Light Review: NITECORE TM03 (Tiny Monster)

subwoofer

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
2,501
Location
Hove, UK
NITECORE have been expanding the Tiny Monster line and with the TM03 have shrunk the monster performance into a single 18650 size light. Now it is even easier to carry Tiny Monster performance with you in the form of the world's most powerful 1x 18650 light.

00%20TM03%20feature%20P1210997.jpg


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author's Statement for Transparency and Disclosure
The test sample/s featured in this article have been provided for technical testing and review by the manufacturer. Test samples are retained by the reviewer following publication of the completed review for the purposes of long term testing and product comparisons.

All output figures and test results published in this review are the sole work of the reviewer, and are carried out independently and without bias. Test results are reported as found, with no embellishments or alteration. Though best endeavours are made to maintain the accuracy of test equipment, the accuracy of these results is not guaranteed and is subject to the test equipment functioning correctly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Taking a more detailed look:

Following the other TM series lights, the TM03 comes in a tough cardboard box.
01%20TM03%20boxed%20P1210968.jpg



The light is held in place with a strong closed cell foam.
02%20TM03%20box%20open%20P1210973.jpg



Along with the TM03, a holster, the instructions and a spare o-ring are provided.
03%20TM03%20box%20contents%20P1210979.jpg



Before we look at the TM03 in more detail, let's look at the holster. Here it is with the TM03 inside.
04%20TM03%20holstered%20P1210983.jpg



You have the choice of D-loop, fixed loop, or Velcro loop.
05%20TM03%20holster%20loops%20P1210986.jpg



There is a blue plastic lens protector on the front when it arrives. You MUST remove this before trying the TM03 at all as it will melt and make a mess of the lens if you don't.
06%20TM03%20protector%20P1210991.jpg



As with the NITECORE Precise series, the TM03 has a dual switch tail-cap. One is a forward clicky standard switch and the other is a metal paddle MODE switch.
07%20TM03%20switches%20P1220001.jpg



Supplied in the TM03 is a special IMR cell, clearly labelled 'FOR TM03'. It is normal 18650 size, so this gives you and idea of the overall size of the TM03.
08%20TM03%20cell%20out%20P1220005.jpg



In the tailcap are the two normal contacts.
09%20TM03%20tailcap%20contacts%20P1220008.jpg



Mainly for heat-sinking, the TM03 has a heavy duty thick walled battery tube.
10%20TM03%20tube%20wall%20P1220011.jpg



Standard threads are used for the tail-cap.
11%20TM03%20threads%20P1220012.jpg



Back to the dedicated 18650 IMR cell. Notice the dual contacts at the front.
12%20TM03%20cell%20P1220018.jpg



Taking a closer look at the dual contacts on what would normally be the positive end of the cell.
13%20TM03%20positive%20P1220021.jpg



The negative terminal of the cell is standard.
14%20TM03%20negative%20P1220024.jpg



Peering inside the battery tube you can make out the positive contact as well as the secondary contacts surrounding it.
15%20TM03%20head%20contacts%20P1220028.jpg



Finish is to a high standard as is the engraving.
16%20TM03%20engraving%20P1220030.jpg



Despite the high output, the cooling fins are shallow.
17%20TM03%20fins%20P1220033.jpg



Here is the heart of this Tiny Monster, its monster XHP70 Quad die LED.
18%20TM03%20XHP70%20LED%20close%20P1220045.jpg



The reflector is textured to give a smoother beam, but the reflector also has two profiles specifically controlling how much spill and hotspot the TM03 has.
19%20TM03%20XHP70%20LED%20P1220053.jpg



Putting the TM03 next to a normal 18650 light, it is slightly bigger and heavier in build, but has performance that outshines the standard light by a long way.
20%20TM03%20size%20P1220127.jpg





The beam

Please be careful not to judge tint based on images you see on a computer screen. Unless properly calibrated, the screen itself will change the perceived tint.

