 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / May 2005TSX headlights issue
Hi, I just bought a new 2005 TSX. The xenon headlights of my car have a very sharp cut off line. That is, when you drive in the dark, you will see only the area where the Xenon headlights directly spotting at, but you can see nothing beyond that angle. I feel unsafe to drive this car in dark since I cannot see anything beyond about 10 degree above horizontal line. Is this a common issue on TSX? I just wonder if I should ask the dealer to fix this for me. If anyone can give me some idea on this, I would be really appreciated. Thank you! Cathy The sharp cutoff is a problem common to xenon headlight systems. Ask the dealer to adjust the low beams upward, and drive with high beams on. The adjustment will not cure the problem of running out of headlight on dark hilly roads, but it will lessen it. > Ask the dealer to adjust the low beams upward, The headlamps need to be adjusted PROPERLY, not "upward". > and drive with high beams on. Illegal and unsafe in traffic. It goes without saying that in traffic high beams should not be used or needed. On dark roads xenon lights need all the help they can get and they are needed. Xenon light systems have a couple of unfortunate design limitations. 1. They have a very sharp cutoff, which results in the road directly in front of the car being very well lit, but the road beyond being in almost total darkness. Halogen lights on the other hand have a much more diffuse light pattern and objects down the road are more easily seen. Driving with xenon lights on a hilly road can result in total blackout of the road in front of you when the sharp cutoff swings down. It is positively unnerving and potentially very dangerous. 2. On high beams xenon lights do not have the "reach" of halogen lights. This appears to be a combination of not focusing enough light directly in front of the car and using lightbulbs with a much lower wattage rating. The result is thin washed out lighting in comparison to halogen lighting. I have a 2003 BMW 325i with xenon lights, but I don't see such problem with my car... Do u know why? Thanks! > I have a 2003 BMW 325i with xenon lights, but I don't see such problem > with my car... Do u know why? Thanks! Because your BMW's Xenon lights have a VOL, left-side cutoff rather than the Acura's problematic VOR, right-side cutoff. DS >I have a 2003 BMW 325i with xenon lights, but I don't see such problem >with my car... Do u know why? Thanks! My Brother in law has had a couple BMW's with that light pattern. It's kinda cool at first but then you realize that you can't see squat above the cuttoff, even with the upswing of the cuttoff on the right side which helps illuminate the roadside signs. Seems like a dumb design to me and I suspect is still manages to glare into oncoming traffics eyeballs bases on what I've seen of oncoming BMWs. -- New service to compete with paypal Get $25 pre-registration bonus by following this link www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u > It goes without saying that in traffic high beams should not be used or > needed. On dark roads xenon lights need all the help they can get and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > more diffuse light pattern and objects down the road are more easily > seen. The beampatter cutoff is not a function of whether the light source is HID (incorrectly called "xenon") or halogen. Good halogen headlamps also have a good sharp horizontal cutoff. As Dan pointed out, there are better and best versions of the cutoff pattern. An "upsweep" to the right is best, and can be had in a number of halogen light systems as well. >> It goes without saying that in traffic high beams should not be used or >> needed. On dark roads xenon lights need all the help they can get and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > HID (incorrectly called "xenon") or halogen. Good halogen headlamps also > have a good sharp horizontal cutoff. Xenon is not an incorrect term for HIDs - although halogens can be had with xenon gas, HIDs are filled with xenon as well. > As Dan pointed out, there are better and best versions of the cutoff > pattern. An "upsweep" to the right is best, and can be had in a number > of halogen light systems as well. > Xenon is not an incorrect term for HIDs - although halogens can be had > with xenon gas, HIDs are filled with xenon as well. It actually is. The completely correct term is "MH", for Metal Halide. MH lamps are a type of HID (High Intensity Discharge) lamp. The automotive HIDs have Xenon in them (like a camera flash) only so that there's an arc with SOME minimal amount of light immediately upon hitting the switch. Otherwise, HID automotive headlamps would have a minutes-long warmup time like the overhead HID lights in a gymnasium. It's the vapourised metallic salts (metal halides) that cause the electrical arc to produce a large quantity of usable light. After the first 45 seconds of operation, the Xenon in an automotive HID lamp is irrelevant. >> The beampatter cutoff is not a function of whether the light source is >> HID (incorrectly called "xenon") or halogen. Good halogen headlamps >> also have a good sharp horizontal cutoff. > > Xenon is not an incorrect term for HIDs - although halogens can be had > with xenon gas, HIDs are filled with xenon as well. Yes, it IS incorrect, or at the very least so imprecise as to be meaningless. The fill gas in an HID capsule is a soup of gases tailored to get the minimum required initial light output, reach the correct specrtral content when warmed up, and last a reasonable life without overheating or damaging the electrodes. Xenon is only one component gas in the mixture. Its not the same as a camera flash tube. HID is an unambiguous term. I have no training in headlight design, so I can't tell whether one design of xenon light is technically better than another. I can only report on what I and others see (or don't see) while driving. The implementation of xenon lights on many cars for sale in the U.S. leaves a lot to be desired. Whether driving with high or low beam, xenon lights exhibit extreme contrast between lighted and darkened areas and the reach or distance that xenon lights either light up or at least outline objects is far shorter than with halogen lights on cars sold in the U.S. That sharp cutoff or line of demarkation between light and dark can obscure road conditions on hilly or twisty roads. There may very well be technical solutions available that could result in improved roadway lighting with xenon lighting systems. Those solutions do not appear to be used in the cars I've used or read about. > I have no training in headlight design, so I can't tell whether one > design of xenon light is technically better than another. I can only > report on what I and others see (or don't see) while driving. OK, fair enough. What I was reacting negatively to was your repetition, in places almost verbatim, of Consumer Distorts magazine's "educational" article on headlamps, which got most facts wrong and made nonsensical and contradictory recommendations. > The implementation of xenon lights on many cars for sale in the U.S. > leaves a lot to be desired. The implementation of *LIGHTS* on many cars for sale in the US leaves a lot to be desired. > Whether driving with high or low beam, xenon lights exhibit extreme > contrast between lighted and darkened areas Some of them certainly do. > the reach or distance that xenon lights either light up or at least > outline objects is far shorter than with halogen lights No, this is still not correct. > There may very well be technical solutions available that could result > in improved roadway lighting with xenon lighting systems. Those > solutions do not appear to be used in the cars I've used or read about. Well, reading about headlamps is fine -- I recommend it! -- but consider the source of your information carefully. There's a great deal of information out there, and as is the case with most highly technical subjects simplified for American readers who are presumed to be too stupid to comprehend much beyond the 3rd-grade level, most of the popularly-available info is wrong. As far as cars you've driven, observation is terrific, but problematic. The human visual system is highly subjective and a very poor meta-judge. That is, we seldom see as well OR as poorly as we think. DS " the reach or distance that xenon lights either light up or at least outline objects is far shorter than with halogen lights" "No, this is still not correct" JS> It may not be the way they work in the textbook, but in-fact that is how they do work as implemented in the car's I've driven. Objects down the road that would at least be outlined by the diffuse highbeam lighting offered by halogen lights are simply not visible with xenon-type lights. > " the reach or distance that xenon lights either light up or at least > outline objects is far shorter than with halogen lights" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lighting offered by halogen lights are simply not visible with > xenon-type lights. that's because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not aware of any current vehicles that use HID high beams. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Nate said: "that's because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not aware of any current vehicles that use HID high beams." The car has halogen DRL that operate only in daylight by a light sensor. It has xenon lights than can be manually operated during the day, but automatically switch on in night service. The xenon lights have a low and high beam position. You indicate that it is an apples to oranges comparison to compare halogen to xenon systems. So what would you compare the performance of xenon lights to, if not other lights. They are all supposed to light the road and objects on it. > Nate said: "that's because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'm > not aware of any current vehicles that use HID high beams." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > automatically switch on in night service. The xenon lights have a low > and high beam position. BiXenons. Probably on a Volvo, if you're talking about halogen DRLs. Congratulations, you've just discovered that there's such a thing as bad HID headlamps. The reflector-based BiXenons as a group aren't stellar -- projector-based systems work better -- and for the North American market, the high beam optics are defocused *and* the auxiliary halogen long-range high beams are disabled. Good headlamps are good. Bad headlamps are bad. And that's completely irrespective of what kind of technology is used to make the light. DS > Nate said: "that's because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'm > not aware of any current vehicles that use HID high beams." > > The car has halogen DRL that operate only in daylight by a light > sensor. Which apparently uses the high beam filament then. > It has xenon lights than can be manually operated during the day, but > automatically switch on in night service. The xenon lights have a low > and high beam position. No, they don't, unless this is a new development. Every implementation that I'm aware of has HIDs for the low beams and conventional halogen bulbs for the high beams. Acura's web site does not explicitly state that the TSX has HID high beams; that is unusual enough that you'd think they'd mention it. > You indicate that it is an apples to oranges comparison to compare > halogen to xenon systems. So what would you compare the performance of > xenon lights to, if not other lights. They are all supposed to light > the road and objects on it. The fact that the *incandescent halogen* high beams suck on a car with HID low beams is not a reflection of the goodness or badness or anything at all about the HIDs. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > It has xenon lights than can be manually operated during the day, but > > automatically switch on in night service. The xenon lights have a low > > and high beam position. > No, they don't, unless this is a new development. Well, it was a new development in 1998, when the specific headlamp system John is complaining about was demonstrated by Valeo at the SAE Congress in Detroit. It didn't make it onto roadgoing vehicles until Volvo picked it up about 18 months ago. It's not one of the better bi-function Xenon systems (projector-based systems work better) but it does behave as John describes: One HID burner, constantly lit, with movable optics to create low and high beam from just the one burner. > Every implementation that I'm aware of has HIDs for the low beams and > conventional halogen bulbs for the high beams. Acura's web site does > not explicitly state that the TSX has HID high beams; that is unusual > enough that you'd think they'd mention it. The TSX hasn't got HID high beams -- the original poster has a TSX; John S. probably has a Volvo. >>>It has xenon lights than can be manually operated during the day, but >>>automatically switch on in night service. The xenon lights have a low [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > describes: One HID burner, constantly lit, with movable optics to create > low and high beam from just the one burner. A apologize then... I thought that that kind of setup was still in the developmental/not ready for prime time stage. Or maybe, based on the comments in this thread, it *is* but is being installed on roadgoing vehicles anyway :/ >>Every implementation that I'm aware of has HIDs for the low beams and >>conventional halogen bulbs for the high beams. Acura's web site does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The TSX hasn't got HID high beams -- the original poster has a TSX; John > S. probably has a Volvo. OK that would explain the other part of the corn fusion... nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel "No, they don't, unless this is a new development." Good lord...how many times do I have to tell you.... >> Nate said: "that's because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'm >> not aware of any current vehicles that use HID high beams." [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >that the TSX has HID high beams; that is unusual enough that you'd think >they'd mention it. Any idea why that is? I thought the whole point of the HID was to give lots and lots of light when you really need it, which would be at high speed when you can use your high beams. So it seems completely backwards to me - why put $1000 worth of lighting into the low beams when any old halogen setup will do for in town, don't blind the oncoming driver situations. >> You indicate that it is an apples to oranges comparison to compare >> halogen to xenon systems. So what would you compare the performance of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >nate -- New service to compete with paypal Get $25 pre-registration bonus by following this link www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u > I'm not aware of any current vehicles that use HID high beams. There are many from Volvo, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Acura, etc. > " the reach or distance that xenon lights either light up or at least > outline objects is far shorter than with halogen lights" > > "No, this is still not correct" > > JS> It may not be the way they work in the textbook, It's not the way they work in the real world. > but in-fact that is how they do work as implemented in the car's I've > driven. Here again, all kinds of problems. You're relying on your subjective judgements -- which, as is the case with all of us, are usually wrong -- for whatever few HID-equipped cars you might've happened to drive, and generalizing those impressions to HID headlamps as a group. > Objects down the road that would at least be outlined by the diffuse > highbeam lighting offered by halogen