# The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0 (now with runtime graphs)



## wapkil (Jun 19, 2009)

Hi all,

EDIT to add runtime graphs

I just finished my Jet-I runtime tests. The light was tested with different Li-Ion cells (AW's and old TrustFires) and different NiMH cells (LSD Eneloop and non-LSD high capacity Sanyo 2700):





The regulation of this light is really impressive. It looks like the efficacy is the same for all the output settings. The Jet-I is also able to deliver the advertised 45 minutes on high with an AW's cell and 126 minutes with a high capacity NiMH cell - 80% more than the 70 minutes given in the specification.

Note that with NiMHs the Med mode ("50%") brightness is around 70% of the High ("100%") brightness - no wonder that the difference is really hard to see. With Li-Ions the percentage names are much closer to the real output differences.

I also made the locator (beacon) mode test. After 61 hours I turned the light off, took out the Eneloop and discharged it. The battery had 1540mAh left. It is only an approximation but the Jet-I in the locator mode should thus run on an Eneloop at least 10-12 days. Quite nice 

END EDIT



Today I received the (pictorial) description of changes in the new Jetbeam Jet-I v3.0. I think it wasn't posted yet. The most important:





















and the summary:





The lights should be available with R2 and Q3 5A and with both OP and SMO reflectors.

Sounds good, doesn't it? 

The full set of pictures is available here.


----------



## strinq (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Looks interesting, using either a single 123 or double AA's?


----------



## Zeruel (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



strinq said:


> Looks interesting, using either a single 123 or double AA's?



Uses a single AA.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



strinq said:


> Looks interesting, using either a single 123 or double AA's?



It's a single AA light so I think only one AA (of all the chemistries: NiMH, 14500 Li-Ion, lithium, etc.). Unless there are exchangeable body options that I haven't seen...

EDIT: Zeruel beat me to it


----------



## Zeruel (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> It's a single AA light so I think only one AA (of all the chemistries: NiMH, 14500 Li-Ion, lithium, etc.). Unless there are exchangeable body options that I haven't seen...
> 
> EDIT: Zeruel beat me to it



:nana:



:buddies:


----------



## Dreamer (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Can't wait to get my hands on this...


----------



## neo_xeno (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

is that the same as the new one posted on bugoutgear?


----------



## Haz (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Jetbeam sure knows how to make good looking lights, just hope that the actual runtime and output are consistent with the claimed specs.


----------



## Incidentalist (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



neo_xeno said:


> is that the same as the new one posted on bugoutgear?


 
Yes it is!

Flavio said SMO reflector only in the thread in the marketplace, and this is stating both are available. I am interested in one with the OP reflector. I hope Flavio gets them in stock with that option.


----------



## sj29 (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Can someone tell me the diff between the smo and op reflectors....also does anyone have a comparison pic of the Jet I Pro w/IBS V3 compared to the AAquark and D10....just want to see size diff
Correct me if i'm wrong
-v3 is the best throwing AA
-no momemtary on func?? reverse clicky?
-do you have to cycle through the 4 modes?


----------



## Hitthespot (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

At 240 Lumens and 30% greater efficiency, it sounds like this could be the AA light many of us have been waiting for. I hope the specs are actual and not exaggerations. I like the SS at the at one end but would have loved to see the SS at both ends of the light. My EDC lights get chewed up at both ends.

Bill


----------



## wapkil (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



sj29 said:


> Can someone tell me the diff between the smo and op reflectors....also does anyone have a comparison pic of the Jet I Pro w/IBS V3 compared to the AAquark and D10....just want to see size diff
> Correct me if i'm wrong
> -v3 is the best throwing AA
> -no momemtary on func?? reverse clicky?
> -do you have to cycle through the 4 modes?



I don't think anyone was able to buy the new v3 version already. You may want to look at selfbuilt's review of jet-i pro ex v2.0 which includes also information about jet-i pro 2.0 (the version before 3.0 we are discussing here).

OP is an orange peel reflector SMO is a smooth reflector. OP is textured to make the beam more even (and smooth out the Cree-rings) at the expense of slightly reducing the throw. 

The light has 3 modes (not 4) but if you want, you can e.g. program them to the same brightness to effectively get a single mode light.


----------



## DanManTX (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Let the sickness begin::twothumbs I just placed an order through BugOutGear (yes, I used the discount code "cpfjet")

It only comes with SMO; You can add the OP for $8 extra. (of course, I ordered it)

This will be my first "real" light; Now on to my second one (Nitecore EZ AA) and possibly third one (I was looking at the new MG PLI MC-E from shiningbeam but it's not listed today... :sigh

-DanManTX


----------



## wapkil (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Hitthespot said:


> At 240 Lumens and 30% greater efficiency, it sounds like this could be the AA light many of us have been waiting for. I hope the specs are actual and not exaggerations.



Same here. 240 torch lumens seems to be close to the best of what is practically achievable now. It would need ~1.2A at the LED to get it. I hope the light is able to cool itself down properly.

The runtimes AFAIK weren't released yet so I don't know what the 30% improvement exactly mean (30% longer runtimes than v2.0?).


----------



## sj29 (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

is the size of the new v3 jet1 about the same as the AAquark?? seems like this jetbeam would have a lot more output than the quark for only 10usd more?!....but i guess we can't be sure until someone has this light for a comparison.....


----------



## wapkil (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



sj29 said:


> is the size of the new v3 jet1 about the same as the AAquark?? seems like this jetbeam would have a lot more output than the quark for only 10usd more?!....but i guess we can't be sure until someone has this light for a comparison.....



The Jet-I size should be quite similar to the QAA. I think you should be able to find the exact numbers in many places. The lights are both AA not trying to be the absolutely smallest one.

I believe the maximum brightness is not the only important thing. The lights are different. The Jet-I may be brighter but the QAA will offer longer runtime in the moon mode. The Jet-I is programmable but the QAA has lower low. They have different LEDs, reflectors, bodies etc. Even when there are many reviews of both lights, it may still not be easy to decide between them. Fortunately you can always get both


----------



## sj29 (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I think I may just have to get both eventually....but for now I'm leaning towards the jetbeam for the output and great construction...not to say that the quark is inferior....but I think I like the smaller size and the increased output....I also feel like the 2 lumens will be low enough on the jet1....as for the nitecore I love the size/simplicity....but not sure about its output:candle:


----------



## Burgess (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Looks nice !


:twothumbs




Any hope for a *2xAA tube*,

for those of us running Eneloops ?




_


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I hope the regulation holds up better than the new Rapture RRT 2. It also pushes 240 lumen but at a price. And this light will only have a 14500 750ma batt to work with rather than a 18650 2100ma batt. However this light could be adjust down a tad by the user...might improve things.


----------



## clintb (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I've been waiting for this! Well, I was going to get the v2.0, but held out, and I'm glad I did!

Bought the R2 and OP reflector. Can't wait!


----------



## wapkil (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Badbeams3 said:


> I hope the regulation holds up better than the new Rapture RRT 2. It also pushes 240 lumen but at a price. And this light will only have a 14500 750ma batt to work with rather than a 18650 2100ma batt. However this light could be adjust down a tad by the user...might improve things.



RRT 2 is the one with the time travel circuit?



> Yes...tommorrow is today and today is the day that I said they would be here yesterday, in which they did in fact arrive today as promised!





> Actually today is now yesterday. Yesterday was the "original" today



(from the MP thread )

Well, it needs to consume some energy for these things, I believe. The Jet-I is only an old, simple IBS.


Seriously though, this circuit is only an incremental improvement. If they haven't broken anything important and slightly improved v2.0 I think I'll be satisfied.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Burgess said:


> Any hope for a *2xAA tube*,
> 
> for those of us running Eneloops ?



I don't know. Started from asking about something simpler - a diffuser and a red filter, but still no luck apparently.

Anybody knows accessories from another manufacturer that will fit the Jet-I?


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Hm, I wonder what sort of beam profile it'll have with the OP.. I still EDC the Jet Mk IBS because the PROs were too throw-y. Might have a winner if they move back to the useful everyday broad beam.

Go go gadget Selfbuilt..


----------



## jgraham15 (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Dammit Man!!!!!! My wallet can't keep taking this kind of abuse! 

Pretty soon I am going to be living in a cardboard box. But I guess at least I will have a bunch of flashlights to trade for food! 

Really though this looks like another MUST HAVE flashlight. :thumbsup:


----------



## hazna (Jun 19, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

any specifications of dimensions? Bugoutgear's dimensions seem to be for v2 instead of v3


----------



## wapkil (Jun 20, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



hazna said:


> any specifications of dimensions? Bugoutgear's dimensions seem to be for v2 instead of v3



I have only the information that that they should be almost identical to v2.


----------



## Abyssos (Jun 20, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Hopefully, someone soon will do a first impression/review with beam shots and runtime verification on this V3 version 

I am interested in Q3-5A with OP reflector, but this is light pricey with my wants. I need some convincing...:nana:


----------



## hazna (Jun 20, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

its a little thicker than most other AA lights isn't it? bezel diameter of 25mm


----------



## wapkil (Jun 20, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



hazna said:


> its a little thicker than most other AA lights isn't it? bezel diameter of 25mm



Its head has a ~5mm (at the end) larger diameter than the rest of the body to help with the throw. Many other lights are more cylindrical (i.e. the same diameter at the head and the tail).


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Jun 20, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> I don't know. Started from asking about something simpler - a diffuser and a red filter, but still no luck apparently.
> 
> Anybody knows accessories from another manufacturer that will fit the Jet-I?



The smaller sized filters from Surefire fit the Jet-I Pro series.

Hope that helps,
Flavio


----------



## wapkil (Jun 21, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



BugOutGear_USA said:


> The smaller sized filters from Surefire fit the Jet-I Pro series.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> Flavio



Thanks, of course it helps - it answers my question


----------



## HighLumens (Jun 21, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Nice light! I think I'll follow this thread.. can't wait for runtimes and lumen ratings!


----------



## wapkil (Jun 21, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



HighLumens said:


> Nice light! I think I'll follow this thread.. can't wait for runtimes and lumen ratings!



It turned out that I will have to wait a week for my Jet-I. I guess a few people will have it before me so I hope someone will post a review. I want to see an enthusiastic one, proving that I was right ordering the light


----------



## sj29 (Jun 22, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Do you guys think this light is too long(big) for edc.....I'm going from a very small fenix lod to the jet1v3...and I'm not sure I'll be happy with clipping this to my pocket on my cargo shorts.....I realize it will be bigger, but have not seen the light with someone holding it??
Seems like the d10's form factor is better( more hidden in the pocket).....but there not in stock and this new jetbeam looks too good...:thumbsup:


----------



## Beacon of Light (Jun 22, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I recently bought the JETBEAM Jet I-Pro IBS v. 1.2 at Deal EXtreme a month or so ago, great light and nice low low and decent runtime. So basically the V3.0 light just has a higher lumen output but the low low is the same 2 lumens and the same runtime at 2 lumens? Pretty sure every Jet I-Pro has been 50 hours on low since version 1.0


----------



## Lightcrazycanuck (Jun 22, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



HighLumens said:


> Nice light! I think I'll follow this thread.. can't wait for runtimes and lumen ratings!


 

+1


----------



## Sardaukar (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

This could be my first Jetbeam.


----------



## Dreamer (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Ordered... now the waiting game starts!...


----------



## sj29 (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Can't wait for the review.....when you guys get these lights


----------



## Bushman5 (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



sj29 said:


> Do you guys think this light is too long(big) for edc.....I'm going from a very small fenix lod to the jet1v3...and I'm not sure I'll be happy with clipping this to my pocket on my cargo shorts.....I realize it will be bigger, but have not seen the light with someone holding it??
> Seems like the d10's form factor is better( more hidden in the pocket).....but there not in stock and this new jetbeam looks too good...:thumbsup:



Heck no, its tiny, almost key chain sized. Then and again i'm used to carrying a Pelican 7060, a Surefire L2, a Surefire oudoorsman, Fenix TK11, and a Fenix TA30 every day.....:naughty:


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I'm not interested in yet another AA light that needs special chemistry in order to deliver. For Li-Ion or Lithium-powered lights I'm sticking with CR123 or 18650 form factors.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Bushman5 said:


> Heck no, its tiny, almost key chain sized. Then and again i'm used to carrying a Pelican 7060, a Surefire L2, a Surefire oudoorsman, Fenix TK11, and a Fenix TA30 every day.....:naughty:



I think it appears much bigger on pictures than it is in reality. I'm usually in situations when either additional 0.5cm is completely unimportant or every AA light would be too large so it's completely ok for my nEDC (not-every day carry)


----------



## wapkil (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Outdoors Fanatic said:


> I'm not interested in yet another AA light that needs special chemistry in order to deliver. For Li-Ion or Lithium-powered lights I'm sticking with CR123 or 18650 form factors.



Your choice obviously but AA lights currently accept the broadest variety of chemistries which is a big plus for me. Sticking with CR123s I would limit myself to lithium or li-ion batteries not gaining anything in return. With AAs I can use both the chemistries and additionally NiMHs and even alkalines if the need arises. I don't see how this can be taken as a disadvantage.


----------



## jgraham15 (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Outdoors Fanatic said:


> I'm not interested in yet another AA light that needs special chemistry in order to deliver. For Li-Ion or Lithium-powered lights I'm sticking with CR123 or 18650 form factors.





wapkil said:


> Your choice obviously but AA lights currently accept the broadest variety of chemistries which is a big plus for me. Sticking with CR123s I would limit myself to lithium or li-ion batteries not gaining anything in return. With AAs I can use both the chemistries and additionally NiMHs and even alkalines if the need arises. I don't see how this can be taken as a disadvantage.



I completely agree with wapkil. The ability to use li-ion, lithium, NiMH's and alkalines is a huge plus in my book!!!!! :twothumbs


----------



## RGB_LED (Jun 23, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jgraham15 said:


> I completely agree with wapkil. The ability to use li-ion, lithium, NiMH's and alkalines is a huge plus in my book!!!!! :twothumbs


Absolutely agree! And also the 3 User-defined modes is pretty awesome!

So... it looks like BOG has started to ship this if I'm not mistaken. Has anyone received their's yet? I'm curious to hear thoughts and impressions about this.


----------



## JCup (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



DanManTX said:


> Long time lurker, first time poster.
> 
> Let the sickness begin::twothumbs I just placed an order through BugOutGear (yes, I used the discount code "cpfjet")
> 
> ...



Welcome, Dan!
The Jetbeam Jet-1 Pro and the EZ AA are fine choices. I have not seen the MG PLI, I will have a look. I have an original Jet-1 Pro R2, and it has been great. Challenges even 2xCR123 lights in brightness.

I really use my Fenix LOD/LD01 (3 of them), and it's my EDC, but the EZAA is not so much bigger and uses the more powerful AA size. Get some Sanyo Eneloops and a decent charger, you will be off to a flying start. Thomas Distributing or Amazon sellers are good sources.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

You get 240 lumens from this little beauty on plain old AA Eneloops or do you need lithiums?


----------



## Dreamer (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



recDNA said:


> You get 240 lumens from this little beauty on plain old AA Eneloops or do you need lithiums?



U will need li-ion to get the 240lumens.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Dreamer said:


> U will need li-ion to get the 240lumens.


 
Unprotected explosive Li or ordinary Energizer 8X Li?

What output from ordinary batteries?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

So this would be Jetbeam's copy of the AKOray K-106?


----------



## wapkil (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



recDNA said:


> Unprotected explosive Li or ordinary Energizer 8X Li?
> 
> What output from ordinary batteries?



3.something volt Li. It doesn't have to be unprotected (why insist on using unprotected cells?). It will usually be rechargeable Li, called Li-Ion and now most often, until other chemistries are readily available, LiCoO2. LiCoO2s are not the safest batteries out there but if user responsibly, quite harmless. Maybe a 3V primary Li could also be used (are they available anywhere, except as halves of CR-V3s?).

Ordinary 1.something volt batteries will have lower output. I believe that the detailed specification was not released by Jetbeam yet. All the single cell lights I know have the maximum output not higher than around 100lm-120lm with "ordinary batteries".


----------



## wapkil (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



[email protected] said:


> So this would be Jetbeam's copy of the AKOray K-106?



Not sure if this is a serious question, but yes - the IBS idea was copied by one of these manufacturers from the other one  

Other than that, the lights construction is completely different.


----------



## StandardBattery (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

The Jet is 8mm longer than the Fenix L1D, or 9mm if you want to include the slightly protruding boot. It's identical in size to the LP D-Mini if you include the boot on the D-Mini. Needless to say the ZebraLight H501 looks like a baby next to the Jet, and the EZ-AA looks impressively small next to this beast of AA.

I'm mad they said the light would tailstand, but in reality it is a wobbly legged disapointment. OK the light is not a disappointment, it's very nice and on eneloop in limited testing (about 3 mins). The light won't tailstand when off, and barely tailstands when on. I'm not sure if I can fix it or not. Maybe we can order different boots. Clearly the tail standing ability is false advertising. That makes me made because they could have fixed this and did it right if they were going to advertise it. They make some great lights we don't need BS advertising. 

Tail cap threading is impressive for AA light. They seem to work very well, maybe just a bit short threaded. 

The clip seems a little out of place, too big or something. The gloss black paint on it also does not really suit the light. The clip seems to function well though.

Throw looks impressive for AA, but it's not dark enough for a real test. The smooth reflector has a few rings but they are pretty well controlled, nicely spaced and even. The LED is Dead Center! I intended on installing the OP reflector though at some point for a comparison. It's a pretty light OP though.

The Warm/Neutral tint looks nice, so I'll probably put an R2 one up on CPFMP, I might first do a side by side though.

As with all the recent JetBeams this one looks VERY nice.

Now I must wait until dark.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



StandardBattery said:


> The Jet is 8mm longer than the Fenix L1D, or 9mm if you want to include the slightly protruding boot.



So now we know who is The First CPF-er Who Got the New Jet-I 

Do you happen to have an earlier version to compare it to?

Bummer though with the tailstanding. I thought the boot is not protruding. How bad is it when turned on? Will it stand if placed on a flat surface and not touched afterwards?

The rest sounds good, I wonder what the runtimes will be (30% higher efficiency, they say...).


----------



## Beacon of Light (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> I recently bought the JETBEAM Jet I-Pro IBS v. 1.2 at Deal EXtreme a month or so ago, great light and nice low low and decent runtime. So basically the V3.0 light just has a higher lumen output but the low low is the same 2 lumens and the same runtime at 2 lumens? Pretty sure every Jet I-Pro has been 50 hours on low since version 1.0



Anyone have an answer to this? I don't want to blow +$60 on a light that will be virtually the same as the one I already own v1.2, considering I will only use AAs and not Li-ion.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> Anyone have an answer to this? I don't want to blow +$60 on a light that will be virtually the same as the one I already own v1.2, considering I will only use AAs and not Li-ion.



Nope. I was informed that they worked "over two months" on the improvements in the new circuit but I don't know any specifics of this 30% higher efficiency thing. There were modes where the efficiency could indeed be made substantially higher than in 2.0, so who knows...

For me the neutral Q3 5A was enough to order it anyway (hoping that the efficiency is at least not worse than in the previous version) but I don't have any previous Jet-I.


----------



## StandardBattery (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> So now we know who is The First CPF-er Who Got the New Jet-I
> 
> Do you happen to have an earlier version to compare it to?
> 
> ...


 
I don't think I'm the first with the new Jet-I because I didn't pre-order or order it right away, I'm not sure why no one else has posted yet. 

I do not have an earlier version. The laat BetBeam AA I had was C-LE v1.2 or something like that, which is L1D size (a little shorter).

It will tailstand once on if you place it carefully and don't bump it, but it is totally resting on the boot, not the light. I can't believe they would design a light to tailstand, and then not have it tailstand. You can tell by the earlier pictures posted it was protruding, but I read the specs several times where the brag it will tailstand, so I figured the pictures must have been a prototype. Very sloppy. I'm upset because JetBeam could be a great company if not for silly mistakes. With their history they know better, but obviously didn't GAS for this initial release. Maybe they'll fix it in batch 2 and then I'll really be upset. I'm grumpy... 

Other than that though the light is very nice.


----------



## StandardBattery (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Well I don't like to be grumpy.... so I tried to fix the tailcap.... thought I had it.... but remember how I said earlier that the tailcap seemed a bit short threaded? Well, fix the boot position and now the tailcap barely threads on, and does not cover the entire o-ring. So it looks like new boot, or new tailcap, to fix the issue. Maybe the retaining collar chuld be shaved, but really a new low-profile boot would be the easiest. 

And speeking of the boot they used a monster (interms of diameter), they need to look at the TK20 and the diameter of it's boot. It would make attachmen to the tailcap anchors (holes) a lot easier, you can put anything decent through them with out it pressing into the boot.

OK no more messages tonight, too grumpy!


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I believe the tailstand issue everyone is discussing was on the 2.0 version, which came with two button tailcaps. The new 3.0 does not make this claim. 

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Flavio


----------



## StandardBattery (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

:thinking: No one is discussing anything about v2.0 here.

They Claim (Claimed) and they failed to deliver.


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



StandardBattery said:


> :thinking: No one is discussing anything about v2.0 here.
> 
> They Claim (Claimed) and they failed to deliver.



Ahhh...my bad...I didn't see that pic...

With that said, the light does tailstand on the flat button tailcap, although I admit it's not all that stable.

Flavio


----------



## AbnInfantry (Jun 24, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I really like my Jetbeam Military R2 (purchased from BugOutGear) and have been seriously considering getting a Jet-1 v3 and a Raptor RRT-2, but I'm confounded by some of Jetbeam's decisions. They advertise the Jet-1 v3 as having the ability to tailstand and that's questionable. They advertise the Raptor RRT-2 having an "anti-roll design" yet owners report the light rolls easily. The RRT-2 is supposed to be a tactical light yet Jetbeam didn't even bother to include something as basic as a lanyard hole and the "low" setting isn't very low. I'm perplexed how a company which can manufacture high quality products can also make such inexplicable design errors.


----------



## bee-man (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Brother wanted a new toy for his aviation walk-around, so he thought he’d try something different: a Jetbeam Jet-I Pro v3.0 with Q3-5A and textured reflector. He’s not around so I intercepted his light to see what all the hoopla is with these warm tint emitters.

Overall fit and finish is very nice. The anodizing on the head and body are slightly mismatched, but not enough to bother me. If I look hard, I can find a few blemishes on the tailcap. Also, it does feel a bit short threaded as SB pointed out - maybe a hair under 2 revolutions to fasten tightly. IMO, it is too big for an EDC, but YMMV. It does feel very comfortable in hand. 

I don’t have li-ion rechargeables, so I put in a Kirkland AA and fired her up. First thing I thought was the tint looked pinkish. It will be interesting to see this light at night. Hot spot appears tight with a faint cree ring, but not nearly as bad as my PD20.


For comparison:










Square threads:




OP reflector:




Tail cap button:


----------



## wapkil (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> Nope. I was informed that they worked "over two months" on the improvements in the new circuit but I don't know any specifics of this 30% higher efficiency thing. There were modes where the efficiency could indeed be made substantially higher than in 2.0, so who knows...



I received the runtimes data: 

edit: 
The full specification available now at Jetbeam's www

Max Output: 240 Lumens (Torch Lumen)

Output & Runtime:
AA Battery
Max Output: 145 Lumens, lasting for 70 minutes;
Minimum Output: 2 Lumens, lasting for 50 hours;

Rechargeable lithium Battery
Max output: 240 lumens, lasting for 45 minutes;
Minimum Output: 2 lumens, lasting for 60 hours;

If compared to the previous version's AA max: 60 min, AA min: 45h, Li-Ion max: 30min. Li-Ion: min: 50h, it indeed looks like an important improvement was made (particularly in Li-Ion max).


----------



## wapkil (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



StandardBattery said:


> :thinking: No one is discussing anything about v2.0 here.
> 
> They Claim (Claimed) and they failed to deliver.



Not to defend Jetbeam but they wrote "Flat push button at the tail makes the light tailstandable". I understood that it means that the boot is not protruding but it seems that what they really meant is that the boot is flat and hence the light can stand on it. The second meaning is actually closer to to the literal meaning of the sentence. Admittedly not the best description but I think not false advertising either.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



bee-man said:


> Brother wanted a new toy for his aviation walk-around, so he thought he’d try something different: a Jetbeam Jet-I Pro v3.0 with Q3-5A and textured reflector. He’s not around so I intercepted his light to see what all the hoopla is with these warm tint emitters.



Thanks for nice pictures bee-man. Especially since they required intercepting another flashaholic's new light. Quite brave of you - we all know the risks involved in such an operation


----------



## StandardBattery (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> Not to defend Jetbeam but they wrote "Flat push button at the tail makes the light tailstandable". I understood that it means that the boot is not protruding but it seems that what they really meant is that the boot is flat and hence the light can stand on it. The second meaning is actually closer to to the literal meaning of the sentence. Admittedly not the best description but I think not false advertising either.


 
Well I'd find that intentionally vague, or intentionally misleading. Either of which I'd consider false advertising. If you beatup on the boot enough it does delicately balance slightly better.

Last night was quite foggy and a lot of moisture in the air, but the light seemed to have a great outdoor beam. was not able to compare it side by side others though under the same conditions.


----------



## StandardBattery (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



AbnInfantry said:


> *...* They advertise the Raptor RRT-2 having an "anti-roll design" yet owners report the light rolls easily. *...*


 
Ya that would be quite hysterical if I wasn't a flashaholic or didn't care for their lights. I fear it shows how disconnected the marketing and manufacturing has become. They don't even know what they're selling.

On another worrisome note, have you noticed the limited or no pre-introduction information. I mean not even 'it's coming'. Only unconfirmed reports of Jet-I V3, and unresponded email from JetBeam and BOG. In a sense many firms have the reverse problem, but I wish the industry could properly manage introductions or simple announcements like, new-tint option will be offered.

I'm guessing the rumours of the newly outfitted Jet-III ST, are probably true as well. 

The sign of the economy I guess, sales are obviously down across the board all the manufactures are doing crazy stuff.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



StandardBattery said:


> On another worrisome note, have you noticed the limited or no pre-introduction information. I mean not even 'it's coming'. Only unconfirmed reports of Jet-I V3, and unresponded email from JetBeam and BOG. In a sense many firms have the reverse problem, but I wish the industry could properly manage introductions or simple announcements like, new-tint option will be offered.



Yup, even the output and runtimes specification appeared only today. Almost a week after dealers started shipping the light. And it is actually better than in the previous version - something to advertise not hide :shrug:


----------



## HighLumens (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> Especially since they required intercepting another flashaholic's new light. Quite brave of you - we all know the risks involved in such an operation


+1, lol!


wapkil said:


> I received the runtimes data:
> 
> Output & Runtime:
> AA Battery
> ...


Thanks, useful info. Are these lumen ratings OTF?

Is that a D10 between the Jetbeam and the Fenix PD20?


----------



## Zeruel (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



StandardBattery said:


> On another worrisome note, have you noticed the limited or no pre-introduction information. I mean not even 'it's coming'. Only unconfirmed reports of Jet-I V3, and unresponded email from JetBeam and BOG.



:laughing: Sometimes I prefer that. It's like TA-DAH! Check out this cool light that we have IN STOCK...rather than check out these great lights we DON'T HAVE in stock. Not mocking anyone particularly, just don't like the wait.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



HighLumens said:


> +1, lol!
> Thanks, useful info. Are these lumen ratings OTF?



These are the numbers that Jetbeam sent me (btw, now finally available at their www). Part of the specification says "Max Output: 240 Lumens (Torch Lumen)". Torch lumens are OTF lumens, aren't they?

EDIT: There used to be a calculation here showing that 240 OTF lumens for 45 minutes with an AW 14500 battery is possible. I posted it, looked at it and it seemed too good to be true. After determining that I took an absurdly high capacity number for the battery, I tried to correct it but the only way I could get constant output of 240 OTF lumens for 45 minutes with AW's 14500 is with almost 100% optical and driver efficiency. Maybe I'll write to Jetbeam to ask about it...

Maybe someone has another light with the known output to compare the Jet-I to?


----------



## HighLumens (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> Part of the specification says "Max Output: 240 Lumens (Torch Lumen)". Torch lumens are OTF lumens, aren't they?


Yes, they are.
I was not sure if the 145 lumens for a regular AA were OTF too as the 240 "torch(=OTF)" lumens when using a Li-Ion.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



HighLumens said:


> Yes, they are.
> I was not sure if the 145 lumens for a regular AA were OTF too as the 240 "torch(=OTF)" lumens when using a Li-Ion.



I'm not even sure about this 240 OTF lumens for 45 minutes. I wrote to Jetbeam to ask whether they are OTF and with what battery and LED current they got them. Will see what (and whether) they respond.


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



StandardBattery said:


> On another worrisome note, have you noticed the limited or no pre-introduction information. I mean not even 'it's coming'. Only unconfirmed reports of Jet-I V3, and unresponded email from JetBeam and BOG. The sign of the economy I guess, sales are obviously down across the board all the manufactures are doing crazy stuff.



This is a no win situation for us since if we announce a product to early (and it gets delayed) we receive nasty emails. If we announce a product a week before it's available (like in the case of the Jet-I Pro V3) we receive nasty comments about how we should of notified everyone sooner. Now...I'm off to play with the next 3 upcoming Jetbeam prototypes...mwwahhaha...j/k

Flavio


----------



## StandardBattery (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Zeruel said:


> :laughing: Sometimes I prefer that. It's like TA-DAH! Check out this cool light that we have IN STOCK...rather than check out these great lights we DON'T HAVE in stock. Not mocking anyone particularly, just don't like the wait.


 
Ya I know what you mean, and I agree. That is why I said 'some manufactures have the opposite problem'. I don't understand why they have to be at one extreme or the other. Maybe they were affected by the Quark intro... and just wanted to rush the light out before they had the release properly prepared. 

Well I'm going to list an R2 version on CPFMP, just did a quick side-by-side on the warmer neutral tint. The R2 is brighter depending upon your target. Still I can't go back to cool tints, keeping the 5A and letting the R2 go. They do seem like really nice AA lights. I'm pretty impresses with the throw flood balance, they have throw but not just one big pencil beam. My neighbor liked the cool R2 tint, but then he also likes his purple Streamlight multi 5mm LED headlamp. Other than the tint the Streamlight was quite nice.

Well since Flavio is torturing us with the Secret JetBeam and other protos, I guess I better investigate the RRT-1 and Jet-I that I can get my grubby hands on.


----------



## sj29 (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

So.....what's the verdict? Questionable tailstand, 145 max on env.--worth the $$


----------



## Zeruel (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Just received mine. Thanks to Flavio's fast delivery.

My first impression is like holding a miniature Jet-III Military. It has the Jetbeam's trademark quality, knurling, square threads and all.

It can tailstand, just don't shake the table.  I'm not too keen on the clip, it has a glossy painted-over finishing rather than having the matt hardy quality like Surefire's. Letterings are not crisp IMO.

Mine comes in 3 ano shades between the tail, body and head. Hotspot is pretty defined (SMO), got to wait till dark to gauge its performance using primary, nimh and li-ion.

EDIT

Night falls. For an AA, I must say this light can certainly throw. I can believe it's 240 lumens or close to it and it is *BRIGHT*. The output is great for all 3 types of batteries.


----------



## bee-man (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I once thought my PD20 had the nicest, whitest tint. I'm wondering if the Q3-5A appears just as bright as my Q5's (despite the numbers) - maybe it's just in my mind. Whatever it is, the warm is very... refreshing... comfortable.

Jet-I PRO (Max, AA) vs D10R2 (Max, AA) vs PD20 (High, CR123)



A little over exposed, but...


----------



## hyperloop (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



[email protected] said:


> So this would be Jetbeam's copy of the AKOray K-106?


 
think its the other way round, jetbeam was the 1st to come out with the IBS UI, their Jetbeam Jet I Pro IBS was out first with the 3 individually programable modes.

Still want to read a bit more about this light before i bite the bullet, i already own the Jet I MkIIx, Jet I Prob IBS v2.0, Jet II and Jet III Pro ST  output of another 15 lumens (225 vs 240) doesnt really seem to make it very justifiable to get another Jet I


----------



## wapkil (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



hyperloop said:


> Still want to read a bit more about this light before i bite the bullet, i already own the Jet I MkIIx, Jet I Prob IBS v2.0, Jet II and Jet III Pro ST  output of another 15 lumens (225 vs 240) doesnt really seem to make it very justifiable to get another Jet I



I don't think the output is the most important. Even though the Jet-I (240lm on not) may be the brightest and best throwing AA lights out there, except some custom builds. For me the most interesting are the improvements in the circuit efficiency and the neutral tint LED. Since I don't have any Jet-I, the UI, build quality and the lockout availability also play its role.

I just saw that these 225 lumens according Jetbeam were also "Torch Lumens". Did no one previously ask about it? 

Take the AA Quark for example. It is 170 OTF lm (and I believe that it really can be). In Selfbuilt's tests the Jet-I v2.0 Q5 output (225 "Torch lumens") looks surprisingly similar to the AA Quark (R2) output (170 OTF lumens). The AA Quark is already R2 and the Jet-I v2.0 was Q5 so the new Jet-I v3.0 (R2) should be brighter. Yet I seriously doubt that it can be the 240lm/170lm difference, probably more like 190lm/170lm. Either I'm missing something here or I have to agree with StandardBattery about the marketing people ruining a technically perfectly fine light :scowl:


----------



## wapkil (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

For people asking about the Jet-I size: [edit: wrong video, will have to search for the correct one]


----------



## Nake (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



hyperloop said:


> ....... their Jetbeam Jet I Pro IBS was out first with the 3 individually programable modes.


 
Wasn't the JET-I MK I.B.S. the first IBS model to be sold?


----------



## kaichu dento (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Nake said:


> Wasn't the JET-I MK I.B.S. the first IBS model to be sold?


I think it was, and I still have one left! Nice light, very compact.


----------



## StandardBattery (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Well I dropped in the OP reflector that is available as an extra (more $), and although it is a very light OP, at a reasonable distance I preferred the beam, so I'm keeping it in. The SMO moves to the parts bag.

Considering I paid extra for warm (most manufactures don't charge extra anymore), and extra for the OP reflector, and I paid shipping and Tax, I'd have to say the light is probably too expensive in this configuration. Base R2 configuration with coupon is a little expensive, but acceptible since you may be able to get it with free shipping.

The beam is quite nice for an AA, but I happened to have my Twisty 85Tr in my pocket so I tried them side-by-side. Sorry, but the Twisty killed it in my view. I do wish I had the nice tint in the Twisty though. Damn the Ra Twisty 85Tr has a nice beam profile for outdoors. Flood and throw and perfect smooth transition.

Still this is one very nice AA lights, and we need more of those. JetBeam should make Warm-tint and OP reflector as standard options for the same price as the R2 SMO configuration. They should design a new tailcap and/or offer a new boot for tailstanding (i'd prefer a new tailcap and I'll fix the boot/switch position, and send me 5 free lights just because.

I'm 65/35 on the clip, better than nothing but mid mounted clips do have their limitations. I don't know if they intened it for either Bezel up and down usage, but it works on many materials so +points for that. Then - a couple points for making it glossy black on an HA-NAT light.

I still have not programmed it, so that will be next, and hopefully by that time we'll have actual runtime data on at least 1 sample from one of the reviewers. 

I've b***** a lot, but it's a pretty good light. Too expensive for my configuration, but OK in standard config. The tailstanding BS is still bugging me, but since it's a bit big for EDC for me since I have NT/Twisty for larger EDC and LF2-XT and EZ-AA for lightweight, and the clip is so-so for edc it probably won't end up in my pants pocket very often. Coat, pack type of light. I may test a Li-Ion in it, if it will be sitting. I can see it in my car or emergency bag if the runtimes are good.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



StandardBattery said:


> Considering I paid extra for warm (most manufactures don't charge extra anymore), and extra for the OP reflector, and I paid shipping and Tax, I'd have to say the light is probably too expensive in this configuration. Base R2 configuration with coupon is a little expensive, but acceptible since you may be able to get it with free shipping.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Still this is one very nice AA lights, and we need more of those. JetBeam should make Warm-tint and OP reflector as standard options for the same price as the R2 SMO configuration.



I agree with you but I believe that the pricing policy is up to the dealer and is not enforced by Jetbeam. My Q3 5A with OP was sold as a standard option, exactly as you would like it to be. The only problem is that it hasn't arrived to me yet :mecry:


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> I agree with you but I believe that the pricing policy is up to the dealer and is not enforced by Jetbeam. My Q3 5A with OP was sold as a standard option, exactly as you would like it to be. The only problem is that it hasn't arrived to me yet :mecry:



This is incorrect. Jetbeam has a MAP price in place for all dealers. The warm tinted versions are usually $5.00 more retail. 

Regards,
Flavio


----------



## jahxman (Jun 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Here's the v3.0 (R2) on the left next to a v2.0 (Q5) on the right:






I noticed the R2 looks warmer than the Q5?


----------



## DHart (Jun 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

This light has a lot of appeal... could be my 2nd Jet...


----------



## Zeruel (Jun 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



DHart said:


> This light has a lot of appeal... could be my 2nd Jet...



It should. :naughty:

It's officially my best AA thrower so far. It's a bit misleading at first because the factory setting when I received it is Lo>Med>Strobe. I got to reset the brightness from Med to High to see it's full potential.


----------



## berry580 (Jun 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

any numbers? So that we know how good is the throw?

Its good to know it has so and so lumens, but 10 out of 10 times it doesn't accurately tell us HOW bright the thing is. There's just too many different definitions of "lumens".
Tell us something like "lux @ 1m of its center" @ 100% output and with a beam shot I think would be a little more meaningful. A graph of its runtime would be even better.

Why don't the manufacturers/dealers do it? Do they really want to make the reviewers do so much work? They must hate them! lol


----------



## Zeruel (Jun 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I have no equipment to do that. Besides, numbers give me a headache. 

But just to show how potent this AA is. I compared it to my Surefire E2DL at max. I can visually follow its hotspot when I drift it across E2DL's hotspot. E2DL's is about 210 lumens (MrGMan's measurement). So I believe Jet-1 v3 is about 240 lumens as rated. Fantastic when you pit a single AA (14500) against 2xRCR123 if you ask me. Naturally, using primary is just a tad dimmer. And now with the claim of 30% increase in efficiency, Jet-I Pro V3.0 is truly an AA thrower to be reckoned with.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



BugOutGear_USA said:


> This is incorrect. Jetbeam has a MAP price in place for all dealers. The warm tinted versions are usually $5.00 more retail.



Thank you for the clarification. I agree then that this manufacturer policy may be seen as unnecessary and too complicated. IIRC with the Jet-III-M it was completely the other way around, with R2 costing more than standard Q3 5A. It's possible that "my" dealer decided to simplify the pricing or gave me the Q3 5A/OP as a part of the bonus package


----------



## wapkil (Jun 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Zeruel said:


> I have no equipment to do that. Besides, numbers give me a headache.
> 
> But just to show how potent this AA is. I compared it to my Surefire E2DL at max. I can visually follow its hotspot when I drift it across E2DL's hotspot. E2DL's is about 210 lumens (MrGMan's measurement). So I believe Jet-1 v3 is about 240 lumens as rated.



Can you measure the current draw from the battery on max? I understand that you don't like numbers, but it will be only a single, small, cute, completely harmless number


----------



## jahxman (Jun 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> Can you measure the current draw from the battery on max?


 
Tailcap current draw measurement, made with an Ultrafire unprotected 14500 900mAh battery with a fresh charge: 

*JET-I PRO V3* current draw at tailcap 14500 4.06V:

Minimum: .012 Amp
50 %: .465 Amp
100% .960 Amp

*JET-I PRO V2* current draw at tailcap 14500 4.06V:

Minimum: .006 Amp
50 %: .602 Amp
100% 1.223 Amp

Same thing, but now with an Energizer L91 lithium primary:

*JET-I PRO V3* current draw at tailcap L91 1.59V:

Minimum: .040 Amp
50 %: .805 Amp
100% 1.057 Amp

*JET-I PRO V2* current draw at tailcap L91 1.59V:

Minimum: .409 Amp
50 %: 1.952 Amp
100% 2.103 Amp


----------



## wapkil (Jun 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jahxman said:


> *JET-I PRO V3* current draw at tailcap:
> 
> Minimum: .012 Amp
> 50 %: .465 Amp
> ...



Thanks, have you measured at what battery voltage?


----------



## jahxman (Jun 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> Thanks, have you measured at what battery voltage?


I edited the post to include the voltages, and also measured it with a L91


----------



## berry580 (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Looks like the claim of a 30% improvement in efficiency seems about right with this sample.
Good on Jetbeam!
IMO, Jetbeam makes great looking flashlights, the UI tends to be pretty good and versatile, but their output/efficiency is pretty much consistently below average. Its about time they start to catch up.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jahxman said:


> I edited the post to include the voltages, and also measured it with a L91



Very interesting results. Because of the additional resistance that may be introduced by a DMM, it is hard to interpret tailcap measurements but they show that much has changed in the driver. It looks promising for the runtime (and the efficiency raise). At the same time the results seem to confirm my suspicions about JetBeam's 240 "torch lumens" not being real OTF lumens. I'm still waiting for JetBeam's response to the question what these "torch lumens" really are...


----------



## DHart (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

My other Jet is a III -M with "hybrid" reflector. It throws very well, but is a bit too spotty for indoor use, which is OK. I've got other lights, better suited for "indoor" use.

The Jet-I Pro v3.0 with OP and SMO reflectors would make this a really versatile light... I'm trying to resist... but that will probably prove to be futile. :mecry: Just what I need, yet ANOTHER light. :sick2:



Zeruel said:


> It should. :naughty:
> 
> It's officially my best AA thrower so far. It's a bit misleading at first because the factory setting when I received it is Lo>Med>Strobe. I got to reset the brightness from Med to High to see it's full potential.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



DHart said:


> The Jet-I Pro v3.0 with OP and SMO reflectors would make this a really versatile light... I'm trying to resist... but that will probably prove to be futile. :mecry: Just what I need, yet ANOTHER light. :sick2:



The tests in the parallel thread suggest that the V3.0 brightness is similar to V2.0 but it runs substantially longer. My my magic ball tells me that after you buy it they will release the V4.0 with the overdischarge protection, lower low and the switch to moon mode when the battery is almost depleted. Next version will have an option of a forward clicky and a driver with additional efficiency improvements. It will be released a few months before the version with a new Cree LED with 200lm / W. We shouldn't of course forget about the version with a convenient mode selection ring :devil:


----------



## divine (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jahxman said:


> Same thing, but now with an Energizer L91 lithium primary:
> 
> *JET-I PRO V3* current draw at tailcap L91 1.59V:
> 
> ...


The V2 is pulling twice the current from the (AA) battery as the V3? Is the V2 brighter than the V3 with NiMH? (A lithium primary is probably buckling at that current, but a NiMH will probably handle it fine.)


----------



## DHart (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

The much lower current draw of the v3.0 should equate to much longer runtimes, while at the same brightness, as compared to the v2.0, right?


----------



## wapkil (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



DHart said:


> The much lower current draw of the v3.0 should equate to much longer runtimes, while at the same brightness, as compared to the v2.0, right?



According to the JetBeam specifications, it should be [email protected] for v2.0 and [email protected] for v3.0 :shrug:


----------



## Zeruel (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



DHart said:


> My other Jet is a III -M with "hybrid" reflector. It throws very well, but is a bit too spotty for indoor use, which is OK. I've got other lights, better suited for "indoor" use.
> 
> The Jet-I Pro v3.0 with OP and SMO reflectors would make this a really versatile light... I'm trying to resist... but that will probably prove to be futile. :mecry: Just what I need, yet ANOTHER light. :sick2:



This is also a thrower. If you think D10 R2 on 14500 is kicking butt, you ain't seen nothing yet. :naughty:


----------



## DHart (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Zeruel said:


> This is also a thrower. If you think D10 R2 on 14500 is kicking butt, you ain't seen nothing yet. :naughty:



You did it! I couldn't resist any longer... ordered one with the R2 and an OP reflector from Flavio. Should have it Wednesday, I figure. I have a feeling the SMO reflector will go to the parts bin. Can't wait to pop a 14500 in this and boogie! After getting my Jet III-M many months ago I've been wanting another, smaller, JetBeam light just for the heck of it and this is definitely THE one I want. JetBeam makes some nice lights for sure... and three fully programmable modes is much nicer than one programmable mode and high!


----------



## jahxman (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



divine said:


> The V2 is pulling twice the current from the (AA) battery as the V3? Is the V2 brighter than the V3 with NiMH? (A lithium primary is probably buckling at that current, but a NiMH will probably handle it fine.)


 
On NiMH, the V3 and V2 are very close in output; too close to call by eyeball alone, and also the V3 is a little warmer in tint.

Using my unscientific but objective (useful for comparison anyway) measurement with a solar cell: 

The V3 with an Eneloop NiMH on Max at 2 inches causes the solar cell to put out 3.99 volts and 1.91 mA. 
The V2 with an Eneloop NiMH on Max at 2 inches causes the solar cell to put out 4.01 volts and 1.99 mA.

Tailcap current measurement with an Eneloop 2000mAh NiMH:

*JET-I PRO V3* current draw at tailcap Eneloop 1.35V:
Minimum: .052 Amp
50 %: .816 Amp
100% 1.065 Amp

*JET-I PRO V2* current draw at tailcap Eneloop 1.35V:

Minimum: .406 Amp
50 %: 1.782 Amp
100% 2.015 Amp


----------



## wapkil (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jahxman said:


> Tailcap current measurement with an Eneloop 2000mAh NiMH:
> 
> *JET-I PRO V3* current draw at tailcap Eneloop 1.35V:
> Minimum: .052 Amp
> ...



Interesting. With less that 1.5W power draw, the v3.0 should be able to run 1.5h on an Eneloop (2.3Wh) and 2h on a good non-LSD cell (3Wh). The v2.0 in your measurements takes 2.72W - ~50min on an Eneloop, precisely the result of selfbuilt's test.


----------



## jahxman (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

One thing I find interesting is that the minimum brightness of the V3 appears to be about twice as much light as the minimum on the V2, yet the V2 draws so much more current to produce this small light - with NiMH 8 times as much current to produce about half the light output.

I confirmed with my solar cell that the V3 on Minimum output generates about twice the voltage and current out of the solar cell than the V2 does on it's minimum setting.


----------



## jahxman (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> Interesting. With less that 1.5W power draw, the v3.0 should be able to run 1.5h on an Eneloop (2.3Wh) and 2h on a good non-LSD cell (3Wh). The v2.0 in your measurements takes 2.72W - ~50min on an Eneloop, precisely the result of selfbuilt's test.


 
The light output of the V3 at 50% on 14500 is about equal to the light output of the V3 at 100% on the Eneloop NiMH.

Subjectively, that light output level is quite good - on the Lithium 14500 going from 50% to 100% in most situations will not be that big a jump. To my eyes the difference is not great.

So for many, it may make a lot of sense to run this light mainly on NiMH, because it puts out plenty of light and has a nice runtime even at 100%.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jahxman said:


> One thing I find interesting is that the minimum brightness of the V3 appears to be about twice as much light as the minimum on the V2, yet the V2 draws so much more current to produce this small light - with NiMH 8 times as much current to produce about half the light output.
> 
> I confirmed with my solar cell that the V3 on Minimum output generates about twice the voltage and current out of the solar cell than the V2 does on it's minimum setting.



I believe it is common for many flashlights circuits to become tragically inefficient at lower currents. There is much room for improvement there. Although I thought that this it is a problem mainly for constant current lights and I read that Jet-I is PWM-ed.

When you say that the v3.0 appears twice as bright does it mean that the difference is evidently visible? Not a good news to me - I like low low levels.



jahxman said:


> The light output of the V3 at 50% on 14500 is about equal to the light output of the V3 at 100% on the Eneloop NiMH.
> 
> Subjectively, that light output level is quite good - on the Lithium 14500 going from 50% to 100% in most situations will not be that big a jump. To my eyes the difference is not great.
> 
> So for many, it may make a lot of sense to run this light mainly on NiMH, because it puts out plenty of light and has a nice runtime even at 100%.



The more results you show, the more promising this light looks to be. Strange thing is that what you measure completely disagrees with the JetBeam's specification. I understand that they may have inflated the lumen number but why make the specified runtime almost half as long as it can really be? It's not completely new though - it was the same situation with runtimes in some of the Quark modes (and later was confirmed by the tests).


----------



## jahxman (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> When you say that the v3.0 appears twice as bright does it mean that the difference is evidently visible? Not a good news to me - I like low low levels.


 
Yes - to my eyes the V3 minimum setting is definitely brighter than the V2 - about the only thing I don't like better about it.

Here's a quick iphone beamshot of the two lights on their minimum output setting - the V3 is on the left, V2 on the right:


----------



## wapkil (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jahxman said:


> Yes - to my eyes the V3 minimum setting is definitely brighter than the V2 - about the only thing I don't like better about it.
> 
> Here's a quick iphone beamshot of the two lights on their minimum output setting - the V3 is on the left, V2 on the right:



Yeah, quite a subtle difference. Both are of course "Minimum Output: 2 Lumens" per specification. Ok, I'll stop complaining about the specs, I guess I have to get used to it.


----------



## Zeruel (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



DHart said:


> You did it! I couldn't resist any longer... ordered one with the R2 and an OP reflector from Flavio. Should have it Wednesday, I figure. I have a feeling the SMO reflector will go to the parts bin. Can't wait to pop a 14500 in this and boogie! After getting my Jet III-M many months ago I've been wanting another, smaller, JetBeam light just for the heck of it and this is definitely THE one I want. JetBeam makes some nice lights for sure... and three fully programmable modes is much nicer than one programmable mode and high!



Muahahaha, I'm so evil...yet again. :devil:
Remember to ramp it up to max as the factory setting is low, med and strobe.


----------



## jahxman (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Here's a runtime chart of the Jet-I Pro V3 on MAX using a 2000mAh eneloop:





Not bad! Looks like about 90 minutes till you start to notice a decline. wapkil, looks like your calculations were right on!


----------



## nanotech17 (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Zeruel said:


> Just received mine. Thanks to Flavio's fast delivery.
> 
> My first impression is like holding a miniature Jet-III Military. It has the Jetbeam's trademark quality, knurling, square threads and all.
> 
> ...



i want more info


----------



## wapkil (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jahxman said:


> Not bad! Looks like about 90 minutes till you start to notice a decline. wapkil, looks like your calculations were right on!



It is surprising that you can ignore all the variables, assume that everything will be constant and flat and as a result get a good approximation. Seems to be working for flashlights, maybe they are not so complicated after all 

The runtime is indeed not bad. If I'm correct, it seems that the output is similar to already rather efficient Quark AA on Turbo but the runtime is 30% longer (95min. vs. 72min. till 50%). If that's true, it would be a great result for an "infinitely variable" light.


----------



## StandardBattery (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jahxman said:


> Here's a runtime chart of the Jet-I Pro V3 on MAX using a 2000mAh eneloop:
> --- see above for graph ---
> Not bad! Looks like about 90 minutes till you start to notice a decline. wapkil, looks like your calculations were right on!


 
That looks Great!! :thanks:

*...But I already did!*


----------



## DHart (Jun 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> The runtime is indeed not bad. If I'm correct, it seems that the output is similar to already rather efficient Quark AA on Turbo but the runtime is 30% longer (95min. vs. 72min. till 50%). If that's true, it would be a great result for an "infinitely variable" light.



One major difference... the beam quality of the XP-E R2 vs. the XR-E R2. Quark's got a nice edge using that XP-E; the beam quality is wonderful! Virtually artifact free. :shrug: Watch... as soon as my Jet I Pro v3 arrives, JetBeam will come out with v4 having an XP-E R2 emitter!


----------



## wapkil (Jun 29, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> I'm still waiting for JetBeam's response to the question what these "torch lumens" really are...



The (partial) answer to my questions arrived:



> Thanks for your response, and please be noted that we calculated the lumen aacording to LUX data compared with other brand products, and the runtime is tested by AW14500.



I asked them if they could remove "Torch lumens" and replace it with "lumens" to avoid confusion. I also wrote that they may be interested in raising the runtime specified for the Max mode on NiMH if they can confirm jahxman's results


----------



## wapkil (Jun 29, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



DHart said:


> One major difference... the beam quality of the XP-E R2 vs. the XR-E R2. Quark's got a nice edge using that XP-E; the beam quality is wonderful! Virtually artifact free. :shrug:



Oh, there are also other important (for me) differences. The Quarks have lower low (and thus longer runtime in it), the UIs are completely different, the Jet-I has the tailcap lockout, the Jet-I is probably also more a thrower than Quarks. They seem to be quite different species. I compared to the Quarks only because they are recently popular and said to be quite efficient - I thought that the Jet-I efficacy will turn out to be lower than theirs.



DHart said:


> Watch... as soon as my Jet I Pro v3 arrives, JetBeam will come out with v4 having an XP-E R2 emitter!



:thinking: You are probably right. It looks like my magic ball needs an upgrade. But maybe the 200lm/W Cree emitter it predicted is XP-E? :nana:


----------



## jahxman (Jun 29, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

OK, I did a runtime recording on the V3 with a brand new and freshly charged Trustfire 900mAh 14500:






About 35 minutes until it dropped to a very low "moon" type mode. This did not happen with the unprotected cell I tried this with - that chart just kept heading to 0. WIth this protected cell the light continued to put out a few lumens (enough to navigate by) until it finally shut off completely at 53 minutes.

Still not seeing that claimed 45 minutes on 100% though.....


----------



## nakahoshi (Jun 29, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jahxman said:


> OK, I did a runtime recording on the V3 with a brand new and freshly charged Trustfire 900mAh 14500:
> 
> About 35 minutes until it dropped to a very low "moon" type mode. This did not happen with the unprotected cell I tried this with - that chart just kept heading to 0. WIth this protected cell the light continued to put out a few lumens (enough to navigate by) until it finally shut off completely at 53 minutes.
> 
> Still not seeing that claimed 45 minutes on 100% though.....



I just got 40 minutes with a brand new AW Protected 14500. During the test i was holding the light with my hand to dissipate the heat, and when 40 minutes came up, the protection in the cell kicked in and shut down the light. I was able to immediately turn the light back on and it ran in its lowest mode with no problems. This was not very scientific, but i am pretty happy with 40 minutes of runtime on max. really like this light

-bobby


----------



## mazingerz9 (Jun 30, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Great pictures.
Most members mention the extra reflector being LOP, my question is
how does the LOP reflector fair against the SMO, is it uniform with a good hotspot or are there still some rings?


----------



## wapkil (Jun 30, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



jahxman said:


> OK, I did a runtime recording on the V3 with a brand new and freshly charged Trustfire 900mAh 14500:
> 
> About 35 minutes until it dropped to a very low "moon" type mode. This did not happen with the unprotected cell I tried this with - that chart just kept heading to 0. WIth this protected cell the light continued to put out a few lumens (enough to navigate by) until it finally shut off completely at 53 minutes.
> 
> Still not seeing that claimed 45 minutes on 100% though.....





nakahoshi said:


> I just got 40 minutes with a brand new AW Protected 14500.



In my tests with other lights AW cells were running typically a few percent (5%-7%) longer than blue Trustfires. There may also be a difference between charge levels achieved with different chargers. JetBeam wrote that they tested the runtime with AW 14500 so given the components variation I would say that if 40 minutes is achievable, specified 45 minutes is probably not far from what is possible 

I don't know why the "moon mode" can be present only in some configurations. Until the protection circuit doesn't intervene, it doesn't have any influence on it. I suspect that this is not a real moon mode functionality but rather a simple direct drive mode. Maybe an older battery used during the first test (where the output was heading to 0) was systematically lowering its voltage. The newer, stronger one even discharged was able to keep the voltage at the constant level in which the LED could still glow. But that's just my guessing.


----------



## sinthemau (Jul 9, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Hello all,

received yesterday the PRO v.3: I found it a perfect torch for my purposes. Till now only tested it with Eneloops (waiting for a 14500 shipment) and I have an interrogative as I don't understand if it performs bad or it is a normal way of functioning.
The fact is that if I put a 50% I.B.S. power and a 100% I.B.S. power, I cannot distinguish the difference in brightness.
The ramping functions OK: I have the 1 flash for minimum, 2 flashes for 50% and 3 flashes for 100% but if I set 50 and 100% when I switch one from the other I cannot see differences.  Also during the ramping up, after the 50% 2 flashes, I cannot see the brightness going up till the 100%...maybe a very very small difference, but maybe it is only my mind that want to see this difference... 
So, anyone has the same behaviour?
Maybe the problems is only with 1.2 V Eneloops and we need 3.7 V 14500 to see differences between 50 % and 100 % power???
Thanks for help me to understand if I need to think about sending it back for another one or the torch is all the way right.

maurizio


----------



## Zeruel (Jul 9, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



sinthemau said:


> Hello all,
> 
> received yesterday the PRO v.3: I found it a perfect torch for my purposes. Till now only tested it with Eneloops (waiting for a 14500 shipment) and I have an interrogative as I don't understand if it performs bad or it is a normal way of functioning.
> The fact is that if I put a 50% I.B.S. power and a 100% I.B.S. power, I cannot distinguish the difference in brightness.
> ...



I set mine at min (2 lumens i gather), 50% and 100%. I can the difference between 50% and 100% for both Eneloop and AW 14500. Although the ramping from 50% - 100% isn't visually obvious until after you've set it.


----------



## Zeruel (Jul 9, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

oops...double posts


----------



## grinsekatz (Jul 9, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



sinthemau said:


> [...]
> ...but if I set 50 and 100% when I switch one from the other I cannot see differences.  Also during the ramping up, after the 50% 2 flashes, I cannot see the brightness going up till the 100%...maybe a very very small difference, but maybe it is only my mind that want to see this difference...
> So, anyone has the same behaviour?
> Maybe the problems is only with 1.2 V Eneloops and we need 3.7 V 14500 to see differences between 50 % and 100 % power???
> ...



Hi Maurizio,
the difference in brightness between 50 an 100 % is noticeable but not as much as you probably expect.
Also, with the 14500 LiIon the difference will be more noticeable than with the Eneloop.

Alex


----------



## sinthemau (Jul 9, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Zeruel said:


> ... I can distinctly see the difference between 50% and 100% for both Eneloop and AW 14500.


So you say "distinctly"...for me not at all, I need to "guess" the difference between 50% and 100%. I'm afraid I have a defective Jet I. :sigh:
I will wait to see if somone have suggestions about this and if not, I will write to the dealer.
It's a strange behaviour that I've never listen about...and it's difficult to me thinking about a fixing. :thinking::thinking::thinking:
Hope that more enlightened people read this and understand where's the trick 
Bye for now
maurizio


----------



## sinthemau (Jul 9, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Hi Alex,
yes I understand that the difference wouldn't be so great, but in my case, believe me, it's so little that as I said I need to guess it!
I've tried indoor beaming at walls and ceiling bouncing, also outdoor beaming in the distance but...barely no differences...I'm asked myself if I'm becoming blind  but looking at my other torches I can see different light levels without any problems... really I'm a bit shocked about don't understanding if a torch is OK or not...
How can I do to understand if and what's wrong in my Jet I v3.0 ?


