Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.

142K views 569 replies 137 participants last post by  indebt 
#1 ·
I'm working on it now. I have a ton of lights and I'm getting a bunch more!!!

It will be broken up in a Commuter and High End category.

What do you guys want to see?

Here's some sneak peak photos.

- ok light
- very flat beam pattern light
- bright light :)

fc
 

Attachments

See less See more
3
#235 ·
I have a better location for trail shots!!

Check here daily for updates on shootout:
Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

1) philips saferide
2) exposure joystick
3) exposure diablo
4) exposure sixpack
 

Attachments

#236 ·
I don't have a Facebook account.

I already wanted to ask about heat dissipation, because I have a gut feeling that the lights running cooler are not necessarily better in this regard. They could be running cooler (on the outside) because they are insulated more, so that they are frying the leds inside.

Of course this is not always the case, eg. if you underpower the leds they might be cooler to start with, so there is genuinely less heat. But a warm light case is definitely a sign that the whole case is acting as a heat dissipator IMHO. Which is good.

Might be worth asking the people in the DIY forum.
 
#244 ·
hey Francios, wanted to offer a few observations on the videos you've posted thus far.

as with previous years I really appreciate the unscripted style. makes your reviews much more interesting and honest than most I've seen

the Lupine review seemed a bit short. I can't speak for all, but I enjoy your thoughts on the packaging, the case, mounting options, chargers, build quality, etc. no reason to rush on my account!

just my thoughts so far. as always, I appreciate the effort.
 
#250 ·
Or stop by Home Depot! :D :D :D

Empire 300 ft. Open Reel Fiberglass Tape Measure - $29.96
300 ft. Open Reel Fiberglass Tape Measure-6830 at The Home Depot



Or...

Rolatape 12 in. Aluminum Measuring Wheel - $59.96
12 in. Aluminum Measuring Wheel-RT312 at The Home Depot



Though honestly, one could probably just buy a $10 25ft tape measure and put down a cone every 25 feet, to. 300 feet is about the length of an american football field...I don't think even the Niterider 3,000 would go further than that, lol...right? :D
 
#256 ·
Francios, is that the old Dinotte 1200L before the driver upgrade? Just asking as your measurements of just 88 lux is far short of the 105 the XML3 measured. Randyharris was pretty thorough in his review and claimed that the new version was brighter than the XML3 and his photo's showed that as well? I'm a bit surprised on that outcome.
 
#257 ·
Yes, both these lights are the latest from Dinotte and received last week. We are still investigating as well. More shooting tonight Integrating Sphere on Friday.

The 1200L is on par with other 1200 lumen lights. The XML-3 seems to be putting out about 1400 lumens.

Treat these numbers as preliminary. Oct. 31 is the final deadline for all the photos and data.

Here's a good page with historical data too:
Bike Lights Shootout Light Meter Measurements | Mountain Bike Review

fc
 
#260 ·
So far, it looks like the cost / lumen battle is going to NiteRider.
... and so is the grams/lumen rating. That thing is a tank.
The NiteRider mount is relatively secure but is slightly confusing at first as to how it releases.

Result: In adjusting the direction of the beam mid-commute, I dropped my payload all over the asphalt.

Damage? Nope. The NiteRider takes a licking and keeps on ticking.. It IS a tank, no doubt about it.
 
#265 ·
IMHO NR Pro 3000 wins over the Lupine Betty 2600



Lupine website says the Betty 2600 is 460 grams (1.01lbs) and has a 7.5 amp hour Li-Ion battery. Cost $930

Niterider website says Pro 3000 is 812 grams (1.79lbs) and has a 11.6 amp hour Li-Ion battery.
Cost $700.

The Niterider Pro 3000 battery has 4.1 amp hours more capacity than the Betty. That is a lot more battery capacity for 3/4 pound more in weight.

I'm not sure if the website info is accurate or if the weights include mounts or not but that is what is posted.

I'd prefer to get a higher capacity battery and brighter light and at $230 cheaper....... 3 reasons to get the NR Pro 3000 over the lighter weight Betty 2600
 
#267 ·
Sorry for my ignorance, I just stumbled across this thread for the first time. Will this information and results turn into a spreadsheet or database so we can pinpoint the best light for specific requirements/categories? I looked at the 2012 Bike Lights Shootout page and this test is fantastic and appears to be very thorough!
 
#268 ·
Francois - I saw main page.
I am looking forward to see other reviews which are pending currently.
By the way, why is Philips SafeRide's claimed lumen so high 400 lumen?
I bought it from Germany and it is announced as 270 lumen by Manufacturer(PHILIPS).
On the web forum in Germany, someone measured it's real Lumen by an integral sphere and it was measured as 291 lumen, I remember.

The USA version is announced as 400 lumen?
 
#270 · (Edited)
Yeah! The >$200 field has fierce competition going for it. I'm hoping Fc will include real runtimes not just whats on the package.

Fc already said that the Surfas 500 isnt quite as bright as the Niterider Minewt 600 or the Light and motion Urban 500.

I think were going to have to wait for the beam patterns on the under $200 lights.

I'm really curious how the Dinotte XML-1 will hold up against the flashlight lights. As I thought I read somewhere that some of Dinotte lights are upgradeable later in their lifespan. (or am I miss-remembering that?)

Too bad about the expillion 400. Oh well!
 
#272 ·
Paul, there was a debate over exactly this earlier in the thread, with photos from Francois' back yard. It appears that if you tilt the Philips beam further up, it leaves a darkened gap nearer to the source (just ahead of the bike). That means you'd lose track of obstacles in the trail/road surface. Seen here, when tilted down instead, it also does a weak job of defining the trench at the left side of the image.

It appears users will have a challenge adjusting the beam to hit the sweet spot. On the other hand, with a static image you're not factoring in the usual handlebar wobble. I'm sure you'd get at least intermittent glimpses of obstacles -- immediately ahead, or off on the periphery like the trench.

But are you going to see the low-hanging tree limbs overhead? That's the most important question, and why I'm wary of shaped beams. I've been glad for the spread of my own light without a shaped beam (a MiNewt 600) as it's shown me a few low-hanging bushes I might have ridden into.
 
#274 ·
Look at this: h t t p : / /photozou.jp/photo/show/214524/83193309 (please remove the spaces in the URL - I am not allowed to post URLs because I don't have sufficient cred on this website). It gives a more complete view of the beam. The dark spot is not really all that dark. The beam starts out bright, gets a little dark and then the main part gets really bright. Like any asymmetrical light it is sensitive to adjustment. I find that is best to adjust on a relatively flat road while riding the bike (the rider's weight does affect the overall angle!). I start off by pointing it a bit down and then tilting it up slowly until I achieve maximum throw.

Wouldn't it be great if were self leveling like BMW lights, heheh. Just kidding, that would add too much complexity, weight and cost :)
 
#273 ·
There was a debate earlier in the thread, I just think that in my experience the light head ended up to far down, I think it's meant to be pointed up somewhat further, even if that does leave a larger dark gap in front of the bike. I mean these are just my thoughts, but recently I've been tuning the position of my Lumotec Cyo another shaped beam light and that has been the best light position - for commuting. I just think if it was pointed a little bit more up it will light up further down the trail in this pic.

I certainly don't expect Francois to go back and reshoot it or anything though.

As Francois said in his review, I don't think that a shaped beam light by itself would be good for mountain biking. It could be good in combination with a headlamp that would illuminate stuff like low hanging branches though (as Francois mentioned).
 
#276 ·
Correct. On the commuter, lower-powered lights, I'm aiming them lower on the trail photos. The reason is their throw is not that far and the light just gets lost.

I'm aiming them at the orange sheet 100 feet on the left of the trail. There is another green sheet on the 200 foot mark.

I just got this light called the Cateye Econom Force. It is very similar to the Saferide as it has a very controlled beam pattern. It is square!!

Here's the latest photos:
Cateye Econom Force
Philips Saferide

fc
 

Attachments

#280 ·
Finally! The new light shoutout. Was waiting a couple weeks for this. :) Thanks.


Oh and one thing: Philips is actually an old Dutch electronics company (from 1891). They started as a light company later on made all kinds of electronics Came up with some innovations, for instance the Compact Disc.
 
#281 ·
I dont get why everyone is worried about the cutoff for commuting lights. I ran 2 niterider minewt 600 on highs on street commutes. I got a small strip of 3M black tape($2 industrial version from home depot not the cheap 0.99 ones) and placed it over the top part of the light to cut off the spill and not blind drivers. Because the tape can handle high temps there was no melting. The tape did not block the spot light just the small amount of spill that blinds on coming traffic.
 
#282 ·
I'm with you... sort of. With judicious power management and aiming of a non-shaped beam, you can easily ride in traffic at night with plenty of light on the road to see your way without blinding on-coming traffic. If I happen to "stick out" a bit more than the typical car headlight, I'm totally OK with that. Anything that draws attention without being dangerous is a good thing in my opinion.

The "tape over the top half" trick only really works if you're blocking the direct line of sight to the emitter itself. So you probably need to block just a little more than the top half. Even better than just the tape would be a small mirror, or even smooth aluminum foil. This would have the effect of reflecting back a good portion of the light, and if the light is using a parabolic reflector, it would be re-directed out the bottom half, essentially what the Philips is doing, only with a much bigger reflector with a compound shape. But then again, considering the output lost doing this, you might be just as well off to cut the light's total power output (if possible) and re-aiming for slightly less throw. Just IMO.
 
#283 ·
NiteBiker, that's a very useful photo of the Philips' spread. Apparently the dim foreground isn't a concern, as you've suggested. Bodes well for overhead illumination, but I'm still wary, from a safety standpoint. Nothing against Philips. Anyone conscientious and patient enough to put out a dynamo light gets big props.

I think I just have a dark screen.

Wonder how to get the photos to reveal more of the beam's dynamic range, as in the photo NiteBiker found.
 
#285 ·
Francois,

For future reference, apparently there's a setting in the Nikon D7000 called Active D-Lighting (ADL). This underexposes when the highlights will be blown out, and it's on by default.

If you're looking for a way to show the details of a light beam that may be too underexposed (like the periphery of the Philips SafeRide beam), you'd want to do the following:

1) Turn ADL off.
2) Set Contrast to Neutral or Low.
3) Shoot the first / brightest lamp with manual exposure, overexposing it to some extent.
4) Use the same settings for the rest of the lamps. They'll expose less and less terrain the lower the lux you're reading for them, but it might be a little bit easier to see what's being illuminated around the dimly lit edges.

If I get any other advice, I'll re-edit this particular reply of this thread, so it's not scattered.

I have no interest in seeing you re-shoot, just some insights for next year. Hope this is helpful.
 
#286 ·
I believe he uses a fixed set of exposure settings so that there is some basis for comparison between pictures.

Besides that, digital photography will not accurately portray the differences from high to low light levels and therefore the true character of the beam. A digital camera can see about 5-6 f/stops of light (light doublings) and your eye sees 20-21 f/stops of light - many times more resolution from light to dark.

J.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top