ANOTHER LUMENS FALLACY ( INOVA)

Well another flashlight brand exposed for stating inaccurate, misleading output levels of their lights. I was at the local Target yesterday and when there I always stop by the light section cause they tend to have Inovas.
something new they had there was the XO3 which I had never seen before. I have owned the T1 and T2 and was always impressed with these lights if not for their output then for their build quality , like a tank . I have never like the TIROS optics either. But like I always do I had to pit it against the lights I was carrying on me my upgraded HDS B42 with U-bin 3watt dropped in. Well even with the Tiros of the XO3 focusing the beam and the HDS with more flood type beam and the store being "lit up" with flourescents, I could detect a slight difference between the two with my HDS being just slightly brighter in the hotspot which is all you can really see in the store. The Inova has been stated as creating 80 lumens . well I know there is noway my HDS is putting out 80 plus lumens . This is really getting annoying. If a company wants to sell a lite that can put out 80 lumens it should certainly be possible with the correct combination of converter/led so why not just do it instead of lying. even if it means an additional 10-20 dollars . My T1 was listed at 30 lumens (1 3volt) and the T2 at 40 lumens and I think this was pretty accurate . now it seems Inova has also succumbed to the temptation to exaggerate output to accomplish what? more sales? the enjoyment of duping the public?

Not that I necessarily want to defend Inova (I don't), but how do you know their statement is innacurate? Do you have a scientific means of testing the lumen output, or are you going by sight? I'm sure you know that a light's output can appear different based on a number of factors, including optic/reflector, cell strength, size of bezel, flood vs. throw, etc. Sometimes what appears to be a low lumen count is actually higher and vice versa.

I'm certainly no expert in the scientific aspect of lights, but I understand that there are many factors, as well as many methods, of measuring output. Maybe Inova is measuring it differently than you. I agree, it would be great to have a standard means of testing/comparison for all flashlight companies to follow, but I don't think it's high on the government's to-do list. :lolsign:

Inova is the very best manufactor after Surefire (quality, U.S made, great customer service, best materials, warranty, support and all), but I think their lumen rating's no different than what we get from chinese manufactors such as Fenix (A Holy Entity among CPFers), Nuwaii and others. So why people are always picking on national manufactors? Just because of price? Great quality comes with a price. Not to mention that Fenix lights aren't exactly "cheap". Eveready lights are cheap, Mags are relatively cheap and a bargain to the CPF standards.

Yes, HDS is top notch, bit it's almost like a custom gadget. So are Firefly, McGizmo, IONs and such. I love them all. However, nobody can deny that Inova lights are the best deals out there.

arewethereyetdad said:

Not that I necessarily want to defend Inova (I don't), but how do you know their statement is innacurate? Do you have a scientific means of testing the lumen output, or are you going by sight? I'm sure you know that a light's output can appear different based on a number of factors, including optic/reflector, cell strength, size of bezel, flood vs. throw, etc. Sometimes what appears to be a low lumen count is actually higher and vice versa.

I'm certainly no expert in the scientific aspect of lights, but I understand that there are many factors, as well as many methods, of measuring output. Maybe Inova is measuring it differently than you. I agree, it would be great to have a standard means of testing/comparison for all flashlight companies to follow, but I don't think it's high on the government's to-do list. :lolsign:

Click to expand...

Another place to look that is more scientific:
http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/inova_xo3.htm

Here Wayne did the overall output test and got 28.50, which puts it in the ballpark of 40.755 lumens.

luminata, it looks like you are right.

luminata said:

My T1 was listed at 30 lumens (1 3volt) and the T2 at 40 lumens and I think this was pretty accurate . now it seems Inova has also succumbed to the temptation to exaggerate output to accomplish what? more sales? the enjoyment of duping the public?

Click to expand...

T1: 14.00 Overall output works out to ~20.02 lumens (supposed to be 30 lumens)
T2: 17.20 Overall output works out to ~24.596 lumens (supposed to be 40 lumens)

It looks like, as a matter of routine, Inova overstates their lumens...this is nothing new for them. But, maybe market pressure for sales is causing them to overstate their lumens more and more. It sucks that companies are not honest about the ratings they put on the package.

good points indeed. There are many factors involved in making ajudgement like this as you mentioned but like everything else , numbers, equations, formulas and theories look good on paper but there is no substitute for actual side by side comparison/competition . These two lights do have different optics with the Tiros having a more focused throw beam which to me should mean it would appear brighter than my Hds with a flood type beam in those conditions (flourescent lit department store). Though no expert on flashlights here, I think anyone is qualified enough to take 2 flashlights hold them next to eachother turn them on and be able to tell if there is a significant difference between them . The tint on a light can affect a persons' opinion of brightness also . the Inovas tend to have a bluish tint and my U-bin HDS has a more greenish tint when compared to others though both appear white when standing alone. I even poked my head thru the swinging doors to the back warehouse and pointed the lights into the darker depths. the Inova punched much further down the dimly lit aisles than the HDS for sure but up close the HDS was slightly brighter . even if they were equivalent then the claims of Inova would still be grossly exaggerated cause I know that even with the HDS having a U-bin upgrade it is virtually impossible for it to output 80 lumens based on the coverter board used by HDS unless I have a superfreak of a light . Inova makes great lights but I cant stand in your face gross exaggerations like this.

Outdoors Fanatic said:

I think their lumen rating's no different than what we get from chinese manufactors such as Fenix (A Holy Entity among CPFers)

Click to expand...

I think the point that luminata is trying to make is simply that Inova have been fairly reliable in the past with their lumen estimates, but have "padded" the estimate with the XO3. I agree that Inova is a great US light manufacturer, and I don't believe that this one oversight is enough to require defending Inova from those who might compare them with Chinese manufacturers.

Let me explain myself and my point with this thread a little better.

Inova makes great lights built like tanks .

My problem/frustration I don't make a lot of money so when I shell out the $ for something I only have the expectations of getting what the maker advertised the product would deliver. I try to research all options and products available and really think about what I want the product to do for me before I go ahead with a purchase. I dont mind paying extra to get extra . But when I finally do make a purchase and end up with a substandard product which does not meet the advertised promises I get really ticked off . Am I an idiot for expecting to get what I paid for ? The HDS B42 even at the reduced pricing of recent weeks is still a huge amount of money for me but I can tell ya one thing , that sucker puts out 40 lumens stock as advertised. no 60 lumens , 80 lumens , 100 lumens , 20 lumens but 40 lumens .

I know there are others out there who must be getting frustrated with this stuff and by posting my findings/opinion on here I am just trying to help others avoid some of the B.S. before they take the plunge and know what they are getting into from the start . I know I appreciate this when I am on the hunt for something and someone gives me personal insight . and I know from personal experience that I feel like a fool when I strut about boasting I have something when I dont and it gets thrown in my face by someone else.

I'd say most lumens ratings are way too high, which is a very bad thing as lumens *can* be measured and one would expect the rating on a box to represent what comes out of the light, not the "theoretical maximum output of the LED family used in this light" and jokes like that.

I once bought Luxeon V stars rated 120lumens on the dealer's page, but he sent me Luxeons with a bin that has a much lower maximum output. When I complained, he said that the average output of Luxeon V's was 120 lumens and that it is therefore okay to state on the page that the item sold puts out 120 lumens... I guess he would sell some small car advertising it having 217.8hp because the average car has 217.8hp...?

IMHO, they should put the lumens rating *on* the box that matches what comes out of the light *in* the box, everything else is fraud.

Good point Mark2 . There is a fine line here between honesty and reality. If you take any Led and push it to the max in a particular setup you may indeed get the stated output of say 120l for a luxV or 80plus lumens for a Ubin 3watt. but the life will be shorter and it could overheat etc. . Modding can be frustrating that way . so many factors to consider to get that optimum balance between performance and practicality. I think the makers of the Leds themselves are not accurate in their statements of performance and doubt they test every Led they make. I think they take samples at variuos points in production and assume the rest are relatively close. what I know from my experience is that every Led I have bought and used is different in tint and output even when having the same ratings . I think the luxeon lottery sucks and should not be accepted by people . with what leds cost they should be much more consistent


with a large manufacturer it should be way more accurate in my opinion. though output can vary from lite to light , the stated output should be at least within 10 lumens , is that too much to ask?

I personally ignore lumen claims alltogether. As far as I'm concerned, they're meaningless.

I'll carefully search and read CPF when I'm considering a purchase, and a stop at Flashlightreviews(dot)com is a MUST before I buy anything. Doug's site is the only thing I rely on/trust as far as output measurements.

:candle:

mchlwise said:

I personally ignore lumen claims alltogether. As far as I'm concerned, they're meaningless.

:candle:

Click to expand...

You mean my 3AAA "tranny light" does not put out 10,000 lumens? I was looking at my light meter and it does not have a setting for "ebay lumens" so I can't prove it one way or the other.

I knew something was up with Inova when their T4 came out some time back. It was either 80 or 100 lumens so I just grinned...

The way i look at it, the lumen ratings listed by "optomistic" manufacturers like Inova, Fenix, Streamlight, Pelican, Mag, etc... are really only useful in comparing the brightness of the different light models in their product line only, Inova's lumen ratings can only be used as a guideline when comparing against other Inovas (T series Vs Luxeon X series for example), Fenix's ratings are useful for comparison against other Fenix products, etc...

we need more companies to take the SureFire approach and base their ratings on "worst case" scenarios, 65 lumens for the P60, 120 for the P61, A2 puts out 50 lumens on paper, but has been verified in the high 70's in reality, better to under-rate the lights than over-rate

Another vote for ignoring a manufacturer's lumen ratings. I live in Alaska, where flashlights are (amazingly) few and far between, but for any light I can touch, I try to actually turn it on and shine it at something before I buy it. Sometimes this means carrying around a couple of CR123s so you can tell the register biscuit you aren't using the included ones, but hey.

For any light I can't touch, FLR and the CPF itself are astounding resources for those with a bit of time on their hands. A manufactuer's lumen ratings are something they can generally pull out of a hat - this is called marketing and is something used by every industry in the world. They aren't interested in telling the whole, unfiltered truth - because their competitors are slightly bending it to make it look better.

For those of you who might have one, how often do you really get more than 20 miles per gallon on your 300C? I know I don't, but that's because I don't live in the Perfect World laboratory the car got its ratings in. In the same vein, many manufaters will go off the paper specs for the higest bin of an LED, even if they aren't using it. Most people don't care, and most people will just go "Wow, that's a bright light." Most people are their audience - we on the CPF just aren't "most people."

For the electronics folks out there, I can tell you that Monster makes a damn fine cable for various projects in the world. Are they any better than the standard manufactuer's-supplied stuff? Well, from a percieved-quality point of view, not really. You need some terribly, terribly specific circumstances to really get a large difference between a 15-dollar TOSLINK cable and a 50-dollar one. And yet the Monster cable will always say that it will magically make sound better, cook breakfast, and do your taxes. Does it? Not terribly, unless you enjoy the smell of 50 bucks burning away. (Note: This is the pot calling the kettle black. My PS2 is hooked up to my home theatre with Monster cables - because I couldn't find anything else in this stinkin' town...)

Manufacturer's claims are not - and should not be, really, let's be honest - regulated. An abnormally high lumen claim doesn't really hurt anyone the way, say, saying you have an airbag and it not actually being there would. As always, it's the real-world experience that wins out in the end, whether it's for cars or computers or flashlights. If I'm really set about knowing a comparitive brightness, someone on CPF has generally posted beamshots compared to other brands, or I just go and take a light I know I like and compare against it.

Sure, it's a little more work, but that's what being a connoisoir is all about, isn't it?

I like to hang out at sportsmans warehouse. Because they have several lights
in a case (usually higher end SF and Streamlight, rechargeables, etc....) that you
can ask to play with and compare. They also will open up a package if they don't
have one in the case (cheaper one hanging on the isle display) and put it in the
case as a display model if you don't want to buy it.

Side by side comparos in the store is what helped me buy the led lights I have currently. (LED lenser 1-CR123 and LED lenser 3-AAA batt.)

They also opened their sportsmans warehouse "3watt 3-cr123 light" which I bought
and returned twice.....(rated 72 lumens-don't like the two stage with no momentary
option)

Instore comparos for me anyway- wasn't impressed with the SF L2 high beam. Also
wasn't impressed with the XO3- seemed a little blue and faint.

Think I like the whiter light. I also tried the XO3 at Target and it seemed ok but not
that bright for "80" lumens.

Think I'll wait for the new Cree LED next year for higher led output.

Still want a high output incan to see what 180 lumens looks like but don't want to put
out SF prices.... debating on the cheapo sportsmans 4 cr123 xenon but haven't taken the plunge yet.

Newbie here also, but it seems around 60ish is the max lumens available off the shelf
from the LED lights currently. Excellent for across the street viewing at night but
farther than that I need something significantly brighter. Waiting for the dynomite
light....

Not to venture off-topic but hit the ElektroLumens forum or the site itself - Wayne might just blow your mind.

I'd like to make another vote for Flashlightreviews.com. If a light isn't mentioned there, or here on CPF, I don't buy it.

I too have completely given up on any lumens claim. I don't even notice them any more. Even Surefire's stated outputs aren't terribly helpful - becasue they are too low! - although I really, really admire their policy of under-reporting. There is something reasuring about this old-world approach.

I don't know much about marketing. My background is in journalism, and I'll happily hype and distort and otherwise fail to tell the complete story - and I'll expect anyone to do the same with a product they are trying to sell. But a lie is a lie. If a manufacturer knows the product it is shipping cannot do as the packaging/advertising claims, they are lying.

However, on this subject, how about stated runtimes? The lies you see here puts lumens claims into perspective.

There are supposed to be standards in advertising, although don't ask me how something like this could be managed.

I understand that an IS is more expensive that a set of calipers, but if someone has one, they should be able to make accurate measurements with it. If the XO3's output is stated at 80 lumens, it should be very close to 80 lumens, not 40. How would we feel if the same exaggerated claims occured in length or weight measurements?

Imagine, for example, that you have a high-quality, expensive 3lb hammer, but you want something heavier. You buy a model from another manufacturer that says it weighs 5lbs, but when you carry one of the hammers in each hand, the new, "heavier" one actually feels lighter.

Or, alternatively, you would like to upgrade your 1.5GHz CPU to a 2.5GHz CPU. You buy and install a new CPU, but when you try to encode video, the new, "faster" CPU actually gets slightly fewer fps than your old one.

Runtime estimates are just barely truthful, because they are only talking about how long there will be any output at all, not how long you'll get the stated output. That is very misleading, but is not wholly false.

Either the manufacturers of "optimistically rated" lights are lying, or they should be shopping for integrating spheres that actually work.

TigerhawkT3 said:

Or, alternatively, you would like to upgrade your 1.5GHz CPU to a 2.5GHz CPU. You buy and install a new CPU, but when you try to encode video, the new, "faster" CPU actually gets slightly fewer fps than your old one.

Click to expand...

That sort of thing actually happened when the P4 first came out. People wondered why a "slower" (in terms of clock speed) P3 as actually faster for most tasks.

Not to mention that Core 2 Duo smokes just about everything around these days, at vastly lower clock speeds.

Sable said:

Manufacturer's claims are not - and should not be, really, let's be honest - regulated. An abnormally high lumen claim doesn't really hurt anyone the way, say, saying you have an airbag and it not actually being there would. As always, it's the real-world experience that wins out in the end, whether it's for cars or computers or flashlights.

Click to expand...

True, the real world experience will tell the story. But most consumers aren't CPFers. If they spend their hard-earned money on the basis of a lie, they have every reason to be angry and to feel exploited. The bottom line for me is that a company's making even one deliberately false claim calls into question their overall integrity with everything they do and every product they make. No, people won't likely die from having a flashlight *a little* dimmer than what they were promised. But they MIGHT be in serious trouble if they went hiking in the mountains, got hurt, and had to signal for help with a light that in fact only lasts one hour on new batteries instead of the four hours that they were counting on from the manufacturer's claims.