TK75 vs BTU Shocker - Let the battle begin! (NEW UPDATE ON POST 125)

rdrfronty · January 27, 2013, 2:18pm

I agree totally. Both would be awesome lights for anybody to own.

rdrfronty · January 27, 2013, 2:22pm

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.

Dale · January 27, 2013, 2:23pm

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!!!

rdrfronty · January 27, 2013, 2:26pm

1 :bigsmile:

rdrfronty · January 27, 2013, 2:27pm

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.

Dale · January 27, 2013, 2:32pm

The pics suck though… ( 2 much beer )

DENGOH · January 27, 2013, 2:41pm

rdrfronty:

tommy-jones:

DENGOH:

I don’t blame BTU can’t meet Fenix efficiency.

Indeed. But BTU stands for ‘Beyond The Ultimate’ - and by the sounds of it, they have not fulfilled their name-sake :quest:

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.

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?

rikr · January 27, 2013, 2:39pm

I have been waiting for pictures of Dales monster thrower, How does it compare to the SAR?

Dale · January 27, 2013, 2:46pm

atbglenn · January 27, 2013, 2:50pm

Not even close, I prefer the TK75. I guess I'm limp wristed.

DENGOH · January 27, 2013, 2:52pm

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.

rdrfronty · January 27, 2013, 3:02pm

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.

MattSPL · January 27, 2013, 3:02pm

Thanks for the test. Both lights look really good

lionheart_2281 · January 27, 2013, 3:03pm

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?

MattSPL · January 27, 2013, 3:04pm

Was there an optional driver for the BTU? Or is this it with the high power driver installed?

rdrfronty · January 27, 2013, 3:06pm

DENGOH:

rdrfronty:

tommy-jones:

DENGOH:

I don’t blame BTU can’t meet Fenix efficiency.

Indeed. But BTU stands for ‘Beyond The Ultimate’ - and by the sounds of it, they have not fulfilled their name-sake :quest:

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.

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 give up on this conversation with you. You don’t like the BTU - fine, that’s your given right. I know its a good light and I’m the one who owns one. That’s all that matters. Done.

rdrfronty · January 27, 2013, 3:09pm

700m throw and 2880otf, great spill, nice fat spot - why do you feel it didn’t live up to its hype?

DENGOH · January 27, 2013, 3:18pm

I wonder is it you have misunderstanding what is bench press.
Only 1% of people around me can bench press their weight, and only 3% of gym guys I have met can bench press their weight.
And maybe only 5% of people around me can bench press 90% of their weight.
I keep observed about this as I am kind of proud to be able to do that.

DENGOH · January 27, 2013, 3:14pm

rdrfronty:

DENGOH:

rdrfronty:

tommy-jones:

DENGOH:

I don’t blame BTU can’t meet Fenix efficiency.

Indeed. But BTU stands for ‘Beyond The Ultimate’ - and by the sounds of it, they have not fulfilled their name-sake :quest:

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.

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 give up on this conversation with you. You don’t like the BTU - fine, that’s your given right. I know its a good light and I’m the one who owns one. That’s all that matters. Done.

Cool down bro. It is just discussion. Fine with me if you think BTU is better. But I won’t keep quiet if I see something wrong about it.

rdrfronty · January 27, 2013, 3:19pm

The BTU. White target is 295m. Trees at the end on the side is 200m. The channel is about 15m wide. The BTU lights the entire field all the way to the target and then some by illuminating the trees easily on the side with its fat spot.