We need to talk about Olight

[vicv]

It took a lawsuit to do this. They had to be threatened to actually correct dangerous design flaws. This isn't made better because others do it as well, it just means the company doesn't care about the product and customer in these areas and needs to learn from it.

I own around 10 Olight flashlights, i don't hate them, but i recognise that they and the company aren't angels in what they do. The issue comes if the shortcomings aren't dealt with and keep affecting people until it goes so far as to be dangerous. Just to make a comparison i have several Emisar and Noctigon flashlights, i own the original Emisar D4 as well as the following models. If something turned out to not work they were redesigned before the next batch got released, if an issue came up you got support for that issue, the flashlights themselves are potentially way more dangerous than any Olight could ever hope for but using the Kaizen principle safeguards have been put in place, safeguards which aren't a late bandaid for issues which the company knew about and didn't fix.

You can try to downplay this all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Olight has had blunders and instead of listening to customer feedback they had to be strongarmed into doing what's right.

Fair. I'm not trying to downplay anything. I'm just trying to make a counter argument. That is definitely shitty behavior. But also, I would not compare a huge company like that to Hank. Of course, he has better customer service. Which is why he gets my business instead. This thread was meant to be about the lights themselves. Not about the evil corporation. I mean I dislike the way that Nestlé treats it workers around the world, but I still eat their chocolate.

 

[jon_slider]

Why I carry my Anduril TS10, instead of my 4 mode Olight:

First World Problems.. Both is Best.. lol! ;-)

 

[defloyd77]

Fair. I'm not trying to downplay anything. I'm just trying to make a counter argument. That is definitely shitty behavior. But also, I would not compare a huge company like that to Hank. Of course, he has better customer service. Which is why he gets my business instead. This thread was meant to be about the lights themselves. Not about the evil corporation. I mean I dislike the way that Nestlé treats it workers around the world, but I still eat their chocolate.

Olight IS a huge company that's trying to break into the mainstream, unlike Hank. All the more reason to pull their heads out of their asses and pay attention when things go wrong.

You say this thread was meant to be about the lights themselves, you yourself bring up the company and their "great customer service" in your original post. When that's disputed by people with actual experience with them and not with just 1 light, you (and others) downplay it .

Really, what's the point of this thread? For somebody who only owns 1 Olight, what do you get out of this?

 

[vicv]

Olight IS a huge company that's trying to break into the mainstream, unlike Hank. All the more reason to pull their heads out of their asses and pay attention when things go wrong.

You say this thread was meant to be about the lights themselves, you yourself bring up the company and their "great customer service" in your original post. When that's disputed by people with actual experience with them and not with just 1 light, you (and others) downplay it .

Really, what's the point of this thread? For somebody who only owns 1 Olight, what do you get out of this?

Conversation. I don't need my choices validated. I have nothing in it. I still contend that there were problems, and they were rectified. To continue worrying about some thing that was quite a ways in the past, and that the company has improved upon, is just dragging it out. But I have acknowledged at least 20 times in this thread, that yes, there was some QC and design issues. Those are not being ignored. They are just not being given the weight you feel they should. You can't force others to worry about something that is more important to you than it is them.

 

[defloyd77]

Conversation. I don't need my choices validated. I have nothing in it. I still contend that there were problems, and they were rectified. To continue worrying about some thing that was quite a ways in the past, and that the company has improved upon, is just dragging it out. But I have acknowledged at least 20 times in this thread, that yes, there was some QC and design issues. Those are not being ignored. They are just not being given the weight you feel they should. You can't force others to worry about something that is more important to you than it is them.

I personally think everyone who is considering buying an Olight should know exactly the kind of company they're buying from and what kind of customer service to expect when things go wrong.

Companies who do right by their customers at their own detriment deserve praise. Companies who ignore their customers until they can't anymore deserve to be chastised. I don't believe for a second that they have changed a thing customer relations wise, that when they inevitably create a new flawed design, that they'll listen when customers contact them with concerns.

You don't seem to place any importance in their customer relations. I do and so should anyone who gives a damn about flashlights and the flashlight industry.

Flashlights are getting more and more powerful by the year, it's only a matter of time before it becomes a problem because a company is selling a flawed light to the average Joe and something bad happens that could've been avoided. The next thing you know people will be pushing for restrictions and bans and all of that BS.

 

[NH Lumens]

IMO...Olight is probably among the better of the Chi-com light makers. I have one of their head lamps and it's OK for what I use it for. But like all Chi-com lights, they tend to have goofy feature sets which the Chinese think is what the U.S. market wants. For shiny-object flashlight lovers, yes. For serious use, a definitive NO.

