# 500 Lumen Tail Light



## nitelights (Mar 16, 2010)

Nitelights 500 Lumen Tail Light - Dept of Adventure

Couldn't resist posting this one

Its been a long time in the making however its now available.

You want Mega Bright on the front!

Now have Mega Bright on the back!

Three lights on special at $50 USD including shipping if you want to do an independent review.

PM me if you want one to review


----------



## munchydoan (Nov 4, 2007)

Hey I can't seem to send you a PM but I'd like to take you up on your offer.
I have a couple of other lights I could compare it to- the Radbot and the Dinotte. 
You can email me back: munchydoan at yahoo 
Thanks,
Chuong


----------



## gmcttr (Oct 7, 2006)

Just my .02....it looks like you made an effort to insure there is no light from the side. That's not what I look for in a tail light.


----------



## lalato (Dec 2, 2010)

I have to admit, I like that there is a mode for one light steady on and the other flashing. I'll await the reviews before jumping on it... but I've definitely been waiting for a tail light like this in my price range.


----------



## lalato (Dec 2, 2010)

gmcttr said:


> Just my .02....it looks like you made an effort to insure there is no light from the side. That's not what I look for in a tail light.


Good point!


----------



## Azra (May 20, 2011)

I don't think this so-called "taillight" is worth $50. Heck, I don't think it's even worth $5.

But it is a good laugh.   :crazy:


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

Its good to see a gradual progression and effort on the part of some manufacturers to actually pursue an interest in the production of rear lights. Simple $20 blinkys just don't cut it anymore especially when you consider commuting conditions in this day and age.

Yes, some designs might be inherently better than others but in the end its what is built upon with future improvements that is important. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was amazed when elastomer shocks were 1st introduced back in the 80s (perhaps not the younger folk) and just look how far suspension technology has come today.....


----------



## Azra (May 20, 2011)

lalato said:


> but I've definitely been waiting for a tail light like this in my price range.


How much is your life worth? Just $50? :nono:

Do yourself a favor and get the Desighsnine DS-500. If they are all sold out, get the DiNotte 400R.


----------



## anekin007 (May 23, 2011)

im riding with 2 Portland design works danger zone facing the rear and cheapos for the side. I can be seen from a good distance even in fog.


----------



## Azra (May 20, 2011)

Chromagftw said:


> Its good to see a gradual progression and effort on the part of some manufacturers to actually pursue an interest in the production of rear lights.


Really? 

What I see there is a pathetic front light on which some idiot has slapped a vulgar piece of red acrylic. That's not a taillight. That's a joke. Actually, a scan since the idiot in question is trying to sell those "taillights" for $109.


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

_- EDITED -_

Dbl post from below, sorry.


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

Azra said:


> Really?
> 
> What I see there is a pathetic front light on which some idiot has slapped a vulgar piece of red acrylic. That's not a taillight. That's a joke. Actually, a scan since the idiot in question is trying to sell those "taillights" for $109.


^^^ I'm referring to the overall bike light industry in general, not Nitelights as a single manufacturer. ^^^

It's apparent not everyone can bust out a Pethelman!


----------



## Azra (May 20, 2011)

Chromagftw said:


> ^^^ I'm referring to the overall bike light industry in general, not Niterider as a single manufacturer ^^^


Well, where are those new taillights? I'm aware of only two well-designed, super-bright taillights that I feel are good enough for me to entrust with my life: the legendary DiNotte 400R and the even better Designshine DS-500.

If there is something out there that's even better and cost less money to boot, I'd *love* to know about it. Please tell!

_Edit: there's also the AftaBlasta which looks interesting and should offer 360-degree visibility, but I haven't seen it myself or been able to find a comparative review._


----------



## lalato (Dec 2, 2010)

Azra, those are good points. Right now I just have a blinky... so anything would be an improvement. As I noted above, I'll wait for some reviews before I buy anything. I've seen the DesignShine, it's pretty impressive. Saving my money as we speak, but it's slow going. Life happens.


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

Azra said:


> If there is something out there that's even better and cost less money to boot, I'd *love* to know about it. Please tell!


