From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

France, yellow and halogen[edit]

(Transfered form [Talk:DieSwartzPunkt] where it was incorrectly posted.)

Your assertions about halogen headlamps being unavailable for use in France because of that country's requirement for Selective yellow light were unsupportable because they were wholly incorrect. In fact, a great deal of the development work and initial commercialization of halogen headlamps took place in France. Yellow glass lenses, yellow reflector coatings, and yellow internal filters covering the bulb were among the techniques used to obtain the required yellow light color in conjunction with a colorless halogen bulb. Please refrain from inserting guesses and assumptions into articles, won't you? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I take your point about development work involving yellow internal filters, reflector coatings etc. etc., French law, at the time of yellow headlights specifically required that it was the bulb itself that had to be yellow. A yellow coloured glass front, although it would achieve the same effect, was not actually legal. I have little doubt that had France accepted a method of facilitating, selective yellow headlights using halogen bulbs, they may well have ammended the legislation. Many visitors to France would either fit yellow filters in front of the headlight or even coat the glass with a yellow varnish. Although complying with the spirit of the requirement, such a measure did not meet the letter of the law. This last point is entirely moot however, because non French registered vehicles were exempt from the requirement anyway. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
First off, my request that you refrain from inserting your own guesses and assumptions into articles was not "incorrectly" posted on your talk page. I put it there on purpose, since your history gives the appearance that you've done this before on other articles. Evidently you do not "take my point"; your summary of it is not accurate. Your assertion that French law required the bulb (specifically) to be yellow is not factual, never was, and will remain untrue no matter how often you wish to repeat it. The requirement was for selective-yellow light to be emitted from all road illumination devices (headlamps, fog lamps, driving lamps). Across the whole duration of its force from 1936 to 1993, French regulations never specified or constrained the method by which compliance was achieved. Yellow bulbs were the most common solution prior to the launch of halogen bulbs, because that was the cheapest and easiest solution. However, yellow bulbs were never the only solution, even before the advent of halogen lamps.
There were other unsupported (because unsupportable) guesses and suppositions in the text you inserted and I removed; I suppose you can be disabused of them one at a time here on the talk page if you insist. In the meantime, I note from your first draft of your rebuttal that your assertions regarding the (nonexistent) French requirement for a yellow bulb are based on what you seem to think you remember having been "advised" (i.e., told) by persons unknown sometime in the past. Until you provide the reliably sourced "letter of the law" you seem to think you understand, we can probably go ahead and adjourn this conversation for now. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It was incorrectly posted to my talk page because it was a discussion about article content. As for, "since your history gives the appearance that you've done this before" means that it is you that are now guessing. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Talking of guesses and supposition, where is your evidence that the requirement was simply for a yellow headlight? All the years that I travelled and worked in France, I never saw a yellow headlight on a French car that was not achieved using a yellow coloured bulb. Thus, the premise that it had to be the bulb was not unreasonable. In fact, I never saw a halogen bulbed headlight on any yellow headlighted car. (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't attempt to put unsupported assertions in the article, so I face no burden of proof here. Nevertheless, I'll go ahead and do DieSwartzPunk's homework for him/her and prove you wrong while I'm at it. While your "I don't think I remember ever having seen it, therefore it doesn't exist" approach to the matter falls well short of WP:RS, fortunately there are plenty of WP:RS sources that refute your and DieSwartzPunk's guesses, assumptions, and vague recollections; one of them is this technical paper published in 1970 by the Society of Automotive Engineers. My copy of it was a little over three feet from where I presently sit typing until I got it off the shelf to remind myself of its paper number so I could provide the link.
Now then, I'll also be happy to broaden your horizons by showing you some of those yellow halogen headlamps you think don't exist. See here (Marchal Amplilux units, which take an H1 low beam bulb—go read the H1 article to learn what the "H" stands for—and an H3 high beam bulb, with yellow lenses; more photos and description here), here (another variety of Amplilux, this one with yellow glass filters as a permanent part of the headlamp located over the H1/H3 bulbs; see also here), here (Cibié "Biode" units with permanent yellow glass filters, clearly marked as taking 55w H1 bulbs), here (a Cibié H1 high beam with internal yellow filter, here (same H1 lamp but with yellow lens), here (the matching Cibié H4 lamp with yellow lens), here (Hella low and high beam H1 headlamps with yellow lenses), here (Cibié type 45 fog lamp with H1 bulb and yellow lens), here (BMW E21 3-series yellow-lens halogen headlamps, new in the box), here (Bosch yellow-lens driving lamps, new in box, with H1 bulb seat clearly visible through lens), here and here (two different kinds of original-equipment BMW E36 3-series headlamp with yellow internal optic lenses…first year for the E36 was 1992; nobody was using non-halogen bulbs by then), here (Carello halogen low and high beam headlamps with yellow lenses), here (BMW E30 3-series halogen headlamp with yellow glass lenses…go on, dare to zoom in on the photo and if your monitor is any good you can clearly see the "HC" and "HR" function codes on the low and high beam lenses respectively. You may not know that the "C" is for "Code" which means "low beam" and the "R" is for "Route" which means "high beam", but I bet you can guess what the "H" stands for if you put your thinking cap on). And look over here! It's a new-in-the-box yellow glass lens for Porsche 911 H4 headlamps. There's that pesky "H" again! Post number 6 on this page shows a photo of the earlier twin-reflector/twin-H1-bulb version of that yellow-lens Porsche 911 headlamp, and another set of them can be seen here. Then there's this Mercedes headlamp assembly equipped with Bosch yellow-lens halogen H1 low and high beam lamp units, and I count five different yellow halogen fog lamps here, one of which can be seen removed from its housing here (H'mm…H2 bulb aperture clearly visible on the back, covered by a protective shipping cap…h'mm, yellow filter clearly visible through the lens despite absence of a bulb!). And here is a new-in-box pair of Hella fog lamps with H1 bulbs and yellow lenses. Here is a set of inboard (high beam) headlamps for a French-spec VW Golf/Jetta…gosh, lookit there, it's yet another one with halogen bulbs and yellow internal filters. And here is a seldom-seen (but stubbornly existent!) pair of early-1990s Valeo H1 low beam headlamps with yellow lenses. I could go on (and on and on, as you can see) but I do believe I've probably gone a reasonable distance towards making my point and breaking yours. —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
You may not have made the assertion, but once you reverted the content, you became liable to support what you restored (WP:BURDEN as you are obviously unfamiliar with it). All the above was a complete waste of typing because it is entirely original research. A list of examples proves nothing. You need to cite a verifiable source (WP:VERIFY ). I should have guessed from the manner of your previous post that you were an 'anoroak'. Still, at least you have proved that you don't know everything, because you obviously know fuck all about indenting properly. Don't correct my comments in future if you don't know what you are doing. I was replying to you and not to Dieswartzpunkt as you made it look. .I have corrected my post and indented yours correctly as well (because, unlike you, I do know what I am doing). (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Good heavens, your reading comprehension is atrocious.—Scheinwerfermann T·C23:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Headlamp lens material[edit]

Hello, I have observed that since this century turned, new cars have had headlamp lenses made out of plastic. Before headlamp lenses were made out of thick glass that reminded me of Pyrex cooking vessels intended for use inside an oven. Is it true that it was in fact heat-resistant borosilicate glass? What is the plastic in use nowadays? I suppose it is polycarbonate plastic, but is it regular or somehow treated/coated? I would want answers to these questions in the article. Also, were the transition to plastic lenses possible only after halogen lamps became history? I believe that halogen lamps emitted so much heat that polycarbonate would have melted. So, if the transition was only possible because of technological development in lamps, and a consequence of this (better efficiency, less heat), please point it out in the article. Also, I suppose the use of plastic resulted in small weight savings. Were there monetary savings? Are there some drawbacks in plastic? -- (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I found some info about high heat polycarbonate. In applications it says "automotive ligting". -- (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This [1] says that US makers started using plastic headlamps in the 1980's to save weight. The polycarbonate plastic is less dense than glass, adn the whole reflector/lens assembly can be made with fewer metal parts, further reducing weight. Google Books says Popular Mechanics was writing about plastic lenss in cars in 1991 (comparing their high replacement cost with the cheap sealed beam bulbs). I don't think old-time glass lenses were anything special but maybe I can find a reference as to the kind of glass used; recall that an old-time "sealed beam" used to sell for a coupe of bucks, so I doubt the glass was anything otehr than good old soda-lime ( or maybe with some lead oxide?). So, I don't think it was tied to halogen lamps as much as to the push to save weight in the days of ever-decreasing CAFE standards. Original research: my 1973 Meteor, 1981 K-Car and 1986 VW Jetta all had glass headlamp lenses (and every one of them had a hole in a lens and a burnt bulb as a result), my '94 Passat had plastic (I think...don't recall), and my curent 7-year-old car has plastic lenses, which have yet to develop a hole (but which are getting yellow). --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
"Plastic" headlamp lenses are indeed made of polycarbonate with a coating applied to the front face to protect the polycarbonate from damage by abrasion and UV exposure. In the US, the polycarbonate material and coating combination must be on the AMECA list of materials that are manufacturer-certified as having passed the tests specified in SAE J576; these include a 3-year outdoor exposure period in Arizona (sunny and dry) and the same in Florida (sunny and humid) after which no more than 30% haze is permitted. Outside the US, the UN Regulations on headlamps contain requirements for plastic materials. They're broadly similar (polycarbonate material with coating) but they use an accelerated test with an electric source of UV light (an unshielded arc lamp) rather than putting the material samples out in the sun for a few years. Aside from some early experiments at GE with polycarbonate-lens sealed beams, the first plastic headlamp lenses in the US came out for 1984 on Ford's new-that-year composite replaceable-bulb headlamps. The choice of plastic rather than glass was entirely cost-based. European (rest of the world) regulations did not permit plastic lenses until 1993. The plastic materials are more versatile with respect to styling; more complicated shapes can more easily be moulded. And the plastic lenses weigh less, and are more compatible with European pedestrian-protection regulations governing maximum impact force on pedestrian legs, knees, etc.
Glass headlamp lenses were and are made of either soda-lime "soft" glass or borosilicate "hard" glass, depending on the specific headlamp design and manufacturer. Sometimes lenses are further treated (tempered/toughened) for heavy-duty service as required by the intended application.
Which one's better, plastic or glass? Neither, overall; each has its merits and drawbacks. Glass is breakable, but plastic cooks in the sun and can't effectively be polished (you wind up polishing the hard coat off the lens, then the degradation comes back faster and worse). Replaceable lenses aren't as common as they once were even outside North America because the complex shapes of today's styled headlamps make it very difficult to obtain a good and durable seal without gluing the lens to the housing. Within North America replaceable lenses have always been permitted but never been common because headlamps so equipped are subject to more stringent requirements for reflector durability and repeatable seal integrity, which means higher cost to manufacture.
When I get a chance, I will try and add some or all of this material, appropriately sourced, to the article. My schedule is pretty well booked for the foreseeable future, though, so here's hoping someone else will take a crack at it. —Scheinwerfermann T·C16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Which one's better, plastic or glass? Glass. In 40+ years of driving (more than 500,000 miles combined over a dozen or so vehicles), I have never had a glass lens get broken or cracked (other than the head-on highway collision we suffered in our 1969 Saab 95 which we all walked away from without a scratch BTW). Both of the glass lens on my 23-year-old Honda Accord LX Station Wagon are as clear as the day they were installed (and this car has been parked outside all of it's life). My wife's 2001 Suzuki XL-7, on the other hand, has these fancy plastic lens which have to be polished every few months in order to maintain any semblance of transparency. Surprise! The fancy plastic lens is NOT available separately and NON-OEM replacements list at $200 or more. The dealer quoted us roughly $1,300, installed, to replace both sides with "genuine OEM" parts. Know how much it costs to replace the Honda's headlight if and when it ever breaks? $50 each side (and that includes the sidelight as well). Plastic or glass? Please. The only reason plastic was let in back in 1983 is because everyone was all goo-goo gah-gah over plastic and trying to give everything the "aero" look to impress the ladies in charge with fancy pictures and such while trying to justify the millions being poured into CAD design systems. Plastic, in and of itself, is probably the worst material ever considered for a lens that has to maintain optical clarity under 24/7/365 exposure to direct sunlight. This is just another reason Marketing should NEVER be in charge when it comes to engineering decisions. Caveat: 35+ years as an engineer. JimScott (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

regulations and technical specifications[edit]

These need references to validate their correctness. Some guy posting on the usenet is no different form quoting some person one met from the bar, thus not appropriate reference for wikipedia according to WP:RS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you and the cleanup work you're doing here and in other articles containing citespam and non-RS refs, but while I understand the source of your snark, it's not okeh to insert "some guy on the internet" into article text or reference descriptors. Here on the talk page is the right place to discuss those matters.
The assertion in question (regarding the H2 bulb) is true and correct, but finding RS for it will be difficult or impossible as there are no press releases issued when light sources are deprecated in UN Regulations -- it's just "yes" in one revision of the reg, and "no" in the next. I doubt we'll find an acceptable source (I've done some digging and come up dry); I'm thinking we ought to scrub that assertion from this article altogether (under the "cite it or drop it" doctrine) and let it be dealt with over in Automotive light sources. —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Reverting everything because you don't like the way its expressed as opposed to changing the way its expressed does not seem proper. Rather than just blanking, by tagging it as such, it was intended to draw attention to encourage references. What do you think is a better description to note that reference is "some random dude named xx xx" "on the internet" or "was heard at the bar stool".... ?
I agree with cite it or drop it, but inclusionists would disagree with me. also, marking it as "some dude said" can encourage someone who knows where to look as said above. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, no. That's just not how we do it here. Another thing we don't do here is intersperse our talk page comments with others' talk page comments. Your new comment -- your whole new comment -- goes after the whole of the existing comment to which you are referring. I've cleaned that up for you this time, but next time do it correctly, please and thank you. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I have had other editors disagree. Please provide wiki policies on dos and don'ts so I'm going by what its actually should be. Nobody raised issues with "intersperse" thing. Is that just a disagreement in style or is that a Wiki policy? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry to butt in, but the wiki policies you constantly try to use as the basis for the reasoning behind your edits are not the definitive/last say in how an article is set up. Where the content of an article is inappropriate and unsupported for ruling by a policy, those policies impede the progress of an article rather than help it. They are to be used as guidelines rather than as strict adhered rules. Regarding the content of the article, I think this article is written in a historical/essay-like style similar to the styles in historical articles such as the one on the featured page today, so objecting on the style of the writing is not a reason for blanking. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been following me around everywhere. The issue on hand is using what some random people said on usenet or forums as reference. I'm totally for cite or drop, because reflective write up is more or less rambling off with things out of your rear; however someone like you would object so I didn't just "drop it". "unreferenced is not an excuse to not remove" is not an excuse to write up a bunch of things off top of your head. Another thing is intersperse on talk page. As far as I know it's just a matter of style. If someone says "we don't do it that way", I ask for policies, because I don't take "because I said so" type non-sense. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone "like me"? You think you know how I edit? I don't subscribe to the irrelevant tags of deletionist or inclusionist or anything else. When I see blatant original research and anything with bias in the writing style/tone, I delete it. If that type of content is written by an IP/redlink and I see which edit the person added the content, then I delete it as it serves no use to the article. But if the content is decent, contains no major bias, and only needs a citation/decent citations, then I leave it alone. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Registered/non-registered is no excuse to treat differently. You're admitting to biased deletion against non-registered users. What difference does it make if it was written by an IP/redlink or if it was written by M0rphzone or whoever? It does not matter who edits or writes when the "decent" contents are verifiable. If its not, it doesn't matter if the opinion write up is by IP/redlinks or registered members. It's about the contents and references, not the wiki editors.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't attribute those kinds of behavior for no reason. You seem to have forgotten that the majority of IPs display a tendency to provide inadequate contributions with biases and lacking references, or are outright acts vandalism. And it seems some registered and established users are no better than IPs as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The don't-intersperse-on-talk-pages policy is so basic that it has its own template. See Template:Intersperse. Also, please slow down a little on your edits and take a more thoughtful approach. You have deleted as "banter from an editor's own personal knowledge" content that was arrived at after a great deal of well-supported discussion here on the talk page. Everyone's welcome to edit any article, of course, but you are a newcomer to this one and you are doing damage. Unintentional damage, but damage nonetheless. If you have more than just a passing interest in this article, please take the time to examine its history and that of its talk page. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
…and furthermore, Cantaloupe2, edits like this are deleterious to the project, not constructive to it. Please study up on WP:RED. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Cantaloupe2, you appear bound and determined to bull forward with your edits and talk page be damned. That (I repeat myself) is not how we do it here. When you are being asked to discuss your edits on the talk page, you discuss your edits on the talk page. We work by consensus here, not by UGH. Please be advised that Google hits are not the sine qua non gauge of anything on Wikipedia. In this edit, you say you didn't find a particular reference writer on Google Scholar. Perhaps not, but here is RS-compliant support for the notion that Stern is a recognised expert in the field. You need to be a lot less unilateral. Now, please. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I see he's an editor at a website. I'm not in full agreement he's recognized as an expert in lighting or automotive lighting engineering. I look for authorship in peer reviewed journal at IES, SAE, IEEE; relevant published books through credible technical publishers etc that puts him at a status beyond enthusiast. I know that WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't everything, but there's insufficient evidence to show that he's a true expert in this field. Is DrivingVisionNews something that's considered a quality journal in academia or industry? I'm not finding it referenced as an authoritative source. I'm seeing it along the line of field relevant 'zine. Perhaps you can explain otherwise. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, here's an SAE link. Click the "Free" button next to "Front matter and Table of Contents", then see "About the author" on p4 of the resultant PDF. This PDF confirms his seat on the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board's Visibility Committee. Here's a "he's an expert" assertion that looks at least passably credible, here's another, and here's a page full of chapter-by-chapter(?!) hits for a series of topical reports professionally written by Stern. As for Driving Vision News, it gives every appearance of being an industry/trade journal, not a "zine". Zine subscriptions do not cost €4K/year. It looks to me as though the reliability of Stern's expertise is greater than a "some people say" level.
Do you want to do another RfC on the reliablity of the(se) source(s)? I don't think two/three editors' opinions are sufficient for determining whether a source is reliable or not. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
If YOU want to, go for it Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anyways, like I said before, third-party news sites are not always reliable or accurate for topics like this that may be obscure/specific in technicality/historical details. What we need are books, rather than online sources as they do not provide adequate information. I think Google Books has some books that address the uncited parts of this article. - M0rphzone (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea, however we need to pay attention to the publisher as well. Now that we have many self publishing companies, its like buying a domain name and letting whatever you want to say go out unilaterally. A book by car nut Joe Schmoe through Self Publish Company is no better than personal website. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think Google would waste their time and resources scanning books that are "unreliable". - M0rphzone (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Just because its on Google Books doesn't mean its reliable. There are plenty of less than authoritative books form self proclaimed experts on Google Books especially around internet and technology topics. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
You know, I could plop another {{citation needed}} tag right on your comment too. Sure, if you can find them, by all means use those sources, but that doesn't mean books scanned into Google Books are self-proclaimed experts or the like that you are insinuating. I provided the link since it was relatively simple to search up and we can use "hard-copy" books that we normally have to find in libraries, but there are others. Just need to search more specifically on other search engines. But still I'd rather we use a hard copy book that may not be scanned than online sources. Someone could take a trip to the library and find some nice books to use. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

HID color temperature[edit]

The statement "The correlated colour temperature of HID headlamp lamps is between 4100K and 4400K" has an issue. The studies done at the time may have only investigated the ones in those range, however HID lamps are made in anything from 3,000 to 10,000K+ Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no such issue. 3,000 to 10,000K+ range you're seeing is for illegitimate (illegal) "HID kits". The assertion was true when it was written, but it is slightly outmoded; legitimate/legal automotive HID light sources now have a CCT between 4100K and 5000K. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You changed the upper range to 5000K without any citation and removed the tag. Where did you come up with 5000K being the upper limit beyond "I know this" ?. This section is about HID lamps and unless you're arguing that HIDs that fall outside of 4100K<x<5000K are not high intensity discharge type lamps, its inappropriate to dismiss them. The sentence needs to be narrowed down to read OEM or factory installed HIDs are..... insert range (cite here). Also, if 3,000K HIDs are legal in India, Pakistan, whatever, such a claim does not lend global point of view, which is expected here. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

British vs American spelling[edit]

On the world of, does American spelling always prevail over British spelling? If it per policy to "Americanize"? if so never mind, but otherwise, please provide rationale. I'm referring to recent edit by M0rphzone to go through and changeover all British spelling to American spelling. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I just changed with my edits anyways; you can change it back since the majority of the article is focuses on European models and specifications (of course, this means that the article may not talk about all types of headlamps such as those used in other countries besides the ones in Europe and Anglophone countries). - M0rphzone (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Oy vey. Go read WP:ENGVAR, both of you, and comply with it. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. " There is no issue, so I say keep itCantaloupe2 (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
being as they didn't comply with it, I reset the article to the original version of english used.

Removing questionable sources[edit]

I'm removing them, because I've found authoritative sources on the matter on hand,which is the legality in the US. It's unnecessary to add some website which says the same thing where one author Daniel Stern has unilateral say in what gets on there. The hella picture clearly refers to the US, but does not make it explicitly so. The source is clearer in breadth of application and is the authoritative source on legality in the US. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So Daniel Stern's source is unreliable or what? What about the SEMA and Web Citation ones? The image ref is useless, but the others aren't. Do you want to remove all three or one of them? And also, why the line break in the ref? - M0rphzone (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Moved from edit summary: - M0rphzone (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
"For government enforcement action, its unnecessary to echo back and say "SEMA said NHTSA did this" when we have direct link to NHTSA that says they've done so" (Cantaloupe)
I consider he's of "some people says" level. He has total control over his website. Mentioned among car nuts on forums do not count. It's not proving that he isn't an expert, its proving that he is and so far, there's no professional organizations or academic journals that vouch for him as an expert. Clarify what you mean by "line break". As for SEMA, it's no different from saying "some webzine says that it has read on the company's site saying company announced this and that" when there's a link to company's site saying the same thing. - Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, here's an SAE link. Click the "Free" button next to "Front matter and Table of Contents", then see "About the author" on p4 of the resultant PDF. This PDF confirms his seat on the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board's Visibility Committee. Here's a "he's an expert" assertion that looks at least passably credible, here's another, and here's a page full of chapter-by-chapter(?!) hits for a series of topical reports professionally written by Stern. As for Driving Vision News, it gives every appearance of being an industry/trade journal, not a "zine". Zine subscriptions do not cost €4K/year. It looks to me as though the reliability of Stern's expertise is greater than a "some people say" level. —Scheinwerfermann T·C03:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC) and assertions on the level that "some people say he's an expert" sort of like someone in your community that community members refer to as "expert on".. SAE: I wasn't able to locate references to Stern. NASTRB: same. wasn't able to locate his name. DrivingVisionNews: It is not frequently cited elsewhere in publications. Appeal to expensiveness is not an indication of recognition of authoritativeness. On result, I see he comes up. Perhaps THESE JOURNALS could be used as references if they address relevant topics. His personal website, though, is biased towards ECE over DOT and much of it is his personal opinion. Citing his personal business webpage as a reference still on shaking ground as far as meeting WP:RSCantaloupe2 (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The comment about Driving Visino News' cost wasn't intended to indicate authority, it was intended as a response to your dismissal of that site as some kind of a fan zine. If you weren't able to locate the Stern refs in the SAE doc, you didn't follow the rather clear step-by-step pointer I gave you for it. I'm not sure why you're not seeing the NASTRB Stern ref; it comes up clearly for me. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cantaloupe, your edit comment: "lining up before formatting queen comes waltzing in" violates WP:CIVILITY. If you want to continue editing this article, I'd recommend you not making snide remarks like a 12 year old. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And for your question on the formatting issue, the title, "Glare from Headlamps and other Front Mounted Lamps Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108;
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment" was broken up like this. I'm not sure why you did that, but I've already fixed it. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

K2 Motors COI edit/astroturfing[edit] US Walnut, California, United States,PAETEC Communications,K2 Motors

I've reverted several changes such as this as it was discovered that it was the company itself astroturfing based on IP lookup Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Good to leave headlights on all the time[edit]

Its good to leave your lights on because the alternator in your car needs to recharge your battery. People don't know this but if a battery isnt charged for a long time, all it does is age. You need a battery that recharges or parts of it will become dead. Leaving your lights on while the engine is on is a good thing at times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

