Magnic Light: Get New Energy!

by Dirk Strothmann

Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Missing avatar

      Bill Turner on July 10, 2012

      Dirk, nice job on the micro version. Light weight and unobtrusive is always good. I will gladly wait until September for this version.

    2. Feng Juan on July 10, 2012

      I like a smaller, lighter light, which emits the same amount of light, although, as you intimated, the design is a lot less pretty than the original. I *am* very worried about the robustness of an injection molded plastic device as opposed to carbon fiberglass materials previously proposed. Injection molded plastics are often brittle. That said, I'm willing to wait for you to produce a profitable and robust product.

    3. Darell Dickey on July 10, 2012

      Definitely willing to wait for a smaller one, and aesthetics don't even come into play. Would like it durable, but don't need CF.

    4. Yiping Lin on July 11, 2012

      Smaller one (as long as the brightness is the same, not less). Durable & Waterproof are also very important.
      I'm not so sure about CF, as I'm afraid that the heat dissipation in CF is poor.

    5. Missing avatar

      David Lewis on July 11, 2012

      The smaller light with roughly the same light output sounds like a good idea to me. I will happily accept two of the smaller ones instead of one of the larger carbon ones. If producing the smaller one doesn't work out, I'm happy with the original deal. Best of luck with your efforts, I think this is a great advance in bicycle lighting!

    6. Missing avatar

      Max Kueng on July 11, 2012

      I would also prefer the smaller ones. Especially if we get to mount one on each side. I've never liked the look of the carbon fiber anyway and would have probably painted it.

    7. Missing avatar

      cristauxdefer on July 11, 2012

      The smaller the better. I give more importance to efficiency than look. Moreover, smaller is also more discrete; in the city I could be afraid of thieves. Keep on going ;-)

    8. Missing avatar

      Markus on July 11, 2012

      Cool work! I'd definitely prefer the smaller version, if that works out.

      First because of it's size of course, as this is way less obtrusive. Secondly, the non-carbon design just looks nicer and more compact to me (I don't think the carbon stuff is particularly sexy, but your mileage may vary of course).

      Will the small version be available with both red and white LEDs for front and rear?

    9. Jana Cole on July 11, 2012

      I would prefer the smaller version, especially if i can get two of them? Congratulations on the new design, and thank you for all of your ingenious work!

    10. Missing avatar

      Richard C Felton on July 11, 2012

      I am good to wait until September for the smaller version - hopefully before the end of the year for sure?! - keep up the good work however development must stop at some point so that you can go to market and satisfy your present backers - been there done this - new designs can be done after you complete this phase

    11. Missing avatar

      Markus Lamers on July 11, 2012

      Die kleinere Version (vor allem, wenn es dann für jede Seite eins gibt) wäre super .. da warten wir doch gern.
      Ich bin schon ganz gespannt und freu mich drauf.

    12. Missing avatar

      Noah McMurray on July 11, 2012

      I, too, would be more than willing to wait for the smaller version; it looks and sounds very cool!

    13. Yiping Lin on July 11, 2012

      @Dirk Strothmann:
      It will be better if you can post the comparision video of light brightness between the micro version and the original version. Some people have doubt about the same brightness from the micro version.

    14. Missing avatar

      Jon Webb on July 11, 2012

      I would definitely prefer the smaller, lighter light. But, as I've said before, there is always a temptation in these projects to keep designing new stuff instead of shifting to making and selling the same thing over and over. Please do not fall into that trap. You are a smart guy, and the original light was a big advance in itself. It's not really necessary to make it even better -- but it is really necessary to complete the project and ship reliable, tested, working, lights.

    15. Missing avatar

      Carlos D on July 11, 2012

      The micro would be great it the light output is the same to the original, that is, the output of 1 "micro" light is the same to the output of 1 large/old carbon fiber one. Getting 2 micros instead of a single larger carbon fiber would be great. IMO Being very robust, reliable AND waterproof are the most important things. How does the micro works with cantilever/vbrakes, a different adapter?
      Great work!

