I have seen car manufacturers change entire global supplier agreements (these were legal contracts drafted and signed for several years) because the new parts were a few US cents cheaper. The supplier was forced to sign a new agreement. Even pennies will add up over thousands of products and SKUs.
The glass lens and Carclo optic are probably expensive, not always easy to source, and have a 100% take rate (every light sold has them/needs them, so not optional).
While most of us probably don’t want a new lens/optics combo, from an engineering point of view it is a good way to ensure an almost identical product outcome while saving a lot of money.
You could also use a cheaper aluminum source, cheaper parts for the driver, a cheaper clip or drop it entirely, re-design the inner tube and make it skinnier and a more permanent part of the assembly, replace the metal switch with a rubber boot, and do a lot more!
I look forward to India’s manufacturers starting to make flashlights. Maybe their culture will be a better fit for meeting specifications/expectations.
The thing is, this is not a product Lumintop designed themselves. If Lumintop wants to change the design of say… the Tool AA, that’s fine as long as they don’t describe the old one to customers and send the new one. At worst, reviewers and community influencers will say it’s no longer a good choice.
The FW3A is a community design where volunteers did a bunch of work because they wanted it to exist and gave the result to Lumintop. Lumintop saves development costs and gets to build a product for a known market. The community has certain expectations as a result, though they’re not enforceable in the same way a contract is. The most extreme option would be someone running a second group buy to take the design to another manufacturer. They probably do have a contract with Neal, and we don’t know what’s in it. We do know Neal was expecting 10511s and glass lenses, and that’s not what he got.
Community expectations include a glass lens, a Carclo 10511 optic, a clip of the specified design, and a metal button. If Lumintop wants to make another light derived from the FW3A design using different parts and sell that at a different price point, nobody here will complain, as long as they keep making FW3As with the original design.
This is a very good point. I’m trying my best to be patient. I have plans for the additional 3 that I ordered, but they’re based on the original parts being there.
this is bad… why even change the optics to cheaper? makes no sense… sometimes i dont understand lumintops logic… I understand maybe now they didnt earn enough on all group buys or whatever reason, but just bump up the price slightly then and keep the Carclo optics instead.
OK…. :+1: …. But as far as jacking up the price of the XP-L HI “to slightly subsidize the SST-20 version with a good optic and a lens”……
To me that would not be acceptable. Let the SST-20 Version pay it’s own way. No sense in punishing those of us who like, or even prefer; the XP-L HI. We want the “good optic & lens” also remember.
In theory the new optic should produce slightly higher lumens. No light is being lost from a lens. It’s all going through the one optic.
However, it’s not surprising that we here on this forum much prefer the glass lens (for scratch resistance) combined with the flexibility of being able to swap in any Carclo optic.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind if they added the new lens, but only as an option. Maybe get a $2 discount if you opt for their lens instead of the Carclo.
I would never accept a plastic lens.
Not on a light like this.
If they want to mess up this light before it even ramped up, they can do this…
But I will no longer buy it…
It’s incredible with what type of problems Neal has to cope with…
Hope he gets them sorted out and this great flashlight restored to its original design…
They did this with the Tool AAA already. It’s some unknown osram emitter and pebbled TIR now like the EDC01. Updated the marketing after the fact and called it by the same name.
Now today we get notification from Lumintop of an optic change & the elimination of the AR coated lens.
As far as I am concerned, this is a ridiculous move on the part of Lumintop at this early stage of the ‘FW3A Game’……
It not only makes Lumintop look extremely bad, but it puts Neal in a bad position…. through no fault of his own.
I am guessing my 7A version may well be as advertised when I purchased it…. Carclo optic & AR coated lens. Hopefully anyway……
But it sounds like the SST-20 version, from what I have read this morning; will not be as advertised when I bought it. It will have a “new optic” that will replace the Carclo optic & AR coated lens.
This…… (IMO) is no way to do business Lumintop. Notification of a crappy change in a product should come before the “crappy change”…… not after.
If indeed my SST-20 version has no Carclo optic & AR coated lens…. I will be very unpleased with Lumintop.
Bottom line & end of story.
Doing away with the Carclo optic & Ar coated lens as a cost cutting measure is a bad move.
Notification after the change is an inexcusably bad move by Lumintop… as far as I am concerned.
Heck, it would have been much better to announce a slight price increase & keep the Carclo with AR coated lens.
Disappointing, to say the least. As others have said, I should have bought a couple more early, but didn’t due to emitter options, and indecision. I hope I’m wrong, but further cheapening will probably occur, or is occurring. I bought optics already to switch out, but I will only buy more flashlights if I can find proper lenses to fit. I am not interested in any with this new optic.
I understand maybe now they didnt earn enough on all group buys or whatever reason, but just bump up the price slightly then and keep the Carclo optics instead.
