Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

What are the benefit of the newer (more expensive) XP-G S2 emitter is over the older CREE XP-G R5 in the Quarks?

I noticed the newer emmiters are not as bright (230 down to 200 lumens) with a SHORTER lifetime! What make them better?

The S2 actually does have a higher flux bin than R5 - so it is brighter at the same drive current.

But, the newest quarks have been tested in an independent laboratory under the ANSI/NEMA FL 1 standard. Quite an expensive test.

john2 said:

I noticed the newer emmiters are not as bright (230 down to 200 lumens) with a SHORTER lifetime!

Click to expand...

The Quarks you are talking about were measured with a different standard. The change is like "How fast can you run when you're running a mile" rather than "How fast can you run when you're running for a few seconds." And the runtime change may be due to a difference in the Vf.

XP-G R5 is rated at (139-148lm @ 350mA)
XP-G S2 is rated at (148-156lm @ 350mA)

Increase in brightness from R5 to S2 = ~5.6% if you average the max and minimum ratings.

Also, I believe under the ANSI specs, the brightness readings are taken after 3 minutes, and LED lights usually dim after a minute or two due to the heat generated.

Do not have the numbers for the big Quarks but here is Ti-force's test results for the Quark MiNi AA² .
Energizer L91 (E2)
187.9 1 sec - this is the old style test point
147.9 30 sec - this is the ANSI test point
145.5 1 min
144.2 2 min
143.0 3 min
Note there is a 40 lumen difference between the old way of measuring things and the ANSI way.
So 180 lumen claim (old way) will become 140 lumen (ANSI way) for the Quark MiNi AA² .

Scaling for a Quark 123² R5 230*147.9/187.9=180 ANSI lumens. This is 20 ANSI lumens less than the Quark 123² S2.

I think about buying an extra R5 head to lego with my NW Quark, so obviously the idea to wait for the S2 came up.

I'll stick to the R5 because my personal preference would have been to use the higher efficiency of the S2 for longer runtimes instead of higher output.

I don't like the idea of moonmode becoming brighter, but that's personal taste. For me it would have been perfect to keep the brightness of the lower levels and increase the runtime of them while just increasing the brightness of the high and maximum level.

However I know that a light to my taste would not only require the more expensive LED but also a whole new circuit designed for it which probably would have pushed the price to a level customers would not be prepared to pay - probably including myself. :shrug:

Lucciola

Lucciola said:

... my personal preference would have been to use the higher efficiency of the S2 for longer runtimes instead of higher output.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Why are they so obsessed with higher output. Give me longer runtimes and I'm in. I'd really love to see a Quark with 120otf lumens and 3+ hours off two ni-mh.

I once figured if a blackout occurred one bus ride from home I need 3 hours on max. I was afraid I will be so frazzled by the emergency I would start up on high and forget to switch to low then be without light before I got home.
No luck finding a stock torch then either. Finally got Elektrolumens to custom build me an aluminum Lucidus XR-1 (the production ones are XR-2/1 alumina-bronze). Its built like a tank and despite the lighter aluminum still weighs like a tank.
I guess I can always get a Quark AA² Tactical S2 Edition and program it for
Head loose: 19 lumens for 24 hours (50ma)
Head tight: 83 lumens for 5 hours (250ma)
Or get a Fenix E05 27 lumens 3 hours.

We've discussed this over in the 4Sevens subforum already and this is what David told us:
Moonlight is the same, it's the same driver as before, so you won't notice a difference in brightness.
The runtime will stay basically the same, Vf of the LED is slightly diffrrent, but chances are you won't notice a difference, because it's the SAME driver, so tue brightness should theoretically increase 7% for each mode.

Why would David snag up the brand new S2 LEDs and use them to get a tiny increase in runtime? I'll take a 7% increase in brightness before a slight increase in runtime due to efficiency. If you want longer runtimes use a 17670 or 18650.

Will your eyes even notice the 7% increase?

No.

So why not greater runtimes and the same brightness?

I think about buying an extra R5 head to lego

Click to expand...

Can you get R5 heads on thier own?

The ones on 4sevens webshop are R2.

amigafan2003 said:

Can you get R5 heads on thier own?

The ones on 4sevens webshop are R2.

Click to expand...

Nope, they are R5. Here it says: "These spare heads currently have XP-G R5 emitters".

Lucciola

Will the tint be better in the Ti Mini?

DimeRazorback said:

Will your eyes even notice the 7% increase?

No.

So why not greater runtimes and the same brightness?

Click to expand...

I see this statement a lot on CPF. And from a technical standpoint, it's accurate. However, from a business standpoint, people that make this statement are being relatively short-sighted.

One:

Why not greater runtimes? I think you know the answer. Cost. R&D, ECN's (Engineering Change Notices) and manufacturing. It's much quicker, simpler to drop in a new LED from the same family and go. Especially when you know that the S2 runs are going to be in very short supply. Why go through all of the additional work for something that's not available for the medium term?

I for one, Thank 4sevens for doing what he can, without spending a lot of time/effort in manufacturing. The slight change in cost, looks to me to be almost completely due to the LED cost itself, you can't get much better than that.

Two:

If everyone had the same attitude re: cutting edge LEDs, Cree (and other manufacturers) would not have incentive to improve the efficiency. Yes 7% is maybe not noticable from a human eye standpoint. 7% efficiency gain from a physics standpoint is Huuuuuuge. Period. I always will buy the latest (within reason) LEDs just so that the manufacturers know what I value. This is a long term road. 7% every couple of years is what adds up, not the short-term thinking that (us) Americans are (rightly) always accused of having.

So your happy to pay more, for marketing that the light is brighter even though you wont notice the difference?

It comes down to marketing and money making. 4sevens don't upgrade the emitter for the customer. They do it to stay ahead in terms of latest and greatest, to sell more lights and make more money.
If there are no noticeable or usable advantage to the user, what is the point of the upgrade apart from the intrinsic comfort of it being the "latest and greatest"?

To me it screams that they aren't confident in selling products that are a few months "out of date" as people will not want them as much as the newer "7% brighter" model...

If the new S2 emitter lights had longer runtime, or noticeable difference in output then fair enough. But to "upgrade" something, where there isn't any actual difference that the user can perceive is pointless and merely marketing.

"Why not greater runtimes? I think you know the answer. Cost. R&D, ECN's (Engineering Change Notices) and manufacturing. It's much quicker, simpler to drop in a new LED from the same family and go. Especially when you know that the S2 runs are going to be in very short supply. Why go through all of the additional work for something that's not available for the medium term?"

SO pay more for nothing apart from a number... Why?

"I for one, Thank 4sevens for doing what he can, without spending a lot of time/effort in manufacturing. The slight change in cost, looks to me to be almost completely due to the LED cost itself, you can't get much better than that."

I prefer manufacturers that take the time and effort to make things work effectively when and how they are supposed to, and not rush things for a new chip that will be outdated next week... oh but it's "7% brighter!" :ironic:
Once again, he does it for his business, not you.
And again, you are happy to pay more, for something that will perceivably work exactly the same as the different numbered emitter... that's fine, but I wouldn't.

:shrug:

I too am all for improvements, hence why I don't buy every single new emitter light that is released... I wait for significant upgrades. For instance the transition from XR-E to XP-G.

Anyway, brighter is not always better. I recently bought a 100 lumen Hi CRI Ra Clicky... Am I crazy or what! How outdated!

Why all the fuss over a higher bin emitter? If looking to get a Quark I don't see any issue with someone paying more cash for the highest bin going if that makes them happy.

I just want the opportunity to purchase some bare S2 flux bin XP-G emitters so I can install them into a couple of my XP-G R5 Quarks :thumbsup:.

No fuss here, I'm just addressing questions/statements regarding my original statement.

DimeRazorback said:

Will your eyes even notice the 7% increase?

No.

So why not greater runtimes and the same brightness?

Click to expand...

And if that's what the industry always followed we never would have moved past 50 lumens because you'll "never notice the small difference in output" with the brighter emitters. Is the 7% a huge difference? No. But after a couple 7% increases and new bins you've hit a noticeable difference.
Baby steps...

Double post!