First time posting in Years and so disappointed to see manufacturers/influencers claim Turbo as the ratings

[chillinn]

Current incandescent research (if there really is anything substantial) might be reminiscent of early efforts to put wheels on horses to get around?

I can see that. It's just like that, exactly, really. I guess it's just too bad there's so much blue light in LED that it suppresses melatonin production, disrupting sleep and circadian rhythms, cutting years off your lives. The ongoing research into the effects of LED lights at night links it to diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, as well as being extremely bad for wildlife, if anyone cares. So you might not live as long, and you'll take any number of God's creatures with you as you go, but at least your lights are efficient, helping you save a buck, and that's really all that matters no matter how long you live. Am I right?

 

[KITROBASKIN]

Why is it that I continue to respond to the sarcastic, fact deprived fodder of the self righteous anti-human folk?

Regarding this topic, TV infomercials do not get this response as much, or do they?

 

[chillinn]

Because when an argument is bulletproof, you have no choice but to but to either accept it and become wise or attack the person trying to help you live longer and healthier.

 

[Mike G]

How can you be absolutely certain it's not your cells, rather than your flashlights, that are letting you down?

Dunno. Can you point me at a cell physically capable of sustaining, say... Maglite ML300 2D, since I'm familiar with it, at 400 lumens for 6h30 straight? I reckon the fact that the hardware ramps it down to half that over the first hour won't help.

Heck, let's also have a look at the ML150, Maglite selected and provides the battery for it, so it stands to reason it can't be the battery causing any problems. Says here it should be 1,082 lumens on high, for 3h15m.

Spoiler: Graph

Note: the name at the top was typo'd, there exists no ML350LR

Now, I'm no expert, but that sure don't look like 1,082 lumens to me, and there's been no funny business with using a different battery than the manufacturer-tested secret sauce.

I can see that. It's just like that, exactly, really. I guess it's just too bad there's so much blue light in LED that it suppresses melatonin production, disrupting sleep and circadian rhythms, cutting years off your lives. The ongoing research into the effects of LED lights at night links it to diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, as well as being extremely bad for wildlife, if anyone cares. So you might not live as long, and you'll take any number of God's creatures with you as you go, but at least your lights are efficient, helping you save a buck, and that's really all that matters no matter how long you live. Am I right?

That's why they make warm LEDs without the blue, bud!

 

[bykfixer]

Wow!
This is getting pretty deep

 

[chillinn]

Can you point me at a cell physically capable of sustaining, say... Maglite ML300 2D, since I'm familiar with it, at 400 lumens for 6h30 straight?

While Maglite doesn't advertise that specification, even assuming they did, that's the entire point right there, isn't it? A light is only as good as the cells we use. We can blame manufactures for "lying," but chances are good that manufactures such as Surefire, Zebralight, NiteCore, Lumintop and Olight are not trying to trick consumers. They're competing. Like it or not, the standard is how bright their light is after 10-30 seconds, not ten minutes, not an hour, only as long as 30 lousy seconds. And the best cells from 20 years ago can't compete with the cells we take for granted today.

And fwiw, this position is not my idea. I'm just not that creative, so I didn't come up with it, CPF did, and it persuaded me, and I think it is correct. Because I had the same exact complaint as OP five years ago. I was raving mad about it. Wiser CPF members clued me in: it's the cells, not the manufacturers that are the problem (ignoring the obvious ones no CPF member would patronize, "10,000 lumens!" when it's all of 200, the absolute junk I hope is not what we're talking about), and there is absolutely nothing to be gained getting mad about the cells. So, absurdly, what we are really asking for here, angrily, are dimmer lights. It's the only conclusion a manufacturer could make reading this thread, that we don't want a light that can put out 4000Lm for 10 seconds, we want a light that puts out a steady 600Lm for 40 minutes. But do we really want that? Regardless, we are bound by the physical (as in physics) limitations of our cells, and with that in mind, it is kind of incredible a light can put out so bright a light, even for only a few seconds.

That's why they make warm LEDs without the blue, bud!

The old timers here will be ecstatic to hear that. We'll probably see a run on warm emitting flashlights now.

Wow!
This is getting pretty deep

As always, excellent observation. Maybe we're getting somewhere.

 

[aznsx]

......we want a light that puts out a steady 600Lm for 40 minutes. But do we really want that?

You mean something similar to this?

Yeah, I just ordered one a few hours ago!

How'd you know I just ordered one?! You tapped into my computer?

Seriously, I did not order it because of this, but since you asked... I haven't read most of this thread (nor do I intend to), but your question on this last page caught my attention, so I figured I'd answer it.

It's all subjective and application dependent. Always has been. Always will be. No right or wrong answer. Nothin' new about that.

 

[Mike G]

While Maglite doesn't advertise that specification

You're right, they advertise an even better spec - 487 lumens on high, for 6h30m. I rounded down to give them benefit of the doubt. See for yourself - https://maglite.com/collections/full-size/products/ml300l-led-2-cell-d-flashlight. You'll see that figure indicated on both the ANSI FL1 chart drop-down and in the specifications drop-down.

that's the entire point right there, isn't it? A light is only as good as the cells we use. We can blame manufactures for "lying," but chances are good that manufactures such as Surefire, Zebralight, NiteCore, Lumintop and Olight are not trying to trick consumers.

If there exists no cell capable of providing the advertised performance, then the advertised performance specification's fraudulent. Simple as. Wouldn't get away with advertising the engine in a Prius as 1,000 horsepower when fuelled with plasma from a dying star, or something.

Like it or not, the standard is how bright their light is after 10-30 seconds, not ten minutes, not an hour, only as long as 30 lousy seconds. And the best cells from 20 years ago can't compete with the cells we take for granted today.

The crux of the matter ain't the cells, it's that the FL1 standard is flawed and easily exploitable - inflated performance specs are nothin' new, but the FL1 standard enables companies to publish those bogus numbers on a very professional-looking spec sheet, and they're protected against retaliation 'cause they did everything by the book - before FL1, you maybe had a chance of hitting a maker right in the finances if they made bogus claims about the flashlight, and you could prove they're wrong (maybe wishful thinking, but in theory...). Now, though? Nuh-uh, they advertised performance as per ANSI FL1, and it's accurate to that, don't matter that the data is misleading and unhelpful, the standard is the standard.

It's all fine print manipulation, yeah? When you see on a flashlight package that it has 500 lumens output and runs for 7 hours on high, what're you supposed to make of that? There's no indication of the deeper intricacies of how those figures are measured. Even if you go out of your way to learn - which most people will only be prompted to do after noticing that their snazzy new flashlight isn't working as good as they'd like, which they might not even be able to tell depending on their experience with flashlights - everything past those first 30 seconds is a crapshoot. Lumens, candella, throw, it could be anything. You might be getting a light with less than 20% that output. The only way to know is to test, putting you back at square one. It's totally useless for helping you make a more informed buying decision, which is supposed to be the purpose of standards like this.

So, absurdly, what we are really asking for here, angrily, are dimmer lights. It's the only conclusion a manufacturer could make reading this thread, that we don't want a light that can put out 4000Lm for 10 seconds, we want a light that puts out a steady 600Lm for 40 minutes.

Dunno about the other folks here, but that's got nothin' to do with what I want - all I want is for makers to be honest about what their lights are actually capable of doing, and for how long. Honestly, we've got the best standard right in front of us - runtime graphs like the one I posted before are indispensable for evaluating flashlight performance, if the FL1 standard was just one of those, battery cell model/chemistry and all, with a couple extra lines for candella and throw, that'd probably be just about perfect. Unfortunately, I don't make the standards, I just complain about 'em.

Regardless, we are bound by the physical (as in physics) limitations of our cells, and with that in mind, it is kind of incredible a light can put out so bright a light, even for only a few seconds.

And on that, at least, we can agree! God bless the LED.

 

[bykfixer]

Ah, those pesky ansi rules....
Meant for unregulated incan objects but taken advantage of in the days of the LED lumen wars.

I recall getting flamed, badly for calling it a "gimmick" when a certain model claimed what I considered exagerated numbers because the maker was a friend of CPF. I did not say it was dishonest but that's what I was acused of saying. I even got a PM from the owner who was all upset. Ah the good old days.

 

[Mike G]

Good thing the days of internet flame wars are behind us, eh?

...They are behind us, right?

 

[chillinn]

You're right, they advertise an even better spec - 487 lumens on high, for 6h30m.

That's not what it says. What it says is:

1. This light is 487 lumens
2. This light has a runtime of 6h30m

Maglite is certainly is not claiming "487 lumens for 6h30m." Many may think it says that and probably not believe it, nor should they, because Maglite isn't playing tricks, it is your mind that's doing that. It simply does not say that. And for us to assume that Maglite hopes that anyone would think it says that is kind of ridiculous, because it's absurd. There just isn't that much power or energy in an alkaline D cell. So we must question our assumptions. Everyone knows what lumens are, but what "runtime" means to you is not what Maglite intended, and if I have to spell it out I must first apologize if it sounds patronizing or condescending, which is not my intent, which only to be clear: for Maglite, runtime means how long the light will run, and not how bright the light will run for how long.

If there exists no cell capable of providing the advertised performance, then the advertised performance specification's fraudulent.

This is mixing up issues and laying down a requirement without authority. You could conceivably gain that authority by taking many different paths, such as founding a standards organization and gaining industry credibility, or getting elected to Congress and sponsoring a bill and making it illegal, but as it stands, there is nothing there on its face that meets or exceeds the legal criteria for criminal deception.

When you see on a flashlight package that it has 500 lumens output and runs for 7 hours on high, what're you supposed to make of that?

But that's not what it says. It will say x lumens of brightness. Then there is this other completely separate and unrelated thing, runtime, how long it puts out light. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and you are reading into things, arguably unreasonably, that these two separate specifications are the same and inseparable.

all I want is for makers to be honest about what their lights are actually capable of doing, and for how long.

Me too. Unfortunately, that is not the convention. Regulated portable battery-powered lighting is a relatively new concept that is only about 2 decades old at most. Maybe within another two decades, all manufacturers of unregulated flashlights will be put out of business. Rather than brightness, the new competing standard will be all about the regulation. Instead of this nebulous concept of runtime we'll have have published hard figures about how long a light can remain in regulation, which is really what you wanted so bad you fooled yourself into believing that runtime was the same thing as regulation. I really hope you can see now they're worlds apart.

 

[Mike G]

To preface, everything you say, on a technical level, is true, but again, the crux of the problem is that all if it is implicit. You and I got the benefit of knowing all this - 99% of folks don't, and it's not communicated clearly to them. Those spec sheets aren't used to sell lights to us, but to them. Buyer beware, while more true in recent years than ever, also isn't exactly something to strive for or uphold. I suppose intent is a separate issue, but in my opinion, companies do take full advantage of being technically correct to mislead their customers and get away with it. I'm going to go through everything here, split it up, and try to underline what I'm talking about for clarity, using numbers, I guess. This is gonna be real wordy, unfortunately.

That's not what it says. What it says is:

1. This light is 487 lumens
2. This light has a runtime of 6h30m

(1)Maglite is certainly is not claiming "487 lumens for 6h30m." Many may think it says that and probably not believe it, nor should they, because Maglite isn't playing tricks, it is your mind that's doing that. It simply does not say that. (2)And for us to assume that Maglite hopes that anyone would think it says that is kind of ridiculous, because it's absurd. (3)There just isn't that much power or energy in an alkaline D cell. So we must question our assumptions. Everyone knows what lumens are, but (4)what "runtime" means to you is not what Maglite intended, and if I have to spell it out I must first apologize if it sounds patronizing or condescending, which is not my intent, which only to be clear: for Maglite, runtime means how long the light will run, and not how bright the light will run for how long.

(1) - That distinction is unclear. When you look up the FL1 standard on the internet, yeah, you can find that out, but when you look at it on the maker's website, or on the packaging, there's no clear indication that the two aren't connected - all you see is that it has an output of 487 lumens (it doesn't even indicate that they're talking about peak lumens), and that it runs on high for 6h30m. It's completely reasonable and expected for Joe Average to logically conclude that the output on high must be 487 lumens, after all, why would a company advertise output for lower settings? Plus, not all lights have a low setting. It's a problem with communication, and putting mud in the water.

(2) - It's worth remembering that neither Maglite nor any other corporation has any obligation to be honest here, as a corporation their #1 priority is to sell their product and make money, and if they're publicly-traded, they're legally obligated to maximise profit at all times. If they can lie or deceive to make more money, I think it's naive of us to assume under any circumstance that they won't just out of the goodness of their hearts, even if they actively claim exactly that.

(3) - Again, yeah, you and I know that, but that's because we're informed and personally interested in the technology as a hobby. We're a small cross-section of people that buy flashlights and batteries. I think it's unreasonable to say "but everyone knows that isn't true" makes it okay, especially when everyone most certainly doesn't!

(4) - It's immaterial whether they mean something different or not, because how the FL1 standard defines runtime is borderline useless to most users. It doesn't matter whether it runs, in some capacity, for the whole 6h30m - if you want/need the full brightness for that amount of time, that's something the flashlight can't give you. What you can actually expect for that 6h30m runtime isn't indicated. Again, failure of communication.

This is mixing up issues and laying down a requirement without authority. You could conceivably gain that authority by taking many different paths, such as founding a standards organization and gaining industry credibility, or getting elected to Congress and sponsoring a bill and making it illegal, but as it stands, there is nothing there on its face that meets or exceeds the legal criteria for criminal deception.

That was meant as a general statement to lay the foundation for the rest of my argument, sorry for the confusion.

(5)But that's not what it says. It will say x lumens of brightness. Then there is this other completely separate and unrelated thing, runtime, how long it puts out light. (6)Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and you are reading into things, arguably unreasonably, that these two separate specifications are the same and inseparable.

(5) - Again, it's not indicated clearly that they're completely separate and unrelated. It's very logical to draw a connection between the two without knowing the context. You and I have that benefit, but most people don't.

(6) - I don't think this is an unreasonable angle to argue from at all. On the contrary, I think it's unreasonable to expect all potential buyers to know all the fine print and intricacies of the standard - to expect everyone to be a bureaucratic hobbyist. That, to me, undermines the point of consumer standards, which is so that you don't have to do that. Philosophical? Maybe. Unreasonable? Definitely not.

Me too. Unfortunately, that is not the convention. Regulated portable battery-powered lighting is a relatively new concept that is only about 2 decades old at most. Maybe within another two decades, all manufacturers of unregulated flashlights will be put out of business. Rather than brightness, the new competing standard will be all about the regulation. Instead of this nebulous concept of runtime we'll have have published hard figures about how long a light can remain in regulation, which is really what you wanted so bad you fooled yourself into believing that runtime was the same thing as regulation. I really hope you can see now they're worlds apart.

Your passive-aggressiveness in this closing statement is unwelcome - I haven't "fooled" myself into anything, thank you very much. Runtime and regulation are related concepts - if a light can stay in regulation for a certain output for X amount of time, that amount of time is its runtime at that output. They are indeed different, but they're not so far apart as you say. But, at least we do seem to vaguely want the same thing, in the end.

I hope that's it for the walls of text, I don't think I got anymore in me after this one...

 

[chillinn]

I haven't "fooled" myself into anything

Poor choice of idiom, "kid" as in "kidding yourself" would have worked just as well, you fool! (come on, it is a mistake, an error, a misjudgment, being inaccurate if not incorrect), I did not mean anything personal by it, only that...

Runtime and regulation are related concepts - if a light can stay in regulation for a certain output for X amount of time, that amount of time is its runtime at that output.

...we want it to mean something that it does not. Runtime is measured in minutes and hours, but regulation is not a measurement, it just arbitrarily means constant brightness without any precise dimension of time, though without any span of time, it's kind of pointless to call it regulation.

 

[Mike G]

Poor choice of idiom, "kid" as in "kidding yourself" would have worked just as well, you fool! (come on, it is a mistake, an error, a misjudgment, being inaccurate if not incorrect), I did not mean anything personal by it, only that...

Fair enough... hey, there's a different kind of example of communication failure, eh?

...we want it to mean something that it does not. Runtime is measured in minutes and hours, but regulation is not a measurement, it just arbitrarily means constant brightness without any precise dimension of time, though without any span of time, it's kind of pointless to call it regulation.

I don't really know what you mean here. I don't think I called regulation and runtime the same thing? Just that they're related, in that you can use regulation for a given output (brightness) to inform how you measure runtime.

 

[chillinn]

in that you can use regulation for a given output (brightness) to inform how you measure runtime.

It would be nice if marketing used it. Thorough reviewers do. At least when they graph brightness over time, if there's regulation, it pops out.

 

[aznsx]

If there exists no cell capable of providing the advertised performance, then the advertised performance specification's fraudulent.

That's a borderline(?) 'strawman'.

Quote:
Power Source: All tests are conducted with fresh batteries or fully charged batteries/energy storage devices. 12V DC devices that are only tethered shall be powered with 13.8V DC using a power supply. Batteries used for testing and claim substantiation shall be of the same type and/or brand as those offered for sale with the product. If the product is sold without batteries and a peak beam intensity claim is made, a specific battery type and chemistry shall be recommended with the package. The batteries recommended by the manufacturer are to be used for testing.

Source:

https://www.streamlight.com/docs/default-source/ansi-documents/ansi-pres.pdf

**********************************************************

Quote:
Run Time
Tested with fresh batteries from 30 seconds after the light is turned on until the light output reaches 10% of the initial measurement. This is the total time of useable light before most consumers will change batteries.
Source:

Standard

Buying a flashlight, headlamp, bicycle light, or spotlight can be a confusing proposition. The ANSI/PLATO FL 1 2016 Standard and PLATO provide clarity.

www.plato-usa.org

Quote: (Run Time)

• The duration of time from the initiallight output value (that's 30 seconds after the light
  is turned on with fresh batteries) until the light output drops to 10% of the initial value.
• Purpose: To determine the amount of time elapsed (under continuous operation) at which the device's light output reaches a level when users will commonly replace the batteries.

Source:

https://www.streamlight.com/docs/default-source/ansi-documents/ansi-pres.pdf

The intent is as simple and basic as that folks. BYOC (bring your own complexity).

For those who believe the 'run time' spec is worthless, as an 'average USER' (even if not buyer), I can tell you it does have value to me personally. I hike out exploring from camp one night with a given light, let's say rated 500 peak lumens (just to pick a number - the majority of the lights I carry are in that range), which increasingly in 2023 may not have (easily) replaceable cell(s). I can cut the 'run time' number in half, and that's approximately the time I should head back to camp in order to have 10% of its output (~50 lumens) available (probably approximately the minumum I need to navigate) to get me all the way back to camp. That information is far from 'worthless' to me; in fact, it's exactly what I need to know that night.


Quote:

• Peak Beam Intensity and Beam Distance are both measured by the same test.

Purpose: To provide a procedure to determine the peak beam intensity, reported in units of candela, of the device's beam within 30 seconds to 2 minutes of operation.

(Note the '2 minute' figure)
Quote:
If the device offers multiple output levels, the peak beam intensity will be measured at the maximum level or as otherwise identified.

Quote source:

https://www.streamlight.com/docs/default-source/ansi-documents/ansi-pres.pdf

*******************************************************

The design of the standard is not such that it necessarily provides all information relevant to all users and all uses they may specifically have for their lights; it is to provide a common, defined 'yardstick' to directly compare the performance of 2 lights which are tested / rated using exactly the same method(s), using exactly equivalent data: apples to apples. That's the objective, and I'm not aware of anything else which provides that, and nothing did prior to 2009.

Is there this much hair-on-fire outrage because almost no retail packages provide a color temperature or CRI number?. What do you think is the reason for that? How about the fact that MANY manufacturers don't provide an 'Impact Rating' for their lights (like Surefire maybe?), which for me personally is one of my highest priority ratings, if not THE highest and which would likely be appreciated just as much by other 'average' users like me; this in the 'real world' where lights will almost inevitably fall or be dropped. Almost as bad is those who can't claim anything over 1 meter (aside from some who recently began claiming 1.5 meters, which is not a valid value per FL1), which if you read the standard and testing methods for different ratings fully, you will find is an incredibly low bar to clear (no pun). Who doesn't care if the light will be dead after falling from a 6' step ladder onto the floor? Where's the outrage over that?

They say 'caveat emptor', and that requires being informed. If one makes no effort to be informed, that's a choice. I lose no sleep over the existence of such people - otherwise, I would never sleep. They are legion. They do, however have a 'yardstick', and I glad that they do, because that's what they need. Remember, FL1 is not a law or requirement. It is an optional 'standard'.

Do you want to be 'informed' like I do? Buy lights from manufacturers who provide an output/time graph(s). I'm a simple guy, so 'a picture's worth 1000 words. Most who are capable of doing the basic testing are also capable of graphing the data / results. Ever wonder why most don't show that to you? I generally don't buy lights from manufacturers who don't provide them, because I make the assumption that they'd evidently prefer I not be fully informed, and to me that's not the kind of company I prefer to do business with. See my post #67.

My beef is with many of the manufacturers - not PLATO or ANSI.