Dr S wrote:
I was entering a debate about cheap lights. I think that the £250 for a Trout light that kicks out 2000 lumen is cheap when compared to a Lupine that gives 1700 Lumen for over £700 (last time I looked).
No dick swinging, just entering the debate. If you want to get onto income may i add i spend what i can on bikes and riding- its my passion. I don't go out on the piss, don't take fancy holidays, work my bollocks off and I havn't bought a pair of jeans in 3 years. Spending a bit on a light that will give me good service for many years and many hours of enjoyment is good value to me. And you forget I'm from Yorkshire and we don't like spending if we can get away with it!!
Personally, I agree with LGF on this.
He started the thread about cheap LED lights. It's nothing about income, nothing about cost relative to other things, just some cheap lights on ebay that many have been delighted with.
No matter how you paint it, £250 is not cheap for a set of lights - perhaps for some, money well spent, perhaps for some, relative to other expenditure, they may be relatively
cheap. But they are certainly not absolutely
cheap - and people reading a thread about a set of lights from ebay that cost around the £5 mark, then talking about some lights that sell at around £250 is way different - and quite likely going to be seen as p1ssing on lamposts. So the whole "entering the debate" thing is nonsense, because £250 lights are in an entirely different market to lights costing around a fiver.
I'll accept, they may be a great set of lights - they may be very good for their cost, but they are significantly different in price compared with the topic of this thread. If, as you say, they are great, and such a relative bargain, then they should sustain their own thread on effectively "Money no object LED lights" - and maybe it'll have a similar degree of participation as this one.
Dr S wrote:
If you want to get all bitchy then fine. Enjoy your 150 lumen lights and steady back lane bimbles.
You say that like it's a bad thing.