New headlamp bulb tests

But the Philips VisionPlus H1 *does* have a blue tip on it.
Is that OK? You can see the image of one at:
http://www.eur.lighting.philips.com/automotive/eur/html/products_visionplus_images.html

Just wondering whether it's only a problem if the *whole*
of the glass is blue?

Al Reynolds
SW UK

 

Why do we have these crappy, moulded plastic lights with a bulb stuck in
the back?

Simple, air moves better over a nice smooth curve at the corner of the
car than a big, flat sealed beam. It is all about aerodynamics, which
is all about fuel mileage. The manufacturers have been kind enough to
use a few fairly standard bulb configurations in all of the varied

 

Yes, most places, but we would hate to have to walk or use the dog-sled
for 8 months of the year!

And according to alt.autos.toyota we're a bunch of pantie-waisted,
peace-nick socialists. |>)

Dan

 

And given the number of freeze-thaw cycles most of inhabited Canada
receives, while there is snow on the ground, that is exactly why we use
salt. There are alternatives, but you can't afford to use them |>)

Dan

 

[snip lotsa good stuff]

Hi Daniel,

Do you know if similar tests (on the web) for 9006 and 9005 bulbs?
In your opinion, what are the best available (in Canada)? I am not
really interested in over-wattage as I am still using the stock
wiring.

Thanks,
Dennis

 

The Neon was exported to Europe (and still is). Perhaps Dan Stern can look
into a set of e-code lamps for you? Although I supposed it's possible for
Chrysler to have designed bad e-codes as well, but I would imagine that
nearly any e-code version would be better than its US equivalent.

Brighter (they use the filament construction trick to do this (details are
on Dan's site somewhere)), but I'm not sure it'd be enough to solve your
problems but every little bit helps. Regardless of what lamps you have in
your Neon I'd say check your voltage at the plugs and if you're not getting
at least 13 volts with the engine running, you should add relays. If your
alternator is working correctly, a relay harness will get you close to 14
volts a the lamp sockets.

 

So does the H4, a blue ring right behind the black obscuration cap.

It doesn't really hurt anything, because it's at the tip of the bulb.
Light passing through the forward end of the bulb is not collected and
focused by the reflector. If no bulb shield is present in the headlamp,
it's visible to an observer. Either way, the blue tip (or ring) is
reflected by the reflector so an observer looking at the headlamp will see
some slightly blue areas -- it doesn't hurt lamp performance though, since
all the light that's actually used goes through the untinted portion of
the bulb.

Makes a nice gimmick for Philips to write creatively about, though.

DS

 

No. These bulbs, though they are worldwide approved, are primarily used in
North American automotive lights, and North Americans haven't yet gotten
into comparative, non-advertising-based testing of things like headlamp
bulbs.

Depends on the application.

DS

 

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

So aim them correctly and polish the lenses. They ARE decent units, but
won't perform well unless installed and aimed correctly and properly
maintained. Fix the problem, don't claim a different problem where none
exists.

 

Héhé, GM DoT headlamps ain't that wonderful, but to be fair they do
tend to be just about passable and a heck of a lot better than a lot
of the other crud out there. The low beams on my '89 Pontiscrap are
still PP imo but they are still a notch or two above the junk on the
'91 Mazda that I now drive. The beef that many r.a.d-ders have with
GM's lighting is their obsession with searing, glarey high beam
drls. If you've ever been faced with a Splaturn coming your way,
you'll be well aware.

That doesn't necessarily mean you're not causing glare. Some people
have a high glare threshold 'cos they're used to all the Ford
pickups out there. I flash just about anyone who's causing excessive
glare, and that includes Ford pickup LOW beams and maybe some
GM-driving doofi who run their high bum drls at night. I try not to
flash too much though myself, because just about everything on the
roads here causes a lot of glare. The NHTSA is correct about one
thing, you do sorta get used to it and driving by your "kismet" (as
the Turks say) while being blinded by oncoming Ford pickups becomes
virtually second nature, but that neither makes [excessive] glare ok
nor does it make Europeans, Australians etc., who are much more
civilized when it comes to vehicle safety, especially as lighting
goes, "silly" for being "glare-o-phobic"(tm).

I probably won't be forking out $$$$$$ for the real headlamps for my
'91, though it would be nice. I can pretty well see where I'm going
with the *high* beams, because the headlamps have a decent size
reflector and the high beam pattern is nicely formed to provide good
broad transverse vision and surprisingly reasonable forward range,
the only problem being the light is just too darn dim, but that's
where the driving lights help a LOT. Oddly enough they don't seem to
help much with the distance range on reflectorized roads (yes they
are aimed properly), but on unreflectorized roads they increase
range by a factor of at least about 1½ AND allow me to see little
critters that I wouldn't even otherwise know were there (squirrels,
raccoons, cats, dogs, deer, wolves, bears, groundhogs, hedgehogs,
armadillos, giraffes, white tigers, exotic east African elephants,
you name it).

Like I always said, the REAL test of high beam range is completely
pitch dark roads WITHOUT any kinds of side reflectors or cats' eyes
whatsoever, because those wonderful reflective inventions that are
installed on any decent major highway can be very good at masking
the dogshite performance of many US high beam lamps. Actually that
should be a testament to the effectiveness of cats' eyes and
reflective sidemarkers - these shiny wonders facilitate rapid night
time motoring and almost certainly save lives.

 

Euro spec composite aero lamps typically aren't so crappy. 'Nuff
said really.

 

Thanks. I'd love to get euro-code lights on the thing.

(pulls out multimeter)

 

I did polish the, and aim them correctly. I guess I got too used to my
euro-spec 240 lights. My Buick has the same problem - the low-beams are
set to 30mph or something silly and there is a white spot on the road
from them not 100 ft in front of me. If I aim them up, the high-beams
are aiming about 20 degrees high.

What gets me is that the low-beams are dingy and yellow and the high-beams
are white and clear, if weak.

Any ideas?

 

That sounds like undervoltage. Try this sometime - go to a lighting
store(dedicated one) and ask to see a long-life 130V bulb versus a
120V bulb of the same wattage. Note how much brighter the 120V
is - on the order of 20% or more.

The same thing happens with most smaller budget cars(and a lot of
the new more expensive ones as well). 16 gauge wiring instead of 12.
Wiring run all over the place instead of proper relays. 10-11V is not
uncommon in most older cars.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.