vortex kc1???

Does anyone know when the kc1 will be available?

I guess no one knows? How about a dealer.Have any of you heard?

AFAIK, CountyComm seems to be the only dealer who carries the TC1, so maybe they might know something? What's the KC1 anyways?

Now I understand your excitement...that does look interesting! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

Yikes, how'd we miss that one?? Looks real neat... thanks for the link Rdshores!

So, ANYONE with info on the KC1?? ANYONE at all?

here's an earlier thread, with precious little info:

KC1:
Head / Body dia.: 26mm / L: 60mm
Switch mechanism = Twistie. Ignore what you think you see in the picture at the tail end. Its an illusion caused by lighting on a 'notch-cut' tail piece
Runtime: 2hrs on one CR2
Lumens: Up to 52Lm

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=526292&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

A review of the light can be found on Aten Imago site.

http://www.imagometrics.com/FLReviews/FLR.home.htm

It has a claimed 52 lumens rating....interesting, especially for such a small light. As a reference, the Arc4+ is rated at 33 lumens.

Curtis

Excellent link...thanks. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I guess this means the unit
will be available pretty soon. I must say that 52 Lumens
at $59 would be a very good deal /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/buttrock.gif, but Imago Metrics
doesn't seem to say anything about actual measurements of
brightness or battery life, at least not beyond mentioning
the manufacturer's statements. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif I would like to get
one of these lights, but I wouldn't set my heart on 52
lumens! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif I guess it's better to be surprised
than disappointed. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/santa.gif


Without adjustable brightness settings, it's hard to fathom
how this light could hold its full brightness for even an
hour in regulation. Also, I would guess that this light
would get pretty warm. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif


It's frustrating how some reviews seem to measure and report
so many details, yet leave such major issues completely
untouched. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif Does anyone know if Imago Metrics
hired by the flashlight manufacturers to do these reviews?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif


Also, does anyone get annoyed by the overuse of these
smileys?! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rant.gif

I called Vortex and was told August for shipping of these lights, but they didn't have any dealers yet!

regarding the lumen rating:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=LED&Number=600457&Forum=All_Forums&Words=kc1&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=600394&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&daterange=1&newerval=2&newertype=m&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post600457

I thought Imago mentioned in his review that the runtime is about 2 hours or so? Or was I imagining it? Hmm...

Sylvester, nice find on that link. I didn't take the current of the battery vs runtime into consideration.

It may truely be a type on their part to be 25 instead of 52.

Curtis

Hired? We wish! No, the evaluations are part of a pilot that we ran and unfortunately...haven't yet completed on Luxeon flashlights.Thankfully, we got enough consulting work from two appreciative manufacturers that will help cover the cost of the evals we did. Sit tight on the KC-1, Vortex are going through some trying times and I'm sure they're as anxious to sell these as some CPF'rs are to buy them. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ QUOTE ]
wholeflaffer said:
Does anyone know if Imago Metrics hired by the flashlight manufacturers to do these reviews?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the info! I hope you took what I said
as constructive criticism instead of vitreol. Any
reliable info is better than no info OR wrong info!

It boggles the mind the 'erroneous' or misleading specs that manufacturers are willing to publish- in the interest of marketing. For the Luxeon project, we elected to publish the Manufacturer specs for output and run-times for 2 reasons-
1- It would put the burden of proof on the manufacturers rather than us.
2- It would let those other reviewers with meters carry the cost of testing the lights for accurate output.
It becomes a problem when the manufacturers then poison the well by pulling the specs off of thier websites- forcing us to edit them on our reviews. So far, KJ and a couple of others are the only 'labs' that deliver metrics we can trust on output/run-times. I wish they would send us thier bottom line numbers for the lights we've evaluated ( not TESTED ) - so we could publish them. We are not an electronics testing lab so we don't even try that part.
======
[ QUOTE ]
wholeflaffer said:
Thanks for the info! I hope you took what I said
as constructive criticism instead of vitreol. Any
reliable info is better than no info OR wrong info!

[/ QUOTE ]