4 Sevens
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

  1. #1
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    eu/at
    Posts
    766

    Default Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    I read about the Fenix L1 version 2.0 and 2.5 - can someone tell me what the differences are and how i find out which version i have?

  2. #2
    Moderator
    Kiessling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Germany, Old World
    Posts
    16,140

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    The 2.0 has the writing on the bezel and drives the LED at 200mA while the 2.5 has the writing on the body and drives the LED at 350mA, or at least tries.
    IMHO it was a big mistake to go 350mA ... too much for the battery, regulation sucks and runtime goes in the gutter ... while the brightness you wanted vanishes with those problems, too. Unless you use non-alkaline batteries, but then the big big advantage of the Fenix is dead. But this is IMHO, and I am already grabbing my teflon jacket.
    bernie

    EDIT: bad spelling
    Last edited by Kiessling; 12-25-2005 at 08:50 AM.
    There is a type of perfection that transcends the quest for lumens. Buying a $250 1-cell light for "lum factor" is like buying a $250 single malt Scotch for the alcohol content.
    - paulr


    It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black.
    My shoes are too tight. But it doesn't matter, because I have forgotten how to dance.

  3. #3
    Flashaholic* LowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,524

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    Hmmm.... do we have a runtime graph of a 2.0 using an alkaline cell?

  4. #4
    Flashaholic* CroMAGnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    2,537

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    I like my 2.0

  5. #5
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Two Rivers, Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,828

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    Teflon is for presidents and you really don't need any Kiessling. Although high cap NiMH use is no issue for most CPFers, the general market would prefer AA alkies. I'd sacrifice some brightness for a doubling of run time and wondered why 2.5 was considered an "upgrade"?! I haven't seen the 2.0 beam shot but read that it was inferior to the 2.5. Is that fact or just opinion?

    I like my 2.5 L1P very much but wish it were more efficient.
    I'm absolutely certain that I need another flashlight.

  6. #6
    Flashaholic* LowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,524

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    I've searched a few threads and found a few runtime graphs for the L1P v2.0 using an alkaline cell. It appears to me the 2.0 has a similar discharge curve on alkaline as the 2.5 does with alkaline (http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/fenix_l1p.htm). I don't see the advantage of the 2.0 other then perhaps some more runtime at low power.





    Last edited by LowBat; 12-31-2005 at 12:49 AM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    In both of those graphs the L1p v2 runs about 2 hours to 50% on an alkaline cell. In the FR graph you linked to, the v2.5 hits 50% after 1 hour 7 minutes. So the v2 has almost double the alkaline runtime as the v2.5. That's a pretty significant difference by my standards. I will say the long decreasing tail (below 50% but before sharp cutoff) lasts about equally long.

  8. #8
    Flashaholic* cratz2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Central IN
    Posts
    3,942

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    Well, I have an L1P 2.5 and an L1 2.0. If I put fresh Energizer 2500s in each, other than the different tint, it's pretty hard to tell which is which from brightness and beam pattern. If I turn them both on and let them run, the L1P starts to become noticably dimmer at about 2.25 hours while the L1 is still what I would consider comparably usably bright at about 3 hours.

    Overall, I consider them both equally bright for all general purposes and while I certainly like the added runtime of the L1, I prefer the HAIII, color and tint of my L2P so that is the one I carry.
    "That's what makes SF so badass... we've got the best flashlights."

  9. #9
    Flashaholic* LowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,524

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulr
    In both of those graphs the L1p v2 runs about 2 hours to 50% on an alkaline cell. In the FR graph you linked to, the v2.5 hits 50% after 1 hour 7 minutes. So the v2 has almost double the alkaline runtime as the v2.5. That's a pretty significant difference by my standards. I will say the long decreasing tail (below 50% but before sharp cutoff) lasts about equally long.
    I see your point, thanks for pointing it out.

    With either version I'm much happier with the performance as compared to the Inova X1. I liked the X1 with it's sleek design and HAIII finish but didn't care for the lack of spill.
    Last edited by LowBat; 12-31-2005 at 12:01 PM.

  10. #10
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,852

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    Why are not the L2 runtimes significantly longer, if at all really, then the L1's? From what I read the beams between the two are pretty much equal?
    I live in a van down by the river

  11. #11
    Flashaholic* cratz2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Central IN
    Posts
    3,942

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowBat
    I see your point, thanks for pointing it out.

    With either version I'm much happier with the performance as compared to the Inova X1. I liked the X1 with it's sleek design and HAIII finish but didn't care for the lack of spill.
    I agree on the X1... it's probably overall my favorite feeling flashlight. One of these days I'll be brave enough to open it up and try to put an MJLED or Snow 29 or Nichia CS or something in there and try to figure out something with a reflector. Beam doesn't have to be perfect or even as wide as most beams, but unless I'm trying to break into a building to secretly steal their top secret documents, I want a lot more sidespill than the X1 has.
    "That's what makes SF so badass... we've got the best flashlights."

  12. #12
    Flashaholic* cratz2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Central IN
    Posts
    3,942

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by geepondy
    Why are not the L2 runtimes significantly longer, if at all really, then the L1's? From what I read the beams between the two are pretty much equal?
    Well, running Energizer 2500 NiMHs in both my L1p 2.5 and my L2P, my L2P gets quite a bit longer runtime... at least another hour and a half.

    But even with the same runtimes, all the area under the line of the graph is the energy that's been extracted from the cell(s) so even with the same runtime, since the L2P line stays flat, if the L1P and L2P are both run for 3 hours, all the area above the white line, but below the blue line is STILL CONSUMED ENERGY so the L2P is doing more work.

    Or maybe the constant current regulator is quite a bit less effecient than the voltage booster.
    "That's what makes SF so badass... we've got the best flashlights."

  13. #13
    Flashaholic* cratz2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Central IN
    Posts
    3,942

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    OK... I just ran another test of my L1 2.0 vs my L1P 2.5. I took pics, but won't be able to adjust them and upload them until later. Until then, here are my numbers and findings. Fresh off the 8 hour charger Energizer 2500 mAh NiMH cells were used as they are all I ever use in my Fenix lights.

    Fenix L1 vs L1P 2.5
    Start: They look quite comparable. The L1P is brighter, but not radically so
    1 hour: no change
    2 hours: no change
    3 hours: the they seem about perfectly equally bright
    3:20: the L1 is now brighter than the L1P and the cell from the L1P reads 1.11V
    4 hours: the L1 is obviously less bright than the L1P with a fresh cell and the cell from the L1 reads .97V

    At this point, you are risking damaging the NiMH cells though at this point, they are still putting out considerably more light than an Infinity Ultra... probably two or three times as much.
    "That's what makes SF so badass... we've got the best flashlights."

  14. #14

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by geepondy
    Why are not the L2 runtimes significantly longer, if at all really, then the L1's?
    one of the reasons

    http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...ight=r%2Fo+l1p
    Bat-V. I(in) ----Vf( Led)---I (Led)
    1.120 - 0.66 -- 3.225 ---- 0.161 --- 70.24%
    1.224 - 0.85 -- 3.280 ---- 0.202 --- 63.68%
    1.310 - 1.03 -- 3.310 ---- 0.242 --- 59.37%

    in a 1AA Fenix the chance is very high that the LED isnīt driven @ 350mA ->underdriven...
    BUT itīs a good engineerd electronic. (should be a little bit more efficient AND should handle Vf variation of course)

    for now itīs a good belance between runtime and brightness but there is still room left for improvments.

    ->Fenix one AA = designed for L91 and NiMH(with low Ri of course). LR6 (are acceptable but V2.0 seems to be better)

    iwouldnīt hesitate buying one NOW.


    @ cratz2?

    ---
    and the cell from the L1 reads .97V
    --

    under load?

    Happy New Year
    Last edited by lamperich; 12-31-2005 at 06:49 PM.

  15. #15
    Flashaholic* cratz2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Central IN
    Posts
    3,942

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by lamperich

    @ cratz2?

    ---
    and the cell from the L1 reads .97V
    --

    under load?

    Happy New Year
    Nope... just after 4 hours on very near continual use (less than a minute of 'off time') if I pull the NiMH and measure it on the DMM, it shows .97V.
    "That's what makes SF so badass... we've got the best flashlights."

  16. #16

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by cratz2
    Nope... just after 4 hours on very near continual use (less than a minute of 'off time') if I pull the NiMH and measure it on the DMM, it shows .97V.
    my experience with unloaded Batterie voltage is:
    if you put a little resistor(1-50ohm) at it they will always drop voltage. More load -> more V drop. After a couple of sec. of load they will recover voltage within a sec. (usually less than before)

    The question now is: Does it also recovers in a sec. if it was loaded for hours??? I donīt have a answer/experience on that right now.

    So i request all of you. Next time check the voltage again but also with a 1-10 Ohm resistor.

    so far:
    if the fenix start dimming with a NiMH than avoid long runtimes. than you and the little rechargeable should be fine.. Thatīs all you can do..

  17. #17
    Flashaholic* cratz2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Central IN
    Posts
    3,942

    Default Re: Fenix L1: Version 2.0 vs 2.5?

    More than anything, I was just reporting on the times and just adding the raw voltage numbers for... actually, I have no idea... I've just usually done that.

    I figure if I run the light until the straight voltage from the cell drops from 1.4V to 1.0V then that's pretty much then end of what I would call usable runtime with a rechargeable cell that I don't intend on killing.
    "That's what makes SF so badass... we've got the best flashlights."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •