# New Dinotte XML-3, replaces 800L-Plus



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Looks nice.


----------



## kwarwick (Jun 12, 2004)

randyharris said:


> Looks nice.


Great to see some commercial 3 XML lights hitting the scene, but only 1000 lumens?!

But I've said it before and it saddens me to have to say it yet again... Dinotte's web site sucks. As a previous customer I won't argue that they had great products but they haven't a clue how to market them. It still amazes me why, year after year, they never have pictures of their latest lights prominently displayed. 

Someone with some web design skills and a digital camera help these guys out, please!


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I cant agree more,their XPG version of the 800L+ was poorly advertised and most people didn't even know they upgraded their leds. I am surprised however that they have a XML lamp head out already. If they would just quit been so stubborn and make a larger battery they could drive their lights harder and compete with others. That tripple XML even underdriven should be 1400+ lumens but wont have much run time with the never ending 4 cell Dinotte battery.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

I asked Rob about a 6 cell battery, he cited low demand and cost would be too high, that they have low prices on the 4 cell because it is their main battery. 

I don't see this myself, I think with big powerful lights comes a need for bigger batteries. They already have a 2 cell and 4 cell, I should think that they could keep costs down on a 6 cell since it would be made of the same cells as the other batteries. Just don't see that it should be a party breaker. 

As someone who just ordered a 1200L-Plus I would have happily ordered it with a 6 cell if that were an option.


----------



## rkj__ (Feb 29, 2004)

That does look nice. 

//I'm still pretty happy with my 200L Dual setup I got ~4 years ago.


----------



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

kwarwick said:


> Great to see some commercial 3 XML lights hitting the scene, but only 1000 lumens?!
> 
> But I've said it before and it saddens me to have to say it again... Dinotte's web site sucks. As a previous customer I won't argue that they had great products but they haven't a clue how to market them. It still amazing me why, year after year they never have pictures of their latest lights prominently displayed.
> 
> Someone with some web design skills and a digital camera help these guys out, please!


Usually I'm very critical of the new DiNotte stuff. However this XM-L (3) I find very interesting. This light head is tailor made for people who want a bright light with a small footprint, somewhere around 1000 lumen but don't want a Chinese clone light. Yes the light is under-driven but this time ( unlike the 1200L+ ) it makes more sense due to the size. If you want 3 x XM-L's driven to the max you will need a larger battery and a larger light head to dissipate the heat. This new offering from DiNotte looks like the perfect compromise in a compact product. If it is a "True 1000 lumen "lamp, it should do well as long as the beam tint is not too blue/green/yellow...etc...and the beam pattern a good mix of flood and throw. Can't wait to see some user beam pics. I figure the run time on high to be somewhere around 2.5hr using the standard 4-cell. Can't wait to see these in a shootout. The light head is $200 for people who already have the battery and charger. *I think I'd buy one of these over one of the new Niterider 1500 even if the Niterider was brighter.  ( * that is if NR is still putting the drivers in the battery ) SO....are there any beam pics of these lights yet? :ihih:


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

Looks like a good candidate for a helmet light except for the stupid o-ring mount. I have a 200L that i used on my helmet recently when my Stenlight battery crapped out. What a pain in the ass it is to adjust the beam up or down compared to a hinged mount! Looks like they had a good mount with the 600L. Why they have gone back to o-rings and rubber straps is beyond me. Must be a rubber fetish. I've got to agree on the website too. Pretty lame. But not as lame as Stenlight's site that hasn't been updated in about 5 years. StenLight - Advanced Lighting Products They are also even more clueless about marketing. They make a tough light though, just a little behind the times on emitters. They are fixated on Luxeons for some reason.


----------



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

Titus Maximus said:


> Looks like a good candidate for a helmet light except for the stupid o-ring mount. I have a 200L that i used on my helmet recently when my Stenlight battery crapped out. What a pain in the ass it is to adjust the beam up or down compared to a hinged mount! Looks like they had a good mount with the 600L. Why they have gone back to o-rings and rubber straps is beyond me. Must be a rubber fetish. I've got to agree on the website too. Pretty lame. But not as lame as Stenlight's site that hasn't been updated in about 5 years. StenLight - Advanced Lighting Products They are also even more clueless about marketing. They make a tough light though, just a little behind the times on emitters. *They are fixated on Luxeons for some reason.*


I think you mean SSC but yes I think that is over as Cree is the apparent reining ruler for most bike set-ups.....Still, you're right about the rubber mount stuff as it is a PITA. I was however able to get good use out of my 200L helmet mount by using it with my MS 808E. I had to use a couple different sized O-rings but it works and works well. The locking strap system on the helmet mount works well and was a well thought out design. Once you get the light head aimed right it pretty much stays in place but I miss the days of easy tilt-able lamps though. The Marwi's and the DiNotte 600L had great mounts.

I wonder if you'll be able to adapt the new XML-3 to the older 600L mounts?


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Slightly off topic, but after maybe 6 rides. With my Piko 3, I love that it easily can be titled up/down on the fly. No left/right adjustment but mounted on my helmet that doesn't affect me.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

Cat-man-do said:


> I think you mean SSC but yes I think that is over as Cree is the apparent reining ruler for most bike set-ups.....Still, you're right about the rubber mount stuff as it is a PITA.


No, I mean Philips Lumileds Luxeon Rebel 100 LEDs. As far as I know, that was their most recent emitter upgrade.



> I wonder if you'll be able to adapt the new XML-3 to the older 600L mounts?


Possibly, or, possibly, you could do what I did with my 1200L+ using Cateye parts.
http://forums.mtbr.com/7576446-post107.html


----------



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

Titus Maximus said:


> No, I mean Philips Lumileds Luxeon Rebel 100 LEDs. As far as I know, that was their most recent emitter upgrade.
> 
> Possibly, or, possibly, you could do what I did with my 1200L+ using Cateye parts.
> http://forums.mtbr.com/7576446-post107.html


Okay, I've not heard or seen any postings of DiNotte using the Rebel emitters so that is news to me. I know that Bikeray has used them but not DiNotte. I know that the 1200L+ was using XP-G's and I've read that the other lamps were up-graded as well. I assumed it was XP-G around the board. Do you know what lamps are using the Rebel's?

Oh and BTW, the Cateye mount mod is nice. Sooner or later the Companies that are selling the lights with rubber band and O-ring type mounts are going to get the message that *A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THEM.*


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

Cat-man-do said:


> Okay, I've not heard or seen any postings of DiNotte using the Rebel emitters so that is news to me.


I was referring to the Stenlight S7 Premium light.


----------



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

Titus Maximus said:


> I was referring to the Stenlight S7 Premium light.


Doh!.... Well actually I was just testing you.


----------



## rideitall (Dec 15, 2005)

Emailed Rob to see if they are doing anything with the 600L or have abandoned it. Either the new 1000+ or possibly an update to my 400L could do the trick for the helmet light.

I would also like the 1200+ to have more punch. It is very wide in its' throw but does lack the punch to push the light far enough. Perhaps driving the leds a little harder would be the thing to do, but as noted a larger capacity battery would be required for a reasonable runtime.

I like the Dinotte lights I have, but they still leave you wanting a little more.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

rideitall said:


> I would also like the 1200+ to have more punch. It is very wide in its' throw but does lack the punch to push the light far enough. Perhaps driving the leds a little harder would be the thing to do, but as noted a larger capacity battery would be required for a reasonable runtime.


I think in addition to a larger battery pack for run times over 2 hours on high, the light head would have to be larger to dissipate the heat if they used a higher current. For instance, the new Hope R8 weighs 480 g with battery and the 1200L+ weighs 360 g with battery, both using a four cell battery.

The beam can be played with to some extent as the optics are user replaceable. I believe they are using the 24mm diameter Carclo Quad optics as shown on this page: Cutter Electronics My guess is they are using the 10622 and 10624 optics, but I would check with Dinotte to be sure.


----------



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

rideitall said:


> Emailed Rob to see if they are doing anything with the 600L or have abandoned it. Either the new 1000+ or possibly an update to my 400L could do the trick for the helmet light.
> 
> I would also like the 1200+ to have more punch. It is very wide in its' throw but does lack the punch to push the light far enough. Perhaps driving the leds a little harder would be the thing to do, but as noted a larger capacity battery would be required for a reasonable runtime.
> 
> I like the Dinotte lights I have, but they still leave you wanting a little more.


*About the 600L issue:* Yes, sure would be nice to see the offer of a brighter LED upgrade..OR...perhaps offer a trade in discount ( head for head ) so to speak. Now if DiNotte could offer the newer XML-3 for $150 with a 600L ( light head ) trade in, I just might be wiling to go that route...provided there is some way to adapt the XML3 head to the old 600L mount which I still like better than rubber straps.

*The DiNotte 1200L+ *could probably work fine with a little more current but than it would need a 6-cell ( or 4 x 26650 ) battery to get you decent run time on high. I also agree that it could use a little more punch ( throw ). Too bad they don't give you the option of special ordering. If they did you could either order one quad with XP-E the other with XP-G. That should give you a better mix of flood and throw or maybe double quad XP-E's for the total throw monkeys. Yeah, you might have to wait for the order longer but it would be worth the wait to get what you really want.


----------



## davisek524 (Sep 8, 2011)

*Dinotte XML-3*

Just got the XML-3 and compared to my Dinotte200L, 400L, and 600L. Just by my eyes, it seems like it is at least 1200 lumens. It is much brighter than both and flood pattern more than spot. But, the flood is as bright as the spot on my L&M HID! What a light. Size is between 200L and 600L. The constant light level in the fast flash mode is as bright as the 400L so this will make an excellent sunny day driver alert light and it will be bright enough at night to use in fast flash mode. No run times yet.


----------



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

davisek524 said:


> Just got the XML-3 and compared to my Dinotte200L, 400L, and 600L. Just by my eyes,* it seems like it is at least 1200 lumens. It is much brighter than both and flood pattern more than spot. * But, the flood is as bright as the spot on my L&M HID! What a light. Size is between 200L and 600L. The constant light level in the fast flash mode is as bright as the 400L so this will make an excellent sunny day driver alert light and it will be bright enough at night to use in fast flash mode. No run times yet.


Hummm....First big question; Does it look like you can remove the rubber strap mount without too much problem? Second question; Would you say the XM-L(3) has better distance throw than the 600L ? ( hopefully you have a standard optic 600L ) I suspected the XML3 would be more flood. That should make it an excellent bar light. I just hope it still has some throw. If it's as bright as you say then it should.

Anyway can you do some outside beam pics?


----------



## davisek524 (Sep 8, 2011)

*Dinotte SML-3 mount*

Yes, it is easily removed with a Philips screw driver. This reveals a recessed screw socket and the cooling fins have been cut away to allow a cylindrical bushing to provide a flat interface with the mounting bracket. The throw is better than the 600L but much more of a flood. Maybe my eye ball guess of 1200 lumens is a bit low? I really don't know how to estimate and I have no way to measure.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

As there was no options on Dinotte's website where i could see lamp head specks, dementions, weight, would you be able to share your impressions??


----------



## davisek524 (Sep 8, 2011)

*Dinotte XML-3 light comments*

Rob has not posted any documentation on his XML series of lights yet. He usually provides weight and this one does seem to be between the 200L and 600L in size and weight. I have asked him for different lenses and he has provided some but I have not asked for any different lenses for the XML-3. It is so bright and has more throw than the 400L and 600L that I really don't need it.

His lights may not have the best mounts and I have read some of the quibbles that some folks have with them, but I have tried many lights and Rob's seem to be the best compromise of size, weight, durability, run times, charge times, brightness, modes, batteries, charger, connectors, cost, customer service --the whole package--and, he has the best tail lights which is very important to me as a road rider who wants to be visible to motorists. Other lights may be better than these in a specific aspect, but I think Dinottes are the best overall even though they may not excel in any one area compared to others.

I use these lights for day time visibility to motorists and night time road riding. The daytime visibility is very effective when doing down hill runs in residential districts where there is a danger of cars pulling out in front of you because they don't see you.

I will try to do some outside beam shots, but I have never done this before.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Long story short I have both the 1200L-Plus dual quad XPG Dinotte, and the new XML-3 light. I'm going to make the final decision and keep the winner.

Unfortunately the battery needs to be charged! But here are some pictures.

Dinotte 1200L-Plus lighthead weighed 5.0 ounces 141.7 grams
Dinotte XML-3 lighthead weighed 3.7 ounces, 105 grams

*Here are thumbnail pictures, click on any of them for a larger image.*









​


----------



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

Thanks Randy. Nice that you have both lights to compare with. I can't wait to hear how they compare in both throw and spread. One poster already commented that the XM-L 3 had more throw than a 600L so I can't wait to hear your opinion on how it compares to the 1200L+.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

These are in our conference room with all lights off, pitch black other than the Dinotte lights.

iPhone 4 pictures using the Camera+ app.

I forgot to measure, but the wall was approximately 30 feet away.

Dinotte 1200L-Plus
(click on image for larger view)



Dinotte XML-3
(click on image for larger view)

​


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I know photos can be deceiving especially with indoor shots, but that XML3 looks brighter to me???


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

I would say the 1200 was hotter, the XML-3 more evenly dispersed.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

indebt said:


> I know photos can be deceiving especially with indoor shots, but that XML3 looks brighter to me???


I would say just the opposite. the 1200+ has a much larger hot spot which looks at least as bright as the very center of the XML3 beam, also a bit more spill into the corners of the room. I guess brightness is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



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

randyharris said:


> I would say the 1200 was hotter, the XML-3 more evenly dispersed.


Hard to tell from wall tests but but I agree the 1200 looks like it is supplying more light ( as it should ). Still, the beam pattern on the XML3 looks to have a very smooth transition from center hot spot to wider spill. Oh, I almost forgot. I noticed the XML3 is using a dispersing lens. I can't help but wonder what the beam pattern would look like with a clear ( anti-reflective ) lens. You would likely lose some of the spill but I bet the throw would increase big time. :ihih:

*RH,* anyway you can do a quick run-time test with the XML3? Damn, trigger finger is starting to itch again.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

Cat-man-do said:


> Oh, I almost forgot. I noticed the XML3 is using a dispersing lens. I can't help but wonder what the beam pattern would look like with a clear ( anti-reflective ) lens. You would likely lose some of the spill but I bet the throw would increase big time.


That XML3 picture shows that it is using the Ledil Cute3 SS optic. The dispersion texture is molded on the optic face. That is the tightest beam of that series of Ledil optics. I'd sure like to see Ledil produce that optic in an RS pattern.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

I was super busy yesterday evening and never got outside in the dark to play with the lights, busy this morning as well, but I did manage to get back behind my house in the alley a little after 5:30AM this morning to check out the lights. You can see from the sky that there was a little ambient light, but not much.

Honestly I didn't have enough time to play with them, just made a few quick comparisons and snapped some shots with my point and shoot. 

These pictures don't illustrate very well the brightness of the lights, keep that in mind. The 1200L is definitely brighter but that isn't as clear in the pictures as it is in person. 

To my eyes after just a couple minutes, I noticed that the XML3 is not a whole lot brighter than the Piko 3, but whereas the Piko 3 has it's 22 degree pattern, it has very little light outside of that pattern. The XML3 has it's main beam pattern but then spills out more light to the periphery where the Piko 3 is far darker out of that main beam.

The 1200 is definitely brighter than the XML3. In looking at the pictures it looks like the XML has broader flood. I didn't really notice that in person, maybe because I was more focused on the amount of light. The 1200L also has far more throw than does the XML3. I didn't measure to that telephone post, but it's probably in the neighborhood of 150 feet away.

I'll try and play more with these and report what I see.

btw - I don't see where Rob has mentioned it on the website, but I feel safe in saying this since the new light is shipping. This 1200L-Plus is a new shipping model that has been increased in output from the version that has been shipping since it was introduced. So the XML3 vs 1200L-Plus, just keep in mind that this 1200L-Plus I'm comparing against has more light than does the 1200L-Plus that has shipped up to this week.

edit: I've removed these pictures, trail shots in a newer post.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

haha, you know it's hard to tell from these beam patterns. But know I am second guessing if I mislabeled the XML3 and the 1200L-Plus beam shots. I'll double check soon...


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> *RH,* anyway you can do a quick run-time test with the XML3? Damn, trigger finger is starting to itch again.


I am going for a early morning ride tomorrow leaving the house at about 5AM and plan to be home by about 7:15AM. In efforts of testing the run time, maybe what I can do it stick to turn it on high and leave it in the freezer from 4:30AM to 5:AM while I'm getting ready. That gives 2 hours and 45 minutes of total time. Rob said it should burn on high for 2.5 hours.

Oh geez, listen to me - light in the freezer... What kind of nonsense is this. OK Cat, just for you, I'll get up at 3:45AM and get out the door by 4:15AM and go do a pre-ride before I meet my mates at 5:30. That gives me 3 full hours to see how long the XML runs on high. I assume the backlit button changes colors, I'll try and note how long it goes before changing but no promises on that.


----------



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

randyharris said:


> .....btw - I don't see where Rob has mentioned it on the website, but I feel safe in saying this since the new light is shipping. This 1200L-Plus is a new shipping model that has been increased in output from the version that has been shipping since it was introduced. So the XML3 vs 1200L-Plus, just keep in mind that this 1200L-Plus I'm comparing against has more light than does the 1200L-Plus that has shipped up to this week.


Uh...and where did you hear this from? Not that I'm doubting you because what you said about the 1200L+ confirms what my eyes are telling me. 