lights are simply not visible with > xenon-type lights. None of this makes any sense. The "diffuse highbeam lighting offered by halogen lights" means LESS seeing distance, not more. DS > I have no training in headlight design, so I can't tell whether one > design of xenon light is technically better than another. I can only > report on what I and others see (or don't see) while driving. The > implementation of xenon lights on many cars for sale in the U.S. leaves > a lot to be desired. The implementation of both HID and halogen headlamps on many cars for sale in the US leaves a lot to be desired. > Whether driving with high or low beam, xenon > lights exhibit extreme contrast between lighted and darkened areas and > the reach or distance that xenon lights either light up or at least > outline objects is far shorter than with halogen lights on cars sold in > the U.S. That is true of SOME HID implementations. Not all. > That sharp cutoff or line of demarkation between light and > dark can obscure road conditions on hilly or twisty roads. That is true of SOME horizontal cutoff implementations for both HID and halogen light sources. It is not a characteristic of the HID light source. > There may very well be technical solutions available that could result > in improved roadway lighting with xenon lighting systems. Those > solutions do not appear to be used in the cars I've used or read about. Keep reading (but not Consumer Retards), keep testing different headlamp packages. Many of them are exceedingly good now. > > 1. They have a very sharp cutoff > The beampatter cutoff is not a function of whether the light source is > HID (incorrectly called "xenon") or halogen. Good halogen headlamps also > have a good sharp horizontal cutoff. As Dan pointed out, there are > better and best versions of the cutoff pattern. An "upsweep" to the > right is best, and can be had in a number of halogen light systems as > well. That's not *quite* what I said. The US "VOR" cutoff, which puts a sharp light/dark cutoff line at the horizon from the top-center of the beam pattern rightward, really isn't "better" than anything, and is pretty much worse than everything, for it geometrically limits in-lane seeing distance, makes problems for overhead sign visibility and frequently causes excessive glare. "VOL", on the other hand, which has a sharp light/dark cutoff line 0.4 below the horizon from the top-center of the beam pattern leftward, is quite a good foundation for an effective low beam pattern. It controls glare and provides realtime visual indication of seeing range while offering significantly less limitation on in-lane seeing distance and making it easier to light up overhead signs. As far as the shape of the cutoff to the right of center is concerned, yes, a 15 upsweep works well, but so does an upstepped horizontal. It all depends on the placement of the RH cutoff. European headlamps that have an RH horizontal cutoff (not a VOR, no such thing outside North America) place it slightly *above* the horizon while the left-side cutoff remains below the horizon. This system works very well, too. And the Koreans have been experimenting very successfully in the North American market with a combination of the two cutoff forms that steps up and *then* upsweeps. DS > I just bought a new 2005 TSX. The xenon headlights of my car have a > very sharp cut off line. That is, when you drive in the dark, you will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > horizontal line. Is this a common issue on TSX? I just wonder if I > should ask the dealer to fix this for me. That's the way they're supposed to be. A sharp cutoff on the LEFT side of the the low beam is a very important safety feature, for it gives the driver real-time seeing distance range indication that is not present with more primitive headlamp beams that lack a cutoff. The corollary is that correct vertical aim is far more crucial on headlamps with sharp cutoffs than with less-focused beams. When both types are properly aimed, seeing range is NOT longer without a beam cutoff. It only seems that way because without a cutoff, you are able to overdrive the low beams without getting any visual feedback that you are doing so. Few North Americans understand this yet because low beam cutoffs are rather new to this continent; the rest of the world has had them since 1952. European-type left-side cutoffs are called "VOL" in North America. Unfortunately, however, Honda (Acura) chose to use a type of cutoff called "VOR", permitted only in North America, that sharply cuts-off the light on the RIGHT side of the beam -- immediately above the high-intensity zone. This does, as you've noticed, sharply limit your seeing range especially in hilly areas. There's no fix that can be applied except to make absolutely sure that the headlamps are correctly aimed. Make sure this is done with an optical beamsetter. DS >>I just bought a new 2005 TSX. The xenon headlights of my car have a >>very sharp cut off line. That is NOT a problem, its the way good headlamps are SUPPOSED to work. I've personally invested a lot of effort into putting that type of headlamp on ALL my vehicles, vintage 1966 to 1993. If you feel "unsafe" with the headlamps, they are probably not aimed correctly. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.