Quark "Turbo" Thread
- Thread starter recDNA
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
bcwang
Enlightened
I don't know about that. My TK40 in 300 lumen mode puts out noticeably more light than my Quark Ti in Max. I doubt the Quark would be close to 300 lumen out the front. Unless the beam pattern can make such a drastic difference in perceived brightness.
ccryder
Newly Enlightened
Mines here. Very nice packaging but, why spend the $'s it can't be cheap. At least it wasn't heat sealed and I would run the risk of shedding blood just to get the h-ware in hand.
On to the h-ware. First impression is a very well finished 1st impression. Clicking the switch gives very good feedback for push to flash and click to on. Unscrewing the tail cap is very smooth and very little play in the threads. Both signs of close tolerance machineing. I am curious why the threads on the barrel, emitter end don't have anodizing, versus the tail end of the barrel only have a ring of threads w/o anodize. Probably has something to do with the circuit through the barrel.
Next the operation of the UI to program. While being different, than the L2D Q5, it is easy to use and you don't end up having to cycle through the modes each time you turn it on/ off. I was able to pick up the technique quickly and then change it to suit my needs as they changed from one scenario to another.
Now for the real issue, how does it perform? It has a nice tight beam with with very good throw. When compared to L2D the center spot is much better defined and produces a better throw, brightness not withstanding.
Now it's time to take the "girls" out for their walk. We will see how the "green-eyed" monsters look in the glare of the Turbo Quark.
Later
On to the h-ware. First impression is a very well finished 1st impression. Clicking the switch gives very good feedback for push to flash and click to on. Unscrewing the tail cap is very smooth and very little play in the threads. Both signs of close tolerance machineing. I am curious why the threads on the barrel, emitter end don't have anodizing, versus the tail end of the barrel only have a ring of threads w/o anodize. Probably has something to do with the circuit through the barrel.
Next the operation of the UI to program. While being different, than the L2D Q5, it is easy to use and you don't end up having to cycle through the modes each time you turn it on/ off. I was able to pick up the technique quickly and then change it to suit my needs as they changed from one scenario to another.
Now for the real issue, how does it perform? It has a nice tight beam with with very good throw. When compared to L2D the center spot is much better defined and produces a better throw, brightness not withstanding.
Now it's time to take the "girls" out for their walk. We will see how the "green-eyed" monsters look in the glare of the Turbo Quark.
Later
BentHeadTX
Flashlight Enthusiast
That depends and I'll do a little math.
The R5 bin will hit 367 lumens at 1 amp and the S2 bin will hit 400. Those are the lumens before it has to bounce off a reflector and go through the "window" on the flashlight. That is what takes the lumen value down.
From what I gather, the AA^2 Turbo puts out 206 lumens out the front. If I take emitter ratings of 270 lumens at 700mA, that is a loss of 23% of bare LED lumens. It is around the ballpark of reflector losses with the window so no worries.
Maybe I'm crazy but it is either a bad rating or I'm wrong about the drive level on the 2 CR123A Turbo's LED. I think it is 990mA so the LED lumens should be 363 lumens but the light is rated 230 out the front or a 36.6% loss. ???? I guess the LED is not driven that hard, maybe 800mA? Using the 363 emitter lumens at 990mA of drive along with the loss (using the AA2 readings) gives 277 out the front lumens.
If you have to have 300 lumens out the front ASAP, maybe a manufacturer that pumps the XR-G R5 at 1.2 amps which produces 400 lumens. Figure average loss of decent reflectors/windows will give you over 300 lumens out the front.
If David made a special edition Turbo that pushed the LED at 1.2 amps through an even larger head, wonder what it would be called?
ccryder
Newly Enlightened
Supercharged?? Next logical extension.
How does raising the current levels effect the life?
How does raising the current levels effect the life?
BentHeadTX
Flashlight Enthusiast
Maybe Turbo NOS...
The higher the current level, the shorter the life of the LED. The good thing about large heads with big reflectors is they can keep the LED from overheating and actually run cooler. Even if the LED life is cut down 90%, that still means at least 5,000 hours of "Turbo NOS" levels which should be enough.
