# Lights Shootout this year - preview pics and videos



## XC Dawg (Oct 20, 2005)

EDIT: It's here!!!!!


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

I saw a preview somewher on mtbr


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

It's coming. Here's the studio shots and select beam shots.

I tuned down my camera setting from a 6 second exposure to 4 second. This is actually more realistic. And it allows us to see more nuances in my backyard shots as some of these lights approach 2000 lumens.

fc

photos:
1) Jet Lites A51
2) Baja Stryker Pro
3) Light and Motion Vis360
4) Lupine Tesla Beam
5) Light and Motion Vis360 Beam
6) Lupine Piko beam
7) Lupine Betty I beam (2009 model)
8) Baja Stryker Pro beam
9) Exposure Sixpack w/ 1800 lumens


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

Nice! Shoot-out time twice a year 
I hope you are going to include the Betty with the other (wider) lens, because it really makes it a different light... this spot one is just useless.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

radirpok said:


> Nice! Shoot-out time twice a year
> I hope you are going to include the Betty with the other (wider) lens, because it really makes it a different light... this spot one is just useless.


Yes, I have the Betty II with 22 degree lens. It is just awesome. They moved the remote switch into the head unit as well.

Fc


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

francois said:


> Yes, I have the Betty II with 22 degree lens. It is just awesome. They moved the remote switch into the head unit as well.
> 
> Fc


Can't wait much longer to see this bad boy


----------



## XC Dawg (Oct 20, 2005)

Thanks Francois for all your hardwork "playing" with all these cool toys and posting detailed reviews


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

The first video is up. Lupine Piko! 1080p HD!!!! 






Some comparison data in the mtbr light meter lab measured last night
Magicshine MJ-808 - 37 lux (claimed 900 lumens) 
Jet A51 - 40 lux (claimed 700 lumens)
Lupine Piko - 44 lux (claimed 550 lumens)


----------



## XC Dawg (Oct 20, 2005)

wow!!!! that's a lot of freaking light for a small package....the helmet mounted battery is a HUGE plus for me as well, I cannot stand heavy battery packs in my jersey pockets! 

So you really rode with that light alone? awesome


----------



## wantriot (Apr 16, 2007)

Francois - Thank you for all of your work - stoked to see more reviews! Will there be any Light & Motion lights?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

wantriot said:


> Francois - Thank you for all of your work - stoked to see more reviews! Will there be any Light & Motion lights?


Yes! Seca 1400, Vis360, Vis180.

The 1400 is spectacular, fyi.

fc


----------



## ThinkBike (Jun 16, 2010)

Francois, you mentioned in your video that the Piko was 41 lux, yet in the comparison list above you listed it as 44 lux. Which is it?


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

Nice review My Piko should be here later today. Can't wait to try it out


----------



## luminous (Sep 21, 2009)

Interesting thread. I'm especially interested in the camera settings for beam shots.

I note that in an earlier post, exposure is now 4 sec, correct ?.

What settings are you using for Ap and ISO ?.

Thanks.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

luminous said:


> Interesting thread. I'm especially interested in the camera settings for beam shots.
> 
> I note that in an earlier post, exposure is now 4 sec, correct ?.
> 
> ...


Here it is. Only the exposure time changed from previous years.

Camera - Canon G9
Setting - full manual
ISO - 100
Exposure - 4 seconds
Aperture - F4.0
Focus - Manual
White Balance - Daylight
Setup: Tripod with all shots on a timer to avoid shake when depressing the button


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

I tried a new location yesterday. This trail is much longer range than my backyard. These distances are very far and I will get some measurements later.

Dinotte 800l









Lupine Tesla









Lupine Betty I (2009)









Lupine Betty II (with 22 degree beam)









Lupine Betty II









Which one works better? The one with the trees or the last one with the white fence?

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Lupine Betty II 7 - with 22 degree beam


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

ThinkBike said:


> Francois, you mentioned in your video that the Piko was 41 lux, yet in the comparison list above you listed it as 44 lux. Which is it?


Good catch. It is 44 lux. I topped off all the batteries and remeasured everything 2 days ago.

fc


----------



## Jim311 (Feb 7, 2006)

I like the beam shot with the trees rather than the fence because it gives you a better idea of the spill when you can see the taller trees, FWIW.


----------



## savagemann (Jan 14, 2008)

Agreed Jim.


----------



## deejayen (Sep 16, 2008)

Thanks for all the time and effort you put into these.

I'm just desperate to know how 'awesome' (Betty) compares with 'spectacular' (Seca 1400)...!


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

deejayen said:


> Thanks for all the time and effort you put into these.
> 
> I'm just desperate to know how 'awesome' (Betty) compares with 'spectacular' (Seca 1400)...!


Here's the Seca 900










and here's the Seca 1400









It has a yellower tint to it now. The throw is not as far as the betty but the spread down to the trail is spectacular. Also, by design, the Seca doesn't put as much beam up high on the canopy.

It's bigger and heavier than the Betty but the price is right. I still hate the long cord. They put a bigger, higher friction rubber on the mount to prevent it from slipping and pointing down on rocky descents.

If I had to pay for lights  I might have to pick this one.

fc


----------



## deejayen (Sep 16, 2008)

Oh, that does look quite good…!

I like the slightly warmer colour temperature. Would it be a good light for fast road/lane use? I’m just wondering if you’d have to point it down quite a bit in order to avoid dazzling oncoming traffic, and as a result lose the ability to see far down the road.

My short list is now the Betty, Dinotte 800+ Long Throw, Lumicycle LED3 or 4, and this Seca, which might actually be in front.

Thanks very much for posting that, Francois.


----------



## luminous (Sep 21, 2009)

Francios.

Another thank you here from me too, for the camera settings.

I'll use those settings now on my beamshots for a fair comparison.

I have to say, I did think that 6 seconds for XP-Gs was too long, I was getting burn in the centre of the beamshots.
 

Many thanks.
:thumbsup:


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

deejayen said:


> Oh, that does look quite good&#8230;!
> 
> I like the slightly warmer colour temperature. Would it be a good light for fast road/lane use? I'm just wondering if you'd have to point it down quite a bit in order to avoid dazzling oncoming traffic, and as a result lose the ability to see far down the road...


You know, that's a very good question. Now that I think about it, the Seca lights should be good for road use too because they have less chance of hitting auto drivers in the eyes. Because the top of the beam pattern is chopped off, it has a lower beam. Most beams are circular and I'm concerned the top of the beams will catch drivers' eyes. And when these approach 2000 lumens, that can be real issue.

The seca pattern is something like this, with a little more light spread at the bottom.










fc


----------



## luminous (Sep 21, 2009)

With regard to car drivers. I have found that my lights cause drivers to stop and take more time before deciding to pull out of an junction.

One rider, who owns a 601, reports that he feels alot safer now, on his commute through London, using a powerful light.
Obviously he has it tipped slightly forward (easily done with the adjustable bar clamp), but the top of the beam still reaches a fair way up the road. This means that hes not dazzling drivers, but they certainly cant miss him.

He has suffered in the past with drivers passing him, then wanting to imediately turn left, right in front of him.
:eekster: 

Now, if he suspects a driver is going to do this, he switches his 601 to hi, something in excess of 1700 lumens, and lights up the whole car. That gets the drivers attention  

When I've used my lights on the road, cars certainly pay you a bit more respect. Not sure why this is, but its a welcome bonus to using hi power lights.


----------



## lalittle (Sep 3, 2005)

francois said:


> Here's the Seca 900
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a little hard to tell how much brighter the 1400 is out to the sides given that it looks like the 1400 is centered more to the right. The trees on the right look a bit brighter on the 1400, but the trees to the left look brighter on the 900. The bright spot on the 1400 looks a lot brighter, but again, it's hard to tell if this might be due to the aiming of the light since it looks like it's centered more on the trees down the trail.

Can you share any observations on this? I would think that the 1400 would be substantially brighter than the 900 -- mostly notably that it would put significantly more light to the sides based on what I've read -- but those pictures don't really indicate this clearly.

What were your experiences with the light out to the sides, and to the area closer to the front of the bike? I'm trying to determine if it's worth upgrading a 900 to a 1400, and the light to the sides and closer to the bike were areas that I thought the 900 could use improvement.

Thanks,

Larry


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

lalittle said:


> It's a little hard to tell how much brighter the 1400 is out to the sides given that it looks like the 1400 is centered more to the right. The trees on the right look a bit brighter on the 1400, but the trees to the left look brighter on the 900. The bright spot on the 1400 looks a lot brighter, but again, it's hard to tell if this might be due to the aiming of the light since it looks like it's centered more on the trees down the trail.
> 
> Can you share any observations on this? I would think that the 1400 would be substantially brighter than the 900 -- mostly notably that it would put significantly more light to the sides based on what I've read -- but those pictures don't really indicate this clearly.
> 
> ...


The 1400 is much brighter. The periphery is brighter but the big difference is how far it throws. Note than on the 900, the three trees in the center are hardly visible. On the 1400, they are there in detail!

One thing to note is the 1400 should not be more 'yellow' than the 900. On my backyard shots, the 1400 is at least as white as the 900. So there must be an error in my white balance (which should be fixed in 'daylight' mode). I'm currently checking into this.

The 1400 is really cool. It is the true execution of the Seca design. Imagine that this is the same light as the Seca 400 with all the theory about beam pattern utilization. On the 400, it was not a big deal. But on the 1400, it really comes to life. You will see that when compared to the other 1500+ lumen lights.

Those trees in the background are really far. I will post some photos with a cyclist to give you scale.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Here's a photo of the long range trail with a cyclist on the center of the trail right where the big trees are.










fc


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

Francois,
I'd like to see you try to get Eric from Nightlightning to send you one of his IBlaast XI's. I know you've planned to include their lights before but somehow it never worked out.
I've been a long time user of their lights & rate them highly.
He is in the process right now of building me a custom twin IBlaast IX set-up (18 XPG's in total  !!) with a combination of wide & narrow optics which are going to be my new bar mounted lights.
I've seen a demo in person of an IBlaast IX from their Australian rep, & it easily trounced my previously brightest light which was a custom made 35 watt HID from HID Technologies here in Oz - and it was 3000 lumens plus :eekster: !
I should have my new lights in less than ten days now.
Can't wait to see them light up my local trails.

Cheers,

Digger.


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

I just rode with the new Piko from Lupine. That light is nice! It is enough light to use by itself. I didn't realize how white the light is until I got back to my car and turned on the headlights. The car lights are yellow compared to the Piko.


----------



## BiknBob (Oct 12, 2008)

I hadn't been on a night ride since the mid-90's but recently re-batteried by TurboCat and NiteRider 15W Halogens as our club is doing night rides again. Boy, they were dim compared to some of the other lights out there. The setup back then was one on the handlebar and one on the helmet. With these new super bright lights can you get by with one? If so, helmet or bar? I was all set to pull the trigger on a pair of MagicShines until the recall. I notice that Geoman is still selling head units. Any reason I couldn't buy a pair of these and have Batteries Plus make me up some Li battery packs?


----------



## lalittle (Sep 3, 2005)

francois said:


> The 1400 is much brighter. The periphery is brighter but the big difference is how far it throws. Note than on the 900, the three trees in the center are hardly visible. On the 1400, they are there in detail!
> 
> One thing to note is the 1400 should not be more 'yellow' than the 900. On my backyard shots, the 1400 is at least as white as the 900. So there must be an error in my white balance (which should be fixed in 'daylight' mode). I'm currently checking into this.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the extra info.

I can't help wondering if the camera was doing some auto adjusting when the photos were taken that ended up "evening out" the difference in brightness between the two lights. Did you take them with all the same settings?

Take a look at the left side of the pictures, in between the white post and the bushes behind the post to the right. The top left part of these bushes is actually a tad brighter with the 900, which doesn't seem possible given what you're saying. I'm wondering if the camera auto-adjusted to the brighter light of the 1400 and stopped down a bit, making the darker areas a bit darker in the photo because the REST of the photo was brighter.

Thanks again for taking the time to take and post photos, and for all the feedback here, which is really helpful.

Larry


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

BiknBob said:


> I hadn't been on a night ride since the mid-90's but recently re-batteried by TurboCat and NiteRider 15W Halogens as our club is doing night rides again. Boy, they were dim compared to some of the other lights out there. The setup back then was one on the handlebar and one on the helmet. With these new super bright lights can you get by with one? If so, helmet or bar? I was all set to pull the trigger on a pair of MagicShines until the recall. I notice that Geoman is still selling head units. Any reason I couldn't buy a pair of these and have Batteries Plus make me up some Li battery packs?


That's not a bad idea if you're pretty handy with soldering and connectors.

The better option is probably the Jet A51 for $199. It's 700 lumens and very good quality from a reputable company. The initial run of 500 lights sold out immediately and they're getting some more this week.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Some initial data:


----------



## luminous (Sep 21, 2009)

Francios.

Sorry if I've missed it in an earlier post but the Lux readings. What distance are they at ?.

Cheers.

Luminous.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

luminous said:


> Francios.
> 
> Sorry if I've missed it in an earlier post but the Lux readings. What distance are they at ?.
> 
> ...


The room is 10x10x8 ft with a white ceiling. The light meter is pointed pointed up to the ceiling 3 feet from the ground. The light is then pointed to the ceiling, 3 1/2 feet from the ground.

This is just a makeshift integrating sphere to measure light output. The lux readings have no bearin with other setups but it is a good comparative tool. The readings are reapeatable. And if I point two identical lights that measure 33 lux at the ceiling, I will get right around 66 lux.

Imho, a bike light should never be pointed at a lux meter to measure because the full output of the light cannot be measured. It is so dependent on how focused on beam is.

fc


----------



## Combos (Nov 8, 2010)

Are any of the Trail LED lights going to be reviewed? I know you did the Darkstar, but what about the 500L or 4X?


----------



## Vienna1 (Nov 5, 2008)

Hi, Francios.

Why are the MJ-808 blank ? I remember it was reviewed before.
And is MJ-816 going to be reviewed ?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Vienna1 said:


> Hi, Francios.
> 
> Why are the MJ-808 blank ? I remember it was reviewed before.
> And is MJ-816 going to be reviewed ?


I just had to fill it in from here:
http://reviews.mtbr.com/blog/magicshine-mj-808/

No, MJ-816. My emails were not returned as I was collecting lights. But that might be due to the problems. I'll wait until things get sorted out with the recall.

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Francios,do you know if there has been a delay in the release of the CygoLite Centauri 1000?With all the positive feedback the Triden X recieved last year,i thought for sure we would have heard some feedback on the Centauri by now.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

indebt said:


> Francios,do you know if there has been a delay in the release of the CygoLite Centauri 1000?With all the positive feedback the Triden X recieved last year,i thought for sure we would have heard some feedback on the Centauri by now.


I don't know. They're a customer of ours but they never sent out lights for review to anyone. I'm not sure why.

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I remember something similar been said about the Triden X last year come to think of it. To bad their not on board!!


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

Where in the heck are the Exposure Sixpack beam shots man. I wanna see that LUX reading in picture format.


----------



## luminous (Sep 21, 2009)

_The room is 10x10x8 ft with a white ceiling. The light meter is pointed pointed up to the ceiling 3 feet from the ground. The light is then pointed to the ceiling, 3 1/2 feet from the ground.

This is just a makeshift integrating sphere to measure light output. The lux readings have no bearin with other setups but it is a good comparative tool. The readings are reapeatable. And if I point two identical lights that measure 33 lux at the ceiling, I will get right around 66 lux.

Imho, a bike light should never be pointed at a lux meter to measure because the full output of the light cannot be measured. It is so dependent on how focused on beam is.

fc_

Francois.

I understand that you're making do with the facilities to hand, and the work you've put in is appreciated. For direct comparison, the lux readings are useful.


It may interest you to know that I get my lights measured independantly at a laboratory.
There, steps are taken to ensure that no reflections from any surfaces in the room can contribute to the reading. Several Lux meters are used and all are kept in calibration.

The light source is aimed at the meter at a distance of 1 metre, with true axial alignment.
Then further readings are taken at 2.8 degrees and 5.7 degrees off centre.
The resultant figures can then give an indication of how concentrated the beam pattern is.
I find this method useful to represent beam patterns, numerically.

Cheers.

Luminous


----------



## deejayen (Sep 16, 2008)

One of the things which put me off Exposure lights in the past was the long charge times, especially on the battery-hungry models - but 24hours for the six pack...?!


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

francois said:


> Here's the Seca 900
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi,

I own both the Light and Motion Seca 900 and the Light and Motion Seca 1400. I've been riding with both on my road bike about the last month (well, before it started snowing), comparing them side by side.

I...well, I hesitate to say this, but to my eyes it looks like that Seca 900 shot is from a different light. A "not Seca 900" light. The Seca 900 -
1. Has a much narrower beam - it doesn't light up the entire trail evenly even on a rails-to-trails conversion trail, the light in that picture is wider than I'd expect.
2. The light in that picture has a gradual dropoff in light near the bike to the sides. The Seca 900 has a fairly sharp and distinct dropoff where it goes from like 100% light to something like 50% light.

The 1400 seems like a much, much better light for mountain biking. The beam is much wider, and the Seca 900 had a bit of a tunnel feel to it.

On the local paths, though, I never had a single person actually say something about my 900, but 2 different people complained about my 1400. That's not enough to be statistically significant, but I would say that while the 900 didn't really have a cutoff, the narrow beam kept it out of peoples face. The more floody beam on the 1400 doesn't even pretend to have a cutoff. Another time 50% of the people on a different trail moved off to the side and stopped with the 1400, whereas they didn't seem to do that with the 900. That's not a plus in my book - that means they find the light so overwhelming they don't even want to keep walking around it, just looking away doesn't even work.

The 1400 has a really tapered beam, it's rather bright right in front of the bike, then it slowly tapers off as it gets further away from the bike. But because of the design of the beam, pointing the light up and down doesn't seem to make much of a difference regarding how much light the people around you get in their face. The 900 you could point away. The 1400 is so floody that pointing it up and down doesn't make a big difference.

The "3 mode 25/50/100% switch is getting a little iffy on a 1400 lumen light, to. 350 lumens on low, on a floody light, is probably not an issue for mountain biking, but it's been rather annoying to me when I'm on the MUP at 350 lumens is the *lowest* I can set it to.

Someone else wrote - "The 1400 is much brighter. The periphery is brighter but the big difference is how far it throws. Note than on the 900, the three trees in the center are hardly visible. On the 1400, they are there in detail!"

This does not reflect my experience, at all, either. Like I said, I've ridden with both lights on my bike at the same time. I've switch between them, I've ridden with both on, etc etc. I really wanted to know the difference.

I cannot quite decide if I think the 900 has slightly more punch and throw than the 1400. But there is no doubt in my mind (having gone back and forth again and again, specifically trying to figure it out) that the 1400 definitely does not go any further down the trail than the 900. At best they're even. I lean towards that the 900 actually has more punch down the trail than the 1400, though.

I suppose if I'm nitpicking lights, I should mention the good points of the lights.

1. Both the 900 and 1400 have very decent "throw" range. The best of the lights I've used, and that's on my road bike.

2. The 900 didn't have a real cutoff, but it did seem like it managed to stay out of people's faces.

3. Nearly every light I have had has had a bit of a "tunnel" effect once you turned it on. My Dinotte 200L does - narrow beam. My 400L certainly did. I was able to order the lens kit and with 2 400L's even it out decently, but it didn't have the "throw" or reach down the road that I wanted for my road bike, then. The Dinotte 600L I thought was rather awful in that regard - it's beam pattern was "unbelievable bright - then drops off to complete darkness". The Seca 900 had a bit of a tunnel effect as well, though it wasn't terrible.

The 1400 is probably the best light I've used for not having the tunnel effect - the light really tapers off nicely on the edges and at the end of the beam.

I took some pictures that I thought did a good job of showing the difference in the beam pattern between the 900 and the 1400, though they made the lights look less bright than they were. I'll try to remember to post them tonight.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> Hi,
> .....


Yeah, there seems to be a problem with those shots. I'll reshoot them. Light and Motion too noticed it and the wrong color doesn't make sense.

It might have been when the pohlice were questioning my activities :skep: .

Here's the backyard shots.

Seca 900









Seca 1400









fc


----------



## IBEX Sports (Oct 30, 2008)

deejayen said:


> One of the things which put me off Exposure lights in the past was the long charge times, especially on the battery-hungry models - but 24hours for the six pack...?!


It's 4 Hours per battery cell, (six cell battery in the Six pack) 24 hours from fully depleted. With regular use and proper care, Exposure says one should expect up to 5 years time on their batteries.


----------



## mb323323 (Aug 1, 2006)

Hey Francois

Would the same light w/ a spot beam and one w/ a flood measure the same lux reading or could the different beams make the meter read different?

Just curious.

Thx for doing this.

That Piko looks interesting at 55 grams.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

mb323323 said:


> Hey Francois
> 
> Would the same light w/ a spot beam and one w/ a flood measure the same lux reading or could the different beams make the meter read different?
> 
> ...


In general, yes they would and I've tested this with slight variances in lens types for the same light.

But if a spot is very small and very bright, it will show up slightly lower than the same light with a much wider beam. The reason is the reflective surface on my ceiling can only reflect light so much. At some point, it's more visible to reflect it over a wider area.

fc


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

Watched some of your vids... so you really use the Exposure most of the time? Seems like it would be a really killer helmet light if it would just last 1.5 hours on high (2 hrs mixed use med and hi). I really like my Stryker Pro. Have you takend that for a ride yet and was that a Magic Shine mount you had on yours in the vid?

I'm really anxious to see the Exposure 6-up light vid as I may have mentioned already :lol:


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

deejayen said:


> One of the things which put me off Exposure lights in the past was the long charge times, especially on the battery-hungry models - but 24hours for the six pack...?!


On thing to remember though is that charging does not work in a linear way - up to about 80% it happens really fast, within a few hours. Then the charger turns on "conservative" mode, and the rest of the charging is really slow.
I think they do this to make battery life longer - after all, it is not easily replaced, so better take good care of it. In daily use this long charging time doesn't really affect usage whatsoever. I regularly use the USB cable for my Diablo, which provides a very low power charge (500mA maximum, IIRC), so when I get home I just plug it in, and forget about it. Never had a problem with that...


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

gticlay said:


> Seems like it would be a really killer helmet light if it would just last 1.5 hours on high (*2 hrs mixed use med and hi*).


The Diablo can easily do that. You can even take a backup battery with you, so that you won't have to worry about whether you used it on high mode too much...


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

Here's the beamshots I took of the Seca 900 vs the Seca 1400 side by side. I didn't post them earlier because I'm not sure if they accurately reflect the throw distance of both lights - seems like the path was longer than it looks in the pics.

1. The Seca 900 has a much more narrow, and more "spotlight" kind of beam. The 1400 is more even across, starting being rather bright near the bike and slowly getting less bright as it moves away.
2. As you can see, the Seca 900 has sharper cutoffs at the edges of the light, where the 1400 has a nice gradual fade off to the edges.
3. The hotspot on the 900 seems to more "throw", lighting up the grass at the end of the trail brighter than the 1400 does (though both lights hit it).

Seca900:









Seca1400:


----------



## odtexas (Oct 2, 2008)

Thanks for the shots.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> Here's the beamshots I took of the Seca 900 vs the Seca 1400 side by side. I didn't post them earlier because I'm not sure if they accurately reflect the throw distance of both lights - seems like the path was longer than it looks in the pics.
> ....


It looks like the 1400 is aimed quite a bit lower than the 900 thus it appears as though it has less throw.

https://gickr.com/results4/anim_1fabe938-8c19-29c4-511d-a990ee8358c8.gif

fc


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

radirpok said:


> The Diablo can easily do that. You can even take a backup battery with you, so that you won't have to worry about whether you used it on high mode too much...


Everything I have read is that it does 1 hour on high. I want/need 1.5 hours. Maybe when XML is not so brand new.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

francois said:


> It looks like the 1400 is aimed quite a bit lower than the 900 thus it appears as though it has less throw.
> 
> https://gickr.com/results4/anim_1fabe938-8c19-29c4-511d-a990ee8358c8.gif
> 
> fc


As the person who took the shots, I do not believe that is the case. For one thing, unlike the 900 it's really very difficult to aim the 1400 incorrectly - you can move it up and down, it has pretty much the same beam pattern unless you put it at a hugely different angle, like 45 degrees.

Second, I was riding with both and I know I had it aimed at the best angle I could for maximum "throw" distance.

Third, while the 900 has somewhat more "punch", imagine that you're actually riding this trail at high speed. You come up to this spot and you're reading to whip around that corner - notice how the 1400 illuminates around the corner, while the 900 doesn't illuminate anything that's not right, directly in front of you. I attached a picture with arrows - notice how in the 1400 picture you can see the trees and the grass, while in the 900 picture you cannot see them at all.










That stuff that's not directly in front of the light simply is simply not there in the 900 shot.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> As the person who took the shots, I do not believe that is the case. For one thing, unlike the 900 it's really very difficult to aim the 1400 incorrectly - you can move it up and down, it has pretty much the same beam pattern unless you put it at a hugely different angle, like 45 degrees.


I'll have to disagree. Every light has 'cone' or main beam. You can be off by 5 degrees and it will affect how far, wide, high the light will throw. It is actually very hard to see in real life. But in pictures, it is more evident. The Seca is is even harder because the beam is so big. But it is a big issue and I often have to retake photos because of it. One trick is to darken photos and you can really see where the light is aimed.

fc


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

Well, you've got the 1400 - I'd be interested to see what you think if you take it out in the backyard and shine it around and see what you think about the beam patter.  It's pretty floody, and difficult to aim wrong to my recollection.

There's always that possibility that the picture is messed up somehow, I don't claim that it's a perfect comparison. The one thing I feel certain about is that while the 1400's beam is definitely and unquestionably wider and is a far better pattern (because of it's wideness) for any kind of biking that's usually not on the straight and narrow and does a way better job of letting you see around corners, curves, etc (cough, like mountain biking, cough ), it does not have any further throw down the trail than the 900. I think it's slightly less, though I'm not 100% sure.

But I've tested it on out the bike, while riding, on several different rides (road and path like in the pic). I've tried aiming both lights up, down, riding with both on at once, with one then the other, putting my hand over one, then the other, etc. The 1400 clearly has either slightly less, or the same throw distance as the 900, in my opinion.

The 1400 also has better...um, fade-off at the edges of the light. The 900 has some sharper edges in the beam pattern, the 1400 tapers off smoothly pretty much all the way around.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> Well, you've got the 1400 - I'd be interested to see what you think if you take it out in the backyard and shine it around and see what you think about the beam patter.  It's pretty floody, and difficult to aim wrong to my recollection.
> 
> There's always that possibility that the picture is messed up somehow, I don't claim that it's a perfect comparison. The one thing I feel certain about is that while the 1400's beam is definitely and unquestionably wider and is a far better pattern (because of it's wideness) for any kind of biking that's usually not on the straight and narrow and does a way better job of letting you see around corners, curves, etc (cough, like mountain biking, cough ), it does not have any further throw down the trail than the 900. I think it's slightly less, though I'm not 100% sure.
> 
> ...


Did you see my 1400 and 900 pictures down below? The 1400 is the best light for the money I think. It is a very useable light for all conditions. I would also caution everyone not to be intent on using a helmet light in addition. The 1400 does not need it. Helmet and bar combos are remnants of the old lights that weren't wide or bright enough. The 1400 is so try it first.

Here's your photos darkened with Picassa. You can see that they are aimed quite low and the 1400 doesn't have the throw since it is aimed too low. You were just getting spill up high and 1400 cuts the beam off at the top.

The 1400 does indeed les of a center spot than the 900 so it may have less or equal throw down the middle. It is a much more even light and is probably the most even and consistent beam pattern in the market.

900 darkened to show aim









1400 darkened to show aim









fc


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

That's not a result of the light being aimed low, it's a reflection of the beam pattern itself. You can go to the light and motion website and see their own test shots and see the same thing -
http://www.bikelightingsystem.com/seca1400.html

The light is very bright near the bike - it almost washes the picture out. The light gets less bright as you get further from the bike. There is no way to get that hotspot to be anywhere but right in front of the bike by aiming the light differently.

I would agree that the 1400 is a very, very good light for all mountain biking conditions, for sure. But there is one condition that it doesn't seem to do very well in, and that's riding trails with other people coming towards you - since I've gotten the light, I've gotten several complaints from trail users about the light being to bright - something I'm not sure I ever heard (or maybe once) with my 900 with it's narrower beam. I'm not sure if it's possible to design a light that's good for both mountain biking and trail riding like that though - any sort of good cutoff that's good for trails that keeps the light out of peoples faces may not be a very good light for rolling and turning mountain bike trails.


----------



## sbaryenbruch (Jan 4, 2004)

Francois,

How do you like the 1400 vs the Darkstar?

I would think that would be an intriguing matchup as the Darkstar is close in output but with a lot lower price and longer runtime.

Thoughts on the two pitted against each other?


----------



## MtbMacgyver (Jan 23, 2007)

francois said:


> I would also caution everyone not to be intent on using a helmet light in addition. The 1400 does not need it. Helmet and bar combos are remnants of the old lights that weren't wide or bright enough. The 1400 is so try it first.


Tried it many times with very wide lights up to the 2000 lumen range and I don't agree. At least for tight and twisty east coast singletrack I still find a helmet light necessary.

Helmet light is also really nice for bike repairs, seeing the bike computer / HRM, and any other activity off the bike.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

MtbMacgyver said:


> Tried in many times with very wide lights up to the 2000 lumen range and I don't agree. At least for tight and twisty east coast singletrack I still find a helmet light necessary.
> 
> Helmet light is also really nice for bike repairs, seeing the bike computer / HRM, and any other activity off the bike.


The 1400 might change your mind..... 

But if it doesn't, no biggie. I only suggest that people try and think about it, specially in the purchasing/initial process.

East coast tech riding is definitely a good justification for helmet light.

I have an Ayup 400 lumen on a headband and I use it ALL the time when working around the garage or the house.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

sbaryenbruch said:


> Francois,
> 
> How do you like the 1400 vs the Darkstar?
> 
> ...


TrailLED Darkstar









Light and Motion 1400









TrailLED makes a great product and Grady the owner is a great person. Their light beam pattern above speaks for itself. I think it is the most powerful helmet light around since it is sooo tiny and light. Compared to the Light and Motion 1400, the Darkstar wins in price at $420 vs $700. It also has better run time at 3 hours vs. 2:30. It also is 100 grams lighter the small light head is more versatile for helmet mounting.

But like all lights, except for the Betty and the Sixpack, it is outgunned by the 1400. Comparing the Darkstar and the 1400, The 1400 has a better beam pattern, better bar mounting, better heat dissipation, weatherproofing/ruggedness and charging.

fc


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

francois said:


> But like all lights, *except for the Betty and the Sixpack, it is outgunned by the 1400*. Comparing the Darkstar and the 1400, The 1400 has a better beam pattern, better bar mounting, better heat dissipation, weatherproofing/ruggedness and charging.
> 
> fc


Lets see a rotating gif of those three lights....


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

francois said:


> TrailLED Darkstar
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Looking at the comparison of the two lights Francios,if camera setting were identical for both photo's and i'm sure they were, i'm very impressed with the Seca 1400's output and beam pattern. The Darkstar is no slouch and the Seca looks like a lot more than two hundred more lumens.
Would be nice to see a roll over sequence with the Seca 1400,Betty2 wide lens,and the six pack, taken at the same location.


----------



## mdeth1313 (Jan 30, 2008)

I just purchased a seca 1400 and I'm waiting for it to arrive. I'm using it for my commute to work. If you're comparing prices, I picked mine up for $525 shipped (legit retailer, actually cheaper than ebay- they seem to run 25% off codes every couple of weeks or so).

I'm a roadie, but my commute to work involves 2 descents, one slightly less than a mile, the other slightly over a mile. They're 40mph + drops (without me pedaling), it's rural, lots of woods, critters, crappy (I mean reallly crappy) road surface and the magicshine just isn't cutting it. It's pitch black as well, unless the moon is out and that doesnt help all that much.

I was actually able to justify this purchase to my wife, as I showed her the pictures of the beams (here) and how much safer it would make the ride.

mtbr is a lot more useful than rbr, that's for sure!

thanks for all these pics, its been a huge help.


----------



## Aussie LuvR (Nov 17, 2010)

*Dinotte 1200L+*

Francois,

Have you tested Dinotte's new 1200L+, and how does it compare to the Seca 1400?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

mdeth1313 said:


> ...
> I was actually able to justify this purchase to my wife, as I showed her the pictures of the beams (here) and how much safer it would make the ride.
> ....


Yeah, that's how most purchase orders get approved with the spouse... the Safety Angle! :thumbsup:

If that fails, I usually resort to paying cash aka No Paper Trail. 

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Aussie LuvR said:


> Francois,
> 
> Have you tested Dinotte's new 1200L+, and how does it compare to the Seca 1400?


I don't have that new one from Dinotte. I did take photos of last year's 2009 Dinotte 1200L. It looks good too.










After I publish this first batch of reviews, I'll ask for another round of lights.

Have you guys seen my videos so far?
https://www.youtube.com/user/MtbrVideos

Lots of new light videos there.

fc


----------



## odtexas (Oct 2, 2008)

Download pics to your computer.
Go to gickr.com
upload 
post
(just on way of doing it incase anyone is interested)


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

francois said:


> I don't have that new one from Dinotte. I did take photos of last year's 2009 Dinotte 1200L. It looks good too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Francois,
Do the manufacturers have to approach you if they want their lights included here, or do you actively chase them to give you lights to be reviewed?
I posted a question a couple of days ago about the new light from Nightlightning, hoping you might be able to include it this year. I've already ordered one anyway, but I still would've liked to see how it stacks up against the other high end lights from Lupine, Light & Motion, Exposure etc.
I'm expecting the IBlaast IX to outperform everything (Betty included). 
When I get my lights, I'll try to post beamshots.

Cheers,

Digger.

p.s. Is there a link you can give that can teach me how to include photos with my posts. I am not very computer literate


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

odtexas said:


> Download pics to your computer.
> Go to gickr.com
> upload
> post
> (just on way of doing it incase anyone is interested)


 THANK YOU.:thumbsup:


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

The first article is up.
http://reviews.mtbr.com/blog/2011-bike-lights-shootout/

There will be a ton more individual pages, reviews and videos added. Please check it out and help me edit and improve it.

A lot of the light videos can be previewed here in the youtube module of our home page.

http://mtbr.com

or

http://www.youtube.com/user/MtbrVideos


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

francois said:


> The first article is up.
> https://reviews.mtbr.com/blog/2011-bike-lights-shootout/


"And it still chops off the top of the beam pattern to avoid waste."

...

...

...

Here's a light with a chopped off beam - the Lumotec Cyo.

https://www.bumm.de/index-e.html









https://www.peterwhitecycles.com/headlights.asp









https://www.provelobern.ch/docs/verkehr/led-scheinwerfer.htm




































Here are two lights that are not chopped off -

Supernova e3:









Seca 1400:









If the Seca 1400 light was actually chopped off, you would only see the lower half of the swing set.

That's not to say that you'd want a beam pattern that was chopped off for mountain biking - it would be a big negative, actually, every time you went over a bump or uneven trail (if you're not going over bumps and uneven trail you're probably not mountain biking, lol).


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> "And it still chops off the top of the beam pattern to avoid waste."
> 
> ...


Good info. 'Chop off' may be a strong term. The point is, they put a lot more light down low than up high.

As they say.... "light that does not hit anything is lost forever" 

fc


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

The phrase "cutoff" or "chopped off" usually refers to a light like the Cyo pictured above, who's goal is to avoid blinding oncoming traffic/pedestrians/bikes. It's a light which is designed to not put any light above the horizon of the light (above the middle) so it doesn't shine light into people's faces. It also avoids wasting light above the horizon, but in mountain biking that's a negative thing on a light.

It's misleading to someone looking for a commuting light, as well as to mountain bikers who (as I wrote about earlier) almost certainly want to avoid a light with an actual hard cutoff.

What about "A well controlled beam pattern to avoid waste and distracting uneven patches of lighting"?


----------



## lalittle (Sep 3, 2005)

PaulRivers said:


> But there is one condition that it doesn't seem to do very well in, and that's riding trails with other people coming towards you - since I've gotten the light, I've gotten several complaints from trail users about the light being to bright - something I'm not sure I ever heard (or maybe once) with my 900 with it's narrower beam. I'm not sure if it's possible to design a light that's good for both mountain biking and trail riding like that though - any sort of good cutoff that's good for trails that keeps the light out of peoples faces may not be a very good light for rolling and turning mountain bike trails.


This is not an issue as long as you simply cover or pivot the light when passing people coming the other way, which is something that people should do regardless of what type of light you're using or how bright it is. I have ALWAYS done this with ANY light I use -- I've always considered it part of the most basic trail etiquette. (I must say, however, that I'm surprised how few people return the courtesy.)

The only time this becomes difficult is when the trail is VERY rough and/or downhill, but in these situations one person generally has to stop anyway, and can look away while the other one pass. It's really not hard in practice -- you just have to remember to do it.

Note that if your light pivots, you can quickly swing it WAY to the side, which aims it away from on-comers while still keeping some light on the trail.

Larry

PS. Thanks for the pictures -- those are really helpful.


----------



## KingOfTheHill (Sep 19, 2007)

I still think a helmet light is necessary, but if you aren't going to run one, run a second light on the bars, turned on at the same time. Last thing you want is for your light to die at the worst moment. Happened to me last week - had two lights on the bars and one on the helmet and one of the bar lights and the helmet light turned off at the same time while on some fast, loose, downhill aiming stuff.

Figured out I hadn't plugged one cable in all the way and it came undone and the helmet light (a NR Pro 700) didn't like it when my 2 way radio started to transmit.


----------



## wandr (Nov 9, 2004)

francois said:


> I would also caution everyone not to be intent on using a helmet light in addition. The 1400 does not need it. Helmet and bar combos are remnants of the old lights that weren't wide or bright enough. The 1400 is so try it first.


That's a really interesting observation/claim francois, I guess I'm going to have to pick one of these up just to check it out. Thanks for doing all of these tests!


----------



## wandr (Nov 9, 2004)

wandr said:


> That's a really interesting observation/claim francois, I guess I'm going to have to pick one of these up just to check it out. Thanks for doing all of these tests!


ugh, scratch that, the 1400 is like $700! You say it's the "best light for the money", but that's like saying a Murciélago is the best sports car for the money. Maybe I'm running with the wrong crowd, but I don't know anyone that would pay that for a single light. For 700 bucks, I can rock 2 handlebar lights, a helmet light, and a maglite sticking out of my ass, and if any one of them fail, I'll still have a couple working lights as a backup.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

The whole "you don't need a helmet light" thing is bunk. IF you are riding trails fast with jumps, doubles, etc you NEED a helmet light... even if you know the trail by heart and each bump, root, and off camber corner. I'd rather ride with a crappy light on the helmet than a great light on the bars.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

wandr said:


> ugh, scratch that, the 1400 is like $700! You say it's the "best light for the money", but that's like saying a Murciélago is the best sports car for the money. Maybe I'm running with the wrong crowd, but I don't know anyone that would pay that for a single light. For 700 bucks, I can rock 2 handlebar lights, a helmet light, and a maglite sticking out of my ass, and if any one of them fail, I'll still have a couple working lights as a backup.


That's actually what I meant. It's the best 'high end (exotic) light for the money'. That's really just comparing it too the Lupine Betty II, Exposure Six Pack, Niterider 1400. The Betty II beats it narrowly if price didn't matter.

Anyway, I'll make that correction.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

gticlay said:


> The whole "you don't need a helmet light" thing is bunk. IF you are riding trails fast with jumps, doubles, etc you NEED a helmet light... even if you know the trail by heart and each bump, root, and off camber corner. I'd rather ride with a crappy light on the helmet than a great light on the bars.


>>> IF you are riding trails fast with jumps, doubles, etc you NEED a helmet light.

What if you're not doing that stuff at night? All I'm saying is people ride different styles and consider what works for you.

And like I said, this is best down with a massive light on the bar like a Lupine or Light an Motion 1400. I've also done it with two Baja designs, nicely spaced apart.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

francois said:


> >>> IF you are riding trails fast with jumps, doubles, etc you NEED a helmet light.
> 
> What if you're not doing that stuff at night? All I'm saying is people ride different styles and consider what works for you.
> 
> And like I said, this is best down with a massive light on the bar like a Lupine or Light an Motion 1400. I've also done it with two Baja designs, nicely spaced apart.


If you aren't, you don't need 1400 lumen.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

gticlay said:


> If you aren't, you don't need 1400 lumen.


"need" is such a funny word...

You don't have to have jumps and doubles to be able to use 1400 lumens, just a fast, slightly twisty downhill stretch would do it.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

PaulRivers said:


> "need" is such a funny word...
> 
> You don't have to have jumps and doubles to be able to use 1400 lumens, just a fast, slightly twisty downhill stretch would do it.


AYE. I'm eyeing my 1999 JET light system and thinking that if I make a li-ion pack it would rival all the new LED technology out now since it's 22 watts


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

francois said:


> I don't have that new one from Dinotte. I did take photos of last year's 2009 Dinotte 1200L. It looks good too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you'll find that the Dinotte 1200L+ dual quad will compare well with the other heavy hitters. It puts out a floody wall of light. Plus the the light head is smaller and lighter than the 800L. For a comparison of the 1200L and new 1200L+ beams:
https://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=7428561&postcount=93


----------



## luminous (Sep 21, 2009)

Yeah, helmet lights. I know lots of people who use them and if you were to ask them to choose only one light to ride at night with, they'd take the helmet light over the bar light.
Especially now that helmet lights using LEDs can give out way over 1000 lumens.

I can see why folks may think that with these new LED lights, you might not need a helmet light, but again, it could depend on the kind of riding you do.
 

As for Chopped-off beam patterns, I can see why road riders would like that, but for off road riding, being able to light-up the lower branches on the trees I ride past has been a must for me, allowing me to duck out of the way of some low hanging branches.
 


And yes, over £400 (in the UK) for the 1400 lumen seca does seem a bit high.


----------



## skinl19 (Jan 27, 2004)

I picked up a Seca 1400 light head a few weeks ago to replace one of my L&M Arc HID's. Love the light output but when running my other Arc on the helmet I couldn't see the Arc's beam much unless I really looked around a corner. 

It actually seemed to work better sometimes with the Seca turned down to 700 to illuminate the immediate trail and the Arc pointing ahead. This is while riding very tight and twisty trails through the woods. Still thinking of another 1400 head to try on the helmet while running the bar at 700.


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)




----------



## luminous (Sep 21, 2009)

itsdoable.

Excellent graph, very useful.
:thumbsup:

What distance for the Lux reading. Its just that I've taken readings from the lab and used an inverse law calculator to give readings at 5 metres.

Like here:
http://www.luminouslights.co.uk/701pro.html

Also, as the numbers for my light is are results from actual measurements, it may be interesting to see how a 701 or any other of my lights would sit on that chart.

Either way, thanks for the chart.


----------



## g3rG (Aug 29, 2009)

I was pondering the correlation between claimed lumens and measured lux. Itsdoable beat me to it, but here is another way of looking at the data:










It shows a pretty linear relationship between claimed output and measured illuminance. Much better than I would have expected.

gerG


----------



## g3rG (Aug 29, 2009)

Just one more, honest. I am still wound up from a great night ride, so I couldn't sleep. Points to the right of the line might indicate exaggerated output claims. Points to the left could indicate sandbagging, or a hot-rodded sample.










gerG


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

francois
Do you have any pics how the Betty attaches to the new handlebar mount?


----------



## woodyak (Jan 20, 2004)

gticlay said:


> Everything I have read is that it does 1 hour on high. I want/need 1.5 hours. Maybe when XML is not so brand new.


I'm in the same boat. My night rides are normally around 2:30 and are pretty technical requiring a bright light. I just ordered the Diablo with the small external battery which is supposed to give me 2:45 on high. This external battery is pretty light and should mount to the helmet nicely. There's a deal going on right now if you're a Facebook fan giving you $40 off so the whole package is going to run me $310. I'm hoping to get it next week.


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

luminous said:


> itsdoable.
> 
> Excellent graph, very useful.
> :thumbsup:
> ...


The Lux readings are from Francois' data (http://reviews.mtbr.com/blog/2011-bike-lights-shootout/)

Lux is a point measurement, so it can be very deceiving as a spot beam will read much higher than a beam with a useful spread. However, Francois set up his lux meter and the lights to be measured in his garage facing at the ceiling (described previously, and in the 2009 & 2008 tests), creating a crude integrating sphere, so with some calibration, the Lux measurement should follow the Lumens (although I suspect spot beams will still read higher than wide beams). It's a good way to compare the "Claimed Lumens" outputs from the various lights.

In previous years, there was a unit that was measured on an integrating sphere by someone (or some lab) that we could use as a calibration. This year, I'm not aware of any, so I've roughly scaled the Lux axis to follow the "Claimed Lumins" at where I expect the known manufactures lie from previous years.

PS: nice lights - you really need to get one to Francios for the shootout.



g3rG said:


> I was pondering the correlation between claimed lumens and measured lux. Itsdoable beat me to it, but here is another way of looking at the data: .....
> .... Points to the right of the line might indicate exaggerated output claims. Points to the left could indicate sandbagging, or a hot-rodded sample.


I like it - that's a great way to display the data. I'm still not sure where the line should go, as I don't have a good calibration of Francois' garage. But it does show the trend is pretty good, except for the one outlier.

I also plotted the cost/lux (cost/lumens) on the old bar graph, which sits around $0.50 for lights >600 lumens, and a higher cost at lower brightness/ This is expected as the main cost for the lower powered lights are the casing and driver, while the higher lumen units have more expensive LED dies.


----------



## Vienna1 (Nov 5, 2008)

Mai said:


> francois
> Do you have any pics how the Betty attaches to the new handlebar mount?


Do you see this page?
http://www.lupine.de/web/en/products/accessories/mountcnc/


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

Vienna1 said:


> Do you see this page?
> http://www.lupine.de/web/en/products/accessories/mountcnc/


I did but it doesn't show how the light head attaches to the new bar mount. 
I am guessing that the o-ring mount unscrews and the new mount will screw into the bottom of the lighthead


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

Just found this on the Lupine site. It answered my question


----------



## betweenrides (Oct 19, 2010)

Francois:

Really enjoying this thread - keep the reviews coming! I am surprised by the different lux ratings between the Strykr and Strykr Pro - I thought they used the same light, different packaging? Is it possible the Strykr Pro had the flood optic installed vs the spot for the Strykr? I know when I tried the flood on my light it didn't seem to be as bright on the trail.


----------



## g3rG (Aug 29, 2009)

itsdoable said:


> ...I'm still not sure where the line should go, as I don't have a good calibration of Francois' garage. But it does show the trend is pretty good, except for the one outlier.


Hi itsdoable.

Good point. The line that I drew is not a curve fit. I assumed that Francois' meter would read zero when the lights are out, so that lets me force the line through 0,0. I assumed a linear relationship, and I biased the line toward the Lupine since I know they actually measure output with an IS. It seems like a reasonable initial guess. The point that really puzzles me is the Wilma. That thing is on the hot side no matter where the line is at. The deviation seems well outside sample to sample variation. Either it is souped up, or it confused Francois' meter somehow.

I really like the $/lumen plot (bucks per lux?). I am anxious to get some more of the high output lights on the plot.

gerG


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

Did I see dual triple little lights on your WFO in the weigh in thread? Those micro lights would be cool if they were pumping out some lume-nation.



g3rG said:


> Hi itsdoable.
> 
> Good point. The line that I drew is not a curve fit. I assumed that Francois' meter would read zero when the lights are out, so that lets me force the line through 0,0. I assumed a linear relationship, and I biased the line toward the Lupine since I know they actually measure output with an IS. It seems like a reasonable initial guess. The point that really puzzles me is the Wilma. That thing is on the hot side no matter where the line is at. The deviation seems well outside sample to sample variation. Either it is souped up, or it confused Francois' meter somehow.
> 
> ...


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Mai said:


> Just found this on the Lupine site. It answered my question


Mai, is that a new mount or is there something changed on the latest version?

thanks,
fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

betweenrides said:


> Francois:
> 
> Really enjoying this thread - keep the reviews coming! I am surprised by the different lux ratings between the Strykr and Strykr Pro - I thought they used the same light, different packaging? Is it possible the Strykr Pro had the flood optic installed vs the spot for the Strykr? I know when I tried the flood on my light it didn't seem to be as bright on the trail.


Yessir, I was surprised myself. I kept charging the Stryker Pro battery to make sure I wasn't getting a low reading. Finally, I made sure to measure both lights with the same battery. Those readings are accurate.

The Stryker has the wide lens and I believe that gave a 52 lux reading compared to 51 lux with the normal lens.

I sound pretty optimistic about the Stryker Pro in the video but in the end I'm really disappointed about it now. It is $50 more, has less light, doesn't have interchangeable reflectors, not as rugged without the rubber housing. On the upside, it can be mounted on the helmet and it has a removable handlebar mount and has a more even beam pattern.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

g3rG said:


> Hi itsdoable.
> 
> Good point. The line that I drew is not a curve fit. I assumed that Francois' meter would read zero when the lights are out, so that lets me force the line through 0,0. I assumed a linear relationship, and I biased the line toward the Lupine since I know they actually measure output with an IS. It seems like a reasonable initial guess. The point that really puzzles me is the Wilma. That thing is on the hot side no matter where the line is at. The deviation seems well outside sample to sample variation. Either it is souped up, or it confused Francois' meter somehow.
> 
> ...


I will remeasure the Wilma5. I may have been confused on the note taking. In this video earlier this year, I quote it as having a measurement of 103 lux.

Yes, the light meter goes to zero when the lights are off. It is tricky to check that since it's so dark 

fc


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

francois said:


> Yessir, I was surprised myself. I kept charging the Stryker Pro battery to make sure I wasn't getting a low reading. Finally, I made sure to measure both lights with the same battery. Those readings are accurate.
> 
> The Stryker has the wide lens and I believe that gave a 52 lux reading compared to 51 lux with the normal lens.
> 
> ...


I was certainly expecting an equal to the regular Strykr light output. Do you think it's the lens/reflector difference between the two?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

gticlay said:


> I was certainly expecting an equal to the regular Strykr light output. Do you think it's the lens/reflector difference between the two?


It's definitely the reflector. Baja Designs told me a t Interbike that the Pro is not as bright as the Stryker because of the smaller reflector. I just didn't expect the difference to be this large. Also, the higher price is a surprise to me as well. I will talk to them this week to get more insight.

fc


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

francois
It is the new mount. I was confused on how the new cnc mount attached to the lighthead. I looks like the o-ring mount can be unscrewed and the new cnc mount screwed to the bottom of the light head


----------



## SharonTheroux (Nov 28, 2010)

*New Bike For Son*

I Am Shopping For My New Mountain Biker, Son. We Are In Ak So He Wants To Do Mountain Biking. He Is In Good Shape Due To Running. Did Lost Lake And Fell In Love With The Sport. I Cant Spend$1000 But Want To Get Him A Bike For Christmas That He Will Grow With, 16 Years 175 And 6 Feet. Also Am Concerned With Hand/wrist Safety Because He Is A Good Violin Player.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

francois said:


> It's definitely the reflector. Baja Designs told me a t Interbike that the Pro is not as bright as the Stryker because of the smaller reflector. I just didn't expect the difference to be this large. Also, the higher price is a surprise to me as well. I will talk to them this week to get more insight.
> 
> fc


Yeah, both ads up top claim 700 lumen, 52 lux so I was expecting the same lux reading.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

gticlay said:


> Yeah, both ads up top claim 700 lumen, 52 lux so I was expecting the same lux reading.


Yup, that is a bummer. That lux reading is the mtbr lux reading and is not really relevant out of context. They published the 52 lux for the Stryker Pro even though I had not measured it yet.

fc


----------



## g3rG (Aug 29, 2009)

Bonjour Francois.

Thanks for confirming a zero reading in the dark. I wasn't going to ask you to do that one 

That Wilma is perplexing. I suspect that it is an anomaly of some sort. If not, I am ordering one.

Also thanks for all of the other great work. It is very helpful!

gerG



francois said:


> I will remeasure the Wilma5. I may have been confused on the note taking. In this video earlier this year, I quote it as having a measurement of 103 lux.
> 
> Yes, the light meter goes to zero when the lights are off. It is tricky to check that since it's so dark
> 
> fc


----------



## g3rG (Aug 29, 2009)

gticlay said:


> Did I see dual triple little lights on your WFO in the weigh in thread? Those micro lights would be cool if they were pumping out some lume-nation.


Hi gticlay!

If only. I have been using AyUp Q5s for a couple of years (2 on the bike, one on the helmet). They are wonderful lights with a great mount, but alas, I have gotten faster and they have not gotten brighter. I have a Piko ordered for the helmet. I hope that it has enough throw. I need throw on the helmet and flood on the bars (about 190degrees H by 100 degrees V would be groovy).

gerG


----------



## Hill-Pumper (Apr 30, 2010)

francois said:


> It's definitely the reflector. Baja Designs told me a t Interbike that the Pro is not as bright as the Stryker because of the smaller reflector. I just didn't expect the difference to be this large. Also, the higher price is a surprise to me as well. I will talk to them this week to get more insight.
> 
> fc


I talked to Baja Designs before buying my Styker and they said the Pro was designed as a spot light for helmet use. Might explain the small size and reflector. They really have put the Pro in a hard place price wise. The Jetlite A-51 specs out the same and is $150 less. Also, the a-51 is U.S. made. So, if I go to get a different helmet light, the A-51 looks like a better option to me,and I am sure others see it the same way.


----------



## Mr.Ice807 (Jul 15, 2009)

Aussie LuvR said:


> Francois,
> 
> Have you tested Dinotte's new 1200L+, and how does it compare to the Seca 1400?


 I second the interest in such a comparison. :yesnod: :yesnod:


----------



## _*sTiTcHeS*_ (May 28, 2006)

The "lux" is the calculated $/lumen rating; so the higher the blue mark on fc's graph, the more expensive the lighting costs?(aside from other factors like weight and reliability)

Where does the blackburn flea end up on there? $30 and 40 claimed lumens...:skep: 

I've been using the flea for emergency scenarios, but I think its time to upgrade past 40 lumens.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

New beam pattern page is up!

http://reviews.mtbr.com/blog/2011-bike-lights-shootout-beam-pattern-photos/

fc


----------



## Gemini Lights (Sep 20, 2010)

I think that many people will be interested in Gemini Titan system. Francois, are you interested to review it?

greets
Vag


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Gemini Rides said:


> I think that many people will be interested in Gemini Titan system. Francois, are you interested to review it?
> 
> greets
> Vag


Gemini yes, absolutely. I'll PM you our information.

Other lights coming are:
Light and Go
Serfas
Ayup
Jet Lites - new fan powered model

Dinotte - still on the fence

Amoeba - No since there are backlog/production problems this season

fc


----------



## scar (Jun 2, 2005)

> Orignally posted by francois
> _ Amoeba - No since there are backlog/production problems this season_


That should read backlog/*supply* problems. Cutter just sent me LED's mounted on the wrong MCPCB's. Couldn't have happened from a supplier any farther away from me and at a busier time than now. Oh well, got to roll with the punches, that is what makes life interesting!

****


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

scar said:


> That should read backlog/*supply* problems. Cutter just sent me LED's mounted on the wrong MCPCB's. Couldn't have happened from a supplier any farther away from me and at a busier time than now. Oh well, got to roll with the punches, that is what makes life interesting!
> 
> ****


I have 4 extra XPG 20mm R5 stars from Cutter if you need them for someone.....


----------



## scar (Jun 2, 2005)

gticlay - WOW, that is a very generous offer. Unfortunately, that is what they sent me. 20mm stars won't fit into 3/4" tubing :madmax: 



***


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

This is interesting!!

2008 to 2011 lights. I just formatted it but I haven't looked at the data yet. There's HID and halogen here too.

http://reviews.mtbr.com/blog/lights-shootout-light-meter-measurements/

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Mai said:


> I did but it doesn't show how the light head attaches to the new bar mount.
> I am guessing that the o-ring mount unscrews and the new mount will screw into the bottom of the lighthead


 Just a heads up on the new Betty mount, As i have just found out, the Betty mount is designed for stems that are no wider than 1 5/8" as this is the inside measurment between the two o rings that mount to your handle bar. My Race face stem is 1 7/8" and the mount wont work. Waiting to hear back from Lupine to see if there going to have a slightly wider version available for oversized stems.


----------



## dwgranda (Dec 2, 2010)

I don't know if it breaks your testing protocol but I wouldn't mind bringing my dinotte 1200L+ over for testing.


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

indebt said:


> Just a heads up on the new Betty mount, As i have just found out, the Betty mount is designed for stems that are no wider than 1 5/8" as this is the inside measurment between the two o rings that mount to your handle bar. My Race face stem is 1 7/8" and the mount wont work. Waiting to hear back from Lupine to see if there going to have a slightly wider version available for oversized stems.


Glad you caught that my stem is 1 3/4. Guess I'll be waiting for your answer


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Mai said:


> Glad you caught that my stem is 1 5/8. Guess I'll be waiting for your answer


I had no idea what you guys were talking about. I see it now.










fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Lupine will be offering a wider mount but not till spring, so i just sprung for a new stem!! Widest measurment is 1 5/8" on the new one,will post if there are any more issues.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

Someone PM'd me, and I thought the info might be useful to anyone else having trouble keeping their Seca 900 on the bars so I'm posting it here.



> Hi, I read your posts to francois regarding the two lights. I was wondering if you could do a more in depth comparo between the two. light head weight/size, battery power consumption. Handlebar mount stability?
> I have the 900 and no matter how tight I make the strap, when I'm going downhill and hitting bumps, the light ends up pointing at the ground. Thanks.


Hi, good to hear someone was reading my posts. 

I've thought of trying to do more beam comparisons, but that other stuff isn't terribly interesting to me so I lack a little motivation to try to figure it out.  The light heads are exactly the same size from looking at them side by side. Both the 900 and 1400 are rated at 2.5 hours using the 6 cell battery. Light and Motion told me (when I emailed them) that the battery is exactly the same, so assumbly the 1400 is more efficient (resulting in the same runtime on high).

As for the handlebar stability, I haven't had a problem, but I've seen a reference to your problem before and a solution. bikerumor.com also did a Seca 1400 review -
http://www.bikerumor.com/2010/11/19/review-light-motion-seca-1400/

And in their comments, someone had the same complaint. Turns out if you look closely, the 900 is actually supposed to loop up and down, not just "up" like most of us do it. They had the same problem with their 900 here -
http://www.bikerumor.com/2009/11/07/bikerumor-review-light-and-motion-seca-400/

Since they posted it I would feel bad stealing their picture, but look for the picture with the "Correct / We're Idiots" text on it. 

The 1400 doesn't have that extra loop, instead it's just a shorter rubber strap that tightens snugly to the bar. However, I haven't actually used it on my mountain bike for any "serious" riding, so I can't say for sure how well it holds on (holds on great on my road bike, obviously that's not as demanding).

I'm going to post this response to the thread, to, in case anyone else has the same problem.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

Hey Paul, you mean this?












PaulRivers said:


> Someone PM'd me, and I thought the info might be useful to anyone else having trouble keeping their Seca 900 on the bars so I'm posting it here.
> 
> Hi, good to hear someone was reading my posts.
> 
> ...


----------



## norcalchico (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm looking forward to your review on the Gemini Titan light. Mine came yesterday and it seems like a good light, bright ,good wide beam, mounting is not bad and a nice case it came in.



francois said:


> Gemini yes, absolutely. I'll PM you our information.
> 
> Other lights coming are:
> Light and Go
> ...


----------



## g3rG (Aug 29, 2009)

francois said:


> Gemini yes, absolutely. I'll PM you our information.
> 
> Other lights coming are:
> ...
> ...


Vuh? Who is having trouble deciding? I need a better bar light and I am very anxious to see how the Dinotte compares.

gerG


----------

