Welcome to BLF!
Cool another first post dedicated to the Q8!
yes will update OP later.
I’m planning to change 2 of the xpl with xpl hi. Do you think that this would make the Q8 more versatile or it wouldn’t lead to any significant changes?
XP-L HI might give you a bit more throw, but you will lose lumens.
Hi and welcome clange50. I had to read your post twice. I thought you wanted 21 lights. 
Well what if he uses cold white HIs?
CW has more lumens and HI a little more throw.
Would it mean nice tint up close and brighter throwing light further away?
Yes - the HI will definitely be more throw and less lumens. I think the improvement in throw will be more noticeable than the drop in lumens - I'm guessing about 65-75% bump in kcd, drop of ~12% in lumens. But of course doubling kcd does not double distance: x meters = SqrRoot(candela/0.25) (http://flashlightwiki.com/Light_Output_Measurements#Throw).
Great reference thread/test here: https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/34496, though I've never seen such a big bump in kcd/throw, ever, from a de-dome or HI LED.
The bins is also a big factor, and we won't know that info for a while, if it can even be provided.
Well, let me back up and clarify a little of what I was saying there. The HIs don’t come in as high bins as the HDs do. So, if Thorfire use the highest bin XP-L HD, then there is no way a HI could be as bright. But, we don’t know yet what bin they will use. And, the CW tints will have higher bins available than NW and especially WW. So, it is possible that the specific HI emitters that one might use to upgrade the Q8, could conceivably be as bright, or even brighter than the specific HD emitters that might come in the ‘stock’ Q8 light. But, if, like I did above, you assume the highest bin of each style, the HD will win, because there are higher bins available in that style.
However, another way to look at it is that the hotspot of the HI, being more intense, will look ‘brighter’ if you shine both emitters on a wall from a few meters away. If that is the effect you’re going for, then why stop at only ‘upgrading’ two of the emitters? Go ahead and do all four. The light will look better (while off) from the front if all the emitters are the same shape. The loss of a few hundred lumens won’t really make that much difference visually compared to the difference in intensity that the tighter beam will make. There should still be plenty of flood from four intense XP-L HI emitters running at full blast!
Then why not use the XM-L2 U4 1A and de-dome? Tint will take a hit but throw and power will be at peaks.
I think I prefer a domed XM-L2 U4 1C in this, for sheer output. Throw can be left to the throwers. That’s just my take, and what I’ll do.
Well, there’s no harm in tweaking up the throw in a flooder. I personally like a balanced beam profile between flood and throw. Where I live, there’s really no use for too tight of a beam or too wide of a beam. There’s no distance that I need to see that is long enough to need the throw, yet a flood would waste a lot of light because most of it won’t hit what I’m trying to look at, and washing everything around me can be too distracting. For that reason, making a flooder more throwy can be a good way to get most of the light directed toward the target, while also being wide enough to light the whole target. With the right balance, one could use a lower light level, which means longer run-times.
But, if one really wanted to make it a lot more throwy, they should use a smaller die, like XP-G2 or XP-G3. IIRC, it has been said that the reflectors in this light will be about the size of C8 reflectors. If that’s true, one could conceivably have a very throwy flooder, if they wanted to.
Always about the individual perspective, isn’t it? 
XP-G2’s have a high Vf when pushed, might be interesting to see XP-G3’s in a light like this, I know they can take a lot more amperage and I’ve seen a nice tint from an S5 3B (my little Quad) I’m getting 2600+ lumens on an 18350 cell. 
(which reminds me, need to check it on an 18650…)
Is there a existing that timeframe for this project? Will it materialize this year?
Certainly hope so. Yet pushing does not seem to speed things up.
So other then “we get there when we get there” is all that can be said.
I really hope this stage of getting our ideas across and worked into digital Q8s is going to prove to take the longest.
We received new CAD designs and the outside was almost correct!
apart from the button not fully integrated looking from the side (engineering of Thorfire has already confirmed they get it and will correct it.
Also after lots of CADs received without an integrated shelf the one before the last had one and the last had a thicker one.
Also after lots of CADs without a tripod mounting hole the last two have it!
And the driver retainer ring is now present.
Tom has send some Q8 Narsil prototypes to BLFers based on the last decided hardware for testing.
And we are now getting into it the reflector base and ledboard.
So even though it is not going fast it is going
I’m totally fine with XP-L HD emitters. I’ll probably put diffusion film on the lens anyway.
If I need to see far, I can use a C8 or X6 instead.
[quote=DavidEF]
Ahhh - a Shocker has C8 size reflectors. The 4X SRK lights reflectors are a little bigger than an S2 EDC type. 3X SRK's do better in throw, 5X do less in throw - the more you pack in to the same space, the smaller they are. However as you add reflectors, you add more output, so the extra output adds to throw. My 5X's throw isn't that bad actually. We talked about all these variations, and felt the 4X was a good compromise of power/amps/cost, flood and throw. Also I prefer the beam pattern of a 4X compared to a 5X - the 5X is heavily clover leafed where the 4X seems milder to me, least with my 5,000+ lumens 4X and 5X SRK clones.
We discussed early on all emitter options in this thread and outside. XPL HD with an XP footprint seemed the most preferred. Again, good compromise between flood and throw, and a few choices for swapping out for other XP's.
Im in for one, good job guys!! Nw or WW
I’m interested if they are available in neutral white. Please add me to the list. Thanks!
Likewise, in for a NW! Thanks!!!
Yes the idea is NW as stock LEDs
Will update OP later!
I am in for $40.
The fins aught to be tapered narrower at the tip to make more space for air flow between them, and for IR to escape. I think that may also be quicker to do in mass production. If something is going to be square, or closer to it, it should be the threads.
I like that the “empty” space on the driver is copper. Better cooling and better for high frequency electromagnetic interference.
I’m in, please put me on the list :+1: