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.
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.
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.
@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.
Maybe it would be possible to use the signal tube to carry the + input for the charging circuit and put a magnetic port at the tail, with some serious miniaturisation on the driver to fit the charging circuit.
Hmm, yeah, I didn’t think about that, it would just short the USB I think ? It seems that a proper USB source should have a short circuit protection but it would not be good practice to rely on that.
Why is there always tube in these kind of lights? Isn’t the tube just for switch signal? It could be any shape that takes less space inside flashlight body. Maybe little groove that takes anodised piece of aluminium from tail to driver. Of course that would need precise machining, but should be doable with modern tools.
Same way as it would with inner tube. Battery would sit in actual flashlight boby and on one side next to battery there would be this separate “rail” in small groove with unanodized heads. Size savings aren’t big, but they can matter with millimetre game.
So it would be point loading the threads? Like tightening a nut and bolt with a pebble jammed in one side? Something like that would also point load the contact board in the tail so a ~0.5mm washer would need to be soldered over the contract on the board to deal with the constant wear.
