# Helmet lights to outperform Piko



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

so i'm debating what to do with Piko. it was supposed to be the be all end all helmet light ... but nothing about it is particularly impressive and the output is south of budget chinese lights unless you're willing to run it so hot that you almost can't touch it. the only impressive part about it was how quickly gretnabikes delivered it - the next day to be exact. but now i am thinking about returning it.

so i would like something that will put out 1000+ lumens without getting very hot, and obviously something with a good helmet mount.

so far i only have 1 candidate to replace the Piko - Dinotte XML-3. it costs less than Piko, has 3 XMLs instead of 2 and has about 3 times the aluminum surface area to sink all the heat. plus my Dinotte 300R is amazing so that is encouraging. 

what i do NOT like about it is that the pattern is not as focused as i would like on the helmet ( i would like a pattern similar to 16 degree Betty, because i already have a wide flood on handlebars ) and also there aren't any reviews except the MTBR one ?

can you suggest any other lights ? i would like somewhere in the 2 to 4 XLMs and somewhere between 1,000 and 2,500 lumens, and with a beam between about 15 and 25 degrees.

16 degree Betty would be perfect in terms of performance, but i would like to get something closer to the Piko price point.


----------



## rideitall (Dec 15, 2005)

I have the XML-3 and it makes a fantastic helmet light. Some people even run them on the bars. Great light for the price. Dinotte makes quality as well. 

Yes it is not a super tight spot, but it has no hot spots and has plenty of punch to reach past a floody bar light.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

rideitall said:


> I have the XML-3 and it makes a fantastic helmet light. Some people even run them on the bars. Great light for the price. Dinotte makes quality as well.
> 
> Yes it is not a super tight spot, but it has no hot spots and has plenty of punch to reach past a floody bar light.


nice.


----------



## M6TTF (Jan 25, 2012)

gloworm X2 - almost the same size as a Piko, but 1200 lumens - bloody brilliant, im well chuffed with mine


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

M6TTF said:


> gloworm X2 - almost the same size as a Piko, but 1200 lumens - bloody brilliant, im well chuffed with mine


why does it have a remote switch ? is it so you don't burn your fingers or something ?


----------



## M6TTF (Jan 25, 2012)

the remote is actually really handy. bar mounted you can flick between modes/brightness without taking your hands of the bars - head mounted i just run the swtich above my ear, dead easy to find.


----------



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

*androgen*, I think the problem you have is that you have the brightest lamp made mounted on the bars. You are going to find it very difficult to find a lamp bright enough to compliment the lamp you are using on the bars. The XML-3. Gloworm X2, Gemini Duo all of these might work but chances are your Niterider 3600 is going to over power them.. You might have to consider a custom helmet set up. I'd look at the "Troutie Lights" or start asking questions over on the DIY forum. Maybe someone there might be able to give you some better ideas. I do know a while back that someone over on CPF was selling a six-up DIY host designed for XP-G. Getting something like that but fit with the newer XP-E2 might yield a 6-up lamp with awesome throw. Maybe as much as 1600-1700 lumen OTF. The set-up I'm talking about is duel triples and looks small enough to make a good helmet lamp. I'd probably buy one myself but I'm not ready to go there yet.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

I'm running a Troutie 7-up on my bars that I assembled myself so I know how difficult it can be to find a helmet light to work with a bright bar light. I'd suggest building a quazzle true 1440 lumen 3-up XPG with the easy2led body. It's extremely small, reliable, inexpensive, and will run off all those geomangear batteries floating around. Plus it's enough to roll with a real bright bar light. Actually, I was thinking of selling my 1100 lumen version (as bright as the chinese "1800 or 2000" lumen cheapos and waaaaaaaay brighter than the 1400 lumen 4 xpg magicshine) if anyone is interested in that and I'll just build up a 1440 for myself


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

What about the Gemini Olympia? Anyone compare it with the Gloworm X2 or other mentioned above? It's small and bright, costs quite a bit more than an X2, however.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Cat-man-do said:


> *androgen*, I think the problem you have is that you have the brightest lamp made mounted on the bars. You are going to find it very difficult to find a lamp bright enough to compliment the lamp you are using on the bars. The XML-3. Gloworm X2, Gemini Duo all of these might work but chances are your Niterider 3600 is going to over power them.. You might have to consider a custom helmet set up. I'd look at the "Troutie Lights" or start asking questions over on the DIY forum. Maybe someone there might be able to give you some better ideas. I do know a while back that someone over on CPF was selling a six-up DIY host designed for XP-G. Getting something like that but fit with the newer XP-E2 might yield a 6-up lamp with awesome throw. Maybe as much as 1600-1700 lumen OTF. The set-up I'm talking about is duel triples and looks small enough to make a good helmet lamp. I'd probably buy one myself but I'm not ready to go there yet.


Furthermore, comparing Lupine's rating of lumens to those of the Chinese lights is silly. Lupine is pretty accurate in their measurement of actual light OTF (out the front). The majority of Chinese light lumens are more theoretical maximums of the LED (or worse) with no accounting of lens or reflector impacts. In general and in a practical sense, they are all over the map but probably in the 50% range or so.

Here's a chart that an help realize that. L&M, Lupine, Lezyne are some that have taken pains to be accurate. Magicshine (for example) has not.

Bike Lights Shootout Light Meter Measurements | Mountain Bike Review

And I concur in the notion that a 900 lumen light is going to get clobbered by a 3600 lumen one. In general, I've found that having about half or more of the lumens of your bar light on your helmet is what works. A great combination, for example, was my Piko 750 lumen light with the 1500 lumen Wilma on the bars. The Piko had a tighter hot spot and it was about the same lumen density on the pavement 25' out from my handlebars as was the Wilma 1500. The two beams then added nicely when the hot spots overlapped with noticeable benefit. That is diminished with the newer 2400 lumen Wilma.

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

TCW said:


> What about the Gemini Olympia? Anyone compare it with the Gloworm X2 or other mentioned above? It's small and bright, costs quite a bit more than an X2, however.


looks perfect on paper. what's the catch ? is it chinese lumens ?


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

androgen said:


> looks perfect on paper. what's the catch ? is it chinese lumens ?


Hell I don't know? I want a new bad boy helmet light too. The Gloworm is mighty tempting especially with being around a hundred bucks cheaper than the Olympia. I could get the Gloworm and an extra battery for about th same price. But, if those lumens are legit then the Olympia might be a good choice. It's about the same weight as the X2. Hmmm...


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

TCW said:


> Hell I don't know? I want a new bad boy helmet light too. The Gloworm is mighty tempting especially with being around a hundred bucks cheaper than the Olympia. I could get the Gloworm and an extra battery for about th same price. But, if those lumens are legit then the Olympia might be a good choice. It's about the same weight as the X2. Hmmm...


the weight is outstanding, but the pattern:

Speed II on helmet and Gemini Olympia on bar - YouTube

is pretty horrible. i think i will pass.


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

androgen said:


> the weight is outstanding, but the pattern:
> 
> Speed II on helmet and Gemini Olympia on bar - YouTube
> 
> is pretty horrible. i think i will pass.


Yuck, I hate youtube videos for lights, something about the camera not representing how they really look. The bike shootout pics seem to be much better with the camera settings mentioned on this site. Still, it might suck.

The beam pics on the website look pretty nice. Do they represent the truth, I don't know. Seems like positive remarks on this website. I was a little sad to see the Olympia has gone up about a hundred bucks since they first started advertising. A couple X2s (one for me and the wife) and a couple extra batteries is tempting.


----------



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

JohnJ80 said:


> ...And I concur in the notion that a 900 lumen light is going to get clobbered by a 3600 lumen one. In general, I've found that having about half or more of the lumens of your bar light on your helmet is what works. A great combination, for example, was my Piko 750 lumen light with the 1500 lumen Wilma on the bars. The Piko had a tighter hot spot and it was about the same lumen density on the pavement 25' out from my handlebars as was the Wilma 1500. The two beams then added nicely when the hot spots overlapped with noticeable benefit. *That is diminished with the newer 2400 lumen Wilma.*
> 
> J.


Thanks John, a perfect example of diminished returns. The brighter your bar lamp the harder it is to get a helmet lamp that truly compliments the bar lamp. Usually I like the helmet lamp to be brighter with longer throw but nowadays that's almost impossible without getting a custom build.

In a nut shell I think you can sum this up by saying it's better to use a two lamp system that creates a combined 2000 lumen than to get one lamp that is over 2000 lumen.


----------



## colleen c (May 28, 2011)

androgen said:


> the weight is outstanding, but the pattern:
> 
> Speed II on helmet and Gemini Olympia on bar - YouTube
> 
> is pretty horrible. i think i will pass.


