I also have some XP-G2 at about 2250 lm, and they’re decent, but not as nice as my others. And I haven’t tried it with 219C or XP-G3 yet.
Usually I go for a 10511 optic, sometimes stock and sometimes with the texture polished down to give it a bit more throw. For flooders the 10508 / 10509 can be nice too. But I generally don’t use the 10507 — it adds beam artifacts, catches lint, and isn’t really any throwier than a polished 10511.
I’m mainly interested in max turbo brightness. XP-G3s are good enough for me.
The extra current running to 219Cs would decrease turbo runtime because of extra heat would it not?
I agree the 10507 can have a strange beam shape, it is pretty tight and even, but I don’t have a use for such a profile because it’s like a medium-sized hot spot with no spill. 10511 is what I use, it has really nice even-colored flood and is great for photographing and lighting when I go explore abandoned buildings. Also good for general-purpose uses around the house.
It is my understanding XPG3 give a nice max lumens while still having a DTP ledboard compatible with many different LEDs.
And funny thing, reflowing the LEDs on a SRK (from LB blue to XML2 NW) was very easy, in fact I found soldering the led and switch wires to the RMM driver harder
I’m not too concerned about the turbo brightness. I find that even XP-G2 is plenty. But then, I also only use a few modes most of the time on EDC-style lights. By percent of time spent in each mode…
80% Low (~8 lm)
5% Moon (~0.2 lm)
5% Med (~50 lm)
5% Biking (~200 lm)
4% Disco
1% Turbo
Aside from blinkies and turbo bursts, I almost never use more than two digits worth of lumens. I could happily get by with a 1x7135 driver most of the time. It sure can be fun to go into OMGWTF mode once in a while though.
Please put me down for one. I really hope you take it easy with all these special edition lights, I don’t know how much more of these I can afford. (jk, keep it coming!)
I’ve got a different opinion about all these special edition lights: if you keep offering them at these super value prices, I say bring it on! I can’t afford Zebralights and Noctigon Meteors!
Lol I’m in the same boat. I love that the FW3A is cheaper than building your own Convoy triple, and the Q8 is cheaper than building your own SRK clone.
This light is so close and yet so far from what I want….
For me a modded S2+ seems like a better option. But I decided to give some feedback on I find right and I find wrong with this light.
I’m looking for the ultimate capabilities/size, with capabilities defined as the whole output vs. runtime curve.
Lux-rc’s Minion R1 is probably the current leader here, though quite heavy and can’t be used one-handed. And is very expensive.
This light would be second, yet some design decisions make it significantly larger than it could be. And too large for me.
#1. I don’t understand why the tail and the head need to have so large diameter. 24 mm lights are plentiful. Some accessories (like headbands) assume 24 mm, so here you lose compatibility. #2. I have a feeling that a switch in the head would add less volume. I guess it would be cheaper too. #3. With a switch in the head, you could make the threads compatible with Jaxman / S2 and enable users to use cheap short battery tubes. I would surely go with that. #4. I wonder if with a switch in the head it could have a 21700 battery inside 24 mm tube. I see there are no high-capacity batteries in this size yet, but if they appear, such light would be quite interesting. Guess that’s not compatible with #3
Well, if you look at the cross-section of the light you see that there isn’t very much material you could take away when you still want to have a decent wall-thickness (0.75mm).
A good part of the charm of this light is the e-switch in the tailcap. There are masses of lights out there which use a clicky-switch at the tail or an e-switch in the head.
You sacrifice 3/4 of the battery capacity if you go for an 18350 tube. So the idea is to make the light so compact that there is no real need for a smaller battery tube.
An 21700 battery in a 24mm tube will get very close. You need at least 21.5mm inner diameter, then 2x0.5mm wall-thickness for the body, 2x0.5mm wall-thickness for the tailcap/ head and then you’re left with around 0.5mm for the threads and that doesn’t work out…
So it seems like the Manker E14 ii or the Astrolux S42 would be the better choices for you, considering that you want a smaller body. Otherwise look at the foursevens atom series.
Understand. Though personally I strongly prefer efficiency over originality.
And actually the love of efficiency makes this light so interesting for me. In many places the design is super-efficient. But because of other choices, the final light is not so much really.
More like 1/3 nowadays (real 1100 mAh in Aspire 18350). But anyway, sometimes this 1/3 is simply enough.
My current light has 1/10th the energy of 18650, yet it’s enough too. So anything extra is just unnecessary weight and bulk.
Right. I missed the fact that there’s no good place to have threads. Thanks for the explanation.
My pick is S2+ triple. Shortened. Similar output to FW3A in ~70x24 mm, 1/3 smaller than FW3A. If I did the same with 18700 tube, that would be ~105x24 mm - similar volume to FW3A despite seemingly less dense interior. Well, strictly speaking, FW3A is smaller than 94.8x25.5 cylinder that I use in calculations because of the cutout in the middle - but it doesn’t make it more packable.
I told my sister that her newborn baby was really cute, but that she’d be even cuter if her face weren’t so round and her head not so bald and her eyes weren’t so squinty and if she didn’t smell quite so- peculiar. She said she’d try to do better next time.
