Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    333

    Lumen Liberator 3.0 review in MBR

    Just spotted this whilst browsing MBR.

    Ugly? Really?


  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    154
    Damn, people are picky! I dont know of any other light at that price(or more) with that much output. Trout builds some sick lights!! Maybe he should include a box of Q-tips with his lights so it will be easy to clean

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Goldigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,669
    it doesn't matter what you make, somebody will always find something to criticize.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    46
    What is a Heath Robinson finish?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by SBJohn
    What is a Heath Robinson finish?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Heath_Robinson
    First sentence pretty much answers your question.

    Though I do agree with the others...pretty harsh review. I would venture to guess companies like L&M, Niterider, etc have paid big money for ads in that magazine and had a few words of their own in there.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    333
    It basically means it is a bit cobbled together. Most likely referring to the battery bag. (Heath Robinson is like the British Rube Goldberg, only he came first)

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: troutie-mtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,054
    well as they. say all publicity is good publicity

    Not too bad 8 from10


    Thanks for posting it Mr Lee

  8. #8
    removing nudity
    Reputation: emu26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,186
    I think people are a little focused on the ugly negativity of some of the aspects of this review.

    8 out of 10 for a "garden shed" product from a magazine review where the "gardener" has no financial connection with said magazine, where it is compared to products whose manufacturers would have a vested interest in said magazine, read paid commercial arrangements, is pretty bloody good in my books.

    Look at the fine print. It "noticeably outshone" its price based competitor that they chose because it performed well for value and power.

    Of most interest to me is the clever marketing ploy this builder has used. High isn't high. On high it outshines its competitor, presumably also set to high, but wait there's more, then there is the "turbo boost" just to set it a class above all others.

    Troutie, you sure you're not American? Hi is now Turbo boost, medium is hi, what do we now call low? Bit liking walking into Starbucks where Tall is the old Grande, small is yesterdays medium and what was once a large is now called a "supersize me"

    Chris, good work on getting the review, 8 / 10, great result and well deserved.

    Maybe when you run out of "camera bags" it might be worth a visit to a local wetsuit manufacturer to see if they can stitch up some battery bags for you similar to and ay-up style

    Well done mate

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    703
    Congratulations

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    494
    congrats making it into the mag for a review.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,594
    That was a pretty good review. They were honest, liked the light, and pointed out some stuff like it's a bit chunky looking and the battery bag is a little funky. Big deal.
    "It looks flexy"

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167
    i,ve seen them in the flesh so to speek beautiful made lights.
    si

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    69
    They do sound horribly picky, as said they probably get a few handouts from competitors.

    Bag wise i find the lumicycle the best, perhaps something similar in the future?

    As for the clamp, well they can move it can't they?

    My Blue mk1 is still going strong btw trout.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: troutie-mtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Huxley555
    They do sound horribly picky, as said they probably get a few handouts from competitors.

    Bag wise i find the lumicycle the best, perhaps something similar in the future?

    As for the clamp, well they can move it can't they?

    My Blue mk1 is still going strong btw trout.

    Bags are being sourced similar to lumicycles and cheaper than the camera bags

    Cheers

    I like the Ugly and utilitarian bit myself .
    but prefer to call it function over form

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bravellir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    203
    The shape and form of the headlight ( and bag ) makes all the difference in the world.. at night … when no one can see them hehe
    Maybe to them it's more important to have a beautiful light to make beautiful magazine pages than to have a bright light.
    First make it good, and then make it pretty. Not the other way around…

    Congrats Troutie, they do recognize the efficiency and quality even compared to products costing a few times more, and 8 of 10 is very good. They are just making a lot of noise about nothing probably just to protect the magazine advertisers.

  16. #16
    whs
    whs is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Huxley555
    They do sound horribly picky, as said they probably get a few handouts from competitors.
    I think their criticism is good. Valid critique is valuable critique as it gives you information about what should change, so any comments such as "they are picky" are silly.

    I'm very harsh in my reviews, but I'm completely unbiased, even about products from companies that I don't like (Supernova in particular) or that gave me a free sample (Philips). Philips is very pleased with the way I did my reviews, even though I criticize them very harshly for the lens that lets light go upwards which reduces your night vision (but luckily that's easily fixed with some black tape or black paint).

    The neutrality of that mag I can't judge, but it wouldn't surprise me if they are less harsh about products from manufacturers that advertise in that mag, which would be bad.

    Note that this seems to a problem everywhere, and you may want to read my review of the review in Tour of bicycle lighting (of lamps for on-road use, but really it's about how incompetently that review is doen, so that doesn't matter which type of riding the lamps are for).

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~swhs/fiets/var...2011-1_en.html

    You may also want to have a look at my review of the Supernova E3-pro-StVZO which as I said, is still objective in describing the lamp's positive and negative points:

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~swhs/fiets/tes.../index_en.html

    But of course I do add some personal angle, i.e. that "it's a nice lamp, too bad it's made by Supernova ;-)"


    Btw., because I had enough of Supernova's bull&*^^ claims and derogatory comments about products from other manufacturers I issued a challenge in my posting on the IBC forums (a German forum). I didn't think they would do it as it would show them for the BS-talkers they are, and I haven't heard anything from them...

    Btw 2. More and more people are doing proper lightoutput measurements and in 2 years I think every manufacturer will have to give proper measured output or be ridiculed...

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    69
    Well by saying picky what i meant is trout is not an advertiser, therefore perhaps being a bit more critical than usual. I have no problems with the way the thumb screw is in relation to the power plug.

    Also mbr is riddled with adverts all from the typical brands, if you have read it long enough you'll soon see which brands they favour, i would say their reviews are 90% accurate the rest being brand favouritism.

    Mine is the original so perhaps the mk3 differs in this regard.

    Trout im curious did you use the luminescent paint on the mk3 as well?

    Do you have plans for an xml liberator, that would be interesting.

    Im just waiting for a p60 drop in, the liberator does a plenty fine job on bars to last the next few years, only thing i would by another light for is a warmer tint and longer run times.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    333
    I think it is actually quite a good review, it is a shame it didn't get in the November group test where they included beam shots, however, it did get more page space than any of the other reviews. (The Light and Motion Seca 1400, came tops if you were wondering).

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: troutie-mtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,054
    For a balanced view here are the other reviews in the Nov issue which I missed by a couple of weeks sadly




  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    703
    Still amazes me how expensive bike lights are.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    289
    Hi Troutie, congrats on the review.

    Looks like the reviewer(s) had to dig to find things to complain about and all they could find was aesthetic issues - so what? Function over form will beat the competition in the long run.

    Interesting they thought the fins made it hard to clean, at least they did comment that the fins did their intended purpose. Heck, the light is waterproof - what's wrong with using a hose and a scrubbing brush - I'd be complaining more about those stupid toothed gears and the chains bikes have - now THOSE are hard to clean Maybe you can get a non-stick finish applied to your lights in the future

    The shape of your light and the number and depth of fins is what gives the needed surface area to cool the light - again function over form. I notice a distinct lack of finning on most of the other lights you linked the pictures to.

    Anyhow, if you ignore the nitpicking your light reviewed very nicely for a cottage industry product. Though I'd much rather see a review that shows how the 8/10 etc score is accessed - i.e. more like some of the auto reviews where they assign points for the various categories (showing the break down) and then the total points. Then at least the reader knows if points are being accessed for how pretty the light is etc and to focus on just the categories that are important to the reader.

    Finally, never underestimate the worth of word of mouth recommendations versus what is printed in a magazine.... AND that includes customer service - all things that are hard earned and the payback is long term.

    cheers,
    george.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,695
    +1 On Georges80 comments.

    Form is supposed to follow function in design. Pretty is as pretty does. And this light is flat out gorgeous.

    Is there a Concours for Mountain Bikes, where points are taken of for a piece of lint? I thought a little mud splatter was de rigeur and a clean Mountain Bike is an unused (and sad) Mountain Bike. Anyone who finds cleaning fins to be excessive exercise won't ride far enough to get them dirty in the first place.

    Attaboy, Troutie!

  23. #23
    Bandolero
    Reputation: notaknob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,428
    Quote Originally Posted by georges80
    Interesting they thought the fins made it hard to clean, at least they did comment that the fins did their intended purpose. Heck, the light is waterproof - what's wrong with using a hose and a scrubbing brush - I'd be complaining more about those stupid toothed gears and the chains bikes have - now THOSE are hard to clean Maybe you can get a non-stick finish applied to your lights in the future
    I recommend spraying it with Pam before each ride. The cooking spray, not Anderson.

    //note, do not spray your troute-lights with cooking spray.
    See the trails, be one with FOO-MTB.
    Slow-core. -.. .-. .. -. -.- .... --- -- . -... .-. . .--

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: troutie-mtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,054
    Quote Originally Posted by notaknob
    I recommend spraying it with Pam before each ride. The cooking spray, not Anderson.

    //note, do not spray your troute-lights with cooking spray.
    Hi Bruce .

    Thanks for the card and Bandoleros crew Sticker it will go on the Van after the next wash and one day I will vist New Mexico

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    116
    This post has sparked my interest in this light and I have several questions. I tried to contact troutelights and have not heard back, so I hope I can get my questions answered here.

    -What are the dimensions and weight of the lighthead?

    -What are the dimensions and weight of the battery packs? (both standard and endurance)

    -Can the light be ran on boost mode continuously - 1.5 hours with the standard battery or 3 hours with the endurance battery?

    -What is the cost in US dollars? (both standard and endurance)

    -How long does it take to receive in the US?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •