A call to action - "Steady Service Output"

zespectre · Oct 9, 2013

[EDIT: Credit to Capolini for the "Part of advertising, Maybe? Misleading[?], Absolutely!" thread which tipped me over the edge into action.]

A call to action - "Steady Service Output"

Manufacturers have started a trend that I believe we, the lighting community, need to actively address.

The problem
Manufacturers are listing a "High" output and a runtime in that mode but in fact the lights in question have a severely limited operation time in that "High" mode and are programmed to step down after that time limit expires. At best this is misleading advertising, at worst it may result in the purchase of a light that is completely unsuitable for a desired purpose when used in the real-world.

One specific example of this is the Fenix* HL10 headlamp which, according to a footnote in their own manual, works like this;

"The headlamp will drop down into the Mid output after working about 5 minutes in the High output. Therefore, the runtime of high output is an accumulated time."
So what is advertised as a 70 lumen headlamp is, in practical real-world use, a 27 lumen "Steady Service Output" light with a 70 lumen "Burst-Turbo-Boost " mode that will time-out after 5 minutes.

So what do we do?
I propose having a discussion here to work out the details and fine tune a new standard which I am temporarily calling "Steady Service Output."

My rough definition of "Steady Service Output" is

"the brightness level which a lighting tool can sustain for the entire duration of it's measured runtime"

but believe me I am open to any/all help fine-tuning that definition.

I would also like to try and come to a consensus on a standard term for that "Burst/Turbo/Boost " mode so that it is clearly understand to be a brief or time-limited maximum not the "steady service output".

Over the years we have had a strong influence against the deceptive or outright false runtime and output claims that used to be tossed around without a care. Because we pushed the issue we now have actual ANSI/NEMA standards that the quality manufacturers have to follow if they want any respect in the field. I believe we can do this again if we can hammer out a solid set of definitions and then campaign the manufacturers and let them know that the misleading practices are not acceptable to their customer base.

Please help me review the possible merits of this notion and improve the concept.

Eagerly awaiting input

Ze.

*believe me, I'm not singling out Fenix. I have the same issue with lights from Sunwayman and Nitecore as well and there are probably others I don't know about yet.

N8N · Oct 9, 2013

I agree, I think it was Capolini (?) That made a similar comment recently, re: a mfgr. Listing a runtime on turbo that could only be achieved by continually reselecting turbo mode each time the light stepped down. At least that mfgr. Called it 'turbo.'. I would like to see 'high' be reserved for modes that can be used continuously in normal conditions until the cells run down, with time or temperature limited modes clearly indicated as 'burst' or 'turbo' and perhaps some explanation of this in their literature for those not familiar with the terminology.

Sent from my XT897 using Tapatalk 4

zespectre · Oct 9, 2013

Forgot to credit Capolini for the inspiration, fixed.

Poppy · Oct 9, 2013

Far too often I see 2 mode lights that tout the high lumen, and the long runtime of the low mode, without giving a run time of the high mode.
So I would like to see that worked into the complaint.

zespectre · Oct 9, 2013

Poppy said:
Far too often I see 2 mode lights that tout the high lumen, and the long runtime of the low mode, without giving a run time of the high mode.
So I would like to see that worked into the complaint.

I understand what you are saying and I see it all the time as well, but I'm not sure how to integrate it into the "Steady Service Output" conversation. I suspect that may be a separate topic to address.

Skimo · Oct 9, 2013

Being a flashlight noob, if I saw a high lumen rating before, then I had to see if it was a thrower or flood light, because I didn't know I look for higher lux and prefer throw.

So if I see a light listed at 900 lumen and found that it's 600 with a short span of time useable at 900, I would feel that the company feels that I am a fool and will soon be parted from my money.

I think that whatever nomenclature the company wants is fine, however I would like to see an asterisk at least noting that while it is capable of that output, it is not what you will get without the risk of damaging it

I see it this way, if they call their modes low, high and turbo, I'm going to expect that performance without heat issues, I'm going to think that their turbo mode will just chew through batteries faster.

I don't make excuses for companies, I see that as blatant misinformation. Luckily I have you people of CPF and your stores if information.

Norm · Oct 9, 2013

This obviously doesn't apply to incandescent lights.

Moved to LED Flashlights - Norm

What to post in the General Flashlight Discussion Sub Fourum.

schizeckinosy · Oct 9, 2013

Cheers to 4sevens for calling their new models "burst mode", which I think makes it obvious that it is a temporary level.

BillSWPA · Oct 10, 2013

I will add for any flashlight maker reading this:

When I see a manufacturer advertise x lumens for y hours, I assume I am getting x lumens for the entire y hours. IF such is not the case, then that needs to be made clear in the description of the light. If the light steps down to 80% of x after a few minutes, and remains there for some time, it may well be that 80% is good enough for my needs. It may also be that if the light had been so described, I would have happily bought it anyway, and be very happy to have what I thought I was buying. However, I will NOT be happy to find out I am only getting x lumens for a few minutes, and something less than that the rest of the time. I will be equally unhappy if, through intermittent use of the light, I get x lumens but not for y runtime.

