# New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 11/14)



## Quickbeam (Sep 24, 2006)

*New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 12/24)*

I've decided to follow Craig's format of creating a thread and adding posts of new light reviews as time goes on, rather than creating a new thread for each review. So here goes!


[highlight]Underwater Kinetics C8 eLED Plus[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/uk_c8eledplus.htm

Enjoy!


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]Fenix L1S and L2S[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/fenix_l1s-l2s.htm

# 2 done this weekend.


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]G&P Scorpion R500[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/gp_scorpion_r500.htm

#3 this weekend!


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]Ultrafire F&L J1 CR2[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/ultrafire_j1cr2.htm

Another one! I'm on a roll!


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]Xtar X3 3 Watt Rechargeable Kit[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/xtar_3w.htm

5 in a row???? There's no stopping me! AHHHHHHH!


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]BWL Designs BW01[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/bwldesigns_bw01.htm

6?!?! That's right, 6! I'm going to need to go take a nap.


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

But wait, there's more!!!

[highlight]AuroraLite Hotwire Kit for MiniMag[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/auroralite_hotwire.htm

7 reviews posted this weekend, 8 lights total reviewed. I'm not doing this again any time soon!


----------



## Illum (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

wow,,,your on a roll

did you by any chance bought more light meters so you can perform multiple runtime reviews at once?


----------



## flame2000 (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



Quickbeam said:


> [highlight]Fenix L1S and L2S[/highlight]
> 
> http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/fenix_l1s-l2s.htm
> 
> # 2 done this weekend.


 
Are those L1S & L2S Type III hard anodize (mentioned in review) or normal anodized? Fenix site don't state these 2 models as Type III HA.


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

They look identical to all the other Fenix lights to me, so I'm making the educated guess that they are the same Type III anodize.


----------



## cheapo (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

awsome reviews! hmmm.... i'm glad i bought my scorpion  Did you give it 4 or 4.5 stars? on the index page it says 4... and on the review page it says 4.5

oh, and i think the lens is glass. Also, might want to mention that A LOT of heat comes from the bulb.

-david


----------



## flame2000 (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



Quickbeam said:


> They look identical to all the other Fenix lights to me, so I'm making the educated guess that they are the same Type III anodize.


 
Great review btw. Been reading thru each of them since they came on. Thanks for the effort!


----------



## Walt175 (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Thanks Doug! Great reviews as usual, but remeber to take it easy. I don't want to see you burn out!


:goodjob:


----------



## Pumaman (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



Quickbeam said:


> They look identical to all the other Fenix lights to me, so I'm making the educated guess that they are the same Type III anodize.


 
4Sevens is under another impression

The LxS series is a close cousin of the LxT series.
Whats the difference you may ask. 
Well they fill in the gap for a more economical
purchase compared to the LxT. 

*Three main things.*
1. LxS is type 2 annodize instead of LxT's hard cost annodize
2. LxS does not have the AR (anti-reflective) coating that the LxT has.
The LxS lens is still chemically harded so it'll withstand impact.
3. The LxS series is not compatible with lithium-ions. Don't even try.
The L1S has a max V of 1.7v
The L2S has a max V of 3.3v

from this thread
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=132061

I really hope you are right Quickbeam:naughty:


----------



## Archangel (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

The eLED Plus is an interesting beast. I think Underwater Kinetics is the first to use Nichia's big boy, though i'm pretty sure Tektite was looking at them too.


----------



## chevrofreak (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

The L1S and L2S are not hard anodized, and from reports neither is the black version of the G&P R500.


----------



## AFAustin (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Thanks, Doug. Great as always. Enjoy your nap!


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Doug,


Thanks for all the awesome reviews!!! You don't even know how much your opinon and reviews guide me in buying or not buying a light. 
Man am I disapointed in the BW01. I was ready to pull the trigger on that one as long as your review turned out positive. 18 MINUTE RUNTIME????? That has to be the worst runtime of any almost any light on your site. Do you know why its runtime was so poor? I don't really see why because the output was less than the L1P or even the low priced Civictor. 

Thankfully the R500 looks very promising with its huge output and good runtime. Have you figured out if the lens is plastic or glass?


----------



## davidefromitaly (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



Quickbeam said:


> [highlight]G&P Scorpion R500[/highlight]
> 
> http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/gp_scorpion_r500.htm
> 
> #3 this weekend!




the battery pack is protected?


----------



## shriek (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



davidefromitaly said:


> the battery pack is protected?



https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1577084&postcount=345


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

4sevens would know - so if he says they're Type II, they're type II. I'll make updates.

Cheapo - 4 1/2 stars

Walt - tell me about it! I'm going to take it easy for a while, that's for sure. Unfortunately a bunch more lights are coming in, so they'll have to wait a bit.

Re: the G&P Scorpion. Type II? Could be... Glass or plastic lens - I just finally managed to get it apart - the reflector is screwed into the bezel ring - glass! Protected or unprotected cells? Looks like the post above gives the answer.

Thanks for all the information - methinks some rating changes are in order....

I don't know what's going on with the BW01. 18 minutes seems extremely short. Bad cell? I doubt it, it's from a brand new package. I just finished a lithium runtime I have to compile and upload, so we'll see how it did with that.

(EDIT: Ewwwwww... it didn't do well. A bit over an hour regulated...)


----------



## davidefromitaly (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



shriek said:


> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1577084&postcount=345




oh thank you!!!!! now i don't understand... how can last 46 minutes a 2200mah battery under a 3200ma load? maybe the real load is 2700ma?


----------



## chevrofreak (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



> The body of the Fenix L1S and L2S is machined aluminum with a reasonably durable type II hard anodize finish and is available in black only


 
looks like you missed something during the change  

I'm curious though, why the 4 star for the L1S, while the single level twist switch Civictor V1 that is only slightly less expensive gets a 4.5? The lower light output on high?


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Geez! You folks know the stats on my site better than I do!

I need to go through and re-evaluate the rating system as a result of advances in technology. Lights that are rated highly in the past are now over-inflated in their ratings relative to new lights coming out. Another part of this is the result of the fairly recent addition of full runtime graphs for lights. I'm learning things about the lights I didn't know before and that has to factor in.

I can't do anything until I really look at all of them from the big-picture perspective and decide what goes up and what goes down. This leads to the potentially daunting task of changing the review ratings on over 400 pages... I have had to do this before, but I had less than half the lights on the site that I do now.

For example, how do I rate a light (like the Civictor) that has a boost circuit, but really hardly any better of a discharge curve than a light directly driven from alkalines. Do I take into consideration the electronics inside, or just focus on performance? If I just focus on performance, the Civictor will probably be kicked down to about a 3.5... Better than a Maglight, but just a little. Or is it? Should it drop to 3.0 since as a result of its performance its only real advantage is no bulb to blow? Should the Maglight drop to 2.0 since it's really no different than a $0.99 Eveready except for the fancy body and focusing mechanism? Should the 0.99 Eveready (the 2.0 benchmark) drop to 1.0 and everything below just rates a 0.0? I'm thinking maybe yes. I have a lot of things to think about to work it all out. Suffice to say that a lot of lights will drop and most of them will change.

Or do I add another star at the high end and switch to a 6 Star rating, bumping up the best... I don't know.


----------



## Archangel (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I don't see a problem with a $1 torch rating one star. For that money, you're just looking for a candle that can't burn down the place. As long as it emits light, you're good to go. I don't think merely the presence of electronics should affect the rating. Direct dive is very efficient if done "properly". There's no way i would get into a rating system of that many torches, so i don't envy you in the slightest.

In the long run, i'm not sure that a sixth star would help much. I think that's kind of what your trophy case is for.


----------



## havand (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Why not seperate the database into new lights and old lights. Make the cutoff line a certain date. Don't change anything, just make sure its obvious that lights reviewed after XX-XX-XXX are operating under a 'revised' or 'new' rating system. Have it so you can compare each category seperately or against the other, or as one massive list...Maybe with an astericks next to the old ones/new ones, whatever. Don't know if this would be a workable system, just trying to help.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Not to insult your current system, but I have always thought it would be alot easier if it was maybe out of 10 stars (using halfs as well). That would give you much more room to show seperation in two different lights.


----------



## Pumaman (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Don't get discouraged Quickbeam, all you hard work is appreciated.

I vote for havand's suggestion as well. less work

Maybe re-review some newer lights and/or favorites.


----------



## carrot (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

But IMO a 10-star rating system could get overly complicated... personally in my few reviews I try not to put actual numerical ratings, but more of a "not recommended, recommended, highly recommended" kind of rating.

Kudos to Doug for rethinking his ratings system. He could have just sat back and allowed for inconsistencies over time.


----------



## Archangel (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I agree with everything carrot said. Especially the last bits.

If you give the rating system too much lattitude it becomes too easy to think yourself to death, trying to decide if you should go a bit either way.


----------



## carbine15 (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I have always wanted to see the approximate price of each light in the lists so I can compare value as well as features.


----------



## jts (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

let me add to the thanks and appreciation for your reviews. 

as for the re-reviewing, i'll add another vote for keeping the ratings simple. dpreview.com is one of my favorite cameria sites, and while they always have a wealth of technical detail in their reviews, they distill the rating to recommended, highly recommended, etc. i think keeping it somewhat vague encourages the reader to think about the specific features that are useful to the individual, without getting hung up on why another flashlight got a half star rating better. i think a scale of 1-10 implies a level of detail that probably doesn't exist in the real world.

whatever you do, i'll look forward to new reviews as always.


----------



## phatalbert (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

1st. Thanks for your awesome website, dedication and hard work! :goodjob: 

My suggestion: What about in new reviews giving multiple angles a numerical rating (ex: build quality, beam, efficency) and make the final rating somewhat of an average but give yourself leeway in the case of lights like the ARC AAA, which has a relatively poor beam but is near perfect for it's purposes.

Seems like this could keep some "5 stars" at five stars but still show their strengths and weaknesses compared to other lights.

Just a suggestion that I would only want you to consider if it made your job easier.


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Sep 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I just added this thread to the sticky at the top of this web page.


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 25, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Thanks Craig!

Here is what I am going to do with the rating system... 

_________________________

EDITED: removed - there's no way I'm going to be able to edit the rating system. Too much to try to adjust. Oh well...
__________________________



Oh, and this month we hit *Five Hundred* light reviews total! Yowza!


----------



## dangerman (Sep 25, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Love your work Quickbeam. This re-rating looks like a lot of work. I'd like to agree with some others and urge you not to get burnt out. Thanks again for all the great reviews.


----------



## IMTRBO (Sep 25, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Great stuff Quickbeam! I think the new rating system you've come up with sounds perfect! I especially like the idea of how the 3star group is going to be the largest, with fewer lights in the 4 and 5 catagory, to really emphasize those that stand out in a big way.

Can't wait to see the new order of things after the reshuffle. But definitely don't burn yourself out while doing it!


----------



## amanichen (Sep 25, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



Quickbeam said:


> Thanks Craig!
> 
> Here is what I am going to do with the rating system. Lose the 1/2 star ratings. Everything will be re-evaluated against the following criteria:
> ...
> ...


I know you try to not find out the price on a light until after you've done your testing and evaluation of it, but would you consider one rating based on performance/quality alone, and an alternate rating that factors in price? I ask this because some lights are a huge bang for the buck, while others require you to spend 4x the money to get 1.5x the performance.


----------



## Any Cal. (Sep 26, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I enjoy your site, and the effort you put into it. Just a thought though. Should a light be penalized because the technology available while it was built was not so advanced? Is the same light today less of one because tech has increased? Why not rate the same as always, but to show an advanced light, put an asterisk next to the rating. That way old lights do not take a hit in performance, and newer ones will qualify for a rating in the same way as the old ones. Build quality, beam, finish, etc. However, additional performance can be shown in the rating. As time progresses, like a couple years, add another asterisk. The difference between an 8 year old 4 star and a brand new 4 star should only be in output, not in quality.(In my small mind.) Thanks for your efforts.

(edited to add: if this post looks out of place and like the timing is strange, it is because it did not post properly. No offense to Quickbeam or his system. Thanks.


----------



## amlim (Sep 26, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

quickbeam, if there are any lights which i am not familiar with, the first thing i do is zip over to your place to check it out. thanks for the useful reviews.


----------



## clipse (Sep 27, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Awesome. The G&P 500 just went on my extremely short list. 

clipse


----------



## jayflash (Sep 27, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

All this data in light of ever advancing technology makes maintaining accurate ratings of older lights a real chore. If one keeps in mind a light's age we can do the re-rating on our own. 

Stereophile magazine, for example, simply eliminates older equipment that has been surpassed in audio quality, from their recommended list. They use a simple A = Best; cost no object. B = close to A quality. C = Good sound far above mass consumer quality. D = provides good sound with qualifications. They include 1 - 3 "$" depending the value of the component. Not too many A rated items also have a "$" or two. A rating of B or C with 3 $$$ is what most audiophiles look for or can afford.

Great job, Doug and Craig on your sites and mucho info!

Edited: originally I stated "stars" for a good value indication rather than the dollar $ signs they actually use. Sorry for the goof.


----------



## Marlite (Sep 28, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Hey Doug

The No.1 search engine google drives more people to Flashlight Reviews and subsequently to CPF. I know this was true for me and I am a frequent visitor to his site for his fair assessments of quality or lack of same, and true runtime graphs. 

Doug's fairness is beyond reproach and his further duties as a moderator, only enhances Candlepower Forums and sets a very high standard. Where does he find the time? 

Do it "Your Way" none could do it better than you.

Best regards, Marlite


----------



## Quickbeam (Sep 28, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Thanks all! After really looking at the task at hand, there's no way I can change the evaluation system right now. Wayyyyyyyyyy to many pages to change. They would all have to be adjusted by hand and I can't do it and keep reviewing, and keep up with everything else. Instead I'll be making some selective adjustments to some review ratings over time.

Doug P.


----------



## cheapo (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

it might be a good idea to select a day (friday or saturday maybe?) to choose to review all the lights on the list... but only put something like 6 on the list at a time. So every friday or saturday you can do all the 6 reviews, and you'll have the rest of the week off till the next week when you'de review the next 6.... just a suggestion.

-David


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I don't know what Doug's review schedule is, but I typically begin my evaluation immediately upon receipt of a flashlight, laser, or other source of light. Even if I receive a boatload of them on a Saturday or on a Wednesday, it's all the same to me.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 2, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I think we're talking two different things here. First, I did manage to re-evaluate the lights I have already reviewed to match new Star criteria. Essentially 3.5 is the new 4.0. This spreads out the upper range giving greater distincition between the above average quality lights.

Second, I can't start reviews on a light as soon as it comes in like Craig can. Full time job, family, house, etc. Other priorities have to take prescedence. I work on them when I have a free block of time. Each individual review takes something on the order of 4 hours to complete, not including the actual runtime test. I can save some time by batching the photography, photo edits, readings, etc. which is why I try to do several at one time.

More reviews should be done during this weekend, depending on other things...


----------



## jayflash (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Doug, not that I was suggesting you change anything as your reviews are already detailed enough that one can make accurate comparisons with the info provided. The Stereophile example was mentioned just in case you WERE contemplating a change for future reviews. Rerating past scores would be too much to ask.

Take the Fenix P1 that some didn't think deserved a four star rating. For value it does get very high marks so, as an example, you might rate a light like that as a three star for overall quality and performance, but add to that one, two or three dollar signs depending how good a value you thought it was. I'd probably rate it 3* with $$. If it sold for only $25, it might deserve a third $ sign.

I'm also not suggesting all lights reviewed get any $$ signs at all, only the unique combinations that provide quality, performance and an unusual level of value. This way a light's value could be rated seperately in cases where it really mattered, hopefully, without getting too complicated for you.

This was offered as a way to satisfy those who desire ratings based solely on quality and performance. If this cannot be very easily implemented then don't bother because I'm sure you already spend too much time for our benefit.


----------



## geepondy (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Quickbeam, to throw in my two cents, I like the old format better. Everytime I see a new post in this thread, I don't know if it's somebody commenting (like now) or you have posted about a new light. Regardless your reviews are well appreciated.


----------



## europium (Oct 7, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



Marlite said:


> Hey Doug
> 
> The No.1 search engine google drives more people to Flashlight Reviews and subsequently to CPF. I know this was true for me and I am a frequent visitor to his site for his fair assessments of quality or lack of same, and true runtime graphs.
> 
> ...


Hear hear!!!

My first "real" flashlight was a Brinkmann Maxfire LX, which I nabbed at Walmart in the hope of getting something smaller yet brighter than a 3D Maglite incandescent, which was, once upon a time, my "standard" for a flashlight. It was a successful purchase in that regard, but I wondered what might be better. I did a google search and ... viola!! Flashlightreviews.com had *the* answers!

So thank you, thank you, thank you, Doug for all your hard work!!

:goodjob::thanks::buddies::thumbsup:


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]Fenix E0[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/fenix_e0.htm

Enjoy!


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]Fenix E1-47 with Luxeon LED[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/fenix_e1-47.htm

Enjoy!


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]Minimag 3AA LED[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/maglite_minimagled3aa.htm

Enjoy!


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight] K2 G&P P60-P90 replacement head[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/gp_p61k2.htm

Enjoy!


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]Wolf-Eyes 6M 3.7V incand. and LED[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/wolf_6m.htm

Enjoy!


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]Orb Raw NS[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/orb_rawns.htm

Enjoy!


----------



## Chronos (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

WOW great reviews (as usual). Doug, I also wish to thank you for all your dedication. 

I'm pretty amazed with the output of this little 3AAA MiniMagLED I bought on a whim. Nearly the same output as my dearly departed Gladius!!! Amazing, simply amazing for $20 and change.


----------



## havand (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I know! I havn't bought one yet, but i kind of keep wondering why people bash it for not having sophisticated regulation...on a $20 light. Yet they have no problem dropping $100 on an orb. Yes, the orb is just 'cool', but its even direct drive! I will be purchasing one of the new maglites in the future. I've been putting it off b/c of $$$ and b/c well....I don't want to let my prized lights to got shame from a 'common' light  . Not that anything I have is exotic, but ya know.

EDIT: Great reviews. Thank you for all the work you do. We could all thank you 100 times and it still wouldn't be enough. It is so nice having a BENCHMARK review site that anything can be judged against.


----------



## Mr. Blue (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

curious, but the custom E1 has less throw and slightly less output than its non custom cousin, did the runtime boost it to 4.5 for you?


----------



## 270winchester (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

why was the E1-47 named, um, E1-47?

the minimag LED is pretty good when focused, but be amazed at the flood light, simply wonderful for closeup to mid range work.


----------



## EngrPaul (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Thanks for the reviews, and the time-consuming runtime graphs.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Oct 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Thanks alot doug! 

The new Wolf eyes lights look awesome! The Incan offers HUGE brightness for something that size that is rechargable, and the Lux version has the incredible regulated runtime that puts an HDS to shame! 
I have to admit I am a little disapointed with the EO runtime graph. Some of the other graphs show it has fully flat output while yours shows very little flat output and then declining output there after.


----------



## europium (Oct 13, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



Quickbeam said:


> [highlight]Wolf-Eyes 6M 3.7V incand. and LED[/highlight]
> 
> http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/wolf_6m.htm
> 
> Enjoy!


A quick correction. You state in the review:


> *Batteries:* One rechargeable Li-Ion 168A (18650) or 168B (*18500*) cell powers the light. Please note that only 1 battery is included with the light and charger. The larger battery (18650) is used for Wolf-Eyes lights, while the smaller battery (*18500*) is suitable for Surefire flashlights when using the 3.7V LED lamp assembly.


 I assume you mean 17670 (which is thinner to fit in Surefire lights) in place of 18500 (which is shorter to go by pairs into 3x123 cell lights).


----------



## abvidledUK (Oct 13, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Confusing title now.

I can see that new reviews are added to this thread.

How do we know when there are NEW reviews.

Could the title change

Perhaps NEW followed by date, so that we know it's a new review, not just a comment from another.

That's my preference.


----------



## 270winchester (Oct 13, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



abvidledUK said:


> Confusing title now.
> 
> I can see that new reviews are added to this thread.
> 
> ...



how about we look at the posting date and play "connect-the-dot"? it's not that hard. Try it sometimes.


----------



## abvidledUK (Oct 13, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I wish to view the Excellent NEW reviews, not others (sometimes inane) comments!


----------



## D MacAlpine (Oct 13, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



europium said:


> My first "real" flashilight was a Brinkmann Maxfire LX, ........
> I did a google search and ... viola!! Flashlightreviews.com had *the* answers!
> 
> So thank you, thank you, thank you, Doug for all your hard work!!
> ...


 
This post made me smile as it is pretty close to my story. My brother brought me back a Legend LX from The States a couple of years ago. I found FLR via Google (looking for spare lamps), that in turn pointed me to CPF!

Your work is appreciated Doug, yours is an opinion I always seek when considering a purchase.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 13, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I'm glad everyone enjoys the site so much. I was a CPFer first, a reviewer second, so my site is really more for you folks than anyone else.

A bunch of questions - let's try to hit them all at once...

The e1-47 runtime is what boosted it to 4.5. Your eyes can't tell the difference in output between the E1-47 and the stock E1 it's so close. 

I don't know where the name came from - only Fenix-Store would know that.

Re: Wolf eyes battery for Surefire- OOPS! I'll fix that. Thanks E.! I should have known better. I had recently even added a table to my batteries Q&A page (bottom of the page) to help with distinguishing between the Li-Ions...

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/qa/batteries.htm


----------



## WildChild (Oct 13, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Quickbeam, do you have any idea why your runtime graph for the Fenix E0 is much different from every others that have been done? See here:

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=136779


----------



## cheapo (Oct 13, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

ok... the wolf eyes luxeon says "3.7 volts"- so... will it be regulated off a single r123?

-david


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 14, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

I'll re-do the runtime today on the E0. Bad cell, perhaps. I'll clean the contacts on the light as well.

Cheapo - good question! Yes it is designed for 3.7V. I don't have a dummy 123A or an adapter to use a P60 on an E1e. I'll have to figure something out.

Doug P.


----------



## lightrod (Oct 14, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



Quickbeam said:


> ..... I was a CPFer first, a reviewer second, so my site is really more for you folks than anyone else......


 
:thumbsup: all your work is much appreciated and valued - your loyalty to CPF is admirable!! Keep it up (please!).
:thanks:


----------



## cheapo (Oct 14, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

ok.... so, this light is getting something like 80 lumens from 3.7v..... and since both an 18650 and an r123 both have 3.7v, they should be able to make a single r123 80 lumen flashlight using the same module (in theory).


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (Oct 14, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Thanks for the thorough review of the Wolf Eyes 6M, QuickBeam. Your reviews are getting more and more thorough.

A couple points about the lithium-ion cells. First, you describe the 168A cell's capacity as 2200 mAh. Does it, in fact, say 2200 on the label? I was under the impression that the 168A remained 2000mAh.

Second, in your remarks about the LED module, you state, " You can use this lamp in Surefire lights provided you use an 18500 Li-Ion rechargeable cell." As you're no doubt aware as you read this, you meant to say "if you use a 17670 cell." 

The 17670 is equivalent to a Wolf Eyes 168B (1400 mAh) or its successor, the 169B (1500 mAh).


----------



## linerlock (Oct 14, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*



Quickbeam said:


> I don't know where the name came from - only Fenix-Store would know that.



David Chow is the gentleman who runs fenix-store.com. While other CPF'rs have may have performed the Luseon mod to the E1 on their own, David is responsible for making the Luxeon modded E1-47 commercially available through his on-line store. His username here on CPF is "4sevens". I suspect this has something to do with the "-47" suffix he has attached to his special edition E1.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 15, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

E0 review has been updated with new runtime after thoroughly cleaning the contacts. Much improved.

Paul - thanks for that. All fixed.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Oct 15, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Thanks alot Doug! Now that's the runtime graph I was hoping to see!!!


----------



## Ritch (Oct 15, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Thank you, Doug. Now I'm relieved again.

Best,
Richard


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 19, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

[highlight]WiseLED Tactical[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/wiseled_tactical.htm

Enjoy!
Doug P.


----------



## skalomax (Oct 19, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/19)*

Ugh!!

That Runtime is Garbage!!
I was Planning To Get It But Nevermind!
Thanks for the Review!!


----------



## havand (Oct 19, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/19)*

WOW...That thing stinks! I mean, it is spectacular for moments, but then it drops off to the output of a powerful (ok, VERY powerful) regular LED light....It needs 7 led's to do that? I think i'd rather have half the led's with a mild peltier system pumping heat to the handle and batteries for that kind of power! I mean...Full power 3-4 LED's continuously or 7 running at 25%?? :naughty:

I can't believe they don't have a setting to snap it back up to full blast until thermal protection kicks in...

Quickbeam: If you click it off after running it for say 20 minutes or something like that then immediately turn it back on...Does it go back to full blast for a few minutes or does it return to regulation mode?


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Oct 19, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/19)*

Peltier systems do require a *LOT* of power; that's why flashlights have yet to incorporate them.


----------



## havand (Oct 19, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/19)*

I know, i was joking  Although, if they are k2's...And they were all being driven to the limit, it COULD be a fair trade off to a 10w peltier...


----------



## Pumaman (Oct 19, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/19)*

thanks again Quickbeam, Wiseled dismissed!


----------



## abvidledUK (Oct 19, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com*

Thank you for utililising my suggestion to add the date to the initial header when a New Review is added, , now I can just tune in when New Reviews are added, much better.

I like the *BOLD RED* headings you use too.




abvidledUK said:


> I can see that new reviews are added to this thread.
> 
> How do we know when there are NEW reviews.
> 
> ...


----------



## hikinhillary (Oct 19, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/19)*

Quickbeam, 

Thanks for the review of the WiseLED. I think you should possibly submerge the light in a cool cup of water when doing a runtime test (like you did for the HDS). That might change the runtime graph for the better. 
I must admit though I was expecting alot more considering how freaking expensive this thing is. I was thinking at least 15 minutes of flat regulation on its highest setting before it drops to a lower setting. I was hoping the graph would resemble the HDS graph how it looks like steps or stairs, and not a slope like a mountain.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 22, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/22)*

[highlight]LumaPower F1 Formula One - Preview[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/lumapower_f1.htm

Enjoy!


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 22, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/22)*

[Highlight]LumaPower DX1 K2 LumaHunter - Preview[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/lumapower_dx1.htm

Enjoy!


----------



## skalomax (Oct 22, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/22)*

WoooHooo!!

I love the DX-1 LumaHunter.
It has Exceptional Throw and looks pretty good to me!
Wonderfull Runtime Graph!

Thanks for the Reviews!!


----------



## Mags (Oct 26, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/22)*

Hmmm.. the luma hunter throws a LOT less than I expected it to. But I guess its a runtime light...


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Oct 26, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/22)*

Lumapower is upgrading the DX to have more output in their new models. It also has some other upgrades as well. I think this light is exceptional for the price. 55 lumens for 3 hours of flat regulation and almost 4,000 lux. How many other lights can claim this?


----------



## Lite_me (Nov 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/22)*

Quickbeam: In two places in your review of the L0P-SE you refer to removal of the tailcap for battery replacement. There is no tailcap. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention.


----------



## Lobo (Nov 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/22)*

Quickbeam, thanks for a REALLY EXCELLENT site. I have no idea where to go to compare lights so thoroughly otherwise. It must be the best place to compare lights on the internet, bar none. 
One thing though, saw that you in your later reviews don't have a Maglite Mini in the compare pictures, those pics are really usefull when it comes to understand how big the light is roughly, even though you have a ruler underneath. Just a suggestion. Thanks again for a GREAT site.


----------



## _StoogeHunter_ (Nov 12, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 10/22)*

Your site is most helpful. Thank you for making it available.


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 14, 2006)

[highlight]Surefire Kroma[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/surefire_kroma.htm


[highlight]Streamlight Survivor LED[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/streamlight_survivorled.htm


[highlight]DB-K2 Mag drop-in LED[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/diamond_magbulbk2.htm


[highlight]Pelican Little Ed 3610[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/pelican_3610.htm


[highlight]Pelican 2400 StealthLite [/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/pelican_2400.htm


[highlight]Pelican Super SabreLite[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/pelican_2000.htm


[highlight]Camo Arc AAA[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/arc_aaa-camo.htm


[highlight]Fenix L0P-SE[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/fenix_l0pse.htm


[highlight]Huntlight FT-A2[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/huntlight_fta2.htm


[highlight]Coast Light Round-Up! Mini Reviews[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/coast_round-up.htm


*I'm taking the rest of the year off from doing new reviews (seriously.)*

Enjoy!

Doug P.


----------



## Amadeus93 (Nov 14, 2006)

Thanks for all your hard work - enjoy your time off!


----------



## Thujone (Nov 14, 2006)

See you in '07! Hopefully you rest up for the flood of Cree reviews that will surely be in need by then!


----------



## EngrPaul (Nov 14, 2006)

Enjoy a well-deserved vacation. Go play with your toys!


----------



## Manzerick (Nov 14, 2006)

As always..

THANK YOU!!!!


----------



## Sixpointone (Nov 14, 2006)

Thanks for all of your great work as always! And I must admit I was pleased that my favorite Flashlight, the Kroma, received 5 stars.


----------



## meeshu (Nov 14, 2006)

NOW, might be a good time to generate runtime graphs of those (older) lights that do not have runtimes. Hmmmm?


----------



## SuperTorch (Nov 14, 2006)

I'm digging the Coast Revolution Headlamp, looks like it can pump out some serious light for a headlamp, but I'd have to know more on the spill and run time, I'd like to see the run time on NiMH's

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/coast_round-up.htm#LL7468


----------



## Gnufsh (Nov 15, 2006)

Thanks for all the hard work! Your reviews are great.

I'm eagerly awaiting the runtime graphs on the Survivor LED. I have one, and IMO it does an excellent job at cutting through smoke (and the regulated output is nice, as it doesn't dim like the super saber lite does). I also really like how it clips to my trunouts. The clip on the ssl is good for this as well (a smaller clip would actually be less useful for this purpose, IMO). Anyway, I think that's why the clip on it is so big.


----------



## Mr. Blue (Nov 16, 2006)

always a good resource!

purttttty please runtimes on the SL Survivor though~!


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 17, 2006)

Meeshu: Always pushing, never happy... Now might also be a good time for me to relax before I burn out completely... 138+ reviews this year and this ISN'T a full time job.  To put it in perspective, that's equivalent to more than one review every 3 days. My wife has been very tolerant of this hobby for the past 5 years, but I don't know how much longer that may last, especially if I over-do it. This break is for family time/down time.

I just finished the runtime on the SL Survivor on High. I'll try to get it posted some time soon.


Doug P.


----------



## AFAustin (Nov 17, 2006)

Doug,

Thanks for all these recent reviews---the pace must've been hectic. I think all of us married CPFers well understand the dangers of our better halves losing patience when we "overindulge" our little hobby.  

Enjoy your family and your break!


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Nov 17, 2006)

Doug,

If you get some free time could you do some runtime graphs with the L0PSE on 1000 mah rechargables? Thanks alot


----------



## C4LED (Nov 17, 2006)

Most interesting reviews the last several months! Definitely time for a break and the holidays are the perfect time to have it.


----------



## Gnufsh (Nov 17, 2006)

Quickbeam said:


> Meeshu: Always pushing, never happy... Now might also be a good time for me to relax before I burn out completely... 138+ reviews this year and this ISN'T a full time job.  To put it in perspective, that's equivalent to more than one review every 3 days. My wife has been very tolerant of this hobby for the past 5 years, but I don't know how much longer that may last, especially if I over-do it. This break is for family time/down time.
> 
> I just finished the runtime on the SL Survivor on High. I'll try to get it posted some time soon.
> 
> ...


Thanks. You really need a vacation.

One other note about the survivor is that it seems the rubber cover over the switch retains the smell of smoke for a couple weeks. Not really a big deal because my turnouts already permanetly smell like smoke. I'm not sure about my saberlite, but I don't think it does (except for the lanyard).


----------



## prof (Nov 17, 2006)

QuickBeam,

We all appreciate your site. I'm glad you're taking time off, as family is far more important than a hobby. Enjoy the time, have fun, relax, celebrate the holidays. We'll be glad when you're back, but don't burn yourself out or neglect your family. 

I do have a question, however. If you're taking a break, why are you reading this?  

Have a Merry Christmas, Doug P.


----------



## cslinger (Nov 17, 2006)

Pfft, family, real life, real job. What is your problem man, don't you know that we are here to squeeze every bit of life out of you for our own enjoyment. Now cowboy up and get back to work. 

Hope you sensed the sarcasm. I cannot believe the amount of work you do just for fun. I hope that this might someday make you a few extra coins or turn into something for you. Have a great holiday and whatever you do, DO NOT let anything interfere with SWMBO because when mamma's not happy, NOBODY's happy and that is a trueism that bridges just about all race, creed, and religions.

Take care and thanks for all you do. Happy Holidays.


----------



## meeshu (Nov 17, 2006)

Quickbeam said:


> Meeshu: Always pushing, never happy... Now might also be a good time for me to relax before I burn out completely... 138+ reviews this year and this ISN'T a full time job.  To put it in perspective, that's equivalent to more than one review every 3 days. My wife has been very tolerant of this hobby for the past 5 years, but I don't know how much longer that may last, especially if I over-do it. This break is for family time/down time.
> 
> I just finished the runtime on the SL Survivor on High. I'll try to get it posted some time soon.
> 
> ...



Doug!

Sure, your efforts are appreciated, and time-off is necessary to "re-charge" oneself! That is understood.

I have an Extech (401036) lightmeter (which is the same as your lightmeter I believe) which is used to generate my runtimes. If you are willing to send me (all) the lights that do not have as yet runtimes generated, I will generate runtime (raw) data on your behalf! Seriously!!

Just let me know what your setup details are and I'll set up my lightmeter in a similar manner!

What do you think?

Cheers.


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 20, 2006)

Some runtimes added, included the Streamlight Survivor LED.

Doug P.


----------



## Mr. Blue (Nov 21, 2006)

you da man!


----------



## cheapo (Nov 21, 2006)

man, that kroma runtime is really short.... i always thought Surefire would have a more efficient light than, say the pm6 2390 which has more output and more runtime.

-david


----------



## TENMMIKE (Nov 22, 2006)

QuickBeam, good job , well deserved time off....thanks


----------



## light_emitting_dude (Nov 22, 2006)

Quickbeam, thaks for the excellent review site. It has helped me choose some quality flashlights. Enjoy your time off and holidays with your family and freinds!! 

Light_emmitting_dude (John)


----------



## Quickbeam (Dec 22, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 12/22)*

Some P1D and P1D-CE preliminary numbers for everyone. I'm working on the reviews:


----------



## Quickbeam (Dec 22, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 12/22)*

Weird that the date in the header didn't update. Let's see if this does it...

Nope, guess not...


----------



## Mike abcd (Dec 22, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 12/22)*



Quickbeam said:


> Some P1D and P1D-CE preliminary numbers for everyone. I'm working on the reviews:



Thanks for the early sneak peak!. Your P1D CE numbers for high and medium are almost exactly the same that Chevrofreak got with your low level measurement only a few lumens below his. Nice to see that consistency between P1D CE samples as I have one enroute.

Mike


----------



## Quickbeam (Dec 24, 2006)

*Re: New Reviews at FlashlightReviews.com (new 12/24)*

[highlight]Fenix P1D and P1D-CE[/highlight]

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/fenix_p1d.htm

Enjoy!


----------



## KAM (Dec 24, 2006)

Nice one!


----------



## LowTEC (Dec 24, 2006)

Now we just need the result of LumaCraft D-Mini for comparison with P1D-CE.

Oh, I couldn't wait for the result and ordered the D-Mini already, so never mind :laughing:


----------



## [email protected] Messenger (Dec 24, 2006)

The output on that thing is amazing  ...on the verge of clicking add to cart (hesitating as usual and waiting for another light to come out)


----------

