Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 63
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Baja Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by Chromagftw View Post
    Shannon, thanks for that, yep it sounds good for sure.

    But I was actually referring to voltage and amps specs on the adventure battery ... can you recall what they are mate?

    Since on the topic of run times, can you please share what the run times are like for the StrykrII and StrykrSL? Would it be fair to assume 2x as long compared with identical modes of the Dbl Stryk? Are modes equated to the following?:

    High = 100%
    Mid = 50%
    Low = 25%
    Yep, the Strykr II and the Strykr SL will get twice as much on all of their various settings.

    As far as the specifics on the battery...well...please understand that I have landed on my head numerous times so remembering things is not my greatest strength. I will find out exactly what all of those numbers are and I'll get back with you.

    I did just find out something very interesting about the Baja Designs Strykr II, the current Strykr puts out 52 Lux according the MTBR and our own light meter (we have the same one), the new Strykr II pumps out 82 Lux! That's roughly a 47% increase in output, yikes! (even I am surprised by that) The 2011 Strykr was, and is, a great light, but WOW!
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #27
    Got a suspension fork
    Reputation: randyharris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,242
    Quote Originally Posted by BajaDesignsShannon View Post
    the current Strykr puts out 52 Lux according the MTBR and our own light meter (we have the same one), the new Strykr II pumps out 82 Lux! That's roughly a 47% increase in output, yikes! (even I am surprised by that) The 2011 Strykr was, and is, a great light, but WOW!
    I know your lights are better than your math, that's a 57.69% increase.
    ONE SHOX, ONE GEAR, LOTS of FUN! www.TrailFu.com My Rides

  3. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Baja Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by randyharris View Post
    I know your lights are better than your math, that's a 57.69% increase.
    Haaahhh!! I am a Marine...

    You know the funny thing is that I figured that out when I talked about it on the Facebook page...d'oh!!

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by BajaDesignsShannon View Post
    I did just find out something very interesting about the Baja Designs Strykr II, the current Strykr puts out 52 Lux according the MTBR and our own light meter (we have the same one), the new Strykr II pumps out 82 Lux! That's roughly a 47% increase in output, yikes! (even I am surprised by that) The 2011 Strykr was, and is, a great light, but WOW!
    Wow Shannon that is amazing, Any chance you guy's tested the double strykr ?

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RE1GN2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25
    I love the way the double stryker looks. Rather small and compact and it seems it punches out so much light. Tell us when is it being released!! I'd like to know more about it.

    From the pictures, it looks like it uses a dual reflector. Is this true? What are the beam shots like!

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Baja Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalNomadRider View Post
    Wow Shannon that is amazing, Any chance you guy's tested the double strykr ?
    We haven't tested the Double Stryk just yet, I can't wait to see what that system puts out. I actually was mistaken with the Strykr II, it actually has 57.69% more Lux than the 2010-11 Strykr. Crazy, eh?? As soon as I have the numbers for you I will let you know.

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    134
    Any deals on the 2011 Strykers? I just bought one the other week and love it. Been riding almost every night. Need to buy another this week or at least an additional battery for an upcoming event. Before I spend full pop I figured nothing to lose by asking.

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Baja Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevoo View Post
    Any deals on the 2011 Strykers? I just bought one the other week and love it. Been riding almost every night. Need to buy another this week or at least an additional battery for an upcoming event. Before I spend full pop I figured nothing to lose by asking.
    Yep, we do some deals Stevoo. Email me at Shannon@BajaDesigns.com and I'll give you the skinny, or at least get you the spare battery that you are needing.

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2

    double strykr specs

    I just read a review of the double stryker on bikeradar.com. the article claims it puts out 1800 lumens but they also say it uses cree xp-g leds which according to CREE themselves are only good for 460 or so each so what gives? Somebody is confused or somebody is lieing.

    Ed

  10. #35
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,035
    Quote Originally Posted by edllorca View Post
    I just read a review of the double stryker on bikeradar.com. the article claims it puts out 1800 lumens but they also say it uses cree xp-g leds which according to CREE themselves are only good for 460 or so each so what gives? Somebody is confused or somebody is lieing.

    Ed
    Somebody is confused. They are XML's...
    baker

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Baja Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by edllorca View Post
    I just read a review of the double stryker on bikeradar.com. the article claims it puts out 1800 lumens but they also say it uses cree xp-g leds which according to CREE themselves are only good for 460 or so each so what gives? Somebody is confused or somebody is lieing.

    Ed
    Hi Ed,

    The Double Stryk actually pumps out slightly more than 1800 Lumens but we are trying to be humble. It actually runs T6 Bin Cree XM-L Leds not XP-G's like the review states. We are not pushing them to their max of 1000 Lumens as we feel it could diminish their longevity so we are running them at roughly 925 each. According to Francis here on MTBR.com the Double Stryk is cranking out 150 Lux - a very bright light - and with the wide and spot reflector we are running the system is quite effective even when run in the lower wattage settings.

    Hopefully that clears up the confusion, let me know what other questions you may have.

    Shannon

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Baja Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by baker View Post
    Somebody is confused. They are XML's...
    You, Sir, are correct. They are indeed XM-L's...anything less is uncivilized.

  13. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by BajaDesignsShannon View Post
    Hi Ed,

    The Double Stryk actually pumps out slightly more than 1800 Lumens but we are trying to be humble. It actually runs T6 Bin Cree XM-L Leds not XP-G's like the review states. We are not pushing them to their max of 1000 Lumens as we feel it could diminish their longevity so we are running them at roughly 925 each. According to Francis here on MTBR.com the Double Stryk is cranking out 150 Lux - a very bright light - and with the wide and spot reflector we are running the system is quite effective even when run in the lower wattage settings.

    Hopefully that clears up the confusion, let me know what other questions you may have.

    Shannon
    This lumen/drive-level thing is tricky business. Not trying to detract from the design (I like it a lot), but even at 925 lumens, you're driving these things right on the hairy edge.

    Cree calls out a minimum flux rating of 280 for the XML T6 at 700mA.
    They also specify a tolerance of +/-7%, so just for fun let's split the difference to the high side and say each LED is putting out 280 + 3.5% = 290 lumens at 700mA.

    The absolute maximum drive current is 3 amps and carries with it a lumen multiplication factor of 3.25 over and above the 700mA level.

    So very optimistically, the maximum theoretical output from one LED would be:
    290*3.25 = 942.5 lumens.

    From an LED on the lower end of the specification you have:
    280*3.25 = 910 lumens.

    So in reality, 925 lumens would be at or very close to the absolute theoretical limit for an average sampling of these devices.

    Subtract roughly 20% for heating and optics losses and a realistic absolute maximum out-the-front lumen rating would be closer to:
    925*0.8 = 740 per LED.

    It's a great light, no question about it, but it did seem like there needed to be some clarification on the maximum capabilities of the XML. The 1000 lumens per LED is pretty much a XML-myth, unless you slightly over-drive the device. And at 10 WATTS per LED, I'm not sure I want to be over-driving them.

    http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/xlampxm-l.pdf

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Baja Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by pethelman View Post
    This lumen/drive-level thing is tricky business. Not trying to detract from the design (I like it a lot), but even at 925 lumens, you're driving these things right on the hairy edge.

    Cree calls out a minimum flux rating of 280 for the XML T6 at 700mA.
    They also specify a tolerance of +/-7%, so just for fun let's split the difference to the high side and say each LED is putting out 280 + 3.5% = 290 lumens at 700mA.

    The absolute maximum drive current is 3 amps and carries with it a lumen multiplication factor of 3.25 over and above the 700mA level.

    So very optimistically, the maximum theoretical output from one LED would be:
    290*3.25 = 942.5 lumens.

    From an LED on the lower end of the specification you have:
    280*3.25 = 910 lumens.

    So in reality, 925 lumens would be at or very close to the absolute theoretical limit for an average sampling of these devices.

    Subtract roughly 20% for heating and optics losses and a realistic absolute maximum out-the-front lumen rating would be closer to:
    925*0.8 = 740 per LED.

    It's a great light, no question about it, but it did seem like there needed to be some clarification on the maximum capabilities of the XML. The 1000 lumens per LED is pretty much a XML-myth, unless you slightly over-drive the device. And at 10 WATTS per LED, I'm not sure I want to be over-driving them.

    http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/xlampxm-l.pdf
    Hah! Well there you go, very nice Pethelman, good stuff. Sounds like it's a good thing we have an effective thermal regulator, an tough aluminum housing to help radiate the heat away from the electronics, and best of all a life-time warranty on the light head and everything inside of it, eh?

    Wait a second...so what you are saying is...is that other light companies claims of 1000 lumens out of a single XM-L is...not completely accurate??

    Shannon
    Last edited by Baja Designs; 10-28-2011 at 12:50 PM.

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by BajaDesignsShannon View Post
    Wait a second...so what you are saying is...is that other light companies claims of 1000 lumens out of a single XM-L is...not completely accurate??

    Shannon
    I know... shocking.
    Obviously you guys are pros when it comes to light designs. And when you have a well-designed light that fills a need in the market, then you can let the "other" guys duke it out with inflated lumen claims while your product speaks for itself. It's frustrating though to see how many manufacturers have jumped into this niche' market with no real standards to speak of. Trying to compete in the post-Magicshine bike light era has definitely presented some challenges.

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Baja Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by pethelman View Post
    I know... shocking.
    Obviously you guys are pros when it comes to light designs. And when you have a well-designed light that fills a need in the market, then you can let the "other" guys duke it out with inflated lumen claims while your product speaks for itself. It's frustrating though to see how many manufacturers have jumped into this niche' market with no real standards to speak of. Trying to compete in the post-Magicshine bike light era has definitely presented some challenges.
    I really liked that page, I liked it so much I posted it up on our Baja Designs Bicycle Lighting FaceBook page. Very informative, my favorite line though was, "Warning: Do not look at exposed lamp in operation. Eye injury can result." Thanks for sending that attachment, very enjoyable reading - although I think it must be written primarily in a Greek dialect that I don't quite understand...

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by pethelman View Post
    So in reality, 925 lumens would be at or very close to the absolute theoretical limit for an average sampling of these devices.

    Subtract roughly 20% for heating and optics losses and a realistic absolute maximum out-the-front lumen rating would be closer to:
    925*0.8 = 740 per LED.

    http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/xlampxm-l.pdf
    I'll agree that the Baja Designs lights look to be well designed and are definitely something I would put on my bike... and I don't fault them for publishing 'ideal' lumen values as long as they're within the realm of theoretical (which 900 x 2 = 1800 is in the ballpark of).

    It's not like we're talking about some of the ridiculous and outlandish claims of some other suppliers!

    But it also doesn't hurt to be an informed community of light consumers/connoisseurs...

    I also shared a quick chart I made of Francois' LUX measurement vs. LUMEN measurements in the 2012 Light Shootout thread - it appears LUX x 9.7 is a decent predictor of 'real life' lumens.

    So, based on BD Double Strkr 150 LUX rating (a really nice number by the way)... 150 x 9.7 = 1455 Lumens total / 2 = 727.5 lumens per side FWIW.


  18. #43
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,035
    Quote Originally Posted by abacojeff View Post
    I'll agree that the Baja Designs lights look to be well designed and are definitely something I would put on my bike... and I don't fault them for publishing 'ideal' lumen values as long as they're within the realm of theoretical (which 900 x 2 = 1800 is in the ballpark of).

    It's not like we're talking about some of the ridiculous and outlandish claims of some other suppliers!

    But it also doesn't hurt to be an informed community of light consumers/connoisseurs...

    I also shared a quick chart I made of Francois' LUX measurement vs. LUMEN measurements in the 2012 Light Shootout thread - it appears LUX x 9.7 is a decent predictor of 'real life' lumens.

    So, based on BD Double Strkr 150 LUX rating (a really nice number by the way)... 150 x 9.7 = 1455 Lumens total / 2 = 727.5 lumens per side FWIW.

    Lumens = LUX x 9.7 is purely an estimate (edited to remove "totally bogus", which is a bit harsh).

    LUX is light intensity for a given area. Lumens is total light output. LUX will vary greatly depending upon the optics (flood vs spot, for example).
    baker

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by abacojeff View Post
    So, based on BD Double Strkr 150 LUX rating (a really nice number by the way)... 150 x 9.7 = 1455 Lumens total / 2 = 727.5 lumens per side FWIW.
    Very interesting to see your empirical estimate of 727.5 being so close to my purely number-crunched value of 740. Pretty cool.

    However, I do think that the 10x relationship may tend to fall apart somewhat for the wider angle beams, particularly those that dedicate a portion of their useable lumen output to side lighting, since this may not register well on the "ceiling reflector" test. The Double Strkr has a pretty intense spot beam, so it probably comes out on the high side of the ceiling test.
    Last edited by pethelman; 10-28-2011 at 02:44 PM.

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,790
    Match's excellent test of XM-L output on the budget light forum (using his home made integrated sphere!) shows that even at 5 amps it didn't quite hit 1,000 real lumen, and at 3 amps it's 880 lumens: Results: Testing XM-L, MC-E, and SST-50 emitters up to (and over) 5 amps. | BudgetLightForum.com

    Tim
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2012 BAJA DESIGNS double stryker-table.jpg  


  21. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by baker View Post
    Lumens = LUX x 9.7 is purely an estimate (edited to remove "totally bogus", which is a bit harsh).

    LUX is light intensity for a given area. Lumens is total light output. LUX will vary greatly depending upon the optics (flood vs spot, for example).
    Hey Baker,

    I totally understand the point you're trying to bring up, but for the sake of 'discussion' consider 2 points...

    (1) "Lux x 9.7 equates to Lumens" IS purely an estimate, clearly said it was, and the included chart shows the error inherent to the equation. Don't make me calculate the Confidence Intervals banding the linear equation... The correlation coefficient for the 'totally bogus estimate' is very high. As more data comes in from Francois, will the estimate continue to hold up? Probably not, as it looks like the higher powered units may have a slightly lower ratio/relationship. But dude, the graph is very linear... what else do you want?

    (2) The distinction between Lux and Lumens are as you've stated. As you've pointed out they are not the same TYPE of measurement of light output or intensity...

    HOWEVER, you fail to take into account how Francois takes the Lux readings. He does NOT point his Lux meter at a light from x feet away to measure the Lux value (lumens/area... or a type of density function). He takes his Lux measurements indirectly via reflected light in an enclosed room making it a 'crude' type of integrating sphere. This aspect is what makes his Lux reading correlate to the integrating sphere lumen measurements.

  22. #47
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,035
    Quote Originally Posted by abacojeff View Post
    Hey Baker,

    I totally understand the point you're trying to bring up, but for the sake of 'discussion' consider 2 points...

    (1) "Lux x 9.7 equates to Lumens" IS purely an estimate, clearly said it was, and the included chart shows the error inherent to the equation. Don't make me calculate the Confidence Intervals banding the linear equation... The correlation coefficient for the 'totally bogus estimate' is very high. As more data comes in from Francois, will the estimate continue to hold up? Probably not, as it looks like the higher powered units may have a slightly lower ratio/relationship. But dude, the graph is very linear... what else do you want?

    (2) The distinction between Lux and Lumens are as you've stated. As you've pointed out they are not the same TYPE of measurement of light output or intensity...

    HOWEVER, you fail to take into account how Francois takes the Lux readings. He does NOT point his Lux meter at a light from x feet away to measure the Lux value (lumens/area... or a type of density function). He takes his Lux measurements indirectly via reflected light in an enclosed room making it a 'crude' type of integrating sphere. This aspect is what makes his Lux reading correlate to the integrating sphere lumen measurements.
    Excellent point! I didn't realize that is what Francois is doing. That's how I compare lights, too. From my experience, it does give fairly good comparisons of total output.
    baker

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Baja Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by pethelman View Post
    Very interesting to see your empirical estimate of 727.5 being so close to my purely number-crunched value of 740. Pretty cool.

    However, I do think that the 10x relationship may tend to fall apart somewhat for the wider angle beams, particularly those that dedicate a portion of their useable lumen output to side lighting, since this may not register well on the "ceiling reflector" test. The Double Strkr has a pretty intense spot beam, so it probably comes out on the high side of the ceiling test.
    Man, this is interesting! You are correct, sometimes the tighter a spot the better a given system will fair on a Lux meter with the ol' ceiling bounce.

    I have said it before, and I'll say it again, these numbers are all neat but they are pretty arbitrary when it actually comes down to how a given system performs out on the trail. The Double Stryk not only projects really well because of the spot reflector, it also has a wide angle reflector that throws light nicely out on your periphery. The color temperature of a given system is also something that should be taken into consideration. Not to mention the waterproofing, mounts, battery, customer service, warranty, etc.

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Wombat View Post
    Match's excellent test of XM-L output on the budget light forum (using his home made integrated sphere!) shows that even at 5 amps it didn't quite hit 1,000 real lumen, and at 3 amps it's 880 lumens: Results: Testing XM-L, MC-E, and SST-50 emitters up to (and over) 5 amps. | BudgetLightForum.com

    Tim
    Thanks for the link... interesting reading. Did you see the size of that heatsink!

    As stated in the writeup, you'll never see that amount of thermal mass in a flashlight (or bikelight).

    I've seen a rundown of the decrease in output versus increase in junction temperature but don't have time to reproduce that type of evalution now... but it would be interesting to see how much the 'max' value of 880 lumens would decrease based on typical operating temps in a bike light.

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by BajaDesignsShannon View Post
    Man, this is interesting! You are correct, sometimes the tighter a spot the better a given system will fair on a Lux meter with the ol' ceiling bounce.

    I have said it before, and I'll say it again, these numbers are all neat but they are pretty arbitrary when it actually comes down to how a given system performs out on the trail. The Double Stryk not only projects really well because of the spot reflector, it also has a wide angle reflector that throws light nicely out on your periphery. The color temperature of a given system is also something that should be taken into consideration. Not to mention the waterproofing, mounts, battery, customer service, warranty, etc.
    I agree! Hopefully nobody misinterprets all the number crunching!

    Bike lights have gotten so much better than they were just a couple of years ago - and nothing said above should take away from the great product Baja Designs (and other reputable companies) have out on the market.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Baja Designs support at Predator Night Race - Southridge USA
    By Baja Designs in forum Lights and Night Riding
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-23-2011, 04:02 PM
  2. Baja Designs Stryker and Stryker Pro review
    By baker in forum Lights and Night Riding
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-25-2011, 12:38 AM
  3. Baja Designs Stryker - four thumbs up!
    By Earthpig in forum Lights and Night Riding
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-24-2011, 02:21 PM
  4. DH lights: BAJA Designs Stryker and Stryker pro
    By bullcrew in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-14-2010, 02:46 PM
  5. Baja Designs Stryker and DiNotte 400L (pic heavy!)
    By ccfoodog in forum Lights and Night Riding
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-26-2010, 10:43 PM

Posting Permissions

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