Tempted by a Novatac Classic .

[Styerman]

The 2xAA Classic is calling to me , any feedback on them ? Caught a review on them from a fella known as Mercop , I generally find his advice on equipment pretty solid , and he beats on gear , and people pretty hard .

Chris

[Millhouse]

Personally I am not too keen on this light.

For the money, this light is underspecced and is something I would have expected to have seen from lights from 4-5 years ago.

The Novatac is listed as producing a maximum of 120 lumens for 30 minutes. A Quark AA2 produces 206 lumens for over an hour. The Quark is also cheaper, has a Type III hard anodise and a glass lens. Both lights are made in China.

[Styerman]

Take your point Sir , but I think you would have been pushed to find any 2xAA topping 100 Lumens 5 years back . Quarks seem to be getting good press of late , have yet to see one in the flesh .

Chris

[Millhouse]

Yes, you are right. I'm losing track of time.

I will re-phrase that to 3 years ago. This is when I got my Fenix L2D CE, outputting about 140 lumens.

[jzmtl]

I think quark's number is using freshly charged 2700 mah rechargeable while novatac can manage that on alkaline, misleading on quark's part.

[Millhouse]

I think quark's number is using freshly charged 2700 mah rechargeable while novatac can manage that on alkaline, misleading on quark's part.

You are right. I keep forgetting (my old age  ) that both 4Sevens and Fenix quote run times based on NiMh batteries. Quark AA2 run time on alkalines is about 50 minutes.

[jzmtl]

200 lumens for 50 minutes on alkaline, even that sounds too high, any high output on alkaline tend to drop like a rock after a few minutes.

[nuphoria]

I assume it can make a difference if they are direct drive or regulated boards?

There are plenty of options for bright 2xAA lights now as the LED bins get brighter, and they will continue to do so no doubt. The newer XP-G R5s are pretty damn good 

[Styerman]

No offence to anyone , but I take Specs with a large handfull of salt . A very few under rate their outputs and runtimes , most grossly inflate them . Once you get over 100 Lumens , things just look bright , it takes a pretty big change for the eye to register it .

Chris

[Millhouse]

200 lumens for 50 minutes on alkaline, even that sounds too high, any high output on alkaline tend to drop like a rock after a few minutes.

Sorry JZ, you are right again. The 50 minute figure is on 2000mAh Eneloops.

I think I need a big shot of Red Bull to wake me up. 

[John]

No offence to anyone , but I take Specs with a large handfull of salt . A very few under rate their outputs and runtimes , most grossly inflate them . Once you get over 100 Lumens , things just look bright , it takes a pretty big change for the eye to register it .

Chris

Yep something like double the lumens out=approx 25% increase in brightness as perceived by the eye,or  something like that IIRC 

[Styerman]

Bingo ! Law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty fast . 60-100 OTF Lumens is fine by me .

Chris

[jzmtl]

Plus if you chase after the newest and brightest it gets expensive really quick, most flashlights lose value fast.

[NutSAK]

I don't have a problem with the performance of the Novatac.

However, two important characteristics that convinced me to buy my Novatac are not characteristics of the classic.  Those two are great fit/finish and US manufacture.  Granted, the price has dropped considerably, and I'm still tempted to have my favorite format (2AA) with the excellent Novatac UI.

I probably won't buy one.

[NutSAK]

I think quark's number is using freshly charged 2700 mah rechargeable while novatac can manage that on alkaline, misleading on quark's part.

I'm not sure how misleading it is. There's no standard as to what cell that the flashlight manufactures must use in their runtime stats.

A Quark 2AA will run on turbo for over 1hour with a 2000mAH Sanyo Eneloop.  A Quark 2AA will run on turbo for 32 minutes with a Duracell alkaline, and it's producing considerably more lumens than the Novatac.

However, one should expect that a current regulated light such as the Quark would be more efficient than a PWM regulated one such as the Novatac, so neither is relatively a poor performer.

[jzmtl]

I think quark's number is using freshly charged 2700 mah rechargeable while novatac can manage that on alkaline, misleading on quark's part.

I'm not sure how misleading it is. There's no standard as to what cell that the flashlight manufactures must use in their runtime stats.

A Quark 2AA will run on turbo for over 1hour with a 2000mAH Sanyo Eneloop.  A Quark 2AA will run on turbo for 32 minutes with a Duracell alkaline, and it's producing considerably more lumens than the Novatac.

However, one should expect that a current regulated light such as the Quark would be more efficient than a PWM regulated one such as the Novatac, so neither is relatively a poor performer.

It's not really standard but give maximum possible runtime that's almost unobtainable. Those high capacity NiMH self discharge like crazy and there's no way to have an actual cell with that much power in it other than fresh off the charger.

[NutSAK]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the majority of the specs stated in the flashlight market are more misleading than those stated for the Quark.  For instance, those that state runtime down to well past 50% output are suspect.  That is where you get into the unobtainable runtime specs.  

Compared to the highly exaggerated flashlight specs that plague the market, I admire 4Sevens for stating actual lumens and obtainable runtimes.  If a Quark can run 65 minutes on a 2000mAh cell (as shown by selfbuilt), then it can run past 4Seven's quoted runtime of 1.3 hours on 2500mAh (actual capacity).  Since that's probably the most common NiMH capacity used by the general public, I don't feel that basing a maximum runtime spec on that cell is misleading.

YMMV

[sappyg]

The 2xAA Classic is calling to me , any feedback on them ? Caught a review on them from a fella known as Mercop , I generally find his advice on equipment pretty solid , and he beats on gear , and people pretty hard .

Chris

i went through 3 NTs to get one good one. this was right around the time the move from US manufacture switched to asian manufacture. i obviously received beta asian hardware/ software on the 1st two tries.... i'm talkin' freaky UI. so much so that they were completely unreliable. no way i would trust NTs latest (though sexy) lights. yet, without a dought, the one i have is sublime. it also has a seriel # below 15000. still it can't stand in the shadow of the flatulance of a Ra. ehem.... HDS systems.

word is that HDS systems is working on a new light.... could be a AA ... maybe 2AA don't know. i'd rather take may chances with an unknown Ra/ HDS than an unknown NT. 
 

[Styerman]

The 2xAA Classic is calling to me , any feedback on them ? Caught a review on them from a fella known as Mercop , I generally find his advice on equipment pretty solid , and he beats on gear , and people pretty hard .

Chris

i went through 3 NTs to get one good one. this was right around the time the move from US manufacture switched to asian manufacture. i obviously received beta asian hardware/ software on the 1st two tries.... i'm talkin' freaky UI. so much so that they were completely unreliable. no way i would trust NTs latest (though sexy) lights. yet, without a dought, the one i have is sublime. it also has a seriel # below 15000. still it can't stand in the shadow of the flatulance of a Ra. ehem.... HDS systems.



word is that HDS systems is working on a new light.... could be a AA ... maybe 2AA don't know. i'd rather take may chances with an unknown Ra/ HDS than an unknown NT.  
 

I have had good luck with my Novatac , basically my EDC ATM . But I hear you on the Ra . That seems to be where all roads lead if you want a cutting edge , Uber reliable piece .

Chris