Neal wrote:

I will talk with lumintop tomorrow morning, and will ask them if they can do something to fix this.

Give me some time now.

nice
I was going to get a copper 3D …kinda bummed about buying a carlco and glass lens separately

Same here. Neal’s website still states that it has a glass lens with carclo optic. So guess what? If you get anything other than that, dispute charges.

zak.wilson wrote:

Geuzzz wrote:

I like the original setup better also, but this is what a good manufacturer should do with their products.

There are two related and sometimes competing things manufacturers do along these lines:

• Value engineering – looking for opportunities to reduce production cost. These may or may not have a customer-visible impact on the product. It must be done very carefully if it will.
• Continuous quality improvement – looking for opportunities to make the product work better, like replacing the non-rustproof screws on the otherwise rustproof knife with rustproof ones.

In this case, Lumintop has made a value engineering change by replacing a part that was explicitly specified by make and model with something else with different performance characteristics. They did this without approval from their customer (Neal). I don’t know anything about Chinese law, but in the US, Neal could sue them.

I do think Neal should be contacting customers with pending orders directly to offer them the opportunity to cancel at a minimum. The option of a free 10511 optic and lens installed by Neal prior to shipping would be better. That would cost Neal money of course, and he should demand that Lumintop cover his costs.

Or you can consider it continuous improvement, lean even. If this was necessary to keep up with demands and have a good supplier of this essential part.

I understand that you should never piss off your customer, but it says nowhere in the lumintop specs that you should get a carclo optic.

Geuzzz wrote:

I understand that you should never piss off your customer, but it says nowhere in the lumintop specs that you should get a carclo optic.

That’s because they changed it in the last couple days. The colour of the clip in the product photos has also been altered.

Bob_McBob wrote:

Geuzzz wrote:

I understand that you should never piss off your customer, but it says nowhere in the lumintop specs that you should get a carclo optic.

That’s because they changed it in the last couple days. The colour of the clip in the product photos has also been altered.

!https://i.imgur.com/lK8WhKX.gif!

Well that is indeed misleading.

Wait, did I just see that they removed the glass lens?!

Ok what? How is that a good design decision?

The optic will get scratched that way…

Geuzzz wrote:

zak.wilson wrote:

Geuzzz wrote:

I like the original setup better also, but this is what a good manufacturer should do with their products.

There are two related and sometimes competing things manufacturers do along these lines:

• Value engineering – looking for opportunities to reduce production cost. These may or may not have a customer-visible impact on the product. It must be done very carefully if it will.
• Continuous quality improvement – looking for opportunities to make the product work better, like replacing the non-rustproof screws on the otherwise rustproof knife with rustproof ones.

In this case, Lumintop has made a value engineering change by replacing a part that was explicitly specified by make and model with something else with different performance characteristics. They did this without approval from their customer (Neal). I don’t know anything about Chinese law, but in the US, Neal could sue them.

I do think Neal should be contacting customers with pending orders directly to offer them the opportunity to cancel at a minimum. The option of a free 10511 optic and lens installed by Neal prior to shipping would be better. That would cost Neal money of course, and he should demand that Lumintop cover his costs.

Or you can consider it continuous improvement, lean even. If this was necessary to keep up with demands and have a good supplier of this essential part.

I understand that you should never piss off your customer, but it says nowhere in the lumintop specs that you should get a carclo optic.

Lumintop does say “standard TIR optic” This all in one plastic thing they have created isn’t “standard”

To me, in a technology context, standard implies it’s an easily attained part that can be swapped out. A proprietary part created specifically for this flashlight isn’t “standard” at all.

well i have the copper 3D in my cart…not sure I will pull the trigger if it doesnt come carlco/glass

Yeah.

The change in optic can be understood, but completely removing the lens?

I should’ve just ordered the 1st XP-L HI lights, then modded it with SST-20s.

This is getting more disappointing by the minute.

Anyone found sources for 23mm AR lenses yet?

The clip looks like it’s a different color on Lumintop’s site too. I really like the (acid wash?) dark finish on mine and would definitely prefer to have that when I buy more.

Well… if I buy more. There’s an Emisar D4 v2 coming up, and Hank doesn’t cheap out like Lumintop seems to be, even when he reduces the price (the D4 was introduced at $40, which was later reduced to $35). I was concerned that early FW3As might have problems that later ones would not, but it’s looking like the opposite is true.

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!

BlueSwordM wrote:

Yeah.
I should’ve just ordered the 1st XP-L HI lights, then modded it with SST-20s.

This is getting more disappointing by the minute.

I thought the same thing. I’m kicking myself for not just ordering all that I wanted right up front.

Quote:

I was concerned that early FW3As might have problems that later ones would not, but it’s looking like the opposite is true.

Yep.

I look forward to India’s manufacturers starting to make flashlights. Maybe their culture will be a better fit for meeting specifications/expectations.

Or not.

Hmmmm …. http://www.evereadyindia.com/flashlight/led-flashlights.aspx has the old type switch I’ve been missing ….

I think they should’ve just made the XP-L HI version more expensive, like with the Emisar D4.

They should’ve made the SST-20 version 29,99$US, and the XP-L HI version 39,99$US.

Not only would they have more profit margin, but they could use the XP-L HI to slightly subsidize the SST-20 version with a good optic and a lens.

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.

I hope the CU version still brings the carclo and glass lens

zak.wilson wrote:

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.

Optic drama !

BlueSwordM wrote:

I think they should’ve just made the XP-L HI version more expensive….

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.

@teacher, that’s what I said, but I think the price difference should’ve been even larger.

Anyone else have problems with the discount code today?

BlueSwordM wrote:

@teacher, that’s what I said, but I think the price difference should’ve been even larger.

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.

ymmv

acab wrote:

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!

Well at least the new optic looks like it is a good match for the ruff MCPCB.
I believe the new optic setup is a bad move.

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.

At least be able to purchase the glass lens as an option

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…

zak.wilson wrote:

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.

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.

12 June I ordered a FW3A 7A (along with some Trits & Glow stuff)

13 June I ordered a FW3A SST-20 4000K

The 7A model & other stuff was shipped 14 June.

The SST-20 model is waiting to be fulfilled (as expected)

Now today we get notification from Lumintop (by way of Neal, thank you Neal. . ) 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.