Car Forum / BMW Cars / October 2006
Adaptive Headlights
|
|
Thread rating:  |
HGL - 17 Sep 2006 12:57 GMT I have poor night vision and need all the help I can get. Are adaptive HL worth it? Are there other accessories that I could get to help like higher intensity bulbs?
John Carrier - 17 Sep 2006 17:50 GMT >I have poor night vision and need all the help I can get. Are adaptive HL > worth it? Are there other accessories that I could get to help like higher > intensity bulbs? Adaptive headlights pivot the beam slightly for turns and curves. Don't have them myself, but I'd think they'd be useful. HID low beams are a real plus.
BMW marketed dual Xenon for awhile in which the HID bulb had a mask that would rotate around the filament when high beam was selected and allow an HID high beam (the mask effectively removed the sharp cutoff typical in an HID low beam). These can be found in the aftermarket. Not sure what wiring issues would be involved.
You can also install higher output Halogen bulbs (if you don't have or don't want HID), but if the wattage is too great, you'll risk deforming the housings and lenses from the extra heat and they also might stress the electrical wiring.
Beware of the blue tint bulbs. Most tend to put out less light than the somewhat yellowish halogen units.
R / John
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Oct 2006 21:56 GMT > Adaptive headlights pivot the beam slightly for turns and curves. Don't > have them myself, but I'd think they'd be useful. They are. They improve seeing range in curves and turns.
> HID low beams are a real plus. *good headlamps* are a real plus. There are good and bad HID and halogen lamps; a well-implemented lamp of either type is better than a poorly-implemented lamp of either type. Given equally good implementation, HID is preferable.
> BMW marketed dual Xenon for awhile in which the HID bulb had a mask that > would rotate around the filament when high beam was selected and allow an > HID high beam They still do offer these, known as "BiXenon" lamps. They don't work quite as you describe. Rather, there is a solenoid that moves the cutoff shield out of the light path within the BiXenon projector when high beam is selected. NB there is no filament involved in a Xenon headlamp.
> These can be found in the aftermarket. Yes, nominally, but as with all aftermarket HID "retrofits" that involve HID bulbs adaptively based to fit in halogen headlamps, installing them is dangerous, illegal, counterproductive and collossally dumb. See http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/bulbs/Hid/conversions/conversions.html
> You can also install higher output Halogen bulbs (if you don't have or don't > want HID), but if the wattage is too great, you'll risk deforming the > housings and lenses from the extra heat and they also might stress the > electrical wiring. Glare can also be a concern with higher-power bulb retrofits, though most all current and recent BMWs have good enough optics with well-focused low beams such that the use of e.g. Osram's 65w H7 bulb presents no problems and gives a large increase in seeing light.
> Beware of the blue tint bulbs. Most tend to put out less light than the > somewhat yellowish halogen units. Correct. ALL of them put out significantly less light than halogen bulbs with colorless clear glass. Properly-fed halogen bulbs are not "yellowish", that is marketeering crapola. The CRI (Color Rendering Index) of a properly-fed halogen bulb is between 99 and 100. That is the one and only colorimetric measurement that meaningfully influences visual performance in undisturbed environments (clear weather).
DS
John Carrier - 09 Oct 2006 13:10 GMT SNIP
>> BMW marketed dual Xenon for awhile in which the HID bulb had a mask that >> would rotate around the filament when high beam was selected and allow an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> These can be found in the aftermarket. Maybe I'm missing something, but I checked a couple of cars at BMWNA and Bi Xenon wasn't listed. IIRC, it was offered on most of their cars around 2003 (not the E39, however). A friend's E65 7 series had them ... now its listed with adaptive xenon. I wouldn't be surprised if they were withdrawn (at least from the US market) because of their potential to dazzle oncoming cars. (As well as our propensity to not dip hi beams to oncoming traffic ... and failure to signal turns, hog the left lane and other pecularities of US driving.)
My bad on the filament comment. HID is an arc lamp.
>> You can also install higher output Halogen bulbs (if you don't have or >> don't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > well-focused low beams such that the use of e.g. Osram's 65w H7 bulb > presents no problems and gives a large increase in seeing light. BMW has a (rare) retrofit kit that puts HID driving lights in place of the fogs on the E39. Of course, you lose the (on 2nd gen E39) rather weak fogs, they're not auto-leveled, and the switch implementation is a bit cludgy.
I wouldn't mind going with a bit more output on my hi beams. I do a lot of rural driving and its BLACK out there. A bit more light down the road wouldn't hurt. Will the 65W Osram bulb improve my hi beams?
R / John
Daniel J. Stern - 09 Oct 2006 17:51 GMT > >> BMW marketed dual Xenon for awhile in which the HID bulb had a mask that > >> would rotate around the filament when high beam was selected and allow an > >> HID high beam > > > > They still do offer these, known as "BiXenon" lamps.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I checked a couple of cars at BMWNA and Bi > Xenon wasn't listed. IIRC, it was offered on most of their cars around 2003 > (not the E39, however). A friend's E65 7 series had them ... now its listed > with adaptive xenon. The AFS (Advanced Frontlighting System, a/k/a "adaptive Xenon") lamps are almost all based on BiXenon optics.
> I wouldn't be surprised if they were withdrawn (at > least from the US market) Mostly, they are just being marketed differently.
> because of their potential to dazzle oncoming cars. They are subject to the same intensity regulations as halogen high beams, so -- legally speaking -- there is no greater potential for dazzle with Xenon high beams than there is with halogen ones.
> BMW has a (rare) retrofit kit that puts HID driving lights in place of the > fogs on the E39. Of course, you lose the (on 2nd gen E39) rather weak fogs, > they're not auto-leveled, and the switch implementation is a bit cludgy. ...and "driving" (auxiliary high beam) lamps really need to be mounted up at/near headlamp height in order to be of much use at all. The low-mount location is well suited to fog lamps, but not at all to "driving" lamps. Auto-levelling doesn't apply (legally) to high-beam lamps anywhere in the world; they're usually just along for the ride.
> I wouldn't mind going with a bit more output on my hi beams. I do a lot of > rural driving and its BLACK out there. A bit more light down the road > wouldn't hurt. Will the 65W Osram bulb improve my hi beams? Yes, it would help. One of the problems with US headlamp regulations is the unreasonably low axial intensity limit of 75,000 candela. The international ECE regulations permit double that intensity. As a result, many setmakers simply de-focus their ECE high beam optics for the North American market, giving the effect of a ring of light with a relative dark spot in the middle (think of those adjustable handheld flashlights you can twist to go from a spot beam to a "flood" beam, the latter of which always has a black hole in the middle). BMW's lamps don't exhibit this effect to nearly the degree some other makers' lamps do.
DS
Richard Sexton - 09 Oct 2006 17:59 GMT >> because of their potential to dazzle oncoming cars. > >They are subject to the same intensity regulations as halogen high >beams, so -- legally speaking -- there is no greater potential for >dazzle with Xenon high beams than there is with halogen ones. Potential be damned, they're blinding. Why is that?
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Daniel J. Stern - 09 Oct 2006 18:38 GMT > >They are subject to the same intensity regulations as halogen high > >beams, so -- legally speaking -- there is no greater potential for > >dazzle with Xenon high beams than there is with halogen ones. > > Potential be damned, they're blinding. Why is that? All high beams are blinding by simple dint of intensity. That's why they're illegal for use in traffic. For spectral factors, see my previous post.
DS
dizzy - 14 Oct 2006 01:47 GMT >Glare can also be a concern with higher-power bulb retrofits, though >most all current and recent BMWs have good enough optics with >well-focused low beams such that the use of e.g. Osram's 65w H7 bulb >presents no problems and gives a large increase in seeing light. So that would be your recommend upgrade for an E46?
Daniel J. Stern - 14 Oct 2006 03:20 GMT > >Glare can also be a concern with higher-power bulb retrofits, though > >most all current and recent BMWs have good enough optics with > >well-focused low beams such that the use of e.g. Osram's 65w H7 bulb > >presents no problems and gives a large increase in seeing light. > > So that would be your recommend upgrade for an E46? Yep. Hit Candlepower (tech@candlepower.ca) to get 'em.
dizzy - 18 Oct 2006 00:30 GMT >> >Glare can also be a concern with higher-power bulb retrofits, though >> >most all current and recent BMWs have good enough optics with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yep. Hit Candlepower (tech@candlepower.ca) to get 'em. Cool. I'm curious, don't you want to sell them to me? I found them easily on your Web site, while finding candlepower's Web site a bit, err, opaque.
Daniel J. Stern - 18 Oct 2006 03:24 GMT > Cool. I'm curious, don't you want to sell them to me? I found them > easily on your Web site, while finding candlepower's Web site a bit, > err, opaque. Be happy to. Send me an e-mail. I don't like getting all commercial-like in public, is all-obviously, I was meant to be a marketer, LOL!
dizzy - 18 Oct 2006 00:46 GMT >> >Glare can also be a concern with higher-power bulb retrofits, though >> >most all current and recent BMWs have good enough optics with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yep. Hit Candlepower (tech@candlepower.ca) to get 'em. We're talking about the high-beams, here, right?
bfd - 16 Oct 2006 17:54 GMT > >Glare can also be a concern with higher-power bulb retrofits, though > >most all current and recent BMWs have good enough optics with > >well-focused low beams such that the use of e.g. Osram's 65w H7 bulb > >presents no problems and gives a large increase in seeing light. > > So that would be your recommend upgrade for an E46? How about checking a junkyard to see if you can find a set of BMW OE Xenon HID adaptive lights? I would imagine it would be a straight swap. Brand new, it sold for a *bargain* price of $700 or $800!
Daniel J. Stern - 16 Oct 2006 18:02 GMT > How about checking a junkyard to see if you can find a set of BMW OE > Xenon HID adaptive lights? I would imagine it would be a straight swap. Not at all a trivial swap. The headlamps themselves are usually a direct bolt-in, but there's a great deal of additional wiring and ancillary gear (steering angle sensors, yaw sensors, vehicle height sensors), additional brain boxes and/or different and/or reprogrammed BCM.
bfd - 18 Sep 2006 18:40 GMT > I have poor night vision and need all the help I can get. Are adaptive HL > worth it? Are there other accessories that I could get to help like higher > intensity bulbs? The factory OE Xenon adaptive headlights is an excellent option for those needing better night vision and at what, about $800, is a BARGAIN. I pity the fool who passes on this bargain and then later decide he wants it.
