GM daytime running lamps, how do I disable them?

[-Virgil-]

I have to disagree with the turn signal DRL concept. It arbitrarily and capriciously redefines the turn signal from a positive signal to a negative one.

While it's neither arbitrary nor capricious, I agree with you in theory. But in practice the theoretical ambiguity turn signal DRLs introduce has not caused a safety problem. Obviously, the best DRL is a functionally-specific one that does nothing else. And the best of these are made with ultralong-life LEDs for low power consumption and favorable photometric and colorimetric characteristics. But the turn signal DRL is really the least problematic of any implementation if we must operate an existing lighting device as a DRL.

It was a money saving move made by GM, starting with the GM EV-1

No, it was actually an option permitted by Canada when that country mandated DRLs on all new cars from 1/1/90, for the very pragmatic reason that cars with hidden or pop-up headlamps needed a way to have a DRL function without raising and powering the headlamps, and automakers didn't want to add another device. I was very much opposed to turn signal DRLs when they first appeared, for the same reason as you, but being a responsible scientist means being willing to change one's mind in light of more/better data, and turn signal DRLs are such a case. They're fine. Compared to headlamp DRLs, they're superior.

I have an idea for a good DRL.

Your idea has some merit. The H15 dual-filament bulb is designed specifically for high beam/DRL operation, though I will be surprised if it catches on. Running the two filaments in series is a neat trick, but it's not a very good way to do it. It consumes unnecessarily large amounts of power, fails the DRL when either filament fails (=double the number of failure points) and there are still problems attaining and maintaining the bulb wall temperatures needed for the halogen cycle to occur.

 

[MichaelW]

I was hoping that an H13 would be more amenable to opeating in the halogen cycle with the filaments in series than an H4.

I wish the US requirements for turn signals mandated positive signalling turn signals, none of this low-HIGH-low-HIGH combination nonsense.
I would like to see amber parking lights go away. So the 'new' US park/city light would be the low filament of a clear dual filament bulb. The high filament would be the DRL function.

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

The turn-signal-DRL-retrofit kit I looked at had an option to turn off the opposite DRL while a turn signal was being used. When I had a friend fab up a similar item for me, I had this implemented.

All other considerations aside, adding DRL's to my vehicles was a one-time cost of around $150 and netted me a 5% discount on my insurance; saves me ~$300 a year. Check with your insurance company, may be well worth it for that if no other reason.

:buddies:

 

[jzmtl]

Get/borrow a factory service manual and look up where the DRL module is, unplug it.

Now for DRL, I don't care what you say/quote, they make cars more visible, summer or winter, period. Much more so than marker lights as well.

 

[Friar]

DRl's have been required equipment in Canada for some time now (10 years??) Anyway, I read that the data has shown NO MEASURABLE EFFECT on accidents in Canada.

They are a complete waste of money, if people just slowed down it would cost nothing and save many lives! (like that'll happen!)

Anyway, that being said, on my Chevy suburban, you can push the "dome override" button 4 times in quick succession and it will turn off the DRL's. AND it will stop the photo cell from turning on the headlights for you. I personally hate how GM has decided I'm too stupid to turn on my headlights when it gets dark....

 

[-Virgil-]

The turn-signal-DRL-retrofit kit I looked at had an option to turn off the opposite DRL while a turn signal was being used. When I had a friend fab up a similar item for me, I had this implemented.

Yep, that's the way I prefer them, too.

All other considerations aside, adding DRL's to my vehicles was a one-time cost of around $150

$150...? Why so much? A good turn signal DRL module, with selectable "opposite DRL off when turn signal in use" function, can be had for $42.

 

[-Virgil-]

I was hoping that an H13 would be more amenable to opeating in the halogen cycle with the filaments in series than an H4.

Less so, actually, because of the larger-diameter envelope.

I wish the US requirements for turn signals mandated positive signalling turn signals, none of this low-HIGH-low-HIGH combination nonsense.

