New outlook on the updated Philips Instant Fit T8 LED drop-in bulb vs RE 80 T8 2XL

Status
Not open for further replies.

Electric-Light

Senior Member
The InstantFit is line of phosphor fluorescence based LED T8 lamps that is compatible with some instant-start T8 fluorescent electronic ballast.

The earlier version used plastic and despite their skewed and clever marketing attempts, the output is considerably lower than 25W 48" T8.

The newer, cheaper version uses shatterable glass bulb. The LED strip is glued to the back of the glass tube and ditches the aluminum tray insert. This must be their small business/DIY market. Higher output, but correspondingly higher power consumption. Endurance is shaved down 28% to 36k hrs to 30% LED degradation.

Philips rates everything based on 0.88 BF two lamp ballst of their choice. They recognize use with high BF ballast, but explicitly say life rating is only valid for BF 0.88 or less. This means high BF = faster degradation as well as lower lumens per watt.

My analysis:

The InstantFit LED costs slightly less per lamp than 2XL 25W HPT8 and boasts a refreshing 11.9% lead fresh out of the box efficacy of 105 lm/W and look fabulous on post-installation evaluation. This isn't for long as it goes on a steady down hill rides before cutting off at 73.5 lm/W at 36K hours. The hot temperature characteristics look comparable and cold temperature performance is much better. It is indeed a great fluorescent substitute for low hour applications, such as storage rooms and residential use that sees frequent short cycles. Nonetheless, it falls significantly short of high quality long life traditional fluorescent technology in long burning applications these lamps are generally marketed to, such as convenience stores and small business offices.

The real implication is that overcoming lamp degradation that far exceeds F40T12 requires the use of old approach used for metal halide lamps which is to of overshoot by a large amount so that initial lumen is 43% above the acceptable minimum level or costly active control that is beyond the scope of this thread. Overshoot only needs to be 8.6% for 8% degradation of HPT8 2XL. When lamps go out on a T8 fluorescent lamps, the remaining lamps get driven a bit harder which cancels out some of output drop due to lamp burn outs. There's no compensation for LED fouling. The useful life of InstantFit T8 is considerably lower than 2XL fluorescent and the performance during lifecycle is rather poor.

I was conservative in using 50K hours to assume group replacement at 10% outage while very generous to the LED for letting it use the entire rated life and assume zero total failure.

LED marketing department love fresh out of the box specs, because it makes them look more presentable. Lower upfront cost means LEDs are driven hard to reduce chip quantity. The initial performance is of little relevance for something whose selling point is extreme durability. What really got rare earth bearing T8 systems ahead is the lower degradation that allowed systems to be designed with less initial overshoot. Allowing LEDs to get away with degradation performance worse than F96T12/HO/CW/110W is a step backward.

There is a higher spec line offering 18W/2500 lm, 70K hours to 30% degradation avaiable, but you have to pay considerably more for this upfront.


Reference benchmark: Philips 2XL T8 25W $6.90/lamp @ HD Supply
48" T8 25W. 2110 new lamp lm at 22.5W line input per lamp. 1940 LM (92%)@ 60k hrs.
B50@68K hrs. L10 (10% outage) would be about 50K hrs on 12 hour cycle.

Older InstantFit:
Plastic.
1650 new lamp lumens per 16 system watts. 50,000 hr rated life to 30% LED degradation.
170 degree beam spread. $20+/lamp

New version: InstantFit LED T8 - 4' Glass. $6.35/lamp in 10 pack @ Home Depot
Shatterable GLASS
2100 new lamp lumens per 20 system watts. (rated on 0.88 BF)
2450 new lamp lumens per 26.5 system watts (at 1.18 BF.. life rating not valid under this use)
36,000 rated life.(DLC listed, therefore color stability isn't a requirement and color shift can force early retirement not covered under warranty)

Read here for more information about L70/B50 rating http://www.osram-os.com/osram_os/en...chnology/2014/how-long-do-leds-last/index.jsp


References consulted:
Philips InstantFit product bulletin
http://images.philips.com/is/conten...01_UPD_en_US_PLt-1309BN_LED T8_Web_682016.pdf

Philips T8 48" 25W 2XL specification sheet
2XL T8 fluorescent lamp:
DOdBYZE.png


Advance 2 lamp ballast datasheet
 
Last edited:

jumper

Senior Member
Umm sure. SMBs end up buying them to replace their F32T8 SP, TL70, 7xx, because they're often unaware of 48" T8 25W 2XL lamp that offers much better long term value and performance.

I quit reading after this:

The InstantFit is line of phosphor fluorescence based LED T8 lamps that is compatible with some instant-start T8 fluorescent electronic ballast.

Way too much for the average member to care about reading IMO.
 

Electric-Light

Senior Member
Prolly true, but ya ain't gonna teach no one by bludgeoning them to death with overwhelming info.

Small concise packets are far more effective IME. Just saying.......

eh. I don't feel its too much to read for someone who is on the fence about spending thousands of dollars and told LED is miracle. They're never going to learn about the existence of 2XL from LED tooting sales rep for sure.

Do you have any suggestion who they might turn to verify the claim "LEDs last much longer" they're told? Many LED retrofit solicitors believe obscenely wrong about figures they present regarding fluorescent.
 

Electric-Light

Senior Member
No offense, but it would seem to me that a design rep/agent/contractor might have a bit of an agenda also.:)

Agenda or not, what is your reaction if a car magazine article said or quoted engines produce almost no heat, but most of the heat at radiator comes from transmission losses? Such non-sense shouldn't get past editorial process of a gear head oriented magazine.

It was no mystery that LEDs dissipate a large portion of consumed energy as heat even back in 2011, yet this non-sense was able to slip into Facilitiesnet article and perhaps a lot of non-sense said about LEDs slip through decision makers.

"Although SSL doesn't generate heat as a byproduct of generating light, the drivers and ballasts do. LEDs are sensitive to temperature fluctuation in the fixture. Therefore, fixtures without a heat sink appropriate for LEDs can cause premature failure of the LED lamp."

http://www.facilitiesnet.com/lighting/article/Factors-for-LED-Retrofit---12236?source=next
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
Funny thing is that nobody, and I mean nobody, is spec'ing any kind of T8 systems for new installation anymore. So, comparing an LED product to a T8 product that will likely not get specified or removed is completely pointless.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
Agreed it's a long read but I like absorbing as much info as I have time for when it comes to LED's.

I like learning about LED as well. The problem is that Electric Light is comparing what LED does or is purported to do, to a lighting system (T8) that is going extinct. Granted, there are no landmarks other than existing lighting systems to compare LED to at this point as LED doesn't have much history yet. Nevertheless, the reality is that traditional systems are going to disappear and no amount of ranting against LED by Electric Light is going to change that.
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
Why on earth would I want to use existing ballasts?? They will be first to fail.

RC

:thumbsup:

We changed out 9 4' t-8 fluorescent ballasts this week alone at one small lawyer's office, 3 of which failed in 5 days between the initial call Friday and our work today. When we go LED, the existing ballast is almost never hooked back up; I posted a rather lengthy reply here and here as to why.

The building was built in 2007. :happyno: but seeing ballast failures after less than a decade is not by any means uncommon now.
 

Electric-Light

Senior Member
Funny thing is that nobody, and I mean nobody, is spec'ing any kind of T8 systems for new installation anymore. So, comparing an LED product to a T8 product that will likely not get specified or removed is completely pointless.

I like learning about LED as well. The problem is that Electric Light is comparing what LED does or is purported to do, to a lighting system (T8) that is going extinct. Granted, there are no landmarks other than existing lighting systems to compare LED to at this point as LED doesn't have much history yet. Nevertheless, the reality is that traditional systems are going to disappear and no amount of ranting against LED by Electric Light is going to change that.

Lighting renovations are often incentivized. Incentive programs have various requirements that must be cleared. Perhaps my posts could/have influenced those making those decisions.. maybe not. LED based solutions that meet, and remain above the best available gas discharge GSFL are still very expensive and do not make economic sense in good parts of US. It would require initial efficacy of about 130 LPW to make sure the end of life output and efficacy remains on par with HPT8 after allowing 30% LED degradation. It is the end of useful life performance that sets the required installed capacity.

When relevant concerns are brought up and exposed, it could influence specifiers, rebate program administrators and other interested bodies, it can influence them to make requirements more restrictive for earning qualifications and listing for various programs adopted by utility rebates or energy standards. A slight, yet significant modification modifications to rebate or specifications requirements would dramatically raise the expectations on LED solution suppliers and ESCOs as they should.

The goal is to maintain lighting just a bit above design illumination level without causing light quality issues, such as excess flicker, disruptive shadows, glare all while meeting required specs.

About two years ago, I ragged about:
How unreasonable it is to allow 30% output degradation to define LED lifetime except in applications that can only be served with metal halide lamps. Only MH, mercury vapor and VHO fluorecent lamps degrade that much during their useful lifetime. I argue that installed capacity needs to be defined by the lighting level to be held at the end of life.

Claims of substantial wattage reduction without producing comparable output.

Back then, the common Philips InstantFit was 16.5W system watts per 1600 initial lumens with defined life of 50K hrs to 30% permanent degradation. Back then, this was $20-25 and "glass free" was a selling point.

The current high volume model is about half the initial price and 20W system watts per 2100 lumens and 36,000 hrs to degrade by 30%.
The initial efficacy is shoulder to shoulder with the best comparable life fluorescent system while the maintained level is substantially worse. Initial level is a tad better than 2XL lamp that gets about twice the life, but maintained level doesn't even come close to matching.

In order to reduce manufacturing cost, the new version avoids aluminum heat sink, push the LEDs harder and have the strip glued directly to the inside of a glass lamp envelope. The glass envelope offers better thermal conductivity, but it will shatter if broken and gives up a feature they touted two years ago. The wattage was raised to bring the output that is more realistically in line with the initial output of the fluorescent lamp it is intended to substitute, yet the maintained output is unacceptably low as the HPT8 holds about 94% while this product allows slouching down to 70%. The lamp costs more than the best performing T8 lamp with similar life while performing much worse and costs almost the same as the 2XL lamps with twice the life that still outperforms this LED lamp in the long run.

My insistence is to close this unacceptable gap. Owing to the cost of building LEDs that can keep the output to match the best GSFL all the way to the end of the useful life, they're going for the gas pedal.

WWVupIv.jpg


This was noted in a 2016 Lightfair presentation as well.
o8hA3yh.jpg


This GE sell sheet's comparison chart compares against full wattage F32T8 with RE70 phosphor blend formulation which is what went into the T8 lamps in the 1990s and remained the volume leader despite the fact RE80 lamps were available. Why? the RE80 lamps cost a few bucks more. You're looking at over $5/lamp for premium lamps. 28W High performance T8 is a 1:1 match for RE70/SP/7xx lamps despite lower initial lumens due to better lumen maintenance. LED lamps are substantially more expensive than HPT8 that many didn't want to use because of the higher cost over RE70 lamps. LED systems that do not exceed wattage demand at end of life while matching HPT8's output still costs many folds more than HPT8.
WJYMzZ0.jpg


From best to worst lumen maintenance -
HPT8 > common RE80 > RE70/SP > F40T12/CW that's been around for good part of 20th century > 30% loss allowance used to define LED life in 2016
 

Electric-Light

Senior Member
NEW INSTALL

HPT8
- NEMA premium ballasts reduce ballast losses by 25-50%. It only cuts the power use by a tiny percentage, but the heat dissipation lowers ballast temperature in fixtures improving ballast life over the older version.

- HPT8 and above allows lamp+ballast system that breaks 100 LPW. This drops a bit for double life lamps.

- Premium optics enables 89-93% light utilization

- Maintained lumens of lamp: 95 for ~36-42K lamps. 92 for double life lamps.

- Lamps are wired in parallel. One burns out, only one is out.

- When one lamp goes out, remaining lamp(s) on the same ballast are boosted 13-15% partially mitigating lumen losses between relamp cycles

- The combination of above factors allow lean designs working upwards from minimum required level + small amount of fudge factor. If dimming ballasts are to be used, overspecing a bit with ballast factor or lamp type don't add much cost. Overspecing lumen capacity costs dearly with LED's

LEDs
Those ballast related benefits that newer T8 ballasts have over older ballasts are already built into better quality LED ballasts.

Just to match HPT8, you need around 75-80 out the luminaire lumens per watt with lamps at end of life or 100-115 out the luminaire lumens per input watt for high degradation LEDs that allow 30% loss. Match means matching cost too. The wowzer effect from high initial foot candle level is meaningless as over lit = wasted. The more the light source degrades over its life, the more initial lumen over provisioning needed.

So, LED systems would need to have 75-80 LPW at the end of life to stay on par with HPT8 on kW demand.

Similar: LED and GSFL both have ballast related issues as well as dust related depeciation that should be applied equally. LED lamps aren't immune from burn outs. For comparison, I left it out.

In conclusion, LEDs better have end of life LPW that's way damn better than 80 LPW in order to actually save money to absorb cost of higher initial cost using real world time value of money and cost of borrowing.

The purchase decision should revolve around photometric, kW demand based on reaching illumination level all the way to the end of design life and whatever other performance parameters needed. LED vs fluorescent would be one of the later questions belonging to preference for how the desired performance is reached.


For RETROFIT
LED drop-in lamps that put out about half the output of GSFL works well for bare strips in high or dark ceiling space.

PS:
Relative to 2010: Users/programs are catching up on the tactics used by LED pushers and ESCOs to shave wattage by installing LEDs that give less light and only using LEDs' initial lumens and ignoring the fact they degrade. This is reflected in the trend of higher wattage rating of "equivalent" LED lamp compared to 2010 despite increased lumens per watt in those years.

PS2:
CREE talked about how their linear replacement lamps are going to push GSFLs into extinction back in 2014, but Cree quietly left this market and CREE linear retrofit lamps have gone extinct long before GSFL.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top