ZebraLight H53c Runtimes Less than Specified

I recently tested my ZebraLight H53c using the ceilingbounce app for Android and got shorter than expected runtimes.

I tested using several Eneloop Pro AAs each charged with an Eneloop BQ-CC17 charger to at least 1.4V. Here are the results:

I ran my Fenix HL50 at 150Lm for 124min before it reduced output, as the specs suggested. Assuming the flashlights have similar efficiencies, this makes the ZL's runtimes seem like reasonable values to me since the HL50's output has slightly less lumens and has a lower CRI and higher CCT (I'm basing the CRI/CCT assumption on the specs of H53w and H53c).

ZebraLight customer service has been very responsive and has offered to repair or replace the light. I am located in Canada however and am waiting to see if they cover shipping.

My questions are:

• Does it look like ZebraLight exaggerated their runtimes?
• Can any H53x owners test the runtimes of their lights and report their findings?

Were the cells fresh? Old?
I'm curious if the runtime would be different if you cycled the cells a few times (refresh program on some chargers, or just manually), and tested again.

I wouldn't expect the numbers to be completely dead on, but the difference (esp. on 56 lumen) is larger than I'd expect.

Also, are you set up for measuring lumens? Also curious if it put out more lumens, or there's another cause.

Sorry for offering nothing by questions.

likethevegetable said:

I recently tested my ZebraLight H53c using the ceilingbounce app for Android and got shorter than expected runtimes.

• Can any H53x owners test the runtimes of their lights and report their findings?

Click to expand...

Hello, and welcome to CPF. :welcome:

I have a Zebralight SC53w. Its output is higher than that of the SC53c (and the H53c), but the runtimes, according to Zebralight's website, are the same for all four models. (H53w, H53c, SC53w, Sc53c)

I tested my SC53 yesterday, in the highest more (330 lm) using the ceilingbounce app and a Fujitsu HR-3UTHC, 2450 mAh.



I hope I will find the time to test Mode H2b, 198 lm (=171 lm on the SC/H53c models) later tonight.

terjee said:

Were the cells fresh? Old?
I'm curious if the runtime would be different if you cycled the cells a few times (refresh program on some chargers, or just manually), and tested again.

I wouldn't expect the numbers to be completely dead on, but the difference (esp. on 56 lumen) is larger than I'd expect.

Also, are you set up for measuring lumens? Also curious if it put out more lumens, or there's another cause.

Sorry for offering nothing by questions.

Click to expand...

The cells are quite new: I purchased them less than a year ago and each cell has seen at most 5 charges. I only used relative output as the metric for this test, however I trust that the lumen output is indeed close enough to 56 lumens because the perceived brightness is identical compared to my HL50 at 55Lms.

Swede74 said:

Hello, and welcome to CPF. http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/images/smilies/welcome.gif

I have a Zebralight SC53w. Its output is higher than that of the SC53c (and the H53c), but the runtimes, according to Zebralight's website, are the same for all four models. (H53w, H53c, SC53w, Sc53c)

I tested my SC53 yesterday, in the highest more (330 lm) using the ceilingbounce app and a Fujitsu HR-3UTHC, 2450 mAh.

I hope I will find the time to test Mode H2b, 198 lm (=171 lm on the SC/H53c models) later tonight.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the welcome!

That would be excellent - any additional tests would be appreciated. I will conduct some tests at different outputs when I can. Please see the curves I generated below:

I got about 120 minutes. The cell I used for the test is brand new and has only gone through 3-4 charge/discharge cycles; I am not sure if it has reached its peak performance yet.

likethevegetable said:

• Does it look like ZebraLight exaggerated their runtimes?

Click to expand...

maybe, or brightness is different, or test procedure and hardware are different

could it also be that you expect regulated runtime, and Zebra continues the runtime until the light drops to 10% of initial brightness?

Swede74 said:

I got about 120 minutes.

Click to expand...

I really like your pics!
Zebra counted until 138 minutes.. to me it looks like its technically past the 10% minimum output.. but, are we just splitting minutes?

different test protocols with different end points to end the test?: (regulated vs 10% vs 5%)

jon_slider said:

maybe, or brightness is different, or test procedure and hardware are different

could it also be that you expect regulated runtime, and Zebra continues the runtime until the light drops to 10% of initial brightness?

Click to expand...

Zebra quotes regulated runtime. I did a 200lm mode test on my H53Fc with Eneloop pro and I got around ~1hr13min before it steps down to 100lm, instead of ZL's claim of 1hr36min. Here's their reply:

"Runtimes after stepping down (i.e. 100Lm in your case) are not counted in the specs. The difference between 1 hour 13 min and 1 hour 36 min is mostly caused by deviation between samples and testing conditions (batteries, ...) We usually put a smaller (minimum) figure in the spec."

I choose to believe them given their track record and credibility.

try not to take specs too literally, ymmv
here are the 5 tests people have mentioned so far (please repost with correct numbers if I made an error)

You'll find similar exaggeration if you could measure lumen output too...and the low low efficiency specs (in lumen-hours) can be off by multiples, like my sample.

But to be fair, there are plenty of other manufacturers that exaggerate as well.

BTW there is a H53Fc review on TLF with a 276lm runtime graph indicating ZL's runtime claim is very accurate, which is another reason I choose to believe ZL: http://www.taschenlampen-forum.de/t...rnlampe-mit-cree-xp-l2-4000k-cri-93-95.56751/

TCY said:

The difference between 1 hour 13 min and 1 hour 36 min is mostly caused by deviation between samples and testing conditions

Click to expand...

that is a deviation in which spec is 32% higher than actual output

The OP has a light in which spec is 28% higher than actual output..
Zebra offered to replace it.. I think he should take them up on their offer.. once the postage detail is resolved.

I agree some tested lights meet or exceed spec, so if the OP trades in his light, I hope we get good news regarding the replacement meeting or exceeding specs.

I think its really cool theres an app for that!

Thanks for the replies, folks!

I ran the H53c at 285Lm and got 64min at the knee point, that's about 20% more than the quoted time. The light was nice and toasty after.



It looks like there's a trend amongst our findings - more accurate specs at higher outputs.

On another note, I've noticed that the H52w and ArmyTek Tiara Pro both list runtimes at around 30Lm for 12hrs using a 2000mAh Eneloop. The H53c at 26Lm lists 21 hours. If we consider 2000mAh vs 2500mAh and assume the actual run times are about 80% less than ZL specs, the results are similar:

21hr*(2000/2500)*(0.8) ~ 12hr

(please forgive my crude approximations for rounding and neglecting non-linearities)

My concerns of having a defective light are assauged!

likethevegetable said:

My concerns of having a defective light are assauged!

Click to expand...

YAY!
assuagement is the most important thing

Enjoy your Light!

I have been on this forum for 10 plus years and every month there is another bad review about ZL. I don't believe a word of it. ZL was the original designer and there are now a dozen copycats on their design. I have a feeling these copycats do more than just copy..... I cant believe the level that is being tried to discredit ZL. ZL is the most trusted brand up there with SF and Streamlight. I cant believe this kind of posting is allowed. It systematically happens with new creative ways to discredit ZL. By now to me is not a coincidence.

10 years ago if anyone said anything bad about SF the poster would get banned.

marinemaster said:

10 years ago if anyone said anything bad about SF the poster would get banned.

Click to expand...

Only if a member stepped over the line and was violating Rule 4. Many SF threads were closed because they ended up with many Rule 4 violations. They just got out of hand. Am replying because this thread is doing quite well, and members are civil to each other.

Bill

What's the android app called?

I searched the Play Store for ceiling bounce and ceilingbounce but no results.

Thanks

Niconical said:

What's the android app called?

Click to expand...

Introducing Ceilingbounce - flashlight testing and runtime graphs for Android
its not in the store yet,

marinemaster said:

I have been on this forum for 10 plus years and every month there is another bad review about ZL. I don't believe a word of it. ZL was the original designer and there are now a dozen copycats on their design. I have a feeling these copycats do more than just copy..... I cant believe the level that is being tried to discredit ZL. ZL is the most trusted brand up there with SF and Streamlight. I cant believe this kind of posting is allowed. It systematically happens with new creative ways to discredit ZL. By now to me is not a coincidence.

10 years ago if anyone said anything bad about SF the poster would get banned.

Click to expand...

I'm not discrediting ZL, I'm simply providing evidence that I received a product that has underperformed compared to what they had specified, and some fellow flashlight enthusiasts have voluntarily corroborated my findings. I also mentioned that ZL has courteously addressed this concern and offered to remediate it. What I did not mention is that this is my first ZL and it is by far my favorite light, and despite my test results it still outperforms my Fenix and Thrunite AA lights in every way.