The Haiku: why I personally feel the 3S lights have surpassed the PD lights

[js]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

As much as I love the PD mechanism, I'm with fyrstormer on this one. The McClickie switch inside the C pak is VERY well protected. If you put a McClickie inside a SF LOTC to change it to a clicky, and you drop the light tail first, then you end up giving the switch a good whack. And, in the case of the SF A2 LOTC, this often damages the internals. I don't know how often a McClickie would get damaged in these conditions, but it certainly can't be good to get whacked right on the plunger! Inside the C pak, however, it is protected from anything but a direct poke with a small diameter rod or stick. So, kind of unlikely to accidentally happen. The McClickie switch has a very good record of reliability--on a par with the kilroy spring in use in the PD lights I would guess, although I could certainly be wrong.

But, in any case, the McClickie is a sealed, no maintenance switch that will last pretty much indefinitely for most users. In my first post above I said "arguably less reliable switch" as a con of the 3S lights. But just because you can make the argument in theory doesn't mean that it turns out to be bourn out in practice. Further, the PD lights do need regular maintenance. They really do. They will take neglect and abuse for a while, but eventually it ends up impacting things. If the lube goes away on the o-rings and threads, you'll have wear there and a less smooth action. And, in my experience lube can and does get places where it is not wanted and needed, like on the contact "C" ring for the high level. And without lube, o-rings will wear down over time. If I were giving a light to a friend or family member who was not a geeky gadget flashaholic freak like myself, I would definitely opt for a Clickie pak light over a PD, and I would have a much higher confidence that it would continue to function as advertised, stay water tight, and be as usable as when first given to them. I mean, personally, I LOVE to maintain my lights. It gives me a just a little of that honeymoon feeling I got when first receiving and getting to know the light. But for many people (if not most people) maintenance is a pain or is out-of-sight-out-of-mind. For them, the C Pak is the best and most reliable choice.

And, as far as heads go, the Haiku and SunDrops and LunaSol's--which all lack a bezel ring--are more durable and drop-resistant than the Ti-PD-S lights or any of the older PD lights with bezel rings. In the Haiku, the lens is sandwiched between two o-rings, which is ideal, and the front lip/edge of the head is integral with the rest of the head--it's one piece. Not so with the bezel-ring lights. The one side of the lens is against metal, which is less than great, and dropping the light head first can dent or deform the bezel ring and/or crack the lens. It's not likely to happen, of course! But it can happen, and this is the reason why Don went to the newer method of holding the lens in place that started with the LunaSol 20 (or before?).

I don't know, I mean, I'm not trying to start a PD vs. clickie flame war here! I LOVE the PD lights! And I can understand why some people prefer them. Absolutely! But, I just feel strongly that calling the clickie switch lights "less reliable" needs to be put in perspective here: yes, in terms of a switching mechanism it is arguably less reliable, but in the context of a whole light, I feel pretty strongly that my Haiku is every bit as reliable as my LunaSol 20, if not more so.

Despite the very minor artifact of the 3S regulation that has recently come to light, I am still 100 percent pro-3S regulator. It's a highly efficient, very sophisticated and high quality regulator using some very high end chips, with the very best switching scheme yet invented, as far as I can tell. Only a few weeks into owning my Haiku, I am now able to switch levels at more or less the speed of thought. OK. That's a small exaggeration. But it does feel that way! It's so quick and easy to switch levels! Seriously awesome and intuitive at this point after just a few weeks. I can switch to whatever level I want in less than a second! And this is NOT an exaggeration. If you haven't tried the 3S, you really owe it to yourself to do so.

And keep in mind that I started out VERY skeptical about this whole smart-light micro-controlled 3S light THING. I was very much a PD guy. VERY much. And it's not that the PD has somehow suddenly gotten worse. And it's not that I wouldn't still LOVE it if Don were able to put out a new line of PD lights--I WOULD BUY ONE FOR SURE! But it's that the 3S is better. Overall, it's just better. In my personal opinion! YMMV! Again, not trying to start a flame war or say anything negative against the PD lights. Because I love them. I'm just trying to rave about the 3S lights. Because I love them a little bit more.

FWIW. Take it or leave it!

 

[js]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

Or just come up with a Ti switch cover with a trit slot that could be fitted onto the Haiku in place of the rubber boot so it looks like a PD.

I would be perfectly content with that.

Please?

nbp,

I had this same thought when I first got my Haiku, but I don't think it can't be done, unfortunately. The plunger of the clickie switch has a very low spring force and so wouldn't be able to push back enough against a Titanium cap with o-ring seal to make it work out. If you just "glued" or somehow attached a Titanium cap to the silicon rubber boot that would also be problematic, not to mention the questionable aesthetics and action, because instead of bending in a small diameter spot of the center of the rubber boot you'd have to push in the entire titanium rigid cap, which in turn would have to bend all sorts of silicon rubber in the small space between it's outer edges and the inner edges of the body. This would be difficult and would completely swamp the feel of the piston and its position. Whereas, right now, the action is perfect with the combination of the silicon boot and the McClickie switch plunger.

I'm only theorizing here, based on what I know about all this stuff, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. I'd be happy if Don thinks otherwise, and even happier if he ever found a way to make the back end of the clickie pack look like the back end of the PD pack, but I doubt that will ever happen. And that's OK! The Haiku still has a nice looking tail, really. It's just not as nice as a PD. But that's OK! The head is nicer, in my opinion. And the main body is also nicer. So overall, it's a win for my tastes. YMMV!

 

[js]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

Don, what I would love to see is a PD Ti light that has a UI like this,

From off,
1) click once for low output,
2) press and hold for high from off,
3) double click for instant high output.

When on,
1) press and hold for momentary high from low,
2) click on/off again to cycle between low and high output.

That's all that I need. I think this would probably require an electronic type switch which could still be done with a PD design. Is this a feasible idea for a new light?

You know, when I first read this, my first thought was that this could have been lifted, almost word for word, from the Arc4 design thread. And, to my taste, while it may sound like a good idea at first, it just doesn't work out at all well in practice. It's far from intuitive and ends up being annoying and cumbersome.

One can easily implement something like this. You just ask the designer to program this sort of stuff in. You can also add an "SOS" mode and a "Mary had a little lamb" mode and even a "programming" mode where people can configure the light to their tastes. And . . . And . . . And . . .

And yet, it just ends up being a mess. Don could easily have done this or something like it. But if he had, I definitely wouldn't be here now, raving about the 3S lights. Just my two cents, FWIW.

 

[wquiles]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

One can easily implement something like this. You just ask the designer to program this sort of stuff in. You can also add an "SOS" mode and a "Mary had a little lamb" mode and even a "programming" mode where people can configure the light to their tastes. And . . . And . . . And . . .

And yet, it just ends up being a mess. Don could easily have done this or something like it. But if he had, I definitely wouldn't be here now, raving about the 3S lights. Just my two cents, FWIW.

+1

100% completely agree with you!

One of my all time pet peeves are these multi modes so prevalent today with totally useless modes. Not only that, but many of these modes can't be skipped, so you go through SOS or strobe or "zombie killing mode" (OK, I made up the last one ...), even if you just want "HI" or "LO". Most/all of these multi modes are completely non-intuitive, and unless you have a manual or somebody "shows" to you how it works, it is impossible to use right away/quickly. If you have to give a new user (specially non-flashaholic) a dissertation on a light before you give it to them, you already lost the usability of the light. NO light should be so complex that it needs an explanation to use it - if it does, it is a gimmicky thing, something to show/impress somebody, not a real light to actually "use" by yourself and others.

Outstanding ergonomics is what I like most about Don's lights - not only the physical/mechanical design is outstanding and ergonomic, but the modes of operation are also easy/intuitive. I am (in the minority) in that I prefer the PD to the multi-level click, but even in the clicky model (3S McClickey), Don still follows the usability/ergonomic rule where clearly "less" and "simple" are much better than "more". It goes back to the old KISS principle

I honestly feel that the usability/ergonomic of Don's creations contributes greatly to the well reserved following he has gained. Folks "know" the lights from Don work well, are simple to operate, and "feel" right.

As an example of what I consider "perfect" ergonomics, my favorite and "keeper" McGizmo is my Ti Clickie Pack for PD heads, an XR19 Mule head, two-speed GDx2 driver, Don's own Nichi 083 Hi CRI LED - I LOVE this combo for in home/close range use (the other light is the LunaSol 20 which I no longer own):

Will

 

[nbp]

js-

You and I must be talking about two different Dons. I am talking about Don McLeish, of "McGizmo" fame. He's a flashlight wizard. If anyone can invent a Ti switch button for a flashlight, he can.

:nana:

 

[js]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

Will,

How did you know about "Zombie mode"? THAT ONE is absolutely a MUST HAVE! There are "KISS" UI's (Keep It Simple Stupid) and then there are KITUA (pronounced Kee-Too-Ahh = Keep The User Alive) UI's. When the Zombie Apocalypse occurs--and it will, my friends, it will, in our lifetimes--then the "Zombie Mode" will strobe the light at just the right frequencies and patterns to cause the zombie's brains to explode! Really, really, REALLY useful, I would think.

Still, I thought that no one knew about the zombie mode?!? It's something I am working on in my spare time, and soon I hope to convince Don to add it as a special mode to his 3S lights. One can never be too careful when it comes to zombies, after all. Best to keep them at greater than arms length! Don't want to get bitten and infected! The ZM KITUA UI* is the answer!

-Jim

*Trade Mark 2012, Sexton Zombicide Enterprises / Corpse-Fire Flashlights LLC.

 

[js]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

js-

You and I must be talking about two different Dons. I am talking about Don McLeish, of "McGizmo" fame. He's a flashlight wizard. If anyone can invent a Ti switch button for a flashlight, he can.

:nana:

Ya canna break the laws of physics, captin!

 

[scout24]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

js- 5 extra points for the Trek reference...

 

[nbp]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

Does not kuku make Ti switch covers for the V10R, which uses a mechanical forward clicky? I'm not so familiar with that light or the construction of the tail, but that was kinda what I was thinking.

But, I digress, as this is far off topic. It was just an idea.

Go Haiku!

 

[easilyled]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

As much as I love the PD mechanism, I'm with fyrstormer on this one. The McClickie switch inside the C pak is VERY well protected. If you put a McClickie inside a SF LOTC to change it to a clicky, and you drop the light tail first, then you end up giving the switch a good whack. And, in the case of the SF A2 LOTC, this often damages the internals. I don't know how often a McClickie would get damaged in these conditions, but it certainly can't be good to get whacked right on the plunger! Inside the C pak, however, it is protected from anything but a direct poke with a small diameter rod or stick. So, kind of unlikely to accidentally happen. The McClickie switch has a very good record of reliability--on a par with the kilroy spring in use in the PD lights I would guess, although I could certainly be wrong.

But, in any case, the McClickie is a sealed, no maintenance switch that will last pretty much indefinitely for most users. In my first post above I said "arguably less reliable switch" as a con of the 3S lights. But just because you can make the argument in theory doesn't mean that it turns out to be bourn out in practice. Further, the PD lights do need regular maintenance. They really do. They will take neglect and abuse for a while, but eventually it ends up impacting things. If the lube goes away on the o-rings and threads, you'll have wear there and a less smooth action. And, in my experience lube can and does get places where it is not wanted and needed, like on the contact "C" ring for the high level. And without lube, o-rings will wear down over time. If I were giving a light to a friend or family member who was not a geeky gadget flashaholic freak like myself, I would definitely opt for a Clickie pak light over a PD, and I would have a much higher confidence that it would continue to function as advertised, stay water tight, and be as usable as when first given to them. I mean, personally, I LOVE to maintain my lights. It gives me a just a little of that honeymoon feeling I got when first receiving and getting to know the light. But for many people (if not most people) maintenance is a pain or is out-of-sight-out-of-mind. For them, the C Pak is the best and most reliable choice.

But it was borne out in practice for me. I have had 2 McClicky switches fail and have never had a PD fail.
So I automatically have more failth in the PD mechanism from my own personal experience.

And, as far as heads go, the Haiku and SunDrops and LunaSol's--which all lack a bezel ring--are more durable and drop-resistant than the Ti-PD-S lights or any of the older PD lights with bezel rings. In the Haiku, the lens is sandwiched between two o-rings, which is ideal, and the front lip/edge of the head is integral with the rest of the head--it's one piece. Not so with the bezel-ring lights. The one side of the lens is against metal, which is less than great, and dropping the light head first can dent or deform the bezel ring and/or crack the lens. It's not likely to happen, of course! But it can happen, and this is the reason why Don went to the newer method of holding the lens in place that started with the LunaSol 20 (or before?).

I will agree that this means that the lens might be more likely to shatter in the PD system (although it can be replaced very easily if this happens) However, if this is a slight disadvantage vs the 3S system, then consider the following points:-

1) If a drop occurs, it could easily result in the edge of the bezel of the Haiku/3S lights being permanently dented whereas the replaceable bezel-ring of the PD can just be replaced.

2) Access to the reflector and lens (to remove dirt/dust or for replacement) is easier via the bezel-retaining ring of the PD lights. Trying to put back the lens sandwiched between the 2 o-rings is more fiddly and time consuming.

3) The replacable bezel-rings allow for customization (with anodizing/coatings) or replacing with aftermarket bezel-rings with tritium vials. Not essential but an attractive option for many.

And keep in mind that I started out VERY skeptical about this whole smart-light micro-controlled 3S light THING. I was very much a PD guy. VERY much. And it's not that the PD has somehow suddenly gotten worse. And it's not that I wouldn't still LOVE it if Don were able to put out a new line of PD lights--I WOULD BUY ONE FOR SURE! But it's that the 3S is better. Overall, it's just better. In my personal opinion! YMMV! Again, not trying to start a flame war or say anything negative against the PD lights. Because I love them. I'm just trying to rave about the 3S lights. Because I love them a little bit more.

FWIW. Take it or leave it!

Sorry, but I'm going to leave it. Your reasoning has not changed my mind that the PD lights were the pinnacle of McGizmo's achievements.

 

[kaichu dento]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

Your reasoning has not changed my mind that the PD lights were the pinnacle of McGizmo's achievements.

...even if they changed his mind about his own lights.

 

[easilyled]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

...even if they changed his mind about his own lights.

Yes, even so. We have to take Don's word for it (and I do) but for many manufacturers expediency is the commonest reason for change and it is not one that is ever admitted to for obvious reasons.

 

[js]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

easilyled,

No problem! No need to apologize. My reasoning is just that: my reasoning. And, as I said, the PD lights are a pinnacle of flashlight design! And I certainly agree that a failure of the kilroy spring is far from likely (although I will say that mine is significantly worn down after three and a half years of use).

As for bezel ring vs. integral design, a drop is less likely to damage an integral head than a turn on bezel ring and very unlikely to damange EITHER if the light is titanium. Very unlikely. You'd have to intentionally throw the thing against a brick wall probably. So, the main point is (2) above: cracked lens. And it is pretty easy to change the lens in EITHER system, if it comes to that (I've done it myself). And since you are unlikely to have a spare lens just sitting around, the image is one of a bench job in any case, and not a field repair. As for (3), yeah, I'm with you there! Some of those custom bezel rings are freaking AWESOME! Definitely an attractive option!

But, the main thing is that glass should be sandwiched between soft materials. That's the way it's done in almost all applications and there's a reason for it. A metal to glass contact is asking for trouble. Don went to the new design precisely because he DID find that the old one had this weak point in it. But, yes, it's minor, I agree.

So, I'm curious about your McClickie switch failures. Were they in the C Pak or inside a SF LOTC? And how did they fail? What happened? In particular I'm wondering if you tightened the replacement down enough and if the initial failure could have also simply been due to the switch being a little lose?

 

[easilyled]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

easilyled,

No problem! No need to apologize. My reasoning is just that: my reasoning. And, as I said, the PD lights are a pinnacle of flashlight design! And I certainly agree that a failure of the kilroy spring is far from likely (although I will say that mine is significantly worn down after three and a half years of use).

As for bezel ring vs. integral design, a drop is less likely to damage an integral head than a turn on bezel ring and very unlikely to damange EITHER if the light is titanium. Very unlikely. You'd have to intentionally throw the thing against a brick wall probably. So, the main point is (2) above: cracked lens. And it is pretty easy to change the lens in EITHER system, if it comes to that (I've done it myself). And since you are unlikely to have a spare lens just sitting around, the image is one of a bench job in any case, and not a field repair. As for (3), yeah, I'm with you there! Some of those custom bezel rings are freaking AWESOME! Definitely an attractive option!

But, the main thing is that glass should be sandwiched between soft materials. That's the way it's done in almost all applications and there's a reason for it. A metal to glass contact is asking for trouble. Don went to the new design precisely because he DID find that the old one had this weak point in it. But, yes, it's minor, I agree.

So, I'm curious about your McClickie switch failures. Were they in the C Pak or inside a SF LOTC? And how did they fail? What happened? In particular I'm wondering if you tightened the replacement down enough and if the initial failure could have also simply been due to the switch being a little lose?

If a Ti light with an integral head with scalloped bezel falls onto a concrete pavement end-on, it may be enough to deform the edge beyond simply sanding it back. However a bezel-ring can be replaced easily. There have been examples of lights sold on B/S/T with minor dents/chips in the integral head IIRC.

The McClickys in question wouldn't latch on constant when I engaged them by clicking on. They would light up with the momentary push and after latching would turn off. I tried tightening them in the tailcaps without success.

 

[js]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

Yes, even so. We have to take Don's word for it (and I do) but for many manufacturers expediency is the commonest reason for change and it is not one that is ever admitted to for obvious reasons.

easilyled,

If you DO take Don's word for the reasons behind his move to the 3S lights then why bring this up? Anyone who's had any kind of experience with Don and his philosophy and business practices and his customer service and his CHARACTER knows that he is not going to do something like this out of considerations of "expediency". He is dedicated to making the very best flashlights he can. Period. And his past history bears this out again and again, even when this meant he lost money and had added hastle. In my dealings with Don over the years I have always found him to be up-front, forthright, honest, and honorable. And generous.

For the record, it's very clear to me that Don moved to the 3S system because it is his considered opinion that it is a superior system, yielding lights that are, taken as a whole, better.

People certainly don't have to agree with his opinion. But they should honor his right to have his own opinion and chart the course he feels is best.

 

[easilyled]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

easilyled,

If you DO take Don's word for the reasons behind his move to the 3S lights then why bring this up? Anyone who's had any kind of experience with Don and his philosophy and business practices and his customer service and his CHARACTER knows that he is not going to do something like this out of considerations of "expediency". He is dedicated to making the very best flashlights he can. Period. And his past history bears this out again and again, even when this meant he lost money and had added hastle. In my dealings with Don over the years I have always found him to be up-front, forthright, honest, and honorable. And generous.

For the record, it's very clear to me that Don moved to the 3S system because it is his considered opinion that it is a superior system, yielding lights that are, taken as a whole, better.

People certainly don't have to agree with his opinion. But they should honor his right to have his own opinion and chart the course he feels is best.

js, I bring this up simply because you brought it up! I disagree with you (and Don for that matter) that the 3S lights have surpassed the PD lights. I have not questioned Don's integrity nor the quality of the 3S lights which are still excellent, but I have given reasoned arguments as to why your reasoning has not changed my mind about which of Don's lights I liked the best.

This is why I still have have 2 Ti-PD-Ss (one modified with XM-L) one McLux III-T and one Lunasol27 and why I have parted with the 3S lights that have passed through my hands.

I have said before in an analogy that Beethoven thought his 8th symphony was equal to his 3rd/5th/7th/9th symphonies in greatness whereas I totally disagree with the great Beethoven and so do many musicologists.

Even great innovators/composers/artists/designers are not always the best judges of their own work. It should be the target audience who judge them.

 

[kaichu dento]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

Yes, even so. We have to take Don's word for it (and I do) but for many manufacturers expediency is the commonest reason for change and it is not one that is ever admitted to for obvious reasons.

Having read a great many posts by Don I don't find it easy to believe that expediency led him to abandon one of his more cherished and popular accomplishments. Unfortunately it often goes that we fall in love with a product which then becomes unavailable.

 

[easilyled]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

Expediency, pragmatism, using what's available. These are not necessarily negative connotations. They may indeed be essential for good business practice.

The 2-level constant current GDuP drivers used by the PD system became no longer available to Don. I believe this was initially the driving force for finding another workable system.

Don made sure that he found an excellent alternative. However I still prefer the PD system.

 

[js]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

. . .

The McClickys in question wouldn't latch on constant when I engaged them by clicking on. They would light up with the momentary push and after latching would turn off. I tried tightening them in the tailcaps without success.

So they were in LOTC's? Or were they in the C-Pak? If they were in a C pak, I have some thoughts:

The McClickie switches need to be tightened down very tightly in the C Pak in order to maintain good contact with the light body. This is a known issue, and it has been mentioned twice now in this thread. I found that snap ring pliers would work, but only if I put force on them right to the point where they were in danger of slipping out of the holes. The round-nose beading pliers I posted about above are what you really want to ensure that you get the torque required to guarantee good contact. The switch IS a user-replaceable item, but just like the clip, you really should have the appropriate tool (MIP Thorp driver or round nose pliers respectively) to remove and install it. And, just like the clip, if you leave it alone you are almost certainly not going to have any issues.

If they were in SF LOTC's that's another story. As I already mentioned, they are a lot more exposed in this scenario than inside a C Pak, but even so, overall it is my understanding that they have a good track record of reliability when used this way. Everything can fail. It's a question of how common or rare the failures are. It sucks if you ARE that rare exception, but it doesn't mean that your experience is typical.

 

[js]

Re: The Haiku: why the 3S McClickie lights have surpassed the PD lights!

Expediency, pragmatism, using what's available. These are not necessarily negative connotations. They may indeed be essential for good business practice.

The 2-level constant current GDuP drivers used by the PD system became no longer available to Don. I believe this was initially the driving force for finding another workable system.

Don made sure that he found an excellent alternative. However I still prefer the PD system.

Don was developing the 3S system back when the LunaSol 20 was first made, and there was a last wave of Ti-PD-S's and two (I think) more waves of LS20's after that, all using the GDx2 drivers. Further, Don could easily have had Japan make him a driver functionally equivalent to the GDx2 instead of the 3S system.

The point is that if Don believed that the PD system was better, he would have found a way to keep offering it. I have absolutely no doubts on this score. Short term, expediency and pragmatism have their say--they must--but long term that isn't the case--at least not here.