I don’t have 5m and 10m reading from last night. But we tested both lights twice at the 50m, both times being with in 1 lux. I will test them again later when we do beam shots in a week or two. I’m just waiting for my TN31mb to arrive first.
But I know those numbers are very close to true considering the fact we actually walked at the true distances last night and measured the true throw for both lights. And that distance was measured using a 100m tape measure. The 124k for the BTU is equal to 704m and we were able to measure in the .2’s in lux at a measured 700m, and then only in the .1’s in lux at 800m. The same worked out for the TK75. It’s 94K calculated out to 613m, and we measured the TK to have in the .2’s at 600m and then only .1’s at 700m. Now my meter, like most only reads in the tenths of a lux, so I can’t narrow the max throw to an exact number, but it’s obvious that the BTU can do right in the 700m range and the 600m range. How easily and how steady the meter holds these numbers helps to tell me if its likely low in that range or higher in that range.
The throw numbers are correct + or - a few lux or percent. We tested them to many times and in two many ways to be off very far.
Makes good sense. If I was going for a long trek, I too would take the TK over the BTU. It does have the longer run time with 4 cells and the lighter weight. Truthfully I would take a smaller light than either of these though if I was going on a longer journey. Now the longer turbo to me is a moot point though when you consider the highs in the equation. The high of 2160otf for the BTU after the turbo kicks off is almost double the TK and higher than 95 percent of the lights on the market can do period.
I think it all comes down to personal preference when you get to lights of this caliber.
God the BTU is such a big, ugly, heavy light…
Well the BTU has three U2 emitters that are driven an estimated 3.8a each per Ric and cnqualitygoods. Now considering the 2880otf I get in total, that equates to 960otf at 30sec per emitter. That is actually pretty spot on for a 3.8a U2 emitter with decent heat sinking. We’ve got U2’s that do worse and some that do better. The U2’s with slighter better output is the TK75 its 975 per led and the best - TN31 with a measured 1120otf at 30sec. Though I’m pretty sure it’s driven we’ll over the 3.8a. So personally I’m totally cool with the 960 per emitter and 2880otf total the BTU gets.
Besides considering the level of these two lights, the measured 45otf difference between the two is equal to about 1.6% difference. That’s closer than most lights of the exact same type would be. And a good chance the next TK and BTU tested might flip flop with victor and winner with bin variances and etc.
I agree totally. Both would be awesome lights for anybody to own.
Well that’s not very nice. I like my big, ugly, but beautiful to me BTU
But sure, no doubt the TK75 is a more attractive light. Can’t argue with that. I do truthfully prefer the heavy weight of the BTU though. Of course keep in mind I have the even heavier SR90. So powerful lights with “heft” just feels right to me.
It’s a MANLY light to be sure! Anyone with a limp wrist can purchase the 75 as to not injure their delicate nature…. Bwah ha ha!!!
- 1 :bigsmile:
Hey Dale, have you got a good chance to get your beasty out yet? I’m really curious to see how your upgrade did on your BTU. Should be a really big jump over your old NW setup.
The pics suck though… ( 2 much beer )
If perfect heat sink, XML U2 can have 900 led lumens with just 2.6A current. TK75 Turbo runtime of 75 minutes with 4*2600mAH shows that it is driven below 3A. If BTU is indeed driven to 3.8A per led but with similar output as TK75, it means it has heat sinking problem. And it is not good for the life of led if heat can’t be transfered fast enough to heat sink. BTU should at least reach temperature of 50c after in Turbo mode continuously for 10 minutes.
My stand is since BTU already don’t care much about led life and battery life, and go all the way out with 3.8A per led, it should not be flip flop situation when compare to TK75. It should blow away any TK75 anytime as it goes all the way out. TK75 is for general mass market, while BTU is most perfect for flashaholics who likes to do modding.
Besides heat that I suspect, can it be battery voltage sag under such high current?
I have been waiting for pictures of Dales monster thrower, How does it compare to the SAR?
Not even close, I prefer the TK75. I guess I'm limp wristed.
I am 74kg and I can bench press 75kg 10 times. Everyone should try this, bench press just over your own weight, to know are you really strong.
Cool dale. Thanks for the shots. Looks very good to me. I will do some more shots on mine later when my other lights show up. I’ll have to go out to test them anyway. I’m gonna have to find new test grounds though likely. The place I test these lights is about 1000m. With the coming TN31mb rated in the 1273m range - that spot won’t work. Heck I don’t even know if my brother can spot me that far away even with a reflector vest I wear. I’ll tell you guys, even the 600-900m we played with last night, that is a long distance. Walking back from those distances takes about 8-10min. I find it very impressive to know these lights that many of us own now can throw light that far. When you walk out that distance a few times it puts it in a deferent perspective.
Thanks for the test. Both lights look really good
The AVERAGE person can bench 90% of their body weight, if you fall below the average perhaps it’s time to get to the gym!
Seriously though, why would anyone choose the BTU over the TK75? It’s seems to me the BTU hasn’t really lived up to its hype, anyone else feel that way?