Re read post. I stated emphasis on rear light advancement is a welcomed progression that is gradually picking up speed. I'm all for this. Moving on.


----------



## nitelights (Mar 16, 2010)

munchydoan said:


> Hey I can't seem to send you a PM but I'd like to take you up on your offer.
> I have a couple of other lights I could compare it to- the Radbot and the Dinotte.
> You can email me back: munchydoan at yahoo
> Thanks,
> Chuong


Get in contact with us at [email protected]

Cheers

Kel


----------



## nitelights (Mar 16, 2010)

Azra said:


> Really?
> 
> What I see there is a pathetic front light on which some idiot has slapped a vulgar piece of red acrylic. That's not a taillight. That's a joke. Actually, a scan since the idiot in question is trying to sell those "taillights" for $109.


I am afraid you are wrong my friend.

This light has been designed as a tail light only.

The LED's are actually RED, not WHITE.

We have tested White light with a red lens and the reduction in light output was significant.

We then tested the RED LED's with different colours of lens until we were happy with the very aggressive nature of the red light being emitted.

We have had the RED LED's manufactured as a custom order and this has taken a significant investment.

The drivers have also been custom designed and manufactured for us.

This is very different technology compared to the lights you mention.

What is a $109 investment when your life is on the line.

We have tested these all year in New Zealand in very tough conditions. Even many hours mountain biking!

Our first shipments hit the market and were sold out immediately in New Zealand and Australia.


----------



## nitelights (Mar 16, 2010)

lalato said:


> I have to admit, I like that there is a mode for one light steady on and the other flashing. I'll await the reviews before jumping on it... but I've definitely been waiting for a tail light like this in my price range.


That was an important issue in the design.

We discovered that by having one light steady, the other flashing allows the motorist to get a proper perception of distance


----------



## Azra (May 20, 2011)

nitelights said:


> I am afraid you are wrong my friend.
> 
> This light has been designed as a tail light only.


Which is why it has no side visibility whatsoever. Great.

I've challenged you once. I'm challenging you again. Send me that light on a NET 30 invoice. If it comes anywhere near the DS-500, I'll immediately pay you $109.


----------



## nitelights (Mar 16, 2010)

Azra said:


> Which is why it has no side visibility whatsoever. Great.
> 
> I've challenged you once. I'm challenging you again. Send me that light on a NET 30 invoice. If it comes anywhere near the DS-500, I'll immediately pay you $109.


Sir,

We don't know you from a bar of soap and notice you joined MTBR only recently so don't think you have much credibility to be an expert tester.

The offer is on the table at $50, with the option of returning the unit for a full refund if required

Cheers


----------



## Azra (May 20, 2011)

The bar of soap would still like to know what happened to side visibility, if that's not asking for too much.

A few weeks ago I posted a video of the 400R and DS-500 from a 90 degree angle. Why don't you show us a video of your "taillight" from the side so we can all see that wonder with our own eyes?


----------



## nitelights (Mar 16, 2010)

Azra said:


> The bar of soap would still like to know what happened to side visibility, if that's not asking for too much.
> 
> A few weeks ago I posted a video of the 400R and DS-500 from a 90 degree angle. Why don't you show us a video of your "taillight" from the side so we can all see that wonder with our own eyes?


Will see what we can do for you tonight. From our experience videos and pictures don't do justice. Proof is in seeing the performance in the flesh.

That's why we offer a 30 day full money back gaurantee


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

nitelights said:


> I am afraid you are wrong my friend.
> 
> This light has been designed as a tail light only.
> 
> ...


Cool idea... but there are a few things that just don't seem right here...
250 REAL RED lumens from a single emitter? Come on... seriously? Clearly, from the picture of the product, the design is based on single emitters, NOT an arrayed emitter like the MC-E.

The only production die from CREE at the moment in RED are the older XR-C, XP-C and the latest XP-E
CREE | XLamp LEDs, leading the revolution in lighting

CREE has two color bins that could be considered "RED"
1) RED in the 610 to 620 nano-meter wavelength spectrum
2) RED-Orange in the 620 to 630 nano-meter wavelength spectrum

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the highest lumen rated group out of that whole bunch is the "P3 - RED/ORANGE." Rated at 73.9 lumens at 350mA. The max current drive for the die is 700mA, at which point you have now boosted the lumen output by approximately 190 percent.

So, 73.9 * 1.9 = 147.8 lumens. The highest output XP-E die in the RED category is the "N3" bin at 56.8 * 1.9 = 113.6.

And this is all before we go through the exercise on heating losses.

http://www.ledsupply.com/docs/XLampXP-E-1.pdf

Now, considering that it's a MAJOR news release from CREE when we move to the next technology (say XM-L vs. XP-G), where there is a modest 20% increase in efficiency, I find it HIGHLY unusual that we would not have heard that there has been some sort of quantum breakthrough for a RED LED putting out a WHOPPING 67% increase over the previous benchmark. Especially since it's been out long enough for you to sell "30000 worldwide."

Secondly,
It makes no sense whatsoever to put a red filter over a RED LED. It serves NO purpose whatsoever unless you are using some sort of non-RED emitter. In other words, let's say you didn't like the color of your RED/ORANGE emitter and you put a red filter over it. Guess what, you just knocked down the lumen count.

And while we're at it...
From the web site: "the light shines down towards the road so as not to blind the motorist but can still be seen well over a mile away!"
I'm confused as to why you would want to concentrate your world-record LEDs down towards the road. ut: No one needs anywhere near a 500 lumen taillight at night, so clearly the only reason for marketing it as such, would be for daytime use. In that case, you absolutely want your hard earned lumens pointing directly at the eyes of the traffic coming at you. At night, you would prefer to reduce the power output to preserve run-time, rather than aiming it at the road, if you could avoid it. There's no mention of brightness control on the website. And if that's the case, then OK, maybe the natural angle down on the seat post makes sense. Just doesn't seem to be the best use of that "significant investment" with CREE when considering that a lot of folks looking for a high powered taillight want it for daytime use.

And just as a note of usability... (from the web site). A 100Hz flash rate? Holy cow.  Make sure you include a warning that this light may induce seizures. I hope there's a slower flash rate as well.

Not saying it's not a bright light, just saying it's a far cry from the ideal daytime taillight and I'm calling foul :nono: on the 500 lumen claim until we see some official CREE datasheets. And at what time they are ever produced, I will stand happily corrected. And just to be clear, I do see innovation here, and a good attempt at filling the price/performance void between the $25 flasher and the $250 flame thrower. I think the innovative use of the "orange peel" reflectors (albeit small), will likely produce a good amount of usable light at wider angles (obviously nothing at 90, but few do). It just chaps my hide to see wildly unsubstantiated claims in advertising on the total lumen count.

Purely my opinion and two cents worth.


----------



## rschultz101 (Oct 5, 2009)

hypercritical !
you guys, it all might be true. no further comment necessary !

non the less, I give kudos, for bringing out a tail light.

with all the flaws, what counts, that it works, and people like it.
and it has a big feature, from a wired light, it won't run out of small AAA.
It's probably also better waterproof, or better switch, etc.

the best , is also the simple stuff, put those stupid reflectors back on.
the fancy stuff, is the reflective 3M tape, you can get it even in black.

for brightness, well, super bright is not necessary the best. otherwise, we be driving with high-beams,
and blinding others. as such, don't like too bright of tail lights, especially sitting at the traffic light.
if it is too bright, you'd only see the light, one of many on the road.
.... sharp shooter camo,.... wipe out the head-should triangle, and human recognition goes down the toilet. so those funky string christmas lights on the bike, make the bike rider, recognizable , 
as a bike rider, what makes the brain click.
one super bright tail light, where it's so bright, that you can't see the bike rider behind it, does not necessary serve the purpose. Streets are full of lights, and with traffic, also moving.
It's the head-shoulder, it's the round wheels with reflectors, it's the bike triangle, what makes the brain recognize.
so what's my DIY or best pick. well , do like those truck/school bus tail LED's.
found the smallest 2" , does not have super duper side spill, but works, and is DOT approved.
note: grew up in germany,... and approved tail light is mandatory.
a super-bright non approved one, be getting you pulled over and a ticket.
just some food for thought .
oh, maybe I should review it, but my light runs on 4s battery, so 12-17V be a must.
ideal 6-17V, that would cover 2s, 3s, and 4s bike batteries.
cheers, Rob


