# MTBR Best of 2016 Awards: Best night riding light?



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Mtbr Best of 2016 Awards: Best night riding light - Mtbr.com

Not for sale yet, no full MTBR test (that I could find), seems odd it's the best of 2016. Considering the Lupine Piko is the runner-up they have my interest, love to see more information though.
Mole


----------



## rad3144 (Sep 28, 2016)

I felt their list was lacking. Specifically ituo xp3/xp4 no mention of it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

I felt as if their list was lacking as well. The 3rd place light model is incorrect. They're close, but that's still a big mistake.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Definitely would be nice if there were more light included (1 of everything would be ideal) but they are limited to what manufacturers/distributors send them and time. Hopefully 2017's shootout will include Ituo's more powerful lights since they seem to be the most popular models at the moment.

Still confused how a light that is still not available in 2017 could win a "Best of 2016" award. Also interested in what others think about the light from the little information we have?
Mole


----------



## rad3144 (Sep 28, 2016)

MRMOLE said:


> Definitely would be nice if there were more light included (1 of everything would be ideal) but they are limited to what manufacturers/distributors send them and time. Hopefully 2017's shootout will include Ituo's more powerful lights since they seem to be the most popular models at the moment.
> 
> Still confused how a light that is still not available in 2017 could win a "Best of 2016" award. Also interested in what others think about the light from the little information we have?
> Mole


Exactly

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Those companies paid big bucks for that. MTBR has no honest anything anymore, instead you "get what you pay for"

Plus it has the solarstorm split optic, you damn well know this is some cheap Chinese thing being markets as so.e "brand name" that they paid Francis a **** ton of money to put at the top of the list.

There was far better lights like that new xflare that were far more deserving of that list.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## ledoman (Apr 17, 2012)

It is not directly same as Solarstorm optics, but idea is about the same.

Here is picture of SS X5 for reference:


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

The more I look at their products, their Fenix knock offs. Their using Fenix optics.

And you won't see Ituo on anything from MTBR for some reason, they have all the Ituo lights and haven't seen anything yet besides the old wiz1/2 review.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Staypuft1652 (Oct 8, 2016)

tigris99 said:


> Those companies paid big bucks for that. MTBR has no honest anything anymore, instead you "get what you pay for"
> 
> Plus it has the solarstorm split optic, you damn well know this is some cheap Chinese thing being markets as so.e "brand name" that they paid Francis a **** ton of money to put at the top of the list.
> 
> ...


∆∆∆


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> tigris99 said:
> 
> 
> > The more I look at their products, their Fenix knock offs. Their using Fenix optics.
> ...


----------



## Dirt Road (Feb 6, 2016)

I'm pissed cause the bt21 with gloworm optics didn't make the cut! Wtf, MRMOLE! Kidding aside, looks like mtbr is becoming a roadie forum with commuter lights winning a mtbr shootout.....


----------



## rad3144 (Sep 28, 2016)

tigris99 said:


> Those companies paid big bucks for that. MTBR has no honest anything anymore, instead you "get what you pay for"
> 
> Plus it has the solarstorm split optic, you damn well know this is some cheap Chinese thing being markets as so.e "brand name" that they paid Francis a **** ton of money to put at the top of the list.
> 
> ...


I agree. Just got my xflare today  its crazy bright. Well designed too

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I would have liked to see the XP4 on there though, it's worth of a mention cause that thing is a monster, not that big with Ituo's fine tuning for the price.

I hate to make statements like I did but it's not the first thing on that "best of 2016" series that I have seen that's a freaking joke.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Staypuft1652 (Oct 8, 2016)

It is a bit ridiculous that the winner, one of the two options isnt even available. And the one that is, I saw no retailers. It also didnt really offer anything new, and they also seemed to use fenix' burst or turbo mode of lumen rating. If the beamshot is realistic, that would be useful for road use, but as previously stated, road, and the title of this parent website, don't mean one in the same.


----------



## rad3144 (Sep 28, 2016)

tigris99 said:


> I would have liked to see the XP4 on there though, it's worth of a mention cause that thing is a monster, not that big with Ituo's fine tuning for the price.
> 
> I hate to make statements like I did but it's not the first thing on that "best of 2016" series that I have seen that's a freaking joke.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


Someone had to say it.... 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> QUOTE=Dirt Road;12984389]I'm pissed cause the bt21 with gloworm optics didn't make the cut! Wtf, MRMOLE!


Lack of stinking awards doesn't change anything. You got yours and I've got mine so we're the lucky ones!!!



> Kidding aside, looks like mtbr is becoming a roadie forum with commuter lights winning a mtbr shootout.....


Totally agree and to me the main point why this award is inappropriate. I like this light from what I see. For people looking for a commuter light with a cutoff beam this is an award winner (as long as it ends up being good enough quality and not junk as some people suspect it might be). Point is this is aimed at a very small percentage of the bike light using population (at least in the US) especially in a mountain-bike forum.
Mole


----------



## patski (Dec 12, 2005)

Rod said:


> I felt as if their list was lacking as well. The 3rd place light model is incorrect. They're close, but that's still a big mistake.


I have a friend with the Leyzne, it rotates on his bar in ruff/fast condits, scary...

I see the test says, "they've fixed" this issue but I have doubts.

No Gloworm?????


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

For self contained the Wiz20 and the Gloworm light both spank the ones listed on that "Best of 2016" list. I agree with you guys, things are turning so much into "roadie" around here.

