The OTR i3 itself is more expensive than that.
Also, the OTR Z821 (18650) from FT is a complete kit. I believe that just the flashlight with no extras (meaning: no battery, no charger) would still cost about 25€.
OTR lights are not that cheap in all the places you buy them. Even with coupons, they don’t get much lower than 20€.
“REVIEW”: On The Road i3 (2018/2019) - 16340 - Zoomable - 620 Lumens [Pic Heavy] - [***MODDED XPL-HI***]
The OTR i3 itself is more expensive than that.
If OTR Z821 meets mine criteria I will try ” 100pcs lot order” and they gotta lower price…
That why I hope OTR is serious flashlight company and not just OEM and ODM reseller.
Modded my i3 some days ago
Put a screw-in clip and it works just fine!
Currently it has a 15mm driver with Crescendo + reverse clicky switch + a XPL-HD CW Led on a 16mm Copper DTP MCPCB!
The modded light looks good MascaratumB. Thanks for sharing.
I’ll likely buy one of these lights, some day.
If you like small zoomable lights, this is the way to go! Easy to mod, you’ll just need to be careful and use a single sided driver!
Other than that, put a good Led on it and do the same I did with the pocket clip and call it a day
Moded my On The Road i3, through a “lego” with the battery tube of the On The Road M1.
Although there are differences in anodozing and knurling, the tubes fit well.
I am using a 16650 (Sanyo UR16650ZTA, 3.7V 2500 mah) battery inside the “new” flashlight!
It uses a 15mm diameter driver, with Crescendo, and I am using a Samsung LH351D.
So far so good
Compared with the FW3A and the FW1A (18500 version)
Do you maybe know when will On The Road company make 18650 version of this light? Can’t believe they missed 18650 format for this light? That is shocking! This zoomie light light really looks extra btw.
Well, I guess the other versions they made/make on the zoomie line are the Z803 and the Z821.
However, they don’t seem to be on sale at least on their AliExpress store.
You can see them here for reference: http://zlsh.net/
This “lego” comes to be a nice solution to have a thinner light but still having some “juice” (as 2500mAh can handle almost 4 x 700mAh 16340s).
Got my i3 today. First impression: very good quality. Very sturdy, it is likely that it could be bored to accept 18350.
Zooming is too stiff for my liking but passable. And since the light is easy to diasassemble, a thiner o-ring should improve it.
Then I put a cell in it….what a disappoinment!
The lens geometry is wrong.
There are bad artifacts in intermediate beam. Donut hole, then some cross. It can’t show a sharp die projection in the best focus position.,
Thanks for your feedback Agro! :+1:
Yes, if it could be very accuratelly bored it could accomodate an 18350 battery, but…it would need to be really accurately
The zooming improves if you lubricate the o-ring , instead of putting a smaller one! That’s what I did with mine and it works fine! I am not sure if with a thinner one it will move loosely.
I am surprised with those artifacts and issues in the beam… Is everything tight? The artifacts will be there, specially due to the reflection on that gasket. I blackened my gasket and also the edges of the lens to avoid some of those artifacts, but it is not 100% perfect!
About the donut hole, what led does it come with? That is really weird…
I had XML2, XP-L HI and now Samsung and none of the have that so I am really astonished :zipper_mouth_face:
Can it be a different lens from the one I got?
I am really sorry you are experiencing those issues :zipper_mouth_face:
I haven’t opened it yet, can’t do it with bare hands but I see grease on the sliding part of the body so I assume it’s well lubricated already.
Artifacts caused by reflection are just rings. My light has them but I’m not concerned beacause they can be dealt with.
I think a lack of tightness would move the focal point and maybe make the beam asymmetric. It is symmetric.
I do think that the lens shape is the cause. Maybe it’s spherical? I don’t have experience with these, don’t know what to expect. Maybe it’s asphere is botched?
Maybe OTR downgraded this model? Maybe they got a deffective batch? Need to contact them about the issue.
I will make some beamshots later.
I just measured the slider part of the body. 19.7 mm. Indeed very tight, maybe a bad idea. The knurled part has 2.05 mm walls so it seemed easy but the knurling not long enough.
I got 8500 cd at 16m. This is a bit higher than specs, within error margin.
The beamshots with my phone are bad, maybe I can’t use it or maybe controllable parameters are enough.
But that’s what I have.
- Full flood. No beamshot but I noticed that it’s significantly squarish. Not a problem to me but it’s curious.
- First donut shot. Barely visible on the shot but very visible IRL.
