Not solid, but way better than it may seem. With thermal paste and being driven at ≈2 amps, it didn't went beyond comfortably warm even after a good while.
Cheers ^:)
Yeah… I have an eBay SK98 with a similar pill. Driven with a 2.8A driver and an XP-G2 emitter, runs great, no overheating. Some of the SK98s have thicker walls on the pill that seem to work well. Add a Cu DTP PCB and it handles the heat well. Pot the pill with some JB Weld to improve… Never had any overheating issues with this light.
Have been EDC’ing a cracking little zoomy today. A Coast HX5 that I bought while on holiday in Florida.
Very well built, single mode and forward clicky with momentary on.
Runs on either an AA or a 14500. Tint is pretty nice, the flood super smooth and bright. The zoom is limited, so on max throw mode it gives a round hot spot and spill beam, much like a reflector light, but with a brighter spill beam. So it’s not exactly a thrower. But it does out flood and match throw wise lights of comparable size and output.
Has a funky double sided clip too.
[/quote]
I wonder if you are wanting what maybe is impossible.
You will not get loooong runtimes at High output with a small battery. No matter who makes the torch.
[/quote]
You’re probably 100% right on this … but this is also a very strong argument that a supposedly well reputed manufacturer that will have extensive testing facilities available to them who would try to “infer” to Jo Public that it is possible and bend to reality so far from the truth.
You’re obviously well informed but the majority of people that buy these products aren’t and again I re-iterate that what’s “suggested” may be feasible is SOOOOO far from the reality it’s not true … don’t you think if for nothing more than their credibility’s sake they could be more honest and as I say maybe provide something “more realistic” as I suggested with a lower lumen output … or just be honest and tell people it’s x output for this long and then drops to y output … at least buyers could make an informed decision rather than being conned into parting with their cash for an expensive product???
I’ve recently taken delivery of the Coast HP5R and again whilst in the early stages of testing seems to be delivering what they say on the tin so it’s not that unreasonable for Lenser to be able to do the same.
There was another comment about “didn’t realise how popular this thread would be” … I must admit it’s really surprised me, I only started it as recently I’d seen quite a few comments of …. don’t bother with zoomies … all a waste of money …. much better off with fixed focus …. so I was feeling a bit alone being a zoomie fan and was seriously questioning if I’d missed something … although it seems maybe not and there is a strong following 
Chicken drumstick …. (Is that a serious name ), I nearly bought one of those … I have the HP1 which is excellent and in so many ways is my “go to” torch for everyday things, the only thing I don’t like is the hot spot with spill otherwise I’d definitely have got one of those and probably still will at some stage!!!
The Coast website actually gives you the different beam patterns as well … the HP5R has the tighter focus with no spill and I really wanted small / pocketable, the retailer I spoke to said the HP7R is supposed to be the muts nuts for very little more money … next time I’m up for a slightly larger torch will probably have a good look at one of those and overall like the Coast products.
Glad you are liking your Coast lights. But I do believe it is down to individuals to understand what claimed stats mean.
For example, you might get a car that claims 295hp, 0-60mph in 5.9 sec and 52mpg. But you’d be missing the point if you assumed you could 52mpg while doing 0-60mph runs with it making the full compliment of horses.
And if a torch maker is using ANSI FL1 standards, then it isn’t the makers fault how this standard works.
I have one of those in the same condition. Destined for the garbage can. Absolute junk. Nothing worth salvaging.
Another point to wet use of a Zoomie is that as you extend the lens you create Low pressure inside. If it is wet it Will suck in water. There is no way to get them remotely waterproof. Most of the junkers I have bought have a hollow pill. So heat dissipation is minimal. That, plus the heat is directed to the body and not the “Finned” head as the head is not touching the body. O-rings keep the head away & the finned head serves no purpose other than adding bulk and looks.
But they also quote average MPG on a mix between is it urban and something else ie what you can reasonably expect as an average mpg …. imagine they now quote 1,000 miles to to a tank of petrol in massive great big print to sell you the car …. you unsuspecting owner buys it thinking … that sounds reasonable.
Lets be honest Jo Public don’t read the small print and they fill up for their trip to Scotland think they’ll get there … what it says in the small print is you have to drive the car at 3 miles per hour to achieve the mileage per gallon ………… there would be massive public outcry and people would say not as advertised which equals not fit for purpose and if you had that information to hand and they were up front and honest ……. you’d never buy the car in the 1st place.
The link you provided … honestly …………… is my wife going to read that before she goes and buys a torch to go camping with the kids … not in a million years … or is she going to look at it and say hmmm seems like a bright torch that stays bright for a few hours … what do you reckon … because I know what the answer is!
Granted maybe most of us on here should be better educated than most (although I am relatively new and still learning but do have an understanding of batteries / amp draw to a certain degree from flying RC things) but I’ll bet 75% of their market don’t and wouldn’t have a clue (nor any interest what so ever) in reading the link you provided … they just want a torch that performs as the manufacturer implies it will … the rest is manipulating numbers to take your money which is little less than common theft.
However, it is their fault to use potentially dishonest measuring standards. Guess what? Ignorant people loves to be ripped off, or so it seems.
If I were to guarantee any sort of numbers, be sure you'd get at least what you pay for. Runtime on high? For me that could be the elapsed time a flashlight could run at about the specified output until that would drop below 95% of that specified value, and such a drop should not be noticeable until the very end of the runtime. Sounds good?
Cheers ^:)
I think the standard is not so much for evaluating a single lights capability, but for comparing different lights. If they are all rated using the same standard, then comparing them will be easy, much like the mpg rating of an automobile. And referencing the automotive mpg analogy, I really never get the quoted mpg rating from my cars, it is not really useful to me in that way because everyone drives and uses a car differently, however it is very useful in comparing different cars mpg capabilities.
Saying that the light standard is selling lies could be considered true, but if it is applied to all then it will be useful. Also if all the lights that quoted the standard were claiming runtime at max power, the runtime quoted would be unacceptable to most potential buyers and they would end up buying an even poorer performing light at a lower price that made no claims at all, thinking that it couldn’t be any worse.
People who buy lights that report to a standard, should inform themselves what that standard means, otherwise they can just buy junk lights from the corner store.
It’s like comparing family cars to performance cars. One you need to understand what it is and what it does, the other just gets you from point a to point b.
I certainly don’t mean this in a rude way. But that sums up ignorance 100%.
The trouble is, most testing procedures are complex, even for simple things. If the potential buyer isn’t bothered to do any research beforehand, then more fool them.
This is true of anything, not just torches.
If you are buying a fridge, or a cooker, or shotgun. It is wise to have some knowledge on the subject matter.
Retail packaging simply isn’t big enough to explain all testing procedures, nor show all variations of results. And even if they did, it would likely be data overload and confusing for anyone to read.
Here, I’ll give you an example of the problem.
This is torch, engineered to work with this discharge profile.
Can you fill in the blanks please:
Max output =
Runtime = [_]
So where on the graph would you say Max output is and where does the graph end to give you runtime?
ANSI FL1 gives guidance on how to get these results.
Of course, you could calculate average lumen output for the total duration. But tbh that is probably largely meaningless.
But I’m not really sure how else you can express the performance. I guess a discharge graph would be nice, but tbh that is so dependant on batteries, that it would likely cause more issues than it would solve for Jo Public.
Who cares? It’s a POS light with a discharge curve like that. Just because they’re abusing the FL-1 standard in order to deceive potential buyers, doesn’t make it ethical.
You are just being ridiculous now. It is not a POS light, not at all. And if you can’t see that is isn’t, then it is your loss quite frankly.
But yes well done for avoiding answering the question. And the only deceiving I’m seeing here is you trying to convince people of things that aren’t true.
The packaging clearly shows the figures are to the FL1 standard.
And I’ll be honest, for much of my use, which is short bursts of 20 sec to sub 4 mins at a time. This kind of regulation works perfectly.
And if you look more closely, this is how the regulation works. Over nearly 15 mins on time, it will gradually dim to about 70% of it’s max output.
By eye you are hugely unlikely to notice this. However, simply turning if off and on will restore it to full power for another 15 mins… and repeat.
This process means you can get well over an hour and half of high output light from the 2AA battery source.
If they had opted for flat regulation. Then they would get a runtime more similar to the Olight S15, which only manages about 35 mins.
And remember the Mini Mag is a single mode light. Or if you need to think of it another way, it has a single user selectable mode, but has a smart discharge that effectively lowers the output mode the longer you have it switched on. Thus helping give you better runtimes.
An auto output selector.
The only real bummer is, you can’t over ride this when you use batteries that are better than alkaline batteries.
Maglite, Led Lenser and some others will get better overall performance on alkaline batteries than most of the top end brands. Because that is the market they are aiming for.
Or lets try this again.
This is by no means POS light, not by anyones standards. So lets try the same questions.
Max output = []
Runtime = [_]
BTW, this is what Olight claim:
1200 lumens for 4 hours.
Calm down a bit fellows, take it easy. 
And please, use the 100% resize option for images (in the advanced editor I use a ≈536 pixel width value). Can be a pain in the ass to browse these mega-oversized image threads from a smartphone.
Cheers ^:)
Sure, but the package clearly doesn’t show the run-time graph, and how they are deliberately abusing the FL-1 standard to deceive the customer.
Yeah, so how’s that stated run time working out for you?
That is precisely why they are deceiving the customer. Most people will use it for a few minutes at a time. And when they do that, they’ll get nowhere near the stated run time.
Which is sad, because it’s exactly the lowest-common-denominator market that has no idea what the FL-1 standard means.
How about this definition of runtime?: “Elapsed amount of time at or above the specified lumen/light output.”
Cheers ^:)
+1
I like that.
And, they could also add a “burst/max output” definition, to give the maximum output level (without run-time).
Many reputable manufacturers sort-of do that already, by breaking down the run-times at all their (flatly regulated) output levels.
it would have to be standardized somehow. Maybe max lumens, and run time above 75% of those lumens? The standards are just a bit too loose
ChickenD — you have a huge image in #74 above (shows blank on my 22” screen unless I scroll sideways)
This one:
That’s the same image, from BHPhoto, shown at 20 percent:
The beginning of the code is: !http ….