Fenix HP11 Headlamp

[tncaver]

Has anyone tried the Fenix HP11 headlamp? Specs on it are similar to the Apex 200 lumen with a better water proof rating, longer shine distance, and longer battery life. Price is similar to the Apex 200 lumen. Looks to be a winner for the money. It also comes with a snap on diffuser and runs on either 4AA alkaline, lithium standard batteries or NiMH rechargables.

[Chads93GT]

277j lumens on turbo? I may have to try this one out.

[LukeM]

First one of their headlamps to not meet IPX-8 waterproof standards, one of the best things the HP-10 has going for it IMO. So far as I can tell it's a heavier, brighter and less waterproof HP-10.

[tncaver]

First one of their headlamps to not meet IPX-8 waterproof standards, one of the best things the HP-10 has going for it IMO. So far as I can tell it's a heavier, brighter and less waterproof HP-10.

According to brightguy.com, the Fenix HP11 is waterproof to IPX-8 standard (submerged in 2 meters of water for 30 minutes). That is another reason
I'm considering getting one of these. My Apex 130 lumen is starting to malfunction after 2.5 years of great service. The service rep hasn't called me
back yet and I need a light for this weekend. The Apex is supposed to have a lifetime warranty. The Fenix HP11 has a one year warranty through
brightguy.com. The Fenix is $64.95 for yellow or black. From memory I think the Brightguy price for a 200 lumen Apex is $68.95.

[LukeM]

According to brightguy.com, the Fenix HP11 is waterproof to IPX-8 standard (submerged in 2 meters of water for 30 minutes).

Hmm, I'm more inclined to trust the manufacturer's website.

[Marduke]

First one of their headlamps to not meet IPX-8 waterproof standards, one of the best things the HP-10 has going for it IMO. So far as I can tell it's a heavier, brighter and less waterproof HP-10.

Less waterproof? IPX6 is better than their IPX8 rating. I'd consider it more capable in water, not less.

[self-deleted_user]

Uhm. Okay. WANT. Only like $65 too. Danggggg. I bet I could cave on the 120lumen "high" level that runs for what, 9 hrs it says? even if it's a spot. Stupid loosing job soon and no monies. *puts on birthday list 6 months early* hahaha. They have a 800 lumen AA running flashlight too I see...weeee

[LukeM]

Less waterproof? IPX6 is better than their IPX8 rating. I'd consider it more capable in water, not less.

Huh? Everything I can find states that IPX6 would indicate protection from powerful jets coming from any direction, while IPX8 would indicate protection continually while at a depth of >1 meter. IPX0 would indicate no protection from water. Where are you getting your info?

[rlboyce]

LOL...

I'm finding out IP ratings are not intuitive, nor "linear." This post at candlepower forums helps a little: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?229090-IPX8-standard-explained!!!&p=2936692&viewfull=1#post2936692. Hey! Look who the poster is!

I have a question then Marduke. Is it possible that an IPX6 light may withstand jets of water better but at the same not be very good at being submerged for long periods? If not, then wouldn't this contradict your "not mutually inclusive" statement in another post from the forum mentioned above?

Is a cave light more likely to be submerged underwater or exposed to jets of water? Is IPX6 really preferable?

I do agree that IPX8 is not necessarily the best rating.

[tncaver]

There is definitely a discrepancy between the brightguy.com website and the fenixlight.com website concerning the waterproof standard for the Fenix HP11.
I have sent an email to Brightguy to let them know of the discrepancy.

According to this website, http://www.gps-home.com/waterproof-rating.aspx
The IPX 6 is Protected against heavy seas - Water projected at all angles through a 12.5mm nozzle at a flow rate of 100 liters/min at a pressure of 100kN/m2 for 3 minutes from a distance of 3 meters, while IPX 8 is Protected against water submersion - The equipment is suitable for continual submersion in water under conditions which are identified by the manufacturer. This is what Brightguy states: waterproof to IPX-8 standard (submerged in 2 meters of water for 30 minutes).

That information is a bit confusing. Still seems like a darn nice light at the Brightguy price. I might get one and make an equipment report.
I can use my old Apex 130 lumen as a back up light after I get it repaired. It has malfunctioned after
2.5 years of excellent service and I now have an authorization to send it back for repairs.

[self-deleted_user]

Considering my light usually gets wet from waterfalls pouring down not sump diving I'd think in caving standing up to jets would be better than being able to be simply submerged...but maybe I'm wrong in my thinking somewhere.

[LukeM]

Interesting. I have to admit, I assumed there was some sort of linear scale across the whole IP standard. Marduke, I would ask the same questions that rlboyce asked.

Amy, sump diving isn't the only way a light can become submerged. There's always low-airspace and swimming!

[Chads93GT]

I have the HP10 and HP20 mounted on my helmet right now and I have no complaints about either one, other than the HP20 not really being great for caving. I will be buying this light and use it surveying in our river cave project without any worries.

[Marduke]

IPX6 is a dynamic test, where IPX7/8 is static. The pressures developed though such a dynamic test can be much higher than a static one. I would take an IPX6 rating over IPX7 any day. With respect to IPX8, that depends on the exact depth certified at, but most light manufacturers don't do much deeper than IPX7 (if at all).

See post #40 in the above linked thread for an example for how a single raindrop can equal the pressure experienced at a depth of 300M!

To answer your question rlboyce, that would depend entirely upon the depth of certification. I would be very easy to produce a light capable of IPX6 which fails the minimum requirements of IPX8.

[rlboyce]

Thanks for the knowledgeable response Marduke. The way I see it, the "perfect" waterproof caving light would have both IPX6 and IPX8 ratings, and the IPX8 rating would be accompanied with an outlandish depth rating. Without both ratings (with the depth as well), I guess there is a little bit of a gamble on the part of a caving consumer, at least a light new to the market.

I think it would it be fair to say the IPX6 HP11 can *probably* withstand more than a brief dunking.