Poor Lighting

[shcm]

My gut feel (an therefore possibly wrong) is that for more light output they will have to run hotter and that almost certainly means a shorter life span.

My experience with the Osrams (based on more than one set) is that they will fail around the 1 year mark (or just under). That would be with about just over 2 hours uses every day for 4 months of the year and about 1 hours use every day for another 4 months of the year. Being generous that would be around about 400hrs, which doesn't sound that good to me.

Have the ring ones in at the moment. They have gone through the winter - just have to see if the life is any better.

I have them, but I am skeptical whether the balance between shorter life versus the slight light output increase is the best one/worth it.

[Zele]

As to Rings or the Osram or Phillips equivalents I too would be interested to know if anyone has experience of their lifespan. In any event I will continue to use them. I would rather build in a budget for good bulbs than run over anything I had not seen on a bad weather night.

A quick google search gave me this link.

In short, OSRAM Night breaker plus bulbs have only a bit more than half the service life of a standard lamp. I don't believe the others are any better.

[Big Kev]

As to Rings or the Osram or Phillips equivalents I too would be interested to know if anyone has experience of their lifespan. In any event I will continue to use them. I would rather build in a budget for good bulbs than run over anything I had not seen on a bad weather night.

A quick google search gave me this link.

In short, OSRAM Night breaker plus bulbs have only a bit more than half the service life of a standard lamp. I don't believe the others are any better.

Longevity versus better night sight....? No contest.

Big Kev

[Mike JD]

Longevity versus better night sight....? No contest.

Big Kev

we talking you or the car here? :P

Rings been in the main beams on the GV for a full year next week. Sofa so good.

I wonder if talk of short life on other forums (would never be the case amongst the esteemed folk yur, of course ) is partly due to careless fitting. There still are folk who dont't read the bit about not putting sweaty fingerprints on the glass end.

In the end, chacun a son gout (I have had gout - its bliddy painful and everyone just laughs )

Mike D

[Zele]

Longevity versus better night sight....? No contest.

Don't get me wrong :)

I AM looking for better bulbs. The question is: are they really good enough?

Or, to cite shcm:

'... I am skeptical whether the balance between shorter life versus the slight light output increase is the best one/worth it'

with emphasis on 'slight'

[Davrav]

Longevity versus better night sight....? No contest.

Don't get me wrong :)

I AM looking for better bulbs. The question is: are they really good enough?

Or, to cite shcm:

'... I am skeptical whether the balance between shorter life versus the slight light output increase is the best one/worth it'

with emphasis on 'slight'

Well, I find that if I just clean the lenses I achieve more that a 'slight' improvement, even with the standard bulbs. Roads in these parts are filthy.

[Mike JD]

Don't get me wrong :)

I AM looking for better bulbs. The question is: are they really good enough?

Or, to cite shcm:

'... I am skeptical whether the balance between shorter life versus the slight light output increase is the best one/worth it'

with emphasis on 'slight'

Zele, It really is your call. There seems from postings to this topic to be no real consensus of opinion. When I bought my 4.2 RAV4 I was immediately struck by headlight performance that for me was below par for our country roads round here. The improvement with higher performance bulbs was good enough for me to continue the upgrade process with that car's successor and my wife's Pug 206. So for me the expenditure which in the scheme of things seems modest enough. Others here have taken the opposite view and say that they did not find enough difference to justify the cost. I respect their opinion.

Now clearly other factors have to come into play. Glass (OK plastic these days) covers good? Reflectors do dull and tarnish with age which would certainly negate any extra perfomance - and the age of the car does not seem to always be the ruling factor here. The efficiency of the power harness and earth also help or hinder. I remember a time when my company Fords seemed to struggle with this latter point.

I suspect that if one is in a mainly streetlit area it might be difficult to see much improvement but out around here where black cattle lurk on dark nights on unfenced roads. I need all the help I can get!

Let us know what you decide.

Cheers, chap

Mike D

[shcm]

I think I've mentioned this before.

Anyway, I've seen claims of "100% more light output". That's a nice vague marketing term, I wonder what it means?

Do some basic science. Let's assume they've managed to double the radiated (oh no, I've used the radiation word, panic! ) output power. Light intensity, like other fields, reduces by an inverse square (1/(distance^2)).

Or put another way, to get the same light intensity at double the distance, the power has to go up by 4 times.

However, the light has to bounce off the distant object and back to your eyeball. So, for the reflected light, it's another inverse square back. So, for you to perceive the same illumination at double the distance, the output power has to go up by (4 x 4) 16 times.

Or, the light you perceive coming back off the distant object reduces by (1/(distance^4)). This is also used in radar and is part of a thing known as the radar equation.

To a first approximation, doubling the output power ("100% more light output") would give the same perceived illumination at about 19% further out. I'd say from observation that not far off what you actually get.

[local hero]

Longevity versus better night sight....? No contest.

Don't get me wrong :)

I AM looking for better bulbs. The question is: are they really good enough?

Or, to cite shcm:

'... I am skeptical whether the balance between shorter life versus the slight light output increase is the best one/worth it'

with emphasis on 'slight'

I have had my main beams upgraded for 3yrs + my latest dip beams about 18mths, but its very subjective as my car has only done 17000mls and not much at night, I would never ever ever dream of arguing with SHCM on a technical point but i was under the impression that xenon gas burned cooler, but i could be + probably am wrong Stew

[Lupidog]

I was going to go down the HID route on my Rav4 T180 but eventually went for OSRAM Night Breaker Plus.

HID's quote up to 300% more light, etc. Alot of night vision has to do with the type (spectrum) of light that is produced.

The Night Breakers are just about what they say. I have standards OSRAMS fitted in my Merc. Both cars have modern projector headlights and both are clean and scratch free.

Side by side the NB+ bulbs give approximately double the forward vision at night in my unlit field. More impressive is that the light is so much more effective and vision so much more improved over the Merc at all distances. AND there are no legal issues and you cause no extra glare to oncoming vehicles.

At some stage in the near future the Government may well get around to legislating against non EU standard HID kits.

As it clearly says in the DVLA statement that you can upgrade to HID but you need to fit EU approved whole headlamp units and not just change the bulb. Alternatively you may take your headlamps out of the car and try to get them EU approved before refitting.

As with most things percentage wise. Energy sits on an ever decreasing curve. If you double BHP on an engine you do not get anywhere near double the speed. The same is applicable to same spectrum lighting. Light dissipates the further is gets from its source, therefore 300% brighter lights will not give you 300% extra visual range.

[shcm]

but i was under the impression that xenon gas burned cooler, but i could be + probably am wrong

Dunno really Stew, not an area I'm that familiar with. I like a good "argument" (sorry technical discussion :D), though!

I guess it is also easy to confuse xenon arc lamps (light produced from an arc), with a filament lamp (light from glowy wire) where there is some xenon as part of the gas mixture (helping to increase filament life among other things) inside the bulb.

Still say there's some marketing "slight of hand".

[Zele]

I have had my main beams upgraded for 3yrs + my latest dip beams about 18mths, but its very subjective as my car has only done 17000mls and not much at night

I have quite a different situation: original bulbs still going strong after 2.5 years, 45000km, which I translate into 750 hours, and driving with lights, mostly dip beams, always on. Maybe I am not the best candidate for upgrade :D

[Mike JD]

Still say there's some marketing "slight of hand".

Considerable BS quotient I reckon which is why I held off for so long. It is a bit like all those mpg improvers. My father always reckoned that if he used them all he should have had fuel coming out of the tank rather than having to put it in. Cynical? Nah - he was a lowland Scot.

Re the bulbs, your science impeccable but I can see better after than before so I is 'appy.

What about this? Anyone about to fit posh bulbs, use your camera to see if the shutter speed is faster or aperture smaller after compared with before. Good idea, what, what? Wish I had thought of it.

Mike D

[CharlieFarlie]

Longevity versus better night sight....? No contest.

Don't get me wrong :)

I AM looking for better bulbs. The question is: are they really good enough?

Or, to cite shcm:

'... I am skeptical whether the balance between shorter life versus the slight light output increase is the best one/worth it'

with emphasis on 'slight'

Well, I find that if I just clean the lenses I achieve more that a 'slight' improvement, even with the standard bulbs. Roads in these parts are filthy.

David as a keen detailer You can be assured My car and its headlights were not dirty at 5 this morning when I was driving to Edinburgh airport !! The light were so bad I could not see the huge areas of standing water after the previous night very heavy rain !!

Wee Charlie.

[CharlieFarlie]

OOPPSSS posted the above thinking I was on the other thread ..... Perhaps I need glasses instead of brighter bulbs ??? .....................

Wee myopic Charlie. ................. :rolleyes: