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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 > > > |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 > > > |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATTN: Daniel Stern... Question... | Cory Dunkle | Driving | 22 | January 13th 05 06:40 PM |
Chevy Blazer Broken/Stuck Bulb in Rear Right Tail Light | Spiderman | 4x4 | 10 | November 30th 04 01:03 AM |
How to change light bulb on auto gearbox? | [email protected] | Audi | 0 | September 29th 04 09:22 AM |
Newbie question. A4 warning light. | Moike | Audi | 1 | May 20th 04 10:00 PM |