How about drop test results? No one willing to sacrifice a few flashlight dings and scratches here and there? For the common good of all??
I’d love to see the results of others before I drop mine. :money_mouth_face:
I guess I would only do that in flashlights I can repair and not in all of them 
Flashlights :
a) too expensive that I can’t buy again
b) that are discontinued or that manufacturers cannot fix
c) that I modded and that I really like
d) that I modded and that I can’t get the same pieces to replace
e) I praise and that were won in GAWs
I guess I wouldn’t test them!
This almost leaves some Convoys, and some AA lights to be tested
Yesterday the Wuben TO50R felt to the ground from ~1m and the bezel was pressed into the head. I was freaking scared it wouldn’t work, but it did. It is a 150€ flashlight that was provided for review but still I wouldn’t dare.
Some manufacturers (Wuben, Olight, Convoy) provide videos with tests and some of them are harsh as hell! 
Mine fall to the ground many times and I get 
and I feel relieved when they work again. It is not nice having non working lights and non fixable lights around 
> I’d love to see the results of others before I drop mine.
what are you dropping?
Potted Electronics, is generally a good indicator of superior drop proofing. Zebras are potted, for example.
I see there's not too many volunteers.
Ah well, it's a tough choice so understandable.
See my EDC'c been tru some scuffles already. And that's just the head piece!
Olight
Anybody seen tests of FW3A lights?
I think that drop testing at different angles would add a lot of value to a review.
And after all the lights being reviewed tend to be free, so the only cost seems that the reviewer won’t be able to use them afterwards.
Hey nice and Olight too! I heard they're tough flashlights. I was actually thinking about the Olight Perun 2. It's got a proximity sensor but I think it uses proprietary battery though. Hmmm tough choices indeed.
Recently bought the Perun 2 in purple gradient. The shell is beautiful, the light works well but very disappointed with the green tint. Yes, it uses a proprietary battery but AFAIK that’s only for use with the proprietary charger it comes with. The battery is removable so you could probably use 3rd party 21700s in it but I haven’t checked. You just couldn’t use their magnetic charger.
I’ve dropped my modded S2+ twice onto tiles. It still works perfectly fine but the button end now has two small dents.
Yeah, and then you get a box full of junk… in which you may have not invested money, but sometimes spent more than a full day to take photos, write, film, upload, edit, whatever.
I think it would be more reliable and transparent to have the manufacturers testing them as Olight and Wuben.
But maybe this is just a wrong opinion…
Sofirn and djozz did some very thorough abuse testing of the C01. Both the potted and UnPotted versions survived without issues.
There is a tendency of some people to think that reviewers “should” do certain things, like runtime, or drop testing… Some consumers think they are entitled to free runtime and droptest information, from reviewers.
I do think it is helpful, but reviewers dont get paid for their time, so its up to them how much energy they want to invest.
imo, people who feel runtime info and drop test info is important to them, should consider doing the tests themselves. There is no obligation by the reviewer, to provide free info to consumers.
I do think it is up to the manufacturer to provide destructive test info, if they choose to. I do not think a Reviewer has an obligation to destroy the only compensation they receive, the review sample. In fact, I think reviewers should be able to resell the review sample, if they choose not to keep it. Destructive testing would negate that option, which I think would be unfair.
There may be such tendency but I’d like to start by saying that I’m not such person. 
That’s strictly untrue.
Pretty much every reviewer gets lights as a payment for their work. Many provide affiliate links or ads to further monetize their work.
I’m not going to comment on whether it’s a good pay but compensation is there.
Now…I do notice that by throwing a part of the compensation around its value diminishes. Especially if the light isn’t too tough and breaks beyond repairability.
And I also notice that reviewers have incentive to avoid negatives in their reviews because manufacturers may stop sending them lights. Doing something unnecessary that may force then to add a critical comment is risky for them.
So I’m not surprised or even turned down by seeing a refusal to do so. I understand that the tradeoff between increasing ones profile as a good reviewer and significant loss of value of the received lights coupled with extra risk may not be worthwhile. I’m OK with that.
Manufacturers are strongly incentivised to massage their results to make them good. IMHO their results are better than nothing but not much better. I do think there would be a lot of value from independent testing. Or testing from someone who might be dependent on the stream of lights but has enough integrity to be trustworthy.
all good points, there is compensation, motivation, and enlightened self interest involved. Im grateful to the reviewers for what they do, and it helps verify potentially biased info from the manufacturer
presently, reviewers are encouraged, and required by some manufacturers, to post YouTube Video reviews, and to also post reviews to social media platforms and websites.
Basically the marketing of flashlights is driven by infomercials from a few people that have managed to build a following, and give manufacturers confidence that their product will be promoted in a positive light.
There is little incentive for negative reviews, as it potentially would end the flow of free lights and referral comissions.
Information is not free, there is definitely financial bias that creeps in. I was contacted by one company that asked me to post a review on Amazon, in return for a refund. They required me to first purchase the light, so the review would show up as a verified purchase. I declined.
When I asked a different company for a review sample, they asked me to show them a Youtube channel with a minimum of 3000 followers… I dont have that, nor do I use Facebook and Instagram, so that pretty much ended my career as a reviewer… LOL
drop tests are too random
what happens with uncontrolled drops to 2 or 3 lights, does not really tell you much
plus if manufacturing is uneven, even if drops are strictly identical, they still would not behave identically
so you would want to drop like 1000 of them, 100 times each
you see where this is going
i’ve dropped my 2 year old FW3A many times and it still works, am i a tester now?
Disclosures:
- Never I received a request from a manufacturer to only say positive things from a flashlight;
- First thing I normally say to them is “I will do an unbiased review and I will provide you my opinions, things to maitain and things I would change”, and then it is up to them (unfortunately most of the times the original specs remain when the lights become available);
- Yes, they normally encourage to post the reviews on multiple platforms, written or video (here on BLF and in my small YT channel);
- Besides some reasons I pointed above normally I don’t do drop tests because for me it is funnier to show/see that in video than talking about a drop test and show a photo. Given that I don’t have the appropriate edition software to include those extra videos in the ones I normally do, given that many people don’t care about video reviews, sometimes I find that doing that would be an extra spend of time and worthless, looking at this discussion (I admit I may be wrong).
Questions:
- How would you like to see drop tests?
- What data would be important to show: comparing the specs data with a real test (ex: same height) or throwing lights into the air and letting them drop on the floor extrapolating the height they can handle?
- Any suggestions where to find a flashlight dumpster afterwards?
Only did a drop test once for a review (on the J5 Tactical V1 Pro). The J5 is a true budget light - the cost would have been negligible (had it failed).
And yes, it was tested at two angles (vertical & horizontal).
This post reminds me of a ZebraLight test that I read from way back when: Zebralight Torture Test.
It seemed that no matter the abuse that was done, others wanted more! 
IMO the glass is the weak spot. Have had one spontaneously shatter.
Then the driver, then the switch.
That said buy my lights for sale for drop testing, it will also give age based results. No synthetic aging needed as they are traditionally aged 