AMILITE T5 RUNTIME

[FASTCAR]

Any T5 runtimes yet with different batts?


Also Is the T5 more lumens on a R-3.7 then a primary?

 

[FASTCAR]

This is where I hope Chevyfreak makes a few of those sweet charts

 

[jsr]

whc has a nice review thread with pics, beamshots, and some runtimes (though, no graphs).

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=156007&page=1&pp=30

 

[FASTCAR]

Ya I saw all those nice beamies ]

Now we need the good tech stuff.

Maybee if I flash the Bat signal..Chevyfreak will put on his cape..fly in and do some runtimes and lumen counts

 

[cslinger]

Just for clarification sake, I believe he is Chevrofreak not Chevyfreak.

Chris

 

[FASTCAR]

Yes, thats him. The bat signal is up...now we wait =P

 

[cernobila]

Any T5 runtimes yet with different batts?


Also Is the T5 more lumens on a R-3.7 then a primary?

Just tried a fresh AW 3.7 RCR123 in my T5 and measured it on my camera and it is brighter than a CR 123 cell on both low and high....should have tried this earlier!!....I am sure that the run time will not be as good with the RCR compared to the CR.

 

[NAW]

I wonder how the T5 would do with a BatteryStation 3.7V 900mah RCR123.

 

[Gannz]

I get right around 20 minutes on high w/ a Powerizer 3.7v 650 mah unprotected cell.

 

[9volt]

20 minutes? Is that typo?

 

[Gannz]

20 minutes? Is that typo?

No, 20 minutes on high seems to be the norm on 3.6/3.7v RCR's. It will run longer but output is greatly reduced b/c voltage drops below 3v after 20 min. It's in direct drive (no regulation) on high w/ a 3.7v RCR. Primaries and 3v RCR's get longer runtimes but decreased brightness.

I thought I read somewhere that someone got 50 minutes on high with a 900mah (or 990mah?) Ultrafire RCR but I can't find the thread and I'm not sure that they specified 3.0v or 3.6/3.7v. I'd assume it would have to be a 3.0v to get that kind of runtime.

 

[adirondackdestroyer]

Flashlightreviews has the review of the Amilite T5 up now. He only did a graph for High with a primary CR123 but it's a good start.

http://flashlightreviews.com/reviews/amilite_neot5.htm

It ran for 50 minutes in regulation and around 1 hour before it hit 50%, not bad considering it's around 115 lumens!

Maybe Chevro will get one in his hands and do a bunch of different runtimes with all the cells and output levels.

 

[FASTCAR]

It **Seems** the Quickbeam graph is the same as the T3..as in he just copied it ..assuming it is the same.

It may be..I dont know.


As always I wait for Chevyfreak to chime in with a sexy graph!

Hats off and cheers to that guy ! He does alot for us.:rock:

 

[pilou]

It **Seems** the Quickbeam graph is the same as the T3..as in he just copied it ...

Put them side by side and you will see that they are not the same.

 

[adirondackdestroyer]

Nope, it is not a copied graph of the T3. It just happens to be that the overall runtime to 50% is very very similar between both lights. The output however is no where near the same. The T5 has right around the same runtime, but has well over two times the overall output.

It **Seems** the Quickbeam graph is the same as the T3..as in he just copied it ..assuming it is the same.

It may be..I dont know.


As always I wait for Chevyfreak to chime in with a sexy graph!

Hats off and cheers to that guy ! He does alot for us.:rock:

 

[Quickbeam]

It **Seems** the Quickbeam graph is the same as the T3..as in he just copied it ..assuming it is the same.

It may be..I dont know.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! This was a separate runtime folks. I would not make that assumption. I'm just as interested as you about the actual runtime of these lights.

Now watch... someone with tooooo much time on their hands and a bone to pick with my reviews is going to use Google to comb through the entire site, find one instance where a runtime graph could have been copied, and make an insanely big deal out of it ...

 

[cratz2]

It **Seems** the Quickbeam graph is the same as the T3..as in he just copied it ..assuming it is the same.

It may be..I dont know.


As always I wait for Chevyfreak to chime in with a sexy graph!

Hats off and cheers to that guy ! He does alot for us.:rock:

What the heck is wrong with some people?!

Why would someone even take time out of their day to hurl intentional 'unintentional' insults at someone that has done so much to help CPF?

I just don't get it.

It **Seems** as though FASTCAR has nothing better to do with his time than sling completely unfounded derogatory remarks at CMF members... but don't that personally FASTCAR.

 

[DM51]

Well said, cratz2. And I think the next thing we're going to get is a flood of people wanting to find someone else to blame for their burned-out lights because they've stuck 3.7v Li-Ions into them instead of primaries.

 

[FASTCAR]

CRATZ2

Actually it was not an insult.I like Doug and have said many times he did great stuff for us.

THAT SAID: On many occasions he has coppied data from similar items or brands to save time.He used several types of time saving tricks and I dont blame him.
In fact if you read HIS site you can even see him say so in his OWN words.

All I did was look at the review...I remembered from years ago the old run time graph and said the t5 "looked' the same and "maybee" he did a copy of the old graph.I did not "accuse" him of a single bad act.

I have never "slung" bad remarks at a single person here.In fact I have stated im here to help others.

Perhaps re-read ..think..then type.

**BTW If you read my posts about "I TESTED ALL THE CREE LIGHTS" you will find out I dont beat around the bush...if I wanted to say somthing bad here..I WOULD .

***ALSO I have tried to help here.In fact got quite a few TYs.Perhaps dont attack me as I am here helping others.

My 2 cents

 

[SEMIJim]

CRATZ2
Actually it was not an insult. ...
...
All I did was look at the review...I remembered from years ago the old run time graph and said the t5 "looked' the same and "maybee" he did a copy of the old graph.I did not "accuse" him of a single bad act.

Um, FASTCAR, I think you need to re-think this one.

If you truly cannot see why somebody who puts as much work into what he does as Quickbeam obviously does would not regard being accused of copying runtime graphs, rather than actually doing a runtime test on a new light, as a slight, I don't know what to say.