Surefire LED ratings

Candle Power Forums

Help Support Candle Power:

N

N710

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
63
City & State/Province
Utah, USA
Help me please,I am confused.
I just picked up a 2004 surefire catalog and in one area it lists the L4,L5,L6 and L7 heads as putting out 100 lumens and in another part of the catalog it lists them all as putting out 65 lumens.

Is this just a typo or have they increased the performance of these heads?
 
The L4, L5, L6 and L7 ouput 65 Lumens. The new U2 will output 100 Lumens at max output. It must be a typo in the catalog.

James
 
If they all use the same 5W Luxeon why are they not rated the same? Will the U2 use a different LED?
 
No, as the catalog says, the L4, L5, L6 & L7 AND the U2 use the 5W Luxeon LED.

Why not read the reviews of the L4, L5 and L6 - Sean's reviews with beamshots for example... If you can't audition these before you buy, why not read the reviews to get different user or viewer perspectives on what they are like?

Al
 
I don't think that the catalog is very accurate. For example, it lists a runtime of 90 minutes for both the L5 and the L6 with a brightness of 65 lumens. One might wonder what the 3rd battery is for in the L6? Of course, we all know that the L6 has a much longer runtime than the L5.

As Al said, the lights all use the 5W LS, but they might use different bins. Since Surefire claims 65 lumens for L4/L5/L6 and 100 lumens for the U2, I guess the U2 comes with a better bin LS. That would also explain the steep price.

BTW: The catalog repeatedly claims that the U2 is the first variable power LED on the market. They seem to ignore the ARC4 and forget their own L1.
 
[ QUOTE ]
No, as the catalog says, the L4, L5, L6 & L7 AND the U2 use the 5W Luxeon LED.

Why not read the reviews of the L4, L5 and L6 - Sean's reviews with beamshots for example... If you can't audition these before you buy, why not read the reviews to get different user or viewer perspectives on what they are like?

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a L4. I have read these reviews, and unless I am missing something, I do not see why they are all rated the same. The U2 uses the same LED as these lights yet is pushed to 100 lumens. I am assuming that the variable control allows the light to do this without putting the runtime at 20-30 minutes(?). It would be difficult for Surefire to market an L5 at 100 lumens and 20-30 minute runtime (I am guessing at these figures for a 100 lumen runtime). I suppose I am primarily curious as to why the L6 is not pushed to 100 lumens for an hour of runtime? As the L6 resembles the M3, which is a combat light, why not push the output instead of the runtime? As the U2 demonstrates, the Luxeon 5W can put out more than 65 lumens. So why not take advantage of this in the 3 battery models?
 
I think it's a safe statement that neither the SF catalog or Website is ever current, up to date or even accurate in some cases. I for one am glad that more effort and concern is spent on the actual product rather than the print but eroneous and incorrect information puts all parties at a disadvantage and it would be nice if those responsible at SF could get their act together on this issue!

I would like to suggest my "guess" at the descrepency in luminous outputs on the 5W's.

Fact: SF has their own integrating sphere and does in house testing as well as contracted testing from outside.

Conjecture: SF measures a sampling of units to get what they consider to be a reasonable base.

Fact: Testing is time consuming and not trivial in expense

Conjecture: The L4,L5 and L6 have been in existance for over a year at the prototype levels and testing for luminous output was likely done with Luxeons that are not up to today's standards or outputs.

Conjecture: The U2 is a much newer light and as Lara has suggested, probably contains Luxeons of higher flux than those which were tested originally in the L4-L6 lights.

Conjecture based somewhat on fact: SF is a big "player" in the Luxeon market and they do get good bin LED's. There are hundreds if not thousands of KL1's and or L1's in population with R rank 1W's. (I saw some of the reels)When it comes to 5W LED's, I think SF is also getting the cream of the crop. I suspect that if SF were to re test a sampling of L4-L6 lights today that the rating claim would be higher than published.

Finally, as to the claim of the U2 being the first variable power LED on the market, I think at the time of writing, the
Arc4 was not yet available. I do know that working samples of the U2 predate working samples of the Arc4. Obviously, first on the market is incorrect. I assume that variable implies more than two levels.
 
At the SHOT Show I spoke with Cameron (SureFire VP; Comms) about the difference between the 65 Lumen rating we are used to and the 100 Lumen rating in the 2004 Catalog and I understand that SureFire will be addressing this.

My personal opinion is that the 2004 Catalog is being taken far too seriously. Obviously it's something to judge SureFire by but I would expect CPF members to know enough about SureFire by now to understand them a bit better.
If CPF is not careful, the 2005 Catalog will only have glossy photos and no text. Actually, that's a good idea. CPF Keep this up!!

Al /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
 
Who needs facts? Isn't the Surefire catalog more about the pictures than about the editorial content? Similar to certain magazines that are kept behind the counter?/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif It's more about conveying ambience like car commercials or rolex watch ads.
At least the Surefire product in the hand is (thank goodness)a victory of good quality and design over their rather over-produced consumer propaganda.
 
I just called Surefire and was told that the U2 will use a DIFFERENT LED than the L4,L5 and L6.
 
Even if they all did use a 5w, they don't all have to be drive at 100%. My guess is they are under powering them for a specific reason, maybe to increase runtime, or maybe to reduce heat issues running all out for 60 min, maybe to increase efficiency?
 
My L6 (rated 65 lumens) is way brighter than my SL TL3 LED (rated at 90 lumens).

It also seems way brighter than my L4, although it's a little hard to compare the two SFs in lumens because the L4 is a flood and the L6 is a thrower.

I think the L6 is brighter than people think from looking at the ratings and reviews.
 
soverign,

That's an interesting piece of information! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top