Thrunite TN42 V2

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

LumenMax wrote:

These batteries will be available on the store soon for US customers first. I just saw a FB post about them.


Since I modified the light, I do not need the thrunite batteries. It would just be a hassle having to cover the idiotic negative post on them. I can forgive Olight for their similar modification, because at least their added negative on the positive side serves a purpose with their magnetic charger and remote pressure switches. Having to add a plastic insulator in the head to prevent the unnecessary negative post shorting is just idiotic. Thrunite techs…if you read this…don’t add a negative post to batteries that does not have a functional purpose. Maybe you could have used the added savings to have better battery level indicator or smooth ramping.
Anthon
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Joined: 09/07/2015 - 10:33
Posts: 669
sarge12 wrote:
This final picture is how the head and batteries look after I removed the insulator in the head and added insulators to the batteries. !https://i.postimg.cc/MGCPCQ9r/IMG-0036.jpg!

no buck driver? this light is getting least interesting day after day

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

sarge12 wrote:

What is de lensed? I have heard of de domed, but this has no dome that I can see. I doubt seriously this light could throw 2190 meters. The reflector is not as deep as the TN42, which is why it only out throws the TN42 by about 300 meters. It is a wider, brighter center spot though, and I think it has more spill. I wish they had just put the same emmitter in the TN42 body. The deeper reflector would likely reach that higher throw with the TN42 reflector. I also have the mf04, and it out throws this light by a good bit…I actually compared them last night. I do not have a lux meter, so can’t measure candella.

The SBT90.2 has a glass window in front of the LEDdie for protection, aka a lens.
sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

Enderman wrote:
sarge12 wrote:

What is de lensed? I have heard of de domed, but this has no dome that I can see. I doubt seriously this light could throw 2190 meters. The reflector is not as deep as the TN42, which is why it only out throws the TN42 by about 300 meters. It is a wider, brighter center spot though, and I think it has more spill. I wish they had just put the same emmitter in the TN42 body. The deeper reflector would likely reach that higher throw with the TN42 reflector. I also have the mf04, and it out throws this light by a good bit…I actually compared them last night. I do not have a lux meter, so can’t measure candella.

The SBT90.2 has a glass window in front of the LEDdie for protection, aka a lens.

Interesting….begs the question…protection from what? The led is already enclosed by the glass and reflector and the flashlight body. Seems like manufacturers would themselves remove the lens to increase the performance in such a competitive business. Are there statistics that point to much higher led failure once the lens is removed?
Cochise334ever
Cochise334ever's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 12/24/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 334
Location: Upstate PA/ Germany

Eva Z. Clarification below.

Hello Robert,
sorry for my mistake
Yes, it is bipolar 21700 battery. I checked with our engineer.
the length is 76mm, with protected circuit board.

the unprotected battery may not perform safe for the high drain light, so we add the protected circuit board

To admit is to acknowledge.To Accept is to take action.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

sarge12 wrote:

Interesting….begs the question…protection from what? The led is already enclosed by the glass and reflector and the flashlight body. Seems like manufacturers would themselves remove the lens to increase the performance in such a competitive business. Are there statistics that point to much higher led failure once the lens is removed?

Just like dedoming, there is risk of damage to the extremely delicate die leads.
Any LED failure will come from something falling on or touching the die/leads.
Manufacturers don’t like voiding warranties by modifying parts and increasing the number of failures/defects in the production line.
zoulas
zoulas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 48 min ago
Joined: 06/01/2020 - 08:35
Posts: 2316

sarge12 wrote:
Cochise334ever wrote:
Eva Z. From Thrunite responded.She said the batteries are NOT custom.They are 76mm Protected 21700.

Also said they are working on getting the batteries in their store. No doubt will be at least double the price of a Standard Unprotected 30T,40T or P42A.


