Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 53

Thread: Seca 1400!!

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,445

    Seca 1400!!

    Has anyone seen or rode with the new Seca 1400?? Will be interesting to see how it compares to the revised NR 1400.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    I'm also curious, though I'm not sure anyone even has one yet. I've been searching for "Seca 1400" daily for the last month, and it's only been in the last week than any links to buy one have shown up, and even those are oddball internet places I haven't heard of (or places outside the US, where I am).

    I noticed REI discounted the Seca 700 recently. As soon as they carry a 1400, I'm going to get one...just sure how long it will be until then though.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,445
    I'm a little surprised that it's hit and miss,especially in your neck of the woods.The MEC outlet here in Vancouver B.C. has them advertised for $719.Not to bad for Canadian retail.I'm guessing they have gone to XPG for that much output.Should be a fantastic beam!!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    lol, we'll see about the beam. I bought a Seca 900, and while it had a better beam than many of my other lights, there were still things I didn't like about it. Wasn't wide enough at the far end. Could have used more light on the ground off to the sides. Wouldn't have hurt if it the light went farther (though it was the first light where I thought it would be "nice" if it went farther, rather than thinking the damn thing should go farther for the money I paid for it! lol).

    Have they fixed all these problems with the new version? We will see, hopefully! :-)

    P.S. I don't mean to rip on it to much. The Seca 900 is the best non-dynamo light I've used so far, and the dynamo light required an additional battery light before I liked it, and then probably about tied with the 900. I'm just frustrated that spending a bunch of money still doesn't buy me the perfect light! lol

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by indebt
    I'm a little surprised that it's hit and miss,especially in your neck of the woods.The MEC outlet here in Vancouver B.C. has them advertised for $719.Not to bad for Canadian retail.I'm guessing they have gone to XPG for that much output.Should be a fantastic beam!!
    What's XPG?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    fyi, the 1400 showed up on Art's Cyclery today, so that's promising for getting reviews...
    http://www.artscyclery.com/descpage-LMSC1400.html

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,445
    The Cree XPG led's are the newest technology increasing lumen output,however something better is coming soon!!

  8. #8
    Mai
    Mai is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    522
    [quote=indebt]The Cree XPG led's are the newest technology increasing lumen output,however something better is coming soon!![/quote

    Care to tell us?

    Two roads diverged in a yellow wood and I,
    I took the road less traveled by and
    It has made all the difference. R Frost

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by indebt
    The Cree XPG led's are the newest technology increasing lumen output,however something better is coming soon!!
    Care to enlighten us?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,445
    I'll give it a shot.I read in D.I.Y. a couple of months ago that Cree had a new LED coming out called the XLamp XM.The new platform claimes 160 lumens per watt.Don't believe there talking about the XPG's as there already out.It's a single chip LED delivering 160 lumens per watt at 350 Ma,also delivers 750 lumens at 2A.The platform has a larger footprint than Cree's XP family.And the thermal resistance is 2 degree's C per watt.Haven't heard anything new since this post back in April.
    Does anyone have anymore info on this product?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,309
    Probably this.
    Basically large die like SST and capable at being driven at higher amps. Should have issue similar to all larger die LEDs. Poor focus without large, 30mm plus optics.

    Cree Announces Revolutionary New LED Platform Delivering 160 Lumens per Watt

    XLamp® XM LEDs Are Most Efficient Lighting-Class LEDs in the Industry

    DURHAM, N.C., April 12, 2010 — Cree, Inc. (Nasdaq: CREE), a market leader in LED lighting, announces a breakthrough new lighting-class LED platform, the XLamp® XM LED. This new single chip LED delivers record-breaking efficacy of 160 lumens per watt at 350 mA. The LED also delivers 750 lumens at 2 A, which is equivalent to the light output of a 60 W incandescent light bulb at less than 7 watts.

    “This new platform continues Cree’s well-established record of turning R&D innovations into products,” said Chuck Swoboda, Cree chairman and CEO. “We continue to set the pace for LED performance, establishing new benchmarks that make you wonder why anyone would consider last-century’s energy-wasting technology.”

    A cool white XM LED driven at 350 mA can produce 160 lumens at 160 lumens per watt. The new platform has a larger footprint than Cree’s XP family and also offers the unique combination of very high efficacy at very high drive currents. At 2 A, an XM LED produces 750 lumens at 110 lumens per watt. The thermal resistance of the XM platform is 2 degrees C per watt— an industry-leading technology breakthrough and a 350 percent improvement over Cree’s flagship XLamp XP-E LED.

    Samples of the XLamp XM LEDs are available for order with standard lead times and commercial availability is targeted for Fall 2010.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    fyi, Light and Motion finally put up an official Seca 1400 page with side-by-side beam comparisons with other lights -
    http://www.bikelightingsystem.com/seca700.html

    Now obviously these are from light and motion, so take them with a grain of salt. They compared them to a couple of different lights, the Niterider 1200, Lupine Betty, and Magicshine 900. (EDIT - these was my previous, incorrect, text here - looks like I was looking at the Seca 700 comparison when I thought I was looking at the 1400 comparison - like the Magicshine 900 and the Niterider 600 (notice how they "mysteriously" didn't compare to the Niterider 1200, a light that's actually a similar price with similar lumen output) as well as the Lupine Tesla 4 and Cygolite TridenX).

    *sigh* Looking at it further, it becomes clear they resort to further obvious trickery - the side-by-side comparison put the Seca on the left and the other lights on the right. But while the left side has a patch of water on it making the road darker, the right side is completely covered in water, making the other light always appear dimmer.

    There's other caveats, but anyways - it's official out at least. :-) I don't know about their questionable marketing, but my Seca 900 was a very decent light, I'm interested in the 1400 version...
    Last edited by PaulRivers; 08-05-2010 at 09:22 AM.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,445
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulRivers
    fyi, Light and Motion finally put up an official Seca 1400 page with side-by-side beam comparisons with other lights -
    http://www.bikelightingsystem.com/seca700.html

    Now obviously these are from light and motion, so take them with a grain of salt. They compared them to a couple of different lights, like the Magicshine 900 and the Niterider 600 (notice how they "mysteriously" didn't compare to the Niterider 1200, a light that's actually a similar price with similar lumen output) as well as the Lupine Tesla 4 and Cygolite TridenX.

    *sigh* Looking at it further, it becomes clear they resort to further obvious trickery - the side-by-side comparison put the Seca on the left and the other lights on the right. But while the left side has a patch of water on it making the road darker, the right side is completely covered in water, making the other light always appear dimmer.

    There's other caveats, but anyways - it's official out at least. :-) I don't know about their questionable marketing, but my Seca 900 was a very decent light, I'm interested in the 1400 version...
    If you click on the Seca 1400 at the top of the website right beside the Seca 700, you will see comparison's with the NR 1200 the Lupine Betty,etc. The Seca 1400 looks as i expected,with a well diversified beam,good fill up close and to the sides up to medium range.Seems to have the NR 1200 beat pretty handily.The Betty however after the first 20/30 feet in my opinion blows the doors of it. You can see the road including the bend is lit up far more than the Seca.Just depends what you want i guess,range or spread.You would need 5000 lumens to get the brightness and range of the betty with the spread of the Seca,maybe next year
    You were right as the comparison's with the Seca 700 seemed rediculously one sided.I rode with a guy using the NR 600 pro and it was pretty bright and i didn't see a green hue,not to mention the dry road on the left vs the completely soaked road to the right.But as we know,the only way to tell for sure is to see for yourself, as i have foud trusting peoples camera settings or the cameras themselves is to unreliable.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,445
    Just realized Paul, that if you click on the center line separating the two lights you just click and hold,then pull to the left or right to get the full photo of either light alleviating the issue of wet or dry roads.If the photo's are as described on there website and are taken with identical settings then i would have to say they have hit a homerun!!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by indebt
    Just realized Paul, that if you click on the center line separating the two lights you just click and hold,then pull to the left or right to get the full photo of either light alleviating the issue of wet or dry roads.If the photo's are as described on there website and are taken with identical settings then i would have to say they have hit a homerun!!
    Yes, I realized you can, but it's still the case that the right size of the photo is "mysteriously" wet - *exactly* up to the center line, which is the default line between the left and the right of the photo.

    I'll be buying this light because I liked their previous products, don't get me wrong. Just irritating when they *almost* provide useful information, but then put some marketing/bs spin on it to make it look better.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by indebt
    If you click on the Seca 1400 at the top of the website right beside the Seca 700, you will see comparison's with the NR 1200 the Lupine Betty,etc. The Seca 1400 looks as i expected,with a well diversified beam,good fill up close and to the sides up to medium range.Seems to have the NR 1200 beat pretty handily.The Betty however after the first 20/30 feet in my opinion blows the doors of it. You can see the road including the bend is lit up far more than the Seca.Just depends what you want i guess,range or spread.You would need 5000 lumens to get the brightness and range of the betty with the spread of the Seca,maybe next year
    You were right as the comparison's with the Seca 700 seemed rediculously one sided.I rode with a guy using the NR 600 pro and it was pretty bright and i didn't see a green hue,not to mention the dry road on the left vs the completely soaked road to the right.But as we know,the only way to tell for sure is to see for yourself, as i have foud trusting peoples camera settings or the cameras themselves is to unreliable.
    I updated my post - oops! You're right - I think I clicked on the Seca 700 comparison, but thought it was still the Seca 1400 comparison.

    I can see what you mean about the Lupine having more throw - it certainly appears to. But I can say that in my opinion and for my riding, I lean towards the Seca's beam pattern. The Lupine has a super bright spot in front of the bike which, from experience with a Dinotte 600L, I don't like, it makes your eyes adjust to the bright spot (pupils contract or something) and you can't see as far down the road. Though to be fair, not only do pictures not necessarily tell the whole story, but in the picture the Seca also looks a little to bright immediately in front of the bike, which concerns me a tiny bit.

    And from experience with a Seca 900, I found I wished I had more side illumination because of the rabbits off to the side of the trail at night for "road" riding (on the MUP, or trails around the lakes). One these days one of those bastards is going to dart through my wheel - at least when I can see them sitting there I can go past them on the far side of the trail. And for mountain biking, more light close up is *definitely* wanted. :-D The Seca still lights up 90 feet down the road (assuming the pictures are accurate)...I dunno, if you have a Lupine Betty and live in Minnesota, I'd be happy to try them out side by side once I get a Seca 1400, haha.

  17. #17
    Mai
    Mai is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    522
    I have been looking at the Seca 1400 and a Lupine Wilma 7 for some time. I was leaning towards the Wilma because of run time, but seeing the lights side by side has made me rethink the Seca. I like the wider pattern on the Seca instead of the center focused Wilma.
    Last edited by Mai; 08-05-2010 at 02:28 PM.

    Two roads diverged in a yellow wood and I,
    I took the road less traveled by and
    It has made all the difference. R Frost

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,445
    Would be interesting to see the Betty's beam side by side with the Seca 1400 with the new 22 degree wide lens now available.How about the Seca 1400 on the handel bars and the 16 degree Betty on the helmet, 3250 lumens,,,,,welders helmet needed!!.Think only a DIY would out perform that!!! Paul,don't think you need to worry about the Seca been to bright up close as you described as almost every picture i've seen of high powered lights tend to have a little over exposure to them.I'm sure it's because i've become used to my Betty2, as when i first got it i was wanting the 22 degree lens right away but as most of my riding is single track, in real life the beam is more than wide enough for the most demanding trails, with a helmet light as well of coarse.Still may try the 22 degree??

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Well geez, *everything* is wide enough with a helmet light! lol :-P

    The point about being to bright is that the beam is supposed to be even - if it's to bright close to you, it makes it difficult to see things farther away as your eyes adjust to the brightest spot of light. If it was overexposed as much farther away as it was close to the bike, it wouldn't be a concern, it would just be a matter of overexposure on the camera.

    All that being said, I'm not taking anything in the pics to particularly seriously. I've *tried* to take pictures of the beam from my Seca 900 vs some of my other lights, and the pictures just don't turn out like it looks in person (and this is with a camera with manual controls and all that that I set).

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cat-man-do's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,136
    My $.02 worth of opinion....What was said about the beam photos on the L&M site was spot on. The right half of the road looks completely wet. If this wasn't so sad it would be laughable. I couldn't tell the difference between the Lupine and the MagicShine!...Now that is laughable! If I was running the L&M website I'd have someone take that down real quick..

    I'm still trying to figure out just what LED's are being used for the Seca 1400(?)
    I'm thinking two under-driven MC-E's on the outside and a single ( over-driven ? ) XP-G R-5 in the center for added throw..

    Anyone really know?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat-man-do
    My $.02 worth of opinion....What was said about the beam photos on the L&M site was spot on. The right half of the road looks completely wet. If this wasn't so sad it would be laughable. I couldn't tell the difference between the Lupine and the MagicShine!...Now that is laughable! If I was running the L&M website I'd have someone take that down real quick..
    Well to be fair, maybe you're thinking of a different Lupine. On another page they have these two stats -
    Lupine Tesla 4 - 700 Claimed Lumens - 492 Measured Lumens
    MagicShine 900 - 900 Claimed Lumens - 518 Measured Lumens

    Perhaps you're thinking of the Lupine Betty 7 which they also list?
    Lupine Betty 7 - 1750 Claimed Lumens - 1686 Measured Lumens

    I'm not saying the any company couldn't be full of marketing crap, but it would be odd that they would lie about the "claimed" lumens, and one of the Lupines only claims 700 lumens...

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    45
    [QUOTE=PaulRivers]
    *sigh* Looking at it further, it becomes clear they resort to further obvious trickery - the side-by-side comparison put the Seca on the left and the other lights on the right. But while the left side has a patch of water on it making the road darker, the right side is completely covered in water, making the other light always appear dimmer.

    QUOTE]
    I have a bias, since I just got a Betty II. But look at the tunnel ceiling, the water may have made the Betty and other lights look dark, but the ceiling shows all. And their own lumen chart shows it is much brighter too with about the same -4% overrating.

    Basically measurement noise +/- 4%.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by indebt
    ... I was wanting the 22 degree lens right away but as most of my riding is single track, in real life the beam is more than wide enough for the most demanding trails, with a helmet light as well of coarse.Still may try the 22 degree??
    I just got the Betty II with both standard and the new 22 degree lens. I was pretty sure the 22 degree lens would be my standard and I would just set aside the normal lens. However, for just general road riding at night, I actually like the hotter spot in center just to see any road hazard better. On close trial with trees/rock, I might change my lens back to the 22 degree. Nice to have both options, but not totally trivial to switch out.

    Not sure why the bright light is so addicting and I would want more. Heck, even the dim MS900 ( I returned due to failure to take a charge after a week) threw a hotter center beam than one of my cars. The Betty II would probably be street illegal. But you do! I think it is a perceived safety issue. In a car, you just hit and bounce in the seat. On a bike, well....you think the worst- always.

    Back to the Seca 14400, seems they are just getting the XPG LEDs now- strange, with the XM-L right around the corner. Lupine has had the XPGs apparently since late last year. I would expect the new CREE XM to be available some time this fall or early next year from Lupine in some lights w/upgrade to follow. The Betty II will likely be in the 2200-2500 lumen range with new LED or better run time, you choice, since you can customize it.

    And the Secca 1900,, or what ever in 2011, will require a new light head. With Lupine, I just get a nominal upgrade, if I so chose.

    Something to think about to justify the price difference beyond just lumens. And you do have the lens choice too..

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    [QUOTE=skoor]
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulRivers
    *sigh* Looking at it further, it becomes clear they resort to further obvious trickery - the side-by-side comparison put the Seca on the left and the other lights on the right. But while the left side has a patch of water on it making the road darker, the right side is completely covered in water, making the other light always appear dimmer.

    QUOTE]
    I have a bias, since I just got a Betty II. But look at the tunnel ceiling, the water may have made the Betty and other lights look dark, but the ceiling shows all. And their own lumen chart shows it is much brighter too with about the same -4% overrating.

    Basically measurement noise +/- 4%.
    Well actually, the ceiling SHOULD be less lit up with the Seca, as they claim it's shaped beam doesn't waste light throwing light up into the trees / onto the ceiling. It's actually pretty weird the Seca lights up the ceiling so much - could be reflection off the road I guess.

    Lupine Betty vs Seca still looks like I said before - the Seca has a broader beam, the Betty has a brighter and narrower beam that goes farther (looks like about twice as far, impressively). However, for my needs I suspect the Seca's beam pattern will work better. For MUPs being able to see the rabbits on the side of the path with be very useful. For throw distance, 90 feet before the light starts dropping off will probably be as much as I'd need (we'll see though!). For mountain biking, there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever the Seca's wider beam pattern is better - some of the switchbacks and stuff we go through here in Minnesota are practically 90 degrees, and I definitely need light on the ground closer and wider to the bike. I'll also be curious to see if this new beam pattern is better or worse for blinding oncoming bikers and pedestrians on the MUP. The Lupine seems like it would be pretty nasty in that regard, we'll see how the Seca does. Wider might be worse in that regard.

    The Lupine Betty is an impressive light, though - slightly longer runtime, an apparently smaller battery, and 1700 lumen output (vs the 1400 for the Seca)? Nice. No doubt. I would point out that it's also more expensive - $1,020 for the Lupine Betty vs $700 for the Seca.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat-man-do
    My $.02 worth of opinion....What was said about the beam photos on the L&M site was spot on. The right half of the road looks completely wet. If this wasn't so sad it would be laughable. I couldn't tell the difference between the Lupine and the MagicShine!...Now that is laughable!

    Right, bet the marketing guys drove all night looking for that "tunnel" or they were thirsty, since they all sacrificed their water bottles. Or hmm, worst. Moving on...

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by skoor
    Right, bet the marketing guys drove all night looking for that "tunnel" or they were thirsty, since they all sacrificed their water bottles. Or hmm, worst. Moving on...
    Lol.

    But to be fair, it is pretty interesting they put the Lupine Betty on there at all - a light that puts out more lumens than their's (though also at a noticeably higher price).

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by skoor
    ...Not sure why the bright light is so addicting and I would want more. Heck, even the dim MS900 ( I returned due to failure to take a charge after a week) threw a hotter center beam than one of my cars. The Betty II would probably be street illegal. But you do! I think it is a perceived safety issue. In a car, you just hit and bounce in the seat. On a bike, well....you think the worst- always.

    Yeah, but the question really is - does that hot spot in the middle *really* let you see more, or is it just exciting but doesn't do much?

    I know I was super excited about my 2 Dinotte 400L's. Seemed pretty cool at first - 800 lumens! But after several trips I found something odd - running with both lights on only let me see the road about 20% better. I could turn the second one off for most of the trip - it just barely added anything.

    In fact, I found that turning both on actually made it more difficult to see outside the narrow "hot spot". I realized it must be putting out enough light that my eyes adjusted (pupils contracted, I would guess) which was rather counterproductive to seeing more of the road.

    My 400L's came with a lens kit, and by putting the right combination of wider angle lenses on (I started with 2 middle-wide lenses, then went back to 1 middle-wide lens, 1 narrow lens, but with the first light with 2 narrow beams on high, and the other light with the 1 middle-wide lens on medium) I actually greatly improved my ability to see the road. Despite technically putting out less light, and definitely putting it out less intensely, the much-more-even beam pattern was waaaaaay nicer to bike with. I could see much, much better - not only could I see the road better, and things off to the side of the road, but my eyes felt more relaxed (probably from not straining to be able to see the hotspot and the much dimmer stuff off to the side). The one thing I couldn't do with the lights was increase the "throw" (distance it shined down the road), which is the only reason I continued my bike light search.

    Actually, funny enough, I think my Dinotte combination provide a nicer and more even beam than either of the Seca's I tried (the 700 and the 900). I stuck with the 900 because it definitely had further throw than my Dinotte combination, and it's light spread was pretty good. And it threw enough light on the ground on high to let me clearly see the path in front of me on the stretch of my route where I'm biking towards traffic (I'm on a path off the rode, but right next to the road).

    So what I'm saying is - you're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but my experience has left me with a greatly increased desire for the *even* beam pattern, rather than just a bright hotspot in the middle.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulRivers
    Lol....it is pretty interesting they put the Lupine Betty on there at all - a light that puts out more lumens than theirs (though also at a noticeably higher price).
    Right, and to be fair, the Secca lens design throws down instead of a circular beam patten. But then it should have bounced back up at the ceiling at the end of tunnel again. This never ends, doesn't it. Really, these guys should go back when the tunnel is dry, so we can stop laughing so much and do it right. Or they should buy a white sheet and hang it on a barn.

    On cost, I was very lucky, I got my Lupine Betty II for about the street price of a Secca 900/1400. Can not say how, but still smiling. One of those days that rarely come along and you grab it.

    And it is a very nice, highly customizable light. Lupine really thought this one out. It is more that just lumens and small size. They even give you options to optimize for drive levels, if you understand the technology. Right in the manual, bet it goes over most people;s head.

    And you can optimise the run time/lumens because of the number of LEDs too. LEDs are typically more efficient at less than full rated output, so having more a less power gives you an edge too. And you still have the higher max power, when you want it.

    I ran a test. I got 5 1/2 hours of run time on the 7.5ah battery at over 1100+ lumen with 55% power. Way over the brightness of the older Secca 900 maxed out. And I am betting with the new XM upgrade at 55% it will be equal to the Secca 1400 or in the ballpark. And running at less power keeps the LEDs in the flatter spot of their brightness lifetime curve. Even LEDs dim over time.. Just a win-win, if you can justify the initial price bump.

    I am a CandlePower Forum/LED geek, so love looking for these sweet spots too and seeing something so unique in the marketplace.

    And to be fair, if Lupine did not exist or I could not afford it (or get a good deal), I would have gone for the Secca light. It is really a nice light with a good charger too. Dinotte is a distance third. They seem to have good lights, but really old LED technology and not sure about their battery charger either as compared to Secca and Lupine.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    223
    check these guys out radical-lights.com
    having seen both betty and poda, the betty is outgunned

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skoor

    Back to the Seca 14400, seems they are just getting the XPG LEDs now- strange, with the XM-L right around the corner. Lupine has had the XPGs apparently since late last year. I would expect the new CREE XM to be available some time this fall or early next year from Lupine in some lights w/upgrade to follow. The Betty II will likely be in the 2200-2500 lumen range with new LED or better run time, you choice, since you can customize it.

    And the Secca 1900,, or what ever in 2011, will require a new light head. With Lupine, I just get a nominal upgrade, if I so chose.

    Something to think about to justify the price difference beyond just lumens. And you do have the lens choice too..
    The XM will need to be run at a much higher current level so a new driver will be needed. No nominal upgrade for the Betty. The XM could be put into the Tesla directly, but would probably need a reflector change as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by skoor
    I am a CandlePower Forum/LED geek, so love looking for these sweet spots too and seeing something so unique in the marketplace.
    Since you are a led forum geek I am unsure why you wouldn't just understand the differences between the XM series and XP series of emitters.

    Quote Originally Posted by skoor
    if you understand the technology. Right in the manual, bet it goes over most people;s head.
    Seems like you are like most people as well.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by odtexas
    The XM will need to be run at a much higher current level so a new driver will be needed. No nominal upgrade for the Betty. The XM could be put into the Tesla directly, but would probably need a reflector change as well.



    Since you are a led forum geek I am unsure why you wouldn't just understand the differences between the XM series and XP series of emitters.



    Seems like you are like most people as well.
    Ah, wrong, So pass baton back over over your head to your as.. to put it in the right place. But let me give you a hint. If I had new car that could go both faster and get better gas mileage vs my old car and I had 1 gallon of gas, would I have a faster car or one with better gas mileage. Think about it. If you get it, then you pass.

    But regardless, goofus. Conversation is over, you are going to ignore status. You don't understand LEDs at at, I guess. The current driver would still be able to utilize the XM led. Duh! It might be the most optimal design for a new emitter for max light output, I agree. But you would still even with the same driver get more light or longer run time for the same light output- your call. Lupine has this built-in for this very reason to handle upgrade over time -something you missed or can't comprehend.

    And one might not want to even run the new XM nor any LED to the max. Do you drive you car at red-line just because you can? Or do planes fly at the design limit all the time? How many things do? Why not? You can based on your thinking- right? Frankly, I would not buy one that claimed it did unless I could "back it off." Just exactly what Lupine allows in the max light output seeing that can be customized. BTW, How many CREE XPG lights even drive it today to the max current per the latest upgrade? How many? Name them! DO YOU KNOW WHY THEY DON'T? Have you ever looked at the CREE design doc? I have. They don't recommend the max for most applications. Why? What are the trade-offs?

    You are not worth any more replies or even reading comments. You think too simple and one dimensionally to be of interest. And yes, I am nasty to you. You played the card first.
    Last edited by skoor; 08-07-2010 at 02:56 PM.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,309
    Per your previous statement.

    "The Betty II will likely be in the 2200-2500 lumen range with new LED or better run time, you choice, since you can customize it."

    Not possible at current drive levels. But you have the right to be wrong and a troll.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,005
    I'm listening to odtexas on this. He's built more lights, in all kinds of configurations, than most of the rest of us have ever thought about, seen, or dreamed of.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulRivers
    Yeah, but the question really is - does that hot spot in the middle *really* let you see more, or is it just exciting but doesn't do much?

    I know I was super excited about my 2 Dinotte 400L's. Seemed pretty cool at first - 800 lumens! But after several trips I found something odd - running with both lights on only let me see the road about 20% better. I could turn the second one off for most of the trip - it just barely added anything.
    .
    Paul, you and I actually agree more than not. I did some quick research a few weeks ago and could not find any definite studies on the eye's response to light. It is definitely not linear nor does it seems to be a a simple logarithmic like hearing for all cases.

    My guess a complex interaction of individuals response with their pupils and perhaps some blend of cone vs rod cross-over too. I know when I go out with my 'star gazing" buddies and their big scopes, you have to use dim red lights everywhere. Gosh, if you just open a car door, they 'kill" you, since it runs their night vision for sometime. One you think at some level that might exist for bike light too or perhaps not, since even the dimmest is much brighter the spill from a car interior or typical flashlight. I just don't know.

    BTW, my guess and just a guess, the practical limit for a good bike light is somewhere in the 2500-5000 lumen range. At that point, you will either blind someone or yourself accidentally or you mess up you night vision so much it is counter-productive. Just a guess, but bet over time the shift is to more run time with better, even spread vs chasing max light output of today.

    If someone knows of a good study, I would like the link. PM or post, please if you have something.

    And I agree that having either a too bright spot or the foreground too bright, it probably not optimal. I think we just have to find a light that works for our riding. As mentioned, I have both the new wide 22 degree and the standard betty. Both have trade-offs, but after being so convinced I would only want the 22 for some of your reasons, I was surprised for night road riding, I tended so far to light the brighter spot beam vs the nice even diffused light of the 22 degree Betty II,

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cat-man-do's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,136
    Quote Originally Posted by odtexas
    The XM will need to be run at a much higher current level so a new driver will be needed. No nominal upgrade for the Betty. The XM could be put into the Tesla directly, but would probably need a reflector change as well....
    I have to agree with odtexas. The XM is going to be similar to the SST-50 and will need more current if a noticeable / brighter output is desired. The footprint for these emitters will likely be larger than the XP-G series as well and will require a little more room. More than likely a new set of optics and reflectors will be needed to use them particularly if you want to get the most out of them. Even more true if you chose to under-drive the XM.

    I can't wait to see what some of the DIY'ers come up with once the XM is released. What I'd like to see is an XM / XP-G combo. If you under-drove the XM ( say about 1.2A ) and ran both the XM and the XP-G at that level you might get a little more output without too much difference in run time. Of course if you run separate drivers in some sort of master/slave set up you could run both at the maximum desired levels.

    The SST-50 is a nice emitter. Being just a single die emitter ( like the XM ) I don't know why it's not being used more for DIY builds seeing there are now drivers capable of driving them to maximum outputs. I guess it must be the fact that the XP-G's are not only bright but very efficient as well....which is, a very hard combo to beat.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat-man-do
    The SST-50 is a nice emitter. Being just a single die emitter ( like the XM ) I don't know why it's not being used more for DIY builds seeing there are now drivers capable of driving them to maximum outputs.
    I would add that there are not as many choices in optics or reflectors for the SST50 as there are for the Cree range of emitters.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cat-man-do's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Vancbiker
    I would add that there are not as many choices in optics or reflectors for the SST50 as there are for the Cree range of emitters.
    True, but I would think the optics / reflectors designed for the MC-E would likely work pretty well ( if not better than the MC-E's ) seeing the SST-50 has no cross-hair pattern to worry about.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: znomit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,846
    You guys do know you can drag the line in the middle of the image L/R to see the whole beam? The water doesn't matter then.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cat-man-do's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,136
    Quote Originally Posted by znomit
    You guys do know you can drag the line in the middle of the image L/R to see the whole beam? The water doesn't matter then.
    Shut my mouth! If that don't beat all. Who would of thought?!

    At first it didn't work when I tried. You have to find the sweet spot with the mouse curser. While it does make the beam test a little better, the water ( being in the middle as it is and to the right ) doesn't look to be helping the beam patterns with the lights that have a brighter center spot/throw. Interesting that most of us didn't read the pro-mo to get the instructions. I find it hard to believe though that the MS does that poorly. While I don't own a MS I do own a couple P-7 torches. None of the stuff I have looks that dim. The beam they're showing as a MS looks like a standard 10 watt halogen spot. A 600 lumen light should look brighter than this.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,445
    Hey Paul,did you take the plunge yet???? Not sure if you got my pm,but for two hundred more, the Betty2 with 22degree optics will give 1850 lumens with the wide beam pattern your looking for,and no hot spot,also much less to upgrade vs,the Seca down the road.If you went for the Se
    ca1400,let us know what your thoughts are on it. P.S. can someone tell me why my posts all have the edit icon still on them.Can't figure out what i'm doing wrong.CHEERS!!!

  41. #41
    Church of the Wheel
    Reputation: mtb143's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by indebt
    P.S. can someone tell me why my posts all have the edit icon still on them.Can't figure out what i'm doing wrong.CHEERS!!!
    Your posts have the Edit icon on them because they're your posts. You wrote them, so you're the only one who can edit them. Get it?
    "I thought you'd never love me without my Mojo." -Austin Powers

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,445
    Brain cramp.!!

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by indebt
    Hey Paul,did you take the plunge yet???? Not sure if you got my pm,but for two hundred more, the Betty2 with 22degree optics will give 1850 lumens with the wide beam pattern your looking for,and no hot spot,also much less to upgrade vs,the Seca down the road.If you went for the Se
    ca1400,let us know what your thoughts are on it. P.S. can someone tell me why my posts all have the edit icon still on them.Can't figure out what i'm doing wrong.CHEERS!!!
    Hey, I got your PM, I was just trying to figure out how to respond. Basically - I have found the Seca 900 to be a good light, so without comparison shots of the 22 degree beam on the Betty, I'll probably stick with the Seca line of lights.

    Being that I already have a Seca 900, I'm kinda dragging my feet on buying the new light - I intend to get it, but it's kinda like it couldn't hurt to wait for reviews, and perhaps the "street" price will drop a bit from it's suggested retail price. Or it might not. At the moment, there's only two places I could order it from in the US - artscyclery, and the seca website itself.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,445
    If the 900 has been that good to you,good call on sticking to it.Just gets costly doing $700 upgrades every time there's a better led out,who knows maybe someone my have a comparison photo of the Betty 22degree to post to confirm your decision.Good luck paul!!

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulRivers
    I'll probably stick with the Seca line of lights.

    Being that I already have a Seca 900, I'm kinda dragging my feet on buying the new light...
    Why buy a new light when you can upgrade the LEDs only?
    ...

    Oops... can't upgrade the Seca? My bad. Actually, your bad ;-)
    +1 for Lupine.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by radirpok
    Why buy a new light when you can upgrade the LEDs only?
    ...

    Oops... can't upgrade the Seca? My bad. Actually, your bad ;-)
    +1 for Lupine.
    Because every time someone claims that their product has "infinite upgrades" in one way or another, it always turns out the be false. Whether it's the mp3 encoding software I bought that had "free lifetime upgrades", which really meant "for a year or two until they came out with a 'pro'" version. Or my Dinotte light which you could send in for free upgrades to the light head...well, until the day came when they discontinued that program just as you needed an upgrade. Or with a Lupine Betty, where it's probably the case that you can upgrade the light head - oh, but this new version requires new electronics to, so you'll have to buy a whole new light.

    I've learned not to trust claims about the upgradability at low cost of any product. Usually once they figure out they could be making more money by making you buy a whole new one, they find some excuse to force you to do so.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    391
    The Betty has been updated recently - from the SSC P4 version to the XPGs. So this is not a "claim", this is a fact. In fact, the Wilma has already survived two update rounds - the very first version was equipped with Luxeons IIRC. Meanwhile the battery and charger units had been and have remained compatible - starting with the oldest halogen units, through the HID Edisons until today, the same connectors, same voltage...

    Claiming "infinite" upgradeability is of course nonsense, but between "infinite" and "none" there's a wide range of possibilities.

    "None" is certainly a reasonable answer if the price of the unit is so cheap that you could get a new one (or two) for the price of Lupine's upgrade. But I think that anyone who has $700 for a bike light should definitely look around before making a decision... that's my 2c.

    On the other hand, sell your light on eBay - that is also one form of "upgradeability"

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    494
    Originally Posted by PaulRivers

    every time someone claims that their product has "infinite upgrades" in one way or another, it always turns out the be false. Whether it's the mp3 encoding software I bought that had "free lifetime upgrades", which really meant "for a year or two until they came out with a 'pro'" version. Or my Dinotte light which you could send in for free upgrades to the light head...well, until the day came when they discontinued that program just as you needed an upgrade. Or with a Lupine Betty, where it's probably the case that you can upgrade the light head - oh, but this new version requires new electronics to, so you'll have to buy a whole new light.

    I've learned not to trust claims about the upgradability at low cost of any product. Usually once they figure out they could be making more money by making you buy a whole new one, they find some excuse to force you to do so.


    No one here has claimed infinite upgrades. I think you're entire rant is basically meritless.

    Quote Originally Posted by radirpok
    I think that anyone who has $700 for a bike light should definitely look around before making a decision... that's my 2c.
    That's very good advice imo. I have no interest or intent to push Lupine. I do however have a Betty 7 which was recently upgraded from 1400 to 1750 lumens for $194.00 which included both the 16 and 22 degree lenses. I've been very happy with Lupine, Magura, and Rohloff for that matter. Also very satisfied with Phil Wood, Middleburn, Thomson, and Penthouse Flats ( Bergtec ) The bottom line is that I can't afford cheap or almost good enough ....

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by suba
    No one here has claimed infinite upgrades. I think you're entire rant is basically meritless.

    That's very good advice imo. I have no interest or intent to push Lupine. I do however have a Betty 7 which was recently upgraded from 1400 to 1750 lumens for $194.00 which included both the 16 and 22 degree lenses. I've been very happy with Lupine, Magura, and Rohloff for that matter. Also very satisfied with Phil Wood, Middleburn, Thomson, and Penthouse Flats ( Bergtec ) The bottom line is that I can't afford cheap or almost good enough ....
    I'm not a purely-status driven buyer like you clearly are. I don't feel the need to get all insulting because someone has disagreed that my choice was the highest-status item I could buy. My thoughts are based on the experiences that I mentioned, if you don't understand my argument that's not my problem.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by radirpok
    The Betty has been updated recently - from the SSC P4 version to the XPGs. So this is not a "claim", this is a fact. In fact, the Wilma has already survived two update rounds - the very first version was equipped with Luxeons IIRC. Meanwhile the battery and charger units had been and have remained compatible - starting with the oldest halogen units, through the HID Edisons until today, the same connectors, same voltage...

    Claiming "infinite" upgradeability is of course nonsense, but between "infinite" and "none" there's a wide range of possibilities.

    "None" is certainly a reasonable answer if the price of the unit is so cheap that you could get a new one (or two) for the price of Lupine's upgrade. But I think that anyone who has $700 for a bike light should definitely look around before making a decision... that's my 2c.

    On the other hand, sell your light on eBay - that is also one form of "upgradeability"
    Well said.

    As I mentioned, I'm dragging feet a little on buying a new light. Perhaps while I'm waiting mtbr.com will come out with a side-by-side review and I could change my mind - I just don't want to risk that kind of cash on a light that I haven't at least seen promising beam-shots of. I dunno. Like I said, based on the pics I certainly have to admit there's reason why someone would like the Lupine with the narrower beam over the Seca, but for my needs I suspect I wouldn't. It definitely is pretty nice how far it goes down the road. I'm leaning towards the 1400 because I feel more confident about knowing what I would get, but I'm certainly not saying the Lupine with a different beam pattern might not be a nicer light. Tell ya what, you buy both and ship them to me, and I'll buy one of them and let you know which I like better.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •