# 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

I'm working on it now. I have a ton of lights and I'm getting a bunch more!!!

It will be broken up in a Commuter and High End category.

What do you guys want to see?

Here's some sneak peak photos.

- ok light
- very flat beam pattern light
- bright light 

fc


----------



## MRisme (Mar 22, 2010)

That bright light is... AWESOME!


----------



## woody.1 (Jun 10, 2008)

I think you have done good job breaking it down in the past. I like the idea of "commuter" and "high end" for sure.
Battery life on max is always what I'm looking for.

What light is photo 3? Pretty much makes it daylight out.

I'll be waiting to see the shootout.

Thanks,
Woody


----------



## Biscuit Pants (Jun 26, 2006)

I'd like to see comparisions between the china lights (bike ray, magicshine ect ) VS Niterider, Light and Motion ect. I'm torn between spending more on those non china lights or just dealing with the battery problems. Old L&M Arc is on it's last days and I need to make a informed decision.


----------



## skidad (May 23, 2005)

OMG what is light #3? I just know that's gonna be way out of my price range but holy sh*t is that impressive.

How soon will you have some results up? I need lights (yeah plural) soooooo bad:madman:


----------



## mb323323 (Aug 1, 2006)

Maybe you can separate the wireless into their own group as well otherwise you always do a great job.

MB


----------



## 'BentRyder (Sep 17, 2011)

I'd like to see more lights on bikes... I'd like to see budget lights that meet commuters' needs.

All to often I see the familiar reflective patch pedaling in the dark without any lighting whatsoever.

...and don't leave out the tail light catagory!


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

I think grouping by light output would be helpful, but it doesn't need to be specific. Something like:

Commuter/Be Seen: < 200 lumens
General Riding: 201-1000 lumens
Ah, my eyes!: 1000+ lumens

And some sort of grouping by price would be great as well since budget is a limiting factor for almost everyone. As someone else said, light setting on high is all I care about.


----------



## KVW (Aug 11, 2011)

Biscuit Pants said:


> I'd like to see comparisions between the china lights (bike ray, magicshine ect ) VS Niterider, Light and Motion ect. I'm torn between spending more on those non china lights or just dealing with the battery problems. Old L&M Arc is on it's last days and I need to make a informed decision.


I second this.

I bought a Cygo-Lite Centauri 1000 OSP back in spring of this year and while it's been working well since then, I feel it's power is a bit wasted with it being so much flood and not enough throw. I would REALLY like to see a beam comparison between the Bike Ray IV and a high end cygo or nightrider.


----------



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

francois said:


> *It will be broken up in a Commuter and High End category.*
> 
> What do you guys want to see?


This sounds like a good idea at first glance but one person's idea of a commuter light is another persons MTB light.

As for what I would like to see: Francois you have a very nice back yard but it lacks the distance needed to demonstrate the throw capability of the brighter lights. Ideally I would like the lights demonstrated in a flat trail/dirt environment or fire road. It has to be wide to demonstrate the width of the beam pattern but it also needs a good 200 to 150ft of distance...hopefully with some trees or brush near by to help judge depth. Also distance markers starting at 50ft. and continuing every 25ft. till about 150-200ft. ( for the throwers )

I'm sure the commuters will want at least one beam shot on a road with at least one or two distance references which wouldn't be a bad idea.

Now if you can't get a longer place for testing I suppose a way to compensate would be to place a *lux meter at the longest distance and give us that reading. Even better, three lux meters spaced out so wider beams get some credit. (*now if lux meters won't work at distance forget that idea. )

Anyway, just my thoughts. I realize much of what I said won't be done but you did ask "Want do you want to see"?


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

We're getting to the point where beamshots are not all that useful anymore due to the limitations of digital photography and computer displays.

I'd like to see a measurement at distance of how wide the brightspot (down to 50% of max beam brightness) is at several distances, say 25', 50' and 100' then how wide the beam is overall to 90% of brightness for the spill. I don't know if that's possible, but one ought to be able to do that with a spot light meter or an incident light meter, I would think.

Those two pieces - the measurement and the beamshot would tell us a lot more about the beam and brightness and usability of the light.

J.


----------



## GTR2ebike (May 3, 2010)

Quit messing with us that last picture is taken during the day!!! If that light is less than $700 I'll be buy it in a heartbeat.


----------



## eranpeled (Jan 31, 2008)

You did a very god job last time...the idea of "commuter" and "high end" is great...can't wait to see the new shootout.


Thanks, Eran.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Maybe some ride reports from the top 3 or 5 lights that grab your attention in a good way.


----------



## GTR2ebike (May 3, 2010)

I'm going to guess it's the Betty 12 
I'm interested to see the revised exposure 6 pack


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

mb323323 said:


> Maybe you can separate the wireless into their own group as well otherwise you always do a great job.
> 
> MB


Wireless... took me a while to understand that.

Cable Free or Flashlight style lights. I got it now.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Cat-man-do said:


> This sounds like a good idea at first glance but one person's idea of a commuter light is another persons MTB light.
> 
> As for what I would like to see: Francois you have a very nice back yard but it lacks the distance needed to demonstrate the throw capability of the brighter lights. Ideally I would like the lights demonstrated in a flat trail/dirt environment or fire road. It has to be wide to demonstrate the width of the beam pattern but it also needs a good 200 to 150ft of distance...hopefully with some trees or brush near by to help judge depth. Also distance markers starting at 50ft. and continuing every 25ft. till about 150-200ft. ( for the throwers )
> 
> ...


Great point. My backyard hits the its limitations at around 1200 lumens. I started using a new location last year. I'll use it again if I can't find a better one.

Exposure Six Pack Bike Light Review | Mountain Bike Review

fc


----------



## dereknz (May 3, 2011)

francois said:


> Great point. My backyard hits the its limitations at around 1200 lumens. I started using a new location last year. I'll use it again if I can't find a better one.
> 
> Exposure Six Pack Bike Light Review | Mountain Bike Review
> 
> fc


If you were to do light meter readings from a distance I would also recommend multiple readings too. I did a test in July on 4 similar xml light heads to measure light fall off from the center. Meter reading at 20m distance, readings from the center, at 1m either side of center and at 2m either side. The 4 similar lights all had different beam patterns and different size hot spots which reflected on my lux meter results.










Also including beam patterns on a white board to also help compare similar lights beam patterns


----------



## bullcrew (Jan 2, 2005)

Can't wait to see this years offerings. As far as technical readings at distance and whatever else. That's a bit technongeek. A measurement isn't going to mean squat on the trail. A 500 HP car isn't squat if it doesn't get it to the ground but on paper its impressive.

I think beam shots like last year possibly from behind the light source a bit back or different landscape to really showcase lights beam and throw would be more use full.

Just a thought.


----------



## peter584 (Jan 14, 2006)

The last picture should be in the holy **** category


----------



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

Cat-man-do said:


> ....Now if you can't get a longer place for testing I suppose a way to compensate would be to place a *lux meter at the longest distance and give us that reading. Even better, three lux meters spaced out so wider beams get some credit. (*now if lux meters won't work at distance forget that idea. )





JohnJ80 said:


> ....I'd like to see a measurement at distance of how wide the brightspot (down to 50% of max beam brightness) is at several distances, say 25', 50' and 100' then how wide the beam is overall to 90% of brightness for the spill. I don't know if that's possible, but one ought to be able to do that with a spot light meter or an incident light meter, I would think.....Those two pieces - the measurement and the beamshot would tell us a lot more about the beam and brightness and usability of the light. J.





dereknz said:


> If you were to do light meter readings from a distance I would also recommend multiple readings too. I did a test in July on 4 similar xml light heads to measure light fall off from the center. Meter reading at 20m distance, readings from the center, at 1m either side of center and at 2m either side. The 4 similar lights all had different beam patterns and different size hot spots which reflected on my lux meter results.


*It seems I struck a chord that others can resonate with*. The problem I see with using lux meters is deciding just where to place them. Some people favor lights with wide close in beam patterns. That would require using the meter(s) used more close in and spread farther apart. Others like myself want distance readings to help judge which throw the farthest.. Yes, it would be nice to have but it would be tedious to set up and record to say the least.

Francois, if you decide to include* direct throw* lux readings and don't mind playing with the distances a bit it would be quite awesome. ( Particularly with the brighter lights )


----------



## Podium (Feb 27, 2009)

Comparing throw [for fast road riding] would be sweet.
If you could rig up something on a pitch black country road/trail with distance markers.
A bit like the Lupine beam shots.:thumbsup:


----------



## spankone (Aug 31, 2011)

I've been wait for this, keep up the good work.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

ditto the ^. Beam shots on some kind of non-reflective surface (ie. not grass) with more distance - fire roads are excellent for this. Also, if you want to better reflect what the eyes see, drop the exposure time on the higher powered lights. I don't know if you're still using 6s, but I find that setting washes out the brighter beam patterns and doesn't accurately represent what my eyes see. If you want continuity between lights of different power, do all of them at one exposure then the mega lights at lower exposure times.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

mattthemuppet said:


> ditto the ^. Beam shots on some kind of non-reflective surface (ie. not grass) with more distance - fire roads are excellent for this. Also, if you want to better reflect what the eyes see, drop the exposure time on the higher powered lights. I don't know if you're still using 6s, but I find that setting washes out the brighter beam patterns and doesn't accurately represent what my eyes see. If you want continuity between lights of different power, do all of them at one exposure then the mega lights at lower exposure times.


Great insight!

I've maintained my camera settings over the years.
Camera - Canon G9
Setting - full manual
ISO - 100
Exposure - 4 seconds
Aperture - F4.0
Focus - Manual
White Balance - Daylight

It works well as it similutes what I see with my eyes. But with these lights over 2000 lumens, there is a washout effect on the grass.

Dropping the exposure times to 2 seconds, etc. may prove really useful for comparing these ultra powerful lights.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Cat-man-do said:


> *It seems I struck a chord that others can resonate with*. The problem I see with using lux meters is deciding just where to place them. Some people favor lights with wide close in beam patterns. That would require using the meter(s) used more close in and spread farther apart. Others like myself want distance readings to help judge which throw the farthest.. Yes, it would be nice to have but it would be tedious to set up and record to say the least.
> 
> Francois, if you decide to include* direct throw* lux readings and don't mind playing with the distances a bit it would be quite awesome. ( Particularly with the brighter lights )


Direct path beam pattern lux readings are just not that good (pointing the light directly at the light meter). It's very hard to do and lux readings vary widely as one gets a few mm off center. I don't think I can do it well enough to be useful.

There's a new light company in San Luis Obispo called Lezyne. They have a $40,000 integrating sphere that measures light output. I have free access to it so I just might drive there to measure all these lights.

Just fyi to others, the way I measure light output is by pointing the light to the ceiling of a controlled room and measuring the ambient light in the room. It is a pseudo integrating sphere and it actually really good. I just did it for all the 2012 lights and it still agrees with my beam photos well.
Bike Light Meter Setup for measuring output | Mountain Bike Review

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

This is the new testing grounds with last year's lights.

2011 Bike Lights Shootout - Long Range Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review

Please note that these are last year's lights.

fc


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

you're welcome. I had this problem trying to capture the beam patterns on my collection of DIY lights that ranges from 100 - 2000lm. 2s with a Cateye EL320 (?) wasn't any different to moonlight, 6s with my dual [email protected] was like daylight 

I also think the ceiling bounce/ wall shots are still useful for getting an idea of how the light is distributed within the beam. That together with the outdoors beam patterns should give people a good idea what it should look like.


----------



## spankone (Aug 31, 2011)

will you be testing the new hope R4 and R8?


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

dereknz said:


> If you were to do light meter readings from a distance I would also recommend multiple readings too. I did a test in July on 4 similar xml light heads to measure light fall off from the center. Meter reading at 20m distance, readings from the center, at 1m either side of center and at 2m either side. The 4 similar lights all had different beam patterns and different size hot spots which reflected on my lux meter results.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This along with Cat's suggestion of some quantitative measure of throw would do it. I think this (above) gives us some measure of the spread, size and utility of the beam and the throw tells us how far out it ultimately reaches. Digital photos are nice, but I think people are making determinations from them that are no longer valid in practice.

j.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

Francois,

Do we have an estimated ETA before seeing the first round of results? Are we talking 1 month, 2 months out etc? I am looking to make a rather large purchase and am unable to get my hands on these lights locally so your reviews will be very helpful in framing my decisions. Especially on the lupine with the various beam angles and xpg/xml color rendition/configurations.

Thanks


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

cue003 said:


> Francois,
> 
> Do we have an estimated ETA before seeing the first round of results? Are we talking 1 month, 2 months out etc? I am looking to make a rather large purchase and am unable to get my hands on these lights locally so your reviews will be very helpful in framing my decisions. Especially on the lupine with the various beam angles and xpg/xml color rendition/configurations.
> 
> Thanks


one week!!!

Then there will be a major update in November.

fc


----------



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

francois said:


> one week!!!
> 
> Then there will be a major update in November.
> 
> fc


++++:thumbsup:...Make sure you get a recent issue of the DiNotte 1200L+ which is suppose to be tweaked for more output. You might have to contact them to verify you have the newest version.


----------



## skidad (May 23, 2005)

> will you be testing the new hope R4 and R8?





> Make sure you get a recent issue of the DiNotte 1200L+ which is suppose to be tweaked for more output. You might have to contact them to verify you have the newest version.


I'll second both of these requests :thumbsup:


----------



## suba (Jun 25, 2009)

n/a


----------



## sboada19 (Jul 7, 2011)

Second vote for beam shots on dirt/trail and battery life at High, medium and low. Also maybe LUX output at eh various setting as well would be helpful.


----------



## RBrady (Jan 20, 2009)

I can't wait to see the new Lupine Betty.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

francois said:


> one week!!!
> 
> Then there will be a major update in November.
> 
> fc


Awesome. Looking forward to the outcome. Really hoping you have all the lupine TL series (Betty, Wilma, Piko) in this first pass.

Especially up against the Exposure light family.


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

Francois, your tests are the BEST!

I have to say, as someone building up a rig from good components, I had sticker shock.

To second what some others have urged, it would be more useful than anything else if you could write up a section in the shootout that targets commuting / lower-priced setups. This fall, I've got a 10-mile commute up winding, unlit, bumpy 2-lane roads -- in the rain. Like others, I need to know: "What's the minimum adequate setup for commuting like this?"

Please include a section on rear / safety light options too.

Currently I'm leaning toward the Niterider MiNewt 600 Cordless for this job. I want to see it compared with others, esp. the L&Ms, as the 600 seems pretty bright. Want to know if I'm on the right track.

Many thanks!


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

a.k.a. said:


> Francois, your tests are the BEST!
> 
> I have to say, as someone building up a rig from good components, I had sticker shock.
> 
> ...


There will definitely be a commuter section. Maybe tail lights too.

fc


----------



## Baja Designs (Aug 3, 2010)

francois said:


> There will definitely be a commuter section. Maybe tail lights too.
> 
> fc


Dear Ultralord Francois,

Two things: would you do me a favor and PM me your shipping address - I can't find your card. Secondly I am curious about the tail lights too, I look forward to that!

Thanks,

Shannon


----------



## dereknz (May 3, 2011)

The way I did my 20m light fall off meter test was to use a timber paling fence. I set up a hairline cross target on the fence with tape and taped marks 1 and 2m from the target either side. Light meter was hand held against the fence. With the light on using the meter I would find the spot with with highest lux reading and the light head would then be adjusted until this spot was in the middle of the hairline cross target. This worked on the single led lights I was tested, may be hard to align multi led lights


----------



## SirLancelot (Nov 25, 2009)

I'm looking forward to your review, too. How do you define commuter lights? Will that only be lights that have only less lumen, with a special beam throw or long lasting?

+1 for tail lights...


----------



## GTR2ebike (May 3, 2010)

Any idea on when it will be done?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Everyone is signing up for the lights shootout now!!! I still don't have Cygolite and Dinotte.

For interbike, Exposure and Lupine sponsored our presence. Please thank them for me. Here's a couple videos we shot of their line.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

Interesting that the lupine video did not make any mention to the Betty TL. Has it been delayed?


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

Tail lights really worth reviewing:

Cygolite Hotshot 2W
DesignShine DS-500
DiNotte 140
DiNotte 300
Magicshine MJ-818
NiteFLUX RedZone 4 
Planet Bike Super Flash Turbo
Portland Design Works Danger Zone

Side-visible models:

Bike Brightz
Cateye TL-LD1100
Cateye Orbits
Down Low Glow Dual Tube [discontinued]
Fibre Flare
MonkeyLectric
NiteFLUX RedZone 4 
Nite Ize Spokelit
Trek Beacon Bar End Light


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

cue003 said:


> Interesting that the lupine video did not make any mention to the Betty TL. Has it been delayed?


It is alive and well. It is a fearsome weapon like the old maglite. But instead of blunt force, you can defend yourself with light force 

I had fun with it as I put the Wilma battery on it. It small and hideously bright.

fc


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

I think it may be too late, but when possible, I'd like to hear your opinion of long-term durability based on your riding experiences and that of your friends & peers. I don't want to save $100 on a light i'll need to replace in a year. Also, similarly, appreciate hearing your thoughts on warranties, customer support and your interactions with the company reps & owners.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

RTM said:


> I think it may be too late, but when possible, I'd like to hear your opinion of long-term durability based on your riding experiences and that of your friends & peers. I don't want to save $100 on a light i'll need to replace in a year. Also, similarly, appreciate hearing your thoughts on warranties, customer support and your interactions with the company reps & owners.


It's never too late! This will take our collective efforts. I will link each editorial review to the user reviews section where there is a broad history of usage by mtbr members.

You all have to remember that it is your duty to write reviews in our Lights user reviews section! 

Here's a photo of the current lights. There's more coming!!!

fc


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Any ETA on the review yet?

You get to keep all that stuff or do you have to send it back? Sending it back would be really hard. Figuring out which light to ride with might be worse.

J.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

francois said:


> It's never too late! This will take our collective efforts. I will link each editorial review to the user reviews section where there is a broad history of usage by mtbr members.
> 
> You all have to remember that it is your duty to write reviews in our Lights user reviews section!
> 
> ...


 A little off topic here, but Francois,,,,,,,,,,,, is that shag carpet?????


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

As a hard core commuter (car for 2 years of my entire life) I am really hoping you will compare the lights in the $100-200 price range.  Looks like there is a great crop of not silly expensive (300+) lights. But lights better than Chinese grab bag lights. 

Light in Motion: Urban 500
Cygolite: Expilion 400
Cygolite: Turbojet 740
Cygolite: Turbojet 740 xtra
Cygolite: Turbojet 330 mini
Niterider: Minewt 600
Serfas: TSL-500
DiNotte: XML-1 Headlight (400?)

But to be fair, it would be exceedingly nice if you could compare them against the original MS light and the new 1200 T6 MS light. Though I completely understand that while the output might be comparable (or not) the durability may or may not be there. 

I think there are a fair amount of us that got used to the output of the MS light and who are now in need of another light with better durability.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

indebt said:


> A little off topic here, but Francois,,,,,,,,,,,, is that shag carpet?????


There's a lot of small parts lost in there.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

blueyin said:


> As a hard core commuter (car for 2 years of my entire life) I am really hoping you will compare the lights in the $100-200 price range. Looks like there is a great crop of not silly expensive (300+) lights. But lights better than Chinese grab bag lights.
> 
> Light in Motion: Urban 500
> Cygolite: Expilion 400
> ...


Cygolite will not give me lights. I just do not understand. If you have a chance to influence them, let me them know they need to be in the mtbr shootout.

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

WOW!!! guess we know what your original #3 photo is. The NR 3000 is stupid bright!! The new top dog in brightness for sure. Francois, do you know if NR has made any improvements over the Pro1400 in terms of their reset function? Last years Pro series was just dumb, as if you tripped the protection curcuit out on the trail, you had to rely on your back up light to get you home so you could put the battery on the dock to reset.Hopefully they put the reset function on the battery itself.


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

Francois 

I just spoke to their CSR on the phone. He said he didn't know anything about it but he would pass the info up the line. 

So MTBR people if you want to see the Cygolite lights in the 2012 MTBR headlight review call them at:

Tel: (714) 437-7752

Cygolite
1307 - A East Saint Gertrude Pl.
Santa Ana, CA 92705
USA

(info publicly available at
Oh I guess I am not allowed to post links yet. If you google Cygolite and about us, that's where I got the info from. 

p.s. Note, its not the CSR's fault, he's a really nice guy.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

blueyin said:


> Francois
> 
> I just spoke to their CSR on the phone. He said he didn't know anything about it but he would pass the info up the line.
> 
> ...


Ha, sweet! Don't pound them too much. I talked to their marketing guy and he's a friend. They just won't commit.

fc


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

Totally, they sound like really nice people. 

I just posted on Cygolite's facebook page asking if they were going to be in your Shootout. 

Anyone who wants their lights to be in the Shootout should go and comment or like my wall post on their wall. 

... i still cant post links... Francois ... maybe you could post the link to their facebook page?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

oops, my secret photos leaked out since that was supposed to be a PM and not a forum post. That's what I get for posting before my first coffee.

If you have the url, just hang on to it but don't circulate it. It has a bunch of minor problems like 'focus' and 'camera positioning'.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

blueyin said:


> Totally, they sound like really nice people.
> 
> I just posted on Cygolite's facebook page asking if they were going to be in your Shootout.
> 
> ...


i bumped up your post count. You are now in the club. :thumbsup:

fc


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

At what point do we start to scorch the road downrange from the light? 

J.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Have you gotten lights from Dinotte? Also, are you doing anything with taillights this year?

J.


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

Hey thanks Francois!

For anyone who cares:

Cygolite | Facebook

You can like my post or comment on their wall! Lets get those lights to Francois!


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

francois said:


> It's never too late! This will take our collective efforts. I will link each editorial review to the user reviews section where there is a broad history of usage by mtbr members.
> 
> You all have to remember that it is your duty to write reviews in our Lights user reviews section!
> 
> ...


ha, good point! I must confess I've only READ the several reviews on the lights I am seriously considering. However, I've WATCHED every single video review I can find, most of them at least 5 times. You've got a real knack for it. Very interesting. Keep up the good work!


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

JohnJ80 said:


> Have you gotten lights from Dinotte? Also, are you doing anything with taillights this year?
> 
> J.


Rob mentioned to me that he sent off lights to Francois last week.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

randyharris said:


> Rob mentioned to me that he sent off lights to Francois last week.


:thumbsup:

I'm hoping we get the taillights reviewed too. My 300R is really putting a smile on my face.

J.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

randyharris said:


> Rob mentioned to me that he sent off lights to Francois last week.


Yes, all the new Dinotte is coming in tomorrow.

Cateye is sending me 4 new lights

Serfas sent me the 500 and 1500

New Princeton Tec is coming.

I should be one of the first to see the new Baja.

And most the usual players in the light shoot will be there.

Are riding videos useful? I think they're hard to do. I see a bunch of poorly made ones in youtube.

fc


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

oh, this is going to be so cool. All of these lights to obsess over!

J.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?

Also, what's the best way to review tail lights?

fc


----------



## GTR2ebike (May 3, 2010)

Do I see a niterider 3000 and all 3 lupine betty 7's? So which one is that bright shot


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

francois said:


> There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?
> 
> fc


my immediate reaction was YEAH! $40K INTEGRATING SPHERE! Awesome!

but then I realized the reality is, 37 lumens doesn't mean as much as knowing ABC is 37 and XYZ is 42. So, as long as you measure them all with the same procedure I'm good with what you've always done. besides, if you do it this year you are setting a precedent that may be a pain the butt to keep up.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

francois said:


> There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?


not if it doesn't do better than what you do now. You lux measurements allow some comparison to older lights already reviewed.

I think what would be great is if you could do some beam measurements similar to what Nightrider shows on their website for their products.

Also, if at some point that access to the integrating sphere disappeared, then that would be a problem.



> Also, what's the best way to review tail lights?
> 
> fc


Same way you do the front lights. Lux, Power output, durability, mounts, beam quality, modes etc...

J.


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

francois said:


> Also, what's the best way to review tail lights?
> 
> fc


the only thing i can think of that would set it apart, since visibility is obviously job 1, perhaps you could lean the bike against your playset in darkness w/the tail light lit, front tire facing the fence and take a picture from your usual spot. a reverse beam shot if you will.

(isn't it funny how we all know _exactly_ what your backyard looks like?)


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

I think I'd show them against the house or other non green background. Green and red oppose each other on the color wheel - would be hard to get a sense for how much the light was putting out.

J.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

RTM said:


> the only thing i can think of that would set it apart, since visibility is obviously job 1, perhaps you could lean the bike against your playset in darkness w/the tail light lit, front tire facing the fence and take a picture from your usual spot. a reverse beam shot if you will.
> 
> (isn't it funny how we all know _exactly_ what your backyard looks like?)


Who says that's my backyard? 

It's funny talking to people at Interbike. They know that play structure intimately.

For tail lights, I can certainly do a video with each light coming through showing rear and side visibility.

fc


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Beamshots and video for taillights makes sense because the lumen output is not high enough to be an issue for digital photography.

For side view, it would be, I think, good to show what sort of red bloom the taillight shows around the bike, not just the straight on view of the LEDs. Some of the light mfgs recommend a slight downward angle of the light in order to get a large red bloom on the road and bike frame for additional visibility.

I do know that some of the digital cameras have issues with accurate portrayal of red - they do tend to oversaturate a bit.

J.


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

francois said:


> There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?


Yes.

It would be good to see the numbers for the P7 900lm lights and the XML 1000lm lights as they seem to be significantly different.


----------



## spec306 (Sep 30, 2007)

I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on some new lights soon. Are you going to review the 2012 stuff from Baja Designs? I think either their Dual or the 2012 Stryker on the bars plus the new Piko 3 would make an awesome, and blinding, combo. Waiting for your review before making the final decision. 

So......which light is #3 already??? The suspense is killing everyone.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

francois said:


> There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?
> 
> Also, what's the best way to review tail lights?
> 
> fc


The main thing you will get out of the integrated sphere is a consistent measure of OTF (out the front) lumens of all lights put into the sphere. This will probably make some unhappy as I am sure some manufactures represent their lights using at the emitter Led numbers which doesnt take into account loses for reflector/optic design or lens, heat energy loss etc. So their claims end up being over rated vs actual readings that you will get from the integrated sphere.

It would be interesting to see what the ratings are of the big output lights vs their general public claims.

Your lux reading sort of does the same thing when comparing light to light but it would be nice to know that a reference light "x" is 2200 lumens based on integrated sphere (vendor claim is 3000) and lux is 225 on your lux scale etc.

I would say it will be time well spent.

Curtis


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

francois said:


> There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?
> 
> Also, what's the best way to review tail lights?
> 
> fc


I think this would be time well spent.


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

On testing tail lights....



> Beamshots and video for taillights makes sense because the lumen output is not high enough to be an issue for digital photography.
> 
> For side view, it would be, I think, good to show what sort of red bloom the taillight shows around the bike, not just the straight on view of the LEDs. Some of the light mfgs recommend a slight downward angle of the light in order to get a large red bloom on the road and bike frame for additional visibility.


I agree with the above, and will add the following: The whole point of tail lights is vastly different from headlights: Headlights are for the rider, while tail lights are for the inattentive onlooker. So it matters not how much light the tail light puts out in absolute terms. What matters is how attention-grabbing they are in relative terms. From this it follows....

1) Make sure the tail light shootout videos have as many lights lined up in the same frame as feasible. What looks bright on its own may look insignificant compared to other competitors, which is not too different from saying other "distractions on the road." We want the most distracting light possible, in some sense, burning just below the threshold at which it'll send the oncoming driver into an epileptic fit or an apoplectic rage.

2) Please upload videos of the tail lights compared in full daylight as well.

3) Show the tail lights at night from the side at approximately the distance across a 4-way intersection. Side impact is the most dangerous scenario.

4) Film a video of a drive down a narrow street with red lamps blazing at the driver at set intervals. Ask six of your friends to drive down that same street, and rate subjectively whether some tail lights were more effective than others at alerting them without pissing them off.

Finally, I'm bumping the list of tail lights that deserve testing, since I tweaked it a fair bit since first posting it:



> Tail lights really worth reviewing:
> 
> Cygolite Hotshot 2W
> DesignShine DS-500
> ...


Francois, the NiteFLUX RedZone 4 (can't yet post the link, but easy to find on Google) is really worth a close look. As you know from reviewing previous NiteFLUX lights, it's a high-quality Aussie-made product. It's just out, and I'm sure the company would be thrilled for the Stateside audience. This model is a 4W LED -- yes, that's even brighter than the MagicShine, and double or quadruple the output of the Planet Bike SuperFlash Turbo, PDW and Cygolite offerings. It seems like a killer light, but there are few comparative reviews of it yet.

Likewise, the Philips SafeRide RearLight is supposedly excellent at throwing light to the side.

Thanks!!!!!


----------



## Ziemas (Apr 11, 2005)

francois said:


> There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?
> 
> Also, what's the best way to review tail lights?
> 
> fc


I think it would be an excellent way to compare raw output vs runtime and to measure manufactures' claims against true 'out the front' lumens.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

francois said:


> There's a company a few hours from me that is offering my use of their $40,000 integrating sphere to measure light output. Is that a worthwhile endeavor?


I agree with all the others, this would be a fantastic addition to the shootout. With true OTF lumens AND lux, you'll be able to accurately describe how much light gets emitted and how. The only downside I can see is that some manufacturers might not appreciate being outed for overstating their lights output.


----------



## ussprinceton2004 (Apr 9, 2007)

I would like to see how the Cateye TL-LD1100 tail light does, having the side visibility feature, compared to the others. I already own this model, but I'm willing to purchase the best tail light in the shootout.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Great suggestions on the tail lights. Just to set up expectation, this is a second priority/delivery to all the headlight testing. So don't expect too much too soon.

Photographing tail lights is usually a lost cause. The light cannot be pointed at the camera and it can't be flashing. But videotaping at angles or when following can be promising. Doing it in daytime is a great suggestion too. I just need to find a video camera that doesn't adjust to the light output.

The $40k Integrating Sphere session might actually happen. Fyi, this device measures actual lumen output. Integrating sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So it is a good way to decipher Actual lumen output vs. Claimed lumen output.

The lux testing I do in my room is actually a rudimentary Integrating Sphere. I measure the total bounced light from a light head. It'll be good to validate my numbers as well to see if there's value and consistency to it.

fc


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

You might be able to compare your room to the sphere and see how good the tracking is. If it's good, then just keep on doing what you do. that way all your reviews from the past are going to be comparable to the newest ones.

