Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
41 - 60 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
Take a look at the lenses sold at Flashlightlens.com with emphasis on the Acrylite® FF P-99 lens. I've not used these myself but the seller recommends these over the other flood lens they sell. ( the other is a denser lens that kills the throw according to the seller ).
Thanks for that link Cat! I've not dealt with Flashlightlens.com myself, but others over at BudgetLightForum have. I've even heard that the owner will custom make sizes for you (at least for certain lens types). I might have to try a couple of these. I do see though that they have a warning about not being very scratch resistant.

patski - no, I've never seen that, nor have I ever heard of using the colored LEDs for night vision.

-Garry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,453 Posts
.... nor have I ever heard of using the colored LEDs for night vision.

-Garry
A little OT but my take on this; It's not all about the rods and cone thing but also has to do with the pupil. More light, even at the 530nm frequency is going to get a reaction from the pupil. Too much light and the pupil will constrict and limit the amount of light entering the eye.

The eye's ability to use low light is very much effected by intensity as well as the frequency of the light being used. That said the rod and cone interplay looks to be designed for low level light. Yes you can see more if using the right frequency of light but you still have to limit the output ( lumen level ) or your pupil will start to constrict. At just what point this happens I couldn't say.

This said, green light is not natural light. Certain objects will not reflect the green light in the same way as natural ( wider spectrum ) light. Whatever the eye sees the brain has to interpret and the brain is used to dealing with wider spectrum light. Not saying it won't work but undoubtedly there would be a learning curve in dealing with the "dead spots" not reflected by the narrower spectrum light. I figure it this way, the human low level visual ability was more designed for walking speeds. Not sure I would want to use something like a green LED lamp for full time mountain biking.
 

·
Just Ride !
Joined
·
842 Posts
Looks like you're looking for a floody bar lamp. Let me see if I can save you some time since judging from your last couple posts you might be going about this the wrong way.

You mentioned having a MS 816 or clone thereof; That lamp is more geared toward bar usage. The SSX2 you have ordered is better used as a helmet lamp since the reflectors throw most of the light forward. Not that you can't use it as a bar lamp, I'm just saying there are better lamps for more side spill and the MMouse type lamps usually do better than others at doing that or so I have been told.

For flood I would be thinking either a Duo/clone or any other of the multiple emitter ( XM-L(2) ) lamps. More emitters ( generally ) mean more available light so when you start to spread the beam pattern out there isn't as much a loss in throw or over all intensity. The original tri-clones ( round, cheap tri-xml lamp ) did a pretty good job at providing a good beam pattern coming off the bars. The Duo/clone lamps use optics and that should make them easier to replace to provide the wider beam pattern you desire.

Yes, you can use diffuser lenses to widen the beam pattern with the reflector based lamps. Rather than buy the bigger MS type flood lenses and trying to cut them ( which would likely not work so well ), I suggest buying the lens already made to size that might spread the beam out a bit more. Take a look at the lenses sold at Flashlightlens.com with emphasis on the Acrylite® FF P-99 lens. I've not used these myself but the seller recommends these over the other flood lens they sell. ( the other is a denser lens that kills the throw according to the seller ). Anyway, I have a couple lamps I thought I might try these on myself. I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Going forward, if you have a lamp that can provide a 10 ft. wide beam at 10 ft. from the bars you have all the beam width you need. If you try to spread the beam out too much it will ultimately diminish the usefulness of the lamp ( IMO ). Good luck with your search for a better set-up.
I do believe that the 816 clone will pass the 10ft / 10ft test , I'll try that on the bars and the SS on helmet .. I might pick up one or two 872 clones with a Y adaptor and experiment with that .. Once I find the bar light or lights that I want then I will get the real vertion of that most likely..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
So does anyone prefer using two wide angle lens over one? It's a PITA trying to screw on the lens cap and keep both lens at 90 degrees from each other. Initial tests in a darkened room makes me think one lens would be better but it could be a different story once on the trail and on the trail is the last place I want to fiddle with lenses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
Now I'm thinking about cobbling it on the stem, the light's head resting on the front part of the stem and elevate the rear with some padding and velcro it all down. It needs more support along the light's length than just the single point that it's resting on the bar. Hoping to test it out sometimes this week.
You could just get a Hope bar clamp. Cheap and much better than those rubber bands without the need to modify anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
That may be an option but I'm wondering how well it'll keep the longish flashlight from shaking and getting jittery.

The light is relatively heavier (a big chunk of copper behind the led) for heat dissipation and of course the entire body is alum. Prob not ideal for a single point of contact mount.

yes, those rubber bands are pretty much useless for a long flashlight. But more than suffice for the typical bike light head only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
That may be an option but I'm wondering how well it'll keep the longish flashlight from shaking and getting jittery.

The light is relatively heavier (a big chunk of copper behind the led) for heat dissipation and of course the entire body is alum. Prob not ideal for a single point of contact mount.

The Hope clamp is more for the magicshine style lights, for flashlights I think stupidbright.com has something for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
the Fenix mount on stupidbright looks promising, the 360* rotation is nice.

Just looked at reviews and they're not too favorable both the older version and current, due to rattling issues and that's on road bikes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
So while DC Fix Sand is def a great diffuser, it seems to diffuse differently at different brightness levels. I suppose that's probably expected but I wasn't expecting it... :)
I just sampled a few of these threads, it seems unanimous that the effect outdoors is much better than wall/floor tests.

Pls let us know your "real world" test results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
yea, floor test is just to see what the changes are but when I took the lights to the backyard at night and compared the beams, the diffused beam looked great and it's not easy to discern the edges of the beam, it's pretty smooth.

But that pic of the two lights against the wall is telling; the DC Fix Sand really does spill 180* as it did for my light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
I tested using my two identical lights each making 800+ lumens, one with clear lens the other with DC Fix Sand.

Clear lens lit up my neighbor's tree 30 yards away, less bright but visible tree 50 yards away.

At 30 yards, DC Fix light is about same brightness as clear lens at 50 yards. At best.

Throw is very much affected, the loss of throw light went to spill instead. Throw is easily halved.

I know, not very scientific. Now back to my IPA...:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
Ok, but it sounds like a good balance, especially if you are running two lights or a dual/triple where you leave one clear for throw.

-Garry
 

·
Action LED Lights
Joined
·
639 Posts
Hey guys I have a Magicshine on the bars with the wide angle lens and I gotta tell you that it is not all that. Produces a very thin (like 1-2ft) and wide beam, but at a greatly reduced overall brightest. The lens is plastic rather than glass and I think that is most of the reason why you get less lumens. If you're not happy with the Magicshine by itself for bars, I would consider another light that is reportedly more floody. Looking for one myself, to complement a zebralight helmet mount. In the meantime, I'll run my Magicshine without the lens. May experiment with a diffuser, which could even be 3M Magic tape.
Our wide angle lens doesn't lose any light. Optical grade Polycarbonate is as clear as glass. But because the beam is spread out over 3 times the area, the intensity (or throw) is 1/3rd as bright. If the beam pattern spread was circular, rather than the one axis spread of our lens, the intensity would be reduced even farther to approximately 1/8th.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
For what it's worth, here is a very quick beamshot of a typical MagicShine 808E clone on high with the wide angle lens installed:



Not an exact comparison, but here is a shot with the original SMO reflector:



I do plan to do some testing with this lens and some other diffusing techniques (including DC FIX) which will include beamshots and measurements with a LUX meter to measure differences of light output.

-Garry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
+1 on Jim's wide angle lens, works great.

Our wide angle lens doesn't lose any light. Optical grade Polycarbonate is as clear as glass. But because the beam is spread out over 3 times the area, the intensity (or throw) is 1/3rd as bright. If the beam pattern spread was circular, rather than the one axis spread of our lens, the intensity would be reduced even farther to approximately 1/8th.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
I managed to get "part 1" of my testing done last night (different diffusion techniques with measurements for light loss) and the Action LED wide angle lens (talking about the MS 808E sized one) came out with the least amount of light loss, in fact hardly any light loss at all. I agree with Jim above, if you think there appears to be loss it's really just the fact that the light is more spread out. The light is putting out darn near the same amount of lumens, it's just changing where those lumens are going. Stay tuned for a future thread of my completed tests. (Still have to find time to do "part 2" before I post.)

-Garry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
took this last night, with DC Fix Sand diffuser installed. Unfor I did not bother to take a pic of it from the last time w/out the diffuser, beam was too narrow with no spill. DC Fix seems to work well, supposedly 97% transmission. I plan to try adding "Orange Peel" to the reflector, combined w/ DCFix, to see what it does.

Phone pic so it doesn't show it well but it had decent light under the front tire as the dispersion is really 180*. There was plenty of light on the sides in the near distance. Need to try the trails w/ switchbacks.
 

Attachments

41 - 60 of 63 Posts
Top