I couldn't help but notice that the 1200L+ you have is throwing much more than the original ( debut ) model. I think the difference is the optics but that's just my guess. It looks like the spill dropped down a tad to the sides ( compared to original ) but the new(er) version is much better IMO. Kudo's to DiNotte for making this adjustment. Looks like the new(er) 1200L+ is now covering all the bases...throw and spill....:thumbsup:

The XML3 on the other hand looks like it suffers from loss of throw. Hard to tell from the photos because you have no distance references ( markers ). The trade off ( with the optics being used ) is that you get excellent ( close in ) peripheral illumination. Some people might like that but IMO if you're going to use this as your main bar light ...well...personally I would like more throw. With the lens that is being used it might be okay on the high mode but I have a feeling that when you go to the lower levels the throw is going to completely suck. Such is the effect when using a lens that disperses the light. Would be nice if the lenses used on these could be switched out to clear ( if that is what you wanted ). You would lose some of that excellent ( close in ) side illumination but I could deal with that ( speaking for myself ) . :thumbsup:

Randy, is there any way you can remark the photos to indicate a progression of distance? ( as that would be super helpful in judging throw. )

(**edit...about the run time test: Don't knock yourself out. I mean, most of us just do a inside the house test using a small fan for cooling. This way you can kick back, watch your favorite shows and just check it out when the maximum expected run time draws near. )


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> Uh...and where did you hear this from? Not that I'm doubting you because what you said about the 1200L+ confirms what my eyes are telling me.
> 
> I couldn't help but notice that the 1200L+ you have is throwing much more than the original ( debut ) model. I think the difference is the optics but that's just my guess. It looks like the spill dropped down a tad to the sides ( compared to original ) but the new(er) version is much better IMO. Kudo's to DiNotte for making this adjustment. Looks like the new(er) 1200L+ is now covering all the bases...throw and spill....:thumbsup:
> 
> ...


I'll see if I can get some markers, please understand I had about 10 minutes start to finish for this photo shoot exercise...

the detail came straight from Rob. the 1200L-Plus has had a change to the light head and has an increased light output and decreased runtime on the same battery. 20% increase in light is what Rob told me.

I'm riding with the XML-3 tomorrow morning. I'll have the opportunity to try it solo and with my Piko 3 helmet light going.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> personally I would like more throw


As anything we all have slightly different situations and needs. I ride a rigid single speed in rough technical terrain so I am more concerned with the up close lighting than more throw.


----------



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

Dude, you are so fast. 
I updated my last post and before I did you posted twice. :lol:


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

What was i thinking,,that the XML3 looks brighter:madman: The outdoor shots show the 1200L+ having much more light, plus more punch than i ever expected to see based on the criticism it has received in the past for been a flood monster but lacking throw. I didn't expect it to have that much more punch than the XML3. The XML3 though sure has a nice beam in it's own right, very smooth all the way to the outer edge of the spill,,, i likey!!


----------



## Toff (Sep 11, 2004)

That XML3 is looking good. My old 600 needs a new battery anyway so why not just upgrade i think and still use my old batteries with the 600 as a bar light.

Just waiting now for your estimated run times and more confirmed bean shots.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Teaser...

I went riding this morning and rode with the XML-3 solo, the 1200L-Plus solo, and each of those two at times in conjunction with my Lupine Piko 3.

I have some definite thoughts about them, ah, but it is lunch time right now. Back Later with my thoughts.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Here are my thoughts on the DiNotte XML-3 and the new 1200L-Plus lights after 1 morning of riding with them. I rode with each light by itself and also rode with each light AND my LupinePiko 3 helmet light. Riding with the Lupine Piko 3 by itself for a few weeks, I knew it wasn't a big flood, but it oddly seems to have a tighter beam than I would have described before riding it with the DiNotte's. Not that I feel it is too spot'ish, just that the more flood pattern of the DiNotte's put the Piko's beam into better perspective. I do wonder if some of the 'spotishness' of the Lupine Piko relative to the DiNotte's could be because it was shooting down from my helmet, a much steeper angle to the ground than the lights mounted on the bar.

This morning in full darkness I rode many sections of trails, turned around and rode it with the other light so that I could compare. I wasn't able to make it down any gnarly descents before it started getting light, but I certainly ran some high speed, and slow technical areas.

Let me say up front, I can't advise anybody to ride with a bar light only. I hadn't done that in years and it was a grave reminder how you can get caught out because the bar light isn't always pointing where you are looking. One high speed corner in particular I was going near 20mph and entered a tight corner, I was turning into near darkness because the bar light was pointing more in front of my while I was turning hard right. Wished that I had the Piko 3 on for that section, scared the crud out of me.

*RUNTIME*:
Cat, Rob told me that the XML-3 would get 2.5 hours of run time. He's clearly a liar, I turned the light off after 3 hours and it was going strong.  I didn't notice at what time the indicator light went from Blue to Red, but I noticed it was red at about 2h45m. At the 3h point I just turned it off, didn't see the need to run it fully empty. Even though I was switching lights a bit I think this is fairly accurate as running the XML-3 by itself. At times I ran the 1200L on full and at times the middle setting so overall I figure the time I was on the 1200L it approximated the drain of the XML-3 on full.

*OVERVIEW*:
Both lights are really nice, the feel like they are well made machine parts when you hold them, and after using them for a few hours my opinion hasn't changed. Several people moan about the mounts, I did find them tilting down when I hit rough sections fast, but I stopped and cinched up the strap one notch and that seemed to solve the problem. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

*XML-3* the XML-3 is a really nice light, it has noticeable more flood than does my Piko. It is not a spot pattern, though it is brighter in the center of the beam than is the Piko. The Piko is really flat throughout it's beam. The XML-3 worked like a champ and it is well complemented with the Piko on my helmet. When both lights are aimed at the same spot they pretty much meld together and it's honestly not a ton brighter than with the XML-3 by itself, when I turn my head the beam magically splits and lights up in front of my and wherever I looked. Running the XML-3 by itself leaves a lot of shadows pointing away from you just from the angle of the light hitting the ground in front of you. When the helmet light was on, the shadows virtually disappeared. Riding up to and over a rise, it was dark on the other side of the rise with bar light only, much nicer with the helmet light on. Already discussed turning and bar lights only above.

My take away from the XML-3 is that it puts out a lot of light, has a good amount of light flooding around the main beam which is well dispersed, but a bit brighter in the center.

*New 1200L-Plus*: Wow.

That about sums it up. The new 1200L-Plus on medium is very similar to the XML-3 on high. The 1200L has a bit more flood than the XML-3, and it has a more evenly distributed beam pattern like the Piko - the 1200L-Plus on medium doesn't have that spot within a flood look about it. Which is really quite remarkable considering it's a dual quad with different lenses.

Turn the 1200L-Plus on FULL and holy sh*t there is a serious amount of light coming from this light head. Now to be honest it didn't wow me as much just standing still and A-B from the XML-3 to the 1200L-Plus. Yes it had more light but not draw dropping. But was really stunned me was out on the trail riding and seeing the difference between the two lights on full power. There is absolutely nothing wrong or lacking with the Piko helmet and XML-3 on the bar. But switch the bar to the 1200L-Plus and d*amn there really is a difference. While riding, I appreciate the bigger flood beam pattern of the 1200L-Plus, it really is broader than the XML-3. And for high speed sections it just lights everything up when on full.

I am going to thinking about this a bit more, but I can't imagine not keeping the 1200L-Plus at this moment in time. My setup would be to run it on medium a lot of the time, and crank it up to full power for higher speed sections and all descents. The fact of the matter is that the $90 difference in the price of the two lights, while an amount that I appreciate and value, isn't so much that I'm not willing to sport it for the bigger light. If having those extra lumens and bigger flood prevent me from one accident I'll consider it to have been money very well spent.

I really wasn't too concerned about the throw of the lights, but for those of you that like good throw, without question the 1200L-Plus has far more throw than the XML-3 and the Piko lights did.

*PICTURES DISCLAIMER*:
These pictures do not accurately illustrate the intensity or amount of light. They do give a footprint of the beam pattern and slightly to the intensity - but I can't express enough that the pictures in no way show clearly the distinctions that I was able to view in person. Also - I apologize that the lights weren't always aimed at the exact same spot - this is all new to me and I didn't do a good job in that regard.

The purplish tint in some of the photos is chromatic aboration, you don't see that, it is a failing of my camera.

*PICTURES*:

I have four sets of pictures below, click on the images for larger images. Remember my disclaimer above.

*SET 1*
  

*SET 2*
  

*SET 3*
  

*SET 4*


----------



## Rakuman (Oct 30, 2004)

*Nice review Randy:thumbsup::thumbsup:*


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

A big +1:thumbsup:

I have to say that i have a new respect for Dinottes products. Also that they look to be as honest with their lumen claims on the two products reviewed here as Lupine. Clearly to me with your extra photo's and reviews of what your eyes are seeing the 750 lumen Piko takes third place of the three, and that all photo's and descriptions are accurately depicted by their honest claims.

Can you confirm if there was a change in the 1200L+ you tested, over last years model? And if there was a change was it just the optics, or a driver upgrade? Just asking because there doesn't seem to be any issue with punch at all as previously criticized!!


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

indebt said:


> Can you confirm if there was a change in the 1200L+ you tested, over last years model? And if there was a change was it just the optics, or a driver upgrade? Just asking because there doesn't seem to be any issue with punch at all as previously criticized!!


Confirmed the 1200L-Plus is an updated version as of just this week. My understanding is that it is a driver upgrade, pumping more power to the LED's, nothing to do with optics. Runtime is lower with this new version. Assuming I keep the 1200L-Plus-New (haha) the lower runtime doesn't really bother me since I think I'd be in the middle mode maybe 75% of the time, and in the high mode the rest.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

I wonder if there is a six cell just around the corner? At Dinotte's price point they could afford to charge more for the six cell option easily. They are right there with the two lights you reviewed, quality,performance,and well priced. Your review sure opened my eyes.Thanx!! Dinotte now needs to upgrade their website so people can understand their new line-up more clearly.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

indebt said:


> I wonder if there is a six cell just around the corner? At Dinotte's price point they could afford to charge more for the six cell option easily. They are right there with the two lights you reviewed, quality,performance,and well priced. Your review sure opened my eyes.Thanx!! Dinotte now needs to upgrade their website so people can understand their new line-up more clearly.


btw - I should point out, that I am just a dude who mountain bikes in the dark. I received no special deals or compensation, I am paying for my DiNotte light just like I paid for my Lupine Piko. I have gone through a lot of researching and second guessing about what for some reason strikes me as an important purchase. And I am trying to throw some of what I found from this process out here for other like minded individuals. Just thought maybe I should make that clear, no kind words have been written for any reason other than my experience so far and from no externalities.

Regarding the battery, I asked Rob about a 6 cell, he said that by only offering a 4 cell it keeps his prices down... But they do have a 2 cell battery two. ??? Who knows. I would think a 6 Cell makes sense, but maybe he just can't do it at a competitive price point. I think the 1200L and guys who go for long rides with the other high powered lights would appreciate a 6 cell battery.

edit: Rob's answer was to just pick up a second 4 cell for long run times - not a terrible solution, but I prefer the single battery pack myself.


----------



## indebt (Nov 8, 2009)

One would think (two) four cell battery's would cost more than a six cell, and be more weight to carry around. Come on Rob,,,,,, just do-it!!!


----------



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

Randy, thanks for taking the time to do all those photo's. :thumbsup:

It really is hard to take much from this though without distance references but the fact that you did these while on a ride explains a lot. Not to mention that you probably weren't using a tripod.

The first set of photos ( in the tunnel ) were the most useful. While the 1200Lplus is the obvious brightest of the bunch I'm still impressed with the XML-3. From the photos, the throw on the XML3 comes real close to the 1200L+. I think the XML3 would be a great light to own for either mountain or road biking but like you said the 1200L+ is definitely the light to own for mtb'ing if you can afford the extra money.

The Piko 3 is what it is. It is very obvious from the beam pattern that it was basically designed for helmet use. I refer to beam patterns like the Piko's as being "confined". Not a spot or medium flood but a beam pattern _confined_ to a set radius with almost no spill. I have a 4/up XR-E helmet light that mimics the same pattern and it makes a great helmet lamp. I don't think I would use the Piko3 on the bars unless it was for road use but when used on the helmet it should be fine for either.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Great job, Randy!

That confirms my experience between Dinotte and Lupine - Dinotte is much more floodier than is Lupine and I think the characterization of Lupine as a "confined" beam is apt.

I tend to use my lights on the road, so I want less flood and more light in the confined area in which I ride. When I use the Wilma 1500/26 and the Piko 3 together, they will cover about 3/4s of a two lane rural road with full daylight bright beam and a lot less outside of that. That would be about the same as the hotspot of the Dinotte's but it's going to brighter in that hotspot lumen for lumen. That's why I think that you mention that the Piko seems close to the XML3 from Dinotte in it's main beam. The Lupine gets more light flux on a given point per lumen than does Dinotte. Dinotte has a wider floodier beam which is quite attractive in many applications too.


J.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

JohnJ80 said:


> Great job, Randy!
> 
> That confirms my experience between Dinotte and Lupine - Dinotte is much more floodier than is Lupine and I think the characterization of Lupine as a "confined" beam is apt.
> 
> ...


I think that is pretty accurate. I use my Piko 3 by itself when road riding and it's great for that. For MTB I definitely prefer the DiNotte style 'spill'.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

randyharris said:


> I think that is pretty accurate. I use my Piko 3 by itself when road riding and it's great for that. For MTB I definitely prefer the DiNotte style 'spill'.


Well, as a minimum.....

The thing is, and watching you write about this all, you are now a lumen addict too. You can't have too many. While I *could* ride on the road with just my Piko 3, I never would when I add another 1500 lumens or so.... 

J.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

To clarify, I use the Piko 3 only on road rides, and the Piko 3 AND a bar light for MTB rides.

Not sure I'd call myself a lumen junkie or addict, but I certainly appreciate well lit roads and trails when riding without sunlight. Don't imagine I'll be changing my light setup for a very long time to come.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

randyharris said:


> To clarify, I use the Piko 3 only on road rides, and the Piko 3 AND a bar light for MTB rides.
> 
> Not sure I'd call myself a lumen junkie or addict, but I certainly appreciate well lit roads and trails when riding without sunlight. *Don't imagine I'll be changing my light setup for a very long time to come.*


Ha. I've said that every year for the last 5 and every year I've bought a new light. Hey, you obsessed over this with the best of them. You'll be back....

There ought to be a 12 step program for lumen addicts.

J.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

JohnJ80 said:


> Ha. I've said that every year for the last 5 and every year I've bought a new light. Hey, you obsessed over this with the best of them. You'll be back....
> 
> There ought to be a 12 step program for lumen addicts.
> 
> J.


Well, I did run my previous set of lights for 5+ years, so I've got a good track record. And I have a feeling that future replacements for the Lupine Piko and DiNotte 1200L-Plus will be incremental. Never say never though.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

OK here are the money shots. I took my Panasonic Lumix point and shoot to my local park after dark to get some tripod shots with markers.

Each of the plastic bottles are 25 feet away, 25/50/75. I tried to pick a location with several trees around to illustrate the flood / spill decently.

Curious George is at the 100' marker. 

24mm, F3.3, AWB.

First shot is an animated GIF that will cycle through the shots, then there are thumbnails of the individual images below, you can click on any of them for larger size images.



















​
Hope this helps for anybody interested in these lights, and you should be interested - they're all great and at very nice price points.


----------



## RE1GN2 (Feb 28, 2008)

Hey Randy,

Great shots - thanks for those. It lights up the ground well.. almost too well. I reckon you could get a tad bit more throw with it pointing slightly higher? 

Also the GIF is missing? I see two jps only.

Thanks.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

The 1200L+ is a LOT more light than the XML3. The XML3 looks, give or take, about the same as the Piko. Is that right?

J.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

@RE1GN2: I could have aimed the 1200L a little higher to get more throw correct, but I tried aiming them all more or less at the same point, and to be somewhat how you'd have it for biking. Sorry you can't see the animated gif, I see it on my system hopefully it's not viewable only on Mac's.

@JohnJ80: I feel funny reminding you, but keep in mind these beamshots only show the pattern well not the intensity. Plus the fact that there is grass amplifies the light compared to road or dirt which is much more flat and neutral. The 1200 does have a broader pattern, and it does have more lumens in that main beam than does the XML3. And yes this picture in the park makes the difference more pronounced, but out on the trail or on Tarmac I don't think the difference is as obvious and I don't know about you, but I don't do much riding in the middle of our park.  

The XML3 definitely puts out more lumens than the Piko 3, it just isn't clear by the shots. I noticed that the camera auto adjusted the exposure time and white balance so that may play small tricks on comparing.


----------



## Toff (Sep 11, 2004)

XML3 ordered, thanks for all the pics Randy.

I'm positive ill love it as I have one of the old 600s.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

randyharris said:


> @RE1GN2: I could have aimed the 1200L a little higher to get more throw correct, but I tried aiming them all more or less at the same point, and to be somewhat how you'd have it for biking. Sorry you can't see the animated gif, I see it on my system hopefully it's not viewable only on Mac's.
> 
> @JohnJ80: I feel funny reminding you, but keep in mind these beamshots only show the pattern well not the intensity. Plus the fact that there is grass amplifies the light compared to road or dirt which is much more flat and neutral. The 1200 does have a broader pattern, and it does have more lumens in that main beam than does the XML3. And yes this picture in the park makes the difference more pronounced, but out on the trail or on Tarmac I don't think the difference is as obvious and I don't know about you, but I don't do much riding in the middle of our park.
> 
> The XML3 definitely puts out more lumens than the Piko 3, it just isn't clear by the shots. I noticed that the camera auto adjusted the exposure time and white balance so that may play small tricks on comparing.


I guess I was thinking "beam", but you're right. Even given the compression of digital photography, the 1200L+ clearly throws light in a much wider beam (and what I was really thinking about anyhow). The exposure changes almost certainly made the XML3 and the Piko3 look the same or very similar. The Piko has two leds and the XML3 has three so one would presume it's about 50% brighter in overall lumens and probably 30% brighter just because Dinotte tends to have a wider beam and be very conservative in their drive. Does that sound about right?

J.


----------



## suvowner (Oct 17, 2006)

randyharris said:


> @RE1GN2: I could have aimed the 1200L a little higher to get more throw correct, but I tried aiming them all more or less at the same point, and to be somewhat how you'd have it for biking. Sorry you can't see the animated gif, I see it on my system hopefully it's not viewable only on Mac's.
> 
> @JohnJ80: I feel funny reminding you, but keep in mind these beamshots only show the pattern well not the intensity. Plus the fact that there is grass amplifies the light compared to road or dirt which is much more flat and neutral. The 1200 does have a broader pattern, and it does have more lumens in that main beam than does the XML3. And yes this picture in the park makes the difference more pronounced, but out on the trail or on Tarmac I don't think the difference is as obvious and I don't know about you, but I don't do much riding in the middle of our park.
> 
> The XML3 definitely puts out more lumens than the Piko 3, it just isn't clear by the shots. I noticed that the camera auto adjusted the exposure time and white balance so that may play small tricks on comparing.


great effort on the animated gif.....i see it no problem on my mac......i have a 1200-l plus but switched it to spot lens on both sides, but driving at normal power, and works really well....just ask Rob to send you another spot lens and you can switch it yourself, esp if driving at higher power it still gives plenty of spill for me .....the flood lens on the 1200l plus just wastes to much light in the spill for my preference.....

installed a 10" led light bar made buy kolpin for my honda rancher atv, rated at 3600 lumens and i gotta tell y'all that think is crazy crazy bright.....would be definite way overkill for a bike...


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

randyharris said:


> OK here are the money shots.


Money shots indeed. I feel like we should pay you for all your hard work (Well, not really.). Nice job! I especially like the animated .gif. It has inspired me to learn how to do that. Also like the positioning of the near tree to show the spill. There is room for improvement however. Automatic exposure doesn't cut it for comparison shots. If possible, the camera needs to be set for full manual exposure. Likewise, white balance should be set to daylight or sunny. The exposure suggested in the beam thread on "DIY" is ISO-100, Exposure-6 seconds, Aperture-F4.0. Since many cameras do not have ISO 100, I would suggest:

ISO 200, Exp. 6 sec. and aperture F 5.6
or: ISO 400 6 sec. F 8.0
or: ISO 400 3 sec. F 5.6

I must say I am a bit perturbed by the news that you got a 1200L+ that has been juiced with more lumens out the front than mine. I demand equal lumens! :madman:


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

suvowner said:


> i have a 1200-l plus but switched it to spot lens on both sides, but driving at normal power, and works really well....just ask Rob to send you another spot lens and you can switch it yourself, esp if driving at higher power it still gives plenty of spill for me .....the flood lens on the 1200l plus just wastes to much light in the spill for my preference.....


So this spot lens from Dinotte is free of charge? What's Rob's number?


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

JohnJ80 said:


> The Piko has two leds and the XML3 has three so one would presume it's about 50% brighter in overall lumens and probably 30% brighter just because Dinotte tends to have a wider beam and be very conservative in their drive. Does that sound about right?
> 
> J.


Generally speaking I would agree with this, my non scientific off-the-cuff estimate is that the XML3 seems about 20% more light than the Piko 3.

The XML 3 will make a killer light for many people in my estimation, it has a lot going for it, especially at the price that DiNotte is selling it. Realistically I should probably call well enough alone and go with the Piko and an XML-3 I'd have plenty of light for my needs. But you know, for only an extra $90 I have the option of being what I call a BLINDER. So much light that you wouldn't want to be coming towards me on the trail. And while I'll likely often be in the middle setting, for faster bits and very technical sections I'll appreciate being able to run it on full.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Titus Maximus said:


> Money shots indeed. I feel like we should pay you for all your hard work (Well, not really.). Nice job! I especially like the animated .gif. It has inspired me to learn how to do that. Also like the positioning of the near tree to show the spill. There is room for improvement however. Automatic exposure doesn't cut it for comparison shots. If possible, the camera needs to be set for full manual exposure. Likewise, white balance should be set to daylight or sunny. The exposure suggested in the beam thread on "DIY" is ISO-100, Exposure-6 seconds, Aperture-F4.0. Since many cameras do not have ISO 100, I would suggest:
> 
> ISO 200, Exp. 6 sec. and aperture F 5.6
> or: ISO 400 6 sec. F 8.0
> ...


Yes, my neophyte camera skills are showing! Honestly I don't know if I can manually do those settings or not, I picked a night scene not realizing it would vary the exposure time. If I have the time and energy I'll look into fully manual settings.

No need to pay me, but feel free to click my rep thumbs up button.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

randyharris said:


> Generally speaking I would agree with this, my non scientific off-the-cuff estimate is that the XML3 seems about 20% more light than the Piko 3.
> 
> The XML 3 will make a killer light for many people in my estimation, it has a lot going for it, especially at the price that DiNotte is selling it. Realistically I should probably call well enough alone and go with the Piko and an XML-3 I'd have plenty of light for my needs. But you know, for only an extra $90 I have the option of being what I call a BLINDER. So much light that you wouldn't want to be coming towards me on the trail. And while I'll likely often be in the middle setting, for faster bits and very technical sections I'll appreciate being able to run it on full.


I would be very happy to "settle" for a Piko 3 as my helmet light! Speaking of which, how's the helmet mount on the XML-3? Is it hinged, like the Piko, or is it some rubber band contraption?


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Titus Maximus said:


> I would be very happy to "settle" for a Piko 3 as my helmet light! Speaking of which, how's the helmet mount on the XML-3? Is it hinged, like the Piko, or is it some rubber band contraption?


You can see the mount here.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

randyharris said:


> You can see the mount here.


I don't see it there. Dinotte photos mostly suck for detail. I'm interested in how it pivots up and down. I have the helmet mount for the 200L and it is a PITA to aim it. I did not get a helmet mount for the 1200L+. I imagine it is probably the same as the mount for the XML-3, as it looks like they both attach to the rubber strap handlebar mount in the same way.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

randyharris said:


> Generally speaking I would agree with this, my non scientific off-the-cuff estimate is that the XML3 seems about 20% more light than the Piko 3.
> 
> The XML 3 will make a killer light for many people in my estimation, it has a lot going for it, especially at the price that DiNotte is selling it. *Realistically I should probably call well enough alone and go with the Piko and an XML-3 I'd have plenty of light for my needs. But you know, for only an extra $90 I have the option of being what I call a BLINDER.* So much light that you wouldn't want to be coming towards me on the trail. And while I'll likely often be in the middle setting, for faster bits and very technical sections I'll appreciate being able to run it on full.


You, sir, are a man in denial. Remember where this conversation started... You've got a case of lumen addiction that's as bad as any and worst than most. 

Great choices in lights.

J.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Titus Maximus said:


> I don't see it there. Dinotte photos mostly suck for detail. I'm interested in how it pivots up and down. I have the helmet mount for the 200L and it is a PITA to aim it. I did not get a helmet mount for the 1200L+. I imagine it is probably the same as the mount for the XML-3, as it looks like they both attach to the rubber strap handlebar mount in the same way.


I can't comment on this style of helmet mount, my previous light, Light and Motion HID ARC's had a different style mount, and the Lupine Piko 3 mount is different as well. I can say that I don't find the Lupine mount all that easy to get the light on the helmet quickly, but I love the free swivel up and down, it's great as I need it adjusted differently for Road and MTB. I never take the Piko off my helmet, it's there all the time. Today I was able to ride in daylight, and the Piko was still there unpowered - so small and light you don't even notice it.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

randyharris said:


> I can't comment on this style of helmet mount, my previous light, Light and Motion HID ARC's had a different style mount, and the Lupine Piko 3 mount is different as well. I can say that I don't find the Lupine mount all that easy to get the light on the helmet quickly, but I love the free swivel up and down, it's great as I need it adjusted differently for Road and MTB. I never take the Piko off my helmet, it's there all the time. Today I was able to ride in daylight, and the Piko was still there unpowered - so small and light you don't even notice it.


I like a good swivel myself. My trusty old Stenlight has a very nice swivel with adjustable tension, plus the best switch in the business. The attachment to the helmet is a little tedious, so I have a Giro E2 helmet dedicated to night riding. The G2 has a large rear vent that the 2 cell battery is a press fit in, no other attachment needed. Thanks for the photos of the mount. Looks like a strap-on for Dinotte. That's perverted and totally unhinged! ut:


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Hey check it out, Rob emailed me, he saw the pictures that I posted. He asked if I'd like to test two more DiNotte lights. I said sure, so he's sending over the 400L and the XML1. 

Note, this is again an unpaid, endeavor, I'm not getting any compensation or free lights for doing this, just kind of fun.

I'll beg borrow or steal a real digital SLR for the next round of pictures so they come out more as an even better comparison. I may even take those lights out on the trail and offer my initial feedback on them.


----------



## 'BentRyder (Sep 17, 2011)

Thanks for all the great information. I am not a light junky in the sense that I need more lumens but I appreciate the fact that Dinotte is becoming more reasonable in their price point. Now it is more realistic to consider Dinotte for a lighting solution.

Does anyone know what brand and capacity of battery Dinotte uses in their current packs?

I'm looking forward to Dinotte making some stand-alone lights... be-seen lights rather than seeing lights.


----------



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

Randy, Once again, great pictures. I think the camera you're using is fine.
After this last series of photos I have some more comments:

The 1200L+ looks better every time I see it. Very nice beam pattern if I do say so. I think the D-people nailed it this time. ( finally ). If I was in the market for a bar mounted light to mountain bike with, this one would definitely be at the top of the list. As I see it the only thing that could make it better would be the option(s) for a bar remote and either a 6 cell battery or a 4-cell 26650 ( 8000mAh ) battery. For me the battery isn't an issue but if DiNotte had offered the 1200L+ with a remote option...well....need I say, I would be on this like a cat on a piece of fresh salmon. :thumbsup:

_The following comment made after looking over my old DiNotte 600L beam pic_s:

The XML3 on the other hand ( while not bad ) I feel could use some tweaking. Too much of the output is lying too close to the bike. This light head has lots of potential. I feel the optic is restraining more of the beam than it should be. Something has to be done to make it better. Maybe a clear(er) lens or maybe a tad more current or perhaps a combo of both. With 3 x XM-L's this light should punch to 100ft, no questions asked. As it is right now most of the light is right in front and the throw struggles to reach beyond 75ft. I think this could be improved upon without too much trouble. I think the XML3 should mimic the beam pattern of a 600L but only be brighter and reach maybe 25ft further. If done right it will still have good perimeter coverage but will have better throw. The 600L could reach 100ft. and had a very good all-around usable beam pattern. The XML3 was "suppose to replace the 800L", but I bet you a tin of tuna that the original 800L could out throw the new XML3.

Lastly, I really am glad to see DiNotte taking steps to improve their products. This has been called for by many including myself for a long, long time. I am disappointed though that no official mention was made by DiNotte about all the new recent options and upgrades. Dinotte does have full advertising rights on MTBreview so I don't understand why Rob doesn't give a shout out ( on forum ) once in a while to let the peeps know "What's up" with DiNotte. Sure would be nice to hear about the new stuff straight from the horse's mouth.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> Randy, Once again, great pictures. I think the camera you're using is fine.
> After this last series of photos I have some more comments:
> 
> The 1200L+ looks better every time I see it. Very nice beam pattern if I do say so. I think the D-people nailed it this time. ( finally ). If I was in the market for a bar mounted light to mountain bike with, this one would definitely be at the top of the list. As I see it the only thing that could make it better would be the option(s) for a bar remote and either a 6 cell battery or a 4-cell 26650 ( 8000mAh ) battery. For me the battery isn't an issue but if DiNotte had offered the 1200L+ with a remote option...well....need I say, I would be on this like a cat on a piece of fresh salmon. :thumbsup:
> ...


Before I ordered the 1200+ I asked about a six cell battery, Rob stated his case for simply buying a second 4 cell, he makes a good case for it.

I would be interested in a bar mounted remote control switch as well. Also this may or may not be possible, but I would like to be able to set it to two mode operation, high and medium with no low.

Regarding the XML3, I found it to be a very capable light on the trail, a lot of light output in a good pattern. Keep in mind that I wasn't aiming the lights at curious George at the 100' mark, but closer in more like you would have it set for riding.


----------



## skidad (May 23, 2005)

Anyone care to offer how this new Dinotte 1200+ might compare in output to the Magic Shine 872/856 1600 lumen lights (25 degree on both). My finger is getting real twitchey to buy a light and it's allot more money for the Dinotte (could buy 2 MS for 1 Dinotte) but it would be nice to support a US compnay and someone the next state over from me. If the light is better well icing on the cake....

BTW this will be paired with a 750 lumen Piko helmet light. 

Silly question perhaps (new at this stuff) but why not pack the Dinotte 1200+ with XM-L's and get even more light out of it even if under driven? Would this be a potential upgrade down the road?


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

skidad said:


> Anyone care to offer how this new Dinotte 1200+ might compare in output to the Magic Shine 872/856 1600 lumen lights (25 degree on both). My finger is getting real twitchey to buy a light and it's allot more money for the Dinotte (could buy 2 MS for 1 Dinotte) but it would be nice to support a US compnay and someone the next state over from me. If the light is better well icing on the cake....


The lenses will be better, the cooling will be better so the OTF lumens are probably considerably higher. Also it will be more reliable. There are only a handful of light suppliers that provide actual OTF (out the front) lumen measurements. Lupine is one, and Dinotte is moving in that direction. Most rate them using the theoretical maximum at their drive current of the LEDs. That doesn't take into account lenses, reflectors or actual performance as the LEDs heat up.



> BTW this will be paired with a 750 lumen Piko helmet light.
> 
> Silly question perhaps (new at this stuff) but why not pack the Dinotte 1200+ with XM-L's and get even more light out of it even if under driven? Would this be a potential upgrade down the road?


Cooling. It's a small package and you can only get so much power density before it melts down. I'd guess that it will take the next generation of LED that is more efficient (more light at same power) to make for a successful upgrade.

J.


----------



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

randyharris said:


> ...Regarding the XML3, I found it to be a very capable light on the trail, a lot of light output in a good pattern.* Keep in mind that I wasn't aiming the lights at curious George at the 100' mark, but closer in more like you would have it set for riding.*


Uhhhh....:shocked:...Okay.  So than it looks to throw more if aimed higher? You know I assumed all the lights were aimed the same....tap, tap, tap, tap, tap.
...:nono:...


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> Uhhhh....:shocked:...Okay.  So than it looks to throw more if aimed higher? You know I assumed all the lights were aimed the same....tap, tap, tap, tap, tap.
> ...:nono:...


My goal was to show the pattern as you might have it aimed when riding, not to try and show the most throw possible.


----------



## SirLancelot (Nov 25, 2009)

Hi,

I always adjust my lights on the bar for the most throw possible. This is much better to see things on the way coming up when driving fast (in order to be able to break early). All the rest of the light must be able to flood the ground... This is also much more comfortable for our eyes.

First of all thanks for the review and pics, great job! It's much work, I know. You got already some good hints how to improve your comparison and I would like to add also my input. It would be great to see some photos with the following settings like we use in our forum and which I used in my light comparison 2011 on lupine lights:

ISO 200
Exposure time: 2 sec
F4
focal length: something at 27mm KB or 35mm KB - I think your focal length is ok.

Use always same settings for all fotos otherwise they're not really comparable. If you'd like to show other beam behavior under different circumstances then choose another scenario and use again the same settings.

Use manual settings on the photo camera all the time for all photos and position the lights on the same place at the tripod with the same direction. The center pattern of the light must point at curious george. Also position curious george at 150 feet or at 300 feet.

The pico has a good range up to 200 feet and is able to flood the ground.

Best Regards


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

SirLancelot said:


> Hi,
> 
> I always adjust my lights on the bar for the most throw possible. This is much better to see things on the way coming up when driving fast (in order to be able to break early). All the rest of the light must be able to flood the ground... This is also much more comfortable for our eyes.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the tips.

I suppose we all tend to focus on our needs. Where I mtb, I don't think I ever even run into any stretch of trail where I can see 150' ahead of me, much less 300'... I'm looking at the section of trail far closer.

What does the KB indicate? as in 27mm KB


----------



## Rakuman (Oct 30, 2004)

http://forums.mtbr.com/lights-diy-do-yourself/beamshot-thread-485574.html


----------



## SirLancelot (Nov 25, 2009)

Of course it depends also on the speed and everyone has different needs, it's a matter of taste. So 2 scenarios would be great, one for the trail far closer and one for the most throw possible.

Sorry I forgot to translate KB. I mean: Focal Length In 35mm Film. But I think your focal length is ok like it is.


----------



## rideitall (Dec 15, 2005)

*XML-3 on it's way to me*

After a wet night ride last night, my old eyes told me I need more light.

The 400L on the helmet is no longer enough. I will use the XML-3 as a helmet light in conjunction with the 1200L+ on the bars.

My 1200L+ is the older one so it my not be quite as bright as the revamped one, but has lots of spread and decent throw. Once I get the XML-3 I will be back in business. Will post up some comments once I get a ride or two on it.

Cheers
J


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

rideitall said:


> The 400L on the helmet is no longer enough. I will use the XML-3 as a helmet light in conjunction with the 1200L+ on the bars.
> J


The old 400L yes BUT...

I just received my upgraded "old 400L" back from Dinotte. This is essentially the exact same "new 400L Plus" that Dinotte has listed on their website. The 30% boost has brought lumen output to around 530L. Now powered by XPG emitters, new reflectors and more efficient circuitry, it might be something to consider since you already have the light engine (2 new lens options are also included).

The beam pattern is lovely. Very nice large hotspot that gradually blends outwards. I didn't think the 30% boost would do much initially but when I powered up, i was rightfully corrected. This thing has punch!

A $70 upgrade might be on the steep side but coupled with the fact that I love the 400L light engine design plus Dinotte's batteries and helmet mount are really solid in form and function (both which I already have), I'm a very happy camper.

Thanks Rob @ Dinotte.


----------



## rideitall (Dec 15, 2005)

Chromagftw said:


> The old 400L yes BUT...
> The beam pattern is lovely. Very nice large hotspot that gradually blends outwards. I didn't think the 30% boost would do much initially but when I powered up, i was rightfully corrected. This thing has punch! ...


Chromagftw thanks for the feedback. I guess I will keep the 400L for now, perhaps a backup or to lend out on rides. I have already pulled the trigger on the XML-3. I won't bother to upgrade the 1200L+ to the 1200L+ new. I like the run time on at as it is and with the XML-3 I should be able to see well enough.

