Rated output/runtimes on Fenix P2D Q5 vs. Olight T10 Q5 WC edition

[AlexOZ]

Perhaps you guys can enlighten me. I was under the impression that the newest edtion of the P2D and Olight T10 both used the Q5 Cree 7090 XR-E LED. But the advertised runtimes don't seem to match up at the lower end.

Fenix P2D Q5 - 55 lumens for 5.5 hours, 12 lumens for 30 hours

Olight T10 Q5 - 60 lumens for 8 hours, 11 lumens for 40 hours.

Is the T10 using a more efficient emittor or am I just missing something here? Otherwise either its runtimes are overrated or the P2D is underrated.

Ideas anyone? Thanks!

 

[AzN1337c0d3r]

Sry, don't know what I was thinking, it's like 3:30 AM here. They both use the same battery.

Im guessing maybe it's a combination of measurement methods and efficiency of the regulator circuits involved?

 

[AlexOZ]

That's what I was thinking, but the odd thing is that the differences in reported runtime don't follow through to the higher output levels. At their top output of 180 lumens, both last precisely 1 hour. But after that the Olight seems to last longer and longer: 3.8 hours @ 105 lumens, 8 hours @ 60 lumens, etc etc, compared with the Fenix's 2 hours @ 107 lumens, and 5.5 hours @ 50 lumens.

If it were a question of efficiency it would seem more logical that the improved runtimes would be passed on to the highest output. My money's on a different method of measurement at this point, but I'm still not too sure.

 

[dk0013]

If the Fenix is using PWM for dimming then it will be less efficient than the Olight at the lower levels.

 

[JackHays]

According to David at Fenix-Store.com, Fenix does NOT use Pulse Width Modulation to dim their lights.

I generally take all advertised output/runtime listings with a grain of salt. There are a number of reasons why, but it mostly boils down to the fact that most manufacturers show what their lights can do under optimal conditions. Since "real world" conditions are usually not optimal, actual performance is often different -- at least to some extent -- from what the manufacturer claims. Of course, there are exceptions to everything! But independent reviews are usually more reflective of what type of performance you can actually expect, as opposed to what the manufacturer claims.

 

[AlexOZ]

JackHays brings up a good point, but I've been trying to find such a 3rd party review comparing runtimes and have unfortunately come up short. The T20 seems to get a lot more publicity around here.

 

[meuge]

JackHays brings up a good point, but I've been trying to find such a 3rd party review comparing runtimes and have unfortunately come up short. The T20 seems to get a lot more publicity around here.

The thing is that Fenix runtimes have been tested by 'chevrofreak', here at CPF, and they are actually very close to their rated values.

However, I think I know what the deal is - published Fenix runtimes are based off of NiMH cells. Also, Fenix have excellent circuitry in terms of efficiency.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Olight based their runtimes off of running lithium AAs.

 

[AlexOZ]

Well both of the models use CR123 primaries so the only way this could be explained by battery differences would be if the capacities of the tested cells were different, right?

 

[AlexOZ]

Oh and one other thing meuge, I started searching for chevrofreak's old posts and I found the runtime analyses of the fenix models. It seems the Q5's haven't been done yet. Regardless, if the runtimes of all the prior models have been more or less in-line with those specified, then it shouldn't be too much of a leap to assume that the advertised Q5 numbers are in the right ballpark.

Which of course leaves one to wonder about the Olight advertised times. Still searching for 3rd party runtime data on those but there's a lot to sift through. :duh2:

 

[bluecrow76]

I'm still searching for runtime graphs as well... no luck so far ...

I picked up a P3D RB100 a while back because of it's 65 hours on low. That's on two cells. Compare that to 40 hours on a single cell... that's impressive... I can't wait to see actual information!