• 10-04-2011
    randyharris
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by blueyin View Post
    Randyharris:

    You know, I would really enjoy hearing any valid reasons for them not to participate. I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I honestly cant think why every other major player in the bike light business sent their lights in except cygolite, other than they have something to hide/dont think their lights will be able to compete.

    IMHO, if you fail to send your lights in and dont want to bother giving us a reason. Then we are going to think the worst.

    But hey man, if you got some legit reasons you think they wouldnt participate. Lay them on me.

    I'm all ears and eyes.

    Heck as I noted before, Cygolite has the cheapest light in the range that I am looking for.

    If you feel that their not participating should exclude them from your light search, then by all means follow your gut instinct. While I might be disappointed that a light I was considering wasn't thrown into the mix, I wouldn't let it affect my purchase decision.

    Obviously I have no idea why they are not sending lights, and to be honest I only have ever hear their name, I know zero about their lights, the quality, or anything about them.

    It is possible that they're not participating because the testing is not in their opinion performed properly, a light specialist with the specific knowledge may do different things for example than the crude lumen lux testing that has been in prior tests. These MTBR tests also take no weighting on rated products, the Magicshine lights for example don't have UL and UN ratings but I don't believe it's even ever mentioned. I'm sure there are many possible reasons, heck one could even be that they don't think they're product will fair will in a head to head - it's certainly one potential explanation.
  • 10-04-2011
    PaulRivers
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by blueyin View Post
    Randyharris:

    You know, I would really enjoy hearing any valid reasons for them not to participate. I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I honestly cant think why every other major player in the bike light business sent their lights in except cygolite, other than they have something to hide/dont think their lights will be able to compete.

    IMHO, if you fail to send your lights in and dont want to bother giving us a reason. Then we are going to think the worst.

    But hey man, if you got some legit reasons you think they wouldnt participate. Lay them on me.

    I'm all ears and eyes.

    Heck as I noted before, Cygolite has the cheapest light in the range that I am looking for.

    Yeah, I can't think of any "very valid" reasons either. It's somewhere on a continuum from "they're to cheap/lazy to do it, though their actual lights might be fine" to "they're trying to hide something". Somewhere in the range. I know someone who owned a Cygolite told me that at least on one specific light he thought their beamshots on their site were way off and the light wasn't nearly as wide as Cygolite's shot showed it to be. (It was one of the all in one commuter lights, their shot showed it lighting up 2 street lanes, someone who owned it said it was a stretch to just light up one).

    EDIT: I wrote my response before the above the response, so if it seem weird that I would write this in that order that's why.
  • 10-04-2011
    fc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PaulRivers View Post
    Yeah, I can't think of any "very valid" reasons either. It's somewhere on a continuum from "they're to cheap/lazy to do it, though their actual lights might be fine" to "they're trying to hide something". Somewhere in the range. I know someone who owned a Cygolite told me that at least on one specific light he thought their beamshots on their site were way off and the light wasn't nearly as wide as Cygolite's shot showed it to be. (It was one of the all in one commuter lights, their shot showed it lighting up 2 street lanes, someone who owned it said it was a stretch to just light up one).

    EDIT: I wrote my response before the above the response, so if it seem weird that I would write this in that order that's why.

    Just to put some closure to this (and not violate their privacy too much...) They will not send lights to any publication now and for the last 10 years because they treated unfairly 10 years ago by a magazine.

    I've been getting the runaround from them for the last 4 years so it's good to finally have an answer. And then I have to field inquiries from 50 readers why I don't include them.

    Anyway, I'll just buy them.

    fc
  • 10-04-2011
    djembe975
    When will the Light Shootout be posted?
  • 10-04-2011
    fc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by djembe975 View Post
    When will the Light Shootout be posted?

    I will start posting this week and individual reviews on lights will come out daily.

    Just got DesignShine last night. Very nice.

    fc
  • 10-04-2011
    PaulRivers
    francois, this is just a curious question - with the high powered lights overcoming the dynamic range of cameras (aka either the brightest part of the beam blows out or the dark areas are darker than than are in person) I would just curious if you had considered buying a dslr for their great dynamic range. I think the Nikon d5100 (and it's more expensive d7000 sibling) have the best dynamic range one can fine in a dslr right now. Unfortunately the d5100 requires tricks to set everything manually for video (no problem for pics, but video takes some workarounds).

    Just curious if you had considered it. There's probably some drawbacks, not to mention cost to it so definitely not saying anyone has to, appreciate the wide range of lights you're reviewing and taking beam shots of this year. :-)
  • 10-04-2011
    fc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PaulRivers View Post
    francois, this is just a curious question - with the high powered lights overcoming the dynamic range of cameras (aka either the brightest part of the beam blows out or the dark areas are darker than than are in person) I would just curious if you had considered buying a dslr for their great dynamic range. I think the Nikon d5100 (and it's more expensive d7000 sibling) have the best dynamic range one can fine in a dslr right now. Unfortunately the d5100 requires tricks to set everything manually for video (no problem for pics, but video takes some workarounds).

    Just curious if you had considered it. There's probably some drawbacks, not to mention cost to it so definitely not saying anyone has to, appreciate the wide range of lights you're reviewing and taking beam shots of this year. :-)


    I have a Nikon D5000 and I'm replacing it with a D7000. Tell me more. I'm using the old Canon G9 for consistency.

    I should try using them.

    I'll PM you with the latest beam photos.

    fc
  • 10-04-2011
    PaulRivers
    I know more about compacts than I do dslr's, but when you take a pic and find that either the white is blown out, or the light brightness appears normal in the middle but on the edges it turns black in the picture before it turns black in real life that's called "dynamic range" - the range of light the camera can measure at once from the brightest part to the darkest part. The usual example of dynamic range is when you take a picture of someone in the shade with the sky behind them and either they end up really dark and you can see the sky, or the sky ends up totally white and "blown out" even though in reality it was blue with white puffy clouds, not it's a solid white piece. Maybe you already know this.

    But dslr's with their larger sensors have better dynamic range than compact cameras, even the g9. As time goes on they improve the ability of both cameras to capture a wider dynamic range, but from the same generation of tech a dslr should always be capable of capturing more of it. The sensor used in the d5100 and d7000 is developed by Sony and supposedly is the best affordable dslr sensor you can get right now for capturing the maximum dynamic range. Next year Canon will probably come out with a sensor that beats it, lol, but right now it's the best - note that I am mainly more of an expert on compacts, dslr's aren't my usual area of expertise so that is the information I know but I'm not a total expert.

    In theory this would provide a more accurate view of how far to the sides these lights light up. I know when I've tried to take pics before the camera often doesn't show the areas off to the sides like they appear in real life, and in theory this would help with that.

    Here's an example from the Peter White site -
    headlight beams from Peter White Cycles



    In this shot it appears that the light gives off *no* light to the sides and it's completely black. In reality (I know because I own the light) it does give off a little light to the sides.

    It's certainly also totally valid to take all the pics with the same camera from previous years for consistency, and one would have to test it out to see if it *really* makes a difference, in theory though it should create more accurate pictures. Theoretically.

    fyi, the d7000 lets you manually set everything in video, so if you're trying to take video of the light (though that might be a big ungainly to mount on the bike while riding) using consistent video settings that might be an option.
  • 10-04-2011
    blueyin
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by francois View Post
    I will start posting this week and individual reviews on lights will come out daily.

    Just got DesignShine last night. Very nice.

    fc

    Francois,

    Thats great ... I was commuting home today ... and for the first time this season I saw the sunset on my commute. By next week most likely I'll be riding at dusk. Note I live in the midwest and thus most people who are on a 9-5 (six for myself) will probably be needing them pretty soon.

    Thanks again for all your hard work.

    Also thanks for at least getting a reason, though not a very good one IMHO, about Cygolite.
  • 10-04-2011
    fc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PaulRivers View Post
    ...
    fyi, the d7000 lets you manually set everything in video, so if you're trying to take video of the light (though that might be a big ungainly to mount on the bike while riding) using consistent video settings that might be an option.


    Thank you!! I'm definitely getting the D7000 then. We take a lot of video with the D5000 and it won't even focus correctly. If I have the D7000 with fixed video settings, I can ride with it and maybe capture these bike lights in action accurately.

    fc

    in other news: Full-beam is in. Big lights! Also, Blackburn
  • 10-04-2011
    PaulRivers
    Glad I could help. :-) Note that I do not own the d7000, but that info comes from as reliable a source as possible -
    Nikon D7000 Review: 18. Live View/Movie Mode: Digital Photography Review

    "AF is available during movie recording and shutter speed, aperture and ISO can all be set manually if you so wish (aperture has to be set before the start of recording)."
  • 10-04-2011
    PaulRivers
    ...though do note that none of the dslr's are particularly great at autofocussing while anything is moving.

    Cameras...they' frickin' complicated aren't they? lol
  • 10-04-2011
    pethelman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PaulRivers View Post
    ...though do note that none of the dslr's are particularly great at autofocussing while anything is moving.

    Cameras...they' frickin' complicated aren't they? lol

    Indeed they are....

    And regarding beamshots, although somewhat objective in nature, I've found that locating the camera as close as possible to where the user's eyes would be normally in relation to the light tends to give a more realistic depiction. Comparative shots off from the side or further behind can also be useful, but maybe not as good at depicting what the rider sees.
    JMHO
  • 10-04-2011
    a.k.a.
    Francois,

    Just a heads-up - I posted a note to the Digital Photography Review forum asking for appropriate camera settings if using the D5000 and D7000 to test these high-intensity lamps. Hopefully you'll see some very expert responses.

    Thread is at:
    forums[dot]dpreview[dot]com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1055&message=39516703

    How are things going in soliciting tail light samples?

    Cheers!

    a.k.a.
  • 10-04-2011
    fc
    2 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by a.k.a. View Post
    Francois,

    Just a heads-up - I posted a note to the Digital Photography Review forum asking for appropriate camera settings if using the D5000 and D7000 to test these high-intensity lamps. Hopefully you'll see some very expert responses.

    Thread is at:
    forums[dot]dpreview[dot]com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1055&message=39516703

    How are things going in soliciting tail light samples?

    Cheers!

    a.k.a.

    I only have a few. I have the monster light though.

    fc
  • 10-05-2011
    fc
    Cateye is in with Sumo 2, Sumo 3, NanoShot, and Econom Force.

    Tiny Sun Lights and DesignShine are in too.

    Cygolite is now in!!!! Just a couple of lights though. They said this is the first time this decade they're sending a light for review so it's a good win for all.

    fc
  • 10-05-2011
    djembe975
    Which CygoLites are being sent for review?
  • 10-05-2011
    electrik
    LUX. I want to see these light's lux to lumen rating and the beam pattern...
  • 10-05-2011
    a.k.a.
    Francois,

    Good for Cygo!

    If you're so inclined, could you shoot NITEFlux an email about sending you some from their lineup -- esp. the Red Zone 4 tail light?

    a.k.a.
  • 10-05-2011
    fc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by djembe975 View Post
    Which CygoLites are being sent for review?

    TridenX 750 OSP (MSRP $349.95 )
    MityCross 480 OSP (MSRP $249.95)

    Meh, I'm negotiating with them right now. The MityCross lights will not fare well against the competition I fear.

    fc
  • 10-05-2011
    fc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by a.k.a. View Post
    Francois,

    Good for Cygo!

    If you're so inclined, could you shoot NITEFlux an email about sending you some from their lineup -- esp. the Red Zone 4 tail light?

    a.k.a.

    Yes, Nifeflux!! How could I forget.

    Also, I have full clearance to use the $40k integrating sphere (to measure actual lumens) at Lezyne factory in San Luis Obispo. I'll go there next week.

    fc
  • 10-05-2011
    indebt
    Can't begin to emagine the hours your putting into all of this Francios, so just a big thank you for all that hard work, and your feedback on the Surfas True1500.:thumbsup:
  • 10-05-2011
    KingOfTheHill
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by francois View Post
    ...
    The MityCross lights will not fare well against the competition I fear.

    fc

    You'd be surprised. I've been riding with a MityCross 400 on my helmet for about 9 months and love it. Pairs well with up to about 1500 lumens on the bar. One has to remember what the MityCross is - not an uber bright light but one that does many things well in a small package with 3.5 hours run time on high. With that said, it does do better on the lid than on the bars.
  • 10-05-2011
    djembe975
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by francois View Post
    TridenX 750 OSP (MSRP $349.95 )
    MityCross 480 OSP (MSRP $249.95)

    Meh, I'm negotiating with them right now. The MityCross lights will not fare well against the competition I fear.

    fc

    Try to get them to send you at least their new Turbo 740 light as that might stack up better against the competition especially for the price. Turbo 740
  • 10-05-2011
    fc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KingOfTheHill View Post
    You'd be surprised. I've been riding with a MityCross 400 on my helmet for about 9 months and love it. Pairs well with up to about 1500 lumens on the bar. One has to remember what the MityCross is - not an uber bright light but one that does many things well in a small package with 3.5 hours run time on high. With that said, it does do better on the lid than on the bars.