If Eva Z. said that she is sadly mistaken. My Fluke meter does not lie, and there is a negative post on the positive side. If that is not considered custom, neither are the Olight batteries. In fact, I can’t think of any 21700 batteries that are custom, if those are not. They are the only 21700 batteries I have checked that will work in this light without modification or magnets…that is the definition of proprietary batteries. To be fair…all 21700 button top batteries or protected batteries are modified. The factories only make them flat top, and unprotected. The protection circuits, button tops, and negative terminals on the positive side are all 3rd party modifications.

The true test is can you charge them in a standard desktop charger. If you can’t, they are proprietary and should be avoided.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

It would be very dangerous to charge these in a normal charger, since chargers often are made for multiple sizes of cells and the positive terminal is not just a button but rather a rectangle, and if it has raised points it could contact both the positive and negative terminals of the batteries at the same time since they are on the same side, shoring the cell.

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

zoulas wrote:
sarge12 wrote:
Cochise334ever wrote:
Eva Z. From Thrunite responded.She said the batteries are NOT custom.They are 76mm Protected 21700.

Also said they are working on getting the batteries in their store. No doubt will be at least double the price of a Standard Unprotected 30T,40T or P42A.


If Eva Z. said that she is sadly mistaken. My Fluke meter does not lie, and there is a negative post on the positive side. If that is not considered custom, neither are the Olight batteries. In fact, I can’t think of any 21700 batteries that are custom, if those are not. They are the only 21700 batteries I have checked that will work in this light without modification or magnets…that is the definition of proprietary batteries. To be fair…all 21700 button top batteries or protected batteries are modified. The factories only make them flat top, and unprotected. The protection circuits, button tops, and negative terminals on the positive side are all 3rd party modifications.

The true test is can you charge them in a standard desktop charger. If you can’t, they are proprietary and should be avoided.


You can’t without risking shorting due to the negative on the positive side. Once I modified the modified battery with insulators I could.
sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

Cochise334ever wrote:
Eva Z. Clarification below.

Hello Robert,
sorry for my mistake
Yes, it is bipolar 21700 battery. I checked with our engineer.
the length is 76mm, with protected circuit board.

the unprotected battery may not perform safe for the high drain light, so we add the protected circuit board


Once again, that too is not exactly correct. The high current drain is not the issue requiring protected cells. The fact that these 4 batteries are in parallel with common positive and negative termination points is the issue with unprotected cells. In such a setup, an internal short in any 1 battery would cause the other 3 to overheat badly, perhaps even catch on fire, even with the light off. 4×21700 high drain batteries provide way more current that this led requires. That is not the case with an internal short of 1 battery which effectively completes the circuit with a 0 resistence load. I would not recommend even a 2 cell light having unprotected batteries, but 4 cells might burn someones house down as they sleep. With 1 cell, the protection can be in the lights PCB. I had no issue with protected batteries. The idiotic negative termination point on the positive side serving no purpose, was my issue with the design. As designed that negative only touches an insulator, so there is no reason for it to be there. I was an electrician/mechanical troubleshooter so I know electronics. The only really safe means of protecting 4 cells in the light itself would require 4 seperate termination points to the lights circuits.
Yokiamy
Yokiamy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 36 min ago
Joined: 10/18/2016 - 15:47
Posts: 3215
Location: Netherlands

sarge12 wrote:
Cochise334ever wrote:
Eva Z. Clarification below.

Hello Robert,
sorry for my mistake
Yes, it is bipolar 21700 battery. I checked with our engineer.
the length is 76mm, with protected circuit board.

the unprotected battery may not perform safe for the high drain light, so we add the protected circuit board


Once again, that too is not exactly correct. The high current drain is not the issue requiring protected cells. The fact that these 4 batteries are in parallel with common positive and negative termination points is the issue with unprotected cells. In such a setup, an internal short in any 1 battery would cause the other 3 to overheat badly, perhaps even catch on fire, even with the light off. 4×21700 high drain batteries provide way more current that this led requires. That is not the case with an internal short of 1 battery which effectively completes the circuit with a 0 resistence load. I would not recommend even a 2 cell light having unprotected batteries, but 4 cells might burn someones house down as they sleep. With 1 cell, the protection can be in the lights PCB. I had no issue with protected batteries. The idiotic negative termination point on the positive side serving no purpose, was my issue with the design. As designed that negative only touches an insulator, so there is no reason for it to be there. I was an electrician/mechanical troubleshooter so I know electronics. The only really safe means of protecting 4 cells in the light itself would require 4 seperate termination points to the lights circuits.

