Main reason is I don’t like the original lens much, beam angle is way too floody for my taste. With DD 519A it’s kinda okay, but still very wide.
TS10 lenses would be more narrow, but again not too easy to source unless you bug Wurkkos about selling you some.
MCPCB I need custom (or modded) anyway because I want 3S with boost.
You could use the MCPCB from an Emisar D3AA, but I wouldn’t really see the advantage over a buck+boost dual-chemistry driver.
Either way, this isn’t really the right thread for it.
Third clip looks betteer for me, also i would love to see anduril 2.0 on this
In other words, vastly different experience. As the boards you designed all have the same connector, and that connector is a mid-range one, I don’t think that the number of boards you design really has quite as much relevance as you might think though; there’s a lot out there that you had no hand in designing, or making up the parts budget for.
That tracks. The thing missing there is that saving a few cents per unit adds up over the course of a production run. And some companies, even otherwise decent ones like Motorola, decide to widen their profit margins that way. Yes, it’s less likely on higher-priced items, but a lot depends on how much effort (and money) the manufacturer puts into it. Enough do not spring for the zero-failure-rate mid-range connectors you do, or simply don’t mount them securely, for my point to stand.
My sample size, while smaller than yours, is still large enough to dismiss the luck factor, especially when you count the diversity of using connectors other than the one you seem to favor. And if you knew me and my history then you’d know roughness isn’t a factor. While I agree that USB-C can be durable in theory, I also recognize the difference between theory and practice. The things you design may be closer to the reliability of theory, but as I said before, there’s a lot out there that you had no hand in designing, or making up the parts budget for. That means that the durability of USB-C in practice is a bit lower in actual real-world use.
USB-C would be great !! Also love the 4000K HI CRI
you’re just trying to be right at this point, and make me as wrong as possible, speaking from a position of laziness and pessimism to bash ideas for a more exciting product…
no own ideas for improvement, just hate for ideas of others… that’s not a healthy mindset, certainly not the one of an open minded problem solver…
for edc, it’s more about the girth and weight than length to minimize the pocket bulge and other negative aspects of carrying around something heavy on you
single 519a running at 6W (2A) gives out 600lm at same 100lm/w efficacy at which three csp2323s make 1400lm and doing a boost driver with leds in series means the amperage isn’t divided for the three leds and all it takes is those 2A to push through them while, yes, the drain on the battery is around 6-7A with all the losses to push 2A through triple 519 - which M20 is completely fine with as it was tested for 10A cdr withouth a significant performance loss vompared to lower amps of cdr
the real problem there is when we start talking about pushing for that 3000lm figure as that would drain more like ~15A and so far there’s not a single 16650 out there rated for that so that’s the real problem with my 16650 hot rod proposal tho shooting for 3A 2000lm from a 23-24mm thick flashlight would still make it a hot rod that would, to the eye, have a better performance per size than a 3000lm 18650 flashlight although still a worse one compared to the ts10
maybe you were trying to say the same, just worded it poorly
i don’t think anyone considers ts10 too fat but you likely mean ts10max, which i said that those people would be way more likely to edc something as close to the ts10 size as possible like a 23-24mm 16650 and it would be enough to reap all the benefits of higher output and double the battery capacity while being just 2-3mm thicker and maybe an inch longer
i was talking about led’s power draw, not whole flashlights as i was comparing csp2323 chips against 519a chips and you know it, again you just want me to be wrong more than anything… what a toxic keyboard warrior
you just living your own reality here mate, the more i read from you the more it feels like you’re talking to someone else you hate with your whole heart…
the analogy for my ideas was trash and i explained exactly why in the rest of that very same paragraph but my review of ur analogy seems to have send you over the edge enough to not care about the rest of that paragraph… classic reddit user level of a keyboard warrior
you really don’t care about the big picture of the overall idea i’m proposing, you just look for individual things you can take out of context enought to fight them alone and make yourself feel superior by bashing and shaming them… likely that’s only how far the size of your mind seems to reach when talking to people online like foreign ideas are a personal threat to you
we really end up solving nothing with this approach so if we leave the product the way it is from the start, it will be enough to replace the discontinued fw3a tho it won’t be as exciting 18650 light as the ts10 is in a 14500 category…
if we don’t want it to have a charging port and we want it to be an 18650 than the only thing that would make it a real best-seller and fulfill its hot rod legacy is making it a quad emitter
this way it would not just replace the fw3a, it would be better than fw3a and also put a strong fight against kr4 especially if it costed a bit less while providing the same performance
i still think a charging port on top of that would then blow the kr4 out of the water and make ts10max an absolute 18650 best seller providing more for less money
Hello, I am not trying to be rude, but could you (and some other people) please stop arguing? If you have a suggestion, please come with it and be done. If we continue like this, this thread/topic isn’t going to be about helping wurkkos improve the product anymore. What wurkkos wants to see are people’s opinions. If you simply write what you want, the engineers can look over it, and decide what feedback to use and not. I have always and still am viewing BLF as a friendly place, I don’t like these arugments, they don’t fit in at all. Thank you for reading, and I hope you could please stop arguing.
I don’t like them either, and after that round of ad hominems where it seems coming after me became more important than what design choices we feel are best, I am done dealing with a toxic person who wants design elements I feel make for a bad flashlight in general and/or are particularly unsuited for a TS10 Max. Especially that last part; I want the TS10 Max to be a larger light that captures the essence/spirit of the TS10, complete with absurd power/size ratio and smooth lines that would be ruined by a battery port, not some super-efficient, weird-battery-eating, asymmetrical wannabe.
The latest render has the sort of tailcap I was looking for. As for the clip, I’d like to see something a bit more deep-carry, but otherwise like the third one best. Double-sided clips are a real “love or hate” thing, and I see the spade shape of the second one as a snag hazard. However, I still prefer the hourglass shape of the first two over that huge bevel. That straight-line look of the third one’s battery tube is one reason I’m not a fan of the Lumintop FW-series.
If USB-C does wind up on this light, I want it hidden in the threads. I would never use it, so I couldn’t care less if it were missing, but I do care quite a bit about it breaking up the smooth lines. I would be less concerned if we were talking about a new light unrelated to the TS10, but we’re talking about the TS10 Max here.
One thing that isn’t discussed here as this thread is more about appearance; the driver. I feel that that’s going to make or break this light. Keeping costs down yet still allowing great Turbo says “FET+1”, but if the TS25 is any indication, that would lead to sustained output not much higher than the much-smaller TS10. It may also lead to the same issue the TS25 had where it would draw enough amps to fry 519a’s. And while it’s possible to make a decent Boost driver inexpensively that would allow it to have more sustained lumens, that would also take away the Turbo that makes the TS10 a TS10 unless there was a FET added to it. I’d like an 18650 to be a lot brighter on Turbo than a 14500. Boost+FET is not terribly difficult from a technical standpoint, though getting it into production while keeping costs (and price point) low is a little more challenging; the added engineering and parts are not free.
@jerv and @ravasmathias Please stop arguing.
True, but i often have issues woth reliability on my kr4. I find its factory reset somehow at times, which is no bueno
The only times I’ve seen that are when I tested and tried leaving the head or tailcap looser than I normally do without even trying. Both the TS10 and KR4 have issues with the signal tube if you stop tightening them at the slightest increase in resistance, but if you twist it about as hard as is required to open a new bottle of soda, that will allow the signal tube to make contact more reliably. It doesn’t need to be torqued down like it owes you money, merely a bit more assertively than some folks are used to.
Hopefully Wurkkos will take the lessons learned from the TS10 and KR4, and make it a bit less finicky without having to resort to gluing the tailcap. And I think the issue is that the tailcaps are made a fraction of a millimeter too long in an attempt to narrow the gap where the o-ring is, or at least specced close enough that the normal variation in CNC machining can push some likes across that line into fussiness.
I think usually they make the inner tube a little longer, and don’t anodize the threads on the outer tube where it’s supposed to be closed/opened, so that both tubes reliably make contact despite tolerances. Downside of that is, that the battery makes contact before the switch does, which can lead to weird behavior. I think FWxx needed a firmware hack so they wouldn’t fac reset at every battery change.
Edit: this also leads to recommendations to only open either one or the other side - if one side has anodized threads, you shouldn’t open/losen it, as if you tighten the un-anodized one first, the other won’t make contact anymore if the inner tube is a bit longer. Confused me a lot for a while why manufacturers tell to only open one thread and not the other.
Anodizing the ends would be problematic, so I assume there is some post-anodizing work on both ends of the signal and battery tubes to ensure bare-metal contact.
I’m a bit more concerned with the tolerances involved and how they might stack if there is no spring involved to allow for more leeway. The signal tube spring in the head of the KR4 allows for more of a mismatch between the battery and signal tubes than the TS10. The TS10 manages with just the spring in the tailcap for the battery, which mildly impresses me. As a machinist who usually worked to a ±0.005" (±0.127mm) tolerance, I can see how that may potentially lead to the sort of tolerance-stacking that could cause problems even with parts that are technically within specs.
I suspect that part of the reason I avoid the issues that some have, especially with TS10’s, is that I have “optician thumbs”. Take a pair of “plastic”-framed glasses and try popping the lenses out and then back in again. Many find it hard, but I find it routine. I think that that should give you a clue as to my grip strength, along with implications about how that may skew my perspective of how much force is required to make an Anduril light with a tailswitch and signal tube reliable. Despite that though, I’m still mildly impressed that the TS10 is pretty reliable despite lacking a spring for the signal tube like the KR4; it implies a degree of craftsmanship not normally seen at that price-point. Take it from someone who has made many wing-spars for Boeing aircraft and parts for SpaceX rocket engines that have had looser tolerances and higher price tags.
The threads are irrelevant as the tube ends are the actual contact points. So long as the machinists allow a little extra space for a few microns of anodizing without seizing the threads, bare the tube ends afterwards to allow for electrical contact, and make sure everything the tubes can make contact with the rings in the head and tailcap without requiring strap wrenches to torque it all down, I’m happy.
I think you misunderstand the function of the inner tube. The inner tube carries the switch signal to the driver (e-switch). The outer tube carries the power to the driver/led.
Hi Terry, with the TS10 being a 14500 triple emitter, wouldnt the TS10 MAX be more interesting if it was a quad emitter (even CSP’s) being a 18650 flashlight? The design looks awesome too
You have it backward. Stick a battery in the body without the head. Check voltage with a DMM. The inner tube will always show voltage, the body threads only when depressing the switch.
Edit, this applies for V1, apparently not V2.
Are you measuring this on a v1? They changed it in the v2.
Oh yeah, V1. Didn’t know they changed it. Thanks.
For a 18650 version would be nice quad Led
with dual channel variable tint, what about use ffl351a Leds from 1800k to 4000k?
I don’t think Wurkkos would source FFL LEDs - they are a competing flashlight company, not a LED manufacturer. Also, their differences between batches seem to be crazy big in tint, so not a good choice if you need a steady, reliable supply of same LEDs.
Quad Carclo with tint shift would be really cool though. 2700K + 5700K 519A maybe. Should end up ~2000K + 4500K if dedomed.
