It’s just something to keep flashlight enthusiasts with too much expendable income amused.
Ack… buyer’s remorse!
I ordered D4V2 with 2700K and 6500K SST-20.
… but now I wonder if maybe I should have ordered it with 2700K LH351D and 6000K Oslon White 2. That way in addition to tint mixing it would also have flood for close range and spot for long range.
Aaaaagh! 
W2 and LH351d would not tint mix well due to very different beam profiles.
It doesn’t do anything worse though ? You still have a quad emitter light with the same power capabilities (turbo is mid tint but I don’t think the tint matters much in turbo).
The manufacturing cost should be probably less than 2$ higher, Hank charge +3.6$ for the tint ramping D4v2, which is quite reasonable.
An advantage is the improved tint for a good part of the tint ramp for people who dislike greenish tints, this was already possible by requesting two different CCTs, but now the tint is adjustable.
For different emitters (instant switching) , for example flood and throw emitters, I would tend to agree, since it’s then a 2 emitters flood, 2 emitters throw light and won’t have the same turbo throw capabilities as a 4 throwy emitters light
Oh well, just may have to buy them all again. This is what companies need to do in terms of thinking out of the box. Making a brighter flashlight just does not cut it anymore.
I often carry different color temps throughout the day. Sst-20 4000k is nice right after the sun goes down. Then 2700k when it gets real dark. Mixing in the 2000k e21a did wonders for my sleep cycle.
Can’t wait for tint ramping dt8 in e21a. It would replace several lights.
A DT8 with Tint Ramping E21a 2000K and 5000K mix is exactly what I am waiting for.
Furthermore, W2 is under-driven in these 2 channel lights. W1 is a much better choice for throw, especially considering that you have a whole separate channel for flood.
Has hank mentioned 26800?
I’m viewing KR4 only in Ti + Cu. Do customers have to request aluminum version Al + Cu with tint ramping?
Check the link in the first post. There is a different picture to click on for the aluminum version.
Thanks! Right in front of me…
Depending on the emitters it`s like having flood and throw in one light.
I just ordered one in stonewashed Ti.
You have to keep in mind though that underdriven Leds are very efficient. You’ll get 2500 total lumens or so from two W2s at 9A while you’ll push 1800 with two W1s. I’m personally willing to sacrifice the 20% less throw for 40% more lumens.
Where are you getting the 2500 total lumens from? Do you have a link to an output chart for W2’s I can look at? I’ve been looking periodically for several months but all I’ve been able to find is a graph for CSLNM1.
This is the thread:
Here is the relevant graph for your convenience:
I typically use my lights outside and I prefer lumen driven candela (meaning high candela generated from sheer lumens) and sustainably high lumens. One of my favorite lights is the Mateminco MT04 with 4*SST40. It does 7000 lumens and 50k candela despite not being designed for throw.
Which LED would be a good pairing with the W1 or W2?
I’m looking for high lumen + throw CW and a not so floody NW (LH351D not a choice).
Don’t think I would be mixing them so different beam profile would not be an issue, instead I would simply switch between the channels.
I did some quick math to get an estimate. In the KR1, the W1 model gets 110 kcd at 5A, while the W2 model gets 100 kcd at 7.5A. In Hank’s four-LED tint-ramp lights, power is the same for either emitter type, so lux per Amp seems like the relevant value. That puts the W1 at about 65% more lux per Amp than W2.
Meanwhile, with two W1 driven at 4.5A each, total output is about 1800 lumens, while W2 gets about 2500 lumens. That’s about ~40% more photons, which is a big boost if you’re ceiling-bouncing the light.
If I did the math right, the W2 hotspot should look about 50% wider than W1, but only 60% as bright. Illuminating something to the same lux would take about 65% more power, and would have about 60% as much runtime, and would bump into thermal regulation sooner. Like, if W1 got 5 hours of runtime, W2 would get 3 hours at the same lux.
So for this range of lights, most people go with W1 as the throwy option.
This analysis is a bit weird. You are suggesting to ramp to achieve a certain level of candela. If I had the W2, I’d be resigned to the fact that it just simply doesn’t have the same level of candela. However, for the same current I can get about 40% more light. For walking around, the W2 is as “throwy” as I or probably most people would “need.” For W1 and W2, you can do this type of analysis but for other emitter pairs, there is typically nothing you can do current-wise to turn a floodier emitter to a throwier emitter in the same host.
My math above was a bit off, it should be closer to a 25-30% drop in candela from the W1 to W2. The intensity of the W1 at 4.5A is about 950 lm/mm^2 and the W2 at 4.5A is 700 lm/mm^2 (if you go by the die size estimates of Djozz).
One other benefit of the W2 is that Hank charges the same as a W1 despite it being a more expensive emitter.