# Ra Clicky



## HDS_Systems (May 23, 2008)

I know many of you have been waiting a long time for this announcement. Wait no longer.

This thread is to discuss the technical aspects of the upcoming Ra Clicky flashlight. A preliminary description can be viewed here. We will be expanding the information available over the next month.

Henry.


----------



## xcel730 (May 23, 2008)

^^^ testing my paypal sent hotkey. I'll be getting one when they come out :thumbsup:


----------



## thermal guy (May 23, 2008)

Henry if you made a spark plug with a light on it I'd buy one I take it that the levels will be adjustable?


----------



## thermal guy (May 23, 2008)

Anybody else think that this might be a good time to get the HDS/RA threads started up again?


----------



## tebore (May 23, 2008)

Ok ok where's the pictures? 
Everything sounds like it's picking up where the EDC left off.

Henry what scheme have you taken on the clicky with regard to rechargeables? What I mean is with the Ra I just noticed that you said the light will just cut off to save the battery when the low voltage cut off is triggered. The EDC killed the battery inorder to give the user every bit of light. 

Will the Clicky save the life of the battery or the user? 

I'm surprised you choose to save the battery in the Twisty. What was the reason behind that decision?


----------



## Chronos (May 23, 2008)

GREAT news Henry!

Thanks. Now it looks like I have yet another flashlight in my future...


----------



## tebore (May 23, 2008)

thermal guy said:


> Anybody else think that this might be a good time to get the HDS/RA threads started up again?



pssh the threads? I want the section back, it was a great place for us HDS crazies to hang out.


----------



## Daniel_sk (May 23, 2008)

Finally a flashlight to look forward to.
(I am not excited about those many "300 lumen tacti-cool flashlights" I read on CPF these days).


----------



## HDS_Systems (May 23, 2008)

Tebore,

Per the manual:



> Warning: do not continue using a rechargeable battery once the
> flashlight has started blinking once a second. Continued use of a
> rechargeable battery past this point will result in sudden darkness
> when the light is eventually forced off to protect the battery.



This means that the battery has very little capacity remaining since it cannot even drive the lowest level. The difference in runtime between saving the battery and destroying the battery at this power level is so small as to not be meaningful - a matter of minutes. We decided it was better to error on the side of safety.

Henry.


----------



## Brownstone (May 23, 2008)

:mecry: - No pictures, I'm so frustrated!

Also, the description doesn't say what size battery. 3xAAA I assume


----------



## tebore (May 23, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> Tebore,
> 
> Per the manual:
> 
> ...



Will the clicky retain this design? That's disappointing I would have preferred the old way. A few minutes is a few minutes, I'd take those minutes over saving the battery.


----------



## wrencher (May 23, 2008)

The only question is, should I cancel my twisty order or get them both. Henry your KILLING ME!


----------



## Daniel_sk (May 23, 2008)

tebore said:


> Will the clicky retain this design? That's disappointing I would have preferred the old way. A few minutes is a few minutes, I'd take those minutes over saving the battery.


But this goes only for rechargeables, or not? I would never rely on a rechargeable in critical situations (of course, sometimes you don't have the choice).


----------



## derfyled (May 23, 2008)

This is really a sad news for my wallet...

Another vote to bring back the old HDS section on CPF.:thumbsup:

About the battery: I like the way the old EDC tells you that you are going to kill your battery if you choose not to change it. You get warned but if you're in an emergency situation, the light won't turn off. 

I really like the fact that you don't have to worry if your li-ion is not protected.


----------



## gadgetnerd (May 23, 2008)

Can't wait! Is this going to be sold through the usual distributors Henry?


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (May 23, 2008)

So glad there are 4 levels!!
4 levels is the best in my opinion.... 
What i'd like to know is if there might just happen to be CR and CW versions (like TR and TW)... How sweet would it be to have low red, and three levels of programmable white?? Man i'd be all over that.


----------



## Russki (May 23, 2008)

Thanks Henry.
Desperately waiting for more information.
:thumbsup:


----------



## gottawearshades (May 23, 2008)

This is great news. I'll be standing in line for this one.

The Website says it will be the "smallest." I hope it's not TOO small. The Fenix P2D can be tough to use. One thing I like about the Novatac/HDS design is that it's wide enough to fill the hand. Sometimes I find a skinnier light like the SF L1 is not as comfortable as my Novatac when I'm wearing heavy gloves, because I feel like I'm going to drop it.


----------



## karlthev (May 23, 2008)

Well Henry, I looked for your PM address and can't seem to find it and, I looked for an e-mail address with the same result Henry, no dice. What I was just going to post should be in a PM or an e-mail but, if need be, I'll be happy to air on the forums--your choice.


Karl


----------



## HDS_Systems (May 23, 2008)

Wrencher,

Both, of course. 

Tebore,

That aspect of the design will remain the same.

GadgetNerd,

Through the regular dealers.

Enzo Morocioli,

The output options available with the Ra Twisty will carry over to the Ra Clicky.

GottaWareShades,

Per the web page, it is 1" in diameter. I think you will find it conformable in your hand.

Karl,

The e-mail address is on our web site under the "Contact Us" heading.

Henry.


----------



## LA OZ (May 23, 2008)

Henry, how about allowing lighthound to be a dealer as well. I like to shop there.


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER (May 23, 2008)

wrencher said:


> The only question is, should I cancel my twisty order or get them both. Henry your KILLING ME!



If the U.I. of the Ra Clicky is anything close to Novatac’s you will need to buy them both. The Ra Twisty is clearly the most unique light in my collection that is for sure.


----------



## xcel730 (May 23, 2008)

Henry, I hope once comes out, there will not be any one-month wait time from order to receive. I wanted to get a RA twisty, but didn't have the patience to wait for a month. 

+1 for lighthound as a dealer. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dead_Nuts (May 23, 2008)

Can you say "Novatac Killer"?!?


----------



## xcel730 (May 23, 2008)

I hope the Ra Clicky and my Novatac 120P could coexist. They may not be immediate family, but ... relatives?


----------



## sledhead (May 23, 2008)

I've been able to resist the twisty this long, with the hope of a clicky in the future. This is great news! Thank-you Henry. Please let it be able to tailstand!


----------



## seery (May 23, 2008)

sledhead said:


> Please let it be able to tailstand!



+1


----------



## paulr (May 23, 2008)

xcel730 said:


> Henry, I hope once comes out, there will not be any one-month wait time from order to receive. I wanted to get a RA twisty, but didn't have the patience to wait for a month.



I'm presuming that the Twisty backlog will clear up eventually and it will be possible to buy a light without waiting. I'm not in a big hurry so I'll just sit by til then.

Henry, does the stated 88g weight include the battery?


----------



## BytorJr (May 23, 2008)

I love my Novatac 120P, I hope the Ra Clicky will be even better...

The user interface to the 120P is superior to my U60GT (unmodified), and the switch feels more positive (though I don't know if it's better). However, there is something about the U60GT that just seems better in quality. I like the Novatac Beam better, but it could be ever so slightly tighter focused, but not as tight as the U60GT; somewhere midway between. I'd also like to see 150-180 lumens as max, not 120.

As Henry is my favourite producer of flashlights (followed closely by Orb and yes...Surefire), I'm counting on a kick booty light!!

And yes, Henry..another vote for Lighthound. That's where I got hooked on your light, so it's only fitting...unless some other contractual agreement doesn't allow you to let him sell. 

Thanks and keep up the good work.


----------



## Dead_Nuts (May 23, 2008)

Don't get me wrong, I own two Novatac's and absolutely love them. But if Henry comes through with light that has the Novatac UI (which it sounds like the Clicky will have), but built like the Twisty; Novatac will have to take a back seat to the Clicky. Now I don't sell lights (just like I don't sell guns), but the rotation of the ones I routinely carry could change dramatically.


----------



## xcel730 (May 23, 2008)

I agree. I love my Novatac. Never had an HDS light before, so I can't compare. From what all the CPFers say, HDS quality is top notch. Regardless, I will not sell my Novatac ... love that light too much. It may see a little less daylight and sit quietly in my drawer.



Dead_Nuts said:


> Don't get me wrong, I own two Novatac's and absolutely love them. But if Henry comes through with light that has the Novatac UI (which it sounds like the Clicky will have), but built like the Twisty; Novatac will have to take a back seat to the Clicky. Now I don't sell lights (just like I don't sell guns), but the rotation of the ones I routinely carry could change dramatically.


----------



## ChocolateLab33 (May 23, 2008)

Henry, 

Me and my pocketbook hate you. NOT! Just kidding. This will be a must have. I'm glad I have a while to save up.




My Ra 100 is in my pocket right now.......:naughty:


----------



## matrixshaman (May 24, 2008)

Thanks Henry for the great news! For serious EDC I've decided my primary light has to be a clicky so I'm thrilled to hear the Ra will soon be 'clickable' 
I have no doubt this is going to be an AWESOME light and that I'll definitely get one. +1 what excel730 said ' testing my paypal sent hotkey '  

Having read the info page on the Ra clicky I would not change a thing guys. Henry puts a great deal of thought into these and it sounds perfect to me! 

 TTF (twitchy trigger finger)


----------



## Zeige (May 24, 2008)

hmmm, looks like Ill need more pockets.... time to get used to Cargo Pants


----------



## HoopleHead (May 24, 2008)

definitely in!


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (May 24, 2008)

Thanks for your reply Henry. That's good news to me!

On another note, I can't hardly wait to start up the Ra Clicky Registry.....
I just ordered a Ra-85-Tr, and as far as the Clicky goes, I'm going to proceed in the 'buy both' CPF tradition.

..I'm really looking forward to some pictures too..


----------



## FrogmanM (May 24, 2008)

Glad to hear the HDS SN tracker guy now has his own HDS!
+1 for lighthound as a supplier!

Mayo


----------



## senna94 (May 24, 2008)

Lighthound is a great dealer and I wish they would start selling HDS Ra products as well. However, I seem to recall hearing that because of Lighthounds association with Novatac this is not a probability. I don't know exactly why but this seems to be the reason.


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (May 24, 2008)

FrogmanM said:


> Glad to hear the HDS SN tracker guy now has his own HDS!



Had to save up!


----------



## mightysparrow (May 24, 2008)

Wow! Great news! I'm sure it will be the ultimate clicky. I love my Twisties, but I will want one of these, too, naturally. I hope the price is within my range. I will look forward to hearing more about this.....


----------



## yaesumofo (May 24, 2008)

I am guessing that this is Henry's version of an ARC VI (ARC PD) Killer.
If the price is the same as the RA and the levels are adjustable I suspect that he will do just that since it is clear that the ARC VI is going to be somewhat MORE expensive and the output on high will likely NOT be any higher. Peter claims that his arcVI will be the brightest single cell light on the market.
I seriously doubt that the ARC Vi is brighter than my a10 Cree driven at close to the Cree's maximum...It is extremely bright.
Anyway The 120 lumens from the RA clicky should be plenty.
I have come to really like the light from the golden dragon emitter..
I hope this turns out to be a good light.


Yaesumofo


----------



## Nekolf (May 24, 2008)

Enzo Morocioli said:


> I just ordered a Ra-85-Tr, and as far as the Clicky goes, I'm going to proceed in the 'buy both' CPF tradition.


 
Me too.
I completed an order for a Twisty 85-Tr just a few minutes ago. It was before I know the announcement of the Clicky.
If I know this before I order a Twisty...I will buy both after all.


----------



## Buffalohump (May 24, 2008)

+ 1 to that!

Battery Station doesn't ship to a lot of places (like my country for example). Lighthound ships anywhere!



LA OZ said:


> Henry, how about allowing lighthound to be a dealer as well. I like to shop there.


----------



## Oddjob (May 24, 2008)

Great news! I hope it will be less than $200.00 although I'll probably get one no matter what the price.:thumbsup:


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 24, 2008)

It is sad that this great light will be 95 mm long. That`s even longer then the twisty and much longer then the Nova.
At least for me 95 mm for a 1 cr123 light is just a tad to long for comfort pocket carry. 

Please try to make it 8,5 cm 

Ps.: I find the rechargable battery protection perfect.

Will there be a locator beacon Henry ?


----------



## karlthev (May 24, 2008)

E-mail to you Henry.



Karl


----------



## m16a (May 24, 2008)

Oh my gosh. I have died and gone to heaven. Twisty ruggedness with a clicky switch. I want one.....

few quick questions. Pictures? I assume its going to run on a single CR123a am I right? Finally, price so I can know what I'm saving for:thumbsup::thumbsup:

M16a



PS: Small site typo. When describing the clicky switch, it says


Ra's site said:


> his interface has proven to be simple, elegant and *vary* popular



I assume this is supposed to be very.


----------



## souptree (May 24, 2008)

My U60XRGT just turned green (with envy). Henry, will I be able to get a RaClicky at the identical color temperature as the GT? If this requires some special effort on your part, I am happy to pay extra for the feature. It is a very important feature to me, and may be the decider on sticking with my U60XRGT or upgrading to this new release. My U60XRGT is my benchmark light and I compare ALL other lights to it. There is no light that I own that renders colors across the entire spectrum more correctly. I would feel a little off upgrading to a new version to it and compromising on this most wonderful of features.

I too believe that HDS/Ra should have it's own CPF forum (and ALWAYS should have!). I also believe that Henry should be the one pushing for it's (re)creation with the mods. Maybe there has been discussion on this topic somewhere and I missed it?

Congrats on the new release, Henry. I know a lot of us have been looking forward to the REAL followup to the EDC series for quite some time. :thumbsup:


----------



## SaturnNyne (May 24, 2008)

souptree said:


> will I be able to get a RaClicky at the identical color temperature as the GT? If this requires some special effort on your part, I am happy to pay extra for the feature. It is a very important feature to me, and may be the decider on sticking with my U60XRGT or upgrading to this new release...I would feel a little off upgrading to a new version to it and compromising on this most wonderful of features.


So true. This is the main reason I've recently gone back to EDC-ing my B42XRGT instead of the 120P (though I get plenty of use from both). After the initial excitement over newly increased power, runtime, and options dies down, you start to reconsider the features that are truly important to you. Turns out tint is what matters to me in an edc, so I'm now very reluctant to buy an expensive edc light from anyone who won't address this issue to some degree. From the sounds of it, Henry is keeping his current tints pretty good and consistent, but I'd like to hear what he has to say about both the current tints he's using and the possibility of a GT option in the future.




souptree said:


> I too believe that HDS/Ra should have it's own CPF forum (and ALWAYS should have!).


YES!! Honestly, is there anyone here, aside from those in a position to make it happen, that doesn't think there should still be an HDS forum?


----------



## BytorJr (May 24, 2008)

I concur that it is a bit on the long side, and any possible way to shrink it should be taken.


----------



## tsask (May 24, 2008)

This sounds great! I would be even happier if Henry makes a 'retro version like the U 60'


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 24, 2008)

Regarding an HDS forum, I think Henry has to become involved before that can happen. He would be the primary HDS forum moderator. Henry approaches Greta who would have to give he go ahead. Henry may not want to do that at this time, I am guessing, as it does take some time to keep track of the different threads.

Bill


----------



## tebore (May 24, 2008)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Regarding an HDS forum, I think Henry has to become involved before that can happen. He would be the primary HDS forum moderator. Henry approaches Greta who would have to give he go ahead. Henry may not want to do that at this time, I am guessing, as it does take some time to keep track of the different threads.
> 
> Bill



Or Henry can ask someone to moderate for him. LuxLover and Thermal guy would be the guys that come to my mind.


----------



## Dead_Nuts (May 24, 2008)

I am also concerned about the length. My 120P is just about the same length as my 100Tw. Another 6mm would be significant, but I'm guessing it will be worth the down-sides.


----------



## tebore (May 24, 2008)

The old EDC with a Ti bezel is 85mm according to my "acme" ruler. 

I assume the extra mm is coming from a beefed up lens and bezel compared to the old EDC.


----------



## AvroArrow (May 25, 2008)

tebore, I think you meant 85mm because my U60GT w/Novatac black SS ring is 85.5mm long and 26mm diameter. It's great that Henry is coming out with a clicky soon but at 95mm long, it's a bit too long for my taste in an EDC light. My current EDC is a LunaSol20 and that's already pushing my personal limit at 89mm. I like my 1x123 EDC lights to be as small as possible. 

As for the other people who asked Henry to make it smaller, I don't think that's possible this late in the game for the Ra Clicky since it's expected release is only 2 months from now. Maybe for Henry's next clicky project?


----------



## paxxus (May 25, 2008)

I could imagine that it would be very difficult to reduce the length without compromising the extreme ruggedness of these lights. A significantly shorter version sounds like a completely new construction with a totally different and more conventional design philosophy, a category which is crowded with competition. As it is, the Ra lights are truly unique and I kind of like that - a lot


----------



## JohnTz (May 25, 2008)

Henry, thanks for more good news. The clicky will be a stable mate to my twisty!

+1 on the HDS/Ra forum section.


----------



## olrac (May 25, 2008)

count me in :thumbsup:


----------



## Dadof6 (May 25, 2008)

I ordered two Ra's in February and still haven't received them. When should I order the clickies to get them by Christmas?


----------



## cave dave (May 25, 2008)

Some of the extra length will come from the dual springs which protects the battery from heavy impact.

Anyway two words:

"18650 Tube!"


----------



## adnj (May 25, 2008)

What!? How did I miss this thread?!


----------



## adnj (May 25, 2008)

I don't see that. The Arc is more of a Surefire switch design. Two level (or three) press and twist on. The interface on the HDS was superior (according to Quickbeam) to anything on the market. Interface alone means that the only competition is the Novatac and maybe the new Liteflux XT light.


yaesumofo said:


> I am guessing that this is Henry's version of an ARC VI (ARC PD) Killer.
> If the price is the same as the RA and the levels are adjustable I suspect that he will do just that since it is clear that the ARC VI is going to be somewhat MORE expensive and the output on high will likely NOT be any higher.


----------



## tsask (May 25, 2008)

bring back that HDS look and feel please Henry!
:twothumbs August can't get here soon enough


----------



## turbodog (May 25, 2008)

Dadof6 said:


> I ordered two Ra's in February and still haven't received them. When should I order the clickies to get them by Christmas?



Last year, but that's cutting it close.


----------



## thermal guy (May 25, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Last year, but that's cutting it close.


----------



## Ty_Bower (May 25, 2008)

It's not like you to announce a light until it's ready to ship to the dealers. What's up?


----------



## gottawearshades (May 25, 2008)

souptree said:


> My U60XRGT just turned green (with envy). Henry, will I be able to get a RaClicky at the identical color temperature as the GT? If this requires some special effort on your part, I am happy to pay extra for the feature.


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (May 25, 2008)

Ty_Bower said:


> It's not like you to announce a light until it's ready to ship to the dealers. What's up?



I don't mean to speak for anybody, but I think Henry is giving a lot of us what we wanted.. We assumed something was coming, all these hints and rumors floating around... So Henry did some work on his site, and thankfully gave us a decent glimpse of his up and coming light. This isn't an announcement of the light for sale, just a confirmation of what many of us were hoping to know; The Ra Clicky is coming!


----------



## Hans (May 25, 2008)

paxxus said:


> I could imagine that it would be very difficult to reduce the length without compromising the extreme ruggedness of these lights. A significantly shorter version sounds like a completely new construction with a totally different and more conventional design philosophy, a category which is crowded with competition.



I think that's the point. Given that there are small lights running on 1xAAA nowadays with multiple levels, decent output and runtime, I don't really think there's that much of a market for a small high quality 1xCR123 light that doesn't have any "special" features. 

Sure, a "small" HDS 1xCR123 would still be running circles around most of the current crop of 1xAAA lights, but for many purposes a good 1xAAA is really good enough. Henry's new lights are so special because they're extremely rugged, more rugged than almost any other light out there. I may not want to carry one of the new lights on a day-to-day basis, at least not during the summer months, but whenever I know I may have to rely totally on my lights I'll take one of Henry's new lights above anything else.

Hans


----------



## Ritch (May 25, 2008)

Will there be a locator flash? Can I hope for a little more throw than the NovaTac has? Beam caracteristics like the "old" EDC Ultimates? If possible, you could offer two reflector types. One for more throw, the other a little more floody. 

Please choose the Hound as dealer, too. It's very important for non-Americans. 

> richard


----------



## HoopleHead (May 25, 2008)

+1 for a locator flash please!!


----------



## Russki (May 25, 2008)

I like the idea of light being very robust and reliable, even in sacrifice of size.
This is new concept of HDS I guess. Still it is not that big.
Look on different light if you want smaller design.
For instance new Arc6, very nice looking light, size of old Arc LS.
Well I doubt it will handle abuse new HDS can handle.


----------



## zenas (May 26, 2008)

+1 on Lighthound as dealer! Indeed it's easier for some of us (in germany) because they accept paypal!!! 

Back to topic: Nice light, seems to be a "must have" although I never wanted to spend so much money on (such a little) light. Let me get it and I may think of this one being my last flashlight. :twothumbs

Waiting for more info like pictures


----------



## paulr (May 26, 2008)

I like tritium vials much better than locator flashes. I don't know how it affects impact resistance but I haven't been terribly careful with my McLux Ti PD Mule.


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (May 26, 2008)

paulr said:


> I like tritium vials much better than locator flashes. I don't know how it affects impact resistance but I haven't been terribly careful with my McLux Ti PD Mule.



Hm...Tritium would be cool if there was a protected but visible place for them to mount.


----------



## adnj (May 26, 2008)

Custom bezel with tritium, maybe.


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 26, 2008)

+1 as an extra


----------



## HDS_Systems (May 26, 2008)

M16A,

Thanks for letting us know about typos.

SoupTree,

We have been considering bringing back the GT (guaranteed tint) models, but it requires a specialized production process to manufacture and qualify GT flashlights. At this point we are not set up for that and it may take several months before we can implement the needed processes.

Ty_Bower,

The circumstances were different this time and everyone already knew - so this was more of a formalization of common knowledge. There are other models that that will not be announced until release time.

Ritch,

Didn't I mention the locator flash? I guess not. I also forgot to mention the settable turn-on setting. Consider them both added.

PaulR,

Tritium vials can survive large shock loads as long as they are properly potted.

Henry.


----------



## seery (May 26, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> Didn't I mention the locator flash? I guess not. I also forgot to mention the settable turn-on setting. Consider them both added.
> 
> Henry.


----------



## sbebenelli (May 26, 2008)

Will the Clicky have a clip option in the future like the twisty?


----------



## ViReN (May 26, 2008)

+1 for tritium on SS Bezel


----------



## HDS_Systems (May 26, 2008)

Sbebenelli,

We are planning a clip for the Ra Clicky.

Henry.


----------



## Buffalohump (May 27, 2008)

Better and better....

Man, this is so going to be the ultimate light for me....


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 27, 2008)

What`s so special about being able to set the turn-on-setting? Isn`t this a regular brightness setting or didn`t the old hds lights have it?

Another question for the Hds pro`s here ... Can you acess 2 light levels from off? I mean I was under the impression that you can turn on the light by a simple click and it lights on the primary setting you set. But that you can also press the button but not release it and it will go into maximum right away from off . Is that correct?

I hope it is correct because it is very useful to be able to acces 2 different light levels without having to click multiple times from the off position.


----------



## Highbeam101 (May 27, 2008)

Was all set to pull the trigger on the 120p.
Now what...


----------



## Dead_Nuts (May 27, 2008)

lumenlover2 said:


> What`s so special about being able to set the turn-on-setting? Isn`t this a regular brightness setting or didn`t the old hds lights have it?
> 
> Another question for the Hds pro`s here ... Can you acess 2 light levels from off? I mean I was under the impression that you can turn on the light by a simple click and it lights on the primary setting you set. But that you can also press the button but not release it and it will go into maximum right away from off . Is that correct?
> 
> I hope it is correct because it is very useful to be able to acces 2 different light levels without having to click multiple times from the off position.



I guess only Henry can answer this question exactly, but . . .

If it's anything like the Novatac UI, you have only one option from off -- turning the light on to whatever level you've programmed as primary. Now, once on, you can momentary press to a different user-set level without actually switching to that mode. I have mine programmed to go highest level when I do this, but the light has to be on first. You could also assign strobe to this slot; allowing it to be available from any of the other settings by a momentary press.

This is what I love about the 120P. It can be set up for different tasks. If it were used as a duty light (LEO), it could be set to turn on at the highest level, with strobe a simple press away. If it's for outdoor/survival use, it can be programmed to always come on in the lowest setting first; allowing maximum run time with higher levels available as needed.


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 27, 2008)

Hm that would be too bad . It would be a 100 times more practical if one could just push and release the button for primary mode (whatever lightlevel assigned) and also be able to just push and hold not releasing the button for say about 1 second or so and the chip would realize that and turn to max (or other set brightness) without having to klick on and then clicking for the desired other level... .
Hope you read that Henry . That way one could always have 2 levels directly from off with just one push. 

That would be outstanding.


