# Surefire Optimus and Invictus



## flashy bazook (Feb 8, 2008)

So with the 2008 catalog here and downloadable, we can find out what these two new SF lights are all about. The names strongly remind me of the Transformers, and I guess this can be the idea--flexibility.

Optimus: 11 settings, from 2 lumens up to 200, the last available in one push of the tailcap as a tactical setting. There is strobe, SOS. And a battery gauge. The beam is supposedly adjustable from spot to flood by twisting the bezel. Pocket clip removable. Steps in lumens: 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 120, 200. Lowest output gets 100 hrs of runtime. (no info. on runtime for high). Uses 2xCR123A. Microprocessor controlled, etc.

Invictus: big bro to Optimus, but less adaptable. Max lumen at 400 (4-die LED). Also has battery fuel gauge. Same low 2 lumen output plus 100 hrs runtime and 2xCR123A formfactor as Optimus. Lumen settings: 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400. Has Strobe and SOS. Microprocessor controlled, removable clip.

Interesting products! Would want to know the runtime on high.
Both lights have magnetically controlled output selector.


----------



## Flight_Deck (Feb 8, 2008)

A look into my crystal ball reveals my fate...


----------



## BytorJr (Feb 8, 2008)

My fate is not looking good either:
I'm interested in both Optimus and Invictus. However, I think I'll go with 400lm since I have a few 120 lm lights. I will probably also get a "backup" and that Aluminum Titan may get a calling too. 

Now, what to do with my Novatac 120P, HDS U60GT, L5, and C9. I think I'll put the new L61 in the C9. Decisions decisions decisions.


----------



## skalomax (Feb 8, 2008)

I have never been so sure of a purchase, These two are getting bought immediately, as soon as they come out.


----------



## slagell (Feb 8, 2008)

I want to see the prices.


----------



## flashy bazook (Feb 8, 2008)

Right, prices. Not available yet.

Just checked the Surefire website and the new lights are not listed there yet. I remember from last year that it took several months for anything new (e.g., revealed at the 2007 SHOT show) to become available.

By the way, the L4 is still listed as available for sale on the SF website (I noticed in the 2008 SF catalogue thread some were bummed the L4 was not available in the catalog, so again, it may take some months before L4 becomes truly unavailable as a new product).

One final tidbit, a G3 light is made available in the catalog, like the G2 (so also available in Nitrolon) but with 3xCR123A's and with longer runtime. Can put out 80 lumens for more than 9 hrs, and with optional P61L assembly can hit 200 lumens (no runtime available yet on this output). Plus some kind of high tech special holster for it.


----------



## Welding Rod (Feb 9, 2008)

Looks like I will need an Invictus and and a couple P61L units for sure.... and I was just about to order a couple of P60L units - glad I checked CPF and saw that the P61L was coming out 

Surefire also has a new 350 lumen LED head for their 900 series weapon lights coming... need that too! Oh, and perhaps their X400 pistol light... and maybe a Arc Light.... 

They are killing me financially.


----------



## magic_elf (Feb 9, 2008)

I like how the Optimus STARTS with SOS, and also has strobe.
But I'm sure the SureFire lovers will this UI intuitive anyway 

Go Fenix?


----------



## fieldops (Feb 9, 2008)

Definitely the Invictus for me. That thing's going to be amazing! 

Better start saving the pennies now


----------



## L.E.D. (Feb 9, 2008)

Kinda funny, I never thought I would ever see a SureFire with strobe and SOS... L O L..


----------



## asdalton (Feb 9, 2008)

Another difference: the Optimus uses a 2-piece optic for its adjustable beam, while the Invictus uses a reflector.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 9, 2008)

I want the Optimus Prime too!


----------



## Mr. Shawn (Feb 9, 2008)

*Re: Surefire's Lights-out Day!*

With all these new models coming, do you think Surefire will ever make a light that can stand on its tail without requiring an aftermarket tailcap? I use my Fenix P3D Q5 all the time in candle mode, so I am wondering if Surefire will ever make this option standard.

And, have you ever wondered if Surefire management plans days where all the office lights are shut off and everyone has to do everything by flashlight? I would mark my calendar to visit SF HQ and walk around in the dark to see who would light my path.  I'll play flashlight tag!!


In the flow,
Mr. Shawn


----------



## flash_bang (Feb 9, 2008)

*Re: Surefire's Lights-out Day!*

well, considering that surefire's primary market is LEO's and MIL I doubt that they will have a light that can tailstand as stock because it's less flexible and harder to use with different handgun/flashlight techniques. Besides, it's easier to activate a button with the pad of your thumb rather than the tip of it.

Also, I would love to have the Optimus or Invictus, but It'd have to be like half the price of the U2 for me to have a chance at it 

Oh well, saving time!

HAGO,
Flash


----------



## jzmtl (Feb 9, 2008)

*Re: Surefire's Lights-out Day!*

I want an invictus!

Probably will change my mind when price is published


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 10, 2008)

*Re: Surefire's Lights-out Day!*



flash_bang said:


> well, considering that surefire's primary market is LEO's and MIL I doubt that they will have a light that can tailstand as stock because it's less flexible and harder to use with different handgun/flashlight techniques. Besides, it's easier to activate a button with the pad of your thumb rather than the tip of it.
> 
> Also, I would love to have the Optimus or Invictus, but It'd have to be like half the price of the U2 for me to have a chance at it
> 
> ...


Just imagine a SureFire ad about this new feature: 

- "_Whether you are a LEO, a Special Forces operative in the heat of the combat, or chilling in an *M1 Abrams * cockpit, always count on your SureFire's reliable tailstanding to serve you as a candle_" .


----------



## flash_bang (Feb 10, 2008)

*Re: Surefire's Lights-out Day!*

Yeah, because everyone knows how useful tailstanding would be in a tank's cockpit (thought it was called a hatch? w/e…) due to the extreme reflectiveness of the interior.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Feb 10, 2008)

*Re: Surefire's Lights-out Day!*



Mr. Shawn said:


> With all these new models coming, do you think Surefire will ever make a light that can stand on its tail without requiring an aftermarket tailcap? I use my Fenix P3D Q5 all the time in candle mode, so I am wondering if Surefire will ever make this option standard.
> 
> And, have you ever wondered if Surefire management plans days where all the office lights are shut off and everyone has to do everything by flashlight? I would mark my calendar to visit SF HQ and walk around in the dark to see who would light my path.  I'll play flashlight tag!!
> 
> ...


They already do. The scout weapon lights have tailcaps like that as an option. They don't put put those on regular Surefires because they would make it impossible to do the Surefire grip.


----------



## kongfuchicken (Feb 10, 2008)

Doesn't the e2d tailstand?


----------



## Mash (Feb 10, 2008)

Was wondering if people eventually manage to use these new ligths with RCRs, how useful the fuel guage would be?
Probably would start on yellow and go down from there?

PS how does the user interface work? Does it turn on when you twist the mode dial, or do you set a power setting, and when the tailcap is pressed lightly it comes on at that setting, and a full press gives you max power?


----------



## jzmtl (Feb 10, 2008)

Hmm, you can pre order optimus for $279, I wonder if that means invictus will be $379, or even more? They'll probably do $100 difference at least to set them apart.


----------



## paulr (Feb 10, 2008)

A 2x123 light that weighs 8 ounces? Ouch. Also I wish they put the zoom lens on the 400 lumen model.


----------



## NickDrak (Feb 10, 2008)

jzmtl said:


> Hmm, you can pre order optimus for $279, I wonder if that means invictus will be $379, or even more? They'll probably do $100 difference at least to set them apart.


 
I highly doubt there will be that much of a price difference between the two new U2's. I would bet it will be within $25-$50 of its sibling Optimus' $279.00 retail price.


----------



## machoamigo (Feb 10, 2008)

Oooo Ooooo I want both


----------



## gostanova (Feb 10, 2008)

machoamigo said:


> Oooo Ooooo I want both



+1


----------



## jzmtl (Feb 10, 2008)

NickDrak said:


> I highly doubt there will be that much of a price difference between the two new U2's. I would bet it will be within $25-$50 of its sibling Optimus' $279.00 retail price.



Cost wise yeah, but no way beancounting/marketing is gona let it happen. OHH 2X THE POWER! COST ONLY 35% MORE!

Although I definately wouldn't mind if it's only $25 more thou.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 10, 2008)

I'm going to make a semi-educated guess that the Optimus is a single die Soul Semi Conductor emitter with a terrific bin.

The Invictus will be awesome. Unless some unexpected cash shows up I'll have to choose between the two and that choice will be the Optimus. I've followed so many threads about photon management with clear optical collimators and have been so interested when Modifiers have achieved adjustable focus that I just really want to see it for myself. The Invictus seems to be more in the spirit of the known U2 with a wall of light. But now, with 400 SureFire lumens, the intensity level projected on to the target (lux) should translate to excellent return imagary at distance or what most folks refer to as awesome throw.

I'd sure like to be able to pull the trigger on both and add a KL9 to the order. Heck, I like the Titan and the Backup too. And that HID with LEDs in the reflector. Oh my! Exciting stuff. Good job PK and SureFire!

Oh yeah, whoever said the Invictus should be called Megatron...I thought the same thing. And since the Optimus uses primaries well sure, Optimus Prime...I'm down with that. :twothumbs


----------



## bfodnes (Feb 10, 2008)

Looking at them both.

The optimus has adjustable beam and not the invictus.

That lens apparatus looks like it can stop alot of lumens ( pics in catalog )

What do you guys think, is that why there is a big difference in output on high on the two meaning there isnt much better high runtime on the optimus vs the invictus.

The Clint eastwood fraze from the movie Dirty Harry comes to mind.

Now this is a Flashlight ! ( pointing his 44 at a criminal )


----------



## MikeSalt (Feb 10, 2008)

11 settings.... microprocessor controlled. Words like that scare me when put into the context of a simple, reliable flashlight. I hope those electronics have had plenty of beta testing!

But Surefire have basically done what Fenix failed to do, despite many customer requests. It has strobe and SOS, but their use is conveniently out of the way. No need to cycle through them on the 99% of times you do not need them.


----------



## flashy bazook (Feb 10, 2008)

Mash said:


> Was wondering if people eventually manage to use these new ligths with RCRs, how useful the fuel guage would be?
> Probably would start on yellow and go down from there?
> 
> PS how does the user interface work? Does it turn on when you twist the mode dial, or do you set a power setting, and when the tailcap is pressed lightly it comes on at that setting, and a full press gives you max power?


 
Yeah, I had similar questions. I was thinking that I could use the new LiFePO4 batteries with it, and accept the lower runtime, but that's also why I want to see the runtime on the high outputs to get an idea of how efficient the emitter is.

But this would still leave the question as to whether the battery gauge would be accurate for a different type of battery (even one much closer to the 3 volts of the primaries than the RCRs). I guess we might have to wait for CPF'rs to get these flashlights and run them through their paces to know for sure.

On the UI, from the pics and description these flashlights have a selectable ring and a clicky, so this suggests that you can leave the ring at your preferred selection.

For the Optimus (but not the Invictus?) you have the extra choice of getting the Max Blast out by pressing the switch hard all the way whatever the ring selection happens to be.


----------



## flashy bazook (Feb 10, 2008)

MikeSalt said:


> 11 settings.... microprocessor controlled. Words like that scare me when put into the context of a simple, reliable flashlight. I hope those electronics have had plenty of beta testing!
> 
> But Surefire have basically done what Fenix failed to do, despite many customer requests. It has strobe and SOS, but their use is conveniently out of the way. No need to cycle through them on the 99% of times you do not need them.


 
You are being a little hard here, you are comparing flashlights well in the $200 range with lights closer to $50!

The biggest difference is that the much more expensive SF's can use a magnetic ring selector as an additional control, whereas the much cheaper flashlight cannot without jumping up into another (higher) price range.

Even so, note that the Fenix's do kind of leave the SOS and strobe functions out of the way since they give you the option of accessing them by twisting the bezel as well as the (reverse) clicky. So you can kind of ignore them most of the time. You can cycle through most of the options without getting to the SOS or strobe, and if you switch off the light you restart, so again you can avoid them if you don't want them.


----------



## jasonp (Feb 10, 2008)

I'll definately be getting one of the Invictus. Awesome looking light!


----------



## thermal guy (Feb 10, 2008)

I keep trying to find something/anything that i dont like about these lights and ill be dammed if i can!


----------



## Mercaptan (Feb 10, 2008)

thermal guy said:


> I keep trying to find something/anything that i dont like about these lights and ill be dammed if i can!



Hmm, how about the tailcap? I'm sure it won't be long before someone makes a tailcap that is a clicky, and will be one stage (e.g. it will only illuminate at the desired, ring-selected level). If I understand correctly, the current tailcap is a momentary only, and twist-in for constant on (half-way for current ring-selected level, full twist-in for 400 lumens of sexy).


----------



## marinemaster (Feb 10, 2008)

Any idea what tube the Optimus is built on? Will it take 18650 batt? That would be awesome.


----------



## Kiessling (Feb 10, 2008)

Mercaptan said:


> Hmm, how about the tailcap? I'm sure it won't be long before someone makes a tailcap that is a clicky, and will be one stage (e.g. it will only illuminate at the desired, ring-selected level). If I understand correctly, the current tailcap is a momentary only, and twist-in for constant on (half-way for current ring-selected level, full twist-in for 400 lumens of sexy).



And thereby killing the most important feature ... the instant high from any position.

In the pics of the catalog I see a PCB in the tailcap ... indicating some obscure electronic stuff going on ... meaning it probably will not be so easy to just screw on a clicky. Just a guess though. 

I'd really like to find out in person 

bernie


----------



## flash_bang (Feb 10, 2008)

I'm pretty sure the tailcap is just two stage, where when you lightly push down is uses the selector ring mode, and when you press all the way down, it goes to 200/400 lumens. I'm thinking it basically functions like an A2 tailcap, where you can lock out the max output option and only use the selector ring setting, etc.

HAGO,
Flash


----------



## Lightguy27 (Feb 10, 2008)

Well I am definetly getting an Optimus, and will probably get an Invictus too, but the Optimus is the first pick for me because I want that focusable zoom plate. The first focusable SF...

-Evan


----------



## Dr.Skaramanga (Feb 10, 2008)

ok, the only problem is
i can't decide 
so i'll have to get both

and also some of the new led lensers ... 
quite an expenisve flashlight year 2008


----------



## Mercaptan (Feb 10, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> And thereby killing the most important feature ... the instant high from any position.



Eh, not really for everybody... although, if Surefire can make a two-stage clicky (a la E1B) maybe they will make one for the UB2. I don't need no fancy 'push harder, get more light instantly' button, I'd rather have something I didn't have to twist to keep on... 

Anyway, to each his or her own.


----------



## thermal guy (Feb 10, 2008)

A click switch is nice but if you want ultimate reliability you got to have a twisty switch! There is just not to much that can go wrong with it


----------



## mspeterson (Feb 10, 2008)

Mercaptan said:


> Eh, not really for everybody... although, if Surefire can make a two-stage clicky (a la E1B) maybe they will make one for the UB2. I don't need no fancy 'push harder, get more light instantly' button, I'd rather have something I didn't have to twist to keep on...
> 
> Anyway, to each his or her own.



The E1B has a single stage clicky and works perfectly on a twisty tailcap.....opinions are nice, facts better.....


----------



## Mercaptan (Feb 10, 2008)

mspeterson said:


> The E1B has a single stage clicky and works perfectly on a twisty tailcap.....opinions are nice, facts better.....



I guess I misread the description, thanks for pointing out my error.


----------



## Size15's (Feb 10, 2008)

The UA2 and UB2 use a more advanced version of the two-stage pressure switch TailCap than used by the A2/L1/L2/K2.
I very much doubt it would be possible to create a Clickie version.


----------



## greenstuffs (Feb 10, 2008)

The high from any position is interesting and useful, but i thought that the Kroma Milspec had the feature disabled purposely from the regular kroma :thinking:. I sure welcome this feature, but if this light were to be in a combat environment wouldn't be smart to have the high "capped" so it won't go off accidentally?


----------



## Size15's (Feb 10, 2008)

greenstuffs said:


> The high from any position is interesting and useful, but i thought that the Kroma Milspec had the feature disabled purposely from the regular kroma :thinking:. I sure welcome this feature, but if this light were to be in a combat environment wouldn't be smart to have the high "capped" so it won't go off accidentally?


That is certainly easy to achieve:
Simply LockOut the TailCap such that the high beam can not be activated.
That way only the first position (whatever is selected by the ring/dial) can be momentarily activated by the push button pressure switch.

BTW, the "Off" position on the ring/dial is a system disable just like fully locking out the TailCap.


----------



## Kiessling (Feb 10, 2008)

The K2 MilSpec does have the high mode upon fully depressing the tailcap.

I guess it is most useful when in low mode constant on and needing much light quickly with one hand.


----------



## flash_bang (Feb 10, 2008)

hey Al!
Can you set the selector ring to off AND lock out the tailcap? or is it just the ring that you can turn to off, and the tailcap is not a LOTC?

Thx,
Flash


----------



## Size15's (Feb 10, 2008)

flash_bang said:


> hey Al!
> Can you set the selector ring to off AND lock out the tailcap? or is it just the ring that you can turn to off, and the tailcap is not a LOTC?
> 
> Thx,
> Flash


Yes, the UA2 and UB2 have two independent system disables -
"Off" on the selector ring/dial
and/or
TailCap LockOut.

For the operator the TailCap operates just like the L1/L2/A2/K2 TailCaps.
(although inside it is a whole new animal)


----------



## flash_bang (Feb 10, 2008)

aw right! very cool…

Thanks Al!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Scorpionboy (Feb 10, 2008)

Does anyone have any speculation on the run time at 400 lumens on the invictus? I could see it being less than an hour, maybe 20 mintues like the HO bulb in the M6. Even if this was the case though, it could give the M6 a run for it's money, only burning two primaries instead of six, and also having alot of other settings for longer runtime and whatnot. Could this really be the end of incans that everyone keeps mentioning? Led's are just about caught up with incans in output.(except for HID's maybe)... Just a thought lol(not trying to start an arguement, don't want anyone to take that the wrong way)

Steven


----------



## flash_bang (Feb 10, 2008)

I hope it's more than an hour. I think one and a half would be good. Then again, I don't really know, just kinda guesstimating.

HAGO,
Flash


----------



## greenstuffs (Feb 10, 2008)

Al thx for the clarification it makes a lot of sense now, but it is so hard to decide optimus variable beam invictus flawless beam with reflector :thinking: i think i'll get both.


----------



## TITAN1833 (Feb 10, 2008)

thermal guy said:


> I keep trying to find something/anything that i dont like about these lights and ill be dammed if i can!


Me neither,I think a Invictus piggy backing a Titan Alu coming across the pond soon.


----------



## LukeA (Feb 10, 2008)

flash_bang said:


> I hope it's more than an hour. I think one and a half would be good. Then again, I don't really know, just kinda guesstimating.
> 
> HAGO,
> Flash



Assuming 67 lm/W (6W total), it should run at that level for a little over 2 hrs.


----------



## jzmtl (Feb 10, 2008)

Very much doubt it. The current corp of 200 lumen lights manage around hour and half on two cells, it's very unlikely a light that's twice the output can run over two hours on the same cells. 

My guess is around 40~50 minutes.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Feb 10, 2008)

We need Chevrofreak to test this.


----------



## flash_bang (Feb 10, 2008)

Art Vandelay said:


> We need Chevrofreak to test this.


Bingo :thumbsup::twothumbs


----------



## LukeA (Feb 11, 2008)

jzmtl said:


> Very much doubt it. The current corp of 200 lumen lights manage around hour and half on two cells, it's very unlikely a light that's twice the output can run over two hours on the same cells.
> 
> My guess is around 40~50 minutes.



According to Surefire, their luxV-based lights run for 2.5-3 hrs. While doubtful, I would bet that these new ones will be advertized as running for 3 hrs, regardless of runtime at initial brightness.

And we all know what happened to _that_ thread. :shakehead


----------



## Art Vandelay (Feb 11, 2008)

Surefire gives the length of useful light, not runtime to 50% of initial brightness.


----------



## daveman (Feb 11, 2008)

LukeA said:


> Assuming 67 lm/W (6W total), it should run at that level for a little over 2 hrs.


With the exception of a major breakthrough in battery technology, I can GUARANTEE you that it will not have anywhere near 2 hrs. of regulated runtime. One hour, a big and unlikely MAYBE.


----------



## ttran97 (Feb 11, 2008)

A couple pics of the Invictus from the catalogue:


----------



## Size15's (Feb 11, 2008)

ttran97 said:


> A couple pics of the Invictus from the catalogue:


I believe the finished UB2 will look a bit different to what is shown in the 2008 catalogs - the bezel will be wider diameter and longer for a start.


----------



## Ginseng (Feb 11, 2008)

Do you know if the grip ring is removable/replaceable?

Wilkey


----------



## Size15's (Feb 11, 2008)

Ginseng said:


> Do you know if the grip ring is removable/replaceable?
> 
> Wilkey


I don't see why not - the proto-types appeared to the same rubber CombatGrip ring as the M3/Z2 etc. I didn't try to remove one though.


----------



## supes (Feb 11, 2008)

With the LED fuel guage(which is freakin GENIUS!), how much juice is it drawing away from the batteries? Negligible? or taking away the precious minutes from HIGH mode(200/400 lumens)?

I'm dancing in my pants over these SF lights!


----------



## Hitthespot (Feb 11, 2008)

Size15's said:


> I don't see why not - the proto-types appeared to the same rubber CombatGrip ring as the M3/Z2 etc. I didn't try to remove one though.


 
Ok Al. You didn't go to the show but you handled the prototype? No danger in you sinking any ships. LOL

Bill


----------



## grnamin (Feb 11, 2008)

Hitthespot said:


> Ok Al. You didn't go to the show but you handled the prototype? No danger in you sinking any ships. LOL
> 
> Bill


 
Either he went to the show or there are alot of doctored pictures.


----------



## jzmtl (Feb 11, 2008)

supes said:


> With the LED fuel guage(which is freakin GENIUS!), how much juice is it drawing away from the batteries? Negligible? or taking away the precious minutes from HIGH mode(200/400 lumens)?
> 
> I'm dancing in my pants over these SF lights!


It's probably a 3mm LED drawing ~3 milliamp, don't think it'll even ding the runtime of 2 lumen mode.


----------



## Hitthespot (Feb 11, 2008)

supes said:


> With the LED fuel guage(which is freakin GENIUS!), how much juice is it drawing away from the batteries? Negligible? or taking away the precious minutes from HIGH mode(200/400 lumens)?
> 
> I'm dancing in my pants over these SF lights!


 
Your right. It can be genius, but measuring the amount of power left in a battery under load and directly correlating it to the present power consumption, and then reflecting it into an accurate visual display isn't always done perfectly. I hope Surefire got it right. It could just be a plain 1/3 full, 2/3 full, or just full with no load on the light, just at rest. I'm not sure. In any case if it works well it will be a welcomed addition to a light that is already shaping up to be great.

Bill


----------



## powernoodle (Feb 11, 2008)

Wish they had clickies, but I suspect I will end up with one of 'em.


----------



## flash_bang (Feb 11, 2008)

I thought the fuel guage only lit up when the beam was on or the selector ring is not on off…

Care to elaborate?

Thanks,
Flash


----------



## Hitthespot (Feb 11, 2008)

flash_bang said:


> I thought the fuel guage only lit up when the beam was on or the selector ring is not on off…
> 
> Care to elaborate?
> 
> ...


 
My point exactly I don't know how the fuel guage works. I'm just saying I hope it is consistant and works well. If the beam is on then the fuel gauge is measuring the batteries under load and my post may or may not be valid.

Bill


----------



## Size15's (Feb 11, 2008)

flash_bang said:


> I thought the fuel guage only lit up when the beam was on or the selector ring is not on off…
> 
> Care to elaborate?
> 
> ...


The fuel gauge LED only illuminated when the flashlight was activated.
I have to admit that I didn't check whether it illuminated when the selector ring was set to "Off". However, they were proto-types at SS2008 and the design was not yet finalised so I think it's too early to be getting stuck on such details.


----------



## Hitthespot (Feb 11, 2008)

Size15's said:


> The fuel gauge LED only illuminated when the flashlight was activated.
> I have to admit that I didn't check whether it illuminated when the selector ring was set to "Off". However, they were proto-types at SS2008 and the design was not yet finalised so I think it's too early to be getting stuck on such details.


 
Barring something horribly wrong and with or without fuel guage the UA2 is already a have to have for me. I am just naturally curious how they did it and the details of how it works. I'm sure we will all find out in the coming weeks/months.

Thanks

Bill


----------



## Ginseng (Feb 11, 2008)

Size15's said:


> The fuel gauge LED only illuminated when the flashlight was activated.


That makes sense. Once you remove the load, the voltage should jump back up to a pretty high level making the LED none too accurate. Voltage under load is the better indicator of capacity remaining. 

Wilkey


----------



## Ty_Bower (Feb 11, 2008)

marinemaster said:


> Any idea what tube the Optimus is built on? Will it take 18650 batt? That would be awesome.



I'd bet money against it. Surefire won't repeat the old U2 body which was wide enough to take an 18mm cell. Perhaps somewhere way back in the product's history there was a plan for a li-ion rechargeable solution, but clearly Surefire decided that primary only was the way to go. There's no way the body tube of either of these two lights will be wide enough to hold an 18650.

Even if they did, or you bored it out yourself, I doubt the electronics in the head would work well with the 3.7v supply of a single li-ion. The old U2 had a LuxV with a forward voltage over 6 volts. A boost circuit was required to drive it, even off a pair of 3 volt primary cells. Boosting the voltage from an 18650 just meant it would pull more current from the cell.

These new emitters have a forward voltage somewhere in the mid 3 volt range, probably higher when driven harder. I'm fairly certain even the quad die LED used in the Invictus has all four sections wired in parallel - Vf is still in the mid 3 volt range. This means the driver is going to be some variant of a buck type circuitry. While a pair of CR123A cells will offer plenty of voltage to supply the necessary driver overhead, I suspect a 3.7 volt li-ion cell won't. Bottom line - I predict that those who try to use a single li-ion in their Optimus or Invictus will find that regulated runtime on the highest levels is poor.

I'm probably making too many assumptions before actually seeing the product. I sure hope someone proves me wrong. I'll buy one of these new lights, but not until someone else demonstrates they perform well with 18650 cells.


----------



## Hitthespot (Feb 11, 2008)

Ty_Bower said:


> I'd bet money against it. Surefire won't repeat the old U2 body which was wide enough to take an 18mm cell. Perhaps somewhere way back in the product's history there was a plan for a li-ion rechargeable solution, but clearly Surefire decided that primary only was the way to go. There's no way the body tube of either of these two lights will be wide enough to hold an 18650.
> 
> Even if they did, or you bored it out yourself, I doubt the electronics in the head would work well with the 3.7v supply of a single li-ion. The old U2 had a LuxV with a forward voltage over 6 volts. A boost circuit was required to drive it, even off a pair of 3 volt primary cells. Boosting the voltage from an 18650 just meant it would pull more current from the cell.
> 
> ...


 
If the fuel guage is calibrated to CR123's I wonder how it will like 18650's??


----------



## seattlite (Feb 12, 2008)

Ty_Bower said:


> I'd bet money against it. Surefire won't repeat the old U2 body which was wide enough to take an 18mm cell. Perhaps somewhere way back in the product's history there was a plan for a li-ion rechargeable solution, but clearly Surefire decided that primary only was the way to go. There's no way the body tube of either of these two lights will be wide enough to hold an 18650.
> 
> Even if they did, or you bored it out yourself, I doubt the electronics in the head would work well with the 3.7v supply of a single li-ion. The old U2 had a LuxV with a forward voltage over 6 volts. A boost circuit was required to drive it, even off a pair of 3 volt primary cells. Boosting the voltage from an 18650 just meant it would pull more current from the cell.
> 
> ...



How about running 3.7V, 2XRCR123's? 8.4V off the charger?


----------



## cue003 (Feb 12, 2008)

These lights appear to be 2 handed operation. One hand to hold and hit the switch and the other to adjust the selector. Is that the same for the current U2? I don't and have never owned a U2 so I am just wondering how much effort is needed for operation. 1 handed or 2 handed etc.

Curtis


----------



## Size15's (Feb 12, 2008)

cue003 said:


> These lights appear to be 2 handed operation. One hand to hold and hit the switch and the other to adjust the selector. Is that the same for the current U2? I don't and have never owned a U2 so I am just wondering how much effort is needed for operation. 1 handed or 2 handed etc.
> 
> Curtis


Unless the selector ring is set to "Off", the user can activate which ever output mode the ring is set to by activating the first stage of the two-stage pressure switch, and "mash down" for full high output by activating the second stage. Primarily the operation is one-handed.

If the selector ring needs to be adjusted then it is a lot easier to use a second hand for this.

The TailCap can be rotated with the flashlight in one hand as with current TailCaps.

Does this help?

Al

P.S.
The U2 has a push button pressure clickie switch and so does not give you the choice that the UA2/UB2 does of two light outputs (the first of which is determined by the selector ring/dial)


----------



## Stan671 (Feb 12, 2008)

For my reference of what 200 or 400 lumens might look like, what is the output of the SPY005, Rev B?


----------



## cue003 (Feb 12, 2008)

Size15's said:


> Unless the selector ring is set to "Off", the user can activate which ever output mode the ring is set to by activating the first stage of the two-stage pressure switch, and "mash down" for full high output by activating the second stage. Primarily the operation is one-handed.
> 
> If the selector ring needs to be adjusted then it is a lot easier to use a second hand for this.
> 
> ...



Al, that perfectly answers my question. Thanks for the fast response.

Curtis


----------



## cliff (Feb 12, 2008)

Ty_Bower said:


> I'll buy one of these new lights, but not until someone else demonstrates they perform well with 18650 cells.


 
Me too. I got one of the first U2s they made and never used anything other than 18650s in it. It was and is a fine piece of gear, albeit not as powerful as some lights available these days. 

The problem is, night gets very dark during my shifts and a flashlight is on quite a bit of the time. I change out 18650s from a DC charger in the car fairly frequently. There is no way that stoking any light with primaries would be cost effective for me. 

For 400 torch lumens I would write Surefire a check at whatever pricepoint they wanted, but not if primaries are the only thing that will work.


----------



## DM51 (Feb 12, 2008)

For those who are interested, OpticsHQ are now taking pre-orders for the UA2, UB2 and Titan T1A in this thread.


----------



## Phredd (Feb 12, 2008)

I was just thinking that it would be a neat feature if there was an option for keeping the fuel gauge LED lit as a locator. There could be hidden sequence to enable it to stay on (OFF-SOS-2-SOS-2) and another to turn it off (2-SOS-2-SOS-OFF). Assuming the drain on this tiny LED is low, this could be the end of tritium locators.


----------



## DuckhunterInTN (Feb 12, 2008)

Phredd said:


> I was just thinking that it would be a neat feature if there was an option for keeping the fuel gauge LED lit as a locator. There could be hidden sequence to enable it to stay on (OFF-SOS-2-SOS-2) and another to turn it off (2-SOS-2-SOS-OFF). Assuming the drain on this tiny LED is low, this could be the end of tritium locators.


 

That would be a very neat idea.


----------



## I came to the light... (Feb 12, 2008)

In the 2008 catalog - "The SureFire Optimus is everything every flashlight has aspired to be but has always fallen short of acheiving--until now." 

Normally I'd laught at that, but it really seems to be true, if Surefire hasn't suddenly taken to inflating their output measurements... WITH ONE PROBLEM! It would be what they claim if it were 2" shorter. 1" shorter and it would be the best thing out so far. But it's 6.5" long, putting it completely out of question for me. Since Fenix has proven that you can fit 2xCR123 batteries and great output into a 4.5" package, the only reason for a larger light is throw. So this thing had better out-throw the DBS. If it does I'll take back what I said was a problem... but I highly doubt it will.


----------



## 270winchester (Feb 12, 2008)

Just goes to show how you can't please everyone.

THe Optimus has what no other light has, adjustable beam, and you have to compromise a little size for that feature. People have bitched and moaned about how Surefire optics are throw only, and now they finally come out with one light that can do both people are gonna whine about its slightly longer size and also want a throw monster out of it. For perspective 6.5 inches is much shorter than an average adult human hand, I don't think it will be much of a problem for most people for carry.

The selcetor ring also takes up space. FOr a feature packed light like that, and expect it to be as small as a thin-skinned, fixed beam 2x123 light with a multi-click UI that many people don't like, saying it's comparing apples to oranges would be an understatement.

of course we all want a variable beam 4.5 inch long light with brightness-selector ring, 2 stage tailcap puts out 200+ lumens out the front(rather than bulb lumen), and preferrably cost under 20 dollars. It will come, but just not now.



I came to the light... said:


> In the 2008 catalog - "The SureFire Optimus is everything every flashlight has aspired to be but has always fallen short of acheiving--until now."
> 
> Normally I'd laught at that, but it really seems to be true, if Surefire hasn't suddenly taken to inflating their output measurements... WITH ONE PROBLEM! It would be what they claim if it were 2" shorter. 1" shorter and it would be the best thing out so far. But it's 6.5" long, putting it completely out of question for me. Since Fenix has proven that you can fit 2xCR123 batteries and great output into a 4.5" package, the only reason for a larger light is throw. So this thing had better out-throw the DBS. If it does I'll take back what I said was a problem... but I highly doubt it will.


----------



## carl (Feb 12, 2008)

I predict that after the hype dies down on the focusability of the Optimus, the Invictus, with its higher output 4-die LED will become everyones' favorite. Just basing this on the current U2's favorite status with its 5W 4-die LED over the single 3W lights.


----------



## Phredd (Feb 12, 2008)

I came to the light... said:


> Since Fenix has proven that you can fit 2xCR123 batteries and great output into a 4.5" package, the only reason for a larger light is throw.



... and an optically adjustable beam and variable brightness ...


----------



## Art Vandelay (Feb 12, 2008)

I came to the light... said:


> In the 2008 catalog - "The SureFire Optimus is everything every flashlight has aspired to be but has always fallen short of acheiving--until now."
> 
> Normally I'd laught at that, but it really seems to be true, if Surefire hasn't suddenly taken to inflating their output measurements... WITH ONE PROBLEM! It would be what they claim if it were 2" shorter. 1" shorter and it would be the best thing out so far. But it's 6.5" long, putting it completely out of question for me. Since Fenix has proven that you can fit 2xCR123 batteries and great output into a 4.5" package, the only reason for a larger light is throw. So this thing had better out-throw the DBS. If it does I'll take back what I said was a problem... but I highly doubt it will.


The Mini Mag is only six and a half inches. It may too long for a discreet pocket light, but would be fine in a holster.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Feb 12, 2008)

carl said:


> I predict that after the hype dies down on the focusability of the Optimus, the Invictus, with its higher output 4-die LED will become everyones' favorite. Just basing this on the current U2's favorite status with its 5W 4-die LED over the single 3W lights.


I'd like to see a comparison of the run times.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Feb 12, 2008)

carl said:


> I predict that after the hype dies down on the focusability of the Optimus, the Invictus, with its higher output 4-die LED will become everyones' favorite.



I'll agree with that. How many people actually use both spot and flood focus on their Maglites? Besides, if you really need flood you can just stick a diffuser over the end. How many people bother to do that?

I'd rather have a beam that is sufficiently tight to have some throw, but still strong in the spill area. Transition from spot to flood should be smooth and even. Something like the current U2 is just about perfect. Other than that, output is king. I'll live without focusability.


----------



## Hitthespot (Feb 12, 2008)

Ty_Bower said:


> I'll agree with that. How many people actually use both spot and flood focus on their Maglites? Besides, if you really need flood you can just stick a diffuser over the end. How many people bother to do that?
> 
> I'd rather have a beam that is sufficiently tight to have some throw, but still strong in the spill area. Transition from spot to flood should be smooth and even. Something like the current U2 is just about perfect. Other than that, output is king. I'll live without focusability.


 
Hmmm.....your opinion is interesting. My opinion differs. Hunting, Fishing, camping, working on a broken down car, walking a path; these activities would all call for a slight to moderate flood type light IMO. Remember this light is not a two choice light, you have spot to flood and everything in between. I have a Pelican light which significantly out throws all the lights I have. I find it useless. Wow factor is nice, but once that dies down you are left with a light you must use in real situations. The UA2 Is my have to have, not the UB2

Bill


----------



## Phredd (Feb 12, 2008)

Ty_Bower said:


> I'll agree with that. How many people actually use both spot and flood focus on their Maglites?





Hitthespot said:


> My opinion differs. Hunting, Fishing, camping, working on a broken down car, walking a path; these activities would all call for a slight to moderate flood type light IMO.



I think there will be plenty of people who will have a preference for each the Optimus and the Invictus, so it's a good thing they'll be making both.


----------



## asdalton (Feb 12, 2008)

For me, it depends on whether the focused setting of the UA2 has some spill, like the Surefire L1 Cree--versus being all throw like the TIROS Inova T3 or the last Luxeon KL1. I don't want to have to adjust the beam just to get a small amount of sidespill.


----------



## jeffb (Feb 12, 2008)

MikeSalt said:


> 11 settings.... microprocessor controlled. Words like that scare me when put into the context of a simple, reliable flashlight. I hope those electronics have had plenty of beta testing!




When I was a young man, I worked in a "Service Station" (Gas Station) and on days like today (very cold in Northern Indiana), cars often would not start or would quit running.

Today, Automobiles and Airplanes utilize "electronics" that our lives depend on. (How often do you see hood raised and a car broken down on the roadside?) The amount of "microprocessors" used in auto's, planes, appliances, computers etc is staggering IMO.
Factories utilize "electronics", in their "controls" and robots etc and seldom fail.

I have been selling Photoelectric s with LED's and electronic boards for over twenty years and very rarely do they fail, many from twenty years ago are still working.

Electronics today are mounted on boards that flex and are conformally coated and components are used that last lifetimes.

The world has changed.....I'm just trying to keep up!!

By the way, the Optimus seems awesome!

jeffb


----------



## FlashSpyJ (Feb 13, 2008)

At first I thought I wanted the UA2, but since I understood that It had optics I had second thoughts. I had a L1 cree and sold it because of the optics, I think that it didnt have enough spillbeam. If I have to adjust the UA2 to get a beam that has the wide I would want from a reflector light I will loose the hotspot. The beam might be even, but there wont be any hotspot?
I havent seen any beamshots from the UA2 so I really cant say anything, Im just thinking from previous experiences with optics lights.

I now use a SF 6P with the tailkap kit from OpticsHQ and a beamdiffuser (for those who dont know of this kit, its a two button tailcap, instant momentary highest setting, and adjustable output, and strobe! and a led drop in) , if I want more throw I flip the lid open, and push it down if I want floody light, now if I want floody light I dont need to adjust the beam, I just want a flood of light! I want light everywhere, and with the ability to adjust the amount of output I can adjust the broadness of the beam.
I think this works pretty well, but Im curios about how well the optics are going to work, I really dont care for the sharp edge many optics produce.
It dosent feel natural somehow, but I might be wrong about this one 

The UB2 seems to be a very nice option, a bit bigger but it got 400 SF lumen and a reflector! I hope this can compare to the M6, and that the beam are even, not to floody not to throwy. Can accompany that with a beamdiffuser, I use that now, so I have no problem with them!

I think Im gonna make like a bear and go into hibernation! 
Wake me up when the UB2 is here!


----------



## a99raptors (Feb 13, 2008)

FlashSpyJ said:


> At first I thought I wanted the UA2, but since I understood that It had optics I had second thoughts. I had a L1 cree and sold it because of the optics, I think that it didnt have enough spillbeam. If I have to adjust the UA2 to get a beam that has the wide I would want from a reflector light I will loose the hotspot. The beam might be even, but there wont be any hotspot?
> I havent seen any beamshots from the UA2 so I really cant say anything, Im just thinking from previous experiences with optics lights.
> 
> I now use a SF 6P with the tailkap kit from OpticsHQ and a beamdiffuser (for those who dont know of this kit, its a two button tailcap, instant momentary highest setting, and adjustable output, and strobe! and a led drop in) , if I want more throw I flip the lid open, and push it down if I want floody light, now if I want floody light I dont need to adjust the beam, I just want a flood of light! I want light everywhere, and with the ability to adjust the amount of output I can adjust the broadness of the beam.
> ...


 

Good point about the optics. I had an Inova T3 once. Kept tripping over my own feet in the dark because of its limited sidespill. However, the current SF L1 is perfect for me. Replaced even my 100 Lumen L4. I would love to have a 400 lumen light running on 2 cells, but my main concern would have to be whether it's gonna be like the U2. My U2 is a shelf queen. Yes, it is 100 lumens, but the donut beam and the relatively poorer throw just isn't what I need. Although the L1 has only 65 lumens, the beam shape makes it more usable than the U2 IMHO. Hope the Invictus won't lose out to the Optimus because of that.

Having said that, maybe I just need to continue the CPF trend. GET BOTH the Optimus and Invictus! (How can you miss with names like that?) 

Pricey though.....

Uh... Anyone want to buy a kidney?


----------



## Kiessling (Feb 13, 2008)

carl, the Invictus is quite bigger than the Optimus, so I am not so sure that it will be the more popular model.
bernie


----------



## batman (Feb 13, 2008)

Is there any difference in tint between the 4 die and single die white LEDs? What's so great about the 4 die LED idea? Please enlighten.
Batman


----------



## Kiessling (Feb 13, 2008)

With the 4-die LED you have 4 times the luminous flux (well, a bit less I would guess due to efficiency losses) but not 4 times the size. You have one light source, and not four, thus you need one reflector, and not four.
bernie

P.S.: the real *male* reason though ... MORE POWER !!! :devil:


----------



## FliGuyRyan (Feb 13, 2008)

carl said:


> I predict that after the hype dies down on the focusability of the Optimus, the Invictus, with its higher output 4-die LED will become everyones' favorite. Just basing this on the current U2's favorite status with its 5W 4-die LED over the single 3W lights.



I couldn't agree more. There has been a lot of good things said for both, but I believe carl nailed it with this thought. I've been reading the posts and information on both trying to decide which one of these lights will be my first ticket into Club Surefire.

Focusing is a handy and very neat concept, but SF would have to do it so well, that it would have to eclipse the fact that the Optimus' brother is putting out *400* lumens (and probably out-the-front SF lumens)! So... in other words, unless the Optimus focuses enough to equal the throw of the Invictus, well... I think the latter will "win" the favorite vote...

Tough choice on both, and I'm waiting till I see some beamshots and real-world testing instead of catalog pics and information...

.025 cents...
RC


----------



## cfromc (Feb 13, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> carl, the Invictus is quite bigger than the Optimus, so I am not so sure that it will be the more popular model.
> bernie


 
Longer, heavier, and with a larger diameter bezel. I understand the larger bezel but don't understand why it would be longer and heavier _without_ the adjustable beam...? Seems like the adjustable beam mechanism would add some length and weight to the light. I'm probably getting the Invictus but the perfect one would be the size of the Optimus, with 400L, and with the adjustable beam. mmmmmmm.....


----------



## FliGuyRyan (Feb 13, 2008)

cfromc said:


> Longer, heavier, and with a larger diameter bezel. I understand the larger bezel but don't understand why it would be longer and heavier _without_ the adjustable beam...? Seems like the adjustable beam mechanism would add some length and weight to the light.



I imagine the 4-die board takes up the extra space along with heat-sink and all that other jazz...



cfromc said:


> I'm probably getting the Invictus but the perfect one would be the size of the Optimus, with 400L, and with the adjustable beam. mmmmmmm.....



That'll be next year... when we've already purchased our Invictus and Optimus...

SHAFTED! :shakehead


----------



## Kiessling (Feb 13, 2008)

I *guess* the SSC P7 needs a deep reflector to be properly focussed ... thus longer and bigger. 
Doesn't really matter as I will get both without a doubt. 
bernie


----------



## souptree (Feb 13, 2008)

I feel like these two new offerings, combined with the elimination of the old U2 from the catalog present a perfect slot for the baby brother in the series:

The U1: one cell, reflectored, and without SOS, Strobe, battery meter, or focusing. Sort of a fusion between the old U2 and an S27-PD.

And could someone PLEASE let SF know that 2 lumens is NOT low? With 8 brightness levels, not having a true low makes no sense at all.

Of course, I am counting the days until I can get my grubby mitts on the new ones! Personally? I lean more towards the bigger one with the reflector. But I won't lie. The new models offer a lot of new features I don't really need or want (although they might come in handy from time to time) and the added complexity gives me reliability nightmares.

I want the dumbed down little brother!


----------



## Phredd (Feb 13, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> the Invictus is quite bigger than the Optimus, so I am not so sure that it will be the more popular model.



I agree. I think it's a fair guess that with the extra length in spite of the lack of the Optimus' optics, the Invictus probably has a long reflector for strong throw. Those who don't need 400 lumens and strong throw will probably opt for the more versatile Optimus.

We could look at the pre-order lists to see which CPFers prefer and then figure that "normal" people  probably aren't as drawn to the highest lumens and throw to get an idea of which will sell more.



souptree said:


> I want the dumbed down little brother!



Isn't that the old U2?


----------



## flashy bazook (Feb 13, 2008)

One more question I had.

First, obviously the bezels are too wide to use the Surefire F04 diffuser, which is 1" wide.

And now it seems as if the Invictus will have a wider bezel than the Optimus.

So - my question is, if anyone knows or can make a good guess, will the larger sized Surefire diffuser (and various color filters) match one, or the other, of the two? And, if yes, which one will they match?


----------



## RGB_LED (Feb 13, 2008)

jzmtl said:


> Hmm, you can pre order optimus for $279, I wonder if that means invictus will be $379, or even more? They'll probably do $100 difference at least to set them apart.


That's a decent price... I'd write SF a chq for that amount.:twothumbs



Art Vandelay said:


> We need Chevrofreak to test this.


+1... Will anyone get their hands on one soon? 



asdalton said:


> For me, it depends on whether the focused setting of the UA2 has some spill, like the Surefire L1 Cree--versus being all throw like the TIROS Inova T3 or the last Luxeon KL1. I don't want to have to adjust the beam just to get a small amount of sidespill.


I have the older version of the E1L and that square beam profile was always a nuisance so I always a diffuser... I know things have come a long way since then - I'm hoping there's more sidespill as it would be more useful.

Btw, there were a couple of comments about the lights running on an 18650 - does anyone know if it is possible? :thinking: I'm going to have to make it out to the Shotshow one of these days...


----------



## souptree (Feb 13, 2008)

Phredd said:


> Isn't that the old U2?



Nope, littler. 1 cell.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 13, 2008)

[EDIT] The data in the quote is for flashy bazook [/EDIT]

Remember that our esteemed and much appreciated member, Size15's, reminds us that the final iterations may or may not have been seen yet. I'll go out on a limb and assume that, even though some cosmetic specs may change, the following numbers reflect the engineering plan.




Size15's said:


> UA2 - 6.5" long, 1.36" bezel diameter, 6.5 oz.
> UB2 - 6.9" long, 1.62" bezel diameter, 8.0 oz.
> 
> For reference
> ...


I'm sure that many people including myself are thankful to Al (*Size15's*) for his years of helping this community with his excellent knowledge and understanding of illumination tools, especially now when there is a tidal wave of questions being posed.


----------



## Size15's (Feb 13, 2008)

Thanks Icebreak! I was just catching up on this thread and about to have to re-write that info... Thanks for saving me the trouble!

Al


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 13, 2008)

:thumbsup:


----------



## thermal guy (Feb 13, 2008)

I was just thinking the Optimus must be putting out like 300LM at the emitter to get 200LM out the front. It has 2 lens to shoot through.


----------



## jzmtl (Feb 13, 2008)

Probably not, optics are supposely more effifient than reflectors.


----------



## carl (Feb 14, 2008)

jzmtl said:


> Probably not, optics are supposely more effifient than reflectors.




Optics more efficient? They may gather light better than reflectors, especially at the edges, but they also present another "medium" for the light to have to blast through (plus the air space between the emitter and optic, then the interface between the optic and the glass, etc., etc.)


----------



## ShOgUn_LI (Feb 14, 2008)

anyway, when do these go on sale? Group buy anyone? lol seriously


----------



## carl (Feb 14, 2008)

carl said:


> Optics more efficient? They may gather light better than reflectors, especially at the edges, but they also present another "medium" for the light to have to blast through (plus the air space between the emitter and optic, then the interface between the optic and the glass, etc., etc.)


In other words, the optics may be "ultraclear" but the laws of physics still intervene and chips away at the final output of light out the front end. In the case of the Optimus, the light not only has to deal with the inefficiency/losses of one set of optics/air/glass interfaces but TWO with its TWO optics! Ouch. Even the pairing of the two optics isn't perfectly clean (in terms of light transmission) so there will be losses there too. The Invictus, on the other hand, has a much cleaner path out the front end with just a bit of air and glass and ...voila! 400 lumens!


----------



## FlashSpyJ (Feb 14, 2008)

flashy bazook said:


> One more question I had.
> 
> First, obviously the bezels are too wide to use the Surefire F04 diffuser, which is 1" wide.
> 
> ...



The specs in the catalog says that the Invictus (UB2) has a 1.62" bezel, so then the FM14 beamdiffuser would fit! FM15 and FM16 are red and blue filters, they will probably fit too since they also are for 1.62" bezels!
So far I dont se any filter for a 1.36" which the UA2s bezel are.


----------



## iapyx (Feb 14, 2008)

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z184/iapyx_cpf/gauge-1.jpg?t=1202993967

A picture (now resized, thanks DM51) of the gauge. Taken from the digital catalogue.


iapyx


----------



## DM51 (Feb 14, 2008)

iapyx, please resize that pic to a maximum of 800 x 600 pixels. It is too big.


----------



## cue003 (Feb 14, 2008)

FlashSpyJ said:


> The specs in the catalog says that the Invictus (UB2) has a 1.62" bezel, so then the FM14 beamdiffuser would fit! FM15 and FM16 are red and blue filters, they will probably fit too since they also are for 1.62" bezels!
> So far I dont se any filter for a 1.36" which the UA2s bezel are.



Al posted this in another thread about what fits what etc....



> UA2 - 6.5" long, 1.36" bezel diameter, 6.5 oz.
> UB2 - 6.9" long, 1.62" bezel diameter, 8.0 oz.
> 
> For reference
> ...


----------



## Phredd (Feb 14, 2008)

ShOgUn_LI said:


> anyway, when do these go on sale? Group buy anyone? lol seriously



I think the UA2 is expected in May for $279. I don't think we know the date or cost of the UB2. OpticsHQ is taking pre-orders:

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=175058


----------



## 2000xlt (Feb 14, 2008)

I am very interested in the invictus but we have no price yet, i predict it migh be somewhere around $100 per each 100 lm


----------



## sledhead (Feb 14, 2008)

I'd also go for the Invictus, 400 lumens out the front should give a nice center beam with some nice spill to throw a nice wall of light when needed. I doubt it will throw as far as the Optimus when it is adjusted to spot though. I'll keep my Spear for throw and get the Invictus to cover everything else!:thumbsup:


----------



## FliGuyRyan (Feb 14, 2008)

2000xlt said:


> I am very interested in the invictus but we have no price yet, i predict it migh be somewhere around $100 per each 100 lm



I sincerely, hope you're wrong as I'm not about to pay over $300 dollars for the Invictus. If that is so, I'll be going with the Optimus...

Plus, I have to buy to a Lasermax for my new Sig Sauer, and a light/laser for the Sig and the Magpul Masada (rifle) I'm picking up.

Between the pistol, rifle, Invictus (or Optimus), the Lasermax and the light/laser weapon-light (Streamlight TLR-2 or Surefire's X400)... well. I'm out approximately $3000.00. 

Wew... 
RC


----------



## Flashlike (Feb 14, 2008)

*Surefire Invictus advertising poster on Ebay*

This is sort of "off topic", but I saw this Surefire Invictus advertising poster on Ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250214929979

Can't help but wonder...


----------



## Art Vandelay (Feb 14, 2008)

My guess is the increase will be reasonable. When Surefire started using Cree LEDs they did not increase the prices that much. The 4 LED head will cost Surefire more and us more, but not that much more. Also, 4 led head will not have the focusable lens, so maybe that will save Surefire a little. It would be nice if they gave a discount if you bought them both at the same time.


----------



## FliGuyRyan (Feb 14, 2008)

I know, I know this is an unreasonable statement and something that won't be possible for another year or three, but... man... I wish they were pocketable. It's going to be hard to justify the price of the Invictus or Optimus given the fact that I'm so used to the Fenix P2D Rebel 100. I really, really can't wait (and look forward to) 3-400 lumens out-the-front in a P2D size. That will be the day.

Also, not to get off topic, but I hope Novatac steps up their game to compete with Surefire's offerings...


