# Zebralight quality??



## dcycleman (Apr 13, 2009)

I was thinking of purchasing the 123 model headlamp, are your experiences good with this company, is this a durable product, it looks really cool.


----------



## mbassoc2003 (Apr 13, 2009)

dcycleman said:


> I was thinking of purchasing the 123 model headlamp, are your experiences good with this company, is this a durable product, it looks really cool.


I have two, one I use, the other in my BoB. I think they are great. Very floody with no hotspot. I am very pleased with both the size and build quality also, although there is a difference between the two I have. The one I decided to use every day has an almost silent button operation. The only reason you knwo it's presed is because of the visual and tactile feedback. The one in BoB has a distinctly 'clicky' button which which I find annoying (although the sound is the only annoyance really. The differing tactile response I can live with). I put these down to the company not being consistant with where they manufacture and source components, and this sort of production lottery is only to be expected if you're goint to buy cheap flashlights.

On the whole, it's cheap and cheerful, and does what you'd expect it to do in an acceptable manner. Let's face it, if you wanted quality, and that was you're over riding concern, you wouldn't have asked about Zebralights in the first place.


----------



## Shorty66 (Apr 13, 2009)

I own three Zebralights and am very impressed by their quality.
Well anodized, close fit of everything.
One of my zebralights were dead on arrival though - but this could be due to the transport from china...


----------



## Marduke (Apr 13, 2009)

Excellent quality, excellent service.


----------



## dcycleman (Apr 13, 2009)

mbassoc2003 said:


> I have two, one I use, the other in my BoB. I think they are great. Very floody with no hotspot. I am very pleased with both the size and build quality also, although there is a difference between the two I have. The one I decided to use every day has an almost silent button operation. The only reason you knwo it's presed is because of the visual and tactile feedback. The one in BoB has a distinctly 'clicky' button which which I find annoying (although the sound is the only annoyance really. The differing tactile response I can live with). I put these down to the company not being consistant with where they manufacture and source components, and this sort of production lottery is only to be expected if you're goint to buy cheap flashlights.
> 
> On the whole, it's cheap and cheerful, and does what you'd expect it to do in an acceptable manner. Let's face it, if you wanted quality, and that was you're over riding concern, you wouldn't have asked about Zebralights in the first place.


 actually I kind of thought that 60 - 90 bucks for a headlamp was kinda steep, when you can get a petzyl for like 20-30 and those are bulletproof. I thought with a pricepoint that high, quality was exactly what they were selling. mabe I'll wait for the saint.


----------



## Snow (Apr 13, 2009)

They are very well made I don't know what that dude is talking about. Look around the forums and you will find many happy owners, including me. Go ahead and buy one to try out. If you don't like it, you should have no problem selling it.


----------



## ScubaSnyder (Apr 13, 2009)

Best headlamp, use it every day, it is for close range though. Go with the 18650 light because the CR123 and AA model last about an hour on hi. Lights work better in the cold on hi.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Apr 13, 2009)

Very happy with my old H50. Nice anodizing and smooth threads. My only precaution would be that it might dent, if hit on the side of the battery tube, a bit easier than other lights due to its thin walls. I've not dropped mine, so it's only speculation. 

Geoff


----------



## cave dave (Apr 13, 2009)

I think the early H30 model had some bugs that they have since worked out. The other models were pretty much bug free from the reports on CPF.

I would buy from 4sevens.com, he has free shipping and rock solid customer service if you do have problems. I would recomend the H501 instead of the H30. It uses an AA battery (Nimh preferred) and I think the perfomance is better. ZL has improved the efficiency of the circuit.

From ZL website:
H501: 96 Lumens (2.3 hr) on High
H30: 80 Lumens (2.5hr ) on High

Petzl headlamps are most certainly not bulletproof. Heck their version of a recall was sending you a sticker saying not to use Li or Nimh in their lights that used an external battery pack. :doh:


----------



## bray (Apr 13, 2009)

love my zebralight h501w, works great, looks great, feels great, never liked a headlamp as much as the zebralight


----------



## photonhoer (Apr 13, 2009)

I have been using Zebralights since they first appeared. My review of the first ones (50s) is
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/178839
dated a year and a half ago.

Since then we have used them extensively in the US, camping, and on a recent trip driving from the US to Panama City, Panama. This was a RUGGED trip, and the lights performed flawlessly in three months of constant (several hours each day) use.

I'm just about to tumble for a 501 to have easy clicky switching in civilized places, reserving my 50s for more remote places where we cannot afford complexity (=possib. of failure) as the switch on the latter is bullet proof.


----------



## drmaxx (Apr 14, 2009)

dcycleman said:


> I was thinking of purchasing the 123 model headlamp, are your experiences good with this company, is this a durable product, it looks really cool.



Zebralight is fairly new in the market - so, it is a little early to claim that they are durable. 
I think that their headlamps are pricey, but looking at the technology you get the price is reasonable. They use high quality elements and are pieced together in a very innovative way.
If this fairly new technology acutally is mature is an other question. Buying from a good dealer that will take care of his products is certainly an intelligent thing to do.

So, if durability is a MUST because you are sitting the next few years in the middle of nowhere you might want to go with an older, but proven headlamp model / manufacturer.

Other then that, Zebralight is worth the money.


----------



## dcycleman (Apr 14, 2009)

thanks folks, mabe I'll give one a try. the I just searched and found all these horror stories about H30s malfunctioning, mabe that was just the first batch. the reason I was attracted to the H30 was because all my lights are 123's and when I go do stuff., camping night hiking, night snoshoeing, night dives, Itsa huge benefit to me to only have to worry about spares of one type. I grab my SF spares carrier and good to go.


----------



## Katdaddy (Apr 14, 2009)

I just bought an h30 off B/S/T about a month back. I love it!! I have used it on the headband and the necklace. I used it for work where I had to ride in the cargo compartment of a truck for around 6 hours. I used the medium setting with no problems. It has performed without a hitch.


----------



## arcel1t (Apr 14, 2009)

I think the quality is very good. I have used mine (H60) for 3 months.
I dropped it once on rocks I love the smooth overall good light.
Very god walking light.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 14, 2009)

drmaxx said:


> Zebralight is fairly new in the market - so, it is a little early to claim that they are durable.
> I think that their headlamps are pricey, but looking at the technology you get the price is reasonable. They use high quality elements and are pieced together in a very innovative way.
> If this fairly new technology acutally is mature is an other question. Buying from a good dealer that will take care of his products is certainly an intelligent thing to do.
> 
> ...



Well, they hold up to caving well, which is the single most abusive task you can put a headlamp through.


----------



## YuccaPatrol (Apr 14, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Well, they hold up to caving well, which is the single most abusive task you can put a headlamp through.



Yes, I have abused my H50 while caving and it has come through each and every time just fine. I only have to use a toothbrush and running water to remove the caked on mud.

If you want a bright, lightweight, floody headlamp, any of the Zebralight models will do the job quite well. I love my H50 for its small size and universal AA battery, and also really like my H60 for its wide range of brightness levels and powerful 18650 battery. . .


----------



## Lite_me (Apr 14, 2009)

I just received 2 H501's. I think they are an improvement over my H50. Even tho they don't get 'heavy' use, they are a godsend when you need one. I've had no issues with my older H50.


----------



## HKJ (Apr 14, 2009)

dcycleman said:


> I just searched and found all these horror stories about H30s malfunctioning, mabe that was just the first batch.



Zebralight had a problem with the switch on the first batch of H30 and had to replace all of these, but later H30 and and all other models after that has worked flawless.


----------



## jzmtl (Apr 14, 2009)

My H60 has finicky switches especially when battery isn't freshly charged, doesn't always do what it's suppose to do. Seems some others have similar problems as well.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 14, 2009)

jzmtl said:


> My H60 has finicky switches especially when battery isn't freshly charged, doesn't always do what it's suppose to do. Seems some others have similar problems as well.




That's what the recall was for. Get it fixed...


----------



## Woods Walker (Apr 14, 2009)

The Zebralight quality is rather high. My H50 has been exposed to rapid temperature changes as often going out of my heated tipi it can be -10F and on the inside well over 120F so that is a very fast jump. The H50 has been out in strong snow/ice storms and the headlamp which at times was covered in ice never failed.


----------



## noelex (Apr 15, 2009)

dcycleman said:


> actually I kind of thought that 60 - 90 bucks for a headlamp was kinda steep, when you can get a petzyl for like 20-30 and those are bulletproof. I thought with a pricepoint that high, quality was exactly what they were selling. mabe I'll wait for the saint.


The Zebralight looks and feels much better quality than any of the Petzl products. Given the cost I would expect the Saint to be better again, but only time will tell.


----------



## kwieto (Apr 15, 2009)

noelex said:


> The Zebralight looks and feels much better quality than any of the Petzl products.



But is that only "look", or it is a fact?

Reading posts about different models you can estimate:

H50 went to the market about a year ago. It is not as waterproof as producer says (several reports that it takes water through its head), and probably have the worse durability (some issues with electronics, not very shock resistant).

Next was H30 and there also were some reports about it's bugs. Not sure what kind of bugs they are (this is the model I am least interested in), but in the threads about other models you can find remarks that it is "buggy" (especially first part of those lamps).

H60 went to the market in december 2008, and there also were some problems with it (i.e. recall because of the power switch misoperation with lower battery power)

Three models during a year and all three had/have problems.

Newest model, H501, just entered the market and it is too early to tell something about it.

Zebralight is quite new company on the market and their models probably have "baby age problems", because they simply dindn't get required know-how. 
Petzl and some other brands are on the market for years, so their products most probably don't have "silly" problems. Reading this forum, the issues with Zebras are far often than with Petzl's, Princenton Tec's ant other well known companies.

They use very nice and not popular concept (angled flood light), but I think that if you need really durable light it is better to wait for 2nd generation.

From the other hand, there are also some reports about lacks in finishing - not centered LED to the Lens, the ring ouside the lens in H60 wrong set, etc.
My H50 have skewed head, and this is why I will replace it for another unit (or change order to H60). All this things are "minor" problems, but seems that the quality control is not Zebralight's strength

Regardless of that, I bought one some days ago - but it will be just "supportive lamp" for me, I will not cry if it breaks.


----------



## dcycleman (Apr 15, 2009)

well, I really want the saint any way, so mabe I'll pickup a h30 and use that for a backup if /when the saints became available.


----------



## f22shift (Apr 15, 2009)

kwieto said:


> Petzl and some other brands are on the market for years, so their products most probably don't have "silly" problems. .


 
silly as in your head catching on fire 

i agree, it's too early to tell if the newer models will be reliable. we'll have to wait and see.

i feel like every flashlight i owned had a problem or quirk. maybe save maglite.. but anyway i think it's just as important is how the company deals with the problems or at least recognizes them.


----------



## jzmtl (Apr 15, 2009)

Marduke said:


> That's what the recall was for. Get it fixed...



Was the H60 included in the recall as well? I thought it was only for early batch of H30. Anyway I'll contact the dealer to find out more.


----------



## Siskik (Apr 15, 2009)

silly as in your head catching on fire


----------



## Woods Walker (Apr 15, 2009)

kwieto said:


> But is that only "look", or it is a fact?
> 
> Reading posts about different models you can estimate:
> 
> H50 went to the market about a year ago. It is not as waterproof as producer says (several reports that it takes water through its head), and probably have the worse durability (some issues with electronics, not very shock resistant).


 
Could you show me those reports of the H50 taking water in the head within the rated specifications? Not questioning your word rather looking for information that I may have missed. I have accidentally dunked my H50 and no water got past the double O rings of the tail cap or the head which seems one section.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Apr 15, 2009)

I'm not remembering any leakage reports for the H50, either. Could have missed them, but I think not. Also, hasn't it been available nearly two years?

Geoff


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 15, 2009)

I too bought an H30-Q5 off CPFM a month or so back and I LOVE it! 

I did find that when it hits the end of what the battery has to give it's like it blows a fuse. But with a pre-positioned new 123 I was able to easily change it on my head.

I don't abuse it in any way but can't see any real harm in doing so.

Fit and finish are very good!


----------



## Woods Walker (Apr 15, 2009)

Flying Turtle said:


> I'm not remembering any leakage reports for the H50, either. Could have missed them, but I think not. Also, hasn't it been available nearly two years?
> 
> Geoff


 
Came out in 07 I think.


----------



## kwieto (Apr 16, 2009)

f22shift said:


> silly as in your head catching on fire



Yeah, I know that issue. But from the other hand, count how many models Petzl have/had in production and how long they are/were selling these models.

"Firing head" problem touched only Myo series and according to Petzl's declarations met only 0,004% of sold units (of course the numbers can be manipulated)
I didn't heard about that kind of issues for other models...

Compare that to some issues with in fact every Zebra model and guess how big for each company is the probability that the new model fill be free of problems?
I will be not very surprised if latest newcomer, H501 will have some bugs too...


----------



## kwieto (Apr 16, 2009)

Woods Walker said:


> Could you show me those reports of the H50 taking water in the head within the rated specifications? Not questioning your word rather looking for information that I may have missed.



If you know i.e. Polish :")
http://www.torch.pl/forum/index.php/topic,55982.msg207934.html#msg207934

"Free" translation:
"I have 1 and a half of H50. First unit took the water when I put it to the water during some photo session. But it lit. Then it fell down and lit only in one mode. Then it fell again and died. After a month I disassembled it and water still was inside. The next unit have worse quality - some flaw on the lens and slack thread (...) I like it but in my pocket there is D10 because it is more reliable."

I did similar tests (put the H50 into the water) and also got water inside.

Other issue:
http://www.torch.pl/forum/index.php/topic,55982.msg207948.html#msg207948

"There is not as good with the waterproofness. I put H30 that the switch was only 1cm under water and it came under the rubber. I am not sure if in heavy rain it will come to the switch."




Woods Walker said:


> I have accidentally dunked my H50 and no water got past the double O rings of the tail cap or the head which seems one section.



Water comes through a head which definitely is NOT one section.
There is a cap, similar as the tailcap, but fix mounted. Water comes through that cap and floods the electronics. In the battery copartment it appears after some time (i.e. next day), when water drops will come through small holes in the driver.
In normal use, you can even not notice, that some water came inside, because tailcap is still waterproof.


----------



## Woods Walker (Apr 16, 2009)

kwieto said:


> "Free" translation:
> "I have 1 and a half of H50. First unit took the water when I put it to the water during some photo session. But it lit. Then it fell down and lit only in one mode. Then it fell again and died. After a mont I disassembled it and water still was inside. The next unit have worse quality - some flaw on the lens and slack thread (...) I like it but in my pocket there is D10 because it is more reliable."


 

I have no clue as to what that guy is saying about the H50. Guessing something was lost in the translation. How long was it put in the water etc? Sorry but not enough information to tell if the light failed to work under what the manufacture specified.


----------



## kwieto (Apr 16, 2009)

Woods Walker said:


> How long was it put in the water etc? Sorry but not enough information to tell if the light failed to work under what the manufacture specified.



I don't know how long. Here you have photo from the session, Zebra (with rubber cap on) is on the bottom. As you see it is just below the surface.

http://www.torch.pl/forum/index.php/topic,55982.msg207970.html#msg207970

If you want I can ask this guy about details.

Mine was for 30 min. in the glass of water (far from claimed 1m deep) and I also got some water drops inside, near the driver (appeared next day).

He said that after he removed cap (3-4 weeks later) the water was still inside. Maybe the rest of his issues (losing 2 modes of 3, and then completely broke) is due to that? 3 weeks is enough time to broke electronics if it was wet all that time.
According to his information, the head is screwed like tailcap is.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Apr 17, 2009)

kwieto said:


> Petzl and some other brands are on the market for years, so their products most probably don't have "silly" problems. Reading this forum, the issues with Zebras are far often than with Petzl's, Princenton Tec's ant other well known companies.



Yes but most Petzl lights are pretty lousy. As in old, inefficient, improperly heat-sunk LEDs running DD off of 3xAAA cells. As are a majority of the Princeton Tec and Black Diamond headlamps. Most of them have just within the past few months started getting lights based on XR-E, Rebel and SSC based lights out to market. Personally I'll put my money into the company who is stepping forward, getting a little messy and innovating.


----------



## kwieto (Apr 17, 2009)

I am not defending Petzl (there are several manufacturers which are same as good or better), but from two options:

1. more reliable, even if a little "outdated"
2. modern, but having some quality issues

I would choose first option. Second choice only if I know that something will be more a "toy" than a "tool".
This is why I bought Zebra (I like it), but I still have my "regular" headlamp and that headlamp is my "tool" - not Zebra.

Yesterday I replaced my brand new H50 (which had factory skewed head) to the new one - in fact I took the opportunity for upgrade to H60.
And H60 is nice, but... 
- the thread is not lubed as H50 was.
- the same about the rubber cap - I took my own waterproof lube for silicone o-rings and sealed the cap. Unfortunately it is too dense to put it on the thread
- I picked one from three I tried. Two had strange "bubbles" in the structure on the very outer parts of lens (not affecting the light and maybe just "typical" for this material, but why the third one didn't have that kind of "features"?). One of them had some stains on the inox - also not very big, but visible (this lamp was factory packed up and never used (!))
- The third one, which I picked, have some spots on the lens - look like fingerprints on the inner part of lens. Also - not affecting the light beam, but...

All these things are not a big issues, but just annoying.
I don't know. Maybe I am too demanding, but in my opinion, when you buy the lamp for $79 you can expect more care in the production process.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 17, 2009)

I have an H30. Its a great light but not sure that it is worth the $70.00 that I paid for it through 4sevens especially considering its a Chinese product. We Americans have become way too complacent with the standards of what we purchase. I am not saying that it is a bad light by any means but definitely not Surefire quality. I would say this light should be in the $30.00 to $40.00 price range. Seams like everyone gets caught up with the superficial such as the aesthetics and looses sight of what really matters.


----------



## davidt1 (Apr 17, 2009)

Zebralight has no competition, so it can charge what it charges.


----------



## Glock27 (Apr 17, 2009)

I don't think ZebraLight has a problem with quality. I think they have a problem with quantity........especially Warm H60's and Red H501's
G27


----------



## wadus (Apr 17, 2009)

I'll agree with the lack of warm emitters! :twothumbs:

Disregard kwieto... I wouldn't be surprised if Petzl is paying him to bash ZebraLight or something... :ironic:

I love my H30 and I can't wait until I can get my hands on a warm version so I can gift my current one to my girlfriend or dad. Maybe I'll try out the H50 for a twisty switch too. :thinking:


----------



## Linger (Apr 17, 2009)

*High quality*

Zebra is high quality.
I will even say my Zebra H501 is a top-quality light. True, I have not had it for years so it I cannot speak to it's durability, but I get the sense that this light will serve me well.
I will go farther, and say that IMHO the ZH501 is near 'perfect' for this form factor, the peak of current production methods. The light is hardly bigger then the cell that powers it, and it provides a smooth artifact-free beam. It is a better flood then many lights far bigger, and it is awfully efficient.
Yes, people post some critiques on CPF, but my comment is that Zebra got a whole lot right with these lights.


----------



## Linger (Apr 17, 2009)

look how many zebra owners talk about getting a 2nd (or 3rd)...
It's a light that endears itself to owners


----------



## cave dave (Apr 17, 2009)

Try to find a better 1AA headlamp!

It can't be done!

Kweito joined last month and has about 50 posts of which over half are bashing Zebralight. Until just the other day he didn't even own one.

I think the problem is that he is new here and hasn't got the CPF addiction yet. The addiction that says we must have the latest and greatest. When you are willing to walk the cutting edge you must also accept the risks involved.


----------



## StandardBattery (Apr 17, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> *....* Seams like everyone gets caught up with the superficial such as the aesthetics and looses sight of what really matters.


:thinking: Sorry, I don't think so. ZebraLights put out a unique beam that no other light can touch. I think they are the perfect task light, in the home, in the camp, in the garage. Nothing comes close. The lights are all single cell, that's also very different and a real plus in my book, especially when travelling.

I'm sorry to hear about some of the quality issues, but I have been very lucky myself and I'm in the high-quality, great UI (even though they differ between lights), and very happy customer. I want a warm one (or two)and I want a red one.

I'm sure ZebraLight is working hard to improve QC.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 17, 2009)

> Sorry, I don't think so. ZebraLights put out a unique beam that no other light can touch. I think they are the perfect task light, in the home, in the camp, in the garage. Nothing comes close. The lights are all single cell, that's also very different and a real plus in my book, especially when travelling.



Don't get me wrong. I love my H30. I love the versatility, beam quality, etc, etc..... I do feel that they are a bit overpriced especially being a product of China that's all I am saying.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 17, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> Don't get me wrong. I love my H30. I love the versatility, beam quality, etc, etc..... I do feel that they are a bit overpriced especially being a product of China that's all I am saying.



Overpriced compared to what? Show a single product with similar features.


If they were made in the US, you would get the same thing and they would cost >$200 each minimum.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 17, 2009)

cave dave said:


> Kweito joined last month and has about 50 posts of which over half are bashing Zebralight. Until just the other day he didn't even own one.
> 
> I think the problem is that he is new here and hasn't got the CPF addiction yet. The addiction that says we must have the latest and greatest. When you are willing to walk the cutting edge you must also accept the risks involved.



I think the problem is he has an agenda....

He has made that blatantly obvious.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 18, 2009)

> Overpriced compared to what? Show a single product with similar features.



My problem isn't just with Zebralight. Its with most of the Chinese manufactured brands. So far, every Chinese made torch I have purchased had issues straight out of the box (the only exception being Fenix). One shouldn't have to dissemble and then reassemble a Torch just to get it to work properly especially for the prices they are charging. The fact of the matter is that most of the Chinese manufacturers has extremely poor quality control. I am not arguing that the zebraLights lack features or versatility but for $70.00 it better work "out of the box".


----------



## Marduke (Apr 18, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> My problem isn't just with Zebralight. Its with most of the Chinese manufactured brands. So far, every Chinese made torch I have purchased had issues straight out of the box (the only exception being Fenix). One shouldn't have to dissemble and then reassemble a Torch just to get it to work properly especially for the prices they are charging. The fact of the matter is that most of the Chinese manufacturers has extremely poor quality control. I am not arguing that the zebraLights lack features or versatility but for $70.00 it better work "out of the box".




You'll learn.... :shakehead


----------



## alexdiver (Apr 18, 2009)

i own a h30 q5 i dunked it in my aquarium witch is less than 30 inches deep and after only a couple 30 seconds the light started blinking and finally turned off, upon inspection i found some water infiltrated in the head - led side. I did some refinishing on the stainless ring because there was some majors burrs left for the machining process but it changed nothing. I think the h30 is simply not rated for submerged operation. I think it might have something too do with the lenght if the threads for the battery cap (because the oring hits the cap WAY before it is screwed in completely It might create positive pressure inside the light. Once the light is turned on and submerged its heats up and the air inside might expand and created some sort of leakage ?? what do you think ??


----------



## kwieto (Apr 18, 2009)

How lovely...
I see everywhere are some ones who prefer to comment persons (me) over things (Zebralight)

As I said, maybe I am too demanding. But I like to know disadvantages of the thing which I buy as well as its advantages. My comments for Zebra started after in fact I was attacked by some users when I said in the other thread that Zebra is not a "real outdoor" headlamp (but for camping it is perfect).
Then the whole "funny advertisement" start with some ones claiming unreal abilities :")
It is obvious that I would start to read more about these lights after that heavy advertising and I will defend my opinion.

Frankly speaking, I can't take serious "reviews" ending with conclusion like "It's nice, lightweight so I love this, it is perfect" and without any deeper comment under that declaration. 
There is no product without any lack - and I prefer to know the whole truth, also with information about problems with it.
Most funny are the comments about quality of H501, which entered the market just about month ago. Now we can say more what it "look like", but not "is" - it is just too early (!) for comments on quality (except obvious lacks, as i.e. skewed head in my former H50). In fact, it is the time to start comments about quality of H60, which entered market early December '08. Now some of these lamps were used more than few days, some of them were taken outdoors and we can start summarize user comments "from the field".

This is why I started to search deeper than only reading reviews (usually written straight after purchase, when light was not really used "in the field") - and I found what I found.
Funny, because I decided to improve H60's sealing after some comments on H30 and H50 (including my own tests). Today I looked for some other information in the thread about H501 and unintentionally I've found information that H60 also have problem with waterproofness... So I was right to put some silicone grease to seal rubber cap.
The price is the other subject, but if something is to meet specific standard of waterproofness, it should be without any fixing needed from the user side.

Zebralight says that their all lights meet IP68 standards which is not true.
For me, when I received my H50 about 1,5 week ago, it was obvious to put this "waterproof" item into the water just after purchase. It is some kind of "standard" test for things which are claimed to meet some IP standards. 
The same I did i.e. with my Otterbox Armor PDA case, also declared to meet IP68 norm. Armor case passed the test, and Zebralight not... Regardless that the conditions were far lower from regulated by the IP norm (1m deep for 30 minutes).
In fact, I didn't found *ANY* report from test like that here, which should be common check for waterproof equipment. It is "typical procedure" i.e. for outdoor GPS units, putting new model under the water and checking the seals is obvious for testers...
And here, persons who didn't make that kind of tests are saying that it is "perfect outdoor" equipment... strange.

Someone asked if I am paid by Petzl. According to issues with Zebra, mentioned above, I can ask him same question - is he paid by Zebralight?
In fact, some time ago I put my Myo (bought in 2005, worked without problems) to the shelf, and I now use Mammut's product, which *seem* to be better quality - but if it really *is* I will able to say after several months, when I have more opportunities to use it outdoors.

Zebralight is the only company I know, which utilizes the unique concept for wide, only flood light - that's theirs advantage.
Their products are nice looking and for my expectations from that kind of lamp I can accept some lack (i.e. questionable waterproofness).
But basing on the informations from CPF and other forums, as well as with my own impressions, I prefer to use "limited trust" rule than realize some day that my "nice looking" product broke because it was not waterproof as it should or had some lacks in the driver.

At the end, some funny thing to comment Zebra's price - this is the item made by some "home-maker":











It is only 2 cm longer than Zebra (can be even 1 cm when you use different driver), but it uses standard (not electronic) switch. It can be powered with 18650's as well as with standard AA's. And the driver is changeable, so you can use different ones (regulated, non regulated, etc.) depending on your needs.
It is not as nice looking as Zebra but talking about the quality... Knowing his other "products" you can be sure that it is waterproof and the driver will not break by itself.

If someone could make light similar size in his garage, without CNC machines, saying that Zebra produces technologically "on the edge" products is just too big word. :")
I know that it is nice concept and I see that many people here are devoted to that light, but... I prefer to make more rational decisions.

And I don't say that Zebra's are "bad". Just like to know all advantages and disadvantages of the product I am interested in.


----------



## cave dave (Apr 18, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Overpriced compared to what? Show a single product with similar features.
> 
> If they were made in the US, you would get the same thing and they would cost >$200 each minimum.



The surefire saint is expected to be about $185. The single CR123 Minimus version should be a bit less, Maybe $150 to $165. The light is supposed to be pretty floody, I expect problems with the dial knob have delayed production, if the Titan issues were any indicator.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 18, 2009)

> Once the light is turned on and submerged its heats up and the air inside might expand and created some sort of leakage ?? what do you think ??


I think you should keep it above water. I wouldn't consider dunking my H30. There are too many points of entry for water to infiltrate especially with the head assembly. If a torch isn't rated for at least 1 atmosphere then it is best kept above water.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 18, 2009)

Zebralight and that silver thing ^^ in your post are apple and orange different.

Zebra H30 is the most compact thing I can wear on my head to make light. It truly isn't much bigger than the battery.

Find something LIKE the Zebra at ANY price to compare.


----------



## ltiu (Apr 18, 2009)

I have dunked my H30 in dirty cave water a few times with no problems.

The only issue I ntoice is that when I bump my helmet against a rock (the H30 is mounted on my caving helmet), it will change modes as if I clicked the switch.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 18, 2009)

Real flashaholics know quality immediately. Pretend flashaholics just whine about poop and eventually go live in trollhattan.


----------



## dcycleman (Apr 18, 2009)

I dunno, if a light is rated to be waterproof by the manufacturer, it should probably be waterproof. I really couldnt give a rats *** where it was made. All I know is I have read about many users having more than one Zebra and having more than one problem. For 70 bones I shouldnt have problems. Let me know when they get their sh!t together.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 18, 2009)

For the record, Zebralight is NOT certified to be operated submerged. I don't know why everyone seems to think it is.


----------



## cave dave (Apr 18, 2009)

In the world of Watches a "water resistant to 30m" label basically means its splashproof and good for rain. It should not be used for surface swiming, or in the shower.

So if ZL claims one meter? It will probably be fine in the rain but I wouldn't dunk it.

I will also say no Petzl light I've seen is waterproof, most don't even have seals. 4 out of 4 PT apex units I had took on a bit of water in dunk tests. I have yet to have anything fail in use from water. I no longer do dunk tests, I'll just deal with the warranty when they fail in use, not deliberate abuse.




> Here are some basic guidelines:
> 
> Any watch with a rating of less than 50 meters should not be immersed in water. These watches offer adequate protection for splashing but aren't meant for underwater wear.
> 
> ...


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 18, 2009)

> Real flashaholics know quality immediately. Pretend flashaholics just whine about poop and eventually go live in trollhattan.



There is nothing wrong with having high standards. A product can always be improved upon no matter how good it is. 

"[SIZE=-1]Complacency is the enemy of study." [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]-MAO ZEDONG 
[/SIZE]​ [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]​


----------



## Marduke (Apr 18, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> So, how is life in trollhattan?



Fine if you want to chat about anything but flashlights.

Why don't you go find out for yourself.


----------



## wapkil (Apr 18, 2009)

Marduke said:


> For the record, Zebralight is NOT certified to be operated submerged. I don't know why everyone seems to think it is.



In the descriptions of the H30, H60 and H501 the ZL web site states: "Waterproof, Meets IP68 in accordance with IEC 60529, Dust-tight, Protected against continuous immersion (1 meter, >30 minutes)".

I believe it should mean what it says - that these lights will operate correctly when submerged.


The reports about problems with zebras water resistance made me persuade my H501 to wear a derby hat:







I removed the small rubber cap and replaced it with a larger one glued to the head. It shouldn't be possible now for the water to flow through the top of the head. Taking out the original rubber also made the mode switching harder so it shouldn't happen accidentally. This modification is irreversible but I think that if someone is worried about the H501 waterproofness it may be worth considering. The magnets in the "backpack" and glued to the bottom end cap are there to help defend gravity:


----------



## Marduke (Apr 18, 2009)

wapkil said:


> In the descriptions of the H30, H60 and H501 the ZL web site states: "Waterproof, Meets IP68 in accordance with IEC 60529, Dust-tight, Protected against continuous immersion (1 meter, >30 minutes)".
> 
> *I believe it should mean what it says - that these lights will operate correctly when submerged.*



No, it doesn't. IP68 is a STATIC standard. This mean NO MOVEMENT. IP69*M* would mean it could be operated at that the given spec.

IP68 is essentially splash/dust proof, NOT necessarily submerged.


----------



## wapkil (Apr 18, 2009)

Marduke said:


> No, it doesn't. IP68 is a STATIC standard. This mean NO MOVEMENT. IP69*M* would mean it could be operated at that the given spec.
> 
> IP68 is essentially splash/dust proof, NOT necessarily submerged.



Unfortunately I don't have access to the IEC 60529 standard (I think would have to pay for it). I understood that static means that the lights shouldn't be moved, clicked or switched after the test starts. People writing here about problems with their zebras underwater didn't do it. They only placed a turned on light in the water and it was enough to cause problems. I don't know whether this is correct but Wikipedia explains 8 in IP68 as:

"The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. NOTE: Normally, this will mean that the equipment is hermetically sealed. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that produces no harmful effects."

If accurate, it doesn't sound as splash proof (which, according to Wikipedia, is level 4).


----------



## Marduke (Apr 18, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Unfortunately I don't have access to the IEC 60529 standard (I think would have to pay for it). I understood that static means that the lights shouldn't be moved, clicked or switched after the test starts. People writing here about problems with their zebras underwater didn't do it. They only placed a turned on light in the water and it was enough to cause problems. I don't know whether this is correct but Wikipedia explains 8 in IP68 as:
> 
> "The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. NOTE: Normally, this will mean that the equipment is hermetically sealed. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that produces no harmful effects."
> 
> If accurate, it doesn't sound as splash proof (which, according to Wikipedia, is level 4).



Static conditions are very different than dynamic. All of the cases I've seen thus far are in some way dynamic...


----------



## kwieto (Apr 19, 2009)

Hmmm, I put my H50 in the glass of water and took it out after c.a. 30 minutes.
It it wasn't "static", then can you explain what means "static" for you?

IP norm describes both waterproofness and dustproofness.
Meeting IP68 standard mean that item is completely dust and waterproof.
Fist number (here: "6") describes dustproofness, second (here: "8") waterproofness.

Below you have description of all levels:

Dustproffness:

0 - not protected (sometimes: "x")
1 - Protected against solid objects greater than 50 mm³
2 - Protected against solid objects greater than 12.5mm³
3 - Protected against solid objects greater than 2.5mm³
4 - Protected against solid objects greater than 1mm³
5 - Protected against dust - limited ingress (no harmful deposits)
*6 - Totally protected against dust*

Waterproofness:

0 - Non-protected
1 - Protected against vertically falling drops
2 - Protected against direct sprays of water up to 15 degrees from vertical
3 - Protected against direct sprays of water up to 60 degrees from vertical
4 - Protected against water sprayed from all directions, limited ingress permitted
5 - Protected against low-pressure jets of water from all directions, limited ingress permitted
6 - Protect against strong jets of water from all directions, limited ingress permitted
7 - Protected against the effect of "temporary" immersion between 15cm and 1m
*8 - Protected against long periods of immersion under pressure [usually 1m for 30 minutes]*
9K - protected against high pressure, high temperature jets of water from multiple directions (according to DIN 40050-9)

As you see, IP68 norm mean that item should be completely dustproof and waterproof for certain time and under certain pressure.
The pressure in a glass of water (10cm under water) is far, far below that which you have 1m under water.

I know that you like your Zebra. 
But please, don't tell "fairy tales" that it meets IP 68 standard when it is too many reports that it is not.
You can do your own tests, but don't blame me if it will stop working.


Just for fun - how waterproof things are tested by users:

IP68 Otterbox:





And some IPx8 GPS unit:





Should I mention that none leaks were reported for tested items?

And nice IP68 test video (according to your "mobility" doubts):
http://pocketcctv.com/IP68Video.html

At last, to be clear: I am not saying, that lack of waterproofness is something wrong. I just like to know that, then I can take proper care about it.
My "accusation" to Zebralight is that they are declaring certain level of waterproofness, which they don't meet. 
If I didn't make test by myself (and before that, read about some issues) I would put this light to the river or lake being sure that it will survive that - like all my other IPx8/IP68 proof items do.

[UPDATE:]
I never meet "IP68M" norm, so I did a little research. *It seems that there is no IP 68M standard*, or it is not described as a regular norm. Or is really new and there is no definition of that standard over all internet (or is not in english :"P). 

Can you post some link to the definition of that norm?
Here are links to abstract from IP standards definitions, including the "9K" extension:
http://www.stegmann.com/comm/Protection.pdf
http://www.kenplas.com/topic/ipcode.aspx

No word about "8M" standard...
Maybe it is some kind of "sub-norm" given by some producers by themselves? According to info from CPF, "M" should mean "it will keep that condition even actuating on its moving parts. i.e. switching it on-off". In cases which I've found (or during my own tests), lights were turned on, and submerged afterwards - no operation with a switch or cap (there are no other "moving parts") was done underwater. 
According to above definition of this mysterious "M" standard, all issues should be described as "static".


----------



## wapkil (Apr 19, 2009)

The main problem with all those IPX8 Ingress Protection ratings is that they seem to be meaningless for flashlights. I still haven't read the standard but it was discussed previously on CPF and someone found a nice explanation here (only a manufacturer site but looks consistent with everything I have read).

I'm beginning to think that all the manufacturers quoting IPX8 protection level (and ZL is definitely not the only one) treat it as some magic marketing word. Otherwise they would have to define test conditions and perform rigorous test just to proof that their equipment confirms to something that is mostly useless anyway. For flashlights it would be much more rational to perform dynamic tests (levels 3-6) to ensure they are capable not only to withstand continuous immersion but also work correctly when it's raining.

EDIT: It was pointed out to me that in many cases IPX8 protection level may be useful. I never meant to accuse *all* the manufacturers of using this standard only as a marketing vehicle but unfortunately this is what I carelessly wrote so I apologize for that.

On the other hand if someone claims that the equipment conforms to some standard it should work in the conditions defined by this standard. No matter how useless for some people the standard may be. In this case I have some doubts but without much more research I'm not able to verify them. For me, after reading the reports about leaking zebras and taking out the rubber cap from my H501, the conclusion was that it would be rational to convert one of my zebras to a little more heavy duty one.

The H501 lights have some flaws (e.g. waterproofness, strange strobe mode, the complicated way to convert them from a headlamp to a clipped one) but most of these problems can be easily corrected. Unless something more serious appear I would buy the H501 again. I find the lights extremely useful and as far as I know the zebras are currently the only ones of the kind.


----------



## Barbarin (Apr 19, 2009)

> [UPDATE:]
> I never meet "IP68M" norm, so I did a little research. *It seems that there is no IP 68M standard*, or it is not described as a regular norm. Or is really new and there is no definition of that standard over all internet (or is not in english :"P).
> 
> Can you post some link to the definition of that norm?
> ...


 
Well, the further developing of the European norm EN60529 in Spain, named UNE20324, and published on NTP588 (Notas técnicas de prevención) by "Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos sociales del Gobierno de España) describes what a *M* following a IPXX means.


----------



## Barbarin (Apr 19, 2009)

wapkil said:


> The main problem with all those IPX8 Ingress Protection ratings is that they seem to be meaningless for flashlights. I still haven't read the standard but it was discussed previously on CPF and someone found a nice explanation here (only a manufacturer site but looks consistent with everything I have read).
> 
> I'm beginning to think that all the manufacturers quoting IPX8 protection level (...) treat it as some magic marketing word. Otherwise they would have to define test conditions and perform rigorous test just to proof that their equipment confirms to something that is mostly useless anyway. For flashlights it would be much more rational to perform dynamic tests (levels 3-6) to ensure they are capable not only to withstand continuous immersion but also work correctly when it's raining.
> 
> On the other hand if someone claims that the equipment conforms to some standard it should work in the conditions defined by this standard. No matter how useless for some people the standard may be. (...)


 
Dear Wapkil, 

On my previous post I have explained IPxx standards according to european and spanish regulations, and as long as our products are being used as individual protection equipment, we must follow seriously this norms to warrant the safety of the people using them. No magic words or marketing on it, we just write them to explain our customers what can they do with our products and in which conditions, following this way what the norms are asking. I'm sure many other manufacturers such as Peli, for example, are very serious about this.

Javier


----------



## wapkil (Apr 19, 2009)

Barbarin said:


> Dear Wapkil,
> 
> On my previous post I have explained IPxx standards according to european and spanish regulations, and as long as our products are being used as individual protection equipment, we must follow seriously this norms to warrant the safety of the people using them. No magic words or marketing on it, we just write them to explain our customers what can they do with our products and in which conditions, following this way what the norms are asking. I'm sure many other manufacturers such as Peli, for example, are very serious about this.



Dear Javier,

Thank you for joining the discussion. My comment related to "all the manufacturers" was written too fast. It is too general thus inaccurate and inappropriate - I apologize for that. I never doubted that there are situations when conformance to the IPX8 is useful and for which honest manufacturers test their equipment. I can see that for example at Barbolight you produce diving lights for which IPX8 protection level may be meaningful. You also indicate the pressure and the duration of time :thumbsup: 
What surprised me when I was reading about the IP protection levels was that in many cases the time and pressure are omitted leaving only a bare "IPX8" which, if I understand correctly, would only mean "not worse than IPX7". I would be obliged if you could shed some more light at the meaning of this standard and protection levels. There is a parallel thread discussing precisely this subject so I will later post my questions there.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 19, 2009)

I think you are confused by the fact that many manufacturers rate their product very conservatively, and the nature of the IP68 spec by itself is varied. 

One product's IPX8 cert can be for 200m, while the next can be for the minimum of 1m 30min. On paper, they have the same "waterproofing" if all you know is IPX8, but in real life the 200m product will make the other look "faulty".

The "M" is a suffix used to denote manual operation at said conditions.

I believe this is a case of ZebraLight exactly matching their stated specification, and not heavily conservative as many other brands are.

This follows Zebra's tradition of using actual data and numbers in their specifications, such as quoting torch lumens from an IS.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Apr 19, 2009)

Received my H50 Zebralight last week. So far so good (keeping fingers crossed). No issue of quality concerns and if not for this thread I would probably consider it one of the best quality headlamps I own. 

I would never want to test the lights I own for being waterproof. If they are made to be splash resistant, that is good enough for me.


----------



## dcycleman (Apr 19, 2009)

If zebralight advertises that their product is waterproof to a standard and you drop it in a glass of water on your kitchen counter, and it then leaks, It seems to me that zebralight and their standard are full of @#$%. Fenix wouldnt let out a light like that. And hey, you can like these headlamps, Mabe they are good for you, but that is FALSE advertising dude.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Apr 19, 2009)

Maybe I missed that advertisement of a zebralight pictured submerged in a glass of water.


----------



## kwieto (Apr 19, 2009)

Barbarin said:


> Well, the further developing of the European norm EN60529 in Spain, named UNE20324, and published on NTP588 (Notas técnicas de prevención) by "Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos sociales del Gobierno de España) describes what a *M* following a IPXX means.



Thanks.
Strange that it is not available in any other language (at least one which I know even "a little").
If I understand Spanish :"P, it is stated as was described here above - "keeps the standard even when operating with it's moving parts".

But still, issues with zebra were appearing even without any operation with the "moving parts" (switch). So there is not a issue with "M" missing, but not meeting the "basic" IP68 standard.

And the condition of "1m under water for more than 30 minutes" is declared by Zebralight itself, according to their web page:



> Meets IP68 in accordance with IEC 60529
> - Dust-tight
> - Protected against continuous immersion (1meter, >30 minutes)



If there are leaks in lamp which was put into a glass of water (c.a. 0,1m under water), waterproofness is not meeting Zebralight own declarations, point.

I am talking about that again and again because for me it is also "quality" problem.

And maybe someone could explain me, because I am definitely missing the point of Mardukes posts.
The facts are:

1. Zebralight declares waterproofness against continuous immersion 1m under water for more than 30 minutes.
2. Some of their lights are not meeting that standard even when conditions are far less than declared (i.e. glass of water)

And Marduke is telling that Zebralight is matching their own specification...

Huh?!


----------



## Glock27 (Apr 19, 2009)

ZebraLight, or any other manufacturer, has absolutely no control in End User Maintenance. If your O-ring(s) aren't in good shape and lubed....I wouldn't subject to moisture.
All my ZebraLights (6) had "dirty" threads from the factory. 1 had a questionable, to me, O-ring. I've immersed all of mine in water.
G27


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 19, 2009)

```
If zebralight advertises that their product is waterproof to a standard and you drop it in a glass of water on your kitchen counter, and it then leaks, It seems to me that zebralight and their standard are full of @#$%. Fenix wouldnt let out a light like that. And hey, you can like these headlamps, Mabe they are good for you, but that is FALSE advertising dude.
```

AMEN! I second that. ZebraLight needs to get their S#@t together.:thumbsdow


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 19, 2009)

> ZebraLight, or any other manufacturer, has absolutely no control in End User Maintenance. If your O-ring(s) aren't in good shape and lubed....I wouldn't subject to moisture.
> All my ZebraLights (6) had "dirty" threads from the factory. 1 had a questionable, to me, O-ring. I've immersed all of mine in water.
> G27



Dude, these failed tests are being conducted straight out of the box. I have yet to receive a Chinese made torch with properly lubed threads. Most have arrived bone dry from the factory!


----------



## Glock27 (Apr 19, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> Dude, these failed tests are being conducted straight out of the box. I have yet to receive a Chinese made torch with properly lubed threads. Most have arrived bone dry from the factory!


Dude....Perhaps they should have checked their O-rings.....they can't work straight out of the box as they don't come with battery installed.
G27


----------



## Marduke (Apr 19, 2009)

It's funny to watch a bunch of noobs try to interpret technical definitions....


IP68 as defined is NOT A MEASURE OF BEING WATERPROOF.


Take a 50M "waterproof" watch down to 50M and see what happens....


And to further complicate matters, I bet none of the above "tests" included proper maintenance prior to the "test".


----------



## Linger (Apr 19, 2009)

Glock27 said:


> they can't work straight out of the box as they don't come with battery installed.



lol.
sometimes troll food is funny


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 19, 2009)

> IP68 as defined is NOT A MEASURE OF BEING WATERPROOF.



I agree, but when they specifically state on their website that the H30 is "Protected against continuous immersion (1meter, >30 minutes)", Then the light better be able to withstand being emerged in a glass of water for a few minutes. Three meters is roughly 9 feet and the depth of a glass of water is no more than 10". They should label their torches as water resistant or splash resistant, Otherwise their info is a bit misleading.

P.S- just because I live under a bridge, it doesn't make me a troll!


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 19, 2009)

> they can't work straight out of the box as they don't come with battery installed.



Good point. Next time I order a ZebraLight, I am going to have them ship it to me disassemble. There is no doubt that I could do a better job assembling it as apposed to the 8 year Chinese kid chained to his work bench in the ZebraLight factory!


----------



## Marduke (Apr 19, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> I agree, but when they specifically state on their website that the H30 is "Protected against continuous immersion (1meter, >30 minutes)", Then the light better be able to withstand being emerged in a glass of water for a few minutes. Three meters is roughly 9 feet and the depth of a glass of water is no more than 10". They should label their torches as water resistant or splash resistant, Otherwise their info is a bit misleading.
> 
> P.S- just because I live under a bridge, it doesn't make me a troll!



That statement is from the spec, not from their advertising dept. The spec is for lab testing certification, NOT USE. That's why lab certification specifications are always much higher than what components are capable of in actual use.

The spec is also applicable to equipment in proper maintained condition, and judging by some of the obstinacy above, I suspect all maintenance has been utterly ignored.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 19, 2009)

> That statement is from the spec, not from their advertising dept. The spec is for lab testing certification, NOT USE. That's why lab certification specifications are always much higher than what components are capable of in actual use.
> 
> The spec is also applicable to equipment in proper maintained condition, and judging by some of the obstinacy above, I suspect all maintenance has been utterly ignored.



Then they should either remove that information from their website or add a disclaimer in regards to their products waterproof rating if this is indeed the case.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 19, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> Then they should either remove that information from their website or add a disclaimer in regards to their products waterproof rating if this is indeed the case.




I think they are counting on the same common sense that drives the standard itself, which seems to be lacking in some places 


Most people realize it's a rating of being splash proof at best, same as other more common consumer electronics such as watches...


----------



## csshih (Apr 19, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> Dude, these failed tests are being conducted straight out of the box. I have yet to receive a Chinese made torch with properly lubed threads. Most have arrived bone dry from the factory!



try getting anything from 4sevens, shiningbeam, flashlightconnection..

I've never had any problems with dry thread except from DX.


----------



## DevL (Apr 19, 2009)

Im no industry insinder or flashlight guru and here is what I think...

If a company says their product can with stand 1m submersion for 30 minutes, if it can't stand up to 1 foot for 10 minutes I am not getting what I expected. I understand that 1.1m might make it leak or 31 minutes could make it leak so I would not push it that far... but I expect it to come straight from the factory and be able to have a battery inserted and do 1/3 what they claim in depth of submersion and time and work every single time.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 19, 2009)

DevL said:


> Im no industry insinder or flashlight guru and here is what I think...
> 
> If a company says their product can with stand 1m submersion for 30 minutes, if it can't stand up to 1 foot for 10 minutes I am not getting what I expected. I understand that 1.1m might make it leak or 31 minutes could make it leak so I would not push it that far... but I expect it to come straight from the factory and be able to have a battery inserted and do 1/3 what they claim in depth of submersion and time and work every single time.




But you are confusing the claim of being able to be submerged, and the claim of meeting a spec (which is not well understood).


----------



## jzmtl (Apr 19, 2009)

DevL said:


> Im no industry insinder or flashlight guru and here is what I think...
> 
> If a company says their product can with stand 1m submersion for 30 minutes, if it can't stand up to 1 foot for 10 minutes I am not getting what I expected. I understand that 1.1m might make it leak or 31 minutes could make it leak so I would not push it that far... but I expect it to come straight from the factory and be able to have a battery inserted and do 1/3 what they claim in depth of submersion and time and work every single time.




They can, under static conditions, as stated by IP standard test condition, and said many times already in this thread. I don't know why people keep expecting the same water resistance under much more demanding situations.

Unless it's a dive light, treat it as splashable and dunkable in a puddle.



Marduke said:


> That's what the recall was for. Get it fixed...



I got a response from the dealer, they are not aware of H60 is under any recall.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 19, 2009)

> They can, under static conditions, as stated by IP standard test condition, and said many times already in this thread. I don't know why people keep expecting the same water resistance under much more demanding situations.
> 
> Unless it's a dive light, treat it as splashable and dunkable in a puddle.



How is being submersed in a glass of water for 10 minutes more demanding than being submersed 1meter for 30 minutes. You don't make any sense.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 19, 2009)

hopeless...


----------



## jzmtl (Apr 19, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> How is being submersed in a glass of water for 10 minutes more demanding than being submersed 1meter for 30 minutes. You don't make any sense.



Re-read the depth specification of watch posted earlier, you would see dynamic pressure is much much higher than static pressure at the same depth. A watch rated for 30 meter should not even be taken swimming, and zebralight is only rated for 1 meter.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 19, 2009)

jzmtl said:


> Re-read the depth specification of watch posted earlier, you would see dynamic pressure is much much higher than static pressure at the same depth. A watch rated for 30 meter should not even be taken swimming, and zebralight is only rated for 1 meter.



On that note, as an example...


----------



## DevL (Apr 19, 2009)

I am a consumer... an average consumer. If I cant take a light or any IPX8 certified product and not hit any switches or move it other than slowly and carfully lowering it into a few inches of water. Wait 1/3 the listed time and carefully remove it wihtout issue then the product is not meeting expectations. It is not even meeting the spec. It is failing something MUCH lower than the spec. There is nothing more to understand. 

Zebralight should not be putting the words into advertising telling the consumer that their product can be placed in water of a certain depth and maintain a waterproof integrity if it cannot be done. If it cannot be done under my simple conditions it cannot be done under lab conditions. I am not talking about running water or swimming or pressure or movement in the water or activating any switches. If you cant do it being as careful as possible and with 1/3 the depth and 1/3 the time it will not meet the spec PERIOD. I am not misunderstanding a damned thing.

Zebralight sent a specially prepped unit for testing if any testing was done at all. I suspect it was not done and it does not meet their established spec.

More specifically I am concerned about real world effects. My CTC laser grips on my pistol are in NO WAY waterproofed nor is any level claimed. However I can submerge them and use them underwater for a minute at about a foot deep and pull the pistol out of a foot of water and everything works fine... I am OK with that. Zebrallight has failures doing such things claiming 1m 30 minutes of submersion is OK. That is not cool. That is not honest. I took my M900 and put it underwater as well. The light worked fine but the LEDs turn on as they are not waterproofed. Thats fine but I want to know what will happen... the light is waterproofed, the LEDs are not. Surefire is pretty open about that if asked.

What I want to know is what is the official position of Zebralight? Is a light placed in a few inches of water for 10 minutes or less that quits working defective and covered under warranty? Is that a common problem? Is something going to be done about it?

How is water entry that causes your light to not work considered OK as part of the IPX8 standard? Where is the part about water entry under the minimum spec that ruins the light being OK in print? This arguement about semantics is ****ing ridiculous. NOTING I said had to do with dynamic pressure.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 19, 2009)

DevL said:


> I am a consumer... an average consumer. If I cant take a light or any IPX8 certified product and not hit any switches or move it other than slowly and carfully lowering it into a few inches of water. Wait 1/3 the listed time and carefully remove it wihtout issue then the product is not meeting expectations. It is not even meeting the spec. It is failing something MUCH lower than the spec. * There is nothing more to understand. *




Yes, there is, but you just don't care to try.


----------



## DevL (Apr 19, 2009)

I actually had the OK from my GF and had 2 of the 501s in my box for checkout a few minutes ago when I first posted in this thread. The BS about it meets spec but is not waterproof really made me consider if I was willing to spend $124 on lights that dont meet the claimed IPX8 spec. I didnt order. I think at least it made me make a more carefully considered decision. I will await some kind of response from Zebralight about why their lights fail to meet the spec. I have never had a light that could not be submerged in a foot of water for 10 minutes. I will be damned if I start now with a $60 light made in China that wont meet published specs. Heck I can accept mildly radioactive materials or child labor since they dont claim thsoe are not used in production but I just cant accept lying about meeting a spec. At some point you just have to be pissed off enough to vote with your dollars.


----------



## DevL (Apr 19, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Yes, there is, but you just don't care to try.



Then explain it. 

UNIT MUST BE OK SUBMERGED 1m FOR 30 MIN

UNIT FAILS AT SHALLOWER DEPTH AND LESS TIME = PASS

Yeah that makes sense.

More specifically Zebra light claims... "Protected against continuous immersion (1 meter, >30 minutes)"

This is obviously a lie.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 19, 2009)

DevL said:


> Then explain it.



We did, you just said "nuh uh"

Try reading the above posts AGAIN (or for the first time....)




DevL said:


> More specifically Zebra light claims... "Protected against continuous immersion (1 meter, >30 minutes)"
> 
> This is obviously a lie.



No, they claim it meets the IP68 spec, which is NOT what is repeatedly described above. Again, try READING the post above.




DevL said:


> I actually had the OK from my GF and had 2 of the 501s in my box for checkout a few minutes ago when I first posted in this thread. The BS about it meets spec but is not waterproof really made me consider if I was willing to spend $124 on lights that dont meet the claimed IPX8 spec. I didnt order. I think at least it made me make a more carefully considered decision. I will await some kind of response from Zebralight about why their lights fail to meet the spec. I have never had a light that could not be submerged in a foot of water for 10 minutes.* I will be damned if I start now with a $60 light made in China that wont meet published specs. Heck I can accept mildly radioactive materials or child labor* since they dont claim thsoe are not used in production but I just cant accept lying about meeting a spec. At some point you just have to be pissed off enough to vote with your dollars.



Which brings us to your real agenda...


----------



## csshih (Apr 19, 2009)

DevL said:


> Heck I can accept mildly radioactive materials or child labor since they dont claim thsoe are not used in production but I just cant accept lying about meeting a spec.


 on a side note, the clip on my romisen RC-N3 is supposedly slightly radioactive. :nana:

but anyways, I digress. just read the posts thoroughly.. 

and.. remember.. just because it's expensive, doesnt mean that you shouldn't maintain/baby it..
I mean..
look at those expensive ipods!
at that price.. protective cases should be included.


----------



## Dan FO (Apr 19, 2009)

A vacuum test on any small sealed device will tell you exactly what it will do.

http://www.timezone.com/library/archives/archives631703133992922740


----------



## kwieto (Apr 20, 2009)

Marduke said:


> No, they claim it meets the IP68 spec, which is NOT what is repeatedly described above.



*For them is*. 
It is stated on their webpage - "continuous immersion 1m, >30 min", point.



Marduke said:


> That statement is from the spec, not from their advertising dept. The spec is for lab testing certification, NOT USE.



Can I put it to my signature? *Please*...
It is the funniest thing I've read last days.

IP (International Protection) norm is not designed to have fun in labs, but to give users accurate information.
And to avoid situation when someone is writing "waterproof" and in fact it mean nothing.

IF you will get some damage because product is not meeting declared norm, you can sue producer in court.
I.e. Peli or Otterbox cases are designed to protect very expensive equipment, and they waterproofness is described also with IP norms. 
No one would buy them if they were designed like you say, that the norm is "only for laboratory tests" :")

And, by the way. If something needs additional maintenance, it should be stated in manual and/or specification of that product. There is nothing about lubricating O-rings from Zebralight side.
In fact O-rings in my H50 were lubricated, but O-ring in H60 is not. 
Somebody forgot do to that in the production?

Should I mention, that Otterbox or Garmin products are meeting the IP68/IPx8 norm without any lubrication of seals needed?


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 20, 2009)

> Re-read the depth specification of watch posted earlier, you would see dynamic pressure is much much higher than static pressure at the same depth. A watch rated for 30 meter should not even be taken swimming, and zebralight is only rated for 1 meter.



If a watch rated for 30 meters should not be taken swimming, then a ZebraLight rated for 1 meter shouldn't even be taken out of its packaging. Okay, its all starting to make sense now. Does this only apply if I am wearing my ZebraLight on my wrist? 

P.S-Actually the ZebraLights are rated for 3 meters for up to 30 minutes in laboratory settings. This figure does not apply in real life settings (of course) and whatever you do, do not question the claim of 3 meters for up to 30 min. If you do question the claim, you risk being ridiculed by being called words like "troll" or "noob" which will be followed by the accuzation of you having an "agenda". Fluid dynamics is a very comlex subject. The effect of fluid dynamics on the body of a flashlight is truely only understood by a select few and guess what! You are not one of the select few. Yadda Yadda Yadda Yadda Yadda


----------



## dcycleman (Apr 20, 2009)

I know, these guys sound like they must be in charge of sales at zebralight, even better the warranty department!!


----------



## jzmtl (Apr 20, 2009)

Well, we were trying to explain to you how the mentioned testing standards work in real life, but you two obviously have no interest in listening.


----------



## Woods Walker (Apr 20, 2009)

DevL said:


> I actually had the OK from my GF and had 2 of the 501s in my box for checkout a few minutes ago when I first posted in this thread.


 
You need an ok from your GF to buy a headlamp? Anyways it is a good headlamp however there are lots of good headlamps on the market so I hope you find what you are looking for and get the permission to buy it.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

jzmtl said:


> Well, we were trying to explain to you how the mentioned testing standards work in real life, but you two obviously have no interest in listening.




I think it's time to give up. Those who wanted to learn something have, those who haven't gotten it yet will never.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

kwieto said:


> *For them is*.
> It is stated on their webpage - "continuous immersion 1m, >30 min", point.



Yes, that's a bullet of the SPEC, not the product CAPABILITY in actual use. This is the same as a 50m watch not being able to do anything other than swimming.




> Meets IP68 in accordance with IEC 60529
> 
> Dust-tight
> Protected against continuous immersion (1 meter, >30 minutes)




 



kwieto said:


> IP (International Protection) norm is not designed to have fun in labs, but to* give users accurate information.*
> And to avoid situation when someone is writing "waterproof" and in fact it mean nothing.



Actually it's just that. It's the maximum delta P tested in a lab. So Mr. Average Joe has even a clue what that is, they put it in terms of depth of water. This depth does NOT correspond to a WORKING DEPTH of the product. Again, try reading the above explanations...

The max delta P experienced in use does NOT correspond to using the light at anywhere NEAR that depth.

See my above link to the general IP discussion thread if you actually want to learn something.



kwieto said:


> And, by the way. If something needs additional maintenance, it should be stated in manual and/or specification of that product. There is nothing about lubricating O-rings from Zebralight side.
> In fact O-rings in my H50 were lubricated, but O-ring in H60 is not.
> Somebody forgot do to that in the production?



So, if someone didn't tell you not to swallow gasoline, it should be fine to do, right? After all, no one ever explicitly TOLD you it was bad, right?

A little consumer common sense has to come into play somewhere. ALL products need proper maintenance for proper function. For flashlights, this means routinely cleaning the contacts surfaces and applying the 
correct amount of a suitable lubricant.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 20, 2009)

Tra La La.

My H30 Q5 makes a GREAT reading in bed light. 

It doesn't rain in my bed, nor do I live in a pool.

THAT said, I usually don't go out in the rain, but wouldn't hesitate to do so with my H30.

Anyone who would try to use one of these underwater is just asking for problems.


----------



## drmaxx (Apr 20, 2009)

Marduke said:


> I think it's time to give up. Those who wanted to learn something have, those who haven't gotten it yet will never.



I think you made a good effort to explain the common understanding of the IPxx ratings. In a free world people can insist to believe their own interpretation - no need to go crazy about that.


----------



## HKJ (Apr 20, 2009)

drmaxx said:


> I think you made a good effort to explain the common understanding of the IPxx ratings. In a free world people can insist to believe their own interpretation - no need to go crazy about that.



I do not believe he made a good effort, he stated an opinion that the IP ratings does not mean what it says, but he proved no links to any documents that supported his opinion.

And no more comparison to watches please! They are not rather according to the IP specification.


----------



## drmaxx (Apr 20, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I do not believe he made a good effort, he stated an opinion that the IP ratings does not mean what it says, but he proved no links to any documents that supported his opinion.



Marduke made very clear that the IPxx is a measurement protocol and not a description what the tested item is capable of in the real world. These are two completely different things - inconvinient but that's just how these things work.

What you believe what the implications in real life are is up to you - but not part of the IPxx procotol. So, if you unhappy and return your car because it consumes more gas then the MPG rating was then this is between you and the dealer.


----------



## HKJ (Apr 20, 2009)

drmaxx said:


> Marduke made very clear that the IPxx is a measurement protocol and not a description what the tested item is capable of in the real world. These are two completely different things - inconvinient but that's just how these things work.



In Marduke's opinion they are different, but he provided only his opinion on it, no links to other documents that share this opinion.

Try reading the IP specification, it lists some very practical conditions, not laboratory test conditions.


----------



## dcycleman (Apr 20, 2009)

first of all if I bought a watch rated to 50 meters or roughly 150 feet, and I dove in a pool and it leaked, it would be defective, period. I'm a diver and my dive partner uses a cheapo watch rated to 100 meters, and we routinely dive to 70 feet he even pushes the buttons underwater. However I also agree that whatever some cereal box watch company rates their product at is completely moot to this discussion. I think its funny that as consumers you have been convinced that a manufacturer doesnt reeeaaalllly have to mean what they put on the label. I guess I'm just not that complacent. I think that manufacturers should stand by thier claims as should their product.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 20, 2009)

> This is the same as a 50m watch not being able to do anything other than swimming.



What about tell the time?:thinking:


----------



## HKJ (Apr 20, 2009)

dcycleman said:


> first of all if I bought a watch rated to 50 meters or roughly 150 feet, and I dove in a pool and it leaked, it would be defective, period.



You have to look at what standard did that 50 meter rating follow, the normal watch ratings are not really usable for anything. But ISO6425 is fine, if it is rated 100 meter, it is tested at 125 meter. According to Wiki a fast swimming diver will add a dynamic pressure that is equal to about 5 meter of water.


----------



## Glock27 (Apr 20, 2009)

Boy!....This thread has really gone downhill.
Looks like there are 2 distinct camps here. One camp actually owns some ZebraLights. Have used them and report overall good quality.
The other camp doesn't actually own any Zebralights, but prefer to bash anything not union made in the US.
G27


----------



## noelex (Apr 20, 2009)

dcycleman said:


> first of all if I bought a watch rated to 50 meters or roughly 150 feet, and I dove in a pool and it leaked, it would be defective, period.


I have to agree that the IP rating is misleading and most consumers reading the rating get a false idea of the water resistance of products, but the reality is that most watches rated to 50m will leak, at least eventually, if you dive into a pool as will most watches rated to 100m if you dive to 25m.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 20, 2009)

> Well, we were trying to explain to you how the mentioned testing standards work in real life, but you two obviously have no interest in listening.


Testing standards? Lack there of maybe. Apparently the IP68 spec standard is nothing more than a "cop out" for flashlight manufacturers. I have no problem with a light not being water proof but it should be clearly stated if so. In this case it is not clear at all. 

So, other than giving flashlight manufactures something to hide behind, what is the point of the IP86 "standard"?


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> what is the point of the IP*86* "standard"?




The point of the IP*68* standard is to give a maximum delta P and time condition for testing of that component.

Sorry to disappoint, but that does NOT describe an actual depth rating at which that component can be used.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I do not believe he made a good effort, he stated an opinion that the IP ratings does not mean what it says, but he proved no links to any documents that supported his opinion.



It's not opinion. Pressure is pressure. How you get there in real use depends on MANY other aspects besides just depth.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 20, 2009)

> Sorry to disappoint, but that does NOT describe an actual depth rating at which that component can be used.



So, then why is it that in Europe, they are obligated to give an actual depth rating at which that component can be used in regards to the IP68 standard? Do we use an amended version of the IP68 "standard"? We must use the complacent American version of the standard.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> So, then why is it that in Europe, they are obligated to give an actual depth rating at which that component can be used in regards to the IP68 standard? Do we use an amended version of the IP68 "standard"? We must use the complacent American version of the standard.



Again, I think you are confused. There is a BIG difference between the rating which a product can *withstand*, and which a product can be _*used*_.

It is also possible to underrate a product to IP standard to a usage depth instead of a max delta P condition. Since this rating is conservative, it is technically correct and perfectly acceptable.

It could also be the case of certain companies with uniformed management who cannot understand the spec to incorrectly interrupt the requirement as a usage standard. Since this is conservative, no one is going to tell them it's wrong.

This is exactly why high end watches quote atmospheres or torr or bars of pressure instead of depth. The users of these high end product understand that that pressure WILL occur at a depth LESS THAN the static pressure associated with the specification. They also understand that to maintain the appropriate factor of safety, that the "usable" depth is further decreased.


----------



## HKJ (Apr 20, 2009)

Marduke said:


> It's not opinion. Pressure is pressure. How you get there in real use depends on MANY other aspects besides just depth.



It is yours opinion, please find some other reliable source that explains why a norm that states "immersion beyond 1 m" does not require immersion beyond 1 m. No dynamic pressure, we are talking about still water, not moving water or objects.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

HKJ said:


> It is yours opinion, please find some other reliable source that explains why a norm that states *"immersion beyond 1 m" does not require immersion beyond 1 m.* No dynamic pressure, we are talking about still water, not moving water or objects.



Huh?

The entire point is that 1m depth in testing does NOT equate to 1m depth of usage. The pressures don't match.

As shown earlier, you can be at 0m depth, where a simple raindrop can equal 300m of pressure for a brief instant.


----------



## HKJ (Apr 20, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Huh?
> 
> The entire point is that 1m depth in testing does NOT equate to 1m depth of usage. The pressures don't match.



In my books they do, but I will prefer to have some safety rating. Try reading about ISO6425 for divers watches. They test at 125 meter for 100 meter.



Marduke said:


> As shown earlier, you can be at 0m depth, where a simple raindrop can equal 300m of pressure for a brief instant.



I do not really believe you calculations and the guy that wrote the above wiki article does only add 5 meter dynamic pressure for fast swimming and mentions something about an urban myth and dynamic pressure.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 20, 2009)

Here is a quote from Barbarin in regards to this very subject.



> In Spain and in Europe the norm is very clear. IP 68 followed by a number and "m" means how deep it will keep the IP68 characteristics. (example IP68 200 m) This followed by a M letter also means that the properties will be kept while moving parts are actuated.


This being said, Zebralight should not claim IP68 standards and "3 meters for 30 minutes". They should state one or the other. Not both. Hense the confusion.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I do not really believe you calculations and the guy that wrote the above wiki article does only add 5 meter dynamic pressure for fast swimming and mentions something about an urban myth and dynamic pressure.



Don't believe me? Do them yourself and see what you get...


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 20, 2009)

> As shown earlier, you can be at 0m depth, where a simple raindrop can equal 300m of pressure for a brief instant.



Dude, where are you getting your info? 300 meters? 900 feet? Are you high?


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> Dude, where are you getting your info? 300 meters? 900 feet? Are you high?



I previously linked it above. Since some people seem to have a hard time looking up in threads, I have posted it again to save you the trouble.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2925629#post2925629


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 20, 2009)

> I previously linked it above. Since some people seem to have a hard time looking up in threads, I have posted it again to save you the trouble.
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...29#post2925629


Can you send me a link to a post that was written by someone other than yourself?


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> Can you send me a link to a post that was written by someone other than yourself?



Sure
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119580205/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/SR01112.htm

http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/unit/Publications/PDFfiles/MAN_2.pdf 

Natural raindrops range from 2-6mPa impact pressure. I calculated a large free falling raindrop. Smaller raindrops product less pressure because of a slower speed (2mPa), and wind driven large raindrops can produce an even higher pressure (6mPa).


----------



## HKJ (Apr 20, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Don't believe me? Do them yourself and see what you get...



Considerable less, more like 0.5 meter of water, but then I also uses another formula: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_pressure


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

HKJ said:


> Considerable less, more like 0.5 meter of water, but then I also uses another formula:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_pressure



The pressure created by a raindrop impact is not a case of dynamic pressure, which requires moving flow.

An equation doesn't do you much good if you don't know how and when to apply it.

View my above posts....


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 20, 2009)

What you fail to realize is that the type of pressure a rain drop produces is not the same as the pressure created by being submerged. A rain drop will not cause the pressure within the torch to change. It will not cause any gasses within the torch to compress. That being said, your rain drop example is not relevant. You see, pressure is not pressure as you so ignorantly stated earlier in your post!


----------



## HKJ (Apr 20, 2009)

Marduke said:


> The pressure created by a raindrop impact is not a case of dynamic pressure, which requires moving flow.



Then I would expect the pressure from a raindrop to be even less.

But we are talking about putting something under water, i.e. the pressure that we are interested in, is the dynamic pressure from moving water and the formula I linked to does that. 
This also shows that the wiki article I linked to probably is very correct in stating that maximum dynamic pressure when swimming is less than 5 meter water pressure.
And the conclusion from that, is that dynamic pressure does not have a big effect on anything just because it is dipped in 10 cm water.




Marduke said:


> An equation doesn't do you much good if you don't know how and when to apply it.
> 
> View my above posts....



Of the 3 links, only one works and does not mention anything about the pressure of raindrops.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

De-Lux said:


> What you fail to realize is that the type of pressure a rain drop produces is not the same as the pressure created by being submerged. A rain drop will not cause the pressure within the torch to change. It will not cause any gasses within the torch to compress. That being said, your rain drop example is not relevant. You see, pressure is not pressure as you so ignorantly stated earlier in your post!



Pressure is pressure, so yes, it is the same.

No external pressure will cause the light internal pressure to change. It would have to crush the light to do so. A high delta P will simply find the weakest point of failure.

The only difference, as I stated, is the area and time of action, which does play a part. But pressure is still pressure.


----------



## Marduke (Apr 20, 2009)

HKJ said:


> Then I would expect the pressure from a raindrop to be even less.



Based off what? Gut feeling? Common sense?



HKJ said:


> But we are talking about putting something under water, i.e. the pressure that we are interested in, is the dynamic pressure from moving water and the formula I linked to does that.
> This also shows that the wiki article I linked to probably is very correct in *stating that maximum dynamic pressure when swimming is less than 5 meter water pressure.
> And the conclusion from that, is that dynamic pressure does not have a big effect on anything just because it is dipped in 10 cm water.*



Add 5m + 10cm for me, and compare that to 1m 



HKJ said:


> Of the 3 links, only one works and does not mention anything about the pressure of raindrops.



I fixed the 3rd link. All three sources state the same. The first link states it right out front in the abstract, the other two cite it in the body.



> Results indicated maximum stresses of 2–6 MPa acting for about 50 microseconds on the perimeter of a circle corresponding with the shape of the initial rebound corona.


----------



## De-Lux (Apr 20, 2009)

The origin of this debate stemmed from ZebraLights claim to meet IP68 standards and 3 meters at no more than 30 minutes. I don't see how the pressure generated by a rain drop traveling at terminal velocity is relevant. Lets say for arguments sake that you are right. I still believe that ZebraLight is providing misguided information to its customers. Point made. Maybe it is time we adopt Europe's more stringent version of the IP68. The IP68 is nothing more than something for Manufactures to hide behind the way it is currently structured. Just my opinion:shrug:


----------



## HKJ (Apr 20, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Based off what? Gut feeling? Common sense?



Because there is nothing behind the raindrop to increase the pressure



Marduke said:


> Add 5m + 10cm for me, and compare that to 1m



That is the reason for the IPx5 rating, it has with fast moving water to do. Neither me or the IP specification expect fast moving water or object in IPx8

The 1 meter is still valid, you opinions has not changed that.



Marduke said:


> I fixed the 3rd link. All three sources state the same. The first link states it right out front in the abstract, the other two cite it in the body.



The first link requires a cookie on you machine, the other links cost $25 to read the article.
The 3. article thread water drop impact like small pebbles and get some very high pressures in a few uS, but the force was only a few Newtons. That type of impact might be a problem for some semipermeable materials, but would never affect a metal light.


----------



## Unforgiven (Apr 20, 2009)

It appears we have people on both (or more) sides that are going to be right no matter what and others just along for the ride. Since there is another current thread on the IP ratings (which this one wasn't about originally) and this one is damaged beyond repair, this thread is closed. It is inadvisable to take the other thread into the same direction as this one.

Play nice or go home........


----------



## Dr O (Dec 18, 2014)

*Just how bad is Zebralight quality Control??*

On paper they read great and I'm keen to get an SC62 for a helmet light and to use for running.

However, I keep coming across threads where LED's have fallen off, water has got in, buttons have failed, anodising is junk that I have become wary. They do seem to be cheaper in the states (no surprises there) so maybe that's more palatable but here they are more expensive than say Eagletac and Fenix, who for me have been flawless, although it's hard to compare like for like.

Now, I take the point that more people complain when things go wrong than when they work well. We also don't know how many units they sell and if as a proportion of sales, the number of complaints is either low or in line with their competitors.

It does seem as though they need to address a few issues and given the longevity and repetitiveness of some of these complaints, are simply failing to do so. If they were Apple they may get away with telling you that you're looking at it in the wrong kind of light which is why you can see the anodising flaws or that your fingers are too heavy for the switch which is why it no longer works but they're not

To some extent they remind me of Sigma lenses- sounded great but had utterly abysmal quality control with so many failed promises to improve it that in the end it wasn't worth the headache and the time and money wasted meant OEM was often a better option. It's only relatively recently that they got it in order with their new Art and Sport range which have some excellent lenses that work right first time. Perhaps Zerbalight are on a similar journey.

So, keeping it short:laughing:, am I more likely to regret than enjoy? Has there been recent improvements over the last few months- I think I saw issues remaining in May but there are so many threads often hard to keep track


----------



## Johnno (Dec 18, 2014)

*Re: Just how bad is Zebralight quality Control??*

I own a bunch of flashlights. (I take it I am probably not alone in this regard as most posters here...) Anyway, my collection includes a bunch of Zebralights. (At last count, somewhere around 10 of their lights, all different models) I've only had one issue with a switch that didn't seem to operate correctly. I sent it in for repair and they promptly sent me back a brand new light of the same model and told me that some faulty internal wiring was to blame. Other than that one instance, I have had ZERO issues with the fit, finish, operation or performance of any of their lights. The quality of their products is very high - every light I have received from them is more like a work of modern art than a flashlight. To me at least they are a top-tier light manufacturer that offers some of the highest quality, best performing, smallest lights with the best interface to be had, bar none. Like most things in life, its the whiners that are heard most often, but trust me, you won't regret owning a Zebralight. Zero complaints here - absolutely love each of mine and would gladly give away all of the lights I own so long as I got to keep my Zebra's.


----------

