TIR vs Reflectors

corynewman · May 31, 2014

Greetings,

I have been researching TIR benefits/drawbacks vs the traditional reflector. I have looked at Fraen, Carclo, Ledil and others to see the subtle differences. I am doing this for a couple high-end builds with exotic materials and just want the best for everyday use, tactical and night hiking. (LED emitter: Cree XM-L2)

Ultimately, based on product specs of each TIR that I looked at, I did not see a greater efficiency of a TIR vs reflector specs.....all about 80-85% efficient. Some of the "spot" beam TIR's focus the light square or even rectangular. I am not sure that is what I want or am looking to build. Is there benefit? What is nice is that you can swap a spot, medium, and wide TIR out in the same allotted space in your torch body.

Everyone please kick in their opinions, based on experience, with their TIR's and let me know the PRO's and Con's. What am I missing?

breinrules · May 31, 2014

i may be wrong but its hard to make glass tir

corynewman · May 31, 2014

I haven't seen glass. Most of the good TIR's I have seen advertised are made from Optical grade PMMA (Plexiglass) or Polycarbonate.

calflash · May 31, 2014

Only glass ones I've seen are custom - check this out:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...glass-based-TIR-optic!&highlight=Ra+glass+tir

degarb · May 31, 2014

I see the advantage of TIR as price, weight, and maybe %30-%50 more throw at cost of a good bit of the corona.

I am interested in this thread per strong opinions and sourcing for good tir that perform as well as a good smo aluminum reflector + ar glass.

So far, I guess that I am too lumen greedy, to be happy with the Carclos that I have tried. I also don't get the spacer, since using it made the beam horrid-imho.

Now, back in the 1 watt days of my hippie, rebel 80 days/my xre days, I found the tir attractive, since, at that drive/efficiency level, the lux was wanting in the 26 mm class reflector that I was exposed to by that day's suppliers. Today, I have a single 18650 xpg2 with a aluminum 20 mm op. I hate the throw at the 1 watt rating; I hate the next higher level's 360 lumen 1h45 min level for lack of runtime. So, the 20 mm TIR bumps the OP's (orange peel) 1 watt 1100 lux at 1 meter to (if I recall) 1800 or 2200 candela, at the useful level of 1 watt. However, I think the overall output drops so much that the TIR feels more like a max of 220 lumens rather than 360. Not worth it, today--that is, unless I had no other options and needed to work with the light, where staring at objects/inspecting details means lux + lux+ lux .

So, I am still scratching my head over the TIR concept, even after owning 2 lights with stock tir and attempting some tir builds. I simply don't believe the "as efficient as a reflector" claim. Maybe against a plastic reflector (%25 loss-my guess) and cheap plastic lens (another %15). Maybe I haven't tried the right tir.

breinrules · May 31, 2014

calflash said:
Only glass ones I've seen are custom - check this out:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...glass-based-TIR-optic!&highlight=Ra+glass+tir

nice, but then still far from perfect. Note though that it is hard to apply ar coating on non flat surfaces. as noted in the post, it is hard to process it also

passive101 · May 31, 2014

I haven't been keeping up with why they went away from high end TIR's back in my early days of this forum. My Inova T1 and T2 were both TIR that used 1x123A and 2x123A. I used to use the 2x123A T2 as a security guard.

I always assumed that TIR must have been an older way to "amplify" or make a tighter hotspot compared to reflectors. I'm honestly not sure and I'm anxious to learn something in this thread.

These are the lights from when I had the T1 and T2. It looks like newer version of them changed.

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/inova_t.htm

breinrules · May 31, 2014

degarb said:
I see the advantage of TIR as price, weight, and maybe %30-%50 more throw at cost of a good bit of the corona.

I am interested in this thread per strong opinions and sourcing for good tir that perform as well as a good smo aluminum reflector + ar glass.

So far, I guess that I am too lumen greedy, to be happy with the Carclos that I have tried. I also don't get the spacer, since using it made the beam horrid-imho.

Now, back in the 1 watt days of my hippie, rebel 80 days/my xre days, I found the tir attractive, since, at that drive/efficiency level, the lux was wanting in the 26 mm class reflector that I was exposed to by that day's suppliers. Today, I have a single 18650 xpg2 with a aluminum 20 mm op. I hate the throw at the 1 watt rating; I hate the next higher level's 360 lumen 1h45 min level for lack of runtime. So, the 20 mm TIR bumps the OP's (orange peel) 1 watt 1100 lux at 1 meter to (if I recall) 1800 or 2200 candela, at the useful level of 1 watt. However, I think the overall output drops so much that the TIR feels more like a max of 220 lumens rather than 360. Not worth it, today--that is, unless I had no other options and needed to work with the light, where staring at objects/inspecting details means lux + lux+ lux .

So, I am still scratching my head over the TIR concept, even after owning 2 lights with stock tir and attempting some tir builds. I simply don't believe the "as efficient as a reflector" claim. Maybe against a plastic reflector (%25 loss-my guess) and cheap plastic lens (another %15). Maybe I haven't tried the right tir.

As an owner of led lenser, I can say that tir is well implemented on that one.

KITROBASKIN · May 31, 2014

Whatever you decide, corynewman, we are very interested in seeing the final product.

KeeblerElf · May 31, 2014

One thing to consider is that most reflector-based setups use reflector + LED + lens. Many approaches that use optics, however, find the LED encased in some epoxy-like material (such as the M60), or behind the optic itself (such as the Elzetta AVS head). This means that the optic may often win out in terms of extreme durability: breaking a half-inch of epoxy-like material is nigh impossible, whereas a sharp hit to a lens may be enough to leave the LED vulnerable. To me, an optic simply feels more durable, even if a reflector-based setup can take more physical punishment than I can!

It's also worth mentioning that the Elzetta AVS head allows the user to unscrew the bezel and switch between flood and throw optics by hand. I haven't seen the same flexibility with a lens, though it's easy enough to throw a diffuser over the head. [I see now that you've mentioned this modularity in your original post, but it's worth repeating.]

In terms of beam shape, optics seem to be more capable of allowing the hotspot to gradually transition to the spill, and the spill to gradually transition to nothing. With a reflector, there tends to be more of a sharp distinction between these areas of the beam. But I'm sure you already have experienced this.

degarb · May 31, 2014

KeeblerElf said:
One thing to consider is that most reflector-based setups use reflector + LED + lens. Many approaches that use optics, however, find the LED encased in some epoxy-like material (such as the M60), or behind the optic itself (such as the Elzetta AVS head). This means that the optic may often win out in terms of extreme durability: breaking a half-inch of epoxy-like material is nigh impossible, whereas a sharp hit to a lens may be enough to leave the LED vulnerable. To me, an optic simply feels more durable, even if a reflector-based setup can take more physical punishment than I can!

It's also worth mentioning that the Elzetta AVS head allows the user to unscrew the bezel and switch between flood and throw optics by hand. I haven't seen the same flexibility with a lens, though it's easy enough to throw a diffuser over the head. [I see now that you've mentioned this modularity in your original post, but it's worth repeating.]

In terms of beam shape, optics seem to be more capable of allowing the hotspot to gradually transition to the spill, and the spill to gradually transition to nothing. With a reflector, there tends to be more of a sharp distinction between these areas of the beam. But I'm sure you already have experienced this.

KeeblerElf, in short, add to the TIR advantage list: Extreme impact/shock durability; modularity (I love this one); beam shaping possibilities (I would like to see more hd like 5:3 hot spots and coronas).

I may be missing other advantages.

ElectronGuru · May 31, 2014

In my experience, the big plus from optics is more throw from a given size (larger reflectors are required to match). In exchange for this, 1) optics must be found and not made, so its hit or miss for a given application and 2) optics can have scratches and 3) optics have beam artifacts (seen when pointed at a wall). So from a build choice point of view, the disadvantages are easier to see, with most designers choosing reflectors. They can still say it 'has throw' while also saying it has a smooth beam.

corynewman · Jun 2, 2014

Great information to consider! Really leaning towards TIR's now.

I will have to use a standard TIR optic for my builds, but hope to be able to create my own mold/tools in the future.

TIR vs Reflectors

corynewman

Newly Enlightened

breinrules

Newly Enlightened

corynewman

Newly Enlightened

calflash

Enlightened

degarb

Flashlight Enthusiast

breinrules

Newly Enlightened

passive101

Enlightened

breinrules

Newly Enlightened

KITROBASKIN

Flashlight Enthusiast

KeeblerElf

Enlightened

degarb

Flashlight Enthusiast

ElectronGuru

Flashaholic

corynewman

Newly Enlightened

Similar threads

Latest posts