----------



## paxxus (May 27, 2008)

The problem with my HDS is that momentary selects the last selected level (or primary), but that's not what I want. I'd rather have the following functionality:

From off:
1. Press and hold: Momentarily select max (light turns off when button is released).
2. Click + press: Select max.
3. Click: Select last selected (or primary if force=1).

Will it be possible to configure the new Clicky like that?

Edit: I also don't understand what "settable turn-on setting" means and how that is different from the HDS Ultimate.


----------



## MikeG1P315 (May 27, 2008)

the novatac ui allows you to go from off to primary (click on) or to 'maximum' (whatever lumen level you have assigned to that selection) by click-press-RELEASE from off. Tthis is also henry's design, so i bet the clicky will be similar if not better. i would like to have access to 3 if not all 4 levels from off.


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 27, 2008)

MikeG1P315 said:


> the novatac ui allows you to go from off to primary (click on) or to 'maximum' (whatever lumen level you have assigned to that selection) by click-press-RELEASE from off. Tthis is also henry's design, so i bet the clicky will be similar if not better. i would like to have access to 3 if not all 4 levels from off.


 
A bit confused sorry , what "click-press" means... does it mean click then release and click again and hold or does it mean click once without releasing and you have turbo?


----------



## paxxus (May 27, 2008)

MikeG1P315 said:


> the novatac ui allows you to go from off to primary (click on) or to 'maximum' (whatever lumen level you have assigned to that selection) by click-press from off. this is also henry's design, so i bet the clicky will be similar if not better. p i would like to have access to 3 if not all 4 levels from off.


Yes, but you can't momentarily select max (my 1. above) as far as I know. You can go from off directly to max, and that is cool too, but that is not momentary and you have now selected max, which means the light will come on at max the next time you turn it on (unless the force setting is set).

BTW. In 1. the light would have to come on at whatever level a click turns the light on at, and then shortly after, when it is detected that it is a press, the max momentary mode would be entered.


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 27, 2008)

paxxus said:


> The problem with my HDS is that momentary selects the last selected level (or primary), but that's not what I want. I'd rather have the following functionality:
> 
> From off:
> 1. Press and hold: Momentarily select max (light turns off when button is released).
> ...


 
mine would be 
from off:
1. click once -- light turns to 1. setting
2. click but don`t release the button -- light goes to max or other defined level


----------



## MikeG1P315 (May 27, 2008)

hey guys... my mistake. i misread the momentary part. click-release-press release quickly from off to turn on to your 'max'. and unless you have force enabled it will click on to max the next time. i would like two momemtary levels from off and 3 on levels from off. but that might be pushing the complexity way out there.


----------



## souptree (May 27, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> SoupTree,
> 
> We have been considering bringing back the GT (guaranteed tint) models, but it requires a specialized production process to manufacture and qualify GT flashlights. At this point we are not set up for that and it may take several months before we can implement the needed processes.
> 
> Henry.



Thank you very much for the response, Henry. I can accept a few months additional wait, as I consider this feature to be something good enough to be worth waiting for. I will try to give you a couple reminders of my interest over the next few months without being too annoying.  :wave:



I am actually a little surprised there aren't more calls for *GT lights*, not just from Henry, but from other vendors as well. Maybe people just haven't experienced truly excellent color rendition with an LED and their expectations on that score are consequently lower than they maybe could or should be? Henry, you really spoiled me with that light! :nana:

BTW, I also echo the request someone posted above for a *smooth reflector*, along the lines of the original EDC over any orange peeling. :thumbsup: I keep a SF F04 on my HDS and get the best of both worlds for throw and flood.


----------



## Dead_Nuts (May 27, 2008)

paxxus said:


> BTW. In 1. the light would have to come on at whatever level a click turns the light on at, and then shortly after, when it is detected that it is a press, the max momentary mode would be entered.



Yes, that would be the case. So you still do not have 2 directly accessible modes from off; as the "momentary" would be delayed. I don't believe I've ever seen a UI that did this.


----------



## paxxus (May 27, 2008)

Dead_Nuts said:


> Yes, that would be the case. So you still do not have 2 directly accessible modes from off; as the "momentary" would be delayed. I don't believe I've ever seen a UI that did this.


I don't see a big problem by delaying the max less than half a second. But anyway, let me try to explain what function I'm interested in without going into click/press details.

Firstly, I don't use the force primary setting. I select the level appropriate for the job and use that level while turning the light on and off as needed. If I need the light while repairing the car I would select the primary, if I need the light for low level illumination in the dark I would select secondary or low. So, no force primary for me as I don't want to reprogram my light for each task.

Now, I would still want the ability to do momentary bursts on max WITHOUT changing the mode of the light. Imagine you have selected low for e.g. occasional map reading in the dark, if you see something in the distance you might want a max burst to see what it is. When you're done with the momentary max burst and you release the button the light turns off, and the next time you click the button (for map reading) it should of course turn on at low.

As far as I can tell there is no way of having the above functionality (max burst from off), you can only:

1. (NovaTac only) Click+press. You go from off to max, but it is not momentary since the light stays on and the next time you turn the light on it has selected max.
2. Turn the light on, then press for max momentary, then turn the light off. This is momentary, and the light has not changed mode. But alas, it's not from off.
3. (NovaTac only) Use force primary and reprogram the primary to the level needed for your current activity, then use click+press from off to get max. It not momentary as the light stays on but at least you don't blast your eyes the next time you turn the light on. But you have to reprogram your light for each activity.

As you can see, real "momentary max from off" is not available either way. The following is a suggestion to achieve this functionality, with the only draw-back being that the light will initially come on at primary/last-used level until the controller after a fraction of a second detects that is was a press and not a click.

From off:
1. Press and hold: Momentarily select max (light turns off when button is released).
2. Click + press: Select max.
3. Click: Select last selected (or primary if force=1).


----------



## Blindasabat (May 27, 2008)

The Novatac will return to previous level after a click-press when set to momentary. Then you have a click on or momentary at one level and click-press for momentary max or whatever you program "max" to.


----------



## paxxus (May 27, 2008)

Blindasabat said:


> The Novatac will return to previous level after a click-press when set to momentary. Then you have a click on or momentary at one level and click-press for momentary max or whatever you program "max" to.


Really? Cool - I'll try that!


----------



## kromeke (May 27, 2008)

paxxus said:


> As far as I can tell there is no way of having the above functionality (max burst from off), you can only:
> 
> 1. (NovaTac only) Click+press. You go from off to max, but it is not momentary since the light stays on and the next time you turn the light on it has selected max.
> 2. Turn the light on, then press for max momentary, then turn the light off. This is momentary, and the light has not changed mode. But alas, it's not from off.
> ...



On my Novatacs, I have this programming:
Force setting on lowest programmable level
Momentary is on
From off, I can click + press, and have momentary high (or any other level) The first click causes the light to come on(at the lowest setting), the press sets it to "primary" (which can be any level), when I release, it goes off. If I click once, it comes on at the lowest level (my preference). A double click toggles between the lowest, and one that is higher. A press (while on) results in the "primary" setting. Triple click gives another level(one that I seldom use).

Personally, I'd like to be able to select any of the 4 levels from off, but with one button, this would require a delay for the light to interpret commands. You can't satisfy everyone with one product.


----------



## paxxus (May 27, 2008)

Blindasabat said:


> The Novatac will return to previous level after a click-press when set to momentary. Then you have a click on or momentary at one level and click-press for momentary max or whatever you program "max" to.


My goodness you're right, didn't know that! 

Still, I think it would be even better if you could just press the button instead of the click+press. When you have to react quickly just pressing is more intuitive IMO.


----------



## Dead_Nuts (May 27, 2008)

I think I understand what you would like and why. I have never seen a UI like that, however. The Novatac probably comes the closest, if programmed properly.


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 27, 2008)

Sure you can`t make it right for everyone but as i read here there seems to be a good interest in the ability to get into at least 2 levels from off, preferably by click and push-hold without 2 or more clicks.
And the delay could be designed very insignificant/short with a good timeframe. That would also be a plus for most I think over the nova ui which is pretty good but as you see there is still the ability to improve.


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 27, 2008)

paxxus said:


> My goodness you're right, didn't know that!
> 
> Still, I think it would be even better if you could just press the button instead of the click+press. When you have to react quickly just pressing is more intuitive IMO.


 
+1


----------



## paxxus (May 27, 2008)

kromeke said:


> You can't satisfy everyone with one product.


Just a "momentary max" the way I described and I'd be happy :naughty:

Today (on the NovaTacs), as I just learned, you can get momentary max with the click+press, the effect is that the light first turns on at primary/last-used level (as you do the click) and then goes to max as you do the press. If a "momentary max" mode is introduced you achieve the same (first dim then max) with only a press - much faster and more intuitive IMO.


----------



## xcel730 (May 27, 2008)

Ra Click sounds very promising. I can't wait for photos. I assume it'll look slightly different from the old EDC line, since HDS already sold that line to Novatac ... or can they still use the same form factor?


----------



## sawlight (May 27, 2008)

paxxus said:


> Just a "momentary max" the way I described and I'd be happy :naughty:
> 
> Today (on the NovaTacs), as I just learned, you can get momentary max with the click+press, the effect is that the light first turns on at primary/last-used level (as you do the click) and then goes to max as you do the press. If a "momentary max" mode is introduced you achieve the same (first dim then max) with only a press - much faster and more intuitive IMO.


 

The Novatac does have "momentary max", just click and hold and high comes on (factory settings) let off and you go back to the mode you where in.
Seems this is getting more complicated than it really is.


----------



## paxxus (May 27, 2008)

sawlight said:


> The Novatac does have "momentary max", just click and hold and high comes on (factory settings) let off and you go back to the mode you where in.
> Seems this is getting more complicated than it really is.


On the contrary, I'm suggesting a simplification for the user who wants momentary max. Press is certainly simpler than click+press :thinking:

Anyway, enough of this, I've made my point.


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 27, 2008)

paxxus said:


> On the contrary, I'm suggesting a simplification for the user who wants momentary max. Press is certainly simpler than click+press :thinking:
> 
> Anyway, enough of this, I've made my point.


 

+ 1 again ... lol


----------



## sawlight (May 27, 2008)

So buy a P version and progam it so it comes on high like the T version?
I don't know really how to resolve you're question, you can set the P to do about anything you want. There was an HDS GTLE that came on high also.
Lots of HDS style choices.


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 28, 2008)

sawlight said:


> So buy a P version and progam it so it comes on high like the T version?
> I don't know really how to resolve you're question, you can set the P to do about anything you want. There was an HDS GTLE that came on high also.
> Lots of HDS style choices.


 
That was not the intention read carefully.


----------



## HDS_Systems (May 28, 2008)

LumenLover2,

Setting the turn-on setting - called the force setting in previous models - allows you to determine which of 5 possible settings your light turns on to when you turn it on - i.e., one of the 4 presets or the setting it was on when you turned it off.

You can access the turn-on setting and the maximum setting from off. The command would be a click press for the maximum setting from off. This is required because if you have the momentary mode activated, press from off is just momentary (click is non-momentary).

Note that the word click means a quick push and release of the button while a press is a long push. It is sort of like the difference between clicking with a mouse button to select an icon or position in text and dragging with a mouse button to select multiple items or multiple characters in text.

Paxxus,

The difficulty in doing things as you suggest is the required delays needed to distinguish the commands in an unambiguous way. Most people expect the light to come on immediately during the down stroke - with out any delay to differentiate a click from a press.

In our UI, you will get what you want if you turn on the momentary feature and turn off the turn-on (force) setting. A click press from off will then give you temporary maximum and the light will turn on to whatever setting you used last (it will ignore the temporary maximum usage).

Dead_Nuts,

We did prototype that interface but it was rather annoying to use in practice. That is why we settled on the current method. And it interfered with another desirable feature. Creating an internally consistent interface that supports several features is more difficult than you think.

Henry.


----------



## Gladius01 (May 28, 2008)

Ra Clicky is the next EDC that going to have new standard of built quality and design for others to do bench make for.

I can't wait to have this Ra Clicky to be out, maybe there is pass around for us to have first hand to test it. MAYBE.....

Something to look forward to.


----------



## boness (May 28, 2008)

I,m in for one :twothumbs


----------



## Gladius01 (May 28, 2008)

boness said:


> I,m in for one :twothumbs


 
You come in the right place. :welcome:


----------



## Flyhigh (May 29, 2008)

LA OZ said:


> Henry, how about allowing lighthound to be a dealer as well. I like to shop there.



+1


----------



## m16a (May 29, 2008)

Is it just me or does the novatac UI sound fairly complicated? I don't have one so I don't get to use it every day, but it sounds kinda confusing. How about a simpler switch like a forward tactical? Momentary on full. Then full depress gets you low, half press for medium low, half press for medium, half press for high? Something like that maybe? I don't know if anyone else likes that style.


----------



## xcel730 (May 29, 2008)

Though the Novatac UI seems intimidating, it's actually quick easy to use ... and once you fine the level you want, you pretty much keep it . It has a lot of options, so I lost about an hour of my life playing with it when it came out.



m16a said:


> Is it just me or does the novatac UI sound fairly complicated? I don't have one so I don't get to use it every day, but it sounds kinda confusing. How about a simpler switch like a forward tactical? Momentary on full. Then full depress gets you low, half press for medium low, half press for medium, half press for high? Something like that maybe? I don't know if anyone else likes that style.


----------



## Dead_Nuts (May 29, 2008)

m16a said:


> Is it just me or does the novatac UI sound fairly complicated? I don't have one so I don't get to use it every day, but it sounds kinda confusing. How about a simpler switch like a forward tactical? Momentary on full. Then full depress gets you low, half press for medium low, half press for medium, half press for high? Something like that maybe? I don't know if anyone else likes that style.



That is the way many lights work, but the Novatac UI allows the user to access any level level from "ON", instead of having to go through unwanted levels to get what you want. It also allows you to have any level at any setting. It really isn't as hard to use as it is to describe (or program for that matter). Because I hve to wear dress clothes many days, I only carry my Novatac (or RA, as of late) one or two times a week -- but I never forget how to get it to do what I want. After all, I programmed it to work the way that I want it to!


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (May 29, 2008)

m16a said:


> Is it just me or does the novatac UI sound fairly complicated? I don't have one so I don't get to use it every day, but it sounds kinda confusing. How about a simpler switch like a forward tactical? Momentary on full. Then full depress gets you low, half press for medium low, half press for medium, half press for high? Something like that maybe? I don't know if anyone else likes that style.



That method would introduce limitations when it came to finding click/press patterns to reach programming other features of the software. It would also mean that we would have to cycle through levels. What you described sounds similar to a Fenix UI, minus the forward momentary.. It might work for some, but I'm not so sure that it would mesh well with the anticipated features/use of the Clicky.


----------



## gottawearshades (May 29, 2008)

This topic comes up perennially. No. It is not complicated. Use the light for twenty minutes, and you'll never look back.





m16a said:


> Is it just me or does the novatac UI sound fairly complicated? I don't have one so I don't get to use it every day, but it sounds kinda confusing.


----------



## yaesumofo (May 29, 2008)

It is just you.
Yaesumofo



m16a said:


> Is it just me or does the novatac UI sound fairly complicated? I don't have one so I don't get to use it every day, but it sounds kinda confusing. How about a simpler switch like a forward tactical? Momentary on full. Then full depress gets you low, half press for medium low, half press for medium, half press for high? Something like that maybe? I don't know if anyone else likes that style.


----------



## Gladius01 (May 29, 2008)

I just thinking about the clicky, if to have similar type of technology as Blackhawk Gladius switch, which in my humble opinion easy to use specially when you are in the hurry, and you forgot how to operate as it is such along time that you play with the all those complex functions. 

No other flashlight I can think off, using the same way the Gladius clicky switch.


----------



## lumenlover2 (May 31, 2008)

Come on guys,if you want a really simple and foolproof switch type , well that`s what the Twisty is for :thumbsup: !


----------



## karlthev (May 31, 2008)

Took me a bit to learn the EDC U60 (ask LuxLover, he "tutored me"), less to learn the Novatac, even less will be spent on the Ra Clicky. Not to worry, if ya like to play with the settings, you'll become an expert in a "flash" (heh, heh!:nana. If you like it where you first get it set, leave and use the light in those settings. If you forget watcha yer doing, call me but I'm sure you won't have to.


Karl


----------



## Zenster (May 31, 2008)

m16a said:


> Is it just me or does the novatac UI sound fairly complicated? I don't have one so I don't get to use it every day, but it sounds kinda confusing. How about a simpler switch like a forward tactical? Momentary on full. Then full depress gets you low, half press for medium low, half press for medium, half press for high? Something like that maybe? I don't know if anyone else likes that style.


 
What you just described is actually more complicated than even the "P" model Novatac. 

Your key phrase is "I don't have one".

I think you need one.


----------



## m16a (May 31, 2008)

Zenster said:


> What you just described is actually more complicated than even the "P" model Novatac.
> 
> Your key phrase is "I don't have one".
> 
> *I think you need one.*




That would be what the savings for the Ra Clicky are for:thumbsup:


----------



## souptree (May 31, 2008)

m16a said:


> Is it just me or does the novatac UI sound fairly complicated? I don't have one so I don't get to use it every day, but it sounds kinda confusing. How about a simpler switch like a forward tactical? Momentary on full. Then full depress gets you low, half press for medium low, half press for medium, half press for high? Something like that maybe? I don't know if anyone else likes that style.



Henry's interface has a 5 minute learning curve for basic usage. If you consider a basic on/off flashlight UI as a 1 on a scale of 1-10 difficulty, I'd give Henry's interface maybe a 3. It's not that hard. If you do not need to change the settings, you will have NO problem learning or using your light. The default settings on my light are PERFECT and I have NEVER changed any of the settings. But I have used my light on epic all night hikes in pouring rain and never had the slightest moment of confusion with the interface. I have actually spent more time marveling at how amazing the interface is than I spent learning to use it.

It is definitely true that this is one light that is well worth it to RTFM with (which, as all CPF denizens know, stands for Read The Flashlight Manual). Read it twice and you'll probably never need it again. Skip the majority of it that pertains to re-programming the settings. You'll probably love the default settings and not want to change them unless you have some specific need or reason.

You need one of these lights. Period. :thumbsup:

Edit: my comments refer to the HDS U60, not the NovaTac. They are quite similar UIs though. I prefer the U60 defaults to the NovaTac defaults.


----------



## KeyGrip (Jun 2, 2008)

Bump for updates, pictures, speculation, wild rumors, etc.


----------



## Theatre Booth Guy (Jun 3, 2008)

souptree said:


> I am actually a little surprised there aren't more calls for *GT lights*, not just from Henry, but from other vendors as well. Maybe people just haven't experienced truly excellent color rendition with an LED and their expectations on that score are consequently lower than they maybe could or should be? Henry, you really spoiled me with that light! :nana:


 
I would really like my next HDS / Ra to be both a clicky and a GT. When I started down this obsessive path, the Basic 60 seemed horribly expensive. After getting one and using it for a while, I wished that I'd gone for the programable GT. Having a GT Ra would make it a true reference, more useful tool and fun. I'd much rather pay extra for the GT than for a slightly more efficient led.
Just my $0.02 since I tend to use my Basic 60 and Twisty on lower settings 99% of the time.


----------



## Doug (Jun 3, 2008)

What's wrong with using rechargeable?



Daniel_sk said:


> But this goes only for rechargeables, or not? I would never rely on a rechargeable in critical situations (of course, sometimes you don't have the choice).


----------



## gottawearshades (Jun 4, 2008)

I agree. My only complaint about my Twisty is that the tint is a little on the cool blue side, particularly on lower settings. 

BTW, how much more was a GT HDS back when they were available?




Theatre Booth Guy said:


> I would really like my next HDS / Ra to be both a clicky and a GT.


----------



## souptree (Jun 4, 2008)

gottawearshades said:


> BTW, how much more was a GT HDS back when they were available?



It was $40 extra for the GT feature and $40 extra for the XR feature. And both were a bargain at that for what they add to the light.


----------



## lumenlover2 (Jun 4, 2008)

souptree said:


> It was $40 extra for the GT feature and $40 extra for the XR feature. And both were a bargain at that for what they add to the light.


 
does GT mean that the tint of the led is guaranteed or does it mean that the led won`t change colour in different lightlevels?


----------



## yaesumofo (Jun 4, 2008)

The Novatac UI is one helluva lot better than the OLD HDS cryptic UI.
If HDS is able to pick up where Novatac left off and improve this UI without making it more complicated IMHO this would indeed be a winner.
As much as I love my collection of HDS flashlights The User Interface is it's biggest fault. When the Novatac arrived on the scene it was like a breath of fresh air. Lets hope HDS is able to make it's way down this path rather than any form of reviving it's old UI.
Looking forward to seeing the Ra Clicky. 
I doubt that it will find it's way into my current EDC rotation but you never know.
Yaesumofo




m16a said:


> Is it just me or does the novatac UI sound fairly complicated? I don't have one so I don't get to use it every day, but it sounds kinda confusing. How about a simpler switch like a forward tactical? Momentary on full. Then full depress gets you low, half press for medium low, half press for medium, half press for high? Something like that maybe? I don't know if anyone else likes that style.


----------



## KeyGrip (Jun 4, 2008)

lumenlover2 said:


> does GT mean that the tint of the led is guaranteed or does it mean that the led won`t change colour in different lightlevels?



It means they pick specific emitters which have the best tint. I'm not sure what they think the best tint is, but it's probably nice.


----------



## souptree (Jun 4, 2008)

yaesumofo said:


> The Novatac UI is one helluva lot better than the OLD HDS cryptic UI.
> If HDS is able to pick up where Novatac left off and improve this UI without making it more complicated IMHO this would indeed be a winner.
> As much as I love my collection of HDS flashlights The User Interface is it's biggest fault. When the Novatac arrived on the scene it was like a breath of fresh air. Lets hope HDS is able to make it's way down this path rather than any form of reviving it's old UI.
> Looking forward to seeing the Ra Clicky.
> ...



Interesting, I disagree with almost everything in this post except for this:

* Looking forward to seeing the Ra Clicky.*


----------



## Oddjob (Jun 4, 2008)

lumenlover2 said:


> does GT mean that the tint of the led is guaranteed or does it mean that the led won`t change colour in different lightlevels?


 
GT stood for Guaranteed Tint. It was intended for those who had to have the absolute whitest possible tint. I don't think there was ever a guarantee of the tint never changing.


----------



## souptree (Jun 4, 2008)

From the HDS website:

*EDC Ultimate 60 GT* - 60 lumens maximum output with guaranteed tint. This flashlight is for those who must have the absolute whitest white in output tint. These are the whitest LEDs manufactured. We guarantee the color of these LEDs will lie close to the Planckian black body radiator line in the range of 0.30 to 0.33 on the x-coordinate on the CIE-1931 Chromaticity Diagram.

*EDC Ultimate 60 XR* - 60 lumens maximum output with extended runtime. This flashlight provides a 50% longer minimum runtime at 60 lumens than the standard model.


----------



## KeyGrip (Jun 4, 2008)

souptree said:


> Are you sure about this?



That's what HDS did, or at least advertised as such. If you bought a GT you were assured a certain quality of tint.


----------



## yaesumofo (Jun 4, 2008)

I am not sure that I actually agree that these features were a "BARGAIN".
I have HDS lights with both features and lights without. For the average every day user the GT feature was NOT worth the extra money especially when HDS lights with and without were compared. In the units I have the GT difference is not a $40.00 difference.
Keep in mind that HDS hand picked all of their emitters to begin with. The Lottery was much less an issue when buying an HDS EDC series of flashlight as a result.

The XR feature is IMHO a more valuable feature. Adding runtime is always a good thing.

IF the Ra Clicky is fitted with the same emitter as the Ra twisty (the Golden dragon) It may be difficult to create a light with a GT designation. The Osram part does emit a cooler light and may not have the latitude in bins to enable a "nicer" warmer tint required in a GT light.

In My experience with the Golden dragon (The Lunasol 20) The quality of the emitted light has really surprised me in that it is VERY white and quite bright for it's power consumption. (Around 2 hours on high using a SF Primary Not bad uh?)

IN this day and age of emitter advancement It is easy to see the advantage of QUALITY light with a High CRI. In the not so distant future we will all be fully versed in this specification and it's importance. In the past it has been all but ignored in favor of sheer output. IMHO Output is no longer that much of an issue. Finding an insanely bright single cell flashlight is easy to do. Finding a single cell flashlight with a GREAT beam with a high CRI emitter allowing for excellent color rendition is a whole other thing.
The GT spec in the older HDS EDC series made some movement in this direction. Unfortunately emitters made then were not able to emit a HIGH CRI quality of light. Things are better today but we are still at the very beginning of a new thrust to create better emitters.
Watching the progress of the HDS line of flashlights in this area will be interesting.
Yaesumofo




souptree said:


> It was $40 extra for the GT feature and $40 extra for the XR feature. And both were a bargain at that for what they add to the light.


----------



## lumenlover2 (Jun 4, 2008)

Thank`s for the explanations guys ! 

I hope we`ll see a GT version then :thumbsup:


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jun 4, 2008)

yaesumofo said:


> The Novatac UI is one helluva lot better than the OLD HDS cryptic UI.
> If HDS is able to pick up where Novatac left off and improve this UI without making it more complicated IMHO this would indeed be a winner.
> As much as I love my collection of HDS flashlights The User Interface is it's biggest fault. When the Novatac arrived on the scene it was like a breath of fresh air. Lets hope HDS is able to make it's way down this path rather than any form of reviving it's old UI.


I completely agree with that. I still carry my B42 and it has been my primary edc lately (due to it's perfect GT beam), but whenever I use it I miss the simpler and less delayed interface of the NovaTac. But from the sound of Henry's posts in this thread, the Clicky is probably going to use a more NovaTac based UI.


----------



## sawlight (Jun 4, 2008)

I would "assume" that Henry has his ideas on how to aproach/improve this.
I also think think the Novatac was/is close to ideal once mastered.


----------



## HDS_Systems (Jun 4, 2008)

Daniel_Sk, Doug,

I use rechargeable CR123 batteries almost exclusively during critical situations such as expedition caving. I do carry plenty of spare fully charged RCR123 batteries in my pack and I also carry a few primary cells to back all of that up. In general, I carry over 100 hours of light for a 24 hour trip underground. 30 lumens for 100 hours worth of batteries takes very little space in my pack. And now I can keep 3 fully independent sources of light on me at all times in addition to the extra light sources in my pack. Having an extra light in your pocket is very handy for surveying passageways.

Yaesumofo,

I think you will appreciate the improvements in the UI. I spent a lot of time making the improvements you like so much and I see no reason to go backwards.

Speaking of CRI, if I can provide a CRI of 80 but at a lower output (80%) and a lower color temperature (3000 degree K), would you find that desirable?

KeyGrip,

The GT specification was: "We guarantee the color of these LEDs will lie close to the Planckian black body radiator line in the range of 0.30 to 0.33 on the x-coordinate on the CIE-1931 Chromaticity Diagram."

Henry.


----------



## tebore (Jun 4, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> Speaking of CRI, if I can provide a CRI of 80 but at a lower output (80%) and a lower color temperature (3000 degree K), would you find that desirable?
> 
> Henry.



I'd say a CRI over >90 and a color temp of 3200-4000k would be desirable. 80 is in the range where it wouldn't make a big difference. 90ish is where things stop looking so blue and gets close to what you see in real life.

I'm sure you'll make a good choice in your testing of high CRI LEDs.


----------



## ingokl (Jun 5, 2008)

A Ra 100 Clicky with a good tint (relatively close to the Planckian black body radiator line) and a colour temperature of about 4000K would be my dream EDC and all-purpose light. 
Although my NDI has a perfectly white tint, the colour temperature of around 6500K makes this and all other (LED) lights on the market less than perfect for me, as I find anything around 6000K to be too cold and not very pleasant for reading or background lightning :sigh:.

Although I find it quite ridiculous to spent around 200$ for.. well...a simple flashlight :nana:... specs like that and the Ra's tank like construction would definitely change my mind. So pleaaaaase let that happen :wave: 

Best regards

Ingo


----------



## liteboy (Jun 5, 2008)

.


----------



## liteboy (Jun 5, 2008)

I have carried a U60 every day in a custom matt-of-the-hide holester for 3 years now. It has a PEU crenulated bezel for protection. Here are my thoughts about how Henry went wrong in the design of the Ra:

1. The EDC series was a durable enough light, as Henry himself states. Who was asking for a MORE durable light? Is the average user a caver or a diver?

2. If you intend to make the light more durable, do it not by encasing it in a brick, but perhaps use more durable (and more expensive) materials. Don't increase the size and heft as this makes it more difficult to edc. The average HDS customer appears to prefer spending money on a great light over basic necessities like food.

3. I prefer clickys but would accept a twisty in a smaller form factor. Look to the great success of the Draco and Drake as support for what I am saying.

For these reasons, I probably will not buy any new Ra lights, no matter how sophisticated the features are etc. A tiny simple point and shoot camera that you have on your person is more valuable than the ultra-sophisticated SLR that you left at home b/c it was too heavy to lug around.


----------



## lumenlover2 (Jun 5, 2008)

liteboy said:


> I have carried a U60 every day in a custom matt-of-the-hide holester for 3 years now. It has a PEU crenulated bezel for protection. Here are my thoughts about how Henry went wrong in the design of the Ra:
> 
> 1. The EDC series was a durable enough light, as Henry himself states. Who was asking for a MORE durable light? Is the average user a caver or a diver?
> 
> ...


 

Well I just agree with having liked the new ra a tad smaller (shorter and a bit less heavy) maybe. Other then that ( and that is very important for an edc light!!!) i love the lights.


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (Jun 5, 2008)

liteboy said:


> 1. The EDC series was a durable enough light, as Henry himself states. Who was asking for a MORE durable light? Is the average user a caver or a diver?
> 
> 2. If you intend to make the light more durable, do it not by encasing it in a brick, but perhaps use more durable (and more expensive) materials. Don't increase the size and heft as this makes it more difficult to edc. The average HDS customer appears to prefer spending money on a great light over basic necessities like food.
> 
> ...



1).. Well really the U60 is 1" round x 3.2" long at 3oz... The Clicky is 1" round x 3.75" long at 3.2oz and the Twisty 1" round by 3.5" long at 3.1oz... So these new Ra lights are only .55" and .2" longer and still only .2oz heavier at most. I've had the Twisty around my neck for 3 days, and it has gotten to the point that I hardly notice it..Also, I think the major part of the "heft" of the Ra lights is the addition of a Stainless Steel bezel, which drastically improves strength while hardly increasing weight..

2) Personally a Ti Twisty (sweet name eh?) would be awesome in a novelty way, but way more overkill considering the price vs. durability of the current designs. I wouldn't call Aluminum and a SS bezel "a brick" either.. The feel of a Twisty is actually somewhat classy, or elegant despite its intended purposes.. I wouldn't be afraid to have it with me at a formal event. 

3) I'm a classical guitarist.. My hands are a little wide, and I have a pretty good grasp... If I clutch the Twisty in my palm, I can comfortably wrap my hand around the body without having skin drape over the bezel and getting in front of the beam... The Clicky will be a bit longer, but only to fit even more snugly under my thumb in need of using the UI. 

A simple point and shoot camera becomes useless if it's accidentally dropped in a puddle of water or takes damage from a strike against a rock... If you don't have a well made, hardly larger or more cumbersome camera that can take 20' drops and be submerged up to 2 atmospheres, you'll be kicking yourself when that kodak moment comes around and you're jamming your finger on the shutter, yelling "WTF is wrong with my Camera?!".... Don't forget, the Twisty is about as simple as a UI can get, Twist on, Twist off.

Just my .08lm on the matter..


----------



## karlthev (Jun 5, 2008)

liteboy said:


> I have carried a U60 every day in a custom matt-of-the-hide holester for 3 years now. It has a PEU crenulated bezel for protection. Here are my thoughts about how Henry went wrong in the design of the Ra:
> 
> 1. The EDC series was a durable enough light, as Henry himself states. Who was asking for a MORE durable light? Is the average user a caver or a diver?
> 
> ...



Well, Ive got too many twisties in my arsenal of lights (Lordy, did I say too many lights??!!) and, despite the inherent durability/dependabilty aspects of these lights, going into a larger format with more flexibility (multiple light levels) isn't my idea of an ideal light. This is one of those IMHOs so, what's good for me isn't always good for the next guy (or gal). The Ra Twisty is (from what I have been able to discern through some skimmed reading I have done) one tough light and certainly could be a great caving light or just a last ditch effort light in the event of some dire emergency. If I eventually do get one it will represent multiple redundency for me however and, in a larger format.

As I have said I do have several HDS EDCs which have served me well over the years. They represent backup lights so they don't have the extent of use which liteboy has evidently given his. My HDS EDCs are tough enough for my use however and my difficulty in using them was (not anymore mind you!) related to the fact I didn't read the manual, nothing more. Now I am not thrilled with the fact that the new upcoming clickies are going to be larger than my HDS EDCs despite the apparent increase in durability. Some energetic caver or Navy Seal or SWAT Team member may need additional durability (and believe me, I want a tough as nails light for this predicted kind of money!) however, I've not had any of my lights fail in "normal" use. Note I don't add the letters "A" and "B" to the beginning of my operational word "use". I generally don't drop my lights into a lake, drive over them with my car (or truck), test the tensile strength of the Aluminum alloy used in the construction with a car crusher nor run them off AC wall power for 24 days on end to find out when they will fail. I sure do want to push a button or click a switch or twist a twisty with the result being light--99.99% of the time but again, I call this use vs ABuse. 

As I am lead to believe, the additional length of the Twisty and the upcoming Clickie is the result of the incorporation of springs to provide for that additional, ultimate level of durability/dependability. I don't design these lights, Henry does. I don't build these lights, Henry does. I will use this light but it probably won't be my edc since while it has increased in durability (?) 
it may just have gotten a little too big for me....IMHO.......


Karl


----------



## MikeG1P315 (Jun 5, 2008)

henry has said here on cpf that there are other products in the pipeline that he will not announce until they are ready to go. i bet one of them is a headlamp. i would not be surprised if there are some smaller designs in the works, too. look at how small some recent cr123 lights out there are (arc6 and lumapower incendio). here's hoping... because i'm willing to sacrifice some durability for a smaller form factor.


----------



## tebore (Jun 5, 2008)

what i'd like to see is an HDS hid. Traditional hds build quality and features.


----------



## Buffalohump (Jun 6, 2008)

With the way LEDs are constantly improving these days even a top of the range light can become redundant fairly quickly. 

However, if it is overbuilt to last, as the HDS and Ra lights undoubtedly are, it will always retain some value. If you value portability above all, why not settle for a single AAA keychain light or a Photon? 

Personally, it is the build quality of Henry's lights than keep me coming back for more. I can get plenty of lumens elsewhere for less $$$ but I won't get rock solid durability as well.



liteboy said:


> I have carried a U60 every day in a custom matt-of-the-hide holester for 3 years now. It has a PEU crenulated bezel for protection. Here are my thoughts about how Henry went wrong in the design of the Ra:
> 
> 1. The EDC series was a durable enough light, as Henry himself states. Who was asking for a MORE durable light? Is the average user a caver or a diver?
> 
> ...


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (Jun 6, 2008)

liteboy said:


> The average HDS customer appears to prefer spending money on a great light over basic necessities like food.



The HDS customer probably spends money on a great light, _and_ buys healthy food. The torch doesn't hike itself up the mountain.


----------



## Zenster (Jun 6, 2008)

Buffalohump said:


> With the way LEDs are constantly improving these days even a top of the range light can become redundant fairly quickly.
> 
> However, if it is overbuilt to last, as the HDS and Ra lights undoubtedly are, it will always retain some value. If you value portability above all, why not settle for a single AAA keychain light or a Photon?
> 
> Personally, it is the build quality of Henry's lights than keep me coming back for more. I can get plenty of lumens elsewhere for less $$$ but I won't get rock solid durability as well.


 
I'll respectfully disagree.

I think that with the Q2, LED lights have finally crossed a line where anything made after is bright enough for just about any use a flashlight is needed for.
A light made with a current emitter will really never go obsolete no matter what comes next. Sure, brighter and more refined colors will be great, but any one of the many lights I have now aren't going to become dimmer once new lights arrive.

We already have situations such as the Malkoff M60 drop that is "blaster bright", so he brought out the M60L for still huge brightness but much longer runtime. I have both and find that I almost always prefer using the "dimmer" M60L over the M60 in most (but not all) situations.
Just a short few years ago, you would NEVER hear someone actually preferring a "dimmer" light over whatever current LED model they had at that time.

So whatever Henry comes out with now will surely be a light for a lifetime if it's built well enough.


----------



## lumenlover2 (Jun 6, 2008)

Zenster said:


> I'll respectfully disagree.
> 
> I think that with the Q2, LED lights have finally crossed a line where anything made after is bright enough for just about any use a flashlight is needed for.
> A light made with a current emitter will really never go obsolete no matter what comes next. Sure, brighter and more refined colors will be great, but any one of the many lights I have now aren't going to become dimmer once new lights arrive.
> ...


 
As you said a brightness is reached that is ok for most peoples (not me . But it`s really about the emitters getting more efficient . In 2 years we may see a ra with an emitter that runs the current brightness for 2 or 3 times the runtime of now and that`s when you`ll be sitting there in the dark while mine still runs on the same 123 cell as your`s which just died because of ancient efficiency !


----------



## Buffalohump (Jun 6, 2008)

Of that I have no doubt 



Zenster said:


> So whatever Henry comes out with now will surely be a light for a lifetime if it's built well enough.


----------



## Kid9P (Jun 6, 2008)

Henry,


Can you give us a little glimpse of this new beauty?


----------



## smokelaw1 (Jun 6, 2008)

Kid9P said:


> Henry,
> 
> 
> Can you give us a little glimpse of this new beauty?


 
Puhlease! 

I feel like a little kid in the car...are we there yet? 
I am holding off bidding on the Arc6 because a Ra clicky is coming! I love the idea of super tough and reliable over technologically impressive. I have fancy lights already. Now I want the one I can KNOW I can rely on if the SHTF.


----------



## fnj (Jun 6, 2008)

Another vote for _*LIGHTHOUND*_
Please? :huh:


----------



## liteboy (Jun 6, 2008)

Buffalohump said:


> With the way LEDs are constantly improving these days even a top of the range light can become redundant fairly quickly.
> 
> However, if it is overbuilt to last, as the HDS and Ra lights undoubtedly are, it will always retain some value. If you value portability above all, why not settle for a single AAA keychain light or a Photon?
> 
> Personally, it is the build quality of Henry's lights than keep me coming back for more. I can get plenty of lumens elsewhere for less $$$ but I won't get rock solid durability as well.



I can't remember having any flashlight really failing on me, certainly not the HDS. Then again, like someone mentioned above, I am almost never in a position where a flashlight failure would endanger my life. I'll bet this applies to >90% of HDS/Ra customers out there. Therefore, why make a light MORE durable when durability was never a problem.

Yes, the Ra is "only" a little bit larger than the EDS series. However, many (including myself) had expressed desire for a light of HDS quality to be of a smaller form factor. 

I do have a variety of smaller lights like the FF3, Draco, AA and AAA (Fenix, Peak) lights that are "backup type" lights. The HDS is more of a primary light, due to its size and multiple battery options.


----------



## FredericoFreire (Jun 6, 2008)

fnj said:


> Another vote for _*LIGHTHOUND*_
> Please? :huh:



LIGHTHOUND, LIGHTHOUND, LIGHTHOUND !!!


----------



## liteboy (Jun 6, 2008)

Ditto for Lighthound. They sell Battery station batteries cheaper than Battery Stn!


----------



## senna94 (Jun 6, 2008)

As much as I like Lighthound I do not think that they will be a distributor for HDS Ra anytime soon. That is as long as Lighthound is a Novatac distributor. I believe there is a contractual dispute/clause that prohibits Lighthound from selling both.


----------



## tricker (Jun 6, 2008)

senna94 said:


> As much as I like Lighthound I do not think that they will be a distributor for HDS Ra anytime soon. That is as long as Lighthound is a Novatac distributor. I believe there is a contractual dispute/clause that prohibits Lighthound from selling both.



i would think that when novatac, if they did, have a contract there would be no mention of Ra or thoughts of even such a thing on the horizon...besides they still sell HDS acessories


----------



## souptree (Jun 6, 2008)

Enzo Morocioli said:


> The HDS customer probably spends money on a great light, _and_ buys healthy food. The torch doesn't hike itself up the mountain.



True and true! Here's my HDS U60XRGT and a few other toys, I mean tools, on top of Half Dome. :wave:


----------



## russtang (Jun 6, 2008)

UniqueTitanium .com is a distributor for Ra Lights. We will definitely have some Ra Clikies when they are released.

Whether we will have enough, we will see.  

They are going to be very popular, I beleive.


----------



## Grox (Jun 7, 2008)

liteboy said:


> Ditto for Lighthound. They sell Battery station batteries cheaper than Battery Stn!



You need to go to the CPF specials page, where battery station batterys are $1.00 each...

I'm happy with either battery station or lighthound. Both ship internationally 

Back to the main discussion, I'm also avidly looking forward to the new Ra clicky. In particular I wonder what the aesthetic of the new light will be - I don't like the silver bezel on the Ra twisty at all.


----------



## FrogmanM (Jun 7, 2008)

Function over form for me, the new HDS seems build heavy, and the thick SS bezel is like that because Henry felt one would need a hardcore bezel, reguardless of looks, I was blown away on how purty my twisty was when I first saw it in my hands! just my .02 lumens anyhow...

Mayo


----------



## Buffalohump (Jun 8, 2008)

Its a good question. I guess when everyone can obtain the same or similar LEDs nowadays, its a way of differentiating yourself from your competitors. 



liteboy said:


> Therefore, why make a light MORE durable when durability was never a problem.
> 
> Yes, the Ra is "only" a little bit larger than the EDS series. However, many (including myself) had expressed desire for a light of HDS quality to be of a smaller form factor.




Have you considered the *BiTz*? Might be what you are looking for.


----------



## paxxus (Jun 8, 2008)

liteboy said:


> Therefore, why make a light MORE durable when durability was never a problem.


This is not correct, durability HAS been a problem with the HDS, most notably with the bezel. The stock bezel on the old HDS was incredibly fragile, one drop from a few feet onto a hard surface could deform the thin bezel material and shatter the window. This is why almost all HDS owners have substituted the stock bezel ring for a SS or Ti one. The Ra Twisty design and presumably also the Clicky seems to have addressed this weakness very thoroughly.

Secondly I'd say the the switch in the old HDS could be better. I've read several reports about these switches becoming more and more unresponsive, indeed, I myself have have a semi-unresponsive HDS switch - and I didn't even use it that much before it started acting up. I hope that the new Clicky design has addressed this issue also.


----------



## tebore (Jun 8, 2008)

paxxus said:


> This is not correct, durability HAS been a problem with the HDS, most notably with the bezel. The stock bezel on the old HDS was incredibly fragile, one drop from a few feet onto a hard surface could deform the thin bezel material and shatter the window. This is why almost all HDS owners have substituted the stock bezel ring for a SS or Ti one. The Ra Twisty design and presumably also the Clicky seems to have addressed this weakness very thoroughly.
> 
> Secondly I'd say the the switch in the old HDS could be better. I've read several reports about these switches becoming more and more unresponsive, indeed, I myself have have a semi-unresponsive HDS switch - and I didn't even use it that much before it started acting up. I hope that the new Clicky design has addressed this issue also.



The stock HDS EDC did have some weaknesses. However using a Ti Bezel that was solved. The earlier switches had problems but the later revisions fixed it. 

I'm sure the new Clicky will incorporate everything Henry has learned since the Arc4 and it will be a great light.


----------



## turbodog (Jun 8, 2008)

paxxus said:


> This is not correct, durability HAS been a problem with the HDS, most notably with the bezel. The stock bezel on the old HDS was incredibly fragile, one drop from a few feet onto a hard surface could deform the thin bezel material and shatter the window. This is why almost all HDS owners have substituted the stock bezel ring for a SS or Ti one. The Ra Twisty design and presumably also the Clicky seems to have addressed this weakness very thoroughly.
> 
> Secondly I'd say the the switch in the old HDS could be better. I've read several reports about these switches becoming more and more unresponsive, indeed, I myself have have a semi-unresponsive HDS switch - and I didn't even use it that much before it started acting up. I hope that the new Clicky design has addressed this issue also.




If your switch has a problem Henry will still cover it under warranty.


----------



## fnj (Jun 8, 2008)

russtang said:


> UniqueTitanium .com is a distributor for Ra Lights. We will definitely have some Ra Clikies when they are released.



Does that mean there will be a Ti version, heh heh :devil:


----------



## fnj (Jun 8, 2008)

paxxus said:


> The stock bezel on the old HDS was incredibly fragile, one drop from a few feet onto a hard surface could deform the thin bezel material and shatter the window.



Ha ha, don't throw it on concrete  Guess babies' skulls are also a bad design ...

You're right, of course, but that doesn't stop oodles of stainless steel bezel free lights from being sold every day and most of them undoubtedly living to a ripe old age.


----------



## liteboy (Jun 9, 2008)

Buffalohump said:


> Its a good question. I guess when everyone can obtain the same or similar LEDs nowadays, its a way of differentiating yourself from your competitors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



thanks, thats the first I heard of this light. after briefly looking over the stats, my only objection is that levels cannot be customized. also low low is hidden away. I like a light to have the ability to turn on low as I use it around the house at night (to check on the kids)...


----------



## Buffalohump (Jun 9, 2008)

Hey,

That's a great shot! What part of the world is that?

Mark



souptree said:


> True and true! Here's my HDS U60XRGT and a few other toys, I mean tools, on top of Half Dome. :wave:


----------



## FrogmanM (Jun 9, 2008)

I believe that is Yosemite in Southern California.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/175858


https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/168299

Mayo


----------



## Alexi* (Jun 9, 2008)

Will the Ra Clicky be able to compete whit the LF5XT?


----------



## adnj (Jun 9, 2008)

I think that the Ra Clicky will be a superior product to the LF5XT (unless AA vs. 123 is the issue)



Alexi* said:


> Will the Ra Clicky be able to compete whit the LF5XT?


----------



## Buffalohump (Jun 9, 2008)

Awesome - thanks for the link!

Taking a trip to the mountains myself in two weeks time. 




FrogmanM said:


> I believe that is Yosemite in Southern California.
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/175858
> 
> ...


----------



## Alexi* (Jun 9, 2008)

adnj said:


> I think that the Ra Clicky will be a superior product to the LF5XT (unless AA vs. 123 is the issue)


Obvious question to that answer i why or how?


----------



## m16a (Jun 9, 2008)

Alexi* said:


> Obvious question to that answer i why or how?



My guess would be superior engineering quality, a better user interface, much tougher, NOT tacticool, and many other things that you would have to own an HDS light to know. These are just a few I've heard.


----------



## Moka (Jun 13, 2008)

Alright, I thought I'd BUMP this thread, to see if there's any news?
Also have a question...
Will the Clicky use the same programming UI as the Novatac or will it be more like the Twisty?


----------



## HDS_Systems (Jun 16, 2008)

Moka,

The Ra Clicky and the Ra Twisty operational user interfaces are totally different and share no similarities. The Ra Clicky uses a pushbutton and simple click codes as the user interface element while the Ra Twisty uses a simple relative rotary motion. The UI used by the NovaTac was an evolution of the EDC Ultimate UI, which was a evolution of the Arc4 UI. Likewise, the Ra Clicky interface is a further evolution of this design. I have been evolving this user interface since I first developed it 5 years ago and it continues to get better and better.

Henry.


----------



## smokelaw1 (Jun 16, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> I have been evolving this user interface since I first developed it 5 years ago and it continues to get better and better


 
This has continually held true. I can't wait to see the RaClicky!


----------



## xcel730 (Jun 16, 2008)

Waiting patiently for pictures and detailed description. 

August is only two months away


----------



## karlthev (Jun 16, 2008)

Karl


----------



## matrixshaman (Jun 16, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> Moka,
> 
> The Ra Clicky and the Ra Twisty operational user interfaces are totally different and share no similarities. The Ra Clicky uses a pushbutton and simple click codes as the user interface element while the Ra Twisty uses a simple relative rotary motion. The UI used by the NovaTac was an evolution of the EDC Ultimate UI, which was a evolution of the Arc4 UI. Likewise, the Ra Clicky interface is a further evolution of this design. I have been evolving this user interface since I first developed it 5 years ago and it continues to get better and better.
> 
> Henry.



:twothumbs 
One of the reasons the Ra Clicky will be my next high quality light purchase.


----------



## Russki (Jun 16, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> Moka,
> 
> The Ra Clicky and the Ra Twisty operational user interfaces are totally different and share no similarities. The Ra Clicky uses a pushbutton and simple click codes as the user interface element while the Ra Twisty uses a simple relative rotary motion. The UI used by the NovaTac was an evolution of the EDC Ultimate UI, which was a evolution of the Arc4 UI. Likewise, the Ra Clicky interface is a further evolution of this design. I have been evolving this user interface since I first developed it 5 years ago and it continues to get better and better.
> 
> Henry.


 
Henry thanks for you work.:thumbsup:
My 120-twisty coming tomorrow.:drunk:
I am so-o exited. :twothumbs


----------



## whc (Jun 16, 2008)

Finally, can't wait to get more details and some pics .


----------



## tebore (Jun 16, 2008)

Henry, when the Ra Clicky is released, will that mean that you will be equipped and able to handle warranty work on the old EDC. 

My impression is now you're only able to offer a credit towards a twisty. 

Also the site says if the old EDC couldn't be fixed that a new light would be offered. Assuming the clicky is out by august, would that mean that if an EDC is defective and cannot be repaired that a clicky would replace it? 

I know you're offering to still warranty the old EDC, but I'm interested in knowing that there is still someone out there capable of fixing the EDC, I'm talking about beyond defects.


----------



## karlthev (Jun 16, 2008)

I want a surprise--no lead-ins, no hype, no BS-- just an HDS standard of performance EDC as we used to have--but with the new name"Ra". I'll figure out the details when it's in my hands. "Too many cooks spoil the soup" is the adage when there is some "need" for trits, engraving, frills, etc that have no use. I would like to see this a true Henry light--simple, dependable and a user. Until then, I'll use my imagination as to what will be here and use my HDS EDC in the meantime. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!



Karl


----------



## matrixshaman (Jun 17, 2008)

There is a pre-pay sales thread around here that says the Ra Clicky 120 is a limited version or maybe it was the 120 r ? (not sure what versions mean what as I've been too busy the past few days). Is it true the 120's will be in limited supply or is it just a limited supply initially but they will eventually be available as production gets going?


----------



## HDS_Systems (Jun 17, 2008)

Tebore,

We have been providing warranty service on the older EDC Ultimate/Basic flashlights since January. We are using an existing flashlight for the warranty replacements - existing in that we only produced a small number. They were originally intended to be the HDS-120 but for many reasons it did not become a production product. It shares the same power supply as the Ra Clicky and the same software. The mechanical design is from the older designs with several improvements.

As I have said, if the problem requires replacement parts, we have no choice other than to replace the whole flashlight since we no longer have possession of any spare parts, fixtures or calibration equipment specific to the EDC product line. Believe me, I would much rather repair a flashlight than to replace the whole flashlight.

MatrixShaman,

120 lumens for an hour takes the best of the best LEDs and they are difficult to come by in production. We test each LED to find the ones we get. Just like computers getting faster, LEDs get more efficient each year. What is rare and expensive today will be common and regular price in a year or two.

Henry.


----------



## liquidsunshine (Jun 18, 2008)

Hi everyone, hi Henry,

been lurking around for a long time and enjoying the quality of this forum a lot, and now that the time seems near that I finally will be able to buy the flashlight that I have been dreaming of all these years, I feel it's time to add my two lumens to the thought process!

First of all: Thanks a thousand times Henry to devote your time to making outstanding lights, and for keeping exactly that in focus through the years. I am enormously excited by the prospect of the Ra Clicky.

Not to criticise, but to point out a thing that in my humble opinion could be improved in your design - and maybe even relatively easily - let me ask you this:

Have you thought about galvanic corrosion between the aluminium and the stainless steel parts of the body? In most uses, this will not likely be an issue, but for someone who uses the light on a boat or otherwise in a marine environment this may become an issue.

As it may - or may not - be a slow process, this problem might only become obvious after years of use. It would be a pity if the longevity of this wonderful light would be compromised by this - which is why I mention it.

Are the two materials completely and reliably isolated from each other? If so, how?

If they are in contact, in salty environments the two materials alone become a "battery", creating a small current that can lead to galvanic corrosion of the aluminium.

Is the current of the light passed through its body and through the contact point of the two materials? This could further add to the problem.

More information on galvanic corrosion between aluminium and stainless can be found e.g. at:

http://www.finishing.com/271/67.shtml
http://www.corrosionsource.com/discuss2/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000006.html

A simple solution which I personally would be more than happy with would be to just make the whole light from stainless. It would probably not add (much) cost, as you may pay a few extra bucks for the stainless and machining, but save the hazzle / time / cost of fitting the two parts together. The bit of extra weight wouldn't be an issue for me, considering what I get for it.

Or, to make me completely happy, just make the whole body from titanium! For that, I personally would do two things: Wait a bit longer AND accept the higher price.

Curious for your answer or solution.

Having said all that: Keep up the excellent work!

Cheers,

Matthias


----------



## matrixshaman (Jun 18, 2008)

liquidsunshine - :welcome: to posting. Have you considered just getting a Titanium bezel to swap out the SS one? I would think too that as close as the tolerances are for the screw in bezel that the corrosion would be unlikely. I also doubt there is any current flow between the body and bezel from the circuit but I'll leave that to Henry to comment on as I'm not certain. If this is some sort of long term issue wouldn't occassional cleaning and putting in some lube on the threads help prevent any corrosion? BTW as a former Yacht builder I recall using SS screws in aluminum trim and these were very expensive yachts. I'm not saying this problem does not exist but just I was unaware it was a real problem. 
While I doubt I'd be interested in a Titanium version of the Ra that does bring up an interesting idea. I'll be some people would jump on that offer.


----------



## Alexi* (Jun 18, 2008)

matrixshaman said:


> liquidsunshine - :welcome: to posting. Have you considered just getting a Titanium bezel to swap out the SS one? I would think too that as close as the tolerances are for the screw in bezel that the corrosion would be unlikely. I also doubt there is any current flow between the body and bezel from the circuit but I'll leave that to Henry to comment on as I'm not certain. If this is some sort of long term issue wouldn't occassional cleaning and putting in some lube on the threads help prevent any corrosion? BTW as a former Yacht builder I recall using SS screws in aluminum trim and these were very expensive yachts. I'm not saying this problem does not exist but just I was unaware it was a real problem.
> While I doubt I'd be interested in a Titanium version of the Ra that does bring up an interesting idea. I'll be some people would jump on that offer.


This is a real world problem. I work selling parts to boats and people are coming in every year wanting bigger size screws as the aluminum has corroded away and the there are no treads left to screw in 
Yes lubricating the screw works fine if you remember to do it every time you loosen the screw and clean of the old lube completely and ad new of the right sort.


----------



## Moka (Jun 18, 2008)

Hmmm... An aftermarket Ti bezel would be nice for the Clicky (and Twisty)...
Any plans for the future Henry???


----------



## dixemon (Jun 18, 2008)

Galvanic corosion can be mitigated by isolating the two dissimilar metals in contact with one another from an electrolyte. I think for the Twisty,any common non conductive grease would be all you would need to seal out moisture from creeping in and creating a concetration cell type of atmosphere. In the aviation industry (depending on what aircraft) we install fastners wet with a poly sulfide commpound to seal them from electrolyte entry, then apply polyurathane applications. However, everything requires maintenance too some degree, and I dont think it will be that big a deal to clean/ re-lube my light ever so often. just my .02


----------



## turbodog (Jun 18, 2008)

dixemon said:


> Galvanic corosion can be mitigated by isolating the two dissimilar metals in contact with one another from an electrolyte. I think any common non conductive grease would be all you would need to seal out moisture from creeping in and creating a concetration cell type of atmosphere. just my .02




Pick a side.....

In the first sentence you're saying to USE an electrolyte, which will hasten corrosion.

Then we're using nonconductive grease....

For those who have seen the light in person, I would say it's impossible to keep the SS and AL apart, even with grease/etc. It's simply too tight of a fit


----------



## dixemon (Jun 18, 2008)

Turbo Dog,
No offense, but I think you may want to read my post a little more carefully before you post a comment. I really dont feel like turning this into a science project.


----------



## turbodog (Jun 18, 2008)

dixemon said:


> Turbo Dog,
> No offense, but I think you may want to read my post a little more carefully before you post a comment. I really dont feel like turning this into a science project.




I read it 3 more times before I deciphered your meaning. However, I still stand by my conclusion. There's no way to separate the materials. The tolerances are too close.

And grease that close to the lens/reflector is sure to get on one or the other.

And electroylyte aside, the materials can corrode from simply touching.


----------



## dixemon (Jun 19, 2008)

There are three things necessary for galvanic corrosion to occur. If any one of them is not present then the oxidation cannot occur due to the inefficient transfer of electrons between anode and cathode.

1.Electrochemically dissimilar metals must be present; and they are.

2.These metals must be in electrical contact; and they are.

3.The metals must be exposed to an electrolyte. and they might be unless you do something about it such as using a barrier nonconductive grease. which can easily seal close tolerance threads thus creating a less permeable joint. 

Can humidity be an electrolyte? Absolutely. However, below 45% relative humidity the electrolysis process virtually ceases. So, if were talking about the sealed area inside the bezel, I would say it would probably be less than 45% RH due to the heat generated by the emmiter.Every one living in the mid west states shouldnt have any corrosion problems, I know how dry it is out there.
On the exterior side all we need to do is prevent water/gas intrapment between the body and the bezel. A simple application of grease on the threads combined with drying your light off after it gets wet should be just fine. Again, no electrolyte no corrosion..

There are also many other factors such as the anodic properties of the metals Henery uses to build his lights. These factors play into the potential the dissimilar metals have for rapid corrosion. Also the size of the anode vs the cathode should be considered in the design of any product with dissimilar metals to reduce the potential for electolysis. In this case I belive the anode would be the Aluminum and the passive cathode would be the SS bezel.

All in all I dont think this is much of an issue, and it certainly isnt my foremost concern.but then again I would love to hear Henry's design, thoughts and opinions on the matter.

Turbo, Im done :touche:


----------



## turbodog (Jun 19, 2008)

I agree with what you have said, except that you're going to have a breach in the grease layer. And the breach will be outside the light, where the seam is. This area is exposed to salt and humidity/water from your hands/sweat.

But we're looking at this in the wrong way. We've got a current flow in a light. Now we just need to tap into this to run the light..... no batteries!


----------



## dixemon (Jun 19, 2008)

turbodog said:


> I agree with what you have said, except that you're going to have a breach in the grease layer. And the breach will be outside the light, where the seam is. This area is exposed to salt and humidity/water from your hands/sweat.
> 
> But we're looking at this in the wrong way. We've got a current flow in a light. Now we just need to tap into this to run the light..... no batteries!



Im sure Henry has that on the drawing table right now!


----------



## HDS_Systems (Jun 19, 2008)

LiquidSunshine,

We did think quite a bit about galvanic action. That is why we chose the materials, finishes and the construction methods we did. As long as you do not leave the light immersed in salt water for extended periods, which will bridge the isolation breaks, you should have very few problems. We also recommend rinsing the light off at the end of the day and drying it when possible.

And we have priced out an all titanium body. That option will cost a fair bit.

Moka,

We are looking in to it. You are not the first to suggest it.

Henry.


----------



## BBL (Jun 19, 2008)

Does really steel and aluminum come into contact? The al is anodized, which should provide insulation.


----------



## Kid9P (Jun 19, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> And we have priced out an all titanium body.


 
 OH MY GOODNESS !!!!! 

:devil: Please Adopt Me Henry!!!! :devil:




Ok, I have a Birthday coming up in August and would love to get
ANY RaClicky. Are these already in production and do you feel that they will be truly ready for an August release?

As always Henry, thanks for making some amazing lights!
Any chance of a teaser Pic???? Pretty Please


----------



## Moka (Jun 19, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> Moka,
> 
> We are looking in to it. You are not the first to suggest it.
> 
> Henry.


 
Awww... and here I was thinking I was a unique and wonderful person... lol

Great news thanks Henry!


----------



## turbodog (Jun 19, 2008)

BBL said:


> Does really steel and aluminum come into contact? The al is anodized, which should provide insulation.



The SS head threads down onto bare AL.


----------



## liquidsunshine (Jun 19, 2008)

Hi Henry,

as I said before, I'm extremely excited about this light!

Nonetheless I don't feel quite satisfied that the issue of galvanic corrosion is solved - please everyone read *very very* carefullly! - _to the level that *I* personally would want it to be_.

Have you done any salt water environment tests?

What are the isolation breaks that you are referring to?

I am 100% sure that no grease or lube can electrically isolate the two parts from another reliably, if at all. Also I agree that if used to the extent that the purpose of isolation would require, sooner or later the grease would also be in other places and not neatly stay where we want it.

Finally: I accept that any piece of equipment will need some maintenance, but as hard as it may sound, if I buy a flashlight in this price class, I do not _want_ to have to do maintenance _to prevent issues that could have been avoided in the concept and design phase_.

For these reasons I hope that there will be a one-material-only version of the clicky. If it costs more (stainless) or even significantly more (titanium), I'd still be more happy with that.

I hope you don't take this personally; it's my personal view, my way of expressing my hope that you will put the final shine on this design by at least offering a one-material-only version as an option.

All the best,

Matthias


----------



## karlthev (Jun 19, 2008)

I got in on the prepay "wagon" for a 120C (clicky) and I'm excited about what will be offered.

I had wondered about a possible galvanic reaction with the dissimilar metals coming into contact on the twisty however I have to agree with dixemon and his statements about the conditions for such corrosion to occur:

"1.Electrochemically dissimilar metals must be present; and they are.
2.These metals must be in electrical contact; and they are.
3.The metals must be exposed to an electrolyte. and they might be unless you do something about it such as using a barrier nonconductive grease. which can easily seal close tolerance threads thus creating a less permeable joint." 


I remember years ago patching up my father's car which had rusted through near the rocker panels. I sanded down the rust, cut some aluminum sheeting out and aluminum-riveted the sheet to the steel car body and then filled it in with plastic body filler. Really didn't look so bad for a hacker job but, but....it corroded through in about 6 months displaying a white powder all around the fix. I live in Pennsylvania and the Northeast section with associated snow and extensive winter road salting activities. The galvanic response ingredients were there alright---bare steel (NOT stainless), aluminum rivets AND sheeting and, the catalyst, salt water and spray.

Now, with that cute story, lets get down to real life use here. If you're planning on hunkering down in seawater possibly using this light as a divelight, maybe, MAYBE you should consider rinsing it off after you leave the water.:thinking: I had a Rolex Sea Dweller wrist watch years ago which was DESIGNED for deep sea diving (no, I don't dive) and, the instructions indicated that a thorough rinsing off after going into seawater was essential for proper maintenance--this for a dive watch!! Now, the Ra Twisty isn't a Rolex watch and isn't designed for diving but it just may be nice to maintain it in the same fashion as one--you choice though.

I don't have the Ra Twisty, may never get one, understand the concerns raised yet really don't think there will be a problem. Maybe we should trust Henry on this one...wadaya think?


karl


----------



## Blindasabat (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm sure Henry has already investigated this, but I think the most simple solution to the galvanic problem would be to anodize the threads and any other area the SS bezel touches. Of course, there could be an anodizing issue with doing that - maybe that area is the anode connection in the acid bath, etc. but it is still preferable to making the whole light steel or ti for weight and/or cost purposes. I still do not own ANY Ti lights for a reason (not worth the cost) and I think most people will see it that way. Ti or full SS in limited runs is I am sure being considered or even planned, so they may satisfy those that feel the need for that level of assurance. Many people already have HDS, Aleph, and Novatac lights with steel bezels; do they have corrosion issues?



liquidsunshine said:


> ...
> Have you done any salt water environment tests?
> ...
> I am 100% sure that no grease or lube can electrically isolate the two parts from another reliably, if at all. Also I agree that if used to the extent that the purpose of isolation would require, sooner or later the grease would also be in other places and not neatly stay where we want it.
> ...


Grease will stop over 50% of contact, provide resistance to another 40%, and the remaining will corrode so slowly that annual cleaning will probably be plenty. Lot of lights require grease on their threads. It does not seem to get on lenses very often, and if it does show after your annual re-lube, wipe it off and don't worry about it until the next year.


----------



## gottawearshades (Jun 19, 2008)

karlthev said:


> I got in on the prepay "wagon" for a 120C (clicky) and I'm excited about what will be offered.
> 
> 
> 
> karl



You can preorder a Clicky already? Where? How did I miss that?


----------



## karlthev (Jun 19, 2008)

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=179911


Over on the Marketplace.


Karl


----------



## seery (Jun 19, 2008)

karlthev said:


> http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=179911
> 
> 
> Over on the Marketplace.
> ...


I'll add that Russ and Dena at Unique Titanium are great folks to deal with.
That's where I got my 120-T and have 3 more Ra's ordered with them. :twothumbs


----------



## russtang (Jun 19, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> And we have priced out an all titanium body. That option will cost a fair bit.
> 
> Moka,
> 
> ...


 

I thought that was a secret.


----------



## 84Maroon (Jun 19, 2008)

A Ti HDS.......


----------



## matrixshaman (Jun 19, 2008)

There are other lights that have SS bezels with aluminum bodies (one I can think of right off that was made to military specs). It seems from what I've read of Magnalube that might be a good choice to put in the threads and it seems to stay put very well. I can understand your concerns liquidsunshine but unless you have no time for a little maintenance then I don't think you'd have a problem with this setup.


----------



## parnass (Jun 19, 2008)

matrixshaman said:


> There are other lights that have SS bezels with aluminum bodies ...




I was thinking of Inova X and T series flashlights.


----------



## gottawearshades (Jun 19, 2008)

Thanks, Karl.

Now I have to decide if I want to hand over $100 for a light I won't see until August (or September or October etc). I'm torn.




seery said:


> I'll add that Russ and Dena at Unique Titanium are great folks to deal with.
> That's where I got my 120-T and have 3 more Ra's ordered with them. :twothumbs


----------



## :)> (Jun 19, 2008)

A Titanium Twisty? What a fantastic idea. Bring it on Henry!


----------



## thermal guy (Jun 19, 2008)

You know I'd buy one for sure.And how about special engraving on the bezel.Like your name/favorite saying?


----------



## :)> (Jun 19, 2008)

Thermal Guy, 

I know that you would buy multiples of Titanium Ra lights. I would swoon over a Ti Clicky or a Ti Twisty. Henry's lights are some of the absolute finest made on the planet... dress 'em up in titanium and they might be the most sought after lights on the planet.


----------



## Moka (Jun 20, 2008)

I don't think I could quite afford a Ti Clicky or Twisty... But a Ti Bezel for both would be *borat voice* "Very Nice..."
Perhaps with the custom engravings mentioned above as well as our pre Ti bezel ser# etc...


----------



## Chronos (Jun 20, 2008)

:)> said:


> A Titanium Twisty? What a fantastic idea. Bring it on Henry!



Bring it on!!! :nana::devil:


----------



## souptree (Jun 20, 2008)

Count me IN IN IN for a Ti Clicky GT!!! :twothumbs


----------



## HoopleHead (Jun 20, 2008)

my fingers are crossed so hard they are white, im really hoping this is THE production multi-function clicky light for me. will it trump my 120Ps? signs so far point to yes. heres hopin...


----------



## x923x (Jun 20, 2008)

oh my, i'd be all over a Ti Ra Clicky or Twisty! :rock:


----------



## karlthev (Jun 21, 2008)

Believe me, there's no need for Titanium in a production light--at least not THIS light at THIS time!:thumbsdow Let's keep this project/build/endeavor *simple*--I'm more than sure Henry will tell us light design and production is anything BUT simple, *affordable*--those custom builders and production manufacturers who use Titanium will tell you buying and machining it will add extensively to the cost and 95% of those now showing interest here will suddenly disappear  and finally, *on time*--multiple options complicate matters geometrically and I do believe we'd like this (these?) light(s) before the next millennium! Remember K.I.S.S?? Keep It Simple Stupid! :devil: I want this one as much as anyone else--I'm already in for a $100 deposit.



Karl


----------



## JohnTz (Jun 21, 2008)

Henry. Count me in for one Ti-Clicky. I am a Ti whore b


----------



## gottawearshades (Jun 21, 2008)

I agree. Aluminum is good enough for me. I wouldn't want a light so expensive I'd be afraid to take it outside the house.




karlthev said:


> Believe me, there's no need for Titanium in a production light--at least not THIS light at THIS time!:thumbsdow Let's keep this project/build/endeavor *simple*--I'm more than sure Henry will tell us light design and production is anything BUT simple, *affordable*--those custom builders and production manufacturers who use Titanium will tell you buying and machining it will add extensively to the cost and 95% of those now showing interest here will suddenly disappear  and finally, *on time*--multiple options complicate matters geometrically and I do believe we'd like this (these?) light(s) before the next millennium! Remember K.I.S.S?? Keep It Simple Stupid! :devil: I want this one as much as anyone else--I'm already in for a $100 deposit.
> 
> 
> 
> Karl


----------



## gadgetnerd (Jun 21, 2008)

gottawearshades said:


> I agree. Aluminum is good enough for me. I wouldn't want a light so expensive I'd be afraid to take it outside the house.



I'd buy a Ra made of plastic 

In fact I seem to recall the idea of polymer bodied HDS/Novatacs at one stage. I wonder what happened to it?


----------



## souptree (Jun 24, 2008)

I don't see why the debate goes to a question of one or the other. It's obvious the aluminum version is coming. The question of whether to do additional releases in additional materials is not a threat to the aluminum version. Personally, I'd love to see the line expand to include aluminum, titanium AND some kind of polymer as well. Obviously, it will be up to Henry to determine the feasibility from a business standpoint and whether he's even interested in pursuing such things.


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (Jun 28, 2008)

Well.. A couple more days till July, then August is only 4 weeks away... I can't help but wonder what the status of the Ra Clicky is.. Are we on track for an August release? How about body tubes and tailcaps with clips?..
I can't help but wonder... I've been checking the HDS website two times a day lately, just to make sure I don't miss something  ..

I can hardly wait!.. The Clicky might just put an end to my flashlight purchases for a while.. Seriously, if it maintains the low red, with three other levels of white........ I wont need to use any other flashlight. For a long time....

Henry, I need some updates or I'm going to be 

Just messing around, keep up the hard work :thumbsup:


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jun 28, 2008)

Enzo Morocioli said:


> The Clicky might just put an end to my flashlight purchases for a while...I wont need to use any other flashlight. For a long time....


You sound like... all of us, at some point. I wish I had a flashlight for every time I said I'd stop buying flashlights... :thumbsup:


----------



## souptree (Jun 29, 2008)

SaturnNyne said:


> I wish I had a flashlight for every time I said I'd stop buying flashlights...



You mean you don't?


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jun 29, 2008)

souptree said:


> You mean you don't?


Ok I was exaggerating a little...  I actually did stop and think about it and I realized that the number of lights I have is probably about ten times the number of times I've officially tried to walk away from this hobby, but I went ahead with it anyway since I'm sure I've unofficially tried to restrict my buying to some degrees a couple dozen times, so it's kind of true in some sense. It's a crazy hobby.


----------



## tophery (Jun 29, 2008)

Does anyone know how much the Ra Clicky will cost or is it still undecided? I might have read over it.


----------



## Moka (Jun 29, 2008)

Henry... With just over 4 weeks to go... Any pics yet???


----------



## waTom (Jul 2, 2008)

Hi,

I've browsed throuh the whole thread but could not find any information about which model uses what kind of led.
I'd be really grateful if anyone would "enlighten" me


----------



## maxpower419 (Jul 2, 2008)

Perhaps someone knows what kind of switch this will have (forward clicky?)

More specifically will it have a rubber boot or one of the metal buttons, as seen on other hds lights?, Maybe even with a trit install on the button (that'd be awesome)

Anyone know:shrug:

Thanks
-Ryan


----------



## karlthev (Jul 2, 2008)

Wow, lottsa questions! Only Henry knows for sure! We'll just have to wait.



Karl


----------



## BBL (Jul 2, 2008)

maxpower419 said:


> Perhaps someone knows what kind of switch this will have (forward clicky?)


I'm quite sure its a momentary switch, like all previous lights of this type (Arc4, hds edc).
The actual switching logic is done by the electronics.


----------



## HDS_Systems (Jul 5, 2008)

LiquidSunshiine,

No offense taken. I understand your problem and the higher level of salt protection you are asking for. We will certainly take it under advisement.

HoopleHead,

Double the runtime at 120 lumens on a single battery? I hope that trumps the other flashlight. Would you like that in a GT tint? GT tint is close to the Planckian black body radiator line in the range of 0.30 to 0.33 on the x-coordinate on the CIE-1931 Chromaticity Diagram.

GottaWearShades,

Aluminum is the optimum material for most of the body for a great variety of reasons. It weights less than titanium, has better electrical and thermal conductivity and it can be anodized to provide electrical isolation. The bezel is one place where aluminum is not the best choice. Stainless steel is probably the optimum choice for all around durability and cost. Titanium does weigh slightly less but is it worth 15 times the cost? Only the customer can make that decision.

GadgetNerd,

That is a long story. Perhaps someday I'll tell it. Two big problems with polymers is molding costs and thermal conductivity.

Moka,

There is a lot of information to post on the web site - photos, list of models, cut-away diagram, etc. - and we are working our way though it. It takes a lot of effort to get all of those materials together.

Production is moving along fairly nicely with most parts still on track for a nearly on-time delivery.

Henry.


----------



## paulr (Jul 5, 2008)

Please count me as another vote for ti. It's expensive but not THAT expensive for a small portable device like this. We may have sticker shock from McGizmo ti lights but remember that those are boutique pieces made in rather small quantity, and his aluminum PD lights were almost as expensive. More directly comparable would be something like the titanium Peak Pacific which should be comparable with these Ra lights in amount of titanium and in machining complexity. Those lights are less expensive than the Ra lights in aluminum/SS. Overall I'd hope a titanium Ra might cost no more than $100 over the aluminum version. This is still well below the price of the limited run lights and I couldn't see getting the Al model if Ti were available at not too steep a premium.


----------



## wvaltakis2 (Jul 5, 2008)

+1

It's not like there isn't already twisties in Ti. Seems to me it be logical to have these in Ti as well. The real question is whether or not us mortals will have a chance to buy one. 

~Chip


----------



## cave dave (Jul 6, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> Posted May 23
> I know many of you have been waiting a long time for this announcement. Wait no longer.
> ...
> 
> Henry.



Ummm, Still waiting


----------



## tsask (Jul 6, 2008)

Henry how bout an HDS 200 with the same design as the original HDS?
I love my XR42GT more each day, My Novatac 120 P is on the shelf, "stuck" on 2 settings primary disabling strobe and low low.
This could be ideal for some situations yet a factory reset is now needed.


----------



## senna94 (Jul 6, 2008)

tsask said:


> Henry how bout an HDS 200 with the same design as the original HDS?
> I love my XR42GT more each day, My Novatac 120 P is on the shelf!



+1

No matter how many lights I buy, I keep going back to my HDS EDC lights as they are just so darn reliable. None better!!!!!!!!

Paul
:twothumbs


----------



## tsask (Jul 6, 2008)

*HDS 200 XRGT?*



senna94 said:


> +1
> 
> No matter how many lights I buy, I keep going back to my HDS EDC lights as they are just so darn reliable. None better!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


 
Let's see it happen! Please bring back the "old" HDS design. does Novatac service the HDS lights? NO. WHO does? it's originator, Henry that's who!

Please let me send another $150 for an HDS XR200GT!!!!!!!!!:naughty:


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (Jul 6, 2008)

tsask said:


> Let's see it happen! Please bring back the "old" HDS design. does Novatac service the HDS lights? NO. WHO does? it's originator, Henry that's who!
> 
> Please let me send another $150 for an HDS XR200GT!!!!!!!!!:naughty:



Ohh man... HDS Ra Clicky 200 XRGT with low red. 
Now we all know GT isn't implemented on these lights yet, but man, when it is, talk about a winner!

I'll send plenty of $$$ for that too!


----------



## tsask (Jul 6, 2008)

Enzo Morocioli said:


> Ohh man... HDS Ra Clicky 200 XRGT with low red.
> I'll send plenty of $$$ for that too!


 
alright!:thumbsup:... what about with GREEN?
WOW! I know it could effect the reflector and beam with another LED, yet possibly with 3 green 3mm? LEDs the main white LED beam would be unaffected.


----------



## Theatre Booth Guy (Jul 6, 2008)

paulr said:


> Please count me as another vote for ti. It's expensive but not THAT expensive for a small portable device like this. We may have sticker shock from McGizmo ti lights but remember that those are boutique pieces made in rather small quantity, and his aluminum PD lights were almost as expensive. More directly comparable would be something like the titanium Peak Pacific which should be comparable with these Ra lights in amount of titanium and in machining complexity. Those lights are less expensive than the Ra lights in aluminum/SS. Overall I'd hope a titanium Ra might cost no more than $100 over the aluminum version. This is still well below the price of the limited run lights and I couldn't see getting the Al model if Ti were available at not too steep a premium.


 
If a Ti Ra were really "only" $100 extra. . . . I'd bite. Keep the aluminum reflector (not sure if there is any other option) and have all external surfaces be titanium.

Alternately, if a stainless version were easier to produce, I'd not mind at all!


----------



## Doug (Jul 8, 2008)

*Re: HDS 200 XRGT?*

Seems to make more sense to double it, 240.... that is within the realm of reason, is'nt it?



tsask said:


> Let's see it happen! Please bring back the "old" HDS design. does Novatac service the HDS lights? NO. WHO does? it's originator, Henry that's who!
> 
> Please let me send another $150 for an HDS XR200GT!!!!!!!!!:naughty:


----------



## smokelaw1 (Jul 8, 2008)

HDS XR240GT!!!


----------



## cave dave (Jul 8, 2008)

I'm going to be the 1st to predict the new clicky will have a piston to move the switching action to the head part of the light.


----------



## tebore (Jul 8, 2008)

cave dave said:


> I'm going to be the 1st to predict the new clicky will have a piston to move the switching action to the head part of the light.



And I will be the first to doubt it.


----------



## Valpo Hawkeye (Jul 8, 2008)

tebore said:


> And I will be the first to doubt it.



I'll fall in line behind you.


----------



## 84Maroon (Jul 8, 2008)

I hope the clicky is similar, if not the same, as the previous HDS lights. I am really looking forward to getting the Ra Clicky, I doubt it will disappoint.


----------



## BBL (Jul 8, 2008)

cave dave said:


> I'm going to be the 1st to predict the new clicky will have a piston to move the switching action to the head part of the light.



Wasnt the arc4 simillar? It had no piston, but moved the whole battery to activate the switch in the front part.


----------



## karlthev (Jul 9, 2008)

The Arc4+ had a "tricky" some would call "moody" switch. I know, I've got several. I'll go the way with Maroon on this one and would prefer the HDS-type switch.


Karl


----------



## cree8 (Jul 9, 2008)

cave dave said:


> I'm going to be the 1st to predict the new clicky will have a piston to move the switching action to the head part of the light.



But would it still click?


----------



## karlthev (Jul 9, 2008)

There is a "click"..of sorts with the Arc 4+s but very subtle at most and not anything near how the HDS and Novatac lights feel. Somewhat between a click and a press. As I indicated, this type of switching mechanism was not the best in terms of reliabiity for many of these lights and was prone to damage if the light was dropped on its "tail" where the switch was located. 



Karl


----------



## tebore (Jul 9, 2008)

The switching mechanism in the Arc4 was built in the head. The switch would just push battery. The stock switch would damage the head and the battery if dropped on the tail. The switch was also touchy based on the length of the battery.


----------



## cree8 (Jul 9, 2008)

Very impressive Arc 4+ knowledge here, I think what ever switch the Ra uses it will be extremely robust unlike the Arc


----------



## merlocka (Jul 9, 2008)

84Maroon said:


> I hope the clicky is similar, if not the same, as the previous HDS lights. I am really looking forward to getting the Ra Clicky, I doubt it will disappoint.




From Ralights.com page the clicky dimensions are:

1" dia x 3.75" lenth

The NovaTac 120P (which I think is the same size as the HDS EDC lights?) dimensions are:

1" dia x 3.3" length


----------



## tempman (Jul 9, 2008)

Sorry if it has been asked already, but it is important to me....

How low is the lowest low setting? My 85p has a perfect lowest-low. I am hoping that the Ra-Clicky will go that low, if not lower.


thanks,
Jeff


----------



## Daniel_sk (Jul 9, 2008)

The output levels and LED options will be the same as on the Twisty, as far as I know. And you will be able to customize your own levels.


----------



## Blindasabat (Jul 9, 2008)

cave dave said:


> I'm going to be the 1st to predict the new clicky will have a piston to move the switching action to the head part of the light.


 The HDS system works too well with the electronic switch. BUT I will give you the fact that the HDS system of not using the body tube to carry current lends itself to a PD style piston to replace the spring or old prongs of the early HDS. Plus it would make it more robust while the piston would fit in the same space as the spring or old HDS prongs. For that reason, I wouldn't entirely discount it, but I think it is not likely because Henry spent a lot of time developing the current switch, it works very well, and is more tolerant of different length batteries.

The new Nitecore lights still have a switch just like the old Arc4; it is just in the head now. You still have to have a switch of some sort, so PD does not make it more robust by "removing" a clicky - it just "moves" and uses a different type of (new and unproven) switch.

I am sad to see the larger dimensions of the new Ra clicky though. I was hoping it would be thinner if it got longer, or just get thinner. I hope there will be an expanding lineup of Ra lights that will eventually (SOON!) include a thinner (<22mm dia) CR123 light or even a 14500/AA if it stays under ~3.75in.

...my 2 yuan.


----------



## paxxus (Jul 9, 2008)

Speculating about the switch design, here's something I've been wondering about:

My computer mouse at work is at least 5 years old, it is heavily used. I've used (often very cheap) computer mice for over 20 years and during all those years I've never ever encountered a switch failure except on my very first PC (an Amstrad) and that mouse, instead of a real u-switch, had a switching mechanism similar to the HDS (a small metal plate which flexes in and out).

Given how often an u-switch in a computer mouse gets clicked and given how rarely even the cheapest ones fail, those switches are incredible reliable. Throw in an extra buck to get a high quality industrial grade u-switch and you'd have an extremely reliable design with a nice clicky feeling (u-switches come in all forms and sizes down to a few mm).

I see that the Ra Clicky is 6mm longer than the Twisty so I'm hoping that the new Clicky actually has a real u-switch - the old (and IMO sub-optimal) switch in HDS/NovaTac do not seem to require that much extra space. Even though the mantra on this site is that twisties are intrinsically more reliable than a clicky I refuse the accept this as a general truth. I believe a well executed clicky can be more reliable than a twisty, we just haven't seen one... yet.


----------



## cave dave (Jul 9, 2008)

I believe the extra length is because of using springs on both ends of the battery to isolate it from shock. Same as the twisty.


----------



## HDS_Systems (Jul 9, 2008)

Doug,

That depends on what you are willing to trade off. We can hit 120 lumens for 1 hour with a single CR123 battery a fair percentage of the time in production.

Using that as the starting point, you can get 140 lumens for roughly 30 minutes and maybe 170 lumens for 15 minutes. You would have a hard time telling the difference between 120 and 140 lumens but you give up half of your runtime. A good trade? Not in practical terms.

Halving your runtime again to get 170 lumens, which is just slightly brighter (visually) than 120 lumens is of marginal practical value while you loose 3/4 of your runtime and the flashlight runs very hot. Is that a good trade? Again, from a practical standpoint, not really.

If you are white wall hunting and trying to impress your friends with the specs, then yes, 170 lumens for 15 minutes is very satisfying. After all, 170 is much bigger than 120.

Remember, production LEDs increase in output efficiency at roughly 20 to 25% per year on average. There are occasional large jumps but those are usually followed by longer periods without significant gains. Don't confuse one-off lab demos with production quantities - they can be separated by years.

GT (guaranteed tint), on the other hand, is more of a negotiating issue combined with a bit of luck. We were able to get a reel of GT-grade LEDs so they will be available as a standard offering.

Tempman,

The lows mimic the old EDC Ultimate - they are lower than the other brand.

Henry.


----------



## smokelaw1 (Jul 9, 2008)

Great info as always, Henry! 

Looking very, very, very much forward to it!


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (Jul 9, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> GT (guaranteed tint), on the other hand, is more of a negotiating issue combined with a bit of luck. We were able to get a reel of GT-grade LEDs so they will be available as a standard offering.




Wow... I'm so glad to read that!
Thank you Henry for working so hard and providing us with flashlight method and madness...I'm glad to be a customer. :twothumbs


----------



## carl (Jul 9, 2008)

will there be a micro drain on the battery while OFF?


----------



## souptree (Jul 9, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> GT (guaranteed tint), on the other hand, is more of a negotiating issue combined with a bit of luck. We were able to get a reel of GT-grade LEDs so they will be available as a standard offering.
> 
> The lows mimic the old EDC Ultimate - they are lower than the other brand.
> 
> Henry.



:twothumbs :twothumbs :twothumbs :twothumbs :twothumbs :twothumbs :twothumbs

These are two responses I am REALLY liking!!


----------



## tebore (Jul 9, 2008)

I wouldn't mind having the option of having 170 lumens for 15 mins. This is the reason why it's not a single level light, even now I use around the 20lm level majority of the time. From time to time I do the 120lm level. I want it as a option even as a burst.

As the old saying goes "It's better to have and not need than to need and not have."


----------



## tempman (Jul 10, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> Tempman,
> 
> The lows mimic the old EDC Ultimate - they are lower than the other brand.
> 
> Henry.


 

That is the greatest news I have heard in a long time on these forums. I cant count how many times the low-low comes in handy with my 85p, but in the middle of the night, it is a tad bit too much light for my 2 a.m. eyes. To me, a low that is even lower is great news. If I was not unemployed right now, I would throw a deposit down faster than the speed of light.


----------



## karlthev (Jul 10, 2008)

From a practical standpoint, Henry is right on target. We all like to have a bit of a "blast" in terms of high output to impress however, for real life, the shortened runtime we pay just isn't worth it. If I need to light up a football field, until technology takes a quantum leap, I'll bring my bigger "guns"(lights).

In terms of the GT well....my eyes aren't what they used to be and I've found the "colder" (actually hotter from a temperature perspective!), "bluer" tints better for my viewing. I've got a U60GT and U60 right now and I prefer the non-GT model. That's OK, I'll leave the GTs for you others.

Oh, did I mention I'm dying to get mine for a run??

Karl


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 10, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> you can get 140 lumens for roughly 30 minutes and maybe 170 lumens for 15 minutes. You would have a hard time telling the difference between 120 and 140 lumens but you give up half of your runtime. A good trade? Not in practical terms.
> 
> Halving your runtime again to get 170 lumens, which is just slightly brighter (visually) than 120 lumens is of marginal practical value while you loose 3/4 of your runtime and the flashlight runs very hot. Is that a good trade? Again, from a practical standpoint, not really.
> 
> If you are white wall hunting and trying to impress your friends with the specs, then yes, 170 lumens for 15 minutes is very satisfying. After all, 170 is much bigger than 120.


I apologize for my obnoxiously long response...

Henry,
That sounds like a no on the levels over 120 for now, or am I drawing an incorrect conclusion from your tone? I don't understand why you'd be resistant to any level that doesn't meet your preferred minimum runtime, especially since you were happy to push the limits with past lights (it made us happy too). The Twisty is one thing, it's marketed as a very simple three level light and then as a bonus there's a backdoor to let us enthusiasts program it, that's fantastic. But the Clicky is marketed as a programmable light, its value comes from its versatility, its ability to cover the widest range of tasks possible by allowing us to set it up in the way that works best for our uses. Whether higher levels are practical in your uses and perceptions or not, what possible benefit is there in not giving customers what many of them want if it's as easy as programming it in—it's not like having a higher max endangers the light or sacrifices the ability to select a more conservative maximum for our light if that's what we want. In my uses, and in my experience with many lights at many different outputs, the ability to produce 170lm would add significant value to this light for me. It doesn't have to do it for an hour, it doesn't even have to do it for 15 minutes, if it can hit it for one single minute—long enough to extend my vision that little bit more and hopefully get a better look at what I'm trying to spot—before getting throttled back by thermal protection, I would be completely satisfied and it would make me significantly more likely than I already am to buy this light (which means it would be pretty certain, since I'm already excited about it).

And that's not because of number chasing and impressing friends alone, that's because my experience leads me to believe it would have significant value in my actual use. Others seem to desire it too, for whatever various reasons. I think it's a mistake to limit options on a light that is so valuable due to its flexibility, restrain the upper limit of its abilities despite already having the necessary safety to allow it to be easily implemented, and then to defend that position by taking a belittling attitude towards contrary viewpoints.

I mean no disrespect by this, but I think this is an important design decision and I don't want to see the Clicky fall just barely short of being exactly the light I'm looking for right now, especially when it could so easily do just what I/we want.

Also, how long might 140 or 170 run on the 18670 pack, since I assume you might make one for this model too?

One more thought on it: Since it seems you now would prefer to not send your lights out with a level they can't maintain for a long period and you probably want to name the lights by their maximum output, as you always have, you probably wouldn't be satisfied with simply calling the light a 120, setting 120 as the default max, but providing higher options in the menu. However, since you obviously like to include backdoors in your lights to add extended abilities for advanced users, what if the 120 had a backdoor that unlocked higher levels? I would happily go through 250 clicks (or whatever) to extend the dynamic range of my light to where I'd ideally want it.




tebore said:


> I wouldn't mind having the option of having 170 lumens for 15 mins. This is the reason why it's not a single level light, even now I use around the 20lm level majority of the time. From time to time I do the 120lm level. I want it as a option even as a burst.
> 
> As the old saying goes "It's better to have and not need than to need and not have."


Yes, that's exactly my opinion but in less long-winded form.




HDS_Systems said:


> GT (guaranteed tint), on the other hand, is more of a negotiating issue combined with a bit of luck. We were able to get a reel of GT-grade LEDs so they will be available as a standard offering.


This is fantastic news! I've been hoping you'd bring back the GT quickly, it's primarily the tint of my B42XRGT that keeps it as my EDC. I would love to upgrade to another GT HDS! :thumbsup:




tempman said:


> I cant count how many times the low-low comes in handy with my 85p, but in the middle of the night, it is a tad bit too much light for my 2 a.m. eyes.


Same here, the super low low on my EDCs is one of their most valuable features to me, and there are still times when I'd prefer even lower than 0.08. To me, the low range of Henry's lights really demonstrates his understanding of what's valuable in a multi-level torch, I really appreciate it.


----------



## fnj (Jul 10, 2008)

For my part, I couldn't care less about having anything greater than 80-120 lumens in a light this size (especially considering point 2 below). It serves no practical purpose for this particular target application. Henry's explanation is spot on to my way of thinking. I LOVE the extra low low. I LOVE the extra care with the switching mechanism and battery restraint. Henry is $DEITY anyway. 

1) Only Henry ever gave us GT. I've never seen a better tint than my production Ultimate 60XRGT even in a one off, and to maintain this in an entire production run is unprecedented. 

2) Only Henry ever gave us a spec for true lumens out the front of the assembled, complete light. Not some made up figure; not just parroting the LED manufacturer's figure for bare LED output - and not a maximum, not even an average, but a figure every light met (see point 3). 120 Henry lumens is equivalent to anywhere from 140 to 200 of anybody else's lumens anyway. 

3) Only Henry ever had a production setup which gave every individual light the quoted output. 

Lastly, I for one don't really see a need for an 18650 tube for this particular light. I think that should be an entirely different product. It's substantially bigger, a much more specialized application, and perhaps would be an opportunity to go for larger diameter head for more throw, and sure, in this projected application, boost up the output to full OMG level. :devil:


----------



## paxxus (Jul 10, 2008)

Saturn, I agree with everything you said. But I suspect it might not be as simple as you make it sound like. You are assuming that the electronics are actually capable of generating the kind of current needed to reach those higher outputs without compromising other features like e.g. the low-low we all like.

Yes, Henry makes it sound like he just chose to not make it go any higher, but there could be more to it than that. If fact, it seems very weird to artificially deprive the customer flexibility, why on earth would you do that, makes no sense. So I suspect that there is more to it than simply changing a variable in the software.

Edit: The Arc6 might serve as an indication of the kind of sacrifices needed in order to be able to get 200+ lumens. I'll pass.


----------



## fnj (Jul 10, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> Aluminum is the optimum material for most of the body for a great variety of reasons. It weights less than titanium, has better electrical and thermal conductivity and it can be anodized to provide electrical isolation. The bezel is one place where aluminum is not the best choice. Stainless steel is probably the optimum choice for all around durability and cost. Titanium does weigh slightly less but is it worth 15 times the cost? Only the customer can make that decision.


I can't take issue with the fact that aluminum is much the best PRACTICAL choice, but speaking as a titanium nut case, I would really love a titanium version at some point. Heat treated Ti-6Al-4V is way, way stronger than any aluminum and a full 40% lighter than stainless steel. Even elemental titanium would be fine. It has way better corrosion resistance than even stainless, too. If you have two camera housings which have been under ocean water for an extended period, one stainless and one titanium, the difference is amazing. 

It is possible to anodize titanium, but it is a cosmetic travesty, and absolutely pointless from a corrosion standpoint. Seeing and holding a finely polished machined titanium object is just heavenly. 

Now, having said all that, and given that I already have three titanium lights at considerable expense, I'm not sure if I could (or should!) swing another one.


----------



## karlthev (Jul 10, 2008)

Well, I'm in partial agreement with fnj. I don't see the need for trying to squeeze that very last (usually impossible to discern!) lumen out of a light. Maybe I'm getting to old in my approach but, I'm in for the reliability factor much more so than the "WOW" factor which the ultimate output purchasers may have in mind. We all like to have just a wee bit more output at times but, as with everything, there is a realistic limit. I'd much prefer to have a steady light working for me during a decent runtime rather than a sun-tanning one which will work for a millisecond or two but, that's me. I guess I'll carry two Ra clickies if I need more light---"just in case"!

Now, some folks do prefer the GT tint but, to me, the bluer shades just seems to put a bit more of an "edge" on objects I'm illuminating at night. I agree, the true color may not be there with the bluer shades but, color vision isn't the forte of the human species at night anyway so, I like that edge of clarity. 

The lowest of the lows in lumens is the key to a usable light when we wake up in the pre dawn hours and haven't had our eyes light-adapted. Tritium vials can sometimes illuminate an entire room. Low is good.



Karl


----------



## fnj (Jul 10, 2008)

Hey, karlthev, I know the feeling. How about this? For almost no additional pocket weight and bulk you could carry the HDS *and* a cheap Fenix with a fresh 123, for those times to want the wow factor. It's way smaller than the HDS anyway, so it makes a hell of an impression.


----------



## karlthev (Jul 10, 2008)

I like to carry a *Mag* in *MY* pocket to make an impression! Heh, heh!:devil:


Karl


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 10, 2008)

paxxus said:


> I suspect it might not be as simple as you make it sound like. You are assuming that the electronics are actually capable of generating the kind of current needed to reach those higher outputs without compromising other features like e.g. the low-low we all like.


That's true, though I hope that if there were a technical reason like that Henry would just tell us that instead of making a case for why we don't actually want it. Besides, my understanding is that the EDCs were often putting as much as 1.4A to the led, more than an SSC can handle. No problem with the low end in that design, though I suppose with a modern led there might be some limitation that must be overcome to get the power low enough to maintain the low with an emitter that's twice as efficient, and that could lead to problems with the dynamic range? But that's just a guess at a possibility and I don't see why anything like that would be the case. But maybe you're right; otherwise, I agree it doesn't seem to make much sense.



paxxus said:


> The Arc6 might serve as an indication of the kind of sacrifices needed in order to be able to get 200+ lumens. I'll pass.


Yeah I agree on that, the Arc's lack of versatility is a little disappointing; not extremely low, not many moderate level choices, but extremely high top end. I don't think it hits 200lm though; as I recall, Don's measurement of its output was something like 190 in a sphere that tends to be 10% optimistic? Not positive on it but something like that. That puts it right around the 170lm we're discussing here. How many of us would love nothing more than an HDS with somewhere around the Arc's burst output? I sure would, though it wouldn't be worth sacrificing the low levels if that were for some reason necessary.


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (Jul 10, 2008)

My take on the subject of lumen output is this:

Allow the programming mode to let a user choose Level 23 on the charts if they so desire. Have this setup on a certain version of the Ra Clicky, separate from the other 1-hour-runtime-on-maximum capped versions. 
If this is possible using what is available for current Ra production, I can see it making many more users happy. Those of us who want promised 1 hour runtime on maximum can buy accordingly. Others who want the ability to have the extra 50lm on the top end can buy that version if they like. 

Despite the extra time in production, I think allowing Level 23 on some version of the Clicky would put this torch over and above. `

Also, in the future of an added 18670 body tube, the increased length and greater cell capacity would make a torch capable of handling 170lm for ~30 minutes, right?. If I'm right, that's not bad, and fairly practical in my opinion. It surely would keep the Clicky on the cutting edge longer.

Regardless of my opinion, I have to take my place as a customer and be content with what is provided. GT is an amazing surprise, Level 23 would put me in a state of awe. I'm thankful just to be able to own a light and feed it. Some people can't even feed themselves.


----------



## tebore (Jul 10, 2008)

If the HDS EDC could pump 140-150lm (Depending on the light and SSC used) I don't see why the new clicky can't have the option of doing so. The old HDS drew about 1.2-1.5A (depending on light) on Level 1. Assuming ~80% converter efficiency the LED saw about 1A which was within spec for a LuxIII running for a short period of time. 

The upper safe limit for an SSC is about 1.2A for short run times and proper cooling. The Seoul's not so robust consturction compared to Cree, the LuxIII would be the only limiting factor I can see. It's not the electronics that Henry designed.

I guess one way around this would be to use TFFC K2/Rebels. Take a small hit in efficiency but have the ability to use more current. But would it be worth it? It takes a huge amount of power to get to 170lm out the front as we see in the ArcLS.

I guess 140 - 150lm is the realistic and reliable limit imposed by LED choice.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 10, 2008)

Tebore, I believe the current specs I was trying to remember were yours, thanks for correcting me.


----------



## HoopleHead (Jul 10, 2008)

+1 for:

- 120lm max is fine by me
- really want an ultra low low
- would love a looooong lasting locator beacon
- wont ever use rechargeables in it
- want both an AL and Ti version 

lets not try and make the clicky into something it shouldnt be!


----------



## Reima (Jul 10, 2008)

tebore said:


> The old HDS drew about 1.2-1.5A (depending on light) on Level 1. Assuming ~80% converter efficiency the LED saw about 1A which was within spec for a LuxIII running for a short period of time.


I actually measured the current going to the LED of my HDS U60 when I modded it with a Seoul USWOH. On Level 1 the current was 0.845 A at 3.426 Volts.

My HDS puts out about 6% more total output than my Ra 120TW according to my poorman's light box. They both have the same lux reading (2280) at 1 meter.

RC


----------



## tebore (Jul 10, 2008)

Reima said:


> I actually measured the current going to the LED of my HDS U60 when I modded it with a Seoul USWOH. On Level 1 the current was 0.845 A at 3.426 Volts.
> 
> My HDS puts out about 6% more total output than my Ra 120TW according to my poorman's light box. They both have the same lux reading (2280) at 1 meter.
> 
> RC



What was the draw at the battery? And your light is a plan U60 non-XR? Also whats the serial number? You don't have to give the whole thing if you don't want to, just the first digit will do. It'll give an indication of the age of the light. 

All of mine are under 3000 so fairly early in production. With a 6% increase and since it's a poor man's light box your light is still in the realm of about 130lm. Without a real IS all I have are visual comparisons and estimates. 

I'll have to take some readings the next time I have the light apart. Interesting thing I took a reading with a light had upgraded from a USWOI to a U2SWOH showed a ~15% increase in lux, don't hold these as gospel as it was really quick and dirty measurement. Interestingly on Level 20 the light appears to be 2x as bright(going up 1 level).


----------



## karlthev (Jul 10, 2008)

I guess I'm always a "ham and egger" in terms of the technical information and so I do appreciate those posting what I often don't realize is "going on behind the scenes" so to speak. Thanks!


Karl


----------



## Reima (Jul 10, 2008)

tebore said:


> What was the draw at the battery? And your light is a plan U60 non-XR? Also whats the serial number? You don't have to give the whole thing if you don't want to, just the first digit will do. It'll give an indication of the age of the light.
> 
> All of mine are under 3000 so fairly early in production. With a 6% increase and since it's a poor man's light box your light is still in the realm of about 130lm. Without a real IS all I have are visual comparisons and estimates.


Serial number is 4320. It is just a plain U60, it gives around 24 minutes on maximum (in a bowl of water) before stepping down.
I had measured the draw from the battery once but don't recall what is was. If I can't find the information anywhere then I will measure it again.
RC


----------



## pobox1475 (Jul 10, 2008)

- 120 lm max is fine 
- want an average low
- would love it to be waterproof
- want it to perform exceptionally well with rechargeable in it
- want Ti version if it will not be >$35 over AL
- supplied with even a basic belt sheath would be icing on the cake


----------



## seery (Jul 10, 2008)

After having owned and used daily my 120-T for 5 weeks, I have found . . . 

- The tint, design and execution, and output to runtime ratio, are all perfect.

*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*

How does this relate to the new Ra Clicky and the discussion at hand . . .

- I absolutely trust Henry's decision are based on research, marketing, and
science vs. some flavor of the months ideas that many of us on CPF express.

- And I've proven my trust in Henry and the new Clicky by securing the #1 &
#2 spots on Unique Titanium's pre-pay list.

*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*

All of our ideas and suggestion are good, they aid Henry in the marketing
spectrum of the new design, but ultimately are taken with a grain of salt
as they apply to the research and science aspects of the project at hand.

YMMV


----------



## wvaltakis2 (Jul 10, 2008)

All the rest is negotiable but I really really really want a Ti version. That being said I also like having a "burst/turbo" feature and low low, but they're not deal breakers.

~Chip


----------



## yaesumofo (Jul 10, 2008)

Actually the switch in a pd is completely different to anything in use. The orignal McGizmo PD design doesn't have a "switch" the Piston completed the circuit. there are 2 circuits in a PD neither has a Asian made tiny button type of switch in it.
The only thing that makes Henry's lights tolerant of differing battery length is a little extra spring in the battery holder. I really can't call this a revolutionary design element.


The ARC IV which was also Henry's design was a disaster. BTW

If you were to look at the images of the innards of the nightmare PD lights you would notice that it does not have a switch anything remotely resembling the switch in the ARC 4. Which was a terrible design.
http://www.google.com/search?q=arc+4+switch&sitesearch=candlepowerforums.com

look at this:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/201894

Actually the PD concept is very well proven there are hundreds of lights with PD type switches in use every day. I have never heard of a switch failure in a flashlight with a PD type of switch.
Do a "pd switch failure" search in the forum and have a look at what comes up....Nothing relating to a PD switch failure that I can find.

The reason this type of switch was chosen was precisely because of it's inherent reliability and safety.
You need to have a closer look at these lights before announcing that it is an unproven design. This is simply NOT a true statement.

Personally I do not believe that the HDS light (any of them) lend themselves to the use of a piston drive type of switching system. As you said Henry has done a lot of work in designing his switching system. It is complicated and has lots of parts(I am referring to his older HDS EDC series). But it works just fine. We have yet to see his new "clicky" I am sure it will work just fine.

As an owner of many of henry's flashlights I can attest to their durability. Henry makes a good flashlight (ARC IV not withstanding).

The bottom line here is that is is good to see that a design like the PD is working it's way into commercial production. It is simple, has few moving parts and will likely NEVER wear out. Lights with tiny little Asian made switches will always have a finite life span because when that switch goes the light is gone. Like I said In several years of owning and operating numerous lights which are based upon the PD switch design I have never heard of one's switch failing. It almost can't happen. 
I doubt that we will ever hear that a nightmare D10 switch has failed. (other components might fail but not the switch)
Yaesumofo






Blindasabat said:


> The HDS system works too well with the electronic switch. BUT I will give you the fact that the HDS system of not using the body tube to carry current lends itself to a PD style piston to replace the spring or old prongs of the early HDS. Plus it would make it more robust while the piston would fit in the same space as the spring or old HDS prongs. For that reason, I wouldn't entirely discount it, but I think it is not likely because Henry spent a lot of time developing the current switch, it works very well, and is more tolerant of different length batteries.
> 
> The new Nitecore lights still have a switch just like the old Arc4; it is just in the head now. You still have to have a switch of some sort, so PD does not make it more robust by "removing" a clicky - it just "moves" and uses a different type of (new and unproven) switch.
> 
> ...


----------



## HKJ (Jul 10, 2008)

yaesumofo said:


> I doubt that we will ever hear that a nightmare D10 switch has failed.



All types of switches has a rated lifetime, some may be designed for a few 1000 pressed, other for millions of presses, but they all have a limit.

I have looked at the inside of the EX10 and it does not look like something that wears out easily, but other problems can show up:
Dirt inside the light can block the switch.
A deform battery housing will prevent the piston from moving.

I like my D10 and EX10 and believe that the switch will last for a long time, probably longer than most forward and reverse clickies, maybe the switch in LF5XT and NovaTac can match it, and they are not as sensitive to the above two points.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 10, 2008)

seery said:


> After having owned and used daily my 120-T for 5 weeks, I have found . . .
> 
> - The tint, design and execution, and output to runtime ratio, are all perfect.
> . . .
> ...


Actually, you're wrong, it's not perfect. 120lm is too much for any legitimate use and one hour is not long enough for a minimum runtime, sorry. These lights shouldn't be able to go over 60lm, because that's the most practical level and 2+ hours is the correct minimum runtime to make it perfect.

Of course I'm just kidding and mean you no disrespect at all. However, this is essentially the attitude that's being taken here in defense of a more conservative design. 120lm is apparently the right amount of light for your uses, as far as you're concerned, and it's true that is a substantial and very useful amount of light. But what if your light were arbitrarily capped at 85 while other lights were starting to get up to 120? Would you simply say that 85 is actually the perfect amount of light for you, or would you pine for the 120 you find perfect now? Or what if you experimented with your light and found that 85 is actually the most perfect output/runtime ratio for you on high, would you be bothered that your light has the ability to go a step higher than what works best for you in your environment for your uses?

120lm for an hour is fantastic, obviously these lights are excellent whether they ever go higher than that or not. I think it's pretty safe to say at this point that Henry is not even capable of creating a light that isn't excellent, whether it fits everyone's needs and tastes or not. But I hope the often silly LED max output war that's been raging for the last couple years hasn't made us "more refined" users so afraid of the stigma developing around it that we're afraid to ask for more output when there is a useful increase in functionality to be had and no downside to having it. I don't think anyone is saying, "the Clicky must be able to produce 170lm, otherwise it will not be a good light, and if it can't do it easily now it must be redesigned to do it no matter the cost and sacrifice that might be involved, science and research be damned!" What we're saying, or what I'm saying, is that if a switch can be thrown that allows the option of significantly more light (my eyes say 170 is significantly more than 120 and 140 is just barely significant over 100) at the expense of drastically reduced battery life on that level alone _if_ the user decides to use it, and there are no detrimental side-effects incurred by any other level or function, I would very much like that switch to be thrown. If there's a legitimate reason that this would not be nearly so simple as it seems, that's absolutely fine and I would no longer request something that's truly not practically feasible, but Henry has not yet given us such an explanation, he has only implied that he thinks it impractical to give us the option of higher output from a runtime and heat standpoint, issues that don't even apply to how I (and I assume most users) would use such a level. I don't want a miracle beyond what's technologically possible at this time, I don't want the option of detonating the light in a 1000lm explosion, I just want to be given a reasonable and seemingly easily provided choice. Have we become afraid of choices? Did we dislike the U60 for providing a level it couldn't maintain longterm? Or do we appreciate lights that are designed to offer more to those with the necessary understanding to make full and proper use of what's available?

And I think you'll have a difficult time making the argument that making a brighter flashlight is a flavor of the month idea here...


----------



## karlthev (Jul 10, 2008)

Whatever. I'll keep this post (comparatively) short. With all due respect this size light providing 120 lumens is well enough for a light of its size--in most people's opinion. If I want to light up a field, I'll bring on my Hotwires and my HIDs---at a great loss of EDC size in the effort. I still carry an Arc LS and it still has plenty of light for the uses for which it was intended. The right tool for the right job. In case you're wondering, I drive a 130 horsepower car as well---goes the speed limit and well beyond if needed and, does what its supposed to do--provides transporation. If I need to go 150, I need to go to the racetrack.



Karl


----------



## seery (Jul 10, 2008)

SaturnNyne said:


> And I think you'll have a difficult time making the argument that making a brighter flashlight is a flavor of the month idea here...



Notice I said _"many of *us*"_ ! :naughty:

It wasn't just output I was referring to. We have the luxury here on CPF of interacting with flashlight designers
that actually listen and respect our opinions. IMO though, it seems we sometimes go to far, or drag on to long,
in expressing our expectations or "needs", almost to the point of whining.

I'd love it my Alpha Hummer could do 185MPH top end, but it doesn't.

Great tools are all about great balance.


----------



## tebore (Jul 10, 2008)

Would you guys please forget the car analogy. 
If cars were compared to lights. 

HID's would be Monster trucks and EDCs are Superbikes. Or something ridiculous. A programmable clicky would be a car that has an engine with multi-displacement and completely adjustable suspension. 

If a light is programmable with multi-level it shouldn't have such a conservative max. The user should be smart enough to have programmed the correct level for the job and have a max that could be used as a burst (Not in the sense like the Arc6's max) but like the old EDC's max where it can run for about 10-20 mins. 

I thought America was the land of choice, freedom and the freedom to make a choice. Instead it looks like majority is happy with "We know better and this is good for you or this is good enough for you"

Henry is taking this "I know better than you" approach in his lights. 

His battery protection scheme I REALLY don't agree with. There should be an override to kill the li-ion so I can get as much light out of the battery as I can. It's the light that gets you home. Well you know what? Sometime home is just a bit further. 

So PLEASE Henry rethink your decision on the battery protection scheme and consider what some of us are saying on the max output.


----------



## yaesumofo (Jul 10, 2008)

I have dozens of lights and have never found any dirty inside any of them ever.
A hit or fall or strike which has enough energy to deform the piston in the D10 or EX10 would likely damage more than the piston.
If it did not and the electronics were not damaged then the twisty aspect of the light will still work. That is part of the inherent safety and dependability of the design.
The whole thing about the piston design is the simple fact that there is not some tiny 1 or 2 mm area that requires contact for the light to work. the whole area of the edge of the piston and the area on the brass ring where it makes contact make up this switch. Again I doubt we will ever hear about a failure of this aspect of the design.
Keep in mind that the switching is not really done by the piston. it is done by the switching circuit. This of course could fail for any number of reasons. the switches in the novatak or LF5XT could succumb to an electronic failure just as easily. One advantage that the D10 and EX10 have is that there is no voltage present on the OUTSIDE of the light. only through the piston and ring is there voltage present.
Grit and grime really could effect any of these lights equally IMHO.
The fact that the LF5XT uses a tiny little contact switch is much more likely to suffer from switch failure or some other failure related to a parts failure IMHO the LF5XT is over complicated. there is a lot of potential for failure in this light. That little switch certainly has a rating number (I do not know what it is) I would wager that all things being equal that any light with a PD design switch would outlast the LF5XT by quite a MARGIN.
Unfortunately I seriously doubt we will ever really know the answer to this question. One can tell by just looking that the PD switch design is far more robust that that of the over complicated LF5XT.

IMHO people who are interested in the RA Clicky will not ever have to deal with the over complicated design of the LF5XT in the Ra Clicky. Henry will I am sure keep things simple. He must have learned that creating an over complicated design (ARC IV) is a bad idea especially when something simple will do just fine.
Yaesumofo




HKJ said:


> All types of switches has a rated lifetime, some may be designed for a few 1000 pressed, other for millions of presses, but they all have a limit.
> 
> I have looked at the inside of the EX10 and it does not look like something that wears out easily, but other problems can show up:
> Dirt inside the light can block the switch.
> ...


----------



## seery (Jul 10, 2008)

tebore said:


> Henry is taking this "I know better than you" approach in his lights.


Aside from the fact he does, I don't agree he is.


----------



## tebore (Jul 11, 2008)

seery said:


> Aside from the fact he does, I don't agree he is.



Does he? No really does he? 
It's not like his decisions are based on science and proven stats. They are design decisions based on preference. 

His old lights had could kill the battery and push the emitter really hard. 
He just CHOSE not to push the emitter as hard in the new lights and CHOSE to protect the battery and say user be damned(If you need more light you should have brought more batteries). 

I don't really mind him pushing the twisty as hard because "It's not programmable" so it should have runtime in mind as a compromise. But the Clicky is programmable. Shouldn't the user have enough intelligence to figure how much light is needed for the job at hand?

The thing that really irks me is the battery protection scheme which Henry stated he's porting to the clicky.


----------



## yaesumofo (Jul 11, 2008)

I don't think that is was so much a "choice" as a change in technology allowing him to extract the same flux while using less energy.
Many people are fans of pure output. others want runtime.
New technology allows Henry to satisfy both to a degree.
Yaesumofo





tebore said:


> Does he? No really does he?
> It's not like his decisions are based on science and proven stats. They are design decisions based on preference.
> 
> His old lights had could kill the battery and push the emitter really hard.
> ...


----------



## tebore (Jul 11, 2008)

yaesumofo said:


> I don't think that is was so much a "choice" as a change in technology allowing him to extract the same flux while using less energy.
> Many people are fans of pure output. others want runtime.
> New technology allows Henry to satisfy both to a degree.
> Yaesumofo



Like I said the level on the twisty is a good compromise. But in a multi-level programmable there's no need to be as conservative. 

I really wasn't trying hit the brightness level as my point. My point was really the protection scheme. A very noticeable warning and NOT letting the user completely deplete the cell is something I don't agree with. 

Think. If a light was supposed to ultra reliable and the main objective is to get the user home safely at all costs. Why is the battery more important that the user?


----------



## HDS_Systems (Jul 11, 2008)

SaturnNyne,

I understand your point and will take it under advisement. The problem is not quite as trivial as you may think it is. Things become exponentially non-linear at the high end. So no promises but I will consider the possibilities.

The old EDCs never put anywhere near 1.4A into the LED. They would draw 1.4A from a brand new battery. That current continued to raise as the voltage sagged. Torturing the battery is a good way to generate a lot of heat, short runtimes and not much more light.

Dynamic range is a tough problem - especially if you want pleasant results.

Tebore,

The most the old EDC Ultimate/Basic design ever put out was 108 lumens. I custom built it for a customer and it only worked on Li-ion batteries for a short time before thermal limiting. The production units only achieved 85 lumens. I am not sure where you got the 140-150 lumen figures from. Perhaps it was a modded light.

Henry.


----------



## tebore (Jul 11, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> SaturnNyne,
> 
> I understand your point and will take it under advisement. The problem is not quite as trivial as you may think it is. Things become exponentially non-linear at the high end. So no promises but I will consider the possibilities.
> 
> ...



I thought it was obvious it was a modded light. I should have made it more clear.


----------



## smopoim86 (Jul 11, 2008)

Ok, I'll jump in here. 

On the topic of saving a li ion, doesn't the light know what type of battery is in it by the starting voltage? If it cut off on a li ion, (reinstalling that battery) wouldnt' the light think it was a primary and run it dry? Just a thought, seems like it shouldn't be too hard to outsmart. 

As far as the other aspects of the light being discussed. I agree that on a programmable light, it should be capable of outputting more than is resonable (thermally and runtime wise). The people buying these lights should understand the consequences of going over the high level into a turbo. Going back to the car analogy. It's like having NOS. You get that punch, but you cant keep it there. Just because the car cant run on NOS for a very long time doesn't mean that it's worthless. It has it's uses.

Daniel


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 11, 2008)

Oh great googly moogly, now I have to write another ridiculously long response in a conversation about how choosing 120lm is better than being forced to accept 120lm. I'll probably have to dramatize it into some kind of issue of America, Freedom, and the Ideals of our Founding Fathers, then close with a zenful comparison of the theoretical 170C to a soaring eagle, floating through the majestic sky, free of all restraints... Ok here I go!



karlthev said:


> With all due respect this size light providing 120 lumens is well enough for a light of its size--in most people's opinion.


There's no disrespect in that, you're only agreeing with what I just said, it's my opinion too. Obviously 120 is good enough, generally. That's quite a lot of light. But I associate HDS more with the pursuit of perfection than with mediocrity and adequacy. 120 would certainly be adequate for me and I'd likely buy it regardless of max output. After all, I have brighter lights too, I'd continue to use them as I do now. But for me personally, this is an issue of whether or not my next EDC light will maintain that status quo or actually allow me to leave a slightly bigger light behind in some situations. A burst of 170lm would possibly allow me to use this light alone in some situations where I now have to bother with two, that would be very appreciated by me at times when I'm more interested in doing something that requires a flashlight than in playing with multiple flashlights. But I wouldn't be very excited about its output if it only maintained my current situation rather than expanding my lighting capabilities a little. "More than adequate" output would excite me and make me still more likely to buy. Obviously Henry thinks still higher output has some value too, 140 and 170 are already on the output charts to cover whatever future product hits them. I'd just like that kind of output now with a runtime hit rather than later when an emitter is developed that can maintain it for an hour. Of course when such an emitter comes along, I'll be very interested in what it can put out for 15 minutes... 



karlthev said:


> If I want to light up a field, I'll bring on my Hotwires and my HIDs---at a great loss of EDC size in the effort.


If that attitude is intended to explain why there's no reason to pursue anything higher than what we've already got, I guess everyone who isn't an obsessed flashaholic with a handy monster light is rather out of luck if they have an interest in viewing either fields or things in fields without the benefit of the sun. People have very different needs and that should be respected, not devalued as incorrect. A 5mm led will light up a field. An old LS will do it better. A 120lm Ra will do it better still. And then a HID is another level of field lighting well beyond that. What size field do you enjoy lighting up? What level of lighting up? What level of dark adaptation and ambient lighting? What about meadows? Forests? Paths? Cute bunnies? Cute man-eating bears? Scary chipmunks? If you want to light up outdoor things you'll bring your HID, and EDC lights, no matter how advanced and indestructible, shouldn't even try to go for higher output, they're only meant for finding keyholes, maneuvering around apartments, sitting on shelves? What's the point here? If I want to light up a field, I'll use the best tool currently at my disposal. If that's a HID, fantastic, let's strike up that beast.  More likely it'll be what I'm carrying in my pocket, and I'd like it to the do best job it can, because the ability to handle the widest variety of tasks as well as it possibly can is a major requirement for earning that place of honor in the pocket. That's what I pay for, lights that do the job better. This isn't a pissing contest about showing how excessively we can light our path, it's about using a flashlight for what a flashlight is used for. It is not my belief that flashlights aren't for use on, in, or near fields though, or that only shoulder slung spotlights and overdriven mods are allowed for that. If I am faced with a dark field and I need to light it up and I only have my edc, I'm going to use it to the full extent of its lighting up abilities and hope they're enough; I'm not going to just curl up and pray for the dawn because I don't have your monster light foresight.  



karlthev said:


> I still carry an Arc LS and it still has plenty of light for the uses for which it was intended.


Both the LS and the Ra line are intended to serve as edc lights right? So ~20lm is plenty of light for an edc light, for anyone, in any situation? Why did we ever bother with brighter edc lights then, and why were they so popular? I'm pretty sure the Arcs output was limited not by a decision of what is the correct level but instead by the limits of the technology of the time. If Peter could have made it brighter without sacrificing anything, I'm sure he would have. What's changed so much, why do we now want to pick a number, declare it right and proper, and get up in arms against being allowed to have a choice?



karlthev said:


> The right tool for the right job.


The right tool for a job is not necessarily the absolutely perfect tool for only one possible task. Sometimes, the right tool is a compromise that can handle a wider variety of tasks. Fortunately, giving this light the ability to handle a wider array of tasks would not require any great compromise, as far as I know at this point. If I'm wrong about that, so be it, I still had to ask and find out before just throwing the idea away.

And what is the job in this case? If the job is to be a light that will always run at least an hour every time you put in a fresh duracell, no matter what, the light you seem to be in favor of is certainly the right tool for it. If the job is to be the most flexible edc light it can be (which is what I value most), the light I'm proposing will be a superior tool. Not only that, it will also be able to do everything you want it to also, you'll just have to make a decision. The only downside here is if raising the output and, thus, raising the value also raises the price. But I think it may be a moot issue; my guess is that's already what will happen, we'll first get the 120lm Clicky that's being hinted at no matter what (or maybe an 85Cr and 100Cw for the base models, keep things just like the Twisty lineup for now), then later we'll have the option of paying a premium to either have the upper levels unlocked or get a better emitter when it becomes available. But I hope that's not the case.




seery said:


> We have the luxury here on CPF of interacting with flashlight designers that actually listen and respect our opinions. IMO though, it seems we sometimes go to far, or drag on to long,
> in expressing our expectations or "needs", almost to the point of whining.
> 
> Great tools are all about great balance.


That's absolutely true, we have a great privilege. It's also true that utilizing our ability to interact with a designer is a great balance between whining and providing feedback to be considered and hopefully utilized to make a better product. But I have seen a disgusting amount of whining and abuse of that privilege around here lately and I hope my opinions don't come across as that. I've tried to express my opinions respectfully and make it very clear that I don't think the highest possible output is a vital make-or-break issue for this light. But I do think my view is a valuable one that should be considered and I want it out there for discussion, so that the designer does receive the benefit of his customers' opinions, not just immediate agreement with everything proposed. I like Henry and HDS (a lot) and I feel I wouldn't be holding up my end of this deal if I didn't do my best to give him valuable feedback when I think I have some to give. I hope I'm doing an acceptable job of that, even if some people disagree but can't provide a compelling reason for disagreement.



seery said:


> I'd love it my Alpha Hummer could do 185MPH top end, but it doesn't.


I think, in that case, there's a very good reason for it not to! :duck:




tebore said:


> If a light is programmable with multi-level it shouldn't have such a conservative max. The user should be smart enough to have programmed the correct level for the job and have a max that could be used as a burst (Not in the sense like the Arc6's max) but like the old EDC's max where it can run for about 10-20 mins.
> 
> I thought America was the land of choice, freedom and the freedom to make a choice. Instead it looks like majority is happy with "We know better and this is good for you or this is good enough for you"


Precisely. :twothumbs

In conclusion, Tebore and I would like nothing more than for all flashaholics to soar like eagles. Thank you.


(whew, for anyone who actually read my entire rant, seriously, thank you, I probably owe you a high five.)


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 11, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> SaturnNyne,
> 
> I understand your point and will take it under advisement. The problem is not quite as trivial as you may think it is. Things become exponentially non-linear at the high end. So no promises but I will consider the possibilities.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Henry, your consideration is all I'm asking for. I fully realize this might not be as trivial as my speculation makes it sound. Pushing the limits must overcome diminishing returns and a little more light requires a lot more power and heat. You of course know far more about the technological limitations involved and it's up to you to figure out if it _can_ be done, I just want to make sure you fully realize that plenty of users would think it _should_ be done if it reasonably can be. If not, thank you for looking into it, and I'll be satisfied with the Clicky as long as I know its dynamic range is as great as can reasonably be expected of it.

And yes my amperage figures were pulled from memory and were a little off, I hadn't realized it was at the battery and not at the led.  Fortunately Tebore stepped in and corrected me.


----------



## karlthev (Jul 11, 2008)

Tebore....nah, I'll always compare lights to cars. Both are needed and both, as with life in general, share share strengths and limitations. Some are for using some are for playing. 

Saturn, you make good points and on some issues (NOT problems mind you!)we are in agreement and I'd sure like to continue at length but, I simply don't have the time for the rhetoric that you evidently have--guess I'm too busy usin' my lights--LEDs, Hotwires, HIDs both old and new, to be defending their attributes as well as their limitations. You sure do have a real cute writing style though!:kiss:

I certainly do want the very best that technology can offer. I wish I didn't have this driven spirit to get the very best performer out there--I'd probably be driving a nicer car!:laughing: The fact is I have amassed the best of the best lights (IMHO) over the years and "road test" every one of them. I don't push them to destruction, I treat them as the expensive tools and use them as they were intended. I don't expect every 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/8 extra lumen out of them for that millisecond "rush", I just want them to be straightforward in terms of UI and work when I need them. In short, I'm a user vs a designer, builder or dreamer. In my experience, when those brief burst extra lumens become the sole issue and we lose sleep over them, we may have to stand back and think it over again. Whenever that extra light starts coming out the front of our lights and, we use the same batteries, we find ---no light in an increasingly shortened period of time. Given that as a fact, I really don't have a use for a one lumen light that never needs a battery change either! I want a user. 

Now, in my quest for the ultimate light that is the size that fits best in my hand, has an infinite number of levels accessible through Vulcan Mind Meld and runs for at least 6 years without a battery change (AND, has a "momentary"---10 hours at least !---super duper HIGHEST HIGH), I have collected and tested (at night, in the woods, in fields) dozens, scores, hundreds (?) of lights. I am more than happy to say that I finally found that ultimate light last night after years of my quest---I found it in my dreams and I am happy to say, it is everything all of us have ever dreamed of! You know the very best part of my find? The light is free!! 

You write as a real friendly sort of guy with a more than open mind and an enormous ability to dream so I'll give you a tip (since I've found the ultimate), I'll be posting all of my other lights on BST real soon so, keep your eyes open for some drop dead dynamite deals!

Whoops, strike that "tip" on the sales, I DID say it was dream didn't I? Well no harm in dreaming as long as we now how to separate fantasy from reality--we do don't we? Well, until my dream comes true, I'll have to slog it out in the woods, being practical and still missing that occasional gargoyle or ogre or two since I don't have my zillion power momentary burst mode.....or maybe I should just bring a bigger light....?:thinking: 

I'll leave the real design and manufacture of lights to the experts---they've been doing one heckuva a job thus far--and the reality of limitations to Nature, seems as though SHE has been OK without my dreams thus far as well. When my Ra Clicky shows up at the door I'm afraid it won't be the ultimate, it'll be a compromise but, it'll be the best so far (I believe) and I'll test it out when I'm not dreaming. 

Karl


----------



## Valpo Hawkeye (Jul 11, 2008)

tebore said:


> Would you guys please forget the car analogy.
> If cars were compared to lights.
> 
> HID's would be Monster trucks and EDCs are Superbikes. Or something ridiculous. A programmable clicky would be a car that has an engine with multi-displacement and completely adjustable suspension.
> ...



tebore, why the attitude? You obviously have the right to give your input on the lights Henry makes, but why do you have a chip on your shoulder? If you've got these great ideas, maybe you should sink years of your life into designing and producing lights. Then you can have some anonymous guy question your designs online. 

Additionally, why tell people to ditch the car analogies then perpetuate it yourself? And finally, home would be just a bit _farther_ not _further._


----------



## tebore (Jul 11, 2008)

Valpo Hawkeye said:


> tebore, why the attitude? You obviously have the right to give your input on the lights Henry makes, but why do you have a chip on your shoulder? If you've got these great ideas, maybe you should sink years of your life into designing and producing lights. Then you can have some anonymous guy question your designs online.
> 
> Additionally, why tell people to ditch the car analogies then perpetuate it yourself? And finally, home would be just a bit _farther_ not _further._



Thank you for the spelling fix it was 1AM. 

Clearly the car analogy was done with a bit of sarcasm. It was to prove analogies don't always work.

Maybe I should sink years of my life in to designing a flashlight but there's too many lights out I'd be put out of business before my first product is even on paper. 

My question. Why the attitude towards me? I'm not bashing anyone I'm just stated my opinion. You jump in defensively and frankly I find your post to be trollish bashing post. Calling me an anonymous guy who just questions designs. 

Let me tell you I work in IT. The best way to develop a product is to hear your users *****. Why? Because then you know what works and what doesn't. It's better to hear the moaning now than when the product is done. Right now I'm playing the part of the bitchy user. 

I mentioned my opinions before and I wasn't really given an answer.


----------



## Gatsby (Jul 11, 2008)

Well this is welcome news - as I somewhat regret my decision to sell my HDS B42XRGT some time ago instead of modding it. I never upgraded to the Novatac light but had an Arc4+ back in the day. I still believe that the fundamental UI concepts, and the ability to move rather easily between 4 different levels (i.e. I'm at primary I can reach directlymaximum, minimum, or secondary through a click sequence) remains untouched by other lights where I have to cycle through something else to get there. It may not be intuitive but it was always easy enough to learn and use and I'm pleased to see a further development of the idea.

As for lumens, I'm all for efficiency and practical solutions - I have some 18600 lights and a Mag85 if I really need scorching output. I personally rarely used the maximum setting on my HDS B42, and rarely use the highest output on my Jil JCR2IT with a P4 mod either. I rarely use maximum on my LF5, although somewhat more than my others. I do use maximum on my Dereelight CL1Hv3.0 but that's usually because I've chosen that light for an application that requires a lot of light. All in all I'm in favor of runtime over super high lumens. For me this is a factor as while I understand the idea of "choosing" a higher level or lower level if available, what I liked about the HDS design was the ability to have 4 levels - which include both max and min - so a super high and inefficient high makes it for me a 3 mode light as I'll almost never need or want to make that tradeoff. That means I'm having to program all levels and that makes the UI more complicated. Perhaps it is something to consider - having a higher output but programming the max output as well which does allow people to make their own decision. We'll see what Henry does with this, obviously I'm OK with the current setup (as represented by the HDS EDC model) since it meshes with my personal choices.

My only disappointment, and perhaps this is something that can be considered in the future, is that I have longed for a light with the UI of the HDS EDC/Novatac heritage, but in a AA/14500 format with a CR2 option since they are the same diameter (the Jil lights had both as an option and the Liteflux LF4 and LF5 bodies are interchangeable although never marketed separately). The biggest reason I sold my Arc4+ was that it didn't work reliably, but I sold my HDS and it saw less and less use due to the thickness of the body. A 1" diameter CR123 light is just too big for me to carry every day comfortably. I work in a business casual office and wear khakis or wool trousers most days and I look like I'm carrying a roll of quarters in my pocket with the HDS EDC or even the old Arc LS and 4 lights. I know many others feel the same way about the size and no question the D10 and LF5X light popularity, as well as the Defender and the Jetbeam and the Fenix AA lights is the popularity of that size and form factor. If anything it seems like a lot of folks are moving away from 123 based lights. I recognize that the 1.5v AA format might present challenges, but in a rechargeable world it seems like a 14500 and CR2 (primary and rechargeable) option would be both popular and relatively inexpensive to produce assuming the head, body and tailcap remain separate pieces as they were in the HDS lights...

Just something to consider.


----------



## Valpo Hawkeye (Jul 11, 2008)

tebore, it wasn't a spelling fix as much as it was incorrect word usage. Regardless, I find nothing to indicate "attitude" in my post. Perhaps farther vs further is the exception. Forgive me, it's 2:30 in the afternoon.

I don't have any problem with you voicing your opinions. In fact, I stated exactly that in the second sentence of my post. The issue I have is you "walking around like you're Billy Badass" questioning whether Henry has it right when he designs light specifications. He's been around for quite a while. He's produced many lights that have truly changed the flashlight world. 

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't label any of this lights as the perfect, end-all, be-all light. However, his designs are usually innovative, well thought out, practical and above all, superbly useful. That makes the score HDS:1, tebore:0 in my book.

Finally, farther vs further was _clearly_ done with a bit of sarcasm, as well. :shrug:


----------



## karlthev (Jul 11, 2008)

"Clearly the car analogy was done with a bit of sarcasm. It was to prove analogies don't always work."


They do work. Step one on the learning ladder. There clearly are many others for you to investigate.:shakehead


Karl


----------



## karlthev (Jul 11, 2008)

"Clearly the car analogy was done with a bit of sarcasm. It was to prove analogies don't always work."


They do work. Step one on the learning ladder. There clearly are many others for you to investigate.:shakehead

As an aside, is anyone here *buying* the new Ra Clickies or just discussing....? I'm on the list for the 120C and in for the $100 deposit.


Karl


----------



## HoopleHead (Jul 11, 2008)

my orders in, put a deposit down already. contemplating putting an order in for a 2nd already!


----------



## Dead_Nuts (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm sure I will be buying one, but it will be my decision based on what the light is. Henry will design and produce what he believes is the best configuration combining quality, durability and output. If we don't like his design decisions, we are free to not buy his lights. Works for me!


----------



## djj (Jul 11, 2008)

HoopleHead said:


> my orders in, put a deposit down already. contemplating putting an order in for a 2nd already!


 
I must have missed something... where did you put down a deposit for a Clicky?


----------



## yaesumofo (Jul 11, 2008)

Because preserving the life of the battery can possibly preserve the life of the user. Why? is a bit is a silly question and the answer is quite obvious.
A flashlight with a dead battery might just as be a hammer.
If you run out of light before you want to run out of light in the dark you really are up the creek.
IMHO I would rather have some light than none light in a situation where it is completely dry and my light is my only chance of getting out alive say in a cave for example. Yes Bright is great right up until I am out of batteries and out of light.

I think what you need to look at here is just what this light is designed to do. There is a possibility that there may be a better light based upon your needs. 
Lights are tools. Like any tool you wouldn't use a saw to hammer in a nail.
So picking the right light for the job can be equally important.

It seems to me to be a terrible habit here that people will buy a flashlight and find that it doesn't work for them the way they need it to. so they want to change how the light works to fit them. IMHO this is Bass ackwards. Buy the right light for the job in the first place and their is no problem.
People will be buying the Ra clicky expecting certain things.
They buy it regardless of whether or not it is the right light for the job they buy it because they have been told that they must have this light peer pressure or just because it looks cool. Almost all of these reasons are the WRONG reasons to buy a light if you plan to use it as intended as a tool on your belt designed for a specific use.
My issue with this are the endless "why can't it do this ?" Or why isn't it brighter" or does it have t ramp down if it gets hot? or what ever endless questions which will be asked.

Maybe the question should be asked Before the purchase.
Maybe that question should be"
Hey Henry, The Ra Clicky looks really cool, but I would like to know how it will fit into my every day use.
Henry Car you please describe the best uses for this light? can you please tell us how well it will hold up for me if I am a sewer worker? I work in the dark all day and night and need a reliable light with a Big beam that will stay on for hours on end Oh and it needs to be water proof too.
Will the Ra clicky or the twisty work for me?

This is an almost impossible to answer question because I have not included enough information. But it is a start. The point is there out here we have several types of buyers.
Those who buy everything they can for the drawer. those who love to fiddle with lights. they usually sell the ones they can use, Those who have every other light in a series and can't live without the next best thing, and finally those who will really use this light in a real world professional environment where they might even depend on a flashlight to either make a living, stay secure or save a life.

Henry makes the same light regardless of who is buying it (sort of like the MB commercial)
The most important customer is the one who will be using the light to save a life or protect his own. That person is not going to waste their time buying this or any other light if it is not going to meet his (or her) needs. 
Now all those other people pretty much have opinions and desires, but no real need. I believe that we hear the most from this group of people. and the least from those who are lifesavers and protectors and people who depend on their lights for life.

The point is that is Henry is listening to anybody out here I hop it is those who really use his products for more than white wall hunting and runtime measures and flashlight reviewers. I hope he is really listening to those people who use his products on the job every day. IMHO that is the most important feedback there is. Almost all of the other is complete fluff.
My posts included.
I do use my lights in the performance of my job function. I do not save lives, I am prepared to help if need be. If I did not have a flashlight at work I would not be able to work as efficiently as I do most of the time but it wouldn't be any kind of disaster.

All That said there are certainly some lights which are better tools for the job that I do than others. For example I used to use a 6P (It was just the best light available and most of the people around me used them so did I.
Today there are a number of light5s which are best for my job. It becomes subjective. At the moment I EDC a Lunasol 20.
I could do the Job just as well with an olde HDS EDC 60 or even a 45.
My point is that I am not trying to make the HDS RA clicky something it isn't I am not trying to force the light to mold to my will. I need to find lights which fit my needs. As cool as some lights are and as badly as I may want a light just because it is so cool It may not work for me. That should be just OK. and for me it is.
I have noticed that around here many people are not willing to accept a light for what it is. there is always a "how would you change this light or that light" thread. I am not sure I relate to those. if a light isn't a light you need ..just the way it is then don't buy it. buy another cool light.
Sorry about the rant. rant mode OFF.
Yaesumofo







tebore said:


> Think. If a light was supposed to ultra reliable and the main objective is to get the user home safely at all costs. Why is the battery more important that the user?


----------



## karlthev (Jul 11, 2008)

"I have noticed that around here many people are not willing to accept a light for what it is. there is always a "how would you change this light or that light" thread. I am not sure I relate to those. if a light isn't a light you need ..just the way it is then don't buy it. buy another cool light.
Sorry about the rant. rant mode OFF.
Yaesumofo"


Thanks for the post James. Lotta wisdom in it....let's hope some read and understand it.....



Karl


----------



## tebore (Jul 11, 2008)

Ok guys thank you've convinced me. This somehow got overly political instead of being technical. 

I will NOT be buy this light since you've guys convinced me it's not right for me. 

I will also unsubscribe from the thread. 

I stand by what i said the car analogy isn't working because with lights' there's no speed limit. Multi-level lights are cars that don't exist. Lights get more efficient when they go lower (to a point). Cars... well ... they don't The max efficiency is very narrow. You have speed limits, you don't have limits with lights you have requirements. If it fits it, fine.


----------



## karlthev (Jul 11, 2008)

tebore said:


> Ok guys thank you've convinced me. This somehow got overly political instead of being technical. .




*Nope, you made it "political" with your immediate sarcasm. If you'd have kept it technical or useful, it would have continued with you. It's your choice to leave or stay.*.

.[/QUOTE]
I will NOT be buy this light since you've guys convinced me it's not right for me. .[/QUOTE]


*The light isn't out yet! Again YOUR choice to buy or not. Too bad you won't even give it a chance because your feelings are bruised. Sorry.*

I.[/QUOTE]
will also unsubscribe from the thread. .[/QUOTE]


.[/QUOTE]
I stand by what i said the car analogy isn't working because with lights' there's no speed limit. Multi-level lights are cars that don't exist. Lights get more efficient when they go lower (to a point). Cars... well ... they don't The max efficiency is very narrow. You have speed limits, you don't have limits with lights you have requirements. If it fits it, fine.[/QUOTE]


*I made a simple reference/analogy to cars. I often do about many topics including flashlights. Where YOU have now gone with it I sure can't figure out....Whatever. Take care. By the way, I'll buy the light you're not going to. Henry's anticipated fine Ra Clicky's success shouldn't fall prey to your personal failure to have confidence in him. It won't.* 


Karl


----------



## Moka (Jul 11, 2008)

[FONT=&quot]


yaesumofo said:


> Because preserving the life of the battery can possibly preserve the life of the user. Why? is a bit is a silly question and the answer is quite obvious.


[/FONT]


yaesumofo said:


> [FONT=&quot]A flashlight with a dead battery might just as be a hammer.[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]If you run out of light before you want to run out of light in the dark you really are up the creek.[/FONT]
> 
> 
> ...


 
[FONT=&quot]This is what Henry is trying to achieve with the Twisty and I can almost certainly say with the Clicky as well. As a fellow (albeit amateur/hobby) caver I know what Henry is doing with these torches...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is my interpretation of his idea and only my opinion but I'm quite sure this is what Henry would be thinking...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You need a torch that is going to provide a specific output for a specific time, A LOT of research and work has been done to ensure these torches have a maximum output that lasts for at least an hour, and Henry can safely guarantee that they will achieve this. From a caving perspective you want to know that you have something that is not going to let you down both in physical toughness and run time.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The physical toughness I'm quite sure Henry has nailed, we can all agree these are probably the toughest lights around and will be there at the end of the world with the roaches...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The run time, I know when I enter a cave and use and Ra Light I have at least an hour at max output and I can take that to the bank with these torches, I also know that the max-output is not going to compromise the LED in any way... I don't know too much about the technical running of LEDs but I do know that if you overdrive one you severely reduce the life of the LED... From a safety aspect I don't want to be running 180lm just to have it burn out... I don't know about the rest of you, but when spending this much on a torch I would like to get a good life out of it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]IMHO the clicky is being designed as an EDC, but Henry is still a Caver and as such I would expect nothing less that for these lights to (although being intended for EDC) be designed with Caving in the back of his mind...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Surefire asked a LEO to design a torch, they got the Backup...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you asked a person from a particular profession or hobby to design something there is always going to be a clear design influence there, it's human nature.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Henry is doing a great job with these lights:thumbsup:, and is listening, any I honestly hope will include an allowance to program up to massive lumen levels for shorter run-times without compromising the life of the LED, but in saying that you can't criticize him if he doesn't.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On that note I'm gonna get back to work so that I have enough $$ by the time these torches come out... Coz ATM my financial situation looks like [/FONT]


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 12, 2008)

karlthev said:


> You sure do have a real cute writing style though!:kiss:


Thanks Karl, that's the sweetest thing anyone's ever said to me here! :wave:

Your dream light sounds pretty good. Maybe not my ultimate, but worth a try. Tonight I'll try to dream about buying it from you for the same price you paid... :sleepy:



karlthev said:


> When my Ra Clicky shows up at the door I'm afraid it won't be the ultimate, it'll be a compromise but, it'll be the best so far (I believe) and I'll test it out when I'm not dreaming.


I think this might be where our views diverge. Perhaps your ultimate is the dream light you describe, which this light will not come close to no matter what. But the thing of it for me is that, for my uses, the very small change that I want to be considered (plus the GT tint that is in the works) actually would pretty much make this light my realistic ultimate right now. That's why it's important to me, this light is so close to my ideal, and it quite possibly can do it, just a little further...

On that note,


Valpo Hawkeye said:


> And finally, home would be just a bit _farther_ not _further._


I think I need an explanation of this, unless it's just a joke reference to arbitrarily deciding on a preference being superior for all people? According to my dictionary, both versions are correct in this context. 




tebore said:


> The best way to develop a product is to hear your users *****. Why? Because then you know what works and what doesn't. It's better to hear the moaning now than when the product is done. Right now I'm playing the part of the bitchy user.


That's kind of how I feel, though I think it's important that we maintain a balance between honestly expressing our opinions and complaining about things not being just how we'd do them; better chance of being effective if it's kept civil and friendly. Either way, it's definitely better while it can still do some good and if you have an opinion that hasn't been brought up I think it does a good service to introduce it for consideration.




Moka said:


> You need a torch that is going to provide a specific output for a specific time, A LOT of research and work has been done to ensure these torches have a maximum output that lasts for at least an hour, and Henry can safely guarantee that they will achieve this.
> ...
> The run time, I know when I enter a cave and use and Ra Light I have at least an hour at max output and I can take that to the bank with these torches


I think that's a good point, that it's very valuable to have lights that are so consistent and predictable in their runtimes. However, I'd just like to point out, in case this was at all directed at the discussion of max output, that increasing the max would in no way compromise those runtimes. The only change would be that the second highest level would still be very bright and still run for at least an hour, but it wouldn't be the top level option anymore.



Moka said:


> I also know that the max-output is not going to compromise the LED in any way... I don't know too much about the technical running of LEDs but I do know that if you overdrive one you severely reduce the life of the LED... From a safety aspect I don't want to be running 180lm just to have it burn out... I don't know about the rest of you, but when spending this much on a torch I would like to get a good life out of it.
> ...
> I honestly hope will include an allowance to program up to massive lumen levels for shorter run-times without compromising the life of the LED, but in saying that you can't criticize him if he doesn't.


You needn't worry about that, it's a non-issue with Henry. Whatever amount of light is produced, one thing we do know is that the led will not be overdriven and overheated. That's part of the intelligent design of these lights, they're not pushed too far but they are able to push the limits more than simpler designs because they have safeties in place to ensure the led isn't damaged. If the output some of us are asking for cannot be achieved without endangering the emitter, then it will not be allowed, simple as that, and no one is asking for anything more than that. At least I'm not, I do know of one prominent member who thinks the lack of any safeties preventing destruction is a positive feature... But that's definitely not in keeping with the HDS ideology. And most HDS fans will tell you it's also just crazy. :tinfoil:


----------



## tpchan (Jul 12, 2008)

SaturnNyne said:


> I think I need an explanation of this, unless it's just a joke reference to arbitrarily deciding on a preference being superior for all people? According to my dictionary, both versions are correct in this context.


http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/F0043200.html
Basically relatively modern dictionary usage says "farther" should be use for physical distances, while "further" should be used for non-physical, metaphorical advancement. Some dictionaries say further and farther may be used interchangeably, but probably only English majors and/or teachers would really bother to correct your usage.


----------



## karlthev (Jul 12, 2008)

"I think this might be where our views diverge. Perhaps your ultimate is the dream light you describe, which this light will not come close to no matter what. But the thing of it for me is that, for my uses, the very small change that I want to be considered (plus the GT tint that is in the works) actually would pretty much make this light my realistic ultimate right now. That's why it's important to me, this light is so close to my ideal, and it quite possibly can do it, just a little further..."

--SaturnNyne

Clearly (once again!) not the case. I suspect you'll want the shade of the anno a little darker or lighter (and believe me, I am often overly concerned about the appearance of the light for gosh sakes!)--possibly the high burst just a little higher (171 lumens, no, make that 171 1/2 lumes, that's it!), by the direction you've demonstrated in your posts. 

I have to apologize to the regulars about my posts, I've fallen into the trap you've laid--making this a debating competition rather than constructive discussion which is what it should have remained. You "baited" me and I took the bait, good for you!

We all learn (or avoid the reality) that nothing in life is perfect. I have hundreds of lights in my collection at this point, so many that I have to take a day to look at each one of them since there are few which I actually use and even fewer which are used regularly. I've got clickies, twisties, those that you shake to turn on (no Vulcan Mind Meld controlled ---yet!). I've got annodized, chromed and Titanium, LEDs, HIDs, Hotwires and Tritium-illuminated, $2 lights and $2,000 lights--(I even have a pretty decent collection of Henry-designed lights believe it or not!). Guess what?  None of them is perfect, not even close! I don't expect that any light will be perfect for me but if so initially, probably not for long. Why? Life isn't a photograph rather a moving picture show---things change. We have different wants, different needs and these can change from one lifetime, or one decade, or even one day or hour to the next. Perfection is a dream only realized in what many believe is an afterlife. 

Now, with that long-winded BS diatribe behind (always, ALWAYS say what you need in as few words I have found, otherwise folks lose interest---KISS? KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!) I find *discussions* on these forums and *recommendations* (NOT dreams mind you!) for improvements in designs of lights very useful and I know that the designers do as well. I sometimes find the *dreams* somewhat frustrating however (and believe me, the designers find them VERY frustrating!) because they don't "push the envelope"---they push designers into thinking that the minutia is important--believe me it isn't. 

If you discuss designs with engineers and then with the financial folks you will see that reality (the consumer) is where it all falls together. What is important is that the light works when needed, has a simple UI that can be relied upon in an emergency, has a decent output of light and reasonable runtime. The rest is nice and, evidently to some, THE reason for the light but believe me once more, it isn't.

"You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time."

-----poet John Lydgate


I'll trust the proven experts, Henry included and accept the fine product (as well as the limitations!) as I always have.......... By the way, are you on the list for one of these?????? I don't think I've seen your name...:thinking:



Karl


----------



## paxxus (Jul 12, 2008)

Easy cowboys 

It's really not that complicated. All that's being requested is a "turbo" mode one level above the calibrated max. That turbo mode should just deliver the maximum possible juice to the LED. For those of you who don't like that just don't use the feature, that's the beauty of a programmable light. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. How could having access to something extra possibly be a bad thing?



karlthev said:


> By the way, are you on the list for one of these?????? I don't think I've seen your name...:thinking:l


I utterly fail to see the relevance of this


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 12, 2008)

tpchan said:


> http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/F0043200.html
> Basically relatively modern dictionary usage says "farther" should be use for physical distances, while "further" should be used for non-physical, metaphorical advancement. Some dictionaries say further and farther may be used interchangeably, but probably only English majors and/or teachers would really bother to correct your usage.


Good to know, I've learned my thing for the day. Thanks! :thumbsup:




karlthev said:


> Clearly (once again!) not the case. I suspect you'll want the shade of the anno a little darker or lighter (and believe me, I am often overly concerned about the appearance of the light for gosh sakes!)--possibly the high burst just a little higher (171 lumens, no, make that 171 1/2 lumes, that's it!), by the direction you've demonstrated in your posts.
> 
> I have to apologize to the regulars about my posts, I've fallen into the trap you've laid--making this a debating competition rather than constructive discussion which is what it should have remained. You "baited" me and I took the bait, good for you!
> ...
> We all learn (or avoid the reality) that nothing in life is perfect.



Karl: I'm truly not trying to bait anyone here, so I'm sorry if my enthusiasm for the topic has cast me in a poor light with you. My goal is to be constructive, though I also feel compelled to respond to those who disagree with me because I naively believe, in this case, that most people will agree with me if I just explain my meaning a little better. But maybe that's not true for some reason, or maybe I still haven't gotten my meaning across adequately. It doesn't matter too much to me at this point though, it's in Henry's hands alone and he's already given me his response. That makes it a dead issue until we hear his decision, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, here's another quick attempt at clarification of my thoughts in response to your examples. First off, just because it's an issue that often amuses me, no I'm actually not that picky about ano; my favorite surefires, aesthetically, are those that are most mismatched, so if anything I'm picky in favor of the "unfavorable." And I do realize there's no truly perfect light and that there's the tendency to always demand a little more, but in this case, when I refer to my "realistic ultimate," what I mean is that it would fulfill all of my desires to the greatest degree that can reasonably be expected at this point in time. More specifically, what I'm personally looking for is an extremely versatile light with extreme dynamic range and excellent interface (HDS already has that much covered) that also has a maximum output in the same ballpark as the Malkoff M60-Q5 (~200lm) that I currently use, in addition to a smaller and more versatile navigational light, for quick spotting at slightly greater distances. So honestly, I'm not just looking for always a little more, I don't think I've really demonstrated any such trend with my posts, and my attitude is somewhat like yours here really. You say that you don't care about anything over 120lm and beyond that you'll rely on something bigger; I say I'd like my small and versatile light to put out around 170lm (because that's the closest that seems reasonable with current technology) so that it can take over the role of my M60 somewhat, and beyond about 200lm I really don't much care, I'll also use a hotwire or hid. I hope this clarifies my views and my reasoning behind them a little, as well as perhaps demonstrating that we do have some common ground here.



karlthev said:


> By the way, are you on the list for one of these?????? I don't think I've seen your name...:thinking:


No, I'm not on the list, but it's very impressive that you are.  That's the third time you've brought up the fact that you've already committed to buy one of these, by my recollection... Doesn't that make you less objective, not more credible? I'm really trying to be polite to you and respectful to the thread, but at this point it just seems like you're attacking me for not being a big enough fan to keep my mouth shut and commit to buy whatever comes along before even knowing the details of what I'm buying. If I buy one of these, which I likely will, it will be after it's finalized and released, at which point I will make my buying decision based on the light, not blind loyalty or a need to be the first. I'd much rather wait a little for the GT tint, which may not be an option at the time that the preorder is filled. I've enjoyed discussing the actual issues related to the development of this light, but if you're just going to be negative and try to ad hominem me, please drop it and let the thread continue on its way peacefully.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 12, 2008)

paxxus said:


> It's really not that complicated. All that's being requested is a "turbo" mode one level above the calibrated max. That turbo mode should just deliver the maximum possible juice to the LED. For those of you who don't like that just don't use the feature, that's the beauty of a programmable light. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. How could having access to something extra possibly be a bad thing?


Paxxus, you understand my point of view exactly, thank you. You also managed to put it much more quickly and concisely than I've been able to.


----------



## iocheretyanny (Jul 12, 2008)

I would venture that as an business case - by selling a light that is capable of 170 lumens out front (call it boost or something) for 15 minutes will sell by far more lights and create much more positive sales impact then a light that is rated max 120 lumes out from for 1 hour. 

Pure and simple more 170's will be sold!


Or even better 200 lumens for 10 minutes boost


----------



## karlthev (Jul 12, 2008)

Ah yes Saturn, cute again. No, I support the folks who buiild lights, nothing more, nothing less. Should you choose ot read in more, please be my guest.

Yes, I am on the list to buy one. Since you are evidently counting, this is statement number four. Maybe you may just get the drift after several of my attempts--I actually purchase lights. Some evidently choose to be Monday night quarterbacks. No guessing which you may be.:kiss:

By the way, virtually ANYONE can put your ideas across more succinctly. I am presuming you must be practicing beefing up term papers. Good job! I am more than enjoying the space you've taken up so far. Looks like an A+ if we're weighing the product! 

Yes, boosting the top end for a momentary high isn't the most difficult venture in the world. Pleasing all of the people all of the time is. Live with what you see, you'll find more happiness....and MUCH less of your dreams right there.

Well, bye:wave:, it's been fun but, I have better things to do. For one, I'm going to wait until my Clicky arrives to see what I've bought!


Karl


----------



## tempman (Jul 12, 2008)

karlthev said:


> Well, bye:wave:, it's been fun but, I have better things to do. For one, I'm going to wait until my Clicky arrives to see what I've bought!
> 
> 
> Karl


 
Ok. We will all be laughing when we see you coming back for more bickering. If not... then :wave: :nana:


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (Jul 12, 2008)

karlthev said:


> Yes, boosting the top end for a momentary high isn't the most difficult venture in the world.
> Karl



Excellent.. Now that you've said it, let us leave it be..But remember, Henry said "things become exponentially non-linear at the high end" and what that means to me is gigantic number crunching in the software. It's like, the Mount Everest 30,000ft accomplishment of the flashlight world. Of course we're going to want Henry to make it, but if he doesn't we'll still be proud and supportive to own one of his designs. Pushing the envelope is not a dream, it's the path to innovation and enlightenment. :tinfoil:

Henry said he'd take a look into it; Saturn will patiently wait for the lights to be released and will determine which one fits his needs at that time, or just a bit later in the future. You will receive which ever one you pre-ordered and be content, though maybe you'll have to make a bit of a choice prior to your order being fulfilled if indeed the Clicky has a different feature set than the ones offered in the pre-order. Or maybe you'll just Buy Many! 

In total, we're all just excited to see what the Clicky has in store for us. We're all equals here and with each our own individual style of flashaholisim. Opinions be damned. August is just around the corner..


----------



## Zenster (Jul 13, 2008)

iocheretyanny said:


> I would venture that as an business case - by selling a light that is capable of 170 lumens out front (call it boost or something) for 15 minutes will sell by far more lights and create much more positive sales impact then a light that is rated max 120 lumes out from for 1 hour.
> 
> Pure and simple more 170's will be sold!
> 
> ...


 
Or even better, take that to it's logical next step, and perhaps Henry will give us 750,000 lumens... for just a bit shorter time. 

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/170622


----------



## pobox1475 (Jul 13, 2008)

> I would venture that as an business case - by selling a light that is capable of 170 lumens out front (call it boost or something) for 15 minutes will sell by far more lights and create much more positive sales impact then a light that is rated max 120 lumes out from for 1 hour.
> 
> Pure and simple more 170's will be sold!


 I doubt it. These lights are designed to be EDC lighting solutions and not field search lights. Boost or no boost if you push that amount of light out you will quickly deplete your power source. A light that *goes *_*dark* _before you task(s) is/are completed is of little use. If you want or need 170+ lumens then a multi cell and possibly larger reflector form factor _may _be in order. I am not a technophile, only one who likes to be prepared for life's unexpected events. Right now I am carrying a new ConneXion that produces 100 or with a 14500 120 lumens. A torch with that output, an hour run time, more durability and reliability running off one cell would be perfect for _me_ to EDC.


> How could having access to something extra possibly be a bad thing?


 There has to be some sort of additional programming to allow this. Then there is the issue of redesigning to allow for cooling the added heat it would generate. These features would result in a less reliable product. Pushing anything to the _max_ is potentially risky business.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Jul 13, 2008)

SaturnNyne said:


> Pushing the limits must overcome diminishing returns and a little more light requires a lot more power and heat. You of course know far more about the technological limitations involved and it's up to you to figure out if it _can_ be done, I just want to make sure you fully realize that plenty of users would think it _should_ be done if it reasonably can be.



I don't think it should be done. I have one of Henry's EDC U60GT lights. I got tired of the maximum level because it flogged the battery too hard, and made too much heat. Short overall runtimes and quick trips to thermal limiting became a nuisance for me. And this was for what? One extra notch brighter output. Big whoop. I soon reprogrammed the highest level to be one click lower, and now I'm happy.

I guess I made my choice for myself, and you might be able to make your own choices too - if the light will allow it. I'm just speaking up as one of the "plenty of users" who think there's no value in designing the light to exceed the capabilities of current battery technology and heat transfer.


----------



## paxxus (Jul 13, 2008)

pobox1475 said:


> There has to be some sort of additional programming to allow this.


Indeed. So?



pobox1475 said:


> Then there is the issue of redesigning to allow for cooling the added heat it would generate.


I don't think so. At 120lm the light is already generating more heat than what can be dissipated unassisted. Driving the LED harder would just cause the thermal step-down to happen earlier - the LED would not get any hotter than what the thermal monitoring allows, it would just reach that limit earlier (the software would probably have to take the increased die-to-slug delta into account though).



pobox1475 said:


> These features would result in a less reliable product. Pushing anything to the _max_ is potentially risky business.


I'll let the expertise be the judge of that, but if you're right I'm certain that the feature will not make it into the Clicky. The premise is of course that none of the existing features including reliability are compromised.

Anyway, the message has been received by Henry and he said he'd consider the possibility and that's good enough for me. If the feature makes it into the Clicky I'll grantee that many, if not most, customers will be even more happy and I'm also convinced that it'll attract a broader customer base (= more $ to Henry = more $ for R&D = even better products for us). For those who don't care for such a feature, just don't use it! It's a win-win for everyone :twothumbs


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 14, 2008)

karlthev said:


> Yes, I am on the list to buy one...I actually purchase lights. Some evidently choose to be Monday night quarterbacks. No guessing which you may be.:kiss:


But if I _were_ to guess... me? Because I never actually buy lights and after the Clicky is finalized and put on the market I'm going to come back and say I know how it could have been done better than the experts did, even though I didn't know or try to suggest it when it could actually have done some good? I don't think that _quite_ fits me in this case, at least if I'm correct in assuming you mean "monday morning quarterback," since monday night quarterback isn't a pejorative I'm familiar with.

I'll try to remember to drop you a line if and when I do get one; but, to be fair, I should also give you an explanation if I decide not to (hopefully that won't be necessary). Either way, I'd like for you to know whether or not your implication ends being in any way true in practice, even though I already know it's untrue with regards to intent. Until that time, let's both stop obnoxiously clogging this thread with petty bickering.



karlthev said:


> By the way, virtually ANYONE can put your ideas across more succinctly. I am presuming you must be practicing beefing up term papers. Good job! I am more than enjoying the space you've taken up so far. Looks like an A+ if we're weighing the product!


I do think you've got me there... I'm definitely excessively wordy.  But I'm working on it. A little.




pobox1475 said:


> Then there is the issue of redesigning to allow for cooling the added heat it would generate. These features would result in a less reliable product.


Nope, already covered, see above. Nothing Henry produces is likely to have compromised reliability in any way, unless it's due to a manufacturing defect outside of his control.




Ty_Bower said:


> I don't think it should be done. I have one of Henry's EDC U60GT lights. I got tired of the maximum level because it flogged the battery too hard, and made too much heat. Short overall runtimes and quick trips to thermal limiting became a nuisance for me. And this was for what? One extra notch brighter output. Big whoop. I soon reprogrammed the highest level to be one click lower, and now I'm happy.


Hi Ty, thanks for sharing your actual experience with this topic, I hadn't thought of exactly how limit-pushing outputs applies to the old EDCs. And I agree with your sentiments completely if I'm understanding the situation correctly. So you actually would have been better off with a less expensive U42 but, due to the rarity of those, you had no choice but to pay for the 60 in order to get the Ultimate's features. Also, if the U60 weren't made, those better leds would have gone into the lower models, allowing some of the 42s to run longer, rather than allowing higher output or longer runtime at 42lm only in a more expensive model that many didn't really want. Please correct me if I'm interpreting you incorrectly.

So if the led situation were the same as it was during the time of the EDCs (maybe it actually is? I'm not an expert) and there were a danger of the same problem you ran into happening again (but it sounds like all Clickies will be programmable, whatever their output), with two models and the lower one compromised by the existence of the higher, I would agree with the application of that experience to this issue, because you (and anyone else who didn't have any use for the higher output) would actually be hurt by what I'm suggesting. That unfortunate situation limited your buying choices to a much greater degree than it increased your useful output choices, so it was definitely not entirely good or "win-win." But I think it must be again emphasized that the message here is not "compromise things others like (price and buying options included) in order to give me what I'd like instead" (clearly that's unreasonable, I would throw excessive words in the direction of that idea myself). Instead, the message is, "we like what's already here, but please also give us at least the option of more as long as it in no way compromises anything else." If it's determined to not be possible, that's fine, I'd still rather have a 120C than any other light currently on the market, as long as I didn't think a model I'd prefer would be released soon after.

Again, my guess is that, if higher output can be implemented, Henry will either add another level, maintain the price point, make a larger number of customers happy and existing customers happier, and enjoy increased sales -or- he'll sell a programmable 120 and later offer a higher version at a higher cost for those who are willing to pay for it. Obviously I'd prefer the first option, but either one would be ok. Whether I'd pay the extra for the higher model would depend on the base price (primarily) and how much extra.


Or to summarize the actual intent of the proposal far better:


paxxus said:


> The premise is of course that none of the existing features including reliability are compromised...For those who don't care for such a feature, just don't use it! It's a win-win for everyone :twothumbs


:twothumbs

It seems like I should really just shut up and let Paxxus continue to voice my opinion in 1/10th the words.


----------



## Russki (Jul 14, 2008)

To make HDS lights make 150-170 Lm, and have nice looking light beam, and run at least for one hour on high; all you need Cree R2, Long reflector (like McR19XR), body would be little longer.
HDS make the best light engine on market, why not use best LED.
Seoul way behind Cree in efficiency.
I cannot understand, why Chinese kill American market with CREE lights. And USA manufacturers keep using less efficient LED in high priced lights?
Probably someone have answer for it.


----------



## tempman (Jul 14, 2008)

Russki said:


> why not use best LED.
> Seoul way behind Cree in efficiency.


 
because we like our light to shine a nice quality warm white. not a cheap cold blue.


----------



## Russki (Jul 15, 2008)

tempman said:


> because we like our light to shine a nice quality warm white. not a cheap cold blue.


 
This is one strong statement. You must have lot of experience in this matter.
Cree and Seoul lightbeams here. Guess which one is “cheap cold blue.”


----------



## pobox1475 (Jul 15, 2008)

> “cheap cold blue.”


 Boo blue :thumbsdow


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 15, 2008)

Russki said:


> Cree and Seoul lightbeams here. Guess which one is “cheap cold blue.”


Probably the SSC, since the nice one on the left has the typical Cree ring many of us are trying to avoid.  You might be right about a long reflector taming the shadow ring, but they have their disadvantages too, especially in a pocket light. I've heard Milky has a technique that might work better in such an application.

You're absolutely right though, whatever advantages each emitter has over the other, tint isn't really one of them at this point.

Edit: Nice glow stars, btw. I always enjoy using my lights to charge up one star in the field to outshine the rest.


----------



## Russki (Jul 15, 2008)

SaturnNyne said:


> Probably the SSC, since the nice one on the left has the typical Cree ring many of us are trying to avoid.  You might be right about a long reflector taming the shadow ring, but they have their disadvantages too, especially in a pocket light. I've heard Milky has a technique that might work better in such an application.
> 
> You're absolutely right though, whatever advantages each emitter has over the other, tint isn't really one of them at this point.
> 
> Edit: Nice glow stars, btw. I always enjoy using my lights to charge up one star in the field to outshine the rest.


 
You right, beam is ringy, but only because reflector is too short, it is modified Mcr-16XR.
Mcr-19XR has no ring, at all. The beam is perfect.
Anyway, it is just my dream about perfect light- tough-tool: Cree with Mcr-19, light engine from HDS, durability of Ra-Twisty. It would be a bit longer, but HDS too big for pocket carry anyway. For pocket carry I prefer Muyshondt’s lights.
Maybe it will happen one day.
This is short version.






P.S. Almost forget: Seoul cannot handle high current. Ones overdriven a bit, it shifts to blue, and drop brightness.:thumbsdow
+1 to Cree.


----------



## Kid9P (Jul 15, 2008)

Hey Henry,

How's about a teaser pic PLEASE ???


Thanks!


----------



## tempman (Jul 16, 2008)

Kid9P said:


> Hey Henry,
> 
> How's about a teaser pic PLEASE ???
> 
> ...


 

+1:twothumbs


----------



## HDS_Systems (Jul 16, 2008)

SaturnNyne,

I am not sure you understand why there are multiple output options offered and how they relate to each other. Purchasing the lower output model would not have provided Ty_Bower with the results he achieved. Taking a higher output model and stepping it down one level from maximum will always produce longer runtimes and less heat than the next model down running on maximum due to the increased efficiency in the higher output model. The cost difference represents the increase in efficiency and the difficulty in achieving it.

Henry.


----------



## Kid9P (Jul 16, 2008)

Darn, 

I guess no picture yet.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jul 16, 2008)

HDS_Systems said:


> SaturnNyne,
> 
> I am not sure you understand why there are multiple output options offered and how they relate to each other. Purchasing the lower output model would not have provided Ty_Bower with the results he achieved. Taking a higher output model and stepping it down one level from maximum will always produce longer runtimes and less heat than the next model down running on maximum due to the increased efficiency in the higher output model. The cost difference represents the increase in efficiency and the difficulty in achieving it.
> 
> Henry.


Hi, Henry; thanks for the clarification, I'm very appreciative of the fact that the designer himself is around to step in when we might be going astray. I think that's mostly, but maybe not entirely, another way of looking at what I already said. I realize that, with the difference in led efficiency between the models, buying a 42 wouldn't have resulted in the same efficiency as stepping down a 60; I simply suggested that if there had been no 60, those same more efficient leds could have been used in the 42 for an even longer running XR option, which would have provided the same benefit to Ty but been preferable if the XR option were cheaper than the additional output was. So if that assumption about the differing prices were true, it would mean that the existence of the 60, instead of a U42XR with the efficiency of a 60, negatively impacted Ty's buying options. However, I'm not saying that assumption is true, and I realize it's likely not since those better leds may have cost more to purchase and almost certainly cost more to test and identify. So perhaps what you're saying is that, due to the extra expense of it, a light with those emitters would cost the same whether they were used to add another higher level or not? If that's the case, I apologize for not fully considering that before, especially since it somewhat supports my suggestion that the emitters currently being used could also be made to put out a little more light without a significant increase in price over just focusing on their efficiency alone. However, I was also saying that if Ty didn't care about the additional efficiency he could have not bothered with the more efficient emitter and been perfectly happy with a regular U42, except that those don't seem to have been made in large numbers compared to the other models, for whatever reason. In that case, the more expensive emitters wouldn't have been a factor.

I apologize if I'm expressing my ideas unclearly. I think I have a pretty good grasp of the differences between the models, but if I truly am just completely overlooking something here, please feel free to post or pm me an explanation or link to further information. I'm always eager to learn more, especially if I'm holding a belief that is just plain false.


----------



## shawn a. (Jul 16, 2008)

Henry,
I have 2 U60XRGTs, and they are fantastic! I have tested them by turning them on to max brightness and just leaving them alone. They both stepped the brightness down gradually, and after 96 hours were both still giving plenty of light to walk around outside (in a forest-no outside lights) with plenty of light to see by. In a cave, they would have been more than adequate. One of my chief gripes with Novatacs is the fact they will shut off totally when they have determined that the battery is "dead". I can then take that "dead" battery, and put it in the U60 and use it for another 2 days!
My question-Will the clicky have that same incredible persistence that my U60XRGTs have?
Shawn a.


----------



## dixemon (Jul 16, 2008)

Great question shawn.


----------



## CPEng (Jul 16, 2008)

I agree with SaturnNyne,

I want the choice to be on the side of the user how long the light should run at max output. As long as the led is not over-driven I think the user should have the choice to choose where to run the light in the compromise between output and runtime. 

I have 85Tr Twisty and I have yet to see a thermal step down, even when running max output untouched on a table in 80 degF ambient temperature. I believe other users has also stated this fact. Why add cost and complexity in implementing this feature if the light does not likely need it. I understand that the designer is a perfectionist (a good thing) and probably can think of a worst case scenario where this thermal protection feature will save the light.
If the thermal protection feature is there why not design to use it to protect the LED from excessive heat when driven hard (but not over driven). It seems this feature is already in place so why not design to use it?

I can hypothesize that it could be the circuit that can't handle the extra current, there is too much of a risk due to tolerance stack up that would create a higher failure rate among lights.

I guess the only thing I want to know, (and it seems I am not alone): 
Will the Ra Clicky be known (by the designer) to be capable of more output then the actual max output of the light?

In other words will the designers limit on output be based on technical limitations of hardware or the designers chosen min runtime?

And I understand if the designer puts the limit on it or doesn't. I also understand that it costs more to actually know the actual limits of the product and cheaper to be conservative. 

Just want to say the 85Tr is my first Ra or HDS light and I am now a fan and hold their product in high regard.

~CPEng


----------



## pobox1475 (Jul 16, 2008)

> Just want to say the 85Tr is my first Ra or HDS light and I am now a fan and hold their product in high regard.


 Looking forward to joining the fold. Hopefully one of the upcoming generation lights will cover most if not all of my bases :tinfoil:.


----------



## Enzo Morocioli (Jul 17, 2008)

shawn a. said:


> My question-Will the clicky have that same incredible persistence that my U60XRGTs have?
> Shawn a.



From my own reading of the specs of the Clicky and the observed behavior of the Twisty, I'm going to file my answer as "No"...

Since the Twisty and Clicky are assumed to have generally the same electronics, their low-battery behavior should also be the same.. That includes a 50% reduction of output from the highest level when the battery is 80% depleted and double-blinks once a minute, then further drops until the cell is straining and light starts flashing once a second... Then when it gets further depleted, unusually strange behavior occurs with either random strobe-like flashing or no light at all. 

That is my assumption of how the Clicky will handle extremely low cell voltage. It will not completely decimate the cells because the difference between how low the electronics can safely drain the batteries, and the point at which damage occurs is only a hand full of minutes at best. 
Some will argue that a few extra minutes is key to survival. I will argue to set the output lower to achieve greater runtime prior to cell depletion and to carry spares with you regardless of how long you initially planned to need a flashlight as a necessity. 

I think a cool test would be to run a Primary CR123 completely "dead" in a Ra Twisty, then put that cell directly into your EDC XRGT and see if it lights, and for how long.. That would give us an idea of how similar or dissimilar the electronics function. 

And please, if anyone spots an obvious blunder in my thinking, point it out for me!


----------



## Haz (Jul 17, 2008)

To me buying this light is like buying a car. If the available technology allows the car to drive up to 200km/h, then it's good to have that speed at your disposal. Assuming the maximum speed limit is 120km/h, i prefer the manufacturer not to limit the speed to 120km/h, simply because there is no need for it most of the time. Imagine one day, you have to outrun a tidal wave or tornado, you may need to go as fast as you can, even if it means the burning petrol inefficiently and exhausting the fuel in a short space of time, this could be a difference of life and death. Allowing the highest output possible on the light allows the user to make this choice when needed. I'm pretty sure the user can decide for themselves how much output is needed. I generally run my lights at lower output than the highest, to conserve battery and increase runtime, but occasionally I like to ramp up to maximum to shine into the distance. It's sort of like using a highbeam on your car. You don't need to use it all the time, but occassionally it is very useful to see further ahead.


----------



## adamlau (Jul 18, 2008)

Haz said:


> If the available technology allows the car to drive up to 200km/h, then it's good to have that speed at your disposal.


If the available technology allows the car to have scratch resistant windshields, then it's good to have that windshield at your disposal. Sapphire lens for the Ra all the way :thumbsup: .


----------



## Unforgiven (Jul 18, 2008)

Continued


----------

