Why Don't They Change the Models?

I was looking to buy another XT2C, but as I scanned the variations on eBay, I was surprised to see there were many. Some were brighter, some had better runtimes (the one with the lowest maximum output had by far the BEST runtime in low mode -- 10 lumens for 295 hours). Seems incredible, but some XT2Cs had completely different specs and flash heads.

Why so many variations in a single model? Shouldn't they change the number or something?

Some were advertised as having 900 lumens, but the specs said maximum lumen output was only 725 lumens. The head of my current flash says it's an XM-L T6, but the ads on eBay have differing specs. It's very frustrating.

Thanks!

Destiny said:

I was looking to buy another XT2C, but as I scanned the variations on eBay, I was surprised to see there were many. Some were brighter, some had better runtimes (the one with the lowest maximum output had by far the BEST runtime in low mode -- 10 lumens for 295 hours). Seems incredible, but some XT2Cs had completely different specs and flash heads.

Why so many variations in a single model? Shouldn't they change the number or something?

Some were advertised as having 900 lumens, but the specs said maximum lumen output was only 725 lumens. The head of my current flash says it's an XM-L T6, but the ads on eBay have differing specs. It's very frustrating.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I like the fact that they make improvements without changing anything else. The new model is reasonably certain to have everything I like about the old model with more output. Unfortunately Kydex belt holders are a little hard to find for Klarus, but I can know that my old one will fit my new light.

Unfortunately reading the specs carefully to make sure you are getting the version you want (which I'm most cases will likely be the latest version) becomes critical. Many dealers seem to sell the old and new versions at about the same price.

Some makers are constantly changing configurations so I can't count on the belt holder for one to fit the next one.

Already have XT2C's in 580 and 725 lumen versions, so I don't really need the 900 lumen version, but it is priced so that upgrading is relatively painless. Waiting for the 280 lumen XT1C to hit more dealers before picking up one of these.

I asked the seller why the Klarus XT2C would be advertised as 900 lumens, but only 725 lumens in the ad's copy, he replied, "the 900Lumens is [the] theoretical value, and 725 is the [actuality]." So how is the theoretical number generated?

The 2014 (current) model (left) and my model's lumens and runtimes are:

725 ANSI lumens (4 hrs)........470 ANSI lumens (2.5 hrs)
180 lumens (13.3 hrs)...........150 lumens (7.3 hrs)
....5 lumens (215 hrs).............10 lumens (295 hrs)
Strobe: 725 lumens (8 hrs)....470 lumens (5 hrs)

I'm not sure how accurate any of these numbers are, but it's quite a different set of numbers for one model. Obviously the 2014 model offers some substantial advantages, but when I show people the output of my XT2C (470 lumens) on a dark night they swear it's brighter than the output of my Nitecore SRT7's (960 lumens) until they see them side by side. It's most likely because of the XT2C's flood. The Nitecore tends towards throw, but even then, the brightness difference isn't all that great. It's there and its obvious, but it's not so different that it would be beneficial. What would be greatly beneficial is the 10 lumens for 295 hours vice 5 lumens for 215 hours. Both of the numbers are great, but the latter comes pretty close to making the flashlight. Still, 4 hours at 725 lumens also comes pretty close to making the light.

But I'm going to wait before investing in new lights, as there are some pretty amazing technological advances on the horizon.

BTW: Has anyone made a side by side comparison of the two XT2C models?