In reply to galpinos:
No idea. FL1 copy costs 500$ and the organisation doesn't give out much detailed info.
The reported battery life is the result of structured field testing, done at night. One method was done to give the battery life for the different levels (high and economy) in REACTIVE LIGHTING mode. [source: Petzl FAQ].
If and what output curve (see below) do they use for the Standard more (or perhaps even Reactive mode), again, only they know (with their bluetooth model, you can at least see and edit the curves yourself).
Unfortunately the FL1 burn time itself is - as a metric for comparison - almost useless, unless they publish output graphs. See this (old but still valid) article, or the following quote from PLATO/FL1 website:
http://www.led-resource.com/ansi-fl1-standard/
Ansi/FL1/Plato Run Time: Tested with fresh batteries from 30 seconds after the light is turned on until the light output reaches 10% of the initial measurement. This is the total time of useable light before most consumers will change batteries. [source: FL1/PLATO]
The very same flashlight could, depending on programming, do 100 lumens for the first minute, switch to 10 lumen afterwards and claim e.g. 10hrs runtime. Or continuously drop output (like the old unregulated Petzls) and claim 7hrs. Or burn at constant 100 lumens and claim 1 hour. Or step down after a while to a lower mode, burn constant for some time, then again to even lower, and claim 6 hrs. Or any mix of that. All in compliance with FL1. All in claimed "high" mode.
For any meaningful runtime comparison, especially across brands, you would need to see the output graphs and decide what is better yourself: continuously dropping output, totally constant in selected mode (but shorter runtime) or perhaps a staircase style step-down? All of them have some pros and cons and usage scenarios.
And to be any meaningful, the graph would have to be labeled in the Y axis to see the used scale (is it log? linear?), which no sane marketing department ever does...
Post edited at 12:54