NITECORE -- Keep Innovating        
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 109

Thread: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

  1. #1

    Popcorn Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    This is the light:



    The commercial info may be found at niteflux.com/Products_RedZone4.aspx.

    Neither I, nor Savvas has any buisness arrangement with NiteFLUX owners, management, or staff.

    I will have two specimens to compare to my fleet of less expensive blinkies and in videos. Time depends on working out an ordering snag.

    Savvas has taken photos of his light and has posted a review here.

    Further developments in new posts.

    PS: They also have a white version in the works. Assuming the same 770 A drive for the same runtime as the tailight, two XP-E R3's would be about about 400 lumens in blink mode. If they up the ante to twin XP-G R5's at 700 mA, then over 500 lumens at a matching runtime.
    Last edited by BrianMc; 06-05-2011 at 06:45 AM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Hi Brian - good idea for a separate thread. I thought that it might be easier to quote Savvas review rather than linking to the other thread - with a bit of luck it might keep the comments in the one thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Savvas View Post
    Hi All,
    Well I have my new RedZone. David, the manufacturer was kind enough to arrange my pickup from his home which is actually near my workplace (he has a manufacturing facility on the other side of the city). We had a nice long talk and I plan to develop a review with some further input from him. The light itself came without 'branded' packaging - just bubble-wrapped and a couple of ziplock bags - so I guess this was part of the 'pre-order'. I imagine that the next lot will come with more complete packaging etc. It's small - about matchbox+15mm or maybe a very small fold-out mobile phone. It feels solid and has a bit of heft to it. It has a translucent red and slightly rubbery case which feels extremely tough! This would be the 'total encapsulation' that David mentioned to me on the phone. There's a massively-stiff stainless wire clip on the back that's almost as long as the light itself. It feels incredibly securely anchored - in fact the 2 bolts which hold it seem to go right through the light's internal casing. Apart from these 2 fasteners (which I presume are sealed) there is only one other 'piercing' in the case which is the mini-USB charging port. This is on the bottom of the light along with the very prominent 'thumb button'. The port is sealed with a rectangular flanged rubber plug. It's not secured by any strap and I guess common logic would suggest it should be. However it seems to press in fairly tightly - I know nothing about plastics and rubber technology but I assume that, given the obviously sophisticated design and the thought that seems to have gone into the casing, this is maybe regarded as the best way to do things. I plan to ask David about this when I contact him again. I can certainly see where the claims (and demonstration of water resistance stem from).

    So what's the light like in operation? Well first, I have no idea how well it's charged - I only have the 'factory' charge to play with. The first thing that's obvious is that you won't turn it on accidentally! You need a strong 'thumb' press on the prominent button to turn it on/off and to cycle through the modes. I haven't read the (online) instructions yet but there seem to be 3 modes - 'low flash' - 'high flash' - 'high steady' - or something like that. Off is achieved by holding the button for a (long) second. There are 2 tiny LEDs inside - that's all I know about them as yet. They are quite visible and just look like flat dies. There are no optics at all. The resulting light is a broad spread surrounding the bright spot of each of the LEDs. The light is very bright and intense but not in the same way that the PBS or similar lights are. It's very obviously a different concept and as the maker pointed out, it's also designed to be used by runners, skaters etc as well. My 'test' has just been in the driveway - not out on the bike.

    The light came with:
    - a spare USB port plug
    - a USB charging cable
    - a small and nicely made strap/pad arrangement for mounting the light on helmet or seat post
    - a small and reassuring card with some brief instructions that points to the web site for more information (and an extended warranty option).
    I haven't yet worked out how the strap works but it looks like it will, and as the instructions say, 'careful alignment is not necessary'.

    It's probably about 3 times the cost of a PBS or similar. I suppose only time and use will tell if it's 3 times the value. However I'd suggest that 'value' would need to be measured in terms of added longevity, convenience, ease of use and versatility as much as initial price. It's an interesting innovation and I look forward to comments from others and to trying it out on the road. I certainly reckon that mine is probably 'bright enough' but we'll see. The white one is in the works...

    Sam P.
    Thanks Savvas as I have been following the various rear light threads with interest & am keen to hear how people find the light in practice

  3. #3
    Flashaholic* LEDAdd1ct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    Posts
    3,531

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Quote Originally Posted by find_bruce View Post
    Hi Brian - good idea for a separate thread. I thought that it might be easier to quote Savvas review rather than linking to the other thread - with a bit of luck it might keep the comments in the one thread.
    An excellent idea! I had the same thought, and PM'ed the contents of Sam's review to Brian. Doesn't matter much who posts it though; it's nice having the first review in one place for reference/easy access. I'm looking forward to seeing a review of the front, white version as well. I rode home about five minutes ago, and thought about the red and white Niteflux most of the way home (plus or minus a few minutes to watch for cars, stop at STOP signs and drink from the water bottle).

    Brian, I hope your issues get resolved.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    I have a Macbook in for repair that is up to editing the new video camera output should be done this week. School is out so my place of choice for come and go video is available. So I just need to compete a phone call transaction tomorrow morning. I have other light I need to evaluate and get the bugs out while these are on their way. I am feeling well enough to ride again. The stars are coming into alignment, I guess.

  5. #5

    Christo Pull Hair Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Hi Folks,

    I have taken some photos of my Nitezone. I have managed to attach them after a few blind allies and some hairpulling - I've never done this before. I've also never tried to take pictures of bike lights at night so, combined with some considerable lack of talent, they don't add up to much. They are just 'driveway' pics with Nitezone and 2 other lights sitting on top of a bin. Someone else can perhaps come up with something better.

    The lights I used to compare the NZ with are a new Cateye Rapid 3 and an older model Smart-branded Superflash. The Rapid is on the left, the NZ in the middle and the Superflash on the right. I gave up trying to get sharp pictures and even though I stopped my old digital camera right down it still seemed to get overpowered by the lights. So I just tried to have a look at visibility from different angles. In order below they are:
    - straight on
    - 30 offset to the right
    - 60 degrees offset
    - side-on.
    All the lights were set to steady.

    Straight on the new Rapid is very bright with a large and prominent 'spot' - more obvious in fact than the same setting on the old Superflash. In several of the photos I took it seemed brighter than the NZ although this may be more an imaging artifact than reality.

    The real differences started to show up in the offset views. Remember that the NZ has no optics at all. At 30 degrees and then 60. the NZ stayed bright and prominent while the other two lights were much less obvious. The real difference was obvious when I set all lights flashing in this 60 degree position. The NZ seemed to remain almost as bright as it was straight on while the flash from other two were far less noticeable.

    So, straight-on...

    30 degrees off-set to the right.

    60 degrees off-set.

    Side on.


    Remember that these pictures were taken at only 10 metres - hardly any distance for a car closing at 60km/h (37mph). They may not really assist those wanting to know 'how bright is it?' However they may start to show some possible advantages of an 'optic free' approach, namely consistent visibility off-axis, which I suspect may be of more significance in the urban environment. Given that, in Australia anyway, by far the greatest proportion of car-bike collisions occur from the front rather than the rear, this off-axis visibility may be a parti
    Last edited by Savvas; 06-06-2011 at 08:07 AM.

  6. #6
    Flashaholic* LEDAdd1ct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    Posts
    3,531

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    If I recall correctly, most bike/car "interactions" occur sideways, and the cyclist always loses. A solution with significantly increased off-axis visibility is a major plus for us on two wheels, regardless of where we hail from.

    Another thought:

    As much as the "encapsulated" form of the RedZone 4 appeals to my desire to have a waterproof/dirt proof/sand proof package, it does cause some concern with respect to swapping out the internal battery when it inevitably goes south. I realize that by the time that happens, the next batch of even more efficient Cree emitters will be out, but a $100 light without access to the battery makes me a bit nervous. Batteries can go bad, and I would hate to part with a light of this price because of a bad cell.
    Last edited by LEDAdd1ct; 06-06-2011 at 11:12 AM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Quote Originally Posted by LEDAdd1ct View Post
    If I recall correctly, most bike/car "interactions" occur sideways, and the cyclist always loses. A solution with significantly increased off-axis visibility is a major plus for us on two wheels, regardless of where we hail from.
    In that case I don't want a wide rear light, I want a wide front light. I don't ride backwards...
    As much as the "encapsulated" form of the RedZone 4 appeals to my desire to have a waterproof/dirt proof/sand proof package, it does cause some concern with respect to swapping out the internal battery when it inevitably goes south. I realize that by the time that happens, the next batch of even more efficient Cree emitters will be out, but a $100 light without access to the battery makes me a bit nervous. Batteries can go bad, and I would hate to part with a light of this price because of a bad cell.
    That's what warranty is for. They also offer an extended warranty.
    People have for years been happy to spend hundreds on iPods with no battery access; I reckon people will happily tolerate this on the basis that the encapsulation keeps the water out.

