On the other side, and I have been on the other side recently with the Thrunite TN42 V2 which came supplied with heavily modified 21700 protected cells that had a negative contact on the positive sides, and longer than normal center pins. That configuration if allowed to remain makes the battery proprietary as shipped, as no 21700 cell in my arsenal would work without magnets. Since the negative post on the positive side only contacts a plastic insulator, it serves no function,which is idiotic and I said so. I recieved several responses questioning my ability to identify a modified battery, and I was an electro-mechanical technician before being disabled, so I know batteries. I did finally remove the taller insulating ring that prevents standard orbtronic 21700 protected batteries from working and even posted pictures of such, which might have killed my warranty. I also added insulators that are sticky on 1 side to cover the ill conceived negative contact on the thrunite batteries.
For all my efforts someone suggested that the propriatary nature of the cells was overblown now that pictures of the easy fix existed…but I CAME UP WITH THE FIX AND POSTED THE PICS. I do not think the fact that I risked ruining my light, voiding my warranty, to fix the Thrunite issue that should never have existed means the issue of proprietary batteries was overblown. At least the O-light negative on the positive side serves a purpose with magnetic charging or remote tail switch activation. I felt I was making an honest attempt to make the forum members aware of the issue, and once I found the fix, I posted such. I will admit the post saying the issue was overblown kind of ticked me off, since the end customer should not have to modify their lights to allow the use of more readily available protected cells. If however Thrunite were to pay me for MY mod of their batteries and insulator ring, and assure me my warranty would be intact, I might then pull my unflattering review. All else on the light seems good,
Right or wrong there seems to be a great deal of brand loyalty on these forums that make users loyaly to the barands when they really shouldn’t be, especially on a 210 dollar light after discounts, Try not to assume the reviewer can’t or didn’t measure his cells. 1 cell brand being an issue is expected, but 3 seperate brands is unacceptable. My point is Flashaholics attacks came after his review, suggesting that he did not know how to choose a proper cell, which is insulting. That is what prompted the smarmy remarks. PS…My fix of their idiotic design does not make the design less idiotic, as shipped by Thrunite.
I think there’s more at play than just this thread. Otherwise he wouldn’t have included the err… “easter egg” in the video.
Speaking of the Easter egg...
If #BLFSUCKSBIGTIME, what is the alternative?
Which flashlight forum (primarily in English) is so much better than BLF?
Not posting here.
I blame Corn Julio.
Tell me you wrote this with voice recognition on your phone.
#Cornhelzio
#TagsDontWorkOnNotebooks
So damn true!! Well said, I too am sick of the ‘well greased threads’ where 90% of the ‘review’ is on a table talking guff about how well packaged the light was & how great the company is. I like it how Flashaholic stands by his critiques even if he stands alone. THEY are things we want to know about, often criticism doesn’t prevent me buying said light but you can at least put things into perspective and make an informed choice. Brands just want the marketing side of reviews that generate sales and the MUST take the good with the bad. That’s what we can do in free countries, speak freely. One light review channel I’ve finally unsubscribed to had yet to mention ANY negatives on like the last 20 light reviews That’s paid advertising that seeks to benefit the brand and the reviewer, the consumers who ultimately pay for it all get the finger.
While reporting faults is a good thing, really it is usually only one example out of many that is being tested. Reviews are good for showing beam shots, which Flashahics does well, and other features of the lights like runtime, step down etc. These Fw series lights have been finicky from the get go. YMMV
I am learning with this thread! :nerd_face:
I will probably stop doing videos for the YT channel I recently started where I mostly do some “table reviews” because I don’t have the tools, time or programs to make lumen/candela/runtime measurements, and because during most of the time I live in a city where it is hard to get dark spots to show what a light does. 
I - and eventually other “table reviewers” - should stop doing those reviews/overviews, where I/they too give honest opinions about the flashlights, some/many/most of them bought, others offered by sellers or manufacturers.
