The 20kph isn't averaged, it's fixed.

What if one light performs well at 20kph but produces no further light at a higher speed, while another light produces less light at 20kph but produces more light as speed increases?

Is the test still ok?

This test most probably will not be adapted to the high power dyno lights like your igaroo, the BUMM IQ-XL AC, the Ladelux or the Supernova M99 Dy Pro.

Why don't you do a nice test with all those "special"/high power dyno lights and sent the data to Andreas Oehler? I am shure he will translate and publish them in the fahrradzukunft. Or you could publish them here or on your website...

IQ XL Dynamo available
 

The IQ XL AC/Dynamo Version is listed at Bike-Discount.de as ready to ship.

i wonder if your igaro products are either vary bad and/or your sales are very low, that you desparately have to badmouth competitors lights....

I do have an IQ-XL (DC version), and there is no reason to doubt that it is sufficient waterproof for cycling, even when the bike is lying on its side. I use it on my velomobile, it gets water sprayed from every direction there and i have never encountered moisture inside the light. The housing is identical between DC and AC version....

There are options and fact. IP ratings are the latter.

Have you considered assisting B&M with the IP rating you are suggesting? Simply turn the bike upside down to replicate washing it and pour a couple buckets of water over the light (specifically the wires coming out the bottom).

You've answered your own question. When a manufacturer directly compares their product to another using factual specification the internet can't handle it and will find some way to try and discredit what can't be discredited. It is what it is.

[QUOTE polyphrast Posted: The IQ XL AC/Dynamo Version is listed at Bike-Discount.de as ready to ship.][/QUOTE]

It is listed as a pre order on several other sites and is still not available for order on B&Ms site.

The internet can handle it, if the manufacturer would provide the test protocol, the test setup and results. Similar as Andreas Oehler does. All i read from you is: i don't believe the 12W, the IQ-XL can't supply 13W, the M99 Dy pro cannot supply the lumens its claiming. Speculation without any measurements. You are welcome to present measurements.

I see both the Supernova and the BUMM lights more for a commuter bike with a dyno hub or a winter training bike, where the focus is mainly on light, as one does not need to recharge the electronic toys. If the focus is on off-grid power supply and bikepacking, then there are three options: a dynamo harvester (in combination with a light), the C1 or the Ladelux. And then a higher waterproof class might be desirable.

This thread, however, only discusses dyno lights with high beam. Not specifically a dyno light with highbeam for backpacking, off grid power supply and the waterproof tightness ready to be dumped into a lake with the bike. it is possible that the C1 could be the best All-in-one light for this special usecase.

When I've released benchmarks in the past I've done exactly that. The test-rig we built is autonomous guaranteeing repeated testing with no user intervention.

1. 12W, I have explained why, reactance-tuning is the basis of correcting AC phase to minimise the displacement side of power factor. Forumslader did it first (I believe) and manages 10.5W (or 9.5W by RMS) a figure which from testing I agree with. To do this it needs several larger capacitors, ones which won't even fit inside Ladelux. C1 also does it. It nets +25% gain at the frequency at which the capacitance targets. So if Ladelux is 12W as claimed then they have invented something never seen before - capacitance that varies with frequency. From this comes my skepticism. Just to throw it in, the graph they used at the bike event is mostly linear, so without reactance tuning. We'll know when I get a Ladelux and test it on the test-rig here. I think I've pointed it out before, Andrea's tests are using two independent multimeters doing RMS voltage * RMS current. This gives absolute power, not true power and I've told him this. Link for learning - https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/tex...pparent-power/

2. I've since had a chat with Wouter, youtube that owns both the M99 and the C1. The M99 is rated at 1000 lumens and the C1 at 650 lumens, however he runs his C1 at 75%. I'll just print his words because my previous was explaining why 1000 lumens can't be had from a dynamo hub based on the simple principle of power out < power in.

"As to light output by eye I would say: very difficult to properly compare due to different beam, where more light is put, and light colour, but I rate the C1 higher. The M99 has cooler light which normally gives the impression 'brighter', but by eye I would not say that the M99 dynamo is brighter."

3. IQ-XL - I think you confuse the dynamo hub and ebike version. I'm sure it can do 13W for the e-bike version, it's not hard.

There is already a comparison of Ladelux, M99 and IQ-XL AC Dynamo (which now seems to require payment). https://www.velojournal.ch/aktuell/n...erleuchtungen/

In it you can see that M99 appears (it may be my eyes, so see for yourself) brighter than Ladelux and IQ-XL.

please use your test rig for testing the ladelux, m99 dy pro, the IQ-XL AC and the C1

at 30 kph

comparing lumens by eye, is as Woulter wrote, pretty useless, as the eye has a logarithmic sensitivity to light. Which also makes comparison on sole lumen numbers pretty useless. And again, which you conviently seem to ignore: Supernova claims their 1000 lumens at speeds of 50 kph, not at 30 kph. They have a output to speed graph on their product page, i upload it here so that we do not have to discuss this again. So unless Woulter raced down a long descent, he never got the 1000 lumens out of his supernova.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...fc081562ff.jpg

It is possibly that the C1 produces at 25-30 kph more light than the M99 Dy Pro.

no i do not confuse this, i talked to the engineer at B&M responsible for the circuit board of the IQ-XL AC... Both lights have the same specs, although i do not know at which speed the 250 lux for high beam are reached , and i suspect well over 30 kph are needed.



Thanks for that link, maybe i spend the money..

Found a (german) Facebook post from B&M, which outlines a few details of the IQ-XL AC: the high beam can be activated from 8 kph onwards, full low beam power is reached at 25 kph, full high beam power at 35 kph.
http://www.facebook.com/story.php?st...00063588879564

I'd take that graph with a pinch of salt. The best competitor is at 320 lumens, apparently ;). I don't confuse 50kph with 30kph and I haven't ignored it and I'll mention it again - reactance tuning. As I've already explained inductive reactance and saturation previously I'll point you in another direction - ask Jens behind Forumslader why his device creates less power as speed increases.

Lux is pointless it's just the bright spot in StVZO as you already mentioned and this entices manufacturers to 'make for the test'. It's why they use 6000k emitters when everyone wants 4000-5000k.

IQ-XL, probably the lights have the same specs (LED's, reflector) so the 13W is what they can achieve IF the input supplies 13W of power. It makes sense, when you run PCB's in bulk a greater amount equals lower cost. Same for injection molding the reflectors. HOWEVER dynamo hub power extraction is something entirely different. Speak to the B&M engineer again and ask them if the 13W wattage claim for the AC version is real power. If they say yes ask them how they compute it and correlate the method using the link I give you before.

So it's extracting 13W at 35kph. I hope you're suspicious. :thumb:

It's worth learning about reactance and power factor. Anyone can print ridiculous claims. Take this one, apparently it does 1300 lumens from dynamo power. Incredible!

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...36a8756f76.png

i am not suspicious. as i said, i am in contact with the responsible engineer and i have no reason not to trust him... he wrote that it took him over a year to develoop the electronics, as everyone said it was not possible to draw so much power out of a dyno hub. B&M is not known for ridiculous claims, only for long delays for their announces products...But i am always looking forward to tests from other parties.

However, the light produces far less than 1300 lumens, the LEDs are neither automotive nor those big cree leeds. In a self built sphere, it was measured at 800 lumens high beam (and i suspect roughly 20% offsett for that sphere, as the IQ-XE was measured in this sphere with 380 lumens and has been measured in calibrates spheres at 500 lumens): https://fahrradbeleuchtung-info.de/t...-mueller-iq-xl. High beam is given with 12.2 W, i measured something between 12 and 12.5W

I'm confused but let's stop quoting wattages for ebike lights. If you keep doing it it's because you don't understand the difference between DC and inductive AC.

We all start from zero and nobody is insinuating a lack of trust for the B&M engineer, but I've armed you with the question you need to ask. I can tell you that I queried Schmidt SON on their 12W Ladelux claim and surprisingly for them I have had no reply.

I wonder if it's not time to move this thread to "Industry News."

A circuit with a sufficiently large battery cache could potentially sustain a steady light output for an extended period without flashing. This concept might be worth exploring as a product idea

We're already there. There are plenty of lights that offer bright lighting for needed ride duration. If you want really bright for a long ride, an external battery might be needed. At the speeds I run, I don't need super bright, so I have way more battery than I need on my external (which was a huge deal at $20 on amazon 5 years ago), and even my much smaller internal battery lights. LEDs are fantastically efficient, and so are lithium batteries in terms of power density, and both have been cheap for years now. Bonus points that LEDs, properly mounted, are tremendously durable.

