Popular Mechanics Abuse Test

[adnj]

3 LED Minilights Face Battery Drain & Big Drop: Abusive Lab Test

• Leatherman Serac S3
• Garrity 9 LED Mini
• Surefire E1B Backup

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4281720.html

 

[Solscud007]

I read that. very misleading

 

[jzmtl]

Well, whoever going into the stores for a $110 E1B is in for a nasty shock.

I doubt their runtime, especially on the garrity.

 

[offroadcmpr]

The runtimes were until the light completely stopped producing light. That doesn't make very much sense, or at least to people on CPF because probably for most of the time the light is not producing enough light to do anything with. Which is why we usually do the runtimes to 50%.

 

[Black Rose]

The 35 hours from the Garrity comes close to the rated runtime (40 hours) of the 9-LED 3xAAA Dorcy lights I have stashed around the house.

 

[Illumination]

They also reported the lower low on the E1B vs. the other lights as a negative. Shows a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of multiple levels. Pretty pathetic. Makes a reader question the validity of the rest of the magazine.

 

[kramer5150]

I like PM, but their reviewer obviously was uneducated on the proper use of low-low modes in the field to preserve night-vision. A mistake that even experienced CPF'ers make.

There is this strange belief that brighter is always better... even here on CPF. I was guilty of this mind-set for the longest time as well.

 

[sORe-EyEz]

i did not see any negative comments on any lights, the lower low on E1B was stated as a matter of fact, by stating a comparison. pictures of the lights after being dropped from height would be nice, not to mention pictures of the beam for the general public.

... they missed out on dunk test?!

 

[Derek Dean]

Thanks for the heads-up on the article adnj. I'm always happy to see folks in the mainstream media discussing LED flashlights, even if their testing is not nearly as exhaustive or relevant as we are used to seeing here on CPF.

 

[litetube]

That article is the biggest piece of lame fluff :sick2: I have read in a long time. Completely useless information other than the drop test. For the general public though I suppose it will be helpful in deciding not to spend over $100 bucks on a light and just go with the cheap piece of crap. It was almost like an attempt to take a chunk out of SF sales . They made a point of listing the price of each light very prominently but never really talked about the differences of each one at all. And I think PM occasionally runs ads for SF also.:thinking:

 

[LightJaguar]

From reading the reactions to review it seems like the article might have offended a few Surefire fans. I think some of you guys need to realize that not everyone is crazy about flashlights. I really don't see anything wrong with that article. It just stated what they saw after reviewing the lights. Its up to the individual user to decide what he needs. Not everyone is crazy about a very very very extremely low on flashlights.
I hope I never come across with such a user because they may not like it when I shine one of my incan mods or HIDs nearby.

 

[smokelaw1]

Not everyone is crazy about a very very very extremely low on flashlights.
I hope I never come across with such a user because they may not like it when I shine one of my incan mods or HIDs nearby.

First of all, the E1B low is NOT what I would call a "very very very extremely low" level at all. .08 lumens is a very very extremely low. .3 lumens is a very low. In REAL dark, when my eyes are adjusted (3:30 am...no moon, waking in a tent...don't want to disturb hiking partner, but must get out to take care of business), one of your incan mods or HID's would be worse than useless.
I have a few 100W incan mods. I have LOADS of fun with my 3,000 and 4,000 lumen lights.
I LOVE my P7 mag, and use it nearly every night. If I went in to check on the baby with it at 4am...my day would start earlier than I wish...and in a pretty bad way, I imagine.

I think the general public might not have given these uses of flashlights terribly much thought.

 

[Nubo]

They don't even mention what type of batteries the lights take, which makes "battery life" tests quite a bit less useful than they could be. Of course, running the lights until they're completely extinguished also makes a battery life test difficult to interpret also. But I think for most consumers the run times are so fantastic that the story ends there. I mean, compare the average incan flashlight of 10 years ago against all but the most inept LED lights now on the shelves. Batteries last a loooong time. They don't break when you drop them. Bulb doesn't pop after 20 minutes of use. They actually *work*. That's the basic story at the moment for non-flashaholic types.

 

[LED-holic]

There has to be errors.

Their "reality" run times are double to 50% higher than the manufacturer claims. When the heck does this ever happen that manufacturers understate run times by half?

Someone made a boo-boo somewhere in the article.

 

[TMedina]

I like PM, but their reviewer obviously was uneducated on the proper use of low-low modes in the field to preserve night-vision. A mistake that even experienced CPF'ers make.

There is this strange belief that brighter is always better... even here on CPF. I was guilty of this mind-set for the longest time as well.

Really, until you find yourself in a particular situation, its very easy to overlook the obvious when conjecturing about hypothetical situations.

Try reading from a clipboard with an 80+ lumen light in hand. Or navigating a dark room with sleeping people - different light levels exist for different purposes. Another example from a different poster - checking on a baby or moving in an occupied tent.

Popular Mechanics isn't a specialist magazine and as such doesn't address specialist needs - be it backpackers, tactical junkies and so forth.

-Trevor