In my (limited) experience, clickies with 0,08lm low vs 0,02lm low have similar runtime at the lowest level. Haven't compared to Novatac vs EDC Basic/Ultimate (I don't have legacy lights to compare), but it will be interesting to do, and I will test and report.
Is there a "rotary style" flashlight that doesn't have a "big" circuit overhead, which leads to average runtime on low modes ? I hae a Sunwayman V11R in the past, and remember average runtime on low. The runtime of the HDS is perfectly acceptable for what I do with them. Some manufacturers like Zebralight promise very long runtime in low mode, has that been tested in real life ? Just asking, some brands are less honest than others, and even without implying honesty, there's a sample variability in the equation.
-It does seem there were some 0.08lm lights with the newer less efficient driver.. THIS
is the thread with ~140hrs runtime tests, as well as couple ~500hrs legacy runtime tests. So maybe the driver switch was when ACME threads where introduced.... not the 0.08>0.02 switch (although close).
-My V11R consumes 13.4ma @3.8V at min (much dimmer than HDS 0.02), which on a 16340, is not far from what SWM specs as max runtime (40hrs?). In comparison my Quark QK2A consumes 12.24ma at 3lms and 3.65ma at 0.5lms on the same batt.... or less power at 3lms, than the V11R at barely visible. The HDS does not use a magnetic ring, so is going to be a more efficient rotary. For most folks using medium or higher outputs, the fixed driver overhead tends to be small/immaterial/imperceptible in relation to LED consumption. But for the night vision enthusiast like me that splits his time between moonlight and low lows, where inefficient drivers consume more power than the LED itself, the runtime difference can be a factor of 2-3x.
- Yes, Zebralight fibs quite a bit, particularly at the low lows. THIS
is a 4 sample runtime test of the SC52s moonlight mode spec'd at 0.34lms and 500hrs. One sample did get to 500 hrs, the other 3 averaged 60-something% of the runtime, and we all think the output spec of 0.34 was significantly overstated. I read 0.07-0.08 lms on my sample and included pix showing it closer to the HDS's 0.02 mode, than its peer group of 0.3-0.5lm moonlight modes. Basically ZL lumen-hours spec was overstated by multiples (>6x on my sample). Also, if you look at my link above to the Barbarin laboratory equipment test, you can triangulate to ZL output exaggeration as well. (That said, to be fair, and on average, I do think is ZL is one of the most efficient manufacturers out there, certainly better than most....but just not as good as they say they are).