Malkoff        
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 36

Thread: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

  1. #1

    Cool ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Reviewer's Note: The ThruNite Catapult V2 was provided by ThruNite. Their website is not updated with this new version yet, but you can find details on it at their CPFMP thread or at Battery Junction.

    Warning: pic heavy, as usual

    Manufacturer Specifications: (taken from the ThruNite CPFMP thread and Battery Junction's website).
    Please see my earlier V1 review for comparison specs.
    • Super bright Luminus SST-50 emitter —with the highest flux bin produced
    • Maximum of 1000 emitter lumens on high (~700 OTF)
    • 2 Output Levels: High 1000 Lumens, Low 250 Lumens
    • Reverse polarity protection
    • Operating voltage between 2.7V to 8.4V
    • Drive Current to LED:High 3A, Medium 1.5A, Low 750ma
    • Mil-Spec Type III Hard Anodized
    • Constructed of 7075AL for superior durability
    • Length: 185mm; Head diameter: 58mm; Body diameter: 31mm;
    • Weight: 390g. (Extended tube excluded)
    • Tactical momentary-on forward click switch
    • IPX-68 Water/Dust Resistane
    • Tail cap design allows the light to tail stand
    • Anti-shatter ultra clear lens with double-sided multilayer AR coating
    • 54mm smooth reflector for throw
    • Stainless steel bezel
    • Battery Options: 2 x 18650, 2 x 17670, 4 x CR123, or 2xCR123/16340 (for low stage only)
    • When using the included extender tube for either 2 x 18650 or 2 x 17670 configuration, insert the extender between the head and the battery tube. The extender may not make contact when installed between the tailcap and battery tube.
    • Voltage cut-off occurs at 2.7V to protect rechargeable batteries. It will flash at 5.2V to indicate low battery voltage for two Rechargeable batteries.
    • MSRP: $160

    The popular ThruNite Catapult has undergone a few revisions, most notably in the circuit design (and reduction in output modes from three to two, and no more strobe mode).

    In addition to the specs above, here are the main changes (according to ThruNite):

    • Re-designed driver without a MCU, allowing the light to accept higher input voltage and current, and allow a greater range of operating temperatures (-30C to +130C)
    • New IC with higher efficiency and one that produces less heat
    • Added automatic overhead shutdown function. When the circuit senses >120C, it automatically shuts down. When it falls to <120C, it can be turned on again
    • 2oz brass PCB used to increase heat dissipation
    • Eliminated an anodized layer between the LED and the electronics housing, allowing heat to dissipate more effectively.
    • Aluminum bezel has been replaced with a stainless steel one for higher impact resistance
    • Two output levels, controlled by a loosen-tighten twist of the head
    • Support added for primary CR123A batteries, 4x or 2x (the latter only for Lo mode).

    So, how does it look?








    The V2 light comes with a simpler carboard case with cut-out foam. Inside, you will find the light, extension body tube, warranty card, wrist lanyard, spare o-rings and extra tailcap clicky switch and GITD boot cover.

    Here is how it looks in my hands, and compared to a couple lights of its class:




    From left to right: AW 18650 Protected, Catapult V2, Catapult V1, JetBeam M1X, Tiablo ACE-G, EagleTac M2C4 (all with battery extenders)



    From left to right: AW 18650 Protected, Catapult V2, Catapult V1, Olight M30, JetBeam M1X, JetBeam Jet-III M (all without battery extenders)

    Catapult V2 Weight (no battery): 375.7g (no extender), 446.4g (with extender)
    Catapult V2 Dimensions: 187mm (no extender), 254mm (with extender), Width (bezel) 58.0mm, Width (tailcap) 35.0

    Catapult V1 Weight (no battery): 339.3g (no extender), 410.5g (with extender)
    Catapult V1 Dimensions: Length: 182mm (no extender) 250mm (with extender), Width (bezel) 59.0mm, Width (tailcap) 34.4mm

    As you can see, most of the difference has been around the head of the light – with an additional ~36g and ~4.5 mm in length. This is presumably to accommodate the greater heatsink and the new head-twist output control mechanism.

