luxlover
Banned
Howdy gang. You may recall my post about the L1 light, and it's low beam rating of 13 lumens as printed in their 2004 catalog, and "as confirmed by a SureFire rep on the phone this Thursday." Well here I go again opening that can of worms. But this time I have in my arsenal my very own experience with this light. Read on.........
Today, I had my first "hands-on" experience with any SureFire lights, at the store location of an internet reseller. All of the models I examined were beautifully constructed. I am impressed in a big way. Upon examining the "fresh out of a new box L1", I engaged the high beam in momentary-on mode with the end button, and then in locked-on mode with the twist of the tailcap. All internet posted and catalog printed sources rate this at 20 lumens. The L1 was about the same brightness as my ARC LSH-S light, which I had in my hand for this "A/B real time" comparison. This similarity showed me that the battery was new. The ARC is rated between 14 and 17 lumens. I very much like how both of the L1 switching mechanisms worked. So far, so good.
Then I engaged the low beam in the same manner. To my surprise, I was looking for the light to appear, and until I looked at the LED head on, I could not see anything, even when I shined it on my hand and shirt. Even though there were lights on, I should have seen "something." What a disappointment this was for me. When you guys say time and time again, that this is what you all have found, and that there is no way that the SureFire claim of 13 lumens is valid, it makes me wonder what SureFire's numbers game is all about. I would say that this low beam level is "almost unusable." This low output would explain their published 50 hours runtime, wouldn't it?
Now I am on the warpath again, and will re-question SureFire for an explanation on Monday. You guys have used figures of 1, 2, or 3 lumens as the low beam rating. My honest and final opinion, based on my own examination of this light, is that this discrepency is an example of persistent and dishonest advertising. The more that I call SureFire and get the same response from them with their 13 lumens figure, the more obsessed I become with making them re-evaluate a cross section of these lights in their QC department, and posting an amended specification for the low beam, "somewhere." And this can be done very easily on their website. According to the reps I have spoken to, their website is the only source of accurate and complete information, and that anything printed at any time is not in a finalized state and should not be used to make any buying decisions. It should be done on their website ASAP, for just this reason. I am not expecting them to republish any documents that have been released. They would not do this anyway. They have been more and more arrogant to their dealers, and I have heard many horror stories about how they promise shipments to them and then keep them hanging and wondering when the lights will be shipped. And the dealers in turn, keep their pre-order customers hanging as well.
Since I would not be interested in the L1, even if it had a 13 lumen low beam rating, and since I would like to own the soon to be released L2 with 15 low and 65 high outputs, I am very worried about whether either of those ratings are "exaggerated." And if they are, whether I discover it myself or from a number of you, I will resume my crusade with that light as well, and pressure SureFire to change their policies and ethics.
I know that my good buddy "gadget_lover" will get on my case about this, as he has in the past. But he has no grounds to defend SureFire on this issue. Let's get real, people. The human eye has the ability to distinguish the difference in light output between a 1 or 2 lumen source and a 13 lumen source. And I am very tired of hearing the argument about the bins, the lots, and the specialized picking of Luxeon LEDs. A company of SureFire's magnitude, can do better to tighten up the tolerances of their Luxeon LEDs' output levels? To expect the masses to accept 2 lumens actual, and imply that the Luxeon LEDs have variable outputs due to the imperfection of the intricate manufacturing process, is a continuing charade, and an insult to my (our) intelligence.
OK, does anyone want to spar with me, point by point on this issue? I challenge "gadget_lover" to resume the debate! For those who are tired of getting into this issue again, you can always ignore me. There are endless topics to discuss in the lighting world at CPF, to keep each of you busy for a lifetime.......... Enjoy the ride!
Luxlover out........
Today, I had my first "hands-on" experience with any SureFire lights, at the store location of an internet reseller. All of the models I examined were beautifully constructed. I am impressed in a big way. Upon examining the "fresh out of a new box L1", I engaged the high beam in momentary-on mode with the end button, and then in locked-on mode with the twist of the tailcap. All internet posted and catalog printed sources rate this at 20 lumens. The L1 was about the same brightness as my ARC LSH-S light, which I had in my hand for this "A/B real time" comparison. This similarity showed me that the battery was new. The ARC is rated between 14 and 17 lumens. I very much like how both of the L1 switching mechanisms worked. So far, so good.
Then I engaged the low beam in the same manner. To my surprise, I was looking for the light to appear, and until I looked at the LED head on, I could not see anything, even when I shined it on my hand and shirt. Even though there were lights on, I should have seen "something." What a disappointment this was for me. When you guys say time and time again, that this is what you all have found, and that there is no way that the SureFire claim of 13 lumens is valid, it makes me wonder what SureFire's numbers game is all about. I would say that this low beam level is "almost unusable." This low output would explain their published 50 hours runtime, wouldn't it?
Now I am on the warpath again, and will re-question SureFire for an explanation on Monday. You guys have used figures of 1, 2, or 3 lumens as the low beam rating. My honest and final opinion, based on my own examination of this light, is that this discrepency is an example of persistent and dishonest advertising. The more that I call SureFire and get the same response from them with their 13 lumens figure, the more obsessed I become with making them re-evaluate a cross section of these lights in their QC department, and posting an amended specification for the low beam, "somewhere." And this can be done very easily on their website. According to the reps I have spoken to, their website is the only source of accurate and complete information, and that anything printed at any time is not in a finalized state and should not be used to make any buying decisions. It should be done on their website ASAP, for just this reason. I am not expecting them to republish any documents that have been released. They would not do this anyway. They have been more and more arrogant to their dealers, and I have heard many horror stories about how they promise shipments to them and then keep them hanging and wondering when the lights will be shipped. And the dealers in turn, keep their pre-order customers hanging as well.
Since I would not be interested in the L1, even if it had a 13 lumen low beam rating, and since I would like to own the soon to be released L2 with 15 low and 65 high outputs, I am very worried about whether either of those ratings are "exaggerated." And if they are, whether I discover it myself or from a number of you, I will resume my crusade with that light as well, and pressure SureFire to change their policies and ethics.
I know that my good buddy "gadget_lover" will get on my case about this, as he has in the past. But he has no grounds to defend SureFire on this issue. Let's get real, people. The human eye has the ability to distinguish the difference in light output between a 1 or 2 lumen source and a 13 lumen source. And I am very tired of hearing the argument about the bins, the lots, and the specialized picking of Luxeon LEDs. A company of SureFire's magnitude, can do better to tighten up the tolerances of their Luxeon LEDs' output levels? To expect the masses to accept 2 lumens actual, and imply that the Luxeon LEDs have variable outputs due to the imperfection of the intricate manufacturing process, is a continuing charade, and an insult to my (our) intelligence.
OK, does anyone want to spar with me, point by point on this issue? I challenge "gadget_lover" to resume the debate! For those who are tired of getting into this issue again, you can always ignore me. There are endless topics to discuss in the lighting world at CPF, to keep each of you busy for a lifetime.......... Enjoy the ride!
Luxlover out........