    Good feedback.

    These new lights though... so bright, so cheap and so light.

    For runtime, you can run a lot of these new lights at half power and they would still be mighty bright.

    fc
  • 10-06-2011
    Burnt-Orange
    I have a TridenX 750xtra and a Cygolite Turbo 740
    If I can get my wife to set up her cannon I will post some beam shots between the two
    I can tell right now that the turbo is more of a spot light
    It is dark and late in Wisconsin :thumbsup:

    Going for a ride SJ
  • 10-06-2011
    djembe975
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SlowerJoe View Post
    I have a TridenX 750xtra and a Cygolite Turbo 740
    If I can get my wife to set up her cannon I will post some beam shots between the two
    I can tell right now that the turbo is more of a spot light
    It is dark and late in Wisconsin :thumbsup:

    Going for a ride SJ

    Is the Turbo as bright as depicted on the CygoLite website? And does it have a nice halo around the spit.
  • 10-06-2011
    Burnt-Orange
    the turbo is as bright as the TridenX
    It has more of a hotspot in the center
    I would say it looks really close to the web
    It also fits the TridenX helmet mount so I might give it a try there
    has a built in red tail light
    hope this makes some sense I need to get some sleep

    Sj
  • 10-06-2011
    dbastians
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by francois View Post
    Yes, Nifeflux!! How could I forget.

    fc

    Hi Francis,

    just got a message from a mystery fan to check out this thread and contribute some samples.
    So many offerings these days. Will go for the ones that are significantly different I think.

    PMini12: 1000 lm, 35g for head unit, wireless remote control.
    Red Zone 4: 200 lm tail light, 180 deg beam pattern, integrated battery.

    Let me know if there are any other requests. Sent email but not 100% sure I got your current contact details. Check inbox or send me PM to make arrangements.

    Cheers,
    David
  • 10-06-2011
    savvas
    I'd second the Niteflux Redzone 4 suggestion Franscois. The company chief, David is very friendly and helpful.
    Savvas
  • 10-06-2011
    wickedfn4u
    Can the tail light be turned off? On the bar that seems like it would be a distraction.
  • 10-06-2011
    blueyin
    Wooo Hoooo! I wonder if they read the thread? I hope that our discussion of their lights had just a little bit to do with them sending you the lights. I sure tried to do my part!

    Now if they would only send the expilion 400 or the turbojet 740!
    Yay for the power of the internet!
  • 10-06-2011
    sbd
    1st post here!!! WoooOOOOooot!!!!

    Thanks for doing this, I am in the market for a new light. Believe it or not I have a niterider I bought in the early 90s and it still works.
  • 10-06-2011
    Burnt-Orange
    the tail light is easy on the eyes
    looks cool and is easy to operate with gloves
  • 10-06-2011
    mochodurazo
    Francois, thanks for doing this shootout. I was going to buy a MS, but after 4-5 videos of your backyard, i just going to hold my wallet.

    I had a bad experience with NITERIDER and JENSON. I bought a minewt x2 300 couple a years ago, and after 1 year of NR( probably 20-25 rides) it dies. Was a bad experience for $240.

    All my regards from Mexico.

    Carlos Durazo
  • 10-07-2011
    cue003
    Francois, where will you be placing the reviews? In this thread or someplace else? Thx

    Curtis
  • 10-07-2011
    znomit
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cue003 View Post
    Francois, where will you be placing the reviews? In this thread or someplace else?

    Link near the top of the page under the banner ad
    Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review
  • 10-07-2011
    cue003
    ^^^^^^ thx a bunch for the link.
  • 10-07-2011
    Mudhead
    Thanks Francois for taking the time to do these tests. I, like others in this forum, am in the market for a set of lights for night riding. My local LBS's carry a very limited variety of lights. It is great to find one location where brands are compared, so we as a consumer can make better informed choices.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • 10-07-2011
    GDES
    Hi I'm new here but have a question on the battery spec stated by Exposure six pack MK2

    the light is only 4.5 x 2.25 inches 6x XP-G-LEDs, battery included within this package of 15600Mah.
    I find this very hard to believe. I think it is 2500mAh as it only has a burn time of 3 hrs on full.
    Here's my calcs;
    it uses 6 x Cree Xp-G R6 leds = 139 lm per 350mA
    1925lm / 6 = 321lm led ok losses so as their claim 325lm led
    325 / 139 = 2.34 there fore 2.34 x 350 = 819mAh for all leds in series.
    819 x max burn time = 2457 so there fore a battery of 2500mAh
    Otherwise 15600 would give a burn time on full 19 hours.

    Any one explain why they state 15600, been in touch with them but no response!
  • 10-07-2011
    GDES
    sorry its 6 x XP-G R6 lEDs
  • 10-07-2011
    pethelman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GDES View Post
    sorry its 6 x XP-G R6 lEDs

    ... answer and rant...

    Somebody probably just goofed:
    If they are running six cells in series and incorrectly multiplied each cell's capacity by 6 then you could have
    6x2600maH = 15600mAH total

    However, this is WRONG. Six 2600mAH cells in series is still only 2600mAH, just at a much higher voltage.

    It's not out of the question to be running in that configuration, since for a 6 cell series pack you have:
    Nominal voltage = 3.7 x 6 = 22.2V
    Full charge = 4.2 x 6 = 25.2V
    Discharged voltage = 3.0-ish x 6 = 18V

    @1.5Amp, Max forward voltage of 6 XPG in series = approx. 3.5 x 6 = 21V
    @1.0Amp, Max forward voltage of 6 XPG in series = approx. 3.3 x 6 = 19.8V

    So, from this it would make sense that they could be using a buck regulator and then perhaps letting it drop out of regulation as it reaches the end of the charge.

    You can see that at a drive level of 1 amp you're easily pulling 20WATTS and at 1.5amp drive, you're at 31.5 WATTS.

    Add 10% for controller efficiencies and you're looking at (for the XP-G R5 bin):
    23 watts, 1amp drive, 2085 (theoretical) lumens (no loss), 2.5 hour run time
    35 watts, 1.5 amp drive, 2752 (theoretical) lumens (no loss), 1 hr 38min run time

    You can see from this why the lumen war beyond about 1200 to 1500 lumens starts to get ridiculous.

    First of all, it is completely likely that you would NEVER NOTICE an increase from 2085 to 2752 lumens from the same light source; however, you just paid for that 32% increase in lumens with 13 WATTS and a 1hr shorter run time. In fact, starting with a 1200 lumen light, you need to more than DOUBLE the output to even have a noticeable and/or meaningful impact on the perceived brightness. At night, you can even argue that too much light intensity begins to adversely affect your peripheral awareness due to your pupils closing down.

    In my opinion, going much beyond 1200 to 1500 lumens from a single light source begins to be ineffective. You're MUCH better off with two 1200+ lumen sources that can be aimed to cover greater area or more specific coverage (i.e. spot vs. flood) while staying in the efficiency "sweet spot."

    The super powerful 2000+ lumen race from a single light head is cool and all, but it has definitely gone into the realm of diminishing returns in the name of 1-up-ing the competition. Again, just in my opinion.
  • 10-07-2011
    GDES
    I agree it sounds like they have and a nice response thanks.

    I tried a Stella 120 against a 975lm light recently and gob smacked at the very little difference in light output.

    The reflector has a lot going for it, the Stella uses a custom alloy reflector with one of the narrowest beams out there, good for road use but a broader beam is required for off road riding. The alloy reflector is considerably more efficient than a polymer one!

    Anyone know where I can get a decent remote switch ?
    Cheers
  • 10-07-2011
    Oscar56
    Anxiously Awaiting Shootout
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by francois View Post
    I will start posting this week and individual reviews on lights will come out daily.

    fc

    Sorry if you have already posted but is there a url set for this year's shootout? I am desperately in need of new lights (riding at 5:00 am here in BC) and was going to put in an order next weekend but will gladly wait until you have posted.

    grant
  • 10-07-2011
    dbastians
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pethelman View Post
    ... answer and rant...

