Flashlight companies - Which has the most accurate advertised runtimes?

I have flashlights from 5 different companies and ALL of them overstate their runtimes

I use my lights outdoors in about 15 - 20 deg C, ~75% RH

I always test my new lights against their advertised runtimes, because I do not want to be caught off-guard in the wild

Runtimes are usually about 60-70% of advertised specs :thinking:

which company(ies) is/are the most honest to you?

Malkoff...but that's about it. You're going to get some crazy claims at times--crazy claims about lumen output. For the most part, I'd say I haven't encountered too many that I thought were that out of whack. However, where most companies tend to exaggerate a little bit to make nice numbers, Malkoff seems to go the opposite direction.

I think the ANSI standard when measuring runtimes is to go to 10% of the starting brightness. (please correct me if I'm wrong).
For most uses, this flashlight has quit performing long before that.
In addition, many companies overstate the beginning brightness too. So at the end of the run, we have 10% of something less than we thought!
Many here have suggested that runtime should be measured to 50% of the beginning brightness.

Sometimes it comes down to fuel supply as well.

An example will be a Rayovac CR123 vs a Battery Station in a high draw scenario.
The Rayovac has more fuel packed inside per sae, but the Battery Station can provide a more steady stream of it's fuel when being taxed at a high rate. The Rayovac drowns the competition in low draw scenario.

So a light may seem give out with one battery sooner than the other simply because the fuel supply couldn't keep up with demand. The same applies with rechargeables and other sized cells.

Find a light you like and try differing fuel cells to see which work best. Then keep spares of the best. performers handy.

MAD777 said:

I think the ANSI standard when measuring runtimes is to go to 10% of the starting brightness. (please correct me if I'm wrong).
For most uses, this flashlight has quit performing long before that.
In addition, many companies overstate the beginning brightness too. So at the end of the run, we have 10% of something less than we thought!
Many here have suggested that runtime should be measured to 50% of the beginning brightness.

Click to expand...

Basically, this.

Best is to search the reviews and find a run-time graph. You'll be able to easily spot at what point the light dims to x% of original brightness and then determine the amount of dimming that is acceptable for your uses. You can also see whether the light incorporates any 'step-down' techniques from turbo/high.

PFlexPRO provides a runtime graph with their lights. [But] You [probably] can [not] get a sense of how your runtime will be. They list the battery used for the test.

EDIT: The runtime graph given to me from PFlexPRO has a runtime limit of 5 minutes; interesting but I can not get a sense of extended runtime...

Runtime is only half the story.... most also don't meet their lumen claims either. While I rely CPF reviewer runtime graphs, there's only one reviewer I've seen and reconciled to that claims accurate US ANSI lumens using laboratory tested calibration lights, but he hasn't reviewed a light in years.

Of what I own, the most accurate output and runtime info tends to be provided by US-domicile companies (HDS, Malkoff and FourSevens of my collection)... must be the strong consumer protection laws and legal liabilities here. Otherwise, of the Chinese companies, Eagletac (at least the D25 series) is very honest on runtimes, and even overly conservative on lumens. My Sunwayman D25A was also very fair.

I'm a low-lumen/runtime guy and test my lights for both output and runtime (or current draw) on the sub-/single digit- lumen outputs I use most. Down in the low lows, exaggeration of lumen-hours can be in the multiples (5-10x) - I don't buy from those companies anymore just on principle.

I've also seen quite a few examples of twice the stated lumens/runtimes while half the stated runtimes/lumens (respectively) - this calculates out to the spec'd efficiency in terms of lumen-hours, so I consider that good corporate integrity, but not the best manufacturing consistency. You really need a lightbox to get the full picture..

Malkoff and I think older 4/7 lights are honest. Don't own any of the newer 4/7 stuff so don't know of this tradition has been kept up.

Olight. They will tell you the output and duration of the output, before and after the eventual stepdown of each level.

KITROBASKIN said:

PFlexPRO provides a runtime graph with their lights. You can get a sense of how your runtime will be. They list the battery used for the test.

Click to expand...

Are they extended runtime plots or do they show only the max output and time to step down?

No votes for ZL?

scs said:

No votes for ZL?

Click to expand...

Foursevens and ZL tend to under rate their claims.

scs said:

No votes for ZL?

Click to expand...

Not from me.

Maglite ANSI specs seems to be very accurate but Streramlight does them one better by providing accurate runtime graphs, which you need to know what is really going on.

BTW If you are running alkalines in cold temps your run times are going to take a nose dive. Most other battery chemistries also fall off as the temperature drops, with lithium primaries being among the best in this regard.

I know Elzetta had a video on how companies can game the system. Also all the runtime tests I have seen of their lights show them generally doing better than advertised.

Welp Maglite sure does understand the ANSI rules - CLICKY

reppans said:

Welp Maglite sure does understand the ANSI rules - CLICKY

Click to expand...

Someone's gaming the ANSI standards...

That chart is an excellent illustration of the problem with ANSI, as mentioned previously I much prefer run-time to 50% of initial output, if I need a 200lm-ish light, it's possible that 100lm (down to 50%) would just about suffice, but no way 20lm would...

before the ANSI standard runtimes were usually stated to the 50% output rule. i know self built would do his runtime tests and state when the 50% mark would be reached. that was back in the good old days when LED flashlights would have amazing output regulation, not all the "burst" modes. now for a side rant.... "high" mode should be just that. if it steps down then its stepping down to medium. its not a turbo or boost mode stepping down to high. it reminds me of "This is Spinal Tap"... bot this one goes to eleven.

Rant on tab.

I have 1 light I consider turbo'd. A LED Lenser P7. You push the button and get "bwwwaaaaaahh" wide open like a turbo, then relax your thumb and it settles to a high setting. Push button again and get "bwwwwwaaaah" wide open, relax thumb and get a low setting. My only qualm is you have to go through "bwaaaah" to turn it off.

Yeah a lot of people accuse Maglite of cheating but absolutely love their BR5q that turbos 800 lumens from a double a for 30 seconds then settles to 128 lumens...

Meanwhile back at the ranch it seems that when Maglite said 173 lumens for 2 hours for their 2c ML25 they meant it. Rock solid regulation. A couple of my older Pelicans had 'enthusiastic' ratings but the newer stuff is spot on.
Streamlight has generally given me stated output even in inexpensive products. With PK's lights they are so over driven that source of fuel plays a big part. That goes with some other brands that overdrive the current crop of LED's as well. Again I say if the fuel cell cannot keep up with demand that plays a large part in runtimes.