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

198 posts / 0 new
Last post
rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas
tommy-jones wrote:
DENGOH wrote:
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.
rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

Dale wrote:
I think it all comes down to personal preference when you get to lights of this caliber.

I agree totally. Both would be awesome lights for anybody to own.
rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

lionheart_2281 wrote:
God the BTU is such a big, ugly, heavy light…

Well that’s not very nice. I like my big, ugly, but beautiful to me BTU Smile
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
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV
lionheart_2281 wrote:
God the BTU is such a big, ugly, heavy light…

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
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas
Dale wrote:
lionheart_2281 wrote:
God the BTU is such a big, ugly, heavy light…

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:
rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

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
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

The pics suck though… ( 2 much beer )

DENGOH
DENGOH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 10/06/2012 - 05:26
Posts: 2157
rdrfronty wrote:
tommy-jones wrote:
DENGOH wrote:
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?

cool i'll see you when you get there

rikr
rikr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/03/2011 - 21:50
Posts: 2163
Location: Fenton, MO
rdrfronty wrote:
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.

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

 

 

 New Collection / Old Collection

 
Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

atbglenn
atbglenn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 07/29/2011 - 12:04
Posts: 5766
Location: Long Island, New York

Dale wrote:
lionheart_2281 wrote:
God the BTU is such a big, ugly, heavy light...
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!!!

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

Boycott Nike

DENGOH
DENGOH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 10/06/2012 - 05:26
Posts: 2157

atbglenn wrote:

Dale wrote:
lionheart_2281 wrote:
God the BTU is such a big, ugly, heavy light…
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!!!

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


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 i'll see you when you get there

rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

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
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 07/09/2012 - 09:42
Posts: 1031
Location: Ireland

Thanks for the test. Both lights look really good Smile

lionheart_2281
lionheart_2281's picture
Online
Last seen: 9 min 43 sec ago
Joined: 10/25/2012 - 18:32
Posts: 3132
Location: Brisbane, Australia
DENGOH wrote:
atbglenn wrote:

Dale wrote:
lionheart_2281 wrote:
God the BTU is such a big, ugly, heavy light…
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!!!

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

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.

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
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 07/09/2012 - 09:42
Posts: 1031
Location: Ireland

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

rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas
DENGOH wrote:
rdrfronty wrote:
tommy-jones wrote:
DENGOH wrote:
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
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas
lionheart_2281 wrote:
DENGOH wrote:
atbglenn wrote:

Dale wrote:
lionheart_2281 wrote:
God the BTU is such a big, ugly, heavy light…
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!!!

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

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.

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?


700m throw and 2880otf, great spill, nice fat spot – why do you feel it didn’t live up to its hype?
DENGOH
DENGOH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 10/06/2012 - 05:26
Posts: 2157
lionheart_2281 wrote:
DENGOH wrote:
atbglenn wrote:

Dale wrote:
lionheart_2281 wrote:
God the BTU is such a big, ugly, heavy light…
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!!!

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

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.

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?


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.

cool i'll see you when you get there

DENGOH
DENGOH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 10/06/2012 - 05:26
Posts: 2157
rdrfronty wrote:
DENGOH wrote:
rdrfronty wrote:
tommy-jones wrote:
DENGOH wrote:
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.

cool i'll see you when you get there

rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

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.

atbglenn
atbglenn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 07/29/2011 - 12:04
Posts: 5766
Location: Long Island, New York

I'm sure the BTU is a fantastic light. I just don't like the style. I never liked the Fenix TK70 either. They both share (looks to share) the same ugly head. 

Boycott Nike

rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas
DENGOH wrote:
rdrfronty wrote:
DENGOH wrote:
rdrfronty wrote:
tommy-jones wrote:
DENGOH wrote:
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.


I’m not upset. It’s just foolish statements that state a light driven at 3.8a x 3 LEDs, putting out 2880otf – “something is wrong with it”. That’s a foolish and incorrect statement. So nothing else I say will matter in this little tit for tat with you.
I own the BTU and prefer the BTU over the TK75. But I’m not foolish enough to claim its a better light than the TK75, or make a silly claim that the TK75 is weak and it only throws 600m. That’s because I know the TK75 is an excellent light. Both lights have their pluses and minuses. Both are great lights and very equal in what they give you for your dollar. And I fully respect and understand that most people here will likely prefer the TK75. Light weight, name brand, side clicky are great selling features. But anybody that thinks the BTU is bad, something wrong with it, whatever along these lines, are quite simply clueless on flashlights and what it takes to make them perform at the extremes these lights operate at.
rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

atbglenn wrote:

I’m sure the BTU is a fantastic light. I just don’t like the style. I never liked the Fenix TK70 either. They both share (looks to share) the same ugly head. 


Agreed. The BTU is kinda like a bulldog in my eyes. People either think they are ugly or so ugly they are adorable. The fat, squatty, hefty light appeals to me. Just like the SRK appeals to some and not to others.
DENGOH
DENGOH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 10/06/2012 - 05:26
Posts: 2157

Maybe it is your love for BTU have blinded you that you refuse to look at it objectively. I am just stating the fact driven at 3.8A per led, BTU output must not get below TK75. Else most probably it means problems below:
1.Heat sag
2.Battery voltage sag
3.BTU is not really U2, but T6

cool i'll see you when you get there

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

XML-2 U2 Big Smile

rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

DENGOH wrote:
Maybe it is your love for BTU have blinded you that you refuse to look at it objectively. I am just stating the fact driven at 3.8A per led, BTU output must not get below TK75. Else most probably it means problems below:
1.Heat sag
2.Battery voltage sag
3.BTU is not really U2, but T6

Ok, sure your right Smile
DENGOH
DENGOH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 10/06/2012 - 05:26
Posts: 2157

Dale, no one can be 100% sure. Yours can be XML2 T5. They need to be properly measured to confirm.
From U2 to T5, every led can have a saving of 3 dollars. 3 LED will be 9 dollars saving for seller. This is not new scam for XML flashlights.

cool i'll see you when you get there

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

I had this modded… I know exactly whats in it .

rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

Dale I wish you had a way of checking the output on your XML2 upgrade. Would like to see how much the change really makes. I know yours looks really good. A 10 percent increase would be very nice. Not sure if it would be worth me upgrading from a U2 though. NW T6 to XML2 U2 should be close to 20-25% jump. That’s really cool there.
Does anybody have the actually rated numbers of the U2 vs the xml2? Is it like 5-10-15% increase?

Pages