The video was taken with a Contour HD. Since then I found out that the Contour is one of the worst low light video POV camera. I now use a Replay and that is so much better in low light video than the contour. If you want some better representation of the Olympia beam pattern, I have some taken from my older Fuji S5000 camera. Bottle on ground at 100ft, tree is about 185 ft.

Sample of Olympia beamshot

Control Shot is here

I also have a new Gloworm beamshot that was taken with my new camera. The setting was set same as the older camera but the resolution is better. The Gloworm is here

I can only imagine how much glare you will get back running 3600 lumens from your Niterider. The reflection of the photon slicing through the air and reflection back will only make it that much harder to find a strong thrower for helmet light. Personally I would rather run two 1800 lumens light on bar than one single 3600 lumens lighthead. Running two lights allow you to aim them outward for a wider beam and it also allow you to aim one higher and one lower.


----------



## MarcoL (Jun 3, 2007)

Wich piko? 750 lumen or 900 lumen?


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

MarcoL said:


> Wich piko? 750 lumen or 900 lumen?


I believe he has the Piko 3 (900 lumen) version.


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

The Gloworm looks impressive. With the optic choices and lower price, compared to Olympia, seems like a no brainer.


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

Cat-man-do said:


> *androgen*, I think the problem you have is that you have the brightest lamp made mounted on the bars. You are going to find it very difficult to find a lamp bright enough to compliment the lamp you are using on the bars. The XML-3. Gloworm X2, Gemini Duo all of these might work but chances are your Niterider 3600 is going to over power them.. You might have to consider a custom helmet set up. I'd look at the "Troutie Lights" or start asking questions over on the DIY forum. Maybe someone there might be able to give you some better ideas. I do know a while back that someone over on CPF was selling a six-up DIY host designed for XP-G. Getting something like that but fit with the newer XP-E2 might yield a 6-up lamp with awesome throw. Maybe as much as 1600-1700 lumen OTF. The set-up I'm talking about is duel triples and looks small enough to make a good helmet lamp. I'd probably buy one myself but I'm not ready to go there yet.


Hey Cat.
Possibly the guy you are thinking of is Matt Malone. He is a member on these forums as well as CPF and goes by the name of "matthewm".
The light you're thinking of is most likely his Gili 6.
I own one and use it as my helmet light. It is still useful to have despite having approx 5000 real lumens on my bars by way of two x IBlaast IX's from Nightlightning (Nightlightning claim 3600 lumens per IBlaast IX).
I only saw Matt the other day, and left my Gili 6 with him for an upgade. He's going to try both XPG-2 and XP-E2 for me and see which works the best.
He still has some for sale too.

Danger! This beast may burn your eyes. Literally! - Mtbr Forums

FS; Double, Triple (or single) XP-G Host 2200 Lumen


----------



## Rakuman (Oct 30, 2004)

*I would look at the Gemini Duo that soon to be released it has more throw than the Olympia and it sounds like there are spot lenses in the works 
I have one ordered to use as a helmet light with a Olympia on the bars.*


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

colleen c said:


> The video was taken with a Contour HD. Since then I found out that the Contour is one of the worst low light video POV camera. I now use a Replay and that is so much better in low light video than the contour. If you want some better representation of the Olympia beam pattern, I have some taken from my older Fuji S5000 camera. Bottle on ground at 100ft, tree is about 185 ft.
> 
> Sample of Olympia beamshot


damn that's a huge difference. it looks like a lazer ( or a Fenix flashlight if you will ) on your contour but actually looks wider than i would like on the Fuji. of course i am sure the Fuji is much closer to reality.



colleen c said:


> I also have a new Gloworm beamshot that was taken with my new camera. The setting was set same as the older camera but the resolution is better. The Gloworm is here


i like the beam on the Gloworm better - it looks more "spot" with better throw - which i think is what you want on a helmet. but i don't really like the design of gloworm that much - i think the metal foot that connects only on one side is about as dumb as it gets. compared to piko that mount probably weighs 5 times as much and doesn't work half as well. don't know how to justify the switch.



colleen c said:


> Personally I would rather run two 1800 lumens light on bar than one single 3600 lumens lighthead. Running two lights allow you to aim them outward for a wider beam and it also allow you to aim one higher and one lower.


well the 3600 sort of IS two lights. one reason i went for it is because the two lights comprising the 3600 are actually different - one is a hair wider and one a hair narrower - and what it does is it cancels out the rings that each individual light produces with its optics defects. on niterider 1800 beamshot you can see a ring, but because each side of 3600 produces different diameter ring they sort of cancel out and blend into a nice smooth spread.

and with one light you only have to switch the levels on one button, and you only have to charge one battery.


----------



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

OldAusDigger said:


> Hey Cat.
> Possibly the guy you are thinking of is Matt Malone. He is a member on these forums as well as CPF and goes by the name of "matthewm".
> The light you're thinking of is most likely his Gili 6.
> I own one and use it as my helmet light. It is still useful to have despite having approx 5000 real lumens on my bars by way of two x IBlaast IX's from Nightlightning (Nightlightning claim 3600 lumens per IBlaast IX).
> ...


Big time thanks on that Diggs. Let me know how it all works out. I'm betting the XPG-2 will be brighter but that the XPE-2 will look better as a helmet lamp with a more intense center area.

Thanks for the links, I'll be saving those. :thumbsup:


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

OldAusDigger said:


> Hey Cat.
> Possibly the guy you are thinking of is Matt Malone. He is a member on these forums as well as CPF and goes by the name of "matthewm".
> The light you're thinking of is most likely his Gili 6.
> I own one and use it as my helmet light. It is still useful to have despite having approx 5000 real lumens on my bars by way of two x IBlaast IX's from Nightlightning (Nightlightning claim 3600 lumens per IBlaast IX).
> ...


those look awesome but honestly i'm not going to buy a DIY light. for the price of toyota camry you can buy a couple years old ford mustang twin turboed to horsepower beyond any Ferrari ... but you would be a moron if you bought it. the "performance" of a camry may be nonexistent but it works, it is safe, reliable and comes with warranty. with a 700 hp mustang however within a month most likely either it either will not run, or you will have killed yourself.

i just don't see the point of taking the risk.


----------



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

androgen said:


> ....I like the beam on the Gloworm better - it looks more "spot" with better throw - which i think is what you want on a helmet. but i don't really like the design of gloworm that much - i think the metal foot that connects only on one side is about as dumb as it gets. compared to piko that mount probably weighs 5 times as much and doesn't work half as well. don't know how to justify the switch.


Actually the helmet mount on the Gloworm works rather well. The "one strut" approach works fine. I have no idea why you would think it to weigh 5x as much. They both look to be about the same size.  The Piko helmet mount base uses two struts and has a cut-out on the base. The Gloworm helmet mount has only one strut and no *cut-out. If there's a weight difference it would have to be in single digit gms. ( *Heck drill a couple holes on the base if it make that much difference. )

The Piko mount looks nice. I'm sure it works fine. Looks like it has a nice strap. The Gloworm uses only a Velco strap. The new versions are including a velcro strap with buckle which should be easier to work with.

Like you I wondered how a remote switch would work on the helmet. Actually I find it works rather well, better than I thought it would. The advantage of the remote is that you don't have to worry about knocking the aim of the lamp off when changing modes as you never have to touch the lamp head if you don't want to. On the down side setting it up takes a couple minutes longer. Not a big issue as I see it.

Can't wait to see what optics the Gemini people offer on their Duo model.

*Androgen*...I think you can order that double/triple set-up pre-built and ready to go. ( **If I'm wrong about that someone correct me ) You even get to chose what LED tint or bin you want. These are really nice lamps with well thought out heat sinking and reliable high power drivers. I'm sure the builder offers some guarantee cause if he didn't he would quickly lose his reputation on CPF if there were problems with the build. As far as I know anyone that bought one loved it.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

A real world non biased shoot out (actual riding use test) between the Piko (German), Gemini duo (Canadian), and gloworm x2 (New Zealand) would be nice to see. All the new 2013 models of these lights. They are all roughly about the same size from pictures outputs at 900, 1400, 1200 lumens respectively so it would be interesting to see who would win and why.

Piko head: 55g
Gemini duo head: 63g
Gloworm x2 head: 80g

Piko : factory pre determined output levels (user picks from a couple diff factory settings)
Gemini : user selectable output levels in any order from 10-100% in 10% increments. 
Gemini : user selectable brightness for flash as well
Gloworm: factory pre determined output levels (user picks from a couple diff factory settings)

Piko : pre determined beam pattern 22 degrees
Gemini : pre determined beam pattern 15 degrees
Gloworm : 2 lens system. Spot/flood. User selectable. 

Hmmm..... If I had the funds I would most likely conduct this comparo. :madman:


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

Cat-man-do said:


> Actually the helmet mount on the Gloworm works rather well. The "one strut" approach works fine. I have no idea why you would think it to weigh 5x as much. They both look to be about the same size.  The Piko helmet mount base uses two struts and has a cut-out on the base. The Gloworm helmet mount has only one strut and no *cut-out. If there's a weight difference it would have to be in single digit gms. ( *Heck drill a couple holes on the base if it make that much difference. )
> 
> The Piko mount looks nice. I'm sure it works fine. Looks like it has a nice strap. The Gloworm uses only a Velco strap. The new versions are including a velcro strap with buckle which should be easier to work with.
> 
> ...


i guess remote switch is not a bad idea. for one thing the lamp can get hot, and also obviously i don't want to move the lamp. good points.

i still think the mount is crap. diffference may be in single grams, but it is probably triple the weight anyway.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> A real world non biased shoot out (actual riding use test) between the Piko (German), Gemini duo (Canadian), and gloworm x2 (New Zealand) would be nice to see. All the new 2013 models of these lights. They are all roughly about the same size from pictures outputs at 900, 1400, 1200 lumens respectively so it would be interesting to see who would win and why.
> 
> Piko head: 55g
> Gemini duo head: 63g
> ...


i think you can chagne output level modes on piko - but i haven't tried it. it is so weak i would always run it at maximum level on which it won't overheat.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

androgen said:


> i think you can chagne output level modes on piko - but i haven't tried it. it is so weak i would always run it at maximum level on which it won't overheat.


You are correct. You can change output on the Piko. I meant you cant change it to exactly what an individual wants. They must select from what the factory prederterminded was acceptable levels and go with that.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> You are correct. You can change output on the Piko. I meant you cant change it to exactly what an individual wants. They must select from what the factory prederterminded was acceptable levels and go with that.


no i believe you can change different programs - you can have 3 level, 4 level etc. in niterider you can select between 1 factory and 4 custom programs. not sure how it works in piko.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

androgen said:


> those look awesome but honestly i'm not going to buy a DIY light. for the price of toyota camry you can buy a couple years old ford mustang twin turboed to horsepower beyond any Ferrari ... but you would be a moron if you bought it. the "performance" of a camry may be nonexistent but it works, it is safe, reliable and comes with warranty. with a 700 hp mustang however within a month most likely either it either will not run, or you will have killed yourself.
> 
> i just don't see the point of taking the risk.


That might be the worst comparison I've ever read on mtbr.


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

Androgen, I can understand why you would have doubts about the helmet light that CatManDo and I were talking about. But I sincerely believe that it is by far the best option for you out of all of the lights mentioned in this thread.
I believe this for several reasons:
1) The lumen output is much higher. Even running XPG R5's and a Maxflex, like my one was, it will exeed all the others mentioned already easily. You can also run Quazzles XPG modules in this housing which equates to approx 1400 lumens per triple. And with the newer emitters like Matt will be trying in mine, it will only be better again.
2) It is not a DIY kit only. Matt will sell you a comlete system ready to go if you want. He did this for me and charged me an extra $30 AUD for this service (approx $32 US). You can spec what you want in regard to connecters, batteries, optics etc.
3) Hand assembled quality. He is a one man show and needs to get it right first time. Little things like the quality of his soldering to how the thermal paste is applied all add up to ensure a very good product.
4) The actual housing is a standout feature. Designed by Matt but machined by a third party, it really is superb. It is comprehensively intelligent in regard to thermal management.
5) And you know it's not going to be assembled in a Third World country, but the price doesn't reflect this. 
6) Yes you will get a warranty. Absolutely anything you're not happy with he will fix for you. And yes he is based in Australia, but I can't see that being a deal breaker for people in the Northern Hemisphere - it just means you'll have to wait a couple of extra days for shipping in the unlikely event you'll need to return the light for any repairs.

On top of all this, you'll find Matt to be very honest and easy to deal with. He will jump through hoops to make sure you get what you want. And he's a guy who has a degree in engineering, so he knows his stuff.

Androgen, you seem like you have very high expectations from your bike lights (as do I). You wont be dissapointed if you go down the path of the Gili 6 

PM me if you want the contact details for Matt.

Cheers,

Digger.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

OldAusDigger said:


> Androgen, I can understand why you would have doubts about the helmet light that CatManDo and I were talking about. But I sincerely believe that it is by far the best option for you out of all of the lights mentioned in this thread.
> I believe this for several reasons:
> 1) The lumen output is much higher. Even running XPG R5's and a Maxflex, like my one was, it will exeed all the others mentioned already easily. You can also run Quazzles XPG modules in this housing which equates to approx 1400 lumens per triple. And with the newer emitters like Matt will be trying in mine, it will only be better again.
> 2) It is not a DIY kit only. Matt will sell you a comlete system ready to go if you want. He did this for me and charged me an extra $30 AUD for this service (approx $32 US). You can spec what you want in regard to connecters, batteries, optics etc.
> ...


well for $270 i can have a 1800 lumen Niterider. that would be a system complete with all the accessories you might want - battery, charger, bar and helmet mounts, extension cord etc. it would also have nice touches like battery level indicator. it would also have something else that is infinitely valuable - tons of unbiased user reviews all over the net. if a DIY light can have a couple more lumens for a couple less bucks - really does not matter.

you go DIY when you want to build something that is impossible to buy anywhere at any price. some people build horn subwoofers that weigh 400 pounds and hit 20hz @ 140 decibels. some people build cars that have 1,500 horsepower and hit quarter mile in 7 seconds. some people build bike lights with 49 water cooled XML LEDs and half a kilowatt of power. but what would be the point of building your own product ( or buying an assembled DIY kit ) that is not significantly different from affordable commercial offerings ? sorry - makes no sense to me.

i want something that is tried and true, has user reviews, independent lumen / lux measurements and independently taken beam pattern shots.

ultimately if all else fails there is always Wilma. if for some reason i determine that i can't live without 2,000 lumens on my head i would rather go Wilma than a DIY product.


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

No worries. Just trying to give my honest opinion based on my honest experience.

Have you not heard much negitive press about Niterider?
They may have first rate products now in 2012 - I don't know. But I'm fairly sure in the past I've read about some Niterider failures on this forum. Enough for me to lock in some doubts about the brand deep in my memory bank somewhere anyway.
You seem to have a different approach in deciding what to purchase from what I do.
I'll often go for a limited run item or a custom product (providing I can afford it) to a massed produced item. Even if the product hasn't yet been proven to be superior, I'll consider all the pros & cons and if looks good I'll give it a shot.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Cat-man-do said:


> Thanks John, a perfect example of diminished returns. The brighter your bar lamp the harder it is to get a helmet lamp that truly compliments the bar lamp. Usually I like the helmet lamp to be brighter with longer throw but nowadays that's almost impossible without getting a custom build.
> 
> In a nut shell I think you can sum this up by saying it's better to use a two lamp system that creates a combined 2000 lumen than to get one lamp that is over 2000 lumen.


Actually, I think what it gets down to is what is the lumen density per square area of the beam hot spot (i.e. lux). For example, if I had a 500 lumen light where all 500 lumens are in the 1 meter square hot spot that would appear brighter in that place than say may 2400 lumen Wilma that might have a bright spot that is 10 meters square. That's why the 750 lumen Piko is a nice complement to the 1500 Wilma.

So that means it's much more complicated than just looking at the lumen rating. You really have to figure out how tight you want the beam to be on your helmet - and I'd recommend that it be noticeably tighter than the light on your bars.

For just this reason, I'm going to be talking to Gretna today about the new Piko and it's beam width compared to the new Wilma. Right now, for kicks, I'm riding with twin Wilmas (one at 1500 on the helmet and one at 2400 on the bars in medium) but liked the combination of a Piko/Wilma better with one tighter on the helmet instead of two wider beams. If that's the case, I'll probably sell my 1500 lumen Wilma.

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

OldAusDigger said:


> No worries. Just trying to give my honest opinion based on my honest experience.
> 
> Have you not heard much negitive press about Niterider?
> They may have first rate products now in 2012 - I don't know. But I'm fairly sure in the past I've read about some Niterider failures on this forum. Enough for me to lock in some doubts about the brand deep in my memory bank somewhere anyway.
> ...


yes i have seen negative reviews of niterider. but there are also negative reviews for porsches and bmws. i am not saying niterider is a top brand - not at all - just that some problems are to be expected. better the devil you know. i would rather buy a brand that is used by thousands and known to have some problems than a brand that is not known to have any problems because nobody has ever used it.

the quality on my niterider 3600 is so-so. it is not in the same league as my Lupine and Dinotte, but also it is evident that Niterider did not want to cut corners on the product - with almost every part of the product they gave you MORE than they had to. it makes me feel good to own a product that i can tell the company tried to make as best as they could - even if their expertise was not quite on the level of the Germans.

kinda like with food - better to eat something like steak which you know is not the healthiest thing, but people have been eating it for thousands of years, than take some miracle drug that is supposed to make you live forever except nobody has ever tested it.

there is actually a product that i am DYING to try:

bike after dark - fireball mark 2 - Mtbr Forums

but i can't allow myself to do it, because it is not from a company that i have confidence in.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

OldAusDigger said:


> They may have first rate products now in 2012 - I don't know.


i don't know either, but damn it looks cool. check out that mount, and those cooling fins - badass !

that mount has centering offset, two joints on two axes, and a cleat release. lupine mount ? nothing. does it mean niterider mount is better ? no. it means they tried. but to me, that in itself is a good thing.

also the rubber on niterider mount is not even like rubber - it is like glue - mega sticky - it holds in place even without tightening that huge bolt.


----------



## rschultz101 (Oct 5, 2009)

what's the point on counting grams / weight ?
if you want more lumens, it's going to be more weight,
just with the batteries alone !

most of the piko users, don't even run it at full power,
since they don't want to buy another battery, or change it midway.
and like the setup on the helmet. Usually have a handlebar light, sometimes
another piko with larger battery for handlebar use.
the gloworm mount is solid, it is not crap. it is metal, so it is heavier then plastic.
my buddy, a road weight weenie , with a carbon fiber bike, rides a piko helmet, and gloworm handlebar on the road.
off-road, most riders, don't want to carry or pay for a larger batterie pack. 
they do like to show off, mine is brighter than yours. 
but when it boils down to , .... they don't want to carry or pay for a larger batterie pack.
----
since you are happy with a niterider, just get one for the helmet and be done with it.
---
custom stuff is always going to be more expensive. 
but for a niterider, as soon, as it's out of production, and stock is gone,....
you won't even get parts for it ..... thought it makes a neat paperweight
already have a couple of paperweights, with the niterider label on it.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

rschultz101 said:


> but for a niterider, as soon, as it's out of production, and stock is gone,....
> you won't even get parts for it ..... thought it makes a neat paperweight
> already have a couple of paperweights, with the niterider label on it.


so what would you rather use - Lupine ? they seem to support their older products pretty well ? but i don't know how important that is or isn't. for example Lupine Charger ONE still supports Ni-MH batteries ... but why would you want to be riding with Ni-MH batteries in 2012 ? as well you can upgrade your old Betty to 2,200 lumens ... but why ? when you can just buy a new Wilma head ?

also is it true that when you mount lupine on the handlebars you can't aim it left or right ? to me that seems to suggest that you would need two of them for symmetry.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

androgen said:


> ....
> 
> also is it true that when you mount lupine on the handlebars you can't aim it left or right ? to me that seems to suggest that you would need two of them for symmetry.


You can adjust the Lupine lights left to right... But it depends on the mount you get. If you are using the mount that puts the light center in front of your stem (the rigid one) then why would you still need to adjust left or right? At that point you should look at the alignment of your stem/bars.

The loop mount allows for adjustments left to right. Cause at that point they are designed from the standpoint that the light may not be mounted in the center of the bars but rather off to one side or the other.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> You can adjust the Lupine lights left to right... But it depends on the mount you get. If you are using the mount that puts the light center in front of your stem (the rigid one) then why would you still need to adjust left or right? At that point you should look at the alignment of your stem/bars.
> 
> The loop mount allows for adjustments left to right. Cause at that point they are designed from the standpoint that the light may not be mounted in the center of the bars but rather off to one side or the other.


HOW does it adjust ? is there any video or diagram or picture ? from the looks of it - it would seem impossible.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

androgen said:


> so what would you rather use - Lupine ? they seem to support their older products pretty well ? but i don't know how important that is or isn't. for example Lupine Charger ONE still supports Ni-MH batteries ... but why would you want to be riding with Ni-MH batteries in 2012 ? as well you can upgrade your old Betty to 2,200 lumens ... but why ? when you can just buy a new Wilma head ?
> 
> also is it true that when you mount lupine on the handlebars you can't aim it left or right ? to me that seems to suggest that you would need two of them for symmetry.


You may be over-thinking the whole light thing.

I think the upgrades may be coming to head pressed on one end by the rapid increase in LED efficiency and brightness and on the other end by sort of a top end need for lumens at around 3000 or so real OTF lumens.

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> You may be over-thinking the whole light thing.
> 
> I think the upgrades may be coming to head pressed on one end by the rapid increase in LED efficiency and brightness and on the other end by sort of a top end need for lumens at around 3000 or so real OTF lumens.
> 
> J.


ok, so what does that mean for Niterider and Lupine ?

also, John, did you switch back to Piko from Wilma 1500 on your helmet ? and if so why ?


----------



## baymoe (Jul 23, 2011)

androgen, you seem to be too stuck up on "the brands" that equivalent/superior products pass you by and you'd ought not to know any better. Open up.


----------



## TCW (Mar 13, 2006)

I'm with androgen on the brands. Why, makers of the DIY lights I have are no more. 

I have a couple Niterider MiNewt 600s. I called Niterider the other day telling them the handlebar mounts suck. They sent two new mounts that got here in 3 days. So, I get the brands thing. 

I am still willing to give Gloworm and/or Gemini a go. Hope they don't cheese out.


----------



## MaximusHQ (Aug 6, 2007)

androgen said:


> HOW does it adjust ? is there any video or diagram or picture ? from the looks of it - it would seem impossible.


With the O-ring Lupine mounts there is a small amount of adjustment you can make by loosening the screw under the mount, adjusting left or right, then tightening the screw. This allows you to get the aim straight ahead. I use my Betty with the o-ring mount and switch between bikes easily. Once you adjust the mount there is no need to do any more adjusting as I always use it on the right side of my handlebars and it works on all 4 of my bikes this way just fine.


----------



## MaximusHQ (Aug 6, 2007)

Double post


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

androgen said:


> ok, so what does that mean for Niterider and Lupine ?
> 
> also, John, did you switch back to Piko from Wilma 1500 on your helmet ? and if so why ?


I'm thinking about it. The Piko has a narrower beam (22 degrees) than the Wilma and it's likely that the lux on the ground is brighter than the 1500 lumen but 26 degree Wilma. I prefer a more concentrated beam and more throw on the helmet. I'm also investigating a 1200 lumen 16 degree older Wilma. Don't get me wrong, 3900 lumens of light is a lot of light.

J.


----------



## derekbob (May 4, 2005)

androgen said:


> the weight is outstanding, but the pattern:
> 
> Speed II on helmet and Gemini Olympia on bar - YouTube
> 
> is pretty horrible. i think i will pass.


I have an olympia and that video doesn't accomplish anything. It looks like the olympia is focused about 10 feet front of the bike, which isn't ideal to say the least.

The olympia has a great pattern. Its nice and wide with no hot spot.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

TCW said:


> I'm with androgen on the brands. Why, makers of the DIY lights I have are no more.


My bet is that within the next couple of years we see some big consolidation in this business and a drive towards cost reduction. The little guys will get bought up by the bigger guys and the hobbyists will disappear (i.e. DIY). The relatively high price of high performance LEDs and the relatively small market of very high performance very high cost lights to exist. That's all about to change especially since we're about to easily get to the lumens from dual car headlights.

You can see the more consumerish companies like Cateye and Lezyne getting interested in this. When the cost comes down further, they'll be all over this because the pricing will get into the commuter/consumer range.

That's the main reason to stick with the larger brands. They have a better chance of surviving this over the next couple of years. The door is closing very fast for other players to enter and grow organically.

J.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> the hobbyists will disappear (i.e. DIY).


The hobbyists that will disappear or have already are the guys that built lights for economic reasons (high performance at low cost). That's pretty well covered now.

I believe there will always be room for for a niche market that the mass producers won't address. Just like some riders will buy a handmade frame to their specifications, there will be some that want a unique, special light product.


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

androgen said:


> so what would you rather use - Lupine ? they seem to support their older products pretty well ? but i don't know how important that is or isn't. for example Lupine Charger ONE still supports Ni-MH batteries ... but why would you want to be riding with Ni-MH batteries in 2012 ? as well you can upgrade your old Betty to 2,200 lumens ... but why ? when you can just buy a new Wilma head ?


Possible reasons:
- you might just have an older battery that you would like to use with your current / upgraded light
- you might want to continue to use your lighthead with an external switch, that Lupine no longer sells in current models
- you might not want the hassle of selling your light secondhand, purchasing and installing the upgrade is simple.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> I'm thinking about it. The Piko has a narrower beam (22 degrees) than the Wilma and it's likely that the lux on the ground is brighter than the 1500 lumen but 26 degree Wilma. I prefer a more concentrated beam and more throw on the helmet. I'm also investigating a 1200 lumen 16 degree older Wilma. Don't get me wrong, 3900 lumens of light is a lot of light.
> 
> J.


so you are basing the choice on light quality rather than mounting / ergonomics considerations ?


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> My bet is that within the next couple of years we see some big consolidation in this business and a drive towards cost reduction. The little guys will get bought up by the bigger guys and the hobbyists will disappear (i.e. DIY). The relatively high price of high performance LEDs and the relatively small market of very high performance very high cost lights to exist. That's all about to change especially since we're about to easily get to the lumens from dual car headlights.
> 
> You can see the more consumerish companies like Cateye and Lezyne getting interested in this. When the cost comes down further, they'll be all over this because the pricing will get into the commuter/consumer range.
> 
> ...


if you think about it a typical $700 17-inch laptop has about the same battery capacity as a $1,000 Betty. and a typical $300 32-inch LED TV has has about as much LED power as a $1,000 Betty. Except that in a Betty those are pretty much the only parts that cost anything - while they are not the most expensive parts of either Laptops or TVs.

That just shows how much the lights are overpriced today. A light like Betty 12 should cost about $300 if it was sold in a market as competitive as TV and Laptop markets. this would be AT CURRENT prices of LEDs and rechargeable Lithium cells.

in another 10 years when you buy a bike at Toys R Us you will probably get a light included with it, the way reflectors are included today.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

Not even close to the quantity of lights are being made to bring the costs down like a laptop or tv.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

androgen said:


> if you think about it a typical $700 17-inch laptop has about the same battery capacity as a $1,000 Betty. and a typical $300 32-inch LED TV has has about as much LED power as a $1,000 Betty. Except that in a Betty those are pretty much the only parts that cost anything - while they are not the most expensive parts of either Laptops or TVs.
> 
> That just shows how much the lights are overpriced today. A light like Betty 12 should cost about $300 if it was sold in a market as competitive as TV and Laptop markets. this would be AT CURRENT prices of LEDs and rechargeable Lithium cells.
> 
> in another 10 years when you buy a bike at Toys R Us you will probably get a light included with it, the way reflectors are included today.


Besides the fact that this is only a low volume niche market, where you go off the tracks here is that the LEDs that power the backlight in the TVs and laptops are much smaller, much cheaper and there are more of them. They are not the high density high power LEDs that are used in bright lights. It's not easy to make high power LEDs, balance the color and deal with the heat.

There is a lot of mechanical and electrical engineering that goes into these lights and then the volume is many orders of magnitude less than the TV and PC industry. You have to amortize that over many, many less units and because the volumes are so low, they don't benefit in the economies of scale in the supply chain and manufacturing. And that alone is huge.

My bet is that Lupine sells (maybe) a few tens of thousands of lights per year (at most) compared to tens of millions of TVs and PC's per year. They don't even ship it over as full containers yet!

But, as the cost of the materials come down and the whole thing matures as LED lighting becomes the norm then you'll see the price crash just as it has on other similar technology based products.

The lights are not overpriced - now. They will be in a few years when the volumes go up and the industry consolidation happens.

If I were one of the top end light mfgs today, I'd be selling my company now when the premium is the highest. Either that or buying all the companies I could but I would suspect that the businesses don't have enough margin to do that (too small).

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> where you go off the tracks here is that the LEDs that power the backlight in the TVs and laptops are much smaller, much cheaper and there are more of them. They are not the high density high power LEDs that are used in bright lights. It's not easy to make high power LEDs, balance the color and deal with the heat
> J.


i am not convinced that something like XML is more expensive lumen-for-lumen than LEDs used in TV backlighting.

if you look at studio LED lighting ( for photoshoots etc ) it is even more overpriced lumen for lumen than bike lights, and they use LED panels with 500 to 1000 small LEDs which are individually several times LESS powerful than those used in TV backlight. the reason for the high price there is that the market is even more niche than bike light market.

just check this:

Litepanels 1 x 1 Mono LED Daylight Flood Light 903-1001 B&H

it says output equivalent to 300W halogen.

by the way when i saw videos of such panels on YouTube the poor model that was illuminated by it was squinting like crazy. something tells me that LED lights are just more blinding than regular lights - and it is NOT an issue of lumens.

i have blue LEDs on my motherboard in my PC that i can't look at ! and they only put out enough light to illuminate objects half a foot away.

you know light can be polarized, coherent etc - i feel that it is the NATURE of LED light that makes it so impossible to look at, and not the output.

looking at LED light feels different than looking at a halogen light, or even looking at the sun ! i think it has to do with the fact that both halogen and the sun are incandescent in nature but LED nature is closer to that of a Laser.

LED light is just different IMO. It's sort of like you can't compare food created in an Oven and a Microwave - you can't just say "oh it absorbed the same number of Joules of energy" because it just isn't the same in nature. You can burn something in the oven and it would still be tasty, but barely heat it up in a microwave and it is uneatable. We could be dealing with the same effect with LED.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Androgen - it's all in the volume. That was the whole point of what I said. You picked out one statement and missed the rest.

And, the LEDs in the backlights are much cheaper than the high power leds component for component. But that's not the point - it's the volume and amortizing all the other costs over an extremely low volume. 

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

i decided that i will stick with Lupine on the helmet. either i keep the Piko or i will exchange it for a Wilma.

having analyzed the design and build quality of my Niterider and my Piko i have come to the conclusion that Lupine is the better company. 

At first i was disappointed with the Piko because Niterider was superior in every way but eventually it occured to me that i am comparing a top-of-the-line Niterider to an entry-level Lupine so it is not a fair comparison.

Lupine is built more "judiciously" meaning everything is there for a reason, with no frivolous features. the Niterider is the opposite - they just threw every feature on it they could think of no matter how much weight or how many additional points of failure it added. 

In particular that niterider battery tray from which you remove the battery to charge it - is idiotic. I will admit that i thought it was really cool when i ordered it, but damn it is dumb. It doesn't make anything easier, it adds significant amount of weight and worst of all - it is an additional point where water can get in and short circuit your system. 

so without any doubt as far as brand goes Lupine > Niterider

HOWEVER ! ! !

on the bars i still think NR 3600 is a good choice because it just has wider coverage than Lupine. the more lumens you have the wider the beam pattern should be. it will be curious to see what the beam pattern will be on Betty R.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jan 1, 1970)

JohnJ80 said:


> Androgen - it's all in the volume.
> J.


True that. Price wise, I think we are in for more affordable lights in the future. These are essentially long running flashlights with specialty housings and mounts.

If Cygolite and Niterider can make self contained 600 lumen rechargeable bike lights for $100 that tells me where things are going.The trickle down effect is very apparent and the cheap"be seen" lights keep getting more powerful.


----------



## Iwanttorideatnight (Dec 21, 2011)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> If Cygolite and Niterider can make self contained 600 lumen rechargeable bike lights for $100 that tells me where things are going.


Cygolite already have the self contained 600 lumens for $99.95 and 700 lumens for $118.95. Niterider has the 650 lumens for $118.99 available on Amazon.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> True that. Price wise, I think we are in for more affordable lights in the future. These are essentially long running flashlights with specialty housings and mounts.
> 
> If Cygolite and Niterider can make self contained 600 lumen rechargeable bike lights for $100 that tells me where things are going.The trickle down effect is very apparent and the cheap"be seen" lights keep getting more powerful.


Yes. Next stage is "Feature Wars"

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> Yes. Next stage is "Feature Wars"
> 
> J.


one feature that may eventually materialize is auto-dimming using camera and accelerometers. if you point the helmet down it should dim to about 400 lumens so you don't blind yourself but if you point it at something hundreds of feet away it should automatically go to 5,000 lumens or so you can see. it might also auto-dim based on face-detection if you're traveling at low speed so you don't blind other cyclists. a similar feature already exists in cars where it will switch to low beams automatically if it detects oncoming traffic. i would also like to see optics automatically adjust from flood to spot based on speed, and output power. the light could also use GPS and barometer data and follow predefined programs such that it would automatically know when you're going downhill or climbing and adjust output automatically.

ultimately computer, gps, barometer, accelerometer, camera, power meter, light and everything else should be combined into a single system like on modern cars, and it should also include an artificial intelligent "brain" with SIRI like voice command interface.

basically, there are a lot of features that could potentially be added !


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Beamshaping
wireless remote controls
auto-dimming
programmable levels on the fly
different batteries
better mounts
smaller, more powerful batteries
integrated designs into bikes, helmets, stems,seat posts, etc...

and so on. 

J.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

JohnJ80 said:


> Beamshaping
> wireless remote controls
> auto-dimming
> programmable levels on the fly
> ...


yeah, forgot about integrated lights - that would be cool. i particularly want some integrated into the wheels for side visibility, because that's where ( along with the helmet ) mounting is most problematic IMO.

since bikes are moving towards electronic shifting anyway, it would make sense to establish a standard bike voltage, say 7.2 volts ( like cars have 12 volts ). mount D-Cell sized lithium cells in the frame somewhere and internally route the wiring to every part of the bike. have a single charger charge the whole bike and have dynamo power for backup, complete with regenerative braking. like a plug-in hybrid car.

to summarize i guess bikes should be more like cars, although i definitely prefer the modular nature of bicycles with standard interchangeable parts like seats etc.


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

androgen said:


> one feature that may eventually materialize is auto-dimming using camera and accelerometers. if you point the helmet down it should dim to about 400 lumens so you don't blind yourself but if you point it at something hundreds of feet away it should automatically go to 5,000 lumens or so you can see. it might also auto-dim based on face-detection if you're traveling at low speed so you don't blind other cyclists. a similar feature already exists in cars where it will switch to low beams automatically if it detects oncoming traffic. i would also like to see optics automatically adjust from flood to spot based on speed, and output power. the light could also use GPS and barometer data and follow predefined programs such that it would automatically know when you're going downhill or climbing and adjust output automatically.
> 
> ultimately computer, gps, barometer, accelerometer, camera, power meter, light and everything else should be combined into a single system like on modern cars, and it should also include an artificial intelligent "brain" with SIRI like voice command interface.
> 
> basically, there are a lot of features that could potentially be added !


Exposure are sought of heading in that direction with their newest light.

Exposure Lights:


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

OldAusDigger said:


> Exposure are sought of heading in that direction with their newest light.
> 
> Exposure Lights:


nice. but i don't want a self-contained light. i also don't like British products - they seem to be more expensive and lower quality than German variants.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

Self dimming.... The Petzl NAO does exactly what you describe.

NAO | Petzl


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> Self dimming.... The Petzl NAO does exactly what you describe.
> 
> NAO | Petzl


looks cool.


----------



## slyfink (Apr 15, 2004)

Cat, why no mention of the Xeccon S-12?

I have received mine, but wasn't able to give them a try last week. I'll have to wait another three nights. I ordered it to be a superior spot-thrower specifically for the helmet as I found my Gemini Xera not quite up to the throwing task... At that price I figured it was worth the experiment....


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

androgen said:


> nice. but i don't want a self-contained light. i also don't like British products - they seem to be more expensive and lower quality than German variants.


I disagree, especially when it comes to exposure.


----------



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

slyfink said:


> *Cat, why no mention of the Xeccon S-12?*
> 
> I have received mine, but wasn't able to give them a try last week. I'll have to wait another three nights. I ordered it to be a superior spot-thrower specifically for the helmet as I found my Gemini Xera not quite up to the throwing task... At that price I figured it was worth the experiment....


....because the original OP wanted a helmet lamp to compliment a NiteRider 3600 on the bars. The S-12 is a single emitter lamp. While it has good throwing potential I'm not sure how well any one or two emitter lamp ( used on the helmet ) for that matter will work with something as powerful as the 3600 on the bars.

In the mean time those of us using two or three XM-L emitter lamps on the bars should find the X-12 useful for supplying some extra ( noticeable ) throw coming from the helmet.

Sometime this week I should get the cheap triple XM-L lamp I ordered from Ebay. The triple reflector it uses was reported as having a nice center spot. If it outputs more than 1500 lumen and has a center spot as tight as the X-12 it could possibly end up being a good lamp for the helmet providing it is not too heavy. I'll not be holding my breath though. If they were that good I figured we'd of heard something by now.

Nope, I'm afraid anyone running 2000 or more lumen on the bars is going to find it difficult to find a *complimentary helmet lamp ( * something with a little more noticeable throw ). That being the case best to use something light-weight and just use it when you have to see to the sides.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

Let's be honest here. There is no headlamp that will be adequate when using a 3600. The problem is that for general riding, your eyes will adjust to the light on your bars. When you need the helmet lamp - in a switchback, for instance, unless it's relatively close in brightness, you won't be able to see anything. The OP would probably be better served with a lower lumen bar light combined with a true 1100 to 1500 lumen helmet light.

Since Androgen already likes niterider, two separate Pro 1800's, one on the bar and one on the helmet would serve anyone riding singletrack much, much better.

I think my 7-up XPG is above 2000 lumen and my 1100 lumen helmet lamp works, but even my setup would be better with a 1400 lumen helmet lamp.

Anyone disagree?


----------



## MaximusHQ (Aug 6, 2007)

If you really need something powerful enough to use along side your NR 3600, I would look at the new Wilma at 2400 lumens or even the 3600 lumen Betty if you wanted to get crazy. 7200 lumens total between a NR 3600 and Betty 3600 should just about do it for bicycling purposes.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

MaximusHQ said:


> If you really need something powerful enough to use along side your NR 3600, I would look at the new Wilma at 2400 lumens or even the 3600 lumen Betty if you wanted to get crazy. 7200 lumens total between a NR 3600 and Betty 3600 should just about do it for bicycling purposes.


that is what i am thinking as well - Wilma, not Betty. in fact i originally wanted the Wilma, but the good people on this forum assured me i would not need even 1/3 of the awesome power of the Piko.

i knew it then, that this was the same kind of advice as i got when i was buying my first computer, namley "don't buy 166 mhz, that is too fast !" i didn't say then what i thought about it because i didn't feel like getting banned that day.

i knew it would not be enough, but i thought i could compensate for its weakness with a bigger bar light. HUGE MISTAKE. turned out it works the opposite way - by itself the Piko seems OK, but when you turn the bar light on suddenly it becomes useless.

anyway, i already have the RMA number for the Piko. it is going back in short order.

here are the beam shots of last generation Betty vs last generation Niterider:

https://reviews.mtbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Lupine-Betty-26-Degree1.jpg

https://reviews.mtbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Niterider-Pro-30001.jpg

if you open them full screen in two tabs and then use Ctrl+PageUp and Ctrl+PageDown in Firefox you can quickly switch back and forth between the two shots to see the difference.

it looks from those beam shots like Betty would be ideal match for the NR. between Betty and NR the brightness in those beam shots looks similar but the Betty is more focused, while the NR is more spread out, which i think is ideal. i think 3600 Betty + 3600 NR it would be a killer combination for somebody doing fast downhills ( that is to say not me ).

i wouldn't be able to live with myself if i got the Betty - it would simply be morally wrong to get one and then roll around the park at 15 mph - and if i told anybody i would become the laughing stock. besides, gotta draw the line somewhere - so no Betty !

Wilma to the rescue ! It may not match the NR but that's why NR has programmable output levels so i can just dim it FOR FREE


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

Androgen, 

So is the Wilma on its way to you? I wanna see what you think when you get it.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> Androgen,
> 
> So is the Wilma on its way to you? I wanna see what you think when you get it.


i want to get refund for Piko first, then i will probably order Wilma. NOT PROMISING ANYTHING though. the Piko is all packed up - i will hopefully ship it back tomorrow.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

I use the 1500 lumen wilma on the helmet with the battery in my jersey pocket. That's just a ridiculous amount of light with the 2400 lumen wilma on the bars. The Wilma on the helmet is a nice weight, don't even know it's there. 

J.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

The Betty running at 28w (2 steps down -2600 lumens) from max should run cooler than the Wilma running at 28w (max power -2400lumens). 7 LEDs should be driven less hard to get the same output as 4 LEDs. And of course the Betty has more ur face rea to dissipate heat.

But then again, there is the price difference.

Here is the Betty rapt 40w-3600 lumens
https://www.lupine2013.de/img/dimmlevel/Betty_R_40W-1.jpg

Then dropped to 28w-2600 lumens
https://www.lupine2013.de/img/dimmlevel/Betty_R_28W-1.jpg

And lastly the Wilma at 28w-2400 lumens
https://www.lupine2013.de/img/dimmlevel/Wilma_28W-2.jpg


----------



## mtbRevolution (Aug 10, 2012)

gticlay said:


> Let's be honest here. There is no headlamp that will be adequate when using a 3600. The problem is that for general riding, your eyes will adjust to the light on your bars. When you need the helmet lamp - in a switchback, for instance, unless it's relatively close in brightness, you won't be able to see anything. The OP would probably be better served with a lower lumen bar light combined with a true 1100 to 1500 lumen helmet light.
> 
> Anyone disagree?


Totally agree. Cat expressed similar opinion about the bar lights being too bright to match a helmet light. I would like to add that's it's not only about lumens. It's about using the right equipment for the right job.

NR 3600 is a nice light but it's an all-in-one twin reflector light. It's supposed to be used as a one light set up because one reflector is designed for flood pattern while the other for throw. Trying to match a powerful reflector lamp on the bar with lesser powered optical helmet light will be next to impossible. Everywhere you point the helmet light's hotspot (if indeed the optical light has a hotspot), it will be within the beam pattern of the NR. It will only out throw the NR if the NR was pointed downwards. At normal fitted angles, doubt any opticals will reach that far.

Lately I've been experimenting with ridiculously bright combinations. Made up arrays of whatever lights we have to see if we would enjoy having tons of light. What I had three days ago is more than the NR 3600. 9,300 theoretical lumens so lets half that. Was I happy? No.

The bar lights flooded everything, especially my helmet spot. Not sure if anyone would agree with me on this. The bar/flood to helmet/spot brightness ratio should be at least 40:60. IMO 30:70 is better. Then there's light throw to consider.

I have since up-scaled (added) my helmet light configuration to twice the brightness and lowered (removed) the bar light's overall output. It's as perfect as it gets. Will be using this set up till the prototype comes along and proves it's better.

OP would not like to hear this but if I was in a situation where I cannot return the NR, I would use it for the helmet and have Mike Tyson's neckline, and get a floodi-er Betty or any optical light about the 2000 lumen mark. Maybe even forget bars altogether.

Leonard


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

Good comments Len. I would say that I experimented quite a bit with different helmet lights and as long as there is enough light available, I tend to like a less spotty helmet light as I can use it with my bar light better. A prime example of a light I absolutely do not like is the original magic shine where a light I really enjoyed was the Xera with the stock optic and my 3-up quazzle light.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

Xeccon said:


> Totally agree. Cat expressed similar opinion about the bar lights being too bright to match a helmet light. I would like to add that's it's not only about lumens. It's about using the right equipment for the right job.
> 
> NR 3600 is a nice light but it's an all-in-one twin reflector light. It's supposed to be used as a one light set up because one reflector is designed for flood pattern while the other for throw. Trying to match a powerful reflector lamp on the bar with lesser powered optical helmet light will be next to impossible. Everywhere you point the helmet light's hotspot (if indeed the optical light has a hotspot), it will be within the beam pattern of the NR. It will only out throw the NR if the NR was pointed downwards. At normal fitted angles, doubt any opticals will reach that far.
> 
> ...


i can still return the NR, but i can't think of any wide flood light to replace it with. i think the NR 3600 has the best beam pattern of any bar light out there, with L&M Seca 1700 being the only challenger. but the L&M from what i read has bad, almost nonexistent support, cable that is way too long, no battery life indicator ( combined with a modest battery ), and inability to adjust the output to less than 425 lumens when you're on a busy commuter path. plus once i pay for return shipping and restocking fee ( they may apply restocking fee if they deem it used ) i will only recover just enough to pay for the L&M - so what's the point ?

stupid light manufacturers ( no offense ) are making all lights the same - they can't figure out that they should have a wide oval shaped flood for bars ( with a bit extra light going straight down, like with L&M seca ) and narrow round spot for helmet - instead all the lights they make are somewhere between flood and spot. they try to do a one-size-fits-all light because they think it will net them most customers but whether that is true or not the lights they make end up being garbage.

also, are you trying to say that reflector type lights produce fundamentally different kind of light than lens optics type lights ? if so - what is the difference ? are you trying to say that reflectors are better when lighthead size is not an issue ? i used to have a car with lens-type HID headlights and they worked flawlessly.

anyway i sent the Piko back. Lupine North America is only 160 miles from me so i hope it doesn't take too long.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

Why not keep the niterider 3600 and run it on a lower setting than max output and find a combination that works (in the DIY software you have full control over the amount of spot output and flood output to use for each setting). So because of that flexibility you should be able to find a headlight that you can blend seamlessly with it. If you need more flood in the niterider just dial down the spot for that setting or turn it off.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

This would probably last a lot longer than the NR will and you won't have to deal with the odd battery. I've never had a use for a charge level indicator personally but it has one right on the switch which is handy. The beam is supposed to be superb.

Double Stryk Kit

Looks like they are only $349 now too.

Baja Designs Double Stryk - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

Another light to consider for your helmet because you have a monster for a bar light is in the link below. I'm unsure what kind of beam pattern it has so I would ask the member in the link provided or someone here might know more about this light. I would also suggest what another member has said in setting it up so it isn't on full 3600 at the highest setting. Just trying to help you out OP.

http://forums.mtbr.com/9758588-post10.html

Home


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> Why not keep the niterider 3600 and run it on a lower setting than max output and find a combination that works (in the DIY software you have full control over the amount of spot output and flood output to use for each setting). So because of that flexibility you should be able to find a headlight that you can blend seamlessly with it. If you need more flood in the niterider just dial down the spot for that setting or turn it off.


that's the plan. although don't expect the "spot" and "flood" in niterider to be any different - they're both the same - about 10% difference only - the real benefit of that setup is that with two patterns the spread is smoother with less visible rings.

i just uploaded a video i took of NR 3600 and Dinotte 300R in Brooklyn traffic:

( you can watch it in 1080P if you want )

Niterider PRO 3600 and Dinotte 300 R in City Traffic ( Canon Vixia M500 ) - YouTube


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

androgen said:


> that's the plan. although don't expect the "spot" and "flood" in niterider to be any different - they're both the same - about 10% difference only - the real benefit of that setup is that with two patterns the spread is smoother with less visible rings.
> 
> i just uploaded a video i took of NR 3600 and Dinotte 300R in Brooklyn traffic:
> 
> ...


I know you ran the video with both lights in high to show everyone but I am guessing that is not how you run your setp in day to day use.

It looks like based on the surrounding lighting and such I would run the light on level 3 (out of the 6 levels programmed) and the taillight in low/medium flash mode. That I think would draw more attention than having the dinotte in solid mode. Just my opinion. Thx for the vid.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> I know you ran the video with both lights in high to show everyone but I am guessing that is not how you run your setp in day to day use.
> 
> It looks like based on the surrounding lighting and such I would run the light on level 3 (out of the 6 levels programmed) and the taillight in low/medium flash mode. That I think would draw more attention than having the dinotte in solid mode. Just my opinion. Thx for the vid.


in the program used in the video third level on NR was 800 lumens. the six levels were: 200,400,800,1500,2500,3600. as for Dinotte - i didn't know whether flashing modes have adjustable levels or not so to be sure that i know what i am filming i stuck with solid.

that six level program is not convenient for actual riding - it is more suitable for testing purposes. the niterider can have 4 custom programs at the same time - so i have a 6 level, a 4 level, a 3 level and a 2 level ones in there right now, while i am still in testing stage. once you know what you need i guess you could have one program for "road" one for "trail" and one for "commuter path" or something like that. and have 2 or 3 levels in each program. i think the DIY software is a pretty clever AND USEFUL addition to the package.

i am even getting used to the removable battery thing - at first it was very stiff, but now it is getting better and i am also getting used to plugging it in and taking it out - it seems rather convenient now.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

gticlay said:


> This would probably last a lot longer than the NR will and you won't have to deal with the odd battery. I've never had a use for a charge level indicator personally but it has one right on the switch which is handy. The beam is supposed to be superb.
> 
> Double Stryk Kit
> 
> ...


i would have taken it for the helmet in a heart beat - it has such a powerful hot spot - but it doesn't have a helmet mount.

for the bars i would much rather have the more diffuse light of NR.


----------



## colleen c (May 28, 2011)

androgen said:


> that's the plan. although don't expect the "spot" and "flood" in niterider to be any different - they're both the same - about 10% difference only - the real benefit of that setup is that with two patterns the spread is smoother with less visible rings.
> 
> i just uploaded a video i took of NR 3600 and Dinotte 300R in Brooklyn traffic:
> 
> ...


I can't even imagine what the guy wearing the blue jacket was thinking at the 3:31 mark of the video. He probably saw nothing but a huge white light (3600 lumens worth) coming right at him. I checked out the video three times just to see if the ghost jumped out of his skin when he step back. Sorry but I just had to giggle 

Definately go less lumens in the city.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

Hutch3637 said:


> Another light to consider for your helmet because you have a monster for a bar light is in the link below. I'm unsure what kind of beam pattern it has so I would ask the member in the link provided or someone here might know more about this light. I would also suggest what another member has said in setting it up so it isn't on full 3600 at the highest setting. Just trying to help you out OP.
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/9758588-post10.html
> 
> Home


interesting product, but the mount looks flimsy and it looks like it's just a light head - and i am supposed to come up with everything else on my own. not really what i am looking for.

i also wonder why they feel the urge to get creative there with 9 XPGs. just use 7 XMLs like Betty - can't lose that way.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

Androgen,

You may already know this but, here are the instructions to get the Dinotte to enter the "flash mode" programs. It looks like your 300r is currently set to the "steady lighting" program.

So to correct my previous comment of low/medium flash.... I would now say user the steady light with strobe option.

http://www.dinottelighting.com/manuals/300R_INST_A.pdf


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> Androgen,
> 
> You may already know this but, here are the instructions to get the Dinotte to enter the "flash mode" programs. It looks like your 300r is currently set to the "steady lighting" program.
> 
> ...


there is a video on YT comparing different Dinotte strobe options to steady mode here ( he is using 400R ):

Bicycle Lights - YouTube

that video convinced me to get the Dinotte in the first place.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

androgen said:


> i also wonder why they feel the urge to get creative there with 9 XPGs. just use 7 XMLs like Betty - can't lose that way.


That light was designed and being built long (in LED terms) before the XML became available. The small triple optics doom it to be an overbright in the near field flood light.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

Vancbiker said:


> That light was designed and being built long (in LED terms) before the XML became available. The small triple optics doom it to be an overbright in the near field flood light.


i see. yeah it is not a very clean design. lupine designs seem to be the cleanest.

clean design in itself doesn't mean a better product, but it usually means more competent team was behind the product.


----------



## mtbRevolution (Aug 10, 2012)

androgen said:


> i think the NR 3600 has the best beam pattern of any bar light out there


If there's a restocking fee and you like the beam pattern of the NR, I fully agree with cue003 you should keep it but run it at a lower setting. Nothing worse than giving it up and getting something you may regret.



androgen said:


> stupid light manufacturers ( no offense ) are making all lights the same - they can't figure out that they should have a wide oval shaped flood for bars ( with a bit extra light going straight down, like with L&M seca ) and narrow round spot for helmet - instead all the lights they make are somewhere between flood and spot. they try to do a one-size-fits-all light because they think it will net them most customers but whether that is true or not the lights they make end up being garbage.


No offense taken. Your point is quite valid. However there are commercial considerations when designing & manufacturing lights. There's design parameters and cost considerations which end up affecting selling price. Build for 80% and have the other 20% criticize the design or cost or, they can try to be different and do the opposite.



androgen said:


> also, are you trying to say that reflector type lights produce fundamentally different kind of light than lens optics type lights ? if so - what is the difference ? are you trying to say that reflectors are better when lighthead size is not an issue ? i used to have a car with lens-type HID headlights and they worked flawlessly.


In my observation and closet obsession for light throw, good reflector cup lights have yet to be beaten by the best optical lens fitted lights to date. Don't confuse absolute brightness for throw. This shootout at first glance shows the MyTinySun 3600 beating every light in throw, but look closely at the much dimmer Exposure SixPack Mk3. It's almost as bright at the far end of the throw. Without doubt your NR will out throw them.

There are threads discussing the difference between reflector and optical lights. Just need to search.

Leonard


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

androgen said:


> stupid light manufacturers ( no offense ) are making all lights the same - they can't figure out that they should have a wide oval shaped flood for bars ( with a bit extra light going straight down, like with L&M seca ) and narrow round spot for helmet - instead all the lights they make are somewhere between flood and spot. they try to do a one-size-fits-all light because they think it will net them most customers but whether that is true or not the lights they make end up being garbage.


I do not find a wide flood on the bars to be my favorite beam type. I really prefer a tight beam on the bars and it only needs to spill a little to the sides. If I want to see something to the side, I'll turn my head so the helmet light will pick it up. I find that light out to the side of the bike creates a lot of weird shadows that are eye-catching and a distraction to me.



androgen said:


> also, are you trying to say that reflector type lights produce fundamentally different kind of light than lens optics type lights ? if so - what is the difference ? are you trying to say that reflectors are better when lighthead size is not an issue ? i used to have a car with lens-type HID headlights and they worked flawlessly.


Of 5 different light designs that I have built, the 2 that use reflectors have been my favorite. The beam shape is more "defined". Tighter hotspot, some spill and a pretty sharp cutoff around the edges.


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

Vancbiker said:


> That light was designed and being built long (in LED terms) before the XML became available. The small triple optics doom it to be an overbright in the near field flood light.


Thank you for clarifying that up for me. I wasn't sure if that light would work for the OP. I figured it had an adequate amount of light to counter act his bar light if run on full power.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

cue003 said:


> The Betty running at 28w (2 steps down -2600 lumens) from max should run cooler than the Wilma running at 28w (max power -2400lumens). 7 LEDs should be driven less hard to get the same output as 4 LEDs. And of course the Betty has more ur face rea to dissipate heat.
> 
> But then again, there is the price difference.
> 
> ...


i transplanted your post here:

Betty R - Mtbr Forums


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I didn't read all four pages. 
I have an Exposure Diablo on my helmet and love it. 
I think I have a 2011 which says 900 lumens on it. I think the 2013 is up to 1100 or something. 
I love the wireless feature. Put it on the helmet, take it off the helmet. I've used it in hot weather and cold weather. No issues.


----------



## androgen (Apr 28, 2005)

NYrr496 said:


> I didn't read all four pages.
> I have an Exposure Diablo on my helmet and love it.
> I think I have a 2011 which says 900 lumens on it. I think the 2013 is up to 1100 or something.
> I love the wireless feature. Put it on the helmet, take it off the helmet. I've used it in hot weather and cold weather. No issues.


how much does it weigh. do you feel the weight on your helmet ?


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

androgen said:


> i see. yeah it is not a very clean design. lupine designs seem to be the cleanest.
> 
> clean design in itself doesn't mean a better product, but it usually means more competent team was behind the product.


Unfortunately the IBlaast IX from Nightlightning (which is the light in question here) is not very common in the Northern Hemisphere. If it were a more common sight there, like it is in New Zealand & Australia, some of the inacurate opinions about this light (as educated as they are) might stand corrected.
It is a fantastic light with an absolutely stunning amount of light for the price. And it is very well engineered by a company thats been doing this for well over a decade.
I've been into night riding for over 20 years, & have been a loyal Nightlightning customer for a long time.
As such, I admittingly got a very good deal with my last purchase from them. I bought a custom twin IBlaast IX set up with custom mounts, drivers & battery for way less than ONE Lupine Wilma.
Also, I don't understand why almost every photo of the light shows it sporting the very base level mounting option. Trust me they will up-spec them for you request it.
Some of my mates have Betty's (both XPG and 1st gen XML ) and just one IBlaast IX is brighter than those - if only marginally beating the 2600 lumen Betty.
But with the wide & narrow combo of optics I've specced I am yet to see anything that has a smoother and far reaching beam pattern.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Lupine and many other brands. I'm sure that a twin Betty R combo for example, would give another 1000 lumens or so over what I have. But it would cost possibly $1500 more.
If you want mega punch at a good price, Nightlightning is worth a look.
The beamshot of the single IBlaast IX is not mine, it's from a review in MountainBiking Aust magazine. And the other photo was taken with a cheap camera - sorry for the quality.


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

androgen said:


> how much does it weigh. do you feel the weight on your helmet ?


About 100g all-in-one, totally unnoticeable. Also, Exposure has the best helmet mount ever.

The problem is the runtime, on the max setting the light lasts only for about an hour. And you will want to run it on max if you pair it with a reasonably powerful bar light... (above 1000 lumens).


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

androgen said:


> how much does it weigh. do you feel the weight on your helmet ?


The 2013 weighs 108 grams. I don't feel it. Also, I have no reason to run mine on high. I run it on medium and have never run out of light on a ride yet.


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

radirpok said:


> About 100g all-in-one, totally unnoticeable. Also, Exposure has the best helmet mount ever.
> 
> The problem is the runtime, on the max setting the light lasts only for about an hour. And you will want to run it on max if you pair it with a reasonably powerful bar light... (above 1000 lumens).


Alhough I don't own one, I have borrowed one before and the Exposure Diablo is excellent.
I agree with you Radirpok - it really is totally unoticable as far as weight is concerned. So much so, that you could easily have two on your helmet if you needed extra punch to match your Niterider Androgen.
And don't worry about it being made in England, they have some of the best engineers in the world.
Exposure are very good.


----------

