[PART 1] Official BLF GT Group Buy thread. Group buy officially closed! Lights shipping.

[Jerommel]

@5ar

@The Miller

@5ar

@Wieselflinkpro

@Texas_Ace

I think here is not enough space für a tripod. One cooling fin has to be flatened too.

I think you’re right. I’ll change it. Thank you for noticed this.

Indeed,please flatten the switch side too for symmetry So cool! Thanks

removed cooling fin

switch side compare

for me the first version looks better, what do you think???

I think it’s consistent to remove the fin on both sides and more comfortable to push switch.
Both look good i.m.o.

[Jerommel]

Anyway, it is decided that we’re gonna use a 120mm / 5” reflector?

[Wieselflinkpro]

@5ar

@The Miller

@5ar

@Wieselflinkpro

@Texas_Ace

I think here is not enough space für a tripod. One cooling fin has to be flatened too.

I think you’re right. I’ll change it. Thank you for noticed this.

Indeed,please flatten the switch side too for symmetry So cool! Thanks

removed cooling fin

switch side compare

for me the first version looks better, what do you think???

Perhaps it looks better, but the second is nice too.
But my tripod-Base has a diameter of 25mm. That means the second one with 28mm space for the tripod would be better.

[Jerommel]

@Texas_Ace

@The Miller

Based on an earlier version of 5ar I hacked away to get a more Q8 like design

Yet all those fins would add weight
Still would love the ring with cut outs to be more inline with the cutouts of the Q8 and not the L6, but hey I am not capable of drawing it any better

This illustrates my point (admittedly I had seen this ahead of time, I should have posted the picture earlier), I think the shorter tubes looks silly and the balance issues are glaringly apparent.

With this head design i totally agree with you, it looks silly.
I will have a go at it too, see if it’s otherwise doable.
I will continue to base it on the Q8 for now.
And i hope 5ar won’t mind if i use his drawings to work on.

Another thought:
IF it’s not gonna be based on the Q8, how about a wider tube with 4x 26650?
Because i feel there’s a lot of enthusiasm for a short tube.

[The_Miller]

5ar, like the removed fin above the button, more Q8 like and me like Q8 :sunglasses:

26650 tube, that is Palight Boss1 size, wow that could be getting a more balanced weight distribution.But very fat tube, a bt too fat I fear.

Agree with Nicolaas about XHP35hi vs XPL hi, a single die emitter just seems too small for a light this big

[5ar]

@Jerommel

And i hope 5ar won’t mind if i use his drawings to work on.

Jerommel feel free to use the drawings. More images in full resolution can be found in the Flickr album Link

[DavidEF]

I think a wider 4x 26650 tube would certainly help the appearance as well as weight distribution for “short-tubers”.

Edit: I do not like the stacked tubes look. I prefer one long tube instead of stacking two short tubes. But never mind me. This isn’t gonna be my light anyway.

[Texas_Ace]

@Jerommel

Anyway, it is decided that we’re gonna use a 120mm / 5” reflector?

Pretty much depending on what happens when we find a manufacture. Not a lot of point in making a light with a much smaller reflector as there are already options on the market.

The entire idea with this light is monster throw, monster size reflector, monster size light. This thing is meant to be a monster lol.

4x26650 will not be able to be held in the hand and would thus be very impractical. This is something better suited to the “box style light” talked about earlier although that i NOT what we are doing here.

You are welcome to keep working with a Q8 based design but there is really no need to do that as all the parts will be custom made for this light anyways, as such it would cost no more to change the design where necessary. So feel free to think outside the Q8 “box”.

[DavidEF]

@Texas_Ace

4x26650 will not be able to be held in the hand and would thus be very impractical. This is something better suited to the “box style light” talked about earlier although that i NOT what we are doing here.

4x 26650 cells would need ~63mm interior diameter. With a couple extra millimeters for wall thickness, it’s still small enough to fit in hand, I’m pretty sure. And it will look a lot better than a thinner tube with this huge head.

[Caleb]

I’ve been waiting for someone to mention using 26650s.

And although this would be a different project, I’d love to see a quad emitter, quad 26650 massive thrower/flooder.

Sorry to derail. Ok, go back to discussing the current project…

[Enderman]

4x26650 will not fit in one hand unless you have a very large hand, and that is not good for something that weighs over 1kg and probably costs a lot of money. Too easy to drop.
Going 4x26650 would definitely require a handle.

[Jerommel]

@Texas_Ace

@Jerommel

Anyway, it is decided that we’re gonna use a 120mm / 5” reflector?

Pretty much depending on what happens when we find a manufacture. Not a lot of point in making a light with a much smaller reflector as there are already options on the market.

I agree.
Although 120 mm is quite huge, i think it’s the way to go for the GT.

The entire idea with this light is monster throw, monster size reflector, monster size light. This thing is meant to be a monster lol.

4x26650 will not be able to be held in the hand and would thus be very impractical. This is something better suited to the “box style light” talked about earlier although that i NOT what we are doing here.

4x 26650 will fit in a 6.5 x 6.5 cm tube, or a 7.0 cm round tube with 4 flattened surfaces.
Yes, that’s quite large…
Could use a handle though.
But it would be nice and short, but FAT.

You are welcome to keep working with a Q8 based design but there is really no need to do that as all the parts will be custom made for this light anyways, as such it would cost no more to change the design where necessary. So feel free to think outside the Q8 “box”.

Okay.
This boils down to the LED choice i.m.o.
But i think most of us prefer the XPH35 (HI).
But since the XPH35 is ‘only’ 25 Watts, 4x Panasonic 3400mAh would last almost 2 times longer than 1 x 3400mAh in a 10 Watts C8.

I’ll do some drawings.

[pilotdog68]

4*18650 vs 4*26650. Neither light has very thick walls.

[RocketTomato]

I am in as well, please add me to the list.

[EasyB]

@Texas_Ace

@Jerommel

About XPH35 versus XP-L HI:
Correct me if i’m wrong, but an XPH35 is only about twice the power (around 25 Watts iirc) of an XP-L, but the die is more than twice the size (i don’t know the numbers).
So how then can a XPH35 outthrow an XP-L?

Anyway, i’ll make some more drawings later.
It’s good to visualize stuff.

The XHP35 has almost exactly twice the die size of an XP-l and also has almost twice the lumens.

The outcome is that it puts out almost the same amount of throw (slightly less) with almost twice the lumens.

All the monster throwers in production use the XHP35. I am going to say they use it for a reason. If nothing else there is a limit to how far you can throw X lumens of light and by having twice the lumens it gives you more raw power to work with. The same way the L6 throws by shear power.

Also the XHP35 will have a hot spot about twice the size (but about the same intensity) of the XP-L which is far more usable in the real world, particularly for S&R.

I measured the XHP35 HI die size to be close to 2.50mm across, so ~1.56x the area of the XPL die size.

Based on my measurements it has close to 1.5x the lumens of an XPL V6 at ~6A and will throw close to the dedomed XPL V6 when driven at ~2.5A. Also DBCustom put a highly driven XHP35 HI in a Maxtoch 2x shooter and got close to the same throw as the dedomed XML U4 (driven at 4.5A) that it came with.

The XHP35 can throw farther than current bins of XPL HI. Here user Mitko put an XHP35 HI driven at only 1.5A in a convoy L2 and got 228Kcd, which is roughly what an XPL HI V2 will give.

[Caleb]

In this beginning stages of the Q8 development, someone (I believe it was The Miller) mentioned that the design could be scaled up or down to accommodate larger or smaller cells.

Could this light become the scaled up version using 26650s?

[Texas_Ace]

@Caleb

In this beginning stages of the Q8 development, someone (I believe it was The Miller) mentioned that the design could be scaled up or down to accommodate larger or smaller cells.

Could this light become the scaled up version using 26650s?

It is unlikely to happen for several reasons. Although a quad reflector for this light is something I would like to see happen.

Converting this light to 26650’s would be a completely new light, so thus there would be no reason to stick with the current design at all if doing that. Better to start fresh and work from scratch for that goal.

For 26650’s I think the box shape proposed by Djozz would be ideal and this is a good option for a future light.

In this case having 8x 18650’s will give us more runtime, better usability and more compatibility then 4s 26650. Not to mention it would cost less then the 26650’s.

[Texas_Ace]

@EasyB

I measured the XHP35 HI die size to be close to 2.50mm across, so ~1.56x the area of the XPL die size.

Based on my measurements it has close to 1.5x the lumens of an XPL V6 at ~6A and will throw close to the dedomed XPL V6 when driven at ~2.5A. Also DBCustom put a highly driven XHP35 HI in a Maxtoch 2x shooter and got close to the same throw as the dedomed XML U4 (driven at 4.5A) that it came with.

The XHP35 can throw farther than current bins of XPL HI. Here user Mitko put an XHP35 HI driven at only 1.5A in a convoy L2 and got 228Kcd, which is roughly what an XPL HI V2 will give.

Those numbers all add up to what I have also learned in my research. It is also why I want to use the xhp35 and why I think all the other major throwers out there do as well.

Although I will say that an XHP70 @ ~6000 lumens dedomed would be interesting in a reflector this size.

[chrisc]

I want to throw money at someone for this light now! The sheer size makes me dribble a bit

[Texas_Ace]

@chrisc

I want to throw money at someone for this light now! The sheer size makes me dribble a bit

Thats the idea, a big light to end all big lights. This is why the short tube doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Will that ~60mm worth of length savings really be worth unbalancing it so much?

I am betting that running the long tube with 1 cell carrier full in the back and the other empty would feel lighter then a short tube that is horribly unbalanced.