A bezel swap or plug-in diffuser would change the Q8 into a lantern it seems. Ramping lets you adjust the brightness (and runtime), charging and PB feature could be an add-on ‘ring’ in between the batteries and the head…
Maybe there are efficiency issues i don’t understand though… but it seems a Q8 is a good base. Why build something very similar from scratch again?
Yes, a good lantern is on my wishlist. Still using the Coleman fuel one as tthere’s no good battery alternative.
Stated like that it seems doomed indeed.
But i am not suggesting any one company to design and produce a whole set of components just like that. I merely point out that if ‘everybody’ would comply with some ‘agreed upon scheme and interface set’ then a lot of lights would have compatible parts, to the point it would be easy to produce new lights with just a part swap, likely the head. Do you really need another 18650 tube or tail cap when you can pick one already designed and produced?
It is a bit disturbing to see that most lights from a single manufacturer won’t lego… but then that may actually mean it is effectively impractical - for the reasons you point out.
Regarding BLF lights, i imagine planned compatibility between parts when possible could only help future projects.
The CBT-140 ist very inefficient!
Both LEDs have been superseeded by the new CFT-90 which is much better, but still not as efficient and cheap as Cree LEDs. They all have very low thermal resistances though, making them much better suited for high wattages.
I have have spent some time thinking about putting a CFT-90 into my BLF GT. Conclusion: it’s a cool idea, but very impratical and extremely expensive. The GT is also actually too small to adequately cool the LED at for example 35A (120W) (I think it will go at least this high). After 10min the LED would already hit around 144°C (based on thermal analysis in the GT thread and the thermal resistance of the CFT-90).
I have found a better alternative with similar performance, but higher efficiency and practically free in comparison.
Not really, 60lm/W is about the same as my XHP70 is getting when driven at 12A.
The CFT90 is also square, so that’s no fun…
I just calculated the effciencies.
The CBT-140 (14mm^2) in it’s best available Bin (UA) @90W (25A) & 85°C will do 4122-4430lm, 46-50lm/W, up to 100cd/mm^2.
The XHP-70 P2 (28.75mm^2 with dome) will do around 6780lm @ 12A (92W) @85°C, 72lm/W (see test here, I added 12% brightness for the P2 Bin). De-doming it will make it the same size as the CBT-140 and reduce the brightness a bit. The driver of the XHP-70 will probably be more efficient and much, much cheaper because of lower currents.
The XHP70.2 P2 has basically the same brightness, but has a higher efficiency because of the lower Vf.
Wow, but a zoomie would benefit from a round DIE
Even hexagonal is better to look at then a square IMHO
Yeah it would look way cooler with a round or hex die.
Although none of the round or hex dies are anywhere close to having the highest intensity which is what you want for throw.
It is possible however to put a metal film over the LED with any shape hole you want, for example a circle, which would leave you with the same amount of throw but less lumens, while having a round spot.
Just because it’s a zoomie doesn’t mean it has to be all about throw though, I’m sure plenty of people would be happy with decent throw and lumens while having a round/hex die projection 
I considered making a compact aspheric thrower using the CBT140 since it makes a ton of lumens and has a round die, unfortunately the LED costs $200 
Hmm a metal cover, if it reflects on the bottom side, would it act like a small wavien collar and get the intensity up?
Maybe very little, in order to have a sharp image the piece would need to be practically sitting on top of the phosphor as close as possible.
The stuff reflected down wouldn’t have a chance to escape through the hole, it would just heat the LED up a bit more.
Reduced lumens and efficiency, but same intensity and round spot
So…maybe give up on sharp edges and try to reflect towards the centre?
Then that would basically be a wavien collar, and you would not end up with a round die projection like the luminus LEDs.
This could be interesting. The mechanism would be more complex.
Here’s a D4 shorty next to an Olight S-Mini, S1, and S10. IIRC the On The Road light is a clone of the S10. I’d like to see a BLF S-Mini though…
The Olight S-series clips (especially the S-Mini) have been some of the best I’ve ever seen. I didn’t think a clip-on clip could be good before trying these, but they work really well. I also hadn’t ever cared for Olights in general, until someone gave me one and I found it was actually pretty nice.
I’d love to see a BLF version of the S-Mini with an extra-small FET+1 driver (or even just the +1, or perhaps a 2+1, or similar) and the latest tiny85 BLF firmware.
Or perhaps a 14500 version of the FW3A.
Or the CNQG brass AA with Nichia 219c, 1x7135 driver, Crescendo, and a clip.
On all of the above, I’m thinking high CRI at 4500K or 4750K. Maximum output doesn’t need to be very high; it’s more about the size, shape, quality, beam, and interface. Specs would probably not appear impressive on paper, since the goal is to make a really nice EDC. Preferably mod-friendly too, but the traits with priority are things which don’t really change much over time so it likely wouldn’t need modding to remain relevant.
Got it
Like the small size of the Olight but so hate the UI and it shitting off without warning on low voltage and not being able to turn it on again. A BLF firmware would solve my issues with them for sure.
The FW3A could be a good starting point for going smaller.
If Fritz wants a downscale to 18350 or even 16340 tube would bring it down to really small.
In that pic the D4 looks big compared to the left one, but the 18650 tube shows they are all small to tiny 
Or of course a logical next after Q4/Q2 which are about the illusive AA 14500 driver
Made big in the Q4, then can be done smaller in a tiny lights capable of running AAA.
Would still be longer then the D4 short i think
I understand why they did it that way (CR123 support), but it still bothers me. I want LVP and battcheck, but the Olights don’t do that and instead rely on the cell’s protection circuit to avoid damage. 
I’d say I’m aiming for something about the size of a finger, but I don’t know how big your fingers are.
For a 14500 light, the host I’d like to use is 76mm x 18mm. It might need to be slightly longer to allow for protected 14500 cells.
For a 16340 light, I’d ideally like to make it just as small as the S-Mini, 55mm x 21mm.
The D4 shorty is relatively large (wide) at 63mm x 28mm.
Personally, I like 18350 more than 14500 and 16340. Same size ballpark, but significantly more power and capacity. Actually looking at the fatty Emisar D4 shorty and Peak Eiger Ultra AAA I find the size difference too small to justify the smaller light. Though it does feel better in the mouth.
I would love to see a good 18350 light smaller than D4 though. Especially a triple.
So…for me there’s only one step-down from 18650, it’s 18350. Down from it, I wouldn’t get anything larger than 10280.
I prefer 18350 also, significantly. TK doesn’t use the brightest settings often though, so the lower power and capacity is a fair trade off for the smaller size. Ah, choices…
Since a lot of flashlight manufacturers are making pocket clips that are clipped to the flashlight body with an open ring (like a clamp or a jaw (don’t know the appropriate word)), a groove is needed to accomodate it. To keep the wall with enough thickness behind this groove, the whole body wall is generally thicker than the one of flashlights that have a pocket clip with a complete ring or one that is screwed to the tailcap.
The reylight pineapple’s pocket clip is the kind which is the best for me.
Really looking forward for this as the BLF team next project.