- Tightening it down. More visible on the shot, still more visible IRL.
- Black cross. Much worse IRL.
- White cross. This one is similar to what my eyes see on the wall though the lines are more visible IRL.
- Almost focused. Again it’s similar to what I see
- Focused. It’s overexposed, I see the die much better. I see clearly (but not sharply) that the die has cutouts in the corners. Bond wires or finer die details are not visible.
- Over-focused. I couldn’t make a good beamshot but the beam worsens. Interestingly throw didn’t get worse.
Is this your first small zoomie with glass aspherical lens?
There is nothing wrong with your light. In fact beam looks much cleaner than on Dereelight, Uniquefire, Tiablo, Crelant etc…
Guys remember this. This is from mine experience and I am long time into this story.
No matter how cheap, light, scratched, plastic/acrylic lenses looks like they have better lights transmittance, cleaner beam, better flood mode, and they are more constant in quality than any factory available glass lenses (for example with glass lens performance may vary up to 30% while with plastic there is no variation in quality at all…)
Same size acrylic vs same size glass lens :
- Glass lens will have slightly larger die projection while plastic will have smaller die projection.
- Glass have different tint projection of the same emitter than plastic one. For example dedomed XPG2S42B is cooler in glass lens(uf 1503) and greener in plastic lens(B158).
- Plastic has greater flood mode than glass lens.
- Plastic has cleaner beam projection than glass one and less artifacts in a beam
- Plastic is more durable than sensitive glass… Glass will easy break(especially on edges) if you drop flashlight on hard surface while with plastic nothing except scratch will happen
Yeah, zoomies are one place where a plastic lens is better than glass.
Yes, this is my fist zoomie with a glass lens.
It is clearly worse than that of MascaratumB, far less sharp. And it is different in that his beam looks round while mine is squarish even in flood.
I find it hard to believe a beam this bad is something to be expected.
Intermediate beam is better than my worst TIR zoomies - but not much better. And is much worse than my best TIR zoomie, let alone aspheric ones.
As I said, pics don’t do it justice, it is actually worse than it looks on the shots.
It could be worse than it looks I agree…
I had a lot of problems with glass lenses quality in a past(Dereelight, Tiablo, and Uniquefire) - it is very hard to convince factory that they have faulty lens…
Some factories really do have bad QC for lenses and it is terrible how glass lens quality can vary.
For example once I got whole batch of 1503 flashlights(100 pcs) and only 5 out of 100 were good… I almost loose my mind… Told my wife that I will have nerves breakdown… Does not matter… I survived
They had ultra low performance with a lot of artifacts in a beam plus almost each had some kind of pale double die projection (yes you heard that right)…
I am very happy that Uniquefire accepted my complaint for lens after I convinced them with video, pics, lux test etc…, and yes they investigated and told they had bad batch of lens. They have send me replacement lenses with strict factory quality control(mine shipping and customs costs for them of course - so they were not actually free for me). That lens were good but when compared to plastic B158 well Bee simply kills them in lux performance. The best UF 1503 lens(1 of 200) I found had very good throw about 10% less than B158 acrylic lens… So yes probably glass can be as good as plastic or better but not in a regular China manufacturing process… Premium glass lens costs money and I really doubt that China manufacturers will pay for such quality so it is better for them to stick to acrylic. But just can’t believe how some manufacturers are dumb and how they don’t see? All you got to have is cheap luxmeter and your eyes.
But! They do not want to listen when I am trying to convince them that acrylic is far better than glass. They also consider glass as premium and better to acrylic but it is not! Ok… I understand they should change their production process and everything. But they could release such model.
Imho zoomie no matter how small(edc) or big they are should have acrylic lenses, aluminum pill with retaining centering ring for mcpcb and driver, quality anodized threads and reverse clicky switch.
Glass lens with brass pill vs Acrylic lens with aluminum pill:
- heavy vs light setup
- higher production vs lower production costs
- production performance consistency variations vs no performance variations at all or
- lower lux performance vs higher lux performance (in flood and throw mode)
- fragile vs almost indestructible format
I am not engineer but I see that so it is really enigma for me why true engineers which do that work for living don’t see that issue…
I have a slightly too small plastic aspheric but I can’t find a way to open the bezel without scratching it.
Sorry for not having replied yet above, I wasn’t on the computer and will answer later on
About the bezel, press the flashlight againt your hand (with or without a glove) and twist the flashlight anti-clockwise direction, while holding it from the “head”! Thats what I did in mine and it opened easily!
I’ll reply later to the rest :+1: