REVIEW: Busch & Muller Ixon IQ Premium - Warning Photo Heavy

[Derek Dean]

For my purposes the IQ Premium is bright enough on HIGH just the way it is. It's so much better than the Fenix LD2 I used for years, that I still giggle every time I turn it on and ride home from work at night (yes, I'm easily amused ).

If all I wanted was more brightness, I'd probably just buy another one and run them in tandem (http://www.stealthtdi.com/Albums/BicycleStuff/headlights.html), but what I'd really like to see is for someone to take the reflector and put it in a proper metal host (with decent O-ring seals) that also provided a good thermal pathway to the exterior to get rid of excess heat.

Then maybe upgrade the LED and driver. Now THAT would be a worthwhile project.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

In my experience vocabulary debates can get emotional and go on forever and don't lead anywhere useful.

They do when things depend on the vocabulary being correct. For those who have that vocabulary, and then encounter it being misused, it can be jarring. It was jarring for me because I expected it to be used correctly, but then saw that it wasn't-- and the difference in cutoff types makes a real difference when trying to select a light.

A quick search of the headlights and cutoffs brings up the wikipedia entry on Headlamp -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlamp

ECE low beams are characterized by a distinct horizontal "cutoff" line at the top of the beam.

Yes, the line itself is horizontal, but the function is to limit the light in the vertical (dim above/bright below).

Problem is, it's really to dim for even a "limp home" mode. It seems that they made the beam wider, but didn't make the low mode brighter, so in effect it's dimmer than the previous versions "low" mode.

In contrast, the newer versions of the Phillips Saferide has a very very usable low mode. The Ixon Iq Premium could really use to be brigher on it's low mode to be useful - a higher lux output to give it at least the level of brightness on "low" that the previous one had.

I haven't yet seen the light in person, but am in the market for one. Probably that mode is decent as a stand light or as a sort of bicycle DRL. Your note that that the beam being wider would necessitate a slightly higher intensity for the low mode to be useful to ride by is on its face a good one. There's only so much luminous flux distribute, and spreading it thinner as it were necessitates more luminous flux.

Very well-adjusted night vision might find even that low too bright. Could be handy for getting back on it after spending some time stargazing or something. Or to maneuver it back into the garage at night without turning on the overhead lamp.

Most other lights have 3.

If the brightness levels are sufficiently separated by intensity, then three modes could be quite useful. If they're not distinctly different enough, though, it may just cause fiddling. Three headlight beam choices for automobiles is almost certainly out of the question, and probably could be problematic on a bicycle.

An actual high beam (with the pattern, not intensity, being the determinant) would be welcome on a bicycle.

 

[Derek Dean]

Ok, having used this light for 2 months commuting home from work, I can definitely say I really like it. So far no problems with the plastic battery compartment latch when I take out the batteries for charging, and it seems to be taking all the bumps and holes my bike encounters without a hiccup. However, the main thing I've come to admire and enjoy is the beam pattern. I won't say it's a perfectly even beam, as it does have some artifacts in various places, but overall the intensity of the beam is quite even from from to back and side to side.

The standouts attributes of the beam are it's width and it's reach down the roadway. What's particularly nice is that even at it's farthest reach, where there is a definite cutoff, the beam intensity is the same as it is right in front of the bike. This means my eye is free to wander around the lit area, not being drawn just to the brightest spot as other lights do.

For me, this is a very restful way to ride, because I can easily see a good distance up the roadway, right to the limit where the cutoff is, so I don't feel like I'm constantly trying to see beyond the end of the light, which for me tends to be the case with other lights that gradually fade away.

While I certainly don't consider the IXON IQ Premium to be an overly bright light .... on high power (which gives me about 4 1/2 hours runtime, or about 8 return commutes), it's been not only adequate, but perfectly so. In fact, I'd say it's almost the ideal ratio of brightness to runtime for bike path commuting.

