# Zebralight C3 4x18650, 9000 lumens!



## markr6 (Nov 10, 2016)

So the return of the S6330, sort of? Sounds great!


----------



## TCY (Nov 10, 2016)

*Zebralight C series monster light*

Zebralight added this maybe less than 2 mins ago.

What I can see on their spreadsheet now:

Zebralight C3
4X18650
3*XHP70
9000 lumens
Beam type is spill+flood, so traditional reflector and clear lens
ZL's notes:"another ground breaking design from ZebraLight. extremely compact and light weight."

I think I'm good with a 219b M43 but lets see what ZL can do. Finally a S6330 successor


----------



## TCY (Nov 10, 2016)

You beat me by 1 minute!

How do I delete my thread?


----------



## noboneshotdog (Nov 10, 2016)

Just when I thought ZL was hitting a plateau, they keep on hitting hard and breaking new ground! Can't wait to see this one.


----------



## twistedraven (Nov 10, 2016)

Move over X7..


----------



## lampeDépêche (Nov 10, 2016)

Are you getting this via email?
Because, I usually get their emails, but I have not received anything about this, or about the Eco series.


----------



## noboneshotdog (Nov 10, 2016)

lampeDépêche said:


> Are you getting this via email?
> Because, I usually get their emails, but I have not received anything about this, or about the Eco series.



It's on thier website spreadsheet only as far as I know.


----------



## twistedraven (Nov 10, 2016)

Mark is a huge Zebra addict, he probably glances over the Zebralight google spread sheet once a day.


----------



## lampeDépêche (Nov 10, 2016)

Ah, I see-- you are getting it from the Google-docs Product Comparison Spreadsheet.

Huh--I want pictures!

Also: wouldn't it be cool if they made a new light in the 4xAA format, with kind of a rounded-square battery tube?


----------



## StandardBattery (Nov 10, 2016)

*Re: Zebralight C series monster light*

I don't currently see it as ground breaking after the Meteor, the Manker, and the Marauder X7. It will be great if they surprise me. Either way I'm likely to buy it just for the Zebralight UI and driver, but I'm hoping they have some surprises because I think they are playing catch-up now in this domain. They were breaking ground with the S6330, but let it drop and the TM series picked out where it left off.


----------



## StandardBattery (Nov 10, 2016)

deleted... duplicate caused by merge


----------



## TCY (Nov 10, 2016)

*Re: Zebralight C series monster light*

I kinda have the feeling that they are just coping X7's specs and they don't have their own yet. Dunno, maybe 12000 lumens of neutral white light?


----------



## Connor (Nov 10, 2016)

Note how there are two empty lines in the ZL spreadsheet below the C3 in the "C Series Compact Multi-battery Flashlight" group. 

High CRI C3!


----------



## low (Nov 10, 2016)

I get e-mails from them about 2 weeks after markr5 or someone posts it. Really no reason for their snail-mails.


----------



## holygeez03 (Nov 10, 2016)

Interesting... glad to finally hear about something new from ZL...

Maybe this will replace my de-domed MX25L3 MT-G2 for yard duty? Although I do prefer the ET UI for that particular purpose (instant toggle between med & turbo). And the 3x18650 form factor sure is nice... but we will see.


----------



## richbuff (Nov 10, 2016)

No pics, yet. Probably 2.5 inch popcan flooder. Let's see what Vinh can do with this one. The field of 3 x XHP70 popcan flooders keeps expanding! 

Maybe this one has larger head/reflector well diameter for more throw?


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Nov 11, 2016)

Even though it was almost impossible to find more info about this light, I found some at Taschenlampforum. What they say about this light is very interesting! They say, " scheint laut deren eine 4x18650er Lampe zu planen mit aut zienen vie unterland un venge sul vierno beitel auchen". 

Now, since I am completely illiterate when it comes to German, I don't understand that at all. But it's probably good news, right?


----------



## kj2 (Nov 11, 2016)

This one is going on my wish list


----------



## beliving (Nov 12, 2016)

I like the ZebraLight UI, mostly. The only thing I would prefer is to single click to medium and double click to full brightness. The current way of double clicking to medium makes the light flash on bright before going to medium. In addition, double clicking for bright feels more intuitive for me. For a flashlight with 9000 lumens, I think that the bright flash from double clicking to medium would be even more drastic. Now, I no longer double click to medium, and instead double-time long press to cycle from low to medium. While it takes more time to access the medium setting, at least it avoids the bright flash.

I wonder if the C3 will have exactly the same UI, or perhaps something a little more specific to such a bright light.


----------



## StandardBattery (Nov 12, 2016)

beliving said:


> I like the ZebraLight UI, mostly. The only thing I would prefer is to single click to medium and double click to full brightness. The current way of double clicking to medium makes the light flash on bright before going to medium. In addition, double clicking for bright feels more intuitive for me. For a flashlight with 9000 lumens, I think that the bright flash from double clicking to medium would be even more drastic. Now, I no longer double click to medium, and instead double-time long press to cycle from low to medium. While it takes more time to access the medium setting, at least it avoids the bright flash.
> 
> I wonder if the C3 will have exactly the same UI, or perhaps something a little more specific to such a bright light.


I suspect it will have a more options on setting levels which might help you. The details for the new UI are not fully baked yet I don't think.

Today you might just want to program H2 to it's lowest level, which depending on the light is not so different from M1. Then set H to default to H2 and then a single click brings you to H2, if you need H1 you double click after reaching H2. For the most part I'm using H2; L1 or double timing for M1. 

This is one reason why I still like HDS single button interface as each level is programmable and there is no requirement for L2 to be brighter than L1 it's just 4 positions and you set them how you want. The zebralight UI though is a nice simplification that works for me.


----------



## markr6 (Nov 12, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> Mark is a huge Zebra addict, he probably glances over the Zebralight google spread sheet once a day.



Yes definitely a big fan!! I just signed up for notifications by clicking at the top of the spreadsheet and I get an email when any changes are made.


----------



## low (Nov 12, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Yes definitely a big fan!! I just signed up for notifications by clicking at the top of the spreadsheet and I get an email when any changes are made.




Good luck with that.
I signed up some time back and I get the info about two weeks after reading it here.


----------



## carl (Nov 13, 2016)

Another 4x18650 pop-can light? Really?

I would have much preferred a compact 2x18650 similar to the Lupine, which still provides tons of power and capacity and keeps things compact and EDC-able but without the weight and bulk of a pop-can.

My next choice for ZL would have been a 1x26650 to make use of the new KeepPower IMR 5200mAh.


----------



## StandardBattery (Nov 13, 2016)

carl said:


> Another 4x18650 pop-can light? Really?
> 
> I would have much preferred a compact 2x18650 similar to the Lupine, which still provides tons of power and capacity and keeps things compact and EDC-able but without the weight and bulk of a pop-can.
> .....


This does seem a little boring after the Noctigon Meteor M43 blew everyone away, Manker MK34 was a very clever adaptation, and now Olight with a 20oz can 3xXHP70 version. Rumor has it a 12000 lumen one is in the works by a couple makers. I'm sure Zebralight will do the right thing when they get down to it, it might be like the Q50 and never appear, or be very different from the current field. 

I think it would be very cool if Zebralight did a 2x18650 like the Nightcore E4CSW, as unibody design is the zebra thing and that light is super compact. Zebra could make a monster with that design that would be much more practical. 

I wanted Zebralight to make a 26650, but that boat has sailed. Too late; now they need to look at a 20700 flashlight line, i think that cell might kill the 26650 within 2-3 years. If they want something less cutting edge a good 18350 light would be nice, but not enough really good batteries available yet.


----------



## psychbeat (Nov 13, 2016)

Nothing new layout wise with this but I think zebra will bring some top quality to the pop can game. 
Hope it looks as nice as the sc6330...
I miss the army greenish ano


----------



## emarkd (Nov 13, 2016)

Yeah I don't really expect Zebralight to do anything revolutionary with this light style, but they don't need to. Most mega-lumen soda can lights are really impressive at turn-on, but they drop in output so fast that they might as well not be 9000 lumen lights at all. Big lights need sophisticated regulation, not simple timed stepdowns. Zebra's super efficient drivers and PID regulation automatically puts them in a position to do it much better than most of them, I think.

The only exception may be the Meteor, which is probably still the "best" soda can light on the market. And with the Meteor v2 being teased at 17,000 lumens it may be hard to beat. But Zebra doesn't have to be the brightest to be a compelling and successful product.


----------



## GODOFWAR (Nov 13, 2016)




----------



## Cunha (Nov 13, 2016)

So happy this is happening. At normal levels I bet it will get insane run times.


----------



## markr6 (Nov 18, 2016)

low said:


> Good luck with that.
> I signed up some time back and I get the info about two weeks after reading it here.



Luck has nothing to do with it. As long as you're logged in with your google account, you sign up on the spreadsheet and get the notifications by email straight from Google. Has nothing to do with ZL. There's NO delay. 

In fact, sometimes I'll get the notification that a change has been made and when I go to the sheet, I see all the "anonymous" viewers at the top and also one person, George Yao, who is the CEO at Zebralight. You can watch changes made in real time!


----------



## davidt1 (Nov 18, 2016)

What I would like to see from Zebralight is a compact 18650 thrower -- like the new Nitecore P30 only better.


----------



## low (Nov 18, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Luck has nothing to do with it. As long as you're logged in with your google account, you sign up on the spreadsheet and get the notifications by email straight from Google. Has nothing to do with ZL. There's NO delay.
> 
> In fact, sometimes I'll get the notification that a change has been made and when I go to the sheet, I see all the "anonymous" viewers at the top and also one person, George Yao, who is the CEO at Zebralight. You can watch changes made in real time!



Well theirs the problem, I have no google account.


----------



## easilyled (Nov 18, 2016)

low said:


> Well theirs the problem, I have no google account.



Well I suppose you could open one and then write a new song called "What's Luck Got To Do With It" :nana:


----------



## don.gwapo (Nov 18, 2016)

I still have the S6330. Definitely going to get this S6330 bigger brother.


----------



## noboneshotdog (Nov 18, 2016)

I bet the "groundbreaking" that Zebralight is describing in thier chart is the new programmable UI. That's groundbreaking enough for me. :twothumbs


----------



## Cunha (Nov 18, 2016)

Ground breaking from them would be in-stock. Haha. Their run times have set the standard for a while.


----------



## StandardBattery (Nov 19, 2016)

noboneshotdog said:


> I bet the "groundbreaking" that Zebralight is describing in thier chart is the new programmable UI. That's groundbreaking enough for me. :twothumbs


That might be part of it, I really wish they would do more of a 3x18650 like the MK34 or a 2x18650 like the E4CSW. 4x soda cans have not only been done a lot, but also are not that great in the hand compared to the 2x or 3x formats in my opinion.
I think they may have something more. Since it is currently stated to use XHP70 LEDs that does make the X7 it's closest cousin. Others are likely to have similar products soon though. I trust they will use a nice tint though and maybe a relatively high CRI version so that could be very nice also. It will no doubt have many nice features as all Zebralights do, but 'ground-breaking' is maybe thrown around lightly and incorrectly by manufactures, Zebralight is usually not so careless and more honest. So I'm looking forward to what they have planned, but I can't help thinking they are a little late to this party and should be working in the next thing.


----------



## StandardBattery (Nov 19, 2016)

Cunha said:


> Ground breaking from them would be in-stock. Haha. Their run times have set the standard for a while.


 that's funny, because there is a hint of truth in that. However; you should know if you order something that is out-of-stock and they don't think they will have it for a while they will let you know. Of you can always email them first to get a estimate on delivery. I've found their estimates to be very accurate when I've needed them.


----------



## noboneshotdog (Nov 19, 2016)

It's interesting that they also are highlighting how compact it is going to be. As they are already KNOWN for that. How small can they make a 4 x 18650 light. Can't imagine it being much smaller than the Meteor. 

It does seem that they may be a little late to the party. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Maybe a square design like they were planning a few years back???


----------



## holygeez03 (Nov 19, 2016)

Agreed... seems like a 3x18650 light could be made much smaller... but we will see what ZL comes up with...

By "compact" they are probably mostly referring to the length?


----------



## Flashlight Junkie (Nov 21, 2016)

lampeDépêche said:


> Also: wouldn't it be cool if they made a new light in the 4xAA format, with kind of a rounded-square battery tube?



I almost spit out my hot chocolate when I read that.



markr6 said:


> Yes definitely a big fan!! I just signed up for notifications by clicking at the top of the spreadsheet and I get an email when any changes are made.



I had this visual of you visiting ZL's product sheet and just hitting refresh. LOL.

Yeah, this probably won't be for me unless they do something really awesome. Not a fan of cool white or popcan lights. For safety it would need to have independent power channels, which I believe the S6330 had.
Why can't they do a 26650 light? At any rate, still loving my new SC600Fd Mk III Plus!


----------



## twistedraven (Nov 21, 2016)

I'm not a fan of these new high output popcan lights either, because they're not really practical. You get that 10,000 lumen burst, but then it will drop off VERY quickly. What I'd be interested in is a robust 1x26650 thrower. Vinh's U21vn opened my eyes to the practicality that even a high driven 1x26650 thrower can do in regards to perceived light output and lack of heat issues.


----------



## Swedpat (Nov 21, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> I'm not a fan of these new high output popcan lights either, because they're not really practical. You get that 10,000 lumen burst, but then it will drop off VERY quickly. What I'd be interested in is a robust 1x26650 thrower. Vinh's U21vn opened my eyes to the practicality that even a high driven 1x26650 thrower can do in regards to perceived light output and lack of heat issues.



I agree with you here. The problem is the demand of that super high brightness but still in compact format. This is not compatible neither with an adequate battery supply or heat dissipation, so the soon stepdown is inevitable. 


Anyway: I am looking forward to see a picture of this new Zebralight!


----------



## markr6 (Nov 21, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> I'm not a fan of these new high output popcan lights either, because they're not really practical. You get that 10,000 lumen burst, but then it will drop off VERY quickly. What I'd be interested in is a robust 1x26650 thrower. Vinh's U21vn opened my eyes to the practicality that even a high driven 1x26650 thrower can do in regards to perceived light output and lack of heat issues.



I agree. But since I felt like I really missed out on the S6330, I may jump on this one just to have it. Not something I would use a lot since my only 3x18650 light gets pretty much zero use as is. I guess it depends on the price. I'm guessing $249? That's tough to justify for a shelf light!


----------



## beliving (Nov 22, 2016)

Production hasn't started yet, right? Can we vote? Add me to the 3x18650!  

I would prefer to have only one battery type so it's interchangeable with my EDC. To me, a 26650 flashlight would be too close to redundancy compared to my SC63w, where a 3x18650 would be for different usage. When I researched 26650 lights, I kept thinking that my SC63w would perform not necessarily equal, but satisfactorily in comparison. Also, I would prefer to keep a couple 18650's in a carrying case in my pocket instead of carrying an extra 26650 flashlight.


----------



## holygeez03 (Nov 22, 2016)

Unless ZL has figured out a way to make a very small diameter 4x18650... a 3x18650 seems much more useful.

I own a 4-cell Sky Ray King and a 3-cell MX25L3 and the MX is a perfect size for a "big light" in my opinion... but ZL tends to know what they're doing and occasionally surprise people.


----------



## markr6 (Nov 22, 2016)

I wish they were doing a 3 instead of the 4x18650. My MX25L3C feels nice in the hand. The small, short 4-18650 lights are annoying IMO. Almost wide as they are long.

But we're not going to change their minds. 4x18650 it is. I'll deal with it


----------



## beliving (Nov 22, 2016)

holygeez03 said:


> Unless ZL has figured out a way to make a very small diameter 4x18650... a 3x18650 seems much more useful.
> 
> I own a 4-cell Sky Ray King and a 3-cell MX25L3 and the MX is a perfect size for a "big light" in my opinion... but ZL tends to know what they're doing and occasionally surprise people.


A surprise could be a high power laser right in the center of the three LEDs... sweet.


----------



## dubliftment (Nov 23, 2016)

davidt1 said:


> What I would like to see from Zebralight is a compact 18650 thrower -- like the new Nitecore P30 only better.


 why not the SC600w III HI?


----------



## twistedraven (Nov 23, 2016)

The HI isn't really a thrower of a light, it only has around 20k cd.


----------



## DIPSTIX (Nov 23, 2016)

Throws well enough for me &#55357;&#56397;


----------



## treejohnny (Dec 20, 2016)

Has anybody received an update on this light yet?

I heard it might have built in batteries and USB. Can anyone else confirm this?


----------



## markr6 (Dec 20, 2016)

treejohnny said:


> Has anybody received an update on this light yet?
> 
> I heard it might have built in batteries and USB. Can anyone else confirm this?



I really hope it doesn't have any of that fluff. Just a compact, less-things-to-break light for me. I'm sure it will be out of my budget but I'm still looking forward to hearing more.


----------



## emarkd (Dec 20, 2016)

I haven't seen those rumors. We're did you hear that? It would be a huge departure for Zebralight and frankly, I don't believe it.


----------



## kj2 (Dec 20, 2016)

I hope not. Want to feed it my own batteries. USB charging would be nice but not a must have feature.


----------



## treejohnny (Dec 20, 2016)

It was from the staff at zebralight. I had asked them a few questions, this one of the responses.

The C3 will be less than $200. It will come with four 18650s built-in and a USB charging port. Its overall dimension/volume is roughly two thirds of a typical four cell soda can on the market, with similar beam profiles. Preorder date is not set yet.


----------



## kj2 (Dec 20, 2016)

at least the price isn't that bad..


----------



## markr6 (Dec 20, 2016)

treejohnny said:


> It was from the staff at zebralight. I had asked them a few questions, this one of the responses.
> 
> The C3 will be less than $200. It will come with four 18650s built-in and a USB charging port. Its overall dimension/volume is roughly two thirds of a typical four cell soda can on the market, with similar beam profiles. Preorder date is not set yet.



Thanks for the info!! So I wonder if "built-in" batteries means you can't use your own; like theirs are sealed in or something? I like the under $200 part!


----------



## richbuff (Dec 20, 2016)

I would be very pleasantly surprised if this very attractive light is not a lot more than usd $200.


----------



## ToddM (Dec 21, 2016)

twistedraven said:


> I'm not a fan of these new high output popcan lights either, because they're not really practical. You get that 10,000 lumen burst, but then it will drop off VERY quickly. What I'd be interested in is a robust 1x26650 thrower. Vinh's U21vn opened my eyes to the practicality that even a high driven 1x26650 thrower can do in regards to perceived light output and lack of heat issues.



A huge lumen # that steps down in a couple minutes, has zero practical value. Usually you end up with a light that can really only maintain medium mode or lower for any useful time period. Unfortunately the flashlight market is like the digital camera market was 10 years ago, when all consumers looked at was the number of megapixels without understanding that more wasn't always better. Light regulation, while a great addition to flashlights is now being used to simply manipulate marketing specs. The other day I saw a series of new lights, from a well known manufacturer where the high mode runtime was listed as 90% of the medium runtime, but medium was 1/5 of the brightness of high. 

As a result we now get expensive, huge lights that have a 3000+ lumen Turbo but only for a couple minutes, then step down to 1000 lumens(high) for the rest of it, and medium mode is 300 lumens or less, so you end up with huge gaps in brightness levels with actual usefulness. I would much rather see 1500 lumens for 30 minute runtime on turbo then a 1000-750 high and 300 lumen medium, 50 lumen low etc.

Thankfully some arenas have not accepted this trend of misleading marketing by gaming the ANSI spec system. I can only imagine how annoyed cyclists, caving, scuba people would be if their bike lights only stayed near the lumen rating for a few minutes before dropping to 30% of that level for the rest of the stated runtime. Seems like what ANSI really needs to do is change the spec for runtime to be 90% of original brightness, not 10% when calculating light runtimes.


----------



## markr6 (Dec 21, 2016)

^ Very well put! I especially like the digital camera comparison...spot on!


----------



## CelticCross74 (Dec 22, 2016)

this light is just TO bright. Many will die for want of darkness..


----------



## noboneshotdog (Dec 22, 2016)

CelticCross74 said:


> this light is just TO bright. Many will die for want of darkness..



This light is just too bright............... 
. SAID NOBODY EVER!!! :naughty: hahahaha


----------



## treejohnny (Dec 25, 2016)

''The C3 will be less than $200. It will come with four 18650s built-in and a USB charging port. Its overall dimension/volume is roughly two thirds of a typical four cell soda can on the market, with similar beam profiles. Preorder date is not set yet.''

I love my zebralights and I am hoping that since they have their own 18650s to sell that they will come with their own batteries, be replaceable by us and it will have built in USB charging port?


----------



## emarkd (Dec 25, 2016)

I may have to eat my words but I don't see any way in hell that zebra adds onboard charging. They're almost singularly focused on making their lights as small as possible and onboard charging takes up space. I just can't see them ditching springs but then adding charging circuits and ports. Not gonna happen.


