PDA

View Full Version : Read before 'Upgrading' your Headlights...



Danimal
05-19-2008, 03:46 PM
I did some research as I was interested in buying some new bulbs like Dltang recently installed.

All the popular ones.... SilverStar, PIAA Xtreme White Plus , Superwhite, Hyperwhite, UltraWhite, Platinum , etc. do NOT produce any more light at all.

Yup... you read that right.... 55 Watts is 55 Watts.

Basically they only way you are going to get 'more' light is to go with an HID system. Period. These 'super-white' H7 bulbs are just tinted purple and actually put out the same - or LESS actual light as the stock H7.

It's just because it scatters differently and is of a different color that you think they are brighter.


Here is some great info on the subject:

Superwhites

Claims ("55w = 85w", etc.) made for "Superwhite" type bulbs are very misleading.

They simply aren't true. Here's the full scoop!


CLAIM: "SuperWhite" bulbs produce 85W of light from 55W of electricity

REALITY: "Superwhite" ("Hyperwhite", "UltraWhite", "Platinum", etc., basically any bulb advertised as being "whiter" than normal) bulbs produce more glare and less seeing light than standard bulbs.

The "55W = 85W" type claims are a sham. Here's how these kinds of pretend wattage numbers are cooked-up: The blue or purple filtration coating on the glass tints the light so that it is "whiter". Most bulbs that actually produces more light (i.e., higher-wattage bulbs) also burn with a whiter color than standard-wattage bulbs. With these color-coated bulbs, only the light color, and not the actual light output, imitates a high-power bulb. There is no seeing advantage to "whiter" light, though some people seem to think that others will look upon headlamps so equipped and go "Wow, cool!". Why they believe anyone else cares what color their headlamps are is anybody's guess.

A major reason why many people find many US-specification headlamps in need of upgrading is because many such headlamps have very low levels of foreground light, which creates a "black hole" on the road in front of the car. There's often insufficient lateral light (left and right) to see critters or people before they run into the road. The "hot spot" creates a narrow tunnel of light that disappears "out there somewhere", with no visual cue to where the beam (and therefore the driver's seeing range or "preview") ends. But these headlamp performance aspects are governed by the optics of the lamp, not by the color of the light. Bulbs with blue or purple tinted glass never improve the performance of your headlamps. They may leave it relatively unchanged, or they may severely reduce it, but they never improve it.

CLAIM: "Our bulbs produce the whitest and brightest light on the road!"

REALITY: "Brightness" is like "Loudness". It's a subjective perception. Is Metallica " louder " than Bach? Most people would say so. That's why audiologists use an objective measurement, Sound Pressure Level, rather than subjective quantities like "volume" and "loudness". And so it is in the science of light. "Bright" and "Dim" are subjective perceptions. Intensity, measured in any of several precisely-defined and scientific ways, is the only real way to gauge or compare output of a light source or performance of a lamp equipped with a light source. A 4-watt flashlight bulb dipped in the purple coating applied to these tinted headlamp bulbs would look "whiter", and might look "brighter", but would produce less light. And so it is with these headlamp bulbs.

The reason why the scam fools people into thinking their headlamps really work better has to do with the interaction of light that is tinted blue (to any degree) with the human eye. This kind of light has been shown in rigidly-controlled scientific studies to create almost 50% more glare than untinted light from a bulb with clear glass. But there's no 50% increase in seeing to go along with the extra glare; there's no increase in seeing at all, and in most cases there is a moderate reduction in actual seeing light. More glare, less seeing: Everybody loses.

CLAIM: Many of these bulbs are sold with claims of specific "color temperature" (e.g. "5000K"). Often, these ratings are accompanied by text to the effect that higher color temperatures are "close to natural daylight".

REALITY: Color Temperature is a real measure, but it is being improperly used to claim improved seeing. Legitimate bulb manufacturers do catalogue the color temperature of their products in technical literature not usually distributed to consumers, because scientists and engineers can use it as a convenient proxy indicator for filament luminance. But it has no predictive value for the performance of an automotive headlamp, nor does it indicate how well you'll be able to see. The idea being sold with these "Kelvin ratings" is that the light is closer to natural sunlight. As with many sales claims, there is a small kernel of truth here, but it's cancelled out by the smoke and mirrors. Noonday sunlight does have a much higher color temperature than most uncoated headlamp bulbs, but there are a great many other differences between sunlight and headlamp light, as well. Not only that, but the Color Temperature rating is really valid only at extremely high light intensity, such as that produced by the sun. At the lower intensities produced by most electric lamps including headlamps, the rating no longer says much about the light, but only allows a limited, referential comparison of different light colors. The tinted bulbs' poor imitation of the color of sunlight does not mean that the headlamp output is "just like sunlight", or anything even close. As with the wattage equivalence claims discussed above, a color-based comparison is being used to imply an intensity and seeing-ability comparison that does not exist. This also addresses the related claims that

CLAIM: "I've got pictures that prove the brightness difference!"

REALITY: Photographs, film or digital, cannot accurately represent the intensity of a light or lamp, because of the many significant differences in the perception of light by the human eye vs. the camera. By simply adjusting the exposure settings or white balance, virtually any bulb or lamp can be "shown" to be superior to virtually any other.

BOTTOM LINE: The laws of physics are the laws of physics. They don't bend even for the highest-paid advertising agency. There is no way to get "85 watts of light for 55 watts of electricity." Tinted bulbs aren't better.

______________________________

Based on this research I've decided to leave my stock bulbs stock and possibly upgrade my Fog lights with Ken's HID kit someday.

BlackWidow
05-19-2008, 04:50 PM
So I don't get 75 watts of light from my 15 watt Compact Flourescent Light bulb?

::)

Danimal
05-19-2008, 05:39 PM
'Watts' are not used properly in most discussions like this. Lumens would be the proper gauge of light. Those CLF lights are just giving you an idea of what the output compares to... and they are using watts for the unit of measure - which really isn't fair.

More depth than I really wanted to get into..... but basically you're paying more for purple painted lights if you go with these 'super white' H7 bulbs.

I've also learned that HID conversions are basically worthless unless you change the reflector and lens - otherwise it is like wearing someone else's glasses - they are not properly focused.

bjt
05-19-2008, 05:55 PM
I understand and agree with most everything that you have said. However, some portions of your research talked about how peoples perceptions come into play. We installed one new lamp into dltang's Spyder and turned the lights on, highbeams, for a direct side by side comparison. We had a new bulb in the right socket and the stock bulb in the left socket. The new bulb looked brighter than the stock light. Is that going to translate into more light on the road? Maybe not but, my opinion, if something is illuminated by a whiter or brighter light, I think I'll be able to see it better. Also, I think that a brighter looking light coming towards someone may be more noticeable, thus adding to my safety. I'm not trying to sell anyone these Silverstar lights or any of the other upgrade bulbs but I / we just passed on our experience with them so far. When I ride home tonight, I'll get my first test of the new bulbs at night and I'll be sure to post how I think they performed and if I think I spent the $35 or $40 wisely.

As you said, wattage is not a proper measurement of light output anyways as different light technologies require different amounts of power to produce a certain amount of light. The statement "55 watts is 55 watts" really only applies to identical lighting technologies.

Star Cruiser
05-19-2008, 06:11 PM
Watts is a power consumption, not a brightness measurement. We should talk Lumens if we want to compare brightness. It was easy to use "watts" when it was a measurement that applied to all incandescent bulbs. 60 watts always gave the same (or close) brightness. With Fluorescent tubes, it changed, just as a 55 watt halogen is brighter than a 60 watt incandescent. So I guess we will have to start checking the number of lumens produced to compare brightness.

I agree that if you can be seen better, it is worth the investment.

Just my 2ยข worth

pphantom538
05-19-2008, 06:14 PM
I agree - lumens rule.

Danimal
05-19-2008, 06:45 PM
I agree that YOU might be more noticable with the 'whiter' lights. I know whenever I'm driving in my car at night and someone with the bright white HID's is coming my way... it annoys the hell outta me...... ;D ... so from that aspect it 'could' be a bonus..... but.... I think you will find the light scatters differently and makes it seem brighter near your bike and on the ground near your bike... but the light won't 'travel' as far.

I think the sound example explains things quite well - as it is all a matter of perception.

I'm still thinking of Ken's HID kit... it appears that BRP designed the lens system in the Spyder to work with both types of lights.

dltang
05-19-2008, 07:02 PM
Well, all this information is great but in my case somewhat redundant. I already spent the money and installed the lights. I didn't have any problem seeing with my stock lights. My purpose here is to be seen better by other drivers without the cost of HID (maybe down the road). That is all. All the technical stuff makes no difference to me as long as I am not hurting my Spyder or my warranty and can be seen. Thanks for all the input though, I appreciate it.

barb36jack31
05-19-2008, 09:01 PM
Great series of posts. Nice to have all this info available for reference.

Jack H.

Danimal
05-19-2008, 10:24 PM
I was just posting the info for people since those lights are being advertised as 'brighter' ... so that people don't think they are actually something they are not.

I'm sure they will work out fine for you...... didn't mean to 'rain' on your new mod... just wanted others to know what I had learned today. I was ready to go plunk down the money on some PIAA units..... which would have cost me $150 for a set of 4..... and my main goal was betting lighting at night.

I personally am not too worried about people seeing me at night. During the day I run my fog lights... so I've got all 4 burning I should be noticed.

Also found out from Ken today that the Fog Bulbs are actually H8 bulbs.

bjt
05-20-2008, 06:35 AM
So I road home last night with the new headlights and my personal opinion of the Silverstars are, it's a wash. I think they are probably a little brighter but it wasn't so much that I was going "Wow, these are a must have!" I do not think they put out any less light and they at least made the immediate path in front of me a touch brighter. I did not experience any additional glare that Danimal referred to as a negative of these type of lights. If I had it to do all over again, I might save the $35 and keep running the stock lights. What I really need to do is put the stock lights back in one of our Spyders and then do a side by side nighttime comparison to truly see if there is a difference. Maybe tonight.

Danimal
05-20-2008, 09:43 AM
If you want more light right in front of the bike..... get the fog light kit..... really makes a difference.

dltang
05-20-2008, 10:33 AM
I was just posting the info for people since those lights are being advertised as 'brighter' ... so that people don't think they are actually something they are not.

I'm sure they will work out fine for you...... didn't mean to 'rain' on your new mod... just wanted others to know what I had learned today. I was ready to go plunk down the money on some PIAA units..... which would have cost me $150 for a set of 4..... and my main goal was betting lighting at night.

I personally am not too worried about people seeing me at night. During the day I run my fog lights... so I've got all 4 burning I should be noticed.

Also found out from Ken today that the Fog Bulbs are actually H8 bulbs.



Sorry if I came across as grumpy Danimal, that was not my intent. When I reread my post I guess it did sound kind of snotty. I thank you for all the info and everyone else. Maybe I should have looked into it more myself before the purchase. I was just saying that it is too late for me to change my mind. Anyway, I do think they are a bit brighter as far as someone looking at me and since I ride home from work at 11:00pm every night, that little extra visibility always helps. bjt said he was thinking about putting the stock lights back in one of the spyders tonight and putting them side by side to really see if we can see a difference. I will ask him to take a picture, even though I am not sure it will turn out that well. But I apologize if I came across wrong in my post.

Danimal
05-20-2008, 10:39 AM
No worries.... I wasn't trying to make your purchase and mod sound like a total waste ..... just want people to know what they are in for.....


boogllasti ! ;D

trikester
05-20-2008, 12:00 PM
As an elect engineer (retired) I have given some slack to the compact flouresent bulb manufacturers when they print on the box that their CF gives 60w of light for 13w of power consumed. Even though it is not the correct use of the power measurement "watt" it does tell the consumer that if they were reading by the light of an incandesent fillament 60w light and dissipating 60w of power, they should still be able to do that with the CF while only dissipating 13w of power.

Sometimes the simplest way to get information across is not the most correct way, but can still get the job done.

Frank

matusky
05-20-2008, 12:46 PM
As an elect engineer (retired) I have given some slack to the compact flouresent bulb manufacturers when they print on the box that their CF gives 60w of light for 13w of power consumed. Even though it is not the correct use of the power measurement "watt" it does tell the consumer that if they were reading by the light of an incandesent fillament 60w light and dissipating 60w of power, they should still be able to do that with the CF while only dissipating 13w of power.

Sometimes the simplest way to get information across is not the most correct way, but can still get the job done.

Frank


True, but they simply relate the amount of lumens (physical output of light from the bulb <no matter what kind>) to the amount of power used.

Incandesent bulbs and halogen bulbs waste a lot of energy producing heat, where a HID and CF bulb do not.... ALSO, this heat also contributes to the breakdown of the materials that make the bulb work, this is why a halogen and incandesent bulb wear out in only a couple thousand hours while HID lights and flourescent lights last many times longer.

It's been trained into the human brain that whiter light (such as the sun) is more and brighter light...... to tint a standard bulb (halogen 55w) to a whiter and/or bluish color is merely an optical illusion to fool the person looking at it.

I'm amazed that we spyder lovers are putting this much research into the lighting! very cool! :bigthumbsup:

Roaddog2
05-23-2008, 10:28 PM
Great series of posts. Nice to have all this info available for reference.

Jack H.
:agree:

pphantom538
05-24-2008, 01:03 PM
:agree:

Derwin
05-31-2008, 12:16 PM
So, do we need to install new lights on our Spyders, or are the stock ones good enough?

Danimal
05-31-2008, 03:57 PM
Stock lights are really pretty good... and the fogs are great too.

Any upgrade bulbs OTHER than HID (BRP's is $1,200, evoluzione.net is $400) is a waste money... IMO.

Derwin
05-31-2008, 05:15 PM
Wow! $1,200 for the BRP light upgrade? That's just too much for me. I guess I'll stick with the stock lights.

Derwin