H4 telescopic HIDs w/ super slim ballasts
- Thread starter Fred W
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
OK, thanks, Jim. So I think I'll leave mine alone for now.
One more thing that I did noticed during the headlight alignment was that the right side beam seems to be a little less focused than the left side. What I mean by that is that the edges of the beam pattern are not as sharp. It may have been that way with the halogens, but their cut-off was much less sharp to begin with.
Did you happen to notice this at all? I'm just wondering if it is my right side lamp assembly, my headlamp bucket or maybe they all do that? It's not a big deal and is quite usable as is. In fact having a bit wider beam on the right is good in a right side driving world. Just one of those things that you notice and say, hmmm...
Last edited by a moderator:
Grumpy
Well-known member
Both of mine looked pretty much the same. You'd expect the HID cutoffs to be less sharp than the cutoff produced by a filament lamp since the light in the arc is larger than the glowing filament in the incandescent lamp. If the arc tube isn't exactly centered where the design point for the reflector is, I would think things would be a bit fuzzier also.
Of course the big advantage for HID is more light for less power as well as longer life.
jim
Of course the big advantage for HID is more light for less power as well as longer life.
jim
Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. I'll have to post up the actual numbers whenever I can get together with Ionbeam and some other FJR guys with his test equipment. Of course that pro'lly won't happen till springtime... :angry2:
Last edited by a moderator:
fjrchik
Just a girl in the world, having rode 3 FJRs
When L8RG8R installed my HIDs on my 06, it took him all day! Total pain in the *** on Gen IIs, but very needed for my late night commute home from work at 10 pm. They are great! Just give yourself lots of time to get them installed on Gen IIs.
Grumpy
Well-known member
Actually, for me, the biggest advantage is running the bright lights for daytime visibility. Yes, I'm one of those a##holes who does this as I'm absolutely paranoid that someone is going to pull out in front of me or turn left in front of me. Guess what, with the bright HID's I don't seem to have a problem being seen. The side benefit of driving behind folks with the "Hi's" on usually gets me a pull over so I can pass.........particularly an issue here where we get so many tourists.
jim
jim
chik,
I think the superslims might be a bit easier to install than the beefier old school ballasts, but I don't have a 2nd gen so couldn't say for sure.
Grumpster,
I'm wit'cha 100% on the daytime high beams. I used 'em on Sunday when I managed to scoot around for a couple of hours here, in the middle of the New England winter, BTW. I personally don't give a rats *** who gets ticked off about my dazzling highs so long as they know where I am. That way I know if they run me over it was definitely intentional.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fred, thanks for starting this endeavor and Grumpy thanks for your input on the shield. I ordered a set of these lights to compare to my shutter style HIDs that I have been playing with for well over a year. By modifying the shutters as we have reviewed in the past they work OK. Excellent on Low beam and not so good on HI. Better with the mods to the shutters but still not the long range focused HI beam like you would like. Obviusly the non-moving bulb did not match the focal point of the HI beam lens so it just doesn't project.
I wanted to compare these moving bulb setups. So far they seem about as good as my modiftied shutter style just setting the headlight nacelle up on the saw buck in the back yard and shining on the wall of trees. I quickly came to the same conclusion that the shield n the moving bulb seemed redundant and could be removed or at least shortened considerably to improve the HI beam without affecting the LO beam. The focal length on the HI beam location seems good but just too much light is blocked by the moving shutter or tab on the bulb. The downside to the moving bulbs seems that they loose some of he low beam effectivemess when going to high beam. The LO beam is no longer in the right focal point so the LO beam suffers and the HI beam is still not right.
Interesting that the HID's in some of our automobiles use a fixed bulb and moveable shutter but the reflector is designed for this so that the HI and LOW beam focal point desired is the same so the shutter just shields the reflector when beams are required.
More developement needed no these moving bulb capsules as they are far from perfect either.
I wanted to compare these moving bulb setups. So far they seem about as good as my modiftied shutter style just setting the headlight nacelle up on the saw buck in the back yard and shining on the wall of trees. I quickly came to the same conclusion that the shield n the moving bulb seemed redundant and could be removed or at least shortened considerably to improve the HI beam without affecting the LO beam. The focal length on the HI beam location seems good but just too much light is blocked by the moving shutter or tab on the bulb. The downside to the moving bulbs seems that they loose some of he low beam effectivemess when going to high beam. The LO beam is no longer in the right focal point so the LO beam suffers and the HI beam is still not right.
Interesting that the HID's in some of our automobiles use a fixed bulb and moveable shutter but the reflector is designed for this so that the HI and LOW beam focal point desired is the same so the shutter just shields the reflector when beams are required.
More developement needed no these moving bulb capsules as they are far from perfect either.
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head here. The HID capsules can increase the light output from our headlamps, but they cannot make up for the design shortcomings of the headlight bucket itself. Even with the OE halogen lamps that these headlamp reflectors were designed for, the beam patterns are not optimum. The low beam pattern is OK, but the high beam is too narrowly focused in the vertical direction. I'm assuming the design goal was to optimize the amount of light far down the road from the wimpy 60W bulbs.
On my 2003 SAAB 9-3 I have the HID Xenon optional headlights. They also have a single arc-lamp capsule on each side and a shutter style low beam. But the headlight bucket was designed for this application. What you get there is an excellent low beam and when you flip to high beam it just uncovers the area above the low beam cut-off with the same intensity of light, spread out all the way up. I think this is ideal for most driving as you don't have big changes in light intensity between high and low that your eyes must adjust to. However, this type of configuration does not project the light as far down the road as a narrowly focussed high beam.
Here's an idea for something thing that I will be trying next. I am going to see what happens if I leave one of the two bulbs always in the low beam position (just unplug the solenoid wires) to fill in underneath the higher intensity high beam. If that pans out I may order a low beam only HID bulb for that one side and keep the telescopic capsule for a spare.
Grumpy
Well-known member
Jestel, as usual you are correct, but I doubt that the Chinese are going to do this as they're apparently successfully selling their current product-------lousy quality and all. From a "big-picture" view, anything you do to the lights that changes the light source from the two filaments that the reflector was designed around, produces different results, some better, some worse. The HID's produce so much more light that they overcome some of these shortcomings. Before you install one of these "kits" from China, you probably ought to make sure that the lamp comes apart so that the installation doesn't require you to cut the rubber bellows on the back of the headlight. Secondly, you need to sit down with the original filament lamps and determine how your new HIDs position the arc tube in relationship to where the original filaments were located. (There are numerous pictures on other threads showing this) I found on my current set that there was an extra small shield that moved with the arc tube.....it wasn't needed and I removed it. Also, the opening in the tubular shield didn't allow the light to get to the high beam portion of the reflector. I "drameled" this so that approximately 1/2 the arc tube could "see" the reflector and now have headlights I'm quite happy with. They look very much like Fred's pictures.
By-the-way, the round end on the tubular shield doesn't do diddly from a lighting viewpoint.
Particularly now that slimmer ballasts are available, I believe that this is a very worthwhile project. As an aside, I had my bike "inspected" by the superslab LEOs and they never said a word about the HID headlights. Of course given that it was raining might have had an effect on this?
jim
Warchild
Benevolent Dictator
Exactly correct!
This is where this particular telescopic kit falls short of expectation: the "moving tab" (pointed to by red arrow below) does NOT move out of the way sufficiently enough from the re-positioned salt chamber ("filament") to allow an unhindered 360-degree view of the reflector housing. It is this tab that is causing the excessively high cutoff in the high beam.
The orange crosshatch area needs to be removed in order for the light to strike the correct portion of the reflector housing that services the high beam:
That being said... if removing the offending portion of this tab allows light to "leak through" when the telescopic location is in low-beam mode, then obviously, that's no good either.
They way this stands now, I find (in my personal opinion, folks) the beamcast while the bulb is in "high beam" to be completely unacceptable. Take a look at the area illuminated by the red circle below. This is the telescopic low beam. It provides a good, even coverage... pay particular attention to how well the snow is lit up on the sides:
Compare now the telescopic high beam with the area in the red dashed circle below. Note how you have really lost your ability to see the snow on the sides, indeed, the =driveway is now essentially dark almost all the way up until just before the garage door:
After studying the position of tab in that photo of it in its low-beam position, it appears that you might be able to cut a small amount of the tab off before you run into the "light leak" situation, but it doesn't appear that you are going to be able to remove enough of it to get the desired good coverage without causing "leakage".
In an ideal world, combining of the two methodologies - the older butterfly "shutters" in conjunction with this current salt chamber re-location by solenoid - would completely answer the mail. In that scenario, the salt chamber "filament" would be re-located rearward the correct 4-ish mm needed to obtain proper high-beam focal point, and the shutters would move completely out of the way to obtain the necessary unhindered 360-degree view of the reflector housing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Or....one could take the FJR reflector completely apart, cut it in two horizontally and move the upper half forward 4 mm or the lower half rearward 4mm and afix it back together to obtain a reflector for high and low beam that would have the same focal point. Then the shutter style should work better if one could completely un shroud the shutter when it flicks to the sides.
I just don't think it is ever going to be perfect for a conversion of any sorts. I just don't see how to accomplish what the H4 bulb does with the HID type lights.
The problem with the car systems is that the reflector, shutter and focusing lens in front of the reflector/shutter assembly is fairly large. This requires a small reflector around the bulb, a fairly large gulletine type shutter and then a focusing lens in front to work. It would be possible to package it in the fairing but it would have to be an application specific setup to look right. The problem comes with the mounting and how to work in the adjustment mechanisms because the entire assembly must be moved.
I have two auto assemblies torn down and am looking at how to possibly do it but it just doesn't look practical for the moment. If anyone has a "spare" headlight assembly from an early gen that is damaged or the lens is broken or crash damaged consider sending it my way to cut up. I just hate to cut up a perfectly good light nacelle and find out it is pointless but even a heavily damaged one might allow one side to be assembled for a trial.
I'll try to get some pics of the auto setup on here when I bet back in town next week.
I just don't think it is ever going to be perfect for a conversion of any sorts. I just don't see how to accomplish what the H4 bulb does with the HID type lights.
The problem with the car systems is that the reflector, shutter and focusing lens in front of the reflector/shutter assembly is fairly large. This requires a small reflector around the bulb, a fairly large gulletine type shutter and then a focusing lens in front to work. It would be possible to package it in the fairing but it would have to be an application specific setup to look right. The problem comes with the mounting and how to work in the adjustment mechanisms because the entire assembly must be moved.
I have two auto assemblies torn down and am looking at how to possibly do it but it just doesn't look practical for the moment. If anyone has a "spare" headlight assembly from an early gen that is damaged or the lens is broken or crash damaged consider sending it my way to cut up. I just hate to cut up a perfectly good light nacelle and find out it is pointless but even a heavily damaged one might allow one side to be assembled for a trial.
I'll try to get some pics of the auto setup on here when I bet back in town next week.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gadi
Well-known member
Great information from all involved. I was considering a conversion, but just seems like a lot of work, and if something goes wrong a lot more work to correct. I believe I will stay with what came with the bike. However fascinating discussion. Hope the manufacturers will incorporate this technology in the future.Exactly correct!
This is where this particular telescopic kit falls short of expectation: the "moving tab" (pointed to by red arrow below) does NOT move out of the way sufficiently enough from the re-positioned salt chamber ("filament") to allow an unhindered 360-degree view of the reflector housing. It is this tab that is causing the excessively high cutoff in the high beam.
The orange crosshatch area needs to be removed in order for the light to strike the correct portion of the reflector housing that services the high beam:
That being said... if removing the offending portion of this tab allows light to "leak through" when the telescopic location is in low-beam mode, then obviously, that's no good either.
They way this stands now, I find (in my personal opinion, folks) the beamcast while the bulb is in "high beam" to be completely unacceptable. Take a look at the area illuminated by the red circle below. This is the telescopic low beam. It provides a good, even coverage... pay particular attention to how well the snow is lit up on the sides:
Compare now the telescopic high beam with the area in the red dashed circle below. Note how you have really lost your ability to see the snow on the sides, indeed, the =driveway is now essentially dark almost all the way up until just before the garage door:
After studying the position of tab in that photo of it in its low-beam position, it appears that you might be able to cut a small amount of the tab off before you run into the "light leak" situation, but it doesn't appear that you are going to be able to remove enough of it to get the desired good coverage without causing "leakage".
In an ideal world, combining of the two methodologies - the older butterfly "shutters" in conjunction with this current salt chamber re-location by solenoid - would completely answer the mail. In that scenario, the salt chamber "filament" would be re-located rearward the correct 4-ish mm needed to obtain proper high-beam focal point, and the shutters would move completely out of the way to obtain the necessary unhindered 360-degree view of the reflector housing.
Dale,Exactly correct!
This is where this particular telescopic kit falls short of expectation: the "moving tab" (pointed to by red arrow below) does NOT move out of the way sufficiently enough from the re-positioned salt chamber ("filament") to allow an unhindered 360-degree view of the reflector housing. It is this tab that is causing the excessively high cutoff in the high beam.
The orange crosshatch area needs to be removed in order for the light to strike the correct portion of the reflector housing that services the high beam:
That being said... if removing the offending portion of this tab allows light to "leak through" when the telescopic location is in low-beam mode, then obviously, that's no good either.
They way this stands now, I find (in my personal opinion, folks) the beamcast while the bulb is in "high beam" to be completely unacceptable. Take a look at the area illuminated by the red circle below. This is the telescopic low beam. It provides a good, even coverage... pay particular attention to how well the snow is lit up on the sides:
Compare now the telescopic high beam with the area in the red dashed circle below. Note how you have really lost your ability to see the snow on the sides, indeed, the =driveway is now essentially dark almost all the way up until just before the garage door:
After studying the position of tab in that photo of it in its low-beam position, it appears that you might be able to cut a small amount of the tab off before you run into the "light leak" situation, but it doesn't appear that you are going to be able to remove enough of it to get the desired good coverage without causing "leakage".
In an ideal world, combining of the two methodologies - the older butterfly "shutters" in conjunction with this current salt chamber re-location by solenoid - would completely answer the mail. In that scenario, the salt chamber "filament" would be re-located rearward the correct 4-ish mm needed to obtain proper high-beam focal point, and the shutters would move completely out of the way to obtain the necessary unhindered 360-degree view of the reflector housing.
Exactly what I was trying to verbalize about the high beam pattern. Of course I still had about 1900 words remaining before I would catch up with your two edited pictures.
However, I'm still not certain that trimming the area that you indicate will have the effect that you assume. Consider this: The big stationary shield is positioned below the arc tube to block the light that, after hitting the reflector, inverts and becomes the upper part of the projected beam. Therefore, trimming the little moving shield (that you highlighted yellow) which is also physically under the arc tube should have the same effect to the high beam, ie increasing the upper part of the projected high beam.
I think if you look at the projected high beam pattern with the OE halogen lamps it has the same problem, lacking fill in the foreground. That's why I'm thinking the slickest solution may be to have the left headlamp be a low beam only and the right one be a Hi/Lo telescopic. As soon as the latest batch of the white stuff melts off my driveway I will return to take some more pictures with one lamp in the high and the other in the low positions. That may be a quick and dirty way to get the beam coverage we want out of this.