Photos or videos of the taillights straight on will not be representative of anything. The camera will saturate on the brightest parts and will bloom on the rest until it gets into the camera's dynamic range. I think the idea of showing what it looks like against a white wall in both profile and perpendicular would probably do it along with your (subjective) description of what you are seeing. The bloom against the side and perpendicular is going to give an excellent idea of the relative output and beam but yet be doable with your current video gear.

J.


----------



## Two Jack (Sep 26, 2011)

francois said:


> Cygolite will not give me lights. I just do not understand. If you have a chance to influence them, let me them know they need to be in the mtbr shootout.
> 
> fc


Seems very short sighted of them. I may have only just joined but I have lurked around here for a long time and have always been aware of the light comparos.

I just ordered a Gemini this morning after spending most of the night looking at beam shots, the other one I was looking at was a Cygolite. Could not find any pics of Cygolites so ordered the Gemini.


----------



## rixsurfer (Jan 9, 2007)

Just wondering when the shootout will be posted. I've got a 24hr coming up in a couple of weeks and need to order a new light. By the way, thanks Francois for your work on this. Always great reading your reviews.


----------



## MaximusHQ (Aug 6, 2007)

Can't wait to see the 2012 lights shootout Francois. I wouldn't mind seeing cygolite join the shootout. When I first started night riding in the early 90's I bought a cygolite 30 watt halogen light and it was a good light and I still have it although I haven't used it in years. I charged the battery and the darned thing still lit up to my amazement. Didn't stay lit for too long though as that is one old battery pack. Still the cygolite still worked after near 20 years later.


----------



## anekin007 (May 23, 2011)

I was able to check out the unfinished link. Great shots! I got the niterider minewt 600 and it looks good on your picture but with the human eye it doesn't look that bright. Also are the lights picture taken from a fresh fully charged light? I notice some of the lights I tested after about 10 minutes of use the light tends to dim and settle to a constant light output.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

francois said:


> I'm working on it now. I have a ton of lights and I'm getting a bunch more!!!
> 
> It will be broken up in a Commuter and High End category.
> 
> ...


Personally I'm more excited about the 2nd light than the 3rd one. I mean the 2nd light wouldn't make a good mountain biking light (and this is mtbr.com to be fair) but it would make a great commuting light. Because of the smaller dynamic range of these cameras, the other thing is that usually it's not really completely dark off to the sides, the pic looks that way but I bet there's a little light.

And it looks like...it looks like a shaped beam you could aim to not hit people in the face. It looks...a *lot* like the Lumotec Cyo dynamo light. I would...well, *really*, *really* like to know what light the 2nd light is as I need a commuting light for my non-dynamo bike.... 

The light in the 3rd pic looks bright, but -

1. I bet it is super bright - but cameras tend to overexaggerate this vs what you see. The problem isn't with the camera or the settings, but that your eyes adjust to how much light you're seeing and hey, maybe they finally made a light bright enough to see at night like it's day. I know if I ran both my Seca 900 and Seca 1400 at the same time it was pretty bright. But I've bought lights based on the pics and the differences aren't as dramatic as pics with constant settings make them out to be. I bet if you're standing there in person the 1st light is brighter (if you turn it on and let your eyes adjust) and the 3rd light is very bright but just not as dramatically brighter than the pic would suggest.

2. I notice the very bright, nearly washed out spot right in front of the camera on the ground...my Seca 1400 has that same thing, and I'm not a fan. I feel like my eyes adjust to that spot so I don't get as much out of the light as I'd like. This light looks like it also has a center beam so I don't believe it's the Seca...probably the Night Rider 3,000?


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

PaulRivers said:


> And it looks like...it looks like a shaped beam you could aim to not hit people in the face. It looks...a *lot* like the Lumotec Cyo dynamo light. I would...well, *really*, *really* like to know what light the 2nd light is as I need a commuting light for my non-dynamo bike....
> 
> The light in the 3rd pic looks bright, but -
> 
> probably the Night Rider 3,000?


1. It's a Philips commuter light, beam shape is fine but it runs on AA batteries.. come on.
2. Yes


----------



## jpc2879 (Sep 19, 2011)

awesome post, thanks!


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

radirpok said:


> 1. It's a Philips commuter light, beam shape is fine but it runs on AA batteries.. come on.
> 2. Yes


hey, thanks for the response.

I don't know, I think the one place AA batteries do make sense is in a commuter light if it has a charger built into the light (just plug the light in and it charges the AA batteries). Completely replacing the battery with AA rechargeables costs $10 the last time I checked. Or going on an extra long trip? Bring another $10 set of batteries with you. Have you seen the replacement costs of lith-ion batteries? Dinotte is known for having relatively cheap battery replacement costs, and their smaller 2 cell battery costs $50 to replace. When I was in college, I definitely would have been willing to deal with a larger light in exchange for saving $40.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> hey, thanks for the response.
> 
> I don't know, I think the one place AA batteries do make sense is in a commuter light if it has a charger built into the light (just plug the light in and it charges the AA batteries). Completely replacing the battery with AA rechargeables costs $10 the last time I checked. Or going on an extra long trip? Bring another $10 set of batteries with you. Have you seen the replacement costs of lith-ion batteries? Dinotte is known for having relatively cheap battery replacement costs, and their smaller 2 cell battery costs $50 to replace. When I was in college, I definitely would have been willing to deal with a larger light in exchange for saving $40.


That's the first light I'm reviewing!!!

Philips SafeRide LED Bike Light - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

fc


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

Oh wow, cool!

I am...trying to be helpful so if it comes across at to nitpicky let me know. But I'm confused by a paragraph the end of the article -

_Also, the operation of four batteries (AA, LR6) is possible.Thanks to the battery level / charging indicator and the cyclist has his light reserves in view. Via USB port, the battery can easily power on and charge any computer._

Was it...run through google translate? "the operation of four batteries is possible" doesn't make much sense. I think the second sentence means the cyclist can see a charge indicator but "light reserves" is very weird working. The last sentence says you can power and charge a computer from the light which must be backwards, lol.

There were 2 things with this light I was curious about -
1. I assume this is true from the pics, but the light charges AA's inside the light, you just hook it up, no need to remove the batteries, right?
2. Some reviews have said that the status lights on the light itself are to bright and you can get light in your face from the light which is annoying. What do you think?

Maybe...maybe now that mtbr has reviewed it, someone will actually start selling it in the US...right now it's ebay or pay to have it shipped from Europe...

P.S. Love the pics.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Correct! That second page is from the German corporate site run through Google Translate. I'll fix it.

The battery is charged inside the light through a supplied USB charger.

The blue indicator lights are pretty dim and are not obtrusive at all. I'll confirm later.

The light will start selling at Amazon in about a week. QBP will have it mid October so most bike shops will be able to get it.

fc



PaulRivers said:


> Oh wow, cool!
> 
> I am...trying to be helpful so if it comes across at to nitpicky let me know. But I'm confused by a paragraph the end of the article -
> 
> ...


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

Very cool! Francois, I do wonder if the makers intended for the lamp light to be thrown at the high forward angle at which it's shown in your yard shot. Seems to me that's plenty of glare in an oncoming eye. For purposes of demoing the lamp's brightness, it's appropriate, yet wouldn't the throw angle be pointed more sharply down, in practice, to prevent glare ... say, removing the shadow just in front of the rider?

If you want the Philips lamp sooner, the UPCs are these:

Silver: 8727900534917
Black: 8727900534948, 8727900534931

Cheapest prices are showing up on Amazon[dot]de and Google[dot]de[slash]prdhp

Retail, it's currently running about 90 EURO without shipping (about $125).


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

francois said:


> The battery is charged inside the light through a supplied USB charger.


Oh, sweet. 



francois said:


> The blue indicator lights are pretty dim and are not obtrusive at all. I'll confirm later.


It was either that or the light would throw light out the top if you were over it...or they could be exagerrated, lol.



francois said:


> The light will start selling at Amazon in about a week. QBP will have it mid October so most bike shops will be able to get it.
> 
> fc


wow, that's pretty cool.  I searched for one last week and it was either $300 off ebay, or less but still expensive to have it shipped here from Europe. That's really interesting.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

a.k.a. said:


> Very cool! Francois, I do wonder if the makers intended for the lamp light to be thrown at the high forward angle at which it's shown in your yard shot. Seems to me that's plenty of glare in an oncoming eye. For purposes of demoing the lamp's brightness, it's appropriate, yet wouldn't the throw angle be pointed more sharply down, in practice, to prevent glare ... say, removing the shadow just in front of the rider?


From my own experience with the Cyo, I would agree that in real use one should point it down further, with the top of the beam aimed at about waist level on another person.

For test photos here I think it work well though. 

lol, I suppose now I'll end up taking back what I wrote earlier...one of the disadvantages of that kind of beam is the need to aim it lower if it's on the bars. I originally mounted my Cyo on the bars but found that either the hot part of the beam hit people in the eyes, or I had to aim it to low, so I remounted it on the brakes and it's better. I guess my point is that a lot of the shaped lights benefit from being lower than on the bars...though on the other hand who knows, maybe they somehow designed the beam different/better because they knew it would be on the bars (while the Cyo is actually meant to be mounted on the fork).



a.k.a. said:


> If you want the Philips lamp sooner, the UPCs are these:
> 
> Silver: 8727900534917
> Black: 8727900534948, 8727900534931
> ...


Yeah, that's a lot less than they were selling it for on ebay, lol...


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

Great to see the Philips SafeRide in the Shootout. It should be mentioned that this light is also offered in a dynamo powered configuration, for unlimited runtime. Interesting article here:
Bicycle lighting, in particular LED headlamps (headlights) with cutoff, and (hub) dynamos


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

PaulRivers said:


> hey, thanks for the response.
> 
> I don't know, I think the one place AA batteries do make sense is in a commuter light if it has a charger built into the light (just plug the light in and it charges the AA batteries). Completely replacing the battery with AA rechargeables costs $10 the last time I checked. Or going on an extra long trip? Bring another $10 set of batteries with you. Have you seen the replacement costs of lith-ion batteries? Dinotte is known for having relatively cheap battery replacement costs, and their smaller 2 cell battery costs $50 to replace. When I was in college, I definitely would have been willing to deal with a larger light in exchange for saving $40.


I wasn't aware of the fact that the light unit actually charges the batteries - it is probably the first light using AA batteries that can do this trick (even Dinotte can't). I used an AA Dinotte (and other AA powered lights) before and charging was one of the main nuisances.

The other thing is the bulkiness, but I could live with that....

Too bad that I already bought a L&M Urban for commuting purposes. Which doesn't have this beam pattern, but is bright as hell, has a built-in LiIon battery and costs ~100 bucks.


----------



## Baja Designs (Aug 3, 2010)

spec306 said:


> I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on some new lights soon. Are you going to review the 2012 stuff from Baja Designs? I think either their Dual or the 2012 Stryker on the bars plus the new Piko 3 would make an awesome, and blinding, combo. Waiting for your review before making the final decision.
> 
> So......which light is #3 already??? The suspense is killing everyone.


Hey Spec306,

MTBR will have the new 2012 Baja Designs Double Stryk, Strykr II, and Strykr SL. I shipped them out Monday so in theory they should have already arrived at the plush and well appointed Francois Lair...let the testing begin!!

Shannon


----------



## dobovedo (Feb 13, 2011)

radirpok said:


> I wasn't aware of the fact that the light unit actually charges the batteries - it is probably the first light using AA batteries that can do this trick (even Dinotte can't). I used an AA Dinotte (and other AA powered lights) before and charging was one of the main nuisances.


Yeah, I'm glad somebody clarified that because I was looking at the specs and scratching my head. :skep:


----------



## SoCalNomadRider (Jan 15, 2011)

BajaDesignsShannon said:


> Hey Spec306,
> 
> MTBR will have the new 2012 Baja Designs Double Stryk, Strykr II, and Strykr SL. I shipped them out Monday so in theory they should have already arrived at the plush and well appointed Francois Lair...let the testing begin!!
> 
> Shannon


Very nice Shannon :thumbsup: I was waiting to see the Strykr's get involved in this Haha. I am curious to see how the 2012 BD line up compares.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

radirpok said:


> I wasn't aware of the fact that the light unit actually charges the batteries - it is probably the first light using AA batteries that can do this trick (even Dinotte can't). I used an AA Dinotte (and other AA powered lights) before and charging was one of the main nuisances.


haha, yeah, I know of *ton* of lights and it's only the 2nd I know of that can do that.  The other one is the Ixon IQ - probably not coincidentally, also the only other shaped beam light that isn't a dynamo light that I've ever heard of. 

I also have a Dinotte AA 200L, and agree with you completely - taking out the batteries to charge them is a constant annoyance.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Titus Maximus said:


> Great to see the Philips SafeRide in the Shootout. It should be mentioned that this light is also offered in a dynamo powered configuration, for unlimited runtime. Interesting article here:
> Bicycle lighting, in particular LED headlamps (headlights) with cutoff, and (hub) dynamos


Yes, I have the Dynamo version and the ebike version. They are a little smaller so less light. the ebike version looks like it will take any voltage from 6-36v to connect to an ebike battery. I'll test them later.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

BajaDesignsShannon said:


> Hey Spec306,
> 
> MTBR will have the new 2012 Baja Designs Double Stryk, Strykr II, and Strykr SL. I shipped them out Monday so in theory they should have already arrived at the plush and well appointed Francois Lair...let the testing begin!!
> 
> Shannon


Yes, I have them all now. Dinotte and L&M is all here too.

fc


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

PaulRivers said:


> haha, yeah, I know of *ton* of lights and it's only the 2nd I know of that can do that.  The other one is the Ixon IQ - probably not coincidentally, also the only other shaped beam light that isn't a dynamo light that I've ever heard of.


Check this out then:
Supernova Lighting Systems - AIRSTREAM Specifications

Horribly expensive, but has all the features you could think of.


----------



## spec306 (Sep 30, 2007)

francois said:


> Yes, I have them all now. Dinotte and L&M is all here too.
> 
> fc


Thanks FC and Shannon. Love the reviews...........can hardly wait for the results! Christmas may be coming early this year.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

radirpok said:


> Check this out then:
> Supernova Lighting Systems - AIRSTREAM Specifications
> 
> Horribly expensive, but has all the features you could think of.


cool. i've never heard of them but I'll contact them.

fc


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

so, Francios, someone asked earlier and I'm also wondering, what happens to the lights you test? I have to assume you send them back, but does the manufacturer sell these 'gently used' demo models?


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

radirpok said:


> Check this out then:
> Supernova Lighting Systems - AIRSTREAM Specifications
> 
> Horribly expensive, but has all the features you could think of.


Hmm, thanks for mentioning that I had forgotten about that one. Thing is I haven't heard very good things about the beam pattern on that one, their dynamo version that's "assymetrical" which I believe this is based off on doesn't seem to have a lot of throw, heard better things about the Cyo (and the Phillips).

Though the internet is finicky so who knows, would love to see actual shots.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

RTM said:


> so, Francios, someone asked earlier and I'm also wondering, what happens to the lights you test? I have to assume you send them back, but does the manufacturer sell these 'gently used' demo models?


It's a combination. We return some and keep some. We have night ride crew here in the office and we get to use/test them long term in more variable conditions. Now only if we had legal night riding here in the SF peninsula area... :skep:

fc


----------



## NiteBiker (Sep 29, 2011)

*Philips LED Bike Light annoyances*

Yes, that is correct you don't need to take out the batteries to charge them. However, the light switches off when you are charging it.

And yes, the battery level indicator leds are distracting bright; so is the ring of light at the top of the reflector - both problems are easily solved by applying 3 layers of white electrical tape over them.



PaulRivers said:


> Oh wow, cool!
> 
> I am...trying to be helpful so if it comes across at to nitpicky let me know. But I'm confused by a paragraph the end of the article -
> 
> ...


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Most of the shooting, measuring is going to happen in the next three days. Wish me luck.

I have a TON of lights.

A bunch more are coming but they're still on a ship or getting soldered somewhere:
Jet Lites, Cateye, Gemini, Hope, Lezyne

Cygolite is just not in. I'll buy all the lights myself at REI.


I rode last night at with the Piko X on the bar and the Piko 3 on the helmet. Each light is 750 lumen. It was a new level of awesome. The lights disappeared in the riding experience and the two big beam patterns sang a duet like Sonny and Cher.

fc


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

I had contemplated a dual Piko set up. I too think that would be a great setup. 

J.


----------



## Morphine-rn (Feb 2, 2010)

Nice


----------



## Vienna1 (Nov 5, 2008)

I have been using Philips LED bikelight for commuting 7 month ago.
It is truely nice light because it has a cutoff-line to prevent oncoming traffic from blinding.
But if it is aimed to a bit higher from horizon, it is useful for MTB riding.
Of course, with helmet light is better, I know.
So I has an objection for Francis's opinion in the review.
>If there is a canopy, low hanging obstacles on the trail, those objects will be not visible with this light.

I do not have latest high end MTB light(they are a bit old) currently, 
but I compared it with them.
All pictures were taken as EV2. You can check it the exif information in data.
That level is the same as this forum light illumination pictures.

I put them in other sight because of MTBR server's very slow response.
https://picasaweb.google.com/103014740887009889547/Bikelights


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

setup last night


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Vienna1 said:


> I have been using Philips LED bikelight for commuting 7 month ago.
> It is truely nice light because it has a cutoff-line to prevent oncoming traffic from blinding.
> But if it is aimed to a bit higher from horizon, it is useful for MTB riding.
> Of course, with helmet light is better, I know.
> ...


Good insight and great photos.

The problem with the Philips not shown in your photos or mine is you put a low hanging branch in front of the camera at about eye level, 10 or 20 feet in front, it won't be visible. The Philips has no upward light spill like all other lights.

This is easily solved of course by a complementary helmet light.

I got a better Philips photo last night per the suggestion of folks in the board. I aimed it a little lower to improve the spill of the lights on the grass.

fc


----------



## SoCalNomadRider (Jan 15, 2011)

Wow you have your work cut out for you Haha Good luck and i am excited to see how all the new offerings 
do this year as it seems to be the year of lumen war's with all the new technology.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

that phillips light has a really nice beam pattern for commuters. 

This is probably another area of development for light manufacturers - a lot more attention to beam shaping.

J.


----------



## JimInSF (Oct 30, 2010)

Would love to see some testing of dyno driven lights included!


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

JimInSF said:


> Would love to see some testing of dyno driven lights included!


That would be dyno-mite 

Do I have to keep pedaling though while taking a photo?

What are the most important dyno lights out there?

fc


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

If it's of use to you, Francois, I can tell you this much:

Peter White's site and the Dutch site mentioned above [can't link to it, but the domain is swhs[dot]xs4all[dot]nl] is where you will find the skinny on all things dynamo. Both sites are great, and Peter White's is just beautiful. Both are well worth a read.

peterwhitecycles[dot]com

Some of the most important dynamo *hubs* are at Starbike[dot]com.

Note that Shimano has, or is coming out with, a Deore XT DH-T785 centerlock dynamo hub. Beyond that, the Schmidt SON and the Supernovas 8 [660g] and S [400g] are among the most reputable hubs.

Exposure lights is rumored to be working on a bright dynamo light. We've talked about the Philips, and check White's site for the rest.


----------



## HakanC (May 12, 2007)

Please note:
You can't use normal AA batteries (alkaline or lithiums) with the Philips Safe Ride LED Battery Light.

The light can only work with NiMH rechargeable batteries because of the LED driver.
The voltage across the LEDs are 6.1 - 6.49V which means that the driver is a boost converter, and that the battery voltage must be less than LED voltage.


----------



## coach2win (Aug 16, 2008)

*I can't wait*



francois said:


> Most of the shooting, measuring is going to happen in the next three days. Wish me luck.
> 
> I have a TON of lights.
> 
> ...


My favorite is the light shoot out. Hey Francois what bike are you ridding?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

coach2win said:


> My favorite is the light shoot out. Hey Francois what bike are you ridding?


I'm riding a Look FS bike in that photo. It was a prototype and it never got released in the US market. So it's a one of a kind!

I built this new Highball bike though and I think I will be riding it all winter.

fc


----------



## Vienna1 (Nov 5, 2008)

*Pehaps prevent misscharging*

Lithium batteries(same size as AA) cannot be used because they have much higher voltage than Ni-MH batteries. 
Using them will damage the electoronics circuit.
But the reason normal(Alkaline) AA battery should not be used is other.

User Manual describes,

>In the event of non-rechargeable batteries being used, there is a risk of 
>explosion should be attempt be made to recharge batteries.

So if you NEVER make a mistake of attempt charging them, 
Alkaline batteries can be used, I think.
But you must open the battery lid by rotaing screws whenever you change batteries.
It will be a bit labor.


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

*Real World Tests - Get out of the backyard.*

Hello,

This is my first post in this forum. I have been night riding since the mid 90's. Back then I had a full water bottle dual beam NiteRider rig that I used in the Santa Monica Mountains north of Sunset, and it was bright enough to bring home two riders in front of me who lights had long since failed.

Today, I am looking at moving back to the bay area after living in Tahoe for the past three years and looking to replace my older NiteRider HID lights. I don't ride at night up here, too scary, you never know what can come out of the bushes at you. In the Berkeley hills , it was scary enough dodging dear, up here its the bears 

Anyways, I have a lot of experience riding at night, both on road and off, and I demand a lot from my lights. For me, I feel safer at night riding my bike as I am actively involved in my visibility vs. the daytime where it is a more passive affair. For the most part, I use my lights for commuting and working out (road) which means riding 20 miles an hour in traffic, up to 50+ down S. Park or Claremont. I have been looking at reviews of lights and I know it is late, but here is what I like to see, and what I favor in a light.

1. Handle Bar Lights: For me, watching you show the light in your backyard means very little to me. It is out of context, I don't ride my bike in the backyard so watching you shine a light there doesn't really let me know how it performs on the street. Lights & Motion does it well. An underpass with distance and angle lines on the street. What I am looking for in a handlebar light that can keep the road in front of me lit up, regardless of the noise around me. On-coming traffic, traffic from behind, amber or white street lights, a little rain or fog, you can't get a sense of that from your back-yard. The problem is that every light looks better in total darkness. What I need to know is will the on-coming traffic headlights overpower my light and mask that pothole on the road or not? If I am coming down Claremont at 45+ will the light see the sewer covers in the middle of the road? This light needs a good throw, but it also needs a good flood, especially right in front of you. What good is it to pick-up an object 75 feet out in front of you, if it drops out of the spot into 20 feet in front of you? Makes it difficult to thread the needle, on road or off.

2. Headlight. This light has saved my life a couple of times. One time, I was crossing in intersection and a driver from the on-coming traffic lane decided to do a snap left to beat the traffic. Had it not been for my headlight flooding his windshield forcing him to hit the breaks hard, he would have taken me out. I am sure many of you have had something like this happen to you. While I like handlebar light have a good flood to it, I like the Headlight to be a good spot, one that doesn't get washed out by the headlight, and as long as I keep it focused on the road, it won't blind on-coming traffic. For example, the Vis-360 ranked well as a commuter light, but it is difficult to tell how much stopping power it has. I would like to see lights for helmets waived back and forth around a handlebar light so I get a feel for what it adds to the light. My problem is if you get a light that doesn't match the handlebar light well, then when looking to the side you have to wait for your eyes to adjust lower light level. What you want is that where ever you put your spot, your eyes are already adjusted.

3. Tail Light. Francois, you mentioned during your review of the Vis-180 that you wondered why it didn't just flash, it it went in and out. The reason is that a flashing light is harder for a driver to judge distance, especially in less than optimal conditions. I liked the 10-led NiteRider tail light, for more than a decade, nothing came close. I used it in always on mode and a battery one in flasher mode. What I want to see in a tail light is how far can you see it clearly? Put a car 100 feet away with the tail lights on, then put the tail light 10 feet to the right, how does it relate? I know you said you can't film it in flash mode, but you could put a whole bar of lights next to a car tail light (not braking) at different distances. Right away, we would be able to see the performance of the whole line in one shot. How about a shot during the day? I like riding with a flasher all the time. Remember, I live up at Tahoe and I have to compete with the lake for people's attention.

Lastly, what I would like to see is for you to match systems in different price ranges. If you had $200, what helmet, handlebar and tail light would you choose, What if you had $300, $700, you get the idea.

I am sorry if got carried away in my first post. I hope some of what I said was useful.

- Roger


----------



## JimInSF (Oct 30, 2010)

francois said:


> That would be dyno-mite
> 
> Do I have to keep pedaling though while taking a photo?
> 
> ...


No pedaling for photos, the dyno is in the front wheel! 

I think the most popular are the Schmidt Edelux, the Supernova E3 in symmetric, asymmetric, and triple configurations (I use the triple), and maybe the B&M Lumotec IQ Fly.


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

JimInSF said:


> No pedaling for photos, the dyno is in the front wheel!
> 
> I think the most popular are the Schmidt Edelux, the Supernova E3 in symmetric, asymmetric, and triple configurations (I use the triple), and maybe the B&M Lumotec IQ Fly.


Rollers?
See here for some examples of dyno beams:
headlight beams from Peter White Cycles


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

I am going to redo this video, but you guys can take a peek at my ramblings.

edits:
- keep it under 5 minutes
- stop saying 'umm' all the time
- get a temperature gun to get a real reading.
- point all lights at the wall
- wear better shorts 

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Francois, one of our lbs is selling the Surfas True1500. How would you rate their lumen claims? Second, i was wondering if you have anything fron High Beam? They are showing a new light called the Night Nemesis X-12 claiming up to 4500 lumens.


----------



## suvowner (Oct 17, 2006)

francois said:


> I am going to redo this video, but you guys can take a peek at my ramblings.
> 
> edits:
> - keep it under 5 minutes
> ...


u can get a cheap small temp gun at any local r/c shop , would be very helpful if you could somehow note how much lumen output drops with temp increase


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

suvowner said:


> u can get a cheap small temp gun at any local r/c shop , would be very helpful if you could somehow note how much lumen output drops with temp increase


Yessir!! I am RC guy so I used to have an awesome temp gun.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

indebt said:


> Francois, one of our lbs is selling the Surfas True1500. How would you rate their lumen claims? Second, i was wondering if you have anything fron High Beam? They are showing a new light called the Night Nemesis X-12 claiming up to 4500 lumens.


Serfas Lumen claims are legit. That is at least 1500 lumens. That measured 133 lux on my meter and it ran for 2 hours 8 minutes on high.

I'll check on Nemesis X-12.

fc


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

Are you also testing lights from CygoLite like the MityCross 480 and the cordless Expilion lights?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

djembe975 said:


> Are you also testing lights from CygoLite like the MityCross 480 and the cordless Expilion lights?


Yes. What are the significant lights from Cygolite? They don't want to send lights so I'll just buy them.

fc


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

indebt said:


> ...new light called the Night Nemesis X-12 claiming up to 4500 lumens.


Only 4500 lumens? We need at least 9000! And a battery pack the size of the one in a Tesla roadster.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

LOL!!!! i know, even tooo much for me if you can believe that.:thumbsup:


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

francois said:


> Yes. What are the significant lights from Cygolite? They don't want to send lights so I'll just buy them.
> 
> fc


I'm particularly interested in the MityCross 480 and the Expilion 400 cordless series mainly due to size and price.


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

I second the Expillion 400. It would make a very good "back up" light and be good for commuting as well.
Francois, have you contacted Nightlightning in NZ? I rate my twin IBlaast IX highly and would love to see it matched up against the others in the extreme lumen catergory.


----------



## mobaar (May 3, 2009)

It would be interesting to see the Cygolite Turbo 740. Claimed 740 lumen at $170 MSRP.

The new Lezyne lights look good for the price as well.


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

Hey Francois, 

Your doing great work! Too bad about the cygolites, I probably wont buy one cause they decided not to send you one. Sucks because of the 400-600 lumen lights, the expilion was the cheapest. 

Any update on when you will either be releasing some reviews or when the shootout is going live?


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

francois said:


> Serfas Lumen claims are legit. That is at least 1500 lumens. That measured 133 lux on my meter and it ran for 2 hours 8 minutes on high.
> 
> I'll check on Nemesis X-12.
> 
> fc


Sounds like a contender for it's lumen output range.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

blueyin said:


> Hey Francois,
> 
> Your doing great work! Too bad about the cygolites, I probably wont buy one cause they decided not to send you one. Sucks because of the 400-600 lumen lights, the expilion was the cheapest.
> 
> Any update on when you will either be releasing some reviews or when the shootout is going live?


I personally wouldn't suggest you drop them out of consideration just because they don't send lights in to this mtbr light shootout. There could be very valid reasons why they don't wish to participate, and at least in my opinion it in no way reflects poorly on them.


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

*Cygolite, legit reasons not to partcipate, lay them on me! Im all ears and eyes.*



randyharris said:


> I personally wouldn't suggest you drop them out of consideration just because they don't send lights in to this mtbr light shootout. There could be very valid reasons why they don't wish to participate, and at least in my opinion it in no way reflects poorly on them.


Randyharris:

You know, I would really enjoy hearing any valid reasons for them not to participate. I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I honestly cant think why every other major player in the bike light business sent their lights in except cygolite, other than they have something to hide/dont think their lights will be able to compete.

IMHO, if you fail to send your lights in and dont want to bother giving us a reason. Then we are going to think the worst.

But hey man, if you got some legit reasons you think they wouldnt participate. Lay them on me.

I'm all ears and eyes.

Heck as I noted before, Cygolite has the cheapest light in the range that I am looking for.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

blueyin said:


> Randyharris:
> 
> You know, I would really enjoy hearing any valid reasons for them not to participate. I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I honestly cant think why every other major player in the bike light business sent their lights in except cygolite, other than they have something to hide/dont think their lights will be able to compete.
> 
> ...


If you feel that their not participating should exclude them from your light search, then by all means follow your gut instinct. While I might be disappointed that a light I was considering wasn't thrown into the mix, I wouldn't let it affect my purchase decision.

Obviously I have no idea why they are not sending lights, and to be honest I only have ever hear their name, I know zero about their lights, the quality, or anything about them.

It is possible that they're not participating because the testing is not in their opinion performed properly, a light specialist with the specific knowledge may do different things for example than the crude lumen lux testing that has been in prior tests. These MTBR tests also take no weighting on rated products, the Magicshine lights for example don't have UL and UN ratings but I don't believe it's even ever mentioned. I'm sure there are many possible reasons, heck one could even be that they don't think they're product will fair will in a head to head - it's certainly one potential explanation.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

blueyin said:


> Randyharris:
> 
> You know, I would really enjoy hearing any valid reasons for them not to participate. I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I honestly cant think why every other major player in the bike light business sent their lights in except cygolite, other than they have something to hide/dont think their lights will be able to compete.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I can't think of any "very valid" reasons either. It's somewhere on a continuum from "they're to cheap/lazy to do it, though their actual lights might be fine" to "they're trying to hide something". Somewhere in the range. I know someone who owned a Cygolite told me that at least on one specific light he thought their beamshots on their site were way off and the light wasn't nearly as wide as Cygolite's shot showed it to be. (It was one of the all in one commuter lights, their shot showed it lighting up 2 street lanes, someone who owned it said it was a stretch to just light up one).

EDIT: I wrote my response before the above the response, so if it seem weird that I would write this in that order that's why.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> Yeah, I can't think of any "very valid" reasons either. It's somewhere on a continuum from "they're to cheap/lazy to do it, though their actual lights might be fine" to "they're trying to hide something". Somewhere in the range. I know someone who owned a Cygolite told me that at least on one specific light he thought their beamshots on their site were way off and the light wasn't nearly as wide as Cygolite's shot showed it to be. (It was one of the all in one commuter lights, their shot showed it lighting up 2 street lanes, someone who owned it said it was a stretch to just light up one).
> 
> EDIT: I wrote my response before the above the response, so if it seem weird that I would write this in that order that's why.


Just to put some closure to this (and not violate their privacy too much...) They will not send lights to any publication now and for the last 10 years because they treated unfairly 10 years ago by a magazine.

I've been getting the runaround from them for the last 4 years so it's good to finally have an answer. And then I have to field inquiries from 50 readers why I don't include them.

Anyway, I'll just buy them.

fc


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

When will the Light Shootout be posted?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

djembe975 said:


> When will the Light Shootout be posted?


I will start posting this week and individual reviews on lights will come out daily.

Just got DesignShine last night. Very nice.

fc


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

francois, this is just a curious question - with the high powered lights overcoming the dynamic range of cameras (aka either the brightest part of the beam blows out or the dark areas are darker than than are in person) I would just curious if you had considered buying a dslr for their great dynamic range. I think the Nikon d5100 (and it's more expensive d7000 sibling) have the best dynamic range one can fine in a dslr right now. Unfortunately the d5100 requires tricks to set everything manually for video (no problem for pics, but video takes some workarounds).

Just curious if you had considered it. There's probably some drawbacks, not to mention cost to it so definitely not saying anyone has to, appreciate the wide range of lights you're reviewing and taking beam shots of this year.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> francois, this is just a curious question - with the high powered lights overcoming the dynamic range of cameras (aka either the brightest part of the beam blows out or the dark areas are darker than than are in person) I would just curious if you had considered buying a dslr for their great dynamic range. I think the Nikon d5100 (and it's more expensive d7000 sibling) have the best dynamic range one can fine in a dslr right now. Unfortunately the d5100 requires tricks to set everything manually for video (no problem for pics, but video takes some workarounds).
> 
> Just curious if you had considered it. There's probably some drawbacks, not to mention cost to it so definitely not saying anyone has to, appreciate the wide range of lights you're reviewing and taking beam shots of this year.


I have a Nikon D5000 and I'm replacing it with a D7000. Tell me more. I'm using the old Canon G9 for consistency.

I should try using them.

I'll PM you with the latest beam photos.

fc


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

I know more about compacts than I do dslr's, but when you take a pic and find that either the white is blown out, or the light brightness appears normal in the middle but on the edges it turns black in the picture before it turns black in real life that's called "dynamic range" - the range of light the camera can measure at once from the brightest part to the darkest part. The usual example of dynamic range is when you take a picture of someone in the shade with the sky behind them and either they end up really dark and you can see the sky, or the sky ends up totally white and "blown out" even though in reality it was blue with white puffy clouds, not it's a solid white piece. Maybe you already know this.

But dslr's with their larger sensors have better dynamic range than compact cameras, even the g9. As time goes on they improve the ability of both cameras to capture a wider dynamic range, but from the same generation of tech a dslr should always be capable of capturing more of it. The sensor used in the d5100 and d7000 is developed by Sony and supposedly is the best affordable dslr sensor you can get right now for capturing the maximum dynamic range. Next year Canon will probably come out with a sensor that beats it, lol, but right now it's the best - note that I am mainly more of an expert on compacts, dslr's aren't my usual area of expertise so that is the information I know but I'm not a total expert.

In theory this would provide a more accurate view of how far to the sides these lights light up. I know when I've tried to take pics before the camera often doesn't show the areas off to the sides like they appear in real life, and in theory this would help with that.

Here's an example from the Peter White site -
headlight beams from Peter White Cycles










In this shot it appears that the light gives off *no* light to the sides and it's completely black. In reality (I know because I own the light) it does give off a little light to the sides.

It's certainly also totally valid to take all the pics with the same camera from previous years for consistency, and one would have to test it out to see if it *really* makes a difference, in theory though it should create more accurate pictures. Theoretically.

fyi, the d7000 lets you manually set everything in video, so if you're trying to take video of the light (though that might be a big ungainly to mount on the bike while riding) using consistent video settings that might be an option.


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

francois said:


> I will start posting this week and individual reviews on lights will come out daily.
> 
> Just got DesignShine last night. Very nice.
> 
> fc


Francois,

Thats great ... I was commuting home today ... and for the first time this season I saw the sunset on my commute. By next week most likely I'll be riding at dusk. Note I live in the midwest and thus most people who are on a 9-5 (six for myself) will probably be needing them pretty soon.

Thanks again for all your hard work.

Also thanks for at least getting a reason, though not a very good one IMHO, about Cygolite.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> ...
> fyi, the d7000 lets you manually set everything in video, so if you're trying to take video of the light (though that might be a big ungainly to mount on the bike while riding) using consistent video settings that might be an option.


Thank you!! I'm definitely getting the D7000 then. We take a lot of video with the D5000 and it won't even focus correctly. If I have the D7000 with fixed video settings, I can ride with it and maybe capture these bike lights in action accurately.

fc

in other news: Full-beam is in. Big lights! Also, Blackburn


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

Glad I could help.  Note that I do not own the d7000, but that info comes from as reliable a source as possible -
Nikon D7000 Review: 18. Live View/Movie Mode: Digital Photography Review

"AF is available during movie recording and shutter speed, aperture and ISO can all be set manually if you so wish (aperture has to be set before the start of recording)."


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

...though do note that none of the dslr's are particularly great at autofocussing while anything is moving.

Cameras...they' frickin' complicated aren't they? lol


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

PaulRivers said:


> ...though do note that none of the dslr's are particularly great at autofocussing while anything is moving.
> 
> Cameras...they' frickin' complicated aren't they? lol


Indeed they are....

And regarding beamshots, although somewhat objective in nature, I've found that locating the camera as close as possible to where the user's eyes would be normally in relation to the light tends to give a more realistic depiction. Comparative shots off from the side or further behind can also be useful, but maybe not as good at depicting what the rider sees.
JMHO


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

Francois,

Just a heads-up - I posted a note to the Digital Photography Review forum asking for appropriate camera settings if using the D5000 and D7000 to test these high-intensity lamps. Hopefully you'll see some very expert responses.

Thread is at:
forums[dot]dpreview[dot]com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1055&message=39516703

How are things going in soliciting tail light samples?

Cheers!

a.k.a.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

a.k.a. said:


> Francois,
> 
> Just a heads-up - I posted a note to the Digital Photography Review forum asking for appropriate camera settings if using the D5000 and D7000 to test these high-intensity lamps. Hopefully you'll see some very expert responses.
> 
> ...


I only have a few. I have the monster light though.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Cateye is in with Sumo 2, Sumo 3, NanoShot, and Econom Force.

Tiny Sun Lights and DesignShine are in too.

Cygolite is now in!!!! Just a couple of lights though. They said this is the first time this decade they're sending a light for review so it's a good win for all.

fc


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

Which CygoLites are being sent for review?


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

LUX. I want to see these light's lux to lumen rating and the beam pattern...


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

Francois,

Good for Cygo!

If you're so inclined, could you shoot NITEFlux an email about sending you some from their lineup -- esp. the Red Zone 4 tail light?

a.k.a.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

djembe975 said:


> Which CygoLites are being sent for review?


TridenX 750 OSP (MSRP $349.95 )
MityCross 480 OSP (MSRP $249.95)

Meh, I'm negotiating with them right now. The MityCross lights will not fare well against the competition I fear.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

a.k.a. said:


> Francois,
> 
> Good for Cygo!
> 
> ...


Yes, Nifeflux!! How could I forget.

Also, I have full clearance to use the $40k integrating sphere (to measure actual lumens) at Lezyne factory in San Luis Obispo. I'll go there next week.

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Can't begin to emagine the hours your putting into all of this Francios, so just a big thank you for all that hard work, and your feedback on the Surfas True1500.:thumbsup:


----------



## KingOfTheHill (Sep 19, 2007)

francois said:


> ...
> The MityCross lights will not fare well against the competition I fear.
> 
> fc


You'd be surprised. I've been riding with a MityCross 400 on my helmet for about 9 months and love it. Pairs well with up to about 1500 lumens on the bar. One has to remember what the MityCross is - not an uber bright light but one that does many things well in a small package with 3.5 hours run time on high. With that said, it does do better on the lid than on the bars.


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

francois said:


> TridenX 750 OSP (MSRP $349.95 )
> MityCross 480 OSP (MSRP $249.95)
> 
> Meh, I'm negotiating with them right now. The MityCross lights will not fare well against the competition I fear.
> ...


Try to get them to send you at least their new Turbo 740 light as that might stack up better against the competition especially for the price. Turbo 740


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

KingOfTheHill said:


> You'd be surprised. I've been riding with a MityCross 400 on my helmet for about 9 months and love it. Pairs well with up to about 1500 lumens on the bar. One has to remember what the MityCross is - not an uber bright light but one that does many things well in a small package with 3.5 hours run time on high. With that said, it does do better on the lid than on the bars.


Good feedback.

These new lights though... so bright, so cheap and so light.

For runtime, you can run a lot of these new lights at half power and they would still be mighty bright.

fc


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

I have a TridenX 750xtra and a Cygolite Turbo 740
If I can get my wife to set up her cannon I will post some beam shots between the two 
I can tell right now that the turbo is more of a spot light 
It is dark and late in Wisconsin :thumbsup:

Going for a ride SJ


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

SlowerJoe said:


> I have a TridenX 750xtra and a Cygolite Turbo 740
> If I can get my wife to set up her cannon I will post some beam shots between the two
> I can tell right now that the turbo is more of a spot light
> It is dark and late in Wisconsin :thumbsup:
> ...


Is the Turbo as bright as depicted on the CygoLite website? And does it have a nice halo around the spit.


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

the turbo is as bright as the TridenX
It has more of a hotspot in the center
I would say it looks really close to the web
It also fits the TridenX helmet mount so I might give it a try there
has a built in red tail light 
hope this makes some sense I need to get some sleep 

Sj


----------



## dbastians (Oct 6, 2011)

francois said:


> Yes, Nifeflux!! How could I forget.
> 
> fc


Hi Francis,

just got a message from a mystery fan to check out this thread and contribute some samples.
So many offerings these days. Will go for the ones that are significantly different I think.

PMini12: 1000 lm, 35g for head unit, wireless remote control.
Red Zone 4: 200 lm tail light, 180 deg beam pattern, integrated battery.

Let me know if there are any other requests. Sent email but not 100% sure I got your current contact details. Check inbox or send me PM to make arrangements.

Cheers,
David


----------



## savvas (Mar 21, 2011)

I'd second the Niteflux Redzone 4 suggestion Franscois. The company chief, David is very friendly and helpful.
Savvas


----------



## wickedfn4u (Jan 4, 2008)

Can the tail light be turned off? On the bar that seems like it would be a distraction.


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

Wooo Hoooo! I wonder if they read the thread? I hope that our discussion of their lights had just a little bit to do with them sending you the lights. I sure tried to do my part! 

Now if they would only send the expilion 400 or the turbojet 740! 
Yay for the power of the internet!


----------



## sbd (Sep 23, 2011)

1st post here!!! WoooOOOOooot!!!!

Thanks for doing this, I am in the market for a new light. Believe it or not I have a niterider I bought in the early 90s and it still works.


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

the tail light is easy on the eyes
looks cool and is easy to operate with gloves


----------



## mochodurazo (Nov 29, 2008)

Francois, thanks for doing this shootout. I was going to buy a MS, but after 4-5 videos of your backyard, i just going to hold my wallet.

I had a bad experience with NITERIDER and JENSON. I bought a minewt x2 300 couple a years ago, and after 1 year of NR( probably 20-25 rides) it dies. Was a bad experience for $240.

All my regards from Mexico.

Carlos Durazo


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

Francois, where will you be placing the reviews? In this thread or someplace else? Thx

Curtis


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

cue003 said:


> Francois, where will you be placing the reviews? In this thread or someplace else?


Link near the top of the page under the banner ad
Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

^^^^^^ thx a bunch for the link.


----------



## Mudhead (Jul 30, 2006)

Thanks Francois for taking the time to do these tests. I, like others in this forum, am in the market for a set of lights for night riding. My local LBS's carry a very limited variety of lights. It is great to find one location where brands are compared, so we as a consumer can make better informed choices. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GDES (Jun 9, 2010)

Hi I'm new here but have a question on the battery spec stated by Exposure six pack MK2

the light is only 4.5 x 2.25 inches 6x XP-G-LEDs, battery included within this package of 15600Mah.
I find this very hard to believe. I think it is 2500mAh as it only has a burn time of 3 hrs on full.
Here's my calcs;
it uses 6 x Cree Xp-G R6 leds = 139 lm per 350mA
1925lm / 6 = 321lm led ok losses so as their claim 325lm led
325 / 139 = 2.34 there fore 2.34 x 350 = 819mAh for all leds in series.
819 x max burn time = 2457 so there fore a battery of 2500mAh
Otherwise 15600 would give a burn time on full 19 hours.

Any one explain why they state 15600, been in touch with them but no response!


----------



## GDES (Jun 9, 2010)

sorry its 6 x XP-G R6 lEDs


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

GDES said:


> sorry its 6 x XP-G R6 lEDs


... answer and rant...

Somebody probably just goofed:
If they are running six cells in series and incorrectly multiplied each cell's capacity by 6 then you could have
6x2600maH = 15600mAH total

However, this is WRONG. Six 2600mAH cells in series is still only 2600mAH, just at a much higher voltage.

It's not out of the question to be running in that configuration, since for a 6 cell series pack you have:
Nominal voltage = 3.7 x 6 = 22.2V
Full charge = 4.2 x 6 = 25.2V
Discharged voltage = 3.0-ish x 6 = 18V

@1.5Amp, Max forward voltage of 6 XPG in series = approx. 3.5 x 6 = 21V
@1.0Amp, Max forward voltage of 6 XPG in series = approx. 3.3 x 6 = 19.8V

So, from this it would make sense that they could be using a buck regulator and then perhaps letting it drop out of regulation as it reaches the end of the charge.

You can see that at a drive level of 1 amp you're easily pulling 20WATTS and at 1.5amp drive, you're at 31.5 WATTS.

Add 10% for controller efficiencies and you're looking at (for the XP-G R5 bin):
23 watts, 1amp drive, 2085 (theoretical) lumens (no loss), 2.5 hour run time
35 watts, 1.5 amp drive, 2752 (theoretical) lumens (no loss), 1 hr 38min run time

You can see from this why the lumen war beyond about 1200 to 1500 lumens starts to get ridiculous.

First of all, it is completely likely that you would NEVER NOTICE an increase from 2085 to 2752 lumens from the same light source; however, you just paid for that 32% increase in lumens with 13 WATTS and a 1hr shorter run time. In fact, starting with a 1200 lumen light, you need to more than DOUBLE the output to even have a noticeable and/or meaningful impact on the perceived brightness. At night, you can even argue that too much light intensity begins to adversely affect your peripheral awareness due to your pupils closing down.

In my opinion, going much beyond 1200 to 1500 lumens from a single light source begins to be ineffective. You're MUCH better off with two 1200+ lumen sources that can be aimed to cover greater area or more specific coverage (i.e. spot vs. flood) while staying in the efficiency "sweet spot."

The super powerful 2000+ lumen race from a single light head is cool and all, but it has definitely gone into the realm of diminishing returns in the name of 1-up-ing the competition. Again, just in my opinion.


----------



## GDES (Jun 9, 2010)

I agree it sounds like they have and a nice response thanks.

I tried a Stella 120 against a 975lm light recently and gob smacked at the very little difference in light output.

The reflector has a lot going for it, the Stella uses a custom alloy reflector with one of the narrowest beams out there, good for road use but a broader beam is required for off road riding. The alloy reflector is considerably more efficient than a polymer one!

Anyone know where I can get a decent remote switch ?
Cheers


----------



## Oscar56 (Oct 8, 2011)

*Anxiously Awaiting Shootout*



francois said:


> I will start posting this week and individual reviews on lights will come out daily.
> 
> fc


Sorry if you have already posted but is there a url set for this year's shootout? I am desperately in need of new lights (riding at 5:00 am here in BC) and was going to put in an order next weekend but will gladly wait until you have posted.

grant


----------



## dbastians (Oct 6, 2011)

pethelman said:


> ... answer and rant...
> 
> You can see from this why the lumen war beyond about 1200 to 1500 lumens starts to get ridiculous.
> 
> First of all, it is completely likely that you would NEVER NOTICE an increase from 2085 to 2752 lumens from the same light source; however, you just paid for that 32% increase in lumens with 13 WATTS and a 1hr shorter run time. In fact, starting with a 1200 lumen light, you need to more than DOUBLE the output to even have a noticeable and/or meaningful impact on the perceived brightness. At night, you can even argue that too much light intensity begins to adversely affect your peripheral awareness due to your pupils closing down.


Most of this is true. Whenever I design a new light, if it is going to have double the lumen output of a predecessor model, then I aim to give it about double the beam area. There is just no sense in increasing spot brightness. These are bicycle lights, not spotlights. And I'm really not sure there is any point going above 2000 lm. We have some very hardcore test riders at NiteFlux, with elite fitness and skill levels. Our 2000 lm model sees them physically exhausted at the end of a ride. That is, they are not able to go any harder. The lights are not the limiting factor. So, I think that there is really not much point going above 2000 lm.

As a parallel note. There was a call above for intensity readings at a distance. I would not recommend this for a bicycle lighting context. While it is common for high end hand torches to quote the distance to 1 lux, this is a very different application. Most of our bike light models have a throw of around 80m - 100m using this method. I would not be true to say that lights that shine further than this are better for cycling. The only way to get the light further is to have it more focused (= less peripheral vision) or more total output, using more battery power. Past 2000 lm with a nice spead, there is not much point really.

Bike lights will never replicate daylight no matter how much output they have. Full sunlight is tens of thousands of lumens per sq meter and there is so much light bouncing around that it looks nothing like the single source that a bike light will only ever be. Simply adding a second light does not make it like sunshine either.

Certainly there is already LED technology already to allow 5,000 lumens or more in a portable light. While we may even make a 10,000 lm model in the near future, you can be sure it wont come out as a bike light. All you riders out there take note and treat anything over 2000 lm with some healthy cynicism (not to mention a lack of thermal, and other efficiency factor de-rating in the claimed numbers for many of the offerings out there).

Cheers,
David


----------



## GDES (Jun 9, 2010)

*Exposure six pack MK2*

Problem with this light is if they goofed why is it being advertised everywhere as having 15600mAh, if you buy one & it turns out they are wrong & it us a 2600 battery then they will have to compensate buyers or provide a 15600 battery under EU trading standards law.

Could send the company under so don't understand why they are not correcting this error or even replying.
If I bought this light I would be well p***** ***.


----------



## savvas (Mar 21, 2011)

It's great to have such balanced and obviously informed comment on this forum from bike light manufacturers - thanks Stephen and David.


----------



## betweenrides (Oct 19, 2010)

Yes, thanks for a great post, David.


----------



## NiteBiker (Sep 29, 2011)

Hey Francois,

Thanks for the great work. I appreciate the fact that you reviewing road bicycling (what you call "commuter") lights even though this is a MTB site.

Any plans to test the Sigma Sport PowerLED EVO 900? 900 lumens may seem low in 2012, but this one has great optics - very even long throw beam. It works very well on my helmet with the Philips SafeRide light on the bar for trails/MTBing.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

GDES said:


> Problem with this light is if they goofed why is it being advertised everywhere as having 15600mAh, if you buy one & it turns out they are wrong & it us a 2600 battery then they will have to compensate buyers or provide a 15600 battery under EU trading standards law.
> 
> Could send the company under so don't understand why they are not correcting this error or even replying.
> If I bought this light I would be well p***** ***.


It would seem that they have a very "eager" PR department and with their "spec" sheet being widely distributed to a lot of vendors, it might be difficult to make a correction.

It does bring up a very good point though. With the competition being as tight as it is, and without some well defined "standards" in specifying bike light performance, you have to be a bit skeptical these days of most quoted specifications, unless there is supporting test data or explanation of how they arrived at the numbers.

All the more why some objective testing such as this is valuable to the cycling community in general.


----------



## GDES (Jun 9, 2010)

pethelman said:


> It would seem that they have a very "eager" PR department and with their "spec" sheet being widely distributed to a lot of vendors, it might be difficult to make a correction.
> 
> It does bring up a very good point though. With the competition being as tight as it is, and without some well defined "standards" in specifying bike light performance, you have to be a bit skeptical these days of most quoted specifications, unless there is supporting test data or explanation of how they arrived at the numbers.
> 
> All the more why some objective testing such as this is valuable to the cycling community in general.


Problem is it's working in their favor as people I know are believing it!


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

just making sure I am not missing anything... the link for the shootout at the top of the page only seems to have the Philips light on it so far. Is that what other are seeing or am in the in the wrong location?

Thanks.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

cue003 said:


> just making sure I am not missing anything... the link for the shootout at the top of the page only seems to have the Philips light on it so far. Is that what other are seeing or am in the in the wrong location?
> 
> Thanks.


We're all waiting for more results, which, given the large number of participants, may take a while, but I think we may see some reviews coming out incrementally, such as the Philips, before it's all said and done.


----------



## Pete N (Jan 22, 2008)

Francois. Please try and get hold of a Nightlightning IBLAAST IX, it would be good to see your review of it. I am aware that it has a more powerful and better beam than Lupine and Exposures best offerings according to Mountain Bike Auatralia's light test. From personal experience it's a brilliant light, and completely overpowers my friends Exposure 6 pack, the difference is huge.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

Pete N said:


> Francois. Please try and get hold of a Nightlightning IBLAAST IX, it would be good to see your review of it. I am aware that it has a more powerful and better beam than Lupine and Exposures best offerings according to Mountain Bike Auatralia's light test. From personal experience it's a brilliant light, and completely overpowers my friends Exposure 6 pack, the difference is huge.


No doubt it's bright, but here we have yet another example of "specs gone wild."

From Nightlighting's web site they quote:
2800 Lumens @ 2100ma drive
3600 Lumens @ 3000ma drive
9x Cree XP-G LEDs

But they neglected to add the line... "until the XP-Gs go up in smoke."

The maximum drive for the XP-G is 1500mA (page 1 of the spec).
http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/xlampxp-g.pdf

Just for sake of argument, let's say you drive all nine LEDs at the max rated 1.5 amps.
This gives us a theoretical lumen output of:
463*9 = 4167 lumens
De-rated by about 18% for heating and lens losses gives us:
3417 lumens
So at least they're in the ball park for the max lumen count.

But here's the kicker.. at those levels you're burning OVER 50 WATTS, and drawing more than 3 amps continuously out of the battery pack. This is generally more than the safe limit for the typical 18650-based packs.

Rather than trying to blast the LEDs at their maximum drive for an overly bright output, I would prefer to take the approach of running more LEDs with LESS drive, to get them down into the more efficient band of operation and extend the run times. Oh well. Given the look of the mount, they probably built this mostly with of off-road vehicles in mind.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

more testing...

I'll publish something tomorrow.

On Friday, I'll go to Lezyne and use their integrating sphere.

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I think you can fit one more on there Francois. LOL!!!


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

pethelman said:


> Rather than trying to blast the LEDs at their maximum drive for an overly bright output, I would prefer to take the approach of running more LEDs with LESS drive, to get them down into the more efficient band of operation and extend the run times.


This is, apparently, the approach Dinotte took with the dual quad 1200L+. They certainly could have wrung out mucho mas lumens from 8 xpg's.


----------



## savvas (Mar 21, 2011)

francois said:


> more testing...
> 
> I'll publish something tomorrow.
> 
> ...


Gee - that Exposure's a fat little bundle of whoop-de-doo init! 
But where's the DesignShine? I'm sure you could fit that in there somewhere!

Savvas.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

savvas said:


> Gee - that Exposure's a fat little bundle of whoop-de-doo init!
> But where's the DesignShine? I'm sure you could fit that in there somewhere!
> 
> Savvas.


Looks like this was the "self-contained" test bed with no external batteries allowed. I'm sure riding with that many beams off the front is something to behold.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

it was ok. 

fc


----------



## SirLancelot (Nov 25, 2009)

You can always run very powerful lights in mid or lower power mode and extend easily the run times by many hours. The XPG or XML (xml slightly more efficient) LEDs are very efficient in lower power mode.


----------



## Pete N (Jan 22, 2008)

*IBLAAST IX clarification*



pethelman said:


> No doubt it's bright, but here we have yet another example of "specs gone wild."
> 
> From Nightlighting's web site they quote:
> 2800 Lumens @ 2100ma drive
> ...


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

These are the lights I have and at the bottom are the ones that are due to arrive soon.

*Light	Flashlight Price Lumen *
Baja Designs Double Stryker $450.00	1800
Baja Designs Stryker II $300.00	950
Baja Designs Stryker SL $340.00	950
DesignShine DS-1300 $280.00	1300
Dinotte 400L $209.00	400
Dinotte XML-1 $169.00	400
Dinotte XML-3 $259.00	1200
Dinottel 1200L $350.00	1200
Exposure Diablo	Yes	$300.00	975
Exposure Joystick	Yes	$220.00	325
Exposure MaxxD	Yes	$500.00	1285
Exposure Six Pack	Yes	$600.00	1925
Exposure Toro	Yes	$400.00	975
Jet Lites A-51 $200.00	700
Light and Motion Seca 1400 $700.00	1400
Light and Motion Urban 500 $160.00	500
Light and Motion vis360 $170.00	110
Lupine Betty $930.00	2050/2300/2600
Lupine Betty TL	Yes 2050/2300/2600
Lupine Piko 3 $330.00	750
Lupine Piko TL Max	Yes	$400.00	750
Lupine Piko TL Mini	Yes 550
Lupine Wilma 7 $695.00	1200/1300/1500
Lupine Wilma TL	Yes	$549.00	1200/1300/1500
Magicshine MJ-872 $185.00	1600
Niterider Mako 1 $40.00	100
Niterider Mako 2 $50.00	130
Niterider Minewt 600 Cordless	Yes	$150.00	600
Niterider Pro 1500 $350.00	1500
Niterider Pro 3000 $700.00	3000
Niterider Pro 750 $250.00	750
Philips SafeRide	Yes	$200.00	400
Princeton Tec Push Yes	$50.00	100
Serfas True 1500 $390.00	1500
Serfas True 500	Yes	$150.00	500
Tiny Sun Lights Sport2700x 2700

*Pending:	* 
Jet Lites Dual A-51 $300.00	1400
Blackburn 
Cateye Sumo 2 $450.00	1000
Cateye Sumo 3 1600
Cateye Nanoshot	Yes	$100.00	250
Cateye Econom 540 RC	Yes	$65.00	
Niteflux Redzone 4 
Niteflux Pmini12	Yes 1000
Niteflux Pmax24 2000
Magicshine 
Cygolite TridenX 750 OSP $350.00	750
Cygolite MityCross 480 OSP $250.00	480
Fullbeam Fusion	Yes	400 gbp	2100
Fullbeam Night-Nemesis 550 gbp	2500
Hope R4 1000
Bikeray 
Nova Sport


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

Not to be nosy, but what does the "yes" mean.... possibly that you have a review in the wings waiting?


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

Pete N said:


> The XPG's are actually driven in sets of three, each triple is driven at either 700ma, giving the quoted figure of @2100 or at 1000ma giving the quoted figure of 3000ma, so they are actually being run well within their 1500ma max.


Hey Pete, thanks for clearing that up. The 700mA drive works quite well for these triples, so I'm glad to see that's how it's configured. No need to go any higher. I build a twin (double-triple) version and it's plenty bright. But you're right, they got a little "happy" with their lumen estimates.

@700mA the theoretical output from 9 XP-Gs would be:
139*1.85*9 = 2314
OR
roughly 1900 out the front. But who's counting anyway... lumen counts are becoming increasingly irrelevant. It's much more now about form/fit/function, which includes beam characteristics, mounting options, battery life, ease of use, and maybe to a smaller degree, aesthetics on the bike. JMO.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

blueyin said:


> Not to be nosy, but what does the "yes" mean.... possibly that you have a review in the wings waiting?


"Yes" means it's a flashlight style bike light.

fc


----------



## spankone (Aug 31, 2011)

A few reviews have started to come out in the UK mags and the lupine's are getting scored very low mainly cause they are so expensive. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gregnash (Jul 17, 2010)

Can't wait to see the reviews on the Serfas True 500/1500... My LBS stocks them and from just playing with them they seemed awesome. Lights felt very balanced and love the fact that it is a cylinder style batter that can be removed and replaced quickly and easily.


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

spankone said:


> A few reviews have started to come out in the UK mags and the lupine's are getting scored very low mainly cause they are so expensive.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Do you have any links to these reviews you can share?


----------



## spankone (Aug 31, 2011)

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/categ...eview-lupine-piko-tl-max-front-light-11-45287

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/categ...t/review-lupine-betty-12-front-light-11-45296

Sorry if this is against the rules.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mochodurazo (Nov 29, 2008)

francois said:


> These are the lights I have and at the bottom are the ones that are due to arrive soon.
> 
> *Light	Flashlight Price Lumen *
> Baja Designs Double Stryker $450.00	1800
> ...


Francois, what about GEMINI TITAN & XERA?

i was waitng for a review of those.

Regards


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

mochodurazo said:


> Francois, what about GEMINI TITAN & XERA?
> 
> i was waitng for a review of those.
> 
> Regards


Yes, Gemini is coming. I think them and Bikeray experienced some delivery delays so I don't have them yet.

fc


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

francois said:


> Yes, Gemini is coming. I think them and Bikeray experienced some delivery delays so I don't have them yet.
> 
> fc


No love for your big advertiser nitelights with their 1200lm XML destroyer?


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

This year's Niteflux lights look stunningly good. They have the smallest helmet light (compared to which the Lupine Piko is just a brick on your head), a bright light with a really nice beam pattern (based on the beamshots), REMOTE CONTROL - something which Lupine seem to have abandoned (shame on them), and an almost perfect taillight.
I am excited to read about these lights in the review.


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

pethelman said:


> Hey Pete, thanks for clearing that up. The 700mA drive works quite well for these triples, so I'm glad to see that's how it's configured. No need to go any higher. I build a twin (double-triple) version and it's plenty bright. But you're right, they got a little "happy" with their lumen estimates.
> 
> @700mA the theoretical output from 9 XP-Gs would be:
> 139*1.85*9 = 2314
> ...


I too rate this light very highly & am disappointed that Nightlightning have never featured in any of the past mtbr light shootouts. I've mentioned the twin IBlaast IX's I run on my handlebars in several posts before, but never seem to get much response to the posts.
It's a shame that more people who are in the market for a high end product don't seriously check these lights out.
Don't be put off by the photos of "agricultural" helmet mounts etc on their webpage. They have others that are much better if you ask them. All I had to do was tell Eric (the owner of the company) what I wanted & he came through with the goods!
I got two light-heads with a custom combination of optics, custom mounts, one 6.6 Ah batt, another 15.6 Ah batt, different drivers (German made Recoms I think) driving each of the six 20mm triples at a max of 1.2 amps, all for way less than the price of one Betty.
And one of these is easily brighter than the XPG version of the Betty (maybe the XML Betty will beat it?). I know this because I've seen them side by side whilst riding with my mates - we stopped & did a comparision, and one IBlaast IX on max was noticably brighter than one Betty.
Eric is an electrical engineer by trade. The bike light side of their company is small compared to their comercial lighting section. He is a very keen mountain biker though.
Forgive me for going on about them so much. I also live in another country from them, & am not associated to them in any way. But like Pete N am a customer who rates their stuff very highly.

Cheers, Digger.

p.s. Penthelman, you seem to be very educated on all things electronic. What would be your best estimate of the total OTF lumens my lights would have? Just for my own curiosity - thanks.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

OldAusDigger said:


> What would be your best estimate of the total OTF lumens my lights would have?


That would be OMG, WTF total lumens.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

OldAusDigger said:


> p.s. Penthelman, you seem to be very educated on all things electronic. What would be your best estimate of the total OTF lumens my lights would have? Just for my own curiosity - thanks.


Assuming they're using the "R5" group for the XP-G (which is likely) then the min rated luminous flux from a single die driven at 350mA is 139 lumens (+/- 7% tolerance).

As you drive them harder, there's a 2nd order curve that characterized the "multiplication" factor:
@700mA multiply the output by 1.85
@1000mA multiply by 2.5
@1200mA multiply by 2.8

Now, you do have to take into account that as you crank up the watts, you're moving further out on the heat loss curve, which fortunately for the XPGs is not too steep. Let's assume maybe a 60C (140F) junction temp which cuts the output by 8%. Next, realize that the triple SPOT optics for the XP-G are only 87.3% efficient. So the final calculation for your light's max output at 1.2amp drive would be:
139*9*2.8*0.92*0.873= 2813 (give or take).

If the assumptions on the heating are too low, then you could easily lose another 5 to 8% due to heat. Now, replace one of those XP-G triples with an XP-E and it'd really be the Cat's meow.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

radirpok said:


> This year's Niteflux lights look stunningly good. They have the smallest helmet light (compared to which the Lupine Piko is just a brick on your head), a bright light with a really nice beam pattern (based on the beamshots), REMOTE CONTROL - something which Lupine seem to have abandoned (shame on them), and an almost perfect taillight.
> I am excited to read about these lights in the review.


I have the Tiny Niteflux now. They are stunning. The wireless remote control switch is just too cool.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Ok, the publishing has started in earnest. There's three big articles coming out today:
Lupine Piko TL Max | Mountain Bike Review

And expect at least one light day.

On Friday, I'll spend the day a day with the Integrating Sphere at Lezyne in San Luis Obispo. Their lights are not available yet but they are allowing me use of theyr $30k machine and engineer.

We will measure peak output of all the lights. We will also come up with 5 minute light output graphs of all the lights.

They are interested in measuring light output of each light throughout its whole runtime but that would just take too much time. I'll leave a few lights with them to do that and we'll see if that information is useful.

fc


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

Looking to hear more on this niteflux and how it and man other lights stack up against the lupine family. I'm prepared to buy many lights and most likely much of my decisions will be based on the reviews that will be coming out from Francois.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Oh, please comment in the articles themselves using the Facebook comments engine. I will respond to questions there.

I need you smart peoples starting discussions around each light review article in the article itself.

thanks,
francis


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

pethelman said:


> Assuming they're using the "R5" group for the XP-G (which is likely) then the min rated luminous flux from a single die driven at 350mA is 139 lumens (+/- 7% tolerance).
> 
> As you drive them harder, there's a 2nd order curve that characterized the "multiplication" factor:
> @700mA multiply the output by 1.85
> ...


Thanks Pethelman.
So for two of them the total OTF lumens should be up around 5600. One of my light-heads has all three of the 20mm triples with the spot optics (can't remember what deg angle they are) and the other has one with 40 deg & two with 25 deg. So I'm assuming that there would be slightly more net loss with the wider optics. 
Either way I'm happy with the end result. I've also got a thumb activated remote controller as well, & very rarely run at full power.
I also run one of mattewm's Gili 6's as my helmet light.

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

So I think I wont need to upgrade for a little while yet 

That is until the dreaded lumen lusting illness gets me again


----------



## William_Cannon (May 5, 2009)

Really enjoying everything so far, francois!! Keep'em coming! Being new to night riding, I'm glued waiting for the next review to come out so I can make a decision and be ready for DST.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

I have a better location for trail shots!!

Check here daily for updates on shootout:
Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

1) philips saferide
2) exposure joystick
3) exposure diablo
4) exposure sixpack


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

I don't have a Facebook account.

I already wanted to ask about heat dissipation, because I have a gut feeling that the lights running cooler are not necessarily better in this regard. They could be running cooler (on the outside) because they are insulated more, so that they are frying the leds inside.

Of course this is not always the case, eg. if you underpower the leds they might be cooler to start with, so there is genuinely less heat. But a warm light case is definitely a sign that the whole case is acting as a heat dissipator IMHO. Which is good.

Might be worth asking the people in the DIY forum.


----------



## leesnuts (Jul 7, 2006)

You convinced me to get the Exposure Diablo and its been great. My friend is planning on getting the new Diablo Mk3 but whats weird is the 2012 exposure claims to increase output vs 2011 but measures lower on the Ambient Lux number (63 vs 59).


----------



## NiteBiker (Sep 29, 2011)

francois,

Thanks for the trail shots. It will be useful if you have markers laid out at say 25m, 50m, 75m and 100m on the trail to estimate the light's throw.

Thanks!



francois said:


> I have a better location for trail shots!!
> 
> Check here daily for updates on shootout:
> 
> ...


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

So far, it looks like the cost / lumen battle is going to NiteRider.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Roger Huston said:


> So far, it looks like the cost / lumen battle is going to NiteRider.


... and so is the grams/lumen rating. That thing is a tank.

J.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

francois said:


> I have a better location for trail shots!!
> 
> https://forums.mtbr.com/attachments...394846-2012-mtbr-lights-shootout-img_2054.jpg


I like how it really shows the width and spread of the light for mountain bike riding. That ditch on the right that looks like a cliff really brings the point home, lol.

I don't like how it doesn't seem to show any more throw distance than the backyard shots.


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

JohnJ80 said:


> ... and so is the grams/lumen rating. That thing is a tank.
> 
> J.


Sometimes it is good to have a tank on your side, especially in a lot of traffic and bad weather.


----------



## NiteBiker (Sep 29, 2011)

The beam shots shows how effectively the Philips reflector is able to focus all of its 270 lumens onto the surface. It puts out much more light on the surface than the Exposure Joystick at 325 lumens and even the Exposure Diablo at 975 lumens! The Philips beam is not only brighter, but also wider.

The Exposure Sixpack with a whopping 1925 lumens appears brighter on the surface, but the Philips is not embarrassed by it when you consider surface illumination alone.

Clearly the Diablo lights are meant for MTBing and the Philips is for the road so I don't mean to compare apples to oranges here. What I am trying to point out here is the effectiveness of an asymmetrical beam reflector like the one in the Philips for road use.

Color Temperature: many of the LED lights have a cooler white light as compared to the Philips, which is supposed to be "Crystal White" - this is warmer than cool white, but not as warm as "Neutral White". Warmer whites show better contrast; cooler whites wash out detail.



francois said:


> I have a better location for trail shots!!
> 
> Check here daily for updates on shootout:
> 
> ...


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

hey Francios, wanted to offer a few observations on the videos you've posted thus far.

as with previous years I really appreciate the unscripted style. makes your reviews much more interesting and honest than most I've seen

the Lupine review seemed a bit short. I can't speak for all, but I enjoy your thoughts on the packaging, the case, mounting options, chargers, build quality, etc. no reason to rush on my account!

just my thoughts so far. as always, I appreciate the effort.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

leesnuts said:


> You convinced me to get the Exposure Diablo and its been great. My friend is planning on getting the new Diablo Mk3 but whats weird is the 2012 exposure claims to increase output vs 2011 but measures lower on the Ambient Lux number (63 vs 59).


Good point. I am rechecking those early numbers. I don't understand either. When I go test at the Integrating Sphere on Friday I'll have better data.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> I like how it really shows the width and spread of the light for mountain bike riding. That ditch on the right that looks like a cliff really brings the point home, lol.
> 
> I don't like how it doesn't seem to show any more throw distance than the backyard shots.


Yep, I am hauling all 40 lights tonight to this location.

The ditch is epic!!!

I'll try to do distance markers. I think my gps can give me distance.

fc


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

GPS is only accurate to +/- 13' or so. Just get a 100' rope and put a mark on it every 25'.

J.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

NiteBiker said:


> The beam shots shows how effectively the Philips reflector is able to focus all of its 270 lumens onto the surface. It puts out much more light on the surface than the Exposure Joystick at 325 lumens and even the Exposure Diablo at 975 lumens! The Philips beam is not only brighter, but also wider.
> 
> The Exposure Sixpack with a whopping 1925 lumens appears brighter on the surface, but the Philips is not embarrassed by it when you consider surface illumination alone.
> 
> ...


Good observations! The color should be accurate on these as I've learned that 'Daylight White Balance' is the key for this camera. 'Auto' white balance is awful as it changes the color.

These photos actually reveal a lot more than the naked eye as the eyes adjust the color and adjust to the brightness of the light. I'm learning more by looking at them.

fc

p.s. Cateye just arrived at my door. The Nanoshot (on the right) is a work of art!


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

NiteBiker said:


> Clearly the Diablo lights are meant for MTBing and the Philips is for the road ...


Just as an aside...
The "low" beam concept is fantastic for night time and I think Philips just opened the door for a whole lot more innovation in this area. However, during the day, I want as much "high beam" light getting out and "up" and getting in as many eyes as possible. I can almost guarantee you that the next step in the evolution will be to include a switchable forward firing LED in the middle of the reflector for an effective "high" beam function... dang it.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

JohnJ80 said:


> GPS is only accurate to +/- 13' or so. Just get a 100' rope and put a mark on it every 25'.
> 
> J.


Or stop by Home Depot!   

*Empire 300 ft. Open Reel Fiberglass Tape Measure - $29.96*
300 ft. Open Reel Fiberglass Tape Measure-6830 at The Home Depot










Or...

*Rolatape 12 in. Aluminum Measuring Wheel - $59.96*
12 in. Aluminum Measuring Wheel-RT312 at The Home Depot










Though honestly, one could probably just buy a $10 25ft tape measure and put down a cone every 25 feet, to. 300 feet is about the length of an american football field...I don't think even the Niterider 3,000 would go further than that, lol...right?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> Or stop by Home Depot!


Yes, brilliant!!

It seems like I'm getting a few lights well over 3000 lumens. Don't ask me why 

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Can someone explain to me the relationship between candlepower and lumens? Is there a translation formula?

fc


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

francois said:


> Can someone explain to me the relationship between candlepower and lumens? Is there a translation formula?
> 
> fc


according to Wolfram, "cp (candlepowers) and lm (lumens) are not compatible" linky

probably similar to how watts and kWh are not compatible.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

randyharris said:


> according to Wolfram, "cp (candlepowers) and lm (lumens) are not compatible" linky
> 
> probably similar to how watts and kWh are not compatible.


from the site: Lumens, Footcandles, Candlepower, Measuring Light Output

Candlepower is a rating of light output at the source, using English measurements.
Foot-candles are a measurement of light at an illuminated object.
Lumens are a metric equivalent to foot-candles in that they are measured at an object you want to illuminate.
Divide the number of lumens you have produced, or are capable of producing, by 12.57 and you get the candlepower equivalent of that light source.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

The main page is up.
2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

It will be updated daily!!


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Francios, is that the old Dinotte 1200L before the driver upgrade? Just asking as your measurements of just 88 lux is far short of the 105 the XML3 measured. Randyharris was pretty thorough in his review and claimed that the new version was brighter than the XML3 and his photo's showed that as well? I'm a bit surprised on that outcome.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

indebt said:


> Francios, is that the old Dinotte 1200L before the driver upgrade? Just asking as your measurements of just 88 lux is far short of the 105 the XML3 measured. Randyharris was pretty thorough in his review and claimed that the new version was brighter than the XML3 and his photo's showed that as well? I'm a bit surprised on that outcome.


Yes, both these lights are the latest from Dinotte and received last week. We are still investigating as well. More shooting tonight Integrating Sphere on Friday.

The 1200L is on par with other 1200 lumen lights. The XML-3 seems to be putting out about 1400 lumens.

Treat these numbers as preliminary. Oct. 31 is the final deadline for all the photos and data.

Here's a good page with historical data too:
Bike Lights Shootout Light Meter Measurements | Mountain Bike Review

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Thats a lot of light from a quality company for just $250. Cheers!!!


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

francois said:


> The main page is up.
> 2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review
> 
> It will be updated daily!!


sadly, this is a big day for me. I'm such a nerd.


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

> So far, it looks like the cost / lumen battle is going to NiteRider.
> ... and so is the grams/lumen rating. That thing is a tank.


The NiteRider mount is relatively secure but is slightly confusing at first as to how it releases.

Result: In adjusting the direction of the beam mid-commute, I dropped my payload all over the asphalt.

Damage? Nope. The NiteRider takes a licking and keeps on ticking.. It IS a tank, no doubt about it.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

It's FAR heavier than those it competes with. For example, the Lupine Betty at about 2600 lumens weighs just about half of what the Niterider does - 812g vs 450g. That's a big difference, nearly a pound.

J.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

francois said:


> Yes, both these lights are the latest from Dinotte and received last week. We are still investigating as well. More shooting tonight Integrating Sphere on Friday.
> 
> The 1200L is on par with other 1200 lumen lights. The XML-3 seems to be putting out about 1400 lumens.
> 
> ...


Francois - you might want to check the numbers on the Dinotte 1200L (unless it's the old 1200L) and the Dinotte XML-3. Dinotte says the 1200L is brighter than the XML-3 and should be similar to 1500 lumen lights. Instead, your numbers say the opposite.

J.


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

John, We've crossed wires. I'm talking about the NiteRider MiNewt 600 Cordless. It's 188 grams.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

JohnJ80 said:


> Francois - you might want to check the numbers on the Dinotte 1200L (unless it's the old 1200L) and the Dinotte XML-3. Dinotte says the 1200L is brighter than the XML-3 and should be similar to 1500 lumen lights. Instead, your numbers say the opposite.
> 
> J.


Yes, I've talked to Rob at Dinotte about this. I'm finding that the XML-3 is brighter. The 1200L is wider for sure but the XML-3 is brighter and has farther throw.

It is possible that the Dinotte 1200L is not getting measured properly by my lux meter setup since the beam is so wide and spilling on to my walls. I'll know for sure after Friday after a true lab session.

I am finding that any light using the Cree XML are devastatingly bright. The light manufacturers don't even fully know how bright their XML lights are so they are interested in my results.

These are my two photos from tonight. There is an orange card at 100 feet and a green card at 200 feet on the left of the trail.

photo 1: Dinotte 1200L
photo 2: Dinotte XML-3


----------



## lou2uanme (Oct 11, 2009)

*IMHO NR Pro 3000 wins over the Lupine Betty 2600*



JohnJ80 said:


> It's FAR heavier than those it competes with. For example, the Lupine Betty at about 2600 lumens weighs just about half of what the Niterider does - 812g vs 450g. That's a big difference, nearly a pound.
> 
> J.


Lupine website says the Betty 2600 is 460 grams (1.01lbs) and has a 7.5 amp hour Li-Ion battery. Cost $930

Niterider website says Pro 3000 is 812 grams (1.79lbs) and has a 11.6 amp hour Li-Ion battery.
Cost $700.

The Niterider Pro 3000 battery has 4.1 amp hours more capacity than the Betty. That is a lot more battery capacity for 3/4 pound more in weight.

I'm not sure if the website info is accurate or if the weights include mounts or not but that is what is posted.

I'd prefer to get a higher capacity battery and brighter light and at $230 cheaper....... 3 reasons to get the NR Pro 3000 over the lighter weight Betty 2600


----------



## Joe Bob (Oct 31, 2010)

The Betty puts out 2600 lm for 2 hours @ 370g (Smart Core Battery)
the Niderider puts out 3000 lm for 1,5 hours @ 812 g.

Right, barely a difference here. :skep:


----------



## g8trtim (May 14, 2009)

Sorry for my ignorance, I just stumbled across this thread for the first time. Will this information and results turn into a spreadsheet or database so we can pinpoint the best light for specific requirements/categories? I looked at the 2012 Bike Lights Shootout page and this test is fantastic and appears to be very thorough!


----------



## Vienna1 (Nov 5, 2008)

Francois - I saw main page.
I am looking forward to see other reviews which are pending currently.
By the way, why is Philips SafeRide's claimed lumen so high 400 lumen?
I bought it from Germany and it is announced as 270 lumen by Manufacturer(PHILIPS).
On the web forum in Germany, someone measured it's real Lumen by an integral sphere and it was measured as 291 lumen, I remember.

The USA version is announced as 400 lumen?


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

What happened to the CygoLite lights? Did they back out last minute? It would be nice if they included their Expillion 400 cordless style along with the Turbo 740 as they seem like solid choices for the price.


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

djembe975 said:


> What happened to the CygoLite lights? Did they back out last minute? It would be nice if they included their Expillion 400 cordless style along with the Turbo 740 as they seem like solid choices for the price.


Yeah! The >$200 field has fierce competition going for it. I'm hoping Fc will include real runtimes not just whats on the package.

Fc already said that the Surfas 500 isnt quite as bright as the Niterider Minewt 600 or the Light and motion Urban 500.

I think were going to have to wait for the beam patterns on the under $200 lights.

I'm really curious how the Dinotte XML-1 will hold up against the flashlight lights. As I thought I read somewhere that some of Dinotte lights are upgradeable later in their lifespan. (or am I miss-remembering that?)

Too bad about the expillion 400. Oh well!


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

francois said:


> I have a better location for trail shots!!
> 
> Check here daily for updates on shootout:
> Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review
> ...


I was looking at this, and I realized - it seems like this should be pointed up a bit more. I have a Cyo (similar because it also uses a shaped beam) and the ideal place to point it is for the top of the beam to hit at about an average persons waist level, but the beam appears to be pointed further down. The reason I noticed is it seemed like the light should light up further down the trail.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

Paul, there was a debate over exactly this earlier in the thread, with photos from Francois' back yard. It appears that if you tilt the Philips beam further up, it leaves a darkened gap nearer to the source (just ahead of the bike). That means you'd lose track of obstacles in the trail/road surface. Seen here, when tilted down instead, it also does a weak job of defining the trench at the left side of the image.

It appears users will have a challenge adjusting the beam to hit the sweet spot. On the other hand, with a static image you're not factoring in the usual handlebar wobble. I'm sure you'd get at least intermittent glimpses of obstacles -- immediately ahead, or off on the periphery like the trench.

But are you going to see the low-hanging tree limbs overhead? That's the most important question, and why I'm wary of shaped beams. I've been glad for the spread of my own light without a shaped beam (a MiNewt 600) as it's shown me a few low-hanging bushes I might have ridden into.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

There was a debate earlier in the thread, I just think that in my experience the light head ended up to far down, I think it's meant to be pointed up somewhat further, even if that does leave a larger dark gap in front of the bike. I mean these are just my thoughts, but recently I've been tuning the position of my Lumotec Cyo another shaped beam light and that has been the best light position - for commuting. I just think if it was pointed a little bit more up it will light up further down the trail in this pic.

I certainly don't expect Francois to go back and reshoot it or anything though.

As Francois said in his review, I don't think that a shaped beam light by itself would be good for mountain biking. It could be good in combination with a headlamp that would illuminate stuff like low hanging branches though (as Francois mentioned).


----------



## NiteBiker (Sep 29, 2011)

Look at this: h t t p : / /photozou.jp/photo/show/214524/83193309 (please remove the spaces in the URL - I am not allowed to post URLs because I don't have sufficient cred on this website). It gives a more complete view of the beam. The dark spot is not really all that dark. The beam starts out bright, gets a little dark and then the main part gets really bright. Like any asymmetrical light it is sensitive to adjustment. I find that is best to adjust on a relatively flat road while riding the bike (the rider's weight does affect the overall angle!). I start off by pointing it a bit down and then tilting it up slowly until I achieve maximum throw.

Wouldn't it be great if were self leveling like BMW lights, heheh. Just kidding, that would add too much complexity, weight and cost 



a.k.a. said:


> Paul, there was a debate over exactly this earlier in the thread, with photos from Francois' back yard. It appears that if you tilt the Philips beam further up, it leaves a darkened gap nearer to the source (just ahead of the bike). That means you'd lose track of obstacles in the trail/road surface. Seen here, when tilted down instead, it also does a weak job of defining the trench at the left side of the image.
> 
> It appears users will have a challenge adjusting the beam to hit the sweet spot. On the other hand, with a static image you're not factoring in the usual handlebar wobble. I'm sure you'd get at least intermittent glimpses of obstacles -- immediately ahead, or off on the periphery like the trench.
> 
> But are you going to see the low-hanging tree limbs overhead? That's the most important question, and why I'm wary of shaped beams. I've been glad for the spread of my own light without a shaped beam (a MiNewt 600) as it's shown me a few low-hanging bushes I might have ridden into.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

NiteBiker said:


> Look at this: h t t p : / /photozou.jp/photo/show/214524/83193309 (please remove the spaces in the URL - I am not allowed to post URLs because I don't have sufficient cred on this website). It gives a more complete view of the beam. The dark spot is not really all that dark. The beam starts out bright, gets a little dark and then the main part gets really bright. Like any asymmetrical light it is sensitive to adjustment. I find that is best to adjust on a relatively flat road while riding the bike (the rider's weight does affect the overall angle!). I start off by pointing it a bit down and then tilting it up slowly until I achieve maximum throw.
> 
> Wouldn't it be great if were self leveling like BMW lights, heheh. Just kidding, that would add too much complexity, weight and cost


Yeah - that's what I was trying to say.  Put the top of the cutoff right around a persons waist level.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

PaulRivers said:


> There was a debate earlier in the thread, I just think that in my experience the light head ended up to far down, I think it's meant to be pointed up somewhat further, even if that does leave a larger dark gap in front of the bike. I mean these are just my thoughts, but recently I've been tuning the position of my Lumotec Cyo another shaped beam light and that has been the best light position - for commuting. I just think if it was pointed a little bit more up it will light up further down the trail in this pic.
> 
> I certainly don't expect Francois to go back and reshoot it or anything though.
> 
> As Francois said in his review, I don't think that a shaped beam light by itself would be good for mountain biking. It could be good in combination with a headlamp that would illuminate stuff like low hanging branches though (as Francois mentioned).


Correct. On the commuter, lower-powered lights, I'm aiming them lower on the trail photos. The reason is their throw is not that far and the light just gets lost.

I'm aiming them at the orange sheet 100 feet on the left of the trail. There is another green sheet on the 200 foot mark.

I just got this light called the Cateye Econom Force. It is very similar to the Saferide as it has a very controlled beam pattern. It is square!!

Here's the latest photos:
Cateye Econom Force
Philips Saferide

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

djembe975 said:


> What happened to the CygoLite lights? Did they back out last minute? It would be nice if they included their Expillion 400 cordless style along with the Turbo 740 as they seem like solid choices for the price.


They are pending. They are sending the Expilion 350 and a TridenX 750..

There a bunch more lights coming too. I just got Hope and Tiny Sun Lights.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

g8trtim said:


> Sorry for my ignorance, I just stumbled across this thread for the first time. Will this information and results turn into a spreadsheet or database so we can pinpoint the best light for specific requirements/categories? I looked at the 2012 Bike Lights Shootout page and this test is fantastic and appears to be very thorough!


Yes, I will release the spreadsheet to this group. You guys always make nice graphs and calculations for me.

Also, proofread my stuff for errors. It's much appreciated.

fc


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

francois said:


> They are pending. They are sending the Expilion 350 and a TridenX 750..
> 
> There a bunch more lights coming too. I just got Hope and Tiny Sun Lights.
> 
> fc


Try to get them to send you at least the 400 instead and the Turbo 740.


----------



## joep7 (Oct 4, 2011)

Finally! The new light shoutout. Was waiting a couple weeks for this.  Thanks.


Oh and one thing: Philips is actually an old Dutch electronics company (from 1891). They started as a light company later on made all kinds of electronics Came up with some innovations, for instance the Compact Disc.


----------



## anekin007 (May 23, 2011)

I dont get why everyone is worried about the cutoff for commuting lights. I ran 2 niterider minewt 600 on highs on street commutes. I got a small strip of 3M black tape($2 industrial version from home depot not the cheap 0.99 ones) and placed it over the top part of the light to cut off the spill and not blind drivers. Because the tape can handle high temps there was no melting. The tape did not block the spot light just the small amount of spill that blinds on coming traffic.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

anekin007 said:


> I dont get why everyone is worried about the cutoff for commuting lights. I ran 2 niterider minewt 600 on highs on street commutes. I got a small strip of 3M black tape($2 industrial version from home depot not the cheap 0.99 ones) and placed it over the top part of the light to cut off the spill and not blind drivers. Because the tape can handle high temps there was no melting. The tape did not block the spot light just the small amount of spill that blinds on coming traffic.


I'm with you... sort of. With judicious power management and aiming of a non-shaped beam, you can easily ride in traffic at night with plenty of light on the road to see your way without blinding on-coming traffic. If I happen to "stick out" a bit more than the typical car headlight, I'm totally OK with that. Anything that draws attention without being dangerous is a good thing in my opinion.

The "tape over the top half" trick only really works if you're blocking the direct line of sight to the emitter itself. So you probably need to block just a little more than the top half. Even better than just the tape would be a small mirror, or even smooth aluminum foil. This would have the effect of reflecting back a good portion of the light, and if the light is using a parabolic reflector, it would be re-directed out the bottom half, essentially what the Philips is doing, only with a much bigger reflector with a compound shape. But then again, considering the output lost doing this, you might be just as well off to cut the light's total power output (if possible) and re-aiming for slightly less throw. Just IMO.


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

NiteBiker, that's a very useful photo of the Philips' spread. Apparently the dim foreground isn't a concern, as you've suggested. Bodes well for overhead illumination, but I'm still wary, from a safety standpoint. Nothing against Philips. Anyone conscientious and patient enough to put out a dynamo light gets big props.

I think I just have a dark screen.

Wonder how to get the photos to reveal more of the beam's dynamic range, as in the photo NiteBiker found.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

The videos show up here first:

MtbrVideos's Channel - YouTube


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

Francois,

For future reference, apparently there's a setting in the Nikon D7000 called Active D-Lighting (ADL). This underexposes when the highlights will be blown out, and it's on by default.

If you're looking for a way to show the details of a light beam that may be too underexposed (like the periphery of the Philips SafeRide beam), you'd want to do the following:

1) Turn ADL off.
2) Set Contrast to Neutral or Low.
3) Shoot the first / brightest lamp with manual exposure, overexposing it to some extent.
4) Use the same settings for the rest of the lamps. They'll expose less and less terrain the lower the lux you're reading for them, but it might be a little bit easier to see what's being illuminated around the dimly lit edges.

If I get any other advice, I'll re-edit this particular reply of this thread, so it's not scattered.

I have no interest in seeing you re-shoot, just some insights for next year. Hope this is helpful.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

a.k.a. said:


> Francois,
> 
> For future reference, apparently there's a setting in the Nikon D7000 called Active D-Lighting (ADL). This underexposes when the highlights will be blown out, and it's on by default.
> 
> ...


I believe he uses a fixed set of exposure settings so that there is some basis for comparison between pictures.

Besides that, digital photography will not accurately portray the differences from high to low light levels and therefore the true character of the beam. A digital camera can see about 5-6 f/stops of light (light doublings) and your eye sees 20-21 f/stops of light - many times more resolution from light to dark.

J.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

JohnJ80 said:


> I believe he uses a fixed set of exposure settings so that there is some basis for comparison between pictures.
> 
> Besides that, digital photography will not accurately portray the differences from high to low light levels and therefore the true character of the beam. A digital camera can see about 5-6 f/stops of light (light doublings) and your eye sees 20-21 f/stops of light - many times more resolution from light to dark.
> 
> J.


Correct. I don't want any post-processing. I may try shooting with another camera and in raw formats.

fc


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Raw probably won't make much difference. Best thing would be one of the very newest DSLRs with the highest sensitivity ISO. It's just that the human eye is so much more sensitive and we are talking about seriously bright lights here.

J.


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

By the way, John, the D7000 currently has the highest dynamic-range sensor going in the 35mm format DSLR world -- coming in at 14 f-stops, according to DxOMark It is equipped with the same sensor as Nikon's top-of-the-line D9000. The only thing it ain't got is a full-frame 35mm sensor, like the D3 series.

No need to hunt for a better camera, Francois. You have THE sweetest camera of the DSLR world.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Right. But it still doesn't have the dynamic range to properly show a beam. You get an idea of shape of the hot spot but the light fall off from hot to edge of the beam won't be representative of the actual beam. The hot spot is pretty easy to see and to determine how well it works, but the fall off from the center (spill) is a huge deal for night riding and that's what you miss with digital photography.

AND those measurements of the performance of the camera are typically not even close to what you can get in real use. So, it comes back down to a tiny fraction of what the human eye can see very quickly and we're right back to the point that the beam shots beyond about 600 lumens are really not all that accurate and are misleading.

j.


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Jun 7, 2009)

Are there any sources for the Phillips lights with US plugs? I like this for the part of my commute that has heavy bike traffic.


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

deleted...carry on!


----------



## mikeyonthemadone (Jul 4, 2009)

lou2uanme said:


> Lupine website says the Betty 2600 is 460 grams (1.01lbs) and has a 7.5 amp hour Li-Ion battery. Cost $930
> 
> Niterider website says Pro 3000 is 812 grams (1.79lbs) and has a 11.6 amp hour Li-Ion battery.
> Cost $700.
> ...


Until you look at the build quality of a Lupine. (And I have been with Niterider for 15 years when they were starting out with NiCad batteries.) Get what you like and need, but imho there is NO comparison in overall quality between NR and Lupine, the latter beats them in every manner.

Mikey


----------



## mb323323 (Aug 1, 2006)

Hey FC

The Serfas true 500 looks like a nice product but I was wondering what you thought of the helmet mount as that's what I would use it for. I like the idea that I can replace the battery on the trail and 18650 are cheap so I could carry several.

Thx

MB


----------



## a.k.a. (Sep 10, 2011)

Maximus,

What, didn't you re-read all 6 pages of this thread in toto? : )

See this reply. It has the links and pricing for the Philips. Let us know if you get one.
http://forums.mtbr.com/8491294-post99.html


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

mikeyonthemadone said:


> Until you look at the build quality of a Lupine. (And I have been with Niterider for 15 years when they were starting out with NiCad batteries.) Get what you like and need, but imho there is NO comparison in overall quality between NR and Lupine, the latter beats them in every manner.
> 
> Mikey


Lupine has these new hardcase batteries with a fuel guage. They are impressive. This one is 11.2 amp and powers the Betty at high for 3 hours 20 min.

Here's the Niterider 3000 system weight for comparison.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

mb323323 said:


> Hey FC
> 
> The Serfas true 500 looks like a nice product but I was wondering what you thought of the helmet mount as that's what I would use it for. I like the idea that I can replace the battery on the trail and 18650 are cheap so I could carry several.
> 
> ...


The helmet mount looks good. Good plastics and the light can be aimed up and down without moving mount.

fc


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

francois said:


> Also, proofread my stuff for errors. It's much appreciated.
> 
> fc


On this page http://reviews.mtbr.com/2012-bike-lights-shootout the Dinotte 400L should be $209.


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

JohnJ80 said:


> Besides that, digital photography will not accurately portray the differences from high to low light levels and therefore the true character of the beam. A digital camera can see about 5-6 f/stops of light (light doublings) and your eye sees 20-21 f/stops of light - many times more resolution from light to dark.
> 
> J.


That's called "dynamic range", and all digital cameras are not the same when it comes to it. A modern dslr is better than a modern compact, but they do make improvements in the amount of dynamic range a camera can see. Currently Nikon d5100 / d7000 / Sony a55 are the best for dynamic range in the "dslr you can remotely afford" category (ie under $2500), but I believe they are more like 8 stops per dpreview -
Nikon D5100 Review: 14. Dynamic Range: Digital Photography Review

Though the pics from above appear to all be taken with a Canon g9 compact, right Francois?


----------



## spankone (Aug 31, 2011)

wow is a lupine piko realy only 30 dolars more than the exposure diablo. here in the uk the piko is twice the price


----------



## PaulRivers (Jan 2, 2009)

francois said:


> Correct. I don't want any post-processing. I may try shooting with another camera and in raw formats.
> 
> fc


fyi - for this advice at least -
1) Turn ADL off.
2) Set Contrast to Neutral or Low.

This isn't post-processing, it's more...turning down and reducing the amount of in-camera processing that's being done. It's also something you would set these things on the camera and wouldn't require any work past that. (Not commenting on whether it's good or bad advice, just mentioning it's not time consuming "post-processing", and if you're looking for "natural" results turning ADL off would probably produce more consistent and natural results than leaving it on.)


----------



## rzims (Sep 7, 2005)

Ok, so I just spent a couple hours and most of a pot of coffee reading this whole thread....awesome stuff!

Thank you Francis for all the work that goes into this, I'm looking for a light setup as we speak for our weekly night ride and the timing couldn't be better...


----------



## BBW (Feb 25, 2004)

lou2uanme said:


> Lupine website says the Betty 2600 is 460 grams (1.01lbs) and has a 7.5 amp hour Li-Ion battery. Cost $930
> 
> Niterider website says Pro 3000 is 812 grams (1.79lbs) and has a 11.6 amp hour Li-Ion battery.
> Cost $700.
> ...


I prefer a light that I can upgrade and not have to throw away in a couple of years


----------



## roman (May 25, 2005)

NR Pro 3000 is only $550 at PerformanceBikes.com. They are currently out of stock, but will get it in on the 1st of Nov. It makes it an amazing deal compared to Lupine.


----------



## joep7 (Oct 4, 2011)

Really looking forward to the review of the Exposure sixpack, as this is the one I recently ordered (haven't received it yet). Around when can we expect this review?


----------



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

pethelman said:


> ....The "tape over the top half" trick only really works if you're blocking the direct line of sight to the emitter itself. So you probably need to block just a little more than the top half. Even better than just the tape would be a small mirror, or even smooth aluminum foil. This would have the effect of reflecting back a good portion of the light, and if the light is using a parabolic reflector, it would be re-directed out the bottom half, essentially what the Philips is doing, only with a much bigger reflector with a compound shape. But then again, considering the output lost doing this, you might be just as well off to cut the light's total power output (if possible) and re-aiming for slightly less throw. Just IMO.


I created a small hood for my triple XPG and used a small bit of aluminum foil to line the underneath part. I've been using it this way ever since and I swear it puts some of the wasted light back down to where you need it.



francois said:


> Yes, both these lights are the latest from Dinotte and received last week. We are still investigating as well. More shooting tonight Integrating Sphere on Friday.
> 
> The 1200L is on par with other 1200 lumen lights. The XML-3 seems to be putting out about 1400 lumens.
> 
> ...


*Francois,* Very good work on getting all those lights.* I am a little disappointed that the Bikeray IV or III hasn't been included yet. *I really would of liked to know how the output(s) compared to the MS* MJ-872*.

I'm still shaking my head over the comparisons with the DiNotte 1300L+ and the XML 3. The photos that *Randyharris* did showed the 1300L+ ( up graded ) to throw further than the DiNotte XML3.  Something not right here. One of you has to be wrong. :skep: If you had plans to buy a DiNotte this would certainly give you pause.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

I just got back from the Integrating Sphere session. I have some good data but the big lights did not measure well. The sphere is small and the lights are mounted outside with an AC vent cooling the light. The hole in the sphere is 2 inches big and the light head had to fit in the space and a collar had to seal the hole. This worked very well for all self-contained lights.

The Sphere was calibrated in the beginning and end of the session with a 379 lumen flashlight. We took lumen readings at startup, 1 minute, 2 and 3 minutes. Color temperature was recorded too.

We have graphs of some lights lumen output througout their whole battery run time.

photos:
1) san jose to san luis obispo
2) my hosts had good coffee
3) this small integrating sphere would bounce the external light 10x around the sphere
4) the light is measured by a sensor connected to a PC
5) exposure toro during a measuring session
6) an output graph of a good light on the left and another one on the right.


----------



## Oscar56 (Oct 8, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> I created a small hood for my triple XPG and used a small bit of aluminum foil to line the underneath part. I've been using it this way ever since and I swear it puts some of the wasted light back down to where you need it.
> 
> .


Cat-man: Do you have a photo of your light + hood that you could post?


----------



## Ziemas (Apr 11, 2005)

francois said:


> I just got back from the Integrating Sphere session. I have some good data but the big lights did not measure well. The sphere is small and the lights are mounted outside with an AC vent cooling the light. The hole in the sphere is 2 inches big and the light head had to fit in the space and a collar had to seal the hole. This worked very well for all self-contained lights.
> 
> The Sphere was calibrated in the beginning and end of the session with a 379 lumen flashlight. We took lumen readings at startup, 1 minute, 2 and 3 minutes. Color temperature was recorded too.
> 
> ...


Very, very, cool. Thanks for taking the time to go to the sphere.

Did you manage to get any of the new Lezyne lights to test? They look like they might be great commuter lights.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Good work, Francois!

I would really ask that you still do your MTBR testing too. That is relatively calibrated and it is the only means we would really have of comparing to previously tested lights. I'm also concerned about the big lights as you mentioned.

J.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> I created a small hood for my triple XPG and used a small bit of aluminum foil to line the underneath part. I've been using it this way ever since and I swear it puts some of the wasted light back down to where you need it.
> 
> *Francois,* Very good work on getting all those lights.* I am a little disappointed that the Bikeray IV or III hasn't been included yet. *I really would of liked to know how the output(s) compared to the MS* MJ-872*.
> 
> I'm still shaking my head over the comparisons with the DiNotte 1300L+ and the XML 3. The photos that *Randyharris* did showed the 1300L+ ( up graded ) to throw further than the DiNotte XML3.  Something not right here. One of you has to be wrong. :skep: If you had plans to buy a DiNotte this would certainly give you pause.


 I've considered a light hood before for different reasons (blinding other riders, pedistrians, drivers, etc.) and am interested in how much wased lite you reclaimed. Your opinion would be appreciated. Also is your fabricated reflector flat or formfitted to the lens shape?


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

joep7 said:


> Really looking forward to the review of the Exposure sixpack, as this is the one I recently ordered (haven't received it yet). Around when can we expect this review?


I too am waiting for this review, however I think I heard in one of the videos that this light takes forever to recharge. So for me, I output is just one deciding factor, durability, form factor, ease of use, all come into play.

- Roger


----------



## gocycling (Oct 27, 2007)

Francois, 

Thanks for doing all these test -- they have been very helpful and I know that it is a lot of work.

I have a question, for the Exposure lights, like the Diablo and Toro, the 2012 numbers are lower than the 2011 numbers. For example, the Diablo is listed as 59 lux for 2012 while last year it was listed as 63. 

Could this be due to the new Intelligent Thermal Management system that Exposure added this year. It is supposed to reduce the light level if the light heats up. During testing, was there any airflow over the lights?

Thanks.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

a.k.a. said:


> By the way, John, the D7000 currently has the highest dynamic-range sensor going in the 35mm format DSLR world -- coming in at 14 f-stops, according to DxOMark It is equipped with the same sensor as Nikon's top-of-the-line D9000. The only thing it ain't got is a full-frame 35mm sensor, like the D3 series.
> 
> No need to hunt for a better camera, Francois. You have THE sweetest camera of the DSLR world.


Nikon D9000? Did I miss something? Like a year? Is it 2012 already? Where am I?


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

Francois,

A note on Dinotte nomenclature:

The dual quad XP-G light engine is designated as the 1200L Plus. The 1200L is an older model.
The new XP-G model of the 400 (which I assume is the one you are testing) is designated as the 400L Plus. The 400L is an older model.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Titus Maximus said:


> Francois,
> 
> A note on Dinotte nomenclature:
> 
> ...


I'll fix my descriptions. I have the latest ones I'm sure.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

gocycling said:


> Francois,
> 
> Thanks for doing all these test -- they have been very helpful and I know that it is a lot of work.
> 
> ...


Wow, that makes sense. I'll to Exposure about this. Maybe it's too intelligent 

The lights in the Mtbr Lux Measurement are measured within 3 seconds of turning them on.

At the lumens measurement in SLO, we had an air conditioning duct pointed at the light during the 3 minute test.

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Roger Huston said:


> I too am waiting for this review, however I think I heard in one of the videos that this light takes forever to recharge. So for me, I output is just one deciding factor, durability, form factor, ease of use, all come into play.
> 
> - Roger


It take's 24 hours to charge the six pack unless Exposure made a change for 2012.


----------



## gocycling (Oct 27, 2007)

francois said:


> Wow, that makes sense. I'll to Exposure about this. Maybe it's too intelligent
> 
> The lights in the Mtbr Lux Measurement are measured within 3 seconds of turning them on.
> 
> ...


Thanks Francois. Given that the 2011 Diablo is rated at 900 lumens and the 2012 is rated at 975 lumens, I'm sure that Exposure would be interested in what happened  (BTW, I have the 2011 Diablo and find, at you did, that it really is a great light).

-w


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

But, as you note, that looks the Exposure Diablo comes in at about where the Piko 3 does which is 750 lumens. I thought that Exposure bumped up the diablo by 30% from last year to this year - which would account for it being 900 some lumens. So, Francois - are your numbers wrong, get some lights mixed up with results or is the Diablo really only a 750 lumen light? I'm confused.

J.


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

Perhaps this shootout has become so important to the industry where a more precise lux measurement test is in order for 2013?


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

gocycling said:


> Thanks Francois. Given that the 2011 Diablo is rated at 900 lumens and the 2012 is rated at 975 lumens, I'm sure that Exposure would be interested in what happened  (BTW, I have the 2011 Diablo and find, at you did, that it really is a great light).
> 
> -w


We have to keep in mind that 975/900 is only an 8% increase.
Aside from the fact that you'd never notice the difference between 900 and 975 from identical optics, CREE also states that they "maintain a tolerance of +/-7% on flux and power measurements..." So, while odd, the discrepancy is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Any number of other factors could have also contributed to the lower measurement this year. JFWIW


----------



## g3rG (Aug 29, 2009)

Allo Fracois!

I see some flashlight type lights are included this year. I would humbly recommend the Zebralight SC600 for the comparison. It is not a true bike light, but it can do a sustained 500lm for 2 hrs, with a 750 lm turbo mode for staring down mountain lions. The beam pattern is wonderful for a helmet light. I did most of my summer pre-dawn rides with this diminutive light zip-tied to the top of my helmet. After the ride, I snipped it off and dropped it in my pocket, for use at my job the rest of the day. As an all-around light it is an amazing value. Well, as long as you already have some 18650 cells and a charger around.

gerG


----------



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

MRMOLE said:


> I've considered a light hood before for different reasons (blinding other riders, pedistrians, drivers, etc.) and am interested in how much wasted lite you reclaimed. Your opinion would be appreciated. Also is your fabricated reflector flat or form-fitted to the lens shape?


Basically mine is made from cut - thin cardboard which I then covered with electrical tape to repeal moisture.. it is held on using electrical tape as well. The light is a *K-Lite* 3-XPG R5 which is sold on-line from Ozzie-land. The hood works very well and makes the mid-mode much more usable. Some of the light which normally would go up into the trees is reflected down to the ground. Next year I will try to make the upper black rim around optic reflective as well. The way I figure it every little bit helps.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

I have soooo much data that my Ipad is going to explode 

I'll start releasing some stuff on this thread today. I'd like you guys to help me analyze it and help me draw som conclusions and parameters.

Make me some cool graphs too.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Here's my teaser video

I'm used the Lezyne facility cause I know them and trust them. The Cal Poly guys there are smart. Two of us mtbrs were present during the testing process and I learned a lot.

They are entering the lights market and I saw and measured their pre-production lights. As a bonus to them, they get to see my data and I did a factory tour video on their other product lines.


----------



## sbd (Sep 23, 2011)

That is a sweet testing setup.


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

francois said:


> I have soooo much data that my Ipad is going to explode
> 
> I'll start releasing some stuff on this thread today. I'd like you guys to help me analyze it and help me draw som conclusions and parameters.
> 
> ...


Hello Francois,

I am new to this forum, and it is the opinions that I am the most interested in once the raw data is presented. I liked your review of the Niterider Minewt 600, but I would personally like to hear more personal commentary.

For example:
1. Compare it to other lights in the class, or the class above. You reviewed the Piko, how does this compare? Is it a fair comparison as this light is less than half the cost of the Piko?

2. Would you use this as a helmet or handlebar light and what other light would you pair it with? "It has a light fruity taste with just a hint of peach and as such would be paired best with Chicken or even desert."

For me, your opinion matters most. You are the only one of us who can see all the lights next to each other so please go beyond the numbers and being so objective. Be a bit more subjective, please. So in conjunction with #2, while it may not be the best light for off-road, if paired with X and Y taillight, this light would be perfect for commuters looking for extra light, or for roadies looking for an evening work-out.

- Roger

P.S. 
Also, in the Minewt review thank you for saying that this was as bright as their old HID lights. I called Nightrider and they said their HID lights were in the 350 range, but I thought that their actual output was much more according to the pictures I was seeing posted in the reviews. Thanks for this comparison, he helped put everything in perspective.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Roger Huston said:


> Hello Francois,
> 
> I am new to this forum, and it is the opinions that I am the most interested in once the raw data is presented. I liked your review of the Niterider Minewt 600, but I would personally like to hear more personal commentary.
> ...


Very good feedback. When I'm done with the individual reviews, I will do several videos comparing a bunch of lights at a time:

- best commuter, best self-contained, best overall
- best mounting, charging
- heat dissipation, switch ergonomic
- bang for the buck.

Hopefully, I can come up with good summaries and comparisons in end.

fc


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

Francois,

Thank you for taking my comments in consideration. However, during the review process, may I make another suggestion. That you hold similar lights up next to each other for comparison. For example, you did the Piko XL, it would be nice for you to hold that in one hand and the niterider 600 for a quick reference. Or maybe actually show one attached to a handle bar. I see it in your hand, without another reference or another light, it is hard to tell which is bigger or smaller to the next. They all just are - if you know what I mean.

Thanks,

Roger


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Francois, do you know where the Surfas True 1500 video went? Cant find it in the shootout?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

indebt said:


> Francois, do you know where the Surfas True 1500 video went? Cant find it in the shootout?


It is here:
MtbrVideos's Channel - YouTube

I'll work on the review page for that today.

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Thanx man!!!


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

Francois: when you get to the MJ-872, would you see if you notice any unusual cooling problems? Many are having it go into overheat mode even when riding or in a windy area at 75% power. It's nice that it has this feature, but it doesn't have much cooling surface for such a powerful light and it looks like it dips into this mode often.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

@dam said:


> Francois: when you get to the MJ-872, would you see if you notice any unusual cooling problems? Many are having it go into overheat mode even when riding or in a windy area at 75% power. It's nice that it has this feature, but it doesn't have much cooling surface for such a powerful light and it looks like it dips into this mode often.


Sure. I just got those and the other magicshines and I have good cooling test setup now with a temp gun.

The only hard part is knowing if any of the lights stepped down in light output to cool themselves down.

fc


----------



## Oscar56 (Oct 8, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> Basically mine is made from cut - thin cardboard which I then covered with electrical tape to repeal moisture.


Thanks for posting those photos Cat-man-do. A simple but elegant solution.


----------



## scooby214 (Oct 15, 2011)

Francois, I'm enjoying reading your reviews on the various new lights in the shoutout. I can't wait to see your commuter lights comparisons. I'm especially interested in the reverse offset lens type of lights, such as the Ixon IQ, Phillips Safe Ride, and the Cateye Econom Force.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

The Beam patterns are up and available on this page:

2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

fc


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

Is Cygo Lite still sending some lights? Hopefully they can include the Turbo 740 and the Expilion 400 as those are two of the lights I"m considering .


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

The Serfas 1500 says "500 claimed lumens" on this page:

2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Trail Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review

And on this page: 2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Trail Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review | Page 2


----------



## roman (May 25, 2005)

francois said:


> The Beam patterns are up and available on this page:
> 
> 2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review
> 
> fc


Serfas True 1500 on the beam shots page shows up in flash lights and commuter lights pages and its caption says 500 lumens and $150 price


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

Niterider Minewt 600 | Mountain Bike Review

Html is reading as the Trinewt instead of the minewt.

I just want to be sure that it somehow isnt an old picture or some picture from some other light.

and

Also the Light and Mption Urban 500 is missing from the trail light pictures.

Totally, a bummer as thats my contender for my bike so far.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

djembe975 said:


> Is Cygo Lite still sending some lights? Hopefully they can include the Turbo 740 and the Expilion 400 as those are two of the lights I"m considering .


I should have the Expilion 350 and the TridenX 750 by today.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

blueyin said:


> Niterider Minewt 600 | Mountain Bike Review
> 
> Html is reading as the Trinewt instead of the minewt.
> 
> ...


Fixed. And yes, that's a Minewt.

The Urban 500 will come. It should be just like the Niterider 600.

It is a good trail light, but it does have a bright side light that can't be turned off. This could be bothersome when installed on the handlebars.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

TwoHeadsBrewing said:


> The Serfas 1500 says "500 claimed lumens" on this page:
> 
> 2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Trail Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review
> 
> And on this page: 2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Trail Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review | Page 2


Fixed. Thank you!!!


----------



## mochodurazo (Nov 29, 2008)

francois said:


> The Beam patterns are up and available on this page:
> 
> 2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review
> 
> fc


Funny when you see tha MJ-872 next to the NR Mako 1. I belive its a mistake to put the 872 in a conmuter category.

In the trail photo its place in the high end.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> Basically mine is made from cut - thin cardboard which I then covered with electrical tape to repeal moisture.. it is held on using electrical tape as well. The light is a *K-Lite* 3-XPG R5 which is sold on-line from Ozzie-land. The hood works very well and makes the mid-mode much more usable. Some of the light which normally would go up into the trees is reflected down to the ground. Next year I will try to make the upper black rim around optic reflective as well. The way I figure it every little bit helps.


Thanks for the reply. I'm going to experiment a little with this. If I find out anything interesting I'll start a new thread since I'm off topic here.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

mochodurazo said:


> Funny when you see tha MJ-872 next to the NR Mako 1. I belive its a mistake to put the 872 in a conmuter category.
> 
> In the trail photo its place in the high end.


Fixed!!!!

fc


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

Francois, It would be nice if you could include some technical data from the manufacturers such as what LEDs are being used, what is the drive current at each setting, what is the watt/hr rating of the battery pack(s),is there thermal regulation etc. Also some discussion of the mounts and ease of aiming the light. Does it swivel precisely in the vertical plane? I know you get into this stuff to some degree in the videos but a little more would be welcome. Kudos for all your efforts in enlightening us. It's awesome. 

(Plus...still haven't corrected the Dinotte names in the thumbnails and beam shots, by the way.)


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

Question, does a hot or very warm casing indicate poor or good thermal management? Francois has posited that a cool casing is an indication that heat from the LED's is being dissipated well. I seem to recall a contention voiced in these forums that a warm casing is indication of good thermal transfer. Which is it? Or is the answer not so black and white. Discuss.


----------



## NightBiker (Nov 5, 2010)

Titus Maximus said:


> Question, does a hot or very warm casing indicate poor or good thermal management? Francois has posited that a cool casing is an indication that heat from the LED's is being dissipated well. I seem to recall a contention voiced in these forums that a warm casing is indication of good thermal transfer. Which is it? Or is the answer not so black and white. Discuss.


I would say not that simple. What you want is consistent temperature throughout the whole unit, as if it was solid. The important parameter is the temperature inside the light, where the LED and the electronics live.

A simple touch test of the outside casing doesn't really tell you how well the internals are thermally connected to the housing. A well designed and manufactured light may feel cool to the touch when under normal operating conditions (air moving over it), but the same unit badly assembled so that it had very poor thermal conductivity to the housing would also feel cool (actually cooler) but meanwhile the internals are burning up because the excess heat is not being drawn away.

The only real way to tell its thermal stability is to measure the inside temperature over a period of time, but this is not usually possible from a practical basis.

One thing that can be done fairly easily is to measure the housing temperature of a test sample against a known, good reference of the exact same light.

Under the same operating conditions, the test sample should have the same housing temp as the reference if it's working properly. If the test sample has a lower housing temp then it's an indicator that it has poorer thermal conductivity than the reference and will probably fail earlier.

Unfortunately this only identifies poorly made units of the same design but does not provide any information regarding how good the design itself is.


----------



## Vienna1 (Nov 5, 2008)

Hi Francois

I ask you again 
Why do you write Philips SafeRide is 400 Claimed Lumen?
Manufacturer(PHILIPS) announces it as 270 Lumen in Germany.
The USA version is announced as 400 Lumen? 

Vienna1


----------



## Vienna1 (Nov 5, 2008)

Why is mtbr.com so slow?
I remember it was not all 2 or 3 years ago.
Always I must reload many times before I can see a page.
And even when I can see a page, almost pictures are not shown. 
Almost pictures are shown as broken icons.
Can regular members here read and post comfortably?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Vienna1 said:


> Why is mtbr.com so slow?
> I remember it was not all 2 or 3 years ago.
> Always I must reload many times before I can see a page.
> And even when I can see a page, almost pictures are not shown.
> ...


Where exactly are you accessing the site from? What kind of browser and computer? Is just the forums slow or the whole website?

Can you check loads.in - test how fast a webpage loads in a real browser from over 50 locations worldwide website? Enter our URL and it will show you if there are any bottlenecks in the server.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Vienna1 said:


> Hi Francois
> 
> I ask you again
> Why do you write Philips SafeRide is 400 Claimed Lumen?
> ...


400 lumen is my estimate of it and is a placeholder. I'll confirm with them what the declared lumen output is.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Titus Maximus said:


> Question, does a hot or very warm casing indicate poor or good thermal management? Francois has posited that a cool casing is an indication that heat from the LED's is being dissipated well. I seem to recall a contention voiced in these forums that a warm casing is indication of good thermal transfer. Which is it? Or is the answer not so black and white. Discuss.


We have to assume that the LED is transferring heat to the case in a modern production light.

In my experience handling at least a hundred lights now, a tiny light head with many leds will get very hot compared to the same leds with a huge light head. It's all about surface area to dissipate the heat.

A key issue is electronics heat protection mode. Good lights will step down the light output as the temperature increases. So one has to avoid this stepping down if comparing heat dissipation.

Another interesting factor is dual-casing. Good lights have many heatsink fins encased in an outer shell that directs airflow. The outer case won't get as hot as the fins.

That being said, I have a temp gun but I'm not sure what is a worthy data collection regarding heat.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

The Urban 500 review is out.

Light & Motion Urban 500, Urban 300 and Urban 180 - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

Does anybody own this light yet?

The only big downfall is this is not intended for mountain biking use and the 'yellow' side visibility lights cannot be turned off. They punched holes in the reflector to get that light out. I suppose there are workarounds.

fc


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

francois said:


> We have to assume that the LED is transferring heat to the case in a modern production light.


not to be argumentative, but we can't assume that at all. Perhaps in the higher quality lights, but I've seen several Magicshines where the emitter doesn't have any thermal paste under it or the light board isn't thermally coupled to the housing. Even if the LED is thermally coupled that in turn doesn't mean that the thermal paths throughout the case are well coupled - there have been at least a couple of MJ-872 owners complaining of thermal issues, most likely due to its multipart case.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

If I might expand a little on your already good insights into thermal management...

"We have to assume that the LED is transferring heat to the case in a modern production light."

Generally speaking, this is true. However, to do it really well and achieve a consistently optimal mechanical interface between two structures is not a process that is very conducive to mass production. Just take a look at the aftermarket PC-cooling technology. Often, significant improvements can be made with the judicious application of thermal epoxies and thermal compounds, sometimes expensive. Great care has to be taken during application to achieve the thinnest possible layer of material with no voids or air gaps, so it can be tedious and time consuming, which are two things that manufacturers really want to avoid to keep costs down. Making this kind of good thermal connection between the control electronics and the case can be even trickier.

"In my experience handling at least a hundred lights now, a tiny light head with many leds will get very hot compared to the same leds with a huge light head. It's all about surface area to dissipate the heat."

True, and I would expand on that a bit by saying it's a combination of mass and total cooling surface area. A physically large light could actually have much less usable cooling surface area than a smaller light with many cooling "fins." However, the larger mass takes longer to "soak through" or reach steady-state. With no air flow, the larger light can become just as hot as the smaller light (assuming similar surface area), given enough time. Once the body of the light has reached steady-state, then it becomes all about convective cooling and the effectiveness of the heat sink design.

"A key issue is electronics heat protection mode. Good lights will step down the light output as the temperature increases. So one has to avoid this stepping down if comparing heat dissipation."

Another very true statement. One of the interesting aspects of this idea is that most, if not all of the circuit designs out there rely on a temperature sensor that is physically on the control circuit board and not co-located directly at the LED. As such, for really effective LED temperature monitoring, you need the best possible thermal path between the LEDs and the temp sensor on the circuit board to prevent huge variations in the protection ability as a function of air flow. "Self-protection" has definitely come up on other forum topics, but with the high power LEDs, it's still a bit of a gray area as to how well this may actually be protecting the LEDs under various air-flow conditions. So yes, most lights will have this "feature," but not all lights do it equally well, and some don't do it very well at all by not protecting soon enough at safe temperatures.

"Another interesting factor is dual-casing. Good lights have many heatsink fins encased in an outer shell that directs airflow. The outer case won't get as hot as the fins."

I might have to take exception with this one...
In my humble opinion, there is no good reason (from an engineering standpoint) to encase your primary heat-dissipating element. Maybe from a safety and aesthetics standpoint, yes, but from the standpoint of operational efficiency, no. The outer casing in this situation is really more of a heat "shield" and actually reflects some of the heat back into the light, causing it to get even hotter in low to no air-flow situations than it would normally. The degree to which the outer casing on this small of a scale can effectively "direct" the air flow any better than a well designed "finned" heat sink in a free flow of air is questionable to me. I guess if it works, maybe it'll prove to be an OK thing, I just wouldn't go so far as to say its a characteristic of "good" lights. Again, just my opinion.

"That being said, I have a temp gun but I'm not sure what is a worthy data collection regarding heat."

You're right. It's a tough parameter to quantify. In general, given that good heat management is all about preserving the maximum output of the LEDs over their lifetime, the most important measurement you can make is the temperature right at the LED. Given that this is virtually impossible without modifications to the light, the next best thing would be to observe that the housing does a good job of extracting heat with air flow. In my thinking, this would be represented by the difference between the maximum observed case temperature with no air flow (before protection kicks in) and the highest steady-state case temperature while running with good air flow. In general, you'd hope to see the no-air-flow max case temp before protection not exceed 120 to 130F. Not sure how you would quantify it on the "encased" lights. Of course you would then have to "weight" the results by the total watts dissipated, so all in all, its a nightmare.

Thanks for all that you're doing to sort through the labyrinth of lights out there and make them more accessible to all of us.


----------



## MtbMacgyver (Jan 23, 2007)

francois said:


> We have to assume that the LED is transferring heat to the case in a modern production light.


I have to agree with the others that this is not really a valid assumption. Every light will have a thermal resistance value between the LED junction and the air around the case. It's the sum of all the individual resistances for the thermal boundaries between the LED die and the exterior of the case. For the lights that are well engineered, the engineering team will have a pretty good idea of this value. They will have calculated the value based on the design and taken actual measurement on prototype lights. There really isn't a good and bad, there's a quantitative value for each light and if they were all known I'm sure you'd find a nice even distribution from best to worst across all the different lights you're testing.

I do agree from a practical perspective, you really don't have a good way to directly measure the total thermal resistance or collect the data from the light makers. But, there is a fairly easy way to get a pretty accurate approximation. And I was intrigued that you actually touched on this with your integrating sphere measurements. The total thermal resistance between the LED junction and the case will be directly proportional to the drop in brightness between the time the light is first turned on and after it's settled to a stable temperature. The main thing you'll need to keep constant is the airflow over the light. The temperature will need to be constant to a lesser extent, but +-5 degrees that would be typical inside a house isn't going to make that much difference if the airflow is consistent.


----------



## MtbMacgyver (Jan 23, 2007)

It's probably also worth noting that the time it takes for the temperature to stabilize will be proportional to the mass of the light. Little lights with low mass will stabilize more quickly than bigger lights with lots of mass. If you really care about measuring the quality of the thermal path, you'll look at the difference between initial and stabilized light output independent of how long it takes for the light output to stabilize. 

Since most biker really care how much light is produced over the bulk of their ride, I would contend that the steady state light output is really what's important, as opposed to the initial brightness. 

You may already be doing this with your lux measurements, since I don't know the exact procedure you use.


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

I agree that it isn't a safe to assume there is good conduction between the LED and heat sink.

I'd say your best bet would be to place the IR thermometer on the lens directly in front of a centrally located LED after the light has been run inside, in a controlled environment for, say, 15 minutes. Most of the heat, of course, isn't emitted from the front side of the LED, and the lens will interfere some, but that is the closest you'll get to where the heat is being generated. The temperature will be much lower than the temp on the backside, but the hotter the front side is, the hotter the back side must be. It'll provide a basis of comparison for lights running similar LED's at similar power levels. 

It might be interesting to repeat the test in front of a table fan set on low.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

I can aim the laser temp gun at the led itself. Will that get the temp of the lens or the LED? I can compare it to temp of top front of the casing.

Thanks Pethelman and the gang for the knowledge.

fc


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

I think it'll get a bit of both, but mostly whatever is hotter. I can feel the heat of the sun through a window, but if the window is cold you might feel that cold if you're right next to it. Some glass can also block IR. You could probably get an idea by taking a lens off one of the lights, holding it in front of a known heat source, and seeing what the difference is.

It probably doesn't matter much though since they'll ALL be through the lens. If similar glass is used you'd expect similar results. I know my HID light puts a lot of heat out through the glass even though the glass itself doesn't get _that_ hot, so the glass on that light must be transmitting most of the radiation.

One challenge to getting consistent results though will be the size of the area sampeled. The emissivity of the reflector will be much, MUCH lower than the suface of the LED itself, so could lead to unusually cool measurments if some of the reflector is sampeled.


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

Hey Francis did you receive the lights form CygoLite yet?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

djembe975 said:


> Hey Francis did you receive the lights form CygoLite yet?


UPS tracking says:
Delivered On:
Wednesday, 10/19/2011 at 11:57 A.M.
Left At:
Front Door

It should be waiting for me after my epic night ride tonight.

fc


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

You should do a glory trip with this set up on your bar, maybe a few more hanging below the bar, and a light attached to every vent in your helmet. You'd be blazin'.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Vienna1 said:


> Hi Francois
> 
> I ask you again
> Why do you write Philips SafeRide is 400 Claimed Lumen?
> ...


I talked to them and they do not know what their lumens output is. It's marketed as 80 Lux in Germany

Until they measure it or make a claim for the US light, I'm going to put:

400 Lumens (mtbr estimate)

It's certainly brighter than 270 lumens and it measures the same as several 400-500 lumen lights in my lux meter.

fc


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

francois said:


> I talked to them and they do not know what their lumens output is. It's marketed as 80 Lux in Germany
> 
> Until they measure it or make a claim for the US light, I'm going to put:
> 
> ...


Perhaps Vienna1 is confusing it with the dynamo driven version which presumably puts out less light?


----------



## NiteBiker (Sep 29, 2011)

I've read about somebody measuring this to be 291 lumens. Based on the current draw and the Luxeon Rebel LED specs, somebody else has estimated to be around 270 lumens. BTW, the philips webiste says "220 lumens on the beam", so that may be a honest figure taking into account optical losses? For a shaped beam like the Philips, lux (lumens per square meter) at a specified distance (e.g., 10m) makes more sense than lumens. It appears a *whole* lot brighter than the lumen spec suggests because it concentrating all the output on to the road. For example the Philips appears to illuminate the road better than the Sigma Power LED EVO 900 (claimed 900 lumens) and with superior throw as well!



francois said:


> I talked to them and they do not know what their lumens output is. It's marketed as 80 Lux in Germany
> 
> Until they measure it or make a claim for the US light, I'm going to put:
> 
> ...


----------



## mb323323 (Aug 1, 2006)

Hey FC

Did you publish the LUX readings yet. I didn't see it but maybe I missed something.

And yes, you have to go out at least once w/ all the lights hooked up and at least 2 on the lid. With picts of course. It must just be laughable!!!!

MB


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

Ok, serious winter commuter question:

Which lights are going to be better for freezing or below temperatures, flash-light style or light head and external battery type?

I commute 365 days, usually when I need my light is during the cold months, which are great for killing batteries. I had a Magicshine in the past and would use the extension cable to keep the battery in my jacket (close to my body). I have used a large cateye flashlight style as well with NIMH batts and that seemed to work out all right. But I want to hear from the experts. 

Flash light or lighthead and external battery for riding in the cold winter? 

Discuss! {: 

Or if there is a resource I have missed please direct me to the resource and ignore this post.


----------



## bardynt (Oct 11, 2011)

hey

we have the opposite problem were batteries are killed by heat

also this debate about whether lights hot to touch or not

pretty simple i thought if light is that hot you cant touch while riding then its not doing that good a job of getting rid of heat

so of course want a light that gets rid of it heat

hot light it going to be heating up the internal meaning that light will have shorter life and run time since it cant get rid of the excess heat

just from looking at some of the lights the real small ones being compact i think are going to have hard time of getting rid of heat unless they have good cooling design


----------



## betweenrides (Oct 19, 2010)

Bueyin:

I'm not sure where you are located, but I'm in Chicagoland, so hopefully similar weather. I haven't had issues with cold affecting light performance, but I'm definitely no expert and I pretty much stop riding outside when snow is on the ground. I have done quite a few night rides in cold weather down into the 20's and 30's, almost always 90+ minutes up to 2+ hours. I have noticed no battery degradation on my setup: Baja Designs Strykr bar light with external battery pack mounted on the frame + C8 or XM-L flashlight with 18650 battery mounted in a lockblock to either the helmet or bar. I pack spare batteries for the flashlight and usually get two rides in on the BD before re-charging. Not one to wear a jacket but the cord on the BD is long enough to make it to a jacket pocket if needed. My flashlights go 2+ hours before starting to dim, the BD well over 4 hours with mix of high medium lighting, could probably stretch that to 4.5 or 5 hours.



blueyin said:


> Ok, serious winter commuter question:
> 
> Which lights are going to be better for freezing or below temperatures, flash-light style or light head and external battery type?
> 
> ...


----------



## Vienna1 (Nov 5, 2008)

Someone who you said is perhaps Mr.Olaf Schultz in Germany.
He seems to have an integral sphere. 
So 291lm is not based on the current draw and the Luxeon Rebel LED specs.
It is measured REAL lumen output from front of the light.
His page and his measurement for Philips light. 
Fahrradseite auf www.enhydralutris.de
LED-Bike Light Set BF48L20BBL

And Philips claims that Philips SafeRideR LED batteriebetrieben is 270lm.
Philips LED Fahrradbeleuchtung, Fahrradlicht ? Bike Light Batterie - Technische Daten

But I also saw they described the same light as 220lm at somewhere, although I don't remember where it was.



NiteBiker said:


> I've read about somebody measuring this to be 291 lumens. Based on the current draw and the Luxeon Rebel LED specs, somebody else has estimated to be around 270 lumens. BTW, the philips webiste says "220 lumens on the beam", so that may be a honest figure taking into account optical losses? For a shaped beam like the Philips, lux (lumens per square meter) at a specified distance (e.g., 10m) makes more sense than lumens. It appears a *whole* lot brighter than the lumen spec suggests because it concentrating all the output on to the road. For example the Philips appears to illuminate the road better than the Sigma Power LED EVO 900 (claimed 900 lumens) and with superior throw as well!


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

mb323323 said:


> Hey FC
> 
> Did you publish the LUX readings yet. I didn't see it but maybe I missed something.
> 
> ...


The lux readings are here in the summary page in 'hard to read' format.

2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Here's some new lights this week.

The first light is the Niteflux Pmini12 and claims 1000 lumens. It has a wireless remote control switch that weighs less than 10 grams. It may be the finest helmet Light I've used to date.

The second light is the Full Beam Fusion at 2000 lumens. The beam can only be described as 'full'. It is more powerful than the Exposure Six Pack.

The third light represents the first light Cygolite has ever sent to any publication for review in the last 10 years. They do not trust 'independent' reviews. But our hard work has swayed them to reconsider.

The last photo needs a caption 

fc


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

Can't wait to hear why the Pimini12 is so great.

That fusion looks like it doesn't have much in the way of cooling!


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

@dam said:


> Can't wait to hear why the Pimini12 is so great.


Personally I think it's going to depend on what you're looking for in a headlamp.
In terms of producing a good thrower, the 20mm triple spot optics coupled with the XP-G are sort of in that middle ground territory. Not great at distance throw and not that wide. Kind of a compromise of both. If you go to a wider angle lens, then all semblance of a distance spot is lost, so based on their web-site beam shots, it would appear that it is indeed the spot lens.

Also, to get a true 1000 lumens out of the triple XP-G you'd need to drive all three LEDs with about 1.3 amps, which equates to 13.3 watts (give or take) dissipated just in the LEDs alone. My guess is that the 1000 lumens is a bit optimistic and that the control electronics are actually housed in the battery pack, so that they could "off-load" the additional heat dissipated by the controller as well as have some way to still control the light if the remote stopped working.

How ever you slice it, it's still a lot of light (and WATTS) from a 35 gram housing. The bigger problem I see is the heat management issue. With that small of a package and relatively little mass and surface area, 12 watts is a ridiculous amount of heat to get rid of while simultaneously trying to protect the LEDs. If the "thermal protection circuit" is doing its job on this one, I have a feeling it will be quite busy cutting back, unless you're really moving or have manually cut it back to lower levels. Speaking of which, if they've off-loaded the control electronics, then there has to be some connection through the power wire to a temperature sensor in the light head. I'm starting to see why it's so expensive. Very innovative and not an easy thing to pull off.


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

Jeez...maybe they should start building these things with cooling fans or heat pipes.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

The "fan" is you riding your bike. 

J.


----------



## special k (Mar 15, 2005)

*Nightlighting iBlaast IX?*

I'd love to see an iBlaast 9 included in the shootout. I've been curious as to how it would stack up against some of the other heavy hitters in this lineup. I understand they now have a US distributor as well.

Any chance of that Francois?

Thanks..


----------



## rccardude04 (May 17, 2009)

You could probably get some idea of how the cooling performance is by testing the amount of time the casing takes to increase in temperature after the light is turned on. If the case never gets warm without any type of forced convection (air flow) then you can be fairly certain that the light is either not producing much heat, or it's trapping it inside.

On the other hand, if the casing starts to get warm very quickly after the light is turned on, the internal rate of heat transfer is good. 

There is nothing good about a cool external casing unless the light isn't producing heat inside. If you feel heat outside, it's working. If you don't feel heat and there's nothing pulling heat away, it's just increasing the internal temperature.

I think it's actually more safe to assume that the external rate of heat transfer between the casing and the air will be about as good as it looks like it will be, and the internal heat transfer rate is what's important to experiment with.

-Eric


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

rccardude: You'd have to adjust that for the mass of the housing. A heavier housing will take longer to heat up.

A cool casing could just indicate there is plenty of surface area carrying the heat away.


----------



## GTR2ebike (May 3, 2010)

Magicshine MJ-872 
"A lot of people got burned" -Francois (you forgot to say no pun intended)


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

Hey Francois, I think CygoLite should have sent you this one instead Cygolite Turbo 740 at JensonUSA.com


----------



## Retlaw (Nov 6, 2010)

Franciois,Thanks for doing this!

Need correction on 
2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Trail Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review | Page 3
The Serfas True 1500 price is shown as $150. It should be $390.

Great reviews, I'm seriously looking at the Niterider Minute 600 @$150 and Dinotte XML-3 @ $259 based on your reviews. Magicshine MJ-872 @ $185 is a killer deal too!
Thanks again!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Retlaw said:


> Franciois,Thanks for doing this!
> 
> Need correction on
> 2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Trail Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review | Page 3
> ...


Thank you! Fixed.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

My first lumen-hour graph is released!! Useful?

Cateye Nano Shot - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

fc


----------



## Ziemas (Apr 11, 2005)

francois said:


> My first lumen-hour graph is released!! Useful?
> 
> Cateye Nano Shot - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review
> 
> fc


Extremely useful for making an educated purchase. It's answers on of the questions I always have about lights; does it maintain a relatively constant brightness?

Thanks a lot!


----------



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

I hate to be the naysayer in this review but I took a good look at these photo's:
2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Trail Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review | Page 3

This group of photos just doesn't cut it. Sorry to have to say that but the choice of trail used in the photos here sucks. ( Looks as though the trees create a tunnel, on a curve to boot...:bluefrown: ) There is no distance reference. Almost none of the lights in the 1000 to 1500 lumen range look to have an output worthy of note. The photo of the NR 750 is laughable. I'm sorry but I know lights with that much output will look much better in actual use than what these photos are showing. Even more surprising to me is that I seem to be the only one willing to say anything about it. If these were user photos you could let it go but this is a pro review. As such, something has to be said.

(**edit : I see *there is* a written reference to the markers but you are only seeing a portion of the beam patterns which makes it look as though there is no throw. Nor can you easily tell where the point of projection is because of that fact. )


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

catman, you need to remember the review, in total, is meant to be a buyers guide. most people will use the photos as one of just many variables, narrow down their choices to a select few, then buy one light, be happy with their choice, and never look back. for that purpose, the intended purpose, Francios' reviews and photos are outstanding.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Cat-man-do said:


> I hate to be the naysayer in this review but I took a good look at these photo's:
> 2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Trail Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review | Page 3
> 
> This group of photos just doesn't cut it. Sorry to have to say that but the choice of trail used in the photos here sucks....


Holy moly, take it easy.

That trail is very deep. Here's some context for it:

- there is an orange 8.5x11 inch sheet at 100 feet
- green marker at 200 feet
- the trail is visible to around 300 feet.
- there is a deep ditch on the left side
- there is a canopy all throughout the trail. there is more nearby canopy/foliage on the left side.

I think these photos are really good by themselves and they're great when used in conjunction with the backyard trail photos. The backyard photos show the shape of the beam and these demonstrate the spill and the throw of the light. You can really tell the difference between the Niterider 750, 1500 and 3000 for example. And the Niterider 3000, Baja Double Stryker and Lupine Betty are very distinct from each other as well.

I'll put this description on that photo page to help the reader with background info.

fc


----------



## peter584 (Jan 14, 2006)

Cat-man-do said:


> I hate to be the naysayer in this review but I took a good look at these photo's:
> 2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Trail Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review | Page 3
> 
> This group of photos just doesn't cut it. Sorry to have to say that but the choice of trail used in the photos here sucks. ( Looks as though the trees create a tunnel, on a curve to boot...:bluefrown: ) There is no distance reference. Almost none of the lights in the 1000 to 1500 lumen range look to have an output worthy of note. The photo of the NR 750 is laughable. I'm sorry but I know lights with that much output will look much better in actual use than what these photos are showing. Even more surprising to me is that I seem to be the only one willing to say anything about it. If these were user photos you could let it go but this is a pro review. As such, something has to be said.
> ...


I have to agree. I am planning on making a high end light purchase and was hoping for the beam reference shots to make my decision. Unfortunately, these don't help and the video reviews don't either due to the ambient light and just waving them around for a second with no controlled setting.
I appreciate the work , but mainly the lumen measurement and weight are the only thing I'm getting between comparable models.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

I have to say, from my own experience taking beam shots from multiple light heads, it's definitely not an easy task to get a very accurate (what your eyes really see) representation. Also, when comparing one light head to another, aiming is unbelievably important, and again, can be somewhat subjective to the naked eye, but then later you may find that there were subtle differences that you didn't see, but that were accentuated by the camera. It can appear that you've aimed two lights identically, but it's difficult to make a perfect and repeatable alignment, especially with different beam patterns.

I think the trail shots definitely give some good comparative information, but I agree that it's difficult and probably imprudent to make any final purchasing decisions on these kinds of shots alone. Ultimately, you will have to make a determination with the actual light with YOUR eyes in your desired environment, which is why its good to look for lights that will let you have a no-risk trial period.

It's easy to look at multiple beam shots and see differences, but whether those differences are really meaningful is the big question. The only thing that might add value to the beam shots would be to also take them from the perspective of the riders head location with a bit wider lens. Even the location of the light (bar or helmet), can make a big difference in this case.

Beam shots are tough... thanks for making them available Francois!


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

I think the beam shots are great and provide a useful basis for comparison. They show the differences in the beam patterns, and show which lights throw further down the trail. Coupled with the backyard shots, as Francois mentioned, they are a great resource.

I don't see how you guys are saying they don't help. I'm not sure what you expected. If you want to test a high end light, go to a bike shop and take a demo out. All of the shops in my area offer that, especially for the high end lights like NR.

*There is absolutely nowhere else where so many lights have been tested, measured, and presented. Nice job and a big thank you to Francois and the MTBR team, keep up the good work! You all deserve a Pliny or three.*


----------



## tgoff (Feb 7, 2010)

francois said:


> The Urban 500 review is out.
> 
> Light & Motion Urban 500, Urban 300 and Urban 180 - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review
> 
> ...


I own one and used it for a couple weeks then had problems. It was great when it worked and really bright. Then after about a week of use the light died within 15 minutes of a full charge on my commute. Upon further inspection I noticed a rattle inside when I shook it. I charged it and the battery indicator was flashing red (lowest) for 2 hours then all of a sudden went green skipping solid red and orange on the indicator light. Then when I turned it on the light on high would flicker. I took it back to the shop I bought it at and they sent it in over a week ago. I have not heard back as to the status and I am still without my light.

I am reserving judgement until its resolved and will see how the light holds up over time. I really want this light to work since the mounting system makes it so easy to switch from bike to bike. The USB charging is nice since I can charge it while at work.

UPDATE

After waiting approximately 2 weeks to get my light back after it was sent in the light still flickers on high mode. Light and Motion sent the Urban 500 light back without fixing one of the problems. It is going to get sent back so they can try to fix it again. Not a happy customer.


----------



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

RTM said:


> catman, you need to remember the review, in total, is meant to be a buyers guide. most people will use the photos as one of just many variables, narrow down their choices to a select few, then buy one light, be happy with their choice, and never look back. for that purpose, the intended purpose, Francios' reviews and photos are outstanding.


I understand your view. I am not dissing the review as a whole and I appreciate the time and effort that went into it.

At the beginning of the review we were asked what we would like to see this year as the review was going to be expanded.There were requests for beam shot photos to taken on a trail. I'm not saying that the given trail photos are completely useless. I'm saying I didn't like the choice of trail. As far as the photos go I would of also preferred to see a couple more markers to show a more gradual progression of distance. Because the canopy is so low there is a lot light that is being reflected back to the camera. That undoubtedly is affecting the appearance of the photos. Cameras used for night photos tend not to be as forgiving as the human eye. Anyway, I feel the photos would of been better without the reflection off the low canopy. A trail a little more open would of been better.

Francois, please don't take my criticism the wrong way. It is intended to be constructive and to provide improvement for future reviews. As for me I'm just a total night beam photo connoisseur. If I feel something could of been better I usually speak up, as such my standards are perhaps a bit higher then most. Thanks again for all the effort you put forth in doing the review. Over all it is very much appreciated.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

The forum is free, this review is free, and compiling all of this data must be a major undertaking. 

IMHO, the trail you selected for the beam shots is a good compromise given the range of terrain your readership rides in. High power lights with a long throw are going to have an obvious edge in the wide open, but in the woods, the advantage is not as obvious; our eyes adjust as reflected light goes up, and a light twice as bright as another may only be perceived to be marginally better when the trail is tight & overgrown.

Thanks Francois for your hard work, it's much appreciated.


----------



## NiteBiker (Sep 29, 2011)

Hey Francois,

The Light & Motion Urban 500 looks really good. How would you characterize the beam? Is it more of a spot? How is the throw? I don't see the trail beamshot for this light. Did you forget to upload it?

Thanks.


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

NiteBiker said:


> Hey Francois,
> 
> The Light & Motion Urban 500 looks really good. ... I don't see the trail beamshot for this light. Did you forget to upload it?


Also I didn't see a trail shot for the Jet A51?
thanks!


----------



## rixsurfer (Jan 9, 2007)

The Magic Shine MJ-808 was included in last years shoot out. However, hasn't its LED been upgraded since..the new version being the 808-XM-L? If so, is the new version going to be in the shootout? It's probably one of the more common lights out there. Also curious to see how much improved it is over the old version.

thanks

Rix


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

one comment about the Exposure light reviews; if two or more products are so similar that you can copy and paste text from one to the other, just put them in the same review. I appreciate that this is free content and all, but opening up a new review only to see that most of it is the same as one I've already read is a bit disappointing.

I also feel that the reviews feel a little flat, more like a manufacturer's spec sheet with a few extra bits of info (Lux, lumens, beamshots) to pad it out. Much as if I were to review a set of brakes on a demo bike I rode around the block. It's useful information, no doubt, I just don't feel as it they're much of a review. I guess that's a function of having to go through so many models though.

Perhaps when you've found your 5 or 6 favourites, use them (or have friends use them) for a couple of months and then do in depth reviews. How easy they are to live with, useable run times, what power levels work best, what their beam pattern is _really_ like (I've taken enough beam shots to know that what you see in a static image doesn't necessarily translate to how it works on the trail), stuff like that. That would be really useful information, akin to the review boards but from someone who handles enough different lights to make meaningful comparisons.


----------



## dbastians (Oct 6, 2011)

pethelman said:


> Personally I think it's going to depend on what you're looking for in a headlamp.
> 
> In terms of producing a good thrower, the 20mm triple spot optics coupled with the XP-G are sort of in that middle ground territory.
> 
> If the "thermal protection circuit" is doing its job on this one, I have a feeling it will be quite busy cutting back, unless you're really moving.


Hi Pethelman,

great to see some discussion about our new PMini on this forum. I've chopped a fair bit out the quote above to shorten but will answer many of the points you raise.

This light is designed to be lightweight on the helmet, with good controls so that a long ride can be squeezed from a small battery by easy use of high and low beam as required. For riders that are tired, cranky, or just on the rivet, lightweight in the helmet area is always appreciated.

When we were doing pre-market test of the beam, we found that many were happy with the narrow frosted optic that gave a nice smooth beam. But some helmet mount users wanted narrower. We gave them the narrowest offering from Carclo, which is the narrowest on the market that would fit the form we wanted. Those wanting narrow were happy and this is the one we use in production now. If you shine on a wall, the beam is not so nice and round but is a diamond shape. This does not do any harm on the trail. Will soon see what Francis says about the measured lumen output.

Yes, all the power electronics, remote receiver etc are integrated within the battery. There is absolutely no way all this could be fitted inside that tiny head unit. Also putting in the battery allows use of more generous power components in there for better reliability and efficiency. The only thing inside the alloy head unit is the LEDs, and a temp sensor.
On the bench top, the thermal protection circuit will cut back quickly and settles at about 4W within about a minute or so. But when riding along, a speed of about 15kph (10mph) gives enough cooling to hold full power. Most people wont need high beam at speeds less than 30-40kph. At this speed, the LEDs are cool enough to give good lighting efficacy.

This product is indeed the result of years of development and testing, but it's not where most people think. The thermals, power circuitry, battery management etc is all important obviously but there are real challenges in the wireless remote too. The wireless remote is the cornerstone of the product really. A head unit that size is too small to have a switch on it. There are plenty of brands out there with the switch on the battery but when helmet mounted, it is hard to get good runtime out of just one beam setting. That's where the remote helps so much. I don't really know why there aren't more remote controlled systems out there. Other than to say that wireless is great if it works well but absolutely terrible if it is not reliable. Also for handlebar real estate, it's got to be small. It certainly isn't easy making a small wireless that is reliable across wide temperature differences (handlebars are cold, bike lights are warm). To make it small and reliable we needed to design from scratch including our own custom protocol for encoding. No off-the-shelf RF modules in this one!

Please do get back with any more comments or queries. I don't visit the forum everyday but will be back to this thread again before the end.

Cheers,
David


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

NiteBiker said:


> Hey Francois,
> 
> The Light & Motion Urban 500 looks really good. How would you characterize the beam? Is it more of a spot? How is the throw? I don't see the trail beamshot for this light. Did you forget to upload it?
> 
> Thanks.


Sorry to chime in, but Francois seems to have taken a day off 
I have the Urban 300, and I can say the following about the beam:
- it is bright. It is trailworthy in itself, and that's a real compliment from me (as I usually ride a Lupine Betty / Exposure Diablo combo on the trails...)
- the beam is defined by a boom reflector: small bright spot, then a larger halo around it. Pretty similar to the (original) Magicshines, probably equal to one of the lower settings on the P7 lights. For the 500, it will match the Magicshine brightness.
- sadly, it also means that for commuting, the beam is not so good (as the Philips for example), because it will blind oncoming drivers if pointed parallel to the ground. I would say this is more of an MTB light than a commuter light

I have found one weakness, that I cannot understand: the light doesn't turn on while on the charger (USB). Which means that there is no way to use an external battery pack like the Exposures, all you have is the built-in charge of about 2 hours (probably less with the 500).

Other than that, the quality is great, USB charging, built-in LiIon (no need to mess with AAs), no cables, mount is alright (rubber strap - still having a bit of a difficulty unmounting it), can be pointed left-right easily, maybe even too easily.

It is quite an achievement IMHO that today you can buy a light in the $100-$150 category that is not China-made and is as bright as the L&M Urban, and as user friendly. Overall I'm very happy with it.

PS: after reading the comments on the shootout page, I must add that I do not find the side visibility lights distracting at all, not even on the trail.


----------



## NiteBiker (Sep 29, 2011)

I have the Philips light on my road bike's handle bar - a fantastic light for general road biking, but on high speed descents on twisties, I feel the need to supplement with a helmet light to look at the corners. This supplemental light should have a tight spot with decent throw. Currently I am using a Sigma PowerLED EVO 900 on the lid. It works well but that is a bit heavy and cumbersome due to the external battery pack. I'd like a small, light, self-contained powerful spot light and it seems that the Urban 500 sounds perfect. And it is lighter and cheaper than the Lupike Piko. Runtime is not an issue because I need it for short durations on the descents. There is hardly any traffic to blind on these descents and if I do encounter oncoming traffic, I just turn my head to the right to avoid blinding them.

Your feedback is very valuable. I will order the Urban 500 shortly!

BTW 1, the Philips beam is absolutely fantastic for high speed road riding. The beam so uniform with a good width and long throw. I felt so relaxed and confident on my first high speed night road descent yesterday with the Philips (and the Sigma on the lid for the corners).

BTW 2, the Philips has the same issue. The light turns off as soon as you connect a USB charger, so it is not possible to use an external pack.



radirpok said:


> Sorry to chime in, but Francois seems to have taken a day off
> I have the Urban 300, and I can say the following about the beam:
> - it is bright. It is trailworthy in itself, and that's a real compliment from me (as I usually ride a Lupine Betty / Exposure Diablo combo on the trails...)
> - the beam is defined by a boom reflector: small bright spot, then a larger halo around it. Pretty similar to the (original) Magicshines, probably equal to one of the lower settings on the P7 lights. For the 500, it will match the Magicshine brightness.
> ...


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

NiteBiker said:


> I'd like a small, light, self-contained powerful spot light and it seems that the Urban 500 sounds perfect. And it is lighter and cheaper than the Lupike Piko. Runtime is not an issue because I need it for short durations on the descents. There is hardly any traffic to blind on these descents and if I do encounter oncoming traffic, I just turn my head to the right to avoid blinding them.


Just FYI, the Urban comes with a helmet mount in the box - nice addition. But even if it did not, you could use any of the rubber/ring-type lights' mount (Lupine, Magicshine...). It is a little bit heavier than the Exposure flash lights (Joystick and Diablo), but still very much acceptable and not noticeably heavy.

I have to add though that the Piko is brighter, has probably more throw, and a better beam pattern (large spot and no halo), but as you said, it is also more expensive and I'm sure you'll be happy with the L&M too.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

I just picked up an urban 500 for my brother yesterday for his birthday and took it out for a short ride last night. For compairson it's brighter than my old 808 MS but not a bright as my 808E and has a slightly broader beam than either. The one problem I noticed is that is does get hot and kick down to the lowest setting. The temp. was still above 80 when I was out and it took about 3.5 miles before it hapened (at a stop light). I ran it @ the med. setting (more appropriate commuter setting since it doubles the run time to 3 hrs.) for another 6 miles and it ran fine.


----------



## rccardude04 (May 17, 2009)

@dam said:


> rccardude: You'd have to adjust that for the mass of the housing. A heavier housing will take longer to heat up.
> 
> A cool casing could just indicate there is plenty of surface area carrying the heat away.


