Zebralights, when not limited by their PID, do have the circuitry to sustain almost flat max output, but at the cost of much shorter runtime, approx 1/4 of that advertised. ZL doesn’t tell you that explicitly, only that the advertised runtime is with PID in effect and actual runtime will vary depending on usage. That’s true, just not the whole truth.
Some AT lights supposedly have pretty solid runtimes equal to or even exceeding specs.
Not sure about Manker.
Aside from them, most if not all the other manufacturers do not use a buck+boost circuit for their 3-4V 1x18650 lights.
Nitecore, Fenix, Olight, the whole works. But, of course, that wouldn’t sit right with a lot of their fans.
We can have substantial influence over the direction the industry is heading.
It is to our eventual benefit to inform and convince others to be more discerning and more demanding consumers of flashlights.
If you’re more the place-the-blame type, think of it this way: those idiots and/or assholes who keep buying less than stellar lights are the reason manufacturers keep making them instead of really good ones you want to buy.
I do not know the precise history, but I read somewhere that Maglite (and other manufacturers of flashlights that use alkaline batteries) lobbied for the 10% limit in the ANSI FL 1 runtime standard. As one of the largest flashlight makers in the world, its input carried a lot of weight.
Given the typical runtime curve for a Maglite running in its highest mode, you can understand why it wanted the 10% cutoff. Robin Wang actually violated the warranty requirements by using NiMH batteries in the following test of the Maglite ML300LX. The instructions for this flashlight clearly state "Alkaline batteries only." The red lines in the chart below are the alkaline curves.
In the case of the Maglite above, the 10% threshold results in a runtime of around 15 hours. Using a 50% limit produces a more useful runtime estimate of about 3 hours.
Flashlight reviewer Selfbuilt uses a 50% cutoff in his flashlight tests. I wish the ANSI FL 1 standard used the same cutoff. In my opinion, that is a more realistic value, typical of how I use a flashlight. When I need 1000 lumens, for instance, I can usually get by with 500. But 100 lumens, for a job that demands 1000, won't cut it.
I must be jaded by all this. Having researched the ANSI FL 1 ratings more than a year ago, I find the claims by Lumintop and others to be plausible given the way the FL 1 standard works.
I do not blame Lumintop here. I think FL 1 is the problem.
I do not choose which flashlight to use by what its highest output is; as a general rule I take the highest output and divide it by half to be a more useful indication of its feasible use.
Until factors of controlling heat and battery chemistries bottlenecks, mid range light specifications are my key interest.
I totally agree! I rate my flashlights according the output levels they can sustain. Often that means somewhere around half of max.
In the post above, I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I was trying only to use Maglite as an example of how inflated runtime claims can be made for a flashlight under the ANSI FL 1 standard.
In a perfect world, runtime charts would be published by flashlight makers in lieu of—or in addition to—FL 1 runtimes. Since that won’t happen soon, I am in debt to the wonderful members of BLF who give honest reviews of these products.
don’t get me wrong i am not sticking up for them. But if they adhere to the standards what can we do? Its like fuel mileage most cars will never do the rated fuel mileage but if they pass the lab test they are aloud to state the numbers. I think fuel test is done on a dyno inside seems legit! lol
Anyway, I don’t think you can do 1000 lumens for 2.2 hours on a single 18650 quite yet. We’ll need either more efficient LEDs, or a higher capacity battery.
The most energy you’ll get out of an 18650 is about 13 Wh. A 1000 lumen output requires about 10 watts to power everything. So, you might get about 1.3 hours runtime. Maybe 1.5 hours with a very efficient light. No way you’re going to get 2.2 hours.
PWM turns on and off the LED very quickly. Sometimes so quickly you can barely notice, or not even notice (several times each second). If for example a given PWM makes the LED stays on for 50% of total time, and off for 50% of the total time voila, you can raise your battery drain time considerably. It is a very nice turnaround as long as it is made without our eyes noticing.
It’s not the flashlight manufacturers, it’s the FL1 standard, and I don’t blame them one bit. It’s really the only official standard out there at the moment and like all standards, you take what you have and use it to your advantage. As long as one manufacturer uses FL1 standards in their marketing then they all will. Who really wants to be the one maker who advertises using real world figures when everyone else is taking advantage of the loopholes in FL1? None who want to sell lights, that’s who.
Selling lights is a race for buyers. If everyone else in the race is allowed to take a legal shortcut, what competitor would willingly take the longer route around the course, guaranteeing himself last place? There is nothing we can do about it and I don’t blame the manufacturers one bit. When I buy a product, any product, I try to educate myself as best I can before pulling the trigger. “Buyer beware” are words to live by. If you know that in order to run at 1000 lumens for over 2 hours straight it would take a battery with over 6000mAh and NASA level heat management, then you should know enough not to buy a light that claims those numbers and still be surprised when it won’t do it.
Day before yesterday I upgraded my wife’s PC (on request) to Windows 10. When I bought my first PC the state-of-the-art OS was DOS 3.21. Even then there were benchmarks for various components. The winner of the video benchmark was rather simple and cheap and did not really excell while performing standard applications. Later, when this card could not cut it anymore, it was revealed that the firmware of it was optimized for the specifications of the benchmark. Speaking about lab tests!