Oh, and I too think we need flashlight reviews telling about the failures of lights or it less good aspects, be them free samples, commissioned samples, or bought samples.
Just don’t bash all the people that - being honest - cannot provide some of the things you’re looking in a flashlight review because they are in this for a hobby and don’t have other conditions to do better. :+1:
Oh, and don’t lubricate/put grease in your threads, but then don’t complain about waterproof and squeaky threads… 
The easter egg was inappropriate. I appreciate SB and all he does for this community. You may not have meant it for him but I think you owe him an apology. He is much more generous than I would be.
This. Or if you hate blf, just stop posting here.
In my experience there is always room for a critical view here on blf, so I don’t see the reason for being so offensive.
Agree.
I think BLF gives you quite some traffic, so i would be careful with those things.
Also if you have problems with someone individually, don’t blame the whole community.
This. If a reviewer gets a defective light it is perfectly appropriate to report that issue in the review. That way a buyer can read the story about what happened and decide whether they want to risk getting a defective product too.
However, it is also important not to generalize too much from a single anecdote. The reviewer who gets a dud light might have negative feelings and project the impression that ALL examples of a particular model of light, or even everything that manufacturer makes, are duds.
But that’s not usually the case, and it isn’t the case for this light. Just looking at the posts by others on this forum who have received their FWAAs, most got lights that work perfectly with no issue.
Does Lumintop have quality control issues? Yes. Do their reps have a poor approach in asking reviewers to take down negative reviews? Yes. Are their lights bad? No…. there are a lot of really impressive and unique features in the FW3 series lights that make them worthwhile despite finickiness or occasional defects.
For years I had terrible luck with Zebralights. Something like 10 major defects out of 16 lights. Do I still like Zebralights? … yup. They have features other lights don’t have which make them still worthwhile.
On the whole brands are solid, I just seem to be getting quite a few Lumintops, Imalents and Fireflies in with issues. The QC isn’t quite there yet.
QC seems to have suffered since covid, for other budget brands as well.
Less employees. A few of those companies had to let go of some employees.
If you recall, BLF didn't like that the first run of GT Nano didn't have a copper shelf and Lumintop listened. Reviewers and Demonstrators have their contacts; if one cannot reach a manufacturer, then s/he should reach out to others and enlist their help. I feel like there's not enough cooperation between us. I understand it's a competitive field, but let's agree that in our hearts, flashlight is our passion. The free samples and commissions are nice bonuses.
I’m happy that Lumintop is a company that is constantly coming out with new lights. That keeps it interesting. And I thought from the start that a 14500 version of the FW3A would be awesome and they delivered.
Zebralight makes great lights, but I don’t think they’ve come out with any new models in the last 2 years. That makes me worry about their future.
Yeah, that’s why to-date I still don’t have any. The exploding tailcap that sends the microscopic but critical doodad flying, the finicky inner tube, needing “cleaning” of the innards before it works right… yeah, no.
But the Sofirn TF84 I reviewed a while ago also has an inner tube setup, and that works really well so far. I did point out that contrary to the manual, unscrewing the tailcap does not lock out the light, only the tailcap. So you can turn on the light, unscrew, and you won’t be able to turn it off. :laughing: At least not by the tailcap. Sideswitch still works.
But even little glitches like that need to be reported. You don’t want to “lock out” the light, or think you did, only to have something pressing on the sideswitch, turning it on.
I’ve been lucky that pretty much all the lights I got in recent memory were all working flawlessly. I’ll let others “take one for the team” and discover the glitches on “experimental” lights.
I think Lumintop could take a leaf out of Hanks book regarding the inner tube - seems to me it is much less hit and miss in the KR4 than any of the Lumintop variants of the FW3A, I’ve had small issues (the same) with both of mine, but it does seem once they are ‘bedded in’ properly they don’t play up any more (shame they couldn’t do it before shipping…ie test them). The KR4 uses a spring loaded type of thing which seems much more reliable.