is there spots or wides. The only one I didn't like was the stock flood optic. That one just seemed to blur the light.
> ...


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

Thanks MM.

It's too bad the Gloworm CX doesn't have separate lenses. I like how they design their beams.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Well it looks like I'm I'll be getting a Rokkes. My Daughter-in-law saw me looking at it on the computer and being a prime member just ordered it for me as a gift (good girl!). Anxious to compare it to my Ravemen.
Mole


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Nice. Hell I wish my wife was that cool. She's never gotten me a bike part or accessory. In fairness though, If I really want something or need something, I just buy it.

Look forward to what your findings are Mole!


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

MRMOLE said:


> Well it looks like I'm I'll be getting a Rokkes. My Daughter-in-law saw me looking at it on the computer and being a prime member just ordered it for me as a gift (good girl!). Anxious to compare it to my Ravemen.
> Mole


I would like to see it compared directly to a Ravemen also. I just wish someone would design a true wireless bright high beam/ low beam combo street light for 8.4 volt battery packs. I have had to mount 2 handlebar lights forever.


----------



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

gipsyman said:


> I would like to see it compared directly to a Ravemen also. *I just wish someone would design a true wireless bright high beam/ low beam combo street light for 8.4 volt battery packs. I have had to mount 2 handlebar lights forever.*


Yes, I too would love to see something like the Raveman two emitter lamps with a wired or wireless two-button remote. One for low beam and one for high beam. Build the lamp with two Panasonic 3400 mAh batteries and I'd be on that real fast.

Raveman has a chance to make some money if they're smart enough to listen to the people who use their lights.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

It's on the charger now, should get something posted later or tomorrow. If I don't get a chance to get a little ride in before the storms roll in I'll at least run it through some LUX tests vs. the Ravemen.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

I kept waiting on the light to fully charge and finally had to make an either/or choice. Wait till it fully charged to get some lux readings or go for a ride with it which is what I decided to do. I have to admit it's a little different for me riding with a light with this little power (will measure tonight) but for most of the ride it was fine. Did 26 mi. 50/50 dirt and paved on my XXIX Raleigh (32/17 single speed) and other than a couple of the dirt sections where I was relying more on trail familiarity than visibility the light output was adequate. Almost positive light output would limit speed on a road bike but have got to remember I have bad eyes and this is only a $19 light. Cutoff beam worked excellent and while I didn't do any direct comparison between the Rokkes and my Ravemen PR900 the ride performance seemed similar to the Ravemen's cutoff beam only a bit narrower/less foreground light and not quite the smooth beam coverage, comfort at speed seemed the same. Adequate light output, excellent cutoff beam, no overheating with the light rum on high for entire 26 mi., pretty good so far for a $19 light.
Mole


----------



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

MRMOLE said:


> ..Did 26 mi. 50/50 dirt and paved on my XXIX Raleigh (32/17 single speed) and other than a couple of the dirt sections where I was relying more trail familiarity than visibility was the light output not adequate. *Almost positively light output would limit speed on a road bike* but have got to remember I have bad eyes and this is only a $19 light. Cutoff beam worked excellent and while I didn't do any direct comparison between the Rokkes and my Ravemen PR900 ihe ride performance* seemed similar to the Ravemen's cutoff beam only a bit narrower/less foreground light and not quite the smooth beam coverage, comfort at speed seemed the same.* Adequate light output, excellent cutoff beam, no overheating with the light rum on high for entire 26 mi., pretty good so far for a $19 light.
> Mole


Since you mentioned that the Rokkes beam pattern was a bit narrower and not as bright, I'm surprised that you still felt that the "comfort at speed" was about the same. Nice to hear though that the cut-off beam pattern was useful. Since the Rokkes beam pattern is not as wide ( as the Raveman's ) I'd likely have a problem with it. Where I live there is a vast array of paved hiker/biker trails throughout the entire community. Many of these trails are very curvy. Most single emitter lamps suck in this environment but my CR-500 handles it as well as any of my multi-emitter lamps and that is saying a lot. (* bring up Columbia, Md. on OSM and you'll see all the paved trails at my disposal )

When it comes to road lamp cut-off beam patterns I'm of the opinion that they are very useful just so long as you aren't one of those people who are ultra-fit and ride at over 20 mph most of the time. Someone riding at speed is going to need the extra throw of a high beam. Personally I'm very comfortable riding with the Raveman CR-500 ( single emitter lamp ) on high ( with cut-off beam ). The only time I feel I need to kick-in the high beam of my Duo is when I'm on a down-hill and my speed is rising up to over 22mph. A lot though depends on the road. On a dark tree lined road I want to see further than what the CR500 can illuminate if I'm going that fast. Otherwise I'm good with just the CR-500 on high if I'm not going that fast.

