Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Seca 1400!!

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    878

    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
    878
    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
    878
    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
    518
    [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
    878
    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
    1,295
    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 08:22 AM.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    878
    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
    878
    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
    518
    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 01:28 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
    878
    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
    3,763
    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...

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 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
  •