# Lumapower Connexion X2 2xAA Extension & TurboForce Head Review



## selfbuilt (Apr 5, 2009)

_*Reviewer's Note: *The Connexion X2 2xAA extension and TurboForce kits were provided by Ricky at Lumapower for review.
_
*Warning: Pic heavy!*

A little something new from Lumapower: 







Lumapower has recently announced a series of upgrades to the Connexion X2 (1xAA) and Encore (1x18650, 2xR/CR123A) lights: a 2xAA battery extension tube for the X2, and further-throwing TurboForce heads for both models.

The 2xAA battery tube extension warrants additional runtime tests (see below), but the TurboForce kits simply allow you to swap a wider head with larger reflector on the X2 and Encore (i.e. doesn't change the emitter/pill/circuit). This review will focus on the X2 upgrades - please see my Encore review for an update with the TurboForce head.

First off, here's what to expect with the new TurboForce head:

(TurboForce head is on top on the left, standard head is on the bottom on the left)





Here is with the TF head installed:














As you can see, the TF head adds a bit of height and extra width to the head, but it is not a huge difference (i.e. not like the D-mini or anything). Build quality is consistent with the rest of the X2 design (i.e. type III black HA). 






Note the TF head unit can separate into two-parts, allowing you to directly access the reflector.

How do the beams compare?














Clearly, the TF head has a much narrower beam with greater throw. How much greater? Lumapower claims 4X the lux readings. 






The manufacturer's claim is pretty consistent with my findings. :thumbsup: Note that raw lux doesn't indicate how much further it throws. For that, you need to compare the square roots of lux (i.e. 4X the lux means 2X the actual throw).

How about the 2xAA extension tube? Here it is with the standard head installed:


















And here it is with the TF head installed:






The 2xAA extension tube is good fit at both ends of the light, no gaps or threading issues to report. Fit and finish is consistent with my 1xAA X2 body, although the extension tube is slightly more matte finish on my sample. Obviously, the 1xAA clip is of less value for a 2xAA-sized light, but this is of course removable (and if nothing else, it serves as an effective anti-roll device now).

See my original X2 review for a discussion of the user interface.

*Comparison Beamshots*

All lights are on Hi/100% on 2x Sanyo Eneloop. Distance is about 0.5 meters from a white wall. The X2 2xAA is using the standard head.

1/25sec, f3.2





1/100sec, f3.2





1/800sec, f3.2





As shown previously, the standard head on the Connexion lights has a relatively broad (and dimmer) spillbeam than typical in the AA class. IMO, this is actually fairly useful for an EDC light (i.e. more "floody"). The TurboForce head has a slightly narrower than typical spill for an AA class light (scroll back up the first part of this review for a comparison to the standard head).

*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, except for the extended run Lo modes which are done without cooling.

Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 1 meter from the lens, using a light meter.

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*






The standard head Connexion has the lowest peak throw of all my 2xAA lights, while the TurboForce head is about typical for this class. Max output for the 2xAA version of the X2 is on the low side for this class of light - likely due to the fact that the circuit was optimized for 1xAA performance (see the output/runtimes for more info).

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*






Not surprisingly (since the circuit/pill is unchanged from the 1xAA X2), output levels at Lo/Med/Hi are basically the same with the 2xAA extension tube in place. As such, this translates into improved runtimes at all levels. Although I haven't done the Lo mode runs, runtime has approximately doubled on Med, and nearly tripled on Hi on NiMH. See my 2xAA round-up review for comparisons to other 2xAA lights.

*Potential Issues*

Max output in 2xAA form remains the same as 1xAA. Otherwise, see my 1xAA X2 review for general comments about the Connexions.

*General Observations*

I am generally a big fan of the 2xAA class light for general-purpose use, so I'm glad to see Lumapower offer the 2xAA extension tube. Fit and finish were perfect on my sample, with no issues. :thumbsup:

I will be adding this light to my 2xAA round-up shortly, so you will be able to compare it directly to other lights of this class. In terms of output/runtime efficiency, it generally holds its own well. But maximum output remains limited the 1xAA levels (since the circuit was originally optimized for that power source).

Basically, you can look at this extension tube as a simple way to extend the runtimes of your Connexion X2. 

As for the Turboforce, I am sure this will become a welcome upgrade for many. I personally like the shallow reflector of the original head, since it provides a nice "floody" beam. But with the TF head, you now have the option to produce a more typical beam pattern with a decent amount of throw. Note that you are not getting D-mini levels of throw here - the TurboForce kit brings the Connexion more in keeping with typical non-slim lined lights.

I am not sure if Lumapower will be shipping lights with these options installed by default, but you will certainly be able to purchase them as upgrades to existing lights directly from Lumapower or through their dealers shortly.


----------



## regulator (Apr 5, 2009)

Another thank you selfbuilt. Lumapower has come out with some nice stuff as of recent. I like the option of adding the extra battery tube and also the turbo head. They did a good job of having the add on parts match their respective lights. I keep eyeing the Encore since I sold my last 18650 light and it too has a Turbo head available. Their are just too many nice lights out and it makes it both good and bad!!!


----------



## Superorb (Apr 5, 2009)

I was hoping for either a dedicated 2AA light, or at least some knurlings or anti-roll on the 2AA tube. Oh well, I'm more than happy with the X2 as it is


----------



## Zeruel (Apr 5, 2009)

Great review as always. :kiss:
Love the tubular form of the 2AA, but it lose out to P100A2 in lux. Yet, it's something to consider for it's flexibility in usage.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Apr 6, 2009)

Great review. I do have to wonder is there a reason why there never seems to be low run-times tested (not just Selfbuilts reviews)? To me that is the be all and end all of a light is the low run-time.

Also I asked Matt at Battery Junction for a price on either ConneXion Turbo Force head last week and he didn't even know they existed. Hopefully they will carry it eventually. I was just a little surprised the price from Lumapower was almost the same price as the X2 itself as the new TF head is $29.5 (as a promotional special), whereas the regular ConneXion Turbo Force head is $33 from Lumapower. Was hoping a retailer would knock off $5 or so a piece.


----------



## lumapower (Apr 6, 2009)

Hi selfbuilt,

Many thanks for your reviews.

BTW, BJ will rec'd the new items this week.
The runtime for Low out should last for a week. 

Best regards,

Ricky - Lumapower CS


----------



## DM51 (Apr 6, 2009)

Very useful info for Lumapower users - modular system, more flexibility...

Moving to the Reviews section.


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 6, 2009)

Glad you all liked the update. Personally, I appreciate makers that allow battery tube extensions and part swapping. 



Beacon of Light said:


> Great review. I do have to wonder is there a reason why there never seems to be low run-times tested (not just Selfbuilts reviews)? To me that is the be all and end all of a light is the low run-time.





lumapower said:


> The runtime for Low out should last for a week.


Based on output and performance, I would expect about a week's runtime on Lo as well. This is precisely why I don't do runtimes at this level - it would tie up my lightbox for a week, which means no other lights could be tested. I sometimes do non-lightbox low-mode runtimes on alkaline, but this just allows me to give an estimated number of days (+/- 0.5 days).

More importantly, I am unable to predict when the run would end, which means I wouldn't be able to stop it before it depleting my Eneloops (which also means they could potentially sit for several hours in a depleted state before I noticed). You will note in all my runtimes that I stop the run when the Eneloop hits ~10% of initial capacity.

Allowing the batteries to drain to zero damages their recharging capabilities, especially the low-self-discharge feature of Eneloops. SilverFox has some data on this in the batteries forum, but I know from my testing that even a single complete discharge reduces the long-term storage capacity of Eneloops. Repeated complete discharges basically turns them into low-capacity regular NiMH (and poorly performing ones at that).

As it is, I have already had to discard a full 4-pack of eneloops for accidental over-discharge on Hi/Med levels. I go through a large amount of primary cells for my testing, but I am unwilling to sacrifice a brand new Eneloop for every single run.


----------



## Linger (Apr 6, 2009)

which olight t15 do you use? the 130lm or the 190 lm one?


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 6, 2009)

linger said:


> which olight t15 do you use? the 130lm or the 190 lm one?


It's the 2008 model (still current for 2009) that offers multiple levels on Li-ion. The original 2007 model was direct-drive on 14500, similar to the Fenix models. I don't know their lumen estimates, but I seriously doubt any 1xAA light is outputing 190 lumens, even on 14500 (except maybe the Eagletac P10A).


----------



## Linger (Apr 6, 2009)

Sure, just that the (exaggerated) rating is a way to identify which of the two versions. Your multi-mode comment also identifies it as the new and improved version.
Thank-you.


----------



## BigBluefish (Apr 6, 2009)

I think - but, hey, I may be wrong on this - selfbuilt knows this stuff way better than I do - the 2008 T15 is rated for 120 lumens on an NiMH or alkaline cell, and 190 on a 14500, the same as the 2008 T10 on a CR123a or RCR123 (2007 T10 was rated at 130 lumens on CR123a). These are, I assume, lumens at the emitter, not out-the-front. The 2007 T15 was, IIRC, rated at 90 lumens at the emitter on an NiMH or alkaline cell.

That being said, the readings, the lightbox max and particularly the overal lux readings, seem low for a light rated at even 120 lumens, I think the readings for the T10 in selfbuilt's 1 x CR123 comparison review were also lower than I'd expected, given that unit's 180/190 lumen rating. Perhaps Olight is being a little more liberal, even than Fenix, in their lumen ratings. Or maybe this is really a 2007 model. There were, apparently, actually two "2008" Q5 models of the T10/15 released, the first q5s not being compatible with RCR123s and 14500, the latter ones using a q5 being fully regulated on both primary and rechargeable cells, the first being rated at 180 lumens, the second, 190 (the packaging on my T10 says 180 lumens on Level 1). So, there are actually at least 3 versions of T15s floating around. 

I don't know if the difference between 120 and 180 lumens has any practical effect, but it just seemed the output readings for the T10/T15 were lower than I would have expected.


----------



## eyeeatingfish (Apr 7, 2009)

Great i was debating between a D10 and a conexion x2 and I was going to order a D10 thinking the quality might be better. (I have an incendio and the switch sometimes doesnt activate and i have to tap the light).

But now this comes out? Now i cant decide again. Which one do you think is more reliable? This has so many options now!
Im guessing you cant put two 14500 batteries in it though.
Argh


----------



## clg0159 (Apr 7, 2009)

I was just a little surprised the price from Lumapower was almost the same price as the X2 itself as the new TF head is $29.5 (*as a promotional special*), whereas the regular ConneXion Turbo Force head is $33 from Lumapower. Was hoping a retailer would knock off $5 or so a piece.[/quote]
+1
The TF head is a great upgrade option IMO......just not $30 greatI wonder what the price for the extension tube will be? I like the ability to get a week of runtime in emergency situations.

Selfbuilt,
Great review as usual! Thanks!


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 7, 2009)

BigBluefish said:


> IThere were, apparently, actually two "2008" Q5 models of the T10/15 released, the first q5s not being compatible with RCR123s and 14500, the latter ones using a q5 being fully regulated on both primary and rechargeable cells, the first being rated at 180 lumens, the second, 190 (the packaging on my T10 says 180 lumens on Level 1). So, there are actually at least 3 versions of T15s floating around.


My T15 is actually the same head as my T10 (i.e. just using the available 1xAA battery tube). So it's not surprising that the T15 output results are similarly a bit on the low side. 

It's likely just emitter variability. I've checked the packaging, and the T10 box has the "190lm" estimate on it. Clearly, they were using "emitter lumens" and not out-the-front numbers ...


----------



## BigBluefish (Apr 8, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> My T15 is actually the same head as my T10 (i.e. just using the available 1xAA battery tube). So it's not surprising that the T15 output results are similarly a bit on the low side.
> 
> It's likely just emitter variability. I've checked the packaging, and the T10 box has the "190lm" estimate on it. Clearly, they were using "emitter lumens" and not out-the-front numbers ...


 
That makes sense. Though on a good-quality light, like an Olight or Fenix, I wouldn't think there would be that much variation in output among emitters. Tint? Sure. But I would think the output levels would be relatively comparable. 

I always take the manufacturer's rated lumens with a grain of salt...and actually have been looking to your reviews to see if a light I was intersted in would be giiving me the output and runtiems I was hoping for. I ordered a T10 anyway last month, and I will say, on Level 1, that thing is BRIGHT!!! Guess I got a good one.


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 8, 2009)

BigBluefish said:


> That makes sense. Though on a good-quality light, like an Olight or Fenix, I wouldn't think there would be that much variation in output among emitters. Tint? Sure. But I would think the output levels would be relatively comparable.


One possibility is Vf variation - none of the major makers select defined Vf bin, and this could be influencing max output. For example, I've noticed considerable variation in max output between my 1xAA ITP C7 and C7T, despite the fact that both have the same main circuit and emitter. Olight and ITP seem to be closely related.


----------



## BigBluefish (Apr 8, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> One possibility is Vf variation - none of the major makers select defined Vf bin, and this could be influencing max output. For example, I've noticed considerable variation in max output between my 1xAA ITP C7 and C7T, despite the fact that both have the same main circuit and emitter. Olight and ITP seem to be closely related.


 
Now that I think about it, I recall that when you did the D10 or EX10 reviews, there were two or three lights of the same model that had a pretty big range of "high" outputs, also.


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 8, 2009)

BigBluefish said:


> Now that I think about it, I recall that when you did the D10 or EX10 reviews, there were two or three lights of the same model that had a pretty big range of "high" outputs, also.


That's right - I saw a 15-20% difference in max output among my D10 Crees (and over 25% differences between my ITP C7s). Most of the time, the difference between samples is less than that, but significant variation can occur.

Vf variation will also affect runtimes, but again in a variable way depending on the circuit. On some lights, this effect can be most pronounced at the extremely low levels (e.g. my NiteCore Extreme), while in other cases its noticeable at all levels (e.g. JetBeam Jet-IIIs).


----------



## eyeeatingfish (Apr 9, 2009)

The signature series turbo force head is only like 12 of 15 bucks, why is this one so expensive?


----------



## clg0159 (Apr 9, 2009)

eyeeatingfish said:


> The signature series turbo force head is only like 12 of 15 bucks, why is this one so expensive?


Exactly what I couldn't figure out.....so I asked Ricky and was told it was because of R&D costs. I am still :thinking: about that one.


----------



## HorizonSon (Apr 9, 2009)

Sounds like if I wait around a few months... I just might be able to find the TF Head for $19.95??? Wait a little longer and... Oh what the hell; I'll be buying the ConneXion X3, lol...


----------



## clg0159 (Apr 9, 2009)

:laughing:
Now the X3 I would buy...........as long as it has a proper heatsink Or am I the only one to open up the X2 so far


----------



## eyeeatingfish (Apr 10, 2009)

i guess the signature head was designed as part of the original flashlight where this was not so its extra research...


----------

