Light bulb question -- Daniel Stern?
 

Went to the Sylvania Web site to see whether XtraVision bulbs are
available for my 300M (they aren't) and looked at the comparison chart
for Standard, XtraVision, Cool Blue, and SilverStar. I was surprised to
see that for a given bulb type (e.g., 9004, 9005, 9006) they quote the
same light output in lumens no matter whether it's a Standard or an
XtraVision! So how come they claim that XtraVision are "brighter"?

MB

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Minnie Bannister wrote:

> Went to the Sylvania Web site to see whether XtraVision bulbs are
> available for my 300M (they aren't) and looked at the comparison chart
> for Standard, XtraVision, Cool Blue, and SilverStar. I was surprised to
> see that for a given bulb type (e.g., 9004, 9005, 9006) they quote the
> same light output in lumens no matter whether it's a Standard or an
> XtraVision! So how come they claim that XtraVision are "brighter"?

Sylvania primarily lists *NOMINAL* output, not actual, in their materials.
Nominal output is the legal spec contained in Federal code 49CFR564. The
spec for each bulb contains a nominal flux as well as the allowable
tolerance range as either a plus-minus percentage or an absolute maximum.
Take a look for yourself he
http://fmvss108.tripod.com/light_source_list.htm and you'll see how
coincidentally all those Sylvania bulbs just happen to (be claimed to
produce) exactly the nominal value, right on the nose. Quoting nominal
values is the same as saying "These bulbs are all legal". Sure they are,
but nominal values do not describe the differences in performance amongst
the different bulbs. Can you think of a reason why Silverstar (which
produces near the high end of the legal output) and Cool Blue (which
produces near the low end) would be quoted at nominal rather than actual?
I can. I can also think of a reason why Sylvania would field a gimmicky,
expensive, short-lived, low-performing Silverstar for your 300M but *not*
a higher-performing, non-gimmicky, longer-lived, less-expensive
Xtravision.

DS

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Minnie Bannister wrote:

> Went to the Sylvania Web site to see whether XtraVision bulbs are
> available for my 300M (they aren't) and looked at the comparison chart
> for Standard, XtraVision, Cool Blue, and SilverStar. I was surprised to
> see that for a given bulb type (e.g., 9004, 9005, 9006) they quote the
> same light output in lumens no matter whether it's a Standard or an
> XtraVision! So how come they claim that XtraVision are "brighter"?

Sylvania primarily lists *NOMINAL* output, not actual, in their materials.
Nominal output is the legal spec contained in Federal code 49CFR564. The
spec for each bulb contains a nominal flux as well as the allowable
tolerance range as either a plus-minus percentage or an absolute maximum.
Take a look for yourself he
http://fmvss108.tripod.com/light_source_list.htm and you'll see how
coincidentally all those Sylvania bulbs just happen to (be claimed to
produce) exactly the nominal value, right on the nose. Quoting nominal
values is the same as saying "These bulbs are all legal". Sure they are,
but nominal values do not describe the differences in performance amongst
the different bulbs. Can you think of a reason why Silverstar (which
produces near the high end of the legal output) and Cool Blue (which
produces near the low end) would be quoted at nominal rather than actual?
I can. I can also think of a reason why Sylvania would field a gimmicky,
expensive, short-lived, low-performing Silverstar for your 300M but *not*
a higher-performing, non-gimmicky, longer-lived, less-expensive
Xtravision.

DS

Whoops, see below. Shows what happens when I try to post in "food coma"
mode after having just eaten a large dinner.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Minnie Bannister wrote:
>
> > Went to the Sylvania Web site to see whether XtraVision bulbs are
> > available for my 300M (they aren't) and looked at the comparison chart
> > for Standard, XtraVision, Cool Blue, and SilverStar. I was surprised to
> > see that for a given bulb type (e.g., 9004, 9005, 9006) they quote the
> > same light output in lumens no matter whether it's a Standard or an
> > XtraVision! So how come they claim that XtraVision are "brighter"?
>
> Sylvania primarily lists *NOMINAL* output, not actual, in their materials.
> Nominal output is the legal spec contained in Federal code 49CFR564. The
> spec for each bulb contains a nominal flux as well as the allowable
> tolerance range as either a plus-minus percentage or an absolute maximum.
> Take a look for yourself he
> http://fmvss108.tripod.com/light_source_list.htm and you'll see how
> coincidentally all those Sylvania bulbs just happen to (be claimed to
> produce) exactly the nominal value, right on the nose. Quoting nominal
> values is the same as saying "These bulbs are all legal". Sure they are,
> but nominal values do not describe the differences in performance amongst
> the different bulbs.

All the above is fine.

Corrections below in all-caps

> Can you think of a reason why Silverstar (which produces near the LOW
> end of the legal output) and XTRAVISION (which produces near the HIGH
> end) would be quoted at nominal rather than actual? I can. I can also
> think of a reason why Sylvania would field a gimmicky, expensive,
> short-lived, low-performing Silverstar for your 300M but *not* a
> higher-performing, non-gimmicky, longer-lived, less-expensive
> Xtravision.
>
> DS
>
>
>

Whoops, see below. Shows what happens when I try to post in "food coma"
mode after having just eaten a large dinner.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Minnie Bannister wrote:
>
> > Went to the Sylvania Web site to see whether XtraVision bulbs are
> > available for my 300M (they aren't) and looked at the comparison chart
> > for Standard, XtraVision, Cool Blue, and SilverStar. I was surprised to
> > see that for a given bulb type (e.g., 9004, 9005, 9006) they quote the
> > same light output in lumens no matter whether it's a Standard or an
> > XtraVision! So how come they claim that XtraVision are "brighter"?
>
> Sylvania primarily lists *NOMINAL* output, not actual, in their materials.
> Nominal output is the legal spec contained in Federal code 49CFR564. The
> spec for each bulb contains a nominal flux as well as the allowable
> tolerance range as either a plus-minus percentage or an absolute maximum.
> Take a look for yourself he
> http://fmvss108.tripod.com/light_source_list.htm and you'll see how
> coincidentally all those Sylvania bulbs just happen to (be claimed to
> produce) exactly the nominal value, right on the nose. Quoting nominal
> values is the same as saying "These bulbs are all legal". Sure they are,
> but nominal values do not describe the differences in performance amongst
> the different bulbs.

All the above is fine.

Corrections below in all-caps

> Can you think of a reason why Silverstar (which produces near the LOW
> end of the legal output) and XTRAVISION (which produces near the HIGH
> end) would be quoted at nominal rather than actual? I can. I can also
> think of a reason why Sylvania would field a gimmicky, expensive,
> short-lived, low-performing Silverstar for your 300M but *not* a
> higher-performing, non-gimmicky, longer-lived, less-expensive
> Xtravision.
>
> DS
>
>
>

Amen on the short lived Silstar, went thru a set in 7 months on my chev.
trailblazer, bitched to them, got another set on warranty, 7 months later,
one right after another. It's a shame because they were good, and the
stockers stink.
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Minnie Bannister wrote:
>
>> Went to the Sylvania Web site to see whether XtraVision bulbs are
>> available for my 300M (they aren't) and looked at the comparison chart
>> for Standard, XtraVision, Cool Blue, and SilverStar. I was surprised to
>> see that for a given bulb type (e.g., 9004, 9005, 9006) they quote the
>> same light output in lumens no matter whether it's a Standard or an
>> XtraVision! So how come they claim that XtraVision are "brighter"?
>
> Sylvania primarily lists *NOMINAL* output, not actual, in their materials.
> Nominal output is the legal spec contained in Federal code 49CFR564. The
> spec for each bulb contains a nominal flux as well as the allowable
> tolerance range as either a plus-minus percentage or an absolute maximum.
> Take a look for yourself he
> http://fmvss108.tripod.com/light_source_list.htm and you'll see how
> coincidentally all those Sylvania bulbs just happen to (be claimed to
> produce) exactly the nominal value, right on the nose. Quoting nominal
> values is the same as saying "These bulbs are all legal". Sure they are,
> but nominal values do not describe the differences in performance amongst
> the different bulbs. Can you think of a reason why Silverstar (which
> produces near the high end of the legal output) and Cool Blue (which
> produces near the low end) would be quoted at nominal rather than actual?
> I can. I can also think of a reason why Sylvania would field a gimmicky,
> expensive, short-lived, low-performing Silverstar for your 300M but *not*
> a higher-performing, non-gimmicky, longer-lived, less-expensive
> Xtravision.
>
> DS
>
>




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Amen on the short lived Silstar, went thru a set in 7 months on my chev.
trailblazer, bitched to them, got another set on warranty, 7 months later,
one right after another. It's a shame because they were good, and the
stockers stink.
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Minnie Bannister wrote:
>
>> Went to the Sylvania Web site to see whether XtraVision bulbs are
>> available for my 300M (they aren't) and looked at the comparison chart
>> for Standard, XtraVision, Cool Blue, and SilverStar. I was surprised to
>> see that for a given bulb type (e.g., 9004, 9005, 9006) they quote the
>> same light output in lumens no matter whether it's a Standard or an
>> XtraVision! So how come they claim that XtraVision are "brighter"?
>
> Sylvania primarily lists *NOMINAL* output, not actual, in their materials.
> Nominal output is the legal spec contained in Federal code 49CFR564. The
> spec for each bulb contains a nominal flux as well as the allowable
> tolerance range as either a plus-minus percentage or an absolute maximum.
> Take a look for yourself he
> http://fmvss108.tripod.com/light_source_list.htm and you'll see how
> coincidentally all those Sylvania bulbs just happen to (be claimed to
> produce) exactly the nominal value, right on the nose. Quoting nominal
> values is the same as saying "These bulbs are all legal". Sure they are,
> but nominal values do not describe the differences in performance amongst
> the different bulbs. Can you think of a reason why Silverstar (which
> produces near the high end of the legal output) and Cool Blue (which
> produces near the low end) would be quoted at nominal rather than actual?
> I can. I can also think of a reason why Sylvania would field a gimmicky,
> expensive, short-lived, low-performing Silverstar for your 300M but *not*
> a higher-performing, non-gimmicky, longer-lived, less-expensive
> Xtravision.
>
> DS
>
>




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Try
http://dafnwebpd.sylvania.com/os_fil...ocid=003680349




On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:36:01 -0400, "Shep" >
wrote:

>Amen on the short lived Silstar, went thru a set in 7 months on my chev.
>trailblazer, bitched to them, got another set on warranty, 7 months later,
>one right after another. It's a shame because they were good, and the
>stockers stink.
>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
in.umich.edu...
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Minnie Bannister wrote:
>>
>>> Went to the Sylvania Web site to see whether XtraVision bulbs are
>>> available for my 300M (they aren't) and looked at the comparison chart
>>> for Standard, XtraVision, Cool Blue, and SilverStar. I was surprised to
>>> see that for a given bulb type (e.g., 9004, 9005, 9006) they quote the
>>> same light output in lumens no matter whether it's a Standard or an
>>> XtraVision! So how come they claim that XtraVision are "brighter"?
>>
>> Sylvania primarily lists *NOMINAL* output, not actual, in their materials.
>> Nominal output is the legal spec contained in Federal code 49CFR564. The
>> spec for each bulb contains a nominal flux as well as the allowable
>> tolerance range as either a plus-minus percentage or an absolute maximum.
>> Take a look for yourself he
>> http://fmvss108.tripod.com/light_source_list.htm and you'll see how
>> coincidentally all those Sylvania bulbs just happen to (be claimed to
>> produce) exactly the nominal value, right on the nose. Quoting nominal
>> values is the same as saying "These bulbs are all legal". Sure they are,
>> but nominal values do not describe the differences in performance amongst
>> the different bulbs. Can you think of a reason why Silverstar (which
>> produces near the high end of the legal output) and Cool Blue (which
>> produces near the low end) would be quoted at nominal rather than actual?
>> I can. I can also think of a reason why Sylvania would field a gimmicky,
>> expensive, short-lived, low-performing Silverstar for your 300M but *not*
>> a higher-performing, non-gimmicky, longer-lived, less-expensive
>> Xtravision.
>>
>> DS
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Try
http://dafnwebpd.sylvania.com/os_fil...ocid=003680349




On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:36:01 -0400, "Shep" >
wrote:

>Amen on the short lived Silstar, went thru a set in 7 months on my chev.
>trailblazer, bitched to them, got another set on warranty, 7 months later,
>one right after another. It's a shame because they were good, and the
>stockers stink.
>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
in.umich.edu...
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Minnie Bannister wrote:
>>
>>> Went to the Sylvania Web site to see whether XtraVision bulbs are
>>> available for my 300M (they aren't) and looked at the comparison chart
>>> for Standard, XtraVision, Cool Blue, and SilverStar. I was surprised to
>>> see that for a given bulb type (e.g., 9004, 9005, 9006) they quote the
>>> same light output in lumens no matter whether it's a Standard or an
>>> XtraVision! So how come they claim that XtraVision are "brighter"?
>>
>> Sylvania primarily lists *NOMINAL* output, not actual, in their materials.
>> Nominal output is the legal spec contained in Federal code 49CFR564. The
>> spec for each bulb contains a nominal flux as well as the allowable
>> tolerance range as either a plus-minus percentage or an absolute maximum.
>> Take a look for yourself he
>> http://fmvss108.tripod.com/light_source_list.htm and you'll see how
>> coincidentally all those Sylvania bulbs just happen to (be claimed to
>> produce) exactly the nominal value, right on the nose. Quoting nominal
>> values is the same as saying "These bulbs are all legal". Sure they are,
>> but nominal values do not describe the differences in performance amongst
>> the different bulbs. Can you think of a reason why Silverstar (which
>> produces near the high end of the legal output) and Cool Blue (which
>> produces near the low end) would be quoted at nominal rather than actual?
>> I can. I can also think of a reason why Sylvania would field a gimmicky,
>> expensive, short-lived, low-performing Silverstar for your 300M but *not*
>> a higher-performing, non-gimmicky, longer-lived, less-expensive
>> Xtravision.
>>
>> DS
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Shep wrote:

> Amen on the short lived Silstar, went thru a set in 7 months on my chev.
> trailblazer, bitched to them, got another set on warranty, 7 months later,
> one right after another. It's a shame because they were good, and the
> stockers stink.

The Sylvania Silverstars make your headlamps put out *less* light. The
impression you got that they're "brighter" is nothing more than an optical
illusion.

So no, it's not a shame.