Future Arc Models

[Gransee]

As a manufacturer posting in a public forum, we asked permission of the forum administrator to continue the discussion started here in a new thread so more people could join the discussion.

I asked the following question inside the other thread:

There a zillion ways we can go from here and it all depends on what you want. We are very close to announcing a new product but would like more input from you (in addition to the many emails).
If you could only have one for now, which would you prefer:

1. - 4-LED, overdrive each LED, 2-3 hours on a single AA, $40-$45 SRP
2. - 1-LED, overdrive LED, 10-12 hours on single AA, extra durable, $25-$30 SRP
3. - 1-LED, hi-low switch, 10 hrs on hi/20 hours on low from a single AA, $30-$35 SRP
4. - 2-LED, underdrive each, 40-45 hours from a single AA, $30-$35 SRP
5. - 2-LED, hi-low switch, 5-6 hours on hi/40-45 hours on low, single AA, $35-$40 SRP

Availability would be 2 months on the complex models and maybe 1 month on the simpler designs.

If you answer, please give two answers: which one you would buy and which one you think the general public would buy.

Please remember that any design is a compromise. We prefer to produce designs that sell well (i.e. please the most people).

Thank you.

Peter Gransee
President
Arc Flashlight, LLC


So what do you think? Here's another option:

6. - 2 LED, overdrive each, 10 hours on a single AA, 1 month to availability, water proof and rugged (no switch), $25-$30 SRP

Peter Gransee

 

[papasan]

perhaps you confused some specs between #3 and #5? seems a single LED could be over-driven like the Arc (5-6 hours) or regular-driven like the Infinity (~40 hours). i would vote for a single LED/single AA/hi-low switch if it had the following...

rugged design...just because it's got a switch doesn't mean you have to sacrifice durability, there's many ways to do it well...

and even a step further it could still be waterproof...

(look to the surefire lights, perhaps a tail-cap switch, click once for low/again for off, click twice quick for hi/once for off)

this would be close to my ideal in-pocket led light...

i would buy this and i think the public would too...

 

[springnr]

#6
Ding,ding,ding we have a winner!

Well at least for me. (price, run time, light output...) |Keith

 

[Alan]

How come the runtime on #2 and #6 is almost the same while both of them are overdriven?

If the spec is correct, I'll take #6. I'm allowed to choose 2, I'll take #6 and #1.

Alan

 

[nonbox]

Why come out with another single led flashlight? It doesn't make sense to come out with yet another 1 LED flashlight when the market is flooded with 1 LED flashlights. #2 and #3 should be removed from the list.

The main reasons why people are drawn to the current Arclite AAA model is because of the brightness, rugged design, and small size.

My vote is for #1 4-LED.

 

[Gransee]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by papasan:
perhaps you confused some specs between #3 and #5? seems a single LED could be over-driven like the Arc (5-6 hours) or regular-driven like the Infinity (~40 hours). i would vote for a single LED/single AA/hi-low switch if it had the following...

rugged design...just because it's got a switch doesn't mean you have to sacrifice durability, there's many ways to do it well...

and even a step further it could still be waterproof...

(look to the surefire lights, perhaps a tail-cap switch, click once for low/again for off, click twice quick for hi/once for off)

this would be close to my ideal in-pocket led light...

i would buy this and i think the public would too...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your good ideas Papasan!

The reason #3 would probally not run as long as the 41 hours of the Infinity is that our circuit is regulated (constant output) as a result, the run time is shorter but more consistant.

The reason #5 might run as long as the Infinity is that the dual LEDs are a lot more efficient than the single LED configuration for the same light output. So, even with a flat output, it still might be able to make 40-45 hours.

Switches really do mix up the design in my opinion. The tri-state tail switch you were talking about would either require a fancy mechanism, smart chip or discreet logic circuit (multivbrator with pulse window, etc).

Even a simple SPDT (hi/lo) switch will add cost, increase development time and reduce the robustness of the design. But, if the majority want a switch, they will get a switch.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alan:
How come the runtime on #2 and #6 is almost the same while both of them are overdriven?

If the spec is correct, I'll take #6. I'm allowed to choose 2, I'll take #6 and #1.

Alan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your valuable input Alan. The reason the run time is the same with 2 and 6 is that the same ARC-AAA circuit is being used for both to reduce cost and dev time. The single LED is being more overdriven than the dual LEDs. However, the dual LEDs are more efficient so they produce more light output for the same run time, but they are more expensive initially.

Now a problem (= xtra $) with all the multi-LED models is the LEDs have to be hand-matched for tint and brightness, which is a real pain in the tahooty.


Sooo, this is the current tally (from both threads):

#1:4LED = 7 votes
#2:1LED = 1 vote
#3:1LED/hi/lo = 4 votes
#4:2LED/lo = 2 votes
#5:2LED/hi/lo = 11 votes
#6:2LED = 3 votes

It looks like the 2 LED model with the HI/LO switch is the current champ, whereas the 4LED model is the runner up.

Now a few notes to further confuse the pot: the 4LED and the 2LED w/switch will probally cost the same (the 2LED might even cost more). The 4LED will take less time to develop (especially since a proto already exists). The 4LED will be easier to ruggedize and will probally have less teething problems.

Doesn't that just make things more complicated? This is like taking a bunch of friends to the video store to pick out a movie- no one is happy with the final result (we always seem to end up with a "chick flick" anyways).

We have been looking at switches for some time, the reason the cost and dev time is estimated to be higher is they are not pretty in any design. It can be done, it just is not cheap.

So either you are (choose one) 1. confused 2. annoyed 3. dissapointed 4. could care less 5. trust we will come out with a great design

Keep the input coming guys!

Peter Gransee

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I simply want a 1AA LED flashlight as bright as Arclite 1 that will last for 40-45 hours, and I want it light and small.

I also want it to have a clear flashlight head for wider distribution of light like a overhead bulb (hanging tent/room light) and with included head cover sleeve for regular beam of light if I want to use it as handheld flashlight.

Less bright than Arclite 1 and burntime less than 40 hours will make CMG Infinity more appealing to me. Alright.. I can settle for minimum 20 hours burntime but as bright as Arclite 1.

 

[MY]

In my opinion, none of the options would be ideal for me. I have always been a proponant of dimmers for lights. With a dimmer, you can have a design that provides both maximum over-drive type of brightness (low run time) and long run time (albeit at a usable but low level output). Size is also a consideration but I would trade some bulk for a dimmer.

I also agree that we really don't need another one led light. I think that the ARC4 with a varible dimmer would be ideal.

The public will be much more price sensitive than me and I think that an one led with two step dimmer would work well as long as the price is $19.99 or below. I think that there is a price-point where the psychology of the buyer will price him or her out of contention.

Thanks for asking for customer input and assessing latent demand.

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

#5 seems to be the one! also 5 on petes scale "trust we will put out a great product". just when i thought i had enough led lights

 

[sflate]

Count me in for #5. I don't really care how long the batteries last (over about 5 hours)since it uses a common battery, easy to change, and most of all the light stays (almost) constant throughout the battery life. These are the main reasons I love the Infinity, and hopefully the Arc when I get it. I just want the brightest I can get, with the option of a dimmer light if needed. A translucent head (maybe as an option??) to give general room lighting would be a great addition. (hint hint) How about a modular system with multiple heads as options when they become available? (Pay for the barrel once and buy whichever and type of head you want!)

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

#5 is my preference. It's a great combination of features (Hi/low is high on my list).

#6 *might* sell better to the general public, since it is simpler and can be sold as an improved version of other products they may already be familiar with. I.e., two leds instead of one, cheaper batteries, etc. I'm not sure the GP values the versatility of hi/low as much as I do. The durability is also a good selling point.

#1 and #3 are also pretty interesting.

 

[Brock]

I like Papasan's idea a single LED/single AA/hi-low switch. I like the tailcap switch idea, ie Surefire style. It could be even a bit dimmer then the infinity on low and a bit brighter then the Arc on high. Again I think this will fit and fill the needs of more people.

I personally like the idea of the Arc4, with 4 really bright LED's and a 2-4 hour runtime.

Brock

 

[StuU]

No.5 is my choice.

My reasons-
1.Better efficiency with the 2 leds
2.The dual range is perfect for outdoor
activities. Sometimes you need a fairly bright light. In other situations, keeping the batteries alive is primary. An example of this is caving where emergencies may occur which call for lots of light hours.

Also, how about an easily accesible internal switch that would be separate from the on-off switch. I have built a conversion light that uses such an internal switch and is easy to go between ranges. Generally, the light is on high 3 leds/60ma total draw with 50+ hours runtime. On low it's 30ma/led with over 100 hours runtime. So..generally, the light is used on high but it has the option of being used on low range if needed.

 

[StuU]

No.5 is my choice.

My reasons-
1.Better efficiency with the 2 leds
2.The dual range is perfect for outdoor
activities. Sometimes you need a fairly bright light. In other situations, keeping the batteries alive is primary. An example of this is caving where emergencies may occur which call for lots of light hours.

Also, how about an easily accesible internal switch that would be separate from the on-off switch. I have built a conversion light that uses such an internal switch and is easy to go between ranges. Generally, the light is on high 3 leds/60ma total draw with 50+ hours runtime. On low it's 30ma total draw with over 100 hours runtime. So..generally, the light is used on high but it has the option of being used on low range if needed.

 

[Spork]

I like the ideas of 3,4, and 5. i dont see it listed but my personal favorite would be a light with no switch that would run for 20 hours on 1 aa and able to be left on to use as a small light source for camping, etc. from my reading it seems people like the infinity because it last for 40 hours with consitent light, and people like the arc for its brightness. why not a compromise and have a semi bright flashlight that ran for 20 hours?

 

[nonbox]

I think you should stick to your plan to come out with the Arc 4 since a proto is already built and you can come out with this light in a shorter time frame.

The brightest light in a tiny package will set it apart from the competition.

If you come out with a 2 led flash light, many people will say it is not bright enough and will want more leds in a tiny package.

I say forget the hi-low switch because if the light is too expensive then few will buy it.

 

[Gransee]

Wow, excellent input.

I have to tell you I had mixed feelings about opening this up on the forum. We had already basically decided which product to release next. But on a whim, I decided to wait and open a discussion. I don't normally like the idea of asking for input in this way. It seems unfair to ask a person (you) to devote their time to come up with what they want and then have to tell them that the majority decided something else. Of course we can't please everyone. And even the people who are pleased are probally not completely pleased since compromises must be made in any good design.

There really is something to be said for simply suprising the market with a new product. Since no prior expectations where made, nobody is really dissapointed with the company's effort because they didn't see the designs that were cut.

But, I did it anyways. Its an experiment. If this process works well, we will use it on more designs.

OK, enough about the pitfalls of the process, lets talk about the design!

Here's a quick drawing with and without the switch:

As you can see the switch adds the following:

- Cool Hi/LO feature
- About 3/8 to about 1 inch more on the length
- A mechanical part that might fail
- More cost
- More developement time
- May not be waterproof
- May not be be easy to use with gloves

OK, so maybe I should have not said anything about a switch in the first place since I seem to be against it. To tell you the truth, after all the interest I started to work on designs and then I saw the problems. The more I look at using a switch, the less I like it. Ok, I know I probally disgruntled a bunch of people by saying that.

So what if there was no switch? We keep it simple and make it either bright, affordable or long burning. Then what do you think? Are you still mad at me about the switch? Here's a list without switches and with new prices and revised run times:

A. 4 LEDs, 2-3 hours, $35-40
B. 2 LEDs, 35-40 hours, $30
C. 2 LEDS, 10 hours, $25-30
D. 1 LED, 10 hours, $25

What do think about 2AAs? The run times would probally be doubled on everything above while the cost and dev time would be only minimally affected.

Peter Gransee

 

[Alan]

I love to pick #5 only if the switch is something like turn the head left for low output, right for high output and middle for turn off. However, reliability is my main concern for additiional mechanism. That's why I pick #6 and #1.

Be expected that small and alumimum light will normally be used abusively.

If it breaks, users will not say, well, it's understandable due to its complex and tiny mechanism.

Don't get me wrong, I am not discouraging you from making a perfect light, we all want perfect light as long as it works out as what we (users) expected.

Alan

 

[papasan]

looks like your doing some good work, Gransee...some thoughts i have...

i admit a switch is a hard thing, but if done correct it's night and day difference...the drawing of your doesn't do much for me, this switch look way too small/cheesey/breakable and looks like it would be a definate leak hazard...again, what about a tailcap switch?...one that modifies the flow from the negetive end of the battery, wouldn't add much more legnth, a smal rubber bulb to push...someone also mentioned an internal switch, rotate the head one way for lo the other for hi, or perhaps a tailcap switch like this (althoug i prefer one handed operation)...

as for added cost, that may be enough to kill the idea...the thought of spending $40~$50 for a small AA light is kind of a turn-off for me...it would be hard to justify $30 even for a single AA light, but i would if it were close enough to what i truley sought in a light...

1 AA/2 LEDs/40 hour run time...besides the two LEDs what sets this apart from an Infinity? if the same battery lasts the same time i cannot suppose it would be brighter...

i am definatly a duration man, i will sacrifice plenty of brightness for length-of-burn...having said that i can appreciate a nice bright light too, that's why a switch is so appealing to me...i see it this way: with my Infinity i wa sgoing camping and decided i needed 80 hours of usable light to be on the safe side i take one extra battery and i'm set...with an Arc i take 15...not that 15 AAA batteries is all that much weight, but you see my angle...

anyhow, my $0.03...

 

[X-CalBR8]

Why not do the very most logical thing you could do to make almost everyone happy. Make a 2 LED flashlight that is equipped to run at the highest brightness possible, without damaging the LED, and for the switch, get a push button switch with a built in dimmer (or just use a separate switch and dimmer) so that a person can turn a knob to get the exact amount of brightness needed for the task at hand. Perhaps put some sort of run time markings on the dimmer switch so that you would know which setting to put it on to get approximately X number of hours of run-time. Just think about it, you would have something over all the other flashlight makers that don't have such an option, and a variable resister switch, when bought in quantity, cost next to nothing. With this kind of setup you would have a flashlight unlike anything that's already out there, which should immediately grab anyone's attention, flashaholic or casual observer. Just though I would throw in my $.02 worth on the situation.