Here is an interesting article about headlamps and how the big headlamp manufacturers (Black Diamond, Petzl, Princeton Tec, Etc) rate them as far as battery run times vs Lux. I found this after looking at couchmasters post in mountaineering headlamp post.
Basically it describes how REI and the manufacturers decided to use ANSI ratings.
Then when that didn’t show their products in a desirable way. They just decided to ignore the standard.
The part about how the manufacturers have decided that “moonlight mode” which they rate at .25 lux, is as useful as a full moonlit night as far as hiking navigation is telling about integrity.
In a related article on the same site they are amazed at a Zebralight that actually does what it claims.
All the Best,
Jeff
Good article. I stopped buying normal headlamps when flashlightreviews and their excellent runtime graphs went away - There wasn’t anyway to verify brightness/runtime and I can’t use a light that doesn’t work as advertised. Think the only one I have left is a PT EOS from 2011.
I was a believer in the “camping” headlight makers. Until I broke the battery door on my 3rd Petzl.
From then on, I decided the $12 hardware store was the way to go.
I had been looking at the BLF & CPF for years. All seemed so exotic.
I tore open some old laptops for the batteries - jsut to see what could be found.
Then I needed lights for the batteries (naturally).
Then I got the discount for the First Thorfire Q8. My first 18650 light.
Then I started testing for myself.
BLF - The gateway drug. Shame - Shame on you people!
All the Best,
Jeff
Tl;dr'ed the article, but esentially it's about gaming the system to make whatever claimed figures as big as possible. They must believe in a very negative way about their customers for this to be so. Overall, I think publicity/advertising is in a terribly sorrysome state. Generally speaking I don't @#$%ing care about advertisements, and I mistrust any claims as a rule.
As a related example, the mere fact that the ANSI/NEMA FL-1 throw standard is defined for a light intensity of 0.25 lux is already a freaking joke, imho. Of course throw figures look big but, are they really that useful? Can understand, but overall cannot agree.
I personally find ANSI-FL1 standards much too lenient as well. Most people who look at the packaging and read High associated with a runtime, will assume they get high for that specified runtime. Draining down to 10% of High is extremely misleading.
I think if the light is not regulated to maintain constant output, there should be any right to claim the runtime unless a graph is shown so potential customers understand how the light will quickly dim.
Currently Petzl claimed lumens and runtimes are almost perfect, usually with 5% error margin in plus, the same can be told about Fenix.
BD publishes it’s claims exactly by the letter of ANSI FL-1 standard - so the light needs to have 100/200/300 lumens only in the first 60 seconds of runtime ;).
Those spex were designed for hotwire bulbs, simple on/off, run down the battery ’til all you get is a dim orange glow at the end.
Then of course, LED light-mfrs began to game the spex by starting off lower than full-tilt, then you see a small spike upward maybe a minute or so into it, then it eventually runs down.
So “initial brightness” is intentionally lower than full-on 100%, so then of course “10%” of that is also lower, letting the runtime tail off that much longer.
I always wondered about that initial dip, and why it would “warm up” shortly after, ’til I made the connection with the ansi spex.
In the ’80s when there were many competing processors, the marketing comparison was Millions of Instructions Per Second, MIPS. We knew it meant “Meaningless Info Provided by Salesmen”. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics marketing. Like MPG, it was a “guaranteed not to exceed” number.
Published in 2009, i might be wrong but i suppose the handful of companies that made the commitee had already transitionned to mainly LED products by that time.
Edit: yep seems to be confirmed by the FL1 standard packaging icon rationale “Light Output Total light output measured in Lumens. Lumens have become the most commonly used unit of measure for total light output in portable lighting devices. Wattage on the other hand, is a measurement of power consumption, not light output. With today’s efficient LED technology, it’s very possible to have a lower wattage LED flashlight with a greater light output than another flashlight with a higher wattage rating. This is the reason why Lumens have become the best comparison method.”
I laugh at all this efficiency bullshite. I understand its reasons, but it is being used against light output quality to, once again, inflate figures. I want light sources with top colour rendering spectral power distribution accuracy. If you just want lumens, buy some green emitters like those Osram CSLPM1.F1 greenies. Someone recently changed the lightbulbs in our communal stairway, installing a bunch of cool white fluorescent light bulbs. And it sucks.
Lumens the best comparison method? No thanks, not without colour rendering accuracy measurements. Maybe radiant flux is a better benchmark.
“City” & “Highway” used to be tested on very controlled mechanisms that are not realistic compared to actual driving. It took a long, long time before they started to make the tests more realistic. They’re not perfect, but better.
I take all manufacturers “claims” as simply that. Numbers/data collected under controlled conditions in a lab and not real world usage. Flashlight runtime and output are grossly wrong or kind of right. Some manufacturers are honest in th their ratings, some aren’t. Gas mileage is one of the popular claims to poke at for a good reason. The manufacturers and EPA simulate driving. They don’t account for aggressive driving style (lead foots), mostly city or highway driving, fuel quality, weather, mechanical condition. Bottom line, you might get better or worse mileage than what they claim.
This has lead to a large increase in the number of turbocharged vehicles. They get great gas mileage during typical driving relative to their maximum output. However, put your foot in in and that changes. Power takes fuel. No easy workaround. EV’s are a different discussion.
You also notice that engines as a whole have gotten smaller as well. Not at all uncommon to see a 1.6 or even 1.4 liter 4 cylinder with a turbo these days making 200 hp and more and getting 30 mpg average. A bigger engine will use more gas, no matter how efficient you make it. The tradeoff is longevity…forget about making that 1.5 turbo direct injection, computer controlled everything last 150k miles. Toss it in the bin after 100k or trade it in beforehand.
