Zebralight quality??

[cave dave]

In the world of Watches a "water resistant to 30m" label basically means its splashproof and good for rain. It should not be used for surface swiming, or in the shower.

So if ZL claims one meter? It will probably be fine in the rain but I wouldn't dunk it.

I will also say no Petzl light I've seen is waterproof, most don't even have seals. 4 out of 4 PT apex units I had took on a bit of water in dunk tests. I have yet to have anything fail in use from water. I no longer do dunk tests, I'll just deal with the warranty when they fail in use, not deliberate abuse.

Here are some basic guidelines:

Any watch with a rating of less than 50 meters should not be immersed in water. These watches offer adequate protection for splashing but aren't meant for underwater wear.

Swimming (minimal currents) - A minimum rating of 50 meters

Snorkeling / Open Water Swimming - A minimum rating of 100 meters

SCUBA - A minimum rating of 200 meters

 

[De-Lux]

Real flashaholics know quality immediately. Pretend flashaholics just whine about poop and eventually go live in trollhattan.

There is nothing wrong with having high standards. A product can always be improved upon no matter how good it is.

"[SIZE=-1]Complacency is the enemy of study." [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]-MAO ZEDONG
[/SIZE]

​

[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

​

 

[Marduke]

So, how is life in trollhattan?

Fine if you want to chat about anything but flashlights.

Why don't you go find out for yourself. 😗

 

[wapkil]

For the record, Zebralight is NOT certified to be operated submerged. I don't know why everyone seems to think it is.

In the descriptions of the H30, H60 and H501 the ZL web site states: "Waterproof, Meets IP68 in accordance with IEC 60529, Dust-tight, Protected against continuous immersion (1 meter, >30 minutes)".

I believe it should mean what it says - that these lights will operate correctly when submerged.


The reports about problems with zebras water resistance made me persuade my H501 to wear a derby hat:

I removed the small rubber cap and replaced it with a larger one glued to the head. It shouldn't be possible now for the water to flow through the top of the head. Taking out the original rubber also made the mode switching harder so it shouldn't happen accidentally. This modification is irreversible but I think that if someone is worried about the H501 waterproofness it may be worth considering. The magnets in the "backpack" and glued to the bottom end cap are there to help defend gravity:

 

[Marduke]

In the descriptions of the H30, H60 and H501 the ZL web site states: "Waterproof, Meets IP68 in accordance with IEC 60529, Dust-tight, Protected against continuous immersion (1 meter, >30 minutes)".

I believe it should mean what it says - that these lights will operate correctly when submerged.

No, it doesn't. IP68 is a STATIC standard. This mean NO MOVEMENT. IP69M would mean it could be operated at that the given spec.

IP68 is essentially splash/dust proof, NOT necessarily submerged.

 

[wapkil]

No, it doesn't. IP68 is a STATIC standard. This mean NO MOVEMENT. IP69M would mean it could be operated at that the given spec.

IP68 is essentially splash/dust proof, NOT necessarily submerged.

Unfortunately I don't have access to the IEC 60529 standard (I think would have to pay for it). I understood that static means that the lights shouldn't be moved, clicked or switched after the test starts. People writing here about problems with their zebras underwater didn't do it. They only placed a turned on light in the water and it was enough to cause problems. I don't know whether this is correct but Wikipedia explains 8 in IP68 as:

"The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. NOTE: Normally, this will mean that the equipment is hermetically sealed. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that produces no harmful effects."

If accurate, it doesn't sound as splash proof (which, according to Wikipedia, is level 4).

 

[Marduke]

Unfortunately I don't have access to the IEC 60529 standard (I think would have to pay for it). I understood that static means that the lights shouldn't be moved, clicked or switched after the test starts. People writing here about problems with their zebras underwater didn't do it. They only placed a turned on light in the water and it was enough to cause problems. I don't know whether this is correct but Wikipedia explains 8 in IP68 as:

"The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. NOTE: Normally, this will mean that the equipment is hermetically sealed. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that produces no harmful effects."

If accurate, it doesn't sound as splash proof (which, according to Wikipedia, is level 4).

Static conditions are very different than dynamic. All of the cases I've seen thus far are in some way dynamic...

 

[kwieto]

Hmmm, I put my H50 in the glass of water and took it out after c.a. 30 minutes.
It it wasn't "static", then can you explain what means "static" for you?

IP norm describes both waterproofness and dustproofness.
Meeting IP68 standard mean that item is completely dust and waterproof.
Fist number (here: "6") describes dustproofness, second (here: "8") waterproofness.

Below you have description of all levels:

Dustproffness:

0 - not protected (sometimes: "x")
1 - Protected against solid objects greater than 50 mm³
2 - Protected against solid objects greater than 12.5mm³
3 - Protected against solid objects greater than 2.5mm³
4 - Protected against solid objects greater than 1mm³
5 - Protected against dust - limited ingress (no harmful deposits)
6 - Totally protected against dust

Waterproofness:

0 - Non-protected
1 - Protected against vertically falling drops
2 - Protected against direct sprays of water up to 15 degrees from vertical
3 - Protected against direct sprays of water up to 60 degrees from vertical
4 - Protected against water sprayed from all directions, limited ingress permitted
5 - Protected against low-pressure jets of water from all directions, limited ingress permitted
6 - Protect against strong jets of water from all directions, limited ingress permitted
7 - Protected against the effect of "temporary" immersion between 15cm and 1m
8 - Protected against long periods of immersion under pressure [usually 1m for 30 minutes]
9K - protected against high pressure, high temperature jets of water from multiple directions (according to DIN 40050-9)

As you see, IP68 norm mean that item should be completely dustproof and waterproof for certain time and under certain pressure.
The pressure in a glass of water (10cm under water) is far, far below that which you have 1m under water.

I know that you like your Zebra.
But please, don't tell "fairy tales" that it meets IP 68 standard when it is too many reports that it is not.
You can do your own tests, but don't blame me if it will stop working.


Just for fun - how waterproof things are tested by users:

IP68 Otterbox:

And some IPx8 GPS unit:

Should I mention that none leaks were reported for tested items?

And nice IP68 test video (according to your "mobility" doubts):
http://pocketcctv.com/IP68Video.html

At last, to be clear: I am not saying, that lack of waterproofness is something wrong. I just like to know that, then I can take proper care about it.
My "accusation" to Zebralight is that they are declaring certain level of waterproofness, which they don't meet.
If I didn't make test by myself (and before that, read about some issues) I would put this light to the river or lake being sure that it will survive that - like all my other IPx8/IP68 proof items do.

[UPDATE:]
I never meet "IP68M" norm, so I did a little research. It seems that there is no IP 68M standard, or it is not described as a regular norm. Or is really new and there is no definition of that standard over all internet (or is not in english :"P).

Can you post some link to the definition of that norm?
Here are links to abstract from IP standards definitions, including the "9K" extension:
http://www.stegmann.com/comm/Protection.pdf
http://www.kenplas.com/topic/ipcode.aspx

No word about "8M" standard...
Maybe it is some kind of "sub-norm" given by some producers by themselves? According to info from CPF, "M" should mean "it will keep that condition even actuating on its moving parts. i.e. switching it on-off". In cases which I've found (or during my own tests), lights were turned on, and submerged afterwards - no operation with a switch or cap (there are no other "moving parts") was done underwater.
According to above definition of this mysterious "M" standard, all issues should be described as "static".

 

[wapkil]

The main problem with all those IPX8 Ingress Protection ratings is that they seem to be meaningless for flashlights. I still haven't read the standard but it was discussed previously on CPF and someone found a nice explanation here (only a manufacturer site but looks consistent with everything I have read).

I'm beginning to think that all the manufacturers quoting IPX8 protection level (and ZL is definitely not the only one) treat it as some magic marketing word. Otherwise they would have to define test conditions and perform rigorous test just to proof that their equipment confirms to something that is mostly useless anyway. For flashlights it would be much more rational to perform dynamic tests (levels 3-6) to ensure they are capable not only to withstand continuous immersion but also work correctly when it's raining.

EDIT: It was pointed out to me that in many cases IPX8 protection level may be useful. I never meant to accuse all the manufacturers of using this standard only as a marketing vehicle but unfortunately this is what I carelessly wrote so I apologize for that.

On the other hand if someone claims that the equipment conforms to some standard it should work in the conditions defined by this standard. No matter how useless for some people the standard may be. In this case I have some doubts but without much more research I'm not able to verify them. For me, after reading the reports about leaking zebras and taking out the rubber cap from my H501, the conclusion was that it would be rational to convert one of my zebras to a little more heavy duty one.

The H501 lights have some flaws (e.g. waterproofness, strange strobe mode, the complicated way to convert them from a headlamp to a clipped one) but most of these problems can be easily corrected. Unless something more serious appear I would buy the H501 again. I find the lights extremely useful and as far as I know the zebras are currently the only ones of the kind.

 

[Barbarin]

[UPDATE:]
I never meet "IP68M" norm, so I did a little research. It seems that there is no IP 68M standard, or it is not described as a regular norm. Or is really new and there is no definition of that standard over all internet (or is not in english :"P).

Can you post some link to the definition of that norm?
Here are links to abstract from IP standards definitions, including the "9K" extension:
http://www.stegmann.com/comm/Protection.pdf
http://www.kenplas.com/topic/ipcode.aspx

No word about "8M" standard...
Maybe it is some kind of "sub-norm" given by some producers by themselves? According to info from CPF, "M" should mean "it will keep that condition even actuating on its moving parts. i.e. switching it on-off". In cases which I've found (or during my own tests), lights were turned on, and submerged afterwards - no operation with a switch or cap (there are no other "moving parts") was done underwater.
According to above definition of this mysterious "M" standard, all issues should be described as "static

Well, the further developing of the European norm EN60529 in Spain, named UNE20324, and published on NTP588 (Notas técnicas de prevención) by "Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos sociales del Gobierno de España) describes what a M following a IPXX means.

 

[Barbarin]

The main problem with all those IPX8 Ingress Protection ratings is that they seem to be meaningless for flashlights. I still haven't read the standard but it was discussed previously on CPF and someone found a nice explanation here (only a manufacturer site but looks consistent with everything I have read).

I'm beginning to think that all the manufacturers quoting IPX8 protection level (...) treat it as some magic marketing word. Otherwise they would have to define test conditions and perform rigorous test just to proof that their equipment confirms to something that is mostly useless anyway. For flashlights it would be much more rational to perform dynamic tests (levels 3-6) to ensure they are capable not only to withstand continuous immersion but also work correctly when it's raining.

On the other hand if someone claims that the equipment conforms to some standard it should work in the conditions defined by this standard. No matter how useless for some people the standard may be. (...)

Dear Wapkil,

On my previous post I have explained IPxx standards according to european and spanish regulations, and as long as our products are being used as individual protection equipment, we must follow seriously this norms to warrant the safety of the people using them. No magic words or marketing on it, we just write them to explain our customers what can they do with our products and in which conditions, following this way what the norms are asking. I'm sure many other manufacturers such as Peli, for example, are very serious about this.

Javier

 

[wapkil]

Dear Wapkil,

On my previous post I have explained IPxx standards according to european and spanish regulations, and as long as our products are being used as individual protection equipment, we must follow seriously this norms to warrant the safety of the people using them. No magic words or marketing on it, we just write them to explain our customers what can they do with our products and in which conditions, following this way what the norms are asking. I'm sure many other manufacturers such as Peli, for example, are very serious about this.

Dear Javier,

Thank you for joining the discussion. My comment related to "all the manufacturers" was written too fast. It is too general thus inaccurate and inappropriate - I apologize for that. I never doubted that there are situations when conformance to the IPX8 is useful and for which honest manufacturers test their equipment. I can see that for example at Barbolight you produce diving lights for which IPX8 protection level may be meaningful. You also indicate the pressure and the duration of time :thumbsup:
What surprised me when I was reading about the IP protection levels was that in many cases the time and pressure are omitted leaving only a bare "IPX8" which, if I understand correctly, would only mean "not worse than IPX7". I would be obliged if you could shed some more light at the meaning of this standard and protection levels. There is a parallel thread discussing precisely this subject so I will later post my questions there.

