Yes...I have to agree with the large head point...already a bunch of big head MC-E lights...and I don`t like them either.
I was hoping for a MC-E light that looked like the Quarks 2x123 slightly overweight brother.
And I agree...the light should have been designed to run specificaly on 18650 to maximize performance of this popular batt source.
Guess not every body sees it the same way you and I do.
:mecry:
Myself I'm not too hung up on a MC-E light. An XP-E, XP-G or an XR-E with nice optics will all work, preferably with the option for neutral tint. I'd also consider some of the other emitters on the market.
The closest thing I've seen to "our" light so far has been a Jetbeam ST. However the reflector used and the poor efficiency was enough to turn me away. THe newest IBS circuit looks more promising however there's no guarantee Jetbeam will ever make a v3 ST, and even then it'll likely have a ringy XR-E.
:sigh: (I hate being a picky perfectionist sometimes)
One of the largest obstacles to the creation of our light, imo, is that there exists a very large CR123 lobby who beleive that it is absolutely essential that an 18650 light can use CR123s. Most claim it's for emergencies when they "can't" charge 18650s. (as if it isn't possible to charge them with a generator, solar, wind, hand crank, etc) They want to be able to pop in CR123's and go. Many manufacturers seem to be caught in this paradigm and well.
The irony though is the fact that a
fully regulated (ie buck boost circuit) 18650 light with an upper limit of 4.2 V can very easily run on CR123's. And it takes doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to do this.
:tinfoil:
A further obstacle is the thinking that bigger bezels are better. So most fully regulated 18650 lights end up with fat bezels (and bezel up pocketclips in the middle of the body) which make edc of such lights all but impossible.
All I can do is sit around and dream and wait for a manufacturer to do it right.