# Tested NiteRider 1100 & 1800, runtime vs brightness, beam patterns



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

*Purpose:*
1) Sharing objective testing data of NiteRider 1100 & 1800, runtime vs brightness decrease, beam patterns. 
2) Put some facts into the many discussions I've seen, enable future conversations, perhaps have data gathering by others compiled for broader understanding of the bike lighting industry and it's products.

* Background:*
I have 4 NiteRider current technology LED lights, two 1100's and two 1800. The 1100's are single light and small/compact, the 1800's are dual light and wider. Bought the single 1100 December 2019, bought another 1100 and a 1800 February 2020, added a second 1800 September 2020 as now my 2 boys are riding at night with dad.
After doing a few fall night rides with my sons, I was curious my NiteRider's true runtime's and brightness output, so did some objective data gathering 101 as shown.

* I appreciate constructive thoughts and feedback here.*
Also, if you've done similar objective data testing on both NiteRider lights and other brands, I'd like to gather them in perhaps a shared google doc sheet, PM me and I'll grant you write access to one I have on a limited access G drive.
Other: Back in the later 90's, 1996 - 2001, I had the then NiteRider dual beam lights + water bottle battery and used them many-many night rides and 24 hr races. Love these LED lights, how'd we night bike "safely" then?

* Subjective thinking:*
* 1) Overall I'm very satisfied with the NiteRider 1100's and 1800's.*
On Medium setting they are good for 3 solid hours of riding, with the 1800 lasting till 4 hours with usable (still much decreased) brightness before shut off.

2) I bar mount the 1800 and helmet mount the 1100. The dual light 1800 has lens optics in front that disperse the light nicely into a rectangular zone with diffused light around that, while the 1100 has reflector + step optics that help focus the light more into a spot zone wile also giving a zone of light around that.
Simply the combo of both works nicely.
*
3) What I did NOT realize till I did the testing a 2nd time with the light brightness meter is how both the lights linearly decrease in brightness vs time*. 
*The 1100 decreases about 100 Lux/hour, while the 1800 200 Lux/hour, easy to see by the down-sloping lines in the graph below.*
Your eye does not notice that as it happens gradually, but if you have a light brightness meter the data will show it.
Further, since I had 2 each 1100 and 1800, by using medium setting and testing 1 pair for 2 full hours, then the second pair 2 hours in, you can subjective see and objectively look at the brightness #'s and visual differences.

*Lesson learned*: 
1) Use a fan for static testing!! Almost forgot, these *LED lights get hot*, I mean really hot! First time I did testing I did not use a fan, and about 20 minutes in when I touched them was surprised, I measured them at 150+ deg f along the metal heat sink. So, turned them off, got a fan, re-charged the batteries, then re-started the testing again. With fan temp max was lower 120's deg f, huge difference.

2) User tweaking of light runtime algorithm: NiteRider R&D PWM algorithms take into account desired brightness level with battery remaining capacity. Leaves open future NiteRider lights to be tweak-able by USB customer firmware, if they so choose to do so, heck possible Bluetooth interface, for the ultimate user selection. NiteRider R&D/Marketing: I'd like 2 1800's and 2 1200 OLED's for this customer idea.

* Objective charts / data:*
My first chart made from data taken Sept-28-2020, fan cooling was used here









I then realized the spreadsheet did not capture the diminishing brightness, so a few weeks later on Oct-27-2020 I captured data and plotted the below from it









Data used for above plot


----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

Pictures of testing:
2nd data gathering / testing in progress, with fan and light brightness meter.
Like I stated, used black velvet while taking lux readings so they'd be from the light source itself not reflected off table.
Yea - the ambient light added a little, but oh well.
Since I measured 1m (39.4") off the wall with the light meter there, I just used the wall as consistent stop.


Pictures
1100 on left showing clear lens with reflector for spot focus and steps for diffused light around the spot
1800 on right showing engineered optic lens for wide rectangular spot focus without a really over bright center with diffused light around the rectangular area.


1st test, and upon hot to touch measure at 152 deg f, ouch! It was then I realized needed a fan to simulate riding air cooling. I re-charged the lights and then did the 1st test test.


Yea, with fan low 120's deg f, much better.