In any case, that's my 2 month update. We're getting ready to head into the rainy season here in Monterey, and while I generally don't ride in the rain, at some point during the winter I typically get caught in a few showers here and there, so I'll be interested to see how the light fairs under those conditions, especially since it's mounted at the fork, just above the front tire. I'll report back in a few months with those findings.

Happy trails!~

 

[bogster]

Based on the reviews (such as this one) and various beamshots including YouTube videos I had seen on the web I bought one of these recently from Bike-Discount.de. I ordered the bare light with no cells or charger and in fact that package seems to be out of stock until December anyway at Bike-Discount.de anyway.

I charged up a set of 4 GP Recyko 2050mAh AA cells before I started a two-hour ride (largely on unlit country roads) and left the light running after the ride to test the runtime. I got 4 hours 30 minutes with the light on high the whole time. The light barely got warm even when static indoors.


Here are my impressions.


I didn't really expect a great deal from a light with a claimed output of only 80 lux and I wasn't disappointed. It is barely adequate at slower speeds but above about 16 mph there isn't enough light to see road defects and have enough time to react and safely avoid them. Faster descents are positively dangerous if you rely on this light alone.


The two main failings of the light are it is not bright enough and the beam pattern is patchy. The best way I can describe it is imagine a triangle of light stretching away from the bike. Furthest away there is a definite section of about a third of the triangle with an even brighter spot in the middle. The remaining two-thirds of the triangle back towards the bike is dimmer with artefacts around the edges.


I tried the light on the bars and mounted lower down towards the front wheel. It didn't seem to make any appreciable difference either way.


The low setting (10 lux) is very feeble and is more a light to be seen that to see by. Useful I guess if you are riding largely in urban areas with street lights but a bare, emergency, get-you-home level for unlit roads.


Weight: Light 108g, 4 AA cells 113g


Pros


1. Definite vertical cut-off to the beam pattern. Riding behind a friend it didn't even light up the reflective strips on the base of his jacket. Good for not dazzling oncoming drivers.


2. Although an all-plastic construction the quality looks high and it is a very neat, self-contained package with the 4 AA cells inside the light.


3. Tested run time of 4H 30M on high is good although I would personally sacrifice half this time for twice the brightness. If you do the sort of rides which are even longer than this time then carrying a fresh set of cells would be no problem to quickly change them as well.


Cons


1. Not bright enough.


2. Beam pattern very uneven which I found irritating.


3. There appears to be no actually weather sealing around the battery compartment. How waterproof this will be can only be guessed at as I didn't test that. Having said that all the electronics seem to be sealed away so it is probably only the battery compartment which is at risk.


As a general commuting light for riding in largely urban areas with street lighting this is probably very good. For any sort of sports cycle riding where the average speeds are likely to be higher then it is barely adequate and certainly a safe limit would be 16 mph in my opinion but your eyesight might be better than mine. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using this light without a much brighter back-up that I could switch on for faster sections which is how I will actually use it in future I think.


All of the beam shots and videos I have seen on the web flatter this light greatly and in reality what your eyes see will be vastly different to how a camera reacts to it. I would recommend that you try and see one for yourself before buying otherwise you might be disappointed.

 

[Derek Dean]

Howdy bogster. Thanks for your impressions. I agree with many of your observations, except I felt my beam shots were quite accurate, and that the one or two videos I saw on-line (which helped persuade me to get the light) were faithful as well. If you look at my first beam shot of the brick plaza, it shows the unevenness of the beam pretty well.

However, from what I can tell, it's precisely those artifacts which give the beam it's exceptional width and length, and help make it a beam that I find extremely enjoyable to ride with. Of course I bought it precisely for the kind of riding I do, which is mostly on a semi-lit bike path and a few semi-lit urban streets.

I am curious, have you tried any other bike lights? I compared the IXON side-by-side (over the coarse of several weeks) with several much brighter lights, and every time I came back to the IQ Premium because of it's outstanding beam pattern. I guess it just goes to show that we all have different ideas of what an ideal beam pattern should be.

Maybe you could check with your retailer to arrange for a return?

 

[Marcturus]

bogster, what flashlight- and what cutoff-patterned lamps have you used before? And was there any particular that you liked as a low beam?

I'm certainly not defending the retailer you ordered from, or the Ixon IQP as a sole lamp for all conditions, but on a dry and level road, just 16 mph max? With a 8000 candela beam? If it's not a glare-intensive road environment, low lamp aim or your vision status that contributed to your experience, it almost sounds like you should attempt to swap lamps with someone who isn't satisfied with the lower runtime and lower CCT of his Philips SR-80 Gen.2.

Derek's last and second to last photograph pretty much represent what I see from IQP lamps when pointed like his. (I might aim them a bit higher.) On a dry and level ground, how do his photos compare to what you were seeing? What these kinds of photographs do not show is the gradual greying and loss of sharpness that happens the farther one gets into the scotopic side of mesopic vision.

 

[bogster]

bogster, what flashlight- and what cutoff-patterned lamps have you used before? And was there any particular that you liked as a low beam?

I'm certainly not defending the retailer you ordered from, or the Ixon IQP as a sole lamp for all conditions, but on a dry and level road, just 16 mph max? With a 8000 candela beam? If it's not a glare-intensive road environment, low lamp aim or your vision status that contributed to your experience, it almost sounds like you should attempt to swap lamps with someone who isn't satisfied with the lower runtime and lower CCT of his Philips SR-80 Gen.2.

Derek's last and second to last photograph pretty much represent what I see from IQP lamps when pointed like his. (I might aim them a bit higher.) On a dry and level ground, how do his photos compare to what you were seeing? What these kinds of photographs do not show is the gradual greying and loss of sharpness that happens the farther one gets into the scotopic side of mesopic vision.

When I first started cycling in the dark (several years ago) I used a single LED Dinotte light which (I thought at the time) was very good. I then graduated to building my own lights and have built several configurations of single, twin and quad XP-G lights with various combinations of optics. My favourite design for road use has always been my twin XP-G light with Ledil 10 degree optics to give a reasonably tight beam with decent throw. Driving this at 1.25A I would estimate I'm getting somewhere in the region of 700 lumens.

Recently I have started experimenting with XM-L LEDs and fresnel lenses and I have to say I am very impressed. The throw is fantastic and in combination with a single XP-G light to provide fill-in closer to the front wheel almost give the " corridor of light" effect I have always been striving for.

One of the big problems though with all these type of lights (commercial or DIY) is the "shotgun" effect which is unavoidable when and LED is used as the illumination source firing forwards. The varying amount of spill depending on the power of the light can be very distracting for oncoming drivers.



Hence the main reason for buying this light was investigating the technology involved in achieving the pronounced vertical cut-off with a view to seeing if I could replicate something similar in a light of my own. The light actually uses a shaped reflector with the LED mounted at the top firing backwards at the reflector.

If you examine Derek's second last photo closely you will be able to see a number of effects.


1. Level with the first visible plant on the right is the region in my review where the light starts to get brighter. If you look at the brick pattern to the left of the plant (and closer) you should be able to make out that this region is actually darker than the area further away.


2. Closer in still, either side of the brighter centre line you can see a still darker patch.


3. Then further in still there is a dark line followed by another bright patch


This is my main problem with this light, the variability of the light pattern.


If you look at the last of Derek's photos you will see the same variable pattern replicated again although the photo has now been taken from a slightly different perspective to the first one.


The other problem is that the overall light level captured by the camera is not the same as it appears to the eye. I don't think I've ever seen a beam shot which does capture this sort of thing faithfully because a camera lens and associated image sensor is just not the same as the human eye. What the camera seems to be doing in this case is over-exposing the amount of light which is also leading to washing out the definition between the light and dark areas.


If you look at the review of the Ixon IQ and Ixon IQ Premium by Captain Overpacker on YouTube, as excellent as the review is, the pictures just do not represent what the eye sees in reality.


Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the Ixon IQ Premium, it's a great bit of design and construction. It's just that it is severely limited in terms of its light output and illumination level and is designed for a certain market, application and use which should be taken into consideration if you expect something more of it.


