Astrolux S43S review (4x 219C, 18350/18650)

Sorry, I’m just finding this thread.

I should point out that the output specs for the S43 and S43S are listed incorrectly on Banggood.

The aluminum head S43 XP-G3 should be around 2100 lumen and the 219C should be around 1600 lumen. Same as the previous S42 version. I don’t know why Banggood says both led versions do the same output. Everyone should know the 219C are not as efficient as the XP-G3.

The Copper head S43S replaces the single driver and tail spring for a driver button and twin tail springs. This allows for even higher amp draws and more output for the copper version.

It does not surprise me that Maukka was able to measure 2100-1900 lumen from the 219C version. Well above the 1600 lumen spec. In M4D M4X’s video he measured 15A draw from a 30Q at 4.0 volts. I’m not sure if he had the 219C version or the XP-G3 version, but this copper head definitely draws more amps than the aluminum version. Then again, you can bump up the aluminum versions output by bypassing both springs.

It is a real shame that the bezel may be loosing us some output for no good reason.

I don’t have data sheets for Nichia emitters, but with Cree they show there can be a +–7% variance per bin. So as much as a 14% brightness difference between bins.

Where are you hearing about 2600 lumen? I did not see it mentioned in this thread anywhere.

I'm confused about 2600 and 1600 lumens specs - where? I see 2023 lumens and 2100 lumens on Banggood - that's all I could find on lumens specs. The Astrolux website: looks pretty worthless.

I hope someone else can verify what I saw by removing the bezel and lens - wondering if I did it right or something wrong with my setup to do this kind of measurement. The higher 102 lumens I measured vs. maukka's 89 is understandable - I'm still in the industry std (non ANSI) world of lumens.

Least it gives me some direction of what/where to mod to try and improve it. Thinking of sanding down the inner part of the bezel - black to raw alum would probably help as well. Tricky because there is an o-ring being held by the lip on the bezel.

And I hope the lo ball estimates aren't a justification for a poor optics design -- how can you trust any spec that has one number for 2 differing LED options? This is pathetic, we all know it and they just continue to do it - why not? 5 star reviews just keep rolling in and we keep buying them, myself included . Where's that head slap?

The 2600 lumen number was measured by WalkintotheLite.

I’m just saying that if their numbers were measured with a better lens and less bezel, then the numbers might benefit a lot from these mods.

It’s nothing new for the optic to waste a lot of light by bouncing it to the sides and just attacking the bezel. The Armytek Prime C2 Pro was one of those. Too bad it’s not as simple to replace the S43(S) optics.

I doubt the lens has much of an effect.

Here's my issues:

Very difficult to remove the optic - one leg was stuck:

Stains on the copper above the switch:

Carclo on the left, S43S on the right. Carclo has beefy legs (4 not 2) and thin front lens - both desirable traits:

Wow the lens of the S43 looks cloudy, and full of impurities.

The efficiency of their optic might be lower than Carclo.

My S42 has been sitting around in pieces for a long time, just got disgusted, frustrated with it. Should have made a big fuss over it and maybe someone lurking in the shadows at Banggood would have listened. So now, we get the same junk in a prettier package.

Just cancelled my order… Luckily Bangood was back ordered on this item right now… Hopefully my refund runs smoothly… Thanks for the info!

As I said earlier, Banggood posted the wrong lumen specs for the S43 219C version on their website. You can look up the specs for the S42 as they are basically the same leds and FET driver design.

The S43S is designed differently with less resistance on both ends of the battery and pulls higher amps thus giving higher output.

The 2600 lumen was not a spec at all. It was what a user measured. I have no clue on the specifics of how it was measured and by what type of device. Without this info, I would disregard this measurement.

You seem upset. I knew all this before hand and still gladly bought the 219C version S43S. I guess we see things differently. :partying_face:

Funny you reference ArmyTek - they claim high tech all the way and have by far the worse methods of spec'ing lumens from any so-called high quality name manufacturer out there - "LED light output", what is that? What does that mean? Who cares because it's meaningless. At least they could make an attempt at ANSI/NEMA FL1, like others do, so you could compare. They did at least rate this particular light with OTF lumens as well, but from the ArmyTek web page:

  • Efficient TIR-optics and no “tunnel vision” effect even after continuous use

ArmyTek and Astrolux do have some things in common. I got a D-E-D unfixable ArmyTek headlamp and Astrolux's, might be the only ones I have.

Does it look possible to buy a common 4x mcpcb from MTN along with the Carlco optics and just swap the leds over to the new mcpcb?

I don’t know if there is a difference is optics diameter.

I also don’t know why Astrolux went with this unique mcpcb/optics combo.

Nope, can't be done 24 mm vs. 22.1 mm diameter, and yes, I'm upset because no one else seems to be upset about continuous inferior quality designs that go on for years with continuing 5 star reviews, and even us that should know better, always see the brighter side of things I guess. I would like to see more independent critiques, and when something is amiss, say so and try to get the message back to the source, which seems impossible to do at times. Also what erks me is all this beautiful copper seems so wasted, wasting away precious watts on a 1-2 dollar savings on components.

Just makes me appreciate Hank at IOS, Richard, and many others that are pushing the industry in a better direction. Astrolux/Banggood seems like they are playing a game of deception - looks good, has many of the bells and whistles we want, at a price we want, but some things are lacking beneath the covers.

Eh, at least Texas_Ace got the driver and UI up to snuff.

Sure, the optics could be better, but besides a lack of optics efficiency, it still seems like a good light.

Ps, Most folks don’t care about efficiency. Sad, but true.

All true. For example, I don't see thermal regulation as an important issue - my hand lets me know these things, while for others it's a don't buy. For me the loss of 25% is a don't buy reason - I'm ok with losing 25% for some real benefit, like a nice milky white beam and high CRI for example, as opposed to a bluish bright white.

And here I thought Astrolux had nothing more to improve. Is it too soon for discussion on the S44. :smiling_imp:

Which seems the same as the one Manker is using for the E14 and E14 II (69.95$) and most probably the Timeback II (159,95$).

Yep - the clipped optics looks the same and the thin 2 legs are there as well:

Thinner MCPCB, closer LED's, thick front plastic, thinner legs -- all the wrong decisions.

I got my S43S in today.
Test results are here.
I got same lumens as Maukka, but an amp draw of 18.6A with a 30Q.

I also noticed the bezel was losing output.