My 10.75" TigerLight

[flashlightlens]

My 10.75\" TigerLight

There were a four things that always bugged me about my TigerLight.

1) The o-ring that seals the bezel ring to the head of the light. The stock setup on mine had the o-ring squished and exposed. There were many discussions in the past on how some thought they used the wrong size o-ring, or what the purpose of this design was. Frankly, I have no clue why it was designed this way. The more traditional (and reliable, in my opinion) design would be to have the bezel ring cover the o-ring completely as it screwed down. I know that some of the newer 8" designs were supposed to be this way, but I never heard if they made it out the door or not. Here's what mine looks like now:

To do this, I simply cut a notch so an 033 o-ring would snug in right under the bezel.

2) The gold ring...... I underdstand how this might match the fashion stylings of our LEO's and such, but it just not for me. Not to mention the font used to write "TigerLight" on the band. It just wasn't sitting right with me. So I got rid of it.

The head is held onto the barrel by a glue which is apparently commonly used in aircraft assembly. A little heat and some muscle broke it loose pretty easily. The barrel was re-threaded and shortened. I'll seal it back up with an epoxy or adhesive of some sort.

3) All of the modifications to the head assembly pretty much FORCED me to address my third dislike of the original design - The lens setup. Those who have stock TL's with the plastic lens can check me on this. Push on the lens and see if it moves. I could push my lens in quite a bit, therefore breaking any type of water seal it had. This is due to a combination of things - the o-ring issue above, and also the way the lamp assembly sat on a rubber hose (I'll get to that next..). There was a gap between the lens and the top of the head. The only thing keeping it from flopping around was the pressure put on it by the LA. I chose, again, to use a traditional design. I cut a channel in the back of the bezel ring to accomodate an 034 o-ring. NOTE: This setup is specifically sized to use one of my UCL-SI lenses that has a rubber gasket around it.

The o-ring is slightly too large for the application, but with a little love, it fits great and stays put.

4) The sprinkler head mod... The stock rubber hose as a shock isolation system for the LA..... I'm not a fan of it. I think it provides little flexibility and therefore provides little shock isolation. Being that my light was not 1/4" shorter, I had to either trim the rubber hose down, or find an alternative. I looked down from my workbench and saw the answer - sitting in a drawer full of sprinkler parts. A spring. I trimmed about 1.5" off of this one to make it the perfect fit.

The light now has an outstanding water tight seal on the head, the lens is rock solid, the gold band (bling) is gone, and since it's .25" shorter, it fits better in my pocket. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[SilverFox]

Re: My 10.75\" TigerLight

Hello Chris,

Interesting...

Tom

 

[js]

Re: My 10.75\" TigerLight

OK. Let's start with number 1. I agree. The bezel/body o-ring is a real pain. It is a -35 standard o-ring, 1/16 " nominal thickness. It is too large and snakes out of position and gets pinched when tightening down the bezel. This requires some care and attention to push in the arrant bights of o-ring until all of it is safely under the bezel. However that may be, I have always been able to turn my bezel all the way down until it contacted the head of the light. Perhaps this is due to a shorter hose? I'm not sure why yours does not do this.

On to some hard numbers: I measured the channel spacing between the bezel and head via two different methods. For the first I measured the o.d. of the bezel (2.402) and subtracted the thickness (.046 times two = .092) to get 2.310 i.d. The other method was to measure directly and I got 2.305. Then I measured the o.d. of the head and got 2.168 or 2.169. Do the math and you get a spacing of just about .068 to .071. Now the actual thickness of a -35 o-ring is .070 inches +/- .003. So you see that this is NOT enough of a squeeze. What makes the o-ring work to seal the bezel/head interface is that it is TOO LONG! The o.d./i.d. are not a good match for the channel at all, so it gets squeezed longitudinally, which increases its thickness just enough to provide a water seal.

Now, replace the -35 o-ring with a -34 or -33 o-ring and guess what. No seal. I know this because I tried it. I was quite baffled because a -33, -34, and -35 o-ring all have the same thickness. This is what caused me to measure the dimensions to try to find out what the heck was going on. Let us just say that this o-ring sealing method is non-conventional at the least.

So, in short, I doubt that your light is still water proof now with the -33 o-ring installed. Test it. Maybe your setup is slightly different enough so that it is water proof. Mine wasn't.

I also tried a 3/32 thickness o-ring that was way too small in i.d. in the hopes that stretching it would thin it enough to make a good fit. Ixnay on the stretching-nay. I got a quote for making up custom o-rings: $300 for a thousand .077 thick o-ring with the same i.d. as a -34 o-ring.

Anyway, I emailed TigerLight about this and they promised to get back to me, but I never heard back. I was waiting to hear from them before posting this, but since you have brought it up, there it is.

2. I don't like the gold ring either. Good to know we can remove it and not uncover something uncouth.

3. Shortening the barrel of the light WILL NOT solve the lens-pushing-in problem that you mention. And it will only reduce the already tight spacing between the end of the molex connectors which grab the lamp leads and the top of the battery pack. In order to have a seal at the bezel/lens interface which does not move, it is necessary to have the squeeze provided between the bezel and the top of the head of the light, and not by the upward force of the reflector. This can only be accomplished by increasing the thickness of the lens or the bezel o-ring, or both.

I completely disagree with this shortening modification as it will likely mean your bi-pin lamp leads get bent over and possibly break from repetitve bending fatigue.

I have never had this pushing-in problem while using one of your excellent TL UCL (non SI) lenses. To prove this, simply remove the rubber hose and lamp assembly entirely and turn on the bezel with UCL installed. You should find that it gets squeezed nicely between the bezel o-ring and the head of the light.

The SI UCL is another matter. That is TOO thick and I have posted on this subject in your SI UCL thread in the Dealer's Forum.

Which brings me to your solution of the matter, which I really like. That is what the bezel needs: an o-ring channel to keep a thinner, 1/16", o-ring in place as the bezel is tightened down. Nice. I'd love to have more details: dimensions, machining method, etc.

3. Hmm. A spring instead of a rubber hose. Neat. Why not? The only issue I can see is a selfish one. It means that I would have to provide a hard end cap for my custom TL KAN 1800 packs. What are you doing to me, Chris?! I thought I had my design finalized.

Actually, now that I think of it, when dropped head first from a height, I doubt that this little spring would stop the battery pack from completely mashing in the bi-pin lamp leads. I'd say the rubber hose is a much better performer for this situation.

 

[flashlightlens]

Re: My 10.75\" TigerLight

[ QUOTE ]
js said:
So, in short, I doubt that your light is still water proof now with the -33 o-ring installed. Test it. Maybe your setup is slightly different enough so that it is water proof. Mine wasn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you overlooked all of the other machining that was done to the head. I can assure you this TL is more waterproof that any other TL on the face of the earth. You mentioned the UCL-SI was a little too thick. This coupled with the smaller o-ring, the channel that I cut, and the overall decrease in the gap between the head and bezel because of the other o-ring mod make it VERY tight. There is absolutely NO play in my lens and when screwing the bezel down, there is A LOT of pressure on the lens gasket and 033 rubber. There is also adequate pressure on the o-ring under the bezel toward the back of the head (the one that is now concealed).


[ QUOTE ]
js said:
Shortening the barrel of the light WILL NOT solve the lens-pushing-in problem that you mention.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I didn't mean that only shortening the barrel would fix this. I was simply stating that all of the previous mods led me to the next step, which was addressing the lens issue. I edited the post to be more specific. The problem doesn't exist with the UCL-SI, because it is that much thicker. I was mostly comparing to the stock setup - plastic lens and stock o-rings. Shortening and rethreading the barrel was necessary after the removal of the gold ring. Advantage or not, it was the only way to remove the ring. I had also thought about just removing the ring and putting something else in place of it, like a Ti ring or something made of rubber. Doing the whole thing over, I would have opted for not shortening it and just replacing the ring with something else.

My opinion on the bent pins is this: I've bent mine A LOT and they're actually really resistant to breakage. My thought was that the light won't be disassembled more than a few times, so once they get bent the one or two times, they'll survive.

The spring was kind of an afterthought. A higher tension unit is definitely in order, as you said. I was just getting lazy toward the end of the project and wanted to get it finished with what I had laying around.

As for dimensions on the o-ring channel? I kind of did it trial and error on this one. I pulled that bezel off of the chuck probably 4 times before I was satisfied with the cut.

All in all, my mods can probably be tweeked a little more, but they're without a doubt, better than stock. Thanks for the review, Jim.

 

[js]

Re: My 10.75\" TigerLight

[ QUOTE ]
flashlightlens.com said:
[ QUOTE ]
js said:
So, in short, I doubt that your light is still water proof now with the -33 o-ring installed. Test it. Maybe your setup is slightly different enough so that it is water proof. Mine wasn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you overlooked all of the other machining that was done to the head. I can assure you this TL is more waterproof that any other TL on the face of the earth. You mentioned the UCL-SI was a little too thick. This coupled with the smaller o-ring, the channel that I cut, and the overall decrease in the gap between the head and bezel because of the other o-ring mod make it VERY tight. There is absolutely NO play in my lens and when screwing the bezel down, there is A LOT of pressure on the lens gasket and 033 rubber. There is also adequate pressure on the o-ring under the bezel toward the back of the head (the one that is now concealed).

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris,

I'm sure I must have, because I'm still confused as to where and how you placed this o-ring. From the picture it looks as if it is right near where the old bezel/body o-ring was. Is this correct? Where is it? Is it right in the top of the head ring where it contacts the lens? Or what? Because I can't understand how removing material can narrow the channel spacing to make a 1/16" thick o-ring provide a squeeze. Are you still making the seal between the inside cylindrical surface of the bezel and the outside cylindrical surface of the head, or what? Sorry if I'm being slow but I need more explanation or a more obvious picture.

 

[flashlightlens]

Re: My 10.75\" TigerLight

This o-ring sits right where it used to, it's just a smaller diameter. It used to sit on a ledge and be squished between the bezel and head - so it was still visible. I cut the ledge down and now the bezel has clearance to go over the o-ring.

Sorry about the blurry closeup, but does this help?

 

[js]

Re: My 10.75\" TigerLight

[ QUOTE ]
flashlightlens.com said:
This o-ring sits right where it used to, it's just a smaller diameter. It used to sit on a ledge and be squished between the bezel and head - so it was still visible. I cut the ledge down and now the bezel has clearance to go over the o-ring.

Sorry about the blurry closeup, but does this help?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually, it makes things more mysterious! First of all, you stated that you are using a -33 o-ring to snug under the bezel and seal between the head and the bezel. In my TigerLight this space is not only not too small (such that the o-ring would still be exposed), but in point of fact it is too LARGE, so that a -33 o-ring will definitely go completely under the bezel but will also not be making contact with the bezel at all!

The answer MUST be that I have one of these "newer" design 8" TigerLights that you refer to. That's got to be it. I wish that my "old level" was actually too large in o.d. so that I could turn it down to a "new level" which made for a good squeeze on a -33 or -34 o-ring.

Interesting. So that still leaves the problem of the bezel/head o-ring for many TL owners. Aparently, some of the TL's have too much of a squeeze required in this interface, and others too little of a squeeze (or none at all) required. That would also explain why I have always been able to turn my bezel all the way down so that no o-ring was showing. My bezel has always looked like your first picture in your first post above.

I suppose I could use a 3/32" thick o-ring of the proper i.d. and cut the o-ring groove until I had the right fit, just as you did.

Also, I had a question: what did you use to reseal the threads when putting the head back on the body? Thread Locker or teflon tape or plumbers putty or what? And something you said implied that you had to change the length of the light because you took off the gold ring. Why? Or was it that you had to take off the head in order to remove the gold ring and wanted to change the length while you were there?

And finally, where does this leave the issue of the Shock Isolated UCL's for the TigerLight? What can the average Joe do to obtain the best fit with a TL SI UCL? At the moment, for use with the stock LA, the best I can come up with is to remove the bezel o-ring, and allow the LA to push the lens gasket against the bezel, thus sealing that interface. But as you point out, pushing in on the lens would then compromise the water resistance. Any ideas on a solution for this? Could you offer TL bezel modding to those who mail their bezels to you? Risky business I suppose. In any case, I really like the SI UCL's, but why not offer both the old 55 mm non-SI UCL's (which seal just fine with the stock setup and do not suffer from the push-in problem) as well as the SI UCL's, which work great with no bezel o-ring and a SL-35X lamp module. Also, presumably a Sl-20X lamp module, although I haven't tried it.

 

[flashlightlens]

Re: My 10.75\" TigerLight

Jim,
This might help out a little. Here's a picture of the stock 11" TL on the left and my modified unit on the right. You can see where the gold band used to be and why the barrel is now shorter. This should also answer your question about the mystery o-ring. I think you probably own one of the newer 8" units, like you said.

The head isn't actaully glued on yet. The stock threads are REALLY thin and don't really match up well. My threads are a little better, so the glue isn't a real concern yet, as I don't use it heavily. I'll glue it before I take it out into the real world.

As far as the o-ring/lens/squeeze issue - I've been really successful at getting an 034 o-ring to fit in front of the lens. It wants to "caterpillar" up when you try to put it in place, but if you use two fingers and take your time, it's quite easy to get it to lie down. This reduces the gap and seems to make the UCL-SI fit a lot better. It looks really good on mine. It's tight and is a tremendous improvement over stock.

 

[js]

Re: My 10.75\" TigerLight

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the o-ring/lens/squeeze issue - I've been really successful at getting an 034 o-ring to fit in front of the lens. It wants to "caterpillar" up when you try to put it in place, but if you use two fingers and take your time, it's quite easy to get it to lie down. This reduces the gap and seems to make the UCL-SI fit a lot better. It looks really good on mine. It's tight and is a tremendous improvement over stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent. That's really great. So, you mean a -34 and not a -33, right? You mean the o-ring that's a bit too large, rather than the o-ring that's a bit too small, right? I can make a -33 o-ring work pretty well, and I have a stock flat inside bezel face, but I will try a -34 o-ring. I put it in once and thought it was simply too large to work, but I'll give it another go. Of course, an o-ring channel and thus a lip to prevent the o-ring from catterpillaring out is the real solution.

Or what about making the SI UCL thinner? I mean, you had breakage problems before and IIRC you went to a thicker UCL in order to solve this, but now with the SI gasket, perhaps you could go to a thinner lens and still be fine? I have my doubts about whether this would make enough of a difference, but just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[flashlightlens]

Re: My 10.75\" TigerLight

Jim - I just got a mess of 54mm lenses for the UCL-SI system. Oddly enough (not by request, trust me), they are about .0725" thick instead of the .0815" previously used. I threw one in a brand new 11" I have with the stock o-ring setup and it seems to be a nice tight fit. What do you think? Does this jive with your measurements?

 

[js]

Re: My 10.75\" TigerLight

I don't have my Tiger in front of my, but I was just looking at the numbers this morning, and, IIRC, yes, it does jive. Excellent. Very good. Does this mean that the SI UCL's will be on the website soon? I have been eager to get some more, as I sold mine to S4MadMan.