Badger <brianhatton@btinternet.com> wrote:

> ...
> It's not the suspension that needs to be self levelling, it's sensors
> linked
> into the suspension that automatically alter the light position to avoid
> dazzle as the vehicle pitches with normal suspension movement.

ok - been following this thread and I think I get all the points made
here, but there appears to be at least one missing clue. I don't really
understand why anti-dazzle self-levelling technology is only relevant for
this type of lighting?

Surely, if such tech is a good thing (tm) ... then a good thing it is,
regardless of what the candles are made of?

--
William Tasso

110 V8
 
William Tasso wrote:

> ok - been following this thread and I think I get all the points made
> here, but there appears to be at least one missing clue. I don't
> really understand why anti-dazzle self-levelling technology is only
> relevant for this type of lighting?
>
> Surely, if such tech is a good thing (tm) ... then a good thing it is,
> regardless of what the candles are made of?

Self-levelling would be great for all lights, but at some stage the cost
vs benefits have to be taken into account, and it's a bloody expensive
addition to a standard lighting setup for a fairly minor reduction in
dazzling. OTOH with a HID setups ability to dazzle very severely the
benefits become worth the additional expense.


--
EMB
 

"EMB" <embtwo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dr6vs6$4vc$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> William Tasso wrote:
>
>> ok - been following this thread and I think I get all the points made
>> here, but there appears to be at least one missing clue. I don't really
>> understand why anti-dazzle self-levelling technology is only relevant for
>> this type of lighting?
>>
>> Surely, if such tech is a good thing (tm) ... then a good thing it is,
>> regardless of what the candles are made of?
>
> Self-levelling would be great for all lights, but at some stage the cost
> vs benefits have to be taken into account, and it's a bloody expensive
> addition to a standard lighting setup for a fairly minor reduction in
> dazzling. OTOH with a HID setups ability to dazzle very severely the
> benefits become worth the additional expense.

I was just about to say that..... :)
Badger.


 
On or around Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:47:16 +1300, EMB <embtwo@gmail.com>
enlightened us thusly:

>William Tasso wrote:
>
>> ok - been following this thread and I think I get all the points made
>> here, but there appears to be at least one missing clue. I don't
>> really understand why anti-dazzle self-levelling technology is only
>> relevant for this type of lighting?
>>
>> Surely, if such tech is a good thing (tm) ... then a good thing it is,
>> regardless of what the candles are made of?
>
>Self-levelling would be great for all lights, but at some stage the cost
>vs benefits have to be taken into account, and it's a bloody expensive
>addition to a standard lighting setup for a fairly minor reduction in
>dazzling. OTOH with a HID setups ability to dazzle very severely the
>benefits become worth the additional expense.

I'll have to finish sorting my revised lighting regulations...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
 
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:58:51 -0000, William Tasso wrote:

> I don't really understand why anti-dazzle self-levelling technology
> is only relevant for this type of lighting?
>
> Surely, if such tech is a good thing (tm) ... then a good thing it
> is, regardless of what the candles are made of?

Think of how much light those candles put out. HID bubbles put out far
more lumens than ordinary tungsten halogen bubbles. After that, as EMB
says, it's a cost/benefit thing.

--
Cheers new5pam@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
EMB <embtwo@gmail.com> wrote:

> William Tasso wrote:
>
>> ok - been following this thread and I think I get all the points made
>> here, but there appears to be at least one missing clue. I don't
>> really understand why anti-dazzle self-levelling technology is only
>> relevant for this type of lighting?
>> Surely, if such tech is a good thing (tm) ... then a good thing it
>> is, regardless of what the candles are made of?
>
> Self-levelling would be great for all lights, but at some stage the cost
> vs benefits have to be taken into account, and it's a bloody expensive
> addition to a standard lighting setup for a fairly minor reduction in
> dazzling. OTOH with a HID setups ability to dazzle very severely the
> benefits become worth the additional expense.

Aha - so HID is (much) brighter than standard then. ok - hypothetically
speaking, would self dimmers achieve the same result (anti dazzle) I
wonder?

--
William Tasso
 
William Tasso wrote:
> ok - been following this thread and I think I get all the points made
> here, but there appears to be at least one missing clue. I don't
> really understand why anti-dazzle self-levelling technology is only
> relevant for this type of lighting?
>
> Surely, if such tech is a good thing (tm) ... then a good thing it is,
> regardless of what the candles are made of?

Because HiD lamps are much brighter and have a much more distinct cut-off
pattern which causes much more annoyance and dazzling.
--
Darren Griffin
PocketGPSWorld - www.PocketGPSWorld.com
The Premier GPS Resource for News, Reviews and Forums


 
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:06:59 -0000, William Tasso wrote:

> Aha - so HID is (much) brighter than standard then. ok -
> hypothetically speaking, would self dimmers achieve the same result
> (anti dazzle) I wonder?

What do you mean by "self dimmers"?

HID stands for High Intensity Discharge, that is they are a form of
arc lamp. Hence the electronic ballast box to provide the high voltage
to strike the arc from cold and control the current once struck.

Discharge lamps are not easy to dim electrically. HMI TV/film lamps
have a dimmer built into the ballast but it hasn't much range. Nothing
like a tungsten dimmer can do.

--
Cheers new5pam@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:31:22 +0000, Austin Shackles
<austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

>Snipped
>
>the reflector and glass of the headlamp are designed to produce the correct
>pattern with a fairly accurately-placed bulb filament, in a particular
>orientation. If the HID unit puts a light source of the same size in the
>same place, with the same shielding on the lower side of the beam, then
>it'll work.
>
>Doesn't alter the requirements for self levelling etc.
>
>Personally, I'd outlaw the bloody lot of 'em for dipped beams - they're far
>too bright and even with a correct pattern they dazzle more than is
>necessary. If you want 'em for super-bright main beams, that's fair enough.
>
>Dipped beam lamps don't need to be (that) bright. The old-fashioned 40W or
>45W headlamps give enough light to see the 30 yards or so that the beam
>reaches - and 55W halogens give more than enough. There really isn't any
>justification for making them brighter.

Hi Austin,

I coming to the conclusion that conversation kits are not street
legal. What do you make of the comments at the bottom of this page:

http://www.h-i-d.co.uk/

"LEGALITY
NOTES ON ROAD LEGALITY AND QUALITY OF OUR HID :

Both versions of our HID systems are DOT approved, MOT approved and
fully E-compliant in all safety, E.M. emmission and performance
specifications. As far as we are aware these are the only HID kits on
the market that meet all these requirements.
This makes our kits ROAD LEGAL ; there is a lot of misinformation
regarding the legality of HID systems fitted to cars without headlamp
power wash and rear axle self levelling ...these are only an E.U.
legal requirement on Xenon systems fitted to NEW cars AT THE FACTORY
PRODUCTION STAGE .
HID systems fitted as aftermarket accessory DO NOT REQUIRE the car to
have power wash or self levelling ; even the DOT get this wrong
sometimes .... our expensive lawyers did not ! "

regards

nemo2
 

"nemo2" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7ukft1dup9bvj9m3dgmrtpl7uccevsbiqs@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:31:22 +0000, Austin Shackles
> <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>
>>Snipped
>>
>>the reflector and glass of the headlamp are designed to produce the
>>correct
>>pattern with a fairly accurately-placed bulb filament, in a particular
>>orientation. If the HID unit puts a light source of the same size in the
>>same place, with the same shielding on the lower side of the beam, then
>>it'll work.
>>
>>Doesn't alter the requirements for self levelling etc.
>>
>>Personally, I'd outlaw the bloody lot of 'em for dipped beams - they're
>>far
>>too bright and even with a correct pattern they dazzle more than is
>>necessary. If you want 'em for super-bright main beams, that's fair
>>enough.
>>
>>Dipped beam lamps don't need to be (that) bright. The old-fashioned 40W
>>or
>>45W headlamps give enough light to see the 30 yards or so that the beam
>>reaches - and 55W halogens give more than enough. There really isn't any
>>justification for making them brighter.
>
> Hi Austin,
>
> I coming to the conclusion that conversation kits are not street
> legal. What do you make of the comments at the bottom of this page:
>
> http://www.h-i-d.co.uk/
>
> "LEGALITY
> NOTES ON ROAD LEGALITY AND QUALITY OF OUR HID :
>
> Both versions of our HID systems are DOT approved, MOT approved and
> fully E-compliant in all safety, E.M. emmission and performance
> specifications. As far as we are aware these are the only HID kits on
> the market that meet all these requirements.
> This makes our kits ROAD LEGAL ; there is a lot of misinformation
> regarding the legality of HID systems fitted to cars without headlamp
> power wash and rear axle self levelling ...these are only an E.U.
> legal requirement on Xenon systems fitted to NEW cars AT THE FACTORY
> PRODUCTION STAGE .
> HID systems fitted as aftermarket accessory DO NOT REQUIRE the car to
> have power wash or self levelling ; even the DOT get this wrong
> sometimes .... our expensive lawyers did not ! "