If a company like Exposure could produce something with a similar design but with maybe 2 or 3 times the output in an aluminium case to handle the heat dissipation adequately, then in my opinion you might just have a winner.

p.s. I'm not the only one who thinks this. A friend riding with me last night thought the Ixon IQ Premium was a joke. He kept asking me to switch it to the High setting. He also thought the horizontal cut-off to the side was a problem but I didn't really mind this. Everyone has their own opinions obviously.

 

[Marcturus]

Sorry to learn that your purchase became a somewhat expensive tech investigation. There are cheaper ways of obtaining reflectors or optics with a low-beam characteristic to experiment with.

I won't ask what your companion's qualification was (except having a more powerful and brighter-looking beam with him.) But I guess there is a reason why TDI-Overpacker uses two lamps, and if we add attempting to lessen beam unevenness, that's two valid reasons.

You are right about the cameras, btw I happened to mention the YT video as appearing "somewhat bright" without going into detail in September. If one is not familiar with the beams that Overpacker's previous lamps produced in reality, it is harder to tell what exactly looks wrong. That's why I prefer isocandela plots and isolux projections, even if Specialized is not listening and "double bogus beam" Fenix is getting away without them as long as their numbers appear trustworthy.

 

[Derek Dean]

bogster...... very well explained, thank you. Gee, with your do-it-yourself ability, I'd think you might want to open up the IXON IQ Premium and see about sticking in an XM-L and better driver. The more spread out light of the XM-L might blend some of the objectionable artifacts, while doubling or tripling the output. It might be worth a look.

In any case, I'd be VERY interested in following your quest for a better bike light, as you sound like you know what your looking for. Good luck.

 

[znomit]

This is my main problem with this light, the variability of the light pattern.

I find this very noticeable at dawn and dusk but it never bothers me when it gets darker. Not sure why that is.

 

[bogster]

Sorry to learn that your purchase became a somewhat expensive tech investigation. There are cheaper ways of obtaining reflectors or optics with a low-beam characteristic to experiment with.

I won't ask what your companion's qualification was (except having a more powerful and brighter-looking beam with him.) But I guess there is a reason why TDI-Overpacker uses two lamps, and if we add attempting to lessen beam unevenness, that's two valid reasons.

You are right about the cameras, btw I happened to mention the YT video as appearing "somewhat bright" without going into detail in September. If one is not familiar with the beams that Overpacker's previous lamps produced in reality, it is harder to tell what exactly looks wrong. That's why I prefer isocandela plots and isolux projections, even if Specialized is not listening and "double bogus beam" Fenix is getting away without them as long as their numbers appear trustworthy.

I was fully prepared to write the cost of the light off to experience when I bought it so no problem there. I could always sell it on as well and recoup a substantial proportion of the cost but I will probably continue to use it especially on slower rides because I do like the low-beam and the compact integrated design with the cells in the light. I wondered when I bought it if it might be possible to get the reflector out at all but the light is a sealed unit so that is not possible. Maybe if I ever break the light accidentally I'll just crack it open and release the reflector! :thumbsup:

Just out of interest do you have any references for the low-beam reflectors you mention? I live in the UK and suppliers of that sort of part are virtually non-existant and the ones that are available are industrial quality and hideously expensive.

 

[bogster]

bogster...... very well explained, thank you. Gee, with your do-it-yourself ability, I'd think you might want to open up the IXON IQ Premium and see about sticking in an XM-L and better driver. The more spread out light of the XM-L might blend some of the objectionable artifacts, while doubling or tripling the output. It might be worth a look.

In any case, I'd be VERY interested in following your quest for a better bike light, as you sound like you know what your looking for. Good luck.

As I replied to Marcturus, the B&M light is a sealed unit so it's not possible to get the reflector out without destroying the case. The "nutty professor" in me would love to do that though just to see if it would be possible to build a similar light with maybe 3 times the output but in an aluminium case to handle the heat dissipation. At present I am investigating trying to get a suitable reflector at a reasonable price rather than crack open the B&M. If I could pick up a second-hand one on eBay for a reasonable price though...

