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

[john2]

A very interesting read (5 pages

I'm considering the Quark AA with a AW 14500 battery. Apparently the brightness is similar to the AAx2 (which is what I want), but now I want to know what the battery life is in comparison to the AAx2?

I found the answer here: http://www.light-reviews.com/reviews.html

My next question is, which option is the best & most price effective (with rechargeables of whatever is in them)?

• 123^2,
• 123, or
• AA.

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

but now I want to know what the battery life is in comparison to the AAx2?

If you mean how long you will get light for on each battery charge, on the first page of this thread if you go to the heading Quark AA-comparison you'll see that he has a graph for the torch with 14500 battery and if you then go to the heading Quark AA2-comparison you'll see he has two graphs, one of 2x eneloop AA and one of 2 x Alkaline AA.

The bottom axis on each of those three graphs is a time scale and you can see the perfomance of those batteries in the torches and make the comparison you need.

 

[brightnorm]

Quark states that 2x123 in max/turbo mode is 190L for 1.8hrs. But this graph shows constant output dropping after only about 1hr20 minutes. This is such a very large and disappointing discrepancy that I'm tempted to go back to my Fenix 2x123's whose constant 90 minute runtime in max/turbo has been confirmed in past tests.

Unless I have somehow misinterpreted this it is very disappointing.

Brightnorm

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Quark states that 2x123 in max/turbo mode is 190L for 1.8hrs. But this graph shows constant output dropping after only about 1hr20 minutes. This is such a very large and disappointing discrepancy that I'm tempted to go back to my Fenix 2x123's whose constant 90 minute runtime in max/turbo has been confirmed in past tests.

Unless I have somehow misinterpreted this it is very disappointing.

Brightnorm

Typically the runtimes are timed from start until the output reaches 50% of the original brightness. The graph above states 1 hour 53 minutes on 4sevens own battery brand for the 123x2 torch. That's 1.88 hrs as I work it out so 4 sevens have actually understated their runtimes slightly.

If you already have both the torches you mention wouldn't you already know which one suits your needs better without feeling disappointment just from looking at a graph?

 

[selfbuilt]

Quark states that 2x123 in max/turbo mode is 190L for 1.8hrs. But this graph shows constant output dropping after only about 1hr20 minutes. This is such a very large and disappointing discrepancy that I'm tempted to go back to my Fenix 2x123's whose constant 90 minute runtime in max/turbo has been confirmed in past tests.

Hmmm, well, as JaquarDave points out, time to 50% is indeed consistent with 4Sevens spec.

But there may be another issue here - my original Q123-2 was defective on RCR (but not on 17670). I have checked over my records, and I see I never re-tested the primary CR123A runs on the replacement Q123-2.

I am currently in the middle of another runtime test (as usual ), but will try to re-do the 2xCR123A max run on the replacement head soon. I don't expect there to be a huge difference (i.e. the original 2xCR123A results are in keeping with other lights of this class). But I'll let you know if anything significant pops out.

:wave:

 

[selfbuilt]

Looks like the replacement Q123-2 does a bit better on primary CR123A.

Q123-2 #1 refers to the original sample (and runtimes). #2 refers to the replacement sample 4sevens sent me. I presume the replacement trace is more in keeping with typical, but I have left both up there for now.

I fortunately had a couple of 4sevens batteries left over from the same batch as the earlier runtimes, so the results are directly comparable. Frankly, I'm amazed at how little difference there is in output between the samples ...

Hope that helps!
:wave:

 

[brightnorm]

I've never been happy with the "50%" runtime because it doesn't tell you the duration of regulation. Since most good lights are now regulated, runtime might be better divided into two specs: regulation duration plus the time to 50% after regulation. This might not work with LiOns but would be informative for cr123's/AA primaries, etc.

Since Fenix quotes the runtime in regulation I expected Quark to do no less. For example, Fenix states 1.5 hrs for the PD3/Q5. Here is Chevrofreak's graph:

This more than tallies with Fenix's figures. A more informative spec would be "1.5hrs regulated plus 35 min to 50%"

As to why this is important to me since I have both lights, they are both excellent lights but I was counting on the Quark to quote regulated runtime, as Fenix does. Also, I have never run either light to shut-off.

Brightnorm

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Interesting that the runtimes "regulated" between your fenix example torch and the Q123-2 in Selfbuilt's last Duracell graph are almost identical.

I must admit that I too tend to disregard the "50%" thing as it gives me no real picture of how a torch performs during that run. It could drop on a steady decline from the moment it's first switched on or run fully bright then drop suddenly at the end yet they could both still have the same "50%" figures. Mind you, it's just a number. The graphs themselves show how it looks thorughout runtime so to me they are streets ahead in value than the simple "50%" figure.

 

[RepProdigious]

Wow, great review! Lots of info, very informative!

On a sidenote; Below the first picture in you 'Quark 123-2 Comparison' section you forgot to mention the AW18650 cell

 

[selfbuilt]

Mind you, it's just a number. The graphs themselves show how it looks thorughout runtime so to me they are streets ahead in value than the simple "50%" figure.

Yes, exactly. This is why I provide the detailed runtime graphs (on the same output scale), so users can directly compare. I only quote time to 50% so people can see how my results compare to others (who may not provide graphs).

This more than tallies with Fenix's figures. A more informative spec would be "1.5hrs regulated plus 35 min to 50%"

Although I agree it would be good if "time to end of regulation" were also commonly reported, this isn't always feasible. A lot of multi-power lights run in direct-drive modes from early in their run, and this isn't the same as the rapid drop-off in fully regulated lights once they are out of regulation.

At the end of the day, you are always best off looking at the actual graphs.

 

[4sevens]

Also, if I may add - end of regulation specs will vary greatly. Not only are there forward voltage variations (affecting efficiency) but all electronic components have a specified range so just because you have one clinical result doesn't mean it's representative of or even falls within a sample set.

ALSO, the battery type and brand used makes a big difference. Not only the capacity is important, the impedance (internal resistance) will affect how long the circuit can sustain regulation.

One more thing since brightnorm is complaining about p3d vs quark 123-2. P3D's circuit drives it at 750-800ma. The Quark 123-2 drives it at 950ma. If you're going to compare, compare apples to apples.

My two cents

 

[brightnorm]

Thanks for the clarification. Do not equate my critical questioning with real "complaining". The fact that I own more than a half-dozen Quarks shows how I feel about these products.

Brightnorm

 

[Mikellen]

Hello all,

I'm having a hard time deciding between the AA2 and the 2 CR123A versions. My decision will be based on runtime.
I don't understand these runtimes. 4Sevens states the following:

AA2

High mode 85 lumens, 5 hrs.
Med mode 22 lumens, 24 hrs.

2 Cr123A

High mode 85 lumens, 4.5 hrs.
Med mode 22 lumens, 20 hrs.

How can the 2 Cr123A version Quark get less runtime than the 2 AA version?

Now on light-reviews the runtime for the AA2 is somewhat similar but the
2 CR123A runtime for the high mode is 10.55 hrs. and on medium mode its 50.14 hrs. That's quite a bit of difference from 4Sevens statistics.
Selfbuilt's runtime was 7.52 hrs. on high mode for the 2 Cr123A Quark.

So does anyone know which runtime figures are accurate for the 2 CR123A Quark?

Thanks.

 

[selfbuilt]

Selfbuilt's runtime was 7.52 hrs. on high mode for the 2 Cr123A Quark.

My runtime may be on the lower side. My original 123-2 was defective on RCR, and the replacement sample had better runtime on RCR and CR123A (on Turbo). I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two.

Note that Med-Hi runtimes on CR123A are highly dependent on the brand of CR123A used.

 

[Mikellen]

My runtime may be on the lower side. My original 123-2 was defective on RCR, and the replacement sample had better runtime on RCR and CR123A (on Turbo). I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two.

Note that Med-Hi runtimes on CR123A are highly dependent on the brand of CR123A used.

"I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two."

Well then that would be closer to light reviews runtime measurement.
So is it just an error on 4Sevens part where they state 4.5 hrs for the runtime on high? If so then medium mode seems to be in error also; 20 hrs. (4Sevens) 50.14 (light reviews). :thinking:

 

[selfbuilt]

So is it just an error on 4Sevens part where they state 4.5 hrs for the runtime on high?

4sevens is highly conservative in their runtime estimates. Think of them more as minimum specs.

Also, keep in mind that runtimes can be highly variable between individual samples, especially at lower output.

 

[Lobo]

Can anybody tell me how the new Quarks with the XP-G emitter are compared to the old ones with the XP-E in regards to throw? I was going to buy a Quark(mainly cause it seemed to have some decent throw in tiny size) when I saw that they changed the emitter. And XP-G are not good at all for throw?
And I can't find any reviews or lux reading for the new Quark versions either, so would appreciate if anybody could chime in.

 

[NoFair]

Can anybody tell me how the new Quarks with the XP-G emitter are compared to the old ones with the XP-E in regards to throw? I was going to buy a Quark(mainly cause it seemed to have some decent throw in tiny size) when I saw that they changed the emitter. And XP-G are not good at all for throw?
And I can't find any reviews or lux reading for the new Quark versions either, so would appreciate if anybody could chime in.

With mine the xp-e had better throw than the xp-g. The xp-g is brighter though so it still throws well.

 

[Lobo]

Thanks for the info. I suspected that. Managed to get some comparable lux readings in another thread between the Quark R5 and R2, and seems like the throw differs a whole lot.

 

[Toohotruk]

Yep, if you want throw, go for the R2...they tend to have a better tint as well.