Cateye Micro Halogen Headlights HL-500II vs. MC-200?

Steve Sr. wrote:
Lighting Gurus,

Do any of you have any opinions of Cateye's halogen battery operated
headlights?

I believe that the MC-200 is the original Cateye Micro which is a 2.4W
4 AA light. These are supposedly bright enough to see by and I think
they are popular with commuters and shorter brevet riders. This light
appears to have been discontinued as there is no information except
for parts on the Cateye web site.

It looks like the replacement for the MC-200 is the HL-500II (Micro
II?) It has the same battery and bulb arrangement as the MC-200. I was
wondering if the optics and the overall light is better or worse than
its predecessor. It does look like the reflector diameter is smaller
on this one.

It appears that these both use a proprietary over driven halogen bulb.
Are these bulbs only available from Cateye? It looks like Cateye is
really trying to push towards LED technology so am wondering how long
bulbs for their halogen lights will be available.

The MC-200 is a cheaper version of the HL-500II. The HL-500II has been
around for at least 10 years and has been very popular. The MC-200 was
not as well reviewed. The HL-500II is still sold, although I think time
is limited for incandescent lights.

LED lights are slightly more efficient overall, more rugged with better
lamp life. The only drawback is the 3x price differential. A light made
from a 1W LED like the NiteHawk Emitter is somewhat less bright than the
Cateye Micro, but has a better beam pattern. Because of the intrinsic
optics of LED devices the beams will be better than incandescents, even
the tiny bulbs that Cateye uses.

Peter Cole wrote:
Steve Sr. wrote:

Lighting Gurus,

Do any of you have any opinions of Cateye's halogen battery operated
headlights?
I believe that the MC-200 is the original Cateye Micro which is a 2.4W
4 AA light. These are supposedly bright enough to see by and I think
they are popular with commuters and shorter brevet riders. This light
appears to have been discontinued as there is no information except
for parts on the Cateye web site.

It looks like the replacement for the MC-200 is the HL-500II (Micro
II?) It has the same battery and bulb arrangement as the MC-200. I was
wondering if the optics and the overall light is better or worse than
its predecessor. It does look like the reflector diameter is smaller
on this one.

It appears that these both use a proprietary over driven halogen bulb.
Are these bulbs only available from Cateye? It looks like Cateye is
really trying to push towards LED technology so am wondering how long
bulbs for their halogen lights will be available.


The MC-200 is a cheaper version of the HL-500II. The HL-500II has been
around for at least 10 years and has been very popular. The MC-200 was
not as well reviewed. The HL-500II is still sold, although I think time
is limited for incandescent lights.

LED lights are slightly more efficient overall, more rugged with better
lamp life. The only drawback is the 3x price differential. A light made
from a 1W LED like the NiteHawk Emitter is somewhat less bright than the
Cateye Micro, but has a better beam pattern. Because of the intrinsic
optics of LED devices the beams will be better than incandescents, even
the tiny bulbs that Cateye uses.

OK, I did pay over $30 for the LED Cateye, but I think it was worth it.
It has a quick release bracket so I can take it in the house with me and
it makes a very good flashlight, too.
Bill

Steve Sr. wrote:

I agree that the incandescents are probably going away pretty soon.
However, if you compare similar power source lights you have the
HL-500II halogen vs. the EL-500 LED. The current opinions that I have
read seem to indicate that the light quantity and quality of the
halogen is still superior to that of the LED. We're not quite there
yet.

I don't know. I haven't seen the EL-500, but comparing the HL-500II to a
NiteHawk Emitter side-by-side, it's close. The NiteHawk is a bit dimmer,
but the light is whiter and the beam is more even. With 3x battery life
and better light toward the end of battery life, including a long time
for dim, but still white, light, I think the Emitter is a better choice.
I have 3 of the Cateyes, but I don't think I'll buy any more, even at
the $8 price of my last purchases.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:55:28 -0500, Steve Sr. wrote:

I agree that the incandescents are probably going away pretty soon.
However, if you compare similar power source lights you have the
HL-500II halogen vs. the EL-500 LED. The current opinions that I have
read seem to indicate that the light quantity and quality of the
halogen is still superior to that of the LED. We're not quite there
yet.

I disagree. We are definitely there in all ways but price, and that is
getting close. I have a 1-W Planet Bike led as a back-up light, and as my
absolute favorite general purpose flashlight. The light is better than
the older 4-AA halogens, and the batteries last much longer. You can't
just go by numbers, since the spectrum is different (bluer for the led)
and the beam pattern can make a huge difference.

On the high end I've also replaced a failing 15W niterider with a 5W
diNotte LED, and couldn't be happier. True, much of the improvement comes
from the fact that the diNotte never just shuts off for no reason, and it
holds a charge even when not plugged in constantly, both problems for the
NiteRider. But the light, though not quite as bright, illuminates the
road better due to its better beam pattern. The NiteRider focused too
much of the beam at a center spot, which you could aim way down the road.
Great for seeing things hundreds of feet away, but not so good for seeing
things you are about to run over.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can
_`\(,_ | assure you that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein
(_)/ (_) |

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:45:04 -0500, Peter Cole wrote:

I don't know. I haven't seen the EL-500, but comparing the HL-500II to a
NiteHawk Emitter side-by-side, it's close. The NiteHawk is a bit dimmer,
but the light is whiter and the beam is more even. With 3x battery life
and better light toward the end of battery life, including a long time
for dim, but still white, light, I think the Emitter is a better choice.
I have 3 of the Cateyes, but I don't think I'll buy any more, even at
the $8 price of my last purchases.

LEDs do seem to produce a more even beam than incandescents, which are not
only blotchy but inconsistent from one example to the next. Sometimes
they can be improved by bending the bulb back and forth in the mount, but
not always. I've thrown away several lights that were never quite right.
It seems LEDs can be mounted more accurately in their reflectors.

One reason bike light companies use MR lamps is that the optics are
pre-engineered and pre-made. ("MR" means "matched reflector.") But even
these vary *a lot* in quality control.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole wrote:

LEDs do seem to produce a more even beam than incandescents, which are not
only blotchy but inconsistent from one example to the next. Sometimes
they can be improved by bending the bulb back and forth in the mount, but
not always. I've thrown away several lights that were never quite right.
It seems LEDs can be mounted more accurately in their reflectors.

It's not obvious to me that LEDs would be mounted significantly more
accurately than a filament bulb. As I understand it, flange mount
filament bulbs exist for the specific purpose of controlling the
filament position very accurately. After 100 years, and using the
highly automated processes they now use, I'd expect they'd have things
under control.

But then, I'm already on record as being a person who's not bothered by
a less-than-smooth field of light.

One reason bike light companies use MR lamps is that the optics are
pre-engineered and pre-made.

Right, but they're pre-engineered for illuminating things like
Christmas trees and paintings on walls! The requirements for road
riding are much different!

The bigger reason for using them is that they are readily available in
bulk, even if they're a long way from optimum. The manufacturers can
buy low and sell high.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
Matt O'Toole wrote:

LEDs do seem to produce a more even beam than incandescents, which are not
only blotchy but inconsistent from one example to the next. Sometimes
they can be improved by bending the bulb back and forth in the mount, but
not always. I've thrown away several lights that were never quite right.
It seems LEDs can be mounted more accurately in their reflectors.


It's not obvious to me that LEDs would be mounted significantly more
accurately than a filament bulb. As I understand it, flange mount
filament bulbs exist for the specific purpose of controlling the
filament position very accurately. After 100 years, and using the
highly automated processes they now use, I'd expect they'd have things
under control.

Incandescents have a fairly large filament, which makes them non-point
sources, giving hot spots in the beam. The typical solution for his is
to use a diffuser. Edison bulbs are usually frosted, spotlights have a
"pebbled" lens, and miniature lamps have faceted reflectors -- all to
achieve uniform lighting. Unfortunately, these techniques make it more
difficult to collimate (focus) the beam so can't be used where a narrow
beam is needed.

LEDs are much closer to a point source. The actual radiating surface is
tiny, usually a lens is built into the housing. White LEDs, like the
high power ones in the better bike lights use phosphors (like
fluorescents), so they have a somewhat larger radiating surface, but the
radiation pattern is uniform and the surface is still small relative to
incandescents.

When riding with lights, you pick out much surface detail by the shadows
cast. It isn't helpful when the light source casts its own shadows.

In article ,
Peter Cole writes in part:

When riding with lights, you pick out much surface detail by the shadows
cast.

{\mini_rant
That's one of the things I have against having to mount "to see by"
lights way up on the handlebar.

The light mfgrs have plenty of room for more imagination when it
comes to designing and making available mounting/attachment systems
for their products.
}


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Peter Cole wrote:
wrote:


It's not obvious to me that LEDs would be mounted significantly more
accurately than a filament bulb.

Incandescents have a fairly large filament, which makes them non-point
sources, giving hot spots in the beam....

LEDs are much closer to a point source. The actual radiating surface is
tiny, usually a lens is built into the housing. White LEDs, like the
high power ones in the better bike lights use phosphors (like
fluorescents), so they have a somewhat larger radiating surface, but the
radiation pattern is uniform and the surface is still small relative to
incandescents.

From what I've seen, LEDs are not, practically speaking, a point
source. Yes, deep inside the plastic housing, the emitting surface
itself is small, but ISTM the optics of the plastic are such that the
effective "source" is the plastic body. Certainly this is true with
the common white LEDs, where the white light output is dependent on
flourescing the compounds in the plastic. That plastic body is way
bigger than a point!

A typical halogen filament is a little wider (side to side) than a
typical LED, but is much smaller in the vertical direction. ISTM that
this would allow _more_ precise focusing, as long as the location of
the filament is adequately controlled.

Now I don't know if high output Luxeons are the same as other LEDs in
this regard. I don't own any, yet. But I suspect they are.

I notice that filament-based bike lights (and car headlights, etc.)
frequently have very sharp, well-defined beam shapes, characteristic of
very good optical control. Every LED-based light I've seen has lacked
the sharp cutoffs. To me, this is evidence that the LED isn't as
focusable.


When riding with lights, you pick out much surface detail by the shadows
cast. It isn't helpful when the light source casts its own shadows.

The question is, what level of nonuniformity is a problem? I know of
no evidence that any ordinary bike light has a level of nonuniformity
that rises beyond the "personal preference" level. And personal
preference is obviously a YMMV thing.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

wrote:


It's not obvious to me that LEDs would be mounted significantly more
accurately than a filament bulb.

Incandescents have a fairly large filament, which makes them non-point
sources, giving hot spots in the beam....

LEDs are much closer to a point source. The actual radiating surface is
tiny, usually a lens is built into the housing. White LEDs, like the
high power ones in the better bike lights use phosphors (like
fluorescents), so they have a somewhat larger radiating surface, but the
radiation pattern is uniform and the surface is still small relative to
incandescents.


From what I've seen, LEDs are not, practically speaking, a point
source. Yes, deep inside the plastic housing, the emitting surface
itself is small, but ISTM the optics of the plastic are such that the
effective "source" is the plastic body. Certainly this is true with
the common white LEDs, where the white light output is dependent on
flourescing the compounds in the plastic. That plastic body is way
bigger than a point!

If you look at the documents at the Luxeon site, the lens diameter is
spec'ed at 6mm. They don't give the die dimension, but from the
photographs, it looks like 1mm. Their drawings show the die having a
phosphor layer directly deposited on it, so the emitting surface is the
same size as the die. The lens is partially collimating the source,
giving a "Lambertian" beam pattern of ~120 degrees. The reflector in the
NiteHawk housing further collimates to perhaps 10 degrees. The degree of
possible collimation is proportional to the relative size of the source
and the focusing elements -- bigger source, bigger elements (lens and/or
reflector).

A typical halogen filament is a little wider (side to side) than a
typical LED, but is much smaller in the vertical direction. ISTM that
this would allow _more_ precise focusing, as long as the location of
the filament is adequately controlled.

You're wrong about this, and it's easy to see from the uniformity of the
beam.

I notice that filament-based bike lights (and car headlights, etc.)
frequently have very sharp, well-defined beam shapes, characteristic of
very good optical control. Every LED-based light I've seen has lacked
the sharp cutoffs. To me, this is evidence that the LED isn't as
focusable.

I think you're confusing a couple of issues. You can mask any light
source with aperture, but the cutoff light is wasted. You can shape a
beam with lens elements (common with sealed beam units on cars), but
these are not perfect lenses, and the filaments are relatively large, so
you get a pretty uneven beam. In many applications quantity is more
important than quality.


When riding with lights, you pick out much surface detail by the shadows
cast. It isn't helpful when the light source casts its own shadows.

The question is, what level of nonuniformity is a problem? I know of
no evidence that any ordinary bike light has a level of nonuniformity
that rises beyond the "personal preference" level. And personal
preference is obviously a YMMV thing.

The typical incandescent flashlight has terrible beam uniformity, many
bike lights I've seen are almost as bad. I'm shining one of the old
Cateye HL-500 (2-C battery) lights on the wall as I type, it has a
reflector that's wider than tall (~2"x1") and has lens elements molded
(vertically oriented cylindrical lenses to spread the beam sideways and
a central circular lens to give a bright spot -- shifted slightly below
axis to make the spot "bottom heavy") it's very uneven, although a
somewhat useful shape. You can clearly see the projected image of the
bulb top (dim center in bright spot). It's just not as effective as the
LED light as far as uniform light beam goes. I find it harder to pick
out shadowed objects when the beam has so many artifacts.