JetBeam JET-I PRO (Cree R2) 1AA Review: Beamshots, Runtimes, and more!

[WadeF]

Wow selfbuilt, you really put alot of effort in your reviews!:thumbsup: Thanks. Hi Wade, that was my first thought. I have 2 3SD Q5 pills and they both outperform my 2 DI R2 pills. The only thing that makes sense is thet are not being driven as hard. I wish I would have bought a R2 3SD to compare to the DI's.

On top of that I saw one guy saying his 1SD is brighter than his other 2SD or 3SD. So maybe the 1SD is the brightest of all and we should have all went with 1SD R2 WH pills.

Next time Dereelight gets R2's I'm going to try a 1SD for the DBS and CL1H and play around. I wish I got a 3SD R2 WH for the CL1H. I went with a DI for the DBS and CL1H, and a 3SD for the DBS with the R2 WH's.

Now I'm waiting for my Jet-I Pro to show up and see how it compares to my Nitecore.

 

[magic_elf]

Are the runtime graphs plotted using actual output light measurements or current draw data?

 

[selfbuilt]

Just updated the main post with results of a "ceiling-bounce" test (on 2650mAh NiMH):

Jet-I PRO (R2): 5.1 lux
NiteCore DI (Q5) Shipping: 4.8 lux
NiteCore DI (Q5) Pre-Production: 5.1 lux
L1DCE (Q5): 4.1 lux

So despite the fact that my milk carton lightbox shows initial overall output is the same between the Jet-I PRO and NiteCore DI, the ceiling bounce shows a slight advantage to the Jet-I PRO. Note, however, that there is no difference compared to my pre-production NiteCore DI.

A R2 should exceed the output of a Q5 if all things are equal. ... My R2 DI doesn't perform as well as the R2 3SD, so the DI circuit doesn't seem to be performing that well, not the R2.

Quite true. My DBS analogy is apples-and-oranges, given the different circuits involved (although the claim was made that all the new digital circuits were being driven at the higher 1.2A - this doesn't seem to be the case).

Are the runtime graphs plotted using actual output light measurements or current draw data?

Actual light output, using a milk carton lightbox "integrating sphere" and a datalogger. See Doug's excellent flashlightreviews.com for an overview of the method.

 

[orbital]

Just updated the main post with results of a "ceiling-bounce" test (on 2650mAh NiMH):

Jet-I PRO (R2): 5.1 lux
NiteCore DI (Q5) Shipping: 4.8 lux
NiteCore DI (Q5) Pre-Production: 5.1 lux
L1DCE (Q5): 4.1 lux

So despite the fact that my milk carton lightbox shows initial overall output is the same between the Jet-I PRO and NiteCore DI, the ceiling bounce shows a slight advantage to the Jet-I PRO. Note, however, that there is no difference compared to my pre-production NiteCore DI.


Quite true. My DBS analogy is apples-and-oranges, given the different circuits involved (although the claim was made that all the new digital circuits were being driven at the higher 1.2A - this doesn't seem to be the case).


Actual light output, using a milk carton lightbox "integrating sphere" and a datalogger. See Doug's excellent flashlightreviews.com for an overview of the method.

+

selfbuilt, your thoroughness is second to none. Thanks for all your work and time.

I really like the ceiling bounce Lux test, this is truly the output!

~Thread on somewhat similar idea:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/187302

Obviously, a CL1H running at 1.2A will not have the Lux (standard test) of a DBS running at the same 1.2.
Same pill & overall output, different dispersion.

I have a Romisen RC-G2 modded with a current Dereelight 3SD, and maybe because of its tint, its the brightest bounce test of all my lights...:devil:

 

[Gaffle]

When I read about the Pro I started sweating. It was everything I wanted. NOT!! I can't believe the silly numbers of Med and Low. What the hell is Jetbeam thinking? If it is supposed to be a pocket rocket, which means that it should not have a descent Med/Low, then get rid of the Med/Low, slap in a forward clicky, and add "tactical" to the name! The brightness and runtimes of Med/Low actually make me laugh, talk about insipid.

The Low setting of the Pro lasts just over 1 hour. *laughs*:sick2:



EDIT : How hard would it be for a company like Jetbeam to go with a current controlled circuit?

 

[selfbuilt]

I updated the main post with some additional runtime plots on a few of the graphs (just click the browser re-load button on the first page to get the most recent versions).

I'm afraid the runtimes on lower output modes are quite disappointing on standard alkaline, especially in comparison to other lights. Energizer e2 lithium (L91) runtimes seem a little lower than other lights (although of course much better than standard alkaline). I recommend running this light on rechargeable options preferentially.

Regardless of how you feel about the actual output levels (which admitedly could be lower), the circuit clearly needs some work in improving efficiency on lower modes.

EDIT: JetBeam informs me the identified issue on Med output on 14500 will be corrected for the next batch of lights. :thumbsup: Comments regarding lower output levels and efficiency are also being forwarded to their engineers ....

 

[Patriot]

Fantastic review :thumbsup:

I like that it's brighter than the NDI

I like that it's smaller than the D-mini

I like the completely flat regulation on 14500 during high setting.


I don't like the medium and low run-time on 14500. Once they fix that it could be the new champion AA light.

Great beamshots also.

Thanks for your efforts.

 

[CandleFranky]

EDIT: JetBeam informs me the identified issue on Med output on 14500 will be corrected for the next batch of lights. :thumbsup: Comments regarding lower output levels and efficiency are also being forwarded to their engineers ....

Selfbuilt, if you are in contact with JetBeam, please ask them, if they will replace the bad regulation units of the first batch. From my point of view, it's their duty, because they give lifetime warranty.

Thank you in advance. :thumbsup:

 

[merlocka]

Another round of cheers to SelfBuilt! The AA junkies' best friend on CPF!

 

[Dogshund]

Yeah i would be up for a free pill upgrade when the new version comes out!

 

[Stereodude]

Yeah i would be up for a free pill upgrade when the new version comes out!

That's not gonna happen. They've already got your money. Good luck getting anything out of them.

 

[Dogshund]

Yeah i know! Just wishful thinking! I do hope they offer upgrade pills in the future and also OP reflectors. The body is so damn sexy it would be a waste just to limit it to max output which is all i'll be using mine for at the moment.

 

[Patriot]

That's not gonna happen. They've already got your money. Good luck getting anything out of them.

Is "getting anything out of" Jetbeam a known difficult procedure? I mean, If they've made a mistake are they known for blowing of the customer?

I've never had to deal with Jetbeam about any quality issue and I've only owned one of their lights. I know they had quality issues in the past and greatly overstated performance of their lights. Do they also mistreat customers? I'm only asking because I'm clueless about their business ethics.

 

[CandleFranky]

That's not gonna happen. They've already got your money. Good luck getting anything out of them.

What????

The runtime charts shows EXACTLY that here is something BIG wrong. JetBeam cannot give lifetime warranty and leave such problems unanswered!!! :thumbsdow

If they don't ship a corrected driver for free ("lifetime warrenty"), then I WILL NEVER BUY A JETBEAM AGAIN.

I you buy a new Toyota and the engine sucks, Toyota gives you a new engine. That is called "warrenty". I can't believe that JetBeam have its own definition of "lifetime warrenty". If they don't help here, their "warrenty" is worthless and their name is in the dust. :sick2:

 

[Stereodude]

Is "getting anything out of" Jetbeam a known difficult procedure? I mean, If they've made a mistake are they known for blowing of the customer?

I've never had to deal with Jetbeam about any quality issue and I've only owned one of their lights. I know they had quality issues in the past and greatly overstated performance of their lights. Do they also mistreat customers? I'm only asking because I'm clueless about their business ethics.

I guess I should preface my comments by saying I don't if they're known for blowing off the customer, but they way they conduct business would seem to suggest they will. They tried to shut down group buys on previous lights because the prices were too low. They went after an ebay seller cause he was selling the Jet-I Pro too cheaply. They overstate the output of their lights, make random changes to the specs, etc, etc, etc... :sick2:

Look at this current situation. One of two things is true. 1) They didn't know they had screwed the medium mode up because they didn't test the light, but shipped it anyway, or 2) They knew it was screwed and shipped it anyway. Neither option instills any confidence in me that they will step up to the plate and replace all the current lights. :thumbsdow

 

[CandleFranky]

1) They didn't know they had screwed the medium mode up because they didn't test the light, but shipped it anyway

They didn't test the light??? Impossible!

 

[TITAN1833]

Thanks Selfbuilt for a great review,sad run times though on a Field trip I would have to cart around a Kilo or two of AA batteries just for the weekend.:devil:

Next one? jetbeam:thinking:

 

[Stereodude]

They didn't test the light??? Impossible!

Anything is possible. The other option isn't much better. They're either incompetent (didn't test but shipped the lights out anyway) or they don't care (knew what they were shipping had problems, but shipped it anyway).

 

[selfbuilt]

Thanks for the support everyone - glad you are finding the review useful.

On the issue of price, that is obviously a touchy subject for many. Not trying to defend any specific practice by any manufacturer, but it is not uncommon for makers to try to ensure their product is sold at a consistent price (often presented as a fairness issue among distributors, but obviously to also prevent price pressure). :shrug: This is also why I try to avoid the subject of relative value in my reviews ...

On the issue of the circuit problems on Med on 14500, I did notice that JetBeam changed the specs for this light immediately prior to shipping, so it is quite possible they hadn't detected the problem in time. I would suggest that recipients of first generation Jet-I PRO lights who feel strongly about the matter contact JetBeam directly.

I wouldn't want to speculate on how they will handle this issue, but I would point out their communications are likely to the affected by the current lunar holiday (plus potentially some of the reason storms and power outages in China?). Have to wait and see.

 

[CandleFranky]

On the issue of the circuit problems on Med on 14500, I did notice that JetBeam changed the specs for this light immediately prior to shipping, so it is quite possible they hadn't detected the problem in time. I would suggest that recipients of first generation Jet-I PRO lights who feel strongly about the matter contact JetBeam directly.

Selfbuilt, thank you very much for your great review, really good work! :thumbsup:

But it is NOT right, that there is only a circuit problem on 14500s. The med runtime on Enelope AAs is also bad, have a look at LightReviews.info, the runtime difference between med and high should be a lot higher -->

Low 03:32 to 50%
Medium 01:14 to 50% :thumbsdow
High 01:02 to 50%

Do you have the support email adress of JetBeam?