Sgt. LED
Flashaholic
The XP-G is tough to manage. The problem is with the reflector.
Go buy one of these LED's and hook power up to it then try every reflector you can think of on it. They range from horrible to crappy to passable. Somebody needs to sit down and design a better reflector for these without putting any restraints on the width or depth. You can get a great beam out of these LED's but the price is a bigger reflector.
At this point shoehorning this led into a little reflector is going to get you a large floody spot or a donut. Pick your posion. The better option is to use an optic designed for the LED and at this point I don't believe there is one.
Go buy one of these LED's and hook power up to it then try every reflector you can think of on it. They range from horrible to crappy to passable. Somebody needs to sit down and design a better reflector for these without putting any restraints on the width or depth. You can get a great beam out of these LED's but the price is a bigger reflector.
At this point shoehorning this led into a little reflector is going to get you a large floody spot or a donut. Pick your posion. The better option is to use an optic designed for the LED and at this point I don't believe there is one.
uplite
Enlightened
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 307
Really, is 25% the "average" reflector & window loss?
According to manuf specs, the regular Q123 loses just 12% (170 otf, 194 emitter) with a rough reflector.
Turbo Burn? Turbo Ouch? Turbo
? :laughing:-Jeff
Really, is 25% the "average" reflector & window loss?
According to manuf specs, the regular Q123 loses just 12% (170 otf, 194 emitter) with a rough reflector.
Turbo Burn? Turbo Ouch? Turbo
-Jeff
OVERBOOST
Blown head!
Last edited:
Heres a review I did for another forum if your interested. No beamshots though. I will have to go read up on how to do it since it seems nobody is ever wanting to do them.
I would LOVE a large floody spot...
The tailcap itself is considerably shorter but comparing it to my normal Ti as far as how it sits in the pocket it will still sit almost the same height if not an eighth of an inch higer than a regular Quark tailcap. The new tailcap is also wider than the regular tailcaps and im guessing that is to provide a better grip in the "cigar" hold. Heres a pic I just took though...
BentHeadTX
Flashlight Enthusiast
Got home from a short trip today and the Turbo was waiting for me
I've been using 2AA lights for many, many years and use the minimag and Fenix L2D as size comparisons. The Turbo is larger than a minimag in all dimensions, from the obviously larger head, thicker barrel and wider tail cap. It weighs more but has a very solid feel. Compared to the L2D, it is the same result.
Threw in my Eneloops, reprogrammed it for medium and max as the two modes considering the use for this light. It's job is a bicycle helmet mounted light were I need great throw, a large enough spot to see my lane and great spill for everything else.
Compared to the L2D Q5, the hot spot is smaller but about the same size. It is like a secondary ring of brightness around the fireball in the center and when hitting the roadway, it is about the same width. The spill width is basically identical so the turbo XP-G puts out about the same beam specs as a L2D (this is good)
Beam quality blows away the L2D, no XR-E rings...very smooth for a smooth reflector (the L2D Q5 has the smooth reflector) Not perfect but the light is more for throw so no worries at all.
Output? Not the "holy crap!" style like moving from a Luxeon to the "Cree-volution" of back in late 2006 but noticable increase in output. As far as throw goes, it will easily out throw the L2D Q5 and I am actually content with it's throw as a bicycle helmet light. I won't be outrunning the throw of this light so it is a keeper.
I think as a cycling light, it is at the top of it's game. Yes, I will be getting a regular head Quark 2AA and 1AA to see how well they perform. Not sure if the extra ounce of weight the Turbo has will bother me sitting on my helmet, if it does...the regular Quark XP-G R5 will be traded out and the Turbo will go on the bars. My wife will get her L1D RB100 swapped out with a regular Quark with the R5 since she does not like riding past about 12 MPH/20KPH at night on her recumbent. She does not like the weight (and look) of 2AA lights.
As far as using it for a regular flashlight? I prefer 1AA lights for EDC and use a D10, the Turbo won't kick it off my belt due to it's size and I don't need it's power. If I work outside for a long time, yes...I'll grab the Turbo. It would be a great light for the military to use as a backup light though, the tactical UI is easily reprogrammed with the moonlight mode about perfect for creeping around in the darkness. The larger head should not have a problem keeping the XP-G cool even in desert heat.
In summation, it is a nice light, has great throw for a 2AA with large die LED, smooth beam transistion, packaging is awesome, nice lanyard, works well for bicycle lighting, good construction, good looking, nice clip and it's a keeper. Oh yeah, it's bright!
The only downside I see is I now must buy more Quarks, the AA^2 and AA to be specific. No buyer remorse here!
I've been using 2AA lights for many, many years and use the minimag and Fenix L2D as size comparisons. The Turbo is larger than a minimag in all dimensions, from the obviously larger head, thicker barrel and wider tail cap. It weighs more but has a very solid feel. Compared to the L2D, it is the same result.
Threw in my Eneloops, reprogrammed it for medium and max as the two modes considering the use for this light. It's job is a bicycle helmet mounted light were I need great throw, a large enough spot to see my lane and great spill for everything else.
Compared to the L2D Q5, the hot spot is smaller but about the same size. It is like a secondary ring of brightness around the fireball in the center and when hitting the roadway, it is about the same width. The spill width is basically identical so the turbo XP-G puts out about the same beam specs as a L2D (this is good)
Beam quality blows away the L2D, no XR-E rings...very smooth for a smooth reflector (the L2D Q5 has the smooth reflector) Not perfect but the light is more for throw so no worries at all.
Output? Not the "holy crap!" style like moving from a Luxeon to the "Cree-volution" of back in late 2006 but noticable increase in output. As far as throw goes, it will easily out throw the L2D Q5 and I am actually content with it's throw as a bicycle helmet light. I won't be outrunning the throw of this light so it is a keeper.
I think as a cycling light, it is at the top of it's game. Yes, I will be getting a regular head Quark 2AA and 1AA to see how well they perform. Not sure if the extra ounce of weight the Turbo has will bother me sitting on my helmet, if it does...the regular Quark XP-G R5 will be traded out and the Turbo will go on the bars. My wife will get her L1D RB100 swapped out with a regular Quark with the R5 since she does not like riding past about 12 MPH/20KPH at night on her recumbent. She does not like the weight (and look) of 2AA lights.
As far as using it for a regular flashlight? I prefer 1AA lights for EDC and use a D10, the Turbo won't kick it off my belt due to it's size and I don't need it's power. If I work outside for a long time, yes...I'll grab the Turbo. It would be a great light for the military to use as a backup light though, the tactical UI is easily reprogrammed with the moonlight mode about perfect for creeping around in the darkness. The larger head should not have a problem keeping the XP-G cool even in desert heat.
In summation, it is a nice light, has great throw for a 2AA with large die LED, smooth beam transistion, packaging is awesome, nice lanyard, works well for bicycle lighting, good construction, good looking, nice clip and it's a keeper. Oh yeah, it's bright!
The only downside I see is I now must buy more Quarks, the AA^2 and AA to be specific. No buyer remorse here!
run4jc
Flashlight Enthusiast
It's a really small and tight spot....
See here for very limited beam shots
It's spot is actually smaller than the 123 or 123.2
Swedpat
Flashlight Enthusiast
Thanks BentHeadTX for sharing your impression of the AA2 Turbo.
I have Quark Regular AA2 and one drawback in my opinion is that the tube is too narrow to be comfortable. Though the knurling the light tends to glide away in my hand when I press the button. Combined with that the button needs to be deeply pushed this makes it even more uncomfortable. In this case Fenix LD20 is better.
How do you experience Quark AA2 Turbo in this matter? Is the tube thicker in the midpart than L2D Q5?
Regards, Patric
I have Quark Regular AA2 and one drawback in my opinion is that the tube is too narrow to be comfortable. Though the knurling the light tends to glide away in my hand when I press the button. Combined with that the button needs to be deeply pushed this makes it even more uncomfortable. In this case Fenix LD20 is better.
How do you experience Quark AA2 Turbo in this matter? Is the tube thicker in the midpart than L2D Q5?
Regards, Patric
Last edited:
Saint_Dogbert
Enlightened
Yes the Turbo body is thicker. There are pictures of both the Turbo lights on the 4sevens website, and in the announcement thread in the marketplace.
