Surefire needs to come out with AA cell based lite

[etc]

I like everything about SF but its choice of cells is questionable. Expensive and not avaiable in effective NiMH (too low capacity)

123's have no advantages over Lithium AA and plenty of disadvantages: Cost, low run time on NiMH, harder to find. SF sorely needs to introduce an AA-based lite.

 

[Kiessling]

CR123 have plenty of advantages over AA based cells. Just because they do not fit your bill does not mean the same for others.
I almost exclusively use CR123 based lights and most certainly don't want SF to go AA.

To each his own.

bernie

 

[LukeA]

CR123 have plenty of advantages over AA based cells. Just because they do not fit your bill does not mean the same for others.
I almost exclusively use CR123 based lights and most certainly don't want SF to go AA.

To each his own.

bernie

Perhaps not with alkaline AA cells, but the OP was referring to lithium AA cells.

 

[Till]

Personally I won't buy another alkaline flashlight again.

Even if Surefire made it.

 

[brightspot]

currently 123 lithium is the best chemistry and power density for flashlights. Why take a step backwards?

 

[kramer5150]

I prefer CR123 primaries and RCR123 cells over alkaline/NiMH AA.

Size-
16mm dia x 34mm long -VERSUS- 14mm dia x 50mm long. I find 2xCR123 sized lights equally convenient to carry but more comfortable to hold in the hand while in-use.

Capacity-
I carry backup cells in my belt pack, and my P60 module has lower running modes to preserve run times between re-loads.

Cost-
You can find CR123 cells for around $1 on line. I don't use primaries much but I use Powerizer cells from battery junction. IMHO they are great for the $$$, and the power output from a single CR123 is more stable and less "peaky" than a pair of AA alkalines. I would NEVER opt to use AA Alkalines in a Surefire product, for the simple fact that they are prone to acid leaks. AA Alkalines should only be used in disposable PR-based junk lights for this reason.

For RCR123s I use the cheap ones from DX. I have found them to be perfectly safe and reliable so long as you are disciplined enough to avoid using them in hazardous ways. I have 12 cells and one was a dud.

With plenty of good 2AA lights already available I don't see why Surefire "needs" to add one to their product line. Coleman, Romisen, Fenix have some really good value lights right now. Buy american you say? Pelican, tek-tite, underwater kinetics...etc...etc...

 

[Kestrel]

I would think a reasonable strategy would be to take SF's most popular light, then make a similar model using 1-2 AA's, perhaps in an inexpensive Nitrolon body, and see if it sold enough to justify the model. Perhaps there would be a market for that, I don't know. I'd probably buy one for my Dad in remote bush Alaska, he would want reliability plus local batteries. Just my two cents.

 

[etc]

AA Lithium is step forward over 123's. Greater capacity and runtime. Better price too.

An AA-based lite can run on:

1. Lithium
2. NiMH
3. Alkaline

 

[etc]

Size-
16mm dia x 34mm long -VERSUS- 14mm dia x 50mm long. I find 2xCR123 sized lights equally convenient to carry but more comfortable to hold in the hand while in-use.


the reason 123's are smaller is because they have a smaller capacity. i.e. in NiMH, 700 mAh vs. 2700 mAh of a AA cell.

The same thing for AA Lithiums.




Cost-
You can find CR123 cells for around $1 on line. I don't use primaries much but I use Powerizer cells from battery junction.

I can find AA lithiums all day long for $1 each. I have to buy a large quantity, typically 50-100 cells but it's really not that much. Given an AA Lithium has larger capacity vs. 123, you are getting a better deal.



IMHO they are great for the $$$, and the power output from a single CR123 is more stable and less "peaky" than a pair of AAs. For RCR123s I use the cheap ones from DX.

I don't want to use "cheap" RCR123, questionable stuff with questionable run time. SF is not designed to run off RCR123 for one thing. But an AA base lite will run well on NiMH cells with much better run time.

 

[Badbeams3]

I like everything about SF but its choice of cells is questionable. Expensive and not avaiable in effective NiMH (too low capacity)

123's have no advantages over Lithium AA and plenty of disadvantages: Cost, low run time on NiMH, harder to find. SF sorely needs to introduce an AA-based lite.

I agree. With leds performing so well Surfire should be expand to include some AA lights. But...oh well. They don`t sell AA batts so...not yet anyway.

 

[MichaelW]

Help me out here, where can you get Lithium AA (primary) cheaper than 123s?
Capacity is a wash.

