Wonder why Subaru doesn't put HIDs in their cars? Look here. (except the Sti)

[moviemadness]

that's what I was about to mention.. I think I read somewhere the infintis are already using LED tech? I know a lot of tail lights now use them, but I'm not too sure how advance the tech has become to be a replacement for headlights.

one question about foreground flooding though..

can't you design a cutoff that cuts off foreground flooding? or aim the lights higher so they hit the ground farther away?

[gargleblaster]

or aim the lights higher so they hit the ground farther away?

Bingo!

[SWP-LegacyGT]

Yea, that's right, people who are familiar with the technology are FOS just because you you choose to believe what you want. Enlighten us further, o great know-it-all.

 

It can't possibly be true that you are a victim of good advertising and what's popular, can it? Nah, no way.

 

 

aside: I work in the lighting industry in technology development, and I can say that you are the one who's FOS, not TSI+WRX. That doesn't mean that you don't mistakenly perceive an improvement with HID's; just that there actually is not an improvement. Color rendering is a very important concept, and if you have ever noticed that certain objects look strangely colored under a fluorescent lamp, then you are recognizing a problem with color rendering. Just an example.

 

Yet odd how road signs reflect more intensly with HID's vs Halogens. Hmm... yeah.... ever notice that?

[f1anatic]

The answer is straight from Daniel Stern Lighting

http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/bulbs/Hid/disadvantages/disadvantages.html

[nned4spd]

that's what I was about to mention.. I think I read somewhere the infintis are already using LED tech? I know a lot of tail lights now use them, but I'm not too sure how advance the tech has become to be a replacement for headlights.

 

I have seen many samples of LED head lights at lighting shows, almost all makers have them to some degree, they are close to production, but the US DOT needs to changes some of thier standards to automakers can start using them.

 

The first application LED head lights is in the 2006 Audi S6, but the LEDs are only used as daytime running lights until the DOT (or maybe it is NHTSA) changes the rules to accept LED as head lights (remember how long it took them to accept composite headlights vs sealed beams in the late 80's vs the rest of the world?)

 

One of the advantages is that you can move part of the beam of one headlight (computer controled) to angle around curves, yet still provide forward illumination. Think of it as 100 bulbs and their own reflectors in one headlight, you can move 75 to the left or right, and still have 25 forward, or some move up or down while the the others remain stationary.

 

It is comming, just a matter of time, and the power demand is lower, so it incrementally increases fuel economy (read helps to increase a car makers CAFE rating).

[TSiWRX]

^ Additionally, LEDs are being used by SAAB in their concepts. ( Hum...I think that your mention of "shows" covers that, though! )

 

---

 

Yet odd how road signs reflect more intensly with HID's vs Halogens. Hmm... yeah.... ever notice that?

 

Actually, you will notice this effect even more with "blue bulbs," which we all now know to be a total fad and totally ineffective as a true driving light-source.

 

The same effect will be seen as you shift higher, towards the more blue/purple range of HIDs as well.

 

Even though you're truly no longer seeing the roadway, you'll perversely notice road-signs and even animal eyes' reflections farther away, and this is simply due to the fact that they're colored so differently.

 

It's the "pop" effect that I referred to.

 

---

 

can't the same thing happen to a poorly designed halogen system?

 

Yes, it can.

 

And halogens also bring up other problems, too, as I've pointed out.

 

Again, I'm not bashing HIDs - I'm just trying to point out the pros and cons of both systems, and to bring forward a more detailed examination of both.

 

---

 

gargleblaster and moviemadness - Unfortunately, higher-aim is not a viable solution. That will cause way too much glare to oncoming traffic.

 

But moviemadness, the other solution that you'd cited - re-designing the optics so that they cast less light on the foreground, that's a good one - see below:

 

---

 

This is NOT an inherit problem of HID headlight. It is the design of the optics. Its the lens or reflector design that determines how the light is projected in front of the car. There is good and bad optics designs in HID as well as halogen applications.

 

Agreed - and thank you for bringing this up...I had thought I'd mentioned it in a previous post here (I honestly thought I'd written it in post #53, but it must have skipped my mind!), but that was obviously not the case. Totally my oversight, and I apologize.

 

Indeed, if one can engineer an HID system to properly void the foreground, but cast more light down-range, that would be idea. However, in the vast majority of cases, flooding the foreground is what's unfortunatley not only prevalent, but also sought-after as it provides for the highly marketed "even, bright, lighting."

 

If it's only possible to somehow magically work out the hot-spots of various "improper retrofits" - and, of course, remedy the improper cut-off and beam pattern otherwise - that actually wouldn't be a bad compromise.

 

I wonder, though, how the driving and purchasing public would react, when and if parameters are finally changed, and all of a sudden - especially for our older drivers and drivers with visual impairments (such as myself) - foreground lighting is minimized to a degree that might make us subjectively uncomfortable....or, of course, lead us to complain that we're "seeing worse" as the foreground is less clearly defined.

 

HID is just the light source. All the complaints about glare and poor light pattern are not caused by the light source. They are caused by poorly aimed headlight and poorly designed optics. In fact, a well engineered oem HID headlight has a lesser chance of causing glare to oncoming traffic because of the autoleveling mechanism. I've never gotten flashed at (by oncoming traffic) in my Bimmer but I was flashed at more than once when I was in my '00 RS with over-wattage light bulbs.

 

True in theory, but in practice, this becomes much, much harder.

 

The current problem as I see it is that such auto-leveling systems are still "reactive." And that by the time they do react and level-off, it's already too late.

 

My hope, as I've voiced before, is that as technology continues to advance, auto-leveling will become an active component, and will truly perform as we lighting enthusiast would all prefer.

 

Its the aftermarket HIDs give a bad name to HID because the halogen housing/optics is not optimized for HID light bulb, thus produces poor aim and light pattern that causes glaring to oncoming traffics.

 

It is a waste of time comparing a well engineered halogen headlight (like the one in Legacy) to some poorly engineered HID headlight (like some of the aftermarket retro kit) and generalize how evil the HID headlight is.

 

Very much and very enthusiastically a +1.

 

HIDs are not inherently "evil" - they're just not as absolutely perfect as most of the public have been led to believe.

 

Certainly, they are no worse than traditional halogens under certain conditions - and in others, better. Still, under yet other conditions, they also are undeniably, for lack of better words, worse.

 

But whereas traditional incandescent technology has likely reached zenith, HIDs still have a ways yet to go - and as a lighting enthusiat and a driver, it's my hope that though the public bringing out their shortcomings, engineers will continue to improve them, instead of letting the system rest on its laurels.

[gargleblaster]

The answer is straight from Daniel Stern Lighting

http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/bulbs/Hid/disadvantages/disadvantages.html

 

Copyright ©2003 Daniel J. Stern. Latest revisions 12/23/03.

There have likely been advances in this technology in the time since this article was researched and written.

 

There are also a couple of points where he states that there "could be" or "possibly are" disadvantages or drawbacks in things like optics and over lighting the foreground. Then in the very next sentence those "could be" and "possibly are" statements are taken completely as fact.

[TSiWRX]

^ Stern's not the only one who has this info., he's just one of the more often "quoted," as it is easily referenced, and, for lack of better words, condensed.

 

There are a lot of good lighting-enthusiast Forums out there, everything from automotive applications to hand-held flashlights, covering things that range from underwater/dive lights to tactical use. It's a cool little hobby world.

[SWP-LegacyGT]

My Advice to anyone entering this thread late...

 

Aim your lights higher than stock

Get HID's

Keep halogens if you want

Aim them higher

Don't buy cheap bulbs.

[gargleblaster]

My Advice to anyone entering this thread late...

 

Aim your lights higher than stock

Get HID's

Keep halogens if you want

Aim them higher

Don't buy cheap bulbs.

IB'youreblindingoncomingtrafficyoumoron'nazifest

[Max Rebo]

I don't know about all these arguments explaining how our eyes are lying to us if we think HIDs allow us to see better. (BTW, I didn't bother reading the entire thread.) I did read the long post above that mentioned optics design, etc. Good stuff. So... most of what I'm about to write has probably already been covered, but.... here's my $0.02.

 

Based on my experience with various cars, HIDs *are* better. I'm not referring to "drop-in" HID kits, either -- only OEM HIDs installed at the factory.

