Sunwayman T60CS (3xXM-L, 3x18650) Review: BEAMSHOTS, RUNTIMES, VIDEO and more!

[selfbuilt]

Does it have a good combination of flood and throw? In other words, does it have a medium size hot spot and a fairly wide spill beam, and how does it compare in beam profile to the "King of flood", the TM-30? Because in your chart the TM-30 seems to have a significantly higher lux reading, and maybe thats just a product of the TM-30's higher lumen measurement.......But if that is true and the TM-30 has a much higher lux reading, then the T60CS might even be more floody than the TM-30. I would prefer a nice happy medium between flood and throw, not too much of either.

The T60CS is very similar to the TM11 in beam pattern. The TN30 has a noticeably narrower overall spillbeam (but the spill is brighter than the other two lights). It is also slightly more "throwy" than the other two, because of the reflector shape (but at the cost of more spill artifacts)

I hope to get to the outdoor shots this week, which should show it better. At the end of the day, all the lights are extremely bright.

 

[selfbuilt]

Just an update. Going through my notes, I see that I forgot to mention a potential concern (added to the review):

I don't recommend you run the light for extended periods on Turbo/Hi with primary CR123A cells. After my max CR123A runtime, all six of my Titanium Innovation cells came out of the light with body labels at least partially or fully split open. In my experience, that usually indicates a lot of heat build-up during the run.

In my comparison testing of various battery brands, I've noticed that the point at which Titanium Innovation cells show this kind of stress is usually around the time that most American-made cells will trip their PTC safety circuits. See this thread for a discussion of that issue.

Again, this is something I've seen a lot of on 4xCR123A lights (and some heavily-driven 2xCR123A), so it is not a surprise to see it here. I am sure you will be fine for regular usage, but I don't recommend you do a full runtime on Turbo/Hi on primaries.

P.S.: I hope to head out soon for the outdoor beamshots, just waiting for the right climactic conditions, and schedule permitting.

 

[carl]

"(i.e., for batteries in series, total current capacity is the same as an individual cell – so 2600mAh cells would provide just under 15 years before the cells were fully drained)."

Thanks for the review! So I just learned something new - at 20 microAmps of parasitic drain, one 18650 cell would get depleted at the same time as three 18650 cells! This puts the parasitic drain of the T60CS at the same very low level as Zebralights (between 12 - 13 years). Amazing.

 

[carl]

Sunwayman says low is 20 lumens but your chart says low is 75-ish. Is Sunwayman not meeting their goal of 20 lumens?

 

[carl]

In another thread regarding the recharger port or battery carrier, IMSabbel said:
"No safety issue, as it is pretty recessed, and its not a light you can carry in a pocket with keys or something. What is annoying is that mine corroded while it was in water, especially the tiny screws. Those are now stuck, i already stripped the hex by trying to remove them. Now the battery carrier has a piece of duct tape at the bottom to de-power the charging connector."

Do you know if Sunwayman is fixing this issue?

 

[HighlanderNorth]

Sunwayman says low is 20 lumens but your chart says low is 75-ish. Is Sunwayman not meeting their goal of 20 lumens?

I second that question, as I would actually prefer a 40-80 lumen setting over a 20L setting in a big, floody light, because the beam is so wide, 20 lumens would probably seem too low for basic stuff like walking around in the forest behind my house because the wide beam would dilute the 20 lumens, but a wide 75 lumen beam should be more than adequate. That was one of the factors that was steering me towards the TN-30, because its low2 setting is around 38L. This may be a clue as to the real brightness measurement on low, its run time at 20L is listed at 60 hours, whereas the TN-30's low2 runtime of 38L(almost double) is 75 hours, even though they both use the same batteries, LED's etc. That discrepancy could exist because of how SWM is running the circuitry, or the Low is actually significantly higher than 20L.


I re-read my earlier post, and realized that I was confusing the Thrunite TN-30 with Nitecore lights, some of which have the TM designation. But you obviously understood which light I was referencing anyway.

 

[selfbuilt]

at 20 microAmps of parasitic drain, one 18650 cell would get depleted at the same time as three 18650 cells!

My understanding is that in series, total current capacity is the same as the individual cells. In parallel, you would add the cells current capacity. This is the oppposite of voltage (i.e. you add voltages in series, but not parallel). But note that the standby current drain is likely to be different in these two scenarios. On multi-power lights, standby drain can vary depending on the number of cells (and their differing voltages).

Sunwayman says low is 20 lumens but your chart says low is 75-ish. Is Sunwayman not meeting their goal of 20 lumens?

Hard to say from one sample - but there is no way my TC60S is anywhere near that low. As a general rule, manufacturers have more trouble keeping consistency at the lowest level. The circuit tuning is more complicated. I've seen a few lights fall over the otherway, and wind up in a moonlight mode instead of the reported low lumen mode. It is likely just a question of sample variation, but I have no way of knowing for sure.

In another thread regarding the recharger port or battery carrier, ... Do you know if Sunwayman is fixing this issue?

They tell me they are working on a plug for the inner contact port. In the meantime, I have cut out a round disc of electrical tape and put it over the recessed contact.

 

[veedo]

hey selfbuilt, i am at a toss up between this and the the tn30. i already have the tn31. what light would you say has the upper edge as far as fit and finish or build quality, the t60cs or the tn30? thanks.

 

[selfbuilt]

hey selfbuilt, i am at a toss up between this and the the tn30. i already have the tn31. what light would you say has the upper edge as far as fit and finish or build quality, the t60cs or the tn30? thanks.

Hmm, hard to say. Both seem to have quality construction. But I would probably have to give the nod to the T60CS for overall styling and finish appearance.

 

[jh333233]

Refer to:
It is unnecessary to replace the carrier when the fuse is burnt.
It might void warranty tho.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...Tutorial-Re-enabling-blown-fuse-of-SWM-lights
Besides, you can shield the positive terminal on one side of the carrier to prevent it from shorting at the tail, just remember which side did you insulate.

 

[selfbuilt]

Refer to:
It is unnecessary to replace the carrier when the fuse is burnt.
It might void warranty tho.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...Tutorial-Re-enabling-blown-fuse-of-SWM-lights
Besides, you can shield the positive terminal on one side of the carrier to prevent it from shorting at the tail, just remember which side did you insulate.

Thanks for sharing. A useful stop-gap for those waiting for a replacement carrier after blowing a fuse.

Of course, far better to try to prevent that from happening in the first place. Since I don't have a charging dock anyway, I've taped over my positive contact on the tail with electrical tape. Hopefully SWM comes out with a prettier solution.

And of course, this sort of mod to the carrier is by-passing the fuse, so you are at risk of shorting out the cells (if the tail contacts are still exposed). Better safe than sorry when it comes to a risk of shorting batteries, in my view (i.e., I don't like relying on fuses or protection circuits). A proper physical lock-out is necessary here.

 

[indenial]

Both your and Tim's reviews indicate a concern about the exposed inner contact port. Is SWM serious about producing a rubber plug to resolve this potential problem?

 

[jh333233]

Both your and Tim's reviews indicate a concern about the exposed inner contact port. Is SWM serious about producing a rubber plug to resolve this potential problem?

Seems they are working on it

 

[jh333233]

OP:
Any comment on low voltage indicator?
Thanks

 

[jh333233]

I wonder how long would it take to drain all batteries @ low:thinking:
60hrs was based on calculation (which wasnt accurate, for med it was 6.5hrs instead of rated spec 9hrs)

 

[selfbuilt]

OP:Any comment on low voltage indicator?

Only that it worked. I noticed it on as the 18650 runs (as they were nearing the end), but didn't notice at what point it first came on.

I wonder how long would it take to drain all batteries @ low:thinking:
60hrs was based on calculation (which wasnt accurate, for med it was 6.5hrs instead of rated spec 9hrs)

Keep in mind my runtimes are on 2200mAh, and I count until time to 50%. The ANSI FL-1 standard is time to 10% (from the output level at 30 secs), and SWM specs are based on 2600mAh. Extrapolating out, I would expect at least 8hr 20mins on Med on my sample (under those conditions), which isn't so far off.

 

[DanM]

Better solution for the positive contact on the SWM tail. At your local hardware store should be some little plastic bumpers. Mine are called surface gard vinyl bumpers they are made by shepherd hardware products. They are 3/8" and or 10 mm round clear bumpers.
I paid around $2.00 for a pack of 16, They are a little sticky on one end and fit right into the hole of the SWM's tail, they are also easy to get back out if needed and can be reused as they are a hard plastic material.

If you google shepherd hardware you will see what they look like it is VINYL SELF-ADHESIVE PADS item number 9969

 

[moldyoldy]

fyi: not sure if anyone noticed, but the spare tailcap for the tail switch on some of the Fenix lights fits very snugly into the external terminal hole of my V60. The soft flange on the tailcap covers the insulator as well. As far as I have been able to use the light, the spare tail-cap does not fall out either - too tight. Frankly, to my impression, the tail-cap is a good solution - if you have spare tail-caps as I do. I happen to have a half-dozen or so of these tail-caps that stayed behind in the process of gifting the lights. Oddly enough, the switches wear out but not the tailcaps.

 

[kengps]

Perhaps if they just made the diameter of the plastic insert smaller? I bought the charging cradle with mine, and the charger contact pin is MUCH smaller than the hole on the flashlight. A smaller inside diameter insert would allow charging, but make it almost impossible for keys or coins to reach the contact. I thought your Lux numbers were a bit low at 27,000. I see you have updated the number to over 34,000 lux now. I am sure I picked the right light. The TN30 is just a tad too big at 1.3" longer and .2" larger diameter at the grip. For my hand anyway....I wouldn't want it to be any larger or shorter. I've found that for real world use anything over 250 meters in throw is not needed unless you're using a scope or binoculars. I think Sunwayman hit the sweet spot in throw/flood. This is just an Awesome light.

 

[selfbuilt]

I see you have updated the number to over 34,000 lux now. ... I've found that for real world use anything over 250 meters in throw is not needed unless you're using a scope or binoculars. I think Sunwayman hit the sweet spot in throw/flood. This is just an Awesome light.

Yeah, I remember when 20K lux @1 was considered a superb thrower (i.e., early XR-E days).

But the truth is that it still is. I find that level of throw to be perfectly acceptable to see a good distance off. In a suburban environment, there really isn't much use for all the current super-high-output throwers. They are really best suited for those who need to survey wide open areas (e.g., a farm or field)