----------



## grinsekatz (Jul 9, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Mmhhh, do you have a Luxmeter that we could compare the brightness?
I just tested my flashlight and yes, with Eneloop I also have to guess that it's brighter on 100 %.

Alex


----------



## jahxman (Jul 9, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

My Jet-I Pro V3 gets the following lux readings in the hotspot at 1 meter:

On AW 14500:
Min: 60 lux
50%: 3000 lux
100%: 5500 lux

On Eneloop 2000 mAh:
Min: 20 lux
50%: 1600 lux
100%: 2350 lux

The difference on eneloop is definitely more difficult to tell visually than with 14500, but it is discernable.


----------



## sinthemau (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



grinsekatz said:


> ... with Eneloop I also have to guess that it's brighter on 100 %.
> 
> Alex





jahxman said:


> ...
> 50%: 1600 lux
> 100%: 2350 lux
> 
> The difference on eneloop is definitely more difficult to tell visually than with 14500, but it is discernable.



...I'm start thinking that probably difference 50-100% is not so clearly visible (maybe to not very young eyes :mecry.
In fact the difference that jahxman reported with his luxmeter could be not sufficient to be felt clearly.
Indeed it seems now that the 100% power of v3.0 is not double the 50% power!!! I think that it could be a design fault from Jetbeam...I hope that the only problem is that the 50% is more than 50%...and not that 100% is less than the full power of R2 LED...


----------



## Zeruel (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Hmm...I stick to what I've said. The difference is pretty visible to me, for BOTH that I bought.  I'll do some underexposed shots later.
Unless people are expecting a vast difference....


----------



## hyperloop (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

darn it! now i want one of these! sent in my Jet I v2.0 due to some connection problems, LOST my Jet I MkIIx in a taxi and to make up for it, ordered 4 lights and now i want this one!!!

Hmmm, wonder if i could do a trade in or upgrade while the light is in the shop. I now only have ONE 1xAA light to EDC, and that is my LED Lenser P5. The Ultrafire C3s have all been given away and much appreciated too.


----------



## sinthemau (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Zeruel...wait for your shots: could be very useful to understand what's about this issue. Thanks a lot.


----------



## Zeruel (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I think I found out why my Med is pretty distinguished from my Hi. I didn't set my med at 50%. My bad. :whoopin: I think I might have accidentally set it at about 40%. Even so, 40% is pretty discernible from Low. And I can still see the difference between Med and Hi, although at 50%, it's probably what you see from yours. With that, maybe you can rest assured there's nothing wrong with your Jet. :duh2: I think this, in a way, is a pseudo solution if what you want is 3 distinguishable modes.

Here's a few series of shots. Excuse them for being blur, I have no tripod, they were shot handheld. 

2 meters away from grey blinds using 14500






2 meters away from grey blinds using Eneloop






Another example. 2 meters away from brown door using 14500


----------



## DHart (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Zeruel said:


> This is also a thrower. If you think D10 R2 on 14500 is kicking butt, you ain't seen nothing yet. :naughty:



You are soooo right! This Jet I is an incredible thrower... very, very close to the throw I get from my Jet III-M Q3 warm. That makes these two lights my best throwers among quite a few great lights. I had orderd the OP reflector as an add-on, but it was out of stock. I have plenty of general purpose lights already, but no smaller lights that throw like this one does... so I think I'm going to stick with the SMO reflector. It's ringy for sure, but the throw is fantastic.

This is the light I will grab when I want to spot distant objects... but it won't see much general use... for that I will use the D10, QAA, Q123x2 primarily.

I realize now how alike the AKOray K-106 is to this light... it's like a clone of it! Except the tint and beam is nicer on the Jet, but it should be for $75 vs. $22.


----------



## Zeruel (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Amazing, isn't it? What impresses me is that the throw is on par, if not better, than my E2DL. oo: And it's AA (14500) for crying out loud.
I take this over Akoray anyday. My K-106 is temperamental when it comes to mode setting.

Maybe it's time to get the Raptor 2.....


----------



## DHart (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Zeruel said:


> Amazing, isn't it? What impresses me is that the throw is on par, if not better, than my E2DL. oo: And it's AA (14500) for crying out loud.
> I take this over Akoray anyday. My K-106 is temperamental when it comes to mode setting.
> 
> Maybe it's time to get the Raptor 2.....



Yeah... I love how this thing throws... I don't have an E2DL, but I don't think I'd want or need one having this Jet!

And yes, I'd take the Jet I Pro over the K-106 any day too... but for the $22, the K-106 is a slam dunk winner-of-a-Jet I Pro clone! I bought two K-106s (one to give a friend) and they both work great... awesome gift too!


----------



## sinthemau (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Zeruel, thanks a lot for your shots! You help to understand that nothing is wrong with my JET-I :thumbsup:.
I've tried also with camera shots and I have to say that this way I can feel a (very small indeed) difference between real 50% and full 100%. It's a pity that Jetbeam don't space evenly the levels but...no problems: I will set the medium level a little bit lower (30-35%) and all will go ok.
From the other side I've seen a super thrower with 14500 and I'm waiting with impatience their delivery from HK.
I confirm that the Jet-I is a great performer, also very esthetically fine and it seems also extremely sturdy.
I can only reccomend it !
A great use is for hiking, coupled with Zebra H501w: this for spill when settled in a place or also night walking, and Jet-I for look at distant path...no better couple, also same batteries (and 14500 for real throw )
Thanks to all and enjoy our v3.0!
maurizio


----------



## sinthemau (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I forgot...
I've seen that some of CPFers need to buy the torch with SMO reflector and than buy separately the OP one. I buyed mine from Rob of Ledfire England and he sent me it already with OP.
Rob is a real gentlemen also extremely fast in shipping and delivery (5 days to Italy). Thanks Rob :wave:
maurizio


----------



## Glow Bug (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*















This is my first JETBEAM but it won't be my last! I am waiting on the op reflector as it is backordered.


----------



## recDNA (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Really pretty flashlight.


----------



## gilly (Jul 10, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Zeruel said:


> Maybe it's time to get the Raptor 2.....


 

I recommend the Raptor 2 - VERY nice light. Some people have criticized it quite a bit, but it is second-to-none in looks and is very functional. Very good thrower for having a small reflector. (just about as good as a DBS)


----------



## Zeruel (Jul 11, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Glow Bug said:


>



Very nice shot, Ricky. Nice holster too. 
May I hazard a guess that you're in the same trade as DHart? A pro photographer?


----------



## Glow Bug (Jul 11, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Well,

I do some photography as a side job to pay for my equipment.

Here is a link to a few more light photos.

http://wrennphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/8864557_HsqrV#587522228_fkNca


----------



## Zeruel (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Glow Bug said:


> Well,
> 
> I do some photography as a side job to pay for my equipment.
> 
> ...



A ha! I knew it. That lone Jet shot could very well be lifted off from their marketing shots.


----------



## wapkil (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I just finished my Jet-I runtime tests. The light was tested with different Li-Ion cells (AW's and old TrustFires) and different NiMH cells (LSD Eneloop and non-LSD high capacity Sanyo 2700):





The regulation of this light is really impressive. It looks like the efficacy is the same for all the output settings. The Jet-I is also able to deliver the advertised 45 minutes on high with an AW's cell and 126 minutes with a high capacity NiMH cell - 80% more than the 70 minutes given in the specification.

Compared to the jahxman's graphs the regulation on mine is much flatter. I think this may be caused by the way his solar cell works. I was also able to get 46 minutes high mode runtime with an AW's Li-Ion but an old TrustFire gave me only 34 minutes so the result was similar to his.

EDIT: Note that with NiMHs the Med mode ("50%") brightness is around 70% of the High ("100%") brightness - no wonder that the difference is really hard to see. With Li-Ions the percentage names are much closer to the real output differences.


----------



## wapkil (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> The (partial) answer to my questions arrived:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At the beginning of the month I received the next response to my questions from JETBeam:



> Thanks for your kind response, and we understand the difference between torch lumen and led lumen, but please be noted that 240lumen is the calculated torch lumen. Hope it's clear for you.
> 
> And regarding to the runtime in the max Output mode, I would like to say, different LED's VF value would affect the output and runtimes. The LED with higher VF value will have lower output but longer runtimes, like what you mentioned about 90mins runtimes. On the contrary, The LED with lower VF value will have higher output but lower runtimes. Our specification takes the average value as standard, which cause a little differentce with the ones you own.



I don't think there is much point in discussing it with them further. I really like the Jet-I v3.0 performance so I gave up. I only answered that I completely cannot see how one can calculate the OTF lumen output with any degree of precision by "calculating lumen according to LUX data compared with other brand products". I also wrote that I don't believe that the 80% runtime difference (in favor of my light) can be caused by the forward voltage difference, especially since my Jet-I runs for 46 minutes with AW's Li-Ion - exactly as specified. Nevertheless I am satisfied with the Jet-I and I'm planning to wait for the next JETBeam offerings.


----------



## StandardBattery (Jul 12, 2009)

Thanks wapkil for the great runtime graphs. It does look like JetBeam has a pretty nice driver now. Really looking forward to them updating the Jet-III-ST.

This light may not be the smallest, and the clip is better at anti-roll than carry for me, but this is one fine AA light!


----------



## jahxman (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> Compared to the jahxman's graphs the regulation on mine is much flatter. I think this may be caused by the way his solar cell works. I was also able to get 46 minutes high mode runtime with an AW's Li-Ion but an old TrustFire gave me only 34 minutes so the result was similar to his.


 
Our NiMH eneloop result was also quite close. Nice to know our lights are relatively consistent to each other.:thumbsup:


----------



## sinthemau (Jul 12, 2009)

Thanks a lot wapkil for great job about runtimes.:goodjob:
Your data confirm that the standard 50% power is pretty near the full power of Jet-I (only for 1.2 V batteries).

Anyway this is really an outstanding torch. :candle:

Among the best AA on the market now.
Cheers


----------



## wapkil (Jul 12, 2009)

sinthemau said:


> Anyway this is really an outstanding torch. :candle:
> 
> Among the best AA on the market now.
> Cheers



Yup, I suspect that for me it is currently the best one 

It would be interesting to see the output comparison between the Jet-I and the Quark AA. Being a constant current light, the Quark has (edit: actually should have, I don't know if it really does) the advantage of longer runtimes in lower modes. I wonder how the Jet-I high mode brightness and throw would look like when compared to the Quark.


----------



## DHart (Jul 12, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Yup, I suspect that for me it is currently the best one
> 
> It would be interesting to see the output comparison between the Jet-I and the Quark AA. Being a constant current light, the Quark has (edit: actually should have, I don't know if it really does) the advantage of longer runtimes in lower modes. I wonder how the Jet-I high mode brightness and throw would look like when compared to the Quark.



In my ceiling bounce test, the Jet I Pro IBS v3.0 and Quark AA, each powered with a 14500 li-ion, measured less than 1/10 of an EV from each other, which is an insignificant difference.

The Jet is clearly a better thrower, though the Quark does a really respectable job as a thrower as well.

The Quark has a nearly perfect, ring-free/artifact-free beam, whereas the Jet is quite ringy.

If my mission was distant object illumination, I'd grab my Jet I Pro over the Quark. But for pretty much all other general use applications, I would choose the Quark or D10.

Much as I like this new Jet, it does not compare as a general use light to the Quark AA or the D10, in my opinion. I'm happy to have them all, but if I had to choose just one of the three to give up, I'd be keeping the Q for greater versatility, beam quality, and lego-bility with other Quark bodies, heads, tail pieces and the D10 for greater operational versatility. I love the Jet, but I see it in a more limited capacity as far as my own needs are concerned.


----------



## wapkil (Jul 12, 2009)

DHart said:


> In my ceiling bounce test, the Jet I Pro IBS v3.0 and Quark AA, each powered with a 14500 li-ion, measured less than 1/10 of an EV from each other, which is an insignificant difference.
> 
> The Jet is clearly a better thrower, though the Quark does a really respectable job as a thrower as well.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the information. The comparison then looks exactly how I thought it would be. I see my Jet-I as a light complementary to the Zebra H501w. I find the H501 more suitable for most tasks than any reflectored light and in the situations when I need more throw, I highly value the Jet-I. 

I chose the Jet-I over the Quark mainly because I predicted it would have better throw. I also better like its UI, the clip and the overall look, although I'm worried that the gaps between the body the head and the tail will sometimes need additional cleaning. I also hoped to avoid any problems by buying a product that results from a longer evolution and it seems that indeed the light is error-free.


----------



## DHart (Jul 12, 2009)

wapkil... it sounds like for your applications you have a good solution in combining the 501 and the Jet I. 

I believe that all three of the Jet I, Quark, D10 (you can add in LF3XT and a number of other models as well) are awesome lights which can easily meet most illumination needs overall. The subtleties and UI differences between them each have good points. In a pinch, I'd be thrilled to have any one of them!


----------



## yuk (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Excuse my noobiness but I'm a bit confused. Can I use this flashlight with Trustfire 14500 900 mah, Trustfire 18650 2400 mah and AW 18650 2200 mah? Which type will have the optimal results and also which one can I use with a D10 Q5?


----------



## jahxman (Jul 12, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



yuk said:


> Excuse my noobiness but I'm a bit confused. Can I use this flashlight with Trustfire 14500 900 mah, Trustfire 18650 2400 mah and AW 18650 2200 mah? Which type will have the optimal results and also which one can I use with a D10 Q5?


 
The Jet-I is a AA sized light, so only the 14500 will fit. Same for the D10. Standard AA primary, AA NiMH or Li-ion 14500 can be used in both lights.

18650 won't fit.


----------



## yuk (Jul 13, 2009)

Thank you! Can you recommend me a good brand? I guess Trustfires are ok, right?


----------



## Zeruel (Jul 13, 2009)

yuk said:


> Thank you! Can you recommend me a good brand? I guess Trustfires are ok, right?



Go with AW. They retain charge better IMO, but Trustfires are cheaper.


----------



## DHart (Jul 13, 2009)

yuk said:


> Thank you! Can you recommend me a good brand? I guess Trustfires are ok, right?



AW is a trusted brand, but very pricey. A single AW 14500 will run from $10 to $12 or so, plus shipping, depending on the source. I got a bunch of them and have used them for a while. They're good, but I'm not convinced they're worth twice the price, so recently I've been trying out the Trustfires after reading a lot of positive comments about them and so far, I like 'em... especially the price... two for one, basically. They're inexpensive enough to check 'em out and see how you like 'em.

For a great price I recommend the blue wrapper Trustfire 14500 protected cells. About $5 including shipping for TWO from DX. The Trustfire red & black wrapper cells are longer and can present some fitment issues in some "tight" lights, but are fine in others.


----------



## yuk (Jul 13, 2009)

Thank you guys. I'll buy only 3 or 4 of them so I don't mind to spend some more cash for something better (and safer?). I currently live in Athens, Greece and the lighting is very good almost everywhere. I have an LD01 & a D10 always with me so I'll use the Jetbeam occasionally when I will need the extra power. The problem now is to find a charger online for the greek plugs!
Also I noticed the AW 14500's capacity is 750mah and the blue wrapped Trustfire's is 900mah. This mean Trustfires run longer than AWs?


----------



## wapkil (Jul 13, 2009)

yuk said:


> Also I noticed the AW 14500's capacity is 750mah and the blue wrapped Trustfire's is 900mah. This mean Trustfires run longer than AWs?



Unfortunately the mAh numbers are frequently as meaningless as the lumen output numbers. Many manufacturers seem to think that they can put any nice looking random value there. 

I think that the initial AW's cells capacity is similar (a few percent larger) to the capacity of TrustFires. I have an impression that the TrustFires age faster so after some use the AW cells should perform visibly better. I don't have any scientific data to back it up but you can see a comparison of AW's and old TrustFires performance in my runtime graphs in this thread. Whether or not this better AW's performance is worth twice the price is up to the user's decision. I have both types of cells and I'm happy with both.

EDIT: I checked that the AW's 14500 cell price is actually close to four times that of a blue TrustFire from DX (not two times as I wrote). Nevertheless I can still recommend both brands - TrustFires with much better price to value ratio and AW's as better value (albeit at much higher price).


----------



## DHart (Jul 13, 2009)

wapkil said:


> I have both types of cells and I'm happy with both.



My experience as well.


----------



## magikbullet (Jul 13, 2009)

ordered the r2 version with both reflectors this morning from bugoutgear.

can't wait! :santa:


----------



## Zeige (Jul 14, 2009)

For those of you that own this light already. Can you please tell me if it gets very warm w/14500 on high? (i have the jetI pro ibs V1 and it gets very warm on high). Also how is the clicky? The V1 is very stiff and hard to turn off for me one handed. The heat issue is not a deal breaker for me, im just curious. The stiff clicky would be a problem, I have other Jet Beam lights and they work great. Thanks in advance


----------



## GarageBoy (Jul 14, 2009)

Wow, I'm impressed by Jet, their new circuit is quite a step up from their previous models.
I'm awaiting the rebirth of the Jet Mu


----------



## jahxman (Jul 15, 2009)

Zeige said:


> For those of you that own this light already. Can you please tell me if it gets very warm w/14500 on high? (i have the jetI pro ibs V1 and it gets very warm on high). Also how is the clicky? The V1 is very stiff and hard to turn off for me one handed. The heat issue is not a deal breaker for me, im just curious. The stiff clicky would be a problem, I have other Jet Beam lights and they work great. Thanks in advance


 
Yes, it will definitely get hot on max; not as hot as some but up to around 120 degrees. I find that having it at 50% is actually plenty of light and it gets much less warm.

I find the click switch very easy to operate.


----------



## Zeige (Jul 15, 2009)

jahxman said:


> Yes, it will definitely get hot on max; not as hot as some but up to around 120 degrees. I find that having it at 50% is actually plenty of light and it gets much less warm.
> 
> I find the click switch very easy to operate.


 

Thanks for the reply jahx


----------



## LightScene (Jul 15, 2009)

If you want a really nice light that won't get hot on high with Li-Ion, get the Jetbeam Jet III M (uses one 18650). This thing is superb. Long runtime. Looks great. Feels great. Beautiful beam with the OP reflector. This is one makes you glad you own it.


----------



## wapkil (Jul 18, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> I don't think there is much point in discussing it with them further. I really like the Jet-I v3.0 performance so I gave up.



Just to let you know, here's the last e-mail I got from JETBeam:



> Thanks for your email. Anyway, the lumen of JET I PRO V3.0 is tested by integrating sphere, please be noted!
> 
> Thanks for your great support of our products!



I still find some of the explanations strange and sometimes even contradicting but I appreciate their customer service efforts


----------



## wapkil (Jul 18, 2009)

jahxman said:


> Yes, it will definitely get hot on max; not as hot as some but up to around 120 degrees. I find that having it at 50% is actually plenty of light and it gets much less warm.



I think that with Li-Ion batteries one shouldn't leave the light on high unattended for prolonged periods of time (in the room temperature at least) but it can be safely operated this way if held in the hand.


----------



## faucon (Jul 19, 2009)

DHart said:


> The Quark has a nearly perfect, ring-free/artifact-free beam, whereas the Jet is quite ringy.
> 
> If my mission was distant object illumination, I'd grab my Jet I Pro over the Quark. But for pretty much all other general use applications, I would choose the Quark or D10.


Hmmm, is your Jet I Pro the smooth reflector or the OP? I ask because I have a Jet-III M, which I like, but I find its beam rather ringy even with the OP reflector.


----------



## DHart (Jul 20, 2009)

faucon said:


> Hmmm, is your Jet I Pro the smooth reflector or the OP? I ask because I have a Jet-III M, which I like, but I find its beam rather ringy even with the OP reflector.



faucon... my Jet I Pro IBS v3 has a SMO reflector, which gives the most throw but is a ringy little puppy. I ordered the OP reflector with the light, but did not receive it as it was on backorder at BOG.

Interesting to hear that the OP reflector is still ringy... perhaps I'll keep my Jet I Pro as a pocket thrower (SMO reflector) and pass on the OP reflector. I've got plenty of other lights for general use anyway.


----------



## wapkil (Jul 20, 2009)

DHart said:


> Interesting to hear that the OP reflector is still ringy... perhaps I'll keep my Jet I Pro as a pocket thrower (SMO reflector) and pass on the OP reflector. I've got plenty of other lights for general use anyway.



Well, as I wrote in another thread I find the Jet-I beam with the OP reflector quite nice. There is a darker ring around the hot spot but except it, it's not bad. Maybe it works better for Jet-I than for Jet-III M? Or maybe I'm not that demanding :shrug:


----------



## jahxman (Jul 20, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Well, as I wrote in another thread I find the Jet-I beam with the OP reflector quite nice. There is a darker ring around the hot spot but except it, it's not bad. Maybe it works better for Jet-I than for Jet-III M? Or maybe I'm not that demanding :shrug:


 
I use the OP reflector in my Jet-I V3 and find it to be almost completely ring-free - one very faint ring midway out the spill - almost a smooth as the quark. Faucon was referring to the Jet-III with OP, not the Jet-I.


----------



## DHart (Jul 20, 2009)

Well.. you guys have me thinking I should try the OP with my Jet I Pro.


----------



## DHart (Jul 24, 2009)

OK... I received the OP reflector and after a short trial, decided to go back to the SMO reflector, in spite of the rings.... because it throws so well.

I have plenty of other smallish lights that really excel at general use applications and are completely ring-free, so I'm considering my Jet I Pro v3 to being a dedicated pocket thrower, since with the SMO reflector it out throws all of my other small lights. And I prefer my other small lights for general use applications.

This light makes an awesome pocket thrower. :thumbsup:


----------



## dubliftment (Jul 24, 2009)

what tool do you use for opening the bezel?


----------



## wapkil (Jul 25, 2009)

dubliftment said:


> what tool do you use for opening the bezel?



JETBeam sells a special tool but I used the rubber sole of a shower shoe. Just pressed and turned to unscrew the ring. You can use something else of course (e.g. a mouse pad).


----------



## wapkil (Jul 25, 2009)

DHart said:


> OK... I received the OP reflector and after a short trial, decided to go back to the SMO reflector, in spite of the rings.... because it throws so well.



So you say that the throw is substantially better with the SMO? I have both the reflectors but never really compared the throw.


----------



## DHart (Jul 25, 2009)

wapkil... try them both out to see the difference. Again, my reason for going with the SMO is to squeeze out all the throw I can get with this light as I do not need it as another "general use" light... I could use it as a pocket thrower.


----------



## wapkil (Jul 25, 2009)

DHart said:


> wapkil... try them both out to see the difference.



Yeah, I thought I'll have to test it one day. I asked because I thought you already did it for me


----------



## Lobo (Jul 25, 2009)

I'm kind of confused by different opinions about the throw. Going by Selfbuilts review, the Quark AA should have insignificantly better throw(5100 lux) on 14500 than the Jet-1 PRO v2.0(4850 lux), and the Jet-1 v2.0 is supposed to be as bright as the v3.0 according to this thread. So why do you guys think that the Jet-1 is a noticable better thrower? Is it the beam shape? Tint?
Just curious. =)
I shouldn't really buy a new light, but a pocket rocket AA would be fun.


----------



## DHart (Jul 25, 2009)

Lobo said:


> I'm kind of confused by different opinions about the throw. Going by Selfbuilts review, the Quark AA should have insignificantly better throw(5100 lux) on 14500 than the Jet-1 PRO v2.0(4850 lux), and the Jet-1 v2.0 is supposed to be as bright as the v3.0 according to this thread. So why do you guys think that the Jet-1 is a noticable better thrower? Is it the beam shape? Tint?
> Just curious. =)
> I shouldn't really buy a new light, but a pocket rocket AA would be fun.



The shape, size and finish on the reflector itself has a tremendous effect on the throw/flood/spill. Jets tend to be designed as throwy lights. The Jet I Pro v3 is a slightly better thrower than the Quark. 

The Quark throws almost as well, but has a MUCH wider and more useable spill as well as a completely ring-free beam. If the choice were to choose either my Jet I Pro or my Quark AA, I'd go with the Quark. But they're both great lights.


----------



## clipboard (Jul 25, 2009)

I agree I have a quark 123 and a jet-1 v3.0 and I believe that the beam of the quark makes it a better edc.I also love the tint as well of the Quark. I wish I had a light meter to test them both but I believe the my Quark is just as bright as my jet-1 v3.0...


----------



## Lobo (Jul 25, 2009)

DHart said:


> The shape, size and finish on the reflector itself has a tremendous effect on the throw/flood/spill. Jets tend to be designed as throwy lights. The Jet I Pro v3 is a slightly better thrower than the Quark.
> 
> The Quark throws almost as well, but has a MUCH wider and more useable spill as well as a completely ring-free beam. If the choice were to choose either my Jet I Pro or my Quark AA, I'd go with the Quark. But they're both great lights.



Do agree on that the reflector depth, smooth etc makes a big difference. What puzzled me was just that the Quark got higher lux readings at one meter. But I do also realize that numbers aren't everything.

Now to decide if I actually need a pocket thrower or not...


----------



## wapkil (Jul 25, 2009)

Does anybody know (or tried to estimate) how long the Jet-I can run in the beacon (locator) mode?

I saw that the Quark AA is specified for 18 hours so I wanted to test if the Jet-I can be left for the whole night. Now it's been 24 hours since it started blinking. In the meantime I saw this thread and I'm starting to get scarred


----------



## dubliftment (Jul 25, 2009)

wapkil said:


> You can use something else of course (e.g. a mouse pad).



Thank you! Actually I was able to unscrew the SS-ring by pressing the light onto the palm of my left hand. Also a "special" tool, and rather inexpensive, for a change.


----------



## DHart (Jul 25, 2009)

clipboard said:


> I agree I have a quark 123 and a jet-1 v3.0 and I believe that the beam of the quark makes it a better edc.I also love the tint as well of the Quark. I wish I had a light meter to test them both but I believe the my Quark is just as bright as my jet-1 v3.0...



My Jet I Pro measures at .1 EV brighter than my Quark AA, both running on a 14500. This is a negligible difference that could not be seen by the human eye.


----------



## wapkil (Jul 26, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Does anybody know (or tried to estimate) how long the Jet-I can run in the beacon (locator) mode?
> 
> I saw that the Quark AA is specified for 18 hours so I wanted to test if the Jet-I can be left for the whole night. Now it's been 24 hours since it started blinking. In the meantime I saw this thread and I'm starting to get scarred



Well, more than 37 hours and blinking. I think I will have to interrupt the test - I don't want to wait a week before it finishes. I may try later with a partially charged cell and extrapolate to the full charge.


----------



## wapkil (Jul 27, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Well, more than 37 hours and blinking. I think I will have to interrupt the test - I don't want to wait a week before it finishes. I may try later with a partially charged cell and extrapolate to the full charge.



After 61 hours I turned the light off, took out the Eneloop and discharged it. The battery had 1540mAh left. It is only an approximation but the Jet-I in the locator mode should thus run on an Eneloop at least 10-12 days. Quite nice


----------



## edc3 (Aug 16, 2009)

There are a number of features of this light that really have me wanting it, but I have a couple of questions. For those with the OP reflector, how is it for close to medium use? For a pocket light I prefer a little more flood to throw. From the beamshots I've seen it has a very tight spot. How is it in real life usage? Also, I've only got one light with an R2 emitter. It's definitely warmer than I prefer. I've read that the R2 cool white emitters tend to be a little warmer than their Q5 counter parts. How is the tint on your sample? Thanks!


----------



## Zeruel (Aug 16, 2009)

edc3 said:


> There are a number of features of this light that really have me wanting it, but I have a couple of questions. For those with the OP reflector, how is it for close to medium use? For a pocket light I prefer a little more flood to throw. From the beamshots I've seen it has a very tight spot. How is it in real life usage? Also, I've only got one light with an R2 emitter. It's definitely warmer than I prefer. I've read that the R2 cool white emitters tend to be a little warmer than their Q5 counter parts. How is the tint on your sample? Thanks!



With OP, it has a slightly smoother beam. If you prefer flood, this light isn't it unless you can devise some sort of diffuser. In real life, it is tight spot with some spill as you've seen. It can REALLY throw for a AA. The R2 is white, not warm.


----------



## Lagerregal (Aug 17, 2009)

As earlier measured, Jetbeam drives the LED at about 1A. But the neutral-white Q3s are only specified up to 700mA. Does that shorten the life-time of the LED?


----------



## edc3 (Aug 17, 2009)

Thanks for the info Zeruel. I'm still tempted to buy it...


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 17, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Does anybody know (or tried to estimate) how long the Jet-I can run in the beacon (locator) mode?



If you mean the ultra-low once-every-~5-seconds locator, assuming the light has no drain between flashes, the math works out to ~6 months.


----------



## edc3 (Aug 17, 2009)

I broke down today and ordered me a Jet-I Pro v3.0 with both reflectors. I also ordered a Surefire F04 diffuser. So I can have my pocket thrower and nice diffused closeup beam in one light. :twothumbs

Not that I'll only be carrying one light anyway...:shakehead


----------



## wapkil (Aug 17, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> If you mean the ultra-low once-every-~5-seconds locator, assuming the light has no drain between flashes, the math works out to ~6 months.



:thinking: How have you calculated it? I don't see an easy method and it would be ~5-6 times more than I extrapolated from my experiment...


----------



## wapkil (Aug 17, 2009)

Lagerregal said:


> As earlier measured, Jetbeam drives the LED at about 1A. But the neutral-white Q3s are only specified up to 700mA. Does that shorten the life-time of the LED?



It's a good question but I don't know the answer. I believe the LED temperature is more important here but as far as I know no one checked it for Jet-I v3 either. I can say that currently many manufacturers drive the LEDs above the specification. The LEDs are also specified for so long lifetime that many people, me included, could accept it even if it was cut in half. Maybe you could ask JetBeam about it?


----------



## berry580 (Aug 17, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> If you mean the ultra-low once-every-~5-seconds locator, assuming the light has no drain between flashes, the math works out to ~6 months.


it should drain power between flashes to drive the CPU (or whatever controls the light).


----------



## Lagerregal (Aug 18, 2009)

Which diffusers do fit and how good? 
The Surefire F04?
Olight T/I-Series-diffuser?


----------



## edc3 (Aug 18, 2009)

Lagerregal said:


> Which diffusers do fit and how good?
> The Surefire F04?
> Olight T/I-Series-diffuser?



Somewhere up-thread Flavio wrote that the small Surefire diffusers would fit. According to Surefire, the F04 fits flashlights with a 1 inch bezel. According to JetBeam's website the bezel on the Jet-I Pro is 25mm or just .4mm short of an inch. I'll be getting my diffuser today and my light Thursday or Friday. I'll post here when I do. If anybody is interested I'll try to do some beamshots with the diffuser on.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 18, 2009)

edc3 said:


> I'll be getting my diffuser today and my light Thursday or Friday. I'll post here when I do. If anybody is interested I'll try to do some beamshots with the diffuser on.



Yes, please post them. I haven't yet bough the E04 (the local distributor had it out of stock when I asked) but I'm planing to. Do you also have the F05 (red filter)?


----------



## edc3 (Aug 18, 2009)

Nope I don't have an F05. I probably should have ordered one with the F04 since I took it in the shorts for shipping anyway. Once I have both the diffuser and the light I'll find my tripod and get some shots and I'll report on how well the F04 fits.


----------



## Dobbler (Aug 18, 2009)

The F04 red filter fits perfectly, BTW.


----------



## edc3 (Aug 19, 2009)

Good to know. Thanks Dobbler. Still waiting on my light, but my diffuser is here. It fits my Eagletac P10A perfectly though the "low" on the P10A2 is still a little bright for closeup work. I can't wait to get my Jet-I Pro and start fiddling with the IBS.


----------



## Lagerregal (Aug 19, 2009)

wapkil said:


> It's a good question but I don't know the answer. I believe the LED temperature is more important here but as far as I know no one checked it for Jet-I v3 either. I can say that currently many manufacturers drive the LEDs above the specification. The LEDs are also specified for so long lifetime that many people, me included, could accept it even if it was cut in half. Maybe you could ask JetBeam about it?



I asked Jetbeam... their answer:

Thanks for your email, and please rest assured that the drive in our flashlight has little effect to the life-time of LED since we have good heatsink in our flashlight.

Thanks!

Best regards,
JETBeam Group
R.Z.


----------



## Lagerregal (Aug 24, 2009)

Here is a beamshot with the surefire diffusor (which fits perfectly):





Left Jetbeam (Q3 5A)without diffusor, middle with diffusor, right Tiablo A9 P7 DSVNI for comparison. The whitebalance was set to 5000k in all images.

Perhaps i will do some outdoor comparison later...


----------



## edc3 (Aug 24, 2009)

You beat me to it! I wasn't able to take any beamshots over the weekend. I'm very happy with the Jet-I Pro v3.0 and the F03 is a great addition to it. Nice work on the beamshots.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Originally Posted by *Beacon of Light* 

 
_I recently bought the JETBEAM Jet I-Pro IBS v. 1.2 at Deal EXtreme a month or so ago, great light and nice low low and decent runtime. So basically the V3.0 light just has a higher lumen output but the low low is the same 2 lumens and the same runtime at 2 lumens? Pretty sure every Jet I-Pro has been 50 hours on low since version 1.0

_


Beacon of Light said:


> Anyone have an answer to this? I don't want to blow +$60 on a light that will be virtually the same as the one I already own v1.2, considering I will only use AAs and not Li-ion.



So since this light has been out for a little while now does anyone have info that can answer my initial questions back in June? I was hoping BugoutGear or Flavio would be able to answer this which is why I was asking this in the marketplace thread as he was there but never answered. I don't see him in this thread, so I am relying on those that purchased v3 and has an earlier version.


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> Originally Posted by *Beacon of Light*
> 
> 
> _I recently bought the JETBEAM Jet I-Pro IBS v. 1.2 at Deal EXtreme a month or so ago, great light and nice low low and decent runtime. So basically the V3.0 light just has a higher lumen output but the low low is the same 2 lumens and the same runtime at 2 lumens? Pretty sure every Jet I-Pro has been 50 hours on low since version 1.0
> ...



3.0 has a more efficient circuit, can handle 14500 li-ion batts, has a new head design (anti roll), comes in OP or SMO reflector and comes in either warm tint or with a cool tint R2.

Regards,
Flavio


----------



## wapkil (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> Originally Posted by *Beacon of Light*
> 
> 
> _I recently bought the JETBEAM Jet I-Pro IBS v. 1.2 at Deal EXtreme a month or so ago, great light and nice low low and decent runtime. So basically the V3.0 light just has a higher lumen output but the low low is the same 2 lumens and the same runtime at 2 lumens? Pretty sure every Jet I-Pro has been 50 hours on low since version 1.0
> ...



I think I partially answered you in the Market Place. I'm not sure what you mean by v1.2 (JetBeam's nomenclature is confusing) but if it is v2.0, you can for example compare the runtimes here with v2.0 ones in the selfbuilt's review. 

I think the output is quite similar (can someone confirm it?). If it's true, the v3.0's circuit is more, sometimes much more, efficient - e.g. with an Eneloop 105 min vs. 50min on High and 125 min vs. 69min. one Med or 46min vs. 34min with AW's 14500.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



BugOutGear_USA said:


> can handle 14500 li-ion batts



:thinking: Was there a Jet-I IBS version that couldn't handle them?


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

The elusive answer I am looking for is if the V3 is more efficient why are both listed at 50 hours on low/minimum? I basically have my 1.2 set at Minimum/ half way between minimum and low / and low. I have no use for 200+ lumens. If this was 30%+ more efficient shouldn't the low be more like 60-70 hours instead of 50?

IIRC even the first version V1 had 45 or 50 hours on low with NIMH.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> I think I partially answered you in the Market Place. I'm not sure what you mean by v1.2 (JetBeam's nomenclature is confusing) but if it is v2.0, you can for example compare the runtimes here with v2.0 ones in the selfbuilt's review.



*There was a v1.0 and then a v1.2 and then the v2.0 and now the v3.0*



wapkil said:


> I think the output is quite similar (can someone confirm it?). If it's true, the v3.0's circuit is more, sometimes much more, efficient - e.g. with an Eneloop 105 min vs. 50min on High and 125 min vs. 69min. one Med or 46min vs. 34min with AW's 14500.



*From the beamshots the v3.0 looked MUCH brighter on low/minimum and had a noticeable hotspot whereas v2.0 (which looks very similar to my v1.2 beam) has a nice floody hotspot which blends in seamlessly with the spill.

I just hope all the hype and talk about efficiency isn't referring to the medium and high modes as I never use them on any of my lights.
*


----------



## wapkil (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> The elusive answer I am looking for is if the V3 is more efficient why are both listed at 50 hours on low/minimum? I basically have my 1.2 set at Minimum/ half way between minimum and low / and low. I have no use for 200+ lumens. If this was 30%+ more efficient shouldn't the low be more like 60-70 hours instead of 50?
> 
> IIRC even the first version V1 had 45 or 50 hours on low with NIMH.



I won't help you here - the sources of many values in JetBeam's (and not only JetBeam's) specifications is are a complete mystery for me. I have a question though - have you seen somewhere the low mode runtime test for previous versions, or tested it yourself?


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Yes, like I said every version of the Jetbeam Jet I-Pro I.B.S. has stated pretty much 50 hours of runtime on low. 

Unfortunately, I have never tested any of my lights for runtimes in a meaningful test. I just want the most bang for the buck on low. That's why my favorites are Quarkk AA on moon mode, L2XT on minimum and D10 Nightcore on minimum.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> *There was a v1.0 and then a v1.2 and then the v2.0 and now the v3.0*



I didn't know that v1.2 version existed. It's not mentioned on the JetBeam webpage and I don't remember reading about it here. As I wrote, the whole JetBeam's naming scheme is confusing for me...



Beacon of Light said:


> *From the beamshots the v3.0 looked MUCH brighter on low/minimum and had a noticeable hotspot whereas v2.0 (which looks very similar to my v1.2 beam) has a nice floody hotspot which blends in seamlessly with the spill.
> 
> I just hope all the hype and talk about efficiency isn't referring to the medium and high modes as I never use them on any of my lights.
> *



Ah, yes. The low mode is much brighter, unfortunately. I know you are not really interested in these modes performance but I was asking about the brightness comparison in the med and high modes to be able to compare the efficiency.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

This is what happened in the Marketplace thread, Flavio was there but never answered the only question I really cared about. I don't want to pony up close to $70 if there is basically no longer runtime on low and also if the minimum is much brighter than what I am familiar with on my v1.2 already. 

Lastly, Flavio on the issue with the Army Green/Olive Drab you mention there is a link on the bottom of the Jet I Pro page and I don't see one. Maybe you can clear that up for me, thanks.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



wapkil said:


> I didn't know that v1.2 version existed. It's not mentioned on the JetBeam webpage and I don't remember reading about it here. As I wrote, the whole JetBeam's naming scheme is confusing for me...



wapkil, yes the original v1.0 came out way before I started posting actively on here this year, I am going to guess 2004/2005 (maybe earlier than that?). Version 1.2 was I will take a guess and say 2006/2007? I'm pretty sure v2.0 was available probably way back in early 2008 even. I bought mine new a few months ago from Deal Extreme. I was thinking it was supposed to be the current version at the time 2.0, but I was tricked as they showed v2.0 but their description was for 1.2 or something confusing like that. I did save about $12 though, so it wasn't a total loss and I am happy with the light.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> Yes, like I said every version of the Jetbeam Jet I-Pro I.B.S. has stated pretty much 50 hours of runtime on low.
> 
> Unfortunately, I have never tested any of my lights for runtimes in a meaningful test.



I know that it's how they were specified. The problem is that we have the measurements performed by jahxman here that say the v2.0 consumes ~0.4A on Low. Either the specification or the measurements must be incorrect. It is completely impossible for a light with a NiMH inside to run 40-50 hours with this current. Five hours, seven maybe but not forty or fifty...


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I doubt they would advertise 50 hours and it only getting 5 or 7. They would have been called out for that years ago when the v1.0 debuted. This is the time Flavio should come here and set the record straight.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> I doubt they would advertise 50 hours and it only getting 5 or 7. They would have been called out for that years ago when the v1.0 debuted.



I'm not saying they did. It would be also a bit strange to have the circuit consume ~0.5W when the led needs around 50 times less. It's just that you mentioned the low mode and the measurements I saw don't add up for v2.0, so I hoped it can be explained.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

I have yet to see equations that translate voltage at the tailcap that will give a approximate runtime.


----------



## cheetokhan (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> Lastly, Flavio on the issue with the Army Green/Olive Drab you mention there is a link on the bottom of the Jet I Pro page and I don't see one. Maybe you can clear that up for me, thanks.



Flavio was not referring to the OD version of the light. He was answering a request to sell the reflector for the light by itself. He added the link at the bottom of the Bugoutgear Jet I page to purchase just the reflector.
I can understand your confusion. It took me a few minutes to figure out that Flavio was answering a previous post further back in that thread.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



cheetokhan said:


> Flavio was not referring to the OD version of the light. He was answering a request to sell the reflector for the light by itself. He added the link at the bottom of the Bugoutgear Jet I page to purchase just the reflector.
> I can understand your confusion. It took me a few minutes to figure out that Flavio was answering a previous post further back in that thread.



Well that clears that up, thanks. But he did confirm that the Jet I-Pro will be available in Olive Drab. I don't remember if he said when it would be available though.


----------



## cheetokhan (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> Well that clears that up, thanks. But he did confirm that the Jet I-Pro will be available in Olive Drab. I don't remember if he said when it would be available though.



Oh yes, he definitely said it would be coming in OD. I check back every day to see of it's out yet, but no luck.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> I have yet to see equations that translate voltage at the tailcap that will give a approximate runtime.



Why do you talk about the voltage? As you saw, I was writing about the power and the current (with a known voltage) - it's natural to use it to estimate the runtime.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Flavio, where are you? You always show up in the thread but never address my question. I'm starting to take this a little personal now.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



BugOutGear_USA said:


> 3.0 has a more efficient circuit, can handle 14500 li-ion batts, has a new head design (anti roll), comes in OP or SMO reflector and comes in either warm tint or with a cool tint R2.
> 
> Regards,
> Flavio



So why do the v1.2 and v2.0 previous versions have a 50 hour runtime listed for low if v3.0 is more efficient, and the v3.0 version also has a stated 50 hour runtime? Thanks.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> So why do the v1.2 and v2.0 previous versions have a 50 hour runtime listed for low if v3.0 is more efficient, and the v3.0 version also has a stated 50 hour runtime? Thanks.



I don't think it really answers the questions but the previous versions had 45h, 50h (NiMH, Li-Ion) and the v3.0 has 50h, 60h.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 27, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

That might be true for the v1.0 and v1.2. Maybe I am mistaken but I thought v2.0 also stated 50hours on NIMH. 

Even if the case is 45 hours on NIMH, the increase from 45 to 50 hours is 11.11% which is odd as the v3.0 is supposed to be 35% more efficient than v2.0. Does this 35% efficiency apply mainly to the high mode? I would have thought the lower mode would be even more efficient.


----------



## Lagerregal (Aug 28, 2009)

The low level is simply brighter, but still consumes a bit less power than the previous version (-> circuit is much more efficient). If you want a light with a ultra-low, the jetbeam is not the one (although the low is lower than any fenix and with diffuser i like it more than the lowlow of the quark without diffuser (bright hotspot/dim spill).


----------



## wapkil (Aug 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> That might be true for the v1.0 and v1.2. Maybe I am mistaken but I thought v2.0 also stated 50hours on NIMH.
> 
> Even if the case is 45 hours on NIMH, the increase from 45 to 50 hours is 11.11% which is odd as the v3.0 is supposed to be 35% more efficient than v2.0. Does this 35% efficiency apply mainly to the high mode? I would have thought the lower mode would be even more efficient.



I am pretty sure that when v3.0 appeared v2.0 was specified for 45h, 50h. They were advertising v3.0 as 30% (not 35%) more efficient but it's just advertising. It is next to impossible to design a new circuit that will exhibit the same improvement for all the outputs. 

I don't know whether or not the low mode runtime was improved but note that v3.0 has a pretty strange specification - in my test, confirmed by other people measurements, with a NiMH on High it ran 80% (!) longer than specified.

I'm still interested in explaining what happens in the lowest mode. Maybe someone with v2.0 or earlier model could perform the tailcap current measurement in the lowest mode with a NiMH (e.g like described in HKJ's guide)?

EDIT: jahxman already measured his v2.0 but his result (~0.4A) is so far from what it should be according to the specification that I thought another measurement would be needed to confirm it. Maybe jahxman's v2.0 is faulty?


----------



## flatline (Aug 28, 2009)

Lagerregal said:


> The low level is simply brighter, but still consumes a bit less power than the previous version (-> circuit is much more efficient). If you want a light with a ultra-low, the jetbeam is not the one (although the low is lower than any fenix and with diffuser i like it more than the lowlow of the quark without diffuser (bright hotspot/dim spill).



What do you use for a diffuser?


----------



## wapkil (Aug 28, 2009)

flatline said:


> What do you use for a diffuser?





Lagerregal said:


> Here is a beamshot with the surefire diffusor (which fits perfectly):



F04


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Aug 28, 2009)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



Beacon of Light said:


> Flavio, where are you? You always show up in the thread but never address my question. I'm starting to take this a little personal now.



Beacon,

Nothing personal...just following CPF rules. If you have any product/order related questions they should be addressed to us over in the Marketplace. You can always PM or email me directly.

We do not visit the threads here on CPF nearly as much as we monitor our threads over in the MP.

Thanks,
Flavio
BugoutGearUSA.com


----------



## bullterrier (Aug 30, 2009)

if i remember it correct 1.0 was R2 and 1.2 was Q5 and no I.B.S and bouth had different body styll and diffeerent pocket clip then V2.0 and V3.0. 
I did buy mine Jetbeam Jet-I PRO 1.0 from BugoutGearUSA.com when it was realist. 
and i gave it to a friend after 6 month 

so i will buy the Jet-I PRO v3.0 and Jet-I Pro EX - V2. 
the only thing i don't know yett if it will be R2 cool tint or Q3-5A warm tint


----------



## EngrPaul (Sep 13, 2009)

wapkil said:


>


 
Mine tailstands when it's off, but not when it's on. GO FIGURE. I guess the reverse clicky switch stands up taller when on.

Perfection otherwise...


----------



## Hitthespot (Sep 13, 2009)

Well I have been carryin my Nitecore Infinity almost since they came out. I have just ordered this Jetbeam. I hope I like it.

I hope Flavio still has them in stock.

Bill


----------



## pobox1475 (Oct 29, 2009)

*Can anyone post a pic of a Jet I Pro next to a Quark 123(2)?*


----------



## bondr006 (Nov 20, 2009)

I also have been carrying my NDI since they came out. I got my JET-1 V3.0 last night, and I really  really like it. It will be added to my EDC line-up. Looking for new places to carry EDC's. :candle:



Hitthespot said:


> Well I have been carryin my Nitecore Infinity almost since they came out. I have just ordered this Jetbeam. I hope I like it.
> 
> I hope Flavio still has them in stock.
> 
> Bill


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 20, 2009)

_Holding my breath_ for a JET I Pro V3.0 olive green with OP reflector or new version green AA EDC torch.


----------



## daberti (Dec 10, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Hi all,
> 
> EDIT to add runtime graphs
> 
> I just finished my Jet-I runtime tests. The light was tested with different Li-Ion cells (AW's and old TrustFires) and different NiMH cells (LSD Eneloop and non-LSD high capacity Sanyo 2700)......


 
I've tried both AW's and Tenergy 14500. Without a magnet they do NOT work. Same there?

Thanks for your review beamshots and runtimes
Dan


----------



## liketotallyrandom (Dec 10, 2009)

Are you talking about the AW 14500's with the button top, or some kind of flat-top AW 14500? The AW's I see at various merchants have a button + and look like they would work. Please elaborate, because I'm about order some. Thanks.


----------



## maskman (Dec 10, 2009)

liketotallyrandom said:


> Are you talking about the AW 14500's with the button top, or some kind of flat-top AW 14500? The AW's I see at various merchants have a button + and look like they would work. Please elaborate, because I'm about order some. Thanks.


I use AW 14500's with button top in my Jet-I Pro V3. They work just fine for me.


----------



## daberti (Dec 10, 2009)

liketotallyrandom said:


> Are you talking about the AW 14500's with the button top, or some kind of flat-top AW 14500? The AW's I see at various merchants have a button + and look like they would work. Please elaborate, because I'm about order some. Thanks.


 
Mine are not flat top, they're button top. Yet my V3 flashlight looks like having a more indented + contact (reverse polarity protection?). I experienced the same issue with 900mAh Tenergies.


----------



## daberti (Dec 10, 2009)

rmasky said:


> I use AW 14500's with button top in my Jet-I Pro V3. They work just fine for me.


 
Could you please post a picture? TIA
Dan


----------



## wapkil (Dec 10, 2009)

daberti said:


> I've tried both AW's and Tenergy 14500. Without a magnet they do NOT work. Same there?



Nope, no problem here with button top AW's or blue Trustfires 14500s The light has a reverse polarity protection in the head but when touching the battery button to the head, there is still a small gap left between the battery and the outer protection ring.

EDIT: The protection looks identical to the one in selfbuilt's review of Jet-i V2.0.


----------



## maskman (Dec 10, 2009)

daberti said:


> Could you please post a picture? TIA
> Dan


Are you asking for a photo of the AW 14500 or something else?


----------



## daberti (Dec 11, 2009)

rmasky said:


> Are you asking for a photo of the AW 14500 or something else?


 
yes. The 14500 you're using, thanks.

Other than this i managed to do a side by side output comparison on max using a magnet for J1-V3 with AW14500. All compared lights at max.
Here what my lightbox said.

4seven 47 Quark 123x2 XP-G R5 (AW 17670)=>33
4seven 47 Quark 123 XP-G R5 (AW 16340)=>29
Ra-Clicky custom ordered, burst mode (AW 16340)=>25
J1-V3 R2(AW14500)=>24
J1-V3 R2(2100mAh Ni-Mh lsd Panasonic Infinium)=>16,1

Things turned to be quite different from statements: 47 says 230lumens OTF and it keeps if we use Ra-clicky 170 as reference.
Same reference and J1 V3 delivers max 167lumens with 14500 and 112 with Ni-Mh. Always OTF. Was it the magnet with the 14500. Nope.
I took my J-III-M R2 to the same test with AW 18650 (2200mAh capacity): same 24 output which means slightly lower than 170lumens OTF. :thumbsdow


----------



## Federal LG (Dec 11, 2009)

pobox1475 said:


> _Holding my breath_ for a JET I Pro V3.0 olive green with OP reflector or new version green AA EDC torch.



Who? When? Where??


----------



## bondr006 (Dec 11, 2009)

Mine is not OD, but has an OP reflector with a beautiful beam....

PS...Hey LG. Did you get yours yet?


----------



## maskman (Dec 11, 2009)

daberti said:


> Could you please post a picture? TIA
> Dan


----------



## Federal LG (Dec 11, 2009)

bondr006 said:


> PS...Hey LG. Did you get yours yet?



Not yet Rob... Probably gonna get one in February! 
My uncle from TN will come to visit me in Brazil so I´ll ask him to bring it to me... :wave:


----------



## daberti (Dec 12, 2009)

rmasky said:


>


 
Thanks 
Quite different from mine. I'll stay with Ni-Mh though as per my readings the lumens increase with 14500 is NOT worth the decreased runtime.


----------



## allemander (Jan 10, 2010)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*

Regarding these acronyms, SMO & OP:

Can someone here please explain to this new flashaholic what these letters stand for and what they mean?

I am strongly considering the new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0 as my next flashlight purchase.
I have never modded any torches and don't really know how.
So far, my collection consists of:

Nitecore D20 R2 (2XAA)
Fenix LD20 clipless (2XAA)
Leatherman LGX200 (1XAA)
Streamlight MicroStream (1XAAA)
Browning MicroBlast Mossy Oak (1XAAA)
Maglite Blue (3XD)
Mini Maglites (several) (2XAA)
Garrity 9-LED (3XAAA)
Photon Microlights (several) 
Brinkmann 1M CP spotlight (12V only)


----------



## edc3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Hi Allemander. :welcome:

SMO & OP refer to the reflector finish. SMO = smooth and OP = orange peel. The orange peel finish can help to correct rings and other artifacts in the beam, at the cost of some reduction in throw.


----------



## allemander (Jan 11, 2010)

*Re: The new Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*



BugOutGear_USA said:


> 3.0 has a more efficient circuit, can handle 14500 li-ion batts, has a new head design (anti roll), comes in OP or SMO reflector and comes in either warm tint or with a cool tint R2.
> 
> Regards,
> Flavio



***UPDATE***
PLEASE disregard my duplicate post (below)!
and Thank You IMMENSELY, ('edc3') for the information I requested that I inadvertently overlooked. 
It was very helpful.

...Please define "OP & SMO reflector"?

Thank You brightly!


----------



## Cman219 (Jan 27, 2010)

Does anybody not find it odd, that the Jet-I Pro V3's runtime on high (145 lumens) is nearly 2 hours, while the RRT-0's runtime on high (180 lumens) is only about 35 minutes? Whats going on here??


----------



## liketotallyrandom (Jan 27, 2010)

Cman219 said:


> Does anybody not find it odd, that the Jet-I Pro V3's runtime on high (145 lumens) is nearly 2 hours, while the RRT-0's runtime on high (180 lumens) is only about 35 minutes? Whats going on here??



Do you mean 100% output on both? At 100%, I get about 50 minutes from my Jet-1 Pro V3, on an AW 14500.

Jeff


----------



## Beacon of Light (Jan 27, 2010)

Has anyone confirmed runtime on minimum with v3.0 yet?


----------



## Cman219 (Jan 27, 2010)

liketotallyrandom said:


> Do you mean 100% output on both? At 100%, I get about 50 minutes from my Jet-1 Pro V3, on an AW 14500.
> 
> Jeff



Yea at 100%, but both on 1xAA. According to this thread people have been getting around 100 minutes of runtime at 100% with the Jet I-Pro, but according to other threads and my own experience have only been getting about 35 minutes of run time at 100% with the RRT-0. Using the 1xAA adapter in the RRT-0 they both use the same battery and LED, its just that the RRT-0 draws a slightly higher current... so why is there only about 1/3 the runtime? Does the selector ring make it that much less efficient?


----------



## pobox1475 (Jan 27, 2010)

> Does anybody not find it odd, that the Jet-I Pro V3's runtime on high (145 lumens) is nearly 2 hours, while the RRT-0's runtime on high (180 lumens) is only about 35 minutes? Whats going on here??


 What *is* odd the output is listed on high with Li-Ion the same at 240lm. High with AA 145lm Pro I and *180lm* RRT-0.


----------



## Hitthespot (Jan 27, 2010)

Cman219 said:


> Does anybody not find it odd, that the Jet-I Pro V3's runtime on high (145 lumens) is nearly 2 hours, while the RRT-0's runtime on high (180 lumens) is only about 35 minutes? Whats going on here??


 
After originally reading these reports about the RRT-0 I decided to just stay with my Jet I Pro 3. Based on the RRT-0's low run time I couldn't even under stand what all the fuss was about this light. It didn't appeal to me at all. I wasn't willing to accept that kind of performance.

However on a standard AA battery vs a 14500 in the Jet I Pro 3 the output is greatly reduced.

Bill


----------



## Cman219 (Jan 27, 2010)

Well, i guess its final then... going to let go of my RRT-0. I'm still debating whether i should get a 1xAA or 2xAA light though (Deciding between , Jet Pro I, Jet Pro I EX & Quark Turbo AA2 w/battery tubes). With a 1xAA i'll have a more compact EDCable size, while the 2xAA would be a more general purpose light with better output and runtime. But with a 1xAA light, i only need one battery to function great for emergencies! Decisions decisions...


----------



## pobox1475 (Jan 28, 2010)

Jet I Pro is on my dwindling lust list. I *am* starting to get a little curious :thinking: what they will eventually release to replace it.


----------



## corvettesR1 (Jan 28, 2010)

x2, Id like to have one of these as well.!! Looks like a powerful little light.

Its nice to read that it also has the a very low setting when needed.That"s important to me.Can anyone suggest a good place to get one? .... Thanks


----------



## daberti (Jan 28, 2010)

pobox1475 said:


> Jet I Pro is on my dwindling lust list. I *am* starting to get a little curious :thinking: what they will eventually release to replace it.


 
XP-G R5 emitter would be a great idea


----------



## daberti (Jan 28, 2010)

corvettesR1 said:


> x2, Id like to have one of these as well.!! Looks like a powerful little light.
> 
> Its nice to read that it also has the a very low setting when needed.That"s important to me.Can anyone suggest a good place to get one? .... Thanks


 
Jetbeam is sold at Bugoutgear


----------



## Hitthespot (Jan 28, 2010)

daberti said:


> XP-G R5 emitter would be a great idea


 
Brighter would be OK, but I personally think my Jet I Pro with R2 is plently bright enough on a 14500. Here is what I would like on the Jet 1 Pro Version 4

1) At least one hour or more of run time on high
2) Improve the output on a Ni-MH to be equal of the 14500 or at least close. I will take less run time.
3) Give me some Stainless Steel at the switch end also. Just like the Jet III M.

Lets do it Jetbeam.:thumbsup:

Bill


----------



## pobox1475 (Jan 28, 2010)

> Improve the output on a Ni-MH to be equal of the 14500 or at least close. I will take less run time.


 Doubt this is technically possible. Big difference between 1.5/1.2v and 3.0/3.6(+)v...


----------



## Beacon of Light (Jan 28, 2010)

For V. 4.0 I'd ask for a moon mode that runs for at least a week on a single AA. Oh and when are they planning on releasing an Army Green color for this light?


----------



## corvettesR1 (Jan 28, 2010)

Just ordered one with the SMO reflector from Bugout ...*Jetbeam Jet-I PRO v3.0*.Here we go again:twothumbs


----------



## daberti (Jan 29, 2010)

Hitthespot said:


> Brighter would be OK, but I personally think my Jet I Pro with R2 is plently bright enough on a 14500. Here is what I would like on the Jet 1 Pro Version 4
> 
> 2) Improve the output on a Ni-MH to be equal of the 14500 or at least close. I will take less run time.
> 
> Bill


 
XP-G is quite more efficient than XR-E. It has also a smaller footprint, that would help a bunch in such a small reflector.

Ni-Mh output = Li-Ion
Plain unfeasible. Roughly speaking it would mean 3x the amperage under load assuming voltage at 1.2. But Ni-Mh voltage under load would never be 1.2 .
Maybe it could be achieved for five second bursts....more likely it would need an extender for a second AA cell...no way


----------



## pobox1475 (Jan 29, 2010)

> Oh and when are they planning on releasing an Army Green color for this light?


 *+1...*

Any possibility of someone posting a pic of Jet I Pro & Quark 123x2 for size comparison?


----------



## Hitthespot (Jan 29, 2010)

Hitthespot said:


> 2) Improve the output on a Ni-MH to be equal of the 14500 or at least close. *I will take less run time.*
> 
> Bill


 


daberti said:


> XP-G is quite more efficient than XR-E. It has also a smaller footprint, that would help a bunch in such a small reflector.
> 
> Ni-Mh output = Li-Ion
> Plain unfeasible. Roughly speaking it would mean 3x the amperage under load assuming voltage at 1.2. But Ni-Mh voltage under load would never be 1.2 .
> Maybe it could be achieved for five second bursts....more likely it would need an extender for a second AA cell...no way


----------



## daberti (Jan 29, 2010)

I.e.: 47 2x123 is 6mm longer


pobox1475 said:


> *+1...*
> 
> Any possibility of someone posting a pic of Jet I Pro & Quark 123x2 for size comparison?


----------



## Hitthespot (Jan 29, 2010)

Your picture exceeds forum rules. 800 X 640 is max IIRC.

Bill


----------



## daberti (Jan 29, 2010)

Hitthespot said:


> Your picture exceeds forum rules. 800 X 640 is max IIRC.
> 
> Bill


 
Resized


----------



## Hitthespot (Jan 29, 2010)

Wow now that I can see the photo, interesting. The Quark 123x2 is really small. 

Thanks

Bill


----------



## pobox1475 (Jan 29, 2010)

> I.e.: 47 2x123 is 6mm longer


 Thanks. I have a warm Tac and it is my most often used light around the house. Very high quality. Still want a Jet I Pro to carry. The Jet's are built like tanks.


----------



## daberti (Jan 29, 2010)

pobox1475 said:


> Thanks. I have a warm Tac and it is my most often used light around the house. Very high quality. Still want a Jet I Pro to carry. The Jet's are built like tanks.


 
Quite right. As a matter of facts I had no problems keeping on at max with 14400 cell for 20minutes in my hand.
Couldn't even think about doing the same at max with 47 123x2.
One lack in Jet? Sure: continuous light output is useless. It ramps up too fast. It would be more useful with clearly detectable light outputs (10 distinct levels) with two seconds to choose among each one.


----------



## timbo114 (Jan 29, 2010)

Beacon of Light said:


> Oh and when are they planning on releasing an Army Green color for this light?



+2 ... why only the Pro EX in OD?


----------



## wacbzz (Jan 29, 2010)

Perhaps Flavio and the good folks at BOG have noticed just how many OD Jet III M's are being/have been resold lately over in the marketplace...?:thinking:


----------



## Beacon of Light (Feb 10, 2010)

Was there an issue with the anodizing or something? I doubt the lights for sale on the marketplace would have less to do with the color than the light itself. How could you not love Army Green?



wacbzz said:


> Perhaps Flavio and the good folks at BOG have noticed just how many OD Jet III M's are being/have been resold lately over in the marketplace...?:thinking:


----------



## RTTR (Feb 18, 2010)

I have a couple questions about this light.

How is the durability on the anodizing and does it truly tail stand?


----------



## Lagerregal (Feb 19, 2010)

After carrying it half a year in my pocket the anodizing shows some wear at the edges. As good as any other Jetbeam.
Tailstand is possible if you have a few seconds to balance it out. Still way better than most ra clickys


----------



## daberti (Feb 19, 2010)

Lagerregal said:


> After carrying it half a year in my pocket the anodizing shows some wear at the edges. As good as any other Jetbeam.
> Tailstand is possible if you have a few seconds to balance it out. Still way better than most ra clickys


 
Ditto.
Incidentally, this JB flashlight shares same front filters/diffusrs as RaClicky: i.e. F04 F05 F06


----------



## bondr006 (Feb 19, 2010)

I have carried mine every day for the last 3+ months and it seems to be holding up well. The only place I can see wear in the anodizing is around the edges on the tail. But even my Surefires do that. And as you can see in the picture, it tail stands easily and very flat. Nice light for EDC.


----------



## RTTR (Feb 19, 2010)

Anyone had any issues concerning battery life on 14500? 45 minutes on max doesn't seem too much but maybe not too bad.


----------



## bondr006 (Feb 19, 2010)

Sounds right to me. The capacity on the 14500's is only 750mah. On the low self discharge nimh duracells I have it's 2000mah. I don't know what the capacity is for alkaline or the lithium primary aa's, but I am sure it is much higher than the 750mah of the 14500's.

*Edit: Alkaline aa's are around 2000mah, and the energizer lithium primary aa's are 3000mah.*


----------



## Hitthespot (Feb 19, 2010)

I used my Jet-I Pro V3.0 yesterday while changing my daughters front brakes and had dismal results on 14500's. The light would go out after around 5 minutes. I could turn it off and back on and it would come on for around 20 seconds and go out again. I tried a Ultrafire and AW fully charged batteries and had the same result. I had to come into the house and grab my trusty Inova T4. While I've had the light for sometime I had never used it continously without turning it off before. I'm going to run some tests this weekend to make sure I don't have a defective light or defective batteries.

But,So far I'm not real happy with the results of this light. We're just not there in terms of effeciency in my opinion.

Bill


----------



## RTTR (Feb 19, 2010)

This isn't what I like to hear when I'm making the final decision between buying the 4Sevens Quark or this light.



Hitthespot said:


> I used my Jet-I Pro V3.0 yesterday while changing my daughters front brakes and had dismal results on 14500's. The light would go out after around 5 minutes. I could turn it off and back on and it would come on for around 20 seconds and go out again. I tried a Ultrafire and AW fully charged batteries and had the same result. I had to come into the house and grab my trusty Inova T4. While I've had the light for sometime I had never used it continously without turning it off before. I'm going to run some tests this weekend to make sure I don't have a defective light or defective batteries.
> 
> But,So far I'm not real happy with the results of this light. We're just not there in terms of effeciency in my opinion.
> 
> Bill


----------



## bondr006 (Feb 19, 2010)

Read the first post in this thread. There is a runtime graph there that shows this light gets excellent run times. 45 minutes with a 14500, and he said he got 126 minutes with a nimh aa cell.

Edit: I have had mine on for over ten minutes at a time with a 14500 with no problems.


----------



## RTTR (Feb 19, 2010)

Did JETBeam ever correct the problem that some were having with very poor run time on medium setting?


----------



## RTTR (Feb 19, 2010)

Is there a major brightness output difference between the R2 Cool Tint and the Q3-5A Warm Tint? And is there any preferable one to get over the other?

With the OP reflector is it pretty smooth beam pattern, acceptable anyway and not ringy like a maglite?


----------



## bondr006 (Feb 19, 2010)

RTTR said:


> Is there a major brightness output difference between the R2 Cool Tint and the Q3-5A Warm Tint? And is there any preferable one to get over the other?
> 
> With the OP reflector is it pretty smooth beam pattern, acceptable anyway and not ringy like a maglite?



The R2 does put out quite a bit more lumens than the Q3. The OP reflector does make a nice smooth beam. Below is a comparison shot of my RRT-0 with the smooth reflector next to my JB-1 Pro V3 with the OP reflector. Also a shot of the JB-1 Pro V3 outside at about 25 feet. Just get the JB-1 Pro and use the cpf discount code CPFSAVE12 at checkout to save 12% off your purchase. It is one of my very favorite lights that I carry with me every day. The IBS UI is just outstanding. Three user definable/programmable output levels. I promise that you will not be sorry.


----------



## Blackbeard (Feb 20, 2010)

I Like this light, should I buy it??

Do protected 14500's fit??


----------



## pobox1475 (Feb 20, 2010)

> should I buy it??
> 
> Do protected 14500's fit??


 Yes. Yes. 

Personally I prefer the warm tint. Willing to sacrifice a little output to get the truer color and texture recognition.


----------



## Blackbeard (Feb 20, 2010)

pobox1475 said:


> Yes. Yes.
> 
> Personally I prefer the warm tint. Willing to sacrifice a little output to get the truer color and texture recognition.


 

This place is draining my bank account :shakehead


----------



## dandism (Feb 24, 2010)

I just got one of these. I like it, but I can't remove the clip. Is it supposed to be removable?

edit: I just wiggled the loose end of the clip a bit and was able to slide it off.


----------



## ToNIX (Feb 25, 2010)

Are they planning a new version 4.0, or version 3.0 is still too new? I'm really tempted by this light (or a Quark haha)!


----------



## daberti (Feb 26, 2010)

ToNIX said:


> Are they planning a new version 4.0, or version 3.0 is still too new? I'm really tempted by this light (or a Quark haha)!


 
I hope they'll come out with an XP-G R5 driven at >1A


----------



## pobox1475 (Feb 26, 2010)

Give me something new in single AA _warm _tint and ...


----------



## Gazerbeam (Feb 27, 2010)

Thanks guys for turning me on to this light! I've got the Q3 version and luv it, my first warm tint. This thing really throws and the color rendering is perfect for the great outdoors. UI is super simple and has become my favorite. Pulled the trigger after reading this thread, again thanks! lovecpf





Lowest setting AW Li-Ion 14500 protected SMO reflector.














Jet-1 PRO v3.0 Q3-5A AW Li-Ion 14500 protected (high setting) below.
17 yards to the tree, SMO reflector.




NDI Q5 AW Li-Ion 14500 unprotected (high setting) below.
17 yards to the tree.


----------



## lightsandknives (Mar 31, 2010)

I just received my Jet 1 Pro V3 R2 from BOG. Love the light! Nice form factor, well made, and beautiful beam with OP reflector. Very bright on 14500, and I love the ability to customize all 3 settings. I've already changed them several times. Not sure where I'll land on them, and they may change based on what I'll be doing that day as well as what other lights I'm carrying. So far, it's only been white wall hunting and playing around in the garage. Can't wait for dark!

Here's a pic next to it's big brother, my Jet-III M neutral.


----------



## sailah (Apr 22, 2010)

I just bought one of these and I have to say it's my favorite light so far. Super compact, great tint (my first warm Cree), excellent machining and I love the interface.

I do wish it had a lower low, but it's pretty darn good at super low (2 lumens?)

The hidden strobe/sos functions are great when you need them (almost never) so you can program them in on the "3rd" mode when required.

I set mine at 100%, ~40% and super low.

I also really like the AA format. I have Alkaline, NiMH, and 14500, nice to be able to use them all. Fits my hand perfectly. I sold an Olight M20 Warrior that feels really cheap next to this JetBeam. The threads on that light were grindy, the aluminum was flimsy. This JetBeam has a substantial feel and of much higher quality than the Olight. Can't comment on output as I sold it.

I am loving my JetBeams so far, I wish my M1X has the IBS interface with 3 modes, it would be perfect if it did.

Course I am waiting on a Download Pocket Rocket SST-50, so we'll see if this remains top dog. At $56 shipped, I think it's a steal.


----------



## BigBluefish (Apr 23, 2010)

I also just received this light, with the Q3 5A and OP reflector from BugOutGearUSA. I thought it would make the a good AA light for hiking and camping, as well as EDC duites. 

I think I was right!

The beam with the OP reflecor is pretty smooth for a Cree XR-E, while retaining a fairly tight hotspot and good throw. With the neutral emitter, I'd guess I'm getting about 100 lumens +/- 10 OTF on an Eneloop. Which is quite good for an AA light, IMO. 

I've got it set on 100%, about 15-20% and min. 

The fit and finish are excellent, though it is a much darker gray than I expected. I am surprised that the head, body and tailcap all seem to match.  

I'm going to get a couple of AW 14500s and a charger (Pila 1BC or Ultrafire WF-139) and see if the increase in output is worth the hassle of the lithium ions. 

I really like the IBS UI, which surprises me a bit since I hate the standard Fenix UI. 

I like this light so much, in fact, that I think I may get a Jet III PRO ST BVC as well, and if I like the lithium ions, a couple of AW 18650s.


----------



## DHart (Apr 23, 2010)

BigBluefish said:


> I'm going to get a couple of AW 14500s and a charger (Pila 1BC or Ultrafire WF-139) and see if the increase in output is worth the hassle of the lithium ions.



Great light with super versatile powering options! And, BTW, I think you will find that li-ions are THE way to go. Li-ions are fantastic... they give super bright power, have good life, and you can use them over and over and over! Second best choice is NiMH, but I much prefer li-ions, myself. For primaries, if you don't know already, lithium primaries rock and alkalines (IMHO) SUCK! But it's nice to know you can resort to the lowly alkaline if nothing else is available. Buy a pack or two of EverReady AA LITHIUM (not alkaline) primaries to store in the fridge for emergency use... they have a cool-shelf life of an estimated 12-15 years or so! If you ever need them due to a prolonged power outage or SHTF societal meltdown, you'll be so glad to have them.


=========


Lastly, you may already be aware of all this, so please forgive me if you know this already, but I'll mention it anyway just in case.... you can and should recharge your li-ions before drained. It will greatly extend their useful life if you don't deplete them heavily. I regularly top off my li-ions when they drop to 3.8 or so if I think about it. Much better to keep them topped off than to drain them way down each time. And to be safe, use a fireproof charging surface (slate or marble tile will work) under your charger. And regardless of the charger, only charge when you are around to attend to it and pull the cells as soon as the ready light indicates. If you follow these procedures closely, you will probably never have any problems with using li-ions and you will enjoy an incredible, renewable power source!


----------



## Hitthespot (Apr 23, 2010)

BigBluefish said:


> I
> I'm going to get a couple of AW 14500s and a charger (Pila 1BC or Ultrafire WF-139) and see if the increase in output is worth the hassle of the lithium ions.
> 
> .


 
The Jet-I Pro V3.0 is noticably brighter on 14500 batteries than with 1.5v AA batteries.

Bill


----------



## Albinoni (Apr 25, 2010)

I am seriously looking into getting this light also soon if not down the track, also probably one of the best AA type LED torch light out there on the market (IMHO).

Some questions re this torch:

1. I believe this torch will run either on 1xAA and 1x LiIOn rechargeable type
battery, can thus torch also run on CR123 or RCR123 type batts?

2. Does its tail cap unscrew ?

3. I believe it uses the Cree R2 LED, how bright and white is this LED ?

4. Is this torch slightly larger than than the Fenix P1D ?


----------



## sailah (Apr 25, 2010)

Albinoni said:


> I am seriously looking into getting this light also soon if not down the track, also probably one of the best AA type LED torch light out there on the market (IMHO).
> 
> Some questions re this torch:
> 
> ...



1.) No, it only runs on AA size like AA alkaline, NiMH or Li Ion 14500. CR123 are much fatter and shorter.

2.) Yes

3.) I have the warm Cree and I love it. All my other lights are cool white. I'm digging the warm shades.

4.)Don't know. I was surprised how small it was, some reason I was expecting it to be bigger. That's a good thing


----------



## bondr006 (Apr 25, 2010)

The P1D was 2.5 inches and was a small cr123 twisty. The JET-1 Pro is about 4 inches long and is an AA sized clickie. Mine is an R2 with a beautiful beam. See my post in this thread.






Next to its CR123 sized brother the RRT-0










JET-1 About 20 feet to fence





RRT-0 About 20 feet to fence


----------



## jhc37013 (Apr 26, 2010)

I have the RRT0 and I am really trying hard to justify getting the Jet- I. While using 14500 I know the Jet-I is slightly shorter but any more reasons to buy it? Is the beam the same using OP reflector on both? The only little negative I have with the RRT0 is the cree ring outside the hotspot even with OP, it looks like the Jet-I is about the same, maybe it is not as bad??


----------



## hazna (Apr 28, 2010)

jhc37013 said:


> I have the RRT0 and I am really trying hard to justify getting the Jet- I. While using 14500 I know the Jet-I is slightly shorter but any more reasons to buy it? Is the beam the same using OP reflector on both? The only little negative I have with the RRT0 is the cree ring outside the hotspot even with OP, it looks like the Jet-I is about the same, maybe it is not as bad??



I have neither light, but am tossing up buying either of them. My choice on which one i get (or whether I get another one), would be based more on the interface. To me the beam shots of the two lights seem quite similar, but the user interface is quite different.

To me the benefit of buying the Jet-I, is you can set your modes to whatever you want. The RRT-0 has set levels and the high does not have an overly long run time. With the jet-I you could set a lower-high, with a longer run time.


----------



## bondr006 (Apr 28, 2010)

Although the op reflector does smooth out the RRT-0 beam quite a bit, you are right; there is still a remnant of the Cree ring there. On the other hand, the beam from the JET-1 Pro is just as smooth as a baby's bottom...at least on mine.



jhc37013 said:


> The only little negative I have with the RRT0 is the cree ring outside the hotspot even with OP, it looks like the Jet-I is about the same, maybe it is not as bad??


----------



## jhc37013 (Apr 28, 2010)

bondr006 said:


> Although the op reflector does smooth out the RRT-0 beam quite a bit, you are right; there is still a remnant of the Cree ring there. On the other hand, the beam from the JET-1 Pro is just as smooth as a baby's bottom...at least on mine.



Really that makes it more interesting I was still basing my decision on the fact the two beams had the similar dark ring this is good news thanks. I've grown rather picky with beam artifacts outdoors and can't stand a dim area surrounding the hotspot.


----------



## Hitthespot (Apr 28, 2010)

The programable modes of the Jet-I pro V3.0 makes it a hands down choice to me over the RRT-0. If I lost mine I would purchase a new one immediately. It has been my EDC since the day I received it. Of course needs / opinions vary.

Bill


----------



## bondr006 (Apr 28, 2010)

Just for comparison, here are some shots of the JET-1 and RRT-0....Both with OP reflectors. The third shot is the RRT-0 with a smooth reflector. You can see that the OP reflector smooths out the RRT-0 quite a bit, but the JET-1 still has it beat for smoothness. At least to my eyes.








JET-1 with OP reflector





RRT-0 with OP reflector





RRT-0 with smooth reflector


----------



## jhc37013 (Apr 29, 2010)

*bond* your pics are interesting my RRT0 with OP reflector looks more like yours does with the SMO.


----------



## jhc37013 (May 7, 2010)

I got the Jet-1 today and I am sure glad I decided to get it. I struggled with the decision but finally pulled the trigger. What a nice little light like other Jet light's I own it is made very well. Clean looking ano all matching, nice clip and nice size for a pocket. I got the OP reflector and still the throw is amazing for such a small light. The beam is better than my RRT0 (less ringy) and thanks *bondr006* for all the pics, your beam pics represent what I have very accurately. On 14500 it's going straight to my pocket as my backup EDC light, rotating with a couple others. I have a feeling I might stick with this one a bit.


----------



## bondr006 (May 7, 2010)

I am glad you decided to get it jhc. I knew you would love it. I have not stopped carrying mine since I got it.


----------



## jhc37013 (May 18, 2010)

I like it so much I'm now considering the Q3 warm, just what I need another light but I am starting to get into neutral tints maybe it is because of all the rain we have had lately.

The neutral tint not only looks better during a rain but on those foggy evenings right after the rain around dusk when everything is also wet the warmer tints are so much better. Anyway I'm thinking the Jet-I with Q3 will be one for me.


----------



## hazna (May 18, 2010)

Anyone notice there is now a 2xAA of this light? Jet-1 pro ex v3.0... there's a bit of info on their website: http://www.jetbeam.com.cn/links/pro/jet1proexv3.aspx

Bugoutgear do not seem to have it yet, but some other dealers do have it in stock. Anyone know if it is possible to 'lego' these, to alternate between the AA or 2xAA form factor?


----------



## BigBluefish (May 18, 2010)

jhc37013 said:


> I like it so much I'm now considering the Q3 warm, just what I need another light but I am starting to get into neutral tints maybe it is because of all the rain we have had lately.
> 
> The neutral tint not only looks better during a rain but on those foggy evenings right after the rain around dusk when everything is also wet the warmer tints are so much better. Anyway I'm thinking the Jet-I with Q3 will be one for me.


 
I think will really like it. 

And I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread, but the SureFire F04 diffuser will fit the Jet 1 Pro v3, so you can now have a programmable flood light.


----------



## jhc37013 (May 25, 2010)

I received my Jet-Pro today with the Q3 neutral tint and I really like the it.

To my surprise the tailcap is different than my R2 Jet-Pro v3, the Q3 tailcap is taller allowing very good tail standing ability. I guess I now know why some members say there v3 tailstands and others don't. This ano like my R2 matches perfect but the Q3 is light gray and the R2 is dark gray.


----------



## Masterchief2 (Jun 11, 2010)

I just ordered a Q3 5A with OP reflector from Bugoutgear, can't wait to try it out. I also ordered some Ultrafire 14500s and a charger from DX. 

I have a custom RA Clicky that is amazing but I felt I needed a solid AA light, this one fit the bill. What really sold me was the UI. I tried my buddy's Quark Tactical 2AA and was not crazy about the UI. I'll probably end up with one for my BOB eventually, 30 days in moonlight mode is hard to beat!

Thanks for the informative thread


----------



## BigBluefish (Jun 11, 2010)

I purchased an olive drab J1Pv3 with the R2 emitter from BugOutGear to back-up my Q3 equipped Jet. 

This light is seriously bright and has great throw on a 14500, even with the OP reflector. 

Like my first Jet, it won't tailstand, though. 

It's also a major PITA to get this one into program mode. 

But a great light, nonetheless.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 11, 2010)

BigBluefish said:


> I purchased an olive drab J1Pv3 with the R2 emitter from BugOutGear to back-up my Q3 equipped Jet.
> 
> This light is seriously bright and has great throw on a 14500, even with the OP reflector.
> 
> Like my first Jet, it won't tailstand, though.


There must be a few different batches of tailcaps. I received my first Jetbeam Jet-I v3 a week and a half ago and it has a flat cap and could tailstand all week if it wanted to. Perfectly uselss feature to me though, I much prefer a protruding cap and ended up I've stuck a rubber disc on top of the button to make it easier to press.

I'm quite amazed by how well my teeny jet-i with OP throws when on 14500.



BigBluefish said:


> It's also a major PITA to get this one into program mode.


if you'd seen how easy my Jetbeam ST BVC falls into program mode accidently you'd say your's is a great feature.....


----------



## PolarBearX (Jun 11, 2010)

Ive had my jet-1pro v3 warm for about a week, ordered op but he sent me smo because they're out of op, and on order from jetbeam.....the warm is much more neutral bordering on white, so much so I wondered if BOG also substituted the white r2 led too, and my warm is dark gray and can tailstand fine, though barely....when I compare the beam to my Qaa warm (single 14500 in each,) I'd call it neutral, no green at all so I like it.

Ive found, after some initial frustration, that it enters program mode almost every time if I hold it overhand and work the button quickly with my thumb...

I cant believe the throw on this thing and the spill..it's got a good-sized reflector.. I thought I was on the xp-g bandwagon but the jet-1 xr-e has impressed me...and my wife too unfortunately, she picked it for her edc over the other choices I gave her, I'm now going to need another


----------



## PolarBearX (Jun 12, 2010)

Ive had my jet-1pro v3 warm for about a week, ordered op but he sent me smo because they're out of op, and on order from jetbeam.....the warm is much more neutral bordering on white, so much so I wondered if BOG also substituted the white r2 led too, and my warm is dark gray and can tailstand fine, though barely....when I compare the beam to my Qaa warm (single 14500 in each,) I'd call it neutral, no green at all so I like it.

Ive found, after some initial frustration, that it enters program mode almost every time if I hold it overhand and work the button quickly with my thumb...

I cant believe the throw on this thing and the spill.. I thought I was on the xp-g bandwagon but the jet-1 xr-e has impressed me...and my wife too unfortunately, she picked it for her edc over the other choices I gave her, I'm now going to need another ..all thanks to this thread


----------



## BigBluefish (Jul 23, 2010)

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> if you'd seen how easy my Jetbeam ST BVC falls into program mode accidently you'd say your's is a great feature.....


 
I hear ya. That's the only thing that's keeping me away from buying that light. Perhaps JetBeam should go back to the version that had the Jet III M programming, with the fixed high mode and only one user defined level. Put that feature set in a BVC circuit, and maybe they'd have the winner that the Jet III PRO ST _*should be*_. 

But back to the Jet 1 Pro: I've got my R2 Jet 1 programmed the way I like it, and I don't think I'm ever going to work up the nerve to try to change it. 

Now, if they'd just put a real high CRI emitter into the thing, maybe with a reflector to give it a beam with more spill, and a less-defined hotspot...the perfect outdoor AA?


----------



## MojaveMoon07 (Jul 23, 2010)

BigBluefish said:


> Now, if they'd just put a real high CRI emitter into the thing, maybe with a reflector to give it a beam with more spill, and *a less-defined hotspot*...the perfect outdoor AA?




"_New Jetbeam BK135A_"
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/283321


----------



## Dan0s (Jul 30, 2010)

I'm definitely going to get one of these. Ive had my eye on it for a while now!
But i dont know whether to get the r2 or the q3. 
Any recommendations?
Ideally both would be best but i only have enough for one!


----------



## jhc37013 (Jul 31, 2010)

Danos0012 said:


> But i dont know whether to get the r2 or the q3.
> Any recommendations?
> Ideally both would be best but i only have enough for one!



Both would be best that's what I had to do but if only one can be bought I would say go with the r2 for now. Many will feel differently about this because like many things it's a personal preference. I have not heard any complaints about bad tint with the Jet-I R2 or else I might say differently, but for now IMO get the brightest and because the light is known for being a thrower you can try it with all it's glory with the r2.


----------



## Dan0s (Aug 3, 2010)

Thanks for the advice!
I was definitely thinking... Brighter is always better! But i know this isnt always the case!
I do like the R2 though and it looks pretty nice so ive gone ahead and ordered one!
Very excited, its been a long while since ive had a new light and ive always looked at the newer jetbeam models and admired them!
Looking forward to a new EDC!


----------



## jhc37013 (Aug 3, 2010)

Danos0012 said:


> Very excited, its been a long while since ive had a new light and ive always looked at the newer jetbeam models and admired them!
> Looking forward to a new EDC!



Cool let us know what you think it's my favorite Jetbeam which don't mean you will feel the same way but I would bet you will like it.


----------



## Dan0s (Aug 3, 2010)

Ive had a Jetbeam before and liked the light but it didnt come with the instructions dodgy ebay......
But so far my favourites have been the novatac 120p and my liteflux 3XT, I love the look of the jetbeam and can imagine the ui will be great too!
Thanks again!


----------



## Brasso (Aug 3, 2010)

How do you change out the reflector in this thing? On the one I just traded for, it appears that the led and reflector are attached somehow. I took off the bezel ring, o-ring, and lens, but the reflector assembly won't come out. There's play in it, and it will move out some, but the led moves with it. 

It's also has the most "ringy" beam I've ever seen. It throws one hell of a hotspot, but I need to do something about the rings. Maybe even a diffused lens. Has anyone done this?

Help!


----------



## jhc37013 (Aug 3, 2010)

Brasso said:


> I took off the bezel ring, o-ring, and lens, but the reflector assembly won't come out. There's play in it, and it will move out some, but the led moves with it.
> Help!



That is odd the reflector should just pull out like you expected I'm not sure what's up.


----------



## Brasso (Aug 4, 2010)

So I tried to take it out again. Apparently the reflector was glued to the emitter dome. They both came out. Now I have a useless, basically brand new Jetbeam, that I apparently can't have warranty work done on because I bought it second hand.

And I was considering using this for a backup duty light. I guess I need to start looking for a small Surefire.


----------



## Albinoni (Aug 4, 2010)

Question re the JetBeam Pro I V 3.0, will a CR123 type batt fit in this torch and also will it also accept a RCR123 as well.

According to JB's website this torch accepts a AA batt or equivalent that would fit it, plus off course a LiIon type batt as well.

But I am just curious to find out if a Cr123 will fit it.


----------



## Albinoni (Aug 4, 2010)

Why is JB calling this light a Tactical Backup when it has a reverse clicky instead of a forward clicky, sorry confused there


----------



## manitoe (Aug 4, 2010)

Albinoni said:


> Question re the JetBeam Pro I V 3.0, will a CR123 type batt fit in this torch and also will it also accept a RCR123 as well.
> 
> According to JB's website this torch accepts a AA batt or equivalent that would fit it, plus off course a LiIon type batt as well.
> 
> But I am just curious to find out if a Cr123 will fit it.



It's an AA torch... so no, a CR123 or RCR123 will not fit. The battery sizes are totally different.


----------



## Gumboot (Aug 4, 2010)

I have a mode problem with my Jet-I PRO V3.0 and wondered if other users have the same issue. The first light I had was returned because of the mode sequence problem and the replacement has the same issue.I'll call the modes A,B and C. When the light is first turned on after non use the mode sequence is as follows: A>A>B>C. After the initial switching on the light will follow the proper sequence A>B>C aprox. 90% of the time with the remaining 10% being A>A>B>C or A>B>A>B>C. I have tried various techniques/pressures on the switch and it doesn't make a difference. Any sugestions?


----------



## Brasso (Aug 4, 2010)

I would say that the AABC problem is you not pushing the button hard enough to change it. But ABABC, is definately a hardware problem.


----------



## tsask (Aug 5, 2010)

At this point I have to say that my much antipcated JETI v3 purchase in late May has been about my worst disappointment ever. I EDC'd it a couple times but the "switch issue" with accidental activation killed batteries and left me in the dark. The folks at BOG did help with new switch end cap, then it would not light up brightly. I called BOG they said they'd replace the light. So I mailed it back a month ago and haven't heard a thing since.the more I think about this the lousier the experience has become......
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE!!!!
Just spoke to Bug Out Gear (that in and of itself is cool), They cheerfully recognized me and greeted me by name (genuine friendly customer service) and checked the tracking number.... It was sent Aug 5 and should be here at Poct Office!
THIS IS WHY I VALUE RELATIONSHIPS WITH QUALITY USA DEALERS!!!!

Of course I will buy another Jetbeam and guess where??? Bug Out Gear USA!!!!!
Thanks! I'll be EDCing it tonight!


----------



## manitoe (Aug 5, 2010)

Gumboot said:


> I have a mode problem with my Jet-I PRO V3.0 and wondered if other users have the same issue. The first light I had was returned because of the mode sequence problem and the replacement has the same issue.I'll call the modes A,B and C. When the light is first turned on after non use the mode sequence is as follows: A>A>B>C. After the initial switching on the light will follow the proper sequence A>B>C aprox. 90% of the time with the remaining 10% being A>A>B>C or A>B>A>B>C. I have tried various techniques/pressures on the switch and it doesn't make a difference. Any sugestions?



Mine does this as well. After a few hours of not being used, it'll always have the "A>A>B>C" behaviour, but only once. After that, no matter how much I play with it, it's always the correct "A>B>C", but leave it for a while, and it's back to "A>A>B>C". I've gotten used to it by now and it doesn't bother me that much, but it's still a bit weird. Mine is a Q3 warm tint btw.


----------



## pobox1475 (Aug 6, 2010)

Mine does some funky mode switching as well :shakehead. Thought it was operator error. Will update with sequence later.


----------



## my#1hobby (Aug 13, 2010)

Does the JET-I PRO I.B.S. V3.0 have the 1HZ-15HZ ramping strobe feature or is that only on the RRT models?


----------



## ss Dragonfly (Aug 19, 2010)

Yes it does have a ramping strobe feature in the strobe functions. You can choose to program a strobe function or not. 

I carry this light constantly and find it very useful...it is a top notch flashlight. 

Cheers,
Shane


----------



## bondr006 (Aug 19, 2010)

^ +1 :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain Spaulding (Aug 19, 2010)

Brasso said:


> So I tried to take it out again. Apparently the reflector was glued to the emitter dome. They both came out. Now I have a useless, basically brand new Jetbeam, that I apparently can't have warranty work done on because I bought it second hand.
> 
> And I was considering using this for a backup duty light. I guess I need to start looking for a small Surefire.



Yikes! I was going to try to change the SMO reflector out with an extra OP reflector from my RRT-0 ( still not even sure if it would have fit) but I was having the same problem getting the SMO reflector out when I decided to do a search... Sorry to hear about the LED dome coming out of yours, but thanks for posting about it as I was just about to ruin mine too! Strange bugoutgear sells extra reflectors if there is no way to safely switch it out...

I have the warm version and the tint is lovely, but it is one ringy mo fo with a SMO reflector! It does throw very well and is still a sweet torch however. I love it.


----------



## jhc37013 (Aug 20, 2010)

What's going on with the stuck reflectors? If you guys was new to this I would ask a silly question like, are you sure you are removing the o-ring first? However you guys appear not to be new at this so I don't know what the heck is going on I have removed my reflectors in and out from both my R2 and Q3 models.


----------



## Captain Spaulding (Aug 20, 2010)

Yeah, no it is definitely stuck good. I dont want to damage it like Brasso so Im gonna leave well enough alone.

I have three Jetbeams and this is the only one I have a problem with removing the reflector.... 
:shrug:


----------



## Captain Spaulding (Aug 23, 2010)

Just thought I would post an update to this whole "stuck reflector" issue.

I emailed and confirmed with Flavio at bugoutgearusa that there is no adhesive or any reason why the LED dome should be stuck or come out with the reflector on the Jet I Pro V3.

So I tried again and took it back apart. Flavio said it should come out with a light tap tap on a table, but mine was still quite stuck and no amount of tapping would get it to come out.

So I held my breath and used a pair of tweezers to physically pull the reflector out. It was difficult, but the reflector came out fine without the emitter dome.

I then replaced the SMO reflector with an extra OP reflector I bought for my RRT-0. (the Jet I Pro V3 uses the same exact reflector as the RRT-0)

Now my Jet I has a very smooth beam profile and is no longer a ringy mo fo! Got rid of all the rings.

I am oh so very happy with the warm tint and smooth beam profile now of my Jet I. :twothumbs


----------



## jhc37013 (Aug 24, 2010)

That is good you got the reflector out but what was holding it in?


----------



## Captain Spaulding (Aug 25, 2010)

jhc37013 said:


> That is good you got the reflector out but what was holding it in?



Its hard to say! My best guess is that it was very snug around the emitter dome. After switching the reflector and reassembling the unit, I took it clear apart again and the reflector comes out with an easy tap as it should now. I closely examined the small hole in both reflectors to see if maybe the stock one was a bit tighter, but near as I can tell, they are both the same size.

All I know is that there was no adhesive or any definite reason it was so stubborn.

Oh well. All is well that ends well I guess.


----------



## DHart (Aug 25, 2010)

I'm thinking an OP reflector would be just the change I need to make my Jet I Pro v3 more useful to me! Thanks for that.


----------



## Captain Spaulding (Aug 25, 2010)

The OP reflector in this particular Jet makes ALL the difference in the world.

My RRT-0 with a SMO reflector has rings, but it is tolerable. I keep the smooth one in my RRT-0 for a little extra reach and the rings dont bother me.

However, the rings using the SMO reflector in the Jet I are so overwhelming, it is flat annoying to me. Putting the OP reflector in the Jet I makes the beam so much smoother and more usable.

A couple quick snaps of beam shots from a couple feet away. The rings are even more pronounced further away of course.

Here is the smooth reflector: :shakehead	






And here is the Orange Peel reflector: :thumbsup:


----------



## DHart (Aug 25, 2010)

Captain... nice change in the ring department. And it looks like the light retains it's focused thrower characteristics. I was hoping the OP reflector might make the light a little more suitable for indoor use, but it doesn't look like that is the case. It's a light designed for throw and that's pretty much how it remains with either reflector.


----------



## jhc37013 (Aug 25, 2010)

Nice jobs on the pics Captain I'm glad you got that textured in it. I have come to a point now where I will not buy a EDC light without a textured reflector, first it was cree rings and now it's cree rings and XP-G donut holes with smooth.

I'm not concerned so much with cree rings on a big throwing light but still the donut hole is a no go.

The Jet-I Pro as seen by Captains pics and mine and others experience is a better light with the textured. I have tried side by side with textured and SMO and I really did not see much loss in throw when using the textured.


----------



## gunga (Aug 25, 2010)

I have a Jet 1 pro and the RRT-0 (XR-E). Both have the same reflector and are throw oriented. You won't get a better general purpose beam with the XR-E LED. However, if you swap in an XP-G (like I did on my RRT-0), you get a much more blended beam that is a lot better close up. It still has a good hotspot and decent throw, but the close range use is much better.


----------



## DHart (Aug 25, 2010)

gunga said:


> I have a Jet 1 pro and the RRT-0 (XR-E). Both have the same reflector and are throw oriented. You won't get a better general purpose beam with the XR-E LED. However, if you swap in an XP-G (like I did on my RRT-0), you get a much more blended beam that is a lot better close up. It still has a good hotspot and decent throw, but the close range use is much better.



gunga... your post has piqued my interest in swapping an XP-G into my Jet I Pro v.3 - to make it better suited to my indoor use. 

At the same time, I pause, because when it comes to throwing, I have nothing small in my collection that comes anywhere near close to the Jet I Pro for throw. And certainly I have enough general/floodier lights I can use for my indoor applications without making yet another of my lights so oriented.

Just out of curiosity, though, do you have any idea how difficult it might be to put an XP-G in the Jet I Pro?


----------



## gunga (Aug 25, 2010)

I have not tried, but I think it is not too bad from what I have read.

Yes, I left my Jet 1 alone to keep it as a pocket thrower.

The RRT-0 I wanted as more useful. I'll check throw at the meetup in Van tomorrow.


----------



## busseguy (Aug 2, 2011)

Sorry to bump this thread but I am trying to lower the brightness on medium setting because its to close to the high brightness for my liking. Right now when I turn the light on it goes directly to high, next press of the button goes to medium, then next is low.

I want to keep it just like that but with the medium being less bright than it is.
I dont have the manual on the light, and I looked up how to do it on google but I guess I am not quite understanding it.

Anyone that can help I would really appreciate it.

Thanks..


----------



## ss Dragonfly (Aug 2, 2011)

If you are having trouble setting the light's modes, try this little trick...

Unscrew the tail cap until barely making contact with the circuit, (the rear clicky will still function, just the tailcap is not fully seated)

click twice to reach the medium mode

when on the medium mode, twist the tail cap about 1/8 of a turn back and forth three times...this will put the light in the settings mode...the light will blink and start from low and ramp to high....all you have to do is click the button at your desired brightness

the mode will be set after the click

I find this easier sometimes than the the recommended method as my clicky switch is a little tempermental

YMMV
Cheers, 
Shane


----------



## jhc37013 (Aug 2, 2011)

busseguy said:


> Sorry to bump this thread but I am trying to lower the brightness on medium setting because its to close to the high brightness for my liking. Right now when I turn the light on it goes directly to high, next press of the button goes to medium, then next is low.
> 
> I want to keep it just like that but with the medium being less bright than it is.
> I dont have the manual on the light, and I looked up how to do it on google but I guess I am not quite understanding it.
> ...



Whatever mode you have it on just tap the switch 3 times and it should enter programing mode when you reach the mode you want just turn the light off.


----------



## busseguy (Aug 2, 2011)

jhc37013 said:


> Whatever mode you have it on just tap the switch 3 times and it should enter programing mode when you reach the mode you want just turn the light off.













WOW. That did the trick. 

Im really starting to like these multi level lights, I use to think that they would be more prone to problems so i just stuck to single level lights.
Its like having 3 lights in one..


----------



## busseguy (Aug 2, 2011)

jhc37013 said:


> Whatever mode you have it on just tap the switch 3 times and it should enter programing mode when you reach the mode you want just turn the light off.












Sorry for the double post..


----------

