If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
So I guess my Light switch isn't working then ))
|
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Comboverfish wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: > >>Well, you're missing a few things, most notably that light is not > > measured > >>in amps. it's measured in candela, candlepower, lux or lumens. There > > is no > >>such thing as "an amp of light". That's because different ways of > > making > >>light have different levels of efficiency. Except for the fact that >>they're amber and therefore introduce ambiguity into the front signal >>system, turn signal DRLs are dandy. They produce just about the > > perfect > >>amount of light, distributed through just about perfect horizontal > > and > >>vertical angles, for an effective daytime running light without > > glare. > > > I understand the concept of amperage, light power, and efficiency. I > was just making a flip comment on the fact that manufacturers were > using what roughly amounts to an 1157 for DRL purposes. I would much > prefer series-ed high beams for the extra cost of the relays or module. > I'm not a safety nazi but I strongly feel that low output amber light > is significantly less noticeable in daylight than headlight style DRL > beams. > Why? They're WAY too bright, and actually dangerous in low light conditions. Low beams maybe but high beams, uh-uh. Personally I think that an 1156 or 1157 would be just as effective in the right (dedicated) housing as any kind of series-headlight scheme - after all, the wattage is only slightly less than a pair of headlamps in series - and you don't really *need* that much light to stand out. Certainly not as much as headlight DRL's are putting out. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Comboverfish wrote:
> I understand the concept of amperage, light power, and efficiency. You said "1-amp lights". > was just making a flip comment on the fact that manufacturers were > using what roughly amounts to an 1157 for DRL purposes. The reason why this is dumb has nothing to do with that kind of bulb's current draw or light output. It has to do with that kind of bulb's short life when burned steadily. > I would much prefer series-ed high beams for the extra cost of the > relays or module. Not if you understood DRLs, you wouldn't. Reduced-intensity high beam DRLs are the least effective kind. Their horizontal angle of visibility is extremely narrow, which essentially nullifies their effectiveness under North American conditions, where DRLs have been shown to be effective primarily in reducing off-axis collisions. Furthermore, even when operated at reduced intensity, high-beam DRLs produce high levels of glare that cause numerous negative safety consequences (turn signal masking, encouragement of improper nighttime light use, causing other drivers to use the "night" position on their mirror during the day, etc.). High-beam DRLs were GM's "least possible compliance cost" solution to the Canadian DRL mandate, and really are not very satisfactory DRLs at all. > I'm not a safety nazi but I strongly feel that low output amber light It's the bright turn signal filaments, not the dim parking lamps, that are activated as DRLs. DS |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Comboverfish wrote: > > > I understand the concept of amperage, light power, and efficiency. > > You said "1-amp lights". > > > was just making a flip comment on the fact that manufacturers were > > using what roughly amounts to an 1157 for DRL purposes. > > The reason why this is dumb has nothing to do with that kind of bulb's > current draw or light output. It has to do with that kind of bulb's short > life when burned steadily. > > > I would much prefer series-ed high beams for the extra cost of the > > relays or module. > > Not if you understood DRLs, you wouldn't. Reduced-intensity high beam DRLs > are the least effective kind. Their horizontal angle of visibility is > extremely narrow, which essentially nullifies their effectiveness under > North American conditions, where DRLs have been shown to be effective > primarily in reducing off-axis collisions. Furthermore, even when operated > at reduced intensity, high-beam DRLs produce high levels of glare that > cause numerous negative safety consequences (turn signal masking, > encouragement of improper nighttime light use, causing other drivers to > use the "night" position on their mirror during the day, etc.). High-beam > DRLs were GM's "least possible compliance cost" solution to the Canadian > DRL mandate, and really are not very satisfactory DRLs at all. > > > I'm not a safety nazi but I strongly feel that low output amber light > > It's the bright turn signal filaments, not the dim parking lamps, that are > activated as DRLs. > > DS Alrighty. I'll take your word for it that turn signals are better safetywise. Thanks for the replies, Toyota MDT in MO |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> turn signal DRLs are dandy. They produce just about the perfect > amount of light, distributed through just about perfect horizontal and > vertical angles, for an effective daytime running light without glare. > > Now if only they were white (or some color other than amber), they *would* > be just about perfect. Driving a car with turn signal DRL's ('97 Camaro), this is exactly what I've been saying for *years*. Good thing DS finally admits I'm right. > > DS Ulf -- ulf.cc |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
the sunfires and cavbiliers are well known for headlite harness problems
Backbone wrote: > "bdeditch" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > A couple of weeks ago my low beams would not work. The DRL and high > > Question. what is a DRL? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
99 Sunfire lights problem
On 03/11/2005 12:04 PM, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Comboverfish wrote: > >>> *Full-time steady burning of the front turn signals alone > >> I'm sure you are correct, but my first thought was "you're kidding!" Is >> there an example of a car in production that does this? > > Su > > Several Saturns including the Ion > Most current-production Cadillacs > The last Buick Century > The last Olds Intrigue > The current Chev/GMC full-size vans > '96-'00 Chrysler minivans (in Canada) > The '97-up GM minivans (Chev Venture, Pontiac Montana, Olds Silhouette, > Saturn Relay, Buick Terrazza) > The current Chevrolet Malibu > Several current Toyotas (at least in Canada). You forgot the Chevy Impala prior to 2004 or 2005ish. I know that I've seen Corvettes with this implementation as well, although I have failed to notice if the newest ones are like this. I can't believe NHTSA allowed this, but then again, I can say that about a LOT of things (high beam DRLs being a close second for stupidity.) nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
96 Honda Accord daylight running lights problem | me | Honda | 2 | February 18th 05 09:09 PM |
electrically stupid | BDragon | Corvette | 32 | February 6th 05 08:14 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 4 | February 2nd 05 05:22 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 10 | October 16th 04 05:28 AM |
2000 grand cherokee- weird lights problem when shut off | Kirk Frei | Dodge | 0 | August 5th 04 04:32 AM |