What's better, a triple or quad xpg2 dropin?

im talking about usable runtime before it over heats and total OTF lumens. any thoughts?

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

I would think a quad would be brighter. The quad would get hotter faster and the runtime would be less. There are several quads push out over 1500+ lumens.

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

I believe that the real crux of the issue are the drivers that are used with the individual dropins in question.

• I'm reasonably familar with the drivers used in the OR Triples, they use a boost driver that can use up to two LiIon cells (i.e. ~9v maximum)
• I'm not as familar with the various Quads out there but I don't know of any that can take more than one LiIon (i.e. ~4-6v maximum)

The result of this with regards to runtime ends up being pretty simple IMO: the capacity of two LiIons (in series) dwarfs that of one. Furthermore, two cells running in series deliver their energy more efficiently than one being run full-out. In other words, available mAh of a cell decreases with increasing current draw, so running two cells (in series, i.e. @ 7.4v) 'lightly' with half the amperage will extract more usable runtime from them than running each of them 'hard', one after another individually.

I have been tempted on occasion with the quads out there, but not being able to use them with a pair of LiIons pretty much eliminate them from my criteria: over 1 hour of runtime on 'max'. A well-driven Quad (on 'max') will not last an hour with a single large LiIon (and many will be far short of that with an 18650 - ~30 minutes would be a reasonable runtime for some of them).
However, a Triple using two LiIons (2x18650's in particular) will simply crush the Quads for runtime, and will do it with flat regulated max output instead of the constantly declining output from semi-regulated or unregulated single-cell configurations.


One alternative would be to carry extra cells and do cell changes during use, but I'd rather just have 1-2 hours of maximum (and sustained) output from a single somewhat-larger light. :shrug:

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

I guess that's where we vary. I am looking for a setup for a single 18650 so I am wanting to know what works best for that criteria. What you say makes perfect sense but does not apply for the single 18650 application. What are your thoughts on that, if you were limited to one cell. Quad or tri?

Kestrel said:

I believe that the real crux of the issue are the drivers that are used with the individual dropins in question.

• I'm reasonably familar with the drivers used in the OR Triples, they use a boost driver that can use up to two LiIon cells (i.e. ~9v maximum)
• I'm not as familar with the various Quads out there but I don't know of any that can take more than one LiIon (i.e. ~4-6v maximum)

The result of this with regards to runtime ends up being pretty simple IMO: the capacity of two LiIons (in series) dwarfs that of one. Furthermore, two cells running in series deliver their energy more efficiently than one being run full-out. In other words, available mAh of a cell decreases with increasing current draw, so running two cells 'lightly' with half the amperage will extract more usable runtime from them than running each of them 'hard', one after another individually.

I have been tempted on occasion with the quads out there, but not being able to use them with a pair of LiIons pretty much eliminate them from my criteria: over 1 hour of runtime on 'max'. A well-driven Quad (on 'max') will not last an hour with a single large LiIon (and many will be far short of that with an 18650 - ~30 minutes would be a reasonable runtime for some of them).
However, a Triple using two LiIons (2x18650's in particular) will simply crush the Quads for runtime, and will do it with flat regulated max output instead of the constantly declining output from semi-regulated or unregulated single-cell configurations.


One alternative would be to carry extra cells and do cell changes during use, but I'd rather just have 1-2 hours of maximum (and sustained) output from a single somewhat-larger light. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

mr.lumen said:

I guess that's where we vary. I am looking for a setup for a single 18650 so I am wanting to know what works best for that criteria. What you say makes perfect sense but does not apply for the single 18650 application. What are your thoughts on that, if you were limited to one cell. Quad or tri?

Click to expand...

Depends more on the driver and how you like its output curve than on how many LEDs run on the driver. Technically speaking the maximum optic diameter for a quad is a bit smaller for each LED than for a triple. I don't know how the lux are affected because it depends on:

Driver output each moment
LED temperature
LED choice
LED color bin
Spot vs. spill ratio
Environment
Personal preference

Honestly, pick a quad or triple with other characteristics you like most. +/-100 lumens isn't much at those output levels, but a good UI or better runtime is. Correct regulation will probably make more output difference than one more LED.

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

mr.lumen said:

I guess that's where we vary. I am looking for a setup for a single 18650 so I am wanting to know what works best for that criteria. What you say makes perfect sense but does not apply for the single 18650 application. What are your thoughts on that, if you were limited to one cell. Quad or tri?

Click to expand...

OK, but I do wish you would have mentioned 'single-18650 only' in your initial post or thread title prior to me composing my reply. :ironic:

mr.lumen said:

in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

im talking about usable runtime before it over heats and total OTF lumens. any thoughts?

Click to expand...

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

AnAppleSnail said:

[...] Honestly, pick a quad or triple with other characteristics you like most. +/-100 lumens isn't much at those output levels, but a good UI or better runtime is. Correct regulation (and good thermal management design) will probably make more output difference than one more LED.

Click to expand...

This - and I took the liberty of adding an important detail to your quote above if that's OK?

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

Sorry about not being more specific. But your answer was not in vain I did learn something so basically if you had a perfect tri and a perfect quad the output is not going to be changed that greatly!? So I just look to see who is making the best quad or tri now and choose one.

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

There are several variables at play, let me see if I can simplify and bring them together:


LED performance

The less from maximum they are driven, the more efficient LEDs get. Take 4 flashlights (1,2,3,4 of the same LED) all producing 300 lumens, and each extra LED will provide more runtime (require less energy for the same output). In practice, 4 LEDs are about 15% more efficient than 3. In the 1000-1500 lumen range, this translates to 150-200 extra lumens for the same power. So how come initial quads had 50% more lumens than initial triples? Mostly because of power...


Power levels (watts)

Triple builders started off in the 9-11 watt range. This was about the max power unmonitored setups would run in a variety of setups, with max reliability. Quads cost more, so to make them worth it (lumens per dollar), they started off in the 14-16 watt range. This created extra heat, but most buyers were willing to go the extra mile (large hosts, finned bezels) to get it.

Today, monitoring systems are available, allowing triple builders to push power levels up to the same 14-16 watts, in their same variety of setups. The advantage of quads then, is reduced back to that 15% efficiency bump, so 1800L vs 1600L from the same power. To get that 50% output advantage back, quads would need to be pushed to something approaching 25 watts as even an incredible 20 watts is now only a 33% advantage.


Power delivery (amps/volts)

To get the same power (watts) in a system with half the cells (voltage), you need twice the amperage. At 15 watts, single battery setups are approaching 5 amps. Sustaining it requires special batteries and switches, on top of the heat management. Getting to 20 or 25 watts would require even more, amperage in the 6-10 range. This 'amperage ceiling' increases costs and reduces both runtimes and lifespan of support parts.


Conclusions

To your original question of 1 cell vs 1 cell, 2 cell XPG2 triples produce about 1200L on 1 cell. Theoretically, the 1800L expected from an XPG2 quad, is providing 50% more output for about 50% more cost (a 1:1 cost benefit). In the real world though, you won't be running a shorter flashlight. Even an IMR 18490 will struggle to sustain 5 continuous amps, so you'll be running an 18650 in the same package length, with twice the per cell burden as the same 14-16 watts, spread across 2x18350's in the higher volt setup.

The difference then is runtime. How long will 1x18650 provide 5 amps vs how long will 2x18350 provide 2.5 amps?

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

Kestrel said:

I believe that the real crux of the issue are the drivers that are used with the individual dropins in question.

• I'm reasonably familar with the drivers used in the OR Triples, they use a boost driver that can use up to two LiIon cells (i.e. ~9v maximum)
• I'm not as familar with the various Quads out there but I don't know of any that can take more than one LiIon (i.e. ~4-6v maximum)

The result of this with regards to runtime ends up being pretty simple IMO: the capacity of two LiIons (in series) dwarfs that of one. Furthermore, two cells running in series deliver their energy more efficiently than one being run full-out. In other words, available mAh of a cell decreases with increasing current draw, so running two cells 'lightly' with half the amperage will extract more usable runtime from them than running each of them 'hard', one after another individually.I have been tempted on occasion with the quads out there, but not being able to use them with a pair of LiIons pretty much eliminate them from my criteria: over 1 hour of runtime on 'max'. A well-driven Quad (on 'max') will not last an hour with a single large LiIon (and many will be far short of that with an 18650 - ~30 minutes would be a reasonable runtime for some of them).However, a Triple using two LiIons (2x18650's in particular) will simply crush the Quads for runtime, and will do it with flat regulated max output instead of the constantly declining output from semi-regulated or unregulated single-cell configurations.One alternative would be to carry extra cells and do cell changes during use, but I'd rather just have 1-2 hours of maximum (and sustained) output from a single somewhat-larger light. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Lots of great information in this thread. Thanks to Kestrel and ElectronGuru for the knowledge. It basically answered my curiosity on why Torchlab does Triple instead of quads drop-ins.

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

Thank you. I have been trying to understand exactly what u just said so clearly.

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

awesome! thank you for your explanation! it reminded me of being in school, except now im learning something i actually want to!

ok i understood everything, until i got to your conclusion. so are you saying, using a quad with a single cell imr 18650 i could get the 50% output increase (the 6-10 amp) over the tri, but i will loose runtime? if so then i dont mind. i have an extra 18650 imr so it would be perfect.

also if i got a quad with a driver made for two cells, and used two imr 18350's would i still get the 50% increase over a tri made for two cells using the same two imr 18350's?

ElectronGuru said:

There are several variables at play, let me see if I can simplify and bring them together:


LED performance

The less from maximum they are driven, the more efficient LEDs get. Take 4 flashlights (1,2,3,4 of the same LED) all producing 300 lumens, and each extra LED will provide more runtime (require less energy for the same output). In practice, 4 LEDs are about 15% more efficient than 3. In the 1000-1500 lumen range, this translates to 150-200 extra lumens for the same power. So how come initial quads had 50% more lumens than initial triples? Mostly because of power...


Power levels (watts)

Triple builders started off in the 9-11 watt range. This was about the max power unmonitored setups would run in a variety of setups, with max reliability. Quads cost more, so to make them worth it (lumens per dollar), they started off in the 14-16 watt range. This created extra heat, but most buyers were willing to go the extra mile (large hosts, finned bezels) to get it.

Today, monitoring systems are available, allowing triple builders to push power levels up to the same 14-16 watts, in their same variety of setups. The advantage of quads then, is reduced back to that 15% efficiency bump, so 1800L vs 1600L from the same power. To get that 50% output advantage back, quads would need to be pushed to something approaching 25 watts as even an incredible 20 watts is now only a 33% advantage.


Power delivery (amps/volts)

To get the same power (watts) in a system with half the cells (voltage), you need twice the amperage. At 15 watts, single battery setups are approaching 5 amps. Sustaining it requires special batteries and switches, on top of the heat management. Getting to 20 or 25 watts would require even more, amperage in the 6-10 range. This 'amperage ceiling' increases costs and reduces both runtimes and lifespan of support parts.


Conclusions

To your original question of 1 cell vs 1 cell, 2 cell XPG2 triples produce about 1200L on 1 cell. Theoretically, the 1800L expected from an XPG2 quad, is providing 50% more output for about 50% more cost (a 1:1 cost benefit). In the real world though, you won't be running a shorter flashlight. Even an IMR 18490 will struggle to sustain 5 continuous amps, so you'll be running an 18650 in the same package length, with twice the per cell burden as the same 14-16 watts, spread across 2x18350's in the higher volt setup.

The difference then is runtime. How long will 1x18650 provide 5 amps vs how long will 2x18350 provide 2.5 amps?

Click to expand...

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

using a quad with a single cell imr 18650 i could get the 50% output increase (the 6-10 amp) over the tri, but i will loose runtime?

Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion. I was speaking hypothetically. My point was that a single cell drop in would need 6-10 amp to active a 50% improvement. AFIK, none exist, which is why triples and quads are now closer in performance.

if i got a quad with a driver made for two cells, and used two imr 18350's would i still get the 50% increase over a tri made for two cells using the same two imr 18350's?

Click to expand...

In all cases, output will be determined by power (watts) + LEDs. Theoretically, a 15 watt 2 cell quad would have 15% more output than a 15 watt 2 cell triple. The only way you're going to get 50% more would be a setup pushing almost 25 watts. AFIK, no such setups exist, with either 3 or 4 LEDs.

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

so basically, from what you know it would be smartest/most cost effective to get a hard driven tri? unless of course there is a setup out there that pushes the quad the needed amount.

and from what i have gathered from what you have said is that it would be better overall if i drove it with two 18350's over a single cell. longer runtime and less stress correct?

ElectronGuru said:

Sorry for the confusion. I was speaking hypothetically. My point was that a single cell drop in would need 6-10 amp to active a 50% improvement. AFIK, none exist, which is why triples and quads are now closer in performance.




In all cases, output will be determined by power (watts) + LEDs. Theoretically, a 15 watt 2 cell quad would have 15% more output than a 15 watt 2 cell triple. The only way you're going to get 50% more would be a setup pushing almost 25 watts. AFIK, no such setups exist, with either 3 or 4 LEDs.

Click to expand...

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

mr.lumen said:

so basically, from what you know it would be smartest/most cost effective to get a hard driven tri? unless of course there is a setup out there that pushes the quad the needed amount.

Click to expand...

You're looking for the 'right' answer, but there isn't one. AAS said it well:

Honestly, pick a quad or triple with other characteristics you like most. +/-100 lumens isn't much at those output levels, but a good UI or better runtime is. Correct regulation will probably make more output difference than one more LED.

Click to expand...

Basically, output differences are marginal. You'll have an easier time using other criteria.

What size do you want? Favorite battery. Ideal interface. Budget.

and from what i have gathered from what you have said is that it would be better overall if i drove it with two 18350's over a single cell. longer runtime and less stress correct?

Click to expand...

Less stress, yes. More runtime, less certain at the same output. But an advantage of 2-cell setups is you can also operate on 1 cell with less output. This means a change of emphasis between output and runtime is a battery change away. For example, a 15 watt Triple H3 will provide a full hour @ 1200L, with the option to swap in 18350s when more output is required.

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

ElectronGuru said:

Basically, output differences are marginal. You'll have an easier time using other criteria.
What size do you want? Favorite battery. Ideal interface. Budget. Customer support & warranty.

Click to expand...

Clarified that for ya. Gee, if I was an evil mod I'd just edit folks' posts directly. Now if I could only get rid of those "Last edited by Kestrel" footnotes... :devil:

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

I agree with the marginal differences in visual power output at these high levels. Particularly when there are other factors in play, such as beam spread and tint. It is quite conceivable that there might be no(or very little) noticeable difference between lights that are a couple hundred lumens apart at this output level. In fact, it is conceivable that a lower output light with a tighter throwier beam might actually appear to be brighter than a wider floodier one that has more total lumen output, because of the beam angle characteristics. Spread that light out further, and the lumens have to cover more area, and don't appear as bright.

With my several years of experience with various triples and quads, I have found them all to be fairly close in output, but the run time is a big deal with all these high powered lights. They just use up batteries quickly because they push so much power. It wouldn't matter whether they are triple or quad or even one LED. If they are pushing that much power, they go thru the battery charge quite fast. So, you really need to look at the battery configurations that will give you some decent run time, and that usually means a longer battery tube(handle).

And I also agree with the ability to run a single battery and also a double battery for different needs, is a good thing.
With my Malkoff triples and quad, I MUST run two batteries because they require it. It's not so bad, because they need it. But if I really ever wanted to make a nice little pocket "shorty" out of it, I can't really do it. I can make it smaller and run a pair of IMR 18350, but it's still 6" long.
With the Torch Lab, I can run one 18350 if I want to, even though it has short run time. I can make that decision, because it will run on the one battery if I need it to suit my "itch" for a shorty pocket light.
And I think that it works especially well with the 65mm tube, because I can run 1 x 18650 for long run time at lower output, or I can run 2 x IMR 18350 for full output and shorter run time, in the SAME battery tube(as was pointed out by EG above). I find this to be the "sweet spot" for versatility, and I use my Torch Lab Triple mostly with that 65mm battery tube for this reason.

So, in agreement with much of the previously mentioned stuff by others, I think it comes down to the overall package performance, more than just a couple hundred lumens in output difference at the 1.5 Kilo-lumen output level.
Don't get me wrong! I love the lumens just as much as anybody. But it needs to be a more significant difference to be a practical increase, and I think that is what EG is getting at.

And if you have/want a quad that suits your needs and it works in the package that you like, and it gives a little more power too, and you have all that you want from it, then there's nothing wrong with having it. I really like my quad. But I like my triples too!

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

well said! i am not too concerned with runtimes. although they are nice to have. i would definitely agree with the single or double cell option for sure. so i guess now all i have to do is find people making tris or quads with xpg2's which apparently dont exist, so theres that... i guess ill keep waiting. thanks for all the help guys! really appreciate it.

in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

mr.lumen said:

all i have to do is find people making tris or quads with xpg2's which apparently dont exist

Click to expand...

Triple xpg2 exist, they're just selling out out as fast as they come available:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/343885

But supplies and variety will improve.

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

Kestrel said:

Now if I could only get rid of those "Last edited by Kestrel" footnotes... :devil:

Click to expand...

When editing my own posts, I can avoid the dreaded 'edited by' if I'm able to make the change soon enough. Not a big window mind you, something far less than 1 minute, but worth playing with. Maybe it works with editing other's posts too.

Re: in your opinion, whats better a tri or quad xpg2 dropin?

Kestrel said:

I believe that the real crux of the issue are the drivers that are used with the individual dropins in question.

• I'm reasonably familar with the drivers used in the OR Triples, they use a boost driver that can use up to two LiIon cells (i.e. ~9v maximum)
• I'm not as familar with the various Quads out there but I don't know of any that can take more than one LiIon (i.e. ~4-6v maximum)

The result of this with regards to runtime ends up being pretty simple IMO: the capacity of two LiIons (in series) dwarfs that of one. Furthermore, two cells running in series deliver their energy more efficiently than one being run full-out. In other words, available mAh of a cell decreases with increasing current draw, so running two cells 'lightly' with half the amperage will extract more usable runtime from them than running each of them 'hard', one after another individually.

I have been tempted on occasion with the quads out there, but not being able to use them with a pair of LiIons pretty much eliminate them from my criteria: over 1 hour of runtime on 'max'. A well-driven Quad (on 'max') will not last an hour with a single large LiIon (and many will be far short of that with an 18650 - ~30 minutes would be a reasonable runtime for some of them).
However, a Triple using two LiIons (2x18650's in particular) will simply crush the Quads for runtime, and will do it with flat regulated max output instead of the constantly declining output from semi-regulated or unregulated single-cell configurations.


One alternative would be to carry extra cells and do cell changes during use, but I'd rather just have 1-2 hours of maximum (and sustained) output from a single somewhat-larger light. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, if the triple LED drop ins are set up for running on 2-18650's, then I would think that a drop in with yet another LED would be even more likely to be set up for more than 1-18650, for the basic reason you mentioned above--runtimes. Why arent most of the quad LED drop ins set up for 2-18650's or more?

Also, its often difficult to get a reliable representation of the throw vs flood qualities and the beam characteristics by watching youtube videos and looking at some of the beamshot pictures, and it seems that many of these multiple LED drop ins that are sized for a relatively narrow P60 host dont have much in the way of reflectors, so are most of these multiple LED drop ins extremely floody with very limited throw, or do some of them also have respectable throw as well?

Also, while I'm at it, whats the advantage of using 2-18350's vs 1 18650?