Adding DRLs...yes/no?

Scheinwerfermann said:

....The maximum possible safety benefit even from zero-compromise dedicated DRLs is small. It's worth pursuing -- small safety benefits add up -- but the implementation has to be good or you cancel out or reverse the safety benefit overall.

Click to expand...

2 1/2 years is a short time, product development wise, but have there been any developments since May 2011 that might affect your assessment of DRLs? (In particular, are the LED fitments on the latest cars (OEM or perhaps things like the new Philips "LED Daytime" strips) any more effective than the older DRLs?) Or are even "zero-compromise dedicated DRLs" still of only small benefit?

Just asking out of curiosity -- I've an older car that I'll be putting back on the road in the next couple of years, and I'm wondering if it's worth fitting DRLs to it....

Cheers and Thanks!
-C

Re: HIR1 - Still a good idea?

The two word answer is that DRLs work. They are an effective and cost-effective collision-avoidance device. The safety benefit is small but significant. "Small" in this context does not mean "trivial", it just means the safety benefit is smaller than (say) seat belts. Other collision-avoidance systems also give small but significant safety benefits -- they add up.

LED DRLs -- OE, of course, and in the aftermarket the real ones from legitimate makers -- Hella, Philips, Osram/Sylvania -- are great. They consume very little power and they tend to produce a very effective daytime running light function without any drawbacks. This doesn't apply to the huge amount of knockoff and non-brand trash available in the aftermarket.

If the vehicle's front turn signals are bright enough and not sized or designed in a way that would have heat problems with extended bulb operation, activating them as DRLs (like this) is an easy, effective, and inexpensive way to add an effective DRL function to the vehicle.

Re: HIR1 - Still a good idea?

Thank you for the reply -- much appreciated!

There are actually two cars involved here: a friend's 2000 BMW Z3, and my own 1968 MGB.

On the Z3, there's no obvious place to mount a properly-spaced pair of Hella or Philips LED DRLs (the under-bumper air intake's not very wide), so the plan had been to install the Canadian-market headlight/DRL relay that runs the high beams at 80%. But from your Post #14 ("...There are other safety net-drawbacks to DRLs based on the high beams...") it sounds like a much, much better solution would be Daniel Stern's DRL-1 Module (and for my friend's sake I'm happy to hear that, as I find high-beam DRLs really annoying to drive in front of!).

For my MGB, well, the front turn signals aren't too bright, and I've developed a phobia towards stressing Lucas Electrics in any way that wasn't originally envisioned. As it sounds (from your Post #14) that just driving around with the low beams/running lights on won't be very effective (as this is a special occasion car, I'm not too concerned about bulb life or increased fuel usage -- but I'd like the lights to do something useful!), I'll mount some Hella/Philips LED DRLs as discreetly as possible under the bumper.

Thank you again for all the help!
-C

P.S. -- Again out of curiosity (this won't affect the overall plan): the Z3's front signal (according to the Sylvania bulb guide) is a 2357a, and we've found a chart claiming a 2357 (no suffix) has a life expectancy of only 400 hours. But Sylvania offers a "Long Life" version of the 2357a, and presumably a signal bulb (at least in "long-life" version) should last longer in DRL use than would a headlamp bulb, yes?

Re: HIR1 - Still a good idea?

Ceilidh said:

There are actually two cars involved here: a friend's 2000 BMW Z3, and my own 1968 MGB.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, those Z3s came with either an amber lens/clear bulb front turn signal, or a clear lens/amber bulb. Maybe depending on trim level or production year. It would be better to have the amber lens and clear bulb setup, because of more bulb options and not having to deal with the problem of the amber coating burning off the glass (unless you get lucky...maybe 2357A is still made with actual amber glass, since it is a higher-wattage, hotter-burning bulb). The reason why that bulb is used instead of 1157 is to meet, with a more comfortable margin, the higher US minimum required intensity for turn signals mounted within 4" of the low beam headlamp. The 2357 does have a shorter lifespan. I haven't bought 2357 bulbs in many years, but if there's a long-life version that would be the one to get.

For the MG, I'd probably just turn on the low beams and call it good. Or if you want an electronics-design project, here's one for you: Design a circuit and relay configuration to put the low and high beam filaments in each headlamp in series with each other to provide the DRL function. This makes effective DRLs without objectionable characteristics.

Re: HIR1 - Still a good idea?

Just don't do what I saw today, a late model Toyota sedan, AU market Aurion, with LED DRLs wired up to flash with the turn signals. Some people just never learn, same owner had his previous car seized for having red/blue LEDs in the grille.

Re: HIR1 - Still a good idea?

Just in the last week alone I've seen two '80s-early '90s BMW 3-series with red front (and rear) side markers, and a mental giant in a Pontiac with red bulbs in his park/turn signals. Then there are the "LED bulbs" installed in high beams so the DRLs don't have (I quote exactly) "that brownish ting"...

Re: HIR1 - Still a good idea?

It must have been a few months ago, but I saw a car with absolutely blue LED strips on the front getting pulled over. They looked like they were supposed to be DRLs, but they weren't just white with a distinctly blue tinge-- these things were outright BLUE blue. I sure hope they towed that thing away...

On the plus side-- guess they worked, the COP saw his car!