Solarforce drop-in and UF 18650 'recount' and my Jet-Ti M lens broke =(

I bought a SF C2 bored to 18mm awhile ago, and i wasn't until recent did i buy a drop-in.
Eventually i got a SolarForce R2 from ebay (seller: itc_shop) due to financial constraints. When i got the drop-in, it doesn't have 'R2' on it unlike what's shown on the picture, it just says 'SolarForce', so it could be anything.

I also bought a SolarForce 18650 extender and it fits my SF C2 perfectly. To my surprise, it also fits my Jetbeam TC-R3 perfectly! =O

So i did a output/runtime test on the SolarForce drop-in with 2xUF18650.

The results were shocking bad in terms of efficiency as could be seen from graph above when consider it is the only light with 2x18650.

The tests were all done with the lights in water on max, battery charged to 4.2V +- 0.05V.

Then naturally I wanted to know how reliable this drop-in is. So I did some drop tests.
Free fall from about 1.5m multiple tests, no problem. Then I threw it (gently) on the carpet floor and the light went off.
First think came to mind, "sh!t solarforce, I knew I should have gotten a Malkoff".
Then I did the same thing to all my lights (threw it gently on the carpet floor) to make sure everything that I own can sustain such abuse.
All my lights survived without turning off...... except my Jet-Ti M's lens cracked... :mecry: I emailed JB for a replacement. Will update on their CS quality after they reply me (from experience its been good).

THEN after closer inspection, it turns out apparently the cause of my Solarforce R2 to go off isn't because of the drop-in, but the UF18650 battery.....



From experience (besides this incident), it seems like these XFire batteries' wrapping isn't that sturdy. Has anyone's TF, UF, whatever fire's battery have similar issues as mine one?

So three lessons learnt for me

• cheap drop-in = cheap efficieny
• cheap battery = cheap wrapping and
• YES, its confirmed by me that Jet-Ti M 's (Jet-III M) lens doesn't take shocks very well.

I just recently went the bored C2 route myself. Was also thinking about the extender and going Solarforce ext. for the lower price. How is the threading/mating to the higher quality SF body? Is there slop ,grinding or smooth and seamless?
Could you post a pic of your C2 with the extender so I can see how it looks? I was thinking it is gonna look wierd but I dontknow.

I am also in a quandry about what dropin and going the Malkoff route. I feel your pain on the failure and appreciate your informing us about your tests and the failures you experienced. It appears even batteries suffer from fragility in realworld conditions. I bet an AW cell would have survived that .

Looks normal to me .

The jet is fully regulated from the looks of things whilst the rest are possibly direct drive on high with only vf regulation , thats rather normal .

Im still waiting on a better choice of buck boost drivers .
Would love to see 1.2A / 1.4A

Liteskr42 said:

I just recently went the bored C2 route myself. Was also thinking about the extender and going Solarforce ext. for the lower price. How is the threading/mating to the higher quality SF body? Is there slop ,grinding or smooth and seamless?
Could you post a pic of your C2 with the extender so I can see how it looks? I was thinking it is gonna look wierd but I dontknow.

I am also in a quandry about what dropin and going the Malkoff route. I feel your pain on the failure and appreciate your informing us about your tests and the failures you experienced. It appears even batteries suffer from fragility in realworld conditions. I bet an AW cell would have survived that .

Click to expand...

Well to be honest, I personally wouldn't say SF's body is significantly higher quality compared to the SolarForce extender, maybe SF's anodize is marginally better but that's about it.
Take the price tag away and they're actually around the same in terms of pretty much every respect.
The SF body and the SolarForce extender as I mentioned earlier fits together perfectly. Perfectly means no grinding, no issues in anyway. If I close my eyes whiling screwing it in, I'd think they came from the same manufacturer. But that's only my sample, cheaper brands tends to be less consistent in terms of quality, that's one of few (quality related) reasons on why they're cheaper.

Yes the C2 doesn't look as cool with the SolarForce extender on, that's for sure, I'll post some pics later.

old4570 said:

Looks normal to me .

The jet is fully regulated from the looks of things whilst the rest are possibly direct drive on high with only vf regulation , thats rather normal .

Im still waiting on a better choice of buck boost drivers .
Would love to see 1.2A / 1.4A

Click to expand...

ahh... i mean SolarForce's 'R2' drop-in has terrible efficiency. It is ran on 2 (two) 18650 while other lights in the graph only uses one 18650.

berry580 said:

Well to be honest, I personally wouldn't say SF's body is significantly higher quality compared to the SolarForce extender, maybe SF's anodize is marginally better but that's about it.
Take the price tag away and they're actually around the same in terms of pretty much every respect.
The SF body and the SolarForce extender as I mentioned earlier fits together perfectly. Perfectly means no grinding, no issues in anyway. If I close my eyes whiling screwing it in, I'd think they came from the same manufacturer. But that's only my sample, cheaper brands tends to be less consistent in terms of quality, that's one of few (quality related) reasons on why they're cheaper.

Yes the C2 doesn't look as cool with the SolarForce extender on, that's for sure, I'll post some pics later.





ahh... i mean SolarForce's 'R2' drop-in has terrible efficiency. It is ran on 2 (two) 18650 while other lights in the graph only uses one 18650.

Click to expand...

Ok , yeah , might need to check a few things like current drain at tail . + which batts did you buy .. sku.26247 / sku.28677 One is genuine , other is counterfeit .

old4570 said:

Ok , yeah , might need to check a few things like current drain at tail . + which batts did you buy .. sku.26247 / sku.28677 One is genuine , other is counterfeit .

Click to expand...

28677 is reported by DX to have a capacity of 1800 mAh, not 2600 mAh as the label says.

yes i looks weird IMO, not cool. but offers a lot of potential.



How can i check the current drain at tail?

I bought the genuine one, as the 'counterfeit' one is cheaper.
But then in the end, which battery i bought shouldn't matter as i used batteries from the same batch on all the lights tested.

Take the tail cap off , put the negative of a multi meter to the neg of the battery and positive to the body .

Use the 10A setting :

This will let you know what Amps the pill is drawing .

Now , 8.4v should be in the neighborhood of 600 to 700mAh current draw .

So depending on the capacity of the battery , a 2200mAh 18650 should return about 3 hours + again depending on the variables .

Also you did make sure the cells were matched , same voltage reading .
Also if there is a mild short , this will increase current drain , as may miss matched cells or a bad cell . All good reasons I enjoy running single cell lights .

Thanx for the pic!!! I really appreciate it.

You know what? I actually think it looks kinda cool!!! I like unusual departures from the normal. I thought there would be a gap at the body juncture. If Solarforce would just make these in olive drab or something close tothe SF it would look even better. I think I may get one.