Standardized Reliability / Durability testing for new purchases.

We have the ANSI to get an idea of what we are supposed to receive when purchasing a light, but I think most would agree there are plenty of QC fluctuations in manufacturing that often render this standard inaccurate to the end user.

I was wondering if we might somehow have a standardized waterproof / drop proof / reliability / durability / test that would not leave markings or damage to the light but at the same time run it through its paces. This way if a light has some glaring defect that would affect you out in the field, it would be returnable if it fails spec. usually defects present themselves early.

Something along the lines of the 'Recommend me a light" list?

Suggestions? Thoughts?

I like the way you think

Personally I dunk most of my lights in the sink for an hour or take them with me in the jacuzzi or hot tub when the chance arises because I need my flashlights to work in the foulest of weather when hiking or canoeing in the middle of nowhere and I rather figure out at home things aren't what they're supposed to be than out in the field when I need them to work.

As for reliability I live by the "one is none and two is one" principle so I'll always bring a backup light with me incase I loose my main light or when it fails, is stolen, confiscated or as a loaner for my travel companions.

I mainly use custom E/C/P Surefires nowadays with proven track record for waterproofnes, durability and reliability, the only new parts prone to failure are the LED engines but I bring a spare "bulb" like I used to do in the last two decades when travelling with my Maglites or E2E Outdoorsman.

Ps Dropping a good flashlight is bad karma

Forrest, while an ANSI standard may exist, only representative samples are tested. Provided nothing has changed in the design or materials, it is presumed that light #99,999 is going to meet the same requirements as #00001 did.
The ANSI is just test methods, not in-house manufacturing processes.
A company that is ISO certified can mean that they possess a quality program, in-house design, and manufacturing.
Check out ISO:9000

NoNotAgain said:

Forrest, while an ANSI standard may exist, only representative samples are tested. Provided nothing has changed in the design or materials, it is presumed that light #99,999 is going to meet the same requirements as #00001 did.
The ANSI is just test methods, not in-house manufacturing processes.
A company that is ISO certified can mean that they possess a quality program, in-house design, and manufacturing.
Check out ISO:9000

Click to expand...

Yup, thats the problem. They test a perfect light and then just start shipping lights. ( some )


Im thinking of a new standard just for lights for after purchase so you KNOW the thing works. Maybe a FC.B.D.T.N.R.I.C.D.A.P.S.

ForretChump Beat Down Test Not Resulting In Cosmetic Damage After Purchase Standard - I may have to work on the name.

Aperture said:

I like the way you think

Personally I dunk most of my lights in the sink for an hour or take them with me in the jacuzzi or hot tub when the chance arises because I need my flashlights to work in the foulest of weather when hiking or canoeing in the middle of nowhere and I rather figure out at home things aren't what they're supposed to be than out in the field when I need them to work.

As for reliability I live by the "one is none and two is one" principle so I'll always bring a backup light with me incase I loose my main light or when it fails, is stolen, confiscated or as a loaner for my travel companions.

I mainly use custom E/C/P Surefires nowadays with proven track record for waterproofnes, durability and reliability, the only new parts prone to failure are the LED engines but I bring a spare "bulb" like I used to do in the last two decades when travelling with my Maglites or E2E Outdoorsman.

Ps Dropping a good flashlight is bad karma

Click to expand...

I've had awesome results with the P series lights. Still waiting on my P3X... I often say I have one cause I can smell it in my brain! ( And I used to have a P2X )

I love Surefire, I still do, but I used to, too.



Now: Looking for some serious ideas on what might actually make this work. A system we could all use to vet out bad lights BEFORE you're out in the field.

Without pushing something to it's failure point, you have no way of knowing where that point is.

Are drop tests irrelevant if you never drop your light?

Maybe I don't fully understand what you're looking for? Most of my lights have been put through their paces in order to show what they are capable of withstanding. If the light I purchase has been built of the same components and in the same manner, my expectation is that it will perform the same. There will of course be variables in manufacturing and components, so I use the manufacturers testing as a mean value. Some are better, some worse.

If you are saying that you don't trust the ANSI tests that's fine, but it's the best we've got so far to a standardized test.

ANSI is fine as far as it goes...but as he pointed out earlier, not every light goes through the testing process. It doesn't mean much to the end user, if his or her light happens to be one that does fail.

I agree that some kind of standard test is a good idea, but I don't see how we could get everyone to agree on what they should be. I do my own thing. ALL of my lights get submerged within the exchange/return period. If they can handle that, then they can handle rain, being dropped in a puddle, or being rinsed off in the sink (real world uses). I do carpet drops from a bunch of angles, heights, with all my single cell lights. (I don't do drops with multi-18650 lights, because I simply never drop them in the real world.) I also do a test on turbo (or several) to make sure step-downs (timed or thermal) are working OK, and the electronics don't start doing anything funky when I bring the heat.

I have had a couple DOA lights, but I've never had a serious failure in use (with non-modded lights). Did have to get out some snap-ring pliers and tighten down a retaining ring on a Fenix, but it worked fine afterward, no expense involved, and only a couple minutes of work. As long as that continues to be the case, I'm happy enough with my informal testing. It covers 99% of potential problems, and doesn't damage the lights.

​A simple hobby is nice your suggestion is just Anorak wearing and going over the top imho.I really do not want to rush home and bounce my new light 3 feet above a concrete floor and submerse in me bath for an hour and then run over it with me tractor just to inform a bunch of jackets that it is fine,my neighbour would be calling the local hospital for advice.


The above is intended only as representative of my opinion not others opinion,
nor is it meant as an entreatment to invite any response by any other
regarding subject matter, content or anything associated by any other.

mcnair55 said:

​A simple hobby is nice your suggestion is just Anorak wearing and going over the top imho.I really do not want to rush home and bounce my new light 3 feet above a concrete floor and submerse in me bath for an hour and then run over it with me tractor just to inform a bunch of jackets that it is fine,my neighbour would be calling the local hospital for advice.

Click to expand...

All these tests take very little time to complete, and usually I do them while I am at my PC anyway, doing other things. And it isn't generally for the "jackets" (I might do one occasionally to benefit the forum, but that is the exception). I do it because I want to KNOW that MY gear is going to work when I need it - and it also saves hassle (much better to catch any problems before the return/exchange period is up). If you don't want to do it, that is fine, but the way you caricature other people's choices can get a little annoying. You'll note that I didn't recommend anyone else do it...just sayin'.

thedoc007 said:

All these tests take very little time to complete, and usually I do them while I am at my PC anyway, doing other things. And it isn't generally for the "jackets" (I might do one occasionally to benefit the forum, but that is the exception). I do it because I want to KNOW that MY gear is going to work when I need it - and it also saves hassle (much better to catch any problems before the return/exchange period is up). If you don't want to do it, that is fine, but the way you caricature other people's choices can get a little annoying. You'll note that I didn't recommend anyone else do it...just sayin'.

Click to expand...

I think you will find I was responding to the op,s post in general and not yours.I also put a tiny disclaimer saying it was my own opinion only and not seeking any reply to my own comments.I want to enjoy the hobby my way,want to spend my money my way.Happy New Year to you Sir.:thumbsup:

mcnair55 said:

I think you will find I was responding to the op,s post in general and not yours.I also put a tiny disclaimer saying it was my own opinion only and not seeking any reply to my own comments.I want to enjoy the hobby my way,want to spend my money my way.Happy New Year to you Sir.:thumbsup:

Click to expand...

That was not at all clear to me, but good to know (perhaps if you used a quote, it would have been more obvious who you intended to respond to). As to the disclaimer, you are posting in an open forum. Saying that you aren't asking for comment on what you post is fine, I guess, but you can't expect it to accomplish anything. That's kind like the whole "No offense intended" line...if you are saying something that is clearly offensive, that line does not excuse you from responsibility.

And no, I was not offended...just trying to make an analogy. I often enjoy reading your comments. And I agree that a universal standard is not really productive...each person can develop (or not) his own method. If people want to share detailed process and results information, so much the better, but that still won't solve the general reliability problem. Unless each and every light is tested, your light could still be the lemon...so it doesn't really add anything fundamentally new to the general ANSI tests, in my opinion.

Mcnair and everyone, Happy New Year to you also!

Doc Gets it.

Nuff said.

thedoc007 said:

That was not at all clear to me, but good to know (perhaps if you used a quote, it would have been more obvious who you intended to respond to). As to the disclaimer, you are posting in an open forum. Saying that you aren't asking for comment on what you post is fine, I guess, but you can't expect it to accomplish anything. That's kind like the whole "No offense intended" line...if you are saying something that is clearly offensive, that line does not excuse you from responsibility.

And no, I was not offended...just trying to make an analogy. I often enjoy reading your comments. And I agree that a universal standard is not really productive...each person can develop (or not) his own method. If people want to share detailed process and results information, so much the better, but that still won't solve the general reliability problem. Unless each and every light is tested, your light could still be the lemon...so it doesn't really add anything fundamentally new to the general ANSI tests, in my opinion.

Mcnair and everyone, Happy New Year to you also!

Click to expand...

I mean no offence in any of my postings and let us say US&A and UK humour differ in many ways.