# Review: Inova X1 with reflector



## cratz2 (Feb 27, 2006)

A few members had mentioned a new version of the Inova X1 available at Target. This one features a flat window (lens) and a reflector allowing for a more traditional beam profile than the 'uber spot' of the older Inova X1 with the optic. Whether you liked or hated the older version of the X1 wth the optic, it was a very controversial beam pattern.

Anyway, I had to pick one up to see what the talk was about... I am quite pleased.

I've long considered the X1 to be about the perfect form factor for an EDC light. Before the Fenix came out, I wanted an X1 with a Luxeon installed and though several members had done X1 Luxeon mods, the main difficulty seemed to be finding a source for a decent quality reflector that would fit properly in the X1.

I think that both the LED and the reflector are the same parts as come in the Inova Radiant 2xAAA light. I believe the LED is a Nichia CS C0 bin. Blue center with a greenish corona going into the spillbeam. I've never had a big issue with this color pattern, but some have.

Well, let's get to the pics.

Here is my quasi artistic shot of the old version next to the new version:






Here's a beam shot comparison from about 8 inches away:





Here's a series of beamshots, all from 15 feet away with fixed camera settings. 28mm, f2.8, 1 second shutter.

Older X1 with the optic.





Newer X1 with the reflector





Inova Radiant 2xAAA





Infinity Ultra (my brightest one, by the way)





Fenix L1P





Here's all the lights from this series:


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 27, 2006)

Overall, I'm pretty much tickled pink with the new X1. It is usably bright, has a very nice wide spillbeam (which is one of the best assets in an EDC in my opinion) and should give nice long runtime. I have zero beef with the Fenix series of lights but I've always felt that the X1 had a more solid feel to it and a bit nice fit and finish. Of course, the Fenix is brighter and has much more throw, but I carry a brighter 2 cell Lux III light for my 'bright EDC' so something with more extended runtime is welcome.

I also took some current readings:

Duracell Ultra Alkaline Cell: 230ma new X1, 200ma old X1
Energizer E2 Lithium Cell: 240ma new X1, 210ma old X1
Energizer 2500 mAh NiMH Cell: 250ma new X1, 240ma old X1
Freshly charged 14500 LiON Cell: 430ma new X1

Which brings me to another point... I tried a 14500 LiON cell in the new X1. I've been building Minimags and Solitaires with Nichia CS LEDs run direct on 14500 and 10440 cells so I knew the LED itself could take the abuse... I just wanted to see if the circuit could handle it and what the results would be.

The angriest blue you've ever seen! 

I have a blue Lux I low dome that is this exact same shade! It was definately brighter... probably twice as bright. But I certainly don't prefer this tint and, though my LiON driven CSs have held up very nicely, something tells me with this circuit in place, something would die soon.






*Edit - added a subjective runtime test in Post #34 of this thread:*

@ 2 hours, it looks just as bright as my other new X1.

@ 3 hours, it looks just slightly dimmer than the other X1.

@ 4 hours, it looks even dimmer and I could probably tell the difference without a direct comparison to one with a fresh cell.

@ 5 hours, I would assume this is close to the 50% brightness point.

(Then I slept for 3.5 hours)

@ 8.5 hours, it was about as bright as my brightest Infinity Ultra.

@ 10 hours, it is dimmer than my non-Ultra Infinity.

I'll keep running the test until I can no longer read by the light.

Edit - @ 16 hours, I think it was the same brightness as it was at 10 hours.

@ 18 hours, it alternates between the same dim level it was at @ 10 hours and a very dim setting. This isn't a strobe or flashing type effect, but it will be brighter for maybe 2 minutes, then drop to the lower level for a few seconds, then back to the higher level. This is still good enough to read by and navigate through a dark room slowly.

@ 21 hours, it is now flashing from 'high' to low about every 5 seconds and the cell measures .82V open so I would consider the battery all but dead.


