Why I won't be buying a SureFire U2

[KevinL]

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

[ QUOTE ]
McGizmo said:
OK, I just bailed on a long response to this thread. Instead, I will try to sum up my feelings here.

The premise of the subject of this thread represents to me all that is wrong, petty, and inconsiderate about CPF. If there were a thread titled "Why I won't be buying an Aleph flashlight" and had it come about for the same reasons this thread has, I'll tell you why you wouldn't be buying an Aleph flashlight! It's because I wouldn't friggin sell you one!!


[/ QUOTE ]

WELL SAID! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/clap.gif

No offence to you, but I was wondering why people on CPF can sell lights ranging from $200-$250 and yet when Surefire sells a $270 light (MSRP - I've seen lower), all hell breaks loose. I passed on this and many other magnificent custom lights out of personal choice but I don't go walk all over them.

I love the reason as to "why you wouldn't be buying an Aleph" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crackup.gif great one!

Edit: Actually, Ginseng's got a legit reason, because he's already found the perfect light. This response is better suited to the other SF-bashing thread.

 

[KevinL]

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

[ QUOTE ]
PocketBeam said:
I just wish they made a U2 for the market I am in. Broke. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

CPF does.... ask ksbman about the Christmas Gift List /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Mr_Dead]

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

Well, gee...

Personally, I find the discussions helpful in direct proportion to people's freedom to speak openly, but it's not my forum, and if that's not acceptable.. maybe instead of everyone having to guess exactly where the line is, and having to "curb" the discussions again and again, it would be a lot simpler to make it very clear to everyone that SF is a major financial contributer to the forum, and just tell us up front exactly what we may or may not discuss, and what we're allowed to say about their products?

Or perhaps any critcism, however mild, is always going to be in "bad taste" under the circumstances?

 

[Mr_Dead]

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

Well, gee...

Personally, I find the discussions helpful in direct proportion to people's freedom to speak openly, but it's not my forum, and if that's not acceptable.. maybe instead everyone having to guess exactly where the line is, and having to "curb" the discussions again and again, it would be a lot simpler to make it very clear to everyone that SF is a major financial contributer to the forum, and just tell us up front exactly what we may or may not discuss, and what we're allowed to say about their products?

Or perhaps any critcism, however mild, is always going to be in "bad taste" under the circumstances?

 

[MrBenchmark]

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

I think they were mainly talking about the other thread. The criticism of the U2 seemed very unfair to me, and was mainly directed at it by folks who don't have one. I could understand people concluding it was a total POS if:
- it had an underperforming LED
- it had electronics problems
- it had mechanical problems
*any* of those kinds of issues would totally justify strong and harsh criticism, in my opinion.

But no, the criticisms levelled at the light were:
- it's expensive
- it doesn't go "click-click-click" when you turn the dial.
- some of the HA III looks kinda purplish
- the luxeon V employed has exactly the same technological limitations as every other luxeon V LED in production. SF should have done better!

oh puh-lease! The middle two gripes are a matter of personal preference, and the first and last are just reality.

Certainly these issues have some merit in terms of personal preferences and could be discussed - but to conclude that the light is complete junk because of them? And it still might have been fine had the complaints been kept limited to the flashlight itself. But no, some folks got kinda personal about this.

 

[Mr_Dead]

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

[ QUOTE ]
MrBenchmark said:I think they were mainly talking about the other thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Sorry, but McGiz' post and Sasha's "second" were clearly directed at this thread, not the other.

 

[Darell]

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

[ QUOTE ]
Mr_Dead said:
[ QUOTE ]
MrBenchmark said:I think they were mainly talking about the other thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Sorry, but McGiz' post and Sasha's "second" were clearly directed at this thread, not the other.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, you noticed to which thread the comments were directed... but did you miss where the comments were NOT directed at the specific light or company (note the Aleph comparison) but at the concept of this thread? You noticed that too, right? This thread is basically begging for reviews of a product from people who do not and will not own the product in question. Is there a point to that? Is there value in that? I guess if there is value, it is in hearing how people percieve something that they've never touched. Psycology is always interesting to some extent. I live with it all the time in regard to my passion for EVs.

A constructive criticism is never complete without a suggested solution, so here are some thread subject suggestions:
"I like my L4 specs better than the U2 specs because..." or
"I think the concept of the LionHeart is better than the U2 concept because...." or
"I'm selling my U2 because it didn't measure up to what I thought it would be...." or
"If I were designing the U2, I'd have made it more...."

Please don't take the low road and suggest that nothing bad can be said about SF products on CPF.

 

[Greta]

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

MrBenchmark... thank you for the attempt at clarification... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

However... the ONLY point that *I* am trying to make... (I won't presume to speak for Don)... is that the loudest whining/bashing/complaining seems to be coming from those who have never even laid eyes on the U2 much less their hands. And then they move on to whining/bashing/complaining about Surefire just because they have never even laid eyes much less hands on a U2.

Once again, I'll just simply repeat what Don said... "The premise of the subject of this thread represents to me all that is wrong, petty, and inconsiderate about CPF."

And yes, the other thread has unfortunately been degraded to the level of this thread too... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

 

[Greta]

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

[ QUOTE ]
... it would be a lot simpler to make it very clear to everyone that SF is a major financial contributer to the forum...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah and?

This "red-herring" always cracks me up... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crackup.gif

I don't and won't ever apologize for or deny the fact that PAUL KIM... NOT Surefire!!!... is a major supporter and contributer to CPF. However, assuming that SUREFIRE gets some kind of special treatment here because of PK's contributions is pure BS. If a product is nothing but shite, it deserves to be critiqued... by those who have actually seen/touched/tested the product! ... If a dealer or manufacturer has proven themself to be unethical, they too deserve the criticism... by those who have and can provide actual, first-hand knowledge and evidence!

Don't you think that is the only fair way for things to be handled here on CPF?

 

[McGizmo]

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

OK,
I *should* have stuck with the "long version". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

An objective discusion and even subjective take on any lights is instructive for the group and has merit. I was not trying to target Ginsing with my comment as his initial post gives reasons and evaluations. However, as I recall, he started this thread "as opposed" to the other to the other favorable threads. I see no reason for pros and cons of any lights not to exist in the same thread. (edited)

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.

There is a rule on CPF that you attack the post and not the poster. I can see the reason for this rule I guess but it does make it dificult for me at times because to get at the root of an issue, I say go to the source and in the case of these recent threads on the U2 there is a particular source that I would like to confront directly and suggest he keep his poison to himself.

I am probably bumbling and digging in deeper here! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

Can I say that I really mean no offense to anyone and would like to suggest that others avoid offensive remarks as well? The U2 has features and short comings as do all lights. It has a price that either is justified or not based on the perceived value of its features to the potential buyer. "why I won't buy or why I will buy" is presumably based on my evaluation of a lights pros and cons and how they relate to price and need (want). My purchasing decisions are personal and certainly secondary in a bigger picture to a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a light. If the gang here can identify these strengths and weaknesses by observation and discussion then we can all make a better personal decision as to whether we buy or don't. I think this is what Ginsing was after and my bad for seeming to have attacked him on this.

Can you understand why I would take exception to a thread titled "Why I won't buy an Aleph 3" posted in the McGizmo forum but why I wouldn't take excepption to a thread titled "the Pros and Con's of the Aleph 3"? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

Arghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am failing to communicate!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif

One last shot here. There is a saying "Don't shoot the mesenger." Lets call the U2 a message and SF the messenger. Lets call an Aleph the message and me the mesenger. Please don't shoot us! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

 

[BigHonu]

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

[ QUOTE ]
Brock said:
[ QUOTE ]

I never handled one...
3. Selector Ring. Requires two hands to operate and I don't really know what level the light will come on in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been using one for a while now and I can easily select the level and hold it with one hand. I have gotten used to spinning it to low before turning it on in the dark (although I typically leave it on low). I do this without looking at the light or thinking about it now, it became second nature rather quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brock,

Thanks! I stand corrected!

Aloha

Brian

 

[MrBenchmark]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is very well said. I *do not* understand the hostility towards Surefire, especially over price. Some of the lights here are pretty expensive. And I know that not everyone has the means, nor the desire, to purchase some of the higher end lights. And the fact is, many of the less expensive lights are actually *DAMN GOOD*. This is a great situation, because just about everyone can enjoy this hobby!

However, the U2, while unarguably an expensive light, is just NOT beyond the means of most people here. It may not be worth it to some folks, and if that's the case, that's just fine. But I'd venture that if most here just *had* to have this light, they could obtain one somehow. They might not like the price, but they could get one. (I know this would be hard for some - and for unemployed folks or students, it might really be nearly impossible.) But look - the other hobby I have is astronomy, and in that hobby, $270 doesn't get you very far at all! The top-of-the-line equipment can run into thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars! A lot of that gear is almost certainly beyond the means of the average person in the hobby - it requires either a personal sacrifice and incredible dedication, or being extraordinarily fortunate, to be able to buy and use some of that equipment. This does cause hard feelings, from time to time, and while I don't condone that, I do understand it. (BTW, just like in this hobby, it's possible to do a LOT in astronomy with some of the less expensive gear. But even so - $270 is pretty low budget.)

So what is the big deal here? One of the more top-end products for this hobby is within the means of most of the people who participate in the hobby. What a great situation! And for those who don't feel those particular choices suit them well, for whatever reason, there's lots of other really fantastic products, at all sorts of prices, to choose from. I just don't see much to be angry or frustrated about.

 

[Gman]

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

I guess my opinion isn't technically in keeping with the title of this thread because I did buy one. And I agree with Sasha, if you're going to bash a product you need first hand experience with it. Otherwise simply stick with concrete reasons like you can't afford it, ect.

Having said that I sold mine. After having it for a week I decided that it wasn't a good value ie; I decided it's performance and attributes weren't worth what I paid for it. I consider the slight loss I took on the sale to be the price paid for a firsthand evaluation. No big deal. Does that mean I think all Surefires are overpriced? No. But this one was, for me, simply not worth the coin.

As I said, no big deal to either me or SF in that they got to keep my money. I do on occasion find it a little amusing how some defend SF in the face of any and all criticism though.

 

[jtr1962]

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

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.

 

[K-T]

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

jtr,

I might have missed something but the U2 doesn't have a plastic tailcap. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif
I also think that refering to the Luxeon V as old technology when comparing it to the Luxeon III is not 100% true. The Luxeon III could be compared to the Luxeon I as the new vs. old. The LIII and LV are two different horses in my opinion and both serve well for each and their application.

Money and efficiency are a matter of taste and tolerance. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[hokiefritz]

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

I have a comment on the U2 being to big to EDC. I'm not trying to justify a purchase or convince someone else to by one, but I'm not sure how so many are convinced that it is too big for normal people to carry daily. Many folks EDC a 6P and I think the U2 is much more pocket and carry friendly. Since it has variable brightness you don't need to carry two or more lights (which to some is a downside I realize). In my opinion, the U2 is an excellent daily carry light. I realize everyone has different needs, an I'm just putting out an opinion I haven't run across yet.

 

[Mr_Dead]

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

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.

 

[Brock]

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

We are getting way off topic. I guess I don't go around saying how I will never buy a Arc or starting threads about why I won't buy the light or jumping in every time I see people having a discussion about the light in a thread to point out why I don't like the light and why I won't buy it. This is what seems to me often happens with Surefire and I honestly don't know why. (BTW I am using Arc as an example; it is a very nice light). My point is, why is it people need to about things in a negative light, no matter what it is. I can understand if you have a valid concern, thought or question, but this has gone far beyond that as usual. My mother always said if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it. I am often quiet...

 

[Kiessling]

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

IMHO the main problem here is that the attacks (or call it criticism if you are so inclined) target SF the company or the people buying the light while they should target the light itself and its features.
Of course, "officially", the U2 is attacked, but the arguments presented are so weak and just a diversion for the main attack ... which is directed elsewhere.
This is no appropriate behaviour, it is not constructive, nothing can be gained from it.

Discussions about merits and flaws of new lights anre the essence of CPF and are never influenced ar hindered by "SF fanatics", the "CPF heavyweights". This other behaviour mentioned above is stopped however, and it would be stopped for every other brand, too.

But ... this happens only to SF. Why? I dunno /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif ...

BTW ... I disagree about opinions that you have to actually own or at least have touched one to be able to voice an opinion. You can use the info gatheres here and on other places to voice your opinions, discuss with others and adjust it when necessary.
But this was never the intention of the "bashing-threads", wasn't it?

This behaviour is a shame for our community.

bernhard

 

[Topper]

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

Uh, I think I just said I can't afford it and that I was getting a LionHeart. I was not bashing anything or anyone or any company. I would love to try one. I own many SF lights I just do not have the income to buy the U2.
Topper /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif