Parking light aesthetic enhancement

Hello folks!

Styling-wise, my car has four distinct headlights. In practice, the inner ones (left) hold parking lights (W5W, small hole near the top) and main beams, while the outer ones hold dipped beams & indicators.

xtypeheadlightassembly.jpg

Curiously, the parking lights are on whenever ignition is on. Thus, when driving around town, I have two bright and two dim lights at the front.
I would vastly prefer something akin to this look (a somewhat long exposure photo mind you, with both dipped and main beams on):

xtypefoureye.jpg

The parking light appears to work primarily by just shining light directly forward rather than using the reflector in the light housing (to any meaningful extent at least). Now I'm wondering whether I could replace that W5W filament bulb with some kind of a LED bulb that would emit, or direct the light it emits, to rear & sides (so not front at all), thus providing the same function with indirect via the reflector. I believe that not only would it look nicer than just a single spotlight, but also even if the LED output is higher than that of a filament bulb, it should be no more dazzling as the light is spread over a significantly larger area.

Do you reckon there's any chance of this being successful?

Image tags removed see Rule #3 Do not Hot Link images. Please host on an image site, Imageshack or similar and repost – Thanks Norm

No, none. Each and every exterior lighting function on a vehicle is regulated in terms of its color, intensity through a range of angles, and other parameters. The front position ("parking") lights on your car are working the way they are supposed to -- leave them alone. It is not legal or safe to randomly change the performance characteristics of a safety light function. There is no safe or legal way to have the "four bright lights on low beam" appearance you want. Please keep in mind your car's exterior lights are life safety equipment. They are not toys, and they are not fashion accessories.

Aonsaithya said:

Image tags removed see Rule #3 Do not Hot Link images. Please host on an image site, Imageshack or similar and repost – Thanks Norm

Click to expand...

"Hotlinking is when you are stealing the bandwidth of a website that you do not have permission to link to."

The image files are hosted at ********** by me, as a customer/member of *******. I don't think this fits the definition of hotlinking.

I resized the one image that was over 800px wide.

-Virgil- said:

No, none. Each and every exterior lighting function on a vehicle is regulated in terms of its color, intensity through a range of angles, and other parameters. The front position ("parking") lights on your car are working the way they are supposed to -- leave them alone. It is not legal or safe to randomly change the performance characteristics of a safety light function. There is no safe or legal way to have the "four bright lights on low beam" appearance you want. Please keep in mind your car's exterior lights are life safety equipment. They are not toys, and they are not fashion accessories.

Click to expand...

I understand the concern and completely agree with what you said regarding every other light in the whole exterior lighting setup, except the parking lights. Their sole purpose, as far as I am aware, is to make the car more conspicuous when stationary, ignition on but headlights switched off. In practice, the only use they have is when you're sitting in the car waiting for someone/something, and even then fairly rarely. I certainly prefer to use the dipped beams for that, unless they are pointing at a shop window or downhill or something like that, simply because the parking lights make this model of car appear significantly narrower than it is.

Having the parking lights on when the car is moving is not required by the law here, but as one is required to always have dipped beams (or daytime running lights) on when the car is moving, the parking lights are rendered completely pointless. Indeed, in most cars they aren't even distinguishable (if enabled at all) as they are typically inside the same housing as the far brighter dipped beams, which are supposed to be on at all times anyway.

The only benefit that I can think of in having them on along with the headlights is that should a headlight bulb go out in the dark, there will still be a light source on that side of the car to help oncoming drivers realize you're not a motorcycle. However, they are so pathetically dim that they are not visible at distances that matter anyway, that is, beyond the range of the headlights of oncoming cars. Besides, should a headlight bulb go out when it's dark I'd just turn on the front fog lights as a temporary measure for visibility.

That being said, what I am contemplating here is trying out a different bulb in the least important lighting device on the whole fashion accessory, not messing around with the ones that are actually vital in providing either illumination to the driver or information to other drivers. As long as a parking light puts out white light roughly forward (there's a geometric fov spec for that and probably others) it's doing what it should. If the new bulb, should I find one that seems suitable in the first place, results in any unwanted glare (as the parking lights have no cutoff) or a noticeably brighter light than with the filament bulb, the old ones go back in...