Or just use a mechanical lockout, by unscrewing the tube or tail half a turn.

Sunnysunsun
Sunnysunsun's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 7 hours ago
Joined: 08/09/2019 - 12:51
Posts: 766
Location: Toronto

I feel that just had those protected cells already designed and wanted to use them rather than getting new ones made.

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

Yokiamy wrote:
sarge12 wrote:
Cochise334ever wrote:
Eva Z. Clarification below.

Hello Robert,
sorry for my mistake
Yes, it is bipolar 21700 battery. I checked with our engineer.
the length is 76mm, with protected circuit board.

the unprotected battery may not perform safe for the high drain light, so we add the protected circuit board


Once again, that too is not exactly correct. The high current drain is not the issue requiring protected cells. The fact that these 4 batteries are in parallel with common positive and negative termination points is the issue with unprotected cells. In such a setup, an internal short in any 1 battery would cause the other 3 to overheat badly, perhaps even catch on fire, even with the light off. 4×21700 high drain batteries provide way more current that this led requires. That is not the case with an internal short of 1 battery which effectively completes the circuit with a 0 resistence load. I would not recommend even a 2 cell light having unprotected batteries, but 4 cells might burn someones house down as they sleep. With 1 cell, the protection can be in the lights PCB. I had no issue with protected batteries. The idiotic negative termination point on the positive side serving no purpose, was my issue with the design. As designed that negative only touches an insulator, so there is no reason for it to be there. I was an electrician/mechanical troubleshooter so I know electronics. The only really safe means of protecting 4 cells in the light itself would require 4 seperate termination points to the lights circuits.

Or just use a mechanical lockout, by unscrewing the tube or tail half a turn.


Mechanical lockout might avert disaster if using unprotected cells, because in truth, during use an internal short of the battery would make the light too hot to hold before venting. In that case, you could then unscrew the head or toss the light a safe distance away. I know in my case, I would at some point forget. Now I should stress that only an internal short of a battery would cause such an issue, and that is admittedly a fairly rare event, so chances are better than not, it would not happen. The potential is there however. It is sort of like failing to change batteries in a smoke alarm, most would get away with that, but such oversite can, and has cost lives. In both cases, it is not worth the risk to life or losing your house, IMO.
sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

Sunnysunsun wrote:
I feel that just had those protected cells already designed and wanted to use them rather than getting new ones made.

Probably the case, there may very well be other Thrunite lights that actuallly use the negative post on the positive side. Using them in this light made them very proprietary, whether that was their intent or not. The removal of the insulator, and adding 20 cents worth of insulator to the batteries fixed the issue, so not a big deal for someone who is aware of the issue, and knows about the fix. I don’t really like how close those negative screws are to the positive ring, but my fluke meter indicates that it is not touching, showing high mega-ohms resistence, so it is safe, in spite of how close it looks. It was close enough for me to check that prior to putting the batteries in.
Yokiamy
Yokiamy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 36 min ago
Joined: 10/18/2016 - 15:47
Posts: 3215
Location: Netherlands

Excuse me my ignorance, but i see you ranting about unprotected cells.

You do know you’re on BLF here?

You do know about the BLF Q8?

And many other lights that use the same principle?

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 6967
Location: Ślōnsk

The original TN42 has always been one of the lights that I always wanted to have but couldn’t justify the expense. From what others said it was a good host with a good reflector and it was very lightweight considering its capabilities.

4×21700….thanks but no thanks. 4×18650 is as thick as I’m willing to handle and even that is too large for comfort.

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

Yokiamy wrote:
Excuse me my ignorance, but i see you ranting about unprotected cells.

You do know you’re on BLF here?

You do know about the BLF Q8?

And many other lights that use the same principle?


Which is why my BLFQ8 and Sofirn Q8 both have protected cells in them. I do not care what they ship with, if it has 4 cells with common termination points it gets protected batteries period. My Nitecore TM16GT has 4 unprotected cells, but also has 4 seperate termination points and the protection is built into the light. What was hard to understand about my statement that any such designed light needs protected cells.
Cochise334ever
Cochise334ever's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 12/24/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 334
Location: Upstate PA/ Germany

^^^
To each his own.I have been using UNPROTECTED CELLS in ALL my lights for 8 years Never One issue.

I have heard many debate on these forums that Unprotected cells are actually safer…can not recall the exact detail as to why.

To admit is to acknowledge.To Accept is to take action.

zoulas
zoulas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 48 min ago
Joined: 06/01/2020 - 08:35
Posts: 2316

I think the protection part of the protection circuit diminishes the more cells a light has. You really need a BMS with four cells to be “protected.” On the other hand, if you don’t do foolish things and try to use four used batteries from four different broken laptops, you should be fine with unprotected. Matter of fact , unprotected is always recommended for performance lights.

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

Cochise334ever wrote:
^^^
To each his own.I have been using UNPROTECTED CELLS in ALL my lights for 8 years Never One issue.

I have heard many debate on these forums that Unprotected cells are actually safer…can not recall the exact detail as to why.


You may never have an issue, but the fact remains, with four cells that connect all the positive contacts together, and all the negative contacts together, it is a safety issue. Even with the switch off, and internal short in any one cell becomes a 0 ohm load and starts drawing maximum power from the other 3 cells until the batteries vent, of burns through the shorted cell until it opens. In either case the condition can and has burned peoples house down. I will give you the fact that such a short is a somewhat rare occourance, and if it happened while using the light it would be apparent, and the light would be too hot to hold. Having had a major house fire due to teenagers breaking in and catching my house on fire, I will err on the side of caution. The protection circuits on batteries does not engage until 10-12 amps, so the batteries can supply between 40-48 amps to the light.
sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

Well the 21700 Thrunite modified batteries are now showing on their website, and they are now 5000 mah. They are a very high price of 25.95 each. I will stick with the Orbtronics 5000mah protected 21700 that sale for 13.95. Using those requires removal of the plastic insulator head in the light. It also requires use of insulators that cover the unnecessary negative post on the positive side to use the thrunite batteries that came with the light also. So thrunite is selling their batteries of the same capacity for 12 dollars more, but includes a negative post that is not needed for any function in this light. The negative post on the positive side only contacts the insulator ring that also prevents the orbtronic cells from working. The insulator ring is held in the head by three screws that also hold in the PCB, so they must be re-installed after removing the insulator ring. A simple fix to save 48 bucks for 4 extra batteries. I have bought many batteries from orbtronics, and they use high quality cells.

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

Agro wrote:
The original TN42 has always been one of the lights that I always wanted to have but couldn’t justify the expense. From what others said it was a good host with a good reflector and it was very lightweight considering its capabilities.

4×21700….thanks but no thanks. 4×18650 is as thick as I’m willing to handle and even that is too large for comfort.


Strange as it may seem, the actual feel of the added thickness of the base over the feel of a 4×18650 base is not a problem for me. I know the added diamater must be there, unless the carriage also adds that much in a 4×18650 carrier. I doubt that, but have not measured. I just know when in my hand, I am not thinking of the extra tube diamater. With the mods completed on the head and the batteries, I actually like the light much better. My next target is the Acebeam K75, if only I can someday find a sale or discount code to get that one in my light budget. That is just a very expensive light. Does it ever go on sale? I have been lusting over that one a while. If I can ever secure one in the 200-225 dollar range I will likely pull the trigger. Go figure, as an avid gun collector, 300 bucks is a low starting point for a decent sidearm. A few years back, I would never have even imagined spending 200 bucks for a flashlight though. I need cheaper hobbies.
ArtieT59
ArtieT59's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2020 - 17:55
Posts: 3516
Location: CT, USA

sarge12 wrote:
Agro wrote:
The original TN42 has always been one of the lights that I always wanted to have but couldn’t justify the expense. From what others said it was a good host with a good reflector and it was very lightweight considering its capabilities.

4×21700….thanks but no thanks. 4×18650 is as thick as I’m willing to handle and even that is too large for comfort.


Strange as it may seem, the actual feel of the added thickness of the base over the feel of a 4×18650 base is not a problem for me. I know the added diamater must be there, unless the carriage also adds that much in a 4×18650 carrier. I doubt that, but have not measured. I just know when in my hand, I am not thinking of the extra tube diamater. With the mods completed on the head and the batteries, I actually like the light much better. My next target is the Acebeam K75, if only I can someday find a sale or discount code to get that one in my light budget. That is just a very expensive light. Does it ever go on sale? I have been lusting over that one a while. If I can ever secure one in the 200-225 dollar range I will likely pull the trigger. Go figure, as an avid gun collector, 300 bucks is a low starting point for a decent sidearm. A few years back, I would never have even imagined spending 200 bucks for a flashlight though. I need cheaper hobbies.

I have been seriously looking into lights of this size for the first time since I started this hobby in the last month. I just bought a MF02s v2 sbt90.2, and I have been plotting my acquisition of the k75, which when all said and done seems to be the best in class after ouch research (which seems can be attributed to its reflector & driver 4 batteries in series I believe!?)

Anyway, I also am having a hard time with the $275 price tag.

But also – the WildTrails WT90 group buy which is only weeks away from fruition, which is also led by TexasAce! Tom E has been testing the Prototype, and looks like a clear winner in the same size as this Tn42, but with more throw.
I’m buying one, definitely. Oh and it comes in clear aluminum anodized. Check it out

https://budgetlightforum.com/node/77478

[FLF] Five Light Friday https://budgetlightforum.com/node/78749

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

My Sft40 beamshots / comparison thread: https://budgetlightforum.com/node/78100

The BLF GT with SFT40 (2300lm, 2700m+ @ 30 seconds!)
https://budgetlightforum.com/node/79561

Ein
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 05/18/2021 - 13:24
Posts: 3

Thanks for the discussion here. I learned a lot.

A simple question: I want to get a second set of batteries for backup. What should I get? I prefer not to modify the light.

sarge12
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 324

Ein wrote:
Thanks for the discussion here. I learned a lot.

A simple question: I want to get a second set of batteries for backup. What should I get? I prefer not to modify the light.


The proprietary batteries from thrunit are the only option that I know of that will work without modifying the light. If others will work I have not found them.
Hardusvd70
Hardusvd70's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/09/2017 - 01:11
Posts: 421
Location: Free State

ArtieT59 wrote:
So I just saw that Vinh Sky lumen has this posted for sale & mods. Vinh has this light listed 1.2mcd! And 2190 meters throw, listed as de lensed only. There is no stating any other mod beside de lense and his driver for one option, but he says the performance is the same with his driver and stock driver..

I don’t know Sarge if you have a way of measuring throw with a lux meter? Or if you even care to, but honestly if this light really throws 2190 meters or close to that with just a delense to the led (which we know only adds approximately 5% throw – so maybe 90 meters to claimed 1800m) then I would deal with the stupid batteries, because the head size is really a nice medium between MF02s v2 and k75, but 2190 is really good for the 105mm head size

I hope when someone else gets this they can confirm it throws even within 5% of 2190 meters? Because that is about 21% more throw then the claimed 1800 meters, and would make this light a REALLY great performer. That is the same throw as the mf04 with xhp35, but with a 30mm smaller head! And twice the lumens!


I measured my TN42 V2 as well 1.2Mcd. Measured 3020 lux at 20 meter distance. This was at switch on.

