Bixenon Single Shutter Mod

Bixenon Single Shutter Extension Mod

The self buy Bixenon HID lights are far from perfect. The low beams ARE awesome, but the high beams are seriously flawed. Jestal, Warchild and I (and maybe others) have tried various ways to fix the problem. Ultimately, Warchild's dedicated single high beam light is probably going to give you the best quality of light. Personally, I did not want to install any extra lights, let alone have only one headlight showing in low beam mode. Not because there isn't enough light, there certainly is. I just didn't want any LEO to have an excuse to stop me. Maybe it's just for the sheer symmetry. Anyway, I wanted to stick with the dual headlights working all the time.

Jestal has some great ideas, and I used his idea of inverting the beam source. Also, it was his idea to cut the actuator channel on the bottom of the bixenon mechanism to let out more light. Thanks Jestal for some great ideas!

The Bixenon HID "capsule" comes in two parts that are clipped together. The light source component is clipped into the bixenon mechanism base. It's the bixenon mechanism base (or just "base") that controls the high beam and low beam. The default is low beam. There are a pair of shutters that the bixenon mechanism opens when you select high beam. The shutters open and let the light source hit the bottom of the FJR's reflective headlight lens. Regreattably, the Bixenon mechanism doesn't let out anything near what you would expect as far as light goes.

Let's hack that puppy!

First, separate the source from the base. You have to notch the source's flange 180 degrees from the factory notch in order to get the source unit to sit in the bixenon base upside down. This is easy to notch with a dremel, so that you can put the light source in the base with the large anode wire at the TOP of the mechanism.



You can also searate the light souce from IT'S base. There is a circlip that you can remove to slide the light source in and out of it's base to change the location of the light source in the reflector. The Bixenon lights from the factory have the light source set comparable to the low beam location of an H4 filament. The high beam filament of and H4 bulb is about 6 mm farther to the rear.



(EDIT: Don't bother moving the light source farther than the forward most factory slot. Any more than that, and the beam gets fuzzy and out of focus. Oncoming traffic probably won't like it at all.)

If you want to maximize the high beam, you might want to move the HID light source rearward about 6mm. Better yet, hold the light source in the entire bixenon mechanism side by side to an H4 and slide the light source back to match the H4 high beam filament. Then you have to notch the light source body so that you can now re-clip the light source to this position. I found that making a notch nearly 3 mm forward of the row of factory notches on the light source base was required to get the source back to the high beam light source position.

My plan is to leave one light source in the low beam position and one in the high beam position initially, then do some testing. I may need to fiddle with both of them to get the best results as far as light source position. The problem here is focus and beam cast. You definitely want to keep that definite, if not crisp, low beam cut off on the beam cast so you don't blind oncoming traffic. This entire hacking process is a compromise, and totally experimental. And I don't expect perfection. More than likely I will end up leaving one light with a low beam source position and one with a high beam position. The FJR's H4 reflector lens was designed to work with two separate light sources, so it will be a compromise since the HID only has one light source.

(Edit: in the end, I have both light sources clipped at the forward most slot. More than that really messes up the quality of the beamcast.)

There is a rather large channel at the bottom of the base's mechanism that works to open and close the shutters. I used a dremel with a cut off wheel to judiciously remove the material from the channel. The idea here is to remove as much light obstruction from the bottom of the mechanism as possible, and still be able to have the shutters continue to function. Here is the start of the channel cutting:



You can't cut ALL the channel out, you have to leave it in tact. You can see in the pics below how much I actually removed.

(Edit: Don't cut the vertical parts of the shutters as shown in the pic below. It doesn't help at all. BTDT!!!)

The next pic shows (fuzzily) the side support cut off. That piece is a vertical extension that comes off of the nose cone strut. The vertical piece provides extra support at the location where the shutter end bumps up against the retraction mechanism fingers. The stop isn't that necessary. Just try not to cut cut anything else! If you want to make a shutter extension that is LONGER to the rear of the light, you have to cut at least ONE of the supports to let the extended shutter swing out.



Next I cut a piece of aluminum from a pop can to fashion as a shutter extension. What I am doing is going back and now blocking all the light that I opened up in the channel. When the Bixenon is operated in low beam, the light source is actually blocked so that you can't see any light coming from the bottom of the light source. IOW, the high beam is actually blocked by shutters during low beam operation.

The extension I created overlaps the opposing shutter when closed. The extension also goes all the way rearward to rest against the mechanism that operates the channel and shutters. You can but right up against this because it will retract rearwards when the mechanism operates. The extension does need to be curved on the inside rear corner so that when the shutters swing open, the extension clears and does not interfere with the mechanism.

Jestal suggests that you rivet the extension to the taller of the two shutters. Riveting is likely to last longer than JB Weld. Therefore your shutter extension should be ANGLE shaped (L shaped) instead of just a flat piece.

The pic below shows the lower (right side) shutter with a piece of pop can aluminum epoxied to place:



The next fuzzy picture shows how much I cut the base. It also shows how much channel I hacked out to let the source light through the bottom of the mechanism.



And below is a pic of the mechanism opened in the high beam mode. Now you get a better idea of the size of the shutter extension. If I were to do this again, I probably would NOT cut off the corner of the extension at the inside forward corner. That was a matter of choice. It's going to block light somewhere no matter what, but if you leave that corner in tact, you get less high beam light sneaking out when low beam is selected.



Again, I don't think this is going to give you as much light as Warchild's dedicated high beam mod, but it is a nice compromise for those who wish to have the standard two headlights usable. This mod does reduce the dead zone (does not completely eliminate it) and it does throw more high beam down the road. If you already own these bixenons and want two lights burning all the time without extra driving lights, this might be a good way to go.

FJRocket, have you been able to make any side by side/before and after, comparisons of the improvements?

Do you have any pics of the difference to give members a real world subjective "feel" for the improvements you worked so hard to figure out? B)

I'm sure all of the forum members greatly appreciate everyone's efforts and experimentation/documentation to figure out this lighting-optimization problem! :clap:

Nope, no side by side comparisons as of yet. I'm still in the quest for improvements. I had pretty much given up after the Jestal Mod, but after I saw what Warchild was doing, I figured that I had nothing to lose! The shutter mod is definitely better than "stock" and I can always go to a dedicated high beam in the right light.

I like the "garage" and the "road test" results of my right headlight single shutter mod so much that I am doing the right side HID as I type this post. Again, Warchild's dedicated high beam mod will undoubtedly give better results.

---------------------------------

Having said that, I am concerned that the dreaded "dead zone" may be caused by that Saturn 5 sized nosecone on the freakin end of the mechanism (Edit: it wasn't, or at least as much as I trimmed it back didn't help the dead zone, although it may have let out more light!). So I'm back to experimenting with that. In the H4 halogen, the end of the tube is merely coated to keep from blinding oncoming traffic. In the Bixenon, there is a huge covering at the end of that big shutter mechanism. In a side by side comparison to an H4 bulb, that nosecone of the bixenon is WAY out there. I can cut the length of the entire mechanism a wee bitby replacing the nosecone. And perhaps I can cut the lower area (high beam light path) even more! That's my theory anyway.

SOMETHING is causing a dead zone of light above the low beam cut off when the high beams are activated. What could it be? Jestal thinks it's the shutter horizontals when they are open on high beam. So there may be NOTHING we can do about it if we leave the mechanism in tact.

The two beamcasts (from the single HID light souce) don't seem to be merging. SOMETHING is blocking a lot of that light! It could be the shutters causing the dead zone, but you HAVE to have those (unless you can come up with a better mousetrap) to block the high beam light during low beam operation. So the only other thing I can think of is that the nosecone blocks too much light. (which was true, but didn't seem to have anything to do with the dead zone above the low beamcast)

I have REMOVED the Saturn 5 Nosecone and fashioned a new one out of pop can aluminum. The way I'm doing this is NOT reversible. I have also HACKED the support structure UNDER the nosecone.

Once I get a chance to test that, I'll post the results. I'm hopful, but not overly optomistic. (After testing, there seemed to be more light, but the dead zone was still there.)

In the mean time, the JB Weld is setting on my shutter extension on the left HID capsule. (JB may not hold. Riveting an extension to the taller of the shutters may be the best way to go.)

https://www.fjr1300.info/howto/headlightmod.html

Rocket, the " dead zone " has been around for a while, it's not just the HID lights causing the dark zone. Since no one has referenced this old article yet I thought I'd throw it out there and maybe you guys could cultivate a few ideas from it. Basically it's a rewire project that lights up some of the high beam along with the low beam to take care of the dark zone. It's not for the electrically challenged as you will see !! Keep up the great work all you light hackers out there !! B)

Well, I can't tell if the new nosecone mod made any difference. I can say that The dead zone is pretty much under control now, but the high beam still isn't anywhere near as bright as the low beam. (Edit: the dead zone was controlled by the fact that moving the light source back to ~6mm fuzzed up the light so much that there wasn't a distinct beam cast. The right "high beam" just blotted everywhere, even on low beam. Don't move the light source back that far, it doesn't work.)

The Saturn 5 sized octagonal nosecone that comes "factory" on the Bixenons is huge. It has to be. Well, it HAD to be, until I decided to chop it down. I didn't mod the sides yet, just the top and the bottom, so I can still snap the octagonal nose cap back on (I ended up thowing the nose cones away and making my own minimal ones) . I thought I'd see if I could let more light around the Bixenon capsule by reducing the size of the thing on top and bottom. I went ahead and bevelled the bottom of the mechanism structure and then made a pop can aluminum shield and crimped it on there.



The pop can nose cover is actually in place covering the end of the light. I'm not sure this was worth the trouble, but heck, I thought I'd give it a shot. (It did let more light out.)

I also made a larger channel cut and a larger extension for the left hand headlight. I like this second shutter extension much more than the first. I also cut the base of this Bixenon back a lot more to allow as much light as possible to the reflector.



The shutter extension is a little longer up the middle to the forward end of the capsule and blocks more light from the bottom. That allows a longer channel cut and more high beam out the bottom.

I went for a little test ride. The high beam is much brighter than before. Better than the Jestal Mod. I think the single shutter extension is the way to go if you want to have two lights "in tact". I'm not convinced that the nosecone mod did any good. The dead zone is sort of gone (blotted out by a poor, unfocused beamcast), but the brights above the low beam are NOT anywhere near as intense as the low beam itself. Especially not in that intense main low beamcast zone.

Again, it seems that these Bixenon lights were not meant for use as high beams, but they can be improved fairly simply. A real world dual bike test next to halogens will probably prove that the Bixenon HID low beams are incredibly brighter but their high beams are not. Adequate? Maybe.

It seems all you can get from these things using the Bixenon mechanism is monster low beams and some serious cool factor. If you need to see under high beams, do the dedicated Mod ala Warchild, or get a set of aux lights.

Class dismissed!

Highlander -

The "Dead Zone" we are referring to here in this quest for HID nirvana is the output of the high beam, not the dead zone reference in the Barbarian article. He is referring to the area that is naturally "dead" on stock low beam due to the sharp cutoff.

The Dead Zone we're referring to is the one caused by the improper high-beam focal point of the "Hi/Lo" kits, as seen in this photo below (dark areas located center-outboard):



Only when the proper high-beam focal point is achieved will you see a continuous, smooth light coverage on HID high-beam, as seen below :

Warchild, you have such a pretty garage door!

I certainly didn't get that kind of qaulity on high beam using the shutter modified bixenon mechanism that you see in the pic above.

Here's the low beam inside my little garage with the bike backed up against the opposing wall:



And the high beam:



You can see that it's better. Not nearly as yellow on top and no distinct dead zone, although there is a hint of it on the left. Sorry the pics aren't better. But there you have it.

I need to get next to a pair of halogens to really do a good side by side comparison. SkooterG, you wanna ride over here and check these out with me? Bueller? Anyone?

Uh-oh..... this is your low beam now?



By moving the filament rearward, you appear to have lost your sharp low-beam cut-off, which I fear oncoming traffic isn't going to like very much.... :blink:

Your low-beam should've looked like this prior to moving the filament, didn't it?

Uh-oh..... this is your low beam now? 

Click to expand...

Yep, the left beam is fuzzy. Two things may have happened to cause that. As you state, the biggy may be moving the light source aft. The other might be the fact that on the offending right capsule I also removed the vertical portion of the shutters.

I've ridden in traffic with the right light as is, and so far no one has flashed or shot at me. Doesn't mean I'm going to leave it that way. I may have to go back and repair the vertical part of the shutters, but first, I may slide the light source forward a bit and test that.

I covered the right light, and the left light with un-cut shutters and factory light source location is still quite crisp. Also, keep in mind, the headlight isn't even 20 feet from the door.

It ain't perfect by any means, and I don't 'spect it ever will be. Better than out of the box, though, by far.

I've ridden in traffic with the right light as is, and so far no one has flashed or shot at me.

Click to expand...

That's a good sign! When I inadvertantly left my aim a bit too high when I first installed them, oncoming traffic was pretty quick to let me know about it! :lol:

del

Yeah, I am concerned about the epoxy, and the durability of the aluminum in close proximity to the light source. We'll see how it goes. On the one set of shutters, I have to attach to the horizontals, and it has to be a surface mount. Time will tell.

I think you are right about the veritcals on the shutter. If my JB holds up better than your JB, I may add them back on. I fear, however, that doing so may reincarnate the dreaded dead zone.