    You can see from this why the lumen war beyond about 1200 to 1500 lumens starts to get ridiculous.

    First of all, it is completely likely that you would NEVER NOTICE an increase from 2085 to 2752 lumens from the same light source; however, you just paid for that 32% increase in lumens with 13 WATTS and a 1hr shorter run time. In fact, starting with a 1200 lumen light, you need to more than DOUBLE the output to even have a noticeable and/or meaningful impact on the perceived brightness. At night, you can even argue that too much light intensity begins to adversely affect your peripheral awareness due to your pupils closing down.

    Most of this is true. Whenever I design a new light, if it is going to have double the lumen output of a predecessor model, then I aim to give it about double the beam area. There is just no sense in increasing spot brightness. These are bicycle lights, not spotlights. And I'm really not sure there is any point going above 2000 lm. We have some very hardcore test riders at NiteFlux, with elite fitness and skill levels. Our 2000 lm model sees them physically exhausted at the end of a ride. That is, they are not able to go any harder. The lights are not the limiting factor. So, I think that there is really not much point going above 2000 lm.

    As a parallel note. There was a call above for intensity readings at a distance. I would not recommend this for a bicycle lighting context. While it is common for high end hand torches to quote the distance to 1 lux, this is a very different application. Most of our bike light models have a throw of around 80m - 100m using this method. I would not be true to say that lights that shine further than this are better for cycling. The only way to get the light further is to have it more focused (= less peripheral vision) or more total output, using more battery power. Past 2000 lm with a nice spead, there is not much point really.

    Bike lights will never replicate daylight no matter how much output they have. Full sunlight is tens of thousands of lumens per sq meter and there is so much light bouncing around that it looks nothing like the single source that a bike light will only ever be. Simply adding a second light does not make it like sunshine either.

    Certainly there is already LED technology already to allow 5,000 lumens or more in a portable light. While we may even make a 10,000 lm model in the near future, you can be sure it wont come out as a bike light. All you riders out there take note and treat anything over 2000 lm with some healthy cynicism (not to mention a lack of thermal, and other efficiency factor de-rating in the claimed numbers for many of the offerings out there).

    Cheers,
    David
  • 10-08-2011
    GDES
    Exposure six pack MK2
    Problem with this light is if they goofed why is it being advertised everywhere as having 15600mAh, if you buy one & it turns out they are wrong & it us a 2600 battery then they will have to compensate buyers or provide a 15600 battery under EU trading standards law.

    Could send the company under so don't understand why they are not correcting this error or even replying.
    If I bought this light I would be well p***** ***.
  • 10-08-2011
    savvas
    It's great to have such balanced and obviously informed comment on this forum from bike light manufacturers - thanks Stephen and David.
  • 10-08-2011
    betweenrides
    Yes, thanks for a great post, David.
  • 10-08-2011
    NiteBiker
    Hey Francois,

    Thanks for the great work. I appreciate the fact that you reviewing road bicycling (what you call "commuter") lights even though this is a MTB site.

    Any plans to test the Sigma Sport PowerLED EVO 900? 900 lumens may seem low in 2012, but this one has great optics - very even long throw beam. It works very well on my helmet with the Philips SafeRide light on the bar for trails/MTBing.
  • 10-08-2011
    pethelman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GDES View Post
    Problem with this light is if they goofed why is it being advertised everywhere as having 15600mAh, if you buy one & it turns out they are wrong & it us a 2600 battery then they will have to compensate buyers or provide a 15600 battery under EU trading standards law.

    Could send the company under so don't understand why they are not correcting this error or even replying.
    If I bought this light I would be well p***** ***.

    It would seem that they have a very "eager" PR department and with their "spec" sheet being widely distributed to a lot of vendors, it might be difficult to make a correction.

    It does bring up a very good point though. With the competition being as tight as it is, and without some well defined "standards" in specifying bike light performance, you have to be a bit skeptical these days of most quoted specifications, unless there is supporting test data or explanation of how they arrived at the numbers.

    All the more why some objective testing such as this is valuable to the cycling community in general.