  8. #8
    Flashaholic* LEDAdd1ct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    Posts
    3,531

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    I don't ride backwards either, but on bicycles, we can certainly be hit at the point of crossing—a wide angle rear blinky is an asset. I agree that a wide angle front light is important as well, which is why I am interested in the white, front version too.

    With respect to the warranty, it seems to only be good for one year without additional dough being plunked down. With respect to battery access, I understand that many people are entirely happy with owning products without a user serviceable battery. However, I am not one of those individuals. None of my consumer electronics operate off batteries that cannot be swapped by me. I am certainly not saying I will not purchase the light—I am quite excited about it—but a battery without user access is something to bear in mind, and I think it is worth mentioning. Your preferences can, and probably will vary.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    David of NiteFLUX has contacted me. The Australian preorders were in line first. We will work out a way to complete the order. I also gave him the link here. I wonder if being a Can-Am Yanuck, or Canank, whatever, will help? British Commonweath, and all that rot, what?

  10. #10
    Flashaholic* LEDAdd1ct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    Posts
    3,531

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Good to hear, Brian! I hope David chimes in here. I always like it when we can query (grill? ) manufacturers directly about their product.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    David has the order squared away. The first production run went out to Australian preorders (it is winter and longer nights there). The US distribution point wil be in operation and get a portion of the second run. So my lights will be of the second 'batch'. David saw he invitation to post in this thread. He doesn't as a general rule do so, but may make an exception. If he does, try not to throw him and the shrimp on the barbie.
    Last edited by BrianMc; 06-08-2011 at 06:55 AM.

  12. #12
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    113

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianMc View Post
    This is the light:



    The commercial info may be found at niteflux.com/Products_RedZone4.aspx.
    Quoting from their website:

    1/2W lights with a lens, which are currently popular, produce a stronger but very narrow beam. They're unnecessarily bright at night, particularly for group riding, and offer no improvement in your visibility from any other angle.
    Finally people who understand the issues. The same problem we have in NL on cyclepaths. You can get stuck behind someone for a while, with a fooking bright light shining in your eyes. Those manufacturers should get a kick in the nuts for not properly testing! And that's with dynamo taillamps of just 0.6W.

    Btw. I've been testing a bunch of taillamps since December, and recently made new beamshots to complete my tests as they were interrupted due to circumstances until early June. Most of those beamshots (well oncoming shots + wallshots + reverse wallshots as per my tests in December and January) I will upload, for a bunch of the current top (or most interesting) dynamo LED lamps in a few hours.

    I'm not really into battery powered lamps but this niteflux looks nice.

  13. #13
    Flashaholic* znomit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    967

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Quote Originally Posted by swhs View Post
    Finally people who understand the issues. The same problem we have in NL on cyclepaths. You can get stuck behind someone for a while, with a fooking bright light shining in your eyes. Those manufacturers should get a kick in the nuts for not properly testing! And that's with dynamo taillamps of just 0.6W.
    Tight beams make sense for rural roads where you want to to be seen from a decent distance... maybe in the rain or at dusk. This is most of my night riding.
    For group rides a tight beam shouldn't be shining in the eyes of anyone following closely (but often is due to poor mounting). Whereas this one is probably too bright for anyone riding closely behind regardless of mounting. Looks like a good light for merging traffic situations.

  14. #14
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    113

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Quote Originally Posted by znomit View Post
    Tight beams make sense for rural roads where you want to to be seen from a decent distance... maybe in the rain or at dusk. This is most of my night riding.
    I don't think so. I've tested this. At long distance what you see is the total amount of light. If the beam is very tight, you only need to move a little out of the way and it misses your eyes. This is exactly what I see at long distance: For example with Hermann's H-track I see the shape of the lamp until a fair distance, then at longer distance I see one red blob. This doesn't come from that bright beam from the LED, but from the diffused light that emanates from the taillamp on a large surface area. Therefore that tight bit does only one thing: Annoy people riding about 15m to 5 m behind you.

    Quote Originally Posted by znomit View Post
    For group rides a tight beam shouldn't be shining in the eyes of anyone following closely (but often is due to poor mounting).