At least with your help we have certainly let out a bunch more light! :thumbup: :thumbup:

@ FJRocket, Jestal, Warchild, Ignaciob, and any others who have contributed to this ongoing study,

Thank you.

Speaking only for myself (but I suspect that there are quite a few of us), your efforts are laying the groundwork that I will likely follow when the "perfect compromise" is achieved. Your work will pay off tremendously for those of us who are seeing "light" at the end of the HID HI/LO tunnel.

I believe that the number of views on these threads indicates that there are quite a few of us out here who wait for every latest development, and hope to duplicate it for ourselves when you guys have it nailed.

So, now that the HID's are installed, thanks again for your work to extract maximum performance from a flawed design.

Shane

Holy Moly Batman, thank god I didn't try this farkle.

Well, I'm sure having fun. Learning a bit, too. Bummer that it's winter-ish and I'm back to work. That puts a dent in the farkling and test riding.

I'm not sure what the best outcome is going to be. I suppose I would still have to go with Warchild's dedicated high beam project for the most reliable outcome with the max light.

I think it just depends on what you want. Again, I want two headlights with hi/lo function. If I can't get it satisfactorily with the hacking I'm doing, I'll go back to Silver Stars (or similar) and use these lights for something else. My dirt bike takes an H4, and my kitplane needs a landing light. So I have options. But I think with some more tweaking I can get these things to work reasonably well. Actually, I'm REALLY close. In fact I think I could quit now and be pretty content. That's why I went ahead and started a new thread. Darn work just keeps getting in the way. And here comes the snow....

Then again, maybe someone else will come up with a better mousetrap. I'm certainly open and looking for ideas.

del

I went back and JB'd the verticals back on the shutters on my hacked right bixenon. A test in the garage puts a nice crisp beam back on the wall. No more fuzzed out right beam. So if the sutter repairs stay put, that should in deed keep the oncoming traffic a bit happier.

Since Jestal went ahead and trimmed his nose cone support structure, I cut mine down to the minimum it would take to keep the mechanism in tact. Now there is just a simple cover over the end of the structure to keep from blinding the opposers.

Except for that really intense band of light in the center, on high beam (in my little garage) the light above the intense area appears to be similar to that below the intense area. To me this means that's about all the light we're going to get. Primary Mission accomplished.

Covering one light shows a difference in the pattern. The left light still has a dead zone. It also still has a rather large nose area (no nosecone, though, just pop can), and the light source is in the factory location. The right light has minimal nosecone and the light source still in the 2mm forward of the factory slots. The right side does NOT have a dead zone and does NOT have a crisp cut off at the top of the low beam. Secondary Mission NOT accomplished.

So as soon as my battery recharges and the bixenons have a chance to cool down, I am going to move the light source on the LEFT light to the max rearward factory slot position and see if the dead zone disappears. (Edit: it didn't. You can "fuzz" the dead zone out at the risk of blinding oncoming traffic, or aiming the lights so low that it won't matter.)

I went back and moved the left light source clip forward of the factory slots and the beam got fuzzy. The dead zone fuzzed out, but the crisp cut off was reduced significantly. I moved the light source back to the most forward factory slot and left it there. The dead zone came back, but the beam pattern was fine.

Next I trimmed off the nose cone until it had the minimum frame allowable to retain the integrety of the bixenon structure, and covered the end. This didn't help the dead zone, but it may have let out more light.

One of the shutters is taller than the other. I went ahead and trimmed them down even. The dead zone is still there, pretty much unchanged.

In fact I went back and moved the right light source back to the most forward clip factory position as well and the dead zone came back. Bummer.

As Jestal stated, looks like the dead zone is caused by bixenon mechanical structures we can't eliminate.

So it's time to choose. Fuzzy low beam cut off or dead zone. I think I'll go back to a crisp cut off on the left light and perhaps make a new notch in the right beam source to clip the light inbetween the foward most factory position and the first notch I cut 2 -3 mm forward of that. So the right beam will be crisp and the left beam will be a little fuzzy. Then I will stagger-step the beams so that hopefully the right beam will overlap the dead zone of the left beam.

It's too bad the shutters didn't open REARWARD instead of forward into the beamcast. That would eliminate the structures in front of the light source blocking the light and creating the deadzone. Then again, maybe it would have been worse.

OK,

FJRocket and Jestal,

Having watched the progress of the mods and the resulting comparisons, I am getting ready to put the lights on the bike. I will have HID AUX lights as well so the last little bit of lumens is not as critical for me. Given what you know, in the "bang for the buck" modifications, how far would you suggest going on hacking the lights?

I am thinking of flipping the bulb around and putting the slot and tab modification there and calling it good.

Opinions?