# AA vs. CR123 for Headlamps



## InTheDark (Jun 25, 2007)

Since the other thread was going off topic, I figured it would be better to start off a new thread on this. There was a lot of good debate on which is better, AA vs 123's, specifically related to headlamps. Here's a short summary of the pro's/cons

AA pro's
-availability
-wide selection (lithiums, nimh, alkalines, etc)
- commonality with other devices
- cheap (Alkalines)

AA cons
-larger
-heavier (not per unit energy, but in absolute terms)
-lower voltage

123 pros
- lighter
- smaller
- cheaper for litihums

123 cons
- hard to find in rural areas
- less stored energy


My personal preference is for 123's, but not by much, I could be pretty happy with either. I used to be a AA supporter, but recently it has started to shift to lithiums. I do like the fact that AA's are widely available and a very common battery, but I just couldn't ignore the advantages of the 123. Smaller and lighter, those are two very big advantages when you've got something strapped to your head. Just like with keychain lights, the difference between pocketable (or wearable in the case of headlamps) could be measured in fractions of an inch or ounce, any extra weight or size is very noticable. I'm not even talking about the weight efficiency (weight per lumen-hour) or anything else, but absolute overall size. You will always be able to make a 123 light smaller and lighter than a comparable AA version.

Plus I've rarely needed to take advantage of the commonality of AA's. Usually, if I've run out of batteries and wasn't carrying spares, it didn't matter what kind of batteries they were, I was out. And the few times I was able to buy extra batteries, they've always had both types. Yes, lithiums are more expensive, but that's true regardless of whether they're AA's or 123's. In fact, 123's are usually cheaper that lithiums AA's.

I know some people mentioned that 123's are "over" for backpacking lights, or other lights in general. I would have to disagree, I the 123 revolution has just begun, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them as a new standard. Looking at some of the lights on departement store shelves, you can see a lot more lithium based lights than you did even 5 years ago. Even some of the major headlamp manufactureres are now developing 123 based lights. I think the rapid rise of LED technology is fueling the revolution. CR123's are 3 volts compared to AA's 1.5V. So you need 2 AA's to match the voltage of a single CR123. The reason 3V is preferable is similar to the explanation blindasabat gave earlier, it's easier for an LED to run off 3V than 1.5V, especially more so with the high power LED's. With the newer LED's now drawing in excess of 1+ amp, it's almost impractical to try draw so much current of a single AA, so one of the main advantages of being able to use cheap alkaline AA's has disappeared. In order to do so, you would need multiple AA's to keep up, which would come at the expense of a much larger and heavier light. 

I have quite a few headlamps that use AA's, I keep them for backups just in case of emergencies and I need to scrounge for batteries. But anytime I need a headlamp, I will reach for the CR123 headlamp, just for it's smaller and lighter size. Anyway, anyone else have any thoughts (i know there are a few of you that do)


----------



## gunga (Jun 25, 2007)

I have to agree on many of your points.

I use an EOS that requires 3 AAAs :green: NOt my favorite setup. Great lamp, but I would much prefer a 1 AA setup for many of the reasons you stated.

That said, I would love it if CR123's became common place, selling for around $1 at local stores. I also think all lights designed for CR123 should be designed to function properly with RCR123's. Many are not, so it makes it a real pain since I'm not a big fan of 3.0V Li-on (3.2V LiFEPO4 is pretty good tho). 

UNtil that is a reality, I think I would prefer a 1 AA headlamp. I will likely just bring AA lights travelling/camping for that emergency availabilty at more reasonable prices.

CR123s would work well and as long as you bring enough spares, you are set. I just prefer to keep to "off the shelf" options when I might have to scrounge for batteries...


----------



## PeLu (Jun 25, 2007)

Usually, AA cells are mor of a standard and used in more other equipent. I'm shure when you ask cavers, >80% would vote for AA cells. 
Further, I'm very happy with the IC3 AA cells, which I can charge in 15 minutes. They also do have very little self discharge.


----------



## uk_caver (Jun 25, 2007)

Given a choice bewteen 123s and AAs, I'd go for AAs, but some of that is just down to the maturity and cheapness of the rechargeable technology.

Personally, for my uses, I don't find headlamp weight an issue, even for lights the weight of old Petzl Zooms.
I guess if I ran with a light I'd think differently, assuming the lighter a light is, the less it should bounce around, given a decent headband. 

Small size can be good if needing to carry a lamp in a pocket, but can have a downside as well - a bulky lamp can sometimes be easier to find in the dark, or dig out from somewhere in the middle of a large rucksack, and less easy to mislay in general.


----------



## colina (Jun 25, 2007)

I don't see the weight of AA's as a problem. Before changing to a Princeton Yukon HL, my headlamp was an Oldham miner's halogen headset driven off a 6v 10AH Yuasa!!! 7lb in weight!

123's are very expensive in the UK and seen as a specialist market (usually photo). AA's are cheap, have high capacity with 2800mAh + from Nimh cells, and are widely available.

No choice for me, for get 123's it's AA's every time.


----------



## BlackDecker (Jun 25, 2007)

As long as I can get CR123 batteries in the USA for around $1 each, the expense really isn't an issue. For backpacking, I'm moving towards the lightest possible gear and a 3aaa headlamp is quite a bit lighter than my 2 x CR123 Nuwai headlamp. The River Rock 2aaa headlamp is even lighter than my Tikka XP, so I've considered bringing the RR on some trips.

I do love the light output of the Nuwai, but can't justify the bulk and weight when on backpacking trips.


----------



## paulr (Jun 25, 2007)

Please try to find and read NewBie's old photo-filled thread about 123's exploding and catching on fire, before deciding you really want them strapped to your head.


----------



## scottaw (Jun 25, 2007)

123's every time.

Weight/size doesn't really bother me, i just like to know if i haven't used it for awhile, it's still going to work, and i use 123's almost exclusively so i always have a bunch of fresh primaries laying around.


----------



## Blindasabat (Jun 25, 2007)

As I stated on the original thread, I don't really prefer one over the other, having and using lights with both and recognizing the pro's and con's of both (nice job summarizing them, ITD). 

The one thing that combines the best of both worlds though, seems to be CR123's simply because the rechargeables have no compromises with less self discharge, normal 3.0V RCR's are readily available, and they have good cold weather performance. No AA combination delivers that except Li-Ion AA's, which have few applications outside custom lights.

I would equally consider and compare single cell CR123 and AA headlamps with the ability to use rechargeables weighing very heavily in my decision in addition to performance, runtime, and size/weight. My favorite right now is a modded 3AAA EOS (though like gunga, NOT my favorite battery setup). I would prefer whatever makes a smaller, lighter headlamp with a very low low and a high high, and a level in-between. I might prefer a flexible AA light for the common battery size alone, but I have two dozen $1 CR123's piled up to feed anything, and only four expensive spare lithium AA's to outfit lights for a cold weather trip, and I need those for my camera because my AA NiMh are notoriously unreliable after just two days out in the cold or even just a few weeks at room temp.

And to restate here what I said in the original thread: You can conceivably make a super simple direct drive (no electronics), ultra-reliable, CR123 light with a high power LED (Luxeon, Cree, or SSC) or 5mm LEDs that runs on one primary CR123 for 20+ hours, RCR 3.0V for 10+ hours, OR RCR123 super bright for 30 minutes (less reliable though for risk of burn out).


----------



## BlackDecker (Jun 25, 2007)

paulr said:


> Please try to find and read NewBie's old photo-filled thread about 123's exploding and catching on fire, before deciding you really want them strapped to your head.



I think the documented case of this actually happening was when the CR123's were in a battery tube for a standard flashlight. In my Nuwai headlamp, the CR123's don't physically touch each other - they're on opposite sides of the battery compartment.


----------



## cave dave (Jun 25, 2007)

BlackDecker said:


> I think the documented case of this actually happening was when the CR123's were in a battery tube for a standard flashlight. In my Nuwai headlamp, the CR123's don't physically touch each other - they're on opposite sides of the battery compartment.


They are still wired in series though. Any time you have 2 or more CR123's you have the possibility of one reverse charging the other and exploding. Not what I would want on the front of my head. I would also add that the Apex Pro has no way to lock out the on button and they turn on quite easily in a pack. This increases the likelihood of an explosion.


----------



## GaryF (Jun 25, 2007)

AA Lithiums (L91) are actually 10-15% lighter than CR123's. Energizer's data sheet shows the AA's at 14.5 grams, vs 16.5 grams for the CR123. Alkalines and Nimh AA's are heavier of course, typically 25-35 grams.

http://data.energizer.com/QuickSearch_Action.aspx?group=8&name=Cylindrical/Photo Lithium

Regarding the CR123 explosion potential, I think I wouldn't worry too much with a single cell light such as the Zebralight, but for a multi cell such as the Nuwai it's a little more worrisome. I've got the Nuwai, and every time I use it I find myself thinking about the proximity of the batteries to my eyes and how much I like my vision. I like the Nuwai headlamp very much, but I rarely use it anymore for that reason.


----------



## InTheDark (Jun 25, 2007)

I forgot to ask, I wonder if everyone could mention what they mostly use their headlamps for. Obviously, different uses will have different requirements. It's no surprise that cavers will tend to prefer AA's over 123's, their headlamps are a very important piece of gear, so weight and size aren't as big of a priority as durability. Plus, they have a need for the long runtimes that multiple AA's provide and a diffuse beam pattern. Also, I'm guessing cavers don't worry as much as really low (freezing) temperatures, so low temperature performance isn't as big of a concern for them. That's different than say a backpacker/hiker, who really doesn't need super long runtimes or a bombproof tank of a headlamp, but has more use for a smaller, brighter headlamp with more throw, and one that can work in a much wider range of temperatures. Obviously, you'll probably never see a backpacker who would even consider a belt mounted battery pack for their headlamp, or a caver with a photon velcroed to their helmet, so their priorities are very different.

As far as the danger of 123's, I've heard about it, but never really worried too much about it. I'm hoping for a single 123 headlamp which should eliminate the dangers of having them on your head.

Just for background, my I probably use my headlamp 70% of the time for hiking/backpacking, mostly on long hikes that run into the night, maybe 20% other outdoor activities (exploring mines and caves, or canyoneering), 10% various (working on car, under the house, in an roadside emergency etc). I tend to carry one everyday, so thats is probably the reason for my bias torwards lighter and smaller headlamps.


----------



## TorchBoy (Jun 25, 2007)

InTheDark, I really don't understand you point about 123 cells being better than AA cells because they're 3 volts instead of 1.5V. After all, 2 x 1.5V = 3V, but even so white LEDs don't run too well with just 3V anyway. From what people have said above, using three or four AA cells is safer than using 1.5 (!) or two 123 cells to get the necessary voltage, and of course doing that saves on driver cost.

When I'm caving the weight of my headlamp isn't a bother since my helmet weighs a fair bit anyway. AA NiMH still does quite nicely thank you.

What are we up to? Four out of four cavers who prefer AA?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jun 26, 2007)

TorchBoy said:


> InTheDark, I really don't understand you point about 123 cells being better than AA cells because they're 3 volts instead of 1.5V. After all, 2 x 1.5V = 3V, but even so white LEDs don't run too well with just 3V anyway. From what people have said above, using three or four AA cells is safer than using 1.5 (!) or two 123 cells to get the necessary voltage, and of course doing that saves on driver cost.
> 
> When I'm caving the weight of my headlamp isn't a bother since my helmet weighs a fair bit anyway. AA NiMH still does quite nicely thank you.
> 
> What are we up to? Four out of four cavers who prefer AA?


There are some headlight users out there who aren't cavers. I love a good caving experience, but when I'm climbing up a mountain I really need compact lightweight gear with good performance for weeks. In my trips, NiHM batteries are useless.


----------



## InTheDark (Jun 26, 2007)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> There are some headlight users out there who aren't cavers. I love a good caving experience, but when I'm climbing up a mountain I really need compact lightweight gear with good performance for weeks. In my trips, NiHM batteries are useless.



Exactly. Not everyone who uses a headlamp is using them for caving, just like not everyone who owns a surefire is using them for "tactical" reasons. Like I said, cavers have specific requirements all their own. I'm guessing that most of them don't worry about temperature extremes, or long distance throw, because the environments don't require it. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, but generally I think that's probably the norm.

The point about 3V being better than 1.5 has to do with the converter efficiency. Driving an LED (approximately 3.5v) is easier to do from a 3V source than a 1.5V source. The converters are usually more efficient, and you are drawing half the amount of current. Yes, you can use multiple cells, but that adds weight and size, for which some people it's a problem. That was the point i was trying to make. I'm not saying 123's are better than AA's, they're just different. I just wanted to know what the preferences were for each, and how they were being put to use.

Overall, there are a lot of misconceptions about both types of batteries, and this is probably the best forum to discuss them. I think people get stuck in their thinking, either because of an existing bias or experience, or just because of lack of information. For example, a lot of people are under the impression that 123's are expensive, rare, and hard to find. Yes, in some places that is true, but maybe they're not aware of the plethora of cheap online sources, or maybe they just never stopped to look for them at a store. I would say in my experience, in 99% of the cases, if they've had AA's, they've had 123's (although at a higher price). Other people (me included) just think of AA's as being much larger and heavier, but thanks to GaryF (thanks gary), it seems that lithium AA's are actually lighter than an equivilent 123.

I am a reformed AA-aholic, so I understand where a lot of people are coming from. I wanted _everything_ I owned to run off common batteries, to the point where I even bougtht C and D size adapters to take AA's. That dictated a lot of the things that I bought, especially cameras, because I was always under the impression that the 123's were too hard to find, and the few places that had them charged and arm and a leg. Eventually, as cameras became more and more advanced, they started taking a lot more energy to power the LCD screens, flash, zooms, etc. That's when i realized, it didn't matter that my camera can use common AA's, because regular alkalines were near worthless to provide the amount of energy the cameras consumed. I would always have to use rechargables, or those special "hi-power" AA's, which cost almost as much as lithiums. It still took me a while to convert, because I didn't want to give up the ability to use rechargeables, but once the RCR123's came out, I gave it a try and haven't looked back. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should switch, because I honestly don't really care either way. Some people actually really do need AA's for whatever reason, that's fine. But it would be nice to make sure people open their eyes to see what is really out there, and not be influenced by misinformation or an outdated perception.


----------



## yellow (Jun 26, 2007)

if two CR123s are possible, then one 18650 is much better,

else 2 AAs for the lower output, lighter lights. 
Else 3 or 4 AAs


----------



## PeLu (Jun 26, 2007)

InTheDark said:


> Not everyone who uses a headlamp is using them for caving,


You are perfectly right, cavers are a minority. But most of them use headlamps also for other purposes, more than other groups. 

Beside all these arguments, CR123 cells are only common and inexpensive in the USA. Abroad these are usually more or less expensive 'photo batteries'.

Further: Sometimes I had troubles with different brands of AA cells because they did not fit for a few devices. Usually Nixx cell manufacturers used the tolerances to get the highest volumina. I never had these troubles with CR123 cells. (yes, this is an argument for CR123 cells).


----------



## soffiler (Jun 26, 2007)

GaryF said:


> AA Lithiums (L91) are actually 10-15% lighter than CR123's. Energizer's data sheet shows the AA's at 14.5 grams, vs 16.5 grams for the CR123. Alkalines and Nimh AA's are heavier of course, typically 25-35 grams...


 
Quick science lesson: batteries store ENERGY. If you are comparing cells of different size, and/or different chemistry, the apples-to-apples comparison is energy content. This is further complicated by the fact that different chemistries respond to drain rate differently, so, you want to do your comparison at a specific drain rate.

L91 driving a load of 1 watt contains 3.7 watt-hours of energy (the data I am presenting comes from Energizer product data sheets available online, in combination with data found here on CPF, and my own measurements). A good, higher quality CR123A driving a load of 1 watt contains 4.0 watt-hours of energy. An L91 weighs 14.7 grams thus 0.252 W-hr/g. A CR123A weighs 16.4 grams thus 0.244 W-hr/g. The L91 has a slight edge in weight vs CR123A, on the order of 3%.

Alkaline AA at a load of 1 watt contain a paltry 0.8 W-hr of energy and they weigh 23.9 grams thus 0.033 W-hr/g, which is just 13% of the capacity of an L91. BUT - the load of 1 watt is a very heavy and inefficient load for an alkaline. Their energy storage capacity increases substantially under lighter loads. Down around 10 milliwatts, the have a capacity similar to L91. Think of those kitchen wall clocks that run off a single alkaline AA - they run for years. Don't bother with an L91 in that application.

(edit) As for NiMH, let's look at Eneloops. Data collected by Silverfox at a drain rate of slightly more than 1 watt indicates 2.32 W-hr of energy storage and the weight is 30.3 grams, thus 0.077 W-hr/g. The weight is working against NiMH here in comparison with the lithium chemistries. Setting weight aside, the Eneloops have 62% of the energy capacity vs the L91 which should translate pretty directly into runtimes for lights that accept AA format. At the top of the heap are Sanyo 2700's with energy storage of 3.09 W-hr. That's 83% of the capacity vs L91.

(edit 2) How about a big bad old D-cell alkaline? Calculation is based on Energizer data sheet (E95). 10.0 W-hr of capacity at a drain rate of 1 watt, and 148 grams, thus 0.068 W-hr/g. Compared with alkaline AA at 0.033 W-hr/g we see the D cell is slightly more than double the relative performance. This is due primarily to the larger cell's ability to handle larger drain rates.


----------



## GaryF (Jun 26, 2007)

soffiler said:


> Think of those kitchen wall clocks that run off a single alkaline AA - they run for years. Don't bother with an L91 in that application.



Yeah, wait until that sucker leaks and destroys your clock or expensive flashlight :mecry: I'm pretty much in agreement with moving away from alkalines, but they can still be useful in a pinch. For example when the nephew came looking for 12! AA batteries for his radio controlled helicopters. Try that with lithiums, lol. In this case the helicopters will be destroyed well before the alkaline batteries are ever drained or leak. From a usable energy standpoint, my L1D-CE should run about 19 hours on low on a single alkaline battery in a pinch. But I think the apples to apples comparison is CR123 vs L91, and I just don't see much difference in the platforms either in terms of cost or in terms of energy per unit of mass. 

My main reason for the AA battery preference is that I can consolidate on 1 battery type for many activities. I've got the following AA battery devices that might be used in different combinations for fishing, backpacking, or travel:

Headlamp
Flashlight
Digital Camera
Travel Razor
Small Radio
Fishing Scale
Boat Navigation Lights

As far as I know, none of these items except the Headlamp and Flashlight are even available in a CR123 based product. Unless the AA batteries become a decided disadvantage for some reason, I'll stick mostly to AA based lights for these activities. And depending on the activity, I might be using using L91's or I might be using NiMH batteries. The batteries in one device can serve as the spares for another. On a recent trip I remember removing batteries from the razor for use in the camera, and on backpacking trips I'll regard the razor batteries as emergency spares for the flashlight instead of carrying dedicated spares. 

Now I do own several CR123 based lights, and they do get some use, such as for night hiking when I don't have all of that other junk along. One of them lives on my bicycle handlebars as an emergency headlight. I'd consider one for a fast / light backpack trip if I were leaving the AA based electric razor behind for a few days. I don't have anything against CR123's, and their shape does lend itself to smaller, slightly lighter weight and more pocketable lights.


----------



## soffiler (Jun 26, 2007)

GaryF said:


> ... But I think the apples to apples comparison is CR123 vs L91, and I just don't see much difference in the platforms either in terms of cost or in terms of energy per unit of mass..."


 
I agree with energy per unit mass... using the numbers I presented earlier, the difference was 3% and I must say (should have said earlier) that the error or normal variance in the data I presented is certainly in that range.

But per unit cost, you have a more interesting situation. I did this math a few months ago and posted it on CPF somewhere. I think the numbers I used were $1 per cell for a Chinese CR123A, which by my own testing on average tend to have about 85% of the energy capacity of a US or Japanese CR123 which can be found for around $1.75 per cell. The best I seem able to do for an L91 is $2 per cell. So you have:

USA/Japan CR123A: 4.0 W-hr/$1.75 = *2.29* W-hr/$
Chinese CR123A: .85 * 4.0 W-hr/$1.00 = *3.40* W-hr/$
Energizer L91: 3.7 W-hr/$2 = *1.85* W-hr/$

I see the Chinese CR123A rising to stand head and shoulders over the L91 in this comparison.



> ...I'll stick mostly to AA based lights for these activities. And depending on the activity, I might be using using L91's or I might be using NiMH batteries...


 
Absolutely. I'm not debating that point at all. The AA format has become widely popular for some very good reasons, and the new LSD NiMH cells (Eneloop, Hybrio, etc etc) might just be the optimum solution for most needs. Once you start talking about rechargeables, the whole energy-per-dollar equation goes out the window. Where very long shelf-life or cold temperature performance is required, L91 fills the role at a small premium.


----------



## Beaker (Jun 26, 2007)

InTheDark said:


> Also, I'm guessing cavers don't worry as much as really low (freezing) temperatures, so low temperature performance isn't as big of a concern for them.



Not necessarily! In Alpine caving you will often have cave temps that are just above freezing (and quite wet), so lithium batteries are often preferred in these applications.

The issue with cavers is that we run the light continuously and so go thru a lot of batteries... so energy density is important but so is cost and rechargeability.


----------



## GaryF (Jun 26, 2007)

soffiler said:


> The best I seem able to do for an L91 is $2 per cell.



A more fair comparison might be the Chinese 1.5 volt Lithium AA's such as the Nuon's at BatteryJunction.com for $4.95 per 4 pack. I think we are largely in agreement, though, and I have never actually used the Nuon's.

I do wish over the counter prices for lithium batteries were more realistic. We CPF folks tend to order in bulk to keep shipping costs reasonable, but it's a pretty big barrier to a casual user. It makes it hard to gift a high powered flashlight to somebody when they are likely to battery shop at Walmart.


----------



## TorchBoy (Jun 26, 2007)

InTheDark said:


> For example, a lot of people are under the impression that 123's are expensive, rare, and hard to find. Yes, in some places that is true, but maybe they're not aware of the plethora of cheap online sources, or maybe they just never stopped to look for them at a store.


Well, yes, most people in the whole of this end-of-the-world country - where they are very expensive - do indeed think they are very expensive. Funny that. Paying for international shipping? Did I mention we're a really long way away from online "free shipping" shops in the USA? I'd still have to be keen since they are several times as expensive as they would need to be for me to be really interested. I currently have a total of zero items which run on them.



PeLu said:


> CR123 cells are only common and inexpensive in the USA. Abroad these are usually more or less expensive 'photo batteries'.


+1. There are very few non-camera items here which use them.



soffiler said:


> As for NiMH, let's look at Eneloops. Data collected by Silverfox ...


Since first looking at that graph I've been thinking about Eneloop applications with a draw of 10 amps. Ten Crees on my headlamp sounds nice. :tinfoil: What happens when you hit a 123 cell with 10 amps?  Burning head follows...

Lithium is expensive stuff. For that reason alone, don't expect me to believe the average user even cares about its advantages.


----------



## ringzero (Jun 28, 2007)

InTheDark said:


> I know some people mentioned that 123's are "over" for backpacking lights, or other lights in general. I would have to disagree, I the 123 revolution has just begun, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them as a new standard.




That was me.

I used the phrase "so over" as a parody of teen fashion-speak. A sixteen-year-old girl might say, "Oh my God - those wifebeaters are SO OVER." (Meaning that a clothing item highly sought after last year is now something she wouldn't want to be seen wearing in public.)

I used to carry a Surefire L1 for backpacking and as a caving backup light. I tolerated using CR123A cells to gain these L1 advantages: lightweight, rugged, reliable, good cold weather performance, and long runtime.

But, it's no longer the case that AA cell lights can't match or exceed the L1's capabilities. And AA cell LED lights offer outstanding flexibility: alkaline, NiMH, lithium, even carbon-zinc can be used in a pinch.

Even in the US, CR123As are still relatively expensive and not easy to come by outside of cities. Ordering cheaper cells online is OK for enthusiasts, I guess.

However, when something unexpected occurs, it's sure nice to be able to "live off the land" with AA cells easily available even in the most rural gas station or small town store. 

For me, CR123As offer no significant advantage to justify their higher price and relative scarcity compared to AAs.

.


----------



## TorchBoy (Jun 28, 2007)

ringzero said:


> However, when something unexpected occurs, it's sure nice to be able to "live off the land" with AA cells easily available even in the most rural gas station or small town store.


Even if they're [shudder] carbon zinc. :sick2: At least they *will* still be available. I'm sometimes surprised by their staying power.


----------



## Curious_character (Jul 21, 2007)

Like a lot of other folks, I'm looking to standardize the batteries I carry backpacking. But the standard I'm shooting for is CR123A or RCR123A, not AA. Cost isn't a problem because I won't use more than a very few bucks worth of batteries on a trip even with primary cells. And I'm not worried about availability, either -- there aren't any stores in the wilderness areas where I backpack.

My main light for many years has been a Petzl Tikka+ or similar. With its various light levels and fairly floody pattern, it's ideally suited for nearly any use -- night hiking, setting up camp, reading. But I've wanted to bring along one really bright light for very occasional use, and small, lightweight, and bright lights tend to use CR123A cells. A P1D CE is my current favorite.

So I'm beginning to look into the possibility of getting a CR headlamp, so I can cut down on the types of spare batteries I carry. It wouldn't make sense to replace the Tikka+ with something larger or heavier. Is there something out there that's roughly equivalent to the Tikka+ but runs on one or two CR123A cells? It doesn't have to be super bright -- I'll have the P1D CE for that.

c_c


----------



## half-watt (Jul 21, 2007)

Curious_character said:


> So I'm beginning to look into the possibility of getting a CR headlamp, so I can cut down on the types of spare batteries I carry. It wouldn't make sense to replace the Tikka+ with something larger or heavier. Is there something out there that's roughly equivalent to the Tikka+ but runs on one or two CR123A cells? It doesn't have to be super bright -- I'll have the P1D CE for that.




The closest that i'm aware of, which is NOT precisely the equivalent of the Tikka+. It's probably closer to the 0.5W Streamlight Enduro or Red Rock "clone". It's called the Streamlight Argo HP. It's a 1W Luxeon with LO and HI modes, running off of 2xCR123A (don't know 'bout RCR123A/16340 compatibility) and weighs right around 4oz - so a bit over an ounce (if i recall correctly) more than the Tikka+.


----------



## paulr (Jul 21, 2007)

I thought the Tikka+ uses AAA's, not AA's. AAA's are far smaller than 123's though the TIkka+ uses three of them so it evens out.

I've been wanting a 1AA headlamp for years and nobody seems to be making them. There are a few 1AAA headlamps that apparently aren't all that good for various reasons.

Standardizing on AAA's seems like an ok weight-saving alternative to AAA's. Petzl ZIpka headlamp (very cute retractable cord instead of a strap), Fenix L0D CE handheld light, Arc AAA or Peak Matterhorn keychain light, Elektrolumens Little Friend for when you want a lot of output, Garmin Geko GPS, Midland(?) FRS radios, Frontier Lab Nex3 or Sandisk M200 series MP3 player, Sony DSC-U60 waterproof digital camera, etc. etc. Lots more stuff runs on AAA's than 123's.


----------



## half-watt (Jul 21, 2007)

paulr said:


> I thought the Tikka+ uses AAA's, not AA's.



that is correct. it does use 3xAAA. *ALL* of the Tikka/Zipka series/line uses 3xAAA with the exception of the relatively new e+LITE which uses 2xCR2032 Li coin cells.


----------



## jar3ds (Jul 21, 2007)

i personally think that ultimately AA is the way to go... however, you have to look at the current market and choose the best product for your situation...

I personally pretty much only use AAA headlamps because those are the best headlamps made so far... i'm looking forward to ZebraLights 1xAA light... but I may hold off until it takes 14500's


----------



## BlackDecker (Jul 21, 2007)

If you want a 1AA headlamp now, run over to your local Wal-Mart and pickup the Rayovac 1AA lux. Pure white output that matches my original Fenix L1P, plus has a flip over diffuser cover to turn it into a flood. $18.83.


----------



## ringzero (Jul 22, 2007)

BlackDecker said:


> If you want a 1AA headlamp now, run over to your local Wal-Mart and pickup the Rayovac 1AA lux. Pure white output that matches my original Fenix L1P, plus has a flip over diffuser cover to turn it into a flood. $18.83.




This headlamp looks to be incredible bang for the buck.

The little 2AAA Streamlight Enduro, around 15 bucks, has long been "Best Value Headlamp." It looks as if Ray-O-Vac may have taken that title away from Streamlight.

Ray-O-Vac obviously understands the importance of a headlamp being useful for close up tasks, since they included a sliding diffuser similar to Petzl's.

I wish Princeton Tec, Streamlight, and other headlamp manufacturers would get a clue and include diffusers on at least some of their headlamps. It ain't rocket science to add a small plastic diffuser lens to an existing headlamp, and it really enhances usability.

.


----------



## f22shift (Jul 22, 2007)

the reason i prefer AA is that i want one cell size that i can use on multiple lights to simply what i carry.
this same argument can be used for the 123 but the only difference is having spares for your friends.
i find that other ppl dont carry spares and sometimes i have to bail them out. because AA is a common size i have spares for others.:ironic:


----------



## paulr (Jul 22, 2007)

It's easier to standardize on 123's if the only thing you use them in is lights. Start adding digital cameras, 2-way radios, GPS, etc. and you'll have a much easier time with AA's or AAA's.


----------

