PoliceScannerMan
Flashaholic
Ultimate survival light! Hogo gonna kill us lol.
HDS Systems #23
- Thread starter Hogokansatsukan
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Ultimate survival light! Hogo gonna kill us lol.
RCS1300
Flashlight Enthusiast
Always carry a spare HDS rechargeable 123 battery. Those types of power cells go from 100% to 0% in about 90 seconds. Someone at Thors Hammer Custom Leather made an excellent leather four cell belt clip battery carrier for me to handle that issue...
yes. i'd say 16500, and a AA would not rattle too much without a tube enclosure just a 16150 dummy cell to accommodate a cr123 sized cell. but I am pretty sure that most would use AAs only
Last edited:
Hogokansatsukan
Flashlight Enthusiast
I'm going to work on it (that is a lie as I have been working on it) and see if I can the 18500 tube off the ground. Henry and I have talked about it at length, but as ma tumba has pointed out, without a change to the driver allowing single AA usage, it looses a lot of appeal. Not all appeal, but being able to run a single AA in an emergency would certainly be ideal. Yep. I've brought this up before and yep, I call it the "apocalypse tube", though Henry would kill me for calling it a "tube" and not a "battery compartment".
I would say this has a far greater chance of coming to fruition than an 18350... mostly because I like the idea better and I am the one who gets to badger Henry... and take the beatings.
I would say this has a far greater chance of coming to fruition than an 18350... mostly because I like the idea better and I am the one who gets to badger Henry... and take the beatings.
PoliceScannerMan
Flashaholic
Honestly I am happy with the R123 runtimes, as I use lower settings mainly anyways. 18650 compartments are avail for extended runtime. A 18500 battery compartment that will run AA's would be the bees knees. Hopefully in the next few years we will see it.
Lithium466
Enlightened
Too bad for the 18350 tube. The main appeal was to keep the 16340/CR123 size, and not taking too long to design (lol) as it's "just a change in internal diameter". Call me naïve. While getting something like an almost 100% runtime increase vs 16340, with the advent of new tech 18350 batteries.
But yeah, clearly 18500 would be more versatile. But change of length, change of driver...I wonder if I'll live long enough to see that!
In the meantime, my last HDS purchases have all been 18650, guilt free lumens, long runtime, and my CR123A lights are kept for night duty, where I mostly use very low levels, and runtime isn't a problem.
But yeah, clearly 18500 would be more versatile. But change of length, change of driver...I wonder if I'll live long enough to see that!
In the meantime, my last HDS purchases have all been 18650, guilt free lumens, long runtime, and my CR123A lights are kept for night duty, where I mostly use very low levels, and runtime isn't a problem.
Last edited:
scout24
Flashaholic
I too am also a fan of the 18650, just ordered a tube for my Clicky. I know Hogo's more a fan of the AAx2 tube for true shtf, and I have one of those, but the 18650 runtime is tough to beat, especially coming into fall and winter.
jon_slider
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 5,186
I wonder how hard it would be to bore out a stock tube, like these:
Stoneking said:18350 battery tubes...
The 18650 tubes are bored out too iirc.
I also thought that 18500 would make more sense for AA use. Plus couldn't you just use a spacer here? It's not like you are picking HDS to be a "compact" light for the types of cells that are run.
A lower low, well I'm always for that especially if there are advantages to runtimes.
A lower low, well I'm always for that especially if there are advantages to runtimes.
Lithium466
Enlightened
I think at lowest low the driver overhead is more than what the led is consuming, I'm not expecting a runtime increase with lower low than what we have now...unless we get a redesigned driver...that could also work with AA and so allow a 18500 tube...that we may see one day 
Stoneking could comment on the disassembly part. that was probably the most time consuming. you cannot bore all the way, need to leave a couple mm at the tail end as the switch is press fit up against it, and could create a weak spot for a hard direct hit to the tail (like slamming the tail onto a table)
Last edited:
I don't know if this is something I should comment on. I would advise someone against taking the battery tube apart, I don't think Henry wants to deal with repairing these when/if mistakes are made. (I definitely don't want to be on a list in Henry's shop for encouraging this)
I believe HDS Systems to be some of the most durable and reliable lights available. If you take the battery tube apart you will see very delicate and precise internals that are not as durable as the outside of the light. One slip or one component dropped and you may damage a fairly expensive item very quickly, maybe even irreparably.
Hopefully this doesn't annoy you guys.
I think Henry's reasoning for not producing 18350 Battery Tubes is his own. I'm a fan, I support HDS in all they do, but out of respect I don't feel comfortable sharing my process. Maybe Henry doesn't mind but I didn't ask and I don't plan to.
peter yetman
Flashlight Enthusiast
Well said SK, I feel the same.
P
P
LuxTacGear
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2019
- Messages
- 112
HDS repeatedly said not to mess with emitter changes or tailcap hardware because it is very likely to damage something. For Henry to still be willing to repair these failed experiments is noble. People should just enjoy their lights or wait for official upgrades imo.
Hogokansatsukan
Flashlight Enthusiast
There are very clear reasons there isn't an 18350 battery compartment, and Henry and I have discussed it ad nauseam.
With the current design 123 battery tube, it isn't as simple as just boring it out. The signal wire becomes an issue.
What about the 18650 tube? The signal wire is an issue. They require a phuqueton (technical term) more labor as each signal wire is hand installed by Henry (you don't want me doing it if you expect the light to work when I'm done). This little gem nearly doubles the production time on an 18650 as compared to a 123 battery compartment. So, if we moved to an 18350 by "just boring out the tube because that is so easy to do" you would see a pretty substantial price increase in the cost of a basic HDS. THAT is why it won't happen currently. Since we have thousands of 123 tubes sitting around, having them go off to the machinist to get bored, then anodized again would increase this cost even more. No bueno.
If the HDS II ever gets done, the plan is to design it so that this production issue wouldn't be there (the extra time) which may also then create the need for the light to be 2mm larger in diameter.
I will have to have more 18650 tubes made in the near future, and as part of that, MIGHT have some 18500 done at the same time. At this point, I don't know. With that, my thoughts would be to have a simple spacer made so that the 18500 would hold a 123 or 18350. The current driver won't allow a single AA to run the light... but we are working on that as well.
And before someone asks "well, why don't you have the machinist make some 18350 tubes while doing the 18650 and 18500 tubes?" the answer is "I might"... but you should expect them to, most likely, cost MORE or at a minimum, the same as the 18650 tube as it is a small run and have that time intensive thing I was talking about before.
So the rear question Kaichu is, are you willing to pay the same price or more for an 18350 tube as you would for an 18650 tube?
With the current design 123 battery tube, it isn't as simple as just boring it out. The signal wire becomes an issue.
What about the 18650 tube? The signal wire is an issue. They require a phuqueton (technical term) more labor as each signal wire is hand installed by Henry (you don't want me doing it if you expect the light to work when I'm done). This little gem nearly doubles the production time on an 18650 as compared to a 123 battery compartment. So, if we moved to an 18350 by "just boring out the tube because that is so easy to do" you would see a pretty substantial price increase in the cost of a basic HDS. THAT is why it won't happen currently. Since we have thousands of 123 tubes sitting around, having them go off to the machinist to get bored, then anodized again would increase this cost even more. No bueno.
If the HDS II ever gets done, the plan is to design it so that this production issue wouldn't be there (the extra time) which may also then create the need for the light to be 2mm larger in diameter.
I will have to have more 18650 tubes made in the near future, and as part of that, MIGHT have some 18500 done at the same time. At this point, I don't know. With that, my thoughts would be to have a simple spacer made so that the 18500 would hold a 123 or 18350. The current driver won't allow a single AA to run the light... but we are working on that as well.
And before someone asks "well, why don't you have the machinist make some 18350 tubes while doing the 18650 and 18500 tubes?" the answer is "I might"... but you should expect them to, most likely, cost MORE or at a minimum, the same as the 18650 tube as it is a small run and have that time intensive thing I was talking about before.
So the rear question Kaichu is, are you willing to pay the same price or more for an 18350 tube as you would for an 18650 tube?
Hogokansatsukan
Flashlight Enthusiast
PoliceScannerMan
Flashaholic
Custom page, you can say "no battery compartment" makes it $60 cheaper I believe.
EDIT: Hogo beat me to it, and added a nice pic.
tyu
Newly Enlightened
(removed duplicate info)
