# Tiablo ACE-G & A10-G Reviews: Massive detailed comparison thread!



## selfbuilt (Apr 21, 2009)

_*Reviewer's Note: *The ACE-G and A10-G were provided by Tiablo for review. 
_
*Warning: very pic heavy, nearly 60 images*

_*UPDATE 5/8/2009:* *Based on output results presented here, Tiablo realized that there was an issue with the performance of the ACE-G. They were able to revise the circuit before shipping to improve output by nearly 50% with equivalent runtime. oo: This review has been updated with pics and runtimes of the new currently-shipping ACE-G*._ :thumbsup:

_*UPDATE 4/28/2009:* Added beamshots and runtimes of the JetBeam M1X to the ACE-G comparison portion of this review (Part III)._

Tiablo made a bit of splash with their return to the thrower market last year with the A10 (and subsequent ACE, which used the same build but with a quad-die MC-E emitter). I hadn't previously reviewed those lights, but Tiablo has sent be the revised A10-G and ACE-G for comparative review (the "-G" refers to revised size to fit the standard 1-inch diameter of most gun mounts).

Since there are a lot of build similarities, I thought I would cover these two lights together in one massive multi-part review. In the first section (Part I), I will describe the common build features (and differences) of the two lights. In Part II, I will give a detailed comparison of the A10-G to other throwers. And in Part III, I will examine the ACE-G in detail. 

-----------------------

*PART I - Overview of the A10-G/ACE-G*

You will find detailed specs in the Tiablo sales thread for these lights and in Parts II & III of this review, but here is a brief summary of what has changed from the previous generation A10/ACE: 


Body diameter has been reduced to 1 inch on both lights, allowing a standard gun mount to be used. 
Brass sleeve previously present on both lights has been removed.
Overall weight has been reduced on both lights.
Revised reflector for the ACE-G (supposedly for a tighter focused beam)
Wider voltage range for the ACE-G (2.7V-18V), support a broader range of batteries (i.e. from 1x18650 up to 4xCR123A)











From the outside, the A10-G and ACE-G look indistinguishable. The body parts (except for the reflector and emitter/pill) are generally interchangeable between the models. The ACE-G comes with one free battery extender tube, allowing you to use 2x18650 (although additional extenders are available - for up to 4x18650! oo










The use of a raised checkered pattern (instead of traditional knurling) is an interesting way to enhance grip. Similar to the Olight M20, but more aggressive in this case (i.e. more raised). The battery extenders for the ACE-G now match the rest of the body design.

The lights come in black type-III (hard anodized) finish. The lettering is clear and sharp on my samples (although could be a bit brighter on the small print).

I will cover the comparisons to other lights of their respective classes in Parts II & III, but here's how they look in hand: (note for all the pics below, the A10-G is always shown first, followed by the ACE-G)










Here is how the common single-stage forward clicky tailcap switch looks: (note that the A10-G also comes with a continuously-variable reverse cliky switch - see Part II for details)










Note the anodized tailcap threads, allowing for tailcap lock-out. 

I will cover the User Interface in Parts II & III for each light.

Thanks to the raised edges, the light has several points for lanyard attachment and can tailstand.

Here's the common contact plate in the head: (note the spring)






Now how they differ - the reflectors are quite different:














As you can see above, the A10-G comes with a deep smooth reflector (for maximum throw) and the ACE-G comes with a much shallower heavily-textured reflector. The difference in reflector depth is really quite surprising for two lights with an otherwise almost identical build. Here are the reflectors side by side:






As you would expect, the emitter/pill needs be raised a lot higher on the ACE-G:










I'm glad to see these design features, since they shows Tiablo has carefully considered the best reflector design for each model. :twothumbs:
*
Common Dimensions (no batteries installed):*
Height: 175mm (243mm with one battery extender)
Width: 31.0mm (tailcap), 25.3mm (body tube), 56.8mm (bezel)
Weight: 248.6g (A10-G), 259.8g (ACE-G), 292.3g (ACE-G with one battery extender)

Personally, I find the overall heft and dimensions of these lights to be fairly good. Although I haven't seen the original A10/ACE, I suspect I would have found them a little bulky, based on other reports.

For detailed beamshots, runtimes, and comparisons to other lights, please scroll down to Parts II & III of this review. In the meantime, here's a quick pair of comparison shots showing you the throw/spill pattern outdoors: _(click on the images below to bring up higher resolution photos)_







You are looking at a point about 30 feet away from the lights. I've chosen a long exposure time to help you compare the overall beam patterns. Of course, the A10G is a much better thrower.

---------------------------------

*PART II - A10-G Comparison Review*

Specs (from the Manufacturer):

CREE 7090 XR-E LED. WC R2 LED
Step up and down constant current driver, with high efficiency dual mode DC-DC regulator (PWM / PFM) and circuit to protect Li-ion battery from over-discharging. Working voltage is 2.75V to 8.5V, under the circuit will flicker to remind users to replace battery.
High output: 1A at 260 Lumens for 3.5 hours (single-stage switch)
Function: multifunctional circuit with advanced Mini computer chip, and it can set according to customers’ variety requirement (reverse-stage continuously-variable switch)
53 mm diameter x 50 mm deep reflector provides greater efficient illumination over longer distances than the standard with similar power
Support battery sizes Two 3.0V CR123A batteries or one 18650 Li-ion battery
Type-III hard anodize high quality aerospace grade T7075 aluminium construction
Switch: Tactical forward clicky switch for single-stage, reverse clicky for continuously-variable
Waterproof Capability: IPX-8 standard
Toughened ultra clear glass lens with AR coating
Weight: 180 g
Length: 175mm Head diameter: 57mm Housing Diameter: 25.4mm






Packaging is similar to other currently shipping Tiablo lights - everything comes in a hard cardboard box with magnetic closing flap. Inside, in cut-out foam, is the light, one-page instruction sheet, warranty card, wrist lanyard, extra o-rings, and continuously-variable switch (single-stage was installed on my sample).

Speaking of the switch, here's how they compare (continuously-variable on left, single-stage on the right). It seems at least come of the circuitry is contained within the switch unit, since swaping it out alters the functionality of the light. :thinking: Note that as usual, you will need snap-ring or fine needle-nose pliers to change the switch (stiff fine-point tweezers might also work):






The A10 was designed to replace the previous generation A8/A9 throwers (which shared a common build but different circuits). So how does the new A10-G compare?





From left to right: 18650 battery, A10-G, Dereelight DBS, Tiablo A9, RaidFire Spear.

