LED products require extra dillegence to ensure specification requirement compliance

Status
Not open for further replies.

Electric-Light

Senior Member
I am surprised that Lithonia does not append engineering revision change as a suffix and a change in UPC. It is VERY important to ensure that the installed units do not possess inferior specifications than the spec requirements or agreed upon performance.

So, here's a new strategy I'm going to keep for myself. Normally, something like
"shall be Lithonia xx yy model, or equivalent" indicates that exact model # match is automatically accepted as conforming, but this NEEDS TO CHANGE. There needs to be an additional qualifier: performance rating of the specific engineering revision shall not be inferior to the originally specified model. Modification between revisions shall not cause visually objectionable effect, such as uneven brightness or color against existing installed units.

Before placing an order, I now suggest getting a signed applicable brochure version, and an older edition as well for reference. Scrutinize the incoming shipment with a fine comb and make absolutely certain that the shipment you receive do not fall under the older spec set that fail to meet the specifications that you agreed to accept.


Reference: A basic SB2 F32T8 Lithonia wrap around is 92.1% rated.
http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/photometricViewer/default.aspx?id=40829
F32T8/RE835 rated at 2950 new 2800 mean.
0.78 L ballast rated 48W input.
4240 lm / 48 88.33 lm/W using LED industry method, which uses new out of box lumens.
4024 lm / 48 = 83.8 lm/W using the standard method, which uses mean lumens.

Lithonia makes wrap arounds that looks almost identical to the above, but uses LEDs instead of T8 lamps. This is where it gets scary. They change specs wildly between revisions, but fail to list serial number ranges where the old spec sheet applies to.

So, say you go to Lithonia.com and finds the datasheet:

Same UPC #.... different production revision, HUGE difference.

Huge meaning that it makes enough difference for the old version to be considered inferior to standard T8 wrap around and new revision to be considered a slight update over T8.

Newest:
LBL4 LP835 LBL4 LP835 UPC: 753573917601 rated at 4564 LM, 41W 3500K and L90/60,000 hours. With a 111.3 LM/W initial and (speculated life of L90/60,000 hours of use)
So,the specs show the efficacy at end of life is 100 LM/W
This would be slightly better than the T8, taking the specs at face value.

So, if you were to start shopping for the fixture by the model and UPC... and seek the best pricing on them Well. You might find a great deal on the same model with the same UPC, but that could be because of an outdated revision old stock that is crushed by the T8 version. Lithonia fails to disclose applicable serial number ranges, you may get a substandard non-complying products:

Year and half ago: 12/9/2013
LBL4 LP835 753573917601 4' LED Wraparound 4,000 LM 50W 3500K speculated life of (30% light loss after 50,000 hours of use L70/50,000)
80 LM/W starting and end of life efficacy of 56 LM/W
This version is worse performing than T8 fluorescent.

Same model #, same UPC, such a dramatic difference. This shouldn't be allowed :happysad:

If you purchase a retrofit based on the favorable looking specs from the 4/27/2015 specs, but you find out that fixtures actually installed are from production lots prior to the kick-in of the new specs, then you know you've got old stuff dumped on you you should have them ripped all out and replaced with the conditions that payments are due upon completion... to the originally agreed upon specs.
 

Attachments

  • 2015.jpg
    2015.jpg
    24.1 KB · Views: 0
  • 2013.jpg
    2013.jpg
    18.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
You have obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this but is there a real purpose to this thread beyond painting the manufacturer in a negative light?
 

__dan

Senior Member
Actually a good point buried in there. LEDs are an immature market so there's a material difference between future, next generation products compared to last years.

Like anything with a CPU, flash memory, or software, there's a big difference between last years product and the current generation production. How would you like to get last years smartphone. Could be a good deal if you're paying the markdown price instead of the price for latest and greatest. Like getting a Nokia 635 for $50. and not paying the Samsung Galaxy 6 price. Cell phones sell over a billion units annually, so there's a lot of trickle down of highly engineered features into last years surplus capacity.

With LEDs there's a question of how much old stock there actually is. Many fixtures like that are build to order with a 6-8 week lead time, so they're not sitting in a warehouse like a few select models of troffer and wraparound T-8's that are stocked locally and move in volume. If the manufacturer was building current fixtures with last years LED emitters because they still had a few containers left, that would be a different problem.

