FL1 needs to be revisited

[3_gun]

So for shoppers new to the LED world of lights it really is "take what you read (on boxes) with a grain of salt". The figures are wildly misleading and/or out right fraud. 50,000 hour bulbs are to 50% of the claimed output not a constant level till they burn out. No one graphs how quickly the drop happens. 500hrs to a 10% drop? 50 hrs to 10%? All we know is the start & end points, what it looks like between them is a guess.

The lights being built today are amazing & a 4000L light that still can produce 2000L (a level undreamed of 20yrs ago) after 50000hrs beats the hell out of 100L for 35hrs from a xenon light. Except the xenon light really gives you 100L for 35hrs.

Happily some makers realize that truth is better than fiction & clearly state run times broken down by level & time. Others graph fairly close to the truth but you have to watch for changing scales within the graph, making a steady decline look closer to a level output. Other test batteries that give better performance but are less likely to be used by the end user. But someone who just want to buy a new, good light is more mislead than helped by the FL1 standard.

Joke 1; Turbo & "high" lumen levels. The claimed output is supposed to be the level recorded at 30sec from ON with a fully charged battery. Seldom happens outside of 3rd party testing. Few (none?) of the mass produced lights hit or holds for 30seconds the peak levels claimed. A few will use a timer rather than heat regulation to get them to or past the 30secs at or near the claimed numbers. This doesn't always work in their favor as lumens at 30sec is used as a starting point of the second FL1 joke

Joke 2; Run times. All turbo & high run times are fiction. Reported run times aren't at a constant level as many charts & graphs seem to imply. Add in battery $ light differences from build tolerances + how you use the light & you're lucky if you even get 70% of the claimed run time at a claimed level. This even carries over into mid range light levels but not as badly. If you really want/need run time at a certain output, find that level in a mid range output not turbo or high. Look for regulated lights/levels, you'll have a much better chance of getting closer to claimed levels.

Reported run time is supposed to be the light level at 30sec (see above) until it drops to 10% of that number. So a light that claims 3000L at start, drops to 1700L @ 30sec would only be putting out 170L at the end of the claimed run time. And don't expect much run time to be left at 170L if the light held any serious output before dropping to 170. You may get 15minutes before the next big drop. So much so that a 60hr claim at low. It may only be an hour or so after a run on turbo. {a cooled 4000L turbo run, 35mph@30degreesF has a 5000mah 21700 at LVP in 20minutes}

Joke 3; Throw. The claimed ranges are at a light level that shows little to no detail & shades of grey in place of colors. Yea you can make out a shape & size but little else. General rule I've adapted is cut the claimed throw by 1/3 at least if you want to see details & colors. Light temp/color/beam shape all are factors in what you'll really be able to identify at distance. Be honest about the distance you need to see at also, 25 yards lit by a flashlight is farther away than you might believe. Plus the vast majority of users are seldom going outside while using the light. Throw needs to be a level of vision (in feet) not a measurable increased light level at 1/4 mile.

FL1 is better than nothing BUT the truth behind the numbers reported is so so much more important than the numbers. Claimed light levels may not really be useful levels, run times are seldom at level outputs & distances reported doesn't mean you can really see anything other than there's something there.

We deserve better

 

[Lynx_Arc]

The one thing good about FL1 is it does reduce inflated maximum output figures a lot. The run times standard (to me) makes for light makers to skip regulating drivers and instead fade the output to nothing over the run times which often reduces average output to less than half of maximum rating often most of the runtime is on the lower end of the curve.
Back in the early days of LED lights a fading runtime graph was favored by many for power outages as LEDs were a lot less efficient and having a light that would run for weeks was sometimes sought after. With LEDs 3-5 times more efficient you and 18650s having a lot of power you can get a lot of decent regulated light output now vs 10+ years ago.

The reason we see serious light makers offering graphs is because a lot of us have caught onto the tricks used and will pay more to get a light that has the output we need as (to me) I would rather have 8 hours at 100 lumens than a fading output starting at 200 lumens dropping to 30 the last few hours.

 

[Duster1671]

What if the standard was simply to report a graph of output vs. runtime in some standardized format?

If we had that plus a candela:lumen ratio as a measure of throwiness, I think I'd be pretty satisfied.

 

[Lynx_Arc]

What if the standard was simply to report a graph of output vs. runtime in some standardized format?

If we had that plus a candela:lumen ratio as a measure of throwiness, I think I'd be pretty satisfied.

Good luck on that as it would cost extra plus too many people wouldn't have a clue as to either how to read a graph or what it means either without instruction first.

 

[kerneldrop]

We deserve better

You can easily have the better you deserve. Take a stand by buying USA made/assembled lights where lumens are measured out the front, and run times are real.

Specs sell, truth does not.
It's similar to ballistics.
BC numbers are inflated across the board, or calculated under exacting conditions that will never be duplicated in the field.

Look at what the car industry did...no one gets those advertised MPG in real-world driving conditions. Not sure who Volkswagen made mad to be the only one to get punished.

Optics are similar....the "light transmission" numbers are bogus and meaningless. The "proprietary lens coating" is bogus.

Manufacturers will do whatever is required to sell to their customer base. They hope 90% of their customer base uses Turbo at the neighborhood block party to demonstrate how cool their light is. Similar to how the gun industry hopes 90% of their customer base doesn't become ballistic experts.

The tactical marketing industry is the best. The bowed up vascular bearded guy with knuckle and throat tats, a ball cap, and sunglasses is NOT real-life.

I'm not getting started on the supplement industry.

 

[bykfixer]

Well put kernel.
The flashion industry decided to use the knuckle-tat dude over the beefcake dude who has the look on his face you get when something smells bad. But the gimmick is still the same.

Most everybody I know who buys LED flashlights sees the lumens… nothing else. So regardless whether the FL1 is updated or not, that will not change. And the industry knows that. They know if brand R touts 360 (albeit sustained) lumens from an 18650 for 9 hours and they say 900 lumens on their package with an asterick stating 200 after 49 seconds the average buyer will pick the 900 lumens.

Should the FL1 be changed for that? Me, personally I just don't buy products from a company that tries to trick me into buying the 900 lumen light.

When a certain brand that sounds like the Russian flu came out with one that puts out super max for 10 seconds the owner made sure everybody understood that and why he built it that way. Another outfit named after grandma did same but with charts and graphs plastered on the web site where they can be acquired. Again I did not purchase either one, but only because I prefer sustained out put that does not over stress the LED or the fuel supply.

Now the 50k hours on the LED, that equates to me turning on the flashlight and leaving it on for 3.5+ years. If it's down to 50% at that point, I can live with that. I have 100 year old flashlights with the factory bulb still working. So I'm pretty sure an LED stated to last 50k hours will outlast me if I don't screw it up somehow.

 

[SimulatedZero]

ANSI standards were written prior to the proliferation of efficient LEDs. Yes, their standards could benefit from updating to match the current capabilites w have today. There's no reason to not be producing a well regulated, reliably measured, light that still drastically outperforms most needs.

This wasn't too uncommon of a thought even back in 2010, 2011. Ten more years and here we are.

When LED efficiency advances slow down, you'll start to see designers turn back to intelligent builds to be more competitive. Until then, the next best light is the next "brightest" light to be advertised.

 

[kreisl]

So for shoppers new to the LED world of lights it really is "take what you read (on boxes) with a grain of salt". The figures are wildly misleading and/or out right fraud. 50,000 hour bulbs are to 50% of the claimed output not a constant level till they burn out. No one graphs how quickly the drop happens. 500hrs to a 10% drop? 50 hrs to 10%? All we know is the start & end points, what it looks like between them is a guess.

The lights being built today are amazing & a 4000L light that still can produce 2000L (a level undreamed of 20yrs ago) after 50000hrs beats the hell out of 100L for 35hrs from a xenon light. Except the xenon light really gives you 100L for 35hrs.

Happily some makers realize that truth is better than fiction & clearly state run times broken down by level & time. Others graph fairly close to the truth but you have to watch for changing scales within the graph, making a steady decline look closer to a level output. Other test batteries that give better performance but are less likely to be used by the end user. But someone who just want to buy a new, good light is more mislead than helped by the FL1 standard.

Joke 1; Turbo & "high" lumen levels. The claimed output is supposed to be the level recorded at 30sec from ON with a fully charged battery. Seldom happens outside of 3rd party testing. Few (none?) of the mass produced lights hit or holds for 30seconds the peak levels claimed. A few will use a timer rather than heat regulation to get them to or past the 30secs at or near the claimed numbers. This doesn't always work in their favor as lumens at 30sec is used as a starting point of the second FL1 joke

Joke 2; Run times. All turbo & high run times are fiction. Reported run times aren't at a constant level as many charts & graphs seem to imply. Add in battery $ light differences from build tolerances + how you use the light & you're lucky if you even get 70% of the claimed run time at a claimed level. This even carries over into mid range light levels but not as badly. If you really want/need run time at a certain output, find that level in a mid range output not turbo or high. Look for regulated lights/levels, you'll have a much better chance of getting closer to claimed levels.

Reported run time is supposed to be the light level at 30sec (see above) until it drops to 10% of that number. So a light that claims 3000L at start, drops to 1700L @ 30sec would only be putting out 170L at the end of the claimed run time. And don't expect much run time to be left at 170L if the light held any serious output before dropping to 170. You may get 15minutes before the next big drop. So much so that a 60hr claim at low. It may only be an hour or so after a run on turbo. {a cooled 4000L turbo run, 35mph@30degreesF has a 5000mah 21700 at LVP in 20minutes}

Joke 3; Throw. The claimed ranges are at a light level that shows little to no detail & shades of grey in place of colors. Yea you can make out a shape & size but little else. General rule I've adapted is cut the claimed throw by 1/3 at least if you want to see details & colors. Light temp/color/beam shape all are factors in what you'll really be able to identify at distance. Be honest about the distance you need to see at also, 25 yards lit by a flashlight is farther away than you might believe. Plus the vast majority of users are seldom going outside while using the light. Throw needs to be a level of vision (in feet) not a measurable increased light level at 1/4 mile.

FL1 is better than nothing BUT the truth behind the numbers reported is so so much more important than the numbers. Claimed light levels may not really be useful levels, run times are seldom at level outputs & distances reported doesn't mean you can really see anything other than there's something there.

We deserve better

nice rant and i agree.
but other than that there is lil point in "discussing" the topic among us if the responsibles doht listen and doht want to improve the standard.

we can rant and b*tch all week long about the topic. nothing will come out of it (other than you guys feeling relieved to have vented about it and then are ready to move on .. to other topics of "discussion")

in general i doht participate in discussions (anywhere) because in most cases they lead to nothing (no changes in status quo) and are a waste of breath.

but i will agree , b*tch*ng about things we doht like (=ranting) is fun . i do it all the time on forums (reviews) and on amazon . i am good at criticizing product quality (fails, shortcomings) and readers respect my honest criticism , so my rants drives them away from buying (e.g. the Stanley Neverleak) .

Ranting about or discussing FL1 feels good and right but it is pointless. We have no power to get it improved.

you may not agree with everything I've just said but as i said, i doht discuss. so. peace. kresil. out. bye.