New headlamp bulb tests

Not to mention the extreme glare you're causing other drivers.
I'm not sure why you're judging the reach of your low beams by the
placement of the foreground light.

There is only a slight difference in light color between the low and high
beam filaments, when burning. Hunker down ahead and slightly to the
passenger side of your headlamps while the low beams are on and you'll
see.

DS

 

I am not saying just about the FMVSS108 and lighting system. I am saying
the FMVSS in whole. We've had it with heavy corporate hand in the
rule-making process. We've had it with ignorants and idiots trying their
hand at rule-making process that is wrong or poor solution or makes
things worse.

Had US ditch the DOT FMVSS and subscribe to ECE, we would have more
choices in vehicles and more access to better safety equipments at lower
cost. I've come across a report where it is estimated to cost about
$2.000,— per vehicle to be homologated for US regulations. I feel that
DOT FMVSS is a barrier to free trade and freedom of choice, the latter
is the tenent of American free market principle...

Granted, ECE lighting standards have deficiencies. Yet, I'd choose the
deficiencies of ECE over DOT.

Oliver

 

OK, well, I agree with you to some degree, but let me pose this real-life
question to you:

Federal and Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 ("Fuel System
Integrity") requires a fuel-loss test in which a vehicle is struck from
the rear, by a mobile barrier traveling at 48 km/h. An amendment requiring
the speed to be increased to 80 km/h was proposed in 2002 and is expected
to be finalized early next year. The equivalent ECE regulation (No. 32)
requires a rear-end impact speed of only 35 Km/h.

Which is the better regulation?

Obviously the North American regulation is the more stringent one, because
it requires vehicles to be designed such that they don't lose fuel when
struck at higher speeds than the comparable ECE regulation requires.

Are vehicle fires more common in crashes with ECE vehicles than with DOT
vehicles? Is the DOT regulation unnecessarily strict (therefore
unnecessarily expensive to comply with, therefore making new vehicles
unnecessarily expensive)? Or, is the ECE regulation inappropriately lax
(therefore allowing too many people to get hurt or killed)? I don't know,
and the answer to that question is the only proper way to assess which
regulation is best.

My personal opinion:

Vehicle fires are involved in only a very small percentage of fatal or
injurious crashes, and I know this is an example of ECE regulations being
weighted towards crash avoidance (better lighting/braking/suspension/tire
standards, for instance) while DOT regulations are weighted towards
survival after a crash (mandatory airbags, this fuel system integrity
standard, etc.), but I can't help feeling like I'd rather be in the
vehicle that conforms to FMVSS 301 if I'm struck from the rear at high
speed...just in case my luck is bad enough for it to be one of those very
few injurious crashes where fire is involved, know what I mean?


DS

 

Then the US would have to start illuminating the road signs and the
crosswalks, as I used to see around the area of SE London where my
parents lived -- but I assume it was the same everywhere in UK, and
perhaps elsewhere in Europe too.

ISTM that the US encourages crappy headlights that spill light
everywhere so they can save on proper illumination on the streets.

-=-
Alan

 

this one's being driven by all the cops getting fried when their crown vic
is hit from behind when stopped on a freeway.

OK, well, I agree with you to some degree, but let me pose this real-life
question to you:

Federal and Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 ("Fuel System
Integrity") requires a fuel-loss test in which a vehicle is struck from
the rear, by a mobile barrier traveling at 48 km/h. An amendment requiring
the speed to be increased to 80 km/h was proposed in 2002 and is expected
to be finalized early next year. The equivalent ECE regulation (No. 32)
requires a rear-end impact speed of only 35 Km/h.

Which is the better regulation?

Obviously the North American regulation is the more stringent one, because
it requires vehicles to be designed such that they don't lose fuel when
struck at higher speeds than the comparable ECE regulation requires.

Are vehicle fires more common in crashes with ECE vehicles than with DOT
vehicles? Is the DOT regulation unnecessarily strict (therefore
unnecessarily expensive to comply with, therefore making new vehicles
unnecessarily expensive)? Or, is the ECE regulation inappropriately lax
(therefore allowing too many people to get hurt or killed)? I don't know,
and the answer to that question is the only proper way to assess which
regulation is best.

My personal opinion:

Vehicle fires are involved in only a very small percentage of fatal or
injurious crashes, and I know this is an example of ECE regulations being
weighted towards crash avoidance (better lighting/braking/suspension/tire
standards, for instance) while DOT regulations are weighted towards
survival after a crash (mandatory airbags, this fuel system integrity
standard, etc.), but I can't help feeling like I'd rather be in the
vehicle that conforms to FMVSS 301 if I'm struck from the rear at high
speed...just in case my luck is bad enough for it to be one of those very
few injurious crashes where fire is involved, know what I mean?


DS

 

It'd be great if standards could somehow be applied worldwide, taking the
best of current ones from FMVSS, ECE, CMVSS, and Australia ADR (and whatever
Japan uses too) and throwing away whatever is obsolete, outdated, or
insubstantial. Not only on lighting, but also on crash safety (see Dan
Stern's other post). For example, ECE regs do not require side marker lamps
and reflectors (but permit amber front and rear), but FMVSS and CMVSS
requires amber at the front and red at the rear. Conversely, ECE
regulations require side repeaters and at least one rear fog light, but
those are not required by FMVSS and CMVSS (but are permitted). All of those
signalling devices have good purposes IMHO and it certainly couldn't hurt to
have them on cars worldwide. And it seems that the US (and Canada?) seemed
to require dual airbags in most/all vehicles while many light trucks in
Europe don't have them or just have a driver's airbag. Yet of the airbags
in Europe, they are generally less powerful than their US counterparts
because they were designed for belted occupants and not unbelted ones.

However, all of that may take tremendous amounts of time and money to work
out standards that would be effective everywhere.

 

Aw, kee-RYSTE! Not this old canard about overhead signs again...

This has been used as the excuse for cruddy US beam patterns for years:
"We need lots of uplight for our unlit overhead retroreflective signs, all
signs in Europe are self-lit".

Most signs in Europe (and the rest of the world that uses European
headlamps) are NOT self-lit, and are made of the same types and grades of
retroreflective materials as are used in North America, number one. Number
two, the minimum allowable levels of uplight for signs are slightly
*higher* in the European beam standard than in the US beam standard -- the
US maximum is much higher, so there's no particular impetus for headlamp
manufacturers to control uplight to any real degree of tightness.

Ref:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf82/176157_web.pdf

DS

 

There could be some voltage drop; I haven't measured it precisely,
mostly because my $10 multimeter is not up to the task (only 10V and
250V ranges). I'll hafta get something decent like my old Micronta
unit I got for my twelfth birthday (yes really!). If they're still
making them, I know I could do a lot worse with my money.

Of course, that goes without saying. The voltage-power-light
relationship is not linear. I've even used both types of bulb at
home and the difference is noticeable for sure. But then, I can be
slightly geeky in some ways and think of the "130V, 100W" bulbs in
my living room floor lamp as 85W rather than 100W anyway. :}

Yep, 16ga high/low beam feed and ground, same for the driving
lights, except for the battery-relay feed (red) wire which is 14ga.
12ga wiring is probably not really necessary for standard (35-65)
wattages, but is still nice to have anyway. I have considered
installing relays for the main lamps, although that would involve
"reprogramming" the drls to low beams or some other alternative, but
the 9004 system is so crappy anyway I'm not sure how good the
improvement would really be. The low beams are only 45W a piece, so
the voltage drop there is bound to be much less significant relative
to the 65W per lamp stock high beams. The Hella driving lights
really help though, so I can see quite well with all four brights
on. If I did get the real headlamps (unlikely 'cos of $$$) then I
would almost certainly install extra relays and "tree trunk" wires.

I don't know if the voltage drop is quite that bad, but I guess it's
possible. As Dan Stern put it, "science has yet to give us the
wiring that improves with age". But even at nominal voltage, 9004
brights provide a luminous flux not too dissimilar to other bulbs'
LOW beam filaments, so I'm not really surprised by the dim, diffuse
beam tbh. So yeah, relays would help, but I don't think it's worth
the hassle on that car, unless I actually spent the $$$$$$ on real
headlamps too. Most of the inability to see issues relate to the
cruddy low beam pattern and inherent deficiencies of the Ford
inspired lighting system, which is not a result of voltage drop.

 

Check the voltage at the lamps under load. In other words, don't pull
the socket off the lamp and check the voltage without the bulb. Leave
the lamp plugged in and burning and probe the back of the socket where
the wires go in with a long probe (or thin stiff wire like a
straightened paper clip) to get an under load reading. If its under
about 13 volts (engine running) then its time for relays or other wiring
upgrades.

 

Probably because I can't see ANYTHING reflecting more than 200 of so
feet away they are so dim.

 

200 feet is typical seeing range for properly aimed US low beams.

DS

 

Actually, I use these in my house. 75W commercial use bulbs
that put out ~60 watts equivalent. The bonus? Softer light - sort
of like a frosted bulb out of the clear one and a 15,000 hour life.

But for cars? Not only does undervoltage lessen the light dramatically,
but it also makes the light look dingy and yellow.

If it goes through a bunch of switches and DRL boxes and nonsense,
wiring directly via a relay is going to be a huge difference. Worth
looking into.

Actually, the opposite occurs. I ran my lights an hour ago. 11.5V
on lowbeams. Ack. Lower wattage lights are more prone to color-shifting
and low output as the filament doesn't have much leeway between proper
operation and glowing a bit. Take a dimmer in your house(most have one
somewhere) - and see how the lights go on in a non-linear fashion. The
first 1/4 of the way on barely gets the filament to glow amber like a
lightbulb and the last 1/4 accounts for nearly half of the light.

In home lighting, for instance, nothing much at ALL happens at 50-80V.
Just incredibly dim light. Cars are the same way. A light will barely
burn at 9-10V out of ~13.5 expected. Smaller bulbs have less leeway
to play with before they stop working properly.

Mine tested somewhere in the middle which means my lowbeams are
operating at roughly half power after I factor in 10-15% loss from
older assemblies.

Try this:
Get some good 12-gauge wire. Run it direcly to the light on one side
(carefully, so not to shock yourself) - after disconnecting the old
feed. The simple way, IMO, is a visit to a junkyard and pull the
connector and about 6 inches of wire off. Strip, apply some Scotch-loks,
and instant tester. Car obviously on.

You should see a huge difference. I did on my 240 and promptly located
the parts to fix it.

 

FWIW I use a Sunpro CP7678 (kinda like this one...the model numbers match
but they look different...mine's kinda old maybe that's why) and like it a
lot:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2530131191

It can test all sorts of stuff. Voltage, resistance, tach, etc.

 

Q: does 10.5-11 count? Think I found my problem. Now where do I
get the relays?

 

Dan Stern or many other places. Google the words "relay harness" and "9007"
(like if your bulbs were 9007 bulbs) and a boatload of URLs should come up.

Or you can make your own. Get two 30-amp fused relays with a 10 amp fuse
each, 10 or 12 gauge wire (10 preferred but don't go narrower than 12), and
a bunch of connectors and go from there.

However if you buy a pre-made harness you probably want to decide now if you
want to convert to e-codes or not since the bulb sockets will be different
and therefore the harnesses will be different (no sense in buying a 9007
harness now only to hack up up later to fit H4s when you can buy a H4
harness from the get-go).

 

Ops. my bad. 11.5 maybe 12.(somehow got the numbers off by one)

Still, way too low. Thankfully, my car has no DRLs - just a 3-way
pull/knob, so it should be simple.

 

Buy from me or from someone else, but be choosy -- the commonly available
9007 relay harness (the one with the bright yellow or blue sleeve around
the wires) is a piece of third-world trash. Power wires need to be 12 or
10 gauge!

DS

 

The Lucas you are talking about, whose reputation extends well back into
the 50s, went to corporate heaven long ago. They were first taken over by
the reformed Massey Ferguson - can't remember the oddball name they used -
and that was ultimately carved up and some of the Lucas part taken over by
TRW. I hear they use the Lucas brand name for many of their aircraft
electronic parts... just so you'll have a nice warm feeling the next time
you fly.;-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

My 200 ft I mean - not visible or seeing range, but NOTHING at
all out that far. They barely make it 100 ft. So, a re-wire and
maybe a H4 Euro essembly is in order.

You sell them - how much would a kit for the current bulbs be
with 9007 and H4 connectors(so I can swap later)?

 

Cheers for that - I'd forgotten about most of the light
from the bulb going "backwards" to the reflector and
then out...

Al