Zebralight SC51 (XP-G R4) & SC50w (XP-E Neutral) 1xAA Reviews: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS +

[Enzo]

Let me suggest you watch this video on the light and how to operate. This video convinced me to buy the SC51, great light!

http://goinggear.com/index.php?main_...oducts_id=2235

[Lite_me]

Hey guys,

I just received the SC51W. Great light, lots of fun. I'm still trying to get the button press timing down pact to access low mode without accidentally releasing too quickly and getting high mode. Nervous thumb!

Could someone please explain how to access 1 of 2 brightness settings for H2 mode? 86/120 lm? It mentions 6 double clicks; is that a total of 12 clicks [6 doubles] and then double click again to get 86 or 120? Or is one of those H2 settings the strobe?

thanks,
Marc

The easiest way for me to explain it is... when in High mode, start dbl clicking until you see the light start to strobe. The next dbl click will be your 86Lm setting, the next will be the 120Lm setting. Dbl clicking again will start it strobing again. Do it again and you'll be back to 86Lm again, and so on. It will keep cycling through 86Lm, 120Lm and strobe. Stop at the level you want to program for your H2 setting and click once to turn the light off. That will now be memorized as your H2 setting. H1 will always be 172Lm.

[Marc999]

The easiest way for me to explain it is... when in High mode, start dbl clicking until you see the light start to strobe. The next dbl click will be your 86Lm setting, the next will be the 120Lm setting. Dbl clicking again will start it strobing again. Do it again and you'll be back to 86Lm again, and so on. It will keep cycling through 86Lm, 120Lm and strobe. Stop at the level you want to program for your H2 setting and click once to turn the light off. That will now be memorized as your H2 setting. H1 will always be 172Lm.

Thanks, that's a great explanation and it works. I also received a reply from a Zebralight rep. that explained it similar to you. From H1 or H2, 7 dbl.clicks [each double = 2 clicks], = 86lm, 8 dbl.clicks = 120, 9 dbl.clicks = strobe. Turn off to set desired H2 setting.

[Mikellen]

Well, the Med modes have longer runtimes on the w version vs the cool. And you'll not likely notice the difference in output between the two. Cool vs the warm. And the Med modes have some very useful output for intermediate needs. It's surprising how much light the 26 Lms actually is on M1. I use that setting a lot on my SC51w. Runtime for that mode with the new XX Eneloop is 15 hrs. That's an amazing amount of light and runtime for a single AA light.

Could the specs be a mistake? It just doesn't seem right to me that the runtimes would be lower on the cool white led compared to the neutral.
I would think the cool led would be a tiny bit brighter but maintain the same runtime.

Any explanations?

[tbenedict]

This might be the wrong thread, but I got some enlightenment from comparing the specs of models on their site. They all have the same runtime on the current reg levels. What was more interesting was the c was more efficient on the low level PWM levels and the Cree versions better on the high end. This was consistent with what I read in other threads I read about the emitters.

Feel free to laugh, I still have a lot to learn.

[bodhran]

Nothing to laugh about. I think we all are still learning.

[kreisler]

That said, you can still use 14500 with the SC51 as well.

How come? Does the PROTECTED TrustFire 14500 fit, are you sure?

The website says:

Operating Voltage Range: 0.7V - 2.5V
Battery: One 1.5V AA (NiMH, lithium or alkaline). 14500 Li-ion batteries are not supported. Batteries are not included in the package.

selfbuilt, you have quoted the webpage for SC51 correctly (see my quote). it says "not supported" and "2.5V" max. How come you tested the SC51 with Protected 14500's? Shouldnt 14500's fry the driver?

[selfbuilt]

selfbuilt, you have quoted the webpage for SC51 correctly (see my quote). it says "not supported" and "2.5V" max. How come you tested the SC51 with Protected 14500's? Shouldnt 14500's fry the driver?

Although the current specs state that, I tried 14500 on my engineering sample and it worked fine. However, since 3.7V Li-ion is not supported, you are running a risk of damaging the light if you try it. Note also that circuits tend to evolve over the life of product, so there is no guarantee that currently shipping lights still perform the same as my early sample.

The question of what is "supported" in specs isn't absolute. In some case, you will immediately destroy a circuit when running out of spec, in other cases it is simply not supported and may lead to problems/damage (or at a minimum, looses warranty coverage). It is impossible to know from a spec sheet which is the case, as it depends on how conservative a manufacturer is being.

To quote the episode of ST-TNG where Scotty made an appearance: "A good engineer is always a wee bit conservative, at least on paper."

[kreisler]

So you did run the risk of damaging the zebra, poor animal! *ggg*
in your test, the zebra survived .. but there is no guarantee that all sc51 samples would do so. (the sc50 is certified for 14500's. interesting too!)

Scotty? i only know Ally McBeal

[tobrien]

yea, I own an SC51 and did a double-take when I saw you wrote 14500 as being supported in the review haha

[revolver]

Might be a dumb question since I'm still a noob, but is it okay to run this light on its highest setting while tailstanding until it dies?

Selfbuilt thanks for the great review! one question though, when you do your output v runtime tests do you have a fan blowing on your lights or anything? Or is there only passive cooling? Sorry if you mentioned it in the review, I couldn't find it anywhere.

[tobrien]

Might be a dumb question since I'm still a noob, but is it okay to run this light on its highest setting while tailstanding until it dies?

Selfbuilt thanks for the great review! one question though, when you do your output v runtime tests do you have a fan blowing on your lights or anything? Or is there only passive cooling? Sorry if you mentioned it in the review, I couldn't find it anywhere.

those are good questions, no worries.

i never thought about the first one, so i'd be interested to know!

[kreisler]

Might be a dumb question since I'm still a noob, but is it okay to run this light on its highest setting while tailstanding until it dies?

yeah good question.

i did several runtime tests with Xeno E03 and 14500's on all its three modes. Several. I figured that is very possible to heat sink the torch with the bare hands (and alternating them), it's winter now anyway (=my hands are cold lol). Apart from that discovery i cooled it with a wetted dishcloth wrapped around its body. And i also immersed it into cold water for the full runtime. so there *are* many methods to control the temperature of a XML torch (the E03 has the XML heat monster).

now you're asking if it is safe to do several runtime tests without any effective cooling in Turbo mode for the full length of the runtime?

With the Xeno E03 my answer would: Why would you want to do so?.. the torch gets hot and the high temperature will degrade the LED's life span. So even if the heat doesnt damage it in place, nobody would recommend it .. even though the specs clearly tell that you ARE allowed to run it in tailstand mode unattended for the full (official) "20 mins". So, yes, it IS safe to do so. But i highly do not recommend it anyway. Try to touch the torch after 20mins. (the XML Xeno). It IS almost burningly hot because of the accumulated heat.

If you hold the E03 in Turbo Mode in your cold hands, as mentioned, then there is no temperature build up in the torch and everything is really safe.

So what about the SC51?

Here, the LED is a XP-G R5 and the energy source is not a 3.7V cell. It's a harmless 1.5V cell.

My clear assessment is: Yes, it is 100% safe to leave it in tailstand for the full length of the runtime in Turbo+ mode. That's what 1.5V torches are designed for. They never break or fail when you leave them in attended turbo mode.

[selfbuilt]

Might be a dumb question since I'm still a noob, but is it okay to run this light on its highest setting while tailstanding until it dies? Selfbuilt thanks for the great review! one question though, when you do your output v runtime tests do you have a fan blowing on your lights or anything? Or is there only passive cooling? Sorry if you mentioned it in the review, I couldn't find it anywhere.

Second question first - yes, all my runtimes are done under a cooling fan (it's mentioned at the start of the methods section, right before the summary tables).

