ThruNite Catapult Review (SST-50): RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!

CM2010

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
243
Well ive just bought my Catapult so i'm abit cheesed off to hear there is a new version out but none the less its still a great light.
 

Jack Reacher

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
129
Location
Melbourne Australia
Well ive just bought my Catapult so i'm abit cheesed off to hear there is a new version out but none the less its still a great light.

I don't know much about this sort of stuff from a purely technical viewpoint, but will an extra 100 emitter lumens (=65 OTF lumens) make all that much difference over the "old" Catapult?

Aren't we looking at roughly 700L (old) versus 765L (new) OTF ? Not even 10%.

Although with an apparently broader hot spot.

— Jack.
 

Rod911

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
302
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Here are the details of the Catapult v2.

Personally, the things I like about v2 are as follows:

  • SS bezel. I'm hoping that these can be bought separately and fit on v1.
  • The high mode is now 3.5a compared to v1's 3.0a.

What I don't like about v2:

  • Mode switching via twist. I believe that this method no longer allows one handed operation of the light as I find it already difficult to twist the head of my v1 light with just the one hand.
  • Only two modes, a high '1000 lumen' mode and a low '250 lumen' mode. I like medium mode a lot in the v1. I find the light that this mode produce is a great balance between run-time and brightness.

At the end of the day, I would prefer v1 over v2 because of its well spaced out brightness levels and functionality.
 
Last edited:

nodoubt

Banned
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
131
Here are the details of the Catapult v2.

Personally, the things I like about v2 are as follows:

  • SS bezel. I'm hoping that these can be bought separately and fit on v1.
  • The high mode is now 3.5a compared to v1's 3.0a.

What I don't like about v2:

  • Mode switching via twist. I believe that this method no longer allows one handed operation of the light as I find it already difficult to twist the head of my v1 light with just the one hand.
  • Only two modes, a high '1000 lumen' mode and a low '250 lumen' mode. I like medium mode a lot in the v1. I find the light that this mode produce is a great balance between run-time and brightness.

At the end of the day, I would prefer v1 over v2 because of its well spaced out brightness levels and functionality.
with you 100% on the twist thing and keeping the 3 levels....just seems like a crappy way to have to adjust a 160 dollar flashlight LOOSENING the head of the thing......like how loose does it have to be..........id like to keep everything tight on a flash thats supposed to be submersible to 30 feet for several hours.......
 

Jack Reacher

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
129
Location
Melbourne Australia
What I don't like about v2:

  • Mode switching via twist. I believe that this method no longer allows one handed operation of the light as I find it already difficult to twist the head of my v1 light with just the one hand.
  • Only two modes, a high '1000 lumen' mode and a low '250 lumen' mode. I like medium mode a lot in the v1. I find the light that this mode produce is a great balance between run-time and brightness.

At the end of the day, I would prefer v1 over v2 because of its well spaced out brightness levels and functionality.

with you 100% on the twist thing and keeping the 3 levels....just seems like a crappy way to have to adjust a 160 dollar flashlight LOOSENING the head of the thing......like how loose does it have to be..........I'd like to keep everything tight on a flash that's supposed to be submersible to 30 feet for several hours.......

Yep... as an almost buyer of the Catapult, I'm disappointed that the second version has (to me at least) these shortcomings you guys have already noted.

Why did Thrunite change the original all-clicky modes? Why did they do away with any mid-level output?

I'm guessing the 250L low mode ain't gonna be low enough for a lot of people. That should've been around the "mid" level, and with an extra true low of around 12L.

The only "advantage" for me could be that it's gonna sell at the same price, so a bit more bang for your buck?

— Jack. :)
 

orbital

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
3,194
Location
WI
I don't know much about this sort of stuff from a purely technical viewpoint, but will an extra 100 emitter lumens (=65 OTF lumens) make all that much difference over the "old" Catapult?

Aren't we looking at roughly 700L (old) versus 765L (new) OTF ? Not even 10%.

Although with an apparently broader hot spot.

— Jack.

+

Please provide the source where you read the hotspot is broader,..
because the reflector has not changed for the new version.

~ Regarding the amount of twist needed to change modes,
in all the lights I'v had that twist to change modes, it's a very small amount,
....only millimeters of twisting to get from one mode to the other.
 

selfbuilt

Flashaholic
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
6,936
Location
Canada
just seems like a crappy way to have to adjust a 160 dollar flashlight LOOSENING the head of the thing......like how loose does it have to be..........id like to keep everything tight on a flash thats supposed to be submersible to 30 feet for several hours.......
There are plenty of twisty lights out there that maintain perfectly adequate waterproofness. There is a long history to show that this is not likely to be a problem - from Surefire tailcaps to Fenix, JetBeams and other head twists, etc.

It's really just a question of preference. Many prefer it because it allows true momentary signaling at the tailcap (i.e. don't have to worry about accidentally advancing modes), and there is no uncertainty as to what mode the light will come on in (i.e. no memory needed - you can tell before turning on).

To each their own ... :shrug:
 

nodoubt

Banned
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
131
There are plenty of twisty lights out there that maintain perfectly adequate waterproofness. There is a long history to show that this is not likely to be a problem - from Surefire tailcaps to Fenix, JetBeams and other head twists, etc.

It's really just a question of preference. Many prefer it because it allows true momentary signaling at the tailcap (i.e. don't have to worry about accidentally advancing modes), and there is no uncertainty as to what mode the light will come on in (i.e. no memory needed - you can tell before turning on).

To each their own ... :shrug:
will you still be able to the the old model after the new one is out ??
 

JB

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 27, 2001
Messages
298
Hi selfbuilt, the throw and output numbers in your chart are based on 2x 18650s right? Did you happen to test the throw and output on a single 18650?
 

skyfire

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
1,824
Location
Los Angeles
Yep... as an almost buyer of the Catapult, I'm disappointed that the second version has (to me at least) these shortcomings you guys have already noted.

Why did Thrunite change the original all-clicky modes? Why did they do away with any mid-level output?

I'm guessing the 250L low mode ain't gonna be low enough for a lot of people. That should've been around the "mid" level, and with an extra true low of around 12L.

The only "advantage" for me could be that it's gonna sell at the same price, so a bit more bang for your buck?

— Jack. :)


ive had my catapult for about 2 weeks now, and then heard about version 2 from goinggear. i knew about the problems of the original design, and still bought it. i really like the light, but its too heavy for me at work, since i have to move around so much, as well as carry other tools. its definitely the best self-defense light i have though:twothumbs blind them and then bash'em!

the blinding part is really easy, ive realize to be very careful where im pointing this light, as the spill is bright enough to cause people to think you are aiming at them.

the version 2 seems to be an improvement in all areas. although the outputs of the original design had 900L. 500L, 120L, and strobe. i can do without the strobe but 3 brightness settings are ideal for me. i also liked that i dont have to twist anything. but i have read about switch problems, so probably in the new version, a better, simpler switch was used. and most importantly a better driver, that doesnt require cooling grease.

if i didnt already have a catapult, i would definitely buy the version 2.

only thing i dont like, is the cool (purplish) tint of the spill. but the hotspot and corona will make you :twothumbs
 

selfbuilt

Flashaholic
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
6,936
Location
Canada
Hi selfbuilt, the throw and output numbers in your chart are based on 2x 18650s right? Did you happen to test the throw and output on a single 18650?
Relative outputs on all levels, on both 1x18650 and 2x18650 were tested and are shown with the runtimes here:

Catapult-Runtimes2.gif


Allthough I didn't measure throw at those levels, you can estimate on the basis of the output drop by comparing proportionally the square root of lux throw. For example, a 30% drop in output is likely close to a 30% drop in "throw" (square root lux) - just work backwards to get estimate acutal lux at the lower levels.

Not a perfect correlation, but I've found it works pretty well to get estimates
 

JB

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 27, 2001
Messages
298
Ah, thanks!

Relative outputs on all levels, on both 1x18650 and 2x18650 were tested and are shown with the runtimes here:

Catapult-Runtimes2.gif


Allthough I didn't measure throw at those levels, you can estimate on the basis of the output drop by comparing proportionally the square root of lux throw. For example, a 30% drop in output is likely close to a 30% drop in "throw" (square root lux) - just work backwards to get estimate acutal lux at the lower levels.

Not a perfect correlation, but I've found it works pretty well to get estimates
 

desertrat21

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
124
Location
New Mexico, USA
Just a quick FYI and some observations on the V2...

The V2 is a tad bit longer. The finishing is very nice. The anodizing is a bit darker and was done very well. The machining is excellent. The newer stainless bezel is a very nice addition.

The hotspot/spill are identical but in a side-by-side, quick, and far from scientific test with freshly charged 18650s the V2 version does have (to my eye) a slightly brighter beam and spill (although you'd have to have them side-by-side to see it).

The UI is actually a pleasant surprise. The shift from mode 1 to mode 2 requires a simple quick turn. The light suffers no fit compromise in the "loose" mode.

Hopefully selfbuilt gets his hands on one... I'd love to see the runtime and relative brightness graphs.
21May2010thrunitecatapulttext2800.jpg
 
Top