# Olight SR-91 Review with OTF Lumens and runtimes



## ti-force (Sep 3, 2010)

The Olight SR-91 is a new light that's being introduced into the SR series of lights by Olight. This light was designed to be smaller, and to have an increased runtime over its big brother, the SR-90. I've performed OTF lumens testing and an 84 minute runtime test on this light, as well as included some eye candy :naughty:.



*Specifications (taken from Olight's website):*

Luminus SST-90 LED, 30W, lifetime 60,000 hours.

*Output & Runtime (manufacturers ratings):*
Two brightness levels and strobe mode

1). High Mode: 1500 Lumens / 3.1 Hours
2). Low Mode: 450 Lumens / 10.5 Hours
3). Strobe: 10 Hz / 6.2 Hours

*Max throw:* 800 meters.
*Battery pack:* 6 x18650 (7.2v, 6.6A)
*Dimensions: *Length: 288mm (13.23”) Bezel Diameter: 80mm(3.15”);
*Weight:* 1196g (With battery pack)

*Accessories:* Includes one strap, one charger, one operator’s manual, one O-ring, car charger(optional)

*Features:*

Rechargeable battery pack with built-in 6x18650 batteries (7.2v, 6.6A). Rechargeable socket on the tail
Super bright, modern and novelty design.
Super Strong anti-Reflect coating lens，99% effective transmission
Four indicators on the tail for indicating the batteries condition:

1). 1 indicator on: 20% -40% power remains
2). 2 indicators on: 40% -60% power remains
3). 3 indicators on: 60% -80% power remains
4). 4 indicators on: 85%+ power remains
5). No indicators on means batteries with less than 20% power remains and need charging

Excellent tridimensional heat dissipation ability
Easy touching switch on the head for turning on/off the light and transfering modes.
Special designed charger, Removable and adjustable strap.
Two charging methods:

1). With the whole torch,
2). Only the battery tube

Mil-spec: MIL-STD-810F
Highly water resistant to IPX-8
Anti-shattering ultra clear lens, anti-scratching, anti-slip function.
Tough and rugged body offering firm grip
Advanced digital power management system

*Operation:*
Press the side button switch to turn the light on.
Press and hold the switch to transfer the output from high to low. A fast double press will active the 10Hz strobe




Now it's time for some OTF lumens :

*OTF Readings taken in my homemade IS:*
Here are OTF lumen readings of this light. I have a homemade 16" (like MrGman had), but I recently built a 24" integrating sphere like Bigchelis has. I recently built the 24" sphere so I can measure these new monster lights that are being produced. MrGman was kind enough to share his time and knowledge helping me get both of these sphere's set up and accurately calibrated. I'd like to take this moment to thank him for all of his help; without him, this wouldn't be possible. Thanks MrGman :thumbsup:


These numbers are as close as you can get with a homemade system like this, but keep in mind that these numbers are what you can expect to see. What I mean is, different variables can cause one light to be brighter than another one, so keep in mind that it's possible for you to purchase one that's not as bright as this one, or one that's brighter than this one. Anyway, enough talking. Here are the numbers:

*High Mode:*







*Low Mode:*









*Now for the runtime graph:*
I will note that this thing gets pretty darn hot when ran on high for this length of time. The head of this light got so hot during the runtime testing that I couldn't hold my hand on the shoulder of the head for longer than three or four seconds. I'm not sure how hot that is, but I'd say pretty toasty. The runtime graph is with the light fully charged and in high mode, and as you can see, the light just shuts off at the end of the runtime. I doesn't turn back on until you plug the charger into the light.












*Now it's time for some eye candy :naughty::*


















































*Battery level indicator:*













*The business end* : (Also, notice how clear the glass is? I've got to give it to Olight; they've got some pretty clear glass.










*The next two images were also taken with the glass in place. Did I mention how clear the glass is?* 










If you're interested in purchasing one of these lights, click here.


----------



## wantsusa (Sep 3, 2010)

84 minutes before batteries were dead???? Yet it says 3.1 hours?

I wonder if you did the test in say 5 min increments could it have an on time of 3.1 hours, maybe the heat buildup creates a need for a ton of extra juice to keep it running?


----------



## jhc37013 (Sep 3, 2010)

Nice review Ti, you sure are right about that glass it's very clear indeed.

It uses the same battery pack as the SR90 and the SR90 runtimes I have seen is around ~82 minutes so one would think you would at least get a couple hours with this one. 

So the question is what is the missing factor?


----------



## ti-force (Sep 3, 2010)

I don't know. I must say I was surprised myself when it shut off at 84 minutes. My first thought was that the light had a thermistor, or something to shut the light off to keep it from overheating. I let the light sit for about 30 minutes after it cut off and I tried to turn it back on and got nothing. Then I started thinking that I might have toasted this light ..., but as soon as I plugged the charging cord into the back of it, it turned right on. Its still charging as I type this, and its been on the charger for at least a couple of hours now. If you look at this post, which is BigC's readings for the SR-90, you will see that the SR-90 is almost down to the same OTF lumens as the SR-91 at 5 minutes.


----------



## jhc37013 (Sep 3, 2010)

Let us know if you do another runtime I have been seriously considering this light. Thanks


----------



## ti-force (Sep 3, 2010)

jhc37013 said:


> Let us know if you do another runtime I have been seriously considering this light. Thanks



I think I was editing my previous post while you were posting so I don't know if you saw it or not, but take a look at this post by BigC. Notice how the SR-90 is almost down to the same OTF lumens as the SR-91 at 5 minutes?  I may be wrong, but I don't think it's going to get any better.


----------



## bigchelis (Sep 3, 2010)

I know that Olight says the SR-90 and SR-91 are driven hard or at full power.


but


What are they driven at? 5A? 6?:thinking:


----------



## ti-force (Sep 3, 2010)

bigchelis said:


> I know that Olight says the SR-90 and SR-91 are driven hard or at full power.
> 
> 
> but
> ...



That's what I'm thinking.


----------



## Ray_of_Light (Sep 3, 2010)

I have an SR-90 and I can confirm it has 1500 OTF lumens with 1 hour ten minutes runtime.

Your lumens reading is higher than expected; may be your SR-91 has, mistakenly, the "guts" of an SR-90.

Regards,

Anthony


----------



## Bass (Sep 3, 2010)

I've been interested in this light and waiting for a review - thanks for all your work with the reviews.

OTF seems about what I expected but runtime is way too short vs manufacturer specs :thinking: 

I had hoped for a seriously long running dog walking light that can light up the trails for 3 hours. Seems this is not the case. 

My understanding was that all components were the same with the SR90 but the SR91 was not driven as hard - hence lower OTF - and smaller head because less heat sinking was required but 'almost' triple the run time on high?


----------



## chanjyj (Sep 3, 2010)

So essentially when I bought my SR90 it was for the runtime and not the superior brightness?

I have been suckered by marketing.. yet again :shakehead

Pissed of and fedup. I suppose, the only consolation I have is that I purchased the SR90 when the SR91 was non-existant.


----------



## Swedpat (Sep 3, 2010)

wantsusa said:


> 84 minutes before batteries were dead???? Yet it says 3.1 hours?
> 
> I wonder if you did the test in say 5 min increments could it have an on time of 3.1 hours, maybe the heat buildup creates a need for a ton of extra juice to keep it running?



Yes, I also wonder. And <1300 OTF lumens does mean it's not much more than 2 times brighter than Fenix TK30, and for around the same runtime...
I thought that the difference should be much bigger! :thinking:
Does this mean that SR50 claimed for 800lm has practically the same brightness as TK30/40? And what is the true runtime when it's stated at 1,5 hours? Something seems to be wrong here!


----------



## ti-force (Sep 3, 2010)

I don't know guys, maybe I do have an overachiever in the OTF lumens department, which would certainly result in an underachieving runtime.


----------



## recDNA (Sep 3, 2010)

Anybody have lux readings?


----------



## Pandorum (Sep 4, 2010)

Thanks ti-Force for the excellent review!:thumbsup:

Don't quite know what to make of the short runtime. I'm thinking either a defective unit or worse, false advertising. 

The light not coming back on at all after the batteries drained is normal for these types of lights? I would expect that it would light up a bit and then die out again?


----------



## ti-force (Sep 4, 2010)

Pandorum said:


> Thanks ti-Force for the excellent review!:thumbsup:
> 
> Don't quite know what to make of the short runtime. I'm thinking either a defective unit or worse, false advertising.
> 
> The light not coming back on at all after the batteries drained is normal for these types of lights? I would expect that it would light up a bit and then die out again?



Thanks for the kind words, and you're welcome  I'm not sure about the runtime either, but I'll see what I can find out. Also, something else I'd like to mention is that, like the SR-90, the battery gauge doesn't appear to be accurate while the light is turned on; I checked it about 25 to 30 minutes into the runtime and it only flickered a few times, and in about 10 more minutes it wouldn't come on at all.


----------



## Pandorum (Sep 6, 2010)

Well I see some newer posts were lost but anyway 

I was thinking, since the SR91 and SR90 both use the same battery pack, and reviews of the SR90 has shown expected normal runtimes, then your results must be due to a defect in the unit somewhere. Since you got higher than expected light brightness in your test, it could be running brighter than it was designed which may explain the short runtime and even the hot temp of the light.


----------



## AardvarkSagus (Sep 6, 2010)

Well, at the request of ti-force I went ahead and broke my record thus far and did a runtime test. I have absolutely no information about the output curve, but I can confirm that the runtime he measured was in the same vicinity. I'll have to update my review with this new information. 

My runtime measurement was 1:20:14.

Really excellent pictures there, by the way. Excellent review.


----------



## ti-force (Sep 6, 2010)

AardvarkSagus said:


> Well, at the request of ti-force I went ahead and broke my record thus far and did a runtime test. I have absolutely no information about the output curve, but I can confirm that the runtime he measured was in the same vicinity. I'll have to update my review with this new information.
> 
> My runtime measurement was 1:20:14.
> 
> Really excellent pictures there, by the way. Excellent review.



Thanks for the complement, and thank you very much for taking the time to do runtime testing. You've confirmed that mine isn't defective, and with a runtime of roughly 1.33 hrs (1hr 20 min), and with 47.52Wh of battery power (7.2v x 6.6 = 47.52), we can do this: 47.52 / 1.33 = 35.73 watts power draw from the battery, then 35.73 x .9(90% driver efficiency) = 32.16 watts at emitter (roughly) .


----------



## chanjyj (Sep 6, 2010)

ti-force said:


> Thanks for the complement, and thank you very much for taking the time to do runtime testing. You've confirmed that mine isn't defective, and with a runtime of roughly 1.33 hrs (1hr 20 min), and with 47.52Wh of battery power (7.2v x 6.6 = 47.52), we can do this: 47.52 / 1.33 = 35.73 watts power draw from the battery, then 35.73 x .9(90% driver efficiency) = 32.16 watts at emitter (roughly) .



So if yours isn't defective, I've basically bought a SR90 for only 1 reason - a bigger piece of conical metal - the reflector. 

Well, I guess I can forgive them since the SR91 didn't exist at the time.

But what great marketing by Olight.


----------



## Splunk_Au (Sep 6, 2010)

i think ti-force's runtime is more or less spot on. almost the same as the one on http://light-reviews.com/olight_sr91/

although the output lumens is very different.


----------



## Jash (Sep 7, 2010)

I was ready to buy one of these because of Olights advertised runtime. Not any more. 

Think I'll just sit on my cash for a while until someone makes a 2000otf lumen light that *will* run for three hours.


----------



## jirik_cz (Sep 7, 2010)

Swedpat said:


> Yes, I also wonder. And <1300 OTF lumens does mean it's not much more than 2 times brighter than Fenix TK30, and for around the same runtime...
> I thought that the difference should be much bigger! :thinking:



Main difference is throw. Here are my lux readings (measured from 3 meters and calculated to 1m):
SR90 - 110k lux
SR91 - 67k lux
M31/SR50 - 37k lux
TK30/TK40 - 18k lux


----------



## ti-force (Sep 7, 2010)

chanjyj said:


> So if yours isn't defective, I've basically bought a SR90 for only 1 reason - a bigger piece of conical metal - the reflector.
> 
> Well, I guess I can forgive them since the SR91 didn't exist at the time.
> 
> But what great marketing by Olight.



The SR-90 is certainly larger, but its reflector offers more throw than the SR-91, and the SR-90 may be a couple hundred lumens brighter at turn-on. This, combined with a tighter hotspot will probably make the SR-90 appear much brighter. Also, the SR-90 supposedly has a much brighter low mode (I don't have an SR-90 so I can't confirm). I guess it depends on what you want.




Splunk_Au said:


> i think ti-force's runtime is more or less spot on. almost the same as the one on http://light-reviews.com/olight_sr91/
> 
> although the output lumens is very different.



Yeah I noticed the huge difference in his readings vs mine, but I trust my readings more. I'll give you something to think about here- look at his review of the SR-90, look at his lumen readings, then look at his SR-91 review again. Now think about the fact that both of these lights (SR-90 and SR-91) use the exact same battery, with the same capacity. If the SR-91 were making that much less output, wouldn't the runtime be longer than the SR-90? I would think so, but they're within minutes of being the same.



Jash said:


> I was ready to buy one of these because of Olights advertised runtime. Not any more.
> 
> Think I'll just sit on my cash for a while until someone makes a 2000otf lumen light that *will* run for three hours.



If they wanted to make the capacity higher they could have, but the battery tube would've been longer by 2-3 inches.




jirik_cz said:


> Main difference is throw. Here are my lux readings (measured from 3 meters and calculated to 1m):
> SR90 - 110k lux
> SR91 - 67k lux
> M31/SR50 - 37k lux
> TK30/TK40 - 18k lux



Thanks for sharing :thumbsup:


----------



## jirik_cz (Sep 7, 2010)

ti-force said:


> Yeah, I noticed the huge difference in his readings vs mine, but I trust my readings more, but I'll give you something to think about here- look at his review of the SR-90 and look at his lumen readings, then look at his SR-91 review again, now think about the fact that both of these lights (SR-90, and 91) use the exact same battery, with the same capacity. If the SR-91 were making that much less output, wouldn't the runtime be longer than the SR-90? I would think so, but they're within minutes of being the same.



I think that his measurement of SR91 must be flawed or his sample was just defective. The SR91 is almost two times brighter than M2XC4 R2 in my integrating sphere. And M2XC4 R2 was measured 696 lumens by the same reviewer.


----------



## ti-force (Sep 7, 2010)

jirik_cz said:


> I think that his measurement of SR91 must be flawed or his sample was just defective. The SR91 is almost two times brighter than M2XC4 R2 in my integrating sphere. And M2XC4 R2 was measured 696 lumens by the same reviewer.



Thanks again for sharing your results :thumbsup:; it's appreciated.


----------



## Ray_of_Light (Sep 7, 2010)

I have a SR90 and I'm very satisfied from it. The advertised specs for runtime and flux are reasonably correct. 
I can't think of a valid reason why Olight specified the SR91 runtime to be more than the double of the real. 
When I have seen the SR91 advertised for three hours runtime, in exchange of a slightly decreased brightness and improved maneageability, I tought I would have bought one. 

Ugly truth. The same LED drive current and decreased brightness for the SR91 means, very probably, lower binned LEDs...
False runtime specifications means expectations, from the part of Olight, of uncritical customers. Somebody who buy the SR91 just because they built a valid model like the SR90. 
False specifications can give a deadly blow to customer loyalty. It means that I will not buy anymore any of their light before somebody has independently verified what, at this point, is not anymore a manufacturer specification, but a vested manufacturer CLAIM.
At one time, I was buying Olight without double checking their specifications: the M20 both R2 and R5 LED, the M30 Triton, and the SR90. Later - and based on quality of what I had already acquired, I got the M21 and the M20 Titanium, which I returned because of the false advertised lumen output (250 instead of the claimed 500) and inefficient driver.

I hope Olight to either fix the SR91 or its runtime specification. Alternatively, I think that the dealers should start to post their own verified specifications.

Regards

Anthony


----------



## HKJ (Sep 7, 2010)

I just did a ceiling bounce with the two lights:

SR90 High: 109
SR90 Low: 26
SR91 High: 98
SR91 Low: 26

Not much difference in brightness.
Note: The above values are measured within a few seconds of power on.


----------



## Swedpat (Sep 7, 2010)

jirik_cz said:


> Main difference is throw. Here are my lux readings (measured from 3 meters and calculated to 1m):
> SR90 - 110k lux
> SR91 - 67k lux
> M31/SR50 - 37k lux
> TK30/TK40 - 18k lux



Thanks for the information! In this case I think SR91 is still attractive because higher output, it's rechargeable, and MUCH better throw. SR50 I don't find to be enough more powerful and throwier to be worth getting, especially not with the higher cost of 6xCR123 cells instead of 4 compared to TK30. 
I think I consider it this way: SR50 would in that case replace TK30, while SR91 would complement it as a "big brother". 

BUT: one thing could still make SR50 interesting: if the beam would be narrower and the spill therefore would be much brighter. TK30 is a great flashlight, but sometimes (when using it at distance) the wide beam spreads out the light amount over an unnecessary large area. This also causes that the foreground sometimes lights up too much and disturbs the viewing at the distant object. 

Regards, Patric


----------



## chanjyj (Sep 7, 2010)

Now, with the full details out, I don't see any real reason to buy a SR91 at all.

Frankly, if you are going to use such a large torch, the difference between the SR90 and the SR91 isn't much, *relative*.

The only reason I can think of is if you want more flood?


----------



## petersmith6 (Sep 7, 2010)

has any one contacter oglight about this problem? i was going to get the sr91 for its run time , but now i might as well just get the sr90.


----------



## Swedpat (Sep 7, 2010)

When I think about it I would take SR90. The big advantage with SR91 was 3 hours runtime, but now when it seems that it was very exaggerated it's not very interesting anymore...


----------



## HKJ (Sep 7, 2010)

Swedpat said:


> When I think about it I would take SR90. The big advantage with SR91 was 3 hours runtime, but now when it seems that it was very exaggerated it's not very interesting anymore...



I will say that SR91 has a size advantage, but I would have liked a longer runtime:


----------



## 276 (Sep 7, 2010)

I had bought one of these a few weeks ago and bought it mainly for the 3hr run time and to find out it can't do 3hr's has me a bit ticked off. After reading this thread today i tried my own run time but a little different. I ran it for 15 minutes and then off for 15 minutes and so on. I got to 1hr and 15 minutes before the beam looked funky due to the lens fogging or getting condensation on the inside ( if that makes any sense) i then let it cool down for about 20 minutes or until the beam looked better, before starting it up again. After that it ran for another 10 minutes so i got about 1hr and 25 minutes.

Alex


----------



## ti-force (Sep 7, 2010)

HKJ said:


> I just did a ceiling bounce with the two lights:
> 
> SR90 High: 109
> SR90 Low: 26
> ...



Thanks for sharing :thumbsup:




chanjyj said:


> Now, with the full details out, I don't see any real reason to buy a SR91 at all.
> 
> Frankly, if you are going to use such a large torch, the difference between the SR90 and the SR91 isn't much, *relative*.
> 
> The only reason I can think of is if you want more flood?



Everyone has their own opinion, and my personal opinion is that the SR-91 is considerably smaller than the MASSIVE SR-90. The runtime is almost the same, and the output is almost the same, so the only benefit I can see that the SR-90 has over the SR-91 is throw. The SR-90 has a much tighter hotspot than the SR-91. IMO, I would rather have the smaller SR-91, but that's just my opinion.





petersmith6 said:


> has any one contacter oglight about this problem? i was going to get the sr91 for its run time , but now i might as well just get the sr90.




Not that I know of, but it seems like the results are pretty standard; we've had a few runtime confirmations now. If you want more throw, go for the SR-90; if you want a smaller light that still throws pretty darn well with nearly the same runtime, and almost the same output, go with the SR-91.


----------



## chanjyj (Sep 7, 2010)

Ti-force: Do you think that with the smaller head heatsinking will be a problem, considering the output is the same for the SR90 and SR91?

I'm wondering if I can adapt a SR91 as a bicycle light (SR90 is too big, TK30 okay for now but I'd like more light)


----------



## Swedpat (Sep 8, 2010)

276 said:


> I had bought one of these a few weeks ago and bought it mainly for the 3hr run time and to find out it can't do 3hr's has me a bit ticked off. After reading this thread today i tried my own run time but a little different. I ran it for 15 minutes and then off for 15 minutes and so on. I got to 1hr and 15 minutes before the beam looked funky due to the lens fogging or getting condensation on the inside ( if that makes any sense) i then let it cool down for about 20 minutes or until the beam looked better, before starting it up again. After that it ran for another 10 minutes so i got about 1hr and 25 minutes.
> 
> Alex



Personally I would feel me strongly deceived. Claiming 3 hours runtime when it's less than half I will call not just an exaggeration, but a serious false marketing. :shakehead

Regards, Patric


----------



## ti-force (Sep 8, 2010)

chanjyj said:


> Ti-force: Do you think that with the smaller head heatsinking will be a problem, considering the output is the same for the SR90 and SR91?
> 
> I'm wondering if I can adapt a SR91 as a bicycle light (SR90 is too big, TK30 okay for now but I'd like more light)



Should be fine on a bicycle, because air would be constantly flowing over the light, which would keep it cool. I haven't had a chance to take beamshots, but see if you can find some and look at the profile; this light is definitely a thrower.


----------



## Jash (Sep 8, 2010)

chanjyj said:


> Ti-force: Do you think that with the smaller head heatsinking will be a problem, considering the output is the same for the SR90 and SR91?
> 
> I'm wondering if I can adapt a SR91 as a bicycle light (SR90 is too big, TK30 okay for now but I'd like more light)



Why bother when you could get this.


----------



## wolfy (Sep 8, 2010)

Anyone here done a runtime test on low rather than high (for the SR91)?


----------



## ti-force (Sep 8, 2010)

wolfy said:


> Anyone here done a runtime test on low rather than high (for the SR91)?



I haven't, but let me explain why- I'm guessing the runtime on low would be 6 + hours, which means I would have to stand for 6 + hours, holding a monster light in my hand, and measure its output at least every 5 minutes. I just don't have that much time to donate towards a runtime test. With my setup, it's just not as simple as turning the light on and then watching the stopwatch, but even if it were, it would still be required of me to sit with the light, not leaving the room for the length of the runtime test, and hope nature doesn't call


----------



## HKJ (Sep 8, 2010)

wolfy said:


> Anyone here done a runtime test on low rather than high (for the SR91)?



SR91 has the same battery and about the same brightness as SR90, i.e. you can just use the SR90 data.


----------



## AardvarkSagus (Sep 8, 2010)

petersmith6 said:


> has any one contacter oglight about this problem? i was going to get the sr91 for its run time , but now i might as well just get the sr90.


I have contacted them about this, I haven't been getting responses from my emails lately though. I'll let you know if I hear anything.


----------



## chanjyj (Sep 8, 2010)

Jash said:


> Why bother when you could get this.




I've got to get me one of these.. no. Make it two.


----------



## wolfy (Sep 8, 2010)

HKJ said:


> SR91 has the same battery and about the same brightness as SR90, i.e. you can just use the SR90 data.



Well according to specs, on high SR90 is 2200 lumen and SR91 1500lumen, while on low SR90 is 700 lumens and SR91 450 lumens.

With both lights seemingly having similar high runs times, and some speculation of same driver setup, looking at the low setting runtime might shed more clues (SR90 low runtime is supposed to be 9hrs, and SR91 10.5hrs). The high run time was supposed to be double, but doesnt bear out in tests, yet on low the times are advertised as similar yet the low lumens of the SR91 is supposed to be half that of the SR90. Would be interesting then how the tested low run times compare I think.


----------



## bigchelis (Sep 8, 2010)

I dont want to hijack this thread, but since most of us are concerned with the size and throw variables......



You want 2000~2400 OTF lumens and 95k plus lux????? & Smaller then SR91. You need this:



CBT-90 = domefree SST-90 from Factory with copper star (its thicker and bigger then SSR-90)
2D Rebel Hosts
big copper heatsink
3 NiMH Tenergy C cells
5~8A will be fine, but 10~12 will require a huge heatsink.
I tested such a build called Frankenligh VARA2000 and it was smaller and beat the bigger SR90 in lumens and throw in a nice neat package.

Back to this thread.

If both lights are giving out the same lumens and runtime then instead of a whole other light they should have just offered the smaller bezel as an extra. While at a San Jose, CA night hike with a group of CPF folks I can tell you we were avoiding the SR90 cause its big and heavy. I dont mind heavy, but if it was more compact


bigC


----------



## ti-force (Sep 8, 2010)

chanjyj said:


> I've got to get me one of these.. no. Make it two.



You'll need two if you want the same lumen output as the SR-91 



bigchelis said:


> If both lights are giving out the same lumens and runtime then instead of a whole other light they should have just offered the smaller bezel as an extra. While at a San Jose, CA night hike with a group of CPF folks I can tell you we were avoiding the SR90 cause its big and heavy. I dont mind heavy, but if it was more compact
> 
> 
> bigC



Agreed. The SR-90 is massive. The SR-91 isn't a small light, but it's considerably smaller than the 90. Also, they certainly shouldn't have advertised a 3 hr runtime when it only gets half that.


----------



## jirik_cz (Sep 8, 2010)

bigchelis said:


> I tested such a build called Frankenligh VARA2000 and it was smaller and beat the bigger SR90 in lumens and throw in a nice neat package.
> bigC



I would love to see some beamshots of both lights. After turn on, 5 minutes of runtime and 30 minutes of runtime.


----------



## fire-stick (Sep 8, 2010)

wantsusa said:


> 84 minutes before batteries were dead???? Yet it says 3.1 hours?
> 
> I wonder if you did the test in say 5 min increments could it have an on time of 3.1 hours, maybe the heat buildup creates a need for a ton of extra juice to keep it running?


 
I thought li-ion batts had a break in period before they reached full cap... i may be wrong..


----------



## bigchelis (Sep 8, 2010)

fire-stick said:


> I thought li-ion batts had a break in period before they reached full cap... i may be wrong..


 


Not that I know of. I do have to break in my NiMH C and D cells before thy are are ready for testing lights. I did test these fresh and after 4 or so discharge cycles and they perform alot better afterwards.

I will try and arrange some beamshoots at the Local San Jose BBQ comming up.

SR90
SR91
VARA2000
3D built PCC Mag
CBT-90 VARA200

bigC


----------



## tab665 (Sep 8, 2010)

im thinking someone goofed at the factory on these. the sr90 is that big to provide heat sink. the sr91 was to be a smaller version an wasnt to be driven as hard since it didnt have as much mass for the heat. i think someone is going to fry a light here.


----------



## AardvarkSagus (Sep 9, 2010)

Olight mentioned to me that they are looking in to the problem and that good news should arrive "early next week". Not sure what this means, but I'm going to keep my ears open.


----------



## tre (Sep 9, 2010)

Here is a dumb question. Has anyone verified the run times of the SR90? Perpaps the SR91 does run for 2x or 3x as long as the SR90. Maybe the SR90 does not run nearly as long as advertised either?


----------



## ti-force (Sep 9, 2010)

tre said:


> Here is a dumb question. Has anyone verified the run times of the SR90? Perpaps the SR91 does run for 2x or 3x as long as the SR90. Maybe the SR90 does not run nearly as long as advertised either?



Both lights on high are within minutes of each other at runtime cutoff.


----------



## tab665 (Sep 9, 2010)

AardvarkSagus said:


> Olight mentioned to me that they are looking in to the problem and that good news should arrive "early next week". Not sure what this means, but I'm going to keep my ears open.


 seems like a somewhat confusing response. please update us if they tell you any more.


----------



## AardvarkSagus (Sep 9, 2010)

tab665 said:


> seems like a somewhat confusing response. please update us if they tell you any more.


Will do.


----------



## AardvarkSagus (Sep 15, 2010)

Well I just heard from Olight and their official response is that though they are trying to extend the runtime from 1.5 hrs to something longer, they are changing the literature to match. 

Not my ideal solution to be certain.


----------



## ti-force (Sep 15, 2010)

While I believe Olight should have never stated a runtime that wasn't accurate, I'm still quite impressed with this light. I mean, 1100-1200 OTF lumens for that amount of time, with pretty flat regulation in a smaller host is just fine with me, but that's just me.


----------



## Pandorum (Sep 17, 2010)

AardvarkSagus said:


> Well I just heard from Olight and their official response is that though they are trying to extend the runtime from 1.5 hrs to something longer, they are changing the literature to match.
> 
> Not my ideal solution to be certain.


 
Sorry but, OLIGHT :fail:

What puzzles me is that the SR91 _should _run longer than the SR90 if it is running at a lower output using the same battery pack right?


----------



## jirik_cz (Sep 17, 2010)

AardvarkSagus said:


> they are changing the literature to match.
> Not my ideal solution to be certain.



Definitely, this is little bit disappointing. They should test all lights properly to provide accurate data.


----------



## vinhnguyen54 (Jul 18, 2011)

My GF just gave me an Olight SR91 as a birthday gift! I used to own an SR90 so I cant directly compare them. It does seem to me that output on max is similar. I was kinda surprise because I thought it would be much dimmer. The low mode is however much lower. For anyone considering the SR90 and SR91 I would say go for the SR91! Its much much smaller in real life and the output is not much different. You only loose some throw due to a smaller reflector.

I have a gut feeling that both of these light will out throw the new SR92. But I am sure the SR92 will be brighter than both the SR90 and SR91 due to strict ANSI ratings.


----------



## bigchelis (Jul 19, 2011)

vinhnguyen54 said:


> My GF just gave me an Olight SR91 as a birthday gift! I used to own an SR90 so I cant directly compare them. It does seem to me that output on max is similar. I was kinda surprise because I thought it would be much dimmer. The low mode is however much lower. For anyone considering the SR90 and SR91 I would say go for the SR91! Its much much smaller in real life and the output is not much different. You only loose some throw due to a smaller reflector.
> 
> I have a gut feeling that both of these light will out throw the new SR92. But I am sure the SR92 will be brighter than both the SR90 and SR91 due to strict ANSI ratings.


 

You are absolutely correct. I got almost identical OTF numbers from the SR90's I tested vs. what Ti-Force got with his SR91. 

My ultimate goal would be to use the SR90 as a hosts only. Get a top bin SST-90 cool tint and run it a 15A with copper to LED bonding. A massive copper heatsink would fit the SR90 really easy and propably make it really really heavy.....


The SR90 I saw almost hit 100K lux at a mere 1480 OTF lumens (1st couple seconds). I bet with 2500 real OTF lumens the throw would reach nearly 200K lux. This would be a record holder..at least since it will have a reflector.

bigC


----------



## vinhnguyen54 (Jul 19, 2011)

Nice...Any Tips or Tricks to make my SR91 Brighter??? Its probably pulling around 6.5-7A right now. Can I push the LED any harder? I got no clue where to start and what driver to swap...



bigchelis said:


> You are absolutely correct. I got almost identical OTF numbers from the SR90's I tested vs. what Ti-Force got with his SR91.
> 
> My ultimate goal would be to use the SR90 as a hosts only. Get a top bin SST-90 cool tint and run it a 15A with copper to LED bonding. A massive copper heatsink would fit the SR90 really easy and propably make it really really heavy.....
> 
> ...


----------



## vinhnguyen54 (Jul 19, 2011)

How did you plan to push the SR90 at 15A ?


----------



## JNieporte (Jul 19, 2011)

vinhnguyen54 said:


> My GF just gave me an Olight SR91 as a birthday gift!...QUOTE]
> 
> That's a heck of a birthday gift!
> Happy belated Birthday Vinh


----------



## vinhnguyen54 (Jul 19, 2011)

Thanks but my bday is not until the 23rd.


----------



## Fatso (Jul 19, 2011)

Wow. Now that's a B-day gift.
After reading all the input on this thread I think I might just buy a TK41 or TK60. I almost bought the SR91 last night until I read this thread. We'll see tonight what I get. TK60 good enough or more than enough SR91??


----------



## JNieporte (Jul 19, 2011)

vinhnguyen54 said:


> Thanks but my bday is not until the 23rd.


 
I've still got time to send you a present then. Seattle, WA... got it


----------



## Fatso (Jul 24, 2011)

BBought the 91 and the tracking says it should be here tomorrow!! I hope so.. Can't wait..


----------



## ufokillerz (Jul 30, 2011)

anyone have a problem with getting the battery to show 100% charged? my charging stopped, but it still shows only 3 green leds.


----------



## guiri (Jul 31, 2011)

bigchelis said:


> I dont want to hijack this thread, but since most of us are concerned with the size and throw variables......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've got both the 91 and the vara2000 (both for sale) and I don't think the vara is brighter or throws further. Yes, more compact and I love the variable output option but I don't think it's brighter, on the contrary.

George


----------



## harro (Aug 12, 2011)

tre said:


> Here is a dumb question. Has anyone verified the run times of the SR90? Perpaps the SR91 does run for 2x or 3x as long as the SR90. Maybe the SR90 does not run nearly as long as advertised either?


 
Here's an even dumber one. Has anyone looked at Olight's website? They contradict themselves re. runtime. Sounds like a typical typo.
First set of specs. state 1.5 hrs. @ 1500 lms
Second pix down states 3.1 hrs. @ 1500 lms
Note also that strobe time is double that in first specs.
Typo....Typo....Typo

Still like the idea and look of the SR92 though!!


----------



## vinhnguyen54 (Aug 19, 2011)

I tested the SR91 Low mode today. I got 7.5 Hour


----------



## tre (Aug 19, 2011)

guiri said:


> I've got both the 91 and the vara2000 (both for sale) and I don't think the vara is brighter or throws further. Yes, more compact and I love the variable output option but I don't think it's brighter, on the contrary.
> 
> George



The light Bigchelis tested was not a VaraPower 2000. It was built by Kevin at Lambda but it was very different. 
see what he is talking about here: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...at-2362-Real-OTF-lumens-VARA2000-Frankenlight


----------