Quite simply, do what you say and say what you do. Failing to do so is NOT the way to earn repeat business, referrals, good word of mouth, etc. I say that as a business owner for over 6 years.

Capolini · Oct 11, 2013

zespectre said:
Forgot to credit Capolini for the inspiration, fixed.

Thank You Ze!

I am not going back to my thread!!

It is a waste of time and energy trying to teach people how to comprehend the English language! :thinking:

I can not change anyone but myself!

I do not have the knowledge in regards to flashlights as many of you. However, I feel that I am open minded, logical and I do have the innate ability to look right through liars and manipulators! I won't elaborate on how I acquired those skills!

I will be glad to do whatever I can to help.

I am only in my 11th month of my addiction! So I am still learning!

Gentleman, Lets get started!!

zespectre · Oct 11, 2013

Capolini said:
Thank You Ze!

I am not going back to my thread!!
<snip>
I am only in my 11th month of my addiction! So I am still learning!

Capolini,
I've run a similar road before on various consumer topics but also specifically with lighting tools.

Way back when the lighting community started getting serious about this stuff, the claims for brightness and runtime were frequently based on someone's assumption that nobody knew -anything- about lighting and so the manufacturers felt they had a free hand and thus made some pretty wild claims that, while technically true, were unabashedly misleading. For example, I remember a Gen 1 Nichia LED based light that made a runtime claim of 75 hours. Okay, true that the emitter would glow for the last 67 of it's listed 75 hours, but the usefulness as a light really ended at about the 7 hour mark.

When we, the lighting community, started to push back against this we were typically met with disdain, or ignored entirely. I can clearly remember a letter from one major manufacturer that said, and I quote;

"We are providing the brightest and most durable flashlights on the market and our superior tools have been highly reviewed by several major law enforcement agencies. There isn't any other lighting product that can match our output or quality."

In short, the entire letter could be summed up as "we provide the best light out there, what is -your- problem?" and it took a LOT of effort to get them to understand that I/we KNEW and ACCEPTED that they made one of the best products commercially available (at the time), but that wasn't free license to make absurd claims and we weren't going to stand for it.

It took even more time to hammer out some general standards as to what constituted things like a "usable light level" (a far tougher question than you might imagine) and thus what a "real" runtime measurement would entail.

In the meanwhile there was also a lot of "this flashlight is great, WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING?" from both outside and inside the lighting community which was fueled by a mix of "brand loyalty", ego, and a lack of understanding that we weren't impugning the flashlights, just the advertising practices.

I completely expect the same responses and attitudes again but given the successes of the past and the more accurate and USEFUL information that manufacturers generally put out these days I think it is worth the effort.

Ze

Capolini · Oct 12, 2013

N8N said:
I agree, I think it was Capolini (?) That made a similar comment recently, re: a mfgr. Listing a runtime on turbo that could only be achieved by continually reselecting turbo mode each time the light stepped down. At least that mfgr. Called it 'turbo.'. I would like to see 'high' be reserved for modes that can be used continuously in normal conditions until the cells run down, with time or temperature limited modes clearly indicated as 'burst' or 'turbo' and perhaps some explanation of this in their literature for those not familiar with the terminology.

Sent from my XT897 using Tapatalk 4

Thanks for recognizing my effort!

Capolini · Oct 12, 2013

I have a few thoughts/questions.

How do we present our finished product to the manufacturer after we complete our "Statement for change with absolute clarification"?

Is this like a petition where we NEED to have signatures? If so, if we only have 30 or 40 can we be effective?

I wish I would have saved the 4 or 5 emails I exchanged with Nitecore regarding the EA4 and its misleading turbo run times.

Basically it went like this.[which is a form of control!] They only responded to what they wanted to which had NO relevance to the PRIMARY subject matter!

Does the fact that we are dealing with "China" make it more difficult?

The U.S.A., Canada, The European Countries, ect., we have more freedom.

Have a nice weekend everyone!

Ciao,,Roberto[Bob]

zespectre · Oct 12, 2013

Capolini said:
<snip> How do we present our finished product to the manufacturer ~~after we complete our "Statement for change with absolute clarification"?~~

The way it has worked in the past has been to get our request into a simple, clear, and straightforward format and then generate a "form letter" as a basic guideline so that everyone is saying the same thing. Next we start asking people to email it or print it out and send physical mail. (generally to the corporate headquarters, and distributors if we can find solid addresses).

Capolini said:

Does the fact that we are dealing with "China" make it more difficult?

Click to expand...

Usually yes, and our efforts may be fruitless, but if we don't try then I can guarantee that -nothing- will happen.

Poppy · Oct 12, 2013

Capolini said:
I have a few thoughts/questions.

How do we present our finished product to the manufacturer ~~after we complete our "Statement for change with absolute clarification"?~~

It seems that Bob, got less than a stellar reception from the one manufacturer he dealt with, therefore I'd like to offer the following:

1. There is no denying that social media can have an impact on the sales of products, and the bottom line of a manufacturing company is based on sales.
2. Amazon and multiple other sales sites including many brick and mortar stores allow customer reviews, and question/answer sections for the products that they offer for sale.
3. Occasionally I'll see reviews by usernames that I recognize.
4. Many people (including myself) rely (at least in part) on the reviews posted by others.

The Groundwork:
1. come to a consensus of issues we see in advertising
2. create a concise description of the issues
3. create a list of questions one might ask in considering purchasing a light
4. etc....

More Ground work:
1. Start a fresh thread with a title something like "How to decide if this light is for you" "Questions to consider before buying a light"
2. Flush it out with information discussed in the "Flashlight Advertising" ground work thread

The Solution:
1. Make the solution thread (Whatever we decide to name it) a sticky somewhere on this site.
2. Encourage members to bookmark the thread, and then link to it when ever they see a light for sale.
3. Links to it may be preambled with:
a. I read this thread foo.bar.thread and there are many questions that it raises that are unanswered by the information presented for this light.
b. Are the advertised lumens measured the ANSI standard? Many more questions the advertising doesn't answer. LINK to foo.bar.thread
c. Please give more information on this light. Please see the attached... LINK foo.bar.thread.
d. Some positive reinforcement posts... This looks like a good light, and at least this manufacturer answers most of the questions posted in foo.bar.thread in its advertising.

Capolini · Oct 12, 2013

I guess since Ze is the Thread starter I will ask him.

I recently joined a few other Flashlight Forums.

Should I mention this thread to them for some possible support?

Ciao,,Roberto

N8N · Oct 12, 2013

Yes, reviews and especially Amazon reviews can have a definite impact on purchasing decisions. I know that I rely on them a lot - even in the context of this forum; "NLee the Engineer" has posted tons of cell/charger reviews (maybe he is HKJ's long lost brother?) that I've found very helpful.

If "one of us" purchases a light that is also sold on Amazon, and we find instances of a limited duration mode that is not clearly labeled "Burst" or "Turbo" (and hopefully with an explanation of the stepdown behavior, e.g. is it based on time, temperature, what?) posting that information not only here but also in an Amazon review would not be out of line at all, it would be quite helpful to other buyers!

I actually pretty much cut and pasted my review comments from here on a recent light purchase into an Amazon review as well - most of the existing reviews of that light either said "it's great" or "I really liked it but it stopped working after (x amount of time)" with no real technical detail. Had another CPF member not reviewed that light I would have had nothing but the manufacturer's spec sheet to go on for technical information on that light. Just doin' my part...

Edit: oh, yeah, the point. Mentioning this in this hypothetical letter I don't think would be out of place nor could it really be construed as threatening; we're not suggesting posting false or misleading reviews, rather posting honest reviews that correct or clarify misleading marketing copy.

Poppy · Oct 12, 2013

Capolini said:
I guess since Ze is the Thread starter I will ask him.

I recently joined a few other Flashlight Forums.

Should I mention this thread to them for some possible support?

Ciao,,Roberto

Some of the most productive committee meetings are composed of a committee of three, and two don't show up

I'd suggest (if you follow my recommendation) that you get the project started, and running here, and after some, or most of the groundwork has been completed, invite the members of the other forums, to join here, and contribute.

Capolini · Oct 12, 2013

Poppy said:
Some of the most productive committee meetings are composed of a committee of three, and two don't show up

I'd suggest (if you follow my recommendation) that you get the project started, and running here, and after some, or most of the groundwork has been completed, invite the members of the other forums, to join here, and contribute.

I think that is a good suggestion. Too many people may complicate matters! We'll see what Ze[thread starter] says,,,I have a feeling he will agree with your suggestion!

Ciao,,,Roberto

P.S. I am a little confused about your first sentence about the "committee" meetings!! If that was the case[3 and only 1 shows up] , then it would be a "One Man Show"??
Maybe it was a joke and went over my head!! lol!

Poppy · Oct 12, 2013

Capolini said:
I think that is a good suggestion. Too many people may complicate matters! We'll see what Ze[thread starter] says,,,I have a feeling he will agree with your suggestion!

Ciao,,,Roberto

P.S. I am a little confused about your first sentence about the "committee" meetings!! If that was the case[3 and only 1 shows up] , then it would be a "One Man Show"??
Maybe it was a joke and went over my head!! lol!

Yes it was said in jest, but you got the point, often smaller is better. :thumbsup:

A call to action - "Steady Service Output"

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashaholic

Flashlight Enthusiast

Newly Enlightened

Retired Administrator

Enlightened

Enlightened

Banned

Flashlight Enthusiast

Banned

Banned

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashaholic

Banned

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashaholic

Banned

Flashaholic

Similar threads