I have a feeling they just can make such mistakes. I suppose a lot of the people who buy their lights have little to no idea how they should really perform, so they have no reason to complain…
For instance, I recently got a SP36 4000k with firmware normally flashed on the LT1. I’ve made a forum post here and also put a lot of time in making a video to convince Sofirn what happened, but I didn’t really got a response on both. After messaging for some time with their AliExpress store they eventually send me a new one, this time with the correct firmware. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one that got one with the wrong firmware but I suppose I’m one of the few who know something was wrong…
Don’t get my wrong, I really like the lights Sofirn makes, but I guess they have to cut some corners to keep the price down and/or make those mistakes and there aren’t really a lot of repercussions for them.
Just like Lumintop got away with dangerous FW3A, most people who got burned just either returned it or threw it as far as they could.
With the horrible translation of quite a few manuals most customers have no idea if the thing is operating per the chart given (if they give a chart) and what passes for customer service today is “Would you like a Replacement or a Refund?) and that is only at Amazon.
If you bought straight from the Far East its ”Send us a video of problem please” and then they give the same canned message back that there is nothing wrong, that is the way they operate, you know with Blue led of death or burning skin hot. “But we put Hot emblem of flashlight head”
Is what it is.
Sometimes the Flashlight Supreme Beings shine on you and you win the tint lottery or you get a newer version of Firmware.
That’s a good day right there:)
High mode is officially rated at 950lm. gchart measured 840lm with his calibrated equipment. That’s the number I now take for reference.
Observations:
Just like the version without ATR, the new SP35 with ATR can maintain its High mode output steadily for approx. 23 minutes or until 48°C head surface temperature is reached. After that I noticed that ATR was triggered and intervened very aggressively. The output then frequently dropped by about 30% in short intervals to approx. 580lm (calculated value). After 2h 55min the flashlight turned off automatically due to LVP.
Personal conclusion:
SP35 runs 5min longer without an initial start on Turbo. This is quite usual.
SP35 w/o ATR can maintain High mode continuously at approx. 56°C. SP35 with ATR runs about 7°C cooler but shows a mediocre output regulation, resulting in large brightness fluctuations.
The full potential of the light is not being used. I think that another 5°C on top would have been feasible. I get the feeling that this ATR is more focused to 50°C instead of 55°C.
Unlike more optimized flashlights like Acebeam L17, SP35‘s ATR prevents any hysteresis effect while heating up. Thermal regulation interacts too fast and too significant, so there’s no room left for short exceeding of its designed limits. On a positive side: The flashlight never gets any warmer than 50°C - possibly a business decision due to customer complaints about (too) hot flashlights?
I had a brief talk with Sofirn this morning, especially regarding my observations mentioned above. They want to discuss my feedback with their engineer.
I do not mean to badmouth SP35 since it offers an extraordinary package of great form factor, constant current regulation, efficient buck driver, good allround beam profile and well spaced modes at an amazing bargain price. If only that thermal regulation was better...
I wonder if those fluctuations would disappear if they flashed Andúril onto the MCU of SP35. Maybe this could be an alternative to the ongoing investigation and improvement of their proprietary UI?
I also noticed quite some different runtimes on High mode. According to the specs it should run 3h 40min with a 4000mAh battery. My sample clocked in at 2h 55min (4.16V to 2.84V LVP) using a 5000mAh battery.
Businesses can be good and some things, but not others. Those strengths and weaknesses determine their level of success, or lack thereof.
Obviously, the company possesses the level of competency required to design, build, and market their lights to a good degree of success, certainly with the enthusiast crowd, and likely with the online consumer market at large as well.
Product marketing is not among its greater strengths, and the product management for the SP35, ranging from the confusingly recycled name (Why not the unused SP34? Perhaps a numerology thing, but the company’s model nomenclature have never had much logic, so who knows?), technical bugs that escaped the development phase and into production, and ultimately, performance shortcomings in the final “final” product exposed the weaknesses in more than one area.
One can only guess at why that is, without knowing the company structure and its development and production processes, but such issues are solvable. But, only if the company recognizes them and desires to improve. Personally, I’m with those who like the products, and the company, but with some frustration, and see some unfulfilled potential.
I’ve beat on this horse before, but the flashlight market hasn’t been hurt by products that are marketed in misleading ways, and don’t live up to their inflated marketing specs, even amongst enthusiasts who should know better. So what incentive is there to improve or do things any differently? Especially if it costs more and eats into profit?
Whereas the firmware issue with your SP36 could reflect a careless production worker using the wrong files when preparing drivers, the first non-functional ATR, and then underperforming ATR in the SP35 reach further up the chain.
Fortunately, I’ve never really had to deal with a complex customer service issue, technical or otherwise, and those of a minor nature have been handled well by the company, as long as the “right” party is contacted. But, knowing who that is can be confusing, and frustrating if that party is non-responsive.
One thing that piques my curiosity, and to me, really deserves more transparency, is the web of players involved with some of these companies, what their true relationships are, and how they operate. Some, like Convoy, are simple. It’s Simon’s business, his shop, and nobody else speaks for or represents him. Others, like Sofirn, have multiple sales outlets that operate independently, and multiple people speak for the company, with it not entirely being clear in what capacity.
But, back onto the topic at hand, the irony is that whatever resulted in the first SP35 production run, lacking a major feature, actually resulted in an arguably better product, at least in the right hands.
What was it? 30% amplitude difference at high mode? Who would notice that without luxmeter? How much time should Sofirn invest in flatten beautifying the curve?
I could easily notice it with my bare eyes even on High mode, no luxmeter required. Especially on lower brightness the human eye becomes more sensitive to output fluctuations. As always: YMMV!
My aspiration is to help them becoming better, not worse. I am sure they can improve things here without the necessity of redeveloping everything from scratch. It probably takes some tweaks on their algorithms, that’s all.
If it’s anything like their SP32A V2.0 (one of their other buck driver lights), it’s using a 10-pin PIC chip which isn’t so easy to retrofit Anduril onto. Once I do my comparison of ATR vs No-ATR, I might have to take one apart and get a closer look at the driver.
As far as the runtime on High goes… notice how my No-ATR version “only” lasted 2 hours and 15 minutes? I feel like that’s pretty respectable, but nowhere nearly the claimed runtime. If ATR were even more aggressive (not that I want that!) it would indeed last longer. So perhaps that’s how they arrived at 3h 40m? Dunno.
Thank you for taking a deeper look inside the driver specs, Gabe. :THUMBS-UP: :BEER:
On a side note regarding Andúril, I was told that manufacturers may soon run into a major bottleneck for MCUs compatible to Andúril, probably even the old ATtiny85 chip. It is uncertain how severe the impact of this bottleneck will be and how flashlight makers will address this issue.
Concerning SP35's runtime: On TLF I was tought a lesson today by another member. He said the entire runtime specs in the ANSI chart did not add up. Provided that Luminus SST-40 consumes about 2.5A at 1000 LED lumens (excluding losses in driver efficiency) it seems impossible to reach 3.5 hours runtime at rated 950lm on High mode. Taking losses in efficiency into account (approx. 15-20%) the real output of the ATR version is apparently far lower than this. I don't want to argue about his assessment, also because I cannot measure any actual lumen readings.
My layman assumption i.a.w. the datasheet (6500K) is:
650lm @ 1500mA or 1040lm @ 2500mA forward current
I measured 2h 55min runtime on the ATR version with a 5000mAh battery. Without losses in efficiency the power consumption should be less than 1750mA. This would be equivalent to approx. 780lm constant output on High mode. This assumption does not take into account: full capacity by discharging the battery down to 2.5V, losses in driver efficiency, losses due to reflector and glass lens. If I deduct a loss of 25% in total for these variables it would result in actual 585lm OTF on average on High mode. Due to these fluctuations the output could be jumping between 670lm and 470lm. IDK, maybe my calculation is too pessimistic or maybe Sofirn got a higher flux bin, much better than average specs on the datasheet. I would feel much better if someone more experienced in this were to verify and comment on this. :-))
I also believe this to be true. I’m nearly out of attiny1616; I think I have ~5 left. The usual suppliers are out of stock. I’ve got an order in at Mouser, hoping to receive some in the next few months. Most of the other attiny’s are also out of stock. It looks like there’s a few of the attiny85 to be had, but not many. I figure if the big automotive companies are shutting down their production facilities (such as those used to build the F-150) then we truly are in a crunch and the “little guys” don’t stand a chance at getting the chips they need.
The ATR version comes in a 24 with the 40% off coupon. There is a coupon code for the non-ATR, but it is not that great. I paid 32 I think… or I got the wrong code. Either way - worth it in my book.
For those of you who like to see the difference between the first 100pcs of SP35 (w/o ATR) and the latest revision (with and w/o ATR) with improved reflector, I took two whitewall shots (WB: 5400K) today. Personally, I think Sofirn did a good job here. The revised version sacrifices some peak intensity (and range) in return for a more appealing beam shape mostly free of artifacts which also suits to the form factor of this flashlight much better.
My updated SP35 with “working” ATR showed up yesterday. I still think the SP35 is an amazing light & value. That said… my first runtime test is underway and (as expected) I’m seeing the same swings that Lux-Perpetua observed. I wish a little more focus was put to improving the ATR algorithm to help smooth this out.
The peaks are, on average, 1 minute and 45 seconds apart. The ramp up and down is very smooth; swinging between ~500 and ~1000 lumens. So in real life, it’s really not as noticeable as this graph might make you believe.
Once the tests are done, I’ll overlay graphs of the ATR and non-ATR versions and post those up.
I wonder how it would behave with fan cooling? Just thinking about which PID parameters should be adjusted. My guess is the fan wouldn’t change the amplitude much, just the mean output. Could be wrong…
On second thought. It might ‘raise the valleys’ by cooling the light faster once current is pulled back. This is of course based on an assumption that light to air conduction + radiation is much slower (ie limiting) than internal conduction.
