Just need to ask... How did you take the measurements that you posted if not with a lux meter?
Somehow guys I stopped getting update email for this thread so I am just now getting to read all of the posts for the last couple of days.
The very first thing I want to take time to point out is that I let the entire world watch as I took the measurements of the 70.2 version of the MTO9R not once but twice and I have personally tested 5 that I have sold and shipped from my own warehouse.
You all saw the video and saw the lights easily made the 15k lumen output level. If anyone happens to get a Warm White tint it may and I say may because I do not have and have to tested a warm white tint yet. But it is possible that it will fall about 1k lumen lower just because of the the tint.
Back on point here. Everyone has saw that I have already proven it and anyone that has ordered one from me can tell you that their light was tested and if they wish I welcome them to please test yourself and verify the inspection label that was on your light when you got it.
My next point. Why in any manner of anything sensible would anyone post anything about what the light output of a light ordered in a group buy that I organized and they do not even own a lux meter.
I can not stress enough just how much I must implore you to please if you know how to and you have a lux meter to do your own testing
I do not yet have a 35 high version that I can test but I promise you that one is coming and I will post totally honest results. I have never posted false readings on any light made by anyone and I will never do so.
How in the world can you post anything about the lumen output of a light that I am representing without the proper equipment to get you to even a 10% reliability.
A photo cell on a mobile phone is by far too small and inaccurate on even the best of phones to attempt to use them as a reliable means of measuring light at these levels.
I personally own a Samsung S8 less than a year old and I can tell you that it is no where near close to the accuracy of even the least expensive of my light meter.
I am seeing post with actual claimed output levels but I am not seeing what was used to take these measurements.
I will not debate this person any further on the matter of either of these lights.
I will however ask members to please if you have the equipment and the knowledge to take your own measurements.
LOL I have an even better way.. Do it the way we use to many years ago and that is, buy a light. Turn it on. If you like it... Excellent....
One other thing I will mention. Out of all of the pictures I see posted it does appear at least to me that the MT09R 35 high is easily brighter than any of the others pictured lol...
In other words... The measurements and posted spec from these posts are totally inaccurate because this person does not have a meter to take the measurements.And, it would be a better idea to wait and take measurements yourself please if you have a meter.
If you do not have a meter possibly watch the video of the guy that shows and totally proves that the 70.2 not only makes 15k lumen but exceeds it. From what I hear he is a pretty honest guy and actually films himself taking the measurements and shows that the device he is using to be what one would consider reasonably calibrated to within at least + or - 5%.
I have no idea how the output levels that were posted earlier in this thread were measured. It is not stated in it anywhere and it is clearly stated in other posts that this person needs recommendations for a good lux meter.
Guys please be responsible with what you post. Especially if it is posted in another members thread. I have no clue what the deal with this member is and at this point it no longer matters. Why in the world would you take the word from someone that does not even own the correct equipment to take measurements.
LOL I was actually testing all of my gear... making sure I have everything set up correctly and calibrated correctly then I finally noticed.
My gear is fine and has been for several years. This person does not have the correct tools to make such statements.
Here is why you really need calibrated meters and equipment if you are going to attempt to tell people what the output level of a flashlight is.
LOL it really is a good little experiment you can do that will show you just how far off the readings you are getting from something other than a dedicated lux meter even an inexpensive one can be.
www.youtube.com/embed/3pYiMyONZ7g
He apparently dropped his luxmeter :
Winston Wulf is also a respected and active member of the the German flashlight forum TLF, and I am very happy that he also wants to share his findings with us here on BLF.
Until more of the group buy lights are delivered and tested we will just have patient 
Those are finding based on nothing... making claims based on simple observations and not facts that can be backed up and supported by anything other than "Here is what I believe". I'm sorry I'm suppose to respect that how?
A lux meter alone will not give you the calculations necessary to state anything as even close to fact. Especially one that now does not exist. I really do not get what the issue is with this person and this company but dating back to itās beginning out of any issues the company had one issue they got right of the 9 models I own and have tested is the output almost always exceeds specifiations. More often than not overpowered lights were the issue. For some reason this seems to be some kind of fun thing almost a gameā¦ For me it is how I earn a living and I have never and will never overstate any product of any kind at all. Thing isā¦ if you really canāt back up and show or support a claim that clearly is basically saying the fact and figures I posted from my own tests is wrong. For me to back offā¦ Prove the findings. I proved mine over and over. Show me something other than words typed out saying my feeling is or what I think. I think a lot of things but I only post facts I fuilly support and show as being real not just words.
I am starting to get a bad feeling about my purchase again for the second time in this this threadā¦I was pretty excited to see my lights tracking showing movement and now it is in the US and should arrive very soon but with all this BS in this thread I am not so excited any more.
That's what I was afraid of happening. Judge them yourself.
When you get it check them out totally for yourself... You will find they perform as well of not better than has been stated by the company.
If not... You re here in the U.S. just drop me an email and I will provide whatever is needed to be sure you are happy with your purchase.
Any update on the charging units? Do we know when they will ship?
I think it would have been better if you would have done it.
It would have helped you.
In any case I can just repeat: I hope that all the measurements I have done are somehow wrong - even though I do not expect it.
The next days will bring my new luxmeter (@Terry: I broke my old one while trying to do a measurement during the beamshots - just in case you overread it) together with a K65, which might be a better comparison to the MT09R 35 than the TM28.
I keep you updated.
No, the XHP70.2 results he posted were:
12.910 lm (retail, which we are less concerned)
13.760 lm (group buy)
Thatās only 1,240 lumens less than the GB spec. Even if his equipment were somehow in error I seriously doubt a discrepency of xxxx lm would be universal across any lights tested - it would be much more like a percentage of total error. In other words, if his meter was actually 1240 lm low when testing GB XHP70.2, it probably would not be that far off when testing less powerful XHP35. What if he were testing a 500lm light - would you expect his reading to be negative 740lm (500lm - 1240lm)?
So, letās assume the GB light he tested was actually 15k lumen. His measurement would then reflect an error of about 8. Youāve stated some of the ones youāve tested were >15klm - fine, letās round it up to a 10 error. So, the GB XHP35 he tested was 4,570 lm, and compensating for error we end up with 5,027 lm.
Orā¦ are you claiming all/most XHP70.2 are 17k lm? OK, letās give your scenario all the benefit of any doubt. If GB XHP70.2 light was actually producing 3k more lumens than his reading, that would reflect an error of about 18%. Compensating for this error we now arrive at 5393lm for GB XHP35. This is the ābest case scenarioā given your assesment and the information we currently have.
Not meā¦
Gosh, I sure hope we donāt go thru all this on the SC26 
I guess that is why it is best to have a sample you can test before offering it for sale. At least Terry is standing behind his offerings.
Got my MT09R 35Hi in tan this morning. Love the color.
I really could care less if itās putting out 5k lumen or 7.5k. Itās freaking bright and built like a tank. Puts a smile on my face every time I turn it on. Canāt wait to use it this weekend when Iām out in the woods.
Going to break out the Astrolux MF01 also.
Congrats k6. I am not complaining eitherā¦ those lights are great.
Blue 70.2 NW just showed up. Built like a tank is accurate! Nice smooth design. Slow ramp but set point and turbo. If you donāt like change to modes. Easy to operate. ā¦and againā¦well built. Heavy duty with HGās. Satisfied!!
After I got the MT09R XHP70.2, my MF01 219c is no fun anymore. My MF01 appears so dim now after using the MT09R.
As someone who missed out on the MT09R GB and is waiting on an MF01 219c, this is sad to hear. Iām glad youāre enjoying your new light, though!
I got my MT09R XHP70.2 yesterday, but with a flash flood going on last night i could not play with it outside, so I blinded myself in my office for a bit. I am VERY HAPPY WITH MY PURCHASE!
Thanks Terry
I have my MF01 being sent over to Lexel for modding. With Lexelās buck driver, it should be alot more usable and probably reach 12k+ lumens, which is pretty impressive for 219C hi CRI and should be able to maintain high lumens for much longer. The stock MF01 driver plain sucks. It dims way too fast on turbo and dims way to drastically. UI is also not the best. The MT09Rās high mode is much more usable and UI is far better. Also I like the MT09Rās battery tube which is far more convenient than the separate battery holder in the MF01. MT09R is overall better built. However, I am looking forward to the upcoming MF03 monster. If Astrolux listens to forum input and improve their driver like Haikelite did, then that would make for one very interesting light.