FourSevens        
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Egregious Manufacturer Lumen/Runtime Claims

  1. #1

    Default Egregious Manufacturer Lumen/Runtime Claims

    So, as I shop for new lights to buy, I of course look at the manufacturers' website and check out the listed specs. In some cases, I'm shocked by how far off some these specs are from reality, when compared to user reviews and independent test, esp. Selfbuilt's (thank you Selfbuilt!).

    For example, looking at the Sunwayman M20A, the manufacturer's website says medium 70lms for 24 hrs and low 4 lms for 200hrs... from 2xAA?? From SB's review of the light it turns out that low is actually ~ 0.3 lumens and that medium graphs out between a Fenix E21 (54 lms) and a Quark Mini AA2 (36 lms) for 10hrs. The 24 hours seems like a complete misprint since the SWM USA site even says 9 hrs.

    In another example, the Klarus XT11 claims medium 150 lumens for 7 hrs and low 10 lumens for 295 hrs from 1x18650. Zebralight, arguably the efficiency king, can't even claim 3 lms for that long on an 18650. It turns out SB measures the XT11 low to actually be ~ 2.7 lms and the medium mode graphs out well below a Thrunite TN12 (95 lms) for the majority of its runtime. In all fairness the XT11 seems to start out near the 150 lumen mark - but rather than a nice regulated flat line, it seems to quickly drop and hold ~60% output for the vast bulk of its runtime.... but I guess all is fair under the ANSI standard?

    Any other egregious lumen or runtime examples you folks have come across out there? Is this common across all manufactures, or are some manufacturers decidedly better/worse than others?

  2. #2
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    1,565

    Default Re: Egregious Manufacturer Lumen/Runtime Claims

    Things of this type have been common from Chinese light makers ever since I can remember the influx of cheap lights from there.
    It used to be REALLY bad several years ago, when you couldn't believe a single word they ever stated. It was like a form of comedy. You still see it on places like Ebay and DX. Some of the Chinese light makers started to get more serious over the last couple of years, and even try to conform to ANSI.
    However, ANSI relies on manufacturer self-policing of the standard, and they don't have any "ANSI police" running around, as far as I know. So, it still might be fudged around quite a bit, possibly.

    As far as "egregious" is concerned, I guess that depends on how bad you define "egregious". Personally, I found that 1036 Lumen claim from Eagletac to be egregious, considering it really only outputs something like 850 Lumens or something like that. Even though they show the lower ANSI number down in the fine print below, it's obviously an intent to deceive.
    That's what I consider "egregious". When they print something that they know full well is a over-statement(lie) but they still print it anyway, trying to sucker some poor guy out of his hard earned money on false pretenses. Not that they are the only ones, mind you. But that was a recent example that ground my gears a bit.

    I simply don't trust any spec claims from China.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Egregious Manufacturer Lumen/Runtime Claims

    Bronte RA01 (1xAAA): Low mode ~ 65hrs@9lm!

    If that's true, I'm eating my Fenix LD01

    Cheers

  4. #4

    Default Re: Egregious Manufacturer Lumen/Runtime Claims

    And you thought EL stood for Emitter Lumens
    You always gotta be careful with those Egregious Lumens .

    But I agree.

    I've always been partial to SF lumens myself.
    Last edited by Rat6P; 10-20-2012 at 11:25 AM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Egregious Manufacturer Lumen/Runtime Claims

    Quote Originally Posted by Rat6P View Post
    I've always been partial to SF lumens myself.
    SolarForce lumens?

    Cheers

  6. #6

    Default Re: Egregious Manufacturer Lumen/Runtime Claims

    Quote Originally Posted by tam17 View Post
    SolarForce lumens?

    Cheers

    LOL!
    Last edited by Rat6P; 10-20-2012 at 12:08 PM. Reason: SureFire.

  7. #7

    Default Egregious Manufacturer Lumen/Runtime Claims

    Quote Originally Posted by twl View Post
    ..I simply don't trust any spec claims from China.
    Zebralight seems to test pretty close to specs on Selfbuilt's tests. Foursevens is almost conservative to a fault and quotes stepped-down lumens. My DSLR thinks a 47s 107 lms is brighter than a ZL 172 lumens on a ceiling bounce test. There's also runtime testimonial in the 4/7s subforum verifying runtimes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •