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

On 10/5/2013 6:32 AM, Clive George wrote:
On 05/10/2013 12:33, Andre Jute wrote:
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.

Or that the underlying technology is moving quickly. Which it is.

It's not just the underlying technology, it's a realization of what
makes an optimal light and going as far as the law allows in that regard.

Though in a way it may simply be a late realization of the fact that
they now can produce a light with a light source that's efficient enough
that they don't need to compromise the beam like they've been used to
doing. Someone at Bumm must have noticed other company's products and
experienced an epiphany.

On 10/08/2013 09:24 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/5/2013 6:32 AM, Clive George wrote:
On 05/10/2013 12:33, Andre Jute wrote:
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.

Or that the underlying technology is moving quickly. Which it is.

It's not just the underlying technology, it's a realization of what
makes an optimal light and going as far as the law allows in that regard.

It totally *is* the underlying technology. When you're limited by
legislation to a certain voltage and current draw (as B&M is marketing
to those subject to StVZO and using hub dynos, so they are) you have to
make compromises, either in brightness or size of the beam pattern based
on the efficacy of the LED(s) that you are using. As efficacy improves,
you can keep the same brightness and spread the beam pattern wider.

The IQ Cyo was introduced back in 2009 if not earlier; that's eons when
discussing the state of the art in power LEDs.

I'm pretty sure that the product engineers at B&M aren't *complete*
morons, as you seem to imply, and may actually ride bicycles after dark.
Of course they're going to push the limits of what the law allows in
their top of the line products, that statement is so self-evident that
it's hardly worth verbalizing.

Though in a way it may simply be a late realization of the fact that
they now can produce a light with a light source that's efficient enough
that they don't need to compromise the beam like they've been used to
doing. Someone at Bumm must have noticed other company's products and
experienced an epiphany.

The only other company's products that come to mind would be the Philips
Saferide... I can't think of a single other bicycle light with a proper
on-road beam pattern that is better/brighter/wider than the original
Cyo. I haven't seen *any* that have attempted to use a proper on road
beam pattern that aren't StVZO lights (save for one possible exception -
see below.) Sadly there have been very *few* companies pushing the
limits of good bicycle lighting. There's some project floating around
out there that started on Kickstarter "Barry Beams" but that's a whole
controversial subject - the guy's idea shows promise but he's yet to
post good clear plots of the beam pattern (I've only seen one fuzzy one)
and he's pretty much ****ed off a whole bunch of guys at CPF by being
way too cagey about what he's doing, although I can understand that from
an IP standpoint. However I have a hard time getting excited over the
project when I don't really know for sure if he's using a good beam
pattern or not. (it's also apparently a 26650 only light and he hasn't
yet responded to my question as to whether there will be a means to
adapt it to run in one of the lower output modes off a hub dyno, but I
do have to give him props for using a standard sized Li-Ion rather than
a proprietary "battery pack.")

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 3:47:18 PM UTC+1, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/08/2013 09:24 AM, sms wrote:

On 10/5/2013 6:32 AM, Clive George wrote:

On 05/10/2013 12:33, Andre Jute wrote:

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.



Or that the underlying technology is moving quickly. Which it is.



It's not just the underlying technology, it's a realization of what

makes an optimal light and going as far as the law allows in that regard.



It totally *is* the underlying technology. When you're limited by

legislation to a certain voltage and current draw (as B&M is marketing

to those subject to StVZO and using hub dynos, so they are) you have to

make compromises, either in brightness or size of the beam pattern based

on the efficacy of the LED(s) that you are using. As efficacy improves,

you can keep the same brightness and spread the beam pattern wider.



The IQ Cyo was introduced back in 2009 if not earlier; that's eons when

discussing the state of the art in power LEDs.



I'm pretty sure that the product engineers at B&M aren't *complete*

morons, as you seem to imply, and may actually ride bicycles after dark.

Of course they're going to push the limits of what the law allows in

their top of the line products, that statement is so self-evident that

it's hardly worth verbalizing.



Though in a way it may simply be a late realization of the fact that

they now can produce a light with a light source that's efficient enough

that they don't need to compromise the beam like they've been used to

doing. Someone at Bumm must have noticed other company's products and

experienced an epiphany.



The only other company's products that come to mind would be the Philips

Saferide... I can't think of a single other bicycle light with a proper

on-road beam pattern that is better/brighter/wider than the original

Cyo. I haven't seen *any* that have attempted to use a proper on road

beam pattern that aren't StVZO lights (save for one possible exception -

see below.) Sadly there have been very *few* companies pushing the

limits of good bicycle lighting. There's some project floating around

out there that started on Kickstarter "Barry Beams" but that's a whole

controversial subject - the guy's idea shows promise but he's yet to

post good clear plots of the beam pattern (I've only seen one fuzzy one)

and he's pretty much ****ed off a whole bunch of guys at CPF by being

way too cagey about what he's doing, although I can understand that from

an IP standpoint. However I have a hard time getting excited over the

project when I don't really know for sure if he's using a good beam

pattern or not. (it's also apparently a 26650 only light and he hasn't

yet responded to my question as to whether there will be a means to

adapt it to run in one of the lower output modes off a hub dyno, but I

do have to give him props for using a standard sized Li-Ion rather than

a proprietary "battery pack.")



nate



--

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.

http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Is this a private barney or can anyone join in? Have you two guys been following the thread? Sepp Ruf told us several days ago that the activity at BUMM is due to a) the relevant legislation changing and b) their market position being under threat:

Sepp explained:
"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..."

On 10/08/2013 12:13 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 3:47:18 PM UTC+1, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/08/2013 09:24 AM, sms wrote:

On 10/5/2013 6:32 AM, Clive George wrote:

On 05/10/2013 12:33, Andre Jute wrote:

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.



Or that the underlying technology is moving quickly. Which it is.



It's not just the underlying technology, it's a realization of what

makes an optimal light and going as far as the law allows in that regard.



It totally *is* the underlying technology. When you're limited by

legislation to a certain voltage and current draw (as B&M is marketing

to those subject to StVZO and using hub dynos, so they are) you have to

make compromises, either in brightness or size of the beam pattern based

on the efficacy of the LED(s) that you are using. As efficacy improves,

you can keep the same brightness and spread the beam pattern wider.



The IQ Cyo was introduced back in 2009 if not earlier; that's eons when

discussing the state of the art in power LEDs.



I'm pretty sure that the product engineers at B&M aren't *complete*

morons, as you seem to imply, and may actually ride bicycles after dark.

Of course they're going to push the limits of what the law allows in

their top of the line products, that statement is so self-evident that

it's hardly worth verbalizing.



Though in a way it may simply be a late realization of the fact that

they now can produce a light with a light source that's efficient enough

that they don't need to compromise the beam like they've been used to

doing. Someone at Bumm must have noticed other company's products and

experienced an epiphany.



The only other company's products that come to mind would be the Philips

Saferide... I can't think of a single other bicycle light with a proper

on-road beam pattern that is better/brighter/wider than the original

Cyo. I haven't seen *any* that have attempted to use a proper on road

beam pattern that aren't StVZO lights (save for one possible exception -

see below.) Sadly there have been very *few* companies pushing the

limits of good bicycle lighting. There's some project floating around

out there that started on Kickstarter "Barry Beams" but that's a whole

controversial subject - the guy's idea shows promise but he's yet to

post good clear plots of the beam pattern (I've only seen one fuzzy one)

and he's pretty much ****ed off a whole bunch of guys at CPF by being

way too cagey about what he's doing, although I can understand that from

an IP standpoint. However I have a hard time getting excited over the

project when I don't really know for sure if he's using a good beam

pattern or not. (it's also apparently a 26650 only light and he hasn't

yet responded to my question as to whether there will be a means to

adapt it to run in one of the lower output modes off a hub dyno, but I

do have to give him props for using a standard sized Li-Ion rather than

a proprietary "battery pack.")



nate



--

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.

http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Is this a private barney or can anyone join in? Have you two guys been following the thread? Sepp Ruf told us several days ago that the activity at BUMM is due to a) the relevant legislation changing and b) their market position being under threat:

Sepp explained:
"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..."


I actually missed that post, but I am not seeing the "plenty of cheaper
alternatives" hitting the market at all, nor am I seeing their position
as being "under attack" from Philips - it's damn hard to buy a Philips
Saferide, at least here in the US. It's difficult to get a B&M light
but not nearly as hard as a Philips. eBay really seems to be the only
place to go.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

I actually missed that post, but I am not seeing the "plenty of cheaper
alternatives" hitting the market at all, nor am I seeing their position
as being "under attack" from Philips - it's damn hard to buy a Philips
Saferide, at least here in the US. It's difficult to get a B&M light
but not nearly as hard as a Philips. eBay really seems to be the only
place to go.

I hadn't really considered the North American market to be anything close to
"bumm's domestic market." Counting the models of on-road lamps readily
available at US outlets is a different point.

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 6:46:35 PM UTC+1, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/08/2013 12:13 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 3:47:18 PM UTC+1, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 10/08/2013 09:24 AM, sms wrote:



On 10/5/2013 6:32 AM, Clive George wrote:



On 05/10/2013 12:33, Andre Jute wrote:



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.

Nate Nagel wrote:
I actually missed that post, but I am not seeing the "plenty of
cheaper alternatives" hitting the market at all, nor am I seeing
their position as being "under attack" from Philips - it's damn hard
to buy a Philips Saferide, at least here in the US. It's difficult
to get a B&M light but not nearly as hard as a Philips. eBay really
seems to be the only place to go.

nate

Same problem here in Ozland, few B&M or Philips light suppliers and at
horrendous prices.
For mail order I can recommend:
http://www.xxcycle.com/dynamo-front-...?allItems=true
in Toulouse, France. They are the cheapest I've been able to find anywhere
and their international postage costs are very reasonable. The page URL is
for Philips, B&M and other dynamo lamps but if you hunt further they have
Philips Saferide 4xAA battery lamps too.
They are good people to deal with. Not long ago they sent me the wrong B&M
lamp (one digit difference in SKU). When I 'mailed to tell them they 'mailed
back inside three hours to say they had just put the correct one in the post
and not to bother sending the wrong one back. Amazing.
PH

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 8:19:46 PM UTC-4, Peter Howard wrote:
... They are good people to deal with. Not long ago they sent me the wrong B&M
lamp (one digit difference in SKU). When I 'mailed to tell them they 'mailed
back inside three hours to say they had just put the correct one in the post
and not to bother sending the wrong one back. Amazing.

Wow. Impressive.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, October 7, 2013 2:56:39 AM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
sms considered Sun, 06 Oct 2013 00:48:43

-0700 the perfect time to write:



On 10/5/2013 4:33 AM, Andre Jute wrote:



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:



A good start. Looks like they read my article. If they also had a model

for export that added a flash mode then they could give dynamo lighting

a boost in popularity.



Hahhahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why are you laughing at BUMM, Phi? I thought you were a BUMMbuddy in whose eyes they could do nothing wrong? Don't tell me that at last we've opened your eyes.

Andre Jute

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 1:19:46 AM UTC+1, Peter Howard wrote:

For mail order I can recommend:

http://www.xxcycle.com/dynamo-front-...?allItems=true

in Toulouse, France. They are the cheapest I've been able to find anywhere

and their international postage costs are very reasonable. T

PH

Couldn't agree more, Little Howie. According to Google I have only recommended XXcycle in Toulouse 23 times. Glad to see that at last you've caught up not only on the good components, which I've been recommending since forever, but on the good stores, which I've been recommending since forever.

Even better, this allows us to measure your comprehension quotient: you only need to be told something 23 times for it to stick. Must make it difficult to keep a job...

Andre Jute
Always ahead of the wave