Clearly the A10-G is a bit wider at the bezel and taller overall. While I don't find it to be overly large for this class of light, it is definitely not a pocket light. Since the front-end is likely to be what matters, here's a lens-shot comparing to the DBS and Spear:






Given the larger overall reflector dimensions, I suspect the A10-G will be tough to beat (more on that in a moment).

*User Interface:*

User interface is very straight-forward with the single-stage forward clicky installed, just press for momentary on, click for lock-on. :kiss:

With the continuously-variable reverse clicky switch installed, you have two general modes available in sequence - Mode A & B. Click-on turns on the light in Mode A (continuously-variable constant output). To change the output level, press and hold the switch for 3 secs while the light is on - it will now begin ramping down followed by back up, with a double-flash at 50% and a triple-flash at 100% output. You can release the switch at any time once the ramp starts. To select the level you want, you need to click the switch again.

The continuously-variable constant output mode uses PWM, with a detectable frequency of 123Hz in my testing. :sigh:

To access Mode B (Strobe/SOS/Beacon/Continuous), rapidly click and release the switch once from Mode A. To change the setting of Mode B, simply press and hold the switch for 3 secs like above. The mode options run in sequence from fast tactical strobe (13Hz), to a gradually slowing strobe frequency (down to 2Hz), to SOS mode, beacon mode, than a continuously-variable output ramp. Like in Mode A, you can let go of the switch and any point once the sequence of states begins cycling. You will need to click once to select the state you want. Note the strobe/sos modes are at full power, while the beacon mode seems a little less bright to me.

Some peculiarities here: :ironic: you will always move into Mode B from Mode A if you try to shut off the light by the switch (i.e. clicking the switch from A always takes you to B). If you don't want to see Mode B, you will need to twist the tailcap off. This "resets" the switch, and allows you come back on in Mode A next time you click on after re-tightening the switch. But note that this also resets your Mode A to the default max output. It seems the continuously-variable switch requires a constant low current draw to maintain its memory. :sigh: Note too that there is a brief flash of light when tightening the tailcap all the way.

Also note that max output of the continuously-variable reverse clicky is lower than the single-stage forward clicky. Scroll down for a detailed table of outputs/throw.

*Comparison Beamshots*

All lights are on 100% on 18650 AW protected Li-ion. A10-G is using the single-stage switch for max output. Distance is about 0.5 meters from a white wall. 


















As you can see, the A10-G has a fairly classic thrower beam pattern with a nice tight hotspot and dimmer spill. Detailed throw comparisons will be in the summary table below.

I thought I'd give you some outdoor shots at long exposure to help you better compare the beam patterns. What you are looking at below is a point ~30 feet from the lights. 


















Although exposure is set to show you the spill, you can still infer a lot about throw from these images. Basically, the more light you see in the spillbeam, the less is being directed toward maximum throw. In that regard, the A10-G is clearly the best dedicated thrower among my reflectored lights. I've included the new apherical head for the Tiablo A9 for comparison purposes - this is as close as you can get to a tunnel of light (although with beam artifacts, color distortion, and die image projection). For more details on throw and output, see the Summary Table below.

*Testing Method:* All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan.

Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 5 meters from the lens, using a light meter, and then extrapolated back to estimate values for 1 meter.

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*






As mentioned previously, overall output of the single-stage switch is brighter than the max output of the continuously-variable switch. Note the dedicated 18650-only lights are typical brighter overall on max output.

But I imagine what you really want to know about is the throw.  Even though the A10G doesn't put out quite as much light as some of the others, the bigger and deeper reflector seems to be giving it an advantage. However, I don't believe raw lux at 1 meter (the typical metric) means a lot for these dedicated throwers. The beams don't really have a chance to fully converge until typically several meters out, so what I've done below is taken readings at 5 meters and worked back to a calculated estimate throw/lux at 1 meter. This will be my standard way to present throw on these types of lights from now on.






As you can see, the A10-G on the single-stage switch readily out-throws the reflectored competition, including my DBS (DI pill).  Only the aspherical head for the A9 tops it. On the continuously-variable switch, max throw is a bit less than my DBS (also a Cree R2 on a continuously-variable pill).

*Output/Runtime Comparison*





("ConVar" refers to the continuously-variable switch)

Although the published voltage range specs for the A10-G are 2.75V-8.5V, Tiablo only recommends 2xCR123A or 1x18650. I've tested both battery types on both switches, and the results above show that 1x18650 works as expected (scroll down to see a comparison to other lights). 2xCR123A seems to behave normally on Hi, but has some loss of efficiency at the lower outputs.

I decided to test 2xRCR (even though not officially supported), but got inconsistent results. With the single-stage switch, I got 20 mins runtime, indicating a 3C discharge rate (not recommend for Li-ions). This is presumably why Tiablo does not officially support 2xRCR (i.e. their storage capacity is too low). But on the continuously-variable switch, the light cut out within 4 mins into the run on Max, and wouldn't re-ignite for a more than a brief flash on repeated clicks. :shrug: Voltage of the cells was ~4.1V at this point, so I'm not sure of the reason for the failure. Regardless, given the low capacity of these cells, I agree with Tiablo and do NOT recommend you try 2xRCR in this light.






Ramping time is about typical for a continuously-variable light (i.e. 9-10 secs from min to max).










Compared to other lights, runtimes on Max on 18650 seems about typical for a multi-power circuit. Although overall output seems a bit lower than most, this could be an artifact of my lightbox (i.e. really strong throwers tend to score lower than other lights). However, output/runtime efficiency at lower outputs seems a bit lower than some of the other continuously-variable lights (which as a class are all lower than the defined-output constant-current lights).










Performance on 2xCR123A definitely seems less efficient than the multi-power competition, especially on lower outputs modes. Of course, a lot of the dedicated throwers are 18650-only lights, so this may still be a benefit to you. :shrug:






Again, I agree with Tiablo and do not recommend you run the light on 2xRCR. 

*Potential A10-G Issues*

Slightly larger than other dedicated throwers - but with the greatest throw of any of my reflectored lights.

With the continuously-variable switch, there are a number of potential issues:

Lower output/runtime efficiency on 2xCR123A compared to other multi-power lights.
Visible PWM frequency of 123Hz.
2xRCR not supported (and not recommended).
Automatic switching into Mode B when exiting Mode A
Switch resets state memory when unscrewed, suggesting a constant low current draw is required to maintain memory (i.e. always drawing some power - even when off - unless disconnected)
*Preliminary observations will be discussed at the end of this review, along with the ACE-G.*

----------------

*PART III - ACE-G Comparison Review*

*UPDATE 5/8/2009: This section has been updated with results of the newly-revised ACE-G circuit. This version of the circuit is currently on all shipping lights. My original results have been identified below as "Pre-Production" version.*

Specs (from the Manufacturer):

# CREE MC-E (M rank, WC) LED
Step up and down constant current driver, with two high efficiency dual modes DC-DC regulator (PWM / PFM) and circuit to indicate the Li- ion battery from over-discharging. Working voltage is 2.7V to 18V, with a circuit flicker to remind users to replace battery.
Max output 700lumen, runtime: 45minutes (1pcs 3000mAh 18650) and 3 hours (2pcs 3000mAh 18650)
Functions: one level output, easy to use and reliable
53 mm diameter x 50 mm deep reflector provides a greater efficient illumination over longer distances
Supports battery sizes; 2 x 3.0V CR123A batteries, 2 x 17335 Li-ion or one 18650 Li-ion battery, two 18650 Li-ion batteries, 4 x 3.0V CR123A batteries
Type-III hard anodize high quality aerospace grade T7075 aluminum construction
Switch: Tactical forward switch (single stage)
Waterproof Capability: IPX-8 standard
Toughened ultra clear glass lens with AR coating
Weight: 230 g
Length: 175mm Head diameter: 57mm Housing Diameter: 25.4mm






Packaging is identical to the A10-G - everything comes in a hard cardboard box with magnetic closing flap. Inside, in cut-out foam, is the light, one-page instruction sheet, warranty card, wrist lanyard, extra o-rings, and one battery extender tube.

Note that although not officially supported, 3x18650 and even 4x18650 should be possible with additional battery extender tubes, given the working voltage. I haven't tested this, so can't say for certain. Additional battery extender tubes are available from Tiablo.

Although I have additional M-CE lights on the way, at the moment all I can compare to is the Lumapower MVP 3xCree and MVP Turboforce SSC P7.





From left to right: 18650 battery, ACE-G, Lumapower MVP 3xCree and MVP Turboforce P7 (all with one optional battery extender in place).

*Tiablo ACE-G:*
Height: 175mm without extender, 243mm with one battery extender
Width: 31.0mm (tailcap), 25.3mm (body tube), 56.8mm (bezel)
Weight (without batteries): 260g without extender, 292g with one battery extender

*MVP 3xCree:*
Height: 170mm without extender, 238mm with extender
Width: 58mm max (bezel)
Weight (without batteries): 329g without extender, 385g with extender

*MVP TurboForce P7:*
Length: 200mm without extender, 265mm with extender
Width: 71mm max (bezel)
Weight (without batteries): 405g without extender, 459g with extender 

As you can see, the Tiablo ACE-G is much closer in size to the Lumapower MVP 3xCree than the MVP TurboForce P7. But the ACE-G is noticeably lighter.

Here's a lens-shot comparing to the three lights:






*User Interface:*

User interface of ACE-G is very straight-forward with the single-stage forward clicky installed, just press for momentary on, click for lock-on. This light is single-stage only, unlike the multi-stage Lumapower lights (which have side-mounted SideKick switches).

*Comparison Beamshots*

Both lights are on 100% on 2x18650 AW protected Li-ion. Distance is about 0.5 meters from a white wall. 


















As you can see, the ACE-G has a similar level of output as the JetBeam M1X, but a more "traditiona" MC-E/P7 profile (i.e. similar to the MVP Turboforce P77). Note that the ACE-G reflector is doing a great job on the beam, as there is no center-beam "donut" hole visible in actual use (as opposed the M1X, which has a pronounced donut at distance and a crosshair pattern up close).

For the outdoor shots, these are done at long exposure to help you better compare the beam patterns. What you are looking at below is a point ~30 feet from the lights. 


















Although the MVP 3xCree may look a brighter, this isn't really the case - _the spillbeams of the MVP Turboforce P7 and ACE-G are wider than the field of view of the camera when placed at the same distance from the target. _ Both the MVP P7 and ACE-G fully light up my yard, while the MVP 3xCree's spill is confined to only a portion of it (and hence will seem brighter in the pics). Like the MVP 3XCree, the JetBeam M1X's spill is similarly constrained to a narrower range. 

_*UPDATE:* Here are some lower exposures to show you the hotspot:_


















_As you can see, the M1X has the greatest throw, while the ACE-G has the smoothest and most even beam. What you can't see so well is the donut hole on both the M1X and MVP P7 - but it is there (and completely lacking from the ACE-G)._ :thumbsup:

*Testing Method:* All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan.

Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 5 meters from the lens, using a light meter, and then extrapolated back to estimate values for 1 meter.

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

Like before, I don't believe raw lux at 1 meter means a lot for these heavy throwers. The beams don't really have a chance to fully converge until typically several meters out, so what I've done below is taken readings at 5 meters and worked back to a calculated estimate throw/lux at 1 meter. This will be my standard way to present throw on these types of lights from now on.

Output and throw measures for these lights are taken after 2 mins of continuous runtime, to let the output of each light settle to its regulated level.






The ACE-G is clearly not a huge thrower compared to the other lights (as expected with the much smaller and shallower reflector). But it also lacks any noticeable center-beam "donut", which is quite prominent on my MVP P7. :thumbsup:

_*UPDATE 5/8/2009:* As you can see above, throw and overall output is greatly increased on the revised shipping version of the ACE-G._

*Output/Runtime Comparison*

_In order show you difference between the original pre-production ACE-G reviewed here and the new shipping version, I have left both sets of traces on the summary runtime graph below._






Now that's impressive - overall output has increased by ~50% with no real change in runtime. oo:

In fact, performance on 1x18650 has actually improved. This is very impressive, since few MC-E lights will run on a single 18650. Performance on 2x18650 and 2xCR123A are now excellent, IMO. :thumbsup:

Also note that there is no longer a steep drop-off in initial output, as was seen on the pre-production ACE-G. This revised shipping version is quite an improvement in regulation and output/runtime efficiency.

But like before, 2xRCR is not recommend on this light - runtime above suggests a >4C discharge rate!  Part of the issue may be the state of my RCRs ... all these heavy-drain runtime tests are likely taking their toll on their available capacity. Regardless, I recommend you skip the 2xRCR configuration.














As you can see, performance of the revised shipping circuit is now very competitive for this class of light. 

Althought 2xRCR is out in my opinion, I have no issue with 2xCR123A (although difficult to compare to the other lights where 2xCR123A isn't fully supported). And since my Lumapower lights don't support 4xCR123A, I haven't run this test on the ACE-G (which does officially support it). 

_*UPDATE 06/08/09:* I've just updated the graphs with 4xCR123A runtimes for all lights that support this configuration. Also included are some recent additions to the multi-emitter class that I have recently reviewed._

*Potential A10-G Issues*

2xRCR not recommended due to excessive current draw.

-------------------

*Preliminary A10-G and ACE-G Observations*

There's a lot of info presented above, and I won't even try to summarize it all here. But a few thoughts stand out in my mind. 

First off, I like the build features of these lights.  The lights are not as heavy as they look, thanks to Tiablo's slim-downed body construction on these new -G models. They both have very good "hand feel" - i.e. not too bulky, not too heavy, and with just the right amount of "gripability" for my tastes.

Yes, the A10-G is a bit bigger than its typical thrower-class competition, but it doesn't feel too large to me. It definitely has the best throw of any reflector-based light in my collection (with single-stage switch installed). Of course, the A9 with aspheric head out-throws it, but I consider this more of a toy to play with (given the color variations and die projection issues common to these aspheric optics).

The ACE-G feels just about perfect to me. Similar in size to the MVP 3xCree (which has a form factor I prefer over the larger MVP TurboForce P7), but not quite as heavy. I realize this is highly subjective - those of you used to carrying around 3+ D-cell Mags won't quibble over a few grams  - but I like the lower weight of the ACE-G. I also really like how well it performs on just one 18650 - good to have to the option if size is an issue. And I'm very impressed at the lack of a center beam "donut" with this reflector - well done. 

I also like the commitment to multi-power support on both lights. The common single-stage switch is generally a good performer, well optimized for maximum output on 18650 Li-ions, but flexible enough to take other power sources. But it is only a single stage of output, and I would prefer to see at least a couple of defined output levels on both lights.

I am not as impressed with the continously-variable switch on the A10-G. It suffers from visible PWM frequency, reduced max output, relatively poor output/runtime efficiency on 2xCR123A, and needs to draw a current to maintain its memory state. :shakehead I feel like I'm in a bit of time-warp here, as this is the third light I've reviewed this year that has visible PWM (in comparison, most lights released in 2008 had undetectably high levels). This is a disappointing step backwards, and I would urge Tiablo to see what they can do to bump it up. Improved efficiency on primary CR123A should also be a priority. I do like the variable frequency strobe modes on this switch (i.e. from 13Hz down to 2Hz), but am not crazy about the mode switching interface (i.e. always having to pass through Mode B when clicking off, unless you twist the tailcap to break the current and reset the switch).

Loss of official 2xRCR support on the A10-G is not really an issue for me, since I don't believe these sorts of powerhouses should ever be run that way (i.e. the low battery capacity of protected RCR means an unacceptably high discharge rate). I think Tiablo was wise to not "officially" support it on the A10-G, although the voltage range technically allows it (just not on my continously-variable switch, for some reason).

I get the feeling the P7/M-CE flashlight world is going to get a bit more crowded in the near future, so it will be interesting to see what other makers bring to the plate. With their newly revised -G design, I think Tiablo now has a strong body build platform to work from. I encourage them to further refine their circuit designs. But if you are looking for a keep-it-simple, single-stage light to run primarily on 18650, these offerings may have what you are looking for.

_*UPDATE 5/8/2009:* As shown above, the revised ACE-G circuit that is now shipping has greatly improved output and regulation, for equivalent (or better) runtime. This is a very impressive showing for the ACE-G_. :thumbsup:

Good night all! :tired:


----------



## csshih (Apr 21, 2009)

hehe.. nice review.. trumped again! :bow:

also, selfbuilt, I have noticed that the digital switch does not have any memory once it is disconnected from the light, 
(it does not retain the custom user settings.)

that being said, I suspect that it also drains a tiny bit of power regardless of it being on or not.


----------



## glyphin (Apr 21, 2009)

Thanks for the review! Great job - very comprehensive. I'm impressed that the throw of the first light approaches that of the A9 with aspheric.


----------



## woodrow (Apr 22, 2009)

Wow...another great review...Thanks Selfbuilt! The Tiablo's are impressive. I love that the ACE can be used on 1x18650. I might have to pick one up because of that. Also the A10's throw is impressive! I am glad Tiablo is back making some great lights. I missed them when they were quiet for a while.


----------



## KBOy (Apr 22, 2009)

great reviews


----------



## DM51 (Apr 22, 2009)

Excellent work, as always. These two measure up well to their competitors, with their good and not-so-good features highlighted here in a clear and impartial way. 

I'm moving it to the Reviews section.


----------



## toby_pra (Apr 22, 2009)

Cant tell anything different! Exellent work!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## UlrikJ (Apr 22, 2009)

The difference in runtime between ACE-G 1x18650 and 2x18650 are shown but what about difference in light output between ACE-G 1x18650 and 2x18650 ???


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 22, 2009)

csshih said:


> hehe.. nice review.. trumped again! :bow:
> also, selfbuilt, I have noticed that the digital switch does not have any memory once it is disconnected from the light,
> (it does not retain the custom user settings.)
> that being said, I suspect that it also drains a tiny bit of power regardless of it being on or not.


When you can snatch the pebble from my hand, grasshopper ... :laughing:

Seriously, I look forward to your observations of the lights as you play with them more. And good point about the switch loosing memory when disconnected - I will add that point to my comment section on its peculiarities. This "feature" likely explains why so few makers would opt for this method of dual-control - it clearly does require an active current drain (although I suspect it is not great).



glyphin said:


> I'm impressed that the throw of the first light approaches that of the A9 with aspheric.


I would say it's probably somewhere in-between by DBS and my A9 aspheric. Certainly the best performing reflector design I've seen. 



woodrow said:


> I love that the ACE can be used on 1x18650. ... Also the A10's throw is impressive! I am glad Tiablo is back making some great lights. I missed them when they were quiet for a while.


Likewise, it's been a long time since their "heyday" of the A8/A9. And I agree with your two points - they are in my mind two of the key distinguishing features of the ACE-G and A10-G (along with the complete lack of center-beam donut on the ACE-G).



DM51 said:


> Excellent work, as always. These two measure up well to their competitors, with their good and not-so-good features highlighted here in a clear and impartial way.






UlrikJ said:


> The difference in runtime between ACE-G 1x18650 and 2x18650 are shown but what about difference in light output between ACE-G 1x18650 and 2x18650 ???


That's shown as well - the Y-axis on all my graphs is actual relative output levels. It is not a percentage. The output on the 1x18650 and 2x18650 is thus virtually the same.


----------



## alohaluau (Apr 22, 2009)

Selfbuilt,

Once again you have outdone yourself. 