If I ever do manage to crack the problem then I would be more than happy to share any design I come up with with the cycling community at large. I'm not really interested in producing lights for sale - I do build them for family and friends (for fun!) but I'm but I'm not really prepared to get into all the health and safety aspects involved in producing lights for sale. Besides that, bespoke building of something like this in terms of time and effort would be horrendously expensive and just wouldn't be feasible I think for the buyer.

At present I am working on a single XM-L light using a fresnel lens and my third prototype gives a fantastic light pattern with very little spill so less dazzling than the equivalent Chinese SolarStorm light for instance. It's showing definite promise and I think I might try building the next one with a remote handlebar switch so that the beam can be dipped to prevent dazzling oncoming drivers which is another way of tackling the same problem that the B&M light addresses.

 

[Marcturus]

Just out of interest do you have any references for the low-beam reflectors you mention? I live in the UK and suppliers of that sort of part are virtually non-existant and the ones that are available are industrial quality and hideously expensive.

Ouch, rainy region, kewl white LED, and the IQP is so careful not to throw a big, bright puddle of light nearby (where most flashlight optics throw one) that a wet street can appear quite dark right in front of you.

As you can fill in any (real or perceived) nearfield dark patches with oval-beam optics to your liking, I was not thinking of expensive automotive parts though these become interesting as some are moving into single-digit watts, but simply of cheaper lamps to destroy:

Apart from China-made Lidl and Aldi LED sets, things like the Herrmans H-Diver (if you have no use for the driver, donate it to a dynamo-equipped tinkerer intending to use it inside a Philips SR-80,)
or their new H-Flow,
http://www.internet-bikes.com/index.php?p=981&id=75938
(same place you can get the Hella optic from that I mentioned at the end of the "let's design a road beam" thread, but I'd only use a disposable email address for shopping there)

used reflectors that people sell with their "outdated" LED lamps like this one,
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/B-amp-M-Lumotec-IQ-LED-Fly-Front-Dynamo-light-/331319944438

a cheapo optic like the Axa Pico's or the bm Lyt's (weak, narrow, chromatic aberration, but has a primary optic and a front lens to play with,)
http://www.velomobilforum.de/forum/index.php?threads/innenleben-des-lumotec-lyt.35992/

 

[bogster]

Thanks for that Marcturus. Several options to explore and to think about.

 

[abvgdee]

(post deleted, sorry, didn't notice there's the 2nd page.. this is how "bright" I sometimes am.. )

 

[Marcturus]

. . . . . .

 

[briank101]

Do you think this model could be mounted as auxiliary low beams on a car and would the down the road intensity be better than your typical halogen low beams?

PS. From the photos, it looks like the light intensity distribution from foreground to distant is what every low beam headlight should aspire to (that is not too much foreground light as found in too many headlights that give customers what they want instead of what they need.)

 

[Norm]

Do you think this model could be mounted as auxiliary low beams on a car

Your question would be better answered here : Forum: Automotive, Motorcycles Included.

 

[Marcturus]

Do you think this model could be mounted as auxiliary low beams on a car and would the down the road intensity be better than your typical halogen low beams?

PS. From the photos, it looks like the light intensity distribution from foreground to distant is what every low beam headlight should aspire to (that is not too much foreground light as found in too many headlights that give customers what they want instead of what they need.)

Legal or not, electrically adapted or not, the answer is simple: Don't, this lamp was not built to handle automotive use -- even though the LED itself was. Though you might like the photo, there are artefacts and the maximum intensity is about 8 kcd which is "a fraction" of a good car's halogen low beam.

 

[Derek Dean]

Yep, what Marcturus said... +1 ...... it's simply not bright enough for automotive use. Heck, it's barely bright enough for bicycle use . Seriously, many folks just feel it's not bright enough.

However, I still LOVE this light, it's just perfect for my limited bike path needs ,and continues to work flawlessly night after night. In fact, I giggle every time I turn it on because the beam is so nice....... and yes, I'm easily amused .