 

Example: The stock halogens with US-DOT reflectors on my previous two Mk4 VWs sucked arse. In comparison, our B5 S4 had HIDs that were 1000% better in all driving conditions. The light pattern was sharper and the lenses didn't scatter light like the crap reflectors on my VW did. HIDs also shined farther in front of the car than my halogens did. Once warmed up, the light from the HID bulbs was *white*, whereas the light from halogens is typically more toward yellow. Either that, or many reflectors scatter so much of the light that it appears more yellow... or just not as bright.

 

Many kids with aftermarket bulbs throw in 6000-7000k "HIDs" and expect them to work with their crap reflector housings. This is what gives HIDs a bad name. Even though they may appear brighter to some, these "blue" lights will scatter more, and you will not be able to see as well, especially in inclement weather.. IIRC, 4500k is optimal.

 

While driving on a windy, hilly road, my VWs high beams illuminated the road much like the regular HIDs did on our S4. My wife noticed a huge difference going from the Audi to the VW.

 

So, based on our experience, OEM HIDs that have been installed at the factory, properly aimed, and using bulbs with the proper light temperature are better than any other reflector setup I've seen.

 

OTOH, our newest Audi A4 uses reflector halogens, but they're 100% better than the ones on my old VW. It has a lot to do with the reflector design and the beam pattern. Still, my wife commented that as good as the A4's new halogen reflectors are, they're still not *quite* as good as HIDs.

 

The projector halogens on my specB are different as well, and also much better than my old VW reflector halogen setup. The beam pattern of a properly aimed projector lens is well defined and it puts light in front of the car, where it's supposed to be (not scattered about, making everything more dimly lit as a result).

[miles]

 

I do have to admit HIDs look cool...right up until the car with them hits a little bump and they blind you. Factor in all the cars on the road with misaligned HIDs and they're at best a very selfish safety feature that overall decreases everyone's safety, similar to buying a large car or SUV just for the perceived safety.

 

+1

[VirtualReality]

And indeed, like brother Ted said, "better/worse" is very, very subjective.

 

Especially when it comes to things like our vision and how we perceive things, the sheer biological differences between individuals can often make such arguments totally invalid.

 

^ The answer for which is better.

[hadvw]

I don't know about all these arguments explaining how our eyes are lying to us if we think HIDs allow us to see better. (BTW, I didn't bother reading the entire thread.) I did read the long post above that mentioned optics design, etc. Good stuff. So... most of what I'm about to write has probably already been covered, but.... here's my $0.02.

 

How can you dispute the arguments when you didn't even READ the arguments?

 

The point about eyes deceiving is (I _THINK_) summarized like this:

-yes, you see better up close - so much better that you figure it must extend to things further down the road, because you are seeing so much better up close (there's more light).

-certain things like signs "pop up" because there's more light hitting them, so they're brighter than before - however, with non-HID, they would have gradually come into view SOONER than they "popped up" with HID

-because you have so much more light up close, your eyes adjust for THAT level of light, making it more difficult to see things in lower levels of light (such as, further down the road).

 

Think of it this way:

1) At night, you can see the headlights of an oncoming car (on a straight, level road) for miles

2) During the day - do you see those same headlights? No way

 

Three guesses as to what happens at night when you create daylight-levels of lights in your immediate surroundings due to HID..

 

So.. Would you rather see a shadow crossing the road at 300', or a full 1080p HDTV High-def view of a deer at 220'?

 

Based on my experience with various cars, HIDs *are* better. I'm not referring to "drop-in" HID kits, either -- only OEM HIDs installed at the factory.

 

Example: The stock halogens with US-DOT reflectors on my previous two Mk4 VWs

Ok, hold it right there.

 

VW US spec lights are examples of the WORST kind of lights you could imagine.

 

I had a '90 GTi 16v (with the quad round setup - not too bad), my parents had an '87 Jetta and an '89 Fox, but the car I really noticed it on was my '94 Corrado.

 

I did winter rallying (at night, on country roads). First year, with US/CAN OEM headlights, I had 4 KC HiLites mounted to my bumper - and needed them ALL THE FRICKIN' time. Second year, I had European OEM lights, and really only needed two lights - the two that I needed to help the high-beams for the OEM lights were no longer needed. The Euro lights were THAT much better. Easily a 3-5x improvement in lighting. With OEM lights on the Corrado, I was sometimes scared to drive at night. LOVED those Euros. So much that when they got smashed due to a fender-bender, I bought another set for $600-800.

