# Headlamp Survey Results 2011



## Bolster (Jun 12, 2011)

Apologies -- my irresponsible ISP, COX Communications, has decided in its infinite wisdom to revoke all FTP space which I was using to host images. They took down the FTP space & lost the images (and are still charging me the same amount as before). Customer service is telling me, "T.S." Please bear with me until I can figure out where to host the images...IF I can find backups of the images. [See bottom of post]

Survey results on n=75 responses. First, ownership, in the categories asked on the survey. Please note these results reflect only the top picks from a list of over 70 categories: 







Or, here’s another way to look at that same data...it just takes the data out of the 4 ordinal categories and adds responses together to arrive at an actual number owned for our 75 respondents (including write-ins from people who owned more than 4 of a particular category). Again, only top picks are represented out of a relatively comprehensive list of over 70 choices, but preferences fade to almost nothing for the lower-popularity categories, so if at least 5 people didn't choose a category, it's not represented in the graphic:






Satisfaction ratings. Look for the ratio of satisfaction (green and red) compared to other ratings for an individual light. For example, the satisfaction ratios for the Spark 18650 and Surefire are high (comparatively lots of green and red), even though the overall units purchased are lower than some others. Whereas the Energizer 3xAAA has a the worst satisfaction ratio (lots of orange), despite the relatively high number of units purchased:






Another way of looking at the same satisfaction data...this time organized by the 5 satisfaction categories. Here, you can’t see the ratios, but you can see overall votes, so this combines satisfaction with popularity (it makes sense they would be highly correlated). So Zebralight 1xAA “owns” the top BEST category, and Energizer 3xAAA “owns” the bottom NOT satisfied category:






A look at the next headlamp people want to buy...a sort of forward-looking measure of popularity. Zebras and Sparks with a commanding lead: 






And if you could only own one (from a reduced set of non-custom lights running on common cells): 






Thanks to all who participated. One of the goals of this survey was to cull out the large number of categories that have very few owners or have minimal customer interest. Any future survey can now be run on a much reduced number of options, since we now have data regarding where the interest is and where the money goes (from CPF respondents). Meaning, we can legitimately ignore the Dosun enthusiasts for the next survey, no matter how loud they yell about being excluded (LOL). 

Obviously this data doesn’t generalize to the marketplace in general, it only represents a sample of n=75 from a pool of headlamp and flashlight enthusiasts who chose to participate. In other words, Energizer will likely continue to sell bucket-loads of headlamps to the general public, even though they’re dissed by CPF members. And Zebralight and Spark may be extremely popular with the CPF crowd, while selling relatively smaller proportions to the marketplace at large.

Some images recovered:


----------



## gcbryan (Jun 12, 2011)

Interesting exercise. I'm sure in general it didn't tell you anything you didn't already know but were there some finer points of CPF likes that you weren't aware of?

(Not being sarcastic here by the way )

Thanks for the work involved as well!!


----------



## Bolster (Jun 12, 2011)

gcbryan said:


> I'm sure in general it didn't tell you anything you didn't already know...



Only concerning the view from 100 miles away; gross generalities like "Zebralights are popular" were confirmed; and only then with a super-sized helping of Hindsight Bias. I was interested in a lot of the results. Maybe later I can weigh in on that in more detail. It was fun to do; hope y'all are enjoying the pretty colors!

EDIT: More recovered images:


----------



## JA(me)S (Jun 14, 2011)

Bolster said:


> And Zebralight and Spark may be extremely popular with the CPF crowd, while selling relatively smaller proportions to the marketplace at large.


 I love reports like this - good stuff, well thought out and easy to understand. Great job Bolster! 

Now, how do we educate the masses?

- Jas.


----------



## DM51 (Jun 18, 2011)

I've added this to the Threads of Interest sticky.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 1, 2011)

*Re: Headlamp Survey Results 2011, part B*

Top Line Results from Part 2 of the survey. This is an early report on n=81 for those who can't wait...

Most popular beam for a headlamp: PURE FLOOD.

Most popular beam for a handheld: THROW WITH WIDE BEAM. 

5 Most typical use for headlamps: CAMPING, HOUSEWORK, WORKING, READING, WALKING.

5 Most important attributes of an LED headlamp: MULTIPLE LEVELS, RELIABILITY, COMFORT, LOW LEVELS, RUNTIME.
(Interestingly High Brightness shows up two attributes later, after WATERPROOF. So while manufacturers are trying to out-do each other with high brightness, enthusiasts are more concerned about going low enough!) 

Favorite control type: TIE between BUTTON and DIAL. 

Most Popular Illumination Control: LOW TO BRIGHT

Most Popular Battery Type: AA NiMH

Most Popular Light: Zebralight AA (again). 

How most people purchase: ONLINE. 

Best response in the writein category: "You forgot to ask about PWM." Damn, I did forget. Sorry.

Graphics & analysis to follow in a few days...


----------



## JA(me)S (Jul 1, 2011)

Bolster said:


> Graphics & analysis to follow in a few days...


Nice work Bolster, can't wait!

:thumbsup: - Jas.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 1, 2011)

Here are some interesting correlations (so far). I am only reporting the ones that are highly significant, p<.01. Hunting through a large matrix of correlations is tabu for inferential statistics (due to capitalizing on chance, some of the correlations found will be by random chance alone, but you don’t know which) however for “data mining” it’s allowed...although a stats teacher would still rap your knuckles for it. But we’re data mining here and the teacher is gone, so...some correlations for you to chew on. Just remember that due to random chance, some of them are probably specious...we just don't know which: 

Hunt/fishers like the Energizer 3AA
Climbers like the Energizer 3AAA
Firefighters dislike the UltraFire
Houseworkers like the Zebra 18650
Houseworkers like the Zebra 1AA
Campers dislike the Zebra CR123 (? that’s odd)
Readers dislike the Energizer 3AA & 3AAA (makes sense, the beam's way too narrow)
Walkers dislike the Irix (why?)
Workers dislike the PT 3AAA (why?)

In the next list of correlations I use the word "fancier" rather than "owner," because the variable merely asks if you like a particular light (not if you own it). In most cases it's the same thing, because people (mostly) own what they like and (mostly) like what they own. But I noticed for one light, the difference between "own" and "like" was dramatic: the SureFire. Not many people own it, everybody says they like it. 

Energizer fanciers value availability (that makes sense)
Fenix fanciers like to modify their beams (what’s this telling Fenix? "Enough with the spot light, already!") 
Spark 14500 fanciers don’t value comfort (huh?)
Zebra fanciers don’t value easy availability
Petzl 3AAA fanciers don’t care about country of origin
Energizer fanciers don’t care about neutral tints
Petzl 4AA fanciers like cool tints
Spark fanciers dislike multi colored lights. 
Zebra CR123 fanciers don’t care about return policy
All Zebralight fanciers like neutral beams
Zebralight 1AA fanciers don’t like throwy beams


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 2, 2011)

Petzl fanciers like AAA lights.
Zebralight fanciers prefer to pay $60 for a light.
Black Diamond fanciers like plastic lights.

Just kidding...

Nice work and interesting reading!


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

Hi GCB, I tested some correlations that are close to what you're joking about: 

People who like Petzl 3AAA lamps strongly prefer AAA NiMH but people who like Petzl 3AA lights strongly prefer AA Alkalines (both p<.01).

There's no significant correlation between price sensitivity and Zebralight ownership. Although there's a slight trend for H60 owners to say they don't care as much about price (r=-.25, p=.10). 

There was no correlation between liking (or disliking) BD and metal bodies (there should have been a negative correlation if BD fans liked plastic). 

Stay tuned, there will be more...


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

OK just for fun. I can predict who owns a Zebralight 1xAA light, and I can account for about 95% of the variance! (ie, only 5% left to other variables not included in the equation). Here's your 1AA Zebralight owner: 

1) doesn't care where a light is made
2) thinks UI is very important
3) doesn't want a throwy light
4) desires low illumination levels
5) walks in the dark
6) doesn't care if he/she has to order through the mail
7) very much likes the idea of high CRI
8) isn't particularly concerned with comfort
9) may enjoy caving
10) wants the cell placement up front
11) does not use his/her lamp for riding a bike
12) is unconcerned about regulation (despite Zebras being regulated)
13) wants a lamp with a long runtime. 

Show me someone who fits that profile, and there's an overwhelming chance they'd like to own a Zebralight 1AA.

p = .000


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

Now take your Petzl 3AAA fan. Can't predict him or her as well, only 70% of the variance accounted for. IOW, 30% of what makes them like a Petzl 3AAA, isn't included in my survey anywhere as a predictor. Still, 70% ain't bad. So, this Petzlite:

1) likes the idea of high CRI (even though their Petzl doesn't have it, they want it)
2) they like to camp
3) they want to be able to return a light easily if they don't like it
4) they also like the idea of a warm tint
5) some of them are hunters.

So this Petzl owner is an envious camper or hunter who has some difficulty making up his/her mind. (Just funning.)


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

And, last profile, the guy who wants a SF Saint. Here I can predict 84% of the variance. 

1) uses it for surveillance
2) cares about what country it's made in (USA)
3) wants the wide beam width
4) wants to use a CR123
5) is open to a battery pack on the back of the head (despite liking the minimus)
6) wants the light regulated
7) wants the light waterproof
8) does a lot of work around the house with the light. 

So the SF owner is a patriotic private detective who spends a lot of time crawling through swamps to peek into other people's houses. 

OK that's enough with the silly profiling. These are all atheoretical stepwise regressions (sort of the fast food of statistics) and I have paid no attention to colinearity, so knuckle raps all around for even putting this stuff out there. Worth what you paid for it.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 2, 2011)

How do you prevent drawing the wrong conclusions? For instance if you ask "what battery configuration does your headlamp have" you can't later conclude that most people prefer that battery configuration...right? Zebralight doesn't offer AAA and Petzl battery integrated headlamps don't offer AA (for the most part). So if someone prefers Petzl it doesn't necessarily mean that they prefer AAA. It just means that's the configuration that Petzl uses.

If you ask if most people prefer a spot or flood beam in a headlamp and the real answer is a diffused spot or a directed flood you aren't going to get a valid answer if the question is "do you prefer a spot beam in a headlamp". They will say "no" but that doesn't mean they prefer flood necessarily.

I'm sure you've covered this in the questions and in the way the survey is worded/presented but it would be interesting (to me) for you to address this subject just a bit further.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

Hi GCB. First, I'm making no claim to the legitimacy of the three stepwise "profiling" regressions above, they're just for fun. Through all of this you must remember this is a self-selected subject pool, which causes problems for external validity. To do those right you'd need random selection (or some substitute), then you'd spend several days combing the data, looking for colinearity, possibly doing some data reduction such as a factor analysis. Then you should arrive at a theory, then test it (and only it, not just fishing around for fun) with a second group of respondents, (yes, gather data all over again) and see if you had anything. Always wise to see if your regressions will hold up on two different subject pools. As you can see, the "correct" approach is extremely time consuming and expensive. Since we're just having fun on a forum, here, and nobody's paying me to do this, I'm taking a number of shortcuts for speed. Specifically it risks capitalization on chance. For instance, if you ran stepwise regressions on another set of data, you might find that some of the predictors changed. However it's likely that many of the correlations would repeat themselves, since I'm only reporting the ones that attain high significance. This is the sort of analysis that would be acceptable for **exploratory** type research. It doesn't **confirm** anything. However, exploratory research is better than none...it at least gets hypotheses started that you can test later with more rigor. Exploratory research and analysis is always a gray area because you are probably capitalizing on chance to some unknown extent. My goal here is (1) to have fun (2) to learn something about preferences and (3) maybe get the manufacturers to think a little more carefully about what enthusiasts want. 

Now to your questions: 

(1) How to prevent arriving at the wrong conclusions? You don't. Imagine a Keynesian political administration in the distant past, that spent a country broke, thinking it would be good for the country. Screw-ups happen all the time. Sometimes they're multi-billion dollar screw-ups. In these cases the appropriate course of action is to lie and deceive people into thinking no screw-up occurred, and that their intentions were good. Which is exactly what I plan to do when anyone sees errors in my analyses. These analyses are for the children, and the sick, and the heroically marginalized. How dare you criticize them. 

(2) Correct; asking people what they own does not necessarily tell you what people prefer (although they are often correlated because we tend to buy what we like, and cognitive dissonance says we come to like what we buy*). To your point, in the first set of data, we found considerable ownership of battery-pack lights. But when I asked what people _wanted_ to own in the future, overwhelmingly we got people mentioning up-front single-cell integrated lights. So, I'm guessing that's a trend the manufacturers should notice. With output so high from up-front lights these days, mfgrs would probably be wise to reduce the number of battery packs they offer and concentrate on up-fronts. Add that to the finding that enthusiasts are actually more concerned that their lights go _low_ enough, rather than high enough, and you have an interesting hypothesis forming.

