Angryfox        
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 142

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

  1. #1

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

    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. 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). 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. 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.

    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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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.

    As intrigued as I may be with the circuit performance, one thing that does not impress is the visibly-noticeable PWM of 140 Hz. 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?

    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.
    Last edited by selfbuilt; 03-19-2010 at 06:57 AM. Reason: Added lo mode
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. New: Selfbuilt's Summer Sale!
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  2. #2
    *Flashaholic* Sgt. LED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, Ohio
    Posts
    7,486

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

    Good job!

    But you always do a good job with these!

  3. #3
    *Flashaholic* kramer5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    6,328

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

    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).

    Last edited by kramer5150; 02-19-2009 at 11:31 PM.
    CLICK HERE for my flashlight reviews.
    PAUL KIM... AN INDUSTRY GENIUS

  4. #4

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

    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. 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!

  5. #5
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    479

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

    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.

  6. #6
    *Flashaholic* Sgt. LED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, Ohio
    Posts
    7,486

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

    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!

  7. #7
    *Flashaholic* Burgess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,904

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

    Another Splendid Review, selfbuilt !


    Nice photos, too.


    Thank you for your time, effort, and dedication.




    _

  8. #8
    HKJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    8,807

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

    Thanks for the good review.

    But I do not really agree with this:
    Quote Originally Posted by selfbuilt View Post
    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. 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.

  9. #9

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

    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.

  10. #10
    Flashaholic Sharpy_swe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    242

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

    This is really an impressive review




    selfbuilt many thanks, your reviews are always great to read!
    I've got more flashlights than I need, but still wants more...and then a few more

  11. #11
    Enlightened
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    25

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

    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.

  12. #12
    Super Moderator
    DM51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Borg cube #51
    Posts
    13,339

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

    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.
    Resistance is futile...

  13. #13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kramer5150 View Post
    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.

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by HKJ View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vox Clamatis in Deserto View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DM51 View Post
    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.

    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 ...
    Last edited by selfbuilt; 02-20-2009 at 07:20 AM.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. New: Selfbuilt's Summer Sale!
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  14. #14
    Flashaholic* Nyctophiliac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    London,UK
    Posts
    2,347

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

    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!

  15. #15
    *Flashaholic* Size15's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Kettering, England
    Posts
    18,415

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

    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.

  16. #16
    HKJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    8,807

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

    Quote Originally Posted by selfbuilt View Post
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by selfbuilt View Post
    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.

  17. #17

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

    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.

    Just having a little fun here at the Rogue designer's expense - don't shoot the messenger!
    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.
    Last edited by selfbuilt; 02-20-2009 at 01:56 PM.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. New: Selfbuilt's Summer Sale!
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  18. #18
    Flashaholic* MattK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut Shoreline
    Posts
    3,027

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

    Wow - another fantastic review!

  19. #19
    Flashaholic* Federal LG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Demiplane of Dread - Ravenloft
    Posts
    1,601

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vox Clamatis in Deserto View Post
    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!

    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...

    "I LOVE THE SMELL OF LITHIUM BATTERIES IN THE MORNING..." - Kilgore

  20. #20
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    11,433

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

    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

  21. #21
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    479

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

    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!

  22. #22
    HKJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    8,807

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow View Post
    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.

  23. #23
    Flashaholic* MarNav1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    3,164

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

    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.
    Reality is usually scoffed at and illusion is usually king. But in the battle for survival of western civilization it will be reality and not illusion or delusion that determines what the future will bring.

  24. #24
    Flashaholic* EngrPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    3,679

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

    Needs more sharp edges.

    Needs more regulation.

    Reflector needs more texture.


  25. #25
    Flashaholic* Cuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,733

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

    I dig the lanyard a lot...

  26. #26

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

    Quote Originally Posted by selfbuilt View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Flashaholic* qip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    u.s
    Posts
    1,503

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

    Quote Originally Posted by led4me View Post
    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

  28. #28
    Flashaholic* greenlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chill valley
    Posts
    4,298

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

    Carrots... classic.

  29. #29

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullzeyebill View Post
    It would be interesting to see how many runs of 5 minutes or so that the different batteries would produce.
    Quote Originally Posted by led4me View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenlight View Post
    Carrots... classic.
    I was all out of potatoes.
    Last edited by selfbuilt; 02-20-2009 at 09:14 PM.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. New: Selfbuilt's Summer Sale!
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  30. #30
    Flashaholic* EngrPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    3,679

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

    Off/On every time it reaches 50%

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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