Hardusvd70

Fedtro
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 59 min ago
Joined: 07/17/2020 - 10:40
Posts: 271
Location: Corropoli, Teramo, ITALIA

ArtieT59 wrote:
sarge12 wrote:
Agro wrote:
The original TN42 has always been one of the lights that I always wanted to have but couldn't justify the expense. From what others said it was a good host with a good reflector and it was very lightweight considering its capabilities. 4x21700....thanks but no thanks. 4x18650 is as thick as I'm willing to handle and even that is too large for comfort.
Strange as it may seem, the actual feel of the added thickness of the base over the feel of a 4x18650 base is not a problem for me. I know the added diamater must be there, unless the carriage also adds that much in a 4x18650 carrier. I doubt that, but have not measured. I just know when in my hand, I am not thinking of the extra tube diamater. With the mods completed on the head and the batteries, I actually like the light much better. My next target is the Acebeam K75, if only I can someday find a sale or discount code to get that one in my light budget. That is just a very expensive light. Does it ever go on sale? I have been lusting over that one a while. If I can ever secure one in the 200-225 dollar range I will likely pull the trigger. Go figure, as an avid gun collector, 300 bucks is a low starting point for a decent sidearm. A few years back, I would never have even imagined spending 200 bucks for a flashlight though. I need cheaper hobbies.
I have been seriously looking into lights of this size for the first time since I started this hobby in the last month. I just bought a MF02s v2 sbt90.2, and I have been plotting my acquisition of the k75, which when all said and done seems to be the best in class after ouch research (which seems can be attributed to its reflector & driver 4 batteries in series I believe!?) Anyway, I also am having a hard time with the $275 price tag. But also - the WildTrails WT90 group buy which is only weeks away from fruition, which is also led by TexasAce! Tom E has been testing the Prototype, and looks like a clear winner in the same size as this Tn42, but with more throw. I'm buying one, definitely. Oh and it comes in clear aluminum anodized. Check it out https://budgetlightforum.com/node/77478[/quote]

 

I made an economic effort and bought both the TN42 V2 and the WT90 but I already had the K75, I can tell you that the latter is certainly superior to the other 2 but compared to the TN42 V2 the difference is minimal! I tell you that despite its 100 mm head, which is smaller than the K75 and the same size as the WT90, the Thrunite has performances in relation to the dimensions and weight of a higher category very close to the K75 instead the WT90 does not reach what the specifications promised and is inferior to TN42 V2. I believe it was really well designed and I also believe that much of the credit is due to the high quality standard 4x21700 battery pack although I also use the Molicel P42A which also give something more than the stock batteries.

Cochise334ever
Cochise334ever's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 12/24/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 334
Location: Upstate PA/ Germany

Zeroair review has it stepping down in just under 2 minutes. No thanks.

My modded TN42vn CFT90 has no step down Neither does the WT90 when its disabled. Thumbs Up

To admit is to acknowledge.To Accept is to take action.

CollectEverything
CollectEverything's picture
Online
Last seen: 12 min 31 sec ago
Joined: 07/17/2021 - 00:19
Posts: 821
Location: USA

Cochise334ever wrote:
Zeroair review has it stepping down in just under 2 minutes. No thanks.

My modded TN42vn CFT90 has no step down Neither does the WT90 when its disabled. Thumbs Up


I certainly understand wanting to eliminate stepdown, but aren’t you worried about frying something by disabling step-down on something like the WT90?

------------------

My Collection

------------------

Cochise334ever
Cochise334ever's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 12/24/2020 - 08:13
Posts: 334
Location: Upstate PA/ Germany

CollectEverything wrote:
Cochise334ever wrote:
Zeroair review has it stepping down in just under 2 minutes. No thanks.

My modded TN42vn CFT90 has no step down Neither does the WT90 when its disabled. Thumbs Up


I certainly understand wanting to eliminate stepdown, but aren’t you worried about frying something by disabling step-down on something like the WT90?

Not at all.

I see your concern and it is possible.In the 10 years of using high powered stock and mostly modified lights, I have never had an LED or driver fry because of using max output 80% of the time and low 20% to cool the lights. Actually in late fall and winter they can stay on max until battery depletion.

I enjoy using my lights that way…if one does fry well I will accept it.

To admit is to acknowledge.To Accept is to take action.

Pages