|[ Main index » Bicycle components tests » (Dynamo) bicycle lighting » Headlamps with cutoff for dynamo » Schmidt Edelux II||Dutch: Deze pagina in het Nederlands ]|
Tested/used: From 11 Dec. 2013
StVZO approval: K607 (is this right? Same number as the Edelux-2008 and Edelux-2013) and on the reflector: K527 & K537 & K565 (same as the Edelux-2013)
First ride was in fog, useless for any proper comparison, though it seemed to show a clear 2 part beam like the Luxos. I say 'seemed' because it was the light from the fog that could make it just look that way, as the strong beam to the end of the beamshape which gets scattered in the fog which is what you see along with the light coming from the road at short distance, so you see a mix of this scattered light and light from the road being lit up. I also saw a clear hotspot. The Philips LBL with H-diver driver (my own modification which I ended up using daily instead of factory dynamo headlamps) which I then switched to to see how they compare, seems much better, no such artefacting even within the fog which again shows how smooth the LBL/Saferide 80's beam pattern is.
2nd ride the next evening: Streets still damp from the mist the day before, so I can't say that much, but it's clear that the impressions of the beamshape were, as I expected, partially caused by the fog. The big hotspot at the end of the beam causes the effect I saw. Anyway, the cutoff is not as sharp as in the Luxos, there are plenty of artefacts and this image on rad-forum.de is closest to what I see in reality:
If you look closely you see various places where the beam is darker and brighter than elsewhere in the beam but it gets hidden a bit by the brick surface of the road.
My own beamshots will come when the streets are dry.
I don't particularly like the beam, too many artefacts and a big hotspot (which is right at the top in the above picture). The light colour as usual is far too cool. I'm going to do a comparison with the Saferide 60 with neutral white LEDs on straight roads and through curves to see which one is best.
3rd ride: Wettish road still: But I have some impressions about the beam: As it gets wide quickly when riding next to bushes this gives a strong spot on the right (when riding on the right hand side of the road), which distracts. Interesting... And the hotspot is just bad. The light intensity on the sides is quite low, I don't see it being of much use use for curves, but I will do better tests of this tonight. By now I'm thinking the E3 pro 2 might actually be better than the Edelux II, even the high lux rating of the Edelux is of no real interest (not enough throw despite it, if the E3 pro 2 gets 60 lux that would be enough).
4th ride: Comparing with Edelux-2013, Saferide 60 neutral white: The Edelux II actually has hotspots on the left and right hand sides which cause the issue of attracting attention when riding along a hedge, and on the ground it can give the impression of another cyclist or moped with a headlamp with small beamshape coming to overtake you... This is way worse than the artefacts that the Saferide 60 and Saferide 80 throw to the sides (see the hedge shot of the LBL/Saferide 80 which has noticeable artefacts but way less attention grabbing than those of the Edelux II: LBL/Saferide 80 hedge pattern). Comparing riding through tight curves: The beam of the Edelux II is a bit better than the Luxos and Saferide 60 for this purpose, but it's very weak wide at the sides where it shines into the curves, so I think it's barely good enough for this aspect. The Edelux-2013 has a fairly strong and big beamshape, not as wide as the Edelux II but also stronger in the part of the beam that gets onto the road (and not beside it, the part which is of use for curves only)... The hotspot of the Edelux-2013 is not good, but and has been present in the Edelux since 2009 it seems, but the strange thing is this reflector in the Edelux 2013 seems to be the same as the 2008 IQ reflector but with the sides made matte (which removes the swirly pattern near the front wheel). The hotspot isn't there with the original Edelux, so is there a slight change in reflector? It is not the 5 blade reflector that I have placed pictures of on my page about the IQ reflector and that I saw in the Cyo RT that I tested long ago... I've just updated the IQ reflector page with more information...
Here is a picture showing where the hotspots/hot areas are:
More to come.
On the front of the lamp on the retaining ring, the approval number is engraved as K607. This is the same as with the original Edelux, so this has to be wrong, or not? The LED and reflector are different, so there should be a new approval number... (just like the altered H-one S has a different approval (extra) number on the lamp than the earlier version)
In fact, the later Edelux-2013 with reflector (the original Edelux didn't come with a reflector nor mounting bracket) has the name numbers on the lamp and reflector as the Edelux II. As the reflector was changed in the later Edelux, the approval number should be different, or do the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt do the same tricks as Schmidt in retro fixing what a name or in this case an approval number stands for? I.e. K607=Edelux, and the later 2009 version of the Edelux has also been checked I presume. It should be because of its different reflector, so it should have a higher approval number, but it seems it's given the same approval no. thus changing the approval record for that K607 number. If so, then this is like Schmidt using the same indication SON28 for their old and new hub, which I heavily critised on my main page. Here it's less bad perhaps, and I suppose of use to Schmidt so they don't need to write on their SONdelux that it's StVZO approved with various K-numbered headlamps, but come on! This way all headlamps could really get the same StVZO approval number, or you might just ditch the approval number althogether, just a date of approval if approved. But of course, different approval dates are no different from different K-numbers and so we get back to retro-fixing the meaning of something... I will see if I can get some answers to this...
Way too many artefacts, beam is weak on the sides, has attention grabbing hotspots, light colour is very poor (a sterile cool white). Compared to the Sareride 60 neutral white, the Saferide 60 is way better except in some types of curves though the beam of the Edelux II is barely strong enough to be really useful there. I even prefer the Edelux-2013 to the Edelux II.
All of B&M's beamshapes have big hotspots and artefacts. With the introduction of the Edelux in 2008, the Philips LBL in 2009 and Saferide 60 in 2010, we have seen good lamps with good reflectors and good beamshapes. But after 2008 it's gone downhill with B&M, Philips hasn't introduced new designs (at least none that are successors to the Saferide 60 & 80), and other manufacturers just don't come anywhere close. I am very disappointed...
For the price, this lamp is not worth it. Btw: Why are people always complaining about the price of the Philips LBL/Saferide 80 or Saferide 60 and never about the much more expensive Edelux?
|To email me go to the email page|
Last modified: Wed Dec 15 10:43:22 CET 2013