Your informative and thorough reviews are one of very few that I read from top to bottom without blinking an eyelid... oo:

It is good to see you have added the A9 with the aspheric lens in your comparison.

I like my classic ACE with the massive flood, at night no cats in my garden can hide from me... :devil:

Do you by chance have the classic ACE to compare the beam shots with?

Cheers,
Luau


----------



## Ryanrpm (Apr 22, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> Tiablo made a bit of splash with their return to the thrower market last year with the A10 (and subsequent ACE, which used the same build but with a quad-die MC-E emitter). *I hadn't previously reviewed those lights,* but Tiablo has sent be the revised A10-G and ACE-G for comparative review (the "-G" refers to revised size to fit the standard 1-inch diameter of most gun mounts).
> 
> ........
> 
> ...


 


In a word.....No. Not being a smart guy, but I just pulled a few comments from selfbuilts review that give evidence that he does not have the original ACE. (You sure you didn't blink at least once??)

I think there is a comparison of the ACE-G and ACE in another thread somewhere.....


----------



## axim (Apr 22, 2009)

Thanks for the extensive comparison!
If there was just a way to regulate the output for the ACE :sigh:


----------



## Patriot (Apr 22, 2009)

Spectacular review as always Selfbuilt! There is so much info there that I usually absorb a 1/4 of it the first time through. Thanks for all the hard work. 


The ACE-G sure has a funny output curve on a single 18650. I wonder what's happening in the regulation that allows that to happen.


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 22, 2009)

Thanks for the support everyone. :grouphug: This pair of lights certainly was a lot to pull together,



alohaluau said:


> I like my classic ACE with the massive flood, at night no cats in my garden can hide from me... :devil:


Unfortunately I don't have the original ACE to compare it to, but I am impressed with the relative flood of this ACE-G reflector. They have done an excellent job balancing throw and spill, IMO.



axim said:


> If there was just a way to regulate the output for the ACE :sigh:





Patriot said:


> The ACE-G sure has a funny output curve on a single 18650. I wonder what's happening in the regulation that allows that to happen.


It is an unsual pattern. To be fair, Tiablo does not recommend 1x18650 for regular use - they encourage at least 2x18650, which is why they provided the one battery extender. You can also add extra extenders for additional 18650s (and thus extended runtime).


----------



## alohaluau (Apr 22, 2009)

Ryanrpm said:


> In a word.....No. Not being a smart guy, but I just pulled a few comments from selfbuilts review that give evidence that he does not have the original ACE. (You sure you didn't blink at least once??)
> 
> I think there is a comparison of the ACE-G and ACE in another thread somewhere.....



Hi Ryanrpm,

lol, I have to give you that... I now have to admit I DID blink... 

Thanks for pointing that out... :laughing:Doh!

I have to read more carefully next time too, selfbuilt. 

Cheers,
Luau


----------



## csshih (Apr 22, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> When you can snatch the pebble from my hand, grasshopper ... :laughing:
> 
> Seriously, I look forward to your observations of the lights as you play with them more. And good point about the switch loosing memory when disconnected - I will add that point to my comment section on its peculiarities. This "feature" likely explains why so few makers would opt for this method of dual-control - it clearly does require an active current drain (although I suspect it is not great).



..Pebble? those things are too tiny for my huge hands..

how about a.. Tiablo ACE-G with the extension tube?


----------



## frosty (Apr 23, 2009)

Wow! Another huge review. Thanks.


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 23, 2009)

frosty said:


> Wow! Another huge review. Thanks.


Yeah, frankly I think it's a little too long - but I figured it made sense to review the two lights together since they have an identical exterior look, and members here may be trying to choose between them. But I think I'll stick to separate reviews whenever possible.


----------



## jirik_cz (Apr 24, 2009)

Great review :twothumbs
Unfortunately the throw of ACE-G is disappointing :sick2:


----------



## KBOy (Apr 24, 2009)

jirik_cz said:


> Unfortunately the throw of ACE-G is disappointing :sick2:


 I don't think so , one 18650 MCE light for this throw ,it is marvelous


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 24, 2009)

jirik_cz said:


> Unfortunately the throw of ACE-G is disappointing :sick2:


Well, that depends what you are looking for. If you want a massive "wall of light" flooder, than the ACE-G is an outstanding choice. 

But if it's throw you are looking for, you might want to check out my latest review:
JetBeam M1X Review (Cree M-CE): RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!


----------



## jirik_cz (Apr 25, 2009)

KBOy said:


> I don't think so , one 18650 MCE light for this throw ,it is marvelous



I have original Tiablo ACE and it throws very well. So changing the reflector seems like a step back.


----------



## csshih (Apr 25, 2009)

these are geared more towards weaponlights.. I think flood would be better in that case.


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 25, 2009)

I think the important thing is for people to know what they are getting - the revised ACE-G is definitely much more of a flood light than a spotlight. It seems as if the original ACE had a more "traditional" M-CE reflector, so I can see why people might be surprised.

Personally, I like the floodier option. I typically keep one thrower and one floodier light on the corner of my desk, to be easily accessible when needed. Originally, those spots were held by my Lumapower MRV (later my RaidFire Spear) and my Surefire L2 LuxV (later my JetBeam Jet-III ST). After I was done testing these lights, the A10-G and ACE-G (single 18650 configuration) replaced both of the those lights (well, ok, I've kept the ST around for its small size :kiss. Now that I'm finishing testing of the JetBeam M1X, it may replace the A10G ... we'll see.


----------



## ergotelis (Apr 27, 2009)

Selfbuilt, first of all nice review!As always of course! :twothumbs

But, i read a review of that light too in light reviews and Mev is reading 15000 lux. That difference is rather high considering that in many other flashlights both are getting almost the same lux readings. So, is there any case your Tiablo to be defective or the other supercharged?Seems to strange to me, something is going wrong.. :thinking:


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 27, 2009)

ergotelis said:


> But, i read a review of that light too in light reviews and Mev is reading 15000 lux. That difference is rather high considering that in many other flashlights both are getting almost the same lux readings. So, is there any case your Tiablo to be defective or the other supercharged?Seems to strange to me, something is going wrong.. :thinking:


That difference may not be as great as it seems. For this review, my lux measures were taken at 5m and calculated back to 1m (to allow space for the beams to converge), which may be giving a slightly lower calculated lux at 1m.

But I am also waiting at least 2 mins on the ACE-G runs to allow the light to come to steady-state regulated value (I've just revised my review text to make that point clearer). Initial output on a fully charged 18650 was well over 13K lux on my light meter, decaying to under 8K lux after 2 mins.

In addition to testing methods, when you factor in individual differences of emitters, reflectors, light-meters, etc., it is quite possible to see significant variation from one review to the next. Based on the overall output and runtime, I think my sample ACE-G is performing within expected parameters.

EDIT: P.S.: also keep in mind that lux is a non-linear scale in relation to output. To compare two lights, you should look at the square-root of lux (i.e. "throw") to account for the inverse-square decay over distance. In that sense, the drop I observed from 13K+ lux to under 8K lux over 2 mins is only a ~22% reduction in "throw". This is very consistent with the ~16% drop in output my lightbox is reporting over this time.


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 28, 2009)

FYI, I've just updated the first post with some extra low exposure outdoor beamshots for multi-emitter lights, and included the JetBeam M1X in the runtimes and summary chart for this section.

Eventually I hope do to a multi-emitter round-up review (once I get a few more samples in). In the meantime, please continue to check out my newer multi-emitter reviews as they come out - the ACE-G will always be included in with the runtimes and summary tables in those reviews.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 6, 2009)

*UPDATE:* I have just been informed by Tiablo that all shipping versions of the ACE-G will have a revised circuit with increased output. 

Apparently, from my testing numbers and comparisons of the pre-production model, they realized that the output wasn't as high as they had intended. So they have revised the circuit to increase brightness. This new circuit is included on all ACE-G shipping lights, and a sample is on its way to me to test. 

I will update this review with the shipping version results as soon as I receive it and run through the tests. 
:wave:


----------



## Ryanrpm (May 6, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> So they have revised the circuit to increase brightness....and a sample is on its way to me to test.
> :wave:


 
So it is an increase in the driving amperage perhaps? Can you let us know what it is if/when you find out?

Thanks!


----------



## MIKES250R (May 8, 2009)

Wow what a great review! The more I try my hand at low light photography the more your beamshots continue to impress me. Overall your main points and thoughts are clearly organized and well written. I appreciate you trying to remain as objective as possible. Thanks for the write up-well done! 

Mike


----------



## selfbuilt (May 8, 2009)

*MAJOR UPDATE!*

Based on the comparison results presented here, Tiablo realized that there was an issue with the output on the pre-production ACE-G. They were able to revise the circuit before shipping out any of the lights, and have sent me a revised module to test. I have revised the main post with new pics and runtimes, but here is a quick summary of the changes:

Note: the original results are identified as "Pre-Prod" in the chart/graphs below, and the new actually shipping version as "Ship".












*The results speak for themselves - nearly a 50% increase in output with no change (or an improvement!) in runtime. * 

Further, the regulation has been enhanced - there is no longer a steep drop-off over the first few minutes.

I am very impressed with the performance of this new circuit, and with Tiablo's commitment to insuring that all shipping lights contain the revised circuit. Well done! :thumbsup:


----------



## DM51 (May 9, 2009)

That's a startling improvement. Good work by them, and very quick, too.


----------



## KBOy (May 9, 2009)

DM51 said:


> That's a startling improvement. Good work by them, and very quick, too.


+1

good work by tiablo!


----------



## selfbuilt (May 9, 2009)

DM51 said:


> That's a startling improvement. Good work by them, and very quick, too.


Yes, I was quite surprised myself at both the magnitude of change and the speed with which they pulled this off. oo:

I suspect the runtimes here and elsewhere showing rapid drop-off in output was their first tip-off that something was wrong. But I think it was the direct output comparison to other lights of this class that confirmed for them that the output wasn't where it was supposed to be.

In a way, this is similar with what happened with the NiteCore EZAA - my low mode comparisons showed it only had less than half the expected output, but equivalent runtime to lights that were 3 times as bright. Although NiteCore had already started shipping, they were able to quickly issue the recall before their main dealer had a chance to ship many unit out.

I think these examples illustrate the "good business practice" of sending pre-production lights to reviewers who can evaluate against other standard members of the same class. I'm just glad that Tiablo could get this fix done so quickly, and before any ACE-G lights actually shipped. 

Given that the ACE-G is a single-stage only light, I'm glad to see they have managed to get the output and efficiency up to such a high level. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ryanrpm (May 9, 2009)

Nice job on Tiablo's part!

Do you happen to know what the drive current is now on the shipping ACE-G?


----------



## selfbuilt (May 10, 2009)

Ryanrpm said:


> Do you happen to know what the drive current is now on the shipping ACE-G?


Sorry, no idea. But the output results suggest it has to be a pretty good drive current.


----------



## daveman (May 12, 2009)

I'm waiting for your review of the M30, selfbuilt.

Please include comparison shots with the ACE.


----------



## bilatos (May 13, 2009)

I'm also waiting for a comparison between them, like a view of yours, you found the m1x much higher than Ace-G? Thanks​


----------



## selfbuilt (May 13, 2009)

bilatos said:


> I'm also waiting for a comparison between them, like a view of yours, you found the m1x much higher than Ace-G? Thanks​


The M30 review will be posted soon. The M1X was much brighter than the pre-production ACE-G I was sent - but the revised circuit that is on all shipping versions is as brighter as the M1X (in fact, slightly brighter in my testing, shown above). The M1X still has the best throw of the class.


----------



## bilatos (May 13, 2009)

In your opinion, you think the new Eagletac M2 will take the place of M1x?
Sorry for my English, which is not the best, greetings.​​


----------



## troller_cpf (Jun 7, 2009)

is it a bigger thrower the A10G with the Smooth reflector or the A9 with the aspherical lens?


----------



## Ryanrpm (Jun 7, 2009)

bilatos said:


> In your opinion, you think the new Eagletac M2 will take the place of M1x?
> Sorry for my English, which is not the best, greetings.​​



Not sure who you are asking, prob not me, but I'll chime in...

The M2 and M1X are two different lights, so one won't likely replace the other. The JetBeam M1X is a high output long range Thrower, while the EagleTac M2 is a high output short range thrower with more side spill.


----------



## Ryanrpm (Jun 7, 2009)

troller_cpf said:


> is it a bigger thrower the A10G with the Smooth reflector or the A9 with the aspherical lens?



I do not own either light, but based on reviews and opinions I have read.....the A9 w/ aspheric lens is the better thrower.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 7, 2009)

bilatos said:


> In your opinion, you think the new Eagletac M2 will take the place of M1x?


FYI, my review of the M2XC4 (3xCree) is now up. I am waiting on a second-generation M2C4 (P7) to complete my assessment.

The M2XC4 certainly throws as well (if not better) than the M1X at close range. At a distance though, I think the M1X may have an advantage. I haven't done longer distance beamshots yet - I plan to do these soon and present everthing in one large Round-up Review thread. Stay tuned ...



troller_cpf said:


> is it a bigger thrower the A10G with the Smooth reflector or the A9 with the aspherical lens?


As shown in this table from the review, the A9 with aspheric head is still a better thrower:







But the A10G produces a more generally useful beam. Aspherics have a lot chromatic aberration (i.e. prism-like colors around the edges), and project an exact image of the emitter die when fully focused (i.e. the Cree die looks a like a space invader).


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 8, 2009)

FYI, I've just updated the graphs with 4xCR123A runtimes for all lights that support this configuration. 






Hit your brower re-load if you don't see the new traces.

Also included in all runtime graphs are some recent additions to the multi-emitter class. Scroll back up to the main post to see the new traces. :wave:


----------



## Arkiv N (Jun 24, 2009)

Great review selfbuilt!:thumbsup:
The Only thing I missing is that you haven't mentioned anyting about the glow-in-the-dark reflector o-ring (comes with a regular black to, so you can switch). And the glow-in-the-dark tailcap.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 24, 2009)

Arkiv N said:


> Great review selfbuilt!:thumbsup:
> The Only thing I missing is that you haven't mentioned anyting about the glow-in-the-dark reflector o-ring (comes with a regular black to, so you can switch). And the glow-in-the-dark tailcap.


I thought the review was getting pretty long as it was  But yes, there is a GITD o-ring around the lens of both lights, and both include a spare GITD tailcap button cover.


----------



## MIKES250R (Jul 1, 2009)

I just got my ACE-G and I am very happy that it has a nice and smooth beam with no donut. I am anxous to see how it compares to my M1-X and my L950. The sun will be down it a few hours. Does anybody know where to get an extension tube I did not see it listed at 4$evens?

MIke


----------



## picard (Jul 8, 2009)

Does Luma MVP 7 have longer throw than ACE-G ?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 8, 2009)

They are pretty similar in throw, although the ACE-G puts out more light overall (i.e. noticeably brighter spill).

Note that the MVP P7 has a much larger reflector & head, which may explain part of it. And the ACE-G's reflector is designed to minimize the donut-hole (which it does brilliantly - but likely contributes to reduced throw).

If you are looking for more throw, check out my JetBeam M1X review.


----------



## picard (Jul 8, 2009)

_what is effective throw of ACE-G?_

I mean effective throw as the maximum distance the object visible to human eyes clearly instead of residual light spill.


----------



## gem (Jul 19, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> *UPDATE:* I have just been informed by Tiablo that all shipping versions of the ACE-G will have a revised circuit with increased output.
> 
> :wave:


 
I ordered a Tiaßlo A9 a few days ago in Charcoal from Kit-tronic. They informed me that I will have to wait till the new shipments comes out. I wonder if they too will have the revised circuity?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 19, 2009)

picard said:


> what is effective throw of ACE-G?
> I mean effective throw as the maximum distance the object visible to human eyes clearly instead of residual light spill.


That's hard to say. I certainly find the ACE-G throws as far it needs to for me to see something clearly with the naked eye. Beyond a certain distance, I am limited by own visual acuity - so whether it lights something up sufficiently is hard for me to say without a zoom lens. :shrug:



gem said:


> I ordered a Tiaßlo A9 a few days ago in Charcoal from Kit-tronic. They informed me that I will have to wait till the new shipments comes out. I wonder if they too will have the revised circuity?


I doubt it - the ACE-G circuitry is rather different from the A9 (MC-E vs XR-E, for one thing). The A9 is very decent light for its price, but it is based on an older design.


----------



## gem (Jul 19, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> That's hard to say. I certainly find the ACE-G throws as far it needs to for me to see something clearly with the naked eye. Beyond a certain distance, I am limited by own visual acuity - so whether it lights something up sufficiently is hard for me to say with a zoom lens. :shrug:
> 
> 
> I doubt it - the ACE-G circuitry is rather different from the A9 (MC-E vs XR-E, for one thing). The A9 is very decent light for its price, but it is based on an older design.


Oh well, at least it should give me great lighting for many years for what I will use it for on my helmet. Cause this time of year, I inline skate hauling arse on trails from near sundown to after dusk and I surely wouldn't wanna rollup on a unseen object or worse a alligator :shakehead. Yup, in my part of the world they are here too.


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 9, 2009)

I became dissapointed about the bad performance with the new ACE-G using CR123 in comparison to the predecessor ACE. It was close to I ordered the ACE-G, but discovered the review of it.

According to *http://light-reviews.com* the predecessor worked very good with CR123 but the ACE-G is catastrophic bad. Anyone who knows what has happend, and what changes in the new ACE G made this possible? 

*http://light-reviews.com/tiablo_ace/
http://light-reviews.com/tiablo_ace-g/

*Regards, Patric


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 10, 2009)

Swedpat said:


> I became dissapointed about the bad performance with the new ACE-G using CR123 in comparison to the predecessor ACE. It was close to I ordered the ACE-G, but discovered the review of it.


It may have just been one review sample that had issues (I notice that Mev reported his ACE-G got unusually warm on 4xCR123A, which is why he didn't complete those runs).

On my ACE-G sample, time to 50% on duracell CR123A was 57min for 2x and 1hr 33min for 4x configuration. That certainly seems consistent with reports on the original ACE (note that I do not have one to test, so don't know what its output was like in comparison). But there is also an unsual dip in output early on in the ACE-G 2xCR123A run, which skews the results (i.e. it may dip down to below 50% before bouncing back up). This is why you have to look at the actual graphs to really compare.


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 10, 2009)

Thanks Selfbuilt for answer,

Yes, I reacted about the sudden temporary drop of ACE-G after ca 15 min in the test at Light reviews. Though I mostly not use a flashlight during 15 minutes without a pause I still want a flat output curve during the usable runtime before the real drop.

Also I wanted to use the ACE-G with 4xCR123 but it's not good if it then becomes very hot. 
Therefore I think I will go for another alternative than ACE-G. 

Regards, Patric


----------



## Tatjanamagic (Sep 25, 2009)

After your great review I have bought Tiablo A9 with aspherical head, and everybody were stunned by the throwing possibilities of this light because hunters in my country (Croatia Europe) did not belive that this light can out throw mag charger but they were wrong 

Tiablo A9 with aspherical head costs less than A-10, and as I can C by your test throws much further than it, and runs excellent on 2× cr 123 batteries better than on 18650 batteries and I would say 10 % brighter...

Thank U... U saved my money... And because of U my magcharger is going to retirement :thumbsup:


----------



## CDP930 (Dec 10, 2009)

Can someone compare the ACE G to something like an Ultrastinger or 7060 as far as thrown and spill? I'm not too learned on this end of the market. Still thinking the ACE for duty carry....almost sold but I need a better comparision.

Thanks


----------



## rayman (Jan 17, 2010)

Anybody knwos where to get the slightly brighter single-stage version of the A10-G? Only found the two-mode version.

rayman


----------



## Justin Case (Jan 22, 2010)

selfbuilt said:


> *PART II - A10-G Comparison Review*
> 
> 
> Specs (from the Manufacturer):
> ...




 Do both of these lights really use a boost-buck driver, or is this an assumption based on the manufacturer's claimed operating voltage range?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 22, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> [/LIST] Do both of these lights really use a boost-buck driver, or is this an assumption based on the manufacturer's claimed operating voltage range?


Dunno, the specs are simply quoted from the manufacturer. :shrug: I would have guessed boost-buck (based on the voltage ranges), but perhaps someone with the necessary expertise to dissect it can comment?


----------



## HKJ (Jan 22, 2010)

selfbuilt said:


> Dunno, the specs are simply quoted from the manufacturer. :shrug: I would have guessed boost-buck (based on the voltage ranges), but perhaps someone with the necessary expertise to dissect it can comment?



A fast voltage/current/lux scan says buck only for the A10, it will first stabilize at about 4.8 volt. Note my A10 is first generation with the fat body.
The 2.7 volt specification is probably meant to be the lowest voltage where it is guaranteed to light up.


----------



## joema (Jan 22, 2010)

CDP930 said:


> Can someone compare the ACE G to something like an Ultrastinger or 7060 as far as thrown and spill? I'm not too learned on this end of the market. Still thinking the ACE for duty carry....almost sold but I need a better comparision...


I have an ACE-G, but unfortunately I don't not a 7060 or Ultrastinger. 

In general the ACE-G has a good general-purpose beam. It's not a "pure flood" light as sometimes described. It's definitely not a super-thrower, but at common distances typical of a duty light, the beam pattern and width is very good.

The flood is very bright and there are no beam artifacts (rings, donuts, etc). 

I love the super-simple design and UI of the ACE-G. No accidental strobe or SOS activation, size is relatively compact for that class of light. It runs OK on a single 18650, but with limited run time. In that config is very compact.

On 2x 18650s, run time is about 2 hr, although I haven't measured it myself.

I'll to do some beam shots against my other lights and post them.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 22, 2010)

HKJ said:


> A fast voltage/current/lux scan says buck only for the A10, it will first stabilize at about 4.8 volt. Note my A10 is first generation with the fat body.
> The 2.7 volt specification is probably meant to be the lowest voltage where it is guaranteed to light up.


Thanks HKJ - I figured you would be the best person to know, but didn't want to hassle you.


----------



## houtex (Jan 22, 2010)

Can anyone comment on the long term durabilty of this light? I've had two other Tiablo lights ,A9's and both have developed problems in the not so long run. I'm interested in the ACE but I hesitate.


----------



## HKJ (Jan 22, 2010)

selfbuilt said:


> Thanks HKJ - I figured you would be the best person to know, but didn't want to hassle you.



Its no hassle, it is easy (with the right equipment) to measure this stuff. The biggest problem is connecting the light to external power, some flashlights is very difficult to connect wires to.


----------



## joema (Jan 22, 2010)

Here's a Fenix P3D CE on turbo vs the ACE-G with 2x 18650s, using fixed exposure and white balance at a distance of about 30 yards:

Fenix P3D CE:




Tiablo ACE-G:


----------



## Justin Case (Jan 22, 2010)

HKJ said:


> A fast voltage/current/lux scan says buck only for the A10, it will first stabilize at about 4.8 volt. Note my A10 is first generation with the fat body.
> The 2.7 volt specification is probably meant to be the lowest voltage where it is guaranteed to light up.



Unfortunately, that's what I had suspected. Manufacturers really need to get their advertising copy correct. It doesn't inspire any confidence when they don't even know what kind of driver their light uses. Should I then really put a lot of faith in a particular flux bin claim for their LED or a particular drive current claim for their driver, for example?


----------



## rayman (Jan 24, 2010)

You recommended not to use 2x RCR123As in the A10-G. But what about 2x IMR16340 or 2x IMR18650 from AW with the battery extender. This should work as they are rated at a max of 8C?

rayman


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 24, 2010)

rayman said:


> You recommended not to use 2x RCR123As in the A10-G. But what about 2x IMR16340 or 2x IMR18650 from AW with the battery extender. This should work as they are rated at a max of 8C?


Hmm, that should work fine for the single-stage switch. FYI, this review is almost a year old, and I didn't have any IMR cells on hand at the time to test.

Note though that my continuously-variable switch didn't seem to like 2xRCR, so not sure if that's changed at all. :shrug:


----------



## rayman (Jan 24, 2010)

Oh, didn't noticed this .

If I buy the A10-G, I'll only use the single-mode switch. My idea (to increase the runtime) was to buy the battery extender and use 2x IMR18650.

rayman


----------



## sluflyer06 (Sep 25, 2010)

*Runtime!*

So after a bit of back and forth with vendors I was finally able to get a ACE-G, or at least most of one, it was missing the battery extension tube. So As I type I'm doing a runtime test wiht a single 18650.

AW Protected 2900mah= Started at 4.17v off a PILA IBC after a 30 minute rest.

*So far...2hours and 4minutes* runtime and the light is still going! I have a 120mm fan on the light as it gets very hot after a short while just sitting still.

EDIT: So seems about* 2hours and 29 minutes* the light finally dropped its output significantly to what I'd consider it no longer useful. I don't really understand this kind of runtime given the previous results, but I do have a P7 based 4x18650 Bike light to compare it to which is a "claimed" 900lumen and they appear to be about the same light level so I don't think the light is 'weak or out of spec'. Final voltage when I pulled it was 2.61v but thats on a $10 DMM, I have a Fluke 179 on the way I should have next week.

Anyways, it is what it is, I can't do a 2x18650 runtime test until 4sevens gets the tube to me on wednesday.


----------



## applevalleyjoe (Sep 26, 2010)

Another nicely done and very thorough review. I wonder how the A50 would match up?


----------



## sluflyer06 (Sep 27, 2010)

applevalleyjoe said:


> Another nicely done and very thorough review. I wonder how the A50 would match up?



Last I read the A50 was a bust. It got thrown onto the Chinese market because it's missing the high mode and therefore came nowhere near 900 lumen. Otherwise I'd have bought that instead of an ACE-G.

If you'd like to take your chances the only vendor I've seen with any is kit-tronics.


----------

