"Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0aqLg.35786$y7.4009@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>
> It is required that a motor vehicle be able to indicate that one or more
> turn signal lamps is failing to operate. This is a function of the
flasher.
> It is indicated by changing the rate of the flash. The only exemption on
the
> vehicle at hand is if it is equipped to tow trailers. Changing the flasher
> to solely to accomodate a different lamp current can only be done if the
> system can still indicate the failure of one or more lamps.
>
>

Can you specify the source of this requirement Bob? I know that flashers
are not part of the state inspection process, so I'm curious where you
arrive at this conclusion that it is required that the vehicle be able to
indicate a bulb failure, and that said indication is the flasher.

Even if you can provide (and I presume you can if you are laying claim as
you do above) proof that this is required, you are still saying precisely
what I said in both my first and my second posts. It is not rocket science
to change a flasher to match the current load and behave as expected.
Again - that's exactly what you are doing when you put a trailer package
on. It's nothing more than simple electronics. A given load will produce a
given current flow, which will warm the bi-metalic in the flasher at a given
rate. Change the load, and you simply have to change the value of the
bi-metalic in the flasher. Once you achieve a flashing rate that
approximates the OEM rate, you're as close as anyone is ever going to care.
Hell - most states don't even care that much. I've never seen a state
inspection that specified the flasher rate. You could probably get by with
a very high or very low rate, if you had a mis-match.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0aqLg.35786$y7.4009@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>
> It is required that a motor vehicle be able to indicate that one or more
> turn signal lamps is failing to operate. This is a function of the
flasher.
> It is indicated by changing the rate of the flash. The only exemption on
the
> vehicle at hand is if it is equipped to tow trailers. Changing the flasher
> to solely to accomodate a different lamp current can only be done if the
> system can still indicate the failure of one or more lamps.
>
>

Can you specify the source of this requirement Bob? I know that flashers
are not part of the state inspection process, so I'm curious where you
arrive at this conclusion that it is required that the vehicle be able to
indicate a bulb failure, and that said indication is the flasher.

Even if you can provide (and I presume you can if you are laying claim as
you do above) proof that this is required, you are still saying precisely
what I said in both my first and my second posts. It is not rocket science
to change a flasher to match the current load and behave as expected.
Again - that's exactly what you are doing when you put a trailer package
on. It's nothing more than simple electronics. A given load will produce a
given current flow, which will warm the bi-metalic in the flasher at a given
rate. Change the load, and you simply have to change the value of the
bi-metalic in the flasher. Once you achieve a flashing rate that
approximates the OEM rate, you're as close as anyone is ever going to care.
Hell - most states don't even care that much. I've never seen a state
inspection that specified the flasher rate. You could probably get by with
a very high or very low rate, if you had a mis-match.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:e415a$44fe98ed$471fbb8f$10535@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:0aqLg.35786$y7.4009@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
>>
>> It is required that a motor vehicle be able to indicate that one or more
>> turn signal lamps is failing to operate. This is a function of the
> flasher.
>> It is indicated by changing the rate of the flash. The only exemption on
> the
>> vehicle at hand is if it is equipped to tow trailers. Changing the
>> flasher
>> to solely to accomodate a different lamp current can only be done if the
>> system can still indicate the failure of one or more lamps.
>>
>>
>
> Can you specify the source of this requirement Bob? I know that flashers
> are not part of the state inspection process, so I'm curious where you
> arrive at this conclusion that it is required that the vehicle be able to
> indicate a bulb failure, and that said indication is the flasher.
>
Certainly. United Stated Code of Federal Regulations
49CFR571.108
http://tinyurl.com/fxzxq
Which requires, in part:

"S5.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also
have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal
lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588e,
Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, except when a variable-load turn signal
flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or
more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating a
slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers."


> Even if you can provide (and I presume you can if you are laying claim as
> you do above) proof that this is required, you are still saying precisely
> what I said in both my first and my second posts. It is not rocket
> science
> to change a flasher to match the current load and behave as expected.
> Again - that's exactly what you are doing when you put a trailer package
> on. It's nothing more than simple electronics. A given load will produce
> a
> given current flow, which will warm the bi-metalic in the flasher at a
> given
> rate. Change the load, and you simply have to change the value of the
> bi-metalic in the flasher. Once you achieve a flashing rate that
> approximates the OEM rate, you're as close as anyone is ever going to
> care.
> Hell - most states don't even care that much. I've never seen a state
> inspection that specified the flasher rate. You could probably get by
> with
> a very high or very low rate, if you had a mis-match.
>

My issue with messing with the turn signals is that neither you (ok, maybe
you do - I don't know your field of expertise) nor I is qualified to
determine if the resulting light output from the turn signals is proper if
the lamps are replaced with LED's. I know the ones that they sell at Auto
Zone are a joke when they are installed. Changing the flasher for a
legitimate purpose is no problem. Changing the flasher to match a weird lamp
that draws 25 ma, that looks cool, but now serves no function is wrong. You
now have a bad turn signal system, and you eliminated the detection of it.
If the replacement lamp is tested to comply with the DOT requirements, then
you know it makes enough light. If it hasn't been, then it doesn't make
enough light in the right directions. The manufacturer of the DOT approved
lamp would also have to provide a solution to the flasher issue. No
aftermarket LED replacement lamp I have ever seen claims to comply with the
DOT requirements - and that does not require actual testing by the
government, it just means the manufacturer is certifying that it makes
enough light to meet the requirements.

 

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:e415a$44fe98ed$471fbb8f$10535@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:0aqLg.35786$y7.4009@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
>>
>> It is required that a motor vehicle be able to indicate that one or more
>> turn signal lamps is failing to operate. This is a function of the
> flasher.
>> It is indicated by changing the rate of the flash. The only exemption on
> the
>> vehicle at hand is if it is equipped to tow trailers. Changing the
>> flasher
>> to solely to accomodate a different lamp current can only be done if the
>> system can still indicate the failure of one or more lamps.
>>
>>
>
> Can you specify the source of this requirement Bob? I know that flashers
> are not part of the state inspection process, so I'm curious where you
> arrive at this conclusion that it is required that the vehicle be able to
> indicate a bulb failure, and that said indication is the flasher.
>
Certainly. United Stated Code of Federal Regulations
49CFR571.108
http://tinyurl.com/fxzxq
Which requires, in part:

"S5.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also
have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal
lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588e,
Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, except when a variable-load turn signal
flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or
more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating a
slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers."


> Even if you can provide (and I presume you can if you are laying claim as
> you do above) proof that this is required, you are still saying precisely
> what I said in both my first and my second posts. It is not rocket
> science
> to change a flasher to match the current load and behave as expected.
> Again - that's exactly what you are doing when you put a trailer package
> on. It's nothing more than simple electronics. A given load will produce
> a
> given current flow, which will warm the bi-metalic in the flasher at a
> given
> rate. Change the load, and you simply have to change the value of the
> bi-metalic in the flasher. Once you achieve a flashing rate that
> approximates the OEM rate, you're as close as anyone is ever going to
> care.
> Hell - most states don't even care that much. I've never seen a state
> inspection that specified the flasher rate. You could probably get by
> with
> a very high or very low rate, if you had a mis-match.
>

My issue with messing with the turn signals is that neither you (ok, maybe
you do - I don't know your field of expertise) nor I is qualified to
determine if the resulting light output from the turn signals is proper if
the lamps are replaced with LED's. I know the ones that they sell at Auto
Zone are a joke when they are installed. Changing the flasher for a
legitimate purpose is no problem. Changing the flasher to match a weird lamp
that draws 25 ma, that looks cool, but now serves no function is wrong. You
now have a bad turn signal system, and you eliminated the detection of it.
If the replacement lamp is tested to comply with the DOT requirements, then
you know it makes enough light. If it hasn't been, then it doesn't make
enough light in the right directions. The manufacturer of the DOT approved
lamp would also have to provide a solution to the flasher issue. No
aftermarket LED replacement lamp I have ever seen claims to comply with the
DOT requirements - and that does not require actual testing by the
government, it just means the manufacturer is certifying that it makes
enough light to meet the requirements.

 

"Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:IAyLg.35812$y7.33332@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .

> >
> Certainly. United Stated Code of Federal Regulations
> 49CFR571.108
> http://tinyurl.com/fxzxq
> Which requires, in part:
>
> "S5.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall
also
> have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal
> lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588e,
> Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, except when a variable-load turn signal
> flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or
> more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating
a
> slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers."

Thanks for that link Bob. I didn't even realize the Feds had delved into
that level of minutia in this stuff. That said, J588E indicates the
requirement for a pilot light (dash indicators) for the directionals.
Related to our discussion, but distinctly not a requirement for the flasher
to be the warning device of a failed bulb. Of course, we both realize that
a properly configured light system will result in a pilot failure indication
because of flasher load, but that's also consistent with what I've been
saying all along. Actually, I think we are both closer to saying the same
thing, than we are saying different things.


>
> My issue with messing with the turn signals is that neither you (ok, maybe
> you do - I don't know your field of expertise) nor I is qualified to
> determine if the resulting light output from the turn signals is proper if
> the lamps are replaced with LED's.

Nope - I'm just like you. I have to trust the manufacturer's stated output
rating. At some point, that's what you have to go with.

> I know the ones that they sell at Auto
> Zone are a joke when they are installed. Changing the flasher for a
> legitimate purpose is no problem. Changing the flasher to match a weird
lamp
> that draws 25 ma, that looks cool, but now serves no function is wrong.

Agreed. If that did not come through in what I had previously stated, then
that was a mis-communication. Of course, it must be your fault...
Seriously though, I have been in consistent agreement that a comprimise from
DOT regulations for output is not acceptable in the name of looking cool.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:IAyLg.35812$y7.33332@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .

> >
> Certainly. United Stated Code of Federal Regulations
> 49CFR571.108
> http://tinyurl.com/fxzxq
> Which requires, in part:
>
> "S5.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall
also
> have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal
> lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588e,
> Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, except when a variable-load turn signal
> flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or
> more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating
a
> slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers."

Thanks for that link Bob. I didn't even realize the Feds had delved into
that level of minutia in this stuff. That said, J588E indicates the
requirement for a pilot light (dash indicators) for the directionals.
Related to our discussion, but distinctly not a requirement for the flasher
to be the warning device of a failed bulb. Of course, we both realize that
a properly configured light system will result in a pilot failure indication
because of flasher load, but that's also consistent with what I've been
saying all along. Actually, I think we are both closer to saying the same
thing, than we are saying different things.


>
> My issue with messing with the turn signals is that neither you (ok, maybe
> you do - I don't know your field of expertise) nor I is qualified to
> determine if the resulting light output from the turn signals is proper if
> the lamps are replaced with LED's.

Nope - I'm just like you. I have to trust the manufacturer's stated output
rating. At some point, that's what you have to go with.

> I know the ones that they sell at Auto
> Zone are a joke when they are installed. Changing the flasher for a
> legitimate purpose is no problem. Changing the flasher to match a weird
lamp
> that draws 25 ma, that looks cool, but now serves no function is wrong.

Agreed. If that did not come through in what I had previously stated, then
that was a mis-communication. Of course, it must be your fault...
Seriously though, I have been in consistent agreement that a comprimise from
DOT regulations for output is not acceptable in the name of looking cool.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> Thanks for that link Bob. I didn't even realize the Feds had delved into
> that level of minutia in this stuff. That said, J588E indicates the
> requirement for a pilot light (dash indicators) for the directionals.
> Related to our discussion, but distinctly not a requirement for the flasher
> to be the warning device of a failed bulb. Of course, we both realize that
> a properly configured light system will result in a pilot failure indication
> because of flasher load, but that's also consistent with what I've been
> saying all along. Actually, I think we are both closer to saying the same
> thing, than we are saying different things.

Nope. The failure indication is not in the pilot light but in the flash
rate of the flasher. Fixed load flashers, like the ones you are talking
about, indicate a bulb failure by either doubling the flasher's flash
rate or by going to a steady-burn/not flashing. It's a current-based
monitoring system built into the flasher as Bob suspected. So because
you've switched over to an illegal, non-DOT approved bulb that draws
less current than the intended design bulb, your flasher indicates a
bulb failure. And to go through all the trouble of switching flashers
to ones for a variable load such as the ones used by heavy duty trucks
(which do not have the bulb failure indicator) just so you can install a
more expensive LED bulb that performs worse than the less expensive
incandescent bulb your lamp was designed for is idiocy at its worst
(which I realize has been said in many different forms in this thread,
but I thought I'd repeat it just the same).

And just so that you know, I am an expert in automotive lighting systems
including turn signals and the flashers they use. I've tested them for
more than 10 years now and I have not seen one LED replacement bulb for
an incandescent that performs even close to one-tenth the performance of
the original bulb. Designers do have plans for replaceable LED modules,
but they will not be interchangeable with incandescents so that they
should be used only with the lamps they were designed to be used with.

--
Douglas Cummins
Calcoast - ITL

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> Thanks for that link Bob. I didn't even realize the Feds had delved into
> that level of minutia in this stuff. That said, J588E indicates the
> requirement for a pilot light (dash indicators) for the directionals.
> Related to our discussion, but distinctly not a requirement for the flasher
> to be the warning device of a failed bulb. Of course, we both realize that
> a properly configured light system will result in a pilot failure indication
> because of flasher load, but that's also consistent with what I've been
> saying all along. Actually, I think we are both closer to saying the same
> thing, than we are saying different things.

Nope. The failure indication is not in the pilot light but in the flash
rate of the flasher. Fixed load flashers, like the ones you are talking
about, indicate a bulb failure by either doubling the flasher's flash
rate or by going to a steady-burn/not flashing. It's a current-based
monitoring system built into the flasher as Bob suspected. So because
you've switched over to an illegal, non-DOT approved bulb that draws
less current than the intended design bulb, your flasher indicates a
bulb failure. And to go through all the trouble of switching flashers
to ones for a variable load such as the ones used by heavy duty trucks
(which do not have the bulb failure indicator) just so you can install a
more expensive LED bulb that performs worse than the less expensive
incandescent bulb your lamp was designed for is idiocy at its worst
(which I realize has been said in many different forms in this thread,
but I thought I'd repeat it just the same).

And just so that you know, I am an expert in automotive lighting systems
including turn signals and the flashers they use. I've tested them for
more than 10 years now and I have not seen one LED replacement bulb for
an incandescent that performs even close to one-tenth the performance of
the original bulb. Designers do have plans for replaceable LED modules,
but they will not be interchangeable with incandescents so that they
should be used only with the lamps they were designed to be used with.

--
Douglas Cummins
Calcoast - ITL

 

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:5dba9$44febd27$471fbb8f$11096@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:IAyLg.35812$y7.33332@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .
>
>> >
>> Certainly. United Stated Code of Federal Regulations
>> 49CFR571.108
>> http://tinyurl.com/fxzxq
>> Which requires, in part:
>>
>> "S5.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall
> also
>> have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal
>> lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard
>> J588e,
>> Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, except when a variable-load turn
>> signal
>> flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or
>> more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating
> a
>> slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers."
>
> Thanks for that link Bob. I didn't even realize the Feds had delved into
> that level of minutia in this stuff. That said, J588E indicates the
> requirement for a pilot light (dash indicators) for the directionals.
> Related to our discussion, but distinctly not a requirement for the
> flasher
> to be the warning device of a failed bulb. Of course, we both realize
> that
> a properly configured light system will result in a pilot failure
> indication
> because of flasher load, but that's also consistent with what I've been
> saying all along. Actually, I think we are both closer to saying the
> same
> thing, than we are saying different things.
>

After working in the Nuclear world for a while, I got to learn more than I
ever wanted about the CFR. Not just 10 (Nuke), but that a violation of any
of them in a licensed facility is serious even if it has nothing to do with
radiation. Unlicensed radios, vehicles, fish, etc.

>
>>
>> My issue with messing with the turn signals is that neither you (ok,
>> maybe
>> you do - I don't know your field of expertise) nor I is qualified to
>> determine if the resulting light output from the turn signals is proper
>> if
>> the lamps are replaced with LED's.
>
> Nope - I'm just like you. I have to trust the manufacturer's stated
> output
> rating. At some point, that's what you have to go with.
>
>> I know the ones that they sell at Auto
>> Zone are a joke when they are installed. Changing the flasher for a
>> legitimate purpose is no problem. Changing the flasher to match a weird
> lamp
>> that draws 25 ma, that looks cool, but now serves no function is wrong.
>
> Agreed. If that did not come through in what I had previously stated,
> then
> that was a mis-communication. Of course, it must be your fault...

NEVER!!!! ; )

> Seriously though, I have been in consistent agreement that a comprimise
> from
> DOT regulations for output is not acceptable in the name of looking cool.
>
We were actually saying the same thing. I was trying to the point across
that the flasher does help ensure that the lighting system is working
properly. What does happen in a lot of cases is that someone says "these
lights are cool" be them LED turn signals, or purple headlights. According
to the regs, there are light limits - both minimum, and maximum - and the
reflectors and lenses are designed for a hot filament of a certain length,
orientation, and position. LEDs are different, and the resultant photometry
will be different than the original design. It's up to someone to determine
whether the result will achieve compliance, and short of "This device will
be DOT compliant when used in place of an 1157, etc lamp" the end user has
no idea what the long term results will be. Every one I've ever seen says
"off road use only" (LED's and "funny" headlight capsules) - that would be
the manufacturer's out, or says nothing about compliance.

 

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:5dba9$44febd27$471fbb8f$11096@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:IAyLg.35812$y7.33332@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .
>
>> >
>> Certainly. United Stated Code of Federal Regulations
>> 49CFR571.108
>> http://tinyurl.com/fxzxq
>> Which requires, in part:
>>
>> "S5.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall
> also
>> have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal
>> lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard
>> J588e,
>> Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, except when a variable-load turn
>> signal
>> flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or
>> more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating
> a
>> slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers."
>
> Thanks for that link Bob. I didn't even realize the Feds had delved into
> that level of minutia in this stuff. That said, J588E indicates the
> requirement for a pilot light (dash indicators) for the directionals.
> Related to our discussion, but distinctly not a requirement for the
> flasher
> to be the warning device of a failed bulb. Of course, we both realize
> that
> a properly configured light system will result in a pilot failure
> indication
> because of flasher load, but that's also consistent with what I've been
> saying all along. Actually, I think we are both closer to saying the
> same
> thing, than we are saying different things.
>

After working in the Nuclear world for a while, I got to learn more than I
ever wanted about the CFR. Not just 10 (Nuke), but that a violation of any
of them in a licensed facility is serious even if it has nothing to do with
radiation. Unlicensed radios, vehicles, fish, etc.

>
>>
>> My issue with messing with the turn signals is that neither you (ok,
>> maybe
>> you do - I don't know your field of expertise) nor I is qualified to
>> determine if the resulting light output from the turn signals is proper
>> if
>> the lamps are replaced with LED's.
>
> Nope - I'm just like you. I have to trust the manufacturer's stated
> output
> rating. At some point, that's what you have to go with.
>
>> I know the ones that they sell at Auto
>> Zone are a joke when they are installed. Changing the flasher for a
>> legitimate purpose is no problem. Changing the flasher to match a weird
> lamp
>> that draws 25 ma, that looks cool, but now serves no function is wrong.
>
> Agreed. If that did not come through in what I had previously stated,
> then
> that was a mis-communication. Of course, it must be your fault...

NEVER!!!! ; )

> Seriously though, I have been in consistent agreement that a comprimise
> from
> DOT regulations for output is not acceptable in the name of looking cool.
>
We were actually saying the same thing. I was trying to the point across
that the flasher does help ensure that the lighting system is working
properly. What does happen in a lot of cases is that someone says "these
lights are cool" be them LED turn signals, or purple headlights. According
to the regs, there are light limits - both minimum, and maximum - and the
reflectors and lenses are designed for a hot filament of a certain length,
orientation, and position. LEDs are different, and the resultant photometry
will be different than the original design. It's up to someone to determine
whether the result will achieve compliance, and short of "This device will
be DOT compliant when used in place of an 1157, etc lamp" the end user has
no idea what the long term results will be. Every one I've ever seen says
"off road use only" (LED's and "funny" headlight capsules) - that would be
the manufacturer's out, or says nothing about compliance.

 

"Douglas G. Cummins" <Douglas.Cummins@MAPSONcalcoast-itl.com> wrote in
message news:9EHLg.4211$v%4.1416@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

>
> Nope. The failure indication is not in the pilot light but in the flash
> rate of the flasher.

Ok - I will concede this point. There is not enough disagreement on most of
the discussion for me to hang on to this point. I'll admit (again...) that
I didn't realize the Feds had gotten so deeply invested in these
definitions. I simply assumed that basic principles of current flow
governed flasher rates in their entirety and were not influenced by
regulations.

>Fixed load flashers, like the ones you are talking
> about, indicate a bulb failure by either doubling the flasher's flash
> rate or by going to a steady-burn/not flashing. It's a current-based
> monitoring system built into the flasher as Bob suspected.

How the flasher works is well understood by both Bob and myself - never was
a point of discussion.

> So because
> you've switched over to an illegal, non-DOT approved bulb that draws
> less current than the intended design bulb, your flasher indicates a
> bulb failure. And to go through all the trouble of switching flashers
> to ones for a variable load such as the ones used by heavy duty trucks
> (which do not have the bulb failure indicator) just so you can install a
> more expensive LED bulb that performs worse than the less expensive
> incandescent bulb your lamp was designed for is idiocy at its worst
> (which I realize has been said in many different forms in this thread,
> but I thought I'd repeat it just the same).

That's fine - another voice just adds to the chorus.

>
> And just so that you know, I am an expert in automotive lighting systems
> including turn signals and the flashers they use. I've tested them for
> more than 10 years now and I have not seen one LED replacement bulb for
> an incandescent that performs even close to one-tenth the performance of
> the original bulb. Designers do have plans for replaceable LED modules,
> but they will not be interchangeable with incandescents so that they
> should be used only with the lamps they were designed to be used with.
>

That's an interesting piece of information. So... is it in terms of light
output that they fall short? That would be my expectation.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Douglas G. Cummins" <Douglas.Cummins@MAPSONcalcoast-itl.com> wrote in
message news:9EHLg.4211$v%4.1416@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

>
> Nope. The failure indication is not in the pilot light but in the flash
> rate of the flasher.

Ok - I will concede this point. There is not enough disagreement on most of
the discussion for me to hang on to this point. I'll admit (again...) that
I didn't realize the Feds had gotten so deeply invested in these
definitions. I simply assumed that basic principles of current flow
governed flasher rates in their entirety and were not influenced by
regulations.

>Fixed load flashers, like the ones you are talking
> about, indicate a bulb failure by either doubling the flasher's flash
> rate or by going to a steady-burn/not flashing. It's a current-based
> monitoring system built into the flasher as Bob suspected.

How the flasher works is well understood by both Bob and myself - never was
a point of discussion.

> So because
> you've switched over to an illegal, non-DOT approved bulb that draws
> less current than the intended design bulb, your flasher indicates a
> bulb failure. And to go through all the trouble of switching flashers
> to ones for a variable load such as the ones used by heavy duty trucks
> (which do not have the bulb failure indicator) just so you can install a
> more expensive LED bulb that performs worse than the less expensive
> incandescent bulb your lamp was designed for is idiocy at its worst
> (which I realize has been said in many different forms in this thread,
> but I thought I'd repeat it just the same).

That's fine - another voice just adds to the chorus.

>
> And just so that you know, I am an expert in automotive lighting systems
> including turn signals and the flashers they use. I've tested them for
> more than 10 years now and I have not seen one LED replacement bulb for
> an incandescent that performs even close to one-tenth the performance of
> the original bulb. Designers do have plans for replaceable LED modules,
> but they will not be interchangeable with incandescents so that they
> should be used only with the lamps they were designed to be used with.
>

That's an interesting piece of information. So... is it in terms of light
output that they fall short? That would be my expectation.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> "Douglas G. Cummins" <Douglas.Cummins@MAPSONcalcoast-itl.com> wrote in
> message news:9EHLg.4211$v%4.1416@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
> >
> > Nope. The failure indication is not in the pilot light but in the flash
> > rate of the flasher.
>
> Ok - I will concede this point. There is not enough disagreement on most of
> the discussion for me to hang on to this point. I'll admit (again...) that
> I didn't realize the Feds had gotten so deeply invested in these
> definitions. I simply assumed that basic principles of current flow
> governed flasher rates in their entirety and were not influenced by
> regulations.
>
> >Fixed load flashers, like the ones you are talking
> > about, indicate a bulb failure by either doubling the flasher's flash
> > rate or by going to a steady-burn/not flashing. It's a current-based
> > monitoring system built into the flasher as Bob suspected.
>
> How the flasher works is well understood by both Bob and myself - never was
> a point of discussion.
>
> > So because
> > you've switched over to an illegal, non-DOT approved bulb that draws
> > less current than the intended design bulb, your flasher indicates a
> > bulb failure. And to go through all the trouble of switching flashers
> > to ones for a variable load such as the ones used by heavy duty trucks
> > (which do not have the bulb failure indicator) just so you can install a
> > more expensive LED bulb that performs worse than the less expensive
> > incandescent bulb your lamp was designed for is idiocy at its worst
> > (which I realize has been said in many different forms in this thread,
> > but I thought I'd repeat it just the same).
>
> That's fine - another voice just adds to the chorus.
>
> >
> > And just so that you know, I am an expert in automotive lighting systems
> > including turn signals and the flashers they use. I've tested them for
> > more than 10 years now and I have not seen one LED replacement bulb for
> > an incandescent that performs even close to one-tenth the performance of
> > the original bulb. Designers do have plans for replaceable LED modules,
> > but they will not be interchangeable with incandescents so that they
> > should be used only with the lamps they were designed to be used with.
> >
>
> That's an interesting piece of information. So... is it in terms of light
> output that they fall short? That would be my expectation.

I think what Doug is saying is that LED lamps should only be used in
fixtures (taillight assemblies) designed to used them. Likewise,
incandescent bulbs should only be used in fixtures designed for them.

There is nothing wrong with LED taillights. Many high priced vehicles
have them and they work quite well. But only because the entire lighting
system has been designed around them.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you left the stove on.

 

Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> "Douglas G. Cummins" <Douglas.Cummins@MAPSONcalcoast-itl.com> wrote in
> message news:9EHLg.4211$v%4.1416@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
> >
> > Nope. The failure indication is not in the pilot light but in the flash
> > rate of the flasher.
>
> Ok - I will concede this point. There is not enough disagreement on most of
> the discussion for me to hang on to this point. I'll admit (again...) that
> I didn't realize the Feds had gotten so deeply invested in these
> definitions. I simply assumed that basic principles of current flow
> governed flasher rates in their entirety and were not influenced by
> regulations.
>
> >Fixed load flashers, like the ones you are talking
> > about, indicate a bulb failure by either doubling the flasher's flash
> > rate or by going to a steady-burn/not flashing. It's a current-based
> > monitoring system built into the flasher as Bob suspected.
>
> How the flasher works is well understood by both Bob and myself - never was
> a point of discussion.
>
> > So because
> > you've switched over to an illegal, non-DOT approved bulb that draws
> > less current than the intended design bulb, your flasher indicates a
> > bulb failure. And to go through all the trouble of switching flashers
> > to ones for a variable load such as the ones used by heavy duty trucks
> > (which do not have the bulb failure indicator) just so you can install a
> > more expensive LED bulb that performs worse than the less expensive
> > incandescent bulb your lamp was designed for is idiocy at its worst
> > (which I realize has been said in many different forms in this thread,
> > but I thought I'd repeat it just the same).
>
> That's fine - another voice just adds to the chorus.
>
> >
> > And just so that you know, I am an expert in automotive lighting systems
> > including turn signals and the flashers they use. I've tested them for
> > more than 10 years now and I have not seen one LED replacement bulb for
> > an incandescent that performs even close to one-tenth the performance of
> > the original bulb. Designers do have plans for replaceable LED modules,
> > but they will not be interchangeable with incandescents so that they
> > should be used only with the lamps they were designed to be used with.
> >
>
> That's an interesting piece of information. So... is it in terms of light
> output that they fall short? That would be my expectation.

I think what Doug is saying is that LED lamps should only be used in
fixtures (taillight assemblies) designed to used them. Likewise,
incandescent bulbs should only be used in fixtures designed for them.

There is nothing wrong with LED taillights. Many high priced vehicles
have them and they work quite well. But only because the entire lighting
system has been designed around them.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you left the stove on.

 

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:450057BE.5B9C800D@hovnanian.com...

>
> I think what Doug is saying is that LED lamps should only be used in
> fixtures (taillight assemblies) designed to used them. Likewise,
> incandescent bulbs should only be used in fixtures designed for them.

Correct - but I was asking specifically about his research experiences.

>
> There is nothing wrong with LED taillights. Many high priced vehicles
> have them and they work quite well. But only because the entire lighting
> system has been designed around them.
>

Agreed, but not directly to the point of my follow up question. Though...
it does raise a good question... What is the difference between OEM LED
systems and aftermarket systems? One would think that since the OEM
systems meet DOT specs that it would not be so improbable for aftermarket
stuff to do so equally. I'm wondering if some of the more current stuff
might indeed meet DOT specs.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net