How come the Quark AA2 performance has got worse?

LeifUK

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
391
I bought a Quark AA2 light a year ago, and it is very very nice. I use it on max for running at night, and it lasts the hour. It has the XPG R5 LED and is rated at 206 lumens for 1.3 hours. I checked the web site today, and the current version gives 177 lumens for 42 minutes. :huh: Sorry?



Regarding the 206 lumens, I do believe that is not far off the truth. It is much brighter than my Fenix L2D Q5 which is measured on this site at about 140 lumens. I do not believe the 1.3 hours though. Using high capacity Panasonic 2600 mAh NiMH cells it takes about 1 hour to drop to 50%. (A guesstimate, not measured, based on use.)



Fantastic torch, sorry, I mean flashlight for you people who cannot spell colour, and light. :nana:Oh, and I am chuffed to see that there are now outlets in the UK selling 4Sevens gear. :party:
 

LeifUK

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
391
The following replies were restored from an online cache:

Re: HowcometheQuarkAA2performancehasgotworse?

Written by carrot on 01-08-2011 02:56 PM GMT

New measurement standard, as dictated by the ANSI-FL1 document. The
latest edition is in fact brighter, but the specs as advertised are by a
different standard than the earlier editions. They are also tested with
the same type of batteries that are included with the flashlight.
Re: HowcometheQuarkAA2performancehasgotworse?
Written by LeifUK on 01-08-2011 04:42 PM GMT

carrot said:
New measurement standard, as dictated by the
ANSI-FL1 document. The latest edition is in fact brighter, but the specs
as advertised are by a different standard than the earlier editions.
They are also tested with the same type of batteries that are included
with the flashlight.
Thanks for the information. That is logical, if a little odd
since many others do not seem to use those standards, so 4Sevens are
underselling themselves. I am not sure the runtime with alkies is
useful, or at least they should state clearly the runtimes with alkies,
and decent NiMH. Of course runtime defined as time to 10% favours LED
Lenser and others with poor regulation. Thanks for the information. That is logical, if a little odd
since many others do not seem to use those standards, so 4Sevens are
underselling themselves. I am not sure the runtime with alkies is
useful, or at least they should state clearly the runtimes with alkies,
and decent NiMH. Of course runtime defined as time to 10% favours LED
Lenser and others with poor regulation.

Re: HowcometheQuarkAA2performancehasgotworse?
Written by LeifUK on 01-08-2011 04:45 PM GMT

Oh, and it looks as if 4Sevens are using ANSI FL1 for some lights, and not for others.
duh2.gif

Re: HowcometheQuarkAA2performancehasgotworse?
Written by pjandyho on 01-08-2011 05:23 PM GMT

LeifUK said:
Oh, and it looks as if 4Sevens are using ANSI FL1 for some lights, and not for others.
duh2.gif
That is because it will take about 6 months or more to get the
test results back from ANSI testing as according to David of 4sevens.
Newer lights would only have the new standards updated at a later date. That is because it will take about 6 months or more to get the
test results back from ANSI testing as according to David of 4sevens.
Newer lights would only have the new standards updated at a later date.

Re: HowcometheQuarkAA2performancehasgotworse?
Written by wantsusa on 01-08-2011 05:35 PM GMT

Yeah if you look at the marketplace stickies for 4sevens there is a
run time testing by CPFers - from our results alone we know that on
eneloops it should get right around an hour here are the results copied
and pasted below, tests for the other lights/batteries are also in that
sticky...as you can see Selfbuilt did most of the tests on the AA² that I
have found on high. Since his were to 50% the numbers of course will be
skewed a bit from the ANSI info, but help get a better understanding.

From what they have said, the driver hasn't really changed so the
XP-E/XP-G r5,s2,s3 should all have similar results, though each emitter
is slightly different so there will be some back and forth. The AA tests
really tell a story especially on moonlight as each can be quite
different.

Quark AA²

XP-E : 1152 hours : Energizer Ultimate Lithium : Moonlight : Darvis

XP-G : 192 hours : Duracell Alkaline : Low : Darvis

XP-E : 4.8 hours : Eneloop : High : Selfbuilt : to 50%

XP-E : 65 minutes : Eneloop : Max : Selfbuilt : to 50%

XP-E : 101 minutes : Energizer L91 : Max : Selfbuilt : to 50%

XP-E : 32 minutes : Duracell : Max : Selfbuilt : to 50%

Re: HowcometheQuarkAA2performancehasgotworse?
Written by LEDninja on 01-09-2011 03:29 AM GMT

For theQuark MiNi AA², R5 Edition lumen output.

Energizer L91 (E2)

187.9 1 sec <- This is the old way of measuring lumens.

147.9 30 sec

145.5 1 min

144.2 2 min

143.0 3 min <- This is the ANSI F1 way of measuring lumens.

Same light different numbers, because measured at a different point in the runtime..

The runtime graph shows how the light behaves out to 220 minutes here:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...d.php?t=292571
Re: HowcometheQuarkAA2performancehasgotworse?
Written by LeifUK on 01-09-2011 03:40 AM GMT

I agree that the new standard for measuring output is better, given
that many lights show a noticeable drop in the first minute or two. I
do think David of 4Sevens would be better off to make it clear on his
web site what batteries were used for the testing so as not to undersell
his lights to the general public, though anyone familiar with this site
would most probably check out the excellent reviews here first.
Re: HowcometheQuarkAA2performancehasgotworse?
Written by SantaClawz on 01-09-2011 07:22 AM GMT

I checked the web site today, and the current version gives 177 lumens for 42 minutes.
huh.gif
Sorry?
My Fenix LD20 R5 goes for exactly 1 hour and 40 minutes on turbo,
continuous at room temperature, on fully charged Sanyo Eneloops. My Fenix LD20 R5 goes for exactly 1 hour and 40 minutes on turbo,
continuous at room temperature, on fully charged Sanyo Eneloops.

Fenix baby!
biggrin.gif
 
Top