(3) If you asked the question "prefer spot or beam," that's called a 'binary' question and is generally the lowest quality type of data. That's why you so often see Likert-type scale questions, often 1-5 or 1-7 choices, in quality research. In our survey we had 5 options, from pure flood to pure spot. The middle to flood-side options were well represented with close-to-equal distribution for the three flood-side categories, with pure flood being the most popular by a small margin. You'll see when I get around to publishing that graphic.

*This explains the annoyingly prevalent inclination to always recommend whatever it is you own. There's a bit of "I own it therefore it is good" in a lot of people's responses, but not everyone's. That's why we should value negative reviews...those indicate someone fighting the human inclination to simply employ the "I am smart and never make a mistake" rule. Yet when you go on Amazon, you'll find that positive reviews are generally more highly rated than negative reviews.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

Now for some more purty pitchers...

Preferred beam type: 






...Which makes me wonder why headlamp mfgrs are so quick to make spot headlamps and so slow to make floody ones. Are you listening, Fenix? Thank you Spark for figuring it out quickly. 

What enthusiasts use their headlamps for: 






...Obviously the way you combine categories matters here. If you combined "housework" with "work" it would be the top category. If you combined "walking" with "backpacking" it would be far and away the top categroy. And etcetera. Please also note that because the lowest response possible was 1 (it should have been 0) we have an artifact in the graph that makes it look like there's more use in all categories than there actually is. So just pretend the "1" on the graph is a "0."


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

*What Headlampers Want...*

What headlampers want...






And looking at the bottom part of the graph (this software only lets me easily display 15 items at a time...) here's a look at what headlampers DO NOT care about (again, when you see "1" think "0"):






OK, so here's your formula for marketing success among enthusiasts like CPFers: 

- We want robust, reliable lights that are comfortable to wear.
- We're now more concerned about getting light low enough, than high enough. (I think people assume high will be there.)
- Waterproofing really is important to us, and so is compact light weight. 
- We expect high brightness and long regulated runtime. 
- We want non-spot (mostly floody) beams. 

And...

- You manufacturers can drop your fascination with strobe effects, OK? 
- And quit making so many cool tints, OK? Mostly we don't like tints. 
- Don't cheapen your headlamp by offering only single-brightness. (Energizer listening?) 
- And people are moving away from battery packs. 
- And adding secondary colored LEDs is not the big marketing advantage you think it is. We mostly don't care.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

Button or dial? Half and half: 






Start low and let us ramp up, please; we really don't like being blinded at night:


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 2, 2011)

Thanks for the response (and the purty pitchers)!


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

We like our Eneloops, and we somewhat prefer AA over AAA. Most of us aren't into Li-Ion recharging, but if we are, we step it up to 18650:






And we're OK buying online without examining the lamp first, so you don't need to open up a brick-and-mortar store...


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 2, 2011)

hey bolster, have I got that right that it should be like this:





if not, tell me and I'll take it down in order not to cause confusion.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

Now this is more or less a repeat graphic that was a windfall. (Again remember 1=0). We already probed brand preferences, but I included a few of the more popular choices from survey 1 into survey 2 so I could run some correlations. This graphic is thus a by-product. However notice the question is asked in a different way than before. Rather than "what do you own" and "what do you intend to own next" this one asks "which do you like" which gets more at reputation, than it does "intent to own." Notice how SF zooms up the scale on "what do you like." Yet go back to survey 1 and you'll find not many people are buying them. This probably tells us they have "good buzz" but are priced too high to be commonly purchased. Which either puts the lie to what respondents are saying, that "price doesn't matter that much," or else it means that people like SF but feel they can get a better package elsewhere. 

Other top brands need to get back to work and come out with more popular products (from our perspective as enthusiasts). I'm looking at you in particular, Fenix! If they want to know what to do to get our interest...just read this thread and make the lights we're asking for. And for the love of humanity, drop all the ridiculous disco strobe options or hide them away deep in the UI.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

Helmut.G said:


> hey bolster, have I got that right that it should be like this....



Yeah Helmut, you got it. Sorry I am so lazy. Thanks.

The relative differences are the same, but the more accurate zero point gives a better idea of how much usage there is in a category. 

The software didn't let me specify "0" as the bottom point, "1" was as low as it went. And I'm just using the auto-generated graphs for speed. Sorry.

Remember that n=81 is still a reasonably small sample, so...it is what it is.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 2, 2011)

So based on my bogus research, here are my completely flawed and uninformed recommendations to the manufacturers, based on what enthusiasts want (not speaking for the Target shoppers): 

Zebra: Keep doing what you're doing. You're on a roll. But watch reliability like a hawk. Test your lights regularly and keep your offshore subcontractors on a tight leash. You had some insufficiently sealed lights two years ago and people still haven't forgiven you. And don't treat your flood options as afterthoughts. "Here's our new spot headlamp! And here's our directional flood. Oh, and for those of you who want pure flood, we'll continue making a few of yesteryear's model for you." People like your slim compact designs so watch the weight...it's creeping up. Don't go Kirstie Alley on us. 

SF: You're the hot girl every guy wants to date, but you sit home alone on a lot of saturday nights. Not asking you to change; everybody loves the hottie. Keep dating those rich guys (the military, the government). Contemplate your commitment to CR123. Wouldn't hurt to fix some of the more obvious flaws with the Saint, though. You can do it. You're beautiful, so it's impossible for you to be wrong. 

Petzl: People don't mind plastic, so stamp them out. Discover boost circuits and broaden your horizon to 1 & 2 cell AA and AAAs. Keep the diffusers so people can have a wide beam with their spot. But how about some neutral tints. Asking the world to change to your propriety battery is hubris. There's a sizable investment in AAs out there...use it. People want to pop in a fresh cell, not recharge a dead cell with their ipod, no matter how cool that may be. 

Spark: You're on the right track. Broaden your appeal by making more lights in battery sizes that people already own. Not everyone wants to go li-ion. And remember that relatively few headlampers are looking for brilliant hot-spots, but you seem to have figured that out in short order. Be sure to keep up the low-illumination levels as you chase the high ones. 

PT: Don't take your users' loyalty for granted. You need to get with the program. Update your offerings with modern emitters more than once a half decade. Recognize that heavy battery packs and blue tints are not the future. 

Fenix: You're basically producing the opposite headlamps of what most people what. Big battery pack, cool tint, hot spot beam, three disco modes, concentrating on dazzling brilliance over all else. Headlamps are not merely re-packaged handhelds.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 2, 2011)

A couple of interesting (to me) points...on the one hand low is more important than high but in another area it shows that they (headlamps) must be bright. Therefore we may say that a low, low is more important than constantly increasing highs but (apparently) many people are interested in the highest high.

Although I suppose it could mean that we definitely want better low choices and high isn't so important as long as high isn't something like 40 lumens 

Some of the preferences are very specific to CPF of course. No one has heard of Zebralight outside of CPF and therefore can't prefer or not prefer them.

For the Irix to be more preferred than the BD Storm has to be imperfect info (if everyone owned both I don't think the Irix would be preferred). The same goes for Petzl at the moment as they haven't upgraded in a while and yet are highly rated. People may prefer Surefire but few on them and those that do complain about the weight and beam pattern. Most people do care about those things and that may be why they don't own Surefire (in addition to the high price).

The highest category for users is hiking and most posts on this subject show that hikers don't want a pure flood headlamp and quite a few do want red LED and (hidden) strobe. Yet the conclusions would seem to suggest otherwise. No one wants to hike with pure spot (as in aspheric) but some do want a beam that throws while still having flood to see up close. Indoor users want pure flood. Outdoor users have a need at times for something in addition to or more than pure flood.

I also see that flashlight are preferred with throw overwhelmingly but maybe that's only among headlamp users. On CPF as a whole (based on posts) people state that throw isn't that useful but is just for fun as in we actually use our lights in a more flood or balanced way and have throw just for fun.

I like the idea of reducing the survey to what most people (from those surveyed) want in case some manufacturers are reading.

Speaking of fun...I understand that this survey is just for fun and my interest and continued discussions are just for fun as well


----------



## aas (Jul 4, 2011)

Thank you *Bolster* for this great work!

There is a problem: the second survey is about some one-fits-all headlamp, i.e. hiker describes what he likes for hiking, worker – for work, e.t.c. That obfuscates real people needs and makes variation looks stronger than it is.

I think the best way to persuade headlamp manufacturers to change their minds would be:
1. Run a new survey with two identical groups of question (for the most popular categories):
“Describe your ideal headlamp for general outdoor activities (excluding cycling and caving)”
“Describe your ideal headlamp for general indoor activities and close-up work (excluding specific professional needs)”
That will reduce variation and make results more convincing.
2. Each group has a very concrete questions like
“Number of levels: 1 2 3 4 5 continuously variable”
“Minimum acceptable PWM frequency: 60Hz, 100Hz, ... no PWM”
“OTF lumens on low level: less than 0.5, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, more than 16”
“Сolor temperature: 3000, 3500, … 6000, more than 6000”
“Body material: plastic, plastic+external aluminum heatsink, aluminum”
The list of questions should be discussed publicly before survey starts.
3. Run survey for a very long time, gather 200+ votes.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 4, 2011)

Hi, thanks for stopping by! Actually the survey is _not_ about a "one-size-fits-all" headlamp (at all), but keep reading because I agree with you in other areas. The desires of specific user groups are found in the correlations, and in the regressions (and in crosstabs if I did them). However, if you simply look at the frequencies (the graphics) then you are indeed looking at averages across usage categories, so you can say the graphics don't represent particular usage categories. That's easily fixed by looking at crosstabs, correlations, and regressions. Ran out of time and interest to do 'tabs...and so few people are checking this thread it's hardly worth the effort, and you probably know what a pain they are. Page after page. 

I totally agree with you that intended use is THE major moderator of what makes a headlamp useful or not to a particular user. I think a lot of the "fights" and "spats" that occur between people saying that one or the other type of headlamp is better, are actually differences of intended usage, not so much differences in quality of the product itself. For example, by looking at the profiles of the SF Saint users and the Zebralight users, you can see significantly different usage patterns. I don't see eye-to-eye with a headlamp enthusiast who mostly uses his lights for bike riding...where I mostly use mine for hand-work. So our disagreements about what's "good" are rooted in our different uses. I have no use for throwy beams and he has none for floods. 

I hope that headlamp mfgrs are doing their own research...they must be...but there are times I wonder. It seems some mfgrs put out product that doesn't match what the market wants. And there is such a thing as "central tendency," that even though there's variance in use and needs, there are still normally distributed variables where it makes sense to head for the center...for example you can see people gravitating toward neutral tints, and away from cool and warm. They're gravitating toward integrated lights and away from battery packs, in general (cavers likely excepted). So for some features, it does make sense to take the average and sell to a larger population. 

One problem I see with the methodology you recommend above, is that you'll be getting answers from people in areas not their expertise and in usage patterns they don't utilize. Ie, you'll get general outdoor activity recommendations from people who seldom go outdoors. Whereas the correlational approach solves that problem, it doesn't constrain people and lets the patterns develop on their own. (You'd at least need to locate person and usage variables first.) One other problem is that by assuming market segmentation as you have, you miss the "multiuse" people...those who try to find a single product that can do several jobs. I think the next step into this type of research would actually be some sort of cluster analysis. 

You do bring up a whole raft of new and interesting questions that are more micro-level than the survey just completed. That's a great start for someone interested in going another level deeper into this. Provided your subject pool could follow you that deep. For example, I don't know offhand what 3500 color temp looks like, or what 4 lumens look like, or whether or not I can sense PWM of 100Hz. And given the ratio data you're collecting, it's best not to reduce it into a scale, just have people write in a particular number. I'll leave that sort of more detailed research for someone else to do. I've more or less figured out what I wanted to know. 

(Unless a lights company wants to hire me to do some market research for them, of course!)

One thing I would caution any manufacturer: You can get a very specific list of desires, put it together, and find people don't really like it all that much. I saw this happen dramatically once with legislative polling, where each element in a particular bill was carefully tested. All of people's favorite responses were added together in the bill, and people hated the bill. The whole was not the sum of the parts. Even though they liked each individual element separately. It's frustrating, but that's humans for ya.

Anyway, good critique and lots of interesting leads in your post, thanks!


----------



## carrot (Jul 5, 2011)

Bolster,
Really appreciate your survey and data analysis skills. They make for some very interesting talking points and provide some good insight into the preferences of the general CPF crowd. 

I can really only speak for hikers and backpackers as I don't often use a headlamp for anything else, but perhaps my own experiences can aid in a better understanding of a particularly large field of headlamp users.

Like gcbryan I'd like to note some things that I've found from backpacking along the Appalachian Trail and quizzing thru-hikers about their gear.
- high output is not necessary as thru-hikers try to hike during daylight and use their headlamps only to setup camp or walk around camp or read
- red mode is considered extremely preferable as not to disturb other hikers when walking around camp at night
- using a single, readily available battery is preferable, although never a deal-breaker (every thru I talked to was interested in my 1xAA Mammut S-Flex but were perfectly happy with their 3xAAA lights)
- like with other non-flashaholics, beam shape seems not to be a big consideration
- the Petzl E+Lite is surprisingly popular for its light weight, high water resistance, and red output
- Zebralights have attained some level of recognition on the trail, but seem mostly out of reach due to high price
- thrus are willing to pay a lot for essential gear but do not consider a headlamp one of them: they are considered a convenience item

From my own experience as a hiker, I want high outputs available to me but very frequently use very low modes. Long runtimes is extremely important because I might not have spare cells on me. In other words, I don't want to have to worry about my headlamp going to crap out -- this translates to strong penalties to anything that has a sharp drop-off in regulation or output as the batteries are consumed. 

Having red output is incredibly handy and not something I'd be willing to drop. Any time you don't want to disturb others, or to see without destroying your night-adapted vision, is when the red output comes out. But I don't consider it important enough to carry a separate, dedicated red output headlamp.

If you hike at night you need some amount of throw to see ahead (don't step on rattlesnakes!) and see trail markers (if there are any) and some amount of flood (to get your bearings). It's not easy to strike that balance, although some lensed lights like multi-5mms and the SF Saint seem to do a surprisingly good job at that. 

Lastly, the longer the trip the lower my tolerance for heavy weight. On a day hike I am perfectly willing to carry the Surefire Saint in all its battery pack glory but if I'm out for multiple days I'll opt for the lighter Minimus configuration or the Petzl CORE XP2. 

So far I'm not really sure what the perfect hiker's headlamp is. I now have 9 headlamps, which includes three Petzls and three Princeton Tecs in various configurations. Each of them has specific merits and each of them have downsides. I am not really any closer to realizing that answer than I was when I had only one!


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 5, 2011)

It is an interesting subject. I like having the red LED option although I don't have it with the PT EOS and won't have it with the H51f. I do have it with the Storm but the red LED isn't bright enough to do much outside of the tent.

The red LED on the Proton Pro (on high) for instance is what I'd consider most useful. I seem to recall the Petzl XP2 (red LED) is bright enough as well.

I was outside tonight and am always amazed at just how bright 4 lumens is (both spot and flood). I'd prefer to have 2 lumens or less for a low setting when there are plenty of other settings and especially with infinite ramping. High (within reason) doesn't matter so much but it is nice to be able to give a boost to whatever level you are using in general.

I think it's hard to get that optimum balance between spot and flood or between too much or too little diffusion. That's why I prefer to have two settings...slightly diffused and greater diffusion depending on whether you are actually hiking or in camp.


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 5, 2011)

I wrote a message to ZebraLight concerning sales numbers of neutral LED equipped lights vs cool white ones. (Not headlamp specific)
They told me (as I had expected) that cool white sells better, sadly no further details or numbers.

While many on CPF like neutral tints, the average (maybe uninformed) Joe will go for more lumens if given the choice.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 5, 2011)

I need to do the usage/features correlations...haven't done them yet...but clearly that's what you guys want to see. Ie, what are the valued features by a certain type of usage, such as hiking. I'll try to get to that soon.

Again, remember this dataset generalizes only to enthusiasts, not the average shopper in Target, but to some extent you can guess that today's sophisticated user is buying what tomorrow's average consumer will want. Although whether that will occur for a lower-lumen neutral tint is questionable, it's hard to beat buying "the highest number."


----------



## margret green (Aug 29, 2011)

THANKS FOR YOUR WORK ABOVE.
very useful.
After looking at it, I KNOW what kinds of flashlight is suitable for me.


----------



## electrothump (Aug 30, 2011)

I didn't see any reference to the LedLenser H7? It's a very easy to use, very bright, and versatile headlight, and IMO should have been included. To me the usability of the H7 is far superior to any of the zebralights I've had my hands on. But, that's my opinion. Other than that, this was a good survey. The graphics were pretty cool. Thumbs up!

DN


----------



## DIΩDΣ (Sep 1, 2011)

This is the first time I've seen this (sorry late to the party) but wanted to say nice job!:twothumbs I think it predicts I will soon have a zebralight.


----------



## whiteoakjoe (Sep 2, 2011)

Just a thought but lost of Hunters and Fisherman get the information from all of the print catalogs, and magazines. Cabella's and Field&Stream. I have only onece seen an ad in the types of publications for high end lights, other than Surefire, or Streamlight or Petzel. (that was a Fenix ad in a industry insider catalog catering to firearms dealers) I think the hunters and fisherman think that if F&S does not rate it as one of their best of the best, it cant be any good. I also hear "If it was that good Bass Pro would have it. that might explain why you see hunters with brands other than Zebralight. If they would just offer it in MossyOak camo they could beat customers off with a stick seems to work for lots of "junk products" PS no offense Toxy...


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 2, 2011)

whiteoakjoe said:


> If they would just offer it in MossyOak camo they could beat customers off with a stick seems to work for lots of "junk products"



I guess there's probably a deal of truth in that, though I do wonder why someone would need a camo headtorch if they're only going to wear it at night.


----------



## DIΩDΣ (Sep 2, 2011)

whiteoakjoe said:


> Just a thought but lost of Hunters and Fisherman get the information from all of the print catalogs, and magazines. Cabella's and Field&Stream. I have only onece seen an ad in the types of publications for high end lights, other than Surefire, or Streamlight or Petzel. (that was a Fenix ad in a industry insider catalog catering to firearms dealers) I think the hunters and fisherman think that if F&S does not rate it as one of their best of the best, it cant be any good. I also hear "If it was that good Bass Pro would have it. that might explain why you see hunters with brands other than Zebralight. If they would just offer it in MossyOak camo they could beat customers off with a stick seems to work for lots of "junk products" PS no offense Toxy...


 
This hunter is about to get a ZL...

I'm an avid bowhunter, muzzleloader, and riffle/shotgun hunter of deer. Grew up on venison and although we dont eat it nearly every day like I did when I grew up, the 3 deer I usually get each fall for the two of us is quite a lot for the year (my 5 year old doesnt eat much venison yet).



uk_caver said:


> I guess there's probably a deal of truth in that, though I do wonder why someone would need a camo headtorch if they're only going to wear it at night.


 
Thats a marketing trick so when you drop it, and can't find it, they make more money from you when you buy another. (I speak from experience)


----------



## billcoe (Sep 14, 2011)

Hi all:

First post, be gentle I'm a rock climber who always made due with whatever I stumbled over. Then my son grew up and started climbing as well. I gave him a cheap Black Diamond headlamp and he tossed it in his chalkbag like I asked. Not long afterwards the little 13 lumin light got him and a whole group of other idiots off a dark steep cliff and I'm looking for a better headlamp now. Although I was willing to settle for myself, I wanted him to have better stuff. 

I do have some confusion. In the headlamp survey, (which is awesome work BTW) clearly the "Zebralight 1xAA" is the schiz. I might have missed the inference, does that refer to all single AA battery powered lights by Zebra? 

Are you guys getting multiple $70 lights? oo: or are there deals around? 

I'm looking at possibly an SC51, at @63-$70 it's about max I want to pay (these things may last forever but I lose stuff, so does the kid). Would that be the best headlamp for hiking in and climbing a route, then maybe hiking out in the dark in thick forest with no trail? Light (weight) and bright are major considerations. Are there any great deals for something else that I should look at? 

Thanks!


----------



## davidt1 (Sep 14, 2011)

Billcoe,

The SC51 is a flashlight. You probably meant the H51. What makes a ZL headlamp unique is that you can use it in many different ways: as headlamp, flashlight, desk lamp, overhead light, neck light, etc. Knowing what you want to use your headlamp for will help determine what kind of headlamp to buy. 

If you just want a headlamp to strap on your head for those hiking or camping trips and then toss it in the bag afterwards, then traditional jockstrap headlamps make a good choice because they are usually cheaper and throw further than a ZL headlamp. 

If you want a headlamp that you can clip in your pocket, wear around your neck, or strap on your head for multiple uses, then a ZL light is worth the premium.


----------



## robostudent5000 (Sep 14, 2011)

if you're on a budget, a Petzl Tikka 2 ($30, 81 grams w/ batteries) may be more what you're looking for. if you want something ultralight, maybe a Mammut S-flex ($30, 48 grams with battery). both of these should run fine on alkaline batteries and, assuming you live in the U.S., can occasionally be found on sale for around $25 on places like Amazon, REI, Backcountry.com, etc.

if you get a Zebra, you'd probably want a version of the H51 (w, c, F, Fw, or Fc) ($64 + about $15 more for 4 pack of Eneloop batteries and charger, 85 grams w/ battery). Eneloops really aren't optional with a Zebra. the last thing you would want is an alkaline leaking and destroying your $64 headlamp. and as for deals, Zebras almost never go on sale unless an older model is being cleared out.

the Princeton Tec Eos is another good, reliable headlamp ($30-35 on Amazon). but it's kind of heavy (105 grams w/ batteries). but if you don't mind the weight, and decide not to shell out for a Zebra, i recommend the Eos. it's a pretty solid all-around performer and it has a really good warranty. 

as far as brightness is concerned, as long as you kind of know where you're going, you probably won't need much more than 30 lumens to hike down comfortably. it's nice to have a little more punch sometimes, but most of the time 30 lumens or even less is all you'll really need.


----------



## gcbryan (Sep 14, 2011)

I'm a climber and like the outdoors in general. I have the PT EOS, BD Storm, and the Zebralight H51 and H51f. If you order it from Going Gear it's about $62 including shipping.

I rarely use the others now that I have the H51f model. It's small and light weight and even the headband is less weight than the others (since the light itself is small).

You can use it for everything. I do take a small little 1AA "thrower" in a pocket sometimes if I think I may need to see ahead a little more. I know $62 is a little expensive but it's so much more useful IMO that the others.

You can change the battery with your eyes closed. You can't do that with most of the 3 AAA models. You can adjust the beam angle without the unit itself having to hang out from your head since the light merely twists in place. 

The switch is very intuitive and you have many output levels to choose from. You do want to either use lithium primaries or Eneloop (or some type of LSD) rechargeable batteries IMO.

Due to the size/light weight I also find myself using this around the house/yard which I never did with the bulkier traditional headlamps.

They all work of course but I think the Zebralight H51f is especially good for climbing for those times when it's getting dark faster than anticipated and you need everything concerning the light to be easy and not be adding to your situation.

It has a high of 200 lumens (which I never use) as well as 100 lumens, 30 lumens, 7 lumens, 2.4 lumens, and .2 lumens. I use 100 sometimes just for a minute and am usually at 30 or 7 and around camp/tent I use 2.4 or .2 while just sitting.

All those choices make the battery last a lot longer as well. If you use Eneloop rechargeable batteries you don't have the problems of the older type rechargeable batteries where they lose their change even while you aren't using them.

The (f) version means that it has a frosted lens so the light is diffused. It's a more natural looking beam to hike by. It's still focused enough to see where you are going IMO. I have the non-frosted version as well and don't like it as much so I've just put some tape over the lens to diffuse it as well (I use it as a backup).


----------



## billcoe (Sep 15, 2011)

Thanks for the recommendations!


----------



## JordyC (Nov 18, 2011)

Warning: possibly dumb questions from first time poster coming.

So, I've been reading as much as possible in the forums, and this thread has been super helpful. It really sold me on the idea of a Zebralight as they seemed far and away the most "popular" according to the survey. 

Do they make a cheaper headlamp than the H51 that's also well regarded? I was thinking of spending a max of $60, and with the shipping and premo batteries, the ZLs are looking a little pricey.

I would use the lamp for climbing and hiking, but also mundane things like reading in bed and going through my luggage when staying at a hostel. I'm also an avid night photographer, so the idea of red LED is attractive to me to keep my night vision. I'm basically trying to talk myself out of a Petzl Tikka 2 (seems like one of those products from a big company that the masses buy, even though it's far from the best and getting worse with each model). Are either of these cheaper "off brand" lamps (like this GST [?] or this Coleman) good values? Is this Princeton Tec a superior alternative to the too-ubiquitous Petzl?

Or is it really worth it to go all in for a cheaper ZL or even an H51?? Thanks!


----------



## robostudent5000 (Nov 18, 2011)

JordyC said:


> Warning: possibly dumb questions from first time poster coming.
> 
> So, I've been reading as much as possible in the forums, and this thread has been super helpful. It really sold me on the idea of a Zebralight as they seemed far and away the most "popular" according to the survey.
> 
> ...



sadly, there are no budget ZL headlamps. they're all $59 and above.

i think the Tikka 2 is a pretty good all-around headlamp, but it doesn't have a red option either. you'd need to get a Tikka Plus 2 or a Tikka XP 2 for that. i don't recommend the Plus 2 (beam is very narrow), and the XP2's price is not much less than a ZL. plus none of the Tikkas really have a low mode, just high and medium.

PT's older headlamps are very good (Eos, Quad) but their newer models (Remix, Fuel) really suck IMO. They're just not reliable and have a poor track record. 

some of the off brand headlamps aren't bad, but it's a mixed bag. i would avoid them.

some of the newer headlamps from Black Diamond may be worth a look. their older lamps were flimsy and broke easily, but their newer lamps, especially the Storm, seem to be made better, and as always, have a lot of features.

if i were you, i'd spend the extra few bucks and get a ZL. if you plan to use your light a lot, you should get Eneloops anyway, and you'll appreciate charging and changing out 1xAA at a time vs. 3xAAA. also, ZL's are one of the few lights that have multiple lower levels. this can come in very handy as you won't have to settle for a level that is either too bright or too dim for your needs (i don't know how many times i've woken up in my tent in the middle of the night, blinded myself with the 5 lumen mode on my headlamp and wished i had a 1 or 2 lumen mode.) plus the lowest low can kind of substitute for a red light for preserving night vision.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 23, 2012)

Bringing this thread forward.

Bill


----------



## Bolster (Sep 24, 2012)

Some original graphics recovered 9/24/12, added to first posts.


----------



## degarb (Sep 24, 2012)

I don't recall being asked to participate.

*I think manufacturers wan't to believe people wish flood in a headlamp, since flood is cheaper and easier to design.*M Newbies, feel geeky with big reflectors, and it is cheaper/more profitable to herd people to flood rather than make a more expensive, more useful light.

Me, I just remove the reflector or diffuse for flood. Just can't do squat with flood other than read, move about bedside, fold clothing, and hangout while camping. I cannot (with flood only) mow, paint, drywall, work with small screws, move fast, clean house (see dust), or have any real runtime.

I must have throw in a headlamp ( I prefer 4000 lux for 10 hours), or I cannot use flashlights daily. If I cannot use regularly, there is no point in having them at all. This said, I will pay $2 to $17 usd for a 3 hour runtime, flood that will get miss-placed around the house in 5 weeks. (On my second $17 xpg r3 defiant hl for reading and housework (4 lumen flood 50 ma, and nimh 220 ma 920 lux (1400 lux alkaline), but a wide 8 inch hot spot at 1meter)--lost first. And third $12 Rayovac xpc (made into watchband light), first two disappeared in 1 day, and about 15th $2.50 1 AA homedepot 4 lumen lights, that I let kids and wife loose.)


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 24, 2012)

I hadn't got the impression that many manufacturers were pushing flood - the only meaningful-quality ones who spring to mind as 'makers of flood headlamps' also seem to have spot models.

And I say that as someone who really _does_ like flood - while using homebuilt twin-beam lights overground I typically use flood rather more than spot or flood/spot mixes.
Underground I'd normally use a flood/spot mix fairly strongly biased towards the flood since that seems to be the best light overall for movement. Spot or spot-heavy mixes would typically only get used for specific things like vertical work, checking out fairly distant paths, etc, and used a small amount of the time.

Having said that, a pure-flood-only light is of limited use to me - I have an early zebralight but only really use it as a compact backup/spare light, or a helmet-off light while camping underground - I'd use a twin-beam light in preference almost all the time, even though my twin-beam light is far larger and heavier.


----------



## Bolster (Sep 24, 2012)

degarb said:


> I don't recall being asked to participate.



The poll was open to anyone who was visiting CPF at the time. It ran for several weeks during 2011, closing around the first week of June. The poll wasn't "by invitation."



degarb said:


> Me, I just remove the reflector or diffuse for flood. Just can't do squat with flood other than read, move about bedside, fold clothing, and hangout while camping.



OK, that's fine. I don't think your preference invalidates the data, though. On an n of 75 it appears many people like full flood and directional flood headlamps. The purpose of the survey wasn't to determine what's the "best" type of beam, but rather to see what people preferred. Obviously different uses recommend different beam shapes.


----------



## degarb (Sep 25, 2012)

Bolster said:


> The poll was open to anyone who was visiting CPF at the time. It ran for several weeks during 2011, closing around the first week of June. The poll wasn't "by invitation."
> 
> Obviously different uses recommend different beam shapes.



The poll is mute (I feel), since, "different uses recommend different beam shapes". I cannot agree more. 

A true flashaholic probably has both. My addiction hinges on throw, but extends lightly to flood for non work usage.

As a flashaholic, I try to limit my reading to two forums: Headlamp and led. Then, not during summer or spring. Got to have some self discipline. This is probably true for people that use headlamps for work, rather than camping. Flood does probably works best in a campsite (summer/spring). 

Naturally, my fear is it is all to easy to design a headlamp for flood, and too hard for throw--when, I wouldn't own a hl if not for throw and using them for 12 hours a DAY or night (lux per watt is far more essential than lumen/watt). Yes, I would term it "fear". Flood will never go away, but it is hard to get a headlamp with any throw worth buying. The HP 11 is about the only one that I know of with 4000 1m lux and a day runtime.


----------



## Bolster (Sep 25, 2012)

degarb said:


> The poll is mute (I feel), since, "different uses recommend different beam shapes". I cannot agree more.



You mean 'moot'. 

I'm not following your reasoning, however...you're disregarding the poll for what reason, exactly? Because you didn't participate in it, or because you're a throw fan and don't agree with people who like flood, or are you saying measures of central tendency are of no value because of variability in the data? Or did I miss your objections completely? Please explain.


----------



## degarb (Sep 25, 2012)

Bolster said:


> You mean 'moot'.
> 
> 
> I'm not following your reasoning, however...you're disregarding the poll for what reason, exactly? Because you didn't participate in it, or because you're a throw fan and don't agree with people who like flood, or are you saying measures of central tendency are of no value because of variability in the data? Or did I miss your objections completely? Please explain.



I would divide poll into non flashaholics, flashaholics, and those flashaholics that use headlamps for work and those for hobby. Then run poll in fall and winter. 

Nevertheless, we flashaholics find both useful, depending on task and desired runtime. Longer runtime, require more throw; otherwise, you are throwing electric away where less important. If I had a three 18650 headlamp (three 3100 panasonics), I could run at one amp. But the bird don't exist. So, it is complex.

My kids are wildly throw fans, wife is more impressed with throw (not a fl fan), but working in closet would prefer flood.

Well, most people probably are not using headlamps professionally, so flood might slightly win out, but only with flashaholics. Electricians, probably flood. Painters, throw. Mechanics, probably both, as at times they need the lux, at times flood.

I understand zoomable attempts are a compromise at best. But, why can't headlamp manufactures make the reflectors/lenses changeable and removable?????? Why?


----------



## rojos (Sep 25, 2012)

Bolster said:


> I'm not following your reasoning, however...you're disregarding the poll for what reason, exactly?



Just ignore him. He's beyond reason.


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 25, 2012)

degarb said:


> I would divide poll into non flashaholics, flashaholics, and those flashaholics that use headlamps for work and those for hobby. Then run poll in fall and winter.


What about me?
Seeing what being a flashaholic means to some people, I'm not sure the same label really fits me even though I'm interested in lights and lighting, and I make lights, and I'm highly dependent on them for my 'hobby' (and for the volunteer-rescuer version of my 'hobby').



degarb said:


> I understand zoomable attempts are a compromise at best. But, why can't headlamp manufactures make the reflectors/lenses changeable and removable?????? Why?


That requires making the cases openable and exposing the LEDs to potential damage, and having interchangeable optics available in some common mounting.
And I'd imagine relatively few people would probably be interested in such a system anyway.

Personally, having used twin beam lights since very early Luxeon days, I think a proper twin beam light with either independent controls or some good selection of preprogrammed or programmable beam blends would cover most 'advanced' usage without needing light cases which are user-accessible.
Given the relatively small space needed for a pure/naked or slightly-forward-biased flood, it might even work out cheaper to make a decent twin-beam light than a decent single-beam one with replaceable optics, especially if sales would be expected to be better for the twin unit.


----------



## Shorty66 (Sep 26, 2012)

I think you are just on the right track uk caver!
I would love to see a two-beam zebralight, one flood and one pure throw.
Each with three different light levels which could be chosen independently.
For example 
.3 lm, 15 lm and 60lm for the Flood beam
15 lm, 50 lm and 150+ lm for the throw beam

That way you would have the best of both worlds, easily waterproof designs and could still keep the simple, no-nonsense metal housing which could still be used hand held perfectly.
Add a permanent pocket clip which doesnt intefere with the headband and you are done.


----------



## degarb (Sep 26, 2012)

uk_caver said:


> What about me?
> 
> Seeing what being a flashaholic means to some people, I'm not sure the same label really fits me even though I'm interested in lights and lighting, and I make lights, and I'm highly dependent on them for my 'hobby' (and for the volunteer-rescuer version of my 'hobby').
> 
> ...



All good points. (I think "flashaholics" means, someone who follows the technology of the new lighting revolution, and always has an eye out for a better light/system than they now own.....My latest t6, xp-g2, and metal halide arrive today...For work, Honey, naturally!) 

(I have made two twin headlamps. But they looked ridiculous, and are now outdated. My biggest issue was making them durable and serviceable.) I think stenlight was in series, because that was cheaper and easier to do. So, was mine, for this reason. Also, easier to adjust brightness. (I think my ideal light is a dual, but the most practical is the single with power supply attached to head (for price and ease of setup).) It will take a good engineer to make one that is practical, cheap, and ideal.


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 26, 2012)

Personally, in a twin-beam light, I'd want to see the possibility of flood-heavy mixes.

My various homebuilt twins have ~x3 power stepping between levels and a relatively tight hard-edged spot.
Typically I'd run the spot at one or two levels below the flood, which means about 30% or 10% of the flood beam power in the spot.

At the 10% level the spot just pulls the flood out to give meaningfully more range without ruining the flood feel.
Subjectively it makes the throw appear to improve even outside the spot beam - presumably lighting relatively distant stuff up well enough to identify, with the eye/brain still 'seeing' the thing clearly when it moves into the relative gloom of the flood.

At the 30% level the spot is already starting to make things just outside it look a bit dark by comparison even if not hideously so, (that might be different with a softer-edged spot from an optic rather than a hard one from a reflector), but the throw gives pretty good distance abilities. For general walking on mountains, I'd probably use that sort of blend except when I really wanted to look just at some particularly distant things.

Clearly, a different tightness of might need a more equal blend to achieve the same kind of effect.


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 26, 2012)

degarb said:


> (I have made two twin headlamps. But they looked ridiculous, and are now outdated. My biggest issue was making them durable and serviceable.)


Making things for underground helped, since there were already seriously durable mining light headsets with 2-way switches which made pretty good hosts.
Cosmetics weren't great but were only a secondary concern after functionality and reliability. Arguably there's an element of retro-chic about having a pretty good twin beam light in a headset that could have spent a decade or two down a pit, and be older than the person wearing it (I've had some in decent condition that were made in the early sixties).



degarb said:


> I think stenlight was in series, because that was cheaper and easier to do. So, was mine, for this reason. Also, easier to adjust brightness.


I wanted separate beams from the outset, and that didn't make things harder.
Easy power sources were more suited to single LED operation and simple circuitry.
Duplicating control circuitry gave independent control and natural redundancy with no more 'difficulty' in manufacture, but double the cost/time/effort in production. Still, production was a pretty small fraction of the development time, at least until I'd made and sold quite a few.

A combined controller is cheaper and does give more options, so I went that route for a different version for a different host (albeit with still some redundancy for peace of mind).



degarb said:


> Also, easier to adjust brightness. (I think my ideal light is a dual, but the most practical is the single with power supply attached to head (for price and ease of setup).) It will take a good engineer to make one that is practical, cheap, and ideal.


I'm not sure anyone could make an 'ideal' twin-beam light if I was their only customer.
There are always going to be various engineering compromises, and the best point for any such compromises could vary over time, even for a single user.


----------



## degarb (Sep 26, 2012)

The twin mix sounds like UKCaver likes flood heavy. For me, I love the option to choose, and I don't care about the preference. I will point out-- it hit me an hour ago-- I would expect a mix of 30 % throw + 100 % flood would be just about right; throwy lights just need less power to do their jobs. My t6 (5700 lux at 1.4 amp) v. my xpc (8500 lux at 400 millamps.) 

Naturally, the exact mix depends on the task. It is up to the operator to understand the phenomena (night vision, current required, etc.) and limitations, and then care enough to make adjustments-which is something rare in a hourly work environment.

In my line of work, an ever changing light situation is actually far better than a static one. There is no ideal lighting, but the days of relying on the Sun to change temperature and angle to double check things over, are over.


----------