As to the first question, the answer is it depends. As kreisler points out above, 1xAA-sized lights get very hot when heavily driven on 1x3.7V Li-ion sources. You could reasonably expect this to damage the emitter over time, if left running for extended periods without cooling. Plus the light would get very hot and it would hurt when you go to pick it up again.

As an aside, hand-holding (against skin) is a form of cooling, as your own circulatory system would help transport heat generated by the light - just not as efficiently or quickly as a fan would. This is why tail-standing lights get hotter than hand-held lights.

But as for standard 1.5V cells (i.e. alkaline/NiMH) in the SC51, I wouldn't be worried too worried about running the light in tailstand mode. The heat will not be as high, and is far less likely to damage anything.

However, I should point out that you should never run NiMH cells down to the point where the light dies (or even near to it). This will damage the cell - as manifested in an enhanced rate of self-discharge. Modern Eneloop-style NiMH have the relative advantage that they keep their charge stored for a very long period of time. Excessive discharge will damage this characteristic, greatly limiting how long it will be able to continue to hold a charge.

[tobrien]

so I tried those 3.2v Titanium Innovations CR14505 cells and my SC51 won't accept them. HOWEVER, it WILL accept AW 3.7v 14500s. Weird?

and for what it's worth, I didn't notice any brightness differences between the AW cells and the eneloop. call me crazy, but I know what I saw!

edit: and by "won't accept them," I mean it plain won't start with them in. The cells are fresh and work but the SC51 doesn't like them. Weird...

[hazna]

so I tried those 3.2v Titanium Innovations CR14505 cells and my SC51 won't accept them. HOWEVER, it WILL accept AW 3.7v 14500s. Weird?

and for what it's worth, I didn't notice any brightness differences between the AW cells and the eneloop. call me crazy, but I know what I saw!

Maybe it considers 3.0V batteries to be an overdischarged 3.7V li-ion, and doesn't turn it on?

It doesn't not surprise me that the eneloop and AW are the same brightness. The sc51 is optimised to run on AA

[shelm]

and for what it's worth, I didn't notice any brightness differences between the AW cells and the eneloop.

you crazy

the OP measured 100 lumens on 14500 and 91 lumens on XP-G!

[selfbuilt]

Maybe it considers 3.0V batteries to be an overdischarged 3.7V li-ion, and doesn't turn it on?

It's likely the wide anode button size on the 14505. I just tried one as well, and it wouldn't light up in my SC51. I observed the same for the older-style AW 14500 with the wide button top (i.e. I needed to use a small magnet to make contact).

It doesn't not surprise me that the eneloop and AW are the same brightness. The sc51 is optimised to run on AA

Yes, I had found little difference in output on 14500 and AA on my SC51. Of course, mine was an early review sample, so things may have changed since then.

[TweakMDS]

I just noticed something new (that might have been posted) in the ZL product comparison page that might be of interest here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...CNqP6KIC#gid=0

On a few of their lights they now state the following: 3/2012: all levels current regulated.
This includes the SC51w and H51, but not the SC51 (which might be a mistake though, or they're running existing stock out).

There doesn't seem any additional info on the product page, but this takes away one of my main concern with these lights. Now if there was only a way to figure out which one you'd get...

[ThirstyTurtle]

I ordered a SC51W this weekend after reading your review and a few other's. I really appreciate all the pictures and opinions!

[Mr Floppy]

Now if there was only a way to figure out which one you'd get...

You could try this:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...a-camera-phone

[ThirstyTurtle]

I received my SC51W in the mail today and I genuinely love the interface. It is by far the most complicated user interface I've used (i'm still pretty new here though) but it really is pretty easy to get the hang of and I suspect after carrying it for a little while it will become second nature. I'm very happy with the tint, although it looks a bit muddy when compared next to a perfectly white light like my Thrunite Ti, it looks just perfect on its own and I suspect much better for me than the standard 51 which looks awfully blue for my taste.

The only thing I'm not happy with is how off-centered the LED is. I've read and seen pictures of many other people's who's arrived off-center but I really didn't think it would be an issue for me, but here's a pic:


It's pretty bad in my opinion but as far as I can tell it's not effecting the beam, even at a couple inches away from a wall I can't tell that it's not a perfect circle of light with a centered hotspot. One more thing to note is that I love the large (in my opinion) spill of my Thrunite Ti but the SC51's is WAY bigger and I can't wait to use it once the sun goes down...

[iocheretyanny]

Considering how bright this light is on R4 it will be amazing once G2 version is released.

[g.p.]

SC51 has been moved to the "discontinued" section on the ZL spreadsheat.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...CNqP6KIC#gid=0

Too bad, I like the feel of the SC51 in my hand better than the new SC52.

[selfbuilt]

Too bad, I like the feel of the SC51 in my hand better than the new SC52.

FYI, a SC52 is supposedly on its way for me to review. So I will be doing a full review of that model once it is here (with comparison to the SC51).

[g.p.]

FYI, a SC52 is supposedly on its way for me to review. So I will be doing a full review of that model once it is here (with comparison to the SC51).

Looking forward to lit.

I already have one and it's a great upgrade to the SC51 in terms of performance and UI. The downside is that it has some sharp ridges and not much of a transition between the body and the much fatter head. It just doesn't feel as nice in my hand as the SC51. The ridges or waves on the flashlight body are great for extra grip though, and the battery indicator is nice.

If ZL could make the SC51 officially take 14500's with a bump in lumens, it would be the best of both worlds.

[reppans]

FYI, a SC52 is supposedly on its way for me to review. So I will be doing a full review of that model once it is here (with comparison to the SC51).

I'll throw in an unusual request, but of course will understand if it is not considered.

ZL has spec'd the SC52 to be equal to or better than both the FourSevens Quark AA2-X (QP2A-X) and the EagleTac D25C Clicky XML across most of the modes, which interestingly, lining-up quite closely between the three lights. Since the single cell XML versions of the Quark AA and D25A have not been previously tested by yourself, perhaps the tested 3v versions would be worthy of inclusion on the comparison charts, particularly given the closely matching manufacturer specification claims.

Without any representation from XML Quark AA or D25As, then it seems the only other XML/1xAA/sub-lumen competitor light in the comparison will be the ThruNite Neutron 1A.

Just trying to get a more complete comparison, without being unfair (once again, given the matching spec sheets).

[selfbuilt]

Without any representation from XML Quark AA or D25As, then it seems the only other XML/1xAA/sub-lumen competitor light in the comparison will be the ThruNite Neutron 1A.

It's a good point, I do have a limited number of 1xAA comparators in the XM-L class. I can certainly include a couple of tables with some of the recent XM-L based 2xAA and 1xCR123A/RCR lights, should make for some interesting comparisons.

I'm just pulling everything together for the review now anyway, should have it up in a couple of days.

[reppans]

....I can certainly include a couple of tables with some of the recent XM-L based 2xAA and 1xCR123A/RCR lights, should make for some interesting comparisons.

Awesome...and on your Output/Runtime graphs (please?), considering the SC52 is competing at the same 280 lms/0.9 hrs mark (and, well, nearly every other mode too) against the best of the best.

Looking forward to your review.... as usual :-)

[selfbuilt]

Awesome...and on your Output/Runtime graphs (please?), considering the SC52 is competing at the same 280 lms/0.9 hrs mark (and, well, nearly every other mode too) against the best of the best.

That's a little more work to pull together, given that runtime data is categorized by battery type (i.e., I have to transfer the data and re-generate each curve in a different template). I suppose I could do it for direct comparisons to the 2xAA lights, as it would at least be comparable battery chemistries (for alkaline and NiMH).

Man, this is shaping up to be a long review ...