*NEW* Maratac AAA Titanium

[Thetasigma]

Well, I received my Ti AAA Maratac and overall I am pleased.

Initial impression was that, particularly without a battery, the whole light feels rather like a plastic toy due to the light weight, actually I swear the battery is much heavier than the light. I may be biased though as I like brass lights for EDC. First thing I did was clean up the threads and test them, and being that this is my first Ti light, I was unprepared for how ungodly awful the threads are. With further inspection I found that the threads themselves are machined almost as nicely as my Brass Maratac or Brass Eiger, however the galling nature of Ti lends a nails on chalkboard feel of grittiness, which grease does nothing to alleviate and I am hoping that they smooth out a little with use per comments above.
The overall finish appears to be machine finished, no polishing or other finishing appears to have been done. This lends a very grippy matte feel to the light. The knurling of the light is unlike any other Maratac light I have in that the ridges of the knurling have been machined flat like the Peak Eiger's knurling, except that a slightly deeper cut has also been left on the knurling, compensating for the loss of the ridges. The result is that the knurling is less aggressive, but grippier if that makes sense.
The keychain attachment is the usual crummy Maratac ring attachment which I have never used due to reliability concerns. The clip remains the less than stellar, but still quite serviceable friction clip. Reversibility of the clip remains an option for those who like clipping their light to a hat.

Differences between the Brass and Ti Maratacs are as follows, the bevels on the head of the Brass light are deeper, leaving a more rounded edge as opposed to the shallower bevels on the Ti head. The grooves on either side of the knurling of the Ti head are a little wider where the Brass ones are narrower. The major difference however is in the head itself. The Ti head has the metal ring around the LED and what appears to be a different circuit underneath the positive terminal. Upon observation the light appears to be PWM free where the Brass uses PWM though it isn't noticeable unless you are looking for it.
Brass vs Ti, the threads are superior on the brass, no questions about it. The brass threads are silky/buttery smooth. This also means that at least for now, one handed operation of the Ti is difficult. The Ti threads are also looser than the brass with noticeable play up and down while the threads of the brass are tight and display such play.
In the my case I was a little disappointed in the tint since my Brass model has a rather nice "clean" cool white tint while the Ti model has a slight purple tinge though not nearly as bad as my Stainless AA model.

Overall it seems like a nice light for the money, particularly in Ti. Light weight and should hold up fine to normal EDC use.
If deciding between the Ti and Brass I would say that unless you are a weight/Ti freak or can live with the PWM, that the Brass is the better option due to the lower price, superior threads, and lower visibility of scratches.
Hope this helps some.

Lights shown below: Maratac AAA Ti and Brass, Peak Eiger w/ Prometheus Clip & narrow NW head, Maratac AA Stainless w/9x8 Turkshead in .9mm

Note the different circuits under the positive terminal.

The different bevels and the metal ring in the Ti head are visible here.

 

[snowlover91]

Great write up on the differences between this and the brass model. It's good news that they're switching circuits that are PWM free, I know jon_slider posted that his copper one was the same way and my titanium model is also which is good to see. Excellent pics also! What would you say lumen output looks like?

I would suggest using some type of anti-galling lube on the threads or if you can obtain it, "superlube." I got mine from Amazon, it's great stuff and use it for all my lights and o-rings. I had read on several forums that it also worked very well with titanium and found it does work well. As you described mine had the super gritty/sandpaper feel initially. Until I put the superlube on it didn't improve but since then the more I use it the better it works. It seems to do a good job preventing the galling since it's a thicker lubricant.

 

[leviathan80]

I'm actually surprised that the Ti Maratac AAA is getting such positive reviews. I have the aluminum aaa and really love it. I was super excited when I saw that they released a Titanium version and immediately ordered one. While I think it looks great, the overall feel of the Titanium version doesn't doesn't do it for me. Specifically, the grittiness of the threads ruins the overall experience of the light. I like being able to use the aluminum version with one hand... the threads are silky smooth. The Ti light just feels so crude in the hands. I know that this is the nature of the beast when it comes to Titanium, but even after using Super Lube (as others have recommended), the light simply does not feel good to use. Others have noted that the galling diminishes with use, but I have not noticed it after a week of minimal use. The one positive that has come from this is that I love the aluminum light even more.

