Sky Lumen        
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 57

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

  1. #1
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    This is just a quick impression/review of a bicycle light I received today, the Busch & Muller Ixon IQ Premium bicycle headlight.


    The light comes in an easily opened/re-closed plastic package, which contains the light, the handlebar mount, an anti-dazzle glare shield (more on this in a moment), and the instructions.


    The inclusion of the anti-dazzle glare shield was a nice surprise for me. In the few reviews Iíve seen of this light, it was always mentioned that it really was necessary to have the glare shield in place, but that it was optional, and most felt that it should have been included. It seems that B&M listened to their customers and now include it with the light. It attaches to the light via two adhesive strips on the back.



    By the way, I ordered my light from RoseBikes in Germany, so it may be that the anti-dazzle glare shield is not included in the US version found at Peter Whites Bicycles.

    Since I canít mount this on the handlebars (because of the bag), I bought the optional Fork Crown mount (approx. $13). Itís very sturdy and has the same clip-on piece that mates to the light, making it easy to mount and unmount the light. You will need your own nut and bolt to attach the fork crown mount to the bicycle, as they arenít included.


    The IXON IQ Premium is primarily made of plastic (including the clear front cover) and is very light, 90 grams without batteries, 200 grams with 4 Eneloops installed. Itís approx. 4 3/4Ē long by 2Ē in diameter.


    On top is the main switch, which has a good, solid, and firm feel. It seems to be made from hard rubber. It wonít accidentally turn on. To turn ON/OFF, you hold the button for 1 second. To change from low to high or high to low you simply click the button. The light appears to have a memory, as it will come on in the last selected mode. This memory carries over when changing batteries.

    Above the button is an LED indicator light.
    Solid Green = Full Batteries, High Mode
    Flashing Green = Batteries getting low, light will shift to low/eco mode soon.
    Flashing Red/Green = Low/Economy Mode
    Solid Red = Recharge batteries.


    Itís not a real bright LED indicator, and shouldnít be a distraction, but does provide at least basic information, which, although not very specific as far as battery strength goes, at least gives you something to keep from being left in the dark.

    On the bottom of the light is the Charge Port, covered with a rubber stopper which fits securely into place when the port is not in use. The light is designed to be used with an optional charger (approx. $35), which plugs into the port to charge the batteries in the light. Since Iíve got a Maha/PowerEx C9000 AA battery charger, there was no need for me to buy the optional in-light charger.


    Also on the bottom is the mount connector piece which fits in either the included handlebar mount or the option fork crown mount.

    On the back of the light is the battery compartment OPEN button. Itís quite possible this could prove to be the weak link of this light. There have been several reports of the button breaking, rendering the light basically unusable, and if you look at my closeup, you can see why it might break so easily. The button itself is pressing again a plastic spring. Hmmmmm.


    If you use the optional charger and charge the batteries inside the light, this might not be a problem, but for folks like me who prefer to charge their batteries in an external charger, this could be an issue. Time will tell. At least the light comes with a 3 year warranty.

    My other concern is that there are no o-rings around the battery compartment, which uses only a tongue and groove system in the plastic to keep moisture out. I might consider using tape to seal it up between battery charges.

    By the way, some folks mentioned that they felt putting the batteries in was a bit ďfiddlyĒ. I see what they mean, but itís not that bad, and only requires doing it once or twice to understand how itís done.



    Ok, thatís enough with the physical specs, letís get down to the meat of the matter. The reason I bought this light was itís beam pattern. I spent quite awhile reading reviews, watching u-tube videos, and scouring the web for lights that would provide the kind of beam pattern I wanted.

    I bicycle primarily on a bike path between work and home (some lit, some not), usually coming home at night. For the last 6 years Iíve used a Fenix L2D, which worked for helping to me visible to other folks, but tended to blind anybody coming toward me, so I decided to search for a light that was actually designed for bicycle use, more specifically, one designed for use in urban areas.

    To me, that would be a light that would give me not only a superior beam pattern for lighting up the bike path, both near AND far, but also one that would NOT blind oncoming traffic, whether itís other bicycles, pedestrians, or when Iím out on the street, cars.

    The other requirement, since Iím kind of ďfrugalĒ, is that it be affordable (around $100, less would be better).

    Iíve been happy to see some new lights becoming available recently that are close to fitting my requirements. The Fenix BC30 looks quite promising, but Iím not sure the beam pattern fits my needs. The new Specialized lights look great, with both low and high beams, but are out of my price range.

    I came close to getting the Philips Saferide, but after comparing many beam shots on-line, I finally decided on the B&M IQ Premium.

    The IXON IQ has been available for a few years, and is known for itís even illumination from the front of the bike to 50 yards or more in the distance, along with itís hard horizontal cutoff to keep from blinding on-coming traffic.

    The new ďPremiumĒ version refers to a new reflector that not only provides even illumination both near and far (more even than the old IQ with less hotspots), but has a beam that is wider than the older IQ non-premium version, giving more illumination to the sides, but still providing that hard horizontal cutoff.


    The IQ Premium is a 2 level light, providing approx. 17 lux for 20 hours or 80 lux for 5 hours. In my bathroom bounce test, the 17 lux low was a bit brighter than my ZL SC52wís 50 lumen setting (M1), while the 80 lux high was approx. equal to the SC52wís 280 lumen setting (H1 using an Eneloop AA).

    The LED tint is a bit cool, but not bad (I did end up filtering it, see below). I checked visually for PWM and couldnít detect it on either level.

    Ok, on to some beam shots. White balance set to auto and no filter on the light, these are just to show the beam profile. This first one has the beam directed to the left along a white wall, showing the sharp horizontal cutoff and how theyíve directed light down in front of the bike, but not too bright.


    This second one was shot with the light about 2 feet away from, and directly facing the wall. It shows how odd a shaped-beam is, when seen like this. The beam is meant to be spread out in front of the bike, not shown on a white wall, so in reality, this is a good sign of things to come.


    Now, on to a couple of quick outdoor beam shots. This first one was taken with the light in the HIGH 80 lux position (about 120 feet to the white step in the distance). This was shot with white balance to set to DAYLIGHT. The red bricks show the decidedly cyan cast, but itís not quite that bad in real life.


    Iím VERY pleased with this beam profile. Exactly what I was hoping for, with an extremely even beam pattern from the front of the bike to over 100 feet away. By having the light in front of the bike the same intensity as the light in the distance, it really makes it easy to see clearly. And, when I went down to the end and looked back at the bike, it wasnít blinding at all. Just a light that was on, not particularly bright, just on.

    However, after seeing that real life test, when I got home I did add a LIGHT ROSE FILTER to the light and took this second beamshot (HIGH 80 Lux, white balance to DAYLIGHT). Much better color rendition. By the way, it's about 110 feet to that white step at the end of the beam, and notice that hard horizontal cutoff. Nice.


    Both beams were a bit brighter in real life than shown in these shots, but this does give a good idea of the beam pattern, with that even lighting from front to back, and the hard horizontal cutoff that I was after.

    I guess my biggest question is how well will it hold up to the rigors of every day bicycle commuting? Plastic body, no o-rings in the battery compartment, plastic front cover. Well, that's something I'll just have to find out.

    Is this a good light for everybody. Probably not. Mountain bikers will need MUCH more light, and don't need the shaped beam. I knew all of it's foibles going in, but for me, the beam pattern trumped all those, and I'm quite pleased with how the beam looks. I'd love it if it used 18650 cells instead of AA NiMh, and if it had an aluminum body, and a glass front cover, and o-rings in the battery compartment, and had another one or two brighter levels, but then it might cost more than the $70 I payed for it, and honestly, this fits MY requirements to a T.

    Anyway, I hope you found something in here that was useful. I think I'll go out for a midnight bike ride on the bike trail by the ocean .

  2. #2
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,785

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

    Thanks for the review! Nicely done.

    B&M seems to have some good optics engineers on staff. The beam looks quite good.

    Kind of a shame that they didn't use an o-ring type of seal to keep moisture out. Maybe the tongue-in-groove design is good enough? I can imagine some scenarios that might really test the design, though.... strong winds, odd mounting positions (maybe on a front rack, getting some spray from the front wheel), or perhaps someone just lays the bike on the ground while stopped.

