# JetBeam JET-I PRO (Cree R2) 1AA Review: Beamshots, Runtimes, and more!



## selfbuilt (Feb 1, 2008)

*REVIEWER’S NOTE:* This is a two-part review – the first part is a build and runtime overview of the JetBeam Jet-I PRO, followed by detailed beamshot and runtime comparison to other lights. For a runtime comparison to all current 1AA lights in my collection, please see my Multi-stage 1AA review thread. The Jet-I PRO was provided free of charge by JetBeam for review.

_*UPDATE Aug 11, 2008:*This light is no longer available, and has been replaced by a new IBS version of the 1AA Jet-I PRO. It is reviewed alongside its 2AA sibling in my review here._

*PART I: Jet-I PRO Build/Runtime Comparison*











My review sample came in a thin cardboard box with JetBeam logos, and some light foam insulation inside (frankly, I’m surprised the box survived transport as well as it did, as it came packaged inside a regular bubble envelope). 

Inside, you’ll see it comes with warranty card, manual, wrist lanyard, and spare parts (o-rings, tailcap cover) – and of course, the light. Quality of the lanyard seems pretty good. You’ll note my sample is identified as “Review 3”. 










As you can see, exterior styling is very nice. Light comes in a dark grey HA (type III) finish, similar to the JB C-LE. The metal clip is detachable (with some force). Knurling is not overly aggressive, but it is slightly more raised than most Chinese-made lights.






As you can see from the business end shot, the Jet-I PRO uses the “silver” version of the new Cree R2 emitter (i.e. the area outside central die is silver in colour, instead of the standard Cree yellow). My understanding is that there are no output differences between the silver and yellow versions, and these simply reflect different manufacturing plants. However, there may be some tint issues (see my Build Quality section further down for a discussion).






The light engine can easily be unscrewed from both the body and the head/reflector, opening up the possibility of easy upgrades (should JB provide upgrade modules). Like my JB MkIIX, there is a spring at the base of the light engine (i.e. at the positive battery terminal) so 14500s should not be a problem. Tailcap and switch are similar to MkIIX and C-LE v2. Note the presence of square screw threads, a favourite with machinists (and rare on flashlights). Note the brassy/gold-coloured coating on the inside battery tube and contact threads (apparently for some sort of anti-oxidizing effect, similar to the EDGETAC NiteCore DI).






*Testing Method:* All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's FR.com method. My relative overall output numbers are typically similar to his, although generally a little lower. You can directly compare all my review graphs - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 1m using a light meter. 

*Runtimes:*






Yes, you are reading the graph above correctly - Med mode has both lower output and lower runtime than Hi on 14500. JetBeam is aware of the issue, and plans to fix the circuit for the next batch of lights produced.


























Although I didn't show it in the table, 2650mAh NiMH and alkaline have very similar initial output and throw as the Sanyo Eneloops.

*Output/runtime observations:*


I’ve very impressed with the maximum throw of this 1AA light, on all battery types. Surprisingly good, given the size of the reflector. :thumbsup:
Maximum output on alkalkine and NiMH (both high-capacity and low self-discharge) is excellent, comparable to the EDGETAC NiteCore DI (which was first 1AA light to really push the envelope for output on AA). 
Also like the NiteCore DI, output on 14500 on Hi is good - but not that much brighter than NiMH. This is also deliberate on JetBeam’s part, in order to maintain good regulation and thermal management. But this means that some of the older lights that run direct-drive on 14500 (like the Fenix L1D and JetBeam’s original MkIIX) will be brighter initially on 14500 (but with lower runtimes, of course).
Efficiency of the Med/Lo modes is not very good on the Jet-I PRO. In fact, there is some problem with 14500: you get less output and less runtime on Med. 
_*EDIT:* JetBeam has informed me that they plan to fix this circuit issue for the next batch of lights._
Alkaline runtimes are disappointing in all modes. I don’t serious expect that many would be running this light on alkalines routinely, but other high-end lights seem to do a much better job (scroll down for a comparison)
Runtimes on Energizer e2 lithiums (L91) also seem unusually low
Not shown in the graphs, but light has a low battery warning on NiMH (i.e. light starts to “flash” as the battery is exhausted).

*Digital control:* 

JetBeam confirms that the light uses PWM, but the frequency is high enough that I can’t detect it with my setup, or notice it in everyday use. 

*User Interface:* 

The Jet-I Pro has 2 modes, General and Advanced. The general mode allows you to select among the 3 brightness levels reported above, while advanced mode allows you to select strobe (“alarm signal”) or SOS. 
Unlike the earlier JB lights that had a complicated switching mechanism, changing modes is now done by half-pressing the switch 3 times within 1 second. 
Within each mode, just soft-press the tailcap to advance to the next output level.
Light has a memory mode, whereby the current output level is memorized by the circuit if left on for 2 seconds or more (indicated by a quick blink).
Sequence in General mode is Off > Lo > Med > Hi. Sequence in Advanced mode is Off > Alarm Signal > SOS.
I must say, it’s a welcome change to find JetBeam making the mode switching so straight-forward. No more complicated series of modes, much simpler in comparison to their earlier lights. :thumbsup: 

*Build, Machining and Anodizing*

Build quality is top-notch, as good or better than other JetBeam lights I’ve owned (which were all quite decent).
Machining is very good throughout, although the raised portions around the tailcap switch are a bit rough (i.e. like the C-LE and MkII series lights).
Light features square screw threads, which should help reduce risk of cross-threading. 
Diamond pattern knurling is slightly more aggressive than most Chinese-made lights (although still nowhere near Surefire “rip a hole in your pant’s pocket lining” type of knurling ).
Brass (?) ring in the head of the light has some crenellated divits in it, and looks fairly attractive in my view. Doesn’t seem to have any actual function beyond decoration.
Metal clip is removable, but you have to use a fair amount of force (and may risk scratching the anodizing).
Anodizing is perfect on my sample, and is a very nice slate gray natural finish (HA-III). 
Lettering is very and crisp, no blemishes on my sample.
Gold-plated battery springs are present on both the light engine and tailcap, so all batteries should make good contact. But the extra tension makes it so that the screwing on the tailcap is a bit “stiff” with the battery installed (common feature on all my JetBeam lights).
Some protected 14500 may not fit due to extra battery length and tight fit with the springs (my AW 14500 fit ok, but are rather tight).
Switch is a standard reverse clicky, slightly stiff, with a standard traverse. Switch retaining ring is made of plastic - not metal - so be careful you don't over-tighten it. Also, I've noticed part of the spring getting caught under the retaining ring a couple of times while changing batteries (needs a gentle tap to dislodge and spring back up fully straight).
The tailcap threads are unfortunately NOT anodized, so tail-cap lockout is not possible. 

*PART II: Jet-I PRO Comparison Beamshots/Runtimes*






For this part of the review, I am going to compare the JB Jet-I PRO (R2) to the EDGETAC NiteCore DI (Q5), Fenix L1D (Q5), and LumaPower Dmini-D (Q2).

Comparison of beamshots. From left to right, JB Jet-I PRO, EDGETAC NiteCore DI, Fenix L1D, all on Hi on 2650mAh Duracell NiMH.


















The Jet-I PRO has a tighter hotspot than the other 1AA lights, thanks to the bigger reflector. It is also a bit “ringier” due to its smooth reflector (for maximum throw). Tint on Hi is a premium white, slightly warm (but see discussion below for low modes). 

Frankly, I think a better light to compare to is the CR123A-based LumaPower Dmini. Below are comparison shots to my Q2 version of the Dmini-D, both lights on AW protected Li-ion rechargeables (14500 for Jet-I PRO, RCR for Dmini-D)














As you can see, beam profile is remarkably similar to the Dmini. 

How well does it really throw in comparison? I’ll give you some lux @1m numbers in a minute, but I don’t think they tell the whole story. A picture is worth a thousand words ... here are some multiple-exposure beamshots of a "gremlin" at 50 feet in my basement.
















While not quite as bright as the Dmini-D Q2, you can see it does a much better job at 50 feet than the more general-purpose NiteCore DI does.

*Beam Tint:*

Although the beam is fairly white on Hi (only slightly warm), there is a noticeable beam tint shift on the Med and Lo modes into the “pinkish” tones. *I would estimate tint as a good WG/WH on Hi, WJ or a good WQ on Med, and definitely WQ on Low.*

Although I’ve seen such tint shifts before, it’s usually far more subtle on Crees. I’ve checked with JetBeam, and they suggest the “silver” versions of the Crees are more likely to show this tint shift. I think we need to wait until more samples are out into other people’s hands to draw a conclusion. The effect is not overly distracting, but it is noticeable when changing modes (especially from Med to Hi).

*Summary Chart:*










Again, I think the Dmini is really a better comparator for the Jet-I Pro than any of the other 1AA lights.

For an alternate way to compare output, here are the results of a "ceiling-bounce" test in a small windowless room, with my light meter on the floor near the base of the light (which is shining upward in candle-mode), all on 2650mAh NiMH:

Jet-I PRO (R2): 5.1 lux
NiteCore DI (Q5) Shipping: 4.8 lux
NiteCore DI (Q5) Pre-Production: 5.1 lux
L1DCE (Q5): 4.1 lux

So despite the fact that my milk carton lightbox shows initial overall output is the same between the Jet-I PRO and NiteCore DI, the ceiling bounce shows a slight advantage to the Jet-I PRO. Note, however, that there is no difference compared to my pre-production NiteCore DI. 

*Runtimes:* 














































*Output/runtime observations:*


Maximum output on the Jet-I PRO is comparable to the NiteCore DI on all battery types. :thumbsup: Runtimes are also comparable, except on alkaline where the Jet-I PRO underperforms somewhat.
Med and Lo output levels of the Jet-I PRO are slightly higher than Fenix L1D or Dmini, but not by much. Runtime is typically inferior to the other 1AA lights, however.
Regulation is very good on all rechargeable battery types. Like the NiteCore DI, it’s clear that this light was designed to excel on rechargeables (NiMH and Li-ion). 
Runtime on alkaline is very poor at all levels, compared to other 1AA lights (especially on Lo).
Runtime on Energizer e2 lithiums is also lower than other lights.

*Preliminary conclusions:*

Excellent maximum output and throw on all battery types. This is the best throwing 1AA light I have ever tested. :thumbsup: 
Runtimes on Hi are excellent on rechargeable battery types, considering the output.
Output and runtime on 14500 is very good, with output somewhat brighter than regular batteries (although not the brightest I’ve seen – on 14500, Fenix and JetBeam models are brighter, but shorter lasting). 
Regulated output on rechargeable battery types in all output modes is very good (e.g. unlike Fenix or earlier JetBeam lights on 14500, where you loose low modes)
Efficiency on Med-Lo mode is significantly lower than the competition. Further, there’s an issue with 14500 on Med having both lower output and lower runtime than Hi - this needs to be fixed.
_*EDIT:* JetBeam has informed me that they plan to fix the Med-14500 issue for the next batch of lights._
Runtimes on alkaline are very poor compared to the competition in 1AA format (especially on Lo). Similarly, there is lower runtime on Energizer e2 lithium (L91) compared to the competition.
Output levels of Med-Lo should both be reduced from current levels.
Tint shifting between modes is a potential issue that needs to be explored further.
The user interface is vastly improved over earlier JetBeam models.
Build quality on my sample is very high, best I’ve seen from JetBeam so far. Only complaint is the tailcap spring - seems to be under a lot of pressure with longer batteries (e.g. protected 14500), and I've had a few instances now of it getting pinched to one side when changing batteries (i.e. part of spring seems to get temporarily caught under the plastic switch retaining ring). No real problem so far, but I suspect this is the weakest link in the light for long-term use.

A final comment: there’s been some backlash about the output levels on Med-Lo for this light, and their relatively poor efficiency. I agree efficiency definitely needs to be improved, and I personally like a lower low mode. But it’s important to note that the Jet-I Pro is designed to be a thrower, and its output levels are not that far off from the classic pocket thrower: the Dmini-D. 

IMO, this light is a step in the right direction for a 1AA thrower. However, it could use a lowering of output levels in Med-Lo, and more importantly it needs an improvement in efficiency on lower modes. Oh, and a tailcap lock-out feature would be nice.


----------



## mayo (Feb 1, 2008)

*Re: JetBeam JET-I PRO (Cree R2) Review: Beamshots, Runtimes, and more!*

Wow, thanks for a wonderful review. This light intriques me. I read in a post that 10 minutes on high is all that is recommended, can anyone confirm that? My only big holdup is JetBeam's problems in the past, and the lack of good communication in the threads from JetBeam.


----------



## RGB_LED (Feb 1, 2008)

Selfbuilt, as usual, that is a great review. Great overview, accompanying pics gives a good view of the light. I like the fact you give details of the actual light and its functions, the follow it up with your observations and comments. Very thorough. :goodjob:

I was initially skeptical about the initial specs of the Jet-I Pro using the Cree R2 but your lux readings really opens my eyes. I thought the NiteCore was impressive but the numbers seem to support the Jet-I Pro as the thrower for 1xAA / 1x14500 lights. Just wondering, did JetBean provide any insight on why the high had such great regulation but the medium setting is so poor? Very strange.

It's too bad that I jumped on the bandwagon a little early and picked up both the CLE-V2, MII-R and Jet II as this light appears to beat them all in terms of output / runtimes.

Thanks again for your great review.


----------



## WadeF (Feb 1, 2008)

Great review as always Selfbuilt! Still waiting on my Jet-I Pro. Disappointed to see it isn't beating the Nitecore DI in overall output. Nitecore claimed 180-190 lumens, and Jetbeam claimed 240 lumens. I don't think the Nitecore is anywhere near 180-190 lumens at the emitter, and I guess the Jetbeam is even farther off the mark of the claimed 240 lumens... 

Looks like a good pocket thrower though.  

It's supposed to be a R2 WC tint right? I'm curious to see how mine performs with the different Cree process (silver) compared with my other Crees.

From all the data you gathered it looks like the Nitecore is the better light over all, as far as a more useful beam for EDC, better run times on the lower modes, etc. Shame there is a problem with the Jet I Pro with medium, seems like a defect to me. I wonder if they will send out replacement light engines to fix the problem.


----------



## magic_elf (Feb 2, 2008)

So I suppose that confirms the findings regarding the medium mode?


----------



## nekomane (Feb 2, 2008)

:wow: Thank you for the very thorough review. Excellent! :bow:


----------



## psyrens (Feb 2, 2008)

This light looks pretty promising.
Jetbeam, please fix medim and low mode and make me buy your product.


----------



## AFAustin (Feb 2, 2008)

Thanks, selfbuilt, for your excellent review, charts, beamshots, etc. Your reviews are setting a new standard for CPF, and I very much appreciate all the professional quality work you put into them. :thumbsup:


----------



## SaVaGe (Feb 2, 2008)

Thanks for a great review!

Maybe its just me but, the way a company ships, packs, and makes a box for their product tells me on how much they care about their business and how much pride they have on their product. (just my opinion)


----------



## LED_Thrift (Feb 2, 2008)

AFAustin said:


> Thanks, selfbuilt, for your excellent review, charts, beamshots, etc. Your reviews are setting a new standard for CPF, and I very much appreciate all the professional quality work you put into them. :thumbsup:


Yeah, what he said. 


Thanks for the wonderful review.


----------



## f22shift (Feb 2, 2008)

i read this review over and over again. glad i caught this before sleep. what a good bedtime story :thumbsup:

anywho, any measurements of what it's pulling on each mode at the battery? there was some weird measurements on a chinese website pointed out from another thrread. like 2.4a on high..err

they should just dump the med mode. i do agree that the NI seems to be a better overall light. perhaps with a r2 in it, it can surpass the jb.

the saga continues.. so much drama in the flashlight world


----------



## Dogshund (Feb 2, 2008)

:twothumbs WOW!! Great review! Mine is in the post. Looking forward to the post man knocking on my door!  

Got in early for the cheap sale on ebay!


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 2, 2008)

:naughty:


Dogshund said:


> :twothumbs WOW!! Great review! Mine is in the post. Looking forward to the post man knocking on my door!
> Got in early for the cheap sale on ebay!


Yes, a great review, thank you too. :twothumbs
The medium-mode must be a j(etbeam)oke. It seems, JETBeam does not beta-test their flashlights. How is this possible??? :naughty:
But I'm in for $62, too.


----------



## illmatic (Feb 2, 2008)

Excellent Review as always!


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Feb 2, 2008)

Thanks for the pics.

Ouch that runtime vs output on medium and low are just killing the light. 
Oh well saves me some money.


----------



## jirik_cz (Feb 2, 2008)

Great review, thanks! :twothumbs

One question for Jetbeam: Where is the 240 lumens?


----------



## red_robby (Feb 2, 2008)

Thank you for the great review, guess I'll wait for the next version (if it ever comes) cause this one is just not making the cut...especially with the current price tag.


----------



## Jarzaa (Feb 2, 2008)

Again one exellent review!

That is unbelievably bad performance at medium and low levels. Shows exactly why PWM dimming should not be used.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 2, 2008)

Jarzaa said:


> Shows exactly why PWM dimming should not be used.


What is the technical problem with PWM? :thinking:


----------



## Jarzaa (Feb 2, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> What is the technical problem with PWM? :thinking:



Swithed-mode DC-DC converters dont like being switched on and off hundreds or thousands times per second. It decreases their efficiency. Some converters are more effected by this more than others.


----------



## BillMPL (Feb 2, 2008)

AFAustin said:


> Thanks, selfbuilt, for your excellent review, charts, beamshots, etc. Your reviews are setting a new standard for CPF, and I very much appreciate all the professional quality work you put into them. :thumbsup:


I too, couldn't agree more! Unbelievably thorough report. Thank you for all your time and effort. :twothumbs

Looking over the charts, it makes me even happier with my L1D Q5. 



Bill


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Feb 2, 2008)

Jarzaa said:


> Swithed-mode DC-DC converters dont like being switched on and off hundreds or thousands times per second. It decreases their efficiency. Some converters are more effected by this more than others.


And that is not the whole story - there's also the factor that since PWM drives the light at max current for short bursts, the efficiency of the LED is the high-current efficiency. Which is roughly a factor of two worse at 700mA than at 100mA. 

There are benefits to using PWMs - freely selectable levels (at least for the manufacturers) and constant tint. But efficiency isn't one of them. Using PWM the JetBeam should have roughly equal area under its output vs. runtime graphs. It doesn't, the low modes have some additional problem that lowers efficiency even more. 

The Pro-I is a one trick pony. It's a nice trick, it's a good looking pony, but....

Nice review, btw. I trust Selfbuilts integrity and consistent methodology.


----------



## machoamigo (Feb 2, 2008)

I always noticed one thing about all the Chinese manufacturers, its the lumen rating, they always hype their lights ratings. I guess they are only trying to sell their products claiming high outouts.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Feb 2, 2008)

Great review and it answers a lot of questions for me.
I use 1 or 2AA lights on my bicycle helmet (2AA in the winter, 1AA in the summer) For road riding, the setup works well with my L1D/L2D RB100. 
The next step is night mountain biking and things get a little more complicated. Two L2D Q5's on the bars and a 1AA light on the helmet. The 1AA has to be a thrower with a bright hotspot so not get drowned out by two L2D Q5's. I don't want the brightness of the two bar lights to not make me able to see the spot of the helmet light when looking around corners. 
Great job to Jetbeam for making a 1AA light with a larger reflector, major output/heat sinking and the intense spot that will work for me. :thumbsup: 
Now if they made medium have twice the runtime, I would be ordering some of them. Now to wait for the Jet-I Pro V2.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 2, 2008)

EntropyQ3 said:


> And that is not the whole story - there's also the factor that since PWM drives the light at max current for short bursts, the efficiency of the LED is the high-current efficiency. Which is roughly a factor of two worse at 700mA than at 100mA.


Which method is Fenix using (L2D, P1D ...)?


----------



## I came to the light... (Feb 2, 2008)

machoamigo said:


> I always noticed one thing about all the Chinese manufacturers, its the lumen rating, they always hype their lights ratings. I guess they are only trying to sell their products claiming high outouts.


 
Hey, it's hard to measure up to Surefire and Pelican's truthfull ratings 
JETBeam's the worst of that crowd... but there are some good ones; Dereelight doesn't even claim output levels, and they have quite a bit they could brag about. 

Thanks a ton for the review. Amazingly helpful to clarify what exactly this light is... I'd be in for one for sure if only they'd fix the low and medium modes! And maybe the beam pattern... but that might ruin the point of this pocket thrower.


----------



## Steve L (Feb 2, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> Which method is Fenix using (L2D, P1D ...)?


Fenix lights are current controlled. They do use PWM on the LOD because of size.


----------



## Steve L (Feb 2, 2008)

Most light makers look at the output chart put out by the LED manufacturers and quote emitter lumens. The problem seems to be some are changing the amount of current(pre-release spec) supplied to the LED(EX: lowering current because of runtime), but not changing the lumen rating(pre-release spec).


----------



## Bernhard (Feb 2, 2008)

Yes, bring on Jet-I Pro V2 please...


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 2, 2008)

Another disappointing JetBeam product.  Frankly I'm not surprised. :sigh:

They burned me on the JetBeam C-LE v1.0 (which I bought on their hollow claims before there were reviews out), and I see they're still up to their old tricks.  At least I learned my lesson the first time around. :laughing:


----------



## Lite_me (Feb 2, 2008)

Stereodude said:


> Another disappointing JetBeam product.  Frankly I'm not surprised. :sigh:
> 
> * They burned me on the JetBeam C-LE v1.0 (which I bought on their hollow claims before there were reviews out)*, and I see they're still up to their old tricks.  At least I learned my lesson the first time around. :laughing:


 That's a bummer. I bought the C-LE v1.2 and absolutely love it! I also have a v2.0 and I think it's great also.


----------



## chimo (Feb 2, 2008)

Your review is very well done. Good stuff!


----------



## Vikas Sontakke (Feb 2, 2008)

14500 Medium vs High is very interesting
With the medium, you get less light for shorter duration. What a bargain!!!

- Vikas


----------



## Tubor (Feb 2, 2008)

Fantastic review selfbuilt and graphs thanks for the info. :thumbsup: Funny circuit IMO, but pretty good looking.


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 2, 2008)

Wow, that review certainly generated a lot of interest! 

Thanks for all the support everyone :grouphug: ... it was a bit of marathon session getting everything done. 

I can't cover all the excellent points raised in detail, but I'll make a few general responses.

*Output vs other lights:*
As I discovered with the R2 that came with my DBS V2, throw and output didn't exceed a Q5 (in fact, after the first few minutes on the DI circuit, it matched output and runtime of my Q4). It seems to be similar here - those expecting a big bump from Q5 are going to be disappointed, it seems.

That being said, my milk carton lightbox may not be the best for capturing overall output differences. The light is currently undergoing runtimes, but I'll do some ceiling bounce tests and add to the results later.
*
Output vs. previous JetBeams:*
I'm just speculating here, but it seems to me the early Cree/SSC JBs were way over-driven (e.g. MkIIX, Jet-µ) likely leading to thermal managment issues and potential warranty claims. My MkIIX (with Cree P4) remains one of the brightest llights I've seen on 14500 - but its direct-driven and runtimes are <30 mins. Plus it gets super-hot! Similar heat issues on my Jet-µ.

The C-LE is a special case, since it was poorly heatsinked to start with, and was always intended as budget light (both contributing to its lower output, I suspect). Still a great light for the price, I may add ... 

The second batch of JetBeam lights (MkIIR, Jet-II) instead opted for extended runtime and lower maximum output. Obviously, people weren't happy with that decision in premium-priced lights.

So along comes the Jet-I, and JB takes a very similar approach as EDGETAC and goes for max output on NiMH/alkaline, and reasonable regulated output on 14500. I think that was an excellent decision, by both makers. :thumbsup:

*PWM vs current-controlled:*
Readers of my reviews will notice that nothing beats Fenix' current-controlled output/runtime efficiency when it comes to low modes. But PWM can still do quite well (depending on a number of variables, as some have pointed out). I don't think the problem here is PWM per se .... but something is definitely off in the circuit design to produce those odd Med 14500 results. 

*Alkaline runtimes:*
Just added some graphs, and things don't look too good for runtime efficiency on alkaline.  

I don't normally do this, but I'm currently running Energizer e2 L91 lithiums, to see how they do at the various modes. I'll keep you posted!

P.S.: As I said in the review, I think it's appropriate to also compare this light to pocket throwers like the D-mini. In that regard, it's pretty impressive for 1AA ...

:wave:


----------



## JCup (Feb 2, 2008)

Well, I have one on the way - but the review does reveal (or confirm) some issues.

Doesn't this tell us that for throw, this AA powered light is best compared to CR123 competitors, and that it is very nicely made?

I considered getting a Nightcore, but they don't seem to be available for sale, so in a way comparisons to other proto run products are less meaningful.

All in all, looks like the Fenix 1 AA solution may be the best choice (I really like my L2D CE Q5).

Thank you, Selfbuilt. Nice work!


----------



## WadeF (Feb 2, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> *:*
> As I discovered with the R2 that came with my DBS V2, throw and output didn't exceed a Q5 (in fact, after the first few minutes on the DI circuit, it matched output and runtime of my Q4). It seems to be similar here - those expecting a big bump from Q5 are going to be disappointed, it seems.
> :wave:


 
I don't think this is an R2 issue, but an issue with the driver powering the R2. You are comparing a R2 DI to a Q4 3SD (or whatever) which are using different drivers, etc. 

A R2 should exceed the output of a Q5 if all things are equal. I have a R2 3SD and a Q5 3SD, and the R2 3SD easily out performs the Q5 3SD. My R2 DI doesn't perform as well as the R2 3SD, so the DI circuit doesn't seem to be performing that well, not the R2.


----------



## LG&M (Feb 2, 2008)

:thumbsup: Outstanding review selfbuilt. Thanks for all the work you do for us.


----------



## Steve L (Feb 2, 2008)

Wow selfbuilt, you really put alot of effort in your reviews!:thumbsup: Thanks. Hi Wade, that was my first thought. I have 2 3SD Q5 pills and they both outperform my 2 DI R2 pills. The only thing that makes sense is thet are not being driven as hard. I wish I would have bought a R2 3SD to compare to the DI's.


----------



## Dogshund (Feb 2, 2008)

I hope Jetbeam offers some upgrade pills in the future once they get the med-lo sorted out. Maybe an OP reflector also. 

You reading these posts Jetbeam?


----------



## WadeF (Feb 2, 2008)

Steve L said:


> Wow selfbuilt, you really put alot of effort in your reviews!:thumbsup: Thanks. Hi Wade, that was my first thought. I have 2 3SD Q5 pills and they both outperform my 2 DI R2 pills. The only thing that makes sense is thet are not being driven as hard. I wish I would have bought a R2 3SD to compare to the DI's.


 
On top of that I saw one guy saying his 1SD is brighter than his other 2SD or 3SD. So maybe the 1SD is the brightest of all and we should have all went with 1SD R2 WH pills.  

Next time Dereelight gets R2's I'm going to try a 1SD for the DBS and CL1H and play around. I wish I got a 3SD R2 WH for the CL1H. I went with a DI for the DBS and CL1H, and a 3SD for the DBS with the R2 WH's. 

Now I'm waiting for my Jet-I Pro to show up and see how it compares to my Nitecore.


----------



## magic_elf (Feb 2, 2008)

Are the runtime graphs plotted using actual output light measurements or current draw data?


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 2, 2008)

Just updated the main post with results of a "ceiling-bounce" test (on 2650mAh NiMH):

Jet-I PRO (R2): 5.1 lux
NiteCore DI (Q5) Shipping: 4.8 lux
NiteCore DI (Q5) Pre-Production: 5.1 lux
L1DCE (Q5): 4.1 lux

So despite the fact that my milk carton lightbox shows initial overall output is the same between the Jet-I PRO and NiteCore DI, the ceiling bounce shows a slight advantage to the Jet-I PRO. Note, however, that there is no difference compared to my pre-production NiteCore DI. 



WadeF said:


> A R2 should exceed the output of a Q5 if all things are equal. ... My R2 DI doesn't perform as well as the R2 3SD, so the DI circuit doesn't seem to be performing that well, not the R2.


Quite true. My DBS analogy is apples-and-oranges, given the different circuits involved (although the claim was made that all the new digital circuits were being driven at the higher 1.2A - this doesn't seem to be the case). 



magic_elf said:


> Are the runtime graphs plotted using actual output light measurements or current draw data?


Actual light output, using a milk carton lightbox "integrating sphere" and a datalogger. See Doug's excellent flashlightreviews.com for an overview of the method.


----------



## orbital (Feb 3, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> Just updated the main post with results of a "ceiling-bounce" test (on 2650mAh NiMH):
> 
> Jet-I PRO (R2): 5.1 lux
> NiteCore DI (Q5) Shipping: 4.8 lux
> ...



+

selfbuilt, your thoroughness is second to none. Thanks for all your work and time. 

I really like the ceiling bounce Lux test, this is truly the output!

~Thread on somewhat similar idea:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/187302

Obviously, a CL1H running at 1.2A will not have the Lux (standard test) of a DBS running at the same 1.2.
Same pill & overall output, different dispersion. 

I have a Romisen RC-G2 modded with a current Dereelight 3SD, and maybe because of its tint, its the brightest bounce test of all my lights...:devil:


----------



## Gaffle (Feb 3, 2008)

When I read about the Pro I started sweating. It was everything I wanted. NOT!! I can't believe the silly numbers of Med and Low. What the hell is Jetbeam thinking? If it is supposed to be a pocket rocket, which means that it should not have a descent Med/Low, then get rid of the Med/Low, slap in a forward clicky, and add "tactical" to the name! The brightness and runtimes of Med/Low actually make me laugh, talk about insipid. 

The Low setting of the Pro lasts just over 1 hour. *laughs*:sick2:



EDIT : How hard would it be for a company like Jetbeam to go with a current controlled circuit?


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 3, 2008)

I updated the main post with some additional runtime plots on a few of the graphs (just click the browser re-load button on the first page to get the most recent versions).

I'm afraid the runtimes on lower output modes are quite disappointing on standard alkaline, especially in comparison to other lights. Energizer e2 lithium (L91) runtimes seem a little lower than other lights (although of course much better than standard alkaline). I recommend running this light on rechargeable options preferentially.

Regardless of how you feel about the actual output levels (which admitedly could be lower), the circuit clearly needs some work in improving efficiency on lower modes.

EDIT: JetBeam informs me the identified issue on Med output on 14500 will be corrected for the next batch of lights. :thumbsup: Comments regarding lower output levels and efficiency are also being forwarded to their engineers ....


----------



## Patriot (Feb 4, 2008)

Fantastic review :thumbsup:

I like that it's brighter than the NDI

I like that it's smaller than the D-mini

I like the completely flat regulation on 14500 during high setting.


I don't like the medium and low run-time on 14500. Once they fix that it could be the new champion AA light.

Great beamshots also.

Thanks for your efforts.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 4, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> EDIT: JetBeam informs me the identified issue on Med output on 14500 will be corrected for the next batch of lights. :thumbsup: Comments regarding lower output levels and efficiency are also being forwarded to their engineers ....


*Selfbuilt*, if you are in contact with JetBeam, please ask them, if they will replace the bad regulation units of the first batch. From my point of view, it's their duty, because they give *lifetime warranty*.

Thank you in advance. :thumbsup:


----------



## merlocka (Feb 4, 2008)

Another round of cheers to SelfBuilt! The AA junkies' best friend on CPF!


----------



## Dogshund (Feb 4, 2008)

Yeah i would be up for a free pill upgrade when the new version comes out!


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 4, 2008)

Dogshund said:


> Yeah i would be up for a free pill upgrade when the new version comes out!


That's not gonna happen. They've already got your money. Good luck getting *anything* out of them.


----------



## Dogshund (Feb 4, 2008)

Yeah i know! Just wishful thinking! I do hope they offer upgrade pills in the future and also OP reflectors. The body is so damn sexy it would be a waste just to limit it to max output which is all i'll be using mine for at the moment.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 4, 2008)

Stereodude said:


> That's not gonna happen. They've already got your money. Good luck getting *anything* out of them.




Is "getting anything out of" Jetbeam a known difficult procedure? I mean, If they've made a mistake are they known for blowing of the customer?

I've never had to deal with Jetbeam about any quality issue and I've only owned one of their lights. I know they had quality issues in the past and greatly overstated performance of their lights. Do they also mistreat customers? I'm only asking because I'm clueless about their business ethics.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 4, 2008)

Stereodude said:


> That's not gonna happen. They've already got your money. Good luck getting *anything* out of them.


*What????* 

The runtime charts shows EXACTLY that here is something BIG wrong. JetBeam cannot give *lifetime warranty* and leave such problems unanswered!!! :thumbsdow

If they don't ship a corrected driver for free ("lifetime warrenty"), then *I WILL NEVER BUY A JETBEAM AGAIN*. 

I you buy a new Toyota and the engine sucks, Toyota gives you a new engine. That is called "warrenty". I can't believe that JetBeam have its own definition of "lifetime warrenty". If they don't help here, their "warrenty" is worthless and their name is in the dust. :sick2:


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 4, 2008)

Patriot36 said:


> Is "getting anything out of" Jetbeam a known difficult procedure? I mean, If they've made a mistake are they known for blowing of the customer?
> 
> I've never had to deal with Jetbeam about any quality issue and I've only owned one of their lights. I know they had quality issues in the past and greatly overstated performance of their lights. Do they also mistreat customers? I'm only asking because I'm clueless about their business ethics.


I guess I should preface my comments by saying I don't if they're known for blowing off the customer, but they way they conduct business would seem to suggest they will. They tried to shut down group buys on previous lights because the prices were too low. They went after an ebay seller cause he was selling the Jet-I Pro too cheaply. They overstate the output of their lights, make random changes to the specs, etc, etc, etc... :sick2:

Look at this current situation. One of two things is true. 1) They didn't know they had screwed the medium mode up because they didn't test the light, but shipped it anyway, or 2) They knew it was screwed and shipped it anyway. Neither option instills any confidence in me that they will step up to the plate and replace all the current lights. :thumbsdow


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 4, 2008)

Stereodude said:


> 1) They didn't know they had screwed the medium mode up because they didn't test the light, but shipped it anyway


*They didn't test the light??? Impossible! *


----------



## TITAN1833 (Feb 4, 2008)

Thanks Selfbuilt for a great review,sad run times though on a Field trip I would have to cart around a Kilo or two of AA batteries just for the weekend.:devil:

Next one? jetbeam:thinking:


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 4, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> *They didn't test the light??? Impossible! *


Anything is possible. The other option isn't much better. They're either incompetent (didn't test but shipped the lights out anyway) or they don't care (knew what they were shipping had problems, but shipped it anyway).


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 5, 2008)

Thanks for the support everyone - glad you are finding the review useful. 

On the issue of price, that is obviously a touchy subject for many. Not trying to defend any specific practice by any manufacturer, but it is not uncommon for makers to try to ensure their product is sold at a consistent price (often presented as a fairness issue among distributors, but obviously to also prevent price pressure). :shrug: This is also why I try to avoid the subject of relative value in my reviews ... 

On the issue of the circuit problems on Med on 14500, I did notice that JetBeam changed the specs for this light immediately prior to shipping, so it is quite possible they hadn't detected the problem in time. I would suggest that recipients of first generation Jet-I PRO lights who feel strongly about the matter contact JetBeam directly.

I wouldn't want to speculate on how they will handle this issue, but I would point out their communications are likely to the affected by the current lunar holiday (plus potentially some of the reason storms and power outages in China?). Have to wait and see.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 5, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> On the issue of the circuit problems on Med on 14500, I did notice that JetBeam changed the specs for this light immediately prior to shipping, so it is quite possible they hadn't detected the problem in time. I would suggest that recipients of first generation Jet-I PRO lights who feel strongly about the matter contact JetBeam directly.


*Selfbuilt, thank you very much for your great review, really good work! :thumbsup:*

But it is NOT right, that there is only a circuit problem on 14500s. The med runtime on *Enelope AA*s is also bad, have a look at LightReviews.info, the runtime difference between med and high should be _a lot_ higher -->

Low	03:32 to 50%
Medium	*01:14* to 50% :thumbsdow
High	*01:02* to 50%

Do you have the support email adress of JetBeam?


----------



## f22shift (Feb 5, 2008)

f22shift said:


> anywho, any measurements of what it's pulling on each mode at the battery?


 
i'm not sure if you missed this but any info on this?:naughty:


----------



## Patriot (Feb 5, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> I did notice that JetBeam changed the specs for this light immediately prior to shipping, so it is quite possible they hadn't detected the problem in time. I would suggest that recipients of first generation Jet-I PRO lights who feel strongly about the matter contact JetBeam directly.



In case I didn't thank you before Selfbuilt, this was a great review thank you. :thumbsup:

With regards to the info quoted above I think it's complete horse poop for them the adjust the specs and send the light out. It seems that Stereodude, CandleFranky and others are correct about the way they do things at JetBeam. I also did some research and learned of the manufacturer badgering that was mentioned. Unfortunately I don't foresee and JetBeam ownership in my future unless I hear of some big changes.


----------



## TITAN1833 (Feb 6, 2008)

It seems jetbeam are doing it all over again with the Jet1 PRO,sending out bad lights (internally) they did it with the JetII MK3 on this one under powered.

Then will come the cheeky bit,a V2 will be announced once all V1's are sold.This happened within one week of me getting my JetII MK3 V1 and there was no offer of a free LE upgrade.

The thing is they make great lights ,but they could be brilliant if they could get the electronics sorted out first time round IMO.

I guess if I buy Jetbeam in the future,I will wait for the V2's.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 6, 2008)

TITAN1833 said:


> I guess if I buy Jetbeam in the future,I will wait for the V2's.


I guess if they do not offer a free "repair", I will not buy any more lights from JetBeam, because I have to recognize that they are not serious with their "lifetime warrenty". :thumbsdow

Let's wait and see ...


----------



## redbird (Feb 6, 2008)

I just received an email from BOG that says mine is on the way. So, a lot of us here will be watching this very closely and reporting back for everyone to be in the loop.


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 6, 2008)

f22shift said:


> i'm not sure if you missed this but any info on this?:naughty:


I'm not ignoring you  - it's just that I don't normally give battery current draw data. Even on my DMM's 10A port, I've noticed that actual output can be affected, calling into question the accuracy of the data.

In this case of the Jet-I PRO, I know that if I hook up my DMM with NiMH I get slightly reduced out on low mode, and Med and Hi are basically the same (and both reduced from normal). So the current draw data would be misleading.

However, I have just verified with 14500, and I get the full expect output. So I think it's fair to report my 14500 battery current draw results (on 1A readout scale, leads on 10A port):
Lo: 0.23A
Med: 0.84A
Hi: 0.69A

Interesting result: the Med mode is pulling more current at the battery than HI, which is entirely consistent with the lower runtimes.


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 6, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> However, I have just verified with 14500, and I get the full expect output. So I think it's fair to report my 14500 current draw results:
> Lo: 2.3mA
> Med: 8.4mA
> Hi: 6.8mA


That can't possibly be correct. Those currents are way too low. They should be close to 1A on high.


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 6, 2008)

Stereodude said:


> That can't possibly be correct. Those currents are way too low. They should be close to 1A on high.


Sorry about that - DMM was off by a couple of decimal points on mA output scale for some reason. Re-ran on A output scale, and have re-posted the numbers in the post above.

Note however that these are only current draws taken at the battery. Emitter current draw should be close to 1A at the maximum, but that would require desoldering one of the leads to test at the emitter contacts.


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 6, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> Note however that these are only current draws taken at the battery. Emitter current draw should be close to 1A at the maximum, but that would require desoldering one of the leads to test at the emitter contacts.


Yes, but P=iV and the circuit isn't 100% efficient. If the Vf of the LED is 3.7V and you want 1A on the LED you'll need to pull about 1.1A from a battery at 4.2V because a buck-boost converter can't be more than about 80% efficient. My estimate is that the JET-I PRO has no more than 600mA on the emitter in high. (.69A*4.2V*80%/3.7V)


----------



## marc123 (Feb 6, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> I guess if they do not offer a free "repair", I will not buy any more lights from JetBeam, because I have to recognize that they are not serious with their "lifetime warrenty". :thumbsdow
> 
> Let's wait and see ...


 
Me too.


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 7, 2008)

For those wanting to compare runtimes to a wider range of 1AA lights, I've updated my current multi-stage 1AA review with the Jet-I PRO data:

Multi-stage 1AA Review - Part III: Runtimes, beamshots & more!


----------



## MiniLux (Feb 7, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> I guess if they do not offer a free "repair", I will not buy any more lights from JetBeam, because I have to recognize that they are not serious with their "lifetime warrenty". :thumbsdow
> 
> Let's wait and see ...


 
+1


----------



## JCup (Feb 10, 2008)

Thinking of what I might add to this concise and authoritative review is difficult, but here goes.

I received mine from BOG yesterday. It's very impressive. Compared it with several others for throw in pre-dawn comparo reaching out about 100 meters to a line of trees.

The Jet-1 has a tight beam, almost as bright at that reach as the Taskforce 2C. Beats the Romisen RC-F4 (2xCR123) easily, and within the beam pattern, brighter than the Fenix L2D Q5 (2xAA).

The low light level "throws" nicely for interior sweeps into corners and adjacent rooms. It's a bit brighter than you really need for most dark house tasks (where is that pair of black shoes in the back of the closet, are these socks black or blue?). The pattern has enough spill to fit those needs, though.

Selfbuilt's data indicate I can get 3+ hours use on low (and a pretty bright low) from one Eneloop. Wow. An hour of really strong output on high! Apparently the "medium" setting suffers from poor circuit design.

If this uses pulse width modulation, I cannot see or hear (if I put my Fenix L0D up to my ear it's obvious, a audible tone in the kHz range being the result in either low or medium. It must be very high frequency - above 20 kHz? My other test is to shine on an intermittent stream of water from the faucet, PWM strobing produces a very noticeable motion freezing. I see no evidence of PWM, either (?).

Materials, workmanship and finish are as good as any light I have seen. Nothing I can find to fault. I'd bet this will handle rough service and be quite reliable - I like the spring loading on both ends of the battery. The fit tolerances are great, and the square thread mating is near perfect.

The user interface is quite workable, and I like the "memory" feature a lot. Mine will likely be used mostly indoors, and stay in low. Easily bumps up to high with a couple of presses on the clicky.

Great pocket clip. Rides on my nylon mesh belt securely, and has a thin enough profile that is still feels fine in my hand. I'm leaving mine in place.

The lanyard is just OK, mainly because the metal attachment clip is just stamped spring/hook. Easily improved, though. You'd have thought for $80 they could provide a nice lobster claw/pivot. I don't figure to use it much. This light is easily pocketable in jeans.

The shelf packaging is a bit cheesy - they might as well have used a plastic clamshell (although some of those are pretty hateful). This is surprising because they have put some effort into the thin cardboard box, it even has magnets to hold the top closed - all the fiberboard is diecut and folded/tucked. BOG shipped mine a USPS priority box, and it arrived unhurt. Shipped in a padded envelope it would likely have been squashed as Selfbuilt's (very nice) photos indicate.

I'm very pleased, overall. The inefficient medium setting won't concern me, wouldn't have likely used it much anyway.

I doubt I will be buying many CR123's now even at a buck. High output and efficient LED's (thank you, Cree) combined with the Sanyo low discharge AA's and effective (well, 2/3) boost circuits yield a really nice package, and Jetbeam has put this together well.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 10, 2008)

JCup said:


> Thinking of what I might add to this concise and authoritative review is difficult, but here goes


Cup, thank you for these useful informations. :thanks:


----------



## Nake (Feb 10, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> Thanks for the support everyone - glad you are finding the review useful. .


 
I especially appreciate that you use a Quickbeam style lightbox, as I do. My figures for the lights you test are very close to yours. Very usefull for me when contemplating a light purchase. Thanks!


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 12, 2008)

JCup said:


> Thinking of what I might add to this concise and authoritative review is difficult, but here goes. ... High output and efficient LED's (thank you, Cree) combined with the Sanyo low discharge AA's and effective (well, 2/3) boost circuits yield a really nice package, and Jetbeam has put this together well.


