# Olight SR92 Intimidator (3x XM-L) Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO and more!



## selfbuilt (Sep 14, 2011)

*Warning: pic heavy, as usual. *










The SR92 is the latest member of the high-end Olight SR-series of lights that use their common proprietary battery pack/handle (i.e. the SR90/91/92). Featuring 3 high-output Cree XM-L T6-bin emitters, the SR92 is a more compact light, and one likely to produce a floodier beam. Let's see how it performs …. 

*Manufacturer's Specifications:*
_Note: as always, these are only what the manufacturer reports. To see my actual testing results, scroll down the review._


LED: 3x CREE XM-L T6
Battery pack: 7.4V 6000mAh, Rechargeable (6 x 18650)
Battery handle is also compatible with the SR90/SR91 (extra batteries packs are optional).
Max 1700 lumens (OTF), 1000 meters long throw.
High mode: 1700 lumens /150 minutes
Low mode: 450 lumens / 11 hours
Strobe: 450 lumens / 10HZ 
Smart-circuit provides thermal protection
Anti battery polarity reverse protection
Two digitally controlled constant brightness levels and strobe
Intelligent temperature control system 
Water proof: IPX-8
Dimension: D 100mm x L 273mm, Weight: 1180g
Reflector: Smooth
Lens: Strong anti-reflex coating lens, 99% effective transmission 
Material: Aluminum Alloy Body, Mil-spec: MIL-STD-810F 14. 
Type III hard anodization, Black
Engineered anti-slip knurling for grip
Accessories: Includes one strap, one charger, one operator’s manual, one O-ring
MSRP: ~$370










Packaging is high-end for the Olight SR-series lights. Inside the large presentation carry case (with metal hinges and closing clasps) you will find the light, AC battery charger and cable, good-quality shoulder holster, battery pack cover, extra o-rings and manual – all securely packaged in cut-out foam.








From left to right: AW Protected 18650, 4Sevens S18, Olight SR51, Olight SR92, Olight SR90.

All dimensions are given with no batteries installed:

*Olight SR92*: Weight: 1.15 kg (with battery pack), Length: 271mm, Width (bezel): 98mm 
*Olight SR90*: Weight: 1.6 kg (with battery pack), Length: 335mm, Width (bezel): 97mm 
*4Sevens S18*: Weight: 700g (800g with 6xCR123A), Length: 233mm, Width (bezel) 63.0mm, (tailcap) 25.6mm

While still a hefty light, the SR92 is definitely shorter and lighter than the SR90 (which has a much larger head and reflector to focus the single SST-90 emitter). Note that the battery pack is common to both lights.


















Fit and finish remain excellent – there are no chips or marks in the anodizing on my SR92 sample. The gold-colored rings used to anchor the shoulder straps have some wobble along their length (i.e. not perfectly flat), but seem to be held in place fairly securely (you can rotate them to adjust the exact positioning). The shoulder strap is high-quality, and works well to carry the light (the shoulder pad is helpful in preventing it from falling off your shoulder).

As before, lettering is sharp and clear, in bright white against the dark black gloss background. Ridge detail is fairly high on the handle, so grip is good. 

The battery pack/handle comes with a contact cover (for use when not screwed into the head). Also, you can purchase additional battery packs (which can be charged independently of the head). It is good to be able to cover the contacts when not in use. Note the tailcap is removable from the rest of the handle/battery pack as well.

The charger attaches at the tail-end of the light (just under that rubber protective strip – similar to what you will find on a lot of camera ports). Also on the tail is a battery read-out gauge. Press the bottom button, and up to 4 green LEDs light up to let you know the relative charge status of the battery. Along with the no-light condition, that means five possible states - each of which is linearly distributed along charge capacity (i.e. 4 lights means 80%+ power remaining, 3 lights is 60-80%, 2 lights is 40-60%, 1 light is 20-40%, and no light means less than 20%).

As before, the SR92 battery gauge seems fairly accurate – as long as you only test when not running or charging the battery. If the light has been in use recently, you should wait a few seconds after turning off/disconnecting, in order to get an accurate reading.

The light can tailstand with the tailcap installed.

Although the switch acts like a reverse-clicky, it is in fact a momentary switch that is programmed to turn the light on/off when you release it. As such, there is bound to be a small standby current drain when the battery is connected, but it is probably insignificant. You can twist the head one and a half-turns to lock-out the light. :thumbsup:

_*NEW:* Normally at this point in the review, I like to show the beamshots. But I’m trying something new - video reviews showing both the basic build and user interface. Beamshots will follow after the user interface and circuit discussion._



Videos were recorded in 720p HD, but YouTube defaults to 360p. Once the video is running, you can click on the 360p icon in the lower right-hand corner, and select the higher 480p or 720p options, or even run full-screen. 