Has anybody else figured out a way to reduce the gritty feeling?

 

[snowlover91]

The only other way I've heard of is by using some anti-seize compound which is specifically designed to prevent the galling of titanium. I used a very generous portion on the threads, completely covered them all the way around and they're much better after using it some. One other option may be to swap the heads with a stainless steel or aluminum one, in other words use the aluminum head of the Maratac on the titanium and vice versa. That may work by preventing the galling and give good results. Otherwise I might try some anti seize compound if you have some or can get some for a good price. I was going to try some but the superlube worked well enough for me so I didn't need to try.

 

[2ac]

I initially cleaned my treads with alcohol and lubed with pure silicon grease. It helped and I could operate with one hand, but it was still a bit gritty. I just cleaned the threads again and applied Anti-Sieze this time. It definitely helped and is much easier to operate.
But galling still exists, just how Ti is. You'll have to learn to live with it.

 

[chillinn]

lubed with pure silicon grease.

FYI Maratac uses silicone O-rings. Also, silicon is the 14th element on the Periodic Table of the Elements.

 

[RI Chevy]

Very interested in this light. I also have the Thrunite Ti Ti.

 

[Str8stroke]

In order to improve the thread a little: I clean the OEM lube off. I use a brass brush, not much bigger than a too brush to work the threads. I also like to take about the battery and twist it a bazillion times with no lube. Then brass brush again. Then clean, then dielectric grease (nyogel). It seems to help. But I also know it will never be like Aluminum. Not to mention for this price range, I can only expect decent machining tolerances.
Also, I found that there are is a sharp edge around the tail end. I worked that smooth very gently with a ceramic rod. You could use the bottom of a ceramic coffee mug or plate too. Just remove the clip first. This makes the light feel much better in the hand.

 

[chillinn]

I just reveived a Maratac Rev3.5, in copper, and thought I'd share my impression. No sign of PWM on any mode. 🙂 The knurling is far less aggressive than either the Cu Rev2 or Cu Rev3. Perhaps the light was hand finished to be more smooth, but I noticed immediately that it was neither as bighty nor as glisteny or micro-surfaced. The knurl on Rev2 and Rev3 Maratacs is a diamond pattern with a dot. The Rev3.5 is missing the dot, and has been buffed pretty smooth, no sharp knurling at all, not unlike the knurling on Thrunite Ti/Tis. Also, though I can't be accurate about the brightness, the runtimes on Rev.3.5 are reduced compared to Rev2 and Rev3. I got about 45 minutes on a fresh eneloop before the light begins to completely die, and blink with cell with low voltage, but probably reached half-light by 35 minutes. The Rev2, in comparison gave me 80 mins before the blinky death, and Rev3 gave me 70 minutes. In my experience, the Rev2 red worm driver had the longest runtimes. Looks like there is a pattern emerging... more lumuns = less runtime.

 

[jon_slider]

apologies for the CuTac HiJack, hope the TiTacs dont mind

I just reveived a Maratac Rev3.5, in copper, and thought I'd share my impression. No sign of PWM on any mode. 🙂 The knurling is far less aggressive than either the Cu Rev2 or Cu Rev3. Perhaps the light was hand finished to be more smooth, but I noticed immediately that it was neither as bighty nor as glisteny or micro-surfaced. The knurl on Rev2 and Rev3 Maratacs is a diamond pattern with a dot. The Rev3.5 is missing the dot, and has been buffed pretty smooth, no sharp knurling at all, not unlike the knurling on Thrunite Ti/Tis. Also, though I can't be accurate about the brightness, the runtimes on Rev.3.5 are reduced compared to Rev2 and Rev3. I got about 45 minutes on a fresh eneloop before the light begins to completely die, and blink with cell with low voltage, but probably reached half-light by 35 minutes. The Rev2, in comparison gave me 80 mins before the blinky death, and Rev3 gave me 70 minutes. In my experience, the Rev2 red worm driver had the longest runtimes. Looks like there is a pattern emerging... more lumuns = less runtime.

excellent comments
congrats on the No PWM, does your LED have the centering ring? I believe the Titanium Maratacs are 3.5 versions, no PWM and centering ring yes.

very fine observation that the knurling has changed. I concurr looking at a rev3 and rev 3.5 copper beside me

I had a Copper Lumintop, and the Maratac 3.5 is just slightly brighter, per specs, on high.. agree, no free lunch, thanks for the runtime tests

My Copper Maratac 3.5 is almost one hand ready. It came way too tight to do that. Ive been working in some Nano lube. Also changed the spring to a softer one, in hopes of easing resistance from the battery..

I love the threads on the Copper, buttery smooth, its the O ring thats tight.. Sometimes I run the light without an O ring, just to make it easy to turn one handed, but then I miss the idea of being water resistant, and put the O ring back.

as far as runtime
I think the Medium default mode on the Maratac is very practical. Bright enough for many things without having to go to High. I have other lights whose Medium mode is so low, 10 lumens, that I end up using high instead, and burning through batteries, as you said, in less than an hour.

I use Eneloops and carry spares in other small lights. I also bought one of CountyComm's Delrin Battery Lockers.. I like it, though still think carrying a spare light makes about more sense..

I think the Maratacs have some very useful light levels and modes, I just want one in N219. But it wont be as bright.. no free lunch..

btw, the Maratac 3.5 head wont light on my Maratac 3.0 body, though the 3.0 head lights on the 3.5 body. Also the 3.5 weighs just slightly more, about 1 gram, rounded up..

Im still hoping the Tool Head with N219 will Lego to my Maratac 3.5 body.. waiting for the Group Buy Copper Tool to arrive… Today is the last day for those that have not heard

 

[chillinn]

apologies for the CuTac HiJack, hope the TiTacs dont mind

ditto. I was on the fence about starting a new thread. A search revealed no specific Cu3.5 threads, but because the Rev. 3.5 driver is the same, hoped that would keep my reply to this thread relevant. As we know, CountyComm silently introduced the (unofficially named) Rev. 3.5 non-PWM driver with their new Maratac Ti and a refresh of the Cu, without acknowledging the driver revision. I can only presume that the new Ti and new Cu are, but for materials, identical hosts, but the new Cu host is not the same as the Rev.3 Cu host, nor Rev.2 Cu host. It looks more like pictures I've seen of the Rev.1. So its notable that Maratac hosts change slightly between revisions, along with the more obvious driver changes.

does your LED have the centering ring?

yes

for the runtime tests

anacdotal, mind you... not firm, but I am reasonably confident the Rev.3.5 driver on constant high mode does not push the cell life as far as the pwm-Rev.3, nor non-PWM Rev.2. Revs.3&3.5 are claimed to be 138lm, Rev.2 118lm. They're slicing up how they use the energy available in the cell. I wouldn't complain about reduced high runtime on 3.5 compared to 3, because I've gained lower modes I can enjoy using, but I suspect others might not care as much about PWM on lower modes, and prefer the longer running Rev.3.

The question is "do you want a slightly brighter light for slightly less runtime?" This is well planned marketing. "Brighter" is an easier concept to work with, looks better on paper, when growing their brand. How would they market "its slightly dimmer, but its lasting longer!" CountyComm, interestingly, claims to listen to their rabid customer demands (but I can't believe the M-L-H choice was by customer demands for it), and losing the PWM driver appears to be correllated with what we'd expect... so maybe if I drummed up enough interest here and elsewhere for a re-release of the Rev.2 line, they might do it.

Different people use lights differently, so its basically one product they're trying to make everyone happy with... but, won't hear any complaints from me about Rev.3.5 runtimes.

I miss Rev.2, because 20 more lumens stole 10 minutes of runtime (in the moonlight mode of the cell, so its arguable about how useful that dwindling light is at the cells end).

Looks like the Rev3.5 gives us efficient L and M modes without PWM (if published runtimes have not changed) at the expense of a slightly less efficient H. I can't say this for certain, just my initial impression.

But I also am fond of the Nichia 219b, which takes a bite out of stock runtimes and brightness. So a 219b on Rev.3.5 should reduce brightless and runtime even more. :/

We need more efficient Hi CRI emitters. There, I said it. That's what we need now.

 

[snowlover91]

I actually like the MLH order of operation. Most of the time I use the medium mode which is plenty for most tasks. Not having to twist the light one or two more times to get to a useful brightness is great especially with the titanium version since its threads aren't quite as smooth.

Ive considered swapping the stock LED with a Nichia 219c. It should give similar output (supposed to be nearly identical to neutral xp-g2) but higher CRI and warmer light.

 

[chillinn]

I actually like the MLH order of operation. Most of the time I use the medium mode which is plenty for most tasks. Not having to twist the light one or two more times to get to a useful brightness is great especially with the titanium version since its threads aren't quite as smooth.

It can only be one way, and it is a rational compromise, especially considering it is intended as a general purpose keychain light, not necessarily a tactical light. Many who have been vocal about their preference for L-M-H explain that any other UI sequence destroys night accustomed vision trying to get to the L mode, and I am mostly in that camp.

What I am skeptical of is not whether people like it or not as M-L-H, but that the claim M-L-H was specifically implemented "AFTER THOUSANDS OF REQUEST." Conjecture warning. My gut feeling says the sellers chose the UI because it was what was available, and marketed this feature the way they did after the fact, and there were never literally thousands of M-L-H fanatics. I think there are none, in fact, and that phrasing is pure marketspeak from their salesforce. There are only those that like this UI because it makes some sense, is more convenient in most situtations a keychain light is casually used, and is unlike L-M-H in that regard which does have fanatical devotion. Don't mess with those guys. For my own not-as-popular purposes (I should be using larger lights, nuff sed), I'd prefer L-M-H, but I no longer mind as much as I did mind about the original Rev.3 because the first mode used PWM, and now it does not.

Ive considered swapping the stock LED with a Nichia 219c. It should give similar output (supposed to be nearly identical to neutral xp-g2) but higher CRI and warmer light.

That sounds like a great idea. I think there is too much information to digest, regarding emitter swaps, and I relied CPF members who went before and lived to tell about it, and I'm happy with the results. Everyone raved about Nichia 219a/219b and I bit and love it. 219c is different... seems to be chosen for lights with more power than 219b can handle, but from the shots I've seen, 219 b&c are not as alike as 219 a&b are. I'm gearing up to get more info on warm emitters more efficient than the Nichia 219, but maybe not as hi CRI, but maybe... idk. I think the 219b went over great, but maybe Cree or Oshram or whomever has emitters that do compete well with the 219c.

My confidence in my preferences are shaken a bit by the trade off I experience with the 219b, which is awesome illumination, just need it to last twice as long as it does on a cell, which Cree options seem to be able to do for less CRI and cooler tints. So, I guess I'm looking for options as neutral or warmer and more efficient than 219b, now, and haven't heard as much about 219c, just what I can see in beamshots... for me its not as attractive as 219b was compared to other non-Nichia emitters. So far. Jury still out, really.

 

[snowlover91]

I guess it comes down to user preference, I actually prefer the M-L-H sequence because I rarely use the low mode at all and if I do need to maintain my night vision I'll just press the light against something and quickly switch the mode from medium to low. That way my night vision isn't ruined and it gets the job done. However I find since mine is attached to my keychain that I almost always need either M or H mode instead. At night when I'm at home I use a different flashlight, my ZL SC62w, for those purposes.

There certainly aren't many efficient warm/neutral emitters available in high cri although it does look like Cree and others are working towards that. It will probably be another 2-3 years before we have a wide variety of them, I think as the market demand increases for higher cri emitters then the big companies like Cree will invest more R&D into refining them.

 

[jon_slider]

Everyone raved about Nichia 219a/219b and I bit and love it. 219c is different

I think the difference is in the CRI details (I could be underinformed these are just my impressions from the internet)
The 219a was offered as a 4500K 90CRI
The 219b was offered as a 4500K 92CRI, and there seems to be a 4000K 90CRI offering as well
The 219c is only available in 5000K 80CRI at the moment

When I wanted a 90 CRI XPL, I had to go down to 3000K. My 6000K XPL is only 70CRI

the trend I see is, as CRI goes up, Kelvin goes down

conversely, going to 5000K, means being limited to 80CRI

as far as on topic, our Maratacs are in 6000K and 70CRI territory (tested Rev 3, have not tested Rev 3.5, but seem similarly cool to my eye) matching most XPG2 typical offerings in the single AAA consumer market, that is driven by…. BRIGHTNESS

no free lunch 🙂 increasing CRI reduces Brightness

Ive started carrying two lights, one is a Maratac 3.5 with stock XPG2, for when I need more brightness, like looking under the car during the day
too dim:

too blue but brighter and shows more details

the other is a Maratac modified to a 90 CRI XPG 3000K, that is better suited to making my hand not look like a cadaver's
High CRI shows reds better:

Low CRI is not sexy.. lol

 

[chillinn]

I guess it comes down to user preference, I actually prefer the M-L-H sequence because

I bet there are countless individuals that prefer it. I just don't think they take the time to write CountyComm about their disappointment in 2 mode L-H or 3 mode L-M-H. M first makes sense as a UI in this keychain/general utility space, it splits the difference between brightness and runtime, so why not? My lame point was that you prefer it... but you're not emotional or fanatical about it. Its merely your choice, not the end of the world, like it is for some (I feel their pain), just pointing out that the M-L-H camp seem more easy going and reasonable, while the L-M-H camp are not in any way irrational, per se, just more extreme, in their desire and devotion to their ideology or specific task/need/intent. M-L-H nails the general use category. But I think the special use category gets all the love.

 

[bartko09]

Has anyone actually tried to get the pill out yet? I've rebuilt a few Maratac AAAs, none of which had glue, but this pill feels stubborn so I backed off until I could find more info on what I'm dealing with.

 

[snowlover91]

I bet there are countless individuals that prefer it. I just don't think they take the time to write CountyComm about their disappointment in 2 mode L-H or 3 mode L-M-H. M first makes sense as a UI in this keychain/general utility space, it splits the difference between brightness and runtime, so why not? My lame point was that you prefer it... but you're not emotional or fanatical about it. Its merely your choice, not the end of the world, like it is for some (I feel their pain), just pointing out that the M-L-H camp seem more easy going and reasonable, while the L-M-H camp are not in any way irrational, per se, just more extreme, in their desire and devotion to their ideology or specific task/need/intent. M-L-H nails the general use category. But I think the special use category gets all the love.

Actually for me it is. I was specifically looking for a twisty AAA light which either started on medium or had mode memory. The Maratac was the best option for me and I passed on many other twisty AAA lights simply because they started in low versus medium. I will not buy one that starts in low because I don't need it, I need medium as that's what I use 99% of the time and thus why it's important for me to have it start in medium. Sure not everyone uses lights the same way I do but I can tell you that the average consumer will want the brighter mode first, medium, instead of always having to go through low to get to it. Those who I've bought keychain lights like this for always use the medium or high and never the low mode, it's useless and in the way to them.

I do agree that the L-M-H does have a following and I'm sure many on here would write to let them know and they might even listen, who knows? However I do think they chose M first since that's probably what sells better and what more people prefer. For me I have to have medium for my usage and if not I would not buy another Maratac until they changed it back, or if they gave it mode memory (which btw would be awesome). What I would love to see is mode memory with the L-M-H setup. That way people like me who use medium just turn it on and use the medium mode like usual and then those who like to start in low can just leave it in the low setting so it always starts there. Best of both worlds!

Regarding the removal of the pill, it is quite easy. Mine has two small circular holes you can put some needle nose tweezers into and it unscrews right out. The emitter for the swap would need to be reflowed onto the existing copper board as its a unique design with two "wings" that stick out into the pill to prevent the led star from moving when it's twisted on/off. If you don't reflow it onto this original one I imagine it would cause issues with led centering and other things as well. Mine didn't seem to have any glue, it took a little force but nothing extreme.

 

[chillinn]

Sure not everyone uses lights the same way I do but I can tell you that the average consumer will want the brighter mode first, medium, instead of always having to go through low to get to it.

I agree. That's the general case, I think most usage examples for this light will fit that pattern, thus it would be the defacto "most popular," and we don't need to take a flashaholic vote because by and large most flashlights are being consumed and operated by the unenlightened, non-flashaholic, "norms," who likely would be stunned that CPF exists.

As far as your quest for M-L-H, they're harder not to find, in my experience, for the last 2 years at least in the AAA form-factor, this most recent past "generation" of drivers in this size, most brands that had new AAA lights seemed to choose M-L-H (and PWM, incidently), and the previous gen of drivers seemed to be mostly 2-mode non-PWM, not just Maratac, but Lumintop and a few other choices in their market. Crazy that our experience of the same market could be so opposite.

Again, my stupid point was neither if one UI was better than the other nor whether one was more popular, but that this vast M-L-H army has been pretty quiet... a silent majority... while the special case folks, in the minority, have been much more vocal, emotional and overly critical of M-L-H. Even the H-M-L folks have made more noise than those prefering M-L-H, just going by all I have sifted through CPF since joining.

But if you insist that you're fanatical about M-L-H, and it is not merely a rational preference for a general case optimized UI, then I stand corrected, --but now seems without changing you went from the popular majority (those that reasonably choose the general case) to the singular strong vocal proponent for M-L-H... not that I have read every single post in every single thread in CPF, but read enough, never seen anyone fighting for M-L-H, and the bad assumption here is that these folks are all regular and rational in all regards to general non-specific flashlight use cases, and those that champion the special use cases want a sort of use-perfection, no compromise. Chances are there are some that would never get emo about a reasonable choice that wasn't M-L-H. I'm making huge generalizations based on my pedestrian scholarship of CPF posts... so its no wonder my observations include some error.

 

[Obijuan Kenobe]

Sorry, but unlike the vast majority of CPFers, I have a very strong dislike of both rechargeable cells and lights. I have a profession where I need my lights to work. Rechargeable batteries and lights have both let me down on multiple occasions. (One time stranding me in the middle of a pitch black industrial tank-farm. Enclosed with numerous pipes sticking out a various heights. Thankfully I always carry back-ups that run on primary cells.)

How are disposable cells even relevant anymore? Maybe when Rechargeable batteries were weak and small. Or maybe for storing power for years. But otherwise, why on Earth would you even try to imply rechargeable batteries are not up to your tasks. Is your dark longer or darker than ours?

Rather, you are not up the task of using Rechargeables. One extra in your bag would have solved all your problems ever, without any need for pseudo-drama about primaries. Or choose a bigger battery.

Not to mention how environmentally, no one's flashlight aside from someone in an active theatre of war, needs to have only primaries because of reliability.

This is nothing but tough talk IMHO.

obi