Sorry to read that djozz :zipper_mouth_face: I was thinking it could survive but…not :zipper_mouth_face: So only Ni-MH and alkalines on this one! And it will do the job for sure 
It was the test unit after all 
That’s fine. I know it’s not hip and exciting but I think this flashlight works just fine on NiMH.
10440 cells are not hip and exciting anyways. They are often times disappointing, short lived, and hard to charge 
i disagree - i think the cells are cute and deadly in short bursts i dont mind them at all. only shame is the super low capacity lol :person_facepalming:
If Hoop’s 10440 light came to market I would totally use one and enjoy it but for most lights it’s not as exciting.
Sorry to hear that says djozz.
I continue to use 10440 in the SF01A and in the C01S both the anodized model H-L and the raw alu L-H and for now they continue to work correctly with both 10440 and alkaline or ni-mh. It is true that in high mode with 10440 I do not keep them on for more than 10-15 seconds normally.
Out curiosity:does the C01S put out more light on the 10440?
Yes, a lot of more light in both modes, low mode can be used continuously and the high is a small light cannon that heats a lot the torch
Then the Vapcell from the test above already killed something in the driver in the first second.
Noctiluco uses overrated TurdFire 10440 cells. Maybe the low discharge performance of those cells is actually limiting (and indirectly protecting) the driver of the C01S.
djozz any chance you want to test the SST-20 LED Sofirn sourced in a bit higher output? I think it wont take much to get this one below BBL. I just replaced mine with my previous “best” LEDs from D18. The Sofirn LED seems to be slightly lower cct and duv.
It is about the only part of my test-C01S still working so I could check that. How about measuring the tint in the hotspot using the head+TIR from the C01S itself? (but at higher current). That makes it fairly comparable with what happens in a Carclo triple.
Yes please. Throw it on a bigger PCB and keep same optics is fine
Btw, I noticed in my three C01S flashlights (BLF editions) that when measured in the hotspot, two have comparable tint with duv +0.042, CRI 96.7, and R9 88/89. The third is just a bit nicer with duv +0.029, CRI 97.6 and R9 92.
So you may have struck a nice led too.
Edit: the better tinted one is slightly brighter too: 94.5 lm vs 88.5 lm, but I do not believe that such a small brightness/current difference causes any noticable tint shift.
(for who is wondering: these differences are for sane people negligable, with a trained eye they are noticable when observed right next to each other but they have no meaning for anyone but a few degraded tint hunters)
Mine was duv ~0.040 - 0.043 too, maybe that was the bulk of the LEDs, idk, sample size too small.
However, the D18 LED I tested with a different frosted optic dropped below BBL with not very much current but with the little current this light is drawing it actually was worse than the stock LED. This is what made me curious.
Ok, checked the test C01S head at 1A, and that did improve the tint but it did not go under the BBL yet: duv +0.022, CRI 96.9, R9 87.
So as I see it these leds are nice enough but they are still not “holy grail” leds.
Edit: cranking up the current (ignoring the heat building up in that small head 
), the tint lands on the BBL at 1.8A, but the CRI and R9 are slightly lower then.
I shaved a LH351D 5000K 90CRI as close as humanly possible and put it in my C01S:
High: 100.7 lm
CCT = 3961K (Duv 0.0000)
Color Rendering Index (Ra) = 93.0 [ R9 = 60.2 ]
Is getting a perfect on the BBL measurement like getting a hole in one in golf or something?
Since it was sacrificed for testing purposes, maybe you can get them to send you just a new driver so you can resurrect the light.
Send it to me for “testing with a new set of eyes” and I’ll see if I can concur.
I completely missed out on the BLF low-high version