Any advantage to a MCE vs. a P7 flashlight?

[bourmb]

Rec'd flashlight configuration for my bike, please. Too many choices out there.

I will be riding my bike at night for recreation.on rural country roads with little to no street lights. I don't want to spend a fortune, either as I know there are A LOT of flashlight choices out there. I prefer a 1x18650 or 2xCR123 flashlight at less than $60 per light. What would be better, a q5 or a P7 configuration, or both? I was thinking of outfitting my bike with at least 2 maybe 3 Tiablo A9 aimed closer to my bike and one Tiablo A9 with the aspherical head aimed further out in front of me. Would a Q5 provide more flood for lighting a larger area nearer the bike than a P7 light? I want a lot of light for a reasonable cost.

 

[bourmb]

I have been educating myself on this site along with using the search function. However, I can not find anything of real information on between the positives and negatives of a MCE vs. p7 vs. q5 configuration? I am considering using 3 -4 Tiablo A9's on my bike to ride on dark country roads. The Tiablo is a Q5 setup. Would a MCE or P7 setup provide me more flood?

 

[Wiggle]

The floodiness is going to be affected by the design of the light, not just the emitter. I can tell you that I am very happy with my dual MTE 5-mode P7s, fairly floody but enough throw for most uses. A good choice would be a P7 like this and a fairly spotty Q5/R2 light to push the range a little further.

 

[Patriot]

In your example of A9's vs P7's or MCE, the latter two would be a far better choice. The A9's throw is way too much for cycling purposes. In fact, even a Fenix P3D with smooth reflector is too tight for me and I'm using P3D's Q5s with textured reflectors now...one helmet mounted and one bar mounted. It's more than enough light for me when mountain biking off-road and my set up is brighter than any one elses in the moutain bike club.

Yes, P7's will be yet brighter and more floody but so far I haven't felt the need to move up.

 

[Jarl]

The floodiness is going to be affected by the design of the light, not just the emitter. I can tell you that I am very happy with my dual MTE 5-mode P7s, fairly floody but enough throw for most uses.

+1, though generally quad die LED's are floodier than single die LED's, which is what you want whilst MTBing. Read this and buy it. IMO it's the best lighting system you can get for a MTB at this point in time, the fact it's ridiculously cheap is just a bonus.

 

[bourmb]

Is a Cree MCE just a different technology than a P7 setup? Is one better for bike riding than another? I read somewhere that a MCE light has P7 brightness with better throw and runtime. Is that true?

Would something like a MTE 2 mode P7 flashlight be appropriate for what I am trying to setup without being too cheap but not breaking the bank?

One more thing, if DX flashlights tend to be overrated by the manufacturer (i.e. not putting out 900 lumens), would a Fenix be more accurately rated so their 200 lumen lights would be brighter?

 

[Jarl]

MC-E vs P7 is a pretty dud point for 1x18650, they'll behave practically exactly the same. The only advantage of a MC-E is that you're supporting a more honest company (just look at what's happened to the binning of P7's if you disagree....) and it can be bought in a warm tint, so if you want a warm tint, then the MC-E based light will be a lot easier to mod than a P7.

Other more general advantages of an MC-E are that it's smaller and the dies are individually addressable.

The P7/MC-E lights tend to be 400 to 500 lumens OTF, which is still far more than 150/200 lumens from the fenix models.

 

[bretti_kivi]

I just realised tonight that the MC-E has a huge advantage in the addressability. Might not sound like much, but that means you deal with lower currents (700mA) with higher voltages. So there's less heat issues from the converter side, if I've understood correctly. Apparently there's less lumens with an MC-E as opposed to a P7, but I don't know if you'll see it.
I'm in the process of building a light for a colleague and that's going to get some Q5s for the moment, I will pick up an MC-E to test. He wants throw, it's for the city streets.

Bret

 

[Wiggle]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but here's the breakdown on P7 vs MC-E:

-Pretty much identical efficiency in the LED itself so runtimes should be identical (but MC-E based lights may suffer slightly less I^2*R losses if a 4s1p or 2s2p is used).

-MC-E is individually addressable but that doesn't seem to be a factor in any lights that would be considered for biking at this point in time.

-P7 may throw better due to the difference in the domes and how this affects the interaction between the LED and reflector.

-P7 can handle a little more power at the high end.

-MC-E is available in 5A tint which is nice and warm but it doesn't seem to be common in the lights that'd be considered.


P7/MC-E vs single emitter

- Multi-die may produce a donut hole depending on the reflector/optic setup.

-P7/MC-E needs larger reflector to even approach the throw of a single die LED.

-P7/MC-E has much more output potential (around 3-4x).

 

[sol-leks]

nice summary

 

[Jarl]

-P7 can handle a little more power at the high end.

Interesting if this is true, I would have thought a 4S1P MC-E could be run harder because you'd have no problems with one die hogging all the current and destroying itself (though this isn't an issue at spec current)

 

[electric sheep]

The MCE is a revelation to me. I love it but cannot find a compact solution. My CL1H V4 needs an extension tube to run two 18560's although it will run two CR123's it will only last 30 minutes on high. Would love a single 18650 version. The beam is so bright and floods the trail way out in front, my thrower is like looking down a narrow tunnel by comparison.

 

[js-lots]

So far I prefer the flood of the p7 compared to the mce. I think this has more to do with the reflector designs at the moment. but for bike riding purposes the p7 should do the trick.