The other thing is they mention the beam pattern but the image of how those optics are aligned says that it's a elliptical optics rotated 90deg. So no cut off just a narrow strip of light in front of the bike.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Based on my recent research of lumens, run times and the ability to replace batteries...for self contained lights...I think the Ituo Wiz20 the Fenix BC30R and BC30 deserve to be on that list. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

tigris99 said:


> The other thing is they mention the beam pattern but the image of how those optics are aligned says that it's a elliptical optics rotated 90deg. So no cut off just a narrow strip of light in front of the bike.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


The way I see it there are two possible explanations for this. First is speculation but here goes. Looking at the optic in question (blown up) I think the bottom portion of the optic also has fluting positioned vertically to widen the beam (needed for XPG2 emitter) and what looks like horizontally positioned fluting on the top half that is not semi-circle shaped. I tried covering the top half of a single emitter optic and it gave me a very nice flat cut off on the top of the beam pattern. Speculating that manipulating the shape of the fluting could possibly direct all of the light (from the top half) down instead of spreading it out as a semi-circle shape would. Just pulling this out of my A** but it seems possible. Love to get my hands on that optic for a better look.

Second option is that those aren't real beam shots of this light. Marketing doesn't always equal honest advertising so this is also a possibility but hopefully not the case.
Mole


----------



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

Seems the MTBR site is having some problems. I just spent a half hour writing a post only to have the whole thing lost.  No option for restore either...

Oh well, I was only going to agree with tigris that the new Raveman lamp is pretty much a "Fenix clone". It does not offer a quick on the fly "exchange of batteries" option ( as far as I can tell ) which for me would be a paramount issue. The mount also does not "easy tilt" as far as I can tell ( easy tilt = Gopro type mount ). Perhaps not so important for commuting purposes but for mountain biking I would consider "easy tilt " a "must have feature" since the lamp will likely not have the same distance throw as a standard two emitter lamp using standard optics. 

As per what MRMole said about the beam pattern; I agree, no telling if the manufacturer's beam pattern photo's are going to be legit. If they are then this lamp should be an interesting option for a person who routinely rides paved commuter trails and wants a good bar lamp with decent run time and a cutoff beam pattern.

Personally if I were considering buying a two emitter self-contained lamp I'd likely go with the Wiz20. The only downside of that is that the Wiz20 doesn't offer a remote ( unless that has been changed with the newer models (?) ) I'd consider buying a Raveman lamp but only if it offered either quick on the fly battery exchange or a plug-in auxiliary battery option. Of course if I bought one and didn't like the beam pattern I'd be sending it back realllllly fast.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I'd love a light with a proper road-specific beam. That Ravemen looks interesting but is another unknown Chinese setup, from what I saw on the website. I'll withheld judgement till we see the 1200 commercially and see how it lasts, but I thought Francis said they were a group of guys who are in tune with the needs of cyclist. Well, maybe some background on these guys would be useful and relevant then. I do like the fact that they have a road-specific dedicated LED and maybe a reflector/projector. Hopefully it will be bright enough. The 900 has 400 dedicated to the max road light. That is not enough for me.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Thing is that a "road dedicated beam pattern" is in the eyes of the user. Motorcycles and cars are both for road and motorcycles have beams that are higher reaching than cars. And a cars cut off is only valid in low beam.

Takes a very specific reflector to create an "automotive" type cut off. Even what these guys are saying and Francis is going "round beams waste light" is partially BS and at most they use nothing more than an elliptical spot optic. 

The difference is that it creates an elliptical spot from left to right. Reduces light thrown out front which can be a waste as you can't really visually make use of it anyway. A round optic does the same thing when it's angled downward but from front of bike to create a narrow beam straight out. Mr Mole can get into more detail here as he uses elliptical spots rather religiously 

The road way would be to cut the beam off because there is still glare for oncoming traffic.

They market all this stuff trying to use existing optics designs and it just doesn't work any better than what we already have. 

To use optics means a cut off. Something as part of the face plate that extends out and angles over the optic slightly to cut off the upward glare (polished and anodized clear aluminum to reflect that extra light down in front) is really the only option to get a true cut off instead of using a specialized reflector.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Good observations Flyer. Agree 400 lumens not enough for road beam (in traffic). Would be OK for bike paths. Also want to see how the 1200 looks considering it will use XM-L emitters rather than the XP-G2's in the 900. While I have issues with this light receiving the top award it still has to have a lot going for it to end up there. Want to see a full MTBR evaluation. Also interested in availability of an additional cut-off optic so both sides would have that feature as I personally think 1200 lumens (car low beam limit) is the correct output for a cut-off equipped bike light in traffic. Not interested in the high-beam portion of the light till they can give me 1200 out of one side.
Mole


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

The method does not matter. If the beam is dim, it does not matter. If the beam is bright and has distance, you need a cutoff. It's really that simple, and why European standards are pretty strict and the cutoff impressive. Motorcycles do have cutoff and high beams...I have owned several. There is also a reason high beams are illegal to flash when cars are in front. For example, Minnesota says that distance is 500 feet. A cutoff and wide beam make a lot of sense on the road. Europe has specific rules that govern this, and lights that comply. I really cannot go using my Lupine Betty on the road, though I can get away with my 500 lumen Jet Lites halogen (though still not legal, I am sure). At least it will not blind oncoming traffic.


----------



## Staypuft1652 (Oct 8, 2016)

My only experience with elliptical optics is (I think) the cheap angel eye with the vertical grooves on surface. It provides a lovely rectangle beam. If there are (?) optics similar but that tightened up the angle compared to those, with a fenix/wiz20 design with 2 xm-l2's I would think that would make a decent road beam with sufficient power/throw, with a cut off on top of the beam without the need to somewhat waste light without the shiny hood, or over complicated reflectors with downward facing emitters, and odd beam profiles with lots of variances.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Here is an example of a German road-compliant dynamo light..Busch& Muller. Note the cutoff. This is what I would like to see- something along these lines anyway.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Ya over there the laws are much more strict and true cut offs are available. Here there is really no laws (except spotty local laws) about lights. None of which require cut off that I am aware.

