True lumen testing - Lupine vs. Light&Motion!!!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 31 of 31
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! True lumen testing - Lupine vs. Light&Motion!!!

    Independent optical verification performed by www.deepsea.com

    http://www.bikelights.com/info.asp?uid=358

    Lupine Tesla
    lumens (claimed): 700
    lumens (actual): 492.1104
    Accuracy: 70.3%

    Lupine Betty
    lumens (claimed) 1400
    lumens (actual): 784.0381
    Accuracy: 56.0%

    Hope Vision 4
    lumens (claimed): 960
    lumens (actual): 608.97
    Accuracy: 63.4%

    Cygolite Tridentx
    lumens (claimed): 600
    lumens (actual): 381.7637
    Accuracy: 63.6%

    Niterider Minewt USD
    lumens (claimed): 110
    lumens (actual): 97.3741
    Accuracy: 88.5%

    Light&Motion Seca 900
    lumens (claimed): 900
    lumens (actual): 953.4991
    Accuracy: 106%

    Thanks L&M!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    251
    What was the test setup and protocol?

  3. #3
    Five is right out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,174
    The testing setup is described in the second link. They used an integrating sphere (no futher details, but with a sphere there shouldn't be too much leeway for testing error, AFAIK?)

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dnlwthrn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,276
    They talk about using an illuminating sphere, but I'd like to know more about the testing... They mention using an NIST standard (a bulb with a "calibrated" output to verify the hardware/software is reading consistently), but no mention of where the measurement is taken. Is this directly in front of the beam, a certain distance away, or something else? We don't know. The fact that its part of a marketing brochure makes it less credible, but that is offset by them using an independent testing company to get the results. Coming from a test lab (my job, but I don't do light testing), I want to know more info.

    Another thing, the independent verification was performed by another company that sells lights, not a lab or testing company. Not saying they don't know what they're doing, just saying that their primary goal is to sell diving lights, not test lights for output.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    344
    ok, let's say: who believes this ****??

    all testet lights perform really bad expect the light & motion lights

    just my2cents......

  6. #6
    I spelled Knievel wrong
    Reputation: StevelKnivel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    217
    An integrating sphere measures total output regardless of beam pattern. So there is no position of "where" the measurement is taken. It a common piece of equipment for measuring light output and there is very little to mess up during the measuring process. I've seen most of these lights side by side at night and it's easy for me to believe these findings. L&M did their homework when they developed the Seca reflector and its efficiency shows on the trail and evidently also in the lab.

    I don't really think that's the issue here though. Most manufacturers quote the LED lumens when they claim their output, while Niterider and L&M quote the measured output. The 6 R2s in the Seca 900 are capable of over 1200 lumens but after optical losses and depending on drive current and temperature they won't come close to putting all that light out the front. Some companies would have called it the Seca 1200 and claimed 1200 lumens anyways.
    Last edited by StevelKnivel; 08-27-2009 at 10:24 AM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tamen00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,025
    I agree with the other guys... just another marketing item. The Seca 700 really looks about the same as a 4 XPE light when they are used side x side (I have access to both... the color of the lights are a little different, however they about both very very close to the same lumens or "perceived" lumens or whatever...)

    They should do temp tests on the lights... The Seca shuts down or dims within a few minutes on the summer rides I have been doing (ambient temps 100+ F) and the light gets freaking HOT!!! (I do not actually have a seca... but one of the guys I ride with all the time has one so that is where the comparison comes from)

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    251
    Lupine lights dim quite fast when, to keep the temperature low. If they turned the Betty on 5 minutes before the test they didn't measure the true maximum light output. There are always enough ways to change results of a test in your own favour.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24
    Last year I personally measured in lab the Lupine Betty ("1500" version) light and unfortunately I noted a maximum of 982 lumens (few seconds after on cold lamp), so not much better.
    Lupine in their lamps put LEDs on the ordinary FR4 substrates, which results in very large losses of light due to the overheating of the LEDs (>100*C measured on led).

    I think that the measurements on the L&M web are reliable.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24
    Look also for measurements on http://www.mtb-news.de/forum/showthread.php?p=4320770 - Lupine Betty 902 lumens.

  11. #11
    she keep you buying rats
    Reputation: WeakMite's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    300
    Jeeze... my Magicshine P7 that I got last week from Geoman is significantly brighter than my L&M Arc ...I wonder what the actual lumens on each of those would be?

    I think they used to claim 575 lumens for the ARC?


    Re: http://www.bikelights.com/info.asp?uid=358

    The PDF they provide is cute, only 1 page and looks like a promotional brochure.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,330
    Using a what we think is a reliable couple of lights we've got with there claimed output, we've been measuring our torches MCE's are running @700Lumens and P7's around 600lumens from torches.

    So a Betty doesn't put much more light forward than a MC-E cheap $40 torch LOL.

    Mate left Betty riders for dead with 2 x P7 bars, 1 MCE + P7 on his head LOL

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: znomit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,980


    The seca didn't do too well here...

    http://www.mtbr.com/beamcomparisoncrx.aspx#

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yetibetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by znomit


    The seca didn't do too well here...

    http://www.mtbr.com/beamcomparisoncrx.aspx#
    I think that's only the 700 Race, not the 900.

  15. #15
    I spelled Knievel wrong
    Reputation: StevelKnivel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    217
    The Seca also puts much more light right in front of the bike than most lights with a symmetrical beam, and I wouldn't be surprised if that actually hurts it in the "ceiling bounce" output tests.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    141
    Did a short analyse.
    According to that Light&Motion test, Seca 900 put out 953 lumen, while the Betty put out 784.

    Betty theoretical output is 1400 Lumen (old version). Seca 900 using 6 Cree R2 at each 240 lumen (hope I'm right) theoretical gives 6x240=1440 lumen.
    So the efficiency is:
    Betty = 784/1400 = 56%
    Seca 900 = 953/1440 = 66%

    On the other hand, what I assume is a REAL INDEPENDENT MEASUREMENT (also linked by czarny_kruk) here:
    http://www.mtb-news.de/forum/showthr...&postcount=127
    , they measured 903 lumen for the "old" Betty, what gives:
    Betty = 903/1400 = 65%, what would be equal to the Seca 900.
    These 65% are supported by czarny_kruk's experience of measured 982 lumen for the new Betty (1500 lumen theoretical), what gives 982/1500=65%

    Seems to me definitely they put all out the same, in efficiency terms they are not different, it's just a marketing talk as stated by StevelKnivel. But L&M keeps the advantage to tell the "truth" about their output and it's their legitimate right to exploit this.

    And yes, I own a Lupine (Tesla).

    Regards

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    890
    These tests are useless. For a REAL test, look for similar testing as done by francois in the Lights Shootout. THAT is real world testing; not some rubbish spheres and disco ball nonsense. That is worthy of a LOL.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueMountain
    These tests are useless. For a REAL test, look for similar testing as done by francois in the Lights Shootout. THAT is real world testing; not some rubbish spheres and disco ball nonsense. That is worthy of a LOL.
    With respect, francois test IS the joke. Using a LM-81LX (price 79 USD), that's ridicolous.
    Measuring with the integrating sphere is an industrial standard, in comparison to that francois's "ambient lux" tests looks like toying on hobby level.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BlueMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    890
    You are looking a bit ignorant here. I am referring to to the Shootout done by taking pictures of beamshots. THAT is the way to do it; not any nonsensical geeky way of measuring lumens that may have zero bearing in trail conditions and does not account for anything practical. Show me how these lights look on the trail- in similar conditions and exposure.

    This is like me saying let's measure the traction and performance of a mountain bike tire based on weight and size. Jeez!!

  20. #20
    I spelled Knievel wrong
    Reputation: StevelKnivel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    217
    While properly done beamshots are useful, the "nonsensical geeky way of measuring lumens" is the only valid way to quantify total light output and evaluate the accuracy of the manufacturers' claims.

    Most modern lights have evolved to a point that they have very good beam patterns, although some are slightly better than others. Francois' light review is a nice collection of information but because various beamshots were done on different nights with different ambient conditions it is far from scientifically sound. The "ceiling bounce" test is also a mediocre-at-best comparison because the results depend fairly heavily on beam pattern (although it is a decent method to attempt to quantify output with minimal equipment).

    BM, You're basically saying that you don't care how bright these lights actually are as long as they make pretty pictures.

    I've bought, sold, and tested my fair share of LED lights and I can tell you that beamshots never tell the full story. For a REAL test you really need to combine subjective testing in real world conditions with quantitative data from a controlled environment.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    125
    BlueMountain

    Cross purposes here methinks. This exercise is to measure lumens, thus substantiating or scotching manufacturers claims. Assuming the testing equipment is calibrated and testing is undertaken correctly, lumen figures should be pretty accurate. It is more of an 'academic' exercise but does have some real world merit.

    The sphere test is not intended to indicate on-trail performance, although there will be some correlation between the two - the less losses between emitter and fresh air will (potentially) give more light out there on the trail. Of course, whether that light is in a useful place can't be measured by the sphere, but by trail comparisons tests.

    Stevel has covered the key point, mfr's don't necessarily run LED's at their max rated output, but often quote it anyway as their claimed output, which are then taken as gospel. If the test demonstrates this discrepancy to the bike light buying public, it can only be a good thing.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,069
    I don't care as much about Lumen measurements either. Pretty pictures? What the hell does that mean? Nobody need pretty pictures but beamshots (or simply being there) and trying out lights is the only way to see how good lights really are. Sure, lumen claims can be iffy and depends on how they are measured but again, I really don't care. I take lights out to the trails, compare them static, and then compare them at speed. The color of the beam and beam pattern is extremely important. Brightness absolutely is as well but I'll take a L&M ARC or Wilma or Tesla over the the bright and orb-like pattern of the Nite Flux (prior version).

    I just think looking at Lumens is silly and misleading when the implication is that one light is brighter or more effective than another based on that. It can help relatively speaking. For example, the original Wilma was brighter than the original Dinotte 600L. That was true based on lumens as well but the color and patterns were different.

    Measuring lumens is nice and all but let's back up that theory and imlication with beamshots and riding experiences. Let's talk about peripheral beams, reflective hotspots, beam color balance, battery life, weight of lightheads, weatherproof connections, switches, etc.....all this is the stuff that makes much more sense.

    I'm looking forward to the new stuff we will see from different manufacturers- at Interbike.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sdnative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    336
    I knew Lupine was fully of Sh!# I can look at their design and know it runs way to hot and doesn't make the claimed, just never knew exactly how far they missed the mark!

    Thanks for posting those!!

    BTW, agree with comments on geeky testing being the only true measure, as well as who cares what the number is because it all depends on how well the beam projects.

    Sphere = 100% objective
    Beam = 50/50 objective / subjective

    Can't use only one method, you need em both to know which is best for out riding in the real world.

    Oh yeah, and I'm sure they're not letting the light get up to operational temp when they make any of the above measurements. Those LM numbers are probably also questionable for that reason, as nowhere did I read they allowed for op temp. And why would they....

  24. #24
    I spelled Knievel wrong
    Reputation: StevelKnivel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer
    Pretty pictures? What the hell does that mean?
    It means you cannot judge a light on beamshots alone. For example let's look at Francois' backyard shots and compare two of the better lights out there.

    First picture:

    Second picture:


    Just based on these beamshots which light would you choose? The one on the bottom certainly looks brighter, right? Obvious choice.

    In reality the difference between these two lights is no where near as drastic as the beamshots would lead us to believe. The first picture is a L&M Seca, and the second pic is a Lupine Tesla. Side by side in the real world they are actually very close in performance. In fact, in Francois' ceiling bounce test they are almost identical at 52lux for the Seca and 51lux for the Tesla, and they both have excellent beam patterns. So why the drastically different beam shots? Who knows... It could come down to any number of uncontrolled variables and THAT is why "pretty pictures" don't tell the whole story.

    To get the whole story you need to look into things a little deeper, and part of that means doing geeky tests that give reliable and quantifiable data. You already nailed some of the other key parts to understanding what is really going on...

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer
    Let's talk about peripheral beams, reflective hotspots, beam color balance, battery life, weight of lightheads, weatherproof connections, switches, etc.....all this is the stuff that makes much more sense.
    The dude saying that using an integrating sphere for lumen testing is LOL worthy is missing the point, and anyone who goes out and buys a light based on advertised lumen output is also missing the point. All I'm saying is that it takes more than one form of testing to characterize anything and that subjective reviews and geeky rubbish sphere disco ball tests are both good sources of information.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    107
    [QUOTE=StevelKnivel]While properly done beamshots are useful, the "nonsensical geeky way of measuring lumens" is the only valid way to quantify total light output and evaluate the accuracy of the manufacturers' claims.

    If anybody were naive enough to buy a light based solely on manufacturing claims for lumens then they might benefit from knowing which suppliers base their advertising on 'theoretical' output versus 'practical' output... but most of the people here don't, or shouldn't, have that problem.

    Personally, I think the lumen ratings are and have always been only a "serving suggestion". Then you have to do your own research to decide if a light fits your needs.

    And for me, that comes down to "real life" impressions on light coverage, penetration, color rendition, etc... in other words - beamshots!

    Whether in a magazine, online or in-person - what could possibly more important than your subjective personal evaluation of whether a light is wide enough to see drop offs, powerfull enough to illuminate down range, and has a pleasant rendition that doesn't result in eye strain or cause funky contrast effects. At that point, I don't give a [email protected] about any "objective" measurement from an integrating sphere... which doesn't help me see any better.

    I'd love to see a shoot out where the reviewer exclaims that they were stunned when they turned on a light to test it... and when they pointed it a house 50 yards away... and it was powerful enough to shine straight through the outer brick wall, into the kitchen, through the dress and apron of the girl standing near the sink, revealing a size 4 black thong.

    I don't need to know the lumen rating of such a light... I just need to know what I can see when I turn it on.

    Same thing out on the trail... just let me know what I'm going to see when I turn on the damn light.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: znomit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,980
    So, who is going to be returning their lupines?

    And can we have a test on the magicshine and the troutlight too? I know where my money is...

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktronik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    424
    It good that people are getting more 'true output' savy, as just quoting on paper 'LED lumen' (bulb lumens) output is not really good enough now days, as its hard to compare newer lights without true numbers, that include:

    'optic loss'

    losses due to higher Tj EX:



    But I would also like to start seeing LUX numbers, to get a handle of the 'punch' of the light...as its sometimes hard to tell from just a photo...

    K

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: troutie-mtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,062
    The lumen count seems to be one of the first questions I am asked about and always try and give the on paper count and an estimate ( as I have no measuring equipment ) of actual lumens.

    shots on a wall dont really do it for me except just to see the beam shape and if there is a hotspot.

    I like trail shots so you can see how it should look on the bike / helmet .
    but again camera trickery can come into play to make a poor light seem good

    DX bastid light (magicshine)




    MCE - plus Iris optic same night same camera setting within 2 mins of each other



    new Troutlight Liberator but different night darker less ambient same camera same settings


  29. #29
    what a joke
    Reputation: ozlongboarder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,279
    I lean towards actual beam shots over measured output but I can fully understand the importance of output measurements........... to keep the manufacturers honest . Beam shots are not perfect either though.

    I would like to see another beam shot other than the usual from behind the light one we all seem to do.

    I would like to see the light from well above and behind the light. Using a crane or cherry picker or bridge to take the photo from. I think it would have to be fairly high though. Have markers laid out on the ground every 15m in a grid pattern. It would show the beam pattern and intensity of the light.

    I would also like to see a wall shot but slightly different from the usual one though. I would like to see it on the side of a tall building. Set the light up say 30m away and have it shine on the the wall. The wall would need to have some various items stuck to it and not just be one colour though.


    Sorry for the rambling ideas.
    blah blah blah

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: znomit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,980
    More of this type of thing would be good:



    https://www.bumm.de/index-e.html?docu/175q-e.htm

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: znomit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,980
    Quote Originally Posted by czarny_kruk
    Last year I personally measured in lab the Lupine Betty ("1500" version) light and unfortunately I noted a maximum of 982 lumens (few seconds after on cold lamp), so not much better.
    Lupine in their lamps put LEDs on the ordinary FR4 substrates, which results in very large losses of light due to the overheating of the LEDs (>100*C measured on led).

    I think that the measurements on the L&M web are reliable.
    So, is there a market for XP-G S2 Lupine compatible MCPCBs?

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.