tjkoko

...of the North American market. Read here. Why as it seems to be a well designed battery powered light?

JohnJ80

Because there are more well designed lights that are better and cheaper?

J.

tjkoko

But it seems that they're based in Michigan, here. MTN bike review claims that their beam is well designed and properly focused; and, that the unit runs on rechargeable AA's (I think).

no1mad 

Maybe we ought to start a poll on the pull out?

Here's my choices:

-Price. Too costly for the casual cyclist or those who rarely ride at night
-Weight/form factor
-Lack of a strobe- We 'mericans tend to like our gear as multifunctional as possible
-Run time
-Batteries are older tech.

The biggest reason is probably the lumen to dollar ratio. A bunch of people don't take the optics into account (or plain don't care) and it's hard to justify spending $200 on a 450 lumen light when a more powerful bike specific light can be had cheaper (Cygolight, NR, others) and then the MagicShines and their clones offer more power, longer run time, not to mention the plethora of cheap tactical flashlights that offer more power for a fraction of the cost.

no1mad 

That website is just for the North American market. Philips is actually based in EU (Germany, I believe). And it does run on 4xAA NiMH cells that are charged in place- no need to remove the cells unless they are dead.

You should check out some of the online shops based in the U.K. and you'll see a bunch of different SafeRide models- colors, output, there is even a tail light.

tjkoko

I use both my Magllite converted over to "140" lumens with the new LCD bulb and also a Coleman 140 Lumen flashlight. Both appear to be a real disappointment compared to the SafeRide along with the latter's luminosity.

tjkoko

I really liked the design of the light since it uses rechargeable AA batteries instead of a proprietary ones.

zacster

I've been reading up lately on the various forms of light, and I'd say that the price to lumens is the reason. We can ride with whatever we want here, and more lumens = more light. That doesn't mean it is always useful light. The German/European laws that these are designed for limit what can be done, although I don't know if the battery light conforms as the law wants dynamo lights, meaning no failure on the road.

Burton

In Germany the StVZO (the Road Traffic Licensing Regulations), require all bicycles over 11kg (23.2lbs) to have dynamo powered lighting. Which leaves battery powered lights as an option for road bikes. I kinda liked this Phillips model because it would cover both bases. It got better reviews than the dyno specific model and the batteries could be recharged in place via a dyno and adaptor.

Story of my life - most really neat things get discontinued because the average person doesn't think they're worth paying for.

JohnJ80

I think we write this off to market forces and be glad that there are many alternatives.

As for a definitive answer, who cares? If you really want to know, call Phillips and ask them. It was their decision.

J.

unterhausen

I'm sure U.S. consumers can get one from a German online retailer. It never really had the availability required to make a dent in the U.S. market. I suspect the more lumens = better crowd are not really interested in a light like this even though it's probably more useful for road use than a lot of the symmetric beams that people end up with instead. And those of us that know about shaped beams seem to pretty much use dynos

Black Jaque

Can you name some? The Ixon IQ is cheaper but it has plastic casing and according to Peter White is 1/2 the lux - so I would expect to pay more for more light and metal casing.

Burton

Yeah - please enlighten us . Every review on that light was extremely positive.

JohnJ80

Please note the question mark. I was posing the question not arguing that there was a better light. Although looking at the Taz lights from Light and Motion might be an interesting comparison. They don't make a big deal out of beam shaping, but that's what they do with those lights.

Otherwise, ask Phillips, maybe they will tell you why they pulled them from the market. Anything else is speculation but it's likely got something to do with sales not meeting expectations and that generally means somebody else did a better job satisfying the market in some fashion.

J.

01 CAt Man Do

I think the Phillips SafeRide while innovating in design only appealed to people who want to adhere to the more European mindset of what makes a good road bike light. While I was impressed by the initial review and beam shot I saw over on MTBR, later I began to see more "user" beam shots and the results were *not always as impressive ( * or more mixed, some good some not so good ) This left me with mixed feelings because I really didn't know how well the lamp was going to perform.

Hard to justify a $200 expenditure when your buddy buys a $40 light on e-bay that blows your SafeRide away and has 30% more run time to boot. I guess that means innovation only has so much monetary value ...
( depending of course on your point of view ). Perhaps they had an overwhelming amount of returns, who can say?

Then again, perhaps they pulled the stock because they want to market a better version. (?)

cyccommute 

That's what it usually comes down to, isn't it? Even if some lights have warts...some of us don't think they have warts at all...it pretty easy to live with those warts if the price is right. If, like me, you run multiple lights, it's hard to justify the cost of say $600 when $120 to $200 will do the same job.

If you also actually observe your lights, assess their real brightness, and look at the road position of bicycles, the need for highly shaped beams is dubious at best. Perhaps they have some utility on bike paths but you can avoid any conflicts there by staying off bike paths at night. It's not all that hard to do in my area because bike paths are often closed after sundown anyway.

pdlamb

Quick answer: buy two NOW! One to use, one to replace it with or put on N+1.

Though I've adopted a "smile and move on" philosophy when I see the "How do I make this cheap light work?" post. I've spent the money for a package that lights what I want lighted for the duration I need it lit, and I don't regret it.

cyccommute 

I can't really say that I've seen too many "How do I make this cheap light work?" posts. Even the batteries of expensive lights have problems and can fail...and problems with lights are more often related to the battery than the lamp. If LED technology was mature and not in a growth phase, it might be worth spending more on lamps. But when the NiteRider MiNewt that you paid $200 for 3 or 4 years ago is way under performing the $40 Magicshine knockoff today, it's kind of hard to justify that kind of cost. On the other hand, if the $40 knockoffs are way out performing a $40 Planet Bike Blaze, it's hard not to choose the $40 knockoff.

I, too, have lights that give me bright light for the duration that I need them and I don't regret spending ~$120 to get 3 of them.

Burton

Yeah - the MTBR beam thing is what leaves me with a lot of questions - about just about every light they review. Reality is pretty different that what those beam shots lead you to believe. I'll be posting some examples in the Lupine Betty thread.

pdlamb

I guess we differ in that I think Enough is available now. I've got lights that are bright enough for me to see, and to be seen, with mounts that hold them securely, optics that light the road more than the trees, and I don't need no steenking batteries (dyno hub).

How long do you expect to keep your $120 of lights? Will you replace them next year, or two years from now, as LED technology develops? I see my lights as a capital investment, but many people expect them to last like a one-time capital investment, then find they're more of an annual, bi- or tri-annual, expense instead.

unterhausen

I expect that LED tech will continue to improve at a fairly rapid pace, so I also expect to keep buying lights. I will admit that I was a little surprised when I heard about the B&M Luxos since it does seem to be a big improvement over other dyno lights. It does seem to use a battery for the high beam.

The lights I have now are pretty good though, and dyno lights are pretty robust so I expect to keep them around for a long time.

Commodus

I don't understand why lights would require regular updates. If they are good enough to see now, it ain't going to get darker a year from now.

MileHighMark

I really like the SafeRide (80). If the B&M Luxos is comparable, I'll ditch the SafeRide, but until I know for sure, I'll stay with the Philips.

cyccommute 

At $40 per unit, I'm not really concerned about the longevity of the lamps. I expect them to last for a few years but I also expect that the replacements will be better as were the Magicshines that replaced the LED flashlights that replaced some of the first generation LEDs that were really dreadful.

But that's not unlike the trajectory of other lights I've owned. I started with a 6 V lantern that I strapped to a front rack. I dabbled in dynamo lights for a short while...didn't like them. Then moved on to halogen bulbs and overvolted Cateye HL500 lamps that I did the TurboCat conversion to. I burned through a lot of bulbs. I then went on to NiteRiders and overvolted MR11s and on to overvolted MR16's. The MR11 and MR16 are incredibly intense but also heavy and energy hogs. Their saving grace is that they are cheap. But not as cheap as the Magicshines and the new crop of lights from China.

I will also never ride with a single light. I prefer 3 for coverage and redundancy. That adds up if the lights are in the $200 range and get out of date quickly.

Burton

Completely agree with you. This level of lighting is currently available from a twin head /20W LED light for $250 and is already more than most people need, and has been on the market for over five years.

But some people like to trade their car in every year too - just because.

The fact is - most camera equipment isn't bought by professional photographers - its bought by average consumers. And X-Boxes currently have more processing power than NASA needed to put the first man on the moon. Consumers buy for recreational use and so when they talk about how much they 'need' - it usually only means how much they're willing to pay for. Some people drive with no lights at all simply because thats all they're willing to pay for.