What is the next big thig in LED technology?

[treebev5]

Hey all,

I like the promise of LED lighting a lot--particularly how efficient they are. However, after purchasing a number of LED products, I've found the quality of light to be somewhat underwhelming. One issue is the brightness, but I think the bigger issue is that the light comes from a number of different sources (the individual LED beads). Even with a diffuser plate, the lighting is sort of diffuse relative to, say, a halogen bulb.

I was wondering if someone who is more knowledgeable about LED technology can let me know if there are any options out now that address these concerns. Otherwise, what is the next big thing in LED technology? I was thinking brighter individual LED pieces, or perhaps if the light can somehow be polarized (although I have also heard that LED lighting is polarized by default anyway, though I don't understand how it can be, or at least if it's supplied by multiple LEDs).

Thanks.

 

[Olumin]

How is the brightness a problem? Are they too bright or lacking in brightness? The problem you describe was prevalent perhaps 15 years ago when multi 5mm LED lights were norm but LEDs have gotten a lot more efficient and brighter, nowadays there are countless high quality single Emitter LED lights available which offer good throw characteristics. Its true that LED setups will not match incandescent lamps with same overall output in terms of throw since the filament of bulbs is so much smaller then surface area of LED. But even so modern LED throw very well and usually have much highter total output then same size incan flashlight while maintaining constant brightness and good runtime. Single battery LED lights will often advertise thousands of lumen, but those are ANSI ratings and are usually only maintained for 30 seconds to a few minutes without active cooling before step-down. Up to 1000 lumen on a single cell can be maintained quite well with modern LEDs and high cap, high drain Li-ion batteries.

 

[fuyume]

None of my LED flashlights has more than one LED. As far as quality of light, this is more a marketing issue than a technology issue. Modern LEDs are capable of excellent color rendition, but because those LEDs tend to be less bright or perhaps less efficient than LEDs with inferior color rendition, guess which ones the manufacturers of flashlights use more often?

The Fenix PD36 TAC I just got will run over 10.5 hours at 350 lumens on a 21700 battery. It has a single LED that can produce up to 3000 lumens maximum. I've never before owned a flashlight with this much sustained brightness, and I find the light quality acceptable.

 

[3_gun]

Next big thing I'd like to see is run time catch up to lumens. A real 500 lumens for 10hrs in a general purpose sized light would be a good goal.

I doubt our LEDs are nearly as efficient as they are bright. Or if that's not the case less power loss as heat at the higher out puts. At least then peak out put could be more than a marketing point. ( Side note a better FL1 standard where run times are based on start up to a loss of 10% of brightness instead of only 10% of brightness left would be nice) Still that would likely lead to problems as a 4K/L light w a 5K/mah 21700 would eat batteries like candy.

Maybe the next big thing are better control boards. Either way we shouldn't overlook how good we have it right now

 

[Olumin]

Next big thing I'd like to see is run time catch up to lumens. A real 500 lumens for 10hrs in a general purpose sized light would be a good goal.

I doubt our LEDs are nearly as efficient as they are bright. Or if that's not the case less power loss as heat at the higher out puts. At least then peak out put could be more than a marketing point. ( Side note a better FL1 standard where run times are based on start up to a loss of 10% of brightness instead of only 10% of brightness left would be nice) Still that would likely lead to problems as a 4K/L light w a 5K/mah 21700 would eat batteries like candy.

Maybe the next big thing are better control boards. Either way we shouldn't overlook how good we have it right now

Reasonable ANSI standard would be to 70% total output after 1 hour. Drop to 70% is likely imperceivable to vast majority of users, less then that quickly becomes noticeable. 4k lumen cannot be maintained on single 21700 without active cooling for longer then few minutes. In this case more thermal mass and passive cooling fins will increase runtime but not by a lot. Modern lights can maintain over 1000 lumen quite effectively, there is rarely need for more brightness.

 

[idleprocess]

I've found the quality of light to be somewhat underwhelming.

High-CRI/color accuracy LEDs aren't especially difficult to source at the component level, however they're a bit more difficult to specify in end products. 90 CRI LED light bulbs in the A19 formfactor can be had - either on the shelf at hardware stores or from online retailers.

One issue is the brightness

Too much? Too little?

but I think the bigger issue is that the light comes from a number of different sources (the individual LED beads). Even with a diffuser plate, the lighting is sort of diffuse relative to, say, a halogen bulb.

Not sure what you mean. Multiple sources will indeed be more difficult to collimate than a single source, which is an issue for throw but hardly an issue for most other forms of lighting. A diffuser will, naturally, diffuse output.

I was wondering if someone who is more knowledgeable about LED technology can let me know if there are any options out now that address these concerns.

Short of a more specific description of the problem, seems like you're kind of stuck with the status quo.

Otherwise, what is the next big thing in LED technology?

Conventional white LED tech has made the really big efficiency leaps already - 200 lm/W LEDs are available at the component level today; 300 lm/W is about the maximum theoretical potential. There might be some effiicieny bumps along the way, but R&D efforts are likely to focus on thermal ruggedness to chip away at the need for heatsinks and other thermal management needs.

I expect things may get somewhat worse for the classic flashlight design - single light source + big reflector optimized for spot intensity. The focus for lighting LEDs has long been general-purpose illumination in the likes of light bulbs, florescent tube replacements, purpose-build LED lighting fixtures. These sources generally don't need maximum flux in as small an area as possible to ease collimation into a tight beam. Instead they just need to spit out light in a general direction for a continuous decade-plus as cost- and energy-efficiently as possible. As such we've seen the rise of mid- and low-power LEDs deployed in considerable quantity across an area for general-purpose lighting. When it comes to throw for fixtures, the COB LED generally suffices since the distances tend to be relatively short and reflectors can be somewhat arbitrarily large to approach a flashlight's reflector area : source area ratio. More specialized applications like automotive headlamps are seeing acceptable flux levels using available LEDs.

 

[idleprocess]

Next big thing I'd like to see is run time catch up to lumens. A real 500 lumens for 10hrs in a general purpose sized light would be a good goal.

Assuming a mere 30% loss of output from optics + other factors your 500 net lumens takes about 715 gross lumens. If your LED is 200 lm/W that's 3.575 watts; if it's a more realistic 150 lm/W that's 4.77 which we'll just call 4.8W. So for 10 hours you'll need 48Wh of energy. You're probably going to want parallel LEDs - 3x, 4x, 6x, etc - for efficiency.

A beer can-sized light (4x 18650) could possibly manage such a task loaded with 3.5Ah 18650s - good thermal mass and heatsinking area. If everyone's favorite aspiring Bond villain ever releases the 4680 cell chock-full-o internal folded tab goodness sporting something close to 18650 energy density to the masses, you could have single cell a bit chunkier than a D cell weighing in at around 25Ah (90Wh) that could provide nearly 19hours of 500 lumens - assuming the thermals are good for ~4.8W of continuous power dissipation.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

Reasonable ANSI standard would be to 70% total output after 1 hour. Drop to 70% is likely imperceivable to vast majority of users, less then that quickly becomes noticeable. 4k lumen cannot be maintained on single 21700 without active cooling for longer then few minutes. In this case more thermal mass and passive cooling fins will increase runtime but not by a lot. Modern lights can maintain over 1000 lumen quite effectively, there is rarely need for more brightness.

What not ignore the single number standard which is only possibly your use scenario and just include the graph on the packaging/marketing material. Problem solved.

Incremental improvements in LED output now mainly at higher currently densities. 250lm/watt at the LED at reasonable current is already here. Would be nice to get 250 lm/watt with a small LED at somewhat high current .... which brings us too ...

Surface brightness. Would be nice to have LEP surface brightness without the Laser. I don't see that happening with current LED tech as the phosphor would cook, hence why they put the phosphor on aluminum directly for automotive headlights.

Beyond that, it's mainly battery technology. More energy, less weight.

From a practical standpoint, my Armytek Wizard Pro is just the right flashlight I need 90% of the time. It if had the option of flood, spot, and something in between that number would be 99% or more. Most of the time, flood is exactly what I want. A medium beam would be nice when it is foggy or lots of crap in the air. Sometimes too much back reflection from stuff in the air. The spot for long distance. In terms of size, total lumens, and practical battery life, it is just the right combination. Super power lights are mainly toys. They are cool, but the size and weight is impractical most of the time. I can carry spare batteries if I need longer run time.