    What hasn’t changed is the over dimensions, design, screw threads or checked pattern of the handle/battery tube and tailcap. These parts are interchangeable between the versions. Note however that they have switch to slightly thinner (but more durable looking) black o-rings at all junction points.

    Grip remains excellent – the Catapult has some of deepest cut checkered patterning that I’ve ever seen on the surface of a light. Anodizing is comparable between the versions, but lettering is now brighter in appearance than before.



    As you can see, the light can tailstand as before (the raised ridges also serve as attachment points for the wrist lanyard). The switch has the same feel as before, and is fairly typical for standard forward clicky switch.



    The tailcap is another change – instead of a bare gold-plated spring, there is now a battery contact cap (with a spring underneath). The gold-plated spring mounted on the positive contact board in the head seems comparable (and newer high-capacity flat-top 18650 cells still work fine ).

    Screw threads in the tailcap and on the corresponding battery tube remain anodized, allowing for lock-out.

    FYI, as before, the extender portion battery tube goes between the head and the main body tube, not between the main body tube and switch (as is the case on most other lights). It’s important you don’t try to install it the wrong way, or it will interfere with battery contact (i.e. the anodized screw threads will be in the wrong place).





    Now much has visibly changed here, except for the stainless steel bezel. My sample came with the standard smooth reflector (although I understand OP is available). Of note – while the lens retains some purplish-tinged anti-glare coating, it is much less noticeable than on my earlier V1 sample.

    Beamshots

    To start, here are some “white-wall” beamshots, comparing the V1 and V2 Catapult. Both lights are on Hi on 2x18650 AW protected cells.

    The first set is taken ~0.5m from a while wall, to show you the spillbeams:






    The second set is taken ~2.5m, to show you the hotspots:






    I think you will agree - not much of a difference. Frankly, you can only tell a difference using testing equipment. You can check out my V1 review for some additional beamshots.

    To better compare the throw and spill of the V2 compared to other high output lights, here are some outdoor shots from my High Output Round-up Review, showing a point ~ 10 meters from the lights. These were taken at different times for different reviews, so they may look a little different (e.g. I planted a tree at the end of last summer ).










    And here are some lower exposures to better show you the hotspots:










    As I think you can see, the Catapult has the greatest throw of any of these lights.

    UPDATE: Some additional long-distance beamshots, to show you how the light compares to others in its class.

    Please see my recent 100-yard Outdoor Beamshot review for more details (and additional lights).








    User Interface

    The Catapult V2 uses a very simple interface – twist the head tight for Hi, loosen slightly for Lo. Turn on/off by the forward clicky switch (press-on for momentary, click-on for stay on).

    There is no longer a strobe mode.

    Like before, I am unable to detect any sign of PWM at either level with my home-made sound card-oscilloscope setup. So either the light is current-controlled, or the frequency is incredibly high and undetectable.

    Note the voltage range of the circuit has changed – from 2.7V–8.4V on the V1 to 3.7V-13V on the V2. This means you can now run the light in 4xCR123A or 2xCR123A/RCR configurations.

    The light also has a thermal sensor, and will cut-out if the temperature exceeds 120C. A good safety feature, especially when running 4xCR123A on Hi (the internal resistance of those cells can result in a lot more heat being generated when placed under a high load).

    Testing Method: All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlight reviews 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 5 meters from the lens, using a light meter, and then extrapolated back to estimate values for 1 meter. This will be my standard way to present throw on these types of high output lights from now on. The beams don't really have a chance to fully converge until typically several meters out

    Throw/Output Summary Chart:



    Consistent with ThruNite’s claims, max output has increased slightly on my V2 sample (by about ~5% overall). The Lo mode is actually intermediate to the Med/Lo modes of the V1 (scroll down for the runtime comparisons).

    Output/Runtime Comparison

    Note: Effective January 2010, all CR123A runtimes are now performed solely on Titanium Innovations batteries sponsored by BatteryJunction.com. You can compare the generally excellent performance of these CR123A cells relative to the Duracell/Surefire cells used in all my earlier reviews here. I have marked all the new runtimes of lights with Titanium Innovations CR123As on the graphs with an "*".

    All 18650 runtimes are done on older AW protected cells (2200mAh), for comparison purposes.

    To start, here are some comparisons between the V1 and V2 Catapults:



    Some interesting differences … first off, note that the new V2 Lo mode is intermediate to the previous V1 Lo and Med modes. Efficiency may be slightly improved on the V2 version’s Lo mode.

    The V2 now supports 4xCR123A, and the Hi level run is unusual – after 27mins, the light drops to a lower regulated level (lower even than the Lo mode). After another 30 mins at this level, output slowly begins to climb back up to the set Lo level – at which point, regulation cuts-off and the light gradually decays in output. The Lo mode on 4xCR123A was perfectly flat in comparison.

    I’m not sure why it does this on Hi on 4xCR123A, but it may have something to do with the thermal protection circuit. Due to the internal resistance of the primary CR123A cells, lights will get a lot hotter on 4xCR123A than they do on 2x18650 (for the same Hi output). Although the V2 manual says the light with shut-off if 120C is reached, I wouldn’t be surprised if this behavior were somehow related to the heat sensor.

    Note that all my tests on done under a cooling fan, so I would expect this to occur even earlier under no cooling.

    UPDATE June 6, 2010: Catapult does not recommend trying to run the light on Hi in 1x18650/2xRCR123A configuration. In fact, 1x18650 has officially been removed from the specs. Based on the original proposed specs, I did it a test on 1x18650 but have removed the results - it seems 1x18650 does not seem to work for others who have tried it.

    Best to stick with ThruNite’s recommendation for 2xCR123A/RCR on Lo only, I think.



    On 2xRCR/CR123, performance is as I would expect for the Lo output level. Note that once the light drops out of regulation on 2xCR123A, severe flickering occurs. This continues until the cells are exhausted.

    Here is how the V1 and V2 lights compare to the other High Output (2x18650) competition:









    In general terms, the Catapults hold their own well for this class of light. The V2 Lo does seem to be a bit more efficient than the V1 Med/Lo, but that's hard to say for sure given the output differences.

    Potential Issues

    Although the Catapult now supports a wider voltage range – including 4xCR123A – it is still not recommended to run this light on Hi on 2xCR123A and 2xRCR. The current draw on Hi would greatly exceed what those cells are capable of providing (and risks damaging the cells).

    Number of output levels has dropped from three to two, and there is no longer a strobe mode (the latter is no great loss for me, though ).

    As with many lights of this size and class, no belt holster is provided.

    UPDATE June 6, 2010: 1x18650 is officially no longer supported.


    Preliminary Observations

    ThruNite has provided a few nice upgrades in this V2 Catapult. Is it enough to make you consider upgrading? Read on …

    The main functional change is the new head-twist interface. This means you can choose your light mode before turning on, but you are limited to just two output modes (i.e. there is no longer a MCU to provide additional control). Of course, that may not be a bad thing – the new Lo mode is intermediate to the old Med/Lo modes, and is quite useful as a battery saver mode. And at least now you don’t have to cycle through a strobe mode on the tailcap clicky like before.

    The other key upgrade is support for 4xCR123A configurations. The V1 had a limited voltage input range, so only 2x18650 was support in its extended form.

    A nice feature added with this is the new thermal cut-off sensor. Although people may not realize it, 4xCR123A will get a lot hotter than 2x18650, due to the internal resistance of primary CR123A cells. Most makers of high output lights recommend you don’t do extended runs on Hi on 4xCR123A, as you risk damaging the circuit/emitter (or worse, the CR123A cells themselves!). But thanks to the 120C temp sensor, the new V2 light should just shut down if excessive heat is detected. Good thinking ThruNite!

    Thrunite also claims improved heatsinking, thanks to a larger brass heatsink and improved conductivity to the body. I can tell you in my testing that the new V2 warms up a lot faster on Hi – suggesting heat is indeed being transferred more efficiently to the body.

    The beam profile has not changed in V2. Thrunite claims to be using the highest luminus flux output bin for the SST-50, but I only detected ~5% increase in output and throw on the V2 compared to my original V1. The Catapult remains one of the brightest choices in this high output class.

    The rest of the changes are largely cosmetic (i.e. stainless steel bezel) – although it looks like the new o-rings are better quality than before.

    Aside from the loss of strobe and the extra output mode, is there anything else you are giving up with this new V2? Well, 1x18650 is no longer supported at all, and 2xRCR/CR123A is only supported on Lo.

    So, is the V2 worth upgrading to for existing V1 users? Since the overall form and max throw/output hasn’t changed much, I doubt there’s a compelling upgrade reason for most people - unless you really want 4xCR123A support or can’t stand the tailcap-switch interface (with its ever-present strobe ).

    But for new purchasers, I would definitely recommend the V2 over the V1 for its wider voltage support, simple and reliable interface, improved heat-sinking, and cut-off thermal protection circuit. The one caveat is if you plan to use the light predominantly in 1x18650 or 2xRCR-CR123A mode (in Lo/Med levels only!). In that case, you may prefer the wider output/runtime flexibility offered by the V1.

    At the end of the day, the Catapult still has one of the nicest beams in this class of light – excellent output, great throw, and remarkably uniform hotspot free of surrounding rings. It is as solid as a tank, with a substantial feel and good grip. And the new interface and circuit help resolve most of the nagging issues I felt the V1 suffered from (from the conclusion of my V1 review: The one area where I think some refinement is needed is in the circuit – both for feature set and battery flexibility). In my books, the V2 is definitely a nice update - well done.
    Last edited by Unforgiven; 08-07-2010 at 01:07 PM. Reason: advertising links removed
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  2. #2
    Flashaholic* Fusion_m8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia.
    Posts
    1,879

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Excellent!

    Any future plans reviewing the Jetbeam M2Sv2 with SMO reflector against the Catapult v2?

    I was also wondering if the tint on the Catapult v2 appears cooler than the tint on the M1X?

    Thanks selfbuilt.
    Last edited by Fusion_m8; 06-04-2010 at 07:07 PM.
    Before we can become old and wise, first we have to be young and foolish.
    When I die, I want to be like grandpa, peaceful and asleep. Unlike his passengers, screaming and yelling...



  3. #3

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Great review as always, Selfbuilt. Mine should be showing up next week and this review sure is makes me feel better about my investment.

    Do you think 600 OTF Lumens on high that others are measuring is a fair number?

    Thanks again for the great review.

  4. #4

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fusion_m8 View Post
    Any future plans reviewing the Jetbeam M2Sv2 with SMO reflector against the Catapult v2?

    I was also wondering if the tint on the Catapult v2 appears cooler than the tint on the M1X?
    Dunno about the M2Sv2 ... I haven't heard from Jetbeam in a while.

    As for tint, both by Catapult samples were a premium cool white tint - perhaps slightly on the cool side of premium. My M1X is perhaps slightly on the warm side of premium cool white. But there's no real way to predict what you are going to get - all would be consider premium white.

    One point - the very slight purple fringing around the hotspot of my V1 is gone on the V2. That could be due to tint variation, or the reduced anti-glare coating on the V2 sample (the V1 lens was quite purplish-pink looking). Just a thought ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Daylo View Post
    Do you think 600 OTF Lumens on high that others are measuring is a fair number?
    I suppose. Without a calibrated sphere, I can't really say. But certainly the V2 is as bright as any of my MC-E/P7 lights.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  5. #5
    Flashaholic COAST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southern Orange County, California
    Posts
    278

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Great review!
    Quark 123^2 Turbo: Quark 123^2 Tactical S2: Quark 123 Tactical S2: Quark 123^2 NW Regular: Fenix PD30 R2: Fenix L2D Q5: Solarforce L2 w/ Nailbender SST-90 drop-in: Incendio v2: Inova X1: Robert's Custom EDC: HDS Ra Clicky 140E w/ blk SS bezel

  6. #6
    Flashaholic* HIDblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    872

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Awesome review selfbuilt!

    Although Thrunite made several internal improvements, I expected a little more from the V2 in terms of output. Maybe my expectations of Thrunite on their 2nd iteration of the Catapult were a little too high. As you pointed out, it doesn't seem like there's much of a perceptable difference at all between the output of the V2 and V1.

    And their stated run times are a bit off as well. Thrunite claims runtimes of 1.4 hours on high and 13.5 hours on low.

    I think I'm still on the fence on the Catapult V2 .
    My dog ate my flashlight...

  7. #7
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles. CA
    Posts
    540

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    hi, HIDblue, where did you read that Thrunite published runtimes? I'm just wondering because I don't believe they announced it in the CPFM thread for the V2.

    thanks.

    david.

  8. #8

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by HIDblue View Post
    Awesome review selfbuilt!

    Although Thrunite made several internal improvements, I expected a little more from the V2 in terms of output. Maybe my expectations of Thrunite on their 2nd iteration of the Catapult were a little too high. As you pointed out, it doesn't seem like there's much of a perceptable difference at all between the output of the V2 and V1.

    And their stated run times are a bit off as well. Thrunite claims runtimes of 1.4 hours on high and 13.5 hours on low.

    I think I'm still on the fence on the Catapult V2 .
    Dear HIDblue.

    we never release a official run time data for Catapult V2, since we know we use the differ batteries will get different run time. as to you said the run time on above.

    should be V1 run time not V2

  9. #9
    Flashaholic ACRbling's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    122

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Thank you for the great review!

    I noticed that you were able to run the light on a 1x18650 setup. For some reason when I attempt that setup on my v2, the led barely puts out light and just glows.

    Do you think something is wrong with my driver?

  10. #10

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by HIDblue View Post
    And their stated run times are a bit off as well. Thrunite claims runtimes of 1.4 hours on high and 13.5 hours on low.
    As ThruNite said, that does seem more in keeping in V1 performance. Note that my runtimes are done on the older 2200mAh AW 18650 (to allow comparison to older reviews). The 2600mAh would be expected to last ~20% longer.

    At the end of the day,my results suggest runtime performance is perfectly consistent with the emitter used and the output levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by ACRbling View Post
    I noticed that you were able to run the light on a 1x18650 setup. For some reason when I attempt that setup on my v2, the led barely puts out light and just glows.
    Hmmm, was the battery fully charged? The voltage specs for the V2 have changed to 3.7V-13V, so it's possible the light wouldn't come on if the 18650 was partially discharged already.

    UPDATE: ThruNite informs that 1x18650 is not supported, and has asked me to revise the review with the new updated specs. Accordingly, I have removed my 1x18650 runtime, since it seems shipping samples are do no support 1x18650.
    Last edited by selfbuilt; 06-06-2010 at 12:22 PM.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  11. #11
    Flashaholic* orbital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Great Lakes
    Posts
    2,280

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by selfbuilt View Post
    ...User Interface
    Note the voltage range of the circuit has changed – from 2.7V–8.4V on the V1 to 3.7V-13V on the V2. This means you can now run the light in 4xCR123A or 4xCR123A/RCR configurations....
    +

    selfbuilt, your absolute and relative reviews are not only helpful & informative, they are entertaining.
    Many thanks for doing a V2 review..

    ** One thing I noticed, you state 4xCR123A/RCR cells,
    people have to make sure their RCRs' are only the 3V kind and not 3.6,.. with the V2 driver being 13 Volt max.

    thanks again

  12. #12
    Flashaholic* HIDblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    872

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by ThruNite View Post
    Dear HIDblue.

    we never release a official run time data for Catapult V2, since we know we use the differ batteries will get different run time. as to you said the run time on above.

    should be V1 run time not V2
    The run times are quoted directly from descriptions of the Thrunite Catapult V2 given on several CFP listed dealers' websites (GoingGear, etc.) that all stated the same run times of 1.4 hours on high and 13.5 hours on low for the V2.

    But if Thrunite didn't put those run times with their descriptions of the V2, then that was my mistake.
    Last edited by HIDblue; 06-05-2010 at 05:05 PM.
    My dog ate my flashlight...

  13. #13

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by orbital View Post
    ** One thing I noticed, you state 4xCR123A/RCR cells,
    people have to make sure their RCRs' are only the 3V kind and not 3.6,.. with the V2 driver being 13 Volt max.
    Ooops, good catch - I meant 2xCR123A/RCR in that section. Just fixed.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  14. #14

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Thanks for the review Selfbuilt. I also find useful the pics with the lights in your hand, gives one a good idea of the actual size. One thing not clear to me. What if I put in 2xCR123A and run the light on high? What will actually happen? Will it actually light up? How much light and for how long? Will it cause damage to the cells or the flashlight?

    ~Thanks
    "Cast forth lightning, and scatter them" - Psalms 144:6

  15. #15

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by tadbik View Post
    One thing not clear to me. What if I put in 2xCR123A and run the light on high? What will actually happen? Will it actually light up? How much light and for how long? Will it cause damage to the cells or the flashlight?
    I wouldn't try - ThruNite recommends against use of 2xCR123A/RCR, and Hi mode would puts the cells under incredible strain.

    Since the light take 2x18650s, I imagine it would try to run to run 2xRCR at the same Hi output level. That would lead to a horrific discharge rate (maybe something IMR cells could handle, but I wouldn't try it even then). And 2xCR123A is likely to be similar ... frankly, I wouldn't take the risk of having my lithium cells go by running 2XCR123A/RCR on Hi.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  16. #16

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Any change from trunite to make a pressure switch and a tactical version with 3modes and strobe mode?

  17. #17

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Just updated the review with backyard pics of the V2 compared to other high-output lights.

    As I think you'll agree, the the pics confirm what my lux measures show - the V2 has the greatest throw in this class of light (followed by the Eagletac M2XC4 and JetBeam M1X).
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  18. #18

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Excellent review. Very thorough and fair. Thrunite obviously value your opinion; your suggestions for the circuit have made this a better product IMO. It's also refreshing to see a simple approach - low & high, with no strobe. This type of light is better for it.

    I feel a bit sorry for Thrunite - they are getting a bit of a hard time on other threads regarding 'misleading' OTF numbers. I honestly don't think their intention was to deceive, most manufacturers do the same thing. Good to see them standing by their product and answering all the critical posts and questions.

    From your review and people who actually own the Catapult, I read a lot of glowing, positive stuff. It's the product that counts in the end, not the spec sheet.

    I believe they have a winning product here. I am sure they will keep improving it over time and the 'host' body will be good for newer emmiters when they arrive.

  19. #19

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by Bass View Post
    I feel a bit sorry for Thrunite - they are getting a bit of a hard time on other threads regarding 'misleading' OTF numbers. I honestly don't think their intention was to deceive, most manufacturers do the same thing. Good to see them standing by their product and answering all the critical posts and questions.
    Yes, I am little puzzled why all that is going on. Thrunite is not really applying a different standard - most makers don't have integrating spheres to test their lights in, and so typically just report emitter or "bulb" lumens based on emitter and drive current specs. Few can actually measure actual out-the-front or "torch" lumens.

    At the end of the day, without a properly calibrated integrating sphere, all any of us can due is make a *relative* comparison to other lights we've tested under identical conditions. And it that regard, the V2 has more output and more throw than any other 2x18650 light in my collection (so far).

    BTW, I see ThruNite has started a USA pass-around of the V2 for CPF members. More details are available in their CPFMP thread here:
    http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/sho...d.php?t=229120
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  20. #20
    Flashaholic* orbital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Great Lakes
    Posts
    2,280

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by selfbuilt View Post
    ... the V2 has more output and more throw than any other 2x18650 light in my collection (so far).
    +

    selfbuilt,..hope you don't mind I trimmed your quote,
    to highlight a very important statement.
    Your statement holds alot of gravity from all your testing & comparisons.

    If I could only have 3 lights;
    it would be an EDC, a P60 light and my Catapult V2.

    ~ Put it this way, if I could only have two lights,..the V2 would be one of them.

    The V2 is truly a phenomenal light.
    Last edited by orbital; 06-09-2010 at 08:43 AM. Reason: add

  21. #21

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by orbital View Post
    selfbuilt,..hope you don't mind I trimmed your quote,
    to highlight a very important statement.
    Your statement holds alot of gravity from all your testing & comparisons.
    No problem ... but I should qualify that to say the Eagletac M2C4 is pretty close behind in overall output (when also run on 2x18650).

    Hard to say by how much - my lightbox and ceiling bounce show these two as roughly equivalent on 2x18650, but I know the wider spill and lower throw of the M2C4 is giving it an advantage in both these testing paradigms. Thrower lights (like the V2) are always slightly unreported by both methods.
    Last edited by selfbuilt; 06-09-2010 at 09:06 AM.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  22. #22

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    I wonder if you could get the V1 Bezel on the V2... the V1 Bezel looks like part of the light, the V2 SS one looks like it's a bit tacked on the end.

    No Bezel at all would be even better... I don't suppose it's removable?
    Loyalty above all else, except Honour

  23. #23

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by PayBack View Post
    I wonder if you could get the V1 Bezel on the V2... the V1 Bezel looks like part of the light, the V2 SS one looks like it's a bit tacked on the end.
    No Bezel at all would be even better... I don't suppose it's removable?
    Actually, you can swap bezels between the V1 and V2 versions of the light - the threading diameter is the same.

    But you do need to have something on there - it holds the lens in place. I suppose you could always file down the crenelations if you object to it that much, but then you'd have bare aluminum showing. Personally, I like these sort of low profile bezels - you can tell if the light is on when standing upside down, and aren't sharp enough to catch on anything.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  24. #24

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by selfbuilt View Post
    Actually, you can swap bezels between the V1 and V2 versions of the light - the threading diameter is the same.

    But you do need to have something on there - it holds the lens in place. I suppose you could always file down the crenelations if you object to it that much, but then you'd have bare aluminum showing. Personally, I like these sort of low profile bezels - you can tell if the light is on when standing upside down, and aren't sharp enough to catch on anything.
    I discovered you need the bezel when I later looked at the pics and saw on the inside they go right down to the lens... however the fact the V1 bezel fits the V2 is good news, thanks.

    I've never left a light on when placing it lens down on a table, so I'm sure an expert light reviewer like yourself wouldn't have either! (ok just to clarify, that expert bit was genuine and not sarcasm, as the first thing I do when I see a promising light is look for a selfbuilt review).
    Last edited by PayBack; 06-14-2010 at 06:50 PM.
    Loyalty above all else, except Honour

  25. #25
    Flashaholic* MattK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut Shoreline
    Posts
    3,027

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    I just saw this. Fantastic work as always!

  26. #26
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles. CA
    Posts
    540

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    The Thrunite V2 passaround with review and feedback is underway in this thread:

    http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/sho...40#post2515040

  27. #27

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    UPDATE: Some additional long-distance beamshots, to show you how the light compares to others in its class.

    Please see my recent 100-yard Outdoor Beamshot review for more details (and additional lights).






    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  28. #28

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    I just ordered the V2. Is it acceptable to run this light on 2xIMR18650.

  29. #29

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Quote Originally Posted by tedsm View Post
    I just ordered the V2. Is it acceptable to run this light on 2xIMR18650.
    Don't see why not ... but if they are unprotected cells, remember to top them up frequently.

    Since the light is fully regulated until the protection circuit is tripped (on my protected 18650s), this means that by the the time you see a decline in output on unprotected 18650s, you have already passed the point of safety for recharging the cells. This is the risk with all unprotected cells - if discharged too far, it's dangerous to try and recharge them.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  30. #30

    Default Re: ThruNite Catapult V2 (SST-50) Updated Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

    Thank you for your reply. Your in depth review on the V2 was the catalyst behind me buying the Catapult. Is there any advantage in run time, lumens etc to using IMR18650 over the AW18650-26? Thanks

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •