B&M IQ-TEC Premium review

So far, so good.

I had to bend the mounting bracket to fit under my gear cables when the
light is mounted on the fork, secured using the front brake center bolt.

I fitted a piece of black duct tape underneath to make a splash guard so
that water from the front tyre wouldn't spray up inside the lamp housing.

The light has been fitted for several weeks now, and has survived
without a problem, and has been used in low light for some time on most
rides.

Last week I rode some very rough roads in rural New South Wales. Over
130km in total, and the roads were bitumen but built of patches upon
patches and the occasional pothole. Fatter tyres with less pressure
would have been the sensible approach, but this was a one off, so I just
endured it - and so did the light!

Last night I got home around 9:30pm after a 75km ride, and had a chance
to see the light beam shape properly in the dark.

Illumination of the road and off to the sides is quite satisfactory, but
do not expect to see street name signs. The horizontal cutoff is so
sharp, there is simply no useful light spill up at all.

I haven't had any motorists not see me yet, but I haven't been out for
much riding when lights are necessary, so the jury is still out.

(Last night on a quiet suburban street, a motorist *almost* didn't see
me, but eventually did after rolling a few feet across the white line at
the end of a side street. This was at about 9:20 when it was fairly dark.)

The stand light is reasonably bright and the main light is bright from a
fairly slow speed.

--
JS

On Monday, December 30, 2013 11:16:45 PM UTC, James wrote:
So far, so good.



I had to bend the mounting bracket to fit under my gear cables when the

light is mounted on the fork, secured using the front brake center bolt.



I fitted a piece of black duct tape underneath to make a splash guard so

that water from the front tyre wouldn't spray up inside the lamp housing.



The light has been fitted for several weeks now, and has survived

without a problem, and has been used in low light for some time on most

rides.



Last week I rode some very rough roads in rural New South Wales. Over

130km in total, and the roads were bitumen but built of patches upon

patches and the occasional pothole. Fatter tyres with less pressure

would have been the sensible approach, but this was a one off, so I just

endured it - and so did the light!



Last night I got home around 9:30pm after a 75km ride, and had a chance

to see the light beam shape properly in the dark.



Illumination of the road and off to the sides is quite satisfactory, but

do not expect to see street name signs. The horizontal cutoff is so

sharp, there is simply no useful light spill up at all.



I haven't had any motorists not see me yet, but I haven't been out for

much riding when lights are necessary, so the jury is still out.



(Last night on a quiet suburban street, a motorist *almost* didn't see

me, but eventually did after rolling a few feet across the white line at

the end of a side street. This was at about 9:20 when it was fairly dark..)



The stand light is reasonably bright and the main light is bright from a

fairly slow speed.



--

JS

Thanks for that, James. When you have had a chance to use lamp in full dark, we'd be interested to hear about the presence or absence of a hotspot. The previous and still current generation BUMM IQ lamp has an appalling hot spot but the Premium has a new reflector profile which BUMM claims does away with the hotspot. Many cyclists want to know whether this is true.

Andre Jute

On 12/30/2013 3:16 PM, James wrote:

snip

Illumination of the road and off to the sides is quite satisfactory, but
do not expect to see street name signs. The horizontal cutoff is so
sharp, there is simply no useful light spill up at all.

It's such a shame that the StVZO requirements almost preclude ever
having a dynamo light with an adequate beam. I say "almost" because
SuperNova essentially said screw StVZO and came out with a good light
and just but a disclaimer on it for use in Germany. One thing that's
helping to discourage dynamo lighting is the fact that manufacturers
want to be able to sell in Germany and don't want to produce a separate
product for the R.O.W..

Last week on a night ride where we were briefly on a MUP it was clear
that there is need for upward illumination. Not that anyone other than
one person ever claimed that there wasn't (still shaking my head in
amusement over the claim that panel trucks will knock down any low
hanging obstacles before a cyclist could encounter them).

I haven't had any motorists not see me yet, but I haven't been out for
much riding when lights are necessary, so the jury is still out.

But have you ever not seen a legally lit cyclist?

(Last night on a quiet suburban street, a motorist *almost* didn't see
me, but eventually did after rolling a few feet across the white line at
the end of a side street. This was at about 9:20 when it was fairly dark.)

So someone almost did not see a legally lit cyclist!

sms wrote:
On 12/30/2013 3:16 PM, James wrote:

snip

Illumination of the road and off to the sides is quite satisfactory, but
do not expect to see street name signs. The horizontal cutoff is so
sharp, there is simply no useful light spill up at all.

It's such a shame that the StVZO requirements almost preclude ever having
a dynamo light with an adequate beam. I say "almost" because SuperNova
essentially said screw StVZO and came out with a good light and just but
a disclaimer on it for use in Germany. One thing that's helping to
discourage dynamo lighting is the fact that manufacturers want to be able
to sell in Germany and don't want to produce a separate product for the R.O.W..

Last week on a night ride where we were briefly on a MUP it was clear
that there is need for upward illumination. Not that anyone other than
one person ever claimed that there wasn't (still shaking my head in
amusement over the claim that panel trucks will knock down any low
hanging obstacles before a cyclist could encounter them).

I haven't had any motorists not see me yet, but I haven't been out for
much riding when lights are necessary, so the jury is still out.

But have you ever not seen a legally lit cyclist?

(Last night on a quiet suburban street, a motorist *almost* didn't see
me, but eventually did after rolling a few feet across the white line at
the end of a side street. This was at about 9:20 when it was fairly dark.)

So someone almost did not see a legally lit cyclist!

Not sure why this would be surprising. Motorists regularly fail to see
other card stopped at red lights in front of them, large stationary oak
trees, tractor trailers coming across the intersection etc. etc. etc.

--
duane

On 12/30/2013 4:33 PM, Duane wrote:

Not sure why this would be surprising. Motorists regularly fail to see
other card stopped at red lights in front of them, large stationary oak
trees, tractor trailers coming across the intersection etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, there was a long thread a while back where "someone" (three
guesses) insisted that any light that met the minimum legal requirements
was sufficient for a cyclist to be seen by motorists. This was part of a
campaign promoting lower power lights.

James wrote:

Illumination of the road and off to the sides is quite satisfactory, but
do not expect to see street name signs. The horizontal cutoff is so
sharp, there is simply no useful light spill up at all.

IQP lamps are (far-reaching) low beams with adequate to marginally useful
stand lights. Use different products for other lighting functions. If there
wasn't that nasty water ingress issue, you could rotate a second unit by 180
degrees, fuse hot spots, for something of a combined (driving type) beam.

Nuff said. Y'all have a good
http://www.stremelphotography.com/wp...08/MG_4455.jpg

On 12/31/2013 3:06 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
James wrote:

Illumination of the road and off to the sides is quite satisfactory, but
do not expect to see street name signs. The horizontal cutoff is so
sharp, there is simply no useful light spill up at all.

IQP lamps are (far-reaching) low beams with adequate to marginally useful
stand lights. Use different products for other lighting functions. If there
wasn't that nasty water ingress issue, you could rotate a second unit by 180
degrees, fuse hot spots, for something of a combined (driving type) beam.

That might work, but at slow speeds you would not get sufficient power
from a single dynamo. You could always have one hub dynamo and one
roller or bottle dynamo, or use a 12V/6W bottle dynamo and put the two
lamps in series. But by that time you'd be spending more than a
SuperNova E3 Triple which would not have the beam limitations imposed by
StVZO.

On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:52:08 AM UTC-6, SMS wrote:
That might work, but at slow speeds you would not get sufficient power
from a single dynamo.

I have a Shimano DH-3N70 dynohub. The model before the current 80 model. It powers two Busch Mueller Lumotec IQ Cyo lights. Both come up to full power at very slow speeds.

On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:47:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:52:08 AM UTC-6, SMS wrote:

That might work, but at slow speeds you would not get sufficient power

from a single dynamo.



I have a Shimano DH-3N70 dynohub. The model before the current 80 model. It powers two Busch Mueller Lumotec IQ Cyo lights. Both come up to full power at very slow speeds.

Just to follow on. I have the same dyno (DH-3N70) and it more than adequately powered two 3W Luxeons, run in series from a full-wave bridge. I ultimately saw the superiority of reflectors over lenses, and switched to a commercial headlight, but I have no doubt that I could run two nominally 3W headlights from my Shimano dynohub without much trouble.

On Monday, December 30, 2013 8:13:05 PM UTC-5, SMS wrote:

Sorry, there was a long thread a while back where "someone" (three
guesses) insisted that any light that met the minimum legal requirements
was sufficient for a cyclist to be seen by motorists. This was part of a
campaign promoting lower power lights.

I've said many times that any headlight that sufficiently illuminates the road, adequately alerting the rider to debris, holes, etc. is sufficiently conspicuous to be seen by motorists. And as explained, this conclusion was reached by me and by my club mates, in night lighting workshops in which we observed our bikes in traffic conditions and noted the results.

I do not, however, believe that any light meeting the U.S. minimum legal requirements will illuminate the road sufficiently, and I've never made such a claim. Typical U.S. requirements are just that the light be visible to others at 500 feet. That standard can be met by a Scharf-style beam that doesn't even touch the road. It's largely responsible for the glut of poor American bike headlights.

Scharf may believe that I said something different. But it's more likely that, as usual, he's simply being dishonest.

- Frank Krygowski