 

[Lynx_Arc]

I think what is on the horizon is increasing affordable efficiency. Instead of lumens/watt overall it would be nice to have a ratio of lumens/watt/dollar in lights as a lot of LED lights are in the 100-120 lumens/watt range some of the more expensive ones are 140-150 lumens/watt and the jump for 20-40% more efficiency in price is substantial and the higer efficient ones are rather limited on the market. Once you get up to 100 lumens/watt unless you have a 10K or higher lumen light setup the savings over time may not be that huge and the difference in light output it may be just as much savings to go with a slightly lower output cheaper less efficient light. If you could figure out how to make better heatsinking technology and some sort of way to capture the excess heat and turn it back into power like a thermocouple the main limit is availability of large efficient LEDs at affordable prices. People that have T8 and T5 flourescent lights aren't overly thrilled to upgrade to LEDs that aren't much more efficient in power but if they could make conversion 50% to even 100% more efficient by having cheap 200 lumens/watt chip LEDs while current ones are about 80-120 lumens/watt being used. It is the low end of the market that needs to rise up.

 

[Nocturrne]

Our fancy flashlights are still using ancient LED technology. There are some new things coming that might make their way into flashlights eventually.

• Micro LEDs, extremely tiny form factor
• Multi-color "tuned" LEDs, some capable of full spectrum and no phosphor
• OLED getting cheaper

In general, I am most excited about nanotech advances that might give us LEDs with extremely high efficiency and using no phosphor, as heat is the biggest problem I have right now. Having extremely powerful flashlights that do not throttle and overheat after a few seconds would be a game changer.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

People that have T8 and T5 flourescent lights aren't overly thrilled to upgrade to LEDs that aren't much more efficient in power but if they could make conversion 50% to even 100% more efficient by having cheap 200 lumens/watt chip LEDs while current ones are about 80-120 lumens/watt being used. It is the low end of the market that needs to rise up.

This is totally wrong. The LED tubes are using LEDs, at the current they are used, in the 140-150 lumen/watt range at the low end and 180-200+ lumens/watt at the mid-high end. At 140 lumens/watt, the overall tube is about 105 lumens/watt. This is really the bottom bottom end of the market now. At the mid-high end, tubes are sitting at 140-150 lumens/watt. Keep in mind this includes electrical losses. Modern high efficiency T8 is 90-95/watt including ballast, so already lower than cheap LED tubes. Higher end tubes are quite a bit ahead.

Because the LED tube shines directly down,you tend to get another 5% efficiency boost in fixture as well on average.

170-200 lumens per watt at used current is not overly esoteric or expensive either for general lighting LEDs. That is standard fair for the major lighting vendors. Lots of LEDs used at a low current per LED. The LEDs are dirt cheap. LED tubes, including electrical and optical losses are readily available at > 150 lumens/watt as well.

 

[idleprocess]

People that have T8 and T5 flourescent lights aren't overly thrilled to upgrade to LEDs that aren't much more efficient in power but if they could make conversion 50% to even 100% more efficient by having cheap 200 lumens/watt chip LEDs while current ones are about 80-120 lumens/watt being used. It is the low end of the market that needs to rise up.

Retrofitting linear floro fixtures with LED doesn't have to be particularly difficult or expensive and has reasonably quick ROI: efficiency for LED tubes will be about double T8s and the lifespan should be at least treble. I installed numerous cheap T8 retrofits about 5 years ago in a facility where they're mostly running 24/7 and I believe that they're all still going strong.

The three routes I'm aware of for the ubiquitous 48" T8 ceiling-mounted fixture:

1. Ballast-driven retrofit tubes: Drop-in tubes that operate on the same electronic ballast that drives floro tubes
   Upside(s): Drop-in replacement as simple as re-lamping that anyone can do
   Downside(s): Ballast compatibility can be pot luck, ballast will still need occasional replacement, tubes are more expensive than line-driven variety by a degree
2. Line-driven retrofit tubes: Drop-in tubes that operate on line power
   Upside(s): Cheapest option, nearly drop-in replacement
   Downside(s): Sockets generally need to be replaced with non-shunted variety, re-wiring of fixture innards needed to connect sockets to line power, technically requires the service of an electrician due to common lease / insurance clauses for commercial users
3. Purpose-built retrofit kits: Drop-in fixture inserts that replace all but the shell of the fixture
   Upside(s): Best performance, longest lifespan
   Downside(s): Most expensive (by about an order of magnitude), cost/labor savings are slight relative to simply replacing the fixture outright, technically requires the service of an electrician due to common lease / insurance clauses for commercial users

Having personally performed >100x scenario (2), I can state with confidence that the re-wiring is well within the capabilities of a DIY'er using common hand tools and a wire stripper for convenience - it's about as involved as replacing a light switch or power outlet.

