@Selfbuilt - Can you please confirm, it looks like there is a blue O-ring underneath the glass, between the reflector and and lens?
This was an issue I took with the previous version of the Archer 1A, bought directly from Thrunite... there was no o-ring seal in the head, and the second o-ring they included was too small to put there.
Here's a good view of the blue C-ring/ U-ring.
Scroll down some.
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/corazon3/e/6a9c0c37ab02ea89718f3db13ccab0a3
That's too bad, hopefully it is a one-off incident. Certainly no issues with either of my Archer 1C samples.I have always liked Thrunite and believe I just got a bad sample and understand these things do happen. Not sure if I will order another one. The NW tint looked great.
Yes indeed, they were all present on my 7 samples. I remember once receiving a light from a different maker without the o-ring in the head, and it was a pain to find a replacement size. Odd that they didn't have one to ship out to you.@Selfbuilt - Can you please confirm, it looks like there is a blue O-ring underneath the glass, between the reflector and and lens?.
Thrunite has just added the specs for Archer 2C V2CW.
- Max beam distance: 124 meters.
- Peak beam intensity: 3870cd.
Yes indeed, they were all present on my 7 samples. I remember once receiving a light from a different maker without the o-ring in the head, and it was a pain to find a replacement size. Odd that they didn't have one to ship out to you.
Thing is, my light was directly from Thrunite, and they still would not admit to any problem even after I sent them pictures and explanation of why an o-ring is important, and that the spares they include for the tailcap are too small. Guess they finally got one complaint too many about it.
Yes, I suspect they just copied the beam distance specs from the 1C CW without updating. It is definitely higher, as you can see in the actual measures in my review (i.e., I got 5000cd for the 1C CW, and 7200cd for the 2C CW).That seems kind of low for some reason, at least with the type of batteries that's being used.
That's too bad, I hope the replacement works as expected. I do wonder how they manage to sell these so cheap, given the apparent quality and performance.Based on SB's review, I bought the 2AA NW Archer. But it just works intermittently, so had to sent it back. Too bad, nice light for the price, but QC seems to be an issue.
That's too bad, I hope the replacement works as expected. I do wonder how they manage to sell these so cheap, given the apparent quality and performance.
Interesting, Amazon only gave a refund option (3rd party seller,but fulfilled by Amazon), so guess I will just stick with Fenix/Sunwayman lights for now, since I have never had any fail yet. If QC was better, it would give WalMart lights a run for the money.That's too bad, I hope the replacement works as expected. I do wonder how they manage to sell these so cheap, given the apparent quality and performance.
Interesting. Counting mine there are 2 failures, that were posted, of this series since SB started this thread less than 2 weeks ago. Has something happened to Thrunite's QC? Have they gone by way of Jetbeam (RRT0se)? I am using my 1A V2 NW daily so time will tell. I have about 3 weeks left to return it. Makes me wonder if returning it would be the best move and see how they do on this thread.
It happens more often that you would think! I have had many experiences of DOA (or more commonly, rapid failure during testing). When this happens, I let the manufacturer know and they typically send a second sample for testing. I then report the failure of the first sample in the review, as part of the full disclosure.Selfbuilt, how often do you receive review samples from manufacturers that had problems out of the box, were DOA, or later had problems? If not, I wonder if some manufactuers cherry-pick perfect samples for your review.
I haven't seen stated what source they are using, but the spec is certainly very consistent with my 2550mAh eneloop pro testing.Does anyone know if the 5 hour runtime on Med quoted by Thrunite was obtained using a higher capacity nimh such as the eneloop pro used in the review or just a regular 2000 mAh nimh? If the former, then the advertised performance is consistent; if the latter, it's helpful to note that particular spec is inflated.
Well, as always, it's a question of the denominator as well as the numerator. I suspect they have sold a lot of these, so it is hard to know how well the QC compares to other brands. At this incredibly low price point, I would expect that lower QC could be a distinct possibility. But that's just speculation at this point. My samples give no indication of problems, and certainly seem to indicate that this is a remarkable quality build for the price.Interesting. Counting mine there are 2 failures, that were posted, of this series since SB started this thread less than 2 weeks ago. Has something happened to Thrunite's QC?