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

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 (on another forum where I first published this piece) by Martin:
http://fahrradbeleuchtung-info.de/iq...o-fly-und-ixon
http://www.bumm.de/news/detail/artic...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:

http://media.velo-content.de/567zdf/...jpg?1377950883

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.

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

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.

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!)

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.)

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

Compared to 2007/2008 IQ-tech, which technologies specifically?
Moving, as in diffusion to competitors, yes, certainly.

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!)

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.)

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

Compared to 2007/2008 IQ-tech, which technologies specifically?
Moving, as in diffusion to competitors, yes, certainly.

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 9:32:54 AM UTC-4, Clive George wrote:
On 05/10/2013 12:33, Andre Jute wrote:
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.

Does Jute think each generation of iPhone is on the market for five years?

- Frank Krygowski

Sepp Ruf wrote:
: Or that the underlying technology is moving quickly. Which it is.

:Compared to 2007/2008 IQ-tech, which technologies specifically?
:Moving, as in diffusion to competitors, yes, certainly.

Emitter technology changes are still pretty rapid. New emitters
require design changes.


--
sig 108

On 05/10/2013 17:13, Sepp Ruf wrote:

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

Compared to 2007/2008 IQ-tech, which technologies specifically?

LED. They're getting brighter.

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 5:13:39 PM UTC+1, Sepp Ruf wrote:
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!)



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.

Now that the German legislators got off their fat arses and did what their electors wanted all along, as in a democracy they should have done long since, one wonders whether the Dumb & Dumber end of wannabe "bicycle spokesmen" aka Krygowski will now apologize for declaring that dumb law the be-all and end-all of bicycle lighting.

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.)

American lobbyists would think they died and went to Heaven if they ever got themselves as well-organized as the VSF. I don't trust American boosters -- see for instance https://groups.google.com/forum/#!se...0/KW_fz6H3sbQJ -- and trust German boosters ever so slightly less, but as a sometime marketer, I admire the VSF. But Supernova? That's just plain dumb.

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

Compared to 2007/2008 IQ-tech, which technologies specifically?

Moving, as in diffusion to competitors, yes, certainly.

That's a massive response to a change in the rules and an intensification of competition, then. Now we know.

Thanks, Sep.

Andre Jute

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 6:21:56 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 9:32:54 AM UTC-4, Clive George wrote:

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

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.



Does Jute think each generation of iPhone is on the market for five years?

- Frank Krygowski

Are the voices speaking in your head again, Franki-boy? Which one of them is claiming the iPhone will be on the market for five years? Oh dear. The voices in your head are finally getting it right. The iPhone was launched in 2007. Now let's do a little arithmetic: 2013 - 2007 = 6 years. Just in case you're in any doubt, Franki-boy, 6 is a larger number than 5. So yes, the iPhone has been on the market for five years already, plus another year just for good measure. QED.

Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself, Krygowski? Over and over and over again?

Andre Jute
Quarterwit-spotting isn't the fun it used to be now that there are so many mirrors around Krygowski

On 05/10/13 21:33, 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.

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 (on another forum where I first published this piece) by Martin:
http://fahrradbeleuchtung-info.de/iq...o-fly-und-ixon
http://www.bumm.de/news/detail/artic...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:

http://media.velo-content.de/567zdf/...jpg?1377950883

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.

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



Thanks. Good info on the new optics with wider beam spread. There's
hope for us yet!

--
JS