# Are they ripping us off?



## sigsour (Sep 25, 2009)

With some of the prices of lights out there; I have wondered what some of the real profit margins really are. Do all these companies charge crazy prices because we are the only group of individuals to buy them? or is it like any other business venture out there...just wondering.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Sep 25, 2009)

I live under the thin delusion that everyone is ripping me off.


----------



## ampdude (Sep 25, 2009)

If it's too much, don't buy it.

I'm not swayed by strobe/SOS or the latest emitter in a $200 flashlight. Most of the features in the wonderlights I don't want anyways. I don't like lights that are too small to hold. Lights that don't fit to the bottom of my pocket. Or lights that I need to take a college course to learn how to operate. They are completely impractical and probably won't work how you want them to in an emergency or under general usage anyways. I know what I like and in what format. If there's a new emitter to come out, I'll somehow stick it in an E-series and P/C-series compatible light by way of mod, Malkoff, or Dealextreme.


----------



## yellow (Sep 25, 2009)

partly material,
partly machining,
partly electronics,
partly finish quality,
partly quality control,
partly "ripping"

simply get a cheapo and a medium price/quality and compare.
There is quite a difference.

IF there is enough difference between medium and high price, thats to be argued about
(but remember, it is just since the entry of Fenix, that there is a medium level with THIS quality)


----------



## ampdude (Sep 25, 2009)

I've never been overly impressed with the build quality or operation any Fenix light I've ever seen. But I will agree with you that they are "medium" quality lights and generally a good value. The biggest neg is that they are not very user upgradeable without medium to advanced modding skills and the moving parts (and the whole light itself) are more prone to failure than a Surefire type light.


----------



## yellow (Sep 25, 2009)

I knew this will - again - quickly become a SF vs. all thread. 

PS: wrong on "more prone to failure"


----------



## ampdude (Sep 25, 2009)

By mentioning Fenix, you virtually guaranteed a comparision to other lights.


----------



## hyperloop (Sep 25, 2009)

Do r&d costs factor into all this as well?

I'd also venture a guess that quality controls play a part too, had to recently deal with a supplier where factoring in the costs for quality control i.e. testing the product before shipment really kicked up the costs.


----------



## ZMZ67 (Sep 25, 2009)

Considering what major retailers like Wal-Mart and Target are charging for their LED flashlight offerings I don't think so.Certainly major retailers are not marketing to flashaholics but for the same models pricing is no better.Target sells the INOVA X5 at somewhere around $35 wich is about what you end up paying online.You may get cheap clearance prices but that is a function of the retailer clearing inventory or old stock.There are more lights under $30 but they often use lower grade LEDs like the XR-C or poor battery configurations like three AAA.Many of those lights lack efficiency and the overall quality is less than mid-range lights like Fenix or Nitecore.
Some of the more expensive lights may be overpriced to some extent but they usually offer something even the mid-range lights don't have.


----------



## drmaxx (Sep 25, 2009)

Prices have nothing to do with cost. Usually they are higher  but that's about it. The price is all about finding the highest price most people are still willing to pay (= optimising profits). 
This can be high above costs or very thin margins. It is not consistent and I am sure it is not consistent for flashlights as well.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 25, 2009)

Sgt. LED said:


> I live under the thin delusion that everyone is ripping me off.


 
Worst rip-off would still be on used cars....:devil:


----------



## csshih (Sep 25, 2009)

sigsour said:


> With some of the prices of lights out there; I have wondered what some of the real profit margins really are. Do all these companies charge crazy prices because we are the only group of individuals to buy them? or is it like any other business venture out there...just wondering.



define rip off?

25% profit, 50% profit, 100% profit, 200% profit?
I happen to know a few prices, and I can say they're(dealer) *not* ripping you off.

the manufacturer? that's a whole different story.


----------



## McGizmo (Sep 25, 2009)

csshih said:


> ....
> 25% profit, 50% profit, 100% profit, 200% profit?
> ....



For one to enjoy 100% profit, the cost would have to be zero and the selling price could be $1 or $1,000,000; in either case, 100% would be profit. I think achieving 200% profit would involve a black hole and or anti gravity. :thinking:


----------



## csshih (Sep 25, 2009)

d'oh. that's what I get for writing at 2AM.

how do you say profit like this:
you make a light for, say, 50$, and sell it for 50.
100?
150?

too sleepy to function, thanks for that correction.

I'd like a 200% profit black hole please.


----------



## HELL LIGHT (Sep 25, 2009)

csshih said:


> define rip off?
> 
> 25% profit, 50% profit, 100% profit, 200% profit?
> I happen to know a few prices, and I can say they're(dealer) *not* ripping you off.
> ...


 
In order for the manufacturer to make 100% profit it has to be made from prison labor which is illegal in this country unless they are imported from countries like China!!!!


----------



## RobertM (Sep 25, 2009)

drmaxx said:


> Prices have nothing to do with cost. Usually they are higher  but that's about it. The price is all about finding the highest price most people are still willing to pay (= optimising profits).
> This can be high above costs or very thin margins. It is not consistent and I am sure it is not consistent for flashlights as well.



You sir, are 100% correct!



I think what csshih was referring to was percent-markup not profit margin.


----------



## mwaldron (Sep 25, 2009)

The basis of any free market financial transaction is that both parties leave the transaction feeling like they got a good deal. If the customer doesn't feel it's worth the price, he doesn't buy it. If the dealer doesn't feel he was adequately compensated, he waits for a better offer (or another customer). 

A really good transaction is when both parties feel they ripped the other off. 

Some lights are horrendously overpriced, yet we still buy them. I own a few Surefire lights and I own a few maglites. 

I also own a Sig-Sauer pistol, but I could have just bought a piece of tupperware, it would have been much cheaper.


----------



## LEDninja (Sep 25, 2009)

*We* are ripping us off.

Instead of an Fenix LD10,
we can buy a Fenix L1T v2.0,
or an Ultrafire C3.

For those of us who have made the 14X jump from 5mm to Luxeon and 2X jump from Luxeon to Cree, is that 1.05X improvement from Q5 to R2 worth it?


----------



## gswitter (Sep 25, 2009)

csshih said:


> how do you say profit like this:
> you make a light for, say, 50$, and sell it for 50.
> 100?
> 150?


Multiple of the "bill of materials" (BOM). $50 would be 1x BOM, $100 would be 2x BOM, etc.

At a previous job, working for a large consumer electronics company, our target price was always 5x BOM. 5x would theoretically cover non-BOM costs (development, marketing, infrastructure, etc) and leave enough extra to keep the shareholders happy.


----------



## ninjaboigt (Sep 25, 2009)

Sgt. LED said:


> I live under the thin delusion that everyone is ripping me off.


 
i feel the same...but i try not to feel bad, because if i was to try to make a flashlight by hand, or anything else, it'd take me years...but i know how to make money lol so...yea...


----------



## xcel730 (Sep 25, 2009)

I believe we operate in an efficient market. If the consumers are not willing to spend x dollars to buy a flashlight, the manufacturer will either need to reduce the price, discontinue the product, or fold. 

Without getting into companies specifics, it is a lot cheaper to reverse engineer and copy another company's product than to innovate. Innovation require research & development, which is a rather large cost. Take drugs for instance, xyz drug could cost $2.00 per tablet for consumer, but the raw cost is only pennies. Once the patent expires, other companies develop generic drugs that cost a fraction of the price.

The price a company charge depends on their intended target market. Without factoring in any other cost, companies that target to the mass market could sell 1,000 flashlight for $10 a piece and make $10,000 or a specialty company could sell 100 flashlight for $100 a piece and make the same amount.


----------



## Crenshaw (Sep 25, 2009)

actually, determining that point of production where its the maximum amount a consumer will pay for a given product is really hard in the real world.

many a time, i believe cost plus is used. Meaning, cost, plus however much profit they want to make.

if there is any "invisible hand" it will after this cost plus thing comes into effect first.

I believe that to actually MAKE each light, whether its surefire, fenix, nitecore, etc, is fairly cheap. Its the Man-hours, the research, the outsourcing, etc, etc we are paying for, not the raw material.

Crenshaw


----------



## Cataract (Sep 25, 2009)

yellow said:


> partly material,
> partly machining,
> partly electronics,
> partly finish quality,
> ...


 
You forgot supply and demand and some quality control procedures include destructive tesing, which makes the price tag much bigger (probably why SF is so eFFin expensive)


----------



## Federal LG (Sep 25, 2009)

I know NOTHING about lights construction...

All I do is: take the light in your hand, analyze, feel it... if you think it worth the price, buy it. If not, don´t buy it.

It´s our choice.

But I do still think that there is some brands that could be a little more cheaper... 30 or 40 dollars cheaper!


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 25, 2009)

ampdude said:


> I've never been overly impressed with the build quality or operation any Fenix light I've ever seen. But I will agree with you that they are "medium" quality lights and generally a good value. The biggest neg is that they are not very user upgradeable without medium to advanced modding skills and the moving parts (and the whole light itself) are more prone to failure than a Surefire type light.


*+1*

I second that.


----------



## EV_007 (Sep 25, 2009)

It comes down to research and development, design, materials and quality control as well as advertising budget.

But one of the biggest deciding factors in pricing is cost of labor. You do the math.


----------



## Search (Sep 25, 2009)

Don't forget testing and who is testing


----------



## Cataract (Sep 25, 2009)

Search said:


> Don't forget testing and who is testing


 Doesn't that mean that we shoud get paid instead of paying???


----------



## Linger (Sep 25, 2009)

csshih said:


> how do you say profit like this:


Investment= total value of all resources required to have produced that product and put it on the market
Profit is often used in place of 'return on investment' and this seems to be what you were asking for. (many uses for the term, 'optimal profit' 'net profit' 'gross profit'
The equation you're looking for is profit in relation to investment. When the product is sold, the amount you receive, less investment, is profit.

profit = sale price - investment
To get a % = profit / investment


----------



## csshih (Sep 25, 2009)

aah, thanks for that info. 
stupid mistake


----------



## Larbo (Sep 25, 2009)

I for one feel ripped off I wasnt one of the lucky teens that had a hot teacher...well you know:kiss:

Oh we are talking about torches, yes sometimes I wonder how they justify $195 for a two cell (123) light, but you got to admit they sure are a first class tool.


----------



## Search (Sep 25, 2009)

Cataract said:


> Doesn't that mean that we shoud get paid instead of paying???



Ehh... no.

What I'm talking about is a benefit of being in an "elite" tactical unit. I do highly doubt this leads to high prices.

Now, if only I could get a 416 



Larbo said:


> I for one feel ripped off I wasnt one of the lucky teens that had a hot teacher...well you know:kiss:



I second this.


----------



## McGizmo (Sep 26, 2009)

Linger said:


> .....
> To get a % = profit / investment



Suppose you have a $1 in investment and sell the item (keystoned) for $2. You have $1 in profit. (Profit = selling price - investment) This is a 50% profit margin. 

From the equation quoted above: %= $1/$1 =1 ?!?! 

I believe you want to say Profit Margin (%) = profit/selling price (in my example that would be $1/$2 which is .5 or 50%)


----------



## Crenshaw (Sep 26, 2009)

*removed due to potential misinterpretation*

Crenshaw


----------



## Marduke (Sep 26, 2009)

Crenshaw said:


> Ive never been fully impressed with any surefire light yet without some decent mod work.They aren't exactly exceptionally bright in this day and age.
> My first one was a G2Z, and right out of the box, the twisty/push-for-momentary switch failed, and i needed a replacement.
> 
> my biggest negative about them is that you cant use Rechargable litium cells in them stock.
> ...



And in my experience the switches (yes, plural) are extremely fragile from ~3ft drops onto hardwood floors...


----------



## Search (Sep 26, 2009)

One of the problems with SureFire, in my opinion, is that their history has led to one of the biggest down sides to most people.

I believe if SureFire hadn't been a pioneer in bringing lithium batteries to the flashlight world, they might not have started to brand their own batteries. This might have led to them not restricting their lights to a cr123 battery. I've never had any problem with primaries, but budget restraints just forced me into rechargeables.

If other companies sold their own branded batteries, I would fully expect them to not bore their lights to accept larger, rechargeable batteries. 


A long time ago I bought a PD30 and a 6PL. I had the PD30 a few months before the 6PL and used it daily as it was my only light. Well, after getting the 6PL I realized the most important thing of my flashlight career: Brightness didn't mean ****.

80 lumens was enough for absolutely everything I did. The P series was such a strong light that it was all I would ever need. Of course, I realized other things regarding SureFire and certain features about the P series but that isn't relevant to this thread.

What I learned was what I really needed in a light.

I can see why some people prefer certain companies, but I know why I'll choose to pay what I have been.

I think it's pretty hard to get ripped off in the flashlight world for one reason: There are so many different companies to buy from one would have to be ignorant to buy a more expensive one and then complain.

No one is forced to buy any one thing so it's hard to feel ripped off with prices.


----------



## McGizmo (Sep 26, 2009)

Crenshaw said:


> Ive never been fully impressed with any surefire light yet without some decent mod work.They aren't exactly exceptionally bright in this day and age.
> My first one was a G2Z, and right out of the box, the twisty/push-for-momentary switch failed, and i needed a replacement.
> 
> my biggest negative about them is that you cant use Rechargable litium cells in them stock.
> ...



I realize this is your opinion and it is not without a basis. However, what does this have to do with the question of "being ripped off" and how that might relate to profit margins, excessive or otherwise? :thinking:

If SureFire claimed that their lights were designed for use with rechargeable Lithium cells and yet you couldn't use such cells in one of your SF lights, that might certainly be justification for feeling you are getting ripped off by them.

What pray tell does your stated opinion have to do with this particular thread or is it just that rip off and SureFire go hand in hand?


----------



## berry580 (Sep 26, 2009)

I think nowadays, people has expectations.
To some people, primaries and rechargeable are more or less substitutes of each other.

How would it feel if you bought a sport car which said "premium unleaded only", the one day you're a little out of pocket and you put in some regular unleaded petrol and the car just won't start up?
The manufacturer may argue its the driver's fault for putting in the "wrong" fuel. But is that how EVERYONE feels? Common sense tells me they're not *THAT* different.:ironic:

I think the scenario with Surefire right now is fairly similar. They're not making fault advertisings, but they're s simply "ripping us off" our choice of battery. To be honest, this is THE primary reason over why I still have yet to own any Surefire lights despite its huge reputation, with price as the next biggest reason.



McGizmo said:


> I realize this is your opinion and it is not without a basis. However, what does this have to do with the question of "being ripped off" and how that might relate to profit margins, excessive or otherwise? :thinking:
> 
> If SureFire claimed that their lights were designed for use with rechargeable Lithium cells and yet you couldn't use such cells in one of your SF lights, that might certainly be justification for feeling you are getting ripped off by them.
> 
> What pray tell does your stated opinion have to do with this particular thread or is it just that rip off and SureFire go hand in hand?


----------



## DimeRazorback (Sep 26, 2009)

You don't know what your missing out on 

Buying in bulk isn't to bad anyway.


----------



## KiwiMark (Sep 26, 2009)

I don't want to say whether SF are ripping people off on their prices or not - but one cost that they have to cover which hasn't been mentioned so far is the warranty replacements. There is no way that a manufacturer will give out new torches as a charity - they have to factor the cost of their lifetime warranty into the price of their lights. So it isn't just the cost of producing the light vs the price that they charge for it, the support cost must be considered also.


----------



## berry580 (Sep 26, 2009)

i heard that customer service quality is significantly lower when it comes to non-US customers.

im sorry, my english isn't that great, but.....

*SureFire offers a 10-year limited warranty in any country or under any jurisdiction where specific restrictions exist on limited lifetime warranties.* 
Is it lifetime warranty of the original owner or 10 years limited warranty? these stuff are confusing.

Also, seriously, what is there to fail in a flashlight?
*Normal wear and tear — including lamps burning out, batteries draining, and switches wearing out* are ALL NOT covered in the warranty. Not like the LEDs would blow out (given SFs ain't that heavily driven) or the aluminum body would suddenly have a crack across it or the like.

*Electronics, chargers, and rechargeable batteries are covered for a period of two years with proof of purchase.* So if the the circuit board fks up in the 3rd year, then that's it?

http://www.surefire.com/guarantee
*all text in bold are quote from SF website

Therefore, a 100% price premium over the Chinese premium flashlights counterparts because of warranty does not justify, especially when you consider Jetbeam, Nitecore, Fenix, Olight, Eagletac etc all provides _limited lifetime warranty_ (whatever that means) anyway.


----------



## KiwiMark (Sep 26, 2009)

Although I mentioned SF in my post I would add that the same thing applies to all companies that offer a warranty - the cost of the support must be factored into the selling price.


----------



## Robocop (Sep 26, 2009)

The main reason I joined this forum, years back, was so I would not get ripped off as I was searching for a new duty light. I read as much as I could understand and then went and bought something I was happy with for a decent price.

I believe that many of us here are up to date enough on our lights to know what we are buying and to also know if it is worth what we wish to pay.

Now after learning for many years what is good in a light I will still often buy something (even if it is in my opinion overpriced) simply to have it. For me personally I am much better now buying a light, and feeling good about the price, simply because I am a flashaholic.

When I first started here I was shocked at some of the costs for the "better" quality lights or even the customs. Now I better understand some of the labor, costs, R&D, and much else that is involved so I understand now why some things cost what they do.

Bottom line really is that it is pretty hard for anyone to rip us off if you spend a little time on CPF. I also believe what some consider to be a high price for any certain item others will not. If one simply wants a decent light there are hundreds to be had that are an excellent deal for what they cost.

If you can afford it there are just as many rare, popular, or even custom lights out there that are what many consider to be overpriced. These products still sale very well and to the end receiver they are worth every penny.

Lets consider one of the old "Larry Lights" made by fellow member tvodrd. The originals he made long ago would be considered by todays standards as average performers. I realize some here will not know what I am talking about however the lights I am speaking of were simply beautiful in their simplicity. If you were to really add up the cost of parts used they maybe had 50 dollars of actual "stuff".....if you had a batch of them today they would easily all be sold out within an hour and go for at least 300 dollars....and I promise you that any who owned them would not consider themselves as being ripped off.

Being ripped off is honestly in the eyes of the purchaser and will vary depending on how bad they want an item, demand at the time of purchase, and several other factors. With the ever constant scrutiny of CPF members today it is hard for any dealer to stay afloat long without offering something we appreciate as a decent deal.

Well I have went off on another trademark long winded post however I hope I explained myself well enough. Basically CPF as a whole will make you feel better about many lights you purchase if you do a little research and know what your likes and dis-likes are before buying.


----------



## thelightdude (Sep 26, 2009)

Robocop said:


> The main reason I joined this forum, years back, was so I would not get ripped off as I was searching for a new duty light. I read as much as I could understand and then went and bought something I was happy with for a decent price.
> 
> Basically CPF as a whole will make you feel better about many lights you purchase if you do a little research and know what your likes and dis-likes are before buying.



+1 

I totally agree


----------



## Crenshaw (Sep 26, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I realize this is your opinion and it is not without a basis. However, what does this have to do with the question of "being ripped off" and how that might relate to profit margins, excessive or otherwise? :thinking:
> 
> If SureFire claimed that their lights were designed for use with rechargeable Lithium cells and yet you couldn't use such cells in one of your SF lights, that might certainly be justification for feeling you are getting ripped off by them.
> 
> What pray tell does your stated opinion have to do with this particular thread or is it just that rip off and SureFire go hand in hand?



I actually do just realize how off topic that was. It was intended to chime in on some earlier posts, also regarding feature sets in lights.

I should go change it, wouldnt want continue a surefire/other brand fight. 



ampdude said:


> I've never been overly impressed with the build quality or operation any Fenix light I've ever seen. But I will agree with you that they are "medium" quality lights and generally a good value. The biggest neg is that they are not very user upgradeable without medium to advanced modding skills and the moving parts (and the whole light itself) are more prone to failure than a Surefire type light.




:tinfoil:

ahem, back on topic.... 

Crenshaw


----------



## :)> (Sep 26, 2009)

I can't see where I can be ripped off by buying any flashlight at any price; if it is my choice, then I make the decision so if I am, in fact, getting ripped off, it is me that is ripping myself off:thinking:

Getting ripped off is when someone is taking something from you that you do not consent to or have no say in... taxes are a rip-off, flashlights... not so much.

Crenshaw is correct that many set the price based on a model that accounts for the costs and then adds profit margin on top of that. That seems to be the easiest way to get to a price because it is more easily understandable; a more complete understanding is one that takes into account the market for the goods or the service being priced and in this model, cost and sale price are only related in that the good or service will not be sold if the attainable sale price is too low (not worth the investment). 

The sellers job is to maximize the return on their investment and the buyers job is to determine if the price is worth their investment. The good thing about this type of system, is that sellers are motivated to sell so buyers tend to set the price; buyers as a whole that is and not as individuals. 

I think it is a great system because it leads toward all types of innovation which tends to drive prices down over time and not up.

Don's formula of profit margin is correct the other fellow that was using 100% or 200% etc. was speaking about a mark up percentage; if I have an item that costs me $1, and I mark it up 100%, then I sell it for $2 and make 50% profit margin on the sale. 

Besides being an economist and a philosopher, Don also makes some of the finest lights on the planet.


----------



## drmaxx (Sep 26, 2009)

:)> said:


> Crenshaw is correct that many set the price based on a model that accounts for the costs and then adds profit margin on top of that. That seems to be the easiest way to get to a price because it is more easily understandable; a more complete understanding is one that takes into account the market for the goods or the service being priced and in this model, cost and sale price are only related in that the good or service will not be sold if the attainable sale price is too low (not worth the investment).



Generally, most experts have quite a good feel about what they can charge for their product in an established market place. If they can produce something that will make a profit, they will. Very rarely it is the other way around (you make a product and then set the price based on costs). 

Even if Surefire can make a new flashlight cheaply without any R&D, etc - they would have no reason to sell it cheaper in their current market. People are willing to pay a premium for a high-quality flashlight they can trust their life on. However, they are wise to spend part of this high return in R&D to maintain their edge....


----------



## London Lad (Sep 26, 2009)

I don't know how you define a rip off ?

Take Don for example, he sells out most of his runs of $400+ lights so people must see them as good value (I certainly do)

Now suppose Don found a way to make his lights for $10 each and still sold them for $400+, would we see that as a rip off or a fair reward for Don inventing the $10 production method ?

On one occassion I wanted a light from Don and he told me 'You can buy this light for $x, its not worth $x but that's what it's worth to me and that's what I would want to part with it' 

If the seller and buyer are happy then I think the margins are somewhat irrelevant.

High margins are usually sorted out by the market and competition pretty quickly.

One thing I have noticed is that in the US you seem to allow a lot more instances of restrictive trading that would be illegal in the UK or Europe. For example companies based in the US preventing thier US retailers from selling anywhere other than in the US.

Personalty I think that this is a particularly evil form of restriction on trade but ironically it probably only causes higher prices in the UK and Europe where it would be an illegal practice.


----------



## angelofwar (Sep 26, 2009)

:)> said:


> I can't see where I can be ripped off by buying any flashlight at any price; if it is my choice, then I make the decision so if I am, in fact, getting ripped off, it is me that is ripping myself off:thinking:
> 
> Getting ripped off is when someone is taking something from you that you do not consent to or have no say in... taxes are a rip-off, flashlights... not so much.


 
+1...you only get ripped off once...how many times do you go back to that crappy restraunt that had $40 plates and crappy service??? When I bought my first real light (happened to be an SF), I took the chance of getting ripped off...now I own 23...I bought a few $45-$50 lights from other companies, where the build/over-all quality looked decent...and it sucked...I got ripped off...ONCE...never again...easy as that. One light company (for the most part) gets my money...because they have never ripped me off. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"


----------



## McGizmo (Sep 26, 2009)

Crenshaw,
I owe you an apology. I should have included the previous post which you quoted as well and actually your post did have more relevance than I allowed it although still off topic, IMHO.

I guess the Fenix VS SureFire debate is alive and well and I admit that I read very few threads on CPF these days so I am not up to speed or even aware of so many of the lights being presently offered! If I were a newbie today or tasked with identifying a good bang for the buck flashlight for someone, I would be completely overwhelmed and not up to sorting through all that is available!!

In terms of getting ripped off. I would imagine that there are any number of dealers who have found niche markets where they can indeed rip off unsuspecting customers. I don't think the manufacturers can get away with this because most manufacturers have to be committed to a market for a reasonable length of time and survival requires market acceptance. As Robo and others have stated, it seems unlikely that a rip off program could fly for any length of time here on CPF because of the scrutiny and awareness of the community. I would guess the real rip offs are in discount stores and catalogs where questionable products and claims can fly in the face of the ignorance of the consumers.

I think there are some cases where in absolute terms, an item can be considered a rip off. However for the most part, I believe this is a subjective call and most likely made when a customer purchases an item under false understanding of what it can do for them. This false understanding might be due to questionable claims or simply incorrect assumptions or perceptions held by the customer.

If price is commensurate with utility, it is difficult to consider it a rip off. The OP questioned the potential for rip off as it might be based on profit margins. Well as it has been mentioned, the true cost of an item goes well beyond the direct costs of materials and assembly and includes some factor of the time, investment and opportunity costs of the entity producing the item. Economists may identify two groups of costs as direct and indirect costs or perhaps fixed and variable costs. Regardless, none of us will have a clue as to the realistic and fair assessment of a cost of one of these lights because we have no idea what the manufacturer expenses are. 

If one of us is gifted a flashlight and we decide to sell it, regardless of what price we sell it for, the revenue received will be 100% profit. You can't get a better profit than that! However to evaluate the sale of said light as either being a rip off or fair deal, it is the selling price itself, independent of profit margin, that needs to be considered.

The intrinsic value of an item is independent of what it cost to produce and bring to market. The key to a successful business is bringing items to market at a selling price that are in excess of what they cost the business to bring to market. If the profit margins are indeed greater than they need to be, it is likely that competition will have others come in with similar items offered at lower prices. We have seen this transpire over the years here. Often it is not so much a case of excessive profit as much as a case of the new comer being able to make similar product at lower costs. 

Profit margins are critical to a manufacturer and dealer because they are the means of survival for them. Profit margins are unknown to the consumer and actually irrelevant; none of their business. The selling price is all that matters to the consumer and it is either reasonable and acceptable based on the perceived and anticipated value of the item or it isn't. The price of the item can be compared to prices of similar items on the market and the consumer is free to make a purchasing decision.


----------



## tabetha (Sep 26, 2009)

I used to be an avid fan of fenix, still have lots of respect for them and consider them good quality.
But when I started buying ones that cost just 1/4 the amount that are VASTLY better it burst my ilusional bubble.
I have the P 1D CE in std and Q5 versions of each, smooth and rippled whatever you call it.
I ordered as a curiosity more than anything a Ultrafire MCU-C7s for around $12(£7), and got blown away by it, so much so that I carry it everywhere.
Me GI mates say what the hell for so I say I'm an anorak!!
tabetha


----------



## Vesper (Sep 26, 2009)

If I hire someone to paint my home, and they do a sloppy, sub-par job, I feel ripped off regardless of what I paid them. If they do a professional quality job with pride, I feel good about the purchase even if they are on the more expensive side.

I feel the same about lights. I've purchased the 'medium' quality lights and they don't feel right for the above reason. I've never had this feeling with Surefire for example. So yes, feeling ripped-off on a purchase has many factors. Many books have been written on the subject of why we choose the way we do.


----------



## Crenshaw (Sep 26, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> Crenshaw,
> I owe you an apology. I should have included the previous post which you quoted as well and actually your post did have more relevance than I allowed it although still off topic, IMHO.
> .


not at all....i should be KEEPING a post on topic rather then facilitating an off topic discussion.

I guess with lights, the only time one can get ripped off is if they are scammed into paying more than retail price for it by someone who is knowingly doing that.

and to everyone else, may we please refrain from doing a fenix/surefire thing? its not so much a horse as much as it is a whole herd of beaten to death horses.

Crenshaw


----------



## xcel730 (Sep 26, 2009)

I think getting ripped off is when you have to pay for something that you consider overpriced and yet you don't have a choice but pay. For example, back in college, I always felt that the college textbooks and course materials are rip offs. They're expensive, they update a couple of pages every year, and you have no choice but to buy them. With flashlight, if you don't see the value of a particular brand or model, then just don't buy them and you won't be ripped off.


----------



## KiwiMark (Sep 26, 2009)

xcel730 said:


> I think getting ripped off is when you have to pay for something that you consider overpriced and yet you don't have a choice but pay. For example, back in college, I always felt that the college textbooks and course materials are rip offs. They're expensive, they update a couple of pages every year, and you have no choice but to buy them. With flashlight, if you don't see the value of a particular brand or model, then just don't buy them and you won't be ripped off.



Reading these forums I have come across SO MANY flashlights - the options are almost endless. There are a lot of cheap, medium & expensive lights of pretty much every format. The amount of Q5, R2 & MCE lights with the various battery configurations - it is hard to keep track of them all. If you don't want to pay the price of Surefire lights you could go with Jetbeam, Olight, Fenix, Liteflux, Nitecore and others at similar prices. If you don't want to pay those prices then you could go with Ultrafire or any of the clone lights.

If you don't like the quality of the clone lights then you could always pay more to get the quality brand ones. But if you choose to pay more to get better quality it would be a bit rich to turn around and claim you have been ripped off! I look at lights like my Jet-IIIM and I really don't think that cheaper lights will be as well made. When I look at the cheap lights on DX I see some big negatives on almost every one of them - 8 mode lights that are annoying, feedback mentioning poor quality of construction and various faults, etc. You wont get the square threads on a $20 light as far as I've seen.

Sometimes you just have to pay more if you want good quality. But that would be a choice you willingly make and shouldn't complain about it.


----------



## Robocop (Sep 26, 2009)

Technology is great and today allows us many places to purchase lights online. If you can not find something local just jump online and it is yours from any number of sources. I can only imagine how hard it really is these days for some dealers to compete.

In my opinion being ripped off in todays world is easy to avoid. I know of one place locally that has speciality equipment for Police work and I once shopped there. The owner, at the time, was the only place to buy certain items and he really jacked his price way up there. Now honestly this is what I believe would be getting ripped off as it was equipment we had to have and were forced to buy it at a much higher cost.....well not really forced as we could have bought online but most of us need equipment then and there.

This store is still in business however it is well known not to shop there unless it is the last resort. The building is old and not cared for very much and his inventory is much less these days.....people slowly developed other options and over time his business has dropped greatly.

My point with that was to say sure some may rip people off a few times however it will catch up to them. There are not many here who rip people off and if so they do not stay very long. The big companies must be doing something right to have many loyal customers. I am sure there are a few who believe many are over priced, not worth the cost...etc: however there are many others who believe in the product.

This applies to every dealer or maker of lights as some will cheer them while others will not. The perceived value will change between people and is really in the eye of the beholder.

The poster and other members are doing well to keep this on topic and I will ask the same. This thread was not started to single out any one company I believe and is aimed at the "general" selections available today. Enjoy the discussion and I ask to keep it civil and on topic.


----------



## John_Galt (Sep 26, 2009)

Larbo said:


> I for one feel ripped off I wasnt one of the lucky teens that had a hot teacher...well you know:kiss:



You guys _were _ripped off... Ive had three hot math teachersdevil, and I'm a Junior.


But, no, I don't think I'm being ripped off. It's nice that I can look at the Surefire Website, and appreciate the quality and dedication offered by these lights, while still knowing that I don't have to buy one. If you don't think it's worth it, don't get it. That's the beauty of Capitalism (I'm talking to _you_ Mr. Moore...).


----------



## nativecajun (Sep 26, 2009)

sigsour said:


> With some of the prices of lights out there; I have wondered what some of the real profit margins really are. Do all these companies charge crazy prices because we are the only group of individuals to buy them? or is it like any other business venture out there...just wondering.


 

Just like the Knife Business. Once the "Hight Tech Stainless steels" came in everyone all of a sudden had $100.00 and up knives. Same as the Pharmacuticle ?spelling) companies. Sixty little pills I refill once a month, Of course I have insurance, but the price $400.00 dollars. About as big around of half a thumbtack. 

I am a believer in quality. But I will certainly never buy a Titan light, by Surefire for $239.99. This is a single cell CR123 light we are talking here. No>><< the idiots or rich people that buy that light have no common sense in my book. ( ooops !! hope there are none on this site LOL. ) that have that light. 

As stated I like quality. But look at the Fenix lights. I personaly believe the quality is better than surefire and you can buy a single Cell AA LD-10 for under sixty bucks. 

One AA battery. Put this Fenix to the test and see if a surefire E1L or what ever that $129.99 overpriced surefire LED light is.. I forgot to look at the price but I believe they are half the cost (the Fenix) than that little surefire toy. I believe it will stand up to, and then some, against the surefire. With the tailcap switch being shrowded by the lanyard loops on each side. The lanyard loops also allows you to stand it up which a surefire cannot. A great light you can see here http://www.fenixlight.com/viewproduct.asp?id=104

Yes I believe some take advantage of those of us that like quality. I believe the profit margin is high. But on the other hand, supply and demand may inflate the price. I mean how many of those lights does Surefire actually sell. Yet they still have to tool up for each light they make. 
Why don't you write and ask them their profit margin and share it all with us.

Daniel


----------



## KiwiMark (Sep 26, 2009)

Of course it is important to understand that there are definitely people being ripped off - paying hundreds for products that are not as good as a $50 light. But this is where CPF can come to the rescue - read the review to find out if it is worth the asking price, if it isn't then buy a different one. It is hard to rip off a well informed consumer!


----------



## McGizmo (Sep 26, 2009)

nativecajun said:


> Just like the Knife Business. Once the "Hight Tech Stainless steels" came in everyone all of a sudden had $100.00 and up knives. Same as the Pharmacuticle ?spelling) companies. Sixty little pills I refill once a month, Of course I have insurance, but the price $400.00 dollars. About as big around of half a thumbtack.
> 
> I am a believer in quality. But I will certainly never buy a Titan light, by Surefire for $239.99. This is a single cell CR123 light we are talking here. No>><< the idiots or rich people that buy that light have no common sense in my book.
> 
> ...



I am not going to bother to cut out some of the quoted material but let it stand in its entirety.

What I believe we have here is one person's opinion stated more as if it is fact, and not opinion. I know there are some of us who do not agree with this opinion but might feel impelled to comment because it has been stated as fact. There is clearly reference to Alpha VS Beta and those of us who may disagree are identified as idiots with no common sense. This from someone who closes by suggesting someone write SF and ask them what their profit margin is. Such a stupid suggestion, IMHO, makes me question the the balance of the post even if I didn't already have my own opinions on the subject matter. There is also a reference to the size of a pill somehow having a bearing on what it might cost or be worth? :shrug: :thinking:

It also seems to me that Robocop has requested, and for seemingly obvious reasons, that we avoid making such comments or posts.

Consider my post here as an attack on the quoted post. I attack it because it I think it a mistake for it to stand with its tone of truth and fact, uncontested.


----------



## jimmy1970 (Sep 26, 2009)

nativecajun said:


> I am a believer in quality. But I will certainly never buy a Titan light, by Surefire for $239.99. This is a single cell CR123 light we are talking here. No>><< the idiots or rich people that buy that light have no common sense in my book.
> 
> As stated I like quality. But look at the Fenix lights. I personaly believe the quality is better than surefire and you can buy a single Cell AA LD-10 for under sixty bucks.
> 
> ...


:shakehead:shakehead:shakehead:shakehead:shakehead :thumbsdow Daniel has spoken, now all bow down to the Daniel.....


----------



## DimeRazorback (Sep 26, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I am not going to bother to cut out some of the quoted material but let it stand in its entirety.
> 
> What I believe we have here is one person's opinion stated more as if it is fact, and not opinion. I know there are some of us who do not agree with this opinion but might feel impelled to comment because it has been stated as fact. There is clearly reference to Alpha VS Beta and those of us who may disagree are identified as idiots with no common sense. This from someone who closes by suggesting someone write SF and ask them what their profit margin is. Such a stupid suggestion, IMHO, makes me question the the balance of the post even if I didn't already have my own opinions on the subject matter. There is also a reference to the size of a pill somehow having a bearing on what it might cost or be worth? :shrug: :thinking:
> 
> ...



Very well put!

I could not of done so well myself :thumbsup:

The next time my Surefires anodizing chips off like many of my "other brand" lights have, I will let everyone know about the lack of quality.


----------



## ptolemy (Sep 27, 2009)

Since we cannot agree of what is considered a rip-off and since none of us will know exact cost of the item (the cost of materials, work, etc) then everything else is simply guessing.

Since this forum has many manufacturers, I think using names is rude.

In the end, if you think 1 brand is overpriced while delivering an inferior product, fine, rant away and go buy something else


----------



## Search (Sep 27, 2009)

I think anyone who continues to beat the overly dead horse should just get the boot.

Ah, the classic SureFire vs. Fenix or SureFire vs Any argument. Why does it always, always have to come to this.

Better yet, why do people even have to complain about how much various lights costs.

Flashlights aren't gas. They aren't milk. They aren't electricity bills. They aren't adult movie fees. 

It's like buying a car. You could buy a BMW, or you could buy a Geo.

Being as we don't live in communism (and that's forgetting they wouldn't spend money on you) no one is forcing anyone to buy any flashlight.

Who cares how much SureFire light costs. Who cares how much Fenix lights costs. Why? Because never will I be told to pay for either.

Give it a ******* rest. Buy whatever you want. If you end up thinking you paid too much, well get out of capitalism.


----------



## angelofwar (Sep 27, 2009)

Search said:


> I think anyone who continues to beat the overly dead horse should just get the boot.
> 
> Ah, the classic SureFire vs. Fenix or SureFire vs Any argument. Why does it always, always have to come to this.
> 
> ...


 
LMFAO!!! Good one, Search...couldn't agree more! "Facepalm"...that ought become a smilie on CPF!!!


----------



## xcel730 (Sep 27, 2009)

Rip off is a holster brand

Rip off is when a used car salesperson tries to sell you a lemon car

Rip off is when it cost more to fill your gas tank than to hire someone to push your car

Rip off is when you are forced to buy a brand new college textbook because they changed a few pages since the last edition

Rip off is when you have to pay $15 for one beer in a popular nightclub in New York

Rip off is what a guy does to his clothes when he is about to get intimate with his lady


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 27, 2009)

angelofwar said:


> LMFAO!!! Good one, Search...couldn't agree more! "Facepalm"...that ought become a smilie on CPF!!!


 
You mean this one?. . . 

Also, I agree. If one feels a light is overpriced, then don't buy it. 

I've tried the inexpensive route. Generally been disappointed. Even took the concept of a cheap light (Solarforce L600), and came up with a much better quality version that cost me considerably more money (Leef-bodied Surefire M4). 

The nice thing about this hobby is that you can spend as much, or as little, as you want.


----------



## Crenshaw (Sep 27, 2009)

You know Daniel, that is PRECISELY the kind of post we are trying to avoid?

some people feel that way, some people dont, but, lets move on from any brand bashing

Crenshaw


----------



## mdocod (Sep 27, 2009)

I have yet to see a flashlight who's primary selling point is nothing but a large price tag. Most of the more expensive lights are within the realm of reason with all things considered. Certainly the margins vary but that is natural capitalism at work. There are industries that contain niche markets where the large price tag is the larger selling point for some of the products than the actual quality or usefulness of the merchandise... and yes, there is a consumer base that is drawn to expensive things for the sake of them being expensive. Are those people being ripped off? If they are getting a level of satisfaction that justifies the expenditure then technically, even they are not being ripped off. 

From my perspective, I see people engaging in transactions every day that I would not personally engage in, because, if it were me in those shoes, I would feel as though I were being ripped off... (fine jewelry, expensive designer clothing and accessories, many used and new car transactions, the list goes on...) Does this mean that they got ripped off? Well, sometimes people let it happen at the used car lot because they don't have the marbles to fend off the salesweasles. In which case, they may have allowed themselves to be ripped off in order to avoid a confrontation that they did not desire. On the other hand, many people are convinced by that salesweasle that they are getting a great deal, and they walk off the lot feeling like they "stole" that car out from under that dealer. Is there room for a "what you don't know can't hurt you?" I'll leave that up to you to decide, personally, it's painful to watch family members and friends get "ripped" at the car lot (from my perspective). 

Think of CPF as edmunds for flashlights. Come here, and you won't be ripped off. If you think you were ripped off.... go to the marketplace and undo it... 

-Eric


----------



## Wattnot (Sep 27, 2009)

Wow.

Three pages of responses to an OP who has not posted even once after the original post. 

It's as if he threw a piece of meet in a cage of hungry lions!!


----------



## sigsour (Sep 27, 2009)

Not so much getting fed to hungry lions but I really didnt expect this to go in so many directions. I never meant for this to be a comparison of flashlight A to flashlight B. I just never understood why we dont see more lights being sold at retailers across the country like maybe a Gucci purse or a Polo shirt. It just doesnt exist and therefore I question that maybe those flashlight companies must increase their profits based on the fact that we are the few that are addicted to those products.


----------



## woodrow (Sep 28, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> For one to enjoy 100% profit, the cost would have to be zero and the selling price could be $1 or $1,000,000; in either case, 100% would be profit. I think achieving 200% profit would involve a black hole and or anti gravity. :thinking:


 
When speaking with my father recently, he commented how one well known environmentalist has made over $100,000,000.00 on his speeches and movies about global warming. I told my father that the man he is referring to is much smarter than the rest of us, because in order to make a profit, we must first buy or construct a product to sell. This man has made a fortune on a product he did not have to first buy or pay to have put together. LOL (a comment only about marketing...not global warming)

I believe if a company can cause enough consumers to perceive a greater value or worth in its products over those of its compitetion, and keep this perception over a long term, it deserves its profits... no matter what percentage they might be.


----------



## drmaxx (Sep 28, 2009)

woodrow said:


> I believe if a company can cause enough consumers to perceive a greater value [...], and keep this perception over a long term, it deserves its profits... no matter what percentage they might be.


E.g. Diamonds?


----------



## Flying Turtle (Sep 28, 2009)

Was it Pogo in the comics that once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us"? I this free choice economy the only people ripping us off are ourselves.

Geoff


----------



## berry580 (Sep 28, 2009)

Wattnot said:


> Wow.
> 
> Three pages of responses to an OP who has not posted even once after the original post.
> 
> It's as if he threw a piece of meet in a cage of hungry lions!!


Must be sitting back enjoying the show lol



sigsour said:


> Not so much getting fed to hungry lions but I really didnt expect this to go in so many directions. I never meant for this to be a comparison of flashlight A to flashlight B. I just never understood why we dont see more lights being sold at retailers across the country like maybe a Gucci purse or a Polo shirt. It just doesnt exist and therefore I question that maybe those flashlight companies must increase their profits based on the fact that we are the few that are addicted to those products.


I think the major reason is that flashlights has seldom been marketed to be fashionable and most developed nations has a network of street lights. So many can just free ride without significant need of a capable flashlight.

Little push from marketers + little demand = little influence in the mainstream market

and a smaller market = they must charge a relatively higher price compared to when there's a larger market due to economies of scale.


----------



## 1138 (Sep 28, 2009)

I think most flashlights here are overpriced. They are all basically a tube of metal, an LED and a circuit board. I just recently picked up a new hard drive for $50, which consists of precision machined platters, a drive motor, an embedded controller, circuit-board, cache memory, a metal case, a drive head and an arm actuator. By my count, it's a lot more complicated to design and build a hard drive than a flashlight but it costs less than even a simple flashlight like a Fenix L2T.

Of course, the cost difference is due to the differences between the flashlight market and the hard drive market. But that doesn't mean they aren't overpriced for what you get.



woodrow said:


> I believe if a company can cause enough consumers to perceive a greater value or worth in its products over those of its compitetion, and keep this perception over a long term, it deserves its profits... no matter what percentage they might be.



I disagree. A free market only works when all the players are acting rationally and have full information about the costs and utility of the products that are being exchanged*. By manipulating people's perceptions about value, a company can distort the market and cause problems.

* This is why a true free market is only good in theory. In reality, 1) people never have full information and 2) people don't act rationally.


----------



## drmaxx (Sep 28, 2009)

1138 said:


> I think most flashlights here are overpriced. They are all basically a tube of metal, an LED and a circuit board. I just recently picked up a new hard drive for $50, which consists of precision machined platters, a drive motor, an embedded controller, circuit-board, cache memory, a metal case, a drive head and an arm actuator. By my count, it's a lot more complicated to design and build a hard drive than a flashlight but it costs less than even a simple flashlight like a Fenix L2T.



Just compare that to the hammer I saw in [email protected] recently: $24 for a several thousand year old technology made out of steel. Compare to that fenix with its modern technology is quite cheap.... 

A free market only exists BECAUSE not everybody has full information and BECAUSE people don't act rational (still can be reasonable though). Otherwise companies wouldn't make profits (they all would sell at margin costs) and there would be no choice at all. 
Check out the good old microeconomics about markets with perfect information and rational choices. They have difficulties to explain profits and competing companies....


----------



## LightTracker (Sep 28, 2009)

Hi All, I started a thread a while back called CPF Custom Light Design. And I've not done anything with it in a while.... But it started with a wish list that I threw out and then I've tried to get feedback and modify it according to group needs. I see you are talking about the possibility of being ripped off, and I also see warnings at the top of some threads now where the moderators are trying to get rid of the ads and posts that seem to be attempts at promoting commercial products. I see that as good news.

I came into this forum wanting to learn and have some fun in terms of a hobby, and its nice to know who you are talking to. Is it someone just trying to sell you something or is it someone who wants to join in and enjoy an interesting passtime? With me... well, I have no commecial interests. And I hope to get connected with others who are like minded. Here is my best idea of where that wish list is at for a multi-purpose, non-flashlight LED light:

1) Non-proprietary design (meaning its freely shared)
2) Lumen range of 500-1500
3) Heat sinking designed into housing/mount configuration
4) Adaptable for bike, headlamp or hand
5) Dimming
6) Readily available parts
7) Don't have to take out a second mortgage to do it
8) Easily built once parts are acquired
9) Separate light head and battery-pack

I realize this somewhat off-topic, but if you have anything to add in terms of #1 and #7. I think this might be a good group to ask. Also, if you think such a project (completely non-commercial) can succeed... and thus avoid the possibility of a rip-off altogether, please share your thoughts.

Anyway, thanks... And Cheers!


----------



## McGizmo (Sep 28, 2009)

1138 said:


> I think most flashlights here are overpriced. They are all basically a tube of metal, an LED and a circuit board. I just recently picked up a new hard drive for $50, which consists of precision machined platters, a drive motor, an embedded controller, circuit-board, cache memory, a metal case, a drive head and an arm actuator. By my count, it's a lot more complicated to design and build a hard drive than a flashlight but it costs less than even a simple flashlight like a Fenix L2T.
> 
> Of course, the cost difference is due to the differences between the flashlight market and the hard drive market. But that doesn't mean they aren't overpriced for what you get.
> 
> ...



Interesting comments. I often marvel at the complexity and "value" in terms of inherent materials, components and tooling involved in some of the consumer products I see these days. There was a large Costco HID lantern many snagged a few years back for under $40 if I recall correctly and I couldn't imagine any flashlight manufacturer I knew who could even approach that light with a BOM close to what it retailed for!?!? We should all be grateful that so many of us buy and use hard drives. If they were brought to market in the numbers and diversities akin to these flashlights, they would cost a hell of a lot more than $50!!! :green: I challenge the poster to manufacture a simple tube with circuit and LED and bring it to market and then step up and do the same with a hard drive. 

There are economies of scale that simply can't be appreciated in the flashlight market beyond a few successful commodity type offerings. Maglite of yesterday comes to mind. There will always be a stark disparity between true commodities and niche items.

In my first micro economics class, we were told of a few assumptions made in the modeling we would study. The first assumption and one I could never swallow was that the consumer has perfect knowledge. In the simple examination of supply and demand and how a manufacturer based their decisions, there was no allowance or mention of marketing, advertising or customer service. Such a foundation would seem quite suspect and for me it was. However the math and relationships we studied did have relevance despite this gross oversimplification. 

The economics classes were based on simple truth and reality as defined; not actually experienced. Perception is much easier to manipulate and promote than truth or reality and perception is not bound by the same constraints or laws of physics. Illusions are real and often quite lucrative.

Dream weavers have a willing and appreciative market but I doubt the math would be easy to identify! The profits on the other hand....


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 28, 2009)

1138 said:


> I think most flashlights here are overpriced. They are all basically a tube of metal, an LED and a circuit board.


 
You make it sound as though anyone could just go to a junkyard and simply assemble a light out of scrounged up parts. Water or gas pipe for the body tube. . . Oh yeah, cheap & easy to assemble one. 

If that were the case, flashlight companies wouldn't exist. Folks would make their own lights, or local men handy with tools might make a handful and sell them for just a few bucks. There really is a difference concerning price points. I learned that when I bought a Solarforce L600. Loved the concept behind the design. But the execution was poor and cheap. I assembled a light that duplicated the L600's concept, but cost quite more. Holding the two lights side-by-side, you can see and feel the difference. You can see and feel the quality. My Leef-bodied Surefire M4 blows the cheap L600 out of the water.

No, it's not just a tube of metal, an LED, and a circuit board. If you don't care about quality, reliability, durability, and size to output ratio; then yeah. . . Just a tube of metal, etc.


----------



## carrot (Sep 28, 2009)

Almost everything is priced far higher than it costs to manufacture the product. It is obviously more apparent on high-price items (not going to name names) and much of the price is associated with the cost to bring such a product to market -- R&D, marketing, distribution, legal... besides just having to pay employees and investors.

Chalk it up to the cost of high technology and the complicated modern world we live in.


----------



## carrot (Sep 28, 2009)

OKay... now that I have read the previous text I have something more to say.

Worth of a product is far more than the sum of its parts. Worth, in a society such as ours is determined by a variety of things -- but what really functions in a simplified model of economics that I am about to discuss, is demand. Or, as my father puts it, supply and demand.

In order for there to be some sort of neutral understanding of this model, it is better if I were to abstract the idea to something that most people here aren't very passionate about.

You will note, on eBay, that many people are selling things that likely not very many of us would consider interesting. Never opened action figures, 80's era metal lunchboxes in mint condition, the original Megazoid of Power Rangers, played with a few times but lovingly cared for, vintage postage stamps, rare coins like the silver dime and buffalo's head nickel, Beanie babies...

Take a moment: None of these cost any more to make now than they did when they were made. More importantly, the total sum of the cost of their parts hasn't changed -- Megazoid has not turned to a solid gold figurine! And yet they sell for several times more than that. Consistently. That is their worth -- what seller can live to part with (as McGizmo et al. mention), and buyer willing to pay. The buyer knows exactly what he is buying (a stuffed animal, an adhesive piece of paper, a metal box with paint on it) and yet for some reason he is willing to pay.

Whoa, whoa, wait -- but obviously a stamp is worth something! It is a piece of art, a tiny piece of art on a tiny piece of paper, and not only that, it represents the USPS's commitment to send a parcel anywhere around the world as long as you have enough of them! On the other hand, it is only a piece of paper with a bit of adhesive that you have to lick and is mass produced by the hundreds in the least, and on the upper ends, thousands, maybe millions.

Beanie Babies? Same thing, they're a bit of fabric with beans, or stuffing inside. And for some reason, if you cut the tag off, bend it, or otherwise damage the little bit of cardboard, they lose at least 50% of their value! 

I can go on and on with these examples... but the point I'd like to make is that our society is highly materialistic (or object-oriented) and that we value these things because they are somehow special, or rare, or even hold some kind of meaning. If we were to consider the worth of something to be the sum of its materials, everything would all fall down.

What's a hundred dollar bill worth? A hundred dollars, right? Not if we consider the cost to make it, which is probably pennies, if that. It's just nice paper with some special ink, and there are bajillions of them in circulation! So actually, a hundred dollar bill is nearly worthless! Only our economy and its basis say no, actually this represents something -- the federal government's commitment to honoring the value of the federal note (the dollar), which we consider value!

Someone might tell me that flashlights and these "trinkets" have nothing in common. Sure they do! Whereas cheaply mass-produced products have worth due to age and quantity made, high technology (cars, computers, etc) has value for similar reasons -- the promise that it's worth it! When you buy a consumer product, the quality is very often but not always associated with price. If a company prices a product too high, they will find the demand dwindling... why? Because they won't get repeat customers -- the customer will decide that a product is too expensive for what they got, and customers will move on to try something else. But a product that is high quality can be priced higher, because customers are willing to pay such a price. Demand is high. Expensive things that survive the marketplace can stay expensive because of one reason -- they are good! It doesn't matter how good your marketing is if the product itself doesn't meet expectations. Notice how many BMW's, Mercedes, Bose stereos, iPods, iPhones, Surefires, Chris Reeve knives, McGizmos, Maxpedition, Tilley hats, The North Face, etc there are out there! And notice how many of these are being used day in, day out! Sure, whether they are the absolute best may be debatable, but certainly the quality is there, and the market demand for them is also.

You can easily ascertain as to the quality of something, its worth, by many things, but you have to keep a careful eye to detail. People are willing to pay for quality! It doesn't mean it looks nicer or offers a better cost-to-performance ratio... it means that something is just a more robust, finer tuned, carefully designed product.

Here's a(n incomplete) checklist for quality:
- fine machine/stitching/molding work
- careful attention to details (finer things that are minor enough to not brag about, but make the user's experience better)
- better (stronger, lighter, tougher, more robust) materials
- longevity, or ability to survive wear and tear of regular, normal use (the lack of, is proof of cheaper, sub-quality components)


----------



## London Lad (Sep 28, 2009)

Value is in the mind of the customer:-

One buyer will think a Rolex watch at $5000 is a rip off because he can buy a more acurate watch for $50, another buyer will think the Rolex is great value because of the way wearing it makes him feel.

I am told the ingredients of a can of Pepsi cost less than 1% of it's retail price but it's great value on a hot day.

An expensive designer dress is just a few strips of cheap material sewn together but if it makes the girl happy then what's it worth?


----------



## Th232 (Sep 28, 2009)

1138 said:


> I think most flashlights here are overpriced. They are all basically a tube of metal, an LED and a circuit board. I just recently picked up a new hard drive for $50, which consists of precision machined platters, a drive motor, an embedded controller, circuit-board, cache memory, a metal case, a drive head and an arm actuator. By my count, it's a lot more complicated to design and build a hard drive than a flashlight but it costs less than even a simple flashlight like a Fenix L2T.



A few small points:

The hard drive is most likely made in much larger quantities than the torch. Economies of scale at work there. Tooling costs are the big kicker in this case. Look around in the machining section to get an idea of how much it takes to set up the machine compared to actually making it.


----------



## picard (Sep 28, 2009)

it is a rip off. you can get a nice, high quality automatic swiss watch cheaper than Rolex. Rolex get the same components from same manufacturer as other Swiss watch makers.

Therefore, Rolex definitely rip off customers using slick marketing.

Some of these HID such as Polarion is much over price compare to others. The Gladius is over price compare to other LED lights too. They charged 250 bucks for it. you can buy the Deerlight for $120 including shipping cost. It throws more light than the Gladius. The Gladius tends to shut down when it gets hot. 

My Deerlight doesn't get hot since it dissipate heat much better than the Gladius.


----------



## computernut (Sep 28, 2009)

Apple's iPods get ripped apart and the total cost of parts is added up and people complain about the mark-up that Apple charges. Engineers and designers cost money, machinery costs money, buildings cost money, the guy who buffs the floors at night cost money.

Once you have your machinery setup, your design finished, and you start cranking out units you might be able to make a flashlight for $10 but you still need to make the accountants and investors happy or you are not going to be in business long. You need to keep paying your engineers, machinists, packagers, shippers, the guy who's still buffing the floors.

If a company copies it's designs from a competitor, produces the product in a country with low wages and doesn't have to worry about environmental concerns or paying taxes it can probably produce a flashlight pretty cheap.

If a company designs their products based on cost alone and as long as it has all the whiz bang words like "LED", "Candle Power", "Watts", and "Multi-mode" it can sell a ton of them at the drugstore or department store.

I remember selling computer stuff at retail and the worst markup was on cables. A $10 cable was like $3 cost to the store. That meant the distributor was selling it to us for $3 and still making a profit! That cable had to be made in China or wherever and shipped overseas and probably passed through who knows how many hands and vehicles until it wound up on the shelf. The cable probably cost 10-25cents to make. Crazy!


----------



## London Lad (Sep 28, 2009)

picard said:


> it is a rip off. you can get a nice, high quality automatic swiss watch cheaper than Rolex. Rolex get the same components from same manufacturer as other Swiss watch makers.
> 
> Therefore, Rolex definitely rip off customers using slick marketing.



You have totally missed the point of what I said in my post................


----------



## Radio (Sep 28, 2009)

I love my lights :twothumbs so I spend money to buy them, this in turn makes me very happy. I buy the lights I want because I can afford them, this also makes me very happy. Sometimes I just sit and handle all my lights this makes me very happy as well. The anticipation of waiting for a new light is very exhilarating. I love my lights, all of them and I never ever feel ripped off. Is that bad? Am I stupid or dumb? Maybe, but I'm very happy. lovecpf


----------



## Gene43 (Sep 28, 2009)

Its all a matter of perspective (perception). Dollars are worth the same to everyone (yes I know that is arguable). So the dollars set the value which is completely and totally in the eye of the beholder.

Back when I first got married I had to decide if I would rather be right or be happy. After a rocky start I decided to be happy. Funny thing eighteen years later I'm still married and now I get to be right more than ever!

I heartily agree with Radio.


----------



## LightTracker (Sep 28, 2009)

No one is taking into account the effect of government regulation. Most of the arguments here assume a "free" market is operating. But the negative effect of unbridled self-interest won't allow that indefinitely. Government doesn't have to be all that intrusive to allow in more fairness (and thus prevent many of the rip-offs). If it can regulate major financial products with a regulatory agency, why not somethiing like lights?

What bugs me the most is how few proudcts use an objective light output measure (Lumens). And without it, you don't understand a key feature of product performance. You can't make comparisons. I realize there are certain kinds of qualities that you may only measure with something like a light shootout. But much could be learned with some requirements for reporting the specifications -- something like a Nutrition label or Automobile sticker. In fact, I'd like to see measures like this taken for all products that can practically be compared in a given class. It would stimulate competition and force competitors to design toward a product that is actually superior rather than one that is slickly packaged or has slick ads. And of course you could still focus on that if you like. Some people like there stuff slick or flashy. Good for them. (Bose speakers and headphones comes to mind for me). But at least for the ones among us who are interested in true factual knowledge and who would like to compare apples with apples... well, at least you'd be able to do that with the right regulatory measures in place. 

I would like to see a standard Light output measure in lumens and a standard efficiency measure in lumens per watt, to name a couple. Anyone else have more ideas that would help to prevent us being ripped off? I'd love to hear them.


----------



## angelofwar (Sep 28, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I would like to see a standard Light output measure in lumens and a standard efficiency measure in lumens per watt, to name a couple. Anyone else have more ideas that would help to prevent us being ripped off? I'd love to hear them.


 
Great post, lightwalker! It'll help the thread keep going in the right direction...Vote with your wallet!!!...but, seriously, I think the Market itself would have to (and I believe is) becoming "self-regualted"...the government isn't going to feel the need to step in and regulate "flashlights". I believe SF is doing more about this by "leading the pack" as far a real "Lumen useage", and others are slowly starting to catch on...when I buy a Dorcy rated at 240 lumens I have no idea how bright it's going to be...with an 80 lumen SF, I know at least how bright it will be, if not brighter. I quit buying other lights, casue I have know Idea how bright they'll be, regardless of what's on the package. Vote with yer wallet!!!


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 28, 2009)

London Lad said:


> An expensive designer dress is just a few strips of cheap material sewn together but if it makes the girl happy then what's it worth?


 
I doubt it's cheap material. An old co-worker of mine took pride in having one very high-end luxury item. He had a genuine Armani jacket. Wasn't too happy when the dry cleaner ripped the silk lining of that jacket. Was less happy when he found out how much it would cost to repair it, after contacting the store where he bought it from. Turns out, they use a very rare silk for the jacket lining. It has to be imported. Those two factors caused the repair bill to be huge. He planned on suing the dry cleaners unless they paid for the repair.


----------



## London Lad (Sep 29, 2009)

I mean cheap in contrast to the cost of the dress. I doubt a $2k, 3k, 4k dress has more than $100 worth of material in it at cost of manufacture.

BTW I don't think the US or UK for that matter make silk so its all imported


----------



## HELL LIGHT (Sep 29, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> I doubt it's cheap material. An old co-worker of mine took pride in having one very high-end luxury item. He had a genuine Armani jacket. Wasn't too happy when the dry cleaner ripped the silk lining of that jacket. Was less happy when he found out how much it would cost to repair it, after contacting the store where he bought it from. Turns out, they use a very rare silk for the jacket lining. It has to be imported. Those two factors caused the repair bill to be huge. He planned on suing the dry cleaners unless they paid for the repair.


 
If you own a luxury car like Porsche or BMW 7 series you will feel the same way when you take it to the garage try to get an oil change or minor repair.


----------



## berry580 (Sep 29, 2009)

London Lad said:


> Value is in the mind of the customer:-
> 
> *One buyer will think a Rolex watch at $5000 is a rip off because he can buy a more acurate watch for $50*, another buyer will think the Rolex is great value because of the way wearing it makes him feel.
> 
> ...


I disagree with the Rolex bit 

Anyway, yes I agree is indeed in the mind of the customer.
You can value the cost of a chunk of metal, you can value a circuit board, but how can you value a "guarantee" (e.g. Surefire) or designs with "good taste" (e.g. Jetbeam designs)?
Or 'perfection' (e.g. McGizmo or Gatlights)?

If they're willing to sell and you're willing to buy, there's a market equilibrium and you can't call foul play after wards.

e.g. Do you see half of the world saying the fashion industry is "ripping them off" when the out-of-season clothes are all on 90% off?


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 29, 2009)

I get the part about the Rolex analogy. But it's tough comparing high-end items sometimes.

With a watch, I want accuracy. That means quartz movement. No need to spend a ton of money for an automatic Rolex. A lot of Rolex owners say that when you buy one, you only cry once. Not true. You'll have to take the watch in to be serviced later on down the road. The charge for that is actually more than what you'd pay for a luxury watch from another company.

With a Surefire, you just pay for the cost of shipping to repair a problem if one develops. Still, a genuine Rolex can make someone feel special. As for actual value, there was an individual on a watch forum who not too long ago took apart several high-end watches. (I believe he was quite wealthy along with being knowledgeable about watches). In terms of quality, he actually was a bit disappointed when he took the Rolex apart. It wasn't until he took apart a $100,000 (non Rolex) watch that he was satisfied.

Something like that is likely to be forgotten however. A Rolex watch can indeed be a good investment, as purely just that. Buy a hard-to-find model, put it in a safe for 20 or 30 years; and then sell it for a profit. The perceived value is _indeed _that strong.


----------



## McGizmo (Sep 29, 2009)

I think Rolex is a good case study. When I was in Jr.High school, I had got into surfing and I was also going to be on a swim team when I got in High School. (A watch stays on my wrist until it dies.) Back then, there were some cheap _waterproof_ dive watches (pre Nadar) that didn't live up to their claims. A good friend's dad owned the best jewelery store in town and I found out from him about the Rolex which was truly designed as a dive watch. The stainless Rolex was $200+ but I could get a stainless Rolex with the Tudor movement for I think it was $115. I had a summer job and saved up most of my earnings and bought the Rolex Tudor. I put more value in the utility of the Oyster case than the movement and frankly didn't earn enough to even consider the Rolex. I certainly didn't consider either a rip off but one was just too rich for my blood. I had experienced the death of a few $20 dive watches by this time.

Today, I can buy a dozen high quality watches that keep better time than the Rolex and require less service for the price of one of them. I had hoped that Rolex would approach a water resistant watch as first priority but couple that with the latest in materials and best time keeping components available in today's technology. IMHO, they rested on their laurels and held true to the mechanical movement technology as well as identified a niche market where snobbery and affluence reigned for the most part. I don't think anyone buying a Rolex today is getting ripped off but their value system is not the same as mine. I see them more as a functional piece of status symbol than "smart" choice for a high end and quality watch. When someone buys a Rolex on E-Bay and it turns out that they have purchased a clone that may actually keep better time, I think _they_ have been ripped off.

It's strictly personal peference and valuation but if someone offered to give me a watch with the qualification that I use it and not turn around and sell it and if I had the choice between a titanium Luminox or a Rolex Submariner, I would chose the Luminox. Since I actually have to buy my own watches, it's a no brainer. :green:

In fairness to Rolex, that watch lived on my wrist all through high school. college and a good number of years beyond. I was not good about getting it serviced and it finally died because of improper maintenance on my part. By then, the cost of a service was more than the replacement cost of an admittedly disposable time piece but one that was more accurate and would last the same length as the recommended service interval on the Rolex. Rolex had yet to achieve the "status" it enjoys today but I can understand how it did earn such status.

I think a ripoff involves exploitation of a consumer's ignorance and is manifest in either false claims or a selling price that is significantly above market norm for the same item.


----------



## London Lad (Sep 29, 2009)

Your last sentence sums it up well Don.

I didn't bring up Rolex meaning to provoke a discussion as to the brands merits or otherwise (not that there is anything wrong with us having that discussion) 

What I was trying to get across was the fact that where one person may see a Rolex as a rip off because a better timekeeper can be had for much less money, another person may think a Rolex is a great deal because he values the status or feeling of success it brings him.

Each to his own......


----------



## kwkarth (Sep 29, 2009)

gswitter said:


> Multiple of the "bill of materials" (BOM). $50 would be 1x BOM, $100 would be 2x BOM, etc.
> 
> At a previous job, working for a large consumer electronics company, our target price was always 5x BOM. 5x would theoretically cover non-BOM costs (development, marketing, infrastructure, etc) and leave enough extra to keep the shareholders happy.



Yes, 5x BOM cost is a good rule of thumb for a manufacturer who has multiple distribution channels to market.


----------



## kwkarth (Sep 29, 2009)

picard said:


> it is a rip off. you can get a nice, high quality automatic swiss watch cheaper than Rolex. Rolex get the same components from same manufacturer as other Swiss watch makers.
> 
> Therefore, Rolex definitely rip off customers using slick marketing.



Better check your facts there sport. Rolex make a lot of their own cases and movements. I'm not saying they're not overpriced and that they don't trade on the perceived value of their name, but if you're going to use an example, get the facts to support your point. BTW, I do not own any Rolex watches.


----------



## LightTracker (Sep 29, 2009)

angelofwar said:


> Great post, light[Tracker]! It'll help the thread keep going in the right direction...Vote with your wallet!!!...but, seriously, I think the Market itself would have to (and I believe is) becoming "self-regualted"...the government isn't going to feel the need to step in and regulate "flashlights".... Vote with yer wallet!!!


 
I get the point about voting with your wallet. I also undestand some of the analogies in this thread (dressmaker, watch, etc.)... I can't say I believe in anything being self-regulated, but (with all politics aside, as I'm not a purist in any political group)... as a geneal idea regarding classes of products I favor the truth in clear language, and I think it should be a requirement. Yes, for flashlights too. Light bulbs have standards on the label that must be clearly printed, of a certain size and include certain information, including output, color temp (I think), service life, wattage, etc. Flashlights contain a lamp, and when combined with areflector and set of electronics produce certain caracteristics that are measurable. Esp. for high-end lights at 500+ lumnes in a price range of 80.00 - 1000.00... well, you want to know what your getting. Why should you have to hit a half dozen talk forums and contact the manufacturer or drill down in the data (or wait for someone to do a light shootout) to find out realistically what you're getting? Put it on the package and on the advertisement using a measurement standard like ANSI or whoever oversees light measurement standards. You're right that its kind of a specialized market for these devices... but light is a universal thing that can be described using universal terms that would remove much of the confusioin, even for people with little or no background. Sometimes I think products are intentionally obfuscating with their descriptions to keep people in teh dark and thereby keep prices artifically high. And I'm sorry to sound so cynical, but its happened to me enough times in life where somebody saw me coming that... well, I'm just tired of it. You said use your pocket book to fight back. I agree. I'd like to see some information put out in the forum to describe manufactirers who either hide teh information (nmake it difficult to find) or who grossly exagerate the output. Also, if a light initially puts out a certain amount of light and then rapdily dropps off, what is that? Maybe there should be a rating for Avg. Output throughout the battery cycle of the light.

Any comments? Stop the rip-offs!


----------



## LightTracker (Sep 29, 2009)

Ps. I think flashlight collectrors inadvertently make this problem worse. It becomes status how may you have collected, how usnusal or rare, and, I bet the price matters as a bragging point too. I realize they help other people to discover what's good and what isn't... but don';t you think there is a better way to find out than by trial and error, where each successive error costs you more money?


----------



## angelofwar (Sep 29, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I agree. I'd like to see some information put out in the forum to describe manufactirers who either hide teh information (nmake it difficult to find) or who grossly exagerate the output. Also, if a light initially puts out a certain amount of light and then rapdily dropps off, what is that? Maybe there should be a rating for Avg. Output throughout the battery cycle of the light.
> 
> Any comments? Stop the rip-offs!


 
Standards would be nice, but then only certain companies would follow them...i.e. Amercia/Europe...countries with high industry standards. Alot of the companies that do bluff their out-put aren't going to want a standard, cause then they would be liable for mis-leading people, and there 700 lumen light based on a set standard would only be 500 real lumens. Sounds nice, but it would be really hard to do, especially with LED's based on the manufacturing method. The LED companies do this by putting them in bins (kinda self regulated), but when a company in country X buys a top bin LED's for the proto-type model, and get's the out-put off of that, and then buys cheaper (lower) bin's for there production models... Then the lights would have to be individually tested and have there lumen out-put "stamped" on the packaging. 

Not to beat a dead horse, but just to show an example, SF buys top-bin LED's, and test's EVERY light, to make sure it meets at least the minimum of there advertised out-put. That's why they do veri, but most of there lights are brighter than stated, and none (should) be lower than the stated out-put. If all companies could do this, it would be great, but it's kinda hard (since every LED is different) to enforce an idealolgy. 

Great discussion...now if we could get a world head to "standardize" method's of assembly/testing lights, and allow companies to stamp them (saying they were tested to a set standard), it would be much easier for us to "vote with our wallet", by buying only lights with those markings. 

It's kinda like the "Team Soldier Certified Gear" stamp...it has to be at least 60 lumens (determined by the folks at PEO-NET), using THERE test methods and testing equipment. Alot of these American flashlight companies can't send there lights in to be tested/recommened for acceptance because they know they don't make the grade to begin with.

Great Thread and discussion, L.T.!


----------



## LightTracker (Sep 30, 2009)

angelofwar said:


> Standards would be nice, but then only certain companies would follow them...i.e. Amercia/Europe...countries with high industry standards.


 
But then you would have a choice of whether to buy the product with a standard measurement listed or not, right? It has to start somewhere, why not the U.S.? 



angelofwar said:


> Then the lights would have to be individually tested and have there lumen out-put "stamped" on the packaging.


 
I agree they would have to stamp the output on the package, but they would not have to test each item, they could use modern statistical quality control (you only need to test a few). It would certainly not siginificantly raise the cost of the product. Again, I think the reason the information isn't provided is that it makes it easier to persuade people that a light is really great. It may sittig on a shelf next to a light that really is great, and maybe it LOOKS GREAT, but maybe its a piece of crap inside. 



angelofwar said:


> Great discussion...now if we could get a world head to "standardize" method's of assembly/testing lights, and allow companies to stamp them (saying they were tested to a set standard), it would be much easier for us to "vote with our wallet", by buying only lights with those markings.


 
Who needs a world head? I think you underestimate the power of the market place OF IDEAS. I've seen people rate lights before. What do they use to do it? How expensive is the equipment to measure light output? Why not threaten to gather the data independently UNLESS a consortium would be formed of the manufacturers to do it themselves at the outset?

You said use your wallet, right? And I agree. But why not use reason too?



angelofwar said:


> It's kinda like the "Team Soldier Certified Gear" stamp...it has to be at least 60 lumens (determined by the folks at PEO-NET), using THERE test methods and testing equipment. Alot of these American flashlight companies can't send there lights in to be tested/recommened for acceptance because they know they don't make the grade to begin with.


 
But don't you think they would if the consequence to not doing it may be that buyers will KNOW IN ADVANCE that they don't make the grade. How can that information be provided without a world consortium... but do it by the numbers. Here is how much avg light output there is: XXX Here is the efficiency: XXX/XX. Here is the peak outpu, etc...

I feel the solution is a well-thought out standard and then regular communication about it to the manufacturers. "Information about your actual specs compared to advertized specs until or unless you start providing objective data. Here is a recommended standard label that you can put on the package and on the ads: [INSERT IMAGE HERE]

It would be a start anyway. What does anyone think about this? Stop the rip-offs!


----------



## Federal LG (Sep 30, 2009)

Just a curiosity...

*What percentage of profit do you guys think it´s ethical ?*

(If I wrote it wrong, sorry... english is not my mother language)

I mean... For example, if a light cost 100 dollars to it´s maker (all costs included), how much he can ask for the final price, in your opinion ?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 30, 2009)

Federal LG, it depends on what he is selling and what the market is for his type of product. For example, if he is a new knife builder just getting into the trade and wants to get his name out there, he may mark up is knife to say, $160.00. If he is a knife make and has been in the trade for sometime, and his knives sells like hotcakes, he may charge $300.00. In either case I am considering the knife maker is the direct seller, and no "middle men" are involved. In real life, there may be more considerations to the ultimate price that the seller, in this case the maker, may charge.

Bill


----------



## angelofwar (Sep 30, 2009)

Fed LG...It seems easy up front, but it really goes deeper than just a "how much does this cost to make?"/what should the price be. Marketing, QA, R&D, and especially CS (or lack there-of). Especially with the SF's...when they set the price, if it were based strictly on profits based off "manufacturing costs", even I would consider them over-priced\rip-offs'. But they have to factor in the lifetime replacement of the light, shipping costs to send the item back (most mfg's charge you), for at least the next 40-60 years, etc. Based on that, 2-3 of my lights have already paid for themselves...I've gotten about $235 dollars back in replacements parts/shipping costs from SF all because there C.S. Most other companies, I would have paid $30 in shipping or had to buy a new light all together. So, you would really have to figure out the true "end cost" and base the profit off of that. I'd say 15-20% mark-up from end cost would be fair.


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 1, 2009)

Federal LG said:


> Just a curiosity...
> 
> *What percentage of profit do you guys think it´s ethical ?*
> 
> ...



As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, 5X the cost of manufacture (Bill of materials) is a figure commonly used by many large companies with multiple distribution channels to satisfy. The manufacturer is lucky if they end up with 5%-20% profit after all the bills are paid.


----------



## RocketTomato (Oct 1, 2009)

If there ever was a case of the all knowing consumer it is definitely here on CPF. We literally have people taking lights apart, testing lumen output and measuring runtime and regulation. If you feel "ripped off", then I feel you did not do your homework. I think the better term to use is overpriced. In my opinion, I definitely have seen some lights that seem overpriced and I have thus decided not to purchase them. 

By the way, what is the opposite of "ripping us off"? I really want to commend 4sevens for under-promising and over-delivering on his Quark series of Ti lights. The Ti versions are less then twice the price of the regular quarks yet are made of Titanium and sport the absolute highest Cree flux bin to date (XP-G R5). If anything, I think they are undervalued!


----------



## 1138 (Oct 1, 2009)

drmaxx said:


> A free market only exists BECAUSE not everybody has full information and BECAUSE people don't act rational (still can be reasonable though). Otherwise companies wouldn't make profits (they all would sell at margin costs) and there would be no choice at all.
> Check out the good old microeconomics about markets with perfect information and rational choices. They have difficulties to explain profits and competing companies....



That is an interesting point. But isn't it the case that since people have limited time and ability, companies can still make a profit because a certain product is not otherwise available? 



Monocrom said:


> You make it sound as though anyone could just go to a junkyard and simply assemble a light out of scrounged up parts. Water or gas pipe for the body tube. . . Oh yeah, cheap & easy to assemble one.



That's not the view that I wanted to convey. Compared to a computer hard drive, a flashlight is much simpler and yet costs me more. Much of it is due to economies of scale, as pointed out by other people. But that simply means that flashlights could be a lot less expensive since more complicated things _can_ be less expensive.

I'm not suggesting that the manufacturers are ripping people off. I simply think that lights aren't worth as much as we actually pay for them.

It's one of the reasons why I don't buy any light that's more than $50 to $60. The more expensive lights are interesting and tempting, but there are better ways to spend my money. If I _needed_ a certain feature and it was only available for an overly high price, I'd buy it, but it would be grudgingly.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 1, 2009)

Federal LG said:


> Just a curiosity...
> 
> *What percentage of profit do you guys think it´s ethical ?*
> 
> ...


 
Typical margins on retail products vary from around 12 to 20%. That's the result of competition. DeBeers Diamonds has a margin of around 3000% because they have little or no competition.

Margins can be higher when the buyers have no objective way to assess value or they don't care. In the case of diamonds, market analysis has shown that people WANT artificially high prices because the end users are mostly women and it gives them a sense that they're personally valued and loved.

Lights are so utilitarian though. I see no reason why there should not be a good way to assess the value. I suppose you could subscribe to Consumer Reports or some like but that's still somewhat subjective. I still say tell me the Peak Output, Avg. Output, Efficiency (Lumens/watt) and Output variance, in other words how fast does the output drop off throught the battery cycle.

Let's say you want 1200-1500 Lumens and you want it consistently for night time hiking. Maybe you drop $1000.00 on a Lupine Betty because its the only thing that seems up to the task. Let's say its rated at 1500 Lumen at peak performance. That's really not enough information is it? Maybe you're hiking in a hot canyon with no air moevement. I believe that light has electronics in it that cause it to dim to reduce heat and preserve the lamp life. You may have just spent $1000.00 expecting 1000+ Lumen on a light that puts out 300 Lumen in your situation because of heat and lack of air movement.

People who just collect, I think, keep prices artificially high for everyone else. Because they're looking for uniqueness, consistency of the beam and maybe other more subjective qualities. But most people don't collect and don't have access to shootout results and they don't understand how to dig up the information or even what questions to ask. I was reading on this forum for two years before I understood some of the nuances, and I still don't have a handle on it really. The complexity of LED (or HID) lighting is begging for some simple, telling measures that you don't have to have a master's degree in engineering to comprehend.

Stop the rip-offs!


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 1, 2009)

1138 said:


> It's one of the reasons why I don't buy any light that's more than $50 to $60. The more expensive lights are interesting and tempting, but there are better ways to spend my money. If I _needed_ a certain feature and it was only available for an overly high price, I'd buy it, but it would be grudgingly.



When it comes to spending your own money then you are doing the right thing. Your money = your decision on what is worth the cost and what isn't.

For me I try hard to decide what is worth while spending my money on - some lights seem like they cost a lot of money for what you get. Others seem quite good for the cost. I have some lights that cost more than $60 that I don't believe are matched by cheaper lights. e.g. Jetbeam Jet-IIIM - with its well designed UI and VERY nice construction (things like square threads).

If a light doesn't seem to be worth to me as much as the seller is asking for then I don't buy it. If I would be willing to pay as much or more than the asking price to own a light then I do buy it. Generally I don't get ripped off because I don't pay more than I am willing to for any given light. The only time I could get ripped off is if I buy a light that doesn't do what the seller claimed it would - so far that hasn't happened.


----------



## drmaxx (Oct 1, 2009)

1138 said:


> That is an interesting point. But isn't it the case that since people have limited time and ability, companies can still make a profit because a certain product is not otherwise available?


This is what I mean with buyers don't have 'full information', for what ever reason. No time, no access to info, too lazy, too impulsive, ... buying choices are rarely made based on an excel sheet with a full cost-benefit analysis... The early microeconomic models just did not factor in the 'costs' for gathering information..


----------



## Flashlight_Bug (Oct 1, 2009)

DM51, thanks for the link to this tread.

Let's make pretend an imagined situation:

ABC is an online store selling flashlights and today ABC is giving 40% discounts on all "Crowtac"-branded flashlights and accessories. Lets take this 40% as their minimum margin. So with a certain 'stroby' Crowtac model priced at $82.90, they pay a cost of $49.74 and will make a margin of $33.16 without the 40% discount. Now, XYZ is the trademark owner of Crowtac in the USA and distributes them to online dealers like ABC, but we all know that XYZ probably get all their products from some third-party manufacturers in China. Suppose XYZ also makes a margin of 40%, that's $19.90 and the manufacturer's price is $29.84. However, it's not logical to think that XYZ only makes a measly $19.90 from an $82.90 flashlight. So, the manufacturer's price is actually way lower than $29.84. 

Of course, these estimations are too simple and really silly. But doesn't it make you wonder the real cost of your precious light? Your "elite" and "special" 200-dollar light may actually cost only 20 bucks to make with the rest going to middle-men and not to the people who actually made it.

By the way, I'm referring to mass-produced lights. Custom-made lights are a different matter. You really can't put a price on superb workmanship.


----------



## DM51 (Oct 1, 2009)

LOL, nicely done, Flashlight Bug!


----------



## jirik_cz (Oct 1, 2009)

Flashlight_Bug said:


> Suppose XYZ also makes a margin of 40%, that's $19.90 and the manufacturer's price is $29.84. However, it's not logical to think that XYZ only makes a measly $19.90 from an $82.90 flashlight. So, the manufacturer's price is actually way lower than $29.84.



It doesn't work that way. Wholesale dealers like XYZ have usually much lower margins.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 1, 2009)

Flashlight_Bug said:


> DM51, thanks for the link to this tread.
> 
> Let's make pretend an imagined situation:
> 
> ...


 
Flashlight Bug: I hope you're reading my posts and AngelOfWar's comentary too. The thing that bothers you is pretty widespread. Almost everyone I know becomes incensed when they find out that they paid a huge mark-up (perhaps 5X for something worth X). I know that some people say value is an individual thing, but obvisoulsy its not that way for everyone. Many peope would like to know up front if they're paying a huge mark-up or not. I know I would, and I bet you would too. One of the best indicators of value is truthful advertising and factual information that's not too difficult for an average consumer to understand. I'm interested in hearing from other poeple. Am I alone in my thinking? Does anyone else believe that we have to put up with this just because a large number of parties in retail business enjoy priveledges that we don't enjoy? (I mean factual information) 

Does anyone want to do anything about this?

Stop the rip-offs!


----------



## London Lad (Oct 1, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> snip
> 
> Does anyone want to do anything about this?
> 
> snip



No, I for one don't, its called capitalism and I don't like the alternative.

I know its unfashionable nowadays but people need to make their own decisions and be responsible for their own actions.

If we cocoon everyone with rules, regulations and laws soon people will expect life to be perfect and loose the ability to make the decisions that shape their lives.

If *I* decide I want a product for sale at $10 that's because *I* have decided its worth $10 to *me*. I don't care if it cost $1 to make or $20.


----------



## Christoph (Oct 1, 2009)

I have a few questions about this 
quote from LT
"Almost everyone I know becomes incensed when they find out that they paid a huge mark-up (perhaps 5X for something worth X). I know that some people say value is an individual thing, but obvisoulsy its not that way for everyone. Many peope would like to know up front if they're paying a huge mark-up or not.Why? I know I would, and I bet you would too. One of the best indicators of value is truthful advertising and factual information that's not too difficult for an average consumer to understand. I'm interested in hearing from other poeple. Am I alone in my thinking? Does anyone else believe that we have to put up with this What is it that you are having to put up with? just because a large number of parties in retail business enjoy priveledges that we don't enjoy?What are the privledges that they enjoy and who are they? (I mean factual information) 

Does anyone want to do anything about this? What is it that you think should be done other than keeping your wallet in your pocket so that you won't feel ripped off.
The blue is me


----------



## RocketTomato (Oct 1, 2009)

Flashlight_Bug said:


> ABC is an online store selling flashlights and today ABC is giving 40% discounts on all "Crowtac"-branded flashlights and accessories. Lets take this 40% as their minimum margin. So with a certain 'stroby' Crowtac model priced at $82.90, they pay a cost of $49.74 and will make a margin of $33.16 without the 40% discount. Now, XYZ is the trademark owner of Crowtac in the USA and distributes them to online dealers like ABC, but we all know that XYZ probably get all their products from some third-party manufacturers in China. Suppose XYZ also makes a margin of 40%, that's $19.90 and the manufacturer's price is $29.84. *However, it's not logical to think that XYZ only makes a measly $19.90 from an $82.90 flashlight. So, the manufacturer's price is actually way lower than $29.84. *



Why is it not logical? You yourself showed that $19.90 is a logical estimate.




LightTracker said:


> *Almost everyone I know becomes incensed when they find out that they paid a huge mark-up (perhaps 5X for something worth X).*



You are way oversimplifying the economics here. A 5X mark up does not mean that 80% profit is being made. Take the "CrowTac" example above. The manufacturer needs to pay for flashlight design, testing, materials, manufacturing, warehousing, shipping, logistics, salaries, rent electricity, taxes, etc. They then hope that they can sell enough flashlights to make back their investment. 

The actual distributor also has costs. Marketing, office space, warehousing, electricity, toll-free numbers, web-site costs, credit card fees, taxes, salaries, customer support, etc. 

You may look at the distributor as a "middle man" but they offer an important service to the manufacturer and the customer.

If you think flashlights are bad, do you know what the mark-up on a movie DVD is? It costs pennies to manufacturer a DVD, but at retail we pay close to $20.00. Are they movie studios "ripping us off"? How about software companies? The same thing happens with the much maligned pharmaceutical companies. It can cost 100s of millions if not billions of dollars to develop a new drug. They need to recoup these costs in order to keep developing new drugs. 

It does not cost $0 to run and maintain business.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 1, 2009)

Christoph said:


> I have a few questions about this
> quote from LT "Almost everyone I know becomes incensed when they find out that they paid a huge mark-up (perhaps 5X for something worth X). I know that some people say value is an individual thing, but obvisoulsy its not that way for everyone. Many peope would like to know up front if they're paying a huge mark-up or not. Why?


 
You asked why. Because I talk to people and listen to them, and it is the overwhelming concensus of pople, esp. among people who buy utlities or technical equipment (with the exception of giovernment bodies)




Christoph said:


> What is it that you are having to put up with?


 
Untruth in advertizing. Not giving out useful information which is really very easy to give out. I realize its a bigger issue than just lights, but lights is the topic so that's what I'm addressing.



Christoph said:


> ...just because a large number of parties in retail business enjoy priveledges that we don't enjoy?What are the privledges that they enjoy and who are they? (I mean factual information)


 
Go to REI or any large outfitter, or go online and tell me which items ascribe to any known standard for the claims made. Most of them don't tell you much at all. Some specialized lights do (like diving lights or bike lights), buit most don't. How about if you tell me something. Are you in business selling things? Lights perhaps? Or, would you like to be? If so, would you prefer the priveldge of knowing all of teh essentials (not the design however) that you've learned in prodcuing your product, and possibly reveal that it has no advanatage over something that costs less? Many people want that priveledge, and the proof is in their failure to provide the essential data that's needed to compare. But I disagree with that thinking. I think the priveledge should go to the buyer, the one who is spening money, not the one who is collecting it. (And the person who called my idea anti-captalistic should consider that. Its us, not govt. and thier partnerships with private companies that should control these things)



Christoph said:


> What is it that you think should be done other than keeping your wallet in your pocket so that you won't feel ripped off. The blue is me


 
It would help if you admit that what I'm saying is not a mere "sense" by me, but that you and many in this froum (who are mainly buyers or hobbyists, not commercial parties or highly technically adept) are likley to have had disappointments in purchasing, and that many (if not all) of those could have been easily avoided by having accessto factual information about what they were buying. 

That would be a start. The comment above about this being anti-capalitistic is untrue. There is nothing anti-capatlistic about using a consortium of people or interests to (possibly without the aid of government) require truthfull essentialinformation on ads and packaging. If what that poster is saying were true then it would be anti-capitalistic to require labels for nutrition, light bulbs, automobiles... etc. Personally, I don't hold to either pure capitalism or pure socliaism. I think they're opposite errors. But that's for another forum. We're talking about lights and whether people are being ripped off, right?

Who agrees with me? Who wants to help stop the rip-offs! Who wants to get in an informed position as a buyer (without having to study up ojn it for a year) and perhaps (also) show the sellers that this forum is not primarily for them but for people who enjoy lights and ideas about lighting too.


----------



## London Lad (Oct 1, 2009)

LOL, You are just having a wind up here aren't you!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 1, 2009)

Ps. I assume no one would have thought its inmportant to have light shootout if not for the fact that a very poor set of data has been given out over the years. And not coincidentally, if you search back through some of those threads, you'll see right there along with the ones doing the basic research are antagonists and commercial interests (sometimes they're upfront about it and sometimes not)... Why do you think that is? Because everyone involved is loving and kind and wants you to have the best deal? (rhetoricl question)


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 1, 2009)

London Lad said:


> LOL, You are just having a wind up here aren't you!


 
I like your tag line. Actually, the U.S. president is wanting to form a consumer protection agency for financial products. It would force that essentiual information into public view and thus remove some of the priveldge from those who control the country's purse strings.

While I don't care for many of his measures which are borderline tyrannical, this one seems to me to hold certain benfits for everyone. If something like that can be administered for retail goods (without controlling production itself, and without divilging design data) it would help toward this cause concerning lights. Lights is a very small facet of a very large issue... admittedly its that... nonetheless, in all seriousness, it could help for these buyers who have experienced rip-offs... and we all have..

But yes, a little "wind up".. hope you and others don't mind. 

Stop the rip-offs!


----------



## 1138 (Oct 1, 2009)

drmaxx said:


> This is what I mean with buyers don't have 'full information', for what ever reason. No time, no access to info, too lazy, too impulsive, ... buying choices are rarely made based on an excel sheet with a full cost-benefit analysis... The early microeconomic models just did not factor in the 'costs' for gathering information..



This is interesting. I'm not sure I fully understand all the implications right now. Do you know of a book where I can read more about this?



London Lad said:


> No, I for one don't, its called capitalism and I don't like the alternative.
> 
> I know its unfashionable nowadays but people need to make their own decisions and be responsible for their own actions.
> 
> If we cocoon everyone with rules, regulations and laws soon people will expect life to be perfect and loose the ability to make the decisions that shape their lives.



Without regulations, costs that are externalized are never paid for by the responsible party. That's a bad thing. There are other problems, too. Different entities have unequal power or resources. Without regulation, these disparities can be exploited to the detriment of society.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to have regulations requiring that businesses disclose all pertinent information about their products. It puts enables people to be MORE responsible about their own decisions because they can actually make an informed one.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 1, 2009)

To DRMAX, LONDON LAD and 1138:

All that's required is a central registry. Heck you could set one up through Google right now for free (of course it might end up costing $ once it reaches a certain size). But you don't need to read books about economics, most of that is a side-track and is written by people who are fascinated by the structures of power and money. People are the answer, not economics gurus. But be concerned about the "cost of gathering information"? You can regulate that with teh stroke of a pen. But you need people, and agreement to tell the people who regulate things that's what you want. Tell them you don't want to be ripped off, and tell them there's a simple solution. Then give them my number. I'll explain it in plain english. It goes like this:

1) create a registry
2) allow users to acreat accounts using their buisiness DUNS number or Tax ID and SSN
3) enter the data

Then charge a stiff fine (and offer jail time) for failing to provide truthful information.

Siimple.

Stop the rip-offs! 

Ps. More "wind up"....? Actually the better path is to not be required to use regulation, and that's my preference always. I don't hink its impoossible to do it without regulation... but a lot of people would have to exercise buying power (really, absence of buying) to do it


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 1, 2009)

1138 said:


> Without regulations, costs that are externalized are never paid for by the responsible party. That's a bad thing. There are other problems, too. Different entities have unequal power or resources. Without regulation, these disparities can be exploited to the detriment of society.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with wanting to have regulations requiring that businesses disclose all pertinent information about their products. It puts enables people to be MORE responsible about their own decisions because they can actually make an informed one.


 
I agree with you 100%. But there are a lot of special interests/attornies/etc. who have direct relationships with people in power who are in a position to regulate. And unless you can create an uproar (like radio talk show hosts have done for a couple of issues lately), what can be done?

I think the answer is have a strong idea, and communicate it so clearly (and to the right parties) such that ignorance can't be claimed when certain interests approach them opposing the idea, which they will do! This internet medium provides a way for ordinary people to have a voice, and to track what politciains do. It may be the best way possible to stop the rip-offs from happening. Its not only lights (and failure to label them) that constutute a rip-off. Its a rip-off every time a politcian is persuaded by some business interest to make decisions based on the self-intrerest to the detriment of society, ordinary people and legitimate competitors.

Stop the rip-offs!


----------



## McGizmo (Oct 1, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> .....
> 
> 
> Untruth in advertizing. Not giving out useful information which is really very easy to give out. I realize its a bigger issue than just lights, but lights is the topic so that's what I'm addressing.
> ...



I agree that this is a much bigger issue than just lights and trying to come up with some form of viable change here regarding just lights is on par with a flea tripping an elephant.

For a consumer to have perfect knowledge, the consumer must be able to process and understand the information that forms the basis of that knowledge. 

How many times have you seen a newbie looking for max lumens and thinking that lumens is a measure of throw. Whether a manufacturer or dealer provides a real out the front number for flux or uses the best case from the LED manufacturer for flux, the newbie believes that number will tell him something about how well the light will throw. He presently has a light that puts out 40 lumens and he can't quite make out what animal is eating his tomatoes. He buys a light that puts out 200 lumens and now, with it, can't even make out his tomato plants. Did he get ripped off?

"Useful information that is really very easy to give out" I think information is much easier to give than it may be to really understand it.

I have seen truthful information provided as an effective means of misleading the customer. I have seen it mislead the manufacturer for that matter and be passed on with good intentions, to the consumer.

On this forum, through the years, I have seen users and consumers seek fantasy at the expense of truth and resent truth being thrust in their face.


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 1, 2009)

^^^ What he said!


----------



## RocketTomato (Oct 1, 2009)

Manufacturers should of course be truthful with their advertising but customers have a responsibility to inform themselves also. Like Don pointed out, you could plaster the box with specs, but if a customer does not understand them, how useful are they truly? They are only useful to the educated consumer. "Caveat Emptor" is a latin phrase that has stood the test of time for a reason.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 1, 2009)




----------



## DM51 (Oct 1, 2009)

HELL LIGHT said:


> If you own a luxury car like Porsche or BMW 7 series you will feel the same way when you take it to the garage try to get an oil change or minor repair.


It is interesting that _you_ (of all people) have the insolence to post in a thread with a title about ripping people off. I suggest instead that you return to this thread and deal with your debts to other CPF members.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 1, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I agree that this is a much bigger issue than just lights and trying to come up with some form of viable change here regarding just lights is on par with a flea tripping an elephant.


 
You have to start somewhere.



McGizmo said:


> For a consumer to have perfect knowledge, the consumer must be able to process and understand the information that forms the basis of that knowledge.


 
Nobody needs perfect knowledge. And nobody needs to flooded with so much of it that its confusing. Your sentence above is more confusing than a simple label would be. 



McGizmo said:


> How many times have you seen a newbie looking for max lumens and thinking that lumens is a measure of throw?


 
Not that many. Anyone who has owned a Maglite or Brinkman knows that narrowing the beam angle creates a brighter spot at a distance. Besides, this is the essential confusing point and maybe that's more reason than any for calrifying the data, or having aanother measure, "Typical throw @ 100yds = XX" 



McGizmo said:


> "Useful information that is really very easy to give out" I think information is much easier to give than it may be to really understand it.


 
Sometimes there is a learning curve involved, but saying its not easy to understand isn't true. A good label may be interpreted in different ways depending on the intuition of the person reading it. Look at nutrition labels. Some people look at daily % of sodium and thing, "Oh, 10%... I could have 10 like portions a day of that and still be at the norm." Someone else may say, "Oh look, 200 mg of Sodium, that would leave me 1800 for the rest of my daily intake."



McGizmo said:


> I have seen truthful information provided as an effective means of misleading the customer. I have seen it mislead the manufacturer for that matter and be passed on with good intentions, to the consumer.


 
That's why it requires forethought. That's why it should be a standard set of information, and not what each manufacturer interprets. There is enough knowledge in this forum to come up with a good format. Why don't you make some suggestions?



McGizmo said:


> On this forum, through the years, I have seen users and consumers seek fantasy at the expense of truth and resent truth being thrust in their face.


 
I don't disagree with you at all on the frst half of that sentence. The second have though leaves me wondering if all of the peooe who you think feel that way REALLY DID get a laymen's version of the data? Some posters, I think, throw their knowledge at you like they want to make certain you realize what a dope you are and what a truly enligtened genius they are.

Bear in mind that this is good for manufacturers too. Many of them may not realize it, but this could give them more focus. Once everyone is playing by the same set of "rules" it will require pure innovation to form some advantage over a competitor. It would certainly require more than slick packaging and GREAT SOUNDING but otherwise MEANINGLESS claims. 

Stop the rip-offs!


----------



## McGizmo (Oct 1, 2009)

Lighttracker,

If you want to stop the ripoffs, how about identifying them for your fellow CPF member. That's my suggestion.


----------



## Gene43 (Oct 1, 2009)

From what I have observed, regulations tend to be slanted to the favor of those with influence (and motives). Its just what what I have observed.


----------



## angelofwar (Oct 1, 2009)

With modern printing technology, how about they post a picture of the beam-shot (assuming they're all built to a certain standard, i.e. all of 1 model use the same bin LED's/resistors/etc, and are tested prior to packaigng) on the packaging along with a lumen rating (OTF Lumens...should be the industry standard) and a runtime PLOT...not a number a PLOT!!! Are you listening manufacturers? Thanks to SF for posting useful out-put numbers and Inova for including runtime plots! But like some have stated, they may not include it as to not confuse the uneducated consumer...


----------



## mdocod (Oct 2, 2009)

Hello LightTracker,

Option A: A government run operation that puts together committees and boards and comes up with standardized ways to describe the performance or behavior of each product on a shelf anywhere in the world to whatever they decide is the "average" intelligence or, possibly, something lower...? 

Option B: Welcome to LightTracker.com, ever wonder if you are being "ripped off?" Check out this amazing collection of product information, organized by category. I've hired independent specialists in each field to help me tally up the goods and the bads on everything from bed frames to pogo sticks! If you have a moment, don't forget to visit my sponsors! (oh, and don't tell them about the bad reviews their products are getting here, I need the money!, lol). 1 on 1 consults? Call 1-800-555-....

Option A: You pay for this "service" via taxes, the anti-establishment results you had hoped for turn into even more opportunities for big government and big corp to get in bed together. The end result is more information control, less competition, and even greater ripp-offs, only then, it will be hidden from you entirely. The corruption will go far deeper than just "lux measurements."

Option B: You make a profit, you help others with valuable information and expose ripp-offs all over the place and sleep at night knowing that you are doing everything in your power to do this the best that you can and are being compensated for your efforts. 


-----


Throughout history, repetition in words has been used to pass off non-truths as truth. More often than not, the repeated words are not rooted to anything specific but are left to generality, which works well because more people are able to attach their own specifics and fill in the blanks as needed, which helps everyone following in the chant feel like they have a personal score to settle by following through with whatever endeavor the chant is backing up. 

STOP THE CORRUPTION!
STOP THE CORRUPTION!
STOP THE CORRUPTION!

Sounds good eh? Problem is, what corruption am I talking about? Maybe what I feel is corruption is not what someone else feels is corruption. If I went marching down my street with a megaphone chanting "stop the corruption" I would have thousands following me by the end of the day, and I bet I would have people from every political leaning in the ranks. Every one of them will fill in the blank with a piece of corruption that they are aware of and agree is corruption and join in on the march. Now all I have to do is put a "how" up there, <insert candidate for election> and blammo, a whole bunch of people are voting for a guy based on a chant with minimal meaning. 

------

Final Point:

You are capable of articulating your thoughts and come across as an intelligent individual. This would lead me to believe that you can learn anything you put your mind to. I believe that you do not personally need a government run entity to help you make informed decisions, and I would not ask you to pay for such an entity in order to benefit others who are not your concern unless you care to make them your concern. (Your own personal charity towards others is not a decision that I should make for you). I would ask in return, that you do not ask me to pay for a government entity that does not benefit me, and I will make charitable contributions of knowledge or finances at my own discretion.

Sound fair?

Regards,
-Eric


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> Lighttracker, If you want to stop the ripoffs, how about identifying them for your fellow CPF member. That's my suggestion.


 
This is like saying, "If you want to stop high taxes, how about identifying them for your fellow tax payers?" 

But in reality, enough people are aware of what Gene43 says here.... 



Gene43 said:


> From what I have observed, regulations tend to be slanted to the favor of those with influence (and motives). Its just what what I have observed.


 
....that you don't need a weather report to know which way the wind is blowing.

Are you in business, McGizomo? Just curious. If so, what kind?

AngelOfWar has an excellent idea. Part of the standard could be a standard beamshot. What is more telling than that? Here's what he said (in blue...and thank you Sir, for getting into this. It might be fun even if not world changing):

"how about they post a picture of the beam-shot (assuming they're all built to a certain standard, i.e. all of 1 model use the same bin LED's/resistors/etc, and are tested prior to packaigng) on the packaging along with a lumen rating (OTF Lumens...should be the industry standard) and a runtime PLOT...not a number a PLOT!!! Are you listening manufacturers? Thanks to SF for posting useful out-put numbers and Inova for including runtime plots! But like some have stated, they may not include it as to not confuse the uneducated consumer..."

I agree the confusing elements shouldn't be included. But if the data can be easily attained using a standard method, I'm all for it. How about this, for example?

Lumens
Lumens/Watt
Photo or figure? (let the photo/figure indicate beam speead range)
Runtime plot (an objective Avg.?)

Maybe you could show me an example of a runtime plot using Lumens instead of a number?

Cheers!

Stop the rip-offs!


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Are you in business, McGizomo? Just curious. If so, what kind?




Sorry but I had to...


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Hello LightTracker,
> 
> ....works well because more people are able to attach their own specifics and fill in the blanks as needed, which helps everyone following in the chant feel like they have a personal score to settle by following through with whatever endeavor the chant is backing up.
> 
> ...


 
I'm talking about RIP-OFFS that may largely be prevented, whether any corruption is associated with it or not. Honestly, many people could care less if there is a plot behind it or not. I'm sure nobody screamed "STOP THE CORRUPTION" to get standardized data on light bulbs. But you can bet your bottom dollar many of them read it and find it useful to know XXXX hours of bulb life (with the same objective measure of output) for more money than XXXX +1000 hours of bulb life (with the tsame objective measure of output) is a RIP-OFF. It doesn't matter if the manufacturer is corrupt at the time you're standing in the store or looking online.

You then said:



mdocod said:


> If I went marching down my street with a megaphone chanting "stop the corruption" I would have thousands following me.... Every one.... fill in the blank with a piece of corruption.... and join in on the march.


 
I don't like that either. But that's NOT what I'm talking about, and I think you know that.



mdocod said:


> You are capable of articulating your thoughts and come across as an intelligent individual....


 
Gee, that sounded like a compliment... and I almost was going to say Thank you, until I read the rest (which is actually not a compliment at all but a rhetorical question). 



mdocod said:


> ....you can learn anything you put your mind to.... you do not personally need a government run entity to help you make informed decisions, and I would not ask you to pay for such an entity in order to benefit others who are not your concern unless you care to make them your concern. (Your own personal charity towards others is not a decision that I should make for you). I would ask in return, that you do not ask me to pay for a government entity that does not benefit me, and I will make charitable contributions of knowledge or finances at my own discretion.
> 
> Sound fair?


 
No actually. Your entire statement is designed to move the focus off of the RIP-OFFS (and the misinformation, or the lack of information, or the dis-information) that everyone knows is happening but for which there is precious little accountability on the part of those who are selling things. Also, I have at no point asked you or anyone else for money. My personal feeling is that it can be done better by simply being open about what the problem is (defining it) and then being open and willing to contribute to a solution. And then suggest it. Of course I think it should done so well that it would be attractive to people who sell things as well as to people who buy things. Good solutions help all involved parties in some way.

I can sum the problem up with one word: RIP-OFFS
And the solution with another word: TRANSPARENCY

No one needs to know people's propietary secrets, no need to go there. But there's a big credibility gap between the packaging, claims and actual product.... and not only for lights. But lights are complex enough that if it can prove doable (as AngelOfWar said) for people of Avg. or less than Average IQ to inform them and ARM THEM with buying power, then it can be done for just about anything else as well. You could help figure out the problem and propose solutions. Why don't you do that instead of the rhetoric? And not that rhetoric isn't or can't be fun. It is. But after that, what will you have to say?

Cheers.

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

Question:

What general characteristics are most important in a light?

Output
Efficiency
Beam characteristics
Battery life

I realize you can have a spec sheet with 30 items on it to represent this, but that would not do much good for the average Joe, right?

