Jetbeam tcr 01 is out

[aau007]

So I used a watt meter to test the light. I used a hot off the charger Ultrafire 16340 that started off at 4.18v. When blasting it to max, the current draw was 1.8A at 3.6v. That's almost 6.5W draw at the battery. Then as the loaded voltage dropped to 3.3v, the current draw was about 1.3A, that's only 4.3W at the battery. At 3.1v, 0.9A, at 3.0v, 0.85A. Then at about 2.45v, the light went into rapid flashing and shut down. The supposedly protected Ultrafire 16340 did not cut off voltage soon enough before the light's rapid flashing. I wish the battery would cutoff at no less than 2.5v though. The bright side is, I manage to get over 700mah out of the battery before it dropped below 3.0v, pretty much driving the battery starting at 1.8A all the way down to 0.85A at 3.0v.

Does that mean this light is direct drive?

I am going to try to hook up a 18650 later to see.

 

[MY]

Just received three lights today: TCR1, RRT01, and SWM Ti+. I am sad to say that I am not impressed with the TCR1 and will be sending it back. The main concern is the control ring is loose, wiggles up and down and sideways. If the ring is in a detent and is pushed up on one side, it will almost jam and need extra effort to release. The tint is too green and the finish has scratch marks. I really don't care about the scratches as that will happen anyways. The ring on the RRT01 has just a slight amount of wiggle room but is gritty - I can live with it though. On the other hand, other than the terrible switch on the Ti+, I think the SWM quality is greater than the jet beams. The Ti+ control ring is just about perfect in feel and action and the tint is white. So two out of three but unfortunately the one that I was most excited by was the TCR1. Not sure if I should exchange for another or wait for the Niteye 10Ti which is an improved TCR1 with OP reflector, U2 bin, cooling fins, and multiple detents on the control ring. (Niteye makes the TCR1).

Regards

 

[Fireclaw18]

Just received three lights today: TCR1, RRT01, and SWM Ti+. I am sad to say that I am not impressed with the TCR1 and will be sending it back. The main concern is the control ring is loose, wiggles up and down and sideways. If the ring is in a detent and is pushed up on one side, it will almost jam and need extra effort to release. The tint is too green and the finish has scratch marks. I really don't care about the scratches as that will happen anyways. The ring on the RRT01 has just a slight amount of wiggle room but is gritty - I can live with it though. On the other hand, other than the terrible switch on the Ti+, I think the SWM quality is greater than the jet beams. The Ti+ control ring is just about perfect in feel and action and the tint is white. So two out of three but unfortunately the one that I was most excited by was the TCR1. Not sure if I should exchange for another or wait for the Niteye 10Ti which is an improved TCR1 with OP reflector, U2 bin, cooling fins, and multiple detents on the control ring. (Niteye makes the TCR1).

Regards

You might've gotten a dud. Or just have really high standards. The control ring on my TCR1 isn't loose at all. However, I have noticed that with both it and the RRT-01 to get maximum control turning the ring I need to hold the light in my palm and use both my thumb and index finger on opposite sides of the ring to turn it. Trying to turn the ring with just 1 finger doesn't work. I could see how if you're used to the extremely loose ring of a V10R XM-L and are used to turning it with 1 finger, you would not be happy with the Jetbeams which require 2 fingers.

 

[jorgen]

I love this light, and have purchased both the HA & TI versions. I never seriously considered the V11 as it doesn't seem like a step forward from the V10.

 

[Theatre Booth Guy]

I hate that the clip rubs against the head instead of resting against the body so I didn't install it. However,I did install the screws for anti roll purposes and to keep dust out of the threads. The allen wrench included is crap but a Wiha 267 T6 X 40 or equivalent works perfectly on these screws.

+1 about the included wrench. it seems undersize and spun in one of my screws before it was really tight. Monday will be a trip to the local fancy fastener store for some torx drive screws!

 

[fyrstormer]

MY, I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinions. It's odd that you find the TC-R1 to be lacking in quality compared to the SWM V10R Ti+, since that's the opposite of what most people have seen thus far. I suppose you're just the lucky guy who got a marginal TC-R1 and an above-average Ti+. Do you feel special?

Anyway, it's better for the control ring to be slightly loose than slightly tight, because slightly loose will allow grit to work its way out eventually, whereas slightly tight would be unusable. I can't explain the tint, though; everyone's eyes work a little differently. I suggest using the light for a few days, though, instead of just comparing it to the SWM. You may decide that the comparative differences are only noticeable when you're comparing the two lights to each other instead of using them for their intended purpose.

 

[fyrstormer]

Then at about 2.45v, the light went into rapid flashing and shut down. The supposedly protected Ultrafire 16340 did not cut off voltage soon enough before the light's rapid flashing. I wish the battery would cutoff at no less than 2.5v though.

Try it with an AW protected cell. AW's protection circuits should work better.

I don't think the light is direct-drive. Rather, I think the light is designed to achieve maximum brightness using the most powerful cell it can hold, fully-charged, and output starts drooping as the cell wears down. That is different from direct-drive because direct-drive doesn't control the voltage going to the emitter, and there would be a noticeable change in tint between an emitter being driven by a 3V primary vs. a 4.2V rechargeable battery. I just compared the two TC-R1s I have, and while there is a difference in brightness between primaries and rechargeables, there isn't a difference in tint.

 

[Z-Tab]

I'm sorry to hear that some people feel let down by the TCR1. I'm very happy with mine. It's quite a bit thicker than my T1A, though the fact that it can handle 18350s without an expensive mod partially makes up for it.

I'm surprised that Jetbeam went with a smooth reflector, as a flashlight this small is probably not going to be anybody's go-to when they need a real throwy light. As far as "real world" use, this is a great indoor light, which is exactly where that ringy beam is going to be the most visible. That's my only real gripe with the light, though.

The low-low is sort of ridiculous, but really pushes the idea of "infinitely variable" control. You can actually get it dim enough that the only evidence that it is on is that the reflector stands out in a pitch black room.

I like mine so much, that I considered getting another one. Looking at the Niteye 10Ti, it seems that there might not be any real rush, as these might not be so limited after all.

 

[aau007]

Try it with an AW protected cell. AW's protection circuits should work better.

I don't think the light is direct-drive. Rather, I think the light is designed to achieve maximum brightness using the most powerful cell it can hold, fully-charged, and output starts drooping as the cell wears down. That is different from direct-drive because direct-drive doesn't control the voltage going to the emitter, and there would be a noticeable change in tint between an emitter being driven by a 3V primary vs. a 4.2V rechargeable battery. I just compared the two TC-R1s I have, and while there is a difference in brightness between primaries and rechargeables, there isn't a difference in tint.

So I tapped a 800mah high drain LiPo battery to the light. After about 5 seconds, my watt meter shows 2.25A at 3.75v. That's about 8.4W at the battery.

Not sure if "direct drive" is the right term. My observations with the watt meter is that output drops when the voltage under load starts dropping. Different battery types also exihibit different A vs V behavior. May be "not regulated" is the right term? What do you call it when the output varys when battery amp/voltage under load changes and the setting at light is the same (max).

 

[OneBigDay]

...Looking at the Niteye 10Ti, it seems that there might not be any real rush, as these might not be so limited after all.

I just saw this too. A lot of copying going on but this is really blatant. If the quality is in the same category it takes the edge off the LE quality of the Jetbeam. On the other hand if the Niteye comes with a OP reflector a lot of people might jump ship.

 

[OneBigDay]

Duplicate Post

 

[Fireclaw18]

I just saw this too. A lot of copying going on but this is really blatant. If the quality is in the same category it takes the edge off the LE quality of the Jetbeam. On the other hand if the Niteye comes with a OP reflector a lot of people might jump ship on the Jetbeam.

It was explained that a single designer licensed the design to both Jetbeam and Nighteyes. Both are fully licensed to sell the design. As such, the Nighteyes isn't really a "blatant copy" of the Jetbeam.

The Nighteyes looks like an interesting light. Compared to the Jetbeam it has:
* U2 emitter for higher max output. (someone on the forum measured the RRT-01 at 542 lumens on IMR 18350. Compared to over 640 lumens for the Nighteyes EYE 10).
* Orange peel reflector
* extra detentes midway through the ring travel. This might be good or bad.
* extra hidden strobe mode.

 

[peterharvey73]

The only thing holding me from the Niteyes, is that personally I find the Jetbeams much more attractively styled.
One detente on the standby is really all that is needed; they didn't need to have a turbo detente, because it is a chore twisting the ring out of any detente.
Personally, I wouldn't want any more detentes in the middle...

 

[OneBigDay]

I did see and read the review/post from subwoofer that explained the design was licensed to more than one shop. It's not that I don't believe it but it doesn't make much sense from Jetbeam's perspective. Why market a Ti "Limited Edition" light when you know the shop next door is going to mass produce essentially the identical light at roughly the same time. It makes the consumer feel like somebody is pulling your chain.

All semantics aside about what one would consider a copy...

The OP reflector alone is enough to consider one over the other. I agree with the previous posters who have said there is no good reason for a SMO reflector on an EDC type light like this. OP is the way to go. If you need real throw you'd reach for a different light.

Any way you slice it up this is an interesting game to watch between the tcr01, v10rTi+, and now at the edge of the frey, the Niteye 10Ti.

 

[juplin]

I don't think the light is direct-drive. Rather, I think the light is designed to achieve maximum brightness using the most powerful cell it can hold, fully-charged, and output starts drooping as the cell wears down. That is different from direct-drive because direct-drive doesn't control the voltage going to the emitter, and there would be a noticeable change in tint between an emitter being driven by a 3V primary vs. a 4.2V rechargeable battery. I just compared the two TC-R1s I have, and while there is a difference in brightness between primaries and rechargeables, there isn't a difference in tint.

The circuit of TCR01 (RRT01) should be same as RRT0.
RRT0 was proved to be direct drive using RCR123A with voltage higher than 3.8V.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-of-Pictures&p=3701869&viewfull=1#post3701869

 

[Fireclaw18]

The only thing holding me from the Niteyes, is that personally I find the Jetbeams much more attractively styled.
One detente on the standby is really all that is needed; they didn't need to have a turbo detente, because it is a chore twisting the ring out of any detente.
Personally, I wouldn't want any more detentes in the middle...

I agree on the detentes. They should have skipped the detente at max power. All they really needed was the detente at minimum to prevent the light turning on accidentally.

 

[fyrstormer]

It was explained that a single designer licensed the design to both Jetbeam and Nighteyes. Both are fully licensed to sell the design. As such, the Nighteyes isn't really a "blatant copy" of the Jetbeam.

The Nighteyes looks like an interesting light. Compared to the Jetbeam it has:
* U2 emitter for higher max output. (someone on the forum measured the RRT-01 at 542 lumens on IMR 18350. Compared to over 640 lumens for the Nighteyes EYE 10).
* Orange peel reflector
* extra detentes midway through the ring travel. This might be good or bad.
* extra hidden strobe mode.

You're not going to get 100 more lumens from a higher-binned XM-L. Niteye is doing something to drive the emitter harder too. Longevity is questionable, though it's not in any of these companies' best interests to make products that will last decades on purpose.

 

[fyrstormer]

The circuit of TCR01 (RRT01) should be same as RRT0.
RRT0 was proved to be direct drive using RCR123A with voltage higher than 3.8V.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-of-Pictures&p=3701869&viewfull=1#post3701869

The RRT-01/TC-R1 is over a year newer than the RRT-0/TC-R2. It's possible the circuit is the same, but there's no guarantee. For one, when I expose my TC-R1 to an external magnetic field it simply shuts off instead of going crazy like my TC-R2 does.

 

[Fireclaw18]

You're not going to get 100 more lumens from a higher-binned XM-L. Niteye is doing something to drive the emitter harder too. Longevity is questionable, though it's not in any of these companies' best interests to make products that will last decades on purpose.

I agree. The extra 100 lumens, if accurate, isn't just from going to a higher bin emitter. It would mean that Nighteye is driving the emitter harder, which could mean heat could be more of an issue and battery life would be reduced.

 

[fyrstormer]

Not sure if "direct drive" is the right term. My observations with the watt meter is that output drops when the voltage under load starts dropping. Different battery types also exihibit different A vs V behavior. May be "not regulated" is the right term? What do you call it when the output varys when battery amp/voltage under load changes and the setting at light is the same (max).

That's a good question. I suppose "direct drive" is a form of "unregulated", where "unregulated" means that neither the voltage nor the amperage is held at a specific value, but "direct-drive" specifically means the power coming out of the battery goes straight into the emitter without any control at all.

I don't think that's what's happening; I think the XM-L emitter just has such low resistance due to its size that it can tolerate a massive amount of amperage at its rated input voltage, and only a very powerful battery can deliver it for more than a few seconds. Unless the voltage drop across the emitter is higher than Cree rated it for, it's not being direct-driven.