Igaro C1 (cutoff, 2 USB outputs)

I had contact with Igaro about various topics and strangely the C1 lamp seemed familiar, I thought I had seen something like it 2 years ago, even though it was recently released. Was there another lamp released or perhaps some prototype that I saw somewhere?

I discussed a few things with Igaro, such as the LED light colour, and they are considering doing a batch with 4000K LEDs. That would be a lot better than anything else available at the moment. But what about beam shots? There are no good ones yet and I do have a ride video from a buyer that I am working on to add commentary. For that purpose I also overhauled the lighting overview page to deal with most issues in bike lighting, i.e. in that you don't see on beam shots what you see in reality, psychological issues and issues of the beam pattern not being useful. Have a look at the lighting guide page for more.

One thing that became clear is that the C1 doesn't have a high and low beam but rather a near field and far field beam. The near field beam is not in accordance with the StVZO requirements they told me, but the far beam was designed according to StVZO requirements (this doesn't mean it is StVZO approved, that will take going through the approval procedure which is costly and an administrative burden, which is especially a nuisance for UK firms since Brexit). You can set the speed at which the light switches between these beams, which could be useful to avoid the issue of overexposure of the near field which limits how well you can see far, whereas for slow riding you do want a lot of light close to you... The speed and how the switch is done, including a mix of both beams, is programmable so this is very interesting, I will be testing all that in the Netherlands, then in Poland and Ukraine.

There have been at least 2 lights that I tested with a variable low beam, the B&M Lumotec Oval senso plus, which is a halogen headlamp with additional 5mm blue/white LED that lights up at low speed. I didn't think it added much really, but it was one of the first attempts at using a different/additional beam for low speed. The 2nd is the Qlite QL269 which uses a Cree MC-E and a high beam which is actually a low beam but with different aim, so if the low beam is aimed at below the horizon, then the high beam may not be correctly aimed and this is a problem as a cutoff beam that shines above the horizon is very blinding.

[ I felt that this is a mistake in StVZO in not making sure the aim and cutoff is the same in case there are more than 1 cutoff beams within a given lamp. On the other hand, you could use differently aimed beams in a single lamp in another manner: Use the 'high' beam (the beam with the highest aim for the cutoff) aimed properly for the maximum throw (and not aimed above the horizon), then the low beam will be aimed close to you. So there are 2 options: StVZO should first state how to aim a lamp, and then either 1) mandate that both beams have the same cutoff/aim (which would not allow providing a near field beam), or 2) that in case of 2 or more different aims of the cutoff on different settings, then the light should be aimed such that the beam with the highest aim should be aimed such that the cutoff is below the horizon so that all cutoffs are aimed below the horizon (+ add some requirements that make sure thee rules are followed such as that the beam with highest cutoff has to have the highest light output and the highest lux rating, but of course StVZO doesn't even properly state how to aim a single beam, not in 2010 when I first seriously examined the regulations when their requirement for aiming just didn't make any sense at all (see my page on StVZO where I examine this), not several years later after a revision and still not in 2024. ]

In any case these are just examples of different low beams in older lights. In rain different beams could be useful due to far light bouncing off of the road more than near light. In that case what I would want is different from a normal even beam, which is very little light up to about 20m, for normal speed riding to make sure your vision doesn't get affected by the light near you which under these circumstances is a lot brighter than the light coming from farther away. Whether that that works with the Igaro C1 in a way that really works depends on the exact light distribution of both beams, I will have to see...

After revising the overview section on bicycle lighting and including in that the issue of rain which means that light that comes from far away on the road, is far less than normal as a lot gets reflected away due to the mirror like surface, and that light bounces off of the road so that it remains dark at those positions is far less of an issue for areas on the road close to you, due to the bigger angle, I was thinking that a dual beam makes sense if it can be controlled such that when riding in rain you switch off the near field part. So the dual beam may be an advantage compared to a fixed beam for rain, but I will see if that is possible here, it depends on the exact beam pattern.

2024-3-9: I received a sample from Igaro for testing and to make beam shots/videos, after 3 weeks in customs (NL customs are very slow), I will start testing in a few days.

Note: testing with a 559mm diameter wheels

The bicycle that I use for testing uses 26 inch wheels, with 47-559 tyres and a Shimano DH-S501 dynamo.

With a bicycle with the same dynamo but 28 inch wheels with 37-622 tyres:

you would get 198/214 (fraction of circumferences) = 0.93x the amount of power at the same speed.
you would need to ride 214/198 = 1.08x faster to get the same power output.

Igaro C1 beam shots

How to use it

Note about the beams: I will call the low beam the near field beam as that is what it is, and the high beam is also a cutoff beam but with more reach so I will call that the far field beam. These beams can be combined with different settings in the app. I will start riding with it setting the far field beam such that I can see as far away as possible with it, then see how the near field beam performs.

To start using it you first need to ride a few minutes with it to charge up the internal capacitors so the system can connect to your phone (bluetooth), and then you can change settings. I read various comments on a forum that 1) many people think the price is too high and 2) that the settings should be possible to do with a switch for at least the basic settings. As to the former, something non-standard is always expensive, price can then only go down with more sales. As to the 2nd point I agree that having a simple system to select low/high beam and priority for the light over USB or vice versa would be nice to have. But how important is it to have manual settings? I will try to determine this in various situation such as when you may want a change related to the possible charge power for say the phone if you use that for navigation and give that priority over light, and for selecting low and high beam. This can be important for night time rides when using the phone for navigation while also needing light because speeds are usually low for touring, often less than 18 km/h, and thus power from the dynamo is limited. Another situation would be to change settings for when it rains, to only far away light so disable the near field beam, even at low speeds. This is likely a hassle doing that with the phone, whereas with a button it would be easy...

I've mounted the light on my touring bike with Rohloff hub, tonight 2024-3-17 finally the first ride.

Experiences

The mount is a standard 10mm wide but for the first test I am using a handle bar mount that can deal with any width.

Ride 1, about 12 km

After a few minutes of riding, so using the default settings of the light, I started the Igaro app on my main phone, which started to update the light's firmware, a short time later it was ready. I tried to connect my 2nd phone at the same time but the light probably can't deal with 2 phones at the same time as the 2nd phone it was just searching for a connection. I disconnected the main phone, then the 2nd phone connected and so I could use the main phone to record (after this ride I will start using the DJI action 4).

There is an indication of speed and power to the LEDs and much more information. I will get into that later, first ride I was using the default settings, and looking at what power was going to the LED(s) at what speed.

The bike I used has 47-559 tyres, which means a circumference of about 198cm, whereas a 37-622 tyre has a circumference of about 214 cm (with about 3-4 bar tyre pressure). The speed indicated by the app from the information coming from the light (which obviously counts dynamo pulses) was ca. 21 km/h when riding 17 km/h, and ca. 30 km/h when riding ca. 23 km/h. The circumference difference gives a factor 1.075 which is not enough. so assuming a SON28 is the default setting then with 28 pulses (Shimano) instead of 26 pulses (SON) that gives an additional factor of 1.077 and we get closer: a total factor of 1.159. This would result in: 17 km/h -> 19.7 km/h, 23 -> 26.6 km/h, which is still a factor of about 1.06-1.12 off. [ the radius was too high by default in the app, see the 2nd ride ]

The near field beam: When setting the far field beam to see to about 50 metres, I counted both while riding and measuring on the ground a reach of about 15 metres for the near field beam. This can be useful riding up hill or slowly on any path such as to the shed where I felt it was better than most beams as I can only ride slowly there and the near field beam then puts the light where it is of actual use for slow riding. The near field beam is not as even as the far field beam but it didn't annoy me so far. How well it really works going slowly up steep hills or on very bad roads, not sure yet.

The far field beam: This I set up to light up the road to about 50 metres. It is fairly even, very wide, but a bit weakly illuminated when the power is at 3.6W. The power going to the LEDs was at about 2.0W, 3.6W, or 5.6W during the first ride. This may depend on the dynamo setting, I need to set it to Shimano I suppose to optimise it and then I will see what happens with the indicated speed too, and then try further how well the light works under various circumstances/on various types of roads.

Stand light: The stand light is strong, and because it is also a fairly wide beam it is useful to put your bike away in the shed, much better than other bike lights I tested because of a nice amount of light exactly where you want it, close to you. This is the first time I felt such an adjustable beam was actually useful.

Stand light is normally 4 minutes then the light switches off, I will test what the super capacitors can do after say a 10 minute ride when removing this limit but normally it is more than enough.

Light colour: The LED light colour is a lot better than the godawful cool white that is almost always used in bike headlamps. This stood out after riding with my other bike where I have a Spanninga Axendo 40 (Philips Saferide 40) which has a fairly nice beam for a cheap headlamp, but how bad the light colour is was immediately obvious when using the Igaro C1. That uses about 5000K LEDs which are a big improvement, but not optimal. This ride was just after rain so the grass on the side of the road was all wet which makes the colour temperature issue for the greens slightly moot as all greens look a bit white-green then, but it is an issue for missing browns (ground) and yellows.

App: One thing I'd like to see changed is the speed indication to 'km/h', not 'kph' which looks weird. The latter is obviously based on changing mph to SI, which could be kmph but doesn't look good or too different and I've seen that changed to kph in various devices, but nobody in countries where everything is SI uses kph as k doesn't even indicate a distance, it just means '1000'. [ changed to km/h in version 1.0.12 of the app from 25 March ]

2nd ride, about 15 km. Fast riding but also a lot of slow riding to see about power output levels

On this ride I set the dynamo type to Shimano, and radius of the wheel to 31 cm (from the default 38 cm which is far too big and a weird default. It would make more sense to change that to 34 cm which is about what the radius for a 37-622mm and 40-622mm tyre is). This fixed the indicated speed which was now the same as shown on the bike computer.

Power output levels: given the default settings these are about 2.0W, 3.6W, and from about 18 km/h about 5.6 to 5.8W. It is possible to change the power to the LEDs from the default of max 1.6A to max 2.0A. I will test that and see about speeds needed to cycle to get to that power. Note that as I'm using a bike with 26 inch wheels, the power that I get is higher at the same speed than with the same dynamo in a 28 inch wheel because the wheel rotates faster when going the same speed. This is a factor of about 214cm/198cm for 37-622mm vs. 47-559mm tyres, so about 1.08x. This means the speed of about 18 km/h at which I can get 5.6W power output to the LEDs with my test bike, will then become about 19.5 km/h for a bike with 37-622mm tyres.

Light colour: I did some direct comparisons with a pocket lamp (SC31 pro) that I modified with a Nichia 519A LED of 4000K, with a slightly shaved dome which lowers the colour temperature to about 3700K and gives a slightly negative delta UV, so a bit towards purple. The first ride showed the light from the C1 was more pleasant than cool white but not optimal and in the comparisons with the pocket lamp it was clear what you miss in yellows and browns using 5000K LEDs. This is shown in the video, I will see about making some static pictures too.

Setting the power to the LEDs with maximum current = 1.8A

I started setting the maximum output to 1.8A on a 20 km ride during the day, and on the return part of 10 km I set the light to be on when it's light/dim, then seeing the output switch off once the supercapacitor charge drops to the next lower level. I set 1.8A for the 2 highest levels, and maximum power is then ca. 6.5W. I was riding one part at a steady 18.6 km/h and suddenly the output dropped to zero which was clear as it was getting dim so I could see the beam on the road near to me when it was on, so that was not enough to maintain this output level. I will test a bit more and determine speed required to maintain this output then go to 2.0A and do the same, and then ride at night to see what difference 1.6A vs 1.8A vs 2.0A makes in how well you see everything.

At the top left of the screen you see 4 bars that show the charge level of the super capacitors. I'm not sure why these are not lit up up to the current level, that makes more sense and is visually easier even though the 4 bars are coloured differently (red, orange, light green (sometimes I felt it was yellow), green), so if yellow (charge level 3) is the current level then show 3 bars: red, orange, yellow. [ I suggested this change/option, perhaps that will get implemented ]

I think there are too many settings, the power output for each level, and that is not useful. It would be much more useful to set a level that you want to have for light, that being a useful level, then lower that in case of USB output being used and depending on priority that you can set to USB or light depending on circumstances (evening/day), so decide which to you is more important, and of course depending on speed. On a descent at high speed it could also be increased automatically to a higher level. The micro controller should, from speed, charge level, USB outputs active, USB priority, determine what to do with power output to the light, to USB, to charge for the capacitor. Setting the power levels for light output for 4 different levels of the capacitor charge just seems the wrong way to do it.

Changing the power output per level is not how you normally ride: You want a certain light output, then the capacitor should deal for a while with riding slower, say at the charge levels 2-4 of 4, then when you get to level 1, lower the output as more energy needs to be stored for such dips in speed which at the moment took too long to keep providing that power output. The controller can then also decide that as too little power was available for a long time that lowering power output to what seems sustainable is better. You can set the first part of this in the current system with selecting a high output for all levels except the lowest (say 1.6A for levels 2-4). That is probably what it should be, having the choice doesn't add anything really useful.

Power output test: I determined 18.6 km/h was not enough for 6.5W, now I was riding at 20.0 km/h and that was not quite enough to keep power output at 6.5W, dropping to a lower capacitor charge level after a while.

Setting the power per power level, with maximum current to the LEDs = 1.95A

In this setting the current to the LEDs is sometimes a below 2.0A, sometimes a bit more, power is about 7.2W.

Power output test: I was riding at 21.0 km/h and that was not quite enough to keep power output at 7.2W.

Possible power output at a given speed

As possible power output is about linear with speed, I expect for the test bike, with a 47-559 mm wheel, 198 cm tyre circumference, with Shimano DH-S501 dynamo:
Assuming 5.6W (1.6A) is possible at 18.0 km/h:
6.5W (1.80A) at 18*1.8/1.6 = 20.25 km/h
7.2W (1.95A) at 18*2.0/1.6 = 22.5 km/h

For a 40-622 wheel with tyre circumference of about 214 cm with a Shimano DH-S501 dynamo, this would mean speeds of about:
5.6W (1.60A) at 19.5 km/h
6.5W (1.80A) at 21.8 km/h
7.2W (1.95A) at 23.7 km/h

What you could do is set power level 4 to what you want/get at a high speed, so this is for fast riding, then set level 3 to 1.6A, level 2 to 1.0A and level 1 to a very low level suitable for say low speed going up hills.

What do 1.80A and 1.95A power output give over 1.60A?

2024-3-22: Power to the LEDs: I found that 1.95A setting doesn't add much in brightness, 1.60A is useful/good enough in most circumstances and as speed required for the higher power is a lot higher I think the 1.60A setting is generally better.

This meant that I would run the Igaro C1 at 1.6A (renamed to '80%' of power in the newer version of the app) to compare it against the Saferide 80 and M99-dynamo.

Comparison Igaro C1 vs Philips Saferide 80 neutral white

2024-3-22: I made a video comparing these 2 and I rode up to about 27 km/h (on a bike with 28 inch wheels the equivalent speed would be ca. 30 km/h):

Comparison M99-dynamo vs. Philips Saferide 80 neutral white (2012)

2024-3-22: I made 2 new videos last night, the 2nd with a M99-dynamo vs. Saferide 80 neutral white (2012), and the flickering with the M99-dynamo that I thought could have been caused by backscattering from the light in the light fog that influenced the phone camera's ambient light level detection in an earlier video comparing these 2 lights, was in fact caused by the M99-dynamo not smoothing the light output enough, so the flickering is inherent though normally you won't notice riding with it yourself, at the speeds where I was recording (10+ km/h). This flickering of the light's output that was almost in sync with the video frequency was of course the other option that caused the flickering in the video but at the time due to the fog I thought that might be it and didn't investigate further as I was not impressed by the M99-dynamo. This flickering isn't obvious unless you are looking for it when aimed normally, but on the test ride of 2024-3-22 I aimed the M99 down to the ground instead of covering its output to only show the Philips Saferide 80 and then I saw, well 'noticed', the flickering directly, myself, without looking at a video or the phone's screen. and after that I noticed the flickering when aimed normally too. This means the smoothing of the power output to the LEDs is pretty bad up to 15 km/h, and the camera immediately picks this up due to the frame rate of the video. But the main issue with the M99 is the unevenness of the beam.

Last night's comparison confirms what I mentioned in a reply to a commenter who said with one of my previous M99 videos that the M99 is great and much better than the Saferide 80:

I had long ago already read reports about the M99-dynamo, that people complained about the flickering but that was at very low speeds uphill. In NL this is something I rarely encounter so it will be something that I will examine when riding with it in Ukraine. The flickering that I see at ca. 10-15 km/h (I rarely ride more slowly than that obviously as mostly roads are flat in NL and going up hills leading to bridges I usually go 15 km/h even when fairly steep. Not that fairly steep is nothing like 10%+ hills I came across in Ukraine) is noticeable only after your attention gets drawn to it, which may happen for those who ride a lot up fairly steep hills.

So no, the M99 is not great, not brighter than the Philips Saferide 80 except at about 70 m distance, it is wider mostly where you don't need it and the only place where it is better is on meandering downhill sections on good quality roads where you can ride fast downhill.

I was thinking about taking the M99-dynamo on my trip to Poland/Ukraine, along with the C1, but would that be useful? The unevenness is bad, and the only plus side of the M99-dynamo is for fast descents a good amount of light at ca. 70 m, wide at that distance and perhaps the high beam, but, roads are rarely good enough to go fast downhill so it wouldn't be that useful.

Comparison Igaro C1 vs. supernova M99-dynamo

The following comparison C1 vs M99-dynamo comes from the previous 2 comparisons, so indirect but good enough. I may do another ride to directly swap between the C1 and M99-dynamo just to make sure.

2024-3-22: The Igaro C1 is better than the M99 in evenness, and in general usefulness.

The M99-dynamo has flickering at speeds up to ca. 15 km/h. This is not very noticeable normally, unless you already know about the flickering, then you likely won't see it. At lower speeds I need to check this out as this is important for hills. I saw complaints about this about the M99-dynamo, the Igaro doesn't have flickering.

The M99-dynamo has a very uneven beam which is annoying, but also problematic on any poor quality roads where you need to decide where to ride to evade bad sections. The C1 is not as even as the Saferide 80 but fairly good, only slight unevenness, this will be good enough I think for any bad roads (I will see in April in Ukraine).

The width lighting up the road close to you (at ca. 15-40 m) with the C1 is better than with the M99-dynamo.

The M99-dynamo has a bit more brightness at the end at ca. 60-70m, this may be just apparent from the cooler light colour, I need to check this a bit more.

Still to test of the Igaro C1

Testing USB output vs main beam power at different speeds

2024-3-23: I set headlamp power output to 1.1A / ca. 3.5W, and with the Samsung A52s I got about 1W charging during a short test so it works, but with the Sony XZ it doesn't charge at all... Not sure what is going on.

So there are 4 settings for USB output (CC15, USB3, USB2, USB1, power output difference, not sure exactly how they differ, don't see it in the manual, will have a look in the app) and it seems the XZ doesn't like USB1. It's not the cable as the A52s charges fine with the same cable. I tried another cable and another setting and the XZ then charged on the CC15 setting.

There are 2 USB output ports. I saw some criticism about them not being protected from water, but actually having it fairly open but covered from the top is quite good as that means if water comes in there (from say splashes after riding through a puddle) then it will evaporate fairly quickly whereas in bike computers I've seen them get some moisture inside (e.g. the Cateye Commuter, which later died, the moisture may have contributed to that, the Velo 7 that I'm using on my Cannondale Touring also has this issue, and there were more), and it's hard to get the moisture out once it is inside.

~~The priority of USB ports is not quite clear, need to examine that.~~ Hmm, actually it was clear, not sure why I wrote that. USB port 2 is activated when USB is enabled and when the capacitor is fully charged. So port 1 gets to provide a charge to the device plugged into that first even with not fully charged capacitor. So far I only tested with port 1.

Phone charging test: I think the XZ was charged to about 70% or so, the A52s I think about 80%:

Next test I will charge with the phones at 65% or so and see what charge power can be reached then.

The manual: Aha, it was updated after I first loaded the manual web page on my phone and PC (a few days after I received the C1) and apparently I didn't reload the tabs or reloading didn't actually reload the page to the newest version in Firefox (PC) / Brave (phone). Firefox has issues with reloading such as when a CSS file changes, a reload changes nothing until you load the page anew in a different tab. Perhaps this is the type of issue that happened. In any case, the newer manual lists power outputs: USB1 = USB v1 = 100 mA, USB2 = USB v2 = 500 mA, USB3 = USB v3 = 900 mA, CC15 = USB-C = 1.5A.

Phone charging test 2: The XZ was charged to about 65%, the A52s to about 55%, the capacitors were almost full and sometimes full/flashing (which indicates excess power is available as nothing is needed to charge the capacitors. The latter situation gave a bit more power with the A52s, not with the XZ):

USB power output for different settings/devices (with light off)
Device\Setting	USB1	USB2	USB3	CC15
XZ:	X	2.2W	3.9W	4.0W
A52s:	0.8W	2.6W	4.0W	4.9W

USB power output for different settings/devices (with light off)
Device\Setting	USB1/low	USB2/medium	USB3/high	CC15/max
XZ:	X	2.3W	2.4-4.0W (widely varying, why?)	2.6-5.2W (ditto)
A52s:	0.7W (3W when cap full)	2.6W (3.0W when cap full)	4.0W (4.7W when cap full)	4.5W-5.5W (no change when cap full)

The charge level started high with the XZ but after a while began to drop and fluctuate at output levels high/max. Perhaps this was already going on the previous test but I hadn't tested long enough to see this phenomenon. I will test this a bit more. Oh, upon a bit more testing I realised what I forgot about the XZ: It doesn't charge at full speed when the screen is off...(see my page on the F12W dynamo with USB output where I had this issue already 3 years ago). Switching the screen on increases charge power again to what it was at the start.

I also rode with light at 80%/60% for level 4/3, USB medium, output with A52s was 6.3W which was unsustainable at 18-20 km/h so cap charge level dropped to orange at which I put USB = off. This means USB was on for a while then off for a while etc.

Testing/comparing with the F12W: Here I get with the XZ up to 7.5W while I was riding at 18-20 km/h, but it varies quite a bit. This was at very low phone battery charge of 18% and at this level the phone doesn't restrict charge power with screen off. At around 20% the charge is again restricted if the screen is off. The XZ is just annoying to test USB charge power... Normal charge power is around 5W, with screen off as low as 2.5W. I didn't have the A52s when I first tested the F12W charge power, and it is constant at around 4.5W (5V 0.9A). This charge power can be achieved at low speed, 15 km/h or so. Have a look on the page about the Spinup F12W dynamo for more information.

More comparisons with the F12W, keeping the screen on, and disabling charge restriction in the settings (which didn't work first time, but the next day it seems to keep charging the same with screen off or on, need to check this. Argh, the XZ is just annoying for testing. Anyway, with F12W, I got 10% increase in charge (from 50%) in 3 km riding at 18-20 km/h. With the C1 I got on the high setting 6% increase in charge (from 43%) in 2.9 km, so 6.2% in 3 km, with maximum setting 7.5%. The F12W also powers the light while charging and thus can do this at night without problem and at 15 km/h relative to the C1 charge power is even higher, but, with the F12W you can only use inferior dynamo headlights...

Testing with powerbanks

2024-4-6: More testing: I used a ML-102 with 18650 battery and an Emos BetaQ 10Ah powerbank which weighs about 234 g and fits in a phone mount for on the bike. I bought this powerbank recently because it has pass-through, so I can charge the powerbank while it is charging the phone. This function briefly intererupts the output when plugging in the cable for the input device such as the C1 or a solar panel, or when such devices interrup their power output (such as clouds or going through a tunnel with a solar panel, and too low speed with the C1), so it won't work as a UPS (uninterruptible power supply), but I think it will work well enough for on the bicycle. I will see soon.

Charge speed to both is about 4W, varying a bit lower, from 3.2-3.5 W, sometimes more than 4 W, with indicated voltage which was rather low. of around 4.4V. This is the case with my Anker wall charger too, depending on cable the voltage is 4.4 V (Long cable)-4.8V (short cable), current indicated at ca. 0.7A-0.9A. I need a better (newer) USB charge/protocol checker to say more about this. That will come at a later date. So charging is for some reason at a lower power than with the phones I tried... I need to check what results I got charging the ML-102 with the F12W and the Pedalcall just to see what is possible.

In my review of the F12W I listed the output to the ML-102 as 6.8 W but riding slowly it dropped to 4.2-4.5 W. I will try that again and this stime check whether the charge power increases back to 6.8 W after riding a longer time at relatively high speed. The initial power of 6.8 W is a lot more than the C1 so the limit is not in the ML-102. It seems the C1 is strictly adhering to USB protocols and charge current whereas many other devices go around the strict rules to provide the most power possible.

Some checks with the Emos powerbank to put achievable charge power in perspective:

Back to testing the C1 charging powerbanks

I used 2 short USB-C to C cables to see if they give a better performance but charge power to the Emos BetaQ 10Ah powerbank remained at around 3.5-4.2W, occasionally a bit more.

To come: test with short C-C cables with USB-C-micro-USB adapter, and with a USB A-C cable to the ML-102 and see what charge power I can achieve then.

Testing near field vs far field in the rain or on still wet roads

The app

2024-3-26: The iphone app was released a few days ago, and the android app was already available but needs to be downloaded from the Igaro C1 app page and installed manually (the manufacturer doesn't like Google data mining everything, I agree with that).

The default settings in the app are a SON28 dynamo (26 poles), and a wheel radius of 38 cm. The latter is far too much and explains the far too high indicated speed when I first used it. 38 cm = 76 cm diameter whereas with a 622 mm rim with 50 mm tyre the diameter comes to about 71 cm. With 37-622mm tyres I get about 214 cm effective circumference (68 cm effective diameter) and with a 47-559 mm tyre about 198 cm (63 cm effective diameter). Igaro said they will add circumference input to the app... (done as of 25 March 2024, app version 1.0.12) The way to measure the circumference is:

This gives a very accurate and easy to measure value for the circumference and thus the diameter/radius which takes into account the tyre being 'flattened' by your body weight, whereas measuring the radius is going to be less accurate and a bit fiddly with the quick release being in the way. The measurement along the spokes from rim to the quick release will also give a radius of about 7mm too big (about sqrt(34^2 + 7^2))= 34.7cm if the real value is 34 cm).

There are a lot of settings, I would say too many. It would be nice to have a 'quick' screen where you can override automatic mode and immediately select power output preference for USB or light, switch between near and far field light and power output of the beam.

I suggested to Igaro a more fuel-level type of indication of the capacitor charge level, perhaps they will implement that.

Taillamp R1

The taillamp R1 for the C1 is ready, I will have a look at that soon (when I'm in Ukraine).

The requirements for the taillamp are that as it uses a buck (=step down) converter from 5V it can have 1 or 2 red LEDs in series, or more LEDs in parallel (which then should be used with resistors before each LED to make them work better/protect the LEDs from differences between them). I will have a look at modifying a standard taillamp for use with the C1.

Comparing with the Spinup F12W

The F12W provides more USB power and this is independent of lighting the headlight, but there are no really good dynamo headlights at the moment that are comparable to the C1.

The F12W is $500 + any import duty/VAT which is about the same price as the C1 + a new wheel with cheapo Shimano dynamo hub if you need that. With the F12W you also need a headlight if you don't have a fairly good one yet.

An issue with the C1 is that the USB outputs are attached directly to the housing of the light. This means that the aim of the light is altered when plugging in or taking out USB cables unless your mount is very securely fixed in angle (to the handle bar or the fork mount) and your light is very securely fixed in the mount too. It would be nicer to have an external box with USB outputs so that aiming is not affected at all.

App/Interface

The criticism I saw on road.cc against the app being the only way to control the light is for example about the future, what if the manufacturer is no longer around? This was answered that in that case the code will be released, but what about actual control, how well does it work?

This is where I am critical: There should be an easy to use way to set light output and whether USB or light is prioritised. 2 buttons are likely enough to do this and would make it a lot easier. In the current system control is far too detailed which you don't need, and after having played with all settings, then in actual use you may still need to use your phone related to setting light output lower to give more USB output for example for night rides where you need to power the phone for navigation. Why set power levels for the light for 4 different charge levels for dark, dim, bright conditions? What is enough in power levels is: 1. 'to be seen', 2. 'to see well enough for most circumstances', 3. 'to see optimally', along perhaps with a setting of whether to prioritise USB (at night, daytime only USB or USB + very low level light output) but otherwise the light power level setting could determine what USB power is available.

As a user I am also not interested in issues with power output that give warnings that you need to clear. This is something that should be done automatically.

I will play further with the settings, perhaps I will change my mind about all the detailed settings.

What are the alternatives?

Conclusion

Preliminary conclusion: I noticed that bike-discount reduced the price of the M99-dynamo from 300 euros to 240 euros, which is still a price that it's not worth, but it is a lot lower in price now than the C1 which costs about 400 euros. Is the C1 worth it?

I can't say yet. Although there seems no competition at the moment of light + USB output combined. But I still need to finish USB output testing to see how useful that is, and the compromise you need to make for light output before I can say yes or no.

In any case, if I were to buy one then I would want 4000K LEDs to give a better rendition of all colours that you see on and beside the road and which gives better performance in rain and fog. 5000K is better than most lights, but for this price I would want the light to be fairly close to optimal in all respects.