Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Commuting
Reload this Page >

B&M Lumotec IQ Cyo vs Cyo R (Sport vs Near field)

Notices
Commuting Bicycle commuting is easier than you think, before you know it, you'll be hooked. Learn the tips, hints, equipment, safety requirements for safely riding your bike to work.

B&M Lumotec IQ Cyo vs Cyo R (Sport vs Near field)

Old 11-08-09, 09:44 PM
  #51  
2_i 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,528

Bikes: Trek 730, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M6R*2, Trek 830, Trek 720, Dahon HAT060, Dahon HT060,...

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by interested View Post
What could be seen on the previous linked beam shots was that the Cyo R illuminated the road fully to around 10 meters distance (50 lux) where after it began to diminish visibly. The Cyo Sport delivered 70 lux at the 10 meter mark, and continued beyond that without any visible diminished light beam.
While I have crossed over the quoted article many times over in the past, it appears that I did not ponder the light patterns provided there, in the context of my own, partly recent, experiences. It seems that Edelux has an inferior pattern to IQ Cyo Near-field!

Originally Posted by interested View Post
So the Cyo Sport deliver much more light at the 10-20 meter distance than the Cyo R, which is useful for fast and moderately fast riders, especially when the roads are wet or it rains, since that seems to suck up some of the light output.
I find the Cyo R to deliver plenty of illumination at intermediate distances. The shots in the article give a basis for comparing lamps between each other but not allow for an adequate evaluation of any one lamp on each own, particularly regarding far-away distances, since the position from which the area is observed in practice is from above the handlebars, not from a position up in the sky. The strong farther-away illumination can blind the rider as far as closer distances are concerned. The shots suggest that the rider's visibility for IQ Sport is strongly diminished for about 5m ahead.
2_i is offline  
Old 11-08-09, 11:40 PM
  #52  
tatfiend 
Gear Hub fan
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,829

Bikes: Civia Hyland Rohloff, Swobo Dixon, Colnago, Univega

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CliftonGK1 View Post
On an extended descent reaching speeds of 40+ mph, I didn't find that I was outrunning the front edge of the beam. On my brevet bike I use a Supernova E3, and I found the Cyo to be every bit as bright on the road as the E3. The focused beam of the Cyo vs. the symmetrical beam of the E3 made the road lighting equivalent. There was no scatter lighting from the Cyo, however. The focus is very tight, so supplementary illumination is needed for signage and side-lighting.
What age is your Supernova E3? Since it was introduced there have been multiple upgrades to the brightness and electronics as better LEDs and components have become available. The latest E3, the Pro version, claims 270 Lumens while the immediately prior version claimed 220 Lumens and the original was again lower output. I am not sure how many versions there have been. There are also now two different reflector/lens assemblies with different light patterns, same idea as the IQ Cyo R and sport versions apparently.

Per the Supernova web site any Supernova E3 can be updated at the factory to new electronics and LED. No idea of the price though. The Lens can also be changed between the two versions, again a factory change only apparently.
__________________
Gear Hubs Owned: Rohloff disc brake, SRAM iM9 disc brake, SRAM P5 freewheel, Sachs Torpedo 3 speed freewheel, NuVinci CVT, Shimano Alfine SG S-501, Sturmey Archer S5-2 Alloy. Other: 83 Colnago Super Record, Univega Via De Oro

Visit and join the Yahoo Geared Hub Bikes group for support and links.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Geared_hub_bikes/
tatfiend is offline  
Old 11-09-09, 09:49 AM
  #53  
CliftonGK1
Senior Member
 
CliftonGK1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,375

Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by tatfiend View Post
What age is your Supernova E3? Since it was introduced there have been multiple upgrades to the brightness and electronics as better LEDs and components have become available. The latest E3, the Pro version, claims 270 Lumens while the immediately prior version claimed 220 Lumens and the original was again lower output. I am not sure how many versions there have been. There are also now two different reflector/lens assemblies with different light patterns, same idea as the IQ Cyo R and sport versions apparently.
I've got the 2nd gen E3, so I guess it's 220L. Regardless of the lumen output, it's brighter than my L&M Solo 13W was, and that light was rated at over 350L. The lux rating for the E3 I have is 80 lux, so just a little brighter than the IQ Cyo Sport, at 60 lux.

The two versions of the E3 are different than the two versions of the Cyo. The E3 symmetrical has no cutoff focusing optics, so it's just a plain old round pattern. The E3 asymmetrical has a cutoff optic and supposedly works similar to the Cyo/Edelux/Fly, but in scoping out the pix on Peter White's site, it doesn't do that great a job.
__________________
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
CliftonGK1 is offline  
Old 11-09-09, 12:35 PM
  #54  
PaulRivers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 436 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by CliftonGK1 View Post
... The E3 asymmetrical has a cutoff optic and supposedly works similar to the Cyo/Edelux/Fly, but in scoping out the pix on Peter White's site, it doesn't do that great a job.
http://www.bikeforums.net/newreply.p...ply&p=10008272



Originally Posted by CliftonGK1 View Post
I've got the 2nd gen E3, so I guess it's 220L. Regardless of the lumen output, it's brighter than my L&M Solo 13W was, and that light was rated at over 350L. The lux rating for the E3 I have is 80 lux, so just a little brighter than the IQ Cyo Sport, at 60 lux.

The two versions of the E3 are different than the two versions of the Cyo. The E3 symmetrical has no cutoff focusing optics, so it's just a plain old round pattern. The E3 asymmetrical has a cutoff optic and supposedly works similar to the Cyo/Edelux/Fly, but in scoping out the pix on Peter White's site, it doesn't do that great a job.
The E3 is surprisingly just like the 2 versions of the Cyo - the symmetrical (standard) version (suprisingly, to me) lights up further down the road than the asymmetrical version. The assymmetrical version just lights up the side of the road and the road surface with more light (mostly more light off to the sides of you, as I understand it), and doesn't throw extra light up into the trees or peoples faces - but doesn't light as far down the road as the standard version.

I was surprised to find this out, but my opinion came from the following:
1. Viewing pics of the lights in action
2. Then viewing the official pics on the Supernova site (the asymmetrical version doesn't shine as far down the row of benches).
3. Then emailing Supernova - they emailed me back and told me the asymmetrical version doesn't go quite as far down the road themselves.
4. On their site, they also have a chart - the asymmetrical version is rated less for distance (I think it's a 3, and the regular version is a 5/5, I'm to lazy at the moment to actually look it up).

The regular, standard "symmetrical" really seems to be the way to go, as unlike the Cyo I've never heard anyone complain that it doesn't light up the road enough. I suppose the drawback is that it shines more light upwards.
PaulRivers is offline  
Old 11-09-09, 02:32 PM
  #55  
tatfiend 
Gear Hub fan
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,829

Bikes: Civia Hyland Rohloff, Swobo Dixon, Colnago, Univega

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PaulRivers View Post
http://www.bikeforums.net/newreply.p...ply&p=10008272

The E3 is surprisingly just like the 2 versions of the Cyo - the symmetrical (standard) version (suprisingly, to me) lights up further down the road than the asymmetrical version. The assymmetrical version just lights up the side of the road and the road surface with more light (mostly more light off to the sides of you, as I understand it), and doesn't throw extra light up into the trees or peoples faces - but doesn't light as far down the road as the standard version.

I was surprised to find this out, but my opinion came from the following:
1. Viewing pics of the lights in action
2. Then viewing the official pics on the Supernova site (the asymmetrical version doesn't shine as far down the row of benches).
3. Then emailing Supernova - they emailed me back and told me the asymmetrical version doesn't go quite as far down the road themselves.
4. On their site, they also have a chart - the asymmetrical version is rated less for distance (I think it's a 3, and the regular version is a 5/5, I'm to lazy at the moment to actually look it up).

The regular, standard "symmetrical" really seems to be the way to go, as unlike the Cyo I've never heard anyone complain that it doesn't light up the road enough. I suppose the drawback is that it shines more light upwards.
Also, based on the Supernova photos and their comparison of the lights chart, the asymmetrical version has better near field illumination. It seems to me like it would probably be better for in town use, particularly on more poorly surfaced roads. It seems like local streets are becoming motocross courses.
__________________
Gear Hubs Owned: Rohloff disc brake, SRAM iM9 disc brake, SRAM P5 freewheel, Sachs Torpedo 3 speed freewheel, NuVinci CVT, Shimano Alfine SG S-501, Sturmey Archer S5-2 Alloy. Other: 83 Colnago Super Record, Univega Via De Oro

Visit and join the Yahoo Geared Hub Bikes group for support and links.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Geared_hub_bikes/
tatfiend is offline  
Old 11-09-09, 02:42 PM
  #56  
PaulRivers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 436 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by tatfiend View Post
Also, based on the Supernova photos and their comparison of the lights chart, the asymmetrical version has better near field illumination. It seems to me like it would probably be better for in town use, particularly on more poorly surfaced roads. It seems like local streets are becoming motocross courses.
I'm just saying this because this thread has been all about nearfield illumination -

I've never read anyone who complained about the nearfield illumination of the Supernova symmetrical (regular) version, unlike with the Cyo, where *I* find it fine, but a number of other people prefer more light near the bike. No similar complaints with the Supernova symmetrical version. In fact, if I remember correctly, there have been a number of people who preferred the Supernova just because of it's better nearfield illumination over the Fly's or the Cyo Sport's.
PaulRivers is offline  
Old 08-28-10, 09:15 PM
  #57  
BengeBoy 
Senior Member
 
BengeBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Posts: 6,940

Bikes: 2014 Pivot Mach 5.7 MTB, 2009 Chris Boedeker custom, 1988 Tommasini Prestige, 2007 Bill Davidson custom; 1988 Specialized Stumpjumper

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi, I am trying to make this decision myself. I have read through the opposing viewpoints, and guess I'm leaning toward the Sport version (that has the longer field of vision, but a "dark" spot closer to the bike). My commute starts out with 5 miles on an unlit, windy, hilly suburban street that is more like a rural road. It's very dark, as it's under tree cover and even if there are stars and moon out the street is dark. With the relatively fast descents, I feel like the longer view would be necessary.

Just thought I would bump this thread in case anyone has changed his/her opinion in the past year...

(BTW, Clifton, if you see this -- did you get your light at Sammamish Valley Cycles?)
BengeBoy is offline  
Old 08-29-10, 02:07 AM
  #58  
interested
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KÝbenhavn
Posts: 465

Bikes: Kinesisbikes UK Racelight Tk

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BengeBoy View Post
Hi, I am trying to make this decision myself. I have read through the opposing viewpoints, and guess I'm leaning toward the Sport version (that has the longer field of vision, but a "dark" spot closer to the bike). My commute starts out with 5 miles on an unlit, windy, hilly suburban street that is more like a rural road. It's very dark, as it's under tree cover and even if there are stars and moon out the street is dark. With the relatively fast descents, I feel like the longer view would be necessary.

Just thought I would bump this thread in case anyone has changed his/her opinion in the past year...

(BTW, Clifton, if you see this -- did you get your light at Sammamish Valley Cycles?)
Both the Sport and the R model are excellent lights so you can't really go wrong whatever model you choose. The R model may not have the throw of the Sport model, but it is still good. Even if you think that R model may limit your descent speed, this may not be bad at all, since high speeds in the dark are more dangerous than in daylight, no matter the amount of headlight: Wild, nocturnal animals may suddenly dart across the road. Drivers are often more tired and react slower. Ninja cyclist or joggers against a dark background are just "discovered" later by ones brain, even though they are illuminated by the headlight. Of course this all depends. Maybe you can safely descent at high speed at your particular route.

It is usually a good idea to optimize your bike for the the most common riding conditions; eg. I commute across a short stretch of hard pack road; I would probably ride that stretch much faster and corner much better if I put fat knobbies on my bike, but since 95% of my riding is on asphalt, it would be a bad optimization.
So if you think that the R model would be best for 90% of your ride, it may be the right choice. If you ride fast on the straight sections too, maybe the Sport model is the choice for you.


--
Regards
interested is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vinnyvincent
Road Cycling
0
03-08-16 08:26 AM
stevage
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
22
08-27-14 03:16 PM
ZippyThePinhead
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
4
09-07-13 01:35 PM
spudston
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
12
12-19-10 02:02 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.