An annoying trend in the retrofit LED tube market is packaging them in the same glass envelope as floro tubes. It's cheaper than using an aluminum section on the backside, yes, but also strikes me as troublesome regarding heat extraction and optical efficiency.

 

[Lynx_Arc]

This is totally wrong. The LED tubes are using LEDs, at the current they are used, in the 140-150 lumen/watt range at the low end and 180-200+ lumens/watt at the mid-high end. At 140 lumens/watt, the overall tube is about 105 lumens/watt. This is really the bottom bottom end of the market now. At the mid-high end, tubes are sitting at 140-150 lumens/watt. Keep in mind this includes electrical losses. Modern high efficiency T8 is 90-95/watt including ballast, so already lower than cheap LED tubes. Higher end tubes are quite a bit ahead.

Because the LED tube shines directly down,you tend to get another 5% efficiency boost in fixture as well on average.

170-200 lumens per watt at used current is not overly esoteric or expensive either for general lighting LEDs. That is standard fair for the major lighting vendors. Lots of LEDs used at a low current per LED. The LEDs are dirt cheap. LED tubes, including electrical and optical losses are readily available at > 150 lumens/watt as well.

For practical purposes I've not seen the 140 lumens/watt tubes on the local market at all, in fact I just looked at a philips LED tube price at a local store that is 1800 lumens 16 watt or about 110 lumens/watt nothing spectacular to upgrade to if you are getting 90 lumens/watt IMO so unless you are running the fixture a lot which I'm not for my purposes I am in my shop about 5 hours a week or so I would likely not even save a dollar in a year on power switching and that would mean spending about $20 for 2 tubes taking 10-20 years to pay off... half that if you have to replace the flourescent tubes which cost about half that of LEDs. I just found a 180 lumen/watt tube and at $60 each buying a case plus $10 or so shipping I don't think the average person would bother maybe a business would be more apt to that runs lights 16 hours a day or more.

 

[Lynx_Arc]

Retrofitting linear floro fixtures with LED doesn't have to be particularly difficult or expensive and has reasonably quick ROI: efficiency for LED tubes will be about double T8s and the lifespan should be at least treble. I installed numerous cheap T8 retrofits about 5 years ago in a facility where they're mostly running 24/7 and I believe that they're all still going strong.

The three routes I'm aware of for the ubiquitous 48" T8 ceiling-mounted fixture:

1. Ballast-driven retrofit tubes: Drop-in tubes that operate on the same electronic ballast that drives floro tubes
   Upside(s): Drop-in replacement as simple as re-lamping that anyone can do
   Downside(s): Ballast compatibility can be pot luck, ballast will still need occasional replacement, tubes are more expensive than line-driven variety by a degree
2. Line-driven retrofit tubes: Drop-in tubes that operate on line power
   Upside(s): Cheapest option, nearly drop-in replacement
   Downside(s): Sockets generally need to be replaced with non-shunted variety, re-wiring of fixture innards needed to connect sockets to line power, technically requires the service of an electrician due to common lease / insurance clauses for commercial users
3. Purpose-built retrofit kits: Drop-in fixture inserts that replace all but the shell of the fixture
   Upside(s): Best performance, longest lifespan
   Downside(s): Most expensive (by about an order of magnitude), cost/labor savings are slight relative to simply replacing the fixture outright, technically requires the service of an electrician due to common lease / insurance clauses for commercial users

Having personally performed >100x scenario (2), I can state with confidence that the re-wiring is well within the capabilities of a DIY'er using common hand tools and a wire stripper for convenience - it's about as involved as replacing a light switch or power outlet.

An annoying trend in the retrofit LED tube market is packaging them in the same glass envelope as floro tubes. It's cheaper than using an aluminum section on the backside, yes, but also strikes me as troublesome regarding heat extraction and optical efficiency.

