Your ideal specs on a new SF L4? (update w/ pics)

[H2Orower]

Ok. So after owning nothing but SF TIR lights so far (L1, E1B, E2L & E2DL), I have become increasingly interested in getting myself a nice wide flood beam light. In fact, last week I ordered an L4 from Surefire online, but received an email stating that the light was on backorder. It made me wonder whether I should even be ordering the L4 right now, or if I should wait for a possible replacement.

So, what would your ideal L4 replacement be? Here's what I'm hoping for:

-120 lumen output (like the E2DL but without the TIR optic of course)
-Dual output (120/5 works goood for me)
-Two stage clickie found on E1B, E2DL etc... clickie a must for me
-Same small two cell E-series size
-choice of HA black or olive drab

What do you think? Will Surefire upgrade the L4 within the next year?, and if so, what will it look like?:thinking:

 

[Size15's]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

I like your question!

I don't agree with all of your desires but then it's the old chestnut of clickie vs two-stage UI - I don't like clickies.

Al

 

[Illum]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

half the current output, twice the current heat emitted, and three times longer running

 

[Ty_Bower]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

My specs are easy... it must have a smooth, wide, flood beam (like the old KL4), it must be at least as bright as the old L4 (duh), it needs to be/have an E series compatible head (obviously), and it absolutely must have a boost circuit that will tolerate a lithium ion secondary cell. I run my KL4 off a single 18650 and I wouldn't have it any other way.

This new crop of Cree powered Surefire lights all seem to either have a boost circuit that blinks when they see too much input voltage (KX1 heads) or they have a buck circuit (KX2) that falls out of regulation too soon for my liking.

 

[Beretta1526]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

I'd like to see one of the new LED's that's being used with the TIR optic to be used with a reflector, similar to the Gen1/1.5 L4.

Also, one point to make, the tailcap in the E1B and E2DL is not where the two-stage light levels are controlled (unlike the A2/L1/L2), it's in the programming and circuitry of the head.

Al, I prefer the way the A2/L1/L2 lights operate, but would like to be able to click it ON without having to twist the tailcap. Hmmmm, I've got ideas.

(PK, if you're reading this, give me a jingle. I've got a great idea.)

.

 

[o0o]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

My ideal specs:

Dual output: 200 lumen (high) / 10 lumen (low)
Textured reflector
Flat Regulation on both settings. Low must run at least 5 hours at full power. High should run 30 minutes at full power.
Battery power indicator (somehow indicates when there is less than 10 minutes of regulation remaining)
HA-3 Olive drab or black choice

 

[enLIGHTenment]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

So, what would your ideal L4 replacement be?

Ditch the reflector and Lux V in favor of an XR-E with a 45 degree full angle TIR. Three brightness settings selected by twisting the head between set detents and a high-reliability latching momentary switch on the tailcap. Think of it as either a smaller UA2 without focusing or as a C2 + M60F except in a smaller package and with a mode selector ring.

Of course, SF would never do this because it'd poach sales of the UA2 and K2....

 

[Size15's]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

Al, I prefer the way the A2/L1/L2 lights operate, but would like to be able to click it ON without having to twist the tailcap. Hmmmm, I've got ideas.

(PK, if you're reading this, give me a jingle. I've got a great idea.)

SureFire has tried two-stage clickies - it was one of the things the DEF/PKEF models explored.
I personally found it annoying.

Since SureFire haven't progressed it I suspect that it was concept that failed to satisfying.

Al

 

[McGizmo]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

What made the L4 distinct, IMHO, was the large die package of the LuxV coupled with a relatively short focal length reflector. SF has had access to the P7 which would be the next generation of a 4x Die package and this could serve in a new L4 incarnation I would guess. The new Cree might even be a better bet as its 4 dice could be wired externally for a 2 parallel of 2 in series and use the same driver of the L4.

I would think the big question is how popular and successful was the L4 for SureFire and do they deem a justification or reason to bring out a new L4? :shrug:

 

[H2Orower]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

Also, one point to make, the tailcap in the E1B and E2DL is not where the two-stage light levels are controlled (unlike the A2/L1/L2), it's in the programming and circuitry of the head.

That's certainly true. I could have just said that I preferred a clickie since the clickie tailcap on the current single output L4 is the same as the clickie on the dual output E2L and others. I was just borrowing the terminology off of Surefires website for the E1B and E2DL tailcap descriptions. The term "two-stage clickie" is misleading though. Point well taken.

SureFire has tried two-stage clickies - it was one of the things the DEF/PKEF models explored.
I personally found it annoying.

Since SureFire haven't progressed it I suspect that it was concept that failed to satisfying.

Al

Al. Being relatively new here still, I'm not familiar with the clickies that you are referring to. I assume this was something different from the clickies available today on the E1B,E2DL,etc. What were the DEF/PKEF models? Thanks. Interested in learning some SF history.

 

[270winchester]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

just get a beam shaper for the E2DL. ANother 12 dollars and you get both types of beam.

Ok. So after owning nothing but SF TIR lights so far (L1, E1B, E2L & E2DL), I have become increasingly interested in getting myself a nice wide flood beam light. In fact, last week I ordered an L4 from Surefire online, but received an email stating that the light was on backorder. It made me wonder whether I should even be ordering the L4 right now, or if I should wait for a possible replacement.

So, what would your ideal L4 replacement be? Here's what I'm hoping for:

-120 lumen output (like the E2DL but without the TIR optic of course)
-Dual output (120/5 works goood for me)
-Two stage clickie found on E1B, E2DL etc... a must for me
-Same small two cell E-series size
-choice of HA black or olive drab

What do you think? Will Surefire upgrade the L4 within the next year?, and if so, what will it look like?:thinking:

 

[Size15's]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

Al. Being relatively new here still, I'm not familiar with the clickies that you are referring to. I assume this was something different from the clickies available today on the E1B,E2DL,etc. What were the DEF/PKEF models? Thanks. Interested in learning some SF history.

The DEF models were DARPA Experimental Flashlights, and PK (Paul Kim) Experimental Flashlights.
Perhaps the most obvious model that was developed from this era was the Kroma.
It features a two-stage push button pressure switch.
SureFire experimented with having this switch latch (click) on/off as well.

 

[SureAddicted]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

What I'd love to see is a 3 cell L4
Dual output @ 180 lumens high, 80 lumens low
Same UI as the E1B
Slightly longer version of the E1B pocket clip
Twisty/momentary tailcap
A wider range of colors
Guarded tailcap (similar to the Z68) included in the package

Yeah I know its wishful thinking, heck I'd settle for a 3 cell E series.

Steve

 

[FredM]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

Don't change anything except add the new Cree MC-E. Same runtime, same driver, same tailcap. The L4 was a classic, the only thing that has changed is emitters so why change your original design?

 

[half-watt]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

for my tastes, either of the following TWO-STAGE solutions/applications would suffice:

1) approx. same 100lm claimed o.p., but ~2x burn-time.

-OR-

2) somewhat greater o.p. (b/t 120 and 200 lm) and same burn-time.


the TWO-STAGE o.p. which would have a LOW o.p. mode of somewhere b/t, let's say 2lm and 5lm would handle the need for increased burn-time for my applications.

i like the clickies of the new E1B and newer '08 two-stage E1L and E2L lights, but am not opposed to the SF tactical switches which it appears that the UA2 and UB2 are going to in contradistinction to the U2.

not being in law enforcement and no longer being in the military, i prefer LOW o.p. following by HIGH o.p. in my lights.

in fact, i would reckon that my two numbered options above, could legitimately be TWO DIFFERENT LIGHTS instead of two design options for a single light, both of which have value in the right applications.

if BOTH existed, i'd buy BOTH for sure.

 

[H2Orower]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

The DEF models were DARPA Experimental Flashlights, and PK (Paul Kim) Experimental Flashlights.
Perhaps the most obvious model that was developed from this era was the Kroma.
It features a two-stage push button pressure switch.
SureFire experimented with having this switch latch (click) on/off as well.

Oh. Now I understand. Thanks.

 

[Yoda4561]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

Pop a cree MCE and squeeze as much light as they can out of it with a 40-50 minute runtime window. Definately keep the flood beam pattern, it's the best thing about the L4.

 

[Beretta1526]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

I always liked the option to run the KL4 on a single cell with reduced output and small size. When using an R123, you get almost the same output.

.

 

[FredM]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

Pop a cree MCE and squeeze as much light as they can out of it with a 40-50 minute runtime window. Definately keep the flood beam pattern, it's the best thing about the L4.

two votes for emitter swap.

Are you reading Surefire? The reason we bought the L4 in droves was because we liked it!

 

[H2Orower]

Re: Your ideal specs on a new SF L4?

just get a beam shaper for the E2DL. ANother 12 dollars and you get both types of beam.

Yeah. That would be the sensible solution, but there's nothing sensible about this flashlight obsession.:shakehead I've got an itchin' for a new light.:naughty: