TASTY Led lights and bud boss
- Thread starter Rman18
- Start date
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
This has been something I've noted, that companies, such as GoGreenLED, will price their products at inflated costs but then offer ridiculous discounts to make up and better match their competitors in prices. It's most definitely a scheme. Can you imagine if someone came to you and said "hey, this company is offering me a 20% discount, will you match them?". You could always raise your prices 50% and then offer a 50% discount, lol, make the customer feel like they were taken care....Most people ask and I would like to offer discounts, but I would need to raise my prices to do so
I have actually considered doing that. Not seriously, but it has crossed my mind. I was talking to someone planing a light scheme a couple weeks ago and they were considering my lamps or another brand. The difference in cost for the same amount of light from the competition was $500 more. IOW, the other brand could offer a $500 discount and match my price.
Such a shady business scheme. I'm happy that you aren't following that trend, Rahz.
The PAR values stood out to me as distracting. I was looking for the coverage of a light (or, which light worked best in the OP's space). If I go to an Area-51 page I quickly see 20x20" is optimal in flower. When I visited a Tasty product page, I saw 5-6 different footprints (both square and seriously rectangular. T2-2100, for example). I don't get an immediate sense of "how will this light work in this space. Its optimal coverage." It's like scientific data (useful, but secondary to the very specific and *common* data point I sought).
Maybe it's just me. But, I think I'm pretty well oriented on the topic. If I found myself sitting there puzzled by that, I think the average Amazon/eBay referral will be left wondering too.
I agree with others about coupons. I always feel like I'm being scammed when doing business with someone who passes out coupon codes. Like, there's "the insider" deal and the sucker's deal. I like to see the price (and the details I'm looking for).
I'll probably stir some passions with this, but: That's something that gave me a bad vibe about Jerry@Kingbrite. I don't like to have to ask for pricing. I just want to go to a web page and see it. That's what web pages are for. I don't want to have a conversation just to get basic information like the price of an item (or, if it's even sold). Now I'm on a mailing list! (Seriously, I'm receiving a newsletter from him.).
Last edited:
GreenSanta
Well-Known Member
do you mean rman is rhaz?
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Thanks for explaining that. My intention was to make it easy to view the effects of 10 different lamps in one area, select the grow space and see the resulting light levels on a scale of 0 - 1500 with a target range of 300-1300. I don't disagree with your point of view though.
I like Pickles suggestion, going to play around with the principal and see what I can come up with.
I'm glad I was helpful. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I was referring to this information in a typical product's page:
Space usage and light intensity in flowering mode (includes lens loss):
24" x 24" 950 PPFD
18" x 30" 1015 PPFD
24" x 36" 635 PPFD
36" x 36" 850 PPFD
24" x 24" 950 PPFD
18" x 30" 1015 PPFD
24" x 36" 635 PPFD
36" x 36" 850 PPFD
That's where I got stuck. I was looking for something like "Optimal coverage in flower: 24x30." I didn't know how to interpret the above information which covers 4 to 9 sq ft. It didn't seem as specific as I was looking for (as a guideline).
Sidenote: I noticed that I reached a "products" page[1] at one time. I must have got to it from a google search and it's in my URL history. Anyway, I just noticed there's no way to get to that from any link on the page. There are just links to different model types. The overall list of products was nice because, well... (it just comes to mind now) there's no information on the individual product pages indicating why they are segregated into models like that. So, instead of clicking into 3 different areas, one product page was/is nice to see it all at once.
Regarding the coverage info I was looking for (and your desire to provide details), a PAR grid would be a nice visual representation of the coverage -- and provide details about it. Two or three could be created for minimum, maximum (optimal?) footprint?
That would be good info and also elegantly convey the data point I was looking for.
[1] http://www.tastyled.com/productslist.asp
topcat
Well-Known Member
You did make it easy. I'm still a student at this but I've learned the values of PPFD for a given footprint. I have 2 tents in 2x4 and 3x3 sizes and the info given was very helpful.
The wattage confusion in the led industry reminds me of the claims of audio amps/receivers back around 1970, when we learned the difference between peak and RMS watts and the tricks used by manufacturers.
(The products page link is in the column headed "Company" on the left.)
Rahz
Well-Known Member
We do agree on some things then, but you make the point that, for instance with a T2 there is both a PPFD for it's natural footprint of a rectangle but also of a square. Not sure how many have played with light levels from various multi cob lamps but most light sources are ultimately circles. Part of the reason for going with long shrouds was to combat this reality and create lights that could be hung low with the cobs spread out. The T2 does not have much effect on the circle phenomena so is still a good contender for a 2x2 tent, just with the light intensity split up by 12 inches. There's a small reflective penalty but also a small advantage to canopy distance so it kinda evens out. If a person would spend a few minutes digging the main page they would know that that lamp in a 2x2 or or 1.5x2.5 is pretty "bad ass" and that it would be "sufficient" in a 2x3 and that 2 of them in a 3x3 would be better than average. I appreciate the comments because there are several philosophies that kinda clash and it's difficult to provide concise information that satisfies both the momentary glance and the curious number cruncher.
My original intention was to create a by the foot solution, 850 PPFD by the foot, three lamp models, order by the foot, super easy, but I had strong doubts about the commercial viability of a cob per foot. My alternative is still closer than other commercial offerings to that principal, but when I made the switch to the shroud design I decided that it would be best (perhaps not easiest) to provide the chart that takes into consideration the growers exact growing space and provide a variety of options (footprints) with single and multi lamp setups... it's just not visual. The visual for that seems difficult to do, presenting the information of 10 different lamp models in graphical form without causing the viewer to switch back and forth between images.
In my defense, I expect a certain desire for attention to detail from my customers. These are hand built lamps using components that can provide 7 years of reliable service. There is one company, that despite being out of stock sometimes, is in the same league with mine regarding price/performance and it hands above when it comes to volume produced. I can only make so many lamps. I might consider it a luxury that I can cater to the LED connoisseur as I can only build so many lamps in a given month.
As I go forward I will have time to give the wider market some thought. A visual footprint is a desirable marketing tool. Right now I worried about when Cutter will ship my cobs and I'll be spending about 6 hours tomorrow drilling out heatsinks and tapping them while listening to some classical rock.
Have a sip and toke and forget about PPFDs and GPWs...
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
There is a menu I can get to with my android I can't get to in a web browser. It seems to be a limitation of the software my web host uses. This has resulted in T22s being available after I took them "off" the website. I'm still figuring out the intricacies of the software. I'd be much happier having a shack with a sign that said "lamps for sale".
Sorry. I had a feeling I was going to trigger a reaction like that.
I was just looking for the light's coverage. I didn't mean to imply the finer points are invalid.
Last edited:
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Well, don't be sorry. Being here as much as you are I suspect you appreciate the nerdy aspects of building lights. I do agree that light slinging requires a fine finesse to provide the user with the optimal solutions on the fly, but I don't know exactly what that is. We can talk about optimal PPFD, and what exactly should be the "recommended" footprint, what should be a "super" footprint, what should be a "high efficiency" flowering solution, and what are min/max veg solutions because those are different based on whether the chamber is dedicated veg or full cycle.
The "coverage" IS the ppfd, density in space. As per the main page, 600w hid single ended with reflective losses is about 650 PPFD in a 4x4. This is the reference information that makes the two graphics on my main page relevant to light intensity expectations to A- someone who has used HID and B- someone who hasn't used HID but aspires to it from whatever other low efficiency solution they are accustomed too. Prior to the induction of LED COB technology the best solution for a 2x2 might have been a 250w HPS. or a 3x3 or 2x4, a 400w HPS, and then 600s and 1000s in 4x4s and 5x5s, or 1800 in a 4x8, 3000s in a 5x10, etc. I like the idea of footprints, but it's an idea I've considered over time, rather than information I can give out. You bring up my own internal arguments over the last 6 months or so. On a personal level I want nothing to do with "claims" outside my own estimations of lamp performance on a technical level.
I agree there needs to be a reasonable footprint but I'm undecided when it comes to what that is exactly, so I provide the technical information. I try to, and have the luxury of, building great lamps, but dealing with the recommended space is a philosophical question which I can only chime in on, though I acknowledge a standard would be nice. I think a par-watt rating would be the simplest and most reasonably accurate comparison between brands (which I offer on the product pages).
But I could use some help in that regard which is why I appreciate the criticism. I think a simple par-watt rating is the best way to facilitate momentary comparisons but I'm open to suggestions on how to make various types of space data more immediately accessible, and agree that in certain contexts marketing aspects of one kind hold prominence over another. If you can, on second glance, make sense of my main page, then thanks and I salute you. Complicated is good sometimes and I am just a humble lamp maker who has a reasonable understanding of the components involved and want's to provide good solutions for the new to serious hobby growers, as well as push the interest in high efficiency led solutions. Being "all" business like about it comes in second because I don't have the patience for the whole taco. I look forward to a time when I can focus on building lamps more quickly rather than marketing them more efficently if that gives you an idea of my attitude towards it. I don't think I am the best at everything, but I have no choice at this point in this venture.
The "coverage" IS the ppfd, density in space. As per the main page, 600w hid single ended with reflective losses is about 650 PPFD in a 4x4. This is the reference information that makes the two graphics on my main page relevant to light intensity expectations to A- someone who has used HID and B- someone who hasn't used HID but aspires to it from whatever other low efficiency solution they are accustomed too. Prior to the induction of LED COB technology the best solution for a 2x2 might have been a 250w HPS. or a 3x3 or 2x4, a 400w HPS, and then 600s and 1000s in 4x4s and 5x5s, or 1800 in a 4x8, 3000s in a 5x10, etc. I like the idea of footprints, but it's an idea I've considered over time, rather than information I can give out. You bring up my own internal arguments over the last 6 months or so. On a personal level I want nothing to do with "claims" outside my own estimations of lamp performance on a technical level.
I agree there needs to be a reasonable footprint but I'm undecided when it comes to what that is exactly, so I provide the technical information. I try to, and have the luxury of, building great lamps, but dealing with the recommended space is a philosophical question which I can only chime in on, though I acknowledge a standard would be nice. I think a par-watt rating would be the simplest and most reasonably accurate comparison between brands (which I offer on the product pages).
But I could use some help in that regard which is why I appreciate the criticism. I think a simple par-watt rating is the best way to facilitate momentary comparisons but I'm open to suggestions on how to make various types of space data more immediately accessible, and agree that in certain contexts marketing aspects of one kind hold prominence over another. If you can, on second glance, make sense of my main page, then thanks and I salute you. Complicated is good sometimes
and I am just a humble lamp maker who has a reasonable understanding of the components involved and want's to provide good solutions for the new to serious hobby growers, as well as push the interest in high efficiency led solutions. Being "all" business like about it comes in second because I don't have the patience for the whole taco. I look forward to a time when I can focus on building lamps more quickly rather than marketing them more efficently if that gives you an idea of my attitude towards it. I don't think I am the best at everything, but I have no choice at this point in this venture.
hillbill
Well-Known Member
Footprint vs intensity has been the conflict in led design forever. Cobs are a big improvement.
We are now choosing between bare, lenses or reflectors to best solve this. Improvements and refinements will come fast for the near future simply because so many people are working on this.
Even coverage of similar intensity must be the goal of any horti lamp. Unusable intensity beneath the fixture is an energy waste also. Multiple cobs can provide great coverage and that will just get better.
Tasty site provides better and more useful info than most, and mr Rahz is available on this forum. Thanks.
We are now choosing between bare, lenses or reflectors to best solve this. Improvements and refinements will come fast for the near future simply because so many people are working on this.
Even coverage of similar intensity must be the goal of any horti lamp. Unusable intensity beneath the fixture is an energy waste also. Multiple cobs can provide great coverage and that will just get better.
Tasty site provides better and more useful info than most, and mr Rahz is available on this forum. Thanks.
BuddyColas
Well-Known Member
IMO you have great site. Plenty of info to make a choice...but not to windy! And you are one the few cob vendors selling bars over boxes. Bars are better for the small grower wanting a good spread...from my experience.Well, don't be sorry. Being here as much as you are I suspect you appreciate the nerdy aspects of building lights. I do agree that light slinging requires a fine finesse to provide the user with the optimal solutions on the fly, but I don't know exactly what that is. We can talk about optimal PPFD, and what exactly should be the "recommended" footprint, what should be a "super" footprint, what should be a "high efficiency" flowering solution, and what are min/max veg solutions because those are different based on whether the chamber is dedicated veg or full cycle.
The "coverage" IS the ppfd, density in space. As per the main page, 600w hid single ended with reflective losses is about 650 PPFD in a 4x4. This is the reference information that makes the two graphics on my main page relevant to light intensity expectations to A- someone who has used HID and B- someone who hasn't used HID but aspires to it from whatever other low efficiency solution they are accustomed too. Prior to the induction of LED COB technology the best solution for a 2x2 might have been a 250w HPS. or a 3x3 or 2x4, a 400w HPS, and then 600s and 1000s in 4x4s and 5x5s, or 1800 in a 4x8, 3000s in a 5x10, etc. I like the idea of footprints, but it's an idea I've considered over time, rather than information I can give out. You bring up my own internal arguments over the last 6 months or so. On a personal level I want nothing to do with "claims" outside my own estimations of lamp performance on a technical level.
I agree there needs to be a reasonable footprint but I'm undecided when it comes to what that is exactly, so I provide the technical information. I try to, and have the luxury of, building great lamps, but dealing with the recommended space is a philosophical question which I can only chime in on, though I acknowledge a standard would be nice. I think a par-watt rating would be the simplest and most reasonably accurate comparison between brands (which I offer on the product pages).
But I could use some help in that regard which is why I appreciate the criticism. I think a simple par-watt rating is the best way to facilitate momentary comparisons but I'm open to suggestions on how to make various types of space data more immediately accessible, and agree that in certain contexts marketing aspects of one kind hold prominence over another. If you can, on second glance, make sense of my main page, then thanks and I salute you. Complicated is good sometimes
David Schafer
New Member
Rahz,
For a 2' x 4' x 7' tall tent with 2 plants would you recommend two T2-1750 or one T4-1750 or something else and why?
What is the difference between reflector and lenses?
Thanks. I joined this site just to ask you these questions.
For a 2' x 4' x 7' tall tent with 2 plants would you recommend two T2-1750 or one T4-1750 or something else and why?
What is the difference between reflector and lenses?
Thanks. I joined this site just to ask you these questions.
Evil-Mobo
Well-Known Member
One T4 1750. I just ordered one for the same size.space.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
The T4-1750 would be the same amount of light as 2 T2-1750s, so no reason to spend the extra on two smaller lamps if it's going in a 2x4.
I still offer lenses on custom lamps. I'm building two tonight for a customer request. I do this because some people are just more comfortable with lenses and some people foliar feed their plants. As long as you won't have dropplets splashing on the lamp I would suggest going with reflectors. On paper and in tests they provide 2-3 percent more light.