# Seca 1400!!



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Has anyone seen or rode with the new Seca 1400?? Will be interesting to see how it compares to the revised NR 1400.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

I'm also curious, though I'm not sure anyone even has one yet. I've been searching for "Seca 1400" daily for the last month, and it's only been in the last week than any links to buy one have shown up, and even those are oddball internet places I haven't heard of (or places outside the US, where I am).

I noticed REI discounted the Seca 700 recently. As soon as they carry a 1400, I'm going to get one...just sure how long it will be until then though.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I'm a little surprised that it's hit and miss,especially in your neck of the woods.The MEC outlet here in Vancouver B.C. has them advertised for $719.Not to bad for Canadian retail.I'm guessing they have gone to XPG for that much output.Should be a fantastic beam!!


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

lol, we'll see about the beam. I bought a Seca 900, and while it had a better beam than many of my other lights, there were still things I didn't like about it. Wasn't wide enough at the far end. Could have used more light on the ground off to the sides. Wouldn't have hurt if it the light went farther (though it was the first light where I thought it would be "nice" if it went farther, rather than thinking the damn thing should go farther for the money I paid for it! lol).

Have they fixed all these problems with the new version? We will see, hopefully! 

P.S. I don't mean to rip on it to much. The Seca 900 is the best non-dynamo light I've used so far, and the dynamo light required an additional battery light before I liked it, and then probably about tied with the 900. I'm just frustrated that spending a bunch of money still doesn't buy me the perfect light! lol


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

indebt said:


> I'm a little surprised that it's hit and miss,especially in your neck of the woods.The MEC outlet here in Vancouver B.C. has them advertised for $719.Not to bad for Canadian retail.I'm guessing they have gone to XPG for that much output.Should be a fantastic beam!!


What's XPG?


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

fyi, the 1400 showed up on Art's Cyclery today, so that's promising for getting reviews...
http://www.artscyclery.com/descpage-LMSC1400.html


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

The Cree XPG led's are the newest technology increasing lumen output,however something better is coming soon!!


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

indebt said:


> The Cree XPG led's are the newest technology increasing lumen output,however something better is coming soon!![/quote
> 
> Care to tell us?


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Jun 7, 2009)

indebt said:


> The Cree XPG led's are the newest technology increasing lumen output,however something better is coming soon!!


Care to enlighten us?


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I'll give it a shot.I read in D.I.Y. a couple of months ago that Cree had a new LED coming out called the XLamp XM.The new platform claimes 160 lumens per watt.Don't believe there talking about the XPG's as there already out.It's a single chip LED delivering 160 lumens per watt at 350 Ma,also delivers 750 lumens at 2A.The platform has a larger footprint than Cree's XP family.And the thermal resistance is 2 degree's C per watt.Haven't heard anything new since this post back in April.
Does anyone have anymore info on this product?


----------



## odtexas (Oct 2, 2008)

Probably this.
Basically large die like SST and capable at being driven at higher amps. Should have issue similar to all larger die LEDs. Poor focus without large, 30mm plus optics.



> Cree Announces Revolutionary New LED Platform Delivering 160 Lumens per Watt
> 
> XLamp® XM LEDs Are Most Efficient Lighting-Class LEDs in the Industry
> 
> ...


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

fyi, Light and Motion finally put up an official Seca 1400 page with side-by-side beam comparisons with other lights -
http://www.bikelightingsystem.com/seca700.html

Now obviously these are from light and motion, so take them with a grain of salt. They compared them to a couple of different lights, the Niterider 1200, Lupine Betty, and Magicshine 900. (EDIT - these was my previous, incorrect, text here - looks like I was looking at the Seca 700 comparison when I thought I was looking at the 1400 comparison - like the Magicshine 900 and the Niterider 600 (notice how they "mysteriously" didn't compare to the Niterider 1200, a light that's actually a similar price with similar lumen output) as well as the Lupine Tesla 4 and Cygolite TridenX).

*sigh* Looking at it further, it becomes clear they resort to further obvious trickery - the side-by-side comparison put the Seca on the left and the other lights on the right. But while the left side has a patch of water on it making the road darker, the right side is completely covered in water, making the other light always appear dimmer.

There's other caveats, but anyways - it's official out at least.  I don't know about their questionable marketing, but my Seca 900 was a very decent light, I'm interested in the 1400 version...


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

PaulRivers said:


> fyi, Light and Motion finally put up an official Seca 1400 page with side-by-side beam comparisons with other lights -
> http://www.bikelightingsystem.com/seca700.html
> 
> Now obviously these are from light and motion, so take them with a grain of salt. They compared them to a couple of different lights, like the Magicshine 900 and the Niterider 600 (notice how they "mysteriously" didn't compare to the Niterider 1200, a light that's actually a similar price with similar lumen output) as well as the Lupine Tesla 4 and Cygolite TridenX.
> ...


 If you click on the Seca 1400 at the top of the website right beside the Seca 700, you will see comparison's with the NR 1200 the Lupine Betty,etc. The Seca 1400 looks as i expected,with a well diversified beam,good fill up close and to the sides up to medium range.Seems to have the NR 1200 beat pretty handily.The Betty however after the first 20/30 feet in my opinion blows the doors of it. You can see the road including the bend is lit up far more than the Seca.Just depends what you want i guess,range or spread.You would need 5000 lumens to get the brightness and range of the betty with the spread of the Seca,maybe next year 
You were right as the comparison's with the Seca 700 seemed rediculously one sided.I rode with a guy using the NR 600 pro and it was pretty bright and i didn't see a green hue,not to mention the dry road on the left vs the completely soaked road to the right.But as we know,the only way to tell for sure is to see for yourself, as i have foud trusting peoples camera settings or the cameras themselves is to unreliable.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Just realized Paul, that if you click on the center line separating the two lights you just click and hold,then pull to the left or right to get the full photo of either light alleviating the issue of wet or dry roads.If the photo's are as described on there website and are taken with identical settings then i would have to say they have hit a homerun!!


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

indebt said:


> Just realized Paul, that if you click on the center line separating the two lights you just click and hold,then pull to the left or right to get the full photo of either light alleviating the issue of wet or dry roads.If the photo's are as described on there website and are taken with identical settings then i would have to say they have hit a homerun!!


Yes, I realized you can, but it's still the case that the right size of the photo is "mysteriously" wet - *exactly* up to the center line, which is the default line between the left and the right of the photo.

I'll be buying this light because I liked their previous products, don't get me wrong. Just irritating when they *almost* provide useful information, but then put some marketing/bs spin on it to make it look better.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

indebt said:


> If you click on the Seca 1400 at the top of the website right beside the Seca 700, you will see comparison's with the NR 1200 the Lupine Betty,etc. The Seca 1400 looks as i expected,with a well diversified beam,good fill up close and to the sides up to medium range.Seems to have the NR 1200 beat pretty handily.The Betty however after the first 20/30 feet in my opinion blows the doors of it. You can see the road including the bend is lit up far more than the Seca.Just depends what you want i guess,range or spread.You would need 5000 lumens to get the brightness and range of the betty with the spread of the Seca,maybe next year
> You were right as the comparison's with the Seca 700 seemed rediculously one sided.I rode with a guy using the NR 600 pro and it was pretty bright and i didn't see a green hue,not to mention the dry road on the left vs the completely soaked road to the right.But as we know,the only way to tell for sure is to see for yourself, as i have foud trusting peoples camera settings or the cameras themselves is to unreliable.


I updated my post - oops! You're right - I think I clicked on the Seca 700 comparison, but thought it was still the Seca 1400 comparison.

I can see what you mean about the Lupine having more throw - it certainly appears to. But I can say that in my opinion and for my riding, I lean towards the Seca's beam pattern. The Lupine has a super bright spot in front of the bike which, from experience with a Dinotte 600L, I don't like, it makes your eyes adjust to the bright spot (pupils contract or something) and you can't see as far down the road. Though to be fair, not only do pictures not necessarily tell the whole story, but in the picture the Seca also looks a little to bright immediately in front of the bike, which concerns me a tiny bit.

And from experience with a Seca 900, I found I wished I had more side illumination because of the rabbits off to the side of the trail at night for "road" riding (on the MUP, or trails around the lakes). One these days one of those bastards is going to dart through my wheel - at least when I can see them sitting there I can go past them on the far side of the trail. And for mountain biking, more light close up is *definitely* wanted. :-D The Seca still lights up 90 feet down the road (assuming the pictures are accurate)...I dunno, if you have a Lupine Betty and live in Minnesota, I'd be happy to try them out side by side once I get a Seca 1400, haha.


----------



## Mai (Feb 4, 2006)

I have been looking at the Seca 1400 and a Lupine Wilma 7 for some time. I was leaning towards the Wilma because of run time, but seeing the lights side by side has made me rethink the Seca. I like the wider pattern on the Seca instead of the center focused Wilma.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Would be interesting to see the Betty's beam side by side with the Seca 1400 with the new 22 degree wide lens now available.How about the Seca 1400 on the handel bars and the 16 degree Betty on the helmet, 3250 lumens,,,,,welders helmet needed!!.Think only a DIY would out perform that!!! Paul,don't think you need to worry about the Seca been to bright up close as you described as almost every picture i've seen of high powered lights tend to have a little over exposure to them.I'm sure it's because i've become used to my Betty2, as when i first got it i was wanting the 22 degree lens right away but as most of my riding is single track, in real life the beam is more than wide enough for the most demanding trails, with a helmet light as well of coarse.Still may try the 22 degree??


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

Well geez, *everything* is wide enough with a helmet light! lol 

The point about being to bright is that the beam is supposed to be even - if it's to bright close to you, it makes it difficult to see things farther away as your eyes adjust to the brightest spot of light. If it was overexposed as much farther away as it was close to the bike, it wouldn't be a concern, it would just be a matter of overexposure on the camera.

All that being said, I'm not taking anything in the pics to particularly seriously. I've *tried* to take pictures of the beam from my Seca 900 vs some of my other lights, and the pictures just don't turn out like it looks in person (and this is with a camera with manual controls and all that that I set).


----------



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

My $.02 worth of opinion....What was said about the beam photos on the L&M site was spot on. The right half of the road looks completely wet. If this wasn't so sad it would be laughable. I couldn't tell the difference between the Lupine and the MagicShine!...Now that is laughable! :lol: If I was running the L&M website I'd have someone take that down real quick..

I'm still trying to figure out just what LED's are being used for the Seca 1400(?)
I'm thinking two under-driven MC-E's on the outside and a single ( over-driven ? ) XP-G R-5 in the center for added throw..  

Anyone really know?


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> My $.02 worth of opinion....What was said about the beam photos on the L&M site was spot on. The right half of the road looks completely wet. If this wasn't so sad it would be laughable. I couldn't tell the difference between the Lupine and the MagicShine!...Now that is laughable! :lol: If I was running the L&M website I'd have someone take that down real quick..


Well to be fair, maybe you're thinking of a different Lupine. On another page they have these two stats -
Lupine Tesla 4 - 700 Claimed Lumens - 492 Measured Lumens
MagicShine 900 - 900 Claimed Lumens - 518 Measured Lumens

Perhaps you're thinking of the Lupine Betty 7 which they also list?
Lupine Betty 7 - 1750 Claimed Lumens - 1686 Measured Lumens

I'm not saying the any company couldn't be full of marketing crap, but it would be odd that they would lie about the "claimed" lumens, and one of the Lupines only claims 700 lumens...


----------



## skoor (Jun 9, 2009)

PaulRivers said:


> *sigh* Looking at it further, it becomes clear they resort to further obvious trickery - the side-by-side comparison put the Seca on the left and the other lights on the right. But while the left side has a patch of water on it making the road darker, the right side is completely covered in water, making the other light always appear dimmer.
> 
> QUOTE]
> I have a bias, since I just got a Betty II. But look at the tunnel ceiling, the water may have made the Betty and other lights look dark, but the ceiling shows all.  And their own lumen chart shows it is much brighter too with about the same -4% overrating.
> ...


----------



## skoor (Jun 9, 2009)

indebt said:


> ... I was wanting the 22 degree lens right away but as most of my riding is single track, in real life the beam is more than wide enough for the most demanding trails, with a helmet light as well of coarse.Still may try the 22 degree??


I just got the Betty II with both standard and the new 22 degree lens. I was pretty sure the 22 degree lens would be my standard and I would just set aside the normal lens. However, for just general road riding at night, I actually like the hotter spot in center just to see any road hazard better. On close trial with trees/rock, I might change my lens back to the 22 degree. Nice to have both options, but not totally trivial to switch out.

Not sure why the bright light is so addicting and I would want more. Heck, even the dim MS900 ( I returned due to failure to take a charge after a week) threw a hotter center beam than one of my cars. The Betty II would probably be street illegal. But you do! I think it is a perceived safety issue. In a car, you just hit and bounce in the seat. On a bike, well....you think the worst- always.

Back to the Seca 14400, seems they are just getting the XPG LEDs now- strange, with the XM-L right around the corner. Lupine has had the XPGs apparently since late last year. I would expect the new CREE XM to be available some time this fall or early next year from Lupine in some lights w/upgrade to follow. The Betty II will likely be in the 2200-2500 lumen range with new LED or better run time, you choice, since you can customize it.

And the Secca 1900,, or what ever in 2011, will require a new light head. With Lupine, I just get a nominal upgrade, if I so chose.

Something to think about to justify the price difference beyond just lumens. And you do have the lens choice too..


