P60 is a dead end from my view
in my opinion a lights construction that does not use the normal soldering of MCPCB connections could be the next gen solution,
with also stiff connectors on driver, so you can easily swap them out
add some pins into the shelf that fit connectos on the MCPCB, then simply push the MCPCB on them and the LED swap is done
Add the ability to do the same for the driver, and I’m all in! Lego drivers and MCPCBS, would be awesome. E-switches and chargers complicate things, but I’m sure they’re all solvable issues by someone smarter than me.
I’m still waiting for universal(-ish) firmware flashing connectors on drivers, though, so I’m not holding my breath.
many hobbies have this problem: the enthusiasts age out, and not enough youngsters get involved to keep up.
pc_light
If surefire was the company they claim to be, this shouldn’t be that hard of a thing to accomplish. With what they charge for their products they should be able to walk and chew gum.
With maybe some adjustability to help raise/lower for optimal focus on the emitter side. AND perhaps a lateral circular clamp on the driver side to accomodate various driver diameters (even though the P60 standard of 17mm works pretty good.)
Nice idea Lexel.
While Surefire was definitely a leader at one point by being the first to adapt the cr123a format cell to make small powerful lights with great lumens to weight ratio. As well as the P60 lamp module that would fit between the various Surefire models, and eventually other brands. I doubt Surefire has any interest in establishing standards which would frankly make it easier for other manufactures/brands to clone/copy/compete. In doing so, they’d lose some competitive advantage.
I think Surefire is also more interested in reliability and fitness for robust field use over being on the cutting edge. Just look how long it took for them to adopt the 18650 battery or LED alternatives other than single (cool) white emitters, etc.
I think flashlight forums such as CPF, BLF, TLF, and Chinese sites serve almost like skunkworks for the industry, equally able to drive the needed innovation/standardization.
Now if we could only agree on the best tint or throw versus flood 
I guess we agree, they aren’t the company they once were. I would disagree about loosing any competitive advantage. Without government buying their products they would be out of business. Most people can’t afford their products. I think more people would spend money on something they could upgrade, as technology advances. Why couldn’t they do both?
No. They should be designed to have LES at particular height. Emitter is lower? Make MCPCB thicker to compensate, so bottom-LES distance is constant. This will enable perfect focus in lens-based lights. Reflector lights need plastic spacers so…additionaly make the distance from LES to the surface that centering ring rests on constant. This normally varies with LED height so there should be additional shelf soldered around the LED. Centering ring of well-defined height sits on the shelf and perfectly focuses the reflector.
How does MCPCB diameter affect thermal performance?
I ask because now makers need to have different MCPCB diameters to clear different reflectors.
If it had no real impact on performance, with Lexels idea they could resort to one-size-fits all. Or at least one-size-fits-all-larger-than-X. Which would cut costs and also make it more feasible to order batches of PCBs for less popular LED footprints.
It could also save some weight.
Then - my idea increases costs. You really need a different MCPCB for each LED model. It also reduces manufacturer flexibility - when a new LED comes out they can’t just re-use their old MCPCBs. Note that reducing the number of diameters somewhat counters it.
Is it worth it? I’m not sure. I really like precise centering by design. Seems to go as far as possible towards user-friendly upgradability with 0 performance loss. But cost is higher.
P60 is a dead end from my view
in my opinion a lights construction that does not use the normal soldering of MCPCB connections could be the next gen solution,
with also stiff connectors on driver, so you can easily swap them out
add some pins into the shelf that fit connectos on the MCPCB, then simply push the MCPCB on them and the LED swap is done
Surefire and ArmyTech already does this….plug and play, drivers and mcpcb’s. Also their reflectors make contact with the DTP contacts on the mcpcb which are oversize and bare, not covered with masking, to help in thermal transfer. And they don’t use a centering ring, it helps with shock proofing the LED, which could sheer the LED off the board, during heavy recoil/shock. The reflectors are centered by the body/head of the light and the machining in the mcpcb shelf (Surefire) or Pill (ArmyTech)
These manufacturers can’t even get the threading to be consistent between versions and sometimes just between different colors of a model so do not expect them to ever be able and or willing to agree on a standard.
Not gonna happen.
P60 was nice in that there was no threading to muddy up the process but that also meant there was no heat transfer.
Personally I would like to see just heads sold with different combos from the same maker rather than have to buy another entire light, but that seems to much of a reach as well.
So it goes.
At least most of these lights are relatively cheap.
Later,
Keith
Any pics? I tried to look up Armytek but found only a few pics where leads are soldered. But the come through rivets - maybe that’s what you mean? Also - yeah, there’s no centering ring.
Actually now that I think about it - centering ring is not needed. Correct profiling of the reflector base is enough.
And this opens up a good way to do good thermal transfer to the reflector. Which may enable improving thermal transfer to fins in the front of the head. And also add some thermal mass, alu stores heat well. But at the same time - heating up reflector base will make it expand. It will be hotter than the front so the expansion will be uneven which will affect reflector shape. Is that meaningful?
I would not be concerned about mod-unfriendly makers. Yes, they are unlikely to adopt any kind of standard. I don’t think their participation is necessary.
Nope no pics, the Armytech had 2 pins on the driver that were lightly soldered to the mcpcb, flush/slightly below the masking of the mcpcb, the only lead or wire was for a NTC that was on the mcpcb, most of which got destroyed getting the screw in pill out of the body. The only other wire was a secondary ground wire encapsulated in the potting on the driver.
Found the SF driver….here is a couple pics…
Back side shot
I may have come across something like you described in some lights like here -
and here -
(…which would go into a driver like the one Kawi pictures above.)
I believe Lexel is further proposing mechanical attachment for simple and solder-free changeout. The challenge would be secure attachment. The concept would probably be of greatest benefit to tinkers and flasholics since few muggles would actually ever changeout their emitters, and manufactures would prefer the lower expense/greater permanance of solder.
But the ideas are great and this can get exciting.
Snap in connectors like the Surefire had pins on the driver and board, I couldn’t get it apart, so I cut it.
I’m thinking about this Lexel’s idea from time to time. I would really like to see it implemented one day.
Now…I’m on the topic on making flashlights tough.
One toughness problem commonly assiciated with regular drivers is that when a light falls head-down, cell impact energy is transferred to the driver at the centrer. Then the driver transfers it to the host at the edges.
Energy transfer from the driver to the shelf would be better. And this may actually facilitate it, with 2 contact points near the centre of PCB. There’s a bit “but” though. The connectors are quite small. Their points of contant with the driver are likely small as well. This will cause localized stress on the PCB…and I’m not sure if that’s actually any better than energy transfer to the sides.
What do you think?
The Fraz at CPF has done something similar yet different - he mounts MCPCB with screws which also carry electricity, so there’s no soldered connection to the LED.
Click.
I did wonder about using something like mmcx connectors on the MCPCB, so you could just replace the LED. But not sure how well they would hold up under load.
Now that I think about it…a nut soldered to a PCB pad, a matching screw, something to prevent the PCB from rotating.
Pros:
Cons:
Overall…I really like it.