ITP EOS A4 and 17670 batteries.

I just bought the ITP EOS A4 flashlight.

It is incredibly small size for a 2x123 form factor flashlight, and a very good value for the price.
I checked here on CPF for a complete review of this light, but I haven't find any.

I did some current measurement at 6 Volt, it draws 10 mA at low level, 100 mA at medium level, and 500 mA at high level. The corresponding light output levels are close to those declared from ITP: 3 Lumens, 30 lumens, 160 lumens. As I have measued later, the low level is not regulated, it varies linearly with the input voltage.

No need to specify that levels are measured at the emitter at first turn on of the light. Optical and thermal losses not included...

The runtimes ( to 50%) I measured with two SF primaries are: 130 Hours (vs 250 Hrs declared) on low; 13 hrs on medium (vs. 12 hrs declared); 2hrs and 10 min (vs 2 hrs declared).

I measured the runtimes with the light standing in free air. I see many reviews on CPF being conducted with a cooling fan, but I don't agree with this methodology; many of the ligths, especially those using MC-E /P7 LEDs and an MCU, just stop working without cooling, and that doesn't reflect real life usage.

Then, I moved on to measure the current consumption of the ITP EOS A4 with a Li-Ion. I tried to fit an AW 17670 cell in the tube, but... it doesn't fit!

If there is any other fellow CPF member owning an ITP A4 and an AW17670, can you try to fit the battery in the light?
My AW17670 reads 16.7 millimeter diameter on my digital caliper, not including the peel-off label. The same caliper reads the bore of the A4 tube to be 16.85 mm.

Why ITP specified the A4 to be able to take 17670 if the tube diameter is smaller than 17 mm? It is just my light or also yours are of smaller diameter?

EDIT: I managed to measure the current consumption with a bench power supply.
On maximum brightness at 4 V, the ITP EOS A4 draws 0.95 Amp. Below 4 Volt, it looses regulation. At medium intensity, it draws 85 mA, at minimum intensity it draws 5 mA. This indicates that the low level is not regulated; as matter of fact, the brightness at minimum intensity at 4 V is noticeably lower. To confirm, at 8.4 V (2xRCR123) it draws 15 mA, and is brighter. The low level of the ITP EOS A4 is basically a resistored direct drive setup: this explains the extremely long tail of light after the batteries are depleted, and makes it a very good battery vampire.

Regards

Anthony

It's too bad about the AW 17670 cells not fitting.

I have some AW protected 17670 cells and was considering getting one of these lights because iTP indicated it could use 17670 cells.

Ray_of_Light said:

I measured the runtimes with the light standing in free air. I see many reviews on CPF being conducted with a cooling fan, but I don't agree with this methodology; many of the ligths, especially those using MC-E /P7 LEDs and an MCU, just stop working without cooling, and that doesn't reflect real life usage.

Click to expand...

But in real life uses the operators hand takes away alot of heat. If I leave a light running on high it'll get alot hotter than if it stayed in my hand the whole time.

Think of it like an engineering test. If a light fails to complete its runtime on high in free air, it is badly designed. SF and Fenix never failed this test of mine. Others lights of other brands, yes, especially P7 and MC-E lights - otherwise very appreciated.

Also, the "hand radiator" works for small 123 lights; you can't cool down a multi-18650 celled light with your hands.

Anthony

Interesting light. I may pick one up if they make it in stainless. The levels are nice but would rather it came on in hight first. The 17670 issue is a major turn off for ITP.

Ray_of_Light said:

I just bought the ITP EOS A4 flashlight.

I did some current measurement at 6 Volt... then, I moved on to measure the current consumption of the ITP EOS A4 with a Li-Ion. I tried to fit an AW 17670 cell in the tube, but... it doesn't fit!

If there is any other fellow CPF member owning an ITP A4 and an AW17670, can you try to fit the battery in the light? My AW17670 reads 16.7 millimeter diameter on my digital caliper, not including the peel-off label. The same caliper reads the bore of the A4 tube to be 16.85 mm.

Why ITP specified the A4 to be able to take 17670 if the tube diameter is smaller than 17 mm? It is just my light or are yours also of smaller diameter?

Regards

Anthony

Click to expand...

Anthony...

I also bought an iTP EOS A4, back when it was first released a few months ago, and was delighted with its performance. My light happily accepted an AW-brand 17670, without problem. (At a internal tube diameter of 17.1 mm, the fit in the battery tube was snug, but not binding). I was so pleased with the size, performance, and tint of the light that I ordered another the evening of August 16th. It arrived August 19th (kudos to GoingGear for fast shipping). This time however the new light's battery tube was too small to accommodate the same li-ion cell that its sister happily accepted. (The new light accepted CR123 primaries without hesitation.)

I measured the internal tube diameter of my new light at 16.9 mm.

Hmmm...It appears from this limited sample of three lights that the first release of the A4 EOS (several months ago) was properly sized, but that the current stock of iTP A4 EOS lights may have a quality control problem, at least insofar as internal tube diameter is concerned.

I'd like to think that the folks at iTP will step up to the plate and act quickly to correct this deviation from specs, with whichever subcontractor is responsible, otherwise their reputation is going to suffer (and their advertising will be judged misleading). I'd also like to think that somebody at iTP will institute a quality control program (or at least a quality acceptance / random testing program), before accepting parts from its suppliers that are non-conforming.

I've been pleased with my other iTP lights. I don't expect perfect performance at this light's price point, but I do expect it to conform to its advertising. These things happen from time to time. If iTP fixes this quickly, I suspect it will be regarded as little more than a glitch in the manufacturing process. But the measure of the company's integrity will be found in how they respond to fix the problem.

Time will tell.