Can you do the test again against a wall to see the cut off in dipped beam, much & such as described by Strega?So the beam pattern has not changed...
Well that is because I am sitting on the seat at a stop which is loading the shock and unloading the forks. Were I to be actually riding my weight on the bars would be pre-loading the forks and shifting weight from the shock reducing its pre-load and the beam would drop drastically. Replicating a riding position while static, like you and Strega suggest is not the way to go for a motorcycle. All I did was change the light element. The housing and lens remains the same. There is no change in pattern. Plus also keep in mind that the extremely bright white light will light objects up the original incandescent was also lighting up....just not nearly as well. It is easy to get bound up with things which really have no change....Can you do the test again against a wall to see the cut off in dipped beam, much & such as described by Strega?
Those two images appear to show a high cut off point in the beam pattern: If you look at the car in the left side of your images, the head rests are very well lit up in both beam spreads indicating the driver of such a car would be blinded by the light. Of course this is not taking account of bike / road angles etc - hence best to repeat the exercise against a wall from a level plane
Well actually it is... To do it correctly you need the help of others to hold the bike whilst the rider sits in the normal riding position, weighting the bike correctly.. You should measure the height of the bulb, mark it on the wall, wheel the bike back a certain distance, yada yada you don´t wanna hear it anyway obviously..Replicating a riding position while static, like you and Strega suggest is not the way to go for a motorcycle.