A comparison for byke / cycling: Convoy M1, Convoy S3 and modified SK68

This is a comparison of 3 flashlights that are only considered for using in a bike. I do not consider other aspects of these models.

The three flashlights are:



From left to right.
1.- Convoy M1, XM-L U2 tint 1B, driver of 2.8 A.
2.- Convoy S3, XM-L T6, tint 3C, driver of 2.8 A.
3.- Clon of Sikip SK68, modified by me. Led XM-L T6, driver of 2.1 A.

The M1 has a bit of advantage due to the 1B led instead of T6 for the other two models.

Another picture:



For biking, less weight is an advantage. Convoy M1 is larger than the rest…so it must be heavier. Let's check the weights, without battery.



124 grams for M1.



67 grams for S3.



63 grams for SK68. Hence, considering weight, S3 and SK68 are very similar, having M1 the double of weight.

However, less weight means less heatsink. It is know that convoy S2, S3 and similar flashlights get hot after few minutes in high mode. Nevertheless, I have checked that this is not a problem when cycling, when the flashlight receives fresh air all the time. Do not worry about heating, unless you stop cycling. Anyway, of course M1 has a better heat dissipation.

As Convoy M1 is not very well know, let me show some pictures of it:





The driver Nanjg 105c.


Previous picture shows the two switches, top M1, bottom S3. I do not like the excessive size of M1 switch.



A couple of pictures of the pill, no hole there, and copper is employed.





A picture of the light emitted. M1 left, S3 right.



I really like the 3C tint. Some green is visible in the borders of the 1B light. Of course S3 produces more flow… what is going to be an advantage for cycling…see later. In the real use, the central spot is not visible.

Follows a picture taken on white paper.


NIGHT PICTURES.

Battery at 100%. Pictures taken completely dark. All the light comes from the flashlights.



Convoy S3. As picture shows it is very difficult to see the central spot. To be honest, in person you cannot see it. The lateral vision is great, better than the picture can show. Excellent.



M1. Much better throw. However, the central spot is too prominent. Check the sides of the picture to see the worst illumination there. The problem with this flashlight is that the central spot is too bright and closes your pupil! You cannot avoid looking to this so bright light… and the final result is that you have less visibility.

On the other hand, when cycling this central spot is moving all the time… and this is very distracting. But of course M1 is a better flashlight for other purposes.



Modified Sk68. Sorry for the quality of the picture. The picture shows the typical pattern of a zooming. To be honest, I was surprised of the usability of the flashlight. S3 is better, but a modified SK68 makes a good work. The weak point is the low duration of 14500 battery.

More pictures:


Convoy S3


Convoy M1


Sk68


Convoy S3. Look that beautiful 3C tint.


Convoy M1.


La SK68.


SUMMARY


CONVOY S3.
Advantages: best light distribution for cycling. Good weight and size.
Disadvantage:; a bit more of throw would be fantastic. Heat problems when stopped at high mode.

CONVOY M1.
Good flashlight, but too mach thrower for cycling. Too heavy and large, as well

MODIFIED SK68 .
The best option for cycling in city where short rides do not need the better runtime of 18650 battery.

Choosing the right cycling light is all about finding the right beam profile. The best beam profile for cycling is highly dependent upon cycling speed. Higher speeds require more throw and less spill. Lower speeds require more spill, but extra throw is wasted. As a rule of thumb, I like to be able to see about ten seconds ahead at my typical cruising speeds.

My own experience with XM-L based lights (in reasonably small reflectors) is that they are poorly suited for speeds over 10-12 mph, as they provide too much spill and not enough throw. For much lower speeds, they provide more throw than necessary, wasting batteries. Your pics are consistent with my experience. None of those lights appear well suited for cycling at my typical speeds, though the M1 would probably work in a pinch.

Small weight differences are a non-factor for cycling, except at elite levels (and probably not even then). Choosing one light over another just to save a couple ounces is setting yourself up for failure.

JCD said:

Small weight differences are a non-factor for cycling, except at elite levels (and probably not even then). Choosing one light over another just to save a couple ounces is setting yourself up for failure.

Click to expand...

Well, weight is important for mountain bike. Vibrations are very large and you do not want to loose your flashlight....

JCD said:

My own experience with XM-L based lights (in reasonably small reflectors) is that they are poorly suited for speeds over 10-12 mph, as they provide too much spill and not enough throw. For much lower speeds, they provide more throw than necessary, wasting batteries. Your pics are consistent with my experience. None of those lights appear well suited for cycling at my typical speeds, though the M1 would probably work in a pinch.

Click to expand...

I agree that the S3 doesn't appear to have enough throw for cycling, although the flood is excellent. The M1 looks like a better balance for medium-fast speed cycling even though the hotspot is noticeable.

JCD can you recommend better cycling flashlights (not 4x18650 bike lights)?

PacoA said:

Well, weight is important for mountain bike. Vibrations are very large and you do not want to loose your flashlight....

Click to expand...

If vibrations are a concern, look for a better mount, not a lighter light.

cyclesock said:

JCD can you recommend better cycling flashlights (not 4x18650 bike lights)?

Click to expand...

At what speeds do you typically ride?

After a few years of experimentation with various combinations of LEDs (XR-E, MC-E, XP-G, and XM-L), I've started using a stock Surefire 9P w/ 2x 17500 cells, and have found it to provide a beam profile that is about perfect for my typical riding speeds of 15-18 mph (24-29 km/h). It provides good throw and sufficient spill. The spill fades out to nothing instead of providing a high contrast boundary line that handicaps peripheral vision somewhat. Despite not being as bright as any LED combination I've tried, the 9P provides me with more information about what lies ahead. For example, with the incan, I can see black ice patches that remain hidden to my LEDs. I can also distinguish between mud and dry soil much more easily.

Beside the 9P, I mount a 6P with a high CRI XP-G drop-in, as a backup. If I was going to use the XP-G as a primary light, I would supplement it with a second 6P with a XR-E or XP-E drop-in in order to get a little bit more throw than the XP-G provides on its own.

I have a buddy who dislikes riding over about 10 mph. For someone like him, I would recommend trying a 6P with MC-E drop-in, since he needs very little throw, but lots of spill. For riding at 10-12 mph, a little more throw is needed, so an XM-L drop-in would be a good place to start. For someone who rides faster than me, a couple XP-Es or XR-Es would probably work well.

I like to use drop-in hosts, as they make changing the light engine quick and relatively inexpensive, which is good for riders with more than one kind of bike (i.e., someone who rides at a variety of different speed ranges). Solarforce makes inexpensive 6P clones that accept 18650 cells. If one is concerned with weight, a Surefire Z2 is hard to beat. If it's bored for 18650 cells, it will have longer runtime, and be even lighter.

Remember, beam profile is much more important than brightness. What good is a lot of light if it isn't in the right places?

I would also strongly suggest making an effort to get a tint that you find pleasant to look at. You'll be chasing the beam for possibly hours at a time.

i can't see the pictures.

maoku said:

i can't see the pictures.

Click to expand...

Working fine here.

Norm