ARC LS Second SALE Price - 49.99!?!?!?!

[PeterM]

How come all you guys in the U.K. got yours and I'm still waiting????

 

[soa]

PeterM -

maybe $25.00 shipping?

 

[geepondy]

Why won't they work with Surefire batteries? That's a glaring weakness that should have never made it out the door or at least have the fact stated so in the product literature. I'm curious because my second, purchased the end of Auguest works fine with Surefire batteries. Oh maybe the current batch is hybrids (changes too much, can't keep up) while my is a straight rev 1?

 

[this_is_nascar]

Originally posted by geepondy:
Why won't they work with Surefire batteries? That's a glaring weakness that should have never made it out the door or at least have the fact stated so in the product literature. I'm curious because my second, purchased the end of Auguest works fine with Surefire batteries. Oh maybe the current batch is hybrids (changes too much, can't keep up) while my is a straight rev 1?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What can I say. Wish I had an answer. All I know is that no 2 ARC-LS are the same based on my experiences. Stupid me keeps coming back for more though. I keep hoping that consistantsy will find it's way into the process.

 

[Darell]

I live right next door to Arizona... and I'm still waiting on mine. $5 used to get it here next day. Now $8 takes a week... and counting... Bummer.

 

[Gransee]

We test them with 12 different brands of 123 cell, SF-123 included. We are re-testing these to find out why they didn't work for these people in those situations. One possibility is the battery was overly crushed which caused the thick lipped cells to no longer make contact.

At any rate, the fix I have prescribed is to make the "moat" around the negative castle deeper.

Peter Gransee

 

[Darell]

And now, five minutes after posting, the door bell rang. FedEx with my package.

Uh-oh. If you guys were seeing thirds, mine is a fourth

I'll go into the details with Peter privately, but suffice it to say that there is LOTS of finish missing on mine, and there's no way of making a 123 cell work. This one shouldn't have seen the light of day outside of Arc HQ.

 

[geepondy]

I have been looking over my E1/KL1 and comparing it to my Arc LS/123 more closely. While you can nitpick about differences between the two, I think it all comes down to the spring in the E1 body. With a spring you can overcome a lot of battery discrepancies.

 

[Darell]

Absofreakinglutly.

 

[sotyakr]

Really glad I missed out on this "deal"...

 

[Sigman]

Well what's my luck...there's all these negative posts about folks getting "sour" CMG Reactors, mine arrives...it's a keeper! (We'll see about the next 5 I'm buying for gifts.)

...there's all these negative posts about folks getting "sour" SLS Hybrids, mine arrives (today)...it's a keeper!

Thanks Peter, (though I'm hoping you may be condsidering the spring idea or...)

I've gotta agree with Nascar about no 2 LSs being alike...I believe it'll get there...I'm happy (and lucky?)!!

 

[Tomas]

Originally posted by Gransee:
. . . One possibility is the battery was overly crushed which caused the thick lipped cells to no longer make contact.

At any rate, the fix I have prescribed is to make the "moat" around the negative castle deeper.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mine works fine with the one brand of CR123's I've tried (Energizer e2) but you can see where the plastic skirt at the negative end of the battery is dragging (dredging?

) the bottom of the moat.

Assuming the Energizers are "thick lipped" and that my Arc LS is exactly in the middle of the production range, a difference of .01 inch either way could spell the difference between works perfectly and doesn't work.

I have no idea what to expect for wear on the contact "castle," but it would not take too much to turn this battery case into a no-go for this type battery.

Take care,

 

[Gransee]

Yes, it doesn't take much for a particular cell to stop working. Binary. As far as a spring: to work reliably the spring must be combined with a switch. This has already been done (TSP or Tail Switch Pack) and it works. But because people (most whom have never used the pack) did not like the TSP cosmetics, we had to do a crash engineering program so that we would have enough default packs to go with the heads we where making. I can say that modestly that that there are some problems with rushing things. And now we are married to it because the TSPs are delayed to make capacity for the switchless pack and no TSPs are in stock. It takes time to switch gears in manufacturing.

And then I found that the TSP have excellent reliability. Sometimes heeding user input is damaging.... and very costly.

So what are we doing now? Re-engineering the P-123 switchless pack while switching manufacturing to the TSP-123. The P-123 is still the default but it may not always be. Some people who have had problems with the P-123 may, at their choice, get the TSP-123 as a replacement. Either the TSP-123 or a more reliable version of the P-123 will most likely not be ready until next month.

Even when the P-123 is completely re-engineered, it is still a "clamp style" power pack. This style will always have some inherit disadvantages to the spring variety.

However, if the TSP-123 did become the default, the debate about it's cosmetics, size, accidental turn on, etc would surely be renewed.

Peter Gransee

 

[Orion]

I'm with you, Sigman. Mine came in, and I'm surprised it was even a 'second'. Okay, I'll say it is a first and a half.

Mine is definitely a keeper, and I'm sorry Mr. Gransee, but you'll not get this one back!!

 

[Gransee]

OK, I met with the Team and here's the game plan:

1. When the rev2 flashlights (LS1/2/3) where announced several months ago, the TSP-123 was going to be the default pack for this series. However at the time, many people did not like the tail switch pack and so we offered to make a new rev2 compatible P-123 the default and offer the TSP as an accessory at a later time.

2. The rev2 P-123 has had numerous problems and it is yet to work as reliably as we would like. Meanwhile, the TSP-123 beta test is continuing (now on the third month) without a single return.

3. Regardless of the public pressure on which pack should be the default, I am responsible for the path we eventually took.

4. At the time I felt our engineering would be rushed and I even referred to it as a, "crash engineering" program to produce the rev2 P-123. The simple fact is that more time is needed to make this pack work correctly. We are in the 8th rework of the rev2 P-123 and I it too soon to say when this pack will be at it's best.

5. The rev2 TSP-123 design is already field tested and shown to be reliable at it's current revision. No changes are required.

6. While we continue to refine the P-123, the TSP-123 could be offered as the default.

7. After an initial run of TSP-123's where made available, continuing production was put on hold while we made rev2 P-123 packs.

8. In light (I love saying that) of these developements, I feel it is best to make some TSP-123s available ASAP. As of this morning, I have switched manufacturing from the rev2 P-123 to the TSP-123. It will take 3 weeks to make the TSP-123 available.

9. Until these packs are available, we will continue to make the LSx available for people who want them.

10. While manufacturing is concentrating on the TSP-123, we will focus engineering on fixing the P-123.

11. Once the TSP-123s are ready, we will then make a determination to either make the pack the default until the P-123s are ready, or keep them the default.

12. Regardless, once the TSPs are available, we will offer them as replacements for any P-123s that are returned for defects.

13. The TSP-2AA and TSP-2x123 are future pack designs. The P-2AA may be phased out. It is best at this point if we are modest in the number of pack variations being manufactured.

14. We have a new TSP-123 pack planned for the future that will add new features. This is planned for when the pack issue has stabilized.

Btw, the SLS sale ends today at 4pm MST. This sale was not offered because of any lower quality in the product. It was offered to clear out the hybrids and make space for the rev2s. I can see how discounting the price may create the perception that the quality has also been discounted. These SLS are the best SLS we have made to date.

I will cc this post to it's own thread so more people can be aware of the situation.

Peter Gransee

 

[sunspot]

PG, about the TSP-123, you will NOT get mine back. It has been flawless. I had one AD but that was in a tight pocket.

 

[Orion]

Gransee, how much will the TSP-123 cost me, because I'll probably want one (I'd be keeping the P-123). Not that there is anything wrong with the 123 pack I have, but I really like the tail switch option.

 

[this_is_nascar]

Peter, as a businessman, I would have hoped that you do and would continue to go down the path that the majority of the public pressures you into. Don't lose track of the fact that it's only the people here on CPF that are ordering the majority of your product. It's the same group of people that have been paying you for a product that's never been "done". Always "in progress.... always "in the works".... always with a "design flaw". People are paying you good money to fund your experiments. Now you don't want to listen to them? Who's going to buy your product? I don't expect the ARC-AAA is going to be able to fund the ARC-LS vision forever.

You have a great concept of a light. I've seen some of them (I actually own several) that are great. Unfortuneatly, I've never had a good feeling that what I get tomorrow is the same quality as what I got today. It's been proven time and time again that the LS has no consistancy between units and I'm not talking about all the expected differences caused by difference between Luxeon Stars. LS1-REV1, LS1-REV2, LS2, LS3..... too many irons in the fire that doesn't allow you to focus on a single quality product. Pick one... one that you're buyers want and work on that only.

 

[Sean]

Originally posted by Gransee:
As far as a spring: to work reliably the spring must be combined with a switch. This has already been done (TSP or Tail Switch Pack) and it works. But because people (most whom have never used the pack) did not like the TSP cosmetics, we had to do a crash engineering program so that we would have enough default packs to go with the heads we where making. Peter Gransee

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm one of those people that doesn't like the TSP and here's why:

1. AFAIK their is no way to lock it out while it's in your pocket. (Is this correct?)
2. The switch mechanism has proven to be unreliable by beta testers own accounts of the TSP & in other flashlight brands.
3. Roy noticed a 20% reduction in brightness using his TSP. Was this a isolated case?
4. Going to the TSP is simply exchanging one problem (P-123 failing to make contact and/or crushing batteries) for another (TSP is unreliable in the long term as a clickie)
5. I also think the TSP goes against the Arc philosophy of 'If the light too big to bring with you then it's useless, because you never have it when you need it'. (or something like that)

Having said all that, if the LS2 is released with a TSP I will still buy it because it would like to try it out, since I have extra P-123's to swap it out with if I don't like it. So it would be a win-win situation for me.

 

[lucifer]

My Arc LS 2nd was delivered today. Minor surface blemishes, beam looks fine. Works with Surefire and Toshiba 123s. Pulls 400 mA (measured). I'm very happy with it.