Review: Manker E11 - AA/14500 XP-L

[Wendee]

Manker always asked me to test and compare the Mi7 to the E11. [...]

Is this standard practice? Do other manufacturers make requests like this to reviewers (in general)? Maybe it's done all the time and I just didn't know.

 

[Budda]

I don't know anything about this general practice.
I posted the review of the E11 on BLF and shortly afterwards the Mi7 came out. Many BLF members started make comparison comparing my testing results to the Klarus Specs.
So they told me if I could make a comparison to show BLF people who were interested the difference, and I did.
Also, I have not mentioned the Mi7 in this thread, but even here people came up with comments about the Mi7. So I thought this could be interesting.

 

[Wendee]

Ok but that's a slippery slope. In my personal opinion, a manufacturer should have no (none, zero) input into what is or isn't published in a review, so that it can remain unbiased and impartial. If a member requests such a thing (if they don't want to have to read both reviews, to see both charts) that's different. Anyways, I was just surprised to read that a manufacturer would actually make such a request. Maybe I'm just too picky.

Thanks for another great review though. I always enjoy your reviews.

 

[Lex Icon]

Ok but that's a slippery slope. In my personal opinion, a manufacturer should have no (none, zero) input into what is or isn't published in a review, so that it can remain unbiased and impartial. If a member requests such a thing (if they don't want to have to read both reviews, to see both charts) that's different. Anyways, I was just surprised to read that a manufacturer would actually make such a request. Maybe I'm just too picky.

Thanks for another great review though. I always enjoy your reviews.

An even greater concern could be reviews of samples provided/selected by the manufacturer, especially when they have a somewhat 'spotty' reputation for QA/QC.

 

[Budda]

IMHO it would be impartial if they asked me what I prefer.
I put togher data, a couple of runtime graph. Data are not partial, they are the most partial thing that exist. That's why I make most of my reviews based on them.

An even greater concern could be reviews of samples provided/selected by the manufacturer, especially when they have a somewhat 'spotty' reputation for QA/QC.

Many reviewers get their sample from the makers. And what can I do about it, exept making it the first thing you read in my review?

 

[Lex Icon]

IMHO it would be impartial if they asked me what I prefer.
I put togher data, a couple of runtime graph. Data are not partial, they are the most partial thing that exist. That's why I make most of my reviews based on them.


Many reviewers get their sample from the makers. And what can I do about it, exept making it the first thing you read in my review?

I agree.
Reviewers, specifically Selfbuilt, who also receives samples, sometimes pre-production, are the port of entry for most of us. Personally I see nothing wrong with suggestions or samples provided by builders. Selfbuilt's comparisons are what I find most useful, regardless of who suggested them. My point was that samples could be more slippery than suggestions. I would happily review free samples if given the opportunity.

 

[Budda]

My point was that samples could be more slippery than suggestions.

I missed your point and I 100% agree with you.

 

[Wendee]

[...] Selfbuilt's comparisons are what I find most useful, regardless of who suggested them. [...]

Selfbuilt's reviews are what lead me to find CPF. What do you mean buy "regardless of who suggested them" when talking about his comparison charts? Do you think manufacturers "suggest" to Selfbuilt what to include/exclude from his review of their product? Do you think he would modify his review to add/remove content based on their "suggestion"? I really hope not. I'd love to hear what he thinks on this topic because I really am curious about this.

I think Manker requesting this review be modified, in any way, was just wrong. They shouldn't be influencing reviewers or requesting special favours. Now I wonder how many other companies do this as well. It had never even crossed my mind before today.

They could have done the comparison test themselves and posted the results, they do know how and they have a thread dedicated to this light where they could have posted it.

 

[Budda]

They could have done the comparison test themselves and posted the results, they do know how and they have a thread dedicated to this light where they could have posted it.

And surely enough nobody would have tought that they may be in a conflict of interest and be impartial...

 

[Wendee]

And surely enough nobody would have tought that they may be in a conflict of interest and be impartial...

This is my point, exactly. That's why they asked you to do it. Pretty shady. This is why companies should not 'suggest' reviewers add or remove any content from reviews. If they do, consider it a big red flag. IMO, it's just as much a conflict of interest for them to ask the reviewer to do something that would look bad for them to do themselves. This is my personal opinion. If others have a different opinion, that's fine too. I still think what this company did was sneaky and wrong.

 

[Aggressor]

I still think what this company did was sneaky and wrong.

Asking to run tests against direct market competitor is bad? Assuming the tests are done objectively by independent reviewer? What is wrong with that? Had they told him NOT to run tests against a particular competitor - that would be bad.

For anyone who is in the market for this type of light, that comparison graph is great help. I personally was leaning toward Manker E11, but then I found out Klarus Mi7 is much cheaper (in real life, not MSRP), so I am on the fence again...

 

[Bdm82]

I agree as well. I see no problem.

If one of the manufacturers publishes their own comparo, we wouldn't trust it.

But if budda (a respected cpf reviewer) is does his own review (and neither manufacturer tells him what he can or can't say), I see no problem where the recommendation came from. It's not like they asked him to compare apples and oranges, or versus an old version of one.

Heck, often times manufacturers don't want certain comparisons done because they think their product will be evaluated for something it wasn't designed for. Here, the manufacturer acknowledged a lot of people will be looking at these two (similar size, output, etc) lights to be compared for their real world needs, and facilitated that happening.

 

[Wendee]

Well, I stand by my initial comments given the feeling I have about this subject.

As you said, the manufacturer simply "facilitated that happening" (the content they repeatedly asked the reviewer to publish, in what's suppose to be an independent CPF review). I still say it's a slippery slope. What else do they "facilitate" being published (or not published) in a review? Where is the line drawn?

Most major manufacturers have accounts on CPF and they create threads about their lights, before they're even available for sale. They can publish (or not publish) whatever data they like, so there's no reason for them to be asking for favours from reviewers.

In the end, I do respect other people's opinions even if I don't feel the same way. This would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed on everything, wouldn't it? Now off I go see what new flashlights are out there.

 

[Budda]

I made the above plot for BLF, where in the Manker review there were MANY members speculating on how the Klarus ANSI runtme would compare to the Manker (where the complete runtime plot was made available by me).
You want to buy one light that is tested, but another on paper looks better (because ANSI IMHO is made to make lights performance look better)...
Having the data for both lights wouldn't hurt, I suppose. Then, of course you can spend the money on the light that you like more for design, interface, color, price, availability, accessories, weight... a 100 of different reasons. But knowledge never hurts the customer:
it's better to say: that light performed better, but this one I like more; rather than: I thought this one performed better!

I have not run again a single thing. I just put all the data I already have from the tests in one plot.
I have even said that there is a small advantage in the plot for the Manker given by the different battery.

I don't see anything negative in a comparative TEST. The test was not made to favour one or another item being tested.
I have not said which light I like more. The comparison is made by the luxmeter.
I just pick the color of the curves and the font of the graph.

Yourself could make the same comparison just looking at the runtime plot of each light side by side.
I'm guessing if you are interested in buying the E11, you will look at the performance of the E11.
If you are interested in buying the Mi7, you will look at the performance of the Mi7.
If you are interested in both lights, you will at the performance of both.

Also, they have not seen the two plot and asked me to combine them.
I have been ask to compare the lights before I even asked for the Mi7 to review, so they had not certanty about the result.

So next time no coke vs pepsi test?

 

[Wendee]

I didn't think I'd be posting in this thread again :sigh:, but since you imply that I don't agree with comparison charts in general, I have to say that of course I do. I read them all the time. They're very useful. It wish every flashlight review had such graphs.

I just read your BLF review. I don't see anyone asking about the E11 vs the Mi7 before you posted the graph. To be honest, I'm really not that concerned about all of this anymore. It was never about the graph itself and I'm sure that you're well aware of that. This going in circles has become tiring. After the threads I just read on the other forum, I realize that I was out of the loop and posting my concerns in this thread was an exercise in futility from the beginning.

Sorry to have bothered you. Good night.

 

[Fireclaw18]

I bought the E11 and have a Klarus Mi7 on the way to me. I found the graph very helpful. The Manker seems to have higher output regardless of cell type.

That said, my E11 remained in its stock configuration less than a week. I replaced the emitter with a 5A2 tint XPL HI on a copper Sinkpad, and driver swapped to a 17mm FET driver from Mountain Electronics with Moppydrv firmware.

On an Efest purple IMR cell: UI, lumens, throw and tint are all greatly improved. However, runtime at max power is extremely short due to heat.

 

[Redemption]

Thanks for the great review Budda, it's very helpful. Could you comment on the quality/durability of the anodizing? Is the surface easy to scratch when you add/remove the clip? I read elsewhere that the clip scrapes the anodizing, what does that mean and could you point out what is scraped (does it chip?).

I wanted to add that I disagree with Wendee's opinion that Manker asking you to compare against the Klarus is shady in any way. I have a lot of review experience in an unrelated industry and to my knowledge no company that wants to influence the review process will ask for MORE tests against competitors. This is a sign that either Manker is curious to see what happens in independent testing, or Manker is very confident in its product and wants to show it is a superior product. It is a very good sign when manufacturers want reviewers to do additional testing and I don't see it as a slippery slope at all. The slippery slope only starts when manufacturers ask for changes in what or how something is is written, not when they ask for more comparison or more exploration of a product. I think its admirable that you added additional comparisons like this Budda, it's more work for you and more info for us!


Cheers!

 

[Wendee]

[...]
I wanted to add that I disagree with Wendee's opinion that Manker asking you to compare against the Klarus is shady in any way. I have a lot of review experience in an unrelated industry and to my knowledge no company that wants to influence the review process will ask for MORE tests against competitors. This is a sign that either Manker is curious to see what happens in independent testing, or Manker is very confident in its product and wants to show it is a superior product. It is a very good sign when manufacturers want reviewers to do additional testing and I don't see it as a slippery slope at all. The slippery slope only starts when manufacturers ask for changes in what or how something is is written, not when they ask for more comparison or more exploration of a product. I think its admirable that you added additional comparisons like this Budda, it's more work for you and more info for us!
Cheers!

You just joined and this is your first post on CPF? Really. Of all the lights, threads and posts on here, you picked this particular one, to ask about the clip on a Manker light? Of all the QA issues related to this light, this is your concern & that's your first ever question?

You know, I had visited the other forum as a guest and people there are complaining about Manker's MK34 light. It seems people want a comparison done to the M43 Meteor. How about a chart identifying Manker's stated specs for the MK34 vs the actual output levels and runtimes. Then a chart comparing it to the M43. It's a comparable light, isn't it? I don't see Manker asking for that. Why not? Do they cherry pick lights they want comparisons done? You think this is fair and unbiased? I know for a fact they knew the stats on the Mi7 before they asked for the comparison chart (as per Mi7 thread that Manker actually posted in, that contained Mi7 test results, before Budda had even ordered the Mi7 for review).

Also, if you read the other forum in the E11 thread, you'll see Budda joking about doing a future review on the Mi7 and Manker replying "haha". Do you consider that professional? In an unrelated Mi7 thread started by someone else, Budda would jump in to promote the E11, then Manker would mysteriously show up right away, and also jump into the conversation (in the Mi7 thread). Someone even posted to Manker "Nice see you here in this thread,…is not a surprise……(some friend call you perhaps……?)". Who's the friend, I wonder. From all I've seen, it looks like the manufacturer and the reviewer were working together on these reviews or at least didn't have the distance required to keep things unbiased. This only makes me feel more strongly that reviews should be 100% independent, with no input what-so-ever from the manufacturer.

Maybe do a little more research before commenting, or ask Manker, sounds to me like you might know them personally.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I've had enough of this nonsense.

 

[Redemption]

I'm sorry our opinions diverge so much on this, I don't want to a pick a fight but I did want to share my opinion. I don't know Manker or Budda, but I do believe that attacking a review for having added more comparison data is a misguided way to challenge the impartiality of a review, unless the data is comparing Apples to Oranges or is an attempt to steer the discussion away from better comparisons.

As for why did I ask about this light. I happen to care only about AA and AAA lights and the E11 happens to fit the formfactor I care about at this moment (I'm looking for a smaller AA NiMH light with high lumens). Others have raised issues about tint and other quality issues, so I think its very fair to ask about anodizing quality. As you might know, alot of manufacturers claim Type III Hard Anodization and yet not all manufacturers who make this claim have durable anodization. You might think the clip and anodization is immaterial but I happen to consider that aspect quite important.

I also wanted to ask about other items but I didn't think Budda was the type to test such things as parasitic drain (how much drain and how long will it take for it to drain an Eneloop battery).

I do have a request to compare the beam shots with a Nitecore MT10A if you have one.

 

[Aggressor]

You know, I had visited the other forum as a guest and people there are complaining about Manker's MK34 light. It seems people want a comparison done to the M43 Meteor. How about a chart identifying Manker's stated specs for the MK34 vs the actual output levels and runtimes. Then a chart comparing it to the M43. It's a comparable light, isn't it? I don't see Manker asking for that. Why not? Do they cherry pick lights they want comparisons done? You think this is fair and unbiased? I know for a fact they knew the stats on the Mi7 before they asked for the comparison chart (as per Mi7 thread that Manker actually posted in, that contained Mi7 test results, before Budda had even ordered the Mi7 for review).

Review of Manker MK34 is missing useful comparison, therefore review of Manker E11 should not have one either? It makes absolutely no difference who pushed for this comparison, assuming it was done objectively by independent reviewer.

There is no complete silence between manufacturer and reviewer, nor there ever could be. What exactly manufacturer tells the reviewer is important, not the fact that they talk at all. Asking reviewer to run tests against a direct market competitor is completely fine. Asking reviewer NOT to run tests against a direct market competitor - that would be a problem.