Would pretty much have to redesign the entire light to make that happen and it would not be able to retain the basic characteristics that were the original hallmark of the FW design. They could do it, sure, with some added length to the host, but it’d be an entire new project. And actually I wonder if the width of the port + pocket to contain it and a rubber cover would be too much for such a small outside diameter…might need to fatten it up a bit to make it fit correctly.
Agreed.
Whole point of the FWAA series lights is to make them as small as possible. Adding a charging port would probably negate all the advantages of this light.
Small, pure, powerhouse, outstanding in its class. The fw1a was the farthest throwing light in its class. It redefined a class. Don’t dumb down the fw1aa and make it an also ran. It needs more throw than anything else in it’s size. You can have your usable spill when they make the pro model. Edit, let’s not forget that part of what made those first models popular was the choice of multiple LEDs.
Is this a figure of speech? I don’t understand it…?
Yes…“also ran” as in a second-place finisher or contenders far down the list of top placers, etc. Here are the top ten finishers in a marathon race, and then here’s the long list of “also ran” participants.
Thanks. I understand the term now.
I don’t agree with the way Oli used it though. I don’t think Firelight2 dumbed it down to “also ran”. It’s just Oli’s perception of the light.
This.
We all use our lights in different ways and have different preferences.
Regarding the FW1A and Oslon White 1 emitters
I don’t have strong opinions on the FW1A as I never purchased one (though I did try one out at Illumn’s store). All my comments in this thread have been about the FW1AA prototype, not the larger FW1A. However, I have tried Oslon White 1 emitters in various different lights and do have opinions about that emitter.
- My conclusion of the White 1 emitter: It is really only good for one thing: Throw.
- Tint, CRI and lumens are absolutely horrible compared to the other choices.
- Throw is great if your only use of the light is for seeing stuff in the distance. But not good if you want a generalist light that is also good for seeing stuff up close.
Personally, I only EDC one light at a time and I primarily look at stuff at close or medium range.
- Color and tint are important to me. I would never carry a light with a White 1 emitter as my sole EDC, because the beam it produces does not fit my preference.
- If I feel I might need to see farther I will carry an extra thrower light in addition to my EDC. The FW1AA with Olson White 1 is unsuitable for this because its tiny reflector won’t throw well at all even with a White 1 emitter in it. Something with a bigger reflector is needed to fulfill that need.
- I find the FWAA to be too floody for my tastes. It’s not good at medium range even with smaller emitters and a polished optic.
Charging Ports
Charging Ports are also a matter of personal opinion and preference. If you actually use them, they can be great to have. But if you’re like me and always use an external charger, then it’s just dead weight.
- In smaller lights, a charging port makes the light longer and/or thicker.
- It’s extra weight
- The port covers tend to break or fall out of position and are annoying.
- Most USB-C charging ports in flashlights are poorly implemented and are configured for USB-A to USB-C. Most do not work with ipad or phone charger cord.
- Charging a light via a charging port is like charging an electric car… you have to leave it at the pump (possibly for hours) while it charges, during which you can’t use it away from the charger. Charging an extra battery with an external charger and then swapping it with the one in the light is like refilling a gasoline car: You go from empty to full instantly with no wait.
Practicality:
- I’m not opposed to having Oslon White 1 emitter as an option the purchaser can choose for the FW1AA. However, if they are only going to sell it with one emitter, I think it should be something a bit more generalist: an SST-20 or LH351D.
- I do not think a charger would work in the FW1AA. The entire head would need to be redesigned and likely made much thicker in order to accommodate both the charger board and the port cover. The light would look and feel substantially different than any existing FW series light.
- Some of the less obtrusive ways to do chargers will not work easily in the FW3A. For example, adding the charger board to the top of the body tube rather than the head won’t work because the inner tube for the switch is in the way.
Yesterday I took some beamshots with the FW1AA outdoor!
In terms of profile, the beam is not much different from the GT Nano. However, the FW1AA has a larger spill area.
It reached 400m, easily, as you’ll see in the photos below.
Some indiviual beam profiles:
FW1AA
FWAA
My FWAA
GT Nano
EagleEye X3T (w/ Osram W1 emitter)
Acebeam TK16 (w/ 3 x Osram W1 emitters)
Now the comparison beamshots:
FW1AA Vs FWAA
FW1AA Vs My FW1AA
FW1AA Vs GT Nano
FW1AA Vs EaglEye
FW1AA Vs Acebeam TK16
And some distance beamshots:
Tree @ 16m
House @ 160m
House @ 190m
Building @ 290m
Building @400m
And that’s all folks!
USB charging has tradeoffs. It costs size, complexity (cost and failure points), and frequently impacts waterproofing. I don’t think those are worth sacrificing on this particular light.
Doesn’t have to be harder than this:https://www.sofirnlight.com/products/d25l-headlamp-lh351d-90-high-cri-4000k-or-5000k
And then you don’t have to buy proprietary chargeable batteries with lower capacity either.
Or you can use a separate charger and always have a spare fully-charged battery ready to swap in. No need to set the light aside and not use it for hours while a battery is recharging inside the light.
The method of covering the USB slot in that headlamp is a good one. It avoids the breakable rubber cover most rechargeable lights have. Unfortunately, that design is not so easy to implement in an FW series light. The separate inner tube used as the switch contact gets in the way.
It is possible implement such a system, but doing so would require a major redesign. You’d end up with a completely different and substantially larger light that probably looks nothing like the existing prototype FW1AA.
Personally, I’m happy the FW1AA does not have charging in it. I consider built-in chargers a negative and never use them.
- I can’t use a light with internal charging while it is plugged in. I prefer to swap in spare batteries so I can continue to use the light while charging externally. And for anyone who says, “the light will still work while plugged in”, that doesn’t cut it for me. When I’m using my light I want to be able to take it more than a meter from my wall outlet.
- Most USB-C lights only have USB-A to USB-C charging. They mostly lack true USB-C, meaning I can’t just plug in my Samsung phone or ipad charger cable. In order to use the charger I have to carry a separate cord and wall wart for them. I have several lights with USB-C chargers in them, but only one of them is actually true USB-C (Sofirn SC21).
- Chargers add more complexity. It’s something else to break. And depending on how the port is handled it frequently allows for water ingress. A rubber charging port cover can also sometimes be confused with a rubber button making finding the right thing to press a little harder.
- Chargers require space inside the light and on the surface. The length isn’t a big deal for big lights, but is quite noticeable in small lights. A small light with a charger is usually larger or thicker than the same light could be made without the charger.
- The presence of a charger may drive up the price. Why pay extra for what I consider a useless function. It’s like paying extra for a bidirectional clip I do not need, never use, and that functions worse than a normal clip.
That’s my perspective based on my preferences and how I use my lights. Each of us has our own perspective. Some really love onboard chargers.
Comparing an 18650 headlamp to the fwaa is apples and oranges, might as well talk about supbeam k50 in-light charging…. :confounded:
They build in charging in 14500 batteries… Size is not an issue.
Size is an issue.
The chargers in 14500 batteries reduce battery capacity to make room for the charger. Or they use oversized extra long cells.
Also, chargers in batteries don’t need waterproof ports to get access to the outside of a light.
@Lumen9000 Yes but complexity is an issue. Have you actually drawn it to see how the connections would actually work? I think not. Adding a charging port ANYWHERE on the fwxxx lights will be a challenge to even those that can engineer
Now that I think about it, here is one way it might be done:
Swap the threads on the head from female to male. Result is the body tube would be much longer, while the inner tube remained short. To prevent the inner tube from coming out of position it would lock at the tail.
With these changes, partially unscrewing the head from the body would reveal threads on the head right over the driver. Just add a slot in the threads for the charging port and it should work fine.
The driver would need a separate sandwich layer for the charger though, and the light might need to be slightly wider to maintain same width in the driver compartment. Figure the entire light might be 5mm longer and 2mm wider at the head, but otherwise look the same from the outside.
@Firelight the driver would need to be smaller diameter plus it’d need to be glue in place since a retaining ring will no longer work (with the inner tube)
Could make the entire head slightly wider rather than the driver narrower. Or just make a narrower driver since the driver would need to be completely redesigned anyways.
The driver does not need to be glued. Press fit into the head would work fine, just like in the Egletac D25a.
However, also like the D25a, some threadlocker would be needed on the bezel threads to ensure the bezel doesn’t accidentally unscrew during battery changes.
Making the entire head wider makes more sense because the driver cannot be any narrower than the inner tube. Something has got to give