# My Quick Ra Twisty Review



## this_is_nascar (Jun 14, 2008)

* "for submission in the Reviews forum".*

My Twisty-100 arrived from Battery Station yesterday. Based on what others have said about the "tank-like" build of the Twisty, I had prepared myself for this huge/heavy light. I was pleasantly surprised upon taking the light from it's plastic bag. It's certainly not the smallest/lightest 1 x 123 light out there, but it's not the largest or heaviest either. I was pleased with the looks and apparent build quality. To coin the phase of others, it IS built like a tank. You can feel that quality in your hand. The fact that it a bit longer than some of my other 1 x 123 lights, actually makes it feel better in my hand. I have medium-large hands, so I'm always looking for a comfortable light while holding it. The Twisty is very comfortable to hold.

As others have mentioned, the twisting action is smooth, but not a one-handed operation. That's fine with me for this particular light. I don't want to compromise anything by swapping an o-ring or anything like that. Over time, it will loosen up a bit I'd suspect. If one-handed operation was key to me, I'd stick to clicky lights.

Activation seems consistant right now, but I'm not sure if that will change down the road or not. Others have reported an inconsistent activation spacing. I have not yet experienced that. I do wish there was more space between low and med. This particular unit is almost hair-trigger between low and medium, but then widely spread from medium to high.

The Ra tail-stands nicely on either end, unlike some other lights that will tail-stand, but are somewhat unstable in doing so. On the back-end, It would have really been nice to have a slot milled for a tritium vial, etc. I find myself wanting to push it, like it was a plunger or something similar.

I like the low level of the low setting. With normal daylight, one would think that it was way too dim, but in darkness, it's very useful for those nighttime strolls in the house or for checking on the kids, etc. Medium level is very useful and I know this is the level I'd find myself using the most. High is just that, high. I think I'd like to see more of a difference between the output of medium vs. high, but my opinion of that may change over time. From what I've seen in my testing last night, I think I would have preferred medium to be just a bit lower in output.

With only owning the Ra Twisty for less than 24-hours, I really like the light. So much, that I'm going to order the Twisty-120 version for comparisons to the Twisty-100. The marketing pitch of "The light that gets you home" seems to be dead-on with the Twisty. I can see where this light can more than handle the dings, bangs, drops and kicks that a normal flashlight user would put it through.

Rather than waiting for the inevitable to happen, I'm going to be the one to start the "how does the Ra Twisty compare to the Arc6" discussion right in this post. I'm going to limit the comments to matter-of-fact comments, not on my opinions or what I see as shortcomings in either light. I'll start by stating facts, without classifying them as an advantage or disadvantage.

-- Twisty is longer than the Arc6.
-- Twisty is heavier than the Arc6.
-- Twisty is dimmer, wide-open, than the Arc6, by a huge margin.
-- Twisty has a lower low-mode, than the Arc6, by a big margin.
-- Twisty is more stable in the tail-standing capability than the Arc6. On the one pack, the pocket-clip of the Arc6 protrudes past the end of the tube, making for a "not totally stable" stance. With the non-clipped pack, there is less surface area resting on the surface.
-- Twisty does not have a pocket-clip.
-- Twisty is a readily available light.
-- Twisty has confirmed accessories that are activity being manufactured.

I'm currently compiling the data of varous run-time tests that I'll post once I have it completed.

Edit #1: Although not completed, here's a couple run-time charts comparing the Ra with the Arc6 on different settings. The 1st chart is a 3-hour plot and the 2nd is a 15-hour plot. I still have to measure the Ra on Low and the Arc6 on Low. I still need to figure out a way to measure the high-output of the Arc6 on L-6 and L-7. It's puts out so much light, I have to somehow alter my setup.














Edit #2: So, I re-tested the Arc6 on L-4, while it was sunk into a glass of chilled water, with an ice-cube. The difference is that instead of stepping down at the 7-minute mark (shown in the graph), it lasted for 30-minutes until stepping down. Once stepped-down, the output was similar to what's shown, for a slightly shorter period of run-time. These results cause more confusion for me, rather than answering any questions.

It the Ra is running that long at a much higher output level compared to the Arc6, does that mean that 1) the Ra heat-sinking is that much more superior or 2) the Ra thermal-management system is not as sensitive or 3) the Arc6 went overboard with its thermal-management settings?


