2_i 

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!

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.

tatfiend 

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.

CliftonGK1

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.

PaulRivers

https://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.

tatfiend 

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.

PaulRivers

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.

BengeBoy 

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?)

interested

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