Mule mystery?

[WTH]

I have been using the Mule very regularly since I received it just recently. The more I use it, the more this question perplexes me.

Why on EARTH don't more flashlight makers adopt the concept of a reflector-less flood light?

About 90% of the time I use the flashlight for close-up tasks and nothing beats this type of light. I suspect others out there have similar needs. And its so SIMPLE! Standard emitter - No reflector - Wide potential market.

Anyone out there have a clue as to why no one else makes a light like this??

 

[easilyled]

I think its because the Cree-XRE emitter is relatively new and is ideal
for this application since it has a very narrow beam, hence most
of the light goes forward.

Incandescent bulbs wouldn't be so well suited since their beam pattern
is much wider and a lot of light would be lost if a reflector wasn't used.

Also for a small-factor light, its only now that the light-source is powerful
enough driven with a small battery, to put out enough light to be effective
like this.

Not to mention that it takes someone with foresight, initiative & originality
to actually "spot" the potential and break with tradition like Don and there
probably aren't that many around.

 

[Codeman]

Besides the XR-E being relatively new, I suspect that tradition will play a part as well. Mainstream flashlights have almost always had reflectors. Without some out-of-the-box thinking, like McGizmo did, the lack of need for a reflector may go un-noticed when it comes to general-purpose, commercial lights. Just think of the average Joe's response to seeing a light in the store without a reflector. 10-to-1 says he won't give it a second thought, unless he's seen one in person, probably thinking that the light is cheap, a ripoff, or simply missing a part. Getting past the public's perception that a flashlight needs a reflector will require some creative thinking from art/marketing departments. If someone does do that, possibly with a demo display of some sorts, they'll probably sell a lot of lights.

 

[The Coach]

Why on EARTH don't more flashlight makers adopt the concept of a reflector-less flood light?

:thinking: The answer is simple, Don is an alien, using alien technology to enslave mankind.

 

[greenLED]

Why on EARTH don't more flashlight makers adopt the concept of a reflector-less flood light?

Mostly because we're "inheriting" some of the incan characteristics into LED beams. Also because a light with a good balance between throw and flood may be preferable than pure throw or pure flood. Finally, maybe because there's a tendency to think flashlights are also meant to illuminate targets at a distance (something a floody light doesn't do well).

:thinking: I'm sure we can come up with more reasons.

 

[270winchester]

Just go to the LED lights section and see how many people are asking for "the best throw for for under 10 dollars?" and you'll see the reason.

also, for the majority of Cree lights, you could always just take out the reflector. You may lose a few degree of light but it works. I used my PD this way for the longest time and loved it, even with a Lux III.

I have been using the Mule very regularly since I received it just recently. The more I use it, the more this question perplexes me.

Why on EARTH don't more flashlight makers adopt the concept of a reflector-less flood light?

About 90% of the time I use the flashlight for close-up tasks and nothing beats this type of light. I suspect others out there have similar needs. And its so SIMPLE! Standard emitter - No reflector - Wide potential market.

Anyone out there have a clue as to why no one else makes a light like this??

 

[McGizmo]

.......... Getting past the public's perception that a flashlight needs a reflector will require some creative thinking from art/marketing departments. If someone does do that, possibly with a demo display of some sorts, they'll probably sell a lot of lights.

Even with a demo I believe there is an uphill battle. If a light and its packaging with text and graphics has to sell itself on a shelf or peg board in a well lit store, a "push to test" or other type of active display would work against a light like the Mule. The knee jerk response is "I want bright" and to determin this one wants to see a concentration of light overcoming ambient conditions.

The Mule accomplishes what the original McLux could only dream of doing. Certainly the advancments in flux of these highpower LED's has now made a light like the Mule viable as well as cool, literally.

This topic has been discussed before and it is interesting to see how the concept of the bald, optic free LED is being embraced by more members here on CPF as time goes by.

It still amazes me that there are a number of CPF members who have multiple flashlights, use them often and yet have no interest or desire in a light that doesn't collimate its output.

Flood isn't perceived as tactical or kick *** I guess. I have been using the Nichia 3 mm LED's that have a beautiful wide and artifact free beam for fixed lighting for years and IMHO, they would be so much better suited for the small key chain lights yet the trend is to go with a tight artifacty collimation of light here as well. It seems to boil down to a priority of max throw VS optimal flood. My philosophy is that you don't collimate until you have to and even then you only collimate as much as necesary and not more. Obviously this is based on intended use and need, YMMV.

I think the SF KL4 was the first light that received a broad base of favorable response and yet it was a "wall of light". It does seem now that with the LED's getting as high in flux as they are that there is a trend in opening up the beam angle and I suppose this is because folks are realizing that they have enough light so that they are willing to increase their field of view at the expense of ultimate range. The new generation of SF optics are examples of a move in this direction I think.

I agree and will be redundant in comment that it is likely that the higher flux will open the door to a flood beam but once the door is open, users will realize that a flood beam is and was viable even at a fraction of the present level of flux. The Mule PD is a good case in point when you consider how many opted for the mizer over the standard configuration. Even the standard configuration Mule is well underdriving the LED relative to its potential.

I don't mean to sound condecending here but perhaps there is a growing maturity among actual users where practical is becoming recognized as desireable? :thinking: :shrug:

 

[WTH]

Lots of good insights here and I can see why its such an uphill battle. Even here on CPF, the center of the flashlight universe, there is still a relatively small adoption for flood lights versus throwers. Think about how long it would take to sway the opinion of an uneducated buyer!

I agree with the common opinion here that people have been trained to think about how a hand held flashlight beam should look, and even though most people use their lights for close-in illumination (25 feet and under) they still like something with a highly pronounced hotspot because that is what they are used to.

Too bad the general population hasn't realized that they could have a hand held light with a beam much closer representing fixed lighting which also may be smaller and less expensive since no reflector is required. People would have to be trained, and the only one out there with enough market penetration and consumer attention, is also the one that is most allergic to change - Mac Instruments.

But if all this is true (if its really just a case of training the consumer), shouldn't we see a continuing trend toward floodier (and eventually reflector-less) lights in the larger flashlight market?

Interesting comment at the end by Don...but a little ironic. People like throwers because its "kick ***" to be able to spot something hundreds of yards away, albeit useless in 99% of (my own) actual use cases. The ironic part is if people on CPF truly only bought the flashlight they "need" for a particular application, and stopped there, then people would buy a lot less flashlights (I'm guilty as charged), and we'd have much less to talk about here! HAH!

 

[mossyoak]

i dont like my throwers cause they are "tactical or kickass", its because i can already see the close up stuff its the stuff far away that i need the light for.
also you can always diffuse a thrower but you cant focus a pure flood like the mule. so for me its pretty much useless.

 

[McGizmo]

WTH,
IMHO, the diference between a flashaholic and a regular flashlight user is in the realm of need and want. In regards to flashlights, the flashaholic has both conditions whereas the regular user only a need (well identified and understood or not). In this vein, my comment on flood beams is the perceived irony (for me) of a flashaholic continuiously feeding his want without effectively covering all of his need. :nana:

~ but who am I or any one of us to tell another what they need?

Feeding the want is the journey and feeding the need might bring one to to a destination. A final destination is final. :green: It is the journey and some destinations or stops along the way that matter. May we all have long and enjoyable journeys with numerous and scenic stops along the way!

 

[greenLED]

IMHO, the diference between a flashaholic and a regular flashlight user is in the realm of need and want. In regards to flashlights, the flashaholic has both conditions whereas the regular user only a need (well identified and understood or not). In this vein, my comment on flood beams is the perceived irony (for me) of a flashaholic continuiously feeding his want without effectively covering all of his need. :nana:

In my case, I still need my lights to operate outdoors, in forested areas (that, of course hasn't stopped me from filling plenty of wants and not enough needs). Flood lights simply don't "cut it" under those particular circumstances.

 

[McGizmo]

.....the stuff far away that i need the light for.

Well get off your lazy *** and get closer to it! :nana:

.....
also you can always diffuse a thrower but you cant focus a pure flood like the mule. so for me its pretty much useless.

True to an extent but an additional component like a diffuser does not provide the same beam distribution or as efficiently as a bald, optic free source.

I'm just bustin' your huevos here. Your comments are valid and I am in no position to tell you what you need like I stated above. I leave it to you to discover!

However, you state that you can see the close up stuff but you haven't stated how this comes about. Is it due to spill from a thrower or is there ambient light always there for you? Will you use a thrower's spill to illuminate a menu in a dimly lit romantic cafe while the spot is causing third degree burns on a neighboring diner's face? (more ball busting here; my bad )

It seems that there is an assumption that flood can satisfy all illumination needs which simply isn't the case unless you have a light source that can turn night into day. Giving credit to flood is not removing credit from tight collimation is it? This is not a case of either/ or. :thinking:

With some of us getting defensive, where is the offense?

This thread is about a mule for goodnes sakes! It isn't about an intergalactic dark star obliterator! :laughing: I am not ahead here and I don't seem capable of quitting!

 

[Hodsta]

Last night I walked back 5 miles from the pub with 5 friends along an unlit
canal path, using the Mule I could light the way for eveybody without pointing the light in any particular direction.

I still carried an S27C for distance lighting as, like many folks around here, I'm scared of the dark and like to see what's hiding in the distance.

2 lights all bases. The Mule though is the common denominator in any of my 2 torch combos.

If I'm only carrying one light then it is the TiPD-S because it is kick *** and tactical:nana:.

 

[270winchester]

that's a whole lot of money in lights for a walk to the bar!!!

Last night I walked back 5 miles from the pub with 5 friends along an unlit
canal path, using the Mule I could light the way for eveybody without pointing the light in any particular direction.

I still carried an S27C for distance lighting as, like many folks around here, I'm scared of the dark and like to see what's hiding in the distance.

2 lights all bases. The Mule though is the common denominator in any of my 2 torch combos.

If I'm only carrying one light then it is the TiPD-S because it is kick *** and tactical:nana:.

 

[Hodsta]

that's a whole lot of money in lights for a walk to the bar!!!

:welcome:

 

[KenAnderson]

I've been using a number of flash floods for sometime even before the Mule came along. Mags without reflectors, Aleph A19 without reflector, mini-mags without reflector... The Mule provided two levels and more light and compact size and high quality and a wider beam in Ti non the less. A very desireable package. However, I find that the Mule low is not much value in bright ambient light where I need to ilum shadowed areas, here I need the Mule high or a PD on low. If I'm doing alot of daytime shinning, I carry a non-Mule PD. I find myself carrying both a Mule and a PD-S (20 or 27) for best covering all the bases.

 

[mchlwise]

Interesting discussion.

I'm in the camp with Mossyoak and GreenLED. I prefer throw and collimation over pure flood.

I disagree with the implication that those that prefer throw and dislike flood are "uneducated". :green:

A couple months ago, I bought a JetBeam Jet-u. It's a small single AAA light with a Seoul emitter and a teeny almost non-existant reflector. This results in a VERY floody beam, with an almost non-existant hotspot.

I didn't like it. I don't like wasting my money so I tried to adapt to it, but just didn't find it useful for what I normally use a flashlight for.

So I bought a Fenix L0DR80 as soon as it was available, and then a Fenix L0DCE, and far prefer both of them to the Jetbeam. I don't remember the lumen ratings anymore, but I believe that the Jetbeam may actually put out more light, but it puts it out everywhere, and I prefer the Fenix's "traditional" beam pattern.

I can't be considered "uneducated" when I own a flood and a thrower and simply prefer the thrower over the flood.

All that being said...

I can see where a simple flood light like the Mule would be of great use... in certain situations. I read and thoroughly enjoyed the thread where the Mule was used in Yosemite. I can see where hiking at night would almost REQUIRE a flood only light, and a light with spot would be very difficult to use in that circumstance. Camping would be similar. So would very close-up work, among I'm sure many other uses.

But I don't think flood will ever replace throw.

I think the reason for this is how our eyes work. Look straight ahead. Heck, look at the screen you're reading! Don't move your eyes, just pay attention to what is around whatever point you are looking at. If I pick a letter and focus on it, I can still see clearly and focused the letters in the line above and below. Maybe a line above and below that But within 4 or 5 lines, the letters start to blur out. Things become out of focus, and are just rough shapes and colors. Basically, my vision is a focused "collimated" hot-spot, with less focused floody side-spill out to the sides.

I believe that the traditional focused flashlight beam matches our eyesight pretty well, which is why it has persisted for lo these many years since the flashlight was invented.

Sometimes, in some situations, it's more desireable to hold a floody light still, and move your eye's focus around in it. More commonly, (I think) it is desireable to move a more throwy light's focus around with your eye's focus and see a small area brightly than a large area dimly. This can eventually be overcome with enough light, such as using a propane lantern when camping, but our handheld LEDs don't quite put out that much light yet.

My very most favorite light right now is my Fenix P3D. It's got a very bright hot-spot, a large useable spill which illuminates the periphery, and a "low" low, so I don't burn my neighboring diner's face (unless I want to).

 

[iconoclast]

...
using the Mule I could light the way for eveybody without pointing the light in any particular direction.

I still carried an S27C for distance lighting
...
2 lights all bases.

...
I find myself carrying both a Mule and a PD-S (20 or 27) for best covering all the bases.

Hmmm.... It seems that there's a common need emerging here. A flashlight that has a collimated beam for throw, but also has a second setting for flood uses.
Since McGizmo has done such a great job with these individually (both of the quoted posts indicate McGizmo lights for each of these uses) then perhaps he'll create the perfect combination light. You know, something that takes a more traditional reflector, and adds a flood ability by using multiple (let's say six perhaps) smaller leds around the outer edge. With the appropriate McGizmo wizardry, it could probably all fit in about the same profile head as an S27. In titanium of course.
Oh well, just an idle thought.

 

[tino_ale]

I'm sure there is a bunch of people on CPF that are very interrested, or curious, about the Mule concept but just couldn't afford one because it was made of Ti.

Once a cheaper no-reflector well designed flashlight comes out (could be an Al Mule ) it will sell very well I would bet.

Another thing I would like to point out: the no-optic-at-all concept is not new, it has been done before in mods, but somehow didn't draw much attention at the time. The thing with the Mule is Don packed the concept in a great host, basically a Ti-PD... made out of Ti, it could only draw attention and with Don's record on CPF, it suddennly became very credible and people started to consider it more seriously.

That doesn't lower Don's merit in any for designing a great flashlight, promoting improvement and better illumination tools through this well picked concept.

 

[Hodsta]

Hmmm.... It seems that there's a common need emerging here. A flashlight that has a collimated beam for throw, but also has a second setting for flood uses.
Since McGizmo has done such a great job with these individually (both of the quoted posts indicate McGizmo lights for each of these uses) then perhaps he'll create the perfect combination light. You know, something that takes a more traditional reflector, and adds a flood ability by using multiple (let's say six perhaps) smaller leds around the outer edge. With the appropriate McGizmo wizardry, it could probably all fit in about the same profile head as an S27. In titanium of course.
Oh well, just an idle thought.

I totally agree - that could be a great concept - kind of like having the sun and the moon in one light. I bet that is a long way off though so I'll stick with my combo.