# Quark "Turbo" Thread



## recDNA (Oct 21, 2009)

Check out the announcement in the Marketplace. A production XP-G Quark flashlight is out. 230 Lumens on turbo for the 2 X CR123 model. Larger head for more throw. Another $75 out of my pocket IF I only buy ONE. Pre-Order now for delivery date later this week so no long wait this time. It's a real looker too!


----------



## OutGunned321 (Oct 21, 2009)

Thank you for giving me the heads up, otherwise I would not have known about this and I was just about to order the non-turbo Quark AA-2 Tactical. And I'd rather have the Turbo model because I will be attaching my AR to this flashlight.


----------



## berry580 (Oct 21, 2009)

it apparently only offers 5% increase in throw, will have to see review before i enlarge the hole in my pocket any further. The 18650 body however, i will buy! =D


----------



## pipspeak (Oct 21, 2009)

I'll wait for the reviews, too. Not sure I understand the excitement... OK, so it's an XP-G, but I'd expect more than a 5% bump in throw with the size of that head.


----------



## OutGunned321 (Oct 21, 2009)

The difference is in output, which is significantly more.

Although the non-Turbo Quarks have very high outputs in their own right, this new Turbo series is obviously catering to the Extreme-Max-Output segment of the market.


----------



## fiorano (Oct 21, 2009)

More info on the CPFM thread: http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=202238


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Oct 21, 2009)

berry580 said:


> it apparently only offers 50% increase in throw, will have to see review before i enlarge the hole in my pocket any further. The 18650 body however, i will buy! =D




I think you meant 5% increase throw right? Not 50%.


----------



## pipspeak (Oct 22, 2009)

OutGunned321 said:


> The difference is in output, which is significantly more.


 
I understand that, but the size disadvantage of a bigger head is normally offset by the greater throw it offers. In this case that sounds like it might not really be the case... I'll wait to see reviews to see exactly what the beam profile is (or try to get my hands on a Ti Quark with the R4 emitter in it and the regular skinny head).


----------



## corvettesR1 (Oct 22, 2009)

Thanks for this thread.I missed out on the Quark titaniums a while back and wanted another Quark anyway.Both of these new turbos look pretty nice to me and I really like the 2x123 size.


----------



## xenonk (Oct 22, 2009)

pipspeak said:


> In this case that sounds like it might not really be the case...


There's a brief outline of the reason for it up on the marketplace thread now. Basically bigger emitter dies are harder to focus tightly. To get an XP-G to throw like an XP-E you have to put it in a bigger reflector than the XP-E.

There have been a few discussions here and in the LED forum over the past few months regarding the XP-G and throw that drew the same conclusions.


----------



## Moonshadow (Oct 22, 2009)

Agree, the AA^2 looks a bit ungainly, but the 2x123 version is a nice-looking light. Kind of reminds me a bit of what a stretched NEX might look like.

Been waiting for Nitecore to bung an XP-G into the Extreme and stretch the body for 18650. Seems 4Sevens have beaten them to the punch.

Nice one ! :thumbsup:


----------



## Henk_Lu (Oct 22, 2009)

pipspeak said:


> I understand that, but the size disadvantage of a bigger head is normally offset by the greater throw it offers. In this case that sounds like it might not really be the case... I'll wait to see reviews to see exactly what the beam profile is (or try to get my hands on a Ti Quark with the R4 emitter in it and the regular skinny head).



The Ti Quarks will also have the R5, which is physically the same as the R4, but with 9 Lumen more. The Ti Quarks should have a lack of a throw compared to the normal ones with the smaller XP-E.

To get everything out of teh XP-G, you need another reflector-design, which has been done with the Turbos. Unfortunately, as far as throw is concerned, the XP-G can't keep up with the XP-E using small reflectors. That's a good reason to continue to build the normal Quarks with the XP-E, those who want throw have the Turbo available now!


----------



## Pekka (Oct 22, 2009)

Moonshadow said:


> Agree, the AA^2 looks a bit ungainly, but the 2x123 version is a nice-looking light.


You're not missing this comment by any change?


4sevens said:


> The Quark Turbo AA^2 will have a straight across body like the 123^2. This proto doesn't show it.


----------



## dudu84 (Oct 22, 2009)

pipspeak said:


> I'll wait for the reviews, too. Not sure I understand the excitement... OK, so it's an XP-G, but I'd expect more than a 5% bump in throw with the size of that head.



I totally agreed with you on that! 
Basically, we get same hotspot size and throw as standard quark, but brighter spill (or perhaps larger, or both?) in a significantly larger package with a little longer runtime, correct?

I think I'm becoming less impressed with the xp-g :tired:. I'd be interested in lights driving xp-g to its limit :/

EDIT: Some say these new xp-g torches bring out significantly more output than existing quarks should realize that, from 190 ->230 lumens is only ~21% increase, "barely" perceivable by naked eyes (correct me if I'm wrong here)


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm a little confused by that 5% figure...does that mean that the area of the hotspot is a little bit smaller (thus a tighter beam, equating w/more throw)? Or is the intensity, i.e. lux reading of the hotspot, only 5% greater than the regular quark heads? If the latter, I'm kind of wondering what the advantages of the turbo Quarks are. So the spill is brighter, cool...is it worth $75 and a bulkier design? The original quark heads would have had just as much spill brightness without the size penalty. My guess (or hope) is that the hotspot is brighter, just not any tighter as you'd normally get from a turbo-type head.



dudu84 said:


> Some say these new xp-g torches bring out significantly more output than existing quarks should realize that, from 190 ->230 lumens is only ~21% increase, "barely" perceivable by naked eyes (correct me if I'm wrong here)



You're not wrong, it won't be a huuuge difference, but you will see one. I think it's because these quarks aren't driving the LED at the full 1 amp that we aren't seeing as significant a jump in output. The new XP-G Malkoff maglite drop-in, which is driven at 1 amp on 3+ cells, does reach 260 lumens OTF, which I think is a fairly significant jump from the original 190ish they were doing with the SSC P4 LED.


----------



## dudu84 (Oct 22, 2009)

Saint_Dogbert said:


> You're not wrong, it won't be a huuuge difference, but you will see one. I think it's because these quarks aren't driving the LED at the full 1 amp that we aren't seeing as significant a jump in output. The new XP-G Malkoff maglite drop-in, which is driven at 1 amp on 3+ cells, does reach 260 lumens OTF, which I think is a fairly significant jump from the original 190ish they were doing with the SSC P4 LED.



I think 4evens could be too conservative with his number (I find realistic numbers most useful for comparisons purposes). A xp-g r5 driven at 990mA will produce between ~340-360 LED lumens so 230 lumens OTF means >30% losses due to optics, right? :candle:

Another thing I notice is that regular quark 123-2 is overdriven in a very small body, while the xp-g (with improved thermal performance) is moderately driven with heaps of cooling fins . 

These new lights would be much more appealing if driven @1.2-1.4A :devil: but I guess redesigning the circuit is a lot of work.

Just my 2c


----------



## berry580 (Oct 22, 2009)

numbers can be deceiving.
4sevens say 5% increase in throw, but we don't know how much bigger the hot spot is, so lets wait for reviews. =)


----------



## OutGunned321 (Oct 22, 2009)

pipspeak said:


> I understand that, but the size disadvantage of a bigger head is normally offset by the greater throw it offers. In this case that sounds like it might not really be the case... I'll wait to see reviews to see exactly what the beam profile is (or try to get my hands on a Ti Quark with the R4 emitter in it and the regular skinny head).



Great point. You've convinced me to wait. I'm going to go with the non-Turbo for my AR in order keep weight down. And I've decided on the Quark 123^2 Tactical for EDC. I can't wait until payday.


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 22, 2009)

berry580 said:


> numbers can be deceiving.
> 4sevens say 5% increase in throw, but we don't know how much bigger the hot spot is, so lets wait for reviews. =)



Actually, I think there is a marketplace thread somewhere where 4sevens gives the diameter of the hotspot at 1m for the turbo quark and regular quark, with the former being about 0.5in narrower. This is what leads me to believe that the hotspot might be more intense, but I really have nothing conclusive to base that on.


----------



## berry580 (Oct 22, 2009)

oh yeah, almost forgot about that. even then, it still doesn't tell us a lot, how bright is the spill? how big is it? That's also part of the equation.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm in it for the larger head even if performance is nearly the same. 

That's why I didn't get too into so many other lights, I don't care for the entire light being the same diameter. Sure I have a few 1 cell lights like that but overall I like the more traditional shape the turbos have. It looks like a flashlight more than a knurled section of black pipe.

I know it's goofy.


----------



## recDNA (Oct 22, 2009)

dudu84 said:


> I think 4evens could be too conservative with his number (I find realistic numbers most useful for comparisons purposes). A xp-g r5 driven at 990mA will produce between ~340-360 LED lumens so 230 lumens OTF means >30% losses due to optics, right? :candle:
> 
> Another thing I notice is that regular quark 123-2 is overdriven in a very small body, while the xp-g (with improved thermal performance) is moderately driven with heaps of cooling fins .
> 
> ...


 
When Eagletac makes an XP-G light expect more output IMO.


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 22, 2009)

dudu84 said:


> I think 4evens could be too conservative with his number (I find realistic numbers most useful for comparisons purposes). A xp-g r5 driven at 990mA will produce between ~340-360 LED lumens so 230 lumens OTF means >30% losses due to optics, right?
> 
> Another thing I notice is that regular quark 123-2 is overdriven in a very small body, while the xp-g (with improved thermal performance) is moderately driven with heaps of cooling fins.



Sure, we don't know exactly how conservative 4sevens likes to be; Just from reading CPF, I think optical losses in an LED light are more around 20%, so there must be some other factor influencing performance - circuitry or heat issues? That last wouldn't really make sense in this larger, finned head, though...


----------



## dudu84 (Oct 22, 2009)

I hope the larger reflector in quark turbo will produce a tighter hotspot over a longer distance compared to regular quark, even though at 1m the hotspots are roughly the same in size and intensity.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 22, 2009)

I ordered a Quark 2AA Turbo and this is why

The XP-G at 700mA puts out 270 lumens at the LED
The XP-E at 700mA puts out 195 lumens at the LED
The XR-E Q5 at 700mA puts out 180 lumens at the LED

BUT! The XP-G R5 has a much larger die size and here are the readings

Quark AA XP-E 20" wide beam (400 sq. in.)
Quark AA XP-G 25.5" wide beam (650 sq. in.)
Quark AA XP-G Turbo 19" wide beam (361 sq. in.) 

To get the "throw" or beam intensity back, they put a larger reflector and thus a larger head on it. Since the Turbo XP-G head puts out a 10% smaller beam size, it will be 10% brighter than the XP-E with the same lumen output. Now throw in that the R5 XP-G is 38% brighter than the XP-E R2 (and 50% brighter than XR-E Q5) I should be able to see an obvious difference when comparing it to my L2D Q5 XR-E Fenix light. 

The Quark 2AA Turbo XP-G R5 light will replace the L2D Q5 as my new bicycle helmet light. The light should be perfect for spotting things as I look around. I'll get a regular Quark 2AA XP-G R5 since I would like the wider beam for lighting up the trails over the L2D Q5 and together, the combination will really light up the roads. If I want it to be wider/brighter still...two regular Quark XPGs on the bars and the turbo on the helmet should be more than I need. 

Since the XP-G has a C/W rating twice as low as the XR-E AND the turbo head is finned and has twice the mass...the LED will run much cooler so no worries if it is really hot out. 

For the throw monsters, maybe 4sevens will make a special run of the Turbo head with the XP-E R2 LED. That would give it the champion thrower for 2AA award easily. I wonder if Cree will continue with the development of the XP-E and maybe come out with R3, R4, R5 and S2 bins? A turbo head with an S2 bin would be lethal in throw from such a small package.

Now for 4sevens to show what the actual 2AA body looks like...


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 22, 2009)

Wait, there are regular quarks with XP-G R5s? Where? Where?!oo:


----------



## LG&M (Oct 22, 2009)

Sgt. LED said:


> I'm in it for the larger head even if performance is nearly the same.
> 
> That's why I didn't get too into so many other lights, I don't care for the entire light being the same diameter. Sure I have a few 1 cell lights like that but overall I like the more traditional shape the turbos have. It looks like a flashlight more than a knurled section of black pipe.
> 
> I know it's goofy.


 I feel the same way. I believe it's going to be a 2AA for me.


----------



## recDNA (Oct 22, 2009)

Funny, I LOVE the short pipe look. I don't even like a BUMP in the head of the flashlight. Very few flashlights are perfect tubes. More should be IMO. Of course I prefer flood to throw so that fits in with my beam preference.


----------



## recDNA (Oct 22, 2009)

BentHeadTX said:


> I ordered a Quark 2AA Turbo and this is why
> 
> The XP-G at 700mA puts out 270 lumens at the LED
> The XP-E at 700mA puts out 195 lumens at the LED
> ...


 
Quark AA XP-G 25.5" wide beam (650 sq. in.)
What kind of Quark is THIS. THIS is the one I want.


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 22, 2009)

That is the XP-G in the original quark head. I wasn't aware that this was available, but I hope it will be (besides the LE Ti)


----------



## Marduke (Oct 22, 2009)

recDNA said:


> Quark AA XP-G 25.5" wide beam (650 sq. in.)
> What kind of Quark is THIS. THIS is the one I want.


The Ti ones...


----------



## recDNA (Oct 22, 2009)

Marduke said:


> The Ti ones...


 
Wish I bought that one too. Only bought the CR123 with the clip that scratches the body. :-(


----------



## Marduke (Oct 22, 2009)

CR123 one will have the identical beam pattern.


----------



## gsxrac (Oct 22, 2009)

Sgt. LED said:


> I'm in it for the larger head even if performance is nearly the same.
> 
> That's why I didn't get too into so many other lights, I don't care for the entire light being the same diameter. Sure I have a few 1 cell lights like that but overall I like the more traditional shape the turbos have. It looks like a flashlight more than a knurled section of black pipe.
> 
> I know it's goofy.



Not goofy at all, I agree with you entirely. Im not a big fan of the regular Quark line for 2 reasons. The light sits too high in the pocket, and the whole light was the same diameter and I dont really like that.


----------



## Burgess (Oct 23, 2009)

to Sgt.LED --


i also agree with you.

Not goofy at all.

:twothumbs


Great minds think alike.


_


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 24, 2009)

Here is the email annoucenment of the Quark Turbos (among other things ) which seems to corroborate my theory, e.g. that when 4sevens says 5% more throw, he just means the hotspot size rather than intensity:



> These lights have a larger head and a similar throw (hotspot size) compared to the XP-E Quarks. The Turbos have 5% more throw than the non-turbos.


To me, this suggests that throw is being defined as hotspot size. Anyway, we'll find out when the reviews roll in, but I just thought I'd throw, ha, this out there in case anyone is undecided based on the whole 'only 5% more throw' thing. Of course, clarification from the man himself would be nice, too.


----------



## Swedpat (Oct 24, 2009)

These new Quarks are very nice looking. 
I just imagine a 2C Turbo in the same design and brightness levels! Twice the runtime with even better holding and with a larger reflector it would be better throw. Such a model would likely be my absolute favorite light!

4Sevens, Please!


----------



## sfca (Oct 24, 2009)

How will this compare with an E2DL - not the recent 200 lumen version just the underrated 120 lumens.


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 24, 2009)

Well given it's not released yet, it's kind of hard to say. More overall output but less throw is the most I can guess.


----------



## sfca (Oct 24, 2009)

You are correct! Just changed tenses - from "would" to "will".


----------



## headophile (Oct 25, 2009)

now this 2xaa quark i am interested in 

that larger head would be a waste if it didn't throw well. a 2xaa thrower sounds very appealing to me.

i wonder how big the head/reflector is compared to a fenix tk20. anybody got an idea?


----------



## kyhunter1 (Oct 26, 2009)

Got a shipping notice on my new Quark 123 turbo.  This will be my first xpg light, and the first with a progammable UI. Ounce the UI is figured out, this should be a awesome light. Im curious how the beam will be with the smo reflector, and how the throw compares to xre lights. I like my eagletac p100c2 with smo and xpe, so this should one be a welcome addition.


----------



## recDNA (Oct 26, 2009)

Marduke said:


> CR123 one will have the identical beam pattern.


 
Good, but the 2 X CR123 would be floody AND brighter than my 1 X CR123. From the beamshots I've seen the XP-G doesn't look as bright as I anticipated it would.


----------



## dudu84 (Oct 26, 2009)

I suspect these thing are actually smaller than they look. Their looks are actually growing on me, now just need the neutral white xp-g :naughty:


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Oct 26, 2009)

dudu84 said:


> I suspect these thing are actually smaller than they look. Their looks are actually growing on me, now just need the neutral white xp-g :naughty:




Welp, my wallet is screaming in terror again... That'll be the next Quark I get, along with an 18650 tube.


----------



## ccryder (Oct 27, 2009)

My Quark TUrbo AA should be here tomorrow. Even at 5% more throwit will be helpful for a work light or just walking the dogs at night. It gets pretty dark down my TN country road in the winter. The extra lumens really make the "green-eyed" monsters stand out _(Black Angus cattle, hey if you are a 25# Sheltie those green eyes floating 4' off the ground can be rather frightening)._

Time2Work
Neil S.


----------



## gsxrac (Oct 27, 2009)

sfca said:


> How will this compare with an E2DL - not the recent 200 lumen version just the underrated 120 lumens.



Well since a few E2DL's were tested around 200lm in the first place I would say they will be close in brihgtness. Not sure about the beam though.


----------



## recDNA (Oct 27, 2009)

Why do you think 4sevens elected to drive at a level producing not alot more lumens than other bins? Can't an XP-G put out more lumens than they rate their flashlights?


----------



## Sgt. LED (Oct 27, 2009)

he likes longer runtimes


----------



## gamehawker (Oct 27, 2009)

Would you buy the new Quark Turbo or the new Fenix PD30+ ?


----------



## Henk_Lu (Oct 27, 2009)

gamehawker said:


> Would you buy the new Quark Turbo or the new Fenix PD30+ ?



I will buy two Turbos and sold my old PD30... 

We still haven't seen any beams, but the decision to sell my PD30 was taken after I got the regular Quark 123-2 neutral white. Even that one seemed brighter than the PD30 and the beam was much more pleasant, bigger hotspot, more spill.

So, I don't think that the PD30+ with an R2 will keep up with the Turbo with an XPG-R5. It would be comparable to the regular 123-2 though, there are threads about them, just do a search!


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 27, 2009)

gamehawker said:


> Would you buy the new Quark Turbo or the new Fenix PD30+ ?



For EDC, PD30. Otherwise, Quark turbo. Although I'd prefer regular Quark 123^2 over the fenix because of the former's low low.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 27, 2009)

recDNA said:


> Why do you think 4sevens elected to drive at a level producing not alot more lumens than other bins? Can't an XP-G put out more lumens than they rate their flashlights?



If it makes you feel better, an XP-G R5 at 700mA will put out 270 lumens at the emitter (LED lumens). He rates the AA^2 Turbo at 206 out the front minimum, the truth will set you free! 

The 5% more throw is compared to the XP-E emitter since it is smaller but throws better. Compared to a Quark Ti AA^2 with XP-G R5 it will be much better, I calculate 34% better throw. 

The throw figure is a little odd, comparing it to the XP-E Quark at 170 lumens out the front (195 LED lumens) the spot is 5% smaller but should be 21% out the front brighter (rated) so won't that increase throw? Even if you calculate that it takes 4 times the light to increase throw 100%, that would be a throw increase of 27% compared to the regular Quark XP-E R2. 

This mystery should be cleared up tomorrow or Thursday when flashaholics start receiving their Turbos and throw them on light meters.


----------



## recDNA (Oct 27, 2009)

BentHeadTX said:


> If it makes you feel better, an XP-G R5 at 700mA will put out 270 lumens at the emitter (LED lumens). He rates the AA^2 Turbo at 206 out the front minimum, the truth will set you free!
> 
> The 5% more throw is compared to the XP-E emitter since it is smaller but throws better. Compared to a Quark Ti AA^2 with XP-G R5 it will be much better, I calculate 34% better throw.
> 
> ...


 

It's merely a question - not a condemnation. I could care less about throw. I'm only interested in the total output and if it CAN be driven harder than it is....primarily in the 2 X CR123 version.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 27, 2009)

recDNA said:


> It's merely a question - not a condemnation. I could care less about throw. I'm only interested in the total output and if it CAN be driven harder than it is....primarily in the 2 X CR123 version.



From what I understand, the 2 x CR123 version drives the LED at 990mA. Pretty much the max that Cree recommends so I don't see them driving it any harder. Strange that it is rated for only 230 lumens out the front, the LED is screaming along at over 350 lumens at the LED. 

Waiting for selfbuilt's review to clear up all the questions


----------



## ccryder (Oct 28, 2009)

Mine is sitting at home waiting for me to play with it. By the time I get home the sun will almost be set so, I can see how it performs. I've got 7+ac to illuminate tonight. I wonder if it will startle my Shelti like my HID does?


----------



## mitro (Oct 28, 2009)

After playing with my AA Turbo, I'm pretty sure they were being conservative with the "5%" in throw. 

I got a warm AA tactical and a 18650 body, so I'm enjoying playing legos.


----------



## corvettesR1 (Oct 28, 2009)

Just had a look at my new Q turbo 2x123.It is a hec of a nice light with a bright,well defined hot spot.Glad I picked one up.


----------



## recDNA (Oct 28, 2009)

BentHeadTX said:


> From what I understand, the 2 x CR123 version drives the LED at 990mA. Pretty much the max that Cree recommends so I don't see them driving it any harder. Strange that it is rated for only 230 lumens out the front, the LED is screaming along at over 350 lumens at the LED.
> 
> Waiting for selfbuilt's review to clear up all the questions


 
Makes no sense to me.


----------



## gamehawker (Oct 28, 2009)

Still deciding between the Fenix PD30+ and the Quark turbo.

Do you recommend rechargeable RCR123A bats for either of these?

Also I'm a flashligh novice, what is EDC?

Thanks!


----------



## Nickyan (Oct 28, 2009)

EDC = Every Day Carry.

Preferrably a not to large, heavy or bulky light/knife/etc so you can have it on or with you every day, throughout the day. Preferences vary, I wouldn't consider anything larger than 1xAA or 1xCR123 as an EDC.


----------



## corvettesR1 (Oct 28, 2009)

Hi gamehawker .I sent you a private message . Find your private messages at the top /right side of the page .


----------



## gamehawker (Oct 28, 2009)

Thanks for all of your advice, I decided to go with the Fenix PD30+. I added a flip up diffuser too.

I also got a 12 pack of Surefire CR123s.


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 28, 2009)

I received the Quark Turbo 123x2 today. I love it! It's a great light! The beam is much tighter than from the Ti 123x2. Everything is nicely done.
Thanks 4Sevens!!


----------



## dudu84 (Oct 28, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> I received the Quark Turbo 123x2 today. I love it! It's a great light! The beam is much tighter than from the Ti 123x2. Everything is nicely done.
> Thanks 4Sevens!!



Do you notice any dark spot in the beam due to smooth reflector?


----------



## Hikin-Mike (Oct 28, 2009)

gamehawker said:


> Still deciding between the Fenix PD30+ and the Quark turbo.



I'm on the same fence.

Two years ago I bought a Fenix P3D Q5. I really liked that light until it ran away and didn't come back. I like the size of the 123x2. Although the P3D was useful at lighting dark areas, my favorite thing to do was to show it off. (A mines-brighter-than-yours thing.)


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 28, 2009)

dudu84 said:


> Do you notice any dark spot in the beam due to smooth reflector?



I was expecting a pretty flawed beam due to the smooth reflector, but I was pleasantly surprised to see a pretty artifact free beam with lots of throw. From about 4 inches on out it pretty clean beam profile. At about 10 feet, I see a 10-11 foot diameter, very usable spill with a 1 ft diameter hot spot. Nice transition from one to the other. In the hotspot itself, it seems brightest in the outermost ring from 12 in. to maybe 10 in. the rest is uniform. The "ring" is just perceptible when hunting white walls, but invisible when looking at anything else.

Compared to a Ti Quark the hotspot of the TQ is about half the size of the QTi, and of course, twice as bright.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 28, 2009)

Thank you kw, I'm getting my AA2 Turbo tomorrow

Since mine will be used for outdoors, I'm sure I'll be pleased with the beam. White wall hunting outdoors in not in season so I'll have to suffer.


----------



## jhc37013 (Oct 28, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> I was expecting a pretty flawed beam due to the smooth reflector, but I was pleasantly surprised to see a pretty artifact free beam with lots of throw. From about 4 inches on out it pretty clean beam profile. At about 10 feet, I see a 10-11 foot diameter, very usable spill with a 1 ft diameter hot spot. Nice transition from one to the other. In the hotspot itself, it seems brightest in the outermost ring from 12 in. to maybe 10 in. the rest is uniform. The "ring" is just perceptible when hunting white walls, but invisible when looking at anything else.
> 
> Compared to a Ti Quark the hotspot of the TQ is about half the size of the QTi, and of course, twice as bright.



Do you have any of these lights to compare throw.

MG Mini II with turbo head
Eagletac P20C2 or T100C2
Fenix PD30+ or TK11


----------



## dudu84 (Oct 28, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> I was expecting a pretty flawed beam due to the smooth reflector, but I was pleasantly surprised to see a pretty artifact free beam with lots of throw. From about 4 inches on out it pretty clean beam profile. At about 10 feet, I see a 10-11 foot diameter, very usable spill with a 1 ft diameter hot spot. Nice transition from one to the other. In the hotspot itself, it seems brightest in the outermost ring from 12 in. to maybe 10 in. the rest is uniform. The "ring" is just perceptible when hunting white walls, but invisible when looking at anything else.
> 
> Compared to a Ti Quark the hotspot of the TQ is about half the size of the QTi, and of course, twice as bright.



Thanks for your experience, Kwkarth :thumbsup:
I'm waiting for a full review


----------



## Burgess (Oct 29, 2009)

_(i posted this first in the MarketPlace thread._
_Hope it's OK that i'm running it here, also.)_


Glad to see these first-hand reports of new Quark Turbo.








My request, if anyone could do so . . . .


I would really like to see this new flashlight, on *High* mode (_not_ Maximum)

compared with the venerable Streamlight ProPolymer 4AA Luxeon.


Does Quark Turbo have similar tight beam and throw ?


No photos are necessary -- verbal descriptions will be quite sufficient.

Just wanna' know if it can match the "reach" of the Streamlight.

(when running in High mode, not the maximum)


Thank you, everyone, for your help and assistance.





_


----------



## Moonshadow (Oct 29, 2009)

> No photos are necessary --



Hmmm - speak for yourself. We want* beamshots *!!


----------



## run4jc (Oct 29, 2009)

It's an amazing light for the money! Took mine out this morning and, unfortunately, the photos I took in the dark did not take - in the fumbling around in darkness I failed to set up my camera correctly. I did manage to grab 2 quick photos shown below. Before the photos, my benchmark for 'small' light is the Surefire LX2. Cut to the chase - does the 123.2 Turbo match the LX2? Darn near. The beam does have a slight 'warm spot' in the middle - and the spot is about 50% the size of the LX2, but the spill is brighter and has the defined edge that some love....the LX2 still has the less bright spill with a more gradual transition. The LX2 is still my favorite for the design, beam quality and UI. But the Quark is VERY close (that's why I've purchased 4 different versions already including one I gave to my brother for his birthday.)

Bottom line? If a friend asked me what is the BEST value for the money in a small flashlight, I would not hesitate to recommend one of the Quarks, particularly one of the iterations of the Turbo. I did get an 18650 battery tube but haven't used it yet - mine was running off two Ultrafire RCRs this morning. 

Here's the Quark 123T Neutral white versus the 123.2 Turbo against a beige wall at about 6 feet:





And here is the Surefire LX2 left, 123.2 Turbo right, same conditions:





All in all, the team at 4Sevens has a home run on their hands! I still love my Surefires, but the Quark lights are a tremendous value that are obviously created for the members of this forum. I EDC my 123T neutral and it is taking some abuse with no ill effects - the build quality of all these lights is terrific.

Great deal - great job!

:twothumbs:twothumbs


----------



## gswitter (Oct 29, 2009)

Burgess said:


> I would really like to see this new flashlight, on *High* mode (_not_ Maximum)
> 
> compared with the venerable Streamlight ProPolymer 4AA Luxeon.
> 
> Does Quark Turbo have similar tight beam and throw ?


The High beam is very similar to the Streamlight, and the spill intensities are about equal. But the Streamlight's hot spot is more concentrated, and it throws farther.

Every time I lament the lack of an update to the Streamlight, it's hammered home yet again how well the ProPoly 4AA Lux has held up. Such a great light.


----------



## apontes (Oct 29, 2009)

gswitter said:


> Every time I lament the lack of an update to the Streamlight, it's hammered home yet again how well the ProPoly 4AA Lux has held up. Such a great light.



+1
Don't forget form factor. Very confortable to handle.


----------



## bcwang (Oct 29, 2009)

gswitter said:


> The High beam is very similar to the Streamlight, and the spill intensities are about equal. But the Streamlight's hot spot is more concentrated, and it throws farther.
> 
> Every time I lament the lack of an update to the Streamlight, it's hammered home yet again how well the ProPoly 4AA Lux has held up. Such a great light.




Hmm, isn't the propoly 4AA lux supposed to be 40 lumens? And yet you're saying the spill is equal but the streamlight has a more concentrated hotspot? I still have a hard time believing the propoly is only 40 lumens. I've always said it looks way brighter than 40 lumens and your test is reinforcing that thought.


----------



## uplite (Oct 29, 2009)

BentHeadTX said:


> 2 x CR123 version drives the LED at 990mA...Strange that it is rated for only 230 lumens out the front, the LED is screaming along at over 350 lumens


WTF? :thinking:

Those numbers would mean that the Turbo head, with a smooth reflector, loses *34%* of the emitter lumens at 990mA.

Meanwhile the regular Q123 with a rough reflector is rated 170 lumens OTF with 194 emitter lumens...so it loses only *12%* of the emitter lumens.

Maybe 4sevens posted the wrong numbers for this light?

-Jeff


----------



## gswitter (Oct 29, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Hmm, isn't the propoly 4AA lux supposed to be 40 lumens? And yet you're saying the spill is equal but the streamlight has a more concentrated hotspot?


Here are my lux readings - all taken at one meter except ceiling bounces:Streamlight PorPolymer 4AA Luxeon (on 4x Duracell alkaline AA cells)


3290 lux, center of hot spot
27 lux, mid point of spill
8 lux, ceiling bounce*
Quark 123^2 Turbo (on 2x 4Sevens CR123A cells)


2410 lux, center of hot spot
31 lux, mid point of spill
11 lux, ceiling bounce*
_* Ceiling bounce tests were done in a small bathroom, light was one meter from the ceiling, meter was two meters from the ceiling._​The center lux readings are a little deceptive though, because the Quark hotspot dwarfs the ProPoly's in diameter.


----------



## kyhunter1 (Oct 29, 2009)

Got my turbo 123'2 today. It is my first quark, and well pleased well the quality of these lights. I held off on quarks for a long time, but did not realize what I was missing out on. I think it is brighter than 230 lumens compared to some of my other 200ish lumen lights. The tint appears to be bright white. 4sevens probably gave a very conservative OTF rating. Im thinking closer to 300 OTF. It has the dreaded light area in the hotspot. It's not horrible, but is a little noticeable. This will be my last light of any manufacturer with a SMO reflector until beam issues are worked out. I love throw and would rather use a SMO, but if I put a considerable amount of money in a light, I want a perfect beam. The UI was easy to figure out and program modes. Right now, I have Turbo on tight, and strobe on loose. It is a versatile light to have with the choice of modes and option to have insane runtimes. When it gets more dark this evening, I will have a better idea of throw.


----------



## Marduke (Oct 29, 2009)

uplite said:


> WTF? :thinking:
> 
> Those numbers would mean that the Turbo head, with a smooth reflector, loses *34%* of the emitter lumens at 990mA.
> 
> ...



47's doesn't advertise typical values, but lower bound conservative.


----------



## gsxrac (Oct 29, 2009)

Well I dont do beamshots but if anybodys interested I have some size comparison pics...


----------



## bcwang (Oct 29, 2009)

kyhunter1 said:


> Im thinking closer to 300 OTF.



I don't know about that. My TK40 in 300 lumen mode puts out noticeably more light than my Quark Ti in Max. I doubt the Quark would be close to 300 lumen out the front. Unless the beam pattern can make such a drastic difference in perceived brightness.


----------



## sfca (Oct 29, 2009)

Looks like the Turbo doesn't stick out of the pocket as much as a Ti Quark.


----------



## ccryder (Oct 29, 2009)

Mines here. Very nice packaging but, why spend the $'s it can't be cheap. At least it wasn't heat sealed and I would run the risk of shedding blood just to get the h-ware in hand.

On to the h-ware. First impression is a very well finished 1st impression. Clicking the switch gives very good feedback for push to flash and click to on. Unscrewing the tail cap is very smooth and very little play in the threads. Both signs of close tolerance machineing. I am curious why the threads on the barrel, emitter end don't have anodizing, versus the tail end of the barrel only have a ring of threads w/o anodize. Probably has something to do with the circuit through the barrel.

Next the operation of the UI to program. While being different, than the L2D Q5, it is easy to use and you don't end up having to cycle through the modes each time you turn it on/ off. I was able to pick up the technique quickly and then change it to suit my needs as they changed from one scenario to another.

Now for the real issue, how does it perform? It has a nice tight beam with with very good throw. When compared to L2D the center spot is much better defined and produces a better throw, brightness not withstanding. 

Now it's time to take the "girls" out for their walk. We will see how the "green-eyed" monsters look in the glare of the Turbo Quark.

Later


----------



## recDNA (Oct 29, 2009)

Will somebody come out with a XP-G flashlight that actually produces 300 OTF lumens or is that only theoretically attainable?


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 29, 2009)

recDNA said:


> Will somebody come out with a XP-G flashlight that actually produces 300 OTF lumens or is that only theoretically attainable?



That depends and I'll do a little math.

The R5 bin will hit 367 lumens at 1 amp and the S2 bin will hit 400. Those are the lumens before it has to bounce off a reflector and go through the "window" on the flashlight. That is what takes the lumen value down. 

From what I gather, the AA^2 Turbo puts out 206 lumens out the front. If I take emitter ratings of 270 lumens at 700mA, that is a loss of 23% of bare LED lumens. It is around the ballpark of reflector losses with the window so no worries. 

Maybe I'm crazy but it is either a bad rating or I'm wrong about the drive level on the 2 CR123A Turbo's LED. I think it is 990mA so the LED lumens should be 363 lumens but the light is rated 230 out the front or a 36.6% loss. ???? I guess the LED is not driven that hard, maybe 800mA? Using the 363 emitter lumens at 990mA of drive along with the loss (using the AA2 readings) gives 277 out the front lumens. 

If you have to have 300 lumens out the front ASAP, maybe a manufacturer that pumps the XR-G R5 at 1.2 amps which produces 400 lumens. Figure average loss of decent reflectors/windows will give you over 300 lumens out the front. 

If David made a special edition Turbo that pushed the LED at 1.2 amps through an even larger head, wonder what it would be called?


----------



## ccryder (Oct 29, 2009)

_*Supercharged??*_ Next logical extension.

How does raising the current levels effect the life?


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 29, 2009)

ccryder said:


> _*Supercharged??*_ Next logical extension.
> 
> How does raising the current levels effect the life?



Maybe Turbo NOS...

The higher the current level, the shorter the life of the LED. The good thing about large heads with big reflectors is they can keep the LED from overheating and actually run cooler. Even if the LED life is cut down 90%, that still means at least 5,000 hours of "Turbo NOS" levels which should be enough.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Oct 29, 2009)

The XP-G is tough to manage. The problem is with the reflector. 

Go buy one of these LED's and hook power up to it then try every reflector you can think of on it. They range from horrible to crappy to passable. Somebody needs to sit down and design a better reflector for these without putting any restraints on the width or depth. You can get a great beam out of these LED's but the price is a bigger reflector. 

At this point shoehorning this led into a little reflector is going to get you a large floody spot or a donut. Pick your posion. The better option is to use an optic designed for the LED and at this point I don't believe there is one.


----------



## sfca (Oct 30, 2009)

Beamshots/reviews/selfbuilt/anyone?


----------



## uplite (Oct 30, 2009)

BentHeadTX said:


> maybe a manufacturer that pumps the XR-G R5 at 1.2 amps which produces 400 lumens. Figure average loss of decent reflectors/windows will give you over 300 lumens out the front


Really, is 25% the "average" reflector & window loss?

According to manuf specs, the regular Q123 loses just 12% (170 otf, 194 emitter) with a rough reflector.



> If David made a special edition Turbo that pushed the LED at 1.2 amps through an even larger head, wonder what it would be called?


Turbo Burn? Turbo Ouch? Turbo ? :laughing:

-Jeff


----------



## kwkarth (Oct 30, 2009)

uplite said:


> Really, is 25% the "average" reflector & window loss?
> 
> According to manuf specs, the regular Q123 loses just 12% (170 otf, 194 emitter) with a rough reflector.
> 
> ...



OVERBOOST  Blown head!


----------



## gsxrac (Oct 30, 2009)

sfca said:


> Beamshots/reviews/selfbuilt/anyone?



Heres a review I did for another forum if your interested. No beamshots though. I will have to go read up on how to do it since it seems nobody is ever wanting to do them.


----------



## sfca (Oct 30, 2009)

Gsxrac, it looks like the Turbo tailcap sticks out a bit less then the regular/ti tailcaps in bezel down carry - true as it looks?


----------



## dracodoc (Oct 30, 2009)

Sgt. LED said:


> At this point shoehorning this led into a little reflector is going to get you a large floody spot or a donut. Pick your posion. The better option is to use an optic designed for the LED and at this point I don't believe there is one.



I would LOVE a large floody spot...


----------



## gsxrac (Oct 30, 2009)

sfca said:


> Gsxrac, it looks like the Turbo tailcap sticks out a bit less then the regular/ti tailcaps in bezel down carry - true as it looks?



The tailcap itself is considerably shorter but comparing it to my normal Ti as far as how it sits in the pocket it will still sit almost the same height if not an eighth of an inch higer than a regular Quark tailcap. The new tailcap is also wider than the regular tailcaps and im guessing that is to provide a better grip in the "cigar" hold. Heres a pic I just took though...


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 30, 2009)

Got home from a short trip today and the Turbo was waiting for me

I've been using 2AA lights for many, many years and use the minimag and Fenix L2D as size comparisons. The Turbo is larger than a minimag in all dimensions, from the obviously larger head, thicker barrel and wider tail cap. It weighs more but has a very solid feel. Compared to the L2D, it is the same result. 

Threw in my Eneloops, reprogrammed it for medium and max as the two modes considering the use for this light. It's job is a bicycle helmet mounted light were I need great throw, a large enough spot to see my lane and great spill for everything else. 

Compared to the L2D Q5, the hot spot is smaller but about the same size. It is like a secondary ring of brightness around the fireball in the center and when hitting the roadway, it is about the same width. The spill width is basically identical so the turbo XP-G puts out about the same beam specs as a L2D (this is good) 

Beam quality blows away the L2D, no XR-E rings...very smooth for a smooth reflector (the L2D Q5 has the smooth reflector) Not perfect but the light is more for throw so no worries at all. 

Output? Not the "holy crap!" style like moving from a Luxeon to the "Cree-volution" of back in late 2006 but noticable increase in output. As far as throw goes, it will easily out throw the L2D Q5 and I am actually content with it's throw as a bicycle helmet light. I won't be outrunning the throw of this light so it is a keeper. 

I think as a cycling light, it is at the top of it's game. Yes, I will be getting a regular head Quark 2AA and 1AA to see how well they perform. Not sure if the extra ounce of weight the Turbo has will bother me sitting on my helmet, if it does...the regular Quark XP-G R5 will be traded out and the Turbo will go on the bars. My wife will get her L1D RB100 swapped out with a regular Quark with the R5 since she does not like riding past about 12 MPH/20KPH at night on her recumbent. She does not like the weight (and look) of 2AA lights. 

As far as using it for a regular flashlight? I prefer 1AA lights for EDC and use a D10, the Turbo won't kick it off my belt due to it's size and I don't need it's power. If I work outside for a long time, yes...I'll grab the Turbo. It would be a great light for the military to use as a backup light though, the tactical UI is easily reprogrammed with the moonlight mode about perfect for creeping around in the darkness. The larger head should not have a problem keeping the XP-G cool even in desert heat. 

In summation, it is a nice light, has great throw for a 2AA with large die LED, smooth beam transistion, packaging is awesome, nice lanyard, works well for bicycle lighting, good construction, good looking, nice clip and it's a keeper. Oh yeah, it's bright! 

The only downside I see is I now must buy more Quarks, the AA^2 and AA to be specific. No buyer remorse here!


----------



## run4jc (Oct 31, 2009)

dracodoc said:


> I would LOVE a large floody spot...



It's a really small and tight spot....

See here for very limited beam shots

It's spot is actually smaller than the 123 or 123.2


----------



## Swedpat (Oct 31, 2009)

Thanks BentHeadTX for sharing your impression of the AA2 Turbo.

I have Quark Regular AA2 and one drawback in my opinion is that the tube is too narrow to be comfortable. Though the knurling the light tends to glide away in my hand when I press the button. Combined with that the button needs to be deeply pushed this makes it even more uncomfortable. In this case Fenix LD20 is better.

How do you experience Quark AA2 Turbo in this matter? Is the tube thicker in the midpart than L2D Q5? 

Regards, Patric


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 31, 2009)

Yes the Turbo body is thicker. There are pictures of both the Turbo lights on the 4sevens website, and in the announcement thread in the marketplace.


----------



## Swedpat (Oct 31, 2009)

Thanks Saint Dogbert for the link. Yes I think it's clearly visible at these pictures that the tube is thicker. Actually it seems that the tube of AA2 has exactly the same diameter as the 2x123!
These Turbos are really good looking, and they have very low modes as well. 
I already hear the creditcards screaming in fear... 

Regards, Patric


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 31, 2009)

uplite said:


> Really, is 25% the "average" reflector & window loss?
> 
> According to manuf specs, the regular Q123 loses just 12% (170 otf, 194 emitter) with a rough reflector.



I believe that roughly 20% is the accepted loss for LED lights in general. There are some established threads that show this to be a decent rule of thumb for estimating OTF lumens from emitter lumens. Going with 25% is just a more conservative method of estimation, making it more likely that the true OTF value falls within the estimate. You're right that the regular quarks seem to do better than this, but the Turbo Quarks are more around 18%. :thumbsup:


----------



## recDNA (Oct 31, 2009)

Ugh, I wish he made some with the regular sized head. I don't need the throw and that head in my pocket looks uncomfortable.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 31, 2009)

Saint_Dogbert said:


> I believe that roughly 20% is the accepted loss for LED lights in general. There are some established threads that show this to be a decent rule of thumb for estimating OTF lumens from emitter lumens. Going with 25% is just a more conservative method of estimation, making it more likely that the true OTF value falls within the estimate. You're right that the regular quarks seem to do better than this, but the Turbo Quarks are more around 18%. :thumbsup:



Thanks Dogbert,
Although it does not matter now that I own one, just kind of wondered (It is a CPF thing) The 25% makes sense as that would represent the lowest of the bin and still be accurate. An R5 bin makes about 270 lumens at 700mA if it is the middle of the bin at 145 lumens at 350mA. If it was the lowest at 139 lumens at 350, then the math goes something like this:

139 x 1.862 = 258.8 lumens (this accounts for "droop")
258.8 x .80 = 207 lumens (20% reflector loss) 

If you calculate "mid bin" at 145 lumen at 350mA and 18% loss for the larger reflector of the turbo and it comes out to. 221 lumens for the AA^2 OTF. There is always a range so everything will vary. Say a range of 206 (4sevens spec) to 225 lumens for the entire R5 bin. 

Since it is daylight, I am EDCing the Turbo on my hip today to get used to it. The thicker barrel is very obvious and is more comfortable to control than the L2D Q5 (This is my first Quark light) I have medium hands with long fingers and it is more ergo to use. The fins on the head are nice for looks, heat removal and grip. The tail clicky is larger than the barrel with my fingers fitting comfortably in between. 

If you are a weight weenie, this thing has some heft so be forwarned. For cycling use on handlebars it is no big deal, the jury is still out if I want this thing on my helmet though. If it really bothers me, I can put a 1AA regular Quark body/tailcap on and run 14500 or throw a Quark regular 2AA body/tailcap on to cut the weight. 

This means I'll have to order more Quarks for testing purposes of course. :thumbsup:


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 31, 2009)

BentHeadTX, or anyone else, I'd be interested to know how easy it is to carry this light in the pocket w/the clip - kind of bulky? How does it fit in the provided holster? I'm just trying to get an idea of how I'd carry it if I get one. Thanks!


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 31, 2009)

Saint_Dogbert said:


> BentHeadTX, or anyone else, I'd be interested to know how easy it is to carry this light in the pocket w/the clip - kind of bulky? How does it fit in the provided holster? I'm just trying to get an idea of how I'd carry it if I get one. Thanks!



It fits in my jeans front pocket fine although you know it's there. Another option is to put the clip on that little "change" pocket and the head in the regular pocket. The top of the light sticks out farther but the top of the button sits at about mid-belt. 

If you are used to a regular Quark/Fenix 2AA in the pocket, the Turbo will feel quite large. It fits in the holster fine as long as it is loaded head up.


----------



## Swedpat (Oct 31, 2009)

I think Quark Turbo AA2 is quite similar sized like Fenix TK20. This is good, though I don't think the holding comfortability can be as good as TK20 with the rubber handle. However, the new Turbos seems to be very attractive lights.

Regards, Patric


----------



## dracodoc (Oct 31, 2009)

Yes, I knew that. It was designed as a thrower.
What I would like, is to put a XP-G R5 in AA, get a really floody beam, and better efficiency...



run4jc said:


> It's a really small and tight spot....
> 
> See here for very limited beam shots
> 
> It's spot is actually smaller than the 123 or 123.2


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Oct 31, 2009)

BentHeadTX said:


> It fits in my jeans front pocket fine although you know it's there. Another option is to put the clip on that little "change" pocket and the head in the regular pocket. The top of the light sticks out farther but the top of the button sits at about mid-belt.
> 
> If you are used to a regular Quark/Fenix 2AA in the pocket, the Turbo will feel quite large. It fits in the holster fine as long as it is loaded head up.



Okay, thanks, well those are good things to know about carrying the Turbos...I probably would not edc this light, though I might carry it every once in a while; sounds like it'd make a nice walking light, or a bike light.


----------



## Th232 (Oct 31, 2009)

dracodoc said:


> Yes, I knew that. It was designed as a thrower.
> What I would like, is to put a XP-G R5 in AA, get a really floody beam, and better efficiency...



Like what they did with the Ti Quarks?


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 31, 2009)

Saint_Dogbert said:


> I probably would not edc this light, though I might carry it every once in a while; sounds like it'd make a nice walking light, or a bike light.



It does make a great walking light and I've carried it all day in my pocket without issue. Just angle it 45 degrees with the clip on the small change pocket and it's fine. 

I bought my turbo to be a bicycle helmet light to replace my L2D Q5. It has a tighter beam so I can go over 20MPH/45KPH with it without over riding the light. 

For bike lights, the Turbo works very well. I'd like to get a regular head Quark to see how/if the beams merge with the Turbo on the helmet and the AA^2 on the bars.


----------



## icaruz (Oct 31, 2009)

Anybody know if AW 17670 cells fit in the 123*2 Turbo tube? Have to ask due to the Ti 123*2 didn't fit....tq


----------



## kyhunter1 (Oct 31, 2009)

Yes, but a little tight. Ounce you put it in, you have take off the tailcap and head to push it back out with your finger. It does not fall out on it's own. 



icaruz said:


> Anybody know if AW 17670 cells fit in the 123*2 Turbo tube? Have to ask due to the Ti 123*2 didn't fit....tq


----------



## eric_wolf (Nov 1, 2009)

*Re: Quark "Turbo" - initial thoughts*

Some initial thoughts on my Quark Turbo 123....

For the money, this is a high quality product. Nice packaging and all sorts of extras. (Honestly, I don't need them all - sheath, lanyard, rubber hand grip, etc.) However, you can tell they were really trying to produce a nice kit.

I took the light out for a test drive and it throws really well. 

Given I have an Arc 4+, an RA clicky, and Novatac 120p - I am not completely sold on the Turbo's interface. I am used to having access to more than 2 settings at a time. With the Turbo, you can only have 2 settings at any one time and you access them through twisting the head. I am a big fan of accessing settings through clicks on the tailcap switch.

While the light is a high quality piece, it feels a bit light in my hands. This is a very subjective thing. I have a Fenix TK10 and it has great "heft" in the hand. The Quark Turbo is just too light in my hands. The TK10 feels more "substantial".

That much said, I am happy I purchased the light. It is well made, fits nicely in my pocket, and does an excellent job at lighting my my large / wooded property when I am out at night.


----------



## kwkarth (Nov 1, 2009)

This idea of "heft" being an indicator of quality is an interesting concept. Compared to the TK10, for example, the QT is actually a more advanced design, benefitting from the increased efficiency of the XP-G and perhaps better internal thermal design as well. In my bicycle riding days I paid big premiums to shave a few grams of weight from my groupo. Lighter and stronger was always the goal. There's no reason that a quality flashlight needs to be any heavier than it should be, unless of course its secondary use is as a bludgeon.


----------



## run4jc (Nov 1, 2009)

*Re: Quark "Turbo" - initial thoughts*



eric_wolf said:


> While the light is a high quality piece, it feels a bit light in my hands. This is a very subjective thing. I have a Fenix TK10 and it has great "heft" in the hand. The Quark Turbo is just too light in my hands. The TK10 feels more "substantial".



Interesting...no argument and I understand what you are saying. BUT, my Surefire LX2 feels even lighter (may have to weigh them to know for sure) but the overall build 'seems' a bit more substantial. That said, I love all three of my Quarks...BEAMSHOTS posted HERE!


----------



## eric_wolf (Nov 1, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> This idea of "heft" being an indicator of quality is an interesting concept.



The heft factor is really subjective and I probably shouldn't have even used "quality" in the same sentence. 

You are correct - in some cases the absence of weight demands a premium. Similarly, in other cases it could be a sign that a vendor is trying to reduce materials costs. In this case I don't think the fact that the light is lighter implies less quality. So, sorry if I sent the wrong message.

Ultimately it is personal taste. 2 years ago I purchased a Nikon D60 over a D80. The D80 was a better camera but was bigger than the D60. In my hands it was uncomfortable and I couldn't wait to put it down. The salesmen commented "Don't underestimate the importance of it "feels" in your hands....

So...nothing to do with beam patter or throw...Just feel...... Truth be told when I go out in the dark I'll pull out the quark over the TK10 because it throws so much better!


----------



## KAP (Nov 1, 2009)

dracodoc said:


> Yes, I knew that. It was designed as a thrower.
> What I would like, is to put a XP-G R5 in AA, get a really floody beam, and better efficiency...


i mentioned this in the 47s forum. i really think that if they want a dedicated, smooth reflector thrower the R2 would have been the better choice for the Turbo head. then use the XPG R5 for the regular quarks which would produce a more usable beam.... the tight, minuscule beam of the R2 drives me nuts for anything but spotting something in the distance. 
but i'm just saying.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Nov 1, 2009)

As I stated before, I use the Quark Turbo AA2 and Fenix L1D/L2D for bike lights. A friend of mine asked me if she should upgrade the L2D on her helmet to the Turbo AA2. That really depends...

She rides with the L2D on the street with NiMH Eneloops since it is a much smoother ride. On the dirt trails, she will throw in E2 lithiums to save weight on the helmet. I took this into account when I gave her the answer. The Turbo on lithiums puts out 50% more light but weighs 50% more. The "lumens per gram" scale swings even so how much do you really NEED more throw? She passed on the Turbo very quickly!

Then she asked about the regular sized Quark AA2 R5 (when available) and I told her that really depends.... The LED die is larger so the same size/weight light will have an every slightly dimmer hot spot but the hot spot will be larger. It is about even with the L2D Q5 for hot spot brightness but has a wider beam. Basically, if you are happy with the L2D Q5 beam width and brightness and don't want to increase weight, keep running the L2D Q5. 

She said skip the Quark then, what is Fenix doing? Will they come out with an R5 flashlight with a little narrower beam than the Quark but not as big and heavy as the Turbo? Told her I was not the answer man. 

The last question was how much does a Quark Turbo weigh with a 1AA body? I calculated slightly heavier than a L2D with slightly more throw but less total lumens. I then told her to mount the L2D Q5 on her bars and a Quark AA R5 would give a bit less throw, a bit less total lumens but a wider hot spot along with a 30% drop in weight on lithiums and a third less weight on NiMH. That caught her attention but she will watch what Fenix does and just continue to run the L2D Q5 helmet light. 

I wonder if Fenix is working on a "low pressure turbo head" that will sit between the wider angle Quark regular head and the larger/heavier Turbo head? 

For ME, the increased weight is noticeable on a helmet light but I don't have a big issue with it. When riding my recumbent on the street that puppy will throw a spot big enough for my lane and I can cruise at speeds over 20 MPH/35 KPH without problems. Not sure if it is too much for mountain biking, I would swap the Turbo to the bars if it is. Keep those neck muscles strong! If the weight does get to me I could try the regular AA body to save weight and run a 14500 lith-ion cell so it has the weight of a L2D Q5. Maybe I should start whining to my wife that the Turbo is too heavy but I have a way to "solve" the problem...sneaky way to go 14500 donchathink?


----------



## qip (Nov 1, 2009)

wheres the good outdoor beamshots


----------



## Xak (Nov 2, 2009)

icaruz said:


> Anybody know if AW 17670 cells fit in the 123*2 Turbo tube? Have to ask due to the Ti 123*2 didn't fit....tq



Hmmm... The 17650AW fits like a glove in my 123-2 Neutral Quark. So much so that it creates a slight vacuum, when I drop the battery in it slides down the tube slowly, when I turn it upside down it slides out on it's own slowly. Kinda cool, actually. What a perfect light.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Nov 2, 2009)

Th232 said:


> Like what they did with the Ti Quarks?


 
Yes, exactly! I think he would like that.


----------



## woodrow (Nov 2, 2009)

You Guys!




How about just ONE Quark light comes out and you say, " Brad...Keep your $$$, you do not need this light!" No, that never happens. Well, as usuall, I read all the posts and .

Oh well, I almot bought the 2x123a regular version, but went with the new PD30+ from Fenix. 

The turbos do look like cool lights...and I am interested to see what .02 lumens looks like anyway. Thanks for the posts!


----------



## GarageBoy (Nov 2, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> This idea of "heft" being an indicator of quality is an interesting concept. Compared to the TK10, for example, the QT is actually a more advanced design, benefitting from the increased efficiency of the XP-G and perhaps better internal thermal design as well. In my bicycle riding days I paid big premiums to shave a few grams of weight from my groupo. Lighter and stronger was always the goal. There's no reason that a quality flashlight needs to be any heavier than it should be, unless of course its secondary use is as a bludgeon.



I don't know when that idea began. Same with fountain pens. Everyone wants a big heavy pen, even though its more fatiguing to write for long periods of time


----------



## Sgt. LED (Nov 2, 2009)

I am starting to wish the turbo used the regular UI.

The more I use the regular UI the more I like it! 
Which is a big stretch for me considering a year ago I still wouldn't EDC a multimode light because it might get too complicated.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Nov 3, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> This idea of "heft" being an indicator of quality is an interesting concept.


And a common one. I'm thinking of electronics manufacturers putting useless weight in their devices to give them more "heft" in order to create the impression of quality in the hands of the average consumer. To most people, a featherlight cell phone will be perceived as inferior to one that sits heavier in the hand even if the former is actually the better product.


----------



## ccryder (Nov 3, 2009)

The tactical turbo UI makes you decide on what modes you want for that particular outing ie: trail walking I'll use turbo and med, walking the dogs on the street I'll use high and strobe (for notification to on coming cars).

The heft and size is just right (IMO) for my mediu-large pudgy hands. When you add gloves the bigger diameter makes it easier to hold. Weight, lighter is always better (guees that comes from my aerospace days).


----------



## kwkarth (Nov 3, 2009)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> And a common one. I'm thinking of electronics manufacturers putting useless weight in their devices to give them more "heft" in order to create the impression of quality in the hands of the average consumer. To most people, a featherlight cell phone will be perceived as inferior to one that sits heavier in the hand even if the former is actually the better product.



Indeed, and in some applications, it's the right thing to do. I wouldn't want a table lamp tipping over because the lightbulb, fixture, and lampshade weighed more than the base. For any portable product, the lighter, the better, in most cases.


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Nov 3, 2009)

qip said:


> wheres the good outdoor beamshots



+1


----------



## LUPARA (Nov 3, 2009)

It's a matter of balance. The Fenix LD20 looks ridiculous cmpared to the much more tasteful looking Quark AA2 Turbo. Too skinny and it doesn't feel good in the hand; to much interuption in the form amounts to the same thing. Simple, elegant lines always win out even on a beefy light. Too much pipe-fitter gymnastics makes for one ugly SOB; i.e. Fenix LD20. A JANFU at best. Good performance though; just one too many ugly pills.


----------



## recDNA (Nov 3, 2009)

The closer a flashlight is to a pure tube shape the better I like it. I hate all the indentations, crenelations, and other affectations. I don't even like knurling (sacrilege!!!). All a matter of taste. Many flashlights just look to "busy" to me design-wise.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Nov 3, 2009)

I like the asthetics of the AA2 Turbo

The head is larger than the body so I can tell which end is which. The tailcap is slightly larger than the body and easy to grip for a battery change. My hand fits the oversized barrel better and the three flats on the barrel aid in grip. The knurling is great for grip but it won't eat your hand. The fins on the head keep the LED cooler which is a bonus and it looks good that way.

Things I would change? The covered tail cap that David just put out solves one problem, I'll be ordering one of those to protect the switch. The other thing I would change is make the bezel a little bit deeper with maybe a stainless steel bezel ring offered as an option. That would protect the head when bouncing off the pavement and protect the glass if you drop it on gravel. 

Wonder if anyone will every offer a stainless bezel ring, a little deeper with small indents so you can tell the light is on when it is face down. 

The rest of the design is great and I'll enjoy that light for years to come (until the T2 bins come out)


----------



## recDNA (Nov 3, 2009)

"If David made a special edition Turbo that pushed the LED at 1.2 amps through an even larger head, wonder what it would be called?" 

Unwieldy. I'd like the 1.2 amps with an ordinary looking Quark head please.


----------



## LUPARA (Nov 4, 2009)

recDNA; Agreed. When I look at all the other lights on Kaidomain etc. The affectations are definitely an eastern affectation. Kinda like all the gaudy dragon stuff in restaurants. It's very different to western aesthetics; unless your talking the ultimate in form and function (and decoration): The Sung Dynasty ceramics; there's a lesson to be learned there. Here's hoping that manufacturers stop the comic-book designs and start getting serious about the guts and cuts of the lights.


----------



## B0wz3r (Nov 4, 2009)

BentHeadTX said:


> Then she asked about the regular sized Quark AA2 R5 (when available) and I told her that really depends....



I have some bad news about this... I emailed 4 sevens a few days ago asking about when the Quarks will be updated to the XPG and they said they will not be doing so. The XPE will continue to be the emitter for the Quark series and they have no plans to change that.


----------



## kwkarth (Nov 4, 2009)

B0wz3r said:


> I have some bad news about this... I emailed 4 sevens a few days ago asking about when the Quarks will be updated to the XPG and they said they will not be doing so. The XPE will continue to be the emitter for the Quark series and they have no plans to change that.



Given the characteristics of the XP-G, the QT seems to be a better host for that led anyway. All we need is a non Tac controller.


----------



## qip (Nov 4, 2009)

the xpg works great in both , one for flood one for throw, we do need a non tac of turbo though


----------



## recDNA (Nov 4, 2009)

LUPARA said:


> recDNA; Agreed. When I look at all the other lights on Kaidomain etc. The affectations are definitely an eastern affectation. Kinda like all the gaudy dragon stuff in restaurants. It's very different to western aesthetics; unless your talking the ultimate in form and function (and decoration): The Sung Dynasty ceramics; there's a lesson to be learned there. Here's hoping that manufacturers stop the comic-book designs and start getting serious about the guts and cuts of the lights.


 

I think my love of simple, functional design is expressed well in many Scandanavian products like teak furniture and Bang and Olufsen HiFi. The Preon fits into that design style. The turbo doesn't


----------



## sfca (Nov 4, 2009)

recDNA said:


> I think my love of simple, functional design is expressed well in many Scandanavian products like teak furniture and Bang and Olufsen HiFi. The Preon fits into that design style. The turbo doesn't



I'm the opposite. I got a Bang & Olufsen Earset 3 and initially I didn't like the form factor of the Turbo at all (I commented couple times that I didn't). 

However it's grown on me. I think the original 4sevens pics don't do it justice. 
It's kinda like the upcoming Cadillac CTS Coupe. Like the CTS sedan at first ummmm not so great but after it changes.


----------



## kwkarth (Nov 4, 2009)

recDNA said:


> I think my love of simple, functional design is expressed well in many Scandanavian products like teak furniture and Bang and Olufsen HiFi. The Preon fits into that design style. The turbo doesn't



The Turbo has no unessential gingerbread on it,what's to object to?


----------



## BentHeadTX (Nov 4, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> The Turbo has no unessential gingerbread on it,what's to object to?



I'm with KW on this one, the light is very purposeful in the design. Thick barrel with 3 flats on it for grip, knurling in addition so it don't slip out of your hands with gloves. The light was designed for outdoor use so grip is a must. The small fins aid in cooling although the mass of the head takes care of that. With the knurling, ribbed larger head, larger tail cap combo there are no worries about dropping it. All the "bling" actually has a reason it is there. Wish it had a thicker bezel since if you do drop it, it will hit on the bezel due to the weight of the head. 

The funky weirdness of the Fenix L2D/LD20 I have never figured out. That is OK, I just slap it on my bike helmet and go. At least the Quark series does not stray into looking like a bunch of pipe fitting connected together.


----------



## LUPARA (Nov 5, 2009)

"I think my love of simple, functional design is expressed well in many Scandanavian products like teak furniture and Bang and Olufsen HiFi. The Preon fits into that design style. The turbo doesn't"

Whereas i can appreciate what you're saying, it seems that the Quark AA2 Turbo 
is not only functional, but nice to look at, nice to handle and and nice to have around. As a total package it's more generous and warm than the Shaker/Scandinavian bare bones utility stuff. 
A long way from an explosion in a pipefitter's shop.


