Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse? - *No they haven't*

Hi, I've been looking at the reviews and ratings for both the old version of the T100C2 and the new 'upgraded' version, but all i'm seeing seems to imply that eagletac have actually made it worse.. :thinking:

They have added laser-etching, and beefed up the bezel to make what i consider overall to be a better looking light, but the numbers tell a different story, according to light reviews the new version has the same emitter, lower lux readings, while apperaing to have a tighter hotspot, and also a shorter and less well regulated runtime than the old version.

So, can enyone tell me what im missing, or is any improvement on the old version simply aesthetic?

Thanks

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Might be quite handy if you could post a link to the reviews you are referring to.

Selfbuilt's review here on CPF looks pretty good:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/239366

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Okay, here they are:

Mk I: http://www.light-reviews.com/eagletac_t100c2/

MK II: http://www.light-reviews.com/eagletac_t100c2_mark_ii/

I advise you open them up side by side and compare the lux readings, beamshots and runtime graphs. It does seem that the original version wins on all of these bases.. I'm hoping its just individual differences though and that in general the newer version does offer improved performance as well as design.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

I'm pretty sure the guts of the light didn't change. No one ever reported it. The difference in output that was picked up at light-reviews may possible just be normal light to light differences or testing discrepancies.

That being said, I personally don't see any good reason to get a MKII over an original. The improvements were negligible and subjective, IMHO. I just didn't see any need for the changes made. The main change was a thicker bezel. I thought the old one was just fine and beefy enough. I think the waterproofing was improved. Maybe this is the reason for the remake. ET took a little beating on the waterproofing, or lack there of, on the M2 series and they didn't want it to happen on a second model.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Well thats what i had thought as well, and the difference in light output is easily explained by that, but if you look at runtime and the regulation curve on an Eagletac 2400mah battery then the original version holds its full output for longer, and overall runs for an extra quarter of an hour, which seems too much of a difference if all the electronics are exactly the same..

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Thanks for the links RF.

OK, so they are reporting:

Original: 12080 Lux
Mk II : 11760 Lux

Which is just 2 or 3 % of a difference, so Painful is right - that's probably well within the margin of error for this type of measurement: no significant difference.

The runtime does look a bit shorter, but there are so many variables that could affect it - slightly different Vf of the LED, was the capacity of the battery exactly the same and so on. Honestly, I think you could easily get just as much variation between two samples of the same light tested with different batteries on different dates.

That's part of the fun in measuring anything - you need to take into account all of the variables that could have an influence on the measurement.

The thing that I do like about this light, even given the differences between the two samples, is that the regulation on 18650 is pretty flat. I also like the very simple UI - high and low and no getting strobed by mistake. Seriously been thinking about picking one up for the car.

It seems most likely that the changes were indeed just cosmetic and that the internals of the light are the same. In which case, if you're not too bothered about the aesthetics, now would be a good time to pick up a Mk I - I see they are on sale at the moment !

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

+

This is a perfect example of how Misinformation gets spread on the web.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Notice the difference in test dates... may 25 and Sept 11. Its possible that 18650 cell has seen its fair share of discharge cycles in that time. If it started out brand new in late May.... you get the rest.:thumbsup:

Ditto what the other member said about Vf variation of the LED.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Well, yes i can see what you mean, but from such a reputable review site i would have expected them to use new 18650 cells for their runtime graphs. :shrug:

Also the shorter runtime of the new model is supported in the CPF review of it, i believe showing it to be only 2h 24m. Im not saying that the first version tested on light reviews cant have been a better than average sample, but the difference does seem noticable.

Sorry, i have been hearing about the varying vf of different leds, but im not too sure as to exactly what it refers to? I am assuming current draw/efficiency, and that it can vary quite a lot even within the exact same efficiency rating of led for it to make a difference in the overall runtime of the light? :thinking:

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

It's your money. so you can be as picky as you want. My Eagletac is a great light. Different model, but for every light I own there is another model or different brand that has some specs that are better. So what. Buy what interest you, but I'd suggest not getting so hung up on specs.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Moonshadow said:

It seems most likely that the changes were indeed just cosmetic and that the internals of the light are the same. In which case, if you're not too bothered about the aesthetics, now would be a good time to pick up a Mk I - I see they are on sale at the moment !

Click to expand...

Can someone direct me to a source for the Mk1?
Everywhere I look I only see the Mk II version...I'd love to have v.1 at cheaper than the $47 going rate for v.2.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

RedForest UK said:

Well, yes i can see what you mean, but from such a reputable review site i would have expected them to use new 18650 cells for their runtime graphs. :shrug:

Click to expand...

You expect them to use new 18650 batteries every review when they cost $10 a pop? Who do you think is paying for these?

Also the shorter runtime of the new model is supported in the CPF review of it, i believe showing it to be only 2h 24m. Im not saying that the first version tested on light reviews cant have been a better than average sample, but the difference does seem noticable.

Click to expand...

You cannot compare numbers unless the reviewers are using identical equipment and testing methods. Light-Reviews used an Eagletac 18650 battery in their test. Selfbuilt used an AW 18650. These batteries have different capacities, and that is why the runtimes reported are so different.

orbital said:

+

This is a perfect example of how Misinformation gets spread on the web.

Click to expand...

+1. OP I'm not sure if you just don't get it, or if you just don't want to get it. But everyone is telling you the same thing, and yet you seem convinced there's a change that people don't want to tell you about. Nothing changed in the electronics. What you're seeing is normal sample variation with LEDs and differences in testing variables between reviewers. If you don't want to believe us, email Eagletac and get the info straight from the horse's mouth. I'm sure they'll be happy to set the record straight for you.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

ky70 said:

Can someone direct me to a source for the Mk1?
Everywhere I look I only see the Mk II version...I'd love to have v.1 at cheaper than the $47 going rate for v.2.

Click to expand...

Bump

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

RedForest UK said:

Sorry, i have been hearing about the varying vf of different leds, but im not too sure as to exactly what it refers to?[\

Click to expand...

There is the "LED" sub forum for this discussion. Spend some time there and level up your knowledge on the technology before before publishing speculation about a particular light. The T100C2 (and P100C2) have always used the 850 driver, and it has not changed.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Can someone direct me to a source for the Mk1?
Everywhere I look I only see the Mk II version...I'd love to have v.1 at cheaper than the $47 going rate for v.2.

Click to expand...

Ky - there are a couple of suppliers here in the UK advertising stocks left. Flashaholics and Ledfire both have them and there may be other suppliers as well. Since you're looking for a price in dollars I realise that may or may not be tremendously helpful, but that's where I've them on sale over here at the moment.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Toaster, i didnt mean that they should simply get a new cell every time they did a test, as i agree,that would be impractical. Furthermore, inter-cell variation could cause as much of a difference in runtimes as a few cycles usage. What i did mean was that i had hoped that, if cell degredation was proving to be an issue, then they would replace the cell used in the tests maybe every couple of months, so as to try and limit as many extraneous variables as possible and minimise possible discrepancies that people who maybe dont have as much experience as you in testing and/or understanding the internal electronics of what they are looking to buy dont make the same mistakes that i may have done.

Also, i had taken account of the fact that selfbuilt used an AW 2600 cell in his tests. However, as these cells are rated pretty reliably at a higher capacity than the one used in the review of the MKI version which outperformed it, then surely that implies that the regulation on that sample must have been even better than if the same cell had been used in both tests, rather than simply meaning we should discount the second review as completely irrelevant.

And Kramer, thanks for the pointer, i do know roughly about the forward voltage of led's and how it can effect their output and efficiency, but i admit currently dont have a full grasp of the whole technicalities of the term. However, surely the fact of me being less than an expert in one aspect of an led light efficiency doesnt make me completely ineligable as a consumer to make a simple empirical observation about its apparent runtime from a source which i have found to be very accurate and reliable in the past. That would seem to me to be an exclusive and even slightly oppressive attitude to how these forums should be run.