It's the nature of the market being immature that there's so much improvement year to year. Any dumping of the lesser performing old stock is something to take advantage of by beating the price down to the liquidating level. The manufacturer has to move it off the docks to make way for current production output. When they want to move it there will have to be a sale.
 

Electric-Light

Senior Member
You have obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this but is there a real purpose to this thread beyond painting the manufacturer in a negative light?

Think about it. If there's a substantial specification change that affects decision making process, it's proper to change the UPC or model code so you can tell the two versions apart in the supply chain.

if you order and pay for iPhone 6, you wouldn't accept an iPhone 5. You would not want to have the sale closed on you with the persuasion of the new sell sheet and have the old stuff shipped to you.

When new specs are 4,564 lm, 41W and 10% LED degradation allowance and old specs are 4,000 lm, 50W and 30% LED degradation allowance, I believe the performance of the older batch is too severely low to not be differentiated by appending the new version with something like "LP835 - Rev 2" Otherwise, the customer's order can get fulfilled with the older inventory that fail to meet specifications that was communicated to them and there is no way to sort out the two versions in the warehouse.
 

Electric-Light

Senior Member
Actually a good point buried in there. LEDs are an immature market so there's a material difference between future, next generation products compared to last years.

Like anything with a CPU, flash memory, or software, there's a big difference between last years product and the current generation production.

If the differences can be leveled out with a software update or uncorrectable differences are not decision altering specs, it doesn't warrant a model change.

How would you like to get last years smartphone. Could be a good deal if you're paying the markdown price instead of the price for latest and greatest. Like getting a Nokia 635 for $50. and not paying the Samsung Galaxy 6 price. Cell phones sell over a billion units annually, so there's a lot of trickle down of highly engineered features into last years surplus capacity.

It's a fair deal if the customer knows right away. If specs affecting major sales points are changed and production code is the only way to determine it, it's an issue. If it requires opening boxes to check, it's a show killer.

With LEDs there's a question of how much old stock there actually is. Many fixtures like that are build to order with a 6-8 week lead time, so they're not sitting in a warehouse like a few select models of troffer and wraparound T-8's that are stocked locally and move in volume. If the manufacturer was building current fixtures with last years LED emitters because they still had a few containers left, that would be a different problem.

It's the nature of the market being immature that there's so much improvement year to year. Any dumping of the lesser performing old stock is something to take advantage of by beating the price down to the liquidating level. The manufacturer has to move it off the docks to make way for current production output. When they want to move it there will have to be a sale.

This "contractor selector" is the high volume builder grade LEDs that a supply house DC can easily have enough in stock, in the hundreds, which is enough to complete a fair sized job.

Say a competitor submitted a proposal using L90/60,000 sell sheet, sends a product sample that is from the new lot and negotiates a slightly lower price on the older lot with his supplier. Despite the major difference of 30% degradation allowance L70/50,000, it would ship with the same UPC and same model number, so it's obviously going to slip right through receiving that right shipment in the right quantity was received.

This is an improper bid advantage through the use of inferior substitute.

A proposal with L90/60,000 41W would reasonably receive a preference over L70/50,000 50W.

I thin it's a good idea for the customer representative to ask to have any LED fixtures damaged during installation to be set aside and not removed or thrown out. It's a good opportunity for random specification non conformance auditing. It's not fool proof, but if after consultation with the factory, damaged fixture is found to be the older specs not representative of the performance touted in proposal, then every single one of them needs to get recalled.
 
Last edited:

Electric-Light

Senior Member
With LEDs there's a question of how much old stock there actually is. Many fixtures like that are build to order with a 6-8 week lead time, so they're not sitting in a warehouse like a few select models of troffer and wraparound T-8's that are stocked locally and move in volume.

Well, I think this answers what you maybe wondering about. They have over 700 sitting warehoused.
sGkY9dU.png



You will see that the SAME UPC is utilized and there's no telling which is which from inventory management perspectives.
753573917601
Rev Dec 2013: Fixed output. 50W/4000 lm, 30% degradation allowance

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=23527463501477090412

Rev May 2014: Fixed output. 50W/4000 lm, 30% degradation allowance. Dimmable under different UPC.
http://www.acuitybrandslighting.com/library/ll/documents/specsheets/led wraparound.pdf

Rev May 2015: 41W/ ~4500 lm. Apparently, dimmable and it is under 753573917601.
http://www.acuitybrandslighting.com/library/ll/documents/specsheets/lbl-led-wraparound.pdf

If you were to order 753573917601, it may seem redundant to say "product shall be rated 41W ~4500 lm L90/65K, shall be dimmable, as shown on sell sheet rev May 2015 and explained by sales rep Kevan" but it is EXTREMELY important so you will not be sent the identical UPC old stock with different specs. The comment alone could make the difference between you getting the warehouse emptied on you... vs them having to place a new order... or it maybe an opportunity to negotiate on what's in stock ;)
 
Last edited:

PetrosA

Senior Member
I agree that's not cool at all. An even worse potential situation is if you ordered 300 fixtures and received 250 of the old batch and 50 of the new. The difference in brightness would be noticeable to many people throughout the life cycle of the product.
 

mivey

Senior Member
Think about it. If there's a substantial specification change that affects decision making process, it's proper to change the UPC or model code so you can tell the two versions apart in the supply chain.
Hear, hear!

if you order and pay for iPhone 6, you wouldn't accept an iPhone 5. You would not want to have the sale closed on you with the persuasion of the new sell sheet and have the old stuff shipped to you.
I bet the folks at Lithonia would agree. It is hard to imagine there is that much disconnect between the designers and the accountants. This almost has to be deliberate. Thanks for the heads up about these type practices as I would not have expected it.
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
Sounds like one of those "specifications subject to change without notice" situations. You just do not expect that to work in reverse by giving old stuff instead of the new specs.
 

Electric-Light

Senior Member
Hear, hear!

I bet the folks at Lithonia would agree. It is hard to imagine there is that much disconnect between the designers and the accountants. This almost has to be deliberate. Thanks for the heads up about these type practices as I would not have expected it.

Sounds like one of those "specifications subject to change without notice" situations. You just do not expect that to work in reverse by giving old stuff instead of the new specs.

This is not a small change. It is a major change in KEY SPECIFICATIONS that may affect the award decision. This is as bad as keeping the same UPC for a case of 10 and a case of 12.

I agree that's not cool at all. An even worse potential situation is if you ordered 300 fixtures and received 250 of the old batch and 50 of the new. The difference in brightness would be noticeable to many people throughout the life cycle of the product.

It could actually be much more serious. Say a school updates 250 T12 fixtures in hallways:

Option 1 http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/photometricviewer/default.aspx?id=40828:
Using 25W 48" lamps rated at 2400 initial 2260 mean and 0.88 BF ballast, you would be at about 43W input. With 89% fixture efficiency, you're at 3,760 lm new or 3,540 lm sustained with 43W input or so. Say $60/fixture + $6/lamp x 2 lamps (for 70,000 hr rated T8 lamps) = $72/fixture material.

If the LED based proposal uses specs of 4,564 lm initial 4,100 @ 60,000 hrs with 41W input @ $150/fixture material before incentive. A combination of possible incentives, a preference point for zero mercury solution and higher efficacy specs than T8 may actually trigger a bid award that would not have been awarded for 4,000 lm initial and 2,800 lm at 50,000 hrs with 50W input at $150/fixture. Depending on the incentive program, the latter may not qualify for the same level of incentives and the lack of clear distinction could cause unauthorized payments of incentives. The oldest version is not dimmable. The second version uses different UPC for the dimmable version. The latest version is the same UPC as the first version and the interim UPC for the dimmable one appears to be eliminated. This could trigger a incentive payout on non-qualifying older revision product from existing inventory.

If the supplied fixtures are the older version and the bid wouldn't have been awarded with 4,000 lm new, 2,800 @ 50,000 with 50W input or it affects incentive eligibility, it would be an improper award. If the fixture UPC, carton and model # are all the same, it might never get caught unless someone files a spec non compliance protest.

Such a huge difference without a model number is bad for everyone. It makes incentive eligibility verification difficult. It makes inventory management difficult.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top