When Does ADB Lighting Arrive in USA?

SubLGT

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
1,183
Location
Idaho, USA
I see NHTSA has issued a "notice of proposed rule making" today regarding ADB lighting:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-21853.pdf

SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, to permit the certification of adaptive driving beam headlighting systems, if the manufacturer chooses to equip vehicles with these systems. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) petitioned NHTSA for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to permit manufacturers the option of equipping vehicles with adaptive driving beam systems. NHTSA has granted Toyota's petition and proposes to establish appropriate performance requirements to ensure the safe introduction of adaptive driving beam headlighting systems if equipped on newly manufactured vehicles.
 

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
Official release with easy-click "Comment Now" button is at here (much easier to read; that Amazon document you found has screwed-up letter spacing).

The release of this NPRM is a very positive development, but it does not answer the question of when will we see ADB in the USA. This is one step in a multi-step process. There's the comment period on this NPRM (ends December 11), then comments have to be considered, which could happen as a part of the final rulemaking action or there could be a revised NPRM and a further comment period, then eventually there would be an effective date. A realistic "ADB legal as of" date to hope for would be between one and two years from now. Could be shorter, could easily be longer.

One disappointing thing I see in NHTSA's proposal is that they would still keep the 75,000 candela intensity limit for high beams, set in the late 1970s. That strikes me as wrongheaded. The UN ("ECE", "European") regs permit high beam intensity of up to 215,000 candela in an ADB system, that is nearly triple the US value. The whole reason why NHTSA never upgraded the maximum high beam intensity above 75,000 candela was because they were concerned (1) about glare caused by misuse of high beams, and (2) that a higher-intensity high beam would require states to change their laws regarding when drivers have to use low beam in terms of distance to oncoming or preceding cars, and since NHTSA claims not to have authority to force states to change laws (except for that whole "we're going to withhold your highway funding unless you raise your drinking age to 21/lower your speed limit to 55/etc, but I guess that doesn't count) the dimming distances based on low-intensity high beams would be much too short with high-intensity high beams. BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF ADB is that it's a system that automatically and dynamically keeps glare out of other drivers' eyes!
 

SubLGT

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
1,183
Location
Idaho, USA
But how do you get so many pixels from car headlights? One approach comes from cinema and projector technology. It's called Digital Light Processing (DLP). Many thousands of tiny mirrors are switched electronically and release light onto the screen – or in the case of a car headlight – onto the road. Because of the mirrors the technology is also called Digital Micromirror Device (DMD). The actual light source can be LEDs or laser diodes. Osram is a leading supplier of both. Numerous car and headlight manufacturers are working on DLP technology.

https://www.carlightblog.com/2017/09/22/pixels-galore/
 

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
Is ADB possible only with a bunch of LEDs in a grid arrangement?

No, there are all kinds of different technologies for achieving an ADB system. It can be done with HID or even halogen (the world's first ADB system was the Lucas Autosensa, shown off as a prototype in 1970), it can be done in numerous ways with LEDs or laser diodes, it can be done with raster scanning, with DLP, etc. All of the different methods are currently under development and it will be interesting to see which one(s) wind up "winning" in the long term. The system you read about (and linked to) is one of numerous different development lines.
 

Ls400

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
276
Can someone clarify why ADB is not allowed yet in the US? I keep hearing an explanation along the lines of "FMVSS requires separate high and low beams," which, to me, doesn't quite make sense. Sometimes it's formulated as "FMVSS requires the ability to toggle between high beam and low beam, and ADB doesn't provide for the ability to toggle between high/low," which makes even less sense since can't you just disable the ADB function and go between high and low? Or is it that FMVSS wants a full-time toggle between high/low?

https://jalopnik.com/a-50-year-old-regulation-stops-us-from-getting-cool-hea-1594900077

August 7, 1968: IT IS RESOLVED THAT President Nixon is doing a superb job of managing this great nation. FURTHER, BE IT KNOWN that the Volkswagen Karmann-Ghia is the pinnacle of automotive design and shall forever be understood as the finest vehicle of the modern era. THUSLY, IT IS HEREBY ENACTED THAT ALL HEADLIGHTS MUST HERETOFORE HAVE "HIGH" AND "LOW" SETTINGS, ASSUMING THAT "HERETOFORE" MEANS "IN THE FUTURE."
 
Last edited:

Ls400

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
276
NHTSA's lighting standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 108, has been viewed as not permitting ADB. In particular, the current lower beam photometry requirements do not appear to allow the enhanced beam that ADB systems provide.

I'm not clear on this passage. I am reading that ABD would cause low-beams to blow past the maximums for various points in the low beam. So is this a semantic issue? ADB systems don't have clear-cut "low beam" and "high beam" operation modes. So by not having these clear-cut modes, that would make photometric evaluation of low and high-beams difficult?

FMVSS No. 108 primarily regulates lighting as equipment independent of the vehicle.

Unrelated, but would you regard this as a weakness of FMVSS 108, in that by primary treating lighting as equipment independent of the vehicle, it cannot regulate on-vehicle headlamp aim? Why was FMVSS 108 written to treat lighting as equipment independent of the vehicle?
 
Last edited:

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
I'm not clear on this passage.

It means an ADB system can't conform to some of the requirements that apply to low beams. The specifics are variable, and don't really matter.

would you regard this as a weakness of FMVSS 108, in that by primary treating lighting as equipment independent of the vehicle, it cannot regulate on-vehicle headlamp aim?

There's no reason why FMVSS No. 108 couldn't regulate on-vehicle headlamp aim, it just doesn't.
 

Alaric Darconville

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 2, 2001
Messages
5,377
Location
Stillwater, America
I'm not clear on this passage. I am reading that ABD would cause low-beams to blow past the maximums for various points in the low beam. So is this a semantic issue?
No, it's not a semantic issue. The interim beams (between true "low" and "high") would fail testing as a low beam (yet also fail in testing as a high beam).

NHTSA said:
The ADB system's lower beam, on the other hand, would probably not always comply with the lower beam photometric requirements. An ADB system can produce a variety of lower beams; each lower beam must comply with the applicable lower beam photometric requirements. The base lower beam is designed to conform to the current lower beam photometry requirements. However, the augmented lower beam(s) provide more illumination than the base lower beam would; the purpose of ADB is to produce a lower beam providing more illumination than a current FMVSS No. 108-compliant lower beam. Therefore, it is likely that the augmented lower beam would not always comply with existing lower beam photometry requirements."
Granted, a multi-beam low beam system COULD probably provide additional lighting in conformance with the requirements, but why not make it just that ONE low beam that is the very best a low beam can be, instead of having multiple low beams that increase the complexity of the system?

Ls400 said:
ADB systems don't have clear-cut "low beam" and "high beam" operation modes. So by not having these clear-cut modes, that would make photometric evaluation of low and high-beams difficult?
Not if the body computer had a test mode setting a dealer or jobber could activate, no.

Ls400 said:
Unrelated, but would you regard this as a weakness of FMVSS 108, in that by primary treating lighting as equipment independent of the vehicle, it cannot regulate on-vehicle headlamp aim? Why was FMVSS 108 written to treat lighting as equipment independent of the vehicle?
It's somewhat related-- if they regulated on-vehicle aim, then "bending lights" (such as the LS430 low beams, which selectively swivel into a turn) would not be permitted.
NHTSA said:
NHTSA concluded that FMVSS No. 108 does not prohibit bending light headlamps because the standard does not specifically address initial or subsequent headlamp aim (the standard addresses only aimability requirements). Advanced headlighting systems that can actively re-aim the lower beam horizontally are currently available as original and replacement equipment in the U.S.
 

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
if they regulated on-vehicle aim, then "bending lights" (such as the LS430 low beams, which selectively swivel into a turn) would not be permitted.

I don't see how you figure that, can you walk me through? I think there's nothing stopping them from regulating on-vehicle aim and allowing swivelling beams. It's not either/or.
 

Alaric Darconville

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 2, 2001
Messages
5,377
Location
Stillwater, America
I don't see how you figure that, can you walk me through? I think there's nothing stopping them from regulating on-vehicle aim and allowing swivelling beams. It's not either/or.

When the headlamp swivels, the aim changes (particularly on the left side (assuming RHT)) in such a way that it can become more glaring to other traffic. If they were to regulate on-vehicle aim, leaving it at regulating only the static/normal aim would permit swiveling beams. If they regulated both static AND swiveling aim, that might come with steep requirements for preventing glare to oncoming traffic in certain turning situations.
 
Last edited:

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
When the headlamp swivels, the aim changes (particularly on the left side (assuming RHT)) in such a way that it can become more glaring to other traffic. If they were to regulate on-vehicle aim, leaving it at regulating only the static/normal aim would permit swiveling beams.

Yes...

If they regulated both static AND swiveling aim, that might come with steep requirements for preventing glare to oncoming traffic in certain turning situations.

...which is pretty much exactly where we're at right now: they're proposing to impose steep requirements on ADB systems.

There's still nothing that would prevent them from regulating headlamp aim on new vehicles (with or without swivelling beams), they just...don't.
 

