I’m curious how much wider the beam on the LH351C or the LH351D is than on the SST-20.
The datasheets only claim that it is 128 degrees instead of 120 degrees (although, obviously the hotspots can vary).
If it is 8 degrees wider (with relatively similar distribution within those areas), then even after accounting for the LH351C covering a larger area with its light; in the SST-20’s 120 degree beam angle, the LH351C would still produce around 17% more light with the same power (while also filling an additional 8 degrees of range, albeit without getting into the effect of the TIR).
Unless the SST-20 has a much stronger hotspot, the LH351C or the LH351D may actually be brighter in the SST-20’s light circle while also having more spill at the same power usage (albeit, not at 95 CRI).
I can’t find exact numbers, but if it was a doubling in central beam width from the SST-20 to the LH351D (without getting into the effect of the lens), that would triple the hotspot brightness (within the hotspot area of the SST-20), but the rest of the light would be much brighter (on average outside the range of the SST-20’s hotspot) on the LH351D.
Comparing SST-20 to LH351D, the SST-20 is quite a lot more throwy, and the LH351D is very very floody. I don’t have the exact numbers, but on Carclo’s spec sheet, there are some similar emitters to compare…
XP-G2: 5.5 cd/lm
LH351B: 3.0 cd/lm
SST-20 is similar in size to XP-G2, so ~5.5 cd/lm might be about right. However, LH351D is two steps larger than LH351B. So at a very rough guess, we’re talking ~5.5 cd/lm vs about ~2.0 cd/lm. The SST-20 likely gets more than twice as much beam intensity per lumen. Even at half the brightness, it should still throw farther… and with less light in the near field causing pupil contraction and haze, objects in the distance should be easier to see.
Looking at it from a different data source, LH351D is about as floody as XP-L HD. Probably a little bit more floody, even. And from Intl-Outdoor’s D4S specs, I see that SST-20 is about 2.6 times as throwy as XP-L HD. So I’m guessing we can expect a similar ratio in the FW3A.
Aside from the extra cost, and aside from people wanting high CRI, I’d kinda prefer to do a spread of XP-L HI tints instead. ~3300K, ~4100K, ~4900K, ~5700K, all in “A” or “D” tints so they’d be on the pink side of BBL. Or perhaps they can be convinced to do a Cree spread and a high-CRI emitter.
I’m not really sure what’s going on lately though. The last message I got was a bit over a week ago, and all it said was “it is fit”. I think that was about the driver shelf being cut wide enough, but I’m not sure and my request for clarification hasn’t been answered. So I guess we just wait for news as usual.
Thats a good idea. I have a 4000k xpl-hi and even though it’s not a hcri, it’s pretty good. I would still want a warmer hcri but would jump on this as well.
Definitely! I default to XP-L Hi 4000k V2 5D in a bunch of triples and quads. The ever so slight pink looks so much better than any of the Nichia 219c that I have had and many others.
I humbly ask for access to this light- it sounds like precisely what I want. Cheers!
(been lurking… for years it seems- just registered to ask advice… and am awestruck by members’ kindness and generosity…I’ll be dropping by fairly regularly- I’m hooked)
It kind of depends on whether the manufacturer puts a limit on the number of lights sold at the cheaper, group buy price. I’m surprised they are allowing 2000. Their profit margin goes up the more they can sale at the regular, higher price. Anyway, it seems the list keeps growing.
I sure hope so… I’ve followed this from the beginning. Can’t (but can) believe it’s been nearly two years. I dream of the day my inbox has that new unread message from FW3A Team
Thanks for the latest news. Does the news include clarification whether they’re still having trouble sourcing high CRI emitters, or is it possible this is the last hurdle only before the XP-L HI version starts production?