The above, by itself is not telling enough. I don't think you can just say, 

Output: XXX Lumens
Efficiency: XXX/XX (Lumens per watt)
Beam: 16 degrees, XX lumens @100 yds
Battery life: 2 HRS on high

That is still looking at it too technically, I think. Can anyone think of something better? A figure depicting something (or photo as suggested by AngelOfWar) might be better. Are there any other ideas?

Cheers.

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 2, 2009)




----------



## Federal LG (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Typical margins on retail products vary from around 12 to 20%. That's the result of competition. DeBeers Diamonds has a margin of around 3000% because they have little or no competition.
> 
> Stop the rip-offs!



I know nothing about industry relations... I´m just a Federal Agent. My job is to investigate, shoot, arrest and protect. 

In my personal point of view, I do believe that a 20% to 40% margin of profit is ethical to someone who build flashlights.

If a flashlight had the total cost (all included - material, marketing, taxes, etc) of 100 dollars, I think it´s ethical and fair if the manufacturer put a final price that let him make a profit of 20% to 40% (maximum) over this value. I mean, clean and liquid profit, right for his pocket...

Example: it cost 100 dollars to build (all included - taxes, marketing, material, labor cost, etc...). He sells it for 140 dollars, so he can keep those 40 dollars as clean profit.

In that case, I think it´s fair... and ethical.

More than this, I think it´s a rip-off, sorry...

Stop the rip-offs!


----------



## Bimmerboy (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Stop the RIP-OFFS!


This slogan of yours becomes more abhorrent with each repetition. If you don't stop the NON-SENSE, you'll be the first person I've ever put on ignore.

Really, LightTracker... you don't sound to have the slightest clue what you're talking about in regard to Capitalism, nor anything you've said in this thread.

Stop the NON-SENSE!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

Federal LG said:


> "....it cost 100 dollars to build (all included - taxes, marketing, material, labor cost, etc...). He sells it for 140 dollars, so he can keep those 40 dollars as clean profit.... In that case, I think it´s fair... and ethical. More than this, I think it´s a rip-off, sorry...
> 
> Stop the rip-offs!


 
I agree there's a grey area, profits that can be seen as fair from the point of view of the seller, and also be seen as a rip-off from the point of view of the buyer.

I don't think anything should be done about controlling prices. I don't even think that buyers need direct information about mark-ups. And I don't think government regulation is necessary either to help this problem -- I think that would be someone else's problem, not mine.

I'm interested in knowing what buyers think, some of whom are also collectors). The lead in question was, "Are we being ripped off?" I think if that were asked to find out what overall sentinment is, you will get two answers, one from sellers and one from buyers.

The question really is who should have say about it, I mean who should prevail in the event of rip-offs? I think the answer is obvious. Buyers will need to prevail. I think they can do something about it in addition to exercizing buying (or esp. NON-buying) power, I think they can use their minds and creativity to clearly state what's required to keep them informed and how it should appear so that its not meaningless fluff.

What say you, LG? Or anyone? Does anyone have ideas that can help, by adding to ideas already put forth? I wish I knew how to make a web page for voting or tracking stuff lke this. Then we could invite people from other forums as well, and not just cogitate amongst the 2 or 3 interested people in this thread (and its detractors). And no offense... I'm sure you all know more than me at a technical level... but there's power in numbers, right? I can admit that people outside me and my own circle often know more than I do.

Thanks for your comments, LG.

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

Bimmerboy said:


> This slogan of yours becomes more abhorrent with each repetition. If you don't stop the NON-SENSE, you'll be the first person I've ever put on ignore.
> 
> Really, LightTracker... you don't sound to have the slightest clue what you're talking about in regard to Capitalism, nor anything you've said in this thread.
> 
> Stop the NON-SENSE!


 
B-boy. Please put me on ignore. That will remove the temptation to expose youself to ideas that obviously rub you the wrong way. You would do well to save yourself that indigestion.

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 2, 2009)

Seems like there are still many here who lack a fundamental understanding of how market economics work.

I'm ok with a manufacturer or distributor, or retailer making 70% profit IF the retail price is deemed by the buying public to represent a good price to performance ratio. This "valuation" is obviously quite subjective.

A good case in point it the Surfire Minimus. $140 retail. I personally have inspected it, played with it, and I own many other Surefire products with which I am pleased or very pleased. To me IF the Surefire name is on the side, and the product in question is still poorly executed, it's still a rip off. Such is the case in my opinion for the Minimus. That's my opinion and I will not be rewarding Surefire with my $$ for a Minimus. For 140 bux, it's a piece of junk to me, regardless of whether or not is says Surefire on the side. There are many on this board who post a list of shortcomings and go on to say it's still a great light. That's their opinion. The name means more to them than it does to me.

In a free market, if some people perceive a product as representing a good value and some perceive it as being a bad value, the product may or may not be a success. If everybody who saw the product thought it was fantastic, it would be a success hands down, regardless of the price, as long as it was perceived as a good value and reasonably priced for the market it was in. Surefire's profit margin is probably quite high on that unit, but it may fail anyway because of the questionable value it represents.

There are flashlight brands and models that enjoy almost universal acceptance and praise. In that position they will succeed as long as they continue to produce product with a good price/performance ratio, irrespective of their profit margin. 

Free enterprise has always been based upon this axiom and when a company which has in the past enjoyed a great deal of success, begins to "cheapen" their product in order to raise their profit margins, thus trading on their name rather than product quality and value, it is only a matter of time before they become history. The right way to increase profit margins is to innovate in manufacturing, engineering, sales and marketing efficiencies for the product in order to increase the product's perceived value.

Never, never, never lessen the quality of goods or services provided and try and hide that from your customers. Once they find out, your goose is cooked.

Standards of measurement and advertising for flashlight products may shorten the time it takes for the public to discover one thing or another, but it will probably never see implementation unless a manufacturer implements it themselves as a marketing innovation to set themselves apart from their competition. Then other manufacturers will follow suit playing catch up.

Even Surefire would not want to publish white wall beamshots for a number of their products because of the poor quality they would reveal. I wish they would get their act back together before they disappear.


----------



## RocketTomato (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I'm talking about RIP-OFFS that may largely be prevented, whether any corruption is associated with it or not. Honestly, many people could care less if there is a plot behind it or not. I'm sure nobody screamed "STOP THE CORRUPTION" to get standardized data on light bulbs. *But you can bet your bottom dollar many of them read it and find it useful to know XXXX hours of bulb life (with the same objective measure of output) for more money than XXXX +1000 hours of bulb life (with the tsame objective measure of output) is a RIP-OFF.* It doesn't matter if the manufacturer is corrupt at the time you're standing in the store or looking online.



Light A has XXXX hours of bulb life at 200 lunebs output, is made out of Titanium, waterproof to 1000 meters, has 4 user programmable modes and runs off and costs $10 more then Light B.

Light B has XXXX + 1000 hours of bulb life at 200 lumens output, is made out of plastic, shorts out if the humidity level rises above 70%, has a single mode and is $10 cheaper then light A.

So which light is the "RIP-OFF" now? It is too simplistic to look at only one feature and determine one item is better then the other. Consumers have to look at all the features, decide which are important to them and then make a decision.




LightTracker said:


> No actually. Your entire statement is designed to move the focus off of *the RIP-OFFS (and the misinformation, or the lack of information, or the dis-information) that everyone knows is happening but for which there is precious little accountability on the part of those who are selling things.* ...



Lets look at a case of possible dis-information or misinformation that is brought up regularly on CPF, emitter lumens versus out the front (OTF) lumens. There is no question that OTF lumens are a more accurate representation of the flashlights output but if a manufacturer reports emitter lumens, is that really misinformation? Not every manufacturer has the ability or resources to test their lights for OTF lumens. Even better would be to test every individual light for OTF lumens but that would dramatically drive up the costs of the flashlights. There is a line between ideal and practical that has to be drawn.


The market also has remedies built-in to hold manufacturers accountable. If a company continuously mis-represents itself and its products, demand for their product will eventually go down (unless they are a monopoly). If they do not improve, they eventually go out of business. That is the beauty of the competitive marketplace. Plus, if all else fails and there is systematic mis-representaion of products across the industry, there are always lawyers and class action suits to help keep the companies honest.


----------



## Bimmerboy (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> That will remove the temptation to expose youself to ideas that obviously rub you the wrong way.


The temptation to expose myself to ideas I don't like? Read your statement back to yourself... does it make any sense at all?

I'll tell ya' what hitting ignore _will_ do... it'll remove the displeasure of having to read any more of your hysterics.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> In a free market, if some people perceive a product as representing a good value and some perceive it as being a bad value, the product may or may not be a success. If everybody who saw the product thought it was fantastic, it would be a success hands down, regardless of the price, as long as it was perceived as a good value and reasonably priced for the market it was in....


 
Its intersting that you would bring up the term "Free Market", as though there actually IS a "Free Market", or at least a fair definition of one. Unfortunately, there isn't. Every culture and group has different ideas about what that term means (and some could care less if there even is one or that people should aspire to one). So its every bit as subjective as what you say the valuation of products is.

Where does that leave the discussion of whether people are being ripped off and what xcan be done about it. There's no question that rip-offs exist, both in terms of misinformation (or dis-information) on teh part of sellers and in terms of the varying perceptions of buyers. But in every case of a light product for those who care about more than style or "coolness", the closest you can get to avoiding rip-offs at pre-sales time is to have access to objective measured data.

Beyond that there are shootouts and beamshots and the rest. And AngelOfWar suggested using such as part of a process to inform people at pre-sales time, which I think is a great idea. And there are other great ideas too that are worth exploring. Economies aren't going to be solved through simply avoiding rip-offs. But who cares? Buyer's remorse and the sense of having wasted money WILL BE solved by having good measures. And its within the grasp for people to do if they once realize its possible. And it is.

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Are you in business, McGizomo? Just curious. If so, what kind?


 
He sells puppies. Cute, adorable, puppies. Yup, he knows as much about dog breeding as you know about Capitalism. We don't know why he posts on a flashlight forum. I guess he just enjoys our company. We would kick him out, but his puppies are so adorable!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

Bimmerboy said:


> The temptation to expose myself to ideas I don't like? Read your statement back to yourself... does it make any sense at all?
> 
> I'll tell ya' what hitting ignore _will_ do... it'll remove the displeasure of having to read any more of your hysterics.


 
Hit it already.

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> He sells puppies. Cute, adorable, puppies. Yup, he knows as much about dog breeding as you know about Capitalism. We don't know why he posts on a flashlight forum. I guess he just enjoys our company. We would kick him out, but his puppies are so adorable!


 
No ideas from you either... hmm... the most certain way to convince other people of your lack of knowledge is to, in the same sentence, declare someones else's lack of it while in no way offering ideas or refuting what;s said. Its a bit like saying, "You're dumb. Why? Because I said so. Now who's on my side!?" 

Suggested label idea

Output: XXX Peak Lumens and XXX Avg Lumens
Efficiency: XXX/XX Lumens/Watt, or a ratio
Beam: (depict a photo or figure)
Battery life: X HRS on High

Does anyone have more ideas? What would the plot look like that's shown using lumens instead of a number? Is there any way to show that without a lot of work or just describe it?

Cheers.

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Its intersting that you would bring up the term "Free Market", as though there actually IS a "Free Market", or at least a fair definition of one. Unfortunately, there isn't. Every culture and group has different ideas about what that term means (and some could care less if there even is one or that people should aspire to one). So its every bit as subjective as what you say the valuation of products is.
> 
> Where does that leave the discussion of whether people are being ripped off and what xcan be done about it. There's no question that rip-offs exist, both in terms of misinformation (or dis-information) on teh part of sellers and in terms of the varying perceptions of buyers. But in every case of a light product for those who care about more than style or "coolness", the closest you can get to avoiding rip-offs at pre-sales time is to have access to objective measured data.
> 
> ...


I guess that I too, am at a loss to fully understand what you're after.

In our market/economy, choose to call it what you may, the buying public determines the success or failure of a company and it's products. The company can succeed for a short time on hype and bluster, but will ultimately fail when the public discovers the lies.

If the company chooses to compete based upon true quality, integrity, and value, the buying public will discover that in time as well and reward the company accordingly.

In the world of flashlights, CPF is one of the most savvy "buying" groups on the planet, so there's no better place to go for information about these products than right here. This group allows you to speed up the process of separating the wheat from the chaff in this market. Thankfully it is not driven or controlled by the manufacturers or retailers. Thankfully, it is supported by those manufacturers and retailers who have chosen to compete in this market based upon quality, integrity, value, and customer service. To them kudos and continued success!! May your profit margins be as large as the quality you put into your business.


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 2, 2009)

Dear Mr. LightTracker,
Your list is woefully too short, incomplete, and full of holes. If your list were the hatch on a submarine, the sub would immediately go straight to the bottom.

This is not your fault. The value proposition takes into account a nearly endless and diverse number of "value" elements, which in their entirety, would be impossible to list on a product package or marketing slick.

Leave it to the manufacturers and vendors to choose the value propositions that set their products and services apart from their competition. Leave it to the buying public to choose for themselves which of those values appeal most highly to the individual.


----------



## jahxman (Oct 2, 2009)

I just read through most of the posts, and my head is spinning a bit, but I wanted to get down a few thoughts:

Getting "ripped off" is certainly abhorrent to me; that's why I read and participate in communities like CPF, which are composed of many people with lots of information and who are willing to investigate claims made by the sellers of the products I'm interested in. I'm not saying CPF is perfect; we are also enthusiasts and can be hyped by the latest thing - but it is better than relying on the manufacturer's info alone.

Those manufacturers who provide the most direct and useful and understandable information about the performance of their products tend to get more business from me.

I don't really care what a given maker's mark-up or profit is - if in my opinion it is worth the asking price, it is worth the asking price.

I am a computer consultant by trade. My product is my expertise and my ability to do things that most others cannot, or would take a much longer time to do. As such, the price for my services is adjusted according to what the market deems the worth of them to be. Another computer consultant might make half of what I do, or less - does that make me a gouger? Of course not. My value is recognized and sought after by my clients; if they did not get value for their money they would soon be giving it to someone else.

Similarly, if in my informed opinion a light is worth $300 and I am willing to pay, I don't really care if it only cost $30 in raw materials. It must have something special about it that in my opinion makes it worth the money.

If I impulsively spend my money in an uninformed way for something and get a bad value, then hopefully I will learn from this and do better next time. If I feel a maker was misleading about the features and capabilities of a product, I will post it on a forum like this one, so others who wish to be informed can find it to help them make a decision.

All that said, I think the idea of a "government" standard is a really bad idea; such things are too easily gamed and inflexible to new information; for an example do a little research into how the MPG standard is applied to new technology such as hybrid vehicles; it's frankly ridiculous.

However a place like CPF is a good place to advocate for certain information we would like to see from manufacturers; for example I would like to see both emitter and OTF lumens for lights offered for sale, beam shape and some standard measure of throw. Some manufacturers have lead the way with some of this; continued lobbying from their informed consumers may encourage them to do more.

Of course, the custom and semi-custom or small quantity makers may not have the resources to provide these things up front, just like small food makers can rarely afford to get their recipies analyzed for full nutritional content. Most informed buyers will understand that.


----------



## McGizmo (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> ....
> 
> Are you in business, McGizomo? Just curious. If so, what kind?
> 
> .....



I assume that you aren't really asking this question because you don't know at least part of the answer? If you are, Duh!! :nana:

From your linked thread on "CPF Custom Light Design", you have bothered to link to a post therein, by BruceC, where he states:

"_Have you taken a look at the Aleph series of lights? It seems to me that it meets most if not all of your requirements. The series is designed by McGizmo and is also compatible with Surefire's E-series of light components_."

The open architecture of the "Aleph" series and one that has been used by many other members of CPF both on an individual basis as well as a small commercial offering was just one of my attempts at ripping off the CPF members by providing alternatives and options which often competed with my own offerings. 

The OP of this thread posed the question, "Are they ripping us off?" and the question was primarily in regards to usury profits more than false claims and untruths in specifications. You have now taken over this thread with a call to regulations and standards and you have taken on the task of stopping the rip offs. Clearly you would answer yes to the OP's question. 

You ask if I am in business and I guess the simple answer is yes. Fortunately for me, my business to date has been none of your business and I suspect that will remain the case.

Now if I can ask you:

Are you in business? If so, what kind?

Your CPF Custom Light Design thread is an interesting approach and makes me curious as to what your background might be. I am curious about your personal experience in "business".

I am not inclined to take myself too seriously; certainly for any length of time. I would however like to extend the courtesy of taking you seriously but by this point I find that a most difficult proposition! :tinfoil:


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> I guess that I too, am at a loss to fully understand what you're after.
> 
> In our market/economy, choose to call it what you may, the buying public determines the success or failure of a company and it's products. The company can succeed for a short time on hype and bluster, but will ultimately fail when the public discovers the lies.


 
Well, isn't it unfortunate that between the time that companies put out product and the time that people have caught up with the truth, a lot of money has been needlessly spent? Why do you think the U.S. govt. is currently planning much stronger consumer protection measures? Isn't it to ensure that people don't have to wait to assess value and then communicate it to a suuficient number of people to "get the word out"? How much time would it have taken people to say No to risky loans if they had known up front (and not in "economist speak") what the context was? 

I don't disagree with what you're saying.... But still, no comment? No ideas? Can't you say what it would take to know what's necessary to make a wise informed decision short of learning a whole new area of expertise? That's not really practical for the average Joe. If you can't or won't do that, no problem. But then you must have made up your mind that there's not a problem or the market will fix itself. MOst people have figured out however, by this point, that that isn't a realistic expectation, as recent history has shown. Ralph Nader figured this out a long time ago. (I'm not a biog fan of his politics mind you, but the man does make good sense when it comes to consumer issues.) 

Stop the RIP-OFFS! (or forever hold your peace)

Cheers.


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Well, isn't it unfortunate that between the time that companies put out product and the time that people have caught up with the truth, a lot of money has been needlessly spent? Why do you think the U.S. govt. is currently planning much stronger consumer protection measures? Isn't it to ensure that people don't have to wait to assess value and then communicate it to a suuficient number of people to "get the word out"? How much time would it have taken people to say No to risky loans if they had known up front (and not in "economist speak") what the context was?
> 
> I don't disagree with what you're saying.... But still, no comment? No ideas? Can't you say what it would take to know what's necessary to make a wise informed decision short of learning a whole new area of expertise? That's not really practical for the average Joe. If you can't or won't do that, no problem. But then you must have made up your mind that there's not a problem or the market will fix itself. Everyone knows however, by this point, that that is not a unrealistic expectation, as recent history has shown. Ralph Nader figured this out a long time ago. (I'm not a biog fan of his politics mind you, but the man does make good sense when it comes to consumer issues.)
> 
> ...


I gave you my comments and Ideas. The government already has too much to do than to get involved in piddling consumer affairs like this. 

I would rather have them put oversight back into big banks since that is where all of our money went. Further, penny ante consumer stuff is not the government's purview. Government should stick to their charter.

I told you very clearly in a previous post that there is no practical way to compile a "comprehensive" list of what conveys value to everyone. The list is too big to be of any practical value. Want truth in labeling? If that's what you're after, standards should be established by the industry. Start a petition, get manufacturers to sign up.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> Dear Mr. LightTracker,
> Your list is woefully too short, incomplete, and full of holes. If your list were the hatch on a submarine, the sub would immediately go straight to the bottom.
> 
> This is not your fault. The value proposition takes into account a nearly endless and diverse number of "value" elements, which in their entirety, would be impossible to list on a product package or marketing slick.
> ...


 
I don't buy that. There are not many more complex fields of study than nutrition, yet almost anything you would need to know regarding nutritional concerns (for a given food item) is contained on a label a little more than an inch tall. With thinking like the above (what you said), you'd need to find nutrition values at a talk forum or ge them from the library for each separate ingredient and then then discuss it with others to see what the over all food value is based on the aggregate data.

No way. Concerns about lights breaks down to handful or basic measures. Again, isn't it odd that those very measures are often conspicuosly absent from the literature? There's currently a light in this very forum that someone is trying to sell as a custom design for 100.00 plus, and in the whole thread that's linked to there is nothing about output or efficiency, Lamp type, yes.. also beatiful in appearance (though it doesn't look very comfortable to hold)... but the most useful information about performance isnt there. And that's typical. Go to REI or some other outfitter and see how many make claims about candlepower or being brightest in its class or boast about using the latest technology. All of that is nice, and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy... like a kid in a candy store... but in the end its stupid to look at that when you're about to drop a hundred dollars.

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> I gave you my comments and Ideas....


 
Where is your truth in labelling idea? Its fair to assume we're talking about rip-offs regarding lights in this topic, isn't it? Previosuly you agreed the rip-offs are going on (again, I assume with regard to lights). So what;s your idea then? 



kwkarth said:


> Want truth in labeling?


 
Of course. What do you think I've been suggesting for the last dozen posts?



kwkarth said:


> If that's what you're after, standards should be established by the industry. Start a petition, get manufacturers to sign up.


 
Again, no comments (about what that should look like)? About what YOU would like to see, if you had your druthers?

A detailed spec sheet is not useful to teh avg. Joe. A previous post suggested using a picture or figure to say something about beam characteristics. Good idea, but what else can YOU think of?

Sometimes the best idea is one that no one has thought of yet. But I suppose you might think its not possible to think of anything new. We've alrerady arrived at Nirvana, the experts have everything in hand already,right? We should just trust them, right?

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I assume that you aren't really asking this question because you don't know at least part of the answer? If you are, Duh!! :nana:
> 
> From your linked thread on "CPF Custom Light Design", you have bothered to link to a post therein, by BruceC, where he states:
> 
> ...


 
I work in government, programming and analysis. You know, if you look in my tag line you'll see link to a wish list and at the bottom of that is a link to the Aleph series you metioned above. Its one among other suggestions that people have made. You'll also see the wish list is for something non-proprietary.



McGizmo said:


> I am not inclined to take myself too seriously; certainly for any length of time. I would however like to extend the courtesy of taking you seriously but by this point I find that a most difficult proposition! :tinfoil:


 
Its not an issue of seriousness the way I see it. It's an issue of whether or not one is willing to do more than can be done on one's own, whether that means enjoying passtime or being a revolutionary. Like I said above, the best ideas are sometimes ones that have never ocurred (or never ocurred to be spoken... they may have been thought of a long time ago!). The communications processes are sometimes stifling because of money interests, and because more people than you may think don't think they have anything great or new to say. And so they sit up on their hind quarters waiting for someone else to do it or say it. Maybe its fear, maybe not....?

I know this. All it takes is one antagonist to derail what would otherwise have beocme an interesting and enjoyable discussion. I don' think I've taken over this thread at all. I may be truly honoring it. Some people here are talking about macor-economics and what borders on philosophy or polictical science (me too a little), and its over a whole range of things that are at best peripheral to the idea of being ripped off. 

I'm not sure that when people say something can't be done its because they really believe it, or because they want the person they're speaking to to believe it. I rarely listen to them because in almost every case in life when I've seen people with a semblance of intelligence point to something better, it has usually come to pass. Sometimes it took a long time, but it happened. I've seen that happen with my father and my oldest brother, both of whom have invented things or held patents over the years. I've also even seen it happen in govt., strange as that may sound. 

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I don't buy that. There are not many more complex fields of study than nutrition, yet almost anything you would need to know regarding nutritional concerns (for a given food item) is contained on a label a little more than an inch tall. With thinking like the above (what you said), you'd need to find nutrition values at a talk forum or ge them from the library for each separate ingredient and then then discuss it with others to see what the over all food value is based on the aggregate data.
> 
> No way. Concerns about lights breaks down to handful or basic measures. Again, isn't it odd that those very measures are often conspicuosly absent from the literature? There's currently a light in this very forum that someone is trying to sell as a custom design for 100.00 plus, and in the whole thread that's linked to there is nothing about output or efficiency, Lamp type, yes.. also beatiful in appearance (though it doesn't look very comfortable to hold)... but the most useful information about performance isnt there. And that's typical. Go to REI or some other outfitter and see how many make claims about candlepower or being brightest in its class or boast about using the latest technology. All of that is nice, and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy... like a kid in a candy store... but in the end its stupid to look at that when you're about to drop a hundred dollars.
> 
> Stop the RIP-OFFS!



That's ok if you don't buy it, I'm not selling anything.


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Where is your truth in labelling idea? Its fair to assume we're talking about rip-offs regarding lights in this topic, isn't it? Previosuly you agreed the rip-offs are going on (again, I assume with regard to lights). So what;s your idea then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LT, you've missed my point in the last several of my posts. I'll spell it out to you... The list is too long to be practical. To each person, what's important to them, may be of no importance to you as an individual. Like I said, make a petition for truth in labeling, and get manufacturer's to sign up.

Poll the manufacturers about what those standards of measurement should be, with the manufacturers consent, publish the list and all those who agreed to adhere to the aforementioned standards. If you pull it off, you'll be a hero. Go for it!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

jahxman said:


> ....I think the idea of a "government" standard is a really bad idea; such things are too easily gamed and inflexible to new information...


 
I agree.



jahxman said:


> However a place like CPF is a good place to advocate for certain information we would like to see from manufacturers; for example I would like to see both emitter and OTF lumens for lights offered for sale, beam shape and some standard measure of throw. Some manufacturers have lead the way with some of this; continued lobbying from their informed consumers may encourage them to do more.


 
The above too, is somethihg I agree with. I doubt that your head is spinning from me. I have been cosnistently trying to get to collaborating with other people like yourself who would like to see more substantive data than is typically given out. So far, everyone apprently like SF because they're straight with people about their data and they make fine products. But I'm trying to make a case that, whether the product has a good reputation or not (and if its good because they advertize truthfully, no harm would come to them over consistently labelling the good features), buyers will benefit and so would reputable dealers by using more telling data to describe the product performance. Honestly, some of the data given out is about worthless, and other data is misleading. I think candlepower is one of the most ridiculous (Unless you combine that with something else that is more telling about beam characteristics... and I think Angelofwar did suggest a picture or figure to do that... whihc is intersting) SOmetimes pictures are more telling than anything else. 

Cheers.

Stop the RIP-oFFS!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 2, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> LT, you've missed my point in the last several of my posts. I'll spell it out to you... The list is too long to be practical.


 
If you;'re talking about the wish list in my tagline, then you're the one who is missing the point. Because that's a different thread altogether. The list I was disucssing here only has four things in it, and several people have already indicated thatthose things are imprtant to know when trying to asses value or performance. Here they are again:

Output (in Lumens, not candlepower), both Peak and Avg.
Effiiciency in Lumens/Watt or a ratio
Beam range or angle (possibly "Throw" if that can be objectively stated)
(someone has suggested using a picture, so what would that look like?)
Battery life

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## Size15's (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker,
Are you saying that you believe that some flashlights are being miss-sold and are not worth the price people are buying them at?

And that you want some form of product labelling system to help prevent flashlights from being miss-sold because people would see from the labelling system that the flashlight was not worth the price and would therefore not buy it?

If there was a way to label a flashlight using a standardised system then I can tell you that no amount of discussion over the many years history of the CPF Community has been able to devise one.

But lets assume that there could be such a standardised system - how would using it 'correctly', or even using it at all be enforced? Shirley the consumer would pay for it twice over. First as an added cost of selling a product, and
Second as a tax burden to fund the regulatory body

Is it worth it? I suggest the cost of such a rip-off prevention measure is itself a rip-off.

I believe that there should be opportunity for winners and losers - for people to be ripped off by over-priced products and for people to take advantage of under-priced products.
The result is a natural spread of consumers able to enjoy the benefits of a marketplace of supply and demand.

Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. Sometimes all parties achieve a sustainable exchange to the mutual and satisfactory benefit of all. How we play the game depends on what we want out of it and how long we want to play for.

The flashlight industry seems healthy to me. We have enough diversity to make quite a variety of purchasing choices. Consumers have excellent 'facilities' to help ensure they make informed purchases and sound investments.

So I say - 'Don't stop the rip-offs!'

Al :nana:


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> If you;'re talking about the wish list in my tagline, then you're the one who is missing the point. Because that's a different thread altogether. The list I was disucssing here only has four things in it, and several people have already indicated thatthose things are imprtant to know when trying to asses value or performance. Here they are again:
> 
> Output (in Lumens, not candlepower), both Peak and Avg.
> Effiiciency in Lumens/Watt or a ratio
> ...


How many times do I have to say; "Your list is too short!"


----------



## McGizmo (Oct 2, 2009)

I suggest destructive tests of 100% of the lights being offered. This way we will know just how much the light could have "taken" and have no fear of being ripped off because there would be nothing available to buy. Such testing would be costly to the manufacturer but with appropriate subsidies provided by government, they could get by. I suspect the government has programmers and analysts up to such a challenge.  

I consider this sugestion every bit as realistic as some of the other suggestions made in this thread although it may not be as entertaining to some. :duck:

I use the term realistic with intent here. I too would like to see truth in advertising and beyond truth, clarity and no false inferences or misleading representations, truthful or otherwise. However, I don't see this coming about and for many reasons. I have learned that if anything, there is an inverse relationship between stated claims and and reality or truth.

I have seen more hype and false information come from members and users here on CPF than ever claimed by the manufacturers. If you want the truth to emerge, you will not only have to get the manufacturers and dealers in compliance, you will also have to police the customers and silence some of them as well.

You want to initiate something proactive? Start a thread titled "reality check". Invite users to post their empirical findings on some of these lights in contrast to the manufacturer's claims. I would guess much could be contested and perhaps incite some heated debate but if these rip off's you want to stop are indeed rip offs, there should be strong evidence in support of such a claim. It might get back to the bad guys that they can't continue to get away with their BS. If your goal goes beyond CPF and includes the flashlights being sold at the big box stores to unsuspecting customers, then good luck!! But why focus on just one item? Why not just reprogram human nature and be done with it.


----------



## Size15's (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> The list I [am] disucssing here only has four things in it, and several people have already indicated thatthose things are imprtant to know when trying to asses value or performance. Here they are again:
> 
> Output (in Lumens, not candlepower), both Peak and Avg.
> Effiiciency in Lumens/Watt or a ratio
> ...


I think your list attempts to assess 'performance' from a dry numbers for numbers sake perspective and does nothing to assess 'value' (is it worth the price it is being sold at)
You're not going to get an answer to that by the manufacturers printing dry numbers on their packaging!

An ideal measure of 'value' is whether those in similar circumstances to you doing similar activities in similar ways recommend a product they have been using; preferably one product rather than other products based on sharing their experiences in terms that are meaningful to you.

So by shouting "Stop the RIP-OFFS!" at the CPF Community you are preaching to the choir. We are interested in flashlights. Our community is the best place to discover the value of a flashlight according to a community of Flashaholics.
If you're interested in stopping 'non-Flashaholics' getting ripped off perhaps there are other consumer communities that would benefit more from your shouting?


----------



## Lithium Juice (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker, I don't like being ripped off any more than the next person, but as a consumer isn't it my responsibility to make an informed purchase, and not to just blame the manufacturers if I don't do my homework. 

I'm not giving manufacturers a free ride either; there are companies I wouldn't buy from. But at what point does personal responsibility kick in?

The value of the spec sheet that you are advocating would be negligible while driving up the cost of flashlights. Ironically the things I care about the most in flashlights aren't even quantifiable. How do you go about measuring durability and quality? Ra Lights are wonderful lights with a great user interface, and electronic engineering that amaze me, but how can you rate that?

As an aside I don't recall anything in the constitution that gives the government any jurisdiction in regards to flashlights.

I think the reviews on CPF and various other sites are far more productive than regulations ever could be at informing the consumer. 

I would really like to know how you feel you have been ripped off?

Danny

P.S. mods I hope this post is okay


----------



## lightplay22 (Oct 2, 2009)

When I feel ripped off is when I spend my hard earned money for something that does not work properly. I find that I can usually avoid this by buying quality products which are normally more expensive. Paying a premium price and getting poor performance IS the pits!! Buying something on the merits of marketing hype alone most of the time results in being disappointed and ending up feeling ripped off.


----------



## Gene43 (Oct 2, 2009)

You see the rule writers can't be in the business because the rules will express their bias. And if the rule writers aren't in the business they won't truly know the business. Being an ex gov't employee I have experience with rule writers. I want no part of any regulation in flashlights. Unless that regulation is enforcing the electrical needs neccessary to drive an LED.


----------



## lightplay22 (Oct 2, 2009)

+1 And I REALLY like Gene's regulation!!!!


----------



## mdocod (Oct 2, 2009)

popcorn munching emote....


----------



## angelofwar (Oct 2, 2009)

Hmmm...now that I have been able to read more post's, and where this thread is going, I'm not so sure it's "Stop the Rip-Off's"...as some here have mentioned, the CPF community, for the most part, is well informed...plenty of run-time graphs, out-put graphs, etc.)...I don't really get ripped off anymore, I just hate the bogus numbers knowingly being thrown on lights...so I just say "Stop B.S.'ing us"...if you've been on this forum for more than a few months and get ripped-off (like I did before joining), it's your own fault...

Stop B.S.'ing Us...


----------



## RocketTomato (Oct 2, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I don't buy that. There are not many more complex fields of study than nutrition, yet almost anything you would need to know regarding nutritional concerns (for a given food item) is contained on a label a little more than an inch tall. With thinking like the above (what you said), you'd need to find nutrition values at a talk forum or ge them from the library for each separate ingredient and then then discuss it with others to see what the over all food value is based on the aggregate data.



And this is exactly where your oversimplification fails. By your logic a vitamin pill is better nutritional value then a balanced meal. Any object is much more complex then a simple list can describe, no matter how cleverly or ingenuously that list is devised. Manufacturers should of course be truthful, but consumers have a responsibility to educate themselves.




LightTracker said:


> ... The list I was disucssing here only has four things in it, and several people have already indicated thatthose things are imprtant to know when trying to asses value or performance. Here they are again:
> 
> Output (in Lumens, not candlepower), both Peak and Avg.
> Effiiciency in Lumens/Watt or a ratio
> ...






LightTracker said:


> ... Honestly, some of the data given out is about worthless, and other data is misleading. *I think candlepower is one of the most ridiculous* (Unless you combine that with something else that is more telling about beam characteristics... and I think Angelofwar did suggest a picture or figure to do that... whihc is intersting) SOmetimes pictures are more telling than anything else.



Why is candlepower ridiculous? If the candlepower measurement is done correctly, candlepower *IS* a measure of throw, one of the items on your list. If light A has twice the candlepower of light B, light A throws twice as far in comparison to B. This goes straight to the heart of the problem. If the consumer is uneducated or uninformed, no list will help them make a better choice.

The reason review sites exist is because most people like to make an informed decision. If it is important to you and you want the best value for your money, you spend time on-line researching the subject. Before I bought a car seat for my infant daughter, I of course spent many hours online before deciding which one to get. 

In fact something like what you desire currently exists. It is called the world wide web. This rich source of information was not even around 20 years ago. You can research any item and any company from the comfort of your home. You can get reviews of the item from people who already own it (like on Amazon) or go to a hobbyist site (like CPF) to get even more information. I can even point out a number of times where a flashlight has been recalled by the manufacturer due to some defect first discovered here on CPF.

Information gathered voluntarily by individual users and consumers, displayed publicly for all the world to see. No government regulation needed. Perhaps the trees are blinding you to the presence of the forest, but I would argue that your holy grail exists and its name is the WWW.


----------



## Th232 (Oct 3, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I don't buy that. There are not many more complex fields of study than nutrition, yet almost anything you would need to know regarding nutritional concerns (for a given food item) is contained on a label a little more than an inch tall. With thinking like the above (what you said), you'd need to find nutrition values at a talk forum or ge them from the library for each separate ingredient and then then discuss it with others to see what the over all food value is based on the aggregate data.



Would like to point something out here. Grabbing half a dozen food items from my pantry, there are vast inconsistencies in them after we go through stuff like "fats" and "protein". Some boxes say GMO free, some don't say anything, and I can't see any that list all 13 vitamins, some only list "fats" while others break it down into saturated, polyunsaturated, biogunk and more. That's without getting into stuff like minerals and amino acids. On the ingredients panel it gets even worse, some say "Flavour Enhancer 621", while others call it by the more common name MSG, and what exactly are these "colourings of non-animal origin" anyway?

I suppose you're wondering where I'm going, it seems to me that all the food items in front of me show the most "relevant" bits of nutrition more than anything else, but that begs the question what's "relevant"?

Also note that for the average consumer, they don't actually know what most of these nutrients do apart from a few basic ones, e.g. "low vitamin C => scurvy" and sometimes "fats = bad, but XYZ fat = good" (which actually isn't always true).

I personally equate that to the current state of things on flashlights, where you have dimensions, batteries they can eat, light output (if they're nice, they'll give runtime for each level of output as well), and so on. You already get an indication of what the light does, but in order to know what you're getting and what it does, you'll have to research things yourself.

If I drew up my own list I'd put (in no particular order):

Lumens and runtime on a "standard" cell (who knows what that'd be though)
Candlepower for throw
Dimensions
Input voltage (not battery types)
Beam characteristics: amount in the hotspot, how much spill, does the tint vary from one to the other and if so how much, how smooth is the beam overall, the transition from hotspot to spill, and probably a few more (beamshot would be nice, but where? A white wall under/overexaggerates certain characteristics)
Tint (would we have to put a CIE 1931 diagram in there as well?)
CRI
Materials of body and any coating
"Snagginess" of the clip if it has one (I'm serious about this one, I've left my NEX sitting on the seat of my car at least 3 times now)
Forward/reverse clicky
UI (given in the manual I suppose)
Spare parts, if any

Personally, that's what I find relevant to my needs. Note the lack of "country of origin" and "weight". Not sure how many people would want some of the items in my list either.

On a second issue, I think this has already been pointed out, but there're always ways to fiddle with the numbers, you mentioned battery life as one criterion, and that's one that I would like to see. The problem is, what battery brand and what mAh (and the customer will have to know what mAh are as well). Then how much will the battery life droop as you increase the current draw, and you get dragged into a whole other field of battery characteristics. 

If we take stuff like LED lotteries, should we take an average knowing full well that by that definition half the lights sent out will be under spec, or should we give the mean and std. dev. (requiring people to figure it out for themselves), or should we give a "minimum" that's mean - 2x std. dev., or some other route?

Please don't take this as an attack on yourself, because it's not, but more on the idea and its practicality, it'd be nice if it were possible, but I just can't see it working unless we get a 10 A4 page document or similar (and I think I can say that the average consumer won't read it in the first place, thereby defeating the point of including it), which would then be more akin to a user's manual more than anything.:shrug:


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 3, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> No ideas from you either... hmm...


 
I already posted my idea. It's the same one many CPFers have mentioned already. . . "Vote with your wallet."



> the most certain way to convince other people of your lack of knowledge is to, in the same sentence, declare someones else's lack of it while in no way offering ideas or refuting what's said. Its a bit like saying, "You're dumb. Why? Because I said so.


 
You're actually doing a great job on your own of showing your lack of knowledge. Yes, I've been reading through your posts on this thread. 



> Now who's on my side!?"


 
Apparently nobody.


----------



## Metatron (Oct 3, 2009)

the only time i feel ripped off is when a dealer paints a picture of a product and i get nothing like that description, that is a rip off, weather it be to the value of 10 cents or $2000, makes no diffs.


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 3, 2009)

I have been reading this thread and I have to wonder, is a lot of fuss being made out of what is largely a non-issue? I have bought a decent number of lights in the last year and a half (or there abouts) and have quite a variety. I would call it a rather eclectic collections with various brands, sizes & types. Out of all the lights I have bought I don't think I would consider a single one to be a rip-off. The dearer lights have certain features that justify the price tag and the cheaper lights are OK for what I paid. I have bought some lights (and other products) based on the reviews here and elsewhere (e.g. flashlightreviews.com).

Are flashlights often rip-offs that are in need of legislations? More so than power tools or TVs or stereos (now there is a product with many different features and specs that are hard to understand) or cameras or headphones or portable MP3 players or computers or any other type of consumer electronics? Honestly I can't see that legislators would care enough about flashlights in particular. What % of the population are so angry at being dissatisfied with a flash light purchase that they feel the government should step in and legislate?

Don't want to be ripped off? Then read a review on CPF before buying any light!


----------



## ducat (Oct 3, 2009)

I live in England.
I KNOW I'm being ripped off every time I open my wallet.

With regard to the Surefire Vs. Fenix debate, I own three surefires, a G2, a 6P and a C3, I also own a Fenix TK11 R2 and a shiny new TK40.

IMHO the Fenix are almost as good in construction, and BETTER in functionality than the SF's.

The battery holder in the TK40 is a thing of engineering beauty that belongs in a museum. The first time one of my colleagues saw it he said it looked like something out of a SF movie!

With the exception of my C3HA OD, which is a keeper, I would give up both the G2 and 6P before I ever let go of my Fenix lights.


----------



## London Lad (Oct 3, 2009)

I do know what you mean. 40% income tax, 20% employers + employees 'national insurance' (tax) and the an extra 17.5% when you spend anything. Ans on top of that EVERYTHING seems more expensive than it is in the rest of the world.


----------



## Robocop (Oct 3, 2009)

Interesting discussion and for the most part it is nice to see so many keep things civil and calm. Good points from many here and I am sure we could bring up many scenarios to sway the issue towards either side. It is a vague area indeed and CPF has been moving right along all these years with members paying some very high costs for various products none the less.

Honestly I feel the issue of lights being a rip off is really not that deep. Unlike taxes, or other things many feel is a rip off, we do not have to buy lights. Well I should say most of us do not simply have to buy lights however taxes and other things we must spend money on.....the tax issue is another thread by itself and not really an issue in this thread anyway.

Ok having said that I must say that the idea of labels and standards on everyday items just does not seem to be an answer to me. I have seen many here say that a smart consumer should educate themselves before buying many things. I agree with this as if one is savvy enough no one can rip them off on a luxury item of purchase.

I mean when does it all stop and why must consumers be like sheep depending on others to educate them about every little detail. We could apply the labels to everything in life if we wished. Look at the cost of some knives today or even wrist watches. Watches all tell time yes and they are very similiar however some are in the thousands of dollars and do not keep time as well as those in the 50 dollar range.....yet they are still sold by the thousands to collectors and even some who just want to have it.

Watches,knives, lights and many other things are mostly a hobby or interest for the majority. If you like it and can afford it buy it and if not buy something similiar and have fun. I simply do not see a problem with our shared interests here and believe that the majority of us do not need every detail of a product to make a purchase. personally I do not wish to have to depend on the maker to educate me on the value of a product but more so depend on hands on experience and reviews.

Most everything I could ever want to buy can easily be researched with the click of a mouse and a computer screen. Consumer review sites have been going on for years and I would rather trust the reviews of actual users rather than some label feeding me information.

Some here seem to be leading towards the trend of having someone else protect them from themselves. Again I just do not believe the topic in regards to our interests here is that much of a problem. We buy lights because we enjoy them and sometimes we spend too much and often we find a good deal. Some of us will spend too much even though we fully know it and still be happy with our new toy. Sometimes we spend very little and are suprised with a products performance.

Labels, figures, photos and even beamshots can be deceiving. If a consumer wishes to really be informed nothing beats hands on reviews from actual users. This has been an interesting read with many different points of view. Maybe I see it as being too simple however again I appreciate everyone remaining civil. Now try to continue on topic and maybe we can all benefit from the discussion.

I am off to purchase some more very costly lights that I found a discount on....and I am doing so without any fancy figures or mandatory specs from the maker. Maybe I will spend too much and if I do well that would be my own fault. You can bet however that I will be smiling just to have a few new toys.


----------



## London Lad (Oct 3, 2009)

Well said Mr Cop!

Another example of how personal this subject is has just come to mind.

A couple of years ago I moved back to the U.K. from Europe and to a home out in the countryside.

Having previously liven in Europe, where cars are left hand drive, I needed a right hand drive car for the UK.

I did a little reasearch (not enough) and checked out some forums and ending up buying a Landrover Discovery 3 (LR3 in the US) at a very large discount from list.

Now this car has a loyal following and fan clubs all over the world and is credited with being able to do things off road that other 4x4s can only dream of.

However, in nearly all respects it is the worst car / 4x4 I have ever owned by a mile, and I have owned a LOT of cars. The car is total c**p.

Was I ripped off? NO! I just brought the wrong car for me and didn't do enough research.


----------



## uk_caver (Oct 3, 2009)

While I'm all for legislation against fraudulent claims made to sell products, chances are, a lot of the time, the people who one might think would benefit the most from heavily prescriptive consumer legislation are the people who wouldn't really benefit from mandating lots of information on packaging, since they wouldn't read anything that looked like small print.

Though it might be annoying to some of us to see companies only quoting peak initial lumens and then a runtime based on the light dropping to an arbitrarily chosen dull glow, those figures do at least mean *something* as long as they are accurate, and are fairly simple.
While it might be interesting to some customers to put runtimes to 50%, 25%, 10% brightness in the manual, if those figures were stuck on the packaging they'd probably be more information than many people wanted or would bother reading.

Even thinking about mandating, for example, a fixed cutoff point to help determine runtimes, would that be a level relative to the initial brightness (and if so, which level would be used as a reference?) or an absolute level?
If an absolute level, should that be in lumens, or central beam intensity?


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 3, 2009)

Metatron said:


> the only time i feel ripped off is when a dealer paints a picture of a product and i get nothing like that description, that is a rip off


 
That's the whole point right there, Metatron. There is nothing provided up front (in most cases) beyond the picture that you're intended to see. You're not the first person to point this out either. Some preceding posts perhaps would like people to think its a minority view to want truthful labelling. But that's untrue. 

Those "dry numbers" in TH232's post (above) can help form a solution, and I promise to comment on those in a sperate note. And thanks for the input!!

I realize that people are allergic to regulations, but that also presents a perfect example of why regulations are sometimes necessary. People don't agree. They sometimes refuse to, and present reasons why others shouldn't agree either. But while complainig about the problems with bureaucracy and believeing nothing should be done beyond "doing your homework", while thinking independently and "using your wallet" to keep everything in check ....just remember, nature abhors a vacuum, and what you don't do cooperatively now (at a point where you can actually take enjoyment from doing it) someone will do later ....but they won't consult you, and you won't like it.

Personally, I don't want more regulations, but if they arrive it will not be from lack of effort on the part of folks who try and work things out, who work toward some real substantive solution, it would be from naysayers, from the folks who constantly present reasons why something is not workable while doing nothing themselves to offer help. The world s full of this, people want things and complain when they don't get them and then they complain again when others try to provide it (sometimes regulatorily) because its not the way they'd like it done it. People can't be pleased.

The thing is, you have ideas.... and ideas can chance things. TH232 has some above... and, as promised, I'll respond.

Stop the RIP-OFFS! And Stop the B.S! (from Angelofwar)


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 3, 2009)

TH232, I appreciate your comments. And for taking a stab at presenting some label ideas.



Th232 said:


> it seems to me that all the food items in front of me show the most "relevant" bits of nutrition more than anything else, but that begs the question what's "relevant"?


 
The nutrition label intentionally doesn't answer every "relevant" question, its just a guide.



Th232 said:


> I personally equate that to the current state of things on flashlights, where you have dimensions, batteries they can eat, light output (if they're nice, they'll give runtime for each level of output as well)....


 
How about runtime Range? Example:

Runtime: 1.5 - 5.2 Hrs



Th232 said:


> If I drew up my own list I'd put (in no particular order):
> 
> Lumens ....on a "standard" cell (who knows what that'd be though)


 
Most come with battery. Previously, I suggested 2 values:

Peak output
Avg. output

I assume these will often be different. 



Th232 said:


> Candlepower for throw....
> 
> Beam characteristics: amount in the hotspot, how much spill, does the tint vary from one to the other and if so how much, how smooth is the beam overall, the transition from hotspot to spill, and probably a few more (beamshot would be nice, but where?


 
Again, how about the Range? Example:

XXX - XXX 

This would tell you something about the beam, a large variance suggests a hotspot... less smooth transition. 

Also, how about what Angelofwar suggested... a picture? I also think a figure could work. Its shape could indicate beam width and throw. Do you know what I mean? But a beamshot taken overheade might offer the same thing, as long as it has good contrast.



Th232 said:


> Dimensions


 
If its online that's necessary. If you have it in your hands, not so much, right?
So for a label I would not think dimensions beloig there



Th232 said:


> A white wall under/overexaggerates certain characteristics)...
> Tint (would we have to put a CIE 1931 diagram in there as well?)


 
Color temperature? Also, maybe a photo or beamshot is not a good choice for that reason. Like I said, it's not going to be perfect.



Th232 said:


> CRI


 
What is that?



Th232 said:


> Materials of body and any coating


 
That might be in the same category as dimensions, more necessary for online data, but if you have it in your hand may not be needed on a label.



Th232 said:


> "Snagginess" of the clip if it has one (I'm serious about this one, I've left my NEX sitting on the seat of my car at least 3 times now)


 
How could that be described?



Th232 said:


> Forward/reverse clicky


 
Again, there are so many types. Although its important... If you have it in your hands and can see through the packaging, no problem, otherwise I think that, and the UI would be in the manual.



Th232 said:


> Personally, that's what I find relevant to my needs. Note the lack of "country of origin" and "weight". Not sure how many people would want some of the items in my list either.


 
You might be surprised. Some of the items on tour list are the same as already pointed out, Esp. lumens, battery life and beam characteristics.



Th232 said:


> ....there're always ways to fiddle with the numbers, you mentioned battery life as one criterion, and that's one that I would like to see. The problem is, what battery brand and what mAh (and the customer will have to know what mAh are as well).


 
If we're talking about a label (that's what I was talking about in the last 10 posts) most people would just want to know how much time they have before it goes dead. Of course that depends on the setting. I suggest either reporting it on the highest setting (worst case) or report a range.



Th232 said:


> Then how much will the battery life droop as you increase the current draw, and you get dragged into a whole other field of battery characteristics.


 
I think reportuing on the worst case or under optimal conditions would be fine. Of course that's all "fine print" or "Spec sheet" data, isn't it? I've never had one that was exact. If it says the runtime is 1 hour and 45 minutes, it might be 2 hours. 



Th232 said:


> If we take stuff like LED lotteries, should we take an average knowing full well that by that definition half the lights sent out will be under spec, or should we give the mean and std. dev. (requiring people to figure it out for themselves), or should we give a "minimum" that's mean - 2x std. dev., or some other route?


 
Can it be shown in a picture or figure? Some things can be. If someone has a picture in their mind and knows how to draw....? I have one in mind for beam charcateristics, I just don't know how to draw very well.



Th232 said:


> Please don't take this as an attack on yourself, because it's not, but more on the idea and its practicality, it'd be nice if it were possible, but I just can't see it working unless we get a 10 A4 page document or similar (and I think I can say that the average consumer won't read it in the first place, thereby defeating the point of including it), which would then be more akin to a user's manual more than anything.:shrug:


 
A manual is what you're talking about from some of these items. And I think you want some standard data included in it. And I support you in that. But I'm talking about a label. And it sounds like there is some overlap between your concerns and mine. The question is, what do you NOT put on a label. You obviously can't reprint a manual on the side of package.

I respectfully disagree with kwkarth (who keeps repeating it like a matra, over and over again) that the list needs to be exhaustive. It only needs to cover the universal items, and a few more. Lumens is a universal one. Its a standard value. Beam characteristics can probably be a small pictogram. Barttey life could be a range and so can candlepower and beam spread. But I think the right picture can probably replace serveral individual values. Anyone know how to draw and post a picture?

Stop the RIP-OFFS, and the B.S!

Cheers!


----------



## uk_caver (Oct 3, 2009)

For lights that didn't run at constant power up to the point of dying, would you need different figures for each power level for regulated runtime and overall runtime (down to some arbitrary or mandated power output threshold)?
Many people would be interested in both the full power runtime (to know when they should change batteries to keep maximum output) and the usable runtime when they don't have spares (or don't mind the output dropping).

'Average power' is possibly a tricky number to force everyone to display, since someone playing to the numbers could easily increase the average power of a light simply by adding a deliberate early cutoff - effectively making a light worse, but improving one of the numbers, possibly a number that people will put some faith in.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 3, 2009)

Robocop said:


> Interesting discussion and for the most part it is nice to see so many keep things civil and calm. Good points from many here and I am sure we could bring up many scenarios to sway the issue towards either side. It is a vague area indeed.....


 
Its difficult to understand it being seen as vague for people who undertstand the technical apsects of lights. I can't help but wonder if the reason you see it that way isn't because of the "macro concerns" in this thread. The stuff about economics and politics is entertaining enough.... but the thread topic goes to what everyone universally understands: being RIPPED-OFF. Its posed as a question, but its understood by everyone. And its not a matter of IF it happens. It does. It happens with lights, and eveyone here knows that.

There are two extreme views being generally presented in the discussion that I've seen. One is that there's nothing that can be done about RIP-OFFS as a whole, so simply fight back individually with your wallet and refuse to buy rip-offs if you can. The other view is that you either need a lot of regulation or you need a huge list of descriptive items about every product aspect (which obviously wouldn't fit on a package and might cost $ to implement).

Both of these miss the boat, I think. You don't need to relinquish the entire issue to manufacturers and trust your instincts as to who is honest and who isn't or try and leanr more than they know, and that's impossible (certain present company excluded). You can either demand or ask (depending on temperament) for truth in labeling and thereby bridge the gap of knowledge between sellers and buyers. Its not perfect, but its helpls. 

Also, you don't need an act of congress or a lot of money or an exhaustive list of requirements to do this. All you need is the right idea and the ability to collaborate. Good ideas rarely get past thinking without being reflected and built upon (fleshed-out and refined among others). Some of the people who may help most might not actually be CPF memers.

There is only ever ONE PROBLEM with product rip-offs though. Its accessibility to essential information. One big road block to accessibility is buyer intelligience. Even if the information is provided by the seller it may not be understood. Manufacturers exploit that through disinformation though. They know that they know more than the average buyer does. So they make statements about products qualitatively rather than quantitatively. It ssubject to interpretations and the buyer's emotional response. Its pretty cleaver actually, but its also very misleading. Almost EVERYONE hates this. And if they don't I think they're either deluded or lying about it.

Candlepower is the biggest trick in the book with regard to lights. It can exceed the actual performance of the light by many times. Some here have argued that it indicates throw, not output. And an elite group such as this may understand that. But outside this group, HARDLY ANYONE understands it. 

I feel that this discussion has no excuse for being seen as vague for people who already understand the technical issues. And if they're sellers they esp. have no excuse because they probably have more knowledge than most posters do.

I assume that most everyone posting here and reading understands them well enough though to hear what I'm saying. Average buyers (and some people posting here) are gullable. We (they/whoever) will buy things, trusting the manufacturers... and unless something really obvious ocurrs to upset the apple cart, will go along thinking everyone has their best interests at heart. But you don't have to be a cynic to recognize that, with very few exceptions, NO ONE other than the buyer (possible excpetion is the government or perhaps Ralph Nader) has the buyer's best interest at heart. Those folks have their own best intersts at heart. They're in business to make money. And who can fault them, right? They have to eat. But therein lies a problem. Failing to provide the essential information that I'm talking about (at very little if any addtional expense) so buyers can make wise choices does not result in less food being put on their tables.

This is a perceptual problem. Its not the least bit vague. Everyone understand the basics and has experienced it in their own lives. the topic has to do with being RIPPED OFF. There are ways to mitigate agians being RIPPED OFF. Some people are willin gto try and help. Others aren't. But if the reason you're not willing to help is that you're seller.... well, you're the most misinformed of everyone.



Robocop said:


> Honestly I feel the issue of lights being a rip off is really not that deep. Unlike taxes, or other things many feel is a rip off, we do not have to buy lights..... the idea of labels and standards on everyday items just does not seem to be an answer to me.


 
Speaking as "someone in the know" I can understand you saying that. But I think you should consider people who aren't.



Robocop said:


> I have seen many here say that a smart consumer should educate themselves before buying many things. I agree with this as if one is savvy enough no one can rip them off on a luxury item of purchase.


 
And...?



Robocop said:


> I mean when does it all stop and why must consumers be like sheep depending on others to educate them about every little detail?


 
Preach it, brother!



Robocop said:


> We could apply the labels to everything in life if we wished. Look at the cost of some knives today or even wrist watches. Watches all tell time yes and they are very similiar however some are in the thousands of dollars and do not keep time as well as those in the 50 dollar range.....yet they are still sold by the thousands to collectors and even some who just want to have it.


 
That's what I'm saying!



Robocop said:


> ....the majority of us do not need every detail of a product to make a purchase. personally I do not wish to have to depend on the maker to educate me on the value of a product but more so depend on hands on experience and reviews.


 
You were going so strong for a minute there. Seriously though, I understand this too. But it would be nice to depend on them and trust them, right? Most peopl will say forget that ever happening, and okay. But its good to try and work together with folks and believ it could happen.

I would like to come up with an idea that works for both buyers and seller. Some poeple have made some contributions toward that. Other poeple have been naysaying the entire thing. Some of those popel may have a really great idea and its a shame to not hear it. Speak up, will you? 

Stop the RIP-OFFS!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 3, 2009)

uk_caver said:


> For lights that didn't run at constant power up to the point of dying, would you need different figures for each power level for regulated runtime and overall runtime (down to some arbitrary or mandated power output threshold)?
> Many people would be interested in both the full power runtime (to know when they should change batteries to keep maximum output) and the usable runtime when they don't have spares (or don't mind the output dropping).
> 
> 'Average power' is possibly a tricky number to force everyone to display, since someone playing to the numbers could easily increase the average power of a light simply by adding a deliberate early cutoff - effectively making a light worse, but improving one of the numbers, possibly a number that people will put some faith in.


 
UK Caver, Did you know man named Ian Rolland form the UK? A cave diver, and a real heroic fellow. A U.S. freind of mine named Stever Porter knew him and explored with him.

Maybe the solution to the problem you posed above could be solved by not worrying about avg. power but avg. light output instead. I mean isn't that more telling? I suppose battery weight is a factor too. Many people caryy the light, right? And even if they mount it they may want to see the weight. What about total energy produce to weight, as a ratio: energy/batt. wgt. Of course the higher number would be more desrirabe under some circumstances 

Stop the RIP-OFFS! (and the B.S.!)

Cheers.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 3, 2009)

uk_caver said:


> While I'm all for legislation against fraudulent claims made to sell products, chances are, a lot of the time, the people who one might think would benefit the most from heavily prescriptive consumer legislation are the people who wouldn't really benefit from mandating lots of information on packaging, since they wouldn't read anything that looked like small print.
> 
> Though it might be annoying to some of us to see companies only quoting peak initial lumens and then a runtime based on the light dropping to an arbitrarily chosen dull glow, those figures do at least mean *something* as long as they are accurate, and are fairly simple.
> While it might be interesting to some customers to put runtimes to 50%, 25%, 10% brightness in the manual, if those figures were stuck on the packaging they'd probably be more information than many people wanted or would bother reading.
> ...


 
Good questions. Again, wouldn't avg output in lumens (across the life of the battery) anser this? Also, agian maybe a pictogram showing the drop off in brightness across the battery life. DO you know what I mean?

Stop the RIP-OFFS! and the B.S.!


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 3, 2009)

Why does all this not bother me? For the life of me I can not understand why not. Is it because I have been a member here on CPF for a few years and sort of know how to evaluate products for potential rip offs, relative to lights and light related products. Is it because I read, read, read what ever I can get my hands on about these types of products, and have yet not feel like I have been ripped off? Is it because I am not a paranoid type of guy, looking for the bad, and the potential rip off? Is it because I take responsibility for purchasing the occasional product that does not meet my expectations, and the hype that led me to those expectations? I do know that when I purchase something that is not right, and could be perceived as a "rip off", the next step is to try to correct the issue, and be very careful in the future.

Bill


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 3, 2009)

KiwiMark said:


> Are flashlights often rip-offs that are in need of legislations? More so than power tools or TVs or stereos (now there is a product with many different features and specs that are hard to understand) or cameras or headphones or portable MP3 players or computers or any other type of consumer electronics?


 
Kiwiman, I don't know about legislation. Its always better if you don't need that, right? In some ways, the answer to your question is yes though. Because we're talking about something that gets its main property from a univesal thing: Light. I realize there's a batter involved and of course that makes it more complicated. But the fact that its not nearly as complicated as a steroe lets it lend to a MUCH simpler description.

Is it a Non-issue? Of course not. No one likes being ripped off. If you have never been ripped off you must have God' grace following you around or maybe you have a horseshoe up your behind. Either way, you'd be so far into the minority of people that it would not be fair to let that negatively effect everyone else. If so, good for you... but its still a problem for most.

Stop the RIP-OFFS! And the B.S!

Cheers


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 3, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I respectfully disagree with kwkarth (who keeps repeating it like a matra, over and over again) that the list needs to be exhaustive. It only needs to cover the universal items, and a few more. Lumens is a universal one. Its a standard value. Beam characteristics can probably be a small pictogram. Barttey life could be a range and so can candlepower and beam spread. But I think the right picture can probably replace serveral individual values. Anyone know how to draw and post a picture?
> 
> Stop the RIP-OFFS, and the B.S!
> 
> Cheers!



I think you still misunderstand me. I apologize for not making myself more clear.

Even in your above reply, you mention a number of "label" inclusions, many of which, are not qualified enough to make them meaningful in apples to apples comparisons of one light to another. You need to remove ALL wiggle room from each measurement if your intent is to aid the consumer in choosing the best product for them. If you fail to do this, you are further perpetuating and even worsening the conditions that you purport to improve. Life ain't simple my friend, and the average consumer is too simple minded and lacks the required attention span to read the labels.


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 3, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Good questions. Again, wouldn't avg output in lumens (across the life of the battery) anser this? Also, agian maybe a pictogram showing the drop off in brightness across the battery life. DO you know what I mean?
> 
> Stop the RIP-OFFS! and the B.S.!



LT, many manufacturers have already adopted the practice of documenting runtime as running time to 50% reduction of a given light output level. I believe Surefire started that and a number of others have followed suit. Of late, I've seen Surefire start to deviate from that methodology by stating runtime down to some minimum level such as 5lm. This is somewhat misleading because many are used to runtimes being defined as to 50% of starting level. So what labeling is printed, read all of it carefully including all of the asterisked references and teeny tiny small print.

After having read all of the teeny tiny small print, log on to CPF and read what others have to say about the product in question to find out the real scoop. That includes reading between the lines.


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 3, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> If you have never been ripped off you must have God' grace following you around or maybe you have a horseshoe up your behind.



My first 2 proper 'flashaholic' lights were a Fenix & a Jetbeam - both are excellent quality and work as well as claimed. Then I started reading CPF after a Google search lead me here when I was looking at what I could do with my old Maglite torches. Since then I have bought more Fenix & Jetbeam lights as well as Olight, Zebralight, ITP, MG, Nitecore & Quark. Buying well known and well respected brands from reputable sellers does a lot to avoid rip-offs, without relying on luck (or God's grace). 4sevens.com is very good at giving decent info & specs on their lights. Selfbuilt and others provide a lot of valuable info on their reviews here.

I have also bought products from DealExtreme - with the help of the user reviews of their products I have gotten pretty much what I expected on everything purchased from them. I did have a faulty lighter, but they sent out a replacement. Their fauxton lights work very well and if you buy a few 10-packs with the bulkrate discount they can cost less than 40c each.

When I bought my cellphone I hunted the internet for reviews - most cellphones had mixed reviews so I read about the pros & cons to decide if the pros made them worth their money and if the cons were deal breakers for me. The phone I bought had very positive reviews and not much in the way of cons. I also subscribe to an organisation here called Consumer NZ ("Consumer NZ is an independent, non-profit organisation established in 1959 with the sole aim of getting New Zealand consumers a fairer deal.") and I read their product reviews and reliability surveys before buying any major appliance.

The bottom line is that any cautious consumer can Google for reviews of a product before buying it. Other consumers buy whatever they like the look of without even reading the packaging - more info won't help them. If someone buys whatever they feel like on a whim then they will get ripped off plenty, but putting data on the packaging that they won't read may not solve the problem. For careful buyers like myself there are better sources of information than the packaging - I would trust an independent review much more than manufacturer claims. In a review you can see how the product compares to similar offerings from other brands - you won't get that on the specs on the side of the box.


----------



## Kiessling (Oct 3, 2009)

LightTracker ... one suggestion would be to actually think about what the others say in this thread. Reading isn't sufficient. Thinking it through would advance the discussion.

Then ... could you please stop with that:



> Stop the RIP-OFFS, and the B.S!


It is counterproductive in its endless repetitions perforating the eyes of those who are trying to follow this thread.

Thank you,

bernie


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Oct 3, 2009)

DimeRazorback said:


> Sorry but I had to...


Apparently, he isn't a very good Light tracker, despite the name.


----------



## Federal LG (Oct 3, 2009)

*kwkarth*

Thanks for your posting... It´s good to see your perspective (someone who knows about economics).

:wave:


----------



## Vesper (Oct 3, 2009)

There are so many nuances as to perceived value, and that more than anything leads to what is a "ripoff" or not for the individual. This thread makes me squirm though - like many here I'm sure, it reminds me that I spend too much on flashlights - some surely overpriced. Am I going to stop? No.


----------



## Robocop (Oct 3, 2009)

I am surely "in the know" as of today and yes it is very hard for me to get ripped off. When I began looking for a new duty light several years back I was completely out of the know. I was a good target to be ripped off and after reading all the packaging of various products I was even more confused.

I did not know anything about voltage, reflectors, or throw, and most important as a policeman I knew little of output numbers. I did not understand all of the hype of all the labels I did read so again I turned to the internet for help.

So not being in the know is no excuse for anyone to get ripped off in my opinion. In about 15 minutes of reading I quickly found that two of my local choices was not considered to be a good performer. I discovered many better choices and even used an online dealer to buy something totally different.

In the end I bought a new duty light and did so being totally ignorant as to specs. and other light related stuff. I used that light for several years and was very satisfied with my purchase. To me this discussion is simple actually as I feel there is not really a huge problem here.

In order for anyone to be ripped off these days it would pretty much have to be their own fault (as far as lights go) It is simply to easy to obtain a little info. and learn a little before you buy.


----------



## Egsise (Oct 3, 2009)

If I buy the Fenix TK20 from Finnish dealer it costs ~89$, if I order it from 4Sevens it costs 53$.

Still, I dont feel that Fenix Finnish dealer is ripping me off, it's the goverment.
On the other hand, if i go to a doctor it costs me like a 30$ a day, no matter what they need to do to me, or how long I need to stay in hospital.
I like that.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 3, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> I think you still misunderstand me. I apologize for not making myself more clear.... you mention a number of "label" inclusions, many of which, are not qualified enough to make them meaningful in apples to apples comparisons....


 
Which ones? Bear in mind I'M NOT THE LIST. I'm only trying to stir up interest in creating one. Also, if I repeat something that someones says, its still just to keep the idea flowing, not to judge it as either perfect or absurd. Do you understand? Why don't you suggest something (one item perhaps) instead of only being critical? By the way, I get the point that you one may not completely simplify or reduce complex knowledge. But I'm not suggesting to do that. I'm suggesting to look at the issue from the point of view of someone who knows less than you who has no need to be technical but does have a need to know. Buyers are not builders.

Stop the RIP-OFFS, and the B.S!

Cheers!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 3, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> LT, many manufacturers have already adopted the practice of documenting runtime as running time to 50% reduction of a given light output level. I believe Surefire started that and a number of others have followed suit. Of late, I've seen Surefire start to deviate from that methodology by stating runtime down to some minimum level such as 5lm. This is somewhat misleading....


 
Hmm... that's encouraging. Its the first time I've seen someone reply and admit even the illustrious SF fails to consistently inform buyers. I have been watching/tracking lights myself over the years and empiracally, lumen output ratings have been either replaced by candlepower (just as in the old days) or not reported or buried in an obscure spec sheet.

I can picture XXX lumens with less throw as a blunt shape and XXX lumens with more throw as an elongated (sharper) shape or maybe a short blunt shape with a projection extending out in front of it. If you let the length of the shape represent throw and let the width of it represent output.... Can you picture that in your mind? In other words, a wide-short pattern (more of a flood pattern) shows a gven amount of light with less throw. A long narrow pattern may show more throw but cover less area and so indicate less output. Since light values can be measured at any place in the pattern, you can get an amount that would represent "saturation" (for lack of a better term). I'm not very good at drawing or I would draw something. Does anyone know how to draw?

Cheers!

Stop the RIP-OFFS, and the B.S.!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 3, 2009)

KiwiMark said:


> The bottom line is that any cautious consumer can Google for reviews of a product before buying it. Other consumers buy whatever they like the look of without even reading the packaging - more info won't help them.


 
That may be true, but its no reason to withdraw concern for the people who DO read and compare. I think you are being overly optimistic about the unbiasedness of reviews. The more books I read that have researched accuracy of internet information, the more skeptical I have become. Often you're reading reviews of manufacturers who simply create acoounts and post postive feedback on thier product (presumably as ordinary consumers). Haven't you read about people who do this for their E-bay and Amazon Market Place accounts? 



KiwiMark said:


> If someone buys whatever they feel like on a whim then they will get ripped off plenty, but putting data on the packaging that they won't read may not solve the problem.


 
Simpler is always better. Many people will read it if its simple. Nutrition labels (we discussed earlier) are pretty complex but people still read them. I know because I see them doing it at the store. Light bulbs have three values: Light Output, Energy, and Bulb Life. Not a ton of info, but very useful for comparison. And they vary a lot, just as do most products in a given class.



KiwiMark said:


> For careful buyers like myself there are better sources of information than the packaging - I would trust an independent review much more than manufacturer claims. In a review you can see how the product compares to similar offerings from other brands - you won't get that on the specs on the side of the box.


 
Truthful (standard) labelling does not aim to solve every problem, only the basic ones. How much light does this produce compared to product B? How long will the battery last? Does it weight a lot? How wide will the beam be? Or how far will it project? Its not that complicated. Values like that would help you to determine enough basic carachteristics to know how it performs compared to other products. Would it tell you everything? No. But I think it would save a person like yourself some time (if you want the time to be saved).

Thanks for your input.

Stop the RIP-OFFS! And the B.S.!

Cheers.


----------



## DM51 (Oct 3, 2009)

LightTracker… you were told by a moderator in post #198 to stop repeating your tiresome “Stop the …” slogan with every post you make. You have ignored his instructions.

It is peculiar that after 4 years of almost moribund inactivity you have now appeared in this thread and hijacked it with 36 posts (so far) of ceaseless hectoring on a subject about which you know very little.

Members are quite clearly tired of your posturing and grandstanding, and they deserve a rest from it. They will now have some respite for a few days. Please use the time to reflect on the inadvisability of ignoring instructions from moderators.


----------



## Size15's (Oct 3, 2009)

LT,
You are being unrealistically optimistic that a simple labelling system is possible.
*It is not possible.*

We have tried and failed to come up with exactly what you're harping on about.
Many have tried. All have failed.

There is no need for it. There is no motivation in the industry or from consumers.

You say that measuring light output is not complicated. In fact it is one of the most complicated 'things' to measure. To even begin to measuring it properly takes time and money and expertise. There are few testing labs that can test the output of a flashlight.
There is no standardised way of doing it.

The fact that we still talk about comparing an LED to the power of a candle shows just how far we are from things being simple.

But this is nothing compared to how such a labelling system would be enforced. The industry would either not use it at all, or would do everything they could to twist it to their advantage.

I used to work for a research association in the product testing and certification lab.
I now work for a Government agency with responsibilities for permitting, regulating and compliance checking activities.

I've seen both what needs to happen for an industry to come together and make it's own rules, and how 'the Government' does it for them.

There is no way the flashlight industry is ever going to come together and make it's own rules - there is no motivation; no pressure; no benefit in doing so.

There is no way the Government is ever going to make the rules for industry - there is no motivation; no pressure; no benefit in doing so.

Why?
It's not an issue. The only one making noise about this is you. Singular. And that's on a discussion forum of flashlight fanatics.

If you're looking for support you're not going about this the right way.

Al :shakehead


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 3, 2009)

Size15's said:


> You say that measuring light output is not complicated. In fact it is one of the most complicated 'things' to measure. To even begin to measuring it properly takes time and money and expertise. There are few testing labs that can test the output of a flashlight.
> There is no standardised way of doing it.




Man, that is soooooo true!

Well you could measure the Lumen OTF with an integrated sphere. But then that tells nothing about the throw, only the total light output.
You could also add the Lux at 1 Metre - but the lux at one point tells so little. What about the width of the hotspot at 1M & peak Lux for the hotspot & average Lux for the hotspot. Also the diameter of the spill beam and the average Lux of the spill beam.

Yeah that sort of information will work well and wont confuse anybody!


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 3, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> That may be true, but its no reason to withdraw concern for the people who DO read and compare. I think you are being overly optimistic about the unbiasedness of reviews. The more books I read that have researched accuracy of internet information, the more skeptical I have become. Often you're reading reviews of manufacturers who simply create acoounts and post postive feedback on thier product (presumably as ordinary consumers). Haven't you read about people who do this for their E-bay and Amazon Market Place accounts?




Hmmm, talk about BS! I have read reviews on many products and have had no problems finding a list of cons/negatives/drawbacks. There are well know reputable sources of fair reviews - e.g. CPF reviews by Selfbuilt. Gee, didn't I mention that in a previous post? I think the comment about you not thinking about what others are posting is a good call from Kiessling. A quick google search for "productx review" will yield many reviews for 'productx' and if you read at least one and skim through another 3 or 4 then you will have a good sense of whether the product is a good one or a dud.

I have never before come across someone wanting to trust the label from the manufacturer but not independent reviews (for fear that the reviews might be biased and/or written by the manufacturers). Who will be writing the labels?


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 3, 2009)

Federal LG said:


> *kwkarth*
> 
> Thanks for your posting... It´s good to see your perspective (someone who knows about economics).
> 
> :wave:



Thanks, I only try to call 'em like I see 'em.

Semper Ascendens! Since I'm somewhat gravitationally challenged  , I try to ascend with my mind as well.


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 3, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Which ones? Bear in mind I'M NOT THE LIST. I'm only trying to stir up interest in creating one. Also, if I repeat something that someones says, its still just to keep the idea flowing, not to judge it as either perfect or absurd. Do you understand? Why don't you suggest something (one item perhaps) instead of only being critical? By the way, I get the point that you one may not completely simplify or reduce complex knowledge. But I'm not suggesting to do that. I'm suggesting to look at the issue from the point of view of someone who knows less than you who has no need to be technical but does have a need to know. Buyers are not builders.
> 
> Stop the RIP-OFFS, and the B.S!
> 
> Cheers!



LT,
I'm trying really hard to not be critical. I have been trying to help you specifically. You'll have to figure this out for yourself, I've taken you as close to the water as I can.


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 3, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Hmm... that's encouraging. Its the first time I've seen someone reply and admit even the illustrious SF fails to consistently inform buyers. I have been watching/tracking lights myself over the years and empiracally, lumen output ratings have been either replaced by candlepower (just as in the old days) or not reported or buried in an obscure spec sheet.
> 
> I can picture XXX lumens with less throw as a blunt shape and XXX lumens with more throw as an elongated (sharper) shape or maybe a short blunt shape with a projection extending out in front of it. If you let the length of the shape represent throw and let the width of it represent output.... Can you picture that in your mind? In other words, a wide-short pattern (more of a flood pattern) shows a gven amount of light with less throw. A long narrow pattern may show more throw but cover less area and so indicate less output. Since light values can be measured at any place in the pattern, you can get an amount that would represent "saturation" (for lack of a better term). I'm not very good at drawing or I would draw something. Does anyone know how to draw?
> 
> ...



LT, your mental picture is not accurate or true to real life. 

Herein lies one of the greatest problems is the specsmanship games. Many, if not most simply do not understand what they're reading even if they take the time to read it, (what manufacturers have published.) Just as a successful democracy depends upon an informed and engaged electorate, a successful and (fair) free market economy depends upon and informed and engaged customer base. We do not see this in real life. Most of the buying public are led as sheep to the slaughter by Madison Av. or their disciples. 

Most buy, not based upon the best specs, but on the best marketing slick.

Here is an enlightening and brief discussion about Light;
by Robert H Bryan

Lumens, Illuminance, Foot-candles and bright shiny beads….

In defining how bright something is, we have two things to consider.

1. How bright it is at the source- How Bright is that light?
2. How much light is falling on something a certain distance away from the light.

Lets' do some definitions now……

We're in America, so we are going to talk about units of measurement that concern distance in feet and inches. So, we will use some terms that folks in Europe don't use. We're going to talk about "foot-candles".

This one's simple. Get a birthday cake candle. Get a ruler. Stick the candle on one end of the ruler. Light the candle. Turn out the lights. Sing Happy Birthday to Doc. It was his 47th on the 23rd. OK, quiet down. Enough of that nonsense. One foot-candle of light is the amount of light that birthday cake candle generates one foot away.

That's a neat unit of measurement. Why? Say you have a lamp. You are told it produces 100 foot candles of light. That means at one foot from the lamp, you will receive 100 foot candles of light.

But here's where it gets tricky. The further away you move the light from what you want to illuminate, the less bright the light seems! If you measure it at the light, it's just as bright. But when you measure at the object you want illuminated, there is less light! A Physics teacher is going to tell you that light measured on an object is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to the distance the object is from the light source. That's a very scientific and math rich way of saying, the closer you are to the light bulb, the brighter that bulb is. Or, think of it this way. You can't change how much light comes out of your light bulb. So, to make more light on an object, you have to either move the light closer, or add more lights.

Now, lets get to LUMENS.

A LUMEN is a unit of measurement of light. It measures light much the same way. Remember, a foot-candle is how bright the light is one foot away from the source. A lumen is a way of measuring how much light gets to what you want to light! A LUMEN is equal to one foot-candle falling on one square foot of area.

So, if we take your candle and ruler, lets place a book at the opposite end from the candle. We'd have a bit of a light up if we put the book right next to the candle, you know. If that book happens to be one foot by one foot, it's one square foot. Ok, got the math done there. Now, all the light falling on that book, one foot away from your candle equals both…….1 foot candle AND one LUMEN!

Ahh, we've confused you. Let's split off from this and talk about the difference between RADIANCE and ILLUMINANCE.

RADIANCE is another way of saying how much energy is released from that light source. Again, you measure it at the source. Unless you're talking about measuring the radiance of something intensely hot, like the Sun. Then you might want to measure it at night, when it's off.

ILLUMINANCE is what results from the use of light. You turn your flashlight on in a dark room, and you light something up. That's ILLUMINANCE. Turning on a light in a dark room to make the burglar visible gives you ILLUMINANCE. It also gives you another problem when you note the burglar is pointing your duck gun at your bellybutton.

Illuminance is the intensity or degree to which something is illuminated and is therefore not the amount of light produced by the light source. This is measured in foot-candles again! And when people talk about LUX, it's illuminance measured in metric units rather than English units of measure. To reinforce that, LUX is the measurement of actual light available at a given distance. A lux equals one lumen incident per square meter of illuminated surface area. They're measuring the same thing, just using different measurement units.

Pretend you're an old photographer, like O. Winston Link, or Ansel Adams. These two gods of black and white photography (and a print made by either can fetch quite a hefty sum of money these days) used a device called a light meter to help them judge their exposure. (There is another way of judging exposure-that's when someone whispers in our ear at a cocktail party, "You silly twit, your fly's come undone!").

These light meters were nifty devices. You could use it to show how much light was falling on an object, light from the sun, and reflected light energy from every thing else. Or you could use it to show how much light energy was reflected off the object itself.

All this brings back two points. Well, three.

The first point is if we measure the output of a light at the source that gives us one thing.

The second point is that we use an entirely different unit of measure if we are measuring the results of that light's output.

The third point is the instructor is right off his trolley, isn't he?

Now back to the book at the end of the ruler.

We've measured two different things. We have a unit of measure for how much light is produced. We Yankees express that as a foot-candle. Being lazy, we use it all over the 
place.

More Confusion! Candlepower!

Candlepower is a way of measuring how much light is produced by a light bulb, LED or by striking an arc in a Carbon-Arc spotlight. Is it a measure of how much light falls upon an object some distance away? No. That's illuminance. Is it a measure of how well we see an object that is illuminated by that light source? No. That's something all together different, and we are not going there!

Nowadays we use the term CANDELA instead of candlepower. Candlepower, or CANDELA is a measure of how much light the bulb produces, measured at the bulb, rather than how much falls upon the thing you want to light up. Further confusing the matter is beam focus. That's how much candlepower can be focused using a reflector/lens assembly. Obviously, if you project all your light bulbs intensity at a given spot, or towards something, it will be more intense, and the illuminance will be higher.

And here comes the confuser! A candlepower as a unit of measure is not the same as a foot-candle. A candlepower is a measurement of the light at the source, not at the object you light up.

And a candela is the metric equivalent of the light output of that one candle, based on metric calculations. And since using a candle is rather imprecise, the definition was amended to replace a light source using carbon filaments with a very specific light source, see the following:
The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 x 1012 hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1/683 watt per steradian. 

The above from the National Institute of Standards Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty.

Candlepower is a measure of light taken at the source-not at the target. Foot-candles tell us how much of that light is directed at an object we want to illuminate.

Now, lets convert the lumens, a metric unit of light measurement, to candlepower.

We understand a candle radiates light equally in all directions, its output, in this consideration is not focused by any mechanical means (lenses or reflectors). Pretend for a moment that a transparent sphere one meter in radius surrounds your candle. We know that there are 12.57 square meters of surface area in such a sphere. Remember your Solid Geometry classes?

That one candle (1 Candlepower/Candela) is illuminating equally the entire surface of that sphere. The amount of light energy then reflected from that surface is defined thusly:

The amount of energy emanating from one square meter of surface is one lumen. And if we decrease the size of the sphere to one foot radius, we increase the reflected energy 12.57 times of that which fell on the square meter area.

LUX is an abbreviation for Lumens per square meter. 
Foot-candles equal the amount of Lumens per square feet of area.

So, that one candlepower equivalent equals 12.57 lumens.

And for you figuring out LED equivalents, first you must know how many lumens your LED's each produce. Then divide that value by 12.57 and you have candlepower of the LED. You don't have foot-candles, remember foot-candles are illuminance. And we are measuring radiance.

Summing it all up:

Candlepower is a rating of light output at the source, using English measurements.
Foot-candles are a measurement of light at an illuminated object.
Lumens are a metric equivalent to foot-candles in that they are measured at an object you want to illuminate.
Divide the number of lumens you have produced, or are capable of producing, by 12.57 and you get the candlepower equivalent of that light source.

We've now converted a measurement taken some distance from the illuminated object, converted it from a metric standard to an English unit of measure, and further converted it from a measure of illumination to a measure of radiation!

This has been an ideal proof of the superiority of the metric system. Then again, the metric system is a product of those wonderful folks that brought us:

Renault, Peugeot, Citroen, and Air busses. Not to mention simply awful Bordeaux.

And, if you're happy with this, send those little gems to:

Robert H (Doc) Bryant
3408 Thomas Ave
Midland, Texas 79703-6240

I hope you have enjoyed this as much as I have. You ought to see me up in front of a classroom. My classes are absolute laugh riots. But people learn!


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 3, 2009)

sigsour said:


> With some of the prices of lights out there; I have wondered what some of the real profit margins really are. Do all these companies charge crazy prices because we are the only group of individuals to buy them? or is it like any other business venture out there...just wondering.



Not really ripping anyone off, as long as the light is as advertised.

When you consider the time, tools and materials needed to create a one of a kind light, the value should often be in the thousands. I figure if it takes 10 hours to create a light and I only charge $20 an hour... $200 and that does not count the cost of tools.

If making a batch, the time involved per light decreases but he cost of jigs, CNC systems etc really add to the cost. There's nothing like buying a $15,000 machine to make 100 lights.

On the other hand, a jeweler will charge 100 to 1000 percent markup and still don't get rich. That markup covers their expenses and all the time they stand around waiting for a customer. 


Daniel


----------



## Federal LG (Oct 3, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> Semper Ascendens! Since I'm somewhat gravitationally challenged  , I try to ascend with my mind as well.



It´s all about mind, spirit and ethic. :thumbsup:


----------



## Size15's (Oct 4, 2009)

I just want to add that 'candlepower' used in the explanation above is not the same, in the overwhelming majority of cases, as 'candlepower' used by flashlight manufacturers. They use 'Peak Beam Candlepower' which is to say they find the point in the beam as it leaves the flashlight that has the most intense light output. You can not assume that the beam is uniform and collimated; reflectors and optics have a focal point beyond which the beam will diverge. Manufacturers rarely tell us how far away from the flashlight they found this 'brightest point' nor the area of the beam that has the same intensity of light.
It is therefore not possible to convert a flashlight's 'candlepower' rating into lumens. The analogy is that you can not tell the volume of a lump of modelling clay from how tall it is from the worktop.

The lumen itself has many issues. For example it also doesn't inform us of the beam profile.

Of course 1 lumen of LED 'white' light is not the same as 1 lumen of incandescent 'white' light. The quantity of light it takes to make 1 lumen depends on the sensitivity of our eyes to each frequency of light in the spectrum being emitted. So you have to measure this and apply a weighting based on the sensitivity of the standardised eye.
This also raises an issue because there are three main standardised sensitivities depending on whether the eye is 'light adapted', 'dark adapted' or in the transition between light and dark adaptation.

Imagine the arguments - flashlights are used in no-light and low-light applications so which sensitivity should be used? If a light is over a certain output or being used in a certain [confined] space or one with a particularly reflective environment then you could find that a different sensitivity is more appropriate.

Then you have the issue of beam profile. The reason SureFire used lumens rather than [peak beam] candlepower is that they had already determined how intense the beam needed to be in order to achieve the outcome that required the use of light. So the lumen rating gives you an indication of the size of the 'central portion' of the beam and an indication of the 'brightness' of the surround/peripheral beam. But only because you know that SureFire designed its beams to be most useful for those using them with firearms in the course of their duties.
Even then this 'concept' became clouded during the development of LED-based lights. It has taken a while to get back to the ideal beam profile and we should not forget that the role of light and roles of those using firearms has changed over the years too.

Which brings me back to the fact that dry numbers have little meaning when it comes to determining the suitability of a light for a particular activity and that the best way to determine whether a light is suitable is to try it and see. An alternative is to seek feedback from people in similar situations who have already been on this path.

The beam of a flashlight is only one characteristic that makes it 'worth' something - others include how it is activated (it's User Interface) which also includes how it is held and manipulated [in conjunction with anything else you may be using such as tools].

Bottom line:
It is not possible to achieve this indication of worth through a standardised labelling system.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

Saturday, I was reading and replying to several comments, in order. The 3rd comment (which, of course, I didn't read until I had read the first two and replied) contained instructions from the moderator to not say "Stop the rip-offs!" in my sign-off. I thought it was nit-picking, but I made out my next note without that epithet. But when I hit Submit a message said I had been banned for failure to comply with the moderator's instructions. What? I read his note and complied with it!

I think its fair to ask some questions. Because I honestly don't want to be involved in a thread with a title like this if I'm not free to identify what I strongly feel is a rip-off. And do that with ideas and argument. I have felt very strongly throughout the discussion that it consitutes a blatant rip-off to participate in (or defend) commercial interests when you know the labeling is, at best, weak at describing what's inside the package.... and that its becoming weaker instead of stronger. 

I'd appreciate it of someone would speak plainly, and not beat around the bush, and provide enough information to judge whether or not it is the idea per se (of a better label) that causes me to either turn the caps lock off, or be banned -- or, is it the the fact that I have no interest in commercial ventures, and that if I sense those sentiments, I will not care much about it? And though I won't discourage it, I don't feel I need to excuse myself for not being interested.

I would like to know, is there is entanglement of CPF with commercial vendors such that one may not talk freely? I wouldn't need to be told twice. I'd get out on my own: No need to ban or brow-beat me. But I'm curious... why bother having a thread with a title like this... but when encountering someone not 
part of the culture (no personal interest in buy-ins, sponsorship or investment) be the least troubled by ideas that speak strongly against commercial interests?

If the CPF or it's users are generally caught up in that, I think it would be only fair that when people sign on they be warned: Alternate opinions will not be tolerated! If that's the case, it would explain some things. But I'd find it deeply disturbing and think its completely counter to the idea of a talk forum. I wouldn't want to think its that superficial either, but you have to wonder when folks are so unwilling to reveal their real names or businesses. (By the way, I appreciated the ones who honestly shared what they do.)

If I keep posting to the forum, I will need to catch up, but in the prior week's discussion, no one made a strong argument (by refutuing the ideas themselves!) why labelling wouldn't work. Furthermore, the discussion was not at all conducive to generating new ideas. You could never get past what I feel is an "I know more than most do and I prefer to keep it that way" mentality. 

LTDAN, Forsooth.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 10, 2009)

LightTracker, I think that you would be wise to submit your concerns to a moderator if you need more clarification, instead of eliciting comments from us as, we do not discuss issues, or reasons for banning after a banning has occurred. It is really between you and a moderator or administrator, and I am sure that one of them will help you out with your answers, but not necessary in this thread, but via a PM.

Bill


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 10, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Saturday, I was reading and replying to several comments, in order. The 3rd comment (which, of course, I didn't read until I had read the first two and replied)




I think that was a mistake, and generally will be a mistake if you keep doing it.

Imagine this scenario:
Person A posts a comment
Person B posts correcting A and explains that A is mistaken
Person A Posts an apology about being misinformed
LightTracker Posts a reply to Person A's first comment, several paragraphs long - explaining why Person A is wrong.

It shouldn't be hard to see why LightTracker would be seen to be very annoying in that situation.

In future - try reading the thread all the way to the end, then reply to whatever you wish to. What I do is open the reply with quote in a new tab (on Firefox that is a middle click on 'Quote' or a right click on 'Quote' and select 'open in new tab') then I carry on reading. Once I have finished reading the thread I then go to each new tab that I have opened and type up my reply where appropriate. Sometimes the tab I opened just gets closed again because what I wanted to say has already been said ad nauseam and no one wants to read another comment on the same subject saying the same thing. Or the person that I was going to reply to has already retracted their statement and acknowledged that they were mistaken.

There are times when a moderator will step in and say that the discussion is taking a nasty turn and asks that people keep their posts 'on topic', you don't want to be arguing the point that the moderator has told every one to stop arguing just because you lack the patience to read to the end of the thread before having your say.

Another good idea is to click on 'Preview Post' before you use 'Submit Reply' - that way you can scroll down a little and check that someone hasn't just made the same point while you were typing.


----------



## Th232 (Oct 10, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> TH232, I appreciate your comments. And for taking a stab at presenting some label ideas.



No problem. I've only got a bit of time to go through some of the queries you've raised, but I suppose they do need an answer:




LightTracker said:


> The nutrition label intentionally doesn't answer every "relevant" question, its just a guide.



Precisely my point, but a guide for who and for what? E.g. you might have a caver, a plumber, a LEO and a high school student who are all equally uneducated about flashlights, but they'd all have vastly different requirements. Should we be general and let the LEO find out for himself which light is less prone to failure, or should we include info that the high school student doesn't need?



LightTracker said:


> Again, how about the Range? Example:
> 
> XXX - XXX
> 
> ...



A picture could indeed work for some of those. Regarding range, how do we define it? I could make a good case for a "distance you can see a cat at", but at the same time that fails to take into account human variability, and is hardly easy to measure. I can also easily foresee a company massaging the numbers as well.



LightTracker said:


> Color temperature? Also, maybe a photo or beamshot is not a good choice for that reason. Like I said, it's not going to be perfect.


I did consider color temperature, but as an example, see the Luxeon binning chart here:





Many bins can be described as 6000K, but there are still differences in each of them. 



LightTracker said:


> What is that?


How well different colours are rendered by a light source. For further reading I recommend McGizmo's excellent thread, High CRI and its significance.



LightTracker said:


> How could that be described?


Absolutely no idea, which is kinda my point on that one, it's an intangible as far as a common definition goes. I as an engineering student could quite happily describe it in terms of N/mm^2, the angle at which the end of the clip makes with the body of the light, how rounded the end of the clip is and so on. But to the general public such a description would probably be meaningless.



LightTracker said:


> You might be surprised. Some of the items on tour list are the same as already pointed out, Esp. lumens, battery life and beam characteristics.


And similarly, I'd be surprised if that many people are interested in the snagginess of a clip.



LightTracker said:


> If we're talking about a label (that's what I was talking about in the last 10 posts) most people would just want to know how much time they have before it goes dead. Of course that depends on the setting. I suggest either reporting it on the highest setting (worst case) or report a range.


Maybe I've been frequenting online stores too much (there not being many good flashlight stores in Australia), but I was under the impression that that knowledge was already normally available, e.g. on 4Seven's website.

On similar news, here's an interesting thread that was started during your absence:

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=244611

Note Lux's response in post #30:



LuxLuthor said:


> Actual precision and standardization and multiple samples, power source standardization, specified ambient conditions, spectroradiometer for source correction, and calibration requirements. I don't think I can get into more specifics without violating copyright, but this is truly wonderful to see.



Personally, THAT is what you'd need for a standard to be meaningful, at which point it becomes meaningless to the average consumer. Otherwise a company can quite easily twist all the data to suit their needs (e.g. a company that lists the runtime at the lowest setting and the lumens on the highest setting).


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> LightTracker, I think that you would be wise to submit your concerns to a moderator if you need more clarification, instead of eliciting comments from us as, we do not discuss issues, or reasons for banning after a banning has occurred. It is really between you and a moderator or administrator, and I am sure that one of them will help you out with your answers, but not necessary in this thread, but via a PM.
> 
> Bill


 
Hi Bill!
I've already made up my mind if this happens again, I will voluntarily drop out of the forum. I have wanted to talk about rip-offs (if they're valid) and what, if anything, may be done about them. I've been neither off topic nor have I been nasty to anyone involved. I don't believe eliciting comments from users about possibly being "ripped off" through excessive moderation is off topic either. Its certainly within the realm of possibility to try and stifle talk that might offend a sponsor (because of THAT commerecial concern). And if others feel that's being done, what better thread would there be to talk about that? If the moderator or admin does not like these comments, let them ban me, delete my posts or whatever. I'd take the hint (as I said earlier).... I would not check back at the end of my "cooling off" period. I would simply move on and I would probably be glad that I got out when I did. I don't want to pretend that I can keep an idea flowing when someone else has their finger on the "spigot". No harm, no foul. In that case, just move on. Okay? 

Do you have any ideas for label? Esp. pictogram that could help describe beam chaeacteristics, output, throw, battry life, etc.?

Respecfully, 
LT-Dan 

Ps. Thanks for using your name, its appreciated.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

KiwiMark said:


> I think that was a mistake, and generally will be a mistake if you keep doing it.
> 
> Imagine this scenario:
> Person A posts a comment
> ...


 
Hi Mark! I appreciate your generous set of detailed instructions about how you do it. I respectfully disagree with you though. I think its sometimes best to respond individually and PERSONALLY and treat each comment in its specific context rather than try and look at the whole thread together. Sometimes its the coment wth little continuity has great insight. I hope you understand what I mean. As for timing these comments and understanding about "cross posting", etc. I wouldn't see that as a concern. Just talk about rip-offs, whether there are any, what they are and what might be done to clarify it or perhaps correct it. That's all on topic, right?
Cheers!
LT-Dan


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 10, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Hi Bill!
> I've already made up my mind if this happens again, I will voluntarily drop out of the forum. I have wanted to talk about rip-offs (if they're valid) and what, if anything, may be done about them. I've been neither off topic nor have I been nasty to anyone involved. I don't believe eliciting comments from users about possibly being "ripped off" through excessive moderation is off topic either. Its certainly within the realm of possibility to try and stifle talk that might offend a sponsor (because of THAT commerecial concern). And if others feel that's being done, what better thread would there be to talk about that? If the moderator or admin does not like these comments, let them ban me, delete my posts or whatever. I'd take the hint (as I said earlier).... I would not check back at the end of my "cooling off" period. I would simply move on and I would probably be glad that I got out when I did. I don't want to pretend that I can keep an idea flowing when someone else has their finger on the "spigot". No harm, no foul. In that case, just move on. Okay?
> 
> Do you have any ideas for label? Esp. pictogram that could help describe beam chaeacteristics, output, throw, battry life, etc.?
> ...



LT-Dan,
I cannot read your mind, so I really do not know your intent, but I can tell you that based upon your behavior through the responses you give those who have attempted to dialog with you,that you come across as being uninterested in hearing anyone else's opinions. I'm not sure if that's your intent or not, but that is how you come across. This posture looks like contention for contention's sake, rather than for mutual education or progress.

Reading between the lines, you also may be gathering data to write a paper or something. If that's the case, say so.

Cheers,
Kevin


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

I want to reply to TH232 and I will, because he (she?) raises a lot of good points. But I need a little time to look at what was said and consider it. I still feel that a modicum of creativity would result in a great recommendation for a label that is neither difficult to understand nor lacking the essential data. It wouldn't bore the technically minded person and would not be "beyond" an ordinary person. I'll get back to you later, TH232 (if my posting rights are intact... if not, it was good talking to you. Thus far you have been the only person really trying to come up wth something and taking the dialog seriously) Thanks!

LT-Dan


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> LT-Dan,
> I cannot read your mind, so I really do not know your intent, but I can tell you that based upon your behavior through the responses you give those who have attempted to dialog with you,that you come across as being uninterested in hearing anyone else's opinions. I'm not sure if that's your intent or not, but that is how you come across. This posture looks like contention for contention's sake, rather than for mutual education or progress.
> 
> Reading between the lines, you also may be gathering data to write a paper or something. If that's the case, say so.
> ...


 
Hi Kevin! You are right that I'm uninterested in some things in this thread. Politics, economics... religion? ....things having nothing to do with lights or the fact that lights may be over-priced or perform poorly for what's being paid, or the fact that the labels are wanting and sometimes deceptive. Also the fact that, even though there's no way to know for sure, if a poster is an owner or designer (or wishes to be one) that probably 90% of hwat they're saying would be skewed and it dramatically alter their ability to sense a rip-off or truly look at this issue from the point of view of the average buyer? Yes, some things I'm not interested in. But thanks for asking about it. I hope my reply helps.

I am not writing a paper. I am not starting a company. I am not interested in sponsoring anything with money. I'm interested in lights. I'm interested in truthfukl dialog (regardless of teh topic). I also thing discussing rip-offs is healthy, and I wish more people would do it. What's your take on it rip-offs in lights? You mentioned your disappiointment (I think that is what it was) that SF no longer specifies run time based on an avg (or at 50% power level). I have also notice that the general descriptions and labelling is not as telling as it once was. I hope that without going into economics you could talk about that and suggest something. Don't you think there is a label that could depict runtime in a fair way?

Thanks,
LT-Dan


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 10, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Hi Mark! I appreciate your generous set of detailed instructions about how you do it. I respectfully disagree with you though. I think its sometimes best to respond individually and PERSONALLY and treat each comment in its specific context rather than try and look at the whole thread together.



I appreciate the idea of responding to a particular post part way through rather than reading to the end of the thread and then posting your 2c worth. However I feel that it is possible to read a post, open a reply to that in a separate tab, carry on reading to the end, then go to the tab you opened to type up your reply to that post. You have already suffered the consequences of typing up and posting a reply without reading to the end first and I have given other examples of situations where not reading to the end can be a bad thing.

This IS a moderated group and there are times when a moderator feels the need to step in and say "hey, that topic has been done to death, let's move on", if the next post after that one is from you carrying on the argument then I can't see how anyone could blame the moderator for being annoyed by your post.

Sometimes it can be a fine line between not enough moderation and too much. But the fact remains that reading through to the end of the thread before getting back to the post you wanted to reply to would have saved you from annoying the moderator and suffering the consequences. If you take a look back at what happened it should be obvious that after a moderator gave specific instructions to cease and desist with an inflammatory slogan you posted around 2 hours later 3 times in a row with that same slogan each time - how is a moderator to think that is nothing other than deliberate defiance? You say that wasn't the case and personally I believe you, but I still think that deliberate or not, what happened was wholly your fault.

I again urge you to read through to the end of any thread before having your say - for the sake of everyone else reading the threads. Others don't want to be reading your posts and thinking "person A, B & C have already said that!". It is even worse if you ask a question, oblivious to the fact that the question has already been asked and answered a few posts after the one you have read up to.


----------



## jahxman (Oct 10, 2009)

Hey Dan,

You have written a lot of words in this thread, many of them trying to elicit responses from others as to whether they had felt ripped off by a light purchase, and also asking for what standards they would like to see.

I would like to ask you to contribute the same - what lights do you feel are rip-offs, and what information provided pre-sale do you feel would help prevent feeling you've been ripped off after buying a light?

-Jim

EDIT: also, what do you think of the information in the link that TH232 provided? Looks like the industry is trying to come up with its own standards.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

KiwiMark said:


> ...I feel that it is possible to read a post, open a reply to that in a separate tab, carry on reading to the end, then go to the tab you opened to type up your reply to that post.


 
This is a good idea, and I've already used it.



KiwiMark said:


> - how is a moderator to think that is nothing other than deliberate defiance?


 
Common sense says defiance hasn't ocurred until you actually know it has.



KiwiMark said:


> You say that wasn't the case and personally I believe you, but I still think that deliberate or not, what happened was wholly your fault.


 
Perhaps it was my fault that I didn't like how much time it took to find out that EVEN YOU see failings in the labelling. Or is it juts a coincidence that I was banned right when you began to mention something about SF, and I replied?

You know what, that's fine with me if the group or certain users (including the moderators) are protecting sponors... its fine. I'm not griping about it. Because it will only hurt them and their interests to not take what I'm talking about seriously. My fault? Okay, if it makes you feel better to think of it that way, I take the blame. But there's alot more going on here than what's mentioned out loud. And what is my risk for metiongin it, for being taboo? I get the boot. If that happens, so be it. I would not lose any sleep over it, I can tell you that.

Look, no harm to you mate. But are you really that worried about taking on SF, these moderators or anyone else really? Certainly there is life outside of CPF!

Take care,
LT-Dan


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 10, 2009)

LightTracker, please understand, and stop eliciting responses from your fellow CPF'ers about your recent time off. We are not at liberty to discuss that issue, it is between you and the moderator. See CPF rule 4 in the FAQ's, re* Flaming/Baiting/Trolling/Banning. http://www.candlepowerforums.com/Rules.html

Bill
***

* *


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> LightTracker, please understand, and stop eliciting responses from your fellow CPF'ers about your recent time off. We are not at liberty to discuss that issue, it is between you and the moderator. See CPF rule 4 in the FAQ's, re* Flaming/Baiting/Trolling/Banning. http://www.candlepowerforums.com/Rules.html*
> 
> *Bill*


 
Hi Bill, I'm not half as ignorant as you might think I am. If someone wants to "lay down the law" they can. In fact, it seems to me they don't even need a rule. I want to talk about rip-offs, and I've made that clear. But I'd like to be able to dio ut even if one of the rip-offs comes from a sponsor or contributor. Does that not sound fair to you?

Thanks,
Dan


----------



## Bimmerboy (Oct 10, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Or is it juts a coincidence that I was banned right when you began to mention something about SF, and I replied?
> 
> And what is my risk for metiongin it, for being taboo? I get the boot. If that happens, so be it. I would not lose any sleep over it, I can tell you that.
> 
> Look, no harm to you mate. But are you really that worried about taking on SF, these moderators or anyone else really? Certainly there is life outside of CPF!


Please keep posting, Dan. Don't stop.


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 10, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Common sense says defiance hasn't ocurred until you actually know it has.


 
And the moderator can know that how?




LightTracker said:


> Perhaps it was my fault that I didn't like how much time it took to find out that EVEN YOU see failings in the labelling. Or is it juts a coincidence that I was banned right when you began to mention something about SF, and I replied?


 
I mentioned SF? My guess is that it was just a coincidence. A moderator asked you to drop the " Stop the RIP-OFFS! And the B.S.!" line, then you posted 3 times in a row with that line still there, then you got a ban. I can clearly see the cause and effect without going into any kind of conspiracy theory. I would rather not jump to the cynical conclusion when a much simpler and less cynical explanation is more obvious and more likely.


As far as my views on Surefire go - I don't own any lights of that brand and I am quite happy with that. I find their pricing higher than what I want to pay and I am happy with the quality & reliability of the brands that I have bought, despite costing less than Surefire. I also have no interest in using primary lithium cells - all my batteries are rechargeable and that is the way I like it. But my opinion wont stop as many here buying SF as want to. I also have no problem with someone buying a light that I choose not too - to each their own. One thing I WOULDN'T say would be that SF are a bad brand or that their products aren't very good - clearly their products are very high quality and work well. Of course the fact that a light is made in the USA is no great selling point to me as I am not a US citizen so have no patriotic duty at all in that regard.

I can express my opinion on these forums as I feel like without fear of being banned - I don't say something to be inflammatory or to provoke an argument. It is all to do with how you say something more than what you say. Sometimes you need to be careful with how the things you say come across, but apart from that you are entitled to express your views in a calm and reasonable manner.


----------



## jahxman (Oct 10, 2009)

Again, and attempting to bring this this thread back on topic - 

Lighttracker, please share your views as to what lights are ripoffs in your opinion, and what information could be provided pre-sale to the buyer to help prevent buyers from feeling ripped off. Possibly it could be built upon and developed.

This is what the industry is working on here ; unfortunately it costs $60 to get the full standard. Here's a link to the contents and scope (PDF file) which does give some tantalizing clues as to what is included, such as Beam Distance, peak intensity, runtime, integrating sphere testing, impact resistance, performance and reliability, etc etc.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

Mark (KM), I think I explained that.... not to belabor the point (because I want to answer TH232 and jahxman) and be on topic... but you asked:

"And the moderator can know that how?"

The simple answer is by acknowledgment, which is really the only way to know. But I would say at least provide time to hear a response. I have read everything except the last week's postings... and also responded to (I think) every comment excpet teh last week's whihc I Was not involved in.... and now to (hopefully) continue.

Jahxman, I had replied to your question earlier in detail and when I posted it something went awry and it was lost. But I'll try to give you the gist of it. I do not write down the names or brands, I just go to outfitters and online and puruse selections. The number of light brands and styles has increased dramatically with the advent of LED technology. But unfortunately at the same time the use of objective and quantifiable data has decreased during that same time. Lumens, as a measure of output, is probably the simplest example. It used to be that only the lower cost halogens (whether it were bike lights, flashlights, headlamps, etc) were lacking objective data and sometimes didn't have any at all. But the last few times I've gone to REI or Cabella's, even with hundred of options now for lights, you can count on one hand the number who use Lumens vs. Candlepower to state their brightness. Candlepower does not relate to output, its relates to the characteristics of a light beam... and while most people in this forum may know that, most other people, in fact, don't. I go online and see the same thing. Some of the brands that used to report the data now don't or you have to dig for it.

Let me ask you something. Do you have a brand in mind of a light that you feel adequately describes the essential information (in a few terms) that if it were compared by an average buyer alongside another light would reveal what they basically need to know to do a somewhat objective comparison? And I'm not suggesting that it be perfect, I'm just asking you a question. And if you tell me that its impossible to do it in plain enough terms for non-technical people, I'm going to disagree with you. That argument has been made but no one has really made a strong case for it. In fact, if all that were consitently printed on a label were

Output in Lumens
Throw at certain distance, foot candles or candlepower
(and you don't need to talk about radiance, luminance, color, etc.)
Battery runtime
???

The problem is that you can't make a general argument against a case (saying that something can't be done) without considering one detail at a time and prove that each of them can't be done. We already know that lumens is an objective measure of output. And Lumens/watt is an objective measure of efficiency. Someone mentioned that runtime can become muddled by either reporting it in ideal conmditions or not, or by reporting it fro 50% of optimal output (or not). There' such a thing as using a certain temperature (or range) or an average (or range) for certain numbers and thereby say a lot more than you could by trying to use a single number. You could also use a pictogram, and maybe that has already been done on teh engineering side.... though perhaps they have not thought about wha the average buyer would need to see.

I look forward to your repsonse. i still need to get to TH232, and will, porbably tomorrow if I'm still priveledged to post. If not, its been good talking to you all.

Dan
Dan


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

Hi!! I appreciate the thorough response... I looked at that standards thread and posted a comment to it. I believe putting a price tag on any discussion of standards is a scam and its a huge red flag to me, and that's exactly what I said in that forum.

Now to your questions:



Th232 said:


> ....but a guide for who and for what? E.g. you might have a caver, a plumber, a LEO and a high school student who are all equally uneducated about flashlights, but they'd all have vastly different requirements. Should we be general and let the LEO find out for himself which light is less prone to failure, or should we include info that the high school student doesn't need?


 
Why not be general? Again, I point to a light bulb as an example (just for the light and energy parts). What does it say?

Energy: 60 Watts
Output: 840 Lumens
Avg life: 1000 Hours

Very telling, very brief and concise too. Granted, light and battery combinations, some with specific applications, different lenses, bodies, shock resistance, etc. is more complicated. No one is saying otherwise. But I'm only talking about a guide, not the whole user manual. Do you understand? 



Th232 said:


> A picture could indeed work for some of those. Regarding range, how do we define it? I could make a good case for a "distance you can see a cat at", but at the same time that fails to take into account human variability, and is hardly easy to measure. I can also easily foresee a company massaging the numbers as well.


 
If I could draw, I would create something that looks like the profile or overhead view of the beam pattern and show the range of brightness with tinting. A long narrow white region might indicate candlepower, and a short broad region might indicate output, although anything within the area that casts light could be averaged as well. There are lots of ways to depict light, but there is probably one way that is simpler than others and would capture the attention of people easier while not allowing the maker to BS anyone. 



Th232 said:


> I did consider color temperature, but as an example, see the Luxeon binning chart here: ....Many bins can be described as 6000K, but there are still differences in each of them.... How well different colours are rendered by a light source. For further reading I recommend McGizmo's excellent thread, High CRI and its significance.


 
I will have to look at that thread when not in edit mode. Your chart link did not come trhough for some reason, its a broken link. But generally, can color temperature account for much beyond taste? Some people like bright white light. Some like it more in the blue or violet range. I do like to see that number because I feel think 6000 is approximately the same as sunlight, isn;t that right?



Th232 said:


> Maybe I've been frequenting online stores too much (there not being many good flashlight stores in Australia), but I was under the impression that that knowledge was already normally available, e.g. on 4Seven's website.... On similar news, here's an interesting thread that was started during your absence:
> http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=244611


 
Knowledge available on websites is good, esp. for verification... but it doesn't do you much good when you're standing in teh store. Neither does a light that allows you to turn it on (under flourescent lighting?)... athough its better than nothing and I applaud them for doing it, its not alwasy practical to have batteries present, esp. for higher performance equipment that use a pack. 



Th232 said:


> Personally, THAT is what you'd need for a standard to be meaningful, at which point it becomes meaningless to the average consumer. Otherwise a company can quite easily twist all the data to suit their needs (e.g. a company that lists the runtime at the lowest setting and the lumens on the highest setting).


 
Look at my light bulb example above. Its not that confusing. The extra part in the types of lights discussed on these boards is the battery. Its the other major concern, esp. for bikers or adventurers or cavers (and certainly divers!).... But I think it can be told in very few words, or terms or with a couple of pictograms. Any ideas are welcome! Again, I assume nobody likes being ripped-off. Also, I loosely describe a rip-off as being the inability to learn what's necessary as an average non-technical buyer.... (to compare with other products and to know at least something objective about the performance)

Thank you for yor detailed response.

Cheers!


----------



## London Lad (Oct 11, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> snip.....Politics, economics... religion? ....things having nothing to do with lights .....snip



I think you will find economics has everything to do with lights and politics has something to do with everything.

This is where your argument fails, you are focused on your obsession with what you feel are 'rip-offs' (although as yet you have not positively identified even one) but don't take into account the needs of manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, advertisers, desiners etc etc.

If you inflict regulation that only benefits a small group of buyers innevitably it will be to the detriment of many others in the businesses supply chain that capitalist life relies on.

I still feel (as I hinted at at the beginning of this thread) that you have some alterer motive for being here.


----------



## Size15's (Oct 11, 2009)

jahxman said:


> This is what the industry is working on here ; unfortunately it costs $60 to get the full standard. Here's a link to the contents and scope (PDF file) which does give some tantalizing clues as to what is included, such as Beam Distance, peak intensity, runtime, integrating sphere testing, impact resistance, performance and reliability, etc etc.


Well I never! Looks like I was wrong about there being no will in the industry to work together to make a standard.
Lets hope we'll be able to examine the standard and determine how it 'fits' for each of us.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 11, 2009)

London Lad said:


> I think you will find economics has everything to do with lights and politics has something to do with everything.


 
And...?



London Lad said:


> This is where your argument fails, you are focused on your obsession with what you feel are 'rip-offs'


 
Obsession? I'm no different than anyone else. No one like being ripped off, including me.



London Lad said:


> (although as yet you have not positively identified even one) but don't take into account the needs of manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, advertisers, desiners etc etc.


 
No one ever pointed to specific rip-offs for other things that eventually received attention or became standardized (and sometime were required to do tha). 90% of the issue has to do with becoming aware of it. But many choose to ignore it. 



London Lad said:


> If you inflict regulation that only benefits a small group of buyers innevitably it will be to the detriment of many others in the businesses supply chain that capitalist life relies on.


 
The only people who don't benefit are makers who've persauded purchasing with false, misleading or inaccurate claims. Everyone else benefits. But since you're so interested in positive evidence, what is the evidence to back up your prediction that standards (notice I said standards, and not regulations) "will be to the detriment of many others in the businesses supply chain"? I assume you can point to some actual instance of that in the past, or you would not feel it automatically applies to some future issue? 



London Lad said:


> I still feel (as I hinted at at the beginning of this thread) that you have some alterer motive for being here.


 
You're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm not involved with anything or anyone but my job, and my family and friends. I find it almost unbelievable how many people there are who assume that there's no ideal or truth to persue for it's own sake. 

If you don't believe me, I suppose you can try to catch me doing whatever it is you assume is done (by ulterior motive) to see truth in labelling. But you'll be disappointed.

Cheers! 
LT-Dan


----------



## jake25 (Oct 11, 2009)

Dan, this whole time you were signing off as "LT", I thought you were referring to your rank as Lieutenant in the armed forces. I'm pretty sure you use LT to shorten your name "Light Tracker". How about paying a little respect to those who actually do put their lives on the line for us, day in, day out?

Thanks


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 11, 2009)

jake25 said:


> Dan, this whole time you were signing off as "LT", I thought you were referring to your rank as Lieutenant in the armed forces. I'm pretty sure you use LT to shorten your name "Light Tracker". How about paying a little respect to those who actually do put their lives on the line for us, day in, day out?
> 
> Thanks


 
You know, I put "Stop the BS!" in my tagline because AngelOfWar said he thought it was more appropriate... and I was criticized for that. I then signed off by putting "LT" in front of my name because kiwimark (I think it was him) referred to me as that... and to be less "dramatic" than "Stop the Rip-OFFS", etc.... and now I'm criticized for that. Its just about impossible to do anything without walking on egg shells in this forum. Why don't you, Jake, not assume ideas, names, titles, etc... are anything more than that? If you look back to my notes, you'll see LighTrackerDan at the end of each one.

My respects to you for serving. Thank you. 

LT (How's that?)


----------



## John_Galt (Oct 11, 2009)

Well, I must say that it has been rather interesting to read this thread...

As others have stated, please explain what you think a rip off is. Well, let's see, Surefire has been mentioned dedhorse, and you have mentioned pictograph's as a means to convey information, while at the same time continuing to say that these companies that do provide pictographs of their information are wholly inaccurate. So what is the point? I admit I am confused.

Now, without your definition of "rip-off" we must make a few assumptions as to what you mean, namely: "massaged" numbers, inaccurate run times (they say "100lm's, 80 hours"), etc." But, once again, we come to a main point, that nobody is being forced to purchase one brand over the other, and that nobody is being forced to purchase what they _know_ is inaccurate, of poor quality, etc. 

Now it's time for a story. About 2 years ago, before I'd ever heard of CPF, I went to Cabela's with my grandparents. Same as now, I was very interested in their flashlight selection. While perusing their wares, I stumbled across a Surefire display. Having heard of their extreme quality, and good sales service, I inquired as to whether I could see the E1L Outdoorsman model. So it was taken out of the display and handed to me. I clicked it on, shone it around the room (I remember thinking, "wow, this is really bright, and really well made"), and turned it off, and handed it back to the salesman. Now, my Grandmother appears at my side, and offered to purchase it for me. I said no, it's nice, but, to me, it is not worth the price ($99). I also realized that it would have been worth the relatively short runtime on a $5 battery.

So I didn't purchase, and I didn't feel ripped off. 

I would have felt ripped off if I had purchased it, and gotten it home only to find it had a 10 minute run time.


...

Point is, nobody is forced to buy anything. If a person chooses to take the time to learn more in depth things about a particular item, and then decides to purchase crap anyway, they have made a decision much the same as a "sheeple" would just rely upon the information presented to them. 

Apply some common sense, do some research, and then decide if it is worth it to you.


----------



## McGizmo (Oct 11, 2009)

I would be inclined to state that this thread is ripping me off in terms of my finite and valuable time (to me) but that would be unfair. Unfair because I elect to click on this thread and read the posts. We now know that there is some specification standards in the works that will be employed by some of the flashlight manufacturers and that is great. Presumably they seek a level playing field in which they can all agree on the same informative language with which to communicate to potential customers. Cool. In some cases, the cost of the lights might increase at the margin to cover the cost of additional measuring equipment and the time required to test the lights. Whether this cost is passed on in the selling price will be up to the manufacturer to decide.

It is still possible and perhaps inevitable that others will use this set of specifications but ignore reporting the truth of the matter when making claims of their product. The typical customer will have no way or means of verification of these claims. However relative comparisons and reviews like we have been enjoying all along will likely sort out the fantasies and fudge factors employed by some of the manufacturers.

Without a proper understanding the consumer is still in a position to get ripped off and this will be the perception when the consumer's expectations are far from being met by the product purchased. A factual list of whatever criteria you want to include does not insure that the consumer will have understanding and not get ripped off.

The OP of this thread posed the question of rip off based on potentially excessive profit margins. Unless the manufacturers include truthful accounting information based on the cost of their products, any other specifications or claims, true or false, will have no bearing on the the profit margin enjoyed by the manufacturer.

I think there are a diverse set of considerations which might qualify a purchase as a rip off. The OP has asked about one type and LightTracker is on a mission to identify a different sort.

The easiest way to Stop the Rip Offs is simply not to buy one. If one needs assistance in identifying a flashlight Rip Off, let me suggest a forum called CPF. :nana:


----------



## jimmy1970 (Oct 12, 2009)

I don't think there is a great number of retailers/manufacturers ripping people off. What gets my goat is the cost of shipping for International purchasers (me) when purchasing from the U.S. I won't mention names but $35 USD for shipping a small LED light is a bit rich!! (considering I can ship the same item to the states for $9 dollars and it takes the same 7-8 days to arrive!! (I buy these items second hand from the CPF MarketPlace simply to avoid the shipping costs of new items).

James.....:shakehead


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 12, 2009)

jimmy1970 said:


> I don't think there is a great number of retailers/manufacturers ripping people off. What gets my goat is the cost of shipping for International purchasers (me) when purchasing from the U.S. I won't mention names but $35 USD for shipping a small LED light is a bit rich!! (considering I can ship the same item to the states for $9 dollars and it takes the same 7-8 days to arrive!! (I buy these items second hand from the CPF MarketPlace simply to avoid the shipping costs of new items).
> 
> James.....:shakehead




I have to agree - that certainly is a trap for the unwary. I have learnt to check the shipping cost before buying anything - it is better to buy for $80 + $20 shipping than to pay $70 + $35 shipping. It makes you think that the bargain priced retailers may be making up for slim margins by making a profit on the shipping. The only solution is to shop around and buy from whoever offers the best all up price.

I have bought a Zebralight from Goinggear.com because even with shipping added it was cheaper than 4Sevens.com. But for a Nitecore or Quark you can't beat the 4Sevens price, anyone else that seems cheaper will charge shipping and it will cost more. 4Sevens have definitely got some business out of me recently by offering some good deals, in fact I ordered an EZAA because of an offer they E-Mailed me (25% off) which swayed me rather effectively.


----------



## mdocod (Oct 13, 2009)

London Lad said:


> I think you will find economics has everything to do with lights and politics has something to do with everything.



BINGOoooo  

-----

LT, 
Whether you realize it or not, you are pushing "politically" charged buttons in a very large way in numerous posts in this thread. If you feel that the responces are "beating around a bush" it's because the responses everyone wishes they could post would only be allowed in the underground. 

-----

Politically speaking, a "call for regulation," for many of us, is like a giant billboard with flashing lights that says "bigger government." 

To many of us, your quest for answers to this question feels like information gathering for legislation. 

-----

I bought 62 flashlights today for $62 (total) plus tax. Each is functional, upgradeable, reasonably durable, user serviceable, and bright enough for most ordinary tasks.

If you feel you are being ripped off by many of the brands discussed here on CPF, head on down to walmart and check out the "Rayovac 2AA Value Bright" flashlight. 

:wave:

Eric

PS: the profit margin on the RayoVac Value Bright flashlight is likely a few percent or less or negative. I've done my homework on wholesale costs for these things and transportation costs and all, It's actually possible that they are taking a loss at that price....


----------



## John_Galt (Oct 13, 2009)

mdocod said:


> BINGOoooo
> 
> -----
> 
> ...


----------



## Marduke (Oct 13, 2009)

The new standard is not govt related, but purely industry backed.

Also, being completely voluntary, it is the individual company's choice if they want to follow it or not.


----------



## Size15's (Oct 13, 2009)

Marduke said:


> The new standard is not govt related, but purely industry backed.
> 
> Also, being completely voluntary, it is the individual company's choice if they want to follow it or not.


I'd add that whilst it has a number of key manufacturers in the flashlight industry I would not necessary say the group is operating with the backing of the whole industry. That is unclear. How widely this standard will be used remains to be seen.

I'm not worried about whether some companies decide not to use this new standard. I am concerned about how the industry is going to ensure the standard is not being abused. That is to say what mechanisms are there to ensure companies do not use this standard to misrepresent their products for nefarious purposes.

Hopefully flashlight companies will be able to make use of independent accredited and recognised testing and certification bodies either to perform the tests as an independent test lab or to act as auditor of in-house testing to verify the results.

It will also be for independent consumer 'rights' type organisations to investigate and inform using this standard as the basis of their product reports.


----------



## London Lad (Oct 13, 2009)

Blighmy guys, it's a torch not a space ship! 

Are we so cosseted nowadays that we have lost the ability to make up our own minds whether or not we want to buy a torch? Good God, what's the worst that can happen? We buy the wrong one and learn from our mistake......


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 13, 2009)

London Lad said:


> Blighmy guys, it's a torch not a space ship!
> 
> Are we so cosseted nowadays that we have lost the ability to make up our own minds whether or not we want to buy a torch? Good God, what's the worst that can happen? We buy the wrong one and learn from our mistake......



Right you are, Lad!!


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 13, 2009)

++++ London Lad. :twothumbs:twothumbs

Bill


----------



## Bimmerboy (Oct 13, 2009)

LOL... I have a feeling that's going to be my favorite post of the week, London Lad.


----------



## jeffb (Oct 13, 2009)

:twothumbs London Lad

jeffb


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 14, 2009)

mdocod said:


> BINGOoooo  LT,
> Whether you realize it or not, you are pushing "politically" charged buttons in a very large way in numerous posts in this thread. If you feel that the responces are "beating around a bush" it's because the responses everyone wishes they could post would only be allowed in the underground.


 
I can only assume you mean that you'd be allowed to say whatever you want about commercial products there? If not, what is the problem? And why can't you make those comments here? This is what troubles me. There appears to be a set of unwritten rules silently preventing people from coming out with the truth about it and separating fact from fiction. My guess is the beloved SF would come out ahead in some areas in an open dialog and perhaps behind in others. One gentleman expressed his disappointment that SF used to base runtimes on 50% of optimal output and then they reverted back to a different way of evaluating it. Maybe that should be part of the discussion and what constittes a rip-off. Personally I could care less who makes a light as long as I can tell its failry described. 



mdocod said:


> Politically speaking, a "call for regulation," for many of us, is like a giant billboard with flashing lights that says "bigger government."


 
Perish the though. That's always a last resort. Haven't you ever heard of the BLOG? That's sort of what this is. The thing is these only work when they're operated freely, and once either govt. or some private commercial interest becomes involved you begin to lose freedom. It becomes about what those interests want you to hear to accomplish what they want done, usually protecting their own turf.



mdocod said:


> To many of us, your quest for answers to this question feels like information gathering for legislation.


 
Why? Because I work for government? In fact, I vote for smaller govt., always have, every time without ANY exceptions. I think 30% of us shold be laid off if you want to know the truth. How's that for you? People tell me I don't make any sense. How can you not support govt. when you work for it? My question is, How can you support it when you do? Don't get me wrong. Its necessary. But that is not my reason for noticing rip-offs. And I want you to understand that clearly.



mdocod said:


> If you feel you are being ripped off by many of the brands discussed here on CPF, head on down to walmart and check out the "Rayovac 2AA Value Bright" flashlight.


 
Eric, I don't pick on any brands, its a general problem though with almost all lights to try anfd get the average unsuspecting buyer with an image or a "candelpower" claim or "try me out", etc. I would love to talk about the difference bewteen candlepower and lumens, and then discuss a better way to describe those values. Ordinary buyers don't understand that issue.

Cheers!
LT


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 14, 2009)

London Lad said:


> Blighmy guys, it's a torch not a space ship! ....Are we so cosseted nowadays that we have lost the ability to make up our own minds whether or not we want to buy a torch? Good God, what's the worst that can happen? We buy the wrong one and learn from our mistake......


 
"In a time of universal deceipt, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"

A lot of people will say "Buyer beware" and I believe that's a good philosophy to have. But in times like this, with literally millions of options out there for products... and with over 80% of wrokers involved in the market place, and many of them clamouring for a piece of it, I think you have to have more than going on than just being weary. At the same time, you can't rely on the "nanny state" to sort everything out. The only thing that's left is stated very well in your tagline above, I think. And if people are afraid of telling the truth because they might step on somebody's toes there's not going to be a revolution of truth on lights or anything else. I realize there's alot more to say abotu this topic... for more products than just lights.... but the fact is lights are more in want of uniform description than many other products. Light bulbs, by the way, enjoy uniformity in the way theyre described. And those are less complicated. Even so, they are just 3 values tat tell you most of what yuo need to know. With a battery powered light would probably need a few more. It can be done though, and you would not need an industry task force to get the job done. I don't trust those things. There's a reason tehy want $60.00 from you to get an insight into the conversdation. That keeps it away from most average folks and limits the dialog to makers.


----------



## marinemaster (Oct 14, 2009)

I got this article years ago from a computer forum. It talks about Plextor, they manufacture CD/DVD drives. I think it can be applied to flashlight too. 
===============================================================
Let me share a little bit of experience about marketing and pricing. The Plextor drive HAS to cost twice as much as the competition, or it won't sell. That's right. A certain sector of any market wants to spend as much as possible, (within reason) on a product. It's an emotional sale. He/she feels that he/she has gotten the "best" product, and therefor the status and security of having the "best" product. It must be the best, cause it costs the most - right? For that sector of the market, a low price is an admission of "cheapness", and they won't buy it. It's true of cars, houses, gas, computers, and much more. Experienced sales people know that if a product isn't selling at a low price, you raise the price. 
When the Plextor execs sat down and decided to market the Premium drive, (I still laugh at that choice of names), the first decision they made was on the price. They determined that $120 US was the amount they had to charge to fit into the market sector they wanted. After that , they charged the designers and engineers to build a drive at that price. They came up with a package of software and firmware tricks to make the price seem justified, and they sold the public the same drive in a new package. 
This is nothing new, just good old marketing. The reputation justifies the price, and the price justifies the reputation. 
Either you "buy into" the "price = quality" idea or you don't. And the one type of buyer will never understand the other. And if you try to take that notion away from the "price = quality" folks, they get really mad and hurt cause you're insulting their status and security. 
=================================================================


----------



## jeffb (Oct 14, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I
> Eric, I don't pick on any brands, its a general problem though with almost all lights to try anfd get the average unsuspecting buyer with an image or a "candelpower" claim or "try me out", etc. I would love to talk about the difference bewteen candlepower and lumens, and then discuss a better way to describe those values. Ordinary buyers don't understand that issue.
> 
> Cheers!
> LT



In my experience with many flashlights of many different Brands and Customs......candlepower or lumens in any description does not adequately describe the "beam" of a flashlight accurately (and certainly specifications cannot telt me all about the UI, quality of build, feel in my hand, etc). My personal preferences are not about how "bright" or how far it can "throw". I became educated by reading CPF, asking questions and making purchases....now I know what I prefer, and can generally make an informed decision. If I make a decision that I am not satisfied with, I can sell or trade via B/S/T..seems to work well.

Specification and my satisfaction are not often related. People have different perceptions and expectations.

If I am "ripped off", I generally made a poor decision that turns into a learning experience.

I can't help but remember the saying "buy the kid's books and they tear out the pages"!

jeffb


----------



## mdocod (Oct 15, 2009)

Hello LT,

I apologize. I misinterpreted the direction you intended to take the concept. 

With that in mind, I must side with others who have pointed out that there are many aspects of a product that can not be adequately defined with label specifications.

If your previous response to me, is indeed sincere, then I am led to believe that you understand that the best solution is a 3rd party review done by either a reviewing oriented business or individual treating it as a "hobby." Or, that the best solution is in fact a forum such as this one. 

-Eric


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 16, 2009)

marinemaster said:


> Let me share a little bit of experience about marketing and pricing. The Plextor drive HAS to cost twice as much as the competition, or it won't sell. That's right. A certain sector of any market wants to spend as much as possible, (within reason) on a product. It's an emotional sale. He/she feels that he/she has gotten the "best" product, and therefor the status and security of having the "best" product.


 
Marine Master:

The fact that people buy things on the basis of an emotional response to the pricing or packaging because of their perception that its "the best" (whether in fact it is or not) should not prohibit allowing them to see what the product performance is. Would you not buy a mercedes because it has "Squishier" shocks or less horsepower than a Honda? It might be over-priced, but you're buying a name right? Still, at least you get a sticker so you can see what you're getting. 



marinemaster said:


> Either you "buy into" the "price = quality" idea or you don't. And the one type of buyer will never understand the other. And if you try to take that notion away from the "price = quality" folks, they get really mad and hurt cause you're insulting their status and security.


 
I agree. But it doesn't sound like you're defending the idea of not having more information available to buyers at the time of purchase.... Because doing that won't take anyone's notion away from them, right? 

===================================



jeffb said:


> In my experience with many flashlights of many different Brands and Customs......candlepower or lumens in any description does not adequately describe the "beam" of a flashlight accurately (and certainly specifications cannot telt me all about the UI, quality of build, feel in my hand, etc). My personal preferences are not about how "bright" or how far it can "throw".


 
Jeff B:

That's OK for you. You have some technical knowledge. You're looking at this differently than the average person would look at it. But even if it were only half the buyers who fit into a different category than you are mentioning (or the one mentioned by Marine Master above) it would still help a whole lot of folks to have better information at the time of their purchase. Don't you agree? 

===================================



mdocod said:


> Hello LT, I apologize. I misinterpreted the direction you intended to take the concept.


 
Hi Eric,

Thanks. Apology excepted. Yes, I'm only talking about working together on an idea, I'm not an agent for govt. and I have no interest in selling anything. I'm just a guy who likes lights.



mdocod said:


> With that in mind, I must side with others who have pointed out that there are many aspects of a product that can not be adequately defined with label specifications.


 
I don't disagree. But what does that have to do with it?



mdocod said:


> If your previous response to me, is indeed sincere, then I am led to believe that you understand that the best solution is a 3rd party review done by either a reviewing oriented business or individual treating it as a "hobby." Or, that the best solution is in fact a forum such as this one.


 
Absolutely! Not only do I understand that, I've never said anything different than that. But people are touchy for some reason. I think its because they're not allowed to say how they really feel because some folks are in here selling lights and they're paranoid about the "bad press" they might receive if peopel say what they really think. But the fact is, you will never flesh out this topic and separate facts from assumptions and then have something decent to offer in the way of ideas until or unless:

A) People are allowed to freely express themselves... Yes, even to use the CAPS LOCK and exclamation poiints!!!! If they feel strongly about something and can be personally respectful of others whle they state their strong opinions, all should be allowed.

B) People admit if they are maker or sponsor (or receiving some benefit... $$?) and if THAT is the motivation to try and naysay anyone else who is critical of the way commecial light prducts are marketed, lets just be out with it. I have a feleing that the ones who are most suspicious of my motives are probably the ones who really DO have motives.

Respectfully, LT


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 16, 2009)

In retrospect, I probably should have said the above in 3 separate posts. My apologies for that. -LT


----------



## John_Galt (Oct 16, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Perish the though. That's always a last resort. Haven't you ever heard of the BLOG? That's sort of what this is. The thing is these only work when they're operated freely, and once either govt. or some private commercial interest becomes involved you begin to lose freedom. It becomes about what those interests want you to hear to accomplish what they want done, usually protecting their own turf.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Isn't that part of what we're doing here? And anyone, anywhere, with the slightest inclination to learn more about lights could google "flashlight forums" and join our community.

It's a matter of personal responsibility, so I say, either allow the companies to form their own standards, and allow the consumer easy access to them, or CPF members should all chip in, and let's run some ads on TV (for the forum, not products).

my $0.02


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 16, 2009)

Hey, I thought this thread was closed already??


----------



## peterkin101 (Oct 16, 2009)

Can't see how you can be ripped off in buying a Flashlight

Sorry for the colurful talk but ultimatly, you have to weigh up a product on it's spec, handling,fitness for the purpose and finally price.

It is hardly as if anybody is forced to buy Maglite or Surefire for example.

If you don't like the price then don't buy it....!!!!!


----------



## DimeRazorback (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm gonna get full soon!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 16, 2009)

peterkin101 said:


> Can't see how you can be ripped off in buying a Flashlight


 
That's an absurd statement. You can get ripped of buying anything.

Respectfully, LT


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 16, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> Isn't that part of what we're doing here? And anyone, anywhere, with the slightest inclination to learn more about lights could google "flashlight forums" and join our community.


 
Hi John, I suppose some people do that. I would guess most don't. But even if they did, wouldn't it be easier to read a label at the time of purchase... and assuming you could get the gist of it, buy on the spot and save yourself a trip to the store?



John_Galt said:


> It's a matter of personal responsibility, so I say, either allow the companies to form their own standards, and allow the consumer easy access to them...


 
Resposibility is important, so is truthful labelling or at least helpful labelling. You want the consumer to have easy access? What's easier than what I've been suggesting? 



John_Galt said:


> ...or CPF members should all chip in, and let's run some ads on TV (for the forum, not products).


 
I'm glad you said it... its differernt and it's creative. Can it be done without spending money?

Recently, my agency (I work for state govt.) sponsored an idea exchange through an electronic bulletin board similar to this one to solicit ideas for spending up to one million dollars in ferderal govt. stimulus money that was set aside for "cost saving initiatives".

The best idea that I had to offer (in my field) involved spending no money. It only involved changing certain practices and changing some ways that information is being exchanged. Other people submitted ideas that didn't require spending money. Often, there is a way to do the same thing without spending a dime. That's why I asked, can it be done without spending? Perhaps by getting the attention of light makers?

Cheers!
LT


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 16, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Hi John, I suppose some people do that. I would guess most don't. But even if they did, wouldn't it be easier to read a label at the time of purchase... and assuming you could get the gist of it, buy on the spot and save yourself a trip to the store?
> 
> Resposibility is important, so is truthful labelling or at least helpful labelling. You want the consumer to have easy access? What's easier than what I've been suggesting?
> 
> ...


I know I shouldn't be doing anything to encourage the continuation of this thread, but it has all the fascination of a train wreck.

So LT. Can you cite any "truth in labeling" legislation passed that has ever been successful in meeting its original objectives?


Not raising cost of products to the consumer.
Truly educating and informing the buying public of the ingredients (and their goodness/badness) in the package?


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 16, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> Well, I must say that it has been rather interesting to read this thread ....and you have mentioned pictograph's as a means to convey information, while at the same time continuing to say that these companies that do provide pictographs of their information are wholly inaccurate. So what is the point? I admit I am confused.


 
You're confused because you assumed something that I haven't said. I haven't said anything about companies pictographs being wholly inaccurate. I've talked about a general trend away from objective data in advertizing and on packaging. I have suggested though that things like output and beam-characteristics such as candlepower or "throw" could be described with a pictograph that's more telling and less confusing than raw numerical data. And no one has disagreed, but while not actually trying to think of one.... or offer some other idea.



John_Galt said:


> Now, without your definition of "rip-off" we must make a few assumptions as to what you mean, namely: "massaged" numbers, inaccurate run times (they say "100lm's, 80 hours"), etc."


 
Why assume? Why not ask for a clarification? I'd love to get to a point where we can discuss the actualy light characteristics which, if better described, would help buyers. A lot has been said about how difficult that is due to the complexity of this topic... but when solutions were offered no one refuted them by saying it can't work and then epxlain why it can't. I don't want to assume anything. So until or unless someone can explain why its insufficient to describe output, throw and runtime (or minimally output and runtime) using objective data, what is the debate for? I mean what is it to talk about perosnal responsibility vs. truth in labelling without any obejctive that's relevant to the topic of RIP-OFFS? The general idea isn't that black or white and it can't be proved to anyone's satisfaction completely.... so why waste time on it? Why not talk about a possible way to better describe the data? Maybe in a new thread?

Cheers!
LT


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 16, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> So LT. Can you cite any "truth in labeling" legislation passed that has ever been successful in meeting its original objectives?
> 
> 
> Not raising cost of products to the consumer.
> Truly educating and informing the buying public of the ingredients (and their goodness/badness) in the package?


Lets be clear, I'm not suggesting legislation. But since you asked the question, Yes, there are tons of obvious examples. My brother bought a truck off the lot two years ago and was able to make comparisons for mileage, which was of importance for hauling machinery and knowing something about the cost. I suppose the manufacturer wouldn't be forced to do an actual test unless the govt. demanded it, but the fact is they wouldn't have to, it can be calculated using the same set of programs used to look at engine performance. Besides the manufacturer has an interest in testing it on his own.

My mother is on a restricted (low sodium) diet, and its very important for her to know the soidum content of food products. The cost of providing that data? Minimal. The FDA food database (probably 20 years old now) allows producers to calculate that number and the other ones. Its free.

Walmart, as you may or may not know, has the most resrticitive requirements for wholesalers of any company in the world. They don't let manfuactuirers dictate a customne package size or label based on thier inclinations or their zeal to make things appear a certain way to the buyer. They REQUIRE STANDARDS based on the needs and abilities of buyers, presentation and storage requirements. Its resulted in lower prices.

Okay. Say what you want about Wamart. I don't want to debate that. I don't like them or dislike them.... But I don't see how you can make a case for good quality standards driving up prices. Its counterintuitive to expect low prices when people can't easily consider comaprisons based on standrdized data.


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 17, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Lets be clear, I'm not suggesting legislation. But since you asked the question, Yes, there are tons of obvious examples. My brother bought a truck off the lot two years ago and was able to make comparisons for mileage, which was of importance for hauling machinery and knowing something about the cost. I suppose the manufacturer wouldn't be forced to do an actual test unless the govt. demanded it, but the fact is they wouldn't have to, it can be calculated using the same set of programs used to look at engine performance. Besides the manufacturer has an interest in testing it on his own.
> 
> My mother is on a restricted (low sodium) diet, and its very important for her to know the soidum content of food products. The cost of providing that data? Minimal. The FDA food database (probably 20 years old now) allows producers to calculate that number and the other ones. Its free.
> 
> ...


First, regarding stickers on vehicles. The mileage figures shown are not only widely acknowledged to be somewhat optimistic, they cannot even be used reliably for a relative comparison between vehicles because the calculations are not all done consistently, manufacturer to manufacturer, and they're subject to change without notice.

Second, WRT food content labeling, producers have now figured out ways (loopholes) to hide such things as sodium content, MSG, saturated Fat, polyunsaturated fat, and a host of other "bad" things in their food product labels. The misinformation is now rampant and the food labels have devolved, once more, into pure misleading chaos from those manufacturers whose attitude toward the buying public is to deceive. Who pays for these "truth" in labeling benefits we "enjoy" as consumers? WE DO!

Packaging standards?? Are you kidding me? Having worked in the past as a product development, engineering, marketing, and sales manager for a multinational consumer electronics company with a world wide market, the packaging requirements from Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and the like, have to do with density of product display on shelves and hanging pegs. We had to work really hard to comply with all the differing size requirements for each retailer, all of which had nothing to do with product quality or value. It added quite a lot to the cost of the product package. Guess who pays for this? THE CONSUMER! 

I would rather develop product for educated customers, rather than spend my resources on deceiving ignorant customers. The educated ones tend to be willing to pay higher prices than the ignorant ones because they appreciate and demand the elevated value proposition of a better designed and manufactured product than they do the value proposition of the lowest bid, quality be damned.

So, consumers, don't trust product labeling on anything, do your homework and buy smart!


----------



## PhilV (Oct 17, 2009)

Surefire wholesale is roughly half of retail, product depending. Dealers make a solid profit on surefire.. but I believe there are pricing restrictions.

And as many have said already.. what's a ripoff really? You pay what something is worth to you. If you perceive a value, you're not getting ripped off. Peace of mind has value too IMO. If something is priced next to lesser quality products, your perception is that the quality will be similar, regardless of truth.

If you pay twice as much for a product, realistically your expectations could be twice as high. When that product lives up to those expectations, you've received your value. If it doesn't, you lose faith in that product, and spread the word. That product quickly becomes the plague, and dies off. I'll point out that no one argues that SF doesn't live up to expectations. They're conservative about battery life and lumens, and the lights are built like tanks. some lights are brighter, but SF doesn't claim to be the brightest.

If something doesn't live up to claims at a price you agree to pay.. perhaps THEN you've been ripped off.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 17, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> ....mileage figures shown are not only widely acknowledged to be somewhat optimistic, they cannot even be used reliably for a relative comparison between vehicles


 
Its an empirical value, just like other values on labels. And its reliable within the parameters described in the testing scenario. If you throttle the engine at idle, or drive in the mountains... yes, it will vary more, but its still reliable.



kwkarth said:


> ....food content labeling, producers have now figured out ways (loopholes) to hide such things as sodium content, MSG, saturated Fat, polyunsaturated fat, and a host of other "bad" things


 
I was not talking about food content, and you know that. I was talking about nutritional values in standardized format, right down to the label size. And just as with the auto sticker example above, they're very reliable.

Regarding Wamart's standards, you replied:



kwkarth said:


> ...We had to work really hard to comply with all the differing size requirements for each retailer, all of which had nothing to do with product quality or value. It added quite a lot to the cost of the product package. Guess who pays for this? THE CONSUMER!


 
Walmart has the lowest prices on average, bar none, of any supplier, for the products they carry. And you're making the case that because cost was added up the supply chain (which the consumer pays for) its bad even though the customers pay less? As for quality, you will get precisely the same exact Bounty paper towel at Walmart as you would at Target or elsewhere. 



kwkarth said:


> ....consumers, don't trust product labeling on anything, do your homework and buy smart!


 
That's a rather subjective statement. No two people completely agree on the "buyer beware" argument. And you would be the first to change your mind if ripped off in amajor way.... you'd be screaming for justice! Yet, people are riped off in small ways every day and bit by bit wealth is transferred from one person to another in ways that amoun to legal theft.... in some way its similar to taxes. When that money trail isn't held to account markets fail and people needlessly suffer. Same thing, but on a large scale. 



kwkarth said:


> I would rather develop product for educated customers, rather than spend my resources on deceiving ignorant customers.


 
On this point, I feel that we're saying the exact same thing. So why wouldn't we pursue this line of reasoning rather than debate issues that aren't directly related to lights, and that we might never agree on? 

Cheers!
LT


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 17, 2009)

PhilV said:


> And as many have said already.. what's a ripoff really? You pay what something is worth to you. If you perceive a value....


 
You have to have something to perceive with -- eyes, ears and grey matter. And when you're dealing with deceptive marketing and misinformation, even those won't help you. 



PhilV said:


> ...you're not getting ripped off. Peace of mind has value too IMO. If something is priced next to lesser quality products, your perception is that the quality will be similar, regardless of truth.


 
If you don't know the truth you have no way to prevent yourself getting into the position of not knowing lesser quality from greater quality. At least those ways are either unreliable or you're required to do a lot more research than you have time to do as an average consumer in order to offset the imbalance. As long as marketers say what they will and don't realize that its to their benefit (as well as buyers) to be factual and objective in the most basic claims that they make, the balance of "truth perception" will be on their side. But while think it helps their cause, it actually doesn't. Its in their best interest to have competitors playing on a level field.

Cheers!
LT


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 17, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Its an empirical value, just like other values on labels. And its reliable within the parameters described in the testing scenario. If you throttle the engine at idle, or drive in the mountains... yes, it will vary more, but its still reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess you've proven your point. Labels are the answer to everything, and they're free.

So what's YOUR suggestion which will solve all of our problems?


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 18, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> I guess you've proven your point. Labels are the answer to everything, and they're free.
> 
> So what's YOUR suggestion which will solve all of our problems?


 
I don't know if they solve everything. I mean what would they do for candles or coffee cups?

My suggestion is to look at just one item, for now: Output, and see if there isn't another objective way to state it than with Lumens. Other things I"ve seen on packages that attempt to help you understand brightness one way or another are Candlepower, Watts or "Try me out"

Candlepower is not a measure of output or brightness, its a characteristic of the beam. Watts is a measurement of energy to which light output may be related, but you can have different outputs for the same wattage depending on the efficciency of the light. So that too is not a measure of light output. "Try me out" is a recent thing that I've seen in some stores where they expose the button and preload the light with a battery. While it does give you some indication of brightness, its very hard to compare it with other lghts when you're in a store under bright flourescent lighting which tends to wash them all out. Besides, its still a subjective measure. I'm guessying the only way that testing the light could be somewaht objective would be by using a controlled environment, something like a shootout test, where you line up all photos side-by-side and study them. Its not practical though for the average consumer. So where does that leave it? Lumens? I would just ask you this. Is there any other measure than Lumens that is objective and quantifiable? If there is, what would it be? And if there is not, then may we agree that (whether its on a label or not) it would be a good standard, either as a number or in a pictogram or both, and that it would be the overall best way to describe output?

Thanks,
LT


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 18, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I don't know if they solve everything. I mean what would they do for candles or coffee cups?
> 
> My suggestion is to look at just one item, for now: Output, and see if there isn't another objective way to state it than with Lumens. Other things I"ve seen on packages that attempt to help you understand brightness one way or another are Candlepower, Watts or "Try me out"
> 
> ...


There's this little known web site called CPF, and a few others, where people are able to do that very thing. Have shootouts, objectively comparing light with light, and publish the results for all to see. Then potential consumers like you and I can peruse the results of those shoot outs, and decide for themselves, which is the right light for each of us. Problem solved.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 18, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> There's this little known web site called CPF, and a few others, where people are able to do that very thing. Have shootouts, objectively comparing light with light, and publish the results for all to see. Then potential consumers like you and I can peruse the results of those shoot outs, and decide for themselves, which is the right light for each of us. Problem solved.


 
Is it that you don't want to think about anyone else? Or, is it that you honestly think researching the web is a practical means of doing comparison shopping? You must realize most shoppers will not have a web enabled phone or if they do they will not find the data? They probably wouldn't know what to look for.... Or.... OR, is it that you just not want to agree or make any contribution?

If this is indictaive of CPF, then what kind of forum is it? I hear members applauding it for available expertise.... yet when someone tries to form an idea it turns into sour grapes (and/or suspicions)... certainly far from any kind of expertise or help. And if one voice out of ten will try and contribute, the other nine tend to drowned that one out too. If that's the trend, I reserve judgment about it until or unless I see something different.

1) Output: Lumens
2) Efficiency: Lumens/Watt
3) Runtime @Median Output
4) Caneldpower or throw (Pictogram?)
5) ?

At least a few people were discussing this or trying to before it became a barrage of suspicions about govt. regulators, etc. How about it? Are you still out there? Lets talk and try to form some ideas. You might find it enjoyable, esp. if we come up with something reaosnably good. Just think it could be offered up without charging folks 60.00 for the priveledge.

Cheers!
LT

Ps. It probabluy would be moved to different thread though if past the "Rip-OFF" stage. And if no one is ineterested in collaborating and think about including the point of view of the end consumer in teh dialog, I'll not bother with it. What would be the point? BUt what you do not realize is that thinking hurts both the consumer and the manufacturer, its one-sided. Many a business have gone under with that thinking


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 18, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Is it that you don't want to think about anyone else? Or, is it that you honestly think researching the web is a practical means of doing comparison shopping? You must realize most shoppers will not have a web enabled phone or if they do they will not find the data? They probably wouldn't know what to look for.... Or.... OR, is it that you just not want to agree or make any contribution?
> 
> If this is indictaive of CPF, then what kind of forum is it? I hear members applauding it for available expertise.... yet when someone tries to form an idea it turns into sour grapes (and/or suspicions)... certainly far from any kind of expertise or help. And if one voice out of ten will try and contribute, the other nine tend to drowned that one out too. If that's the trend, I reserve judgment about it until or unless I see something different.
> 
> ...



Who is it among us who seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge what has been stated here multiple times, by multiple people?

I have used the web to research products before purchase since before Netscape existed. You seem to want to protect impulse shoppers from themselves. Honestly, that is very difficult to do. Where does this come from? Impulse shopping is by its very nature, fraught with dangers. It is akin to children playing in traffic. How do you protect children playing in traffic? You STOP them from playing in traffic!!!! Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? Why do you cast me and others as bad guys because we want to stop children from playing in traffic?

Leave the traffic and traffic laws alone and control the kids for Pete's sake!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 18, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> Who is it among us who seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge what has been stated here multiple times, by multiple people?


 
Hmm... I did acknowledge those multiple assertions about how untenable the idea of standard is, but I Held fast to my position. Then, low and behold, it was revelaed that a group of manufacturers is working on one. Perhaps it is you and others who should acknowledge something? 



kwkarth said:


> I have used the web to research products before purchase since before Netscape existed.


 
That would have been a very short research project. Mosaic (the original Netscape browser) has been around since the web started in 1993.

I really don't want to get into a situation where people have to start stating ther credentials, experience and authority over subject matter. I'd rather talk about the issue at hand and let reason dictate the outcome. Would that be okay? I have no doubt you're well read, okay?



kwkarth said:


> You seem to want to protect impulse shoppers from themselves.


 
That would be the furthest thing from my mind. I think its impossible to do that.



kwkarth said:


> Honestly, that is very difficult to do. Where does this come from?


 
Would you please collect your thoughts and rephrase this question? It seems as though you're assuming something.

The rest of this... I don't know how to address it:



kwkarth said:


> Impulse shopping is by its very nature, fraught with dangers. It is akin to children playing in traffic. How do you protect children playing in traffic? You STOP them from playing in traffic!!!! Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? Why do you cast me and others as bad guys because we want to stop children from playing in traffic? ....Leave the traffic and traffic laws alone and control the kids for Pete's sake!


 
I can only assume that you're making an analogy to the "Nanny State" or something akin to that. But I've already said I don't ascribe to that. 

I've asked you questions. Would you do me the honor of answering one? Is lumens the objective measure of light output, or not? This is not a track question. And if you answer it it may provide a starting point for a conversation within this topic or on a new one. By the way, I have answered every one of your specific non-rhetorical questions. So please return the favor.

Respectfully,
LT


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 18, 2009)

With all due respect, LT;



LightTracker said:


> Hmm... I did acknowledge those multiple assertions about how untenable the idea of standard is, but I Held fast to my position.


 What IS your position? 



LightTracker said:


> Then, low and behold, it was revelaed that a group of manufacturers is working on one. Perhaps it is you and others who should acknowledge something?


Enlighten me, what is it I have not acknowledged?



LightTracker said:


> would have been a very short research project. Mosaic (the original Netscape browser) has been around since the web started in 1993.


That is correct. I've been around, and "on the air" far longer than that.



LightTracker said:


> I really don't want to get into a situation where people have to start stating ther credentials, experience and authority over subject matter. I'd rather talk about the issue at hand and let reason dictate the outcome. Would that be okay? I have no doubt you're well read, okay?


It's not a matter of credentials. Geez, LT, you just don't seem to get it do you? There are some people who will not research any issue/thing before they do it, including looking both ways before crossing the street. There is only so much you or I or anyone else can do to protect such people from themselves.



LightTracker said:


> That would be the furthest thing from my mind. I think its impossible to do that.


So I'm slow, tell me again what your objective is.



LightTracker said:


> Would you please collect your thoughts and rephrase this question? It seems as though you're assuming something.


Tell me again what your objective is, because obviously, I don't understand what it (your objective) is.



LightTracker said:


> The rest of this... I don't know how to address it:
> 
> I can only assume that you're making an analogy to the "Nanny State" or something akin to that. But I've already said I don't ascribe to that.
> 
> ...


I've answered every reasonable question you've asked. Even though this particular question you're asking here has already been answered ad-nauseum, I will answer it yet again...

Lumens is NOT the objective measure of light output for the average consumer. The average consumer has no frame of reference or understanding of that term. It is abstract to them. The average consumer more often than not confuses lumens and lux. I.E. "brightness" means different things to different people. The average consumer has no idea what an integrating sphere is. So now that you've asked the question, what were you proposing to do with the answer that you wanted? What are you proposing to do with the truth? Are you going to educate the average consumer against their will? How will you do this?

Back to my question to you. How are you going to protect the average impulse shopper against their will, and who is going to foot the bill for doing so?

There is already ample information available for every consumer that chooses to avail themselves of it. For those who choose not to research their purchases, you cannot help them.


----------



## jeffb (Oct 18, 2009)

This thread comes to my mind

click here


just my opinion and that's not worth much.....nor do I believe this thread is either.

jeffb


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 18, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> With all due respect, LT; What IS your position?


 
That its not easy to cmpare products in the this field from the point of view of the average buyer, but that it could be made much easier by applying a standard (though I'm sure it would be imperfect) using some well-thought-out standard measures to describe basic light performance.

This is not something that could not be eaisly understood by looking at my ealier posts (which you were replying to at the time). In my defense, I'd like to say that I have no particular agenda in doing this other than that I like lights and I sympathize with people who would like to get into them casually, some of whom have asked me questions when I'm shopping.... and its reminded me that the industry has a long way to go in developing a better approach to customers. 



kwkarth said:


> Enlighten me, what is it I have not acknowledged?


 
You continued to poo-poo the idea of improving standards (as a general argument) even after it was annnounced that several manufacturers are doing just that. Its a part of my specific argument to improve labelling and packaging and to solicit support to put our heads together to form ideas and possibly make recommendations. You might find that what I'm talking about is actually not as "Far out in left field" as I think you would like to characterize it. 



kwkarth said:


> It's not a matter of credentials.


 
Good, I'll ignore any comments where you try to impress me with your background or experience. And I mean no insult in to you, its just irrelavant when speaking in general terms. It would be more relevant if we got into details, and in that case, I'll be quiet if its completely outside my understanding... but until then I don't see the point in it.



kwkarth said:


> There are some people who will not research any issue/thing before they do it, including looking both ways before crossing the street. There is only so much you or I or anyone else can do to protect such people from themselves.


 
And...? I mean really, who would argue with that? I'm certainly not. BUt its not what I'm suggesting to do. 



kwkarth said:


> So I'm slow, tell me again what your objective is.... Tell me again what your objective is, because obviously, I don't understand what it (your objective) is....
> 
> Lumens is NOT the objective measure of light output for the average consumer.


 
No. But it IS an objective measure of light output, and that was my question, and you have still not answered it or acknowledged it. I didn't ask you for your opinoin about what the average person is capable of doing (Lord knows, I've expressed that same sentiment myself numerous times). But I asked you a simple yes or no question. 



kwkarth said:


> So now that you've asked the question, what were you proposing to do with the answer that you wanted? What are you proposing to do with the truth? Are you going to educate the average consumer against their will? How will you do this?


 
This is so rhetorical. Your "truth" is being misdirected. I don't disagree about the unlilklihood of fully informing people. But its still possible to give them better (though imperfect) information. The other thing that I think you're missing is that this its the healthiest possible scenario for makers of lights to adopt the position that I've been suggesting, both for them and for buyers. Its really not an afront to manufacturers. The only thing I dislike about their tactics is the lack of transparency (who is sponsoring or aiding who and what are the reasons for the sometimes censorship and disinformation? Once that's let out of the bag, progress can be made)

I don't think you're interested in talking about lights, certainly not an aspect of the rip-offs asscoaiated with the marketing of lights.... but perhaps economies or human psychology (of consumers) or something else in the abstract. And yes, I agree that they won't get that. But isn't that reason enough to simplify and standardize the information?

Respectfully,
LT


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 18, 2009)

jeffb said:


> This thread comes to my mind
> click here
> just my opinion and that's not worth much.....nor do I believe this thread is either. jeffb


 
Interesting... Using a blatantly disruptive comment, "This thread isn't worth much", to warn others about being disruptive.

Do you want to talk about rip-offs? And perhaps what can be done about them? If so, I welcome your comments.

I ask anyone these questions: Is lumens an objective measure of light output? Is there a simple way to depict candlepower or "throw"? I think there is. I'm asking others to share their thoughts about it.... and please don't worry about the disruptions, even from a mod. What's the worst things they can do? Throw you out of the forum? I've already made up my mind, if that happenes to me, I'm not going to lose a minute of sleep over it. I'll take it as a sign to move on and become involved in something where (nothing personal intended by this) you don't have to walk on egg shells or worry about what you think about a sponsor of a maker of lights (or someone who is staunch advocate). By all rights, one should be allowed to speak freely as long as its done respectfully and with decorum.

I don't believe I've insulted anyone. If you feel otherwise, please let me know. But I can assure you in advance, it would have been unintentional if it happened.

Cheers!
LT

Ps. That is a much improved logo at the top of the page. Good going!


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 18, 2009)

Well, LT, I'm not sure both oars are in the water because we keep going in circles, so I guess I'm done here since I can't seem to contribute anything to or learn anything from this thread. Best wishes.
k


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 18, 2009)

mdocod said:


> BINGOoooo
> 
> LT,
> Whether you realize it or not, you are pushing "politically" charged buttons in a very large way in numerous posts in this thread. If you feel that the responces are "beating around a bush" it's because the responses everyone wishes they could post would only be allowed in the underground.


 
For some who started with "BINGOoooo" you seem very quick to throw in the towel. Why don't you join me in the belief that truth, respectfully stated, is not only useful, but essential. No one should have to go into an "underground" to hide, esp. regarding a topic like Rip-offs. Its counter to evrything that makes sense (all political views aside) to create a talk forum and then, when particpating in it, feel you must go undergorund rather than challenge the status quo.

Lets hear form you, the ones who know things and until now have been sitting on them. I challenge you to share your rip-off stories. I know many of you have them. I suggest going by the rules. Its what I always try to do. They're there for a reason, and I respect that. But within those guidelines there's room to debate.



mdocod said:


> Politically speaking, a "call for regulation," for many of us, is like a giant billboard with flashing lights that says "bigger government." ....To many of us, your quest for answers to this question feels like information gathering for legislation.


 
This was a misunderstanding that was corrected quite a few posts ago. I am not gathering information for legislation but for members and for manufacturers, if they're willing to listen. But even if they don't it would still no doubt be a learning process for many folks. And maybe if some folks started contributing pople like kiwimark wouldn't turn away feeling there's nothing to be lrearned.

Again, thanks Eric. Now here's your chance. Speak up!!

LT


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 18, 2009)

Size15's said:


> So by shouting "Stop the RIP-OFFS!" at the CPF Community you are preaching to the choir. We are interested in flashlights. Our community is the best place to discover the value of a flashlight according to a community of Flashaholics.
> If you're interested in stopping 'non-Flashaholics' getting ripped off perhaps there are other consumer communities that would benefit more from your shouting?



LT, awhile back you took over this thread. You have made comments and been responded to. You have not listened to many of those comments, and Size15s comment is appropriate. You are preaching to the choir, and we have heard enough. I would appreciate a moderator or administrator closing this thread, it has gone on long enough.

Bill


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 19, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> LT, awhile back you took over this thread. You have made comments and been responded to. You have not listened to many of those comments, and Size15s comment is appropriate. You are preaching to the choir, and we have heard enough. I would appreciate a moderator or administrator closing this thread, it has gone on long enough.
> 
> Bill


 
It would not surprize me if its closed, as its becoming dangerously close to eliciting a truly open dialog, isn't it? I think the credibility of a discussion community is just about expired (in my opinion). But I'll hold out a while longer..... I respectfully disagree with you though, about Size15s's comments, about "we" , "everybody, "our community", etc. Whatever that is, its obviously not about open discussion. I mean it is, perhaps it will be, as long as this thread doesn't die. And as long as there's hope to respectfully disagree with "the community".

If "the community" is all about sponsorship and commercial endorsement, why doesn't somebody say that, esp. up front where you sign up for membership? Come on guys, lets be real. Does "everybody" want this dialog to stop, or is it the ones who have their products showing in banner ads? And really, why would I or anyone else care if you do? Its a free world, right? But when you start coming after communication on that basis... and go against anything that doesn't especially agree with your philosophy.... well, that's when you need to fess up and stop calling it an open forum. Gang warfare is more like it. But better yet, tell the hobbyists and uninitiated they're not welcome unless they get into some "group buys" first.... and eventually become a sponsor or benfactor.. Honestly though, how can you have honest dialog about this topic without letting go of that?

If you're going to shut it down, be my guest. But I think you're hurting yourselves if you do that. And it would certainly signifiy for me that it was not open at teh outset. I would feel that I've been deceived, and rightly so.

How about it? Am I really the only one... Am I the last hold out for free expression of ideas? (and the best kind of ideas... tthe ones that have no price tag?)

Speak up people. I know I'm not the ony one here. You have to be out there. And if you're not, its likley because they've shooed you away. But I really doubt that. Now if you say something, I just ask you to be respectful. But say something and don't worry about lack of popularity. That's already gone by the wayside if you're still looking for something different. 

Respectfully,
LT


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 19, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> You are preaching to the choir....
> 
> Bill


 
Choirs sing, don't they? Well let's hear it then. Is there any other widely accpeted objective measure than lumens for output? Sing those high notes, will you? Key of B-flat please.


----------



## John_Galt (Oct 19, 2009)

I agree, we're going in circles.:shakehead Time to shut the thread down.

On the other hand, as far as an easily understood instructions, I just called three of my friends, and asked them if they knew what a measurement of Lux was. None of them did. So, you say we need a way to objectify data, so the layman can understand. Lux is out, so what do you suggest as far as a description of throw? A pictogram? They're inaccurate, as every person is different, and background conditions vary greatly.

And there is absolutely no need to become insulting. That is the type of stuff that gets threads' shut down.


----------



## uk_caver (Oct 19, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> It would not surprize me if its closed, as its becoming dangerously close to eliciting a truly open dialog, isn't it?


You seem to be suggesting that the thread is getting 'better' from your point of view. Personally, I don't see that there's any real change in it.
If you see a light at the end of the tunnel, I think it may be either a reflection of your flashlight, or an approaching train.

As far as I can see, few people would suggest that more (or more standardised) information is necessarily a bad thing, though many would acknowledge that it may not make a great deal of difference to a great many people.

I don't see that there's a lot of point talking about what can be done to aid the average consumer unless there is some consensus about what that average consumer is like, assuming that it's possible to have an 'average' in an area where people vary along multiple dimensions



LightTracker said:


> If "the community" is all about sponsorship and commercial endorsement, why doesn't somebody say that, esp. up front where you sign up for membership?


I don't get the feeling the forum is about sponsorship and commercial endorsement.
There may be some people with commercial interests*, and some with more or less strong emotional attachments to particular products, but I don't think that gets in the way of communication, or is generally an influence in a deceptive way.



LightTracker said:


> But better yet, tell the hobbyists and uninitiated they're not welcome unless they get into some "group buys" first.... and eventually become a sponsor or benfactor.. Honestly though, how can you have honest dialog about this topic without letting go of that?


I never felt excluded from any discussion I wanted to take part in due to non-purchasing of any particular product



LightTracker said:


> Am I really the only one... Am I the last hold out for free expression of ideas? (and the best kind of ideas... tthe ones that have no price tag?)


People just don't have the right to _free expression of their ideas_ on other people's websites any more than they have that 'right' in someone else's house.
If people are being sufficiently obsessive, or argumentative, or offensive, or superior, or dull, there's a perfect right for a host to ask them to tone it down, or leave.


(*In the interests of openness, I guess I should mention that I manufacture niche lighting products, though I don't do it on a large scale - only a few hundred customers - and I don't think I've gained any by being on this forum.
Though it's probably significantly down to my sales being via word of mouth, and/or to people I know, I'm really not sure how many (if any) have asked how many lumens they'll get from a product before they buy it.
Bearing in mind that I know and at least occasionally meet the majority of my customers, I'm not sure that any have asked me what the output was *after* they bought one.

At best, lumens is only a dubiou proxy for potential satisfaction, and in my particular area, with the varying similar products being very varied w.r.t. beamshapes(s), I think lumens really isn't a great guide.

I can't honestly say that if I was making a rather brighter light, rather than trying to get maximum usability out of fewer lumens, that I wouldn't make more of a feature out of the lumen output, both in documentation, and in my sales pitch (such as it is), but even then, that could be partly down to a genuine belief that lumens were more important having motivated me to produce such lights in the first place.

Fortunately, I deal in an area where the people I sell to people generally do make choices informed by their experience, or the experience of others they trust, so I'm freed from any real need to fret about the precise wording of my descriptions, or how they might be interpreted by some mythical average customer.)


----------



## sigsour (Oct 19, 2009)

Though at its inception, I never meant for this discussion to turn the direction that it has. I can conclude one thing from what others have said and I completely agree with. We are at a great advantage in the flashlight world because of CPF and though some lights may be at a price range that may be deemed excessive in the minds of others; it is through CPF that provides some of the most extensive testing and dissecting of these lights by which we reach a conclusion of junk or jewels.....

for that I say thank you CPF.

Kenny


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 19, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Does "everybody" want this dialog to stop, or is it the ones who have their products showing in banner ads?



What a silly thing to say - why would the sponsors care about this thread either way? As far as I know no one has suggested their products are a rip-off. I don't believe that their placing an ad gives them any right to dictate what does or doesn't get discussed on this forum either. They pay some money (which goes towards the costs of running this site) and they receive advertising space, that is all.


----------



## Kiessling (Oct 19, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> .... and please don't worry about the disruptions, even from a mod. What's the worst things they can do? Throw you out of the forum? I've already made up my mind, if that happenes to me, I'm not going to lose a minute of sleep over it. I'll take it as a sign to move on and become involved in something where (nothing personal intended by this) you don't have to walk on egg shells or worry about what you think about a sponsor of a maker of lights (or someone who is staunch advocate). By all rights, one should be allowed to speak freely as long as its done respectfully and with decorum.





LightTracker said:


> It would not surprize me if its closed, as its becoming dangerously close to eliciting a truly open dialog, isn't it? I think the credibility of a discussion community is just about expired (in my opinion).
> (snip)
> If "the community" is all about sponsorship and commercial endorsement, why doesn't somebody say that, esp. up front where you sign up for membership? Come on guys, lets be real. Does "everybody" want this dialog to stop, or is it the ones who have their products showing in banner ads? And really, why would I or anyone else care if you do? Its a free world, right? But when you start coming after communication on that basis... and go against anything that doesn't especially agree with your philosophy.... well, that's when you need to fess up and stop calling it an open forum. Gang warfare is more like it. But better yet, tell the hobbyists and uninitiated they're not welcome unless they get into some "group buys" first.... and eventually become a sponsor or benfactor.. Honestly though, how can you have honest dialog about this topic without letting go of that?
> 
> ...




LightTracker, this is your final warning before a long term removal of your posting privileges. I strongly advise to read the rules of this place again, especially the section about discussing moderation issues in the open forum.

Also, I suggest re-evaluating your permanent insults of this community, its integrity and its intelligence. Your perception is way off as the other posters have tried to tell you more than once. Cheap insults and baiting are considered rude and a disturbance to this place and are not welcome. 

Right now, you are a burden to our community instead of an asset. It is your responsibility to change that or be gone eventually. 

This thread will remain oopen for now, but if it continues in this way its life expectancy is not something I'd place a bet on.

bernie - mod


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 19, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> On the other hand, as far as an easily understood instructions, I just called three of my friends, and asked them if they knew what a measurement of Lux was. None of them did. So, you say we need a way to objectify data, so the layman can understand. Lux is out, so what do you suggest as far as a description of throw? A pictogram? They're inaccurate, as every person is different, and background conditions vary greatly.
> 
> And there is absolutely no need to become insulting. That is the type of stuff that gets threads' shut down.


 
Why would I insult you, or even think about it? You're engaging in conversation. 

I agree with you completely. Lux is out because it looks at the area over which light is spread. Its a characteristic of the light beam, not light itself. Candlepower or footcandles are units of the same quantity: the lumen. And although the lumen is imperfect, its an objective measure because it can be quantified as an "amount of light", taking account the visible spectrum of the human eye. So it will deliver a perceptible amount of light to you regardless of the beam spread. You can talke small amount of lumens and generate a large amount of lux with it and then say "1 Million Candlepower!!" which would be true, but the same light source in a flood pattern might only be 1000 Candlepower. This is where many of the rip-offs ocurr. It takes advanatage of people's ignorance and teh fact that lux increases exponentially by simply narrowing the beam.

You asked about a pictogram. Imagine a small solid black circle, say 1.5 inches across with throw represented by the radius. Consider the center to be a light source and the light source is depicted by varying shades of gray becoming brighter as they approach white. 

Shape of light pattern: A narrow beam could subtend an arc of maybe 3 degrees, a flood light would subtend an arc of maybe 30 degrees, and light bulb maybe 300 degrees. But for the types of lights we're discussing, it could be described on the right half of that circle. Now if radius is distance that quantifies throw, lightness of the grey shade (as it approaches white) could represent lumens. Between those two measures, of length and teh amount of saturation of white on black background, you could get an accurate representation of both the amount of light and its ability to show objects at a distance. If you narrow beam for a lot of throw it would show up as a narrow strip with concentration of white toward the middle. A flood pattern with ample lumens would show more sqaure area of saturated white coloroation, broader and perhaps shorter (less throw). A focusing light would have two extremes of course... so you could maybe use two half circles instead of one.

But that doesn't involve any numbers. If you use the objective measure of lumens as a numerical value, that by itself and say lux as a numerical value too to describe throw, you would have described the amount of light and throw. But I think the prominent number would have to be lumens as that's the reference point by which two products may be compared, whether you use lux or candlepower or whatever.... those units are based on lumens

How does this sound to you? I think there could also be an outlined diagram rather than a solid half circle arrangment, and that could show the general shape of a beam pattern in profile or via overhead view. It should not be hard to objectify that using nothing but film (of a set speed) and a white surface to cast light on. It would have to be inside to eliminate any other light sources. In all likelihood such tests have already been refined and are in use... but I wonder if they look at more than luminous flux and candlepower...? I think there would be an inexpensive way to both quantify the numbers and provide something that is characteristic of the beam, and pictures are nice, they tend to be universally understood, you know?

Cheers!
LT


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 19, 2009)

I have insulted no one in this thread or forum.... but I have noticed things intuitively, The need for standards is just one thing (which later was confirmed really, because that work is underway).... and most people dropped that issue. But this doesn't mean that the impetus behind standards is only to safeguard against rip-offs. It is no doubt to give added credibility to legitimate manufacturers, and I applaud them for doing that. 

I have also noticed posters who have "sponsor" or "benefactor" attached to their screen names being the most vuirulent opposers to anything I say that might question manufacturers or commercial interests. Just coincidence? I'll be the judge of that. But I'd be honored and the first to shake the hand of someone who just admits they're opinion might be a little skewed do to the busuiness they're in.

Again, I have not insulted anyone... and if you feel that I have, I think the responsibility is to point it out... But if you will... pull the plug, recommend a paermanent ban... whatever... those of you who are on the inside of the program I'm sure could get that done. 

As far as insulting the whole community goes, I have not done that. At least I have not intended to. But I'll be completely honest with you. There is a pattern of drowning out people who dissent, or people who take (what some might call) "cheap shots" at makers of lights. I personally take no issues with particular manufacturers. But I couldn't help but notice people in the forum seeming to have histories of hating or loving certain things.,.. having their alliances and thier favorites, etc. The truth is I didn't want to discuss those particulars, and I've almost not mentioned it (but once). I really care far more about teh general trends and teh ability to cater to or prevent fair practices (or rip-offs). Toward that end I'd like to discuss the ways that might prevent, and leave the speacial alliances to those who take that up as their interest or business.

Now, on with the show... if there still is one, that is. And if there isn't, its been good knowin ya'll, especially the ones who still wanted to talk about rip-offs, despite the pressure to drop it or ignore it!

Cheers
LT


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 19, 2009)

uk_caver said:


> People just don't have the right to _free expression of their ideas_ on other people's websites any more than they have that 'right' in someone else's house.


 
They do if its been advertized as an open forum. How could you believe otherwise? If its advertize as a talk forum, even implicitly, there should be some obligation to defend ideas that are respectfully stated, even if its not what you like to hear.

But since we're discussing that, who own the website? Does it derive all value on its own? I seriously doubt that. For all you know, teh disussion of the least favorite ideas may be the best thing that ever happened.



uk_caver said:


> (*In the interests of openness, I guess I should mention that I manufacture niche lighting products, though I don't do it on a large scale - only a few hundred customers - and I don't think I've gained any by being on this forum.


 
I don't kow who has gained benefits or not by their involvment with talk forums. I'm not interested in that aspect of it accpe to know who I'mhearing from or why. Thank you for being up front. Its greatly appreciated. You're the first to say that, and I hope not the last. Its good to know.

As I said, theie are rip-offs, and I think its very unlikley to be coming from people with small businesses like you. I do wish yo luck with your light ventures. I don't know if you use packaging or if your clients would gain something or not by carefully adopting an info label. But I think its avaluable conversation to have anyway.

Cheers! (and thanks!!)
LT


----------



## uk_caver (Oct 19, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> They do if its been advertized as an open forum. How could you believe otherwise?


I'm not sure any forum I consider it worth spending time on doesn't have moderation.


LightTracker said:


> If its advertize as a talk forum, even implicitly, there should be some obligation to defend ideas that are respectfully stated, even if its not what you like to hear.


I'm not sure how respectful it is to suggest that a major motivation for people who don't agree with you is commercial vested interests, since you're not only implying that people are biased and underhand, but are also implying that they support inferior products which would lose out under a more-informed system.

If I thought I was one of the people you were railing against, I'd be pretty hacked off with someone saying the things you've been saying.


----------



## Radio (Oct 19, 2009)

Since this thread has long since outlived it's useful life.......


----------

