Why does Fenix lie about their lumen ratings and why are they able to?

[Nitroz]

Alot of people try and compare the p1d ce to a much larger flashlight with the same lumens and a much larger reflector. If you compare the p1d ce to it's competition, it will be brighter with all things being equal.

Another thing is, the textured reflector will spread the lumens over a greater area which will make the p1d ce look dimmer at the hotspot when compared to a smooth reflectored light. I placed a smooth IMS20 in my QIII(Cree) and the difference is huge in throw when compared to a textured reflector.

Here's some pictures of the q3 textured vs. smooth.
Stock reflector vs IMS20 -2 step

 

[Somy Nex]

this thread should really be renamed to "why do flashlight manufacturers lie about their lumen ratings", or "why is there no standard way of measuring flashlight output".

i don't see anyone putting forth any manufacturer that accurately states their output and runtimes. (and no, surefire does not, they understate it--take the A2 for example. and HDS might calibrate to output, but their claim of 20 mins on high is... flawed shall we say). A lot of SF fans will use SF's understating figures to defend them. but are you asking for accuracy or a warm fuzzy feeling from understated specs?

I also don't see anyone coming up with a clear cut definition/methodology of measuring runtime output. how do you take into consideration different beam types? flood? throw? etc.

i see no reason why fenix should be singled out. it implies they are the only ones doing something dishonest (lie) while others are not. in fact, though not the best, they are certainly not the worst either.

if some of these were addressed, maybe then this thread, despite the very useful discussion within, would have more overall worth in my eyes.

 

[Dark Mower]

Fenix promotes hopeful lumens. Pushing a light in the limelight fortunately shows its flaws too. The OP wanted specifics on the Fenix- not watered down opinions of other lights. I'm sure others would be welcome to start their own thread on why (pick your target) light doesn't give honest lumens. This is a very good thread and an example of a company that prefers optimistic numbers. It is to their benefit. The public can easily be swayed and spin doctors exist. Fenix wants you to think their lights are better and cheaper then Surefire.

 

[joema]

...I also don't see anyone coming up with a clear cut definition/methodology of measuring runtime output...i see no reason why fenix should be singled out....if some of these were addressed, maybe then this thread, despite the very useful discussion within, would have more overall worth in my eyes.

One reason why there's been no suggestions is many people aren't aware of the factors explained in the previous posts, which is why this thread has educational value.

You're right Fenix is no worse than many, also that Surefire isn't more accurate, they simply de-rate their numbers. We know from much experience, that various examples of a given Surefire light can have large variations in output due to manufacturing variation.

Once you understand the issues (which this thread will hopefully help with), it's actually not hard to suggest an improved lumen definition for consumer flashlight use, or an improved lumen testing methodology. What's hard is devising one that's practical and not burdensome for all manufacturers, and one that achieves adherence in a global market.

E.g, you could just say "all mfg should have an integrating sphere and test every light" according to xyz procedure. Assuming you could even mandate that in a global market, that degree of regulatory intervention would stifle many mfgs. Also what body would enforce that, investigate violations, make rulings, etc?

One possibility is for ANSI, ESO or some other standards body to produce a definition for flashlight lumen ratings and a test methodology, which manufacturers could voluntarily use. To solve the "my light doesn't produce that output" problem, the standard would also have to define allowable manufacturing variation, or what methods are used to ensure manufacturing uniformity.

That way the mfgs that can afford it would follow the standard and get to use the "ESO lumen" nomenclature, the others would continue using the current ad-hoc lumens. Some means of compliance enforcement would still be needed.

It's more complicated than first appears, which is why this thread is good, as it spurs thinking about such things.

 

[Turbo DV8]

I don't think Fenix inflates their ratings any more than most. I just take all of them with a grain of salt.

This is exactly why we'll miss Doug and his flashlightreviews.com. All lights going through his hands were being tested for output under the exact same conditions and using the same equipment. Individual reviews of lights people post here will never be as consistent for comparison purposes. R.I.P.

 

[BentHeadTX]

Maybe manufacturers can add more information to the packaging. I was thinking along the lines of this

LED Bin Cree XRE P4WC
Current driven: 500mA
Lumens at LED 114 +/- 10%

Then they can put a disclaimer: Note Actual lumens emitted from any flashlight depends on many factors such as reflector, optic and lens losses. Light loss from reflector/lens for this light is approx. 29%.

At least it would be truthful advertising. Most people would not understand the specs exactly but it would be a start.

 

[Long John]

Maybe manufacturers can add more information to the packaging. I was thinking along the lines of this

LED Bin Cree XRE P4WC
Current driven: 500mA
Lumens at LED 114 +/- 10%

Then they can put a disclaimer: Note Actual lumens emitted from any flashlight depends on many factors such as reflector, optic and lens losses. Light loss from reflector/lens for this light is approx. 29%.

At least it would be truthful advertising. Most people would not understand the specs exactly but it would be a start.

Same thoughts BentHead:thumbsup:.

This would not only be a start, this would be the best.

Best regards

_____
Tom

 

[Illum]

If you think Fenix's ratings are off the wall... why don't you check out Inova's and Maglite's claims?

+1

dunno about maglite, but inova / streamlight, etc overestimates the lumenious intensity.
believe it or not, Surefire lies too, only they UNDERestimate the lumen output

 

[wojtek_pl]

Actually, the numbers given by Fenix, both runtime and brightness, are close to reality. And definitely these numbers are much more closer than other manufacturers claim. Especially about runtimes. They could say, that flashlight gives 100 hours of light. Well, probably it will, but at the end it would be barely visible (but still shining, so the statement technically IS true). Instead they provide runtime to 50% brightness and their number is quite close to our tests. Perhaps they have better batteries to test with ?
So I wouldn't say that they lie. Maybe exaggerate a little...

 

[PANZERWOLF]

no big deal for me
i always take manufacturer specs with a grain of salt, with few known exceptions (like surefire for example)
it would be much easier to point out companies, who don't lie about their ratings ...

and btw, although i can only visually compare, i think fenix ratings are quite good in comparison