Wow, thanks for excellent additional comments and observations. :thumbsup:

I agree completely, it's a nice light in its own right. Part of the problem is that suffers in terms of runtime compared to other AA lights. But as you point out, that may not matter to those running on rechargeables (thank you LSD technology!).



Nake said:


> I especially appreciate that you use a Quickbeam style lightbox, as I do. My figures for the lights you test are very close to yours. Very usefull for me when contemplating a light purchase. Thanks!


The poor man's low-tech integrating sphere. 

Seriously, while this is a useful tool, it also has its limitations. For one, positioning of the light is critical (I strive to be as consistent as possible in that regard). More significantly, I've noticed really bright lights and very strong throwers tend to be under-valued at their highest settings (i.e. the box reports less than I would expect). This is where I think a ceiling bounce test is probably more useful. 

Still, as long as you don't worry too much about the actual number and compare only relative differences, it is a pretty useful _ad hoc_ solution. We all owe Doug (Quickbeam) a continuing debt of gratitude for setting the standard. :bow:


----------



## Nake (Feb 12, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> .... I've noticed really bright lights and very strong throwers tend to be under-valued at their highest settings (i.e. the box reports less than I would expect).


 
I ran across this when testing the Fenix T1 and P3D Q5. Both showed about 170lm in my box. Chevrofreak's test showed about 200lm for both. Of course he has a better setup.


----------



## copperfox (Feb 12, 2008)

I think this is one of the best looking flashlights of all time. It's a shame it suffers from circuitry problems (read: poor design and/or testing) and that it has such a small, well-defined hotspot. Am I the only person who things such a small flashlight should be oriented to provide good illumination at short distances (read: floody beam) rather than long distances? Sheesh. If I want to see 100ft away at night, I'll use a bigger flashlight. A textured reflector would be a start.


----------



## psyrens (Feb 13, 2008)

In original post;

Efficiency on Med-Lo mode is significantly lower than the competition. Further, there’s an issue with 14500 on Med having both lower output and lower runtime than Hi - this needs to be fixed.
_*EDIT:* JetBeam has informed me that they plan to fix the Med-14500 issue for the next batch of lights._ 


I wonder if it apply for the current Jet pro in stock in BOG?
Can anyone recently ordered this light confirm it's fixed? ...:thinking:

I hope they also fixed weird performance on alkaline batteries.


----------



## WadeF (Feb 13, 2008)

I got my Jet-I Pro. Pretty neat light, shame about the poor circuit design (would ours be replaced under warranty with a new light engine?). You can focus it and get a floodier hot spot as opposed to a tight hot spot. It throws well for a light its size.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 13, 2008)

WadeF said:


> (would ours be replaced under warranty with a new light engine?)


Warranty is warranty. If they do not replace the light engine for free, they take their warranty not very serious. :shakehead


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 13, 2008)

WadeF said:


> IYou can focus it and get a floodier hot spot as opposed to a tight hot spot. It throws well for a light its size.


Thanks Wade, I forgot to mention this in the review. Yup, you can unscrew the portion of the head with the reflector, and defocus the hotspot somewhat. 

I wouldn't really call it floodier, since it doesn't affect much else but the peak hotspot shape and dimensions. For all my testing, I kept it fully focused for max throw.

:wave:


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 13, 2008)

*Today I've got my JetBeam JET-I PRO and I want to give you a first feedback:*

1) The lights are always smaller then expected. They seem to be so big on the photos and at least small in your hands. 

2) The JetBeam JET-I PRO is a real impressive mini-thrower for your pocket, but as expected, it is dim in the light of a Regalight WT1.

3) It looks stylish and feels good in your hand. The quality seems to be okay, but I would say the quality of a Fenix L1D is even better.

4) My JET-I PRO takes (rechargeable Eneloop) AA cells and 14500 Li-Ion cells from AW. But it does NOT take protected Ultrafire 14500 from Dealextreme, because they are definitly to long. 

5) The low mode is not ultra low, but it's okay. From light output, medium and high seems to be near to each other, which makes no sense.

Perhaps more later ...


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 14, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> 4) My JET-I PRO takes (rechargeable Eneloop) AA cells and 14500 Li-Ion cells from AW. But it does NOT take protected Ultrafire 14500 from Dealextreme, because they are definitly to long.


Thanks for the observations CandleFranky.

Interesting about the protected Ultrafire. I notice my protected AWs make it hard to screw the tailcap on all the way. This is common on most high-end JB lights that have a spring on the positive battery terminal in the head. Frankly, I suspect this is why they don't anodize the tailcap threads to allow lock-out - they need to leave some space for longer cells and still allow you to turn on the light.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 14, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> I notice my protected AWs make it hard to screw the tailcap on all the way.


I have brandnew 14500s from AW. They are a lot smaller then the Ultrafires and their size fits okay in the JET-I Pro, although the batterie sits very firm.


----------



## illmatic (Feb 15, 2008)

I'm having trouble removing the "light engine" portion from the body of the JET-I Pro. The part with the reflector screws off, but i can't unscrew the part with the pill. I want to take off the clip, but i need to remove the portion that holds the LED first. Any suggestions? Thanks


----------



## marc123 (Feb 15, 2008)

illmatic,
it sounds like one of the o-rings might be pinched. I had this same problem on mine, I just used some cotton clothing to get a better grip and it came undone.

I must say that this is a very very bright light for a single AA and it's output on high is much more than I was expecting. I do have some blemishes in my anodised finish and some of the lettering is not consistant in colour. I also a chip on the clip and a very ringy beam but overall I like this light. 

I think when Jetbeam fix the runtimes on med and low this will be the best AA out there. It is a good thrower but the beam is still very usful for general purpose work too. I just hope they offer a warrant replacement for the current emitter to reward those who supported Jetbeam with an early purchase. Fingers crossed....


----------



## Dogshund (Feb 15, 2008)

I agree with everything CandleFranky wrote in his description. This little light has great throw and looks fantastic! I never use med anyway so low and High is perfect. Low is not too low or too bright. I like it.

Its true, they always look alot bigger in the photos compared to when you unpack them! 

Medium doesn't bother me, longer Low runtimes would be handy but other than that, its great!! My finish it perfect all around.


----------



## TITAN1833 (Feb 15, 2008)

illmatic said:


> I'm having trouble removing the "light engine" portion from the body of the JET-I Pro. The part with the reflector screws off, but i can't unscrew the part with the pill. I want to take off the clip, but i need to remove the portion that holds the LED first. Any suggestions? Thanks


use two rubber mouse matts,aids the grip.:twothumbs


----------



## illmatic (Feb 16, 2008)

thanks for the suggestions guys...tried using rubber grips and pliers...still won't even budge...ha3 is taking a beating from the friction from the clip now...really stumped as to how to get this thing off...two other people tried to help and it just won't budge...any other ideas =(


----------



## f22shift (Feb 16, 2008)

illmatic said:


> thanks for the suggestions guys...tried using rubber grips and pliers...still won't even budge...ha3 is taking a beating from the friction from the clip now...really stumped as to how to get this thing off...two other people tried to help and it just won't budge...any other ideas =(


 
give it to me? 


you could try to boil the flashlight to loosen the glue or use a hot iron to heat up the body. stuff like that.


----------



## Dog Chaser (Feb 16, 2008)

Thanks for the great review Selfbuilt. A couple of people have mentioned the rings in the beam. The light is bright, but there were way too many artifacts for my liking. As a result, I did some work on the reflector. I painted some glass etching paste to the inside of the reflector and let it sit for a while. After washing the paste out, the reflective layer pealed right off. Now the hotspot remains very bright, but gradually flows into a fantastic flood. Best of all there are no artifacts. It does cut down on the throw a bit, but I would never go back to the smooth reflector... not that I could. Try it, you'll like it.


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 17, 2008)

illmatic said:


> thanks for the suggestions guys...tried using rubber grips and pliers...still won't even budge...ha3 is taking a beating from the friction from the clip now...really stumped as to how to get this thing off...two other people tried to help and it just won't budge...any other ideas =(


That is odd, as mine came apart quite easily (no glue or loctite). On some loctited lights I've had reasonably good success with rubber strap wrenches (often in combination with my table-top vice with rubber grips). But there have been cases where I just had to give up. :shakehead

Sorry to hear your troubles - it's tough to know what else to try beyond the other suggestions made here. Even with great care, it can be pretty easy to mar the finish with more agressive measures.



Dog Chaser said:


> Thanks for the great review Selfbuilt. A couple of people have mentioned the rings in the beam. ... does cut down on the throw a bit, but I would never go back to the smooth reflector... not that I could. Try it, you'll like it.


Interesting method. I've experimented with "sputtering" reflectors with high gloss clear acrylic, and it can work fairly well with only a small loss of output.

But personally, rings don't bother me, and I like a nice defined hotspot on my throwers (textured ones tend to reduce the "spotlight" effect of the hotspot). Textured reflectors are nice on indoor-use lights, but I personally prefer smooth reflectors on outdoor throwers. To each his own ...


----------



## TITAN1833 (Feb 17, 2008)

@illmatic,I Had this problem with a spear,although I removed the LE and submerged the head part in boiling water for about 2mins..hey presto! if you can trust the water-proofing give it a go.


----------



## HEY HEY ITS HENDO (Feb 17, 2008)

........ or seal in a plastic bag first! :thumbsup:


----------



## MarNav1 (Feb 17, 2008)

SaVaGe said:


> Thanks for a great review!
> 
> Maybe its just me but, the way a company ships, packs, and makes a box for their product tells me on how much they care about their business and how much pride they have on their product. (just my opinion)


Excellent review! And no it's not just you. When you receive an item in a half crushed box that's not a good deal. Combined with what I consider to be mediocre runtimes this is a no go for me. I'll wait and see what kind of fixes Jet comes up with. My C-LE V2 light was a foul ball as well so I'm waiting on this one. :thumbsdow


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 18, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> *Today I've got my JetBeam JET-I PRO and I want to give you a first feedback:*
> 
> ... 4) My JET-I PRO takes (rechargeable Eneloop) AA cells and 14500 Li-Ion cells from AW. But it does NOT take protected Ultrafire 14500 from Dealextreme, because they are definitly to long.  ...


Okay, here I am again, now with experiences after a week of using -->

The 14500 Li-Ion cells from AW fit, but however seems a little bit to big for the JET-I pro. Depending on how tight I screw the tailcap on the body, I get contact problems which means no light in one position. This is no big problem, but I would expect more from a $80 flashlight. 

In addition, the "-" metal from my brandnew 14500 cell is scratched heavily from the Jet-I Pro Spring. The Eneloops fits better.


----------



## WadeF (Feb 18, 2008)

CandleFranky, are the guts of the tailcap screwed down far enough? If you adjust them you have to be careful because the retaining ring is plastic, so don't force it or over tigthen it.  

I know I still need to get up CL1H beam shots, but it's been raining here the past couple nights.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 18, 2008)

WadeF said:


> CandleFranky, are the guts of the tailcap screwed down far enough?


Yes, it's already very tight. No big deal, because AW 14500 fits and Eneloops fits perfect.



WadeF said:


> I know I still need to get up CL1H beam shots, but it's been raining here the past couple nights.


WadeF, where is your problem, because Dereelights are waterproof. :laughing:


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 18, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> WadeF, where is your problem, because Dereelights are waterproof. :laughing:


Yes, but what makes you think his camera is also waterproof?


----------



## TITAN1833 (Feb 18, 2008)

Stereodude said:


> Yes, but what makes you think his camera is also waterproof?


Well he could put it in a sealed bag!!


----------



## illmatic (Feb 19, 2008)

Thanks for the tips guys!


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 20, 2008)

Updated main post with some additional comments on the tailcap spring.

As noted previously, fit is pretty tight - especially with protected 14500 in there. I've had a couple of instances now of the tailcap spring getting pinched to one side while changing batteries (and staying crooked until I straightened it out). Issue seems to be part of the spring getting caught under the plastic switch retaining ring, and not "popping" back out fully when pressure is released.

No real problem so far, but I could see this being the weakest part of the light on long-term use. Note that the same issue also applies to the C-LE and MkII series lights, as they seem to use the same tailcap design.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 20, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> As noted previously, fit is pretty tight - especially with protected 14500 in there. ... No real problem so far, but I could see this being the weakest part of the light on long-term use.


Yessss, exactly --> the predetermined breaking point! :mecry:
Better use Eneloops.


----------



## Dogshund (Feb 20, 2008)

I dont have any problems with mine, yet! I'm using AW 14500 and it needs a few good turns of the tail cap until its screwed down as far as it will go. No bent spring issues either. I'll keep you updated if there is any change.


----------



## marc123 (Feb 21, 2008)

I am using a AW 14500 with no problems as well.


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 21, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> Yessss, exactly --> the predetermined breaking point! :mecry:


I don't know if I would go that far. It could be the spring would last forever, but I thought I should report the observation of it getting partially "stuck" under the retaining ring. My worry is just that this could be a weak point long-term (i.e. could "getting stuck" wind up applying stress to the spring attachment point?). It's something that should probably be watched closely as time goes by.

This is also not a unique 14500 problem either - the same issue has occurred with NiMH in there as well. It just seems have occurred more often with my 14500s, making me think it's likely due to the increase pressure on the spring. Have to wait and see if its ultimately an issue ...


----------



## Kid9P (Feb 21, 2008)

Got my Jet 1 Pro from BugOutGear today.

I am VERY impressed with the quality and build of this light. Anno is perfect, no imperfections. Threads are smooth, reflector and lens are clean and dust free.

My AW 14500's from Lighthound fit perfectly, no trouble screwing on the tailcap.

This thing is a pocket rocket for sure. Has amazing throw and a nice round hotspot similar to the Olights. It beat my Olight T10 in throw.

For those of you that are familiar with the Q5 drop in by BOG, this is - in my opinion - is a pocket version of it, high is that good. Low still provides a good amount of light. Knowing that low can go for 2hrs 35min on my AW's, thats just comforting to me.

I know there is an issue regarding regarding runtime on medium. I am more than content with the high and low on this light, but then again, that's just me.

Highly Recommend this little guy!


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 22, 2008)

Kid9P said:


> I am more than content with the high and low on this light, but then again, that's just me. Highly Recommend this little guy!


It's NOT just you. After weeks of using, I like it more and more. Only the scratches on the "-" of the AW 14500 cells are awful.
This will be "the most sexiest flashlight of 2008". :thumbsup:


----------



## Kid9P (Feb 24, 2008)

I have a grinder at work. After noticing a few scratches on the bottom of my AW 14500, I grinded down the sharp corner of the spring...presto!!
No more scratches, took only a few seconds to do.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 24, 2008)

Kid9P said:


> I have a grinder at work. After noticing a few scratches on the bottom of my AW 14500, I grinded down the sharp corner of the spring...presto!! No more scratches, took only a few seconds to do.


JetBeam should have done this task in China. :thumbsdow

I use Eneloops now, they have a far more rugged bottom the AW 14500s. I might loose 500 lumens in the spot and a little bit runtime, but this is no big problem for me. Btw, I have replaced this ugly orange push button against the black one. :twothumbs


----------



## TITAN1833 (Feb 24, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> I might loose 500 lumens in the spot and a little bit runtime, but this is no big problem for me.


 thats a lot of lumen loss there :devil: I would stick with the 14500, if I were you :laughing:


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 24, 2008)

TITAN1833 said:


> thats a lot of lumen loss there :devil: I would stick with the 14500, if I were you :laughing:


No problem, this life is the hardest thing I have ever done. :laughing:


----------



## BentHeadTX (Feb 24, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> No problem, this life is the hardest thing I have ever done. :laughing:



Ahhhhhh!
A great "notable quotable" is passed on to me. 2008 is the year of the LiteFlux LF2X and the JET-I PRO... although the LF2X will keep me occupied long enough for the JET-I PRO to go version 2 (I need 2 hours of medium runtime please!) Good things come to those that wait so maybe Version 2 will have an R4 Cree... hey, it can happen! 2 years ago the idea of a single AA single LED light punching over 100 lumens at the LED was fantasy... bring on V2!


----------



## Albinoni (Feb 25, 2008)

This is light is one hell of a nice light but its got its up and downs (like most lights) and one big factor being its Med/Low runtimes. If this light is meant to be a thrower (as claimed) than Jetbeam should rid this med/low business and use it purely as a thrower, a forward clikie and a OP reflector. Quite surprisingly its younger brother the Jetbeam MKIIR has a OP reflector but the Jet 1 Pro hasnt.

Overall I'm sure its build quality is very good and up there with the more expensive counterparts and also produces a very good beam/throw.

If I were Jetbeam and I had to go back and re-engineer this torch this is how I would do it:

1. Use and OP reflector
2 Have a slightly fatter body to use 2xCR123A batts inc rechargeable type.
3. Use a forward tactical clickie
4. Use the best Cree LED possible
5. Get rid of the Low/Med mode and use only the one mode.

At the end of the day thankyou Selfbuilt for an excellent review and and a job well done. I hope to read more Jetbeam reviews or any reviews from you in the future.

Well done


----------



## Patriot (Feb 25, 2008)

Any update about what Jetbeam is going to do about the circuitry issue?


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 25, 2008)

BentHeadTX said:


> Good things come to those that wait so maybe Version 2 will have an R4 Cree


400 lumens from an AA flashlight, yeah! :thumbsup:


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Feb 25, 2008)

I sure hope Jetbeam makes a V2 with a really low long runtime low. I personally don't care much about medium but it isn't a bad thing at all... so long as it um has longer runtime than the high. :sigh:


Now what I'd really like to see is a forward clickie.


----------



## CandleFranky (Feb 25, 2008)

PhantomPhoton said:


> I sure hope Jetbeam makes a V2 with a really low long runtime low.


1 lumen? :thumbsup:


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 25, 2008)

PhantomPhoton said:


> I sure hope Jetbeam makes a V2 with a really low long runtime low. ... Now what I'd really like to see is a forward clickie.


It's interesting, I'm typically a big fan of lower low modes and I'm not that much of a forward clicky freak (on most lights, I don't think a reverse clicky is a problem at all). 

But I must admit, I find myself wishing there was a forward clicky on this light (like my D-miniD). Something about using a thrower that just wants a momentary on feature.  

At the same time, lack of the lower low mode doesn't really bother me on any of my throwers (I never use the really low mode on my RaidFire Spear, for ex.). A greater concern to me is better battery efficiency on "medium-low" modes, so that I can get a good compromise of throw and runtime if I need it in the woods.

I guess I just carry too many different lights with me! 



Albinoni said:


> If this light is meant to be a thrower (as claimed) than Jetbeam should rid this med/low business and use it purely as a thrower, a forward clikie and a OP reflector.


I'm curious, why do you think an OP reflector would help? For me, a slight OP is fine on general purpose Cree or Rebel-based lights (to help smooth out the rings/artifacts), but I prefer SMO for all my throwers. I've tested out a few OP reflectors on my throwers (e.g. MRV, Regal), and always revert back to smooth for actual outdoor use.

Of course, I may be biased here - I generally prefer SMO in most cases anyway. But it seems to me it is the most appropriate for a thrower.


----------



## nanotech17 (Feb 25, 2008)

I refocused both my JB MK3 and Jet 1 Pro and the results are nice - less rings

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2373783#post2373783


----------



## Dogshund (Feb 26, 2008)

Hey Nano, that looks great! How did you do that exactly?


----------



## nanotech17 (Feb 26, 2008)

Dogshund said:


> Hey Nano, that looks great! How did you do that exactly?



As for the JB MK3 just twist the bezel upward and adjust the silver ring located just below the bezel.
As for the Jet 1 Pro replace the o-ring on the bezel with a slightly bigger one and adjust the bezel according to your likes.
Nice & easy


----------



## Dogshund (Feb 26, 2008)

Thanks mate! It will be on the Jet 1 pro. Will have to try and find some thicker o-rings.


----------



## T4R06 (Feb 29, 2008)

got mine today, the light is incredible. im on 35mins AW 14500 but the light is just warm
this is my 1st R2 light and im impressed.

i noticed that on low i hear some hissing sound. medium and high no problem.
is this normal?

all in all its a great light.
good job jetbeam, thanks BOG for a fast shipping.


----------



## Dogshund (Feb 29, 2008)

yeah mine has a slight noise on low but can only be heard if you really listen and its a quiet room. med and high is fine but never use med anyway.


----------



## Patriot (Mar 1, 2008)

CandleFranky said:


> 400 lumens from an AA flashlight, yeah! :thumbsup:



I'm not sure that the R4 will be 400 lumens....but I may have missed something...


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 1, 2008)

T4R06 said:


> i noticed that on low i hear some hissing sound. medium and high no problem.
> is this normal?


That's not uncommon - the electronics on a lot of circuits tend to generate a faint whine or hiss on low modes.

I don't hear it on my sample, except for when the memory mode "flash" kicks in on low or medium (a brief low whine is audible with the flash).

Don't worry about, it's not a problem.


----------



## magic_elf (Mar 1, 2008)

Any reason why these other lights emit such sounds but the Fenix P3D for example, dont?


----------



## psyrens (Mar 2, 2008)

T4R06 said:


> got mine today, the light is incredible. im on 35mins AW 14500 but the light is just warm
> this is my 1st R2 light and im impressed.
> 
> i noticed that on low i hear some hissing sound. medium and high no problem.
> ...


 
So... it's SED (Sound Emitting Diode)??


----------



## CandleFranky (Mar 2, 2008)

magic_elf said:


> Any reason why these other lights emit such sounds but the Fenix P3D for example, dont?


Because Fenix have the best drivers, you can just say "it's a Fenix". :thumbsup:


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 2, 2008)

magic_elf said:


> Any reason why these other lights emit such sounds but the Fenix P3D for example, dont?


Someone more familiar with LED electronics would have to answer that, but I've noticed it is far more common on lights that use PWM for lower output modes. Except for the 1AA multi-stage lights, Fenix uses current-controlled drivers (which also happen to be among the most efficient out there)

That being said, there is certainly no correlation between PWM freq and degree of hissing on the lights in my collection (I've seen some speculation that higher PWM is more llikely to cause it - which doesn't match my experience).


----------



## werdnawee (Apr 22, 2008)

Hi Selfbuilt,

Great review as always.

:thumbsup:

Would you consider the Jetbeam-I Pro the BEST AA X 1 thrower currently on the market?

What would be the BEST CR123 X 1 thrower currently on the market?

And that are still readily available.

(Looking for the BEST pocket thrower using single batteries. (I was a Regalight WT1 which is pretty small))

What about the newer Jetbeams? (I guess if there isn't a great difference in size between 1 or 2 cells)

Thanks a lot of any feedback


----------



## Steve L (Apr 22, 2008)

werdnawee said:


> What would be the BEST CR123 X 1 thrower currently on the market?


The LumaPower D-Mini is the longest throwing CR123(RCR123) light.


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 22, 2008)

werdnawee said:


> Would you consider the Jetbeam-I Pro the BEST AA X 1 thrower currently on the market?


Yes. 



> What would be the BEST CR123 X 1 thrower currently on the market?


I would agree with Steve L, the D-mini digital (Q5) would be the best thrower I've seen. 

However, JetBeam is sending me a Jet-II IBS to evaluate, so I should have an update for you in about a week or so. The earlier Jet-II wasn't as bright as the D-mini, but the new IBS circuit should go to higher driven levels. We'll see!


----------



## werdnawee (Apr 23, 2008)

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Yes, the D-mini digital (Q5) seems to be the best single cell and was looking at it last night. Purely for looks but I wished it came in BLACK instead of Natural. I saw the Q2 was black but different performance.

I will hold all purchases for now and wait for your review of the Jetbeam-II IBS.

Thanks


----------



## AaronZuckerman (Dec 7, 2008)

hi..

Yes, the D-mini digital (Q5) seems to be the best single cell and was looking at it last night. Purely for looks but I wished it came in BLACK instead of Natural. I saw the Q2 was black but different performance.

I will hold all purchases for now and wait for your review of the Jetbeam-II IBS.

Thanks :twothumbs


----------



## Nake (Dec 8, 2008)

AaronZuckerman said:


> I will hold all purchases for now and wait for your review of the Jetbeam-II IBS.


 
Wait no longer. 

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/196577


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 8, 2008)

Nake said:


> Wait no longer.
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/196577



Thanks Nake. 

FYI, I also have a separate review of the currently available Jet-II PRO here:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/201401


----------



## OCDGearhead (Dec 8, 2008)

Nice review, as usual, thanks.

It looks like a nice light, too bad they could not be bothered to fix the problems with it _B_efore bringing it to market.

I really want a Jetbeam, but it will not be this one.


----------



## jasonsmaglites (Jan 6, 2009)

wow, you're like the consumer reports of cpf. i will never buy a this jet pro now. whats the point of an r2 with a driver that seems basicly like a horribly inefficient resistor for getting low and medium. i mean seriously. low and medium dont last longer than high??? might as well be a one mode light in my book. the point of a low low is not just creeping around the house at night. its for a long runtime/good emergency light.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 7, 2009)

jasonsmaglites said:


> whats the point of an r2 with a driver that seems basicly like a horribly inefficient resistor for getting low and medium. i mean seriously. low and medium dont last longer than high???


I agree the original R2 Jet-I PRO was inefficient on its low/med modes - but this light is no longer available.

JetBeam replaced it with an IBS version that is a lot more versatile - see my review of the Jet-I PRO IBS here (along with 2AA version). Performance on 14500 is greatly improved, although the IBS circuit is still not your best choice for standard battery efficiency. Tailcap clicky is also much improved. Unfortunately, this new light is only available in Q5, but that is the case with a lot of manufacturers (R2 is still too difficult to get in quantity).


----------



## tunamelt (Jan 17, 2009)

*Removing clip from JET-I Pro v2*

Hey guys, long-time lurker on the forums. I just received my JET-I Pro V2 today. It's is a stunning piece of equipment. I would like to remove the clip from it, but finding it very difficult to do. I put it in a vise and tried to pull it out with pliers. It does pull out towards the back of the light, right?

Can anyone who has done this provide specific instructions? I don't want to damage the casing of the light. Thanks!!


----------



## tunamelt (Jan 17, 2009)

*Re: Removing clip from JET-I Pro v2*



tunamelt said:


> It does pull out towards the back of the light, right?



Um, OK, no... it goes the other way. :shakehead

I'm all set now!


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 17, 2009)

*Re: Removing clip from JET-I Pro v2*



tunamelt said:


> Hey guys, long-time lurker on the forums. I just received my JET-I Pro V2 today. It's is a stunning piece of equipment. I would like to remove the clip from it, but finding it very difficult to do. I put it in a vise and tried to pull it out with pliers. It does pull out towards the back of the light, right?


No, it pulls out toward the front of the light. I've heard someone say once that a popsicle stick works well for leverage.


----------