The lights should have a fairly similar surface area and heatsink mass in a given category. It wouldn't be 100% negligible, but it would give you an idea. Obviously if you're using a Chevy 350 engine block as the heatsink for a 200 lumen light, you're never going to see much temperature increase. On the other hand, if all the casings are fairly close in mass (Volume of heatsink material), then one staying cold and one getting hot is a pretty good sign that the cold one is either dissipating heat really well or not actually getting heat transferred to it from the inside.

Also, a cool casing could indicate good heat dissipation if there's good convective flow over the heat sink area. But if you're in a stagnant air, all you'll get is natural convection which is proportional to temperature difference. You should still be able to feel how rapidly the casing is increasing in temperature immediately after it's turned on. It will eventually reach steady-state equilibrium at a certain temperature and flow rate, but not right away.

You should still be able to get a good idea of the internal heat transfer rate based on how quickly the casing starts to increase in temperature.

-Eric


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

radirpok said:


> Sorry to chime in, but Francois seems to have taken a day off ....


Correct. I was at Infineon Raceway yesterday testing Toyotas, then Annadel testing bikes then Russian River Brewing in Santa Rosa sampling beers. It was a day for the ages.

Radipork's comments are absolutely spot on about the Urban 500. It is a a big beam like the Niterider 600 with a big center a nice halo.

The fundamental problem with Urban 500 is heat. It just doesn't have enough heatsinking for its level of brightness. On medium, it's fine but high mode is only reliable in cold nights or fast descents.

fc


----------



## mochodurazo (Nov 29, 2008)

rixsurfer said:


> The Magic Shine MJ-808 was included in last years shoot out. However, hasn't its LED been upgraded since..the new version being the 808-XM-L? If so, is the new version going to be in the shootout? It's probably one of the more common lights out there. Also curious to see how much improved it is over the old version.
> 
> thanks
> 
> Rix


It has to be on the shootout the 808E XML.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

dbastians said:


> When we were doing pre-market test of the beam, we found that many were happy with the narrow frosted optic that gave a nice smooth beam. But some helmet mount users wanted narrower. We gave them the narrowest offering from Carclo, which is the narrowest on the market that would fit the form we wanted. Those wanting narrow were happy and this is the one we use in production now. If you shine on a wall, the beam is not so nice and round but is a diamond shape. This does not do any harm on the trail. Will soon see what Francis says about the measured lumen output.
> David


Maybe from a few inches away, you can see the triangular arrangement of the optics, but generally from any distance, even a few feet, my experience is that the triple-optic Carclo SPOT lens produces a very round spot. The big difference comes when you compare the XP-E and XP-G. Because of the increased surface area of the XP-G die, the spot lens throws a slightly wider and shorter distance beam compared to the same spot lens with the XP-E. Unfortunately, in the spot-lens-only arrangement, there is also a dark ring immediately surrounding the spot, although not a major detractor. Now if we can just get Carclo to frost one of those 10mm optics, that'd be a killer combo. Did you mention if the light can still be controlled if the remote happens to go missing?

First image is the XP-E triple with the Spot lens
Second image is XP-G triple with the Spot lens


----------



## GTR2ebike (May 3, 2010)

Francois how long until you release a video featuring the new Lupine Betty? I think all the high end lights have videos posted on MTBR's youtube, except the Betty.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

first production Lezynes in the world!!!!

fc


----------



## dbastians (Oct 6, 2011)

pethelman said:


> Maybe from a few inches away, you can see the triangular arrangement of the optics, but generally from any distance, even a few feet, my experience is that the triple-optic Carclo SPOT lens produces a very round spot.


Hi Pethelman,

well the die in XPG (XPE to a slightly lesser extent) is always going to be a big square thing relative to the tiny lens in the 20mm triple optic and the narrowest versions are always going to project a square. A common method to blend these squares is to offset the orientation of each die 120deg on the PCB layout. Then you may get something approximating a round spot. You can also mess with the die position relative to the centre of the lens.
In our case, we have "embraced the square" and have each die exactly in the centre of the lens and not offset the rotations. Our beam output is definitely square. This is the case with both XPE and XPG. We use the XPG for this model because on the higher power levels, it is more effective. Anyway, we get this diamond shaped beam which looks a bit silly on a wall, but seems more intense on the trail. We tired some other brands of 20mm triple that did produce more roundness, but the intensity was less.
Now we've done it this way because this light is going to see two popular uses: Helmet mounted for MTB and bar mounted on carbon road bikes. Both users mostly prefer a beam with a good bit of intensity. I still wouldn't call this diamond beam from the carclo triple a really tight spot, but we get feedback from very fast/elite roadies and MTBers that it is good.

The photo below sort of shows the diamond but I must say that with the eye, the effect is stronger, I think this little point-and-shoot camera can't show the edges of the diamond as well.

Regards the switch and remote. The battery has a switch on it so you can still use it if you lose the remote. Francis posted a photo a few days back; the green thing on the battery decal is embossed and marks the switch position.

Cheers,
David.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

dbastians said:


> In our case, we have "embraced the square" and have each die exactly in the centre of the lens and not offset the rotations.
> 
> Regards the switch and remote. The battery has a switch on it so you can still use it if you lose the remote. Francis posted a photo a few days back; the green thing on the battery decal is embossed and marks the switch position.


Very cool. Thanks for clearing that up David. I assume you're doing your own PCB design and re-flow work? I can definitely appreciate the work you've put in to create this little light.


----------



## dbastians (Oct 6, 2011)

pethelman said:


> Very cool. Thanks for clearing that up David. I assume you're doing you own PCB design and re-flow work? I can definitely appreciate the work you've put in to create this little light.


Hey thanks for the interest and questions.
We do all our own electronic design with the hardware and firmware, prototypes, testing, repairs, etc all done in house. We use a industrial designer for the metalwork and plastics design. PCB assembly and the plastic/rubber work is done by other companies here in Adelaide, South Australia. We don't make anything in China any more.
Cheers,
David


----------



## Ziemas (Apr 11, 2005)

francois said:


> first production Lezynes in the world!!!!
> 
> fc


Excellent! Exactly what I've been waiting for after a long and informative conversation with Mike at Lezyne. The folks there are simply wonderful.


----------



## Ziemas (Apr 11, 2005)

The link at the top of the page to the shoot out isn't working. It gives a 'page not found' error.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Francios, two of the new lights you have measured, the Xera at 71lux, and a very good showing with the TridenX at 81lux. These are incredible results for both lights and was wondering when you may have the video's up?? Clearly CygoLite is under rating their lumen claims on their TridenX by quite a bit as it has the same lux measurment as the older 1200 lumen TrailLed Darkstar,and several other newer lights with higher lumen claims.


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

indebt said:


> Francios, two of the new lights you have measured, the Xera at 71lux, and a very good showing with the TridenX at 81lux. These are incredible results for both lights and was wondering when you may have the video's up?? Clearly CygoLite is under rating their lumen claims on their TridenX by quite a bit as it has the same lux measurment as the older 1200 lumen TrailLed Darkstar,and several other newer lights with higher lumen claims.


I wish I could find where the Xera result was posted. I'm finding it quite difficult to track the latest in the light shootout. I don't see the latest lux numbers on the beam meter results page: Bike Lights Shootout Light Meter Measurements | Mountain Bike Review nor on the main page, which seems to read like a blog (latest articles on top): Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

Also there are beam shots that seem missing, again maybe they're not posted on the beam shot page (Jet, L&M Urban 500, others?).

I know we're tracking a moving target here and it's not all polished, but some folks are finding the info and I'd like to be among them 

Thanks Francois!


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

icycle, click on Mtbr lights Shootout at the top of the page. It will say, page not found,scroll down and look on the right side of the page until you see 2012 Light Shootout,click on it, scroll down the page until you see, ( NEXT PAGE) click on that. You will find the lights mentioned down the page along with a couple others from Full Beam etc. Hope that helps.Cheers!!!


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

indebt said:


> icycle, click on Mtbr lights Shootout at the top of the page. It will say, page not found,scroll down and look on the right side of the page until you see 2012 Light Shootout,click on it, scroll down the page until you see, ( NEXT PAGE) click on that. You will find the lights mentioned down the page along with a couple others from Full Beam etc. Hope that helps.Cheers!!!


Thanks, found it. Direct link here: 2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review | Page 2


----------



## Pinard (Aug 7, 2006)

Francois - Thank you for all you do! And thanks to everyone that has given Francois good positive feedback.

One question and one comment.

Question - Why no Ay-Ups? I apologize if you've already answered this question - I couldn't find it in any of the post. 

Comment - This particular thread has rekindled my hope for society. It's nice to see a thread being used to build something in a positive manner as oppose to almost every other thread out there.


----------



## BowHopper (Jun 4, 2011)

Possible correction? On this page you have the Cygolite Expilion 350
listed as:

2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review | Page 2
Price: $250.00
Claimed Lumens: 480
Measured output: 31 Mtbr Lux
Installed Weight: 161.5 grams
Run Time: n/a hour

This looks like it might be a mixup of some sort, as I believe the claimed lumens are 350 and the MSRP is around $100.

Edit: The price, claimed lumens, and weight look like they might be for the Cygo‑Lite MityCross 480.


----------



## sld12dy (Oct 28, 2011)

hmmm


----------



## abacojeff (Aug 17, 2008)

In considering whether the easy to execute Lux measurement that François conducts are a good predictor of actual Lumen output as measured in an integrating sphere... I made a simple scatter plot of Lux vs. Lumens for the lights that have both values published to date.

The relationship is highly correlated within a certain percent error... and it turns out that Lux times 9.7 is a good predictor of Lumens.

To make the math easier, even Lux times 10 is a fairly good predictor (generally less than 10% error).


----------



## PiranhaFisher (Jul 27, 2009)

abacojeff said:


> In considering whether the easy to execute Lux measurement that François conducts are a good predictor of actual Lumen output as measured in an integrating sphere... I made a simple scatter plot of Lux vs. Lumens for the lights that have both values published to date.
> 
> The relationship is highly correlated within a certain percent error... and it turns out that Lux times 9.7 is a good predictor of Lumens.
> 
> To make the math easier, even Lux times 10 is a fairly good predictor (generally less than 10% error).


Are the lights listed the only ones you did the analysis on? If so I'd like to see if the multiplication factor holds for a larger set. I think that the relation you found has to do with the sphere. If the measuring sphere was larger by a factor of ten, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a smaller correlation by just about the same factor.


----------



## abacojeff (Aug 17, 2008)

PiranhaFisher said:


> Are the lights listed the only ones you did the analysis on? If so I'd like to see if the multiplication factor holds for a larger set. I think that the relation you found has to do with the sphere. If the measuring sphere was larger by a factor of ten, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a smaller correlation by just about the same factor.


Francois hasn't published all the Lumen measurements from his trip to the integrating sphere at Lezyne yet... when he does publish more data - we will be able to see how well the estimate holds up for other lights.

I wouldn't be surprised if higher powered lights have a different profile and there is also the possibility of reflector type, flood vs spot, affecting the results...

However, for a rough 'rule of thumb' it would be great if the ratio between Francois' Lux readings continue to correlate reasonably well to Lumens.

This will allow estimation for lights from previous years that aren't being tested in the integrating sphere this year, old designs, etc... and estimation from certain models of lights from this year that didn't fit in the integrating sphere.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

abacojeff said:


> Francois hasn't published all the Lumen measurements from his trip to the integrating sphere at Lezyne yet... when he does publish more data - we will be able to see how well the estimate holds up for other lights.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if higher powered lights have a different profile and there is also the possibility of reflector type, flood vs spot, affecting the results...
> 
> ...


Do keep in mind that he mentioned the non-ideal conditions behind the lights that could not be fully inserted into the 2" diameter of the sphere. This alone will completely skew the data from any kind of correlation with the lux test.


----------



## roch485 (May 8, 2010)

FC - I just wanted to thank you for helping me narrow down my choice of lights. I'm sure it takes a lot of your time to put these reviews together.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Hey Francois, just noticed on the lux measurement tables you have the info on the TridenX as having 1600 lumens and 101 lux. I believe it was supposed to 750 lumens and 81 lux. Cheers!!! Looks like it is mixed up with the 350 as well.


----------



## blueyin (Nov 7, 2006)

*commuter Flashlight review comparisons.*

As a commuter looking for a under $200 flashlight bike light I just wanted to point out some observations from the reviews and other information I have found.

NOTE: I do not own any of these lights, but am looking to purchase one of them.

_*The contenders:*_

Light and Motion Urban 500:

Pros: 
1) MTBR says best commuting light
2) Only light with side lighting
3) Looks like the best beam patterns for MY commuting.
4) One of the leading companies producing bike lights.

Cons:
1) Poor thermal regulation, the thing gets really hot. (So says Francois)
2) Poor customer reviews
Amazon.com: ColoradoSBDR's review of Light and Motion Urban 500 Commuter Headlamp
3) Not many user reviews yet. 
4) Does not use standard battery. Can not bring spare battery with me for a ride.

Niterider Minewt 600 cordless

Pros
1) Doesnt get as hot as Urban 500
2) Beam spread comparable to Urban 500 
3) One of the leading companies producing bike lights. 
4) Plenty of user reviews, most very positive.

Cons
1) Read a couple user reviews that say USB cover doesn't stay on very well. This is the same chassis as previous model which also had the same problem.
2) Bulkier than the other lights in this category
3) A little heavy for a helmet mount
4) Battery not user replaceable / cant bring spare battery with me for ride.
5) no side lighting

Lezyne Super drive 450

Pros
1) Cheapest out of all the lights
2) User replaceable battery.
3) Non proprietary battery.
4) Beam pattern seems comparable to Urban 500 and Niterider minewt 600
5) All aluminium construction (better heat sink?)

Cons
1) No user reviews thus far (well one user review)
2) Company new to lighting business 
3) Doesnt come with helmet mount
4) No side lighting

Serfas True 500

Pro:
1) Cheaper than the Urban 500 and Niterider Minewt 600
2) Replaceable battery

Con:
1) no side lighting
2) Not as bright as the Urban 500 and Niterider Minewt 600

Cygolite expillion 400

Con: did not give to MTBR to do a review about.

*I'm interested to see if people agree with my observations from the reviews.*


----------



## skidad (May 23, 2005)

blueyin said:


> Niterider Minewt 600 cordless
> 
> Pros
> 1) Doesnt get as hot as Urban 500
> ...


Nice list...now go get the Lyzene for $79 today @ Cambria Bike. Use the code SCARY20 to get that price


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

Why not get the L&M Urban 300 which does not have heat issues, is still plenty bright, and costs $20 less than the 500? It is true though that there is no external battery pack connectivity.

I had no issues with it so far but of course sh*t happens (check out the Niterider thread for some nice experiences), but if the customer service is good this is nothing to worry about...


----------



## NiteBiker (Sep 29, 2011)

I recently acquired the L&M Urban 500. Yes, it does get hot on the highest setting and the protection circuitry kicks it down to a lower setting. I suspect this happens only if the ambient temperature is more than 70 degrees and you are moving slow. I had it on a ride yesterday morning in 50 degree weather. It ran for 10 minutes longer than advertised on high and stayed cool throughout, even during a slow climb. It comes with a nice helmet mount - adjustable both up/down and left/right.

I am glad I got the Urban 500 instead of the Urban 300. It costs only a little more. You can always run it at medium (250 lumens) to avoid heat issues at get a longer run time of 3 hours and still have the high mode (500 lumens) available to you on fast descents.



blueyin said:


> As a commuter looking for a under $200 flashlight bike light I just wanted to point out some observations from the reviews and other information I have found.
> 
> NOTE: I do not own any of these lights, but am looking to purchase one of them.


----------



## skidad (May 23, 2005)

blueyin said:


> As a commuter looking for a under $200 flashlight bike light I just wanted to point out some observations from the reviews and other information I have found.
> 
> NOTE: I do not own any of these lights, but am looking to purchase one of them.


Not trying to derail this thread but I want to add another light to your list and it's a torch. The ZebraLight SC600. Awesome light with easily = the light power of those mentioned already, beautiful build quality and very solid. Takes 1 standard 18650 battery and the thing is only 4.2" in length and 87.2 grams w/o battery. This is a beautuiful light with stunning power and I will compare it to the new Lyzene when that shows up. You would need to mount it with a TwoFish Lockblock or something similar.

SC600 Cree XM-L 750Lm Flashlight 18650


----------



## NiteBiker (Sep 29, 2011)

*Reviews*

Hi Francois, there are no new light reviews since the Cateye Nanoshot on 10/23. Are you planning to put up some soon. I am suffering from withdrawal


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Heyyyyy, I just got back from a mini-vacation in Bend, Oregon. It was the best riding ever. Here's one of the days of riding:
Mtbr with Cogwild Tours in Bend, Oregon - YouTube

Anyway, I'm back to publishing the rest of the reviews and the wrap-ups.

fc


----------



## snellvilleGAbiker (Apr 30, 2009)

LOL at 4:50 and Daddy chasing his kid. thanks for sharing


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I 2nd the LOL on dad chasing his son !!!!!! Nice Endo Francois, hope all's well. Looking forward to the rest of your reviews. Cheers!!!


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

Bet99ty00 said:


> I think you have done good job breaking it down in the past. I like the idea of "commuter" and "high end" for sure.
> Battery life on max is always what I'm looking for.
> 
> What light is photo 3? Pretty much makes it daylight out.
> ...


Check out the link at the top of the forum page. Francios is not done yet, but lots of good stuff already posted.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



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

skidad said:


> Not trying to derail this thread but I want to add another light to your list and it's a torch. The ZebraLight SC600. Awesome light with easily = the light power of those mentioned already, beautiful build quality and very solid. Takes 1 standard 18650 battery and the thing is only 4.2" in length and 87.2 grams w/o battery. This is a beautuiful light with stunning power and I will compare it to the new Lyzene when that shows up. You would need to mount it with a TwoFish Lockblock or something similar.
> 
> SC600 Cree XM-L 750Lm Flashlight 18650


Yes, a nice torch it is and at $95 it better be...but seriously, there are any number of nice torches out there that don't cost a third of what you are suggesting.

What I don't understand is "Why" the people who designed these so called "commuter lights", didn't make them more "user serviceable" as far as batteries go. Doing so would have probably doubled their sales. The Niterider cordless model would be sweet if it used standard 18650's and was designed for easy switch out. Because of my preference I tend to like the Lyzene models the most. If I wanted a commuter style light and didn't want to settle with a standard torch I would get one of those which "Do" use standard 18650's. Need more run time (?)...just bring more cells.


----------



## skidad (May 23, 2005)

Cat-man-do said:


> Yes, a nice torch it is and at $95 it better be...but seriously, there are any number of nice torches out there that don't cost a third of what you are suggesting.
> 
> What I don't understand is "Why" the people who designed these so called "commuter lights", didn't make them more "user serviceable" as far as batteries go. Doing so would have probably doubled their sales. The Niterider cordless model would be sweet if it used standard 18650's and was designed for easy switch out. Because of my preference I tend to like the Lyzene models the most. If I wanted a commuter style light and didn't want to settle with a standard torch I would get one of those which "Do" use standard 18650's. Need more run time (?)...just bring more cells.


Cat Man....I know you know this but for others there are a number of things about the ZebraLight that make it such a good torch vs cheapo torches. Power, size, efficiency of battery use and build quality. Is it worth $95? Each person will have to decide that for themselves. I have the new Lyzene Power Drive and it's very nice with good output and a pretty tight beam with it's smooth reflector. The ZL SC600 is better as is the Spark SL6-800 which I also have (yeah, I'm a bit out of control). Both of these have orange peel reflectors which are 3mm and 6mm larger in diameter respectively than the new Lyzene which is approx. 18mm.

Here is a quick summary from CPF on the SC600
* The SC600 packs a lot of punch - more than any other 1x18650 I've tested to date, including both the Thrunite Scorpion V2 and Spark SL6. It also has the most efficient and well-regulated circuit I've seen in this class. Oh, and have I mentioned it's incredibly tiny too? *

Here is a link to the extensive test of the SC600 on CPF
Zebralight SC600 (1x18650, XM-L) Review: RUNTIME, BEAMSHOTS, comparisons & more!


----------



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

skidad said:


> ...Here is a link to the extensive test of the SC600 on CPF
> Zebralight SC600 (1x18650, XM-L) Review: RUNTIME, BEAMSHOTS, comparisons & more!


I gave this a quick look-see over on CPF. It never ceases to amaze me how much detail they go into over on CPF. :lol:
In a nut shell, a very good review. As far as torches go the SC600 looks to be the equivalent to what the Lupine lights are to other bike lights. It does look like a very nice torch. I have no doubt it would make a fine bar lamp. I'd go into the details but not on this thread. I'll just say that if I was considering a Niterider cordless 600L the SC600 might be the better way to go since I already have a bar torch mount ( about $3 ).


----------



## g3rG (Aug 29, 2009)

skidad said:


> Not trying to derail this thread but I want to add another light to your list and it's a torch. The ZebraLight SC600. Awesome light with easily = the light power of those mentioned already, beautiful build quality and very solid. Takes 1 standard 18650 battery and the thing is only 4.2" in length and 87.2 grams w/o battery. This is a beautuiful light with stunning power and I will compare it to the new Lyzene when that shows up. You would need to mount it with a TwoFish Lockblock or something similar.
> 
> SC600 Cree XM-L 750Lm Flashlight 18650


This is a fantastic little light. I did most of my summer night rides with one on my helmet. The beam pattern is perfect for a helmet light. Too narrow for a bar light. Two zip ties holds it securely to the helmet. I ran it at 350lm most of the time, but a double click on the button kicked it to 750 for times that I needed it.









gerG


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> I gave this a quick look-see over on CPF. It never ceases to amaze me how much detail they go into over on CPF. :lol:
> In a nut shell, a very good review. As far as torches go the SC600 looks to be the equivalent to what the Lupine lights are to other bike lights. It does look like a very nice torch. I have no doubt it would make a fine bar lamp. I'd go into the details but not on this thread. I'll just say that if I was considering a Niterider cordless 600L the SC600 might be the better way to go since I already have a bar torch mount ( about $3 ).


In your experience what DX torch would put numbers equal to this light in flood and power? Most of the DX lights seem to be throwers with a super tight hot spot. TIA.


----------



## LiveFreeThenDie (Mar 21, 2010)

GSJ1973 said:


> In your experience what DX torch would put numbers equal to this light in flood and power? Most of the DX lights seem to be throwers with a super tight hot spot. TIA.


I commute on road and MUP. No trails.

The best cheap torch for the bars that most people favor is the KD C8 (product # S009844). As for helmet, there are several that people seem to find acceptable. The Uniquefire 2100, Yezl Z1 and Ultrafire 504b, all with XM-L. I really like the C8 on the bar, but the XM-L on the helmet does not out throw the one on the bar. I've ordered an S-Mini from Shiningbeam hoping that it will have more throw than the XM-L so that I can see a bit further down the road for patches in the road that might indicate something to avoid.


----------



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

GSJ1973 said:


> In your experience what DX torch would put numbers equal to this light in flood and power? Most of the DX lights seem to be throwers with a super tight hot spot. TIA.


Not really the thread to be answering this question but I'll try to be brief. I don't have an SC600 so I really can only speculate. The CPF review mentions the SC600 as having a good degree of flood/spill. The reflector on the SC600 looks like it might be a little wider than a standard P-60 reflector. Since I don't have one no way to know for sure. I will say though that a standard XM-L drop-in ( P-60 ) ( with OP reflector ) has a nice all-around beam pattern.

Concerning total output, in the CPF review the "opening poster " was unable to give a current draw on the highest settings. That would of told me something about the over all output and gave me something to compare to. Without that I cannot comment on output other than to say that it's likely in the 2000-2500ma range. If true there are some drop-ins sold running in that area sold by other companies. Not sure if D/X has one in that range though. My K/D XM-L 5-mode drop-in draws 2500ma on high with a fresh cell and is damn bright for a T6 bin. The SC600 are likely using the best U-bin XM-L emitters. From what the OP said the current batch are all "cool white" with no green or purple tint. If true they probably are very nice. All of this is speculation on my part though.

In the next few weeks I will be getting in a new order of XM-L stuff from Manafont that might give an interesting comparison to the SC600. I'll comment more about that ( on the D/X torch thread ) when the order comes in.


----------



## abacojeff (Aug 17, 2008)

Decided to post an updated LUX vs LUMENS chart for the lights with measurements posted to date.

To anticipate some potential comments... I know Lux and Lumens are different types of measurements of light output (light density vs total output)... however, based on the way Francois does the Lux measurements (i.e. using an indirect measure of Lux in an enclosed room via reflected light) - he is using his room as a rough integrating sphere (or integrating cube complete with table, couch and TV if you will)...

So if you don't agree with the approach, fine. But so far the data shows a reasonable (as defined by me) relationship between Francois measured Lux readings vs. Lezyne measured integrating sphere Lumen readings.

So far the relationship is Lux x 9.5 = Lumens ± 15%.

Considering I'm not able to visually detect a 15% difference in light output, as I said, close enough for me!


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

abacojeff said:


> Decided to post an updated LUX vs LUMENS chart for the lights with measurements posted to date.
> ....


Nice. Send me your email and I'll send you my master spreadsheet.

That was my observation too. It validated my lux readings.

Can you call it Mtbr Measured Lux? That way, it's clear that these numbers are just for our setting.

francis


----------



## abacojeff (Aug 17, 2008)

francois said:


> Nice. Send me your email and I'll send you my master spreadsheet.
> 
> That was my observation too. It validated my lux readings.
> 
> ...


Updated to "MTBR Measured Lux" per your request...

e:mail send via PM...


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

How about if Francois publishes that chart as part of the shoot out?

J.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Lezyne Super Drive - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

My first Lezyine is done. It's the good one too.

fc


----------



## mdemm (Aug 4, 2010)

You've done an excellent job, in your 2012 shootout Francois !!! Was wondering if you've had a chance to do an in-depth review of the Gemini Xera ???


----------



## Dirt_hog (Jan 18, 2008)

Is the Bike Ray IV going to be reveiwed?


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

Man, I'm soooooo tired of waiting for the results. I mean, it's daylight savings time already and we have to buy our lights about 2 weeks ago.


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

I was thinking, perhaps for next year Francios could set a higher bar for acceptance into the reviews. It's nice to see all options covered but it may be too much for one man to handle.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone done a spreadsheet/chart/graph that shows measured MTBR LUX vs $$?

Just wondering, as it gives people a good place to start regarding best "bang for buck"...then add on quality etc after that, but it would be a helpful starting point.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

RTM said:


> I was thinking, perhaps for next year Francios could set a higher bar for acceptance into the reviews. It's nice to see all options covered but it may be too much for one man to handle.


^^this.

I'd set a bar at nothing less than 500 lumens. By next year that's going to be pretty much the entry ante.

J.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

25 Lights are here:
2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

All the beams are here:
2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Backyard Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review
2012 Bike Lights Shootout - Trail Beam Pattern Photos | Mountain Bike Review

I'll crank out the rest of the lights this week.

fc


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

francois said:


> 25 Lights are here:
> 2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review
> 
> All the beams are here:
> ...


Was that you who neg rep'd me for complaining? :lol: sorry, eh! :thumbsup:


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

JohnJ80 said:


> ^^this.
> 
> I'd set a bar at nothing less than 500 lumens. By next year that's going to be pretty much the entry ante.
> 
> J.


I think it would be great to have separate "Light Shootouts". Do one for Commuter Lights(<400lm), one for Budget Lights (<$50), and one for Singletrack Lights. Then just refresh those shootouts once a year in August/September as the companies come out with new products and the days get shorter. But all that aside, this is hands down the best light roundup out there. Nice work Francois!


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

gticlay said:


> Was that you who neg rep'd me for complaining? :lol: sorry, eh! :thumbsup:


Oh heck no. If there was no negatives, it would be tough to improve!

fc


----------



## 80sbmxkid (Mar 8, 2008)

At the end of the shootout do you a summary of the results? Would be really nice to have that overall perspective after testing has been complete.

Thanks for this great light resource!


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

francois said:


> Oh heck no. If there was no negatives, it would be tough to improve!
> 
> fc


I guess it's some lame d-bag. Was nice to meet you again at Interbike


----------



## Bellaru (Sep 14, 2011)

Very nice!


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

*Video content*

Ok, is it just me, or did all the MTBR video content just get yanked off of YouTube?
Maybe something is in the works? Who knows.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

pethelman said:


> Ok, is it just me, or did all the MTBR video content just get yanked off of YouTube?
> Maybe something is in the works? Who knows.


Yup, one of our key accounts got deleted . We're trying to get it back.

fc


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Hi Francois, still down, do have an ETA on when the U-Tube account will be restored??


----------



## hefeweizan (Aug 24, 2011)

Any info on the Magic Shine MJ-880?


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

I am particularly interested in seeing how the Gemini Xera compares to the Strykr offerings. Also the new 750 lumen TridenX. That beam pattern is amazing in the old TridenX and with 750 lumen pumping out of that thing, I expect there to be some language like "wow, it works more like a 1200 lumen light"


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

Love the reports, keep them coming. I am hoping for some tail lights soon, specifically the DS-500, would love to see that bad boy in action, especially since the new ones are on back-order. Looking for some love from behind .... er ... umm .. that didn't come out right, but so us some tail ... lights.

- Roger


----------



## gocycling (Oct 27, 2007)

Francois,

In the 2012 Shootout review for the Exposure Diablo, I think you have an error. This year's light for 2012 is NOT twice as bright as last year's light. 59 lux for 2012 (mk.3) and 63 lux for 2010 (mk.2) (IIRC). Last year's 2011 model (mk.2) is significantly brighter than the one for 2010 (which came in about 37 Lux I believe).

Thanks for all the great work that you have been doing!


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Roger Huston said:


> Love the reports, keep them coming. I am hoping for some tail lights soon, specifically the DS-500, would love to see that bad boy in action, especially since the new ones are on back-order. Looking for some love from behind .... er ... umm .. that didn't come out right, but so us some tail ... lights.
> 
> - Roger


Yess! I'm riding the DS-500 now. It's a work of art!!

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

gocycling said:


> Francois,
> 
> In the 2012 Shootout review for the Exposure Diablo, I think you have an error. This year's light for 2012 is NOT twice as bright as last year's light. 59 lux for 2012 (mk.3) and 63 lux for 2010 (mk.2) (IIRC). Last year's 2011 model (mk.2) is significantly brighter than the one for 2010 (which came in about 37 Lux I believe).
> 
> Thanks for all the great work that you have been doing!


Thank you much bro!

fc


----------



## vinnyl26 (Apr 3, 2007)

Videos no longer work


----------



## SR--71 (Jan 5, 2009)

...you´re videos were great and it´s a big loss for us here, that your youtube account is still not working...

Regards from Germany!

SR--71


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

Thank you for the reviews francois! The niterider mini 600 was working great until I improved. Now it's time so save for brighter lights.


----------



## Gloworm Manufacture (Nov 29, 2011)

Hello Francois, 

This is Vag from Gloworm Manufacturing. 

We are producing a new light system and we would love to get reviewed by you. We know it is pretty late for the Lights Shootout but we are looking forward for some feedback and a review. 

More details of our light system will be posted on the forum soon. 

On behalf of the Gloworm Manufacturing team, 
Vag


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

Hey Francois, when will the videos and the rest of the reviews be available for the rest of the lights? Also, are you going to review the new Jet Lites x-51?


----------



## Dizmark (Dec 2, 2011)

*Lost Scott Genius LT before Night Ride*

I was all loaded up with my new MagicShine for a perfect Night Ride and my bike fell off the rack. I don't know what I did wrong, I've racked it 100 times...Somewhere around San Tomas Expressway in Campbell...I was on my way to ride in Los Gatos... So Bummed...
408-314-6636 if you know anything:madman:


----------



## djembe975 (Apr 12, 2008)

Sorry to hear about that, what kind of rack is it and where is it attached? I ask because I use a Thule trunk rack


----------



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

This isn't going to help you now but might help others. When using trunk or roof racks it might be a good idea use some kind of fail-safe. I would think a simple hook-bungee cord system ( $6 ) might do the trick. It could keep you from losing your next bike. I no longer use a roof rack but when I did I know I got home at least once and realized that I forgot to lock the fork mount tray. Crap happens.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

The lights are rolling again. I'll get the rest of the reviews out this week.

fc


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

Hello,

Is it me? I can't find any new light reviews for a month. Francois, you OK? 

- Roger


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

Wouldn't mind the Serfas True 1500 but don't really have the money. So my question to all of you. Does anyone have any experience with the Serfas True 1000? It seems to be the same case but with 1000 lumens. Can anyone confirm the real actual lumens and lux with run times for the 1000? It say's online at jenson that it will run up to 3.5 hours on high at peak output. So for 100$ less is it worth it?


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

Hutch3637 said:


> Wouldn't mind the Serfas True 1500 but don't really have the money. So my question to all of you. Does anyone have any experience with the Serfas True 1000? It seems to be the same case but with 1000 lumens. Can anyone confirm the real actual lumens and lux with run times for the 1000? It say's online at jenson that it will run up to 3.5 hours on high at peak output. So for 100$ less is it worth it?


Search around. I saw Serfas 1500 on sale for waaaaaay less than retail somewhere... maybe jensonusa or wheelworld. Maybe it was on fleabay. All under $300.

But if you have a dumpy light (any light), Baja will give you a substantial discount and their stuff is tough.

Also, there's 15% off $300 right now at bikebling so $255 for something $300.


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

^^^ Thanks for the advice.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

a friend who works at a bike shop recently bought a Serfas 1000. It's a nice light, similar in brightness to my DIY helmet light (most likely ~800 true lumens) but very spotty/torch/flashlight beam. Throws great, but I couldn't deal with the beam pattern although some might like it on the helmet.


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

A riding buddy has the Serfas 1000 and it's the same size as the 1500, but lower output. It looks to be a great light, but honestly I think it's a bit overpriced compared to the current offerings. Definitely a well made light, but it's fairly large and doesn't put out a ton of light. For the weight and size penalty, I'd want to have a LOT of light. 

If you're on a budget the Gemini Xera is really hard to beat. Another riding buddy has the Xera and it is nice and bright with a good balance between spot and flood. Great for either the helmet or the bars, and it's TINY, and lightweight. He runs the whole deal on the helmet, battery and light, which is pretty awesome. It sucks to have to fool with cables when you need to rummage in your backpack or change a tube during a ride. For the same price you can get the Magicshine MJ-872, which puts out a ton of light. I'm running one on my bars, and the flood is awesome. No throw, so it's not a good "only light" to run, but it's great when paired with a spot beam on the helmet.


----------



## Brooks04 (Jun 1, 2004)

francois said:


> The lights are rolling again. I'll get the rest of the reviews out this week.
> 
> fc


When will we see more reviews?


----------



## abacojeff (Aug 17, 2008)

Time to update the Lux vs. Lumen chart again. The previous version included 15 lights... the new chart almost doubles this to 28. The latest 13 lights are in bold.

When Francis publishes additional reviews that includes the Lux and Lumen data, I'll update the chart again.

Just to recap... 
1. Lux and Lumens are different measurements of light output and normally shouldn't be directly compared to each other.

2. However, based on how Francis conducts his Lux readings (i.e. indirect via ceiling bounce), he is turning his room into a 'quasi' integrating sphere...

3. This has allowed correlation between the 'quick and easy' Lux measurements that Francis routinely conducts with the precise Lumen readings that were measured in Lezyne's integrating sphere.

4. Since a reasonable (as defined by me) correlation can be calculated - we can estimate the lumen output of older lights that Francis has previously measured Lux for... or we can estimate lumen output for current lights (2012 Shootout) that came too late to go to the Lezyne integrating sphere - or the shape of the lighthead precluded taking integrating sphere measurements.

5. The correlation for Lux vs Lumens IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO LUX MEASUREMENTS AS CONDUCTED BY FRANCIS since his setup is unique for size/shape of room, contents of the room, color and reflectance of paint, position of Lux meter to lightheads, etc.

6. The AVERAGE multiplication factor so far is: MTBR LUX x 9.5 = estimated LUMENS

This is typically accurate to within ~15% of actual measured lumens.

A 'lazy' calculation is: MTBR LUX x 10 = estimated LUMENS

This is typically accurate to within ~20% of actual measured lumens.

7. 28 down... approximately 25 more to go.


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

Well, we haven't heard from francois for well over a month. I guess this review is dead. A shame because there were some pretty good lights left to be reviewed. Maybe the task was just too big of an undertaking, I can understand that. 

RIP francois,

- Roger


----------



## karlhungus1 (Mar 22, 2011)

Roger Huston said:


> Well, we haven't heard from francois for well over a month. I guess this review is dead. A shame because there were some pretty good lights left to be reviewed. Maybe the task was just too big of an undertaking, I can understand that.
> 
> RIP francois,
> 
> - Roger


I have been logging in eagerly awaiting new reviews as well. I understand Francois is a father, a programmer, a husband, etc... so I'm not going come down on him. Hopefully he knows his work is appriciated and we are all hoping for more.


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

Yes, I understand that people are busy. However a busy man would say, I am overloaded right now, it will be a month before I can get back to it. Something else is going on here because the last word from francios is that the rest of the reviews were going to be posted "this week" and that was back in November. Then nothing. So my fear is that something happened to francois and no one from mtbr has said one word at to what may be going on.

- Roger


----------



## RBrady (Jan 20, 2009)

It will soon be out on the big screen "what happened to Francis". Seriously guys, is that all you have to worry about. I'm betting the man has other obligations. LOL


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

RBrady said:


> It will soon be out on the big screen "what happened to Francis". Seriously guys, is that all you have to worry about. I'm betting the man has other obligations. LOL


Color me suprised. I thought mtbr was his job. Really.


----------



## RBrady (Jan 20, 2009)

gticlay said:


> Color me suprised. I thought mtbr was his job. Really.


Pretty sure he works a day job and well as having a family gticlay. Don't let it get you down. Push away from the keyboard and ride your bike. It's good for you.:thumbsup:


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Just pick a light, buy it, and ride!


----------



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

gticlay said:


> Color me suprised. I thought mtbr was his job. Really.


Add me to that list. People shouldn't be surprised though that not all lights get reviewed. Add to that you have to remember that MTBR makes money from ads from many bike light manufacturers and vendors. Supplying reviews of bike lights that don't place ads on their web site isn't going to be a high priority or make brownie points with the people paying for ads.

For what it's worth, if someone wasn't paying me to review all those lamps I sure as heck wouldn't be in any kind of hurry.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

RBrady said:


> Pretty sure he works a day job and well as having a family gticlay. Don't let it get you down. Push away from the keyboard and ride your bike. It's good for you.:thumbsup:


I'm with you on the "don't let it get you down" part. We all like our bike lights, but the world won't stop turning on account of a few unfinished reviews. However, unless I'm misreading your posts I do think you may be missing out on the mtbr.com / Francois' day job connection that others are referring to.

Cat-Man-Do ; it doesn't seem like the paid adverts have anything to do with it. For example, Gemini has ads running, and there's no Xera review yet.

In the grand scheme of business operations that make up mtbr, it's more likely that some other items took the priority slot for now.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

I actually don't understand the don't let it get you down comment. All I was saying is that I thought it was his day job, not that I'd depressed. I have my lights for the year - Xera's and perhaps an Olympia and/or the new X2, plus the Quazzle triple I built and the 7-up I'm finally finishing up...


----------



## Liampac70 (Jan 13, 2012)

photo 3 looks awesome


----------



## Gemini Lights (Sep 20, 2010)

I know Francis received the demo lights at different times. In fairness of the test, he may have wanted to wait to have all the lights together before shooting. To compare a beam shot, you need to have all lights on deck available or you'll have to do the shoot all over again. And I think there were over 50 lights this year.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Gemini Lights said:


> I know Francis received the demo lights at different times. In fairness of the test, he may have wanted to wait to have all the lights together before shooting. To compare a beam shot, you need to have all lights on deck available or you'll have to do the shoot all over again. And I think there were over 50 lights this year.


I've been riding the Gemini Xera and other new lights. I should have results ready this week.

francis


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

francois said:


> I've been riding the Gemini Xera and other new lights. I should have results ready this week.
> 
> francis


Looking forward to it.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

The Jet F-1 is up. Very nice flashlight!!!!

JetLites F-1 - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review


----------



## cue003 (May 6, 2011)

francois said:


> The Jet F-1 is up. Very nice flashlight!!!!
> 
> JetLites F-1 - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review


Nice light indeed. The "package" only comes with helmet mount. You have to pay more for bar mount  The helmet mount looks solid.

The Jet F-1 appears to be a "traditional" flashlight approach with a dedicated mount attached to it. There are many "flashlight" manufactures that are in this price range with same or more output, same battery choices, similar or better runtime, etc. The downside of these flashlight manufactures I am referring to is they don't have the dedicated mount but there are mounting systems that are out there that will start to blur the lines between dedicated bike systems and flashlight systems with 3rd party mounting options.

Good choice with them using the Panasonic 3100mah batteries.

JetLight's charger looks IDENTICAL to the Ultrafire WF-139.... hmmm


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

550 lumen from the Jet F-1 is a bit low, however. There should have been a 1 hr run time 'boost' option for 900 lumen, especially since you can swap out cells.

Edit to add: If the Diablo mk3 can output 900 lumen and not over head this one should be able to as well. Dunno if they still are but they had the Mk3 for $220 a few days ago. The main problem with the Diablo, of course, is that the cell isn't swapable like on the F-1 and you have to buy their expensive piggyback. DOH! I should make my own product


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

If you check the lux measurments gticlay, the 550 lumen Jet is out performing the 975 lumen Diablo 71lux vs. 59lux. Beam pattern however may go to the Diablo.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

indebt said:


> If you check the lux measurments gticlay, the 550 lumen Jet is out performing the 975 lumen Diablo 71lux vs. 59lux. Beam pattern however may go to the Diablo.


Holey Moley, you are right. I should have looked at that. Huge difference.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

With just one spare battery, one would get 3+ solid hours of run time on full blast. Looks like a front runner on helmet torches if you like a reflector style beam pattern.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

indebt said:


> With just one spare battery, one would get 3+ solid hours of run time on full blast. Looks like a front runner on helmet torches if you like a reflector style beam pattern.


I actually don't like that beam at all. The new xera has the best "flashlight head" style beam pattern - larger than a reflector pattern, very little artifact issues, but not too floody either. It mixes extremely well with my DIY 1100 lumen quazzle light.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Same here. I have both reflector and optic style lamps and for me i prefer optics. For those who prefer reflector, this Jet is one kick A$$ torch.


----------



## Action LED Lights (Nov 11, 2011)

Francois, one question I have is what is the light output over the length of the discharge. Providing the proper voltage to the LED from a single cell requires the driver to boost the voltage rather than just control the current. This type of circuit is often rather inefficient and as a result many lights just supply battery voltage once it drops below a certain level. The result is that the light output slowly drops as the battery drains.


----------



## jase.paluzzi (Apr 23, 2011)

Has everyone given up on this light shootout? It started over 3 months ago and still not finished!! I would like to see the DS-1300 reviewed close up, or perhaps the X2 (1200 lumens).

I think the task at hand was too large to take on. It's a shame really, because that was one of the key components to why I highly regarded mtbr.com. GET THE REVIEWS UP!!! mtbR <--- R stands for REVIEW. The only two things I come here for is the mtb product reviews, light shootout and forums (okay maybe three). All else is just fluff!! The news articles are just regurgitated crap from other mtb websites. We need our meat and potatoes.

Also good work on the website update. It was much needed.


----------



## Roger Huston (Oct 3, 2011)

I think it is dead, but francois did put up a few new lights a few weeks back. I too have been waiting for the DS-1300 review, along with the DS-500 taillight.

Personally, I wonder how the manufacturers of the lights he didn't review reacted. I mean everyone sent him their wares in hopes to get their stuff promoted online. After all MTBR is a pretty active community and their review carries a lot of weight. For many manufacturers, this was to be their first showing in the shootout, so I wonder when next year comes around what is going to happen. Will everyone be eager to send in samples to MTBR to review? Even if this review is completed, many manufacturers have had a 3 month head start on the others so is it really fair.

I know francois got bogged down with his life, perhaps he could have passed the ball over to someone else to finish up, I am sure there would have been plenty of people in his area that could have completed it for him and MTBR.

- Roger


----------



## apensity (May 22, 2005)

I didn't see any review or even ramblings about the Trail Tech. Anyone know anything about these? Single LED 35mm at Trail Tech Home


----------



## cantitoeroad (Apr 6, 2012)

*Axa 50 Plus*

I just bought an Axa 50 Nano from work, I have to say it's an amazing light whether it be road biking at night or downhill, Dynamo powered at heart, 50 lux, usb charging(when not using the light). I can charge my iphone while I bike to work, it's amazing.


----------



## Mason8or (May 3, 2012)

****ing bright


----------



## bunnymun (Apr 5, 2009)

Betcha light number 3 will keep you warm during cold winter rides!


----------



## bunnymun (Apr 5, 2009)

Is a CREE light basically the same as Magic Shine?


----------



## poweroffice (May 25, 2012)

don't want it too bright haha


----------



## Action LED Lights (Nov 11, 2011)

bunnymun said:


> Is a CREE light basically the same as Magic Shine?


CREE is the brand name of the LED used in Magicshine's and the counterfeit Magicshine lights you are probably referring to. CREE does not build bike lights, they only sell the LED.


----------



## VAIronman (Jul 17, 2012)

What lights were #3?


----------



## abacojeff (Aug 17, 2008)

VAIronman said:


> What lights were #3?


NiteRider Pro 3000...


----------



## Hinrichs3 (Aug 10, 2012)

Good lights


----------



## skidad (May 23, 2005)

Now that night season is upon us will some more testing commence?......Francois you out there?


----------



## sbd (Sep 23, 2011)

All I can say is I'm glad I didn't wait for the reviews! 

I rode all season last winter with two Xeras on the bars. One optic, one reflector...ridiculous. Turned one off when I didn't need it, but then got lazy and found I could easily run both on high for my after work rides which are only 1-1.5 hours. Inexpensive, flawless performance, well made, light. Im sold.


----------



## skidad (May 23, 2005)

sbd said:


> All I can say is I'm glad I didn't wait for the reviews!
> 
> I rode all season last winter with two Xeras on the bars. One optic, one reflector...ridiculous. Turned one off when I didn't need it, but then got lazy and found I could easily run both on high for my after work rides which are only 1-1.5 hours. Inexpensive, flawless performance, well made, light. Im sold.


Yup, The Xera's are super impressive. I bought at pre intro price and glad I did ending up with that free 2n'd lighthead they offered. Wish he had done the final review on it but we know it's outstanding without that. I got a MS 856 on the bars and the combo is amazing. Plenty of lights got sent in that never received their final write-ups which was to bad. Overwhelming task to test everything I know.


----------



## Phread (Aug 25, 2012)

*What I'd like to see*

I need lots of light. Prefer helmet mounted. I'd like to see what is out there without the limiting factor of price.

I'll pay for daylight in the dark, so-to-speak


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

Phread said:


> I need lots of light. Prefer helmet mounted. I'd like to see what is out there without the limiting factor of price.
> 
> I'll pay for daylight in the dark, so-to-speak


You can always mount up a giant light up there, but I'm guessing weight is also a factor. I've found that my preferred method of lighting is a super bright bar light lots of flood, and a lighter spot light on the helmet. Here's why I like that: the helmet light goes where you're looking, which "should" be down trail so you want it to throw a ways. The further it throws, the sooner you can see where you're going. This is especially helpful at high speeds, but not so much on tight, twisty, or wooded sections.

FWIW, I run a modest 1600 lumen flood on the bars, and a 900 on the helmet. If money were no option and I was buying today, here's what I would go with:

Bars: NiteRider Pro 3600









Helmet: Baja Designs Strykr SL - 925 lumen (and use spot reflector)


----------



## Phread (Aug 25, 2012)

How 'bout that. I am considering the 3600, but for the helmet, I thought that the Xera LED might be a winner. 850 Lumens and only 52 gm light and 122 gm battery (helmet mounted).


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

Phread said:


> How 'bout that. I am considering the 3600, but for the helmet, I thought that the Xera LED might be a winner. 850 Lumens and only 52 gm light and 122 gm battery (helmet mounted).


Xera is a great light and I have a couple friends that run them. More of a wide beam pattern. Good choice for the helmet as you can put everything up there. Almost got one myself so I wouldnt have to deal with the wire into the pack.

sent via tapatalk


----------



## Nothing's impossible (Mar 5, 2012)

Phread said:


> I need lots of light. Prefer helmet mounted. I'd like to see what is out there without the limiting factor of price.
> 
> I'll pay for daylight in the dark, so-to-speak


A piko on the helm (a 55 gram light producing about 900 measured lumens) combined with a broad wilma (2400 real lumens) or betty R (3600 lumens) on the bars does about that.

Question is , why?


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

Could someone explain to me how my set up has me confused or something could be wrong. I'm new to running a good set up *IMO* and last night my helmet light seemed to be brighter or cut through the beam of my bar light. More information on this here: http://forums.mtbr.com/9661560-post8.html


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

Hutch3637 said:


> Could someone explain to me how my set up has me confused or something could be wrong. I'm new to running a good set up *IMO* and last night my helmet light seemed to be brighter or cut through the beam of my bar light. More information on this here: http://forums.mtbr.com/9661560-post8.html


Your 600 has more of a spot pattern, so the light is concentrated into a smaller spot. Don't sweat it, this is how it should be! But you should try pointing your head light further down trail, so you can see more of what's coming up.


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

TwoHeadsBrewing said:


> Your 600 has more of a spot pattern, so the light is concentrated into a smaller spot. Don't sweat it, this is how it should be! But you should try pointing your head light further down trail, so you can see more of what's coming up.


All right, thank you, I thought I was going nuts last night and I'm new to the spot/flood set up.

How is your thoughts on that set up even if you don't run it given the 600 for spot the 1800 for flood?


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

Hutch3637 said:


> All right, thank you, I thought I was going nuts last night and I'm new to the spot/flood set up.
> 
> How is your thoughts on that set up even if you don't run it given the 600 for spot the 1800 for flood?


That's a great setup, and more than enough light. I've got a similar setup with a MJ-872 1600 lumen on the bars and a MS900 on the helmet which puts out around 600 actual lumens. I point the helmet light about 50 feet down trail, and the bar light about 20 feet. This makes it so that I have a fully illuminated area in front of my bike I don't even need to move my head to see (like riding in the day time). And the helmet light points far down trail for fast riding and to let me know what is coming up. I've run lights in all different combinations and this works the best for me. YMMV.


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

TwoHeadsBrewing said:


> That's a great setup, and more than enough light. I've got a similar setup with a MJ-872 1600 lumen on the bars and a MS900 on the helmet which puts out around 600 actual lumens. I point the helmet light about 50 feet down trail, and the bar light about 20 feet. This makes it so that I have a fully illuminated area in front of my bike I don't even need to move my head to see (like riding in the day time). And the helmet light points far down trail for fast riding and to let me know what is coming up. I've run lights in all different combinations and this works the best for me. YMMV.


Again thank you for the help and nice set up as well for you. I'll try projecting them tonight like you said above as last night I had them set up pointing around the same feet of projection. The trails around here are tight wooded twisty single track so until I find a open trail I won't see the true potential of these lights.

........

Side note: Has anyone done a test on the Niterider 1800? Last years 1500 came in at 1100 actual lumens.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

The new testing is coming. I already have a ton of new lights and I will use the integrating spheres at Lezyne and Light and Motion factories.

Sorry I ran out of steam last year. Just too many copies of the same light 

This year, I will hit it hard for a solid two months.

fc


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

francois said:


> the new testing is coming. I already have a ton of new lights and i will use the integrating spheres at lezyne and light and motion factories.
> 
> Sorry i ran out of steam last year. Just too many copies of the same light
> 
> ...


welcome back!


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

francois said:


> The new testing is coming. I already have a ton of new lights and I will use the integrating spheres at Lezyne and Light and Motion factories.
> 
> Sorry I ran out of steam last year. Just too many copies of the same light
> 
> ...


 Looking forward to your reviews Francois. Cheers!!!


----------



## mb323323 (Aug 1, 2006)

Wow, it's been a year?

Go Giants!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy you are available to do this.

MB


----------



## Nitro26 (Nov 6, 2012)

Nice work on this thread


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

I have all kinds of lights but lately I've been riding with just an easy2led 3x XPG setup on my helmet. It's plenty of light and I've got an even brighter light engine coming that should take it over the top.


----------



## doof (Feb 14, 2007)

*OK, ...but what lights?*

...I dusted off my old school Niterider Firestorm and found that either the bulb, ballast or electronics is fried.
Niterider says that I would be better off going with new technology, for serious/technical nocturnal trail riding.


And, there are other choices out there.
I was looking at the Niterider Pro 1800 LED but concerned about the burn time and actual brightness.
The Light and Motion Seca 1700 Enduro looks promising, but it's a pricier unit and I am not sure about the mounting (helmet and/or bar).

Whattaya recomend?
Brightest, longest burn time, solid mounting ...I want it all.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

doof said:


> ...I dusted off my old school Niterider Firestorm and found that either the bulb, ballast or electronics is fried.
> Niterider says that I would be better off going with new technology, for serious/technical nocturnal trail riding.
> 
> 
> ...


 You asked for it!!!!!! Check out Gretna Bikes, if you can handle the sticker shock, either a Lupine Betty R,,,,,,it will knock your socks off literally, but is the best performing light in the market 3600 measured lumens. Or to ease the pocket book a little,,, the Wilma with 2400 measured lumens and super long burn times with the 11.2Ah Smartcore battery. I'm ordering two Betty R's myself any day now as i will be able to control both my lamp heads with a single wireless remote. Can't wait!!!


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Agreed. Lupine Betty is the end all be all of lights.

J.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

indebt said:


> You asked for it!!!!!! Check out Gretna Bikes, if you can handle the sticker shock, either a Lupine Betty R,,,,,,it will knock your socks off literally, but is the best performing light in the market 3600 measured lumens. Or to ease the pocket book a little,,, the Wilma with 2400 measured lumens and super long burn times with the 11.2Ah Smartcore battery. I'm ordering two Betty R's myself any day now as i will be able to control both my lamp heads with a single wireless remote. Can't wait!!!


No wonder you're indebt!


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

Need to add the Cygolite TridenX 1100 to the shootout. I just got mine yesterday and have already ridden it in the dark. I'm super impressed by its light output and run times (I have the Xtra version).

Not too bad a price either (I got mine for $270) though they list at $350.


----------



## Nothing's impossible (Mar 5, 2012)

The lupine betty with the 17,5 Ah battery will be the brightest and longest lasting solution, but before buying it, have a look at it in real live! 

It is insanely brigth, your old firestorm produced about 350/400 lumen , the betty 3600 lumen!

So before spending money, ask yourself: do I need more light on my bike than on a car?


A single light is also less efficient than a combination helmet/ bars!


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

Nothing's impossible said:


> The lupine betty with the 17,5 Ah battery will be the brightest and longest lasting solution, but before buying it, have a look at it in real live!
> 
> It is insanely brigth, your old firestorm produced about 350/400 lumen , the betty 3600 lumen!
> 
> ...


No-no.
The Betty is a little puppy compared to Full-Beam's latest toy, the X12.
Full Beam - High Performance Bike Lights

As I heard NASA ordered a couple for their new prototype rockets...


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

That X-12 is a monster in output. Would only be a bar light though unless your a football player with a 23" neck. That's just crazy!!


----------



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

radirpok said:


> No-no.
> The Betty is a little puppy compared to Full-Beam's latest toy, the X12.
> Full Beam - High Performance Bike Lights
> 
> As I heard NASA ordered a couple for their new prototype rockets...


That is one damn bright light. One up-man points earned. 

I figure the battery for these must weigh about 4 lbs. Down side is I'd have to spend more than I paid for my FS bike to get one. :nono: 

Oh, Oh! I almost forgot the kicker question: Does it run on a MagicShine battery? :ciappa::lol:


----------



## Nothing's impossible (Mar 5, 2012)

4500 lumen, that is a crazy lot of light, but i guess you will need to look twice to notice the difference between 3600 and 4500 lumen, it's not a puppy vs a dog, it's just a bit more insane!


Just to put things in perspective, older 55 watt halogen bulbs strugle to reach 1000 lumen output, and older reflector optics with a diffuser lens have an efficiency under 27%,so a lot of cars on the road have a total OTF output under 600 lumen, HID bulbs produce 2800-3200 lumen, and modern projector optics have an efficiency a bit over 50%, ..






Ok, they don't spill half of the light into the air, but carligths and windscreens seldom are clean, ....


----------



## PeterG (Mar 11, 2004)

Both mentioned above ale little puppies  compared to Czech project Zora Scorpion that delivers astonish 6150 lumens (output, ANSI) in 6 XM-L/U2 version with special copper PCB or 4850 lumens with standard (alu?) PCB. The English version of the pages is not finished yet (partly only), but all important information is understandable from the tables and graphs (e.g. comparisons with Lupine Betty14).


----------



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

PeterG said:


> Both mentioned above ale little puppies  compared to Czech project Zora Scorpion that delivers astonish 6150 lumens (output, ANSI) in 6 XM-L/U2 version with special copper PCB or 4850 lumens with standard (alu?) PCB. The English version of the pages is not finished yet (partly only), but all important information is understandable from the tables and graphs (e.g. comparisons with Lupine Betty14).


AWESOME!....Looking forward to the English website and the beam shots.


----------



## Nothing's impossible (Mar 5, 2012)

I would wait for next years 10 000 lumen version, that must be the bare minimum for mountainbiking!
And in case off a calamity you don't need a cellphone anymore, you can just point your light into the sky in SOS mode and the people from the international spacestation will alert the earth ;-)


----------



## PeterG (Mar 11, 2004)

Surely 10,000 lumens is minimum for mountain biking, so I always wonder, how can I ride with 700 OTF lumens on the handlebar plus 500 OTF lumens on the helmet...


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

PeterG said:


> Both mentioned above ale little puppies  compared to Czech project Zora Scorpion that delivers astonish 6150 lumens (output, ANSI) in 6 XM-L/U2 version with special copper PCB or 4850 lumens with standard (alu?) PCB. The English version of the pages is not finished yet (partly only), but all important information is understandable from the tables and graphs (e.g. comparisons with Lupine Betty14).


Hey Peter that light looks great.
At that price I might just consider buying two of those!
And Francois, if you are listening, you just absolutely gotta get your hands on one of these for your next shootout


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

OTF? What does that mean?


----------



## OldAusDigger (Apr 8, 2008)

kerryn said:


> OTF? What does that mean?


Out The Front. OTF lumens refers to the net or "real" lumen output after all losses from optics, thermal buildup etc are taken into account.
This is opposed to the theoretical max emitter output that the vast majority of light manufacturers quote.


----------



## Nothing's impossible (Mar 5, 2012)

In general I don't need 10 000 lumen, 560 and 360 lumen do the trick!

Here I rode with the piko at the bars at 900 lumen (the camera tends to need a lot of light) and 560 lumen on the helmet.Most people ride a lot less light!


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

One think I've noticed is that when it's wet I need more lumen to see the same as when it's dry. When it's raining, I need way more lumen than when it's just wet. When it's a little foggy, it doesn't matter how much you have, it's just hard to see  I've found that mounting the light up higher on my helmet helps in the rain/fog, especially with a visor on my helmet.


----------



## scar (Jun 2, 2005)

*I like riding bikes in the dark*

:thumbsup:






Untitled from Jay Buthman on Vimeo.

***


----------



## Nothing's impossible (Mar 5, 2012)

Scar, that is a cool video!

But for me, I wouldn't take it as fast on a first run, no matter how much lumen!
And after a few runs, knowing what 's coming, I wouldn't need more light than I normallly run!


about meteo,

in the fog I need to ride slow, 300 lumen down on the fork is ideal.
In the mud i ride a bit slower to, I most like the handlebar pointed down as a closby flood (not to brigth to avoid hotspots) and the helmet as a main lightsource providing a big brigth flood. i didn't profit yet from more light than 1500 combined lumen.

In dry condttions I use both lights pointed far away, in general more power on the handlebar, the full 1800 lumen is nice, but it's not making me ride faster than 1000 combined lumen.


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

Since I got my TridenX 1100 on the bars with my MityCross 480 on my helmet that I simply can't peddle fast enough any more to warrant more powerful lights. 

I may swap out my 480 on the helmet for the MityCross 800 but I see no urgency in that need.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

Titus Maximus said:


> No wonder you're indebt!


 Lol,, actually i'm doing OK Titus Maximus, but you are right,,,, i do spend to much money on bike lights.


----------