    Whereas this one is probably too bright for anyone riding closely behind regardless of mounting.
    Perhaps. But if it's very diffuse, very even then it may work.

    Quote Originally Posted by znomit View Post
    Looks like a good light for merging traffic situations.
    Hmm., so we need different lights for all those different conditions? ;-)

  15. #15
    Enlightened
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    75

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Are you sure about this? I thought I read recently that the majority of reported bicycle accidents in Oz were "hit from behind"".

    Happy to be wrong.

    Peter

  16. #16

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    znomit said: "Whereas this one is probably too bright for anyone riding closely behind regardless of mounting. Looks like a good light for merging traffic situations."

    In my initial comments on my light I forgot to cover the flash patterns.

    There are 2 levels - 'painfully bright' and 'much less bright but still noticeable'

    At the 'painfully bright' level you get two patterns - 'steady on' and a rolling flash patterns which seems to be 3 or 4 rapid flickers followed by a longer pause the 3 flickers again ('flickers' of course is not the right word for such an assault on your eyeballs!)

    At the 'much less bright level' you just get the '3 + pause' flash pattern.

    I reckon that no one following close behind would have much difficulty if the light is set to the lower level. Still quite bright.

    Sam P.

  17. #17
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,785

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Quote Originally Posted by swhs View Post
    I don't think so. I've tested this. At long distance what you see is the total amount of light. If the beam is very tight, you only need to move a little out of the way and it misses your eyes. This is exactly what I see at long distance: For example with Hermann's H-track I see the shape of the lamp until a fair distance, then at longer distance I see one red blob. This doesn't come from that bright beam from the LED, but from the diffused light that emanates from the taillamp on a large surface area.
    I tend to agree with Znomit on this issue, at least in regards to rural roads. I spend most of my commute on roads that are straight for miles. The LEDs in my taillight have a beam angle of 8 degrees, I think (it's been a while since I bought them). At a distance of one mile (5280 feet, or 1.6km), the beam width is 741 feet (226m). This is certainly wide enough to cover the road's width, making it visible to anyone on the road at that distance.

    Even at close distances, when the viewer is off-axis, the light is fairly bright just because of the proximity. I took a short video in the evening hours, and I think the taillight performs pretty well for a dynamo system.

    If you wanted to create a truly optimized beam for a taillight, I think the majority of the light should still be directed in a tight beam to the rear, since the viewer may be a few hundred meters away, and the inverse square law will quickly reduce the brightness. Some light should be directed around the rear of the bike, since there will be viewers from both sides. This amount of light, while less than what is delivered to the rear, should be adequate since the viewer will be much closer.

    In both cases, the beam width in the vertical axis should be limited, since there's little value in throwing light into the sky or onto the ground.

    regards,
    Steve K.
    Last edited by Steve K; 06-09-2011 at 09:52 AM. Reason: added "in a tight beam "

  18. #18
    Flashaholic* LEDAdd1ct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    Posts
    3,531

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Quote Originally Posted by LEDAdd1ct View Post
    If I recall correctly, most bike/car "interactions" occur sideways, and the cyclist always loses. A solution with significantly increased off-axis visibility is a major plus for us on two wheels, regardless of where we hail from.
    Quote Originally Posted by pmath View Post
    Are you sure about this? I thought I read recently that the majority of reported bicycle accidents in Oz were "hit from behind"".

    Happy to be wrong.

    Peter
    Hi, Peter. I make mistakes all the time, so I am certainly welcome to be shown wrong on this point. I remember reading about this some time ago. I wish I could find the source. I just tried googling for the most frequent method of car/bike accidents, and the first page of Google were all accident lawyers!

    I live in the United States, so I am not in a capacity to comment on Australia. I would definitely like to find a solid source of statistics to draw from, though!


    LEDAdd1ct

  19. #19

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Accident statistics from Australia:
    http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc251.pdf
    see page 10 for directional data. (20% from same direction)

    Also p92 for the South Australian data. Most vehicle collisions are from the side (right angle/side swipe), or from right turns (which in Australia means turning across oncoming traffic). Only about 8% from rear enders.

    Lots of reading:
    http://www.cyclingresourcecentre.org...common_crashes
    Last edited by Matt King; 06-09-2011 at 06:04 PM.

