New BUMM premium Cyo, Fly and Icon coming in November: +output +spread

[Andre Jute]

The speed with which BUMM is launching new lamps demonstrates that they know there's a problem in their current ranges, most obvious in the most recent series of Cyo/Fly/Ixon which are simply not as good as the first series, leading to many disgruntled users. Whether it also demonstrates that BUMM knows how to fix problem remains to be discovered. Normally large, established companies in a market-leading position move cautiously for fear of upsetting a profitable applekart. You see this kind of ferment in the product line only for two reasons: they're in trouble (leadership, technical, lack of innovation -- clearly not the problem here!) or they're reinventing themselves, often after a change in leadership.

A GENUINE ADVANCE?
In my opinion these new lamps could potentially be more exciting (and meaningful to BUMM's profits) than the range-topping Luxos.

This discussion is based on information in these link (sorry, German only) provided in another thread by Martin:
http://fahrradbeleuchtung-info.de/iq-tec-premium-busch-mueller-verbessert-cyo-fly-und-ixon
http://www.bumm.de/news/detail/article/iq-tec-premium-mit-grossflaechen-lichtfeld.html
http://www.nabendynamo.de/news/news.html

BETTER LIGHT SPREAD
It does look though like they're responding to longstanding user complaints with a wider light throw: Old IQ-Tec above, new IQ-Premium below:



SAME SHELLS AND BRACKETS
Other features include Cyo, Fly and Ixon "fittings" -- I think it means format-factors, i.e. shell and bracket interchangeability. The IQ-Premium will be an additional model, with the most recent series of the same lamps remaining available for riders presumably too "fast" to need to see the edge of the road.

INCREASED OUTPUT
All application models bumped up 20 lux as follows:

-- Cyo IQ Premium with integrated reflector : 60 lux (up from 40-- this is the old nearfield model)
-- Cyo IQ premium without integrated reflector : 80 lux (up from 60 -- this is the old longrange sports model)
-- Fly IQ premium without daytime running light : 80 lux (up from 40, if this is the comparable model to the one I have)
-- Premium Fly IQ with daytime running  lights as previously only on the Cyo: 60 lux
Ixon IQ Premium : 80 lux (up from 60 if this is the Speed Model)

The new BUMM IQ Premium lamps will be be launched in November.

-- Schmidt's Edelux, which is built on Cyo optics, is also to be upgraded to the Premium spec.

WHERE ARE OUR ENGINEERS?
We need a brisk tutorial on LUX so we can find out whether a mathematical increase of apparently 50%,or in one case possibly 100%, will lead to a perceived increase "at the eye" of ... what? In short, does lux answer to the square root to distance formulation?

CONCLUSION
I won't be rushing out to buy these new lamps until they're proven good, as I have both the first series Cyo which are good, and second series IQ Fly for the electric bike which, on mature reflection, is a mistake (wretched hotspot), and am disillusioned with BUMM promises that are not realized and then superseded without apology a few months later by a "better" model which turns out to offer no advantage.

However, if the Premium is indeed a better model nearfield Cyo, by proof of user-taken lightfield photographs, watch your footing because I'll be shoving my way to the front of the line. I was bowled over by the first-series Cyo nearfield, a genuine quantum step in bicycle lamps, and it is about time for BUMM to tilt the playing field again.

© Copyright 2013 Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

BEAMSHOTS OF THE NEW IQ PREMIUM LAMPS
The first beamshots of the new BUMM IQ Premium Cyo/Fly/Ixon are presumably from BUMM PR, and are published by the ever-valuable Jan Heine at http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/lights-closeouts-and-new-headlights/

Heine says the diplomatically that the spread of light appears to be more even from the Premium lamp. That's just power-politics: if the leading supplier cuts off test freebies to his magazine, it will lose credibility. I, who have no connection to BUMM or the magazine, would instead say that the hotspot appears to be much reduced from the current models.

Heine says essentially the same as I do: he already has excellent Cyo, this isn't a true quantum leap, so he won't be replacing his lamps any time soon.

***

WHY ALL THIS FERMENT IN THE BUMM PRODUCT LINE SO SOON AFTER THE LUXOS LAUNCH?

On RBT, Sepp Ruf responded to these remarks from me:

ANDRE JUTE: "The speed with which BUMM is launching new lamps demonstrates that they
 know there's a problem in their current ranges, most obvious in the most
 recent series of Cyo/Fly/Ixon which are simply not as good as the first
 series, leading to many disgruntled users. Whether it also demonstrates
 that BUMM knows how to fix problem remains to be discovered. Normally
 large, established companies in a market-leading position move cautiously
 for fear of upsetting a profitable applekart. You see this kind of ferment
 in the product line only for two reasons: they're in trouble (leadership,
 technical, lack of innovation -- clearly not the problem here!)"

SEPP RUFF: "It's a whole new ballgame after some legislators just killed that infamous
dynamo requirement -- instead of modifying it like some "bicycling
advocates/lobbyists/producers" would prefer. This winter season, bumm's
domestic market will see oem and consumers considering new lighting systems
for their bikes, so they better throw some "new, brighter, better" products
out there. Plenty of cheaper alternatives from other companies have appeared
while the more profitable market segment is under attack from deep-pocketed
Philips, and even such untrustworthy outfits as $upern0va (VSF certified
"best beam," justified or not.)"

***

Can't say I'll be mourning that "infamous dynamo requirement", which, for all its benefits of standardization, has for decades now been a drag on bringing bicycle lamps into the 20th century, never mind the 21st. (Need I remind anyone that I've been saying this for years... you want to know what it feels like to be a lone prophet in the wildnerness, just ask!)

Exciting days ahead in bicycle lamps!

[il padrone]

Even during night-time descents on gravel roads at 40 mph, the original Edelux provides plenty of light.

The master of understatement and exaggeration, all in one sentence. I'd be a bit disappointed if any of the modern LED dynamo headlights did not put out enough light to see, on a dark night descent.

But who, seriously, descends at 40MPH (65kmh) on a gravel road at night

[Danneaux]

But who, seriously, descends at 40MPH (65kmh) on a gravel road at night

Uh, my father and I did so on our many tours together of Oregon's Cascades and Calapooya mountains as a matter of course in the past, and we did it with Union 9814 bottle dyno sets in the pre-halogen days when we often toured far into the night, making camp between 22:00 and midnight.

The only good thing about it was the bottle dynos were screaming like banshees on their plain bearings by 28mph and *finally* producing enough light to see well enough to go downhill in gravel at *any* speed (back in the day, starting circa 1980). We went through several bulbs apiece on those trips 'cos the output shortened bulb life considerably, the globes coated black with spent tungsten filament deposits. The only thing more exciting than going downhill on gravel at night at those speeds is having the bulbs blow when doing so. Nothing quite like having melting brake pads splatter one in the back of the legs after the bulbs go kaput.

It does happen.  Maybe not wisely.  But it does happen. I don't doubt Jan a moment on that.

Ah, the irrational immortality of Youth -- at any age.

Best,

Dan. (...whose happy memories include his then 73 year-old father's moonlit face in the rearview mirror gaining from behind, making wild gestures to "go faster")

[Andre Jute]

Runs in the family. [TAPS TEMPLE WITH FOREFINGER] Not saying whose family...

[Danneaux]

Runs in the family. [TAPS TEMPLE WITH FOREFINGER] Not saying whose family...

All the best,

Dan.