----------



## cue003 (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: Surefire Invictus advertising poster on Ebay*



Flashlike said:


> This is sort of "off topic", but I saw this Surefire Invictus advertising poster on Ebay:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250214929979
> 
> Can't help but wonder...



That is actually pretty cool the name of the poem is Invictus by William Earnest Henley.

INVICTUS

OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

WILlIAM E. HENLEY



Great poem. 

Curtis


----------



## iapyx (Feb 15, 2008)

I guess that I am not the only if I say: why didn´t they come with a 400 lm invictus with a focusable beam?

I can think of only two reasons:

-SF might have thought: Always keep them wanting more.
(that´s a bit thinking on the negative side)

or...

-the parts that make it focusable turn into a loss of lumens
But in that case a loss of e.g. 50 lm would still give you a 350 lm focusalbe SF flashlight.

As so many among us: I can´t choose (yet) and can´t afford to buy both.

Anyway, I´ll buy one....


----------



## 2000xlt (Feb 15, 2008)

FliGuyRyan said:


> I sincerely, hope you're wrong as I'm not about to pay over $300 dollars for the Invictus. If that is so, I'll be going with the Optimus...
> 
> Plus, I have to buy to a Lasermax for my new Sig Sauer, and a light/laser for the Sig and the Magpul Masada (rifle) I'm picking up.
> 
> ...



I agree with you 100 % i hope its not over $300 either


----------



## FliGuyRyan (Feb 15, 2008)

See... I want one of these lights to use at annual training for the Ohio Army National Guard in the summer for three weeks. My P2D Rebel 100 is great as I've already mentioned, but alas, it won't offer the runtime and throw I will need to support the mission. 

As a result, I will be buying the Optimus or Invictus once I see runtimes and depending on when they come out. If the Invictus comes out later than June 1 I will be getting the Optimus, and I just pray that it throws almost as well as the Invictus b/c of the Optimus' optics. 

But, I main concern through all of this is how useful will the Optimus/Invictus be when I return to normal life of EDC'ing my P2D Rebel 100? Will I be able to stuff the Optimus/Invictus in my jeans and carry on with life as usual?

Doubt it... and that's sad... and hopefully... just maybe... Surefire will have the brains enough to think up a way to mount these lights to a rifle with a remote switch. THAT my friends... would be AWESOME!

But... enough dreaming for today...


----------



## andylondon (Feb 18, 2008)

These two lights look brilliant! I can't wait to get my hands on them!


----------



## FliGuyRyan (Feb 18, 2008)

I can't wait for more info and prices especially...


----------



## jufam44 (Feb 18, 2008)

FliGuyRyan said:


> I can't wait for more info and prices especially...


+1


----------



## Force Attuned (Apr 19, 2008)

Do we have an official release date yet??


----------



## Gladius01 (Apr 19, 2008)

Am waiting for the price before ordering Invictus.


----------



## easilyled (Apr 19, 2008)

iapyx said:


> I guess that I am not the only if I say: why didn´t they come with a 400 lm invictus with a focusable beam?
> 
> I can think of only two reasons:
> 
> ...



It may be related to the use of the P7 led in this light.

I have a feeling that due to the large size of the led, the high dome and
the null area between the 4 dies, that to offer a range of different focuses
would have limited benefits.


----------



## Vancouverite (Apr 30, 2008)

Wow, they sound like impressive lights.

Being a noob and someone who happened upon this site when I was looking for an LED flashlight I thought I'd never buy a Surefire. I mean I'm not in law enforcement or work at a job where I need a really good light. 

But I must say that I've found these new LED flashlights to be really cool and figured I'd pick up some Fenix lights, which I likely still will. But the Optimus and Invictus sound awesome. I'd like to buy both but not sure I can justify spending that kind of money when I don't really have a need for a light of that quality. That doesn't stop me from lusting for them though 

Will we really have to wait until Q4 for these lights to come out?


----------



## KeyGrip (Apr 30, 2008)

*Re: Just read about the Optimus and Invictus*

It's best not to worry about SureFire release dates. Sometimes they're late, sometimes they're early, and sometimes they spring a product on us that we weren't even expecting (E1B and P60L).


----------



## Force Attuned (Apr 30, 2008)

*Re: Just read about the Optimus and Invictus*

Is the Optimus being released in May??


----------



## MicroE (Apr 30, 2008)

*Re: Just read about the Optimus and Invictus*



Force Attuned said:


> Is the Optimus being released in May??



Late May or early June. I spoke with BatteryJunction yesterday.


----------



## xcel730 (Apr 30, 2008)

*Re: Just read about the Optimus and Invictus*

Batteryjunction currently has Invictus listed as $99,999. :naughty:

I can't wait until it comes out. It looks really sweet.


----------



## cyberpunk (Apr 30, 2008)

*Re: Just read about the Optimus and Invictus*



MicroE said:


> Late May or early June. I spoke with BatteryJunction yesterday.


 
I spoke to Surefire yesterday (or the day before). They told me July 31st.


----------



## munchs (May 1, 2008)

Can anyone confirm if Surefire uses P7 for thier UA2? 
Seems to me no one has any definite knowledge as to this question so far...


----------



## Size15's (May 1, 2008)

munchs said:


> Can anyone confirm if Surefire uses P7 for thier UA2?
> Seems to me no one has any definite knowledge as to this question so far...


No. :green:


----------



## Delta (May 1, 2008)

and here I thought there was new info to read. Bait and Switch!


----------



## Yoda4561 (May 1, 2008)

I doubt they're using the P7 in the optimus, giant LEDs like that don't lend themselves well to optics, and a SSC P4 can do 240 lumens in a more efficient package, even accounting for optical light losses if driven at full power it should put about 200 out the front. Not saying that it's an SSC P4 mind you, just that it'll probably be one of the single die high-power leds, not a P7 or anything similar.


----------



## DM51 (May 1, 2008)

Threads merged.


----------



## Vancouverite (May 1, 2008)

Delta said:


> and here I thought there was new info to read. Bait and Switch!


 
My apologies. I'm a noob and I'm just excited by the prospect of these new lights.


----------



## Taboot (May 1, 2008)

*Re: Just read about the Optimus and Invictus*



cyberpunk said:


> I spoke to Surefire yesterday (or the day before). They told me July 31st.


 
They should release it to coincide with the US economic stimulus package checks.


----------



## Art Vandelay (May 1, 2008)

*Re: Just read about the Optimus and Invictus*



Taboot said:


> They should release it to coincide with the US economic stimulus package checks.


I think they spread the distribution of checks evenly over 10 weeks to prevent the "Christmas affect".
:thinking:


----------



## Hendrikjansen (Sep 10, 2008)

You said 2 lumens on 100+ hours
so 400 lumens for 5 hours+  ?

Anyone know a release date an price of the invictus  ?


----------



## iapyx (Sep 10, 2008)

Hendrikjansen said:


> Anyone know a release date an price of the invictus  ?


 

That's THE question of the year ever since SF introduced the lights (optimus and invictus) at ShotShow2008. As long as we don't hear anything from SF about the UA2 I think we better not ask when to expect the UB2....


----------



## DM51 (Sep 10, 2008)

iapyx said:


> That's THE question of the year...


LOL, which year?


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado (Apr 1, 2009)

Look what I found.


----------



## flash_bang (Apr 1, 2009)

you've got to be freakin kidding me..... next you know they'll have a beast sized thing that puts out .000001 to 10 lumens....


----------



## damn_hammer (Apr 1, 2009)

Flashlight Aficionado said:


> Look what I found.



Where do you find that at?


----------



## jonesy (Apr 1, 2009)

Don't forget what day it is.


----------



## damn_hammer (Apr 1, 2009)

dammit, got me.


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado (Apr 1, 2009)

It was from an advertisement in a magazine dated May 2008.


----------

