Jetbeam Jet-I pro v3 question

[Thor20003]

I'm looking at the above Jetbeam Jet-I pro V3 and the Quark AA. Can anyone tell me if the clip on the Jetbeam can be removed?

Also why is the Quark's lumens rating so much lower with the same R2 emitter with a 14500?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[jahxman]

The clip on the JET-I Pro is not meant to be removed - I just tried to budge mine without using toold or breaking it and it doesn't want to come out of its mounting bracket.

That being said, someone determined enough I'm sure could remove it with tools - and if they were really good they might even do it without damaging it in case they wanted to install it again. But the spot where it attaches to the body would stand out as an obviously empty gap where something was mounted before.

As far as the Quark AA - I'm not sure what lumens ratings you are looking at - The ones on the 4sevens site are really for using a standard AA 1.5v, not a 14500. The light is about twice as bright with a 14500, it essentially has the same output as the Q123 :

Typical Output Levels and Runtimes + (LED drive current)

Moonlight: 0.2 lumens for 15 days, (1ma)
Low: 3.5 lumens for 2.5 days (10ma)
Medium: 18 lumens for 13 hours (50ma)
High: 70 lumens for 2.7 hours (250ma)
Max: 170 lumens for 0.8 hours (700ma)
Strobe: 170 lumens for 1.6 hours
Beacon: 0-170 lumens pulse for 12 hours

​

You can go by these numbers, because the head on the Q123 is the same as the head on the QAA, and a 14500 will drive it pretty much the same as a RCR123.

 

[BugOutGear_USA]

I'm looking at the above Jetbeam Jet-I pro V3 and the Quark AA. Can anyone tell me if the clip on the Jetbeam can be removed?

Also why is the Quark's lumens rating so much lower with the same R2 emitter with a 14500?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

The Jet-I Pro clip can be removed by simply tapping it out.

Regards,
Flavio

 

[Thor20003]

Thanks for the quick replies.

 

[Zeruel]

Like Flavio said, the clip can be easily removed by pushing it out of the holding socket.... without any need of tool.

Quark uses OTF, hence the reading is more conservative. According to users of both, Jet-I throws better.

 

[hyperloop]

i have the Jet I Pro v2.0 and it's the same clip, the first time i removed it took a bit of effort but after that it was very easy

 

[DHart]

Confirming other's replies... yes, the clip is easily removed. It's the first thing I did on my Jet I Pro IBS v3.0.

Removing the clip is the first thing I do with nearly all of my lights, as the clip is pretty much "in my way" when hand holding most lights, most of the time. Guess I'm just not a clip fan!

As for comparing to the Quark. I would choose the Quark over the Jet I, as the Quark has a better general-use beam, wider, cleaner spill, a much lower low, and is infinitely more modular (let's say "mega-lego-able") allowing use of a CR123/RCR123, 14500, and 17670 battery tube with the same head and tailcap. That's super sweet versatility!

I do like my Jet I Pro IBS v.3 as a pocket thrower, where with SMO reflector it does slightly exceed the Quark - strictly for throw. But for pretty much all other applications, I'd prefer one of my Quarks, as they have such a cleaner, wider, and much more beautiful beam, almost as throwy as the Jet I, but much cleaner beam, and far more versatile as for powering/battery tube options. They're both very nice lights, but as an owner of both, the Quark gets my vote.

When Jet comes out with a Jet I Pro with an XP-E R2 emitter, my opinion may change... we'll see. Until then, for me... Quark AA easily edges out Jet I Pro IBS v.3.

 

[jahxman]

I don't generally like clips either, and I generally remove them, but I guess I've been timid about removing the one on my Jet-I - but now that I know it is doable I may use more forceful means to get it out of its little bracket. The empty bracket may trigger some mild OCD about an empty bracket just laying there.....

As far as the two lights go, I definitely find myself grabbing the Quark more than the Jet-I .... the Jet-I now pretty much rides in my backpack on lockout as a backup light. I do like its looks, and programmability compared to the Quark, but the Quark has some good choices for the modes available, and has some pretty nice looks to it also, so it's not enough to make me prefer the Jet-I

I loaned my Neutral White Q123 to my daughter for a camping trip this weekend - I put the nice long lanyard that it comes with around her neck and basically told her to just leave it there - still, I'm a little scared that my Quark won't come back.:eeksign:

 

[hyperloop]

i, on the other hand, am now a firm clip believer. Anti roll for one and more importantly, as i am in business wear 4 days a week (friday is casual aka jeans day) i have lost a clipless light, my much adored Jet I Mk IIx and dont want to lose another light.

 

[wapkil]

I don't generally like clips either, and I generally remove them, but I guess I've been timid about removing the one on my Jet-I - but now that I know it is doable I may use more forceful means to get it out of its little bracket.

I removed my clip by pressing against a flat surface. You may want to monitor what happens when it goes out - mine flew away and I spent some time looking where it landed

 

[wapkil]

i, on the other hand, am now a firm clip believer. Anti roll for one [...]

The Jet-I even without the clip will stop on the bracket, if not forced to roll too fast.

 

[berry580]

.........I do like my Jet I Pro IBS v.3 as a pocket thrower, where with SMO reflector it does slightly exceed the Quark - strictly for throw. But for pretty much all other applications, I'd prefer one of my Quarks, as they have such a cleaner, wider, and much more beautiful beam, almost as throwy as the Jet I, but much cleaner beam, and far more versatile as for powering/battery tube options. They're both very nice lights, but as an owner of both, the Quark gets my vote.

When Jet comes out with a Jet I Pro with an XP-E R2 emitter, my opinion may change... we'll see. Until then, for me... Quark AA easily edges out Jet I Pro IBS v.3.

that's a pretty nice way in saying "all the Jet I Pro IBS v.3 can do is throw"....:twothumbs

lol

Technically speaking, i must agree, the Quarks ARE indeed marvelous. It has pretty much all the features u can possibly want.
But have you seen what it looks like?

Without the name engraved on it, I'd find it challenging to tell a Quark from generic brand. Its look is TOTALLY uninspiring, especially when compared to JB's lights (count the M1X out IMO).

 

[DHart]

Yeah... the Jet does have a cooler look to it and the Quark does look sort of generic. But In use, looks don't matter at all.

The Jet is a wonderful light in it's own right... it's just that the Quark offers so much more.

 

[Thor20003]

I appreciate all of the opinions and information.

With all of the choices in the market, looks do play an important roll for me in choosing a light. The Jetbeam has a very distinct, cool look and I do like the look of the quark, but other than knurling on the head it looks very similar to a C3.

I think the clip would be in my way but would also have some OCD issues on the Jetbeam without a clip. I like the removability of the Quark clip for that reason.

Thanks

 

[jahxman]

OK, I just removed the clip of my JET-I Pro IBS v3, and it was not hard to do.

Basically I held the light vertically against the top corner of my wooden workbench, with the head off and the bottom curve of the clip resting on the top surface of the bench, but the body over the edge - hope I'm explaining that right.

Then I just thumped it with my palm on the top and the clip came right out.

Now that it's off, and I put the head back on.....well.....I'm gonna put the clip back on. It just doesn't look right to me with the clip off, and as clips go, it is a pretty good one, being able to clip in either direction (like for cap mounting) and relatively low profile. The light looks a little broken to me with the clip off.:shrug:

 

[berry580]

yeah true, I had JB Jet-I PRO EX V2, I'd imagine it'll look weird without the clip. A big hole would just be there and the light wouldn't look nearly as cool.

As with people who likes a Quark's look, I think I'll just have to ask you what part of it do you like the most? (no, this ain't a trick question lol)

But I have to agree. Quark's removeable clip (without leaving a hole) is a plus.

 

[DHart]

As with people who likes a Quark's look, I think I'll just have to ask you what part of it do you like the most? (no, this ain't a trick question lol)

For me the "beauty" of the Quark is in the function, the glorious XP-E R2 emitter, the beam, wide spill, great throw, power levels, super low low, high high, versatility, lego-ability. Then consider the choice of tactical or regular heads, forward clickie or reverse clickie with tailstand, heads and tailcaps which work on every battery tube from 123, to AA, to 123x2, to AAx2. THAT's the beauty of the Quark! Visually, they're not terribly remarkable either way, neither unattractive nor a visual work of art. The Quark just looks like a well made flashlight that offers more options, functionality, useability and versatility than most other flashlights, not to mention more than any other flashlight "system" that I know of. With a head, a few body tubes, and a tailcap or two, one can create an amazing variety of flashlight forms, depending on the need at hand and the battery sizes/types available.

So, the Jet's a really awesome light for sure... and if it weren't for the existence of the Quark, I'd say the Jet would stand taller in the flashlight world... it's just that the existence of the Quark line makes for formidible competition to the Jet.