MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
Exposure 6 pack Sold with 15600mAh Li-Ion Battery to fit space of 3x2.25x2.25” no way!
I do not believe for one minute that this is 15600mAh battery.
Here’s why , it uses 6 x Cree Xp-G R5 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 ( if the light is in parallel then this is a serious design error.)
819 x max burn time = 2457 so there fore a battery of 2500mAh
Otherwise 15600 would give a burn time on full 19 hours.
Riders who buy it should be compensated or demand a 15600 mAh battery you are only getting a 2600mAh battery be Warned it's advertised as a lie!
Why the repost? Stop spamming the forum.
Reported.
Why would having the LEDs in parallel be a serious design flaw?
its an interesting post, especially at this time of the year when these things are being snapped up.
is there anyone to dispute either claim?
139 lm per 350mA
i think this is its max efficiency and only correct if you're using 139 lumens per LED.
To get 325 lumens you need 1 amp a 25 degrees? or 6 amps for 1950.
so for 3 hours you'd need a 18amp hour battery, i.e. 18000mah
The data sheet is here
i assume they're using a more efficient bulb hence the difference in calc's but its broadly correct.
Tell me thisn- does the light give quoted run times ?
If so why the hell do youncare if it has a 15600 mah battery or not your point seems largely trivial so long as the brightness and run times are as quoted......
Here is a small drum so you an keep banging on about it to those that dont care !
[img] 
[/img]
Thats what I was thinking trail rat, I buy lights based on runtimes, not battery mahs.
Didnt you already get pwned on your other version of this thread? I'd be interested to read the background to your anger. Otherwise I'd suggest you **** off.
Why don't you take it back to where you bought it from and demand a refund rather than trying to be a brave internet warrior 🙄
I'd love to know why gees has this righteous anger thing going on. SS above, as long as the advertised run times are delivered whats the problem?
[u]gdes you're WRONG![/u]
The Exposure lights use a step-up driver, driving the LEDs in series and I suspect they stack the batteries in parallel.
The 6 pack uses 6 li-ion cells
Let us assume each cell is 2600mAh
[b]This gives a combined cell of 2.7V, 15600mah, EXACTLY AS ADVERTISED[/b]
(and this also gives the correct corresponding burn times, allowing a little for heat and driver losses)
I have a 6 Pack and, in fact, it slightly exceeds the quoted run times.
Please either correct me (with fact, not supposition, about one and only one of the many possible LED/driver configurations) or retract your comments about one of too few good UK manufacturers in cycling. And maybe think a little harder before making statements condemning a good company, with excellent customer service, without even having contacted them first.
Is it just me wondering why gdes decided to join stw just to post misleading information?
Is it just me wondering why gdes decided to join stw just to post misleading information? - No I was wondering that too
one of our friendly light salesmen that frequent perhaps ?/
Is it the font on my screen or was he asking about bum time?
The latter, I suspect.
Good spot wwaswas!
Note: He didn't challenge either brightness or burn time either, the things that actually matter, so it was a tenuous complaint at best anyway
Member for 2 days, started this thread, hasn't added anything to it since opening it nor contributed to any others either.
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/profile/gdes ]Profile History Link[/url]
So, Steve from Ingleton, what have you got to say for yourself?
Just had to add my voice to this thread...
I work for a bike retailer in the UK, looking after the content of the website. The OP actually had the Advertising Standards Authority on to us because we stated the battery as being 15600mAh (as per the specs given to us by USE). One quick call confirmed that it was right, and that they had been contacted by the ASA also. I'm sure some of my competitors will have had the same fun conversation.
Inexplicably angry people should check their facts before throwing their toys out the pram. A waste of my time and many other people's too. Words fail me.
One quick call confirmed that it was right, and that they had been contacted by the ASA also.
what a saddo all this because he can't do his sums. 🙄
[i]Inexplicably angry people should check their facts before throwing their toys out the pram[/i]
If I were you I'd take comfort from the fact that's he's angry and wrong, whereas you're angry and right.
I'm not angry wwaswas, just disappointed 😉
Surely the OP should come on here and issue a grovelling apology? If not and it was my business that had wrongly been slagged of for all to see, i know thats the least i would expect.If i didn't get that i know what i'd be doing next...
