I think you’re right. I’ll change it.
Thank you for noticed this.
There is a massive balance issue with this. As previously mentioned it’ll make for very very head-bias balance.
Even my comparatively small 2X is head heavy, I cant even imagine a huge 13cm wide head & heatsink up-front trying to be offset by 4 cells and a carrier.
Yes will update list later
One long tube should be easier to make
But what if we aim for head fitting compatibility with the Q8 tube?
Have a Q8 and a GT and one could use the short Q8 tube on a parallel mod on the GT and a 2 series long tube of the GT for a XHP70/50 mod for the Q8.
Indeed,please flatten the switch side too for symmetry 
So cool! Thanks
If there is a heavy tail cap,ie made of copper or of fat aluminum?
I suppose the tail cap could be weighted but this would add to overall weight as well. Possibly not an issue with such a massive light I mean we know it’ll be heavy.
I guess the default product will be long battery tube and if anyone wants to go shorty it’ll be up to them to go to the gym and strengthen their wrists 
JockRobbins heheh true!
I think we will strve for a GT that allows the Q8 to be screwed in.
If I read about all the people wanting a sall LED in the GT and knowing a 6V led setup in the Q8 is a MOD people want to do as well this seems very logical and swapping the driver and tube between them thus logical as well.
So does this mean manufacturing costs could be reduced?
If the Q8 carrier threads into the GT, there could be a mass production run of carriers for both models.
But the GT’s carrier would essentially be 2x Q8 carriers threaded together?
Same tailcap & same threads on both models.
One carrier for the Q8 and two for the GT.
Love the new renderings!
I would like the buyers to have the option to choose to use either 4 or 8 cells, just like the aforementioned TK75.
Concerning the balance issue:that should preferably be up to the user to decide and may vary according to needs and situation.
Playing around = 4 cells.
Actual S&R = 8 cells for endurance and balance.
And then, the head and heatsink may be big, but a lot of aluminum wights a heck of a lot less then a big copper heatsink and is almost as good,certainly with regards to heat transfer.
I remember the pure copper pills for the Courui D01, sold on the forum.Now THAT made a light inbalanced.
Anyway: the more this thread progresses,the better is looks and those 3D renderings….WOW, just WOW. Amazing stuff!
Grtz
Nico
2 for me, please.
Thank you.
No the tube of the Q8 and the GT are different on the inside
The Q8 is a very thick tube with spaces for the cells drilled out and a tail with PCB connecting the cells, where the GT tube is a thinner tube with space for two carriers and a tail with a switch.
Outer diameter is the same, knurling design is the same and ibwant the top threads to be the same so people can swap IF PROPER DRIVER IS USED or easier if drivers are also swapped.
GT one long tube, not only practical also more esthetical since no alignment issues or fatter part halfway for the threads of upper and lower part, just one tube.
Well, I think a single long tube looks better than a two-piece stack. Making this compatible with the Q8 tube fixes the want for a shorter tube, except for one thing. This light is being designed for a cell carrier, and the Q8 is not. So, there will still be some incompatibility unless changes are made to one or both designs to make them “fit” in every way. The simplest of course is to make the Q8 with a carrier, but we didn’t want that because it adds unneeded complexity which will add to price, and it isn’t the way SRK is normally made. Maybe it should be considered to design the cell carriers for this light with a Batt+ ring that matches the Batt+ ring on the Q8 driver, instead of just a bump like a battery would have, like most carriers are made.
I have a crazy idea.
What if we build the GT with one battery-carrier with 4 batteries and an optional tailcap. Instead of the tailcap, the head of the Q8 would fit the light.
That would bring it a bit in balance.
So you can turn the flashlight to change between Flood/Allround and Trow.
For this solution, the battery carryer needs + and - on both sides and a tailcap switch can not be used.
… but thats just a crazy idea.
Thats what I want to do with this flashlight.
If you need want to run with just four cells just use some battery placeholder/dummy’s 
This is what I will be doing at first as I only have one balanced set of four cells…
No money left, just use some wooden dowel cut to length with some heavy copper wire/strip running from end to end :partying_face:
Cheers David
This light NEEDS 8 cells for balance and if it will actually be used in the field you will need the extra runtime too.
That said the more I think about it the more I think changing the cell carriers to ones that stack in parallel is the way to go. It gives even more cell layout options as well.
The issue here is that a single long tube will be cheaper then 2 short tubes. Although if the short tubes were made people could keep stacking them for as much runtime as they wanted.
Using the Q8 tube is an interesting option but not as simple as it sounds, first off I doubt we would be able to get thorfire to make extras unless they also make the GT. Second the driver would have to be reworked to be able to use it and it would only work if a 3V emitter was used.
We would be better off splitting the tube into 2 short tubes and making extras for people that want it.
The Q8 head on the tail of the GT is quite the crazy yet interesting idea. It is doable with the new cell carrier setup we would need anyways. The issue is practicality. It would be kind hard to use the Q8 side of the light with the massive head sticking out the order end.
Personally I would prefer a quad emitter reflector for the GT head and basically make a monster sized Q8 running XHP35’s and ~10,000 lumens.
Oh yeah, to whoever asked about how hard the emitter will be driver. Most likely this light will use a FET driver for cost reasons, so it will put out all that you can manage on turbo!
Although I would like to get some kind of voltage compensation running on a light like this to “simulate” regulated modes int he lower modes.
That is unless we decide to go with an Op-amp driver for this, which is something I have been thinking about. A buck driver would be ideal but also vastly increase the cost. So an FET or Op-amp driver are the only real options.
People could always upgrade to a buck driver aftermarket if they wanted.
This is why I said dummy cells, you could put the real ones at the tail, doing this should not upset the balance much as it is removing weight from the center of the light.
This way the 8*tube is all that is needed.
Cheers David
This was my thinking from the start, use spacers in the front carrier and put the cells in the rear one. This will vastly improve the balance over a short tube with only minor extra weight.
I honestly can’t imagine using this light in the real world with a short tube, it would be too awkward to hold.
lol, we were posting too fast. You beat me to it, we are thinking exactly the same thing