RANT: My Runtime is Even Worse than the Review Testers - Here's Why.

My surefire e1b MV sucked through its first battery in what seemed like about 20 minutes of run time. It went out quickly and had very little to no taper. I realize the ANSI ratings are down to 10% of max output, which is bad enough, but mine didn't even come close to the poor ANSI rating. Why?

I think it has to do with the fact that I run my lights in relatively short bursts. Most lights are programmed to draw heavily at start up to meet manufacturer "lumens output" claims but drop down considerably in a short period of time to increase "battery life" claims and reduce heat. Sure you can get an hour+ (ANSI) out of a battery if you run the light constantly but I usually only run the light for short periods of time. Because I'm almost always using initial battery draw and initial draw is very high (amperage wise), my battery life is tanking severely.

20 minutes on a light rated at 1.25 hours.

Anyone else experience the same thing? Why can't manufacturers rate lumens and battery life honestly? Maybe ANSI should change their standard. Comments and observations welcome.

A review with run-times was posted on CPF here.

But yes, I think we would all like more realistic run-times by manufacturers - although some actually show run-time graphs.

Because we don't get realistic run-times - this is why I rely on:

(1) reviews here and Budget Light Forum.
(2) I've purchased my own reasonably priced light meter here. This allows me to measure reflected light in a small room, then monitor to see how the output changes over time - easy and doesn't take much time.

I'm wondering what battery you used, and were you sure it held its rated mah?

Yeah this light runs like crap on cr123 on high but 16340 works good

Looks like you got about 25 minutes before it started to flicker. You need to remember that your graph represents a light that was left on. More realistically, the light should be turned on and off a few times to simulate "real world" use. My guess is that the results would be even worse than your already dismal graph shows.

There's a review of the P3X Fury on flashlight guide where the reviewer points out that the light is programmed to draw heavily during the initial light up and that battery draw drops considerably to preserve battery and reduce heat. My guess is that several lights do this.

My guess is that it's not just the e1b MV that behaves like this. The guy that uses his lights for short periods, experiences a brighter average lumens but pays the penalty with greatly reduced battery life vs the guy that uses his light for extended periods.

terryoregon said:

I'm wondering what battery you used, and were you sure it held its rated mah?

Click to expand...

It was a brand new light with the factory Surefire battery. Never tested the battery for voltage etc. I just assumed it was good. I guess its remotely possible that it was a bit of a dud.

Despite recent advances in tech, I still think 400 lumens is a lot to ask of 1 CR123.

This thread persuaded me to go online and order two Fenix 16340's for my coming E1B MV. :laughing:

Turbo-less, regulated lights with modest outputs still have their place. The outgoing (and currently dirt cheap) 320 lumen 6PX is a good example of a light with stable output through most of its runtime. However, it's about to be replaced with a 600 lumen version that I doubt will be "step-down" free.

terryoregon said:

A review with run-times was posted on CPF here.

Click to expand...

If the new E1B MV has the same runtime and stable output as that one you linked from nearly 10 years ago, I'd be on it in a heartbeat...unfortunately it doesn't

Oh, sorry, missed that.