 

Were they "HID-intense" up close? No. But plenty good for close and distance.

 

HV

[moviemadness]

all this theory and assumptions is only gonna rise more debates.

PROVE IT.

Simple proof.

get one car with good projectors, take a pic

get a retrofit into it, take a pic

4000k, 5000k, 6000k 7000k etc etc

get an OEM HID car, and take a pic

 

and no stupid crap like pics of your HIDs on your garage door cuz that means jack $hit; take realistic photos of down the road etc etc.

 

once all that's done, they're be no more debate/argument/theory/guessing.

 

case closed.

[moviemadness]

this is the best that I can do.

I think the settings of the camera were wrong, plus this was the first night I used the HIDs, so they're not as blue anymore.

[moviemadness]

they were both taken in night mode, when it was pitch black outside for both days. HID one was taken the very next night.

one thing though...

you can't really tell much difference in distance.. I think they show as far.. plus in my opinion, I don't think you should even be staring that far down the road anyway.

[Max Rebo]

How can you dispute the arguments when you didn't even READ the arguments?

 

The point about eyes deceiving is (I _THINK_) summarized like this:

-yes, you see better up close - so much better that you figure it must extend to things further down the road, because you are seeing so much better up close (there's more light).

-certain things like signs "pop up" because there's more light hitting them, so they're brighter than before - however, with non-HID, they would have gradually come into view SOONER than they "popped up" with HID

-because you have so much more light up close, your eyes adjust for THAT level of light, making it more difficult to see things in lower levels of light (such as, further down the road).

 

Think of it this way:

1) At night, you can see the headlights of an oncoming car (on a straight, level road) for miles

2) During the day - do you see those same headlights? No way

 

Three guesses as to what happens at night when you create daylight-levels of lights in your immediate surroundings due to HID..

 

So.. Would you rather see a shadow crossing the road at 300', or a full 1080p HDTV High-def view of a deer at 220'?

 

 

Ok, hold it right there.

 

VW US spec lights are examples of the WORST kind of lights you could imagine.

 

I had a '90 GTi 16v (with the quad round setup - not too bad), my parents had an '87 Jetta and an '89 Fox, but the car I really noticed it on was my '94 Corrado.

 

I did winter rallying (at night, on country roads). First year, with US/CAN OEM headlights, I had 4 KC HiLites mounted to my bumper - and needed them ALL THE FRICKIN' time. Second year, I had European OEM lights, and really only needed two lights - the two that I needed to help the high-beams for the OEM lights were no longer needed. The Euro lights were THAT much better. Easily a 3-5x improvement in lighting. With OEM lights on the Corrado, I was sometimes scared to drive at night. LOVED those Euros. So much that when they got smashed due to a fender-bender, I bought another set for $600-800.

 

Were they "HID-intense" up close? No. But plenty good for close and distance.

 

HV

I can dispute any arguments. I scanned most of the thread, but not all of it. I did get the general idea about what people were trying to say.

 

Fact is, in my experience, HIDs are better because they light up further down the road. And yes, I was comparing them to my OEM VW reflector halogens. Two "extremes," so to speak. When aligned by the dealer, the OEM VW lights barely illuminated 20 feet in front of my car. Our old S4 easily shined 3x that distance. Nothing "popped out" at us, either.

 

At any speed, I'd rather see something further away from the car than that same thing much closer. Common sense...

 

I made these comparisons because not everyone buys aftermarket/JDM/Euro headlights... which are usually not DOT-legal, anyway.

 

I don't know how everyone else drives at night, but I look as far down the road as the light allows me to see. What is lit up 5 feet directly in front of the car is unimportant, so my eyes don't have to adjust as much as people are theorizing here. There are no "shadows" at distance, either. Plain and simple, the HIDs worked better in all conditions than my halogen lights.

 

I understand what you wrote above, but that's not what I experienced while driving at night with HIDs.

 

No one else can refute my personal experience and opinon. And no... I'm not trying to upset anyone here. Just providing my experience.

