New output ratings on selected Surefire products

I happen to have read the 2006 catalog and found that the L4, L5, L6 and the U2 are now advertised to have a max output of 100 lumens (instead of 65 and 80). How come? Did Surefire tweak the LED modules again? Please advise.

I can state on a good basis that the majority of my SF 5 Watt lights are above 100 lumens of flux.

Anthony

How do you have the 2006 catalog already? Did you get it at SHOT?

KDOG3, I didn't go to the SHOT show. I'm currently out of the country but the local dealer here has both new catalogs available (illumination and tatical products).

I must say the 2006 catalog is less informative (and much smaller) than the previous ones, and I'm disappointed. You'll see what I mean when you get your hands on one later.

The only new products featured are the Kroma, the Beast II (and the Hellfire HID).

So whats the deal,
Has the SF L4 I bought last October been upgraded for 2006, or is the lumen increase just a change in the method of calculating lumens, or simply a "marketing" strategy change?
I really dont want to spring for another KL4 so soon.

Maybe, LED production efficiency/reliability is way up and they've been guaranteed that the higher binned LEDs will definitely be available. Here on CPF, we've definitely seen a lot of 'W's in the past year, and even a few 'X's; I think Lumileds and other manufacturers are beginning to be able to duplicate their results with a much higher probability that the finished products will be what they're trying to make.

I hope they tweaked the modules, because the L4 and U2 DONT put out 100 lumens.

-David

cheapo said:

I hope they tweaked the modules, because the L4 and U2 DONT put out 100 lumens.

Click to expand...

My U2 #A08480 outputs at least 100 lumens, and that's conservative, and using Battery Station CR123A primary cells.

Lux meter wall/ceiling reflection tests show over 2x the output of my HDS EDC U60, which is supposedly calibrated to 60 lumens.

Similar lux meter tests show overall output is just fractionally less than my Streamlight TL-3 incandescent, which Flashlightreviews.com tested at the rough equivalent of 143 lumens (100 output units times 1.43 conversion factor).

While my EDC U60 might be weak, it's unlikely both U60 and TL-3 are simultaneously weak.

Most 5 watt flashlights that are driven at spec using even an ok luxV should put out 100+ lumens. The good ones should put out 150+ lumens.

joema said:

My U2 #A08480 outputs at least 100 lumens, and that's conservative, and using Battery Station CR123A primary cells.

Lux meter wall/ceiling reflection tests show over 2x the output of my HDS EDC U60, which is supposedly calibrated to 60 lumens.

Similar lux meter tests show overall output is just fractionally less than my Streamlight TL-3 incandescent, which Flashlightreviews.com tested at the rough equivalent of 143 lumens (100 output units times 1.43 conversion factor).

While my EDC U60 might be weak, it's unlikely both U60 and TL-3 are simultaneously weak.

Click to expand...

Nothing weak about my B-60, have you sent it back to HDS? VDG

well, according to flashlightreviews the U2 and L4 DONT PUT OUT 100 LUMENS.... some say it depends on the lottery.... but I dont think the lottery will make a 20 lumen difference (I am gonna get some argument for this post)

-David

cheapo said:

well, according to flashlightreviews the U2 and L4 DONT PUT OUT 100 LUMENS.... some say it depends on the lottery.... but I dont think the lottery will make a 20 lumen difference (I am gonna get some argument for this post)

Click to expand...

The lottery can make a major difference. E.g, that's how HDS produces the XR series -- they simply pick the best emitters.

E.g, according to HDS tests, HDS U60 using a Battery Station CR123A lasts 17 min on max. An HDS U60 XR lasts about 33 minutes (94% more). A U85 lasts over 1 hr on 60 lumens. All use the same Luxeon emitter type, HDS just hand selects different emitters.

If the run time differs that much, the output can also differ by quite a bit.

cheapo said:

well, according to flashlightreviews the U2 and L4 DONT PUT OUT 100 LUMENS.... some say it depends on the lottery.... but I dont think the lottery will make a 20 lumen difference (I am gonna get some argument for this post)

-David

Click to expand...

Yes, you will get argument on that point. The LuxV has been available in flux bins V,W, and X. The difference in flux between the best V and the worst X is 30% - well over the 20 lumen difference you have difficulty assigning to the "Luxeon lottery". I have little doubt that Surefire may have had difficulty in the past sourcing LuxV emitters in quantity in the better flux bins and so had to "downrate" the U2 specs below their initial design goals. Perhaps LuxV yields have improved recently and SF is once again comfortable rating these lights at 100 lumens out the front.

thesurefire said:

Most 5 watt flashlights that are driven at spec using even an ok luxV should put out 100+ lumens. The good ones should put out 150+ lumens.

Click to expand...

Quite a few people, and even alot of flashlight manufacturers don't understand Lumens all that well.

Just because an LED puts out 100 lumens on the datasheet, it does not mean you get that in a flashlight.

First you have to realize that the 100 lumens on the datasheet is done with the die at 25C. It is much lower in a flashlight, as the die heats up quite considerably. You can get a 30% loss in lumens with no problem here.

Next, there is loss due to the reflector surface, which can amount to 30% or more, or less, if exotic reflector coatings are used.

Then you have loss due to the front lens, which can be as high as 12% or as low as 1%, depending on how exotic the glass and AR coatings are.


Most likely, the lumen increase is due to LED efficiencies, which have gone up alot. Though, don't take this as fact.


.

I emailed them and they said that the lights havent changed,,,, only the way they measure output..... that just doesnt make sense to me.... so just because they measure lumens differently, the lights gain 35 lumens??? Weird..

-David

I am waiting for a call back from SF customer service now.
The rep said they did not know anything about a change to the L4's lumen rating -- that they had heard nothing at all to that effect. Also said that the product remains unchangesd from 2005.
Wanting to know where I had heard this information, I told them from someone with access to the 2006 catalog. They checked their copy of the 2006 catalog and sure enough the lumen rating is up from 65 to 100.
Customer service, being suprised, has initiated an investigation which is now underway. I will post what they say when I hear back. I am sure the answer will come back the same as the previous post's e-mail answer. Probably the "corporate line".

I got a new U2 (A07847) within the past couple of week from a local dealer. The blurb on the box says "2 to 100" lumens...

Well, SF customer service "confirms" that there is absolutely no change to the KL4 head. The only thing that changed is the "accuracy with which their equipment is able to measure lumen output". The new numbers more accurately reflect the actual output. Sweeeeeeet, I did not realize that my L4 is actually 53% more powerful than originally advertised.
Seriously, I hope they were just lowballing it before, and that in fact my four month old light is not already obsolete.
They also confirmed that there is nothing else new for 2006 relating to the E series (I guess we already knew that). So I will go ahead and place my order for the E2L, it's output is 30 lumens now, in four months it should be up to just under 60 lumens!

multiply their numbers on flashlightrevies by 1.43 and you dont get the 100 lumens.

-David

cheapo said:

multiply their numbers on flashlightrevies by 1.43 and you dont get the 100 lumens.

-David

Click to expand...

Quickbeams multiply by 1.43 thing isn't exact. It is accurate to around +- 17%
So take the 58 overall out put for the L4. 58 x 1.43 = 82.94. 82.94 x 1.17 = 97.03. The luxeon lottery could easily account for 3 lumens difference, more like 20 or so really.

These are just for a rough estimate.