Quark mini cr2 or mini aa^2

batman

Enlightened
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
567
Location
Oklahoma/VN
Both the 1 X cr2 based quark mini and the 2 X AA quark mini show 180 lumens on high,..but i'm wondering which tends to have a more linear graphed runtime at that level? The mini CR2 discharge is fairly flat from what I've seen,.(lithiums are great) but for the alkaline based AA^2, I have no idea, although it does of course run much, much longer. I'm tempted to vote for the mini cr2 since it is so much smaller, even though lithium cr2s are not the cheapest, or easiest cells in the world to find. If rechargable cells are not part of this equation, does anyone have a vote one way or another on which light might be more useful for just a "fun" edc? I like them both quite a bit.
 

matt4270

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
83
I have a CR2 mini, and a Nitecore EZ CR2. I like them, and for their size, they are amazing. The Mini is just shy of 2 1/8"! That said, the batterys are a total PITA to find, in a pharmacy near my home they are $14- for 2, and the life is not very long! I ordered a dozen from battery junction, and they were around $2- apiece. I EDC a Quark AA regular U.I because AA's are cheap and abundant. If I had it to do again, I would get a Mini AA and run it on 14500s, or 14505s most of the time, using AAs as backups. My CR2's are mostly used for dazzle factor these days to people who tell me their 4D Maglite is the best in the world!
 

GaAslamp

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
361
Both the 1 X cr2 based quark mini and the 2 X AA quark mini show 180 lumens on high,..but i'm wondering which tends to have a more linear graphed runtime at that level?

Neither has a truly flat and level runtime curve on High, and their curves are a bit different (both gradually decline). Here are some representative test results to compare:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-Quark-Mini-CR2-Review-RUNTIMES-PICS-and-more!
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?296756-4Sevens-Quark-Mini-AA-2-(XP-G-R5)-Review-RUNTIMES-BEAMSHOTS-and-more!

If your standard is 180 lumens or higher, then the CR2 can hold that for longer at about 16 minutes according to these tests, while the AA² (using alkalines) will drop below 180 lumens after only 7 minutes. However, they are both below 180 lumens for most of their runtimes anyway, and if your standard were 150+ lumens, for example, then the AA² would run for longer at about 45 minutes compared to 34 minutes for the CR2.

The mini CR2 discharge is fairly flat from what I've seen,.(lithiums are great) but for the alkaline based AA^2, I have no idea, although it does of course run much, much longer.

Regulation also depends on the circuit design, of course.

I'm tempted to vote for the mini cr2 since it is so much smaller, even though lithium cr2s are not the cheapest, or easiest cells in the world to find.

The MiNi CR2 doesn't seem much smaller than the MiNi 123, though, and the latter has much longer runtimes.

If rechargable cells are not part of this equation, does anyone have a vote one way or another on which light might be more useful for just a "fun" edc? I like them both quite a bit.

If it would help, then the CR2 might be more "fun" because it's so tiny, right? Its output would seem all the more impressive as a result when showing off. ;) It's also easier to carry, which is more "fun" than being harder to carry. The AA² has advantages for other more practical reasons, such as runtime and the fact that it uses a common battery size.
 
Last edited:
Top