 

/end debate

[Max Rebo]

all this theory and assumptions is only gonna rise more debates.

PROVE IT.

Simple proof.

get one car with good projectors, take a pic

get a retrofit into it, take a pic

4000k, 5000k, 6000k 7000k etc etc

get an OEM HID car, and take a pic

 

and no stupid crap like pics of your HIDs on your garage door cuz that means jack $hit; take realistic photos of down the road etc etc.

 

once all that's done, they're be no more debate/argument/theory/guessing.

 

case closed.

Anything above 5000k will be worse than any OEM lighting -- I wouldn't touch 6000k or 7000k. It will be more blue and while it may seem brighter on a clear night, it won't be as good in inclement weather. The blue® light will scatter more than yellow or white, especially in the rain, which will also result in more glare for oncoming cars even if they are aimed properly.

 

I doubt anyone can "prove" anything if there are people here that have already formed a strong opinion either way, whether it be from experience or hearsay.

[tantal]

tantal and winky:

 

it seems to me that both of you "disapprove" (if i may say) current HIDs because of the color temperature used, instead of the technology itself. if that's the case, what do you have to say about 3000K HID vs halogen?

Actually, I neither approve nor disapprove (well, ok, I disapprove because the lights are too damn bright and annoy other drivers, but that's a diff story). I just get pissed off when peeps talk smack about stuff they don't understand, chalk it up to some conspiracy theory, or whatever, and argue about it with someone who obviously knows what he's talking about and isn't talking smack but trying to explain something.

 

Its one thing to have and to express an opinion, no matter how small a minority you're in, but to taunt and make fun of someone who knows what he's talking about and who's trying to explain things clearly and simply to the rest of us fools who don't, well, that's just 6th grade crap.

 

<Rant off>

 

Sorry to disappoint you and not answer your question =| I'll make it up to you in the future

[tantal]

that's what I was about to mention.. I think I read somewhere the infintis are already using LED tech? I know a lot of tail lights now use them, but I'm not too sure how advance the tech has become to be a replacement for headlights.

 

one question about foreground flooding though..

can't you design a cutoff that cuts off foreground flooding? or aim the lights higher so they hit the ground farther away?

 

So, I can chime in about the LED thing. LED's are just another lighting SOURCE - you'll still have the optics for whatever headlight design you're going to want. The thing about LEDs is that the chip itself puts out light in a very narrow band - typically blue LEDs are going to be used for white lighting today - around 465 nm for us nerds. There are advantages and disadvantages. First advantage - energy efficiency - the goal is to have white light sources that are 2x the efficiency of commercial fluorescent lights - right now high power white leds are about the same efficiency and we'll get to the goal in about 2 - 4 yr. Second advantage - the LED light source is VERY concentrated - the light coming out is projected from a very small chip - typically 5 mm on a side. This can also be a disadvantage - but you need good optics for a headlight anyway, so not here. Third advantage - lifetime - these aren't bulbs, but similar to computer chips, and will run for a very long time, slowly losing power but not as fast as the plastic headlight cover on your car fogs up <G><NG>. fourth, the chip is designed to run hot, but wont burn out in the way a bulb does. Finally, the LED technology is developing at an extremely rapid rate - so it's bound to keep getting better for a while.

 

Now the disadvantages. First, the blue must be combined with other wavelengths to make white - the solution here is to use a yellow phosphor, and you get white - but like fluorescents, the color rendering is not perfect, I don't know how it compares to HIDs, don't ask . Second, the aging characteristics of the LED and the phosphor are different, so over time, your white light will gradually change color toward the bluish or the yellowish, depending on conditions. Third, the phosphor is a very thin coating on top of the chip, and there can be some inconsistency in the light pattern, with some bluish areas - you probably wont see this too often though. Finally, these things are not going to be cheap.

 

Hope you found this interesting and useful.

[TSiWRX]

all this theory and assumptions is only gonna rise more debates.

PROVE IT.

Simple proof.

get one car with good projectors, take a pic

get a retrofit into it, take a pic

4000k, 5000k, 6000k 7000k etc etc

get an OEM HID car, and take a pic

 

and no stupid crap like pics of your HIDs on your garage door cuz that means jack $hit; take realistic photos of down the road etc etc.

 

once all that's done, they're be no more debate/argument/theory/guessing.

 

case closed.

 

Unfortunately, brother, this is going to be very hard to "prove" in any kind of quantitative manner - and it's definitely not going to be through something as simple as hobbyist photography.

 

As a flashlight enthusiast, while I enjoy seeing "beam-shots" from others when I look at the newest and most technologically advanced flashlights, in the back of my mind, I still know and understand that what I get, physically first-hand, is more than likely going to be something that will make me say "hey, that's not what I saw on-screen."

 

Think of such shots and captures as being akin to the "exhaust sound clips" that many enthusiast sites, including ourselves, host. There just are too many variables to consider in both their recording as well as playback that it becomes almost impossible to standardize.

 

It's not a fault of the one taking the pictures or recordings - it's just the nature of the beast.

 

For that matter, even typical lighting measures such as "lumens" or "candelpower" are rarely a good indicator of the actual physical and human-interaction performance of many lighting devices.

 

A *lot* of this is very, very subjective. Certainly, we can quantify things and say what is *_supposed_* to be better/best under many conditions, but at the same time, we're leaving out one huge variable - the human driver behind the wheel.

 

Just as each of us is a unique individual, we too have unique preferences and even biologically - to a degree - respond differently to these proposed lighting methods. Add to this yet another variable - where and how we drive - and it yet again makes for arguments of this type to be very hard-won.

 

In the end, again, the only thing that can be said in a comparison like this is that HIDs are "better" for some scenarios and for some drivers - while traditional halogen incandescents might yet be superior for others under perhaps different circumstances. However, this attempt to quantify is all rather academic, as it is the final biologic interaction that's going to tell *_you_*, as an unique individual, which is "better."

[moviemadness]

although it's all subjective, at least there's some visual aspect to be subjective about: a picture is better than a thousand words.

 

people here aren't even that scientific, and pictures in a controlled envorinment with minimal variances of all the lighting sources should at least provide the GENERAL differences which can highly influence people's opinion.

 

that's what I'm aiming for.

[TSiWRX]

^ I understand your goal, but if you'll read into my statements above a bit more, what I'm trying to say is that the pictures bring yet another area of uncertainty and introduce yet another variable that can possibly further muddy the issue.

 

The only true way, unfortunately, to find out if such retrofits (either OEM components or plug-and-play) - or even if factory-equipped HIDs - suit your particular needs is to have first-hand experience with the particular system, yourself.

 

Certainly, one has to base their purchase decision on *something*, but this is one of those issues for which there is no easy answer - at least not at today's technological level of HID development/utilization (on-road), and even a picture will do little to swing the argument either way.

 

The science is there in the posts above - both myself and others (and this includes individuals on BOTH sides of the argument) have supplied a tremendous amount of material that's proven and true as we understand it today and according to current HID and halogen lighting use/development.

 

The two issues I see that are troubling here are:

 

(1) People refuting basic scientific principles. HOWEVER this must be framed in the context that our perceptions are easily altered/deceived by both what we think should be as well as what certain conditions may affect our senses to believe, as well as the fact that, after all, we are unique individuals who respond, biologically, differently to different factors - as such, it's not that these basic principles are wrong, but rather, our unique perceptions of road conditions, ambient lighting, and a myriad other factors may cause us to either truly "see better" or believe that we "see better" (and in many cases, this simple belief, combined with even "incorrect" lighting improvement, can so increase driver-confidence that it actually works out to be a "true" improvement), when such a result should be physically impossible.

 

and, of course:

 

(2) Again, why the hell would SoA make such claims, without either giving a full explaination of either the JDM HIDs or the fact that the STi/STI has long been equipped with USDM HIDs. It seems, to me, that they're bending facts to suit their argument and marketing.

[Max Rebo]

^^^^^^^^^

This guy makes sense to me.

 

I suppose that in a roundabout way, I was saying the same thing with respect to which is "better" in that it depends on the individual and their subjective real-life evaluation. If one doesn't meet their expectations, then the other one likely will.

 

Besides, you have to wonder about #2 (in the post above) and everywhere else in the world. If HIDs are not that great, then why would BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and several other manufacturers produce HIDs for their cars? They must deem that there are benefits over standard reflector halogens.