Torches that automatically 'step down' their brightness

I'm trying to find out if the Klarus XT11 and Klarus ST11 step down their brightness after x amount of time or if the battery voltage drops to x level but I can't seem to find it.
What do we all think of this 'feature' in general? I can't stand it :sigh:

I think it's great! No... seriously. I do.The other option is for the manufacturers to give us a light that runs all the time at a lower level, instead of adding a few minutes of "turbo" then stepping down to the level that won't destroy the emitter with heat. I'd rather have the option of super bright, I rarely need more than a minute or so of it anyway.

You can't break the laws of physics, but you can work within them with things like PID and timed stepdown to produce a better light.

Yeah, I like these features overall for the reasons Amelia stated. I especially like them when the burst levels are well-regulated. But even if they aren't they are still handy and worth having in my opinion.

Better to have step down than a fried emitter.

If the emitter/led/bulb etc can't handle it why don't they just make the thing so it can handle it?
I have 2 other led torches that don't do this and they are fine =/

Sometimes the only way to make the light handle it would be to make the light way too large in order to facilitate the transfer of heat to the environment.

So some lights can be made like that, but sometimes it's nice to have a compromise - make the light smaller but also allow it to be brighter for as long as it can be.

For tactical purposes, I understand the need for the brightest light you can get for a couple minutes or a couple seconds, but for more normal purposes like outdoor exploration, hiking etc, I rather have a light maintain the specified brightness for the entire time I use it. So in that sense, I rather have a light that stays at 300 lumens rather than have a light start at 800 lumens and eventually work its way down to 300 lumens.

I have ruined a couple of lights that did not have thermal control or step down, literally the heat was so intense the solder melted and on one light a couple of the components fell off the driver after overheating.

I think the biggest problem with stepdowns is that manufacturers are often not forthcoming about them. Sometimes, you don't know about them until you buy the light. And sometimes, they are entirely unneeded from a thermal standpoint. Manufacturers need to be honest and forthcoming if a light steps down.

StorminMatt said:

I think the biggest problem with stepdowns is that manufacturers are often not forthcoming about them.

Click to expand...

This is the biggest problem, especially with some timed stepdowns being ridiculously short. Personally, I think it's generally fine but should be limited to the highest "turbo" mode and the name "turbo" should imply there will be a stepdown - although, as with some mods, the current draw may be so high it'll flatten the batteries before it's needed anyway! But that's a different problem...

It should be stated clearly in all advertising and on the box e.g., "turbo mode uses a thermal step-down" or "turbo mode steps down to high after 3 minutes". It should ideally state the mode it steps down to (or give lumens if it's not another standard mode) except perhaps with complex dynamic thermal regulation. For timed step down it should be clear-cut. Turbo runtimes should also be given as a cumulative total and not inclusive of stepped-down time, which is very misleading. Some manufacturers are very up-front with this information but most aren't.

Similarly, it'd be nice if manufacturers were clearer about when the light should or shouldn't be expected to run in regulation.

Selfbuilt-style output curves for each mode would be ideal, but that may be asking for a lot. Still, it's annoying to have to wait for someone with an integrating sphere to do a review before buying any new lights when they come out.

StorminMatt said:

I think the biggest problem with stepdowns is that manufacturers are often not forthcoming about them. Sometimes, you don't know about them until you buy the light. And sometimes, they are entirely unneeded from a thermal standpoint. Manufacturers need to be honest and forthcoming if a light steps down.

Click to expand...

To add to this, they are getting better. But not much better. (Could be just that I am trained to look for it now??) This is one of those read the "FINE PRINT" cases for sure, if they even show that.

When I first started out in this, I got suckered by it. Now I go looking for it, but in time if you do this enough you get a general idea of physics and know what the technological limits are regardless of what some manufacture claims. But sometimes they are so dumb they set the turbo limits WAY too conservative.
As you know, these are set low to help protect the led, electronic components, and batteries.

Oh, and in some cases your hand or leg! Trust me, I have a few Direct Drive lights I run with unprotected cells.

This is one of the reasons why I can justify spending a few extra $$ on a custom light, or a light I can swap the driver myself. Some new drivers the Turbo times can be adjusted. This is great because if you are using your light in a windy, cold place it may not need to step down for a much longer time, than say the guy in a muggy swamp.

And this is why I use Malkoffs. But then again my lights are tools, not toys.

The poll is far too limited to be of any use, in my opinion. I like a well designed, necessary stepdown that manages heat to prevent damage, and allows for max brightness. I dislike arbitrary timed stepdowns (which may not be necessary). If I am using a light outside, at zero Fahrenheit, a timed stepdown is clearly an annoyance, rather than helpful (in almost all cases).

Zebralight's PID system, that keeps a light at max brightness, adjusting for conditions (if you increase airflow, decrease temperature, etc., the brightness will decrease more slowly or not at all), is clearly beneficial.

As usual, the devil is in the details. Whether or not I like it depends on how it is implemented. Overall I am glad that stepdowns exist...otherwise lights would have to be FAR more conservatively driven. I would rather have a 500 lumen light that can do double that for a short time than have a hard limit of 500 lumens max.

thedoc007 said:

The poll is far too limited to be of any use, in my opinion. I like a well designed, necessary stepdown that manages heat to prevent damage, and allows for max brightness. I dislike arbitrary timed stepdowns (which may not be necessary). If I am using a light outside, at zero Fahrenheit, a timed stepdown is clearly an annoyance, rather than helpful (in almost all cases).

Zebralight's PID system, that keeps a light at max brightness, adjusting for conditions (if you increase airflow, decrease temperature, etc., the brightness will decrease more slowly or not at all), is clearly beneficial.

As usual, the devil is in the details. Whether or not I like it depends on how it is implemented. Overall I am glad that stepdowns exist...otherwise lights would have to be FAR more conservatively driven. I would rather have a 500 lumen light that can do double that for a short time than have a hard limit of 500 lumens max.

Click to expand...

Yes - I personally feel that PID is the right way to implement "stepdown". I know it is more complex and expensive for manufacturers, but I'd gladly pay... oh... let's just say an extra $10-$15 per light for it rather than have a timed stepdown. From my understanding, it's just a temperature sensor and some software - they should be able to offer it at the price premium I suggested and still make it profitable.

RWT1405 said:

And this is why I use Malkoffs. But then again my lights are tools, not toys.

Click to expand...

Me too, no interest in stepdowns and multi modes. I want a light that switches on and stays on - every time

Amelia said:

I'd gladly pay... oh... let's just say an extra $10-$15 per light for it...

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's approximately the premium you pay for a Zebralight compared to other comparable lights. I don't know that manufacturers would be able to offer it as an option on specific lines, as it's not a model that scales well. But, it would certainly make a lot of sense for a company like Nitecore to include it in their higher-end ranges as a differentiator. They could learn something from the Apple "basic", "better", "best" model of product differentiation instead of making dozens of nearly identical products. It's not like they are Unilever or P&G, trying to saturate supermarket shelves with indistinguishable choices.

Hi guys, so do either of these have this feature?

Klarus XT11 and Klarus ST11
I'm pretty sure the XT2C doesn't but mine broke before I could use it much...

Yes they step down, look at Selfbuilt's review on the XT11.

Taz80 said:

Yes they step down, look at Selfbuilt's review on the XT11.

Click to expand...

Oh suck! well I'll have to see if I can handle it

twistedraven said:

For tactical purposes, I understand the need for the brightest light you can get for a couple minutes or a couple seconds, but for more normal purposes like outdoor exploration, hiking etc, I rather have a light maintain the specified brightness for the entire time I use it. So in that sense, I rather have a light that stays at 300 lumens rather than have a light start at 800 lumens and eventually work its way down to 300 lumens.

Click to expand...

In your scenario, I just set the light to 300 lumen and go with that. It's not like you have to run it at the highest output possible at all times.