2004 to 2016 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have replaced by halogen headlights on my 2018 Mazda 3 Touring with LED headlights (purchased here). Does the beam pattern below look normal? It appears to me that the passenger headlight has a focus of light towards the ground and is dimmer towards the top of the beam pattern.

276090

276091

276092
 

·
Registered
2015 Mazda3 S Grand Touring, 6spd Manual, Soul Red
Joined
·
46 Posts
The passenger light is supposed to be a little further down. It’s a courtesy to traffic in the opposing lane. It should be that way from the factory. Much more likely it is if yours was built in Japan, because they’re more keen on doing it that way.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
The passenger light is supposed to be a little further down. It’s a courtesy to traffic in the opposing lane. It should be that way from the factory. Much more likely it is if yours was built in Japan, because they’re more keen on doing it that way.
Uhhhhh....what.....? How is the headlight on the right side pointing down a courtesy to the opposing lane, which by the way in the US is on the left.....LHD and RHD cars usually have different headlight lens designs according to which side of the road you are driving on...
 

·
Registered
2015 Mazda3 S Grand Touring, 6spd Manual, Soul Red
Joined
·
46 Posts
Uhhhhh....what.....? How is the headlight on the right side pointing down a courtesy to the opposing lane, which by the way in the US is on the left.....LHD and RHD cars usually have different headlight lens designs according to which side of the road you are driving on...
My mistake, I meant to say the driver’s side. No need to get testy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
My car was built in Mexico, and I live in Houston, TX. I have not adjusted the levels from the factory LEDs. Is it possible that my LEDs could be pointing in different directions and causing different reflections in the projector housing? My lack of understanding on how our headlight projectors work makes me wonder. I am also curious why I don't see/notice the "cutoff" that many other drivers describe. My headlights have never appeared to have a cutoff. The beams seem to have the same general cutoff line even though they appear to vary in intensity as discussed in the OP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The headlights might need a bit of adjusting but that looks pretty much ok to me..
Same bulbs in my car
Arathol: Your beams also seem to have a higher intensity on the driver's side. Let me know if you disagree.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Arathol: Your beams also seem to have a higher intensity on the driver's side. Let me know if you disagree.
Nope, that is just a camera issue, probably because there is a streetlight 100' to the right. Light intensity is the same on both sides.


My car was built in Mexico, and I live in Houston, TX. I have not adjusted the levels from the factory LEDs. Is it possible that my LEDs could be pointing in different directions and causing different reflections in the projector housing? My lack of understanding on how our headlight projectors work makes me wonder. I am also curious why I don't see/notice the "cutoff" that many other drivers describe. My headlights have never appeared to have a cutoff. The beams seem to have the same general cutoff line even though they appear to vary in intensity as discussed in the OP.
This does not mean the lights were even 100% to begin with.
As long as they are locked into the housing correctly the bulbs should be positioned correctly.
Your headlight patterns have a cut-off line. Thats the horizontal line below which there is bright light, with little light above.
The light intensity varies because the design of projector lens focuses more light where its needed, and less light to where its not needed. This means more light on the road and less light in the weeds. The light pattern does taper downward a bit on both sides toward the outer edges too. You can't really see it on the right in my picture because the fence ends. Your pattern is doing the same. The ones with the fence show it but the left side is being washed out by a street light, and the other picture doesn't have a flat surface extending far enough to the left to see it.
I don't see any problems with those lights. They look just as they should, no different than any other car.....I wouldn't worry too much about it. Without using a actual wall pattern to check for proper aiming, you about as good as you are going to get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Not sure that it relates to the pattern observed by the OP, but the headlights appear to be intended to vary in aim/intensity from the factory:
276175


Most low-beam headlamps are specifically designed for use on only one side of the road. Headlamps for use in left-traffic countries have low-beam headlamps that "dip to the left"; the light is distributed with a downward/leftward bias to show the driver the road and signs ahead without blinding oncoming traffic. Headlamps for right-traffic countries have low beams that "dip to the right", with most of their light directed downward/rightward.
276176

asymmetrical
vs.
symmetrical
276177
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Some reading for those who are interested in lighting.

Beam pattern will not composed properly with any LED bulb unfortunately. ( At least current market selections)

Specific to this Stanley H11 Halogen projector, LED bulb like OP linked product shows much lower beam focus compare to standard H11 halogen bulb.

Also heatsink is very insufficient for running ZES x 8 to produce 2500lm as it claim
It needs to be driven at least 800mA on each LED, that's bit above 18W drive and heat power is 12.6W+

If it were producing 2,500lm as it claimed, then it will be pushing junction temp max, and outputting level goes down as much as 20% just by temp raise.

Below is simulated at a theoretical upper estimate of 2,000lm at light source, compared to H11 halogen bulb 1,350lm at working voltage
276646


I happened to have linked the product template LED bulb in analysis. While it produces more light at light source, lack of focus result beam intensity to go down as much as 34%
Also, the vertical gradient became weak, this is the reason OP sees more illumination impression at near view zone. Because relative distance illumination ( hotspot) is very weak with LED bulb.

This is because LED is placed 2 sided facing out each other, it is like having half brightness filament 4+mm apart. Either of them sit at the focus axis of the projector. So no matter how to boost output, it just does not achieve proper beam focus. Because the project is designed along a 1.6mm diameter cylinder-shaped light source.

Therefore, at moderate driving speed, with LEDs, the driver can see much less at distance view zone. LED still has a long way to go to be a "replaceable" bulb for halogen application.
Some few LED bulb perform OK in our Stanley H11 projector, but still not as solid as Halogen.

Generally speaking, LED bulbs can not create a good focus in projector optics.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Some reading for those who are interested in lighting.

Beam pattern will not composed properly with any LED bulb unfortunately. ( At least current market selections)

Specific to this Stanley H11 Halogen projector, LED bulb like OP linked product shows much lower beam focus compare to standard H11 halogen bulb.

Also heatsink is very insufficient for running ZES x 8 to produce 2500lm as it claim
It needs to be driven at least 800mA on each LED, that's bit above 18W drive and heat power is 12.6W+

If it were producing 2,500lm as it claimed, then it will be pushing junction temp max, and outputting level goes down as much as 20% just by temp raise.

Below is simulated at a theoretical upper estimate of 2,000lm at light source, compared to H11 halogen bulb 1,350lm at working voltage
View attachment 276646

I happened to have linked the product template LED bulb in analysis. While it produces more light at light source, lack of focus result beam intensity to go down as much as 34%
Also, the vertical gradient became weak, this is the reason OP sees more illumination impression at near view zone. Because relative distance illumination ( hotspot) is very weak with LED bulb.

This is because LED is placed 2 sided facing out each other, it is like having half brightness filament 4+mm apart. Either of them sit at the focus axis of the projector. So no matter how to boost output, it just does not achieve proper beam focus. Because the project is designed along a 1.6mm diameter cylinder-shaped light source.

Therefore, at moderate driving speed, with LEDs, the driver can see much less at distance view zone. LED still has a long way to go to be a "replaceable" bulb for halogen application.
Some few LED bulb perform OK in our Stanley H11 projector, but still not as solid as Halogen.

Generally speaking, LED bulbs can not create a good focus in projector optics.
Wrong on all counts.....maybe true 10 years ago.....not anymore

relative distance illumination ( hotspot) is very weak with LED bulb.
The white shed is a measured 500' from the car.

lights off


high beams on


How much more distance illumination do you need?

Generally speaking, LED bulbs can not create a good focus in projector optics
.
Well, now, looks like the focus is pretty good, at least as good as the halogens.....
low beam cut-off
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Wrong on all counts.....maybe true 10 years ago.....not anymore


The white shed is a measured 500' from the car.

lights off


high beams on


How much more distance illumination do you need?

.
Well, now, looks like the focus is pretty good, at least as good as the halogens.....
low beam cut-off
I do not believe you have an understanding of lighting other than what you think, you see in a highly unreliable camera photo to receive illumination level.

Photo or in-person impression heavily unreliable, lots of relative factor though impression off.
Often gives false positive impressions in many cases especially if you worked on installing new lighting.
I have designed numerous LED bulbs, projectors, reflector optics and have solid background on how optic works and measurement data with me.

Iso candlea chart I made is from a physical scan of Stanley H11 and high-resolution simulation aligned with physical measurement in light tunnel measurement.

If you insist my observation is false, you should at least show with your data, not impression.

Because of the human view impression, the relative environment can heavily impact on night time view, regulations and safety standards is established for automotive front lighting.

Having a clean cut off has nothing to do with having good focus...
Have you at least read beam peak candela reading to understand how beam intensity changed?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Why is a picture unreliable? The pictures show what they show, which is the reality of how the bulb functions. The pictures were taken at the same time and place using the same camera, lens and settings. If you are trying to say the bulbs don't work, prove it by pointing to something in those pictures that says they are not working properly. I have been using these bulbs for 2 1/2 years now in both high and low beams, and they work much better than the halogens. If the bulbs are brighter, have a better color and illuminate the road better without changing the light dispersion (no glare) , they are better bulbs, period. Thats reality, and reality trumps theory every time. Have you ever actually used a new properly designed LED bulb in your car?
The lack of functionality of LED headlight bulbs is an internet myth, perpetuated by "experts" who constantly insist that they can't possibly work because they have a chart that says so or because they tested some cheap 10 year old Chinese bulb with a poor design and it displayed poor dispersion when used in a halogen light box. Things have changed greatly recently, and a properly designed current LED bulb will work just as well or better than a halogen bulb.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
The problem is you are not understanding how optics work and thinking using LED bulb in halogen optics can keep light distribution the same as halogen light source, by looking at a picture taken that does not give you candela distribution information.

I can not point out anything in the picture because the picture does not prove any candela distribution information.

I am saying this because I am in the leading field developing lots of newer LED bulb, not talking about 10 years ago old technologies, I also had developed high performance LED projectors that is hitting the market.
Development gave me a tremendous amount of observation of so many different current LED bulbs, optics, data.

What I am indicating is based on large amount of study of the fact.

You say it's brighter, but you don't show candela reading to compare. What was the rough candela reading at the peak? It's easy enough for average users to attempt at least use lux meter to compare side by side.
Color is a preference and I am not saying LED CRI not necessarily bad.
Illuminate road better is completely false in this case. Because you are not understanding how iso candlea distribution change affects road projection.
Without changing distribution is another absolute false. It is completely different result with LED bulb.
The existence of glare has nothing to do with proper beam distribution.


All LED bulb completely change light distribution, that is already displayed in iso candela chart I showed here.
Iso candela chart is the exact physical scan of a specific Stanley H11 projector which is used in our headlamp. And LED bulb simulation is a carefully reverse engineered optical model simulated to show how the distribution changes.

If you need to see ray trace to see how much distribution is different with LED bulb, I can run the simulation and show here. But trust me, there is no way LED bulb can simulate filament lighting distribution.


The reality is, there is no LED bulb properly designed to replace halogen yet. We, engineers spending thousands of hours to develop better lighting, in fact, currently big name like Osram and Philis is working on trying to make truly replaceable LED light bulb for halogen light source.
And I am working in the very same field with the newest technologies to work with, and yet, there are no LED bulb, not even prototypes yet, that truly satisfy mimicking halogen filament illumination character.

List up what you think properly designed LED bulb, and I can show detailed ray trace of each bulbs , how light distribution changes with each LED bulb, and what kind of effect to the road illumination.

Some LED bulb does shoot much higher output like, GTR Ultra 2, but with the consequence of out of balance of beam distribution. SV4 carries a somewhat better beam pattern and strong output, yet, still cause unbalanced beam distribution due to thickness of center PCB and light-emitting surface. There really is not truly capable LED bulb on market yet.

This is based on actual headlamp projector parts, 3D scanned for optical reverse engineering.
I am not just an internet reviewer, nor a self-claimed expert, but I am an engineer who develops light bulbs and optics.

This is the optics used in our halogen model headlamp, made by Stanley H11 projector.
Scan resolution is 50um and surface rebuild accuracy is 98.7% ave on optical surfaces.

simulation result is observed and aligned with physical measurement to ensure accuracy.
276648
276649


Yes, thing had changed lots in LED market, but when customer understanding does not change much, many manufactures will still only make product that to please vast majority who doesn't fully understand how optics works.
That is still a business model, and if the customer is happy, that still fine as long as end result does not harm others.

However, insist on my observation to be false based on your assumption of I am one of "expert" who create internet myth, without showing your end of solid data that back up your logic make me sad somewhat.

My intention is to provide what many are missing, I understand not everyone is engineering such a lighting product, so I was hoping to help some end-user to understand truly better lighting quality, not internet hyped information or impression-based review that can disbenefit some others.

With that said, I am at my best effort working on making better lighting products, in fact, working on LED bulbs that eventually confidently replace halogen light sources.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
The problem is you are not understanding how optics work and thinking using LED bulb in halogen optics can keep light distribution the same as halogen light source, by looking at a picture taken that does not give you candela distribution information.
I do understand. I have been "tinkering" with automotive lighting for about 40 years now. I have a pretty good idea of what works, what doesn't and why.....
What I don't understand is why this subject keeps popping up on every car forum, and not one of the "internet engineers" can actually present any real evidence of why LEDs in their current form can't work as many actual users claim aside from a bunch of pretty colored drawings and theories. Meanwhile, while proponents of LEDs post actual pictures of the light output from their real cars and make actual comparisons that clearly show the reality of what works and what doesn't....

I can not point out anything in the picture because the picture does not prove any candela distribution information.
You can't point anything out because there is nothing to point out. Those pictures show how much illumination is provided by the LEDs (no lighting vs high beam illumination). You don't need a meter to see the difference. Its quite apparent.

I am saying this because I am in the leading field developing lots of newer LED bulb, not talking about 10 years ago old technologies, I also had developed high performance LED projectors that is hitting the market.
Development gave me a tremendous amount of observation of so many different current LED bulbs, optics, data.

What I am indicating is based on large amount of study of the fact.

You say it's brighter, but you don't show candela reading to compare. What was the rough candela reading at the peak? It's easy enough for average users to attempt at least use lux meter to compare side by side.
Color is a preference and I am not saying LED CRI not necessarily bad.
Illuminate road better is completely false in this case. Because you are not understanding how iso candlea distribution change affects road projection.
Illuminate the road better is absolutely true. How can you deny that the road in the pictures is not fully and brightly illuminated as far as the road allows? If the houses were not there it would be the same for quite a distance beyond that 500 foot limit. You are not understanding that theories don't matter when you have the real thing installed in your car.

Without changing distribution is another absolute false. It is completely different result with LED bulb.
The existence of glare has nothing to do with proper beam distribution.


All LED bulb completely change light distribution, that is already displayed in iso candela chart I showed here.
Iso candela chart is the exact physical scan of a specific Stanley H11 projector which is used in our headlamp. And LED bulb simulation is a carefully reverse engineered optical model simulated to show how the distribution changes.

If you need to see ray trace to see how much distribution is different with LED bulb, I can run the simulation and show here. But trust me, there is no way LED bulb can simulate filament lighting distribution.

Again, you are demonstrating that you don't fully understand whats going on here. How is the result different with LEDs? The halogen light boxes focus the light from the bulb by means of reflectors or lenses depending on the type of head light. LEDs, halogens, HIDs, how the light is produced means little to those reflectors and lenses, as long as it originates at the correct point in space inside the light box. Put the emitter at the right point and the light distribution pattern should be the same, and with the current designs the dispersion patterns are no different than the halogens they replaced. Whats different is the light itself. LEDs are brighter and the 6000k bulbs produce a cleaner light very close to natural daylight. So, the illumination provided is better, you can see more of whats ahead of you and roadside signs illuminate better. I don't see the issue with that....
Glare has everything to do with light distribution, if you know anything about automotive lighting you should know that. Glare in this case is unfocused transient light that is above the low beam cut-off, and is directed into the passenger compartment of vehicles travelling in the opposing lane of oncoming traffic. This glare is what blinds the drivers of those oncoming vehicles. Cheap LEDs with emitters that are placed everywhere but where they should be end up sending much of the light they generate into the eyes of oncoming drivers instead of being focused on the road ahead. This is why LEDs have in the past earned such a bad reputation. New designs don't exhibit these tendencies and work just like the halogens they replace.



The reality is, there is no LED bulb properly designed to replace halogen yet. We, engineers spending thousands of hours to develop better lighting, in fact, currently big name like Osram and Philis is working on trying to make truly replaceable LED light bulb for halogen light source.
And I am working in the very same field with the newest technologies to work with, and yet, there are no LED bulb, not even prototypes yet, that truly satisfy mimicking halogen filament illumination character.

List up what you think properly designed LED bulb, and I can show detailed ray trace of each bulbs , how light distribution changes with each LED bulb, and what kind of effect to the road illumination.

Some LED bulb does shoot much higher output like, GTR Ultra 2, but with the consequence of out of balance of beam distribution. SV4 carries a somewhat better beam pattern and strong output, yet, still cause unbalanced beam distribution due to thickness of center PCB and light-emitting surface. There really is not truly capable LED bulb on market yet.

This is based on actual headlamp projector parts, 3D scanned for optical reverse engineering.
I am not just an internet reviewer, nor a self-claimed expert, but I am an engineer who develops light bulbs and optics.

This is the optics used in our halogen model headlamp, made by Stanley H11 projector.
Scan resolution is 50um and surface rebuild accuracy is 98.7% ave on optical surfaces.

simulation result is observed and aligned with physical measurement to ensure accuracy.
View attachment 276648 View attachment 276649

Yes, thing had changed lots in LED market, but when customer understanding does not change much, many manufactures will still only make product that to please vast majority who doesn't fully understand how optics works.
That is still a business model, and if the customer is happy, that still fine as long as end result does not harm others.

However, insist on my observation to be false based on your assumption of I am one of "expert" who create internet myth, without showing your end of solid data that back up your logic make me sad somewhat.

My intention is to provide what many are missing, I understand not everyone is engineering such a lighting product, so I was hoping to help some end-user to understand truly better lighting quality, not internet hyped information or impression-based review that can disbenefit some others.

With that said, I am at my best effort working on making better lighting products, in fact, working on LED bulbs that eventually confidently replace halogen light sources.
You are seeking perfection in an LED and trying to validate your efforts. In doing so you are losing sight of reality....perfect aftermarket LEDs are not going to happen for quite a while. Whats available now works just fine as many people are finding out. As long as the headlights are bright enough, don't glare into oncoming traffic and illuminate the road properly most people would not know the difference anyhow. To say that current designs don't work just because they are not your idea of perfection is just plain incorrect and misleading. It also occurs to me that your point of view may be somewhat prejudiced by the fact that you are trying to build a better mousetrap. Saying that the current LEDs don't or can't possibly work because what you are trying to make is better is not the way to approach this subject.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Your idea is not the fact. That's your impression.
And what I advised in the initial response was for OP to understand why he felt like stronger illumination is observed at lower angle.

It is ok to not know about every detail about lighting, but it is not ok to deny physical measurement denying without any data to back up. It can ill inform many by doing that.

What you are saying is, it look good to me and what I see in the picture is the truth. Pictures don’t lie. Correct, Your picture is not lying to you. Problem is, you are believing your picture contains valid evaluation factors enough but it does not.

It is like, someone had a headache, and he said " I heard this med work good for headache, but somehow I am getting rush, not knowing there can be a side effect of possible rush
And I said, there are known side effects, I thought I shall share so some users can understand have better chance to select possible better products.

Because I am in the lighting development field, yes, I am the one developing LED bulb like you enjoying, and knowing there are better choices, yet, none of them still can not properly achieve the desired beam result.

You came back to me saying, it worked fine for me, I haven't felt any ill effect. You just do not know. You do not know what is active ingredients and how it’s working or what is the side effect, all you know is, I felt it worked for me and I don't FEEL side effects. This is effective, I have been using for years and all good to me. That part is true, you felt better and not feeling side effect. That part is OK, everyone has a different impression, reaction. But that’s the only aspect your picture is displaying Does not disclose side effect Not telling how it is actually working for you.

not understanding the side effect and telling many that is evaluated all good based on how you think or felt is irresponsible act

Especially when someone, who is designing those explaining there is studied known side effect, try to inform user to provide a possible better selection opportunity, understanding opportunity, you can't just say I am an internet engineer who is not understanding what is all about based on because “I felt better and didn't feel side effects, and look, many other also saying there was no ill effects. Those who also don’t know. But They also just know they didn’t feel ill effect, and felt like it worked

Few thing I must point out
The fact you are thinking "no glare" means good distribution is misleading information to many others.

LED light sources don’t even match in size too, only few chips are close to filament size, yet, since LED must have heatsink, it can not placed to replicate filament

Are you aware of how size of LED can affect beam quality? Have you analyzed projector optics system? Or build actual projectors?
It is very high impact factor. Because we design projector around the light source.

Also, 6,000k of daylight white and LED selected wave length white light has different spectrum response character LED white is blue and yellow blend, while day light is full range, just because it’s 6,000k, it does not response same to our eyes like day light represent

Brighter is also your impression observe, not physically measured number. And how those bright zone is layout within beam is also very important

I explain how light source size, position different changes distribution later below.

So you are missing lots of basic aspects about lighting

Then, I shall explain why Relying on unscaled picture is not effective.
It's like you are telling someone, look at him in the picture, he looks tall and big in the picture to me. Your logic is, I took picture of him standing at 100' of distance and still, I can see him very well, he must be tall and big and, ok, but where is the scale? In this photo example case,, what is the zoom, is there anything to compare ? You don't have reference to show a relative evaluation guide. That's, why I advised it is not an accurate way of making evaluation. In lighting picture, At higher exposure, it conceals many of illumination level difference and so many information can be lost. Without showing scale or at least direct comparison, it does not provide useful evaluation factor.

tester, measuring device is developed to help understand what can not be captured in photos. And simulation tools are developed to understand in depth.




Here is the size difference of H11 halogen filament of 1.6mm diameter 4.5mm in length and 8 x Z-ES emitters of OP's linked LED bulb product.
To you, this may not look much different. But LED only can emit from one surface, and it has Lambertian distribution.
Naturally, LED bulb can not emit any light to 12 and 6 o'clock direction. And Stanley H11 projector uses that angle light to create beam center focus. This is why LED bulb shows lower candela reading at beam center despite much higher overall light volume.
276701


Then, if you observe the projector's beam composition,
To illustrate beam composition better, I split our Stanley H11 projector in half, so it can display how half of the beam difference look like by using LED bulb OP posted.
Top is right half of ZES x 4 beam pattern in Stanley H11, this contributes to left half of the beam pattern. You notice highest beam intensity -5.1 degree horizontally divide in half, why beam center become weak with LED

Bottom is H11 filament beam distribution, peak registered at 0.5 degree.

By overlapping right half and left half, halogen filament can create much higher beam intensity, because hot spot overlap at the center within 1 degree of high focus range, while LED hot spot will end up 10 degree apart.

This difference is not small, you are losing most wanted beam intensity

if you can say, this looks the same to you,, then I do not know how to explain to you

I also bet many can not tell the difference just by looking at greyscale to tell which is brighter, where is the brightest, how well distribution is achieved
because greyscale does not have intensity distribution in number notation. This is like how you see the picture of the beam pattern. No clear information, but, it look OK to me, does not mean that is OK or good distribution
276703


The reason OP see more illumination at lower angle is, because LED beam scatter to lower angle as image shows above. This case relative illumination level of near view higher, make relative distance intensity weaker.

Because human eye adjust light input thresh hold at higher illuminance zone, even light is illuminating distance stronger in some optics system, if optics shoot stronger illumination at lower angle ( foreground illumination) relative impression of distance view become weaker.
That is why it is important to understand how beam pattern changes by LED light bulb.

if you come back to me saying, but mine looks fine, that fine by me. But it's not fair to tell others, you are OK, I feel fine and eliminating possible opportunities to learn something can be beneficial.
If OP does not wish such information, that's also fine, I am not pushing data to him, just sharing here so someone who is interested in can study more.

Can you tell which beam pattern is good design?
Cendela is unit of how intense illumination is at measured point. For this sample, all peak spot is positioned at (0.5, -0.3) and camera setting ( exposure is fixed)
276704



And here is the ground view impression by these beam pattern
276705


And here is split image, image 3 illuminate at more distance better than image 1 or 2. This is what distribution difference can come in effect. So OP's concern of, some stronger illumination at lower angle explained in image 1 or 2. This is giving OP's driving experience to be more focused on near view distance.

When you are driving at normal driving speed, your desire is not to see right in front of your car, but where you are heading.
276707


This is what I analyzed and studied, and not impression. result number I obtained and sharing.
Having clean cut off without glare does not indicate any beam quality, other than it does not bother the oncoming driver.
What is under the cut off affects you, and I tried to share these studies so more potential users can enjoy better lighting with more in-depth understanding.

Many manufacture is taking advantage of or not care about those who do not care about much lighting quality.
But that does not mean, you can shut down my study and intention of data-based study for others.

Hope this information can help some users to enjoy more understanding of lighting quality and what is the best value to their preference.
It is important to understand side effects :) as long as user understand that, then I have no place to push data into preference. Hope many enjoys! If anyone interested in lighting questions, feel free to ask me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Excuse me for my terrible typos all around.. still learning English!

To OP, try wiggle bulb to make it sit center on bulb insert to see if you can see any changes in pattern, bulb base is designed smaller than H11 bulb supposed to be and high chance it is off-center or rotationally slightly off too.
It can throw a beam pattern’s hot spot move around

Many aftermarket bulb try to make a universal bulb base between H9 and H11, and 3 tabs are not designed accurately to achieve H11 bulb base shape.
This is a common known issue as well on LED bulbs.

Bulb can be twisted in more beyond stopper reference angle, instead of having LED facing 3 and 9 o'clock position inside of the projector, it may be past that angle slightly. Like,, 3:15 and 9:15 ish small rotational off alignment.
H11 bulb also supposed to have tension spring at bulb base's 12 o'clock. Pushing entire bulb towards the bottom edge of the insert hole. That is proper alignment, but with a slightly smaller diameter of LED bulb's bulb base, lack of proper tension spring on bulb base, bulb has rather large wiggle room at insert.

Hope some of that adjustment can help ease odd hot spot better.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
I think I'm starting to see the real issue here...This isn't an engineering seminar, its an informal discussion forum. Theories are fine, but reality beats all. You can do simulations all you want, but one picture of real world headlights that show what you see when actually looking out the window is much more helpful. There is a reference for comparison, one photo with no lighting vs a photo with the lights on. No CG, no computer trickery, just lights vs no lights. Anybody can see the difference. How many people who want LEDs do you think have advanced testing equipment so they can measure tiny differences that probably keep engineers awake at night but don't mean much of anything to the rest of the world? You are attempting to compare LEDs that don't exist in the real world to whats available to the average consumer. Long technical dissertations on why you think current LEDs don't work are more or less meaningless to most owners who just want better lights than provided as OEM. Most users won't really care if there is a tiny bit of overlap somewhere, or if the dispersion isn't 100% perfect. They just want to know what works and what doesn't, which bulbs to use and which ones to stay away from. As long as the lights come on and are better than the halogens, everything is good. Computer generated graphics and simulations of what your idea of how an LED bulb should perform don't really mean much as nothing like those bulbs are available to anyone anywhere, at least for a reasonable cost. We have to work with what we have. What could be available in 2 or 3 years might be infinitely better than current bulbs, but that isn't really relevant to those who want to upgrade now. What is out there now is just fine even if it doesn't match your impossible expectations. If you really want to be helpful, maybe you should redirect your energy to comparing whats actually available and provide a comparison of which ones are better than the others instead of just saying none of them are any good because I'm working on something better.....
Now, if you see a product that might be dangerous or improper to use on the street, by all means do a write up why you think so.....

Because human eye adjust light input thresh hold at higher illuminance zone, even light is illuminating distance stronger in some optics system, if optics shoot stronger illumination at lower angle ( foreground illumination) relative impression of distance view become weaker.
I think you are mixing low beams with high beams. Long throw with not as much in the foreground is ok for driving at speed with the high beams on, but the low beams need more foreground and less throw. This helps in bad weather - snow, rain, fog etc - and when maneuvering in tight places at slow speeds.


I also bet many can not tell the difference just by looking at greyscale to tell which is brighter, where is the brightest, how well distribution is achieved
because greyscale does not have intensity distribution in number notation. This is like how you see the picture of the beam pattern. No clear information, but, it look OK to me, does not mean that is OK or good distribution
276703
I assume this is low beams?
The upper grayscale picture is obviously brighter, in the distance and the foreground. Most people would be able to see that pretty clearly. To be honest, maybe its just the pictures but neither one is very impressive....


Can you tell which beam pattern is good design?
Cendela is unit of how intense illumination is at measured point. For this sample, all peak spot is positioned at (0.5, -0.3) and camera setting ( exposure is fixed)
276704




And here is the ground view impression by these beam pattern
276705



And here is split image, image 3 illuminate at more distance better than image 1 or 2. This is what distribution difference can come in effect. So OP's concern of, some stronger illumination at lower angle explained in image 1 or 2. This is giving OP's driving experience to be more focused on near view distance.

When you are driving at normal driving speed, your desire is not to see right in front of your car, but where you are heading.
276707
How far away is the wall target? Are those real pictures or computer generated? That makes a big difference. CG relies on data you enter and as such is subject to multiple errors depending on how accurate your data is, how you interpret the data and what you want to display in the animation.
The ground view for #1 is not bad, distance throw is good but foreground is a bit ragged and leaves something to be desired. For low beam lights (if thats whats being shown) more light up closer would be better. Ok for bad weather but not as good as proper fog lights.
#2 has no foreground illumination, so when driving at low speed in parking lots etc it will be harder to see where obstacles are. Driving in bad weather is going to suck with this beam pattern, lots of back scatter and no foreground means zero visibility.
#3 sucks all around, lots of shadows and seems to have an irregular beam pattern with a single bright spot thats way too low. No particular focusing anywhere, no throw. Probably not good for any driving scenario except hard parking at the car show...... Looks like cheap Chinese LEDs to me....or bad aftermarket light boxes maybe.


As to the OP, those particular bulbs generally fit the H11 socket very well. The bases have some adjustment, sometimes all you need to do is move the emitters relative to the base to fix a problem. From what I have seen you get the best beam pattern when the emitters are at 3 and 9 o'clock position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
All of the isocandela chart I posted here is "measured data", and colored for better observation.
And all of the chart is data of currently available aftermarket bulbs, they aren't chart I made up., it's just a result in our Stanley H11 projector.
Consider those data are better in-depth version of graphical information, that beyond typical camera photo can explain. Camera photos only can capture so much, so you can't exactly tell if it is truly beneficial distribution or not. Very limited impression you can get.

Of course, those aren't commonly available infrastructures, equipment, but I have data I can share, so I shared for those who may be interested in. Please do not think this is made up painting, it is actual data.

if you don't want to believe the numbers, that's Ok, but do not deny those data existence comparing against your personal subjective impression. I have been providing measured data numbers, yet, so far, you have not provided any absolute candela information nor understanding how beam distribution contributes to driver view.

Photo with light ON, without lights ON only can give very rough general idea of how light looks to the driver in very very subjective impression, just does not tell how exactly benefitting or disbenefitting such information.
Because, there is no way for you to tell how bright those lights are. It's like stepping on the analog scale without scale grid number notation, telling, look needle pointing so far up. Compare to no light=0. Any number can be bigger than 0, you just showing light on and off, but not comparing how LED light on is brighter than halogen reference.
Telling shed in 500' away, and it is illuminated well in photo I took, you can change that impression simply by adjusting the exposure of the camera. But exposure detail was also not defined. You can't adjust exposure based on 0 illumination,, you got to adjust at highest illumination point, then, got to bring something to compare.

If you show halogen beam reference in the same exposure the same setting, halogen look like this, I think it's about to be 3, then LED look to be 5, then that’s more understandable comparisons. That’s called “scale”
Or RH halogen, LH LED, wall shot, you can "compare" in a more understandable scale.
“I know my scale, if the scale shows around here, it is more than halogen, I know it, but no one here knows how your scale is defined, where is the reference halogen pointed.

2 way to show comparison, one is to define absolute scale grid, telling candela reading. Or other is to show comparable reference, Mark it, here is halogen, and here is LED how it look like in same scale

Iso candela chart I provided has all measured and calculated absolute intensity distribution.

Beam pattern 1~3 comparison are also actual projector's data, colored and scaled in grey, put into road simulations.
And it is hard to believe, but 1 and 2 fail to satisfy FMVSS safety standard. and 3 is the one satisfy FMVSS regulation( it is patchy looking because of data resolution for simulation was lower than other 2) Top 2 are HID projector, aftermarket. The main reason of failure is too much foreground illumination as low beam.

So your logic does not comply to a regulation minimum standard of how foreground illumination balance must be.
What you believe better is actually against what safety regulation defines "better"
That is very hard to tell just by those pictures, that the point I was bringing up here.

BTW, just because meeting the minimum requirement of regulation does not mean it gives you the best night view experience. In fact, I dislike how regulation is outdated!!

But regulation at least prevent bad lamp to disbenefit uses.


Aftermarket LED bulb product does not even have control or consideration to such sately standards,, so off course, they won't work properly.

frankly speaking, so far, none of LED bulbs sample actually pass FMVSS safety regulation standards in Stanley H11 projector.
If you define " not suitable for on-street use" then, I must say all of them. ( for fog lamp application, and few high beam applications, there are Ok to use LED bulbs, but not for Low beams so far, unfortunately.

But,, I do know! That’s not what many paying attention to or interested in, there is better choice within of course. My intention was to point out what you could have been missing.

With that said,,,
Yes, I can definitely provide objective observation of what LED bulb works better within our Stanley H11.
I extracted our halogen projector with me, all data is corrected for high res simulation, infrastructure is ready.
If some LED bulb that wish to be studied, let me know. I can definitely share to contribute.


Back on OP, as arathol and I suggested, installed position should be LED to facing 3 and 9 o'clock.
And also, try double-check if LED position is close to what H11 filament position supposed to be.
Back surface of bulb base 3 tabs, that is reference surface, from there, start of filament should be positioned at 25mm of distance. And filament itself is 4.5mm

Your LED bulb has 4 x ZES, the illumination area is longer than 4.5mm, but if the start of the light-emitting surface edge is closer to 25mm specification, you get a better-controlled beam result in our projector.

276710
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top