Yeah I just made up a number because I assume the head design has a much bigger effect on heat dissipation and power handling than the body, Now if the body were made of copper, then that would definitely help much more at moving heat away from the LED, but I think copper also likes to āhold onto heatā more.
I recently asked him in a topic here about putting other emitters in the L7 besides SBT90.2, and he told me that the L6 and L7 are essentially the same model. (Reviews showing that the L7 has better regulation would disagree, but I digress. Heās the one that builds and sells them, so he knows better than I do.) He didnāt sound interested in the topic.
I donāt have anything against the SBT90.2, either. I have it in a 4X18A, and itās pretty fun.
The L7 is currently available with an SBT90.2 only and the product page says it is driven at 20amps. The L6 drives GT FC-40 and XHP70.2 at 4 and 8 amps respectively. I guess the big question is whether or not this theoretical FC-40 L7 would use the same driver as the L6 or a reconfigured version of the L7ās driver. Maybe Hank planned to literally put the same driver in the L7 that he uses for the L6 or maybe he just meant that the amperage (and therefore the theoretical output) would be the same. Iām definitely curious about what he meant.
Youāre right. He didnāt sound very excited about it. Maybe he has a large stock of L6 hosts to sell through. At one point he said he was going to make a listing for the L7 with the XHP70.3 Hi. When I followed up asking if he was working on it, he said he could do it but thought that I would be disappointed in the result. I didnāt push it at the time because I wasnāt sure which emitter I wanted exactly. I think Iāll just message him about a single order at some point. Iāll explain I understand that the theoretical output would be the same but that I just prefer the design of the L7 host. Fingers crossed!
As far as I know the main technical difference is the size of the MCPCB. It is 25mm at the L7 instead of 20mm at the L6. So possible better heat transfer from the LED to the host/ body.
Itās strange how the regulation on the L7 seems so much more linear though.
About cells, I agree with that premise of going 2 x 21700. The 21700 is more affordable than the 26650, more ubiquitous at this point. Frankly, I like the rectangular bar body style. I have a Nitecore EC4GT thatās 2 x 18650 and the āslabā is pocketable versus a fat cylinder.
Now of course thereās the 26800ā¦ which is huge. And while some places offer ones with 6200mAh 25A for $10~16 (about the same as mainstream branded 26650), itās still very early and who knows if itāll get enough traction to keep the price from ballooning.
I bought a D4S in 26800. It wasn't for me in the end, only because chargers are difficult to come by, as are the batteries. I thought I could convince myself, but I didn't want to intro another battery type into my solid 18650/21700 collection. The overall girth of the flashlight worked well, however, for my medium hands. It would make a great search light.
The L7 has a different LED and driver than the L6.
Iāve been interested in some slab-type 21700 lights like the Rovyvon S2 Premium. I like the idea in theory but in practice I prefer the batteries in series because it makes the light easier to grasp with heavy winter gloves on. Iām aware that unprotected cells in series is not the safest electrically so I monitor battery health closely. My SF47 (4*SST40) is one of my most pleasant lights to carry in terms of ergonomics.
Similarly, big lights with 4*18650 carriers are great for sustained output but the end-to-end 26650/26800 lights are just more comfortable to grasp with and without winter gloves on.
26800 lights have such a great form factor. The normal D4Sv2 feels like a stubby light in my hand. After installing the 26800 tube I canāt imagine using the D4Sv2 without it. It just fits my hand so well! The same goes for my Convoy M3-C and M3. Iāve been buying my 26800s from Aloft Hobby and have been satisfied. True, the cell might be a passing fad and might go away some day. If they do, Iāll have gotten my moneyās worth from my $4 tube extensions (M3-C) and the $13 extra tube (D4sV2) and I will have the option of going back to 26650. Currently I have 2 D4Sv2 with 26800s, 2 Convoy M3 with 26800s, and an L7 with 26800 extensions. I regret nothing!
I modded a Nitecore UMS2. It has been working fine for me so far. Basically i just removed material from the end of the plastic carrier using a Dremel. With that material removed, the spring-loaded contacts are able to move into the resulting recess and the charger will accept the longer cells.
I know, we were discussing in what way it was different. Simonās assertion seems to indicate that the regulation is handled the same way even though it is configured for 20amp output.
I hear you about ergonomics. Iāve avoided the ācoke canā format, as I just donāt like that degree of body girth for illumination. I have an LT1 which uses 4x18650 that gave me a ātasteā of what itās like. I donāt see the 26800 tube option listed on the D4Sv2 page. Did you buy it on request from Hank? It is listed for several other flashlights like the DM11 and DM1.12, with a $20 cost. Iām assuming itās an add-on and the original tube (26650 or 21700) is still included?
I got the 26800 tube from this separate listing. I see what you mean about the DM11 listing. The way that listing is worded seems to imply that the original DM11 tailcap is not compatible with the 26800 tube so you are buying both the tube and a new tailcap. I assume you would get both tubes with the DM11 but I guess it wouldnāt hurt to check before ordering it.
The only true soda can light I have is the SP36. (not as thick with only 3 cells) Funny story, I was at my computer and absentmindedly reached for an actual can of sodaāended up grabbing the SP36 and bringing it to my face lol
Interesting. So is the 26800 tube in that listing designed such that the D4Sv2 21700 cap fits on it? Or do you need to buy a separate cap?
The original fits. I donāt think a separate tail-cap is offered anywhere. If there was, I might consider it on a new order since the threads are not a 100% perfect match. Thereās no functional problem with the tailcap on the 26800 tube, it just threads on a tiny bit less smoothly than it does onto the original tube. Thereās no resistance to overcome, it just feels slightly less pleasant to screw on. Not sure why they couldnāt duplicate the exact threading.
Good to know, thanks. Bummer that Hank didnāt standardize a bit more. Would be great if all 26800 and 21700 tubes could be swapped between flashlight models (as texture patterns arenāt all the same). I donāt like the aggressive waffle iron pattern on the DM11 21700ā¦ and then to opt out of that you need to fork over $20 more for a 26800 tube, plus $10 more for a battery.
I donāt know why he didnāt just introduce a slim-line version of the 21700 tube. I think a lot of people are hung up on the tube for that light.
Frankly, if he offered the slim-line 21700 tube for $10 (instead of $20 for the tube and cap of the 26800 that requires another $10+ for a battery), Iād have already bought a DM11.
I once tried to use a grip tape on a flashlight tube that didnāt appeal to me. And it was fine at firstā¦ until the adhesive began to āooze outā from the edges of the tape, making a sticky mess. Then I tried using a bicycle inner tubeā¦ which is fine if itās just a small segment (as I did on my FW3A)ā¦ but as a long piece it feels a bit crappy on ungloved hands. A little sweat makes it sticky. And then thereās the rubber smell.
I wonder if there is a clean way to wrap cord inside the grooves, the kind you would normally use for lanyards and stuff. Just spitballingāI have no experience with wrapping or lanyards.
DM11 is nice in the hand though. Looks better in the flesh than on videos too. Really like mine. Complete impulse buy, but Iām amazed how good it is. Will post a review up once Iāve finished compiling it.