  20. #20
    Flashaholic* LEDAdd1ct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    Posts
    3,531

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Excellent, excellent stats, Matt!

    And for more information on which side of the road to drive on, more than you could ever need, go here.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    The figures for front and sides including left and right hooks for US/Canada came to 69.? % rounding to 70%. I have that link somewhere.

    That seems to be adjacent, opposing, and manoevering for 69%. But that includes pedestrian and prams & toys and such so close enough statistically to 70% for both. Anyone suprised they are the same?

    Anyone suprised that the turning or cross traffic are the most frequent source of accident?

    I am surprised in riding (well walking) by a video camera how little time our reflective devices show in headlights, and if those are low beams and you are tall, a device above your waist are wasted, (for such a driver). The walk by was to compensate for the POS camera frame rate of about 12 fps in this light.

    http://img88.imageshack.us/flvplayer.swf?f=Ptym

    This was before hoods on the headlights and the Planet Bike Turbos. The side firing PBSF's look decent here but are hidden behind legs and fire about twice at normal riding speeds while crossing in front. Your eyes reduce the brightness of approaching & receding more and the low sensitivity of the walk bys might be like wearing sunglasses at night. It isn't as bad as the camera seems to say, BUT considereing tired, drunk, inexperienced, and night vision challenged, it might be a decent worst case.

    There is a moment from when even splayed out headlights are no longer seen and the splayed out tailights kick in. That may well be the 'Danger Zone'.

    http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/3982/wlp.mp4

    An HD camera set at 720 lines and zoomed to same angle as covered lens frame edge to lens frame edge by my eyes as if I was a driver at the camera position. Some fisheye effect mimics a slight turn of the head. Stopped down -2. 25 fps. Should have done 30.

    The angled out headlights work right up to just before crossing in front. Nice. Even the wider angled Dangerzones are not wide enough, bright enough, nor flash enough to help much IMHO crossing in front. The angled 100 lumen tail lights show well enough to reduce turns into the cyclist after the cyclist passses if the driver is looking where he/she is driving. So the window from right curb to where the left curb would be in a 2 lane street is the angle not well covered by lights.

    In the sun the ANSI vest is king.
    Last edited by BrianMc; 06-09-2011 at 10:30 PM.

  22. #22
    Flashaholic* LEDAdd1ct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    Posts
    3,531

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    I don't see a place to purchase the white version on the NiteFLUX website.

    Is it out yet...?

  23. #23
    Flashaholic* 1 what's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    617

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Great stuff guys!
    This should be compulsory reading for all cyclists.
    I'm so glad that I mostly ride very early in the morning (before the sun comes up for 6 months of the year).
    However.... I'm still working on the perfect tail light (Apologies for off topic content).

  24. #24

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    You may be right. I may be crazy, but it just might be a lunatic they're gunning for...you may be wrong but you may be right. Apologies to Billy Joel

    From Matt King's second link: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009...-accidents.php

    So as the ONLY cyclist for a while here, my idea that my rarity was a large part of my problem is borne out here.

    Drivers must have cyclists on their 'look for' list, to see you and be accustomed to bikes riding above beach cruiser speed.

    Rather hot for June here but I saw 2 count 'em 2 cyclists with ANSI vests here yesterday!. Call me a trendsetter!

    So how does this relate to the topic? With few felllow cyclists conspicuity is paramount. Motorists aren't even looking for a cyclist. So standing out isn't good enough. That's where the full power on the RedZone 4 might be the ticket. Can you see me now? If you can't how'd you get past the driver eye exam?

  25. #25

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Matt said: "Most vehicle collisions are from the side (right angle/side swipe), or from right turns (which in Australia means turning across oncoming traffic). Only about 8% from rear enders."

    Thanks for following this up Matt. I wasn't very precise was I when I said very few car-bike collisions in Oz occurred from the rear - apologies! I was on a Government bike safety group for a year or so and this stat was one of the many new bits of info I was introduced to. It occurred to me at the time that while we all obsess about being seen from the rear (probably because we don't have rear-facing eyes), it's being noticed from the front (or front L or R quadrant) that matters most of the time.

    Sam.

  26. #26

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    LEDAddict said: "I don't see a place to purchase the white version on the NiteFLUX website. Is it out yet...?"

    My understanding is that the white version won't be out for a while - possibly not until Niteflux have cleared all of their back orders for the Redzone. It's interesting talking to David. They seem to be a relatively small company based right here in Adelaide yet they have taken on construction of some very sophisticated lights, in the Redzone's case apparently because they simply couldn't get the sort of 'encapsulation' it uses done on a contract basis.

    I have just started to use mine. I'm pretty happy with it thus far although I am also using it with a new Cateye Rapid 3 which has the sort of very focused 'long distance' spot that Steve K discusses above. What I'd really like to do is get a mate of mine to ride it up and down our local main street (2 km long) while I take a video. I'll see if I can arrange it.

    Sam.

  27. #27
    Flashaholic* LEDAdd1ct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    Posts
    3,531

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Hi, Sam. Build me a bridge from North America to "Down Under" and I'll bike on over and help you out!

  28. #28
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,785

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Quote Originally Posted by Savvas View Post
    ..... It occurred to me at the time that while we all obsess about being seen from the rear (probably because we don't have rear-facing eyes), it's being noticed from the front (or front L or R quadrant) that matters most of the time.

    Sam.
    rear-facing eyes?? Well, I do have a helmet mirror, and it's very handy! It helped me move further to the right when I noticed that a car approaching from the rear wasn't moving to the left (for reference, we drive on the right side). This was at night. The car still got close enough to knock my left pannier off!

    The driver was good enough to know that he did something wrong, and stopped to see if I was okay. After getting his drivers license from him, he mentioned that he had seen my taillight. I can only guess why he still almost ran me over..... well, he was pretty young, so maybe that's part of it. There was no other traffic in the area.

    I'm not sure what the ultimate lesson is. Maybe it's that people can see you and still run you over? You can make them see, but you can't make them think? Or just "watch out for all of those idiots who have their car pointed at you"?

    okay.... back to the lights.

    Steve K.

  29. #29

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    This is the sort of video I did with an old Sony, then a very cheap and out of alignment camera. I hope to repeat with better bike lights and camera:

    http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/7591/radbot11.mp4 Sony Digicam 320 x 240

    http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2976/radbot1000.mp4 808 Keyfob camera 720 x 480

    The camera stand was a truck hood. I have a tripod now. The parking lot at the end of the road can be used instead of straight ahead, as if on a side street with the bike coming and going and the camera at different angles to mimic a turned head should do the trick. Littel traffic day or night now school is out.

    Using this camera that took this:

    http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2738/kga.mp4 at 1280 x 720 can Zoom then, at 1920 x 1080 no zoom so not as sensitive to lights.

    Still, we see in higher resolution and with greater light level adjustment so video is more realtive than absolute.

  30. #30

    Default Re: Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve K View Post
    he mentioned that he had seen my taillight. I can only guess why he still almost ran me over..... . Steve K.
    The OP says its A-OK.

    Many drivers DO NOT know where the right side of their cars are. I had to re-calibrate switching to my son's car for a while last summer. It was narrower so the park too far from the curb problem. Lights make you look bigger and might get more room.


    We fear the unknown disproportionately. Even with a mirror it is hard to catch the almost run you over driver. (Nice catch, Steve, BTW. WE are glad you are here.) Though the headlight pattern can result in "I've got a bad feeling about this..."

    OK, so in two different hemispheres driving on opposite sides of the road, two different primarily English speaking areas have about the same issues in bike saftey/collisions.

    Only 8-10% from the rear.

    About 70% front and sides.

    Sub $100 headlight sytems of >500 lumens are a recent development. Using them in flash mode as Daytime running lights is a natural for batteries as most Li-ion estimated life expectancy is shorter than the number of recharges most cyclists will do. A constant on dyno light is a no-brainer for a Sturnmey Archer hub like mine which has lower drag with the light on, and not a hardship for riders with other hubs.

    Using the narrow beam rear blinkies firing sideways has not worked. Either on the seat stays or atop a fender similar to amidships on a rear rack. They need to be drivers' eye heights (an average). The beams need to be narrow up and down and broad side to side if lower utput, at higher you can throw some light away. Maybe 100 lumens + in the day, 30-50 at night and off for group rides.

    I am wondering about shoulder or helmet sides for the Redzone 4's. Lower setting for night unless on shoulder of high speed road, higher for day and high speed road at night. As long as night vision is not hurt. The stats suggest a pair of our brightest $30 blinkies can handle the rear in the day. I want to verify that with new ride away from the camera video.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •