Yes, i agree.
A deeper reflector simply makes the head taller / longer / deeper, which does not look better and will indeed add weight and move the CoG towards the head some more…
This is why i have put the switch more forward and try too keep the diameter of the base of the head relatively small, so you can hold the light near the CoG
Is`t that significant?
But still the TN42 has an 1:1 reflector, and the design dosen`t seem off in any way…
TN42 has one batt.carrier, we double that….and I don`t see the big “error” to double the head size either?
Yes it will be more mass, but the head are still “hollow”, but I belive some of you could calculate the big difference in mass with different measures.
120/112mm vs 120/90mm reflector. (You mentioned that C8 has a measure of 4/3 and that is = 4/3 = 1.3333 and 120/90 is exactly the same: 120/90 = 1.3333))
Would be interesting to se the weight difference, and also the efficency difference to be calculated. 
Even to see so renders side by side with these numbers would be very interesting!
Morten
Hi, the problem is that the weight increases quadratically with the radius. So a simple upscaling won’t do the same.
But I certainly agree the 10 percent is significant. Although I don’t think there will be a significant difference between 110 and 100 mm.
Thought we where building the Giga Thrower?? 
If I had to deside….I would have build it with the throw in mind, not the weight and the design…
( ± 500gram I wouldn`t care, andTN42 shows that the proportions of a 1:1 reflector actually looks great! IMHO)
Someone in this tread said: “We have to build this light around a reflector, and we don`t have that yet…”
When it`s 14% more efficient from 93 to 112mm deep reflector, why not??
Dedoming a XPH35 would gain about 20%, and why not??
14 + 20 = 34% more “power”!
Why not?? I don`t get it… IMHO.
My thoughts exactly. I dont care how ugly it is, it is not meant to be a beauty queen, but a monster thrower. COG, balance, weight etc are negligible, all that care about is the throw of this thing. I would buy it even if it was a scaled-up EagleTac M25C2 Turbo http://eagletac.com/html/m25c2t/index.html , the ugliest flashlight in the known universe.
I agree that in this case, the ultimate performance would be all important.
Rough calculation show that when properly centered and focussed a XHp35 HI could reach well over 1Mcd in a 12 mm reflector.
That is a nice goal to set, and realistically, that is what would make it a GIGA thrower.
.
Having said that, it’s going to be a big (understatement of the month) light so a pleasant looking design would be nice.
And ultimately, the build quality has to be ok, at least.
Convoy L6 quality I would call ok, better would be even nicer.
.
Max throw
Good build quality
Excellent heat management
Max price $100
.
Reaching this will be a challenge in itself, so I think that the design that is easiest to build (= cheap) will be the ultimate winner.
Grtz
Nico
Thank you, will34
How can you say that is not the spirit of this project if I'm a realistic. The spirit of the project is to succeed and if we push some problems under the carpet then it is not in the right spirit. Wait and see who was right.
He does have a good point, if the manufacturing costs is significantly more for one design over another that would heavily effect the design choice.
The poll should be worded more along the lines of “preferred design” IMHO. We will ask the manufacture for the “winner” first but if they say it is too expensive then we show them the runner up and on down the line. This is what would happen anyways in such a case, better for people to be aware that is how things would work.
If we try to force an overly expensive design onto the manufacture it will make either the cost go up or they will refuse to work with us.
Difference for reflector height for my model:
Weight with 112mm reflector: 1736 grams
Center of mass:
Weight with 90mm reflector: 1547 grams.
Center of mass:
If a design is chosen with overwhelming majority yet there are some issues that make it much more expensive I trust us to be able to adapt it.
For now we need to step further, we need to be able to present something to a manufacturer
Thus we need a basic design.
It sure can and will be tweaked but I cannot present 4 choices
You got to understand we don’t decide, the people we can talk to don’t decide, somebody higher up the chain will have to decide, probably a manager and to him/her it must be sold with a nice presentation and in such a way it won’t change much on looks so even if adaptations are made the people deciding can get to know the GT and it can become real in their head.
120mm diameter reflector makes it giga either way.
But the GT has very different proportions than the TN42
Well, why do most throwers have 4:5 or 3:4 proportioned reflectors, and usually not 1:1 ?
The deeper the reflector, the narrower its base, plus it adds considerable size and weight.
It’s a tough call…
-diminishing returns
-constant 120mm diameter
Great chart, so we need the reflector to be 250mm deep for best performance. Sounds reasonable ……. 
In all seriousness, seeing that chart I do think that 112mm is a good depth, it is at the top of the knee before things really start diminishing. Although if it requires a large redesign of the designs at this point I don’t think it would be worth it.
The reflector would need to be infinitely deep to have 100% light collection xD
I think about 60-80% light collection would be good.
Iḿ still wondering about the relevance of the base diameter.
With 90mm deep refl. it’s 35mm
With 112mm deep refl. it’s 30mm, which is 17% smaller, which will translate into a wider ‘corona’
Here is depth vs front area, which is what easyB claims is proportional to the beam intensity (lux)
I don’t have any math to back that up, but it does make logical sense, so at least it is an estimate.
Here you can see that the diminishing returns of lux come faster than in the previous graph.
This also makes sense, because the additional lumens collected will have more spread when they are collected nearer to the LED, so that contributes less to lux.
Does the green line represent a 1:1 reflector, or…?
120mm diameter, depth is the X axis.
You can calculate the ratio yourself if you like
Nice plots, Enderman.