Yeah I've looked into retrofitting tubes and since likely I would only be doing a few shop lights I would be buying the tubes locally and have to do a lot of shopping and homework to see which offerings would require what work as some require a ballast, others can be either way and some require direct power. Replacing the sockets can be a pain as in sourcing the right ones could be a task and with some cost as I've found that replacement parts often are cheap but retrofit parts they try and mark them up big time. I actually have a broken LED tube that one end is sawed off totally that I tried to fix I got from a dumpster looking for boxes it is all aluminum likely had a plastic or glass tube surrounding it at one time maybe. I couldn't figure out why it wouldn't work as I've never seen how the tubes are wired up and maybe the transformer/ballast was bad too the components on it were sealed in epoxy so I couldn't tell what it was either.
I am well able to do wiring and have replaced ballasts before and wired in new fixtures also.
But considering all of this I agree that one needs to consider replacing fixtures with new LED native ones sometimes.
I am wondering however if the tube type setup has another advantage even though the cost may be higher upgrading it in the future may be easier. My issue however is these long tubes may not be as heat sinking efficient as native fixtures thus may actually limit efficiency for cost effective expense in construction.
What irritates me is no genius has stepped up to design a platform for LED lighting that can replace screw in bulbs. A format that can incorporate heat sinking and power supply connection and socket/connectors for LED modules. Imagine a lamp that you like that you can swap in a larger power supply, and a different LED module with better heatsinking even perhaps mood lighting and dimming and keep the same lamp. 10 years when the power supply or LED goes out for some reason (bad power, circuit failure, etc) you can swap in a new more efficient one of the color of your choosing. Screw in bulbs need to go away IMO.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

1800 lumens 16 watt is old stock at this point from Philips. That's 112.5 or comparatively close to 120 I fixture versus 90 with good tubes and a good ballast.

You may be looking at instafit which works with standard ballast two power supplies in series essentially. They are a waste. Their worst mains connected is 2000 lumens 15.5W or 130lpw. Their better ones are 2500 lumens 16.9w or 148 lpw. That's just their standard contractor offering.

 

[Lynx_Arc]

1800 lumens 16 watt is old stock at this point from Philips. That's 112.5 or comparatively close to 120 I fixture versus 90 with good tubes and a good ballast.

You may be looking at instafit which works with standard ballast two power supplies in series essentially. They are a waste. Their worst mains connected is 2000 lumens 15.5W or 130lpw. Their better ones are 2500 lumens 16.9w or 148 lpw. That's just their standard contractor offering.

I'm not finding these offerings online with any local store offerings here or online which to me means that likely they are going to cost a lot more than the the 1800 lumen ones that are available here. Until these better tubes are mainstream they aren't going to have much of a bearing on things just like LEDs that are 300 lumens/watt aren't available either to buy mostly we see 150 to 200 lumens/watt LEDs in stuff we can purchase.

 

[idleprocess]

I am wondering however if the tube type setup has another advantage even though the cost may be higher upgrading it in the future may be easier. My issue however is these long tubes may not be as heat sinking efficient as native fixtures thus may actually limit efficiency for cost effective expense in construction.

Local makerspace has installed hundreds of cheap 48" LED mains-driven tubes in recessed ceiling fixtures with diffusers and over almost 6 years I'm not aware of any failing yet. There's labor involved in the process beyond a simple relamp cycle for sure, but that's a one-time cost and they're no longer dealing with the scourge of random lights being out all the time. As stupidly durable as the humble 2x4 utilitarian troffer fixture is, I expect retrofit tubes to be a viable option for decades to come.

I upgraded the kitchen fixtures years ago and should do the same in my garage where the tubes have a nasty tendency to go out at random - likely due to the routine temperature fluctuations.

What irritates me is no genius has stepped up to design a platform for LED lighting that can replace screw in bulbs. A format that can incorporate heat sinking and power supply connection and socket/connectors for LED modules. Imagine a lamp that you like that you can swap in a larger power supply, and a different LED module with better heatsinking even perhaps mood lighting and dimming and keep the same lamp. 10 years when the power supply or LED goes out for some reason (bad power, circuit failure, etc) you can swap in a new more efficient one of the color of your choosing. Screw in bulbs need to go away IMO.

The Zhaga Standard has been trying to encourage the production of serviceable LED fixtures, but I'm not sure how much traction they've gotten out in the marketplace.

 

[Lynx_Arc]

Local makerspace has installed hundreds of cheap 48" LED mains-driven tubes in recessed ceiling fixtures with diffusers and over almost 6 years I'm not aware of any failing yet. There's labor involved in the process beyond a simple relamp cycle for sure, but that's a one-time cost and they're no longer dealing with the scourge of random lights being out all the time. As stupidly durable as the humble 2x4 utilitarian troffer fixture is, I expect retrofit tubes to be a viable option for decades to come.

