How? lengthwise wont fit. The length of the tube is still 2 cells.
Or do you mean, make at wide enough for the 26650 setup but use a plastic insert to bring it down to a 18650 setup?
Better Idea, using a carrier like this:
Can use both 26650’s as 18650’s.
A carrier is easier or necessary to make contact with the driver contacts (2 rings).
Another picture, orange are the 26650’s red are the 18650’s.
That begs for an oval tube seen from above, would hold nice and look very elegant.
And a squared of tube? No access to cells now but a square seen from above with rounded corners capable of holding 26650 cells (2x4) would that be so much bigger then round 18650 tube?
If not maybe a nice consideration for those wanting the absolute max runtimes. Yet it MUST be able to hold 4x2 18650 cells.
Don’t see harm in playing around with new ideas at this stage.
2х2 tube that holds 2 in front and 2 in the back. Not all for next to eachother.
Like first and last one:
The tube is aluminium and hollow, and you get a plastic insert that makes the space suitable for 2x26650 batteries, and 2 more behind them. It can be solid aluminium but plastic is used to reduce cost.
[+_][+]
[-_][-]
Like so.
And that plastic insert, can be swapped with a plastic insert that has smaller holes which can hold 18650 in the same configuration.
That will reduce price, will make the handle long and thick. Proportions will be good.
One thing to keep in mind is that the 4x 18650 tube is already on the edge of comfortable for smaller hands (several people that have used my SRK’s have mentioned as much). Since this light needs to be able to be used by anyone, any larger then a 4x 18650 tube will start quickly reducing the comfort for more and more users. Particularly when you factor in the weight.
It is significantly harder to hold onto a larger bar then a smaller one all else being the same. Even very small differences can have large effects.
Not a suggestion, but merely stating that the TR-J20 has extremely thick battery tube walls, and still houses 32650’s. It’s a beefy light, for sure, and I’m sure they were leaning towards heavier, not lighter, in all discussion when designing it.
When I did the extension for Richard, he sent the battery tube and tail cap for me to work with. I saw this tube and knew I had to have the light, promptly ordered my own based purely on how solidly the battery tube was made. lol
There is just way too much fuss about the cells and battery tube. Texas_Ace and The Miller are not Tony Stark with unlimited resources. We should focus on making it simple. Otherwise it will kill the project. I suggest everyone be happy that you can be a part of this awesome project, but unless you come up with a revolutionary groundbreaking idea, please let the team enjoy this unpaid work and make it easier, not harder for them.
Didn’t know that, dont have a SRK like flashlight here to know how it feels.
So what about the little smaller side by side setup?
The only problem that I see is that the balance might not be optimal.
Didn’t know that, dont have a SRK like flashlight here to know how it feels.
So what about the little smaller side by side setup?
The only problem that I see is that the balance might not be optimal.
How would you make the connection?
If you have one cell with the anode to the driver and the other with the cathode to the driver you’ll need separate contact areas on the driver contact side. (and maybe a spring?)
But if you turn the tailcap on the tube there is a possibility that they dont line up anymore, also increasing the possibility of making a short. Which you dont want with a 4s setup.
By using a carrier, which could be made out of plastic, with an contact board on one end that has 2 contact rings you dont have that problem.
Or am I missing something?
(weird, was editing my post but apparently I made a new one…)
I totally agree, a light such as this has zero appeal to me visually.
I know it is not supposed to be about looks, but I just can’t help it; lights like this just looks goofy to me. . :person_facepalming:
But hey, that is just my opinion…. (pretty shallow & petty one at that > :person_facepalming: < ) ; but it is what it is.
Tony Stark works at Wuben right
Nothing wrong with brainstorming IMHO when something is decided it should be a real group thing.
This is what makes this GT so early already (and the Q8 as well) so cool of a project!
Indeed the last few ideas have actually been things that could be used, if it was deemed necessary.
Although before we try to change things, I am still at a loss for what is wrong with the 4/8x 18650 tube? What doesn’t it do that these other ideas would?
Basically, what is better about the latest round of ideas? All I see is the inability to use 8X cells if someone so desired. Why not simply only run 4 cells in the 8 cell tube?
To me the 4/8x 18650 tube makes the most sense, period.
In addition, as far as I am concerned; it would be ridiculous to “change things” or even think about “changing things” unless the questions Texas_Ace asked above are answered in a ‘reasonable’ way that would appeal to the masses.
All the ideas are meant to reduce cost of the light, and keep it simpler. If it can be made with the carriers for a low price than that is fine of course. They seem pricey and complicated to the casual observer.
Well, 4/8x 18650 design compared to new 4x18650 design.
4/8x tube:
Advantage: more runtime with 8 cells.
Disadvantage: more total weight (if used with 8cells), thicker.
4x tube:
Advantage: smaller, less total weight (compared to 8 cell setup)
Disadvantage: not being able to run it with 8 cells thus having less runtime (compared to 8 cell setup).
What doesn’t change:
Runtime when 8 cell tube is used with only 4 cells.
Weight when 8 cell tube is used with only 4 cells. (oke, weight is reduced slightly)
Personally, I dont care, just throwing out ideas. :smiling_imp:
. :person_facepalming:
