Why I won't be buying a SureFire U2

[turbodog]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

[ QUOTE ]
jtr1962 said:
1. Too expensive. Sorry but I'm too cheap to pay close to $300 for a flashlight when I can think of all the other things I can spend that money on which will give me many more hours of pleasure. I'd probably get more enjoyment building my ideal light myself anyway.

2. It uses a Luxeon 5 which is basically an old technology hack compared to the LIII. Also, I'd rather wait until LEDs get to at least 70 to 100 lm/W efficiency before investing a lot of money in a decent LED light.

3. It uses either disposable 123s or still in their infancy R123s. I'd rather buy something that uses NiMH AAs as they represent a cheap and mature technology in which I already have a substantial investment both timewise and moneywise.

4. It's not infinitely variable. That's not a 100% requirement, but I'd like a light like this to have at least, say, 64 steps instead of only six.

5. Plastic tailcap. I know the reasons for this but hey, on a flashlight costing close to $300 couldn't they have found a way to use metal and still avoid the friction problem.

This isn't meant to be a U2 bashing but rather I'm pointing out here why it isn't for me. I believe this was the point of this thread to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be sure.... we don't know right now if it'll even run off r123 cells. But it runs fine off pila 168s and 168a cells.

 

[Hotpockets]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

jtr1962, Mine is running on 3 rayovac IC3 AAs NiMH because I'm low on 123a. It's a bit long but it seems to be full brightness on high. (To bad it wont fire on 2 AA) Just for your consideration... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[KevinL]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

[ QUOTE ]
Hotpockets said:
jtr1962, Mine is running on 3 rayovac IC3 AAs NiMH because I'm low on 123a. It's a bit long but it seems to be full brightness on high. (To bad it wont fire on 2 AA) Just for your consideration... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

How'd you do that? Is this running on the bench or what kind of power pack did you build for it?

 

[Mr Ted Bear]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

re 2 X r123'S

apparently too much voltage for the circuit. the u2 stays at the maximum output regardless of the collar position being placed on low...

 

[KevinL]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

[ QUOTE ]
Mr Ted Bear said:
re 2 X r123'S

apparently too much voltage for the circuit. the u2 stays at the maximum output regardless of the collar position being placed on low...

[/ QUOTE ]

Too much? Was it PK who told you? Ouch...

Since the U2 is a constant current boost circuit with power control, that essentially sounds like it is going straight into direct-drive mode, bypassing the entire circuit and the power control mechanism along with it.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif I had a sinking feeling it was true, because the way the U2 would be designed, for maximum efficiency, it'd use a boost-only circuit since it was built for a 2-cell platform.

Good thing my Z20 battery spacer is shipping with the U2 (WHEN it does ship..) I guess 1 x R123 + Z20, my runtime's gonna suck but it's better than forking out $43 for a Pila charger and another $30 for the battery - that's a LOT of money being thrown after the U2.

BTW, for L2 owners, despair not that you have no rechargeable options - 1 x R123 and a Z20 should do the trick.

 

[MR Bulk]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

...because I already GOT one - as a gift.

An' ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... LAWK it!!!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/buttrock.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/clap.gif

 

[SUREFARC]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

One more thing, it does not look good to me.

Some surefireholics got nervous here by this post, hah? I even noticed the word "hostility". Calm down, dude! I am a surefireholic too, ok?

 

[js]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

[ QUOTE ]
McGizmo said:

My problem is with a blatant double standard where, IMHO, SF is held accountable to issues of pricing, quality, practices and other issues in a "us VS them" mentality. As mentioned above, I have sold lights for more than the price of the U2 and in terms of design, complexity, features, quality and material cost, my lights don't even come close!! Am I ripping CPF members off then? Well I am not getting rich on excessive profit, so I say no! There are legitimate reasons and considerations for the disparity in price and what you get from me compared to SF. However, to an outsider and strictly in terms of price, show them the U2 and one of my lights or the LH being offered by TW now and ask an outsider to choose one of the lights based on features, quality, warranty and price.

I have no issue with much of the content in this thread and I chose to hang my disdain on the "premise of the subject of this thread". Perhaps I chose the wrong words. I realize that I am likely not communicating properly. I would guess that there are many CPF members who have not and will not buy one of my lights or even a LH due to price considerations and based on need and want. That's fine and understandable. I also appreciate the fact that neither Charlie or I are blasted or flamed for the prices of our offerings! I don't appreciate the fact that SF is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and nicely said. It's really kind of crazy! Some people (example thread) seem to take the price of a SureFire light as some kind of PERSONAL insult, which is a little odd to my mind.

As a modder I can say that I have an intense appreciation for the amount of research, money, time, and work that must have gone into something like the SureFire U2. If I were a company and were trying to survive off the profits of my CPF modding endearvours, I would have to charge a LOT more than I do, and my battery packs and lamps and so on are not cheap to begin with, --and like Don says, "I am not getting rich on excessive profit".

The grumblings about the cost of SureFire lights can be coming from many many different angles. For some it's just a "Aww man, I wish I could afford it, but I just can't" and I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but for others it's a "What is SureFire thinking? Are they STUPID? Well, they can just shove that U2 right up their . . ." and I for one wish that this sort of post could be forgone.

Still, everyone has a right to post their opinions. And that's mine, FWIW.

 

[Greta]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

Regarding run-time and EDC-ability... the following is a "review" of sorts that my husband made shortly after I got my U2. I no longer have the picture that is referenced.

[ QUOTE ]
The photo you see was taken at hour 32 what worked out to be a 38 hour day with a 44 minute nap. That morning I closed my eyes on a clock that read 1:something or other. At 1:44 I received a call for a Homicide. On the way out the door I grabbed the U2 (fortunately you know who was still groggy) and steamed north into action.

I worked the perimeter of the crime scene with her at full steam. We received new camera's but no flashes. The U2 served as the flash for the overall scene pictures. Don't throw away your flash gear, this met the minimal requirements of lighting. OBTW the distance was 50 yards, I'm not sure the flash would have been sufficient anyway.

We worked the interior of the scene, I handed over my favorite scene light, the L4 to another detective. I was working evidence from one inch to 40 feet with no problems. Turn the dial, ride the mile.

I worked this scene with this light for six hours. If there was a reduction in intensity I probably didn't notice due to the sun finally coming around.

When the photo was taken the U2 was on another hour of run time. It was used in the trunk to the underrcarriage. For this particular task the U2 is a fantastic piece of kit.

I showed Sasha the light at lunch and it dumped out in front of us. So it might be safe to say she can run for 10 hours using it's different variables.

What was interesting was the reaction from the different disciplines within the department. The Tac Guys were blase....until I mentioned it will probably end up on a weapon mount. Patrol liked it but said they needed another six inches to back off the bad guys. The crime lab was extremely impressed.

In the end I lost a friend, the L4, it is now going permanently on my tac gear. You can't see the L4 in the picture but it was just forward of my magazines.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there's a "real-world" evaluation of the U2. And a testament of it's runtime under REAL conditions. And it really does fit quite nicely in the side leg pocket of a pair of 511's... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

As far as NON-"real world" EDC... I only have one purse that the U2 will not fit comfortably in... but if I remove my wallet, there's no problem at all... and who needs a wallet? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif

 

[Haesslich]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

[ QUOTE ]
MR Bulk said:
...because I already GOT one - as a gift.

An' ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... LAWK it!!!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/buttrock.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/clap.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Between that and the LH, you're set for a while. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[cy]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

Sasha, nice writeup!!

I won't be getting a U2 for awhile because I just paid for an Surefire M6. Oooouch... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[nexro]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

Interesting to know that white light is useful at a scene. I still don't know why they use incandescents in CSI (the series) when everything is so hi-tech. Perhaps we will see them using the U2 in later episodes /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If I got a U2, I will be looking for an empty pocket in my pants for it

 

[Klaus]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

The really interesting part to me is that LOTs of the people hyping/liking/whatever the U2 most I guess didn´t paid for it - at least I believe so - now at 0 USD the cost issue becomes somwhat obsolete /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif and the personal evaluation of especially the VALUE is slightly different then than us average folks /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Now to why I won´t (at least for now) be buying the U2 - at least I can keep myself under control so far and this thread helps

Tint concerns (needed 4 KL4 LED swaps to be happy)
Probably too big - but will try to hold one and see
Enough other alternative 5W LEDs already
Quite a steep price - at least at MSRP

Why I MIGHT be buying a U2 anyway

Pretty nice advanced technology for a production light
Usually pretty good Surefire quality and Customer Service
At just slightly larger then a 6P it should be OK sizeweise
The dimmer UI should be pretty intuitive
Just to round out the collection

So after being already on the lookout for one recently I just before it hit the streets got some second thoughts about it and I started to think about other nice things the money set aside could buy as well - so for now I will see how things evolve, but I do agree with Ginseng that a L4 with the U2 feature-set might do it for me as well - now just put that Z-bin in there and I will be all over it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

As usual just me 2 € cents and YMMV

Klaus

 

[McGizmo]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

Klaus,
Reasonable point about some of us reviewing a light that we didn't have to buy and certainly any qualifications based on utiliy VS price that we might make would only be speculative. For what it might be worth, the second U2 that I received yesterday from Dan at TW was paid for. Now Dan did give me an industry discount so I guess my opinion should be discounted as well! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif Then again, my opinions are biased, suspect and atypical any way you slice it! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

We are all best off if the facts can be laid out and with the conclusions drawn by the individual who is interested.

 

[Klaus]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

[ QUOTE ]
McGizmo said:
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif Then again, my opinions are biased, suspect and atypical any way you slice it! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Don, mine are probably too /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Klaus

 

[sotto]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

Frankly, as a genuine card (not) carrying flashaholic, it is very therapeutic to declare publicly, "Hey, here's a flashlight I can actually resist buying!"

(And I can resist buying a Hum-Vee, too!)

Maybe that's where some of us are coming from. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Raven]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

Surefire lights are made in the US, correct? I'm surprised this isn't pointed out more often. That would help explain why Surefire lights are more expensive than other brands made in Asia. I'll pay extra for any product, if I know that product is manufactured in a country where fair labor laws are in place.

But I'm funny like that /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[SUREFARC]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

Raven, many of us have got quite a few surefires already. But we didn't say they were so expensive and they were made in USA too. But this time we say it's SO expensive, it has nothing to do with where it is made.

 

[B@rt]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

Heck, a L4 costs more than that here... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif $270 is a deal! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

 

[Steve C]

Re: Why I won\'t be buying a SureFire U2

[ QUOTE ]
Mr_Dead said:
Sorry for the double post- not sure how that happened. Won't let me delete either.

Can't argue that some of the critcism of SF has gotten out of hand, and I won't attempt to defend it. Maybe it has even in this thread, though I thought the general tenor here was much more restrained.

A few points though- I don't consider someone saying that they won't buy the U2 because of cost "bashing". SF or any other manufacturer/builder has the perfect right to set thier prices anywhere they like (at least until it leaves their ownership- after that is debatable). That's fine, but people also have the right to not pay it- and I see nothing particularly offensive in their saying so.

I don't consider someone saying that they won't buy it because of size, weight or cost "bashing" OR INVALID just because they haven't "even held it". Sorry, you don't need to "experience" one in person to know those things about it. I doubt, if I said that I wouldn't buy a tank or a 747 because of size, weight and/or cost, people would be lining up to tell me that I had no right to say anything about those qualities without driving one.

I've read a lot of old threads in these forums. I guess what bothers me (not that it matters) is the pattern that appears to repeat over and over:

1. Someone says something critical about SF. Sometimes mild, sometimes out of line.

2. A whole cadre of fanatical SF supporters attack the person and/or his cricism, often with near-religious devotion, often with irrational arguments to rival that of Harley Davidson fanatics.

3. The discussion escalates, the critics and defenders both getting more adamant, and probably less rational.

4. The "heavyweights" of the forum, those with real clout, weigh in and tell the critics that they have gotten out of line. Seldom do they mention the brand... but it's always the critics who are out of line, never the defenders.

So, maybe that's a misperception.

[/ QUOTE ]


Its not a misperception, MrDead. I noticed it too. But the reason is not hard to understand. I have seen, more than once, the remark by one of the moderators that SF is a big contributor/supporter of this forum. Do the math.

I see the same thing on some of the modeling forums I frequent. The big advertisers are "protected" from any serious criticism.

I am relatively new here, and the "protection" doesn't seem to be as blatant as elsewhere, but...