The little brother will be a scaled down version of the L2 or L6. I’m picturing it similar to a C8 in size though with a slightly bigger head. The goal is not to go too much bigger than the C8 in size while outperforming and outclassing the C8. Better looks, better heatsinking, better throw, choice of OP and mirror smooth reflectors, hosts that will accommodate a variety of emitters, etc. So, in summary, yes Will…a turbo C8. :+1:
Edit: You would have know that if you’d kept up with the thread. What is 1300 posts too much to read?
Did you edit some of that in? I swear I didn’t see all that before but maybe I was reading too quickly. Anyway regarding emitter choice I like the idea of offering it with your choice of a high binned XPL or XPL-HI. One throwier and one punchier. Love them both. I’m on the same page regarding the XHP35. It rocks but a 4 cell configuration is a bit much for all but advanced modders. I can see some Dale or KawiBoy type person pulling it off in the L6 host with a 4 stack of 26350 cells pushing an XHP35-HI though. :money_mouth_face: In fact if I don’t see that I’ll be quite sad. :cry: :sunglasses:
I will definitely be pushing for a DTP board right out of the gate. We can’t have another L6 release crisis scene. Had to scramble all the jets there. I still can’t believe Simon pulled that off sourcing and swapping all those boards as it was headed out the door. Only one single standard copper star in the whole bunch…mine. No good deed goes unpunished eh? That makes mine one-of-one though. :laughing: Oh and power-wise my exact words to Simon were “We should aim for 4-4.5A”.
Yeah I went back a page and read all the details I usually don’t follow this L2 thread as closely as the L6 and tan S2+ but now I’m seriously interested in this turbo C8/mini L2, single 18650 is my favorite platform. Please tell Simon to hurry up with this one, but only after finishing with the tan S2+ of course
Nice work here J-Dub74!
In fact the turbo C8 / L1 would be a direct competitor to the Manker U21 right?
Drewl, a grey Convoy almost small thrower that is affordable, drewl.
And noobish me color comes from pigments in the ano process, would just not adding color not make it look nice ALU bare yet with the properties of anodized ALU?
Probably not since it seems hard to make a nice non colored ano but man it would be so sweet!
Thanks. You’re doing some nice work yourself there sir. :+1:
I don’t see this upcoming Convoy as a competitor to the U21 really. It will be more compact for one thing and I don’t know yet if we’re going tail switch only or tail/side combo. It might be a competitor in throw but in a different format and easier on the wallet. Regarding clear anodizing I think that’s the gist of it but I realy don’t know all that it entails. I know it took a couple tries to get it to look right but Simon nailed clear anodizing. Clear anodized lights will be coming to the Convoy store fairly soon.
When setting up to anodize, most companies simply bead blast to hide or eliminate tooling marks. Then after the anodize bath has done it’s duty, the microscopic pores of the anodization are filled with dye for color. The problem is that light dye’s (or more accurately color dyes, especially white) have larger molecules than dark or black dye, so a good Type III military grade, with it’s smaller pores, can’t accept a color. If the dye bath is skipped, the result is a greenish grey hue from the bead blasting. If the aluminum surface is polished prior to the ano bath, the result will be a much higher grade of bare looking metal under the anodized layer. I sent some parts I made for photography purposes to a specialist in Florida to be anodized a brilliant royal purple, and I polished my parts first. The polish is still quite visible in the purple dye, but they told me it had to be type II in order to use this color.
So, the ultimate bare anodized finish would require more extensive work, a finer grade of machining and a pre-ano polish to make it come out looking like polished aluminum. It would probably be cost prohibitive.
I got confused lol If you have 2 cells in series they will read as one cell so yes 8.4 volts that also means the current will be spread between both batteries so if your total current is 5 amps it is drawing a total of 5 between both batteries. That is why you get the longer run times. Generally when you double the voltage you can half the amperage for the same results!
So a XHP70 needs like 30 watts to run? So if you have a single set up (or parellel) of a standard lithium 3.7 volt battery you would need to draw 8amps to power the XHP70 (this is with out the losses needed to step up the voltage!) In parellel the current is spread between cells so total voltage will stay the 3.7 nominal volts no matter how many batteries you have but you get the longer run time because amperage is spread out between cells! So four cells would equal 2 amps each!
The same XHP70 in series running 8 volts would only need 4 amps total to run the same XHP70 to get the same 32 watts needed. But in a parallel set up the voltage double but the current stays the same (that is why you are meant to use the same Mah batteries) so if you use 3000mah batteries that will be total capacity of both cells! 3000mah total! But you are drawing less overall current! This set up is more efficient for a 6 or 9 or 12 volt LED because you do not loose power by needing to step up the voltage.
Oops, you got that backwards. Parallel maintains the same voltage of the one cell, doubles up capacity. Series doubles up the voltage, maintains the capacity.
Two 2500mAh cells side by side, parallel, are the equivalent of a 5000mAh 4.2V cell.
Two 2500mAh cells stacked on top of each other end to end, series, are the equivalent of a 2500mAh 8.4V cell.
In the first example, parallel, the 5000mAh 4.2V cell can do 5A for an hour (theoretically)
In the second example, series, the 2500mAh 8.4V cell can do 5A for half an hour, but at twice the voltage. If you have a Buck driver knocking the 8.4V down to what a 3V emitter needs, then yes, it’s closer to the 5000mAh capacity but has losses from the driver making the conversion.
A Courui D01 has 3 parallel cells and will run a single 3V emitter a long time. The 3 cells are sharing the current, so a 5A load is divided by 3.
It’s the series set-up that I’m not sure about. 5A to a single 3V emitter when using a Buck driver with 2 cells in series, I don’t know how much each cell ends up seeing because the Buck driver pulls less than the 5A at 8.4V in order to convert it to 5A at 3V. The losses from the inefficiency of the driver, converting some of the power into heat, will cause a difference. This is where my gray matter goes mushy.
For the parallel question, going big makes it easier to see… 100 of the 2500mAh cells in parallel give you 250,000 mAh of capacity, but still only 4.2V. Where 100 2500mAh cells in series would still be 2500mAh capacity, but the voltage would be quite stout!
Of course, we wouldn’t use the same amperage at 420V as we do at 4.2V, so the current would be very small by comparison on this “battery” in the same way that our 12V car battery is made up of 6 cells at 2V each, they’re huge cells with a lot of capacity so they are capable of a whopping instant discharge in order to start our car. They can’t do it for long though, as almost all of us are well aware.
The new Volt from Chevrolet has 300 Li-ion cells in a battery pack that runs in the traditional space a drive shaft used to be. This battery pack is capable, I’m told, of being opened and each individual cell replaced by a mechanic. So when you’re riding in the Volt, you have 300 18650’s between the seats, almost level with your butt. Interesting, huh?
This is where I get muddled as well. So I have a 2S C8 with a 5.1 amp buck driver. According to Djozz’s charts a new S4 2B emitter needs a forward voltage of 4.3 volts to achieve that current. Is that what’s happening in a buck driver?
The Volt is part gasoline, only goes about 20 miles on all electric.
And yes, the Buck driver is giving the XP-G2 the higher forward voltage it needs, 2 cells can do what one cell alone cannot, which is how to achieve some serious throw with an XP-G2.
Alright, thanks Dale. I’m still a little curious why I get 3 amps at the tail but I know I’m getting a good bit more candela than the same configuration with direct drive so I figured it was getting the necessary voltage and current.
An efficient buck driver might be around 90% efficient.
(P_out)/(P_in)=0.9
So with the 5.1A buck driver in the post above, the driver is outputting (5.1A)(4.3)=21.9W. This means the batteries have to input (21.9W)/0.9=24.3W. So maybe about 3A at 8V.
My opinion is that the side switch with tail switch will make the light longer and more difficult to find driver for the host to mod. And when I use it and turn on-off often it need to switch position in hand to switch modes which is not very comfortable. I like my L6 at this way but when I turn that on I use it for longer time.
So I like the only tail switch version more. And a removable tactical ring would be nice as on bigger brothers but this time with single cell tube.