I upgraded the kitchen fixtures years ago and should do the same in my garage where the tubes have a nasty tendency to go out at random - likely due to the routine temperature fluctuations.


The Zhaga Standard has been trying to encourage the production of serviceable LED fixtures, but I'm not sure how much traction they've gotten out in the marketplace.

I am seeing several stores that are swapping out flourescent tubes for LED ones as mostly the maintenance cost likely
is the reason for it as it probably costs more in the long run to replace tubes and also temporarily makes a mess of traffic in the stores. I just got back from home depot and although I didn't do a thorough look at things it appears the difference in price of flouro tubes vs LED tubes is almost zero now. I'm not sure if there is some tax on the flouro tubes or pressure to sell them at higher prices that the LED ones now though. I think I saw 120v LED tubes there and ballast models but not going to say I'm 100% sure. The one thing that I noticed is I didn't see any 2700K LED tubes in stock they had 4000, 5000, and 6500k tubes. I really didn't spend a lot of time looking though as they had merchandise in the main aisle and I'm sort of tall and couldn't see the price tags very well without squatting down there as I couldn't back up enough to get the right angle. It irritates me that stores want you to put distance between you and others but pack the wide aisles to funnel people right into each other so they can sell more stuff. I don't like it even before C19 as an aisle wide enough for 3-4 shopping carts has a display in the middle and people on both sides stopped with a cart looking at the stuff blocking everyone from moving.

 

[Dave_H]

Having done some modest experimenting with fluorescent fixtures and "retrofit" T8 4-ft. LED tubes I concur it is hit-and-miss. First case, instant-start electronic ballast, none of several brands of LED tubes worked, including Philips; but neither fixture nor tubes were defective, everything brand-new. Makes you wonder how retailers are faring with customer returns which "don't work".

Bothersome trend in my view is fixtures with non-replacable tubes/LEDs. If/when it goes (or even part) the whole thing apparently gets taken down and tossed. Not sure if we should trust their lifetime estimates? I did buy a single-tube equivalent which is scarcely larger than the tube itself (oversized end caps) which is the the least of the evils.

As for LED raw efficacies, according to what I've read, limit could end up closer to 250 lumens/W than 300 or higher. In that case we may be approaching this as a recent Samsung LM301B is spec'ed around 220 lumens/W albeit at low power (0.2W) and CRI (70).

Dave

 

[idleprocess]

I'm not finding these offerings online with any local store offerings here or online which to me means that likely they are going to cost a lot more than the the 1800 lumen ones that are available here.

A few years ago when I last really looked into the category, it was impossible to find mains-powered LED tubes at big box home centers.

Hyperikon was a reliable source on the 'zon, but it seems they shut their doors in June 2020. I gather that Satco is a reputable make - they don't sell direct so scouring their site for candidate part numbers to hit up online retailers with is recommended. Note that a great many of their products require ballasts or external drivers so read descriptions carefully. Efficiencies are better than floro, but not mind-blowing - the main benefit is the considerable lifespan increase and the removal of a ballast from the system.

Having done some modest experimenting with fluorescent fixtures and "retrofit" T8 4-ft. LED tubes I concur it is hit-and-miss. First case, instant-start electronic ballast, none of several brands of LED tubes worked, including Philips; but neither fixture nor tubes were defective, everything brand-new. Makes you wonder how retailers are faring with customer returns which "don't work".

I gather that there are several distinct topologies of electronic ballast and making a LED tube that's nominally compatible with more than one is ... difficult.

Bothersome trend in my view is fixtures with non-replacable tubes/LEDs. If/when it goes (or even part) the whole thing apparently gets taken down and tossed. Not sure if we should trust their lifetime estimates? I did buy a single-tube equivalent which is scarcely larger than the tube itself (oversized end caps) which is the the least of the evils.

If the thing lasts a good 10 years in service, that's arguably a step up on the annual relamp cycle that floros typically demand for 24x7 operation typical in commercial/industrial settings. However such extravagances are seemingly limited to retail and upper-tier office spaces - elsewhere more utilitarian linear fixtures will likely be retrofit continuously until no longer economically feasible or their host building is gutted or demolished.