It would be great to see proper beams made however they are done. I was just simply pointing out that elliptical optics from my limited use are about as close as it's going to get for standard round and it's nothing like the German engineered stuff. Lots of upward glare.

Gloworm and Ituo are the 2 similar lights that put efforts into a "hood" to minimize upward glare.

Mole don't you have beam shots using your elliptical spot optics? Those with a proper hood may do what you guys want for a cut off beam.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

tigris99 said:


> Mole don't you have beam shots using your elliptical spot optics? Those with a proper hood may do what you guys want for a cut off beam.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


Sorry, I don't like the way my camera takes night shots. Too many automatic settings and tends to make everything look the same. I only post wall shots (for beam shape). I have run dual Gloworm elliptical optics in my Wiz20 though. Did a good job of spreading the beam but definitely cut down on the throw. Using a BT40s (similar power) to compare it to the Wiz20 still had better throw, about equal width, a more intense beam but lost light around the front wheel and foreground. Top spill is definitely reduced but its a softer transition than a true cut-off.
Mole


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Ah ok, comparison against lights we all know works just as well coming from you.

You do a google search and they are almost non existent except their own pages and what Francis just put up.

Be curious if this light truly lives up to half the hype he wrote.


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

Flyer said:


> Here is an example of a German road-compliant dynamo light..Busch& Muller. Note the cutoff. This is what I would like to see- something along these lines anyway.


Now available in a battery light...
https://www.bike24.com/p2194214.html


----------



## Ravemen (Dec 8, 2015)

Hi guys, this is Bob from RAVEMEN. I just found this discussion concerning our lights on the forum today and there were a few speculations and some very disturbing and misleading comments which made me to have to post a reply on it.

Firstly , NO BIG BUCKS for it. Please don't spread such rumour and ungrounded comments and show respect to the editors' works. As I said, I myself found this discussion only on today(9th January), also the award result. I contacted and sent the lights to Francis on December 2016 for the 2017 lights shoot out and I had no clue of such awards was going on and Francis have not mention it to me either, even after we got the award! By the way, we are too small a company to afford such big bucks for the award.
(To tigris99, I am not sure what's your relationship with the ITUO brand, but obviously there are some business ties behind it. For the healthy discussion of the forum, I am really appreciated if you won't post such misleading comment on other brands. )

Secondly, the mimic or using of Fenix or the Solarstorm optics. We did know fenix lights bur haven't heard Solarstorm before, and our lens are far more complicate compared with them and we have our own patents for it. Exactly speaking, we designed our lights mainly with a simulation to automotive headlights, one like the low beam with cut off line and the other one for high beam with long beam distance.

Thirdly, the available of the lights. The PR900 has been available on the markets in some countries for some time in 2016. The PR1200 is our upgraded version to PR900 and will be released to the market in the end of March. So exactly to say, not both of them are still not available in 2017.

Forth, about the turbo mode. It is correct to say that the PR900 only puts out 900 lumens in turbo mode and 800 lumens at high since we use CREE XPG2 led. However, the PR1200 will be 1200 lumens at both turbo and high modes with XML2 led.

here is a review from our Japan retailers: » RAVEMEN (?????) PR900 PR600 ?????? ??????|??????? ????????????
they had some outdoor beamshot themselves.

Fifth, why no change of battery by users? It is a comprise for designing and developing a product, just like you can't change your battery on your IPhone. Our priority goal is to keep the light as compact and light way as we could. In fact, we believe the PR1200 and PR900 are the most compact self-contained dual leds light in the market compared with Cateye and Fenix, etc. Indeed, there might no new things on these two lights, however we did our best to combine the most useful features into one single product and it cost our team almost two years for this project.

keep upgrading...


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

No disrespect meant towards your company by speculations of how you got that award. There's a long list of why several products being on those lists don't belong there and all over social media it's the same response. Monetary gain for MTBR.

In this case this is a mountain biking forum giving an award to a light that doesn't exist yet from a company that is limited to China (and Japan it seems) and that specializes in road lights. Missing a lot of details of what mountain bikers want. The light at the very least belong in the road bike side of things.

On a final note you claim 800 lumens from an xp-g2.... I'm sorry but not even possible out of a production light. That requires twice it's specified drive current. Xp-g3 can't even do that in a production light. The heat issues not to mention run times less than 45 minutes. It requires at minimum an XM-L2.

Also, welcome to MTBR. These guys here know more about led bike lights than many brands design engineers. Were a bunch of light needs around here.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ravemen (Dec 8, 2015)

tigris99 said:


> No disrespect meant towards your company by speculations of how you got that award. There's a long list of why several products being on those lists don't belong there and all over social media it's the same response. Monetary gain for MTBR.
> 
> In this case this is a mountain biking forum giving an award to a light that doesn't exist yet from a company that is limited to China (and Japan it seems) and that specializes in road lights. Missing a lot of details of what mountain bikers want. The light at the very least belong in the road bike side of things.
> 
> ...


Hi tigris, I understand that it did look a bit weird for a product which no one knew before came into the list unexpectedly. However, I could not agree that our company is only specialized in road lights. For 800 and 1200 lumens, it will be enough for mountain biking at night(maybe not for really fast speed). With a cut-off low beam on them simply does not mean these are road lights only. Besides I sent another light, the CR300 which only has one led and with the cut-off beam for the commuter light shoot out only.

Also, when I said 800 lumens, I mean two XPGs and as you can see, these are dual leds light.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I misunderstood which light I was looking at, dual xp-g2 makes more sense.

Also I didn't say "only road lights". Simply "specializing in" road lights. Youre lumens are plenty for trail riding after dark and a cutoff beam is useable bit limiting. So can be used for mountain biking but "geared towards" road/commuting use.

As I said before I had no negativity towards your lights or company (we were all just speculating on designs because they don't exist outside of your factory). Derogatory matters were solely meant for MTBR. It's not about MounTain Bike Riders anymore. A lot of that has been lost to become "dirt roadies" and possible "gains" for those that run the website.


Personally I'd like to see a company finally pull off a true cut off beam using optics, we have yet to see it done outside of a reflector system.
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ravemen (Dec 8, 2015)

Tigris, I truly believe that you have no offense towards us and I could feel that you are a nice guy too from the above two comments. Indeed, we are still looking distributors in the US market and we didn't do any review on forum beforetoo. That's why most of your guys didn't hear us. But our products did are avaiable in some European and Asia countries since 2016.


----------



## rad3144 (Sep 28, 2016)

Sigh....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dirt Road (Feb 6, 2016)

It seems to me, fc was looking for new tech and disregarded every good mtb light (goworm, Ituo, Gemini). But as with most reviews, I take such with a grain of salt.
I seriously doubt Raveman will offer a NEUTRAL WHITE version, which further pushes that light to the road use only (for me anyway).


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I have plenty of MTB lights...I can rest assured that the Ravemen is not going to come close to them. That said, it will be much cheaper so there is that...and not a consideration for me. It will be a draw for new users or users looking to replace lights. At this point, the road-capability (and dual-capability) attracts my attention but not with 400 lumens. I have routes that have single track and trail offshoots so that might would be nice to have. I truly do worry about sliding drivers with my bright offload-light setups. 

Looking forward to more specific information Bob (I'll assume he is from China) can provide on the new 1200. 

Regarding the battery-powered Busch & Muller linked above, the mount is great for a commuter above the front fender but it would be tough to position that on the handlebar. A few more Lux would be nice but for a normal commuter and a commuter bike, that is a great option. If I had a real city commute, I'd just build a commuter type of bike with fenders and a dynamo front-wheel setup and just carry a light backup battery-powered light as a backup. Those dynamo lights last forever and make sense.


----------



## Stark (Apr 29, 2008)

tigris99 said:


> ...Personally I'd like to see a company finally pull off a true cut off beam using optics, we have yet to see it done outside of a reflector system.
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


I probably don't understand you fully, but this is a list of some StVZO approved lights with cutoff using optics as a tool to get the desired effect.

Supernova Airstream 2 | Bike Lights

SIGMA SPORT
SIGMA SPORT
SIGMA SPORT
SIGMA SPORT

https://r2-bike.com/KNOG-front-light-Blinder-Mob-StVZO-front-white-LED
https://r2-bike.com/KNOG-Front-Light-Blinder-Beam-StVZO-170-Lumen
https://r2-bike.com/KNOG-Front-Light-Blinder-Beam-StVZO-220-Lumen
https://r2-bike.com/KNOG-Front-Light-Blinder-Beam-StVZO-300-Lumen

https://www.cube.eu/equipment/zubehoer/beleuchtung/product/cube-front-light-pro-18-black/
https://www.cube.eu/equipment/zubehoer/beleuchtung/product/cube-front-light-pro-25-black/
https://www.cube.eu/equipment/zubehoer/beleuchtung/product/cube-front-light-pro-50-black/

HL-EL560G-RC | CATEYE
HL-EL550G-RC | CATEYE

I have the Cateye Gvolt50.

Peace!


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

tigris99 said:


> Those companies paid big bucks for that. MTBR has no honest anything anymore, instead you "get what you pay for"


Hey Tigriss, what's the dollar value of the lights gifted to you from ITUO?


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

What about the other lights, Xeccon, Gemini, Gloworm, Night Fighter and so on??? All have or had good lights. I have all of them.

Why pick out just Ituo? When I said products I thought were more deserving of the award there were other brands/products I listed before Ituo. Why are those not mentioned? Like the Xflare??? I give credit where it's due, regardless of anything else.

And I know for a fact that some of the MTBR Reviews by FC there was money involved.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

tigris99 said:


> Why pick out just Ituo?


Because it's in your sig.

Disclaimer: I got a free torch from ITUO.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Except I wasn't saying anything about Ituo directly. My signature and current affiliations have no bearing on my posts here.

My first thought and post of a product that better deserved an award was the Xflare.

Please read everything in context when questioning my motives because I have none besides that I feel a product that is in testing doesn't deserve a "best of the year award". There are several products that were new innovations that have been available for months. IMHO a "best of the year" award should be given to products that normal people are raving about. Not by one person who has the power to post it as MTBRs yearly award while besides the sample they don't exist.

PS I mentioned Gloworm multiple times and those light I bought for myself, wasn't even gifted 

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Stark said:


> I probably don't understand you fully, but this is a list of some StVZO approved lights with cutoff using optics as a tool to get the desired effect.
> 
> Supernova Airstream 2 | Bike Lights
> 
> ...


Stark, I have not seen those before, first time they've been mentioned that I know of but many have mentioned the cut off design being desirable for road use. So comes as a surprise (though I need to check if those are in the US or not, plenty in EU which I should have clarified) to see that list.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

The Supernova linked a few posts back...

Supernova Airstream 2 | Bike Lights

has a "feature" that makes me think the folks at Supernova don't do much real world testing or use. The optic they show has a deep central cavity that appears to be open to the world. My experience with another optic of similar design (Ledil Iris) is once you get some dirt in the cavity the apparent light output is dramatically reduced. It's a PITA to clean out also.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

That's a lot of light head for 205 lumens...

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ravemen (Dec 8, 2015)

Stark said:


> HL-EL560G-RC | CATEYE
> HL-EL550G-RC | CATEYE
> 
> I have the Cateye Gvolt50.
> ...


