as for the pricing, yes its competative, but i doubt the quality of the electronics and the battery, i for one would not be to happy to have a battery explode in my rucksack, does it have any heat blow fuses?
I build my own lights, i could build a copy for around £150, but i also know the quality of the stuff that goes in it and unless they are redesigning and remaking the PCBS that come out of china i would never sell it, they are rubbish.
I'd talk to smudge on mtbr before commenting on battery & pcb quality.
The driver in the 3x XR-E light is a Taskled bFlex, the MC-E light uses Taskled Maxflex, no crap there.
The light head is heavier than other manufacturers, but more surface area can only help cooling. Steve CNC's his own, here in the UK.
I don't know Steve personally, having only corresponded with him on mtbr. I have followed the threads on this light with interest. I don't (yet) own one of his lights, but I may well buy a casing because I don't really have sufficient skills to adapt torches or make a decent case on my own.
I'm not attempting to pitch this light, I'm drawing attention to it as I think it represents good value, especially the triple MC-E, which should be genuinely capable of pumping out 1500 real lumens for half the price of a Betty (that will be the new Betty with R4/R5 XP-G's when Lupine release it).
If I may defend my lights, Serge. Have you got one of my lights? If not, how can you make random remarks about the quality of the electronics and batteries?
As Al says, the electronics used are TaskLed, the batteries are built in the UK with protective circuit, the switches are IP67 rated high quality, the LED's and optics are not cheap ones like some found on some 'Hobby' websites..
The main reason the prices are as competetive as they are is that I'm not trying to make a fortune doing this. I'd rather make a small profit and sell more than make a huge profit and sell a few. It's a hobby that has been turned into a small business.
Please feel free to make remarks if you actually have experience with the product but please don't slate something because 'it seems a bit cheap'.
How about giving 'benefit of doubt'?....................................like I did with that bloody SSC bottom bracket that I had for a couple of weeks. You can't say sommats crap until you prove it's crap - FACT!!
OK maybe i was a bit quick, it was more based on the picture i had seen on bike radar that looked, well a bit shonkey.
OK so lets look at these lights from the info on the website and my own knowledge.
firstly the LEDS, well i prefere seoul series leds, P4 and P7 man myself but using MC-E leds then these are quality LEDS and not some cheap copies, Optics, well i will believe steve when he says he is sourcing quality optics, mostly because i know there are some really good custom optics for these LEDS around and they do not cost the earth.
TASK LEDS drivers etc, well done!! I am almost amazed that you have managed to get a supply of them, these are the best commercially available units that i have found, Have seen some units for custom applications that will be manufactured by some of the large elctronic supply companies but these are really overkill and very expensive, the TASK LED ones are really the only ones to use, very surprised you are using them as to be honest, they are not cheap compared to the rubbish that will do the same job. but the quality is so much better.
Batterys well, hopefully its a good one, but get a bag or something for it, it looks like a load of cells in some heat shrink, I know it is a load of cells in some heat shrink but get some neopreane or something on it. looks really cheap and wouldn`t like to crash with those under the bars. i personally use lithium polymers but they are a pain and need quite a lot of TLC.
So in conclusion, good effort, good value lights with room for improvement. I am hugely critical of almost all lights, they really have to be good to get me to say yes they are worth the money, these are worth the money compred to similar spec lights on the market. I could surgest some ways of improvement, which i am sure will be coming anyway in later lights.
oh and as for me, been night riding for the last 8 years, build my own lights, work as a laser and optics technician and worked in LED and lasers research, also quite into electronics so can really understand what these lighst are doing and the work involved.
Steve if youy want to chat more then happy, eith PM or on here.
Now I know a bit of your history, I can kind of understand your comments. The one tested in WMTB was my original model which has changed a bit.
There are now battery casings to go with the battery which is mounted in an all-in-one mount that also holds the light unit. I did see a problem with the battery as it was and the casing is a great improvement. I do also do a bottle mounted battery for longer runtimes.
The TaskLed stuff is a bit more expensive, but it's the tuneability and quality of them that makes it worth while.
As I said earlier, this is a business that has come from a hobby but there are already new models in the pipeline using the latest Cree XPG LED's, nearly 400 lumens each with much improved efficiency.
Just about all the light mfrs that supply batteries separate from the light unit are Li-ions in shrink wrap, which is then, I grant you, put in some sort of nylon or neoprene bag.
The optics are good ones. I understand Steve is already looking at mods to allow XP-G LED's and optics.
Sadly, I don't think it would be possible to run P7's in this light at close to their design current as they are only available parallel. If Steve had been able to incorporate space for the HipFlex driver, you could. Maybe on another run in the future.
Personally, I think MC-E's are a bit better, as they are available wired in parallel, series or individually addressable. From looking around, MC-E's can be obtained in a greater variety of tints than P7's. Not all of us want the white/bluish tints that P7's are easily available in.
In general, Cree's output claims look more credible than Seoul's, which is maybe why the majority of the quality torch mfr's use Cree.
Seoul's advantage seems to be that P4 and P7's are also binned by Vf, good if you want to run LED voltage very close to battery voltage. They also got the P7 to market earlier, which gave them a head start, especially with the DX/Kai torches.
disagree, the reason why most people use cree MC-Es is that they are run at 750mAs, whilst the P4 is 1 amp and the P7s 2.8Amps. once you come out of the 750ma range of drivers the choice is much less. there are loads of control chips etc that are rated to max 1 amp, so are perfect to be incorparated into the drivers. finding components to go to 1.5 and 3 amps for the other drivers put the price up. you also need to look at the battery and driving the leds. most batterys are happy to suppl the 750ma demand, but the higher power ones and you need to start to look at Buck supplying and converting the variable input power as the battery drains whilst constant current driving the LED.
Anyway the p4 singular i used did give out the lumen count, 250 or something, forgotten now, but once you put three in prrallel the driver was only ably to supply 700mAs to the LEDS, would have needed a 1.5mA driver to get all three seeing a 1amp. so output did drop to around 180 lumens per led.
the whole lumens quote is normally, one led gives 250, so three must be 750. and unless you redo the eletronics you normally fall short, which is what is happening alot.
just playing around with a P7 seems giving out 860 lumens, so loosing some in the optics coupling etc i expect to get around 840 ~ out the bright side.
P7 in parallel, 0.7A x 4 gives 2.8A at 3.7v, approx 10watts
MC-E in parallel, 0.7A x 4 = 2.8A @3.7v, the same
MC-E individually adressable - you can choose! So you could wire 2S2P
MC-E in series 0.7 A @ 12.5 -14v, 9-10watts dependant upon Vf, for which they aren't binned
You could run them at 14v, 1A but they'd need to be well heatsinked. Would you want to run a P7 at 4amps to achieve the same? I doubt it. I prefer the ability to run higher voltages, lower amps, for as you say, more drivers are available.
To run multiple P7's you would need have to have a driver for each or use the HipFlex. My conclusion? The MC-E is more flexible.
P4, XR-E & XP-G, all max rated at 1A. All things said and done, its probably better to run an equivalent number of individual LED's rather than the multi-dies.
Unless the P7 has different dies to the P4's, it is essentially four P4's together, run at a lower current as the heat buildup created in a small area probably prevented them being run at 1A each. Same applies to MC-E.
does look good for lights in general all this LED development.
I just really like the small package/light output. not really worried so much by efficency as i would run a larger battery but have a more atsethically pleasing light module.
I am planning on using a Hip CC with a d2 flex.
i almost agree on individual leds, but i like the twin spot where two lights can be pivoted indidually. although for myown p4 lights i did the same as steve, used 3 x p4s in a triangular arangement and a spot x 2 flood optics to give a nice throw of light. really need to make a head lamp unit though, out last night solo and without one its really hard on twisting singletrack to keep the speed when you are tuning into shadow.
