Quark "Turbo" Thread

[recDNA]

Check out the announcement in the Marketplace. A production XP-G Quark flashlight is out. 230 Lumens on turbo for the 2 X CR123 model. Larger head for more throw. Another $75 out of my pocket IF I only buy ONE. Pre-Order now for delivery date later this week so no long wait this time. It's a real looker too!

 

[OutGunned321]

Thank you for giving me the heads up, otherwise I would not have known about this and I was just about to order the non-turbo Quark AA-2 Tactical. And I'd rather have the Turbo model because I will be attaching my AR to this flashlight.

 

[berry580]

it apparently only offers 5% increase in throw, will have to see review before i enlarge the hole in my pocket any further. The 18650 body however, i will buy! =D

 

[pipspeak]

I'll wait for the reviews, too. Not sure I understand the excitement... OK, so it's an XP-G, but I'd expect more than a 5% bump in throw with the size of that head.

 

[OutGunned321]

The difference is in output, which is significantly more.

Although the non-Turbo Quarks have very high outputs in their own right, this new Turbo series is obviously catering to the Extreme-Max-Output segment of the market.

 

[fiorano]

More info on the CPFM thread: http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=202238

 

[dealgrabber2002]

it apparently only offers 50% increase in throw, will have to see review before i enlarge the hole in my pocket any further. The 18650 body however, i will buy! =D

I think you meant 5% increase throw right? Not 50%.

 

[pipspeak]

The difference is in output, which is significantly more.

I understand that, but the size disadvantage of a bigger head is normally offset by the greater throw it offers. In this case that sounds like it might not really be the case... I'll wait to see reviews to see exactly what the beam profile is (or try to get my hands on a Ti Quark with the R4 emitter in it and the regular skinny head).

 

[corvettesR1]

Thanks for this thread.I missed out on the Quark titaniums a while back and wanted another Quark anyway.Both of these new turbos look pretty nice to me and I really like the 2x123 size.:sick:

 

[xenonk]

In this case that sounds like it might not really be the case...

There's a brief outline of the reason for it up on the marketplace thread now. Basically bigger emitter dies are harder to focus tightly. To get an XP-G to throw like an XP-E you have to put it in a bigger reflector than the XP-E.

There have been a few discussions here and in the LED forum over the past few months regarding the XP-G and throw that drew the same conclusions.

 

[Moonshadow]

Agree, the AA^2 looks a bit ungainly, but the 2x123 version is a nice-looking light. Kind of reminds me a bit of what a stretched NEX might look like.

Been waiting for Nitecore to bung an XP-G into the Extreme and stretch the body for 18650. Seems 4Sevens have beaten them to the punch.

Nice one ! :thumbsup:

 

[Henk_Lu]

I understand that, but the size disadvantage of a bigger head is normally offset by the greater throw it offers. In this case that sounds like it might not really be the case... I'll wait to see reviews to see exactly what the beam profile is (or try to get my hands on a Ti Quark with the R4 emitter in it and the regular skinny head).

The Ti Quarks will also have the R5, which is physically the same as the R4, but with 9 Lumen more. The Ti Quarks should have a lack of a throw compared to the normal ones with the smaller XP-E.

To get everything out of teh XP-G, you need another reflector-design, which has been done with the Turbos. Unfortunately, as far as throw is concerned, the XP-G can't keep up with the XP-E using small reflectors. That's a good reason to continue to build the normal Quarks with the XP-E, those who want throw have the Turbo available now! :)

 

[Pekka]

Agree, the AA^2 looks a bit ungainly, but the 2x123 version is a nice-looking light.

You're not missing this comment by any change?

The Quark Turbo AA^2 will have a straight across body like the 123^2. This proto doesn't show it.

 

[dudu84]

I'll wait for the reviews, too. Not sure I understand the excitement... OK, so it's an XP-G, but I'd expect more than a 5% bump in throw with the size of that head.

I totally agreed with you on that!
Basically, we get same hotspot size and throw as standard quark, but brighter spill (or perhaps larger, or both?) in a significantly larger package with a little longer runtime, correct?

I think I'm becoming less impressed with the xp-g :tired:. I'd be interested in lights driving xp-g to its limit :/

EDIT: Some say these new xp-g torches bring out significantly more output than existing quarks should realize that, from 190 ->230 lumens is only ~21% increase, "barely" perceivable by naked eyes (correct me if I'm wrong here)

 

[Saint_Dogbert]

I'm a little confused by that 5% figure...does that mean that the area of the hotspot is a little bit smaller (thus a tighter beam, equating w/more throw)? Or is the intensity, i.e. lux reading of the hotspot, only 5% greater than the regular quark heads? If the latter, I'm kind of wondering what the advantages of the turbo Quarks are. So the spill is brighter, cool...is it worth $75 and a bulkier design? The original quark heads would have had just as much spill brightness without the size penalty. My guess (or hope) is that the hotspot is brighter, just not any tighter as you'd normally get from a turbo-type head.

Some say these new xp-g torches bring out significantly more output than existing quarks should realize that, from 190 ->230 lumens is only ~21% increase, "barely" perceivable by naked eyes (correct me if I'm wrong here)

You're not wrong, it won't be a huuuge difference, but you will see one. I think it's because these quarks aren't driving the LED at the full 1 amp that we aren't seeing as significant a jump in output. The new XP-G Malkoff maglite drop-in, which is driven at 1 amp on 3+ cells, does reach 260 lumens OTF, which I think is a fairly significant jump from the original 190ish they were doing with the SSC P4 LED.

 

[dudu84]

You're not wrong, it won't be a huuuge difference, but you will see one. I think it's because these quarks aren't driving the LED at the full 1 amp that we aren't seeing as significant a jump in output. The new XP-G Malkoff maglite drop-in, which is driven at 1 amp on 3+ cells, does reach 260 lumens OTF, which I think is a fairly significant jump from the original 190ish they were doing with the SSC P4 LED.

I think 4evens could be too conservative with his number (I find realistic numbers most useful for comparisons purposes). A xp-g r5 driven at 990mA will produce between ~340-360 LED lumens so 230 lumens OTF means >30% losses due to optics, right? :candle:

Another thing I notice is that regular quark 123-2 is overdriven in a very small body, while the xp-g (with improved thermal performance) is moderately driven with heaps of cooling fins :poke:.

These new lights would be much more appealing if driven @1.2-1.4A :devil: but I guess redesigning the circuit is a lot of work.

Just my 2c

 

[berry580]

numbers can be deceiving.
4sevens say 5% increase in throw, but we don't know how much bigger the hot spot is, so lets wait for reviews. =)

 

[OutGunned321]

I understand that, but the size disadvantage of a bigger head is normally offset by the greater throw it offers. In this case that sounds like it might not really be the case... I'll wait to see reviews to see exactly what the beam profile is (or try to get my hands on a Ti Quark with the R4 emitter in it and the regular skinny head).

Great point. You've convinced me to wait. I'm going to go with the non-Turbo for my AR in order keep weight down. And I've decided on the Quark 123^2 Tactical for EDC. I can't wait until payday. :grin2:

 

[Saint_Dogbert]

numbers can be deceiving.
4sevens say 5% increase in throw, but we don't know how much bigger the hot spot is, so lets wait for reviews. =)

Actually, I think there is a marketplace thread somewhere where 4sevens gives the diameter of the hotspot at 1m for the turbo quark and regular quark, with the former being about 0.5in narrower. This is what leads me to believe that the hotspot might be more intense, but I really have nothing conclusive to base that on.

:popcorn:

 

[berry580]

oh yeah, almost forgot about that. even then, it still doesn't tell us a lot, how bright is the spill? how big is it? That's also part of the equation.