Richard Sexton - 18 Sep 2006 20:30 GMT >> I have poor night vision and need all the help I can get. Are adaptive HL >> worth it? Are there other accessories that I could get to help like higher [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >BARGAIN. I pity the fool who passes on this bargain and then later >decide he wants it. Well, in all fairness it is possible to install halogen driving lights that will light up the road better, cost at least half as much, won't give you nast backdazzzle in inclement weather and aren't as offensive to oncoming drivers.
Yeah those blue lights sure are purdy and all, but...
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 18 Sep 2006 22:33 GMT > Well, in all fairness it is possible to install halogen driving lights > that will light up the road better, cost at least half as much, won't > give you nast backdazzzle in inclement weather and aren't as offensive > to oncoming drivers. I'm not quite sure how you'd do this? There's no problem with getting a main beam to be as bright as you want, but providing a decent dipped one without dazzle is the difficult one. And in the UK at least you can't use 'driving lamps' to do this.
> Yeah those blue lights sure are purdy and all, but... Discharge lamps of the type used on cars can be any colour temperature you want. However, the eye is more sensitive towards the blue end of the spectrum than it is to the red, so 'red' halogen lamps don't really make sense. But of course HID lamps *are* brighter so more likely to offend others.
 Signature *When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 18 Sep 2006 22:54 GMT >> Well, in all fairness it is possible to install halogen driving lights >> that will light up the road better, cost at least half as much, won't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >without dazzle is the difficult one. And in the UK at least you can't use >'driving lamps' to do this. You can have auxilliary driving lights right? I mean you aren't going to need them in downtown London at night but in the country you can turn them on and light up the next three counties.
>> Yeah those blue lights sure are purdy and all, but... > >Discharge lamps of the type used on cars can be any colour temperature you Yeah and everybody wants that damn blue.
>want. However, the eye is more sensitive towards the blue end of the >spectrum than it is to the red, so 'red' halogen lamps don't really make >sense. But of course HID lamps *are* brighter so more likely to offend >others. "brighter" than what? I've got some Marchals halogens here than will melt the bumper of the car in front of you if you get too close, to say nothing of the Cibie CSR's.
Also, blue reflects the short wavelenghts so in cloudy/foggy conditions (how RARE in merry 'old) they're the last thing you want. Effectove "fog" lamps are yellow, not blue.
I'm just not sold on HID lamps. Too expensive, too useless around here - which is almost as foggy as ukkers.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 19 Sep 2006 19:57 GMT > >I'm not quite sure how you'd do this? There's no problem with getting a > >main beam to be as bright as you want, but providing a decent dipped > >one without dazzle is the difficult one. And in the UK at least you > >can't use 'driving lamps' to do this.
> You can have auxilliary driving lights right? I mean you aren't going to > need them in downtown London at night but in the country you can turn > them on and light up the next three counties. They can only be used with main beam - and on most cars main beam is already fine. It's dip that is the difficult one, and in a crowded country like the UK you spend most of your time using that even on the open road due to oncoming traffic.
> >> Yeah those blue lights sure are purdy and all, but... > > > >Discharge lamps of the type used on cars can be any colour temperature > >you
> Yeah and everybody wants that damn blue. Currently, the most efficient HID lamps do look blue compared to halogen. But are in fact closer to daylight.
> >want. However, the eye is more sensitive towards the blue end of the > >spectrum than it is to the red, so 'red' halogen lamps don't really > >make sense. But of course HID lamps *are* brighter so more likely to > >offend others.
> "brighter" than what? I've got some Marchals halogens here than will > melt the bumper of the car in front of you if you get too close, to say > nothing of the Cibie CSR's. You can have HID lamps of near any power - same as halogens. Film lighting have been using them for years with sizes in the killowatts.
> Also, blue reflects the short wavelenghts so in cloudy/foggy conditions > (how RARE in merry 'old) they're the last thing you want. Effectove > "fog" lamps are yellow, not blue. You'll find as many opinions on the best colour for fogs as you will fogs themselves - but most are now just plain old halogen. It's the beam pattern that gives the best results.
> I'm just not sold on HID lamps. Too expensive, too useless around here - > which is almost as foggy as ukkers. Then you really need custom foglamps. Which could use an HID lamp.
 Signature *Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 19 Sep 2006 22:33 GMT >In article <een4hn$1q2$3@news.datemas.de>, >They can only be used with main beam - and on most cars main beam is >already fine. It's dip that is the difficult one, and in a crowded country >like the UK you spend most of your time using that even on the open road >due to oncoming traffic. So you want brighter low-beams? Uh... it's a bit of a contradiction to want to light up the road better but nor blind the guy in front or the guy coming the other way.
>Currently, the most efficient HID lamps do look blue compared to halogen. >But are in fact closer to daylight. Daylight is blue. The sky is blue not yellow.
>> "brighter" than what? I've got some Marchals halogens here than will >> melt the bumper of the car in front of you if you get too close, to say >> nothing of the Cibie CSR's. > >You can have HID lamps of near any power - same as halogens. Film lighting >have been using them for years with sizes in the killowatts. Sure, and GE make a 10 kilowatt carbon arc lamp for lighthouses but we're talking car bulbs here.
>> Also, blue reflects the short wavelenghts so in cloudy/foggy conditions >> (how RARE in merry 'old) they're the last thing you want. Effectove [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >themselves - but most are now just plain old halogen. It's the beam >pattern that gives the best results. It's not an opinion that you can see bettwe in fog with yellow light. Or why shooting glasses for foggy says have yellow lenses.
>> I'm just not sold on HID lamps. Too expensive, too useless around here - >> which is almost as foggy as ukkers. > >Then you really need custom foglamps. Which could use an HID lamp. Other than the fact none exists, sounds swell.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 19 Sep 2006 23:02 GMT > >Currently, the most efficient HID lamps do look blue compared to > >halogen. But are in fact closer to daylight.
> Daylight is blue. No it's not. By definition.
> The sky is blue not yellow. So the sun is blue? That's what provides daylight - not the sky.
 Signature *Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 19 Sep 2006 23:41 GMT >> >Currently, the most efficient HID lamps do look blue compared to >> >halogen. But are in fact closer to daylight. > >> Daylight is blue. > >No it's not. By definition. Daylight is only not-blue at the equator.
>> The sky is blue not yellow. > >So the sun is blue? That's what provides daylight - not the sky. The sky is blue becuse of scattering of light rays which reflect the blue end of the spectrum.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 20 Sep 2006 18:05 GMT > >> Daylight is blue. > > > >No it's not. By definition.
> Daylight is only not-blue at the equator. The colour temperature of daylight varies by the time of day and weather conditions as well as latitude.
 Signature *Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 20 Sep 2006 20:30 GMT >> >> Daylight is blue. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The colour temperature of daylight varies by the time of day and weather >conditions as well as latitude. Yeah, but all things being equal, on a clear day at noon light is bluer towards the poles. 5000K is given at the equator by several sources (GE, Horst & Kipper) and 6500-7500K is given in "norther climes" whcih ranges from Boston to Denmark.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Jack - 21 Sep 2006 15:53 GMT http://www.intellexual.net/hid.html
This site appears to provide some credible info on HID lamps along with some interesting 'prism tricks' employed by BMW and Audi that make their headlights appear blue from the side even though they are actually white (4100K). It seems clear from this site that the true high temperature 'blue light' systems only have 'bling bling' value as they provide less light and that the human eye is less able to see that light.
To the original poster with the night vision problem I would suggest that he work on the other end of the problem and get some night vison glasses. I have an emergent night vision problem and find these lenses help significantly, especially in the rain. They also have the added benefit of acting as BLUE BLOCKERS knocking down the intensity of the oncoming beams from the affluent but ignorant purchasers of the blue light systems who for some reason usually drive around with their high beams up.
>>> >> Daylight is blue. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > several sources (GE, Horst & Kipper) and 6500-7500K is given > in "norther climes" whcih ranges from Boston to Denmark. Dave Plowman (News) - 21 Sep 2006 19:40 GMT > They also have the added benefit of acting as BLUE BLOCKERS knocking > down the intensity of the oncoming beams from the affluent but ignorant > purchasers of the blue light systems who for some reason usually drive > around with their high beams up. Very few cars have HID main (high) beams. Mostly they add incandescent high beam while leaving on the HID dipped one - no different from many incandescent only types. But plenty of boy racer types replace standard incandescent bulbs with blue incandescent types for the reasons boy racers have - they're actually less efficient than standard ones. True HID lights as have been said needn't appear blue - except when warming up, and on the edges of a projector system which is caused by the lens and happens with incandescent types too.
 Signature *Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 21 Sep 2006 21:40 GMT > But plenty of boy racer types replace standard incandescent bulbs with >blue incandescent types for the reasons boy racers have - they're actually They're actually very illegal. And really stupid; they emit less light than non-blue bulbs.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 21 Sep 2006 22:25 GMT > > But plenty of boy racer types replace standard incandescent bulbs with > >blue incandescent types for the reasons boy racers have - they're > >actually
> They're actually very illegal. I don't know the law in your country.
> And really stupid; they emit less light > than non-blue bulbs. But said just that in the bit you snipped. ;-)
 Signature *I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 21 Sep 2006 23:57 GMT >> > But plenty of boy racer types replace standard incandescent bulbs with >> >blue incandescent types for the reasons boy racers have - they're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I don't know the law in your country. I'm not aware of any country where they're legal. To some extent automotive lighting and signalling regulations are normalized on an international basis and you can almost certainly find a phrase similar to "all forward facing lights will be only of a white of amber color" in your countries lighting regulations.
Never mind the local cops will pull you over for yellow lights thus forcing yo uto spend a day in court having the judge read the regulation to the officer.
Nor does it help to show the officer at the time the relevant portion of the highway traffic act kept in the glovebox.
I took off the yellow capsules because of this which was a real shame, they worked SO well in nasty weather (most of the time here).
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Richard Sexton - 21 Sep 2006 21:38 GMT >http://www.intellexual.net/hid.html > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >from the affluent but ignorant purchasers of the blue light systems who for >some reason usually drive around with their high beams up. I have much better than average night vision, which is why oncoming HID's hurt so much.
The LAST thing you want to do at night is wear any type of sunglasses that cut down on the amount of light that enters your eyes, blue or not.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 21 Sep 2006 22:24 GMT > I have much better than average night vision, which is why oncoming > HID's hurt so much. As will high powered filament lights of a similar output. HIDs are far more common than aftermarket filament bulbs of the same light output - most light fittings and wiring can't handle 150 watt bulbs.
 Signature *Not all men are annoying. Some are dead.
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 21 Sep 2006 23:53 GMT >> I have much better than average night vision, which is why oncoming >> HID's hurt so much. > >As will high powered filament lights of a similar output. HIDs are far >more common than aftermarket filament bulbs of the same light output - >most light fittings and wiring can't handle 150 watt bulbs. Yes and no. Of course any high powered bulb is going to melt a cheap base/socket. But again, the color of the light is an issue here. 160W bulbs by themeslves will get you some flashes from oncoming drivers even on lowbeam (and of course I'm talking H2's here). but, with a yellow capsule over the bulb, you (or at least I) didn't get that once.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Oct 2006 22:57 GMT > The LAST thing you want to do at night is wear any type of sunglasses > that cut down on the amount of light that enters your eyes, blue or not. That is not necessarily the case. Remember how much you liked your yellow headlamps in bad weather, before you took them out of the car? Well, it doesn't matter where such filtration is applied (at the bulb, at the lens, at the windshield, at the driver's eyes), the effect is the same.
For any given intensity, the higher the blue content of the SPD, the greater the discomfort glare -- *WITHOUT* any significant corresponding increase in seeing performance. In the case of automotive headlamps, HID vs. halogen, the discomfort glare ratio with intensity held fixed has been found to approximate 1.46 (i.e., for any given intensity level, the HID headlamp produces 46% more discomfort glare than the halogen headlamp). There has been some discussion of using this effect in inverse fashion to optimize the effectiveness of emergent LED headlamps (i.e., tweak their SPD to contain less blue, permitting higher actual intensities without increased discomfort glare), but it has been drowned out by marketeers who demand that each new generation of headlamps be bluer and bluer and ever bluer because that's what they're geared up to sell.
Just as the population at large is split roughly down the middle into glare-sensitive and glare-nonsensitive individuals, so too is it split roughly down the middle into blue-sensitive and blue-nonsensitive individuals (not the same 50/50 split; i.e., there are individuals who are glare-sensitive, blue-sensitive, both and neither). The obvious upshot is that any given HID headlamp will strike some people as more glaring (and some people as MUCH more glaring) than it will strike others.
Me, I happen to be somewhat blue-sensitive, so cutting the blue out of the light reaching my eyes at night is beneficial. Most commercial glasses sold for the purpose are grossly improper for the task; they have amber or orange or honey-brown lenses that block much too much useful light. You want to cut ONLY the blue. There are all kinds of fancy ads and competing claims for Blu-Blockers, Serengettis, etc. Most of it is BS. Your eye does not know whose name is on your lenses. Your eye also does not know how any given spectral gamut is achieved. The chief trait of an effective set of night-driving glasses is that they strongly attenuate the blue wavelengths so they don't reach your eye. When you look at a white light through this type of lens, the light will appear yellow (not orange, not amber, not brown). Interestingly, the human visual system -- with all its foibles -- does an excellent job of color correction; even when wearing glasses such as these it is not difficult to discern yellow from white road lines, for instance.
While cutting the blue and violet out of the spectrum has been shown to give some contrast-enhancement and glare-reduction effects during nighttime tasks under mesopic conditions (e.g., driving at night), it's very easy to overdo it, at which point the safety benefits of the reduced glare and enhanced contrast are overbalanced by the safety hazard caused by the absolute reduction in light reaching your eyes. IOW, it doesn't matter if a pedestrian's red shirt looks redder if you don't see him in the first place!
To help avoid an overly large absolute reduction in light, the lenses should be more towards selective yellow, and should NOT appear notably brown, orange and/or amber (which would indicate excessive attenuation of greens and yellows, which are of prime importance for human vision while driving at night). If you notice me repeating myself on this point, it's because it's so important.
Me, I had my night-driving spectacles made to my own specifications. An outfit known as "Calichrome" makes the correct-hue yellow dye. I picked a large, sturdy, inexpensive plastic frameset by Rodenstock(!), so as to handle as much of my peripheral vision as possible. Since I'm nearsighted, and nearsightedness tends to increase with fatigue *and* with dark (both of which conditions tend to exist at night), I had the lenses ground 1/4 diopter stronger than my normal glasses and my sunglasses. The lenses were then put through the Calichrome dye process to the correct-depth selective-yellow tint. I love them; they're perfect.
Your franchised "one hour glasses" type place probably won't know what the hell you're talking about and won't grind lenses to any but the prescription you hand them (those glasses-in-a-hurry places can't be relied on to adhere strictly to a prescription anyway...) so you'll have to patronize a good, competent independent optician. I had my current set made in Michigan when I lived there.
An excellent guide for the hue and tint is a "K2" type camera lens filter, available at any photo supply store.
DS
PS, remember too, the HID light source produces roughly 3x the light flux of the filament light source. This can be used by engineers for good (keep the optics the same size, increase total beam flux) or by stylists for evil (reduce the optics' size, keep beam flux "legally high"). When optical size is reduced, surface luminance increases, which creates a more glaring visual impression ("signal image"). And that's assuming quality optics; poor optics are another whole source of glare.
Richard Sexton - 09 Oct 2006 02:19 GMT >> The LAST thing you want to do at night is wear any type of sunglasses >> that cut down on the amount of light that enters your eyes, blue or not. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >at the lens, at the windshield, at the driver's eyes), the effect is >the same. Silly rabbit, of course not. With sunglasses on you're getting less light from all sources into your eyes. Moonlight, streetlights, etc.
With filtered headlight you're getting less light from the headlights only.
It's not *really* the same is it?
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Oct 2006 22:23 GMT > Currently, the most efficient HID lamps do look blue compared to halogen. > But are in fact closer to daylight. Nope. There is nothing at all "closer to natural daylight" about the light from automotive HIDs; this is more marketeering crapola -- it is one of the many ways CCT ("Kelvin ratings") is hackneyed and misused in order to mislead the consumer. The CRI of the best automotive HIDs is between 72 and 74. The CRI of a properly-fed tungsten-halogen lamp is over 99. 100 is perfect. On a _practical_ level, this does not materially affect seeing performance under automotive HID light relative to TH light, but we do need to dispense with this "closer to daylight" noise.
> Then you really need custom foglamps. Which could use an HID lamp. Present automotive HIDs are contraindicated for fog lamp service, by dint of their SPD. There is a selective-yellow HID product from Philips, sold only in the Asian markets, that could be used to make extremely effective fog lamps.
DS
Richard Sexton - 09 Oct 2006 01:48 GMT >Present automotive HIDs are contraindicated for fog lamp service, by >dint of their SPD. There is a selective-yellow HID product from >Philips, sold only in the Asian markets, that could be used to make >extremely effective fog lamps. Or uh, high beams?
Is there some way to bolt on these selective yellow HID fogs to older cars? I suppose they're a gazillion dollars?
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Daniel J. Stern - 09 Oct 2006 02:03 GMT > >Present automotive HIDs are contraindicated for fog lamp service, by > >dint of their SPD. There is a selective-yellow HID product from > >Philips, sold only in the Asian markets, that could be used to make > >extremely effective fog lamps. > > Or uh, high beams? No, they wouldn't be particularly advantageous for high beams.
> Is there some way to bolt on these selective yellow HID fogs to older > cars? I suppose they're a gazillion dollars? There are no selective yellow HID fogs. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear; the product I described is selective-yellow D2S and D2R automotive HID bulbs.
Richard Sexton - 09 Oct 2006 02:23 GMT >> >Present automotive HIDs are contraindicated for fog lamp service, by >> >dint of their SPD. There is a selective-yellow HID product from [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >clear; the product I described is selective-yellow D2S and D2R >automotive HID bulbs. This is too confusing. Your phone is about to ring.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Fred W - 19 Sep 2006 14:04 GMT > Discharge lamps of the type used on cars can be any colour temperature you > want. However, the eye is more sensitive towards the blue end of the > spectrum than it is to the red, so 'red' halogen lamps don't really make > sense. Are you sure about that Dave? I thought I had read somewhere that the eye is *less* responsive to blue light than longer wavelengths, especially yellow. OTOH, I also know the eye is also not very sensitive to red light considering that is the color used in "night rigging" ships to maintain better night vision of the crew. Perhaps the eye's sensitivity drops off at both ends of the spectrum?
> But of course HID lamps *are* brighter so more likely to offend > others. Yes, so even if the eye is marginally less sensitive, the increase in light volume provides both the driver and the oncoming traffic more signal to the brain.
 Signature -Fred W
Jim - 19 Sep 2006 16:34 GMT >> Discharge lamps of the type used on cars can be any colour temperature >> you [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > light volume provides both the driver and the oncoming traffic more signal > to the brain. No, human eyes are more sensitive to green that to either red or blue. There are lots and lots of references, but really this newsgroup is about cars not eyes. Jim
Fred W - 19 Sep 2006 20:20 GMT >>>Discharge lamps of the type used on cars can be any colour temperature >>>you [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > cars not eyes. > Jim Right... and we don't use our eyes when driving cars, do we? And the disussion is about the color of the light cast by the headlights that are mounted on our cars. How much more on topic could this be?
 Signature -Fred W
Richard Sperry - 19 Sep 2006 21:07 GMT If the OP wanted to know if the Adaptive headlights were worthwhile enough to order as an option, then yes, it will much cheaper, $800 now than later. You will also get self leveling, and high pressure washers.
Once the color temp gets above 5K deg K It tends to be blue. Old human eyes don't see blue very well. IMO, anything > 5K is really a waste of money. I have had several HID sets at 4300 and it was a very pure white light. If I remember correctly, daylight is 4700K?
Richard Sexton - 19 Sep 2006 22:04 GMT >If the OP wanted to know if the Adaptive headlights were worthwhile enough >to order as an option, then yes, it will much cheaper, $800 now than later. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >have had several HID sets at 4300 and it was a very pure white light. If I >remember correctly, daylight is 4700K? Tropical daylight at noon on the equator is 5000K. Northern climates, at noon are 7500K. The more north you go the bluer it is.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 19 Sep 2006 21:28 GMT > No, human eyes are more sensitive to green that to either red or blue. > There are lots and lots of references, but really this newsgroup is > about cars not eyes. Surely it's fair enough to discuss car lighting, and how that interfaces with the eye/brain combination?
And I'm certainly not in favour of 'any colour' lights were it's simply a fashion. But feel high efficiency discharge types will be the way forward - as well as LED for low powered applications. Increasing the efficiency of car lighting reduces cable weight and energy consumption, as well as hopefully safety, and anything which does this can't be all bad.
 Signature *The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 19 Sep 2006 22:14 GMT >Surely it's fair enough to discuss car lighting, and how that interfaces >with the eye/brain combination? This is usenet. Everything is fair.
>And I'm certainly not in favour of 'any colour' lights were it's simply a >fashion. But feel high efficiency discharge types will be the way forward That's pretty naive in my opinion. Nothing could be easier than incandescents. You apply voltage to two pins and they make light. They're cheap.
HIDs ARE great, but, they have a lot of problems with automotive applications: they don't come on instanly and a lot has to be done to get around this. They require weird voltages and an extra large striking voltage. They're expensive and complicated. They are however more efficient so you get the same light from less voltage and that's important. They're not THAT much brighter, they just look brighter because of the color of the light. When a "lamp driver module" is one small cheap chip (a ways off yet) and all the costs have come down they're probably be near-ubiquotous, but that's at least a decade off IMO.
>- as well as LED for low powered applications. Increasing the efficiency >of car lighting reduces cable weight and energy consumption, as well as >hopefully safety, and anything which does this can't be all bad. LED"s are good but they're a point source that doesn't radiate like a coaxial incandescent filamwnt so they have their own set of problems. WHat would be neat is a "filamnt" in a bulb, the same shape as a regular incandescent filament but works like an LED not a thing that burns white hot when voltage is applied.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 19 Sep 2006 23:00 GMT > >And I'm certainly not in favour of 'any colour' lights were it's simply > >a fashion. But feel high efficiency discharge types will be the way > >forward
> That's pretty naive in my opinion. Really?
> Nothing could be easier than incandescents. You apply voltage to two > pins and they make light. They're cheap. Well just about everything on a car has moved on with improving technology. Or perhaps you want to go back to points ignition? That's cheap too. As is a nice single downdraught carb.
> HIDs ARE great, but, they have a lot of problems with automotive > applications: they don't come on instanly and a lot has to be done to > get around this. Err, how often does it get dark suddenly? I've never found the time they take to get to full output a problem.
> They require weird voltages and an extra large striking > voltage. They're expensive and complicated. They *sell* for much more. But then so does everything when it's new.
> They are however more efficient so you get the same light from less > voltage and that's important. Actually, less current.
> They're not THAT much brighter, they just look brighter > because of the color of the light. They produce approximately three times the light for the same current - not difficult since incandescent lamps are incredibly inefficient.
> When a "lamp driver module" is one small cheap chip (a ways off yet) and > all the costs have come down they're probably be near-ubiquotous, but > that's at least a decade off IMO.
> >- as well as LED for low powered applications. Increasing the > >efficiency of car lighting reduces cable weight and energy consumption, > >as well as hopefully safety, and anything which does this can't be all > >bad.
> LED"s are good but they're a point source that doesn't radiate like a > coaxial incandescent filamwnt so they have their own set of problems. For things like tail lights etc you don't need omni directional radiation - indeed this just means you have to add some form of reflector.
> WHat would be neat is a "filamnt" in a bulb, the same shape as a regular > incandescent filament but works like an LED not a thing that burns white > hot when voltage is applied. For many applications around the car, filament or point source lamps are anything but ideal. Interior lighting for example would be better with large soft sources. As would most other lights apart from headlamps. We're simply used to filament lamps - that's all.
 Signature *Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 19 Sep 2006 23:39 GMT >> >And I'm certainly not in favour of 'any colour' lights were it's simply >> >a fashion. But feel high efficiency discharge types will be the way [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Really? Really. That's my opinion. It's not a fact and reasonable people disagree all the time. I'm listening.
>> Nothing could be easier than incandescents. You apply voltage to two >> pins and they make light. They're cheap. > >Well just about everything on a car has moved on with improving technology. >Or perhaps you want to go back to points ignition? That's cheap too. As is >a nice single downdraught carb. No. We're talking about lights here.
>> HIDs ARE great, but, they have a lot of problems with automotive >> applications: they don't come on instanly and a lot has to be done to >> get around this. > >Err, how often does it get dark suddenly? I've never found the time they >take to get to full output a problem. Well, YOU haven't had a problem but the fact remains, with incandescents when you turn on the switch you get full brightness immediately. There's a non-zero chance this will be a problem somewhere sometime.
>> They require weird voltages and an extra large striking >> voltage. They're expensive and complicated. > >They *sell* for much more. But then so does everything when it's new. I know why, I'm just pointing out it falls in the "con" not "pro" column.
>> They are however more efficient so you get the same light from less >> voltage and that's important. > >Actually, less current. True. Less energy what what I meat to say and module some teenager pranging in my ear I actually might have.
>> They're not THAT much brighter, they just look brighter >> because of the color of the light. > >They produce approximately three times the light for the same current - >not difficult since incandescent lamps are incredibly inefficient. Understood, but incandcents, using more energy yield very close to the same light, and advanced ones lke CSR's put out more light than HIDs.
>For things like tail lights etc you don't need omni directional radiation >- indeed this just means you have to add some form of reflector. No and no. You need to check lighting regulations and yo're guessing (wrongly) about the reflector.
>For many applications around the car, filament or point source lamps are >anything but ideal. Interior lighting for example would be better with >large soft sources. As would most other lights apart from headlamps. We're >simply used to filament lamps - that's all. Well, I've tried LED's inside. Worthless. You go try it ane lemme know what you think. Luxeons are nice ones to play with.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 20 Sep 2006 17:51 GMT > >> That's pretty naive in my opinion. > > > >Really?
> Really. That's my opinion. It's not a fact and reasonable people disagree > all the time. I'm listening. I'm not objecting to you disagreeing - merely objecting to you calling my opinion naive. Which suggests I haven't given it any thought or know nothing about lighting.
> >> Nothing could be easier than incandescents. You apply voltage to two > >> pins and they make light. They're cheap. > > > >Well just about everything on a car has moved on with improving > >technology. Or perhaps you want to go back to points ignition? That's > >cheap too. As is a nice single downdraught carb.
> No. We're talking about lights here. But the 'simple and cheap' arguments are often put forward in favour of points and carbs. And those who do simply ignore efficiency.
> >> HIDs ARE great, but, they have a lot of problems with automotive > >> applications: they don't come on instanly and a lot has to be done to > >> get around this. > > > >Err, how often does it get dark suddenly? I've never found the time they > >take to get to full output a problem.
> Well, YOU haven't had a problem but the fact remains, with incandescents > when you turn on the switch you get full brightness immediately. There's > a non-zero chance this will be a problem somewhere sometime. Again why? Many cars still have incandescent main beams. For signalling purposes if nothing else. No reason why they couldn't be incorporated into a main beam HID setup for just this reason.
> >> They require weird voltages and an extra large striking > >> voltage. They're expensive and complicated. > > > >They *sell* for much more. But then so does everything when it's new.
> I know why, I'm just pointing out it falls in the "con" not "pro" column.
> >> They are however more efficient so you get the same light from less > >> voltage and that's important. > > > >Actually, less current.
> True. Less energy what what I meat to say and module some teenager > pranging in my ear I actually might have.
> >> They're not THAT much brighter, they just look brighter > >> because of the color of the light. > > > >They produce approximately three times the light for the same current - > >not difficult since incandescent lamps are incredibly inefficient.
> Understood, but incandcents, using more energy yield very close to > the same light, and advanced ones lke CSR's put out more light than > HIDs. The light output of any lamp can be increased or decreased. Saying you can already buy an 150 watt H7 incandescent but only a 35 watt HID is pretty meaningless in the scale of things. However, upping the wattage of an incandescent can often result in reflector or lens damage due to heat. And voltage drop in the wiring etc can also cause problems.
> >For things like tail lights etc you don't need omni directional > >radiation - indeed this just means you have to add some form of > >reflector.
> No and no. You need to check lighting regulations and yo're guessing > (wrongly) about the reflector. The reflector behind a incandescent lamp in say an indicator or tail light - not a passive reflector needed for safety. Because ordinary incandescent bulbs have a near omnidirectional beam pattern, some form of crude reflector is needed to increase the efficiency. Not so with an LED type where the lens is built in.
> >For many applications around the car, filament or point source lamps > >are anything but ideal. Interior lighting for example would be better > >with large soft sources. As would most other lights apart from > >headlamps. We're simply used to filament lamps - that's all.
> Well, I've tried LED's inside. Worthless. You go try it ane lemme know > what you think. Luxeons are nice ones to play with. LED technology has a long way to go - as with much else in lighting. But the sure thing is the tungsten filament bulb's days are numbered.
 Signature *If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 20 Sep 2006 20:27 GMT >I'm not objecting to you disagreeing - merely objecting to you calling my >opinion naive. Which suggests I haven't given it any thought or know >nothing about lighting. The cost, complexity and lack of "instant on" make these non-starters in automotice use for anything other than specialized purposes. IMO to suggest all cars shpuld rely on HID sole; is naive. Nothing personal...
>But the 'simple and cheap' arguments are often put forward in favour of >points and carbs. And those who do simply ignore efficiency. I don't know anybody that prefers carbs to injection but I do know a few folks that will not convert older cars to pointless systems. Maintenance is minimal and they point out if/when they fail you can pretty much fix them with a rock but if a pointless system fails, you're screwed. I'm neutral on this and just keep my cars original.
>Again why? Many cars still have incandescent main beams. For signalling >purposes if nothing else. No reason why they couldn't be incorporated into >a main beam HID setup for just this reason. I think it's the lack of an "instant on" abaility.
>The light output of any lamp can be increased or decreased. Saying you can >already buy an 150 watt H7 incandescent but only a 35 watt HID is pretty >meaningless in the scale of things. However, upping the wattage of an >incandescent can often result in reflector or lens damage due to heat. And >voltage drop in the wiring etc can also cause problems. Understood. In halogen fixtured that have the bulb base and reflector than can handle it you can ho pretty high. Not sure what's actually under debate here.
>> >For things like tail lights etc you don't need omni directional >> >radiation - indeed this just means you have to add some form of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >reflector is needed to increase the efficiency. Not so with an LED type >where the lens is built in. LED"s shoot light out in one direction and lighting regulations require signalling lamps be seen from more than one direction. It's an issue.
>> >For many applications around the car, filament or point source lamps >> >are anything but ideal. Interior lighting for example would be better [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >LED technology has a long way to go - as with much else in lighting. But >the sure thing is the tungsten filament bulb's days are numbered. Perhaps, when LED's can do what incandescents too. But until then.
Hey I *hate* incandescents in the house and everythning is CFL here, but having tried LEDS in the dask and dome lights - they just don't work well at all.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Fred W - 21 Sep 2006 02:59 GMT > The cost, complexity and lack of "instant on" make these non-starters in > automotice use for anything other than specialized purposes. IMO to suggest > all cars shpuld rely on HID sole; is naive. Nothing personal... As you say, that's your opinion. Of course it's wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion.
"Instant on", as you put it, is a non issue. There are many, many cars running with BiXenon setups that have no need for "instant on" headlamps. They use a mechanical mask to create the low beam which moves out of the way to provide main (high) beams.
Besides, instant on is a misnomer. Even halogens take a finite period of time to begin to cast light. Yes, that is shorter than the time to ignite an HID bulb, but who cares? When I engage the HID Xenon lights on my car (not a BMW) they are lit in less than 1/2 a second. Why would you need them to respond any faster than that?
The total quality of light is dramatically greater with HID and the power demand from the alternator is less. HID lamps can be manufactured that shed light of different wavelengths. 4300k is usually the absolute greatest light quantity, and decreasing in output both wavelength directions.
If your problem is that you don't think headlamps should have greater than 5000k color temps then say so. It's not an issue with the method of the light that you have, but rather the color.
 Signature -Fred W
Richard Sexton - 21 Sep 2006 03:40 GMT >"Instant on", as you put it, is a non issue. There are many, many cars >running with BiXenon setups that have no need for "instant on" >headlamps. They use a mechanical mask to create the low beam which >moves out of the way to provide main (high) beams. I'm not sure what this has to do with "you turn the switch on and the road it lit up".
>Besides, instant on is a misnomer. Even halogens take a finite period >of time to begin to cast light. Yes, that is shorter than the time to Uh yeah, a little.
>ignite an HID bulb, but who cares? When I engage the HID Xenon lights >on my car (not a BMW) they are lit in less than 1/2 a second. Why would >you need them to respond any faster than that? Who'd have ever thought you need more than 640K ?
>The total quality of light is dramatically greater with HID and the >power demand from the alternator is less. HID lamps can be manufactured >that shed light of different wavelengths. 4300k is usually the absolute >greatest light quantity, and decreasing in output both wavelength >directions. K is a measure of light color, not the amount of luminous flux; it's a qualitative, not quantitice measurement. HIDs do draw less power, significantly so. They do not put out more light than thr Cibie CSR's, which are halogen, in my 633.
>If your problem is that you don't think headlamps should have greater >than 5000k color temps then say so. It's not an issue with the method >of the light that you have, but rather the color. The color is the worst problem. But as long as I can get more light for 1/4 the cost I see no point in HID lamps to say nothing of the fact it's easy to install or adapt good halogens, but retroftting HIDs to any car is simply a fantasy.
It's a great technology to be sure, but its young and has a way to go.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Fred W - 21 Sep 2006 12:15 GMT >>"Instant on", as you put it, is a non issue. There are many, many cars >>running with BiXenon setups that have no need for "instant on" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm not sure what this has to do with "you turn the switch on and the > road it lit up". I thought your desire for "instant on" was in regard to switching on the high beams. If all you a talking about is being able to instantly turn on the low beams, well... I don't get it. Why do you need to do that? I usually turn my low beams on long before actual dark and if they took a minute or longer to turn on, it would be no big deal. But as I said, it only takes a small fraction of a second, so who cares.
>>Besides, instant on is a misnomer. Even halogens take a finite period >>of time to begin to cast light. Yes, that is shorter than the time to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Who'd have ever thought you need more than 640K ? Huh? 640K what?
>>The total quality of light is dramatically greater with HID and the >>power demand from the alternator is less. HID lamps can be manufactured [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > so. They do not put out more light than thr Cibie CSR's, which are halogen, > in my 633. I'm fully aware of that. What I'm saying is that the HID lamps that put out light at 4300k *also* happen to be the ones that put out the most candlepower for the same (35W) input.
There are maximum limits set by the DOT for candlepower over a range of dimensions. If the Cibie's really do put out more (which I seriously doubt) then they would be illegal here.
Your Cibie's don't fit in any modern cars. When was the last car made that takes 5.25" round headlamps. They are also only available for "wrong-hand drive" applications, as far as I can see. Comparing them to factory Xenon HIDs (in the US anyway) is kind of moot.
>>If your problem is that you don't think headlamps should have greater >>than 5000k color temps then say so. It's not an issue with the method [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cost I see no point in HID lamps to say nothing of the fact it's easy to install > or adapt good halogens, but retroftting HIDs to any car is simply a fantasy. But my point was (is) the color doesn't *have* to be a problem. 4300k HID is not blue in the least. In fact, 4300k happens to be in the frequency range that the eye sees best. With lower or higher frequencies a correction factor has to be applied to the measured light quantity to determine the effective light power.
http://www.havis.com/havis_catalog/HS-CATALOG-F-8-06/Lighting/understand.pdf#sea rch=%22Xenon%20HID%20candella%22
And I have yet to see a car manufacturer offer up any car with halogen lights that come anywhere close to the light output of the HIDs.
> It's a great technology to be sure, but its young and has a way to go. Sure, they can be improved going forward, and I'm sure they will. But they're already better than all the alternatives.
 Signature -Fred W
Richard Sexton - 21 Sep 2006 21:31 GMT >I thought your desire for "instant on" was in regard to switching on the >high beams. If all you a talking about is being able to instantly turn >on the low beams, well... I don't get it. Why do you need to do that? >I usually turn my low beams on long before actual dark and if they took >a minute or longer to turn on, it would be no big deal. But as I said, >it only takes a small fraction of a second, so who cares. Barring some radically new tehnology or suspension of the laws physics HID lamps are going to be beams only and rely on halogens until they warm up.
>> Who'd have ever thought you need more than 640K ? > >Huh? 640K what? The point is just because you can't see why youd need lights to come on the instant the switch is turned on doesn't mean it isn't required.
>>>The total quality of light is dramatically greater with HID and the >>>power demand from the alternator is less. HID lamps can be manufactured [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >out light at 4300k *also* happen to be the ones that put out the most >candlepower for the same (35W) input. Handy in one sense, but you really want a much more yellow bulb when it foggy, raining or snowing.
>There are maximum limits set by the DOT for candlepower over a range of Can you show me?
>dimensions. If the Cibie's really do put out more (which I seriously >doubt) then they would be illegal here. Yeah they really do. Dan Stern has the numbers.
>Your Cibie's don't fit in any modern cars. When was the last car made >that takes 5.25" round headlamps. They are also only available for >"wrong-hand drive" applications, as far as I can see. Comparing them to >factory Xenon HIDs (in the US anyway) is kind of moot. Moot for new cars certainly.
>But my point was (is) the color doesn't *have* to be a problem. 4300k >HID is not blue in the least. In fact, 4300k happens to be in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >http://www.havis.com/havis_catalog/HS-CATALOG-F-8-06/Lighting/understand.pdf#sea rch=%22Xenon%20HID%20candella%22 Yeah that's great but, a) the eye i smost sensitive to green, not white and b) you want yellow(ish), not bluish white in inclement weather.
>And I have yet to see a car manufacturer offer up any car with halogen >lights that come anywhere close to the light output of the HIDs. The spec for lighting in Canada is "must be visible from 200 feet (or yards, I froget). There's no economic justification for benig able to see properly so you can't rely on manufacurors to spend to much time (or money) on this. Good lighting is nearly always an aftermarket thing.
>> It's a great technology to be sure, but its young and has a way to go. > >Sure, they can be improved going forward, and I'm sure they will. But >they're already better than all the alternatives. Doesn't even fit in older cars. Hardly the best. And there's nothing wrnog with them a bit more sodium wouodn't fix :-)
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Oct 2006 22:48 GMT > I thought your desire for "instant on" was in regard to switching on the > high beams. Legal regulations worldwide call for instant-on low and high beams (to greatly simplify the requirements, which are rather more complex).
> I usually turn my low beams on long before actual dark and if they took > a minute or longer to turn on, it would be no big deal. Automotive HIDs take about 60 seconds to attain full intensity.
> Your Cibie's don't fit in any modern cars. When was the last car made > that takes 5.25" round headlamps. They are also only available for > "wrong-hand drive" applications, as far as I can see. They are available for both LHD and RHD applications.
> Comparing them to > factory Xenon HIDs (in the US anyway) is kind of moot. Not really...their performance is pretty similar to the good HID systems. Here is the isoscan of the Cibie CSR low beam Richard has been talking about:
http://dastern.torque.net/Photometry/Cibie_CSR_Iso.jpg
All the performance aspects of this beam (total flux, beam width, hot spot intensity and placement, etc.) are very similar to the good HID systems. This illustrates my point in an earlier post about the difference between light source efficiency (HID has an undispluted advantage) and overall system efficiency (totally dependent on optical engineering). Note also, the plotted low beam is very clearly for RH-traffic (LH-drive) usage.
For your perusal, the matching high beam is here:
http://dastern.torque.net/Photometry/Cibie_CSRH_Iso.jpg
> But my point was (is) the color doesn't *have* to be a problem. 4300k > HID is not blue in the least. There are actually high spikes in the blue and near-violet of the SPD of standard-production 4100k-4300k automotive HIDs.
> And I have yet to see a car manufacturer offer up any car with halogen > lights that come anywhere close to the light output of the HIDs. See the above two isoplots. There are other halogen headlamps besides these that perform similarly. Some of them even come on current and recent BMWs!
> Sure, they can be improved going forward, and I'm sure they will. But > they're already better than all the alternatives. Potentially, not necessarily.
DS
Dave Plowman (News) - 09 Oct 2006 09:45 GMT > > Comparing them to > > factory Xenon HIDs (in the US anyway) is kind of moot.
> Not really...their performance is pretty similar to the good HID > systems. Here is the isoscan of the Cibie CSR low beam Richard has been > talking about:
> http://dastern.torque.net/Photometry/Cibie_CSR_Iso.jpg This lamp uses a power of bulb that is illegal for road use in many countries.
 Signature *Letting a cat out of the bag is easier than putting it back in *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Daniel J. Stern - 09 Oct 2006 17:39 GMT > > Not really...their performance is pretty similar to the good HID > > systems. Here is the isoscan of the Cibie CSR low beam Richard has been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This lamp uses a power of bulb that is illegal for road use in many > countries. Wrong. The H1 bulb was the world's first automotive halogen bulb, introduced and homologated in Europe in 1962 and first permitted in the US in 1993. The isoscan in question was taken of a lamp equipped with a 12v 55w H1 bulb bearing both ECE-approval and DOT-certification. Bulb wattage ratings such as "12v 55w" are NOMINAL ratings. Under ECE R37, the maximum permissible ACTUAL wattage of a "12v 55w" H1 bulb is 68w at 13.2v. Under US 49CFR564, the maximum permissible ACTUAL wattage of a "12v 55w" H1 bulb is 65w at 12.8v. These requirements are practically identical; the difference in permissible range is created by the difference in test voltage specification.
Line voltage in a running automobile is typically between 13 and 14, so this isoscan was taken at 13.5v so as to most accurately reproduce performance in service. Remember, tungsten filament power (wattage) varies exponentially to the approximate power 1.6 with changing voltage:
W = w(V' ÷ V)^1.6
The H1 bulb in this particular lamp was consuming 63w at 13.5v. Run the numbers:
W = 63(13.2 ÷ 13.5)^1.6
W = 60.77 @ 13.2v <--COMPLIES with ECE R37
W = 63(12.8 ÷ 13.5) ^1.6
W = 57.86 @ 12.8v <--COMPLIES with US 49CFR564
Now...what was it you were saying about illegal bulbs?
DS
bfd - 09 Oct 2006 18:00 GMT Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > Not really...their performance is pretty similar to the good HID > > systems. Here is the isoscan of the Cibie CSR low beam Richard has been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This lamp uses a power of bulb that is illegal for road use in many > countries. Wrong. The H1 bulb was the world's first automotive halogen bulb, introduced and homologated in Europe in 1962 and first permitted in the US in 1993. The isoscan in question was taken of a lamp equipped with a 12v 55w H1 bulb bearing both ECE-approval and DOT-certification. Bulb wattage ratings such as "12v 55w" are NOMINAL ratings. Under ECE R37, the maximum permissible ACTUAL wattage of a "12v 55w" H1 bulb is 68w at 13.2v. Under US 49CFR564, the maximum permissible ACTUAL wattage of a "12v 55w" H1 bulb is 65w at 12.8v. These requirements are practically identical; the difference in permissible range is created by the difference in test voltage specification.
Line voltage in a running automobile is typically between 13 and 14, so this isoscan was taken at 13.5v so as to most accurately reproduce performance in service. Remember, tungsten filament power (wattage) varies exponentially to the approximate power 1.6 with changing voltage:
W = w(V' ÷ V)^1.6
The H1 bulb in this particular lamp was consuming 63w at 13.5v. Run the numbers:
W = 63(13.2 ÷ 13.5)^1.6
W = 60.77 @ 13.2v <--COMPLIES with ECE R37
W = 63(12.8 ÷ 13.5) ^1.6
W = 57.86 @ 12.8v <--COMPLIES with US 49CFR564
Now...what was it you were saying about illegal bulbs?
How does the the H1 bulb compare to the Toshiba Halogen Infrared Reflective (HIR) bulbs like these here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/TOSHIBA-HIR-9011-9012-BULBS-THE-BRIGHTEST-AVA ILABLE_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33710QQihZ007QQitemZ170036254449QQrdZ1QQss pagenameZWDVW
At $26 PER BULB, its quite expensive, especially for BMWs which require 4 of them. Still, itscomparable upgrade type bulbs, but and less costly than Xenon HID options.
Nevertheless, if you're buying a brand new BMW and have a choice of purchasing the adaptive Xenon HID headlights at the bargain price of $800, you are a fool if you don't get it!
Daniel J. Stern - 09 Oct 2006 18:43 GMT > How does the the H1 bulb compare to the Toshiba Halogen Infrared Reflective > (HIR) bulbs The HIR bulbs are more efficient (more lumens per watt) and produce more light than H1 bulbs. They give a scarce combination of high output *and* long life -- that's why they're expensive; magic does not come cheaply! However, the two types can only be compared on a conceptual level for they are not physically interchangeable. The HIR1 bulbs can be modified to fit in place of 9005 (HB3) bulbs, and the HIR2 bulbs can be modified to fit in place of 9006 (HB4) bulbs in HEADLAMPS (not fog lamps -- way too much glare), but that is the extent of the non-spec swap potential for these bulbs. No H1 swaps, no H7 swaps, etc.
Candlepower (www.candlepowerinc.com ,yucky website but you can fish contact info out of it) has them in stock in North America.
> Nevertheless, if you're buying a brand new BMW and have a choice of > purchasing the adaptive Xenon HID headlights at the bargain price of $800, > you are a fool if you don't get it! Agreed!
DS
Richard Sexton - 09 Oct 2006 22:15 GMT >> How does the the H1 bulb compare to the Toshiba Halogen Infrared Reflective >> (HIR) bulbs > >The HIR bulbs are more efficient (more lumens per watt) and produce >more light than H1 bulbs. They give a scarce combination of high output >*and* long life -- that's why they're expensive; magic does not come How many lumens per watt? Comperable to fluorescent or mercury vapour or hihg presure sodium? Or are they still in the halogen range?
How do they work?
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
bfd - 09 Oct 2006 23:16 GMT > >> How does the the H1 bulb compare to the Toshiba Halogen Infrared Reflective > >> (HIR) bulbs [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How do they work? Basically, HIR bulbs work like any other bulb. The HIR bulbs replace the 9005 (high) 9006 (low) bulbs on E34 and E36 cars. According to one website, the 9012 HIR low bulb puts out 1875 lumen and the 9011 HIR high bulbs put on 2500 lumens:
http://www.hirheadlights.com/stats.htm
Roundel also did a favorable review of HIR bulbs:
http://www.bmwcca.org/members/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Let_There_Be_E36_Light
The only thing is HIR bulbs are like $25 each or $100 for a set of 4. Not exactly cheap, but its supposedly better than other brands like Silverstars.
Daniel J. Stern - 10 Oct 2006 01:16 GMT > Basically, HIR bulbs work like any other bulb. Well, sure, in that there's a glowing filament in a halogenated atmosphere. The reason why their luminous efficacy is so much higher is the infrared-reflective nature of the envelope (glass). See my post in response to Sexton.
> Roundel also did a favorable review of HIR bulbs: > http://www.bmwcca.org/members/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Let_There_Be_E36_Light I spent quite a bit of time on the phone and in front of the computer (and at the post office) contributing to that article. It came out pretty well, even the parts I didn't help with ;-)
> The only thing is HIR bulbs are like $25 each or $100 for a set of 4. Not exactly cheap, but its > supposedly better than other brands like Silverstars. Sylvania Silverstar bulbs are a scam, just like all the rest of the blue-glass "extra white" bulbs. They produce less light over a shorter lifespan, at a premium price, all in exchange for an abstruse, marketeer-fabricated notion of looking "cool". See data at http://tinyurl.com/hlwvq
DS
See
Daniel J. Stern - 10 Oct 2006 01:11 GMT > >The HIR bulbs are more efficient (more lumens per watt) and produce > >more light than H1 bulbs. They give a scarce combination of high output > >*and* long life -- that's why they're expensive; magic does not come > > How many lumens per watt? HIR2, 31 to 33 lumens per watt HIR1, 36 to 39 lumens per watt
For comparison:
H1, 24 to 26 lumens per watt HB4 (9006), 17 to 19 lumens per watt
> How do they work? Spherical bulb glass rather than tubular, with multilayer dichroic coating that reflects IR and passes visible light. Filament at centre of sphere, so IR is reflected back onto filament, heating it up hotter than it can be heated by a given electric current, giving greater luminance without the sharply negative effect on filament life that comes with increasing luminance by means of increased wattage.
DS
Dave Plowman (News) - 21 Sep 2006 19:33 GMT > >If your problem is that you don't think headlamps should have greater > >than 5000k color temps then say so. It's not an issue with the method > >of the light that you have, but rather the color.
> The color is the worst problem. Have you ever driven a car with HID lighting? You very soon don't notice the *slight* difference in colour temperature if you've got 4300k lamps.
> But as long as I can get more light for > 1/4 the cost I see no point in HID lamps to say nothing of the fact it's > easy to install or adapt good halogens, but retroftting HIDs to any car > is simply a fantasy. No it's not. I've driven a car with a conversion and it was fine - although of course illegal in the UK. But then so are greater than 55 watt halogens for dips.
> It's a great technology to be sure, but its young and has a way to go. It's anything but young - the technology has been used in film etc lighting for many years.
 Signature *El nino made me do it
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 21 Sep 2006 21:36 GMT >> >If your problem is that you don't think headlamps should have greater >> >than 5000k color temps then say so. It's not an issue with the method [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Have you ever driven a car with HID lighting? You very soon don't notice >the *slight* difference in colour temperature if you've got 4300k lamps. Of course not. Under warm white fluorescent or 7500K daylight or even gro-lux your eyes gets used to it and seems "normal".
The complaints piling up at NHSTA about oncoming HID dazzle tell another story though, they're damn annoying. In Yurrup yo uhave to have leverlers just to address this problem which are not required here.
>> But as long as I can get more light for >> 1/4 the cost I see no point in HID lamps to say nothing of the fact it's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >although of course illegal in the UK. But then so are greater than 55 watt >halogens for dips. What kind of conversion?
>> It's a great technology to be sure, but its young and has a way to go. > >It's anything but young - the technology has been used in film etc >lighting for many years. HID lamps are indeed not new, but they are very much so in automotive applications which is what I was referring to. "white" HID lamps are reaonably new, previously only mercuty (very blue) and sodium (very yellow) were available.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 21 Sep 2006 22:21 GMT > HID lamps are indeed not new, but they are very much so in automotive > applications which is what I was referring to. "white" HID lamps are > reaonably new, previously only mercuty (very blue) and sodium (very > yellow) were available. You really think a lamp with a colour temperature far removed from daylight is going to be used as a daylight substitute or fill in filming?
 Signature *Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 21 Sep 2006 23:49 GMT >> HID lamps are indeed not new, but they are very much so in automotive >> applications which is what I was referring to. "white" HID lamps are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You really think a lamp with a colour temperature far removed from >daylight is going to be used as a daylight substitute or fill in filming? Uh, no. That's why I didn't say that. HID lamps have been in use as street lights for decades. Low and high pressure sodium are usually used because they have the longest life. How often you change the bulb is a big deal when they're way up there. Mercury is ususally used where the amount but not color of light is important. They spike madly in the blu end of the spectrum.
HQI/Halide lamps have been around for "only" abot 30 years and are more or less "white".
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Oct 2006 22:41 GMT > > HIDs ARE great, but, they have a lot of problems with automotive > > applications: they don't come on instanly and a lot has to be done to > > get around this.
> Err, how often does it get dark suddenly? I've never found the time they > take to get to full output a problem. That's because of what Richard said: The automotive HID burner must be hammered VERY hard to reach its full intensity as quickly as it does, and that length of time is still around 60 seconds. The Xenon present in automotive HIDs is there so that they will produce light immediately upon switch-on, which is a legal requirement.
> They produce approximately three times the light for the same current - True, but it's important to remember that this is a *light source* efficiency advantage. It does not necessarily translate to a *headlamp* efficiency advantage. It's still down to the optical engineers, stylists and beancounters (not always in that order!) to determine how efficient the lamps will be. As mentioned in a previous post, there are good and bad HID and halogen headlamps. A good one of either type is preferable to a bad one of either type.
DS
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Oct 2006 22:35 GMT > high efficiency discharge types will be the way forward > - as well as LED for low powered applications. Common mistake. The best present LED headlamps give performance nearly equal to the low-end HID systems, with **double** the power consumption of an HID system and triple the cost. The power consumption and cost will decrease with time, but it is an error to conflate the characteristics of high-power illumination LEDs with those of low-power signalling LEDs (e.g. the little green, red and blue indicators on your electronic equipment, dashboard, etc.). Too, the system power is increased by the necessary forced-air ventilation. Remember, LEDs produce significant heat on a per-lumen basis, and instead of being cast forward with the light beam, this heat is cast rearward at the junction. The heat must be exhausted from the rear, else overheat the junction, dropping light output significantly and threatening the structural integrity of the lamp housing. At the same time, heat must be supplied to the lens of an LED headlamp for melting snow, ice and condensation fog. This usually entails electric heating, which further ups the system power consumption.
> the sure thing is the tungsten filament bulb's days are numbered. Not likely. Over 75% of the new-vehicle fleet in the first world are still factory equipped with tungsten-halogen headlamps, and while HID and LED headlamps will gradually increase their market share, they are unlikely to comprise a majority of headlamps on the road in the foreseeable future.
DS
Dave Plowman (News) - 09 Oct 2006 09:41 GMT > > the sure thing is the tungsten filament bulb's days are numbered.
> Not likely. Over 75% of the new-vehicle fleet in the first world are > still factory equipped with tungsten-halogen headlamps, and while HID > and LED headlamps will gradually increase their market share, they are > unlikely to comprise a majority of headlamps on the road in the > foreseeable future. I'd say you have a rather typical view from some that the energy consumption of car lighting doesn't matter.
Automotive makers the world over have been proved to pay scant attention to such things until pushed into it by legislation, etc.
 Signature *I took an IQ test and the results were negative.
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Daniel J. Stern - 09 Oct 2006 17:29 GMT > > > the sure thing is the tungsten filament bulb's days are numbered.
> > Not likely. Over 75% of the new-vehicle fleet in the first world are > > still factory equipped with tungsten-halogen headlamps, and while HID [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd say you have a rather typical view from some that the energy > consumption of car lighting doesn't matter. Oh, would you? Well, me, I'd say I didn't see you at the V.I.S.I.O.N. automotive lighting research and development symposium last week in Rouen. And, come to think of it, I don't recall seeing you at the GRE (Groupe de Rapporteurs d'Éclairage, the UN international working group on automotive lighting regulation) meeting in Geneva or ISAL (International Symposium on Automotive Lighting) in Darmstadt last autumn, or at any of the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board annual conferences over the last five years. I'm sure you attended at least some of these...right? So, you would've participated in at least some of the same roundtable discussions, heard some of the same paper presentations, gone on some of the same night demonstration drives, reviewed some of the same data, spent time talking with the same researchers, regulators, scientists, R&D chiefs...
...oh, you weren't at any of those? Fancy that.
> *I took an IQ test and the results were negative. Mm.
DS
Dave Plowman (News) - 09 Oct 2006 20:04 GMT > > > > the sure thing is the tungsten filament bulb's days are numbered.
> > > Not likely. Over 75% of the new-vehicle fleet in the first world are > > > still factory equipped with tungsten-halogen headlamps, and while [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'd say you have a rather typical view from some that the energy > > consumption of car lighting doesn't matter.
> Oh, would you? Well, me, I'd say I didn't see you at the V.I.S.I.O.N. > automotive lighting research and development symposium last week in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > talking with the same researchers, regulators, scientists, R&D > chiefs...
> ...oh, you weren't at any of those? Fancy that. Fine. And you still say the tungsten bulb will be with us forever? Have you not considered the safety angle of replacing them with LEDs for tail lights, etc?
When discharge headlights first appeared they were a rare and expensive option on luxury cars. Now you'll find them available on shopping hatches. It doesn't take too much foresight to see the price dropping 'till they are standard on most cars. Might not be good news for aftermarket sales of headlights etc, though.
 Signature *Proofread carefully to see if you any words out or mispeld something *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Daniel J. Stern - 10 Oct 2006 01:01 GMT > Fine. And you still say the tungsten bulb will be with us forever? Please don't put words in my mouth-wait til after the first date, thanks.
But the filament lamp will be with us for a very long time to come. In this field, old technology has a tendency to hang around for many years after the introduction of newer technology aimed at replacing the old.
> Have > you not considered the safety angle of replacing them with LEDs for tail > lights, etc? I have indeed, and I've written on it extensively. Your point...?
> When discharge headlights first appeared they were a rare and expensive > option on luxury cars. The series-production introduction of discharge headlamps was about 15 years ago. Market penetration worldwide hovers at around 20% overall (lower in North America, a little higher in Europe, a lot higher in Japan).
> It doesn't take too much foresight to see the price dropping 'till they > are standard on most cars. Actually, what's more likely to occur is that LED headlamps will cross the cost-effectiveness barriers before HIDs do. It's easier to foresee a worldwide market in 2 decades' time consisting of perhaps 40 to 60 percent tungsten-halogen, 15 to 25 percent HID and the rest LED.
DS
Dave Plowman (News) - 10 Oct 2006 01:19 GMT > > Fine. And you still say the tungsten bulb will be with us forever?
> Please don't put words in my mouth-wait til after the first date, > thanks. Let me remind you of what you wrote in reply to me:-
*************************
DP the sure thing is the tungsten filament bulb's days are numbered.
DS Not likely. Over 75% of the new-vehicle fleet in the first world are still factory equipped with tungsten-halogen headlamps, and while HID and LED headlamps will gradually increase their market share, they are unlikely to comprise a majority of headlamps on the road in the foreseeable future.
*****************
Either their days are numbered or they'll last forever. Which is it?
 Signature *Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Daniel J. Stern - 10 Oct 2006 01:35 GMT > > > Fine. And you still say the tungsten bulb will be with us forever?
> > Please don't put words in my mouth-wait til after the first date, > > thanks.
> Let me remind you of what you wrote in reply to me:-
> ************************* > DP the sure thing is the tungsten filament bulb's days are numbered. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > foreseeable future. > ***************** Foreseeable future != forever.
DS
Richard Sexton - 10 Oct 2006 01:37 GMT >Either their days are numbered or they'll last forever. Which is it? Both. New cars will migrate away but it is also true that filament lamps will always be around for older cars.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 10 Oct 2006 09:05 GMT > >Either their days are numbered or they'll last forever. Which is it?
> Both. New cars will migrate away but it is also true that > filament lamps will always be around for older cars. Maybe with headlights, but other bulbs could be replaced with low energy long life types when they fail.
I dunno about the US, but in the UK it's common to see older cars with many of the rear lights, etc, not operating. The use of quality well designed LEDs, more attention to grounding rear lights properly and 'hard' wiring to the bulbs should end this as they should last the life of the car.
 Signature *A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Richard Sexton - 10 Oct 2006 22:02 GMT >> >Either their days are numbered or they'll last forever. Which is it? > >> Both. New cars will migrate away but it is also true that >> filament lamps will always be around for older cars. > >Maybe with headlights Therefore incandescents will always be around. They still make buggy whips too (just not very many).
>I dunno about the US, but in the UK it's common to see older cars with >many of the rear lights, etc, not operating. Yeah I had a British car once too.
(I'm in Canada BTW, not the US; although I lived in LA for a decade I preferred Canada. I'm also the evil bastard that convinced Stern to move to Canada; he lives a couple of hours from me)
>The use of quality well >designed LEDs, more attention to grounding rear lights properly and 'hard' >wiring to the bulbs should end this as they should last the life of the >car. Yeah, ABOUT that. The first time I saw a real LED work back in the 70's I looked at it and thought "man, this is gonna change everything". 30 years later they show up in some flashlights and as 18-wheeler taillights. I'm still waiting. There isn't one single drop in replacement LED signalling bulb I'm aware of and while it may happen in time, that time aint yet.
And then you have the purists. These are the guys for which not only does the bulbs have to be correct it has to be exactly the same as the one the factory shipped it with, all markings intact etc. I do realize it's a very niche market but you're not gonna win a concours with a batwing CSL or Gullwing with LED taillights.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Dave Plowman (News) - 10 Oct 2006 23:49 GMT > >> >Either their days are numbered or they'll last forever. Which is it? > > > >> Both. New cars will migrate away but it is also true that > >> filament lamps will always be around for older cars. > > > >Maybe with headlights
> Therefore incandescents will always be around. They still make buggy > whips too (just not very many). Which really is what I meant.
> >I dunno about the US, but in the UK it's common to see older cars with > >many of the rear lights, etc, not operating.
> Yeah I had a British car once too. ;-) Perhaps it's the fact that old Japanese cars go on and on that leads to so many rear lamp problems.
> (I'm in Canada BTW, Ah - that's the best way. No motor makers to create myths round.
> not the US; although I lived in LA for a decade I > preferred Canada. I'm also the evil bastard that convinced Stern to move > to Canada; he lives a couple of hours from me)
> >The use of quality well designed LEDs, more attention to grounding rear > >lights properly and 'hard' wiring to the bulbs should end this as they > >should last the life of the car.
> Yeah, ABOUT that. The first time I saw a real LED work back in the 70's > I looked at it and thought "man, this is gonna change everything". 30 > years later they show up in some flashlights and as 18-wheeler > taillights. I'm still waiting. There isn't one single drop in > replacement LED signalling bulb I'm aware of and while it may happen in > time, that time aint yet. There are 'drop in' types, but not E marked so not legal in Europe - although this may change. Although rather the same applies as using discharge types in a lamp unit designed for tungsten - the optics aren't optimised for an LED substitute.
> And then you have the purists. These are the guys for which not only > does the bulbs have to be correct it has to be exactly the same as the > one the factory shipped it with, all markings intact etc. I do realize > it's a very niche market but you're not gonna win a concours with a > batwing CSL or Gullwing with LED taillights. Indeed. My comments referred to what is likely to happen in the near future with new production.
 Signature *No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a sh.t driver*
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Daniel J. Stern - 13 Oct 2006 19:13 GMT [LED replacements for existing vehicle lamps]
> There are 'drop in' types, but not E marked so not legal in Europe - > although this may change. Won't. "LED bulb" retrofits are not safely usable *not* just because they lack an E-mark, but because they are fundamentally incompatible with optics designed for use with a filament bulb. It's not a question of "optimisation", as you stated. It is a question of fundamental optic design, and the output characteristics of LEDs differ so radically from those of filaments that a drop-in "LED bulb" replacement is just not physically possible right now.
About 10 days ago, I had dinner with Osram Optoelectronics' LED R&D chief, and we discussed in detail the question of an LED device to directly and effectively/safely/legally replace a standard filament bulb. He's thought about this question at great length, and done a great many experiments and studies. At the **CONCEPTUAL** level, it could theoretically be done using a Lambertian-emitting LED powerhead (this is the side-and-rear emitting type which has the same surface luminance regardless of the angle of view -- in contrast to the conventional "straight ahead" emitters which produce a spot beam facing straight away from the emitter). The powerhead would have to be engineered such that its surface luminance and far-field illuminance are within the 90th percentile tolerance of the luminance and illuminance of the specific filament bulb one wanted to replace, *from all polar angles*. For a P21W or P21/5W replacement, this would take an estimated 10,000 man-hours of R&D because no existing product even remotely approaches the 90th-percentile tolerance range relative to P21W or P21/5W. The R&D chief estimated this would begin to become an economical product to develop at high OEM volumes of around 10 million, which defeats the point of developing such a device, because at that point it becomes more economical to develop a new LED solution independent of what went before, i.e., we discard the notion of backwards compatibility with filament bulbs. There is an existing first-generation Lambertian-emitting LED powerhead, the Osram Joule, http://ledsmagazine.com/articles/news/2/6/26 . It is used in the current Mercury Mountaineer SUV in the North American market. An optical system (lens and reflector) can be designed that will produce compliant performance from either a Joule LED or a conventional bulb, **If contemplated from the lamp design stage that there will be bulb and LED versions of the lamp**. He has spent many hours testing Joule LEDs in pre-existing bulb-type optics-he has specially-modified Joule powerheads that can be moved axially to correct the focal length for whatever lamp reflector is being tested. He mounts them in an axial micromanipulator and finds the optimal placement of the powerhead. He has found a compliance rate of a little under 50%. That is, with the state-of-the-art LED emitter, he can make about half the bulb-type lamps he tests produce minimally compliant photometry. There's no predictability to it; some lamps that are conceptually identical but stylistically different will give different pass/fail results. And, the compliance success rate is helped by the relatively low intensity requirements for ECE-spec vehicle exterior lighting devices relative to North American-spec items. US amber rear turn signal intensity requirements are 130-750cd, ECE requirements are much lower at 45-180cd. Likewise, a US brake lamp is 70-300cd, while an ECE brake lamp is much lower at 54-167cd. So, the minimum permissible intensity of ECE brake and signal lamps is between 35% and 77% of the minimum permissible US intensity. Where overall intensity is a limiting factor in LED retrofit success, these numbers are significant.
But all of this is theoretical right now. The "LED bulbs" presently available consist of a cluster of axial-emitting LEDs grafted onto a bulb-type base, and they are not only without E-mark, they are physically without hope of producing even barely minimally adequate safety performance. The result of using such an "LED bulb", under the best of conditions, is a 25mm spot of insufficiently intense light. Distribution and intensity of light through the required vertical and horizontal angles, and dispersion across the required minimum projected effective surface area, is not even remotely approached. And yes, this applies to the fancy/expensive "deluxe LED bulbs" with side-facing as well as rear-facing emitters, too. So, no, your guess that the legality of these devices "may change" has no basis in fact.
DS
Dave Plowman (News) - 19 Sep 2006 21:23 GMT > Are you sure about that Dave? I thought I had read somewhere that the > eye is *less* responsive to blue light than longer wavelengths, > especially yellow. OTOH, I also know the eye is also not very sensitive > to red light considering that is the color used in "night rigging" ships > to maintain better night vision of the crew. Perhaps the eye's > sensitivity drops off at both ends of the spectrum? It's most sensitive to green of the three primaries. But more sensitive at the blue than red end - at either side of the roughly centre green. We're used to tungsten filament lamps being towards the red end of daylight - which is probably why many HID types look blue in comparison. If all lights were HID of the same colour temperature they'd soon look the norm.
 Signature *A fool and his money are soon partying *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Oct 2006 22:30 GMT > It's most sensitive to green of the three primaries. But more sensitive at > the blue than red end - at either side of the roughly centre green. > We're used to tungsten filament lamps being towards the red end of > daylight - which is probably why many HID types look blue in comparison. No, automotive HIDs look blue because of the high spikes in the blue and near violet ranges of their SPD.
DS
Richard Sexton - 19 Sep 2006 22:02 GMT >> Discharge lamps of the type used on cars can be any colour temperature you >> want. However, the eye is more sensitive towards the blue end of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to maintain better night vision of the crew. Perhaps the eye's >sensitivity drops off at both ends of the spectrum? The eye is most sensitive to green. This is why most fluorescent tubes spike in the green portion of the specturm - they look brighter. This is why they show up as green on regular film. They ARE more green, but your eyes normalizes the light and it looks "normal" when you're used to them.
The longer the wavelength of light the less is scatters in fog. This is why fog lamps are yellow and why backscatter with blue halogens in inclement conditions is becoming increasingly of concern to NHTSA.
Expect to see more white HID lamps. Blue is like, so passe now :-)
Note also those blue incandescent bulbs sold as fake HID's are flat out illegal, the only legal front facing bulbs are white and yellow.
Check your local lighting regulations. They are, if nothing else, worth a laugh.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Oct 2006 22:37 GMT > The longer the wavelength of light the less is scatters in fog. This is why > fog lamps are yellow Wrong. There is no Rayleigh Scattering of vehicle lamp light in roadway fog. Rayleigh Scattering (the effect that makes the sky blue) occurs only when the water droplets are smaller than the light wavelengths, and such is not the case (not by several orders of magnitude) in roadway fog. The advantage of yellow light in rain/fog/snow has to do with the human visual system, which has a very tough time processing blue light.
Despite this fact, "fog lamps are yellow" is wrong. Fog lamps are permitted to be white, selective yellow, or any color in between.
DS
Richard Sexton - 09 Oct 2006 02:04 GMT >> The longer the wavelength of light the less is scatters in fog. This is why >> fog lamps are yellow > >Wrong. There is no Rayleigh Scattering of vehicle lamp light in roadway Rayleigh? I had a Rayleigh bicycles once.
>fog. Rayleigh Scattering (the effect that makes the sky blue) occurs >only when the water droplets are smaller than the light wavelengths, >and such is not the case (not by several orders of magnitude) in >roadway fog. The advantage of yellow light in rain/fog/snow has to do >with the human visual system, which has a very tough time processing >blue light. You're on crack, Stern, I saw it on tv so it must me true.
>Despite this fact, "fog lamps are yellow" is wrong. Fog lamps are >permitted to be white, selective yellow, or any color in between. Did you ever find any more of those French yellow capsules?
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Daniel J. Stern - 09 Oct 2006 02:19 GMT > You're on crack, Stern, I saw it on tv so it must me true. It's not true unless it's on the interweb.
> >Despite this fact, "fog lamps are yellow" is wrong. Fog lamps are > >permitted to be white, selective yellow, or any color in between. > > Did you ever find any more of those French yellow capsules? Which ones? Yellow H1 and H3 bulbs are in stock, as are yellow balloons for H4 bulbs.
DS
Richard Sexton - 09 Oct 2006 02:25 GMT >> You're on crack, Stern, I saw it on tv so it must me true. > >It's not true unless it's on the interweb. That's "Intarweb".
>> >Despite this fact, "fog lamps are yellow" is wrong. Fog lamps are >> >permitted to be white, selective yellow, or any color in between. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Which ones? Yellow H1 and H3 bulbs are in stock, as are yellow balloons >for H4 bulbs. The H1 and H3 are those dichoic yellow things? They're yellowish bit not screaming oh-my-god-looks-french yellow like the baloons are.
If you have these in stock again I'll be dropping by most likely on wednesday.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Daniel J. Stern - 09 Oct 2006 04:40 GMT > The H1 and H3 are those dichoic yellow things? Yes, new manufacture (Tungsram of Hungary), much better than previous production.
> If you have these in stock again I'll be dropping by most likely on wednesday. You can have them when mbz.org is fully up and running again.
Richard Sexton - 09 Oct 2006 04:44 GMT >> The H1 and H3 are those dichoic yellow things? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You can have them when mbz.org is fully up and running again. Everyone's a friggin critic [1]. What part doesn't work now?
Answer your phone you cretin.
[1] Critic: n; legless men that teach running.
 Signature Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Oct 2006 22:11 GMT > Discharge lamps of the type used on cars can be any colour temperature you > want. No, they can't. In the entire civilized world except for Japan, the only legally-approved HID light sources for car headlamps produce light with CCT of 4100k to 4800k.
> However, the eye is more sensitive towards the blue end of the > spectrum than it is to the red, The human eye is most sensitive to yellow-green.
DS
Dave Plowman (News) - 09 Oct 2006 09:33 GMT > > Discharge lamps of the type used on cars can be any colour temperature > > you want.
> No, they can't. In the entire civilized world except for Japan, the > only legally-approved HID light sources for car headlamps produce light > with CCT of 4100k to 4800k. You've taken my quote out of context. I was meaning they can be *made* in near any colour temperature. The legality or otherwise is a different issue.
> > However, the eye is more sensitive towards the blue end of the > > spectrum than it is to the red,
> The human eye is most sensitive to yellow-green. Again, out of context. The discussion was of 'red' halogens versus 'blue' discharge.
 Signature *I was once a millionaire but my mom gave away my baseball cards
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Daniel J. Stern - 08 Oct 2006 22:06 GMT > >The factory OE Xenon adaptive headlights is an excellent option for > >those needing better night vision and at what, about $800, is a > >BARGAIN. I pity the fool who passes on this bargain and then later > >decide he wants it.
> Well, in all fairness it is possible to install halogen driving lights > that will light up the road better, cost at least half as much, won't > give you nast backdazzzle in inclement weather and aren't as offensive > to oncoming drivers. Naw, it isn't. "Driving lamps" are auxiliary high beam lamps, never safe or legal for use with low beams, in traffic, or in inclement weather.
DS
|
|
|