thermal guy
Flashaholic
No talk on this yet?? Looks great.
Fenix TK75 2018
- Thread starter thermal guy
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
I see a lot of these new lights (not just Fenix) as a gimmick manipulating the ANSI standards to pump up their specs. In reality this is a 2500 lumen light for 2 hours, with a 5100 lumen "flash bulb" mode because that's about all the longer it lasts at that brightness. Yet their literature if you don't run across the runtime/brightness graph would lead you to believe that it puts out 5100 lumens for 2.25 hours, when it can really only maintain that for a couple minutes. It's funny that 20 years ago regulation was championed as a way to get constant brightness over the life of the batteries because some companies were listing lumens levels that were only true for a couple minutes on new batteries, and now they're using regulation step downs to game their specs again.
Today unless you see the brightness/runtime graphs you can't trust any specs now because you don't know if they are playing the step down game to inflate their #'s, and I'll give Fenix a lot of credit for at least including those, most don't. Surefire used to include runtime/brightness graphs with lights but they stopped years ago. They are playing the same games with their specs including runtime to 50 lumens for tactical models and 10% original brightness for others but don't include a runtime graph.
Today unless you see the brightness/runtime graphs you can't trust any specs now because you don't know if they are playing the step down game to inflate their #'s, and I'll give Fenix a lot of credit for at least including those, most don't. Surefire used to include runtime/brightness graphs with lights but they stopped years ago. They are playing the same games with their specs including runtime to 50 lumens for tactical models and 10% original brightness for others but don't include a runtime graph.
Modernflame
Flashlight Enthusiast
One suggestion would be to buy lights that don't step down.
richbuff
Flashlight Enthusiast
I agree with the thesis of the first post: Looks great. XHP35 emitter is great, four of them even greater. Fenix is great, the light is not too small, so as to get some power and throw at the same time. I am sure this item will be an instant success and another classic, too.
terryoregon
Newly Enlightened
Yes, I'd like to know how long it can sustain 5,100 lumens, and how much heat that produces in the body. Have to admit that stacking battery tubes looks awesome, reminds me of a 6 D-dell Maglite on steroids. http://justmyfolder.com/Fenix.jpg
Loverofthelight
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- May 9, 2017
- Messages
- 74
A big throw upgraded. Compared to the old, there is much pretty optimization. I agree with the third post, I can understand it is impossible for a flashlight of thousands of lumens lasts lighting for hours.
At least Fenix is honest with the facts and show the runtime graph. I appreciate the integrity.
At least Fenix is honest with the facts and show the runtime graph. I appreciate the integrity.
Swedpat
Flashlight Enthusiast
ToddM,
I agree. Actually ANSI standard should not be used because it gives manufacturers justification to present deceiving specifications.
I agree. Actually ANSI standard should not be used because it gives manufacturers justification to present deceiving specifications.
Terry: If you extrapolate their graph the TK75 should maintain 5100 lumens for 2-2.5 minutes before it steps down to 2500 lumens. Just given the graph size/resolution it could easily be +/- a minute or two from that.
SwedPat: Yeah sadly the ANSI standard was a good idea to get everyone to test the same, but the test itself is flawed in that it allows companies to "pad" their runtimes by allowing them to run down to 10% of original brightness. So companies that want to provide a flat brightness output for the life of the batteries are actually handicapped by this system. It makes lights with a super bright startup, then regulated MUCH dimmer down to 10% of that initial peak to get a misleadingly high runtime number. What they should have done is put the level of brightness maintained at something like 90% of initial to reward companies providing regulation for constant brightness, not using regulation to get ridiculously high lumens that only last for a couple minutes. We've gone back to what we had before regulation, lights that were really bright at startup and 5 minutes later they drop way off, the only difference being that drop off is usually to some flat regulated much lower output.
Perhaps what they need is 2 sets of ANSI tests, one for non-regulated lights in which they could run to 10% of initial brightness, and regulated lights that have to maintain at least 90% of initial brightness.
Here's the issue to me:
Company A's light runs at a regulated 500 lumens for 4 hours, starts at 500 lumens, ends at 500 lumens.
Company B's light runs at 1000 lumens startup, 2 minutes later it drops to 120 lumens for 6 hours.
I'd MUCH rather have/use Company A's light, but company A is forced to say they have a 500 lumen light that runs for 4 hours, but Company B gets to say they have a "1000 lumen" light that runs for 6 hours. As a result of course people buy Company B's light because who doesn't want "twice as many lumens" with 2 hours "more" runtime. Worse yet it's caused Company A to do the same thing to be on a level playing field. If the consumer doesn't have actual lumen vs runtime charts, which almost no one provides, you have no idea if they are just doing that for Turbo mode or all modes etc.
Anyway, rant off, it's hijacking the thread, and as long as the ANSI standard stays the same it won't change. I will give Fenix credit again for providing those charts where most companies don't.
SwedPat: Yeah sadly the ANSI standard was a good idea to get everyone to test the same, but the test itself is flawed in that it allows companies to "pad" their runtimes by allowing them to run down to 10% of original brightness. So companies that want to provide a flat brightness output for the life of the batteries are actually handicapped by this system. It makes lights with a super bright startup, then regulated MUCH dimmer down to 10% of that initial peak to get a misleadingly high runtime number. What they should have done is put the level of brightness maintained at something like 90% of initial to reward companies providing regulation for constant brightness, not using regulation to get ridiculously high lumens that only last for a couple minutes. We've gone back to what we had before regulation, lights that were really bright at startup and 5 minutes later they drop way off, the only difference being that drop off is usually to some flat regulated much lower output.
Perhaps what they need is 2 sets of ANSI tests, one for non-regulated lights in which they could run to 10% of initial brightness, and regulated lights that have to maintain at least 90% of initial brightness.
Here's the issue to me:
Company A's light runs at a regulated 500 lumens for 4 hours, starts at 500 lumens, ends at 500 lumens.
Company B's light runs at 1000 lumens startup, 2 minutes later it drops to 120 lumens for 6 hours.
I'd MUCH rather have/use Company A's light, but company A is forced to say they have a 500 lumen light that runs for 4 hours, but Company B gets to say they have a "1000 lumen" light that runs for 6 hours. As a result of course people buy Company B's light because who doesn't want "twice as many lumens" with 2 hours "more" runtime. Worse yet it's caused Company A to do the same thing to be on a level playing field. If the consumer doesn't have actual lumen vs runtime charts, which almost no one provides, you have no idea if they are just doing that for Turbo mode or all modes etc.
Anyway, rant off, it's hijacking the thread, and as long as the ANSI standard stays the same it won't change. I will give Fenix credit again for providing those charts where most companies don't.
