UA2 & UB2 Response from Surefire

[Flashlight Aficionado]

From: Flashlight Aficionado
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 5:02 PM
To: helpyou AT surefire.com
Subject: UA2 & UB2

Surefire,
I love your flashlights and own the 6P and the U2. Onto my
question. Why can't the UB2 be focused? Or why can't the UA2 be
cranked to 400 lumens? Just a gearhead who wants EVERYTHING and
wants to know why I can't.

Flashlight Aficionado

- - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Sir,
Unfortunately there is no real answer for that question; it is simply
the way engineering thought it up.
Thank you

Greg Lin
Surefire, LLC
Technical Support
800.828.8809 Ext.5174
glin AT surefire.com

 

[Double_A]

it's the emitters physical shape/configuration

 

[Size15's]

We here at CPF provided a more detailed explanation already.

 

[cave dave]

The UB2 has a much larger Die area which would make focusing difficult.

The smaller die of the UA2 when focused to the tightest settting will probably produce more throw than the UB2 anyway.

The only way to have your cake and eat it is to buy both! Not a bad marketing strategy either.

 

[Amonra]

Dear Sir
Unfortunately there is no real answer for that question; it is simply
the way engineering thought it up.
Thank you[/QUOTE]

I just think that was a rather stupid and careless reply. I mean, that kind of reply would not be expected from such a respected brand.
I would expect it from a no name brand but not from surefire.
It's like asking them why is aluminum lighter than lead? and them replying "dunno, ask god"

 

[thermal guy]

Dear Sir
Unfortunately there is no real answer for that question; it is simply
the way engineering thought it up.
Thank you

I just think that was a rather stupid and careless reply. I mean, that kind of reply would not be expected from such a respected brand.
I would expect it from a no name brand but not from surefire.
It's like asking them why is aluminum lighter than lead? and them replying "dunno, ask god"[/QUOTE]

 

[husky20]

That was just the coffee and donut guy dont get mad:sweat:

 

[cv3po]

We here at CPF provided a more detailed explanation already.

LOL, could you at least include the link then and save us poor saps some time? You have a photographic memory for all SF threads so this would be easy...................

 

[Patriot]

Surefire email quote:
Dear Sir,
Unfortunately there is no real answer for that question; it is simply
the way engineering thought it up.
Thank you

It's like asking them why is aluminum lighter than lead? and them replying "dunno, ask god"

[/quote]



:laughing:


That was pretty funny!!!




I think it's just a matter of who's answering the calls. They're not engineers and many of them probably aren't enthusiast to the extent that we are so it doesn't surprise me to see those responses. I've found that SF responses to questions are nearly always completely generic in nature, but that's the great thing about CPF. We can come to a place and get our questions answered by folks with a lot more technical knowledge that the Surefire call center.

 

[Amonra]

I mean if he had any brains he would have replied:
"Terribly sorry but you would have to contact engineering to answer that question"

It is not very different from what he said buy it sure sounds a lot better.

No real answer ?
Of course there is an answer.
I doubt ( actually i hope ) that the surefire engineers dont just wake up in the morining and say "hey lets slap an led to some electronics and a body and see what happens"
Thank God this guy is from technical support.
I wonder what he would say if we asked him what kind of led is inside the UA2 or UB2: "umm the kind that lights up ?"

 

[Amonra]

I think it's just a matter of who's answering the calls. They're not engineers and many of them probably aren't enthusiast to the extent that we are so it doesn't surprise me to see those responses. I've found that SF responses to questions are nearly always completely generic in nature, but that's the great thing about CPF. We can come to a place and get our questions answered by folks with a lot more technical knowledge that the Surefire call center.[/QUOTE]

This guy is from TECHNICAL SUPPORT so i presume he should have some TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE.

It's people like this that make an otherwise serious manufacturer look bad.

 

[Gunner12]

I think it's because one is using an Lens system and the other is using a reflector. That's just a guess though(The UA2 does use a Lens/Optic system though).

 

[frank777]

If you don't know the answer to a question, or you simply do not want to give it, there are more polite ways to say it. That response from Surefire was disappointing.

 

[Crenshaw]

a simple enough answer, but IMHO thats a terrible answer to a question.
Greg Lin might as well not have answered at all. Guess this is in line with what we already know about surefire's online email support.

at very least, if this Greg person had not known the answer, he could have said
" I have forwarded your query to the relevant department, they should get back to you soon, thank you!"

Crenshaw

 

[KeyGrip]

LOL, could you at least include the link then and save us poor saps some time? You have a photographic memory for all SF threads so this would be easy...................

From post four of this thread:

The UB2 has a much larger Die area which would make focusing difficult.

The smaller die of the UA2 when focused to the tightest settting will probably produce more throw than the UB2 anyway.

This is pretty much it. Putting an SSC P7 into that focusing system and still having room for everything else would be pretty hellish. Plus, it gives an option to the people who don't want it to focus.

 

[Patriot]

a simple enough answer, but IMHO thats a terrible answer to a question.
Greg Lin might as well not have answered at all. Guess this is in line with what we already know about surefire's online email support.

at very least, if this Greg person had not known the answer, he could have said
" I have forwarded your query to the relevant department, they should get back to you soon, thank you!"

Crenshaw

You nailed it!

I agree, that would have been the professional response vs. the answer that the OP got. It's ok to not have an answer, but it's not ok to drop the ball. They should have routed it to the appropriate person. Even if it took 3 days it would have been better than to answer the question like Like a Target flashlight isle restocker. LOL....I'm still laughing about how lame that was. I'm embarrassed for them.

 

[Supernam]

Come on guys, it's probably some 18 year old in a cubical getting paid $8/hr to filter out stupid questions (no offense to op). It's not like someone in the engineering/design staff replied.

But really... you don't send emails to Nissan asking why don't all their cars produce 306hp when they all use the same engine!

 

[Double_A]

a simple enough answer, but IMHO thats a terrible answer to a question.
Greg Lin might as well not have answered at all. Guess this is in line with what we already know about surefire's online email support.

at very least, if this Greg person had not known the answer, he could have said
" I have forwarded your query to the relevant department, they should get back to you soon, thank you!"

Crenshaw

LOL, the Cust Svc rep probably did that! What was posted WAS the reply from the Engineering Dept.

You know that's the way we made it!

 

[Crenshaw]

"simply the way engineering thought it up"

i dont think he is giving enough credit to the engineering department, and PK for the work that went into the UB2 and UA2.

and even if it IS some 18 y/o sitting in a cubical filtering out stupid questions, i dont think by any means is that a stupid question, i for one would have very much liked to know if i really wanted the raw output, and focusability at the same time.

Crenshaw

 

[PhantomPhoton]

This is only my educated guess but from what I have been able to gather:

The UA2 is going to be using an SSC P4... U2 bin? ... I think.
So that puts out the front lumens at around max 200 lumens with good optics and drivers.

The UB2 will use the SSC P7 moderately driven... as primaries pale in comparison to an 18650...therefore 400 lumens otf is all we're going to get. (From a potential 700+ out the front capiable emitter.) The larger light emitting area of the P7 make a focusing optics system much more hairy.

So we consumers end up with the choice of the A or the B. I understand why it is the way it is. I think the UA2 is great even if I am correct in my guess that it uses the old SSC P4. On the other hand I think the UB2 will be severely crippled not realizing its full potential.

Again just my guess so please do point out anything I may have missed.