I don't think there's anything wrong with combination park/turn lamps, any more than I think there's something wrong with combination brake/tail lamps. There's some data to suggest arrangements like this "prime" the observer to locate and detect the critical message (brake light, turn signal). Of course, as with anything else, it has to be done right. If the bright-dim intensity ratio is not high enough, it becomes difficult to discern the bright from the dim mode. The regulations contain intensity-ratio requirements (5:1 on axis and at a matrix of certain points, 3:1 at other points) for dual-function signals.

Æsthetically, I tend to prefer the Europe/rest-of-world color coding in which
white light = front of vehicle
red light = rear of vehicle,
amber light = side of vehicle (or lateral motion)

But, I haven't got any especial scientific basis for that preference, and while I prefer white front parking lamps, I don't think there's too much of anything wrong with amber ones.

And, that preference breaks down when the question of side marker light color comes up. The EU/ROW regulations say side marker lights and/or reflectors are optional, and if they're present they have to be amber, unless the rear sidemarker is built into a multifunction rear lamp assembly, in which case it may be either amber or red.

The North American regulations say side marker lights and reflectors are mandatory, the front ones and any intermediate ones have to be amber, and the rear ones have to be red.

So disregarding the mandatory/optional question, the EU sidemarkers show a vehicle's presence, position, and length. The US sidemarkers show a vehicle's presence, position, length, and direction of travel. I think it'd be difficult to find a significant safety advantage one way or the other. Still, it's difficult to resist grabbing for whatever benefit might be had, no matter how difficult to discern, by providing the additional information with red rather than amber rear side markers. This is one of the relatively few breakdowns of common sense in EU/rest-of-world lighting regulations, IMHO.

Back to parking lamps:

park/city light would be the low filament of a clear dual filament bulb. The high filament would be the DRL function.

This exact thing has been done. It was the implementation on Saabs and Volvos for many years ('70s-'90s) in Scandinavia and various European countries that allowed DRLs. Some other cars had this sort of setup, as well. It works, and can work better than modified operation of the high or low beam headlamps. But, with present bulbs, it's not a particularly fuel-efficient or low-maintenance system. These objections would be erased if instead of considering a dual-filament park/DRL bulb, we imagine a single-filament park/DRL bulb operated at full voltage in DRL mode, reduced voltage in park mode (by means of PWM, most likely). The Philips HiPerVision life-of-car signal bulbs lend themselves well to this kind of service (as on the Citroën C6), and BMW just began using a halogen H8 bulb in their cars "angel eye" lightpipe headlamp surrounds. These were formerly just the parking lamps, but now full-voltage DRL mode is achieved with full power to the H8, and park mode is created by reducing the voltage to the H8. I don't really like the 70w DRL solution here. It's not necessary to burn that much fuel for DRLs. Some very good LED DRLs are coming onto the market; that's obviously the future.

So now if it's OK to do it this way, with a combination bright/dim light source (and I think it is), then the only substantial question remaining is what color the light should be. This is not as simple a question as it might seem. There are solid arguments to be made for white and for amber, and nobody's really looked at whether maybe yellow would be better than either, or yellow-green...

 

[-Virgil-]

DRl's have been required equipment in Canada for some time now (10 years??) Anyway, I read that the data has shown NO MEASURABLE EFFECT on accidents in Canada.

DRLs have been required on all new cars in Canada since 1/1/90, so almost 18 years now. The data are complicated, but by most reasonable and informed interpretations they do show a benefit. Not a large one, but a significant (real) one nonetheless. I think the safety-negative effects of certain implementations of DRLs are probably dragging down the overall effective benefit. That would not be hard to fix (not that I think it's going to get fixed, but that's a different question.)

I personally hate how GM has decided I'm too stupid

Yeah, I really don't like GM vehicles, and one of the many reasons is that they're so in-your-face about having taken away your control. Everything from that annoyingly perceptible little delay between operating a control and the computer granting your request, to automatically turning on the dome light when shifted into park after dark (regardless of whether you want it on or not), everything's designed in such a manner as to rub your nose in your lack of control over the car at every turn. It doesn't have to be this way. Automatic controls can be implemented such that you feel well taken care of, rather than removed from control. Some of the world's automakers get it, and others just don't.

 

[TorchBoy]

while I prefer white front parking lamps, I don't think there's too much of anything wrong with amber ones.

I really hate orange park lights. They look too much like indicators, which is dangerous.

 

[MichaelW]

So, is it now possible to get selective yellow via LEDs?
I have seen the Audi S6, with those 10 LEDs. Terrible, they are using a color temp of at least 6500K. Bad color, far too directional.

A full circle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Varselljussats.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

 

[-Virgil-]

So, is it now possible to get selective yellow via LEDs?

Not as far as I know. Selective Yellow is said to lie outside the RGB color space, as I understand it. LED colorimetry isn't my specialty. That said, I have seen variable-color LEDs putting out light that looks like if it's not officially selective yellow, it's really, really close. But selective yellow was a color derived by treating one specific kind of light (from a glowing filament) in one specific way (by suppressing the blue-violet). So it's possible that a very similar light can be produced elsewise when working with light of a different type (from an LED).

I have seen the Audi S6, with those 10 LEDs. Terrible, they are using a color temp of at least 6500K. Bad color, far too directional.

Interesting comment. Can you tell me what connection you perceive (or understand) between a light's colorimetry and its directionality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Varselljussats.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

Yep...those are old Scandinavian-market add-on DRLs from the '70s. I have a few different pairs of them around here somewhere. Most of them use a P21/5W bulb (EU equivalent of the North American 1157); the bright filament is used for the DRL function and the dim filament for an auxiliary parking lamp function.

 

[-Virgil-]

I really hate orange park lights. They look too much like indicators, which is dangerous.

Which vehicles in particular have you noticed this on? I can't believe you consider all amber parking lamps to look too much like indicators. On most of them, the intensity difference is so large (the parking lamps are so dim and the turn signals are so bright) that it's immediately apparent which function is operating even if you can't see the other intensity level for direct comparison. But I can think of several cases in which either the parking lamp's too bright or the turn signal's too dim (or both), making it hard to discern one from the other. And BMW has recently been playing dumb games with their amber parking lamp/turn signal intensity, running the parking lamp function at such high intensity that some of their vehicles appear to be displaying turn signal DRLs at night. This is a single-filament bulb operated via PWM to produce whatever intensity is desired — late VWs and Audis use the same strategy, and the pulsewidth for the parking lamp function can be modified by going in with the right computer. One of BMW's lighting engineers told me this was sort of an unintended consequence of the design of the particular park/turn lamps in question, but I have a hard time agreeing with his explanation.

Now, let me change the topic slightly: What color should rear turn signals be?

 

[TorchBoy]

Thanks to design and state of maintenance (eg, blackened indicator bulbs), your brightness point doesn't seem to apply here. Indicators appear in all sorts of positions over the front of a car, as the whims of car designers change, so the position of the indicators and the park lights can be anywhere, and consequently position isn't normally a big help for purpose either.

Many of New Zealand's vehicles are second hand, imported used from Japan. For a while some of them had orange park lights instead of the normal white, which confuses what the driver is signaling (and signaling is pretty poor here anyway), and confuses the colour with the function. If signaling isn't clear, why bother with it at all? I suspect the car makers realised that, as I haven't seen any orange park lights for some years. Good job.

I don't have a problem with orange position markers on the front of larger vehicles, as there are normally more of them in shapes and positions that indicators are not. For example. a line of four or five small and round/dot-like markers above the cab. The above-cab arrangement, in particular, clearly indicates a large vehicle, and is handy for when the top of the cab clears the brow of a hill before the driver does, as it gives an advance warning for oncoming drivers to dip their lights.

Rear indicators should certainly be orange. I've seen a few American imported vehicles which just flash a brake light. No offense to the Americans on the forum but that seems quite crazy, even if it's common and you're used to it.

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

$150...? Why so much?

I should have been more clear, that was $150 total to implement DRL's on 5 vehicles.

:buddies:

Edit: I agree, rear turn signals should be amber. Easier to immediately identify what's happening, and one bulb burning out doesn't affect safety nearly as much. Some people have a flasher on the CHMSL(Center High Mount Stop Light aka third brake light), and I think a flashing CHMSL should be illegal unless the rear turn signals on the vehicle are amber.

 

[MichaelW]

Interesting comment. Can you tell me what connection you perceive (or understand) between a light's colorimetry and its directionality?

It wasn't the high CCT that made them bad, it was the poor design. Not good visibility when viewed off axis.
The integrated (high beam replacement) LED DRLs (as seen in the movie Transporter2 on the A8 W12) work better. (and subjectively look better)
They could have been a warm white (less glaring) and still be too directional.

Maybe if you could design the LED DRLs so that you would only get 475-775 nanometer from warm white (page19)
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS51.pdf
or use the amber LED (page18)

 

[MichaelW]

Rear indicators should certainly be orange. I've seen a few American imported vehicles which just flash a brake light. No offense to the Americans on the forum but that seems quite crazy, even if it's common and you're used to it.

Yeah, there is plenty of crappy lighting on american cars.
http://www.netcarshow.com/chevrolet/2004-monte_carlo_ss/1280x960/wallpaper_02.htm
http://image.motortrend.com/f/car-n...00+cr1+re0+ar1/2007-chevrolet-monte-carlo.jpg
http://images.truckinweb.com/featur...olet_dale_earnhardt_monte_carlo+rear_view.jpg

The lighting used to be tail/brake with the larger bottom lamp. and positive red turn signal with the upper.
Though GM might have changed it for the NASCAR edition (dale earhardt I think) where the bottom functioned for tail/brake, and the upper functioned as tail/turn.
All had a LED CHMSL in the edge of the trunk. (GM knew that with such a large and vertically oriented spoiler, it would have been impossible for following cars to see it)

 

[-Virgil-]

I should have been more clear, that was $150 total to implement DRL's on 5 vehicles.

Ah. That makes a lot more sense.

rear turn signals should be amber

Yup. They should be. Unfortunately, ***-backward North American regulations still permit them to be red.

Easier to immediately identify what's happening

True, and in several non-obvious ways, not just the obvious common-sense one. Following drivers react significantly faster and more accurately to a vehicle's brake lamps when its rear signals are amber rather than red, for example.

Some people have a flasher on the CHMSL(Center High Mount Stop Light aka third brake light), and I think a flashing CHMSL should be illegal unless the rear turn signals on the vehicle are amber.

CHMSL flashers are illegal regardless of rear turn signal color, and flashing the CHMSL is one of those collossally stupid, dangerous ideas some quick-buck artist dreamed up without a shred of evidentiary support for the claim that flashing the CHMSL does anything beneficial. Unfortunately, the combination of "hands off" North American nonregulation and the arrival from Germany of various panic-braking indication systems (some of which rapidly flash the left and right brake lamps) means the illegal aftermarket CHMSL flashers are likely to get more prevalent, not less. :-(

 

[TorchBoy]

Following drivers react significantly faster and more accurately to a vehicle's brake lamps when its rear signals are amber rather than red, for example.

Hmmm...

Because they are reacting to the sudden presence of the colour?

 

[-Virgil-]

the position of the indicators and the park lights can be anywhere

Mmm...not anywhere. Even under the lax North American regulations, there are only certain areas in which various lighting functions are allowed, relative to the overal dimensions of the vehicle, the road surface, other lighting devices (such as the indicator vs. the headlamp) and the units in paired lighting functions (such as left and right indicators). The EU/rest-of-world regulations are considerably more stringent on function placement.

Many of New Zealand's vehicles are second hand, imported used from Japan.

True.

For a while some of them had orange park lights instead of the normal white

Japanese standards have for many years permitted front parking lamps to emit white, yellow, or amber light. New Zealand regulations permit front parking lamps to emit white or amber light. The Japanese situation is changing, as Japan has recently adopted the EU/rest-of-world lighting standards, which require front position (parking) lamps to emit only white light.

I don't have a problem with orange position markers on the front of larger vehicles, as there are normally more of them in shapes and positions that indicators are not. For example. a line of four or five small and round/dot-like markers above the cab.

"Identification lamps", as they are known in North American regulations, which require them to be amber at the front and red at the rear. EU regulations want them white at the front and red at the rear, if they're present (only end-outline markers are required under EU regs, not the central group of 3). I agree with you that amber or white is fine for this function up front. In fact, these ID lamps could easily be photometrically modified to solve the problem of properly illuminating overhead retroreflective road signs. It's very difficult to do so with dipped-beam headlamps, not only because of the need to control glare but also because of the enormous vertical separation between the headlamp height and the driver eye height in most heavy commercial vehicles (trucks, buses, etc.). It would take only a small increase in intensity and focus for the ID lights to do a completely adequate job of lighting the overhead signs, and it wouldn't create a glare problem for other drivers or for the HCV driver himself. Too much regulatory inertia for it to happen any time soon, though. :-(

Rear indicators should certainly be orange. I've seen a few American imported vehicles which just flash a brake light.

This isn't even the stupidest arrangement permitted in North America. That (dis)honor belongs to the provision of two photometrically- and colorimetrically-identical red lights, right next to each other, one serving as the brake lamp and the other as the indicator. This creates a "duelling reds" situation, making the indicator practically invisible if the driver's standing on the brakes, and making the message completely garbled if the driver is getting on and off the brakes while the indicator's flashing. And while EU regulations require brake and red rear fog lamps' closest illuminated edges to be separated by at least 100mm, there's no such requirement in North American regulations. Compared to that crapmess, which is dismayingly common, flashing the brake lamp as a turn indicator seems almost forgivable. Most of the rest of the world banned red rear indicators (of either type) decades ago. New Zealand still allows, them, however!

Given the same strictures (cost and styling/design, mainly) that caused the Americans to devise the combination brake/indicator/tail lamp, the Australians actually came up with a much more satisfactory way of splitting up the four rear lighting functions (brake, indicator, tail, reverse). Australia has required amber rear indicators for many, many years, but beginning in the '50s, vehicles derived from American designs were very prevalent in Australia. So, Australia permitted amber reversing lamps until the early 1980s when ECE regulations were adopted in supersession of the Australian national regulations. Vehicle manufacturers, faced with the task of localizing American cars originally equipped with combination red brake/turn signal lamps and white reversing lamps, were able to combine the (mandatorily amber) rear turn signal and (optionally amber) reversing lamp function, and so comply with the regulations without the need to add additional lighting devices to the rear of the vehicles.

This might sound bizarre, but it actually works fine. I have one of my vehicles wired up this way (even though North American regulations will never, ever be modified to allow it and it seems a largely forgotten provision in worldwide vehicular lighting regulation history) and the result is considerably better than that vehicle's original red brake/tail/indicator + white reverse setup. It works this way: there's an amber bulb in place of the original colorless reverse bulb. In any gear but Reverse, indicating left or right causes the respective amber rear lamp to flash (together with the amber light on the front of the same side, obviously). Shifting to Reverse without signalling for a turn causes both rear amber lights to burn steadily. Signalling for a left or right turn while in Reverse (as when parallel-parking, for example) causes the one amber rear light to flash, while the other burns steadily. The red lights are dim for tail, bright for brake, regardless of indicator or gearstick position.

Obviously completely separate red brake/tail, amber turn, and white reverse lamps are to be preferred, but I view the Australian solution as considerably preferable to the American red brake/tail/turn solution. NB the Australian amber turn/reverse setup is legal for vehicles first registered in NZ before March 2005.

 

[-Virgil-]

Hmmm...

Because they are reacting to the sudden presence of the colour?

Actually because there's no period of "Whoah, bright red light...ummm...lemme look at it for awhile to see if it's flashing or steady...OK, flashing, now does that mean this guy's signalling for a turn? No, wait, he's just getting on and off the brakes...no, wait, that is a signal...isn't it?". Contextually, red always means deceleration, so an instantaneous reaction is considerably more likely to be the correct one.

The US regulators (and US auto industry lobbyists) who say dumb things like "Just treat any red light that comes on as a brake light, and you'll be safe" or "The turn signal is the only light on the rear of the car that flashes, so it doesn't have to be another color" are clueless. Sometimes deliberately so when it suits their interests.