# Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS!



## selfbuilt (Feb 29, 2008)

*Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS!*

*This thread is a compilation overview of all my “thrower” lights. Detailed throw and runtime comparisons are presented, as well as a brief analysis of each light (with links to more detailed reviews where available). *

_*UPDATE June 2, 2008:* JetBeam Jet-III IBS Q5 added to the review_ 

_*UPDATE May 13, 2008:* Tiablo A9 Q5 added_ 

For help understanding how higher flux bin Cree emitters (e.g. Q5 vs. Q2) might alter the results posted here, see my discussion on “How to Compare Different Cree Bins” later in this review.

I’ve also compared UCL anti-reflective lens to the stock MRV and V-68C lenses at the end of the review in the section on “UCL Lenses”.

_*The contenders*:_

From left to right: LumaPower MRV (2nd Gen), Tiablo A8, Dereelight DBS, DX Cree Projection, DX WF-600 






From left to right: EDGETAC RaidFire Spear, Dereelight DBS V2, SmartFire V-68C, Regal WT1 V2, Fenix T1





From left to right: LumaPower MRV (2nd Gen), Tiablo A8, Dereelight DBS, DX Cree Projection, DX WF-600 





From left to right: EDGETAC RaidFire Spear, Dereelight DBS V2, SmartFire V-68C, Regal WT1 V2, Fenix T1





Missing from these pics are the Tiablo A9 and JetBeam Jet-III IBS. The A9 is similar to the A8, but with a tailstanding tailcap. The JetBeam Jet-III is similar in height to the Fenix T1.

_*Beamshots:*_

Quick and dirty comparison at ~.4 meters from a wall, to show you the different overall spillbeam patterns. All lights are running on 18650, except for Regal WT1 (RCR on low) and Fenix T1 (primary CR123A).










Note that I accidentally had the Regal set to Low mode, which is about 50% output on RCR.

Missing from these pics are the Tiablo A9 and JetBeam Jet-III IBS. The A9 beam is identical to the A8 (but brighter due to the Q5 emitter). The JetBeam Jet-III is similar in overall spillbeam width to the RaidFire Spear, but with a less defined hotspot.

*Some additional 3 meter and 10 meter beamshots can be found in Post #2.*

_*Beam observations:*_

In general terms, these thrower lights fall into 3 main categories:


_Tight, bright hotspot with wide, dim spillbeam_ – the MRV and its clones (e.g. V-68C), the DX lights (Cree Projection and WF-600) and the Tiablo all fall into this category (although the Tiablo spillbeam is a bit narrower).
_Tight, bright hotspot with narrow, bright spillbeam_ – the DBS and Spear are the best examples of this profile, with a slightly brighter spill on the Spear. The JetBeam Jet-III IBS is also similar, but with less intense hotspot.
_Less pronounced hotspot with intermediate width spillbeam_ – the Regal WT1 and Fenix T1 fall into this category. Note the Regal light can be slightly de-focused by loosening the bezel.

_*Throw values:*_ - Peak hotspot throw readings

*Dereelight DBS original 2-Stage (2SM) - Q2 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high: 17,000 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 3,600 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: ~19,500 Lux (peak estimate, see runtime graph)
CR123A x 2 on low: 3,650 Lux
*Dereelight DBS 3-Stage (3SD) - Q4 (18650-only) Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high: 21,200 Lux
18650 x 1 on medium: 10,500 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 1,830 Lux
*Dereelight DBS DI – R2 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high (100%): 23,900 Lux (* but not for long, see runtime graph)
18650 x 1 on med (50%): 13,100 Lux
18650 x 1 on low (5%): 980 Lux
*DX Cree Projection - Q2 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high: 11,200 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 3,200 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 14,200 Lux
CR123A x 2 on low: 6,300 Lux
*DX WF-600 (18650-only) - Q2 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high: 16,300 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 3,600 Lux
*EDGETAC RaidFire Spear – Q5 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high: 24,000 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 360 Lux 
*Fenix T1 - Q5 *
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
*JetBeam Jet-III IBS - Q5 *
18650 x 1 on 100%: 9,200 Lux
18650 x 1 on default Hi: 6,300 Lux
18650 x 1 on 50%: 4,800 Lux
18650 x 1 on default Lo: 960 Lux
18650 x 1 on 5%: 147 Lux
*LumaPower MRV 1st Gen (Light Gray) - P4 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high: 9,600 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 6,200 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 11,800 Lux
CR123A x 2 on low: 5,900 Lux
*LumaPower MRV 2nd Gen (Dark Brown) - Q2 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high: 10,400 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 7,100 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 14,200 Lux
CR123A x 2 on low: 7,200 Lux
*LumaPower MRV 1st Gen with Cree Q5 WG mod - Q5 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high: 11,800 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 8,500 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 18,200 Lux
CR123A x 2 on low: 8,500 Lux
*Regal WT1 (1st Edition) Smooth Reflector - Q5 *
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 (2nd Edition) Smooth Reflector - Q5 *
18650 x 1 on high: 13,350 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 13,400 Lux
I haven’t tested the low modes yet, but the 2-stage switch seems to be identical to the 1st Edition.
*Smartfire V-68C - Q5 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high *with stock lens*: 15,000 Lux
18650 x 1 on high *with MRV lens*: 16,300 Lux
18650 x 1 on high *with UCL-AR lens*: 17,000 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 6,000 Lux
*Tiablo A8 - Q2 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high: 14,400 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 1,690 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 14,100 Lux
CR123A x 2 on low: 2,680 Lux
*Tiablo A9 - Q5 Throw Lux @ one meter:*
18650 x 1 on high: 19,200 Lux
18650 x 1 on low: 3,050 Lux
RCR x 2 on high: 20,600 Lux
RCR x 2 on low: 10,700 Lux
CR123A x 2 on high: 20,000 Lux
CR123A x 2 on low: 7,200 Lux

_*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).
















For clarity, I’ve separated the charts above into 18650-only lights, and multi-power lights (run on 18650 or CR123A primaries). Again, the numbers are directly comparable, so you can compare one graph to the others.

_*Weight (without battery):*_

Dereelight DBS V1: 221g 
Dereelight DBS V2: 194g
DX Projection Cree/WF-600: 200g
EDGETAC RaidFire Spear: 191g 
Fenix T1: 155g 
JetBeam Jet-III IBS: 107g
LumaPower MRV: 195g
Regal WT1: 134g
Smartfire V-68C: 137g
Tiablo A8: 151g
Tiablo A9: 152g


_*Light Overviews:*_






*Dereelight DBS V1 and V2* – some pills are 18650-only

One of the major innovations of Dereelight is the ability to easily purchase upgrade emitter pills for all their lights, including the DBS. The emitter/circuit/brass pill screws directly into the aluminum reflector, allowing easy exchange.
Batteries compatibility depends on the pill. Digital circuit pills are typically 1x18650 only.
Beam profile is similar to the RaidFire Spear, with a tight hotspot and narrow, bright spillbeam. 
Three pills are featured here – the original two-stage Q2 (low mode controlled by body twist on V1), the 3-stage digitally regulated Q4 (3SD-Q4), and the new continuously variable with R2 emitter (DI-R2).
Circuit characteristics vary widely between the different pills – basically, pick whatever type you like based on the output/runtimes presented above (see also my V1/V2 review here for comparison of the digital pills).
Dereelight uses PWM for low modes on the digital pills, and frequency has been quite variable on different batches. Although PWM freq is undetectable on my 3SD-Q4, it is a noticeable 121 Hz on my DI-R2. Some users have reported 3SD-Q5s in the ~100 Hz range. 
Some users have also complained about a hum or whine coming from the electronics on low modes. This is common on many digitally-controlled circuits (not just from Dereelight), and is again quite variable across the pills and batches (i.e. subtle on my 3SD-Q4, more noticeable on my DI-R2). Note there is no obvious hum on my continuously-variable Jet-III IBS (which also has undetectable PWM).
Build differences between the V1 and V2 DBS are described in detail in my review here. The V2 is shorter (lacks the body twist mechanism), has a redesigned tailcap for easy activation, comes with a removable clip, has black hard anodizing, and allows for tailcap lockout (anodized screw threads). 
The overall design of the DBS V2 is excellent - very modular, very well designed. The V1 was also good, but suffered in my view from the large number of contact surfaces and screw threads (proper maintenance was very important to keep the light functioning well).
My DBS V2 has perfect machining and hard anodizing, although the lettering has a rougher finish than most lights. My V1 suffered from noticeable machining and anodizing defects (as detailed here).
Both versions came with a forward clicky. Mode switching on the digital pills is accomplished by either repeated clicks or pressing and holding, depending on the pill in question.
Tailstanding is not possible with either version (although a modified tailcap cover may allow it on the V1). Tailcap screw threads are anodized only on V2 (allowing for tailcap lockout).






