4Sevens Quark more efficiant than RA Twisty

[LightWalker]

When comparing the Quark 123 and the Ra Clicky 140, the bottom line is, that the Quark is slightly brighter and has a slighter longer runtime at the lower levels. For the high levels the difference in brightness between the Quark an the Ra is practically irrelevant and the runtime is nearly even with a slight hint of better runtime for the Ra.
The cause is simple, the LED in the Quark is more efficient then the LED in the RA, the driver circuit in the Ra is without any doubt the mots efficient i've come across and the Quarks are the first lights which come close to it.

The points which are really relevant in an power outage / emergency lighting situation aren't the brightest light and to some extend even the longest runtime. What counts in such situations is reliability, robustness and gracefull low battery step-down.

No-one can by now say anything relevant over the reliability of the Quarks as those lights aren't here for long. The Ra lights are around quite some time and had there bugs fixed which where mostly cosmetic.

About the robustness, the Ra lights have their electronics potted, so theres no chance of moisture getting in and shocks ripping of components. The Quarks have a glued down head and seals at the lens, they are not advertised as being potted, so most likely they aren't. If liquid gets in through the battery compartment or the lens they are most likely doomed.

Finally for low battery step-down, the Ra lights start stepping down the brightness as the battery goes dead, this effectively does two things: First, and most important, it tells the user the battery is nearing its end. Second it conserves the very last bit of power the battery can provide as good as it can.
The Quarks don't do this step-down, the brightness declines after the battery isn't able to sustain the selected power level, this can remain unnoticed for some time as your eyes adjust accordingly until its to late. You may get around it by selecting a lower level if the light goes out but thats only true when you have the light in your hands.

Hope that clears up some of the pros and cons of the different lights.
My opinion is that you can get around all that by buying two cheaper lights so you always have a backup at hand, which always is a good idea but must be thought of...damn wheres my backup ?
The Ra lights are expensive, so after all its a question about the money you are willing to spend.

Now for the flashaholism part, I got 2 Quarks, 2 Ra Clickies, 1 LF5XT, 1 LF3XT and 1 Tiablo A7. The Ra Clickies are the lights I carry most if the time, the other lights mostly accumulated in my search for the best fit, the Tiablo A7 is my workhorse light when I need much light for a long time.

Where did you get the runtime data for the RA Clicky 140?

 

[CLBME]

As for cost effectiveness, you just have to decide for yourself whether any given light is worth the expenditure to you based on YOUR desires, not your calculator's or accountant's. Comparing a specialty light (the Ra) to a mass market light on the basis of functionality or utility is not all that interesting for a CPF'er, in my opinion. Most CPF'ers who have been around here for a while already own quite a few lights, and once you have multiple lights of the same basic type, you're not buying them purely for their utility. You're buying them for some combination of other various reasons that we lump into the term "flashaholism", and the light that satisifies your flashaholism best might not be the most utilitarian one. That is perfectly ok. It's just like anything else in life (clothes, food, cars, beer) where we make choices based on what subjectively satisfies us the most. Functionality is just one component of satisfaction.

In short, if you want a Ra, buy a Ra and enjoy it without feeling that you have to rationalize it.

I've read a few threads now- some that I've contributed to- about the Ra vs other lights. As you'll see from the quote I have not quoted Paulr's paragraph about technicalities- I'm not technically proficient like so many here. But I might wager than many aren't and don't base their buying decisions 100% on such factors. Nor am I like some here that have a large budget for truly custom lights. Having said that here's my take on the Ra. And to the OP I realize this doesn't address the "efficiency" question per se but the thread seems to have moved to a broader assessment of the lights.

I had a Quark tactical 123- I just sold it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I thought it was a good value for the money. But after buying it I bought a Ra EDC Exec, and a Twisty and I have the aforementioned $180 model on order. I think they are a "better" value for the "higher" money. That's my opinion based on my needs and wants- nothing else.

I simply felt that the UI was "better" for me. More so, I personally liked the heft/form and build of the Ra much more. There's just more to it in your hand and in actual construction- this appeals to me as I work in construction and am used to "rugged" equipment and tools- my lights are being used for work and home. Being able to access all light levels with the push of a button is great. No bezel to rotate. I also liked the fact that Henry Schneiker has personally answered all of my inquiry emails same day- and I'm a "nobody". I also would rather support Mr. Schneiker's work as I like his seemingly smaller, more "custom" business if you will. Frankly, I didn't consider really long run times vs other lights. But I certainly read a lot about the Ra's before buying them including the specs, which were impressive and certainly beyond my everyday needs. My buying decision encompasses a lot more than just run times at various lumen levels as Paulr has succinctly said- and it lead me to the Ra's and I've felt I got my money worth with them and more. To me they are a great value and an exceptional tool for my needs.

A layman's humble and personal opinion...............

 

[timberwolf]

Where did you get the runtime data for the RA Clicky 140?

Part from personal usage of the light (for the high modes), part from http://www.light-reviews.com/ra_clicky/ and from here https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/199329

 

[LightWalker]

I've read a few threads now- some that I've contributed to- about the Ra vs other lights. As you'll see from the quote I have not quoted Paulr's paragraph about technicalities- I'm not technically proficient like so many here. But I might wager than many aren't and don't base their buying decisions 100% on such factors. Nor am I like some here that have a large budget for truly custom lights. Having said that here's my take on the Ra. And to the OP I realize this doesn't address the "efficiency" question per se but the thread seems to have moved to a broader assessment of the lights.

I had a Quark tactical 123- I just sold it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I thought it was a good value for the money. But after buying it I bought a Ra EDC Exec, and a Twisty and I have the aforementioned $180 model on order. I think they are a "better" value for the "higher" money. That's my opinion based on my needs and wants- nothing else.

I simply felt that the UI was "better" for me. More so, I personally liked the heft/form and build of the Ra much more. There's just more to it in your hand and in actual construction- this appeals to me as I work in construction and am used to "rugged" equipment and tools- my lights are being used for work and home. Being able to access all light levels with the push of a button is great. No bezel to rotate. I also liked the fact that Henry Schneiker has personally answered all of my inquiry emails same day- and I'm a "nobody". I also would rather support Mr. Schneiker's work as I like his seemingly smaller, more "custom" business if you will. Frankly, I didn't consider really long run times vs other lights. But I certainly read a lot about the Ra's before buying them including the specs, which were impressive and certainly beyond my everyday needs. My buying decision encompasses a lot more than just run times at various lumen levels as Paulr has succinctly said- and it lead me to the Ra's and I've felt I got my money worth with them and more. To me they are a great value and an exceptional tool for my needs.

A layman's humble and personal opinion...............

I appreciate your opinion. :thanks:

 

[LightWalker]

Part from personal usage of the light (for the high modes), part from http://www.light-reviews.com/ra_clicky/ and from here https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/199329

Ok, thanks.

 

[LightWalker]

buy both,

drop both repeatedly from 10 feet on to concrete,

see which one you now prefer.

I have dropped my Quark 2x123 from about 5 feet onto concrete head first and dented it and it still works fine. I have dropped Fenix lights onto concrete with the same results. I have discovered that lanyards prevent such drops also.

 

[derfyled]

Five year ago I bought an HDS EDC (the RA's grandfather...). I paid a lot for it but I wanted a bulletproof light that would never leave me in the dark. I upgraded the led 3 years ago (SSC U bin).

It's still plenty bright for any task. Do I need a brighter light than 5 years ago ? No. Anyway, compared to an XP-G R5 quark, it is dimmer but it still not that far in terms of brightness. I carried it everyday since 5 years, this light have seen numerous drops (20'), cold (-30° celcius, -22° f), mud, water, salt water, dust, sand, oil and grease. It has followed me in many backpack trip around the world, at work, in trekking, in camping, fishing. I guess I'm a ''hardcore'' user but for me, a flashlight is a tool, not a jewel.

It still work like the first day. It has crazy runtime on mid-brightness.

In these 5 years I had 3 faulty Fenix, 2 dead nitecore and many other cheap DX flashlight that are nice but nothing else.

I own many flashlights that are also great but if I need reliability, my choice is my HDS EDC, my RA clicky 140 or my twisty.

Did it worth paying a lot more for my HDS ? Yes, and I'm sure I will still think the same way 10 years from now.

 

[eric_wolf]

I have both Quarks and RAs. I have also owned Novatac, Arc, Fenix and Surefire to name a few.

No question about it, the Quark is a great value for the money. They are well thought out, reasonably priced and good performers. (I have a preon, mini and turbo 123)

That much said, the Quark and RA are two very different products. People have commented that "if your life depends on it", the RA is the better light. Or...drop them both on a cement sidewalk and you'll see which is made better. Those are valid statements. The RA is a much more solid light, but if it is dark and you need to see, you will probably be just as happy with a Quark.

If you have budget constraints, get a quark and you will love it. If money isn't a driving factor, the RA is a joy to hold.

I am lucky enough to have both and like them each for different reasons.

 

[gadgetnerd]

I have a neutral Quark AA, and several neutral and cool mini AAs and 123s. They are great little torches, compact, well built, simple to operate, with excellent brightness and run time, and most importantly, they are unbelievable value for money. Kudos to 4sevens for bringing them to market.

That said, I'd trade them all for my Ra Clicky 140Cn. It's not just a torch, it's an engineering marvel (as are pretty much any of the torches Henry designs).

 

[jblackwood]

I'm in the market for a new SUV (not to thread hijack), which should I get?

Hyundai Veracruz
3.8L V6 DOHC w/CVVT
6-cylinder 260 hp engine
$30,045

or

Honda Pilot
3.5L V-6 250 HP engine
$32,345

Mercedes-Benz R350
3.5L V-6 268 HP engine
$49,300

Doing the math, the Hyundai is the best value, especially when you weigh in various benefit programs they have (I don't own one and I don't plan on buying one so I'm not about to start listing them). Like I said, though, I'm not getting a Hyundai.

Would I get the Pilot that's rated at a lower HP and costs $2,300 more? Not only that, but out of a V6 configuration, it's the least efficient of the three as far as horsepower. Out of those three cars, definitely. The Mercedes is a bit out of my reach and I'm not sure if 8 more horses at almost 40% more than the Hyundai is a good deal, but wait, cars are more than just their horsepower rating, aren't they? They're complex machines with complex systems with so much that can go wrong. And none of these cars have that new system that's being touted by the Honda CRZ that promises to deliver zero emissions. That's the latest and greatest thing. I think I'll wait for that one after all!

I think I've made my point but just in case you don't agree, let me go on.

Lots of folks here get DX lights and other budget type lights here and don't mind doing servicing or nabbing the occasional great deal on a powerful flashlight for a cheap price. There's nothing wrong with that. Others stick with tried and true brands and spend way more than the people who favor DX and Kaitomain. Others are into McGizmo and Cool Fall, that's your luxury crowd. Again, if there's a market for it, why not?

I'll probably never drive a BMW or Mercedes. Am I jealous? Yep. Resentful? Maybe. But I'm not about to bag on the more expensive cars just because I can't afford them or would rather spend my money on other thing, though. Many of them are fine machines that are more than worth the money, but not if I only look at the engines. Heck, if I wanted the newest engine, I'd be driving a Prius but keeping an eye out to trade it in as soon as the Honda CRZ comes out later this year (zero emissions, snappy handling, blah, blah). Cars aren't only about engines; flashlights aren't only about the emitter.

Still don't believe me? No Quark in existence throws as far as the DEFT. Michael has made a new DEFT that's more affordable than the older model. It might not interest you if you're looking for the brightest emitter, though, but it has a lens that focuses the light from an XR-E like no other LED light out there. No reflector lights can touch it and I'm pretty sure other aspherics can't touch it either (I own another aspheric as well as a DEFT and there's no contest). If you're looking for throw, you don't compare lumens. Flashlights shouldn't be compared at all based on lumens alone, either. Heck, as far as output goes, you could drop $70 on a Stanley HID that kills all Quarks as far as sheer output. Good luck pocket carrying it, though. Did I mention its runtime is around 30 minutes on one charge and that it typically takes 5-7 hours to charge back up?

Now that I think about it, you're just looking for brightness for the longest time, right? Get your Quark. Enjoy it. But mark my words, I was just like you back in October of 2008. Things change and your focus shifts. If it doesn't, you made the right purchase anyway.

And for all of you who said you'd never own an RA, first never say never. Second, I thought just like you guys too. I even saw Sergeant LED's signature and thought "hmmm, I wonder what he's talking about. Oh well, I'm happy for now." I was wrong. If I'm wrong about you guys too, more power to you and bully to you for knowing what you want/need. Really. You shouldn't go through life bagging on people just because they hold different viewpoints than you do, though. You embitter yourselves, not those which you are trying to harangue.

Flash on, everyone, flash on.

 

[jblackwood]

Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention. I've got an RA Clicky. Just to be different, I picked one of the lowest emitters just because it was the only high CRI model he had. As it turns out, he's using the highest CRI LEDs out there! If you need a reason for getting an RA, there's your number!

I was getting one anyway and was looking at a high CRI or a guaranteed tint model. It's the nicest Al light I own and I'd trade almost all my other Al lights for it (thank God my wife doesn't make me, though). I really didn't ever think I'd give RA a try because I was blinded by emitter numbers too. As I looked at design, though, the RA became ever so much more attractive. Eventually, I decided to give it a try and my opinion was formed within the first five minutes of holding it! Go ahead, drink the kool-aid! There's no high CRI model out there that you can pick up for less than $400 either. That model is mostly flood, if you're interested in that, Henry's model is wide but does have both spot, spill, and a bit of throw. Much more than pure flood lights, like Zebralight (all except the newer reflector models) and Quark RGB (love that light, it's unique!). Heck the Quark RGB is a great example of unique design trumping lumen output. You don't pay for lumens there, you pay for versatility and four colors in one light. I personally love it's beam profile and use it more than any other Quark (I own at least one of each model, even some Ti and Neutral white ones). That might just be because I carry other unique lights too. Heck, maybe I should drive a motorcycle with a side car since it's unique. :twothumbs

 

[jimmy1970]

I suggest you wait until the promised new model Twisty is released. I'd be surprised if the Twisty with a modern emitter didn't at least match the efficiency of the Quark lights.

James.....

 

[LightWalker]

I'm in the market for a new SUV (not to thread hijack), which should I get?

Hyundai Veracruz
3.8L V6 DOHC w/CVVT
6-cylinder 260 hp engine
$30,045

or

Honda Pilot
3.5L V-6 250 HP engine
$32,345

Mercedes-Benz R350
3.5L V-6 268 HP engine
$49,300

Doing the math, the Hyundai is the best value, especially when you weigh in various benefit programs they have (I don't own one and I don't plan on buying one so I'm not about to start listing them). Like I said, though, I'm not getting a Hyundai.

Would I get the Pilot that's rated at a lower HP and costs $2,300 more? Not only that, but out of a V6 configuration, it's the least efficient of the three as far as horsepower. Out of those three cars, definitely. The Mercedes is a bit out of my reach and I'm not sure if 8 more horses at almost 40% more than the Hyundai is a good deal, but wait, cars are more than just their horsepower rating, aren't they? They're complex machines with complex systems with so much that can go wrong. And none of these cars have that new system that's being touted by the Honda CRZ that promises to deliver zero emissions. That's the latest and greatest thing. I think I'll wait for that one after all!

I think I've made my point but just in case you don't agree, let me go on.

Lots of folks here get DX lights and other budget type lights here and don't mind doing servicing or nabbing the occasional great deal on a powerful flashlight for a cheap price. There's nothing wrong with that. Others stick with tried and true brands and spend way more than the people who favor DX and Kaitomain. Others are into McGizmo and Cool Fall, that's your luxury crowd. Again, if there's a market for it, why not?

I'll probably never drive a BMW or Mercedes. Am I jealous? Yep. Resentful? Maybe. But I'm not about to bag on the more expensive cars just because I can't afford them or would rather spend my money on other thing, though. Many of them are fine machines that are more than worth the money, but not if I only look at the engines. Heck, if I wanted the newest engine, I'd be driving a Prius but keeping an eye out to trade it in as soon as the Honda CRZ comes out later this year (zero emissions, snappy handling, blah, blah). Cars aren't only about engines; flashlights aren't only about the emitter.

Still don't believe me? No Quark in existence throws as far as the DEFT. Michael has made a new DEFT that's more affordable than the older model. It might not interest you if you're looking for the brightest emitter, though, but it has a lens that focuses the light from an XR-E like no other LED light out there. No reflector lights can touch it and I'm pretty sure other aspherics can't touch it either (I own another aspheric as well as a DEFT and there's no contest). If you're looking for throw, you don't compare lumens. Flashlights shouldn't be compared at all based on lumens alone, either. Heck, as far as output goes, you could drop $70 on a Stanley HID that kills all Quarks as far as sheer output. Good luck pocket carrying it, though. Did I mention its runtime is around 30 minutes on one charge and that it typically takes 5-7 hours to charge back up?

Now that I think about it, you're just looking for brightness for the longest time, right? Get your Quark. Enjoy it. But mark my words, I was just like you back in October of 2008. Things change and your focus shifts. If it doesn't, you made the right purchase anyway.

And for all of you who said you'd never own an RA, first never say never. Second, I thought just like you guys too. I even saw Sergeant LED's signature and thought "hmmm, I wonder what he's talking about. Oh well, I'm happy for now." I was wrong. If I'm wrong about you guys too, more power to you and bully to you for knowing what you want/need. Really. You shouldn't go through life bagging on people just because they hold different viewpoints than you do, though. You embitter yourselves, not those which you are trying to harangue.

Flash on, everyone, flash on.

Good points. I am going to get another Quark for now, my 4th one, but I would like to get a RA light sometime in the future.