backtop

Auto Audi R8 V10 Gets all LED Lighting
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - January 5, 2009 9:44 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 112 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jan 10 at 9:14 PM
Every light on the new Audi R8 V10 uses LEDs from interior lighting to the headlights

When Audi first introduced its R8 sports car, it turned some heads with its swoopy design and relatively low price tag for the world of exotic cars. The V8 engine that it had at launch was down on power compared to other exotics on the market making it less appealing to the well-heeled buyers the vehicle was meant to attract.

When we think of green automobiles, the first thing that comes to mind is fuel economy. However, there are other aspects to a vehicle that can be green and reduce carbon emissions that have nothing to do with fuel economy. One of those areas is the vehicles lighting according to Audi.

The new Audi R8 sports a much more powerful V10 engine that can push the vehicle to close to 200 MPH. Not only is the vehicle one of the fastest Audi's ever produced, it is the one of the first cars to bear the Audi marquee that will exclusively use power efficient LED lighting everywhere.

LEDs are used for the turn indicators, headlights, running lights and all interior lighting. The headlights used in the new R8 are the first in a completely new generation of LED only headlamps. Head of the Light and Visibility Department at Audi, Dr. Wolfgang Huhn said, "A lot of people initially viewed this development (LED lighting) as a mere marketing gimmick. Yet everyone who has seen these lights in action is not only astonished by the excellent output but also thrilled with the homogenous distribution of light and the agreeable, daylight-esque colour of the light.”

Many high-end cars today use xenon headlights for their brightness and energy-efficient design. A typical xenon headlight puts out about 80 lumens of light per watt. Early LED headlamps that Audi used on vehicles and concepts put out a mere 18 lumens per watt. The new LEDs used in the R8 are able to put out 100 lumens per watt, making them more efficient than xenon headlights for the first time ever.

One of the most interesting aspects of the new LED lighting system used on the R8 is that the light beam from the headlamps can be digitally controlled and changed as the environment changes. The lights can not only offer an indefinite lifespan, but the beam can be brighter when needed and then self-dim by changing the light beam when the vehicle gets close to other vehicles on the road. This helps prevent the possibility of blinding oncoming drivers.

Huhn also said, "We’re striving to create intelligent headlights and taillights which think and anticipate in the interest of enhancing a driver’s safety and comfort. For example, there are already high-beam headlights in pre-series development, which will allow drivers to navigate roads at night without temporarily blinding oncoming drivers. This is made possible by a variable distribution of light: An electronic system continuously calculates the distance to any approaching vehicles to ensure that the road ahead is ideally illuminated at all times – without irritating oncoming drivers."

DailyTech first covered the use of LEDs in headlights in October of 2006.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Schrag4 on 1/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By FITCamaro on 1/5/2009 10:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
Its doubtful that the use of these lights allows Audi to run an alternator that has a reduced load on the engine and thus potentially would improve fuel economy.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By BrockSamson on 1/5/2009 11:33:56 AM , Rating: 4
Actually the article clearly states that the new LEDs (100 lumens per watt) are more efficient than the old xenon lights (80 lumens per watt). The new LEDs are getting 25% more light for the same amount of power or using 20% less power for the same amount of light and that is clearly a win either way for the LEDs.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/5/2009 1:36:08 PM , Rating: 5
I know what the article says, but in this case, it is actually wrong about the consumption.

This site has tested the car (it's in spanish)

http://www.km77.com/00/audi/r8/52fsi/2009/t01.asp

And if you follow the link where it talks about the led light detail, this pops up:

The day running lights draw as little as 6w, but the cruising lights draw 50w, vs 55w for a halogen lamp, and only 35w for the xenon lights.

Fuel consumption doesn't seem to be affected by the kind of lighting, though.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By tastyratz on 1/5/2009 2:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
yes it uses 50w. This does not mean they are using 50w to create the same light as a 35w hid like you might be thinking.

according to that article you linked the audi is producing 400 lumens for 12 watts. 33 1/3 lumens per watt x 50 watts would be 1666 2/3 lumens.
The Dailytech article states that LED's capable of 100 lumens per watt are coming out this year.

quote:
The first LED headlights in the Pikes Peak concept generated 18 lumens while the next generation of white high-performance LEDs hit the market this year with a whopping 100 lumens per watt – surpassing the efficiency of xenon lights for the first time.


While this may be misleading readers to think THOSE are the LED's on the audio, I think it was just referencing just what point we are at now with LED's.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/5/2009 2:55:17 PM , Rating: 3
You are correct.

Just tried to state that there was no energy saving in this case, compared to HIDs, as the article might have led to think.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By sprockkets on 1/6/2009 12:47:01 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, they may be more efficient, but here's the problem: they put off so much heat they need cooling to prevent premature failure. Not like this problem cannot be overcome, but still, heat doesn't kill HID like it would LED.

If anything, perhaps this would prevent losers like Scion and Civic owners from being able to drop in LED replacements into headlamp assemblies which never were made for all that extra light. Wait, even a$$holes in trucks now are putting in 4 of them, as if 2 was not enough. These people are asking for their headlamps and fogs to be busted.

Btw, I saw an Audi with LED daytimes, pretty nice looking.

There is also another car getting LED interior lighting, and one most can afford, the upcoming Mazda3.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/6/2009 6:27:58 AM , Rating: 2
In the case of HIDs, all you need is to keep the glass clean for it to not overheat (that's why for factory HID equipped cars the use of headlight washers is mandatory), but for LEDs, it is just what you said.

In the case of this R8, it uses an internal cooling system plus the cleaner.

HIDs already consume less than these LEDs, and if we count how much power the cooling system draws, you end up with something more power hungry than halogen lamps.

Anyway I think LEDs are the future, and thanks to companies like AUDI pushing the technology, that future might not be that far away.


By MrPoletski on 1/6/2009 7:05:21 AM , Rating: 2
mmm nice, sounds like a bunch of non-visible light being given off by the bulb too (obviously, being as it's essentially a black body radiator).

Perhaps this wasted energy is similar to that lost in the LED package. After all, only a small percentage of the light from an LED actually escapes the LED package due to it's massive refractive index...


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Jeffk464 on 1/5/2009 11:42:26 AM , Rating: 3
Alternators pull more or less power from the engine based on the draw from charging the battery and whatever power requirements there are at the time. It probably wouldn't have that much impact on mpg's though, for that they should have stuck with the V8. That being said I can't bash their engineering improvements to LED headlights, I like the idea.


By DeepBlue1975 on 1/6/2009 11:27:32 AM , Rating: 2
Audi claims this V10 has about the same consumption on normal conditions.

I'm not too sure about how many people would go for the steroids version if they just want to cruise at 60mph, though :D


By Scott586 on 1/6/2009 12:15:15 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't see mention of it here, but consider a gas-powered welder in your efficiency debate. I'm guessing many can relate to this easily.

A simple example of fossil fuel converted to electricity. As electrical demand increases (begin welding or turn up amperage) the engine experiences more load and responds with more throttle (fuel).


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/5/2009 5:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its doubtful that the use of these lights allows Audi to run an alternator that has a reduced load on the engine and thus potentially would improve fuel economy.


Why is this getting downrated ?

People must not understand how automotive electrical systems work. The alternator is being driven by a belt on the engine. No matter what light bulb you use, the car will not use any more or less fuel than it otherwise would.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Gzus666 on 1/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/5/2009 7:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While it will not directly consume more fuel, the engine must be throttled up to make up for the additional load, otherwise it would stall at idle. Also the additional load will cause the engine to work harder to produce the same speeds. In turn, this will consume more fuel in most cases. Would it be negligible in this case? Yea.


Oh boy its Gzus... ok, I'll bite.

The engine drives the alternator. The alternator does not LOAD the engine more or less based on electrical load.

quote:
While it will not directly consume more fuel, the engine must be throttled up to make up for the additional load, otherwise it would stall at idle.


What are you getting at here ? What electrical conditions, in normal operation, would cause the car to stall if its not being throttled up ?

quote:
Would it be unmeasurable in this case? Yea.


Fixed.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By foolsgambit11 on 1/5/09, Rating: 0
By iamezza on 1/6/2009 1:05:05 AM , Rating: 1
As an example of this, I drive an old carburettor fed 4cyl, and when I'm sitting in the car at idle if I switch on my headlights I can see on the tacho and hear the engine rpm's drop by approx 25-50rpm. This means there is more load being put on the engine by the alternator and therefore using more fuel.

For comparison my Air-Con drops the revs by approx 150-200rpm at idle.


By Iketh on 1/6/2009 1:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
you are very incorrect. the alternator is harder to turn the larger the output it must produce. now in this situation, with a v10 engine, there will be a lot of unused energy during mild cruising if intelligent fuel consumption is not in use, ie. shutting down half the cylinders, that the alternator will use


By MrPoletski on 1/6/2009 6:36:00 AM , Rating: 3
Get an altenator, turn it.

Now short the contacts on it and try turning it again.

Shorting it applies an electrical load, a very high one.


By mindless1 on 1/10/2009 8:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
You do not understand how an alternator works, nor an ECM for any remotely modern ICE engine.

Increased electrical load on the battery reduces voltage, alternator load increases, resistance via magnetic fields in the alternator oppose freewheeling of the alternator pulley - proportional to the electrical load.

The ECM on an engine automatically increases fuel, air, among other refined parameters to make the engine maintain the same RPM under varying load at idle, and that load requires more gas pedal travel to attain the same degree of acceleration or else lower speed = longer trip.

What you were suggesting, that an alternator would be a constant load despite the charging current needed, would be a terribly wasteful design that would also cook the battery through overcharging when there was a low electrical load for example in the daytime without the wipers or radio running or even anytime actually since the alternator has to be oversized for good lifespan.

As another person mentioned, do a simple test. Take an alternator, or even a simple DC brushed motor. Turn it by hand and note the resistance, the force needed to turn it. Next, put a 100 Ohm resistor across it's output as a load and try to turn it again. Next a 10 Ohm resistor, and next a dead short (practically 0 Ohms). You will notice it gets harder and harder to turn, you won't even need to short it to 0 Ohms so it's best not to cause excessive heat by even trying this last test.


By foolsgambit11 on 1/5/2009 8:14:28 PM , Rating: 1
I think you're off here. If you have a large number of electronic devices in your car, you will get lower gas mileage with them on than with them off. The difference these LED lights represent is probably immeasurable in real world driving. But that doesn't change the fact that you've got the principles wrong. Alternators are not a constant-load device. The voltage regulator uses battery voltage (and therefore, by proxy, electrical load) to control alternator loading, which changes the amount of engine power used to generate electricity, which affects fuel efficiency. Don't you remember the debate about daytime running lights increasing fuel consumption?

As for the idea that the alternator, being belt-driven, would represent a constant load on the engine.... well, as an example: You know you use more fuel when you run your A/C, right? That's a belt-driven compressor increasing load on the engine (and therefore, fuel consumption) when you turn it on.


By Samus on 1/5/2009 7:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its doubtful that the use of these lights allows Audi to run an alternator that has a reduced load on the engine and thus potentially would improve fuel economy.


I would say the complete opposite. Lighting systems use more electricity than all other systems in a car COMBINED. Unless you have some ridiculous aftermarket car stereo, typical headlights and fog lights use over 200-watts constant.

I did a test on my drive to Michigan and back to Chicago over the holiday. Air temperatures and weather conditions were similar.

I drove to Ann Arbor, 4 hours, 250 miles, on a completely topped off tank of fuel, at 75MPH, during the day without headlights or foglights. I have Sylvania Silverstar halogen, not some HID systems that can be slightly more efficient (35w per light.) On the way back, I again topped off my tank and did the same exact route, in the same amount of time, 4 hours, at 75mph, with my headlights and fog lights. My fuel economy suffered over 20 miles. Thats nearly a gallon of fuel just for driving at night.

However, there is a tailwind driving north and that could have been a factor, but to my study's benifit, I researched wind speed for my travel days, and was surprised that the wind conditions were more substantial when I left Chicago from east-bound lake effect winds than when I drove back.

Next time I'm going to measure alternator current during a long drive. As the voltage regulator calls for more ampers, the alternator will have more load on the serpentine belt. That's just how it works. Most cars (Ford calls it SmartCharge) have a variable output program in the regulator that does a number of things, such as topping off the battery (but not overcharging it) and turning the alternator OFF at high RPM's to increase horsepower during acceleration. Why do you think they'd do this if there weren't some sort of economical benifit?


By glennpratt on 1/5/2009 9:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
The load an alternator puts on the engine is not static. More power use will draw more HP from the engine. If you don't believe me, go try to jump a dead battery while your car is idling and listen as the motor slows.

Or in my case, when my engines warm and idling at 500 RPM, I can hear the engine slow when I turn the headlights on.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By robert5c on 1/5/2009 10:28:30 AM , Rating: 3
no,

the use of led's or standard headlights will have NO impact on the fuel economy...

fuel is not burned in a vehicle to produce electricity...electricity is the byproduct of fuel used to turn the engine to drive the wheels...and an alternator at the same time...while the alternator does consume little bit of the horsepower...a car manufacture doesn't change the alternator to a less powerful one because of the use of such things as led's...

the alternator strength is picked such that while idling, the car will stay electrically on if the battery is removed...at any point pass idle you are producing excess energy that is not needed to keep the car running...so while driving your car...your led headlights are not any more economical...

this use of this technology in this manner is more energy efficient on paper...but has no real impact on the environment. the polar bears in the arctic won't live a day longer because you bought a 115k car with led headlights instead of xenon


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By joex444 on 1/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Jeffk464 on 1/5/2009 11:49:28 AM , Rating: 4
When I worked at nissan we always started the car before removing the battery. It saves reprogramming the stereo, and doesn't hurt the car one bit.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Gzus666 on 1/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Jeffk464 on 1/5/2009 12:03:10 PM , Rating: 3
Trust me if we were frying ecu's we would have had to replace them, and they are not cheap.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Gzus666 on 1/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Jeffk464 on 1/5/2009 12:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
Come on man, you want me to believe somebody was inflating tires with lighter fluid.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Gzus666 on 1/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Jeffk464 on 1/5/2009 12:29:29 PM , Rating: 4
This is a tech site, if you want to go around insulting people go to myspace.


By yacoub on 1/5/2009 12:32:22 PM , Rating: 1
This IS a tech site, but don't talk about doing foolish non-tech things and assume you won't get called on it by someone with more technical knowledge.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By yacoub on 1/5/2009 12:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
He doesn't mean FILLING the tires with lighter fluid, he means using lighterfluid to get the tire to mount onto the rim. I've seen it done too.

Also, Grus666: That other guy probably worked on old domestics with giant circuit boards with those seemingly inch-wide circuit traces that aren't going to fry as quickly as a more sensitive modern or foreign car would with a more complex nano-meter scale circuitry. :)


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Rugar on 1/5/2009 12:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
I've never seen anyone inflate a tire with lighter fluid, but I have worked in shops where it was common to seat a tire on the rim with starter spray. Tire soap is safer, but not always available and every diesel shop I've ever been in has starter spray.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Gzus666 on 1/5/2009 12:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've never seen anyone inflate a tire with lighter fluid, but I have worked in shops where it was common to seat a tire on the rim with starter spray. Tire soap is safer, but not always available and every diesel shop I've ever been in has starter spray.


Basically that is what I meant. When you are seating the bead, you are inflating the tire at least partially, otherwise the bead won't pop. Also, he did it on a passenger tire, which was the best part.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/5/2009 7:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Basically that is what I meant.


Excuse me but you clearly said FILLED a car tire with lighter fluid. Now that you got called on it, you "meant" something ENTIRELY different, and frankly, far less idiotic and dangerous then you originally intended.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Samus on 1/6/2009 4:09:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When I worked at nissan we always started the car before removing the battery. It saves reprogramming the stereo, and doesn't hurt the car one bit.


Perhaps this trend-setting practice amung Nissan dealerships is why so many friends of mine have electrical problems with their Nissan's ;)

No joke, either. I'm talking extremely premature (all under warranty) failures of sensors such as MAF's, ECU failures, etc. Symptoms for my friend Matt's 2005 Senta was unpredictible stalling at idle, and Julie's 2003 Xterra finally had its second alternator go out...both failed voltage regulators. Her electrics always been messed up. If you try puting all four windows down at once (had to try it...) her car will stall if at idle. I've never seen a car, let alone an SUV, do that.


By Gzus666 on 1/6/2009 9:20:19 AM , Rating: 1
I worked with a guy who used to work for Nissan, he surely wasn't that dumb. It is just mechanic folklore that is passed down by the hacks. Unfortunately it sticks with some at times, which is why I can't get myself to let anyone work on my vehicles even after stopping the trade.


By Jeffk464 on 1/6/2009 5:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Remember Nissan while not total crap is not Toyota or Honda. They are built in Mexico and are not of the same quality. With the exception of their 3.5L V6, its a very nice engine.


