4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-2, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS, etc

[ninjaboigt]

The reverse clickie is pretty stiff, I think it would be ok in a backpack. Just keep the head loosend and it won't much matter if it does get turned on, for about 30 days anyway.

LOL good point good point.

i barely lock out my flashlights, i don thave that that many..

i do however take out the batt from my incan flashlights, i dont wanna burn anything down...

lock out isnt too important to me..

 

[f22shift]

Excellent review Selfbuilt! Did you notice the flash of somewhat brighter light when changing modes? I though I read that there was a slight pre-flash, but not as bad as some of the older Fenix lights.

it's there. there are some videos you can watch that show it. i noticed it in the youtube review of the tactical. i have a old l2d with the preflash and it never bugged me. it's something for the user to decide.
i think it only preflashes also if previously on high or something to that effect. so if you use low alot you probably wouldnt even see it.
david did mention they knew about it and can't be designed out based on the circuit. i'll take the tradeoff for the well designed ui and good efficiency.

 

[f22shift]

regarding the non lockout. i think they wanted to retain their design of their reversible clip if i understand the design correctly. so that the head could work on either ends.
someone did suggest you could anodize the tailcap but i suppose that would eventually wear out and become a design flaw. and that's assuming if there is still a current contact at the end of the cap rather than the threads.
there is an advantage in that you can back out the tailcap a little and it'll still have a current. i guess for the ppl who have longer cells (some li ions).

solutions would be to remove the battery for travel or use a hardcase which i usually use for bookbag carry anyway.

maybe they didn't want to get sued by surefire for the patented lockout. i keed i keed.
but again the info is out for a consumer to decide. for myself it's not a deal killer even for the tactical if it's the same.

 

[choaticwhisper]

The reverse clickie is pretty stiff, I think it would be ok in a backpack. Just keep the head loosened and it won't much matter if it does get turned on, for about 30 days anyway.

Its stiff right now, 4sevens said sometime in the future new, Easier to press button covers will be available.

 

[selfbuilt]

Are the QAA with 14500 and Q123 with RCR123 the same brightness and runtimes? You did say they have the same circuit and if those batteries have the same voltage they should be the same brightness, right?

More or less - there is always some variability from sample to sample (due to accepted variances in circuit, LED output bin, Vf, etc). And protected 14500s typically have slightly higher capacity than protected RCR, despite being rated the same (typically ~10-30% more in my testing).

At special request, I have now done the 17670 runtime on the QAA head (using the 123-2 battery tube). The result is interesting:

As you can see, you get much longer runtime than RCR or 14500, as expected. But the buck/boost QAA circuit doesn't outperform the buck-only Q123-2 on 17670.

The reason for this appears to be in the regulation - the Q123/QAA head is fully regulated on 1x3.7V Li-ion, but the Q123-2 drops out of regulation and into something approaching direct drive after ~40 mins in the 17670 run. Direct drive is always more efficient that flat-line regulation, so it's not surprising to me that the Q123-2 wins out on 17670.

I plan on buying a QAA-2 tactical..and i plan to use eneloops in them...is eneloops not recommneded for this flashlight? or is it just that the output on max isnt as good as it is with 1 cr123a? and ...is there a chance you can take a picture of the tk20 side by sides standing up on end next to the QAA-2? thank you!

Sorry, I realize I wasn't clear - as others pointed out, I was thinking mainly of the use of alkalines in the lights. The QAA-2 is a very good performer on standard 2xAA ... it's just that relatively speaking, it's not as stellar a performer as it is on 1x3.7V Li-ion. Certainly no qualms about its overall 2xaA performance.

I took the numbers from the review to make some comparison between the Quarks. I thought it may be interesting also for others to look at it gathered if a few tables - I hope it would be ok to put them here: ... I'm not sure how to interpret the measured output values. Is there a linear dependence between the "lightbox max" figure and the lumen output?

No, I'm afraid the lightbox is not really linear. I appreciate that you've put a lot of work in to build your tables, but I don't believe it's possible to justify those efficiency conclusions based on my simple milk carton lightbox.

I don't have have a calibrated integrating sphere to compare, but my experience with Novatac leads me to suspect a simple power relationship fits the relative output data better than a linear one. But again, I believe the box is overly influenced by too many factors to allow you to make absolute efficiency calculations. I thiink it's best to simply accept the runtime data for what it is, and not try to directly compare the lightbox outputs (except as rough visual guides).

interesting.. my runtime graphs were not as flat. how often do you take readings?

Every 30 secs. But more than that, my light sensor is also exquisitively sensitive to even minor fluctuations (i.e. up to 4 sig figs can be reliably obtained). That level of precision contributes to the specficity of the graphs.

In fact, if you check out my Rogue review, you'll see how well it can discriminate even slight fluctations in the steps (1sec is my the maximum sampling rate of my data-logger). Any deviation from "perfect flat" is very noticeable on the sensor.

Did you notice the flash of somewhat brighter light when changing modes? I though I read that there was a slight pre-flash, but not as bad as some of the older Fenix lights.

Doh, forgot to mention that.

Yes, the pre-flash is there on my samples, as others have reported for theirs. I quickly got used to it, so forgot to mention it (it's also somewhat variable - sometimes it's more noticeable than others). On the whole, it consistently seems to be less noticeable than in my earlier Fenix lights that were susceptible to it.

Do you think you will be getting any of the Q3 5A warm versions to compare runtime and output with these?

Dunno ...

 

[Federal LG]

Thanks for your time and review, mr. Eric.

I´m amazed with 4Sevens CR123 batteries performance over american made batteries.

Definitely a "preconception buster" example!

Congratulations mr. David Chow.

 

[selfbuilt]

I´m amazed with 4Sevens CR123 batteries performance over american made batteries.
Definitely a "preconception buster" example!

I wondered why no one was commenting on that.

FYI, I've tested the 4Sevens cells in my T10 test-bed, and got lower performance than the USA-made brands (basically intermediate between Tenergy and the USA-brands). So overall performance may be linked to the specific circuit in question.

I'm currently testing all the batteries in my LF3XT to compare further, and will report back my results.

 

[Toohotruk]

I just want to thank you again for going to all this effort...hell, even your reply posts are a fair amount of work!


You are the literal embodiment of a true flashaolic...you must be, if not, you wouldn't spend the kind of time it takes to do reviews with the attention to detail you do, and provide the depth of information you do, on so many lights...and without getting paid, mind you.

Amazing!!! :bow::bow::bow:

 

[DHart]

Wonderful work.... such time and attention to the work - as usual! Thanks for the effort and for sharing it!

 

[Mostly]

Awesome review, as always! Thank you!

I was leaning toward getting the 2AA because of the stated runtimes, but now I'm leaning back to the single AA--I like that Eneloop runtime on Medium! At the moment, I don't think I should do the traditional CPF thing, get a spare 2AA tube and have both... just the single light is hard enough to justify when we need a new A/C... sigh. 2AAs are getting to be a bit of a yawn for me... maybe I'll put the future $20 2AA tube price toward a 14500 and charger instead.

 

[wapkil]

No, I'm afraid the lightbox is not really linear. I appreciate that you've put a lot of work in to build your tables, but I don't believe it's possible to justify those efficiency conclusions based on my simple milk carton lightbox.

Thank you for the answer. I didn't use your lightbox output results in the efficiency analysis. I couldn't because I didn't know how to interpret them From your test I took only the runtimes and the information whether the regulation is flat. The output was taken from the lights specification. I included efficacy numbers only in the situations where I thought that the total lumen output is relatively well approximated by the constant output till the end of the runtime.

The efficacy results depend on the accuracy of the lights specification but David wrote that it is based on commercial IS tests so I expect them to be correct. I also compared some of the values in the specification to the current consumption and the result looked good to me.

In my intention the tables serve two purposes - one is to have all the runtimes in one place, the second is to compare the lights behavior on different batteries and in different modes. I believe that they should serve these purposes well but if you think that the results are invalid I will, of course, remove them (or correct them if a correction is needed).

 

[Phaserburn]

Selfbuilt, as always: simply, en fuego!

:twothumbs

On beam quality - how would you compare the beam to an Eagletac P100 series? I really like how that light's hotspot is less defined than typical, with the brightest point gradually fading into the spill. The hotspot is still there, but I find a less defined hotspot beneficial when walking at a decent clip. Your eyes don't constantly stayed glued to the bobbing hotspot all the time, and I think overall vision is better.

I am in constant search for lights with this beam pattern, or simply a wider hotspot.

 

[selfbuilt]

and i notice you have a TK20...is there a chance you can take a picture of the tk20 side by sides standing up on end next to the QAA-2? thank you!

Sorry, gave the TK20 away to my daughter. But you can get an idea by looking at my 2xAA Round-up thread and comparing the heights to the other lights common to both pictures.

Thank you for the answer. I didn't use your lightbox output results in the efficiency analysis. I couldn't because I didn't know how to interpret them From your test I took only the runtimes and the information whether the regulation is flat.

Ah, I understand now. I think it's fair to summarize all my runtimes in one place, as long as it is clear it is only my sample runtimes being summarized (since they are done under standardized conditions with batteries that I continually verify for consistent performance).

But I'm not so sure you should go by the rated lumen estimates for efficiency calculations. Although David has said these are based on calibrated IS results, he has also made it clear in several posts that he intends to under-report Quark stats, and over-provide with the finished product. That tells me that his lumen numbers are likely rounded down to absolute minimum values with some margin of safety (somewhat like what Surefire does). Individual lights would thus be expected to be somewhat higher, to varying degrees - all of which would affect their runtime (along with Vf, etc.).

Ultimately, with no way to calibrate my outputs, I think using my runtime data in combination with manufacturer specs would be rather misleading.

