Updated specs for E1L runtime at Surefire web site

[parnass]

By viewing Google's cache, I can see that Surefire updated the runtime specs for their dual-level E1L web page this week.

The runtime for the 1-level Cree E1L was listed at 10 hours.

The runtime for the 2-level E1L had been listed as 4 hours on high (40 hours on low), but is now listed as 8.5 hours (48 hours on low).

You can view the 4 hour spec by looking at the Google Cache.

Don't know what to believe now.

 

[Size15's]

SureFire is in the process of updating their E1L and E2L to dual output KX1 and KX2 bezels.

 

[bigfoot]

Interesting... maybe the new 2-stage KX1 and KX2 heads got a little better performance than they originally thought?

:shrug:

 

[parnass]

SureFire is in the process of updating their E1L and E2L to dual output KX1 and KX2 bezels.

I know that, but they have changed the specs on the dual level KX1 and KX2 from the initial specs on the same dual level heads. To clarify, Surefire has published 2 different sets of runtime specs for their new dual level heads.

You can still see the inconsistencies by comparing the specs on this page to the specs listed on the individual web pages dedicated to the E1L and E2L.

 

[mspeterson]

It's all speculation until these begin to ship... perhaps aliens slipped PK some new technology! :tinfoil:

Or perhaps Surefire has tested completed units, and is now providing numbers based on actual testing of the actual product.....meaning they could be here soon, hopefully....

The good thing is, the numbers keep going up!!!:twothumbs

 

[Size15's]

I'm sure they have a 'specifications subject to change without notice' disclaimer somewhere.

I think it's fair to say that CPFers like to do their own runtime charts rather than rely on manufacturer claims.

 

[mcmc]

I know that, but they have changed the specs on the dual level KX1 and KX2 from the initial specs on the same dual level heads. To clarify, Surefire has published 2 different sets of runtime specs for their new dual level heads.

You can still see the inconsistencies by comparing the specs on this page to the specs listed on the individual web pages dedicated to the E1L and E2L.

Thanks for that interesting tidbit. It'd be good for people to read posts more carefully.

Interesting... Of those numbers, I'm more interested in what portion is regulated and what portion is "usable light"

 

[Size15's]

Thanks for that interesting tidbit. It'd be good for people to read posts more carefully.

Interesting... Of those numbers, I'm more interested in what portion is regulated and what portion is "usable light"

Well like I said SureFire are in the process of updating so runtime/output ratings evolve as the product evolves.

I agree with mspeterson that the change is likely due to having tested samples of the version SureFire are more happy with releasing.

As I also said we tend to prefer to have our own runtime charts done here on CPF so we can decide on what the runtime figures 'should' be.

 

[Fooboy]

It's hard to believe that you could get 45 lumens for 8 hours out of the E1L and 65 lumens for 1.5 hours out of the L1. see below.

H output Runtime
(old) E1L - 30L 10
New E1L - 45L 4
L1 CREE - 65L 1.5

I find it hard to believe they could increase output 150% (30 to 45L) and only suffer a 20% runtime penalty (10 - 8 = 2 hours).

The 2008 catalog, main LED flashlight page AND the written description all say 40 hours, that one graphic is probably a mistake.

 

[thermal guy]

They got the E2L at 60LM for 11 hrs! cool

 

[Size15's]

SureFire have tended to rate the runtime as the whole runtime rather than the regulated runtime with recent products.

With this in mind I think it's better to wait until some CPF members have been able to plot output/runtime charts so that we can decided the runtime ratings for ourselves.

 

[Fooboy]

SureFire have tended to rate the runtime as the whole runtime rather than the regulated runtime with recent products.

With this in mind I think it's better to wait until some CPF members have been able to plot output/runtime charts so that we can decided the runtime ratings for ourselves.

Well ... I stand corrected. They made the updates to the main page as well. I agree with Size15, I guess we'll have to wait and see how accurate the ratings are. It really blows me away if that single cell light can push 45 lumens anywhere near 8 hours.

 

[cv3po]

I'm sure they have a 'specifications subject to change without notice' disclaimer somewhere.I think it's fair to say that CPFers like to do their own runtime charts rather than rely on manufacturer claims.

I always wondered why the G2L is listed at 80 lumens for 12 hours on 2-cr123's while the G3L is listed at 80 lumens for 9.42 hours (5.8 hours at tactical level) on 3-cr123's. You'd think that SF would be a bit more on the ball with so obvious a discrepancy. It's been on their website for a long time like this

 

[USM0083]

I always wondered why the G2L is listed at 80 lumens for 12 hours on 2-cr123's while the G3L is listed at 80 lumens for 9.42 hours (5.8 hours at tactical level) on 3-cr123's. You'd think that SF would be a bit more on the ball with so obvious a discrepancy. It's been on their website for a long time like this

The G3L with a the metal bezel will provide better heatsinking and run regulated longer, and give a shorter total runtime.

A G2L with a metal bezel will have a run/output curve closer to a 6PL.

 

[shroomy]

SureFire have tended to rate the runtime as the whole runtime rather than the regulated runtime with recent products.

With this in mind I think it's better to wait until some CPF members have been able to plot output/runtime charts so that we can decided the runtime ratings for ourselves.

I dunno, 60 lumens for 11 hours seems to be in the right ballpark to me. I think we can realistically hope for at least 9 hours of regulation.

 

[Qoose]

I dunno, 60 lumens for 11 hours seems to be in the right ballpark to me. I think we can realistically hope for at least 9 hours of regulation.

But if this was the case, the L1 is a piece of junk with 65 lumens for 1.5 hours. Even with half the battery capacity, that's a stretch. I'll bet the E2L falls out of regulation at no more than 5 hours, but we will have to wait and see.

 

[shroomy]

But if this was the case, the L1 is a piece of junk with 65 lumens for 1.5 hours. Even with half the battery capacity, that's a stretch. I'll bet the E2L falls out of regulation at no more than 5 hours, but we will have to wait and see.

Hmm, that's true, and is something that I completely forgot about.
But perhaps the L1 is using a cree p4 (do we know what's in the l1?), and the the E2L is using a Q5, I spose that wouldn't be a huge difference, but it would make some. Once again I was just comparing the runtime vs other lights with similar output and the runtime didn't seem completely unreasonable.

But I really don't know, so don't mind me. :shrug: I just like to be optimistic. Sometimes overly so.

 

[Size15's]

The L1 wins out on ergonomics for me. Runtime ain't no use if I can't physically use it as effectively.

What is needed here is a single source set of runtime charts so the outputs and runtimes of these flashlights can be directly compared. I don't consider there to be any merit to using SureFire's runtime/output ratings to compare products in the the level of detail being expected here.

Al

 

[Fooboy]

But if this was the case, the L1 is a piece of junk with 65 lumens for 1.5 hours. Even with half the battery capacity, that's a stretch. I'll bet the E2L falls out of regulation at no more than 5 hours, but we will have to wait and see.

Quoted for TRUTH.