----------



## sbebenelli (Jun 14, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> This particular unit is almost hair-trigger between low and medium, but then widely spread from medium to high.


 Mine from first activating low you have to twist it slightly less than 1/2 turn to get medium, then another 1/4 turn for high.

I like this because if you are wanting low it would be hard to accidentally go to medium.


----------



## paulr (Jun 14, 2008)

You know that you can program the levels to anywhere you want. The procedure is a little bit messy but it's described in one of the Twisty threads. There are more threads about it in the manufacturers' section of CPFMP as you're probably aware.

I wonder if you thought about the version with the red low level, or whether you ever used that feature in the Proton Pro. You probably discussed it in your PPro review but I don't know if I can find it easily and I don't remember it that well.


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 14, 2008)

Yes, I'm aware of being able to program the light, thanks. As far as the RED low version, I really don't like the use of a RED LED. The only reason I use the RED on the Pro is because it gets lower than what the white can do. On the Twisty, the white goes low enough that it really makes the RED useless for the way I use a light.


----------



## :)> (Jun 14, 2008)

TIN,

I am glad that you liked it. I was interested in hearing your thoughts on the light and for me, I agree that in use, the extra lenth is welcome; the light fits nicely in my hand. 

It was my suspicion that the Twisty would gain in popularity with time in the hands of people who use their lights more than play with them.

I am looking forward to your review of the differences between the 120 and the 100 lumen models:thumbsup:


----------



## half-watt (Jun 14, 2008)

paulr said:


> You know that you can program the levels to anywhere you want. The procedure is a little bit messy but it's described in one of the Twisty threads. There are more threads about it in the manufacturers' section of CPFMP as you're probably aware.



where might these descriptions of this programming process be located? have already searched CPF (only one Post found that gives a partial description of the programming process, but doesn't mention how to enter programming mode) and CPFMP (no applicable Posts re: programming). many thanks, pj aka half-watt


----------



## fleegs (Jun 14, 2008)

That is surprising to hear that the Arc6 does not go low low. I really find a low low very useful in an EDC. 

TIN- Would you say that the low on the Arc6 is similiar to the lows on Fenix lights? Or is it like the low of the PD?

If the Arc6 and the Twisty are set that hey appear the same in brightness when Twisty is on high, do you hear any noise from either one and does either one get hot?

Thanks, 

Rob


----------



## Hans (Jun 14, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> As far as the RED low version, I really don't like the use of a RED LED. The only reason I use the RED on the Pro is because it gets lower than what the white can do. On the Twisty, the white goes low enough that it really makes the RED useless for the way I use a light.



I've got a 85 TR, and after fooling around with the RED quite a bit I programmed the low level to a very low white. It's more useful in the majority of situations, I feel. Whenever I really need red light, I can just slip on a Surefire filter. 

Very nice review, TIN.

Hans


----------



## Hans (Jun 14, 2008)

fleegs said:


> If the Arc6 and the Twisty are set that hey appear the same in brightness when Twisty is on high, do you hear any noise from either one and does either one get hot?



I only have the Twisty, and I can't hear any noise on any of the settings. The other two Twistys I've had a chance to look at in the past few weeks were also very quiet.

I seem to recall Henry commented on the noise problem a while back because some of the old HDS were a bit noisy on some settings. Actually, one of my four HDS makes a bit of noise on some settings. It's not *that* bad, but I very much prefer quiet lights myself and find the noise very distracting when I'm out in the woods.

Hans


----------



## tricker (Jun 14, 2008)

half-watt said:


> where might these descriptions of this programming process be located? have already searched CPF (only one Post found that gives a partial description of the programming process, but doesn't mention how to enter programming mode) and CPFMP (no applicable Posts re: programming). many thanks, pj aka half-watt





http://www.ralights.com/?id=TwistyCustomize


----------



## HoopleHead (Jun 14, 2008)

tricker said:


> http://www.ralights.com/?id=TwistyCustomize


 

so what are the default levels for say a Tw100? table is confusing.

my max lumens is 100, so i guess i use the top table? the default for the Tw100 is 100 lumens, 17 and 0.3 but only 100 matches in the table (level 22). is the 17 lumens level 17 (which is actually 18 lumens)? is the 0.3 lumens level 5 (which is actually 0.28 lumens)?

thanks for anyones help


----------



## tricker (Jun 14, 2008)

you only look for your max luens on the table....and figures are rounded....and i'm also sorta in the dark about exactly how to do it......bet i'm really good at resetting it


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 14, 2008)

fleegs said:


> That is surprising to hear that the Arc6 does not go low low. I really find a low low very useful in an EDC.
> 
> TIN- Would you say that the low on the Arc6 is similiar to the lows on Fenix lights? Or is it like the low of the PD?
> 
> ...



The Arc6 low is lower than any of the Fenix's I've ever owned. I don't recall how low the PD goes, but I guess it's similar, maybe a bit lower. So far, absolutely no noise on the Twisty, but noticable noice on the Arc6. In all fairness, the Arc6 has the ability to put out much more light than the Twisty.


----------



## half-watt (Jun 14, 2008)

tricker said:


> http://www.ralights.com/?id=TwistyCustomize



link appears to be broken (webpage may NOT exist any longer) or server is too busy for some time now. i'll try the link again later. many thanks for the swift reply with the link.


EDIT:

link *IS* working now. server must have been too busy to respond in a reasonable timeframe. hence, unable to locate server error was in fact timeouts.


----------



## :)> (Jun 14, 2008)

half-watt,

I sent you a PM earlier with the link. Here it is:

http://ralights.com/?id=TwistyCustomize

Take care.


----------



## half-watt (Jun 14, 2008)

:)> said:


> half-watt,
> 
> I sent you a PM earlier with the link.




many thanks for all of your efforts. 

did NOT rcv. PM, but did read your Post, and eventually after several minutes of "timeouts", managed to load the webpage from the link that you sent. thank you so much. 

i'm trying to decide if i should bump up the MEDIUM o.p. level of the Ra-100-TW a bit. i like the 8h claimed burn-time for the 17lm medium o.p. level, but i'm wondering how much burn-time will suffer at 25 (one level up) or 35 lumens (two levels up). also, wondering what the burn-time would be for the 8.8 lumen o.p. level. if anyone know, please Post info or a link and enlighten me.

again, many thanks.


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 15, 2008)

Edit #1 has been applied to Post #1.


----------



## fleegs (Jun 15, 2008)

TIN- Am I reading the chart right? Are you getting way over the stated runtime for the Twisty? I read over 1.5 hours on high and over 11 hours on med?


Is so this confirms my one reason for buying this light.


Rob


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 15, 2008)

fleegs said:


> TIN- Am I reading the chart right? Are you getting way over the stated runtime for the Twisty? I read over 1.5 hours on high and over 11 hours on med?
> 
> 
> Is so this confirms my one reason for buying this light.
> ...



Yep,that's about right and again, this is free-standing/non-cooled.


----------



## regulator (Jun 15, 2008)

Thanks TIN. Thats what I like to see. The Ra sure does show some good efficiency. It looks to be twice the output at about the same runtime as the Arc6 on level 3 - or is that just the intensity of the hotspot? 

Sometimes there is a certain elegance in something that may not have all the bells and whistles but strives to do the very best at what it does. It looks like the Ra is a tuff light. Thanks again for all your work and keep at it!


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 15, 2008)

regulator said:


> Thanks TIN. Thats what I like to see. The Ra sure does show some good efficiency. It looks to be twice the output at about the same runtime as the Arc6 on level 3 - or is that just the intensity of the hotspot?
> 
> Sometimes there is a certain elegance in something that may not have all the bells and whistles but strives to do the very best at what it does. It looks like the Ra is a tuff light. Thanks again for all your work and keep at it!



It's not the hotspot causing it, it is the overall output. I was bit surprised to see so much of a difference.


----------



## regulator (Jun 15, 2008)

TIN - This may be a question you get asked often and I cannot remember what the response was - but I was intrigued by the runtime graphs and looked at the one you did with the Liteflux LF2X. Are the graphs using the same type of output scale so someone can compare some of the lights you tested ( I thought the answer was yes but cannot remember). If so, the LF2X runtime/output at 15% on the lithium primary is very impressive and matches up to the Ra (on medium) using only an AAA cell!


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 15, 2008)

For the smaller lights, they are the same. In this case, no, it's not the same scale as those. That's because the way my setup is configured. The lights with less output can be placed closer to the light sensor. If these same lights were put at the same distance, it overloads and maxes-out the sensor, so they have to be placed further away.

The readings for the charts listed here DO NOT correlate to the charts of something like an E01, LF2X, Arc-AAA, Fenix LOD, etc. For charts like the NDI, they would be comparable.


----------



## regulator (Jun 15, 2008)

Thanks for the quick reply. I thought that might be the case. Great info.


----------



## tricker (Jun 15, 2008)

so above level 3 the extra brightness of the arc can only be attained for 3 minuites?......I'm glad i saved about 300$


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 15, 2008)

tricker said:


> so above level 3 the extra brightness of the arc can only be attained for 3 minuites?......I'm glad i saved about 300$



On this particular unit, in an un-cooled condition, that appears to be true.


----------



## tricker (Jun 15, 2008)

its not some sort of regulation causing this,it is the thermal stepdown, right?...


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 15, 2008)

tricker said:


> its not some sort of regulation causing this,it is the thermal stepdown, right?...



I don't know that. I'd assume that to be a contributer, but I don't know that for sure.


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 15, 2008)

I currently have the Twisty on Low, running on the meter right now. I'd expect that to take the rest of the day and into the night. I think my next test is going to focus on the Arc6-L4 with cooling this time. I'm really confused/concerned that it stepped down so quickly. L4 is bright, but I wouldn't consider it to be that much to force a step-down. I'll retest L4 in a cup of ice water.


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 15, 2008)

Nice runtime plots thanks for those:twothumbs How are you measuring "comparative output"? Is it overall output or just intensity with a light meter? If it's overall output then it seems that the Ra Twisty is getting significantly more lumen minutes than the Arc.

If med is 18lm and low is 0.3lm then assuming the same efficiency (yes I know it won't be the same), that's around 660hrs of runtime, about 1 month on low!

EDIT: I guess the "low" runtime will depend a lot on the converter efficiency at these levels. LED efficiency may be reduced too. Probably won't get a month then.


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 15, 2008)

monkeyboy said:


> Nice runtime plots thanks for those:twothumbs How are you measuring "comparative output"? Is it overall output or just intensity with a light meter? If it's overall output then it seems that the Ra Twisty is getting significantly more lumen minutes than the Arc.
> 
> If med is 18lm and low is 0.3lm then assuming the same efficiency (yes I know it won't be the same), that's around 660hrs of runtime, about 1 month on low!
> 
> EDIT: I guess the "low" runtime will depend a lot on the converter efficiency at these levels. LED efficiency may be reduced too. Probably won't get a month then.



I'm not quite sure what you're asking. All light is being captured and direct to the light meter sensor. These tests are not capturing hotspot, but all the light being thrown out the front of the light. What's plotted is the intensity and runtime of that light.


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 15, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're asking. All light is being captured and direct to the light meter sensor. These tests are not capturing hotspot, but all the light being thrown out the front of the light. What's plotted is the intensity and runtime of that light.



Do you mean that the sensor of the light meter covers the entire reflector of the flashlight?

That's fine for the runtime plots but I'm not sure how accurate that would be in terms of comparing lumen outputs of 2 lights.


----------



## half-watt (Jun 16, 2008)

it appears TIN is saying that there is no direct path from emitter to sensor. all light is reflected light. 

even if this is correct then it still leaves an unanswered question in my mind, viz. while the sphere's operation is presumably similar for any light tested in it, does it in fact diffuse the light evenly enough such that the reflected light that does reach the sensor can be properly numerically integrated from its Lux reading (i'm assuming that a simple Lux meter is being used to measure the intensity of the sphere diffused reflected light) by the sphere's internal surface area? 

even if not, then lumen calculation, for comparative purposes can be used even if they are not precisely accurate when compared to lumen calculations from other calibrated spheres.


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 16, 2008)

It's a collection of light as opposed to a direct shot of intensity. Kind of hard to explain.


----------



## txmatt (Jun 16, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> * "for submission in the Reviews forum".*
> 
> I still need to figure out a way to measure the high-output of the Arc6 on L-6 and L-7. It's puts out so much light, I have to somehow alter my setup.



Might a neutral density filter for an SLR work? If heat is an issue for ND filters, a stage lighting gel might work. In either case it would be pretty simple to test a light on a medium level with and without the filter to determine the amount of light transmission reduction. That correction factor could then be applied to the output results on high.


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 16, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> I currently have the Twisty on Low, running on the meter right now. I'd expect that to take the rest of the day and into the night. I think my next test is going to focus on the Arc6-L4 with cooling this time. I'm really confused/concerned that it stepped down so quickly. L4 is bright, but I wouldn't consider it to be that much to force a step-down. I'll retest L4 in a cup of ice water.



I'm almost sorry I started the low-mode testing. I'm not so sure the battery in the meter is going to last through the entire test. It's been well over 24-hours now and the Ra, in low, has not dropped in output.


----------



## tebore (Jun 16, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> I'm almost sorry I started the low-mode testing. I'm not so sure the battery in the meter is going to last through the entire test. It's been well over 24-hours now and the Ra, in low, has not dropped in output.



I'm sure it'll run for days. You might want to grab a beer, sit back and relax.


----------



## half-watt (Jun 17, 2008)

TIN,

i believe you probably already know this, but the quite similar NovaTac 120P/T on it's 0.3 lumen setting (the same o.p. level that you're checking now if i'm not mistaken) is claimed to run for 240h !!!

will the batt in your meter last 10d? you've got to ask yourself, do you want to run the test for 10+ days? no one will blame you if you don't. personally, even if it only ran 8d, i wouldn't care in the least as 8d is still a very, very long burn-time.


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 17, 2008)

I think what I'll do is stop the test tonight in order to free up my meter for more testing and I'll leave the Ra running, taking samples every now and again. I really want to get the Arc6 on the meter again, with cooling this time.


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 17, 2008)

For the low measurement, you could just take 1 light meter reading a day or 1 every 12 hours that way you wouldn't need to leave the light meter running and you can also sleep in between. It's quite a coarse scale but it will do for a light that will run for 10 days +


----------



## mightysparrow (Jun 17, 2008)

"Rather than waiting for the inevitable to happen, I'm going to be the one to start the "how does the Ra Twisty compare to the Arc6" discussion right in this post. I'm going to limit the comments to matter-of-fact comments, not on my opinions or what I see as shortcomings in either light. I'll start by stating facts, without classifying them as an advantage or disadvantage.

-- Twisty is longer than the Arc6.
-- Twisty is heavier than the Arc6.
-- Twisty is dimmer, wide-open, than the Arc6, by a huge margin.
-- Twisty has a lower low-mode, than the Arc6, by a big margin.
-- Twisty is more stable in the tail-standing capability than the Arc6. On the one pack, the pocket-clip of the Arc6 protrudes past the end of the tube, making for a "not totally stable" stance. With the non-clipped pack, there is less surface area resting on the surface.
-- Twisty does not have a pocket-clip.
-- Twisty is a readily available light.
-- Twisty has confirmed accessories that are activity being manufactured."
-------------------------------------------------

I believe the cost difference, even though at this time we don't know the exact difference, will be significant to many, and the quality and output of the Twisty versus the cost is excellent, in my opinion. In addition, in my view the relative toughness of the Twisty on the interior (extreme anti-shock and anti-moisture protection) and the exterior (relatively rough and scratch-resistant finish, super lens protection) would also be a material feature for the prospective buyer - although I'm sure the Arc6 is very tough, also.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jun 17, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> I think what I'll do is stop the test tonight in order to free up my meter for more testing and I'll leave the Ra running, taking samples every now and again.


A wise decision, I think. I'm not sure of exact details of tests run, but here's what I recall from the days of the HDS forum:
- An XR was guaranteed to run at 10lm for 10 hours
- From that, it was calculated (without factoring in any changes in efficiency) that the secondary of ~2.5lm would run at least 40 hours
- From that, the low of 0.33lm would run at least 320 hours
- I don't know how low anyone ever went with actual testing (maybe no lower than around 2.5lm), but whenever a low output test was run I think the lights tended to exceed the calculated runtimes by a considerable margin
- The 100Tw is now using an emitter that is roughly twice as efficient

Of course that's all from my memory and it's been over a year so it's not certain at all. I have no idea if the Ra would truly run for around 640 hours, but I think you'd better make sure you're truly ready when the time comes to find out.

Thanks for doing this stuff btw, great information.


----------



## tebore (Jun 17, 2008)

I tested Level 19 which is around 0.1 Lumen on a stock HDS at about 18 days runtime on a U60. 

0.33lm or Level 16 is only ranked for about 10 days. 

These are non-XR extrapolations. I did the test with a MP700 cell that wasn't topped up for a month. 

I assume a Duracell CR123 would give slightly longer runtimes.


----------



## Hans (Jun 17, 2008)

tebore said:


> I tested Level 19 which is around 0.1 Lumen on a stock HDS at about 18 days runtime on a U60.
> 0.33lm or Level 16 is only ranked for about 10 days.
> These are non-XR extrapolations. I did the test with a MP700 cell that wasn't topped up for a month.



I once tried that sort of thing with a stock HDS 42XR. On 0.33lm in ran for over 8 days on a Surefire primary until I stopped the test because I needed the light. Over 8 days was more than good enough in my book.

Hans


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 18, 2008)

Edit #2: So, I re-tested the Arc6 on L-4, while it was sunk into a glass of chilled water, with an ice-cube. The difference is that instead of stepping down at the 7-minute mark (shown in the graph), it lasted for 30-minutes until stepping down. Once stepped-down, the output was similar to what's shown, for a slightly shorter period of run-time. These results cause more confusion for me, rather than answering any questions.

It the Ra is running that long at a much higher output level compared to the Arc6, does that mean that 1) the Ra heat-sinking is that much more superior or 2) the Ra thermal-management system is not as sensitive or 3) the Arc6 went overboard with its thermal-management settings?


----------



## tebore (Jun 18, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> Edit #2: So, I re-tested the Arc6 on L-4, while it was sunk into a glass of chilled water, with an ice-cube. The difference is that instead of stepping down at the 7-minute mark (shown in the graph), it lasted for 30-minutes until stepping down. Once stepped-down, the output was similar to what's shown, for a slightly shorter period of run-time. These results cause more confusion for me, rather than answering any questions.
> 
> It the Ra is running that long at a much higher output level compared to the Arc6, does that mean that 1) the Ra heat-sinking is that much more superior or 2) the Ra thermal-management system is not as sensitive or 3) the Arc6 went overboard with its thermal-management settings?



Or the SSC used in the Ra is still more efficient than the K2TF thus at the same brightness level the SSC is being driven less hard. The reason why Peter used the K2TF is because of tint and the ability to be driven at a really really high level and handle the higher heat at the high level.


----------



## Moka (Jun 18, 2008)

Any chance of some beamshots???


----------



## Haz (Jun 18, 2008)

tebore said:


> Or the SSC used in the Ra is still more efficient than the K2TF thus at the same brightness level the SSC is being driven less hard. The reason why Peter used the K2TF is because of tint and the ability to be driven at a really really high level and handle the higher heat at the high level.


 
I'm curious to know what the answer is too. I can see the reason for tint may justify the inclusion of this led, however if you have to drive it harder to achieve the same brightness, is it really worth it. If you do not need to drive the SSC as high to achieve the same brightness as the K2TF, perhaps heat will be less of an issue, and the choice of the led comes down to tint only.


----------



## skalomax (Jun 22, 2008)

Thanks this is nascar!

You've just convinced me that I need one of these. :thumbsup:


----------



## TITAN1833 (Jun 22, 2008)

Thanks _this_is_nascar._
It seems this light is builing up quite a good reputation,I am being drawn to it the more I read from guys who own one.

That said,august is not that far away.If the clicky turns out as good, I will get one,as I prefer clickies anways.


----------



## cave dave (Nov 11, 2008)

Great review and great light, I'm surprised this thread faded away after only 50 posts.

No Twisty lovers out there? It obviously is a very efficient light.


----------



## thermal guy (Nov 11, 2008)

I LOVE mine!


----------



## shomie911 (Nov 11, 2008)

The 85-TR is the best EDC ever!

IMO nothing on the market has come close to the 85-TR. Especially not with the same size and beam format.


----------

