Ayup Lights

ddraver

and in layman speak that means...?

supersonic

It means they are hiding what the LED they are using is ;-) Kinda like saying a bike has a Shimano rear mech.. but which one?

diy

it means you paid 33p per Lumen when you could have paid 3p

Corrected...

LED type - 6 year old CREE XLamp LED, which we bought bulk and haven't used up yet.

mac_man

diy wrote:

it means you paid 33p per Lumen when you could have paid 3p

Corrected...

LED type - 6 year old CREE XLamp LED, which we bought bulk and haven't used up yet.

ddraver

You ve not answered the question, you ve just made oh so hilarious geek jokes - in terms of the lights on my bars - what does that mean?

supersonic

It means they are using old tech - if they updated to the latest LEDs, like many are doing, you could expect a third more output for the same runtime. Of course if you already have the lamp, and it works for you, why change it. But if buying new I expect more for the money, regardless of build quality. Simply put you can get an xml t6 equipped lamp for 28 quid with battery pack. A tenth the cost, yet this single LED will output as much as both the double Ayup units. This is why people are moving away from the bigger brands, just cost too much nowadays.

Eranu

And no offence, this gives a wee insight into why mediocre products get great reviews, people are undemanding.

None taken. I wouldn't say I'm undemanding though, mine are 3+ years old and I know there are better lights out there. However if I was in the market now AYUP would still be on my list, as they offer good support, long runtimes and a solid reliable product and as you say lumens aren't everything.

If you look at bikes people still buy spesh/orange when there are clearly better options out there like Canyon or whatever, its all down to personal choice where you want to spend your £'s, rightly or wrongly.

diy

ddraver wrote:

You ve not answered the question, you ve just made oh so hilarious geek jokes - in terms of the lights on my bars - what does that mean?

There is an argument that the design of the AYUP makes its poor performance an acceptable trade of as a lid mounted light, when weight is important. Not so on the bars where having the cells in the unit or on the frame makes little difference.

The two lights in my avatar produce 500 Lumen each - running XM-L LEDs at 1.7A. They cost 11 quid each, each light is producing more than twice the output of the AYUP head unit. Importantly it does it at only slightly more current.

I can switch them down quite happily to 150 Lumen or 300 Lumen and will get increased run time as a result.

With lights costing 11 quid, producing twice the output for the same power its hard to justify the 250 price tag. Yes I need a mount cells and charger, but all that can be bought for 15 quid.

Northwind

supersonic wrote:

A tenth the cost, yet this single LED will output as much as both the double Ayup units

Or, just as importantly, can be run lower and produce the same amount of light, but last longer.

(well OK, in theory anyway, in practice lots of lights have really badly thought out alt modes that give you a range of options like "mentally bright- not bright enough- epileptic fit- SOS message after you recover from your epileptic fit")

Dick Scruttock

TBH I love my AYUP's. Great customer service from them as well which means a lot to me.

apreading

I dont get this about great customer service - if you have used their customer service then presumably that means there is a reliability issue - if not then why would you be contacting them? On the otherhand are we just assuming that customer service is great but havent actually put it to the test?

All we seem to get is sweeping statements that their customer service is great.

What customer service have you actually received?

Eranu

Why do you care?

apreading

Eranu wrote:

Why do you care?

Because I am trying to understand if there is actually anything in it, or whether it is just rhetoric based on a pre-conception that they are a big brand so customer service is great.

I havent bought a Magicshine yet, but am very close to it, so I want to know if the claims made are true - I am not convinced that they will be much, if any better than buying a magicshine from a UK supplier.

Eranu

I've not had much interaction with them other than when I lost one of the mounts, they sorted it out for me quickly, i recal lit was witin 5 days. That was when they had a UK operation tho.

Northwind

apreading wrote:

I dont get this about great customer service - if you have used their customer service then presumably that means there is a reliability issue - if not then why would you be contacting them?

Anything can fail though, you can't expect perfection even from the best products. And with lights it quite often comes up when you whack them off a tree.

I do agree with the sentiment though... Everyone knows Hope have good warranty service, but only because they have so many warranty claims and people end up viewing it as a positive thing that their hub broke in half

jmillen

Customer service..

I had an issue with a battery cable which was 3 years old (minor split from continually carrying it in my pocket whilst riding. It was out warranty so I emailed customer services. I got a response within 12 hours offering a discount on replacement batteries (which was not asked for in my original email).

Also myself and a colleague have had questions regarding their upgrade service. Both of our emails were answered within 12 hours, with a comprehensive answer.

In comparison, I emailed wiggle with a problem the other day and the person at the other end had clearly not read my email and got back to me with a "standard" reply which was in no way relevant to what I was asking.

I'm sure other companies offer a similar level of service, but I can only comment on what I've experienced with Ay Up and that has been all positive

ddraver

Did you go for an upgrade - was it worth it?

jmillen

I'm yet to go out on a "proper" night ride so can't really comment yet but from playing around in the back garden, there seems to be (as you'd hope) a noticeable difference.

I'll check back in once I've put them to the test properly

diy

apreading wrote:

I havent bought a Magicshine yet, but am very close to it

A clone of a lupine Telsa 5 (and others) at 1/5th the price. But today you can get clones of a clone for 30 quid, which makes even the magicshine look expensive.

apreading

diy wrote:

apreading wrote:

I havent bought a Magicshine yet, but am very close to it

A clone of a lupine Telsa 5 (and others) at 1/5th the price. But today you can get clones of a clone for 30 quid, which makes even the magicshine look expensive.

When I said Magicshine, I meant clone...

ai_1

diy wrote:

apreading wrote:

I havent bought a Magicshine yet, but am very close to it

A clone of a lupine Telsa 5 (and others) at 1/5th the price. But today you can get clones of a clone for 30 quid, which makes even the magicshine look expensive.

For example? I'm having a look around at the moment. A name or link would be useful if you've got one handy.

apreading

Ai_1 wrote:

diy wrote:

A clone of a lupine Telsa 5 (and others) at 1/5th the price. But today you can get clones of a clone for 30 quid, which makes even the magicshine look expensive.

For example? I'm having a look around at the moment. A name or link would be useful if you've got one handy.

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/t6-waterproof-xml-t6-3-mode-1200-lumen-white-led-bike-light-with-battery-pack-set-82510

milfredo

apreading wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

diy wrote:

A clone of a lupine Telsa 5 (and others) at 1/5th the price. But today you can get clones of a clone for 30 quid, which makes even the magicshine look expensive.

For example? I'm having a look around at the moment. A name or link would be useful if you've got one handy.

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/t6-waterproof-xml-t6-3-mode-1200-lumen-white-led-bike-light-with-battery-pack-set-82510

First review imediately would make me steer clear

"Cons:
Lamp unit needed some protection to make the cable inlet waterproof. Battery pack is pure DIY kit if you want to make it waterproof at all. end caps are paper and 4x 18650 are just shrinkwrapped together. Lamp itself has hardly any flood and light beam is exremely narrow for bicycle use"

supersonic

Not sure why you have dug this thread up lol, but I have one of these, and for the money is spot on, had none of those 'problems' and has been out in the driving rain. And even if wasn't sealed well, is a 2 min job that costs 50p.

ai_1

I was looking at lights like the Magicshine, etc back when this thread was alive but ideally wanted something with a properly shaped beam. I ended up getting a Philips Saferide 80 lux. It's a great light. Not particullarly sexy but it gives you a well controlled beam that provides excellent ground illumination out to a distance of approx 40m with no hot spots. The beam width is sufficent to illuminate the sides of the road to read roadsigns and see corners, pedestrians, etc. From about 40m out to around 70m the light intensity gradually drops off and there's a hardcut-off to avoid blinding oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians. The performance is in all ways very similar to a car dipped beam headlamp. You get a great view of the road ahead without lighting up the whole countryside. The headlamp power is lower than many (around 190 lumens I think) but in testing it gives as much light where you want it as a non-shaped beam of 500 lumen or more and as most advertised figures are pure fiction that means it'll probably beat most lamps advertised as 1000 lumen while also avoiding all the other disadvantages of an uncontrolled flashlight style beam. I'm very happy with mine, except for the slightly limited duration at high power. I wouldn't consider a non-shaped beam after having used this.

supersonic

The Phillips is primarily for the road - off road many riders like to see the trees and branches and stuff, so a more circular beam , angles down, often works better. It doesn't come close to a 850 lumen XML torch really.

ai_1

supersonic wrote:

The Phillips is primarily for the road - off road many riders like to see the trees and branches and stuff, so a more circular beam , angles down, often works better. It doesn't come close to a 850 lumen XML torch really.

Right you are. I forgot this thread was in the MTB forum.

Northwind

milfredo wrote:

"Cons:
Lamp unit needed some protection to make the cable inlet waterproof. Battery pack is pure DIY kit if you want to make it waterproof at all. end caps are paper and 4x 18650 are just shrinkwrapped together. Lamp itself has hardly any flood and light beam is exremely narrow for bicycle use"

I had one of these... And no, it's not waterproof. Doesn't have to be, we're not deep sea divers. It's rainproof and splashproof though, which is as good as many lights costing much more- just don't immerse it. The light beam was too tight for my tastes and the brightness made that feel worse- I ended up chasing the dot, and the extremely bright hotspot meant I lost all trace of night vision and couldnt't see much outside it. I prefer the older P7 lights- they're much less bright but there's more to it than that.

But then along came the MJ-872, which is better made, massively more powerful, has (for me) a near-perfect beam pattern, and still costs a fraction as much as an Ayup or similiar. There's probably better lights now but these marked the point where inexpensive lights stopped being decent, and started being better than most "quality" lights. Still a case for the £30 P7/XMLs but £80 gets you a light that's a lot more than 3 times as good.

diy

For what it's worth I used a single 501b mounted to the bars on my road bike and ran it on low or medium. When you are doing 30mph down a country lane at night you need good lights. Maybe not the 2k lumen of my off road setup but I was certainly grateful of decent range and a clear view of the tarmac. For commuting I just ran a pair on low and they lasted weeks. For those fussy about beam there are some low cost zoom XML lights in the what light thread.

ai_1

diy wrote:

.....For those fussy about beam there are some low cost zoom XML lights in the what light thread.

A zoom light is not a controlled beam. It adjusts the light spread but it's still a circular beam with no cut-off and no proper shaping of the optics. The Philips Saferide and a few others have properly developed reflectors/lenses to give you a trapezoidal beam so that the bottom of the beam is wide and low intensity and the top is narrower and higher intensity so that it illuminates a rectangular-ish area of ground with similar intensity throughout and has a cut-off line above which there is only enough light spilled to make you clearly visible but not enough to dazzle oncoming traffic.
A normal symetrical beam like you get with flashlights and most bicycle lights gives you a cone of light. Where that cone hits the ground near the bike it's bright. Where the same region of the cone hits the ground far away it's dim. You can get beams with a spot or flood spread or a zoom that'll give you the choice but you can't adjust different parts of the beam separately so your setup is always a big compromise. It is impossible for a symetrical beam to give you an even spread of light when different parts of the field are at different distances. It's also impossible for a symetrical beam to light the areas you want lit without also wasting light on areas you don't. These are simple facts.
You can use 2 or more symetrical beams to get closer to shaped beam performance but it's still a compromise and more hassle. A light similar to the Philips but with better duration and a slightly better mount would be my ideal bicycle light for road use.

As mentioned previously, this is not necessarily what you want for MTB but for on-road cycling I think a shaped beam should become mandatory.
It used to be the case that bicycle lights weren't really up to the task. Now we have enough power available to safely cycle at normal speeds on unlit roads which is great but that's also enough power to be a nuisance or even a menace to other road users (including other cyclists). I think the German StVZO standard has the right idea.