So, if anyone is aware of a W5W LED bulb, in warm white, with side- or backwards-pointing LEDs and preferably a diffuser of some sort, do tell.

There is a legal parking light. Check out the Philips Ultinon T10 http://www.philips.com.sg/c-p/129666000KX2/x-treme-ultinon-led-car-lamp . It is ECE beam pattern compliant as per Philips.

Aonsaithya said:

Hello folks!

Click to expand...

Welcome to the CandlePowerForums!

crassus said:

There is a legal parking light. Check out the Philips Ultinon T10. It is ECE beam pattern compliant as per Philips.

Click to expand...

And therefore shouldn't change the beam pattern desired by the OP (but that's a good thing, the OP's desired change in the pattern is a no-go).

Norm said:

Image tags removed see Rule #3 Do not Hot Link images. Please host on an image site, Imageshack or similar and repost – Thanks Norm

Click to expand...

It looks like kapsi.fi is a suitable webhost for this purpose. The images are in the namespace allocated to "aonsaithya", so it doesn't appear to be hotlinking unless he's not really the registered user (and paid subscriber) of that kapsi.fi name-and-webspace.

crassus said:

There is a legal parking light. Check out the Philips Ultinon T10 http://www.philips.com.sg/c-p/129666000KX2/x-treme-ultinon-led-car-lamp . It is ECE beam pattern compliant as per Philips.

Click to expand...

Read the fine print -- it matters!

Aonsaithya said:

I understand the concern and completely agree with what you said regarding every other light in the whole exterior lighting setup, except the parking lights.

Click to expand...

No, including the front position ("parking") lights. They, like all the rest of the exterior lights on the car, are regulated for safety reasons.

Their sole purpose, as far as I am aware, is to make the car more conspicuous when stationary, ignition on but headlights switched off

Click to expand...

...and to show the width of the vehicle when a headlight bulb burns out, yes. So? That doesn't mean it's OK to alter them to suit your aesthetic preferences.

the parking lights make this model of car appear significantly narrower than it is

Click to expand...

.

No, they don't. The word "significantly" means "to a degree that makes a difference". The fact that the lamps are not located at the extreme outer corners does not mean the vehicle appears significantly narrower than it is. The applicable ECE Regulation (No. 48) specifies the placement range of the front position lamps with respect to the outer edges of the vehicle, to provide adequate perceptibility of the vehicle's size. You sound like you're trying to build an argument why it's OK to mess with the lamps. It really isn't.

Having the parking lights on when the car is moving is not required by the law here

Click to expand...

By law, the front position lamps have to be lit whenever the headlamps are lit.

as one is required to always have dipped beams (or daytime running lights) on when the car is moving, the parking lights are rendered completely pointless.

Click to expand...

No, they aren't.

Indeed, in most cars they aren't even distinguishable (if enabled at all)

Click to expand...

They're not required to be distinguishable from the operating headlamps.

The only benefit that I can think of in having them on along with the headlights is that should a headlight bulb go out in the dark, there will still be a light source on that side of the car to help oncoming drivers realize you're not a motorcycle.

Click to expand...

Correct.

However, they are so pathetically dim that they are not visible at distances that matter anyway

Click to expand...

Yes, they are. The regs are based on a great deal of science - not on random guesses.

That being said, what I am contemplating here is trying out a different bulb in the least important lighting device on the whole fashion accessory, not messing around with the ones that are actually vital in providing either illumination to the driver or information to other drivers.

Click to expand...

All of them are vital.

As long as a parking light puts out white light roughly forward (there's a geometric fov spec for that and probably others) it's doing what it should.

Click to expand...

That's not correct. The specifications are not written in terms of "roughly forward". They are written in terms of minimum and maximum allowable intensities through a range of vertical and horizontal angles.

If the new bulb, should I find one that seems suitable in the first place, results in any unwanted glare (as the parking lights have no cutoff) or a noticeably brighter light than with the filament bulb, the old ones go back in...