*User Interface*

The SR92 has the same straightforward interface as the SR90/91 - press and release the blue button to turn on. Press and release again to turn off. :kiss:

While on, press and hold the button for 1 sec to switch between the Lo and Hi output states. The light has mode memory, and retains the last output setting for when you turn it back on.

To activate the “hidden” full-power strobe mode, do a quick double-press while on. Repeat to switch back to constant output modes. 

*PWM/Strobe*






Strobe on the SR92 is a typical fast "tactical" strobe at 9.6 Hz. This is the same as the early SR90 I reviewed.

There is no sign of PWM on Lo, I believe the SR92 is current-controlled. 

*Beamshots:*

And now the part you’ve all been waiting for. 










The SR92 uses 3x Cree XM-L emitters (T6 bin according to spec), each within its own defined reflector well. Each reflector has a smooth finish, and is not very deep. I would expect reasonable throw at a distance, but nowhere near the original SR90 (with its huge deep reflector and single SST-90 emitter). 

And now the white-wall beamshots.  All lights are on max output, on their typical battery configuration. Lights are about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 





























































The SR92 puts out a lot of light – slightly brighter than my SR90, although it is hard to compare up close (given the very different beam profiles). Obvously, this distance is not enough to allow the three individual emitter beams to converge. 

Note the SR92 beam is not as green as it seems in the pics above, but it definitely tends to the warm side of cool white. In contrast, my SR90 sample has a definite cooler beam (cooler than typical for cool white). Again, don't make a big deal about tint in these beamshots - your sample could vary considerably.

I have now done 100-yard outdoor beamshots, in the style of my earlier 100-yard round-up reviews:











Clearly, the SR92 puts out a lot of light – it just isn't as focused as the SR90. I think you should be able to see from these shots that the SR92 puts out more light overall than the 4Sevens S18 or Olight SR90. Scroll down to my Summary Tables for a more explicit comparison.






Again, you can see the wider (and brighter) beam on Lo on the SR92.

*Testing Method:* 

All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

I have recently devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lighbox values to Lumens thread for more info.

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

*Effective November 2010, I have revised my summary tables to match with the current ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.sliderule.ca/FL1.htm for a description of the terms used in these tables.*






Overall output is hard to compare among these massive S&R type lights, especially given the divergent beam patterns. However, my ceiling bounce numbers match what I see by eye – the SR92 is definitely brighter than the SR90 or 4Sevens S18. 

My lumen estimates are very rough here, but I would estimate the SR92 comes on ~1800 lumens, and drops to ~1750 lumens at 3 mins. In contrast, I estimate my original SR90 is ~1500 lumens at ignition, and ~1400 lumens at 3 mins.

Throw is a different matter – you can see the SR92 can't come anywhere near the heavily focused SR90 (i.e. closer to the smaller S18). 

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*










Ok, the SR92 is not only brighter, it is also more efficient than the SR90 at both output levels. :thumbsup: Coupled with the smaller size and weight, the SR92 may be an attractive option for you (if you don't need as much throw, that is)

*Potential Issues*

The SR92 is a large and heavy light (although ~25% smaller/lighter than the SR90). Still, you may find it unwieldy to carry and use, depending on your hand size and arm strength. I recommend use of the included should strap, which attaches securely to both ends of the light.

Recharge time for a depleted battery was about 4.5 hours in my testing (i.e. from the point when the protection circuit has been tripped, to when the green light comes on the charging transformer). This is not unreasonable, given the storage capacity of the pack. 

Although runtime is excellent for the class, given the proprietary battery design (and lack of a DC car adapter), you may want to consider picking up an extra battery pack if you are going to away from AC power for an extended period of time.

*Preliminary Observations*

The SR92 is a worthy addition to the high-output SR-series line of Olights. 

What really stands out for me is the much smaller (and lighter head) on the SR92 - yet producing even greater output than before. oo: Of course, you will not get the same kind of throw or beam pattern (i.e. the 3x emitter/reflectors on the SR92 will produce a brighter spillbeam with less throw). 

I generally like the beam pattern of most high-quality multi-emitter setups, and this one is no different. The three seperate wells helps produce a pleasant beam – there is no evidence of the "daisy flower" patterning that I often see with overlapping wells. Of course, if you are looking for max throw, there are other options to consider. 

The SR90 was really the first high-output LED light to enter into HID territory. With the higher output and brighter spill beam, the SR92 puts you squarely into the lower output-end of HIDs. Plus you get the proven quality build with the SR-series, without all the issues associated with HIDs (i.e. single output bulbs that will burn out and break, excessive heat, slow warm-up time, tint shift, hum, etc.). :thumbsup:

When the SR90 first came out, there was some concern over the use of a proprietary battery pack. But now that Olight has released additional lights that use the same common battery pack/handle (and has made additional packs available for sale inexpensively), I think many of these concerns have been assuaged. The built-in balancing circuitry of the SR-series seems to have proven itself over time. :thumbsup:

Olight has also chosen to keep the interface the same, so you always know what you are getting with a SR-series light. I think the solid implementation of the two-modes (with a hidden strobe) continues to be a positive for the keep-it-simple crowd. :kiss:

It's nice to see increasing options in the LED class of Search and Rescue lights. If you are looking for one of the brightest possible LEDs, with a substantial spill beam, then the SR92 could very well meet your needs. If you are looking for something with a narrower beam, then check out my detailed reviews of the comparison lights shown here. :wave:

----

SR92 provided by Battery Junction for review.


----------



## Baddog (Sep 15, 2011)

wonderful review! in ur personal opinion is it an issue that there is no balance charging of the battery's?


----------



## candle lamp (Sep 15, 2011)

Great review. Selfbuilt! :thumbsup:

Wow. The runtime graph is so nice and its regulation is very efficient. :thumbsup:


----------



## Enzo (Sep 15, 2011)

Looking at how the triple LEDs are placed you see how much more refined this light is compared to the TK70.


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 15, 2011)

Baddog said:


> wonderful review! in ur personal opinion is it an issue that there is no balance charging of the battery's?


I'm not familiar with the specifics of how the SR-series battery pack functions, but I recall at the time of launch of the SR90 that it was reported to be balanced (i.e. there would need to be a circuit inside the pack that balances the charging of the individual cells). 

It's much the same as with protection circuits - rather than having individual ones on each individual cell, the circuit provides overall monitoring and protection. And there is clearly a defined circuit-controlled shut-off of the light at it nears the end of its run.



Enzo said:


> Looking at how the triple LEDs are placed you see how much more refined this light is compared to the TK70.


I don't have a TK70 to compare, but the head of the SR92 is impressive. They clearly have put a lot of thought into how to produce a pleasent multi-emitter beam pattern. But of course, it is not a great thrower in this configuration.



candle lamp said:


> Wow. The runtime graph is so nice and its regulation is very efficient. :thumbsup:


Yes, it is certainly able to provide good regulation, for a good period of time.


----------



## HKJ (Sep 15, 2011)

Enzo said:


> Looking at how the triple LEDs are placed you see how much more refined this light is compared to the TK70.


 
I wonder what you mean by that. The reflector in TK70 is designed for much more thrown than the SR92.


----------



## Swiss (Sep 15, 2011)

Great review! I got mine a couple of days ago and am very impressed! As you say, it's a bit bulky, but not unmanageable. 

Btw, do you know more about how waterproof it really is? I haven't found any information as to how deep you could submerge the light.


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 15, 2011)

Swiss said:


> Btw, do you know more about how waterproof it really is? I haven't found any information as to how deep you could submerge the light.


Short answer, I would say it is probably no worse than any other light with o-rings at all points of assembly/disassembly. :shrug:

IPX-8 doesn't really tell you much, since its dependent on the manufacturers to explain at what depth and for what duration. But it presumably means you are at least as good as IPX-7, which indicates that it can resist the ingress of a "harmful" quantity of water when immersed for up to 30 mins at 1m depth. That means the light should be able to easily survive a dunk in shallow water.

Note also that the IPX ratings refer to a static situation - none of them address what happens if you try to activate/de-activate a light when submersed (i.e. the presumption is always that the light is not being handled during the testing). Switches are likely source of failure under water, so you wouldn't want to necessarily try turning it on or switching modes while submerged.


----------



## Swiss (Sep 15, 2011)

Thank you! I guess I won't take it diving then


----------



## Baddog (Sep 15, 2011)

selfbuilt said:


> I'm not familiar with the specifics of how the SR-series battery pack functions, but I recall at the time of launch of the SR90 that it was reported to be balanced (i.e. there would need to be a circuit inside the pack that balances the charging of the individual cells).


Have been in touch with BJ and the info they have is that there isn't any balancing whatsoever...and given that all batteries arnt born equal this may well become a concern. btw I do have this light so I am not just stirring the pot here, I am just concerned.


----------



## harro (Sep 17, 2011)

What a beast of a light!! The cell balance wouldnt become an issue for a while, would it? Maybe when the battery is nearing the end of its service life?
Mike.


----------



## Baddog (Sep 17, 2011)

harro said:


> What a beast of a light!! The cell balance wouldnt become an issue for a while, would it? Maybe when the battery is nearing the end of its service life?
> Mike.


well, a while back i ordered 4 18650's after 4 cycles i noticed one was always more depleted than the rest, tossed it out and i keep tabs on the rest.
whats keeping tabs on a battery pack thats sealed? may just use a hobby charger to help check as much as i can i suppose...


----------



## Bembelsche (Feb 9, 2012)

I´m still not sure whether buying an Olight SR90, 91 or 92... Can´t decide between maximum throw or a little bit more spill

Is the difference in brightness compared to my Fenix TK35 really that big? As far as I know, the eye works in a logarithmic way.
So three times the brightness in numbers shouldn´t be that much more...

Please help - Thanx!


----------



## TEEJ (Feb 9, 2012)

Bembelsche said:


> I´m still not sure whether buying an Olight SR90, 91 or 92... Can´t decide between maximum throw or a little bit more spill
> 
> Is the difference in brightness compared to my Fenix TK35 really that big? As far as I know, the eye works in a logarithmic way.
> So three times the brightness in numbers shouldn´t be that much more...
> ...







SR90









SR92










TK35




Does this help?


----------



## user73 (Oct 30, 2012)

selfbuilt said:


> Max 1700 lumens (OTF), 1000 meters long throw.


Nice review. This throw manufacturer stated distance can't be true when measured in the standard way. You should note right there that the real range is 425m as you point out later in the table. So that people find the true information early in the review. Just a proposition.
P.S. Would be super interessting if you add some more pictures (like TK70, SR95, SR95UT, TN31). I like that the last 3 pictures static, its nice for comparing and easier than fast alternating pictures.



Enzo said:


> Looking at how the triple LEDs are placed you see how much more refined this light is compared to the TK70.


How do you mean this?


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 31, 2012)

user73 said:


> Nice review. This throw manufacturer stated distance can't be true when measured in the standard way. You should note right there that the real range is 425m as you point out later in the table. So that people find the true information early in the review. Just a proposition.


Yes, that's why I've always stated it as "Manufacturer's Specs" at the top of the review. But since people seem to find that less than clear, I now also add this statement at the top of the specs: _Note: as always, these are only what the manufacturer reports. To see my actual testing results, scroll down the review._

I feel it is important to give the reported specifications at the top of the review, before testing commences. I discuss any significant variation from the specs in the output/runtime sections of the review.



> P.S. Would be super interessting if you add some more pictures (like TK70, SR95, SR95UT, TN31). I like that the last 3 pictures static, its nice for comparing and easier than fast alternating pictures.


The reviews are fairly lengthy, so I tend to limit outdoor shots to the animated GIFs to save space and reduce duplication. Moreover, I also do repeated batches of outdoor shots (comparing the same lights over and over again), and it is not feasible to go back and update all my older reviews with additional stills.

For this reason, I have been producing end-of-year round-up reviews of all the stills, across all batches. See my Selfbuilt's 100-Yard Outdoor Beamshot Compendium for 2011 - 51 lights, 75 pics! for the sources images used here (which were from the August 2011 batch). You will also find additional SR92 comparisons from the October and December batches.


----------



## RemcoM (Apr 5, 2013)

selfbuilt said:


> Yes, that's why I've always stated it as "Manufacturer's Specs" at the top of the review. But since people seem to find that less than clear, I now also add this statement at the top of the specs: _Note: as always, these are only what the manufacturer reports. To see my actual testing results, scroll down the review._
> 
> I feel it is important to give the reported specifications at the top of the review, before testing commences. I discuss any significant variation from the specs in the output/runtime sections of the review.
> 
> ...



Hi,

Why is the SR92 much more expensive than the fenix TK75?

TK75 has more lumens, and much more throw.

Why is the SR92 more expensive?

Remco


----------



## kj2 (Apr 5, 2013)

RemcoM said:


> Hi,
> Why is the SR92 much more expensive than the fenix TK75?
> TK75 has more lumens, and much more throw.
> Why is the SR92 more expensive?
> Remco



Mostly because it comes with a battery-pack. (and a charger, and a nice presentation-case)


----------



## RemcoM (Apr 5, 2013)

kj2 said:


> Mostly because it comes with a battery-pack. (and a charger, and a nice presentation-case)



Sorry for going a bit offtopic,

but, why you not have the olight X6 Marauder?

I have it since 3 weeks, and it is unbelieveable bright, far brighter than the Fenix TK75.

Its fantastic, extreme!

In the near future, i place a review, and beamshots.


----------

