Stock HIDs for DRL

[lonesouth]

My Mazda 6 has factory HIDs but no DRLs. However, the lights will turn off after 30 seconds when the car is turned off. I have been just leaving the lights on all the time to function as DRLs. Is this bad for the HIDs, such that life or output will be dramatically decreased?

There is a plethora of hits on google about people doing retrofits and having to bypass the old DRL system, but no real substance about the effect of DRL on HID.

 

[chackoc]

The reason DRLs are bad for HID is because DRL systems typically run with lower voltage than when the light is fully on. This isn't good for the HID ballasts which is why people who retrofit HIDs into a car that originally had halogens typically disable the DRLs. If the ballasts are on you want them to get full voltage.

When I retrofitted HIDs into my car I disabled DRLs but then I left the HIDs on all the time. That will reduce longevity by some degree simply because they are on more often, but the car is significantly safer when it has lights on than not (which is why most countries are mandating DRLs these days.) I read somewhere that even during full daylight your car is 4x more visible when it has lights on versus when it does not.

 

[chackoc]

Also, the thing that is hardest on the HID system is initial startup. So if you go on a ton of really short trips that might be a reason not to leave them on all the time because they will frequently be undergoing that startup phase. This is the reason no cars that I know of have independent HID highs (because pass to flash type actions would be really harsh on an HID system.) All the cars that use HID for the high beam do so with a bi-xenon system.

 

[-Virgil-]

My Mazda 6 has factory HIDs but no DRLs. However, the lights will turn off after 30 seconds when the car is turned off. I have been just leaving the lights on all the time to function as DRLs. Is this bad for the HIDs, such that life or output will be dramatically decreased?

There is a plethora of hits on google about people doing retrofits and having to bypass the old DRL system, but no real substance about the effect of DRL on HID.

The lifespan of an OE-type HID bulb is long enough that you won't significantly reduce the practical service life of the bulbs by operating them day and night. The bulbs do lose output with use, so you will hasten that lumen drop and want to replace the bulbs a year or two earlier than otherwise to restore full nighttime seeing power. But full low beam headlamps (halogen or HID), while legal as DRLs, aren't good ones. They consume way too much power for the benefit they return, and having the taillamps on during the day reduces the contrast of the brake lamps, thus reducing their conspicuity. You may want to throw a turn signal DRL module on the car and use the headlamps as...headlamps.

The reason DRLs are bad for HID is because DRL systems typically run with lower voltage than when the light is fully on.

You are confused. The original poster is asking about daytime use of his car's factory HID headlamps. Therefore, your mention of one of the many technical problems with installing an "HID kit" into halogen headlamps really isn't relevant. Not only that, but OE HID ballasts are perfectly happy to operate with primary (input) voltage of between about 9 and 16 volts, so even if reduced voltage were to enter the picture--which, again, in the original poster's situation it does not--there would be no issue with it.

the car is significantly safer when it has lights on than not I read somewhere that even during full daylight your car is 4x more visible when it has lights on versus when it does not.

There is no factual basis for that meaningless "4x more visible" figure. Fact is, the potential safety benefit from well-implemented DRLs is real, but it is small. Poorly-implemented DRLs (a category which includes most headlamp-based setups) create safety problems that reduce, eliminate, or reverse the safety benefit.

 

[lonesouth]

They consume way too much power for the benefit they return

By power consumption, do you intend that the increased drag of the alternator required to power the lights and the corresponding effects of increased wear and tear and reduced gas mileage are greater than the benefit of being seen?

the potential safety benefit from well-implemented DRLs is real, but it is small. Poorly-implemented DRLs (a category which includes most headlamp-based setups) create safety problems that reduce, eliminate, or reverse the safety benefit.

So the impact of having DRLs is significantly less than the media, government and manufactures would have us believe?

Note that none of this is intoned in a confrontational way.

 

[alpg88]

most if not all DLR are high beams with reduced output, normaly low beams aren't visible that much during the day due to their low aim, high beams are aimed higher and visible more daytime.

 

[chackoc]

The lifespan of an OE-type HID bulb is long enough that you won't significantly reduce the practical service life of the bulbs by operating them day and night. The bulbs do lose output with use, so you will hasten that lumen drop and want to replace the bulbs a year or two earlier than otherwise to restore full nighttime seeing power. But full low beam headlamps (halogen or HID), while legal as DRLs, aren't good ones. They consume way too much power for the benefit they return, and having the taillamps on during the day reduces the contrast of the brake lamps, thus reducing their conspicuity. You may want to throw a turn signal DRL module on the car and use the headlamps as...headlamps.



You are confused. The original poster is asking about daytime use of his car's factory HID headlamps. Therefore, your mention of one of the many technical problems with installing an "HID kit" into halogen headlamps really isn't relevant. Not only that, but OE HID ballasts are perfectly happy to operate with primary (input) voltage of between about 9 and 16 volts, so even if reduced voltage were to enter the picture--which, again, in the original poster's situation it does not--there would be no issue with it.



There is no factual basis for that meaningless "4x more visible" figure. Fact is, the potential safety benefit from well-implemented DRLs is real, but it is small. Poorly-implemented DRLs (a category which includes most headlamp-based setups) create safety problems that reduce, eliminate, or reverse the safety benefit.

The poster was asking why they were seeing a "plethora of hits on google about people doing retrofits and having to bypass the old DRL system." I think I answered that concern rather directly. The rest of it is a discussion on the efficacy of DRLs which I don't think the OP was initially all that concerned about.

That said, from personal experience I can't think of a single time I've thought an oncoming car would have been more visible without it's DRLs on, but I can think of many occasions when I thought an oncoming car would have been more visible if it had it's headlights on.

 

[-Virgil-]

most if not all DLR are high beams with reduced output

That's not correct. Reduced-intensity high beams are legal as DRLs in the US and Canada (only) as long as their intensity falls within the prescribed limits (no more than 7,000cd on axis at 12.8v unless they are mounted above a certain height, then no more than 3,000cd on axis at 12.8v, and there are minimum and maximum intensity requirements at a range of angles off-axis, too). However, reduced-intensity high beams are just one of many different DRL setups allowed and commonly found in North America. There are also full- and reduced-intensity low beams, front turn signals operated steadily as DRLs, dedicated white DRLs, fog lamps as DRLs (in Canada only, and not for too much longer).

The new European DRL requirement calls for functionally specific white DRLs on all new vehicles from 2011 on -- it's not allowed to run the headlamps, the fog lamps, the turn signals, or any other lights as DRLs. Which is why we're already starting to see more setups like that in North America, primarily on European cars so far (though GM did it for awhile on their pickup trucks, too).

 

[-Virgil-]

from personal experience I can't think of a single time I've thought an oncoming car would have been more visible without it's DRLs on, but I can think of many occasions when I thought an oncoming car would have been more visible if it had it's headlights on.

That's not the question under discussion, and even if it were, subjective impressions of what you think of a car's visibility don't really mean anything useful.

 

[lonesouth]

In order to shortcut a discussion on what I was asking. I was curious about the detrimental effects of leaving HIDs on all the time. I simply noted the abundance of posts regarding retrofits as a shortcut to replies about the use of Google.

 

[alpg88]

That's not correct.

no????
strange 4 cars that i had and still have (gm-honda) with dlr say it is correct, also look on the cars on the road, vast majority have inner lights as dlr, those are high beams.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

no????
strange 4 cars that i had and still have (gm-honda) with dlr say it is correct, also look on the cars on the road, vast majority have inner lights as dlr, those are high beams.

Then you never owned a 2001 Toyota Corolla LE, or maybe even seen one. It uses the low beams at reduced intensity as the DRL (mine did, until I disabled them).

There are other cars that use turn signal DRLs rather than any of the headlights.

BTW: One study commissioned by GM claims a 4.28 percent decrease in nighttime multi-party car crashes as a result of DRL installation. At night, shouldn't your headlights be ON?

Also, while GM claims they consume a negligible amount of power, they also got a dispensation from the EPA and are allowed to disable them for EPA fuel economy testing.

 

[-Virgil-]

no????

No.

4 cars that i had and still have (gm-honda) with dlr say it is correct

No, four cars you've owned with reduced-intensity high beam DRLs say you've owned four cars with reduced-intensity high beam DRLs -- that's all.

also look on the cars on the road, vast majority have inner lights as dlr, those are high beams.

Not all of them. There are VWs and Audis, for example, that have functionally-specific incandescent DRLs inboard of the low beams.

You are substituting guesses and assumptions for the facts you don't know. That works OK until you run into someone who actually knows the facts.

 

[-Virgil-]

Then you never owned a 2001 Toyota Corolla LE, or maybe even seen one. It uses the low beams at reduced intensity as the DRL (mine did, until I disabled them).

Guess he never owned any of the many GM vehicles with turn signal DRLs, low beam DRLs, or functionally-dedicated DRLs. Or any of the Toyotas with turn signal or low beam DRLs.

BTW: One study commissioned by GM claims a 4.28 percent decrease in nighttime multi-party car crashes as a result of DRL installation.

That finding is a result of serious methodological flaws in that study...which didn't stop GM trumpeting the finding!

At night, shouldn't your headlights be ON?

Yes. And driving after dark with DRL instead of headlamps -- which is very easy to do on many vehicles with headlamp DRLs -- substantially reduces the driver's ability to see and, depending on the DRL setup involved, can greatly reduce the conspicuity of the car and/or cause dangerous levels of glare.

Also, while GM claims they consume a negligible amount of power, they also got a dispensation from the EPA and are allowed to disable them for EPA fuel economy testing.

Correct, which is a really good exhibit of the bizarro-world thinking that has long permeated GM and their regulatory lapdogs: Federal law requires that vehicles undergo emissions and fuel economy certification testing configured exactly as they are offered for sale. GM petitioned for (and got) an exemption from that requirement, arguing that DRLs aren't legally required. However, GM will not sell you a vehicle without DRLs, nor will GM dealers disable DRLs. It's a crock of BS.

 

[zeramant86]

Wouldn't it be simpler for them to have made a halogen drl and xenon headlamps? My new lancer sportback has this setup, the parklights and drls are always on, but I have to manually turn on the HIDs. The halogen in my case is really low output, so it's not possible for me to forget to turn on the headlamps.

I've read what chackoc said before that fires of the ballast are hard on HIDs.

Can you simply not run with the park lights on, and wire a set of "fog lights" so they come on with the park lights?

 

[-Virgil-]

Can you simply not run with the park lights on, and wire a set of "fog lights" so they come on with the park lights?

That would not be an effective, legal, or beneficial thing to do.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Can you simply not run with the park lights on, and wire a set of "fog lights" so they come on with the park lights?

No, you cannot simply do that.

No, in many states, running with just the parking lights on is illegal, and in many of those same states, running fog lights without the headlights on is illegal.

Fog lights are NOT DRLs, they are fog lights. Use of fog lights in conditions that do not warrant them is foolish, selfish, and dangerous to other drivers. "Fog lights", with the words in quotations, implies cheaply made, non-compliant toy lights.

 

[alpg88]

No, four cars you've owned with reduced-intensity high beam DRLs say you've owned four cars with reduced-intensity high beam DRLs -- that's all.

.

no, really? that is exactly what i said in the first place.

Not all of them. There are VWs and Audis, for example, that have functionally-specific incandescent DRLs inboard of the low beams..

so??/ i said most if not all, that means most, for sure and maybe all, may be yes , may be no. btw where i live vw and audi are small percentage compare to others.

You are substituting guesses and assumptions for the facts you don't know. That works OK until you run into someone who actually knows the facts.

you mean what you said are facts????
i'll let you know when i do run into someone like that.