The first revision of the Arc4 also had a touchy switch. After the rev1s were sent out, we got feedback from you guys that said this was the most important issue to be worked on. We then told the contract engineer that this was our number one problem to solve. The result was the rev2 design. I get the impression though that the fix made the problem worse in some cases!
Honestly, the problem is made more difficult to solve because of it's intermittant nature. I keep telling you guys, we test the switch on each light quite a few times. Once when it is measured for brightness, a couple of times to check the tint at level 16 and another for good measure before the battery is removed and everything is packaged. Obviously, the state of the switch does not remain the same once it leaves the factory. I am beginning to think that a couple of things are happening from when the product leaves the factory and you get it at your home:
1. Parts move around inside the tail assembly
2. Tempurature may cause some parts to expand, changing the alignment
3. Different cells change the length of the mechansim
4. The rubber boot and/or other parts stretch out with repeated use
5. "Monkey dust" (a term for all other types of wierdness)
I am going to have the techs test each light with different batteries. Since the Rev1, we also dunk each light in hot water for 2 minutes before the switch is tested one last time. That tends to make me think that temp is less of a factor than some of the other possibilities.
Ultimately, I think we just need more range in the parts. This will make the assembly more tolerant of the many possible variations. Adding this increased travel will require another revision. This time, I am going to play a more hands-on role with the engineering to make sure we get exactly what I want.
If you got a bum switch, you can send the light back, or just the tail or we can send you some parts to swap out. I like the part swap for several reasons: if we tweak the switch, we still can't be sure it will work in your particular situation, sending you the parts is quicker and requires less shipping, etc. The downside is that you are then doing work that we should be doing as the manufacturer. Another down side is that you might make it worse and get even more frustrated. Also, there is more wasted parts than if you sent it back and we rebent the parts, etc to make them more precise.
As far as how common the switch problem is, I don't know yet. We have to look at how many incidents are reported. More units were made this time around so if the percentage of defect is the same, more defects will be reported. I am hoping that this revision (rev2) will actually reduce the percentage. Too soon to say though.
Sorry for the inconvenence. You and I enjoy an unusually close relationship for a manufacturer/customer, lets work this problem together.
Peter