Xenon headlamps

On Sunday 27 November 2005 18:37, Huw [hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk] wrote
in message <[email protected]>

>
> "PDannyD" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> On Sunday 27 November 2005 16:43, Huw [hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk]
>> wrote in message <[email protected]>
>>
>>> PDannyD wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 27 November 2005 13:28, Nige
>>>> [[email protected]] wrote in message
>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>>> For a RRC, I was reading this months Practical Classics mag & saw
>>>>> some in a kind of review. Anyone used them, they are a direct
>>>>> replacement for halogen type lamps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any idea where I can buy two & how good they are etc?
>>>>
>>>> Too good. :-(
>>>> Oncoming traffic with normal headlights will struggle to see where
>>>> they're going.
>>>>
>>>> If you do go for exceedingly bright lights then for the sake of all
>>>> around you get them adjusted properly. The better you can see, the
>>>> worse oncoming drivers can see.
>>>
>>> There speaks a man driving a Series LR with sealed beams of half a
>>> candle power each.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aye. Actually they're not bad headlights, just the standard non-dazzling
>> and
>> well-adjusted kind.
>>
>
> Since the dip beam pattern is exceptionally ill-defined then the only
> reason they don't dazzle is that a candle has as much light.

Rubbish.

The beam pattern on *my* recently replaced headlights is fine. The pattern
is neither too sharp nor too diffused, these are Goldilocks's favourite
headlights. The problem is when someone else decides that they want to see
better than everyone else and so use super bright headlights and adjust
them so that only they can see.

I have a 100E Ford Prefect which barely gets above 50W per headlight yet I
can see very well with that even though the beam pattern is nicely
diffused. I can see properly because my headlights are adjusted properly.

Personally I think it is the height of stupidity to install brighter
headlights rather than drive slower to accommodate the headlights you
already have. After all, the roads are used by everyone not just people
with money to burn on super bright headlights.

I think from now on I shall drive on side-lights only and use night vision
or infra-red goggles until people start being sensible with their
headlights.

--
S3 SWB Petrol Hard-top

On or around Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:34:55 GMT, "Derek"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Yes xenon/halogen lamps from halfrauds and reputable parts dealers
>everywhere and IMO well worth the money. I found a real improvement I drive
>home down unlit lanes .Look out for the double packs and save a few quid.Not
>to be confused with HID xenon projectors ( or summat like that) which
>aren't a direct replacement and are feckin dear.There is a test of major
>brands posted somewhere on the web but for the life of me I can't find it I
>think mine were branded 30+ but there are loads to go at.
>Derek
>

Osram Silver Star, Philips Vision Plus are brand names i think for the "50%
brighter" ones.

HID lamps, btw, as opposed to "extra bright bulbs", are only legal in things
with self-levelling headlamps, IIRC, although you can indeed get conversions
for normal lamps if you want to spend the moolah. You need an inigiter unit
(basically, a high-voltage dc-ac converter, I think) and the "bulb" bit to
fit the headlamps. I've seen conversions for H4 headlamps for sale, I think
they were about 300 bucks.

On or around Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:45:47 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:43:03 -0000, Nige wrote:
>
>> Yeah, i have done some research, HID are totally different, ...
>
>Quite, HID is High Intensity Discharge. That is they are a form of arc
>lamp and need special control gear to start and run them. You cannot
>simply swap the bulb and magically get HID lights.
>
>You can get "uprated" or "xenon" ordinary halogen filament bulbs with
>blue paint one 'em to make your lights look like HID but that strikes
>me as remarkedly pointless. Why generate light then filter some of it
>out?

supremely pointless, not to mention illegal and dangerous. Illegal mostly
cos the extra-blue ones are higher than normal output and not E marked, so
not legal for fitment except to old motors. Even on old ones I think you're
supposed to have an "approval mark".

>"Xenon" bulbs without the blue coating may offer more lumens per watt
>but there is an awful lot of FUD out there.

the Philips vision plus or Osram silver star are visibly better, IME.

On or around Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:09:58 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>It is a legal requirement under construction and use regs that
>Xenon HID lights must be automatically controlled for height via sensors in
>the vehicles suspension, to prevent dazzle to oncoming traffic under all
>conditions.

quite so. I dunno why they can't have a credible beam pattern, mind.

Course, that self-levelling doesn't really work as most of the dazzling is
caused by road angles and not by poor vehicle loading. What you really need
is terrain-following radar that keeps the lights pointing at a point on the
road 40 yds or wotever in front of the car. It could also be usefully
linked to a HUD unit in the dash and project an image of the road ahead onto
the windscreen for use in foggy conditions...

trouble is, the system would probably cost about half a million to install.

"PDannyD" <>
> I think from now on I shall drive on side-lights only and use night vision
> or infra-red goggles until people start being sensible with their
> headlights.

Better still, everyone should stop driving except me, so I never have to dip
and can use the full width of the road on blind bends. Lovely. I could even
mount two lighthouse bulbs on the front.

Huw

On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:32, Huw [hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk] wrote
in message <[email protected]>

>
> "PDannyD" <>
>> I think from now on I shall drive on side-lights only and use night
>> vision or infra-red goggles until people start being sensible with their
>> headlights.
>
> Better still, everyone should stop driving except me, so I never have to
> dip and can use the full width of the road on blind bends. Lovely. I could
> even mount two lighthouse bulbs on the front.

Stop that! You're being silly!


--
S3 SWB Petrol Hard-top

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:08:42 +0000, PDannyD wrote:

>> I could even mount two lighthouse bulbs on the front.
>
> Stop that! You're being silly!

Aye, lighthouse bulbs aren't that powerful, huge range from 12W to
1.5kW from a (quick) look through:

http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/interactive/gallery/index.html

They just have socking big reflectors and lenses to capture all the
light and squirt it out in a narrow beam.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Liquorice <[email protected]> writes:

Dave> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:43:03 -0000, Nige wrote:
>> Yeah, i have done some research, HID are totally different, ...

Dave> Quite, HID is High Intensity Discharge. That is they are a
Dave> form of arc lamp and need special control gear to start and
Dave> run them. You cannot simply swap the bulb and magically get
Dave> HID lights.

Dave> You can get "uprated" or "xenon" ordinary halogen filament
Dave> bulbs with blue paint one 'em to make your lights look like
Dave> HID but that strikes me as remarkedly pointless. Why
Dave> generate light then filter some of it out?

Dave> "Xenon" bulbs without the blue coating may offer more lumens
Dave> per watt but there is an awful lot of FUD out there.

Nicely explained.

I upgraded my Rangie (P38A) to HID a few months back. The results are
awesome - the only downside is that people keep flashing me thinking I
have main beam on.

With the newer kits, the upgrade isn't much more difficult that
replacing the bulb. You have a control unit that needs mounting
somewhere, then you hook up one end of the wires to the existing
headlamp connector, and the other to the expensive HID discharge tube
and fit it in the headlamp. The come in H4, H7, etc sizes.

http://www.cunningham.me.uk/rangiewiki/index.php?title=P38A_Exterior#HID_Upgrade
has more information, if anyone is interested. Cost around 300 quid,
which isn't cheap, but it makes a hell of a difference at night.

Andy


--
Andy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk
I don't run antivirus software on my computer; I prefer to run it in my brain.
-- Dave Buckles

"AndyC the WB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Liquorice <[email protected]> writes:

<snip>

> I upgraded my Rangie (P38A) to HID a few months back. The results are
> awesome - the only downside is that people keep flashing me thinking I
> have main beam on.

In other words, you are dazzling them which means either the beam pattern is
wrong or the height is incorrect. Either way, you are actually increasing
the likelihood of you causing an accident and are now an extreme danger to
other road users on dark roads! Not to mention an illegal lighting setup,
see my other comments re. auto height levelling for this very reason.
What happens if something big and heavy is suddenly blinded coming towards
you and hits you, putting you in, say, a coma? Or worse, killing the other
driver?? Is it really worth it just for you to see an extra couple of feet
in front of you??
When upgrading lights, we need to adopt a sensible and responsible approach,
preferably within the law, but definitely not at the expense of others! beam
pattern and adjustment is all-important, get those two right and rarely do
you need the complexity of hid.
Badger.

>>>>> "Badger" == Badger <[email protected]> writes:

Badger> In other words, you are dazzling them which means either
Badger> the beam pattern is wrong or the height is
Badger> incorrect.

Not at all. The lights are correctly adjusted. The car has passed an
MOT since they were fitted. The car has air suspension, which keeps
it levelled regardless of load.

After it happened a few times, I was sufficiently concerned enough
check the lights from the view of an oncoming car. They don't dazzle
as such, because they are aimed correctly. But they do LOOK brighter
- sufficently so that once in a while, someone will flash their
headlights at me. Funnily enough, it happens more around "early dusk"
when the lights look much brighter, despite there being sufficient
ambient light to make them less dazzling.

Badger> mention an illegal lighting setup, see my other comments

What's illegal about them? You keep stating that HIDs are illegal,
but as far as I am aware the MOT test is the final arbiter of what is,
or isn't, safe to take out on the road.

Andy


--
Andy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk
Sometimes, when a luser makes an unreasonable demand, the best thing
to do is let them have exactly what they ask for.
-- Joe Zeff

Huw wrote:

>
> "PDannyD" <>
>> I think from now on I shall drive on side-lights only and use night
>> vision or infra-red goggles until people start being sensible with
>> their headlights.
>
> Better still, everyone should stop driving except me, so I never have
> to dip and can use the full width of the road on blind bends. Lovely.
> I could even mount two lighthouse bulbs on the front.
>

Don't - my nasty little mind was considering one of these:

http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/SX16/ILS_SX-16.pdf

Rigged as an auxilliary lamp. I've checked, and an FFR generator will
put out enough juice to run it - just.

P.

"AndyC the WB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> "Badger" == Badger <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Badger> In other words, you are dazzling them which means either
> Badger> the beam pattern is wrong or the height is
> Badger> incorrect.
>
> Not at all. The lights are correctly adjusted. The car has passed an
> MOT since they were fitted. The car has air suspension, which keeps
> it levelled regardless of load.

Yes, it keeps the car level, that's not the same as headlamp levelling
though but better than none at all. The BMW xenon factory fitted HID lamps,
for example, move instantly the suspension moves to compensate for height
and to prevent dazzle.

> After it happened a few times, I was sufficiently concerned enough
> check the lights from the view of an oncoming car. They don't dazzle
> as such, because they are aimed correctly. But they do LOOK brighter
> - sufficently so that once in a while, someone will flash their
> headlights at me. Funnily enough, it happens more around "early dusk"
> when the lights look much brighter, despite there being sufficient
> ambient light to make them less dazzling.

I can understand that, in dusk conditions they appear brighter due to the
human eye not having adjusted any further than to compensate for a lower
ambient light level.

>
> Badger> mention an illegal lighting setup, see my other comments
>
> What's illegal about them? You keep stating that HIDs are illegal,
> but as far as I am aware the MOT test is the final arbiter of what is,
> or isn't, safe to take out on the road.

Right, first point, HID's in themselves aren't illegal, if installed in
compliance with c&u regs, but there's a big difference between legality to
fit and mot rules. For instance if you remove the cat on an lpg vehicle
it'll pass an emissions test for lpg, but it's illegal insomuch as you are
breaking construction and use regs for the model year and type approval. The
only HID setups that I am allowed to fail on mot's are those which do not
comply with current mot regulations for beam pattern and adjustment,
although if only adjustment is required then I will adjust (where possible)
and pass. They (HID) are only illegal insomuch as the aftermarket ones are
not linked into an automatic levelling system that takes its input from
suspension movement sensors, and that is not an MOT testable item, so they
pass an MOT on that loophole. Same as corroded fuel lines can be an obvious
source of a fire if a car has an accident, yet no matter how bad the
corrosion they are only a fail if they are actually leaking at the time of
the test, same as a fuel tank that leaks when 3/4 full but is presented for
test with only 1/4 in it, you have to pass it (and advise) even though you
know it will leak when full.
As you can see, the MOT is only a test of certain items in the condition in
which the vehicle is presented at the time of the test, not a final arbiter
of what is or isn't safe to take on the road. Further examples being a
corroded sill that has been filled, within 12" of a seatbelt mounting - if
the owner says "the filler is only covering the welded repair" even though
you know better you still can only pass and advise, you can't fail on
corrosion if you can't see it! Also if you remove a front bumper and expose
sharp welded body seams then that still isn't a fail (as long as all
lighting etc is still present and operating correctly) because the letter of
the law is sharp edges "caused by corrosion or damage".
I hope that helps you to understand a bit better what I was trying to say.
Badger.

Badger wrote:
> "AndyC the WB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Liquorice <[email protected]> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I upgraded my Rangie (P38A) to HID a few months back. The results
>> are awesome - the only downside is that people keep flashing me
>> thinking I have main beam on.
>
> In other words, you are dazzling them which means either the beam
> pattern is wrong or the height is incorrect. Either way, you are
> actually increasing the likelihood of you causing an accident and are
> now an extreme danger to other road users on dark roads! Not to
> mention an illegal lighting setup, see my other comments re. auto
> height levelling for this very reason. What happens if something big and
> heavy is suddenly blinded coming
> towards you and hits you, putting you in, say, a coma? Or worse,
> killing the other driver?? Is it really worth it just for you to see
> an extra couple of feet in front of you??

Well you'll probably see it coming but doubtful if you'll have time to
reflect on your folly!

> When upgrading lights, we need to adopt a sensible and responsible
> approach, preferably within the law, but definitely not at the
> expense of others! beam pattern and adjustment is all-important, get
> those two right and rarely do you need the complexity of hid.
> Badger.



--
If Your specification is vague or imprecise, you'll likely get what you
asked for not what you wanted!

He who says it cannot be done would be wise not to interrupt her doing
it.

Badger wrote:
> "AndyC the WB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> "Badger" == Badger <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> Badger> In other words, you are dazzling them which means either
>> Badger> the beam pattern is wrong or the height is
>> Badger> incorrect.
>>
>> Not at all. The lights are correctly adjusted. The car has passed
>> an MOT since they were fitted. The car has air suspension, which
>> keeps it levelled regardless of load.
>
> Yes, it keeps the car level, that's not the same as headlamp levelling
> though but better than none at all. The BMW xenon factory fitted HID
> lamps, for example, move instantly the suspension moves to compensate
> for height and to prevent dazzle.
>

Those factory fit Xenon's aren't all that they are made out to be. The
dipped beam has such a sharply defined cut-off with a black void beyond that
I made a point of not specifying Xenon when I changed the xenon fitted BMW.
Have not missed them one little bit. OTOH cars coming towards me with xenon
don't bother me either. People using fogs on a clear night do.

Huw

Paul S. Brown wrote:
> Huw wrote:
>
>>
>> "PDannyD" <>
>>> I think from now on I shall drive on side-lights only and use night
>>> vision or infra-red goggles until people start being sensible with
>>> their headlights.
>>
>> Better still, everyone should stop driving except me, so I never have
>> to dip and can use the full width of the road on blind bends. Lovely.
>> I could even mount two lighthouse bulbs on the front.
>>
>
> Don't - my nasty little mind was considering one of these:
>
> http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/SX16/ILS_SX-16.pdf
>
> Rigged as an auxilliary lamp. I've checked, and an FFR generator will
> put out enough juice to run it - just.
>
> P.

Wow! The ultimate for rabbit lamping.

Huw

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:23:08 -0000, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>People using fogs on a clear night do.

<rant>

Tossers who drive with rear fog light on need beating with a large
bunch of nettles around the genitals.

Returning from the club AGM on Saturday - still daylight, a little
mild drizzle started. Plonker in front slams on brakes, switches on
rear fog light. We follow said tosser for a few miles, drizzle stops
- not that it was really heavy anyway. Tosser loves his brakes - for
no apparent reason, slams them on... Twice... Three times...

A few deep sighs, life's too short. Anyway, we get stuck in a little
traffic and I pull up next to him, wind the window down and ask him
(eventually when he realises someone is trying to talk to him) if he
realises his rear fog light is on?

"It's a low visibility warning light" he replies.

But there isn't any problems with the current visibility!

"I'll be the best judge of that" was his response, and wound his
window up.

Life's too short...

</rant>

--
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one
of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being
increasingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
In memory of Brian {Hamilton Kelly} who logged off 15th September 2005

Mother" <"@ {mother} @ wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:23:08 -0000, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> People using fogs on a clear night do.
>
> <rant>
>
> Tossers who drive with rear fog light on need beating with a large
> bunch of nettles around the genitals.
>

That sounds good. I think I'll leave them on, on the off-chance.

Huw

On or around Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:30:40 -0000, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>Paul S. Brown wrote:
>>
>> Don't - my nasty little mind was considering one of these:
>>
>> http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/SX16/ILS_SX-16.pdf
>>
>> Rigged as an auxilliary lamp. I've checked, and an FFR generator will
>> put out enough juice to run it - just.
>>
>> P.
>
>Wow! The ultimate for rabbit lamping.

now that's what I call a spotlight.

>>>>> "Mother" == Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> writes:

Mother> Tossers who drive with rear fog light on need beating with
Mother> a large bunch of nettles around the genitals.

Trust me. There are FAR more painful ways of getting the message
over. Most of them are appropriate, too.

Mother> "I'll be the best judge of that" was his response, and
Mother> wound his window up.

I tend to work on the principle that if someone is enough of a
dickhead to leave their foglights on all the time, they're going to be
enough of a dickhead to be incapable of responding to constructive
criticism. I just sigh, accept the fact that I'm a better person than
them, and go on my merry way with my blood pressure remaining at a
level which won't alarm my doctor.

Until we can kill people just for being stupid and obnoxious, life is
always going to be too short!

No, I'm not advocating that we DO kill people for being stupid and
obnoxious, even though I've been sorely tempted on many occasions.
I'm agreeing with Mother that life is, indeed, far too short. It's to
short to deal with my own shortcomings, let alone anyone elses.

Andy


--
Andy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:58:56 -0000, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>> Tossers who drive with rear fog light on need beating with a large
>> bunch of nettles around the genitals.
>>
>
>That sounds good. I think I'll leave them on, on the off-chance.

Mark Varley is thataway ====>