For cheapie 123s, I pop for these.
http://www.batteryjunction.com/1pcsofcrteli.html

The new 'junior' EA91 Lithium AA is only $5 cheaper at Sam's Club (warehouse store) 15 vs 20

I see the point of versatility with Ni-MH, Lithium, Alkaline (and even zinc-carbon), but with high power draw devices, alkaline won't even cut it.

10mA, zinc-carbon AA
100mA, alkaline AA
1000mA, lithium AA

 

[jzmtl]

the reason 123's are smaller is because they have a smaller capacity. i.e. in NiMH, 700 mAh vs. 2700 mAh of a AA cell.

The same thing for AA Lithiums.

Watt hour is what counts for amount of energy not amp hour. Primary 123a have 3.9 watt hour of energy, aa nimh and lithium have around have 3.7 watt hour.

Not to mention buck circuit is more efficient than boost, and you only need 2 123a to get enough voltage but 4 aa.

 

[kramer5150]

Some of my comments above are geared towards Alkaline AAs.... Sorry about that, I hadn't considered AA Lithiums.

Is this really a straight-up fair comparison (??). Correct me if I am wrong but Lithium AAs are only 1.5V at peak, a pair in series is only going to be 3V. The nominal forward voltage on Cree (for example) emitters is 3.6V (some measure as high as 4.1V). So using any 2x1.5 Volt power source is under-driving the light engine to some degree. A pair of CR123 cells conversely is 6V, and therefore more than enough to push the Vf of the emitter and more importantly power the DC-DC regulation more efficiently.

?????

 

[kramer5150]

Not to mention buck circuit is more efficient than boost, and you only need 2 123a to get enough voltage but 4 aa.

this in one sentence is what I was trying to say.:thumbsup:

 

[PhantomPhoton]

I completely agree etc. There are no major advantages that CR123's have over AAs now.

The only major obstacle is cost. I also can't find L91s as cheap as I can find quality brand name CR123s. I've seen off-brand chinese lithium AAs but I"m not going to play with those.

Minor considerations are slightly reduced capacity, but now much. And lower operating voltage. As for the voltage, buck is better than boost in general I agree. But with new MC-E lights coming out most of us are going to be using boost circuits to begin with. So while having lower operating voltages still takes a greater hit to circuit efficiency due to Vin being even lower, it is generally still minimal imho.

Size... meh to each his own I guess. I don't see much difference between a 1 CR123 light and a 1AA light. I only see a couple cm difference between 2xCR123 and 2AA.
2x2 AA is quite comfortable in the hand and far superior in shape to 4xCR123. *edit* I just considered that 2x2CR123 isn't too bad either. Hmmm

But given the choice of 2xCR123 or 18650... I'll stick to 18650 thanks. Way way way better.

Alkiline cells need to go die under a rock just like carbon zinc did in the 80s.
NiMh is better in almost every way in comparison to an alkiline cell.

Finally, SF. Personaly I don't care what they do, I dont' buy SFs at MSRP. It does look like they are going AA though, look at the Saint headlamp.

 

[metlarules]

If you want a aa Surefire get yourself a 9P,a 3v drop in, and a pvc sleeve with an external diameter that will slip inside the battery tube and an internal diameter that will fit aa's. Problem solved............ Next.

 

[Outdoors Fanatic]

I sure hope to never see a SureFire AA in my lifetime.

 

[PhantomPhoton]

I sure hope to never see a SureFire AA in my lifetime.

Read 'em and weep... :duck:
SF Saint.

 

[monkeyboy]

I'd rather see Surefire adopting li-ion batteries. People have been "hacking" li-ion solutions in Surefires for years now with excellent results meanwhile SF seem to be doing all they can to prevent people from doing this e.g. E2L and L4 tubes no longer accept 17670 and U2 no longer accepts 18650.

An off the shelf Surefire li-ion flashlight would be much more convenient for us CPFers. This could have the benefit of dimming into moon mode before the protection circuit cuts out the light.

 

[MorePower]

Watt hour is what counts for amount of energy not amp hour. Primary 123a have 3.9 watt hour of energy, aa nimh and lithium have around have 3.7 watt hour.

Not to mention buck circuit is more efficient than boost, and you only need 2 123a to get enough voltage but 4 aa.

Your values are off for stated watt-hours. At 0.5A draw, CR123A is around 3.8 watt-hours, L91 is around 4.5 watt-hours. At 1.0A draw, CR123A is close to 3.2 watt-hours, and L91 is 3.7 watt-hours. In both cases, the lithium AA cell outperforms the CR123A cell.

I took the numbers from SilverFox's shootouts.