Are cr123a's really that much better?

I'm not a big fan of cr123a's. I tend to think of them as too short and fat, and not having flexible enough recharging options.
One big limitations of the 123a battery is the lack of good rechargables. 16340's are a waste of .3-.7 volts and have short runtimes. 18500's don't fit in quite right, and only work well in seperate bodies or in lights designed for two or more cr123a's. In contrast, the AA cell has well-established rechargable options in the form of the NiMH, and precharged NiMH batteries, which offer decent power selections.
Also, AA size has the "overdrive" option of 14500 batteries, with less amps than a NiMH, but three times the voltage, and overall more milli-watt hours than your average NiMH (3240 milliwatt-hours for a 14500 at 3.6v, and 3000 milliwatt-hours for a 2500mah NiMH at 1.2v)
Another big limitation of Cr123a's is the price. A CR123A costs about $1.50 online and around $5.00 in a retail store.
A AA costs about $.50 retail or $.30 online, or about $1.00 in a 4-pack retail. And a NiMH AA costs about $4.00, with a charger going for about $15-30. So AA's are much cheaper.
Finally, AA's can be picked anywhere. A CR123A cannot be.
So what are the CR123A's advantages? It can power very bright flashlights from a very small size. It doesn't really last a long time, not much better than an NiMH AA on a medium-bright flashlight, but it does last really long compared to AA on super-bright lights. It provides insane voltages in small sizes, e.g. 6 volts from just two batteries, and it is a little bit shorter than a AA, but fatter as well.
A myth is that CR123A batteries last longer than AA's. Not necessairly. A brand-new 2650Mah NiMH has nearly as much power as a 3.0v 900Mah Cr123a, and performs similarily in relatively high drain situations. In situations where extreme voltage ramp-up is needed, such as very bright flashlights, CR123A performs better, likely due to the high initial voltage.

Overall, I'd say the rise of the LED, which runs great from just one AA, is really helping to bring down Cr123A's. And that's a good thing. I'd like the flashlight community to use the batteries that everyone else uses.

To each his own. And I surely won't use the batteries that every one else uses. Because everyone else uses the lowest common denominator, which is really not enough for a "serious" hobbyist.

I wantr the best, not the usual.
Thus CR123.

Have fun with your inferior battery choice! :nana: :wave:

bernie

You have to compare fairly, which means that label voltage and capacity ratings are not always going to hold true, actual discharge comparisons need to be looked at. I'm not sure where you are getting all your watt-hour numbers, but it looks like you are just taking the label voltage and multiplying by a label capacity that you found somewhere. Label capacity ratings are rarely true and the amount they are overstated varies from cell to cell.

Comparing a typical high cap NIMH AA cell to a li-ion cell is not necessarily fair unless you point out differences in self-discharge issues, to compare fairly, one must compare LSD NIMH cells to RCR123s as Li-Ion is inherently LSD. The difference in capacity isn't as dramatic there.

Many people prefer the shorter, stubbier shape of a CR123, when in 2-3 cell configurations it results in much handier body sizes for most hands. The small diameter of AA tubes is bothersome for some people. So it goes both ways, you don't like the shape of CR123s, some people do, it's not for anyone one person to decide what is better as far as shape is concerned. With that in mind, li-ion, as you pointed out, can be taken advantage of in AA size, and NIMH can be taken advantage of in 2/3A size cells, just depends on what you are after.

Step up regulators will always be less efficient than step down regulators, and the more step-up must occur, the less efficient when comparing boost to boost converters with different voltage sources to work with, with that in mind, having say, 15-20% more capacity in an AA cell is often lost in a regulator anyways compared to having the higher voltage to work with from the get go.

Alkaline AAs and their associated price can't really be compared to CR123s fairly in any way, as an alkaline AA can't compete with a CR123 is power delivery in modern flashlights very well at all...

But for the sake of comparing the price lets do a little on-paper experiment:

1.
-A 1xAA powered LED flashlight, 1W to the emitter.
-Boost regulator operates at 80% efficiency due to needing to more than double input voltage.
-Power consumption 1.25W.
-AA alkaline delivers ~1Wh into this load. Runtime ~45 minutes

2.
-A 1xCR123 powered LED flashlight, 1W to the emitter.
-Boost regulator operates at 90% efficiency, only needs to boost slightly.
-Power consumption 1.11W
-CR123 delivers ~3.5Wh into this load. Runtime ~3 hours

So in this comparison, you can plainly see, that a CR123 is WORTH 3.5X as much as an alkaline, and this is if you only look at the available energy, not even counting the shelf life comparison, which tends to be better for CR123s, and of course, that CR123s work better in cold temperatures (much better in fact!)

3.5 x $0.40 = $1.40

You can get BatteryStation brand USA made CR123s for under $1.50 each online.

-------------------

Oh.... and just for the sake of comparison, a single 18650 size li-ion cell has the same stored energy, or more, than 3 LSD AA NIMH cells. A single 18650 fits in a MUCH smaller footprint than 3 AA cells. A decent quality NIMH charger is $30-50+, a decent li-ion charger is ~$40 (Pila IBC), the cost of 3 LSD NIMH cells is about $6-8, the cost of a single good quality protected 18650 is ~$12-20+.... The cost of this comparison is very similar after the fact, and the 18650 gives you superior energy density...

Pay more, get more. (usually).

Eric

How about the above comparison between 123 and L91.


If SF made a 2xAA lite that I could get a Malkoff drop in for, I would definitely get one and get rid of all the Surefire clones I have and a stash of 123.

Right now though the smallest and brightest lite I have is a 3x123 with M60.

I woudn't even mind a Surefire quality 3xAA lite to get the voltage higher.

I tend to agree with the OP, but mainly because of the lack of decent rechargeable options for CR123s. I never use primary batteries for any high-drain device as the dollars add up quite fast. Given this reality, AAs are really my only option. Sure, there are all sorts of form factors of Li-ions. However, in the end I don't want to have to stock another type of battery and charger for every light which uses an oddball battery, not when Li-ions don't really offer any volumetric energy density advantages over NiMH at this point. Sure, they're a bit lighter, but I've never found the weight difference to be any kind of a burden. This doesn't mean I'm tied to AA NiMH forever though. I'll gladly standardize on some other type of cell in the future if it's readily available AND offers significant energy density advantages over NiMH (by significant I mean at least 50% greater, preferably 100% or more). An R123 with 700 mAh? No dice. But come out with one which has 1500 or 2000 mAh, and maybe a voltage closer to 3 volts, and I'll consider playing along, especially if it's a "safe" chemistry.

I prefer 123a over AA for a few reasons. As mentioned above, in multi cell configurations AA will be very long and thin, which doesn't feel good in hand, 123a is the minimum diameter that I'm comfortable with.

As far as primary is concerned, 123a have much better performance than alkaline. Sure L91 is good, but since energizer has a patent on it they are the only player in town, so it's a lot more expensive than what I can get 123a for.

Of course there are rechargeable as well, but I'm obsessive compulsive when it comes to keep my rechargeable charged (I'm sure I'm not the only one), so I end up driving myself nuts with too many rechargeable so I now avoid them altogether.

I much prefer the compact size of CR123s over AAs especially in single cell lights.Add the the power advantages and the fact that CR123s can be purchased for a reasonable price online and the choice for me is obvious.I wouldn't mind seeing more devices use CR123s as a single battery could replace two AAs in many cases.

I like AA for camping as the rest of my gear (radio/gps/headlamp/flashlight) all used the same batteries. However also use the CR123s in my G2Z LED. Each seem to have their pros/cons. Much like the old 9MM vs. .45 ACP, AK47 VS. AR15 and Incan vs. LED someone could run around like a chicken without it's head and debate these things forever and never be right or wrong.

Yes

Although the original argument rambles a little, I think his point is that an AA flashlight that can run on alkalines, NiMh, lithium or 14500s is superior to flashlights that run only on CR123 (worst case) or on CR123/RCR123 (best case). I agree.

The only exception is the small CR123/RCR123 twisty, because it is so much easier to pocket than a full function AA light. But does this justify a a specialized charger and a collection of batteries that can only be used in flashlights? Probably not, because multi-function twisties are a pain in the @ss, and single function lights just aren't satisfying.

CR123/RCR123 lights with clickies are already a little too big for pants pocket carry, so you may as well just go with 1 x AA and all the flexibility it gives you.

If I was just getting into flashlights I would skip the CR123/RCR123 form factor. I've decided to go with a 1 x AAA on a keychain for my EDC. I have a Wolf Eyes Angel-C (CR123/RCR123) that I bought as an EDC because it is a small clicky, but I find I don't really want to carry it in my pants pocket all the time. The LD01 SS. on the other hand, was made for keychain carry and can perform all necessary flashlight functions, especially on a Li-Ion 10440. Of course you also have to carry a spare AAA.

Since people are more likely to use rechargeable batteries in the AA format than the cr123a the AA is probably more environmentally friendly.

cr123a batteries work better than standard NiMH or alkaline AA batteries in the cold. Lithium AA batteries are comparible, but they are also quite expensive.

the 123a batteries are expensive and difficult to find. I go through 6-20 AA batteries a week (rechargeable) . That would work out to be quite expensive with 123As. Further, you aren't going to find 123As in a rural area, or a developing country. AAs are pretty standard.

Finally, all the rest of my gear uses AA batteries. It isn't efficient to carry around different types of batteries.

I EDC a 3x123 cell lite, it's not that much bigger than a MiniMag.

However a 3xAA lite is pretty big.

I wish I could get an AA based Surefire with Malkoff drop in. Then i would probably dump 123.

Absolutely.
I do not care how popular or unpopular they are. They are small and pack a punch. You cannot say the same for common AA batteries. The low voltage of an AA (1.2-1.5) is not ideal for powering our high powered torches.

arpit said:

cr123a batteries work better than standard NiMH or alkaline AA batteries in the cold. Lithium AA batteries are comparible, but they are also quite expensive.

the 123a batteries are expensive and difficult to find. I go through 6-20 AA batteries a week (rechargeable) . That would work out to be quite expensive with 123As. Further, you aren't going to find 123As in a rural area, or a developing country. AAs are pretty standard.

Finally, all the rest of my gear uses AA batteries. It isn't efficient to carry around different types of batteries.

Click to expand...

If you buy in bulk, 123s and L91 cost almost identical. I buy 100 cells at a time and pay $1 each (or less) that lasts me several years.

It's a good point you make about logistics.

But, if I find a 2xAA or 3xAA lite that exceeds my Malkoff, I will get it. Thus far, there is a solid 50 lumen gap between the best 2xAA lite and the Malkoff M60. Plus there is an even bigger quality gap. I don't have a Surefire, I have a Surefire clone, with arguably similar quality and also over-engineered like h3ll.

P.S.

123s and L91s cost a lot if you use the device a lot, in a year, you can spend 10x as much as on the device itself.

With 3x123 Surefire 9P, the trick is to use 2x18500 cells and you get free lumens.

The only real danger here is that protected cells will cut out on you in an instant. So I wouldn't take them in a critical situation. Take 123s with a really long tail of lite.

I like short and wide vs. long and narrow when it comes to one cell lights. Just a personal preference when it come to handling a light. If you could get my McLux III PD-S or Ra twisty to look the same and run the same on a AA battery as a RCR123/CR123 then that would be cool.

Are there advantages to AA? Yes. Are there advantages to CR123? Yes.

I'm not sure why this needs to be a war. Or why AA people want to convince CR123 people to defect and the other way around. Personally, I'm glad we have options. Choose one or the other, or have both.

I think the industry is starting to embrace the fact that that people like to use different power sources. I think we are going to see a lot more lights shipping with interchangeable battery tube options in the near future.


The clear advantage that I see to Li-Ion over NiMh is the ability to charge at any time. I hate having to fully discharge a battery before recharging it. I have always despised NiMh for this reason. I'm surprised no one has brought up this argument.

mdocod said:

Comparing a typical high cap NIMH AA cell to a li-ion cell is not necessarily fair unless you point out differences in self-discharge issues, to compare fairly, one must compare LSD NIMH cells to RCR123s as Li-Ion is inherently LSD.

Click to expand...

On that basis you should be comparing Nimh to safe chemistry Li-Ion since Nimh is a safe chemistry and is very difficult to get flames coming out of.

Further, Nimh are more robust in terns of being over-discharged so perhaps the only fair comparison is to compare LSD Nimh to LiFePO4.

KowShak said:

On that basis you should be comparing Nimh to safe chemistry Li-Ion since Nimh is a safe chemistry and is very difficult to get flames coming out of.

Further, Nimh are more robust in terns of being over-discharged so perhaps the only fair comparison is to compare LSD Nimh to LiFePO4.

Click to expand...

You make a perfectly fair argument,

however,

(did we expect there not to be a "however" ? ehhe)

To continue down this attempted direction of fairness, NiMH LSD doesn't have a competitor to LiFePO4. There is no NiMH chemistry cell anywhere on the market, that can deliver repeated discharges at 5-20C+ rates, and survive 500-2000 cycles, all while maintaining solid low-self-discharge characteristic through it's life cycle. LiFePO4 is in it's infancy and already pulls ahead of many other options in many areas, with all sorts of promise on the horizon for improvements in energy density... NiMH has basically run into a dead end as far as we can see, higher cap comes with higher self-discharge at this point.

While NiMH does not become dangerous when over-discharged, it is not immune to it either. NiMH cells take a hit on cycle life when over-discharged, just as most rechargeable chemistry cells will, but with that in mind, the only cells on the market you can get that have the ability to prevent severe over-discharge built right in, are protected LiCo cells.

So, I guess what it all boils down to, is that none of these cells can be fairly compared. But we can take a device, like a flashlight, and make a list of important factors that make sense for that flashlight, obviously most LED flashlights don't need 100 amps to run properly, so LiFePO4's list of advantages looks pretty stupid for most of these applications, but things like runtime, size, and self-discharge characteristic's are all very relevant to a device that needs to work in an emergency. A protected 18650 LiCo is not the perfect answer, but it has a strong list of positives that I don't believe can be beaten by NIMH cells.

Eric