Are bike helmet/head light companies missing a potential market share?

[ToddM]

Some of the new small platform bike "helmet" lights I find most intriguing of many of the headlamps I've seen as of late.

Many are pushing over 800-1200 lumens in various configurations, in very small units, with various battery options, some even with headband attachments.

I really like the general design of the Lupine Piko, Gemini Duo, Gloworm X2 etc.

However one thing I've noticed is that none of them offer what would seem to be easy to add features that might make their lights appeal to hikers and general outdoors people as well. Especially with headlamp prices increasing and users demanding more options, etc.

For example none of them seem to offer anything even close to a low output, I'm talking say 1-10 lumens that would appeal to people wanting to use the lights close up, around camp, as an tent/area light, another would be a flashing/sos option. Third would be a small headband mounted battery option (lupine does do this with the Piko). Most seem to have a low output around 50-100 lumens. Perhaps it's just not possible to get that low of output out of these platforms. Some even offer different options for a 2 LED setup with two different focus patterns. Add in user programibility and now you could have a spot and flood each over 450 lumens that could be used individually and combined.

It would just seem with more headlamps going over $100 and in many cases pushing $200, that these companies are right on the cusp of making a light that a person could truly use for close up work, around camp, hiking, and still have 900-1200 lumens for real power users, and the package size is small enough now that it's not much bigger than a tikka (aside for the battery). The other issue would be if these lights can run at full power without the additional airflow cooling of being moving on the bike.

Lupine seems the closest to offering something like this but the downside with lupine is price, it would cost way way over $500 to really set up a piko to be close to that and you still have a light that's too bright and wrong focus for close up work.

I'd be happy to pay $500 for a 1000 lumen headlamp in a similar 2 bulb setup, with user selectable light levels from 1-1000 lumens, with flood/spot options, headlamp sized battery and larger remote battery options for use on the bike, or in very cold conditions.

 

[Bolster]

Interesting question. I suppose the market research people have the answers here.

If the mfgrs are doing their target audience research, they may have data that bike riders (for example) don't want to click through lower modes, or would not use the lamp to see anything close-up. Or perhaps their data tells them bikers will seldom use the light off-bike, or that bikers have no desire for a wide flood. Who knows what data they have. They may have narrowed their target audience before doing the research...which leaves them vulnerable to missing other markets, as you point out.

For example, I think I am very much a potential customer, as a workman, but these lights have never been dangled in front of me. And with insufficiently broad flood, or inability to use lower levels of illumination, they just wouldn't work.

 

[uk_caver]

SSome even offer different options for a 2 LED setup with two different focus patterns. Add in user programibility and now you could have a spot and flood each over 450 lumens that could be used individually and combined.
[...]
I'd be happy to pay $500 for a 1000 lumen headlamp in a similar 2 bulb setup, with user selectable light levels from 1-1000 lumens, with flood/spot options, headlamp sized battery and larger remote battery options for use on the bike, or in very cold conditions.

I'm a huge believer in twin-beam lights with decent control, and I have been for many years, but it does seem a peculiarly neglected market segment. Personally, I think that due to the lack of suitable lights, a large number of potential customers simply don't know what they're missing.

Having good control - flood, flood-with-spot-assist and spot-only (or mainly-spot) modes, with multiple power levels for at least the flood and flood-with-spot modes gives good usability and also great battery economy - if a flood is augmented with a little spot, it can often be as useful as a much brighter and more power-hungry pure flood beam would be.

There is a relation between flexibility of control and complexity of use, but that's not an insurmountable problem.

On the electronics side, for a light which was going to be using 3xAA or one or more 18650s in parallel, relatively few extra components might be necessary, and if one LED is a flood, it could be fitted into a pretty small space in a properly designed headset.

 

[ToddM]

That's all very possible.

There's also the possibility it's on purpose with some companies in order to sell multiple lights to users. Look at Garmin for instance (don't get me wrong for the most part I like their products) but they make cycling, hiking, car, golf, motorcycle running/exercise GPS units with purposely lacking software/hardware features so users are forced to buy the cycling gps if they want the cycling software features, while the cycling one won't have hiking features etc. and that's simply a software issue, so Garmin is choosing to cripple the units except for their very specific purpose. If motorcycle users want a water resistant NUVI they pay through the nose for the "motorcycle" version. Some large light companies might be doing the same in order to sell multiple units to customers. It's not quite the same though, in a gps it's mostly all software with lights there's obviously light focus, size, output batteries, weight etc. that impact as well. There's also always the balance of trade offs, many times something designed to be too versatile doesn't work as well for anything.

A couple bike light companies I've asked this question to have said that they feel 50-100 lumens is more than "dim" enough for close up work and use around camp etc., others have said that if they have a 1000 lumen light they can't go below 10% of that without destroying the efficiency of the system.

Even if the perfect light existed I'm sure I'd still probably carry a couple of them if for no other reason just redundancy, but on the plus side things are making really big progress the last few years.

 

[B0wz3r]

A couple bike light companies I've asked this question to have said that they feel 50-100 lumens is more than "dim" enough for close up work and use around camp etc., others have said that if they have a 1000 lumen light they can't go below 10% of that without destroying the efficiency of the system.

They're not familiar with the Zebras then I take it. Whatever magic they have, I don't think there's a company with a more efficient driver over such a wide range of outputs as Zebras generally have.

Right now, my brightest headlamp is my ST5-190nw which is supposed to do about 300L on max with a 14500. I'm planning on getting an ST6-460nw in the next couple of months, but I can't honestly see myself ever needing 1000L headlamp.

To answer the question specifically, I'd say that most bike helmet companies (Bell bought Giro out a few years ago, so they're basically just one big company now, at least in the US) probably shouldn't try to get into making headlamps for helmets. The best high end lighting systems that are specifically designed for bikes now days, such as the NiteRider systems, aren't as bright as a good high-end torch, and cost many times what such a torch would cost.

I've inquired about the tech specs of such lights as to what emitters they use and their outputs, and most are still on XPE's or the lower output Nichias. NiteRider refuses to say what emitters they use. Given their outputs don't approach that of a good high-end torch (unless you buy the very highest end system they have), I doubt they're using even XPG's. So as it is, even the companies out there that make a dedicated bike light product are still behind the curve compared to what companies like Zebra, Spark, FourSevens, NiteCore, Jetbeam, and so on are doing. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for a bike helmet company to try and get into the headlamp business, but, I do think that a lot of the torch companies are missing an opportunity to produce a good quality light, that's insanely bright, and doesn't cost a finger and a toe like NiteRider systems do. Fenix already seems to have taken this up, so maybe it's just a matter of time until other torch companies do as well.

 

[jtr1962]

I think a larger market share being missed is bike lights which are "all-in-ones". One thing about the high output bike lights and helmet lights is the fact that both have an external battery pack, which implies a cumbersome cable. An all-in-one is so much neater. With, say, four 26650 cells, you can have ~1000 lumens for several hours, and the light will still be relatively compact. OK, a light with four 26650s might be too heavy for a helmet, but then again I've never thought helmet lights are a good idea. The beam just bounces around too much from videos I've seen. And many bike riders (me included) don't wear helmets. In fact, there's reason to believe helmet use will decline to practically zero as cycling for transportation becomes more mainstream. Just look at videos of cyclists in Copenhagen or other European cities. Hardly anyone wears helmets, even children.

So no, I don't think there's much market share being missed by not making multiuse helmet lights. I feel there's a much bigger market being missed by not offering many all-in-ones with more than a few hundred lumens output.

I don't however buy the argument that efficiency would decrease by having output levels under 10%. I design LED drivers as part of my business. Sometimes driver efficiency does decline at low currents, but increased LED efficiency more than makes up for it. And some drivers can't be dimmed under 10% in constant current mode. You need to resort to PWM. This might cause strobing issues on a bike if the PWM frequency was too slow. My guess is most of the reason for not offering super low levels for helmet lights is the manufacturers just don't see the need. They may also be concerned about increasing the complexity of the interface. Remember that someone on a moving bike can't devote a whole lot of attention to dealing with complex, multilevel lights. You might need to add buttons to get something intuitively useful. For example, on a bike light I've been working on, I'm using three buttons to set levels. On button goes up a level at each push, the other goes down a level. The third button goes instantly to full output when pressed, and back to the previous level when pressed again. I probably could have done everything with one button, but it would have made the light too cumbersome to use on a moving bike. Remember when going 20 to 25 mph on roads full of potholes, cars, pedestrians, the odd animal, and debris, my ability to deal with complex interfaces is pretty limited. That's why I bought a Sigma cycling computer-it has four buttons instead of the usual two. Each button does less, but at least there's no complex menus to deal with.

 

[bietjiedof]

I am a sport cyclist who does quite a bit of night riding. I use a Magicshine MJ872 (4 x XP-G) light on my handlebars, which is rated 1,600 lumens (but is probably around 1,000 lm OTF), which I like very much. I use a 6 x 18650 battery pack which sits in a bottle-cage, but there are also 4 x 18650 packs available.

But, even though the Magicshine makes a lot of floody light (so much, in fact, that I rarely use it on full power) I still like to use a helmet-mounted light - I find it useful on the road for alerting motorists who are coming out of side streets, and off-road for navigating twisty trails and single-track where the handlebar light is not yet pointing in the direction I will be going.

If I had to choose between having a helmet light and a handlebar light, I'd choose the helmet light - if I could find one that is both bright enough (over 1,000 lm OTF) and light enough. I've experimented mounting my Magicshine on a helmet, and the problem is the weight of the battery pack - even a 4 x 18650 is too heavy. I have an extension lead so that I can carry the battery pack in the pocket of my jersey, but it's a clunky solution, so I leave the light on the handlebar.

I completely agree with the OP - there's a real need for a multi-purpose light that is bright enough for fast riding in total darkness, but can be dialled down to read a map or fix a puncture, and that can be attached to a helmet or worn on a head-strap without the helmet. The problem, I suspect, comes back to the efficiency of emitters relative to available Li-Ion batteries. To be really useful, a helmet-mounted bike-light needs to produce over 1,000 lumens for at least an hour - on no more than 2 x 18650s. From what I can see (from 2 x 18650 flashlights) we're close, but not quite there yet.

Related issues include the mechanics of mounting the light-head and battery pack on a helmet, or on a head-strap, or designing a helmet that can take a head-strap (!); the shape of the beam (more floody than throwy, but bright enough to clearly illuminate 100 yards ahead); the colour of the light (neutral is a big advantage off-road, IMHO; and the user interface (ideally some kind of remote control mounted on the handlebar, with a bi-directional switch so you can go dimmer or brighter without having to cycle through all the settings).

 

[MikeAusC]

. . . . A couple bike light companies I've asked this question to have said that they feel 50-100 lumens is more than "dim" enough for close up work and use around camp etc., others have said that if they have a 1000 lumen light they can't go below 10% of that without destroying the efficiency of the system. . . . .

Oh dear. There comes a time when someone just has to say NO to the engineers. Design a light that customers want - not one that makes the designer feel smart.

If I need a light that lets me read a map, but doesn't blind me so I can't see a thing when I look up from the map, then I NEED a light with 1 Lumen. I DON'T CARE if it's only operating at 5 Lumens per watt efficiency.

Yes, I am a Qualified Engineer.

 

[AnAppleSnail]

Functionally speaking, what we want is generally a low output flooder (0.1 to 100 lumen output options) duct-taped to the high-power, bike-optimized UI (lowest level here is adequate for biking speed) lamp?

Adding "a few more parts" to enable this without the duct tape may not be elegant engineering, but it might crack open a new market. It's not like a flooder LED with an electronic-switch driver takes up much more volume than a gaming dice.

 

[B0wz3r]

I couldn't agree more about "all in one" lights. In fact, I'm done with lights for my bike that require an external battery pack. I use all all-in-one flashlights and headlamps for all my bike light needs now.

It's taken a while, but I've got a set up for my bike that's as close to perfect as I can get. I have a little Romisen RC29 flood-to-throw light on my bars with a TwoFish block. It's adjusted to a low angle, so that I always have about 10' of light directly in front of my wheel, no matter whether I'm turning, or looking somewhere else. I also use a Zebralight H51Fr on my seatpost as a tail light.

On my helmet I have my H502d right up under the visor, so I always have good light directly in front of me when I need. I don't ride with it on though. On top of my helmet I have my old Jetbeam Jet III Pro ST with a neutral XRE in it. It's very throwy for not being a dedicated thrower and gives me good light a long way down range. I also like it because with the IBS UI, I've got the first mode programmed to max, the second to about 35%, and the third mode to a beacon/strobe setting. I'm thinking about replacing it with a brighter light though; I've been considering a Solarforce P1 with an HCRI Nailbender module that will do about 600L OTF.

 

[xcandrew]

My most used headlamp is a Gemini Lights Xera. I have it set up so I connect it to a battery pack attached to a belt. I admit that makes it more of a hassle to use, but I like to keep weight off my head for less bounce when running fast, and I want to use my larger 4-cell battery in the winter for don't-have-to-worry-about-running-low long run times in the cold. My girlfriend likes the convenience (one piece) of keeping a 2-cell battery on the the back of the headstrap on her Xera. We use the lights mostly for running and skiing with our dogs, plus dog walking, orienteering, hiking, skijoring and similar activities.

An ideal beam shape for me would be as functional as an automobile headlight and designed for high speed activities like running, cross country skiing, skijoring/mushing, biking, where, when you have the beam aimed like an automobile light at a downward angle far up the trail, there is good throw transitioning smoothly to a moderately wide spill that also put usable light down just in front of your skis/feet/front tire even at the low setting. The light down there is essential. For a symmetrical/circular shape, that would also give it a wide enough light that you avoid tunnel vision. I'm not using these lights for road biking, so I'm not worried about upper cutoffs like automobile headlights or non-symmetrical shapes. The Xera with the standard optic is great at full power (~800 lumens), but on low (~200 lumens on mine) the spill becomes dark enough that the beam starts feeling on the narrow side, and I have aim it not as far up the trail to keep the ground near my skis well lit. I have tried the optional reflector for the Xera, and don't like it as much (too narrow for the spot part, and the smooth transition from main beam to spill is lost). Gemini also offers a narrow optic that many on the mtbr lights and night riding forum seem to like - but those who like the narrower beams are the ones who use two light setups (spot helmet light in conjunction with broader beam on the handlebars). I am interested only in single light setups, so the narrow beams are definitely out. The standard Xera optic is pretty decent for me, but I have suggested to Gemini that they develop an optic for the Xera with a wider beam - not a flood, but more like the Lupine Piko. Beamshots that I have seen of the Gloworm X2 with the spot/wide combo seem close to ideal (though that headlamp might be a bit larger than I like). There are other small form factor bike lights that look like they have beams that would work for me based on the mtbr bike light test beam shots. I have no interest switchable multi-beams (flood mode/spot mode). One good beam pattern is what I want. I can read a map perfectly fine while night orienteering or ski orienteering with 800 lumens on high - the way my headlamp is aimed (up the trail), I naturally hold a map in the lower spill anyway, so it is never too bright, and I can switch from looking at my map to looking up into the woods or up the trail naturally and without needing to do an additional task of pushing buttons to change the beam shape or brightness - one good usable beam pattern. I just use one beam in the multi-beam headlamp that I own (admittedly a weak Princeton Tec Remix... the flood is a horrible shade of purple, the the spot is a good enough all around beam to use instead.) I don't want more than one switch, and I just want low, medium, high, and off.

I personally don't have a need for below 100 lumen settings. If I want a reading light, I'm more likely to pick up a light like my (modified) PT Eos. It would be silly to use the Xera, small as it is, for reading or walking around the house, but more because of the form factor than the amount of light. Turn the light on in your kitchen/bedroom/desk/table lamp, and it's going to be brighter than 100 lumens. I actually just put on my Xera and walked around my dark house and read things on the counter and on the couch, and it works great even though the low is set up to be about 200 lumens. What I mentioned before about reading maps using the spill part of the beam, still applies - and it's a really smooth spill light with no noticeable artifacts at reading distance. The excess goes forward and up and around towards lighting up the room, and I'm not that concerned about wasted light, because I have a lot of battery power. I can also lie on the couch with the beam reflecting off the ceiling almost like I turned on a room light and read a book well lit from the ceiling reflected light (even on the low setting... on the high setting, it is like turning on the room light - and I think it will automatically lower the current if it gets too hot). I'll be sure to remember that next time we have a power outage! I know what I say won't change anyone's mind, but for me the lower settings would be to save battery life and battery life is usually not a concern for me except when I'm outdoors in the dark for a long time. In that case, I'm wanting 200-800 lumens anyway.

I'm not looking at headlamps the way Todd M is, but I also had been coveting the Piko since the first version came out. I'm glad I got the Xera (in late 2011), because I don't see how the Piko can be worth 2-3x the Xera. For the way I use the light, they are pretty much equivalent. Unlike my old Magicshine where the cables would break after a month of running/bouncing around/flexing, the Gemini cables have been reliable.

I think where bike light manufacturers are missing marketing opportunities is in the US running market. 800+ lumen lights are definitely NOT overkill for running as any night orienteering competitor will tell you. I'd like to see better headstraps that are more stable for fast running. Companies like Gemini and Gloworm should offer headstraps like the Lupine headband HD. Having two horizontal straps behind the back of the head keeps the headstrap from shifting. Non-stretching over-the-top straps and plates with enough vertical dimension can also help to keep the lighthead from bouncing. I tried on the Petzl NAO at the store, and at least from that initial try, that strap system also seemed decent for running and much more stable than the traditional headstrap. Even for biking, I usually don't wear a helmet, so a good headstrap.

I don't think long distance backpacking would be a good target market for these kinds of lights because you won't be able to recharge 2 or 4 cell li-ion batteries while in the woods/mountains, but most backpacking and hiking trips are weekend trips. If you were wanting to hike in the dark for a limited amount of time (about 3-8? hours of mixed power level 200-800 lumen use per 4-cell battery), like an early start for a weekend peak bagging trip where you might want a lot of light for route finding in the dark, these lights would fit the bill perfectly.

For my use, I not into the all-in-one bike lights or the Zebralight H600 because I don't see how they can have a good form factor for running (fast). I don't want the weight of the battery on the front of the headstrap - it's either a battery on the body connected by a cable or a smaller battery on the back of the head.

 

[xcandrew]

Functionally speaking, what we want is generally a low output flooder (0.1 to 100 lumen output options) duct-taped to the high-power, bike-optimized UI (lowest level here is adequate for biking speed) lamp?

No, If I wanted those two functions, I'd save the duct tape and carry both lights. You gain better form for both lights. You might save a little weight when combining the functions, but the uses are different enough for me that they don't overlap much. A high-powered light should be very usable in a pinch to read a map in the spill part of the beam, but I'm not going to need to do close up work with it. When I'm indoors or maybe in a camp with a low output flood headlamp, I am not traveling at speed or route finding, and I won't need the high output ability.

 

[B0wz3r]

No, If I wanted those two functions, I'd save the duct tape and carry both lights. You gain better form for both lights. You might save a little weight when combining the functions, but the uses are different enough for me that they don't overlap much. A high-powered light should be very usable in a pinch to read a map in the spill part of the beam, but I'm not going to need to do close up work with it. When I'm indoors or maybe in a camp with a low output flood headlamp, I am not traveling at speed or route finding, and I won't need the high output ability.

I agree with you partly on this, but not completely. While biking, I certainly prefer to have my two-lights set up as I mention above. But, if I'm hiking, camping, etc., then I can see how having a single light that gives both high power throw and a lower output flood would be quite handy. Considering the effects of the inverse square law, and the logarithmic way brightness is perceived by the brain, having a setting where both emitters were on would give both good distance vision without also overpowering your close up vision at the same time. A lot of this would rely on reflector design and emitter placement, but I don't see why that would that big of an engineering issue; the math for that stuff is pretty well worked out at this point, and it would really only be a matter of doing the design work.

To deal with the electrical requirements for a high powered output, it'd probably have to run off of an 18650 or 2xCR123, but that would just be that much more run time available for the lower power outputs. It could even use an external battery pack to allow it to use multiple AA's to provide the necessary power for the high output, and match the cell format of most other outdoor gear.

If Spark or Zebra were to make a light like this, I'd be all over it.

 

[ToddM]

Lots of good thoughts and info. I suppose that's why so many headlamps exist everyone has different needs/desires. Previously most "bike" lights have been too big to ever interest me for anything other than cycling or helmet mounted use. But now these newer small led single/dual formats are not much bigger than the typical camping headlamp from petzl etc.

I'm a gear redundant person, so if I venture off into the field I'm always going to take a backup light. However, I still like the idea of the Piko, gloworm X2, etc. sized headlamps approaching something that is very versatile. To me they offer a huge amount of light when you need it, but in the case of the Piko with the small battery are no bigger than my petzl myo, but offer regulated outputs, much much brighter options, and much better run times at similar brightness. The piko will run for 20 hours at 140 lumens regulated with a tiny headband mounted battery, most petzl headlamps won't run at half of that brightness for more than a couple hours unregulated. 30 minutes after you start using a Tikka X2 it's already lost 1/3 of it's brightness. Even the Myo will only hold 70 lumens for 3 hours before it drops out of regulation. 140 lumens for 20 hours in a nearly the same size form factor literally crushes the typical AA/AAA camp lights, and those lights are not cheap the Myo is nearly $100. To me that's the big plus of some of the really bright lights, they run a very long time at lower brightness.

I see two problems with the piko, cost of course is an aside, I look at it like optics, you can spend $250 on lots of crappy binoculars over the years or $2000 on one really great pair you'll have for a lifetime and get much better performance from over that time as well. I've probably spent way more than what a piko costs on lots of inferior headlamps that are now in a junk drawer over the years. The first is no beam adjustment, the gloworm x2 has them here by offering flood/spot optics or using one of each for a combo beam. The second is no option for a primary cell pack, which could probably be worked around if you found the right connector, also frankly most people don't care about primary cells anymore, they want rechargeable, look at cell phones, people no longer care about a replaceable battery, they are tied to power sources enough most have no problems recharging things on a near daily basis as most phones these days need.

Is spending $500 for a light that has low output foolish, I don't think so, not when it has higher power options. I don't think putting a reading/camping level light into say the piko is a waste, if you are spending that much for a product the more use you get out of it the better your purchase serves you. Would I still carry a backup light, of course, but it saves me time not having to swap them out constantly, if I have to do that, then it's no longer a backup light.

Funny part is, it's all about perspective, for example we're prepping to go to do some arctic field work, and in the past I'm pretty sparing with cr123 lights for the cost of batteries, yet if you have to run lithium primary cells such as you do in the arctic, all of a sudden cr123's are actually significantly cheaper than lithium AA's. I can buy respected CR123's for $1 a pop, less than half what ultimate lithium AA's cost locally.