mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Supplementary Lighting/long winded reply

To: The MG List <mgs@autox.team.net>
Subject: RE: Supplementary Lighting/long winded reply
From: Chuck Renner <crenner@dynalivery.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:01:16 -0500
> I'm interested in hearing from folks regarding more modern 
> lighting, the
> good, the bad, the ugly.

Daniel Stern has a great page set up which explains all the various lighting
types:  old, current, and future.  He also has some good information to
combat the popular notion that Xenon HID lamps are superior to good
halogens:

http://lighting.mbz.org/  

Of course, by good halogens, I mean E-code lights, not DOT lights.  The
pattern specified by DOT is horrendous.  Changing to E-code lamps is
probably one of the best things you can do for night driving that doesn't
involve mounting extra lights.

The pattern is much better, and provides less glare to oncoming drivers to
boot.  This being the case, you're not going to be pulled over for your
lights (not that I've ever seen anyone pulled over for poorly aimed lights,
or blinding fog lights).  The only potential problem is that some state
safety inspections actually look at the headlights, not just verify that
they work, so you may have difficulties there.

I'm pretty sure that the Wipac lamps that Moss (162-725) and others are
stocking are E-code lamps, since in the picture on the Moss site I can't see
the little DOT aiming nipples, and the lens fluting looks correct for E-code
lamps.

///  or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///  Archives at http://www.team.net/archive


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>