Xenon headlamps

M

Mother

Guest

• Nov 28, 2005

• #41

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:04:57 +0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>now that's what I call a spotlight.

Yeah. Anyone know of a 12v version?


--
"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

 

T

TonyB

Guest

• Nov 28, 2005

• #42

> Wow! The ultimate for rabbit lamping.

At 50 yards it'll cook 'em for you too!
TonyB

 

H

Huw

Guest

• Nov 28, 2005

• #43

TonyB wrote:
>> Wow! The ultimate for rabbit lamping.
>
> At 50 yards it'll cook 'em for you too!
> Tony

Who needs a shotgun? No pellets to spit out either.
Cooooooooooking!

Huw

 

L

Larry

Guest

• Nov 28, 2005

• #44

Well for me ordinary halogen headlights were a big improvement over the
sealed beam ones.

Those blue headlamps that cars have nowadays are altogether both brighter
than they ought to and need to be and I find them dazzling. Being the grumpy
old sod I am I'd ban em if I had half the chance.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes






"Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?
>
> "Xenon" bulbs without the blue coating may offer more lumens per watt
> but there is an awful lot of FUD out there.
>
> --
> Cheers [email protected]
> Dave. pam is missing e-mail
>
>
>

 

L

Larry

Guest

• Nov 28, 2005

• #45

Yeah the originals are not to good, but consider what I had to put up with
on my Lambretta scooter many many moons ago. A 15 watt headlamp that dimmed
when you went round corners because of the direct electrics. Yes 15 watts
and that was legal, it could go nearly 60 mph and as a rule was faster than
my current landie.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes

believe in the laws of mathematics"





"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[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.
>
> Huw
>
>

 

T

Tom Woods

Guest

• Nov 28, 2005

• #46

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:30:01 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> 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.

There is stuff like the speedo too. Its not tested in the MOT but you
will get in trouble if you get pulled over and its not working.

 

T

Tom Woods

Guest

• Nov 28, 2005

• #47

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

>OTOH cars coming towards me with xenon
>don't bother me either. People using fogs on a clear night do.

I've got a couple of spare sets of spot lights. I'm thinking of
sticking a set on the front of my car to use as 'bastard lights' for
when somebody comes the other way with their fog lights on.

 

D

Dave Liquorice

Guest

• Nov 28, 2005

• #48

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:53:21 +0000, Mother wrote:

> "It's a low visibility warning light" he replies.
>
> But there isn't any problems with the current visibility!

Perhaps you ought to quote The Highway Code Rule 211 and follow it up
with Rule 201.

211 says you MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibilty is
seriously reduced. (see Rule 201).

201 says that you MUST use headlights when visibilty is seriously
reduced, generally when you cannot see more than 100m (328')

Both rules state you MUST switch fog lights off when visibilty
improves

Note the use of MUST and MUST NOT, that means the force of law. In
this case the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 regs 25 & 27.

Full wording of the rules:

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/21.htm



> Life's too short...

Or get his number and report him. Not that the plod will do anything
on a single report but if they get a number of them they might. I know
our local lot would in respect of a local vehical driver.

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

 

B

Badger

Guest

• Nov 28, 2005

• #49

"Tom Woods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:30:01 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> There is stuff like the speedo too. Its not tested in the MOT but you
> will get in trouble if you get pulled over and its not working.

Along with many others, front fogs, reversing lights (all lights fitted must
work clause) being just 2 that I can think of off the top of my head.
Badger.

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Nov 29, 2005

• #50

On or around Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:46:50 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Both rules state you MUST switch fog lights off when visibilty
>improves
>
>Note the use of MUST and MUST NOT, that means the force of law. In
>this case the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 regs 25 & 27.

I could find you the actual regulations, if you like, but they're a sod to
understand.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
In Touch: Get in touch with yourself by touching yourself.
If somebody is watching, stop touching yourself.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

 

D

Dave Liquorice

Guest

• Nov 29, 2005

• #51

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:06:35 +0000, Austin Shackles wrote:

>> Both rules state you MUST switch fog lights off when visibilty
>> improves
>>
>> Note the use of MUST and MUST NOT, that means the force of law. In
>> this case the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 regs 25 & 27.
>
> I could find you the actual regulations, if you like, but they're a
> sod to understand.

I can imagine, the few times I've looked at the actual legislation
behind something I rapidly get a headache. B-) The Highway Code
rules state the salient facts in plain English that even the biggest
dickhead should be able to understand. Namely if visibilty is greater
than 100m (328') the you MUST NOT be using fog lights front or rear.

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

 

T

TonyB

Guest

• Nov 30, 2005

• #52

>
> Along with many others, front fogs, reversing lights (all lights fitted
must
> work clause) being just 2 that I can think of off the top of my head.
> Badger.
>
> And isn't it that you don't actually need lights to pass an MOT but if
they are fitted they must be working? Is there one exclusion? Can't
remember, something like you must have brake lights fitted and working?
TonyB

 

D

Dougal

Guest

• Nov 30, 2005

• #53

TonyB wrote:

>>Along with many others, front fogs, reversing lights (all lights fitted
>
> must
>
>>work clause) being just 2 that I can think of off the top of my head.
>>Badger.
>>
>>And isn't it that you don't actually need lights to pass an MOT but if
> they are fitted they must be working? Is there one exclusion? Can't
> remember, something like you must have brake lights fitted and working?
> TonyB

Isn't the reverse light the one? No,legal need and doesn't need to work.

 

B

Badger

Guest

• Nov 30, 2005

• #54

"Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> TonyB wrote:
>
>>>Along with many others, front fogs, reversing lights (all lights fitted
>>
>> must
>>
>>>work clause) being just 2 that I can think of off the top of my head.
>>>Badger.
>>>
>>>And isn't it that you don't actually need lights to pass an MOT but if
>> they are fitted they must be working? Is there one exclusion? Can't
>> remember, something like you must have brake lights fitted and working?
>> TonyB

MOT paperwork must be annotated "no lights fitted at time of test, daylight
use only", but other C&U reg's might apply.

>
> Isn't the reverse light the one? No,legal need and doesn't need to work.

Not MOT testable item, but coppers could nab you under the "all lights
fitted" clause.
Badger.

 

W

William Tasso

Guest

• Dec 1, 2005

• #55

Badger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ...
>> Isn't the reverse light the one? No,legal need and doesn't need to work.
>
> Not MOT testable item, but coppers could nab you under the "all lights
> fitted" clause.

That's a pain - every year I pay for a new reverse lamp bulb to get it
through the MOT and the damn thing never works when I need it. I may as
well remove it for all the use it is.

--
William Tasso

110 - V8

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Dec 1, 2005

• #56

On or around Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:02:14 -0000, "William Tasso"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Badger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> ...
>>> Isn't the reverse light the one? No,legal need and doesn't need to work.
>>
>> Not MOT testable item, but coppers could nab you under the "all lights
>> fitted" clause.
>
>That's a pain - every year I pay for a new reverse lamp bulb to get it
>through the MOT and the damn thing never works when I need it. I may as
>well remove it for all the use it is.

If it's a 110 it's normally the fog light that goes awol once a year...
never had trouble with the reversing light on mine.

but my recollection matches Badger's info - reversing light is not an MOT
item. Never been asked to demonstrate it.

The dibbles won't nab you unless they see you reversing with a reversing
lamp out
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; and
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee"
John Donne (1571? - 1631) Devotions, XVII