Hi Stark, thanks for sharing the list. We have our product CR500 tested in Korea and the tester compared with it to cateye too. The cateye volt 800, however it has no cut off line. He took some indoor beamshots comparision here.

I know your guys want to talk about the REAL mountain bikelights and maybe no more cut-off topic for road biking. But please allow me to give one more details about this topic in case of further confusion or misleading. That is our lights with dual lens are not strictly conformity to STVZO and we have not applied for the certification of the standard though our lights does have the cut-off and anti-glare beam function.


----------



## dave_f (Mar 11, 2004)

I don't frequent MTBR that often, but I did notice the award for the PR900/1200. I don't ride much at night (MTB) but I do commute year round in Germany.

I've been using a Supernova Airstream (1) for about 5 years now. The build quality is quite good, and it has been reliable so far.

The battery has held up well. I'd estimate it still has quite a bit more than half the capacity after about 400 charge cycles



Vancbiker said:


> The Supernova linked a few posts back...
> 
> Supernova Airstream 2 | Bike Lights
> 
> has a "feature" that makes me think the folks at Supernova don't do much real world testing or use. The optic they show has a deep central cavity that appears to be open to the world. My experience with another optic of similar design (Ledil Iris) is once you get some dirt in the cavity the apparent light output is dramatically reduced. It's a PITA to clean out also.


The central cavity is a pain if it's snowing since it tends to collect there. Dirt has not been a problem since my commuter has fenders.

Some other issues:

- Runtime is drastically reduced and the runtime indication is inaccurate when temperatures are below freezing. To help offset this, I put a neoprene sock over the body in winter.

- The bar mount is not stable enough and requires readjusting after removal. I replaced it with a slide-on mount from an old Cateye.

Technically speaking, there is a legal requirement to run a light with a certified cutoff here. Certified also means the light has to be tamper-proof.

Practically speaking, the cutoff gets you varied results due to the fact that a lot of cyclists simply don't bother to adjust their lights correctly (vertically).

Part of my route is on two-way bike path. I'd hope fellow cyclists would see the benefit of using a light with a cutoff pointed correctly (although poor lighting is better than the people with no lights).

Part of my route connects via unlit back road. Either due to the increasing use of automated assistance, or simply because drivers don't think they should switch off their high beams, I find it often necessary to tilt my light up temporarily to let them know there is another traffic participant coming.

So the RAVEMAN light sounds just about right -- I think the combination cutoff beam/high beam might be useful, even though it's not legal.

There aren't many sources in Europe, but I was able to find one or two shops selling the PR600/900. Since it looks like it has the same cutoff beam as the PR900 and is cheaper, I'll be giving the 600 a try. If it works better than the Supernova (same or better cutoff beam, accurate capacity estimate and operation below freezing), I'll consider the PR1200 when it becomes available. If not, I'll keep using the Supernova.

Thanks to MTBR for the heads-up (even though it's not really an MTB product).

If anyone is interested I can post some impressions when the PR600 shows up.


----------



## Dirt Road (Feb 6, 2016)

Post away! look forward to your impressions. This is a mtbr forum, but a lot of light junkies (yes, I'm one)!


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I always saw light geek or nerd, but Dirt you have it much more correct for us around here. Damn LED lights are like crack! I blame Mole, Cat, Garry, Vanc and such, damn peer pressure.....my parents warned me of that (I think)


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> Dirt Road said:
> 
> 
> > Post away! look forward to your impressions. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Ravemen (Dec 8, 2015)

dave_f said:


> There aren't many sources in Europe, but I was able to find one or two shops selling the PR600/900. Since it looks like it has the same cutoff beam as the PR900 and is cheaper, I'll be giving the 600 a try. If it works better than the Supernova (same or better cutoff beam, accurate capacity estimate and operation below freezing), I'll consider the PR1200 when it becomes available. If not, I'll keep using the Supernova.
> 
> Thanks to MTBR for the heads-up (even though it's not really an MTB product).
> 
> If anyone is interested I can post some impressions when the PR600 shows up.


Hi Dave. It would be glad to see some real customers feedbacks here. I've lots of pictures and beam shots but I will not post here by myself since I am the insider and it is just no convince for seeing such things from a person related to the brand. So the best way is to try to post some other real users test I knew before and would be love to see more in this thread too.

By the way, for the capacity estimate in low temperature. I am afraid all the products using lithium-ion or Li-polymer would have such issue because all these kinds of batteries in low temperature will not perform as well as in normal times. I don't have Supornove's light, so I cant' judge which one is accruate. The best way to reduce this problem is to use the heat generated by the Led itself. That is to keep the light indoors on high output for a monments and to warm the battery before riding.


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> Ravemen said:
> 
> 
> > . I've lots of pictures and beam shots but I will not post here by myself since I am the insider and it is just no convince for seeing such things from a person related to the brand.
> ...


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I'm in TOTAL AGREEMENT with Mole. As long as info is honest by all means please share what you have.

Come out of the darkness and into the light 

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



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

Ravemen said:


> *Fifth, why no change of battery by users? It is a comprise for designing and developing a product, just like you can't change your battery on your IPhone.* Our priority goal is to keep the light as compact and light way as we could. In fact, we believe the PR1200 and PR900 are the most compact self-contained dual leds light in the market compared with Cateye and Fenix, etc. Indeed, there might no new things on these two lights, however we did our best to combine the most useful features into one single product and it cost our team almost two years for this project.
> 
> keep upgrading...