Click to expand...

You aren't equipped to assess whether the modified lamps operate acceptably. Subjective opinion doesn't cut it.

So, if anyone is aware of a W5W LED bulb, in warm white, with side- or backwards-pointing LEDs and preferably a diffuser of some sort, do tell.

Click to expand...

This is as close as exists, but like the other "LED bulbs" it does not have ECE type approval and is not legal for use in regulated applications (all exterior lights on a vehicle).

Here is the quote from Philips's website

" ECE beam pattern compliant (front positioning function)*Similar or better beam pattern than standard halogen lamp, to not glare other road users
* There is no ECE regulation existing for LED bulbs. ECE beam pattern compliance is tested on several commonly used luminaires where the LED bulb beam pattern matches the ECE approved halogen beam pattern "

Someone did test this bulb in a lab. This is not put together by some fly by night operation. Perhaps if Philips tests with in various cars, they can certify it for each car individually. In Japan, this along with other LEDs are advertised as being able to pass road inspection. Car inspection is serious in Japan. This sounds like a roundabout way of saying something. Philips is lobbying the EU to have a modification of the law.

crassus said:

There is no ECE regulation existing for LED bulbs. ECE beam pattern compliance is tested on several commonly used luminaires where the LED bulb beam pattern matches the ECE approved halogen beam pattern

Click to expand...

Right. That doesn't mean this is a legal bulb in countries that require cars' regulated lighting functions to be equipped with ECE-approved light sources -- a list including the original poster's country (judging by his license plate). It also doesn't mean this bulb works in every/any front position lamp. It means it worked OK in the ones Philips tested.

In Japan, this along with other LEDs are advertised as being able to pass road inspection. Car inspection is serious in Japan.

Click to expand...

Yes, but lighting regs are lax there.

Philips is lobbying the EU to have a modification of the law.

Click to expand...

That's not really what's happening. The relevant task forces (which are not under the auspices of the EU) are working on figuring out how to best regulate LED retrofit bulbs. It's a much more complicated question than one might think.

Aonsaithya said:

The image files are hosted at aonsaithya.kapsi.fi by me, as a customer/member of kapsi.fi. I don't think this fits the definition of hotlinking.

Click to expand...

I have no way of knowing the above, unless the image is hosted on a recognized host site, it will be treated as a hot link.

This sort of communication should take place via PM, were it won't be cluttering up you thread.

Alaric Darconville said:

It looks like kapsi.fi is a suitable webhost for this purpose. The images are in the namespace allocated to "aonsaithya", so it doesn't appear to be hotlinking unless he's not really the registered user (and paid subscriber) of that kapsi.fi name-and-webspace.

Click to expand...

My point exactly I have no way of knowing or confirming the above.
Let's leave moderation to staff.

Norm

crassus said:

There is a legal parking light. Check out the Philips Ultinon T10 http://www.philips.com.sg/c-p/129666000KX2/x-treme-ultinon-led-car-lamp . It is ECE beam pattern compliant as per Philips.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's interesting. Actually it is surprising to me that a module with a single forward-emitting LED could be a "beam pattern compliant" replacement for a filament bulb? Anyway, a strictly forward-emitting solution is not what I had in mind, and the "5x the light" sounds a bit excessive.

Alaric Darconville said:

Welcome to the CandlePowerForums!

Click to expand...

Thank you!

Norm said:

I have no way of knowing the above, unless the image is hosted on a recognized host site, it will be treated as a hot link.

This sort of communication should take place via PM, were it won't be cluttering up you thread.

Click to expand...

I have tried to send you a PM three times. Each time I was just presented with the private message inbox, without anything in the sent folder. Thus, I'm going to write my response here:
While I find the enforcing of "recognized hosting sites" completely ridiculous, not to mention inconvenient to those who may prefer to host their own files on their own domain/server rather than a third party they have no control over, I've no interest in arguing any more about it.
So, as ImageShack no longer offers free accounts (yet it was the only named example), PhotoBucket horribly compresses JPEGs and Flickr is a no-go, what would you recommend? TinyPic, Imgur? Are those on the list of approved hosting sites? For now, I'll just not use image tags.

---

Back on the topic of aesthetics and fashion; I've given up on LEDs after I realized I had forgotten all about the resistance differences and how extremely finicky this car model reportedly is in that respect. Instead, I'll turn my attention to colours. Here's a two-photo collage of the headlights with dipped beams & parking lights on; the parking lights are rather yellow:
IMG_5752-5753_headlights
I know, it's awful, as are the orange blobs (side indicators). Here's a short exposure photo of the parking light bulb itself, with the main beams on (the white nice light in the housing), again demonstrating "nicely" how yellow they are:
IMG_5750s_parkingbulb

As the headlights on this car are relatively weak (which is why HID kits are rather popular in some countries, though fortunately illegal here), I'm currently in the process of upgrading the front bulbs:
- Dipped beam: Philips X-treme Vision +130%
- Main beam: Philips X-treme Vision +130%
- Fog lights: Osram Ultra Life (currently in the dipped beams)
- Front indicator: Philips Silver Vision (no more orange blobs)

I'd be very happy to hear of suitable W5W parking lights that match the X-tremeVision bulbs (not in terms of output or intensity, in case it's not obvious).

If you want to stick with incandesent, you can try the Philips Blue Vision . http://www.philips.co.uk/c-p/12961BVB2/bluevision-conventional-interior-and-signalling/overview It is ECE approved. The Xtreme Vision +130% is rated at about 3700K and the Blue Vision is around the same as well. It should match up nicely.

Aonsaithya said:

Actually it is surprising to me that a module with a single forward-emitting LED could be a "beam pattern compliant" replacement for a filament bulb?

Click to expand...

Your surprise is well justified. Crassus has misunderstood what Philips is claiming.

Your fixation with "too yellow" front position lamps is strange (do you spend a lot of time sitting or standing in front of your car, eating snacks and listening to music and staring at the front position lamps?). You can try the blue W5W Crassus links; maybe that will suit your cosmetic ideals better.

crassus said:

If you want to stick with incandesent, you can try the Philips Blue Vision . http://www.philips.co.uk/c-p/12961BVB2/bluevision-conventional-interior-and-signalling/overview It is ECE approved. The Xtreme Vision +130% is rated at about 3700K and the Blue Vision is around the same as well. It should match up nicely.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit scared by the all-blue glass, but apparently the light output won't be blue, so I'll give those a try. Can't really judge those based on photos or videos online, since they vary from white to really blue, presumably because of inconsistent camera settings (mostly white balance).

-Virgil- said:

Your surprise is well justified. Crassus has misunderstood what Philips is claiming.

Your fixation with "too yellow" front position lamps is strange (do you spend a lot of time sitting or standing in front of your car, eating snacks and listening to music and staring at the front position lamps?). You can try the blue W5W Crassus links; maybe that will suit your cosmetic ideals better.

Click to expand...

*aesthetic, cosmetic would imply I'm fitting the lamps on my body, but I'll consider a separate thread for that.

It's not that I see the flaw myself, it's knowing it is there.

UK takes legal compliance seriously. This is a quote from Osram's UK site regarding off road bulbs "Use on public highways can lead to cancellation of the vehicle's operating license and invalidate your insurance." No one will want their insurance invalidated over some non compliant bulb. BlueVision will not output blue light. In fact, it will be around 4000K which is what they are rated at. The WhiteVision is rated at 4300K (depending on market) according to Philips.

White balance can be manually adjusted on camera. If shooting raw it can be adjusted after the fact. I would not take internet pictures too seriously. Here is a simulator tool at Philips if it helps http://www.consumer.philips.com/ssi/en_US/experienceyourlight/index.html

Aonsaithya said:

*aesthetic, cosmetic would imply I'm fitting the lamps on my body

Click to expand...

Exactly. If we were talking about clothes or eyeglasses or jewelry or tattoos or hairstyles, your concern would have merit. We're not, so it doesn't.

It's not that I see the flaw myself, it's knowing it is there.

Click to expand...

There is no "flaw" in how your front position lamps work or look.