99 Sunfire lights problem

So I guess my Light switch isn't working then ))

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

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

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

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

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?

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