# ICON Rogue 1xAA Review: RUNTIMES, ANALYSIS, BEAMSHOTS and more!



## selfbuilt (Feb 19, 2009)

_*Reviewer's Note: *The ICON Rogue 1 was purchased from hkequipment on eBay. It should be available at local distributors shortly.
_
*Warning: Pic heavy!*

ICON is a new name on the flashlight scene, but the source behind it is well known: a spin-off from Surefire, ICON will be supplying new entry-level consumer lights that run on standard batteries. 

First out of the gate are the Rogues, straightforward two-stage lights that run on 1xAA and 2xAA. Designed by legendary Surefire designer Paul Kim, these lights feature an innovative circuit and unusual body build. Reviewed below is the 1xAA version, but many of the features are common to both. 

A word up front: don’t expect typical Surefire quality or level of support with these lights. :tinfoil: On the plus side, price will also be commensurate with their entry level status: I believe MSRP will be under $40 for the Rogue 1, although early limited release samples in Asia ran for typically ~$70. 















Certainly snazzy packaging. I opted for the gray model, but green and black are also available. As identified on the back, note that these are designed in the U.S. but made in China.






Inside you will find the light and very high quality wrist lanyard (with additional quick-release neck lanyard). :thumbsup: The instructions are included on the inside of the cardboard insert.

One thing that caught my eye – the warranty info for ICON is limited to a single year: 






The light itself is most unusual. Much larger than typical 1xAA lights, the Rogue 1 has a unique look and design. Here is a size comparison to other 1xAA lights and a couple of classic Surefires:










The light is not as heavy as you might think from first appearances, as three of the body tube flats are raised from the battery tube core.

Rogue 1 Weight: 85.6g
Rogue 1 Length: 114.0 mm
Rogue 1 Width: 27.7mm

For the record, most of the aluminium 1xAA lights shown above are in the 40-55g range, with the stainless steel lights in the 90-105g range.










As an aside, when I first showed it to Mrs Selfbuilt, her initial impression was “wow, that’s a solid looking light”. When she went to pick it up, she was surprised by the relatively low weight for its apparent size – presumably explained by the hollow flats around the battery tube. Subsequent comments about those raised flats involved a few less-than-flattering references to potato peelers and cheese graters (rest assured they aren’t that sharp). 

_*EDIT:* I may have to revise that statement - check out a little good natured ribbing in post #17.

Seriously, the raised flats do serve as a lanyard attachement point. There is no lanyard loop or ring. From the instructions:



_










The head unscrews from the body tube, which is the only way to access the interior (the tailcap is continuous with the body tube, and is not obviously accessible). The light came with an Energizer AA battery inside, as shown. Screw threads are anodized, allowing for a head-body lockout. The overall mating appearance is similar to Surefire E-series lights, but of course these components are not E-series compatible.






The tailcap is a forward clicky, with a large surrounding button cover. You can activate the light and switch modes in tactical momentary fashion. The light cannot tailstand.






The head unit of this light is quite large by 1xAA standards. The light uses the common Cree Q5 emitter. 

First thing you might notice is the rather heavy texturing to the OP reflector – this is much stronger than most other lights.  A second point is that the emitter is clearly somewhat off-center on my sample. As you will see below, this doesn’t cause a problem for the beam (likely due to the heavy reflector texturing).

I haven’t opened the head up yet, but I believe both the reflector and lens are made of plastic. While this is bound to disappoint some, I’ve found in my testing that well-designed and well-made plastic reflectors can still perform just as well aluminium ones. :shrug: Scroll down for beamshots.

*User Interface*

The UI is in keeping with the KISS principle – click on once for Hi, click off and back on within a short period of time for Lo. Click again to turn off. Basically the same as the Surefire E1B Backup. :kiss:

*Comparison Beamshots*

All lights are on 100% on Sanyo Eneloop. Distance is about 0.5 meters from a white wall. 

1/25sec, f3.2









1/100sec, f3.2








1/800sec, f3.2








First thing you will note is the somewhat wider spillbeam compared to most lights. It is also clearly not much of a thrower.

But one thing I haven’t heard in online discussions of this light is how pretty the beam looks – it’s incredibly smooth and even, with a nice corona with little evidence of rings. :twothumbs Considering the mis-centered emitter on my sample, that’s very impressive. Overall, I would say the beam is very SSC-like (reminds me a bit of my Novatac 120P). Tint is a pleasing slightly warm “cool white” on my sample.

*Testing Method:* All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan..

Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 1 meter from the lens, using a light meter.

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*






As you can see, the ICON Rogue does not have a strong initial output or throw on Hi on standard batteries. Until this light came out, the JetBeam E3P had the lowest Hi mode of any of my Cree Q5 lights. The Rogue 1 Lo mode is a very useful and respectable level – lower than the Fenix, but not ultra-low like the D10. 

But this is just the tip of the iceberg – the real interest is in the runtime plots. 

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*

To begin, here is a sample of what a “typical” well-regulated PWM-based light looks like on different battery types:






As you can see, Max output varies with battery type, as does the runtime pattern. This is consistent with being optimized for different battery chemistries. In general terms, most “regulated” lights that we are familiar with are regulated to as flat a level as possible, for as long as possible, on all supported battery sources.

Here’s how the ICON Rogue 1 looks:






So what is going on here? :thinking: Basically, the Rogue regulates all battery types to the same general pattern and output on continuous running. Naturally, what will differ is how long the lights will run – that depends on the total capacity available in the battery.

This is quite novel in itself – but even more interesting is that actual pattern the lights are regulated to. The Rogue has 4 defined stages, each with its own characteristics. To illustrate how they work, here are some higher-resolution plots of the Stage 1-2 transition and Stage 2-3 transition time points:






In Stage 1, the light runs on a fairly typical regulated pattern - relatively flat, but with a slow decay. This stage lasts for exactly 10mins of continuous running, with no perceptible PWM.

Stage 2 is a relatively rapid stepping down of output. At this point, PWM is detectable at a constant 140 Hz. Each step is almost exactly 0.3 on my relative output scale (ROV) - which given the initial output of just over 30 ROV, translates into a ~1% reduction. Each step lasts for ~43 secs. There are 65 such steps in this stage, thus taking an additional ~45.5 mins to complete. 

Note that these steps remain visually-linear at 1% all along the way.






Stage 3 is a lengthening of the step interval time, with no change to the magnitude of the step down or the PWM frequency. The light is now at ~35% initial output, and continues to step down in ~1% visually-linear increments - but the duration of each step is increased to ~467 secs. 

This stage continues for 25 such steps, thus taking an additional ~194.5 mins. Stage 4 is not shown, but this appears to be a gradual dimming of the light over long period of time, depending on the battery source. Relative light output at the start of Stage 4 is ~10% of maximum.

Whatever you may think of this pattern, it is a quite novel – to step-down in a visually-linear manner, with such tightly-controlled timings, is not something I've seen before. :thinking: I’ll discuss the possible significance of this later in the review.

*Note that you can return to start of the pattern by simply turning the light off and back on again.* No lag time is needed – just off and on.

This is advantageous is real use – but also for my comparison purposes here. It is hard to compare this rapid drop-off pattern to other lights that use a more traditional burn-bright-until-dead approach to regulation. To get around this, I’ve decide to compare the runtimes of the Rogue with a repeated on/off switch at 1 hour intervals (to restore max output).






Now this is interesting. On NiMH or L91, the Rogue is able to pretty much directly repeat the initial output/runtime pattern upon restart. On alkaline, it still produces the same timings, but at a lower initial output.

What I found surprising here is that 2000mAh rated Eneloops do not appear to produce significantly more overall output/runtime than a standard alkaline cell. :huh: Typically, NiMH is much closer to L91 lithiums in terms of storage capacity and output/runtime ability. Based on these early results, it appears that the Rogue is probably designed for best efficiency on primary cells (alkaline and L91) rather than NiMH.

So how does this compare to the competition?






Obviously, the L1D and D10 are capable of much brighter max output. So this comparison doesn’t tell us much - remember, lights are more efficient at lower drive currents. As such, I think comparing the Rogue 1 to L1D/D10 on Medium/50% modes makes more sense:






As you can see, it appears that total light output produced by the Rogue 1 on Eneloop (on repeated restart) is roughly similar to what a D10 produces over the course of its continuous run. The Rogue 1 definitely outperforms the JetBeam E3P on Hi. But of course, it comes nowhere near the excellent Fenix L1D.






On alkaline, things look even better for the Rogue 1. Overall output over time appears greater than the D10, and blows away the E3P. oo: Although again, the Rogue 1 fails to match the Fenix L1D.






Unfortunately, I only have Hi mode runtime data for the L1D and D10 at the moment. But at least you can tell from the above graph that the Rogue 1 holds its own well on L91.

One last comparison to try … how does the straight-run (i.e. not restarted) Rogue 1 look compared to Lo modes on these competitors?






Obviously, the L1D is incredibly efficient at is lowest mode. But the E3P is no slouch either. Given the initial higher output in the first hour of the Rogue on Hi, it really doesn’t stand a chance of comparing well on alkaline. 

Note that the Lo mode has a constant PWM of 440Hz.

_*UPDATE 4/2/08*: Finally got around to adding the Lo mode runtime on alkaline. Runtime is certainly ok - consistent with what I would expect for a PWM-based light - but it is not as good as a current-controlled light at this output level._

*Summary of Output/Runtime Results*

The ICON Rogue presents a new type of regulated circuit that I haven’t seen before. As these results show, it is tightly regulated – just in a non-traditional fashion. The key point is the 4 defined stages of output on Hi: 10 mins of fairly level Max output, followed by 45.5 mins of rapidly declining output in a stepwise fashion (65 steps down of 1% each), followed by 194.5 mins of slowly stepping down output (25 steps down of 1% each), followed by a long “moon mode” of slowly decaying output until the cell is exhausted. The pattern can be restarted at anytime by simply running through an off/on cycle.

Given the unusual runtime pattern, I thought repeated re-starts made the most sense for comparison purposes. Since it can be hard to compare the graphs directly, I’ve also done area under curve summation for the various battery conditions. 

For this analysis, I’ve summed the ROV values along the entire length of the run (to zero output), sampling at 1 reading every minute. The total value thus represents to total amount of light produced at this sampling rate. It has no specific meaning, except to show the relative output/runtime efficiency between the different testing conditions.






The results match the visual interpretations I presented above, and allow us to quantify it a little better. When roughly matched for initial output, repeated re-starting of the Rogue 1 on Hi is nearly as efficient overall as a continuous run of the NiteCore D10 on Eneloops, and slightly more efficient than the D10 when both run on alkaline. The Rogue is invariably more efficient than the JetBeam E3P on all batteries. And the Fenix L1D trumps all the other lights on its Med setting.

Oh, and based on a direct comparison to my Novatac 120P, I would estimate the peak lumen output for the Rogue 1 on Hi/Lo to be 60 and 6 lumens. Of course, that only applies if you trust the calibration of the Novatac .... 

*Potential Issues*

The ICON Rogue is the largest 1xAA light in my collection – and is thus likely too bulky for EDC use for most people. It is also toward the heavier range, but is typically still lighter than traditionally-sized 1xAA lights in stainless steel. 

The raised flats have the potential to pinch skin or clothing when carried, although you could modify to minimize this (i.e. wrap in paracord). At a minimum, these stylistic touches are likely to attract dirt and debris.

The novel regulation pattern is unlikely to find favour with many flashaholics here on CPF, since it does not provide a constant level of light output (see below for a preliminary discussion).

Light uses noticeable PWM of 140 Hz for the stepping-down phase on Hi (starting at 10 mins into the run).

*Preliminary Observations*

I could blather on here about the unique build of the light - with its unusual raised body tube flats and large heavily-textured reflector – but the truth is that the circuit performance is what makes this light unique. 

I don’t know what ICON intended with this stepping down pattern. But given the exacting level of control excised, I think we can safely assume it is more than just a cheap way to limit output for thermal concerns, or to act as a “nanny” for users who inadvertently leave their lights on. If that’s all they wanted to do, they could have simply shut the light off after a defined time, or let it decay rapidly through less controlled means.

Instead, they choose strict output and time control of the light. Whether or not you like this regulation pattern, you have to admit it is pretty unique. It could not have been easy for them to deliver a circuit that can produce visually-linear decreases of 1% reliably, over the entire course of a run, at precisely-controlled time intervals – and on all battery chemistries to boot! 

_*UPDATE:* Apparently, this sort of circuit is much easier to create than I originally thought. See posts by HKJ below - basically, it could be done with a fairly simple table of voltage settings for each output step._

Note that 1% drops in output are not noticeable in general use, and even at the “fast” rate of one step down every 43 secs, it will take awhile before you notice the drop. Your eye will adjust as the level drops, and I suspect you wouldn’t even notice the brightness has dropped until you are approaching stage 3 (i.e. 65% reduction in output). I rather doubt this is an accident  – they presumably went for just this rate of reduction to avoid perception of output loss. 

The question is why? Your guess is as good as mine – and I welcome your suggestions as to how this pattern could be useful in real life. :shrug:

As intrigued as I may be with the circuit performance, one thing that does not impress is the visibly-noticeable PWM of 140 Hz. :thumbsdow Truthfully, 2007 was the last time I reviewed a new light with visible PWM flicker. If NiteCore, JetBeam, Lumapower, LiteFlux, ITP, _et al_ can all produce well-regulated lights with undetectable PWM levels for over a year now, why can’t ICON? Maybe the precise stepping pattern requires a lower PWM to function reliably, or with acceptable efficiency. But if so, this again begs the question of why have such precise control in the first place? :thinking:

Perhaps this circuit is a forerunner for a more sophisticated model with additional features and controls? The ability to step down at consistent visually-linear outputs would be very useful for a simplified continuously-variable light, for example ….  

Hopefully the answer to these riddles will be revealed in time. I welcome your thoughts as to whether the unique circuit performance is useful for you, or what it all might mean.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Feb 20, 2009)

:twothumbs Good job!

But you always do a good job with these!


----------



## kramer5150 (Feb 20, 2009)

Another great review!! thanks so much.

Do everyones Icon lights "regulate" this way? is it possible yours is defective? it doesn't really regulate in the CPF traditional way (flat output over the entire run). Its more like 10 minutes of regulation, 45 minutes of alkaline-like direct drive.. reboot.

I can't think of any scenario where output like this would be advantageous (given my personal preferences).


----------



## Vox Clamatis in Deserto (Feb 20, 2009)

> Whether or not you like this regulation pattern, you have to admit it is a pretty unique feat of engineering.


 
I hope it stays unique.:thumbsdow You can certainly have a 'candle' mode in a well regulated light.

Is this some trick to pass a CE or FTC consumer marketing requirement for stating brightness and runtime in advertising? As someone else observed, when the light starts dimming after ten minutes, the non-CPF consumer would probably assume the battery didn't last too long. He might not know to cycle the power to restore full brightness.

Does the Rogue 2 AA light have a similar pattern of 'unique' regulation?

Can you imagine the ridicule this novel form of 'regulation' would endure here on CPF if it appeared on a non-PK light?

Usual disclaimers, JMHO, PK is a genius, Icon is not SF, no offense to the SF fanboys, etc., etc., etc.

And, thanks again for your work on the plots and review!


----------



## Snow (Feb 20, 2009)

Good review with lots of nice data. Unfortunately, this review reinforced the notion that this is a light to skip for a few reasons:



It's enormous compared to other 1xAA lights
It's not as bright as the competitors listed
The runtimes are not great
The strange slats and huge ICON logo are not visually pleasing IMO
It can't tailstand (very important in an EDC for me)
There are at least a half dozen 1xAA lights I would rather have, including my personal EDC, the Proton/Proton Pro. I really wish SF would have gone in a different direction with these.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Feb 20, 2009)

I don't know, I like mine because it's just so different from the current crop of 1AA lights. 

 But I like almost all lights for one reason or another!


----------



## Burgess (Feb 20, 2009)

Another *Splendid* Review, selfbuilt !


Nice photos, too.


Thank you for your time, effort, and dedication.


:wow::goodjob::thanks:

_


----------



## HKJ (Feb 20, 2009)

Thanks for the good review.

But I do not really agree with this:


selfbuilt said:


> Whatever you may think of this pattern, it is a remarkable achievement in circuit design – to step-down in a visually-linear manner, with such tightly-controlled timings, is no mean feat. oo: I’ll discuss the possible significance of this later in the review.



It is rather simple to make this, your just makes a table (or formula) for how to adjust the pwm/current controller and then you use a timer to change to next step, it is simple to make (I made a light controller 20 years ago that had visual linear control) and I have been disappointed that the current generation of flashlight with up/down control are missing it (The reason might be memory space in the microprocesor).

But it is very interesting why they have implemented the step down patteren.


