The Seven Cities of Gold, the Fountain of Youth, and Headlamp Lens Restoration

[NFT5]

You dip your beams when oncoming traffic is 5 kilometers away? That's about 25x sooner than you really need to by law; but I can certainly grant dipping them a little sooner.

Whoah...it's not correct to drop from high to low beam as soon as you can see an oncoming car 5km away. Laws vary by jurisdiction (state, province, territory, etc.);

Sure. We're actually only required to dip headlights at 300m and the 5km really only refers to straight road, single carriageway conditions. Where the road has a bend (so vehicle's lights aren't pointed directly towards another) then it's usual to wait until this happens. Similar with dual carriageway. It's just a courtesy thing, but generally observed and, if not, reminded of.

As Scheinwerfermann points out, the improvements in headlights and driving lights does mean that some legislation is now a little outdated. With most decent driving lights able to throw 1 lumen at anywhere from 800-1200m even our 300m rule is insufficient, and that seems to be roughly double what yours are. I really wouldn't like to be approaching my vehicle and have to wait until 152m for the lights to be dipped.

Having enough light to see that well nearly a kilometer away possibly means too much foreground light.

Agreed. This is why very long range , pencil beam driving lights are so popular here. To answer your question "but you do plan on replacing them with something better eventually, right?", this is the result of my last encounter with Skippy:

You'll notice that that's a Hella Rallye 4000 with the smashed lens. That was the third one that I've broken. At an average $200 each just to replace the lens/reflector that is way too expensive. Lightforce lights don't break so easily. The other thing, pertinent to your point about foreground light, is that the Hellas have a beam pattern which is like two circles, one within the other. The inner is very high intensity, very long range. However, the outer circle, designed to give a slightly broader spread closer in actually puts too much light on the roadway when the lamp is aimed dead horizontal as it should be. This excess foreground prevents you from seeing what is actually well lit up in the distance. The difference with the Lightforce Genesis is that the outer ring of light is much less intense, resulting in less foreground and better long distance vision. I'll concede that it's not ideal for tight, twisty roads and I plan on adding some supplemental lights that will cater for this.

The range of declination below the optical axis is based on the headlamp height, under ADR (if I'm reading this correctly. Yes, I know that's for the Northern Territory; I've been looking for a similar thing in the ACT, but haven't, yet).

Pretty broad specs they have up there in the NT. Less than horizontal is good enough. TBH I haven't waded through the ADR's for aiming specs but I'd be 99.9% certain that they're the same as ECE, so yes, that does vary according to headlight height. Even so, there is a pretty big "fudge factor" allowance in the ECE specs, but I guess that's just an advantage we have with the sharper cutoff than SAE/DOT. Can understand that you probably need to aim down a bit more.

Pretty sharp-looking vehicle. I see you've got an intake snorkel-- did you also snorkel the exhaust? My brother told me about a guy showing off his Suburban's new snorkel by driving in deep water, and the water pressure plugged the exhaust. Oops

Thank you. No need to snorkel the exhaust so long as you keep the engine running. If the water pressure is enough to stop the exhaust then I'd imagine you'd have much more serious things to worry about......like breathing.

Also, not to pick on you about your Lightfarce lamps,

:laughing: When I first came on here I would have taken offence at the anti-Lightforce comments. Ignoring their advertising, which is pretty out there, I now realise now that you can't judge a product unless you've used it in its' intended application. As for the spelling, well everyone knows that you guys have a mission to reduce the alphabet and introduce phonetic spelling...

 

[-Virgil-]

most decent driving lights able to throw 1 lumen at anywhere from 800-1200m even our 300m rule is insufficient

I don't agree. For one thing, you're mixing up your units. You mean one lux, not one lumen. And one lux at an oncoming or leading driver's eye is far below a dazzling intensity level.

I haven't waded through the ADR's for aiming specs but I'd be 99.9% certain that they're the same as ECE

Correct.

there is a pretty big "fudge factor" allowance in the ECE specs

Not correct -- it's easy to get this impression if you are looking through the charts and tables in the ECE/ADR regulations. They appear to allow a big range of aim. In fact they contain a very detailed procedure for determining the aim declination for any given headlamp on any given vehicle for the purpose of type approval. What I am trying to get across here is that it is not the case that there is a big fudge factor in the ECE specs. Vehicles in service are regulated at the state level, though, and state regs tend to be very lax on this point (except perhaps in Germany).

I guess that's just an advantage we have with the sharper cutoff than SAE/DOT. Can understand that you probably need to aim down a bit more.

No, actually, US headlamp aim angles are higher than ECE aim angles.

 

[fyrstormer]

It's not really a matter of tricking or fooling yourself. It's that the human seeing system isn't a very accurate judge of its real performance. You feel you can see adequately, but in fact you really can't under the driving conditions you describe.

I am quite aware that the human brain (and every other brain) tends to discount the value of information it doesn't have, so as long as your field of vision is populated with a satisfying number of bogies to keep track of, the possible existence of other, hidden bogies is easy to ignore -- until they jump out of the woods in front of you. However, the degree to which you assume the darkness is actually filled with hidden bogies waiting to jump out in front of you is, in my experience, an overestimate.

However, this is a pointless argument. Your stated position essentially places anyone who disagrees with you in the position of trying to prove that they are correct, but you have a magic rule that lets you dismiss all evidence presented to you. Such a position is impossible to prove wrong; even if I say I've been driving for 14 years and the worst accident I've ever had was tapping someone's bumper in a parking lot, it means nothing, because according to you I've thus far managed to avoid killing someone purely by good luck. After all, I can't see everything in the universe at once, therefore the fact that I haven't had a terrible crash and killed everyone involved was purely coincidence and not a feat of skill. I'm sure that seems absurd, but it is the natural conclusion of the "logic" you're using when you say I have no idea how poor my lowbeams are for nighttime driving.

 

[-Virgil-]

I am quite aware that the human brain (and every other brain) tends to discount the value of information it doesn't have, so as long as your field of vision is populated with a satisfying number of bogies to keep track of, the possible existence of other, hidden bogies is easy to ignore -- until they jump out of the woods in front of you.

Er...maybe, but none of that has anything to do with the entirely light- and physiology-related phenomena actually at work in the large difference between how well we can see and how well we think (or feel like) we can see. Our actual (objective) seeing performance is almost always much poorer than we feel/think in night-driving conditions. "Bogies", real or imagined or feared, do not enter into the causal side of the equation.

Your stated position essentially places anyone who disagrees with you in the position of trying to prove that they are correct, but you have a magic rule that lets you dismiss all evidence presented to you.

I'm not entirely certain what you had in mind when you typed this. The meaning isn't clear to me, given that you've presented no evidence of any kind so far.

I've been driving for 14 years and the worst accident I've ever had was tapping someone's bumper in a parking lot, it means nothing, because according to you I've thus far managed to avoid killing someone purely by good luck.

Since I've said nothing like what you attribute to me, I'll ask that you please not put words in my mouth. Moreover, "I've been driving for 14 years and the worst accident I've ever had was tapping someone's bumper" means nothing not because of anything I did or didn't say, but because anecdotal observation is not evidence and does not substitute for evidence -- not even a little bit.

After all, I can't see everything in the universe at once, therefore the fact that I haven't had a terrible crash and killed everyone involved was purely coincidence and not a feat of skill.

I haven't said anything like this, either -- and I wouldn't.

I'm sure that seems absurd

Yes, absurd and quite fallacious.

but it is the natural conclusion of the "logic" you're using when you say I have no idea how poor my lowbeams are for nighttime driving.

As an engineer and scientist with a great deal of expertise and experience in this field, I tell you this isn't a question of logic, it's a question of physics, optics, and human physiology.

As a regular-Joe human being, I say it's unfortunate you're choosing to lash out with sarcasm and made-up pseudoquotes in an apparent effort to cling to what you believe. It would be much more productive to open your mind a little and fill the gaps in your knowledge.

And as a moderator of this forum, I ask that you please mind your manners and tone; you are cruising towards the kind of behavior that can result in consequences. We do not allow flaming, baiting, personal attacks, or trolling (or sassing the mods) on this forum.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

Skipping back to earlier in the thread when fyrstormer brought up driving with his projector type low beams, then said that high beam put too much light in the foreground, I find I'm suddenly curious. The aftermarket StarrHID projectors in my Crown Vic don't really alter the foreground when switching to high. There's one light, not two filaments, so it just moves a shutter so instead of the sharply cut off "Z beam" style low beam, you suddenly see "the rest of the beam." Fyrstormer, does your car with projector headlights perhaps have four headlights instead of two like my system?


Touching on the original topic of the thread: Since I have noticed the beginning of deterioration on my Corolla headlamps, it has progressed. I do not see the outer lens turning at all yellow, just a "frost" effect mostly on the upper part of each lens. This is a 2007 car, kept outside (at least since I bought it in May 2008 with 46,000 miles on it), and it has about 178,000 miles on it right now. Could this be partly "sandblasting" from highway driving, or is it just a consequence of UV exposure?

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Touching on the original topic of the thread: Since I have noticed the beginning of deterioration on my Corolla headlamps, it has progressed. I do not see the outer lens turning at all yellow, just a "frost" effect mostly on the upper part of each lens. This is a 2007 car, kept outside (at least since I bought in in May 2008 with 46,000 miles on it), and it has about 178,000 miles on it right now. Could this be partly "sandblasting" from highway driving, or is it must a consequence of UV exposure?

Most likely the UV exposure. The upper part of the lens curves back towards the vehicle, and at an angle that might be great for a solar panel. It's catching the brunt of the UV that way. Also, under that area is that aluminized portion that reflects whatever UV may have made it past the coating back through-- and definitely a lot of heat and visible light energy, including damaging blue wavelengths.

 

[NFT5]

I don't agree. For one thing, you're mixing up your units. You mean one lux, not one lumen. And one lux at an oncoming or leading driver's eye is far below a dazzling intensity level.

I shall wash out my mouth with Lux.

Touching on the original topic of the thread: Since I have noticed the beginning of deterioration on my Corolla headlamps, it has progressed. I do not see the outer lens turning at all yellow, just a "frost" effect mostly on the upper part of each lens. This is a 2007 car, kept outside (at least since I bought it in May 2008 with 46,000 miles on it), and it has about 178,000 miles on it right now. Could this be partly "sandblasting" from highway driving, or is it must a consequence of UV exposure?

If it's even across the lens then it may be "sandblasting", but being just on the upper, less vertical part of the lens then UV degradation is the cause. We see a lot more like this since fashion has dictated headlights that wrap up into the guards.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

That makes sense. This is a 2007 Corolla LE, and it's just the upper part of the lenses, mostly at the upper edge of the low beam reflectors and above. I haven't looked up month of manufacture, but I'll assume the car is at least five years old, and it lives outdoors.

BTW, Alaric, you've gotten me thinking about LED trailer lights again. I just yesterday finished repairing a connector plug and some corroded junction box wiring in my 16 ft. car hauler, so the lights are working again. But one can see evidence of voltage drop, even though the sealed Truck-Lites have been very reliable. Also, when I have a turn signal on (three bulbs per side), I can see the running lights dim in time with the signal. My own wiring of the trailer is more than adequate, including soldered connections. But I didn't wire this particular tow vehicle, and I can't guarantee there isn't some resistance in the 7-way connector plug.

Past experience with this trailer leads me to believe that reducing the overall lighting load is good for the tow vehicle. I once left the four way flashers on for a half hour and ended up replacing a very expensive multiple function combination switch in the steering column. If I never rewire this trailer again or, more likely, wire another large trailer, I'll likely pop the extra money for LED lights.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

That makes sense. This is a 2007 Corolla LE, and it's just the upper part of the lenses, mostly at the upper edge of the low beam reflectors and above. I haven't looked up month of manufacture, but I'll assume the car is at least five years old, and it lives outdoors.

My car was GREAT the first 3.5 years, and then suddenly the UV damage was apparent (but probably existed to some degree before, it's just that I finally noticed)

BTW, Alaric, you've gotten me thinking about LED trailer lights again. I just yesterday finished repairing a connector plug and some corroded junction box wiring in my 16 ft. car hauler, so the lights are working again. But one can see evidence of voltage drop, even though the sealed Truck-Lites have been very reliable. Also, when I have a turn signal on (three bulbs per side), I can see the running lights dim in time with the signal. My own wiring of the trailer is more than adequate, including soldered connections. But I didn't wire this particular tow vehicle, and I can't guarantee there isn't some resistance in the 7-way connector plug.

Past experience with this trailer leads me to believe that reducing the overall lighting load is good for the tow vehicle. I once left the four way flashers on for a half hour and ended up replacing a very expensive multiple function combination switch in the steering column. If I never rewire this trailer again or, more likely, wire another large trailer, I'll likely pop the extra money for LED lights.[/QUOTE]
Yep, switching out for the appropriate LED lights would substantially increase the performance.

I suppose you COULD rewire the trailer, but if you go with LED lights you could actually rewire with a thinner wire and save some weight (negligable, of course, but it would also allow you to ensure every connection is good and tight and sealed and re-grommet anything that needs to be grommeted so it lasts and lasts).

 

[NFT5]

BTW, Alaric, you've gotten me thinking about LED trailer lights again. I just yesterday finished repairing a connector plug and some corroded junction box wiring in my 16 ft. car hauler, so the lights are working again. But one can see evidence of voltage drop, even though the sealed Truck-Lites have been very reliable. Also, when I have a turn signal on (three bulbs per side), I can see the running lights dim in time with the signal. My own wiring of the trailer is more than adequate, including soldered connections. But I didn't wire this particular tow vehicle, and I can't guarantee there isn't some resistance in the 7-way connector plug.

When other lights start to dim when a load is placed on the indicator circuit then it is definitely time to visit the wiring on the tow vehicle.

Past experience with this trailer leads me to believe that reducing the overall lighting load is good for the tow vehicle. I once left the four way flashers on for a half hour and ended up replacing a very expensive multiple function combination switch in the steering column. If I never rewire this trailer again or, more likely, wire another large trailer, I'll likely pop the extra money for LED lights.

For quite a few years we have been able to buy a "control box" which solves three problems. Firstly, it allows you to run a single heavy gauge power line to the rear of the vehicle, ensuring that there is adequate power to run the trailer lights. The box itself contains solid state relays which have more than enough capacity to run most, if not all, trailer lighting systems. Secondly, the connections to your vehicles' wiring only switch the relays so there is negligible extra load being placed on the tow vehicles' circuits (which were probably barely adequate for the task anyway). Thirdly, by not increasing the load, if you have a CANBUS system, as I do, you won't get continual errors or sometimes shutdowns because the car thinks that there is a short in that circuit.

When the boxes first came out they were only available from one towbar and hitch supplier (Hayman Reese) so were very expensive at around $300. Now, they're available from quite a few others so the price has dropped significantly. Same with LED lights, really.

LED lights are perfect for trailers. Robust, completely waterproof, require much less power and legal.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

Wow, so I could have bought what I just built, and it would be much more compact! In the past, I've been less than impressed with the little "trailer wiring adapters" that had little more than a couple of diodes inside. They would "adapt" a car with separate amber signals to a trailer that had only red turn & brake lamps, but the brake function took precedent over the flasher instead of vice versa.

I just got done mounting four automotive relays and a 14-terminal strip onto a little piece of sheet metal, then wiring up the relays. Even made labels at work, Left T/B, Right T/B, Tail and Backup. Next, it gets mounted in the trunk of my Crown Vic (where I've run two 10 gauge circuits from battery to trunk, with running ground) and will be wired to the trailer connector. A small 3 conductor run to the dash will allow a manual On-Off-On switch for trailer backup lights and any future auxiliary backup lights on the car (no more leaving the key on in Reverse, just because I want work lights while coupling the trailer). This scheme will handle any trailer I foresee, and it will not overload the Lighting Control Module on the car.

Nice to know I can buy one next time.

BTW, I just assembled one of those little red 4x8 trailers that Harbor Freight sells. I'm amazed at how truly cheap and junky wiring can be made. I'm not even going to think about using the little pinch-on Chinese Scotch-Lok fasteners, but I still see some future tail and marker upgrades within a year or two. And the concept of a running ground completely escapes these people. Lets hope the light lenses don't fade as fast as the red paint will...

 

[NFT5]

You guys can buy a trailer at the local hardware store? Awesome! Do they have to be registered? Here every trailer has to have ADR compliance plate and VIN. Unlikely that Bunnings (our version of HF) will be offering them any time soon.

Since this thread seems to be meandering like a country lane I thought I might bring it back closer to the original topic. Yeah, don't shoot me.

Happened across the following while looking for something about failing clear coat. It's an interesting two year test of Opti-Coat. The results, from the photos anyway, seem fairly good.

http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/forums/f200/opti-coat-vs-clear-coat-failure-72600.html

 

[-Virgil-]

Yep, the results look good...but they're not on a headlamp! :-(

 

[ray6]

Some OEM headlights cost over 1100 each. OEM headlights for a 2000 Dodge minivan are $1235 installed. There are cheaper 3rd party headlights available, namely from China, but they have a history of poor fit and leaking.
ray6

 

[ray6]

You might want to check with the manufacturer on Opticoat. As I understand it, this coating is very strong, but does not contain any UV protection which is what you need to keep freshly restored headlights from yellowing again.
ray6

 

[Hamilton Felix]

I just found myself unexpectedly taking my Crown Vic to the Ford dealership. I noticed they offer 3M headlight refinishing. None of the Service Writers I talked to had any answers on life expectancy of the refinish, though they all agreed that yellowed and cloudy plastic headlamps could be a real problem.

In October 2009 I bought and installed a used genuine Jeep headlight for our 1999 Grand Cherokee. The left light had been looking a bit cloudy, and this one looked great. I used the rig that winter, then the Jeep sat for about a year at an offroad shop, then spent most of another year sitting in the yard and only occasionally being used. Now we're using it more, and I noticed the same left light is looking cloudy again. I guess there's another caveat that goes along with "get the real headlamp and not the cheap imported copy." That would be "a used original light will still be a used light that's seen years of sunshine." :sigh:

 

[TheExpert]

Im not gonna lie the whole situation is that manufactures only care about the first four years of the cars life in most cases, seems like they are building cars that you can just throw away after 100k. At least that is my perspective on it, so they only two options I have found is sand, buff, and opti-coat them. Or buy new ones which are pricey pricey. I really feel sorry for anyone driving older BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, and all other mid high end cars with no warranty.

 

[PhillyRube]

Following this thread with great interest. I have a 2003 F350 that has yellowed headlight lenses, but I slapped a set of Hella 500s on that, so I can see just fine. My 2007 Ford Edge is starting to yellow and craze. I also visit a website called elightbars.org, and there are multiple threads on how to and clean up yellowed emergency light lenses and covers. Best procedure is an electric drill and plastic polishing compound, but this doesn't address the UV problem. Then too, most of these lights are kept indoors by collectors.
I may slap a set of Hellas on the Edge as well. Can't be any worse than some of these idiots with HID aftermarket lights in housings not designed for them (and they have yellowed lenses as well......

 

[-Virgil-]

The Hella 500 comes in two varieties: fog or driving.

If your Hella 500s are "driving" lamps, they are auxiliary high beams -- not safe or legal to use with low beam headlamps or in traffic.

If they are fog lamps, they do not (cannot) replace or compensate for dim low beams.

So no matter how well you think you can see with your auxiliary lights turned on, in fact your lighting is unsafe and inadequate if the headlamps are degraded.