The (german) bicycle magazine "fahrradzukunft" has published in march 25 an (as usual excellent) article. Different dyno bike lights with high beam and/or usb output were thoroughly tested and measured , including lumen measurements in an ullbricht sphere): https://fahrradzukunft.de/40/steckdose-unterwegs-10
Supernova M99 Dy Pro, B&M IQ-XL, SON Ladelux, Igaro C1, Sinewave Bacon, Purple dog companion and the B&M K-Werk were the candidates. Also different types of son dynos were tested with a few of the high power lamps.

It's already partially discredited because:

1. For Igaro Lux both emitters were turned on which halved the Lux value. This isn't default and not recommended but was forced via the App.
2. The measurements weren't sampled but were point in time. Back then the Igaro C1 firmware didn't work like this as it switched 'bands' rather than ramping output between them.
3. Extraction performance was measured with internal storage at half capacity, which for li-ion is about 3.6V but for super-capacitors in Igaro was taken as 2.5V (wrong, E=CV^2). At this voltage there is a current restriction at highest extraction point (aka high speed).

Released to nicely time with Schmidt SON Ladelux. So let's see what the Igaro C1 App reports (it measures in real-time) when the capacitor energy is beyond the half way point (108RPM ~ 15km/h w/700c)...

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...34d16b6070.jpg

Less crying please. We have lux and lumens. The performance of your light is good. They wrote: "The C1 can be programmed in many different ways using the app. However, the concept is unusual and requires thorough consideration. You first specify in the app how much light is switched on at each of four buffer charge levels. When the charge level changes, the light switches to the next level. It is difficult to make a fair comparison between the C1 and other headlights, as this depends heavily on the settings. We tried to get the most out of the settings for the tests at each speed."
It is not their fault that you allowed the user so much freedom in configuring the light, so please do not complain that it was not measured as you would have liked it. Nonetheless, your C1 is actually pretty well rated in the article/text.

It is not the authors fault, that your firmware was not as good as you'd have liked. Do you expect them to remeasure your light now? The authors do this in their free time and are not paid.

No, the extraction performance into the battery (in your case supercaps) was not measured, because they were not able to measure directly at the supercaps. Therefore the C1 was not included in the figure 19 you showed/quoted. The maximum draw measurements (fig 18) were done with maximum load applied to the USB output (or with light switched on)

As you obviously did not read the full article: they used - for the sake of comparability with the previous 9 articles of this series - an older SON28classic, which is a bit less powerful then a more modern SON28S. A few lights were measured with 4 different dyno hubs (SON28 classic, SON28S, SONdeluxe, SON29S), see Fig. 22 (Link https://fahrradzukunft.de/bilder/40/...0/22.gross.png). So most probably all tested lights and equipment will draw more power with a recent SON, SP or high-end shimano hub.
And as mentioned before: you took the wrong figure. please have a look at fig. 18


You complain so much. Were is your comprehensive test published online with an IQ-XL, M99 Pro, Ladelux and the C1? It is still missing...

[QUOTE=polyphrast;23686122]It is my option if you take the default behaviour and modify it to indicate half the performance then me/you/anyone has a right to "complain". Some might consider this option to be irrefutably grounded in logic but you are entitled to see otherwise.

I don't know what SON28S is, the screenshot I show is a SON28-QR. If Schmidt did you use a SON28-classic, which I'm under the impression nobody actually buys less they can actually buy it, then I apologise.

[QUOTE=polyphrast;23686122]The author is Andreas @ Schmidt SON. The article came just before SON Ladelux was released. I think even you can see a potential conflict of interest, but here's what you don't know...

Well before this article was published we (Igaro) told Andreas that he could not benchmark the Igaro C1 in the traditional way because of the way it uses bands to manage light output. We said the only way was to sample over time. This was ignored.

I appreciate that you have a relationship with B&M which in-turn have a deep relationship with Schmidt but we should all be truthful and unbias as best to our ability and if someone or another company voices concerns those concerns should be looked at. I am 100% sure if I pitted an Igaro C1 against a SON Ladelux at -5c then Schmidt would be deeply unhappy if the test temperature wasn't mentioned in the article. Rightfully so wouldn't you agree? Very similar to forcing on the low emitter to half the output of the main emitter! We can play this game but we choose not too.

Yes there is a potential conflict of interest. Therefore it is clearly stated in all 10 articles that he is an employee of Schmidt Maschinenbau. However, Andreas Oehler is writing and testing as private person in his spare time, not as an paid employee of Schmidt. Andreas Oehler (together with Olaf Schultz, who does not get his money from the bicycle industry) has been testing dyno harvester for this magazine since April 2010 https://fahrradzukunft.de/11/steckdose-unterwegs). With the exception of the dyno hub no product from Schmidt Maschinenbau was part of the previous 9 articles of the series "Steckdose unterwegs" (translates roughly to "wall socket for bicycle riding"). Theirfore it is a bit ridiculous to insinuate Oehler would use this complete niche magazine to promote the ladelux.
The Ladelux has been presented to the broader public since at least end of 2023 on various bike shows, including power draw curves. This was advertisement from Schmidt. On these shows (i have seen the Ladelux on the Spezialradmesse "Spezi" in 2024 and 2025) the power curves were shown with the SON29s (their most powerful dynamo hub, designed for high power draws).
The the release of the Ladelux and the article fall together makes sense: of course the authors wanted to test the final version. But we do not know whether B&M wasn't the time limiting factor (either regarding the IQ-XL or the K-Werk) or Schmidt. And this magazine publishes usually twice a year, between mar-jun and oct-dec

The SON28S is their current standard dyno hub, with the "egg type" shell. The SON28classic is the old version (cylindrical/drum shape). As in the article stated: purely used for the sake of comparability to the previous 9 articles of this series, the first dating back as early as April 2010 (https://fahrradzukunft.de/11/steckdose-unterwegs), when the current SON28 was not yet available, it was released end of 2011. As written before: Andreas Oehler does not do these tests as an employee of Schmidt.
[/quote]
I do not have an relationship with B&M. I have an irregular mail contact with the developer of the IQ-XL AC electronics (who modified B&M lights before he was employed by B&M, this is were i came first in contact with him) and have met a few times the (external) engineer who designed the optics of the IQ-XL (he is an recumbent&velomobile rider as i am). My only relevant relationship to the bike industry is to my velomobile dealer, and in velomobiles dynos are not used, the lights are always powered by batteries.
My daily work is high pressure pneumatic testing, torturing equipment up to 2000 bar with hydrogen (and other gases).

I am not even interested in the Igaro, nor in the Ladelux, as i do not need charging while riding. The title of this thread is: dyno light with high beam. This is where my interest are. I use a modified B&M Cyo Premium in my city bike since a few years, which i consider to replace, either by the M99 Dy Pro or by the IQ-XL AC. If Schmidt ever offers an Ladelux without the charging electronics, purely designed for high beam function, then i might consider to buy this one.
The Igaro does not even fit into this category (dyno high beam light), as it does not have a proper high beam. Should you ever update the Igaro with an proper high beam, then it might be of interest for me.

That capacitors have an advantage over li-ion batteries at low temperatures is stated by the authors. However i cannot imagine that this is relevant to more than 100 people in the world: who wants to ride off grid all day over many days at -5°C?
So your main point is now, that the lux values are not as high as they could be? I understand the author in such a way that his intention was to programm the igaro for the highest power draw. In my understanding (and i've read article he published in this magazine) he is an very objective tester and has no intentions of testing equipment below its full potential.
It seems that with two LEDs the power draw and the total lumen output (but of course not the lux value) is higher. The beam of the Igaro is not critized by the authors. Looking at the beam pattern/light distribution, i find the measured ~80 lux at 570 lm rather impressive, the other lights focus their light more on a narrower spot, while the rest of the beam is considerably darker.
So yes, they could have done it differently, and maybe it would have been nice to test the Igaro regarding its max lux value as well. But in my opinion the lux values shown there do not change the overall - and very good - picture shown of the Igaro in this article. But since it is not StVZO certified, is rather irrelevant for the german public (the former pure power generator was probably of more interest), and this is a german magazine...