So, I'm doing a little study on LED headlights
12-05-2014, 04:23 PM
#62
That's not an issue for me either. There was another reviewer with a 2010 f150 on amazon who said that plasmaglow told him that the kit will not work with his headlamps or any lamps that have the reflective cup because they're not designed for those setups.
Not sure what the deal is, but that was never an issue with my kit and I am very pleased with the output of this kit. Sure the cutoff isn't the most ideal and i had to aim them down but these are still a major upgrade over halogens for me.
The reviewer said that the beam pattern was useless but for me, that couldn't be further from the truth and I've posted the output shots in this thread to show it.
Not sure what the deal is, but that was never an issue with my kit and I am very pleased with the output of this kit. Sure the cutoff isn't the most ideal and i had to aim them down but these are still a major upgrade over halogens for me.
The reviewer said that the beam pattern was useless but for me, that couldn't be further from the truth and I've posted the output shots in this thread to show it.
Last edited by johndog82; 12-05-2014 at 04:31 PM.
03-10-2015, 04:16 AM
#63
Junior Member
I have tested 3 kits in a 2013 and they were all terrible with glare, great color and output but baaaaad glare. Also the original poster got one of the defective bulbs like my first batch, notice your led is pointed diagonally and not straight up. I had this same defective led bulbs. I tried flat led kits, recessed kits with a cone and a tiny led to try to mimick the tiny filament of actual 9008 bulbs. I studied lens reflection physics before and there is no way a wide led filament can mimick a tiny halogen filament and focus the light correctly.
My last hope is this bulb
http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item...d=181652833536
It's so cheap I will likely try it but doubt it will work since I've been burned 3 times already.
My last hope is this bulb
http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item...d=181652833536
It's so cheap I will likely try it but doubt it will work since I've been burned 3 times already.
03-10-2015, 08:49 AM
#64
I have tested 3 kits in a 2013 and they were all terrible with glare, great color and output but baaaaad glare. Also the original poster got one of the defective bulbs like my first batch, notice your led is pointed diagonally and not straight up. I had this same defective led bulbs. I tried flat led kits, recessed kits with a cone and a tiny led to try to mimick the tiny filament of actual 9008 bulbs. I studied lens reflection physics before and there is no way a wide led filament can mimick a tiny halogen filament and focus the light correctly.
My last hope is this bulb
http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item...d=181652833536
It's so cheap I will likely try it but doubt it will work since I've been burned 3 times already.
My last hope is this bulb
http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item...d=181652833536
It's so cheap I will likely try it but doubt it will work since I've been burned 3 times already.
The alleged 'optical design' applied to these spectacularly over-rated, poorly-constructed products is virtually non-existent.
And the ones that did have some actual design acumen (e.g TRS) have already concluded that the physics don't allow their use as primary low beam emitters. (Refer to the TRS site for the exact verbiage).
I've dealt with these longer than all of the folks in this thread put together. They are simply not suitable.
Don't get me started on heatsink design. What malarky. Nothing seen to date will support the waste heat produced by the claimed output of these pieces of Merde. That single fact should be yer wake-up call as to the bogus nature of these devices.
'6000 Lu'? Please - these crooks are just laughing at the ignant consumer. Rhetoric, fancy packaging, junk science, pretty graphics, disingenuous marketing and relatively low prices - all designed to attract clueless fools. It appears to be working; "10,000 flies can't be wrong" is the adage that immediately comes to mind.
And as an added bonus - toss in male testosterone - the inability of some folks to admit they effed up and doggedly report 'success' when the corollary is true. Good grief - yer fooling no one - except yerself.
Save yer money folks - and either do it correctly, or not at all. Best advice I can give you. Honestly - just trying to save a few - who may still be salvageable - some grief. As for the ignantly stubborn, myopic hard cases? Cant help you - but I do feel sorry for you.
Regards;
MGD
The following users liked this post:
RES4CUE (03-15-2015)
03-14-2015, 11:36 AM
#65
And you will be burned again. Your previous conclusions will still hold. Follow your good instincts.
The alleged 'optical design' applied to these spectacularly over-rated, poorly-constructed products is virtually non-existent.
And the ones that did have some actual design acumen (e.g TRS) have already concluded that the physics don't allow their use as primary low beam emitters. (Refer to the TRS site for the exact verbiage).
I've dealt with these longer than all of the folks in this thread put together. They are simply not suitable.
Don't get me started on heatsink design. What malarky. Nothing seen to date will support the waste heat produced by the claimed output of these pieces of Merde. That single fact should be yer wake-up call as to the bogus nature of these devices.
'6000 Lu'? Please - these crooks are just laughing at the ignant consumer. Rhetoric, fancy packaging, junk science, pretty graphics, disingenuous marketing and relatively low prices - all designed to attract clueless fools. It appears to be working; "10,000 flies can't be wrong" is the adage that immediately comes to mind.
And as an added bonus - toss in male testosterone - the inability of some folks to admit they effed up and doggedly report 'success' when the corollary is true. Good grief - yer fooling no one - except yerself.
Save yer money folks - and either do it correctly, or not at all. Best advice I can give you. Honestly - just trying to save a few - who may still be salvageable - some grief. As for the ignantly stubborn, myopic hard cases? Cant help you - but I do feel sorry for you.
Regards;
MGD
Last edited by johndog82; 03-14-2015 at 12:26 PM.
03-14-2015, 12:49 PM
#66
You're making too many blanket statements. Mine are far from worthless and Ive been running it for 6 months. I will be upgrading to factory HIDs from my LED kit in the future but only because of the bad high beam performance of this kit. The lows aren't perfect either, but they are still miles ahead of halogens, I'm not blinding other drivers, and I have no regrets trying this kit out. I know that will make you fuming mad, and I could care less. I did extensive aiming and testing at night, I got in a car and got out in front of my truck and I have almost no glare to speak of with how I've got mine aimed. Its a non issue. So your assessment doesn't apply to me. And nowhere does my kit say 6000 Lu. Mine says 3000 for both bulbs and thats accurate. You know, there is a way to rip on these kits without hurling needless insults at their users. You should try it sometime.
Perhaps you should give TRS a call - they will be candid with you concerning their far more comprehensive R&D and testing, when the chose NOT to market their LED headlight bulbs for low-beam applications due to aforementioned constraints. They took the high road.
There are kits stating 6000lu, btw. And again, even 1500 lu per bulb is pushing it if you knew the physics of heat transfer from the emitter wafer to free-air, in an automotive environment.
Halogen filament registration/orientation with the focal point of the reflector is done with sub-millimeter precision. Just holding these side-to-side with a standard bulb will reveal just how far off they are. There is no question (and no end of data to support it) that beam width, cutoff, uniformity and 'throw' is impacted ( and 'whiter' does not equate to 'brighter' ).
What I suspect you have not done is line up yer truck with one equipped with high-quality HID projectors. If you had, we'd be having an entirely different discussion. Ask me how I know.
Last edited by MGD; 03-14-2015 at 01:02 PM.
03-14-2015, 01:53 PM
#67
Fair enough - but I've been attempting to convey the limitations for years - few listen. It get's frustrating when hearsay and marketing so easily misleads folks.
Perhaps you should give TRS a call - they will be candid with you concerning their far more comprehensive R&D and testing, when the chose NOT to market their LED headlight bulbs for low-beam applications due to aforementioned constraints. They took the high road.
There are kits stating 6000lu, btw. And again, even 1500 lu per bulb is pushing it if you knew the physics of heat transfer from the emitter wafer to free-air, in an automotive environment.
Halogen filament registration/orientation with the focal point of the reflector is done with sub-millimeter precision. Just holding these side-to-side with a standard bulb will reveal just how far off they are. There is no question (and no end of data to support it) that beam width, cutoff, uniformity and 'throw' is impacted ( and 'whiter' does not equate to 'brighter' ).
What I suspect you have not done is line up yer truck with one equipped with high-quality HID projectors. If you had, we'd be having an entirely different discussion. Ask me how I know.
Last edited by johndog82; 03-14-2015 at 01:59 PM.
03-14-2015, 02:00 PM
#68
[FWIW - Gold Standard is not MiniD2S, it's RX350's - considering bang/buck, or LS460's - cost no object, IMHO. With Philips or Osram capsules.]
MGD
03-15-2015, 08:06 AM
#70
