Quark AA2 R2 turbo runtime

I'm thinking about a second light (primary or backup) and the Quark AA2 " looks nice with a good price. But the runtime on turbo looks poor. Light Reviews found under 1 hour on Eneloops compared to the Fenix L2D at about 2 hours. I get about 1 hr 45 mins from a L2D on turbo with Panasonic Infiniums. Selfbuilt found the Quark AA2 turbo runtime was a bit less than the Fenix LD20, but I did not see his figure the for the L2D.

Do other people find the runtime on turbo poor compared to other lights?

I use lights on turbo during 1 hour long cross country runs hence this aspect matters. I also like wide spill which rules out many lights. Current picks are the Fenix L2D/LD20 and Quark AA2 R2.

Perhaps you should consider getting the newer R5-based Quark AA2 and not run it on turbo.

You'd get the same amount of light and longer battery life. Just a thought to consider.

Maybe my L2D is faulty, I only get 70 mins run time on duraloops but I can about 65 mins run time on Quark AA Tactical in Turbo. 45-50 mins in Turbo with 14500 (which is brighter). This is with an R5 Tactical AA. The Quark is about as bright as the L2D on AA with nearly the same run time but just one cell so it wins out with me.

Edit: Sorry, saw you meant AA2, maybe my rambling is still helpful though. The Turbo on the Quark is likely a good bit higher too, it's 180+ OTF while the L2D I saw tested was more like 140. If you get R5 the beam pattern is alot like the L2D actually, both have a nice big-ish hot spot that is smooth.

Not my best beamshots but here is the L2D against Quark on one AA and one 14500. The 14500 is alot closer to what you'd get with the AA2.

L2D:



Quark on 1 x AA



Quark on 1 x 14500

According to 4Sevens website the runtime for a QAA2 R2 on turbo is 1.3 hours, that's about 75 min. That's matches up pretty well with my subjective experience of the one that I have.

(I run just cheap NiMH Energizer cells in it because they're cheap and both my kids have lots of AA powered toys, so even if I only get a half dozen cycles out of one, it's still more than paid for itself.)

One thing to keep in mind though, is that 4Sevens lumen ratings tend to be very conservative; the AA2 R2 is advertised at 170 lumens out the front, but I've read reviews on here where people have measured the actual output from that light on their meters at about 190 lumens. To my mind that means a Quark AA2 is drawing a fair bit of power to produce that much output.

Also, Fenix is pretty well recognized as being the efficiency/run-time King, although they measure lumens at the emitter and not OTF, so that is probably why a Fenix has a longer run time than a Quark at a comparable advertised lumen rating. (My L1Tv2 on max is advertised at 95 lumens if I remember right but it is almost exactly the same brightness as my QAA2 R2 on 'high' which has an advertised output of 70 lumens.)

I'd say pony up the extra $9 and get the new XPG version of the QAA2; it will give you more light with a comparable run time. You might also consider the Quark 123^2 which will give you both more light and slightly more run time, but that means you have to break into CR123 cells, and I consider them poor choices compared to AA based lights. The only advantages you get out of them are the higher output because of the increased voltage. Quarks can easily be configured to use 14500's, and if you're serious about this you'll eventually move on to Li-ions (something I am in the process of now) and at that point, the output advantage 123 have is lost because 14500's have the same energy density and voltage output, and you gain the added benefit of being able to use standard AA cells if needed. Going with AA based lights that are 14500 compatible just makes more sense in my opinion. Icing on the cake; several reviews I've read on here show 1400s giving longer run times than AA primaries.

LeifUK said:

I'm thinking about a second light (primary or backup) and the Quark AA2 " looks nice with a good price. But the runtime on turbo looks poor. Light Reviews found under 1 hour on Eneloops compared to the Fenix L2D at about 2 hours. I get about 1 hr 45 mins from a L2D on turbo with Panasonic Infiniums. Selfbuilt found the Quark AA2 turbo runtime was a bit less than the Fenix LD20, but I did not see his figure the for the L2D.

Do other people find the runtime on turbo poor compared to other lights?

I use lights on turbo during 1 hour long cross country runs hence this aspect matters. I also like wide spill which rules out many lights. Current picks are the Fenix L2D/LD20 and Quark AA2 R2.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies.

Wiggle: I'm repeating my L2D turbo runs with Panasonic Infinium 2100 mAh (Eneloop type) as the results are out of kilter with your results, and others. My 2600 mAh results are consistent with others.

B0wz3r said:

According to 4Sevens website the runtime for a QAA2 R2 on turbo is 1.3 hours, that's about 75 min. That's matches up pretty well with my subjective experience of the one that I have.

(I run just cheap NiMH Energizer cells in it because they're cheap and both my kids have lots of AA powered toys, so even if I only get a half dozen cycles out of one, it's still more than paid for itself.)

One thing to keep in mind though, is that 4Sevens lumen ratings tend to be very conservative; the AA2 R2 is advertised at 170 lumens out the front, but I've read reviews on here where people have measured the actual output from that light on their meters at about 190 lumens. To my mind that means a Quark AA2 is drawing a fair bit of power to produce that much output.

Also, Fenix is pretty well recognized as being the efficiency/run-time King, although they measure lumens at the emitter and not OTF, so that is probably why a Fenix has a longer run time than a Quark at a comparable advertised lumen rating. (My L1Tv2 on max is advertised at 95 lumens if I remember right but it is almost exactly the same brightness as my QAA2 R2 on 'high' which has an advertised output of 70 lumens.)

I'd say pony up the extra $9 and get the new XPG version of the QAA2; it will give you more light with a comparable run time. You might also consider the Quark 123^2 which will give you both more light and slightly more run time, but that means you have to break into CR123 cells, and I consider them poor choices compared to AA based lights. The only advantages you get out of them are the higher output because of the increased voltage. Quarks can easily be configured to use 14500's, and if you're serious about this you'll eventually move on to Li-ions (something I am in the process of now) and at that point, the output advantage 123 have is lost because 14500's have the same energy density and voltage output, and you gain the added benefit of being able to use standard AA cells if needed. Going with AA based lights that are 14500 compatible just makes more sense in my opinion. Icing on the cake; several reviews I've read on here show 1400s giving longer run times than AA primaries.

Click to expand...

The 4Sevens runtimes match many peoples measured values except turbo, and in that case they are not so far off selfbuilt's results.

But what confuses me is that selfbuilts tests find that the L2D, LD20 and Quark AA2 R2 produce about the same total light output which contradicts your assertions, and claims by others. Many people have said that 4Sevens outputs are OTF and hence more accurate than Fenix which are not OTF. On that basis the Quark AA2 R2 should produce ~20% more light than the L2D (170 OTF versus about 180 not OTF or about 140 OTF), which would in large part explain the turbo runtime issue. But that would conflict with selfbuilt's measurements.

I presume selfbuilt integrates the light intensity over the entire beam. Assuming radial symmetry, that means the light can be plotted as a function of distance from the axis. So you would need an array of sensors to accurately plot the variation, and then do the maths to work out the total output.

Unfortunately I do not know much about LED's, so I have no idea about the unit variation in light output efficiency and output on the maximum level.

Incidentally can the Quark AA2 R2 run continuously on turbo? Fenix warn against it though my L2D Q5 runs fine in cold English winter air, and even indoors.

LeifUK said:

Incidentally can the Quark AA2 R2 run continuously on turbo? Fenix warn against it though my L2D Q5 runs fine in cold English winter air, and even indoors.

Click to expand...

Summer here in Australia and I run my Quark AA2 on turbo for periods of at least half an hour at a time with no apparent issues. There was no warning against it in the Quark's manual that I can recall.

Subjective I know, but turbo on my AA2 seems to light up outdoor areas a heap brighter than turbo on my Q5 Premium L1D with 2AA tube (essentially an L2D). I can't comment on runtime comparison since I basically hardly ever use the Fenix anymore since my AA2 R2 just seems to walk away from it with a better beam and better feautures.

You may want to consider adding the Quark 18650 tube and a quality rechargeable. I ran a Quark 123-2 head with the 18650 for 150 minutes on MAX and the cell still had 3.62 volts. I think 180 minutes is possible! :twothumbs

LeifUK said:

The 4Sevens runtimes match many peoples measured values except turbo, and in that case they are not so far off selfbuilt's results.

But what confuses me is that selfbuilts tests find that the L2D, LD20 and Quark AA2 R2 produce about the same total light output which contradicts your assertions, and claims by others. Many people have said that 4Sevens outputs are OTF and hence more accurate than Fenix which are not OTF. On that basis the Quark AA2 R2 should produce ~20% more light than the L2D (170 OTF versus about 180 not OTF or about 140 OTF), which would in large part explain the turbo runtime issue. But that would conflict with selfbuilt's measurements.

...

Incidentally can the Quark AA2 R2 run continuously on turbo? Fenix warn against it though my L2D Q5 runs fine in cold English winter air, and even indoors.

Click to expand...

You're going to get some differences in run times with the reports from several different sources because of slight differences in methods, charge state of the batteries, differences in meter equipment, etc. There can also be noticeable differences between two different lights of the same model. It might be better to think of it in terms of a range of values for a particular model of light, rather than a fixed value to help you make run-time comparisons.

Also, many people here at CPF specifically run two sets of rechargeable cells for every EDC light they have, so they always have a fresh set when needed. Otherwise you get miserly with how you use your light and that pretty much defeats the purpose of having a high quality EDC light like a Fenix, Quark, NiteCore, iTP, etc.

With respect to running on 'turbo', I've run my QAA2 continuously on its maximum setting for 30 - 40 min. several times since I got it back in October. It certainly does get warm under such use, but never so hot that it worried me the heat might damage the light. (The NiteCore EZAAw I keep on my keychain is another matter though!) Also, customer support from 4Sevens has told me that as long as the light is not so hot you can't comfortably hold it in your hand, you shouldn't need to worry about the heat affecting the light.

Keep in mind too that some batteries inherently have more resistance in them than others. The biggest drawback of the cheapie energizers I use is that they can heat up quite a bit during use and add to the heat generated by the light. Energizer L91 primaries don't have the same problem in my experience. Can't speak to this issue with respect to eneloops, tenergy cells, or 14500's though. I will be getting a set of AW's protected 14500's and a charger soon so I'm planning on investigating how much heat they generate on their own when powering some of my lights.

mind you if you do get the 18650 tube you would be better off with a low voltage head instead of a high voltage head. It would be in regulation alot longer. (although it will have very slightly less output)

slowhand23 said:

You may want to consider adding the Quark 18650 tube and a quality rechargeable. I ran a Quark 123-2 head with the 18650 for 150 minutes on MAX and the cell still had 3.62 volts. I think 180 minutes is possible! :twothumbs

Click to expand...

Crikey!!

I've actually last night ordered an AA2 Quark Turbo in the hope it can do more than the AA2 R2 but I gave serious consideration when choosing what to buy to doing just what you described using a a Turbo 123-2 head and it was only my fear of the first tentative steps into rechargeable lithiums that halted me pressing the buttons on that purchase too........

Glad I found this thread! I have been looking to upgrade from my L2DCE. I have been considering going to a 2xCR123 Light But I think I may just stick with 2xAA.

In the pictures above - Is that L2D on Turbo? Seems Dim
And just to Clarify...The bottom pic of the Quark AA running a 14500 is close to what a 2xAA Quark would be? If so what a difference over my L2D!!

I may be convinced
charge

I can't comment on the pictures themselves but I can say that for me my Quark AA2 R2 is noticeably brighter on turbo than my L2D Q5 when in direct comparison between the two in real life.

Now I'm going to admit that I don't do any of the "ceiling bounce" test type stuff so popular on here cos it just doesn't equate to how I use a torch. Since I hardly ever use a torch to light rooms, I use it to see outside in big open areas, what I do is go outside into my paddock and shine them round and make a (subjective) judgement on which one allows me to see objects further into the distance and which one allows me to see closer things clearer and in both tests my Quark AA2 quite noticeably outshines my L1D with 2 x AA tube (which make it essentially an L2D).

Can I also say that with the Quark system you can buy an extra tube (either an 18650 or a 2 x 123) that you can swap on so as to allow use of a 2 x 123 sized single lithium cell as well (either 18650 or 17670). That will give just as bright light as a 2 x AA but more runtime. I've chosen last nigth to do that simply because I feel the 2 x 123 size torch is better for me. Why not just by a whole 2 x 123 torch you ask? Well because I want the ability to swap back to 2 x AA if necessary and I need the AA2 low voltage head to do that (of course that does preclude the use of two actual 123 batteries though).

LeifUK said:

Thanks for the replies.
Wiggle: I'm repeating my L2D turbo runs with Panasonic Infinium 2100 mAh (Eneloop type) as the results are out of kilter with your results, and others. My 2600 mAh results are consistent with others.

Click to expand...

I just re-did mine. Freshly charged duraloops got 1 hour 24 mins in the L2D on Turbo, recharged the pair and ran the Quark in Max and got 1 hour 12 mins and 1 hour 18 mins with the two batteries separately.

Something seems wrong here, the Quark is practically the same brightness, same runtime but on one cell only. Maybe I'll do one last run with photos every 5 mins to see if the Quark is perhaps tapering more than I'm estimating.

Thanks for the helpful replies. I will probably get the latest Quark AA^2 as it has such a high OTF lumens on turbo. The lumens from 2 of those mutts is not far off a Fenix TK40!

Wiggle said:

I just re-did mine. Freshly charged duraloops got 1 hour 24 mins in the L2D on Turbo, recharged the pair and ran the Quark in Max and got 1 hour 12 mins and 1 hour 18 mins with the two batteries separately.

Something seems wrong here, the Quark is practically the same brightness, same runtime but on one cell only. Maybe I'll do one last run with photos every 5 mins to see if the Quark is perhaps tapering more than I'm estimating.

Click to expand...

I ran the L2D Q5 on turbo with Panasonic Infinium again and got a tad under 1 hour 40 minutes, so a few minutes less than last time. These LSD cells are giving very good life, and I only get 10 to 15 minutes more from non LSD Panasonic cells though they might not be broken in. I have decided to check they also have low self discharge by leaving a charged pair to sit for a few months and then redoing the test. These are Chinese made cells bought from a reputable online shop.

The fact that the Quark AA2 and L2D Q5 runtimes are comparable except at turbo suggests to me that Fenix might be overestimating the turbo output. That is consistent with subjective impressions of other people. The light sphere measurements in this forum give about 140 lumens for the L2D rather than 180 as claimed. Of course it could be that the Fenix has better cooling and LED's are said to be less efficient when hot.

It could be that your L2D burns more brightly than mine. I have some Eneloops in the post, and I will see how it does with those. (If Sanyo don't sponsor this forum, they should. )

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:

... a 2 x 123 sized single lithium cell as well (either 18650 or 17670). That will give just as bright light as a 2 x AA but more runtime.

Click to expand...

From what I've read on here about the energy density of different cells, I think some significant qualifiers need to be considered with respect to this claim.

For basic AA cells such as alkaline primaries, this is certainly true, but for lithium primaries the energy density is nearly equal.

Also, for Li-ion rechargeables, the RCR123's and the 14500's that AW makes have exactly the same mah rating. I've read some threads on here where people have tested 14500s in general to provide slightly more run time.

Take this for what you think it's worth; I'm just relating info that I recall from having read other threads about this here at CPF.

B0wz3r said:

From what I've read on here about the energy density of different cells, I think some significant qualifiers need to be considered with respect to this claim.

For basic AA cells such as alkaline primaries, this is certainly true, but for lithium primaries the energy density is nearly equal.

Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, clarity and expansiveness were sacrificed for the sake of brevity notwithstanding the fact that I know next to nothing about energy density. Based on the poster's current battery choices I did assume a desire for rechargeables so I admit I treated the lithium primary aspect as insignificant but if what you say regards energy is true in practice then I guess they might well be factored into comparisons if all options were to be explored.