*DX Projection Cree and WF-600* – WF-600 is 18650-only

Both lights share a common build, with the only major difference being in the circuit, so both are considered together here. There is also some variability in anodizing finish (i.e. glossy or matte).
Projection Cree takes 2xCR123A primaries, 1x18650 Li-ion rechargeable, or 2xRCR Li-ion rechargeables. WF-600 is 18650-only.
The Cree Projection seems to have a virtually identical multi-power circuit as the MRV, and output and runtime are comparable to my Q2-equipped MRV.
The WF-600 on 18650 is ~25% brighter than the Cree Projection on 18650. Consistent with this greater output, runtime is reduced.
The DX Cree Projection and WF-600 have identical bodies. Their weight is similar to the MRV (~200g). The lights are ~13mm longer and ~9mm wider at the bezel than the MRV.
Both lights use a plastic reflector (aluminum is used on the MRV and other premium lights), which are wider and longer than the MRV reflector (yet produce a very similar beam profile - see also my detailed review). 
Despite being bulkier in dimensions than the premium lights, both are still well balanced and the Type II anodizing was smooth on both my samples.
Low mode comes from a 2-stage reverse clicky, which is of lesser quality than the premium MRV/Tiablo lights (sequence is Hi – Lo – off).
Tailstanding is possible with both lights.
Tailcap threads not anodized (so no lockout possible)
Overall build quality is not as high as the premium lights, but still acceptable for the price. I believe these are now available with Q5 emitters under the “Aurora” name.






*EDGETAC RaidFire Spear* – 18650-only

Takes 1x18650 Li-ion rechargeable only.
The RaidFire Spear has one of the furthest throws of all my lights, which is very impressive for the size of its reflector (smaller than the other premium lights). Beam profile is similar to the DBS.
Light uses a forward clicky, and Hi and Lo modes are available by a twist of the battery tube near the head (tighten for Hi, loosen for Lo).
The Spear also has one of the lowest low modes of all my thrower lights (the less throwy JetBeam Jet-III IBS is just slightly dimmer). Low is accessed by a body tube twist, so no need for extra clicks.
The light uses PWM for its low mode, but at such a high frequency that I can’t detect it by eye or instrument. 
Regulation is excellent. 
Build quality is superb. There’s not a single aspect I can take issue with – machining, hard anodizing, and lettering are outstanding on my sample. 
As you can see in my detailed review, the amount of labeling on the first batch of lights was rather excessive, but EDGETAC has reduced this on later batches. 
The light has a more “rakish” look than most. The exposed ridges of the aluminum reflector are supposedly to help with heat dissipation, but are more likely for aesthetics. Waterproofing is maintained by a double o-ring seal at the base of the reflector assembly. 
Some may be put off by the flared tailcap design, but I find it doesn't really interfere with function in my hands (although it does limit holster options). The flared tailcap allows for tailstanding.
Light uses a forward clicky.
Tailcap threads are anodized, so tailcap lockout is possible







*Fenix T1*

While not designed to be a massive thrower, the T1 is the most “throwy” light in Fenix’s current arsenal (e.g. it throws ~50% further than my Q5-equipped L2D).
Takes 2xCR123A primaries or 2xRCR Li-ion rechargeables.
The textured OP reflector of the Fenix T1 produces one of the smoothest beam profiles I’ve seen for a Cree emitter, while still maintaining considerable throw (although less than the dedicated throwers reviewed here, of course). 
Although runtimes seem lower on the Fenix T1, this is because it actually produces more light overall than most of the other lights reviewed here (all the graphs here are throw-adjusted to lux @1m).
On Hi, the Fenix T1 also has very flat regulation on primaries, with a nice long “moon mode”
On Low, the current-controlled Fenix T1 lasts considerably longer than the resistored-low mode of many of the lights reviewed here (low on the T1 is activated by a twist of body tube near the bezel).
Machining and hard anodizing are top notch, although the lettering is very rough and relatively poor compared to the other lights in this review.
Knurling is actually fairly aggressive on the T1 (a first for Fenix), and the built-in clip has a tendency to rub against it. I recommend you bend the clip outwards a little (it is fairly stiff)
Another first for Fenix - this light features reverse polarity protection in case you put the batteries in wrong.
Light feels surprisingly heavy, especially around the head/bezel. What can I say – it’s built like a tank!
The T1 has a very rakish-looking design, especially around the tailcap where the 3 raised points allow for tailstanding. This seems a little over-done, and gets in the way of activating the switch. 
Light features a forward clicky switch.
Tailcap threads are anodized, so lockout is possible.






*JetBeam Jet-III IBS*

While not designed to be a massive thrower, the Jet-III IBS is an excellent thrower for its size. 
Jet-III IBS takes 1x18650 Li-ion rechargeable only.
Uses PWM for low modes, but at a high frequency with no detectable signs of flicker or audible electronics whine.
Textured OP reflector produces a reasonably good beam while maintaining decent throw. Spillbeam is relatively narrow, but very bright (compared to most of the dedicated throwers shown here). Closest spillbeam comparable is the RaidFire Spear.
Runtime on Max is comparable to other throwers that are so highly driven (output seems lower on the graphs only because all the graphs here are throw-adjusted to lux @1m).
Light features a continuously variable circuit that allows you to pick your output level, like the Dereelight DI pill, but more sophisticated (and with no signs of PWM flicker or electronics whine) 
Light features 3 set-able memory stages, accessed in sequence by clicking on the tailcap. There are 5 available pre-set output states - Min (5%), 50%, Max (100%), Default Lo, and Default Hi – but you can set each of the 3 positions independently, at whatever level you like.
Light also includes a number of strobe modes, but these are only present if you choose to assign them to one of the three set-able states – you don’t need to see them unless you access the special features menu.
Capable of the lowest output of any of the lights in this review (although the RaidFire Spear is a close second).
Runtimes on all lower output modes are very well regulated and show good output/runtime efficiency – see my dedicated Jet-II/III review for more info.
Machining and hard anodizing are very good. However, as is common on JetBeam lights, lettering is not consistently bright and clear throughout.
Knurling is not very aggressive, but works well for grip.
Light comes with a removable clip and wrist-strap.
Lightest of the throwers reviewed here – but still feels quite well balanced in the hand.
Can’t tailstand, and comes with a standard reverse clicky switch (with good feel, unlike the stiffer Jet-I series lights).
Jet-III tailcap threads are anodized, so tailcap lockout is possible (note: for some reason, the Jet-II IBS tailcap threads were not anodized, but this appears to have been corrected in the new Jet-II PRO IBS).






*LumaPower MRV*

The MRV was the first dedicated LED thrower to be mass-produced, and it still compares well to the competition in a number of ways. 
Takes 2xCR123A primaries, 1x18650 Li-ion rechargeable, or 2xRCR Li-ion rechargeables.
Newer throwers (e.g. DBS, RaidFire Spear) are capable of greater peak throw since they have more concentrated beams with less spill – the spillbeam width of the MRV is the greatest of any of the lights reviewed here.
Original MRVs (as reviewed here) were based on a single-stage multi-power circuit. Low modes were obtained by use of a resistor, located either near the head (accessed through a body tube twist) or in the tailcap switch (accessed by repeated click).
Resistored-low modes on the MRV are typically brighter than most digitally-controlled low modes, but with lower runtime efficiency. A newer MRV circuit with slightly higher max output and digitally-controlled low modes is now available, but I have not reviewed it yet.
Upgrading the single-stage multi-power MRV to higher flux bins (e.g Q5) results in significantly greater throw only on primaries. On 18650, flux bin upgrades result mainly in runtime improvements (see below for a discussion).
Build quality is top-notch on the MRV. The original production run (light gray anodizing) had some anodizing and screw thread issues, but these were all resolved on subsequent runs. My “chocolate brown” MRV with nickel-plated heatsink remains one of the best looking lights in my collection, IMO.
Note that the first batch of black Q2 MRVs are type II anodizing only. All other versions are hard anodized (type III).
All versions can tailstand very stably. Newer versions have a revised tailcap design from the one shown here.
Tailcap screw threads are anodized, allowing for tailcap lockout.
Original light came with single-stage reverse clicky. Subsequent lights often included the two-stage resistored reverse clicky. A forward clicky is also available (standard on new digital circuit models, I believe).
The top-notch machining, hard anodizing, lettering, heatsinking and overall build quality of the MRV remain the standard by which I compare all newcomers in this space.






*Regal WT1*

Although not designed to be a massive thrower, the Regal WT1 “Wrestler” is probably the most impressive thrower I have seen in this size.
Takes 2xCR123A primaries, 1x18650 Li-ion rechargeable, or 2xRCR Li-ion rechargeables.
The WT1 still shows signs of the infamous Cree beam rings even with the included OP reflector installed, so I recommend running it on the smooth reflector for max throw.
The WT1 can be slightly defocused into a broader hotspot by turning the head counter-clockwise relative to the body tube.
On Hi, the WT1 has very flat regulation on primaries, and a typical decay pattern on 18650.
Low mode is controlled by a resistor on the 2-stage reverse clicky tailcap switch. Light also comes with a single-stage forward clicky.
The second edition Regal WT1 throws about ~13% further than the original WT1 (both on the smooth reflector).
The first and second edition 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). Machining, hard anodizing, and lettering are perfect on both my specimens. In fact, this is some of the best lettering I’ve seen.
Light is well balanced, though not as hefty as the Fenix T1.
My first edition WT1 had a slightly misaligned emitter, leading to 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.
Light features reverse polarity protection in case you put the batteries in wrong.
Tailcap threads are not anodized, so no tailcap lockout is possible (on either edition).
Both 2-stage reverse clicky and single-stage forward clicky included.
Light can’t tailstand.






*SmartFire V-68C* – 18650-only

The V-68C is an exact knock-off of the MRV form factor (i.e. same dimensions to the head), but without the heavy duty brass heatsink.
Takes 1x18650 Li-ion rechargeable only
Light also lacks the o-ring between the lens and bezel, and the aluminum reflector “wobbles” loosely inside the head unless you have it screwed down very tight. However, since the emitter contacts are not insulated from the aluminum reflector, you risk shorting out the light immediately upon first use (you must isolate the contacts before trying to use the light - see my detailed review for pics and a discussion). 
Light uses PWM for low mode, at a fairly high frequency of 467 Hz. But my light originally also had a horrible low freq flicker, likely due to a partial shorting issue. Once I isolated the pill from the aluminum reflector, the flicker problem disappeared.
User interface is very straightforward – repeatedly click the switch to move through the sequence. One my sample, sequence Hi - Lo - slow strobe (2.5Hz) - medium strobe (5Hz) - off, with no SOS mode
There is no memory mode as such. If you wait more than 2 secs between clicks, light will revert to Hi mode (i.e. initial sequence). 
Emitter is not well focused in the reflector. The result is a very noticeable "donut" effect in the center of the beam. This is presumably a design feature, to try and limit the risk of shorting out the light (but it’s not a very effective one!).
Rear clicky switch doesn't seem very reliable in my sample, and the body has a lot of superficial nicks in the anodizing (which is only type II).
Surprisingly for such a cheap light, it comes with anodized tailcap threads, allowing you to lock out the light.
At a minimum, it is critically important that you to isolate the contacts around the emitter pill before you try to use this light. 
Adding a lens o-ring would be a good second step. The 40 MM X 1.5 MM BN70 from oringusa.com is a good fit.
You might also want to replace the lens with a UCL AR-coated one for improved light transmission. The 41.8mm UCL lens from flashlightlens.com is a perfect fit (it was developed for the MRV), and adds an additional ~2000 lux to the peak throw in my testing (i.e. UCL produces 17,000 lux @1m, compared to stock 15,000 lux). See discussion further down.






*Tiablo A8*

The second dedicated LED thrower to hit the market.
Takes 2xCR123A primaries, 1x18650 Li-ion rechargeable. RCR Li-ion rechargeables not supported on A8.
The Tiablo A8 has a more tightly focused hotspot than the MRV, but with a brighter corona so the net effect is similar at a distance. Spillbeam width is a bit smaller than the MRV.
Peak throw of the Tiablo (matched for equivalent emitters) is greater than the MRV, but less than the newer DBS and RaidFire Spear lights.
Major innovation for the A8 is its fully regulated circuit on both 18650 and CR123A primaries. The A8 manages this trick by restricting the voltage range to 6.0V max, so RCR options are out. Fresh CR123A sometimes need to be run on low for a few minutes to drop below the 6V cut-off before they can be run on Hi. 
The exquisite regulation of the A8 comes at the expense of runtime (which is still very good). Those of you wanting a more classic circuit should look at the Tiablo A9.
Low mode is obtained through a resistor in the tailcap, and is typically lower than the body-resistored MRV low mode (although seems to the MRV 2-stage clicky). A single-stage forward clicky is also available.
Build quality is excellent on the Tiablo A8. Machining, hard anodizing and lettering are all perfect on my sample (although I know some users have reported blemishes on later runs). 
The Tiablo is one of the lightest thrower lights in my collection (150g compared ~200g for most of the others). Note that it also has one of the highest grades of aluminum available. 
The light does not come with anodized threads (so no tailcap lock-out possible)
Original build design has a protruding clicky that prevents tailstanding. However, the tailcap from the A9 is available, which restores tailstanding ability.






*Tiablo A9*

The revised version of the A8, with a wider voltage-range multi-power circuit that can handle RCR Li-ion. 
Although the light can now take all possible battery configurations (i.e. 2xCR123A, 1x18650, 2xRCR), it is no longer tightly regulated on 18650. Runtime looks a lot like the other multi-power lights (i.e. direct drive?)
Head design is the same as the A8, so beam pattern is exactly the same.
As you can see, peak throw of the Q5-equipped A9 is as good as you get with this size reflector (i.e. not quite as high as the Spear or DBS, but pretty darn good!). 
Excellent runtime on CR123A primaries, given the output. The A9 is currently my best performing thrower on CR123A primaries. :thumbsup:
Low mode is obtained through a resistor in the tailcap, and is quite variable depending on the type of battery you use (although generally higher than a lot of other lights reviewed here). A single-stage forward clicky is also available.
Build quality is very good on my Tiablo A9. Machining and hard anodizing on my natural "sand" finish sample are excellent, but the lettering is nowhere near as bright or sharp as my A8. :thinking: 
The A9 comes with the extended tailcap allowing tailstanding (optional extra on the original A8), and a tactical grip ring.
Major improvement over the original A8 is anodized tailcap threads. This allows you lock-out the light for transport 
The A9 shares the same body plan as the A8, so remains one of the lightest thrower lights in my collection (and with one of the highest grades of aluminum available).
Light now comes in a more colorful box, but the included accessories haven't changed much from the earlier editions (except for additional GITD tailcap).
The A9 is probably your best choice among the multi-power throwers if you plan to use predominantly CR123A primaries.
_
*Discussion Topics:*_

*How to Compare Different Cree Bins*

I frequently get requests wondering if I will test new versions of older lights with upgraded emitter flux bins. The answer is I probably don’t need to. My experience with the MRV tells what to reasonably expect for multi-power lights:






In the case above where the light is reasonably well regulated and driven at a respectable level, there is a noticeable increase in output as you go up the flux bins. From *P4 -> Q2 you get at most ~9% more output*, from *Q2 -> Q5 you get about ~15% more output*.

Given the greater difference between Q5/Q2 flux bins than Q2/P4, how come you don’t see more of an output gain with the Q5 emitter? I suspect the higher Vf of the Q4/Q5 bins has something to do with it. You would likely need a circuit that is well optimized for Q4/Q5 to see much more of an increase than I’m getting here.

But what about in a light that shows direct-drive characteristics? Check out my MRV 18650 runtimes below:






Here you can see there’s a fairly negligible increase in output going from P4 -> to Q2, but there’s a significant increase in runtime. The Q5 mod resulted in a bit of an output difference over the P4/Q2 (~10% max), with slightly more runtime.

*The take-home message here? * Unless your light has a circuit that is well suited for the characteristics of the Q4/Q5/R2 bin Crees, you may not get as much of an increase in output as you might expect by upgrading. Certainly in the case of direct-drive lights, most of the benefits I’ve noted have been in runtime, not output.

In practical terms, these MRV numbers should allow you to “adjust” my runtime graphs for any upgraded version of a particular light you are interested in. It is possible that some extremely well regulated lights (e.g. Tiablo A8? DBS?) could benefit a bit more by a higher flux bin than the MRV did, but I don’t imagine the difference would be huge in comparison to here.

*UCL Lenses*

There has been some discussion on the relative merits of upgrading stock lenses to UCL with better anti-reflective coatings. I’ve tested the 41.8mm UCL lenses from flashlightlens.com against the stock MRV, Tiablo A8, V-68C (MRV clone) on 18650 batteries. 

_Note that for the % differences, I'm comparing the squareroots of peak lux (i.e. “Throw”), since that is more appropriate than % difference of raw lux._. If you really want to compare % difference to raw lux, you would typically need to double my % numbers.

*Throw:*
UCL vs. stock V-68C on 18650: 17,000 lux vs. 15,000 lux = *2000 lux difference*, or *6.5% "Throw" difference*
UCL vs. stock MRV (Q5-mod) on 18650: 10,800 lux vs. 10,300 lux = *500 lux difference,* or *2.4% "Throw" difference*
UCL vs. stock Tiablo A8 on 18650: 14,000 lux vs. 14,900 lux = *900 lux difference*, or *3.2% "Throw" difference* 

As you can see, the UCL lens had less of impact on my MRV or A8, but still measurable. 

To probe further, I decided to swap my stock MRV lens into my V-68C to compare:
MRV stock lens vs. stock V-68C on 18650: 16,300 lux vs. 15,000 lux = *1,300 lux difference* or *3.9% "Throw" difference*

So, the MRV lens performs much better than the stock V-68C. This tells me that the UCL lens is a significant upgrade for a cheap lens like the stock V-68C (6.5% more "throw"), but only a small ~2.5-3% "throw" upgrade for a decent glass lens like the MRV or A8. 

_*Conclusions:*_

Frankly, I can happily recommend any of the premium lights in this review. It just comes down to what design/features you want.
Among the budget lights, all are acceptable as long as you are realistic about what you are getting (i.e. typically pretty good throw but lower build quality and reliability). The Smartfire V-68C needs a little work to insure proper performance. 
Chasing the latest, greatest Cree bin is probably not very useful. The difference in output will likely be less than the theoretical maximum flux gain (sometimes considerably so).

Some additional beamshots and discussion of the beam characteristics is presented in post #2.

:wave:


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 29, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Additional beamshots:

_*3.5 meters*_

For these close-range 3.5 meter shots, you are looking at the landing of the stairs leading to my unfinished basement, taken from the basement.


















As you can see, the MRV and Tiablo A8 light up a wider area. The 1/50sec exposures are useful to see the hotspot differences. The Spear has the widest corona around the hotspot of the 3 lights. The MRV has the least corona, and has a more even “spotlight” type of hotspot.

_*10 meters*_

To better see the hotspots at a medium distance, I’ve taken some shots of a “gremlin” at 10 meters, sitting on chair in my unfinished basement. 


















_(*EDIT:* Unfortunately, I realized afterwards that I had a not fully-charged 17670 in the Spear by mistake for these 10 meter shots. A fully charged 18650 would likely be a bit brighter, but the overall patterns shouldn't be any different)._

The first thing you should notice is that *all lights are good for lighting up objects at 10 meters*. The second thing to notice is how much more “spotlight” the MRV and Tiablo A8 are this distance – the spillbeams are not bright enough to light up much of the surroundings at these exposures. The DBS and Spear, despite their narrower spillbeams, do a much better job of illuminating objects outside of the immediate hotspot (e.g. look at the pink fiberglass insulation starting halfway up my concrete foundation walls).

_*Longer distances ...*_

Since it is winter in Canada, outdoor beamshots at greater distances won’t show you much except snow reflections (plus it’s cold out!). But I can give you my subjective impressions:

At a large distance, there really is little difference between the lights. The Spear/DBS throw a bit further than my Tiablo A8/MRV. But all are good throwers. The real difference comes at closer ranges.

Personally, I find the Spear or DBS more useful for intermediate distance use, since their brighter spillbeams illuminate more than just the hotspot target in this distance range. The MRV and Tiablo A8 are probably the most useful for closer spotting, where you want to see what’s around you fairly well (i.e. where the wider spillbeam still casts enough light to be useful). 

*To summarize:* for up-close spotting in fairly open areas (<10 meters), I personally like the MRV/Tiablo A8 for their wider spillbeams. For intermediate spotting (10-25 meters), I personally prefer the Spear/DBS for their more useful brighter spill immediately surrounding the hotspot. At greater distances (>25 meters), it basically comes down to whichever light throws the furthest – at this distance and beyond, you are just looking at the hotspot (here my Spear and DBS throw furthest)

:wave:


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 1, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Just updated the main post with some pics from my other reviews showing what comes with each light. I will take some shots of the missing lights and add to the review later.

Thought you might appreciate the "flashlight porn". :laughing:


----------



## LED_Thrift (Mar 1, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

What a fantastic, COMPREHENSIVE, and thoroughly intelligent review of this class of lights. Thanks very much. It is so great to have lights all in the same class reviewed so thoroughly together. Great job selfbuilt.


----------



## frosty (Mar 1, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks for a great review. A lot of time has obviously gone into this detailed summary.:thumbsup:


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 1, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks Frosty and LED_Thrift. 

This review was certainly a long time in the making (took awhile to pull together all the background info). Hopefully people find it useful.

I've just added the rest of the light pics. :wave:


----------



## CandleFranky (Mar 1, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



selfbuilt said:


> This review was certainly a long time in the making (took awhile to pull together all the background info). Hopefully people find it useful.


Selfbuilt, a worldclass flashlight review, you leave me speechless (again). :thumbsup:


----------



## RGB_LED (Mar 2, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Selfbuit, I would have to agree with the other comments and say that this is another great review! :goodjob:

I have been researching and trying to decide on adding a thrower to my collection that runs on an 18650 and, lo and behold, I found your review. Very informative, great beamshots, lux readings... I especially found the individual overviews useful and the comparisons between the lights characteristics (ie. beam, sidespill, etc) when doing short-, medium- and long-range spotting. I even mentioned this review in another thread from another cpf'er who was looking to add a 2xCR123 light to his collection. 

Props again! Looking forward to more upcoming reviews from you...


----------



## BMF (Mar 2, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Selfbuit, all of your reviews are awsome :twothumbs

I have a request: can you add 2 more lights on your review?

1. Tiablo A9. I have this and I've read it's brighter than A8 so it might be closer to DBS/Raidfire Spear on performance/brightness than the A8.
I'm thinking about getting the DBS but not sure it's much better than A9 I'm having now. Your review of this will help a lot on making a decision.

2. Taskforce 3W 2C new Cree 150 lumens from Lowes'. This is a real bargain thrower we can buy in local stores. You can make 2 reviews of this: regular C and 18650 batteries.
I compared this TF to the A9: A9 is a quite a lot brighter when using C batteries in TF, but not much more when using 18650 in TF. I'm using RCR123A for A9. To use ONE 18650 in TF I simply wrap around a screw with paper as an extension to the 18650 to fit. I also wrap paper around the 18650 too for the same reason. So there is almost no cost for the mod except a screw somewhere in the house, some piece of paper and some duct tape.


----------



## adamlau (Mar 2, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Interesting, but the DBS needs to be running the 1S SMO. Not the 2SD, or 2SM, or DI, but the 1S.


----------



## Phaserburn (Mar 2, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



adamlau said:


> Interesting, but the DBS needs to be running the 1S SMO. Not the 2SD, or 2SM, or DI, but the 1S.


 
Is there definitive evidence that the 1S delivers more current to the emitter than these other pills, or the 3SD?


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 2, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks for positive comments everyone!



RGB_LED said:


> I especially found the individual overviews useful and the comparisons between the lights characteristics (ie. beam, sidespill, etc) when doing short-, medium- and long-range spotting.


It can be hard to describe, so I hope I didn't over-sell the differences too much. There really is little to differentiative them at a distance. Up close is more a matter of personal preference. For example, if I was going to investigate something around the outside of my house, I'd probably prefer the wider MRV spill. But if I want to look down a good distance on a long clear path, I'd grab the DBS or Spear.



BMF said:


> I have a request: can you add 2 more lights on your review? ... 1. Tiablo A9. ... 2. Taskforce 3W 2C new Cree 150 lumens from Lowes'.


I have to admit I've not really interested in getting the A9, since I typically prefer the narrower spillbeam pattern of the DBS/Spear - and I already have plenty of MRVs and similar type lights lying around. :laughing:

But frankly, I don't think there's a lot to be gained by "upgrading" if you already have an A9 (unless you really want one of the features of the other lights).

The TF is intriguing though ... unfortunately, I haven't seen it around anywhere locally (I'm in Canada). Anyone have a confirmed sighting the greater Toronto area?



Phaserburn said:


> Is there definitive evidence that the 1S delivers more current to the emitter than these other pills, or the 3SD?


Good question, and one I don't have a definite answer to. 

From other commentaries and reviews, it does seem that the 1S (and maybe 2SD?) deliver(s) greater currrent to the emitter than the other pills. Of course, my understanding of the new 3SD and DI circuits was that they were also supposed to be driven harder too - but as you can tell from my output graphs, that's certainly not the case for the DI (which has been confirmed by others for this circuit). 

Maybe if WadeF is around he could "wade" in on the issue (sorry, bad pun, but he does have more DBS pills than anyone else I know .


----------



## WadeF (Mar 2, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

I'm wading in to offer some info!  What a great collection of information and pics! Great work selfbuilt!  

I got a R2 DI and R2 3SD (wish I got a R2 1S). My 3SD is brighter than the DI. I can't really explain why. I don't know if it is down to the emitters, the way they are screwing in and focusing, etc. I think we'd need a larger # of samples to see if the 3SD is consistently brighter than the DI. 

My DBS V2 with smooth reflector, and R2 3SD is my throw king at the moment. It beats my Raidfire Spear by 3,000+ lux. The approx lux figures I got were:

Raidfire Spear 25,000-25,500 max, settles down to around 23,500-24,000 after a couple minutes.

DBS V2 R2 3DS peaks at 29,000+ lux, then settles down to around 28,300-28,500 after a couple minutes. 

The DBS V2 R2 DI was around 26,000-26,500 LUX.

I think I recall one of my DBS's with one of my pills hitting 30,000lux at one point with a freshly charged battery, but that didn't last long.  It was either the R2 WH 3SD from Dereelight, or my modded R2 WG 3SD.

If Alan at Dereelight gets his hands on more R2 pills I'll order up a 1S for DBS and 1S for CL1H. The CL1H pills can sometimes beat out the DBS pills because they get the LED in farther and focus tighter. My DBS V2 R2 3SD is a DBS pill, I think if it was a R2 3SD for CL1H I'd be closer to 30,000lux, even after a couple minutes of run time when the regulation has leveled off. We'll see.


----------



## fnmag (Mar 2, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thankyou for the in depth review. I've been looking to get one of these lights and this review has been a big help. 
Cheer. :thumbsup:


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



WadeF said:


> I'm wading in to offer some info!


Thanks for all the Dereelight pill info Wade - appreciate the input. If will be good to see what Alan comes up with if he gets a new batch of R2s in. BTW, for those you interested in more detailed pics of the DBS, check out WadeF's review here.

Also, for those you wishing to build your own custom pills, the DBS modular design (with standard parts) does facilitate experimentation. Check out StefanFS' DBS V2 thread for his home-made pills (including a real custom barn-burner). Of course, if you do a search you'll see Stefan has also done tons of mods on his MRVs and Tiablos.


----------



## Phaserburn (Mar 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Recently got my DBS V2 3SD; it seems to have a donut hole in the hotspot that is visible when out to 6 ft or greater. Anyone else see this? Is the focus off; too far into the reflector, or not far enough?


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



Phaserburn said:


> Recently got my DBS V2 3SD; it seems to have a donut hole in the hotspot that is visible when out to 6 ft or greater. Anyone else see this? Is the focus off; too far into the reflector, or not far enough?


If the donut is visible up close but less noticeable at a distance, then it's usually a question of the emitter not being far enough into the reflector. Could the pill have loosen up inside? Open the head and see if you can tighten the pill into the reflector further (though be careful not to overly crank it in there - just snug/firm is good).


----------



## Ty_Bower (Mar 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

I received my WF-600 from DX last week. I bought it mostly because of this review - thanks for the good work.

I can't complain about the price of the WF-600, and it certainly is bright. Mine came with a silver-backed Cree, which I think means... absolutely nothing? Anyway, the side of the body tube is marked "Q2".

The construction is certainly adequate for what I needed, and I'd consider it above average given the price and size of the light. The threads are smooth and came lubed, the fit of everything is very good, and the switch action is perfectly acceptable. I think the only part which I'd consider substandard might be the reflector. It has a light haze which you can't really see unless you look at the reflector from an angle while the light is on. There's also what appears to be a fingerprint or two on the reflector. Again, you can't see anything unless the light is on. I don't think these marks affect the beam much, if any. Certainly, the reflector is easy enough to replace (if I can find a suitable replacement).

Mine does not tail stand. You can almost balance it on end, but the button sticks out just a little too much. One wobble and it will topple. I wish it would tail stand, as this much light makes an excellent room candle.

Great review, good light, and an fantastic bargain.


----------



## Phaserburn (Mar 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



selfbuilt said:


> If the donut is visible up close but less noticeable at a distance, then it's usually a question of the emitter not being far enough into the reflector. Could the pill have loosen up inside? Open the head and see if you can tighten the pill into the reflector further (though be careful not to overly crank it in there - just snug/firm is good).


 
selfbuilt, the pill is snugged nicely against the reflector; I checked. It's the opposite of what you said; less noticeable very close, but more at distance.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



Phaserburn said:


> selfbuilt, the pill is snugged nicely against the reflector; I checked. It's the opposite of what you said; less noticeable very close, but more at distance.


Ah, then try unscrewing the pill a little. That should help.



Ty_Bower said:


> I think the only part which I'd consider substandard might be the reflector. It has a light haze which you can't really see unless you look at the reflector from an angle while the light is on. ... Mine does not tail stand. You can almost balance it on end, but the button sticks out just a little too much. One wobble and it will topple.


Sorry to hear about the reflector - that's one of the potential problems with plastic ones (the "haze" effect is particularly common). Same for lenses - cheap plastic ones tend to make a haze as well. But for all that, I didn't really detect any significant loss of light transmission on my DX lights.

As for the tailcap, have you tried unscrewing the retaining ring a half-turn or so? That's usually enough to remove the pressure on a switch that is just slightly causing wobbling. A pair of snap-ring pliers or fine tweezers should do the trick (or fine needle-nose pliers).

I no longer have either light to double-check, but I seem to recall tailstanding worked - but I may be mistaken (a few too many lights around here ). Let me know if you can get yours to tailstand - otherwise, I'll change the review to reflect that they don't.

Thanks!


----------



## Stereodude (Mar 4, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks for the fantastic comparison thread! :candle:

I'm glad I grabbed a used Tiablo A8 Q2 for a good deal!  Although I think I will have to drop a Q5 or better in there. :devil:


----------



## jufam44 (Mar 4, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Very Informative Post-Thanks for it!

-Max


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 5, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



Stereodude said:


> I'm glad I grabbed a used Tiablo A8 Q2 for a good deal!  Although I think I will have to drop a Q5 or better in there. :devil:


I'm sure you'll enjoy it - it's a nice light (and surprisingly small). 

With our mad rush for the latest and greatest emitters, I think there's a lot of good deals on these Q2-generation throwers to be had.


----------



## Mighty Hd (Mar 5, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

WOW! What a great thread. 

Looks like I'm off to buy a few goodies.


----------



## primox1 (Mar 5, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Sick review/comparison....I like how you threw in the WT1, T1, and the DXs for comparison. I have the WT1, and it lets me put your tests in perspective. 

If you were to go hiking/camping, and which would be your go-to light:candle:?

Thanks!


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 6, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



primox1 said:


> If you were to go hiking/camping, and which would be your go-to light:candle:?


Good question. Since all my overnight outdoor excursions lately have involved airline travel first, I've generally been sticking with small handhelds to save on space (e.g. 1AA general use light and my D-mini for throw). I like to travel light (typically carry-on only, if I can manage it).

Honestly, I've alway found my D-mini's throw sufficient (and it's less than any of these dedicated throwers). But if I were to go up in size, my next choice would be the Regal WT1 for its excellent throw and relatively small build (i.e. more easily pocketable). I've been tempted to bring that one along a few times.

Of course, for outdoor activities close to home (when size isn't a concern), I usually grab the DBS or Spear.  

[EDIT: I should mention that I EDC a NiteCore DI, so up-close work is covered. I like to go for a light with maximum throw to complement it, and in my case that means DBS or Spear).


----------



## Omega Man (Mar 6, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks to you and bessiebenny, I _finally_ bit the bullet and ordered a WF-600 Aurora multi-cell light. I don't have any 18650s, but have a couple spare RCRs to use in it. I figure I can always get some 18650s later to try in it if the runtime is too short. Thanks for your review and measurement!!


----------



## primox1 (Mar 6, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks. The Nitecore DI is growing on me more and more now, seeing how many pple EDC it and all.

I read on Mev's review site that the Spear has a 200hr run time on low. Thats crazy long, considering the low mode is still decently strong.


----------



## Stereodude (Mar 6, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



selfbuilt said:


> I'm sure you'll enjoy it - it's a nice light (and surprisingly small).
> 
> With our mad rush for the latest and greatest emitters, I think there's a lot of good deals on these Q2-generation throwers to be had.


Agreed! Unfortunately (I guess that depends how you look at it) the Q2 emitter in the Tiablo didn't last very long. My Tiablo A8 now has a Q5 WG in it and it's focused better too.  Before it seemed only marginally better than the Regalight WT1 v2 in terms of brightness (as your tests show). Now the Tiablo A8 just smokes the WT1 v2. :devil:


----------



## sims2k (Mar 7, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks selfbuilt for an excellent review of lights that I have or plan to buy in the future. This is just great...


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 7, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



Stereodude said:


> Now the Tiablo A8 just smokes the WT1 v2. :devil:


Yeah, I must say the A8 is the one light I'm tempted to mod to Q5 with the stock driver. It seems to reach pretty close to DBS performance, judging from other reports. I just haven't gotten around to it yet ... 



primox1 said:


> Thanks. The Nitecore DI is growing on me more and more now, seeing how many pple EDC it and all. I read on Mev's review site that the Spear has a 200hr run time on low.


Both lights are very impressive, and I'm looking forward to what EDGETAC does next.

I'm off for the next couple of weeks, so see you all at the end of the month. :wave:


----------



## Stereodude (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



selfbuilt said:


> Yeah, I must say the A8 is the one light I'm tempted to mod to Q5 with the stock driver. It seems to reach pretty close to DBS performance, judging from other reports. I just haven't gotten around to it yet ...


:tsk: 

Do it!!! :naughty: You know you want to.


----------



## Stereodude (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



selfbuilt said:


> I’ve also compared UCL anti-reflective lens to the stock MRV and V-68C lenses at the end of the review in the section on “UCL Lenses”.


:thinking: Is there any chance you can compare the UCL AR coated lens to the stock one in the Tiablo A8 Q2? :naughty: It reportedly uses a 41.8mm diameter lens also. The stock one is listed as being AR coated, but it doesn't really look like it in the reflections. I'd be curious to see if there is any gain in output.


----------



## JNewell (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

I think there was a post by Stefan? in another thread reporting the results of a test he ran - I think found a ~9% improvement.


----------



## Stereodude (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



JNewell said:


> I think there was a post by Stefan? in another thread reporting the results of a test he ran - I think found a ~9% improvement.


He did a comparison in the MRV, but not the Tiablo A8. link


----------



## JNewell (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Here's the post from StefanFS I was thinking of.



StefanFS said:


> On my 2 MRV lights it's actually a ~10-12% increase in output. On other lights with better lenses it would be smaller, eg. on my Tiablo A9 & A8 the gain is about 5-7%.
> Stefan


----------



## StefanFS (Mar 9, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



JNewell said:


> Here's the post from StefanFS I was thinking of.


 
There was a wide range of improvement on the various lights I ended up replacing the lenses on. The most substantial gain were in my 2 D-minis (locally made 6 layer lens), my first Tiablo A9 and my oldest MRV. Both the Tiablo A9 and the 
oldest black D-mini had degraded AR coating in a spiderweb pattern on the not so clear original lenses, ~10% improvment. The newer green hard anodized D-mini had no AR coating at all, ~12% improvment. My first MRV was one of the first ever produced with a cloudy lens. I think these lights have components from a variety of manufacturers and parts like lenses etc. might come from varying sources for different batches of the lights.

I did the measurements in my lightbox and also checked throw. Results are not absolute since there are so many possible error factors. Focus-height to sensor-battery level in lightmeter-contacts in the light etc. etc. etc.. I found that in my lights there seemed to be a minimum improvement of ~5% and up to ~10 % in a few cases. I messed around with this quite a few times, first with UCL lenses for Maglites, then with 42 mm multicoat lenses from my local glazier shop and then with the actual 41.8 mm UCL-lenses.
Stefan


----------



## fasuto (Mar 9, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Do you think the xenon WF-500 can throw in the same way that the other lights of this thread?
And the conqueror MX-600 ?

Both have textured reflectors.

I need a throw light but prefer an incan since my other lights are leds.


----------



## Darien (Mar 9, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks for the great review. I ordered a DBS light today and can't wait to get it in my hands. 

Darien


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 25, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



StefanFS said:


> There was a wide range of improvement on the various lights I ended up replacing the lenses on. ... I found that in my lights there seemed to be a minimum improvement of ~5% and up to ~10 % in a few cases.


Thanks for jumping in while I was away Stefan 

I agree with Stefan's assessment. I've only played briefly with the UCL lenses on some of the other lights, and the difference is typically within that ~5% range for both throw and overall output. In a few cases a bit more, in others a bit less.

It all comes down to how good the stock lens is to start with, and as Stefan pointed out there seems to be a lot of variability there. Since we are all working from typically only one "representative" example of each light in our own collections, it is hard to be more precise. But I have noticed that newer higher end lights (e.g. DBS V2, RaidFire, etc.) are typically coming with very nice coated lenses.


----------



## Stereodude (Mar 25, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



selfbuilt said:


> It all comes down to how good the stock lens is to start with, and as Stefan pointed out there seems to be a lot of variability there. Since we are all working from typically only one "representative" example of each light in our own collections, it is hard to be more precise. But I have noticed that newer higher end lights (e.g. DBS V2, RaidFire, etc.) are typically coming with very nice coated lenses.


The "stock" lens in my lightly used A8 that I mod'd to a Q5 appeared to have no AR plus it had some light scratches on it, so I went ahead and swapped it out for a UCL that I bought along with some other UCL lenses. I don't have a Lux meter, but I feel better about it. :nana:


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 1, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



Stereodude said:


> :thinking: Is there any chance you can compare the UCL AR coated lens to the stock one in the Tiablo A8 Q2? :naughty: It reportedly uses a 41.8mm diameter lens also. The stock one is listed as being AR coated, but it doesn't really look like it in the reflections. I'd be curious to see if there is any gain in output.


A bit late, but I just updated the main post with my Tiablo A8 lens swap results. 

Basically, with the UCL lens throw increased by about 900 lux (14,000 lux vs. 14,900 lux), which amounts to a 3.2% "Throw" difference (using my standard measure of squareroot lux for "throw"). If you want to compare my numbers to those who just do a straight % difference of raw lux (which I think is misleading), you would typically wind up roughly doubling my "throw" % difference numbers.

In any case, that's a bit more than I saw with my MRV swap (500 lux on ~10,000 lux output, or 2.4% "throw" difference). Didn't see any obvious deficits on my stock A8 lens, but the AR coating definitely doesn't seem as pronounced as the UCL lens.


----------



## Stereodude (Apr 1, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks for adding it!


----------



## adnj (May 11, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

This review was excellent. Thanks!


----------



## selfbuilt (May 11, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Glad you are enjoying the comparison. 

FYI, I picked up a Tiablo A9 Q5 a few weeks ago. I've been planning on updating this review, but I've been a bit backlogged with new lights. Should have it up in the next few days ...


----------



## selfbuilt (May 13, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Main thread just updated with my Tiablo A9-Q5 results.

Nice light - particularly good choice if you plan to run on primaries (you may need to hit your browser refresh on the first page to see the new runtime graphs).







Enjoy!
:wave:


----------



## HoopleHead (May 13, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

thanks to this thread, i decided on a Tiablo A9 since i want to use primaries. nice one, thanks!


----------



## jabe1 (May 13, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

great review,it's been very helpful. I'm about to pull the trigger andget a thrower. How about including some [email protected] dop-ins? just curious.
thanks again.


----------



## MrFunk (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

I bought both DBS - Spear - A9 and I prefer Spear, I hadn't problem with led or others and it throws great.
With the DBS I had a little noise with the led that freeze, the A9 is a great flashlight but not at the level of the spear for me.
I hope Dereelight put on the market a P7 upgrade :naughty:


----------



## 7Freeman (May 21, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

As I know the a9 has on high(with two aw 16340) a good regulation for about 1 hour.
But what is with the regulation and run time in low(with two aw 16340)?
I can`t believe that it should be only 1.5 hours on low (light-reviews.com)..!


----------



## brett174 (May 21, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

I'd really like to get the DBS V2 but I wont be using 18650's. In this case, will it be able to match the Tiablo A9 in terms of throw and brightness. I've tried reading through as many threads as possible, but haven't found a definitive answer. From my understanding (a lot of this goes way over my head!) the DBS V2 with the 1SM-M pill draws 1.0amps compared to 1.2amps for the 18650 pills. Users on here have reported anywhere between 26,000-30,000 lux for the DBS V2 (18650 pills) compared to 21,000 lux for the A9. If the 1SM-M pill is 20% less efficient (I'm basing that on the difference between 1.2amps and 1.0amps), it should still provide the same lux output as the A9? I'm basing this on 26,000- 20% = 20,800, which is almost the same as the 21,000lux for the Tiablo A9

I hope this makes sense to everyone, cause I'm well confused


----------



## selfbuilt (May 21, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



7Freeman said:


> As I know the a9 has on high(with two aw 16340) a good regulation for about 1 hour.
> But what is with the regulation and run time in low(with two aw 16340)?
> I can`t believe that it should be only 1.5 hours on low (light-reviews.com)..!


That could be, since the output is only reduced by half on 16340, and a resistored low is not going to be the most efficient. But I haven't tested it personally.



brett174 said:


> I hope this makes sense to everyone, cause I'm well confused


Your reasoning is generally sound, but the fact is it's hard to know how driven each version of each DBS pill really is. For example, the "1.2 amp" DI doesn't seem to be driven as hard as the 2SD (although that may reflect other circuitry issues).

In any the case, I'd expect a 1SM-Q5 on CR123A to throw at least as well or a bit better than the Tiablo A9. My old 2SM-Q2 almost reached 20,000 lux, after all.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 2, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Just added the JetBeam Jet-III IBS to the review. 






Although comparison pics and beamshots of the light will have to come later, info on the light has been added to all the analysis and description sections.

:wave:


----------



## gilly (Jun 2, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks SB - much appreciated!!:twothumbs


----------



## Crenshaw (Jun 2, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Ive got a quesion,anyone..:thinking:

I already have a Tiablo A9, if i get the Spear,will i be very impressed with the 4000 extra lux?

also, SB, my Tiablo A9 says Limited Edition WCQ5 on the other side of the body. Is it the same as yours? cos my box is different. 


Crenshaw


----------



## BMF (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

I believe there are only 2 types of boxes: black and newer blue/white. I have 3 A9 and 2 are with old black and 1 with new blue/white. Pics are at the same post #1 on top of each other and they're not like yours?


----------



## Crenshaw (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

mines the black and white, like SB's A8....

just, SLIGHTLY worried, due to all this nonsense (i think it is) flying around about fake Tiablos and what not.

Crenshaw


----------



## jirik_cz (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



Crenshaw said:


> Ive got a quesion,anyone..:thinking:
> 
> I already have a Tiablo A9, if i get the Spear,will i be very impressed with the 4000 extra lux?



It is not a big difference in a real world usage. You can see some of mine comparison beamshots on the bottom of this page.



Crenshaw said:


> also, SB, my Tiablo A9 says Limited Edition WCQ5 on the other side of the body. Is it the same as yours? cos my box is different.
> Crenshaw



Come on, don't start with this fake hysteria again . Limited Edition WCQ5 is normal on A9.


----------



## Crenshaw (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



jirik_cz said:


> Come on, don't start with this fake hysteria again . Limited Edition WCQ5 is normal on A9.



no yeah i know, i was just wondering about my box...lol...but it see seems to be fine

thanks for the link! youre right, not much diff in real use, and the Tiablo has a wider spill...

Crenshaw


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



Crenshaw said:


> I already have a Tiablo A9, if i get the Spear,will i be very impressed with the 4000 extra lux?



In terms of throw, I would say no - you are not likely to notice a difference. What you are more likely to notice is the narrower spillbeam and brigther spill at close range. But at a long range, there's not such a big difference.



jirik_cz said:


> Come on, don't start with this fake hysteria again . Limited Edition WCQ5 is normal on A9.


Yeah, "limited edition WCQ5" is normal (and written on my A9). The box change from black to blue/white is also normal (and confirmed in the pics on Tiablo's sales thread). 

I know the recently discounted A9s for sale have hyped up worries of late, but there's a world of difference between "fake" and "unauthorized distributor". And at least one authorized distributor (AFAIK) is selling them at this discounted price.


----------



## Citivolus (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thank you Selfbuilt for all the work you have put into this.

A quick minor note: The discussion of the Jet-III Pro mentions that the Jet-II cap threads are not anodized and therefore don't allow for lockout, however they are anodized in the Jet-II Pro version.

Regards,
Eric


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



Citivolus said:


> A quick minor note: The discussion of the Jet-III Pro mentions that the Jet-II cap threads are not anodized and therefore don't allow for lockout, however they are anodized in the Jet-II Pro version.


Hi Eric,

Yes, I've just heard that on the main LED forum discussion of the Jet-II Pro. I've updated the text to clarify that I was referring to the original Jet-II IBS.


----------



## 04orgZx6r (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

I ordered an A9 about four days ago for 60.99 shipped(with a %10 off from ebay) from Hkequipment. I am not too worried about it being fake, i just hope I like it.


----------



## djans1397 (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



04orgZx6r said:


> I ordered an A9 about four days ago for 60.99 shipped(with a %10 off from ebay) from Hkequipment. I am not too worried about it being fake, i just hope I like it.


 
$60.99 . Holy Cr*p! That's WAY cheap. Are these refurbished? Are they the latest TIABLO A9 LED flashlight with Cree Q5 WC bin Emitter 250+ lumens? If so this is the cheapest I've heard them sell for. I'm about to buy a DBS V2, but for less than half that price and nearly the throw, I might consider this! Let us know or PM me when you get it and give us your take on it... ie is it what you expected etc. 

Thanks,
Dan


----------



## Stereodude (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



djans1397 said:


> $60.99 . Holy Cr*p! That's WAY cheap. Are these refurbished? Are they the latest TIABLO A9 LED flashlight with Cree Q5 WC bin Emitter 250+ lumens? If so this is the cheapest I've heard them sell for. I'm about to buy a DBS V2, but for less than half that price and nearly the throw, I might consider this! Let us know or PM me when you get it and give us your take on it... ie is it what you expected etc.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan


KaiDomain is going to sell them for even less ($59.90) with free shipping. link


----------



## Crenshaw (Jun 3, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



selfbuilt said:


> In terms of throw, I would say no - you are not likely to notice a difference. What you are more likely to notice is the narrower spillbeam and brigther spill at close range. But at a long range, there's not such a big difference.
> 
> 
> Yeah, "limited edition WCQ5" is normal (and written on my A9). The box change from black to blue/white is also normal (and confirmed in the pics on Tiablo's sales thread).
> ...


thanks...

looks like ill be getting the DBS DI V2 sometime in the future for my 18650 needs.....

as for tiablos being cheap, i have a theory. they MIGHT be in the works of releasing a whole new thrower....thats why they are getting rid of the A9s now..... but thats just speculation....but imagine, Cree multidie thrower...

Crenshaw


----------



## 04orgZx6r (Jun 11, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Hey guys just an update, I got my A9 today and it is the limited edition Q5 and is definately not fake, plus it came with 2 energizer cr123's nice!


----------



## BMF (Jun 11, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



04orgZx6r said:


> Hey guys just an update, I got my A9 today and it is the limited edition Q5 and is definately not fake, plus it came with 2 energizer cr123's nice!


 

Is it a 33 mm or 36 mm reflector? Both Kai and DX are 36 mm, not sure 36 mm will throw much more or not.


----------



## 04orgZx6r (Jun 14, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



BMF said:


> Is it a 36 mm or 39 mm reflector? Both Kai and DX are 36 mm, not sure 39 mm will throw much more or not.



hmmm......looking at the manual It says 36 mm which I believe are used in all of the new versions


----------



## BMF (Jun 14, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



BMF said:


> Is it a 36 mm or 39 mm reflector? Both Kai and DX are 36 mm, not sure 39 mm will throw much more or not.





> Originally Posted by *04orgZx6r*
> 
> 
> _hmmm......looking at the manual It says 36 mm which I believe are used in all of the new versions_


 
 I just double check: 33 mm or 36 mm. I'll fix my post later.

BTW, did you measure yours reflector? I don't have tools to do it but in my 3 Tiablo A9 there's 1 of them is longer than the other 2.


----------



## guiri (Jun 20, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



jirik_cz said:


> It is not a big difference in a real world usage. You can see some of mine comparison beamshots on the bottom of this page.



jirik

Great beamshot pictures


----------



## shahzh (Jun 20, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



guiri said:


> jirik
> 
> Great beamshot pictures



Yes thats a good one, now I can't wait to get my hands on the Tiablo A9.


----------



## jessen_leong (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks selfbuilt for the great reviews!

I'm just wondering if anyone notice that the beam of the Dereelight DBS has this halo effect when the beam is seem about 10meters away on a white wall. Just like to find out if the light is faulty or it's the nature of the light.

Thanks.


----------



## jzmtl (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Any plan to add streamlight super tac to the mix? Mine seems to be a great thrower despite only having 135 lumen.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



jessen_leong said:


> I'm just wondering if anyone notice that the beam of the Dereelight DBS has this halo effect when the beam is seem about 10meters away on a white wall. Just like to find out if the light is faulty or it's the nature of the light.


Not sure what you mean - do you mean a "donut" effect of the center hotspot? If so, try adjusting the focus of the reflector by unscrewing the pill from the reflector slightly. It can often take some minor tweaking to get the focus right.



jzmtl said:


> Any plan to add streamlight super tac to the mix? Mine seems to be a great thrower despite only having 135 lumen.


I have to say I am curious about this light. I see from your thread that you picked one up a LeBaron's ... I'll have to take a look next time I'm in that part of my city.

Which reminds me, I need to update this thread with the results from my ITP C6 review. My 1xCR123A and 1xAA round-up reviews also need some updates from recent light reviews, but I'm a little swamped with new reviews that need to get out first. One more to go (Lumapower MVP), then I should have some free time to update these round-ups.


----------



## jzmtl (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Remember to try all of them, the tint variation on the two I tried is the biggest I've ever seen in any LED light.


----------



## ergotelis (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Hello, one question, what is the glass-lens width of the WF-600? 50 or 52 mm? Thanks!


----------



## tx101 (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Many thanks for the great review Selfbuilt
On the strength of your review, Ive ordered myself a Tiablo A9


----------



## sims2k (Dec 30, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

This thread is still useful after all this time. Thanks.


----------



## FLT MEDIC (Dec 30, 2008)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Many thanks for the informative review, much appreciated.


----------



## alohaluau (Jan 4, 2009)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

I got my A9 based on info from this thread, thanks to Selfbuilt!

Cheers,
Luau


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 4, 2009)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

Thanks guys ... I've been meaning to update this thread with some of my newer lights (ITP C6, Jet-III M, Olight M20, DarkTort, etc.). Hopefully I will get the chance to get back to it soon ... also working on revising the 1AA round-up.

Takes time, since I keep getting new lights to review.


----------



## ergotelis (Jan 4, 2009)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



selfbuilt said:


> Thanks guys ... I've been meaning to update this thread with some of my newer lights (ITP C6, Jet-III M, Olight M20, DarkTort, etc.). Hopefully I will get the chance to get back to it soon ... also working on revising the 1AA round-up.
> 
> Takes time, since I keep getting new lights to review.



What about a Tiablo A10? Is it on program?That is what everybody is expecting!:twothumbs


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 4, 2009)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



ergotelis said:


> What about a Tiablo A10? Is it on program?That is what everybody is expecting!:twothumbs


Sorry, it's not on my list - unless Tiablo wants to send me one to review. In the meantime, Ernsanada did a nice review of the A10 ... search for it in the main LED forum.


----------



## Hammer Train (Jan 4, 2009)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*

I've got the RX-1 from shiningbeam which I have modded with a 1400ma driver, an r2 and a ucl lens - it throws pretty well as you can imagine. I don't have another thrower to compare it to though!


----------



## saabluster (Jan 4, 2009)

*Re: Thrower review: DBS, Spear, MRV, Tiablo, Regal & clones: THROW, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHO*



peterthomson said:


> I've got the RX-1 from shiningbeam which I have modded with a 1400ma driver, an r2 and a ucl lens - it throws pretty well as you can imagine. I don't have another thrower to compare it to though!


I thought you made yourself a mag aspheric. Am I misremembering?


----------

