4Sevens Quark more efficiant than RA Twisty

I was thinking about getting a RA light but it looks like they are not nearly as efficiant as the Quark lights.

Runtimes for the RA Twisty.
"The High, 12 and 0.3 lumen settings provide 1 hour, 8 hours and a couple of days of runtime, respectively."
http://www.hdssystems.com/?id=Twisty

Quark 123 runtimes.
0.2 - 15 days
4 - 2.5 days
22 - 13 hours
85 - 2.7 hours
206 - 0.8 hours

The Ra Twisty runs at 0.3 lumens for 2 days and the Quark runs at 0.2 lumens for 15 days. The Quark will run at 4 lumens longer than the Twisty does at 0.3 lumens.

I thought the RA lights were supposed to be some of the most efficiant lights on the market, am I missing something here? Could there be a miss print here?

The Ra lights have excellent, efficient drivers but I don't believe they are using the newest LEDs that the Quarks use.

The original Twisty (when originally introduced a few years back), which is probably the one you are reading the specs for, was based on a different LED that offered some different functionality and beam profile that the newer LEDs do not.

In any case I never buy lights based on specs. You would probably find yourself happier if you did the same. The Ra lights are awesome, and definitely worth owning. I like the Quarks too, but the Ra is a different kind of light and a valuable addition to any collection.

buy both,

drop both repeatedly from 10 feet on to concrete,

see which one you now prefer.

waddup said:

buy both,

drop both repeatedly from 10 feet on to concrete,

see which one you now prefer.

Click to expand...

I could buy 2 Quarks for about the same price of 1 Twisty.

LightWalker said:

I could buy 2 Quarks for a little more than the price of 1 Twisty.

Click to expand...

Now you're thinking...you could get two different lights for two different duties, yeah!
:thumbsup:
I think the Ra Clicky is a nice light, but the one I would get costs $170 plus shipping to Canada, exchange rate, and duties, putting it around $250 or more by the time I get it. No matter how good the light is, that's just insane.
:thumbsdow

I think both lights would hold up quite well to a "drop test." Quarks are well-constructed lights.

But the Ra (and Henry's previous lights) have all built reputations on being pretty much the toughest and most reliable lights on the market. He is a real perfectionist and you can bet if he's selling it, it's as technically perfect as can be. Plus, the UI on the Twisty is unbeatable -- twist on, twist further for brighter. No crazy blink modes here.

waddup is certainly right on the "buy both" part...

I think the Ra uses older leds (less efficient) and also its microprocessor uses a bit more power (affects the runtime of the lowest levels). IMO, ultra-long runtime at very low levels is somewhat specialized and obscure. We buy these lights primarily to use them at the higher levels. The Ra also has a bunch more features including buck-boost voltage conversion, dynamic power adjustment based on detecting the battery's discharge state, and thermal monitoring.

As for cost effectiveness, you just have to decide for yourself whether any given light is worth the expenditure to you based on YOUR desires, not your calculator's or accountant's. Comparing a specialty light (the Ra) to a mass market light on the basis of functionality or utility is not all that interesting for a CPF'er, in my opinion. Most CPF'ers who have been around here for a while already own quite a few lights, and once you have multiple lights of the same basic type, you're not buying them purely for their utility. You're buying them for some combination of other various reasons that we lump into the term "flashaholism", and the light that satisifies your flashaholism best might not be the most utilitarian one. That is perfectly ok. It's just like anything else in life (clothes, food, cars, beer) where we make choices based on what subjectively satisfies us the most. Functionality is just one component of satisfaction.

In short, if you want a Ra, buy a Ra and enjoy it without feeling that you have to rationalize it.

What he said! I carry routinely a light about 9x more expensive than the average Quark and I love it... It has less features and an older LED but it is perfect for me. I have carried that light or a variant of it for four years now... That said, today in my other pocket is a Preon 2...

Don't let a calculator convince you not to buy a light you want just because of perceived value against other lights. The Quarks are an absolute bargain, but it doesn't mean the Ras are overpriced.

+1 to what carrot and paulr said.

I've never regretted buying a Ra, only regretted selling them.

Is the Ra likely to have an emitter upgrade in the near future? I realize that re-designing the head to deal with a new emitter and all of its idiosyncrasies is insanely difficult, but having a newer emitter than one from the previous generation, so to speak, would be a nice thing to have.

I, too, have been mulling over getting a Quark 123 and an Ra 140, so this information might help the decision.

Thanks!

bfksc said:

I think the Ra Clicky is a nice light, but the one I would get costs $170 plus shipping to Canada, exchange rate, and duties, putting it around $250 or more by the time I get it. No matter how good the light is, that's just insane.
:thumbsdow

Click to expand...

wait, so you are giving thumbs down to HDS for Canadian import duty?

You are talking about the most expensive Ra(Ra clicky 170) with canadian import taxation. You can get a Ra clickyfor 109 bucks these days.

http://www.ralights.com/?id=EdcTactical

Granted, the LED in the Ra isn't the newest around, but with the cost of operating in the US HDS is not going after the newest wonder LED.


At the end of the day, you gotta ask yourself: Am I using the light as a tool or am I looking for a light with the latest LED.

Thank you everyone for your input. The RA lights look to be very nice lights but I personally am more concerned with runtime than tank like build, I want to be ready for a long term blackout.

If that is your main criterion between the two, then get the Quark and spend the rest of the money on batteries. Lots and lots of batteries.

270winchester said:

wait, so you are giving thumbs down to HDS for Canadian import duty?

You are talking about the most expensive Ra(Ra clicky 170) with canadian import taxation. You can get a Ra clickyfor 109 bucks these days.

http://www.ralights.com/?id=EdcTactical

Granted, the LED in the Ra isn't the newest around, but with the cost of operating in the US HDS is not going after the newest wonder LED.


At the end of the day, you gotta ask yourself: Am I using the light as a tool or am I looking for a light with the latest LED.

Click to expand...

Or you can also ask yourself whether you'd want a light at a lower price with higher performance or the other way around.

I've never owned any Ralights, and by the looks of it, neither would i want to given its price factor.

270winchester said:

wait, so you are giving thumbs down to HDS for Canadian import duty?

Click to expand...

No, I'm giving it a thumbs down because it's insanely priced IMHO.

Just like a Surefire is too expensive for a light for general use. If I was using my light in a tactical environment, I would want a Surefire because it could be a life or death situation and you need a reliable light that works 100%. But for my now civilian life, I don't need such a light. Which is why I bought the Quark - it does what I need at a reasonable price.

You are talking about the most expensive Ra(Ra clicky 170) with canadian import taxation.

Click to expand...

Actually the most expensive is $253 plus shipping, but I don't need the extra features that pushes the price up.

You can get a Ra clickyfor 109 bucks these days.

Click to expand...

Sure, but it doesn't have the features I would want that the custom version offers. And the added cost of exchange rate, GST, shipping still makes that about $150 or more. I don't know if it would be duty-free or not since NAFTA doesn't apply to a lot of stuff, which I think is bogus, but such is Canadian life (we get shafted on just about everything in this country when it comes to imported items).

Granted, the LED in the Ra isn't the newest around, but with the cost of operating in the US HDS is not going after the newest wonder LED.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about the LED. My Quark has one of the latest an R5, but when I decided to buy it, I would have been happy to get an older R2 at a discounted price, but they didn't have any available.
:shrug:

When comparing the Quark 123 and the Ra Clicky 140, the bottom line is, that the Quark is slightly brighter and has a slighter longer runtime at the lower levels. For the high levels the difference in brightness between the Quark an the Ra is practically irrelevant and the runtime is nearly even with a slight hint of better runtime for the Ra.
The cause is simple, the LED in the Quark is more efficient then the LED in the RA, the driver circuit in the Ra is without any doubt the mots efficient i've come across and the Quarks are the first lights which come close to it.

The points which are really relevant in an power outage / emergency lighting situation aren't the brightest light and to some extend even the longest runtime. What counts in such situations is reliability, robustness and gracefull low battery step-down.

No-one can by now say anything relevant over the reliability of the Quarks as those lights aren't here for long. The Ra lights are around quite some time and had there bugs fixed which where mostly cosmetic.

About the robustness, the Ra lights have their electronics potted, so theres no chance of moisture getting in and shocks ripping of components. The Quarks have a glued down head and seals at the lens, they are not advertised as being potted, so most likely they aren't. If liquid gets in through the battery compartment or the lens they are most likely doomed.

Finally for low battery step-down, the Ra lights start stepping down the brightness as the battery goes dead, this effectively does two things: First, and most important, it tells the user the battery is nearing its end. Second it conserves the very last bit of power the battery can provide as good as it can.
The Quarks don't do this step-down, the brightness declines after the battery isn't able to sustain the selected power level, this can remain unnoticed for some time as your eyes adjust accordingly until its to late. You may get around it by selecting a lower level if the light goes out but thats only true when you have the light in your hands.

Hope that clears up some of the pros and cons of the different lights.
My opinion is that you can get around all that by buying two cheaper lights so you always have a backup at hand, which always is a good idea but must be thought of...damn wheres my backup ?
The Ra lights are expensive, so after all its a question about the money you are willing to spend.

Now for the flashaholism part, I got 2 Quarks, 2 Ra Clickies, 1 LF5XT, 1 LF3XT and 1 Tiablo A7. The Ra Clickies are the lights I carry most if the time, the other lights mostly accumulated in my search for the best fit, the Tiablo A7 is my workhorse light when I need much light for a long time.

You can't compare an RA Clicky to a Quark. That is like comparing a Hummer to a VW beetle. They both get you somewhere, but in a bad rain or snow storm, I want the Hummer.

AND, I own a Quark, an RA Twisty and two Clickies. If you could hold one of each at the same time, you would clearly understand. The Quark is more efficient, but the RA will, in my opinion, have a longer lifespan.

berry580 said:

Or you can also ask yourself whether you'd want a light at a lower price with higher performance or the other way around.

Click to expand...

care to explain what constitute "higher performance"?

paulr said:

As for cost effectiveness, you just have to decide for yourself whether any given light is worth the expenditure to you based on YOUR desires, not your calculator's or accountant's. Comparing a specialty light (the Ra) to a mass market light on the basis of functionality or utility is not all that interesting for a CPF'er, in my opinion. Most CPF'ers who have been around here for a while already own quite a few lights, and once you have multiple lights of the same basic type, you're not buying them purely for their utility. You're buying them for some combination of other various reasons that we lump into the term "flashaholism", and the light that satisifies your flashaholism best might not be the most utilitarian one. That is perfectly ok. It's just like anything else in life (clothes, food, cars, beer) where we make choices based on what subjectively satisfies us the most. Functionality is just one component of satisfaction.

In short, if you want a Ra, buy a Ra and enjoy it without feeling that you have to rationalize it.

Click to expand...

Spot on analysis, Paul. Even cheapskate me, who probably will never buy a Ra partly because of its price, agrees with this. Just enjoy the toy.

Geoff

I love the Ra lights. I really wanted a 170 but decided to wait a bit. Now that McGizmo is using an XP-G, I am hoping that Henry will be able to offer one of those too. If/when that happens, I will be all over the new Ra lights.

carrot said:

The Ra lights have excellent, efficient drivers but I don't believe they are using the newest LEDs that the Quarks use.

The original Twisty (when originally introduced a few years back), which is probably the one you are reading the specs for, was based on a different LED that offered some different functionality and beam profile that the newer LEDs do not.

In any case I never buy lights based on specs. You would probably find yourself happier if you did the same. The Ra lights are awesome, and definitely worth owning. I like the Quarks too, but the Ra is a different kind of light and a valuable addition to any collection.

Click to expand...