Easily MisLED
Manufacturers look away now. Speirs and Major’s Iain Ruxton is angry. Here he bemoans the use of the word ‘unique’ in the standard LED luminaire sales pitch
How many new LED luminaires have you seen in the last few months?
How many new luminaires have you seen that weren’t LED-based?
But how many of the LED luminaires genuinely impressed you?
Here in our office, at least, the answers are, “Lots”, “Very few” and “Not many”. I am pretty confident that most experienced specifiers will agree.
We are, it seems to me, at an odd stage in the adoption of LED. We’ve been through the “age of bullshit”, where anyone and his dog put a bunch of diodes in a tin can with a resistor or two and went out hawking the 100,000 hour future. We’ve been through the stage where the pitfalls became clear and proper lighting manufacturers started doing it properly… resolving the thermal management issues, refining the binning, understanding appropriate drive circuitry and being honest about the lifetimes. As an industry, we’ve all matured rapidly as far as our knowledge of and attitudes toward LED are concerned.
Now we are in a peculiar stage where pretty much every serious lighting manufacturer is producing LED product. Most of it is OK… the days of the naively produced tin can full of diodes are pretty much gone, with the exception of some of the appalling product being pushed into the conveniently unknowledgeable consumer market. But most of it is only OK.
Everyone who brings us LED luminaires has (steady yourself now) much the same products. And there’s nothing wrong with that… we spent a decade and a bit looking at not dissimilar low-voltage, metal halide and fluorescent product. The difference is that during that time, manufacturers seemed to understand that they were all working with the same basic elements, and that what differentiated luminaires was optical design, along with ingenious mechanical design, physical styling, clever installation or maintenance methods, great accessories…
But now, in the LED world, everyone is claiming to be unique. Our first question now is “so what makes your LED products different?” The answer is almost invariably: “oh, it’s the quality.” Everyone claims to be better than everyone else – to be “the only people doing this properly”, “the first people to achieve this” (where “this” can be any number of rather prosaic and widely achieved things). Some manufacturers, rather extraordinarily, are so keen to be the “best”, that they claim longer lifetimes than the diode manufacturers themselves are prepared to countenance. Is the intense competition in the marketplace bringing in a second age of bullshit?
And you know what? Hardly any manufacturers have anything genuinely unique. The innovation lies with the diode manufacturers and the OEM module manufacturer. Okay, so most aren’t making rubbish… but they are either peddling sub-standard imitations of older equipment, or utterly identikit versions of product that everyone else makes anyway… but without any real thinking about what could make it better… unique… desirable… sellable.
I think it’s time for the industry to go back to creating and selling really good products, rather than claiming to sell “the future” and for companies to stop trying to pretend they’re the only company with the ability to successfully deploy this mysterious technology. As informed specifiers, lighting designers all know that LEDs are a big part of the next phase of lighting. We also know what the general issues are, and whether a solution looks credible or not. We’re not claiming to be expert thermal engineers, but we’re not daft… we see enough product to know what is credible. We’re not expert optical engineers, but we can understand the quality of beam we see… and we see enough product to be able to compare.
And there’s the crux… “we see enough product”. A number of the sales staff we meet don’t appear to have ever looked at anyone else’s product… let alone tried to understand what might be good or bad about it. In some cases, it’s hard to believe that the design and engineering staff have had a look around the market either. Some people don’t even seem to have looked at their own back-catalogue of successful pre-LED product! We specifiers just get the same old story trotted out… “we’re the only people doing this properly”, “we’re the first people to achieve this”, “we’re way ahead”.
No you’re not. Honestly. You’re not. In the majority of cases, you’re making some good kit… but stop making claims that make you look deluded.
The hundred-thousand-hour-tin-can-and-resistor boys have either grown up or fallen by the wayside. But perhaps there’s a second wave of LED failures in the pipeline.
Don’t be one of them.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.




Readers' comments (5)
Anonymous | 27 May 2011 10:38 am
I think your point is very well made, however I would like to disagree with you. Whilst every quality manufacturer of LED lamps does indeed by their chips from one of a small number of specialists, it's what you do with them that counts.
The quality of aluminium used to dissipate the heat produced is one crucial element. Whilst a lamp with cheap aluminium might initially look the same in a demonstration, it certainly won't do a little further down the line.
My personal prediction is that a lot of the lamps on sale today will be replaced with genuine quality once the end user has been stung.
Sadly, in the meantime, manufacturers of genuine quality who ARE using UNIQUE methods to bring their light to market will have to bide their time.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Iain Ruxton | 1 June 2011 11:01 am
Thanks for your comment.
This is, of course, a degree of devil's advocacy in these blogs... and a certain amount of generalisation.
Yes, of course it's what you do with the components that counts. Yes, the thermal design is the obvious big engineering challenge, as early adopters found out to their cost a few years ago... but I think it's fair to claim that the quality players in the market have got this cracked and are doing it properly. Good thermal design no longer makes a product or a manufacturer unique, although bad thermal design definitely marks out rubbish. The poor-quality kit will eventually be replaced as you suggest, although I predict interesting legal squabbles concerning liability... (and there's always been poor quality rubbish out there in lighting, whatever the light source inside!)
My point was that once you ignore the rubbish, most of what’s left is very similar from manufacturer to manufacturer. Anyone who is genuinely creating unique lighting tools has a great opportunity to make a mark right now... don't bide your time... get the word out!
Meanwhile, I stand by my proposal that very few manufacturers are actually doing anything genuinely unique. If anyone who believes they are would like to come and show me their product - I'm always open to looking at lighting kit!
Unsuitable or offensive?
mary rushton-beales | 8 June 2011 8:55 am
I agree with Ian; us lighting designers are difficult to please and we wouldn't even be bothering to LOOK at a product that wasn't properly thermally designed.
So once you have sorted the wheat from the chaff there's not as much choice as you might think and we often end up recommending standard equipment that can be retrofitted with LED's as a result. Also just a little rant of my own; I was told this week that when the LED eventually fails in the downlight we were assessing, it has to be sent back to the manufacturer for replacement!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Iain Ruxton | 21 June 2011 8:48 am
Mary - at least "send it back for replacement" suggests that replacing it it possible... there's still plenty of "throw the whole thing out - it'll have lasted for years anyway" thinking out there, which is, to be honest, ridiculous in this day and age...
Unsuitable or offensive?
Luke Daunt | 25 October 2011 5:22 pm
Hi Iain,
It is refreshing to hear your views on LED fittings. I can say however that there are genuinely unique LED fittings on the market with features like integral dimmers, custom electronics built in to make overall appearance smaller, interchangeable lens systems, etc.... BUT its the age old problem...people won't pay the money for them and designers in some cases don't appreciate the extra costs that go into making these products.
Unsuitable or offensive?