    16. Missing avatar

      Florian Göldenitz on July 11, 2012

      I would prefer the small light. I do not want to illuminate the street in front of me with the magnic light. Therefore I have a Lupine :-) I will use the magnic light on the road bike in the winter month where sometimes the tour gets a litte bit longer and the daylight is not enough to ride home. Furthermore I think in the city the brightness of the small version is sufficient.

    17. Missing avatar

      Damon Taaffe on July 11, 2012

      I agree with Jon and Carlos. I would definitely prefer two micros to one carbon, even if the minis are each trivially dimmer than the carbons, because combined they'd still be much brighter, would have a wider field of illumination, and would be only half the weight of the carbon. But shipping in a reasonable timeframe is a must, and quality can't be sacrificed. (For what it's worth, it's clear that quality is high on your list of priorities, so I'm not too worried.)

    18. Missing avatar

      brian r on July 11, 2012

      I like the two smaller ones as well but..

      < featureCreep >
      How much power can this system generate? (mW/rpm) Could a small
      USB port be fitted to the back to trickle charge a smartphone or GPS receiver? :)
      < /featureCreep >

    19. Stephen Olsen on July 11, 2012

      Smaller is better. Great job!

    20. Missing avatar

      Markus on July 11, 2012

      I agree with Carlos D. in that the light has to be robust and waterproof.
      A minor thought on visibility at night: If you place a thin panel of acrylic glass with sloped edges on top of the LEDs, a small fraction of light is also visible from the side. I suppose this would not add too much to the overall costs, yet it is definitely an advantage on the road to be visible from aside to pedestrians and car drivers.

    21. Nathan Simpson on July 11, 2012

      I look forward to seeing a comparison of the light throw from both versions. I backed this because I wanted a light I could mount on my road bike so I could replace my light that required a battery pack. I need cars to be able to see me but I also wanted the road ahead to be well lit. Got to avoid the potholes that Geelong roads are famous for.

    22. Missing avatar

      Frank Tsai on July 12, 2012

      the priorities for me
      brightness/beam shape > weight/size > carbon fiber
      thanks for the hard work!

    23. Missing avatar

      Jon Webb on July 12, 2012

      The more I think about this, the more worried I get. You are two months away from having to ship these lights, and you're still doing design? What are you thinking? You should be testing by now, I'd think. There are undoubtedly going to be bugs you discover when you have what you think is the final model, which you'll have to address. Little mounting issues, or inconsistencies in the quality of the magnets, or problems with the electronics reliability or durability -- I don't know where the bugs will come from, but they'll be there, and you'll have to fix them and then test the fixes. This is not software, where the turnaround between a fix and its release can be days or a few weeks. You are building a hardware component which should work, and keep working, under fairly harsh conditions (in the rain, in the cold, while being bumped around, etc.), for years.

    24. Dirk Strothmann 3-time creator on July 12, 2012

      Maybe you misunderstood my update. We have a robust carbon version and we have done and do tests to make it a good product. But we know that this version is not suited for some reasons for large scale production now. So we started to do a parallel design and I think it would not be fair to hide it from the backers. So no problem for those who don't like the small version and want the carbon version.

    25. Jon Wasserman on July 12, 2012

      1. I agree with the above post. Advance in LED lights is about 1 year, Moores law for lghts, there will always be the next advance, lighter, more powerful, cheaper.
      2. I question the mounting of the light on the brake shoe. Would this not move the distance between the light & the rim during braking? What would the effect on output be in the release vs applied position? Then there is brake shudder. This would shake the light when needed in a hard braking situation and put forces on the light that would over time move it out of position, especially after wear over time of the adjustment joint.
      3 I would say it is time to finalise 1st generation, produce & ship.

    26. Jon Wasserman on July 12, 2012

      1 more question. Backers that signed up for 2 original lights, 4 minis?

    27. Dirk Strothmann 3-time creator on July 12, 2012

      Hi Jon,

      There is no big difference concerning mounting the light between carbon and mini version. Both can be mounted via an adapter but also directly at the brakes (depending on the system). The distance to the rim has to be large enough- same as before and the brake light effect only works if the distance to the rim gets smaller when braking.
      Since we have made some changes inside (also in the carbon version) I think it's better to think before starting production;-). This also means thinking about production process- for example I could sit down winding coils 4 weeks but if I need 6 weeks to arrange the process and then the work is done in 1 day I prefer the second solution.
      >Backers that signed up for 2 original lights, 4 minis?
      If we manage to produce the "minis" this is correct - otherwise you'll get the carbon version.

    28. Missing avatar

      Jon Webb on July 12, 2012

      I did misunderstand. Since I signed up for the double, originally, I guess I would like one set each.

    29. Oliver Wahler on July 12, 2012

      I would be happy with the smaller version.

    30. Missing avatar

      Everaert Karl on July 12, 2012

      Doesn't matter for me, whatever's left is OK.
      If you have a new design you want to tryout you can send me a step-file then i can 3D print it.
      The material is not so strong but the layers <50micron.

    31. Henrik & Denise Van Ryzin on July 13, 2012

      Thank you SO much for the update - it is a great one! I'm all for the smaller version of the light. As I plan on leaving the lights on my bike at all times, the smaller form factor will be much more unobtrusive, and hopefully will not attract thieves. Fantastic work - I think the small design looks great. Form follows function!

    32. Missing avatar

      James Yoo on July 16, 2012

      prefer the smaller here

    33. Missing avatar

      Ed Lynch-Bell on July 17, 2012

      Definitely prefer the smaller one.

      Your tooling cost seems somewhat high for the size and complexity of the components, but maybe I am missing something.

    34. Missing avatar

      Thomas Fox on July 21, 2012

      Go for the smaller version - definitely worth the wait (and the increased tooling costs)!

    35. Missing avatar

      Peter Cooke on July 21, 2012

      I can wait for a smaller version, especially as it would simplify mounting using the brake shoe method. If you can get the same light projection and spread this would be ideal.

    36. Missing avatar

      Dirk Rüter on July 22, 2012

      Hallo Dirk,

      die Innovationen gefallen mir gut.
      Deswegen nehme ich auch gerne die Micro-Version!
      Für mich ist nur wichtig, dass keine Einbußen der Verkehrssicherheit und Stabilität entstehen.
      Da das gelöst ist, unterstütze ich die neue Version.



    37. Missing avatar

      Doug Mandell on July 22, 2012

      I'd prefer the smaller version so long as it's well tested and relatively strong. Of course the original version is fine as well.

    38. Vitor Aguiar on July 25, 2012

      I'd like to watch a video showing the smaller version working, but I think I like it better than the bigger one. I would be satisfied with either one though. A quick-release adapter would be nice. You're doing a great job, Dirk!

    39. Jesse Moynihan on July 30, 2012

      Do I have to tell you which light I want? I originally ordered one front light. I really don't care if it's the small or big one. I will take which ever gets to my bike faster.

    40. Alastair Schoen on August 1, 2012

      Yes, I would certainly prefer the two 30g lights over the one large 120g light. A near doubling of light output? Illumination of both top sides of the front wheel will make me much more noticeable at night. I seriously thought about ordering two larges originally for this purpose, but the micros cover that pretty well! Of course, as long as it still meets a good expectation of waterproofness, durability, and a good beam to help me see the road ahead.

      Also, I've recently moved abroad and would prefer shipping directly to my new location. Is there a way to add shipping charges post-conclusion of kickstarter open period?

      Thanks Dirk!

    41. Missing avatar

      Christian D. on August 3, 2012

      Ich schließe mich der Bitte nach einem Vergleichsvideo der beiden Versionen an. Ein paar Worte zum aktuellen Zeitplan wären ebenfalls willkommen. Danke und viele Grüße!