No more "throwy" small Quarks and Fenixes

[brightnorm]

NOTE:

I changed the thread title to reflect the fact that Fenix is also dropping their XP-E's

Some controversy has occurred in this thread regarding my use of the terms "R2 and R5" without clarifying the LED type. R2 and R5 refer to the flux bin or brightness/efficiency of the LED, not to the type (size/package) which influences beam characteristicsis ("floody" - "throwy" etc). The LED types referred to here are:

XR-E - least wide
XP-E - wider (but still not considered "floody")
XP-G - widest (considered by many to be somewhat "floody")

These are very rough descriptive terms, and beam configuration can be greatly influenced by reflector size and shape.


Further update: Disagreement has been expressed regarding which is "floodier", XP-E or XR-E. While waiting for an authoritative opinon, I believe (based on some Google checking) the correct order is probably:

XP-E - least wide
XR-E - wider (but still not considered "floody")
XP-G - widest (considered by many to be somewhat "floody")

________________________________________________________________________________________

Quark's decision to replace R2's with R5's means that its small diameter heads (0.86") will no longer be as projecting as in the past, since R5s in those heads produce a bright but wide "non-throwy" beam. The R5 Turbo heads project, but at the expense of size/diameter.

I bought several Quark R2s in anticipation of this change, but I wonder why Quark made this decision in the first place.

Brightnorm

 

[JCD]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

I wonder why Quark made this decision in the first place.

Higher lumen numbers sell flashlights. Having the "latest" emitters sells flashlights. The brighter is better mentality seems to rule the market (or at least the marketing).

 

[carrot]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

Because while you and many others like throw, even more people, including 47s himself, like the floodier beam pattern afforded by the XP-G.

 

[gcbryan]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

For most uses I like the beam pattern of the XP-G much better. It's more efficient power-wise but it's also more efficient in its beam shape in a reflector since more of it's beam hits the reflector.

I don't understand why a "turbo head" would use a XP-G. That should remain with the XR-E R2.

 

[jcw122]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

Don't forget that the XP-G is more efficient than the XP-E, this is one of the positive trade-offs.

Personally, I'm glad I got the XP-E neutral when it came out, because I like to use my light outdoors and I dig the amount of throw it has.

 

[WadeF]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

Once again people are confusing efficiency bins with the LED model. The Quarks with more throw were using the Cree XP-E. The floodier Quarks are using the Cree XP-G. It just happens that the XP-E's they were using were R2 bin, and the XP-G's they are using now are R5 bin (originally they were going to be R4, but R5's became available just in time). There are warm white Quarks coming that are XP-G Q5's. So you could have XP-G R2's that won't throw as well as XP-E R2's. So you wouldn't say "The R2 throws better than the R2".

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

Once again people are confusing efficiency bins with the LED model. The Quarks with more throw were using the Cree XP-E. The floodier Quarks are using the Cree XP-G. It just happens that the XP-E's they were using were R2 bin, and the XP-G's they are using now are R5 bin

Semantics aside, I don't think that anyone's really confused at all. Quark, on their website and elsewhere, titles the earlier "throwy" version as the "R2" model and the later non throwy version as the "R5" model.

I'm sure one can have R2's and R5's in any xpg,h,i,j etc but that technical gobbledegook might be somewhat irrelevant in this particular case since the R2 and R5 refer to specific models of Quarks which exhibit specific behaviour.

I have R2 Quarks with decent throw. I have one R5 quark that has acceptable throw (I'm assuming this particular torch is an aberration) and one R5 Quark that has pathetic throw, almost all flood.

All my R2's have the same reflector setup. My half throwy R5 "aberration" has a different reflector setup to those and my latest non throwy R5 Quark has another setup again. That's three different reflector setups across the range. The 3 differences seem to be in the width of the "ledge" at the bottom of the reflector that surrounds the emitter and how deep the emitter sits in the hole in the centre of that "ledge".

The beam on my latest R5 is so unfocussed that there is only the merest vestige of a hotspot to speak of and that means that whenever I shine the torch on something more than six five feet away it places considerably less light on the target than either my R2 models or my more throwy R5 "aberration".

I don't use my torches to illuminate rooms and as far as I'm concerned, because of this overly diffuse beam that puts much less light on a target, my latest AA R5 is a far dimmer torch in real life (as opposed to on paper) than my AA R2 despite the R5 perhaps putting out more lumens.

Even when used for walking, my latest torch's beam is so spread out that I end up having to use it on a brightness level higher to get the same illumination level on the ground in front of me as I did with my R2's or even the one more throwy R5. Same goes for looking at anything even only 25 yards away, has to be up a level higher cos there's just less light on the target, even big targets like cars or trees.

For me it's just too "floody". The beam shape would probably make it a nice "walking round the paddock" light except for the fact that I have to have it switched up so high it eats away at the 14500 battery life and I'd find myself changing batteries every day. Shame cos this latest R5 acquisition's got quite a nice tint, much less green than my earlier more throwy R5.

I guess I already knew thanks to experimenting with the focus on my Led lenser P7 but this latest diffuse beamed R5 Quark has taught me very well that you can have a stack more lumens but unless they are focussed on the actual target you may well end up seeing a much "dimmer" light.

Thanks also to having that one "aberration" R5 Quark I also know that the R5 does not have to be as diffuse as my latest purchase is. Reflector arrangement makes all the difference.

 

[gcbryan]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

It's shorthand. The original problem came from people saying their R5 was green when R5 had nothing to do with the color bin.

I get your point and you are correct but when a discussion is between XR-E R2 and XP-G R5 which is often the case the short hand can be to talk about the R2 vs the R5 if it's a given in that context that you are referring to XR-E R2 and XP-G R5.

At least it makes since as opposed to talking about a R2 being warmer than a R5 which of course makes no sense at all.

 

[Dan FO]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

For a lot of uses I still prefer my XR-E Q5's and XR-E R2's.

 

[WadeF]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

I have R2 Quarks with decent throw. I have one R5 quark that has acceptable throw (I'm assuming this particular torch is an aberration) and one R5 Quark that has pathetic throw, almost all flood.

When you describe your Quarks like that no one has any clue which Quark model you are talking about. There is no Quark R2, or Quark R5. It's Quark 123, Quark 123x2, Quark AA, Quark AAx2, Quark 123x2 Turbo, Quark AAx2 Turbo, and so on. Those are the models. For each of those models you have the R2 versions, or editions, the R5 editions, the Warm White versions, the Neutral White versions, and so on. R2 and R5 are used to promote their efficiency, the R5 having a more efficient emitter, which most people also associate with more lumen output. So it would be Quark 123 R2 Edition, or Quark 123 R5 Edition.

The throw all comes down to the model of the emitter (XP-G, XP-E, etc) and the reflector it's used with.

What happens if we see XP-E R5's down the road and 4sevens comes out with a Quark 123 XP-E R5?

I thought on CPF we would be more concerned with using the proper terminology and not talk about flashlights using marketing gimmick lingo.

 

[copperfox]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

Wade speaks the truth.

gcbryan, no 4sevens flashlight has ever had an XR-E.

 

[gcbryan]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

R2 is technical rather than a marketing gimmick. If we start seeing XP-E R5 then it won't be short hand anymore to refer to them that way.

When someone mentions that their R2 throws further than their R5 you do know what they are talking about because you do know that currently the common emitters are XR-E R2 and XP-G R5.

I agree it's a good idea to use those at the beginning of a post but do you suggest that everytime one needs to refer to the emitter in the same post that they type out XR-E R2 every time?

 

[gcbryan]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

Wade speaks the truth.

gcbryan, no 4sevens flashlight has ever had an XR-E.

What were the R2's ...XP-E? I really don't know.

 

[WadeF]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

I agree it's a good idea to use those at the beginning of a post but do you suggest that everything one needs to refer to the emitter in the same post that they type out XR-E R2 every time?

Maybe not once it's made clear in the opening post. Not everyone maybe familiar with the Quark series, so when they see someone saying the R2 throws better than the R5, they maybe scratching their heads. If they see XP-E throws better than the XP-G, it makes more sense. We have XR-E R2's, and XP-E R2's, and there maybe situations when we see XP-G R2's, maybe in neutral tints, etc. So to just say R2 could mean any of those to someone who isn't familiar with the Quark line.

 

[Ragiska]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

have a little forethought people!!

look at an example of great confusion now. people ask questions about "the L2P". they probably currently mean the Solarforce L2P, but is can EASILY be confused with the earlier and VERY popular Fenix L2P, but people don't preface their current statements with "Solarforce". they just expect people to "get it".

if/when XP-E's are released in overlapping bins with XP-G's, new members will be CLUELESS when they read older threads where people just ASSUME people "know what's going on" at the time.

and you wonder why new members are dumbfounded when they get here, all because some lazy posters don't take an extra couple seconds to make CLEAR and ACCURATE statements and references. is it REALLY that much harder to type THREE extra letters so people will have no doubt what you are talking about??

 

[WadeF]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

What were the R2's ...XP-E? I really don't know.

EXACTLY (R2 tells us nothing about the model of the emitter used, so many don't know). Yes, they were XP-E in the first Quarks. However, it was only R2 for the cool white. I think the neutral white Quark XP-E's were a different efficiency bin, maybe someone could let us know. Maybe Q3 or Q4?

 

[kramer5150]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

What would be nice is if manufacturers gave us the option... XRE or XPG

They could market the XRE as a high lux version and XPG as high lumen. I'm sure they could find a way to market each product attractively.

 

[Brasso]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

Personally, I don't have much use for a "throwy" light as an edc. Much prefer a nice wide beam. Different lights for different needs. In a light as small as a Quark, I think it's a little strange to expect or even want "throw". It's a pocket / task light.

 

[gcbryan]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

Personally, I don't have much use for a "throwy" light as an edc. Much prefer a nice wide beam. Different lights for different needs. In a light as small as a Quark, I think it's a little strange to expect or even want "throw". It's a pocket / task light.

I agree other than when you market one option as having a "turbo head" I think you expect for the head to be larger and to have a XR-E in there and not a XP-G.

 

[selfbuilt]

Re: No more "throwy" small Quarks

What were the R2's ...XP-E? I really don't know.

That question sort of proves Wade's point (and one that I completely agree with - it is better to be clear on emitter type).

Although it's understandable that people refer to different versions of a given manufacturer's series by the output bin, that really isn't appropriate when there has been emitter model series change as well since it changes the beam pattern dynamic.

The problem is that people get used to thinking of different emitter models by their common output bins (and worse, tint bins sometimes!) - even though different series can be produced at the same output bins. So, people are used to thinking of XR-Es when they hear Q5, and XP-Gs when they hear R5 - but what do you think of when you heard R2? Both XR-E or XP-E were commonly sold in bulk in R2 output bins. If you didn't already know that the early Quarks were XP-Es and the new ones XP-Gs, you wouldn't be able to tell by the output bin discussion. In this case, it's like comparing apples and oranges only by their weights and not by what really differentiates them to most people, if you catch my analogy.

And don't get me started on tint bins - I frequently get asked all sorts of questions along the lines whether or not one light's "R2" is warmer than another's "R5". Argh! :hairpull:

But back to the OP topic. The point is well taken - in a small form-factor like the Quarks, the switch to XP-G will likely reduce throw. A deeper reflector would help compensate, but at the expense of spill, as brightnorm alluded to. I suspect the move is mainly to capitalize on the higher output bins. :shrug:

But here again, even this generalization leads to a lot of confusion among people. Yes, it is generally accepted that XP-Gs typically have a slightly floodier profile than XP-Es, which in turn are typically floodier than XR-Es. Emphasis on the word "typically". With the right reflector, you could turn the "throwy" XR-E into a gentle floodier pattern (e.g. LiteFlux LF3XT), and the "floody" XP-G into an impressive thrower (i.e. wait until the G5 Maelstrom comes out - I think people will be surprised).

Sorry for the long , but I think it is important that people be clear in their posting, since there are a lot of new members around who are stuggling to make sense of it all.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest ... :sleepy: