Surely the admin of this website shouldn't be posting up claims like this, based solely on a manufacturers press release? Much of this sites appeal to the public is its independence. Yet, admin are making a posting that makes a major claim in its title, yet only refers to a comment in a press release that says....

"This result further validates the value proposition that
xxxxx is the ‘best performing small wind turbine in moderate wind speeds’."

Oddly enough, the data on the performance chart on this website immediately contradicts the claim, as on there, there are wind turbines that produce around 25,000 kWh per annum from an investment of ~£25K. By my reckoning, that makes them cost ~£1,000 per kWh annum. Whilst the featured wind turbine costs £1,125 per kWh per annum, based on the figures given (£45,000 for a machine producing 40,000 kWh per annum on a 6.5 m/s mean annual wind speed site)

The title of the thread is further curious given that the OP says that the featured turbine has still only passed 3 of 5 tests underway at NREL in the states.

Its a worrying trend if the admin of this site start to make major claims in threads that even the manufacturers do not make in their attached press releases!

I understand that the EST trial results are shortly to be published, and this would be a much better starting point for making comparisons, or justifying claims. In addition, the "real world" data on this site is a pretty good indicator!
--
Bryan Rendall