By Gzus666 on 1/6/2009 9:23:30 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Excuse me but you clearly said FILLED a car tire with lighter fluid. Now that you got called on it, you "meant" something ENTIRELY different, and frankly, far less idiotic and dangerous then you originally intended.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflate

I clearly said INFLATE actually. Nice try though. Inflate does not necessarily mean fill as you can see. Apparently you don't understand what entirely different means either.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By sprockkets on 1/6/2009 12:41:46 AM , Rating: 1
Are you sure? Doesn't removing the battery make an incomplete circuit and shut off the car period?


By mindless1 on 1/10/2009 8:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
He is obviously mistaken because a car cannot run without the battery in it, even if the large pulses of higher voltage didn't fry anything, even if it was started before the battery was removed.

Removing the battery doesn't make an *open* circuit if that's what you meant by incomplete, but the battery is required to stabilize the voltage, reduce wildly fluctuating ripple to a safe range. Similar could be done with a huge capacitor instead but that wouldn't allow for starting the vehicle, using much of anything needing power while the engine was off and would cost more for the capacity needed to cover all possible scenarios.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Iketh on 1/6/2009 1:35:01 AM , Rating: 2
that's not a safe way of doing this. every repair manual says never remove the battery while the engine is running as it will reduce the life of the voltage regulator (if it doesn't kill it.) there is a $3 electrical saver + the 9v battery that you can purchase at your local auto store that plugs into your cigarette lighter to retain all electrical settings. i can't believe you just admitted to using this tactic at a dealership, or anywhere for that matter


By mindless1 on 1/10/2009 8:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
If the ECM doesn't detect the problem it will immediately destroy the regulator. Either way the car stops as soon as the battery is removed so something was misunderstood when he told us this is what they do, because it simply isn't what they do.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By rudolphna on 1/5/2009 11:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
WRONG. The engine has to work to turn the alternator. Just like a gas generator. If you have a 5000 watt generator, and you plug in say, a vaccum that draws 12 amps, and turn it on, the load on the engine is increased and you can hear it work harder. Same thing in a car. The alternator has to work harder to generate the electricity required. Not only will this slightly improve fuel economy, it will free up horsepower, as less engine power is siphoned away by the alternator.
I used this example before. If you replace the ordinary belt-driven cooling fan with an electric one, which is more efficient, you can free up to 7HP, and gain fuel economy, because they place load on the engine. More load, equals more fuel burned to accomplish the same task.
The higher the engine speed, the more amps the alternator puts out. The problem is that people will idle their cars with a 1000w stereo, the AC, headlights, have a DVD player and an ipod and cell phone plugged in, that puts strain on the alternator, and a normal alternator at idle only puts out about 14 amps depending on the model. Under high speed they put out about 75 amps.


By Jeffk464 on 1/5/2009 11:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
Very true about the alternator, but a lot of belt driven fans like the one in my lovely Tacoma are on a clutch. In this case you don't really save anything by going to a electric fan. Current halogen headlights are only 50watts each, which translates to way less then one horsepower, so their impact on milage is pretty minor.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By George Powell on 1/5/2009 12:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
Quite true. However there are much more interesting examples of electrical load affecting fuel economy/engine output. Very early Mini's (the original one, not the fake BMW one) often had problems supplying multiple electrical loads, so much so that on some early vehicles the electric fan could not be used if you required the headlights on. This was an example of British Leyland cost cutting, but it wasn't until an uprated engine and alternator came along that it was possible to have large electrical drains on the system.

Moving slightly off topic here, but still quite relevant I feel are the current weight saving programmes airlines are performing. Even very small changes in the weight of the aircraft can have enormous impacts on fuel consumption over the course of a year. A saving a few kilos on a long haul plane can reduce fuel costs by tens of thousands of dollars a year.

Likewise if all car manufacturers trimmed the electrical loads on their cars by a few watts, then potentially thousands, if not millions of gallons of fuel could be saved each year. While the R8 will make no real impact itself, when the technology cascades to the rest of the range, and other manufacturers adopt it as well the overall global impact will be quite significant.

As another side, many car manufacturers now use alternators that can be decoupled from the engine, BMW has pioneered this in Europe, and I'm sure other manufacturers will have similar schemes elsewhere and they managed to improve the fuel economy of the baby 1 series by over 10mpg using this technique and regenerative braking.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By Jeffk464 on 1/5/2009 12:24:36 PM , Rating: 3
Weight reduction is king, the airlines really have to work on reducing the weight of the average American passenger and it will really have something. I read an article on an all aluminum jaguar that was beating its competitors V-8's with a V-6. Less weight increased handling and allowed for the same power to weight ratio with a smaller engine, all good.


RE: LEDs - greener to produce or to use?
By MrPoletski on 1/6/2009 6:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
In flight liposuction?

They could render the leftovers into jet fuel mid-flight too..!


By Jeffk464 on 1/6/2009 5:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
yeah buddy, I had the same though biofuel. We could power our cars and and planes with our fat asses. I could probably only get 1 to 2 quarts from me though.


By Schrag4 on 1/5/2009 11:50:01 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
the use of led's or standard headlights will have NO impact on the fuel economy


quote:
...while the alternator does consume little bit of the horsepower...


When your car's electric system is using more juice, the alternator consumes more horsepower. Don't believe me? Get a hand-cranked generator and hook it up to a lightbulb and a switch. Crank with the light off, easy. Keep cranking and turn the light on, suddenly it's harder. (fun experiment in college physics class)

To suggest that the electricity is a byproduct, and normally wasted, begs the question: why not have a small electric motor that helps with accelerating/decelerating that uses this 'free/wasted' byproduct electricity that you dream of? It's because it doesn't exist.

Now before you flame me, I realize the lights don't use much juice. But to suggest it's free...


By phorensic on 1/5/2009 3:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Luckily several people saved me the hassle of proving you wrong. You kind of people crack me up, though. You remind me of a coworker who wants to increase his MPG with on-board hydrogen electrolysis->injection using your "wasted electricity". When somebody can design an over-unity system like that, let me know!

Simple, you burn fuel to create electricity.


By Masospaghetti on 1/5/2009 9:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong on this one...alternators don't generate a fixed amount of power, they regulate their power output based on the load placed on them. With a heavy electrical load, the alternator will effectively become harder to turn and consume more energy. This is why, especially on an older vehicle that doesn't have a perfect electrical system, you can feel the engine idle go down slightly when the lights are turned on. It's also why Honda specifies to turn OFF the headlights when setting the correct idle, because it does have an effect.


All extremely bright headlights should have this
By FITCamaro on 1/5/2009 10:07:13 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The lights can not only offer an indefinite lifespan, but the beam can be brighter when needed and then self-dim by changing the light beam when the vehicle gets close to other vehicles on the road. This helps prevent the possibility of blinding oncoming drivers.


I literally get headaches driving at night from people having insanely bright headlights going down the other side of the highway.

They need to implement this feature in more cars. Sure you might be able to see better with brighter lights, but if it means the car coming the other way crashes into you because they can't see where they're going, it doesn't help much does it?




By phazers on 1/5/2009 10:23:03 AM , Rating: 4
What I find most annoying are the idiots with misaligned headlights who camp on your bumper, blinding you in the rear-view mirrors even on low-beam. I used to carry a 400,000 candlepower spotlight that plugs into the power outlet so that I could give them a taste of their own medicine, but decided that with too many crazies on the road, I might get a bullet or something in return...


By FITCamaro on 1/5/2009 10:30:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah it seems you have to drive a big SUV to not get blinded by those driving behind you these days.


By Mitch101 on 1/5/2009 10:58:04 AM , Rating: 5
I have learned how to adjust my mirrors to make them see the light. ;) Of course I am 300lb muscle bound guy so I can back myself up if they want to test their manhood. Of those who have tested have found their cars can accelerate much faster than what car and driver publishes.

There is nothing better than seeing the expression of a 230lb muscle head you know acts like a jerk around the clock when a 300lb muscle head opens the door and starts walking his direction.

No worry Phazers some of us are helping them see the light.


By Mortando on 1/5/2009 5:09:39 PM , Rating: 3
"Drivers are rude
such attitudes
but when i show my piece
complaints cease"


By TomZ on 1/7/2009 3:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is nothing better than seeing the expression of a 230lb muscle head you know acts like a jerk around the clock when a 300lb muscle head opens the door and starts walking his direction.
What are you going to do about the 120-lb skinny crackhead that pulls a gun and starts putting holes in your 300-lb muscle-bound body?

Really, we humans have brains for a reason... It's much smarter to avoid conflict in the first place, especially over such stupid reasons like differences in driving styles!


By mindless1 on 1/10/2009 8:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
You must be very tall, the typical musclehead under 6'6" tall at 300lb would be far too slow to win a fight against a 230 pounder. Maybe that's why the heavyweight boxing class starts at 200 lbs. and practically all the best have been under 250 lbs., often under 230.


By Chaser on 1/5/2009 11:05:24 AM , Rating: 2
I've had people double flash me while on low beam. My adaptive HID headlights are aligned perfectly. I just flash them with my high beam and help once get over their little neon light moment.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/5/2009 7:54:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They need to implement this feature in more cars. Sure you might be able to see better with brighter lights, but if it means the car coming the other way crashes into you because they can't see where they're going, it doesn't help much does it?


The amount of car vs. deer accidents in my area has shot up drastically in the past few years. Sometimes on unlit roads I HAVE to keep my brights on, other drivers headaches be damned.


By FITCamaro on 1/5/2009 8:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
1) Sounds like the government in your state needs to increase the number of deer being killed during the deer season.
2) How does having your brights on stop a deer from jumping out in front of your car? And is another person hitting a deer because they can't see whats in front of them due to your brights blinding them worth you seeing another 50 feet? And you being a jerk and not turning off your brights when others are going by, encourages them to blind you too so having your brights on becomes a moot point.


By MamiyaOtaru on 1/10/2009 12:22:06 PM , Rating: 1
I live in Wyoming. Deer + car happens all the time. We still don't shine our brights at oncoming cars. It's rude.

If you're worried about a deer being there as an oncoming car goes by, try this: dim your lights and slow down. I don't care how indignant you get, shining your brights at oncoming cars is a dick move.


By mindless1 on 1/10/2009 8:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
We have enough deer that they are at our back door several times a day, as well as lots of other animals wondering about. Nobody I know drives with their high-beams on when passing other cars because of this and we don't have an especially high # of accidents. Why?

Because when you know there is the potential to hit a deer you slow the fvck down instead of blinding other drivers, AND blinding the deer so they can't see to dodge the truck. It's really that simple, you should never be driving fast enough that you cannot stop within the distance your headlights illuminate so it's fairly irrelevant whether a deer is standing in the middle of the road or not when you have your low beams on.

This is a basic requirement for safe driving in order to not hit anything regardless of whether there are deer around. You can never know what's in the middle of the road ahead till you get there, it only takes one accident to ruin or end someone's life.

You drive faster to get places sooner, so you can spend more time posting on a tech site on the internet?


lifespan?
By trumani on 1/5/2009 10:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
speaking of lifespan, I saw an A5 the other day with their new LED "brow" and noticed one set is not working. Looks like either LED issues (not as likely) or perhaps a severed wire or blown fuse (more likely). Audi still needs to fix the COMPLETE lighting reliability before touting new reliable LED lights. They're almost as bad as volvo lighting reliability

They do look beautiful, hwoever.




RE: lifespan?
By strikeback03 on 1/5/2009 10:34:16 AM , Rating: 2
The LED high-beam indicator in my RSX recently died, and other drivers have reported their interior LEDs dying as well. Seems Honda's plan for the indicator LEDs is to replace the whole instrument cluster; as I am not going to do that I would have to at least completely disassemble the cluster to get to the blown LED.


RE: lifespan?
By Gzus666 on 1/5/2009 11:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
They most likely recommend replacing the whole cluster is because of a redesign on it. It is highly unlikely the LEDs burned out so close together on their own. I would check the part number on the old and the new and see if it was a redesign.


RE: lifespan?
By JediJeb on 1/5/2009 3:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure on the increased lifespan of LEDs also. In our city they replaced all the stoplights with LED ones last year, now I see several darkspots in the LED clusters where the LEDs are not working. Seems they do but out, but at least you don't lose the whole light when only a few are gone. I wonder if the changing temps throughout the year along with exposure to rain, ice, snow ect kill the LEDs?


RE: lifespan?
By RoberTx on 1/5/2009 11:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
It's most likely just poor assembly of the circuit, not temperature. My motorcycle is all LED except for the headlight and they have survived 2 years in temps ranging from -10 deg F to 110 deg F.


RE: lifespan?
By mindless1 on 1/10/2009 8:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, but many of these road sign lights are more than two years old and it's unlikely you come near the number of on/off cycles, probably not even on-hours, in 10 years as these see in 1 year.


RE: lifespan?
By MrPoletski on 1/6/2009 7:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is highly unlikely the LEDs burned out so close together on their own.


If it hasn't been caused by an overcurrent situation which could blow all the LED's simultaneously (which is likely impossible due to them having inline resistance in the package.) then it is more than unliekly they would all blow together.

About as likely as getting that Audi TT driver to stop flashing his lights in your rear mirror because you are 'only' doing 20mph over the speed limit (also unable to go faster or change lane because of other cars).


A Greener car?!
By Skilty on 1/5/2009 12:07:23 PM , Rating: 3
So let me get this straight. We ensure the entire car is lit with LEDs rather than xenon and this reduces the carbon emissions and makes it a greener car etc.

The car has a 5.2 litre v10 engine and does 17mpg combined!!!

Now if I had the money I would love one of these cars but I wouldn't be buying it for its green credentials!




RE: A Greener car?!
By Chernobyl68 on 1/5/2009 4:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
yeah its stupid advertising. They're talking about saving watts when the engine is using kilowatts.


RE: A Greener car?!
By MrPoletski on 1/6/2009 6:36:55 AM , Rating: 2
What if they painted it British Racing Green? =)


RE: A Greener car?!
By Skilty on 1/6/2009 8:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
Probably with some fine lead based paint :-D


RE: A Greener car?!
By mindless1 on 1/10/2009 8:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Lead based paint is "green". Instead of putting lead into landfills, put it on an automobile so the chassis and panels don't rust through so soon and need to go to a landfill themselves. Besides, if someone's toddler is chewing on the car paint then maybe they need to be taken out of the gene pool.


Wow...
By Noya on 1/5/2009 4:49:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
...but the beam can be brighter when needed and then self-dim by changing the light beam when the vehicle gets close to other vehicles on the road. This helps prevent the possibility of blinding oncoming drivers.


Wow...this is what all the assholes in trucks and SUV's need. When they put their lights on bright, it should be legal to shoot them.




RE: Wow...
By Jeffk464 on 1/5/2009 5:24:48 PM , Rating: 1
Hey, I happen to be one of those assholes. My truck is a toyota though so I get reasonable mileage and its clean burning.


RE: Wow...
By FITCamaro on 1/5/2009 8:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
Good to see the stupidity of Toyota owners. Your truck isn't any cleaner than any other truck. And GMs trucks get the best mileage.


RE: Wow...
By strikeback03 on 1/6/2009 11:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the high-fuel-economy versions of the Silverado and F-150 were tied at 21MPG highway?


RE: Wow...
By Spuke on 1/6/2009 12:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and Toyota trucks don't get anywhere near that mileage. I own one (2004) and it gets 18 mpg hwy. I think I got 19 mpg once. The new one's aren't any better. As a matter of fact, they're the same although you do get more truck.

Toyota
http://tinyurl.com/8whd73

Chevy
http://tinyurl.com/9mdcox


RE: Wow...
By Jeffk464 on 1/6/2009 5:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
I have the 2005 4.0L Tacoma, I get around 19mpg around town and when I drove from LA to Phoenix I got 24mpg. Not bad for a 240HP Prerunner. I looked at the chevy midsized truck for about 2 seconds before I got my Tacoma, there is no comparison. My truck is a 4.0L, only weighs 3800lbs, and was rated ultra or super ultra low emissions. You can't compare the mileage with full sized American trucks.


One more step toward a better lighting technology
By dgingeri on 1/5/2009 7:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
I can't wait for all lighting to be LED based.

In case you don't know:
Advantages to LED lighting:
1. much less materials used in production
2. much lower energy cost in production
3. much longer life span
4. much better light
5. much lower energy cost

Disadvantages to LED based lighting:
1. uses caustic chemicals in production
2. much higher cost to produce due to exotic materials

While it is not perfect, it is still a much better technology than regular lightbulbs, and much, much better than florescent technology. (Mercury vapors are bad!)

I'm a conservative, and I don't believe global warming is caused by CO2, but that doesn't mean I don't know a good technology when I see it. I want to light my house with all LED lighting when it becomes feasible. Audi is just taking steps to make it more feasible. I praise them for that.




By Jeffk464 on 1/6/2009 5:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
Don't believe in global warming, are you a atmospheric scientist. Personally I don't believe the earth's magnetic field protects our atmosphere from solar winds. How come when someones doctor tells them they have cancer they never say, "no I don't believe that."