How would that cause the battery to even get discharged, since you've got the engine running the whole time? If it's not discharged, it can't be recharged. Blargg (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this commentor has no idea how automotive electrical systems work. Yes it is correct that if you let a bettery just sit idle for a long time it will discharge and the cells will decay. However when the vehicle is running with the lights off the car's ignition system (distributer/coil/spark plugs etc) will still use the battery. Besides most cars from the past 30 years have at least electronic fuel injection and fuel pump controled by the ECU. Not to mention the radio, instrument cluster lights, infotainment systems, electronic drivers aids (traction control, abs, tpms) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


In Australia, the device itself is called a headlight and the beam of light is called a headlight beam. This is contrary to the article claiming that everywhere in the world, the device is only ever properly called a "headlamp" and the beam of light is always properly called a "headlight". Therefore, the sentence:

"While it is common for the term headlight to be used interchangeably in informal discussion, headlamp is the term for the device itself, while headlight properly refers to the beam of light produced and distributed by the device."

Should either be removed because of a lack of evidence to suggest this outrageous claim to global language, or should be corrected with more accurate information so as to not mislead readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong! This matter been well discussed and documented, but the device called a "headlamp" in Australia, too, as you can see from this Australian company and this SA government document as well as the national Australian Design Rules themselves! 18:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


This is an excellent work! My complements to all! I noticed that this Headlamp article in the first paragraph of the Tungsten-Halogen section mentions light output power in Lumens" then in "candella" and in the second paragraph in lumens. Are these referecnces to the same standards? Why the change in units? or perhaps why not have both units listed for each reference as some might be more comfortable in one set of units and one in the other? I personally prefer both as i am trying to learn more about this subject and am finding info in both units and want to have a consistent reference in BOTH units.

Thanks,  Glennndavis (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The units are for measuring different things. Lumen is the total power of visible light, such as that emitted by a bulb. Candelas are used to measure how intense the light is, in a particular direction - how concentrated or focussed the light is, as well as the total amount of power. A light source with a luminous intensity of one candela uniform in in all directions emits a total of 12.56 lumens; if the intensity was one candela uniformly ofver a half-sphere, the source is emitting a total of 6.28 lumens, and so on. Solid angles always troubled me till I started comparing them to the areas of continents on the globe; for example, Asia occupies a litte more than one steradian of solid angle (if it were round and not Asia-shaped). --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
And you clearly don't know what each unit represents. A light source can emit 1,000,000 candela and yet emit no lumens at all. The fundamental point, as you noted but failed to pick up on, is that lumens is a measure of visible light flux (corrected for response of the human eye), but candela includes all light both visible and invisible. The relationship between candela and lumen is based on the (often omitted) assumption that all the light expressed in candela is visible and is at the peak of human eye response. The unit that should be used for light directed in a particular direction is the unit of illuminance or the lux which does take eye responsed into account. If the total light output of a 1000 lumen (isotropic) source can be captured and directed into a beam of 1 square metre, then the illuminance is 1000 Lux. The issue is confused because some organisations such as ANSI use lumens to express the light output of items like video projectors. This saves them from having to express the brightness in lux, the value of which would only be valid at one single projector to screen distance. I B Wright (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Good thing you're always Wright. You'd better go fix the Candela article then, since it appears to disagree with you. You might also have to fix the SI article and a few others, as well as some textbooks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

HID & halogen luminance claims are implausible[edit]

The "Increased safety" section says "Automotive HID lamps offer about 3000 lumens and 90 Mcd/m2 versus 1400 lumens and 30 Mcd/m2 offered by halogen lamps." I don't think either of those luminances can be correct for any realistic throw distance. For example: Given a perfect reflecting diffuser, the HID case requires concentrating the light into an area of only (3000/pi/90,000,000 =) 0.0000106 m2, which may be even smaller than the area of the arc between the electrodes.

Please check those luminances and specify the distance at which the values are obtained.--Therealdp (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Those figures you doubt are actually correct. They refer to the flux (lumens) and the luminance of the light source itself (the filament coil or the arc). They don't refer to light flux in the beam or luminance on the roadway ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
These figures are dubious, but not for the reason initially stated here. Halogens now are pushing over 2500 lumens with 9011 (HIR1) bulbs. MWisBest (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yellow light[edit]

WOW, WOW, somebody did some real digging to come up with that French legislative record from 1936 announcing the start of yellow headlamp requirements in France! I have long wondered what inspired the French to enact that law, and had heard a variety of explanations but always without documented proof. I made some adjustments (I think/hope they are improvements) to the "light colour" and "yellow light" sections of the article. From the Selective yellow article's talk page I pulled interesting citations to current regulations requiring yellow front lights on all vehicles in Monaco (I kind of doubt this is enforced -- yellow lights specifically for one tiny country just seems very unlikely -- but I have no idea how to go about finding out). Also, I have tagged some assertions that need support. I deleted a claim that yellow headlamps are allowed throughout Europe "on vehicles that originally had them". If someone can find a reliable citation backing that up, let's put it back in, but I have pored through a large amount of vehicle regulatory code from a bunch of European countries, and I have yet to find anything reserving yellow lights for only those vehicles that originally were equipped with yellow lights. I can't say for 100% sure exactly what the whole situation is, because I haven't looked at the codes from each and every European country. Obviously some countries permit either color, that's been the case for many years. France's current vehicle code says "white or yellow" (see here and note no limitation for yellow lights only being allowed if the vehicle was originally equipped) while Germany's says "Only white" (see here). I would like to be able to tabulate a complete list of which countries permit/prohibit yellow headlights, but that would be a huge task. Anyway, again, WELL DONE to whomever found that French document! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not troll. As you have sources to emprove the article, go for it. But keep in mind, there's also a historical fact. Differ btwn makers headlamps an position lamps! France had yollow head lamps. Today in Germany allweather bulbs are avail providing warm white light, but check for use in all Europe. --Hans Haase (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Um...excuse you? What is this accusation of "trolling" based on? And what is "Differ btwn makers headlamps an position lamps!" supposed to mean? (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
In USA turn singnals are used as position markers, too. This amber bulbs or/and lamps use high power for signals, low power for markers. Bulbs are avail in 36/8 and 21/5 watts, also 21/4 watts. The former french head lamps were yellow. For the German regulations, use the official source. It is true France switched form yellow to white head lights. --Hans Haase (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course amber is not the same as selective yellow. I don't see where anyone has confused the two or claimed they are the same, so again, where is your claim of "trolling" coming from, and what error do you think you're correcting? (Speaking of errors, there is no 36/8w bulb. 27/8w, yes.) (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Headlamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Automatic beam switching[edit]

The first sentence in the "Automatic beam switching" section says:

"Even when the high beam is prohibited by the presence of other drivers on the road, drivers generally do leave them on all the time.[1]".

This claim is not supported by the cited reference, which pretty much says the opposite ("The results indicate that high-beam headlamp use is low"). Even if it is true in the USA, it is not true in other parts of the world and certainly not in the UK, where it is rare for drivers not to dip their lights when there is oncoming traffic. (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Headlamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Headlamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

more cornerstones for use of directional lights in cars[edit]

From German Wikipedia:

Ein erstes Kurvenlicht wurde bereits 1918 im Cadillac Type 57 angeboten, später für das Modell V16 von 1930. Bei Tatra wurde 1935 im Tatra 77 und später im Tatra 87 ein Kurvenlicht verbaut. Auch der Tucker Torpedo, der ab 1948 nur in einer Kleinstserie produziert wurde, besaß einen dritten Scheinwerfer in der Mitte, das sogenannte „Zyklopenauge“.
Im September 1968 wurde das Kurvenlicht erstmals in Europa serienmäßig von Citroën im DS eingesetzt. Über einen Seilzug, der mit der Lenkung verbunden war, wurde das Fernlicht gelenkt.

From the web:

Directional headlights have been around at least since the 1928 Willys-Knight 70D Touring Car and were featured on the Duesenbergs in the 30s and Citroën in the 50s.

Thanks. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Future headlamps Suggestion[edit]

Something we should definitely add is a section about the "smart" headlights developed at Carnegie Mellon's cs department. I should really add it myself, but because I'm an idiot, if I never get around to it, I wrote a blog post about it that may be of use to some other wikipedian. Test35965 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mefford, M.L.; Flannagan, M.J.; Bogard, S.E. (2006). "Real-world use of high-beam headlamps" (PDF). University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Retrieved 2009-02-16.