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

skoor said:


> PaulRivers said:
> 
> 
> > *sigh* Looking at it further, it becomes clear they resort to further obvious trickery - the side-by-side comparison put the Seca on the left and the other lights on the right. But while the left side has a patch of water on it making the road darker, the right side is completely covered in water, making the other light always appear dimmer.
> ...


----------



## skoor (Jun 9, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> My $.02 worth of opinion....What was said about the beam photos on the L&M site was spot on. The right half of the road looks completely wet. If this wasn't so sad it would be laughable. I couldn't tell the difference between the Lupine and the MagicShine!...Now that is laughable! :lol:


Right, bet the marketing guys drove all night looking for that "tunnel" or they were thirsty, since they all sacrificed their water bottles. Or hmm, worst. Moving on...


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

skoor said:


> Right, bet the marketing guys drove all night looking for that "tunnel" or they were thirsty, since they all sacrificed their water bottles. Or hmm, worst. Moving on...


Lol.

But to be fair, it is pretty interesting they put the Lupine Betty on there at all - a light that puts out more lumens than their's (though also at a noticeably higher price).


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

skoor said:


> ...Not sure why the bright light is so addicting and I would want more. Heck, even the dim MS900 ( I returned due to failure to take a charge after a week) threw a hotter center beam than one of my cars. The Betty II would probably be street illegal. But you do! I think it is a perceived safety issue. In a car, you just hit and bounce in the seat. On a bike, well....you think the worst- always.


Yeah, but the question really is - does that hot spot in the middle *really* let you see more, or is it just exciting but doesn't do much?

I know I was super excited about my 2 Dinotte 400L's. Seemed pretty cool at first - 800 lumens! But after several trips I found something odd - running with both lights on only let me see the road about 20% better. I could turn the second one off for most of the trip - it just barely added anything.

In fact, I found that turning both on actually made it more difficult to see outside the narrow "hot spot". I realized it must be putting out enough light that my eyes adjusted (pupils contracted, I would guess) which was rather counterproductive to seeing more of the road.

My 400L's came with a lens kit, and by putting the right combination of wider angle lenses on (I started with 2 middle-wide lenses, then went back to 1 middle-wide lens, 1 narrow lens, but with the first light with 2 narrow beams on high, and the other light with the 1 middle-wide lens on medium) I actually greatly improved my ability to see the road. Despite technically putting out less light, and definitely putting it out less intensely, the much-more-even beam pattern was waaaaaay nicer to bike with. I could see much, much better - not only could I see the road better, and things off to the side of the road, but my eyes felt more relaxed (probably from not straining to be able to see the hotspot and the much dimmer stuff off to the side). The one thing I couldn't do with the lights was increase the "throw" (distance it shined down the road), which is the only reason I continued my bike light search.

Actually, funny enough, I think my Dinotte combination provide a nicer and more even beam than either of the Seca's I tried (the 700 and the 900). I stuck with the 900 because it definitely had further throw than my Dinotte combination, and it's light spread was pretty good. And it threw enough light on the ground on high to let me clearly see the path in front of me on the stretch of my route where I'm biking towards traffic (I'm on a path off the rode, but right next to the road).

So what I'm saying is - you're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but my experience has left me with a greatly increased desire for the *even* beam pattern, rather than just a bright hotspot in the middle.


----------



## skoor (Jun 9, 2009)

PaulRivers said:


> Lol....it is pretty interesting they put the Lupine Betty on there at all - a light that puts out more lumens than theirs (though also at a noticeably higher price).


Right, and to be fair, the Secca lens design throws down instead of a circular beam patten. But then it should have bounced back up at the ceiling at the end of tunnel again.  This never ends, doesn't it. Really, these guys should go back when the tunnel is dry, so we can stop laughing so much and do it right. Or they should buy a white sheet and hang it on a barn.

On cost, I was very lucky, I got my Lupine Betty II for about the street price of a Secca 900/1400. Can not say how, but still smiling. :thumbsup: One of those days that rarely come along and you grab it.

And it is a very nice, highly customizable light. Lupine really thought this one out. It is more that just lumens and small size. They even give you options to optimize for drive levels, if you understand the technology. Right in the manual, bet it goes over most people;s head.

And you can optimise the run time/lumens because of the number of LEDs too. LEDs are typically more efficient at less than full rated output, so having more a less power gives you an edge too. And you still have the higher max power, when you want it.

I ran a test. I got 5 1/2 hours of run time on the 7.5ah battery at over 1100+ lumen with 55% power. Way over the brightness of the older Secca 900 maxed out. And I am betting with the new XM upgrade at 55% it will be equal to the Secca 1400 or in the ballpark. And running at less power keeps the LEDs in the flatter spot of their brightness lifetime curve. Even LEDs dim over time.. Just a win-win, if you can justify the initial price bump.

I am a CandlePower Forum/LED geek, so love looking for these sweet spots too and seeing something so unique in the marketplace.

And to be fair, if Lupine did not exist or I could not afford it (or get a good deal), I would have gone for the Secca light. It is really a nice light with a good charger too. Dinotte is a distance third. They seem to have good lights, but really old LED technology and not sure about their battery charger either as compared to Secca and Lupine.


----------



## raceer2 (Jul 21, 2007)

check these guys out radical-lights.com
having seen both betty and poda, the betty is outgunned


----------



## odtexas (Oct 2, 2008)

skoor said:


> Back to the Seca 14400, seems they are just getting the XPG LEDs now- strange, with the XM-L right around the corner. Lupine has had the XPGs apparently since late last year. I would expect the new CREE XM to be available some time this fall or early next year from Lupine in some lights w/upgrade to follow. The Betty II will likely be in the 2200-2500 lumen range with new LED or better run time, you choice, since you can customize it.
> 
> And the Secca 1900,, or what ever in 2011, will require a new light head. With Lupine, I just get a nominal upgrade, if I so chose.
> 
> Something to think about to justify the price difference beyond just lumens. And you do have the lens choice too..


The XM will need to be run at a much higher current level so a new driver will be needed. No nominal upgrade for the Betty. The XM could be put into the Tesla directly, but would probably need a reflector change as well.



skoor said:


> I am a CandlePower Forum/LED geek, so love looking for these sweet spots too and seeing something so unique in the marketplace.


Since you are a led forum geek I am unsure why you wouldn't just understand the differences between the XM series and XP series of emitters.



skoor said:


> if you understand the technology. Right in the manual, bet it goes over most people;s head.


Seems like you are like most people as well.


----------



## skoor (Jun 9, 2009)

odtexas said:


> The XM will need to be run at a much higher current level so a new driver will be needed. No nominal upgrade for the Betty. The XM could be put into the Tesla directly, but would probably need a reflector change as well.
> 
> Since you are a led forum geek I am unsure why you wouldn't just understand the differences between the XM series and XP series of emitters.
> 
> Seems like you are like most people as well.


Ah, wrong, So pass baton back over over your head to your as.. to put it in the right place. But let me give you a hint. If I had new car that could go both faster and get better gas mileage vs my old car and I had 1 gallon of gas, would I have a faster car or one with better gas mileage. Think about it. If you get it, then you pass.

But regardless, goofus. Conversation is over, you are going to ignore status. You don't understand LEDs at at, I guess. The current driver would still be able to utilize the XM led. Duh! It might be the most optimal design for a new emitter for max light output, I agree. But you would still even with the same driver get more light or longer run time for the same light output- your call. Lupine has this built-in for this very reason to handle upgrade over time -something you missed or can't comprehend.

And one might not want to even run the new XM nor any LED to the max. Do you drive you car at red-line just because you can? Or do planes fly at the design limit all the time? How many things do? Why not? You can based on your thinking- right? Frankly, I would not buy one that claimed it did unless I could "back it off." Just exactly what Lupine allows in the max light output seeing that can be customized. BTW, How many CREE XPG lights even drive it today to the max current per the latest upgrade? How many? Name them! DO YOU KNOW WHY THEY DON'T? Have you ever looked at the CREE design doc? I have. They don't recommend the max for most applications. Why? What are the trade-offs?

You are not worth any more replies or even reading comments. You think too simple and one dimensionally to be of interest. And yes, I am nasty to you. You played the card first.


----------



## odtexas (Oct 2, 2008)

Per your previous statement.

"The Betty II will likely be in the 2200-2500 lumen range with new LED or better run time, you choice, since you can customize it."

Not possible at current drive levels. But you have the right to be wrong and a troll.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

I'm listening to odtexas on this. He's built more lights, in all kinds of configurations, than most of the rest of us have ever thought about, seen, or dreamed of.


----------



## skoor (Jun 9, 2009)

PaulRivers said:


> Yeah, but the question really is - does that hot spot in the middle *really* let you see more, or is it just exciting but doesn't do much?
> 
> I know I was super excited about my 2 Dinotte 400L's. Seemed pretty cool at first - 800 lumens! But after several trips I found something odd - running with both lights on only let me see the road about 20% better. I could turn the second one off for most of the trip - it just barely added anything.
> .


Paul, you and I actually agree more than not. I did some quick research a few weeks ago and could not find any definite studies on the eye's response to light. It is definitely not linear nor does it seems to be a a simple logarithmic like hearing for all cases.

My guess a complex interaction of individuals response with their pupils and perhaps some blend of cone vs rod cross-over too. I know when I go out with my 'star gazing" buddies and their big scopes, you have to use dim red lights everywhere. Gosh, if you just open a car door, they 'kill" you, since it runs their night vision for sometime. One you think at some level that might exist for bike light too or perhaps not, since even the dimmest is much brighter the spill from a car interior or typical flashlight. I just don't know.

BTW, my guess and just a guess, the practical limit for a good bike light is somewhere in the 2500-5000 lumen range. At that point, you will either blind someone or yourself accidentally  or you mess up you night vision so much it is counter-productive. Just a guess, but bet over time the shift is to more run time with better, even spread vs chasing max light output of today.

If someone knows of a good study, I would like the link. PM or post, please if you have something.

And I agree that having either a too bright spot or the foreground too bright, it probably not optimal. I think we just have to find a light that works for our riding. As mentioned, I have both the new wide 22 degree and the standard betty. Both have trade-offs, but after being so convinced I would only want the 22 for some of your reasons, I was surprised for night road riding, I tended so far to light the brighter spot beam vs the nice even diffused light of the 22 degree Betty II,


----------



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

odtexas said:


> The XM will need to be run at a much higher current level so a new driver will be needed. No nominal upgrade for the Betty. The XM could be put into the Tesla directly, but would probably need a reflector change as well....


I have to agree with odtexas. The XM is going to be similar to the SST-50 and will need more current if a noticeable / brighter output is desired. The footprint for these emitters will likely be larger than the XP-G series as well and will require a little more room. More than likely a new set of optics and reflectors will be needed to use them particularly if you want to get the most out of them. Even more true if you chose to under-drive the XM.

I can't wait to see what some of the DIY'ers come up with once the XM is released. What I'd like to see is an XM / XP-G combo. If you under-drove the XM ( say about 1.2A ) and ran both the XM and the XP-G at that level you might get a little more output without too much difference in run time. Of course if you run separate drivers in some sort of master/slave set up you could run both at the maximum desired levels.

The SST-50 is a nice emitter. Being just a single die emitter ( like the XM ) I don't know why it's not being used more for DIY builds seeing there are now drivers capable of driving them to maximum outputs. I guess it must be the fact that the XP-G's are not only bright but very efficient as well....which is, a very hard combo to beat.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

Cat-man-do said:


> The SST-50 is a nice emitter. Being just a single die emitter ( like the XM ) I don't know why it's not being used more for DIY builds seeing there are now drivers capable of driving them to maximum outputs.


I would add that there are not as many choices in optics or reflectors for the SST50 as there are for the Cree range of emitters.


----------



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

Vancbiker said:


> I would add that there are not as many choices in optics or reflectors for the SST50 as there are for the Cree range of emitters.


True, but I would think the optics / reflectors designed for the MC-E would likely work pretty well ( if not better than the MC-E's ) seeing the SST-50 has no cross-hair pattern to worry about.


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

You guys do know you can drag the line in the middle of the image L/R to see the whole beam? The water doesn't matter then.


----------



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

znomit said:


> You guys do know you can drag the line in the middle of the image L/R to see the whole beam? The water doesn't matter then.


Shut my mouth! :eekster: If that don't beat all. :lol: Who would of thought?!

At first it didn't work when I tried. You have to find the sweet spot with the mouse curser. While it does make the beam test a little better, the water ( being in the middle as it is and to the right ) doesn't look to be helping the beam patterns with the lights that have a brighter center spot/throw. Interesting that most of us didn't read the pro-mo to get the instructions. I find it hard to believe though that the MS does that poorly. While I don't own a MS I do own a couple P-7 torches. None of the stuff I have looks that dim. The beam they're showing as a MS looks like a standard 10 watt halogen spot. A 600 lumen light should look brighter than this.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Hey Paul,did you take the plunge yet???? Not sure if you got my pm,but for two hundred more, the Betty2 with 22degree optics will give 1850 lumens with the wide beam pattern your looking for,and no hot spot,also much less to upgrade vs,the Seca down the road.If you went for the Se
ca1400,let us know what your thoughts are on it. P.S. can someone tell me why my posts all have the edit icon still on them.Can't figure out what i'm doing wrong.CHEERS!!!


----------



## mtb143 (Aug 26, 2007)

indebt said:


> P.S. can someone tell me why my posts all have the edit icon still on them.Can't figure out what i'm doing wrong.CHEERS!!!


Your posts have the Edit icon on them _because they're your posts_. You wrote them, so you're the only one who can edit them. Get it?


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Brain cramp.!!


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

indebt said:


> Hey Paul,did you take the plunge yet???? Not sure if you got my pm,but for two hundred more, the Betty2 with 22degree optics will give 1850 lumens with the wide beam pattern your looking for,and no hot spot,also much less to upgrade vs,the Seca down the road.If you went for the Se
> ca1400,let us know what your thoughts are on it. P.S. can someone tell me why my posts all have the edit icon still on them.Can't figure out what i'm doing wrong.CHEERS!!!


Hey, I got your PM, I was just trying to figure out how to respond. Basically - I have found the Seca 900 to be a good light, so without comparison shots of the 22 degree beam on the Betty, I'll probably stick with the Seca line of lights.

Being that I already have a Seca 900, I'm kinda dragging my feet on buying the new light - I intend to get it, but it's kinda like it couldn't hurt to wait for reviews, and perhaps the "street" price will drop a bit from it's suggested retail price. Or it might not. At the moment, there's only two places I could order it from in the US - artscyclery, and the seca website itself.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

If the 900 has been that good to you,good call on sticking to it.Just gets costly doing $700 upgrades every time there's a better led out,who knows maybe someone my have a comparison photo of the Betty 22degree to post to confirm your decision.Good luck paul!!


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

PaulRivers said:


> I'll probably stick with the Seca line of lights.
> 
> Being that I already have a Seca 900, I'm kinda dragging my feet on buying the new light...


Why buy a new light when you can upgrade the LEDs only?
...
:nono: 
Oops... can't upgrade the Seca? My bad. Actually, your bad ;-)
+1 for Lupine.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

radirpok said:


> Why buy a new light when you can upgrade the LEDs only?
> ...
> :nono:
> Oops... can't upgrade the Seca? My bad. Actually, your bad ;-)
> +1 for Lupine.


Because every time someone claims that their product has "infinite upgrades" in one way or another, it always turns out the be false. Whether it's the mp3 encoding software I bought that had "free lifetime upgrades", which really meant "for a year or two until they came out with a 'pro'" version. Or my Dinotte light which you could send in for free upgrades to the light head...well, until the day came when they discontinued that program just as you needed an upgrade. Or with a Lupine Betty, where it's probably the case that you can upgrade the light head - oh, but this new version requires new electronics to, so you'll have to buy a whole new light.

I've learned not to trust claims about the upgradability at low cost of any product. Usually once they figure out they could be making more money by making you buy a whole new one, they find some excuse to force you to do so.


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

The Betty _has_ been updated recently - from the SSC P4 version to the XPGs. So this is not a "claim", this is a _fact_. In _fact_, the Wilma has already survived two update rounds - the very first version was equipped with Luxeons IIRC. Meanwhile the battery and charger units had been and have remained compatible - starting with the oldest halogen units, through the HID Edisons until today, the same connectors, same voltage...

Claiming "infinite" upgradeability is of course nonsense, but between "infinite" and "none" there's a wide range of possibilities.

"None" is certainly a reasonable answer if the price of the unit is so cheap that you could get a new one (or two) for the price of Lupine's upgrade. But I think that anyone who has $700 for a bike light should definitely look around before making a decision... that's my 2c.

On the other hand, sell your light on eBay - that is also one form of "upgradeability" :thumbsup:


----------



## suba (Jun 25, 2009)

Originally Posted by PaulRivers

_every time someone claims that their product has "infinite upgrades" in one way or another, it always turns out the be false. Whether it's the mp3 encoding software I bought that had "free lifetime upgrades", which really meant "for a year or two until they came out with a 'pro'" version. Or my Dinotte light which you could send in for free upgrades to the light head...well, until the day came when they discontinued that program just as you needed an upgrade. Or with a Lupine Betty, where it's probably the case that you can upgrade the light head - oh, but this new version requires new electronics to, so you'll have to buy a whole new light.

I've learned not to trust claims about the upgradability at low cost of any product. Usually once they figure out they could be making more money by making you buy a whole new one, they find some excuse to force you to do so. _

*No one here has claimed infinite upgrades. I think you're entire rant is basically meritless.*



radirpok said:


> I think that anyone who has $700 for a bike light should definitely look around before making a decision... that's my 2c.


That's very good advice imo. I have no interest or intent to push Lupine. I do however have a Betty 7 which was recently upgraded from 1400 to 1750 lumens for $194.00 which included both the 16 and 22 degree lenses. I've been very happy with Lupine, Magura, and Rohloff for that matter. Also very satisfied with Phil Wood, Middleburn, Thomson, and Penthouse Flats ( Bergtec ) The bottom line is that I can't afford cheap or almost good enough ....


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

suba said:


> *No one here has claimed infinite upgrades. I think you're entire rant is basically meritless.*
> 
> That's very good advice imo. I have no interest or intent to push Lupine. I do however have a Betty 7 which was recently upgraded from 1400 to 1750 lumens for $194.00 which included both the 16 and 22 degree lenses. I've been very happy with Lupine, Magura, and Rohloff for that matter. Also very satisfied with Phil Wood, Middleburn, Thomson, and Penthouse Flats ( Bergtec ) The bottom line is that I can't afford cheap or almost good enough ....


I'm not a purely-status driven buyer like you clearly are. I don't feel the need to get all insulting because someone has disagreed that my choice was the highest-status item I could buy. My thoughts are based on the experiences that I mentioned, if you don't understand my argument that's not my problem.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

radirpok said:


> The Betty _has_ been updated recently - from the SSC P4 version to the XPGs. So this is not a "claim", this is a _fact_. In _fact_, the Wilma has already survived two update rounds - the very first version was equipped with Luxeons IIRC. Meanwhile the battery and charger units had been and have remained compatible - starting with the oldest halogen units, through the HID Edisons until today, the same connectors, same voltage...
> 
> *Claiming "infinite" upgradeability is of course nonsense, but between "infinite" and "none" there's a wide range of possibilities.*
> 
> ...


Well said.

As I mentioned, I'm dragging feet a little on buying a new light. Perhaps while I'm waiting mtbr.com will come out with a side-by-side review and I could change my mind - I just don't want to risk that kind of cash on a light that I haven't at least seen promising beam-shots of. I dunno. Like I said, based on the pics I certainly have to admit there's reason why someone would like the Lupine with the narrower beam over the Seca, but for my needs I suspect I wouldn't. It definitely is pretty nice how far it goes down the road. I'm leaning towards the 1400 because I feel more confident about knowing what I would get, but I'm certainly not saying the Lupine with a different beam pattern might not be a nicer light. Tell ya what, you buy both and ship them to me, and I'll buy one of them and let you know which I like better.


----------



## suba (Jun 25, 2009)

PaulRivers said:


> I'm not a purely-status driven buyer like you clearly are. I don't feel the need to get all insulting because someone has disagreed that my choice was the highest-status item I could buy. My thoughts are based on the experiences that I mentioned, if you don't understand my argument that's not my problem.


You clearly don't get it, and I don't have the time to enlighten you. I am not purely-status driven. To suggest that show's me you don't understand the bigger picture. I understand you're argument, but think you are misguided in you're belief. Even so, that is you're prerogative. Buy whatever you want. It means nothing to me.....


----------



## skoor (Jun 9, 2009)

Gosh, this is a tough thread from posters that don't believe that a new, more efficient LED would be by definition, well, more efficient with more light for the same driver output to arguing over infinite upgrades forever. 

I will say if you want infinite upgrades go the the DIY light section. Pretty much you can upgrade, by defintion, forever and probably will. LOL.

Lupine is smart to design their lights to allow some path for upgrade. Did I buy a Betty II expecting it to be upgradeable forever - no. But did that option accelerate a sell for them- you bet. If it did not have any upgrades option for the new LEDS this fall from CREE, I would just have waited. 

And on the upgrades, could they, if they wanted, to do it forever- sure. I work for a company, as an architect, that has been doing that for decades. Sometimes it seems only the serial # plate is left haning on the frame. Actually technology, even high tech, tries to stay backward compatible at some level, if possible. It is in their best interst. You can bet someone at CREE got pushed back on a new design that would make all lights, reflectors, current drivers obsolete and require all new HW. You can bet on it and so Is Lupine. And me, in some fashion too. LOL.

Lupine knows their market niche. and value proposition. They will at least try to offer an upgrade. How many companies even try?


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

skoor, it is nice that they try to have upgradability. People just got all touchy about the "upgradability" of their favorite light, and I saying there are some mitigating factors, and then they got all touchy back, and maybe things got a little out of hand...lol

A local bike shop I asked about the Seca said they will be getting 2 in, so I can stop by and try them out.  The Lupine Betty looks like a nice light, to. If it was available locally, I'd sure take it out and give it a try to. I'm excited about any light nowadays with a decently shaped beam and good output.

fyi, the shop also said that if I was just upgrading the light head, the new Seca 1400 light head (without battery or charger) is $389.99. Compared to $194.00 for the Betty upgrade, the Betty is cheaper, but it's not as drastic as $194.00 vs $700, fyi.

If anyone knows of any beamshots of the Betty with the 22 degree lens, I hope you'll post a link in this thread.


----------