No, but you then fall foul of construction and use or more likely type
approval regs for the particular vehicle, which in theory would possibly
then require SVA in the uk.
Badger.


 
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:42:12 +0000, nemo2 wrote:

> ... there is a lot of misinformation regarding the legality of HID
> systems fitted to cars without headlamp power wash and rear axle
> self levelling ...these are only an E.U.legal requirement on Xenon
> systems fitted to NEW cars AT THE FACTORY PRODUCTION STAGE. HID
> systems fitted as aftermarket accessory DO NOT REQUIRE ...

Why do they change from using "HID systems" to "Xenon systems" at a
crucial point in the text?

AIUI Xenon is just a variant on ordinary, incandescant, halogen bulb
technology rather than a discharge lamp technology as in HID. HID
bulbs may well contain Xenon but so do some incandescant halogen
bulbs.

As they say "there is a lot of misinformation" and they don't help.

--
Cheers new5pam@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On or around Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:51:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
<new5pam@howhill.com> enlightened us thusly:

>On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:42:12 +0000, nemo2 wrote:
>
>> ... there is a lot of misinformation regarding the legality of HID
>> systems fitted to cars without headlamp power wash and rear axle
>> self levelling ...these are only an E.U.legal requirement on Xenon
>> systems fitted to NEW cars AT THE FACTORY PRODUCTION STAGE. HID
>> systems fitted as aftermarket accessory DO NOT REQUIRE ...
>
>Why do they change from using "HID systems" to "Xenon systems" at a
>crucial point in the text?
>
>AIUI Xenon is just a variant on ordinary, incandescant, halogen bulb
>technology rather than a discharge lamp technology as in HID. HID
>bulbs may well contain Xenon but so do some incandescant halogen
>bulbs.
>
>As they say "there is a lot of misinformation" and they don't help.

sounds like a fudge, to me. but they may be right. I wouldn't take bets on
the type approval thing, though. I've yet to track down the actual
legislation, partly through lack of effort, I must admit.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
Austin Shackles wrote:

> On or around Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:51:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
> <new5pam@howhill.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
>
>>On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:42:12 +0000, nemo2 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>... there is a lot of misinformation regarding the legality of HID
>>>systems fitted to cars without headlamp power wash and rear axle
>>>self levelling ...these are only an E.U.legal requirement on Xenon
>>>systems fitted to NEW cars AT THE FACTORY PRODUCTION STAGE. HID
>>>systems fitted as aftermarket accessory DO NOT REQUIRE ...
>>
>>Why do they change from using "HID systems" to "Xenon systems" at a
>>crucial point in the text?
>>
>>AIUI Xenon is just a variant on ordinary, incandescant, halogen bulb
>>technology rather than a discharge lamp technology as in HID. HID
>>bulbs may well contain Xenon but so do some incandescant halogen
>>bulbs.
>>
>>As they say "there is a lot of misinformation" and they don't help.
>
>
> sounds like a fudge, to me. but they may be right. I wouldn't take bets on
> the type approval thing, though. I've yet to track down the actual
> legislation, partly through lack of effort, I must admit.

I havn't researched this properly but type approval and similar rules
only usually apply to new vehicles being offered for sale or vehicles
being imported. The SVA thing provides a safety inspection where no type
approval certicate exists.

Type approval is a way for the manufacturers to 'certify' the safety of
their product in bulk without having to deal with each vehicle individually.

Subject to all the usual caveats about the modified vehicle having to
meet all relevant regulations, not upsetting your insurer etc., I don't
how any modification by an end user can have anything to do with type
approval.
 
If I am not mistaken I have these fitted to Owl. Personally I'm not a big
fan - the difference between them and my Vision Pluses in the Discovery is
that I can actually see further with the Vision pluses!

The nice bright Xenons have a very sharp cut off - and it's not very far in
front of the vehicle. Would be willing to demonstrate on a dark night at a
show.

Please note these are factory fitted and have self levellers.

--
Neil


 

"Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MbWdnemYXuV8lkXenZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> On or around Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:51:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
>> <new5pam@howhill.com> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:42:12 +0000, nemo2 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>... there is a lot of misinformation regarding the legality of HID
>>>>systems fitted to cars without headlamp power wash and rear axle self
>>>>levelling ...these are only an E.U.legal requirement on Xenon systems
>>>>fitted to NEW cars AT THE FACTORY PRODUCTION STAGE. HID systems fitted
>>>>as aftermarket accessory DO NOT REQUIRE ...
>>>
>>>Why do they change from using "HID systems" to "Xenon systems" at a
>>>crucial point in the text?
>>>
>>>AIUI Xenon is just a variant on ordinary, incandescant, halogen bulb
>>>technology rather than a discharge lamp technology as in HID. HID bulbs
>>>may well contain Xenon but so do some incandescant halogen bulbs.
>>>As they say "there is a lot of misinformation" and they don't help.
>>
>>
>> sounds like a fudge, to me. but they may be right. I wouldn't take bets
>> on
>> the type approval thing, though. I've yet to track down the actual
>> legislation, partly through lack of effort, I must admit.
>
> I havn't researched this properly but type approval and similar rules only
> usually apply to new vehicles being offered for sale or vehicles being
> imported. The SVA thing provides a safety inspection where no type
> approval certicate exists.
>
> Type approval is a way for the manufacturers to 'certify' the safety of
> their product in bulk without having to deal with each vehicle
> individually.
>
> Subject to all the usual caveats about the modified vehicle having to meet
> all relevant regulations, not upsetting your insurer etc., I don't how any
> modification by an end user can have anything to do with type approval.

I think the issue is that by modifying the vehicle you put it into a
condition in which it did not receive approval, thereby invalidating such
approval. It's all complex, but apparently VOSA are looking at new
legislation for us MOT testers whereby we'll be checking even more
stringently than current that a vehicle is actually what it claims to be,
prior to MOTing it. By the sounds of things they're trying to catch the
likes of a V8 90 with a 2A chassis number to stop the free tax loophole.
There was also an article in one of the customising comics (magazine with
scantily clad bimbos draped over fancy mobile stereos) recently which went
into more detail and ended with the conclusion that if you fitted a spoiler
you'd be in the SVA trap. When all this is likely to come into force I have
no idea, but it will happen ,and aftermarket goodies of almost any kind -
not just xenon HID kits -will catch you out. (different sized wheels from
std spec, bodykits, custom paintwork maybe, aftermarket exhausts, lowered
suspension etc etc)
Personally, I believe aftermarket HID's are so bloody dangerous because of
the dazzle factor that they ought to be banned. As has already been said
further up the thread, there is simply no need for a dipped beam lamp to be
that intense and no sane right to be going faster than the limits of dipped
beam illumination safely allows.
Badger.


 
On or around Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:10:50 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Brownlee"
<n.brownlee@pccontrolNOSPAMsystems.com> enlightened us thusly:

>If I am not mistaken I have these fitted to Owl. Personally I'm not a big
>fan - the difference between them and my Vision Pluses in the Discovery is
>that I can actually see further with the Vision pluses!
>
>The nice bright Xenons have a very sharp cut off - and it's not very far in
>front of the vehicle. Would be willing to demonstrate on a dark night at a
>show.
>
>Please note these are factory fitted and have self levellers.

I think you do have 'em on a rangie 3.

the vision plus bulbs are good, I've got 'em, including one in the bike
headlamp. And they give correct beam shapes in normal reflectors.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
Badger <brianhatton@btinternet.com> wrote:

>
> "Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MbWdnemYXuV8lkXenZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...

>> ...
>> type approval.
>
> I think the issue is that by modifying the vehicle you put it into a
> condition in which it did not receive approval, thereby invalidating such
> approval. It's all complex, but apparently VOSA are looking at new
> legislation for us MOT testers whereby we'll be checking even more
> stringently than current that a vehicle is actually what it claims to be,
> prior to MOTing it. By the sounds of things they're trying to catch the
> likes of a V8 90 with a 2A chassis number to stop the free tax loophole.
> There was also an article in one of the customising comics (magazine with
> scantily clad bimbos draped over fancy mobile stereos) recently which
> went
> into more detail and ended with the conclusion that if you fitted a
> spoiler
> you'd be in the SVA trap. When all this is likely to come into force I
> have
> no idea, but it will happen ,and aftermarket goodies of almost any kind -
> not just xenon HID kits -will catch you out. (different sized wheels from
> std spec, bodykits, custom paintwork maybe, aftermarket exhausts, lowered
> suspension etc etc)


aye - such a system (type aproval) has been in place for some years in
Germany - we'd be getting it in the name of harmonisation with our
euro-neighbours.

I understand it's widely supported by manufacturers/importers as they get
to define the spec making their own aftermarket products easier to bring
to market.

Lots of info/rumour/speculation/gossip on this in custom motorcycle
circles.

--
William Tasso
 
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:38:03 +0000, Dougal wrote:

> Type approval is a way for the manufacturers to 'certify' the safety
> of their product in bulk without having to deal with each vehicle
> individually.

Agreed, I think Austin may have confused "type approval" with
"construction and use".

--
Cheers new5pam@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On or around Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:30:19 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
<new5pam@howhill.com> enlightened us thusly:

>On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:38:03 +0000, Dougal wrote:
>
>> Type approval is a way for the manufacturers to 'certify' the safety
>> of their product in bulk without having to deal with each vehicle
>> individually.
>
>Agreed, I think Austin may have confused "type approval" with
>"construction and use".

no, I didn't. I can't find any reference to lights in C&U - the lights are
in Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations. I imagine that the HID lights are in
an update to that but as yet I've not actually found it.

The comment about type approval is that the vehicle is, as Badger (I think)
pointed out - modifying the vehicle to an extent which it is no longer the
vehicle that was approved.
--
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.
 
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:05:15 +0000, Austin Shackles
<austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

>On or around Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:10:50 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Brownlee"
><n.brownlee@pccontrolNOSPAMsystems.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>If I am not mistaken I have these fitted to Owl. Personally I'm not a big
>>fan - the difference between them and my Vision Pluses in the Discovery is
>>that I can actually see further with the Vision pluses!
>>
>>The nice bright Xenons have a very sharp cut off - and it's not very far in
>>front of the vehicle. Would be willing to demonstrate on a dark night at a
>>show.
>>
>>Please note these are factory fitted and have self levellers.
>
>I think you do have 'em on a rangie 3.
>
>the vision plus bulbs are good, I've got 'em, including one in the bike
>headlamp. And they give correct beam shapes in normal reflectors.
Hi,

It was a vision plus bulb that blew which prompted me to start this
thread as I need to purchase some replacements.

I've decided not to fit a hud conversion kit, for a number of reasons
all of which have been mentioned above. There were also 2 other
reasons that I don't believe were mentioned above and these are long
term reliablity of bixenons as my Discovery has H4 bulbs that have
dual dip/high beam filaments and the time for HID's to strike when
you flash somebody.

I thinking of giving the Osram Silver Star bulbs a try, £18.45 from
www.powerbulbs.co.uk maybe cheaper elsewhere as I've not searched yet.
These are the same price as the vision plus. There again I'm tempted
to try their own bulbs which are the same pricebut buy one and get one
free and as I always buy spares for when they blow!!!

Now where did I put that decision making too, ah there it
is...........Heads I buy........... tails I buy..............

regards

nemo2

PS. Thanks to everybody for your comments and advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Paddocks Air to Coil conversion kit on a Classic
Replies
4
Views
1K
fortgrange
F
steve's P38 RR
Bulb warning failure with HIDs fitted to p38.
Replies
8
Views
3K
steve's P38 RR
steve's P38 RR
A
P38 Interior Trim Kits
Replies
3
Views
6K
Archangel
A
Mantamad
Discovery - headlight conversion to 2003 on lights
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
194K
malcolm bell
malcolm bell