HID Self Buy

[Warchild]

Use care in that your don't do any mod to the capsule that you can't un-do.

Moving the position of the capsule "filament" rearward by shimming the H4 base is going to cause you to lose the focal point for the low beam, which will undoubtedly cause you to lose the excellent properties of the low beam you have now. Proceed with caution.

But definitely let us know what your results are!

 

[FJRocket]

I already moved the entire capsule rearwards in the socket by hand. What happens is... and WC, you are right... you lose low beam intensity. But you GAIN HIGH BEAM INTENSITY. I was postulating on the other thread I started about the way a halogen H4 works and then comparing how this HID capsule works.

I think the low beams could lose a little intensity and still kick ass. I think the high beams need to gain intensity.

I also think that the horizontal dead zone is a big problem. I'm trying to figure out if it's caused by the shutters. They are the only thing that are really horizontal in the whole mechanism. I think I could cut the upright sides of the wings off to let out a little more light, especially horizontally. But I'm afraid of what that might do to the low beam cut off zone. I don't know if cutting the wings of the shutters would open up too much light, particularly on low beam, and perhaps I couldn't adjust the star wheels enough to get the low beams low enough. Did that make sense?

There's a bunch of crap under the light source, too, that might be blocking a lot of high beam light. I'm ASS-U-ME-ng that the high beams come from the bottom of the light source and reflectors. There is a channel under the light source that actuates the shutters that is WAY big for what it does. I could thin that thing and let some light out around it. Especially in the high beam mode. Just trim it a wee bit. A pushrod would have been more effective there instead of a channel. Maybe I should JB some stainless wire along the bottom of the channel, then cut the crap out of the channel to let some more light out???

I'm thinking a dremel could be used to let some light around some of the moving parts, if you get my drift. Nip and tuck. Well, nip, anyway. I wonder if some of the mechanism supports could be thinned a bit in light critical areas as well?????

I gunna thimk 'bout dis 1 a spell b 4 I startz cuttin.

 

[Warchild]

From your last entry in the duplicating thread:

A.) have the anode on the TOP and let it block out the LO beam. (it's not that big, really) This would let more light out the bottom.

Okay, **IF** you can extract the capsule from the mechanism (without dorking up the mechanism yourself - use caution here!), flip the capsule 180-degrees and re-insert into the mechanism housing, you might improve the percieved hi-beam output, but again, unless you get the "filament" portion in the correct focal point, you'l never get the proper (i.e. "expected") output.

To illustrate, consider the stock H4 bulb below:

Both filaments are in their respective positions to achieve the proper focal point. The filaments must be in these positions for the maximum (and proper) beamcast for each type of throw (high-beam, and low-beam).

The low-beam filament (which is shield by a metal "cup") only allows light to strike the lower part of the stock reflector housing. This filament is ~ 1/4" in front of the high-beam filament.

The high-beam filament (again, residing ~ 1/4" behind the low-beam filament) has an unhindered shot at both the upper and lower areas of the stock reflector housing (in fact, it has a free 360-degree view of the reflector housing, which concentrates the beam, making the H4 high-beam as good as you'll find on any bike, anywhere) . **THIS** is what you must duplicate if you're going to realize the same staggering increase in high beam light output over stock, the way we see now in HID low-beam over stock.

Do you think the wings of the shutters could be the source of the dead zone?

Maybe. But again, I think it matters not, because not only must you have the butterfly wings operating correctly to retain the low-beam properties you have now, until/unless you can move the "filament" rearward ~ .25" and give it a "free", unhindered 360-view of the reflector housing, I think the resulting beamcast will continue to be sub-optimal.

 

[BrunDog]

WC is right, and he typed what I was thinking on the previous page before I did.

The H4 bulb is a standard. Filament locations with respect to flange mount, filament size, filament shielding, etc are defined in the "H4" specification, and all manufacturers must adhere to the spec if their bulb is to be worth a shit.

It is the manufacturer of the reflector housing that has the responsibility and control over the "beamcast" (not sure if that is really a word, but it works).

In order to determine what the problem is, you need to compare the HID capsule with the stock bulb. I don't have one, but the key, as WC stated, is to ensure that the HID's virtual filaments are ultimately being located in the correct spots.

If the virtual filaments are not being located correctly (ie they do NOT match the H4 specification), then the HID manufacturer is at fault and is responsible for the correction.

Can anyone do this comparison?

Perhaps the gents in China would oblige and correct them if they do not match the specification. If not, I guess the old adage holds true: you get what you pay for.

-BD

 

[radman]

This is, unfortunately, not an unusual situation for those who participate on a group buy of a new item. The first to get them must pioneer the install, and live with the results. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. All too often, like the ABS SB fiasco, the problems overwhelm the generally positive results of such experimentation. It would be nice, if it were possible, to have, rather than the forums general population, a select test group to purchase, install, document, and troubleshoot as well as critique these rather expensive installs. Somewhat like what WC and H Marc have done, but on a larger scale, without taking the financial hit a spendy oops might entail. A larger group would make for a larger sampling of results than just one or two would, producing a more accurate test of potential upgrades for the group in general. Think of it as a UL Lab or Consumers Reports for Feejers. How to go about it would be an interesting exercise in group dynamics, but if it worked, would go a long ways to prevent unnecessary expenditures by the whole, and might result in a better experience for the merchant as well, one way to possibly finance the testing. Just a thought.

 

[Warchild]

This is, unfortunately, not an unusual situation for those who participate on a group buy of a new item.

HEY! This was a Self-Buy, dammit! :blink:

Kidding aside, I obviously feel bad that I didn't further test the Hi/Lo kit the brief time I had it. As soon as it was apparent that I could not "split up" the wiring harness from this kit and wire them independantly, I ceased testing them. I could already tell the low-beam was phenominal, but my high beam testing was little more than pointing the nose of the (still disasembled) FJR across the street at night, where I saw that they indeed lit up places I had never seen with the stock lights.

Obviously, this isn't very thorough testing... And it obviously doesn't compare to taking them out in the dark desert to test them out like I should have.

Yet, I needed to sell the kit to have the bucks necessary to get the Low-Beam Only kit. So I carefully repackaged it, sold the kit via PayPal (at a $40 loss, after shipping), which allowed me to order the Low-Beam Kit right away. 3 days later the Low-Beam kit arrived, and in it went. So the bike was laid up only a total of 5-6 days.

Which brings up a couple points made by Radman.... first of all, this kind of experimenting can be expensive, and none of us are made of money. (Ok, the majority of us aren't made of money).

Secondly... most would agree that there is always risk in being the pioneer of new technology, or new technique, or new modifications, etc, etc. I'm usually willing to take risks if the return has substanial potential. Most of the time, it does.... the PHIDs, the Spiegler lines, the Superbrace, the Wilbers.... all were more or less hugely sucessful (despite the speedbumps along the way for the latter two).

This HID kit was only half successful.... the low beams are beyond awesome, but not so the high-beams.

Toward that end, I have already formulated a plan of attack to deal with the high beam issue. You guys that went with the Hi/Lo kit, don't be off-loading your kits quite yet. Stay tuned. B)

 

[Toecutter]

I have already formulated a plan of attack to deal with the high beam issue. You guys that went with the Hi/Lo kit, don't be off-loading your kits quite yet. Stay tuned.  B)

So, should we also hold off on installing them for now? Not that I will get to it this weekend anyway, ridin' two-up to see Rick Mayer Saturday with a sightseeing trip back down the lovely left coast Sunday. But Monday looks good, pending the progress of this issue. I'd really like a work-around, as $600.00 more worth of driving lights is not in the budget or on my wish list right now.

 

[Tinker]

I myself am hoping our Beneficent Dictator is working on a projector headlamp housing designed for the Hids. That would be beyond my wildest fantesy. Just have to wait and see what pops out of the WC hopper

 

[Warchild]

So, should we also hold off on installing them for now?

No, go ahead and install them, play with them, experiment with finding the *ideal* low beam setting for your particular setup, ect. And of course, see how the high beam is after your low beam is aim perfectly so you don't zap on-coming traffic.

The latter is critical. I just now returned from the desert, experimenting with the low-beam aim. Once you get the setting close to perfect, only a couple of twists of the adjuster knobs makes a HUGE differenece (whereas with the stock halogen bulbs, it seems like you're forever twisting the knobs before noticing a significant change in the beamcast).

I inadvertantly left the settings a pinch too high after my desert testing, and several cars let me know about it on the way home. I pulled off and turned the lenses down only 3 1/2 turns, and didn't receive a flash from oncoming traffic the remaining 10 miles home.

So go ahead and install if you're inclined, as the concepts I have in mind will take a while to fabricate and test. Even if it works as I believe it will, I don't anticipate this fix will be for everyone.

I myself am hoping our Beneficent Dictator is working on a projector headlamp housing designed for the Hids. That would be beyond my wildest fantesy.

Mine, too! :lol: No, swapping out the stock headlamp housings with projector housings would be complex and undoubtedly cost-prohibitive... though it would be very cool!

 

[vectervp1]

So go ahead and install if you're inclined, as the concepts I have in mind will take a while to fabricate and test. Even if it works as I believe it will, I don't anticipate this fix will be for everyone.

Well if you need test mules, let me know. I have no problem annoying oncoming traffic testing new things out.

 

[FJRocket]

The element comes out of the HID housing extremely easily. In fact TOO easily. That POS has a lousy fitting retainer ring holding the element in the motorized bixenon mechanism. Both of mine basically fell apart, and I have a hard time keeping them together, except when installed and then the parts are held together by the retainer clip in the FJR. Problem is that just like the H4 3 prong alignment, the element only fits the motor housing one way. You can easily remove the retaining clip and separate the element from the bixenon housing without dorking it up.

I'm not sure the element can be inverted in the housing and I don't think inverting the anode rod hanging out the bottom will make that much difference. I'm leaving that little chore off my list. I may try to scoot the element back a scoshe in the housing and reinsert it (retaining ring won't hold it anyway) to see if I can increase the amount of high beamcast (at the cost of slightly reduced low beamcast).

The halogen has a cup (very shallow, almost no side coverage at all, just on the bottoml... see WC's pic above) to restrict/regulate the low beamcast. Our HID restricts the light by mechanized shutters that are actually L angles. The shutters close together form a U channel around the light source (on the bottom AND the sides of the light source "element"). The U channel splits down the center along the bottom and open 90 degrees to let the light out the bottom (and the sides).

When open (high beam switched on), the shutters sit horizontally across the front of the light, and I'm thinking is that these horizontal L angle shutters are creating the dead zone. What I'm thinking is that if I took a dremel and reduced the upright side of each L angle , I could get rid of some or all of the dead zone of light. I think the sides of the L angle shutters are perhaps just for rigidity and they could be shortened. I'm still hesitant to start cutting, so I hope WC comes up with a better fix. As in a nondestructive method. Because the dead zone could be caused by the bottom of the shutters, not the sides.

I think it's been said before, and I agree that the H4 halogen setup is made so that the low beam is in a more forward postion and the high beam is rearward in the housing. These HID's only have one "element", not two like the halogen, so the light source does not relocate in the reflectors. Therefore we are NEVER going to get the optimal lighting designed into the system for a two element halogen bulb. But I think a happy medium could be reached with the HID element moved rearward.

Having said that, I still think more high beam light could be "let out" before trying to move the element in it's housing. I'm just trying to get some input before I start hacking away at the$e babie$. I think I could selectively trim some parts and improve the high beam light output just by increasing the volumn, and also reduce the dead zone. That would be my first choice to make changes in this system, if I were more confident on whether cutting the parts up would improve the amount of light getting out where it's needed more, and still retain most of the strength and durability of the parts.

Waiting for the His Benevolent Dictatatorness to chime in before proceeding. Going to go pick up a new little baby Yamaha today, anyway. No time for the FJR. WOOHOO!

 

[BrunDog]

WC, what does the vendor say?

Also, on the site it says that the McCulloch parts are 5000k and the Phillips are 4300K. Which does everyone have, and would switching manufacturers make a difference?

-BD

 

[Warchild]

WC, what does the vendor say?

I dunno, I haven't had any contact with him since buying my third HID kit from him.

Also, on the site it says that the McCulloch parts are 5000k and the Phillips are 4300K. Which does everyone have, and would switching manufacturers make a difference?

"Site"? What site? Our supplier doesn't have a web site to my knowledge.

Are you referring to that example site I gave earlier in this thread? That was simply to point out the G5 ballasts we have, not the kit as a whole. Our supplier said he could get the 4300K and 5000K capsules, the blingy 6000K and 8000K capsules, and the ultra-bling 10,000K and 12,000K capsules; I don't have any reason to believe he's fabricating that story. As far as I can tell, I received the 4300K capsules in all three kits I bought from him.

 

[Toynut]

Hey Dale,

Bearing the intersts of FJRForum group in mind, I would be willing to pay for an extra HI/Lo HID set for you to experiment with (optically speaking) that you could keep for your personal use.

This is to help minimize you personal investment in the research, and maximize the knowledge pool for the rest of us!

Perhaps it would keep a few people from dorking up their own kits in their own hamfisted experimentation. :blink:

Sound like a good plan to you?

 

[FJRocket]

Perhaps it would keep a few people from dorking up their own kits in their own hamfisted experimentation. :blink:

Are you referring to MOI??????

 

[Warchild]

Check your PM box, toynut....

 

[Warchild]

[SIZE=14pt]November 11, 2005[/SIZE]

The day a FJRForum.com thread breaks the "10,000 Views" barrier...

 

[twowheelnut]

[SIZE=14pt]November 11, 2005[/SIZE]
The day a FJRForum.com thread breaks the "10,000 Views" barrier...

So, how many FJR 'riders' does it take to change a light bulb?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! :lmao:

 

[Toynut]

Just think.......

once everyone has finally installed their HID kits........

and if we synchronize our garage door illumination testing......

at a time where the entire country is somewhere in the early A.M............

then I believe..............

we would be able to.......

[SIZE=21pt]LIGHT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ENOUGH TO BE SEEN FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION!!!!!![/SIZE] :bigeyes: :bigeyes: :dribble: :dribble: :dribble: B) B)

 

[Toynut]

As a bonus.....

Think how much easier it would be for Ignacio to create our long -awaited

Forum Member Location Map!!!!