On beam quality - how would you compare the beam to an Eagletac P100 series? I really like how that light's hotspot is less defined than typical, with the brightest point gradually fading into the spill. The hotspot is still there, but I find a less defined hotspot beneficial when walking at a decent clip. Your eyes don't constantly stayed glued to the bobbing hotspot all the time, and I think overall vision is better.

The Quarks still have a relatively well-defined hotspot, so the "follow-the-bouncing-ball" problem of walking at night still persists (although it is not as bad on the Quarks as most other Cree light). Honestly, the only Cree lights I know that aren't like this are on the ones with really deep reflectors (e.g. like LiteFlux LF3XT) - but these also produce a much narrower spillbeam. :shrug:

The Golden Dragon Plus LEDs (on some NiteCore models) have a very nice beam pattern for walking (heavy corona, so smooth hotpot-spill transition). But they also have color variation across their beam.

Personally, I've become rather fond of my LF3XT for EDC, including walks. Although the spillbeam is rather narrow, the spill itself is bright enough so that you can actually see more at moderate distances (it's just up-close where a wider spillbeam is really useful).

 

[dudu84]

At special request, I have now done the 17670 runtime on the QAA head (using the 123-2 battery tube). The result is interesting:

As you can see, you get much longer runtime than RCR or 14500, as expected. But the buck/boost QAA circuit doesn't outperform the buck-only Q123-2 on 17670.

The reason for this appears to be in the regulation - the Q123/QAA head is fully regulated on 1x3.7V Li-ion, but the Q123-2 drops out of regulation and into something approaching direct drive after ~40 mins in the 17670 run. Direct drive is always more efficient that flat-line regulation, so it's not surprising to me that the Q123-2 wins out on 17670.

Thanks for your extra efforts, Selfbuilt; very interesting results indeed :thumbsup:.

 

[wapkil]

Ah, I understand now. I think it's fair to summarize all my runtimes in one place, as long as it is clear it is only my sample runtimes being summarized (since they are done under standardized conditions with batteries that I continually verify for consistent performance).

But I'm not so sure you should go by the rated lumen estimates for efficiency calculations. Although David has said these are based on calibrated IS results, he has also made it clear in several posts that he intends to under-report Quark stats, and over-provide with the finished product. That tells me that his lumen numbers are likely rounded down to absolute minimum values with some margin of safety (somewhat like what Surefire does). Individual lights would thus be expected to be somewhat higher, to varying degrees - all of which would affect their runtime (along with Vf, etc.).

Ultimately, with no way to calibrate my outputs, I think using my runtime data in combination with manufacturer specs would be rather misleading.

David wrote that:

We've quoted these ratings as "typical" and "actual measured." What we've done is take a dozen, measure them in an IS and take the lowest output.

It means, I believe, that there is actually not much Surefire type safety margin. I think that the LEDs with extremely high Vf are quite rare so with a dozen lights measured, the minimum could be not far from the population average (and it was the measurements intention, as I understood). One of the reasons that I think my results should be close to accurate is a comparison that I made to another light. As was expected, the Quarks had similar efficacy, except the points where the driver either hits the sweet spot (18lm mode) and the efficacy substantially rises or the points where the driver becomes inefficient and the efficacy substantially drops (moon mode and RCR for 123-2).

I thought that I made it clear that these are your samples by calling them "Selfbuilt's [battery type]" I made these tables to verify a few things and the results were interesting enough that I thought I would share them. They show how extremely different the circuit efficiency can be in different modes and for different chemistries. This has a direct practical meaning for flashlight purchase and usage decisions.

Since the tables are predominantly based on your work I didn't want to take the results out of your thread and post them somewhere else - that's why I've put them here.

I understand now that it may be not a good idea to mix the independent review results with the manufacturer specification. I removed the tables and will wait for your decision what should be done with them. I could change the real efficacy numbers (lm/W) to some artificial scale but I still would need a way to compare the flashlights output for it. I can also remove the efficacy numbers, leaving the tables only with your runtimes, although in this case an important part of the information is lost.

I'm sorry for the trouble, please let me know what do you think should be done. Of course we can discuss it via PM if you prefer.

 

[Sharpy_swe]

Would the Q123² head work with the AA² body and 2x14500?

And what runtimes could you expect then?

 

[AardvarkSagus]

Would the Q123² head work with the AA² body and 2x14500?

And what runtimes could you expect then?

From everything I read, it should and you should expect about 20% more runtime than 2x RCR123. The problem is that seems to have some issues causing abysmal runtimes in that config.

 

[I came to the light...]

Thanks for the roundup :thumbsup:

Why does the AA perform 1.5x as well on a 14500 as the CR123A does on a 16340, when they have the same electronics and the batteries have the same capacity?

 

[DHart]

All other factors being equal, the 14500s tend to have higher capacity/longer runtimes (due to larger cell volume) than the 16340s, even if both are labeled as the same 750 mAh.

 

[hiker123]

Great job Selfbuilt! Thanks for taking the time to do the review.