Originally Posted by
mx_599
the other question I had is, isn't the "reflective" cone design very important to perceived brightness with light designs as well?
So I was wondering if there is a point of diminishing return with the small size factor before the light shed becomes not so good?
I was wondering if that had a lot to do with the overall dimensions as well?
Yeah man totally! I could build a triple XP-G setup with 3 separate reflectors and 3 separate lenses that would be more efficient. It would end up being about 2" in diameter though. It could turn out to be a bit too spotty too. The reflector seems to harness and shape the beam much better. The triple Carclo optics have been out for a while now though... they've become quite efficient. For a "micro light" which was what I was shooting for...they are great.
I will probably try to do a triple/quad version with reflectors at some point that are all in a row instead of a circular pattern. This would counter the spotty characteristics of the reflector. Still kinda kills the "small factor" benefits.
Example: A single XP-G "optic" versus reflector:
Carclo Heidi "optics":
Reflector (Ledil regina)
The Heidi optics are basically all flood. The Regina reflector is basically spot with some side spill. Kind of sweet spot right now is a helmet mount XP-E with a bar mount XP-G. The E is a smaller die which gives a tighter beam...the G will be floodier.
triple XP-G (bars)
XP-E (helmet)
Obviously the smaller die gives a nice spot pattern with the micro 20mm optics...but it's a little too tight for shredding singletrack by itself. Mixed with the floodier XPG gives a killer combo. Here's a dual/triple that has one of each:
Originally Posted by
bikingsoul
You do fantastick work. But, I dont think lights are enough of a challenge for you. You should start making video cameras..........
Hahahaha...I have a plan for a pocket knife with a built-in bicycle at some point.