Thrunite TN42 V2

86 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

mgracia85
mgracia85's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 50 min ago
Joined: 12/01/2017 - 18:35
Posts: 312
Location: East Texas
Thrunite TN42 V2

So thrunite has a version 2 coming out of the TN42. Looks to be SBT90 LED 4,848 max lumens for 1800 ish meter throw. 4 21700 batteries. Anyone impressed? Getting it? Not?

I love my wife’s toy poodle

AlexGT
AlexGT's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 06/07/2012 - 17:39
Posts: 4491
Location: Texas

4 × 21700? Nice, can’t wait to see it!

Xylnas
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 01/13/2021 - 19:01
Posts: 45
Location: UK

A 4×21700 light would be awesome! Have there been any 4×21700 lights other than the TN50?

Artiet59
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2020 - 17:55
Posts: 1971
Location: CT, USA

This sounds nice! excited to see it. I really like thrunite, even though i have only owned 2 of their lights. Thrunite = Nice drivers, nice form factors, not afraid to push high lumens for a “major” brand, nice pricing considering all of this. they make me think of a budget priced version of Acebeam.

I probably will not buy it, i have never spent more than $140 on a light. I will be interested in seeing a review though.

Check out some of my new lights (picture heavy) and quick first impressions of them here: https://budgetlightforum.com/node/77180

northbeard
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 11/22/2017 - 14:36
Posts: 254
Location: West Coast, eh?

The TN42 was on my list of ‘got to get’ lights for a long while. Then there was the BLF GT…

4 × 21700 might make for a pretty hefty grip on this light, but I do like the sound of it as a potential competitor to the Acebean K75 – with maybe a lower price point? Bring it on!

Bardo219
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/03/2019 - 20:29
Posts: 81

Looking forward to it, but probably not in my budget right now.

The original is great. I feel like it gives more visibility at long distances even over the K1.

richbuff
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 09/22/2015 - 20:38
Posts: 808
Location: Prescott Az

 It could very nicely fill the gap between K75 and MF05.

2 Cor 5:6-8

KawiBoy1428
KawiBoy1428's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 04/11/2014 - 18:05
Posts: 4263
Location: The Motor City

They better BEEF it up… Big Smile

KB1428 “Live Life WOT

Shakira08
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/08/2020 - 16:04
Posts: 7
Xylnas
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 01/13/2021 - 19:01
Posts: 45
Location: UK
Shakira08 wrote:
https://youtu.be/BlFs9QFbaSU

Wow, so it’s actually slightly shorter than the original.

Artiet59
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2020 - 17:55
Posts: 1971
Location: CT, USA

What I don’t understand-

The head diameter on this tn42 v2 is 105 mm. And it throws approximately 1800 meters.

The Manker mk35 II has a 109mm head size and throws approximately 2000 meters.

The head size on the Astrolux MF02s v2 is 84mm and throws approximately 1750 meters (tested by flashoholic). The Lumintop SD90 (new release, looks like a good deal!) has a 90mm head and throws approximately 1750 meters.

Now I know the amount of amps driven, reflector depth, and geometry play a part in throw and candela, but I just feel like given the head diameter on this TN42 v2 is over 100mm, the throw should really be more than 1800 meters..

Can anyone confirm maybe thrunite’s estimate is low? I really want to buy this light while on sale, but right now I’m leaning toward the MF02s v2 at $40 cheaper and easier to carry with almost identical throw, or the Lumintop SD90 at the same price as this (on sale) but easier to carry and the Lunintop is running Anduril, which to me is a plus, because I am familiar with it.

Thanks for entertaining this rambling.

Check out some of my new lights (picture heavy) and quick first impressions of them here: https://budgetlightforum.com/node/77180

dave1010
dave1010's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 07/04/2017 - 02:38
Posts: 219
Location: Dorset, United Kingdom

ThruNite have listed this as under 5000 lumens, which is conservative for the SBT90.2 in a big host. The SD90 is listed at 7500 lumens, which could be possible but I think is unlikely.

https://davestechreviews.wordpress.com/ / Email: <my BLF username>@gmail.com

Artiet59
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2020 - 17:55
Posts: 1971
Location: CT, USA

Definitely, I agree about the sd90 not being 7500 lumens, even the k75 acebeam which is a great performing sbt90.2 light was only clocked at 4800 lumens by Matt smith on blf (adventure sport). I expect pretty much 4800-5000 lumens the Max for sbt90.2 in any light regardless of what manufacturers claim, because that just seems to be the Max.

Thing is I’m personally not really confers with lumens with sbt90.2 as I know over 4,000 lumens with that throw is BRIGHt. I’m just searching for the best head diamter to throw ratio, mostly because it effects the lights portability abd for me how much I’ll use it. I really want the K75 but at 126mm head diameter I feel like I’ll never use it because it’s so large. Reason why I don’t want the Astrolux mf04.

But this tn42 v2 at 105mm seems like a nice Max size for me, just hoping once some members test it, that it outperforms the TN specs .

Check out some of my new lights (picture heavy) and quick first impressions of them here: https://budgetlightforum.com/node/77180

Cochise334ever
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 12/24/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 147
Location: Upstate PA/ Germany

I have the original modified w/ CFT90.2.

The only advantage this had is the run time with 4× 21700 and USB which I never use.Output is basically the same.

For someone who does not have one, it would be worth buying..although it steps down in 2 min. Facepalm mine does not.I like the 21700 but that alone would never make me buy.it.

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 1870
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

I personally think the MT90 / MF02Sv2 is the top end of a remotely usable light, but also the size that the 90.2 asks for. I mean if you are truly S&R then these are all tiny toys compared to the gigantic HIDs some use. But as a hobbiest with any sort of budget, there is a serious practicality limit above the size/weight of an L21a ~ K1 sized light. Once Convoy releases the 3×21a 90.2 I will decide between that and the MT90 as my wasteful toy / bragging rights light. Then I might trade it in a few months for an LEP to see what that’s about. Personally I’m curious how this turns out, but 99.99% certain I won’t even consider buying it.

Artiet59
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2020 - 17:55
Posts: 1971
Location: CT, USA

JaredM wrote:
I personally think the MT90 / MF02Sv2 is the top end of a remotely usable light, but also the size that the 90.2 asks for. I mean if you are truly S&R then these are all tiny toys compared to the gigantic HIDs some use. But as a hobbiest with any sort of budget, there is a serious practicality limit above the size/weight of an L21a ~ K1 sized light. Once Convoy releases the 3×21a 90.2 I will decide between that and the MT90 as my wasteful toy / bragging rights light. Then I might trade it in a few months for an LEP to see what that’s about. Personally I’m curious how this turns out, but 99.99% certain I won’t even consider buying it.

this is very helpful insight for me JaredM, thank you. And it is nice to be reminded of the practical size. And as much as i want the K75 thats why i havent bought it. I owned the mf02s and i actually used it as it was only 1/2” longer and barely wider then the ft03 & K1.

The only other serious contender im considering beside the mt90/ mf02s v2, is the Lumintop sd90. Its head is 6mm wider the mt90, but it is 2.5” longer because there is an integrated charger in Handle like the old Lumintop SD75 had.

Id be curious to hear your feedback on the LT sd90’s size, you think even that is too big? in your opinion? sorry, im just torn. then again the mt90 is $50 cheaper then the SD90, so that makes it a little easier to pick.

Check out some of my new lights (picture heavy) and quick first impressions of them here: https://budgetlightforum.com/node/77180

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 1870
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Form factor and style wise, I’d go with the MT90, but that’s subjective. I hear the UI of the MT90 isn’t great, and never saw a review of the SD90, so that’s a wild card to me. Personally, the styling does nothing for me either. The size of the SD90 IMO crosses over the point were you might as well go straight to the MF05 or GT90. Again, YMMV. Price difference here also weighs in the MT90’s favor (consider resale value as well)

In my own little world I have dividing lines between light size classes. When it comes to throwers, or just larger dia lights in general, my opinion is that 160% larger frontal area is ‘one full step’. So these lights to me are a half step apart, and the MT90 is already dangling on the too big to ever be used / pure toy range. When going on a trip, I try and only take lights full steps apart.. Otherwise I’m a weirdo lugging around a dozen lights lol.

I consider how I’m going to transport it to even play with it. My TN31 and K40M are already lights that push the limits of practicality and in the combined 10 or more years I’ve owned them couldn’t have put even a handful of full discharge cycles on either of them. Even at their relatively tiny dimensions, they don’t come along for any adventure or job unless it’s a dedicated car ride to do beamshots.

Sorry if that doesn’t help. I’d say if you think it’ll make you temporarily happy and you can justify the cost, follow your gut. This is just a hobby after all! Don’t stress it Wink

Artiet59
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2020 - 17:55
Posts: 1971
Location: CT, USA

Im trying not to stress out, always seems more important before the purchase, then its just fun after it comes in. Lol. I will make the decision, and i can always sell it if i want to try another. Never stopped me before LOL.

Thanks for your input! very helpful Insight Thumbs Up

Check out some of my new lights (picture heavy) and quick first impressions of them here: https://budgetlightforum.com/node/77180

Artiet59
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2020 - 17:55
Posts: 1971
Location: CT, USA

KawiBoy1428 wrote:
They better BEEF it up… Big Smile !{width:100%}https://i.postimg.cc/8CW6xWkF/IMG-1778.jpg!
Is that a modded TN42 V1? What driver did you use to go from xhp35 6V (or 12V?) to sbt90.2 3V?

Nice Collection! is that the Nitecore TM series in there?

Considering Portability / Size vs throw – which do you like better the BLF GT or the TN42 sbt90?

Check out some of my new lights (picture heavy) and quick first impressions of them here: https://budgetlightforum.com/node/77180

KawiBoy1428
KawiBoy1428's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 04/11/2014 - 18:05
Posts: 4263
Location: The Motor City

Artiet59][quote=KawiBoy1428 wrote:
They better BEEF it up… Big Smile !{width:100%}https://i.postimg.cc/8CW6xWkF/IMG-1778.jpg!
“Is that a modded TN42 V1?” Yes “What driver did you use to go from xhp35 6V (or 12V?) to sbt90.2 3V?” Lexel TN42 Narsil driver “Nice Collection!” Thanks “is that the Nitecore TM series in there?” correct Gen1 TM36

Considering Portability / Size vs throw – which do you like better the BLF GT or the TN42 sbt90? Like them all..but if I had to choose between the GT or TN42… then it would be the TN42…I use the FT03 with QB26800 cell the most..

KB1428 “Live Life WOT

Artiet59
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2020 - 17:55
Posts: 1971
Location: CT, USA

great info, thank you kawiboy1428. I had a feeling you that may have been your answer for the gt90 / tn42 sbt90. And that is one reason why i just ordered the mf02v2 instead of the k75. not that i didnt want the K75 more, but i will start this large light journey with one that i will hopefully use more. Although i see myself using my K1 sbt90 the most still anyway.

Check out some of my new lights (picture heavy) and quick first impressions of them here: https://budgetlightforum.com/node/77180

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 286

I now have the Thrunite TN42 V2 and here are my thoughts so far. The only modest gains in throw are due to a shorter depth of the reflector compared to the TN42. The fact that it has 4×21700 batteries might be great if not for the 1 major…and I will stress major flaw. The 21700 batteries supplied are modified protected 21700 batteries much like the Olight batteries. They have a center button surrounded by a negative washer like area on the same side. All 4 baterries positive buttons contact a brass conductive ring in the head. Beside the brass ring is a plastic insulator ring that prevents the washer like negative area on the positive button side of the battery from touching anything conductive. The negative on the positive side serves no purpose in this light, but that is not the worst part. Similar Olight batteries will not work because the button top has insulators on the side of the button. Orbtronic protected button top 21700 batteries will not work because the button is not tall enough to reach the conductor. Samsung 21700 40T batteries will work with small magnets, but since unprotected batteries are dangerous to use when all 4 batteries share a common positive and negative contact points on the light. If 1 battery had an internal short, it would kill all 4 batteries, perhaps even cause them to vent explosively. I have found no alternative batteries that work without modification to the battery or light, so these are basically proprietary batteries. Now here is the kicker… exact replacement batteries are not even listed for sale on the Thrunite website, or anywhere else I can find. That is ridiculous, because if that remains true the batteries dying forces either light modification or it becomes useless. The extra lumens and larger center spot is good, but had I known the proprietary battery issue, it would have been a deal breaker.

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 286

Artiet59 wrote:
What I don’t understand-

The head diameter on this tn42 v2 is 105 mm. And it throws approximately 1800 meters.

The Manker mk35 II has a 109mm head size and throws approximately 2000 meters.

The head size on the Astrolux MF02s v2 is 84mm and throws approximately 1750 meters (tested by flashoholic). The Lumintop SD90 (new release, looks like a good deal!) has a 90mm head and throws approximately 1750 meters.

Now I know the amount of amps driven, reflector depth, and geometry play a part in throw and candela, but I just feel like given the head diameter on this TN42 v2 is over 100mm, the throw should really be more than 1800 meters..

Can anyone confirm maybe thrunite’s estimate is low? I really want to buy this light while on sale, but right now I’m leaning toward the MF02s v2 at $40 cheaper and easier to carry with almost identical throw, or the Lumintop SD90 at the same price as this (on sale) but easier to carry and the Lunintop is running Anduril, which to me is a plus, because I am familiar with it.

Thanks for entertaining this rambling.


It is the shorter reflector depth that prevents a further throw. That is not the biggest downfall of this light…it is the idiotic proprietary modified 21700 batteries which are not even listed for sale on the Thrunite website. At this point I have buyers remorse. For some strange reason Thrunite chose to have a negative post on the positive side of the battery much like Olight batteries. This negative post only touches a plastic insulator ring, so has no practical purpose.
sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 286

AlexGT wrote:
4 × 21700? Nice, can’t wait to see it!

Read post #22 to see why these 4×21700 batteries are not a good thing. I wish I had known beforehand the battery issue. It would have been a deal breaker.
Artiet59
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2020 - 17:55
Posts: 1971
Location: CT, USA

sarge12 wrote:
Artiet59 wrote:
What I don’t understand-

The head diameter on this tn42 v2 is 105 mm. And it throws approximately 1800 meters.

The Manker mk35 II has a 109mm head size and throws approximately 2000 meters.

The head size on the Astrolux MF02s v2 is 84mm and throws approximately 1750 meters (tested by flashoholic). The Lumintop SD90 (new release, looks like a good deal!) has a 90mm head and throws approximately 1750 meters.

Now I know the amount of amps driven, reflector depth, and geometry play a part in throw and candela, but I just feel like given the head diameter on this TN42 v2 is over 100mm, the throw should really be more than 1800 meters..

Can anyone confirm maybe thrunite’s estimate is low? I really want to buy this light while on sale, but right now I’m leaning toward the MF02s v2 at $40 cheaper and easier to carry with almost identical throw, or the Lumintop SD90 at the same price as this (on sale) but easier to carry and the Lunintop is running Anduril, which to me is a plus, because I am familiar with it.

Thanks for entertaining this rambling.


It is the shorter reflector depth that prevents a further throw. That is not the biggest downfall of this light…it is the idiotic proprietary modified 21700 batteries which are not even listed for sale on the Thrunite website. At this point I have buyers remorse. For some strange reason Thrunite chose to have a negative post on the positive side of the battery much like Olight batteries. This negative post only touches a plastic insulator ring, so has no practical purpose.

Thank you for the information in post #22 and here, Sarge. Sorry to hear about your thoughts on this light so far, but hopefully they will change and it will grow on you? I mean i understand proprietary batteries suck though.

Check out some of my new lights (picture heavy) and quick first impressions of them here: https://budgetlightforum.com/node/77180

Yokiamy
Yokiamy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 5 min ago
Joined: 10/18/2016 - 15:47
Posts: 2952
Location: Netherlands

@sarge12

Could you please post some pics of the driver?
And carrier?

Lumeniac
Lumeniac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 23 hours ago
Joined: 12/19/2016 - 13:47
Posts: 742
Location: Russia

thanx for info

 

looks like Thrunite themselves killed potentially great idea...

 

Cochise334ever
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 12/24/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 147
Location: Upstate PA/ Germany

Sorry to hear that Sarge12.

I just wrote to Thrunite and told them about their proprietary battery pack.Bad decision on their part. Facepalm

I Never had and Never will buy a torch with proprietary battery.This one seems worse than the others.

This makes my TN42vn NW CFT90 look even better. Thumbs Up

Cochise334ever
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 12/24/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 147
Location: Upstate PA/ Germany

Regarding these batteries Not being on their website.This is a relatively New light.I would be willing to bet they will have them soon.It will be a money maker for them and a rip off for the general public, compared to 4 × 21700 batteries that we can buy.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 2 hours ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4275
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Can the light be modified to support standard cells?

Cochise334ever
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 12/24/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 147
Location: Upstate PA/ Germany
Enderman wrote:
Can the light be modified to support standard cells?
A lot of talented people on here I am sure some could.

The bulk of the members here and your average Joe Could Not.Me included.

So this light and the way Thrunite chose its battery pack is a definite negative for the average Joe.

No one should have to modify a light in order for it to work properly with standard batteries instead of Thrunites ,,,,Under their mercy for replacement proprietary batteries that are always 2 to 4X more expensive than than loose batteries.

Pages