I’m thinking about modding at least one of mine too. If I can get some 219B emitters, I think I’ll put those in it. They’re my favorite, and they work really well in a 10511 which has had the frosting polished off.
No, but I would set the ceiling to the highest regulated level, and I doubt I’ll use it above that level much.
The 219B has a higher Vf than 219C, which makes it harder to overdrive. OTOH, it also turns into smoke at a much lower current. But I’ve had FET-based 219B triples before and haven’t had any issues. It’s 219C which really runs into problems on direct drive.
I don’t plan on giving it a hot rod cell either though. Something with more mAh and less current suits my use better.
A silly question maybe, but…how did FW3A end up being less sturdy than Emisar, since they are very roughly the same size? Is it different materials, thinner wall…?
The original 219B has a higher Vf but the 219B V1, which is the one sold atm by Clemence and maybe others, has a Vf just as low as the 219C, but indeed without its current handling.
The D4 is unusually sturdy. Every part of it is thick. I don’t think it really needs to be so thick, except up at the head for thermal purposes.
The FW3A is thinner and has its material split between two layers. It opts for a more minimalist design in general, so it won’t hold up as well to being run over by a car. OTOH it also weighs less and is more ergonomic so it’s easier to carry.
They have reflectors and tall springs, and a non E-switch tailcap. That makes for a wide difference.
In relation to the contacts, what decisions have been made? Are we going just with double springs, or are we going to push limits with dual BeCu springs?
Emisar’s lights are slightly thicker than a S2+ or A6. However, yes, I think the S2+ and A6 could also stand to be shorter and thinner. Potentially about 2-3 mm thinner and 15-20 mm shorter. I have other 18650 clicky-switch lights that size, and I prefer them because they aren’t as big.