I’m thinking about buying this, as it’s the best offer around for this model: Trustfire 168A (FT)
I understand this lengthened C8 has the deepest/narrowest reflector around.
I’m not aware of any dimensions of this reflector.
Now there’s some misunderstanding around, considering reflectors.
I would say:
The deeper a reflector (with a given diameter) is, the more light it reflects and bundles into a spot.
Less will be spilled as spill compared to a shallow reflector.
So the relation (ratio rather) between diameter and depth is important here.
Also consider that the emitter puts out most of the light forward, not sideways.
Apparently this is made ‘worse’ by the silicone dome on the emitter.
(which is better for a zoom torch i.e. with an aspherical lens)
(I’m in the middle of (going to) test decapitated XML’s, but that’s a different subject)
Maybe some simple images will help, I see I can upload pictures from my computer here.
I might make some drawings later.
It will definitely direct more light forward than a normal C8 reflector would.
Perhaps (probably) the hotspot will be less tight though.
An XP-G2 could be better suited maybe.
I like the look of the light and reflector. The reviews say the lens breaks easy. So you may want to get a AR coated lens from CNQG. Here is a great Emitter Thread by member RaceR86. Here is a ansi chart from it with the Cree tint codes overlayed.
I tried cutting too…
Fairly clean cut, but not a shiny surface, which turned out to eat light…
Didn’t make me happy so I put it in car fuel for 24 hours, completely dedomed now.
So now I have 2 XML’s without a dome.
I got a 168A - nice quality and styling, but for me, not very useful. I modded it with a XML U3 at the time with a driver swap, maybe 3.5A or 3.85A -- forget, and I think a UCL lens. The depth of the reflector simply restricts the spill, and though the hot spot appears to be intense on a white wall, when you measure it or actually use it outdoors, it's disappointing.
The reviews saying deep reflector = great throw, obviously aren't measuring the throw and comparing against other lights.
Well, then I might be disappointed with my thus far most expensive torch :\
Let’s hope not, but there’s not much enthusiasm for deep reflectors anywhere, it seems…
I may well put an XP-G2 in it eventually…
We’ll see in a couple of weeks.
You're welcome, but RaceR86 deserves the real credit. I wouldn't suggest dedooming the 4C unless you like green. Generally, dedomes shift tint up a box or two on the chart.
Tom E is one of our best modders, but I wouldn't let his report get you discouraged. His model may have had an out of spec reflector or something. Unlikely, but you got to try since you have all the stuff on the way. Like your attitude about going to xpg2 if xml doesn't work out.
Though many have tried and are looking for a great pocket rocket of a thrower, there really hasn't been anything found without increasing diameter. It's spelled about pretty well in the thrower info referenced above (http://lux.yi.org/throw/), and still, haven't found, seen or heard of anything to dispute that. Just like the LED luminance rule defined there. Everyone thought an MT-G2 could make a great thrower, or at least have decent throw. So everyone tried, everyone failed, either custom modder or manufacturer. There are some basic rules of nature and physics that actually do seem to work in practice. I'll have to check my notes on that 168A mod, it was one of my first, but I too thought it was going to be a thrower, then greatly disappointed. I thought my C8's modded the same way threw better, but the 168A is very deceiving because how intense the center spot appears on a wall. It's not a bad thrower, but certainly not any better than a C8, maybe a little worse. It's probably only worse though from other factors like focusing, poor centering ring, possible bezel blockage, reflector shape design, etc.
For example, I definitely proved, confirming comfy's findings, that an XR-E C8 reflector will throw better than an XML reflector using an XM-L2 emitter. It was a simply test to swap reflectors, and re-test lumens and throw. Clearly, the XR-E shaped reflector threw better and had less lumens output than the same size XML C8 reflector in the same light -- reproducable.
This light: fasttech.com-c8-cree-q5 is a really nice host to mod for the best throw out of a C8 using an XM-L2, maybe even XP-G2. Also has a beauty of an SS bezel like the 168A.
Edit: Just checked, I ordered my 168A on 12/27/2012 from Fasttech for the same price it's at now, same BLF 5% discount.
Are you speaking about the XR-E reflectors they sell at FastTech?
I believe I read something from your hand about that, somewhere before… (?)
I’ll order one some time to try it, if that’s the one you mean.
Is the shape different or is it the bigger emitter hole, reducing shrouding of the emitter?
But things like centring and focussing is (to me) a nice part of the flashlight hobby, so I’m looking forward to that.
Hmm, in all it seems I got a bit over exited by the 6cm deep reflector, which is twice that of a regular C8 reflector… (!)
(same diameter)
Exiting, but apparently, according to many, somewhat useless…
:\
To compare, on 1/31/2013, measured a XinTD @3.5A: 948 lumens @30 secs, throw: 36.6 kcd
Re-tested the 168A today and got: 755 lumens @30 secs, 34 kcd (no AR lens, suspect poor connection in tailcap) because lumens goes way up if I take off the tailcap and jumper the battery - end).
The XinTD throws less than the common C8, so maybe tuff comparison... But the T168A is moderately better
It turns out, as others say, that the diameter of the reflector at the beginning is so small, it’s simply not capable of bundling an XM-L.
The section/ area of ‘extra length’ (which reflects what would normally be spill) is what makes the hot spot tight.
In practice, the sides of the emitter are reflected rather wide (is that ‘the corona’?), about as wide as the spill.
So you have narrow spill plus corona, with a hotspot in the middle.
