Nowadays, I think that the only reason to use an external battery pack is for a helmet light or to extend the run time of an internal battery, bar light. For a bar light now, I’d suggest an internal battery unit for the convenience, budget permitting. Also, while 2200 lumens sounds great, I’ve found that most folk ride happily on between 1000 and 1500 lumens, light temperature and beam pattern will have an influence also.Posted 4 years agoratherbeintobagoSubscriber
I think it’s being sold as a race light.
I’ve got an R4, which is good enough for my purposes; I think the charge indicator on the new batteries is a Good Thing though, and might look at buying a new one when they become available in smaller (ie. 5200mAh) sizes.Posted 4 years agoMostly BalancedMember
2200 lumens? Who needs that much light?
I’m really quite happy with my 750 lumen Exposure Toro and regularly use it on the medium setting as that’s plenty in many situations. Surely the glare-back from shining 2200 lumens at anything less than 50m away would wreck your night vision?
I suppose it’s headlines that Hope are after.Posted 4 years ago
Mostly seems to reflect my own thoughts, I’m now a confirmed user of cheap far eastern lights and can’t see that changing any time soon (my “solar storm X2” is on its way, there will be some other sub £30 wonder available within 12 months too no doubt)…
Hope seem to have missed the point a little IMO, OK they’re not generally keen on the low cost end of the market, fair enough, not everyone is, but I can’t help thinking there are more “graceful” lights available at the high price point end of things, Trout spring to mind, Exposure seem to think a bit more about their products, good beam patterns and batteries all in one housing, Hope have just gone nuts on the numbers, eight emitters, silly Lumen figures, lots of amps and a stupid price…
If I had that money to spend on a light I really can’t see me wanting this Hope product inefficiently whittled from a billet, with a monster battery pack all weighing 1.5 lbs…
I’m starting to think that having reached the point where LEDs can obliterate the night should we want them to, there’s actually more value in a product that does more with less one or two emitters with decent (adjustable?) optics, useful low and mid power modes, nice compact, efficient battery packs, it doesn’t feel like hope have actually considered any real user requirements, they’ve just picked some big numbers and crammed them in, then picked an appropriate price tag…
/sigh…Posted 4 years agonwgilesMember
ratherbeintobago – Member
I’ve got an R4, which is good enough for my purposes; I think the charge indicator on the new batteries is a Good Thing though, and might look at buying a new one when they become available in smaller (ie. 5200mAh) sizes.
+1 R4 is bright enough whilst being small enough.
the charge indicator would be a nice featurePosted 4 years agocrashtestmonkeyMember
maybe the chinese/ebay phenomena, and the increasing power and decreasing costs of LEDs has skewed the market (for the better). Plenty of “£350, how much?!” responses which I agree with, but I remember seeing loads of Cateye Stadiums and Lupines out on the trails/courses which cost that sort of money 10 or more years ago.
Ive always been a minimalist night rider, of the opinion too much light ruined half the fun and feel of a night ride so the lumen war has always left me cold.Posted 4 years agostumpy01Member
There are still plenty of companies around selling lights in the £2-400 region so there must be a market for them.
Or maybe in the next couple of years you will see them all stop making lights as the wave of chinese lights takes over completely?
LEDs become more inefficient when you start pushing them harder. You end up using a lot more power to get a bit more light out at the top end. Perhaps Hope have gone for 8 LEDs so that each one is working at a more efficient point in it’s operating window, so you still get high outputs but at higher efficiency?
For a lot of people, price is a secondary consideration anyway. Plenty of people buy the things that they want to buy, rather than look for the cheapest option all the time (Thomson seatpost, Chris King headset…).Posted 4 years ago
If I was still doing a lot of night riding, I’d probably spend some decent wedge on a well known brand for my main light and then have a cheap one for a secondary source.
As it is my LED converted Lumi’s are pretty bright and a new mtbbatteries battery has breathed new life into them, so I won’t be changing them any time soon.
I am tempted though to go for a lower profile head light than the Spokeshirts one I bought a few years ago, even though it is still going strong.thisisnotaspoonMember
+1 for buying what you want/need rather than just cheep.
, I’m now a confirmed user of cheap far eastern lights and can’t see that changing any time
starting to think that having reached the point where LEDs can obliterate the night should we want them to, there’s actually more value in a product that does more with less
does not make sense, either you like the cheep inefficient chinese lights that emit a fraction of their claims or the high end stuff thats going to be more realistic/powerfull and have more thought put into the optics.Posted 4 years agoshredderSubscriber
I have had / use a Exposure Maxx D but started looking for something with more power.
Considered some of the current cheaper options, but in the end decided on a Troutie Lumen Luberator.
Picked it up yesterday and used it last night. Just superb and given the backup I know I would get it just becomes a no brainier.
Maxx D for sale now !Posted 4 years agotroutSubscriber
Hope IMHO lost the plot years ago and just kept plodding along with the old tech .
had they seen the light when I started popping 2 MXLs into their Vision 2 lights they had an easy path to a great lightset .
see the similarities to the modern Chinese twin XML stuff
The R8 is over complex , overpriced to sell shedloads they need to go keep it simple and small also the R4 was an underpowered cock upPosted 4 years ago
does not make sense, either you like the cheep inefficient chinese lights that emit a fraction of their claims or the high end stuff thats going to be more realistic/powerfull and have more thought put into the optics.
Can I not appreciate both ends of the spectrum for what they are (or are not)? I think most of the cost is in the housing with Hope lights, lots of costly milling does not a good light make…
Don’t get me wrong I certainly think there is a justifiable market for ~£200+ lights, Just because I’m a cheapskate doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the pricier end of things and the reason such products exist…
When you get to that high price point the key things would be more usable light, better beam patterns, reliability and run time I’d have thought, not having the ability to melt an owl…
Even if the R8 is running all of its LEDs at reduced current it’s still using 8 of the chuffers, how is that really “efficient”?
I think most high price point light consumers are probably more discerning than the R8’s target market which is a bit more Tim the tool man Taylor IMO…
Ignoring cost If you needed a decent, reliable light for say 24 hr Enduro event, would you really choose this Hope effort or would you be eyeing up less powerful Lumicycle, L&M, trout or exposure products?Posted 4 years ago
I think most of the cost is in the housing with Hope lights, lots of costly milling does not a good light make…
I’m not sure if you’ve ever designed and produced lights, but in my experience, you’re off a little on both counts. Where machining costs are significant and increase with quality of finish and complexity. Other components can cost more. I spent a lot on connectors to ensure best performance. Also, the detailed design of the housings give best package, good weight reduction and good structural and thermal performance. A lot of the cheaper lights have less machining, less surface area and so will slowly cook their LEDs over time.
As with many products, the details can make all the difference to performance, but as is sometimes the case in the bike light world, the details are seldom recognized, much less appreciated by the consumer.Posted 4 years ago
I’m confused as to why Hope continued with the R8, I thought they’d canned it a couple of years ago.
There will be die hard Hope fans who will buy them though.
Probably, but everyone is free to choose and its not always about lowest price, alone. As Trout said, its not entirely clear why Hope let their previous generation of bar light, run for so long, allowing it to be overtaken by the competition. My guess would be that they might have had a purchase commitment for the previous light, which didn’t sell as quickly as might have been expected.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the R8 win some sales and fans, as I’ve pointed out before, its a buyers market and there still seems to be a light out there to suit most tastes, ranging from the bargain basement Chinese specials to the artisan, low volume lights for those who like to use something a little less common.Posted 4 years agoMarkLGMember
I think most of the cost is in the housing with Hope lights, lots of costly milling does not a good light make…
I would have thought a large percentage of the cost is in the battery. A 7.8Ah battery that small isn’t going to be cheap to produce. If you look at decent quality cordless power tools the battery (3-4Ah, 18v) is the most expensive part of the kit. Genuine replacement laptop batteries are bloody expensive as well.Posted 4 years agomboySubscriber
I would have thought a large percentage of the cost is in the battery. A 7.8Ah battery that small isn’t going to be cheap to produce.
I think it’s probably less than you think it is. Smudge on here (MTB batteries) seems to do ok out of selling good priced, decent quality, replacement batteries for MTB lights (and other things). Looks like it’s a 6 cell 7.4V Li-ion pack to me, using decent quality branded cells will mean 7.8ah (as opposed to the 6.6ah you tend to see from cheap chinese 6 cell batteries).
Quite surprised at the all up weight of the R8 package though, the needlessly complicated bar clamp and size of the unit probably has a lot to do with that, but if I were Hope I’d go back to the drawing board, ditch a couple of LED’s, get the whole package under 500g in weight, bring the price down slightly and they’d proabably sell quite a few. 8 LED’s is kind’ve excessive for most, 4 is usually plenty but 6 is certainly more than enough. Weight, price and run time are usually more relevant on high priced, UK manufactured “boutique” lights I’d say these days than the out and out Lumen war… After all, if you’ve just bought a brand new R8 with a real 2200 Lumens, you’re bound to ride with somebody who’s just bought a “5000 Lumen light for £30 off ebay” on your next ride who will then proceed to tell you his light is more than twice as bright, for 1/10th the price! 😉
Anyway… I’d still buy a Trout, Exposure or a Four4ths over and above the Hope R8, all look nicer IMO, are lighter, and provide more than enough output without going over the top.Posted 4 years agoFuzzyWuzzyMember
I’ve gone from expensive (Exposure, Ay-Up etc.) to very cheap (Chinese ones) and back up to a middle ground (Trout one). I still rate Exposure and the like but can’t justify the price when well-made & well-supported stuff like Trout’s is available. To be fair the Chinese stuff was OK and for the price you can’t really fault them (assuming the battery or charger doesn’t blow up) but there’s a noticeable difference in quality and output (despite what the paper lumens might say) if you can afford to move up a notch.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Hope R8?’ is closed to new replies.