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 27, 2006)

Just a couple more points... as I mentioned in the other thread, at Target the bar code and the product code for the new X1 is the exact same as those of the old X1 which would lead me to believe that the reflectored X1 has replaced the X1 with the optic. I know the X1 with the optic didn't receive much love and I have no doubt that Target took a considerable number of X1s in return because of a beam profile that, while some found beneficial, the common flashlight buyer was probably not expecting. I hear there is a reflectored version of the Inova X0 coming out and I will be buying one as soon as I see it.

As an aside, all of the Inova keychain lights and the Inova X5 looked like they have been upgraded to Nichia CS LEDs as well. I also hear that Fry's Electronics is selling the X5s for about $20. I'm going to head up to my Fry's to check out the situation on my next day off.

Lastly, doing the ceiling bounce test, the new X1 with the reflector is clearly brighter than the older X1... I'd guess it's putting out 50% to 100% more total output.


----------



## Solstice (Feb 27, 2006)

Wow- that is one unhappy LED !

Even though you say the CS can take this abuse, I'd expect you are taking years off of it's life. As the new X1 is noticably brighter than an Arc AAA-P, is it driving the LED even harder than Arc? I know the Arc pushes 50 mA, so is the Inova doing 60 perhaps?

Even if the LED is pretty overdriven, it somehow bothers me less than in the Arc- probably something to do with this light being half the price and available at Target rather than being backlogged.

I agree that this updated light is a great improvement that totally resurrects and validates the X1 line.


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 27, 2006)

Yeah, as you said in the other thread, this relatively cheap little light is the most exciting thing I've come across in quite some time.

On the abused CS thing... the lights I've built running direct on a LiON cell are pulling 170ma or more initially and they don't look anywhere NEAR that ugly. I suspect it's either something in the circuit or an artifact of the circuit that drives it to that crazy blue color. 

Either way, I'm not doing that anymore!


----------



## jtice (Feb 27, 2006)

The new X1 looks ALOT more handy then the spot beam of the original.

If anyone finds a cheap source for these, let me know 
I have always loved the form factor.

Anyone have any idea how regulated its runtime it?
What is the runtiem rated at?

~John


----------



## widget (Feb 28, 2006)

Does the new inova x1 have a different upc number on the packaging? Does it have anything different on the packaging?


----------



## IonFire (Feb 28, 2006)

Wow Cratz, thanks man, i knew you'd come through.

Great pics too, nicely done.

That is sweet, i had to stay with my wifey whilst grocery shopping tonight so i did not get mine yet. 

Sure looks good, not as uber the Fenix, didn't really expect it to compete aswell as it did, but it didn't do too bad, for $15 or $20.


If it lasts as long as the old one does (10Hrs) or that near to it, it will please most people i think, now we need some colours and a UV version?
I wonder if its not just letting more light out the front to make it look brighter then the older, i mean Vs the Optic version, there probably was an accepted loss in it to keep it that tight of beam.

Yeah, im happy, ill be happier with a couple in my posession soon.


Peace

IF


Yes, looking forward to the X0, thats the one huh, i seen it was one or the other, but wasn't sure which, that ought to rock our worlds.

Atleast the ones that like this line of lights.


----------



## greenlight (Feb 28, 2006)

Inova is likely to have a lot of left over-old x1 parts. Hopefully they appear on clearance soon. 

The new x1 production is likely ramped up, so I expect to see a lot of them on the market, too.


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 28, 2006)

As for the packaging, it is extremely similar, but not quite identical... The old packaging had references to 'patend-pending LED optical systems' and 'enhanced optics systems' and things like that. Also, on both the front and the rear of the old packaging, the word 'spotlight' appeared which is no longer true. There's also no longer a reference to 'Coated Glass Optics'.

The user manual is the exact same as before.

The bar code on both the old and new packaging is 71192 10002 (for the titanitum body with white LED) and the product code of both the old and new is X1MT-WT.

There are no references to runtime in the packaging or the user manual but as my above current readings would indicate, it sould be extremely similar to the older X1 but maybe slightly less... I'd say 85% to 90% of the original.


----------



## LowBat (Feb 28, 2006)

As nice as the new X1 is I don't think they upgraded it as much as they could have. Imagine if the X1 used a 1W LED (maybe even a K2) and a PWM similar to what they use in their new Microlights. It's only a matter of time before someone does this with a 1xAA flashlight.


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 28, 2006)

Yeah, as much as I like the new X1, there's still room for improvement. With an R-bin we could get consistant tints and probably a bit longer runtime without sacrificing brightness... or more brightness at the cost of runtime.

Personally, I'd like to see something with about a 3 - 5 hour runtime and maybe twice as bright as the new one is. 

Having said that, for my needs, I'd be super happy with just the better tint. Whenever I get to pulling this one apart, I'll try to get a Peak Snow 29 LED in there. They are a big larger, but I think a bit of wet sanding, I'll be able to make it work.


----------



## Solstice (Feb 28, 2006)

LowBat said:


> As nice as the new X1 is I don't think they upgraded it as much as they could have. Imagine if the X1 used a 1W LED (maybe even a K2) and a PWM similar to what they use in their new Microlights. It's only a matter of time before someone does this with a 1xAA flashlight.



Sure, it could have been upgraded even more, but so could have the price . As is, it puts out quite an impressive and useful amount of light while preserving a long runtime. 

Eventually, Photon (LRI) will roll out the light you describe (first with a cluster of these CS LEDs, then with some sort of high power LED) but the price will be 3.5 times that of the X1 at $70.


----------



## LowBat (Feb 28, 2006)

Solstice said:


> Sure, it could have been upgraded even more, but so could have the price . As is, it puts out quite an impressive and useful amount of light while preserving a long runtime.
> 
> Eventually, Photon (LRI) will roll out the light you describe (first with a cluster of these CS LEDs, then with some sort of high power LED) but the price will be 3.5 times that of the X1 at $70.


Yup I've been waiting for that Proton for a year now. What I like about the X1 and the L1P is the streamlined shape for heads down holster carry. The Proton has a slightly enlarged head that limits its carry options.

Would it really have cost Inova much more to build it like I'm thinking? The Microlight with its hi/lo/strobe/auto-off PWM feature sells at Fry's for $6.99. A K2 emitter goes for something like $4 I think.


----------



## Solstice (Feb 28, 2006)

I think Peter Gransee stated some while ago that the CS LEDs cost him something like 75 cents. That difference adds up to HUGE profit margin differences when dealing with vast numbers of units. It seems that very little was changed to come up with this X1 version- only the LED and head assembly, and perhaps the driver was made to allow a little more current. PWM electronics would undoubtedly hike the price higher as well. 

The other problem with using higher power LEDs is the need for "handpicked" binning to get consistent results- this was the reason the CS's were chosen for the Proton- they get consistently good lumens/watt. 

IMO, this product wasn't really released to move the industry forward, or break new ground, rather it was just seen as an opportunity to move some units and revitalize a lagging line of lights. As I said in the other thread, Inova could have been competing with the Gerber Task lights this whole time, but instead they were mucking around with optics, when in a light of this power a flood beam is much more useful.


----------



## LowBat (Feb 28, 2006)

Can't really argue with your logic Solstice. So far LRI is the only major manufacturer trying to come up with a high end 1xAA light, but except for their prototype, it's not quite what I'm really looking for. I'm keeping an eye on the yet to be released Jet-1, and what MillerMods comes up with on a multi-staged version of the L1P with his 1.7w LED and circuit upgrade.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Feb 28, 2006)

The X1 looks good, is durable at a $20 price so the average person would actually buy one. Although many people like my Fenix L1P ($45) really love the MillerMods L1P with two-stage switch ($80) and get excited using my Mediterranean 2AA ($110)... they hear the prices of them and start choking.

$20 is a good price point along the lines of 2D Mags so much easier to accept. The good thing about Inovas is their quality, if the average person wants more light...they would want it with Inova quality. Could the X1 be the "gateway drug to flashaholism"?


----------



## NickelPlate (Feb 28, 2006)

Excellent!! Thanks Cratz for the beamshots.

Signed,

Impatient Nickel Guy :nana:


----------



## Solstice (Feb 28, 2006)

BentHeadTX said:


> Could the X1 be the "gateway drug to flashaholism"?



LOL !

Sad to say that if it is, the "harder" drugs might be dissapointing- IMO, these lights have better build quality than many higher end lights I have seen.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Feb 28, 2006)

Nice review Cratz. Just curious if you are able to compare the beam with the River Rock 2AAA? They are very similar in size and weight. Thanks.

Geoff


----------



## fluorescent (Feb 28, 2006)

Just got back from my local Target... Picked up a new and an old X1. The new X1's LED is really off center on mine - so bad I might take it back and replace it...


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 28, 2006)

Well, I'm not at home as I write this so I can't compre the River Rock 2xAAA to the X1 but the Inova Radiant 2xAAA light is similar to the River Rock 2xAAA light and the X1 and the Radiant 2xAAA are quite similar. My guess is the River Rock is a bit brighter... maybe 25% to 50% brighter and with a bluer tint.

I like the River Rock 2xAAA light and it has been the light I recommend the most over the past 6 months or so, but for my money, I'd MUCH rather have the new X1.


----------



## Kryosphinx (Feb 28, 2006)

Can you open it up?


----------



## Solstice (Feb 28, 2006)

I haven't done this personally, but the bezel is the same so the "freeze pop" method *should* work.


----------



## Kryosphinx (Feb 28, 2006)

Nice, I gotta go get myself one of these


----------



## Delvance (Feb 28, 2006)

Nice review cratz2!

Hrmm, looks nice. I'll have to get one of these...my old style X1 was actually my first proper torch purchase and i was EDC'ing it before i fully recognised CPF heh. Quality of Inovas are pretty amazing considering the price they are sold at. Looking forward to getting one.


----------



## NeonLights (Feb 28, 2006)

I'll be in town on Thursday evening, I'll stop at a couple of local Targets and see if they have any. Like many people here I like the form factor and size of the X1 but want a bigger beam spread. 

-Keith


----------



## greenlight (Mar 1, 2006)

The new x1 has some differences from the old flashight:

Notice how the battery sticks out 3/8" instead of sitting flush with the tube. The piston/spring mechanism is probably improved over v1. 

The tailcap is looser than on the original x1. It moves more in an annoying sort of way. I prefer the threads to ride more tightly and feel more solid. I switched out tailcaps, but the same effect. The threads on the body part appear different. 

Compare the two:


----------



## Delvance (Mar 1, 2006)

Hrmmm, new piston will be awesome...mine has problems now and then, but a loose tailcap, i'm not warming up to that idea. Guess i'll just have to buy one and see for myself.


----------



## Solstice (Mar 1, 2006)

Perhaps I just got a good one, but I just compared the "twist feel" of my new and old X1s and they feel exactly the same to me. Personally, I find the twist action just about perfect- enough resistance to resist turning accidentally, but easy enough to comfortably twist with one hand.

I suspect the improved piston was made possible by the fact that the entire optical end now takes up much less space- there is no focal distance necessary between the LED and the lense, so there is extra room in the body. 

I have noticed that if you hold the light by the tail with one hand and rap with a knukle against the side of the body with the other, you will hear a hollow reverberation of the spring. With the old version, you only here the battery clicking against the wall. 

Perhaps this extra empty space and lack of a thicker glass lense makes the new unit lighter as well? It feels a bit lighter to me, but I don't have a small scale that I can use to detect minor differences.

Once word gets out (and more stores have them consistantly) I suspect this update will be making Inova a lot of money (as if they needed that ).


----------



## cratz2 (Mar 1, 2006)

Hrmm... I have four old X1s and two new X1s and all of them except my very first X1 have very similar feeling threads and twisty action... I certainly wouldn't think the tailcap was in any danger of falling off or being activated unintentionally.

Or maybe my old X1s are just loose. I consider the XNova to have very sloppy threads... about the sloppiest I'd consider actually carrying in my pocket and my new X1s are nowhere NEAR that loose.






I must confess that both of my new X1s have somewhat off centered LEDs... Well, the look centered in the reflector, but looking and the beam, the hotspot is off center. It's not quite as extreme as it looks in one of my beamshots above, but it is noticable.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Mar 1, 2006)

Guess it's too early, but any ideas on runtime? According to Roy the old ones made almost 6 hr. to 50% and looked semi-regulated. I suppose we should expect at least as much.

Geoff


----------



## cratz2 (Mar 1, 2006)

I did some current readings in the third post above... it consistantly pulls slightly more than the older X1s so I'd guess it would get about 85% of the runtime of the old X1... plus or minus 5%.


----------



## cratz2 (Mar 2, 2006)

I did a runtime test but since I have no lightmeter, it was purely subjective. 

@ 2 hours, it looks just as bright as my other new X1.

@ 3 hours, it looks just slightly dimmer than the other X1.

@ 4 hours, it looks even dimmer and I could probably tell the difference without a direct comparison to one with a fresh cell.

@ 5 hours, I would assume this is close to the 50% brightness point.

(Then I slept for 3.5 hours)

@ 8.5 hours, it was about as bright as my brightest Infinity Ultra.

@ 10 hours, it is dimmer than my non-Ultra Infinity.

I'll keep running the test until I can no longer read by the light.

Edit - @ 16 hours, I think it was the same brightness as it was at 10 hours.

@ 18 hours, it alternates between the same dim level it was at @ 10 hours and a very dim setting. This isn't a strobe or flashing type effect, but it will be brighter for maybe 2 minutes, then drop to the lower level for a few seconds, then back to the higher level. This is still good enough to read by and navigate through a dark room slowly.

@ 21 hours, it is now flashing from 'high' to low about every 5 seconds and the cell measures .82V open so I would consider the battery all but dead.


----------



## jtice (Mar 2, 2006)

good info Cratz2! thanks

looks like its gonna get at least 3 hours of real good light.
What battery did you use?

~John


----------



## cratz2 (Mar 2, 2006)

jtice said:


> good info Cratz2! thanks
> 
> looks like its gonna get at least 3 hours of real good light.
> What battery did you use?
> ...



An Energizer alkaline. 

I know the 50% brightness is the de facto standard by which we comapre runtimes, but for my personal use, I'd say I'd consider it about an 8 hour light... at that point, it's still as bright as the Infinity Ultra and I've long used those outdoors for extended runtimes.

As they say, your mileage may vary.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Mar 2, 2006)

Thanks again Cratz2 for all your testing. All my questions have been answered. Now it's off to the hunt for that illusive black X1.

Geoff


----------



## greenlight (Mar 2, 2006)

I wonder if anyone else got a light like mine. I would buy another x1 if there was a chance that the threads were like the old version. When I wiggle the tailcap it feels almost as if the threads are going to slip past, although if I'm gentle and just twist normally, the action is good. 

The grooves on the old x1 appear thicker and flatter, and this made the cap fit better. C'mon Inova, you had it right the first time! 

 


greenlight said:


> The new x1 has some differences from the old flashight:
> 
> Notice how the battery sticks out 3/8" instead of sitting flush with the tube. The piston/spring mechanism is probably improved over v1.
> 
> ...


----------



## AFAustin (Mar 4, 2006)

cratz2 said:


> As for the packaging, it is extremely similar, but not quite identical... The old packaging had references to 'patend-pending LED optical systems' and 'enhanced optics systems' and things like that. Also, on both the front and the rear of the old packaging, the word 'spotlight' appeared which is no longer true. There's also no longer a reference to 'Coated Glass Optics'.
> 
> The user manual is the exact same as before.
> 
> ...




Well, here's a curveball. Went by my local Target and studied the pkg. on a black X1 --- no "patent-pending LED optical systems" and "enhanced optics systems"; no "spotlight" printed on front or rear; no "Coated Glass Optics". So, I figured I was in luck and had a "new style". Got home and took it out----whooops---it's an "old style"! If I had looked more closely, I probably could've seen the difference inside the head, as shown in cratz's great photos, but I wasn't careful, so bad on me. Anyway, buyers beware.

Oh well, one of the nice things about a light from Target---easy returns.


----------



## Kryosphinx (Mar 4, 2006)

Anyone know what anodizing is on it?


----------



## [email protected] Messenger (Mar 4, 2006)

Kryosphinx said:


> Anyone know what anodizing is on it?


type 3 mil spec; think fenix but with arc quality


----------



## NeonLights (Mar 4, 2006)

[email protected] Messenger said:


> type 3 mil spec


 Incorrect. Inova states it is type III HA, but if it is, it is the weakest HA I've ever seen. The only Inova lights that have ever come with HA Type III coating are the CountyComm special run of X5's in natural HA finish. The finish is very tough, but it is not type III HA. Try scratching it with a knife. A good type III coating will not scratch very easily, if at all. I've tried both, and an Inova with its supposed HA finish scratches very easily.

-Keith


----------



## cratz2 (Mar 5, 2006)

Regarding the finish... I personally don't care whether it's Type II or Type III... It's certainly not up to the standards of Surefire or ARC, but it is, in my experience, a good step better than most non-MilSpec HA Type III finished I've had.

I got my first X1 in probably late 2003 or maybe early 2004. I've carried it roughly 100 times, it's been dropped short distances and it still looks basically as good as new. Not to pick on Nuwai, but the Q3 if carried alone in a pocket (ie with nothing else in the pocket) will show wear in the edges and high spots in just a few days. Also, my original Fenix L1P shows a number of finish imperfections and since I received it new, it's never been dropped or banged or clinged into any other metal objects. 

I don't know if Inova just applied the same finish but better/longer/deeper (that sounds dirty now that I think about it) than Nuwai or if it just is a better finish but still Type II. Or maybe it's type III/HA that just isn't up to the Surefire/ARC standard. Either way, it's a very decent finish in my experience and certainly should be considered a non-issue when buying a $20 light.


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 5, 2006)

I just bought one of these and will be updating my original X1 review with additional throw/output/runtime and pics in the very near future.

Doug P.


----------



## AFAustin (Mar 5, 2006)

Quickbeam said:


> I just bought one of these and will be updating my original X1 review with additional throw/output/runtime and pics in the very near future.
> 
> Doug P.




Great news! Thanks, Doug, for all your excellent work. Looking forward to your findings on the "new" X1.


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 5, 2006)

Cratz: sorry for the hijack... I wasn't planning on starting a new thread just for this so I'll mention here that I posted the new review, but the runtime just started, so it'll be added in a couple of days.

New X1 vs Old X1


----------



## zespectre (Mar 5, 2006)

Greenlight,
I think you may have a bum light. I just bought one of the new style X1s and my threading is exactly like your picture of the old X1.


----------



## Walt175 (Mar 5, 2006)

The threads on my old one and new one look identical. The new one is harder to turn however. I think it has to do with the battery in the new style putting much more pressure on the tailcap. It's also much stiffer when you try to use it with a momentary push.


----------



## cratz2 (Mar 5, 2006)

Quickbeam said:


> Cratz: sorry for the hijack... I wasn't planning on starting a new thread just for this so I'll mention here that I posted the new review, but the runtime just started, so it'll be added in a couple of days.
> 
> New X1 vs Old X1



Doug, you don't EVER have to appologize for hijacking any of my threads!

Can't wait to see the 'official' reviews from you and Craig.


----------



## FrogsInWinter (Mar 7, 2006)

cratz2 said:


> Regarding the finish... I personally don't care whether it's Type II or Type III... It's certainly not up to the standards of Surefire or ARC, but it is, in my experience, a good step better than most non-MilSpec HA Type III finished I've had.


 
So even within the name, Milspec HA Type III, there are different levels? Interesting. But I guess I have to agree. The first thing I noticed about my recently purchased Inovas was how the finish was noticebly different from my SF light, even though both are HA Type III. But I definitely wouldn't compare the Inova finish to a Type II finish, their lights feel a lot studier than Mag-lites and posts from other CPFers seems to back this up. The difference in finishes b/w Inovas and Mag-lite is much more pronouced than the difference between the Inova & SF HA Type III.

Of course to settle it once and for all perhaps some brave soul would like to see what happens when you try to saw through an Inova HA Type III with a SF HA Type III :laughing: .


----------



## Lee1959 (Mar 7, 2006)

I picked up one today and the threads, cap and wall thickness were all exactly like my old X1 in every way. I truly like this light and it is now my every day pocket light.


----------



## greenlight (Mar 8, 2006)

That gives hope... I will consider buying another....



zespectre said:


> Greenlight,
> I think you may have a bum light. I just bought one of the new style X1s and my threading is exactly like your picture of the old X1.


----------



## Aloft (Mar 8, 2006)

Doug, your review mentions that the x1 is available in several LED colors, including RED. I have never seen one in red and Inova's website doesn't show one either (though their website is not exactly known for being up to date!). Are the New Generation X1's available in red? I've been wanting one for a long time in red!


----------



## greenlight (Mar 8, 2006)

Red is not available.


----------



## cratz2 (Mar 8, 2006)

I've never seen a stock X1 from Inova with a red LED... Of course, it's not that hard to make one.


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 9, 2006)

Whoops - seems like this is my week to make mistakes. No, no red. Just white, green, and blue.

Doug P.


----------



## xochi (Mar 10, 2006)

I just got an X1 ! I'm tickled. As far as the finish is concerned the new X1 is definately Hard Anodized, type III or whatever you want to call it , it's the good stuff. Not as thick as SF but when that stuff chips, it's a chunk that chips so I'm pleased as it is. It's clearly superior to the fenix. Just take a look at the photos of the old and new 'silver' x1's the new one looks to be a lighter coat of generally considered 'natural' type III and is reminiscent of Mr. Bulks lionheart and cub in terms of shade. The old x1 wasn't hard coat , I'm not sure if Dougs review mentions the upgrade. The package specifically mentions Hard-Coat Anodized which is very specific terminology for type III ano. Not to mention the 'feel' of it that my hands just 'know' after handling quite a few other HA lights. 

This light is an excellent value and I really have to be honest and say that , for the price, I'm more pleased with this light than just about any other light I've purchased. This especially includes surefires and the expensive customs. This new X1 is far from the brightest light around and it isn't better than those expensive lights but inova has delivered a helluva alot for a little bit of money. Not to mention I didn't have to wait for it, my whole week won't be ruined if I loose it AND it's easily replaceable. 

Definately a winner.


----------



## parnass (Mar 11, 2006)

To my eyes, the beam shape, brightness, and color of the new *Inova X1* are virtually identical to the *Arc AAA-P*.

Both flashlights have beams similar to the *2AA Mini Maglite* with the *Nite-Ize 3-LED* upgrade installed. However, the X1 and Arc AAA-P's beams are circular vs. the irregularly shaped Nite-Ize 3-LED beam.


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 12, 2006)

I have added the runtime plot to the review - long story short, over 8 hours to 50% starting output.


----------



## greenlight (Mar 12, 2006)

All the x1s that I have and have tested were HA. This was never clearly advertised, but I think has always been the case. The newer colored ones from Discovery Store are Type II, of Course.


----------



## NeonLights (Mar 12, 2006)

greenlight said:


> All the x1s that I have and have tested were HA. This was never clearly advertised, but I think has always been the case. The newer colored ones from Discovery Store are Type II, of Course.



Believe what you want, but both my new and old style X1's, as well as all the X5's I've had (except the CC HA X5's of course) are either type II anodized, or they are one of the the lighter/weaker finish HA type III lights I've seen. All of my standard Inova "X" lights scratch easily with a knife, almost as easily as a Mag. It is a good, durable finish, but not as durable as other HA type III lights I have. I'm not bashing Inova lights, I have several and like them, but I call it like I see it. 

-Keith


----------



## IsaacHayes (Mar 12, 2006)

I want to see the insides of the new one, to see if they improved on reducing the resistance in the piston thing. Too many interfaces adds up to resistance fast!

LowBat: I think it'd be great to mod one of the X1's with the strobe/PWM that you speak of. I wonder if the circuit would fit inside there? Then you could just modify the piston thing and replace it with a solid board and spring to give you the extra space. That is if the PWM circuit fits inside the diameter of the tube... One of these with one of the super bright 5mm Cyan leds I have would be awesome!


----------

