# Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, pics - added new 2nd Edition WT1!



## selfbuilt (Dec 11, 2007)

Comparison of the new Fenix T1 and the Regal WT1 first edition (aka the “Wrestler”).

For a detailed comparison to all the other thrower lights in my collection, please see:
Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS! 

*UPDATE 1/7/08: I've just updated the throw and runtime numbers/graphs with the preliminary results from the new second edition WT1 currently being sold by tango-lui in the Dealer's forum*. Sorry no pics, but the light looks exactly the same as shown in the dealer's thread (with updated holster).

*The contenders*:

From left to right: Fenix T1, Regal WT1 (first edition) 







These 2xCR123 lights represent one of the latest trends in appealing to more “tactical” personal LED lighting. Build like tanks, they sport deeper reflectors for more throw than standard lights. Although still not in the range of the monster throw lights (see my review of those here), they do throw further than the current single cell champion, the Lumapower D-mini. Outfitted with Cree Q5 emitters, I thought I’d give you a quick run-down of their features and output.

*Included in the package*:

*Fenix T1* – purchased from fenixtactical.com.
















Note the light only comes with an OP textured reflector. The reflector has an unusual design: it sits higher on the emitter than normal, with a sloped edge leading to the opening for the emitter. This produces a much smoother transition from hotspot to corona, and helps to reduce the infamous Cree rings (see beamshots below)

*Regal WT1 (first edition)* – “CPF special” bought directly from Regal light. A second generation is now available from tango-lui - see the current thread in the Dealer’s forum on CPFMP
















The smooth reflector is shown above, but the light also comes with an OP textured reflector. Beamshots below are taken with the OP reflector, for direct comparison to the T1.

*Beamshots:*

Spillbeam comparison at ~.5 meters from a wall. Both lights are running on 2xCR123A with OP reflector, on Hi. The WT1 is focussed for maximum throw.











*Beam observations:*

The Fenix T1 produces one of the smoothest beam profiles I’ve seen for a Cree emitter, while still maintaining considerable throw. :thumbsup:
The Regal WT1 still shows signs of rings even with the OP reflector installed, so I recommend running it on the smooth reflector for max throw.
My first edition WT1 has a slightly misaligned emitter, leading a darker semi-circular region on one side of the hotspot. I’ve seen this before on other lights, and I think it stems from not having the emitter/star sitting perfectly flat against the heatsink. My second edition WT1 is well centered.
The Fenix T1 is brighter overall, with a broader hotspot and wider spillbeam than the WT1. However, The WT1 has a more focused hotspot with further throw.
Note that the WT1 can be slightly defocused into a broader hotspot by turning the head counter-clockwise relative to the body tube.

*Overall Output*:

For overall output comparisons, 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). Both lights are on primaries with OP textured reflectors installed (and as always, the WT1 is focussed for maximum throw):

Regal WT1 (1st Edition, OP): *7.0 lux*
Fenix T1: *9.2 lux*

As you can see, the Fenix T1 is definitely putting out a lot of light. oo: Note that the second generation WT1 should be out soon (and Dealer claims to have increased output by ~10%). *UPDATE: Just received my new second edition WT1, and my lightbox tells me its overall output has increased by ~13% compared to the earlier version.*

*Throw/Runtime Measurement Method:*

Throw values are the square-root of Lux measurements taken at 1m using a light meter. Note that my lightmeter tends to report lower absolute values than most, but I have verified it is linearly responsive over the range of intensities in question. 

*Regal WT1 (1st Edition) - Q5 - Smooth Reflector *
18650 x 1 on high: 10,200 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 1,650 Lux
RCR x 2 on high: 11,350 Lux
RCR x 2 on low: 6,200 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 10,650 Lux
CR123A x 2 on low: 3,800 Lux
*Regal WT1 (1st Edition) - Q5 - OP Reflector *
18650 x 1 on high: 7,900 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 1,220 Lux
RCR x 2 on high: 8,800 Lux
RCR x 2 on low: 5,000 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 8,300 Lux
CR123A x 2 on low: 2,750 Lux
*Fenix T1 - Q5 - OP Reflector *
RCR x 2 on high: 7,900 Lux
RCR x 2 on low: 1,850 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 7,600 Lux
CR123A x 2 on low: 1,780 Lux
*Lumapower D-mini - Q2 - Smooth Reflector *
RCR x 1 on high: 6,900 Lux
RCR x 1 on med: 1,950 Lux
RCR x 1 on low: 510 Lux
CR123A x 1 on high: 6,650 Lux
CR123A x 1 on med: 1,850 Lux
CR123A x 1 on low: 530 Lux

Quick update:
*Regal WT1 (2nd Edition) - Q5 - Smooth Reflector *
18650 x 1 on high: 13,350 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 13,400 Lux
I haven't tried the 2-stage switch yet - but as you can see, throw has increased noticeably from the first edition.

*Throw observations:*


The second edition Regal WT1 throws about ~13% further than the original WT1 (both on the smooth reflector). Overall output (as measured by my light milk carton lightbox) also shows ~13% increase for this new WT1. :thumbsup: 
Even the first edition Regal WT1 throws further than the Fenix T1. Although with the OP textured reflector installed in the WT1, the throw is just slightly higher than the T1 (at least as measured by lux @1m).
The Fenix T1 is an impressive thrower for its size, although the beam is bit more diffused with a wider hotspot than any of the dedicated “thrower” lights out there.
I’ve added the single battery D-mini Q2 Digital with smooth reflector for comparison purposes. As you can see, it doesn’t throw quite as far as the T1/WT1, but with a Q5 emitter it should be pretty much equivalent to the OP-textured T1/WT1. 

*Runtimes:*

*These runtimes charts are different from my other reviews - they represent throw, not overall output.* Since my home-made milk carton lightbox doesn't accurately capture overall output on these intense throwers, I have adjusted all my relative output numbers to initial throw (measured as the squareroot of Lux @1m). This allows you to directly compare the relative throw of each light over time on the graphs below (although you can't directly compare these graphs with my other reviews).
















*Note:* For the runtimes, the WT1 is using the smooth reflector for maximum throw. With the OP reflector installed, initial throw is pretty similar to the Fenix T1 (as determined by lux @1m).

*Runtime observations:*


Just a reminder again: the Fenix T1 produces more overall output than the first edition Regal WT1 on primary CR123A. The graphs above are throw-adjusted to lux @1m with the smooth WT1 reflector. With the OP reflector in the WT1, the initial portion of the curve would look about the same as the T1.
The second edition WT1 has ~13% more output and throw than the first edition, but with similar runtime. :thumbsup:
On Hi, the Regal WT1 has very flat regulation on primaries, and a typical decay pattern on 18650.
On Hi, the Fenix T1 also has very flat regulation on primaries, with a nice long moon mode.
Both lights performed as expected on 2xRCR - flat output, but short runtime.
On Low, the current-controlled Fenix T1 lasted considerably longer than the the resistored-low mode of the WT1 (as expected). Note that although the WT1 throws farther than the T1 on low, their overall output on primaries is actually similar (again, the runtime graphs and lux numbers above relate to throw, not overall output).

_*Design elements:*_


Both lights are built like tanks, and feel very solid in the hand. Good weight and balance – I wouldn’t want to be smacked with either of these! :laughing:
The WT1 has an aggressive 3-point scalloped bezel head, while the T1 has a silver-coloured ring with a few divits along the edge. Both would do some damage if used against another person (especially the WT1, I would think). 
The WT1 can be de-focussed slightly by turning the head counter-clockwise relative to the body tube. This produces a broader hotspot.
Both lights come with forward “tactical” clickies with good tactile feel. The WT1 comes with an optional 2-stage standard reverse clicky with resistored low mode. The Fenix T1 features current-controlled low mode by a twist of the bezel.
The Fenix T1 has a built-in metal clip, which unfortunately scratches against the knurling every time you twist the bezel for the low mode (this needs to be fixed in future versions!)
The T1 also has a very rakish-looking design to the tailcap, with 3 raised points that allow for tailstanding. Normally a nice feature, but this seems a little over-done and makes it harder to access the switch. :thinking:
Both lights feature reverse polarity protection in case you put the batteries in wrong (new for Fenix).
The WT1 can take 18650, RCR, and 2xCR123A, while the Fenix T1 is CR123A and RCR only, AFAIK.
The Fenix T1 comes with a good quality holster, as you would expect from Fenix. The first edition WT1 came with a cheap holster – although the second generation WT1 has a much higher quality model (haven't taken pictures yet - but mine looks the same as in the Dealer's thread).
The first and second generation WT1 seem to have identical build quality, just a different anodizing finish (dark gray on the first edition, black or light gray on the second edition) and slightly more output/throw on the second edition.






_*Build Quality:*_


Anodizing is good on both, but the WT1 is particularly outstanding (I quite like the dark gray colour of the WT1 as well). 
Lettering is much higher quality on my WT1, one of the best I’ve seen. The Fenix logo and lettering look somewhat “splotchy”.
The T1 has anodized threads allowing for tailcap lock-out. Unfortunately, the WT1 lacks this useful feature.
I haven’t dissembled the T1 yet, but the tailcap switches seem to be of good quality on both lights.
The T1 has only one o-ring in the tail portion of the body (the WT1 has two), but it is quite thick and likely to be fairly water-proof.

_*Conclusions:*_

I’m not into “tactical” uses of lights, so I can’t speak to how well either one functions in that regard – but both are excellent quality general use lights. My novice impression is that the Regal WT1 is better suited for tactical use than the Fenix T1.
The T1 is the first “throwy” Fenix light – it throws ~50% further than my Q5-equipped L2D. With some minor body improvements (e.g. clip replacement, altered tailcap edges), this will be a great light. Its overall beam pattern is very pleasing, and a good balance between throw and spill.
The Regal WT1 has excellent throw for its size – in fact, the first edition WT1 performance matches the first generation MRVs (P4/Q2). The second generation WT1 has ~13% more throw and overall output than the first edition.
As you might guess, I like both lights. :twothumbs


----------



## jzmtl (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

Nice, thanks for the runtime graph! Are there any plans for doing one for low mode?

The clip can be bend out manually so it doesn't contact body, quite easy to do.

One problem I have with the fenix forward switch is it needs to be pushed in further than I'd like to activate momentary mode. I'd like one that activate with a light touch, less stress on thumbs if I hold it in momentary for a while.


----------



## JKL (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*




Nice review Selfbuilt.

A very interesting contest between the T1 and the WT1,
my choice has been to buy the second one because, IMHO, the WT1 has much more versatility.

Even if I have the DBS Q5 and the Tiablo Q5, I'm very happy with the Regal WT1.

I hope that on the next Fenix T1 version some aspects will be improved.





Thanks Selfbuilt, :goodjob: as usual.


----------



## woodrow (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

Nice!, review again Selfbuilt. I will have to pick up a Fenix T1...and possibly the Regal light when (if) they get an American distributor.

Thanks again for the runtime and lux graphs.


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

Just updated the main post with throw values on RCR. As expected, the Fenix T1 keeps it's output on RCR fairly consistent with primaries, but the WT1 is considerably brighter on low (as you would expect for a resistored setup).



jzmtl said:


> Nice, thanks for the runtime graph! Are there any plans for doing one for low mode?


When I get time ... . RCR Hi mode runtimes will be posted later today, and low modes will follow when available.



> The clip can be bend out manually so it doesn't contact body, quite easy to do.


Yeah, but it needs a fair bit of force. I thought I had done just that, then noticed a few minutes later it was back touching again. And of course, this would negate the point of having a clip. Would have been better if they have made it removable.



> One problem I have with the fenix forward switch is it needs to be pushed in further than I'd like to activate momentary mode. I'd like one that activate with a light touch, less stress on thumbs if I hold it in momentary for a while.


Agreed, a lighter touch would be nicer, especially given all the build-up around the tailcap rim.


----------



## jirik_cz (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

Excellent review as usual! :twothumbs:thanks::goodjob:


----------



## jzmtl (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*



selfbuilt said:


> Agreed, a lighter touch would be nicer, especially given all the build-up around the tailcap rim.


 
What I noticed last night is the switch from factory has no lubrication whatsoever. Unassemble the tail cap, try push some silicone grease into the switch itself where the plunger goes in, click a few times and repeat, and it operates easier.


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

Just added runtimes on Hi for RCR. No surprises here - flat output, short runtime.

May take me awhile to do the low runtimes, as I'm travelling again the next few days and am expecting a few more lights to arrive shortly. But I fully expect the T1 will kick the WT1's butt on low.  We'll see ...

:wave:


----------



## woodrow (Dec 12, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

I just ordered one form Mike at PTS. It should be here Friday. (UPS 2nd day)

I can't wait to get it!

Thanks to everyone for their great reviews!


----------



## RGB_LED (Dec 14, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

Great review selfbuilt! :twothumbs I initially wrote off both the T1 and WT1 as I have been concentrating more on 1-cell lights and have ordered about 5 lights in the last two months... 

But, after this review, I think I need to add a thrower to my list of lights... :naughty:. What surprises me is that the pictures are a bit deceptive; in the side-by-side comparisons, it looks like the T1 is brighter than the WT1 (hot-spot and corona), yet the WT1 actually puts out more lux overall. On second review, maybe the hot-spot on the WT1 appears actually brighter, but you are right in your assessment that the Fenix has a very smooth transition from hot-spot to corona - amazing. I just wish that that the tailcap wasn't shaped like that as I'm not too fond of the design. Oh well.

Btw, your review on the throwers is top-notch as well. :goodjob:


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 14, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*



RGB_LED said:


> What surprises me is that the pictures are a bit deceptive; in the side-by-side comparisons, it looks like the T1 is brighter than the WT1 (hot-spot and corona), yet the WT1 actually puts out more lux overall.


Actually, the T1 seems to put out more light overall, according to my lightbox and the ceiling bounce test (consistent with what the beamshot shows). The runtime graph shows a higher value for the WT1 because it is adjusted for center throw.

I always hesitate to present the graphs this way, but throw is what matters to most people with these light, so that's the way the I do it for the thower lights. Besides, I don't really trust the exact output values of my lightbox or ceiling bounce on such strong throwers. 

It's very hard to get reliable overall output comparison data when the lights are so focussed, unless I remove the reflectors and bezel (but there can be differences induced by that manipulation as well). In any case, I can't open the T1 anyway. 

I must say, I'm really impressed with the T1 beam - an excellent balance of throw and spill, with smooth transition and wider spill area. Good all-around reflector design. The WT1 is more of a pocket version of the bigger throwers.


----------



## rizky_p (Dec 14, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

thanks for the hard work. 

Wondering whether 17670 will fit and liight up T1?

thanks


----------



## Tiny86 (Dec 14, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

Thanks for the reveiw! It told me just what I wanted to know. :twothumbs


----------



## woodrow (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

I got mine today. Thanks PTS! Selfbuilt you are right. It does have a great beam! It feels incredibly tough, and it does have some weight to it, but its not heavy. I really like the simple bezel twist to go from high to low...all the while having a forward clicky. I also do not find the clicky that tough to use.

Another light I am not sad I have bought! Actually, I would take this light over a Tiablo. It is small, has two levels, is tough, has great spill and very good and usable throw. Combine that with being freaking bright and having a perfect tint, whats not to like...plus it is easy on batteries too. Seriously, ignore the mockers and get one of these if you have not. It is a great light!

Thanks again for helping me decide to get one selfbuilt!


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 18, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, pics - Low mode added*

Runtimes on primaries on low just added to main post. As expected the T1 definitely spanked the WT1 for runtime. 

I haven't done the other battery tests yet, and they will have to wait since my lightbox is tied up for some upcoming invited reviews. More details coming soon.


----------



## garence (Dec 22, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, pics - Low mode added*

Great review, selfbuilt! I've already got a WT1 on order--looks like a superb light.

But I'm very curious about the low runtimes you've shown on the WT1. Light Reviews reported 970 minutes to 50% on the low setting running CR123 batteries, compared to your 434 minutes. What do you suspect accounts for such a dramatic difference?


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 22, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, pics - Low mode added*



garence said:


> But I'm very curious about the low runtimes you've shown on the WT1. Light Reviews reported 970 minutes to 50% on the low setting running CR123 batteries, compared to your 434 minutes. What do you suspect accounts for such a dramatic difference?


Good question ... one thing I notice is the x2x3x2's doesn't seem to throw as far as mine does on low. The difference isn't huge, but it is noticeable, suggesting the resistor may not be same (giving his a slight advantage). Doesn't seem to be enough to explain the difference, though. :thinking:

Things might become clearer once I have a chance to do the RCR and 18650 runtimes. Lightbox is a little busy right now with a number of invited reviews, but I may have time to get the RCR runs done tomorrow ... stay tuned ...


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 23, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, pics - Low mode added*

Just added RCR low mode runtime on WT1 ...

As you'll see, there's clearly a big difference between mine and the one reviewed at lightreviews.info. If you look at x2x3x2's throw numbers, you'll see his throws a lot less on low on RCR, helping to explain the much longer runtimes he found. So, it definitely seems like a different resistor is at play.

My second generation WT1 has shipped, and should hopefully be here over the holidays, so I will update this review with those results once it gets here.

Happy holidays!


----------



## garence (Dec 29, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, pics - Low mode added*



selfbuilt said:


> Just added RCR low mode runtime on WT1 ...
> 
> As you'll see, there's clearly a big difference between mine and the one reviewed at lightreviews.info. If you look at x2x3x2's throw numbers, you'll see his throws a lot less on low on RCR, helping to explain the much longer runtimes he found. So, it definitely seems like a different resistor is at play.
> 
> My second generation WT1 has shipped, and should hopefully be here over the holidays, so I will update this review with those results once it gets here.


Thanks for the add and looking forward to your results with the v2!


----------



## SlotCAR (Dec 29, 2007)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, pics - Low mode added*

I'm impressed with the Regal WT1 [Version II].

I just finished two run time tests with AW 18650's and got 3 hrs 22 mins to 50% on high.

I have now switched it to the OP reflector and the 2-stage reverse clicky. Not a bad combination although the reverse clicky is a little firm compared to the forward clicky. I just want the 2 light levels the 2-stage yields.

*- SlotCAR*


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, pics - Low mode added*



SlotCAR said:


> I'm impressed with the Regal WT1 [Version II].
> 
> I just finished two run time tests with AW 18650's and got 3 hrs 22 mins to 50% on high.
> *- SlotCAR*


I can confirm a similar result: 3hr 16min to 50% on AW 18650 on my new second edition WT1 from tango-lui.

I've updated the main thread with my preliminary runtime/throw/output numbers of the new WT1. *As you'll see, peak throw and output have each increased by ~13%, with no significant change in runtime.* Very impressive!

Haven't had time to do a full review of this new light, but build quality and package extras are similar to the first edition (except for new anodizing finishes on the light, and a better quality holster).


----------



## Stereodude (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, pics - Low mode added*

Gotta love that WT1 v2. oo: More output, slightly longer runtimes on 18650's. Still available for $65 shipped (through the 14th). You can't beat that with a stick! :thumbsup:

Thanks for the update to your review.


----------



## Tiny86 (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, pics - Low mode added*

Thanks for the updated version!


----------



## SlotCAR (Jan 7, 2008)

Excellant comparison and review.

Although the WT1 V2 is not the super-thrower of my RaidFire Spear, the runtime of 3+ hours, 1-stage forward clicky, 2-stage reverse clicky, SMO and OP reflectors and the ability to run CR123's, RCR123's or 18650's make this light a favorite. Gee, it even included a fairly decent holster as well.

I'm amazed at the runtime quite honestly as well as its size.

*- SlotCAR*


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 8, 2008)

SlotCAR said:


> Although the WT1 V2 is not the super-thrower of my RaidFire Spear, the runtime of 3+ hours, 1-stage forward clicky, 2-stage reverse clicky, SMO and OP reflectors and the ability to run CR123's, RCR123's or 18650's make this light a favorite. Gee, it even included a fairly decent holster as well.
> 
> I'm amazed at the runtime quite honestly as well as its size.


Agreed - and succinctly put! I consider this light to be a great all-around value as is. 

Digitally-regulated low modes would be nice in future versions, as I consider this an excellent base model to work from. But of course, that's likely to raise the costs (and potentially limit battery options). The light is quite a good recommendation as is. :thumbsup:


----------



## RainerWahnsinn (Jan 8, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> Agreed - and succinctly put! I consider this light to be a great all-around value as is.
> 
> Digitally-regulated low modes would be nice in future versions, as I consider this an excellent base model to work from. But of course, that's likely to raise the costs (and potentially limit battery options). The light is quite a good recommendation as is. :thumbsup:



+1 and dont forget the T7075 aloy vs most others T6061


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 12, 2008)

Just a reminder, there's only 2 days left to get in on the $65 deal for new second edition WT1. It's a great buy for this price. :thumbsup:

END on 14.01.2008 with Regalight Second Version WT1 flashlight promotional sales


----------



## WadeF (Jan 18, 2008)

Great info as always Selfbuilt, I think my TES Lux meter is pretty close to yours as far as results. I got similar 13,000ish numbers with my new 2nd edition WT1 on 18650's. Almost seemed a bit higher with the 2-stage switch, but it may have just been an error in my testing. 

Great light though! You get a lot for the price. Both reflectors, two lanyards, various clip options, spare orings, etc. I got the Natural finsih. I like the fact it's only slightly larger than my CL1H but has a bit more throw thanks to the larger reflector. Now if only it had a clip option like the CL1H.


----------



## Patsplace (Feb 3, 2008)

*Re: Fenix T1 vs. Regal WT1: RUNTIMEs, lots of pics.*

Yeah, but it needs a fair bit of force. I thought I had done just that, then noticed a few minutes later it was back touching again. And of course, this would negate the point of having a clip. Would have been better if they have made it removable.

I read on one of the forums that soaking in hot water allows for unscrewing and clip removal.

Pat


----------