    I am curious as to how the design manages to get the heat transfered from the LED to the air. I thought that the anti-dazzle glare shield might be an aluminum heatsink, but then I saw that it can be detached. Is the body made of thermally conductive plastic? Does it get significantly warm while just operating the light on the test bench? My latest bike light conversion covered about half of the body in aluminum, and the temperature probably doesn't get above 50C on the bench. With good airflow, I've never noticed it getting warm at all. My design is probably over engineered, practically speaking. Considering how few hours of use a typical bike light gets, it's probably acceptable for the LED to get well above 85C. Still... I'm curious as to how B&M addressed the issue.

    Thanks again for the review. Good to know that there is another battery powered light that I can recommend to my roadie friends.

  3. #3
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    Thanks, Steve. I should have mentioned that the glare shield is made of hard rubber. I've got to admit, I'm also curious how the engineers are getting heat away from the LED. I had considered securing a plastic bag around the light to further add to it's moisture resistance, but then decided that it might interfere with whatever cooling IS going on.

    I'm not a rain rider. When it rains I drive my car to work , and when I do ride, it's only 20 minutes home, so hopefully, this light duty won't push the envelope to much for this light.

    I will try to do some tests to see how warm it gets while just sitting, vs riding through air. I'd love to directly compare this light to the new Fenix BC30. Supposedly Fenix is also using some beam shaping technology to help cut down on glare for oncoming traffic, and their light looks quite a bit more robust than the B&M, with an aluminum body and 18650 batteries.

  4. #4
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,785

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

    Wasn't there some discussion of a Fenix bike light? It seems familiar. My recollection is that their optics were pretty crude and did not produce a good beam pattern.

    As far as rain is concerned, I try to minimize the time I spend riding in the rain in the dark. Visibility is too awful... light reflects off of the rain covered road, so it's about impossible to see the road surface, but it does reflect that light into the eyes of anyone coming towards you. It's just too dangerous for some of the high-speed roads I commute on. Might be okay for back streets or multi-use paths.
    You could try adding some small shields at the joint. Think of them as small eaves or awnings hanging over the joint to deflect any rain falling down. Rather a lot of work for a small improvement, though. If you make the shields out of aluminum, it might help both the heatsinking and the waterproofing!

  5. #5
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    Hey, thanks for the suggestions Steve. Actually, I had already taken my thinking a step further (being the weird flashlight dude I am) and was playfully thinking about a major mod, taking the light apart to figure out it's thermal pathway (and enhancing it if possible), upgrading the water resistance, possibly upgrading the LED to the latest neutral XM-L2, and figuring out how to convert it to running at least one 18650 cell.

    But then again, it's really fine the way it is, and unless I see some actual signs of moisture getting inside, I'll probably leave it the way it is.

    By the way, I'm in the process of doing a runtime test (in my apartment) on HIGH (80 Lux). Very steady light output so far. It didn't take long to go from solid green to flashing green, about 25 minutes, but it's still on the high level after an hour. Interestingly, the light is only mildly warm, making me wonder where all that heat is going. I'll post the results when I'm done.

  6. #6
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,785

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

    agreed.. moisture immunity is probably not going to be a big deal. It did occur to me that you might just put a piece of electrical tape over the joint on those days where you are concerned about rain. That ought to buy you a fair bit of improvement w/o any downsides. I've done this on some taillights that I suspected weren't well sealed.

  7. #7
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    Yep, I agree, Steve... a bit of electrical tape is probably all that's needed for those foggy, misty nights here on the coast.

    I just finished the runtime test. Very impressive. I started with 4 Eneloop AA batteries, probably a couple of years old, but with less than 10 cycles on them. Before using, I did a refresh/analyze with my Maha C9000, and got approx. 1875 mAh for each battery.

    I started the light on HIGH (80 Lux).

    12pm Start light in High - Solid Green Indicator Light - Output steady (measured with my camera meter)
    12:30pm Indicator Light changes to Flashing Green - Output stays steady in HIGH
    4:30pm Light drops to ECO mode - Indicator Light changes to alternate flashing Red/Green - Output steady
    5:30pm Indicator Light changes to slowly Flashing Red - Output begins to slowly dim
    6:30pm Indicator Light changes to quicker Flashing Red (indicating very low batteries) - Output very dim, but useable - Test Terminated

    So with my older batteries, I'll get 4 1/2 hours in HIGH, another 1 hour in ECO, and finally, another hour (probably more) of slowly dimming light. Thatís good enough for me. This light won't leave me in the dark .

  8. #8
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    One Month Update:
    The more I use this light the more I like it. I bought it specifically for the beam pattern, which I'd read was wide, long, and even from front to back and side to side......... and it's easily lived up to those claims, and with it's exceptionally clean horizontal cutoff I feel like I have the perfect commuter light for my particular situation.

    Yes, I wish it had an aluminum housing and was O-ring sealed for better weather protection, but man, that beam makes those slight misgivings fade away as I'm riding home at night. I haven't actually measured the width of the beam, but it appears to be somewhere between 30-40 feet at the widest point.

    And I absolutely love that the area at the far end of the beam, about 100-120 feet out, is the same level of illumination as the area close to the bike. It's very relaxing to be able to see clearly all the way out to the end of the beam.

    Now, to be fair, I can understand how this type of beam might not be for everybody. There is virtually no spill. You just have this huge rectangle of light moving down the roadway, and at all the edges the light simply stops cold. But for me, it's perfect.

    By the way, the fork crown mount is rock steady. I did have an occasion to try the light out in with the included handlebar mount, and the beam is even slightly better at that higher location, but I specifically bought this light to use in the fork crown location, and it does a great job there.

    At this point it's simply a matter of how well it will hold up to the rigors of daily, weekly, and monthly use, but so far it's been great.

  9. #9
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,785

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

    I haven't owned a light that produces the even illumination that this light creates. It seems like a good thing, but a gradual transition at the edges might be nice too. I'm amazed that the optics designers can control the light well enough to get that sharp cutoff.

    The heatsinking issue still intrigues me. By rights, it should be detrimental to the LED to not have a decent path to get rid of the heat, and it probably is. However, it isn't as if people use their bike lights 8 hours a day and will be upset if it doesn't survive 5 years of this sort of use. Instead, people use them for maybe 30 to 90 minutes once a day, and maybe do that 6 months out of the year?? The LED might last long enough for the next great bike light to come on the market, which is plenty long enough for a lot of people. It might be an interesting project to see if you could augment the heatsinking with a bit of aluminum on the outside of the light and a chunk of aluminum to channel heat from the LED to the external heatsink.

    Good to hear that the light is working out so well! Not all purchases end up this way.

  10. #10
    Moderator Alaric Darconville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Stillwater, America
    Posts
    4,832

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Dean View Post
    However, after seeing that real life test, when I got home I did add a LIGHT ROSE FILTER to the light and took this second beamshot (HIGH 80 Lux, white balance to DAYLIGHT). Much better color rendition. By the way, it's about 110 feet to that white step at the end of the beam, and notice that hard horizontal cutoff. Nice.


    Both beams were a bit brighter in real life than shown in these shots, but this does give a good idea of the beam pattern, with that even lighting from front to back, and the hard horizontal cutoff that I was after.

    A fine-looking light, and a very helpful review! I do have a quick question, though:

    When you say "horizontal cutoff", do you really mean a vertical cutoff? The 2'-from-the-wall shot shows the beam has near-perfect left-to-right symmetry, with a good vertical cutoff (very little light *above* a certain line).

    I modified one of your images to illustrate more clearly.

    Although the yellow line is horizontal, it's still the vertical cutoff as little light is above it. The red line is vertical, but it would be the horizontal cutoff if light output were strongly diminished compared to the right side of the light. It appears that neither side really has a strong horizontal cutoff, but the hotspot is still well-controlled.
    This picture illustrates the effect of a horizontal cutoff (assuming Right Hand Traffic):


    Cutoff quite exaggerated, of course!

  11. #11
    Flashaholic Marcturus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    230V~
    Posts
    314

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaric Darconville View Post
    When you say "horizontal cutoff", do you really mean a vertical cutoff? The 2'-from-the-wall shot shows the beam has near-perfect left-to-right symmetry, with a good vertical cutoff (very little light *above* a certain line).
    Unless we manage to have the horizon renamed "the vertic," the confusion is unlikely to end.

  12. #12
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    Howdy Alaric,
    Hmmmmm........... potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto, I would never have guessed that you'd call something that cuts off horizontally, a vertical cutoff, but it looks like I learned something new today .

    Thanks for the correction, and yes, I meant to specify that the light cuts off this way ___ , whatever that may be (it's going to take me a while to wrap my brain around calling that a vertical cutoff ).

    By the way, the sides really do have a strong cutoff as well, which bothers some folks. It may not show up in that wall photo, but trust me, it's a pretty sharp cutoff with little spill to speak of.

    I think it may depend on the type of riding somebody does as to whether this type of beam will work, and I have to emphasize that's it's not the brightest beam around by any means, in fact, far from it..... but in my research I found that folks who wanted a brighter beam simply ended up mounting two of these side-by-side.

    I've seen some other bicycle light beams lately that are quite nice, but in a different kind of way. They were narrower, but had a lot of spill, and while the beam didn't extend quite as far as the IXON, they were overall a bit more evenly illuminated.

    I think beam shape is a very personal thing, and I'm mainly glad to see so many more manufacturers paying attention and giving us alternatives to just mounting a flashlight on the handlebars.

  13. #13

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

    Very interesting post. I also went through the same process - I think your pics and beamshots are generally better than what I wrote up. I ended up buying both the Ixon Iq Premium and the Phillips Saferide as my brother also needed a light. They both have pluses and minuses, I can't say that one is definitively "better" than the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Dean View Post
    However, after seeing that real life test, when I got home I did add a LIGHT ROSE FILTER to the light and took this second beamshot (HIGH 80 Lux, white balance to DAYLIGHT). Much better color rendition. By the way, it's about 110 feet to that white step at the end of the beam, and notice that hard horizontal cutoff. Nice.
    Any chance you'd have an online link to where I could buy a "LIGHT ROSE FILTER"? I'm very unfamiliar with what that means, and would love to try that out and not go through a process buying the wrong thing. I also found the color temperature of the light a bit annoying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Dean View Post
    I came close to getting the Philips Saferide, but after comparing many beam shots on-line, I finally decided on the B&M IQ Premium.
    I could write a longer post if someone is interested, but the two are pretty comparable.

    I like the Ixon Iq's beam shape a little better. It's more of a triangle with the top being out in front of the bike. It's fairly smooth and even, with a minor inconsistencies. No light artifacts to the sides. It seemed like it was designed to be mounted at the for crown - the side lighting doesn't go as far when mounted on the handlebars (if you raise it up to much then the main punch of the beam gets to high).

    The Saferide beam pattern is more of a squat or an oval. It didn't seem to have the small inconsistencies in the pattern that the Ixon Iq had. But, it has a small gap in front of the front wheel (not a problem at normal speeds, but a little annoying a very low speeds), and it had a lot of weird stray light beams off to the sides that were slightly annoying while riding on my MUP. Both were good for not getting in the eyes on oncoming traffic (usually other bikers or walkers for me), but I thought the Ixon Iq was a little better when I had a friend ride my bike with either one past me to test it out.

    Both lights had about the same throw down the road, and both lights threw further than any other lights I have, short of the "light up the entire world with massive lumens" Light and Motion lights I have (which are to blinding to use).

    The Ixon Iq's beam is nicer for sharp turns at low speeds (wider) and there's no gap in front of the bike which is only really annoying at low speeds. But the Saferide's beam feels like it's brighter. The Ixon Iq lights up the road well enough, and I seem to be able to see everything I need to, but the Saferdie is easier to feel more comfortable that you can see everything. Maybe it's more light, maybe it's the color temperature. The Ixon Iq's low mode is very very low - can't decide if I think it's just to low, or whether it's nice for a "use the absolute minimum lighting needed" kind of night nature ride.

    The Ixon IQ's battery life is a lot longer - 6:30 on high before switching to low and running until 7:00 on low, then gradually dimming past that with high capacity 2700mah batteries. The Saferide was only 1:51 on high, then going to 3:24 on low before gradually dimming until nothing past that. I also had some issues with the Saferide sometimes dropping to low prematurely (around 1 hour on one test, after just a couple of minutes on another) so I'm not sure if it's a battery flaw or the light - but I do know that it wasn't a problem at all with the Ixon Iq. Both lights have in-light charging that seems to fully charge the batteries in my testing (vs also testing them on an external charger).

    Overall I just didn't find there to be a "winner". The Ixon Iq would win if it had a bit brighter mode on high and a more natural color temperature. The Saferide would win if it had better battery life and didn't have some of the weird battery issues I ran into it testing it.

  14. #14

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Dean View Post
    By the way, the sides really do have a strong cutoff as well, which bothers some folks. It may not show up in that wall photo, but trust me, it's a pretty sharp cutoff with little spill to speak of.
    Are you sure you're talking about the Premium, not the non-premium version?

    As an owner and a rider of the premium version, the beam is so wide I cannot imagine the cutoff being a problem. I can make slow, sharp turns and it's still within the beam of the light. I also find that the light is not bright enough to create a cutoff problem situation - if there's any ambient light at all (like anywhere in the city where there's always some ambient light bouncing off the atmosphere), I can see outside the beam whether it's on or off.

    Now the non-premium version, or the older cyo, those had a much narrower beam, so I could understand being bothersome, but with the premium I'm curious how it would be bothersome as the light is so wide.

  15. #15
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    Howdy Paul, and welcome to the forum,
    Thanks for the very thoughtful and informative posts. You answered one of my biggest questions, which would be better, the Philips Saferide or the Ixon IQ Premium? Of course your answer was, there is no clear winner, they both have their pros and cons. But you went on further to give a very nice comparison between the two, describing those pros and cons.

    I think you're information will be quite helpful to other folks who are facing a similar dilemma of deciding between those two lights.

    I read some reviews of the IXON IQ Premium on the Rose Bikes German web site (where I bought my light), where some of the folks were bothered by the strong cutoff of the light, which I totally get. Even though the beam IS extremely wide, it still ends rather abruptly, and I think this might give some folks a bit of the tunnel effect, mainly because they are used to having a more gradual tapering of the light from their previous experience with a typical flashlight. I only mentioned it because even though I think the beam is great, I want folks who are reading my review to understand any potential issues, giving them a chance to think about what they want before purchasing a light.

    By the way, I feel the LOW setting on the IXON IQ Premium is useful ONLY when your batteries get to low to support high, then at least you've got some light to get home with, but other than that, even the HIGH setting is a tiny bit dim for my taste. I'd happily trade some runtime for a bit more illumination, but for my needs, it's not too bad, and the wide beam is certainly worth the slight decrease in brightness.

    Oh, and speaking of illumination, I finally removed the Rose filter, deciding that I would rather have the extra brightness rather than a better color balance. Choices choices. However, I highly recommend that you purchase one of these:
    http://www.adorama.com/ROSB.html?cvo...FQWUfgodnioAgg

    Every flashlight aficionado should have one (you'd need two in order to cover the area of the IXON). You can change the tint of a nasty looking light into something really lovely. Of course, you do lose some output, but with many of todays super bight lights that's not really an issue. Often you can find those at a local photographic store, especially in the larger cities.

    Thanks again for your excellent input.

  16. #16

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Dean View Post
    Howdy Paul, and welcome to the forum,
    Thanks for the very thoughtful and informative posts. You answered one of my biggest questions, which would be better, the Philips Saferide or the Ixon IQ Premium? Of course your answer was, there is no clear winner, they both have their pros and cons. But you went on further to give a very nice comparison between the two, describing those pros and cons.
    Thanks for responding. Really liked your review, I wrote one myself on bikeforums but I think you did a better job at not rambling on and providing good pics, haha. :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Dean View Post
    I think you're information will be quite helpful to other folks who are facing a similar dilemma of deciding between those two lights.

    I read some reviews of the IXON IQ Premium on the Rose Bikes German web site (where I bought my light), where some of the folks were bothered by the strong cutoff of the light, which I totally get. Even though the beam IS extremely wide, it still ends rather abruptly, and I think this might give some folks a bit of the tunnel effect, mainly because they are used to having a more gradual tapering of the light from their previous experience with a typical flashlight. I only mentioned it because even though I think the beam is great, I want folks who are reading my review to understand any potential issues, giving them a chance to think about what they want before purchasing a light.
    I wonder if those reviews are really talking about the cutoff on the sides, or if they just mean the horizontal/horizon cutoff on the top of the light beam. It's like a car headlight where your low beams have a cutoff.

    It's just my opinion I suppose, but I cannot imagine anyone realistically being bothered by the cutoffs of the side. The beam size is so wide, I could make sharp low speed turns with it. The beam is also not bright enough to give much of a tunnel effect if there's any ambient light whatsoever. While it is just my opinion, it's my opinion that the sides not being feathered out in light is a non-issue for anyone who's actually riding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Dean View Post
    By the way, I feel the LOW setting on the IXON IQ Premium is useful ONLY when your batteries get to low to support high, then at least you've got some light to get home with, but other than that...
    I agree with your sentiment - I find the "low" to be absurdly low. It borders on useless for having it as a backup option for your batteries running low, I could not bike at normal speeds with it it there wasn't ambient lighting. The Saferide low version is very useable, the Ixon low version is not useable in average riding conditions.

    I did find it interesting as an extra mode, if you wanted to bike in "absolutely mininum lighting" mode, like there's a park that's fairly open it's nice to ride through in the moonlight. But really, there should be an in the middle low lighting mode.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Dean View Post
    even the HIGH setting is a tiny bit dim for my taste. I'd happily trade some runtime for a bit more illumination, but for my needs, it's not too bad, and the wide beam is certainly worth the slight decrease in brightness.
    I know what you mean and agree with you. The Saferide is nicer for it's high mode (except the beam pattern isn't as nice and the battery life isn't nearly as good). I'm a little on the fence - so far the Ixon Iq hasn't failed me in the ability to actually see anything I need to see, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable with somewhat more light like the Saferide has.

    I do wonder if it's really about the amount of light, though. The Ixon Iq puts out a rather purplish color of light. I'm not sure if it's a theory that it affects your night vision less and is better on the eyes of other people, or whether it's simply a matter of using a cheap led. If you try using it around the house, you get not-quite-natural colors. The Saferide - and some of the Light and Motion lights I own - all put out more natural color light.

    As you probably know, the dynamo version is the Cyo, but there they have the more expensive edelux ii which I've read uses a different led with a different color temperature and light distribution. I have a bike with a dynamo, considering whether I should pay more for that version.

    Wonder if there's a do-it-yourself replacement project for the led...hmm...

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Dean View Post
    Oh, and speaking of illumination, I finally removed the Rose filter, deciding that I would rather have the extra brightness rather than a better color balance. Choices choices. However, I highly recommend that you purchase one of these:
    http://www.adorama.com/ROSB.html?cvo...FQWUfgodnioAgg

    Every flashlight aficionado should have one (you'd need two in order to cover the area of the IXON). You can change the tint of a nasty looking light into something really lovely. Of course, you do lose some output, but with many of todays super bight lights that's not really an issue. Often you can find those at a local photographic store, especially in the larger cities.

    Thanks again for your excellent input.
    Thanks for the link!

    You know, the problem with complaining about the drawbacks of the lights is that eventually it sounds like the lights just have a bunch of problems.

    The Ixon Iq Premium and the Phillips Saferide are both still the best lights I've owned for being able to see on the road at night, so far. And I own around $1,500 in light including some very expensive lights. The only lights I kinda light better are a combination of Seca lights that put out around 1600 lumens, both those are so blinding I can't ride with them anyways - people riding in the same group as me hated them. Oncoming pedestrians definitely hated them. The lights above give me 80-90% of that, but with no complaints from other people, and they're much cheaper.

  17. #17
    Flashaholic Marcturus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    230V~
    Posts
    314

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulRivers View Post
    I wonder if those reviews are really talking about the cutoff on the sides, or if they just mean the horizontal/horizon cutoff on the top of the light beam.
    Say again?

    It's like a car headlight where your low beams have a cutoff.
    But it's mounted on a bicycle.

    It's just my opinion I suppose, but I cannot imagine anyone realistically being bothered by the cutoffs of the side. The beam size is so wide, I could make sharp low speed turns with it. The beam is also not bright enough to give much of a tunnel effect if there's any ambient light whatsoever. While it is just my opinion, it's my opinion that the sides not being feathered out in light is a non-issue for anyone who's actually riding.
    Try riding turns faster, without ambient light, and your opinion might catch up.

    I did find it interesting as an extra mode, if you wanted to bike in "absolutely mininum lighting" mode, like there's a park that's fairly open it's nice to ride through in the moonlight. But really, there should be an in the middle low lighting mode.
    cpf bias. Remember that some of the people they are trying to sell this product to aren't as enthusiastic or sophisticated.
    EDIT: These people have a legal reason to use the low mode - daytime precipitation; well-lit streets - and are not interested in wasting battery life or dialing through a multitude of modes.

    I do wonder if it's really about the amount of light, though. The Ixon Iq puts out a rather purplish color of light. I'm not sure if it's a theory that it affects your night vision less and is better on the eyes of other people, or whether it's simply a matter of using a cheap led. If you try using it around the house, you get not-quite-natural colors. The Saferide - and some of the Light and Motion lights I own - all put out more natural color light.

    As you probably know, the dynamo version is the Cyo, but there they have the more expensive edelux ii which I've read uses a different led with a different color temperature and light distribution. I have a bike with a dynamo, considering whether I should pay more for that version.

    Wonder if there's a do-it-yourself replacement project for the led...hmm...
    You're still talking about the P, not the non-P IQ? Looks like someone on some other forum mixed up a few things. And yes, there is always a "project" to ruin a beam if you don't know what you're doing.
    Last edited by Marcturus; 10-02-2014 at 01:50 AM.

  18. #18

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

    If anyone doing more than trolling wants to reply, feel free.

  19. #19
    Moderator Alaric Darconville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Stillwater, America
    Posts
    4,832

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulRivers View Post
    I wonder if those reviews are really talking about the cutoff on the sides, or if they just mean the horizontal/horizon cutoff on the top of the light beam. It's like a car headlight where your low beams have a cutoff.
    The cutoff at the top of the beam, preventing light from going above the horizontal plane, is called the vertical cutoff.

    Imagine a lawnmower blade, which is horizontal-- it cuts the grass such that none is higher than the blade itself. The blade is horizontal-- grass is limited in the vertical plane.

    I find the "low" to be absurdly low. It borders on useless for having it as a backup option for your batteries running low, I could not bike at normal speeds with it it there wasn't ambient lighting. The Saferide low version is very useable, the Ixon low version is not useable in average riding conditions.
    Low is good for daytime-but-rainy conditions, as a standlight, and as you have suggested, a 'limp home' mode.

    I did find it interesting as an extra mode, if you wanted to bike in "absolutely mininum lighting" mode, like there's a park that's fairly open it's nice to ride through in the moonlight. But really, there should be an in the middle low lighting mode.
    Too many modes means too much time fiddling and too little time driving.

    Wonder if there's a do-it-yourself replacement project for the led...hmm...
    Probably not all that difficult to do if you're intent on ruining the lamp.

  20. #20

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaric Darconville View Post
    The cutoff at the top of the beam, preventing light from going above the horizontal plane, is called the vertical cutoff.

    Imagine a lawnmower blade, which is horizontal-- it cuts the grass such that none is higher than the blade itself. The blade is horizontal-- grass is limited in the vertical plane.
    In my experience vocabulary debates can get emotional and go on forever and don't lead anywhere useful. 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.

    Is it really worth having a debate over?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaric Darconville View Post
    Low is good for daytime-but-rainy conditions, as a standlight, and as you have suggested, a 'limp home' mode.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaric Darconville View Post
    Too many modes means too much time fiddling and too little time driving.
    Most other lights have 3.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaric Darconville View Post
    Probably not all that difficult to do if you're intent on ruining the lamp.
    Uh, ok.

  21. #21
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    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/Bic...eadlights.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.

  22. #22
    Moderator Alaric Darconville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Stillwater, America
    Posts
    4,832

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulRivers View Post
    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.

  23. #23
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    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!~

  24. #24

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

    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.

  25. #25
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    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?

  26. #26
    Flashaholic Marcturus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    230V~
    Posts
    314

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

    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.

  27. #27

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcturus View Post
    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.

  28. #28
    Flashaholic Marcturus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    230V~
    Posts
    314

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

    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.

  29. #29
    Flashaholic* Derek Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Posts
    2,332

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

    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.

  30. #30
    Flashaholic* znomit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    963

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bogster View Post
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •