I would not have used CBP1650's, there is a risk of instantflashing with these cells, and their high MPV will cause the bulb life to be very short. I would probably have chosen to use the Titanium cells.
I have yet to instaflash a bulb, but then I have enough packs to not use them hot off the charger. In addition, the natural resistance of the Mag seems to buffer that somewhat.
especially if you have a PR bulb.. you will drop about 1/2V on the switch.. i have good luck with my mag85 and the 1650s.. but they have a lot higher current capability than is needed.. and i suspect you can get significantly longer runtime with the 2500 cells... and a bit of internal resistance to help save bulb hours.
Sorry, I overlooked that it was both for Mag74 and Mag85. I was speaking about the Mag74 only, Mag85 should be fine if cells are rested. Time to :sleepy:
IMHO, the difference is not that noticable from a CBP1650 vs Titanium 2600.
Even with a 30% intensity gain, you're only talking about 9% increase in brightness.
Regarding instaflashing, it also depends on where your charger stop. Some stop charging @ 1.4 wherer others could be much higher.
I agree with Bill regarding the Titanium 2600 mAh, it should be the best compromise btw runtime/brightness.
the only thing that we've been wondering in the likes of the 1650s vs the likes of the 2600s... N.T. has been noticing loss of capacity on some of his 2500 cells in about a year time.. we are wondering if the special 'high drain' cells will hold their storage capacity longer since they are being pushed a lot less compared to their deisgn limits. Otherwise in the 'non-ludicrous' i.e. not 100W lights... the 'normal' drain rate batteries should they be able to deal fine with 1.5C discharge repeatedly?