I've decided to buy one of these. Not because I want one all that much but after I'm finished reviewing the light I have some local kids in my neighborhood who like to run their bike at night in the parking lot. Since they have no front light I'd have no problem with giving this away when I'm done....Oh, and BTW MRM, a 26 mile ride at night is one long ride! I take it you brought an extra battery along ( or extra lamp )...just in case?


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> QUOTE=Cat
> Since you mentioned that the Rokkes beam pattern was a bit narrower and not as bright, I'm surprised that you still felt that the "comfort at speed" was about the same. Nice to hear though that the cut-off beam pattern was useful. Since the Rokkes beam pattern is not as wide ( as the Raveman's ) I'd likely have a problem with it. Where I live there is a vast array of paved hiker/biker trails throughout the entire community. Many of these trails are very curvy. Most single emitter lamps suck in this environment but my CR-500 handles it as well as any of my multi-emitter lamps and that is saying a lot. (* bring up Columbia, Md. on OSM and you'll see all the paved trails at my disposal )
> 
> When it comes to road lamp cut-off beam patterns I'm of the opinion that they are very useful just so long as you aren't one of those people who are ultra-fit and ride at over 20 mph most of the time. Someone riding at speed is going to need the extra throw of a high beam. Personally I'm very comfortable riding with the Raveman CR-500 ( single emitter lamp ) on high ( with cut-off beam ). The only time I feel I need to kick-in the high beam of my Duo is when I'm on a down-hill and my speed is rising up to over 22mph. A lot though depends on the road. On a dark tree lined road I want to see further than what the CR500 can illuminate if I'm going that fast. Otherwise I'm good with just the CR-500 on high if I'm not going that fast.
> ...


I was surprised at the comfort at speed level too. Just an initial impression but I think the LUX tests may shed some light on this. My guess is the Ravemen will return better bounce test numbers but end up about the same on the center beam test.

26 mi., I wouldn't be surprised if this light wouldn't go twice that far on a charge. Of course I wouldn't want to be surprised either so always carry a spare. I don't have to be back to work till Monday so I just might get the fan out for a run-time test. Rokkes claims 8 hrs. run-time @ 50% power. Definitely looking forward to hearing what you think of the light. It's not the quality package of the Ravemen and for anyone using the light all the time I would recommend paying the extra money since construction material quality of this light is far less than the Ravemen and of course the Ravemen's wonderful wide beam. 
Mole


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

Not a cut-off beam, just a wide angle. Can't tell from the images if it's an improvement, but can tell it's not THIS


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Rokkes - High setting








Ravemen PR900 (cutoff beam only - high setting)








lux @ 2 meters...................bounce test........center-beam

Rokkes (high)..........................30.5...................1040

Ravemen PR900 
(cutoff emitter only - high)........46.4.....................910

Slight center-beam lux advantage by the Rokkes is why both lights have similar comfortable cruising speeds. Ravemen still has a much wider/smoother/nicer overall beam but it should considering the price difference.

Only real drawback I've found with the Rokkes is limited mounting options. Mount won't fit the fat part of a 31.8 bar so anything above 25.4 will require mounting nearer the hand controls which may not allow for correct horizontal mounting of the light.
Mole


----------



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

MRMOLE said:


> Rokkes - High setting
> View attachment 1150069
> 
> 
> ...


I think it's clear from these photos that the Raveman is the more useful beam pattern. The Raveman illuminates with just the perfect about of light near the bike and has an over-all wider / more even beam pattern. Quite possible that the Rokkes might be able to out throw the Raveman as it does look quite bright in the center area.

I couldn't help but notice that the Rokkes looks quite big on the bars ( and that compared to the duel emitter Raveman ).

Question; Does the front lens on the Rokkes look as though it can be removed?


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> Cat
> I think it's clear from these photos that the Raveman is the more useful beam pattern. The Raveman illuminates with just the perfect about of light near the bike and has an over-all wider / more even beam pattern. Quite possible that the Rokkes might be able to out throw the Raveman as it does look quite bright in the center area.
> 
> I couldn't help but notice that the Rokkes looks quite big on the bars ( and that compared to the duel emitter Raveman ).
> ...


I've not tried to take the light apart but considering the beam is horizontally aligned it wouldn't surprise me if the lens/optic isn't glued in. Rokkes size is similar to the Ravemen, mostly just a little longer. Some of that length is the mount which cradles the back of the light kind of like a cupholder (I'll post a shot of this later).

Definitely agree on the superiority of the Ravemens beam, very nice. Rokkes would suffer even more in comparison with your CR500 since it makes a bit more power than the cutoff portion of the PR900. None the less I think Rokkes did a good job with efficient use of it's 250 lumens (my estimate). Any less throw would limit cruising speed too much IMO and as is the shape/throw/brightness of the Rokkes beam works adequately for bike paths/side streets which is where this light belongs. Long runtimes are probably the only standout performance feature of the Rokkes.
Mole

***A couple of minutes over 4 hrs. on a full charge - not bad!***


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

*Lighting requirements*



MRMOLE said:


> I've not tried to take the light apart but considering the beam is horizontally aligned it wouldn't surprise me if the lens/optic isn't glued in. Rokkes size is similar to the Ravemen, mostly just a little longer. Some of that length is the mount which cradles the back of the light kind of like a cupholder (I'll post a shot of this later).
> 
> Definitely agree on the superiority of the Ravemens beam, very nice. Rokkes would suffer even more in comparison with your CR500 since it makes a bit more power than the cutoff portion of the PR900. None the less I think Rokkes did a good job with efficient use of it's 250 lumens (my estimate). Any less throw would limit cruising speed too much IMO and as is the shape/throw/brightness of the Rokkes beam works adequately for bike paths/side streets which is where this light belongs. Long runtimes are probably the only standout performance feature of the Rokkes.
> Mole
> ...


Good subjective comparison between the Rokkes and the Ravemen PR900 Mr. M.
Thanks for the lux numbers too.

The lens is removable and not glued. It has a small locating hole that aligns it. The entire driver, led/aluminum pill, and battery wiring lifts right out as a module.

The beam pattern is definitely not as smooth or as wide as the Ravemen. Personally for me riding at 18-20 mph average, I like less light up close than the Ravemen beam or the Rokkes because I am looking 50-150 feet out and my particular irises close down with too much nearfield light. Everyone's average night vision is different though. My road riding is 95% straight roads (no mups or paths) so I prioritize throw over beam width. I like a beam spread of 25 feet at 50 foot distance. Cat-man-do, I can see where a wider, brighter, close beam is ideal for curvy paths and roads.

Previously Cat-man-do posted about the PR500: "Interestingly, when riding on really dark roads I found I really didn't need to run the lamp on full power all the time."

Look at how all the dyno light riders have had success riding for years with what we consider underpowered lights. I haven't personally ridden with any dyno guys but I don't think they have magical vision, just more focused beam patterns that are useful for them.

Really dark roads is where I mostly ride so I need less light except when cars are approaching. I program all my road lights to be just a little brighter than a streetlight for the low beam. That way my night vision remains relatively unchanged from lighted back streets to really dark roads.

So it looks like mup and path riders need a pretty wide bright beam that the Rokkes doesn't have. Good to know about everyones different lighting requirements so we all can make proper suggestions to newbies.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

gipsyman said:


> ......Look at how all the dyno light riders have had success riding for years with what we consider underpowered lights. I haven't personally ridden with any dyno guys but I don't think they have magical vision, just more focused beam patterns that are useful for them.


We've gotten spoiled with so much easily (cheaply) attained light. When I did 24 hr races (a long time ago!) I only had a single NR halogen bar light. Maybe 250 lumen and a kind of wide beam. Best night laps were no more than 6 minutes slower than the best day lap on about a 15 mile course. Part of that was fatigue, part was carrying the heavy Ni-Cad battery pack, and only in the fastest portions of a lap did I feel like I was slowing some because of not being able to see well enough. You get used to what you have and do your best with it.


----------



## juhake (Oct 26, 2007)

I did find this lamp (from another brand) with free worldwide shipping

https://www.banggood.com/INBIKE-CX5...e-Bicycle-Light-p-1169746.html?rmmds=category

What would the benefits be over this one?

https://www.banggood.com/INBIKE-IN5...e-Bicycle-Light-p-1174455.html?rmmds=category


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Theres way too many cheap lights out there, no one is going to be able to compare a lot of those. Best that can be done is compare the numbers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Specifications are almost identical, maybe Banggood has a customer service contact that could help? Beam shots look slightly different, which do you prefer? One interesting thing I did notice was the second lights (IN51) description says you can charge the light from a power bank and run it at the same time.
Mole


----------



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

gipsyman said:


> ....Look at how all the dyno light riders have had success riding for years with what we consider underpowered lights. I haven't personally ridden with any dyno guys but I don't think they have magical vision, just more focused beam patterns that are useful for them...


I have to admit, I too used to think that the amount of light supplied by a dynamo lamp wasn't enough to ride. Not that I was wrong from the beginning but only because dynamo lights ( just like all bike lights ) have evolved over the years and have become better.

I now think that I could very well be happy with a dynamo light ( for a road setup ) but only because the cut-off beam patterns are now better and the outputs are brighter due to brighter LED's. Even so I still feel I would need something with longer throw for when I'm going downhill. Since I always use a helmet torch I could always use the torch for extra reach if needed. Then again, I love the Gemini Duo with it's nice remote on the bars too much to give it up. The Duo lights up the road like a cars high beam. With the Duo on the bars I really don't need the helmet torch.

Of course I really have no need for a Dynamo set-up at the moment. My battery lamps give me all the run-time I need and they are simple to re-charge and don't require a special hub/wheel. Now if I was the kind of person who rode in really cold weather and/or commuted long distances than perhaps I would lean more towards a dynamo. I hate cold weather and most of my road excursions at night are no more than 20-25 miles.

Today the Amazon man delivered the *Rokkes* to my door. Looks pretty bright shining it around inside my home. I'll be able to tell more about it once it gets dark and I take it on a ride. For the hell of it I also bought a little Blitzu bar and rear lamp combo. Since it was just $17 for the combo I wanted to see what $17 buys nowadays. Shining the Blitzu around in my home it looks to be maybe 150-200 lumen. Beam tint is very cool, almost bluish. Has a very nice flash mode which looks bright enough for daytime use. Not sure what run time it'll have but I'll test it tonight to see. ( edit; interesting side note, the Blitzu can run and charge at the same time. )


----------



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

*CAt Review: Rokkes bar lamp*

I took the Rokkes for a ride tonight. My initial impressions are almost what I expected. I'm going to keep this simple because, hey...it's a simple lamp.

MRM was spot on with his reviews. I pretty much got the same results as him but I will add some comments of my own.

*Throw:* The lamp seems to have about the same amount of throw as the Raveman CR-500.

*Brightness :* Very close to the CR-500

*Beam Pattern and beam Tint:* Very nice white beam tint. Wider than a typical conical beam pattern but half the width of the CR500. Still, for road use this lamp will illuminate almost a whole lane. Compared to the Raveman CR-500 the 500 is twice as wide as the Rokkes. Rokkes does provide a usable cut-off beam pattern but if you aim it for maximum throw there is a 5-6ft area in front of the bike that doesn't have much light. Add to that that the light closest to the bike is filled with circular *artifacts. ( *no distortion or artifacts in the main beam pattern ) The CR-500 on the other hand has a beautiful close in fill and an entirely smooth and even beam pattern. While the close in fill is not so good with the Rokkes it doesn't take long to get used to it. I used the Rokkes on a number of a very dark roads and really found it quite usable, even at speeds of up to 20mph. On the other hand I tried it on the winding paved paths in my neighborhood and found it lacking due to it's much narrower beam pattern. Still it works and long as you are a little more careful going around dark turns you won't run anyone over. For someone looking for a cheap light and something that won't leave you in the dark this lamp may be what you want. Just keep in mind that it's cheap Chinese so the quality is going to be questionable. Who knows how it'll hold up to a hard rain ~~~

Very little to say on my Blitzu lamp. Seems they sent me one without a part needed in order to work with the bar mount. I contacted the seller and they are sending a replacement. ( Very fast response ) I did try it out on the paved trails. Typical conical beam pattern. It works but the beam tint is not to my liking and not as bright as I would like. Still, should make for a nice set-up for the kids ( if you have them ) On the other hand the little rear lamp is quite nice and perhaps about 40 lumen on high.



> ( Note ; Rokkes and Blitzu lamps bought with my own money )


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> Cat
> For someone looking for a cheap light and something that won't leave you in the dark this lamp may be what you want. Just keep in mind that it's cheap Chinese so the quality is going to be questionable. Who knows how it'll hold up to a hard rain ~~~


Thanks for bringing this up as I think it is a very important point to consider. For $20 I think Rokkes (or whoever actually makes this light) did a good job with making the beam as useable as possible with the amount of power produced. Moderate power (I estimate 250 lumens from my lux readings) plus a good battery gives this light an excellent 4 hour run time on high. While the beam is definitely not as nice as the Ravemen's it's still much better than what you usually get with a cheap Chinese light in this price range. But this light is still cheap Chinese and you can tell by looking at it it's several rungs down from the Ravemens quality. While we compared the Rokkes to far more expensive PR900/$75 (only the cutoff beam emitter was used for comparison) and CR500/$50 probably the closest Ravemen light in performance would the CR300 @ $35. If just used every once in a while or as an emergency light the Rokkes performs adequately and with the good quality battery provided should give a good service life. If used frequently the cheaper quality components (USB port is one of my major concerns) are more likely to be troublesome. Mount clamp size of the Rokkes will only fit a bar size of 25.4 next to the stem where the Ravemen will at least fit a 31.8 bar. Rokkes definitely spanks the smaller Ravemen lights in runtime though and I believe only the PR900 has more range if this is a consideration for you. Some things to consider if looking for an inexpensive cutoff beam light.
Mole

Rokkes/Ravemen PR900


----------



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

I just saw these on Gearbest. Maybe we should rename this thread "The cheap cut-off beam lamp thread"..lol. Anyway, I thought this one interesting because it looks like it's using a reflective mirror set-up. Not very bright or wide but if the 180 lumen claim in the ad is correct it might work for someone looking to go super cheap.


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

Cat-man-do said:


> I just saw these on Gearbest. Maybe we should rename this thread "The cheap cut-off beam lamp thread"..lol. Anyway, I thought this one interesting because it looks like it's using a reflective mirror set-up. Not very bright or wide but if the 180 lumen claim in the ad is correct it might work for someone looking to go super cheap.


I think we should limit this thread to the amount of usable light that hits the road. Unfortunately that requires actually purchasing the light and comparing to something like the Ravemen or Philips or B&M cut-off beam lights. The Rokkes is the lower limit so far that I could recommend for night riding above 15 mph speeds. And Cat, as you and Mr. Mole found out, going above 20 mph with the Rokkes you still need a brighter long distance light for sufficient reaction time to avoid obstacles.

I just searched amazon under: "sports and outdoors" for stvzo lights and found a lot of cheap looking cut-off beam lights. Many are low amp hour integrated lithium-polymer battery micro lights that don't have any recommendations. The mounting systems also seem poor and with inflated specs for performance. The prices are all over the place too.

As with finding gold at the bottom of the riverbed, it takes a lot of searching to find anything of real value.

Advertisements for the Ravemen lights are alway present when looking at these lights product pages. Who pays for the Ravemen advertisements? The vendor?


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

Vancbiker said:


> We've gotten spoiled with so much easily (cheaply) attained light. When I did 24 hr races (a long time ago!) I only had a single NR halogen bar light. Maybe 250 lumen and a kind of wide beam. Best night laps were no more than 6 minutes slower than the best day lap on about a 15 mile course. Part of that was fatigue, part was carrying the heavy Ni-Cad battery pack, and only in the fastest portions of a lap did I feel like I was slowing some because of not being able to see well enough. You get used to what you have and do your best with it.


Speaking of riding with limited lighting. Last night at 1 a.m. I rode about 12 road miles up here in the mountains without any front light, just by the light of the full moon. I guess my night vision is still pretty darn good. I had to turn on my light when I approached a herd of elk about 25 feet away as they were scattering in all directions. But I was able to get real close approaching them without a light on. Pretty cool riding with natural light.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

On amazon its the "sellers" that pay for that. Seems there is a seller out of China that has started selling them on Amazon again. Problem with that is they aren't covered by us for warranty and support. We have listings up too but don't do the "sponsored" listings. 

Btw that sounds awesome being able to get a moon light ride in! Those are fun on the occasion everything lines up to do it. Been probably 2 years since i went for a cruise just by moon light.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



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

RAKC Ind said:


> ...Btw that sounds awesome being able to get a moon light ride in! Those are fun on the occasion everything lines up to do it. Been probably 2 years since i went for a cruise just by moon light.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Yep, moonlight road rides can be awesome depending on where you are riding. Many years ago I was on a group road ride with my sister and her boyfriend. Midway into the ride we stopped to eat and then partied a little at one of the local bars. These were the days before LED front head lights. I owned a couple sets of halogens back then but didn't plan on being out after dark so I had no headlights with me. Anyway, little sis tells me that she didn't feel she could ride the 10 miles back to the car. So I took the only bike we had that had a rear led lamp ( 3 little Leds ) and took off to get the car. Turned out it was a crystal clear full moon that night. The road I was on was paved with baby-butt smooth asphalt with a nice wide shoulder and most of it flat. It also paralleled inlets of the Chesapeake bay. That was one sweet ride I'll never forget. Having three or four beers in me likely made it more interesting too.

On the other hand not a good idea to ride forest single track without some light source, even if you have the light of a full moon. Last time I did that I almost ran into a man and woman having a little midnight stroll. If the woman hadn't of made some noise when I was coming down a hill and around a corner I likely would of run her down. Thankfully I heard a voice and came to a stop. When I turned my light on they were standing right in front of me. Lesson learned.


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

RAKC Ind said:


> On amazon its the "sellers" that pay for that. Seems there is a seller out of China that has started selling them on Amazon again. Problem with that is they aren't covered by us for warranty and support. We have listings up too but don't do the "sponsored" listings.
> 
> Btw that sounds awesome being able to get a moon light ride in! Those are fun on the occasion everything lines up to do it. Been probably 2 years since i went for a cruise just by moon light.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Thanks for the selling info. I wouldn't order anything expensive or that might need a warranty unless it was from a US distributor like you or ActionLED.

Wednesday night I should be able to get another moon light ride in before the rains and darkness return up here. I wouldn't want to mtb ride without a light though. I ran over a racoon in Michigan one night that was too slow to get off a twisty down hill trail. He wasn't happy and neither was I.


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

Cat-man-do said:


> Yep, moonlight road rides can be awesome depending on where you are riding. Many years ago I was on a group ride with my sister and her boyfriend. Midway into the ride we stopped to eat and then partied a little at one of the local bars. These were the days before LED front head lights. I owned a couple sets of halogens back then but didn't plan on being out after dark. Anyway, little sis tells me that she didn't feel she could ride the 10 miles back to the car. So I took the only bike we had that had a rear led lamp ( 3 little Leds ) and took off to get the car. Turned out it was a crystal clear full moon that night. The road I was on was paved with baby-butt smooth asphalt with a nice wide shoulder. It also paralleled inlets of the Chesapeake bay. That was one sweet ride I'll never forget. Having three or four beers in me likely made it more interesting too.
> 
> On the other hand not a good idea to ride forest single track in the dark, even if you have the light of a full moon. Last time I did that I almost ran into a man and woman having a little midnight stroll. If the woman hadn't of made some noise when I was coming down a hill and around a corner I likely would of run her down. Thankfully I heard a voice and came to a stop. When I turned my light on they were standing right in front of me. Lesson learned.


I rarely even walk forest trails without some light. Too many surprises for me.
Walking desert trails on winter nights in AZ is fun and some parks even have guided climbs.


----------



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

Posted deleted; reposted to new Chinese lamp thread.


----------



## Outbound (Aug 23, 2017)

FYI, this lamp is made by Sate-Lite, they do make some really good quality stuff. The LF-03A is what I have been using while I've been developing my own light.

They had reached out to me letting me know they have come up with a 600 lumen version of this light. Thermal paths could be improved and the electrical was pretty basic. However they did ship with Samsung battery packs, and their optical is far better than I've seen from other suppliers. Can tell they are actually paying someone to develop some good optics for them.









The lux is incorrect for sure, I measured about 10-15lux at 10m. Lumen level seemed spot on however.


----------



## gipsyman (Nov 18, 2014)

Outbound said:


> FYI, this lamp is made by Sate-Lite, they do make some really good quality stuff. The LF-03A is what I have been using while I've been developing my own light.
> 
> They had reached out to me letting me know they have come up with a 600 lumen version of this light. Thermal paths could be improved and the electrical was pretty basic. However they did ship with Samsung battery packs, and their optical is far better than I've seen from other suppliers. Can tell they are actually paying someone to develop some good optics for them.
> 
> ...


When I measured the lux I used a calibrated Extech 403125 LightMeter. My Rokkes example was 21 lux in the brightest part of the beam. I don't have any way to measure lumens though.

They definitely need to improve their thermal path if they are boosting the output to 600 lumens.

I agree that someone is actually designing some decent cut-off optics for a relatively inexpensive price.


----------



## Outbound (Aug 23, 2017)

gipsyman said:


> When I measured the lux I used a calibrated Extech 403125 LightMeter. My Rokkes example was 21 lux in the brightest part of the beam. I don't have any way to measure lumens though.
> 
> They definitely need to improve their thermal path if they are boosting the output to 600 lumens.
> 
> I agree that someone is actually designing some decent cut-off optics for a relatively inexpensive price.


That lux reading does sound a bit more right. Was going off the top of my head. I took this particular one apart months ago, seems I misplaced half the parts!


----------



## juhake (Oct 26, 2007)

Has anyone found Sate-Lite LR-01

https://satelitebikelight.en.alibab...pm=a2700.8304367.prsea43447.62.73152c54uixR3P

any cheaper than $12,83
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Lum..._10313_10314_10078_10079_10073,searchweb20160

?


----------



## Outbound (Aug 23, 2017)

juhake said:


> Has anyone found Sate-Lite LR-01
> 
> https://satelitebikelight.en.alibab...pm=a2700.8304367.prsea43447.62.73152c54uixR3P
> 
> ...


The quoted me $4.50 for 500 MOQ of them. So $12 with free shipping is probably just about as cheap as you'll get honestly.


----------



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

MRMOLE said:


> Thanks for bringing this up as I think it is a very important point to consider. For $20 I think Rokkes (or whoever actually makes this light) did a good job with making the beam as useable as possible with the amount of power produced. Moderate power (I estimate 250 lumens from my lux readings) plus a good battery gives this light an excellent 4 hour run time on high. While the beam is definitely not as nice as the Ravemen's it's still much better than what you usually get with a cheap Chinese light in this price range...


Just wanted to touch base on this one more time. After purchasing the Toptrek light and using that a couple times I'm amazed that I still like and prefer the Rokkes over the Toptrek. The Rokkes just has a nicer beam tint and even though not too much close in light It still makes a damn nice bike light for something so cheap. The Rokkes is perfect for the person who only rides at night a couple times a year and just wants something to see with so they don't hit anything.

Now with all this said....:ihih:....I just saw this just the other night. This looks similar to the Rokkes but the ( large ) optic looks more like the Raveman's. [email protected] 600 lumen it's tempting but I just wasted money on the Toptrek so I can't bring myself to buy one.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

I have to say I've been using the Rokkes a lot more than I thought I would. Many of my usual routes involve a combo of road, canal banks, and trials so I usually want to run a mountain style light to handle the trail situations. This work OK on the road with the light at a low enough level but on the dark canal banks it takes a surprisingly little amount of light to make on coming pedestrian traffic uncomfortable. I can cover the top of the beam with my hand (when safe to do so) which I know is appreciated by the number of "Thank you's" I get but certain lights like my BT70 & C&B Seen (round multi-emitter) my organic hood is pretty useless. So what I've been doing is running the Rkkes (high) and whatever regular light I have (very low setting) and just cover the mtn. light totally when I approach someone. The Rokkes is not quite enough for me on its own when in a hurry so nice to have the extra throw of the mtn. light and when shielding on coming pedestrians from its glare the Rokkes protects me from total darkness as I pass. This light doesn't get hot even on high so works great as a flashlight around the house too.
Mole


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Tried this new setup tonight. I got one of these lights a while back and have been happy with it as a emergency light and a supplement to a bar mounted mountain light. Run by itself it had just enough light to be safe at lower speeds but not enough for me to be comfortable. I noticed a few days ago that the price had been lowered to only $6.19 so thought I'd try running 2 as a cheap (reproducible for $12.38) cutoff bar light setup. Doubling the output easily put it at a very comfortable light level for my normal speeds and through recent testing I found that it will maintain that light level till just the last few minutes of it's 4 hour runtime. After having my first one for a few months I've had no problems but curious if any of you other owners of this Rokkes light have had any problems? If it ends up being reasonably reliable I can't think of anything that comes anywhere close to this price and equals it's 500 lumen output (for both lights) for approx. 4 hrs. performance!
Mole


----------



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

Well...( trying not to laugh )...it works and it's inexpensive. For the commuter who just so happens to be dirt poor this could work. Of course if it were possible to buy one of those lenses that are on the Raveman's lamps ( wide cut-off ) and use it on a typical cheap Convoy torch, you could carry as many batteries as needed, spend even less and have a more versatile ( and brighter ) lamp. I'm still wondering why the Chinese haven't copied the Raveman lens yet. I guess they've been too busy stealing our stealth designs on our new F-35's to bother with the cheap stuff.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> Well...( trying not to laugh )...it works and it's inexpensive. For the commuter who just so happens to be dirt poor this could work. Of course if it were possible to buy one of those lenses that are on the Raveman's lamps ( wide cut-off ) and use it on a typical cheap Convoy torch, you could carry as many batteries as needed, spend even less and have a more versatile ( and brighter ) lamp. I'm still wondering why the Chinese haven't copied the Raveman lens yet. I guess they've been too busy stealing our stealth designs on our new F-35's to bother with the cheap stuff.


Go ahead and laugh if you want. Like you said "it works and it's inexpensive" which is what I was going for here. Biggest drawback I see to this setup is the amount of bar space it takes up. Over 500 very usable lumens of consistent output for 4 hrs. with no overheating for less than $13 sounds like a pretty good deal for someone looking for a good commuter/path front light setup that's not interested in spending any more money than they have to.
Mole


----------



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

MRMOLE said:


> Go ahead and laugh if you want. Like you said "it works and it's inexpensive" which is what I was going for here. Biggest drawback I see to this setup is the amount of bar space it takes up. Over 500 very usable lumens of consistent output for 4 hrs. with no overheating for less than $13 sounds like a pretty good deal for someone looking for a good commuter/path front light setup that's not interested in spending any more money than they have to.
> Mole


:lol:  As you know I have one of these too. Too bad they didn't decide to make it just a bit brighter and include a 400 lumen setting. Can't beat the price though. You ever use the "blue light " setting? I've used mine a couple times when I wanted to project more of a possible law-enforcement presence while riding the local paved trails really late at night. I figure it just might give someone pause if they have any intentions of messing with me. Wish the blue would blink, that would be even better.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> :lol:  As you know I have one of these too. Too bad they didn't decide to make it just a bit brighter and include a 400 lumen setting. Can't beat the price though. You ever use the "blue light " setting? I've used mine a couple times when I wanted to project more of a possible law-enforcement presence while riding the local paved trails really late at night. I figure it just might give someone pause if they have any intentions of messing with me. Wish the blue would blink, that would be even better.


Interesting usage of the blue light mode. I've not used the blue mode but may have to try it this summer. The canal systems I frequently ride have a lot of narrow underpass tunnels that attracts some of the homeless population of the area. I'd prefer I didn't have to share usage of the tunnels but understand they sometimes have no other place to go for shelter. Usually not a problem till their population gets over about 5 people in a 8' wide tunnel limiting the clear path area through. Blue light might make those situations a little more comfortable (flashing would me nicer).

Having another higher powered preset (400 lumens) would probably minimize the need for two of these lights (which would be good) but could also have a negative affect on some of the nicer characteristics of this light compared to other single cell self-contained lights. Would probably cut the runtime in half (would still be longer than most), may affect output stability over the entire runtime and might also cause thermal problems for the mostly plastic lighthead. One thing I need to do is a runtime test on the new much cheaper light to make sure they didn't downgrade the nice Samsung battery the original came with.
Mole


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

MRMOLE said:


> One thing I need to do is a runtime test on the new much cheaper light to make sure they didn't downgrade the nice Samsung battery the original came with.
> Mole


Shut the new light off @ 4 hrs. in high mode. Appears to still have the Samsung battery or something with an equivalent capacity. Here's a better picture.









Adjustable beam width. Horizontally adjustable mounts allows for widening the beam by aiming out a bit from each other.








Mole


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> :lol:  As you know I have one of these too. Too bad they didn't decide to make it just a bit brighter and include a 400 lumen setting. Can't beat the price though. You ever use the "blue light " setting? I've used mine a couple times when I wanted to project more of a possible law-enforcement presence while riding the local paved trails really late at night. I figure it just might give someone pause if they have any intentions of messing with me. Wish the blue would blink, that would be even better.


I got a chance to try out your wish for a 400 lumen setting (as close as I could get anyway). Took the Rokkes Dually setup on a 51 mi. canal ride using one light set on high and the other on the low setting. Was enough to give it a comfortable amount of light for the 15-16 mph speeds I was cruising at. I still like both on high better but not necessary and would extend the runtime out to 6+ hrs. if you flip mode settings half way through the ride. Thought I might get a chance to use the blue mode but no sign of the usual tunnel people (homeless), I guess the authorities must have relocated them but will only be temporary as there's always new ones. Also took a bike with flat 31.6mm bars so lights had to be mounted a little more outboard but worked fine. Sadly I was informed these lights are out of stock with a notation "not sure when or if they will be available again".
Mole


----------

