 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Hyundai Cars / September 2006Know of a LED compatable replacement flasher/relay for 2006 Sonata?
I got some LED replacement lamps for the turn signals, but of course now they flash fast due to the change in load. I was curious if anyone knew of a replacement, plug-n-play flasher/relay to replace the stock one. I found this site with a few, but I haven't been able to determine which is right for the Sonata. Thanks, Kiran > I got some LED replacement lamps for the turn signals, but of course > now they flash fast due to the change in load. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Kiran Oops, forgot the URL to the site: http://autolumination.com/equalizers.htm >> I got some LED replacement lamps for the turn signals, but of course >> now they flash fast due to the change in load. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Oops, forgot the URL to the site: http://autolumination.com/equalizers.htm Something to be acutely aware of when replacing standard lamps with LEDs is that if someone hits you - even a rear end collision - it will likely be chargeable against you if the person points out that your rear lights weren't working correctly, and it gets looked into. Every LED replacement lamp I have looked at says "for off road use only". There's a good reason for this, and it's because the reflector assembly is designed for the light pattern emitted by the specified lamp. The brake, etc. lamps on vehicles that come from the factory with LEDs are designed for DOT specified photometry using LEDs. Nowhere on that page that you provided did it say that the LED replacement lamps were DOT approved. Also, changing the flasher from the factory one that is indicating a failed lamp because of the lack of load is a bad idea, as you will be eliminating another safety function that is supposed to warn you that something is wrong with your turn signals. > Something to be acutely aware of when replacing standard lamps with LEDs is > that if someone hits you - even a rear end collision - it will likely be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > load is a bad idea, as you will be eliminating another safety function that > is supposed to warn you that something is wrong with your turn signals. Agreed that the replacement tail lamps need to meet DOT specs Bob, but the flasher point is way off base. The flasher is not a circuit safety device. It's simply a load sensative device that will open and close. It is common to have to replace flashers when putting towing harnesses on, etc. Notwhithstanding the DOT issues, there is no problem with changing a flasher to match a different light package.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> Something to be acutely aware of when replacing standard lamps with LEDs > is [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > flasher > to match a different light package. Changing the flasher to accommodate the additional load imposed by trailer lamps is reasonable, and legal. Changing the flasher to a non compliant unit to accommodate a non-standard set of lights that do not meet the photometry requirements is a bad idea. I understand the purpose of the flasher, and I did not say it is a "circuit safety device". I said it performs "safety function that is supposed to warn you that something is wrong with your turn signals", and that it is. The flasher is doing what it is designed, and required to do - indicating a problem with the turn signals. In this case, the problem is that the wrong lamps are in the sockets. Depending on what LED replacement lamps he has installed, there may be serious visibility issues. That "group of LEDs" thing that Auto Zone sells shows up as nothing more than a 1.5 inch blob of light. There is no light directed to the reflector. Some of the others that are on the web page he mentioned seem like they might be better, but I haven't seen them. > Changing the flasher to accommodate the additional load imposed by trailer > lamps is reasonable, and legal. Changing the flasher to a non compliant unit > to accommodate a non-standard set of lights that do not meet the photometry > requirements is a bad idea. I had specifically stated that I agreed with the obligation to meet DOT illumination specs. That done, changing a flasher to accomodate a different load has nothing to do with compliance. It's a perfectly acceptable alteration. > I understand the purpose of the flasher, and I did not say it is a "circuit > safety device". I said it performs "safety function that is supposed to > warn you that something is wrong with your turn signals", and that it is. No it does not Bob. It simply flashes. It's cooincidental that you tell by the flasher that a bulb is burned out. It's no safety function. > The flasher is doing what it is designed, and required to do - indicating a > problem with the turn signals. In this case, the problem is that the wrong [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are on the web page he mentioned seem like they might be better, but I > haven't seen them. Again - I had specifically agreed that aftermarket light packages should meet DOT specs. The flasher to the best of my knowledge is not "required" to provide this warning. I think you're making too much of the simple flasher. It is fully possible for an aftermarket light package to meet DOT illumination specs and still draw a different current than the OEM lights. In such a case replacing the flasher would both be appropriate and completely safe and within the design intent for the purpose of a flasher. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> I understand the purpose of the flasher, and I did not say it is a > "circuit [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > by > the flasher that a bulb is burned out. It's no safety function. It is required that a motor vehicle be able to indicate that one or more turn signal lamps is failing to operate. This is a function of the flasher. It is indicated by changing the rate of the flash. The only exemption on the vehicle at hand is if it is equipped to tow trailers. Changing the flasher to solely to accomodate a different lamp current can only be done if the system can still indicate the failure of one or more lamps. > It is required that a motor vehicle be able to indicate that one or more > turn signal lamps is failing to operate. This is a function of the flasher. > It is indicated by changing the rate of the flash. The only exemption on the > vehicle at hand is if it is equipped to tow trailers. Changing the flasher > to solely to accomodate a different lamp current can only be done if the > system can still indicate the failure of one or more lamps. Can you specify the source of this requirement Bob? I know that flashers are not part of the state inspection process, so I'm curious where you arrive at this conclusion that it is required that the vehicle be able to indicate a bulb failure, and that said indication is the flasher. Even if you can provide (and I presume you can if you are laying claim as you do above) proof that this is required, you are still saying precisely what I said in both my first and my second posts. It is not rocket science to change a flasher to match the current load and behave as expected. Again - that's exactly what you are doing when you put a trailer package on. It's nothing more than simple electronics. A given load will produce a given current flow, which will warm the bi-metalic in the flasher at a given rate. Change the load, and you simply have to change the value of the bi-metalic in the flasher. Once you achieve a flashing rate that approximates the OEM rate, you're as close as anyone is ever going to care. Hell - most states don't even care that much. I've never seen a state inspection that specified the flasher rate. You could probably get by with a very high or very low rate, if you had a mis-match. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> It is required that a motor vehicle be able to indicate that one or more >> turn signal lamps is failing to operate. This is a function of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > arrive at this conclusion that it is required that the vehicle be able to > indicate a bulb failure, and that said indication is the flasher. Certainly. United Stated Code of Federal Regulations 49CFR571.108 http://tinyurl.com/fxzxq Which requires, in part: "S5.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, except when a variable-load turn signal flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers." > Even if you can provide (and I presume you can if you are laying claim as > you do above) proof that this is required, you are still saying precisely [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > with > a very high or very low rate, if you had a mis-match. My issue with messing with the turn signals is that neither you (ok, maybe you do - I don't know your field of expertise) nor I is qualified to determine if the resulting light output from the turn signals is proper if the lamps are replaced with LED's. I know the ones that they sell at Auto Zone are a joke when they are installed. Changing the flasher for a legitimate purpose is no problem. Changing the flasher to match a weird lamp that draws 25 ma, that looks cool, but now serves no function is wrong. You now have a bad turn signal system, and you eliminated the detection of it. If the replacement lamp is tested to comply with the DOT requirements, then you know it makes enough light. If it hasn't been, then it doesn't make enough light in the right directions. The manufacturer of the DOT approved lamp would also have to provide a solution to the flasher issue. No aftermarket LED replacement lamp I have ever seen claims to comply with the DOT requirements - and that does not require actual testing by the government, it just means the manufacturer is certifying that it makes enough light to meet the requirements. > Certainly. United Stated Code of Federal Regulations > 49CFR571.108 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating a > slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers." Thanks for that link Bob. I didn't even realize the Feds had delved into that level of minutia in this stuff. That said, J588E indicates the requirement for a pilot light (dash indicators) for the directionals. Related to our discussion, but distinctly not a requirement for the flasher to be the warning device of a failed bulb. Of course, we both realize that a properly configured light system will result in a pilot failure indication because of flasher load, but that's also consistent with what I've been saying all along. Actually, I think we are both closer to saying the same thing, than we are saying different things. > My issue with messing with the turn signals is that neither you (ok, maybe > you do - I don't know your field of expertise) nor I is qualified to > determine if the resulting light output from the turn signals is proper if > the lamps are replaced with LED's. Nope - I'm just like you. I have to trust the manufacturer's stated output rating. At some point, that's what you have to go with. > I know the ones that they sell at Auto > Zone are a joke when they are installed. Changing the flasher for a > legitimate purpose is no problem. Changing the flasher to match a weird lamp > that draws 25 ma, that looks cool, but now serves no function is wrong. Agreed. If that did not come through in what I had previously stated, then that was a mis-communication. Of course, it must be your fault... Seriously though, I have been in consistent agreement that a comprimise from DOT regulations for output is not acceptable in the name of looking cool. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Thanks for that link Bob. I didn't even realize the Feds had delved into > that level of minutia in this stuff. That said, J588E indicates the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > saying all along. Actually, I think we are both closer to saying the same > thing, than we are saying different things. Nope. The failure indication is not in the pilot light but in the flash rate of the flasher. Fixed load flashers, like the ones you are talking about, indicate a bulb failure by either doubling the flasher's flash rate or by going to a steady-burn/not flashing. It's a current-based monitoring system built into the flasher as Bob suspected. So because you've switched over to an illegal, non-DOT approved bulb that draws less current than the intended design bulb, your flasher indicates a bulb failure. And to go through all the trouble of switching flashers to ones for a variable load such as the ones used by heavy duty trucks (which do not have the bulb failure indicator) just so you can install a more expensive LED bulb that performs worse than the less expensive incandescent bulb your lamp was designed for is idiocy at its worst (which I realize has been said in many different forms in this thread, but I thought I'd repeat it just the same). And just so that you know, I am an expert in automotive lighting systems including turn signals and the flashers they use. I've tested them for more than 10 years now and I have not seen one LED replacement bulb for an incandescent that performs even close to one-tenth the performance of the original bulb. Designers do have plans for replaceable LED modules, but they will not be interchangeable with incandescents so that they should be used only with the lamps they were designed to be used with. SignatureDouglas Cummins Calcoast - ITL > Nope. The failure indication is not in the pilot light but in the flash > rate of the flasher. Ok - I will concede this point. There is not enough disagreement on most of the discussion for me to hang on to this point. I'll admit (again...) that I didn't realize the Feds had gotten so deeply invested in these definitions. I simply assumed that basic principles of current flow governed flasher rates in their entirety and were not influenced by regulations. >Fixed load flashers, like the ones you are talking > about, indicate a bulb failure by either doubling the flasher's flash > rate or by going to a steady-burn/not flashing. It's a current-based > monitoring system built into the flasher as Bob suspected. How the flasher works is well understood by both Bob and myself - never was a point of discussion. > So because > you've switched over to an illegal, non-DOT approved bulb that draws [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (which I realize has been said in many different forms in this thread, > but I thought I'd repeat it just the same). That's fine - another voice just adds to the chorus. > And just so that you know, I am an expert in automotive lighting systems > including turn signals and the flashers they use. I've tested them for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but they will not be interchangeable with incandescents so that they > should be used only with the lamps they were designed to be used with. That's an interesting piece of information. So... is it in terms of light output that they fall short? That would be my expectation. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > > Nope. The failure indication is not in the pilot light but in the flash > > rate of the flasher. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > That's an interesting piece of information. So... is it in terms of light > output that they fall short? That would be my expectation. I think what Doug is saying is that LED lamps should only be used in fixtures (taillight assemblies) designed to used them. Likewise, incandescent bulbs should only be used in fixtures designed for them. There is nothing wrong with LED taillights. Many high priced vehicles have them and they work quite well. But only because the entire lighting system has been designed around them. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ I think you left the stove on. > I think what Doug is saying is that LED lamps should only be used in > fixtures (taillight assemblies) designed to used them. Likewise, > incandescent bulbs should only be used in fixtures designed for them. Correct - but I was asking specifically about his research experiences. > There is nothing wrong with LED taillights. Many high priced vehicles > have them and they work quite well. But only because the entire lighting > system has been designed around them. Agreed, but not directly to the point of my follow up question. Though... it does raise a good question... What is the difference between OEM LED systems and aftermarket systems? One would think that since the OEM systems meet DOT specs that it would not be so improbable for aftermarket stuff to do so equally. I'm wondering if some of the more current stuff might indeed meet DOT specs. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> I think what Doug is saying is that LED lamps should only be used in >> fixtures (taillight assemblies) designed to used them. Likewise, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > stuff to do so equally. I'm wondering if some of the more current stuff > might indeed meet DOT specs. If someone came up with an aftermarket tail light assembly that used LED's - for example the aftermarket LED trailer light assemblies that are used for boat trailers are DOT approved - I'm sure it would work well. The problem with retrofits is that LEDs don't have the same pattern of light as the original lamps. Consequently, the light output of the assembly has to be wrong because the light source is not where it is designed to be. An 1157 makes unidirectional light. It radiates 407 lumens in all directions from an area of approximately .1 inch x .25 inches. I know of no LED that does that. [snip] > If someone came up with an aftermarket tail light assembly that used LED's - > for example the aftermarket LED trailer light assemblies that are used for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > makes unidirectional light. It radiates 407 lumens in all directions from an > area of approximately .1 inch x .25 inches. I know of no LED that does that. I've seen aftermarket taillight assemblies* that use LEDs. Installing them involves replacing the entire taillight assembly, not just sticking in an LED assembly in the existing lamp socket. * I don't know if they are approved units, but they appear to be configured similarly to LED-based taillights provided on other models as original equipment. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dyslexics have more fnu. >>And just so that you know, I am an expert in automotive lighting systems >>including turn signals and the flashers they use. I've tested them for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's an interesting piece of information. So... is it in terms of light > output that they fall short? That would be my expectation. Well, first and foremost the fact that a lamp designed around an incandescent filament will have severely degraded performance if you use anything besides the bulb it was designed around. If you've had physics you might be familiar with the study of optics, namely focal points. Move a source out of the focal point of the system (reflector and/or lens optics) and the beam goes completely out of focus. What do you think gives better performance - in focus or out of focus? These LED replacements can't place all its LEDs in the focal point of the system - namely where the filament of the incandescent bulb is. Now, if a lamp were designed around LEDs originally, then instead of a single focal point it will have been designed with multiple focal points (one for each LED) to spread the light from the LEDs into the beam pattern required for the lamp's function. That brings me to the next point - incandescent bulbs have omnidirectional light output (fancy way of saying it puts out light in all directions in mostly equal intensities) and the lamps that use them were designed with this in mind. LEDs are directional with peak outputs typically along axis dropping to 50% intensity in narrow, medium, and wide beam spreads usually no greater than 60°. Combine this with the fact that the LEDs are out of focus in the lens/reflector system and you get far less light coming out the lamp than had you simply used the original incandescent bulb. The only way to have an LED replacement of an incandescent bulb is to somehow convert an LED's directional output into an omnidirectional output *identical* to that of the intended incandescent bulb. I haven't seen anything in development that would accomplish this and frankly think that it would be cost-prohibitive. Definitely the botch jobs that are produced right now don't even come close. And then you have the problem of heat buildup. In order to get the proper amount of light, you need several LEDs. All those LEDs generate heat and when placed in a form like a miniature incandescent bulb, the heat gets trapped. As LEDs heat up, their light output decreases. I've seen outputs drop to 10% their starting intensity within a few minutes (hence, my earlier statement). The performance is even worse with high performance LEDs like the Luxeon which need a decent heat sink in order to achieve optimal performance and there just isn't enough room in the "bulb" for one. >>There is nothing wrong with LED taillights. Many high priced vehicles >>> have them and they work quite well. But only because the entire lighting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stuff to do so equally. I'm wondering if some of the more current stuff > might indeed meet DOT specs. OEM LED systems are designed to use LEDs. Aftermarket LED systems designed to replace OEM LED systems (in other words, the entire automotive lamp), may perform just as well as the OEM - it depends on the aftermarket manufacturer. There are good aftermarket manufacturers and there are crap aftermarket manufacturers. The lamps also may not perform as well as the OEM but still meet minimal DOT specs (many quality OEs produce lamps that exceed federal requirements several times over). Aftermarket LED systems designed to replace incandescent automotive lamps (again in other words, the entire lamp) may perform just as well as the OEM incandescent depending on the aftermarket manufacturer with the same caveats as previous. For a while DOT did not allow this, but they reversed their decision and now its legal. OEM LED systems designed to replace incandescent bulbs do not exist. Way too much liability as well as the reasons I stated above. It's possible, but expect them to cost if it ever does happen. Aftermarket LED systems designed to replace OEM incandescent bulbs is what we were discussing above. I haven't seen one that is worth anything. OEM LED systems that are replaceable are in the works, but not yet through development as far as I know. These would go into lamps designed around the LEDs and would not be interchangeable with incandescents. You can do a patent search for patent # 6846101 to learn more. SignatureDouglas Cummins Calcoast - ITL > Well, first and foremost the fact that a lamp designed around an... <snip> ...You can do a patent search for patent # 6846101 to learn more. Excellent stuff Doug. Thanks for taking the time for such a write up. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > OEM LED systems designed to replace incandescent bulbs do not exist. > Way too much liability as well as the reasons I stated above. It's > possible, but expect them to cost if it ever does happen. Actually it's inconceivable that this could ever be done. The filaments used in the signal bulbs are helical coils which emit into a volume (not surface emitters) and this does matter in the optical design. You can't just replace them with a round cylinder of semiconductor material and get the same results So instead you would need to find a way to coil the semiconductor material and then somehow imitate the varying temperature of the inside and outside of the coil, and the change in output from the center to the ends of the coil to get the same output distribution. Not gonna happen. >>OEM LED systems designed to replace incandescent bulbs do not exist. >>Way too much liability as well as the reasons I stated above. It's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and the change in output from the center to the ends of the coil to get > the same output distribution. Not gonna happen. The reason I hedged my statement is that it is conceivable that an LED based substitute for the coil may be created. For instance, a fiberoptic light pipe to a cylindrical lens the dimensions of the filament (more than likely placing the LED source outside the lamp making it really a light pipe bulb replacement). Theoretically possible but just not practicable nor really justifiable at this point in time. I don't see it happening though. SignatureDouglas Cummins Calcoast - ITL >> Certainly. United Stated Code of Federal Regulations >> 49CFR571.108 [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > same > thing, than we are saying different things. After working in the Nuclear world for a while, I got to learn more than I ever wanted about the CFR. Not just 10 (Nuke), but that a violation of any of them in a licensed facility is serious even if it has nothing to do with radiation. Unlicensed radios, vehicles, fish, etc. >> My issue with messing with the turn signals is that neither you (ok, >> maybe [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > then > that was a mis-communication. Of course, it must be your fault... NEVER!!!! ; ) > Seriously though, I have been in consistent agreement that a comprimise > from > DOT regulations for output is not acceptable in the name of looking cool. We were actually saying the same thing. I was trying to the point across that the flasher does help ensure that the lighting system is working properly. What does happen in a lot of cases is that someone says "these lights are cool" be them LED turn signals, or purple headlights. According to the regs, there are light limits - both minimum, and maximum - and the reflectors and lenses are designed for a hot filament of a certain length, orientation, and position. LEDs are different, and the resultant photometry will be different than the original design. It's up to someone to determine whether the result will achieve compliance, and short of "This device will be DOT compliant when used in place of an 1157, etc lamp" the end user has no idea what the long term results will be. Every one I've ever seen says "off road use only" (LED's and "funny" headlight capsules) - that would be the manufacturer's out, or says nothing about compliance. Holy cow. I never thought my question would spark such a discussion! Here's the LED bulbs I bought: http://tinyurl.com/nzxrn I want to note, nowhere do they mention this bulb as being DOT approved or not, or for off-road/show use only. I think that's a big mistake on their part. Initially I meant them for the turn signals on my motorcycle. But it was immediately obvious they did not function as well as the incandescent 1073 bulbs, so I decided to try them in the rear turn signals of my 2006 Sonata. With one LED installed on one side, and the stock incandescent in the other.. I ran the hazard flasher and stood behind the car to compare them. I then moved the car into the street and walked a ways away.. I'd say 3 city blocks, though there's no 'blocks' here. I found the LED to be much more 'obvious', and didn't have that lazy attack/decay that the incandescnet has. The LED was also a brighter color of amber. Do they work as well in snow, fog, rain, direct sunlight? I didn't go that far to test. I put the old bulb back in, and started researching the flasher, which led to my original post. And I'm all about safety, I ride a motorcycle. What everyone's said about the DOT specs and safety is completely right. It wasn't my intention to defeat the safety of the rear turn signals. I only bought these things and now had no use for them, and given my little test, they looked reasonably acceptable in my Sonata. And not to be funny, but the bit about the flasher being responsible for alerting you to a burned out bulb; I do a walk-around on my vehicles routinely. I have a 2001 Sante Fe and the side marker lights chronically burn out, yet nothing brings that to my attention. And I drive a lot for work, and see cars with one, two or all brake lights out, or cars with those stupid clear aftermarket light housings that look like someone is shining a flashlight through them from the trunk when they step on the brakes. Not long ago, Florida stopped inspecting vehicles, which I think was a terrible idea. But anyway, my point is.. if you're going to meddle with the safety aspect of something on a vehicle, you have to be responsible for it, and if the flasher no longer warns of a bulb being out, I'd see it when I do my walk-around. (I picked that habit up from flying.) Anyway, thanks for all the information. It's better to be safe than sorry. :) Kiran Checkout www.superbrightleds.com They state that the LEDs are not as bright and will not work with the flasher. They sell a flasher unit that will work with them. They recommend the Luxeon LED as it can be as bright as the incandescent bulb. John >>> I got some LED replacement lamps for the turn signals, but of course >>> now they flash fast due to the change in load. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > another safety function that is supposed to warn you that something is > wrong with your turn signals. |
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.