...which is why I'd never buy a phone without a _*replaceable battery option_ ( *although with a phone it's not that important as most people have mobile phone charging options ). I have to agree with tigris that it does seem a stretch to claim to get 800-900 lumen out of two Cree XPG2's.....Anyway, I think you underestimated the usefulness of being able to switch out batteries but as I see it that is a marketing decision. For me, not to have an easy access battery compartment would be a deal killer.

Also worth mentioning; your product claims to be able to charge a phone. I suppose some people might like that but I can't help but think that if that's so than the circuitry in the unit is going to have a parasitic current draw even when it's not being used. That might not be a big issue if you charge the unit every day but if you're also using it to give your phone a boost every now and then, then perhaps now you understand why I think having the option to switch out batteries would have been a very useful option.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

Cat's right on the money with his thoughts on a non-removable battery. 

Regardless of whether it can charge USB devices or not, any single switch, microprocessor controlled light, will have a parasitic drain on the battery. Depending on the driver design, it may be really small, but still there. For the rider that may not use their light for several months (commuter maybe?) that drain may result in a dead battery. If the cells have their own low voltage cut-off protection they would just need recharging to be usable. If the cells did not have a protection circuit and the light just relied on voltage sensing in the driver, then the cells would likely be over-discharged. With Li-Ion cells that pretty much kills them.


----------



## Ravemen (Dec 8, 2015)

*To Mole and Tigris:* It is very kind for you to say so. I will see what I could do and honesty will always be my first principle when discussing the products.

*To Cat,*


Cat-man-do said:


> ...which is why I'd never buy a phone without a _*replaceable battery option_ ( *although with a phone it's not that important as most people have mobile phone charging options ). I have to agree with tigris that it does seem a stretch to claim to get 800-900 lumen out of two Cree XPG2's.....*Anyway, I think you underestimated the usefulness of being able to switch out batteries* but as I see it that is a marketing decision. For me, not to have an easy access battery compartment would be a deal killer.
> .


Not really. In fact I held the same belief like you to never buy a phone without a replaceable battery option before. So I completely understand what you mean. It is just a pity that now few brands are offering such phones so I have had to buy my last two phones which without replacing battery.

As for the parasitic current, Vancbiker had made an explanation. However, no worry about the dead battery. We adopt the same and matured technology widely used in powerbank in our lights.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

Ravemen said:


> ......However, no worry about the dead battery. We adopt the same and matured technology widely used in powerbank in our lights.


Does that mean your battery or driver circuit has a low voltage protection circuit? If so that erases my concern posted above. If not then please explain the "matured technology widely used in powerbank".


----------



## Ravemen (Dec 8, 2015)

Yes. I've confirmed with our eletrical engeneer that the driver circuit or the microchip has a low voltage protetion circuit which will cut off the battery completely in certian voltage. The exact setting might be vary for different batteries. Also, should the battery over-discharge, the charging circuit will firstly charge the battery in low current to activate the battery and then return to normal charging current when the voltage reaches to certain point to reduce the damage to the battery. Li-Ion cells have been in the market and widely used in many area for sometime. Thus the technology of over-charging or over-discharging protection is really matured.


----------



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

Ravemen said:


> .....As for the parasitic current, Vancbiker had made an explanation. However, no worry about the dead battery. We adopt the same and matured technology widely used in powerbank in our lights.


Yes, what vancbiker said is true but he was referring to the circuitry in most bike lights that "Don't" have a USB charger built in. USB chargers use a step-up voltage regulator ( if they are using two 18650 cells in parallel ). If in series than the lamp is stepping down the voltage. Either way I would think that if power is being applied to the USB port ( even when in stand-by ) that the circuit used to supply that power is going to use significantly more parasitic current than a normal bike light.

The reasons I have for thinking this is because I have a two cell power bank for phone charging. I noticed that it I left the batteries in the bank unit that the batteries would loose charge if I let it sit long enough without using. Years ago I owned a 4 ( 18650 ) cell battery that had a built in 6 volt regulator. This battery I used to power one of the early DiNotte 200L's. It worked very well but I had to charge the battery before every ride because the regulator circuit would significantly drain the battery if it sat for more than a week. It got to be a PITA so I upgraded to the 600L. Of course all of this can be avoided if the circuit ( to the regulator ) has a on/off switch. Mine didn't and nor does the cheap power bank I own.

I realize of course that your lamp/charger might have a more sophisticated circuit so perhaps it doesn't operate that same way. Since there really is no real way to know ( for the buyer ), speaking for myself I would shy away from anything that has a built in USB charger. ( *Note; this is why I never bought one of those cheap 4-cell battery holders with USB charger built in )


----------



## Ravemen (Dec 8, 2015)

Hi guys, I guess I might try to post some products' pictures firstly for your better understanding of our lens due to there are no detailed pictures available on our website. I will not deny that the outside part of the lens looks like Fenix or the Solarstorm, but the inside one is quite different from them. The magic things is that once you put these two parts together, you could get an wide and even flood light with cut-off beam, which is also different from most of the STVZO beams limited in narrow space. Below the lights are PR900 and CR500.


----------



## ledoman (Apr 17, 2012)

Ravemen, interesting. Can you post pictures of lenses alone from different angles? It seems to me the right PR900 and CR500 are not TIR lenses since they have vertical "vawes" on back side. At least I see them that way. Left PR900 could be TIR lense, though.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Also, please leave a sample of your lights plugged in to charge constantly and ensure they do not overheat. I'd like more manufacturers to make sure they don't catch fire from overheating or whatever. I need to buy a metal bucket and charge stuff in there, after setting it on top of a metal stool and a wood base.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I have never had something overheat and catch fire on a USB charger. Especially something that's inside an aluminum housing....

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



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

Cat-man-do said:


> Y...I realize of course that your lamp/charger might have a more sophisticated circuit so perhaps it doesn't operate that same way. Since there really is no real way to know ( for the buyer ), speaking for myself I would shy away from anything that has a built in USB charger. ( *Note; this is why I never bought one of those cheap 4-cell battery holders with USB charger built in )


....some follow up on my last thoughts. I suppose a lamp that uses a USB port for charging ( and for discharging into an outside source like a phone ) has the one USB port for two separate functions. I suppose it's conceivable that the circuit in the port has a type of switch that senses the plug voltage to know if it's to be accepting a charge or discharging to a different device. Some of the cheaper USB chargers ( battery banks ) just use two different ports ( one to charge, one to discharge ).

Since the Raveman lamps don't have the option to quickly remove the batteries their is no way to test if the lamp is significantly discharging when in stand-by. I guess if you like the lamp you just have to toss the dice and hope for the best.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Looking at the set up, I think the system is actually a mix. It's a tire then the cut off is a separate piece over the wide angle optic. Looks to be made of the same material (optical grade pmma) but it uses its relfective properties to reflect the upper have of the beam pattern downward, creating a cut off.

That would be my theory. But it is definitely an optic to start with from the LED.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

tigris99 said:


> Looks to be made of the same material (optical grade pmma) but it uses its relfective properties to reflect the upper have of the beam pattern downward, creating a cut off.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


This is the part I'm curious about. Want to see the shape of the horizontal fluting on the top half of the cover lens. Thinking they used a prism effect to bend the light downward. Hope they don't mind sharing this info with us.
Mole


----------



## dave_f (Mar 11, 2004)

*PR600 impressions*

Before purchasing -- The Ravemen website does give you a good overview of their products and intended application in English. Unfortunately, the product documentation is not available online, so it is difficult to determine exactly how the product functions before you buy one. Also no mention of where to get one. The "About Us" doesn't say where the company is located, how many employees they have, or when they got started. Based on the info available, I probably wouldn't have picked one up without the mention of it on MTBR. Ravemen as a company name is not the best idea if your customers search the web for your product. Calling your company Look is worse, though 

Documentation -- The light came with a Headlight Manual and a Warranty Card in English and Chinese (I assume). The manual covers installation and operation, a few details omitted (like the fact that the mount can be adjusted for horizontal rotation). Although the device does carry a CE mark, I suspect there are some requirements missing for selling these here in Europe (original language manual, local contact address for service and warranty issues, recycling information, etc.)

Installation -- The light came with a slide-on type handlebar bracket and some foam strips for adapting to 22.2, 25.4 or 31.8mm bars. The mount seems solid enough for the weight of the product (PR600). The light came with enough charge to operate in full power mode when unpacked (otherwise I would have returned it).

First Impressions -- My usage pattern is commuting including lit and unlit two-way bike paths and unlit back roads, so I chose the PR600. The unit itself makes a reliable and well-constructed impression for this price class, with labelled rubber covers on the USB in and out ports. Since the packaging says it can be submerged in 2m of water for up to 30 minutes, and there is no mention of the rubber covers needing to be closed, I was tempted to verify this (but I chickened out). After charging, I mounted it alongside a Supernova Airstream I have used regularly for the past 4 years for comparison.

The colour temperature of the PR600 is fine, some older or cheaper lights tend too much towards the blue. The high beam colour appears to be warmer on the unit I have. The light output pattern on low beam as compared to the Airstream is more uniform horizontally. The Airstream has an intensity pattern that is well matched to the distance at which the beam meets the road surface, with a sharp vertical cutoff, but also a pretty sharp cut-off horizontally. Subjectively, the road coverage of the Airstream is a bit better, but the PR600 low beam has more light to the sides, which is helpful when negotiating sharp turns, for example. When the additional high beam is also lit, the PR600 appears to have a bit longer throw and be a bit brighter than the Airstream.

Temperature -- It's winter here and temperatures can get down to -20C or lower. My first trip was only slightly below freezing. It takes me about 50 min. to get home after work, so the light gets to come out of room temperature, and then it goes down from there. It worked fine for the first trip, and was still showing >50% when I arrived home. To check, I put it in the freezer for 1 hour (-18C). After taking it out, the light came on fine, and the silicone-type press buttons were still flexible enough to be used. The flat main switch is flush with the housing, which is probably good since you press on this longer to turn the light on. It does mean you can't really locate it by touch with winter gloves on. The temperatures are set to go down to about -9C next week, so we'll see.



Ravemen said:


> By the way, for the capacity estimate in low temperature. I am afraid all the products using lithium-ion or Li-polymer would have such issue because all these kinds of batteries in low temperature will not perform as well as in normal times. I don't have Supornove's light, so I cant' judge which one is accruate. The best way to reduce this problem is to use the heat generated by the Led itself. That is to keep the light indoors on high output for a monments and to warm the battery before riding.


It depends on the operation of the light. If the light automatically reduces its output when <50% of capacity remains, this will be at maybe half nominal capacity at -20 as what it would be at room temperature. If the battery is aged, and if the 50% point is determined solely by voltage (not temperature), the light can become useless or unreliable in the cold. If it uses a fuel gauge type run time indicator, that should account for temperature.

Some first thoughts

There is a handlebar switch included which plugs into the micro USB port. This mimics the function of the Menu button to change intensities or output maximum brightness if held down longer. I decided not to use this: 1) Since this is a high beam/low beam light, you would like to be able to switch high/low like in a car, not change intensities. I think the button has the wrong function 2) I worry that having the cover flap open for the switch cable invites dirt and water ingress 3) When the light is not attached to the bike, you either have to leave the cable flopping around or mount and unmount the switch each time.

I personally am fine with the battery being built-in. I think this configuration is simpler and more reliable, and although I would have had reservations not so long ago, my current laptop (non-removable), phone (removable) and the Airstream (non-removable) have all had the battery live as long as the service life of the equipment. I think lithium batteries are improving. That said, if I lived in Norway being able to choose the type of battery might be essential. The lithium batteries used in most lights are intended for laptop applications indoors, a high discharge rate type or different chemistry may be needed if it is regularly really cold outside. I obviously don't know if the cells will last through 5 winters. The micro USB port should be good for the life of the device if not mechanically damaged.

The vertical cutoff of the low beam is subjectively not as sharp as it appears in the beam shots. Since eyes respond logarithmically, the cutoff needs to be really sharp to prevent blinding oncoming traffic at high output levels. I would say the PR600 or PR900 low beam is maybe acceptable, I need to stand the bike outside at night and take a look from 50m away in the dark. I would be hesitant to purchase a light with similar pattern and more intensity, especially since it can't pass legal requirements and is essentially illegal for road use here. Pointing the light down further leads to a beam pattern with a bright spot in the middle with high/low on. It has to be pointed precisely to have the high beam in the right place.

The optics pattern is partly applied to the outside of the window. Water/snow may tend to collect there and ruin the beam pattern during use.


----------



## dave_f (Mar 11, 2004)

MRMOLE said:


> This is the part I'm curious about. Want to see the shape of the horizontal fluting on the top half of the cover lens. Thinking they used a prism effect to bend the light downward. Hope they don't mind sharing this info with us.
> Mole


You can find some pictures with the lenses disassembled if you search for them (I'm not going to take mine apart -- yet). The low beam has a "fresnel prism" for directing some of the light downward on the exterior surface. A comparison with exposure's optics might be useful.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

OK I didn't expect to be completely right... But there it is, found that picture. by mistake I might add, was just checking out their stuff and looking for beam shots and found that

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Awesome, picture reveals a lot! So now we know the basic construction of the front of the light and glimpse of interior which looks pretty clean from what I can see (good sign). Picture also raises questions about how efficiently fluting/prism area of outside optic cover will project available light. At this point no mystery that it projects light downward but still curious what shape fluting was required to do this. Also would like to see beam pattern of top and bottom of the "road" side and measure any output differences between the two. Thanks for digging up that picture Tig.
Mole


----------



## Ravemen (Dec 8, 2015)

ledoman said:


> Ravemen, interesting. Can you post pictures of lenses alone from different angles? It seems to me the right PR900 and CR500 are not TIR lenses since they have vertical "vawes" on back side. At least I see them that way. Left PR900 could be TIR lense, though.


I am sorry that I was too busy to answer your question these two days. But tigris has found the picture I had planed to took which would solve your puzzle.



Flyer said:


> Also, please leave a sample of your lights plugged in to charge constantly and ensure they do not overheat.


I am not sure whether I get your point or not. Once the light finishes charging, the current would be very low and cause no heat at all even you let it plug in the charger constantly. The light does get warm during charing, just like anyother electronics, but not enough heat to say hot.


----------



## Ravemen (Dec 8, 2015)

dave_f said:


> It depends on the operation of the light. If the light automatically reduces its output when <50% of capacity remains, this will be at maybe half nominal capacity at -20 as what it would be at room temperature. If the battery is aged, and if the 50% point is determined solely by voltage (not temperature), the light can become useless or unreliable in the cold. If it uses a fuel gauge type run time indicator, that should account for temperature.


Dave, thanks for posting you feedbacks here. Indeed, I forgot to consider the battery aging factor. For verifying the waterproofness, it is recommended to plug the rubber covers. We add this notice below the Performance Parameters table and it might be not evident enough. However, if water does get inside the input or output plug, just use towel to dry the water and it will do no damage to the inside circuit since there is another layer of protection between the tail plugs and the circuit.


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

tigris99 said:


> Those companies paid big bucks for that. MTBR has no honest anything anymore, instead you "get what you pay for"
> 
> Plus it has the solarstorm split optic, you damn well know this is some cheap Chinese thing being markets as so.e "brand name" that they paid Francis a **** ton of money to put at the top of the list.
> 
> ...


Tigris did you ever find out how much money the light companies will pay for a good review?


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Ravemen PR1200 bike light video - Mtbr.com

Glad MTBR finally posted something on this light other than the award. Agree or *NOT* at least it's an explanation. Hope they do a full review soon. Maybe they're waiting till the light is available for sale and not a prototype.
Mole


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Well it's available to order now, pre-order. Be in stock in about 3 weeks.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

Curious how different the PR900 looks vs. the PR1200. 300 extra (actual 400 extra usable) lumens easy to judge but usually XPG and XML emitters have a considerable difference in beam pattern. Opinions?
Mole


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

900 has more visual throw because the spot is tighter. The extra lumens. 1200 is more of a good all around bar light at least IMO. 900 is better for straight road use (not commuting so much as zipping around on a road bike) as the hot spot carries a bit further.

For me it doesn't matter because anywhere that I can get the speed up high enough to care is either decently lit already or pitch black without lights. And I am never usually about about 18mph on the road bike. The spots I've found where I can break 30-35 mph I'd be on the wiz20 cause I need the throw (once I hit 30 I'm a bit white knuckled but grinning ear to ear too).

Now either works fine on my trails but I lean towards the 1200 because of the wider spot.

Again personal opinion here and what I'm seeing myself. Going to get a solid test and video here in a few hours as going for a LONG road ride (by my standards) and plan to be returning after dark just so I get a solid test.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## MRMOLE (May 31, 2011)

> RAKC Ind said:
> 
> 
> > 900 has more visual throw because the spot is tighter. The extra lumens. 1200 is more of a good all around bar light at least IMO. 900 is better for straight road use (not commuting so much as zipping around on a road bike) as the hot spot carries a bit further.
> ...


----------