 

[vicv]

IMO...Olight is probably among the better of the Chi-com light makers. I have one of their head lamps and it's OK for what I use it for. But like all Chi-com lights, they tend to have goofy feature sets which the Chinese think is what the U.S. market wants. For shiny-object flashlight lovers, yes. For serious use, a definitive NO.

What goofy feature sets do they have that makes you not be able to take them seriously?

 

[NH Lumens]

What goofy feature sets do they have that makes you not be able to take them seriously?

Since I posted such a provocative statement, it's only fair I explain it.

A few notes to start;

• As a point of reference, my "serious use" definition centers around the use of a handheld light as a means to enhance situational awareness, personal safety and self-protection (with or without a firearm)
• Therefore my comments below are directed at flashlights marketed as "tactical" - a label that IMO is over used and misapplied solely for marketing purposes, especially by Asian flashlight makers

The use of flashlights for the purposes stated above is based on techniques that have been long-established in the field of LE. These techniques very much drive the design of the products intended for this specific use - not the other way around.

The design and feature sets of most Asian "tactical" lights rarely align with these well-established techniques for defensive use of flashlights. They seem to design their products in a vacuum from real world application, then develop their marketing to promote the misplaced design. I will use the Olight Warrior from this page as an example;

Warrior X 4 USB-C and MCC Rechargeable Tactical Flashlight With Holster

● Defy The Darkness: Featuring max 2,600lm output and 630m beam distance, the X4 balances the spot and spill well with a peak beam intensity of 99,310 candela, and is equipped with a dazzling strobe, making it born for warriors.

● Strikingly Impressive Looking: The Warrior X 4 exudes a commanding presence with its concise yet powerful design. The eye-catching harpoon-like logos on the head and tail further enhance its aggressive aesthetic, giving the impression that this tactical companion is ready to conquer any darkness that lies ahead.

Other than the actual light output specs and beam description in the first point above, the rest tells me nothing about the light and its "tactical" applications. Phrases such as defying darkness, born for warriors, commanding presence, eye-catching logos, etc. amount to nothing more than amusing marketing hype used in an attempt to convey the product's alleged value proposition.

Warrior X operation - user manual here

The most important attribute of any device that must be used under stress (when one might be relying only on gross motor skills) is a simple user interface.

For flashlights, the universally accepted UI for "serious use" is a tail cap switch that when pressed gives maximum output every time and without fail - regardless of how the switch is manipulated - and turning off as soon as the switch is released as epitomized by the classic Surefire "twisty" tail caps. Complete and intuitive control of the light is essential for this application: turning it off on time can be as important as turning it on (at maximum output) precisely when needed.

Under the stress of imminent violence there will be no bandwidth available to control multiple output modes via tap, tap and hold, press, press and hold, etc. Additionally, having an inadvertent "tap" of the switch unexpectedly turn the light constant-on into bullet magnet mode is something I see as especially problematic;

3.1 Regular Mode
3.1.1 Turn on/off Low mode (1):
Tap to turn on Low mode, tap again to turn off, see Figure 3

Cool electronic switch technology is great for mundane EDC use, but as configured above a liability for serious risk ("tactical") applications.

Lastly, I don't know what it is with the Asian flashlight makers, but they seem to think their "tactical" flashlights need to look like something from a Hollywood Star Wars set (but that is admittedly an entirely subjective observation).

So to summarize my response to your question: between the laughable marketing hype, inappropriate user interfaces and over-the-top styling, I find it difficult to take the typical Chi-com "tactical" flashlight seriously.

Just my 2-cents, YMMV.

 

[vicv]

Fair enough.

 

[Monocrom]

I've found that very few so-called "Tactical" lights from most Made in China brands actually fit the definition of the real thing. Love it when they attach ears onto a tailcap, then say you now can tailstand the light, and have a lanyard attachment point. Two things that are completely meaningless on an actual tactical light. But how those ears do get in the way of hitting that tailcap switch under stress. Then you have most of Jetbeam's hand-held offerings. Double-click for Turbo ONLY! (Brilliant.)

And when you do find that rare model that nearly gets it right, they manage to screw it up! Wurkkos TD03.... Perfect tailcap switch. But instead of instant access to Turbo with a momentary-switch, they made it instant access to Strobe. Want Turbo? Take your other hand and rotate the tailcap for constant-on ONLY. (They came sooo close.)

 

[ilikeguns40]

I tactical light IMO should only have one mode with an unshrouded tailcap.

Also a light on a handgun or rifle is the most effective solution, that's if it's a live or die situation

Strobe? I don't think it's effective vs a high candela blinding light with a pistol as a backup

Reliability is up there with single output. In a life or death situation the light needs to work every single time you hit that switch.

Single output Malkoff IMO is the best light for a self defense situation

Olights are geared for a different crowd of users. They generally work great for basic flashlight operations and nothing more. Me personally, I would never waste my money on one or attach any olight to my firearms

Im old school. I buy from USA manufacturers that's been building lights for a very long time. Surefire, HDS, Malkoff to name a few. They know how to build a reliable light with no BS gimmicky features or corny designs

 

[defloyd77]

Doesn't Surefire have a patent on the momentary/twist "deadman's switch"?

That greatly restricts what other companies can and cannot make.

 

[ilikeguns40]

Doesn't Surefire have a patent on the momentary/twist "deadman's switch"?

That greatly restricts what other companies can and cannot make.

I know they have a patent on 2 mode heads. Which really sucks. I'd pay high dollar for a 2 mode Malkoff MDC head

 

[Monocrom]

Doesn't Surefire have a patent on the momentary/twist "deadman's switch"?

That greatly restricts what other companies can and cannot make.

Apparently not. Sofirn makes the lights for Wurkkos. And that Wurkkos TD03 has a single-output momentary-only strobe. The rest of the output levels? Twist the tailcap to get to those.

 

[ilikeguns40]

Apparently not. Sofirn makes the lights for Wurkkos. And that Wurkkos TD03 has a single-output momentary-only strobe. The rest of the output levels? Twist the tailcap to get to those.

Do USA patents work worldwide?

Reason I'm asking is because there's so many fakes and clones from China that they don't seem to care, if they did get in legal trouble then the business will close and just rename another brand of business

 

[Monocrom]

Do USA patents work worldwide?

Reason I'm asking is because there's so many fakes and clones from China that they don't seem to care, if they did get in legal trouble then the business will close and just rename another brand of business

They're supposed to. But China is infamous for ignoring them.
Still, you look at a Wurkkos TD03, you're not going to mistake it for a SureFire model. But in this case, Sofirn tweaked the very unusual U.I. to such an extent that it would be hard to argue they ripped off SureFire. The U.I. is unusual enough that most of the Wurkkos TD03 review I did awhile back on my YouTube channel, was just explaining the U.I. to my subscribers.

 

[dano]

Doesn't Surefire have a patent on the momentary/twist "deadman's switch"?

That greatly restricts what other companies can and cannot make.

It's for the lock-out/plunger style tail cap. They sued Pentagonlight out of existence for it, but not Pelican, who used the same tail cap design as PL...

 

[Monocrom]

It's for the lock-out/plunger style tail cap. They sued Pentagonlight out of existence for it, but not Pelican, who used the same tail cap design as PL...

Pelican is large enough to give SureFire a proper legal battle. Two things in their favor: One, no corrupt judge handing SureFire a defacto victory with that ridiculous injunction early on, before SureFire could even prove their claims against P.L. Two, being able to afford an army of lawyers who are just as capable as SureFire's.

Also, the tailcap wasn't the issue. It was the excuse. While PentagonLight's hand-held models were just so-so and no threat to SureFire sales, their weapon-mounted lights were a completely different story. So they came up with an excuse to sue them. Why compete when you can sue the much smaller guy out of business? And in good old American style, since P.L. couldn't compete financially (especially after that ridiculously corrupt judge granted SureFire's request for an injunction early on) they were forced to give up. That's the thing.... SureFire didn't actually win their lawsuit. P.L. gave up for financial reasons.

 

[iacchus]

I bought a couple of early offerings from Olight. Liked the form factor and output. This was before all the proprietary charging magnets and such. I think they were both varying sizes of Batons.
Both died on me w/in a week. Damndest thing. I never touched one again after that.

I can understand some of the overdriven chinese racelights being somewhat fragile, but these were marketed more as tools. In that they failed spectacularly.

My fault really. I should've known better.

 

[defloyd77]

Apparently not. Sofirn makes the lights for Wurkkos. And that Wurkkos TD03 has a single-output momentary-only strobe. The rest of the output levels? Twist the tailcap to get to those.

That's a tricky one and possibly why it's momentary strobe, possibly a workaround for the patent? That or since they're a China based company, they just don't care about US patents.

It's for the lock-out/plunger style tail cap. They sued Pentagonlight out of existence for it, but not Pelican, who used the same tail cap design as PL...

4Sevens also got sued for it as the Maelstrom used it, I don't recall if Jetbeam, Olight, Fenix and whatever other companies were involved in the suit used it too. Target's River Rock and Energizer rebranded Nuwaii flashlights used them too and vanished off the shelves around the time of the lawsuit, but I don't believe they were involved.

Pelican and Inova both use the patented tailcap and have escaped SF's wrath, which makes me believe they are paying to use the patent from Surefire or at the very least have their blessing.

I remember Surefire calling Pentagonlight out on falsely advertising being US made, which makes me wonder if they're more likely to get along with fellow US companies (which Inova was back then.)