New U2 In Hand

Well, I have been somewhat of a skeptic of the SF U2... That is until now. I recently traded a SF M3 for a SF U2 and couldn't be happier with the deal. The light is first-rate, the twisty-turny thing more solid than I imagined, and no donut hole.

Happy days... Happy days indeed.

78CJ5 said:

Well, I have been somewhat of a skeptic of the SF U2... That is until now. I recently traded a SF M3 for a SF U2 and couldn't be happier with the deal. The light is first-rate, the twisty-turny thing more solid than I imagined, and no donut hole.

Happy days... Happy days indeed.

Click to expand...

Its good to here that you are happy with your U2. I would love to get one if I knew it would be as it should be without having to return it for whatever reason. I hope it serves you well.

Yeah I would sell half my flashlight collection for a U2 if I thought it would come without problems. The concept is great and the fact it is a Surefire means that IT WILL GET FIXED. However, the problem for me is that I just don't want all the needless hassle that sending it back for warranty repairs entails.

I was really looking forward to the Kroma, but if they can't/won't get all the problems fixed with the U2 I'm really skeptical that the Kroma will be more of the same?

Doug

I think we should look at this "situation" in a more realistic manner, meaning we should realize that our expectations aren't necessarily SureFire's goals.

We complain about ...

... tint. No a concern for SF IMHO. Not guaranteed either.

... donut hole ... apparently not a concern for SF, but for us.

... tailcap malfunctions. Seems to be fixed with the new units, re-designed.

... dust inside the window. Not pretty, I agree, but then again ... function won't suffer.

All the rest of the complaints seem to be isolated incidents of a very widespread light failing. For instance ... in one of my U2s, the emitter slowly melted and oozed some goo. Others reported some different things, but nothing in higher numbers occured IIRC.
This can happen and will happen with the more and more complicated devices.

I don't say such things do not matter, and I wasn't amused when my U2's LED bit the dust. BUT SF made it right.

I think we as flashaholics look at those lights from a different perspective than the maker of them, and thus have different expectations. The U2 wasn't designed for our needs though, and IMHO a great part of the dissatisfaction voiced on CPF might come from this fact. And from the imperfections of the mighty LuxV.

Just IMHO of course.

bernie

Kiessling, I think you're right on with your assessment of the U2 "problems." It sounds like CPFers are just nitpicky about things that do not really concern Surefire nor their military customers.

I wouldn't see it in a one-sided fashion. For example ... the tailcap failures were a screw-up IMHO, which needed a correction. The tint doesn't matter for SF but it does for us ... which is tragic since no one is really at fault I think ... the design goals just don't match the expectations of e special group.
bernie

P.S.: I am only speculation about SF's priorities or plans ... all my arguments are "IMHO" and might also be fueled by a sadness seeing my most favourite light receiving so much beating around here lately.

Emphasis mine.

Kiessling said:

I think we should look at this "situation" in a more realistic manner, meaning we should realize that our expectations aren't necessarily SureFire's goals.

We complain about ...
... tint. No a concern for SF IMHO. Not guaranteed either.
... donut hole ... apparently not a concern for SF, but for us.
... tailcap malfunctions. Seems to be fixed with the new units, re-designed.
... dust inside the window. Not pretty, I agree, but then again ... function won't suffer.
...
I think we as flashaholics look at those lights from a different perspective than the maker of them, and thus have different expectations. The U2 wasn't designed for our needs though, and IMHO a great part of the dissatisfaction voiced on CPF might come from this fact. And from the imperfections of the mighty LuxV.

Click to expand...

And Bernie hits in on the nail, yet again. Very well said.

My "U2 experience" opened my eyes to the above, and other elements of what I expect vs. what a tool is designed to do, manufacturer criteria, etc.
No light is ever "perfect" but we tend to hold SF to that (irreal, I now realize) standard.

Even with the problems I had with my U2, I'd still buy another one. It's one h**l of a light!

It's probably a safe bet that any individual, not just a CPFer, who decides to spend $250+ on a flashlight would be picky about it's fit, finish, and performance. I think that any complaint that an owner has about his or her U2 is legit no matter how insignificant it seems to someone else.

It's a nice light and I'm glad that 78CJ5's U2 met or exceeded his expectations, but again, when someone dumps that kind of money on a flashlight you expect SF's best.

Had every light Surefire makes and the U2 is a masterpiece.Mr Kim has outdone himself with this one!

onlinewarlord said:

I think that any complaint that an owner has about his or her U2 is legit no matter how insignificant it seems to someone else.
...
when someone dumps that kind of money on a flashlight you expect SF's best.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying the complaints are not legit (having experienced all of what Bernie outlined, plus a strobing head, plus a screwy bezel gasket, and 2 returns). What I mean to say is that CPF'ers expectations of perfection are unreal. No matter how much money we dump on a light (SF or otherwise), no light is perfect.

SF argueably the best light manufacturer out there - by no means that implies that the lights they make are perfect, which is what we've been slowly led ourselves to believe (somehow, I don't know how that hapenned). With the U2 being "top of the LED line", we expected perfection. Not so. It's still the ultimate light in its class.

Although I do not own a U2 myself, my friend does. And I really think that it is a top notch piece of engineering.

I am glad that you are enjoying your Light 78CJ5.

Regards,
John

78cj im glad to hear that your u2 is withought flaws! now, you need to buy a protected 18650 lithium ion battery and a dsd charger from AW and have what i consider the BEST edc solution availible!

I do love my U2. Best do all light I have!! (thanks again greenLED)

Ron

I am mindful of the ''pro'' and ''anti'' Surefire lobbies on CPF but am amazed at the lack of objectivity being shown here. Any product irrespective of the manufacturer ''should'' perform as intended and meet the expectations of the purchaser.

The first point is that the U2 is NOT obviously and consistantly meeting the normally high standards that most of us expect from a Surefire product. The numbers of U2's being reported to have faults is (or appears) to be higher than any comparable Surfire model that I can remember? The fact that those who do not have problems doesn't excuse the disappointment or frustration for those who do!

I agree that arguements about tint and doughnut holes are subjective and don't necessarily mean a product is faulty or failed. I think that issues of tailcap failures and other problems are an indication of manufacturing and quality control issues and DO need addressing?

High end products of whatever flavour should perform as designed and demonstrate the manufacturers ability to find and develop solutions to problems. In this regard Surefire IMHO has not addressed the problems being experienced and cannot expect the QC issues which are obviously a part of this problem to be ignored simply because a hard core of afficiandos don't like their favourite manufacturer to be criticised.

I love Surefire products and own quite a few of them. Does this blind me to the reality that one of them appears to be having more problems than I've come to expect from the brand? No! Does criticism mean that I am unloyal? No! Criticism should be seen as an opportunity by Surefire to investigate and correct problems to improve the product and prevent unnecessary and costly warranty returns!

Only by being able to accept and learn from mistakes or weaknesses do we improve on anything and patently there is room to improve with regard to the problems being experienced with the U2? Far from rejecting any criticism or moans Surefire should openly embrace the opportunity to investigate and remedy why failure is occuring. The goal surely should be to aim for as close to 100% satisfaction as possible?

I fear that those who are satisfied with their U2's on this forum are being unrealistic and unsympathetic to expect those who do experience problems to not voice their anger and dissappointment at what is after all an expensive pu rchase.

Doug

The numbers of U2's being reported to have faults is (or appears) to be higher than any comparable Surfire model that I can remember

Click to expand...

There is no comparable Surefire. It has an electronic complexity that isn't found in any other SF light in the public domain.


The 6P is the source of the SF reputation. If you have an original you will notice it is about the simplest device around. With complexity comes a higher rate of error. The U2 is the first foray into the nonstandard LED converter-emitter combo, and it sometimes takes time to nail down the production problems. This is just something an early adopter has to learn to live with. If you want 6sigma, then you need to wait a while for maturation.

Luna,

I'm sorry I don't buy that! I accept that new products do take time to iron out faults but the U2 has been in the wild for over a year now and these reported problems are nothing new. Yes, the U2 is complicated but it isn't a pocket pc is it? If you buy anything complicated there is always a higher incidence of failure than a simpler machine. However, many of the problems with the tail switch could have been identified by exhaustive testing and identified before rather than after it went on sale?

The switch on the Gladius has had a few (read very few issues) but hasn't attracted the attention that the U2 switch has. Is this because the designers at Nite-Ops are better than Surefire? No! It is because the Gladius underwent exhaustive testing prior to release! The HDS uses complicated electronics but isn't known for a high incidence of failure? Again you must ask why?

