Choosing between 2 lights for EDC use (Rough use)
- Thread starter chanjyj
- Start date
HDS_Systems
Enlightened
Chanjyj,
There is more to reliability than just the exterior body. There are dozens of ways for a flashlight to fail. We have taken our lights out, beat them up until they failed, analyzed the failure mode, changed the design and repeated the process many times. The results are that our current lights are very rugged. The lights are now going for many hours of abuse without failing. That's hundreds of drops from over 20 feet and other high speed impacts.
Engineering, testing and prototyping cost extra and add to the cost of a flashlight. Our lights have demonstrated their ability to survive. :)
Henry.
There is more to reliability than just the exterior body. There are dozens of ways for a flashlight to fail. We have taken our lights out, beat them up until they failed, analyzed the failure mode, changed the design and repeated the process many times. The results are that our current lights are very rugged. The lights are now going for many hours of abuse without failing. That's hundreds of drops from over 20 feet and other high speed impacts.
Engineering, testing and prototyping cost extra and add to the cost of a flashlight. Our lights have demonstrated their ability to survive. :)
Henry.
the.Mtn.Man
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,559
Is this a joke thread? Seriously, the Ra is far and away the superior light. There's simply no comparing the two. It also costs 4 times as much, so keep that in mind.
No, it isn't a joke. I do have reasons for those 2 lights.
If you have a useful or even helpful opinion, I wouldn't mind hearing it. Failing that, I cannot fathom the motive behind your post. A joke post, perhaps?
pwatcher
Enlightened
In a way I can understand mtnman, because if you had held a Quark Ti Mini 123 in one hand and an HDS/Ra Clicky or Twisty in the other, you wouldn't need to ask the question.
But that's why you asked of those who had experienced both lights for their opinion.
There really IS no comparison in terms of durability, engineering, and toughness. The Quark is a very distant runner up in this 2 way contest.
I've had both.
I still own 3 Ra Twisty's. I sold all 3 of my Quark Ti mini 123's. For different reasons perhaps, but value for the money is far greater on the HDS/Ra IMO...
I've thought about the Haiku but steered clear of it for one reason - it's not rated to even be IP67. Granted it has the O rings aplenty and IS probably submersible to some extent.
However, the RA is rated to 29.4psi. For it to come with such a comprehensive rating, I can only conclude that extensive testing and certification has been done.
Of course, the Quark is rated "IPX8" which means nothing actually. But if 4sevens, a commercial manufacturer does dare to give it a label I'll wager that "IPX8" means "waterproof-to-some-extent".
Finally, my final light isn't going diving. As long as it can withstand some submergence (floods) I'm fine with it. I'm quite sure all 3 lights will get through a flood fine and dandy. I just feel better with some numbers. (Prepares to get flamed)
Last edited:
I have Multiple HDS (Ra's) lights and think they are the toughest, most well thought out lights bar none; especially the Clicky EDC. I also have the Quark Mini and agree it's a great little light, but would not even begin to hold it on the same plane as the HDS... not even remotely close. For me it would be the Ra all the way.
If price is the factor, buy the quark and beat the heck out of it. I, for one, would like to know what kind of abuse it would take.
The other thing to factor in is the customer service end of it. HDS (Henry) is well know for his superior personal attention to any issues. He even replied to your thread.
If price is the factor, buy the quark and beat the heck out of it. I, for one, would like to know what kind of abuse it would take.
The other thing to factor in is the customer service end of it. HDS (Henry) is well know for his superior personal attention to any issues. He even replied to your thread.
Thanks for chiming in. It's great to hear straight from the person who's behind the scenes.
I've noticed there's a 18650 (R19670) for the EDC Twisty but not for the EDC Tactical (only R17670). Is there any particular rationale?
Thanks!
the.Mtn.Man
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,559
Fair enough, but your question is a bit like asking, "Which screwdriver is better, this cheap one I picked up at the dollar store, or this professional grade Craftsman?"
It's all a matter of what you really want. Do you want a tool that will probably but not certainly work in most situations (note that Quark switches have traditionally had a high failure rate), or one that you can absolutely depend on no matter what?
And I say this from the perspective of someone who really likes Quark lights. A Quark MiNi AA is my current EDC and will serve as my secondary when my Ra Clicky arrives.
"The Quark Mini (AA) won't fulfill my needs, I need runtime at full output above 150 lumens. While a 14500 can do it, the runtime certainly won't be near to a RCR123 I think?"
As I understand things, the 14500 has a true 750 mAh capacity, while the RCR123 cells claim 750, but rarely get above 600 or so. This would result in a somewhat longer run time of the Mini AA on a 14500 than a Mini123 on a 16340.
I have no way of telling if the Mini AA is as tough as a Fenix TK10. But it is a solid, sturdy little light.
Peri
As I understand things, the 14500 has a true 750 mAh capacity, while the RCR123 cells claim 750, but rarely get above 600 or so. This would result in a somewhat longer run time of the Mini AA on a 14500 than a Mini123 on a 16340.
I have no way of telling if the Mini AA is as tough as a Fenix TK10. But it is a solid, sturdy little light.
Peri
Ra, hands down.
-Better protection for the lens (3mm thick glass, O-rings on both sides)
-Better electronics (No doubt fully potted, not to mention offering greater efficiency, and user programmability)
-Better, more rugged switch design. The Switch on the Clicky's are rated for 1million clicks by their manufacturer. They do not handle the current from the battery, and are very securely mounted and protected. Not so with the clicky from Quark.
-Better battery protection. There are springs on both ends of the battery compartment, to sheild the battery from impact and related damage. Also to prevent the light from switching on/off with heavy recoil.
-Much heaver duty threading. It looks a big bolt. It can aboviously handle some serious abuse.
-More "battery worth" as it were. The Ra will do it's maximum output (170burst for 10 seconds, then a drop to 120) for at LEAST an hour. That is a dead-flat output, not a slow decline over time, with most other "regulated" lights. When the battery can no longer provide the current and voltage needed to run at high, the lightbegins a series of graceful, but noticeable drops in output, before finally warning you that the battery is in need of change. The Quarks can't boast that.
The Clicky's offer four modes. These can be set up any way you want, in any order you want, with any output you want. You can program any of three strobes, a momentary activation, you can enable and disable the memory function, so that it will always turn on at a certain output, or at the last level you used.
----------------------------------------
In short, the Ra is superior in every way to the Quark. Truthfully, I don't think I'll ever buy another brand of light again. These are the top dog, the alpha-light, the ***-kicking, name-taking brand that isn't afraid to handle everything between caving and the head office, the battlefield, and a scout camp out, etc.
Once you have one in your hand, all you'll think is "holy crap, why did I spend my money on anything else before this?!?" (Results may vary, typical, in my case)
Get the Ra.
-Better protection for the lens (3mm thick glass, O-rings on both sides)
-Better electronics (No doubt fully potted, not to mention offering greater efficiency, and user programmability)
-Better, more rugged switch design. The Switch on the Clicky's are rated for 1million clicks by their manufacturer. They do not handle the current from the battery, and are very securely mounted and protected. Not so with the clicky from Quark.
-Better battery protection. There are springs on both ends of the battery compartment, to sheild the battery from impact and related damage. Also to prevent the light from switching on/off with heavy recoil.
-Much heaver duty threading. It looks a big bolt. It can aboviously handle some serious abuse.
-More "battery worth" as it were. The Ra will do it's maximum output (170burst for 10 seconds, then a drop to 120) for at LEAST an hour. That is a dead-flat output, not a slow decline over time, with most other "regulated" lights. When the battery can no longer provide the current and voltage needed to run at high, the lightbegins a series of graceful, but noticeable drops in output, before finally warning you that the battery is in need of change. The Quarks can't boast that.
The Clicky's offer four modes. These can be set up any way you want, in any order you want, with any output you want. You can program any of three strobes, a momentary activation, you can enable and disable the memory function, so that it will always turn on at a certain output, or at the last level you used.
----------------------------------------
In short, the Ra is superior in every way to the Quark. Truthfully, I don't think I'll ever buy another brand of light again. These are the top dog, the alpha-light, the ***-kicking, name-taking brand that isn't afraid to handle everything between caving and the head office, the battlefield, and a scout camp out, etc.
Once you have one in your hand, all you'll think is "holy crap, why did I spend my money on anything else before this?!?" (Results may vary, typical, in my case)
Get the Ra.
A 14500 has more capacity than an RCR123 even though they're often rated the same (~750mAh). Consensus seems to be that the RCR123 is closer to 600mAh while the 14500 actually has the rated amount.
I don't know how a 14500 compares to a primary CR123 cell. I would guess pretty close, though.
--flatline
It seems I've learned something today then from you and Pericles.
My LiFePo4 RCR123 is rated at 800mAh, and while I've seen threads which come to the conclusion that RCRs are a max of 600mAh, I've not paid much attention to them.
This brings me to another mind boggling question (which veers off this thread): Why the heck design a light around the CR123 cell rather than an AA cell? I'd think the AA form would be nicer.
Voltage sag? Can't be.. Maybe the wider width of the CR123 cell allows a wider and larger reflector :thinking:
Man.. the more I learn the more I need to research :ohgeez:
Thanks for your long post. Seems I'm going down the path of opening my wallet soon.
However, quoting you "The Ra will do it's maximum output (170burst for 10 seconds, then a drop to 120) for at LEAST an hour." Is there anywhere you can point me to that I can find more info on this? I can't seem to find this info on their homepage.
I was hoping to get something that would keep the light at 170 lumens (this light may be used in a military context and I sure as hell want max output when chaos reigns, even at the expense of runtime). Anyway to program it not to drop (user programmable)?
Thanks
Rossymeister
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,076
the.Mtn.Man
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,559
In that case, forget the MiNi's. While they can pump out an impressive amount of light using the right batteries, this isn't a recommended long-term lighting solution because MiNi's simply lack the mass necessary for good heat management.
And if it's military use you want, maybe this would be a good time to mention that the US military uses stock HDS EDC 170 tactical lights.
fyrstormer
Banned
The most likely mechanical failure points on a light are the O-rings, the lense, and the back of the driver board where the battery contacts it. The Ra Clicky has a big thick bezel that won't pinch the edge of the glass upon impact, and a big thick lense that won't easily crack even if the lense directly impacts against a pointy rock. The O-rings are also thick and not easily pinched or torn when installing a new battery. The battery is suspended between two springs so it won't crack the driver board if it lands face-down, because the battery won't be able to slam forward into the driver board. I don't know for sure, but my guess is their design paradigm involved a lot of destructive testing. It's pretty much impossible to break the Ra Clicky at this point in its evolution.
fyrstormer
Banned
I once tossed my Haiku into the air (accidentally!) and it landed on concrete. There are two tiny dings, one on the front bezel and one on the rear bezel, that I can see if I know where to look for them. Other than that, it just has normal titanium scuffs, but it never had a polished finish anyway so I don't care.
If you can afford a Haiku and you want something slimmer than a Ra Clicky, it's a good investment -- you'll never break a Haiku either.
My friend, I say stop comparing lumens. It doesn't work this way. Between 170 lumens and 189 lumens is like looking at less than 1/3 stop difference in exposure. I have a MiNi 123, and a Ti MiNi 123, and I also have a 140 lumens Ra as well as a 100 lumens high CRI. I couldn't even tell a difference in visual brightness between the 189 lumens MiNi 123 vs the 140 lumens Ra light, and that is comparing them side by side. I would say go for the Ra anytime. I have a third Ra coming in, the 170 tactical. Surely there must be a very good reason why I bought 3 Ra lights within a short 4 months. They just feel darn good and works flawlessly.
I have a few Quarks too and all I can say is that I never trusted any single one of them. Only the MiNi AA is my favorite amongst the Quarks I have but yet they don't really take 14500 very well. It lights up brighter with 14500 but it also heats up so fast it is too hot to touch in a few minutes. Definitely an LED killer when running with 14500. If you intend to run this light for prolonged period then forget about using 14500.
Only one thing I can say. I have to date about 37 or 38 lights in my collection including Surefire, Jetbeam, Fenix, Nitecore and Quark, and the Ra is my favorite. The UI alone is a major plus to any other Chinese made lights, especially those that needed 2 hands to change power. I love lights that i could operate single-handed and Ra offers that as well as Surefire.
I have a few Quarks too and all I can say is that I never trusted any single one of them. Only the MiNi AA is my favorite amongst the Quarks I have but yet they don't really take 14500 very well. It lights up brighter with 14500 but it also heats up so fast it is too hot to touch in a few minutes. Definitely an LED killer when running with 14500. If you intend to run this light for prolonged period then forget about using 14500.
Only one thing I can say. I have to date about 37 or 38 lights in my collection including Surefire, Jetbeam, Fenix, Nitecore and Quark, and the Ra is my favorite. The UI alone is a major plus to any other Chinese made lights, especially those that needed 2 hands to change power. I love lights that i could operate single-handed and Ra offers that as well as Surefire.
fyrstormer
Banned
Henry, I think there's only two tests left for you to do -- crash testing and orbital re-entry. :D