Then, any additional high beam needs will have to met with aux lighting of some type.
Last edited by a moderator:
Grumpy
Well-known member
Dale, that's the part I "drameled" out of the way such that 1/2 the arc tube can see the high beam portion of the reflector.Exactly correct!
This is where this particular telescopic kit falls short of expectation: the "moving tab" (pointed to by red arrow below) does NOT move out of the way sufficiently enough from the re-positioned salt chamber ("filament") to allow an unhindered 360-degree view of the reflector housing. It is this tab that is causing the excessively high cutoff in the high beam.
The orange crosshatch area needs to be removed in order for the light to strike the correct portion of the reflector housing that services the high beam:
That being said... if removing the offending portion of this tab allows light to "leak through" when the telescopic location is in low-beam mode, then obviously, that's no good either.
They way this stands now, I find (in my personal opinion, folks) the beamcast while the bulb is in "high beam" to be completely unacceptable. Take a look at the area illuminated by the red circle below. This is the telescopic low beam. It provides a good, even coverage... pay particular attention to how well the snow is lit up on the sides:
Compare now the telescopic high beam with the area in the red dashed circle below. Note how you have really lost your ability to see the snow on the sides, indeed, the =driveway is now essentially dark almost all the way up until just before the garage door:
After studying the position of tab in that photo of it in its low-beam position, it appears that you might be able to cut a small amount of the tab off before you run into the "light leak" situation, but it doesn't appear that you are going to be able to remove enough of it to get the desired good coverage without causing "leakage".
In an ideal world, combining of the two methodologies - the older butterfly "shutters" in conjunction with this current salt chamber re-location by solenoid - would completely answer the mail. In that scenario, the salt chamber "filament" would be re-located rearward the correct 4-ish mm needed to obtain proper high-beam focal point, and the shutters would move completely out of the way to obtain the necessary unhindered 360-degree view of the reflector housing.
As far as the "light leak" is concerned, it's a bigger worry than a reality. The vast majority of the light coming out of the lamp is emitted perpendiclar to the arc, not at an angle. When you are on Low beam, as long as the tubular shield covers the arc tube you've cut the most of the light off from the high beam.
What I love about this whole thing is every Chinese manufacturer has his own particular way of making the lamps and their shields. As I said before, you have to work thru whatever Chinese version you happen to have.
jim
I'd get down in the garage and take pictures, but not while getting over this operation, sorry.
Last edited by a moderator:
Warchild
Benevolent Dictator
Heh... I already thought of that (or rather, a close variation thereof), and already did that mod... B)
This was way back in late 2005, when we first started seriously delving into the concept of H4-based HID systems for the FJR1300. Old-timers on the list will recall this thread, complete with a ton of close-up photos, and the results:
One Low-Beam HID combined with One High-Beam HID
The results were actually quite successful, but the modification is not necessarily trivial if one is all thumbs.
But it worked.... work pretty well, actually. The photos will show you the the rather excellent resulting beamcast.
Still, I personallyl wanted the awesome performance of two low-beam HIDs, and of course have my PHIDs to act as my "high-beams". That is the configuration I have been running for the best part of three years now....
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes sir. I read all about that which is where I got the idea from. Hell, there are really no more original ideas left in the universe...Heh... I already thought of that (or rather, a close variation thereof), and already did that mod... B)
This was way back in late 2005, when we first started seriously delving into the concept of H4-based HID systems for the FJR1300. Old-timers on the list will recall this thread, complete with a ton of close-up photos, and the results:
One Low-Beam HID combined with One High-Beam HID
The results were actually quite successful, but the modification is not necessarily trivial if one is all thumbs.
But it worked.... work pretty well, actually. The photos will show you the the rather excellent resulting beamcast.
Still, I personallyl wanted the awesome performance of two low-beam HIDs, and of course have my PHIDs to act as my "high-beams". That is the configuration I have been running for the best part of three years now....
