I’ve done a bit of research online, I know about Malkoff, Elzetta, hds, peak led, zebra, are there other brands that offer fully potted lights?
Modlite.
Some Armytek models are fully potted.
PFlexPRO, but I’m not sure they’re available anymore.
I forgot to mention those, I saw those too.
I like everything about the exterior of modlite, but they seem to burn through batteries, plus I’ve already contacted them and asked them if they will be making a flood light, which is what I’m looking for, they said no, they want throw.
Zebra light seems to be the closest to what I’m looking for, they seem to have several models that are very floody.
I know I’m nitpicking here but I was hoping to find something that only has a medium 200-400 lumens and a high 700-1200 lumens, that’s also fully potted.
The armytek Prime C2 Pro has a very floody smooth beam pattern. It has many different modes. Once you know what you’re doing in the advanced operation you can switch between your favorite medium/main and turbo/high group setting without hitting everything in between. Three fireflies, three main, and three turbos. Warm is at 4000k. Not sure what the white option is probably a little over 5000k. All the same settings and operation as the wizard C2 pro, right angle light.
Which, unfortunately, still doesn’t allow them to publish an FL1-compliant Impact Rating as so many of their competitors do. (Hint: That is not a valid FL1 Impact Rating icon you’ll see on their site folks (although it is a very cleverly designed ‘fake’), and to be fair, nor do they ever claim it is.
Question: Does anyone know the approximate cost (material / labor) for a manufacturer to squirt some potting compound into a flashlight? I don’t know, but I imagine it is very low. I do know that it takes more than that to produce a rugged, reliable flashlight.
What do you mean by “doesn’t allow them to”? None of the icons are direct copies from the fl1 standard. It is a voluntary standard.EDIT, not really anymore. Third party testing now required. …. So they have chosen for whatever reason to not participate. They don’t put any symbols on the package currently. ANSI-PLATO FL-1. Do you know what the A in plato stands for? It’s the Portable Lights American Trade Organization. So they’re not a member of that trade organization. whoopty do. I just looked at an olight box from 5 years ago and an acebeam box from 3 years ago and neither one used the proper symbol.
I’m sure they have some cheap-goop to choose from over there but generally potting compound is not inexpensive, at all. There are lots of different types, though (which makes selecting an appropriate one a little challenging but important). The bigger cost would be in lost production capacity. Have to apply it, account for accidents and mistakes, and give it substantial cure time for both finishing assembly and then packaging the lights. The compound needs to be compatible with emitter domes/optics as well. I”m not sure that potting isn’t more trouble than it’s worth for medium and high power flashlights that produce such heat as we’re accustomed to now.
There’s no real compliance with ANSI/FL-1…it’s all voluntary and it was assembled by manufacturers to try and combat dishonest marketing claims that were running rampant. Honestly I suspect that most manufacturers do not actually give their lights a drop test - as of late with the move toward solid contact posts on the drivers rather than a spring, I suspect that doubly so. I mean that’s still true for lumens output even though they may fill in the charts for FL-1 but at least some of the folks are honest about when they calculate (vs. real testing/observation time). FL-1 is better than nothing, though, and if nothing else it should be helpful when comparing different models of the same brand.
You might want to read through the Zebralight programming of additional mode groups (called G6 and G7). You can set it only to the levels you mentioned, accessed through their standard single click, double click or long press. Or toggle between the two levels using double clicks after turning on.
I appreciate all the replies
I see that I unfortunately neglected to ‘paste’ a link I had copied into my previous post prior to clicking ‘save’, so I will include it here. It indicates AT’s apparent support and understanding of the ANSI PLATO FL1 standard, which provides some significant context to my OP, and some insight into the matter(s) addressed in it, which some may find interesting. Its inclusion here is not intended to be instructive regarding details of the standard, which most are hopefully already familiar with, but rather solely AT’s statements regarding that standard. Everything I see in this writeup appears to be correct / accurate, including the valid icons presented.
Here’s a relevant excerpt:
*
Before 2009 there weren’t any general rates, which permitted to assess the characteristics of flashlights. That’s why it was rather difficult for average users to compare various models appropriately. The problem became especially acute when LED flashlights entered the market.
In comparison with a conventional incandescent flashlight, an LED flashlight could give a brighter beam with longer distance and impressive battery life duration. But there was no way to back the advantages up with numbers. In response to that need incandescent and LED flashlight producers coordinated their efforts to create the standards that would later be officially accepted by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American National Standards Institute.
Today they are known as the ANSI FL1 standards — a set of flashlight performance assessment guidelines. ANSI evaluation isn’t compulsory, but flashlight producers tend to undergo the test and display the information on the packaging to help their customers compare the products.
The devices are tested according to brightness, beam distance, peak beam intensity, runtime, water and impact resistance. Each parameter has its own unique emblem. The ANSI FL1 logo for runtime represents a clock, under which you can see the number of minutes or hours a flashlight can operate on a single set of batteries. Runtime measurement starts 30 seconds after the light is turned on and stops when the light is at 10% of its original output value.
Here’s the link to that article:
Thanks for your input regarding the potential increase in COGS resulting from potting (if / when done correctly - which I’m not sure all flashlight manufacturers do). I have electronics manufacturing experience, but zero experience with potting per se, thus my question. Thanks for that insight.
The other points in your reply are so far beyond the scope of my question that I can’t address all of them in this post, as they involve some real deep ‘ratholes’. It will suffice to simply ‘agree to disagree’ on most of that, and save those aspects for another post, another day - but I do appreciate your opinions, which were offered in a civilized manner:-).
I trimmed quite a bit I’m not intending to take anything out of context. Armytek did not reference ANSI/PLATO FL1 2016 OR 2019.
Even though army tech apparently published that blog in 2020 their referenced to LED lights so frequently makes me assume that most of the language was written sometime after 2009 but before 2016. And certainly not after 2019 when testing and using those emblems cost money. After 2019 you have to submit flashlights to UL for testing in order to use the emblems. So I’m not going to fault armytek or any other manufacturer for not wanting to join an American trade organization. When ansi fl1 was first established I’m going to take a wild guess here and say that less than 50% of flashlights available were using rechargeable lithium ion batteries. Step down do to heat was not really a big thing. The runtime standard in 2009 doesn’t really apply to flashlights of today or in 2014 or 15 as armytek was attempting to point out. I for one don’t ever turn a flashlight on the highest mode and let it run till the battery is empty. I’ve not seen a better run time standard discussed but the current one is not a whole lot of use to me. The whole issue of different types of drivers just means that standard is not as useful as they had hoped. That is the point armytek is trying to get across. So I can understand why armytek and many other manufacturers do not want to play in their (plato) reindeer games. Edit, and the part you put in about…hopefully most being familiar with the standard. (Rephrased)…. I don’t believe that most are familiar with the 2019 standard. And that lights need to be submitted to and pay UL for testing. The Plato-usa website spells all this out
Does anyone know if that Pflexpro guy will be opening his website any time soon?
Also does any one of you have experience with Cloud defensive lights?
I emailed them, they said their edc lights are not potted, and I can’t find any torture videos on youtube