----------



## Lightraven (Feb 20, 2009)

This light provides two things:

A reasonably bright light (for 10 minutes)

A smooth power saving reduction in brightness (after 10 minutes, but can be reset by turning the light off and back on)

Typically a light has high/low settings to achieve brightness or power conservation. The ICON takes the thought out of battery conservation. For CPF flashaholics, battery conservation is practically a game, but everybody else would probably rather not think about it. If an ICON user thinks, "Dang flashlight is getting dim," he only has to click it off and on again to get another 10 minutes of relative brightness. Interesting.


----------



## Sharpy_swe (Feb 20, 2009)

This is really an impressive review :twothumbs

:goodjob:


*selfbuilt* many thanks, your reviews are always great to read!


----------



## z-b-i (Feb 20, 2009)

Firstly, thanks for the great review. 

I agree that this light target market is normal user and not enthusiasts as reflected in the price. 

And the unique runtime patterns also suit typical use of flashlight, i.e not everybody use his light continuously. For example, my wife would use her flashlight for about 30 minutes everyday from work and the light would restart at the high level the next day.

The runtime on lithium is certainly very good and I might have to get this light for this reason.


----------



## DM51 (Feb 20, 2009)

VERY good review - many thanks. The Rogue has already attracted a lot of interest, and this will certainly keep it going. Maybe not a typical CPFer's light, but a very good "go-to" light for family members, who may appreciate the reassuringly larger size and simple UI.

The step-down / re-strike feature is VERY interesting. What it means is that for those everyday jobs requiring a light for only a few minutes, you are guaranteed a high setting time after time after time, especially on an L91 lithium cell. Non-CPFers tend to be very bad at replacing batteries, so this feature means the light will be extremely dependable, even if used by others.


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 20, 2009)

kramer5150 said:


> Do everyones Icon lights "regulate" this way? is it possible yours is defective? it doesn't really regulate in the CPF traditional way (flat output over the entire run). Its more like 10 minutes of regulation, 45 minutes of alkaline-like direct drive.. reboot.


Judging from Tohuwabohu's tests in one of the other Rogue threads, this pattern seems standard. :shrug:

But that's the interesting part here - it isn't 45 mins of "alkaline-like direct drive" (which would have been easier to do). Instead, it is precisely-controlled stepping that looks like direct-drive. That's the part that really has me scratching my head ... why go to the effort to control this sort of drop off so precisely?



HKJ said:


> It is rather simple to make this, your just makes a table (or formula) for how to adjust the pwm/current controller and then you use a timer to change to next step, it is simple to make (I made a light controller 20 years ago that had visual linear control) and I have been disappointed that the current generation of flashlight with up/down control are missing it (The reason might be memory space in the microprocesor).


Thanks for your input HKJ - I appreciate it (and have modified that sentence). I'm not an electrical engineer, so I'm just going on my personal experience of not having seen this before. 

I agree a table makes the most sense in creating the visually-linear steps. Given how *exactly* regulated each step is to a 1% visual output reduction, I would think a formula would be tricky to develop over the full 90% range. So someone presumably had to sit down and work out that table in the first place, as opposed to simply going with a straight current step-down. As always, the question I have to ask is why?



Vox Clamatis in Deserto said:


> Can you imagine the ridicule this novel form of 'regulation' would endure here on CPF if it appeared on a non-PK light? .. Usual disclaimers, JMHO, PK is a genius, Icon is not SF, no offense to the SF fanboys, etc., etc., etc.


The problem with a hobby like this is that there is virtually no end of fanboys and apologists for nearly every maker of light.  An understandable human tendency, and one I strive to avoid by treating each light on its own merits (regardless of the manufacturer).

In my case, I find the light interesting for the unique pattern. Having done innumerable runtime plots in my day, I can't tell you how much I appreciate having something different and new to sink my teeth into.  

If I seem too impressed with this sort of pattern, you can chalk it up to the novelty of it (rather than its utility, which remains to be determined). 

In the interest of full disclosure, I can't personally see myself going for this sort of pattern for personal use (hence my claim in the review that I suspect most flashaholics will pan on this one too). I also find the size too bulky. But I am curious to hear what members think the intended use might be (and how well it could fill that use).



Snow said:


> There are at least a half dozen 1xAA lights I would rather have, including my personal EDC, the Proton/Proton Pro. I really wish SF would have gone in a different direction with these.


I hear ya. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, the Proton Pro also doesn't tailstand, also has relatively less overall output/runtime than most of the other 1AA lights of its class (likely due to the Cree P4 used) and also has noticeable PWM (180 Hz in that case). But I agree the Proton Pro is far more suited for EDC use, given its small size and continuously-variable control mechanism. 

FYI, both the Proton Pro and Rogue will be included in my next 1xAA round-up review, hopefully coming soon. 



DM51 said:


> Non-CPFers tend to be very bad at replacing batteries, so this feature means the light will be extremely dependable, even if used by others.


That's still my best guess as well for "why" they choose to do this. Still marvelling at the "how" they choose. :thinking:

P.S.: Just fixed one boo-boo in the review - tailcap is a forward clicky, with momentary/tactical mode control. What can I say, it was a late night last night ...


----------



## Nyctophiliac (Feb 20, 2009)

Great review.

I do quite like this light despite it fulfilling all the things I thought I wouldn't like about it. Can't explain it really. I think it must be that it is currently unique in form and design and technology. I really like the flanges!


----------



## Size15's (Feb 20, 2009)

I enjoyed your review - thanks!
It answered some of the questions I didn't know I had.

To answer a question raised in this thread:
The Rogue 2 is a Rogue 1 with a longer body for a second AA battery. The bezels are the same.


----------



## HKJ (Feb 20, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> Thanks for your input HKJ - I appreciate it (and have modified that sentence). I'm not an electrical engineer, so I'm just going on my personal experience of not having seen this before.
> 
> I agree a table makes the most sense in creating the visually-linear steps. Given how *exactly* regulated each step is to a 1% visual output reduction, I would think a formula would be tricky to develop over the full 90% range. So someone presumably had to sit down and work out that table in the first place, as opposed to simply going with a straight current step-down. As always, the question I have to ask is why?



Your do not need to make each step exactly visual linear, the times I have done it (I have made it more than once), I used a photographic light meter (That gives the visual linear when working in steps), made a table with maybe hundred steps and used linear interpolation between the steps.
Making a formula is not always tricky, you just feed you table to a program than can make a curve fit (A simple version of that is implemented in my MiscEl program), then the program makes the formula for you. The only problem is space in you CPU, what is smallest a table or a formula? (The answer will depend on lots of parameters)



selfbuilt said:


> As always, the question I have to ask is why?



I like the "Visual linear" when ramping a light up/down, but why the automatic ramp down, I can make lots of guesses and many of them are already covered in this thread.


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 20, 2009)

I may have spoken too soon about the relative sharpness of the raised flats:






Good to know you could still prepare a salad, in case of an emergency when the lights go out in the kitchen. :laughing:

_Just having a little fun here at the Rogue designer's expense - don't shoot the messenger! _:duck::tinfoil::lolsign: 
_It actually takes a fair amount of force to peel the carrot, but it does work. I'd recommend they taper the edges a little more._


----------



## MattK (Feb 20, 2009)

Wow - another fantastic review!


----------



## Federal LG (Feb 20, 2009)

Vox Clamatis in Deserto said:


> Can you imagine the ridicule this novel form of 'regulation' would endure here on CPF if it appeared on a non-PK light?
> 
> Usual disclaimers, JMHO, PK is a genius, Icon is not SF, no offense to the SF fanboys, etc., etc., etc.



Yes... I thought the same! :shakehead

*Thanks for the review selfbuilt... outstanding, as usual.*

I´ll not buy this light. I didn´t like it´s kind of regulation. Definitely not work for me...


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 20, 2009)

For those wondering if all Rogue1's operate the same way, mine also does the same exact 10 minute run, and a simple on and off again starts the process again. This I have discerned this doing ceiling bounce with a lightmeter. I have no way to measure the timing of the stop downs past the 10 minute mark.

In day to day use, I do not notice this unique regulation pattern as I seldom use the light longer than a few minutes. It would be interesting to see how many runs of 5 minutes or so that the different batteries would produce. I think in that case that the Rogue 1 would operate with a relatively flat runtime. On 5 minutes, click off then on and another 5 minutes, etc. 

Bill


----------



## Snow (Feb 20, 2009)

The Proton and Pro both can tailstand, although they are not as stable as most pocket lights. Your other points are well taken. It is not the brightest in its class either. The light has a few flaws, which is why it's so disappointing that they haven't upgraded it recently. I look forward to your shootout!


----------



## HKJ (Feb 20, 2009)

Snow said:


> The Proton and Pro both can tailstand, although they are not as stable as most pocket lights.



Not as sold, your have to remove the ring in the tail first.


----------



## MarNav1 (Feb 20, 2009)

Very good review as usual SB. Is that logo on the head removeable without scratching or destroying the light? I hope they do well with it, isn't gonna work for me though.


----------



## EngrPaul (Feb 20, 2009)

Needs more sharp edges.

Needs more regulation. 

Reflector needs more texture.


----------



## Cuso (Feb 20, 2009)

I dig the lanyard a lot...


----------



## led4me (Feb 20, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> To get around this, I’ve decide to compare the runtimes of the Rogue with a repeated on/off switch at 1 hour intervals (to restore max output).


 
Instead of 1 hour interval, would it make more sense to compare at 10 minute on/off switch intervals? That way, you are comparing max output for the other lights with max ouput with the Rogue (before it starts ramping down). That way, you can get a rough idea of the circuit efficiency for the Rogue.

Also, great review as usual. I do like the look of this light but don't like unnecessary size.


----------



## qip (Feb 20, 2009)

led4me said:


> Instead of 1 hour interval, would it make more sense to compare at 10 minute on/off switch intervals? That way, you are comparing max output for the other lights with max ouput with the Rogue (before it starts ramping down). That way, you can get a rough idea of the circuit efficiency for the Rogue.
> 
> Also, great review as usual. I do like the look of this light but don't like unnecessary size.



+1 

if you run a L2D on turbo for 10 minutes then stop and restart it should do that at least 12 times based on L91 2 hour or so runtime and see if rogue can do that 12 + times stop restart battle

makes sense 

actually not turbo but the high setting on L2D i guess so the output is comparable


----------



## greenlight (Feb 20, 2009)

Carrots... classic.


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 20, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> It would be interesting to see how many runs of 5 minutes or so that the different batteries would produce.





led4me said:


> Instead of 1 hour interval, would it make more sense to compare at 10 minute on/off switch intervals?


Ask and you shall (sometimes) receive ... below is the medium eneloop graph with an extra trace of the Rogue 1 restarting every 5 mins.






As expected, the Rogue 1 was similar to, but not quite as efficient, as the D10. I got 1hr 58min on the re-started Rogue before hitting 50%

While I agree this is a useful measure, I won't be doing any more at this rate. It's a royal pain to have to watch the run so carefully, and keep restarting before 10 mins passes. :mecry:



greenlight said:


> Carrots... classic.


I was all out of potatoes.


----------



## EngrPaul (Feb 20, 2009)

Off/On every time it reaches 50% :wave:


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 20, 2009)

EngrPaul said:


> Off/On every time it reaches 50% :wave:


Hmmm, lets see, given the regulation, that should work out to roughly every 45-46 mins, give or take. Sorry guys, there's a practical reason I picked 60 mins - it's a nice round number to set an alarm to. 

The whole point of data-logging is not having to sit there and stare at the runs. 

Sorry Paul, you may just have to stick with that cowbell instead of an icon ... :nana:


----------



## Kiessling (Feb 21, 2009)

Thanx for the hard work there !
Very interesting circuit indeed. 
bk


----------



## LG&M (Feb 21, 2009)

Your review was great . To bad the light isn't. thanks.


----------



## kramer5150 (Feb 21, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> While I agree this is a useful measure, I won't be doing any more at this rate. It's a royal pain to ... keep restarting before 10 mins passes. :mecry:



... just imagine trying to _use _it for semi-extended periods  Thanks for the superb review, although if it were me I would have evaluated it much more harshly for its non-flat regulation.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 21, 2009)

There is some thought that running regulated, flat out, is not a real priority in some cases. Elektrolumens, Wayne, started out with lights with no regulation, either direct drive, or direct drive with a resistor, and if you match the batteries to the vf of an LED you can get some pretty good decent runtime that almost looks like regulation, and usually the light will run longer with a higher output toward the end of the runtime, compared to truly regulated lights. I for one do prefer good regulation in my lights, but then many of the lights that I like are incan lights and they pretty much run direct drive. Different strokes for different folks, or flexability in what one chooses to use, depending on the circumstances. I actually like my Rogue 1's regulation, perfect regulation or not.

Bill


----------



## Size15's (Feb 22, 2009)

kramer5150 said:


> ... just imagine trying to _use _it for semi-extended periods  Thanks for the superb review, although if it were me I would have evaluated it much more harshly for its non-flat regulation.


I'm willing to bet that pretty much everybody, yourself included will not notice the gradual reduction in output after 10 minutes as our eyes become adapted to the light output. I don't think it will be used constant-on for long periods anyway.

That said, we Flashaholics impose a completely different set of constraints upon ourselves compared to normal people and our requirements for light are different as a result - we are feeding what we think we want rather than what we may actually need. Having what we want rather than just what we need is why this is a hobby for us 

Al


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 22, 2009)

kramer5150 said:


> ... just imagine trying to _use _it for semi-extended periods  Thanks for the superb review, although if it were me I would have evaluated it much more harshly for its non-flat regulation.


Fair enough - I respect and can appreciate that view. 



Size15's said:


> That said, we Flashaholics impose a completely different set of constraints upon ourselves compared to normal people and our requirements for light are different as a result - we are feeding what we think we want rather than what we may actually need. Having what we want rather than just what we need is why this is a hobby for us


Also fair enough - I respect and can appreciate that view too.

I didn't expect this light would be popular with flashaholics, and I'm still trying to come to terms with how useful it might be for general users. My personal impression is that most people keep flashlights on for only relatively short periods of time anyway (to conserve batteries if nothing else). But of course, that doesn't mean you _should_ design a light for such use ... I'm just intrigued by the fact someone that did, and _in a very regulated way_. :thinking: 

It is not my intention to recommend this light (or any other that I review) - my goal is to provide the test data, so people can choose what suits them. As I said in an earlier post, if I seem unduly impressed, it is more because of the novelty of the circuit as opposed to its performance. I test a lot of lights, and from that perspective, it is simply fun to have something different for a change.

Bottom line, I think a general runtime conclusion here is that the overall output/runtime efficiency of the Rogue is acceptable, at around the level of a NiteCore D10. But of course, it is fair to expect more from a light with only defined output levels (i.e. Fenix remains the efficiency king, it seems). It's also fair to not want to have noticeable PWM frequencies any more. As for the circuit and build features, I hope the detailed pics and data provide useful info for everyone to make an informed choice as to what works for them.

:wave:


----------



## gottawearshades (Feb 25, 2009)

Thanks for another rigorous, painstaking review, Selfbuilt.

This light is intriguing, but I don't see a compelling reason to own one. The next Icon models, who knows?

Cheers.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks for the great review! There is something intriguing about it that I just can't figure out. Similar to gottawearshades though, I just can't come up with a good reason to pull the trigger on one.

Is there a phone number given in the documentation for making a warranty claim? I went to the www.myiconlight.com/warranty from one of your pictures and the pages is no longer there. Even on its updated page (http://www.myiconlight.com/USA/warranty.html), I don't see any way to actually contact them for a warranty repair.

Thanks again,
Robert


----------



## Any Cal. (Mar 2, 2009)

While the regulation looks goofy, look at the intended market. Customer goes to store, sees nice looking light, and decides to spend the extra $12 on it compared to the Mag. They put in a AA batt, try it out, and put it away. 

The light could realistically last a year or two on a single AA batt, and be bright every time it gets turned on. If it is run for an extended period, the steps down in brightness would be invisible, so the runtime on high is roughly twice what anything else is on an alkaline.

In the unlikely event the light gets turned on and used for hours, and then gets turned back on later..."Look, it is still at full brightness".

It will be the light that you never have to change batteries in.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 2, 2009)

RobertM said:


> Is there a phone number given in the documentation for making a warranty claim? I went to the www.myiconlight.com/warranty from one of your pictures and the pages is no longer there. Even on its updated page (http://www.myiconlight.com/USA/warranty.html), I don't see any way to actually contact them for a warranty repair.


Good question ... I just checked the package insert, and no phone number is given for ICON (just a California mailing address and the www.myiconlight.com website). If it helps, here's the mailing address:

ICON
18300 Mt. Baldy Circle
Fountain Valley, CA 92708


----------



## dilbert (Mar 2, 2009)

So far just available online...

Still waiting for the flashaholic testing to be over and for it to be the mass market light it was intended to be.


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 2, 2009)

FYI, finally got around to adding the Lo mode runtime on alkaline. 







Runtime is certainly ok - consistent with what I would expect for a PWM-based light. But it is not good as a current-controlled light at this output level (e.g. the Connexion X2 has nearly 2/3rds the output on low as the Rogue 1, but runs 3X as long). See my 1xAA round-up review for additional comparisons.


----------



## humanoid27 (Apr 3, 2009)

Great Job on that Rreview...

Thanx for your hard work, great read...


----------



## gollum (Apr 19, 2009)

A great review 
thanks for the time taken here

worlds first flashlight/veggie peeler


----------



## lights-out (Nov 13, 2009)

I just went and got the ICON Rogue 2 from my local Radio Shack - aka "the Shack" and it is really really nice. I didn't really know what to expect, however, to me (just an average user) this light is well worth $50. They also had the Rogue 1 in silver - color looks great, but only 50 lumens compared to 100.

The "throw" on the light is actually really nice and the LED is very white.

Knowing that it is made by SureFire - it is a must have.

In fact, I am going to go back and buy some for Christmas gifts.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 13, 2009)

Well, well. Radio Shack. Who would have thought. That will give the ICON some exposure to the general public.

Bill


----------



## zven (Nov 14, 2009)

lights-out said:


> Knowing that it is made by SureFire - it is a must have.



Note that these aren't actually made by SureFire. As far as I know, the only real connection between the two brands is Paul Kim as chief designer. In fact, I was under the impression that the Icon lights were made overseas...

And you found them at RadioShack? That's fantastic. I can't wait to see the Modus at common retail outlets...


----------



## lights-out (Nov 16, 2009)

I was under the impression that SureFire was making them based on all of the posts. I also checked out the address on the packaging and compared that to that of SureFire and it is the same.

Either way, Radio Shack has them. I didnt see the Modus, and the store manager didnt know anything about the Modus being in stores.


----------



## mikekoz (Dec 5, 2009)

Thay are at Radio Shack, and over the last few weeks I have bought a black Rogue 2 and a gray Rogue 1. I really like the look, size, shape, and UI of these lights. The regulation looks kind of odd, but I use my lights a little at a time, and it looks like that is what they were made to do!
:twothumbs


----------



## Tempest UK (Dec 5, 2009)

lights-out said:


> I was under the impression that SureFire was making them based on all of the posts. I also checked out the address on the packaging and compared that to that of SureFire and it is the same.



They're very much separate companies. ICON is PK's brand and isn't part of SureFire. 

But, knowing that it's made by _PK_, it's still a must-have  Years of working with SureFire have given him a pretty good idea of how to make a flashlight.

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## Flying Turtle (Dec 5, 2009)

I'll just have to mosey on down to the Shack tomorrow. My wife needs a light to give me for Christmas. I seldom have reasons to visit there anymore, since they've practically given up on radios.

Geoff


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 21, 2009)

Flying Turtle said:


> I'll just have to mosey on down to the Shack tomorrow. My wife needs a light to give me for Christmas. I seldom have reasons to visit there anymore, since they've practically given up on radios.
> 
> Geoff


 
I missed the part about them being available at RadioShack.

I went in to get a gift card for my dad. (He loves the Shack. Don't ask me why). 

Didn't see the light when I went in. Awhile later I went back because I remembered I needed a tube of Arctic 5 thermal grease to (hopefully) fix a looseness issue with a TerraLux drop-in. One of the guys behind the counter knew exactly where it was. He admitted he had no clue what it was for ... But he knew exactly where it was. (Damn that Arctic 5 is tiny!)

As I'm paying for it, I notice they have the exact same ICON Rogue that selfbuilt has reviewed in this thread. It was on a lower shelf, behind the counter. In fact, had the cashier stood a little to his left while ringing up my purchase, I never would have seen it. But I did ... And I had my credit card with me, so ... Well, you guessed it.


----------



## RAGE CAGE (Jan 15, 2010)

Excellent review selfbuilt.

picked up an Icon 2 at the Shack tonight- the lanyard is a big plus....very unusual light. The very small machining rings have a unique feel. They had 2 2 cell Black and 2 1 cell tit. grey. Tint diff. observed in all three. I ended up going with the coolest 2 AA......there is a distinctive "rattle" in the clicky when you shake the light but otherwise seem solid. Lens could stand to be a tad thicker IMO.


----------



## Kif (Jan 28, 2010)

I just bought a Rogue 1 form "The Shack".
Its a really good flashlight!
Does anyone knows if Rogue 1 can use the rechargeable Li-Ion battery (18650/18550 3.7v) without burning out the LED?


----------



## Dioni (Jan 28, 2010)

Kif said:


> I just bought a Rogue 1 form "The Shack".
> Its a really good flashlight!
> Does anyone knows if Rogue 1 can use the rechargeable Li-Ion battery (18650/18550 3.7v) without burning out the LED?


 
But... Does it fit in the Rouge 1? :thinking:


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jan 28, 2010)

Kif said:


> I just bought a Rogue 1 form "The Shack".
> Its a really good flashlight!
> Does anyone knows if Rogue 1 can use the rechargeable Li-Ion battery (18650/18550 3.7v) without burning out the LED?


 
You've been a member 5 years and this is your first post?

:welcome:, I guess??


----------



## Dioni (Jan 28, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> You've been a member 5 years and this is your first post?
> 
> :welcome:, I guess??


 
Wow.. I think it is the record, 5yrs 1 post, at least of all I have seen. 

:welcome: :thinking:


----------



## lights-out (Jan 28, 2010)

So I decided to go back to the shack to buy the Rogue 1 and much to my surprise, they had the light on sale - $5 off and the Rogue 2 was $10 off. I was tempted to buy another Rogue 2...

Has anyone seen the modus available in a store yet? I saw them online at radioshack.com and I saw them on optics planet.


----------



## Kif (Jan 28, 2010)

Dioni said:


> But... Does it fit in the Rouge 1? :thinking:


Sorry for the typo, I mean the "14500 AA sized 3.6V Li-Ion Rechargeable Battery"


----------



## Size15's (Jan 28, 2010)

:welcome:
The ICON Rogue 1AA can happily accept rechargeable AA batteries.


----------



## Kif (Jan 28, 2010)

Wow, it will be great if I can use 3.6v rechargeable battery on it.
I guess the LED has quite big voltage range.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jan 28, 2010)

Kif said:


> Wow, it will be great if I can use 3.6v rechargeable battery on it.
> I guess the LED has quite big voltage range.



Size15's meant NiCd or NiMh rechargeable AA's, not Lithium Ion.

Bill


----------



## Size15's (Jan 28, 2010)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Size15's meant NiCd or NiMh rechargeable AA's, not Lithium Ion.
> 
> Bill


I'm working on confirming this. It may take a while to get the answer.

Consumer-grade rechargeable AA batteries consumers can buy in retailer stores are fine.

Exotic 'AA-sized' Li-Ion rechargeables that have far higher voltage are a different matter.

To be safe I suggest not using Li-Ion rechargeables.


----------



## Tempest UK (Feb 6, 2010)

Size15's said:


> I'm working on confirming this. It may take a while to get the answer.



I hear it has been confirmed that Li-ion batteries are safe for use in ICON lights 

Good news!

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## Size15's (Feb 6, 2010)

Yep - feed them anything that fits - that includes using "14500 AA sized 3.6V Li-Ion Rechargeable Battery"
(obviously exotic [non-consumer] batteries should be treated with sensible respect)


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 7, 2010)

SWEET! 
Now I can feed mine the good stuff.


----------



## Bimmerboy (Feb 9, 2010)

COOL!!

Now I'm kicking myself for not snagging the single cell along with my Rogue 2 while they were on sale. Knowing it can take a 14500 though... if they never go on sale again, I'm gonna' have to get one anyway. I love these lights!

Thanks Size15's, and Tempest. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dr. Mario (Mar 4, 2010)

Good point. I got ICON Rogue 2 too.

I knew computer programming well enough and also is pretty savvy with electronics (especially the SMPS) so I knew what's going on here.

Paul Kim may have pretty much gambled on the software programming based on how hungry the LEDs are (surprisingly enough, as Cree XLAMP LED would still enjoy eating around 1 Amp. without popping the top cover off or exploding altogether...) and the longevity of the batteries under load (such as SMPS being used - entirely dictated by the software itself and the current resistor reading. Hey, the resistor even acts real funny when it's warm and toasty by the LED's own heat!)

Also, the 140Hz PWM you guys have been complaining about, is the reason why Paul want a good compromise between brightness of the LED itself and the life of batteries being under load - he must have a good reason to chop the PWM pulse of the MOSFET up before feeding to the LED, to making it easy on the batteries (in low mode, of course. High mode, you say? The microcontroller simply go for brute force PWM loop which keeps LED bright until those batteries are finished. when it's finished, the cell voltage are below 1.0 Volt, hence the reason it's pretty good at disposing of those disposable AA batteries. Beware, it can finish them off in over 3 hours. there may be still lights even when it's dying, because of the softwares on that chip - I also noticed that the microcontroller chip inside it is no ordinary CPU. it's powered by its own on-die DC-DC charge, thus keeping it alive even below 1 Volt.)


----------



## hiredgun (Mar 18, 2010)

Engineering, function and design aside, I will give ICON a 5 star rating for one thing--the green color! As I have said before in other threads, there is a noticeable absence of green, particularly lime green in the flashlight universe. Blacks and Grays abound and anytime we get a color choice, we are usually limited to Red and Blue. Always happy to see Purple though. Don't care much for yellow/gold. More lime GREEN please.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Mar 18, 2010)

I don't get it. Aside from color, what does the light excel in? That is to say, most darlings of CPF fit some kind of niche, the smallest, the brighest, the handiest, the most modes, the cheapest, the best knurling, the best threads, etc, etc. So if someone were to purchase the gray ICON, what would they get that ICON does like no other (aside from peeling carrots)? Looking for responses from fans of the light.


----------



## carrot (Mar 18, 2010)

I don't know about you guys, but I ended up picking one (in my case, a Rogue 2) up anyway [in spite of / because of] the interesting regulation pattern.

As I am pretty adamant about my distaste for AA lights, I did not expect to really take to this one but it is more than bright enough for many uses and surprisingly enough I keep slipping this one into my back pocket around the house. The high/low are well-spaced, while I'd appreciate a lower low and a bit less of the PWM effect, I find it quite usable and certainly a suitable level. I like the brain-dead simple UI of this light, I like the feel of the clicky, and most of all I like to use this light. Regulation be damned, the rest of the light is so appealing I couldn't care less! I also think the regulation is perfectly suited for the kind of batteries the light is mostly expected to be fed (alkaline) and really does extend the battery life to make it seem to last forever.

I don't know about the rest of you who have snagged one, but I so often reach for this light and find it very satisfying to use.

If I get a Rogue 1, I fully expect it to have a permanent place in my EDC bag...


----------



## RAGE CAGE (Mar 18, 2010)

carrot said:


> If I get a Rogue 1, I fully expect it to have a permanent place in my EDC bag...


 
I got the Rogue 2, didn't like the tint and exchanged it for the 1- It has ridden in my laptop bag for months now- almost want the elevator to break so i could try it out and hear someone say "wish someone had a flashlight"


----------



## Tempest UK (Mar 18, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> ...most darlings of CPF...



I wouldn't say that ICON is a darling of CPF, nor is it trying to be.



> So if someone were to purchase the gray ICON, what would they get that ICON does like no other (aside from peeling carrots)? Looking for responses from fans of the light.



Outside of CPF, what makes anyone get any flashlight?

Presumably, this person buying the gray Rogue (ICON is the brand, not the model of flashlight) did so because they wanted that colour in preference to the others. Presumably, again, because they like it better.

ICON is about aesthetics as much as it is about functionality. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and your eyes might not like the Rogue, which is fair enough, but the point is that in placing an emphasis on styling and appearance an element of subjectivity has been introduced. 

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## Bimmerboy (Mar 18, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I don't get it. Aside from color, what does the light excel in? That is to say, most darlings of CPF fit some kind of niche, the smallest, the brighest, the handiest, the most modes, the cheapest, the best knurling, the best threads, etc, etc.


Quoting myself from post #18 in this thread.

*"The more I think of it, this light is near genius in it's overall design/price point/performance."*

Check out the rest of that thread for further details. But to summarize my thoughts here... At this price point, I believe the Rogue line has no equal to it's combination of quality, ergonomics, output, battery conservation, and thermal design. I can only imagine the number of design considerations, and the "balancing act" that went into these lights.



was.lost.but.now.found said:


> So if someone were to purchase the gray ICON, what would they get that ICON does like no other (aside from peeling carrots)?


LOL... immediately followed by a post from...



carrot said:


> I don't know about you guys, but I ended up picking one (in my case, a Rogue 2) up anyway


His rosette must've been vibrating. 

Be careful with that thing, man! :eeksign:


----------



## carrot (Mar 18, 2010)

I'll be careful!


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 18, 2010)

I gave my line green Rogue 1AA to my son to take back to Montana with him. Now I miss it. Saw some lime green ones today at Fry's, $34.99. Not in budget today, but I know where they are. They also had the Modus.

Bill


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 19, 2010)

Have had my grey Rogue AA model for a while now.

Other than the looks, it has failed to grow on me. Mainly bought it because it is one of P.K.'s creations. If not for that, I would have passed on it. I can see it being useful for an elderly non-flashaholic. Simple U.I., large tailcap button that's not too stiff, runs on a common AA cell, and has a wide body that should be easier for someone with arthritic hands to hold onto.

In terms of quality and looks, it's tough to beat. I have a 6P clone from Cabela's with a reverse-clickie, a pocket clip, and the same user interface. Hate to say it, but that one is more pragmatic than my Rogue.


----------



## kwalker (Mar 26, 2010)

I inserted a 3.7v 14500 and it didn't light up. (Trustfire 900mah protected) Fortunately, the standard aa battery works still so I'm glad no damage was done. Is anyone else having success with the higher voltage battery?

Thanks,
- Kevin


----------



## Size15's (Mar 26, 2010)

kwalker said:


> I inserted a 3.7v 14500 and it didn't light up. (Trustfire 900mah protected) Fortunately, the standard aa battery works still so I'm glad no damage was done. Is anyone else having success with the higher voltage battery?
> 
> Thanks,
> - Kevin


Does it work if you use wires to ensure contact is being made?


----------



## kwalker (Mar 26, 2010)

Don't understand what you mean by 'use wires'. Do you mean jumpers to the leads for testing purposes? I mean, the 14500 is a tad longer than a standard 1.5v AA so it must be making good contact...


----------



## Size15's (Mar 27, 2010)

kwalker said:


> Don't understand what you mean by 'use wires'. Do you mean jumpers to the leads for testing purposes? I mean, the 14500 is a tad longer than a standard 1.5v AA so it must be making good contact...


Yep - you could experiment with 'jumper leads'. Perhaps this extra length some other factor is preventing contact?


----------



## aim54x (Apr 3, 2010)

I was quite interested by the adverts for the ICON lights that I have been seeing on CPF and then after reading this thread I think I will pass on one.

BTW....are they available in RED or is Size15's sig a teaser?


----------



## Bimmerboy (Apr 4, 2010)

Now that Kwalker has brought it up... I've observed the following:

The Rogue 1 will not work with the AW black label 14500, being that this is a flat-top battery.

I tried using an AW supplied magnet of the proper diameter on top of the batt. No go, due to the combined length of the protected batt, plus the magnet... the head can't make electrical contact with the body.

Fortunately, I had an old (really old!), unprotected, generic blue label 14500 with a solder blob on top, which not only worked, but gave a slightly brighter output than the Rogue 2 on two Energizer lithiums! 

Perhaps I'm being a bit slow, and _should_ know the answer immediately, but am left wondering what reliable, well performing button-top of true AA length to get... protected or not. Is there one?

Given no other answer, I'll go with what AW offers in an unprotected 14500. The magnet *should* be kept from sliding around by the recess (a.k.a... the mechanical polarity protection) at the pos. batt connection.


----------



## Size15's (Apr 4, 2010)

aim54x said:


> I was quite interested by the adverts for the ICON lights that I have been seeing on CPF and then after reading this thread I think I will pass on one.
> 
> BTW....are they available in RED or is Size15's sig a teaser?


If retailers want to order other colours to the core colours then I'm sure there will be other colours. For now the red ones are proto-types.

Al


----------



## lumenal (Sep 4, 2010)

Size15's said:


> Yep - feed them anything that fits - that includes using "14500 AA sized 3.6V Li-Ion Rechargeable Battery"
> (obviously exotic [non-consumer] batteries should be treated with sensible respect)


 
15's - just for clarification.

Does the Rogue 1 and Rogue 2 share the exact same drivers and electronics?

Making the heads interchangeable between Rogue 1 and Rogue 2?


----------



## lumenal (Sep 6, 2010)

lumenal said:


> 15's - just for clarification.
> 
> Does the Rogue 1 and Rogue 2 share the exact same drivers and electronics?
> 
> Making the heads interchangeable between Rogue 1 and Rogue 2?


 


Anybody?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 7, 2010)

lumenal said:


> 15's - just for clarification.
> 
> Does the Rogue 1 and Rogue 2 share the exact same drivers and electronics?
> 
> Making the heads interchangeable between Rogue 1 and Rogue 2?



Size15's has reported several months ago, and after discussion with PK, that the Rogue 1 and 2 have different drivers, and that the Rogue 2 is the only one that can use Li-Ion's safely.

Bill


----------



## Bimmerboy (Sep 7, 2010)

Hey, Bill!  Long time no speak. Believe it or not, I'm planning to finally get back on the ball, and call Mr. M. for some technical questions about his kroll improvements (better late than never I suppose). And, thanks to VanIsleDSM's FETtie switch, one of my previous ideas has possibly been given new life. Things haven't been conducive to modding these days, but I still haven't forgotten this project!

Hate to say it, but your answer to Lumenal has me confused. I may have missed something about them having different drivers, but only recall it mentioned that the Rogue1 can take a 14500 Li-ion. I believe the Rogue2 will  on 2 X 14500. Could be wrong there, but it would take a buck/boost with a pretty wide Vin range.

Lumenal - don't try two Li-ions in the Rogue2 quite yet... lol.

Just my suspicion, but I'm betting both the 1 and 2 share the same head.

EDIT: I have 1's and 2's, but haven't tried interchanging the heads. Recently made use of Icon's *excellent* warranty service, and don't want to push my luck.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 8, 2010)

Bimmerboy said:


> Hate to say it, but your answer to Lumenal has me confused. I may have missed something about them having different drivers, but only recall it mentioned that the Rogue1 can take a 14500 Li-ion. I believe the Rogue2 will  on 2 X 14500. Could be wrong there, but it would take a buck/boost with a pretty wide Vin range.
> 
> Lumenal - don't try two Li-ions in the Rogue2 quite yet... lol.
> 
> ...



I was wrong it was Tempest UK and it was the Icon Modus re Li-Ions. here Not sure if the Icon and Rogue use same circuits for 1 and 2.

Bill


----------



## lumenal (Sep 13, 2010)

Bullzeyebill and Bimmerboy...thanks for the info.



Size15's said:


> To answer a question raised in this thread:
> The Rogue 2 is a Rogue 1 with a longer body for a second AA battery. The bezels are the same.


 
According to CPF Wiki: bezel - the front of a flashlight; the part containing/surrounding the lens.

So technically, the bezel doesn't mean the entire head of the flashlight. Or does it? :thinking:



Size15's said:


> Yep - feed them anything that fits - that includes using "14500 AA sized 3.6V Li-Ion Rechargeable Battery"
> (obviously exotic [non-consumer] batteries should be treated with sensible respect)


 
Good info to know.



Bimmerboy said:


> Hate to say it, but your answer to Lumenal has me confused. I may have missed something about them having different drivers, but only recall it mentioned that the Rogue1 can take a 14500 Li-ion. I believe the Rogue2 will  on 2 X 14500. Could be wrong there, but it would take a buck/boost with a pretty wide Vin range.
> 
> Lumenal - don't try two Li-ions in the Rogue2 quite yet... lol.
> 
> Just my suspicion, but I'm betting both the 1 and 2 share the same head.


 
I was thinking of using disposable 3V lithium AAs I harvested from Duracell CRV3 batteries in my Rogue 1. Looks like its a go.

Also, joeparker54 and myself have noticed a brief low microflash before the Rogue 1 ramps up to high, and only after a cold start, not when alternating - high - low - high - low, etc.

Any other ICONistas notice a soft start on their Rogues?


----------



## Size15's (Sep 13, 2010)

In SureFire terminology the 'bezel' is almost without exception the whole "head". The term 'head' isn't used except for describing the larger diameter bezels that extend the range of the beam: these are 'TurboHead' bezels


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 14, 2010)

Good old Wikipedia . . . There's a reason why teachers and college professors refuse to allow any reference or footnote from it on term papers.


----------



## lumenal (Sep 17, 2010)

lumenal said:


> Any other ICONistas notice a soft start on their Rogues?


 
Checked out 4 more Rogues, both Rogue 1 and 2's.

They all soft start.


----------



## dtvmike (Oct 4, 2010)

great job on the icon rebel 1 review 

thanks


----------



## jacknife (Oct 19, 2010)

So we can run eneloop AA Nimh rechargables// in the Icons ?? Rogue 1& 2


----------



## Size15's (Oct 19, 2010)

Yep. I've been doing so for ages


----------



## lumenal (Oct 28, 2010)

jacknife said:


> So we can run eneloop AA Nimh rechargables// in the Icons ?? Rogue 1& 2


 
I've run Eneloops and lithiums, seems fine, but: 

I've noticed my Rogue1 starts flickering/strobing when the battery is measuring about 1.27v. 

Everything is fine after installing a fresh battery.

Is this normal? Anyone else notice this?


----------



## Size15's (Oct 28, 2010)

I thought funky flickering was one of the normal signs that a flashlight's battery(s) were run out of juice... :shrug:


----------



## lumenal (Oct 28, 2010)

Size15's said:


> I thought funky flickering was one of the normal signs that a flashlight's battery(s) were run out of juice... :shrug:


 
Me too, but the battery still measures about 1/3 capacity left, and it will work in other AA lights.

1.27v seems to be a high minimum input voltage.



EDIT: Tried a battery with just 1.15v left in it, and the Rogue1 flickered and then fired up.

Its still running at 1.050v, which is practically empty.

Go figure...


----------



## Size15's (Oct 28, 2010)

It would be interesting to directly compare various battery types on the same runtime chart


----------



## T45 (Sep 22, 2011)

Just bought an Icon Rogue 1 from LA Police Gear at a great price, and so far, I like this light! Good length for my hands, momentary on/off tail cap switch, the high and low are well spaced apart and the beam is free from artifacts, donuts, or rings.


----------



## jagpad (Oct 2, 2011)

Awesome review, I vote for the non kitchen paring Fenix though


:nana:


----------



## dajab77 (Nov 27, 2011)

Great review. Might get one. Just bought the Rouge 2, today. 
Jab


----------



## hapiness (Nov 28, 2011)

fabulous icon review. very professional.


----------



## dieselducy (Dec 18, 2011)

So it IS safe to run a 14500 in the Icon rogue 1?


----------



## Size15's (Dec 18, 2011)

The 14500 pushes the ICON Rogue 1 hard but then you're not using 14500 batteries because you want to play it safe in the slow lane.


----------



## dieselducy (Dec 25, 2011)

Size15's said:


> The 14500 pushes the ICON Rogue 1 hard but then you're not using 14500 batteries because you want to play it safe in the slow lane.



I put a 14500 in the light i just got today and it is CONSIDERABLY brighter than the standard AA. Is the light designed for the 14500 like my tenergy? I do not want to damage it. I just wonder how LONG term use of 14500 will do.


----------



## Size15's (Dec 25, 2011)

Not designed for it. You'll be pushing it hard, of course overdriven, but it shouldn't kill it outright.


----------



## dieselducy (Jan 5, 2012)

just got an email from Icon, it says :

Hi Andrew,

We do not recommend using these batteries with the lights. Please stick with the AA's.

Thanks,
Heidi 

so this means it is not designed for 14500s.


----------



## Roood (Mar 7, 2012)

A friends Rogue 1 and Rogue 2 lights were having some issues with Flickering in the LED. Since no one ever got to post pics of the tail switch or stated it cannot be accessed. Move the rubber boot, you should be able to find a retaining ring with the standard two holes for the tool to open it (unscrew counter clockwise). Was able to disassemble the Tail Switch Assembly. Here are some pics:


----------



## Roood (Mar 7, 2012)

And the LED pill/module:


----------



## DM51 (Mar 7, 2012)

Interesting to see the disassembly - I don't think it has been done before. I assumed they were glued solid, and impossible to disassemble. I dare say many others assumed the same. 

Good work! It proves that sooner or later, even the most stubborn and intractable item will succumb to the fiendish ingenuity of a dedicated CPFer!


----------



## Roood (Mar 7, 2012)

Lol. Thanks. I was not able to open the encased LED and Switch though, I am assuming that the switch might be mechanical because of the amount of lube that it was soaking with.


----------



## T45 (Mar 9, 2012)

DM51 said:


> Interesting to see the disassembly - I don't think it has been done before. I assumed they were glued solid, and impossible to disassemble. I dare say many others assumed the same.
> 
> Good work! It proves that sooner or later, even the most stubborn and intractable item will succumb to the fiendish ingenuity of a dedicated CPFer!



VESTUREOFBLOOD does some Mod work on these lights. Gave me a good price to replace the plastic lense. Just haven't sent it to him yet.


----------



## Roood (Mar 12, 2012)

Can you please ask him to share how he removed the lens? I was able to remove mine by breaking it as it needed replacing it anyway. The reflector is amazing and kinda flexible for some reason..


----------



## Bimmerboy (Mar 13, 2012)

Good work, Roood. And thank you for the pics! :thumbsup: 

Looks like there was very little, to no threadlocker on your parts. Did they come off relatively easy without boiling, extreme wrenching, etc.?

The switch appears to be locked into that metal housing. In your estimation, is there any way of getting it out without destroying the housing, and can you take a pic of the button side?


----------



## oranges (Mar 14, 2012)

Hi everyone. I am a light noob, but really like this flashlight. I was curious though... anyone else have it automatically dim after only a few seconds of being on?


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 15, 2012)

oranges said:


> Hi everyone. I am a light noob, but really like this flashlight. I was curious though... anyone else have it automatically dim after only a few seconds of being on?


As you'll see in the main review, it is normal for the light to dim after several mins (and so gradually, that you can't notice it for awhile).

But if it is dimming visibly in the first few secs, that sounds like your battery is nearly fully drained. Try a fresh cell and see what happens.


----------



## Roood (Mar 15, 2012)

Bimmerboy said:


> Good work, Roood. And thank you for the pics! :thumbsup:
> 
> Looks like there was very little, to no threadlocker on your parts. Did they come off relatively easy without boiling, extreme wrenching, etc.?
> 
> The switch appears to be locked into that metal housing. In your estimation, is there any way of getting it out without destroying the housing, and can you take a pic of the button side?



nope, just a small plier, no boiling etc. the thread locks seem to be "brittle", same goes with my friends rogue 2. the other side of the switch is the click button, no way to get through that side. i was planning to pry open the sides of the spring area but i might damage it. maybe one day i will once i get a p1. hehehe


----------



## veedo (Jul 24, 2012)

Picked up a couple of the rogue 2's on woot not long ago and am wondering if anyone has tried 2 14500 cells in theirs. Poof?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jul 24, 2012)

veedo said:


> Picked up a couple of the rogue 2's on woot not long ago and am wondering if anyone has tried 2 14500 cells in theirs. Poof?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jul 24, 2012)

Hello and welcome to CPF. Question asked and answered along time ago in this thread. Two of those are ok in the 2AA, but not one in the 1XAA. Don't cheat, read the thread, and do not expect others to answer all of your questions. There is a lot to offer here, and most people spend time reading this forum, sometimes for months before they even feel competent to post the first time. Me too. Good luck reading. 

Bill


----------



## veedo (Jul 24, 2012)

Read it, and seen your post a ways back stating that it was possible in the rogue 2, but i haven't seen any proof in this thread or any of the other threads linked. Sorry to bother you bill.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jul 25, 2012)

veedo said:


> Read it, and seen your post a ways back stating that it was possible in the rogue 2, but i haven't seen any proof in this thread or any of the other threads linked. Sorry to bother you bill.



No bother, and thanks for posting to my response. Good you read back. Our resident Surefire expert, Size15's, or another SF expert here on CPF, researched it, and Paul Kim reported back saying that the 2AA Icon could handle two Li-Ions, the 2AA model apparently having a buck circuit, handling up to 9 volts easily.


----------



## veedo (Jul 25, 2012)

Cool, thanks for the heads up! Lights and cells should be here in a couple days, i will test it out and report back.


----------



## veedo (Jul 26, 2012)

well i loaded up 2 aw imr 14500's and fired it up. switch fried. light came on nice and bright but very blue. maybe some rcr's would have been a better bet, but unlikely. so i think it is safe to say this is a bad idea, stick with 1.5v batts.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jul 26, 2012)

Looks like I gave veedo a bum steer re Li-Ions in a ICON Rogue 2AA. Please do not attempt the use of Li-Ions in ICON 2AA lights.

Bill


----------



## T45 (Aug 12, 2012)

Note: Icon has changed the body and bezel on the latest versions of the Rogue 2 and no longer ships with a lanyard. Batteries still included.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 12, 2012)

T45 said:


> Note: Icon has changed the body and bezel on the latest versions of the Rogue 2 and no longer ships with a lanyard. Batteries still included.


Thanks for the heads-up. Too bad about the lanyard, I thought the one included was a nice touch (i.e., I liked the break-and-release feature).


----------



## RBH (Aug 12, 2012)

The fact that the three I got from Woot for $13 each are all the new style would seem to indicate that the company is unfortunately defunct ? They have a simple non confusing interface coupled with a sensible output level that make them excelent for general use. My mom can use the one I gave her without a college level tutorial.



T45 said:


> Note: Icon has changed the body and bezel on the latest versions of the Rogue 2 and no longer ships with a lanyard. Batteries still included.


----------



## Dr. Mario (Sep 1, 2012)

I tried the protected LiFePo4 batteries (Jiawei brand) from Target in this flashlight, and this Li-ion battery works just fine in the Icon Rogue flashlight - no sign of angry blue from the LED (just be sure whatever AA-sized LiFePo4 you guys are using are protected as the flashlight's apparently designed to kill the Alkaline batteries you feed it), and be sure that ONLY ONE LiFePo4 battery's being used, not two. The driver didn't mind 3.2 - 3.4V power. Also, I repeat (kinda); Only one protected LiFePo4 battery at a time. I doubt it will be happy with one regular 3.6V Li-ion battery, as veedo tried two Li-ion batteries in his flashlight, fried it instantly. The protected LiFePo4 battery that can fit in this Rogue flashlight is sized in 14450 - mine's 14430 so I had to stretch the spring in the flashlight so it can make contact with the battery's Cathode (-) side.

P.S. I think ICON's a dead company now as I couldn't access www.myiconlight.com anymore.


----------



## Korgath (Sep 5, 2012)

uggg...Definetely not the AA light I'm looking for  Thanks for a great review


----------



## Roood (Sep 6, 2012)

T45 said:


> Note: Icon has changed the body and bezel on the latest versions of the Rogue 2 and no longer ships with a lanyard. Batteries still included.



Anyone got any pics?


----------



## raptechnician (May 9, 2013)

My friend at work has this light. I never really liked it... He's been using it for about a year and its nicely beat up. No issues, and it still works good, but the plastic lens is so scrached up limits its usefullness if you asks me. He said he got it on sale for half price. 

Its funny...I gave him 2 eneloops and that Sanyo crappy charger, and I was telling him how good eneloops are. I guess there wont be any difference from the alkalines he was usually using since it regulates all batteries the same way. Try to get my eneloops back...

Great review...


----------



## fyrstormer (May 9, 2013)

It's better for him to use Eneloops anyway. Rechargeable batteries conserve resources.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 9, 2013)

Welcome to CPF, and all of the good information available here on CPF. I lost and got back another ICON Rogue AA. It is very interesting flashlight. When used, it will drop lumen output to a lower level after 10 minutes, but if turned off and then back on it will go back to it's highest level for another 10 minutes. It works better with Eneloopes, and lasts longer in it's 10 minute off and then on 10. I've got dozens of LED flashlights and the ICON Rogue AA is one of my favorites.

Bill


----------



## T45 (Jul 14, 2013)

Roood said:


> Anyone got any pics?









The Rogue 1 body style remained the same, but I think the newer version of the Rogue 2 was a miss.


----------



## T45 (Jul 14, 2013)

selfbuilt said:


> Thanks for the heads-up. Too bad about the lanyard, I thought the one included was a nice touch (i.e., I liked the break-and-release feature).



I thought that lanyard was the best factory lanyard on the market! I wish Surefire/Paul Kim, or whoever designed would it, would market it as a stand alone accessory. Or at least let us know where the clip was made so it could be ordered.


----------



## EngrPaul (Jul 14, 2013)

Radio Shack is clearing out their Icons. This model is $9.99 at my local store.


----------



## RIX TUX (May 30, 2014)

I just scored a green one for $6.95 shipped. The lanyard is nice and worth that. Nice quality, not a blaster but fine to scoot around a dark house with. Heavy solid feel. Great bright green color.


----------



## Timothybil (Dec 26, 2014)

Digicircle.com is still selling Rogue 1s, mainly the green ones. The price is only about a buck fifty, but the shipping is murder. I bought six of them, and the shipping was twice the price of the lights. Still, three dollars each is cheap enough to make it worth while.


----------