----------



## oKtosiTe (Dec 29, 2016)

ToddM said:


> A huge lumen # that steps down in a couple minutes, has zero practical value. Usually you end up with a light that can really only maintain medium mode or lower for any useful time period. Unfortunately the flashlight market is like the digital camera market was 10 years ago, when all consumers looked at was the number of megapixels without understanding that more wasn't always better. Light regulation, while a great addition to flashlights is now being used to simply manipulate marketing specs. The other day I saw a series of new lights, from a well known manufacturer where the high mode runtime was listed as 90% of the medium runtime, but medium was 1/5 of the brightness of high.
> 
> As a result we now get expensive, huge lights that have a 3000+ lumen Turbo but only for a couple minutes, then step down to 1000 lumens(high) for the rest of it, and medium mode is 300 lumens or less, so you end up with huge gaps in brightness levels with actual usefulness. I would much rather see 1500 lumens for 30 minute runtime on turbo then a 1000-750 high and 300 lumen medium, 50 lumen low etc.
> 
> Thankfully some arenas have not accepted this trend of misleading marketing by gaming the ANSI spec system. I can only imagine how annoyed cyclists, caving, scuba people would be if their bike lights only stayed near the lumen rating for a few minutes before dropping to 30% of that level for the rest of the stated runtime. Seems like what ANSI really needs to do is change the spec for runtime to be 90% of original brightness, not 10% when calculating light runtimes.



Perhaps 90% is a bit aggressive, but I agree that 10% of original output isn't a useful metric at all. To account for battery regulation and heat dispersion under different circumstances 75% or 50% would still be a lot more useful than 10%. It would a allow manufacturers a little leeway while still preventing a lot of the cheating that's happening now.


----------



## ToddM (Dec 29, 2016)

Perhaps 90% is a bit too much, but I'd say not less than 80%. The whole point of regulated lights was so that users could get constant output over the life of the batteries at various levels, that's what everyone was excited about when the technology first started getting put into lights. All it's become now in flashlights is a way to game the system to show ridiculous run times for output levels that the light is really only holding for a few minutes. What we have now isn't much different than what everyone complained about with non-regulated lights that you only get stated brightness for a fraction of the stated runtime.

There are still industries where the light builders integrity and/or their customers refuse to accept that this type of misleading marketing. Take cycling lights, while they do report in the ANSI standard, they are not gaming the system, most of them hold 90% rated output or better for 95% of the stated runtime even on high modes.


----------



## Swedpat (Dec 30, 2016)

oKtosiTe said:


> Perhaps 90% is a bit aggressive, but I agree that 10% of original output isn't a useful metric at all. To account for battery regulation and heat dispersion under different circumstances 75% or 50% would still be a lot more useful than 10%. It would a allow manufacturers a little leeway while still preventing a lot of the cheating that's happening now.



Absolutely agree with that! It would still be within the range of barely noticeable decrease and much more fair than 10%.


----------



## JDodd (Dec 30, 2016)

This light is on my list. This will be my third ZebraLight (after H603c and SC600Fd Mk III). I wish we had a ballpark estimate for availability.


----------



## lampeDépêche (Jan 4, 2017)

Weird thing about this: the spreadsheet gives its dimensions as "4.3x3.0x0.9".

That's not a pop-can or a cylinder of any kind. That's a flat rectangular box, like two packs of playing cards next to each other.

Notice also that they created a new column for this light--all of the earlier lights are described by two numbers: "Bezel Diameter" and "Length".

This is the only light that is described using the LxHxD column.

If they really do go with a flat array, that will be revolutionary! Slides right into the back pocket, for instance. Awkward to hold? I'm not sure.

And what to call this arrangement of batteries--pan-pipe arrangement? Single-stack clip?

ETA: whoops! Sorry--I see that people are already discussing this over in the "Official Zebralight" thread. Okay--carry on over there.


----------



## eraursls1984 (Jan 4, 2017)

I love the side by side idea for two cells, not so sure about four though.


----------



## markr6 (Jan 4, 2017)

eraursls1984 said:


> I love the side by side idea for two cells, not so sure about four though.



It does sound awkward. I wonder if it's just a typo, maybe 2.9 instead of 0.9". That would make it nearly round. But wider than it needs to be considering the competition, so I guess the 0.9 is right.


----------



## Connor (Jan 4, 2017)

Not only awkward: imagine a slim (well, as slim as possible) 4x18650 flat pack with three XHP70 LEDs. Where's the heat supposed to go? 9000 lumens ... for 20 seconds, perhaps.


----------



## emarkd (Jan 4, 2017)

I'm having a really hard time visualizing this light, so I made a wooden model. Its made of 1/2" plywood scrap, which is slightly under 1/2" as most of you probably know. The overall thickness is really close to 0.9". Width and height were easy:






















Honestly, its better than I expected, if you round the corners a bit and "dress it up". And I like out-of-the-box thinking. So maybe this wouldn't be so bad after all -- if it can handle the heat. This would be much easier to pocket than something like a Meteor, for sure.

I should've done a comparison photo with my Meteor. I can do that later if anyone wants to see.


----------



## eraursls1984 (Jan 4, 2017)

Nice and flat. Perfect to clip to your hat for a headlamp. You just need a brick on the back to balance it out. 

Before I finished reading your comment Mark, I was going to tell you to hit the sides with a router. While you're at it paint it gray. And then put a recess in it for the switch, but where does it go?


----------



## emarkd (Jan 4, 2017)

eraursls1984 said:


> Nice and flat. Perfect to clip to your hat for a headlamp. You just need a brick on the back to balance it out.
> 
> Before I finished reading your comment Mark, I was going to tell you to hit the sides with a router. While you're at it paint it gray. And then put a recess in it for the switch, but where does it go?


You sound a bit more thorough and motivated than I am . I just wanted a general idea about size/shape.

And my hope is that the switch is on a short side near the emitters, right where my thumb falls.


----------



## lampeDépêche (Jan 4, 2017)

Mark, I'm guessing that the batteries will be inserted into the longest side. So for comparing to your SC600 and SC63, you should rotate your model 90 degrees. I think?? Of course I'm just making this up.

My real hope is that they have figured out a clean way to attach 4 SC63s together like 7.62 cartridges in a linked ammo belt. This way you can keep them all flat when you want to slide it in your back pocket, or fold them into a rough square when you want to wrap your hand around it. The trick is designing the pivots so that the four beams stay collimated no matter what angle they are at. 

However, this pretty clearly is *not* what they are doing, given that the light has only 3 emitters instead of 4. 

I am at a loss--I have no idea what they are up to. Show us the plans, please!


----------



## emarkd (Jan 4, 2017)

lampeDépêche said:


> Mark, I'm guessing that the batteries will be inserted into the longest side. So for comparing to your SC600 and SC63, you should rotate your model 90 degrees. I think?? Of course I'm just making this up.



I think you're probably right, because this is really the only way the batteries will fit:






However I think the emitters would still have to be at the short side, so that the whole light is still longer than it is wide. The batteries are just in it sideways. Very odd...


----------



## lampeDépêche (Jan 4, 2017)

Huh. Yeah, that's a stumper.

Right: if the emitters were in line with the long-axis of the battery, i.e. on the long dimension of the box, then the reflectors would have to be so shallow that it would be a mule. No spot + spill beam at all. So in that case, it looks like the emitters are on the shorter dimension of the box.

Unless they are on the long side, but staggered in between cells? 4 cells, 3 emitters--is there enough room between the cells for a reflector of some depth?


----------



## emarkd (Jan 4, 2017)

lampeDépêche said:


> Right: if the emitters were in line with the long-axis of the battery, i.e. on the long dimension of the box, then the reflectors would have to be so shallow that it would be a mule. No spot + spill beam at all. So in that case, it looks like the emitters are on the shorter dimension of the box.
> 
> Unless they are on the long side, but staggered in between cells? 4 cells, 3 emitters--is there enough room between the cells for a reflector of some depth?



You mean like this?





Not really. Those are Convoy S2+ reflectors, so pretty small. Plus it would be pretty awkward to hold like that.

I think it'll have to be like this:


----------



## lampeDépêche (Jan 4, 2017)

Yup, you've convinced me. Given what we know, the emitters must be on the short side.

Battery hatch on the long side? I worry that if it were on the short side (i.e. opposite to the emitters) then in rolling the cells in sideways there would be no way to assure good connections on each end. Springs would get bent out of shape; pogo pins might not retract. Too many possibilities for unintentional shorting, as well. I think the cell-insertion has to work as normal, i.e. pushing them in lengthwise from a hatch on the long dimension.

Wow. I kinda hope we are totally wrong and they have something radically different in mind.


----------



## emarkd (Jan 4, 2017)

lampeDépêche said:


> Yup, you've convinced me. Given what we know, the emitters must be on the short side.
> 
> Battery hatch on the long side? I worry that if it were on the short side (i.e. opposite to the emitters) then in rolling the cells in sideways there would be no way to assure good connections on each end. Springs would get bent out of shape; pogo pins might not retract. Too many possibilities for unintentional shorting, as well. I think the cell-insertion has to work as normal, i.e. pushing them in lengthwise from a hatch on the long dimension.
> 
> Wow. I kinda hope we are totally wrong and they have something radically different in mind.


Yup, I'm with you. Based on the information we have I can't see it being anything else. But I'm not sure what to think of it. Zebra does good stuff so I tend to trust them, but a part of me hopes we're completely off base here, maybe even that someone at Zebra is messing with us with the spreadsheet. I've got this image in my head of the Zebralight crew sitting around drinking a beer and laughing their asses off at us right now. And I'd be perfectly fine with that.

'Sup guys! Give us a hint!


----------



## moozooh (Jan 4, 2017)

lampeDépêche said:


> Battery hatch on the long side? I worry that if it were on the short side (i.e. opposite to the emitters) then in rolling the cells in sideways there would be no way to assure good connections on each end.


If the dimensions are interpreted correctly, then you should defer to the quote from a ZL employee who said the batteries will be built-in. In which case there will be no hatch. Alternatively, the batteries could be loaded from the side (have fun making that hatch waterproof), but I don't really see the point of making things so inconvenient when a soda pop form factor still works pretty well. I'm about 99% positive that if the dimensions are as stated, batteries will also be built-in as stated.


----------



## emarkd (Jan 4, 2017)

moozooh said:


> If the dimensions are interpreted correctly, then you should defer to the quote from a ZL employee who said the batteries will be built-in. In which case there will be no hatch. Alternatively, the batteries could be loaded from the side (have fun making that hatch waterproof), but I don't really see the point of making things so inconvenient when a soda pop form factor still works pretty well. I'm about 99% positive that if the dimensions are as stated, batteries will also be built-in as stated.



Crap, I honestly had forgotten all about that because I refuse to believe it. I _really_ don't want this light to have some built-in, non-serviceable battery setup.


----------



## lampeDépêche (Jan 4, 2017)

moozooh said:


> If the dimensions are interpreted correctly, then you should defer to the quote from a ZL employee who said the batteries will be built-in. In which case there will be no hatch.



Oh, I'm happy to defer to actual info from employees. I just didn't know about it before, that's all. (Or maybe I read it earlier in the thread and forgot about it.)

Okay: built-in batteries, no hatch....Hmmm. I'm not loving this. I really like being able to swap cells in and out.

On the other hand, it may make the light more attractive to the non-CPF market, and if ZL wants to sell a lot of lights then they have my blessing.

One advantage to the built-in battery pack is that ZL does not have to listen to us yammering on about protected vs. non-protected cells. And more seriously, this prevents amateurs from getting into trouble by throwing in 4 cells with different chemistries, different capacities, different amp-ratings, etc.. If you want to consumer-proof your product, then this is one way of doing it.

Well, the more I hear about this light, the more I am eager to see the finished product!


----------



## moozooh (Jan 5, 2017)

lampeDépêche said:


> On the other hand, it may make the light more attractive to the non-CPF market, and if ZL wants to sell a lot of lights then they have my blessing.
> 
> One advantage to the built-in battery pack is that ZL does not have to listen to us yammering on about protected vs. non-protected cells. And more seriously, this prevents amateurs from getting into trouble by throwing in 4 cells with different chemistries, different capacities, different amp-ratings, etc.. If you want to consumer-proof your product, then this is one way of doing it.


^ This. S6330 successfully avoided potential disasters because it had a separate power driver for each LED/cell combination, which made perfect sense in a 3 LED + 3 cell configuration. The same wouldn't hold for any asymmetric configuration. But it will still likely be possible to disassemble the light without incurring irreversible damage with the right tools, because otherwise there would be no way to put the cells inside in the first place. Which means you should be able to return the light to ZL for paid maintenance if/when the battery fails.

Note that with a ~50 watt-hour battery pack it's extremely unlikely you will exhaust all the 300 cycles the cells are rated for in less than 6 years unless you choose to do so purposefully—and it's not like it'd just turn into a pumpkin immediately afterwards. So the pressing need for battery replacement is, frankly, rather overstated—at least provided C3 will use fresh state-of-the-art cells out of the box, which I'm sure it will. For instance, my first SC600 bought 4.5 years ago barely sees any use because 2.5 years ago SC600w L2 happened, and the old light became functionally obsolete, hence demoted from regular usage. Today's flashlights make early 2011's ones (that's pre-XM-L!) look like absolute garbage. If early 2023's are to keep up with the progress curve, it's likely you won't even _consider_ using your first-gen C3 by the time its battery dies.


----------



## emarkd (Jan 5, 2017)

To argue that proprietary sealed batteries are somehow a desired feature doesn't make sense to me. Sure "muggles" would probably be better off with that, but Zebralight has traditionally targeted the enthusiast market. Nobody would tell Ferrari to build weaker cars so that soccer moms could drive them more easily. 

I just don't like being tied down with proprietary parts. I know that Zebras as a whole are some of the _least_ user-serviceable lights on the market, so the addition of a proprietary sealed battery would not be too far out of character. But I just don't like the idea of having to rely on the manufacturer for future service/upgrades, especially at additional cost. There's no reason the driver in one of these lights shouldn't last for decades. The emitter, too. So to artificially limit the lifespan of the product for little gain makes no sense to me. And the argument that it will somehow be "obsolete" before the battery dies doesn't work for me either. This flashlight will make perfectly serviceable light for decades, even if there's better stuff on the market. I know that a lot of us here dump last year's model light as soon as something new (and hopefully marginally better) comes along, but that's not how most people approach these things, and it shouldn't be required.

Besides, the "huge leaps" in LED tech are starting to slow down, don't you think? 80+ and 90+ CRI emitters are commonplace, and I would venture that most of us can't really tell the difference between 90 CRI and 100 (although I'm sure we all want 100 CRI emitters). And we've got much better tint options now than we did half a decade ago (and the visible light spectrum isn't getting any wider). The only place I really see room for _huge_ improvement is efficiencies, and we've already come a long way there too.

Well, there's one other place I see big room for improvement -- battery tech. But if we seal the batteries in our devices then we won't be able to take advantage of those gains.

In other words, I'd venture to say that lights bought today could have a much longer "usable" lifespan than those we bought a decade ago. Unless we unnecessarily hobble them with proprietary batteries.

But that's just my opinion, and Zebra's gonna do what Zebra's gonna do. It'll be fun to watch it all play out, no matter which direction it goes


----------



## markr6 (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm 100% against a special battery. I want my own 18650s is so I can take them out, check voltage periodically, maybe run them down on my charger when storing, run a capacity test, etc. I don't care if the pack lasts 10 years; I like the peace of mind of replacing the cells whenever I want, knowing they're fresh and 100%


----------



## treejohnny (Jan 5, 2017)

I have silly question...can the XHP70 leds be efficiently driven by running the four 18650's in parallel? If they must be in series then I can see why Zebralight would use battery pack for safety.


----------



## emarkd (Jan 5, 2017)

treejohnny said:


> I have silly question...can the XHP70 leds be efficiently driven by running the four 18650's in parallel? If they must be in series then I can see why Zebralight would use battery pack for safety.



XHP70s come in 6v or 12v flavors. Four 18650s in parallel would only be 4v. Zebra makes some of the best boost drivers on the market so its possible they could be in parallel, but I think its more likely (and probably more efficient) for the cells to go 2s2p, an 8v setup. But that's just a guess.


----------



## moozooh (Jan 5, 2017)

emarkd said:


> Zebralight has traditionally targeted the enthusiast market. Nobody would tell Ferrari to build weaker cars so that soccer moms could drive them more easily.


The enthusiast market alone can't sustain growth, which is the reason ZL has been toying with e.g. "Eco" line and such. If you want to expand, naturally you'd want to appeal to a wider audience, most of which can't so much as to fathom the fact that a flashlight can have 20+ modes or require parts you need to scour the Internet for, pray they can be shipped to your location, and also require specific chargers that aren't sold in Walmart. The battery search aspect in particular is pretty off-putting. Even here at CPF people who are supposed to be "enthusiasts" are asking questions about protected cells and manufacturers all the time. It's far from a convenient situation. The vast majority of people prefer the device manufacturer taking care of everything they don't feel entirely safe or sure about.



emarkd said:


> I just don't like being tied down with proprietary parts.


But... you aren't. There are no proprietary parts—it's the same old 18650 cells inside. You will still be able to disassemble and mod/service the light at your own risk, just like people do now with other parts of ZL lights—it's just that it will be outside the scope of ZL's customer support. This works out just fine because they won't have to spend time and effort dealing with human errors, which frees up their resources.



emarkd said:


> But I just don't like the idea of having to rely on the manufacturer for future service/upgrades, especially at additional cost.


But you already pay an additional cost for the new set of batteries and shipping; this isn't significantly different. Besides, you don't _have_ to rely on a particular manufacturer to replace the battery after the warranty period. I sure as hell didn't send my first SC600 to ZL for modding—I asked vinhnguyen54 to do it (and that was before his mods became the big thing here! ).

If this happens to be one's first 18650 light, which might just be the general case for the "muggles", they also skip the need to choose and buy a charger (and a fireproof bag, like some particularly wary people). This saves money and time (= more money). Obviously a win/win situation for the muggles.



emarkd said:


> There's no reason the driver in one of these lights shouldn't last for decades. The emitter, too.


Well, if you don't use it, sure.  Tools in heavy use are subject to wear and tear, however—I've already broken the lens on one of my lights once, which could've been fatal for the emitter. And nobody guarantees the 18650s will still be in use in decades, either—which is something people here tend to take for granted. EVs and power tools are moving on to 20700/21700, laptops have all but ditched cylindrical cells entirely. Those have historically been the three major markets for the 18650; flashlights and other portable electronics (e.g. powerbanks) don't even amount to 0.1% of these by sheer demand numbers. Have you considered where you'd be getting your spares if 18650 goes the way of the dodo in a decade or less? Are you going to stockpile them in your fridge? 



emarkd said:


> So to artificially limit the lifespan of the product for little gain makes no sense to me. And the argument that it will somehow be "obsolete" before the battery dies doesn't work for me either. This flashlight will make perfectly serviceable light for decades, even if there's better stuff on the market. [...] I know that a lot of us here dump last year's model light as soon as something new (and hopefully marginally better) comes along, but that's not how most people approach these things, and it shouldn't be required.


I was under the impression that the times when people would change the technology they used because the new one was required have long gone in general. Out of curiosity, how many electronic devices that remain operational after 10+ years do you still use regularly? I know for sure that since 2006 I've fully upgraded my PC and all of my flashlights twice, changed three mobile phones, a laptop, a DAP, a vacuum cleaner, and a TV in the living room. I didn't do it because the old ones stopped working—I did it because the accumulated quality-of-life improvement offered by new technologies at a low-enough price point was well worth the "premature" switch—so much so that not making it felt like a disservice to myself. That is the main deciding factor nowadays. 

Let me try to explain why obsolescence is a more serious thing than people tend to give it credit for. Indeed, the _purposes_ of using a flashlight or other devices haven't really changed—but the ways we use them have. Whenever a new technology enables a usage scenario that wasn't possible or convenient previously, it creates an opportunity cost, i.e. _"what I would *lose* by *not* moving on to this product at this point"_. The most successful, groundbreaking products are those that create the largest opportunity cost—either by enabling completely new usage scenarios (e.g. the original iPhone, which changed how we use our phones) or by making several old ones significantly more convenient across the board (e.g. Tesla Model S, which is on track to outperform gasoline-based cars in every single aspect).

For instance, while nearly everyone around me was jumping on tablet PC bandwagon, I was holding out and using my PC or laptop. But when there appeared a tablet that was 1) small and light enough to be comfortably held with one hand and carried in a pocket, 2) powerful enough to chew anything I threw at it, including full-HD video encoded with heavy duty settings, 3) waterproof, so I could take it to a seashore or wash it in tap water, 4) with good enough battery to last a full day of regular activity, and 5) with good enough screen that reading or watching movies on it wasn't any less comfortable than on my TV or PC monitor, it was obvious that I would increase my quality of life _massively_ by investing in this device despite the fact that other things I used for the same tasks were still in working order. Indeed, ever since I've done that, I've saved myself a lot of time and effort that would've otherwise been spent using devices not fit for a given task (e.g. my phone, which is too small and weak—because that's how I want my phone to be) or those too unwieldy for it (e.g. my laptop, which I can't carry around everywhere). I paid for the _convenience_ that made certain other things partly or fully obsolete for a given task, and I ended up absolutely better off for it. Do I lament the fact that the battery in my tablet isn't serviceable? Not really—that's the price to pay for things that are more important for me in such a device. If it somehow manages to survive until its battery gives out (which I expect to happen sometime in the next two years), I'll either take it to a service center and replace the battery, or buy a better tablet which will surely become available by then. It's not a big deal either way. I can't expect manufacturers to make legacy spare parts available forever because that's just not economically viable. It's the flip side of rapid progress; you get either one or the other.



emarkd said:


> Besides, the "huge leaps" in LED tech are starting to slow down, don't you think? 80+ and 90+ CRI emitters are commonplace, and I would venture that most of us can't really tell the difference between 90 CRI and 100 (although I'm sure we all want 100 CRI emitters). And we've got much better tint options now than we did half a decade ago (and the visible light spectrum isn't getting any wider).


