Oh for the love of baby jesus. Please tell me they aren’t going to put a damn snap on clip on this light. That I think, would put a bunch of folks over the edge.
Taking a third look at the picture I now notice a decorative groove on both ends of the battery tube. The groove is the recessed area with raised ridge in the center.
Why do I think it’s a decorative and not just the light partially unscrewed? …. the grooves have no threads in them.
Though maybe I am wrong and those are just slots for double o-rings. I don’t think so though. If it was for double o-rings I would expect the same groove depth at both ends of the battery tube.
In addition to the decorative grooves, the bottom of the battery tube has a larger flat area just above the decorative groove that looks clearly designed for a slip-on clip.
Personally, I don’t like this new look. Looks overly complex. I much prefer the previous prototype.
Agreed. That would go against the whole concept.
I tend to agree with you, and if so, it is quite a departure in design.
Please add me to the list.
Thanks
When comparing the proportions it’s pretty obvious that, like it was said, head and tailcap are unscrewed.
> photoshopped > 
Have a look above and next please…
Really??
Or maybe you mean this is the case in the range above very low modes.
Very low modes like ‘moon’ and ‘firefly’ give relatively more blue, i guess the phosphor is not excited by very low levels of 450nm.
But why post that ?
Makes no sense.
Screw it.
And please someone send some proto 4s to the people who are still trying hard, not being lackadaisical.
Sure hope so !!
That is the coarsest threading I have ever seen on a light… or… possibly an o-ring slot and a slot for a snap-on-clip. If it does screw together and cover the two slots, that seems like wasted space.
*I reserve the right to be completely wrong.
Double o-rings, good design.
Yup. If those actually are double-o ring slots, that would be good design.
However, at the tailcap, the upper ledge of the “o-ring slot” seems like it would be too shallow to actually hold an o-ring. Screwing in the tailcap would push that o-ring out of position.
Thinner o-ring 
I really don’t think so. Unnecessary, and other aspects that I have observed on this image are troubling.
For starters, putting an o-ring into a rough bead-blasted groove with some shonky anodising is really not cool. If you want to create a seal, do it competently, or don’t bother. That means precise machined surface finish and materials selection. Slathering it with grease may also help. If you dive, you might understand this a little.
But since this is what it is, it probably doesn’t matter at-all to most customers.
It’s not as if we have even seen these supposed double o-rings in-situ. Well if two are better than one, why not three, or four where do you stop ?
Do it properly and one is enough. Two maybe for a dive torch, but that comes with downsides too. Double the maintenance, and you never really know whether either, or both, are serviceable. A bit like flying twin-engine planes.
Is that a piece for sale?
What do you want for thirty odd dollars, rocketship precision?
You could maybe take it diving with double O-rings… 
Btw, talking about double O-rings in non-dive lights:
Lot of maintenance there…
I heard back from Neal: “this is not the final verison, they are test the color”
Also, I hope this answers some questions:
(before anyone asks, this is one light photographed twice, not two lights)
What sorcery is this???