Jetbeam Jet I Pro new version?
- Thread starter Napalm
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
My advice is don't wait for an upgrade if it's coming with a XP-G, look elsewhere and buy the XR-E R2 for the awesome throw.
I agree. I just bought one. :twothumbs
C'mon guys leave a couple of them for me too... :candle:
Unless there is going to be a major change to the light, like a mega jump in lumens, I would rather keep the throw. You can always defuse the light easily but trying to focus it more for throw is extremely difficult. Personally, I don't care for a forward clicky in a small AA light.
fyrstormer
Banned
The RRT-0 is a better deal than the Jet-I anyway; it has continuously-adjustable brightness, a forward-clicky switch, and it can run on either 1xAA or 1x123. There's no reason to bother with any of Jetbeam's older designs at this point.
"better deal" is highly subjective. RRT-0 costs about 50% more with the AA extender. Here are some main differences:
1. cont-adj-brightness vs 3 modes IBS
2. forward vs reverse clicky
3. AA, 123, 14500 battery vs AA, 14500
4. 255 lumens on S2 version vs 240 lumens
5. both roughly the same size, although the rrt0 might be a tiny bit longer with the AA extender installed
One must evaluate whether they want to pay extra 50% for rrt-0 vs jet-i pro. The con-adj-brightness is what I perceive as the biggest difference but personally, I won't pay extra 50% just for that feature. IBS is still programmable and 3 settable brightness level is sufficient for me. I don't care for forward clicky on an AA size light. I don't have 123 batteries and 14500 provides the same brightness. I cannot visually tell between 255 vs 240 lumens. Since I don't have 123 battery, I run AA or 14500 so smaller is better.
Not really. With the AA extender, the rrt0 is roughly about the same length as the Fenix LD10. Far from 2AA.
Here is my thought. Aside from the cont-adj-brightness feature, if you get the rrt0 alone, you are opting for the small size and high lumens. When you get the AA extender (meaning you don't mind the extra length for an added option), you are buying the option to run AA with up to 180 lumens, which is rare in AA light (rare in terms of 180 lumens in AA size light). However, given you can now use 14500 to get more runtime with the same brightness as using 123, you will likely want to use that as your primary and only AA as backup.
B0wz3r
Flashlight Enthusiast
Yes, but the RRT-0 with the extender is just about the same size as my Jet-3 Pro ST using an 18650! If I had to choose between throw and run-time (and the Pro ST throws pretty darn well), in general, I'll take the run-time.
Not really. Zebralight SC51 does 200 OTF on a nimh, My Quark AAnw does 200 on a 14500, the new Thrunite Neutrons do 245 on an AA nimh... And, they're all smaller than the RRT-0 with the AA extender.
Actually, you'll get less runtime with a 14500 compared to an eneloop or an L91. 14500's do have a slight advantage in run-time compared to 16340's, but it's small. When you run Li-ion you sacrifice run-time for output.
I personally would like to see them move to an XML like they've done with the Jet-3M, and use a deeper reflector to focus the light more for more throw, but that's just me. (And make a neutral version available as well.)
BO,
You listed some good lights that will do over 180 lumens with single AA. However, that still account for a limited number of lights, given the large amount of AA lights out there.
I will agree that if Jetbeam upgrade the Jet-I to XML AND redesign the reflector to keep it a throw light, I will also be all over it and trade out my R2. However, if they redesign and give it a deeper reflector to keep the throw, that also mean they have to redesign the head. Without modifying the head, I am not sure they have room to put a deep disk reflector in.
Anyone knows when they new version coming out?
You listed some good lights that will do over 180 lumens with single AA. However, that still account for a limited number of lights, given the large amount of AA lights out there.
I will agree that if Jetbeam upgrade the Jet-I to XML AND redesign the reflector to keep it a throw light, I will also be all over it and trade out my R2. However, if they redesign and give it a deeper reflector to keep the throw, that also mean they have to redesign the head. Without modifying the head, I am not sure they have room to put a deep disk reflector in.
Anyone knows when they new version coming out?
There are still plenty of R2 on ebay.
fyrstormer
Banned
The RRT-0 also has strobe and SOS accessible without needing to sacrifice an IBS "slot" that could otherwise be used to store a brightness setting. I don't remember if the Jet-I has an SOS option, but if it does, then to have strobe and SOS available on a Jet-I you would be left with a single "normal" brightness setting. With the RRT-0 you can have all possible settings accessible within 1 second or so, no programming required.
Have you tried a continuously-adjustable light with a control ring? If you haven't, you can't possibly assess whether you would prefer it vs. a multi-click light.
Care to provide a reason for this preference? Remember, you don't need to multi-click the switch on the RRT-0 to change modes, so a reverse-clicky's main benefit of allowing mode-changes without turning the light off is irrelevant. Meanwhile, the forward-clicky allows you to blink the light very quickly without having to latch and un-latch the switch.
According to the Jetbeam website, the length of the Jet-I is 100mm and the length of the RRT-0 is 97mm. Since 14500 batteries are 16mm longer than 16340 batteries, that means the RRT-0 with the 14500 extender is 13mm longer than the Jet-I. That's half an inch. That's not a significant increase in length for a light that's less than 4 inches long to start with.
- - -
The RRT-0 with the 14500 extender is 7mm shorter than the Jet-III Pro ST, which I agree isn't much. It's also the same width at its widest point. However, the RRT-0 has a pocket clip to keep it out of the bottom of your pocket, which the Jet-III Pro ST doesn't have; all of its battery options are lighter and less expensive than an RCR18650; and it has the continuously-adjustable brightness feature, whereas the Jet-III Pro ST has only three modes. So while it's a comparable size, it's not a comparable package. Maybe the Jet-III Pro ST throws further, maybe it doesn't -- I suspect the reflectors are comparable though, since the heads are the same width.
The XM-L wouldn't be a good fit for the RRT-0, in my opinion. While the head could hold it and the battery couldn't possibly drive the XM-L hard enough to produce excessive heat, the XM-L emitter die is much larger than the XP-G emitter die and would require a proportionally larger reflector to focus it the same as the current model. You say you want throw, well, the XP-G is much better at throwing than the XM-L is. The XP-G is still the best Cree-brand emitter for small flashlights at this point.
- - -
Yes. Using the XM-L would require a driver tuned to its performance characteristics, and the wider emitter die would require a deeper reflector, which in-turn would require a redesigned head. At that point it's basically a whole new flashlight, because the head is where all the technology is. The switch and the battery tube are nothing by comparison. So if they're going to redesign the light, they might as well upgrade the interface too, which they did -- that's what the RRT-0 is; it's the Jet-I and the Jet-II rolled together with an upgraded UI.
Last edited:
