Rekmeyata: Glad to help. That's what forums are for.

Tor

Touche, sir.

I would like run across somebody running those expensive lights too. I would like to see how my pair of 26650s flashlights that I use stack up against the way more expensive lights. My setup is under $60, that is two lights, cells, and mounts.

Interesting you noted that, because I have yet to run into anyone, either people I knew or people I saw on the street with lights, with lights exceeding even what I have! Now it could be if I did single track riding at night I may run into that kind of lighting, but on the street...NONE. In fact, from my estimates, which obviously are not scientifically done of course, I would venture a guess at about 98% of the riders that I've seen have far dimmer lights then what I use, most are simple and cheap to be seen lights. Do I recommend people here to do that just because most do? No. I think there is an element of safety that goes beyond those just to be seen lights that a person can obtain today without having to spend $400 to get it. For around $200 you can get name brand lighting like two Cygolite ExpiliOn 600's, one for the bar and one for the helmet, or one Phillips Saferide. And you can always start out with one light and add another later when more money arises to do that. I know with the just the Phillips Saferide (or the less expensive ExpiliOn 600) on I could easily ride at 40 to 45 mph and never out ride the light...obviously I do not cruise at those speeds, the point is for a 19 to 20mph average that I do maintain I'm way below out running the light.

The Lupine Betty 12 is currently leading the bicycle lighting race in lunen output, but I'm not personally convinced that makes it an effective light. Personally I have no interest in lighting up branches 30 feet over my head and would really like a longer run time and broader beam - not just the brightest lght on the block.

We have the technology.

I remember just 18 years ago people bragging about having a "real bicycle light"...21 watt halogen was real close to 200 lumens today and 21 watts was a "real bicycle light" back then! No matter what anyone says, for the street 2600 lumens is just plain nuts. It's kind of like living next door to Tim the Tool Man Taylor when he puts out his Christmas tree lights...do you need that kind of Christmas light show? Nope, but it's cool to brag about it.

A while back I posted some specifics comparing the coverage and power requirements of a 15 degree beam
to a 45 degree beam. The long and short of it was that it would take about 9 - 300 lumen lights with a 15 degree spread to illuminate the same area with the same intensity as one 2,600 lumen light with a 45 degree spread. I think we're so used to narrow beams that the power requirements for anything else has been forgotten. LEDs are being marketed to the automotive industry, but an automobile headlight typically has a 90 degree spread and as a consequence, the power requirements for LED headlights aren't all that different from the halogen units they're replacing. But they do provide more light.

Actually, 2,600 lumens spread over a much larger area isn't all that bright. But personally I do find lighting a larger area provides a greater measure of safety. I wouldn't want to drive a car with only 15 degree beams for much the same reason.

That is correct, a lot of bicycle lights have a narrow cone of light, but in that process they light up tree tops that don't need to be lit up for us to ride with, which is what cars do, their lights are aimed low and wide instead of high and narrow like most bike lights, which is why the Phillips Saferide looks brighter and wider than most of the lights compared at MTBR backyard beam shootout even though it "only" has 400 lumens is because they aimed the beam similar to a car headlight. Other bike light companies need to focus on getting the beam aimed where we need it-on the road, and not at showing off lumen numbers, I could care less if I can see an owl sitting on top of a tree!