The LED SAE J583 Fog Pod & Fog Light Review

Update report of Morimoto 1 Banger Wide beam 2 Banger Wide beam SAE J583 photometric compliance test result.

Summery

1 Banger Wide - Unfortunately it did not perform enough to satisfy J583 F function. I instructed team to revise SAE compliance mention from all listings, lamp shall be used for off-road applicaiton.
Please enjoy them as mini wide beam that is still plenty powerful for its size and potent performance. Just not On Road Fog use as of now. I humbly accept test result and will work on improvement!!! I want to make it SAE Compliant, so more potent lamp choice for community.

E-max 8,300Cd Off-road wide beam

2 Banger NCS wide - It satisfied F3 performance at 0.75D aim, listing now updated to 2B NCS to be SAE J583 F3 compliant fog lamp

E-max 10,900Cd At 3.3 degree down aim, F3 compliant

2 Banger HXB wide - it satisfied F performance at default 0.75D aim. 2 Banger HXB performed very strong in relative strength to 4B HXB

E-max 16,380Cd At 3.9 degree down aim, F compliant


Below are in depth important detail of what this test result mean and how it compare to 4B or other similar class products.


1 Banger Wide Beam

Unfortunately, 1B wide beam did not satisfy SAE J583 F function photometric test due to
1.Cutoff was NOT sharp enough ( required gradient is to be above 0.08, but it was 0.067
2.1. caused lamp to be aimed lower, beam center 1.5 degree down zone did not reach minimum requirement.


How bad was cutoff?

Number wise, measured to be 0.067 where it must be at least 0.08
What kind of cutoff quality this number means? We had past report of DD SS3 max which had similar gradient (cutoff) quality, which was 0.059

It means, 1B Wide beam cutoff was slightly sharper than DD SS3 max Fog, but was not sharp enough to be considered as SAE J583 compliant cutoff quality.



Basically, cutoff was loose. But it was detectable enough to aim lamp, so cutoff line to be aimed at 0.75D ( 4" below lamp height at 25')
Beam was aimed about 4.2 degree down globally, this made brighter part of the beam went too low, failed to retain F table required intensity at 1.5D 3L/R test point.


Failure of SAE J583 F test means 1B wide beam to be weak performer?

I don't necessary say it is weak for this compact lamp. It still shoot decent beam, just we shall not market as SAE fog for On road use.
Below is side by side performance comparison to same class fog lamp Looking at this, I don't think SSC1 actually pass SAE, but I didn't test them, nor have official report of it.
So this is more like visual reference.







2 Banger NCS Wide beam

Cutoff improvement over 4 Banger NCS was significant.



2B NCS wide was tested to satisfy F3 regulation, basically, not as barbaric as basic F function, more refined, updated regulation.
Same class as DD Elite series fog, or most of modern OE fog lamp performance standard.

Required aiming is approx. 3.3 degree down. This is very important!!! Compliant does not mean it won't cause glare just by sticker of SAE.
it must be aimed accordingly, in this case, cutoff line must be 0.75D down ( default aim of F3 regulation is 1D, test allows 0.75D aim performance check if 1D aim failed)
To do so, entire lamp must be aimed 3.3 degree down.






2 Banger HXB Wide beam


Cutoff was improved considerably compare to 4B HXB, 4B HXB was at very much borderline quality, but 2B HXB cutoff was detected as equivalent as 4B NCS Wide beam.
This is strong improvement, easier to aim.


Sharper cutoff allowed slightly higher aim allowance compare to 4B HXB
Required aim down amount is 3.9 Degree

This helped regulation defined test point relative performance much stronger than 4B HXB considering 2B has one less emitter.




Please aim lamp correctly!!!

 

@Yoshi I I am curious about why the "Aim" graphs are different candela readings than the Luminous Intensity charts differ so drastically? The 2B NCS shows higher intensity on the Aim chart than the 2B HXB, but the HXB has higher intensity on the Luminous Intensity chart as expected.

NCS data





HXB data

 

e-max ( absolute max anywhere in the beam) and cutoff zone intensity is different parameter.

Gradient analysis is intensity of near cutoff line. ( not peak intensity)
= 2B NCS has much more intensity at cutoff line = higher contrast

HXB brightest part is lower than NCS. Looser cutoff, = less intensity to the cutoff line edge. that's why you see lower Cd number near cutoff with HXB

 

That makes more sense now! I'm assuming the 1D, 0.5D, etc stand for degrees? If so, I can't believe it took me this long to figure it out! haha

 

1D = 1 degree Down

if it’s above 1U = 1 degree up. 2U= 2 degree up. 3R = 3 degree to the right. 3L = 3 degree to the left



Test point is defined by U/D R/L coordination

when it says 1.5D 3R It means point is 1.5 degree down from lamp center 3 degree to the right from lamp center


J583 F is tested at aiming if 0.75D
This means
Lamp is aimed so cutoff line ( gradient max) line up to 0.75 degree down from lamp height

this is what many talk about 4” down @25’ distance.

 

i didnt see it in the thread (i am also getting old and blind lol) but did you have a comparison of the DD pro vs BD new fog? i saw the sport one, but with the pro being similar price as the DD fog might be a good comparison.

 

I’m just going to leave this here…..

 

Nice, but those patterns are not street legal as headlights.

 

Exactly! How are we to take a company seriously when they promote things like this and the LP6 as a motorcycle headlight???

 

I did not compare the SS3 Pros vs Next Gen Bajas. You can see peak intensity comparisons below, the Pros are about 25% higher in output intensity, they have a much wider pattern than Baja (the Pros are wider than the SS3 Sports) but the Pros also have soft cut offs with significant light spill and Baja has sharp cut offs.

In looking at comparable fogs, the SS3 Sports and Morimoto NCS made the most sense to me, as both have good cut offs, similar output intensity but also still greater width than the Baja next gen lamps with the lower price point.

Next Gen Baja vs SS3 Pros

 

As mentioned in the other headlight group, the Baja Next Gen fogs are far too low in intensity to use as a headlight, they lack hotspots and have the completely wrong beam pattern. It is a very short range fog light that will be dangerous to use as a headlight as they will easily be outdriven. Regardless of the post sharing intention, promoting installing SAE (without calling out fog) pods into headlamps and commenting on the great looking cut offs leads people to believe this is an acceptable headlight practice, as seen in the other headlight group and the original Baja post, when it is not.

I'd call the post by @Baja Designs irresponsible and dangerously misleading at best. I'd expect better or at bare minimum a disclaimer that these are not sufficient for headlight replacements and not safe for street use from a credible lighting manufacture.

 

They did amend their instagram post to mention that, probably after they were called out here about it

 

Good to see they updated the post. They were called out in a few places, taking significant hits on credibility for that post. The update also continues to show a lack of understanding. The DOT does not approve anything for lighting. The lights fail to meet the FVMSS 108 headlight compliance requirements. They should take it a step further and specifically recommend people do not repeat this style mod for street use as it is insufficient for headlights.

 

factory halogen low beam at least will have 15,000Cd minimum at 1.5D 2R test point (LB2V) ( this point represent road center intensity point) Aside from LB2V has 20 other test points to be observed, that peak intensity of New BD SAE fog itself is already a big risk as substitute of low beam. It is fog lamp! their new fog is about 12,000Cd max, already below very minimum beam intensity requirement. But put that pod lamp inside of the headlamp result in another 15% optical loss at headlamp front lens. (Fresnel loss= when light enter and exit lens, there is optical loss) Then, Contained in smaller enclosed housing limit heatsink capacity as well, result another few percent of power drop, realistic final projecting beam output intensity likely is around 9,500Cd the most in my calculation How bad is this ? Most of modern OEM LED low beam shoot as much as 40,000Cd for same test point Even just intensity only subject, it will require at least 4 pods per lamp equivalent optical projection to be par to modern LED headlamp. Even old halogen lamp design was conformed to regulation minimum, it will still produce better beam than fog lamp as low beam. Clean lens first, use new halogen bulb is far superior and far cost effective method to achieve better lighting. Because it is intended for low beam at least. Huge misunderstanding all around, seeing sharp cutoff has nothing to do with superior optical performance Fog lamp won’t substitute low beam. All designed differently

it is also important to learn circular shaped spot beam is not suitable for high beam either. High beam regulation defines foreground illuminance maximum allowance at 4 degree down point. classic parabola reflector collimation with spill will result in too high intensity proportion at V, 4D point. This makes actual distance illuminance impression very weak

 

Trying not to get too off topic again. Sorry Crash, ADHD kicking in again. Lol

They should also look at amending this post too. They even mentioned in the previous page that it was never their intent for the LP6 to be used as an “on the road light”. Quote from BD’s post. “Most riders just want to be seen to prevent any preventable accidents caused by automotive drivers. With this being said when developing our light we did not design this light to be used on the road which is why it is labeled and classified as an off-road-only light.”

BUT, 2 weeks later on their Facebook and Instagram pages they did exactly the opposite. This isn’t the only instance either, scroll through the Instagram page and you’ll find other examples like this.



I realize Baja Designs can’t go back in time, it’s out of BD’s control how people use your products and the website does have disclaimers stating it’s for off-road use only. But the simple fact of the matter is that people will use a product if the way the specific product is advertised and promoted.



Rigid Industries is guilty of this practice as well showing bikes with the Adapt XP as a headlight with no disclaimer on their social media pages.

I’m not just picking on Baja Designs here. I’m sure there’s other manufactures with the same practices, but they don’t have the reputation and perceived credibility as these two. I don’t think there is a way to get the heavy hitters in the lighting industry to come together and agree on common grounds as they all want to make money and sell products. But for the love of my eye sight and others, it would be great if manufactures could responsibly advertise their products.

 

Companies need to coordinate their social media work with their technical work.

 

Agreed that is also a poor post by Rigid promoting dangerous lighting practices. What's worse though is Rigid has been a long time SAE lighting manufacture, pioneering SAE lighting compliance for many LED products. Their partnership with Truck-lite even has them producing compliant headlights, something Baja has not yet done. Poor form to promote non-compliant products in their social media posts especially when they have compliant products in their portfolio.

This definitely 100%. Too often the social media arm has absolutely no clue on technical specifics, as demonstrated by Baja and Rigid.

 

Jeez you guys are all hot and bothered by that. Its almost like the lights are on a offroad rig? Like half of the other rigs posted on Bds' pages.

Didn't know you guys were the on road beam police, as you would've arrested me for the china bars I had as headlights in my daily driver 10 years ago.

 

The thread is about SAE complaint fog lights

 

This is an SAE lighting compliance thread, aka on-road street use. The post Baja chose to share was promoting SAE fogs as headlights, which fail to meet SAE compliance standards for that purpose and would be highly unsafe. But instead of calling that out, Baja chose to promote the great cut offs, leading people to believe this was an acceptable practice. While Baja later added a disclaimer to their post, the knowledgable lighting community expects Baja to do better, they don’t have a great SAE track record.

-Promotes Squadron Sports as "street friendly" fogs - and blinds everyone one the road causing significant hazard to all other motorists.
-Creates an SAE lamp, lamp completely fails compliance - still blinds everyone on the road with non-compliant light spill/glare.
-Revises SAE lamp, uses inserts to drastically cut down on output - still fails gradient, meaning the cut offs are not sharp enough to be properly aimed.
-Creates Gen 2 SAE lamp, fails SAE compliance on yellow because the lights are too green, causing a distracting hazard to oncoming drivers.
-Promotes using fogs as headlights in social media - creating a horribly unsafe vehicle lighting recommendation for the driver and occupants of the vehicle that is reposted and shared in multiple venues.
-Promotes using off-road lights as headlights for Motorcycles on social media - creating dangerously blinding glare to oncoming drivers.

Yes, they should be called out for promoting such an unsafe lighting practice. People today are far better informed and expect better from reputable lighting manufactures. The goal of these threads is to educate and advance automotive SAE lighting for street use, which includes calling out when mistakes are made.