Im sorry, but could you please consider that i wasnt actually trying to 'spread misinformation' i was simply asking for some advice on what i had noticed as a possible discrepancy between two lights that i am considering purchasing for myself from people on a forum that generally do know more than me on the subject in question, which is why i was asking here in the first place. :shrug:

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me. If the new version does have the same internal electronics as the older version, and any difference in testing was simply down to individual differences between the samples, or other variables, then i think that i can now order myself the MKII version in neutral white confident that i will have made the right decision.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Moonshadow said:

Ky - there are a couple of suppliers here in the UK advertising stocks left. Flashaholics and Ledfire both have them and there may be other suppliers as well. Since you're looking for a price in dollars I realise that may or may not be tremendously helpful, but that's where I've them on sale over here at the moment.

Click to expand...

Thank you Moon for the reply. With me being in the US, I'm likely limited to the MKII version, which at the end of the day, is fine by me as it appears to priced very reasonably for what you get.

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

RedForest UK said:

What i did mean was that i had hoped that, if cell degredation was proving to be an issue, then they would replace the cell used in the tests maybe every couple of months, so as to try and limit as many extraneous variables as possible and minimise possible discrepancies that people who maybe dont have as much experience as you in testing and/or understanding the internal electronics of what they are looking to buy dont make the same mistakes that i may have done.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, Mev does a pretty good job of keeping on top of this. The difference you saw is probably mostly attributable to normal sample variation in the LEDs used, and not a large drop in cell capacity. Also I'd like to point out to you and anyone still following this thread that the MKII tested showed a longer runtime on CR123 than the MKI. A fact you left out when posting your thoughts.

Also, i had taken account of the fact that selfbuilt used an AW 2600 cell in his tests,. However, as these cells are rated pretty reliably at a higher capacity than the one used in the review of the MKI version which outperformed it, then surely that implies that the regulation on that sample must have been even better than if the same cell had been used in both tests, rather than simply meaning we should discount the second review as completely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Selfbuilt used an AW 2200 in his test which has been tested and shown to have a lower capacity than the Eagletac 2400.

Im sorry, but could you please consider that i wasnt actually trying to 'spread misinformation' i was simply asking for some advice on what i had noticed as a possible discrepancy between two lights that i am considering purchasing for myself from people on a forum that generally do know more than me on the subject in question, which is why i was asking here in the first place. :shrug:

Click to expand...

You say this but for every post in this thread telling you that nothing has changed, you fire back with another theory as to why you are right and they are wrong. Take a look at your last post. That second paragraph once again is defending your position that something must have changed, and it's complete rubbish. The observation on the test is incorrect (the T100C2 tested wouldn't even light up with a flat top AW2600 due to the physical reverse polarity protection) and so are the conclusions drawn.

I'm all for asking questions and getting answers, it's what we do on this forum. But your posting style to me seems less like asking questions as it is challenging people to prove you wrong on the conclusions you've drawn. I don't have any problem with the latter method so long as you have your facts straight and have a good understanding of the subject matter at hand. But when you post authoritatively on a subject using incorrect data and inadequate knowledge, you spread misinformation. And when done intentionally, it's also an incredibly devious way to troll a forum while appearing innocent. But imho I don't think that's the case here.

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me. If the new version does have the same internal electronics as the older version, and any difference in testing was simply down to individual differences between the samples, or other variables, then i think that i can now order myself the MKII version in neutral white confident that i will have made the right decision.

Click to expand...

Enjoy your new light :thumbsup:

Re: Have Eagletac made the T100C2 worse?

Okay Toaster, sorry about that, I was in a bit of a rush and I guess I just assumed that selfbuilt had been using the newer 2600mah batteries, it appears his results do seem to support that the electronics of the new model are the same as the old one.

And yes youve got me there, I'll admit I do like to ask questions in a rather aggressive and challenging manner, I find it makes people likely to put more effort into responding

Anyway, I hope I havent annoyed you guys too much, and im actually glad youve proven me wrong even if i dont sound it. If it means ill be getting a light at least as good as the previous model then im happy.

Once I work out how to edit the thread title without actually linking myself to the thread I'll change it to hopefully avoid any misinterpretation..

:thanks: