HIR2 Headlight Bulb - Any New LED Recommendations?

[Gerg]

Hi,

As LED  technology is advancing so quickly of late, I wondered if any HIR2 equipped owners have used an LED bulb conversion with any great success recently?

I have seen an older thread on this site, but wondered if any new offerings were cheaper/better when installed in an Auris.

Ta.

[smudge-1991]

I am working with a company about this as we speak getting some developed and tested.

Both updated halogen and LED 

[eygo]

its about time there is an upgrade for theses bulbs

 

[Justhandguns]

I am also interested as well. I think the LED main beams are going to be the mainstream in the next year or so.

[smudge-1991]

Led beams are coming apparently 

[FROSTYBALLS]

OE LED headlights are already here (e.g. the high end C-HR). As far as I'm aware aftermarket LED headlight bulbs will be subject to having the correct levelling system, washer system and E marking requirements - the same as aftermarket HID bulbs.

[smudge-1991]

You are incorrect on the level and washer system for the UK. 

Only requirement is that the colour be as close to white as possible and have a satisfactory beam pattern and cut off. 

The OE LED Beam head lights are also massively expensive in comparison to what will be widely available soon. 

[Heidfirst]

Not sure on that as currently the LED needs to be E-marked to be legal for on-road use & again, currently afaik that is only possible where the vehicle or the complete light unit has been homologated.

Also, ECE-R48 6.2.6.1 has a whole slew of stuff relating to the aim & tolerance of lights which are very tight. It does allow for manual levelling in 6.2.6.2.2,  however, 6.2.9 has "With respect to vertical inclination the provisions of paragraph 6.2.6.2.2. above shall not be applied for dipped-beam headlamps with a light source or LED module(s) producing the principal dipped beam and having an objective luminous flux which exceeds 2,000 lumens*." 

Also,

"6.2.9. Other requirements The requirements of paragraph 5.5.2. shall not apply to dipped-beam headlamps. Dipped-beam headlamps with a light source or LED module(s) producing the principal dipped beam and having a total objective luminous flux which exceeds 2,000 lumens shall only be installed in conjunction with the installation of headlamp cleaning device(s) according to Regulation No. 45.11

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2016/R048r12am3e.pdf

 

* for comparison a D4S HID bulb typically puts out ~3000 lumen

[FROSTYBALLS]

There was also an Auto Express article last year on aftermarket HID kits and aftermarket LED bulbs which, although the law hasn't been tested yet, came out with the strong view that both were not road legal in the UK. The magazine together with local Trading Standards were also successful in getting one site to withdraw their HID kits from sale.

[smudge-1991]

The auto express article was against people failing MOT with HID fitted also his was a factory fit system if I remember correctly and places not selling E marked equipment and if not should say not for road use which the company in question did not. 

Also the UN law which is mostly not applicable or a grey area in the UK is for factory fit systems. 

You look through the UK rules by VOSA and the MOST guidelines 

It clearly states that if HID or LED is fitted from factory auto level and washers must work IF fitted or look to have been fitted. 

If not fitted or look to have never been fitted the owner of the vehicle is to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The dipped beam pattern is to be of a satisfactory pattern to not create glare and dazzle.

The colour is to be appropriate for road use and as close to white as possible. 

 

This isn't exact wording but very close to. 

[Heidfirst]

Strictly speaking no LED bulb is legal under UK construction & use laws, however, EU Type approval overrules. & afaik you can currentl only get an approval by testing as complete units (holder, reflector, lens & bulb).

Yes, you can pass an MOT without levelling & washers but that does not make it road legal.

Fitting LEDs where not oem would also constitute a modification to the car's original specification & as such may well have insurance implications.

[smudge-1991]

Strictly speaking this is true but also if you were to be pulled over for it you would be taken to a test centre and checked to which you should pass. 

Also most insurance companies now don't charge for such things as it's cosmetic and not performance enhancing more about better vision for driver. 

Technically anything that isn't manufacturer spec is a mod and also optional extras are classed as modifications albeit if fitted from new. 

Vehicle Lighting is a massive grey area in regards to rules, laws and testing. 

[FROSTYBALLS]

Insurance companies don't just consider whether a modification is performance enhancing - increased cost of repair in the event of a claim is the main issue for them. Also the approach varies from company to company.

For example, our i20 SE came with factory fit LED DRL's and steering headlights which was part of the model's launch incentives - neither of which are performance enhancing, provide better awareness of the vehicle for others and better vision for the driver, but would cost more to replace. These were not part of the publicised standard spec at launch or since. To avoid being charged for the modifications to our vehicle, we had to provide confirmation that our car was one of those fitted with the launch incentives.

[Heidfirst]

4 hours ago, smudge-1991 said:

Strictly speaking this is true but also if you were to be pulled over for it you would be taken to a test centre and checked to which you should pass. 

Not necessarily

Also most insurance companies now don't charge for such things as it's cosmetic and not performance enhancing more about better vision for driver. 

Technically anything that isn't manufacturer spec is a mod and also optional extras are classed as modifications albeit if fitted from new. 

An insurance company won't want to condone anything which isn't road legal for use on road.

Vehicle Lighting is a massive grey area in regards to rules, laws and testing. 

I agree with this, it really could use injecting with some certainty.

 

[smudge-1991]

45 minutes ago, Heidfirst said:

 

I think you should consult your insurance as aftermarket lighting LEDs and HIDs are listed as possible modifications. 

If pulled over a police officer would would have to disprove your car as unroad worthy which is difficult unless your missing components, lights not working, bald tyres basically obvious dangerous things. But as most don't know the exact laws and tests etc hence why they have centres to test and check. And why VOSA now do more and more road side stops 

I never said that they only consider performance enhancing what I said is most insurance companies don't charge or charge very very little for aesthetics whereas performanceenhancing modifications tend to have a massive charge again depending on your insurance. 

Also as another car I have when shopping around I looked at focus STs.

An ST2 was cheaper than an ST3 yet an ST 2 with some options I.e cruise control, satnav, bixenon headlights was more to insure than an ST3 which comes with those and more as standard... When queried, the insurance company explained that optional extras are insured as mods that were factory fitted but not on the spec of vehicle as it would be in standard guise. 

As we are now off topic this should be dropped. 

 

As said I have spoken with a company and lights are looking to soon be available I HiR2 fitment 

[Heidfirst]

13 hours ago, smudge-1991 said:

I think you should consult your insurance as aftermarket lighting LEDs and HIDs are listed as possible modifications. 

They may be as there may be road legal options available (e.g. fitting self-levelling & washers at the same time as HIDs). However, I am also sure that an insurance company won't insure something that isn't road legal for road use because they would become an accessory & potentially subject to prosecution themselves.

When I looked into this a while ago there supposedly was at least 1 case where an insurance company had rejected a claim because the car had had it's number plate light(s) replaced with LED(s) & not declared to them.

re. HIR2 LED bulbs - again availability does not equal legal for road use ...

 

[smudge-1991]

That's where they should have declared as we all know insurance will look for anyway to not pay out ... However a simple uprated halogen that is marked for road use will is not a problem. But we are still deviating off topic ... Options will be available to people with all types of fitment and it probably won't take long for road legal versions of said items ... 

 

I think the HiR2 fitment is becoming more popular as a few manufactures are starting to use that particular fitment. 

[FROSTYBALLS]

The thread hasn't moved off-topic. The discussion is regarding LED headlight bulbs, and the legality of the use of these bulbs is relevant.

[Justhandguns]

On 05/01/2017 at 6:00 PM, smudge-1991 said:

That's where they should have declared as we all know insurance will look for anyway to not pay out ... However a simple uprated halogen that is marked for road use will is not a problem. But we are still deviating off topic ... Options will be available to people with all types of fitment and it probably won't take long for road legal versions of said items ... 

 

 

Yes, this is the problem here, most insurance companies do not really care whether it is legal or not legal, it only matters whether they are paying out more in case of a claim. I sometimes doubt that whether VOSA or any other legal authorities are doing anything to stop illegal mods. Every evening, I have cars behind me with odd and ill adjusted beams (on one side) shining into my mirrors and my eyes, I am not even sure if they have their proper MOTs or simply illegal uninsured cars. Then you have plenty of cars having at least one missing brake light on the road. Are these more dangerous than replacing your plate bulbs with LEDs? Certainly. But are insurance companies helping out to rectify these, a big NO!  

[FROSTYBALLS]

23 minutes ago, Justhandguns said:

Yes, this is the problem here, most insurance companies do not really care whether it is legal or not legal, it only matters whether they are paying out more in case of a claim. I sometimes doubt that whether VOSA or any other legal authorities are doing anything to stop illegal mods. Every evening, I have cars behind me with odd and ill adjusted beams (on one side) shining into my mirrors and my eyes, I am not even sure if they have their proper MOTs or simply illegal uninsured cars. Then you have plenty of cars having at least one missing brake light on the road. Are these more dangerous than replacing your plate bulbs with LEDs? Certainly. But are insurance companies helping out to rectify these, a big NO!  

Enforcement of vehicle regulations is the responsibility of DVSA (formerly known as VOSA and DSA) and the Police. Enforcement is managed via the MOT system,  DVSA checkpoints, the ANPR system/DVLA database and Traffic Police.

Enforcement of vehicle regulations isn't the responsibility of insurance companies. However the insurance industry does contribute to tackling uninsured drivers by funding the Motor Insurance Bureau, which manages the Motor Insurer's Database and makes this available to the enforcement bodies. The Motor Insurance Database is used in conjunction with the DVLA database by the ANPR system.

In today's world of austerity, and reductions in funding the public sector, enforcement probably isn't as effective as is wanted.