Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => Reviews Database => Parts and Accessories => Topic started by: Zipperhead on November 30, 2008, 11:49:14 pm

Title: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on November 30, 2008, 11:49:14 pm
Part 1 - Introduction

This light test was Charlotte's idea. She put together all the hard work in organizing people and getting all the facilities together, and she and Liz worked very hard to get the garage set up.

All I did was put the camera on the tripod (Jonathan took the pictures). I just happened to have the sheet with the numbers on it, so I've put this bit together.

Any plaudits are entirely and completely due to Charlotte. Any mistakes are my fault, and I'm happy to take the blame for them.



The plan was to get a bunch of lights together, battery and dynamo powered, LED and incandescent and see how they performed. How hard could it be?

The lights were to be tested indoors, to allow the light output to be measured and to compare beam shapes, and outdoors to see what how they performed in "real world" conditions.

The battery powered lights all had freshly charged batteries. To ensure consistency with the dynamo lights, Charlotte mounted them all on her bike equipped with a hub dynamo. This bike was then put onto a set of rollers and pedalled up to a constant 15mph/25kph.

As you can see, this was a nerve wracking proposition

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STLovIdTDBI/AAAAAAAAB40/xZy3TK6uJV8/s512/DSC_8945.JPG)

Outdoors, when the rollers & tyres were wet, was even scarier. I wouldn't have done it, and I briefed Jonathan to be ready to get out of the way if it went pear shaped.



For the indoors testing, the lights were shone along the length of the bunker onto a target on the end wall, then several things were done:

1. A light reading taken in the centre of the beam, and another at one metre away from the centre (for the incandescent lights this was taken horizontally, for the LED's either horizontally or vertically as their beam patterns tended to be more even). The light meter was set to display EV values, where an increase of 1 results from a doubling of the measured light. I then converted these to absolute values to allow the output of the lights to be easily compared.

2. A picture was taken of the target (obviously lit only by the light) with the camera set to auto. It was hoped that when these pictures were put together they would all be roughly the same brightness so that the beam patterns could be compared.

3. A picture was taken of the target with the camera set to manual exposure. For these, we hoped that when they were put together we would easily be able to compare the brightness of each light.

For the indoor pictures, the camera was set to 1000ASA.

Without pausing to even drink a cup of tea or scoff any Jaffa cakes, bikes were loaded up and a convoy set off (complete with rollers) for the local park where pausing only to scatter the doggers we set out to take more pictures.

The lights were all aimed along the path, which being nice and dark simulated the road, at a point which was about 20 metres away. A little way past that point we put a Brompton to have an example of a real world object that would reflect some light.

Again, two pictures were taken, one on auto to compare beam patterns, and the other on manual to compare brightness.

Although the lights could be easily aimed at the target indoors, outdoors it wasn't as simple. Because most of the lights didn't have a clearly defined centre spot (if they did, they would probably be useless as bicycle lights) they were aimed to try and maximise the amount of path that they lit up, but including the aiming point.

For the outdoor pictures the camera was set to 3200ASA (it's maximum) to reduce exposure time and also reduce the cameras exposure to the rain. That made the pictures a bit grainy, but not so much that it caused problems.

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 12:20:42 am
Part 2 - Measurements

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STRWJlVVIEI/AAAAAAAAB-4/o4H9TY7x21o/Lights_EV_Comparison.xls%2001122008%20211634.bmp.jpg)

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STRaSGPXtbI/AAAAAAAAB_o/kzRTF3fYbtw/s640/Lights_Graph.xls%2001122008%20214033.jpg)

(If anybody wants the data as a CSV, let me know)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 12:28:08 am
Part 3 - Indoor pictures

Below are composites of the indoor pictures, first the auto exposures (to show beam shape), second the manual exposures (to compare brightness).

The name of the light and the exposure value are show on each individual photograph. Because they may be too small to read here, click on the picture to be taken to the Picasa album from where you can download a larger version.

Beam Shape
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STRV-UoexlI/AAAAAAAAB94/eHCPWloxSJA/s512/Inside_Auto_1.jpg)
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STRV_66KxFI/AAAAAAAAB-A/Xpt-1nqntbg/s512/Inside_Auto_2.jpg) (http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/grahamglen0/LightTesting)

Brightness
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STRWBEEkBRI/AAAAAAAAB-I/cl29He2ljkg/s512/Inside_Manual_1.jpg) (http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/grahamglen0/LightTesting)
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STRWCd2xV0I/AAAAAAAAB-Q/NOSzHRZDfqI/s512/Inside_Manual_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 12:33:20 am
Part 4 - Outdoor Pictures

As with the indoor pictures, these are linked to the album where you can download the images.

Beam Shape
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STRWDVLhp7I/AAAAAAAAB-Y/wy3o8TSGk0I/s512/Outside_Auto_1.jpg)
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STRWE2b-S-I/AAAAAAAAB-g/rZ-vX5ATboA/s512/Outside_Auto_2.jpg) (http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/grahamglen0/LightTesting)

Brightness
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STRWG_IPUGI/AAAAAAAAB-o/YsOK2HhWD64/s512/Outside_Manual_1.jpg)
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_3a8mQ6kkehU/STRWIqBA0KI/AAAAAAAAB-w/6W9ZF2NC37s/s512/Outside_Manual_2.jpg) (http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/grahamglen0/LightTesting)

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: David Martin on December 01, 2008, 12:45:40 am

For the indoors testing, the lights were shone along the length of the bunker onto a target on the end wall, then several things were done:

1. A light reading taken in the centre of the beam, and another at one metre away from the centre (for the incandescent lights this was taken horizontally, for the LED's either horizontally or vertically as their beam patterns tended to be more even).
How long is the bunker, so what angular deviation from center does 1m represent?

..d
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 07:38:46 am
How long is the bunker, so what angular deviation from center does 1m represent?
..d

Good question, but I don't know, we'll have to wait for Charlotte to tell us. I can tell you that the outer ring on the target was 2m diameter.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: easyracer on December 01, 2008, 07:41:01 am
Hi Guys,

Thanks for all your effort in making this happen.
It looks like a brilliant resource. :)

Sorry to be a bit "nit picky" but, is the Cyo the 60 Lux version, rather than the standard 40?
I thought, I read somewhere in here recently, that Charlotte bought the higher powered version?


This has certainly encouraged me to help the economy, by spending my way out of the gloom, both financially, and literally! ;)

Cheers, andy
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Gandalf on December 01, 2008, 08:20:18 am
What an awesomely cracking effort, many thanks to everyone involved  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: nuttycyclist on December 01, 2008, 08:59:45 am
Great photo of Aunty C there  :thumbsup: ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: clarion on December 01, 2008, 09:03:36 am
Wow - good work, chaps!

That Betty is insane, but the one I would want, were I to be offroad in the dark...

Cyo is a good unit.  Not the brightest, and not the best beam shape, but I think I know what I'm saving my pennies for... :)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Ian H on December 01, 2008, 09:04:49 am
Very interesting. Thanks for all the hard work; sorry I couldn't be there.

I'm glad no one came off the rollers...I wouldn't want to be sued.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: mike on December 01, 2008, 09:05:04 am
remarkable.  Amazing work, everyone.

We should contact the different magazines see who wants to pay for them...  (I say 'we', I'm claiming absolutely no responsibility or credit :D)

ZH, if you email me the data sheet for the graph, I'll try and do a cost / brightness graph on one of my dull conference calls this morning.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: tonyh on December 01, 2008, 09:16:50 am

Superb. Thankyou Charlotte and Team.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: chris on December 01, 2008, 09:17:29 am
Excellent stuff. It is interesting to note how much things have moved on since the Cateye Opticube, which was pretty good in its day. Pity you didn't take a NEver Ready along to use a a reference!

The thing with modern lights is how quickly the technology is changing, and keeping at the cutting edge of said technology is an expensive business. Thankfully these days, even modestly priced lights give more than adequate performance.

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimO on December 01, 2008, 09:19:44 am
I assume no colour correction was done on those photos, and it's interesting to see how blue the Dinotte 200L is.  I don't recall it as looking particularly that colour, but the human eye is very good at compensating for such things.  The Bikehut is also a bit blue, but that one was a lot dimmer.  The Hope shows some blue-ness, maybe this reflects a previous generation of LED technology still being used on the slightly dimmer LED lights.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: David Martin on December 01, 2008, 09:25:19 am
I assume no colour correction was done on those photos, and it's interesting to see how blue the Dinotte 200L is.  I don't recall it as looking particularly that colour, but the human eye is very good at compensating for such things.  The Bikehut is also a bit blue, but that one was a lot dimmer.  The Hope is also a bit blue, maybe it reflects a previous generation of LED technology.

That is an interesting question. LEDs will have a very specific spectrum that approximates to white when seen by the human eye. Whether that matches the colour selectivity of the filters in a dSLR or the frequency response of a light meter (one would presume the light meter is panchromatic) has not been established.

It is a monumental test.. With a good write up it could make a magazine very happy..

If I am down in London, I'll bring the Ay Ups along to see how they fare. Having dual heads may be a bit challenging for the setup.

..d
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: andygates on December 01, 2008, 09:26:39 am
Nice work; great test.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on December 01, 2008, 09:27:34 am
Great write up Graham - I know how hard you worked on this yesterday - we all owe you a big thanks for that  :thumbsup:

Okay - the distance from the target was about five metres.  Basically, it was the length of the SEEKRIT BUNKER, with the target up on one wall and the rollers just inside the door at the other wall.  I'll measure it tonight so that if anyone wants to do angular deviation calculations, they can.

The IQ Cyo was indeed the 60 Lux version without the reflector, powered (as all the dynamo lights were) from a SON hub.

I didn't envisage this to be a commercial exercise, Mike.  Besides; we've put this all in the public domain now, which would make the material much less attractive if we wanted to sell it*

The real surprise for me is that the Smart rechargeable lights were so damned bright in the centre of the beam.  They're the ones that SJS used to knock out for £35 with two incandescent lamps and a lead acid battery.  I only put them in the test for a reference point, but it would appear that battery powered incan lights are pretty damned good still.  I wish we'd have bothered to get some Lumicycle halogens (or HID) in the lineup because based on what we've seen here, they'd still be the kings of sheer output.

*Incidentally; if any magazine editors are reading this and do want to reproduce it, speak to Zipperhead.  It's all his work and he holds the copyright.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: DrMekon on December 01, 2008, 09:35:31 am
I had to register to say well done! It's a really useful reference, thanks for all your hard work.

It would be great to hear more impressions from the people there. FWIW, I use an IQ Cyo, which I find more than adequate for commuting, but I wish it did the Lupine Betty thing. Can you get a tan off it too?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 09:43:57 am
I assume no colour correction was done on those photos, and it's interesting to see how blue the Dinotte 200L is.  I don't recall it as looking particularly that colour, but the human eye is very good at compensating for such things.  The Bikehut is also a bit blue, but that one was a lot dimmer.  The Hope shows some blue-ness, maybe this reflects a previous generation of LED technology still being used on the slightly dimmer LED lights.

One thing that I missed was that I had left the cameras colour temperature on auto (because it makes such a good job of all my other pictures that I'm not going to screw with it).

It would have been interesting to set it to a fixed value to get a better comparison of colour - but I don't know if that would make much difference in the real world.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: clarion on December 01, 2008, 09:46:20 am
In htose sort of light levels, the difference in colour temperature would probably be barely noticable.  Certainly, when your ambient could be anywhere between moonlight, street noise from illuminated signs, and sodiums, a few degrees would be neither here nor there - your eyes adapt quickly.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: LEE on December 01, 2008, 09:55:06 am
Really excellent and thorough piece of work.

 
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: chillmoister on December 01, 2008, 10:00:28 am
toptastic .....huge thanks to all involved !!   
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Woofage on December 01, 2008, 10:03:14 am
Let me add my congratulations and thanks on a superb study :thumbsup: .

I'm not sure if this has been noted but looking at the method it seems to be easily repeatable, perhaps even at a different location with different people. As Chris noted above, lighting technology has moved on rapidly in recent years so I can imagine there will be a desire to carry out a new set of tests in a few year's time with results comparable with this one.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Jaded on December 01, 2008, 10:10:20 am


One thing that I missed was that I had left the cameras colour temperature on auto (because it makes such a good job of all my other pictures that I'm not going to screw with it).

It would have been interesting to set it to a fixed value to get a better comparison of colour - but I don't know if that would make much difference in the real world.

If you took RAW that wouldn't matter.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 10:12:09 am


One thing that I missed was that I had left the cameras colour temperature on auto (because it makes such a good job of all my other pictures that I'm not going to screw with it).

It would have been interesting to set it to a fixed value to get a better comparison of colour - but I don't know if that would make much difference in the real world.

If you took RAW that wouldn't matter.

Good thinking. I took raw+jpeg for all of them. I'll have a look tonight and see if it makes much difference.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Jurek on December 01, 2008, 10:22:40 am
Excellent work - and I know it would've been work to collate and present all that information into a valuable resource such as this.
Well done to all involved, and thanks.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Tom B on December 01, 2008, 10:26:30 am
Thorough and methodical work  -  most impressive!
Many thanks  :D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Jules on December 01, 2008, 10:29:33 am
Fantastic piece of work.  Thanks  to you all ;D

IQ Cyo for me I  think.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: PrettyBoyTim on December 01, 2008, 10:47:54 am
I'm very impressed - and excellent job, all of you!

And special thanks to Charlotte for getting it all organised and providing the energy for the dynamo-powerd lights...  ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: DrMekon on December 01, 2008, 11:03:32 am
Fantastic piece of work.  Thanks  to you all ;D

IQ Cyo for me I  think.

Is that a bakfiets in your profile pic? My Cyo is on my bakfiets, and it's a 60 lux. If you were worried that you'd miss the 40 lux nearfield thing, don't. With the combo of the low mounting position and the box, I don't get any sense of things disappearing from view as my front wheel approaches.

HTH
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: delthebike on December 01, 2008, 11:06:00 am
I'm sure the testing went well but I can't get by the first picture at the moment.  ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: clarion on December 01, 2008, 11:09:33 am
Yes - I feel that will be a perennial...

I'm not surprised by the result for the Smart.  It's a damn bright light for the unit.  Top marks for that, but the suddenness of the edge means that you will miss peripheral stuff because of the contrast.  So the value of the bright centre circle is compromised.

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Chris S on December 01, 2008, 11:11:41 am
Tremendous piece of work. Well done Zipperhead, Charlotte and everyone involved. Glass of milk and a digestive for all  :thumbsup:.

Not sure why one of the Cyo pics is completely dark - did I miss something somewhere?

That Lupine is just nuts!
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: delthebike on December 01, 2008, 11:21:01 am
Not sure why one of the Cyo pics is completely dark - did I miss something somewhere?
Shutter speed would be my guess. 1/10th second and the others seem to be over half a second.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Chris S on December 01, 2008, 11:33:22 am
Not sure why one of the Cyo pics is completely dark - did I miss something somewhere?
Shutter speed would be my guess. 1/10th second and the others seem to be over half a second.

Ah yes - thanks. So, I did miss something  :D.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: David Martin on December 01, 2008, 11:33:50 am
Yes - I feel that will be a perennial...

I'm not surprised by the result for the Smart.  It's a damn bright light for the unit.  Top marks for that, but the suddenness of the edge means that you will miss peripheral stuff because of the contrast.  So the value of the bright centre circle is compromised.

I used to have one of those. Very nice light indeed. The centre spot is very bright, but there is some fairly even spill off from the sides (as seen). What you end up with is a light where stuff 20m away is visible, then at 10m the pothole disappears, then reappears at 2m. Perfectly usable and probably my favourite light set as I much prefer the colour of halogens.

As has been said, setting th ecamera on RAW should allow direct comparison of the colours. The colour temperature will be an arbitrary approximation as they are not complete spectrums. Processing in PS with a fixed colour temp will allow them to be compared directly.

For ease of comparison, is there a standard reference lamp or do I have to find the identical lens and target material (I think I have the same camera body - D80?)

Which light meter did you use? I have an old weston Mk III kicking about so could measure EV for the AyUps pretty easily (as my Seecrit Bunker is longer than Charlottes - oo aah missus).

..d

..d

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 11:36:15 am
For ease of comparison, is there a standard reference lamp or do I have to find the identical lens and target material (I think I have the same camera body - D80?)

Which light meter did you use? I have an old weston Mk III kicking about so could measure EV for the AyUps pretty easily (as my Seecrit Bunker is longer than Charlottes - oo aah missus).

Yup, D80 with 18-135 (I think).

My light meter is a Minolta Autometer III.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: David Martin on December 01, 2008, 11:40:23 am
For ease of comparison, is there a standard reference lamp or do I have to find the identical lens and target material (I think I have the same camera body - D80?)

Which light meter did you use? I have an old weston Mk III kicking about so could measure EV for the AyUps pretty easily (as my Seecrit Bunker is longer than Charlottes - oo aah missus).

Yup, D80 with 18-135 (I think).

My light meter is a Minolta Autometer III.

OK, I'll see what I can do. 5m from target, light readings at beam centre and 1m to the side. What was the target?

..d

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: LEE on December 01, 2008, 11:47:13 am
Seems that for us dynamo-heads the B&M Cyo gives the best Bang for your Buck currently.

Supernova E3 looks like a 'turbo-charged' Solidlights and is likely to be even more dazzling to oncoming vehicles (Solidlights throw light everywhere, a nice but wasteful use of the light)

The Schmidt Edelux is, I hear (and the photos seem to confirm) , a Cyo in a better quality case.

I paid about £140 for Solidlights a couple of years ago.  The Cyo is £70.  I expect to see many Cyos on 2009 Audaxes.

Now then, about wiring 2 Cyos together...
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on December 01, 2008, 11:57:06 am
OK, I'll see what I can do. 5m from target, light readings at beam centre and 1m to the side. What was the target?

This:

(http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/811/lighttargetjt0.jpg)

Blown up to 2m x 2m  :)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Noodley on December 01, 2008, 12:01:44 pm
I have no idea what any of this means, but it looks fairly impressive nonetheless. 
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: vorsprung on December 01, 2008, 12:51:45 pm
I have no idea what any of this means, but it looks fairly impressive nonetheless. 

what it means

1) None of the "new" LED lights tested- and most of the ones of interest are included- are quite as bright as a really expensive lupine betty halide
2) The Cyo (fairly cheap generator powered light) is surprisingly good
3) Lights "new" in the last 6 months are better (just look at the photos) than lights "new" a year ago
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on December 01, 2008, 12:53:13 pm
What that in itself also means is that we have a variation on Moore's Law:

The output of bicycle lighting systems will double in power every two years.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Jaded on December 01, 2008, 12:57:56 pm

Good thinking. I took raw+jpeg for all of them. I'll have a look tonight and see if it makes much difference.

Good call.

Excellent work all, btw!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Ian H on December 01, 2008, 01:03:10 pm

Now then, about wiring 2 Cyos together...


I've done this with Inoleds, in parallel off a Schmidt. The result is twice as bright, with no noticeable extra drag, nor any increase in speed before the lights 'fire'. They have both to be the exact same model for this to work.

Was there any attempt to test the rolling resistance of different lights? Did any feel noticeably different?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Sergeant Pluck on December 01, 2008, 01:19:22 pm
Thanks for all the time you've spent on that Zipperhead!

Among the battery lights the Dinotte 600L doesn't do too badly - I'm going to discount the Smart as the light is too centralised.

I was very impressed by the better dynamo lights.



Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on December 01, 2008, 01:33:13 pm
Was there any attempt to test the rolling resistance of different lights? Did any feel noticeably different?

No. 

Of all the hub dynamo lights I've ridden with, I've never been able to discern a drag with anything other than twin E6s up a hill.

Maybe the next test should involve a load test.  Complicated, though...
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: PhilO on December 01, 2008, 01:44:20 pm
I have no idea what any of this means, but it looks fairly impressive nonetheless. 

what it means

1) None of the "new" LED lights tested- and most of the ones of interest are included- are quite as bright as a really expensive lupine betty halide
2) The Cyo (fairly cheap generator powered light) is surprisingly good
3) Lights "new" in the last 6 months are better (just look at the photos) than lights "new" a year ago

Except that the Lupine Betty 6 is a '"new" LED light', not a halide...  ::-)
7 off P4s, to be precise.  :thumbsup:

Excellent work, all! It's got me wondering how my home-brew lights would compare.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: David Martin on December 01, 2008, 01:49:30 pm
OK, I'll see what I can do. 5m from target, light readings at beam centre and 1m to the side. What was the target?

This:

(http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/811/lighttargetjt0.jpg)

Blown up to 2m x 2m  :)

OK.. I can probably borrow a digital projector for that to save on paper.

























*waits*

..d
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Lycra Man on December 01, 2008, 01:56:55 pm
Well done everybody. Excellent test providing unbiased results.

FWIW I have just purchased a Shimano dynohub and B&M Lumotec IQ Fly, to replace my Smart BL201H rechargeable.

I rode out for a short test on Saturday night, and am VERY pleased with the result, although my gear cables are in the way, so will have to tie them back somehow.

Incidentally, for those interested in weight savings, the Smart light plus battery plus wheel/tyre weighed EXACTLY the same as the Shimano DH-2R40 Dynohub, wheel, tyre and IQ Fly = 2.655kilo.

For thsoe intested in cost, the Smart I picked up for £26.00. The dynohub I bought privately off eBay for £46, and the B&M Lumotec IQ Fly was £65.00, so a dyno combo for £111.00. I had always promised myself a SON hub and Solidlights, after reading the input of many others, but still cannot afford it.

Lycra Man
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Jules on December 01, 2008, 02:21:00 pm
Fantastic piece of work.  Thanks  to you all ;D

IQ Cyo for me I  think.

Is that a bakfiets in your profile pic? My Cyo is on my bakfiets, and it's a 60 lux. If you were worried that you'd miss the 40 lux nearfield thing, don't. With the combo of the low mounting position and the box, I don't get any sense of things disappearing from view as my front wheel approaches.

HTH

It's something Dutch and huge but not mine alas.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: donpedro on December 01, 2008, 02:27:42 pm
Thanks for a stellar job!
So should I take the plunge and return my first ed Dinotte 200 AA for a upgrade (http://store.dinottelighting.com/shared/StoreFront/product_detail.asp?RowID=51&CS=dinotte&All=True) now or wait a while longer?   :-\
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on December 01, 2008, 02:35:23 pm
Alas, the management cannot take that decision for you...
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: delthebike on December 01, 2008, 02:43:20 pm
Just a thought that may help decide potential buyers, in the UK.
The only lights on test that are BS, or equivalent, approved are the IQ Fly and Cyo lights. (possibly Edelux and Inoled too)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: donpedro on December 01, 2008, 02:57:53 pm
Alas, the management cannot take that decision for you...

Oh you all knowing velovixen - just give me the sign!  ;D
Would have been interesting with some rough bang-for-buck comparison too. Btw, was that a upgraded/latest ed Dinotte 200 Li-Ion you used?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Pingu on December 01, 2008, 03:03:46 pm
What that in itself also means is that we have a variation on Moore's Law:

The output of bicycle lighting systems will double in power every two years.

We're all going to fry  :D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 03:08:29 pm
Would have been interesting with some rough bang-for-buck comparison too.

I didn't have prices for all the lights tested, so I couldn't do that. If I can finish collecting prices, then it should be easy enough (obviously have to factor in dynohub cost as well)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Ian H on December 01, 2008, 03:37:00 pm
Just a thought that may help decide potential buyers, in the UK.
The only lights on test that are BS, or equivalent, approved are the IQ Fly and Cyo lights. (possibly Edelux and Inoled too)

The Inoled is. I'm sure any of the German lights, assuming they're sold in Germany, will be.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 03:38:15 pm
OK.. I can probably borrow a digital projector for that to save on paper.

I think that it would probably lead to slightly skewed results - at the very least you would get a bike shaped shadow on the target!
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on December 01, 2008, 03:50:52 pm
What setting did you use for the Fenix P2D? Normal or turbo.

If Normal, then I'd guess that the E20 (same output as the P2D) is going to win the bang-for-buck competition.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on December 01, 2008, 03:54:38 pm
What setting did you use for the Fenix P2D? Normal or turbo.

If Normal, then I'd guess that the E20 (same output as the P2D) is going to win the bang-for-buck competition.

Turbo.  All battery lights were ramped up to max.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Julian on December 01, 2008, 03:55:50 pm
What that in itself also means is that we have a variation on Moore's Law:

The output of bicycle lighting systems will double in power every two years.

We're all going to fry  :D

Cyclists as eco-terrorists?  Not if we're going to be responsible for climate change by bicycle light!  ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Sergeant Pluck on December 01, 2008, 03:57:28 pm
What setting did you use for the Fenix P2D? Normal or turbo.

If Normal, then I'd guess that the E20 (same output as the P2D) is going to win the bang-for-buck competition.

I think, all things considered, it wins anyway in that respect.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: andrew_s on December 01, 2008, 05:43:27 pm
Just a thought that may help decide potential buyers, in the UK.
The only lights on test that are BS, or equivalent, approved are the IQ Fly and Cyo lights. (possibly Edelux and Inoled too)

The Inoled is. I'm sure any of the German lights, assuming they're sold in Germany, will be.
The Supernova E3 isn't.  There's a different model with an asymmetric lens that is presumably meant to be. There were beam shots in an extract from an german bike map that someone posted a while back.
The Edelux is "approval pending" or some such.

Edit:
Beam shots on the Schmidt site here (http://www.nabendynamo.de/produkte/ar_tabelle.html)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on December 01, 2008, 06:13:32 pm
I don't suppose there's a way of measuring the electrical power drawn by the dynamo lights?  I bet they're not all 3W.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: simonp on December 01, 2008, 06:34:07 pm
I don't suppose there's a way of measuring the electrical power drawn by the dynamo lights?  I bet they're not all 3W.

I think if they end up with a square wave out of the SON then they can draw more than 3W without destroying the rear light in the process.

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: simonp on December 01, 2008, 06:43:55 pm
One thing I noticed was the difference between the IQ Cyo and the Edelux.  Looking at the pics on manual, it seems that the Edelux wasn't aimed at the centre of the target.  This might explain why the centre and 1M readings are in the same ballpark as each other for the Edelux whilst the IQ Fly and Cyo both have a huge difference.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: teethgrinder on December 01, 2008, 07:24:30 pm
What that in itself also means is that we have a variation on Moore's Law:

The output of bicycle lighting systems will double in power every two years.

We're all going to fry  :D

Cyclists as eco-terrorists?  Not if we're going to be responsible for climate change by bicycle light!  ;D

I always considered hub dynamos to pretty green.
Looks like the IQ Cyo or Fly for me then. The Cyo seems to have the edge.
Interesting that the Lupine is still the king. It's been the top choice for off roaders for some time.
It would have been interesting to see more off road Li-Ion set ups. There are so many now though.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimO on December 01, 2008, 07:41:46 pm
One thing I noticed was the difference between the IQ Cyo and the Edelux.  Looking at the pics on manual, it seems that the Edelux wasn't aimed at the centre of the target.  This might explain why the centre and 1M readings are in the same ballpark as each other for the Edelux whilst the IQ Fly and Cyo both have a huge difference.

With Charlotte pedalling at 15mph, two or three people holding onto her and the bike, and someone else adjusting/pointing the lights, there was only limited time to adjust the lights for optimal beam pattern projection.

At the end of the day, whilst it was attempted to make this as scientific as possible, we only have two measures from the beam pattern, which is a fairly crude metric.  If we really wanted a good measurement, we would need a proper rig for making a complete beam pattern measurement in both the horizontal and vertical axis, but I think if we were going to those lengths, we would also replace the dynamo by a simulated source, all of which would be a lot more complex, expensive, and take a fair amount of development.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: David Martin on December 01, 2008, 08:03:58 pm
The other pinch of salt to add to the mix is the batch variation between LEDs. Take any two lights of the same brand and they will have slightly different light outputs. On my dual head AyUps I can see a distinct difference in brightness between the two heads.

So really we need to repeat this enough times to get a reasonable distribution average for each light..

Any takers?







* listens *








* hears pin drop *







'K, we'll just go with that then...

..d
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: simonp on December 01, 2008, 08:11:07 pm
What it would need to get better, consistent results, is a test rig as TimC says.  For best realism I reckon a SON-equipped front wheel, a DC motor, some turbo trainer spare parts, an old pair of front forks, appropriate mounting hardware, and some control gadgetry to regulate the speed (servo controller maintaining a constant speed rather than position).

Could be done for under £100 if you already have the wheel and the spare forks I reckon.

If the setup was clever enough you could even have some indication of power usage - if you can measure the current required to maintain the constant speed then you should be able to work out the wattage.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on December 01, 2008, 08:13:17 pm
Wouldn't it be easier to get an AC source and an appropriate transformer?  Maybe Kathy could borrow one from the lab?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: nicknack on December 01, 2008, 08:15:28 pm
Did those that took part in the testing have a subjective opinion about the ranking of the lights that differed from the measured rankings?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: teethgrinder on December 01, 2008, 08:18:08 pm
That makes sense. Resistors have variation in their level of resistance, within a tolerence. So every electrical circuit with the same wiring and same grading of resistors will have a slightly different rersult.
Same for the diode. The electrical property of the raw material used for LEDs alters within the same "crystal*"
and each one of those is slightly different. There are also differences in structure too as well as other factors. So a semiconduter wafer could be different from another from the same ingot.



*Which could be made of several types of material. I used to cut them into semiconductor wafers between 2001 and 2005. They would then be used to make diodes and numerous other things by our customers. I don't know which was used for LED lights though, I just used to cut them.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: simonp on December 01, 2008, 08:19:03 pm
I plugged a SON into an oscilloscope, once (I was investigating building a charging/lighting circuit so you could charge by day and have SON + battery boost at night).  I didn't get a sine wave.  The waveform will depend on the nature of the load, so I think using an AC source might be unrealistic.

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Chris S on December 01, 2008, 08:19:10 pm
Pffft!  ::-)

You lot belong in a lab, wearing white coats.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Frink.gif)

The real cyclist, real world darkness of the yACF comparison was much more relevant than some lab experiment.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on December 01, 2008, 08:27:13 pm
It's all about the "bin" of the LED, innit?  Even same spec LEDs will have different characteristics, so manufacturers rate them according to quality.  The better the "bin", the lower the power consumption and the better the output.  I have learned this on CPF  :)

What it would need to get better, consistent results, is a test rig as TimC says.  For best realism I reckon a SON-equipped front wheel, a DC motor, some turbo trainer spare parts, an old pair of front forks, appropriate mounting hardware, and some control gadgetry to regulate the speed (servo controller maintaining a constant speed rather than position).

Could be done for under £100 if you already have the wheel and the spare forks I reckon.

If the setup was clever enough you could even have some indication of power usage - if you can measure the current required to maintain the constant speed then you should be able to work out the wattage.


Oddly, I was considering rigging a spare SON wheel I have into my sturdy wheel jig and using a belt drive round the rim to an old drill or something.  Whacking a multimeter across the terminals would tell me when it was up to a constant output and we could use that to power the lights.

But on balance, I thought I had less chance of braining myself on the rollers...
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimO on December 01, 2008, 08:36:34 pm
Really you want some stepper motors to point the light as you sweep it around, a light meter with a suitable interface, likewise a current clamp, and obviously everything plugged into a computer to control it.  You just plug a light into it, go away for some tea and cake, and come back to a screen full of results.  Of course you also need a controller for the motors and servos.

There are a few widgets around which allow this sort of interface, the various Bee (http://pc-control.co.uk/osc/index.php) things would do the jobs for a Windows box, so long as you don't mind writing the code to talk to the C DLL they supply.  I'm sure there are similar things for Linux.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: perpetual dan on December 01, 2008, 08:50:24 pm
Brilliant stuff. I did a lot of trawling for this sort of thing a few months ago and this is better than anything I found.  :thumbsup: What I did find was a lot of pictures of people's back gardens. ???

One question - was the Fenix L2D or P2D? (label in graph is P2D)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Justin(e) on December 01, 2008, 08:52:32 pm
Echos applause and plaudits for those responsible.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: teethgrinder on December 01, 2008, 09:40:00 pm
It's all about the "bin" of the LED, innit?  Even same spec LEDs will have different characteristics, so manufacturers rate them according to quality.  The better the "bin", the lower the power consumption and the better the output.  I have learned this on CPF  :)


According to one of my former colleagues who did the electrical assessments, it wasn't unknown for there to be a bit of fiction of the figures when running an electrical assessment of some of our wafers. We were often behind schedule with the orders and customers can get impatient. I never told anyone that OK ;)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 09:45:16 pm
One question - was the Fenix L2D or P2D? (label in graph is P2D)

It was an L2D, I've just fixed the caption.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 01, 2008, 09:46:22 pm
I've just modified the pictures in the original posts to change the layout of the images. Hopefully it will mean that you can read the captions without having to download the pictures.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: LEE on December 01, 2008, 09:49:46 pm
Really you want some stepper motors to point the light as you sweep it around, a light meter with a suitable interface, likewise a current clamp, and obviously everything plugged into a computer to control it.  You just plug a light into it, go away for some tea and cake, and come back to a screen full of results.  Of course you also need a controller for the motors and servos.

There are a few widgets around which allow this sort of interface, the various Bee (http://pc-control.co.uk/osc/index.php) things would do the jobs for a Windows box, so long as you don't mind writing the code to talk to the C DLL they supply.  I'm sure there are similar things for Linux.

Are you sure that would work?  It just seems too simple.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimO on December 01, 2008, 10:26:54 pm
It depends on how complex you want things.  You would need to work out some mechanics to drive the lights motion from the stepper motors.  I'd probably just use some microswitches for the end stops at ±90°, and then use that to autocalibrate the angular movement.  You would also need some sort of control to drive the motor, and probably a speed sensor, so you can drive the dynamo up to a constant speed whatever the load it exerts on the dynamo.  Getting a calibrated light level out might be interesting, although you could just use a photodiode or LDR and calibrate them against a decent light meter (although this probably wouldn't deal with complex spectral effects very well).  I think one of the older current clamps we have in the lab just chucks out a voltage level, so you could trivially interface that to a calibrated ADC.

How fast you could do a sweep of the beam pattern would depend on the sensitivity of the light sensor, it's settling time, and how detailed you want the measurements ie ±90° in both axis with 5° of resolution would produce 1296 data points.  If the sensor measurement and/or movement took 10 seconds per measurement, it would take almost 4 hours to produce a beam plot of one lamp!  In practice you probably only want detailed measurements near the central axis, and cruder measurements at the more extreme limits.

It's not rocket science.  That over there <fx: points across lab> is. ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Hummers on December 01, 2008, 10:31:00 pm
Really you want some stepper motors to point the light as you sweep it around, a light meter with a suitable interface, likewise a current clamp, and obviously everything plugged into a computer to control it.  You just plug a light into it, go away for some tea and cake, and come back to a screen full of results.  Of course you also need a controller for the motors and servos.

There are a few widgets around which allow this sort of interface, the various Bee (http://pc-control.co.uk/osc/index.php) things would do the jobs for a Windows box, so long as you don't mind writing the code to talk to the C DLL they supply.  I'm sure there are similar things for Linux.

Are you sure that would work?  It just seems too simple.

ROLMFAO.

H
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: PrettyBoyTim on December 01, 2008, 11:46:49 pm
Rather than making some elaborate gadget to move the light sensor or light around to get multiple readings, I would have thought you could get fairly accurate results by taking several photographs at different exposure levels to create a very high dynamic range image. You could calibrate it with the light meter, but then you'd ba able to measure the light level at any point on the beam image.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimO on December 01, 2008, 11:52:09 pm
You could do that, but you would need a large flat white surface, with the lamp mounted relatively highly up, to give a sufficiently wide angle, and you would need a fairly wide angle lens to get a wide enough view angle.  I don't have easy access to either of those, whereas I probably could knock up a testing rig such as I outlined.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Pingu on December 02, 2008, 01:15:43 pm
Did anyone try reversing the polarity?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on December 02, 2008, 01:20:33 pm
Did anyone try reversing the polarity?

Don't cross the streams!