Admittedly, I haven't been paying very close attention, but I don't think so, no. Most of the options you're talking about only appeared on the market during the last 1.5-2 years or so. The fact that maximum brightness in mass-production lights has jumped up by ~40% to ~130% depending on the power source in this same time frame doesn't quite scream "slow down" to me, either. I would say it progresses much faster than it did in the 1.5 years of XP-G dominance (mid-2010 to late 2011) or the 1.5 years of XM-L's dominance (late 2011 to mid-2013). During these periods of time there was basically only one non-awful LED option for a high-power light, and you'd only have the incredible choice between 65 CRI CW and 75 CRI NW with something like 15–17% less output. If you wanted >80 CRI, you'd have to make do with a horribly weak and inefficient Philips or Nichia LED, or something even worse. Every choice was a painful compromise. The only functional replacement for XM-L was expected to be XM-L2, with no comparable options on the horizon, and XM-L2 itself was only 25% more powerful at most. We had to wait two years for a 20–25% increase in output at the same wattage, and that was considered a steady progress. Funny, right?

In the last 2.5–3 years, however, the choice of concurrently usable emitters jumped up to something like 4+ depending on the size, purpose, and battery you want to use, most having at least 2-3 further options in terms of color temperature and/or rendition, with 6V LEDs taking a hold of the large lights and slowly trickling down to 1x18650 lights, and AA-based lights also being able to take much better advantage of powerful single-die LEDs as well, pushing 500 lm on a single eneloop. The industry is in better shape and progressing at a higher pace than ever before, and LEDs themselves are becoming better across the board—you don't have to choose between light output and quality or max output and efficiency anymore. In fact, we've only recently arrived at the point where tint choice has become a preference rather than a necessity, since the difference in output has shrunk to 5–7% at most. The efficiency itself has increased from 180–190 lm/W it shuffled at in 2012–2013 to over 220 lm/W in 2016, and we haven't even seen what the upcoming XM-L3 will be capable of. Similarly, if ~2200 lm was just about the limit you'd get out of the most powerful single-LED production lights in 2012–2013 (using the horribly power-hungry Luminus emitters at that), we're now looking at up to 5000 lm from a single power-efficient LED—that's more than a twofold jump. The only thing I find worrying in all of that is that Cree has completely destroyed any competition it had, which is never good for consumers in long term. I mean they've even made automotive xenon arc lightbulbs technically obsolete, now they're just competing with themselves.

The main course of further improvements, as I see it, will be (and already has been, in fact) in gradual trickling of larger-light performance into smaller-light form factors. Large lights are severely limited in their usage, and can't always be there when needed. The only problem of small lights is that they aren't always _enough_. The latter can certainly be improved over time, the former... less so, in principle. Eventually, perhaps in 10–15 years or so, high-performance flashlights won't ever exceed the size of something like ZL S6330 or Lux-RC FB1 because they won't _need_ to, and pocketable EDC lights will cover about 99% of real-world usage scenarios handsomely.



emarkd said:


> Well, there's one other place I see big room for improvement -- battery tech. But if we seal the batteries in our devices then we won't be able to take advantage of those gains.


Portable electronics and EVs haven't had user-serviceable batteries for years (if ever), and somehow this didn't impede the progress nor consumer interest. The main reason there haven't been any huge leaps in energy density, in my opinion, is that the dominant chemistry (lithium/cobalt-based cathodes in particular) hasn't changed in a while. But with multiple technologies under development and the big money behind automotive industries being heavily poured into accelerating the development and production, that will also change in foreseeable future. We will be able to take advantage of it either way, no need to worry.


----------



## lampeDépêche (Jan 5, 2017)

Thanks, Moozooh. That was a very interesting series of reflections on tech evolution. Gives me lots to think about.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 10, 2017)

I checked with Zebralight on this for an ETA...nothing at the moment. I'm really anxious to see more!!


----------



## Tachead (Mar 10, 2017)

markr6 said:


> I'm 100% against a special battery. I want my own 18650s is so I can take them out, check voltage periodically, maybe run them down on my charger when storing, run a capacity test, etc. I don't care if the pack lasts 10 years; I like the peace of mind of replacing the cells whenever I want, knowing they're fresh and 100%



+1 

Not to mention not having user replaceable cells means when it dies(which won't take very long on high) you have to spend hours charging it instead of just swapping out the cells. And, if you are off grid that means when its dead you basically have a paper weight. I think going with a built in non-user serviceable battery in this light would be the worst thing ZL could do. Especially when most other lights in this class have user replaceable non-proprietary cells. Any high power light that has a built in or even proprietary battery is automatically off my buy list no matter how good it is and I know many others feel this way too.


----------



## markr6 (Jul 6, 2017)

It's been pretty quiet with the Zebralights for a while. I wonder how this one is progressing.


----------



## emarkd (Jul 6, 2017)

Yeah they released the new h503 with the new ui a couple of weeks ago, but nothing on this light. I just hope it's progressing still.


----------



## TCY (Jul 6, 2017)

markr6 said:


> It's been pretty quiet with the Zebralights for a while. I wonder how this one is progressing.



I actually have some good news. About two weeks I was talking to ZL staff about H53Fc's UI and asked about the C3. ZL's response was that the C3's R&D process has been completed a few months ago and is planned to be manufactured in their shiny new factory located in Texas... but the problems is they don't know when.

I decided not to share this info (but since you are wondering...) as this just sounded like a far fetched plan from ZL. R&D completed for months but have no idea when does manufacturing start? Damn. Also with brands like Acebeam, Imalent and Olight coming up with models that puts out 15,000+ lumens, and vn modded lights capable of delivering even crazier figures, the 9,000 lumens from C3 is not so impressive on paper anymore. It's nice to hear that they plan to label the light with "made in USA" but price will surely go up. 

On a side note, ZL will introduce a "4th generation" model (SC600 MK4, SC64, H600 MK4) later this year with "the new UI and other improvements" but they haven't decided on which model yet. A H600Fc MK4/SC64Fc would be perfect for me.


----------



## eraursls1984 (Jul 6, 2017)

TCY said:


> I actually have some good news. About two weeks I was talking to ZL staff about H53Fc's UI and asked about the C3. ZL's response was that the C3's R&D process has been completed a few months ago and is planned to be manufactured in their shiny new factory located in Texas... but the problems is they don't know when.
> 
> I decided not to share this info (but since you are wondering...) as this just sounded like a far fetched plan from ZL. R&D completed for months but have no idea when does manufacturing start? Damn. Also with brands like Acebeam, Imalent and Olight coming up with models that puts out 15,000+ lumens, and vn modded lights capable of delivering even crazier figures, the 9,000 lumens from C3 is not so impressive on paper anymore. It's nice to hear that they plan to label the light with "made in USA" but price will surely go up.
> 
> On a side note, ZL will introduce a "4th generation" model (SC600 MK4, SC64, H600 MK4) later this year with "the new UI and other improvements" but they haven't decided on which model yet. A H600Fc MK4/SC64Fc would be perfect for me.


I expected a 3 series CR123 light first since those have been the most neglected, and some are discontinued now. 

I'm waiting for the SC64c, SC600c/w HI, H600c, SC3c/SC33c, and the H33c.


----------



## markr6 (Jul 6, 2017)

Thanks for the update, especially this part!! :twothumbs



TCY said:


> On a side note, ZL will introduce a "4th generation" model (SC600 MK4, SC64, H600 MK4) later this year with "the new UI and other improvements" but they haven't decided on which model yet. A H600Fc MK4/SC64Fc would be perfect for me.


----------



## banana boat (Jul 6, 2017)

Im waiting for the 100,000 lumen model with 1.2 sec of battery life, its just a big flash lmao


----------



## scs (Jul 6, 2017)

TCY said:


> ... Also with brands like Acebeam, Imalent and Olight coming up with models that puts out 15,000+ lumens, and vn modded lights capable of delivering even crazier figures, the 9,000 lumens from C3 is not so impressive on paper anymore. It's nice to hear that they plan to label the light with "made in USA" but price will surely go up.



The impressive output of those other brands quickly takes a steep dive though. ZL is better known for their outstanding drivers, which, it appears, only Olight can come close to matching. ZL still stands alone in many aspects.


----------



## emarkd (Jul 6, 2017)

scs said:


> The impressive output of those other brands quickly takes a steep dive though. ZL is better known for their outstanding drivers, which, it appears, only Olight can come close to matching. ZL still stands alone in many aspects.


This exactly. What good is 10k lumens if it's got a dumb 30 second turbo timer built in. That's cheating. Zebra will do it better.... assuming they actually do it.


----------



## Nichia! (Jul 6, 2017)

You just made my day Sir thank you very much
Man I visit ZL website 20-30 times every single day! That's how much I love them..
It's The best thing to do well done Zebralight, you are my absolute favorite brand. I really hope that you improve your quality of the HA and switches and time to offer life time warranty.
I think if they ever do everything in the USA MADE Way they will make Surefire out of business soon. They will be the next indescribable light (I hope)


----------



## Ozythemandias (Jul 6, 2017)

TCY said:


> I actually have some good news. About two weeks I was talking to ZL staff about H53Fc's UI and asked about the C3. ZL's response was that the C3's R&D process has been completed a few months ago and is planned to be manufactured in their shiny new factory located in Texas... but the problems is they don't know when.
> 
> I decided not to share this info (but since you are wondering...) as this just sounded like a far fetched plan from ZL. R&D completed for months but have no idea when does manufacturing start? Damn. Also with brands like Acebeam, Imalent and Olight coming up with models that puts out 15,000+ lumens, and vn modded lights capable of delivering even crazier figures, the 9,000 lumens from C3 is not so impressive on paper anymore. It's nice to hear that they plan to label the light with "made in USA" but price will surely go up.
> 
> On a side note, ZL will introduce a "4th generation" model (SC600 MK4, SC64, H600 MK4) later this year with "the new UI and other improvements" but they haven't decided on which model yet. A H600Fc MK4/SC64Fc would be perfect for me.



Does that mean the same crap anodizing as their other US anodized lights?


----------



## eraursls1984 (Jul 6, 2017)

What exactly is the"crap" US anodizing? I've only had 5 Zebralights and all have had outstanding anodizing. They haven't all been the same exact color, but all have been extremely durable.


----------



## markr6 (Jul 6, 2017)

eraursls1984 said:


> What exactly is the"crap" US anodizing? I've only had 5 Zebralights and all have had outstanding anodizing. They haven't all been the same exact color, but all have been extremely durable.



Same here. They've only gotten better with time IMO. Not that my first (H51w from Jan. 2013) was bad, but I didn't like the olive color and thin-ish look. Now they're darker, almost gray with a thicker anodizing to where it almost looks like some type of enamel. I like it!


----------



## emarkd (Jul 6, 2017)

I think Zebra did try some US-based manufacturing in the past but as I recall the "crap" issue with those lights was a less reliable switch, not bad anodizing. But maybe I'm mis-remembering.

As far as Zebra's ano goes, I've always like it. Its just natural, so yeah there's lots of color variation in it, but I like that. Solid jet black lights get boring after a while, cause everyone makes those. I'm happy to see some variation, even when it results in some color-mismatch, just to break up the monotony. Zebra's current production is a much more even gray color, leading me to think they're adding some light dye to the mix now, which is probably a good thing for sales, but I just hope they don't ever go solid black like everyone else.


----------



## Mattz68 (Jul 6, 2017)

I think somewhere around 2013/14 Zebralight tried to do the anodizing in the U.S. -but initial batches (don't remember which ones) had "blotchy" and inconsistent anodizing. I commend Zebralight for trying to manufacture here, hopefully their new factory works out! As far as the "C3"goes, I've always promised myself to never buy light for pure fun, but...if they make a C or D Hi-cri version -I'll be 1st in line! (Also, just a little "throw" to keep it from a pure flooder beam profile)


----------



## Ozythemandias (Jul 6, 2017)

I've purchased an SC63W from them a few months ago or longer that had a much darker and smoother finish than their other lights. I suspected something. Was different but chose to ignore it, until I dropped the light from waist height and a piece about an eighth of an inch flaked off. They claimed this was to be expected but I've had close to 15 of their lights and I know of the variances and what to expect, this was a flaw. 

Being aware of their past attempts to bring the anodizing stateside, I suspect I was a victim of some beta testing of some sort, an assumption of course.


----------



## markr6 (Jul 7, 2017)

Ozythemandias said:


> until I dropped the light from waist height and a piece about an eighth of an inch flaked off.



That's not good! I didn't even think that was possible with anodizing. I thought it was less of a coating and more something that formed and "became one" with the aluminum. Almost like rust or oxidation.


----------



## Connor (Jul 7, 2017)

It is possible - and normal - because the aluminum beneath the coating is _very _soft in comparison. An impact on a sharp edge of some sort can form a cavity in the metal and the anodisation above (super hard but also super brittle) has nothing to hold on to anymore and will flake off.


----------



## markr6 (Jul 7, 2017)

Connor said:


> It is possible - and normal - because the aluminum beneath the coating is _very _soft in comparison. An impact on a sharp edge of some sort can form a cavity in the metal and the anodisation above has nothing to hold on to anymore and will flake off.



That makes sense, thanks!


----------



## scs (Jul 7, 2017)

According to Wikipedia and anodizing.org, it should not peel or flake off. It's not a coating.


----------



## Lumencrazy (Jul 7, 2017)

Connor said:


> It is possible - and normal - because the aluminum beneath the coating is _very _soft in comparison. An impact on a sharp edge of some sort can form a cavity in the metal and the anodisation above (super hard but also super brittle) has nothing to hold on to anymore and will flake off.


 Not at all! True anodisation is not a film coating. If it is flaking it is something else!


----------



## Connor (Jul 7, 2017)

It's not a coating, it's an oxide layer growing both into and on the outside of the aluminum. Under normal circumstances it will not flake off "unless severely deformed or stressed by excessive thermal movement". 
It's a different material than the aluminum and has different properties (e.g. it is much harder and much more brittle) and of course it can still be damaged. I invite you to hammer a decent (sharp) dent into your HAIII light and see what happens. :mecry:


----------



## scs (Jul 7, 2017)

Connor said:


> It's not a coating, it's an oxide layer growing both into and on the outside of the aluminum. Under normal circumstances it will not flake off "unless severely deformed or stressed by excessive thermal movement".
> It's a different material than the aluminum and has different properties (e.g. it is much harder and much more brittle) and of course it can still be damaged. I invite you to hammer a decent (sharp) dent into your HAIII light and see what happens. :mecry:



Sure it will crack, and you can certainly grind it down with abrasion, but does it detach from the bare aluminum below, e.g. flake off or peel off?


----------



## markr6 (Jan 30, 2018)




----------



## lampeDépêche (Jan 31, 2018)

Sorry, mark6r--no C3 for you!


----------



## emarkd (Jan 31, 2018)

Is this the sad-Mark gathering?


----------



## markr6 (Jan 31, 2018)

HAHA! I'm trying to be patient. I told myself early on "plan for mid-2018". I think anytime this year would be reasonable; likely busy with all the other new models. With the SC6330 gone, we need another powerhouse!


----------



## Tachead (Jan 31, 2018)

Maybe this is just not a priority because it is such a flooded market space. There are so many of these Coke can lights already and they really aren't the most practice lights to begin with imo. Has anyone asked ZL if they even still plan to release this?


----------



## markr6 (Jan 31, 2018)

The "rectangle" shape of this has my interest though. Will it be better or worse than the standard pop cans? I have no idea. It's possible they killed it after the R&D and never took it off the spread sheet.


----------



## emarkd (Jan 31, 2018)

markr6 said:


> The "rectangle" shape of this has my interest though. Will it be better or worse than the standard pop cans? I have no idea.



This is me exactly. The market is flooded (see what I did there..) with multi-emitter lights. But they're round, hard to carry. I want more flat lights!


----------



## Tachead (Jan 31, 2018)

markr6 said:


> The "rectangle" shape of this has my interest though. Will it be better or worse than the standard pop cans? I have no idea. It's possible they killed it after the R&D and never took it off the spread sheet.


Yep that is true, a rectangle pop can, so to speak, could be interesting. 

Unfortunately that won't fix the main issue with most of these lights imo. That is, they have much too high of a lumen to Cd ratio. When you have 10000 lumens with very little throw it just washes everything out and kills your long range vision so, it makes them not very practical imo. Now, if you use larger reflectors like on something like the Thrunite TN40S that fixes the problem but, then you have a huge light. And, pop cans are already too large for comfortable carry in anything but a bag imo.


----------



## markr6 (Jan 31, 2018)

I think the best answer to "what next" would have been a 1x26650 light. They got left in the dust with some others already making some nice ones. But I would still like them to get into the game. If not "first", go for "best".


----------



## Tachead (Jan 31, 2018)

Personally, I would rather see a single 26650 ZL model with a XHP35 HI and a reflector maybe twice the size of the SC600w MKIV HI. Something like the Eagletac TX3G Pro or Thrunite TC20 but, without the internal charging.


----------



## Tachead (Jan 31, 2018)

markr6 said:


> I think the best answer to "what next" would have been a 1x26650 light. They got left in the dust with some others already making some nice ones. But I would still like them to get into the game. If not "first", go for "best".


Lol, you beat me to it Mark. Great minds think alike😁.


----------



## markr6 (Jan 31, 2018)

Tachead said:


> Lol, you beat me to it Mark. Great minds think alike lol.



LOL! That's great!!

I was going to mention the TX3G Pro, but noone is talking about it...at all. Could be a waste of $125.


----------



## Tachead (Jan 31, 2018)

markr6 said:


> LOL! That's great!!
> 
> I was going to mention the TX3G Pro, but noone is talking about it...at all. Could be a waste of $125.


Or how about this...

A single 26650 ZL with a heavy OP reflector and a high CRI MT-G2. That would be great too.


----------



## markr6 (Jan 31, 2018)

Tachead said:


> Or how about this...
> 
> A single 26650 ZL with a heavy OP reflector and a high CRI MT-G2. That would be great too.



I'd like that! I _would _love my Nitecore EC4SW with the MT-G2 if the parasitic drain wasn't a joke (and mine even measured lower than other reports). Wipes out two 18650s before you even use it again. Otherwise, it's a great LED even without high CRI.


----------



## Tachead (Jan 31, 2018)

markr6 said:


> LOL! That's great!!
> 
> I was going to mention the TX3G Pro, but noone is talking about it...at all. Could be a waste of $125.


There was a post yesterday about it. Someone just ordered one but, the CW version. It looks like a very nice light but, I am not a big fan of internal charging nor the XHP70.2(or any of Cree's new full phosphor coating emitters really). They are efficient and bright but, the tint shift issue kind of cancels out those benefits imo.


----------



## Tachead (Jan 31, 2018)

markr6 said:


> I'd like that! I _would _love my Nitecore EC4SW with the MT-G2 if the parasitic drain wasn't a joke (and mine even measured lower than other reports). Wipes out two 18650s before you even use it again. Otherwise, it's a great LED even without high CRI.


Yeah, they are great flood emitters. I heard about that issue with the EC4's, that's too bad. I have often thought about getting an old Fenix PD40 just for the MT-G2.


----------



## 18650 (Feb 1, 2018)

markr6 said:


> The "rectangle" shape of this has my interest though. Will it be better or worse than the standard pop cans? I have no idea. It's possible they killed it after the R&D and never took it off the spread sheet.


 It's in the same place as the Q50. But on the topic of 26650 lights maybe a 20700 based one would be a better first step? MT-G2 based 20700 ZL would be interesting. You could get better cells from upper tier cell makers too than with 26650.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 1, 2018)

HAHA it could be another Q50...don't wanna jinx it though


----------



## Tachead (Feb 1, 2018)

18650 said:


> It's in the same place as the Q50. But on the topic of 26650 lights maybe a 20700 based one would be a better first step? MT-G2 based 20700 ZL would be interesting. You could get better cells from upper tier cell makers too than with 26650.


20700 might not be around for much longer since manufacturers have already moved on to 21700. That is the problem with these newer oddball cells. You never know how long they will be around. 26650 is more common and although they are a bit thicker, you get 2000 extra mAh over 20700's. There is no issue with them either and they are still high quality cells.

That said, I would still likely buy a 20700 or 21700 based ZL.


----------



## noboneshotdog (Feb 2, 2018)

I decided to reach out to ZL and ask them if they could share anything with us about the C3.

They replied "no production plans yet". 

Oh well, guess we're going to just have to wait and see...


----------



## markr6 (Mar 20, 2018)

All quiet over at ZL...I suspect they're working on the C3 

Holding out hope...


----------



## StandardBattery (Mar 20, 2018)

markr6 said:


> All quiet over at ZL...I suspect they're working on the C3
> 
> Holding out hope...


It's not happening. They're too late to do anything that has not been done, the market is too small. They should be looking at 21700 now or triple/quad 21700. Seems to me their best bet now is a single cell 21700, but seems they take too long to introduce new products, but if they started in 2016 like they should have then maybe they can ship in 2018.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Mar 22, 2018)

Tachead said:


> 20700 might not be around for much longer since manufacturers have already moved on to 21700. That is the problem with these newer oddball cells. You never know how long they will be around. 26650 is more common and although they are a bit thicker, you get 2000 extra mAh over 20700's. There is no issue with them either and they are still high quality cells.



I don't understand why someone would buy a 20700 or 21700 based light. What are the chances you're going to be able to get replacement cells for it in a few years?

At least with 18650, and maybe even 26650, you're probably going to be able to find replacements, as long as you can get them shipped to you. There's too much standardization in laptop packs, power tool packs, etc., for 18650 to go away anytime soon. Aren't they even used in electric cars?


----------



## tonkem (Mar 22, 2018)

I believe the 21700 is the cell that Tesla is now using in the model 3, but I could be wrong.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 23, 2018)

Regardless of the cell, they need another BIG BOY! Even if it's less than a direct replacement for the SC6330, something like a 26650 format would be nice. But I wouldn't be against another 3x18650 either.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Mar 23, 2018)

markr6 said:


> Regardless of the cell, they need another BIG BOY! Even if it's less than a direct replacement for the SC6330, something like a 26650 format would be nice. But I wouldn't be against another 3x18650 either.



While I agree a big Zebralight would be cool, I really doubt they'll do one. It's not their niche. They build small lights you can pocket.

Getting into the larger market might be a mistake for them. People will expect more output than Zebralight is likely to provide, since they don't overdrive their LEDs. Or if they use big XHP70.2 emitters to provide that output, they'll be all flood. And if Zebralight wants to still build on the small side, they'll have problems with heat.

A 1x26650 might not be too bad, but it's too large to be pocketable. And, a 26650 light is really only useful if you want a larger reflector for throw, which again isn't Zebralight's niche.

I'd rather see them build a throwier version of the SC600 Plus. Something with its output, but the throw of the HI. The MkIV HI output wasn't an improvement over the MkIII HI. Do it right with the MkV.


----------



## SubLGT (Mar 23, 2018)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> I don't understand why someone would buy a 20700 or 21700 based light. What are the chances you're going to be able to get replacement cells for it in a few years?...



The chances are excellent. Power tool manufacturers (Bosch, Metabo, DeWalt) are already using (and planning on using) 20650, 20700, and 21700 cells in their battery packs.

One example:


> Milwaukee has considered stepping up in size to 20700 or 20650 cells for their next generation of highest capacity battery packs, but decided against it.
> 
> They will be going with 21700 cells, which add an extra 1 mm in diameter to the 20700 cells some other brands have decided to go with.
> 
> ...



http://toolguyd.com/milwaukees-next-generation-battery-tech-advanced-discussion/


----------



## emarkd (Mar 23, 2018)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> While I agree a big Zebralight would be cool, I really doubt they'll do one. It's not their niche. They build small lights you can pocket.



...but see, that's why the C3 makes sense for them. Its a big triple emitter monster with 3 cells, but in a pocketable form factor. Its kind of exactly what Zebralight should do, if they're going to do a big light. I'm 100% bought into the idea...but feeling like it may never happen


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Mar 23, 2018)

emarkd said:


> ...but see, that's why the C3 makes sense for them. Its a big triple emitter monster with 3 cells, but in a pocketable form factor.



How would that be pocketable? Maybe in a coat pocket.


----------



## emarkd (Mar 23, 2018)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> How would that be pocketable? Maybe in a coat pocket.



Because its only as thick as a "normal" zebralight. Its wider, shaped like a flask, but would still pocket pretty well I think, especially if it was "sculpted" a bit. At least, it would pocket a lot easier than something like a Noctigon Meteor or S6330, some other round multi-cell light. I'm not saying its ideal, or even desired, and I'm certainly not saying it would be my new edc, but I don't see any other quad-18650, triple-emitter lights that even come close to being pocketable.

Here's a few photos of a very rough mock-up I made, back when it was first announced.






















Just a guess on the possible internal layout, but its possible...


----------



## markr6 (Mar 23, 2018)

The SC6330 wasn't pocketable IMO. Maybe they gave up on that since many other manufacturers were doing the popcan lights too, for much less $$?


----------



## iamlucky13 (Mar 23, 2018)

emarkd said:


> Because its only as thick as a "normal" zebralight. Its wider, shaped like a flask, but would still pocket pretty well I think, especially if it was "sculpted" a bit. At least, it would pocket a lot easier than something like a Noctigon Meteor or S6330, some other round multi-cell light. I'm not saying its ideal, or even desired, and I'm certainly not saying it would be my new edc, but I don't see any other quad-18650, triple-emitter lights that even come close to being pocketable.



Interesting idea.

It's a much smaller product, so not really comparable, but it sounds like owners of the Cool Fall Spy 007 actually really like the flat form factor on that scale.

Klarus and Nitecore have also both made flat form factor flashlights.

Also, I just rediscovered this interesting little light, which I'm told is a commemorative revival of a light that was pretty much universally owned by folks in Finland at some point in the past:
https://www.airam.fi/en/product/v7759-6905/8710476/retro-metal-flashlight-3w-led-120lm/206/1


----------



## maukka (Mar 24, 2018)

I've got a couple of those Airams. They're horrible


----------



## Keitho (Mar 26, 2018)

emarkd said:


> Its wider, shaped like a flask, but would still pocket pretty well I think, especially if it was "sculpted" a bit.



Oh, now THAT is a good idea...make the battery compartment double-walled so that it could hold a couple shots worth of fluid. Basically, build a flask around the battery compartment, and use the liquid inside for some additional thermal mass and cooling. I'd buy a C3/flask in a second!


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Mar 26, 2018)

Keitho said:


> ts wider, shaped like a flask, but would still pocket pretty well I think, especially if it was "sculpted" a bit.


 Good idea. Rather than having the battery compartment be completely flat, make it slightly curved so it conforms to "butt-shape" like a hip flask. To do this the batteries would likely need to be mounted vertically.


----------



## markr6 (May 22, 2018)

18 months later...my hopes are dwindling.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 22, 2018)

markr6 said:


> 18 months later...my hopes are dwindling.



Yeah, I don't think Zebralight will ever do a 4x18650 light. However, if you buy a BLF Q8 (which is a 4x18650 light) and a firmware cable, you should be able to put a Zebralight-like UI on it. Its firmware is open-source, and there might be a version which is sort of like Zebralight. If not, you could always modify it yourself.

As for 9000 lumens, you'd have to replace the XP-L emitters for something like XHP50.2, and a new driver. But the host is built to be very moddable.

Okay, I realize this is not something you're going to want to do, but throw the idea up on BLF and who knows?


----------



## twistedraven (May 22, 2018)

I rather see Zebralight work on 21700 lights.


----------



## emarkd (May 22, 2018)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Yeah, I don't think Zebralight will ever do a 4x18650 light. However, if you buy a BLF Q8 (which is a 4x18650 light) and a firmware cable, you should be able to put a Zebralight-like UI on it. Its firmware is open-source, and there might be a version which is sort of like Zebralight. If not, you could always modify it yourself.
> 
> As for 9000 lumens, you'd have to replace the XP-L emitters for something like XHP50.2, and a new driver. But the host is built to be very moddable.
> 
> Okay, I realize this is not something you're going to want to do, but throw the idea up on BLF and who knows?


Yeah this isn't hard to do. There's already a very derivative "Zebralight" firmware floating around based on TKs FSM platform, it's not hard to do. That said, the "selling point" of the C3 wasn't really just a pile of emitters with a pile of cells and Zebra's UI. It was all that in a small, pocketable form. Good luck "edc"ing a Q8...

(Yes I realize I used the past tense here. I gave up on this light a while ago. If it happens I'll be thrilled and surprised, but if it doesn't...well, I've already come to terms with that)


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 22, 2018)

emarkd said:


> That said, the "selling point" of the C3 wasn't really just a pile of emitters with a pile of cells and Zebra's UI. It was all that in a small, pocketable form. Good luck "edc"ing a Q8...



I suppose "pocketable" is rather subjective. I find the SC600 to be pocketable in a jacket, but too big for pants. Anything much bigger, I wouldn't even want in a jacket pocket. For pants, it has to be SC53 size or smaller. (I prefer a small 1xAAA for pants.)

4x18650 is fun, but I never carry one around on walks. Just too heavy and awkward. Maybe a ZL C3 would be just small enough to carry on some short walks?


----------



## emarkd (May 22, 2018)

It's the shape that made this one appealing. It's not round like most multi-emitter lights. Check the dimensions, it's shaped like a flask, or a large deck of cards. Should've been much more pocketable than similar round lights.


WalkIntoTheLight said:


> I suppose "pocketable" is rather subjective. I find the SC600 to be pocketable in a jacket, but too big for pants. Anything much bigger, I wouldn't even want in a jacket pocket. For pants, it has to be SC53 size or smaller. (I prefer a small 1xAAA for pants.)
> 
> 4x18650 is fun, but I never carry one around on walks. Just too heavy and awkward. Maybe a ZL C3 would be just small enough to carry on some short walks?


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 22, 2018)

emarkd said:


> It's the shape that made this one appealing. It's not round like most multi-emitter lights. Check the dimensions, it's shaped like a flask, or a large deck of cards. Should've been much more pocketable than similar round lights.



Sure, but then where would I keep my micky and clown-sized cards?


----------



## markr6 (May 23, 2018)

I just like Zebralights, especially unique ones like this. I certainly don't need it and wouldn't use it as much as my others. Price would be the only deciding factor for me. Couldn't go over $200 that's for sure.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 23, 2018)

markr6 said:


> I just like Zebralights, especially unique ones like this. I certainly don't need it and wouldn't use it as much as my others. Price would be the only deciding factor for me. Couldn't go over $200 that's for sure.



Yeah, if they did sell one, I think it would sell for $199. Though I'm not sure they'd use the XHP70 or 70.2, as that would result in almost pure flood. If they used the 50.2 (like on the SC600 Plus), it would probably come in at around 6900 lumens, but at least have a bit of throw. More practical, IMO.

Disclaimer: I've never bought a frosted Zebralight, and don't understand the desire for one. I can put a piece of diffuser film on the lens if I temporarily want all flood.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 23, 2018)

Hm no word on the C3.

I think this light is the new Q50. Zebralight is known for occasionally announcing vaporware lights.


----------



## Lumencrazy (May 23, 2018)

Amazing how people can discuss nothing for over one year.


----------



## StarHalo (May 23, 2018)

Lumencrazy said:


> Amazing how people can discuss nothing for over one year.



lol, only one year?

I hope Zebralight eventually returns to the monster soda can format, but surely now that we're getting into quintuple-digit outputs, we're going to hit a realistic thermal limit at some point..


----------



## iamlucky13 (May 24, 2018)

Lumencrazy said:


> Amazing how people can discuss nothing for over one year.



Have you heard of the video game Half Life 3? Fans have been waiting for a decade for it.

Or the ultimate vapor-ware (or possibly the longest-running venture capital scam) - the Moller Skycar.


----------



## markr6 (May 24, 2018)

ZL informed me this light was still in the works.


----------



## emarkd (May 24, 2018)

markr6 said:


> ZL informed me this light was still in the works.



Well that's good to hear. I'm still not getting my hopes up much, but I do still hope this one happens. Thanks for checking.


----------



## Keitho (May 24, 2018)

markr6 said:


> ZL informed me this light was still in the works.



So is the flying car that Popular Mechanics promised me in the 1980's.


----------



## markr6 (May 24, 2018)

Keitho said:


> So is the flying car that Popular Mechanics promised me in the 1980's.



Haha yeah!


----------



## markr6 (Jul 26, 2018)

Still holding on to some hope for this one, but less and less as the days go by.


----------



## MikeSalt (Jul 26, 2018)

I'm not disappointed. Zebralight are the masters of the compact, high-quality, single cell, single LED niche, particularly for non-Li-ion cells. Something like this would just dilute what makes them great.


----------



## markr6 (Jul 26, 2018)

MikeSalt said:


> I'm not disappointed. Zebralight are the masters of the compact, high-quality, single cell, single LED niche, particularly for non-Li-ion cells. Something like this would just dilute what makes them great.



Wouldn't hurt to have options though. The SC6330 was a great light, just above my budget. Now that it's gone, I want to have a second chance.


----------



## Tixx (Jul 26, 2018)

Gots to change the lumens up to at least 12,000 lumens or maybe 15,000. 9000 is outdated on 4x18650.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 26, 2018)

Even at 9000 lumens, it's going to ramp down far too quickly. 12000+ lumens would make that happen even faster.

I'm not a fan of the pocket-rockets. They're impressive, for a few seconds, but then what? If I were to buy a C3, I'd want to run it on max for a long time. Otherwise, I'd just use one of the smaller and more convenient SC600 series.

The C3 would probably maintain somewhere around 2000 lumens. Not good enough for a light not easily pocketable.

I have some 4x18650 lights, and while they're impressive, they're just not practical. Too heavy or bulky for easy carry, so I never use them on walks. If I was doing S&R, I'd want a light to maintain 9000 lumens indefinitely.


----------



## Tixx (Jul 26, 2018)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Even at 9000 lumens, it's going to ramp down far too quickly. 12000+ lumens would make that happen even faster.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the pocket-rockets. They're impressive, for a few seconds, but then what? If I were to buy a C3, I'd want to run it on max for a long time. Otherwise, I'd just use one of the smaller and more convenient SC600 series.
> 
> ...



Many lights can just be run at lower output and can pretend it is Max.  I'd definitely like to see its full output accessible even if not practical. I get what you are saying though.


----------



## twistedraven (Jul 26, 2018)

I've lost interest in this light. I just ordered a fireflies rot66 with 9x nichia 219 9080 instead!


----------



## Glenn7 (Jul 27, 2018)

twistedraven said:


> I've lost interest in this light. I just ordered a fireflies rot66 with 9x nichia 219 9080 instead!


wow thanks for that heads up for this one bud, I've been looking for something for a while
like this. was waiting for intl-outdoor's 3x 18650 light which they have canned now. I have a manker MK34 but too many things have gone wrong with it - glued plastic ring in the base of the head to stop reverse polarity fell out, the button has gone intermittent, battery length is just too fussy as in cant use flat tops can't use nipple top (only some brands of which I don't have) so have to use a blob of solder filed down to the correct level, also UI is not my favorite finding it a little counter-intuitive. and the only other one that I looked at is the Acebeam K30 but tint shift is a bit hinky.


----------



## CREEXHP70LED (Jul 27, 2018)

It is crazy how fast the lumen wars are progressing. I saw the X7 on sale this June and maybe still for $77.00. I can't believe I paid 199.00 for it not too long ago. I am in holding pattern right now. Just watching 32,000 lumens now, but the quality of the beam in one of those lights is in my opinion very bad. I am happy to see Surefires 2018 new lights finally. The customer service is great. I emailed them today about a tailcap, and within an hour I was told a new one was on the way. I want to try an Elzetta and a zebralight. Also, like mentioned above, lets get a light that does 9000 lumens for 30 minutes or more.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jul 27, 2018)

I think the lumen wars have run their course. It's getting ridiculous now, with insane output that the lights can't handle due to heat. Next step would be active cooling, but who wants that in a flashlight? Just adds bulk, weight, and extra power requirements.

LED efficiency could help (bright LEDs that produce less waste heat... double win). But we're probably getting near the upper practical limit on efficiency with white LEDs. Might get another 25% or 50% out of them in time, but that still not good enough for a 32,000 lumen light if you want it to run for awhile. Then again, battery run-time might solve that issue anyway....


----------



## CREEXHP70LED (Jul 27, 2018)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> I think the lumen wars have run their course. It's getting ridiculous now, with insane output that the lights can't handle due to heat. Next step would be active cooling, but who wants that in a flashlight? Just adds bulk, weight, and extra power requirements.
> 
> LED efficiency could help (bright LEDs that produce less waste heat... double win). But we're probably getting near the upper practical limit on efficiency with white LEDs. Might get another 25% or 50% out of them in time, but that still not good enough for a 32,000 lumen light if you want it to run for awhile. Then again, battery run-time might solve that issue anyway....



Yes, so the money is in High efficiency LEDs and high mAh high voltage cells.


----------



## Tixx (Jul 27, 2018)

CREEXHP70LED said:


> It is crazy how fast the lumen wars are progressing. I saw the X7 on sale this June and maybe still for $77.00. I can't believe I paid 199.00 for it not too long ago. I am in holding pattern right now. Just watching 32,000 lumens now, but the quality of the beam in one of those lights is in my opinion very bad. I am happy to see Surefires 2018 new lights finally. The customer service is great. I emailed them today about a tailcap, and within an hour I was told a new one was on the way. I want to try an Elzetta and a zebralight. Also, like mentioned above, lets get a light that does 9000 lumens for 30 minutes or more.




9000 lumens for 30 minutes would be possible (huge light), but by the time it is a standard, the max on the same light may be 25,000 lumens. Thus nobody would be satisfied and everyone would be saying lets get a light with 25,000 lumens for 30 minutes. Notice everyone wants the max short output number as a long duration output. It has been the story for the decade I've been into lights. Keeps the innovation happening though.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Jul 27, 2018)

That Firefly light looks great. I'm sure Zebralight would have a much more efficient driver if they ever completed the C3, but they would not offer an R9080 emitter.



WalkIntoTheLight said:


> I think the lumen wars have run their course. It's getting ridiculous now, with insane output that the lights can't handle due to heat. Next step would be active cooling, but who wants that in a flashlight? Just adds bulk, weight, and extra power requirements.
> 
> LED efficiency could help (bright LEDs that produce less waste heat... double win). But we're probably getting near the upper practical limit on efficiency with white LEDs. Might get another 25% or 50% out of them in time, but that still not good enough for a 32,000 lumen light if you want it to run for awhile. Then again, battery run-time might solve that issue anyway....



Active cooling is here. Acebeam now has a light using a fan, and I think Olight does, too.

I'm not really interested in any of those lights, but I could see uses where they are a good alternative to a wired light.

I realized when I got my D4 that unsustainable max outputs don't bother me, as long as the light functions well at the levels it can sustain.

I even have used the D4's max output a couple times for practical purposes, not just for the giggles I get out of it. When I'm out doing chores after dark and want to see something on the far side of my property for a moment, I don't have to walk across the yard or remember to bring one of my throwier lights with me.


----------



## markr6 (Aug 9, 2018)

I see Nitecore just announced the TM10K. The rectangular design immediately caught my attention and I though of the C3. I hope Zebralight isn't deterred by this. It seems like a lot of marketing hype, and likely a parasitic drain monster as usual. And I don't want to sound vain, but a $400 flashlight shouldn't have "!!" on the side of it in big fat type. Very childish.

Come on Zebralight!! What yinz working on over there??


----------



## treejohnny (Aug 21, 2018)

There must be something ‘not going on’ at zebralight. Does anybody know if the R&D department is still working on any lights?


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Aug 21, 2018)

treejohnny said:


> There must be something ‘not going on’ at zebralight. Does anybody know if the R&D department is still working on any lights?



Why's that? Don't they usually come out with new lights near the end of the year? There will probably be something new in the next few months.

But considering they upgraded most of their models last year, it's probably not time for MkV stuff yet.


----------



## markr6 (Aug 22, 2018)

This is a complete guess, but I think they just go with the flow. No specific timeline, no specific goal in mind. They'll design some concepts, put some stuff up on the spreadsheet, but not release it for a year, 2 years, or at all. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it gets your hopes up. As for the Eco Series and the C3...who knows. I just want to see _something _on this C3.


----------



## Mr. LED (Aug 22, 2018)

I have smaller hopes from Zebralight... I just want the 0.01 lumen moonlight back and the old chrome screwed on clips. Just that.


----------



## tonkem (Aug 22, 2018)

I had the 6330, but Zebralight never kept up with the lumens race. I caved and sold it, and got a Noctigon Meteor M43. IMHO a far superior light in build quality. I still have that light even though it is "only" 7000 lumens


----------



## JMC805 (Oct 24, 2018)

Anybody know if this is still being considered for production?


----------



## markr6 (Oct 25, 2018)

JMC805 said:


> Anybody know if this is still being considered for production?



They told me it was still being worked on. But that was back in May.


----------



## JMC805 (Oct 26, 2018)

I reached out to them and this was their reply. 

"It's still being considered for production, but no specific (planned) dates yet."

There's still hope!


----------



## tonkem (Jan 31, 2019)

Anyone have any news on this one? Been several months since last checked in


----------



## holygeez03 (Feb 1, 2019)

Just tape four SC600IV Plus together... more lumens, more versatile... available now.


----------



## koziy (Feb 1, 2019)

emarkd said:


> I'm having a really hard time visualizing this light, so I made a wooden model. Its made of 1/2" plywood scrap, which is slightly under 1/2" as most of you probably know. The overall thickness is really close to 0.9". Width and height were easy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All it needs is a bit of white and black paint and it can be the most zebra of them all.


----------

