BRZ HIDs vs FR-S HID Conversion

[DarrenDriven]

OK, so a few of us got into a pretty heated debate over the safety of converting halogen projectors to aftermarket HID bulbs. I decided to take a few photos tonight with my FR-S and dvsidboy's BRZ. Let the debate continue.

Now there is one thing that I want to point out before we get too carried away. The HID bulb in the BRZ has a dial-selectable height adjustment that the driver can change from inside the car. The photos where we are projecting onto the wall were set to the "0" setting while the photos that are projecting into the parking lot were on the "3" setting which aims the lights down so they don't project as far.

The lights in my FR-S are aimed according to standard procedure, which is detailed in many places. Here is one example:
http://www.ehow.com/how_4962528_aim-headlights.html

[DarrenDriven]

Quoted from the hijacked thread...

Originally Posted by dsgerbc

Please post the _bottom_ cut-off of your light pattern. Then compare to BRZ. I bet the glare (esp. in the wet) from lack of proper bottom cut-off from your HIDs is dreadful.

Originally Posted by n2oinferno

Can you post an example? You're the first person I've ever seen mention bottom cutoff, and I've spent a decent amount of time lurking candlepower and other lighting forums. As far as I know, the cutoff shield in a projector housing only limits the top of where the beam cuts off, hence "cutoff," and the lower portion of the beam is determined by the shape of the projector lens, distance to focal point, etc..

Are you getting hotspotting confused with cutoff, where it creates bright patches in the beam of light because of an incorrect focal point, which can cause glare directly on the road an increase eye-strain?

Originally Posted by dsgerbc

I don't mean bottom cut-off literally. Basically all I'm saying is that to claim "I don't blind oncoming traffic" requires a lot more than just looking at the top cut-off line.

That said - just compare the light pattern above to OEM BRZ HIDs. The latter looks like it has both cut-off shields, since the light pattern has pretty much two parallel cut-offs.

Originally Posted by DarrenDriven

I literally just got back from properly aiming my lights, which ended with walking about a half-block away and sighting the car as if I was oncoming traffic. There is ZERO glare until I layed down on the ground and only then did it look bright. I'm good to go on low-beams. It looks just like the HIDs in my old S2000 now, which were the best headlights that I ever had!



I have never heard of a bottom-cutoff and it doesn't make much sense to me. My upper cut-off is a very clean line with almost zero light above the cut-off. dsgerbc, can you please explain how a properly aimed low-beam light with a sharp but-off could possibly blind oncoming drivers? You claim that it requires A LOT MORE than just looking at the top cutoff. Really? I'd like to hear how much more it takes, haha.

Originally Posted by dsgerbc

You are aware that DOT has specs for the whole distribution of the light pattern, right?

You substituted a light source with one even bright area to the one with two super-bright hot-spots and expect optics designed for the former to work?
You top cut-off might be visually acceptable (even though it probably still fails DOT specs), your bottom light distribution most definitely sucks, with likely 10x more light in the foregroud which:
a) will blind oncoming traffic when the road is wet (through reflection off the ground)
b) will compromise your own longer-distance vision through too-much lighting near, not letting the eye work out what's 100ft ahead.

So, to sum-up, you compromised your own safety and the safety of others.

But go on, continue to delude yourself. I'm sure you'll 100 more 'thanks' from a bunch more members who don't know better.

Originally Posted by DarrenDriven

I went with 55w HIDs from hidextra.com in 5000k H11 bulbs for the low beams. I did have to wire in a relay as only one bulb would fire due to excessive voltage draw when they were turned on simultaneously.



You are arguing for the sake of argument, but that's cool. I'm not disagreeing with your overall premise, but since you don't actually have an FR-S with HIDs in it (what DO you drive anyway?) then your entire objection to MY conversion is based on a guess and no solid evidence.

Most cars that I see with HID conversions have horrible light distribution and actually make night visibility worse than stock. Adding HIDs to the FR-S was an experiment and I am pleasantly surprised that the light pattern is great and the intensity spread is even.

I would be happy to take some more photos or video of my lights to better illuminate this topic. Of course, if I just posted a bunch of photos and video you would probably still pick it apart, so since you appear to be the expert I would happily take any photos or video that you request so that we can actually get to the bottom of this... even if I am wrong.

I am thinking that we do some comparisons with a BRZ and an S2000 (which has great stock lighting) to determine if the HID-converted FR-S has a similar light spread, brightness and cutoff -- but you are the expert, so lay out the best way to settle this and I will get right on it.

Originally Posted by dsgerbc

Nope, it's based on simple physics/optics. There is zero chance optics designed to comply with DOT specs with one type of light source would produce DOT-compliant light pattern with HID implants.

If you want to claim that you're not blinding oncoming traffic - you need to ditch this set-up and go for proper LHD GT86 HIDs.

I have no problem with people saying "screw the oncoming traffic, I'm doing the retrofit of HIDs". It's their car and they'll get the ticket when the cops start cracking down on it (there are hundreds of complaints about these transplants at NTHSA and they will tighten and start enforcing the rules on these sooner or later). I only responded since you claim not to be blinding the other drivers. I'm fairly certain that you are, in the rain.

Originally Posted by DarrenDriven

This is based on which facts? Go ahead and lay out the DOT specs and we can dissect them. If the gas pocket of an HID bulb HAPPENED to fall exactly into the same physical location of the filament of the halogen bulb then the optics of the reflector/projector would reflect light in exactly the same pattern. The only difference would be the intensity/color of the light, right? Well, it is true that my 55w HIDs are much brighter than the stock halogen bulbs, but does that automatically mean that they are non-compliant with DOT specs? Many factory HIDs out there are very bright as well and are DOT compliant. I strongly disagree with your zero chance claim. Small chance, yes, but not zero. I'm not sure if my lights are DOT-spec compliant (obviously ignoring the fact that one spec is surely that they have been verified by DOT) but I would be very interested to find out if they do meet the criteria.

I'm not really interested in an instrumented test of my lights with expensive equipment that I don't have, so in this case it seems that a comparison with the BRZ and S2000 would be a sufficient replacement test. I expected you to ignore my challenge and I am amazed that you are still arguing even though I asked you to help me plan out a way to fairly compare the three set of lights. That only further proves to me that you just want to argue for the sake of argument.



Why? Again, we haven't proved that my lights are good or bad yet and you are already saying that I can't even CLAIM that I am not blinding oncoming traffic without having to spend thousands of dollars? You are kidding, right?

Damn, did I fall for this again!?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

What kind of car did you say you drove? Hmmm... you ignored that, too.

Originally Posted by robotvoice

You do realize the light emitted from an arc of an HID capsule and from the filament of a halogen bulb are completely different, right? It's funny reading through your posts, you're basically just spewing out the pseudo "tech info" that cheap ricer kit sites post to make you feel better about wasting your money on a kit. You're clearly ignoring the entire physical aspect of why HID kits don't work in halogen headlights in the first place. Your cutoff looks like garbage and it's giving off a pretty unsafe amount of glare. You can't argue that at all.

Originally Posted by DarrenDriven

I'm gonna get some photos of the BRZ, S2000 and my car together... hopefully tonight. We can argue about it all we want, but until there is concrete evidence what is the point?

I do believe that my lights will be CLOSE to the other two stock setups, but if I am wrong then I will post that as well. I think that in a projector the HID conversion can replicate a factory setup, while in most other applications it cannot.

[86_ZN6]

looks good!

did your black headlights reduce the glare?

[DarrenDriven]

OK, so now that everyone is caught up... here are my thoughts on the conversion vs the real deal. There are some artifacts above the cutoff on the FR-S, but they are much more obvious in the photos than they were to the naked eye. The BRZ also had a similar glow above the cutoff line, but with a less pronounced edge.

Standing about 200 feet in front of the two cars when they were parked side-by-side you couldn't tell the difference in light intensity.

Now, I am not claiming that my car would pass a DOT compliance test, but I would bet that if you didn't tell the officials that it was not a factory HID they would not know.

[DarrenDriven]

Originally Posted by 86_ZN6

looks good!

did your black headlights reduce the glare?

Well, the projector beam is not altered by the black-painted reflector, only the high beams. I didn't turn the high beams on for this test.

[armokaiser]

did you bend the squirrel finders down like the guy doing in this thread?
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...?t=6247&page=2

[DarrenDriven]

No, I didn't... but I am going to look into that tomorrow and report back.

[soconfoozed]

Originally Posted by DarrenDriven

Now, I am not claiming that my car would pass a DOT compliance test, but I would bet that if you didn't tell the officials that it was not a factory HID they would not know.

They would, because the test would be instrumented. Don't be silly. You almost seem to be arguing in your other thread that because the poster can't show that your rig isn't DOT compliant, we should assume it is -- but using sneaky language like permitting that it ~may be~. That's also silly.

This thread is an interesting exercise in intarwebz pedantry, though, I have to say.

I wonder how many folks had even seen the DOT spec for headlamps before arguing about it on the internet. It's a phone book, like any other technical standard...UL, IEC, ITU, etc. I've thumbed through it a few times because I was curious about something here and there, but I'm certainly not a compliance expert. There are probably like 20 of those dudes in the world, and they work for the major auto manufacturers and whatever the DOT equivalent of a Nationally Recognized Testing Lab is (which might in fact just be a Nationally Recognized Testing Lab).

Anyway, this isn't a very well-designed experiment, other than perhaps to show that, top level, even a well-intentioned enthusiast is unlikely to make retrofit HID work well...because there are design differences from OE that you just can't do anything about.

Poking around for fun, I found an amusing response to a request for information from DOT. Well, amusing to anybody who ever has to deal with compliance.

I do like that OP seems to have a willingness to be wrong. That's an important part of experimentation. Good attitude.

[chulooz]

Why was the leveling in the BRZ changed to #3 in different parts of the tests (ruined no variables)? Perhaps #0 is not properly adjusted within the calibration differences; tons of info on nasioc for doing that right.

Those two glare blobs above the cutoff on the garage doesnt look so pleasing.

[MmmHamSandwich]

Hate to tell ya man but the glare on those cutoff pictures looks pretty extreme. That is a lot of light above the cutoff.

As far as whether the headlights are DOT, they're not. Aside from the non functional highbeams which are an obvious deviation, HID conversion kits are illegal and in violation of federal law. This is why all retailers and retrofitters perpetually use the phrase "for offroad use only." Even if you "do it the right way" and utilize an oem projector with correct bulb and carefully aim it, it isn't DOT approved.

Headlight specifications are excruciatingly thorough and precise: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-201...sec571-108.pdf

[robotvoice]

Originally Posted by MmmHamSandwich

Hate to tell ya man but the glare on those cutoff pictures looks pretty extreme. That is a lot of light above the cutoff.

That's honestly the worst output picture I have ever seen of a drop in kit in halogen projectors. The results are normally pretty bad with cheap HID kits but the amount of glare pictured here is alarming.

[n2oinferno]

I know you think that to the naked eye it doesn't look as bad, but the truth is that the camera doesn't lie. And in all honesty, while your eyes can and will adjust for improper light output, they're far more sensitive than a camera.

Best bet is some real HID projectors. Bi-xenon too, if you don't want the high beams to be chrome.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by DarrenDriven

OK, so now that everyone is caught up... here are my thoughts on the conversion vs the real deal. There are some artifacts above the cutoff on the FR-S, but they are much more obvious in the photos than they were to the naked eye. The BRZ also had a similar glow above the cutoff line, but with a less pronounced edge.

Standing about 200 feet in front of the two cars when they were parked side-by-side you couldn't tell the difference in light intensity.

Now, I am not claiming that my car would pass a DOT compliance test, but I would bet that if you didn't tell the officials that it was not a factory HID they would not know.

It's pretty darn obvious it's not an OEM HID setup from the pics. Any DOT officer who would ever inspect headlights (assuming such a job even exists) would notice the difference in seconds.

I've done PnP retrofits before, they aren't anywhere near as good as OEM HIDs with a few exceptions (ie some OEM HIDs really really suck). They are cheaper though, that's for sure. Good retrofits (using OEM HID projectors or ones designed to the same standard, like FXR projectors) well very well and can be setup to be as good/better than OEM HIDs, but that's not what we are talking about here.

Interesting that your car appears to be a lower kelvin than the BRZ when it's actually higher.. did you use high quality bulbs or cheaper stuff? Or does the BRZ in question have replacement bulbs?

In your test I found it interesting that you turned the BRZs lights down to 3.. maybe 0 on that car is high because it looks about as low as my 4 or maybe even 5 setting but you should have left it at 0/1 to be fair. The change seems like it was done on purpose to show how much further your PnP kit put light out.. but then you mentioned it so I have no idea what your intention was.

As for the glare, that is hands down one of the *worst* examples of glare I've seen. I have had PnP kits in Integra projectors before and while they suck, they are 10 times better than the extreme glare your FR-S is showing.

[DarrenDriven]

There are three issues here: (1) total DOT compliance, (2) compliance with the DOT standards related to the light projected from the vehicle, (3) and driving safety, which includes driver visibility and consideration of oncoming traffic.

1. Total DOT Compliance: Obviously the addition of an aftermarket HID kit in itself is not DOT-compliant and illegal. This is a choice that the driver makes and hopefully he/she makes it with the next two issues in mind, although most do not. We are not arguing the chances that the conversion will be DOT-certified or that it will be legal. Let's let this drop because we already agree on these factors.

2. Compliance with DOT Standards: This COULD be an instrumented test, but since that is not reasonable to the average person, comparing light output to a DOT-compliant vehicle (such as the BRZ or S2000 or any other factory-HID-equipped vehicle) is our main test. If one could add an HID kit to their vehicle in such a manner that the light output was consistent with a factory HID vehicle then I am thinking that not many people would have an issue with it.

3. Driving Safety: Most people add HID kits because they are "cool" and there is little thought to the safety of oncoming drivers, and in some cases there is no thought to visibility at all! Even factory HID kits can be extremely bright and cause oncoming drivers to squint for a moment or two, so in this case I feel that it is more important to overcome that challenge for an aftermarket installation if possible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In my case, I will admit that I need a little more work to make the light output match that of the BRZ. The light emitted below the cutoff was consistent in both cars, with even spread, similar color and intensity. In my case, we are dealing mainly with the extraneous light that is projected above the cutoff.

Originally Posted by n2oinferno

I know you think that to the naked eye it doesn't look as bad, but the truth is that the camera doesn't lie. And in all honesty, while your eyes can and will adjust for improper light output, they're far more sensitive than a camera.

Here is part of the problem with the photos. Now I am definitely no camera aficionado, but I do know that on the auto setting my digital camera will automatically adjust the settings to even out light throughout the image. Because of the extreme contrasts of the shot (very bright below, very dark above) the camera seems to have compensated in a way that exaggerates the brightness of the light that appears above the cutoff. In person, the light above the cutoff was nearly imperceptible and I was surprised to see how dramatic it looked once I got home and pulled it up on the computer. However, the main reason that I am posting all of this is so that I can improve my lights and document a path so that other FR-S owners who choose to do an HID conversion can easily modify their setup so that they are being as safe as possible.

Originally Posted by chulooz

Why was the leveling in the BRZ changed to #3 in different parts of the tests (ruined no variables)? Perhaps #0 is not properly adjusted within the calibration differences; tons of info on nasioc for doing that right.

The driver of the other car drive on the street with his lights at the lowest setting, which had a cutoff much lower than my lights, which were adjusted following standard headlight adjustment procedure. I should have taken photos with the lights set to the exact same height as mine in all photos, but the BRZ owner had limited time to help out and we had to rush the photos. I am not too concerned, though, since the main issue we are dealing with is cutoff. Aim is just as important, but since I know that mine are aimed correctly then I am OK with this. (A BRZ owner could drive around in the highest setting that could cause glare to other drivers in some circumstances anyway)

The interesting thing that we discovered is when we stood a couple hundred feet ahead of the cars. The Sooby had his lights aimed lower than mine in those photos, but because of his LED DRL lights in the housing, his car actually had a little more glare to the naked eye. My crappy digital camera doesn't really show that in the photos, unfortunately, but it is an interesting side note.

My next step is to modify the squirrel finder and then retest the light output. I will post more when I have done this.
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...?t=6247&page=2