 :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Tim Hall on December 02, 2008, 01:45:49 pm
Seeing as this awesome work is in the public domain, do you have any objections if I point readers of urc to the results?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on December 02, 2008, 01:47:11 pm
Seeing as this awesome work is in the public domain, do you have any objections if I point readers of urc to the results?

Not as long as you exclude Judith!
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: PloddinPedro on December 02, 2008, 10:24:34 pm
I've just caught up with this - great work, everyone
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: teethgrinder on December 02, 2008, 11:29:43 pm
Did anyone try reversing the polarity?

Yes, it went very dark ;D


IGMC
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: hamilgs on December 05, 2008, 10:46:04 pm
No intent to derail, but....  I've a SON hub and a IQ Fly light.  Peter White's website says that two Flys can't be run together (assume parallel or series).  I've written to B & M and asked about wiring two Flys together (can it be done, if so how, what limitations or concerns) and after a week or so, have received no reply.  Anyone here done it or have any advice?  Reply to private message or to hamilgs at hiwaay dot net is fine.  Now back to your regularly scheduled program.--george

11 Dec.:  Received short reply from  Busch & Müller KG

 "it is possible to run two IQ fly with the hub dynamo, connected in series."

I've asked for a bit more info, will share if I get it.--george

16 Dec.:  B & M wrote back and replied "up to 20 km/h the two IQ Fly are as bright as only one headlight, also together with a dynamo rearlight.  It is possible to connect an additional switch (ON/OFF) parallel to one IQ Fly, to switch it off driving at lower speed."

My interpretation of his English (many times better than I could even attempt in German!) is that you can run two in series, but that below 20 kph (12 mph), you might be better off with just one IQ Fly running, and that could be accomplished with a "secondary shorting switch" in parallel with the "secondary" IQ fly (there is not a formal secondary IQ Fly from B & M, like there is for the E-6 halogen). The function of this switch is to bypass the second IQ Fly, and let the "primary" one run at full (low speed) power. This is what the "secondary E-6" halogen light does (the switch on it either lets current go through the E-6, or around it-"off" bypasses the current around the lamp). This also works fine when running a dyno taillight, as I do.

So all I need to do is buy & install another IQ Fly. Anyone have a used one they'd like to sell?--george
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: border-rider on December 05, 2008, 10:51:37 pm
Anyone here ... have any advice?

What peter white said

These modern LED lights need to have "exclusive" use of the dynamo.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on December 06, 2008, 11:21:05 am
The graph on the first page is only labelled with the light names. I presume the blue line is the measurement in the centre of the beam and the red one the measurement 1m from that?

Apart from that... Wow!
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Flatus on December 06, 2008, 11:29:03 am
Anyone here ... have any advice?

What peter white said

These modern LED lights need to have "exclusive" use of the dynamo.

Except they can run a rear light too. The IQ CYO has wires to connect up a rear.  I snipped them off.... hope that wasn't what caused the thing to fail (can't see why it would)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: simonp on December 06, 2008, 11:42:14 am
Did you read the bit in the manual that said not to do this?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Flatus on December 06, 2008, 12:02:48 pm
There was no manual.   Besides, I don't see how shortening a piece of wire by an inch is going to effect anything.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Ian H on December 06, 2008, 06:37:58 pm
Anyone here ... have any advice?

What peter white said

These modern LED lights need to have "exclusive" use of the dynamo.

The Inoled will pair up. This might be a by-product of the circuitry which allows the lights to run off either dynamo or battery.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: andrew_s on December 06, 2008, 08:04:21 pm
Anyone here ... have any advice?

What peter white said

These modern LED lights need to have "exclusive" use of the dynamo.

You generally have to connect a rear light to the front light, rather than directly to the dynamo.

The Schmidt website FAQ says that you can run 2 Edelux together, either in parallel or in series, but that you don't get any more light except for series over 20mph.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: simonp on December 07, 2008, 01:24:06 am
Anyone here ... have any advice?

What peter white said

These modern LED lights need to have "exclusive" use of the dynamo.

You generally have to connect a rear light to the front light, rather than directly to the dynamo.

The Schmidt website FAQ says that you can run 2 Edelux together, either in parallel or in series, but that you don't get any more light except for series over 20mph.

The main reason you have to connect the rear light via the front is because the front light is switched.  If you do not, then when the front light is switched off, the rear light has to limit the voltage all on its own, and generally they are not designed to do this, so they die.

The general principle was that the nominal 3W from the dynamo was split 2.4 on the front light and 0.6 on the rear.  When LED lights came along with their lower power consumption it was possible to put a 3W bulb in the front light and this worked well.

I note that the Edelux documentation claims it limits the voltage to the rear light to 9V.  Even though that is probably peak rather than RMS, that seems very high.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: LeeW on December 11, 2008, 08:49:31 pm
I have a Lumicycle HID and an Inoled P7 which are both very powerful lights, It would be interesting to compare them to the others.  I wonder if I was to setup my own target how close the results would be if I had my camera on the same settings?  Is there much variance between cameras of different brands if they are on the same settings?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Bledlow on December 12, 2008, 05:53:16 pm
The real surprise for me is that the Smart rechargeable lights were so damned bright in the centre of the beam.  They're the ones that SJS used to knock out for £35 with two incandescent lamps and a lead acid battery.  I only put them in the test for a reference point, but it would appear that battery powered incan lights are pretty damned good still
I'm still using them on my MTB, as is Mrs B (or Miss U, as she prefers). Got the NiCad version many years ago for £40-something, & the batteries are still OK. Rigged up dynamo headlamps to use the batteries on our road bikes, though I now have a much lighter LED alternative. Drawbacks are the weight of that bloody great NiCad, it taking up a bottle cage, & taking so long to charge.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: clarion on December 12, 2008, 09:52:24 pm
Here's a Yehuda Moon (http://www.yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2008-09-10)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: hawkeye on December 12, 2008, 11:35:09 pm
The real surprise for me is that the Smart rechargeable lights were so damned bright in the centre of the beam.  They're the ones that SJS used to knock out for £35 with two incandescent lamps and a lead acid battery.  I only put them in the test for a reference point, but it would appear that battery powered incan lights are pretty damned good still
I'm still using them on my MTB, as is Mrs B (or Miss U, as she prefers). Got the NiCad version many years ago for £40-something, & the batteries are still OK. Rigged up dynamo headlamps to use the batteries on our road bikes, though I now have a much lighter LED alternative. Drawbacks are the weight of that bloody great NiCad, it taking up a bottle cage, & taking so long to charge.
Mrs H and I use Smart incandescents, she with the 6+6watt setup and me with 6+10watt because I often ride with the tinted specs I use while swim teaching. The value-for-money weight-no-object choice I'd say.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: hubner on December 17, 2008, 10:40:04 pm
The test is in the Dec 2008 issue of Velovision:
VeloVision Online (http://www.velovision.co.uk/cgi-bin/show_comments.pl?storynum=967) (it's just the contents page)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on December 17, 2008, 10:58:31 pm
Fabulous  :)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: andrew_s on February 27, 2009, 10:58:43 pm
There's a PDF of a dynamo light test from the Nov-Dec 08 issue Aktiv Radfahren magazine on the Schmidt website, complete with beam shots, brightness/speed curves, computer interference distances etc.

http://www.nabendynamo.de/service/pdf/ar_11-12_2008.pdf

It does say that there's a dynohub test coming in the Jan/Feb issue - perhaps that will get linked somewhere?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: nutkin on March 18, 2009, 08:43:14 pm
Googling bike lights throws up this thread and this (http://www.ecovelo.info/2008/12/03/yacf-bike-light-comparison/) blog ...



Apologies if someone has posted this before - I couldn't be bothered to read through the whole thread again!
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on March 18, 2009, 08:48:10 pm
The real surprise for me is that the Smart rechargeable lights were so damned bright in the centre of the beam.  They're the ones that SJS used to knock out for £35 with two incandescent lamps and a lead acid battery.  I only put them in the test for a reference point, but it would appear that battery powered incan lights are pretty damned good still
I'm still using them on my MTB, as is Mrs B (or Miss U, as she prefers). Got the NiCad version many years ago for £40-something, & the batteries are still OK. Rigged up dynamo headlamps to use the batteries on our road bikes, though I now have a much lighter LED alternative. Drawbacks are the weight of that bloody great NiCad, it taking up a bottle cage, & taking so long to charge.
Mrs H and I use Smart incandescents, she with the 6+6watt setup and me with 6+10watt because I often ride with the tinted specs I use while swim teaching. The value-for-money weight-no-object choice I'd say.

The trouble is, people like me either:

1) use the bike daily and can't be bothered with a charging regime, unplugging things, bringing them in the house etc

2) sometimes ride all night

so I need a dynamo.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Jaded on March 19, 2009, 12:00:28 am
I don't have to detach my battery lights from my bike because

a) I have power sockets where the bikes are stored
b) I got extension leads with my lights so the charger is plugged into the battery whilst it is still on the bike.

Plus the lighting system(s) will fit happily on any one of my three bikes, or Mrs J's or either of the kids bikes*. I'd need 6 dynamos to replicate that.

*Not that I'd let them use the lights, obviously - far too valuable!  ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Beardy on May 18, 2009, 01:43:49 pm
Is there a reason I can't see teh pictures at the begining of the thread ? :(
Have they timed out or am I being stupid.

Many thanks

paul
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on May 18, 2009, 01:47:37 pm
Is there a reason I can't see teh pictures at the begining of the thread ? :(
Have they timed out or am I being stupid.

Are you looking from work and having them blocked by your work firewall?

The pictures are stored on picasaweb, I know that Iif I try and access it from work I get an message telling me that picasa is an online storage site and is blocked.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Beardy on May 18, 2009, 02:34:52 pm
Yes, I am trying ot access from work, so it is perhaps the firewall. I'll try form a different computer

Ta,
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Treewheeler on May 25, 2009, 03:40:43 pm
Look, save from reading everything that has happened since I left these shores and just tell me straight.
 Is it worth paying £70+ £5postage etc for a Solid light upgrade OR just buying a new Cyo...?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on May 25, 2009, 04:09:15 pm
The Cyo is brighter, I think, but some people have had trouble with water leaks.  The Solidlights aren't exactly immune from leaks either.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Treewheeler on May 25, 2009, 04:16:54 pm
Brighter even with upgrade...?
 True my Solid light fills with moisture far too easily.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: simonp on May 25, 2009, 04:18:54 pm
I've got the Edelux which is basically only a slight upgrade compared to the cyo in terms of light output, so I think the cyo will be good in that respect.

As far as water ingress goes I don't know about the cyo.  I've yet to get my Edelux more than slightly wet so I've no idea about wet weather performance.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Chris S on May 25, 2009, 04:21:23 pm
Brighter even with upgrade...?
 True my Solid light fills with moisture far too easily.

Yes. Cyo is brighter than upgraded Solidlights.

However - they are very different lights. Upgraded Solidlights still have that diffuse glow of the original, whereas Cyo is harsher with more artifacts.

I've not had water trouble with either, though it's very dry here in Norfolk, so they don't get wet that often ;).
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on May 25, 2009, 05:27:10 pm
Tuggo - buy the Cyo.  I own both and In my opinion, it's a far better light all round and you can keep your un-modded Solidlight as a spare.  Or flog it.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: DaveJ on May 25, 2009, 05:54:21 pm
It would be useful to say which upgrade is being commented on.  Tuggo has asked about the Solidlights factory upgrade.  Some people on here have done their own upgrade to the latest LEDs for the Solidlights.

I think the factory upgrade for the Solidlights may be brighter than the homebrew version.  Was it Tiger who did the homebrew version and then once he's seen the factory upgrade on one of his lights, sent the one he had done the homebrew on for the factory upgrade?

And thats a third option, much cheaper to upgrade the LEDs in the Solidlights to Cree XRE yourself.

Dave
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Chris S on May 25, 2009, 06:08:25 pm
Good point DaveJ. I was referring to the factory DB2 upgrade.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on May 25, 2009, 07:28:45 pm
You can get the 60 lux N version for about £60 including postage from Germany on fleaBay.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Treewheeler on May 25, 2009, 08:00:26 pm
Thank you for that although I will decline to buy from there as I have found returning faulty international goods a chore in the past.
 And I don't speak/read German too well...
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: LEE on May 25, 2009, 08:24:30 pm
The Cyo is better than Solidlights.

The Cyo is better than upgraded Solidlights.

The battery powered IXON IQ is better than Solidlights and not quite as good as the Cyo but the batteries don't last all night on full power.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Jaded on May 26, 2009, 10:34:33 am
Yebbut, Cyos and Solidlights fell off the ugly tree, didn't they.  ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: LEE on May 26, 2009, 10:44:53 am
Cyos look better than most I think, quite small and discreet
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Greenbank on May 26, 2009, 10:59:34 am
The Cyo is better than Solidlights.

The Cyo is better than upgraded Solidlights.

The battery powered IXON IQ is better than Solidlights and not quite as good as the Cyo but the batteries don't last all night on full power.

The other important factor is that:

Solidlights (even the non-upgraded version) are perfectly adequate for overnight rides and even tricky descending.

Brighter is obviously better, up until a point. I don't think lights need to go much brighter than the Cyo otherwise there's going to be a real risk of annoying oncoming drivers to the point where it could become dangerous (especially if they are pointing too far up). I've been flashed by a car driver because my XB2 Solidlights were pointing up too much (after the bike had toppled over due to my tired ham-fisted attempt at propping it up outside a cafe).

The IXON IQ is fine on low power mode for the majority of night riding, it only really needs to be on full power mode for descending. Doing this you can easily get through a whole night of riding on a single set of batteries. You could probably get through at least two whole nights if you have Lithiums.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: LEE on May 26, 2009, 11:04:59 am
The Cyo (and presumably others based on the same reflector) have a distinct cut-off.

I leave mine just loose enough so I can tilt the beam up/down, on the move, depending on conditions.

The lack of focus on the Solidlights results in a good spread of light for the cyclist but a "Nuclear Explosion" for oncoming traffic.  I'm sure some commercial pilots are aware of Solidlights.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: vorsprung on May 26, 2009, 11:54:33 am
.. I don't think lights need to go much brighter than the Cyo otherwise there's going to be a real risk of annoying oncoming drivers

Car headlamps on dip are what, 700 lumens each?
So let's wait until we get to that
I guess a cyo is about 300 lumens
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Chris S on May 26, 2009, 11:57:30 am
The lack of focus on the Solidlights results in a good spread of light for the cyclist but a "Nuclear Explosion" for oncoming traffic.  I'm sure some commercial pilots are aware of Solidlights.

Would some form of reflective visor over the top of the Solidlights unit help do you think?

* ponders Blue Peter moment with tin foil and Fairy Liquid bottle *
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Greenbank on May 26, 2009, 12:14:11 pm
.. I don't think lights need to go much brighter than the Cyo otherwise there's going to be a real risk of annoying oncoming drivers

Car headlamps on dip are what, 700 lumens each?
So let's wait until we get to that
I guess a cyo is about 300 lumens

Car headlamps have to conform to various standards regarding brightness, direction, light spill, etc. These are checked during production and (after 3 years) every year during the MOT.

Cyclists being able to fit things just as bright with little or no checks does not fill me with confidence.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: LEE on May 26, 2009, 01:18:45 pm
The lack of focus on the Solidlights results in a good spread of light for the cyclist but a "Nuclear Explosion" for oncoming traffic.  I'm sure some commercial pilots are aware of Solidlights.

Would some form of reflective visor over the top of the Solidlights unit help do you think?

* ponders Blue Peter moment with tin foil and Fairy Liquid bottle *

I pondered over doing this a while back.  I have a plastic shaving mirror in my toiletry bag that could be velcro'd on.  That would reflect some light back onto the road and possibly give some form of cut-off.  I'm not so sure how defined the cut-off would be but, since Solidlights waste a lot of light upwards, the mirror may give some back to the road.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Greenbank on May 26, 2009, 01:32:41 pm
Solidlights angled about 10o down you're not losing much light at all, way less than 5%. See the graph of light output here:-

Solid Lights - LED Cycle and Mountain Bike Lights (http://www.solidlights.co.uk/products/xb2-upgrade.php)

Many Solidlights users have theirs mounted upside down on the handlebars (I used to before I moved them to a space grip) so I'm glad they don't have lenses that focus the light downwards as it would make mounting them trickier.

Any brighter though and they'd probably need something to stop too much light going upwards.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: simonp on May 26, 2009, 07:00:56 pm
Standards for road legal lights specify how much light is permitted above horizontal (assuming correctly set up lights).  The Cyo meets the German standard for this.  This is important since it's illegal to use lights in a way which dazzles or otherwise inconveniences other road users.  With lights with a soft focus you aren't going to have a guarantee of this.  Of course if you are careless in setting up your lights then it'll still be wrong, but that's your fault rather than a fault with the light.

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Noodley on September 05, 2009, 09:14:39 pm
Are there any plans to undertake a similar exercise again this year?  Seems like light technology marches ever-onwards....

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on September 05, 2009, 09:54:57 pm
Only if someone has an E3 Triple  8)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Noodley on September 05, 2009, 10:03:02 pm
I was more hoping that someone had a Lupine Tesla 4  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: eck on September 05, 2009, 10:43:55 pm
I was more hoping that someone had a Lupine Tesla 4  :thumbsup:
Well, at only <£250, I'm sure one of our ex-clubmates will be off up to Pitlochry to part with his bawbees to buy one. Then something better will come along so he'll give it to you.

You wish.  ;D

From (I think) The Grauniad about the time the Tour came to London:
Quote
Besides being an unrivalled festival of masochism and machismo, cycling's big selling point (for men at least) is its almost infinite scope for buying kit.
Recognise anyone?  :demon:
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Andrij on September 06, 2009, 08:21:25 am
From (I think) The Grauniad about the time the Tour came to London:
Quote
Besides being an unrivalled festival of masochism and machismo, cycling's big selling point (for men at least) is its almost infinite scope for buying kit.
Recognise anyone?  :demon:

Yes, you can find a list here (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=mlist).  ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimO on September 06, 2009, 08:48:00 am
I was more hoping that someone had a Lupine Tesla 4  :thumbsup:
Well, at only <£250, I'm sure one of our ex-clubmates will be off up to Pitlochry to part with his bawbees to buy one. Then something better will come along so he'll give it to you.

I didn't reaiise Lupine made a light that cheap.  Currently the models which Wiggle has for sale range from £350 to £700. :o
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on September 06, 2009, 09:48:08 am
From (I think) The Grauniad about the time the Tour came to London:
Quote
Besides being an unrivalled festival of masochism and machismo, cycling's big selling point (for men at least) is its almost infinite scope for buying kit.
Recognise anyone?  :demon:
Matt Seaton.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: eck on September 06, 2009, 09:50:36 am
From (I think) The Grauniad about the time the Tour came to London:
Quote
Besides being an unrivalled festival of masochism and machismo, cycling's big selling point (for men at least) is its almost infinite scope for buying kit.
Recognise anyone?  :demon:
Matt Seaton.
:thumbsup:
Was it he who also wrote (possibly in the same piece):
Quote
Cycling may be super-macho but, at the same time, it really is gay.
?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: GruB on September 06, 2009, 09:57:03 am
The Lupine results appear very similar to the output I get from my Lumicycle Halide 2004.
However, I wonder just how much better their new LED version is?
As they are English made and supplied etc, it is a shame they are not included.
Based in Bournemouth, the chaps are really helpful and customer service is ace.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Noodley on September 06, 2009, 11:00:07 am
However, I wonder just how much better their new LED version is?

The 2010 Tesla 4 claims 700 lumens, and currently available from swinnerton cycles for 225 quid - here's hoping it still is in 8 days when I get paid!


         Lupine 2010 Lupine Tesla 4 : 700 Lumens
       (http://www.swinnertoncycles.co.uk/2010-Lupine-Tesla-4-700-Lumens.aspx)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: GruB on September 06, 2009, 12:34:30 pm
Lumicycle's latest offering is what I would upgrade to (http://www.lumicycle.com/product/196/led4s/ledsys4-unit-spot.html) if I needed to replace my Halide.
1120 Lumen !!  ;D

This is what their 850 Lumen LED3 system can give:

(http://www.lumicycle.com/cmsimages/led3/600x299imageswap/images/LED3swap_r2_c1_f2.jpg)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Andrew Br on September 06, 2009, 10:10:03 pm
Please stop this now.
It's not big, it's not clever.
I am easily tempted.
Please stop.

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on September 11, 2009, 02:07:38 am
I wonder if our last test would give us the leverage we need to write to all the manufacturers and ask to borrow a set of lights for another testing session?

I'm definitely up for the YACF light test v2.0
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: nuttycyclist on September 11, 2009, 02:23:42 am
Just because you're upside down and awake when we're in bed is no reason to suggest silly things like that ;)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on September 11, 2009, 03:29:42 am
*stands on head*

:D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Tim on September 11, 2009, 10:15:16 am
Lumicycle's latest offering is what I would upgrade to (http://www.lumicycle.com/product/196/led4s/ledsys4-unit-spot.html) if I needed to replace my Halide.
1120 Lumen !!  ;D

This is what their 850 Lumen LED3 system can give:
With a light like that I would end up far colder and wetter as I wouldn't have a sensible reason to restrict my commuting to the road rather than off-road over winter. See - it's a bad thing an would only lead to my greater discomfort.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: clarion on September 11, 2009, 10:20:46 am
Charlotte, that's a great idea.  Lots of new shinies out since the test.  And I noticed Light & Motion are making a point about light testing in their latest ads, so they should be keen to have the level playing field.

Hope we can come along this time (though we don't have any lights to add to the mix, really.  Our brightest are a Hope Vision 1 and Smart halogens)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimC on September 11, 2009, 10:21:45 am
*stands on head*

:D

Whose?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zipperhead on September 11, 2009, 02:21:49 pm
I wonder if our last test would give us the leverage we need to write to all the manufacturers and ask to borrow a set of lights for another testing session?

And would they sell the second hand units to us for a discount?

Quote
I'm definitely up for the YACF light test v2.0

I wonder if our line up marks are still in the park? I think that Bushey Park has the same night time access as Richmond Park, and that nice straight, flat road would be ideal for testing.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zoidburg on September 11, 2009, 04:40:57 pm
I think you should be trying to find a nice big pitch black tunnel :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on September 11, 2009, 05:30:52 pm
Right then.  I reckon it's a plan.

When I get back from Oz, I'll email the big distribuors and see if we can't whistle up some shiny things to play with.  Copy and paste the following list...

Lumicycle
Light and Motion
Lupine
Hope
.
.
.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zoidburg on September 11, 2009, 05:33:18 pm
The new lightsets from On-One look intresting, and princeton-tec.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Craig on September 11, 2009, 06:01:39 pm
This one from Deal Extreme, looks rather good for the price:
   DealExtreme: $79.81 HA-III SSC P7-C (SXO) 3-Mode 900-Lumen LED Bike Light Set
 (http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.25149)
900 lumens with Li-ion batteries etc for $80. They seem to be fairly popular on the mountain bike forums, I think I might buy one sometime.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on September 11, 2009, 06:26:22 pm
I see C+ tested a load of comedy-priced lights this month.  No pictures or actual measurements though...typical of them.  They probably just turned them on in the office.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Wendy on September 11, 2009, 06:45:05 pm
I could certainly bring along my MaxxD.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: GruB on September 11, 2009, 06:49:14 pm
I could certainly bring along my MaxxD.

I have a good relationship with Lumicycle, so I might be able to get a unit or both from Jon for the test.  The battery I have will fit.  I could also bring along a Halide 2004 and a Halogen for comparison.  I also have two Joysticks, the original and a Jostick Maxx2.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: tonycollinet on September 11, 2009, 06:51:30 pm
This one from Deal Extreme, looks rather good for the price:
   DealExtreme: $79.81 HA-III SSC P7-C (SXO) 3-Mode 900-Lumen LED Bike Light Set
 (http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.25149)
900 lumens with Li-ion batteries etc for $80. They seem to be fairly popular on the mountain bike forums, I think I might buy one sometime.

I bought one of these

   DealExtreme: $33.03 MTE SSC P7 900-Lumen 2-Mode LED Flashlight (18650)
 (http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.12325)
from deal extreme, with charger and 2 batteries it came to about £40 at the time. Actual today will be about $60 with a handlebar mount and two batteries.

Must say I'm very tempted by that one with the external battery pack. That comes to about £50 with free shipping. Brightness will be similar or better than the one I have, but with better battery life.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on September 11, 2009, 06:51:59 pm
This sounds like another excuse for a Friday night curry in Ealing  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: MattH on September 11, 2009, 06:52:06 pm
I see C+ tested a load of comedy-priced lights this month.  No pictures or actual measurements though...typical of them.  They probably just turned them on in the office.

It was a pretty rubbish test, wasn't it? They need an expert team to put together lighting reviews. Where can we find one of them, I wonder?



 :)


Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimO on September 11, 2009, 07:02:02 pm
...also the Use Exposure MaXx-D.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: RJ on September 11, 2009, 10:42:01 pm
I see C+ tested a load of comedy-priced lights this month.  No pictures or actual measurements though...typical of them.  They probably just turned them on in the office.

You think they took them out of the box??  ;)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: clarion on September 11, 2009, 10:47:30 pm
What - they actually had the lights?  That's an in-depth investigation compared to the usual cut'n'paste from a press release... ::-)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on September 12, 2009, 07:20:41 am
I wonder what percentage of C+ readers ride at night, less spend £200+ on a light?  Most of them probably go to spinning classes or something.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Charlotte on September 12, 2009, 12:09:30 pm
This sounds like another excuse for a Friday night curry in Ealing  :thumbsup:

Ho Yuss  :)
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zoidburg on September 12, 2009, 04:32:01 pm
What - they actually had the lights?  That's an in-depth investigation compared to the usual cut'n'paste from a press release... ::-)
C+ standard review - compare many systems and then give top marks to the light imported by the company that you also own or work for.

Cyclair pump or a Thorn Touring bike anyone?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: andrew_s on September 12, 2009, 11:16:20 pm
This sounds like another excuse for a Friday night curry in Ealing  :thumbsup:

An alternative suggestion to the death defying use of rollers for trying out the dynamo lights...

dynohub wheel in truing stand, no tyre
bike upside down , no rear tyre
drive belt made of a couple of old inner tubes
a couple of rods to prop the axles of the two wheels apart and tension the drive belt, or maybe you could use tent pegs and guy line.

add a cycle computer sensor on the truing stand and somewhere to mount the lights, and it should be possible to do the standard 10/20/30kph brightness photos

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Kim on September 13, 2009, 12:33:11 am
An alternative suggestion to the death defying use of rollers for trying out the dynamo lights...

Bottle dynamo on a rear wheel, with rear-wheel cycle computer pickup.

Mechanically they're less efficient than hub dynamos, but electrically they should all be much the same (3W at a nominal 6V).  For bonus points, measure the current and voltage directly.  For even more bonus points, do that for the battery lights, too.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: clarion on September 13, 2009, 03:11:02 pm
Might be better with a BB dynamo.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: border-rider on September 13, 2009, 03:14:19 pm
An alternative suggestion to the death defying use of rollers for trying out the dynamo lights...

Bottle dynamo on a rear wheel, with rear-wheel cycle computer pickup.

Mechanically they're less efficient than hub dynamos, but electrically they should all be much the same (3W at a nominal 6V). 

Not so, because hub dynamos are capable of delivering higher voltages at higher speed than most bottle dynamos, and therefore more power, and modern dynamo lights are built to take advantage of this
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: clarion on September 13, 2009, 04:08:46 pm
Good point.

*dredges memory*

I recall there used to be a device you could get for rollers which would bolt to the rails and hold your bike steady...
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: David Martin on September 13, 2009, 10:58:08 pm
I'll happily ride rollers for you if you buy me curry! Will be in town on 26th October and may even have my AyUps with me.

..d
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rusky on September 16, 2009, 10:20:04 pm
This one from Deal Extreme, looks rather good for the price:
   DealExtreme: $79.81 HA-III SSC P7-C (SXO) 3-Mode 900-Lumen LED Bike Light Set
 (http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.25149)
900 lumens with Li-ion batteries etc for $80. They seem to be fairly popular on the mountain bike forums, I think I might buy one sometime.



I bought one of these

   DealExtreme: $33.03 MTE SSC P7 900-Lumen 2-Mode LED Flashlight (18650)
 (http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.12325)
from deal extreme, with charger and 2 batteries it came to about £40 at the time. Actual today will be about $60 with a handlebar mount and two batteries.

Must say I'm very tempted by that one with the external battery pack. That comes to about £50 with free shipping. Brightness will be similar or better than the one I have, but with better battery life.

I got one of these
   DealExtreme: $34.80 Aurora AK-P7-4 HA-III SSC P7-C 2-Mode 900-Lumen LED Flashlight (1*18650)
 (http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.15691) on the basis it has more stars for $2 more. Un-frigging believably bright!
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: tonycollinet on September 16, 2009, 10:45:04 pm
Sorry - your a bit quiet there - I can't hear you [/whispers]

 ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rusky on September 16, 2009, 11:04:43 pm
Better??? It's late  :-[
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: DrMekon on September 17, 2009, 11:04:20 pm
If you get a chance next time, I'd love to see footage of all the battery lights on one bike all at once. I've just had a play with 2x 40 lux IQ Ixon + 60 lux IQ Cyo. The beam from the 3 of them together was huge and massively bright compared to just one. All of the tested battery lights together should be funny.

[edit]

Just had another play - law of diminishing returns kicks in when the beams (all B&M IQ) are focussed on the  same spot. Where it was great was in widening the beam.  However, the big jump was from one light to two. Adding a third, even when that 3rd was a 60 lux cyo, wasn't near the same level of improvement. I had been toying with the idea of putting a dynohub on the tourer, and nicking the cyo off the bakfiets to supplement the pair of ixon, but now I can't be bothered. In fact, the two ixons on 10 lux was sufficient for most of the unlit country lane I ride on.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Bones on September 20, 2009, 06:32:34 pm
This has been an incredibly useful thread. I take my hat off to the original test team and their understanding of the measurement of light... The pictures make comparison so easy for those of us who can't find their old physics books.

I think I am heading towards buying a Ixon IQ. I recently bought a Cateye HL -EL600, in haste, and have been disappointed with it although it is better than my old opticube. Does anyone know how the Ixon IQ compares to the Cateye HL-EL600?

Bones
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on September 20, 2009, 07:31:15 pm
Just had another play - law of diminishing returns kicks in when the beams (all B&M IQ) are focussed on the  same spot. Where it was great was in widening the beam.  However, the big jump was from one light to two. Adding a third, even when that 3rd was a 60 lux cyo, wasn't near the same level of improvement.
The human eye is only sensitive to big changes in light intensity, on an exponential scale.  That's why photographers use "stops"; one stop (or EV, if you like) is a doubling or a halving of light intensity.   So two lights rather than one is one stop brighter, and noticeable if not spectacular.  Three lights rather than two is less than one stop extra - you'd need four lights for that.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: aidan.f on September 20, 2009, 10:07:03 pm
when you guys get around to serious  testing, I have a Schmidt  front wheel in a box with a cycle computer &  electric drive motor to do the dynamo tests.

You just have to get it from Durham it's dark here!
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on October 10, 2009, 09:48:07 am
I do like this thread.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimO on October 10, 2009, 12:53:53 pm
when you guys get around to serious  testing, I have a Schmidt  front wheel in a box with a cycle computer &  electric drive motor to do the dynamo tests.

What, and miss the sheer terror of Charlotte trying to cycle on the rollers in the Sekrit Bunker, in semi-darkness whilst measurements and photographs are made.  Where's the fun in that. ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zoidburg on October 10, 2009, 10:25:53 pm
when you guys get around to serious  testing, I have a Schmidt  front wheel in a box with a cycle computer &  electric drive motor to do the dynamo tests.

What, and miss the sheer terror of Charlotte trying to cycle on the rollers in the Sekrit Bunker, in semi-darkness whilst measurements and photographs are made.  Where's the fun in that. ;D
You know that creates an image of a racy photo shoot

Miss YACF October

Vital statistics

34"/26"/37"

Likes - knives,crossbows and penny farthings

Dislikes - white vans and sea food.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Jaded on October 10, 2009, 11:39:20 pm
34"  :o :o :o
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zoidburg on October 11, 2009, 12:01:52 am
34"  :o :o :o
Well I wasn't going to PM her and ask was I?

You have to just make some things up from a safe distance...I like my face the way it is...and my legs...and organs.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimO on October 11, 2009, 12:43:32 am
I thought 36/24/36 was the "ideal" set of statistics?  Are you trying to short change Charlotte? ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Jaded on October 11, 2009, 12:50:42 am
He is suggesting she is a bit hippy.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Zoidburg on October 11, 2009, 01:07:16 am
I thought 36/24/36 was the "ideal" set of statistics?  Are you trying to short change Charlotte? ;D
I was trying to suggest the statistics of a real woman and not a barbie doll.

The deeper I dig the more the sides of the grave cave in on me.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: rogerzilla on October 11, 2009, 07:56:31 am
I haven't seen C posting for a while, but that's probably because it's hard to use a netbook when you're slowly crawling up Zoidburg's garden with a blacked-out face and a Bowie knife in your teeth.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Andrew Br on October 11, 2009, 06:26:15 pm
And when Zoidburg suddenly stops posting.............

Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: clarion on October 11, 2009, 10:15:10 pm
48/34/24.

Have I misunderstood?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: GruB on November 07, 2009, 11:08:59 am
I am now the proud owner of a Lumicycle LED4 system lamp.  This fits straight into my existing battery connection.  It is just a case of removing my Halide 2004 from my bars and putting on the new head unit.
The only other problem is I have to wait quite a few hours before I can go out and play in the dark  ;D
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: pdm on November 07, 2009, 11:36:10 am
Only if someone has an E3 Triple  8)

I have an E3 Triple that can be used for an upcoming test.....

I will be doing a review of it soon..

Bottom line:
* Same beam pattern as Solidlights but a goodly twice as bright.
* Low speed performance not quite as good as B&M IQ Cyo.
* Antisocial to motons - lots of dazzle factor and with it, I get many motons not dipping or flashing or going to high beam.
* For commuting, I prefer the IQ Cyo - better beam pattern, fewer moton high beams, amount of light where it matters is about the same.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: matthew on January 19, 2011, 03:42:49 pm
Right, so I have ordered a new bike and need to decide how I am going run lights.
note this bike is intended for fast day rides and FNRttCs.

Option 1) fit 25 mm tyre to existing SON wheel and swap back and forward between bikes. Fit Cyo to new bike. have loose cables when non dyno wheel is fitted, i.e. SON wheel is in the commuter.

Option 2) fit battery lights for the days when I expect to be riding into the dark.

Are we considering updating these tests for the current generation of lights?
What are the current range of battery lights like?
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: TimO on January 19, 2011, 04:29:36 pm
There was also some mutterings about a rear light test starting around here (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=25428.msg772906#msg772906), but that's gone a bit quiet now.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on January 19, 2011, 04:54:55 pm
I've got the test rig ready, just need place and time for a test run with light meter and camera tripod, followed by the actual test of all the lights. No doubt I need to fiddle with the test rig once we've tried to actually measure, photograph and compare lights, so just a little test to start with.
Title: Re: Light testing - the results
Post by: Adam on January 19, 2011, 07:12:04 pm
Right, so I have ordered a new bike and need to decide how I am going run lights.
note this bike is intended for fast day rides and FNRttCs.

Option 1) fit 25 mm tyre to existing SON wheel and swap back and forward between bikes. Fit Cyo to new bike. have loose cables when non dyno wheel is fitted, i.e. SON wheel is in the commuter.

Option 2) fit battery lights for the days when I expect to be riding into the dark.

Are we considering updating these tests for the current generation of lights?
What are the current range of battery lights like?


Would you normally have a 25 mm tyre on your commuter?

I'd be included to leave the SON on the commuter most of the time and just use something like Hope 1 on your new bike (what you getting) for the occasions when you might get caught out late on it.

If you don't mind the hassle, then once a month swap the SON to use on the new bike on a FNRttC.

And/or do what I've started doing, and have a Cyo and 2 x Hope's for the FNRttC. 

Mega bright beams of light.   8)