Flash! Fenix L1T/L2t Review up on Flashlightreviews!

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/fenix_l1t-l2t.htm

Woo Hoo!!:rock:

I haven't even read it yet, but I know lots of us have been waiting for this.

Ugh. that regulation is horrible. Hopefully it runs better off of lithiums.

Hello mchlwise

Good discovery:goodjob:

Best regards

____
Tom

O.k., I've read the review and found a couple things very interesting.

(Background: Up until last week, I didn't own a Fenix and was wondering if I should pick up an L1P cheap or spend more on the new L1T; so this review was very helpful for comparing the two lights)

According to the tables, the L1T (on high) throws 565, and has an overall output of 1900.

The L1P throws 650, and has overall output of 1800.



Seems like some of the initial reports that the L1T wasn't as bright or didn't throw as well as the L1P were accurate, as the reviews show about a 13% advantage/better throw from the L1P.

Unfortunately, he didn't post runtimes of the L1T on low, and hasn't posted nimh runtimes yet, but what he's got up now shows (on alkalines):

L1T reached 50% at 1:30
L1P reached 50% at 1:07

It looks like the L1T's curve is a good bit better too, with the first 35-40 minutes above 75%. The L1P's curve drops below 75% in 10 or 15 minutes. HOWEVER, the L1T drops to around 10% after 1:45, and the L1P doesn't drop below 10% until just after 3:00.

My conclusions:

Clearly, the L1T (on alkalines) is better regulated, lasting a bit longer to 50% than the L1P and using the alkaline's energy in the beginning to keep the light brighter longer. This seems to come at a price, though, that being slightly diminished throw (although with 5% better overall output), and total darkness :candle: within 2 hours or so.

does anyone know how these stack up against the millermod versions?

mchlwise said:

...the L1T (on alkalines) is better regulated...

Click to expand...

Not to hijack the thread, but you may have noticed that the 1AA regulation champ appears to be the Nuwai X-1 which beats them all for flat running with one alkaline, and has comparable output.

Wait, Nuwai is made in Taiwan? I thought they were a Chinese company. If they are made in Taiwan thats' good news to me. I may have to pick one of those X-1s' up....

nerdgineer said:

Not to hijack the thread, but you may have noticed that the 1AA regulation champ appears to be the Nuwai X-1 which beats them all for flat running with one alkaline, and has comparable output.

Click to expand...

Throw - 713; overall - 1930; 50% at 1:35; first 45 min. above 75%; dark at 1:40 or so - seems pretty comparable.

(Edit: However, if you pay $8 more for a Fenix, you get an actual glass window instead of plastic, type III anodize as opposed to type II, a belt pouch and extra o-rings/button cover)

But yeah, I was really much more interested in whether or not the L1T / L1P battle :touche: and if there was an improvement over the L1P or not.

if the L1P is 3 watts and the nuwai X1 is 1 watt.... why do they have comparable output??

if thats true, then the X1 is clearly the winner here!

Hi all - just an FYI - I bumped the rating up to 5 Stars...

In case anyone wants to know why...

I gave it a lot of thought and bumped the rating to 5 Stars. Considering that it's the exact same head, it's showing a lot of versatility despite the fact the 2 cell configuration doesn't have as good regulation as the L2P and I was a victim of the luxeon lottery....

It's always easier to give than to take away, so I rated it the lowest I would go while I considered raising it... If I had given it 5 stars and thought about it and decided to go to 4 1/2, a lot of folks would have been upset...

Quickbeam said:

Hi all - just an FYI - I bumped the rating up to 5 Stars...

Click to expand...

:thinking: Why the change in rating?

KDOG3 said:

Wait, Nuwai is made in Taiwan? I thought they were a Chinese company. If they are made in Taiwan thats' good news to me. I may have to pick one of those X-1s' up....

Click to expand...

I think Shykung brand in Taiwan produce most Nuwai lights!
I also interest in X-1, but for 2AA light, L2P is still perfect for me, I am not going to get L2T!

Just because the L1T has a 3 watt (rated) emitter doesn't mean it has to be driven to the maximum level of 3 watts, so the 1 watt (rated) emitter may be brighter (or the same approximate brightness) if the power pack (AA alkaline in this case) or the regulation is not driving the "3 watt" emitter to true 3 watt levels.

KDOG3 said:

Ugh. that regulation is horrible. Hopefully it runs better off of lithiums.

Click to expand...

I agree, what happened to them? The L2P had such great regulation and now this...

i find it weird that the l1t has more output but less throw than the l1p. They use the same reflector. It must have something to do with the lux3 VS Lux1

-David

Interesting stuff, wonder what lithiums or NIMH will do to the curves.

The L2T appears to slight efficiency edge on alkalines vs the L2P, or drains them better, despite the discharge curve, judging from the outputs vs runtimes.

Feeling a bit sheepish, I'll tell you why the LxT has more output than the LxP.

My lightbox, as you know, is far from perfect. To help make it more accurate there was one simple little thing I could do, which was decrease the size of the orifice that I project the light throught when using flashlights with a smaller bezel. I didn't think it would have too big of an impact.... Guess again....

I decided to give this a shot by taking white coated cardboard, buying some craft hole punchers and making squares of cardboard with different sized holes in them. By placing the punched square over the large orifice in the top of the lightbox, I can effectively reduce the size of the entry orifice which reduces the light lost out of the lightbox around throught the space between the light and the edges of the large hole when taking a reading.

The result on the L2P was an immediate increase of the light output reading by about 11% (+/-)...

This means that the smaller head lights lose about 11% (+/-) of their light back out through the same hole that I was projecting the light through.

This also means that, if I were ambitious, I would have to go back and re-evaluate every single light in the lightbox using the orifice reducers; something I'm not about to do.

I'll probably go back and re-evaluate some of them, but not all - especially the older ones.

Doug P.

I reckon that with some ni-mh in the L2T That the regulation will be alot flatter. The regulation curve is pretty good but when compared to the L2P it's got alot to live upto. Has anyone else noticed tinting in the beam of the L2T i want this light badly but i like my lights to be nice and white. I've already got a L2P and L1P and they have got a gorgeous beam but i want the versatility of the L2T.

Quickbeam said:

Feeling a bit sheepish, I'll tell you why the LxT has more output than the LxP.

My lightbox, as you know, is far from perfect. To help make it more accurate there was one simple little thing I could do, which was decrease the size of the orifice that I project the light throught when using flashlights with a smaller bezel. I didn't think it would have too big of an impact.... Guess again....

I decided to give this a shot by taking white coated cardboard, buying some craft hole punchers and making squares of cardboard with different sized holes in them. By placing the punched square over the large orifice in the top of the lightbox, I can effectively reduce the size of the entry orifice which reduces the light lost out of the lightbox around throught the space between the light and the edges of the large hole when taking a reading.

The result on the L2P was an immediate increase of the light output reading by about 11% (+/-)...

This means that the smaller head lights lose about 11% (+/-) of their light back out through the same hole that I was projecting the light through.

This also means that, if I were ambitious, I would have to go back and re-evaluate every single light in the lightbox using the orifice reducers; something I'm not about to do.

I'll probably go back and re-evaluate some of them, but not all - especially the older ones.

Doug P.

Click to expand...

just change the units to something else, so we all know

Quickbeam said:

Feeling a bit sheepish...

Click to expand...

Totally understand what happened and your hesitation to go back and re-evaluate everything.

This begs the question, though: With the L1T and the L1P, which method was used?

Your measurements showed the L1T with a slight edge in the overall throw, but if you used the new method on it, and based on what you've said, we should bump up the L1P by about 11%, which would mean the L1P is brighter in both throw AND overall output!



Very interesting.