 

[Marduke]

I think you are confused by the fact that many manufacturers rate their product very conservatively, and the nature of the IP68 spec by itself is varied.

One product's IPX8 cert can be for 200m, while the next can be for the minimum of 1m 30min. On paper, they have the same "waterproofing" if all you know is IPX8, but in real life the 200m product will make the other look "faulty".

The "M" is a suffix used to denote manual operation at said conditions.

I believe this is a case of ZebraLight exactly matching their stated specification, and not heavily conservative as many other brands are.

This follows Zebra's tradition of using actual data and numbers in their specifications, such as quoting torch lumens from an IS.

 

[Beacon of Light]

Received my H50 Zebralight last week. So far so good (keeping fingers crossed). No issue of quality concerns and if not for this thread I would probably consider it one of the best quality headlamps I own.

I would never want to test the lights I own for being waterproof. If they are made to be splash resistant, that is good enough for me.

 

[dcycleman]

If zebralight advertises that their product is waterproof to a standard and you drop it in a glass of water on your kitchen counter, and it then leaks, It seems to me that zebralight and their standard are full of @#$%. Fenix wouldnt let out a light like that. And hey, you can like these headlamps, Mabe they are good for you, but that is FALSE advertising dude.

 

[Beacon of Light]

Maybe I missed that advertisement of a zebralight pictured submerged in a glass of water.

 

[kwieto]

Well, the further developing of the European norm EN60529 in Spain, named UNE20324, and published on NTP588 (Notas técnicas de prevención) by "Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos sociales del Gobierno de España) describes what a M following a IPXX means.

Thanks.
Strange that it is not available in any other language (at least one which I know even "a little").
If I understand Spanish :"P, it is stated as was described here above - "keeps the standard even when operating with it's moving parts".

But still, issues with zebra were appearing even without any operation with the "moving parts" (switch). So there is not a issue with "M" missing, but not meeting the "basic" IP68 standard.

And the condition of "1m under water for more than 30 minutes" is declared by Zebralight itself, according to their web page:

Meets IP68 in accordance with IEC 60529
- Dust-tight
- Protected against continuous immersion (1meter, >30 minutes)

If there are leaks in lamp which was put into a glass of water (c.a. 0,1m under water), waterproofness is not meeting Zebralight own declarations, point.

I am talking about that again and again because for me it is also "quality" problem.

And maybe someone could explain me, because I am definitely missing the point of Mardukes posts.
The facts are:

1. Zebralight declares waterproofness against continuous immersion 1m under water for more than 30 minutes.
2. Some of their lights are not meeting that standard even when conditions are far less than declared (i.e. glass of water)

And Marduke is telling that Zebralight is matching their own specification...

Huh?!

 

[Glock27]

ZebraLight, or any other manufacturer, has absolutely no control in End User Maintenance. If your O-ring(s) aren't in good shape and lubed....I wouldn't subject to moisture.
All my ZebraLights (6) had "dirty" threads from the factory. 1 had a questionable, to me, O-ring. I've immersed all of mine in water.
G27

 

[De-Lux]

If zebralight advertises that their product is waterproof to a standard and you drop it in a glass of water on your kitchen counter, and it then leaks, It seems to me that zebralight and their standard are full of @#$%. Fenix wouldnt let out a light like that. And hey, you can like these headlamps, Mabe they are good for you, but that is FALSE advertising dude.

AMEN! I second that. ZebraLight needs to get their S#@t together.:thumbsdow

 

[De-Lux]

ZebraLight, or any other manufacturer, has absolutely no control in End User Maintenance. If your O-ring(s) aren't in good shape and lubed....I wouldn't subject to moisture.
All my ZebraLights (6) had "dirty" threads from the factory. 1 had a questionable, to me, O-ring. I've immersed all of mine in water.
G27

Dude, these failed tests are being conducted straight out of the box. I have yet to receive a Chinese made torch with properly lubed threads. Most have arrived bone dry from the factory!