Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

BrianMc · Jun 5, 2011

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.

find_bruce · Jun 5, 2011

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.

Savvas said:
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

LEDAdd1ct · Jun 5, 2011

find_bruce said:
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.

BrianMc · Jun 5, 2011

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.

Savvas · Jun 6, 2011

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

LEDAdd1ct · Jun 6, 2011

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.

Matt King · Jun 6, 2011

LEDAdd1ct said:
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.

LEDAdd1ct · Jun 6, 2011

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.

BrianMc · Jun 7, 2011

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?

LEDAdd1ct · Jun 7, 2011

Good to hear, Brian! I hope David chimes in here. I always like it when we can query (grill? :devil

manufacturers directly about their product.

BrianMc · Jun 8, 2011

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.

swhs · Jun 8, 2011

BrianMc said:
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.

znomit · Jun 8, 2011

swhs said:
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.

swhs · Jun 9, 2011

znomit said:
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.

znomit said:
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.

znomit said:
Looks like a good light for merging traffic situations.

Hmm., so we need different lights for all those different conditions? ;-)

pmath · Jun 9, 2011

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

Savvas · Jun 9, 2011

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.

Steve K · Jun 9, 2011

swhs said:
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.

LEDAdd1ct · Jun 9, 2011

LEDAdd1ct said:
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.

pmath said:
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! :shakehead

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

Matt King · Jun 9, 2011

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.au/page/statistics_common_crashes

LEDAdd1ct · Jun 9, 2011

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.

Review: The NiteFLUX RedZone 4

Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Enlightened

Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Newly Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Newly Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Similar threads