# Ravemen CR1000 vs Rockbros YQ-400



## Andy-SE (Oct 20, 2020)

I've compared these two lights:

Ravemen CR1000 
1000 lumen (will get hot after a minute, I used 600 lumen)
4000 mA battery
139 gram
Around 60 USD

Rockbros YQ-400
400 lumen
2000 mA battery (seems to be true, I was skeptical)
92 gram
Around 15 USD
There seem to be several clones of this light at similar prices.

Short summary: The Ravemen is better.

Longer summary: The Ravemen is better but the Rockbros is good enough in many situations and has a better price-value ratio.

Description:
The Rockbros is available with a handlebar strap mount similar to the Ravemen and a Gopro-style-upside-down-hanging mount which I got.

The Rockbros has a better light cutoff. The Ravemen will blind oncoming traffic somewhat more (unless all the pedestrians are taller than 7 foot / 2 meter). At least when I adjust the light to an angle that gives me a useful throw distance (which is then comparable to the Rockbros throw).

The Ravemen produces more light. I used it almost only on the 600 lumen setting and it illuminated the path better than the Rockbros. But the difference is subtle. I showed it to an acquaintance who was by coincidence standing outside the apartment building and smoking while I came by with my bicycle and he didn't see a difference despite having the direct comparison (I briefly explained him the lights).

The Ravemen has a slightly warmer tint which I like but I think I would not be able to tell the difference without direct comparison.

I assume the Ravemen has a bit better battery runtime but I was too lazy to test that properly. MRMOLE did a really detailed analysis of the CR1000 runtime (and more, thank you MRMOLE!).

The Rockbros has no remote control switch. I saw no point in the remote control switch of the Ravemen (even thought "stupid!") but while testing the lights it dawned on me that it might actually be useful if you want to be really friendly to oncoming traffic and switch off the light frequently. I don't want/need the remote switch but at least I can understand that other people might find it useful.

I don't care much about the UI of the lights. I never use any blinking/flashing/breathing/SOS/disco modes.

So far the UI of the Rockbros seems more suitable to the way I use it. I click once and it switches on to the 400 limen mode (which I want). When want to switch it off then I click once and it goes into 200 lumen mode (not what I want). Then I click once more it switches off.

With the Ravemen I click once to switch it on and nothing happens. Then I remember that I have to long-press. So I long-press and it goes into 1000 lumen mode. I short-click to get to the 600 lumen mode. Then the light looks suspiciously dim and I realize that it started in the 600 lumen mode because it has a clever memory mode (apparently too clever for me). Then I have to toggle through all the other modes to find the 600 lumen mode again.
When I want to switch it off it click once and it switches into a lower light mode. Then I realize that I forgot that I have to long-press to switch it off. I long press and it switches off.

If I would be more thoughtful then the Ravemen UI should be more suitable for me. But there seems to be a psychological barrier. When I switch on the light in a fairly bright environment (which is usually the case at the start of my ride) and the light goes automatically into 600 lumen mode I think "That's it? That looks too dim!" And then I toggle through all the other modes to make sure that I'm really in the 600 lumen mode. I seem to need that to overcome my doubt. Maybe that will change over time.

Both lights have an old style micro-USB connector and I wish they would use USB-C.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Andy-SE said:


> I've compared these two lights:
> 
> Ravemen CR1000
> 1000 lumen (will get hot after a minute, I used 600 lumen)
> ...


Curious what made you pick this particular Rockbros light. I noticed they have several different models that are offered in either 400 or 800 lumen versions and even one that uses a 21700 cell. Always good to hear about a reasonable functioning really cheap light so definitely interested in what you think of the YQ-400 after using it for a while. Also interested in what you think of that extended mount? Is the top portion of the mount Garmin compatible?
Mole


----------



## Andy-SE (Oct 20, 2020)

> Curious what made you pick this particular Rockbros light.

It was cheap.
It has a reflector that reduces light going upwards.
It has a Gopro mount so that I can use it under my phone mount (which is a Garmin bicycle computer mount).

> I noticed they have several different models that are
> offered in either 400 or 800 lumen versions and even one
> that uses a 21700 cell.

They are very different. The 800 lumen version does not have the special reflector. It's more like a normal flashlight and it's round instead of square. I don't understand why they are often together on one page at Aliexpress.

> Also interested in what you think of that extended mount?
> Is the top portion of the mount Garmin compatible?

Yes, it is. But I use it for my phone. I don't have a Garmin bike computer but I like the mount and got a holder/adapter for a cheap TPU case that I can use with my phone.


----------



## biking_tg (Dec 27, 2018)

Andy-SE, thanks for your review!

That Rockbros light looks suspiciously like a copy of the lezyne Lite 115 StVZO light:
https://ride.lezyne.com/collections...ducts/lite-drive-stvzo-pro-115-loaded-reverse

The beam pattern shown seems to be better (than the lezyne stzvo one), question at hand is now the quality of the cutoff. Would it be possible to post a wall shot of the rockbros?


----------



## Andy-SE (Oct 20, 2020)

*Wall shot*

> That Rockbros light looks suspiciously like a
> copy of the lezyne Lite 115 StVZO light

Yes! But the Lezyne looks more sophisticated with the lens at the front. The Rockbros has just a reflector and no lens.

> Would it be possible to post a wall shot of the rockbros?

Kind of ..
See below, not sure if the pictures are helpful.




































​


----------



## biking_tg (Dec 27, 2018)

>Yes! But the Lezyne looks more sophisticated with the lens at the >front. The Rockbros has just a reflector and no lens.
The lezyne doesn't have a lens in the front. That is just a simple front cover.

>Kind of ..
>See below, not sure if the pictures are helpful.
Thanks! Looks like someone took a off-the-shelf relfector and combined it with a not really suited LED. Still not too bad a cut-off, but lots of room for improvment


----------



## Andy-SE (Oct 20, 2020)

> The lezyne doesn't have a lens in the front.
> That is just a simple front cover.


Aha, the picture on the lezyne webpage gave me the wrong impression.


> Looks like someone took a off-the-shelf relfector
> and combined it with a not really suited LED.


Yes, it seems like a popular reflector on Aliexpress.
What do you mean with "not really suited LED"?


----------



## biking_tg (Dec 27, 2018)

For a reflector with a cut-off, (well in general for every reflector, it's just more important in case of defined beam output like a cut-off), you have a certain position for the light source and a certain size of the light source. 
So if the LED die is too big (or has e.g. a dome, which was not considered when designing the reflector) or at the wrong position, your cut-off is bad.
However, it is also possible that for this reflector the cut-off is even with the best fitting and positioned LED not very sharp.

usually one designs/engineers the relfector/optics around given LED types.


----------



## Andy-SE (Oct 20, 2020)

Yeah - assuming that a 15 USD light has been designed with a specific reflector matched to a specific LED is probably asking too much. I guess they take an existing reflector and a popular, cheap LED which can handle around 5 Watt and that's it.

The OSRAM CSLNM or the Cree XLamp XD16 might be more suitable but they are probably too expensive for that price category.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Andy-SE said:


> Yeah - assuming that a 15 USD light has been designed with a specific reflector matched to a specific LED is probably asking too much.


The Rockbros produces a fair amount of light and an effective cutoff beam which is more than enough to justify its asking price IMO. How long it works will determine if it ends up being a good value. For MTB riders it would make a good light to get you to the trails and then multitask as a backup to your main lighting systems for next to nothing.
Mole


----------



## biking_tg (Dec 27, 2018)

I do guess it is a question of sales numbers, whether a reflector design would be feasible. Of course i do not expect a custom reflector and a fitting LED for a cheapo 15 USD light from asia.

Still, it does a pretty good job and beats any typical bike light on the road.


----------



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

biking_tg said:


> I do guess it is a question of sales numbers, whether a reflector design would be feasible. Of course i do not expect a custom reflector and a fitting LED for a cheapo 15 USD light from asia.
> 
> Still, it does a pretty good job and beats any typical bike light on the road.


Some things I noticed about the Rockbros light; Seems to have a slightly greenish beam tint. Not a deal killer but noticeable. Of course if you ride with that light you just get used to it so it's really no big deal. At least it doesn't have a blu-ish tint. Lamps with bluish tints I absolute hate.

Hard to to judge from the photos but it does seem to have a decent amount of throw for only a 400 lumen lamp. That said it has yet to be talked about as to "How Long" it can maintain that 400 lumen output. If it can run for 2.5 hours at 400 lumen without much loss of output that would be a big plus. If you can buy one for less than $20 USD I wouldn't mind buying one just to test out. I'd like to see how it compares to my Ravemen CR900 ( in 450 lumen mode ).