Anywho, I thought that yours was a pretty elegant solution, but this one may go one better. You will get two HIDs when in low beam, and still get one HID when in High beam and one left in low to fill in the foreground.
Also, there will be zero delay waiting for the High beam only HID to light off with the right side telescopic.
The mod would be plug and play with no wire chopping or diode splicing so completely reversible at any time.
Aux driving lights would certainly still be an option, but would not need to be used as high beams to satisfy the local constabulary and state inspectors.
If this pans out, I can see getting one of these vendors package up a kit with the super-slim ballasts (for easy install) with the telescopic harness and relay box, and one telescoping capsule and one fixed Low beam capsule.
Last edited by a moderator:
Grumpy
Well-known member
Yes sir. I read all about that which is where I got the idea from. Hell, there are really no more original ideas left in the universe...Heh... I already thought of that (or rather, a close variation thereof), and already did that mod... B)
This was way back in late 2005, when we first started seriously delving into the concept of H4-based HID systems for the FJR1300. Old-timers on the list will recall this thread, complete with a ton of close-up photos, and the results:
One Low-Beam HID combined with One High-Beam HID
The results were actually quite successful, but the modification is not necessarily trivial if one is all thumbs.
But it worked.... work pretty well, actually. The photos will show you the the rather excellent resulting beamcast.
Still, I personallyl wanted the awesome performance of two low-beam HIDs, and of course have my PHIDs to act as my "high-beams". That is the configuration I have been running for the best part of three years now....
Anywho, I thought that yours was a pretty elegant solution, but this one may go one better. You will get two HIDs when in low beam, and still get one HID when in High beam and one left in low to fill in the foreground.
Also, there will be zero delay waiting for the High beam only HID to light off with the right side telescopic.
Aux driving lights would certainly still be an option, but would not need to be used as high beams to satisfy the local constabulary and state inspectors.
If this pans out, I can see getting one of these vendors package up a kit with the super-slim ballasts (for easy install) with the telescopic harness and relay box, and one telescoping capsule and one fixed Low beam capsule.
And two spare lamps....one that telescopes and one that doesn't.
You know it crossed my mind that with the huge differences in terrain and riding styles, we may have something that'll work back east, but isn't worth a diddle out west. For example, Dale is interested in tearing off great gobs of miles at night in Bambie country where being able to light-up and see for several miles gets to be critical. Me, though I try not to ride at night at all, am interested in coming out of a hairpin and seeing the next 1/4 mile where I'll enter another hairpin. Or, I'm trying to get home on the Blue Ridge Parkway, a bunch of sweepers. In other words, what'll make me happy won't make Dale that way. His solution lies in lots of square inches of reflector surface that produces concentrated beams and the regular headlights fill in close.........shades of the Malcolm Smith days of the Baja of old, eh?
As an aside, assuming the FJR headlights aren't better than today's automobile headlights, you really can't count on the low beams keeping you out of a wreck at anything much over 35 - 40 mph. Faster than this and by the time you detect that there's an object there, then identify that you need to do something about it and do so, you'll have hit it. At highway speeds the low beams are great for clearly illuminating what you are about to hit, just before you do so.
jim
bmwhd
Well-known member
The inner (secondary) shield on the kits I've been using aren't nearly as long as those pictured here. My high beams don't have that low portion cut out problem.
I've recently been installing one of these on my old airhead. Talk about a reflector setup from the stone age ;-) Still, the telescoping unit is performing wonderfully there too.
I've recently been installing one of these on my old airhead. Talk about a reflector setup from the stone age ;-) Still, the telescoping unit is performing wonderfully there too.
Really? Hmmm. Could you by chance take a few pictures of you beam pattern when you get a chance.
I still fail to see how a shield UNDER the arc tube would cause a dropout of the beam UNDER the main intensity . It just don't work that way.