Now I just have to be patient and wait for the light to arrive. It has only been a couple of hours. Is it here yet. what about now ...


----------



## rideitall (Dec 15, 2005)

*1200L+ bar mount*

Does anyone running a 1200L+ use it on a bike with a riser bar. I can get the light to mount on the handlebar, but because of the rise on the bar the light sits quite tilted.

Any suggestions other than to replace the bar with a flat one.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

rideitall said:


> Does anyone running a 1200L+ use it on a bike with a riser bar. I can get the light to mount on the handlebar, but because of the rise on the bar the light sits quite tilted.
> 
> Any suggestions other than to replace the bar with a flat one.


Topeak® Cycling Accessories


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

rideitall said:


> Does anyone running a 1200L+ use it on a bike with a riser bar. I can get the light to mount on the handlebar, but because of the rise on the bar the light sits quite tilted.
> 
> Any suggestions other than to replace the bar with a flat one.


Here's one solution from GeoManGear


----------



## rideitall (Dec 15, 2005)

randyharris said:


> Here's one solution from GeoManGear


Thanks that would work perfectly. Will check a couple of shops locally to see if they have something like this. If not I will purchase a couple of the plastic ones from Geoman.


----------



## calzonical (Aug 30, 2005)

Seems like the Geomangear 6.0Ah battery should work with the 1200L, right?


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

calzonical said:


> Seems like the Geomangear 6.0Ah battery should work with the 1200L, right?


Though I think the plugs are the same size, on Dinottes the "hood" is on the male side of the plug. On the Geoman, I think it's on the female end. So, they might be made compatible with a little surgery; a circumcision, so to speak. But that is purely speculation on my part.


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

Titus Maximus said:


> Though I think the plugs are the same size, on Dinottes the "hood" is on the male side of the plug. On the Geoman, I think it's on the female end. So, they might be made compatible with a little surgery; a circumcision, so to speak. But that is purely speculation on my part.


Titus is correct.

I did this to experiment but used a Magicshine extension cord to test the connection reliability between battery and light head. It worked but having lost the 'hood' it was jiggley and the connection interface was no longer sturdy or waterproof and required further measures to rectify.

When it wasn't of great significance then, I do recall seeing on Ebay an adapter that reversed the male & female hood thingy. I have no idea what it is called so if anyone cares to share, please do so. It is about just over an inch in length.


----------



## LiveFreeThenDie (Mar 21, 2010)

*Dashboard Genie FTW*



Titus Maximus said:


> Topeak® Cycling Accessories


Dashboard Genie

I've had this for a couple of months. A co-worker has the full size bar and I have the half size. It is worth EVERY penny. Sturdy. Here it is in action: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/UaLYzQtDI9eht_4aZsS4Xw?feat=directlink


----------



## Earlybird Rider (Sep 16, 2011)

*Dinotte order*

Just ordered the new XML 3. Dinotte makes it easy to do business with them.:thumbsup:


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

LiveFreeThenDie said:


> Dashboard Genie
> 
> I've had this for a couple of months. A co-worker has the full size bar and I have the half size. It is worth EVERY penny. Sturdy. Here it is in action: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/UaLYzQtDI9eht_4aZsS4Xw?feat=directlink


Yep. I've used the same thing for several years. Works great. it's made from AL and CF. You do have to be careful and do use a torque wrench to tighten no more than 5 nm. You can crush the handlebars if you are not careful.

j.


----------



## onobed (Dec 27, 2007)

Thanks for the great write up. Dinotte owes you as I just purchased a 1200L+, 400, and 300 tail light.


----------



## rideitall (Dec 15, 2005)

My shiny new XML-3 was just dropped off. It took 5 days to get here (Vanc, BC) including a weekend. Great effort by Rob at Dinotte. :thumbsup:

Light looks very nice. Hoping to get out for a ride tomorrow night to see how it goes and the improvement over the 400L (not updated).

Weight doesn't seem too bad. Could almost use the light on the helmet direct without the helmet mount. The mount doesn't add that much weight but does add height. The height makes it easier to snag low lying branches and also leverages the weight making it feel heavier than it is.

No comment as yet to the beam other than it looks equally bright to the 1200L+, but obviously not as wide.

Stoked to get out and give it a go. Will post up some feedback once I have some trail time.


----------



## 2wheelsarefun (Apr 20, 2007)

rideitall said:


> Does anyone running a 1200L+ use it on a bike with a riser bar. I can get the light to mount on the handlebar, but because of the rise on the bar the light sits quite tilted.
> 
> Any suggestions other than to replace the bar with a flat one.


Try mounting the light under the bar. I did this with my old 200L, on a set of riser bars with a corss brace, and it worked fine. The cables were so close to the light that it didn't effect the patern on the ground.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

onobed said:


> Thanks for the great write up. Dinotte owes you as I just purchased a 1200L+, 400, and 300 tail light.


Excellent combination! Bars, helmet and tail light. the 300R is really a nice taillight.

J.


----------



## rideitall (Dec 15, 2005)

*XML-3 on the trails*

Got out for a ride last night with the new light. Had the 1200L+ on the bars and the XML-3 on the helmet.

The reasonably light weight of the XML-3 light allowed it to be used on a XC helmet without any issues. I has the light pretty tight on the helmet mount and was able to do small adjustments up/down to get the light aimed correctly.

The XML-3 works very well along side the 1200L+. It has a decent amount of flood, good throw and no detectable hotspots, and of course is very bright. Might even have to say as bright as the 1200L+. The 1200L+ I am running is from last year so it does not have the upgrades. The 1200L+ has more flood as one would expect, but lacks the punch (brightness) that the new XML-3 has.

All in all a good mix with the two lights. Has me wondering if I should send in my 400L to be upgraded.

that's all for now.


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

rideitall said:


> Has me wondering if I should send in my 400L to be upgraded.


Rideitall, I had a chance to play around with the lenses that come with the upgraded 400L (the old ones will not work with the new retrofit). There are 2 different pairs total allowing for 3 different customizable combinations. The double spot is piercing, the double flood removes the hot center (nice for tight twisty singletrack) and the "1 of each" which I guess you can consider the "do it all" setup. I cant compare it to the XML as don't have one unfortunately but the new upgrade is a very welcomed addition. Like the Piko 3, the low profile light engine and helmet mount design is also just hard to beat IMO.

My only regret is I didn't jump in on Robs offer and and send in both of my old 400L engines to get upgraded and only pay international shipping and handling for 1 unit alone.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Finally got this sinus head cold thing over with, borrowed by BIL's $2,000 digital SLR (and some of you think that bike lights are expensive...) Spent quite a bit of timing setting the scene and running through a whole litany of pictures with the following lights.

Stanley rechargeable 3 watt LED flashlight
Lupine Piko 3
DiNotte 400L
DiNotte XML-1
DiNotte XML-3
DiNotte 1200L-Plus

I used the settings that Troutie recommends over in the DIY forum and I'll tell you what. I think the pictures are junk. Junk I tell you! The pictures from my point and shoot where better in my honest opinion. And the reason is that the Troutie settings makes everything look super bright, it dramatically over states what the lights put out. While my cameras pictures may not have been the exact same settings from one light to the next as it auto changes some settings, they were far more comparable and demonstrative of what the beam looked like than did the pictures from this high end Nikon with the Troutie settings.

Not a total loss, I had fun comparing all the beam shots from the various lights, some observations you'd be able to assess from the marketing info, others came from directly comparing different lights. I'll try to tap out something tomorrow if I have a chance. But I deleted all the shots I took tonight - just not representative of anything I saw with my own eyes.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

randyharris said:


> I used the settings that Troutie recommends over in the DIY forum and I'll tell you what. I think the pictures are junk. Junk I tell you! The pictures from my point and shoot where better in my honest opinion. And the reason is that the Troutie settings makes everything look super bright, it dramatically over states what the lights put out.


Oh sh*t, I made a mistake - the ISO was set to 200 not 100.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

Just reduce the exposure time until you're happy with how the picture compares with what you see. I've been using 2s AWB (no control over aperture) with my lights that have a similar range in brightness, although the brightest (twin [email protected]) does start saturating.

The MTBR recommended settings really need adjusting as they were set when 400lm lights were the top dog.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

randyharris said:


> Oh sh*t, I made a mistake - the ISO was set to 200 not 100.


If you have some photo software, just put it in there and turn the exposure down one f-stop. that would be the exact same thing as if you took the image at ISO 100. In fact, that will actually give you a picture with better detail since it was overexposed slightly to begin with. If you want me to do it, just send me a PM and I'll give you my email address, adjust the images and send them back to you.

J.


----------



## Oscar56 (Oct 8, 2011)

rideitall said:


> My shiny new XML-3 was just dropped off. It took 5 days to get here (Vanc, BC) including a weekend. Great effort by Rob at Dinotte. :thumbsup:


Any issues with customs/broker fees?

Grant in Summerland, BC


----------



## sewhite (Dec 28, 2007)

QUOTE]The old 400L yes BUT...

I just received my upgraded "old 400L" back from Dinotte. This is essentially the exact same "new 400L Plus" that Dinotte has listed on their website. The 30% boost has brought lumen output to around 530L. Now powered by XPG emitters, new reflectors and more efficient circuitry, it might be something to consider since you already have the light engine (2 new lens options are also included).

The beam pattern is lovely. Very nice large hotspot that gradually blends outwards. I didn't think the 30% boost would do much initially but when I powered up, i was rightfully corrected. This thing has punch!

A $70 upgrade might be on the steep side but coupled with the fact that I love the 400L light engine design plus Dinotte's batteries and helmet mount are really solid in form and function (both which I already have), I'm a very happy camper.[/QUOTE]

Cromagftw: Thanks for the 400 Plus upgrade info, I took your advice, called Rob at Dinotte, and love the improved performance over the original specs. Used it this last weekend in combo with my 800 at 24 Hours of Georgia. The ratio of helmet/bar lumens proved to be "just right".


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

sewhite said:


> Cromagftw: Thanks for the 400 Plus upgrade info, I took your advice, called Rob at Dinotte, and love the improved performance over the original specs. Used it this last weekend in combo with my 800 at 24 Hours of Georgia. The ratio of helmet/bar lumens proved to be "just right".


Glad I could share mate!

The lens combos make all the difference when selecting the required beam pattern as needed. Just be sure not to over tighten the rather small phillip screw heads on the face plate when switching out the lenses.


----------



## Two Jack (Sep 26, 2011)

Oscar56 said:


> Any issues with customs/broker fees?
> 
> Grant in Summerland, BC


Grant,

I have ordered from Dinotte many times. Never had a customs fee charged.

You might end up having to pay the CAnada Post "handling fee" of about $8 if your package gets picked. That is a pretty random thing. Sometimes they get charged, most times not.

But if it comes by mail ( not UPS or Fedex) you will skate on the brokerage fees.


----------



## juergenor (Mar 30, 2004)

*How doe these lights compare to HID*

I have a NR HID helmet light (heavy!) and I am thinking of upgrading to a LED light - either from Dinotte or Lupine (Piko 3).

How do any of these newer 750+ lumens lights compare to a HID light? I have the narrow beam bulb and think - based on what I read - that the output of such a light head is in the 600-700 lumens range. I know that I will like the lower weight - but will I be disappointed in terms of brightness and throw?

Any experiences - please share.

Thanks

Juergenor


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

juergenor said:


> I have a NR HID helmet light (heavy!) and I am thinking of upgrading to a LED light - either from Dinotte or Lupine (Piko 3).
> 
> How do any of these newer 750+ lumens lights compare to a HID light? I have the narrow beam bulb and think - based on what I read - that the output of such a light head is in the 600-700 lumens range. I know that I will like the lower weight - but will I be disappointed in terms of brightness and throw?
> 
> ...


I was running (2) Light & Motion ARC HID lights until I recently upgraded. I would say that the DiNotte XML-1 puts out noticeably more light than did my ARC, however, the ARC had a hot center and a lot of spill, the XML- is a more focused beam. It has a beam pattern far bigger than the hot spot of my old HID, but it doesn't spill/flood as much.

XML-3 puts out considerably more than did my HID, which I think was rated at 675 Lumen.


----------



## Oscar56 (Oct 8, 2011)

Two Jack said:


> Grant,
> 
> I have ordered from Dinotte many times. Never had a customs fee charged.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I have been stung in the past by customs. Ordered the XML-3 and 300R. 2 hours later it was already shipped by Dinotte. Hopefully it will arrive in the coming week.


----------



## abacojeff (Aug 17, 2008)

juergenor said:


> I have a NR HID helmet light (heavy!) and I am thinking of upgrading to a LED light - either from Dinotte or Lupine (Piko 3).
> 
> How do any of these newer 750+ lumens lights compare to a HID light? I have the narrow beam bulb and think - based on what I read - that the output of such a light head is in the 600-700 lumens range. I know that I will like the lower weight - but will I be disappointed in terms of brightness and throw?
> 
> ...


I used to use Marwi NitePro Extreme HIDs and previously estimated output in the 550 - 600 range... I wouldn't be surprised if they measured lower. After switching to high powered LEDs I would say an LED light in the same lumen range would be a big improvement over the HID light.

In the case of the Marwi HID, the color rendition is a cool white light which doesn't 'project' as well as the warmer LED lights with apparently better CRI.

My XPG Lupine Piko (550 lumen) is noticeably brighter than the Marwi HID... this is partially due to the more focused beam of the Piko versus the more diffuse beam of the Marwi... but I also think this is a result of Lupine reporting "true" lumens and the color rendition of the led showing more contrast, color, visibility.

I'm planning on upgrading my 550 lumen XPG Piko to the 750 lumen XML Piko - I'm sure the 750 lumen Piko will blow the Marwi (and NiteRider) HID out of the water.


----------



## Slowup (Dec 16, 2009)

Chromagftw said:


> Rideitall, I had a chance to play around with the lenses that come with the upgraded 400L (the old ones will not work with the new retrofit). There are 2 different pairs total allowing for 3 different customizable combinations. The double spot is piercing, the double flood removes the hot center (nice for tight twisty singletrack) and the "1 of each" which I guess you can consider the "do it all" setup. I cant compare it to the XML as don't have one unfortunately but the new upgrade is a very welcomed addition. Like the Piko 3, the low profile light engine and helmet mount design is also just hard to beat IMO.
> 
> My only regret is I didn't jump in on Robs offer and and send in both of my old 400L engines to get upgraded and only pay international shipping and handling for 1 unit alone.


Any beam shots available of the upgraded 400L vrs the non-upgraded one??

I had temporarily retired my 400L as a helmet mount and have been using the 600L instead, which was previously replaced by the 1200+ as a bar mount.
I've never loved how heavy and tall the 600L is compared to the 400L.


----------



## juergenor (Mar 30, 2004)

*XML-3 run time*

To all XML-3 users: what battery burn time can you confirm with your XML-3 on max output? I am looking for a light that runs for at least 2 hours with some margin.

Thanks

Juergenor


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

juergenor said:


> To all XML-3 users: what battery burn time can you confirm with your XML-3 on max output? I am looking for a light that runs for at least 2 hours with some margin.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Juergenor


It'll burn longer than 2 hours.


----------



## mlinenb (Dec 27, 2008)

Great reviews! Have you done a test to see how long the 1200L will run at HIGH?

Also- I noticed your pics of the Dinotte 1200L are MUCH brighter than your XML-3 light. However- the MTBR 2012 shootout pics have it the other way around- with the XML-3 light looking brighter (and more lux- with their testing apparatus) than the 1200L. Any first hand thoughts on this- since you have experience with both lights?


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

randyharris said:


> This 1200L-Plus is a new shipping model that has been increased in output from the version that has been shipping since it was introduced. So the XML3 vs 1200L-Plus, just keep in mind that this 1200L-Plus I'm comparing against has more light than does the 1200L-Plus that has shipped up to this week.


Maybe they should just call the the new and improved 1200L+ the 1200L++. Or just quit this plus BS and call them Barney and Fred.


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

Slowup said:


> Any beam shots available of the upgraded 400L vrs the non-upgraded one??
> 
> I had temporarily retired my 400L as a helmet mount and have been using the 600L instead, which was previously replaced by the 1200+ as a bar mount.
> I've never loved how heavy and tall the 600L is compared to the 400L.


Sorry Slowup, I actually just sent my 2nd older 400L for the upgrade also. I held off on sending both in at the same time so I could compare and contrast. Needless to say, I was impressed enough with the 1st that I sent in the other.

Having played with the lenses though, I am comfortable to say that if running a bar light upwards of 1000 OTF Lumens you would be better served running two clear lenses in the 400L Plus as opposed to 1 clear 1 frosted lens configuration.

The difference between 400L and 400L Plus is huge mate. That I promise.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

mlinenb said:


> Great reviews! Have you done a test to see how long the 1200L will run at HIGH?
> 
> Also- I noticed your pics of the Dinotte 1200L are MUCH brighter than your XML-3 light. However- the MTBR 2012 shootout pics have it the other way around- with the XML-3 light looking brighter (and more lux- with their testing apparatus) than the 1200L. Any first hand thoughts on this- since you have experience with both lights?


Pictures of beam patterns are difficult because they don't capture what you see with your eyes.

I was shocked to see that Francios tested the XML3 at higher lumen output than the 1200.

Here's my take on it. The XML3 is more of a spot beam, I'm not saying that it's too spotty or a super tight pattern, but it doesn't have a lot of spill, it is more focused in a way similar to the Lupine Piko 3. The 1200 has a LOT of flood. With it's dual lens setup, it also throws very well, but it has a ton of flood. Riding with the XML3, I can't see my front tire for example, nothing to the right and left of me several yards ahead is lit up. When I ride with the 1200 I can see my front tire very clearly, and everything to the left and right are lit up. I would say that the main beam out in front of you is probably hotter, more intense with the XML3 than the 1200. But certainly out on the trail the 1200 gives the impression of having much more light due to it's dual setup and with it's massive flood.

If you are looking for a light for road and mtb, maybe the XML3 is the better choice. I prefer the big flood for mtb riding though so it wasn't a tough choice for me, I use the 1200 on the bar and a Piko 3 (750) on the lid.


----------



## mlinenb (Dec 27, 2008)

randyharris said:


> Pictures of beam patterns are difficult because they don't capture what you see with your eyes.
> 
> I was shocked to see that Francios tested the XML3 at higher lumen output than the 1200.
> 
> If you are looking for a light for road and mtb, maybe the XML3 is the better choice. I prefer the big flood for mtb riding though so it wasn't a tough choice for me, I use the 1200 on the bar and a Piko 3 (750) on the lid.


Thanks.

Have you done a full run time on the 1200 light while being on HIGH? Can you get 2 hours or is it 90 minutes or?

Thank you.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

mlinenb said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Have you done a full run time on the 1200 light while being on HIGH? Can you get 2 hours or is it 90 minutes or?
> 
> Thank you.


I'll have to test that, I believe it runs for 2 hours now, so maybe less as the battery ages.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

would you guys say that the XML 3 is better suited for the handlebar, or on the helmet, or both? 

are there any lens options for the XML 3? 


thanks


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

d365 said:


> would you guys say that the XML 3 is better suited for the handlebar, or on the helmet, or both?
> 
> are there any lens options for the XML 3?
> 
> thanks


I don't think there are other lens options, check with DiNotte though to be positive.

My feeling is that the XML3 would work great on either bar or helmet.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

randyharris said:


> I don't think there are other lens options, check with DiNotte though to be positive.
> 
> My feeling is that the XML3 would work great on either bar or helmet.


thanks Randy.

this will be my first light, and I really wanted to get a helmet light first, and this seemed like an ideal candidate.

I noticed they sell a 2 - xml3 package deal. maybe that's the way to go.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

d365 said:


> thanks Randy.
> 
> this will be my first light, and I really wanted to get a helmet light first, and this seemed like an ideal candidate.
> 
> I noticed they sell a 2 - xml3 package deal. maybe that's the way to go.


I think they also have an XML1 and XML3 option, that wouldn't be a bad way to go either, the 1 on your head and 3 on the bar.


----------



## Retlaw (Nov 6, 2010)

randyharris said:


> I think they also have an XML1 and XML3 option, that wouldn't be a bad way to go either, the 1 on your head and 3 on the bar.


I was also considering that combo but I didn't see it on the site, so I e-mailed them.... they will sell the XML-3 and XML-1 combo for $30 off of the XLM3/400L combo price of $420, or $390. A savings of $38 over the separate prices.
They did mention they preferred the 400L for helmet-only mounting, hence their choice in packages. 400L can be headband mounted too, another bonus.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Retlaw said:


> I was also considering that combo but I didn't see it on the site, so I e-mailed them.... they will sell that combo for $30 off of the XLM3/400L combo price of $420, or $390. A savings of $38 over the separate prices.
> They did mention they preferred the 400L for helmet-only mounting, hence their choice in packages. 400L can be headband mounted too, another bonus.


The 400 is a nice light, but it's hard for me to not like the additional light output of the XML1 even if it's not quite as slick of a helmet specific light.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

I've been trying to capture in a digital picture what I see with my eyes and let me tell you it isn't easy. I borrow my BIL's fancy big digital SLR but I ended up getting more representative pictures from my Panasonic DMC-TS3 in Night Scene mode.

In line below are some medium sized pictures, if you click on the pictures it will direct you to a full size image.

I left the shots of the 400L out because my Night Scene mode is adaptive and it took a longer exposure time making the beamshot look extremely bright for the 400L - it's not comparible to the other lights.

*DiNotte 400L*
This is a nice light that puts out a beam of flat light, it lights up very nicely in front of you and has a focused enough beam so that you could road ride with it and not blind oncoming cars. It would make a really nice MTB helmet light as well. Ultimately, I am swayed by the tiny size and more light of my Piko 3. I would love to see the 400L in a smaller package and have a mounting bracket that puts the light more flush up against the helmet. Clever placement of the on/off button on the face of the light with the 400L.

*DiNotte XML-1*
The XML1 is a great light, similar to the 400L I think it would be fine to use on the road and not blind oncoming cars, I ride with several guys who use Magicshines, and I find the XML-1 to be a superior beam than the spot put out by the Magicshines. It's a dramatic difference. Design and build quality appear to be much nicer with the DiNotte, time will be the true test. While this on a helmet would have to be mounted up on top of the helmet, I far prefer helmet lights to be down low in the front of the helmet so they are less likely to catch a branch - if that isn't a big concern, this would make a killer helmet light or a very nice bar light that seems well worth a few extra dollars over a Magicshine.



*DiNotte XML-3*
The XML3 as noted by Francois in his 2012 Shootout thread is said to put out 1400 lumens (and 1200 lumens for the 1200.) I was frankly shocked by this and couldn't understand it. I've played with both lights, and I've ridden off road with both lights and it made no sense to me. But after seeing Francois's numbers and giving a different critical eye to the lights I think that it is in fact correct. The XML-3 does in fact put out more light than the 1200L-Plus. However, it puts out that light onto a more focused beam with far less spill, so the amount of real estate that it lights up is smaller, but that area is lit more intensely - hotter.

This light will make a very good bar light for mtb use, I am not sure it is really necessary for road riding unless you just want more more more. The beam is focused enough that I don't think it would offend cars because of the spill, maybe just from the intensity.



*DiNotte 1200L-Plus*
Lumen and lux ratings be damned, I stand by my personal choice of the 1200L-Plus as my MTB bar light of choice. This light kicks a**. Ok, so it may not be the lumen champion but it puts out a fantastic flood and throw beam with it's dual quad setup. The light is flat without hot spots, it lights up quite adequately - the XML3 may be more intense but the 1200L-Plus is not lacking. This light would suck on a road bike because the huge flood would shine at drivers of cars. Having ridden with the XML3 and the 1200L-Plus off road, I definitely prefer the combo of throw and flood that the 1200L-Plus offers, this may not suit everybody but it's great in my opinion. While the Baja Designs 1800 lumen light looks great, it does run the LED's hotter, and will not get as long of battery life; the NiteRider 3000 has questionable build quality, is super heavy and sucks batteries. Had the Baja Designs 1800 been the same price as the 1200L-Plus I honestly probably would have given it serious consideration. I'm not sure how the beam pattern of it compares to this DiNotte. While more lumens is great in many ways, the beam pattern is also extremely important - as mentioned the XML3 has more lumens but I far prefer the light output / beam of the 1200L-Plus. The case, in spite of lacking a hood, is also probably the nicest case I've seen on a light too, very high quality. I have found that the strap style mount is a good system. I put it on pretty tight and only after maybe 90 to 120 minutes into my ride do I have to tilt it back up a little bit. It stays put really well and is faster than a plastic type mount which is more likely to break in my opinion.

I am hoping that DiNotte makes an upgrade to the light. As a singlespeed rider I do most of my climbing standing, not seated. With the 1200L-Plus on my bar while I am climbing in a standing position, I get kind of blinded by the light because the light source is so close to the front of the light. I fashioned a little hood for my light and it works great to block the light from spilling up to my eyes. A new bezel with a hood on top to perform this same function as what I have done DIY would be great. Admittedly this is more of an issue for those that climb in a standing position.

​
Pretty high praise for these lights from me. I'll ding DiNotte for not having their name on the lights, big marketing failure in my opinion - they have every right to be darned proud of these lights as I am sure they are, so tastefully let the name be known right on the light and maybe even the cables. If it were possible that the battery packs were 5.6Ah as some of the newer packs, this would be great especially for high output lights as they take a lot of power. Like everything in life there are compromises and trade offs. I have to assume if the DiNotte battery packs were the higher capacity that they would probably cost more. While not a ding, the packaging of the lights is very sparse, everything comes in a very vanilla manner, no cutout foam type of packaging. Unboxing wasn't exciting with this lackluster boxes and packing, this makes not a darned bit of difference with the lights, it wasn't a negative, but it could have been a positive.

Reminder: I have no affiliation with DiNotte (remember I also have a Lupine), I received no compensation or discounts or anything like that. I just dig bikes and bike lights and thought this was a fun thing to do.

Go ride, go ride at night (or very early in the morning.) Consider these lights as I have done, they're really nice and designed and built here in the USA with fanatical support. Contact DiNotte with any questions and they are quick and responsive. Shipping on the lights is free.

Good stuff from good guys.


----------



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

randyharris said:


> *DiNotte XML-1*
> The XML1 is a great light, similar to the 400L I think it would be fine to use on the road and not blind oncoming cars, I ride with several guys who use Magicshines, and I find the XML-1 to be a superior beam than the spot put out by the Magicshines. It's a dramatic difference. Design and build quality appear to be much nicer with the DiNotte, time will be the true test. While this on a helmet would have to be mounted up on top of the helmet, I far prefer helmet lights to be down low in the front of the helmet so they are less likely to catch a branch - if that isn't a big concern, this would make a killer helmet light or a very nice bar light that seems well worth a few extra dollars over a Magicshine.


...Randy, Thanks a whole bunch for this beam pic of the XML "1". Since the XML1 was not advertised as "driven to the max", I was not expecting such a nice, far reaching beam pattern. I was considering buying one of these for the road bike but thought it might not be bright enough. I think now maybe I was wrong about that. ( Looks a lot like the beam pattern on the Gemini XERA ...if maybe a tad dimmer )

Anyway, was the XML1 you used the model that is AA powered or is it the Li-ion model? Other than run time would there be a difference in output between the two battery types?...maybe a question best answered by Rob.


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

Randy, thanks a bunch for the beam shots.

Just to confirm, the Dinotte 400L is actually the 400L and not the 400L Plus correct? The 400L is 400 lumens and the 400L Plus is 550 lumens.

Secondly are your running dual clear lenses in each receptacle for the Dinotte 400 light engine?


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

randyharris said:


> Pretty high praise for these lights from me. I'll ding DiNotte for not having their name on the lights, big marketing failure in my opinion - they have every right to be darned proud of these lights as I am sure they are, so tastefully let the name be known right on the light and maybe even the cables. If it were possible that the battery packs were 5.6Ah as some of the newer packs, this would be great especially for high output lights as they take a lot of power. Like everything in life there are compromises and trade offs. I have to assume if the DiNotte battery packs were the higher capacity that they would probably cost more. While not a ding, the packaging of the lights is very sparse, everything comes in a very vanilla manner, no cutout foam type of packaging. Unboxing wasn't exciting with this lackluster boxes and packing, this makes not a darned bit of difference with the lights, it wasn't a negative, but it could have been a positive.


you and I think exactly alike Randy. I actually sent Rob an email with a few similar suggestions. One of which was to brand the product box, use a magnetic closure and use a foam insert to compartmentalize the package. I had the exact reactions you did. Super excited to open the XML-3 package, then "oh, its all loose". I thiink they are missing out on a golden opportunity to market the product and take advantage of that exciting moment of opening your new lights. No issue with the product itself, in fact that was why I offered my suggestion. I love the product, which is really what matters, and want these guys to be as successful as they deserve. I recommend the XML-3 without hesitation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Retlaw (Nov 6, 2010)

Nice comparisons Randy.
Wish you could get a pic of the 400L. 
Francisis' pics show the XML-1 and 400L to be relatively comparable, with the 400L having more spread which lights the foreground much better. Would you say there is a noticeable difference in output? Tests show 40 Lux for the $209 400L and 51 Lux for the $169 XML-1.

With the Lupine Piko being $330, and the Dinotte 400L at $209, it's not a fair comparison.... is this case you get what you pay for.

I'm impressed with your 1200L pic. Really shows the difference in spread. Too bad it's $350.
How does the Lupine Pico 3 compare with it? They're in the same price range....


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Cat-man-do said:


> ...Randy, Thanks a whole bunch for this beam pic of the XML "1". Since the XML1 was not advertised as "driven to the max", I was not expecting such a nice, far reaching beam pattern. I was considering buying one of these for the road bike but thought it might not be bright enough. I think now maybe I was wrong about that. ( Looks a lot like the beam pattern on the Gemini XERA ...if maybe a tad dimmer )
> 
> Anyway, was the XML1 you used the model that is AA powered or is it the Li-ion model? Other than run time would there be a difference in output between the two battery types?...maybe a question best answered by Rob.


Cat, they were all external battery packs.

Would video of the lights help?


----------



## skidad (May 23, 2005)

Randy, really great writeups and the beam shots are very nice IMO. That 1200L + is just sweet IMO and I would love to compare it to my MS 856. From what I read the DiNotte would plug right into the MS battery pack. Hmmmm...must resist:madman:

I really love that Piko and and was actually waiting to buy the new X-Duo version (geared more to runners and comes with 2 1.7mAh battery packs) but jeez my new Xera is making me thing twice about it. Less than 1/2 the price (2 cell version) of the Piko and with a higher lux rating on the MTBR scale and it came with a head band (and extension cord) besides the helmet mount. Beautiful smooth beam with no hot spot and now a tighter optional reflector will be available soon. Reliability/longevity is a question at this point and you can't dunk the Xera under 3' of water like the Piko but for those choking on the Piko price the Xera is a great alternative for $150. Very high praises from GeoMan who I believe will be carrying the Gemini lights soon and he already carries the Lupine stuff.

I agree the DiNotte name should be laser etched on their lites at the very least with USA also perhaps. Fancy packaging is nice but adds expense which I'm sure their trying to avoid to keep the price down.


----------



## Two Jack (Sep 26, 2011)

skidad said:


> Randy, really great writeups and the beam shots are very nice IMO. That 1200L + is just sweet IMO and I would love to compare it to my MS 856. *From what I read the DiNotte would plug right into the MS battery pack.* Hmmmm...must resist:madman:
> 
> I really love that Piko and and was actually waiting to buy the new X-Duo version (geared more to runners and comes with 2 1.7mAh battery packs) but jeez my new Xera is making me thing twice about it. Less than 1/2 the price (2 cell version) of the Piko and with a higher lux rating on the MTBR scale and it came with a head band (and extension cord) besides the helmet mount. Beautiful smooth beam with no hot spot and now a tighter optional reflector will be available soon. Reliability/longevity is a question at this point and you can't dunk the Xera under 3' of water like the Piko but for those choking on the Piko price the Xera is a great alternative for $150. Very high praises from GeoMan who I believe will be carrying the Gemini lights soon and he already carries the Lupine stuff.
> 
> I agree the DiNotte name should be laser etched on their lites at the very least with USA also perhaps. Fancy packaging is nice but adds expense which I'm sure their trying to avoid to keep the price down.


Can anyone confirm that this is the case?

That would mean they would plug into the Gemini cables as well.

Whole new world of possibilities.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Chromagftw said:


> Randy, thanks a bunch for the beam shots.
> 
> Just to confirm, the Dinotte 400L is actually the 400L and not the 400L Plus correct? The 400L is 400 lumens and the 400L Plus is 550 lumens.
> 
> Secondly are your running dual clear lenses in each receptacle for the Dinotte 400 light engine?


I'd say check with Rob over at DiNotte, I think he sent me whatever the latest incarnation of the 400L is.

btw - I actually prefer the beam of the 400 over my Piko 3, it is really smooth and evenly dispersed, just not as intense of light.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

Retlaw said:


> Nice comparisons Randy.
> Wish you could get a pic of the 400L.
> Francisis' pics show the XML-1 and 400L to be relatively comparable, with the 400L having more spread which lights the foreground much better. Would you say there is a noticeable difference in output? Tests show 40 Lux for the $209 400L and 51 Lux for the $169 XML-1.
> 
> ...


It's one thing to rank bike lights for all the goodies without considering price, usually the more expensive lights win. But as you start to seriously consider the cost of the lights then it's very different.

I would honestly say that at the list prices for the 400 and the Piko, the better value is the 400. The Piko for me was a splurge item, it's a light I never remove from my helmet, it's always there day or morning or night. I don't bring a battery for day lights and just hook up a battery with a cable and put it in my jersey pocket if riding in the dark. As mentioned in another post a minute ago, I actually like the more evenly distributed light in the beam of the 400 than the Piko. Maybe the fact that the Piko is brighter makes it seem less even?

The Piko 3 is more intense in it's beam than is the 1200, similar to the XML3 in this regard. When I move the Piko beam over the 1200 beam it does not get lost, I can still see it - it complements not disappears in the 1200 beam. I'm sure that many people happily use the 400 as their helmet light - I simply appreciate a few more lumens on my lid.  I would have saved some bucks and had batteries that worked with either lights had I gone with a 400 over the Piko.

To your question about the XML1 and the 400L, I'd say the XML1 is noticeably brighter, but both are very nice and evenly distributed, not a hot spot with some spill around them, they light up a nice big area really well. My memory says the 400L has more spill than the XML1.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

Two Jack said:


> Can anyone confirm that this is the case?
> 
> That would mean they would plug into the Gemini cables as well.
> 
> Whole new world of possibilities.


Although I think the electrical plug dimentions are the same for the MagicShine (or Gemini) and Dinotte, the design of the plastic boot is different. The Dinotte has the "boot" on the male side of the plug, the MS on the female side. You could probably make it work by "circumcising" the dinotte plug (or possibly the MS plug) but I doubt the connection would be as secure or water resistant.


----------



## bikerider2 (Nov 9, 2011)

Randy, thanks for the detailed review. I ordered the XML-3 and it should be arriving today. Question for those who have tried the XML -1: I called Dinotte and can trade up my 200L to the XML-1 or upgrade the 200L. Supposedly a 30% boost if I upgrade. So has anybody ridden with the 200L and then upgraded to the XML -1? 

My thought is that with the XML-3 on the bars and my upgraded 200L on the helmet for seeing around corners I'll have plenty of light and maybe a little longer batter life than if I get the XML-1. Thoughts?


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

bikerider2 said:


> Randy, thanks for the detailed review. I ordered the XML-3 and it should be arriving today. Question for those who have tried the XML -1: I called Dinotte and can trade up my 200L to the XML-1 or upgrade the 200L. Supposedly a 30% boost if I upgrade. So has anybody ridden with the 200L and then upgraded to the XML -1?
> 
> My thought is that with the XML-3 on the bars and my upgraded 200L on the helmet for seeing around corners I'll have plenty of light and maybe a little longer batter life than if I get the XML-1. Thoughts?


Congrats on the XML-3. You will be very happy with that choice. I would upgrade the 200L. Very, very nice combo. And, you get to save a bit of money while upgrading a tried and true friend. Can't beat it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



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

bikerider2 said:


> Randy, thanks for the detailed review. I ordered the XML-3 and it should be arriving today. Question for those who have tried the XML -1: *I called Dinotte and can trade up my 200L to the XML-1 or upgrade the 200L. Supposedly a 30% boost if I upgrade. So has anybody ridden with the 200L and then upgraded to the XML -1? *
> 
> My thought is that with the XML-3 on the bars and my upgraded 200L on the helmet for seeing around corners I'll have plenty of light and maybe a little longer batter life than if I get the XML-1. Thoughts?


Your question has me thinking....I have a couple 200L's laying around and might go for a XML-1 trade up. You mentioned a 200L upgrade as well. Did DiNotte give you a price for what the two options would go for (?) and did they tell you what emitter would be used for the retro-fit if you upgrade the 200L?


----------



## bikerider2 (Nov 9, 2011)

Cat,

They did not tell which emitter they would upgrade to. I haven't decided which deal I'm going to do yet. I tooled around the neighborhood last night with the 200 on the helmet and the XML -3 on the bar. The XML is so bright and has such good spill and even light that the 200 was ineffective on all but the lowest setting. The 200 is much more of a spot beam. I'm going for a real offroad ride tonight and will decide to upgrade or trade in. Since the XML-1 will work with my existing batteries and I received a new charger, that might be the way to go. A 30% brighter version of the 200 might not be effective enough to upgrade. the price was 45 to upgrade and 80 to trade up. 

Honestly I can say that I've been night riding offroad since the early 90's when lead acid batteries and halogen bulbs were the norm. My hope is that the light industry instead of building 5000 lumen lights a few years from now would make them more efficient with longer battery life. It seems with the lights getting more powerful you need bigger batteries and we'll be back to HID style heavy bottle batteries to power these these overly bright lights. I'm happy for the advances and it'll be nice to run my light on a low setting for the ride up and still have a ton of light.


----------



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

bikerider2 said:


> Cat,...They did not tell which emitter they would upgrade to. I haven't decided which deal I'm going to do yet....
> 
> ....Honestly I can say that I've been night riding offroad since the early 90's when lead acid batteries and halogen bulbs were the norm. My hope is that the light industry instead of building 5000 lumen lights a few years from now would make them more efficient with longer battery life. It seems with the lights getting more powerful you need bigger batteries and we'll be back to HID style heavy bottle batteries to power these these overly bright lights. I'm happy for the advances and it'll be nice to run my light on a low setting for the ride up and still have a ton of light.


I hear ya. Seems me and you think a lot alike. I don't need the brightest light to be happy but I do care about "bang for the buck".

Looks like I'll have to have a conversation with Rob ( @DiNotte ) to get a little more technical information. I'd like to go with the XM-L-1 but I'm not sure that is my best BFTB option.
Eighty dollars is a lot for a trade up and I'm not even sure if that includes a new battery. Plus, I'm also considering that the XML-1 is not driven as hard as other XML lights. The beam shot photo's look good but I'm still skeptical. The only real reason I'm considering a DiNotte upgrade/trade-in is because I want a light for road use that has an easy access "flash mode". All the DiNotte lights ( as far as I know ) still have the separate flash menu. Once you set the light in the flash menu it stays there until you chose to switch it back. I like that, especially for road use. Since it has memory you can chose to turn the light off and when switched back on, it comes back on in the mode you last choose. That is a big big plus if ( like me ) you chose only to run flash when you think you need it. A quick double push turns it on, a push and hold turns it off. My MS808E is fine but to turn the flash on you have to push and hold for about 4-5sec...way too long. Once again, the DiNotte's also give you a choice of flash patterns as well which is also very nice.

I might just go with the upgrade but that will mean the light I have will still run on AA's. I figure the upgrade will be with either XP-G or XP-E. The dilemma I face is "which" of my 200L's to use...the flood with short cord or the spot with long cord...:madman:...decisions, decisions...

(*edit...likely the flood with short cord...I have enough helmet options right now.  )


----------



## bikerider2 (Nov 9, 2011)

Yeah the 200 is a great light for road riding I never needed anymore than that. The lightweight and abilitly to strap the battery to the stem made me swap from my HID, which was overkill for the road. But now I don't commute anymore so need the more power output. by the way, $80 was for just the lighthead on the XML-1. Not bad considering just the light head is $119 retail. My thought is that I will probably upgrade vs trade in since I'm sure the XML-1 would probably drain my older batteries much faster than I'd like.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

200 lumens enough for the road? No way.

J.


----------



## bikerider2 (Nov 9, 2011)

JohnJ80 said:


> 200 lumens enough for the road? No way.
> 
> J.


Really? Why not? Picks up all road debris and allows me to be seen. The only time I had concerns was on a ride home in the rain. Couldn't see a damn thing with the glare of the other headlights on the road. I've ridden with the 2 200L 's on the bar offroad through some tight single track - no issues. I live in Orange County and there are plenty of bike lanes but still a lot of cars on the road.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

I ride with 2250 lumens and I had the 200Ls for a while. I found them totally inadequate for road riding. 2250 is just getting there where I feel that I have no speed limits other than what I can produce.

In general, I find i can ride with less light off road than on. But, I ride in a really dark rural area, no lights at all.

J.


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

bikerider2 said:


> My hope is that the light industry instead of building 5000 lumen lights a few years from now would make them more efficient with longer battery life.


totally agree with you, and it was one of the reasons I was drawn to DiNotte. this seems to be their approach. while the majority of the industry is chasing lumens at all costs, they hadn't even measured the XML-3 at the time I bought it. use quality components, build a solid product w/3 xmls, driven within their boundaries by the right sized battery...let the lumens fall where they may. (and, by the way, ending up with the XML-3 blasting 1200 honest lumens)


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

RTM said:


> totally agree with you, and it was one of the reasons I was drawn to DiNotte. this seems to be their approach. while the majority of the industry is chasing lumens at all costs, they hadn't even measured the XML-3 at the time I bought it. use quality components, build a solid product w/3 xmls, driven within their boundaries by the right sized battery...let the lumens fall where they may. (and, by the way, ending up with the XML-3 blasting 1200 honest lumens)


Agree somewhat.

I think we are getting really close to the end of the lumens race. At about 3000 lumens, it's the same amount of light as from two car headlights maybe a bit more. That has proven in practice to be pretty good for speeds up to about 60mph. Beyond that, it's going to be diminishing returns in brightness. We should be at the point were 3000 lumens lights are readily available by next year.

I would guess that we'll see some beam shaping utilities, more programmability. Efficiency is going to be driven by other industries who have just a big a vested interest in selling more efficient LEDs - namely in the building lighting industry etc... So you'll see increased efficiency (i.e. longer battery life) for that reason alone. That's probably a given.

The feature set that we will be looking for will be more light out of smaller size (i.e. think Piko at up to 1500 lumens ) which is also a function of efficiency. THe ability to dial in or program the beam from spot to flood. Programmability in things like brightness levels, controls etc... will get more prevalent. Batteries might get smaller. All this while costs will come down although the low volumes in the biking markets will probably limit that to some degree (compare to what it could be).

The problem is that in the cycling industry the volumes will remain low

J.


----------



## bikerider2 (Nov 9, 2011)

Ok so I did a quality offroad night ride with the XML-3 on the bar and 200L on the helmet and a bunch of friends on either demo night riders or Magic Shines. They were using 750 or 1500 NR's and the light was ample for the trails we were on. Probably a little more of a hot spot on the NR's and less spill than the Dinotte. The nice thing about the Dinotte is that I could put it on the lowest setting and there was plenty of light for even technical climbing. The light produces a pretty broad and even beam with no real discernible hot spot, just plenty of quality light. When the trail pointed down I cranked up the beam to high and turned on the 200L. The XML is so bright and has such an even broad beam it is really all the light you need for even twisty singletrack. The helmet light was not powerful enough to even light up the corners of the beam of the XML on full. I'm going to take advantage of the trade in program and get an xml-1 for the helmet. 

The NightRider full moon ride was a big success and there were probably 150 riders on the trail last night, which is pretty awesome.


----------



## Roadking1962 (Jun 22, 2009)

I like the XML 3 a lot but am not crazy about the helmet mount. Is there a better helmet mount out there for this light?


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

Roadking1962 said:


> I like the XML 3 a lot but am not crazy about the helmet mount. Is there a better helmet mount out there for this light?


not sure what helmet you have, but I mount mine directly to the cross beam on my helmet. the light loses almost all of its up/down adjustment, but luckily it ended up pointing exactly where I needed it. direct mounting cut about 1" off the total height.

I wasn't that high on the helmet mount either, but I have used it several times and it disappears once you start riding. really no issues at all, I just like the lower profile and simplicity of a direct mount if possible.


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

Roadking1962 said:


> I like the XML 3 a lot but am not crazy about the helmet mount. Is there a better helmet mount out there for this light?


You might be able to adapt this mount:

Magic Shine to Marwi adapter


----------



## Roadking1962 (Jun 22, 2009)

RTM said:


> not sure what helmet you have, but I mount mine directly to the cross beam on my helmet. the light loses almost all of its up/down adjustment, but luckily it ended up pointing exactly where I needed it. direct mounting cut about 1" off the total height.
> 
> I wasn't that high on the helmet mount either, but I have used it several times and it disappears once you start riding. really no issues at all, I just like the lower profile and simplicity of a direct mount if possible.


How did you direct mount it? Do you have pics? Thanks


----------



## bvader (Sep 13, 2009)

Just bought and XML-3 very excited...was not sure new 1200 vs XML-3...went back thinking I might change already processes and shipped ~ 2hours later. 

Will ride with it next week, I have a MS which I am going to bequeath to a needy friend, and a Jet Lite A-51 (pretty nice lite) which I may convert to helmet, right now I use a Minewt which I like Lite / weight ratio.

Thanks for all the help especially Randy.


----------



## bikerider2 (Nov 9, 2011)

bvader said:


> Just bought and XML-3 very excited...was not sure new 1200 vs XML-3...went back thinking I might change already processes and shipped ~ 2hours later.
> 
> Will ride with it next week, I have a MS which I am going to bequeath to a needy friend, and a Jet Lite A-51 (pretty nice lite) which I may convert to helmet, right now I use a Minewt which I like Lite / weight ratio.
> 
> Thanks for all the help especially Randy.


Bvader, I've been using the XML-3 a lot recently. Great light and I'm sure you will be happy with it. I did the luge twice last week and had the 200L on my helmet. The XML-3 overpowered the helmet light by so much that it became pretty much useless, even in the tight corners. I've since traded in the 200l for xml-1. I haven't tried the Xml-3 on the helmet yet, but may try it out tonight. You are on the other so cal board right?


----------



## bvader (Sep 13, 2009)

bikerider2 said:


> Bvader, I've been using the XML-3 a lot recently. Great light and I'm sure you will be happy with it. I did the luge twice last week and had the 200L on my helmet. The XML-3 overpowered the helmet light by so much that it became pretty much useless, even in the tight corners. I've since traded in the 200l for xml-1. I haven't tried the Xml-3 on the helmet yet, but may try it out tonight. You are on the other so cal board right?


Cool, that is good input, I have a feeling my little MiNewt isn't going to stand up as a helmet light. And Yes I am on the other board and will be riding the Luge tonight as a matter of fact.


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

bvader said:


> Cool, that is good input, I have a feeling my little MiNewt isn't going to stand up as a helmet light. And Yes I am on the other board and will be riding the Luge tonight as a matter of fact.


Regarding having lights that are well matched on both the helmet and bar... Here's a little story I sent to a friend last week on this very topic.

Thursday two weeks ago I did a loop in the McDowell's starting at o'dark thirty. Started off with just the Piko on high, but I really missed the flood of the DiNotte (mofo huge flood) so I turned on the DiNotte on Medium, not wanting to suck the batteries on the climb from the Gate to the top of Windgate. The flood was hugely overpowered by the Piko on High. Thought about it as I rode for a minute and popped my Piko down to medium. What an awesome combination. At first it was like 'hey, who dimmed the lights'. But what I soon realized is that my eyes quickly adjusted to the lower lumen output and in another minute or two it was awesome. Even though I was putting out far less lumens than both lights on high, I adjusted to the new light, and I still had a big flood and a spot. I could see how that setup I was running would be great for endurance rides in the dark, the batteries lasting probably more than 2X over running them full bore. Now if I'm going full tilt boogie downhill, or fast on the flats I definitely want max lumens shining in front of me, and in group rides I think more lumens is probably better so you don't get washed out from your buddies.

But it was a good thing, riding on medium like that - and far easier on the batteries of course.​


----------



## ridin_dirty (Apr 21, 2007)

Hmmmm..... hope we aren't taking the thread on too much of a tangent, but currently to transition from climbing to downhill mode:

1. Lower seat (reverb remote)
2. Adjust rear suspension (RP-23)
3. Double click bar light from medium to high (Dinnotte XML-3)
4. Turn on or double click helmet light
5. Change gears

Whew. Good thing I don't have a Talas any more. I almost need a checklist to try remember to do everything. Maybe Dinnotte can develop a motion sensing light that automatically powers up to high when the terrain gets rough (technical) or speeds increase??? Or a remote to adjust both helmet and bar lights at the same time???


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

ridin_dirty said:


> Hmmmm..... hope we aren't taking the thread on too much of a tangent, but currently to transition from climbing to downhill mode:
> 
> 1. Lower seat (reverb remote)
> 2. Adjust rear suspension (RP-23)
> ...


See how much simpler a Singlespeed with a fixed seat post is. BAM, I just knocked 3 things off your list.


----------



## bvader (Sep 13, 2009)

Wow got mine today too bad I am still at work, ordered yesterday, live on west coast not sure how that even happens, modern technology.

Question, one thing I noticed on the Dinotte light and my Jet Lite there is a lack of battery status except the Red on the Dinotte...seems odd to me. Probably not a problem because I don't ride for ore than 3 hours at night, I keep track of time and set to med on climbs etc...but still seems odd.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

got the review up. 5 super star!

Dinotte XML-3 - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review


----------



## Roadking1962 (Jun 22, 2009)

Great review, thanks!


----------



## RTM (Sep 17, 2005)

Roadking1962 said:


> How did you direct mount it? Do you have pics? Thanks


here's my setup.


----------



## Roadking1962 (Jun 22, 2009)

Thanks for the pics on mounting that light!


----------



## bvader (Sep 13, 2009)

OK Question, just went out and tried the light in the front yard and WOW.... but of course you guys know that. 

I am not familiar with Dinottes, so here is the question, when I plug the light into the battery it flashes and the LEDs cycle is that normal...of course I nearly blinded myself the first time.

TIA


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

bvader said:


> I am not familiar with Dinottes, so here is the question, when I plug the light into the battery it flashes and the LEDs cycle is that normal...of course I nearly blinded myself the first time.
> 
> TIA


Absolutely normal. Enjoy your Dinottes.


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

Where can euro guys buy dinotte, only trough the site? Customs get really high...


----------



## ellerbro (Mar 8, 2009)

Just got my XML-3 in the mail. It seems pretty impressive for such a reasonably priced light. It's replacing my 5-year-old Light & Motion Solo Logic halogen light. Just to see how far technology has come in five or so years:

L&M: 571 g system weight (NiMH batteries), High = 390 lumens (claimed) for 2 hrs
Dinotte: 401 g system weight (Li-Ion batteries), High = 1034 lumens (measured) for 2.5 hrs

Will be taking it for its first ride on Monday morning's commute. Looking forward to it.


----------



## Roadking1962 (Jun 22, 2009)

A week now with my new Dinotte.

One of the nice things I've noticed about my XML-3 is the design of the light head. It's long but light with lots of cooling fins. Even on high, the heat emitted stays reasonable.

I've noticed a lot of the Chinese-made lights are short and stubby with just some indentations on the light heads for cooling. I wonder how hot they run and what the long-term effects on the electronics are with what appears to be inadequate cooling.

I also really like the beam pattern and light quality. I use it as a helmet light and the pattern is a nice size and density. The light is very uniform and a good color.

Overall, I agree with the recent 5 star review Francis gave it in his review.


----------



## farmerfrederico (Nov 8, 2007)

*Which bar mounted engine?*

I have the 400L PLUS (upgraded my 400L a few months ago). I currently run it on my helmet for single track use and sometimes commuting if I'll be in busy traffic at dark. I have the 400R as well.

I want to get a bar mount for mountain biking but can't decide between the XML-3 and the 1200L PLUS. Definitely want to stick with Dinotte and for all my lights and run the 400L PLUS on my helmet. I can run the 400L PLUS in either lens configuration to give it more throw. How will it pair up with the XML-3? I want to go with that one because of the new technology and also the fact that it's $90 cheaper and quite a bit lighter in weight. Will I be disappointed with how it mates up to the XML-3? Sounds like a couple folks here really like the 400 mated with the 1200.

Thanks for your help, folks!


----------



## Mowerman (Jan 1, 2005)

Did anyone notice on the MTBR 2012 lights shootout that they provided graphs (for only some of the lights) indicating the lumen output over time? On some lights (lezyne superdrive for example) the lumen output was high when it was turned on, but dropped significantly thereafter. On others, they maintained a lumen output, then dropped to a medium, or lower, output after 1.5-2 hrs. Anyone know what the graph would look like for the XML-3?
Francis, did you guys have a graph for this one???


----------



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

Mowerman said:


> Did anyone notice on the MTBR 2012 lights shootout that they provided graphs (for only some of the lights) indicating the lumen output over time? On some lights (lezyne superdrive for example) the lumen output was high when it was turned on, but dropped significantly thereafter. *On others, they maintained a lumen output, then dropped to a medium, or lower, output after 1.5-2 hrs. * Anyone know what the graph would look like for the XML-3?
> Francis, did you guys have a graph for this one???


Unlike the Lezyne Superdrive, some of the major light systems use an auto-power down feature that will drop the output to prolong run time. That explains those big drops in some of the graphs.


