This lanyard is useless for this flashlight imo. First of all it doesn’t even fit in the lanyard hole on the head. Second - quality wise it looks and feels very cheap compared to the flashlight itself. It’s like putting steel wheels with plastic hubcaps on a lambo, just doesn’t look right. I think it was an afterthought just like a headband with PL47.
I like djozz’s solution a lot, it looks much better than the included one.
Anyway… I’m very satisfied with my E07. My batteries fit just fine, star sits flush on the shelf thankfully, one leg on the optic is cut short but who cares. It’s both a looker and a performer. Would buy again.
Why do you want a flashlight to be “like” another one ? Do we really need redundancy ?
The E07 could have been a bit more compact but FireFlies modified the initial design to better match our requests for a larger/heavier head for better thermal management. We are not talking about thermal performance with turbo that will saturate with heat a manker e14 and fireflies e07 about equally quickly, but a greater mass with deep fins to raise the bar of the highest sustainable output.
Concerning lumens, there are also people prefering quality over quantity, people who don’t care about lumens race, particularly if they are not needing more than 500 to 800 lumens 95% of the time. Without CCT mixing and/or filtering, there is still no equivalent to the Nichia 219B sw45 tint AND colors rendition. It’s not fanboyism, it’s a matter of compromise and pragmatism. Why would you pick something else when a particular LED is the closest to your sweet spot ?
And why do you need to judge people by your own standards ?
If you consider that the luminous SST-20 4000K is better for you, fine.
If other people consider that the nichia 219b sw 45K is better for them, fine.
Mass is caused largely by that super thick and heavy shelf. Which is worth well under 10% in sustained output. And not because of thickness but because larger head has larger surface. Well, strictly speaking thicker shelf reduces thermal resistance and therefore reduces LED temperature. But that’s well under 1%.
Thicker shelf avoid bottleneck to the fins that where reworked to increase the surface of exchange with air by convection. With the final prototype, heat has a better thermal path and larger surface for being evacuated = higher sustainable output. Right ?
It was redesigned, not to improve compacity but thermal management, and there isn’t 36 differents ways to achieve it with passive cooling, isn’t it ?
I was responding to Ektasis that no, it wasn’t designed and redesigned for maximum compacity. If it has this final shape, it is for better thermal management, or I missed something reading this thread since day1.
You don’t need it to be 1 cm thick to not be a bottleneck. 5 mm would be overkill already.
Wrong and right. Thermal path has little to do with sustained performance. Larger surface is a biggie. What matters is ability to evacuate heat out of the light. So conduction to user hand, convection from the body and radiation from the body.
Strictly speaking better thermal path makes the led run cooler. And cooler means more efficient. And more efficient means better sustained performance. But that’s purely marginal.
Thanks. I’ll have to re-check that. You’d think that any required fields would be highlighted if not selected, rather than simply preventing the “Add to Cart” button from functioning.