 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / October 2006headlights on all day
i have a 325is 95 and the high beams on on as soon as i turn on my car .. they are quite a bit dimmer then if i turn on my lights .. i know there suposed to be like that but i want to know how make them not come on untill i want them to. > i have a 325is 95 and the high beams on on as soon as i turn on my car > .. they are quite a bit dimmer then if i turn on my lights .. i know > there suposed to be like that but i want to know how make them not come > on untill i want them to. That is called "Daytime Running Lights" or DRLs for short. This link should help you locate the module to remove. http://www.unofficialbmw.com/e36/electrical/e36_daytime_running_lights.html  Signature-Fred W >> i have a 325is 95 and the high beams on on as soon as i turn on my car >> .. they are quite a bit dimmer then if i turn on my lights .. i know [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This link should help you locate the module to remove. > http://www.unofficialbmw.com/e36/electrical/e36_daytime_running_lights.html I don't get how BMW can be stupid enough to use the high beams as DRLs. Turn signals, fog lights or low beams at a reduced voltage would have been much better... Ulf sweet.. thanks guys ... this worked > I don't get how BMW can be stupid enough to use the high beams as DRLs. > Turn signals, fog lights or low beams at a reduced voltage would have > been much better... Actually, no. The high beams at reduced intensity are the best option for two reasons. One: They are more apt to get the attention of other drivers as they are fairly bright, even at reduced intensity. Two: If you burn one of them out (due to them being constantly on) you will not lose any of the more important light functions: signalling turns, or low beams. Don't forget, not all cars come equiped with fog lights. Having fog lights where I live is completely unnecesary as we seldom get real fog. Signature-Fred W >> I don't get how BMW can be stupid enough to use the high beams as DRLs. >> Turn signals, fog lights or low beams at a reduced voltage would have >> been much better... > >Actually, no. The high beams at reduced intensity are the best option >for two reasons. The best option is a set of lights specifically designed to be used as running lights, i.e., with the appropriate intensity and beam pattern. >One: They are more apt to get the attention of other drivers as they >are fairly bright, even at reduced intensity. Yes, they are fairly bright, and annoyingly distractive in my rear view mirror. I don't consider either of those attributes to be a feature. >Two: If you burn one of >them out (due to them being constantly on) you will not lose any of the >more important light functions: This is not a justification to use the high beams as running lights, this is a reason to have a separate set of running lights. If I remember correctly, GM made the same foolish engineering decision regarding running lights. I thought BMW knew better.... >>> I don't get how BMW can be stupid enough to use the high beams as DRLs. >>> Turn signals, fog lights or low beams at a reduced voltage would have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The best option is a set of lights specifically designed to be used as > running lights, i.e., with the appropriate intensity and beam pattern. Exactly. >> One: They are more apt to get the attention of other drivers as they >> are fairly bright, even at reduced intensity. > > Yes, they are fairly bright, and annoyingly distractive in my rear view > mirror. I don't consider either of those attributes to be a feature. They're more than fairly bright, they're way too bright to be used as DRLs. >> Two: If you burn one of >> them out (due to them being constantly on) you will not lose any of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If I remember correctly, GM made the same foolish engineering decision > regarding running lights. I thought BMW knew better.... Yup, GM likes to equip Saturns with them. Fortunately a few new BMW's have "angle eyes" DRLs. I assume this is mostly due to Audi's successful LED DRLs. Ulf >Fortunately a few new BMW's >have "angle eyes" DRLs. I'm reminded of the old joke about the schoolkid in math class who talked about 'a cute angel.' SignatureDan. > Yup, GM likes to equip Saturns with them. Fortunately a few new BMW's > have "angle eyes" DRLs. I assume this is mostly due to Audi's successful > LED DRLs. "Angle" (sic) eyes are not DRLs. I suppose that they they take the place of "city lights" in those obscure European places that still require such, but they are most certainly NOT DRLs. DRLs are *supposed* to be obnoxious. If they aren't getting your attention, they aren't doing what they are intended to do... Signature-Fred W >> Yup, GM likes to equip Saturns with them. Fortunately a few new BMW's >> have "angle eyes" DRLs. I assume this is mostly due to Audi's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > place of "city lights" in those obscure European places that still > require such, but they are most certainly NOT DRLs. Please keep up. On the "older" BMW's they're used as parking lights only, but starting on the new E90 coupe they'll be used as DRLs too. And most countries in the world require parking lights, even the US, so they're not reserved for "obscure European places." > DRLs are *supposed* to be obnoxious. If they aren't getting your > attention, they aren't doing what they are intended to do... No, they're not. High beams, even at a reduced voltage, are *too* bright to be used with oncoming traffic. They're also illegal outside NA, why do you think that is..? Ulf >>> Yup, GM likes to equip Saturns with them. Fortunately a few new BMW's >>> have "angle eyes" DRLs. I assume this is mostly due to Audi's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > most countries in the world require parking lights, even the US, so > they're not reserved for "obscure European places." Please try to comprehend. Parking lights and city lights are two different things. Parking lights are used when the car is parked (obviously) in an attempt to keep it from being hit by passing motorists. City lights were intended to be used in lieu of headlights when operating in certain designated city limits, where the streetlights supposedly were adequate, to prevent glare to oncoming drivers. That practice is obsolete AFAIK, but the "city lights" are still sometimes found on some cars and are used as parking lights. There are no requirements to have or use parking lights or city lights anywhere in the US that I am aware of. Having *any* lights on when a car is parked is not common practice here. What is required are "running lights" which are usually the same lamps that you might call "parking lights" except they are illuminated while driving so that other drivers can get a sense of the width of the vehicle, especially in the event of a burnt out headlamp. >> DRLs are *supposed* to be obnoxious. If they aren't getting your >> attention, they aren't doing what they are intended to do... > > No, they're not. High beams, even at a reduced voltage, are *too* bright > to be used with oncoming traffic. They're also illegal outside NA, why > do you think that is..? High beams even at full voltage are not too bright to be used as DRLs when they are intended to be used, DURING THE DAY!!! They are run at reduced level to save the headlamps from burning out, not to decrease glare to oncoming drivers. During daylight hours your pupils are adjusted to the higher ambient light and glare from headlights is not an issue. You may be irritated by these headlights, but you know they are there, so they are accomplishing their goal. Running around during the day with just angel eyes on is akin to having no DRLs as nobody will be alerted to your presence by them. If you're saying that you are using your DRLs at night (instead of your headlights) and that is when there is a glare problem, then you are obviously using your lights incorrectly. In most cars, when operating on DRLs there are no rear or running lights on, which is obviously against the law at night. Do you have some evidence that high beam running lights are illegal everywhere except North America? I kind of doubt that this is true. Signature-Fred W >>>> Yup, GM likes to equip Saturns with them. Fortunately a few new >>>> BMW's have "angle eyes" DRLs. I assume this is mostly due to Audi's [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > practice is obsolete AFAIK, but the "city lights" are still sometimes > found on some cars and are used as parking lights. My Yamaha XTZ750 has a small bulb in the lower part of the headlight reflector, my BMW E34 with projector headlights has a bulb in the upper part of the headlight, and my Camaro has separate lights in the bumper cover (shared with the turn signal, side marker lights, and DRLs). All of these lights are what I call parking lights. You may call them whatever you want, but the point of the matter is that it's illegal to drive around with nothing but them on. Of course, the are allowed to be on in combination with the headlights, fog lights, etc. > There are no requirements to have or use parking lights or city lights > anywhere in the US that I am aware of. Having *any* lights on when a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drivers can get a sense of the width of the vehicle, especially in the > event of a burnt out headlamp. All new passenger vehicles in the US, and Europe, must be equipped with parking lights. That's the law. >>> DRLs are *supposed* to be obnoxious. If they aren't getting your >>> attention, they aren't doing what they are intended to do... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > day with just angel eyes on is akin to having no DRLs as nobody will be > alerted to your presence by them. I don't know where you live, but here the weather isn't just hot and sunny. There's rain, overcast, fog, snow, etc. and in all of those situations high beam DRLs are too bright. Likewise during dusk and dawn. "Angle eye" DRLs, just like the LED DRLs on Audi's, are a great idea on the new E90 IMO. > If you're saying that you are using your DRLs at night (instead of your > headlights) and that is when there is a glare problem, then you are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you have some evidence that high beam running lights are illegal > everywhere except North America? I kind of doubt that this is true. I'm sure you do, but there's no way you can get high beam DRLs approved as DRLs in "ECE-land". IIRC the maximum light from DRLs in Europe is 800 cd, while in NA it's 7000 cd. That should tell you something... Ulf i have one for all of you ... how about everyone on this planet learns how to drive better and start paying more atention to what thier doing instead of driving like a.ses all the time ... then we wouldnt need .. DRL's or parking lights ... or ne of the other bullshit on our cars that .. lets face it makes them look ridiculus .. >i have one for all of you ... how about everyone on this planet learns > how to drive better and start paying more atention to what thier doing > instead of driving like a.ses all the time ... then we wouldnt need .. > DRL's or parking lights ... or ne of the other bullshit on our cars > that .. lets face it makes them look ridiculus .. Hear, hear! Like the woman I saw get into her car yesterday who had to dial someone on her cell phone before she even started the engine! Boy I wish cells were illegal in moving vehicles. > Hear, hear! Like the woman I saw get into her car yesterday who > had to dial someone on her cell phone before she even started > the engine! Boy I wish cells were illegal in moving vehicles. They are in the UK. Unless you have a proper hands free kit. But it made absolutely no difference to the numbers using them as it's not enforced. And despite them now having been around for many a year, plenty still can't multi-task with them. So the driving gets neglected. Signature*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >>i have one for all of you ... how about everyone on this planet learns >> how to drive better and start paying more atention to what thier doing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > had to dial someone on her cell phone before she even started > the engine! Boy I wish cells were illegal in moving vehicles. Or the multi-tasker who lost control on a 2-lane road this past July. She was drinking coffee, using her computer and cell phone and eating a snack. That person hit two people on bicycles, killed one, put the other in the hospital and ruined her own life. My wife was on the same bike trip; but won't be doing that again. Too bad. You can't legislate common sense and what about smart people whose priorities are screwed up and just don't get it? I'd like to see devices in cars that disable the car when drivers aren't paying attention. TKM Back on subject. Standards are useful and the world lacks standards. In North America front amber colored lights are most often used as DRL's and parking lights and turn signals and front marker lights, often from the same unit. In Europe amber is typically only used for flashing turn signals, and DRL's and front marker lights (be they called city lights or parking lights, etc.), are white. But North America mandates side reflectors and rear reflectors, amber in the front and red in the rear. This is not required or even permitted in many countries and I have even seen amber rear side reflectors in Italy. German manufactures are the worse in North America in having eliminated amber rear turn signals to make the vehicles look more American. BMW/Mini, VW/Audi just don't care about providing this safety feature to the drivers of North America. Honda is not far behind in this trend. The irony is that Chrysler is slowly adding this feature across its line here in North America. Richard. > Back on subject. Standards are useful and the world lacks standards. That's not quite true as written. The world *has* automotive lighting standards. Two of them: USA and ECE. Most of the world requires or accepts ECE-compliant automotive lighting and prohibits USA-compliant equipment; the US prohibits ECE and requires USA. > In North America front amber colored lights are most often used as DRL's and parking lights and > turn signals and front marker lights, often from the same unit. Yes. > In Europe amber is typically only used for flashing turn signals, and DRL's and front marker lights > (be they called city lights or parking lights, etc.), are white. Yes, but there's a terminology problem here. What we are talking about in this thread as "city lights" or "parking lights" are properly called *front position lamps* in ECE regulations and "parking lamps" in USA regulations. There is another function, properly called "parking lamps" in ECE regulations. This is the left-side-only / right-side-only front and rear lighting that can be switched on by the driver, as called for in the German road code (StVZO) when the vehicle is parked in certain kinds of streets after dark. ECE "parking lamps" are generally required to be white to the front and red to the rear, but may in some configurations be amber. > But North America mandates side reflectors and rear reflectors, amber in the front and red