test

2200 lumens. Jaysus... That's going to seriously blind any oncoming cars. Where does this lumens war end, when we have lights melting the tarmac as we go?

So in other words, as well as being hyperbolic, it's just inaccurate - it's not "300km in a week" at all - good ol' road.cc. If you flip that around, though, *because* it's so physically demanding, they're used to doing insane amounts of work in the gym to keep fit for it - had he flown to the next race, he might not have done a whole lot less in terms of effort - just no-one would have paid any attention to it.

The picture comes from here - where you can see the light in all its modes for a comparison (though not clear if they kept the same camera settings): https://www.cateye.com/intl/products/headlights/HL-EL2200RC/

as per other comments, and as a roadie who strays onto bridleways and light gravel when routes require, I would be a little concerned about the cracked rim - not clear how fast or hard that rock was hit or if a significant pothole might cause the same damage. Would help if the difference between this and the road version was noted - does that imply the latter would be less resilient?

@tomlew My first reaction to the park photo was wow, that does not look like a 2200lumen light. I have a Light & Motion Taz 2000 lumen light and it does not create that level of brightness ... up to the tree stump, the pavement is washed out. I do not know, but it does seem that the camera settings are suspicious. There used to be sites like MTBR that did really good controlled images and comparative reviews of lights. Personally, I think 2000 lumen is the minimum for road commuting and not really sufficient for MTB. So, likely this light is quite good for commuting.

@tomlew You claimed you were certain the photo was edited, now you're backtracking on that. It's really quite difficult to get a photo of a torch's performance without seeing it in person, as you have to balance for the darkness of the night and the brightness of the light. Obviously the two are really quite the opposite, so it's hard to get the middle ground which would represent the in-person experience. I know this article is an ad, which is a shame, but that's how RoadCC stays afloat. I can appreciate that without assuming the whole article is a con. Maybe have a bit more faith in people rather than assume the worst.

@tomlew "we’re talking about professionals" lol. "it tells a lot." What does it tell? Are these photographer's sneaky? or lackadaisical? Are you concerned many viewers don't possess the technical to unpack a photo? Or is your concern wider in the possible sense millions may be affected by viewing an unrealistic photo and this renders detriment on the public square? If its the last one I'm in because its an inquiry not too far from cycling through a busy city.

@mdavidford Though the official proceedings of the Grand Prix begin Thursday morning, guessing his team want him there at least a day in advance so he will have to arrive by the end of today (Tuesday) so presumably he will complete the final 82 km today. Whilst "insane" might be slightly hyperbolic it's certainly a mighty impressive shift considering that Formula One is (as far as I understand it, which is not very far) one of the most physically demanding sports around.

@BroomBroomBroom isn’t driving around a city in a two tonne vehicle the size of a small house more absurd? And seemingly more acceptable.

@Terry Hutt Sure, we don't know the parameters. BUT. If you're a professional and still publish a photo which is so badly unrealistic, it tells a lot. I was really hoping to avoid this, but you provoked me ;) Presenting a powerful lamp with no beam cutoff in an urban context just shows how badly the manufacturer does not understand urban cycling. Assuming the lamp needs to shine as much light on the tarmac as on the drivers' retinas is just poor engineering IMHO.