Imalent HR70 3,000-Lumen LED Headlamp
Imalent HR70 3,000-Lumen LED Headlamp
bookmark_border
Where's the price?
To negotiate the best possible price for our customers, we agree to hide prices prior to logging in.
37 Sold
Product Description
Capable of producing a 3,000-lumen beam with 495 feet of throw, the Imalent HR70 headlamp is a solid option when biking, hiking, camping, and more. Featuring five different brightness modes, it allows you to adapt in low light and harsh light, on the hunt, and in distress Read More

search
ps61318
0
Apr 1, 2020
bookmark_border
Is this rechargeable, as the listing on Amazon would suggest? The description doesn't seem to mention it. The one picture of the package illustrates the magnetic charger connection on the light, but the list of included items doesn't mention the charger. Is that included, or a separate item?
Apr 1, 2020
kstokley
1020
Buying Manager
Apr 1, 2020
bookmark_border
It is rechargeable and the magnetic charger is included. I will update the page to reflect this.
Apr 1, 2020
Scharfschutzen
6
Apr 1, 2020
bookmark_border
I feel like a housing that small with "3,000 lumens" would get very hot, very quickly.
Apr 1, 2020
RayF
19255
Mar 31, 2020
bookmark_border
Funny--from this angle, it looks more like a sexy G-string with a night light:
search

Hmm, my girlfriends birthday is coming up...

Mar 31, 2020
Cbslc
68
Mar 30, 2020
bookmark_border
Mar 30, 2020
Ratu
0
Mar 29, 2020
bookmark_border
I have never heard of the waterproofing standard "IPX-8"!! Why not just stick with the industry standard "IP-66" "IP-67", "IP-68". We already know what that means. Why force people to research some new gimmicky labelling? Silly wasted time!
Mar 29, 2020
Ratu
0
Mar 30, 2020
bookmark_border
No, I fully understand how to read it, you definitely don't need to mansplain it to me! Seems you're the one not getting it! Haha! I've been dealing with IP67, IP68 professionally for 25 years, never saw the silly and not well-thought-out IPX-8 format from any supplier, ever! It's just bad form, to say the least. If you want to needlessly expand the designations by using an X, it should certainly be positioned directly next to the 7, or 8 to label the dry parameter as X, because it has not been tested, for some ODD, short-sighted reason. Why not test the dry side, lazy! Aren't we trying to instill confidence in purchasing our product?! With the X improperly positioned next to "IP", it suggests that X represents another word, like "Ingress" and "Protection"... but it doesn't... unnecessarily stupid & confusing. Whoever came up with the "IPX-8" format should be fired!
Mar 30, 2020
IshmaelDPL
1
Mar 31, 2020
bookmark_border
So easily angered by a dash? you must love driving...
Mar 31, 2020
Mister-H
32
Mar 29, 2020
bookmark_border
Anyone have a light with this emitter? They don't mention, unless I overlooked it, its CRI. I think the initial reviews on this emitter had the CRI as not so great and color temp being cooler than expected. Although, that probably only matters to light-heads.
Mar 29, 2020
Leoanger
98
Mar 29, 2020
bookmark_border
I'm only slightly light-headed, but I sure wish that listing a light's CRI was standard practice anymore.
Mar 29, 2020
Recent Activity
Placed an order
Placed an order
Placed an order