in the > rear. This is not required or even permitted in many countries USA and ECE regulations both require red rear reflectors. USA regulations have required amber front and red rear sidemarker lights _and_ reflectors on all vehicles since 1/1/70. In addition to improving side conspicuity by displaying the presence, position and direction of vehicles circulating in traffic after dark, the sidemarker reflectors serve the same function as the ECE "parking lamps" (i.e., provide parked-vehicle conspicuity in dark narrow roads). The US method is better in this case, for it is passive -- no action required by the driver to switch on -- and it consumes no power. ECE regulations require sidemarker lights on vehicles over 6m long, and permit but don't require them on vehicles under 6m long. They are required to emit amber light, except that a vehicle's rearmost sidemarkers may emit red light if they are grouped, combined, or reciprocally incorporated with the taillamp, the rear end-outline marker lamp, the rear fog lamp, the brake lamp, or it is grouped or has part of the light emitting surface in common with the rear reflector. Most ECE-spec vehicles that have sidemarkers have amber front and rear ones. The new Citroën C6 has amber front and rear sidemarkers even though the rear ones are built into the rear lamp cluster (and therefore could legally emit red light). But, many vehicles which in their US-spec configurations create the red rear sidemarker function by means of a wraparound red lens providing a "side view" of the bulb, likewise have the same setup in their ECE-spec configurations. Many BMW and Mercedes models have such a setup. As for side retroreflectors: They are, as already mentioned, mandatory in the US on all vehicles. Amber front and intermediate, red rearmost. They are mandatory under ECE regulations on vehicles over 6m long, optional on vehicles under 6m long, and the ECE color requirement is amber, but the rearmost side retroreflector may be red if it is grouped or has part of the light emitting surface in common with the rear position lamp, the rear end-outline marker lamp, the rear fog lamp, the brake lamp or the red rearmost sidemarker lamp. Many vehicles which in their US-spec configurations have the red side retroreflector built into the side of the rear lamp cluster lens also have this configuration in their ECE models. Examples abound from BMW, Mercedes, Chrysler, Volvo and other makers. > German manufactures are the worse in North America in having eliminated amber rear turn signals > to make the vehicles look more American. BMW/Mini, VW/Audi just don't care about providing this > safety feature to the drivers of North America. I agree with you that amber rear turn signals are an utterly basic component of a proper automotive lighting system, and I agree with you that it's shameful to treat safety devices as stylistic toys, but having just returned the other day from a large automotive lighting technology congress in France, I can say you haven't got the whole story. I spoke with the BMW exterior lighting chief, and he told me they wanted to use the same type of amber rear signal on their US-market E90 3er as they use everywhere else in the world, but the US DOT objected. This type of "hidden" amber rear signal uses a clear bulb with a green plastic balloon over it, all behind a rose-red (dark pink) lens. The result is a lamp that looks red when off, but shines amber when on. It's subtractive color mixing. The technique has been in use for about 13 years or so -- no problem, such signals work fine and don't notably degrade with age or use. But, the DOT said the green plastic for the balloon was not on the list of approved plastic materials for use in car lights, and they kept saying "no!" or simply stalling and not answering at all regardless of how much test data BMW submitted. Finally DOT said "OK", but by then it was too late; in order to meet production schedules, BMW had to make an alternate choice for the US market. They could've gone to a plain amber lens, or a clear lens with amber bulb, but for whatever reason (probably related to tooling cost), the red lens was their emergency "Plan B". This is the same reason why the first-year Audi A8 had these green-ballon/pink-lens/amber-light rear turn signals, but subsequent years had red lenses: DOT bitched about the green balloons being made out of an unapproved plastic. The situation is different with Audi: On some of their present car designs, they couldn't have an amber rear turn signal without the red brake/tail lamps being too small to comply with US surface area requirements, so the only choices were to redesign the rear lamps entirely (larger - not approved by the stylists) or have a red rear turn signal for the North American market. This is the same reason why older BMW 5er wagons had red rear turn signals. Other Audi models have plenty of rear lamp area to have an amber turn signal, but as Audi's chief of exterior lighting explained, "if some of your vehicles have red and some have amber, this does not look like a coherent line of vehicles. I don't like red rear signals, but they're just as legal as amber in North America." I didn't get a chance to ask about the MINI's red rear signals; that's neither a materials nor a surface area problem. > Honda is not far behind in this trend. Honda, Toyota and Subaru are actually markedly *worse*, together with Ford, GM and Chrysler: All their models have rear lamp designs with ample area for amber rear signals, and they don't tend to use materials that DOT gets itchy about -- they use red signals in North America for specious "customer preference" reasons (have you ever been asked to vote?) or because red ones are cheaper to make and "show us the pile of dead bodies indicating that amber is better!". > The irony is that Chrysler is slowly adding this feature across its line here in North America. No, they aren't. They play with it, back and forth, red to amber and back to red, as a stylistic toy. The newest Jeeps all have red, after many years of using amber, for instance. Red ones would be almost marginally tolerable if they were all the combination brake/turn type, but immediately-adjacent, colorimetrically- and photometrically-identical separate red brake and turn lights duelling with each other make it very difficult to acquire the vehicle's signalling messages quickly and accurately in traffic. It's known that following drivers react significantly more quickly and accurately to a vehicles *brake* lamps if the vehicle's turn signals are amber rather than red, but nobody's bothered doing a study in actual traffic, so while all the regulators know red ones are dumb and amber ones are good, the automakers' lobbyists prevent legislating for amber rear signals in North America. "Show us the pile of dead bodies!" (the Ford guy actually said "It's the only light that flashes on the back of the car, why does it need to be a different color?".) DS Thanks for that comprehensive response. So Dan, which do you think is going to be more difficult; getting the UN to impose world peace, or getting the UN to reconcile differences between US and ECE lighting requirements in our lifetime? Richard. > So Dan, which do you think is going to be more difficult; getting the UN to > impose world peace, or getting the UN to reconcile differences between US > and ECE lighting requirements in our lifetime? The latter is not the UN's job. > > So Dan, which do you think is going to be more difficult; getting the UN to > > impose world peace, or getting the UN to reconcile differences between US > > and ECE lighting requirements in our lifetime? > > The latter is not the UN's job. What /IS/ the UN's job? Last time I checked, the UN was useless, anyway. SignatureIoannis ------- The best way to predict reality, is to know exactly what you DON'T want. > > > So Dan, which do you think is going to be more difficult; getting the UN to > > > impose world peace, or getting the UN to reconcile differences between US > > > and ECE lighting requirements in our lifetime? > > The latter is not the UN's job. > What /IS/ the UN's job? To dither around for a week trying to decide whether to *strongly reprimand* or *firmly censure* North Korea, as it seems. > To dither around for a week trying to decide whether to *strongly > reprimand* or *firmly censure* North Korea, as it seems. Did they do the same when the US last tested a nuclear device? Signature*Always drink upstream from the herd * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > > To dither around for a week trying to decide whether to *strongly > > reprimand* or *firmly censure* North Korea, as it seems. > Did they do the same when the US last tested a nuclear device? Hoogeeze, here we go with your little smug Brit routine again. Do us all a favour: Just call me a Nazi, trigger Godwin's Law and let's end the thread. > > > To dither around for a week trying to decide whether to *strongly > > > reprimand* or *firmly censure* North Korea, as it seems. > > Did they do the same when the US last tested a nuclear device? > Hoogeeze, here we go with your little smug Brit routine again. Do us > all a favour: Just call me a Nazi, trigger Godwin's Law and let's end > the thread. Perhaps you should have mentally done that before *you* made such a contentious comment on a group were it's OT. Signature*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> > To dither around for a week trying to decide whether to *strongly >> > reprimand* or *firmly censure* North Korea, as it seems. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >all a favour: Just call me a Nazi, trigger Godwin's Law and let's end >the thread. Prior art: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21000%40gryphon.COM SignatureNeed 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 >> To dither around for a week trying to decide whether to *strongly >> reprimand* or *firmly censure* North Korea, as it seems. > > Did they do the same when the US last tested a nuclear device? When did that occur? >>> To dither around for a week trying to decide whether to *strongly >>> reprimand* or *firmly censure* North Korea, as it seems. >> >> Did they do the same when the US last tested a nuclear device? >> >When did that occur? Sometime in the 1960s? However Nagasaki was some test wasn't it? Sir Hugh of Bognor The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen hsg@h-gee.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK > >> Did they do the same when the US last tested a nuclear device? > >> > >When did that occur? > Sometime in the 1960s? The US tested from around '45 to '62 some 1054 devices. So North Korea might have quite some way to go to catch up. Signature*It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> >> Did they do the same when the US last tested a nuclear device? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The US tested from around '45 to '62 some 1054 devices. So North Korea > might have quite some way to go to catch up. Actually, 1962 was the last year for US atmospheric tests, but underground testing apparently went on for another 30 years! http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/index.html Tom K. Dave Plowman wrote... > The US tested from around '45 to '62 some 1054 devices. So North Korea > might have quite some way to go to catch up. Kim Jong-il may well not represent a safe pair of hands to hold a Nuclear capability but I can see some confusion arising from the assumption that GW Bush does! David > Dave Plowman wrote... > > The US tested from around '45 to '62 some 1054 devices. So North Korea > > might have quite some way to go to catch up. > Kim Jong-il may well not represent a safe pair of hands to hold a > Nuclear capability but I can see some confusion arising from the > assumption that GW Bush does! Eggsactly. ;-) Of course you could argue there are no 'safe hands' for a nuclear capability. Signature*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> Dave Plowman wrote... >> > The US tested from around '45 to '62 some 1054 devices. So North Korea [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Of course you could argue there are no 'safe hands' for a nuclear > capability. This is not the group for this discussion but the short answer is (and I was in US and NATO nuclear positions) that the western powers have developed a "two-man" control system that does not let even the head of state to unilaterally "push the button." Even in the famous Nixon rages, it was known that he couldn't issue a unilateral order. The difference is that the dictators of North Korea and Iran have no such limitation, and they have both declared (don't ask me for a cite, I don't want to get into this) that they will be going to war when they have nuclear weapons. >> >> Did they do the same when the US last tested a nuclear device? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The US tested from around '45 to '62 some 1054 devices. So North Korea >might have quite some way to go to catch up. There were underground tests in Nevada long after 62. SignatureNeed 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 So the members of this group are in general agreement that if the UN was given the job of resolving differences between SAE and EU code lighting standards they would hand that job over to North Korea. Or did I miss something? Richard. > So the members of this group are in general agreement that if the UN was > given the job of resolving differences between SAE and EU code lighting > standards they would hand that job over to North Korea. Or did I miss > something? Sounds like you got it. The UN is as corrupt as Ohio speed trap town. >> So the members of this group are in general agreement that if the UN was >> given the job of resolving differences between SAE and EU code lighting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >The UN is as corrupt as Ohio speed trap town. The US Department of Commerce is worse. SignatureNeed 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 >So the members of this group are in general agreement that if the UN was >given the job of resolving differences between SAE and EU code lighting >standards they would hand that job over to North Korea. Or did I miss >something? > >Richard. Good summation of the "discussion" to date. Isn't this a.a.b? I know some clown cross-posted it, but come on! Enjoy the excursion. You don't have to be on the vehicle (BMW or otherwise, with or without lights), though... DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Good summation of the "discussion" to date. > > Isn't this a.a.b? I know some clown cross-posted it, but come on! good grief, this thread is *still* going on????? >> So Dan, which do you think is going to be more difficult; getting the UN to >> impose world peace, or getting the UN to reconcile differences between US >> and ECE lighting requirements in our lifetime? > > The latter is not the UN's job. Neither is the former. >> Back on subject. Standards are useful and the world lacks standards. > > That's not quite true as written. The world *has* automotive lighting > standards. Two of them: USA and ECE. Most of the world requires or > accepts ECE-compliant automotive lighting and prohibits USA-compliant > equipment; the US prohibits ECE and requires USA. Does any nation besides the USA prohibit ECE-compliant (that aren't also FMVSS 108 compliant) headlamps on new or imported vehicles? > > The world *has* automotive lighting > > standards. Two of them: USA and ECE. Most of the world requires or > > accepts ECE-compliant automotive lighting and prohibits USA-compliant > > equipment; the US prohibits ECE and requires USA. > Does any nation besides the USA prohibit ECE-compliant (that aren't also > FMVSS 108 compliant) headlamps on new or imported vehicles? No. >> > The world *has* automotive lighting >> > standards. Two of them: USA and ECE. Most of the world requires or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >No. (I love this part) "Gee Dan, why is that? Why doesn't the US allow E-code lamps and how heavily is this enforced? SignatureNeed 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 >>> Does any nation besides the USA prohibit ECE-compliant (that aren't also >>> FMVSS 108 compliant) headlamps on new or imported vehicles? >> No. > "Gee Dan, why is that? Why doesn't the US allow E-code lamps and how > heavily is this enforced? From Daniel's past posts, I get the impression that it is strictly enforced if one tries to import a vehicle. But, since automakers follow an "honor system" of sorts with regards to FMVSS compliance, could they not technically get away with equipping their vehicles with ECE specification headlamps from the factory as long as they never reported it? Even if someone does rat them out, they could always file a petition of inconsequential noncompliance and point to the lack of a pile of dead bodies as evidence that ECE headlamps should be allowed. As for my personal experience having ECE specification headlamp assemblies in my Audi for the last 5 years, not one police officer or inspection station has ever taken notice (despite the fact that my vehicle lacks the amber side marker reflectors on the front). > But, since automakers follow an "honor system" of sorts with regards to > FMVSS compliance, could they not technically get away with equipping [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to the lack of a pile of dead bodies as evidence that ECE headlamps > should be allowed. Having seen the FDA side of things and read Daniel's posts over the years I don't think it works the other way around. These sort of things are done using what I have called 'claybrookian logic' after the carter era appointee. If someone wants to change an a.s-backwards US regulation you need to show a pile of bodies from the current regulation and it is assumed that your change will produce a pile of bodies because current US regulation is considered best in the world by default. Remember how the storm sewers were going to be filled with blood when the NMSL was done away with? The same sort of buracrats will complain that people won't see the road signs at night and die in firey crashes as they slide off the road. > These sort of things are > done using what I have called 'claybrookian logic' after the carter era > appointee. If someone wants to change an a.s-backwards US regulation you > need to show a pile of bodies from the current regulation and it is > assumed that your change will produce a pile of bodies because current US > regulation is considered best in the world by default. Right. And absence of evidence is considered evidence of absence, while evidence of absence is considered absence of evidence. The whole system is designed to protect the US market's home-field advantage, and is based on chest-thumping ("we're right and the stupid rest of the world is wrong!") and elaborate handwaving designed to distract from what's really going on: the highest bidder wins his regulation. Take a look at the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, which shut down the "grey market": It was put on the books as a result of purchased lobbying by US subsidiaries of European carmakers, and their dealers, who were upset at their usurious markups being circumvented by private importers. There was not one scrap nor shred of evidence that privately-imported European-spec vehicles were involved with collisions, injuries or fatalities to any greater degree than US-spec vehicles, nor was there any evidence that they were safer -- there was no evidence at all having to do with safety, but this Act was promulgated based on high-minded notions of highway safety and protecting Americans' wellbeing against the menace of non-spec vehicles. Likewise, there are scores of provisions contained in the various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are simply _different_ to analogous provisions in the rest-of-world ECE regulations. Not necessarily better, not necessarily worse, usually more or less equal, but DIFFERENT. We live in a time when "Tariff" is a dirty word (thank you, MBAs); it's considered backwards and unseemly to have overt trade restrictions, so we hide them within technical regulations. So sorry, we'd love for you to come and sell your cars here, but they don't meet our unique safety regulations. Too bad, so sad, bye-bye. Canada pretty much gets dragged along for whatever drunken ride NHTSA decides to take. There are a lot of very smart, very capable, very knowledgeable Canadian regulators at Transport Canada, who would love to fix the deficiencies in US regulations for the Canadian market, but are prevented. This example from the Canadian lighting regulator: "Look, red rear turn signals are stupid. They're deficient. Everybody knows amber ones are better. But if I try to legislate for amber rear turn signals, we will get hauled into Free Trade Court by the automakers, and they'll demand we show them the pile of dead bodies from red turn signals." A few years ago, Transport Canada was looking at allowing ECE-spec whole vehicles and equipment (beyond already-permitted headlamps) into Canada. Not enacting any new prohibitions, mind you, just *allowing* ECE specs. The notion passed all the safety analyses, but automakers howled: "You can't do this! It'll screw up our parts distribution calculations, and when we make a car for the German market, we want it to stay in Germany! We need the different North American regulations to limit our liability to the vehicles we choose to offer here!". And the US NHTSA also howled: "You can't do this! If you do, we'll be the only ones in the world doing something different!" And the punchline is that evidence suggests NHTSA is doing a rotten job. The Wikipedia article is pretty good, and is based on a very solid data source (Dr. Leonard Evans, www.scienceservingsociety.com): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHTSA DS > Canada pretty much gets dragged along for whatever drunken ride NHTSA > decides to take. There are a lot of very smart, very capable, very [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > can't do this! If you do, we'll be the only ones in the world doing > something different!" That fits in with the stupid DVD regional codes so we can watch movies from say Japan on our US market DVD player and the plans for broad band over power lines. If you're not familiar with it, it's turning every electrical outlet in a home into an internet connection so any product that gets plugged into a wall socket can 'phone home'. This way the corporations can track the products from manufacture to landfill. They don't seem to grasp the issue that once the product is bought by us, it's ours to use or sell as we see fit without their interference. (They can refuse servicing it under some conditions, but that's about it) What I find particularly amusing is that companies want to retain regional differences to protect their markets but we as people cannot retain regional barriers to protect our labor markets. Getting a bit OT here... but it just all fits so well. > That fits in with the stupid DVD regional codes That's why you should always only ever buy Philips DVD players. I bought a DVP-642, brought it home, plugged it in, put a battery in the remote, pointed the remote at the player, hit 7 8 9 [OK] 0, and *presto*, no more region codes. I can play DVDs from anywhere in the world. PAL, NTSC, region code 1, 2, 3, 4, whatever, doesn't matter, they all play perfectly. Philips aren't impressed with all the greedy crapola added onto the standard they invented, as it seems. > What I find particularly amusing is that companies want to retain > regional differences to protect their markets but we as people cannot > retain regional barriers to protect our labor markets. They're corporations, with rights. You're not. >> That fits in with the stupid DVD regional codes > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > world. PAL, NTSC, region code 1, 2, 3, 4, whatever, doesn't matter, > they all play perfectly. I plan on researching which ones are the easiest to unlock when I should ever buy one. The one I have was a gift and requires a service DVD from austraila to unlock the region. Of course I've heard walmart cheapies aren't region locked. [dvd players] > I plan on researching which ones are the easiest to unlock when I should > ever buy one. The one I have was a gift and requires a service DVD from > austraila to unlock the region. Of course I've heard walmart cheapies > aren't region locked. I'd just get a dvd-rw drive and rip the contents and burn a dvd-rw dual layer disc. Not only will the region lock no longer be a problem, but the original disc can be stored in a safe place and remain scratch/pot-mark free. > [dvd players] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the original disc can be stored in a safe place and remain > scratch/pot-mark free. Another thing is, DVD burning wasn't around like it is now when mine was made, thusly it doesn't like burned DVDs... >> I'd just get a dvd-rw drive and rip the contents and burn a dvd-rw dual >> layer disc. Not only will the region lock no longer be a problem, but >> the original disc can be stored in a safe place and remain >> scratch/pot-mark free. > Another thing is, DVD burning wasn't around like it is now when mine was > made, thusly it doesn't like burned DVDs... I guess it really depends on the disc brand. I watch DVDs on my computer mostly, so I don't have that problem. I suppose a video card like an ATI all-in-wonder model with component output will allow you to use your computer as a dvd player (but I'm not sure about how well the unix drivers work). >> [dvd players] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Another thing is, DVD burning wasn't around like it is now when mine was >made, thusly it doesn't like burned DVDs... Not necessarily. There is a web site that will tell you what it can play. http://www.videohelp.com/dvdplayers Just type in your player model (s7000) and select the right one. There are three of this example. Selecting Sony comes up with http://www.videohelp.com/dvdplayers.php?DVDnameid=439&Search=Search&#comments where you can see that it accepts CDR, DVD-RW, bit DVD+r, and VCD. Except that I don't understand the "bit" part, this seems to be correct for this player. I love how this topic bout headlamps has gone all over to nucular arms to who invented dvds HAHA BTW .. JVC invented VHS >I love how this topic bout headlamps has gone all over to nucular arms > to who invented dvds HAHA > > BTW .. JVC invented VHS Oh, yeah? Well SONY invented Beta. Oops, forget about that. Well, Phillips invented Compact Discs! And also Milk of Magnesia! Now, on to the pharmaceutical thread ! >I'd just get a dvd-rw drive and rip the contents and burn a dvd-rw dual >layer disc. Not only will the region lock no longer be a problem, but >the original disc can be stored in a safe place and remain >scratch/pot-mark free. What the hell kind of pot leaves marks on DVDs ? SignatureNeed 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 >> Not only will the region lock no longer be a problem, but >> the original disc can be stored in a safe place and remain >> scratch/pot-mark free. > What the hell kind of pot leaves marks on DVDs ? The dust particle kind. Perhaps you mean "pock-marked"... DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] >> What the hell kind of pot leaves marks on DVDs ? > > The dust particle kind. > I'd just get a dvd-rw drive and rip the contents and burn a dvd-rw dual > layer disc. Not only will the region lock no longer be a problem, but > the original disc can be stored in a safe place and remain > scratch/pot-mark free. If you're getting pot-marks on your DVDs, you're smoking way too much pot. A number of shops in London will supply 'deregionalised' players (from leading brands) on request... DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > I plan on researching which ones are the easiest to unlock when I should > ever buy one. The one I have was a gift and requires a service DVD from > austraila to unlock the region. Of course I've heard walmart cheapies > aren't region locked. > Philips aren't impressed with all the greedy crapola added onto the > standard they invented, as it seems. Pioneer started the development of the DVD before Philips and Sony joined in. It was a consortium which agreed the final standard. 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. > But, since automakers follow an "honor system" of sorts with regards to > FMVSS compliance, could they not technically get away with equipping > their vehicles with ECE specification headlamps from the factory as long > as they never reported it? Y'mean have "DOT" and the other US-required markings on headlamps that actually only comply with ECE regulations? Yes, automakers can get/are getting/have got away with it. > Even if someone does rat them out, they > could always file a petition of inconsequential noncompliance and point > to the lack of a pile of dead bodies as evidence that ECE headlamps > should be allowed. Not quite. Remember what happened to GM a couple years ago: '99 through '04 Buick Century owners complained they couldn't see overhead road signs with their low beam headlamps. NHTSA tested some brand-new Century headlamps and found that they produced just under the minimum required uplight for overhead signs. GM petitioned for inconsequential noncompliance, stating -- correctly -- that with a few days' service (actually, a few HOURS' service is enough), the headlamps develop enough surface haze to throw plentiful light on overhead signs. GM also stated -- correctly -- that Transport Canada had tested these same headlamps and found no noncompliance. They could also have stated that the test voltage used by NHTSA and Transport Canada, 12.8v, is unrealistically low given GM's voltage regulator setpoints of between 14.5 and 15.2 volts, but they didn't argue that angle. NHTSA denied the petition. GM was forced to do a corrective action (or some other such diplomatic term for "recall") on '99-up Buick Centuries. Thing is, the marginal-compliance situation arose because the Century was kept in production long after it was originally slated for discontinuation, and the headlamp tooling was thoroughly worn out, so making new headlamps would've entailed relatively enormous expenditure. So, GM persuaded NHTSA to allow the recall to be complied with by replacing the low beam bulbs with something of a mysterious special replacement made by Sylvania, a "9006HP" (GM P/N 89024715). This bulb is not sold in retail outlets; I suspect it is nothing more than a specially-marked and GM-certified 9006XV Xtravision bulb. Now, take a step back and think about this for a moment: NHTSA makes a great deal of noise about how critical it is for all replacement bulbs to perform virtually identically in order to assure initial and ongoing headlamp compliance...but then GM comes along with a nonstandard bulb as a questionable fix to a questionable problem, and NHTSA says "OK". When these special 9006HP bulbs burn out, the owner's going to replace them with whatever 9006 can be had in the local parts store, and it's probably going to be the regular kind removed in the recall campaign. OK...so...do we have a noncompliant headlamp, or don't we? Now take another step back and think about *this* for a moment: the Century was the subject of overhead sign light concerns. Its Pontiac analogue the Grand Pricks had garbageful Guide 9007 headlamps (streaks and spots and massive upward stray) but its now-departed Oldsmobile analogue the Alero had very nice Carello 9005/9006 units. The reflector low beam on those has a relatively sharp cutoff with a "Z-beam" shape. Not quite ECE, but still much more tightly focused than one tends to see from GM family cars. And markedly less overhead sign light from those lamps than from the affected Century lamps. Or, to put it less diplomatically: The Buick Century is named after the median age of its buyers/owners, and they claim they can't see overhead signs, and the problem is the *headlamps*? > The Buick Century is > named after the median age of its buyers/owners, and they claim they > can't see overhead signs, and the problem is the *headlamps*? LOL. E.P. >High beams You're wrong. > There are no requirements to have or use parking lights or city lights > anywhere in the US that I am aware of. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, and ECE Regulation 48 all require front position lamps ("parking lamps" in North America, "city lights" colloquially mostly by North Americans talking about European cars). Ergo, these lamps are required all over the world. > What is required are > "running lights" which are usually the same lamps that you might call > "parking lights" except they are illuminated while driving so that other > drivers can get a sense of the width of the vehicle, especially in the > event of a burnt out headlamp. The lamps you describe are not called "running lights" anywhere in the world. They are referred to as "front position lamps" in international ECE regulations, and "parking lamps" in North American regulations. They are required to remain illuminated with headlamps for the reason you state (vehicle position and width indication in the event of a burned out headlamp). > High beams even at full voltage are not too bright to be used as DRLs > when they are intended to be used, DURING THE DAY!!! They are run at > reduced level to save the headlamps from burning out, not to decrease > glare to oncoming drivers. Incorrect. The maximum permissible axial intensity for DRLs anywhere in the world is 7,000 candela, for North American high-beam DRLs. The MINIMUM allowable axial intensity for high beam headlamps anywhere in the world is 20,000 candela, for the very weakest type of headlamps (those equipped with HB1/9004 bulbs in North America; those equipped with R2 non-halogen bulbs in ECE countries). > During daylight hours your pupils are > adjusted to the higher ambient light and glare from headlights is not an > issue. Incorrect. Regardless of the presence, absence or degree of discomfort due to glare, there is ALWAYS reduction in visual acuity due to glare. > You may be irritated by these headlights, but you know they are > there, so they are accomplishing their goal. You are again confusing glare with conspicuity. They are not the same. By your logic, ALL vehicle lamps would have to be painfully glaring in order to be effective --- turn signals, brake lights, etc. > Do you have some evidence that high beam running lights are illegal > everywhere except North America? I kind of doubt that this is true. Your doubt notwithstanding, ECE Regulation 87 (Daytime Running Lamps for Motor Vehicles) and ECE Regulation 48 (Installation and Wiring of Lighting and Signalling Devices) do not permit the use of high beams as DRLs, at any intensity level. ECE regulations are in force virtually everywhere in the world except North America. QED. You may want to spend some time on Wikipedia at the articles entitled "Headlamp", "Automotive Lighting", and "Daytime Running Lamp". You can probably get a great many of your misunderstandings and incorrect conclusions cleared up with just those three articles. If that's not to your liking, then I recommend spending a couple of weeks' worth of 9-5 days at the UMTRI library in Ann Arbor, MI. DS > The lamps you describe are not called "running lights" anywhere in the > world. They are referred to as "front position lamps" in international > ECE regulations, and "parking lamps" in North American regulations. Side lights in the UK. Parking lights used to be a separate single bulb device mounted about the middle of the car with a clear lens to the front, red to the back. Some clipped on to the driver's door window. They were needed in any towns without street lighting - or more usually when it was switched off after a certain time at night. Very few if any these days, though. The more modern German version which allows just one front and tail light for overnight parking etc would be legal in the UK as a parking light, but not all UK cars are so fitted. Signature*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > > The lamps you describe are not called "running lights" anywhere in the > > world. They are referred to as "front position lamps" in international > > ECE regulations, and "parking lamps" in North American regulations. > > Side lights in the UK. Obsolete term that has been replaced in the most current versions of the UK regulations with "front position lamps". However, colloquial usage of "sidelights" to refer to the front position (US "parking") and rear position (US "tail") lamps is still common in the UK. The UK "sidelight" terminology arose exactly as you describe, from the earlier devices that were permanently or temporarily mounted on the side of the car. They created a big terminology problem when side*marker* lights came along -- almost as big as the "driving lamp" problem. >red to the back. Some clipped on to the driver's door window. They were >needed in any towns without street lighting - or more usually when it was >switched off after a certain time at night. Very few if any these days, >though. Yeal like central heating the last 1/3 will get their soon. I remember those things. Richard, expat. SignatureNeed 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 >> Yup, GM likes to equip Saturns with them. Fortunately a few new BMW's >> have "angle eyes" DRLs. I assume this is mostly due to Audi's successful [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >DRLs are *supposed* to be obnoxious. If they aren't getting your >attention, they aren't doing what they are intended to do... There are various levels of getting one's attention. If you really wanted to get my attention, use the highbeams undimmed as running lights. DRLs do not have to be obnoxious, they merely have to be seen. >> Yup, GM likes to equip Saturns with them. Fortunately a few new BMW's >> have "angle eyes" DRLs. I assume this is mostly due to Audi's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > DRLs are *supposed* to be obnoxious. If they aren't getting your > attention, they aren't doing what they are intended to do... I don't understand. What good is getting my attention if all I do is to quit using my mirrors? Passing isn't very safe because of your actions. Well, to be honest it's because of my reaction to your action. But your action almost mandates my reaction which puts the responsibility on your shoulders. (I'm talking about the moral responsibility since I'm not an expert in the legal field.) BTW, I wont look into my mirrors for the same reason I wont look into the sun. > "Angle" (sic) eyes are not DRLs. They are on the newest 3er in Europe, and will be in North America, too, soon. > I suppose that they they take the > place of "city lights" in those obscure European places that still > require such, As has been pointed out to you, "city lights" = parking lamps = front position lamps, and they are mandatory on all motor vehicles under all worldwide regulations. > DRLs are *supposed* to be obnoxious. Incorrect. They are supposed to be *conspicuous*. Not the same. > > I don't get how BMW can be stupid enough to use the high beams as DRLs. > > Turn signals, fog lights or low beams at a reduced voltage would have > > been much better... > > Actually, no. The high beams at reduced intensity are the best option Aren't. It's robustly demonstrated in all the world's DRL studies that most of the safety benefit from DRLs is in reduction of *angular* collisions with pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles -- not in head-on or near-head-on collisions. It is essentially impossible to produce a lamp that gives good high beam performance at full voltage, AND can be run at reduced intensity such that it produces a wide enough cone of illumination to give significant improvements in angular conspicuity without producing far too much glare on axis. High-beam DRLs tend to illuminate at the maximum allowable intensities on axis (= excessive glare) but at or near the minimum allowable intensities laterally off-axis (= insufficient angular conspicuity, therefore minimal actual safety performance benefit). In addition, high-beam DRLs share the disadvantages of all headlamp-based DRLs: They consume so much power that their use is akin to opening the refrigerator door, pulling up a chair and using the fridge light to read a book, and they are too often improperly used instead of full-voltage headlamps after dark, because they create the appearance of a light beam in front of the car -- drivers and cops often can't tell the difference, or don't care. Come up to Canada sometime and see for yourself! This use of headlamp-based DRLs after dark creates various unsafe situations: Cars unlit from the sides and rear, cars producing much too much glare for other road users and too much backdazzle in bad weather, etc. Low-beam DRLs have the energy-inefficiency problem, as well as the conundrum that a good low-beam light distribution is opposite what is needed for a good DRL light distribution. And, there is the bulb life problem with all headlamp-based DRLs. The effective decrease in lifespan pushes makers to use long-life bulbs, which give reduced luminance and poorer beam focus, resulting in diminished headlamp performance after dark. The best DRLs are functionally-specific ones. The second-best ones are the front turn signals burned full time. >>>I don't get how BMW can be stupid enough to use the high beams as DRLs. >>>Turn signals, fog lights or low beams at a reduced voltage would have [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > The best DRLs are functionally-specific ones. The second-best ones are > the front turn signals burned full time. OK, I see what you are saying. But have any cars been mass produced with functionally specific DRLs? I am not aware of any. Or any that have used the front turn signals either for that matter. That would seem to be a best solution (without adding much cost to the car) if that is what is actually needed. Signature-Fred W > OK, I see what you are saying. But have any cars been mass produced > with functionally specific DRLs? I am not aware of any. In the North American market at the moment: -Chevrolet and GMC full-size pickup trucks since '99 -Chevrolet and GMC midsize pickups and derivatives since '01 or so -High-end Audis -Hummers -Volvos with BiXenon headlamps There are also many such vehicles in the rest-of-world ECE market, and there will soon be very many more, as DRLs compliant with ECE R87 will become mandatory across Europe in 2010. > Or any that have used the front turn signals either for that matter. In the whole North American market unless otherwise noted: -Chevrolet and GMC full-size vans since 2003 -Chrysler minivans from 1996-2000 (std. Canada, optional US) -Chrysler LeBaron & Imperial, 1990-1993 (Canada) -Saturn Ion and other Saturn models -Corvette C5 and C6 -Cadillac (all or most current models) -Lincoln Zephyr (might be Canada only) -Toyota trucks & SUVs (various models, might be Canada only) -Ford Probe, 1990-end of production (Canada) -Mazda Miata, 1990-1998 (std Canada, optional US) Turn signal DRLs are not legal outside North America (ECE R87 requires them to emit white light). And more I'm dysremembering right now There is an inexpensive module available to activate front turn signal DRLs on most any vehicle. DS > There are also many such vehicles in the rest-of-world ECE market, and > there will soon be very many more, as DRLs compliant with ECE R87 will > become mandatory across Europe in 2010. Interesting. I figured there had to be a catch somewhere to why the German manufactures were joining the DRL crowd. I assume separate designated DRLs will be required, not just headlights on 24/7. >> Or any that have used the front turn signals either for that matter. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -Ford Probe, 1990-end of production (Canada) > -Mazda Miata, 1990-1998 (std Canada, optional US) - GM's F-body '97- > Turn signal DRLs are not legal outside North America (ECE R87 requires > them to emit white light). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > DS Glad to see you're back. I was beginning to give up on you, Daniel. ;-) Ulf > I don't get how BMW can be stupid enough to use the high beams as DRLs. Very simple: COST! High beam headlamps aren't frequently used, so there's less impact on the effective useful life of a device a driver might be unhappy with if it were to last a shorter time than he expected (ask any VW Beetle owner how he likes having to replace low beam headlamp bulbs every other month). Also, with high beam DRLs, there's no need to worry about turn signal intensity. > Turn signals, fog lights or low beams at a reduced voltage would have > been much better... Well, high beam DRLs don't work very well (too much intensity straight ahead, not enough intensity out to the sides), but fog lamps are not legal as DRLs in the US, only in Canada. Low beams don't make very good DRLs at all. If one is constrained to using only the lighting equipment on a non-DRL vehicle, without adding any new lighting devices, then the front turn signal DRL is definitely the best pick, all things considered. Thanks Dan, it's nice to see some authoritative responses on usenet. SignatureNeed 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 > Thanks Dan, it's nice to see some authoritative responses on usenet. I agree. It appears I have been make all kinds of incorrect statements. I'll just shut up now... I only wish Dan would frequent this newsgroup more often. Signature-Fred W > It appears I have been make all kinds of incorrect statements. > I'll just shut up now... > I only wish Dan would frequent this newsgroup more often. *shock* Usenet has changed a LOT since I left, as it seems! Thanks for your comment, DS |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message