Thank you for noting that! Regarding that, I actually have my doubts. As nice as it would be having a reflector which is as deep as possible - all designs are naturally very top-heavy. Increasing the depth of the reflector would make that even worse. After all the light should also be comfortable to hold. Does anyone else have input on that?
If the angle from the focus to the edge of the reflector is 45 degrees it will be capturing ~50% of light based on the intensity*circumference around the LED.
Maybe about 60 degrees would be good?
This is a matter of diminishing returns the deeper you make the reflector…
How about the base diameter of the reflector?
Is the difference between 30mm and 35mm significant?
We’re around the 60° already.
One for me,please. I will equip myself to a wheelchair …
That sounds reasonable and means the reflector should be around 100mm long (after it was shortened).
With a 90mm long reflector we have 56.3 degrees.
will update OP later.
5ar, please show the adapted design! Can’t wait man!
Are you talking about manufacturers “spying” on this thread?
If so, there is nothing stopping them pilfering the designs and increasing the price…….
That sentence in itself is worrying - who’s to say you guys can source a manufacturer that will do it for $100??
If spies don’t want to, who will?
Fritz15, aren’t your fins too low? They are all below the switch but the hottest parts will be above it 
If easyB is correct, the “higher dispersion” due to the led being closer to the surface is accounted for by the small increase in area.
That would mean that what we should be looking at is how much area the “front” of the reflector would be, which is the area between the large and the small circle:
So since the distance from the led to the reflector would be 30 instead of 35mm, that is far less significant than if it was 100 vs 105mm diameter, since the larger the circle the more area there is.
Which makes sense tbh, increasing the depth makes a decreasing amount of difference.
Did it? I must be looking at the wrong BLF GT LED poll then.
I see no mention of XHP35, all the XHP options are the XHP35-HI, “with tint bin etc to be discussed”
And this from the very first post in this thread;
“Decided are TUBE: 2 * 4 18650 / LED XHP35hi (bin etc to be discussed)”
Did I miss something?
If we upscaling the TN42 we got 112mm to focus point (apox 120/120mm diameter/depth of parabola), and I truly believe that thisis the way to go.
We have set a goal to beat this flashlight, and by upscaling the measurements we will do that.
And I belive a “one to one” (depth/with) measure will be quite aesthetic as well…
Maybe one of our designers could try to implement this measures to see it “for real”?
And the diameter at “baseline” at focus pont will the be 30mm.
Just see my diagram in post #1940.
I honestly never looked at how it was worded but that was what we had said behind the scene and I just assumed that was how it was worded in the poll. I could be wrong.
Either way a sliced dome option is on the table depending on the results of the tests I plan to run and the manufactures capabilities. Tint is also to be figured out at a later date depending on the best tint the manufacture can get in the desired bin.
Cool, I honestly thought the HI was the definite final choice. Thanks for clearing this up 
The HI is the choice UNLESS the manufacture is comfortable with slicing the dome during assembly. That we will not know until we find a manufacture.
Although even if a sliced dome is an option it will depend on test results on weather we go that path.
Basically plan on HI but there is a small chance of a sliced dome.
I will most definitely want one.
I’m in for one!
No this is not the spirit of this project (sharing is) nor a way to go.
We decide on a basic design, we all know that this might need some tweaking down the path, but we need a basic look so I can finally go and get us a manufacturer
We have seen the latest Fritz design and Thijsco now has two (two flat areas or 4).
Maybe Thijsco want to choose between the two, not needed, an extra option is not bad but could distribute the votes for his general design over two. This is upto Thijsco 
I like 5ar and Jerommel to present the latest design they want to have included in the poll.
the original idea (I don’t know if I even wrote this or it was just in my head, in case of the latter sorry) was to have all designs in Saturday and start the poll, but the discussion was just too darn nice to get off track by a poll.
Now that improved Fritz and Thijsco designs are presented, 5ar as his adaptation done I think I do the poll tonight, say in roughly 12-14 hours and add the designs that are made available (see post 4)
I strongly think Fritz and Jerommel are the only two that should be considered since they have the strap connection high up, so best balance. This statement is objective IMHO and does not reflect preference and taste,
But we have not seen 5ars latest design and Thijso stated he was working on details suh as bezel that of course could very well hold a strap connection
anxious to see what will be the final oll options tonight!
Welcome to BLF! OP updated.
Those renders are EPIC! Great job 5ar, the flashlight industry needs more skilled people like you 
PM send to Fritz, Thijsco, 5ar and Jerommel, applies for others wanting to add a design too of course:
As for that head, it seem to be quite an ok design on the Thrunite TN42? And as I have pointed out, we are simply just upscaleing that flashlight measures…
I do belive Thrunite calculated their parabola to be both efficent and aestetic as well, so I belive we should follow up on that??
120mm diameter is”written in stone”, but we need to settle for a parabola or focus point…and then I can calculate the correct measures for the parabola…as in post #1843
As for the math involved in this, “one:1” could be the name of this light as well with these measures… ( www.koenigsegg.com/one1/ )
Enderman and Jerommel how about you guys, any input on the subject??