The indoor beamshot is intended to give an idea of the beam shape/quality rather than tint. All beamshots are taken using daylight white balance. The woodwork (stairs and skirting) are painted Farrow & Ball "Off-White", and the walls are a light sandy colour called 'String' again by Farrow & Ball. I don't actually have a 'white wall' in the house to use for this, and the wife won't have one!


With such high output, and indoor shot can easily be overblown, so this is not a representation of how bright the beam is, but the characteristics of the beam. Exposure has been adjusted to show the hotspot, spill, and outer spill. For such a large LED, there is quite a defined hotspot, and the spill is a medium width.
21%20TM03%20indoor%20beam%20P1230313.jpg



Then we go outdoors...

For the full set of beam-shots, please go to the Exclusive Content at Tactical Reviews , but remember to return to this forum to discuss the review.



Modes and User Interface:
The TM03 has four constant modes (Turbo, High, Mid and Low) and one flashing (Strobe) mode, controlled by a dual-switch tail-cap.

Basic operation is with the forward-clicky switch; half press for momentary access to the last used constant mode, and fully press and click to turn the TM03 ON to the last used constant mode. (Release or click again to switch off).

When ON, pressing the MODE switch cycles through the output modes - Low, Mid, High, Turbo, Low etc.

The TM03 allows you to set up the direct access operation of the MODE switch in two different modes - Suppressing Light, or STROBE READY.

To swap between these two modes:
Switch the TM03 OFF
Remove and replace the battery.
Within 60s of replacing the battery tighten the tail-cap while pressing and holding the MODE switch.
The TM03 will then flash once to indicate Suppressing Light, and two for STROBE READY.

In Suppressing Light mode:
Direct access to Turbo - in any mode including OFF, press and hold the MODE switch. Release to return to previous output.
Quick access to Strobe - in any mode including OFF, press the MODE switch twice in quick succession. Press again to return to previous output.

In STROBE READY mode:
Direct access to Strobe - in any mode including OFF, press and hold the MODE switch. Release to return to previous output.
Quick access to Turbo - in any mode including OFF, press the MODE switch twice in quick succession. Press again to return to previous output.

When inserting the battery, a red light in the tail-cap flashes to indicate battery power. Three blinks for above 50%, two blinks for below 50% and one blink for less than 10%.


Batteries and output:

The TM03 runs on a supplied proprietary IMR call with dual contacts on one end, but will also run at a severely reduced output on a normal 18650.

To measure actual output, I built an integrating sphere. See here for more detail. The sensor registers visible light only (so Infra-Red and Ultra-Violet will not be measured).

Please note, all quoted lumen figures are from a DIY integrating sphere, and according to ANSI standards. Although every effort is made to give as accurate a result as possible, they should be taken as an estimate only. The results can be used to compare outputs in this review and others I have published.



For Detailed output measurements, please go to the Exclusive Content at Tactical Reviews , but remember to return to this forum to discuss the review.



* Beacon and Strobe output measurements are only estimates as the brief flashes make it difficult to capture the actual output value.

Peak Beam intensity measured 21300 lx @1m giving a beam range of 292 m.

There is parasitic drain and due to the dual contact at the head of the light there is drain at the head, and drain at the tailcap. When using the TM03's IMR cell, the drain was 1.7mA at the head and 15uA at the tailcap. Taking the worst of these as the only significant value, it is the head drain that is relevant as it will take only 76 days to drain the cell.

NOTE: The use of the AW IMR cell for the 'normal' 18650 test was to prove that the throttling of output was not due to a bad cell. The TM03 is drastically throttled when not using the supplied cell and this is no reflection on the AW cell.

This graph has three traces on it to show a couple of specific aspects, including comparing a couple of NITECORE chargers, the SC2 and D4 (both used to charge the TM0s's cell), and also showing the characteristics depending on if you start in Turbo or High.
The SC2 is a rapid charger, well suited to IMR cells. Due to charging at a higher current, it also tends to terminate earlier. This can be seen with the earlier drop to low mode at around 1h 20m. Considering the vast reduction in charging time, this minor loss in overall output is well worth it.
Then look at the overall characteristics when starting on Turbo where after the initial 2800lm burst, the output drops right down to the 630lm Mid level output, and then continues on this until the cell is depleted.
When starting on High, the output remains on High until the cell can no longer maintain the output and starts to drop in stages, gradually reducing at 20m all the way through to 1h from turn on.
Effectively if you want more light for longer, either stay on High, or you'll have to switch it OFF and ON again to get Turbo (as long as it is not too hot), and expect not to have much runtime.

For the runtime graph, please go to the Exclusive Content at Tactical Reviews , but remember to return to this forum to discuss the review.



Troubleshooting

This section is included to mention any minor niggles I come across during testing, in case the information helps anyone else.

No issues were encountered during testing.

As per the description of this section, this information is provided in case anyone else finds a similar 'issue' that might be fixed in the same way.


The TM03 in use
Normally I don't like to start with a negative, but the TM03 does have one issue, and that is particularly with the Suppression Mode. I have found that when closing the holster flap over the TM03's tail-cap, it is easy to press (or more dangerously - nearly press) the MODE switch enough to activate direct access Turbo. This means that inside the holster the TM03 bursts into life with all 2800lm. It gets hot VERY fast. Now I also said 'more dangerously - nearly press', and the reason it is more dangerous, is that the TM03 is now on a hair trigger needing only a tiny pressure on the holster to bring on the Turbo output. I was putting the TM03 into a drawer and as it nestled against some other items Turbo came on. Luckily I noticed, but I could easily have closed that drawer - for the last time.
So my first comment is that if using the holster you need to undo the tail-cap a half turn (a quarter is not enough) to lock-out the TM03.

Now onto the good stuff. This is a very bright light. Even these days when people are used to high output lights, the TM03 still surprises with its compact size. It is not much bigger than standard 1x 18650 lights, but is a lot more powerful. The heavy build is reassuring and is certainly needed for heat-sinking. I never had the sense the TM03 was getting too hot.

My own views on tactical lighting requirements gathered from various members of the armed services and law enforcement are that Strobe is not the preferred output, but very bright is. The TM03 does VERY bright, very well.

Of course with the fundamental law of portable lighting that you can only have two of the three factors - Bright, Small, Long Runtime, the TM03 looses out in runtime. Mainly this is because if you have the TM03 on you, why would you bother with the Low mode? You will be enjoying all those lumens, using bursts of Turbo, and all too soon it does start to struggle. Not the fault of the TM03, but just a factor to be aware of - this is a Tiny Monster after all.

It was worth the extra effort required to check the parasitic drain at the head, as this explains why after only short periods of storage, the runtime is even more reduced. This level of drain is bad. It is easy to pop a light in a drawer for three months at a time, and in that time the TM03 will be dead. Even if you undo the tail-cap slightly, this doesn't stop the double pole in the head making contact and draining the cell, you need to remove the cell completely.

With regard to using other 18650 cells, NITECORE have severely hobbled the output on the TM03 when not using its dedicated double pole IMR. The maximum output I managed to get was around 250lm. It does mean that you know you can still have enough light to see by if you carry a normal 18650 as a spare, but once that dedicated IMR is depleted, you need to recharge before you get the TM performance again. At least you know it will work as a backup, and with such extreme performance it is sensible to protect the light and the user from 'unknown' cells.

If you want a pocket rocket, the TM03 will not disappoint, and brings custom level performance to a production light.


Review Summary


______________________________________________________________________________________________
Things I likeWhat doesn't work so well for me
______________________________________________________________________________________________
2800lm on a single 18650!!Direct access via the MODE switch too easily activated by the holster flap.
Solid build.High Parasitic Drain.
Direct access to TURBO.Uses a proprietary cell for full performance.
Sturdy holster provided.
Supplied with cell so you only need a charger.
 

maukka

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Finland
Thanks for the review!

For a factory light the TM03 has some serious overengineering regarding heat management. The pill is a huge chunk of copper with massive wires. Unfortunately I broke my review light after trying it with a flat top 30Q and a magnet, but here's the pill and CRI data that I measured before the accident :)

QF4mu4C.jpg


c0arNY7.png
 

texas cop

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Messages
520
Location
Texas
If it weren't for the goofy batter set up this would be an ideal candidate for a 20700 boring.
 

Bdm82

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 27, 2016
Messages
1,000
Location
Illinois
Maukka, did you by chance get a turbo test in before it failed?

Mhalen tested his at 3550 lumen, I tested mine at 3150, and then sub's test came in at 2805, right on oem estimate of 2800.
I know from my own broad testing that the particular led, ambient temp, battery health, and a variety of factors can affect output significantly.
But I still wonder if as much variation as I've seen across reviews with the tm03 is due to those factors, testing error/variation, or the specific samples. So I'm curious what you tested yours at... :)

Subwoofer, great review as always. Maukka, nice of you to help add your results.
 

scs

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
1,803
Thanks for the review!

For a factory light the TM03 has some serious overengineering regarding heat management. The pill is a huge chunk of copper with massive wires. Unfortunately I broke my review light after trying it with a flat top 30Q and a magnet, but here's the pill and CRI data that I measured before the accident :)

QF4mu4C.jpg

maukka, the wires are thick, yes, but how's the quality of soldering? Thanks.
 

maukka

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Finland
maukka, the wires are thick, yes, but how's the quality of soldering? Thanks.

Soldering was good IIRC. Ignore that in the picture since I had already had it apart and that's my own hack job with a low power $10 iron and it was almost impossible to do because of the thermal mass.

Maukka, did you by chance get a turbo test in before it failed?

Unfortunately no.
 

subwoofer

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
2,501
Location
Hove, UK
Unfortunately I broke my review light after trying it with a flat top 30Q and a magnet, but here's the pill and CRI data that I measured before the accident :)

Oh dear. But the whole flat-top and magnet thing is asking for trouble. I can't bring myself to even try this.

Thanks for sharing your info, and the photo of the pill is great. Glad to see they have taken the design seriously, but it is pushing the single 18650 to its limits in many ways.

Mhalen tested his at 3550 lumen, I tested mine at 3150, and then sub's test came in at 2805, right on oem estimate of 2800.
I know from my own broad testing that the particular led, ambient temp, battery health, and a variety of factors can affect output significantly.
But I still wonder if as much variation as I've seen across reviews with the tm03 is due to those factors, testing error/variation, or the specific samples. So I'm curious what you tested yours at... :)

The output testing is an interesting subject, and with so many home-made measuring methods we do get a lot of variation in quoted figures.

One of my concerns is in attempting to calibrate these devices. I have spent a lot of time measuring a large number of lights from different manufacturers on each available mode, and comparing it to the manufacturer's specifications. These were all plotted and the trend line added. This showed the exceptions to the trend and gave a good factor to use from the integrating sphere output voltage.

Maximum output is where there is the most variation, so these values should be used with caution.

Once I had a trend, and identified some lights with regulated consistent outputs, I also tried an addition method, where I start with only one light, then add in the next, and then a third to see if the response of my sphere was linear or not. It turns out that within the 5000lm capacity it is linear.

After finding these factors, I then set aside a group of reference lights with stable outputs, so that over time I can see if there is any drift in readings. I bring these out of storage to check the IS calibration is still correct. These are not used at all except for this calibration.

Perhaps one advantage I have had is in completely building my IS from scratch, which meant that there was no simple output value to be swayed by. I had to work from the raw output voltage of the sensor.

When looking at the results of others, you need to see how they carry out the measurements, if there is a calibration check, and how their measurement was calibrated in the first place. Simply picking up any old lux meter and taking its readings as the baseline, or choosing a single light or manufacturer to calibrate from will result in wildly inaccurate results and great variation.

That said, despite my best efforts, my own readings might be completely wrong, but are consistent and have been a method of providing like for like comparison between manufacturers.
 
Last edited:

cyberescudo

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 24, 2016
Messages
33
Thanks for the review!
The parasitic drain is very high, I have the bad behavior to forget flashlight with cell inserted and so with the TM03 I will have a useless tool when I need. The fact that also a proprietary battery is necessary amplifies imo this problem.
 

Bdm82

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 27, 2016
Messages
1,000
Location
Illinois
The output testing is an interesting subject, and with so many home-made measuring methods we do get a lot of variation in quoted figures.

One of my concerns is in attempting to calibrate these devices. I have spent a lot of time measuring a large number of lights from different manufacturers on each available mode, and comparing it to the manufacturer's specifications. These were all plotted and the trend line added. This showed the exceptions to the trend and gave a good factor to use from the integrating sphere output voltage.

Maximum output is where there is the most variation, so these values should be used with caution.

Once I had a trend, and identified some lights with regulated consistent outputs, I also tried an addition method, where I start with only one light, then add in the next, and then a third to see if the response of my sphere was linear or not. It turns out that within the 5000lm capacity it is linear.

After finding these factors, I then set aside a group of reference lights with stable outputs, so that over time I can see if there is any drift in readings. I bring these out of storage to check the IS calibration is still correct. These are not used at all except for this calibration.

Perhaps one advantage I have had is in completely building my IS from scratch, which meant that there was no simple output value to be swayed by. I had to work from the raw output voltage of the sensor.

When looking at the results of others, you need to see how they carry out the measurements, if there is a calibration check, and how their measurement was calibrated in the first place. Simply picking up any old lux meter and taking its readings as the baseline, or choosing a single light or manufacturer to calibrate from will result in wildly inaccurate results and great variation.

That said, despite my best efforts, my own readings might be completely wrong, but are consistent and have been a method of providing like for like comparison between manufacturers.

I've read about your methods and they're as sound as any I've seen. R-square should be quite good. I'm not doubting your tests in any way. Ultimately I suppose I'm questioning everything else... variation in TM03 samples mainly but to some extent other testers results I suppose. If maukka had a figure that'd be one more data point to add. But I don't want to sidetrack this review thread by talking about other reviews/reviewers... so I'll go PM if I have any other thoughts/questions.


Unfortunately no.

Okay thanks anyway!
 

subwoofer

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
2,501
Location
Hove, UK
Mhalen tested his at 3550 lumen, I tested mine at 3150, and then sub's test came in at 2805, right on oem estimate of 2800.

Just a quick thought, are those output figures measured immediately after turning onto Turbo (so recording the absolute highest output value measured)?
 

Thom2022

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
224
With regards to this proprietary cell, is the second ring on top of the cell positive or negative?
 

Timothybil

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
3,662
Location
The great state of Misery (Missouri)
With regards to this proprietary cell, is the second ring on top of the cell positive or negative?
The outer ring is negative. I believe the design philosophy was to minimize the resistance in the current path by not having the flow go through the aluminum battery tube from the tail end of the cell. Current still follows that path if Turbo is not selected as the mode, hence the ability to use normal cells just not being able to use Turbo when using them.
 

texas cop

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Messages
520
Location
Texas
The outer ring is negative. I believe the design philosophy was to minimize the resistance in the current path by not having the flow go through the aluminum battery tube from the tail end of the cell. Current still follows that path if Turbo is not selected as the mode, hence the ability to use normal cells just not being able to use Turbo when using them.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. Current through a narrow copper ribbon isn't as good as thick aluminum body. I believe the limit away from turbo is so novice don't overheat cheap cells. If a simple fix could be implemented to by pass this set up and allow standard good to better quality cells to be used. I'd be on this build. Propriety cells kill the desire for the light, but I understand the reason.
 

Timothybil

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
3,662
Location
The great state of Misery (Missouri)
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Current through a narrow copper ribbon isn't as good as thick aluminum body. I believe the limit away from turbo is so novice don't overheat cheap cells. If a simple fix could be implemented to by pass this set up and allow standard good to better quality cells to be used. I'd be on this build. Propriety cells kill the desire for the light, but I understand the reason.
You have a good point. I was thinking of the fact that copper is a better conductor than aluminum, but in this case I think you are right that mass trumps conductivity.

Try this hypothesis: Given that V=I*R, and that at any given time V is constant, to get more I (current) one needs less R (resistance), perhaps the purpose of the front negative electrode is to enable a higher current to flow, since the resistance of both the copper and aluminum paths together would be less than just the aluminum path. Then the no Turbo with a normal cell could be seen as a safety measure to keep an unenlightened user from ripping the guts out of his cell to trying to pull too much current from it, resulting in either a PTC shutdown or a very sick cell that might puke all over or do other even nastier things. It would be easy to implement. When turbo mode is selected, if there is no voltage present on the front negative terminal, then the driver defaults to either nope or high (I don't remember if the P30 defaults to high or just says nope ir that happens).
 

Swedpat

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
3,448
Location
Boden, Sweden
This is indeed a cool flashlight. But I think that it should, taking in consider the beefy head, be powered by 26650 cell instead for better performance.
 

Timothybil

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
3,662
Location
The great state of Misery (Missouri)
This is indeed a cool flashlight. But I think that it should, taking in consider the beefy head, be powered by 26650 cell instead for better performance.
Nitecore does make a 26650 light, the R40, complete with magnetic induction charging. Unfortunately, once again it is a special cell, not a normal one. And in this case, unlike the TM03, one can only use the special Nitecore cell, since it has both poles on each end to facilitate the wireless recharging.
 

Bdm82

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 27, 2016
Messages
1,000
Location
Illinois
Maukka, did you by chance get a turbo test in before it failed?

Mhalen tested his at 3550 lumen, I tested mine at 3150, and then sub's test came in at 2805, right on oem estimate of 2800.
I know from my own broad testing that the particular led, ambient temp, battery health, and a variety of factors can affect output significantly.
But I still wonder if as much variation as I've seen across reviews with the tm03 is due to those factors, testing error/variation, or the specific samples. So I'm curious what you tested yours at... :)

Subwoofer, great review as always. Maukka, nice of you to help add your results.
To "fix" my own post... I tested again today. One battery with about 10 cycles on it, my spare tm03 battery with 2 cycles on it.
Turbo numbers : 3082, 3049.

The 3150 or so I reported before... I'm not sure where those lumens went, whether battery condition, temp, or test execution... but this is what I've got today.

Back to the light itself... I was thinking about the comment that it should be a 26650. I've got a R50vnP with similar output using 26650. It will run bright on a good unprotected cell, and the bigger battery gives it more total runtime. But the tm03 has MUCH better heat management and can go longer on the initial burst. It is a tank. The paddle switch activating turbo is also super handy for momentary on. Given the mass of the TM03, if made into a 26650 light, it would be too heavy for my liking unless it gave up one of its advantages like the thick walls or paddle. So I'm good with it as-is in that way. If only it was done with a normal high drain unprotected cell...
 

carl

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,483
Location
los angeles
If it weren't for the goofy batter set up this would be an ideal candidate for a 20700 boring.

I thought I read somewhere (BLF?) that someone was going to try and unwrap the battery contacts from the Nitecore battery and re-wrap them onto a standard hi-quality IMR battery. If so, the same mod might be possible with the 20700 battery.

This hi-power light needs a bigger battery and built-in recharger.


Subwoofer,

Great review! You're the first one to measure the parasitic drain at the head and tail! The head parasitic drain is huge - first thought it was a typo since it was such a huge number (1.7mA).

Anyway, thank you for the work done on this review.
 
Last edited:

carl

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,483
Location
los angeles
Thanks for the review!

For a factory light the TM03 has some serious overengineering regarding heat management. The pill is a huge chunk of copper with massive wires. Unfortunately I broke my review light after trying it with a flat top 30Q and a magnet, but here's the pill and CRI data that I measured before the accident :)

QF4mu4C.jpg

I wish there were more threads on the copper slug for better heat transfer to the aluminum head. However, I do give credit to Nitecore for putting that big copper heatsink there which is like custom-level work!
 
Top