----------



## Azra (May 20, 2011)

rschultz101 said:


> note: grew up in germany,... and approved tail light is mandatory. a super-bright non approved one, be getting you pulled over and a ticket.


Apples and oranges. I too happen to have grown up in that neck of the woods and I know one thing for sure: people in Germany do not drive like in the US, especially not around bicyclists.


----------



## RE1GN2 (Feb 28, 2008)

Azra, stop hijacking the thread and forcing your strong opinions on the DesignShine onto people. We respect your opinion on the product, but it is *your opinion*. We've already heard you loud and clear, and you don't have to repeat yourself.

Please if you would like to recommend the DS-500 to others, do it in a positive way without the bashing of other products *or* other people.

I also don't think its appropriate, saying comments like "how much is your life worth? Just $50". You don't know the purchasing power or disposable income of other people and therefore not entitled to this harsh commentary. Not everyone can afford to spend X amount on a product and thats the way life is.

To those upgrading from a cheap walmart light to something more substantial, I salute you. Do a bit of research and make your own informed decision to your purchase, don't let others like Azra influence you or put you down.

Nitelights, haters are always gonna hate. Don't worry. Stay positive!


----------



## Azra (May 20, 2011)

RE1GN2, maybe you should take your complaint over to that clown at the Dept of Adventure. By exaggerating the lumen count by at least 300% (apparently a habit of his), he has invited comparisons to the DS-500.

And, no, I don't hate the product. I'm *laughing* at it. A bad design promoted as work of genius... lumens exaggerated with the kid of flair only P. T. Barnum could muster... bogus sales figures that would make Sam Walton envious... it really is hilarious, don't you think?


----------



## nitelights (Mar 16, 2010)

Azra said:


> RE1GN2, maybe you should take your complaint over to that clown at the Dept of Adventure. By exaggerating the lumen count by at least 300% (apparently a habit of his), he has invited comparisons to the DS-500.
> 
> And, no, I don't hate the product. I'm *laughing* at it. A bad design promoted as work of genius... lumens exaggerated with the kid of flair only P. T. Barnum could muster... bogus sales figures that would make Sam Walton envious... it really is hilarious, don't you think?


Why have you blocked your PM status?


----------



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

All this is very interesting. As far as this light goes I would like to know more...things like, :

1) What does it look like mounted on a bike.
2) Is there a U-tube video showing the different modes?

While I'm not saying the light is not bright I have to agree with some of the arguments that were made. I really am wondering why there is a red lens. If the led's are red what would be the purpose? It seems there is a claim to having custom red cree leds. At some point someone will likely verify that. I own a torch that uses the old red K2 leds and damn it is bright, very much a spot but at least 150 lumen I would think. Okay, maybe it is over-rated ( output wise ) but with torches being advertised at 1200 lumen does this really surprise anyone? I would like to see how one of these stacks up against the PBSF, Radbot, and Portland Designs. Since MS has a cheap rear light as well I would think that would be the best light to use in a shoot-out. I look forward to seeing some user reviews.


----------



## suba (Jun 25, 2009)

I'm of the school that if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck ....it's a duck.


----------



## BeanMan (Jul 6, 2006)

3) Can you be seen from the side. So far that has not been answered.


----------



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

BeanMan said:


> 3) Can you be seen from the side. So far that has not been answered.


Ya know I think the "side visibility" issue here is being pushed a little too hard ( as far as rear lights are concerned ). I'm not saying it isn't important but it isn't the primary issue when dealing with tail lights. As far as I'm concerned I want my tail light to grab the attention of the people who are approaching me from behind. The sooner they see me the better. Even more important ( when on the road ) is that cars see me when I am approaching THEM, particularly at intersections. In my opinion, a white flashing light ( slow strobe ) is best when going through intersections ( day or night ). Once I'm through I just turn the strobe off and continue with just the main light at a suitable level for the conditions at hand.

Since I do a lot of driving in the course of doing my job, I see a lot of different conditions on the road and often think about "What would be the safest way to ride?" in those conditions. It still amazes me that most of the time the people I see riding in the most dangerous places have absolutely no lights at all, front or rear! If I see someone using a cheap 3-led K-mart blinkie I'm thrilled!....And still, with all the miles I log everyday while driving, I still have not encountered ANYONE using a high lumen rear LED light. I've seen the PBSF's but only no more than a handful of times.

Now if I ever decide to commute to work I will have to ride a very dangerous 3 mile stretch of road as part of the route. Since this section of road has very little shoulder I would likely consider a DiNotte 140L ( amber or 200L white ) for rear use ( during the day ). With almost no shoulder to the road and traffic at 50mph I would want to be seen from the rear..BIG TIME!! I look at it this way...if you can't see a slow strobe ( over 100 lumen ), you can't see anything! :thumbsup:


----------



## LiveFreeThenDie (Mar 21, 2010)

I was also wondering how important side visibility is for tail lights. Unless a read rear light has a large forward component, but the time a driver can see it, I'm probably going to get hit. Having a bright light that can light up the pavement might help with cars approaching at an angle. But if a driver isn't looking to begin with, it doesn't matter what light you have. I think flashing lights are important because they distinguish you from cars.


----------



## ozlongboarder (Jan 12, 2004)

This is still working well for me. My wife and I use it during our day rides its so bright.

http://forums.mtbr.com/lights-night-riding/magicshine-red-lens-708764.html


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> I've seen the PBSF's but only no more than a handful of times.


Interesting. Here in Phoenix, AZ I see a TON of the Planet Bike Super Flashers, and or the sister lights. Maybe it's because I use one myself that I notice them, but we have a big strong cyclist constituency here and there are a lot of those super flashers on the back of bikes. For $30 I think they're a great rear light and the batteries last a long time.


----------



## vswope (Feb 6, 2011)

I too would like to see a youtube video of this. At approx $100, I assume the cables, housing, and battery pack are likely where costs were cut. For occasional light-duty use this will be acceptable for some, just as the MagicShine headlight is. Assuming the "real" lumens are even at half those claimed. 

Also, what is the run time for this at the stated 500 lumens and which Cree emitters are you using?


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Isn't it important to have light at the sides too though, not visible just from directly behind the bike?


----------



## vswope (Feb 6, 2011)

randyharris said:


> Isn't it important to have light at the sides too though, not visible just from directly behind the bike?


That depends on the intended use. At night in a busy urban area where a bike is part of traffic, then absolutely.

During the day on a rural road where vehicles are traveling 60+ MPH then side lighting becomes a none issue, there is little cross traffic. Intensity becomes the main point, and you can use every bit of 500 lumens in the daylight on a country road without it being overkill. Those hicks will slow down for a farm tractor before a bicycle. This light would do well in these situations IF it performs as claimed.

But yes, I suppose all things being equal with rear intentisty, I would purchase a light with side illumination over one that does not.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

vswope said:


> That depends on the intended use. At night in a busy urban area where a bike is part of traffic, then absolutely.
> 
> During the day on a rural road where vehicles are traveling 60+ MPH then side lighting becomes a none issue, there is little cross traffic. Intensity becomes the main point, and you can use every bit of 500 lumens in the daylight on a country road without it being overkill. Those hicks will slow down for a farm tractor before a bicycle. This light would do well in these situations IF it performs as claimed.
> 
> But yes, I suppose all things being equal with rear intentisty, I would purchase a light with side illumination over one that does not.


I definitely see your point though. We just ride different environments. For me the side visibility is probably nearly as important as rear, but I'm in a more suburban setting.


----------



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

randyharris said:


> Isn't it important to have light at the sides too though, not visible just from directly behind the bike?


No one is saying side visibility isn't important but there are other solutions for side visibility. Mini LED lights work very well for adding side visibility as well as reflector tape. I use a PBSF as well and find like most rear led blinkies, it too produces some light to the sides. I don't do major road riding at night but if I did I would use the "Frog" type lights for added side lighting for urban environments.


----------



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

For the first time I finally encountered someone using a rear light brighter than any other 
I've yet to see in person. I was in an urban environment and approaching a red light when I notice a bright red light coming through the windows of the cars in front and just off to the side. I was a good 1000 ft off and dag gone it this light was bright. Right away I wanted to get behind the rider so I could ID the light. Unfortunately the light changed and the rider and I were going different directions so I only got a brief view of the light from maybe 150 ft at the closest. It was in steady mode and had two vertical projection points. Very bright from head on but when the rider took off the angle changed and output dropped off to about 1/10th. Head on was awesome though. I figure the possible candidates to be one of the following... #1) Portland Designs Danger Zone, #2) Dinotte 300L rear, or #3) DiNotte 400L rear.

Dang it, next time I'll just follow the bugger...:thumbsup:


----------



## colleen c (May 28, 2011)

I dunno since I am still debating about weather a single brighter light source is better than several different light source spread out. It just seem that after so many X amount of lumens directed in one spot from one light source is being a waste. 

I run three MS tailight mounted horizontally with the two pointed slightly outward and even at that, it irritate cars behind me. I've seen driver pulling down their visor behind me while I am waiting for a green light to go. It is better if I run just two and leaving the cnter one off.

So in the process of going higher lumens with a single light which we have to turn down anyway, won't it be better to design multiple lower power lights that have a better spread than it would to have it all poointed in one spot and than we have to lower the power? Dunno, just scratching head and thinking.


----------



## pethelman (Feb 26, 2011)

colleen c said:


> I dunno since I am still debating about weather a single brighter light source is better than several different light source spread out. It just seem that after so many X amount of lumens directed in one spot from one light source is being a waste.
> 
> I run three MS tailight mounted horizontally with the two pointed slightly outward and even at that, it irritate cars behind me. I've seen driver pulling down their visor behind me while I am waiting for a green light to go. It is better if I run just two and leaving the center one off.
> 
> So in the process of going higher lumens with a single light which we have to turn down anyway, won't it be better to design multiple lower power lights that have a better spread than it would to have it all poointed in one spot and than we have to lower the power? Dunno, just scratching head and thinking.


Very cool setup. All things being equal, if you have the real estate to spread your lights out as you do on your carrier, then having multiple points of light is very helpful for night time distance perception. I'd run the outer two with just the high power LED on solid and the middle flashing. Although, you'll want to keep a close eye on the temps of the solid running lights since they are sort of "drafting" your carrier. They get smoking hot in the constant on mode without decent air flow. Pretty sure they don't have any temp protection built in, or if they do, it's WAY too liberal. Probably OK as long as you're moving at all, but if you sat for 5 minutes or more, it could be trouble.

In the daytime it's all about power and how well the beam is focused and/or spread (for off-angle, which you're addressing with the side facing lights). The MS taillight is about as good as it gets as far as power goes in the "inexpensive" department, but it just doesn't have the horsepower to really be a strong attention grabber compared to the high power options. To get multiple MS taillights to have the same impact as higher power single source options, you do at least have to be very careful with the aiming of each individual light so that the center of the beams come close to converging at some distance away.


----------



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

colleen c said:


> I dunno since I am still debating about weather a single brighter light source is better than several different light source spread out. It just seem that after so many X amount of lumens directed in one spot from one light source is being a waste.
> 
> I run three MS tailight mounted horizontally with the two pointed slightly outward and even at that, it irritate cars behind me. I've seen driver pulling down their visor behind me while I am waiting for a green light to go. It is better if I run just two and leaving the cnter one off.
> 
> *So in the process of going higher lumens with a single light which we have to turn down anyway, won't it be better to design multiple lower power lights that have a better spread than it would to have it all poointed in one spot and than we have to lower the power? Dunno, just scratching head and thinking.*


Here's some of my thoughts on rear light design: It would be nice to have an "All in one" rear light that covers all the bases for use in all conditions., from daytime to nighttime to rural to urban commuter. To do that I think you need one main bright led ( like the 140R ) pointing straight back. Below the main led a series of smaller leds similar to what the PBSF has. To complement this array and to provide wider angle projection, a concave body/lens with more smaller leds to the sides. ( maybe one 0.5 watt led to each side ) Then to make it ( almost ) perfect, a full selection of user programmable flash sequences with the main led being adjustable ( for brightness ) on a separate control.

With a setup like that I could see something like the main rear led being set on high and strobing like a PBSF only with the brightness of a Dinotte 140R. The side leds pulsing more slower with less brightness. For rural use it would be killer at that setting. In stop and go traffic you would lower the output of the main led a tad so as not to annoy people at the traffic lights.

Now set this all up in a body only slightly larger ( but wider of course ) than a standard PBSF and make it self contained like the Dinotte 300R and you have a winner! Oh, lets not forget the option for remote control which would be sweet! :thumbsup:


----------



## colleen c (May 28, 2011)

pethelman said:


> In the daytime it's all about power and how well the beam is focused and/or spread (for off-angle, which you're addressing with the side facing lights). The MS taillight is about as good as it gets as far as power goes in the "inexpensive" department, but it just doesn't have the horsepower to really be a strong attention grabber compared to the high power options. To get multiple MS taillights to have the same impact as higher power single source options, you do at least have to be very careful with the aiming of each individual light so that the center of the beams come close to converging at some distance away.





Cat-man-do said:


> With a setup like that I could see something like the main rear led being set on high and strobing like a PBSF only with the brightness of a Dinotte 140R. The side leds pulsing more slower with less brightness. For rural use it would be killer at that setting. In stop and go traffic you would lower the output of the main led a tad so as not to annoy people at the traffic lights.


Lots of good ideas and opinions being mentioned. The introduction of super bright rear lights does have a appeal for daytime use where not too long ago they were barely even useable for nights. It's good to see that new lights are being introduce like this Nightlites. So it seems that there is a new frontier to be explore with rear lights.

One big advantage I see with the higher power rear light is riding into the sun during dusk. In a design of that Holy Grail light, I think it should have a daytime mode where it full throttle and as much angle coverage. In night mode, maybe even some kind of auto dimming such that when a car is right behind you while waiting at the intersection, the light will cutback in power or something like that.


----------



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

colleen c said:


> ... In night mode, maybe even some kind of auto dimming such that when a car is right behind you while waiting at the intersection, the light will cutback in power or something like that.


Yeah, that would be cool but you would need some kind of movement sensor that I don't think exists in small form factor yet. On the other hand wireless remote control does. If you use mirrors a quick press to change modes would be fantastic.

Another idea would be to include a " slide in" main module that could accommodate upgrades as well as special "daytime modules"....The ideas just keep coming...


----------



## Torchy (Feb 7, 2011)

Two leds without a reflector looks like it would spread the light far and wide. 
Looks a good design to me, worth a try.


----------



## tb123 (Dec 20, 2011)

Torchy said:


> Two leds without a reflector looks like it would spread the light far and wide.
> Looks a good design to me, worth a try.


I think that may have already been done 

Red Zone 4


----------



## angerdan (Sep 18, 2017)

Now they offer the Red Zone 8: 
Red Zone 8 | NiteFlux


----------



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

angerdan said:


> Now they offer the Red Zone 8:
> Red Zone 8 | NiteFlux


You realize you dug up a thread that is more than 5 years old (?).:nono:
The Red Zone 8 has been around at least a couple years.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

Cat-man-do said:


> You realize you dug up a thread that is more than 5 years old (?).
> The Red Zone 8 has been around at least a couple years.


I was wondering why angerdan, whose previous posts are for the most part intelligent, would drag up a long dead thread about an apparently dead taillight. Then mention something about a different taillight that is far from new, exciting, interesting etc.


----------