T-Steve

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
11
If this somewhat ancillary matter could be discussed:

Regarding the new replacement adaptive motorcycle headlamps that are available (such as JW Speaker): How are they handled by the various law and code requirements?

The JW Speaker adaptive units say they are DOT, ECE reg 50, ECE reg 113, FMVSS 108 table XX compliant. I couldn't see in those documents that adaptive motorcycle headlamps are explicitly described.

Are the motorcycle adaptive headlamps truly considered "adaptive" by governing entities?
I know the additional LED segments illuminate at lean angles.
Or are they simply considered to have a correct, compliant beam projected when the lamp is at lean angles? (Hopefully this makes sense...)


Either way, I want one. Thank you.
 

Alaric Darconville

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 2, 2001
Messages
5,377
Location
Stillwater, America
Regarding the new replacement adaptive motorcycle headlamps that are available (such as JW Speaker): How are they handled by the various law and code requirements?
JW Speaker certifies that their motorcycle headlamps are designed to replace motorcycle headlamps on FMVSS / ECE-compliant motorcycles. Given that the ECE works on a type-approval basis, and they received the approval, they're surely being truthful about that part. For the FMVSS*​-compliant lamps, they certify (themselves) that they comply-- and so if you have a motorcycle that complies with FMVSS 108, and you replace the headlamp with one certified by the manufacturer to comply with FMVSS 108, state/local authorities really have nothing they can stick to you. They might as well try to ticket you for replacing your factory Sylvania sealed beam with a Philips sealed beam just because "it's not what the motorcycle came with".

Now, if you were to use the Power On Self Test function while driving, which flashes the individual LEDs in a funky pattern, that might tend to make you look like you're impersonating an emergency vehicle, which obviously they could stick you with. (The POST can be disabled, if I recall correctly.)

The JW Speaker adaptive units say they are DOT, ECE reg 50, ECE reg 113, FMVSS 108 table XX compliant. I couldn't see in those documents that adaptive motorcycle headlamps are explicitly described.
They don't have to be explicitly described. The law outlines the requirements for the headlamps; these lamps comply with the law.

Are the motorcycle adaptive headlamps truly considered "adaptive" by governing entities?
As far as being "adaptive" regarding "adaptive driving beam", they're not that. That describes a full-time high ("driving") beam system designed to allow what to the driver is a high beam at all time yet to oncoming drivers, or drivers forward of the so-equipped car, as a low beam. These motorcycle lamps just add fill light so the effect of leaning/turning the bike/lamp doesn't result in blind spots for the driver. They don't detect other traffic and deactivate portions of the high beam reduce glare to that other traffic.

Either way, I want one. Thank you.
They are pretty awesome! If I drove a motorcycle, I would surely get one.



*For FMVSS 108, this also applies to the Canadian CMVSS 108​
 

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
Alaric's right. The JW Speaker adaptive motorcycle headlamps are fully legal -- provided, of course, that they're installed correctly, aimed correctly, and used correctly (like, don't run the high beam in traffic).

That doesn't mean the pretenders -- the cheap off-brand junk that looks like a JW Speaker lamp -- are OK. They're pretty much guaranteed not to be.
 

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
FWIW, a couple of weeks ago at the DVN Workshop outside of Detroit there was an informal survey of the 300 attendees (+/-, mostly lighting experts of various kinds) asking for a show-of-hands on when ADB will be legalized in the USA. Almost no hands in the air for "within 1 year". A few hands for "Within 2 years". Most of the room seemed to vote for "Within 5 years" or "Within 10 years".

The government shutdown probably didn't help those numbers.
 

SubLGT

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
1,183
Location
Idaho, USA
Was there a Honda representative at the DVN Workshop, giving a talk on how to get top headlight ratings from the IIHS?
 

-Virgil-

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
7,802
There was indeed a Honda R&D representative talking about how they (Honda) work towards good IIHS headlamp ratings. It was more a descriptive talk rather than a "here's how" prescriptive one.
 

SubLGT

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
1,183
Location
Idaho, USA
From a March 31, 2020 editorial at DVN:

https://www.drivingvisionnews.com/audis-hamm-a-figure-of-merit-for-headlamps/

...Unfortunately, the path to U.S. allowance for ADB is even more tangled up than was estimated some months ago. There are two proposals in the pipeline, the one worked out by SAE at NHTSA's request (J3069) which NHTSA then rejected, and the agency's own proposal put forth in their 2018 NPRM. Looking at the various reactions to it filed in the short period allowed, it seems unlikely the NHTSA proposal can be pushed through into the regulations without drastic and massive changes to bring it closer to realistic feasibility. All of this creates a strange situation: one of the two proposals does not work, and the other one is not liked.
 
Top