3rd Gen HID vs LED vs Halogen H11 projector headlights

This is the most cost effective harness extension I found, about $14 delivered from Amazon.ca if you have Prime. Had it in the mail the next day. Just split the plastic right half in two with a dremel (wear safety glasses!). Mod takes 15 seconds to do.

 

Interesting that you found the Osram Nightbreaker H11 to be that much brighter than the GE H11. If I recall correctly, Crash didn't like the Osram nightbreaker as much as the GE+130.

 

I think part of the issue is sample size. You would really need to measure a lot more than one bulb to make determinations.

The night breaker (at least the one I have) is ridiculously bright for an H11, but it will likely only last a few months. I would not put them in the wife's car because of the short lifespan, it is a safety issue.

I don't mind changing bulbs in the Taco because it is super easy, so bulb life is not a big deal. On the Volvo V70 wagon I have, you have to remove the airbox and disconnect a wiring harness to change the driver's side bulb!

 

I've ordered a set of

$20 Nokya NOK7618 Halogen Bulb

Nokya NOK7618 Hyper Yellow bulbs to try. The only negatives I've seen in the reviews is they have shorter life than the OE bulbs. I don't foresee that being a problem for me since I'll only be running them as needed, not all the time.

 

I had these in H10 on my 2nd gen. I was only on the 2nd set in 11 years. Used them almost daily.

 

Why did you not use the wall method at greater distance as discussed in the PM? Freehand is very error prone and will give large variability in the numbers, and testing at such a close distance will magnify the errors. Testing at a standardized distance from a wall and measuring the output at the wall provides a consistent plane for measurement to eliminate the free hand errors. A quality metric of the measurement should be how repeatable are the numbers if you were to measure again. I realize years ago when I got my first lux meter I used my ‘paint stick method’ for showing lux increase with higher wattage and did not set the best example, but I no longer use that method.

 

You T4R guys should check out upgrading the high beam by replacing the 9005 with a 9011 HIR. Output bumps from 1700 lumens to 2500 lumens and does not use any more power than the 9005. You will need to use a dermal or small saw to trim the top external plastic collar mounting tab down, as covered here:
https://store.candlepower.com/mohirbuba.html

 

I find that nail clippers work extremely well for trimming the tabs too.

 

I rarely use my high beams. At the moment, I have Nokya Hyper Yellow 2005 bulbs for a more yellow DRL. I've noticed that on the T4R, the low beams remain on while the high beams are on. Other vehicles I've had with separate high/low didn't do this.

 

I did it in my garage due to weather (ice accumulation would have distorted the measurements), in total darkness. Truck was parked and not moved during testing. Measurements taken with sensor placed against wall, found the maximum reading horizontally and then moved sensor up and down to find peak. Each reported measurement is the average of three.

If you want to know the flux at the surface of the lens you want to measure as close to the source as possible. Or ideally you would envelop the filament with a hollow spherical sensor. If you measure at distance, you are really measuring the goodness of the lens/optic system, specifically its ability to collimate the way you want. Not the bulb itself. To answer the question of which bulb in the set produces the most flux at lowest cost, you want as much of the light output to hit the sensor as possible, which means getting in close. To do it properly you would integrate samples in the entire beam width, but ain't nobody got time for that.

I have a laser rangefinder, no problem to duplicate your test conditions next weekend - what range do you prefer (mm)?

 

3rd Gen Tacomas do the same, leave the lows on while activating the highs.

I see, I misunderstood your comments about how you measured, based on the comments it made it sound like it was freehand.

Your logic on closeness and integrating sphere sensors is the same logic utilized by the LED companies to justify why their products are better. Technically it is not wrong, but it completely misses the objective IMO. My objective is not a brighter light source, like LED companies focus on, my objective is greater projected output. The line seems small but they are not directly correlated. An ultra high performance H11 is legally limited to 1200 lumens +/-15%. The LED used in the thread was 1750 lumens. An H9 is legally limited to 2100 lumens +/-15%. Yet the GE +130 was able to beat out the LED and the Osram H9, even though it is the lowest lumen output. Why? Because high performance halogens are based on using smaller light sources for increased projection efficiency. If you are not measuring projection and just focused on raw output you completely miss the point of how the light source actually performs in a housing, which is ultimately what matters most in application.

We may have different objectives if you are attempting to find the brightest light source and I am looking for the brightest output projection.

I'm not married to any set distance for testing, but the longer the better. My indoor testing is done at 5,486.4mm (approximately) and outdoor testing done at 12,801.6mm (approximately).

I've thought about doing integrations across the beam pattern, really wouldn't be difficult to do. Collect the raw data, import it into an application like Tecplot 360, integrate the values and then plot the intensity results. But my time is already very limited and really that isn't necessary and wouldn't provide much value, when comparing halogen to halogen, a higher output H9 will have a higher integrated value than the high performance H11, because it puts out more raw lumens. But the performance H11 with have its higher output in the area that matters most.

 

In the end, the reason the LEDs don't work well is that the bulb is one part of an optical system that includes a reflector and a lens. If you could make an LED "bulb" that radiated homogeneously and cylindrically, you could sensibly make direct comparisons. I did not compare planar semiconductor sources with cylindrically-radiating incandescent sources, mainly because I sold my $200 LED bulbs at a loss after reading the great work you did. I am very far from being a marketeer and I share your objection to the weasel marketing of LED bulbs. I compared 5 sources that match the geometry for which the optical system was designed.

Each bulb under test is going to have manufacturing variations that will produce varying flux density along the filament. The bulb glass is going to produce slight distortions as well which will produce slightly different flux density at various points on the cylinder around it. The filament may not be perfectly coincident with the projection axis of the projector lens, and it may be slightly displaced linearly along the axis. Those type of manufacturing variations/defects are going to be magnified a lot at 14 m, and it will result in different peak measurements in the square centimetre your sensor is integrating (at least that's how big my sensor is).

Given that you have common and correct source geometry on all the bulbs under test, what you should be interested in is the total flux through the lens, which is the best figure of merit for the bulb itself. If you are measuring the brightest square centimetre 14 metres away, you are getting into a lot of complicated system interactions that are going to make it a less pure test. For example, the projector lens is a mass production part and you don't know how closely the geometry and coatings are controlled. Same with the reflector.

When you are talking about "projecting light" you are talking about creating a desired pattern of flux density at distance. That is the job of the lens/reflector designer, not the bulb designer, and measuring it is a system level test that requires samples over the total area of the beam where it intersects the measurement plane. It is not a pure test of the bulb, where the figures of merit are total flux and uniformity of the flux density measured on the outside surface of the bulb glass.

All to say that if you are comparing a bunch of incandescent sources it's better to get an estimate of the total flux through the projector lens, so you should try to be close in so the sensor can capture as much flux as possible.

 

While there is value to what you are saying (especially if you were a bulb manufacturer) I do believe the way Crashnburn80 is measuring output is more meaningful. I think this thread has illuminated the fact that brighter is not always better, especially when some of the luminous flux is being used to light the ground just 10 ft in front of the truck, or worse, blind other drivers. I believe the goal here is not to necessarily find the brightest bulb, but to find the best bulb for the third gen housing. If you all want to do more tests I would propose following what the IIHS has implemented recently to get a better understanding of how different headlights behave under different scenarios: https://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/headlight-evaluation

 

Some serious nerd battling here.



Having said that, I now have spent at least $100 in Hella H9’s, GE 130’s and adapter harnesses. I’m set. Carry on please

 

Nerd debates are awesome, because they are typically grounded in science and intellect, not the usual marketing BS that floods the internet. You want the nerds and engineers in your court when it counts, always, without exception. When my team was tasked with determining if the Space Shuttle is safe for atmospheric reentry after suffering tile damage, never once have I said, gee I wish I had another MBA or Marketing major on my team, instead of my PhD Aeronautic and Astronautic Engineers (PhDs in rocket science, aka "Super Nerds"). I want the absolute smartest/nerdiest people possible on my team, because they are the ones that will deliver superior results.

I think our objectives significantly differ. I do not care what the brightest light source is, I care about what performs best in the 3rd Gen housing to project light over distance.

The lights and the housing are critical interdependent components. Example: I've spent $90 on ARB Fatboy bulbs for testing that have bent filaments and sloppy manufacturing tolerances, I could test at super close range to conceal the manufacturing flaws to get the higher lux numbers, but I don't. Because I think the manufacturing flaws should be highlighted as part of the test, not overlooked, and they'll fail to perform as well at distance due to poor manufacturing tolerances with misaligned filaments than they will up close looking at raw output. So yes, I do think that the defects should be a part of the test, because that is how users will experience the actual applied performance and results in the real world. I am not in this for an academic exercise, drivers are looking for best projected output, not brightest light source, which is why all my tests are targeted toward best projected output. The Holy War I have waged with multiple LED companies has always been about brighter lumen bulb output, when they have failed to realize that does not at all equate to brighter projected output.

There are certainly small variances between manufacturing batches, I usually test all the bulbs I have of a particular make. In the case of the GEs +130s, Philips H9s and Hella H9s that has been 4 bulbs of each make. Since I datalog everything I keep the highest logged reading, but among those bulbs I have not had any significant outliers. The headlight housings may not be 100% perfectly identical across the production line, but I think Toyota is by far more consistent than the +/-15% swing allowed by the bulb manufactures.

It seems to come down to you are looking for the brightest light source, and I am looking for the best performing light source in the 3rd Gen assemblies. Seemingly similar but definitely not the same.

 

Yah but if you want to find the best performing light source in terms of correct flux density profile over area, you need to up your game by taking way more samples, not just the brightest square centimetre. Right now if you found the brightest square centimetre 20 m to the right of the longitudinal axis of the truck, and it happened to be the brightest among the bulbs, you would pick that one.

To me, if you are assuming that all the bulbs are "pretty good" it becomes a question of total flux and (hotspot flux density/$). And the Hella is so far ahead on the second metric in my case, that Canadians should just order 4 plus some spares, and not look back. That's if they don't burn out in 4 months, which has definitely happened to me before in a different car.

Truth is I didn't care much about headlights in my day job, vehicles were driverless so the only function was to alert people that the vehicle was coming right at them at 100 km/h! They would not withstand the testing you are doing for sure.

 

I was joking obviously. This is a great thread with great info.

I too am a nerd (engineer) and build rockets and airplanes.

 

It's just an approximate, pay no attention to the decimals.......@crashburn80 truly is an engineer.

 

I forgot to say that I did the test on battery power only.

My boss used to say that you have to shoot the engineer at some point and just go into production, otherwise you will never start!