As I said in my post the ability to recognise and remedy manufacturing issues rather than rely on a replacement warranty is a better advertisment for Surefire than allowing customer dissatisfaction.

Doug

I think that issues of tailcap failures and other problems are an indication of manufacturing and quality control issues and DO need addressing?

Click to expand...

Agreed, and never said otherwise, and I guess no one would. BUT ... the known tailcap problem aside ... I do not remember that many other problems that show up on a regular basis ... I mostly see tint, donut and tailcap as well as dust.

In this regard Surefire IMHO has not addressed the problems being experienced and cannot expect the QC issues which are obviously a part of this problem to be ignored simply because a hard core of afficiandos don't like their favourite manufacturer to be criticised.

Click to expand...

This is unfair and the components of your argument aren't even related, because SF doesn't expect anything in these halls, and those who you call "hardcore afficionados" in a very negative way have every right to post their opinion as you or the others who put blame on SF do. Those "hardcore afficionados" aren't SureFire ... but fellow flashaholics.
Did you ever notice that SF does not address any problem on CPF any more? Ever wondered why?

I fear that those who are satisfied with their U2's on this forum are being unrealistic and unsympathetic to expect those who do experience problems to not voice their anger and dissappointment at what is after all an expensive pu rchase.

Click to expand...

Where did you get the impression that anyone wants to "silence the opposition" as you are suggesting? You are using demagogic and polarising arguments which simply aren't true. Of course everyone expressing critisism should be prepared to encounter those who are satisfied expressing support. And I like it that way ... it represents the free flow of information and forming of opinions.
Would you want the voices in favour of SF being silenced?

It is because the Gladius underwent exhaustive testing prior to release!

Click to expand...

Suggesting that the U2 wasn't tested prior to release is beyond any reasonable statement or opinion I can come up with. Sorry.

The HDS uses complicated electronics but isn't known for a high incidence of failure? Again you must ask why?

Click to expand...

Because it was tested and had its armageddon under the name of Arc. If this should be of relevance to this thread, which I highly doubt.



In the end ... I am sorry to see you using a very polarising style of argumentation, trying to divide and seperate us flashaholics into two fighting groups where no such thing should be ... hiding behind a mask of basic truths like the necessity to bring up problems and issues with lights ... and suggesting false assumptions, like SF trying to influence anything on CPF or some members wanting to suppress the "truth".

I would prefer a more reasonable and open discussion with "the art" and our hobby as the center of interest instead of fueling some fires.

bernie

I would also point out the number of Gladius models in peoples hands is miniscule in proportion to the number of U2's out there.

Bill

The HDS uses complicated electronics but isn't known for a high incidence of failure? Again you must ask why?

Click to expand...

Man I miss the old Arc products, its a shame that the Arc4 had the achilles heel of its switch. The HDS design uses a shorting design vs a battery pushing a switch design.

The Gladius also has that problem of a lousy switch cap, and the "not ultra friendly" method to reloadi ts batterys, as well as being broken from a 2 foot fall to carpet. (Source https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/91572 )

The HDS also had its design flaws of - Switch was originally too hard to press, lowest level flickers a bit (Fixed) BEZEL ring (INCREDIBLELY bad thing here, can be fixed by using beamshapers to protect it or foam, and TI Bezels...)

All these lights have design flaws.

Bernie

I refuse to answer some of your criticisms of my post but think that your statement ''Did you ever notice that SF does not address any problem on CPF any more? Ever wondered why?'' tends to suggest that you apportion blame to anyone such as myself who suggests that one of their products isn't, in my opinion,up to their normal high standards from participation on CPF? Is that fair? Is that rational? How do you justify that statement? Did Surefire ever actively particpate in discussion on CPF?

If you care to read some recent posts on other threads there has been plenty of discourse very recently over the U2 even to the extent that one of our own moderators was drawn into the arguement of being too biased towards Surefire? (And I actually didn't participate in that thread!) Perhaps you may feel that the other posters are trying to polarise CPF over the U2? Or is it just me?

My post was spoken from the heart and was not an invitation to cause friction between CPF members Your response to my post seems to ignore any possible positives and instead has focused in an out of context way what I wrote.