Soooo... The losses in the optics are just 6.25%?
How did they do that?
Edit: Just to elaborate, as text doesn't always convey the subtext - i'm not arguing, i'm really curious. Especially since it looks leaky as hell (AFAIK, you can clearly see when it's turned on from the sides).
Considering optics alone, i.e. lens without reflector, I'll make a cross-comparison: having owned a Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD binocular, where lenses are far more than one, I've learned that light transmission with proper treatments may well exceed 98%, even when multiple coatings are in place.
Now the reflector: Gatlight V3 implements SSC led, which solves one huge issue by itself. Light beam is free of artifacts and rings that are peculiar to Cree's XR-E. Thus the manifacturer may well concentrate on optimizing reflector for light transmission, rather than beam quality and light trasmission. By its very design, if you observe led/reflector assembly of the Gatlight, you'll notice that the lens is a cone that actually allows the SSC led to spread directly some of its power on the sides, unfiltered by reflector. This makes lumens, oh yeah, and here they are, without any other performance decrease than lens light transmission power.
Once again, this would not have been possible with Cree leds.
The cone shape is possible because Gatlight has not the bezel/head as we're currently expected to know them, thus the reflector is not sunk into them any longer.
Gatlight can actually proficiently use RCR batts, even if the tech specs on their site don't specify (yet it is mentioned on FAQ). You'll lose the Low battery warning though. One important note: with RCR batts the max setting will actually overdrive the led, so just a teensie weensie less is to be used.
The heat problem: if you go the 1A way (or even less) with current leds in 1x123 (or RCR) form factor you'll have to struggle against heat, which brings about to a dropdown in led's performances and reliability as well.
I recall from LuxeonIII times, that this problem could be addressed with output dropdown. I still own my beloved HDS Ultimate 60XRGT which behaved that way.
Still it has to be surpassed ar far as electronic thermal protection/output/electronic regulation are concerned.
But this resembles to me the way Mercedes solved the the early A class rollover issue. By means of introducing an electronic control that is known as ESP. Less expensive than an in deep chassis and weight distribution reeingeenering. A workaround. Not a solution.
More than this: each instance of an electronic control adds to the overall complexity of implemented electronics and thus to their overall performances (I'm not entitled to judge their reliability). A common rule is: what it is not present, will not break.
Arc6 -as reviews say- is no exception.
So, what is the best merit of Gatlight? Electronic Thermal control is no longer needed simply thanks of a clever and simple concept: frame is a frame, not a closed space. Air is allowed to circulate freely, thus cooling the hot areas (even very close to led itself). You don't need to keep it in your hands so that blood circulation could be exploited, thus even tailstanding at full steam is not a problem. The classic 'Columbus egg'.
As far as reviews state, HDS 60XRGT delivers a better balance of thermal control/output/electronics performance vs the ideal top performance possible. Arc6 needs to be refined to this extent. IMHO.
Seems like you didn't really read everything with enough interest.
If you did, you would've noticed that it's 2 minutes 40 seconds
till thermal step-down, not 50%. Regarding cooling and thermal management, Gatlight, admittedly, does have better cooling. At the expense of size and the awkward design and ergonomics. And, AFAIK, it doesn't have any thermal management, so you could - conceivably - be within a deg C of burning out your emitter (or considerably shortening its life) and be no wiser about it.
Apart from that, there are two key elements that make up the Arc6 that you seem to keep ignoring - size (it's essentially, a slightly fatter P1D-sized light) and dynamic range (0.7 lumens to 180 lumens). Both elements limit what can be done with thermal design and efficiency. There's also the matter of tint control which, i strongly suspect, further reduces the efficiency, trading it for a nicer real-life use experience (no or almost no tint shifts at extremely low and extremely high output levels).
I did notice that it is 2 and 40 till thermal stepdown.
Yet, in general: ain't no use in having a 200+Lumens monster when you can enjoy them only for a while. Wait! If they are there for 60USD it is more than ok, but at a 250USD price tag I raise my expectations a little bit. But hey, that's me.
Tint control: I analyzed three Gatlights V3 V-bin with a spectrum analizer at my local optic store: they were nearly identical, not close, identical.
So tint shift may be a performance inhibitor at Arc6 HQ....but admittedly gatlight costs a BUNCH more.
All in all, Arc6 really intrigues me!!!! But actually actually actually! And yet is not enough to say how much.
Yet IMHO I would like to say that thermal control/runtime/efficiency should be reworked from scratch, or Lumen output reduced.
After all we're talking about EDC lights, not tactical or Emergency Rescue ones. We don't expect the best Lumen score, nor the best throw. Other lights are out for there. Yet we'd expect a steady Lumen performance at each output setting. Would thermal control be delivered either electronically or mechanically. Something like "I know I can score such a level of light at such a setting, and for x time".
If we agree on this, then we can have mutual consensus on the conclusion that the greatest bang-for-bucks is SS2, which, a the cost of slightly less output, does NOT need electonically managed thermal control, and, consequently, rocks a steady output graphic at each output level.:twothumbs
