Do you really have problems clicking a light like the s2?
I think the closed tail is a much smarter idea .
Small laser etching on the tail is where I'd put the name or low on the head like the lumintop.
BLF - v:ti
I hate closed designs around the switch. I agree that switch access is way more important than tailstand stability given that the S2+ tailstands perfectly fine.
I’d be really surprised if that many people really want 18500. It is such an obscure battery and very very few lights use it, so I doubt many people have spare 18500s lying around like they probably have spare 16340, 18350, or 18650.
Nope, What I meant was:
“From post #31”
Check my math
18350 + 15 = 18500
18500 + 15 = 18650
So what we need is a design for an 18350 and the 15mm extensions that go with it and go together.
18350 = 18350
18350 + 1 extension = 18500
18350 +2 extensions = 18650
Or did I miss something?
My point was to minimize the number of total and unique parts.
In other words
18350 = 2 pcs (head and tail) simple
18500 = 3 pcs (head, ext, tail)
18650 = 4 pcs (head, ext, ext, tail)
BTW the ext is simply the threaded portion of the female head with the male threaded portion from the tail, with the appropriate spacing in between.
Oh and just to throw some gas on the fire I realized that if a long spring was used (head or tail) then its omission would allow for 2 x 18350 aka 18700 which is only 50mm longer then 18650, this would allow the 6v crowd to run 2 cells. But maybe this is just crazy? Or is it 
I dont care which “option” we go with I just wanted to provide a flexible “lego” design that should also be lower cost to mfg. like I said in the post above let the machine shop tell us which way is cheaper to mfg!
Aesthetic concerns aside I was trying to come up with a cheap Lego design that allows (18350, 18500, and 18650 and with a tweak 18700) fans to be able to join in the for a “volume buy”
If we have separate design then the volume may just go out the window. if we keep it Lego then we all benefit from lower cost do to lager volumes.
but again that I why I said to let the machine shop tell us the price difference between (Plan A) and (Plan B). plan A each size gets it own single tube if I understand correctly. Plan B only two of the three sizes need extenders.
I can click, but it’s not comfortable. And it’s not comfortable due to the entirely recessed position of the button.
To see why I place clicking comfort that high on the list, allow me to restate my logic:
- Clicking: everytime I use the lamp.
- Tailstanding: very rarely.
- Looking at an engraving around the tail: extremely rarely.
Based on these use cases, I would certainly prefer to have a semi-open tail.
My mistake Ronin42 , I assumed the 18350 would be a 3 piece. With a one off battery tube , in 2 pieces , your suggestion makes more sense.
I”ll just say , what the manufacturers are good at , at this price point(low as possible)is volume of identical units.Anything custom , made to measure etc…. simple ….add $20 to the price!We saw it with the EE X6;AR lens , bought in , same for everyone , OK;NW or CW emitter , bought in , simple 2 choice , OK;extra 18650 extension tube , extra machining and materiel for them , for that price NO CHANCE.It is not about 18500s or whatever , but about the kiss principle.
I do not have any 18500s , but I have chargers with sliders 
link
What about a cut-out on just one side? The EE X6 cut-outs are too wide, leaving very narrow pieces for the light to tail-stand on. If there were only one cut-out, it would still be stable in tail-standing. Either that, or make the titanium button cap come out to exactly flush with the end, to add surface area, and therefore, stability to tail-standing.
The reason some of us want 18500 is exactly because it is such an obscure battery size. There just aren’t lights made in that size, so it would make ours more unique. Plus, it would make the overall length more manageable for people who prefer AA-size lights for EDC. Speaking of which, AA-size cells are not obscure at all, and a 18500-size tube would be the right length for a 14500 or AA cell, which more people have than 18650.
One cutout would be a fair compromise if there is a major split of what people want, but if it makes any difference, the cutouts on the S2+ are smaller than the X6. The S2+ tailstands pretty well imo.
What about this design that Solarforce has? Plenty of access to the switch, but still should tailstand VERY well. As you all know, a tripod is more stable over uneven surfaces.
I like that, looks cool&different!
Interesting suggestion. The planar surfaces on top of each triangle could be increased for further stability, without needing to expand the bases (i.e. where they stem from the lamp’s tail) of said triangles.
The one in this picture is the same model “S13” but looks different. I’m not sure if that is just because of the camera angle, or if they actually made multiple versions.
Yes, something like that, that’s exactly what I meant. Glad my convoluted sentence went through.
That one looks ideal to me. The 3-post design is inherently more stable than the type on the S2+ or EE X6, and I think button access is better than those 2 as well.
And it looks great!
+1
Great ideas. Any possible Eta? I’m in for one. Maybe more.
I think it should work with:
Head plus tail = 1 x 18350
Head plus tail plus 1 extension = 1 x 18500
Head plus tail plus 2 extension = 1x 18650 or 2 x 18350/2 x 16340
This would give the most versatility with the fewest number of unique parts.
This light should have a clip .
Or a way to attach one .
Makes sense but also depends on price…
So Rey need to get some quotes and then we can talk again…
This thing will make the price a LOT Higher.