85 Lamps: Time to Retire
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 04. 6.06
We love Droog Design-"The products they select need to combine functionality and conceptual clarity with a keen expression of awareness of cultural and technological references and contexts" and we love design site Funfurde. What we don't love is 85 lamps at 15 watts each, or 1275 watts hanging over our dining room table. In any other form of lighting besides incandescent that would light an entire house; in our kitchen we could cook dinner. In Droog's defense it was designed in 1993; however it is still for sale. TreeHugger has suggested Ban the Bulb; Perhaps it is also time to Ban 85 Bulbs as well, at least until they bring out the LED version. ::DroogDesign via ::Funfurde
So when do they release the Compact Florescent model?
Am I the only one who is sensitive to the type of light emitted from compact fluorescents? I feel like such a wasteful ass, but the light emitted from them reminds me of the opening scene from Joe Vs. the Volcano, and I have taken to replacing only half the light bulbs in my house with CFs. Are there any CFs that mimick incandescent light better?
May, how long has it been since you last bought CFLs?
Recent ones with electronic ballasts have very good light quality (IMO), and you can pick them to your preference (warmer light, colder light, etc.. just look on the packaging).
A dozen years ago, I tore out of a magazine a picture of this lighting fixture and have had it on my desk ever since. It made me an instant fan of Droog Design. While I love the aesthetic of this light, I was always bothered by the obvious poor efficiency it must have. An LED version would be a dream come true!
That 85 lamps chandelier is hideous.
Margaret, you made me laugh out loud while drowning in thesis hell. Thanks.
MGR, I will look into newer models. I appreciate your input.
I have to agree with May on the quality of light from CFL's, even with MGR's helpful suggestion to try out some of the newer ones. The multiple CFL's barnds and types I have tried all seem to produce that "sharp" lighting characteristic of fluorescents. The warmer ones for sale just look like they have been colored red (or yellow).
That doesn't mean that I haven't replaced many incadndescents in my house with CFL's, it just means that I need to keep a few tolerable reading lights. I dread the arrival of LED lights and their effect on my poor eyes; they are even worse (but use even less energy).
You could just buy this chandelier and replace the bulbs with CFL's, although 85 CFL's are gonna set you back some scratch!
I just came across this post and have to say that while I totally support conservation, I don't think this chandelier is really making a dent in the environment -- I can't imagine that many people are actually buying them. Plus I suspect people who have the disposable income to buy this are wasting a lot more money on other big energy using devices like massive TVs, etc. So I say, let the 85 Lamps live, focus our conservation efforts where we'll get more bang for the buck. Anyway, I'm glad we're all talking about it! -- Funfurde
P.S. Love your blog, Tree Hugger folks!
Aesthetic judgements notwithstanding, your assessment of this fixture's (in)efficiency is a little off-base, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. The fixture is designed for the European market, where the power grid runs at 220 volts. In the US, which uses 110 volt current, the bulbs will burn at 1/2 power, or 7.5 watts per bulb. (And in fact, a set of both 15 watt and 7 watt bulbs are supplied, with the 7 watt bulbs being installed by default... so in its default shipping configuration, the fixture only burns 3.5 watts per bulb.)
Anonymous just kicked your collective ass....