x70 discontinued…
I would not toss pennies!
No fornication here *sigh*
Ignore that. It has not been released yet.
I like lumens, but the real problem with these lights is that the sustained output is not linear with the max output.
A 1,000lm light can easily handle 600lm/60% after initial drop, but beyond several thousand lumens this number becomes 30% or less. So we are paying for those 3 or 5 minutes of 30K lumen glory, and afterwards it comes a ~6,000 lumen light.
I’d much rather have 3x large reflectors fitted with XHP35HI and then 3 smaller reflectors with XHP70.2.
Anyways, would be nice to have the XHP35 HI working on max load in modes higher than 4,000lm, instead of having it to get brighter along with the 70.2. This way it can ge consistent throw even if the XHP70 are being driven low. Would be a nice way to keep it cool and efficient.
Some people see this as a bad thing. I see it as a good thing.
I also see it as a good thing. Even if the head of the light were a meter in diameter and could handle 10 thousand watts sustained, I still want a 30 thousand watt turbo mode.
In this case, it’s a very good thing that they used more emitters since they’re much more efficient at lower currents. For a flooder, pack in as many emitters as the budget allows.
It’s crazy that now we have people saying this won’t throw well. Just a couple years ago this would have been a solid thrower. I’d expect that XHP35 to be pushing 2000 lumens, and that’s actually a decent sized reflector. It’s never going to match the BLF GT, or even the Thrunite TN42, but that’s hardly the point of this light. As long as those XHP70.2’s are off, the throw will be very usable.
Martin, are we thinking that each button is going to operate their own emitter type?
Like the top button controls the xhp35 through its modes.
Then the bottom button controls the xhp70.2 through its modes.
Basically like two seperate drivers in a single light?
Two features in design that I do not see. Hopefully they are planned.
These 4-cell carrier (more-so yet with dual carrier designs) lights need more "tooth" in the knurling for better "grip".
Another feature I notice that's missing is "anti-roll". Both mentioned need to be added.
The BLF GT turned out fantastic. It would have been better with the above mentioned.
I already see this, don’t you?
Hi Martin, any news about 9*XHP35 HI?
Thrunite has put perfect “tooth”,as you say,in its big lights,ie TN40-TN42.
I can’t see this knurling happening. It’s too hard to machine in a way that’s inexpensive and good. Even if it’s just .0001 inch off, it’s going to look bad imo. In the picture with the flags you can see the ridges. Maintaining that kind of tolerance for something that’s done this way for cosmetics is crazy. If it’s too hard to make it look like it does in CAD, it should be changed. Using the kind of knurling on the TN42 and GT would be smarter.
Lift its tail, wipe its ass and slap it on my plate! Looks good to me! Very good 
I just heard that Acebeam Is working on a 12 70.2 emitter flashlight with a 35 high in the center. Sounds familiar. Anyone know what Acebeam is up to?
Seriously? Didn’t we just talk about this a couple of posts up? Are you not reading the posts here?
SERIOUSLY!!! I looked a few post up!! Maybe a few more up? Did not see ACEBEAM. Time for a brake! Just a question!!! Later.
Post 244.
What battery does it use? Google translator
Provavelmente 4x 18650
Make that 8x 18650. It’s way too big for just 4.