----------



## ellerbro (Mar 8, 2009)

Used the XML-3 for its first week of commuting...Overall, it's a great light. Nice smooth, even, white beam. There's not much of a hotspot. It's just brightest in the center and has a smooth decrease to the edges. Been running it on low or med on dry roads and kicking it up to high on wet roads or at higher speeds. The tighter spot of my Zebralight SC-60 on the helmet makes a nice combo. I like how the flash settings alternate between a low and high level so it's never off. Less seizure inducing and more trackable. The switch is easy to use on the fly with gloves on and the current setting is easily discernible by the number of flashes of the rear-facing blue LED. Can't speak to the durability of the light but it seems to be well made. It's really a great bargain at $259 shipped. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this light. I feel so much safer now that I've replaced my 300 or so lumen halogen light with this. Already noticed more respect from drivers.


----------



## crichman (Jan 12, 2011)

*XML-3 for road and MUT?*

I've been using a pair of older 200L-AAs on my commute, a mix of suburban and urban streets and an unlit multi-use trail. I added a B&M light with a sharp upper cutoff as a "low beam" to be kind to oncoming trail riders, but I would like a little more light than the 200Ls can provide. (I also use a small flashing light on my helmet, but not on the trail.)

I've been thinking about 1 or possibly 2 li-style XML-1s. The appeal of 2 XML-1s would be to do as I do now, pointing one a little higher and the other a little lower for a longer patch of light. I'm not sure that one XML-1 would be a lot brighter than my 2 existing 200L-AAs.

Rob at Dinotte has encouraged me to think about 1 XML-3 rather than 2 XML-1s. It's certainly a better value. My question is whether the XML-3 is overkill for road-only use. I do worry that even at lower settings the beam is likely wider than I really need. Will drivers (or cyclists ahead of me on the trail) really be more irritated by the XML-3 than the XML-1? On my recumbent I can't reach the emitters directly to change modes or palm them, so I use an inline cutoff switch to kill my high-beams on the trail.

Would XML-3 be notably more anti-social for road use than paired XML-1s? Do both of these lights fire up directly to the previous mode when power is restored (like the older 200Ls and 140Rs?)

Charlie


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Charlie - there is no overkill for road use until you get to about 1300 lumens or so (same as one car headlight). You can always run it on low.

J.


----------



## bikerider2 (Nov 9, 2011)

crichman said:


> I've been using a pair of older 200L-AAs on my commute, a mix of suburban and urban streets and an unlit multi-use trail. I added a B&M light with a sharp upper cutoff as a "low beam" to be kind to oncoming trail riders, but I would like a little more light than the 200Ls can provide. (I also use a small flashing light on my helmet, but not on the trail.)
> 
> I've been thinking about 1 or possibly 2 li-style XML-1s. The appeal of 2 XML-1s would be to do as I do now, pointing one a little higher and the other a little lower for a longer patch of light. I'm not sure that one XML-1 would be a lot brighter than my 2 existing 200L-AAs.
> 
> ...


I have both and would say it could be anti social with the XML-3 but haven't had any complaints yet. If cars are irritated at your light that at least means they've noticed you. Just set it on medium and it's approximately the same brightness as the 1 on high. Yes they do fire up to the previous mode.


----------



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

crichman said:


> ...Would XML-3 be notably more anti-social for road use than paired XML-1s? Do both of these lights fire up directly to the previous mode when power is restored (like the older 200Ls and 140Rs?)
> 
> Charlie


Charles, my take on this: Don't worry about what the people driving the cars think. You're on a recumbent. This means you are even more at danger than a regular cyclist. Not to mention what lights you use also have to be pointed at a more forward angle so you can see what's ahead of you ( which of course no one in a car is going to like ). As far as night riding goes I think you are at a much more disadvantage than someone riding a normal bike. As such, a good light system is very much in order. Screw what anyone in a car thinks, you want to see and to be seen. If it were me I would consider constructing some sort of light bar ( over your head ) to make you more noticeable.


----------



## bikerider2 (Nov 9, 2011)

Charles, to add to what I said earlier, the XML-3 has better mounting options for you on a recumbent because the head can swivel on the mount . I've attached it to the bars, the fork on my motorcycle and helmet. With a recumbent you might not be able to mount it traditionally like you would on flat bars.


----------



## crichman (Jan 12, 2011)

Cat-man-do said:


> You're on a recumbent. This means you are even more at danger than a regular cyclist.


Thanks. Not to minimize the risk of riding any bike on the road at night, but I probably don't deserve much more worry than a rider on a regular bike. My 'bent is a "high-racer" with regular 26" wheels and a relatively upright seating position. I'm probably lower than you are on your bike, but not by much. Besides all the reflective tape and the big triangle there's a nice bright Dinotte 140r at the top of my seat (just below my helmet.) If I move to the XMLs it'll get replaced with a 400r so everything runs on the same voltage (in my case, down-converted from the 36v in my Bionx e-assist.)

My lights are mounted further forward than my bars, around the same height as the top of my wheel. I haven't had particular challenges with mounting, but I do recognize the more flexible mount on the XML-3.

My worry has been whether the XML-3's beam is too wide for road use, but it sounds like you don't see that as problem.


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

*Anyone know the waterproof rating?*

Hi all,
I'm looking at buying either the 1200L+, XML-3, or dare I say it, a magicshine 856 for my bars.
I've read so many posts now and seen so many beamshots I'vegone nuts.
I can't remember seeing anywhere what IP rating the Dinotte lights have? The 856 is only IP64 (Can take a splash - don't think that's up to taking a stint in the rain is it)

Thanks


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

TheOrangutan said:


> Hi all,
> I'm looking at buying either the 1200L+, XML-3, or dare I say it, a magicshine 856 for my bars.
> I've read so many posts now and seen so many beamshots I'vegone nuts.
> I can't remember seeing anywhere what IP rating the Dinotte lights have? The 856 is only IP64 (Can take a splash - don't think that's up to taking a stint in the rain is it)
> ...


I don't know what the rating on the 1200L+ is, but I can say that I have no problem getting mine wet. Haven't given it a real dunk test but I'm not worried about water.

In my opinion, if you mountain bike the 1200L+ is incredible, I wouldn't use it road biking, too floody for urban areas with cars etc. But I love that flood on the trails.


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

Thanks Randy. 
I might be pushing it here but reading throughout the forum, you seem pretty keen to help people with deciding on Dinotte lights - I wonder if you'd be willing to help with my decision? (Maybe I should use a mindmap too!  ) 

Would it be possible for you to mount the XML3 on your bars, then take a photo from a few meters behind? My decision might be made easier if I could see the bike for some perspective/scale in the photograph. The pics in the tunnel and on the trail are a bit hard for me to geta feeling for the spread.
It would be fantastic if you could do the same for the 1200 as a comparison, but I can see from all the other shots that I'd be happy with it's spread.

I share your liking for the ample spill of the 1200l+. I'd like to buy a 1200 for the bars and XML for the helmet, but $550 is getting pretty pricey. 
I was about to buy two magicshine 856s with the O ring mount in black which is coming out, but have to wait till the end of Feb, and still have reservations about the quality. They wouldve set me back $300. Dual XML3s will be $450, so a little less of a jump as the 1200 and xml3 together.

On the other side of the coin, I wonder whether an XML3 would be too strong a helmet light in use with a 1200? Would two XMLs also be too bright in the centre? (I don't like having a bright central spot)

Decisions decisions!................

Thanks very much input you can give! :thumbsup:


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

In post number 54 (Can't add links to pics since I have such a low post count), what width do you think the beam might be at the first bottle in the XML3 shot? Hard since theres no definite edge to the beam.

That shot of the 1200 at medium has me thinking it might be a good option. How much of a drop in light is there with the XML on medium? (Thinking if I bought both, ran them both I medium I wouldnt have a hot-hot spot, and a would have a longer runtime too.) Have to justify $550 - that's a third the price my bike cost (Spec at least. Don't count the extras )


----------



## bikerider2 (Nov 9, 2011)

TheOrangutan said:


> In post number 54 (Can't add links to pics since I have such a low post count), what width do you think the beam might be at the first bottle in the XML3 shot? Hard since theres no definite edge to the beam.
> 
> That shot of the 1200 at medium has me thinking it might be a good option. How much of a drop in light is there with the XML on medium? (Thinking if I bought both, ran them both I medium I wouldnt have a hot-hot spot, and a would have a longer runtime too.) Have to justify $550 - that's a third the price my bike cost (Spec at least. Don't count the extras )


Orangutan, What type of riding are you doing? I've got the xml -3 on the bars and the xml-1 helmet mounted and it's plenty of light for any type of riding you are doing. The wide beam pattern of the 3 on the bars is great for all but the twistiest of singletrack. The 1 on the helmet mates well with it for tight cornering. I can run either light for climbing or flat singletrack by itself on medium and only click the other one on for descending. You could get 2 XML-3's but I'm not sure that would make any difference in how fast you could go.

The only possible change/improvement to certain situations would be to have more of a spot beam on the helmet. Both lights provide such a broad beam pattern with no discernible hot spot. good luck with your decision.


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

randyharris said:


> Riding with the XML3, I can't see my front tire for example, nothing to the right and left of me several yards ahead is lit up. When I ride with the 1200 I can see my front tire very clearly, and everything to the left and right are lit up.


Thanks for your help Randy and Bikerider. I've just put in an order for the 1200l+ on the bars, XML3 on the helmet. It was the quote above that swayed me away from the dual XML3s. The track I ride most at night is quite a technical course, quite rocky/twisty/turny in places. Definitely more need for flood than spot lighting. The more open sections with more speed are lined with grass which is quite often overgrown (2ft+ with a track 1ft wide). Having a flood here too should help to quickly pick out where to shine your spot.

Up until this point I've been riding with two 1200lm ssc lights, which are like two erratically waving search lights at a movie premier. Tiny central hot spot and pathetic spill. Not fun! Always wanted to ride behind someone else so I had a little warning of where I should be ending up. Using a friends 872s highlighted the need for flood lighting. So much easier!

Can't wait till they arrive!


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

TheOrangutan said:


> Would it be possible for you to mount the XML3 on your bars, then take a photo from a few meters behind? My decision might be made easier if I could see the bike for some perspective/scale in the photograph. The pics in the tunnel and on the trail are a bit hard for me to geta feeling for the spread.
> It would be fantastic if you could do the same for the 1200 as a comparison, but I can see from all the other shots that I'd be happy with it's spread.


I would love to help you, but the XML3 was a loaner from Dinotte and I had to send it back, so I no longer have the XML3 for this picture.


----------



## Glynis27 (Sep 28, 2007)

Got an XML-3 for Christmas and gave it a try on the road. Was easily able to ride full speed with the light on low. Can't wait to try it on some singletrack. This light is awesome!


----------



## mb323323 (Aug 1, 2006)

Bought the XML-3 dual for X-mas.

Use it both for road and Mtn bike. Had one on helmet and one on the bars. Was easily able to ride on the road down a long hill at 30 mph on low setting. 

I've since put both on the bars for the Mtn bike. Holy smokes. Medium is going to get me caught nite riding where I shouldn't be. I just prefer no wires on the helmet so I will use a torch until I decide on a dedicated helmet wireless light.

The run time is more than the 2 1/2 hrs on high that Dinotte states. The light looks real well made. And is pretty small for the output. Had it on high for a long climb and left it on after the climb not moving and it never got hot, luke warm only. 

The beam is very even and bright. There is no real hot spot, just an even beam pattern. I think they are more flood than spot for sure so my feeling is this is a bar light. You don't need much of a helmet light w/ this light.

You might want to buy the XML 3 for the bars and something like the Serfas 500 wireless for the helmet. I think those are about 150 or so and that would leave you around 400. You can get the Cygo 400 for even cheaper, around 115.

You'll like the Dinotte.


----------



## baymoe (Jul 23, 2011)

TheOrangutan said:


> Thanks for your help Randy and Bikerider. I've just put in an order for the 1200l+ on the bars, XML3 on the helmet. It was the quote above that swayed me away from the dual XML3s. The track I ride most at night is quite a technical course, quite rocky/twisty/turny in places. Definitely more need for flood than spot lighting. The more open sections with more speed are lined with grass which is quite often overgrown (2ft+ with a track 1ft wide). Having a flood here too should help to quickly pick out where to shine your spot.
> 
> Up until this point I've been riding with two 1200lm ssc lights, which are like two erratically waving search lights at a movie premier. Tiny central hot spot and pathetic spill. Not fun! Always wanted to ride behind someone else so I had a little warning of where I should be ending up. Using a friends 872s highlighted the need for flood lighting. So much easier!
> 
> Can't wait till they arrive!


I like the amount of information available in this thread.

TheOrangutan, although you've already placed the purchase for those lights, you can try putting on some magic tape on the optics or glass to help diffuse the light and provide a broader light pattern.


----------



## PoorCyclist (Sep 2, 2010)

Just got mine and it is really powerful for the small size.
I thought the light pattern is perfect for my mostly road use,
Everything looks and feel quality built.
I'm using it with Cygolite expilion 400 on helmet, very light weight, the XML-3 on low setting is similar intensity as the expilion on boost mode.


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

Hi all.
I havent had the chance to really test out these lights yet, but was able to see them sidde by side with the magicshine. Pretty happy I bought them so far.

Thought I'd post a pic of my adjustable helmet mount. As you can see by the first pic, the supplied mount makes the light sit way too high above your head. I had two of the cheap head mounts from my last lights so decided to modify one. End result is the light sitting lower than the factory mount, and lower than my previous light.

One major benefit is that there is still a sort of 'fuse' if you like, that when I hit the light on something it is still able to bend at the hinge and avoid breaking the light/helmet (wasnt a fan of using the factory strap straight on the helmet since hitting/ducking branches is quite common where I ride, and didnt want to be up for a new helmet)

The old light and mount was 128g, my new light and mount is 116g so the extra metal hasn't hurt.


----------



## Roadking1962 (Jun 22, 2009)

TheOrangutan said:


> Hi all.
> I havent had the chance to really test out these lights yet, but was able to see them sidde by side with the magicshine. Pretty happy I bought them so far.
> 
> Thought I'd post a pic of my adjustable helmet mount. As you can see by the first pic, the supplied mount makes the light sit way too high above your head. I had two of the cheap head mounts from my last lights so decided to modify one. End result is the light sitting lower than the factory mount, and lower than my previous light.
> ...


Can you tell me where I can get one of those adjustable mounts for my XML-3 too? Thanks.


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

I'll take that as a compliment :thumbsup:

It's actually homemade. I cut down the mount from what you see on the red light, used a piece of 20mm aluminium U channel, a stainless 3/16 bolt and nylon locknuts. Added another section of aluminium inside the U channel and filed it flush so that the mounting screw didn't insert too far into the light housing (ie same distance as on the factory mount).

Figured I had two helmet mounts so might as well try it. The hinge is quite snug, but does allow you to adjust the angle on the trail.

Might make a 2nd improved version with the original if I have to, but so far it seems to be doing the trick!


----------



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

TheOrangutan said:


> I'll take that as a compliment :thumbsup:
> 
> It's actually homemade.....
> 
> Might make a 2nd improved version with the original if I have to, but so far it seems to be doing the trick!


Nice mod for the XML-3 ! :thumbsup:

If DiNotte sold a helmet mount for the XML-3 like this their sales might go up another 20%.
The lesson to be learned here ( for all bike light manufacturers ) is that , "Don't ignore the small details". "Details" sell lights.


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

Thanks Cat-man-do!

It's annoying to spend all that money, then still spend more on modifications. I don't think there's any perfect lighting system out there though (lumens vs weight, battery options, mount options, price, beam patterns....) I guess they provide simple mounts to avoid hassles with different diameter bars?

Have to say I'm not super happy with the bar mount either. To stop it moving on bumpy decents you have to have it quite snug and I'm worried it wont be long before the strap gives. I found adding a little extra innertube rubber beneath the mount stopped some of the slipping but puts extra stretch on the rubber.
I want to buy a hinged clamp with a quick release lever to suit 31.8 bars. Finding one in Aus hasn't been easy. Found a few that might be the go from overseas but usually the postage doesnt mean its worth it.

I've seen a universal mount that Hope make. Has the QR and hinge, and doesn't use a sliding plate that clips on - it just doesnt look very wide so might not give a good base for the 20mm base/post? Customer reviews dont seem too good either.









Looked at the Cateye H-31 mount but cant track down the plate/spacer. Lbs cant buy parts, just whole light systems (!?).


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

TheOrangutan said:


> I'll take that as a compliment :thumbsup:
> 
> It's actually homemade. I cut down the mount from what you see on the red light, used a piece of 20mm aluminium U channel, a stainless 3/16 bolt and nylon locknuts. Added another section of aluminium inside the U channel and filed it flush so that the mounting screw didn't insert too far into the light housing (ie same distance as on the factory mount).
> 
> ...


nicely done!

Is the U channel alum. available at HomeDepot, etc? If you don't mind, could you show a pict with more of the inside detail, so maybe we could see a bit more of the construction?

I'm not very handy, but I'd like to try this with mine too. the lower the profile, the better... and I'd be able to place it further forward on the helmet too, since that rubber strap will be out of the way of rotating it up.


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

Hope that helps. Think it through if you're not too handy - measure twice, cut once 

It's not really very complicated. A couple of tips might help though (a drill press makes this a lot easier). Punch a mark where you're going to drill the aluminium, then drill a small pilot hole before using a size drill just ever so slightly bigger than the thread of your bolt. I wouldn't do both sides at once unless you do have a drill press. Then do the hole for the light (a bit more snug if you like). Then you can cut off the required length of aluminium. A lot easier doing it that way than dealing with a tiny piece of metal, an d means you havent wasted anytime if you muck up a hole. Usually comes in a meter length from the hardware store. 
Another tip, try using a drill size just the size of the threads or minimally smaller when drilling the plastic (so the bolt has to cut it's way through the plastic) - that way the aluminum should do all the turning and the bolt stays still in the plastic so it doesn't wear. You then tighten the two locknuts so that it's pretty snug but still allowing some movement of the head. Viola! I mean Voila! My handy man skills are a bit better than any language skills


----------



## 74hc (Sep 30, 2011)

Titus Maximus said:


> They are fixated on Luxeons for some reason.


Lots of MTBikers and other cyclist at Lumileds, myself included. We are green.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

TheOrangutan said:


> Looked at the Cateye H-31 mount but cant track down the plate/spacer. Lbs cant buy parts, just whole light systems (!?).


you want the H-27 spacer [URL="http://www.shopcateye.com/products.php?product=H%252d27-spacer'] here[/URL], which will work with the H-31 and 32 bar brackets perfectly. It's what I use for all my DIY lights. If your LBS can't get them from their Cateye distributor (which would be a bit strange) or Cateye won't ship to Aus, give me a shout and I'll see how much it'll cost to send one from the US.


----------



## wwwmattcom (Sep 20, 2009)

OK. I am in. Just ordered XML-3 DUAL. I was between these and the Niterider 3000. Went with the dual so I could share and not bike alone. Went with Made in USA. I am also looking for a spot light on the helmet. Will splurge for the 1200+ or better when i can afford it for the flood capability. I use a niterider lightening bug for fiddling and saving power on the main system. Thanks for the nine pages of review. It keeps me warm at night with. Assurance. I plan on using these mostly on rail trails and the road. Might use them on the kayak too for rivers. Here is to hoping I don't bike into any black bears.


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

I think after a bit of riding and comparing the 1200/xml3 I wouldve been happy with 2 xml3s, instead of one of each.

The spread is definitely wider with the 1200, but those 1200lm are spread a lot, so the intensity isn't the same as the XMl3 ofcourse. The spread of the XML3 is pretty darn good though, with amazing throw. I'm happy with the choice I made, since it is better having the 1200 on the bars and the XML3 on the helmet, but I'm not sure it's that much better that I shouldve saved my money. Couldve bought an extra charger instead. Takes 8 hrs to charge up for my ride.

I have a card reader coming, so when that arrives I'll do a comparison shot. Great lights!


Matt the Muppet - thanks for the generous offer. I finally heard from our local disrtibutor a couple of days ago. They bring in the mount, but not the spacer. Bizzare. I bought one of the Hope mounts I posted above, and if that's no good I may take you up on your offer. Thank you very much!


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

no worries, let us know how you get on with the Hope mount


----------



## wwwmattcom (Sep 20, 2009)

These lights are incredible. Rode last night for the first time. I used one xml-3 on my helmet. It was more than I needed. I won't be upgrading any time soon. I used primarily medium and low but switched to high cause I enjoyed being blown away. I felt too indulgent on high. I practiced necessity to conserve battery life. I also wanted to see if medium and low was enough or if I would be craving full 1200 or 1000 lumens which ever is claimed. However the high level seemed too high and I preferred medium. On high the light was almost blinding at close range. High will be reserved for open country road or rail trails and the light must be mounted on the bar so when I look down I do not blind myself with the reflection off the ground or surrounding scenery. Just incredible. The lights are about the size of a film canister and very light. The batteries are the size of a bar of soap and just as light. 

Two complaints. I wish it came with two extension chords and two chargers. I did not use the helmet mount. I attached it directly to a vent. Otherwise I might wish I had two helmet mounts.


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

The mount finally arrived today. Havent had the chance to ride with it yet, but definitely seems promising. Takes a lot of effort to move it on the bars, and doesn't require any inner tube sections wedged underneath like the original.

Didn't have to modify it either! The length taken up by the mount on the mounting screw is exactly the same as the original. Very handy.

Card reader for my camera (slr) hasnt arrived yet so no comparison shots yet.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

I'm not a fan of clamp mounts on CF. 

I do like what Lupine has done with their rubber band mounts. 

J


----------



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

JohnJ80 said:


> I'm not a fan of clamp mounts on CF.
> 
> I do like what Lupine has done with their rubber band mounts.
> 
> J


By Golly John I believe we are agreeing here on this issue.  

I rather like the look of the lower profile O-ring mounts. Tends to make the light head look smaller. I tried to convert my 600L over to one but I couldn't get the screw out. Must be glued on or something. Water under the bridge now because the dang thing stripped.

Even so, if the lamp head won't stay in one place a clamp mount would be the way to go. Okay so it might scratch the CF, big deal, use some electrical tape to protect it.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

We do! 

I think that with good engineering, I'd rather see the rubber band style attachment than something that has a cam-lock arrangement. It's isn't hard to do, it's simple and they work when done properly. That said, there are some that aren't done well for sure.

With my carbon road bikes and other carbon components on my non road bikes, I've had to go to torque wrenches to make sure that you don't over tighten things - which can turn into a huge safety issue fast since CF likes to fail catastrophically without warning if damaged. Cam lock style clamps can exert way too much force and there is no way to tell if you are over tightening them.

J.


----------



## TheOrangutan (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm not too worried about this mount on cf. 
My brake levers and shifters are attched to the bars with clamps I tightened with a torque wrench. They're tightened just to the point where they no longer move under normal circumstances, but slip if given a slight bump.
This mount is relying on less tension than those mounts due to the little rubber tabs within the clamp. it takes less force to turn the light than the brake levers/shifters, yet should be firm enough to stay put on bumpy trails. Little chance of scratching the plastic protection, let alone the actual carbon fibre in my eyes. Could be wrong but maybe I happily ignorant


----------



## rlb81 (Aug 18, 2008)

Thanks to all who have given great advice in this thread. I'm interested in the dual XML-3 package. I'll use it mostly for early morning road rides but I would like the extra output available for the occasional single track ride.

How are you using the XML-3 on the road? Helmet/bar combo, or one on the helmet only?
Are there any lenses available to make the light a little more spotty for helmet mounting?
Do you wish the light was more spotty for helmet use, or are you satisfied with the "even" light distribution?

What are yout thoughts on the dual 3 for mostly road use? I thought about saving some $$ and buying "less light", however I figure I'd best serve myself through buying the most light I can afford right now (~$450).

Thanks!


----------



## crichman (Jan 12, 2011)

The XML-3 on my recumbent is mounted just above the top of my front wheel. Because my commute is mixed MUT and road, I run it on medium -- high is just too bright. I use a little Princeton EOS light on my helmet, and with the XML-3 on high you can't see the EOS light at all.

Everyone needs to judge for themselves, but I'm guessing that a single XML-3 on the bars will do. An XML-1 (or possibly an XML-3) on the helmet could be nice too...

Don't forget a bright tail light to go with your XML-3!

Charlie


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

TheOrangutan said:


> I'm not too worried about this mount on cf.
> My brake levers and shifters are attched to the bars with clamps I tightened with a torque wrench. They're tightened just to the point where they no longer move under normal circumstances, but slip if given a slight bump.
> This mount is relying on less tension than those mounts due to the little rubber tabs within the clamp. it takes less force to turn the light than the brake levers/shifters, yet should be firm enough to stay put on bumpy trails. Little chance of scratching the plastic protection, let alone the actual carbon fibre in my eyes. Could be wrong but maybe I happily ignorant


THat's you, you're apparently pretty careful. With a cam lock style mount, it's possible to create considerable crushing forces. To someone who doesn't understand the issue it is quite easy to destroy or damage CF components.

J.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

rlb81 said:


> Thanks to all who have given great advice in this thread. I'm interested in the dual XML-3 package. I'll use it mostly for early morning road rides but I would like the extra output available for the occasional single track ride.
> 
> How are you using the XML-3 on the road? Helmet/bar combo, or one on the helmet only?
> Are there any lenses available to make the light a little more spotty for helmet mounting?
> ...


I've never seen a photo of the dual xml3 going. It might be great, and just light up everything, like daylight.

I've just been using an xml3 on the helmet...works well for me on and off road. Most of the time, I just keep it on medium too. I personally like the wide-ish, even beam, but I could see how someone might want a tight spot to pair with it.

If you don't have a great tail light, I would do 1 xml3 and the 300r, but if you do, I would mate it with something with a punchier spot, rather than another xml3... probably just a cheap MS 808, but that's just my .02

there aren't lens options for the xml3, that I'm aware of.... but if they did...


----------



## jgmarcotte (Jan 30, 2010)

*Talk to Rob about lens options*



d365 said:


> there aren't lens options for the xml3, that I'm aware of.... but if they did...


I talked to him awhile back and they do make a clear (spot) lens for the xml-3, if you want less spill and presumably more throw. Dinotte tends not to advertise a lot of their options but they are easy to work with to meet your needs and won't steer you wrong. Rob even talked me out of buying an option that he felt would be a waste of money.


----------



## rlb81 (Aug 18, 2008)

jgmarcotte said:


> I talked to him awhile back and they do make a clear (spot) lens for the xml-3, if you want less spill and presumably more throw.


I emailed this morning, I'll update here when I get a response.


----------



## wwwmattcom (Sep 20, 2009)

Having only used one xml-3. At a time I think ir has enough spot and flood. A friend of mine used a flash light that was all spot light, military grade etc, an acceptional light but it had the same spot effect as the xml-3. With zero flood. It is difficult to see how great these lights are through posted videos and pictures but I assure you one light is all you need. I bought two so I could share and got a Blackburn tail light for 30 bucks. On the road i mount it on the handle bar and on trails I mount on the helmet. It was the best 450 dollar mod I have made and put it up there with my upgraded fox fork if that means anything. It is a good looking light its plenty powerful and it makes you appreciate just how nice the sun is. Any more light and it may as well be day time, sunlight is the only upgrade to riding at night with the xml-3. I really feel like I hit a home run getting two lights. I had thought about getting magic shine but I am a geek and need to own top of the line products with a flawless reputation. I was afraid they would break or not last as long and then I would ge stuck dealing with a third party Middle man who would be less than helpful. I hope this helps. I am totally sold on dinotte right now.


----------



## rideitall (Dec 15, 2005)

Orangutan

Did you order the Hope mount directly from Hope. I have a 1200L that I like to run on the bars, but because of the rise bar I run, it forces the 1200L to be mounted at an angle and I end up loosing a lot of light shining where it is not required. 

I don't have any CF bars so it should not be an issue with me being ham-fisted and over tightening the mount.

thx
J


----------



## Chromagftw (Feb 12, 2009)

*HOPE Universal Light Mount*



rideitall said:


> Orangutan
> 
> Did you order the Hope mount directly from Hope. I have a 1200L that I like to run on the bars, but because of the rise bar I run, it forces the 1200L to be mounted at an angle and I end up loosing a lot of light shining where it is not required.
> 
> ...


Hope Universal Handlebar Mount | Buy Online | ChainReactionCycles.com


----------



## dugan661 (Jan 21, 2012)

thats some power!


----------



## rlb81 (Aug 18, 2008)

My dual XML-3 setup came today.

First impression is that it's a well made light and smaller than I thought it would be. I haven't taken it outside yet but went into my pitch black basement and I was surprised with the output (though my basement is completely white aside from the floor, which might skew it a bit).

Light and battery fit nicely on my road bike despite the cateye and GPS mounts. I have to strap the battery to the headtube to avoid any other interference but that shouldn't be a problem.

The light sits high on the helmet (as others have already said) but it's functional. I'm working on another mount option, I'll post up if I get it to work. I was hoping to strap the battery to the helmet too but I think the combo is a bit too heavy for that. The little velcro straps for securing the wire are a nice bonus.

I'm looking forward to hitting the road at night!


----------



## bergjm (Jan 12, 2004)

Has anyone tried the 1200-L Plus on the helmet? I am trying to decide if I should get the 1200L Plus/XML-3 package or save up some money and get 2 1200 Plus's. I have the old style 800L and 400L (a little over 3 years old) that I am thinking of replacing.

Thanks.


----------



## Steve_N (Sep 6, 2005)

I currently have a 200L/600L combo that I've been using for the past few years. Been bulletproof. Decided this year that it was time to upgrade so I've pulled the trigger on a set of XML-3 Duals. I briefly thought about changing brands (and Aussies make some serious lightsets for 24 Hour racing and the like) but for value for money it was hard to beat the Dinottes.

Originally I was going to sell my 200L/600L set to a friend but I've since decided to ditch that idea and have the 2 XML-3's on the bar and the 600L on the helmet for off road (I also bought a new 4 cell battery for the 600L) and 1 or 2 XML-3's for commuting, depending on what time of the season it is. I guess the interchangeability of Dinottes lights makes things super easy as I can continue to use the lights I already have and can mix and match accordingly.

For those that wonder about having too much light for commuting, too much is never enough as far as I'm concerned. I commute in Sydney AU which has to have some of the worst drivers in world when it comes to bike riders so I'm looking forward to "being seen" by them. If they flash their high beams at me then I know my lights are doing their job... :thumbsup:

Looking forward to getting the lights in my hands and hitting the streets and trails to see how they go.

To all those looking for a cam lock mount instead of the rubber mounts, have you considered the old 600L mounts and modifying those to suit? Just a thought...


----------



## rideitall (Dec 15, 2005)

bergjm said:


> Has anyone tried the 1200-L Plus on the helmet? I am trying to decide if I should get the 1200L Plus/XML-3 package or save up some money and get 2 1200 Plus's. I have the old style 800L and 400L (a little over 3 years old) that I am thinking of replacing.
> 
> Thanks.


I have used the 1200L+ on the helmet and it works but definitely felt it on an XC lid. For a full on DH helmet it would be okay.

With the very wide throw the 1200L+ is best suited on the bars and works great. I now have XML-3 that I use for the helmet and really like the combo. Given the relatively small size of the XML-3 I was surprised at how wide it spread the light. The real beauty of the XML-3 is how far is can throw the beam. It will push light way further than the 1200L+. I guess that is why, for me at least, the 1200L+ on the bars with the XML-3 on the helmet works so well.

Unfortunately I wrecked my knee, and only got a few rides with the combo. Just now starting to ride to work again, I use the 1200L+ for commuting now; Cars really seem to notice the flashing 1200L+ coming at them (go figure). Hope to to be back in the forest for some real rides in a week or two. Still have a little left of the night riding season so will be able to give the combo a more thorough testing.

Cheers
J


----------



## GraXXoR (Sep 29, 2011)

rideitall said:


> Given the relatively small size of the XML-3 I was surprised at how wide it spread the light. The real beauty of the XML-3 is how far is can throw the beam. It will push light way further than the 1200L+.


I'm not surprised at the broad flood, because the smaller and shallower the reflector, the wider it throws with the same LED.

It seems that all new lights recently seriously suffer lack of throw, no matter how many lumens they have to offer. Most seem to rely on marketing claims of brightness rather than having long, tight throw.

Look at the Lupine lights. They sell the same light with three different reflectors. The widest one has the highest lumen count, whereas the tightest one has the lowest lumen count. I would love to know which one of the three is the most popular. But I'm sure I could guess.

Still I think your 1200 on the bars and Olympia on the helmet would be a fairly good combination. Although I'm surprised that the near ground isn't overbright.

No, I think if you want far, bright AND tight, you need to go big, as in an Inton or the Magicshine 880.


----------



## Steve_N (Sep 6, 2005)

So the XML-3 Dual kit arrived this morning and boy, am I impressed! Ok, so the packaging is no frills but that doesn't bother me, show me the lights! I charged up the batteries and did a comparison test against my old 600L (an '08 model). 

The XML-3 is a fair bit smaller and substantially lighter than the 600L - 182g for the 600L vs. 105g for the XML-3. And both XML-3's weighed dead on 105g each. The batteries were 261/262g each so not bad weight-wise.

The XML-3 as expected sits a lot closer to the bars than the 600L, which was one of my nit-picks when I first got it.

Initial tests in the backyard show the XML-3 to be substantially brighter with more throw than the 600L. The 600L also looks to be more spot-like whereas the XML-3 is more flood-like, to my eyes anyway. The dual XML-3's look like they could roast a possum at 50 paces it's so bright... The pics don't so it justice at how seriously bright they are.

The first couple of pics are size comparisons between the 600L and XML-3. The third pic is the 600L, fourth is one XML-3 and the last both XML-3's.

I'm really looking forward to getting out onto the roads and trails now and seeing what these babies really can do!


----------



## HigherPlane (Mar 13, 2012)

Hey Guys

I'm pretty keen on the DiNotte 1200l. I've never had a bike light with a battery back before. I'll need to take off both the light and battery pack everytime a use them becasue of where I lock up my bike. How long do you reackon this would take each time?

Cheers
Matt


----------



## Steve_N (Sep 6, 2005)

HigherPlane said:


> Hey Guys
> 
> I'm pretty keen on the DiNotte 1200l. I've never had a bike light with a battery back before. I'll need to take off both the light and battery pack everytime a use them becasue of where I lock up my bike. How long do you reackon this would take each time?
> 
> ...


I think all of 30 seconds. The velcro on the battery attaches/removes in seconds and the lights go on in about the same. I can transfer lights from one bike to another in a couple of minutes. The longest part is setting them level...


----------



## randyharris (Jul 1, 2009)

HigherPlane said:


> Hey Guys
> 
> I'm pretty keen on the DiNotte 1200l. I've never had a bike light with a battery back before. I'll need to take off both the light and battery pack everytime a use them becasue of where I lock up my bike. How long do you reackon this would take each time?
> 
> ...


Steve N hit it right on, I've got that light and it's really fast to put on and take off.


----------



## dmalovic (Oct 28, 2005)

Has anyone compared beam shots and sizes of MS-880 and the XML-3? How are they compared flood/throw wise?


----------



## Steve_N (Sep 6, 2005)

I've never been a huge fan of the XML3 rubber strap mounts and was thinking of alternatives I could use. I really like the old 600L mounts and even though they made the 600L light sit a little high they were a pretty solid mount and didn't move, even on the rough trails in my area.

I was cleaning out the shed today and came across a second 600L mount so I decided I would see what it would look like attached to my XML3.

As it turns out, the lighthead fits spot on on the 600L mount however I did have to cut off a small protrusion (see pic). The lights sit no higher than the rubber strap mount so no issue there. For both of my XML3's it took about 15 minutes and now I feel the mount is a lot more secure. I guess proof will be in the riding so will hit the trails soon and see how it goes.


----------

