Technically all we really need to do is peel back the heatshrink a little then it’d be advisable to make or find a suitable sized plastic/rubber ring to help mitigate accidental shorts
Then it’s a case of modifying/isolating the driver etc… I think that will be the part where a lot of people decide it goes in the too hard basket.
We’re not talking about the Seeker 2 pro that uses a side e-switch, we’re talking about flashlights with a tail e-switch like the Olight Odin that takes advantage of the proprietary battery design to carry the tail e-switch signal. A standard battery can’t be used without modification or the flashlight will not work.
The main reason Olight moved to the proprietary cells was to not increase body diameter (due to an inner signal tube) while increasing cell diameter. Not a trade-off I really care for.
HDS and Acebeam have nearly perfect executions of the tail E-switch with simple but elegant and effective designs.
OK, I am not familiar with that light or any possible ways to bypass the modified batteries. I am sure there is likely a work around that can be done, but knowing they have made it so difficult to use standard batteries, I think I will just steer clear. I just wanted to make people aware that in the case of the seeker 2 pro, a normal button top protected 21700 can be used for all except in light charging. 27 bucks for the modified battery is ridiculous. It is literally just a insulator and washer connected to the side of the battery shell for a ground. I like the seeker 2 pro, but would not if the proprietary battery was the only option.
That’s a good point. Proprietary batteries can call for proprietary chargers as well, and who wants or needs that?
The first Li light I bought was an Olight S30R, which is one of the earlier models with the special battery that permits magnetic tailcap charging. At that point, I didn’t envision catching The Bug, and acquiring any additional lights, or the cells and chargers needed to support them, so the the charging base was handy, and a neat, self-contained solution.
Such an arrangement has allowed Olight to try new design variations, but back then, the only benefit the special battery brought was the convenience of not having to remove the cell to charge. and that is still arguably the case for the newer models.
But as time passes, the cost of that benefit has gone up, as the sole remaining replacement cell is now is at least $15, and that’s only while it remains available for sale before supplies diminish, taking away a prominent feature of the light with it.
It has been a fine light, but I won’t be buying any mew light that relies upon proprietary schemes to retain all of its functions. There are plenty of options for lights that provide convenient charging via a common USB cable.
The Olight seeker 2 pro and S30r are both not e-tail switch so i find those comments on those lights a little off point.
I agree completely that a battery design that had both contacts on one end or something else “exotic” if it was a standard manufactured by the big li-ion manufacturers would be completely fine. Individual brands (that may or may not exist in a couple years) launching their own, much more expensive concoctions - with little added function or practicality - is something I will never support.
Considering one of these brands has had issues with lights and cells being prone to shorting on contact with metal at only one end leaves me with little confidence in the design as well. Seeing Nitecore take the same approach with the magnetically attaching light/battery system is honestly a bit concerning - it genuinely seems unsafe.
So it’s off point to consider the history of the manufacturer whose product is presented as the catalyst for the discussion, in what is at the root a cost/benefit analysis?
The same manufacturer who is one of the biggest proponents of non-standard cells, and its other products that have employed them? Do they not face the same potential questions?
Ever heard of TRX tires, or know of their history? The Honda owners who purchased vehicles equipped with the PAX system probably wish that they had, before buying.
I don’t know about those tires and sorry i’m not interested enough to read up about them.
Maybe my choice of words is also a little off point. Let me rephrase it. The proprietary battery seems a rather simple change to me but is only half the equation. The flashlight itself is the other half of the equation and will need more engineering than the proprietary battery. OP’s comment seemed directed at the tail e-switch type of light. I have a habit of looking at things from a modder/maker point of view.
BTW i wasn’t the only one to point out the relevance of side switch lights 
Some related discussion:
Careful now, having worked at Michelin for 35 years you may be stepping on toes. I was a system troubleshooter at the tractor trailer tire plant.
Honestly just going with a side switch instead of an e-switch in the tail eliminates all of this. And I find the experience with a side switch to generally be superior.
The one place I do see validity in this what the Odin needed - remote switch easily attached to the tail.
It’s been a fun discussion. There are several valid points that have been brought up. I posed this not because I think the idea of a new battery format is better, I honestly wanted to see what ya’ll thought on the subject (and it kinda landed where I thought it would). There’s always room to push the current industry standard to something better. But new isn’t always better. That’s part of what makes this hobby fun - see what new ideas get cooked up, see which ones take off, and which ones fall on their face.
Ergonomically some prefer tail switches.
With certain kinds of lights (f.e. compact zoomies) tail switch is much easier to do.
For most lights, the easiest/laziest way for me to hold them accommodates a side switch better while the light is in use. The problem is, I prefer a tail switch the rest of the time, for more important reasons.
I’m going to compare three lights I own with side switches. Two of them are done poorly, and one is done extremely well: Emisar D4, Thrunite T10Tv2, and Zebralight SC62w.
Ultimately, the thing is, I don’t mind mechanical tail clickies. E switches are nice because a mechanical clicky switch is a point of failure and added resistance in the circuit. Anduril is also tons of fun. But if I get the mode spacing right, I don’t mind L->H reverse clickies one bit.
Yup. A while back Zeroair did a review of the FW3E (without the glow body)
For $100 too? Erm… Huh. And I guess still people are interested.
Instead of a glow body, a version with auxiliary LEDs won’t use a proprietary battery, would be less expensive and therefore more popular IMO.
