brightnorm
Flashaholic
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
- Messages
- 7,161
One reason for the expense of regular Surefire lamps is the production of highly sophisticated integrated lamp/reflector assemblies, manufactured to close tolerances and individually tested and confirmed. I believe that there has been a tacit, unquestioning assumption on the part of most of us that this is the way it must be, regardless of the cost.
But, with the E2 Surefire has proven that this is not the way it has to be. Note the comparative expense of the P60 and the MN03: The 65 lumen P60 is only 8% brighter than the 60 lumen MN03 but costs 54% percent more.
BRIGHTGUY
P60 (65 lumens) $20.00
MN03 (60 lumens) $13.00
P60 54% more than MN03 ($ 7.00)
ARIZONA G R
P60 (65 lumens) $18.00
MN03 (60 lumens) $11.70
P60 54% more than MN03 ($ 6.30)
The P60 is also 500% heavier (.5oz vs .1oz) and approximately 300% larger. Admittedly, these large percentages seem worse than they are because the size and weight are very small to begin with. But it is the accumulation of small differences that result in a significantly larger, heavier flashlight.
If you examine the P60, its complexity and expense is immediately apparent. The lamp is set in a reflector that appears to be crafted from a solid aluminum block, which is glued to a ceramic base to which two individual spring contacts are concentrically attached. It is a model of excellence and complexity necessitating relatively high production costs.
In contrast, the MN03 is simply a lamp set in a plastic base with + and – plates.
The critical component that makes an inexpensive, small and simple lamp possible is the single reflector permanently built into the head. The plastic lamp flange fits directly against the reflector base plate and the lamp itself fits neatly into the base plate's center hole.
Does this "springless" arrangement make the MN03 more vulnerable to breakage than the standard SF lamps? Quite the contrary according to some E2 owners who have found that the MN03 is at least as strong and possibly tougher and less prone to breakage than the spring-mounted lamps, and according to my own deliberate but anxiety provoking "drop test". I dropped the E2 (original model) tail-first from a height of four feet onto a concrete sidewalk with no damage to lamp or light. I will leave any head-first drop tests to Flashaholics who are braver than I am.
A cheaper lamp would not be the sole benefit of this design change. A redesigned 6P (D2) or other light using this principle would be shorter, lighter and possibly less expensive than the current version.
In addition to the E2, The turbo-type heads use this reflector design and the turbo lamps, although not reflector-integrated, do use the dual spring arrangement and a long tubular body possibly necessitated by the very deep, large diameter heads, which may be a reason for their relatively high cost.
The E2 proves that a spring-mounted integrated lamp/reflector assembly is not necessary to achieve a consistently superior beam from a 2x123 light.. It is also clear that a simple lamp assembly is smaller lighter and cheaper to manufacture than the standard Surefire lamp and demonstrates equal or superior damage resistance.
It is possible that this "springless" design may be comfortably applied to more powerful lights, but it may be more appropriate for "Executive" rather than true "professional" lights where rough usage is anticipated.
Brightnorm
But, with the E2 Surefire has proven that this is not the way it has to be. Note the comparative expense of the P60 and the MN03: The 65 lumen P60 is only 8% brighter than the 60 lumen MN03 but costs 54% percent more.
BRIGHTGUY
P60 (65 lumens) $20.00
MN03 (60 lumens) $13.00
P60 54% more than MN03 ($ 7.00)
ARIZONA G R
P60 (65 lumens) $18.00
MN03 (60 lumens) $11.70
P60 54% more than MN03 ($ 6.30)
The P60 is also 500% heavier (.5oz vs .1oz) and approximately 300% larger. Admittedly, these large percentages seem worse than they are because the size and weight are very small to begin with. But it is the accumulation of small differences that result in a significantly larger, heavier flashlight.
If you examine the P60, its complexity and expense is immediately apparent. The lamp is set in a reflector that appears to be crafted from a solid aluminum block, which is glued to a ceramic base to which two individual spring contacts are concentrically attached. It is a model of excellence and complexity necessitating relatively high production costs.
In contrast, the MN03 is simply a lamp set in a plastic base with + and – plates.
The critical component that makes an inexpensive, small and simple lamp possible is the single reflector permanently built into the head. The plastic lamp flange fits directly against the reflector base plate and the lamp itself fits neatly into the base plate's center hole.
Does this "springless" arrangement make the MN03 more vulnerable to breakage than the standard SF lamps? Quite the contrary according to some E2 owners who have found that the MN03 is at least as strong and possibly tougher and less prone to breakage than the spring-mounted lamps, and according to my own deliberate but anxiety provoking "drop test". I dropped the E2 (original model) tail-first from a height of four feet onto a concrete sidewalk with no damage to lamp or light. I will leave any head-first drop tests to Flashaholics who are braver than I am.
A cheaper lamp would not be the sole benefit of this design change. A redesigned 6P (D2) or other light using this principle would be shorter, lighter and possibly less expensive than the current version.
In addition to the E2, The turbo-type heads use this reflector design and the turbo lamps, although not reflector-integrated, do use the dual spring arrangement and a long tubular body possibly necessitated by the very deep, large diameter heads, which may be a reason for their relatively high cost.
The E2 proves that a spring-mounted integrated lamp/reflector assembly is not necessary to achieve a consistently superior beam from a 2x123 light.. It is also clear that a simple lamp assembly is smaller lighter and cheaper to manufacture than the standard Surefire lamp and demonstrates equal or superior damage resistance.
It is possible that this "springless" design may be comfortably applied to more powerful lights, but it may be more appropriate for "Executive" rather than true "professional" lights where rough usage is anticipated.
Brightnorm