----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

Pictures outside of Beam patterns at 25 and 50 feet for easy comparison

25 feet: 1100 Left on, 1800 Right on


25 feet: 1100 on


25 feet: 1800 on


50 foot 1100 left on, 1800 right on


50 foot 1100 left on


50 foot 1800 right on


----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

[HR][/HR]Fun picture time also ....
My 2 doggies helping

Front view

Side view


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Interesting. I'm in the process of requesting a refund for my Niterider 900 Micro. Claimed runtime at 900 was 2:00 hours. Real world performance is roughly 1:10. 

On the plus side, Niterider customer service has been very responsive and helpful.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

The Niterider Micro series lights have all been pretty bad about dropping output over the runtime. The wetestlights.com site has an output graph for the Micro 850 that shows that in the first 15 minutes of use the output drops 25%. At the claimed 90 minute runtime on high, the output has dropped~80% to less than 200 lumen. 

IMHO, these types of performance claims are deceptive at best.


----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

*Tested NiteRider 1100 & 1800, runtime vs brightness, beam patterns*



RickBullottaPA said:


> Interesting. I'm in the process of requesting a refund for my Niterider 900 Micro. Claimed runtime at 900 was 2:00 hours. Real world performance is roughly 1:10.
> 
> On the plus side, Niterider customer service has been very responsive and helpful.


Hmm, your 900 has weird runtime compared to my 1100 per their site:
900 specs.
How can a lower Mha battery give longer runtime at same lumens??
4.5 hrs for your 900 vs 3 hrs for my 1100, WTF is going on?
Does the 900 have a smaller focus zone so lumens is same but not spread out as much??









1100 specs 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

I suspect that the difference is that the 1100 spec says FL1 standard. The ANSI FL1 standard defines when to stop counting runtime.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

mtbdudex said:


> How can a lower Mha battery give longer runtime at same lumens??


Answer is it can't (for this basically apples to apples situation). Output vs. Runtime curves are programmed so to achieve the longer runtimes claimed for the Micro 900 it just spends more time at a lower output. Here's an example of 2 Niterider lights (thanks again to wetestlights.com) with the same claimed output where the one with the larger battery has the shorter runtime.
Mole

***Click on image to expand***


----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

*Tested NiteRider 1100 & 1800, runtime vs brightness, beam patterns*



MRMOLE said:


> Answer is it can't. Output vs. Runtime curves are programmed so to achieve the longer runtimes claimed for the Micro 900 it just spends more time at a lower output. Here's an example of 2 Niterider lights (thanks again to wetestlights.com) with the same claimed output where the one with the larger battery has the shorter runtime.
> Mole
> 
> ***Click on image to expand***
> View attachment 1374701


Understood , the area under the curve remains constant, can't change physics. Re-balance the curve, etc. 
Does the FL1 std specify for marketing and advertising how to utilize the curve to get a product representative number for true apples to apples consistency?
Thx



Vancbiker said:


> I suspect that the difference is that the 1100 spec says FL1 standard. The ANSI FL1 standard defines when to stop counting runtime.


I'd like to read the FL1 standard, being a PE (professional engineer ) for 30 years I've read 100's of design / test standards plus written many myself. 
Can one of you guys send me a link ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Lies, damn lies, and LED light runtimes/output. ;-)

FWIW, Niterider accepted my return. Gonna try a different light.


----------



## EKram (Oct 30, 2020)

Gotta chime in. Using my night rider 550 for be seen purposes on the road. Have a thread going on DIY battery replacement.

I like a dedicated bike light, especially for looks, but I am starting to suspect that my original set up with a Niteize flashlight holder and a good feature, quality flashlight have great advantages. Maybe even better than some of the offered stuff on the bike market.
Flashlight technology has been around a long time. The catch being a durable flashlight that can handle prolonged vibration. That said, that they are out there but one has to figure out which.
I go cheap, and have been let down.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

mtbdudex said:


> ........
> Does the FL1 std specify for marketing and advertising how to utilize the curve to get a product representative number for true apples to apples consistency?
> Thx
> 
> ...


AFAIK the only way to get the full document is to purchase it. Googling will get you snippets. In the bits that I have read, there was nothing about how marketing or advertising could represent test data. The worst thing about the standard is it defines runtime as when the light reaches 10% of the initial output. IMO for actual use, that should be more like 50%.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

RickBullottaPA said:


> Lies, damn lies, and LED light runtimes/output. ;-)
> 
> FWIW, Niterider accepted my return. Gonna try a different light.


In your case if your Micro 900 actually shut down after 70 min. it may have been a sub-standard unit but in general poor standards are what allow the light companies to (IMO) make exaggerated performance claims in regards to runtimes and output consistency. Basically current standards only require a light to produce its max. claimed output at startup and any runtime after that as long as it's over 10% of the claimed max is allowed to be included in the overall runtime claims. Almost all lights output will degrade over the duration of their runtimes but the rate at which they do so can vary greatly. Glad to hear your getting a refund! Happy to help you find something that will better suite you needs but that would be off topic here so best if you start a new thread listing your wants/needs or you can ask questions in my self-comtained thread.
Mole

https://forums.mtbr.com/lights-night-riding/self-contained-z-1105995.html


----------



## Outbound (Aug 23, 2017)

mtbdudex said:


> I'd like to read the FL1 standard, being a PE (professional engineer ) for 30 years I've read 100's of design / test standards plus written many myself.
> Can one of you guys send me a link ?


Yes, the FL1 standard SUCKS. Here is a link for the overall guidelines.

ANSI FL1 Standard - LED-Resource

We got skewered by customers and people on here when we tried to adhere to it for the runtimes on Hangover, and quickly decided to scrap that and instead publish actual runtime graphs so that people can clearly see what is expected from the lights










In our opinion, the runtime should either be the full output (which isn't hard to do when you can design a light to handle the thermals properly) or clearly state that the output will diminish to a certain amount. We typically chose 70% perceived output because when you ramp a light down, that's typically the amount that our eyes can't really tell the difference on as they adjust to the darkness. So we've been able to seamlessly ramp our power down to get more runtime while having the "feeling" of the light staying the same output.

Which also makes it even more challenging on how to "rate" a light, since we all perceive brightness differently. For some people a 300 lumen light is incredibly bright and more than enough, for others a combo of 4000 lumens is barely enough. Combine that with lux testing only being good for a single rated point, and the full spread being challenging to understand due to the logarithmic properties of lighting vs linear.

In our case, we tend to just let the customers do the talking. We'll never win a peak brightness contest, a lumen contest, a runtime contest, or even a beam pattern width contest. But we strive to provide the best compromise of all those things. But how to objectively measure that and rate it against other lights? That ain't easy.


----------



## marcw (Apr 20, 2012)

I used to rebuild my NiteRider BW 3000 every year, 175 was not worth it.


----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

*Tested NiteRider 1100 & 1800, runtime vs brightness, beam patterns*

Outbound, thx sir for info, I need to read and think on it before I can reply further.

Fwiw. Someone else suspected my testing overheated the lights. I think not, the fan was at medium speed and registered 5.5 mph, more than enough for convection cooling.
(As a side thing I design and build dedicated basement home theaters, and of course HVAC loads and handling them quietly is a huge part of movie experience, so airflow crucial for that)
Ha, does the FL1 test specify use a fan and speed of airflow ? 
I've read the mtbr 2016 tests and others, seems a come and go thing, testing lights.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

mtbdudex said:


> Fwiw. Someone else suspected my testing overheated the lights. I think not, the fan was at medium speed and registered 5.5 mph, more than enough for convection cooling.


For what it's worth I use a similar sized fan to cool my lights when testing and have found it roughly equivalent to actually riding in a similar ambient temperature. That being said I was unable to adequately cool the Lumina 1800 in a low 80° invironment in the boost mode. I've not had any issues with any of the other Lumina's I've tested but that one had a tendency to run hot.



> I've read the mtbr 2016 tests and others, seems a come and go thing, testing lights.


Here's links to a couple of test sites I like to check out from time to time. The wetestlights site is where MTBR used to get its sphere testing done. They've not done too many tests lately but just posted a few recently. The road.cc site is UK based and they do a larger volume of tests focusing on lux reading @ different beam angles + have beam shots. 
Mole

https://www.wetestlights.com/result.php?query=Bike

https://lights.road.cc/index-wide.php


----------



## willawry'd (Oct 3, 2005)

RickBullottaPA said:


> Interesting. I'm in the process of requesting a refund for my Niterider 900 Micro. Claimed runtime at 900 was 2:00 hours. Real world performance is roughly 1:10.
> 
> On the plus side, Niterider customer service has been very responsive and helpful.


Does your Micro 900 throw out a super blue light? All my other Luminas are a nice white light but the Micro 900 is so awfully blue that it washes out trail features and seems to mess with my eyesight.

Haven't really tested the runtime, but I tend to over-light so I can keep them on the low settings and occasionally bump it up to medium through the ttf's.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

willawry'd said:


> I tend to over-light so I can keep them on the low settings and occasionally bump it up to medium through the ttf's.


Good plan, output consistency is much better in the lower modes!
Mole


----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

Ok - these past 2 weeks I've seen on the 3 MTB / fatbike facebook groups I'm in at least 15+ posts on "which lights to buy", etc.

90%+ people on facebook don't want to think, their looking for opinions and shared experiences , and told stuff.

These graphs / charts I made ... are TMI for most of them.
"What's the real message"? 
(I'm being rhetorical)

The advertised Light output dims substantially over the stated runtime for most lights on the market, most in some linear downslope fashion.

Simple message above is best.


----------



## marcw (Apr 20, 2012)

mtbdudex said:


> Ok - these past 2 weeks I've seen on the 3 MTB / fatbike facebook groups I'm in at least 15+ posts on "which lights to buy", etc.
> 
> 90%+ people on facebook don't want to think, their looking for opinions and shared experiences , and told stuff.
> 
> ...


I bought 3 lights from amazon, 2 lights i returned, the 3rd I kept, had the same brightness for 3 hours. I was amazed.

Also as a underwater photographer, I was amazed how even the the light spread looked. I never did a side by side, but my light & motion vs these had a similar flat look for $400 less


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

marcw said:


> I bought 3 lights from amazon, 2 lights i returned, the 3rd I kept, had the same brightness for 3 hours. I was amazed.
> 
> Also as a underwater photographer, I was amazed how even the the light spread looked. I never did a side by side, but my light & motion vs these had a similar flat look for $400 less


If these are bike appropriate lights I'd like to see some links (please).
Mole


----------



## marcw (Apr 20, 2012)

MRMOLE said:


> If these are bike appropriate lights I'd like to see some links (please).
> Mole


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07R1JCXLG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

marcw said:


> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07R1JCXLG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1


Thanks!
Mole


----------



## mb323323 (Aug 1, 2006)

I use a Niterider on my helmet and yes, it dims over the stated run time. This is exactly why I've gone back to a external battery on my bar lights. They maintain stated output far better. It wasn't until I went back to the external battery light that I could fully see the difference in output of the Niterider. I just carry 2 now. Not banging on NR, the lights are nice and the bean pattern is real good, probably one of the best for a small light. All these self contained lights suffer from this issue from what I can tell.


----------



## marcw (Apr 20, 2012)

mb323323 said:


> I use a Niterider on my helmet and yes, it dims over the stated run time. This is exactly why I've gone back to a external battery on my bar lights. They maintain stated output far better. It wasn't until I went back to the external battery light that I could fully see the difference in output of the Niterider. I just carry 2 now. Not banging on NR, the lights are nice and the bean pattern is real good, probably one of the best for a small light. All these self contained lights suffer from this issue from what I can tell.


how old is the NR light? Constant light needs the proper circuitry to work. Older lights will fade.


----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

Hmm, just saw this in bikerumors ...
By Staff - July 16, 2021
Best Bike Lights of 2021 - Our favorite lights to see and be seen!

BEST OVERALL - HEADLIGHT:
Niterider Lumina Dual 1800


----------



## Outbound (Aug 23, 2017)

Remember those lists are always curated based on what gives them the biggest cut of the affiliate links. Notice they never link back to the manufacturer website with a clean link, always an amazon or a wholesaler affiliate tagged link.


----------



## zapotec (Jul 21, 2020)

Uh oh, why they nominated Lumina Dual 1800 as overall best ???

Sure, the wide and smooth beam is the main strength, but it was plagued by overheating issues in high mode, not mentioned NR tend to using barrel style plug instead of USB-C, and NR seems didn't bother at all. I am interesting to get NR Dual 1800 as well, but if I get steep discount in the first place, from the feature sets I am a bit hesitant for paying a full price.

Even their latest offering NR 2500 seems less impressive, dunno NR back to the old style bowl reflector instead of high engineered TIR reflector (maybe due NR utilizing big die LED?) I am afraid it would produce a generic circular beam pattern, and...2021 still no USB-C...(barrel plug again)

Not bad light per se, but there's much a better option out there, in a bike light world NR seems like dinosaur IMO, they big and old player but lack of innovation, and slow to adapt with the latest advancement.


----------



## Thoreau (Jun 15, 2017)

zapotec said:


> Uh oh, why they nominated Lumina Dual 1800 as overall best ???
> 
> Sure, the wide and smooth beam is the main strength, but it was plagued by overheating issues in high mode, not mentioned NR tend to using barrel style plug instead of USB-C, and NR seems didn't bother at all. I am interesting to get NR Dual 1800 as well, but if I get steep discount in the first place, from the feature sets I am a bit hesitant for paying a full price.
> 
> ...


Misplacing that 1800's charger with a pending night ride was the last straw for me today. I already hated that it wasn't USB (ANY form of USB would've been better than an AC adapter/barrel plug,) but that combined with the fact that when I am doing night rides, it's because daytime temps are pushing 115 degrees and nigh temps are still usually within triple digits, so it wasn't a fan of the heat. It also didn't get along well with either being mounted upside down using a k-edge bike computer mount and adapter (the beam pattern spilled upward instead of the correct direction) nor did the bulky clamp mount get alone well with my k-edge bike computer mount. And the poor little mount was kinda not up to the task for that heavy of a light wobbling around on chunky trails. To top it off, the beam pattern wasn't really anything to write home about. It was definitely an improvement over the pair of 1100's I ran prior (one on helmet, one on bars), but I'm very happy to have found a better (even if not-super-cheap) alternative... that uses USB C across the board. =)

Good thing is, the lights are definitely NOT bad, and I'll happily sell them to some newer riding friends if they're interested as they've got tons of life left in them and are much more suited to their riding.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Thoreau said:


> Misplacing that 1800's charger with a pending night ride was the last straw for me today. I already hated that it wasn't USB (ANY form of USB would've been better than an AC adapter/barrel plug,) but that combined with the fact that when I am doing night rides, it's because daytime temps are pushing 115 degrees and nigh temps are still usually within triple digits, so it wasn't a fan of the heat. It also didn't get along well with either being mounted upside down using a k-edge bike computer mount and adapter (the beam pattern spilled upward instead of the correct direction) nor did the bulky clamp mount get alone well with my k-edge bike computer mount. And the poor little mount was kinda not up to the task for that heavy of a light wobbling around on chunky trails. To top it off, the beam pattern wasn't really anything to write home about. It was definitely an improvement over the pair of 1100's I ran prior (one on helmet, one on bars), but I'm very happy to have found a better (even if not-super-cheap) alternative... that uses USB C across the board. =)
> 
> Good thing is, the lights are definitely NOT bad, and I'll happily sell them to some newer riding friends if they're interested as they've got tons of life left in them and are much more suited to their riding.


Agreed that that proprietary plug charger is a bad feature that should be corrected. At least with the new max series they have gone to USB-C but those unfortunately also come with a lot of the typical irritating NR characteristics including the ones you mentioned you had with your 1800. In the Lumina 1800's defense I've owned/tested quite a few dual emitter self-contained lights and past the 1500 lumen level most suffered overheating issues when used for long periods of time in their highest mode. OB lights your replacing the Lumina's with had a lot of their development time done here in the Phoenix area so should work better for you in the heat.
Mole


----------



## mtbdudex (Jan 13, 2020)

nearly 2 year check-in here.
I have (2) 1100's and (2) 1800's, with myself and either of my 2 sons riding with me we've used them lots and lots.
They have survived crashes and give solid performance on my 2 hour MTB trail night rides.
Agree on the 1800 having the old school barrel connection, I see the newer NiteRider use USB-C.
These serve me fine, if I was going to do a 24 race sure I'd get the separate light / battery units for their larger batteries.
Live in SE Michigan, use 4 season.


----------

