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.
I have a triple 219B here sitting on their CU-PCB.
And I am a bit afraid not to fry them in a FW3A. Do you plan to use a –20% version of Andúril?
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…?
What you talking about?
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.
I guess it is this:
I didn’t see that Finnno. Now you got me wondering too
I would guess the tube-in-tube design is more prone to problems/has thinner walls/ …?
This double tube was my prime suspect too
Yow. Somehow I missed that one. That seems like a recipe for magic smoke.
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.
Does that imply that S2+ or A6 are “abnormally” sturdy, or way oversized then?
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?
I’m so excited for this light 
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.
Richard has told me:
This is pretty disappointing, but I did just successfully reflow a FET with great success using my new hot air reflow station. Maybe I will try leds next. 
Quite. Which is also driving my strong interest in this, DEL’s driver with x1 and x7 (I think) AMC chips.
That is huge, having regulation (and efficiency) at all usable levels. Goodbye FET+1.
Plus Anduril of course.
I couldn’t care less about the FET, that’s just for headline figures for a few seconds on a torch of these dimensions, and over-powered-ness (if that’s a word).
Putting an E-switch in the tail, with all the knock-on complications, is bold. Very bold IMHO, but if it works, great. The tail is the proper place for the switch on a torch of this size.
Let’s hope Lumintop don’t glue the thing together, that the fancy suit fits well and somehow dissipates some of the heat, then we can mod-on happily.
Fun times ahead. I’ve only reserved two, maybe I should up the order ?
I have many 219c 90CRI 4000k lights (reflector and optics) and they are very yellow when compared to the 219B 9080 4000k, E21A 4000k, and Cree 5D tint. The LH351D 90CRI 4000k looks similar to the 219c and also looks very yellow. I would take a Cree XP-G2 70CRI 4000k 5A or 5D tint and color rendering over a 4000k 90CRI 219c or LH351D because the yellowish tint ruins the high CRI.
Is the picture above an accurate representation of the size of the FW3A and the Emisar? I was under the impression that there was a bigger difference, and the FW3A was smaller.