I like the setup that was used with the garmin type mount. You can do this with the Ravemen lamps as well but you have to flip the optic so you still get the right beam pattern ( I've done this and it works ). The advantage of the Ravemen lamps is that if you mount the lamp on the underside of the Garmin type mount you can more easily change modes by using the wired remote. That is a BIG PLUS because I would think it hard to change modes with the Rockbros. if it is mounted under your phone. Of course if you just leave it in the 400 lumen mode than it really wouldn't matter much I suppose.

Now it was mentioned that the Rockbros. has a more sharper cut-off. While this is likely true I still prefer the wider beam pattern of the Ravemen lights. Admittedly I'm biased because I don't own a Rockbros. but I do tend to like wider beam patterns off the bars.


----------



## Randstad (Nov 5, 2020)

Andy-SE said:


> Yes, it seems like a popular reflector on Aliexpress.


Andy-SE, thanks for the super review, it is really useful.

I've had the Rockbros YQ 400 lumen for over a year now. I can only say good things of it but I have used it only 10-12 times in this time period.

I have used it for 50' commutes when needed and for 30' forest path rides, for the commutes the 200 lumen has been enough and in the forest with the 400 lumen option I have been able to see enough to ride safely and see the path.

It does hold on well under the rain.

I have seen that at least some models branded Rockbros are manufactured by other brands, but good brands like Gaciron and Towild

I.e. the Rockbros V9C-800 is in fact the Gaciron V9C-800 rebranded,

The Rockbros BR-1100, 1200, 1600 and 1800 are the same model names from Towild rebranded.

I presume the YQ-400 is also a model from another brand but if that is the case I could not find which one.

I am now considering to buy the Gaciron V9D 1600. In general I have seen that the original lights from Gaciron and Towild can be found slightly cheaper than their Rockbros rebranded versions.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> Hard to to judge from the photos but it does seem to have a decent amount of throw for only a 400 lumen lamp. That said it has yet to be talked about as to "How Long" it can maintain that 400 lumen output. If it can run for 2.5 hours at 400 lumen without much loss of output that would be a big plus. If you can buy one for less than $20 USD I wouldn't mind buying one just to test out. I'd like to see how it compares to my Ravemen CR900 ( in 450 lumen mode ).
> 
> I like the setup that was used with the garmin type mount. You can do this with the Ravemen lamps as well but you have to flip the optic so you still get the right beam pattern ( I've done this and it works ). The advantage of the Ravemen lamps is that if you mount the lamp on the underside of the Garmin type mount you can more easily change modes by using the wired remote. That is a BIG PLUS because I would think it hard to change modes with the Rockbros. if it is mounted under your phone. Of course if you just leave it in the 400 lumen mode than it really wouldn't matter much I suppose.
> 
> Now it was mentioned that the Rockbros. has a more sharper cut-off. While this is likely true I still prefer the wider beam pattern of the Ravemen lights. Admittedly I'm biased because I don't own a Rockbros. but I do tend to like wider beam patterns off the bars.











Less than $20 delivered from Aliexpress but almost a month estimated delivery. I also saw it on ebay for around $25 with the mount but estimated delivery date much more vague. I find the garmin mounting system confusing since it shows the light inverted and wonder how this will work with the cutoff beam? Looking at the claimed runtimes also brings up questions. 3hr. @ 400 lumen high beam and then a what I would think should last at least 6hr 200 lumen low only lasts 5 hrs? Usually this indicates poor intensity consistency. Beam does definitely looks a bit narrow from the OP's pics. and the videos I've seen. Will be interesting to hear Andy-SE's impressions after he's had the light for a while. 
Mole


----------



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

MRMOLE said:


> View attachment 1376065
> 
> 
> Less than $20 delivered from Aliexpress but almost a month estimated delivery. I also saw it on ebay for around $25 with the mount but estimated delivery date much more vague.* I find the garmin mounting system confusing since it shows the light inverted and wonder how this will work with the cutoff beam?* Looking at the claimed runtimes also brings up questions. 3hr. @ 400 lumen high beam and then a what I would think should last at least 6hr 200 lumen low only lasts 5 hrs? Usually this indicates poor intensity consistency. Beam does definitely looks a bit narrow from the OP's pics. and the videos I've seen. Will be interesting to hear Andy-SE's impressions after he's had the light for a while.
> Mole


Yes I noticed that too but in the photo the reflector looked as though it was oriented properly. (?) ....Well, for me I won't be buying one of these to try out. If you look at this Youtube review the beam pattern the person is shining on the wall is very, very "Bluish". Complete deal killer as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> Yes I noticed that too but in the photo the reflector looked as though it was oriented properly. (?) ....Well, for me I won't be buying one of these to try out. If you look at this Youtube review the beam pattern the person is shining on the wall is very, very "Bluish". Complete deal killer as far as I'm concerned.


I'm OK with the tint color and higher K value (only because we're talking about a 400 lumen light) but am more reluctant about trying one of these because of the narrow appearing beam. I'm really happy with the beam on my CR1000 but would be less so if it were any narrower which I think is where the YQ-400 falls. Randstad's post was encouraging in regards to durability and he also posted a link in the "2020 cheap lights" thread that mentioned 11/11 being like Cyber Monday in China so I'm going to check again then to see if the price doesn't drop to the point where I can't say no or maybe find something else I want that's a good deal.
Mole


----------



## Andy-SE (Oct 20, 2020)

*Broken Garmin mount*

This is somewhat off topic ..

You might have seen my Garmin phone mount is this post:

https://forums.mtbr.com/lights-nigh...s-rockbros-yq-400-a-1156521.html#post15068413

The phone is on top and the Rockbros YQ 400 is below.

A few days ago I went for a ride to drop off a letter at a friend. 30 minutes both ways, almost all paved road.

When I started the ride I noticed that the phone was slightly vibrating in the mount. Not much I could do and I made a mental note to see how I can enable a bit tighter fit once I'm back.
Halfway home I went over one of many small bumps on the road and my phone went flying. Not good!

The Garmin mount ("socket", female) broke and apparently the phone part ("plug", male) broke at the same time. Later on I concluded that maybe the phone part broke when it hit the ground but I can't be sure.

Not happy!

My Google Pixel 4 might be heavier than a Garmin bike computer but not by much.

I'm getting a replacement "socket" but I'm not so confident that it will work better.













































​


----------



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

Most unfortunate! Looks like the part on the base of the mount that cracked is made of some kind of plastic  Very odd that the part you have mounted on the phone outer shell is also broke. That looks like it's made of metal. Can't help but wonder what happened to your phone when this happened. Hopefully your phone didn't break. 

Going forward if it were me I'd probably not use that type of mount again to mount my phone. Too much money to lose if it were break while bouncing the phone down the road. :nono: 

I use a phone mount that attaches to the stem of my bike with a rock solid clamp. It has a soft plastic ( transparent front ) envelope that the phone slides into and a flap that seals it in with Velcro. Not as aesthetically pleasing as the Garmin mount but it's easy to move it from one bike to the next in less than 30 sec. You could still use the Garmin type mount for the light but for the phone I'd go another way.


----------



## klaudiop (Nov 25, 2020)

Andy-SE said:


> This is somewhat off topic ..
> 
> You might have seen my Garmin phone mount is this post:
> 
> ...


This is more common than most people think. Garmin GPS very often break their tabs, and they are not replaceable "on the fly" since they are part of the cover.
In this case, you also had bad luck. Those mounts are quite nice and good looking but not that much reliable, unfortunately. There are a couple of different plastics that might be better than others, depending on the brand, but sooner or later they will break under heavy usage. The weight of the phone might also accelerate the process a little bit, but it isn't the major factor here.
I still use this, but also put the lanyard on my GPS unit and then tie a knot around my handlebar, so if the mount breaks the GPS isn't lost or damaged severely. On a mobile phone that might not be an option though, unless you find a case with that option (and you are willing to do the procedure and ride with a lanyard on your cockpit ofc )

cheers
klaudiop


----------



## Andy-SE (Oct 20, 2020)

Thanks klaudiop!

I got a replacement piece which seems to be made of somewhat different plastic and I'll give it another try since I liked the idea of having the phone in front of the handle bars and the Rockbros light below it.


----------



## klaudiop (Nov 25, 2020)

Andy-SE said:


> Thanks klaudiop!
> 
> I got a replacement piece which seems to be made of somewhat different plastic and I'll give it another try since I liked the idea of having the phone in front of the handle bars and the Rockbros light below it.


I also like that configuration, but since I use a Monteer with handlebar mount and my garmin on the steer tube cap it's easier to keep everything centered 
keep us updated!

cheers
klaudiop


----------