----------



## ccryder (Nov 5, 2009)

Yep the function IS there! I'm into using the light and not dropping it. I also need for it's primary function of illuminating the darkness to excell. Especially with the time change now, when I get home I need the light to explore my DARK backyard. Last night getting out of my truck I painted my back yard with the Turbo AA2 and showed two Coyotes stalking the goats next store. It was just like in the cartoons, eyes turning towards me and they high-tailed out of there!! That's when Roger came out of his barn with his shotgun ready to dispatch thoose "wiley coyotes" to their next life!

I think I just sold another Quark for David.


----------



## LUPARA (Nov 5, 2009)

The light at the end of a barrel!!


----------



## ccryder (Nov 5, 2009)

Too bad my 870 was in the bedroom closet and all I had was my Walther PPS in 9mm. At a 75+ yards, a shotgun mimimum, better would be my RRA Coyote Special with a nice 3x9 scope. Oh well, they live for another day. LOL


----------



## recDNA (Nov 5, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> The Turbo has no unessential gingerbread on it,what's to object to?


 
Just not to my taste. I understand there is a REASON for the big head but I don't like the looks of it...and since I'm more into flood than throw there is no reason for me to tolerate it.

The knurling alone wouldn't drive me away...the thing isn't balanced looking that's all. Now even though I LIKE the looks of the Preon I don't like long, thing flashlights so I'll never buy one. I don't like the way they feel in my hand. 

Now take the Preon design and make it a 2 X CR123 and it's right up my alley! No knurling, no crenelations, no useless indentations, no rings or clips or doo-dads of any kind! (I know the Preon comes with a clip but it comes off!)

As you might guess I like the design of the P2D MUCH better than the replacement with the silly bezel and too much going on.

It's just a matter of taste and mine is clearly in a very small minority. 

Minimalist design floats my boat!


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Nov 5, 2009)

There are different levels of minimalism. For me, a light that is hard anodized but lacks knurling is just too slippery.


----------



## jhc37013 (Nov 6, 2009)

recDNA said:


> The closer a flashlight is to a pure tube shape the better I like it. I hate all the indentations, crenelations, and other affectations. I don't even like knurling (sacrilege!!!). All a matter of taste. Many flashlights just look to "busy" to me design-wise.



I also like the plain tube but I like some knurling for grip, just a little is fine nothing to aggressive. My reasons may be different I just like to carry in belt holster with the old Fenix type holster with no flap and the regular tube design's usually only works with this.

Have you seen the PD20 replacement the PD20+? It has a bit of knurling but nothing else except a removable clip. I should be getting the similar PD10+ today or tomorrow.


----------



## ti-force (Nov 11, 2009)

Interesting.

I'm tuning in!


----------



## Sgt. LED (Nov 11, 2009)

The pic is officially worth the effort.

FLASH 
LIGHT :laughing:


----------



## gnef (Nov 11, 2009)

I just received my 123-2 Turbo. This is also my first quark. I am quite impressed. This is going to replace my P3D Q5 that I have had for years.

I generally wait for a significant improvement before upgrading, and this is definitely a significant step.

I was concerned with the width of the light before I bought it, as the pictures made it seem significantly larger than the P3D (which is already too big for some to pocket carry). 

I think this will be fine for pocket carry, as I don't wear tight pants where carrying a flashlight could appear awkward.

Right now I like the interface, as I generally only used two modes on my P3D - turbo and low, so I actually use the QT just as I did my P3D - I set tight to max, and loose to low (not moonlight), and I use it exactly like I did the P3D, just now it is brighter on max.

There is a slight green tint, but only when I am really looking for it, and comparing against other flashlights. I am honestly not picky about tints, as long as the flashlight does what it is meant to do - that is all I really care about.

If my opinion changes in the coming weeks/months, I'll post back.


----------



## ti-force (Nov 11, 2009)

Sgt. LED said:


> The pic is officially worth the effort.
> 
> FLASH
> LIGHT :laughing:


 

Yeah, as you can tell, I had too much time on my hands this morning haha.....


----------



## Burgess (Nov 12, 2009)

Cat is obviously watching Kittie Porn.



_


----------



## dudu84 (Nov 12, 2009)

ti-force said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I'm tuning in!



I like your cat 

Back to the topic, I'm surprised we haven't got any lux readings of those first xp-g lights yet (or did I miss them?:candle


----------



## ti-force (Nov 12, 2009)

+1

I'm hoping Selfbuilt does a review on these lights. IMO he does EXCELLENT reviews. Not knocking anyone else of course, but he has the reviewing process down to a T and I find his lighbox readings very useful as well.
:thumbsup:


----------



## ti-force (Nov 12, 2009)

In fact, I appreciate Selfbuilt's valuable time and effort so much that I just donated $10 to his battery fund. http://www.sliderule.ca/flashlight.htm

If not for members like him, I would've spent a lot of time and money searching for flashlights that are well built, reliable and have certain features that I prefer.


----------



## FlashlightsNgear.com (Nov 12, 2009)

The Quark Turbo 2x123 is my favorite out of the Quark Line-up so far, not only does it throw well it has a very usable amount of spill. It runs much cooler than the regular 2x123 Quarks and the lanyard attachment point is a big plus.


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Nov 28, 2009)

Thought people might be interested, I found a video on youtube showing outdoor beamshots of several lights from the Quark line, including the Quark Turbos.


----------



## Hiker (Nov 28, 2009)

Saint_Dogbert said:


> Thought people might be interested, I found a video on youtube showing outdoor beamshots of several lights from the Quark line, including the Quark Turbos.


 
I do not know if I should thank you or not for the video. I had come close to talking myself into the original AA2 at $25 less than the Turbo before I saw the visual difference.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Nov 29, 2009)

Hiker said:


> I do not know if I should thank you or not for the video. I had come close to talking myself into the original AA2 at $25 less than the Turbo before I saw the visual difference.



+1,

Quite a difference between the two. I'm glad I sprung for the Turbo over the regular Quark since I need the throw and the extra mass makes the bigger headed one run nice and cool. Thanks for the link.


----------



## rookiedaddy (Nov 30, 2009)

Manage to take some beam shots of Quark Turbo and other flashlights, not attempt to compare the brightness, but to see the hot spots of some lights.  
From left, Quark 123² Turbo, Surefire E2DL (2009), Quark 123² Tactical Neutral White, EagleTac T20C2 Neutral White

Exposure Time: 1/100






Exposure Time: 1/250





Exposure Time: 1/500





Exposure Time: 1/1000





The Surefire TIR lens really work its magic here, the bright hot spot throws as well as the Turbo, if not more. :twothumbs


----------



## Rawk (Jan 4, 2010)

A couple of questions about the Quark AA² turbo:

When you got high and moonlight mode programmed, how can you switch to medium mode then, without program the flashlight ?
Can it cycle through modes anyway ?

And there is a switch i saw in the 4sevens store, this one:
http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=297_304&products_id=1646
Will it fit on the Quark AA² turbo body ?


----------



## ti-force (Jan 4, 2010)

Rawk said:


> A couple of questions about the Quark AA² turbo:
> 
> When you got high and moonlight mode programmed, how can you switch to medium mode then, without program the flashlight ?
> Can it cycle through modes anyway ?
> ...


 

The Turbo series of lights are programmable in both the primary and secondary modes, but those are the only two modes that you have quick access to without reprogramming one or both of the modes. So to answer your question, no, you will only have access to high and moonlight modes (if these are the brightness levels you set the primary and secondary modes to), which are accessed by either tightening the head all the way (primary mode) or loosening the head some (secondary mode).

I’m almost 100% certain the tailcap you linked to will fit the AA Turbo light because I believe the tailcaps for the 123 x2 Turbo lights and the AAx2 Turbo lights are the same. I have a 123x2 tactical light, as well as, the 123x2 Turbo light. The tailcap from the Turbo light will fit on my 123x2 tactical and vice versa. I have one of the tailcaps you linked to, and it fits both lights also, but you won’t have the momentary on feature with that tailcap, because it’s a reverse clicky switch. This tailcap is a forward clicky switch, designed so the light can tailstand: http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=297_330_342&products_id=1978
Unfortunately it’s out of stock. I just ordered one the other day, but I guess I got lucky and purchased one of the few remaining tailcaps in stock.


----------



## ti-force (Jan 4, 2010)

BTW, the Turbo tailcaps are larger in diameter than the tailcaps that come on the standard (and tactical) lights (like the tailcap you linked to). I think this is to make the Turbo lights more proportionate, and IMO it does:thumbsup:. I think the turbo lights look better with the larger diameter tailcap, but like I said, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Curious_character (Jan 9, 2010)

I just bought a used Quark Turbo AA^2. It came with two AA cells and worked fine. I got an 18650 tube for it and ran it for a while on the 18650 -- worked fine with the 18650, too. But when I put the 2AA tube back on and load up the AA cells, all it will do is give a very brief flash each time I turn on the light. I've replaced the AA cells with good recently charged Eneloops with the same result. It still works fine with the 18650. It's almost like the flashlight has entered a low-voltage shutdown mode to protect the 18650 -- if so, I can't figure out how to reset it so it'll be happy with the lower voltage of the AAs. (It doesn't respond at all to the programming sequence when the 2 AAs are in.)

Did the 18650 blow it? Anybody else seen this happen?

I love the light, and intend to run it with an 18650 most of the time, but would like to be able to use AAs at times.

c_c


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jan 9, 2010)

I hope a 18650 doesn't blow the AA2 head cos that's similar to what I want to try to run when my new Turbo AA2 gets here but like you I want the 2x AA tube fall back option to remain available.

For what it's worth, I was having the same symptoms a couple of days ago when I screwed my new tactical tailcap onto my regular AA2. truned out my tailcap wasn't seating properly. A couple of screws back and forth and it seated and all was fine.


----------



## Curious_character (Jan 10, 2010)

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> I hope a 18650 doesn't blow the AA2 head cos that's similar to what I want to try to run when my new Turbo AA2 gets here but like you I want the 2x AA tube fall back option to remain available.
> 
> For what it's worth, I was having the same symptoms a couple of days ago when I screwed my new tactical tailcap onto my regular AA2. truned out my tailcap wasn't seating properly. A couple of screws back and forth and it seated and all was fine.


Hah, that was just the hint I needed! Threads are the same on both ends of the tube, so there's nothing mechanical to prevent it from being put on in either direction. But the threads are anodized on one end and not the other. I'd put the tube on backward, and it only works properly when put on one way.

It's working fine now. Thanks!

c_c


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jan 10, 2010)

Phew!...., lucky it all worked out so easy. Good news.


----------



## sfca (Feb 20, 2010)

Does anyone else feel that there Quark Turbo tailcap is a bit on the "hard" side?

This is in comparison to a Surefire, I haven't used any other Quark lights so I can't tell if my switch feel is normal or not. 
I definitely don't like it.

Compared to the 1st 4sevens video showing how to program the tactical Quarks mine doesn't _seem _to have that clean "click" and activation. 

Hard to describe. I can just say that.. I don't like this clicky!!:laughing:


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Feb 20, 2010)

I know what you're talking about. While it has a lot of travel, it doesn't really 'click', so the result is there isn't as much positive feedback when actuated. I have to say that it has improved with use, but it still feels sort of strange.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Feb 20, 2010)

sfca said:


> Does anyone else feel that there Quark Turbo tailcap is a bit on the "hard" side?


I always got the impression that mine feel a bit stiff and long travel but I don't know if it really is stiffer or if it's just the fact that the tailcap surround isn't there to help support the thumb from going "off-centre" when I push.

Not really an issue for me anymore though as I have changed my turbo's to have the standard non-turbo quark tactical cap running nitecore D10 clips on them and think that they feel all the better for not having the larger cap.


----------



## sfca (Feb 20, 2010)

Hmm.. Mine is stiff, but definitely doesn't have long travel.

I have to push about 2mm down to activate momentary-on. Too little travel!



Saint_Dogbert said:


> I know what you're talking about. While it has a lot of travel, it doesn't really 'click', so the result is there isn't as much positive feedback when actuated. I have to say that it has improved with use, but it still feels sort of strange.





JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> I always got the impression that mine feel a bit stiff and long travel but I don't know if it really is stiffer or if it's just the fact that the tailcap surround isn't there to help support the thumb from going "off-centre" when I push.


----------



## sfca (Feb 22, 2010)

Bump.


----------



## sfca (Feb 22, 2010)

sfca said:


> Too little travel!



I take that back. 

I sold my light a while back, and having been without another light to compare I *thought *there wasn't enough travel.

Actually, the QT has just the same amount of travel: 2mm for momentary-on, and a further 3mm to click-on.

The problem I've isolated is it's _much too stiff. _
Vs 4sevens youtube video this one definitely doesn't have that nice "click" , more like a dull "click"


----------



## Per Arne (May 17, 2010)

Hi,

Would the 123A x2 Turbo Head (3V~9V) fit on the AA x2 Turbo Body, running on 14500 x2 ??

Thanks,
PA


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (May 17, 2010)

Voltage wise it's not a problem but in the case of 2 x AW 14500's when I've tried it they are too long to let the head tighten fully without hearing crunchy sorts of noises.


----------



## pulstar (May 16, 2011)

Hello,

i have to choose AA based light for my uncle, who lives in a rural area and also has a farm. In my opinion he would need a light with balanced beam, but with a good throw also. Since 2AA configuration gives reasonable runtimes, and is still quite pocketable, i wonder if quark AA^2 turbo will fulfil these requirements?


----------



## CarpentryHero (May 16, 2011)

pulstar said:


> Hello,
> 
> i have to choose AA based light for my uncle, who lives in a rural area and also has a farm. In my opinion he would need a light with balanced beam, but with a good throw also. Since 2AA configuration gives reasonable runtimes, and is still quite pocketable, i wonder if quark AA^2 turbo will fulfil these requirements?




Yeah the Quark AA2 turbo would be a great choice for your uncle. The turbo heads are well designed and AA lights for non flashaholics is a good call


----------



## Outdoorsman5 (May 16, 2011)

CarpentryHero said:


> Yeah the Quark AA2 turbo would be a great choice for your uncle. The turbo heads are well designed and AA lights for non flashaholics is a good call



I agree. For a 2xAA light the Quark Turbo AA2 is an excellent choice with a good amount of throw. My favorite light to give out as gifts for general use is the Quark AA2 because of the quality, price, brightness & the fact that it runs on common AA batteries. But, if I were giving a light to someone that lived on a large piece of property then my top pick would be the Quark Turbo AA2. They can program the two settings however they choose, and they have 5 output options & 3 blinky output options to choose from....nice. Only takes 20 seconds to program each setting.


----------



## edpmis02 (Apr 12, 2012)

Just got my AA^2 Turbo yesterday and is running off one 14500 in a AA body tube. I was surprised how much heavier the head of it is. The beam is very similar to my Olight M20 R5. Very good performance in a very pocketable size.


----------



## roadkill1109 (Apr 12, 2012)

edpmis02 said:


> Just got my AA^2 Turbo yesterday and is running off one 14500 in a AA body tube. I was surprised how much heavier the head of it is. The beam is very similar to my Olight M20 R5. Very good performance in a very pocketable size.



wow, i was planning to run it in this configuration! If you dont need the tube of the AA2 turbo, i'll buy it from you.


----------



## reppans (Apr 12, 2012)

roadkill1109 said:


> wow, i was planning to run it in this configuration! If you dont need the tube of the AA2 turbo, i'll buy it from you.



Yeah, I'm running that body on my Turbo X - the proportions are much better. Then moved my QX AA^2 body over to the AA^2 Turbo. Now they all seem just right.


----------



## roadkill1109 (Apr 13, 2012)

reppans said:


> Yeah, I'm running that body on my Turbo X - the proportions are much better. Then moved my QX AA^2 body over to the AA^2 Turbo. Now they all seem just right.



I see, that's how I run my Turbo X as well, with the AA2 tube and two 14500's for excellent runtime.


----------



## reppans (Apr 13, 2012)

roadkill1109 said:


> I see, that's how I run my Turbo X as well, with the AA2 tube and two 14500's for excellent runtime.


Yeah, I know.... your post made be buy the light in the first place. 

Anyway, this is what I was talking about... better proportioned AA bodies to fit/match the large Turbo heads:


----------



## roadkill1109 (Apr 13, 2012)

Youre right, the proportions of the Turbo AA2 tube is better on the turbo x head than the AA2 because the latter is too thin. Then the Turbo AA2 head can be put on a AA tube if you wanna go shorty!

Looks like im putting some orders @ 4Sevens!


----------



## edpmis02 (Apr 14, 2012)

4Sevens web site - AA battery tube: This product is out of stock and cannot be back-ordered.
Not a good sign! :shakehead


----------



## reppans (Apr 14, 2012)

^^ I just got 3 in the mail last week.... 

I bet we're just seeing the old logo inventory disappearing, esp. due to the recent sales on Quark X AA^2. You should be able to buy new logo stuff on their new site soon, if not now.


----------



## recDNA (Apr 14, 2012)

How is the turbo x? I'm concerned that it is under driven like most of their products.


----------



## yifu (Apr 14, 2012)

edpmis02 said:


> 4Sevens web site - AA battery tube: This product is out of stock and cannot be back-ordered.
> Not a good sign! :shakehead


They are letting all the old 4sevens products run out of stock in preparation for rebranding. Go to the new foursevens site if you want to get the newly branded stuff when they come out.


----------



## edpmis02 (Apr 14, 2012)

yifu said:


> ... when they come out.



That is what I was looking for. With all the "out of stock" and "Discontinued" items listed, I have been concerned about their new product mix, and if the spare AA tube was going the way of the 18650 tube.


----------



## jabe1 (Apr 15, 2012)

Has anyone gotten a Turbo head opened up yet? I'm wondering if they are put together the same as the regulars.


----------



## roadkill1109 (Apr 16, 2012)

edpmis02 said:


> 4Sevens web site - AA battery tube: This product is out of stock and cannot be back-ordered.
> Not a good sign! :shakehead



Oh no! Too many people are getting AA tubes and 14500 for their Quarks after reading our posts! hahaha! But it must be the re-branding thingy, they are getting rid of the old stocks with the old logo, turns out the AA tubes were the first to go out.


----------



## roadkill1109 (Apr 16, 2012)

reppans said:


> ^^ I just got 3 in the mail last week....
> 
> I bet we're just seeing the old logo inventory disappearing, esp. due to the recent sales on Quark X AA^2. You should be able to buy new logo stuff on their new site soon, if not now.



see? that's why they got out of stock! haha


----------



## roadkill1109 (Apr 16, 2012)

recDNA said:


> How is the turbo x? I'm concerned that it is under driven like most of their products.



the Turbo X is okay, if you want it driven a bit harder, use RCR123's to maximize the voltage to the LED. Does pretty well in the 400-500 lumen range, not as bright as the newer lights coming out today, but if you're a Quark fan/collector, this is worthy addition to your collection. Here's the thing, if you think your Turbo X is not driven hard by your two (2) CR123's, you can ship the light back and have the head replaced, the only catch though, is that you can't use RCR123's as this will burn out the light. I had a Quark Turbo X head die on me coz I was driving it too hard using two RCR123's and it was pumping out light almost equal to or brighter than my TK35 which was rated at over 800 lumens. The light would get hot though, in ten seconds, the temp is already too hot to hold. I sent the head back and it was replaced by something that gave "normal" 400+ lumens output on two RCR123's. Not too shabby for a light that's been around for quite a while now. 

Runs best with two 14500's and a Turbo AA'2 tube. Good output and long runtime.

Sure there are better lights out there, but none have a 10-year no worries warranty and kick-*** customer service!


----------



## reppans (Apr 16, 2012)

roadkill1109 said:


> the Turbo X is okay, if you want it driven a bit harder, use RCR123's to maximize the voltage to the LED. Does pretty well in the 400-500 lumen range, not as bright as the newer lights coming out today, but if you're a Quark fan/collector, this is worthy addition to your collection. Here's the thing, if you think your Turbo X is not driven hard by your two (2) CR123's, you can ship the light back and have the head replaced, the only catch though, is that you can't use RCR123's as this will burn out the light. I had a Quark Turbo X head die on me coz I was driving it too hard using two RCR123's and it was pumping out light almost equal to or brighter than my TK35 which was rated at over 800 lumens. The light would get hot though, in ten seconds, the temp is already too hot to hold. I sent the head back and it was replaced by something that gave "normal" 400+ lumens output on two RCR123's. Not too shabby for a light that's been around for quite a while now.
> 
> Runs best with two 14500's and a Turbo AA'2 tube. Good output and long runtime.
> 
> Sure there are better lights out there, but none have a 10-year no worries warranty and kick-*** customer service!



Why do RCR123s drive the Turbo X harder than 14500?...and the head is rated for 9V, so what's the risk of burning he light out?


----------



## roadkill1109 (Apr 16, 2012)

reppans said:


> Why do RCR123s drive the Turbo X harder than 14500?...and the head is rated for 9V, so what's the risk of burning he light out?



They actually sent me one that couldnt take RCR123's, I have its burnt carcass here. Still functions, but the modes are busted. Smells of burnt electronics. Heather has been kind enough to send me a replacement one that can now take RCR123's. It's now my self queen.


----------

