Teach me about Peak Light's?

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

I'm intrigued by Peak light's since Terry spoke about them earlier this week, and there brass model's are just gorgeous

So are they any good?

[NutSAK]

Mike, they're exceptional, IMO....and the most customizable brand I'm aware of.

However, their lineup takes a lot of research to understand, and they're not very easy to obtain, due to their crap website.  You pretty much need to call them on the phone to place an order for a particular setup.

Start here to research the lineup and move forward from there.  The many combinations of metal, cell, power level, optic, etc. is seemingly endless, so be prepared.  You can easily order from here, but their stock is a bit limited to the high-power versions of each light.  Many of the newer lights come in 8 different power levels (!!!) and, as you know, I prefer lower lumens (<40-50) with decent runtime.  You can email RMSK or direct from Peak for custom setups.

These are mostly single level lights, but you can be very specific as to what power/runtime combo you want, and they're mostly very efficient.  Please understand that flashlights are secondary to their machining business.  The machining of these lights is of the precision I've not seen from any other brand, BTW.  Since flashlights are secondary, you might wait a while for a custom setup, due to the need to change out CNC programing/material/tooling for certain parts.

Beyond that....well, good luck!  PM me if you have specific questions.

[NutSAK]

Oh yeah, forgot to mention...

I agree the brass lights are beautiful, but the SS ones are beautiful and "bombproof".  Pics will follow..... 

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

It exactly the endless permutations that has me confused

Thanks for clarifying it all for me mate, I'm after (in case you couldn't imagine ) as long a runtime as possible with the most bombproof construction they do

[Styerman]

I have wanted one for a while , but that requrires a lot of wading . Should have thought of a phone call .

Chris

[gustophersmob]

It exactly the endless permutations that has me confused

Thanks for clarifying it all for me mate, I'm after (in case you couldn't imagine ) as long a runtime as possible with the most bombproof construction they do

Do you have a particular battery type or output your after?

For instance, if you want something with similar output to an E01 and AAA, I think (need to double check on CPF, though) that a #4 Eiger gets you there.  Although I'm not sure about run time.  I think it is similar run time, but not as flat regulation as the E01.

[NutSAK]

It exactly the endless permutations that has me confused

Thanks for clarifying it all for me mate, I'm after (in case you couldn't imagine ) as long a runtime as possible with the most bombproof construction they do

Do you have a particular battery type or output your after?

For instance, if you want something with similar output to an E01 and AAA, I think (need to double check on CPF, though) that a #4 Eiger gets you there.  Although I'm not sure about run time.  I think it is similar run time, but not as flat regulation as the E01.

According to Peak, a #2 Eiger would be closest to the output of the E01.  The runtime would be fairly flat for 5 hours w/alkaline, then tailing off.  It would still be producing very usable light at 8 hours.  I would say the Eiger runtimes are comparable, if not a bit better.

See here: http://www.em-mgt.com/LED/Product%20Line%20Eiger%20Nov%2009.pdf

I would recommend the medium optic, it has the perfect combination of flood & throw, similar to an E01.  See beamshots here:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=234337

[gustophersmob]

It exactly the endless permutations that has me confused

Thanks for clarifying it all for me mate, I'm after (in case you couldn't imagine ) as long a runtime as possible with the most bombproof construction they do

Do you have a particular battery type or output your after?

For instance, if you want something with similar output to an E01 and AAA, I think (need to double check on CPF, though) that a #4 Eiger gets you there.  Although I'm not sure about run time.  I think it is similar run time, but not as flat regulation as the E01.

According to Peak, a #2 Eiger would be closest to the output of the E01.  The runtime would be fairly flat for 5 hours w/alkaline, then tailing off.  It would still be producing very usable light at 8 hours.  I would say the Eiger runtimes are comparable, if not a bit better.

See here: http://www.em-mgt.com/LED/Product%20Line%20Eiger%20Nov%2009.pdf

I would recommend the medium optic, it has the perfect combination of flood & throw, similar to an E01.  See beamshots here:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=234337

Ah, thanks for the correction/clarification. Especially thanks for the PDF, I have not seen that before!  The lumen ratings are very helpful. 

From what I have read, though, the eigers still show a typical alkaline discharge curve, wheras a light like the E01 is perfectly flat until it falls out of regulation.  I think they have similar times to 50% on alkalines, but different output curves.

I need to find the post on CPF to verify, but I think the E01 still beats the eiger runtimes on lithium primaries.

EDIT:

I still can't find the post with Eiger runtimes on Lithium, but here is one with data on NiMH.  Based on this, I still think the E01 has much longer runtimes to 50%, but I'm not sure of the #s on Lithiums yet.

[NutSAK]

From what I have read, though, the eigers still show a typical alkaline discharge curve, wheras a light like the E01 is perfectly flat until it falls out of regulation.

Did you read the PDF?  The discharge tables at the end don't look like typical alkaline discharge curves to me.  That is where I got the info I quoted above, about a #2 running pretty flat for 5 hours, then tailing off.  They're not perfectly flat, but I don't think you're going to notice a difference between 45 foot-candles at the beginning of the runtime, versus the 43 foot-candles at 5 hours into the runtime. That is only a 4% change in fc.  A typical alkaline curve has a much steeper drop than that.  The #2 Eiger is still running at more than 50% output at 8 hours. The E01 hits 50% at 7 hours.

The Eiger uses the same regulating circuit that the Pacific and Baltic have been using for years, and they have always regulated fairly flat, especially the low-power versions such as the #2 we're discussing.  I agree though, it's not table-top flat like the E01, but not steep enough to notice during usage like, for instance, the ARC AAA-P is.

It should also be pointed out that it is much more difficult to regulate a flashlight such as the Eiger, as it is designed for a broader voltage range (1xAAA, 2xAAA, 1xLi-Ion or 1.2V~4.2V).  Because the E01 circuit is designed for a narrow voltage range, (1.2V~1.7V) the regulator can keep the output at a much more even level during the runtime, and thus a flatter output curve.

Now, we should keep in mind that Peak's measurements are in candlepower, and I think the quoted lumens measurements in the PDF are probably estimates extrapolated from fc.  It would have to be extrapolated, because fc cannot be converted directly into lumens.  Lumens is a total output measurement vs. candlepower, which is the measurement of only the brightest portion of the beam.  So, it is possible that the E01 has slightly more output than the Eiger #2.

[NutSAK]

El Capitan, same circuit/emitter as Eiger, but powered by AA (my favorite of the new models):

http://www.em-mgt.com/LED/Product%20Line%20El%20Capitan%20Nov%2009%20A.pdf

I've been wanting an El Capitan somewhere in the #4-#6 power option, medium optic, for quite some time.  That power level (20-40 lumens) is ideal for my EDC.  In fact, I set my NiteCore D10 to the level I like frequently, and, when I compare that output to some of my 30-ish lumen torches, it's always spot on with that level.

[gustophersmob]

From what I have read, though, the eigers still show a typical alkaline discharge curve, wheras a light like the E01 is perfectly flat until it falls out of regulation.

Did you read the PDF?  The discharge tables at the end don't look like typical alkaline discharge curves to me.  That is where I got the info I quoted above, about a #2 running pretty flat for 5 hours, then tailing off.  They're not perfectly flat, but I don't think you're going to notice a difference between 45 foot-candles at the beginning of the runtime, versus the 43 foot-candles at 5 hours into the runtime. That is only a 4% change in fc.  A typical alkaline curve has a much steeper drop than that.  The #2 Eiger is still running at more than 50% output at 8 hours. The E01 hits 50% at 7 hours.

The Eiger uses the same regulating circuit that the Pacific and Baltic have been using for years, and they have always regulated fairly flat, especially the low-power versions such as the #2 we're discussing.  I agree though, it's not table-top flat like the E01, but not steep enough to notice during usage like, for instance, the ARC AAA-P is.

It should also be pointed out that it is much more difficult to regulate a flashlight such as the Eiger, as it is designed for a broader voltage range (1xAAA, 2xAAA, 1xLi-Ion or 1.2V~4.2V).  Because the E01 circuit is designed for a narrow voltage range, (1.2V~1.7V) the regulator can keep the output at a much more even level during the runtime, and thus a flatter output curve.

Now, we should keep in mind that Peak's measurements are in candlepower, and I think the quoted lumens measurements in the PDF are probably estimates extrapolated from fc.  It would have to be extrapolated, because fc cannot be converted directly into lumens.  Lumens is a total output measurement vs. candlepower, which is the measurement of only the brightest portion of the beam.  So, it is possible that the E01 has slightly more output than the Eiger #2.

I did read the pdf.  Based upon the data given, including that given for the higher power alkaline discharge, it seems pretty "alkaline like" to me. 

Really, though, it doesn't matter as like you said, most people won't notice much difference in actual use anyways. 

As an aside, though, I wouldn't go only by light review's runtimes.  They seem to be notoriously short.  From what I've read on CPF, most seemed to get in the neighborhood of 9 hrs regulated runtime on an alkaline and I've seen people claim between 13-17hrs regulated runtime on lithium.

I like the E01, it is certainly one of my favorite lights, but the Matterhorn/Eigers are also very very nice.  My pocket-body Matterhorn is my favorite light right now.  You can't go wrong with Peaks! 

[NutSAK]

I did read the pdf.  Based upon the data given, including that given for the higher power alkaline discharge, it seems pretty "alkaline like" to me. 

Right, but what about he #2 seems like an "alkaline-like" discharge?  A 4% drop in 5 hours? 

As an aside, though, I wouldn't go only by light review's runtimes.  They seem to be notoriously short.  From what I've read on CPF, most seemed to get in the neighborhood of 9 hrs regulated runtime on an alkaline and I've seen people claim between 13-17hrs regulated runtime on lithium.

I would rather go with light review's graphs as they're data driven.  People's claims of what the runtimes are, are not.  Opinions/claims can be all over the place, as they're relying on their own perception of what output level the light is providing.

You can't go wrong with Peaks! 

  Definitely!

[NutSAK]

Just for further clarification...  This is what I expect to see when someone says "alkaline-like" discharge (red line).  The Eiger #2 discharge is nothing like this:

[gustophersmob]

Right, but what about he #2 seems like an "alkaline-like" discharge?  A 4% drop in 5 hours? 

I was working with the assumption (right or wrong) that it may be hard to tell what kind of regulation there is based on low output alone.  If it isn't driving the cell very hard, it may take quite a while to discharge, even with alkaline.  Thats why I threw the high output #s into the mix.  Admittedly, that may be a bad assumption.

I would rather go with light review's graphs as they're data driven.  People's claims of what the runtimes are, are not.  Opinions/claims can be all over the place, as they're relying on their own perception of what output level the light is providing.

They are more than claims. See here for instance (BTW, one of my favorite CPF posts just for the sheer amount of effort put into it).  In that post, backed up by data, the alkaline runtimes were ~8 hrs (less than the 9 I originally said, my mistake) with Lithiums much longer.

[NutSAK]

Right, but what about he #2 seems like an "alkaline-like" discharge?  A 4% drop in 5 hours? 

I was working with the assumption (right or wrong) that it may be hard to tell what kind of regulation there is based on low output alone.  If it isn't driving the cell very hard, it may take quite a while to discharge, even with alkaline.  Thats why I threw the high output #s into the mix.  Admittedly, that may be a bad assumption.

I was a bit confused as to why you would mention the higher-powered Eigers, as you were directly comparing the Eiger and the E01 when you commented on the discharge curves.  It is clear from the data that we have that the Arc-P has a discharge curve closer resembling that of (unregulated) alkaline batteries, the Peak's #2 is more regulated (5 hours with 4% drop, vs Arc dropping ~5-15% per hour), and the E01 is well-regulated, and virtually flat.  I think it's appropriate to compare the Eiger #2, the E01, and the Arc, as they are running at close to the same output.

Now, let's compare the perfectly flat output of the Eiger running at 3.0 - 4.2 volts versus the Arc-AAA and the E01 at those voltages.  Oh, wait!  We can't do that! 

Thanks for the clarification of the runtime "claims".    It really doesn't surprise me that the E01 is somwhat more efficient than the Eiger, given that the Eiger requires a much more versatile regulating circuit.  Not only does it have to accommodate a wide voltage range, it also has to be tweakable to provide at least 8 different power levels.

I have a Pacific with the same circuit as the Eiger, and I do know that it will run flat regulation with L91 lithiums (or any other cell type or combination w/higher voltage).  The Eiger has a more efficient Cree XP-G emitter, vs. the SSC P4 in my Pacific, so runtime at equal output should be improved also.

[gustophersmob]

I was a bit confused as to why you would mention the higher-powered Eigers, as you were directly comparing the Eiger and the E01 when you commented on the discharge curves.  It is clear from the data that we have that the Arc-P has a discharge curve closer resembling that of (unregulated) alkaline batteries, the Peak's #2 is more regulated (5 hours with 4% drop, vs Arc dropping ~5-15% per hour), and the E01 is well-regulated, and virtually flat.  I think it's appropriate to compare the Eiger #2, the E01, and the Arc, as they are running at close to the same output.

Yeah, this makes more sense than the way I was thinking about it.   

Now, let's compare the perfectly flat output of the Eiger running at 3.0 - 4.2 volts versus the Arc-AAA and the E01 at those voltages.  Oh, wait!  We can't do that! 

Out of curiosity, is the flat output due to the li-ions?  I've noticed that my Matterhorn seems to (hard to tell without proper equipment) have pretty good regulation with a lithium primary.

Thanks for the clarification of the runtime "claims".    It really doesn't surprise me that the E01 is somwhat more efficient than the Eiger, given that the Eiger requires a much more versatile regulating circuit.  Not only does it have to accommodate a wide voltage range, it also has to be tweakable to provide at least 8 different power levels.

I have a Pacific with the same circuit as the Eiger, and I do know that it will run flat regulation with L91 lithiums (or any other cell type or combination w/higher voltage).  The Eiger has a more efficient Cree XP-G emitter, vs. the SSC P4 in my Pacific, so runtime at equal output should be improved also.

In this post Curt talks about the Eiger circuit and some of its flexibility.  Very interesting stuff.  It is definitely a good circuit that does what it is designed to do.

I just want to make sure I'm not coming across as trying to be E01 vs. peak since I think they are both great lights.  Can't really go wriong with either one. 

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

Thank's for the additional info guy's

I've got some reading to do

[NutSAK]

Out of curiosity, is the flat output due to the li-ions?  I've noticed that my Matterhorn seems to (hard to tell without proper equipment) have pretty good regulation with a lithium primary.

Not completely, but the chemistry definitely helps.  Lithiums and Li-Ions both are much easier to regulate, because they are both relatively low in resistance vs. an alkaline, so they can deliver a much more stable voltage at any given current.  This is why you'll be very hard pressed to find any current regulation circuit that can give you a flat output over about 30-50 lumens or so (with today's LED efficiency levels) with an alkaline cell.  The alkaline can't deliver the current needed for outputs higher than that without the voltage sagging drastically.  For this reason, the specified capacity of an alkaline only applies at low drain, and the capacity, runtime, and discharge curve at high drain drastically suffers.  Alkaline cells were not at all designed for a high-current device such as a flashlight.

I suppose NiMH would be the best solution for testing a light's regulation circuit at lower voltage levels.  They're roughly the same voltage as alkaline, but are also able to provide fairly high current.  This also is where it shows that these Peak lights prefer higher voltage, as this circuit regulates flat with 2xNiMH, but struggles a bit more to regulate 1xNiMH. 

LEDs require 3.0V+, and regulators have to inefficiently struggle to boost low-voltage sources, such as alkaline, to provide that.  The lower the source voltage, and the higher the current required for a given output, the harder that struggle is.

In this post Curt talks about the Eiger circuit and some of its flexibility.  Very interesting stuff.  It is definitely a good circuit that does what it is designed to do.

I just want to make sure I'm not coming across as trying to be E01 vs. peak since I think they are both great lights.  Can't really go wriong with either one. 

I've seen that thead--its a good one!  Curt is no slouch at circuit design, and he loves to talk about it if you ever get him on the phone at Peak.

I wasn't getting the impression that you were pro E01/con Peak.  I hope you weren't getting the impression that I was arguing with you for that reason--or really arguing at all.  I sometimes come across a bit strong in these threads, but I'm not intentionally trying to be a smurf.  I just like to get down to the nitty-gritty sometimes.    Funny--I'm aware that I do that, and that it frustrates some people, but I still don't change. 

[NutSAK]

Here's a little Peak eye candy to keep Mikey happy. 

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

Damn that looks sweet

[NutSAK]

[gustophersmob]

Out of curiosity, is the flat output due to the li-ions?  I've noticed that my Matterhorn seems to (hard to tell without proper equipment) have pretty good regulation with a lithium primary.

Not completely, but the chemistry definitely helps.  Lithiums and Li-Ions both are much easier to regulate, because they are both relatively high in resistance vs. an alkaline, so they can deliver a much more stable voltage at any given current.  This is why you'll be very hard pressed to find any current regulation circuit that can give you a flat output over about 30-50 lumens or so (with today's LED efficiency levels) with an alkaline cell.  The alkaline can't deliver the current needed for outputs higher than that without the voltage sagging drastically.  For this reason, the specified capacity of an alkaline only applies at low drain, and the capacity, runtime, and discharge curve at high drain drastically suffers.  Alkaline cells were not at all designed for a high-current device such as a flashlight.

I suppose NiMH would be the best solution for testing a light's regulation circuit at lower voltage levels.  They're roughly the same voltage as alkaline, but are also able to provide fairly high current.  This also is where it shows that these Peak lights prefer higher voltage, as this circuit regulates flat with 2xNiMH, but struggles a bit more to regulate 1xNiMH. 

LEDs require 3.0V+, and regulators have to inefficiently struggle to boost low-voltage sources, such as alkaline, to provide that.  The lower the source voltage, and the higher the current required for a given output, the harder that struggle is.

In this post Curt talks about the Eiger circuit and some of its flexibility.  Very interesting stuff.  It is definitely a good circuit that does what it is designed to do.

I just want to make sure I'm not coming across as trying to be E01 vs. peak since I think they are both great lights.  Can't really go wriong with either one. 

I've seen that thead--its a good one!  Curt is no slouch at circuit design, and he loves to talk about it if you ever get him on the phone at Peak.

I wasn't getting the impression that you were pro E01/con Peak.  I hope you weren't getting the impression that I was arguing with you for that reason--or really arguing at all.  I sometimes come across a bit strong in these threads, but I'm not intentionally trying to be a smurf.  I just like to get down to the nitty-gritty sometimes.    Funny--I'm aware that I do that, and that it frustrates some people, but I still don't change. 

Thanks for the info, that makes a lot of sense.

No worries, I didn't think you were arguing... Its funny I think I come across the same way you describe and so I was trying to make sure I wasn't being a smurf! 

As for the photos....  VERY nice!

[NutSAK]

Thanks guys.  That last photo was from a Peak topic from long ago, found here.  I don't have any of those lights any more, but I thought the post might add some info to this thread.

I went back through a bunch of old flashlight threads on here w/pictures.  It's truly disgusting to see how much my flashlight "collection" has changed over the past 5 years, and to consider how much money I've spent.

 

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

It's an expensive addiction alright

[parnass]

As Terry pointed out, lithium primary cells have a lower internal resistance throughout most of their lifetime than alkaline batteries.  The low internal resistance provides inherent regulation so you need to rely less on the flashlight circuitry to provide regulation.

I use Energizer lithium primary batteries in good flashlights instead of alkaline batteries because it is not worth risking a good light to a leaky alkaline.

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

Sweet line up mate

[gustophersmob]

These pics aren't very good, but it show the difference b/t the peak matterhorn pocket body and the E01.

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

That really is small

Thanks for posting them

[gustophersmob]

No problem!

I was surprised how small it was when I got it.  It has the illusion that the light is smaller than the cell inside it 

[NutSAK]

Here is a quote I ran across on CPF from Peak's engineer about reliability:

Of the 8000 plus lights that we have built about 35 have had a 5 mm LED go out in the first several years of production. About 5 of those have been with the newer dash 29 snow white LED. Another 10 or 12 of the larger lights have failed and about 15 others have had the battery button re-soldered and returned.

Two FR 1000 lights with a broken feed wire to the LED and returned. Those were 12 gauge shot gun mounted units with corespecops.com in the first week. No problem with their other 30 and is has been 8 months of field duty operations."

Curt