New LED tail lights 69 Cuda

-
Status
Not open for further replies.
The reflector is molding into the lens, so there is never a situation where they are removed.

Actually the "reflector" is the silver painted area at the back of the light assembly. It is silver, not black, to reflect the near 360 degree output of the incadescent bulb towards the lens, which then refracts and diffuses the light in the proper directions.

Here in Manitoba, we are facing a major problem with lighting systems that do not conform to the DOT standards, and it can affect our ability to register, safety, and insure our vehicles for "on-road" use. I doubt that we are the only ones.

I am not saying that your product is not better, however, I would be very upset in a litigious way if an insurance claim on my vehicle was denied due to something like this. What you are being told in a technical way is simple

"Cover your ***"

Grant
 
great thread!
what would the cost of certification add to each unit?
All products for vehicles from 1967 and back can then use any lighting devices they want?
 
First, let me apologize for my message yesterday. When defending our products I sometimes become overzealous.
In regards to Federal Laws, SEMA released an article titled "Lighting Equipment Advances & Government Regulations." In this article they explain what measures need to be taken to certify lighting equipment:
NHTSA does not "certify" or "approve" products. Compliance with NHTSA regulations is based on self-certification by the manufacturer. This means that the manufacturer of regulated equipment must exercise due care in performing whatever tests, studies or calculations are required to satisfy itself that the certified items comply with the regulations. The manufacturer's self-certification is then passed along through the distribution chain. Certification is automatically implied when a product is offered for sale, since the law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, importer, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly selling equipment that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. Certification is also affirmed through marking requirements such as NHTSA's rule that certain lighting equipment be marked "DOT."
As you can see, we don't have to send our products to some company to have them tested. Any reasonable person can see our lights are brighter and provide an instant on response time. The advantages of a brighter tail light are obvious, but the response time makes a difference as well. At 60 mph that instant on response time means you could stop 18 feet early.
Thank you for showing so much interest in our products,
Sebastian

PS. Here is the link to the article I mentioned.
http://www.sema.org/files/attachments/Government-Affairs-2009-09-SN-Oct06-Lighting-Equipment.pdf
 
First, let me apologize for my message yesterday. When defending our products I sometimes become overzealous.

Class act, an apology is always cool in my book. Defending your product is much like defending your baby. I'm glad your here to help people iron out issues on your stuff.

Welcome to the board.
 
Nice looking product. Any plans to make tails for a Demon lense?
 
great thread!
what would the cost of certification add to each unit?

Not very much, in the context of all the R&D, tooling, and production costs of a product such as this. A full compliance workup from a lab like Calcoast would probably cost less than $1000, and then the manufacturer's got airtight proof his product conforms; all he'd ever have to do is produce that paperwork and demonstrate that his regular-production lamps perform the same as the ones he sent in for compliance testing and he's met his legal burden; then no liability can be hung around his neck for property damage, injury, or death resulting from a crash. Talk about cheap insurance, and it'd probably pay for itself in increased marketability of the product, too: "Our lamps are fully DOT-certified and we can prove it".

All products for vehicles from 1967 and back can then use any lighting devices they want?

Not quite. For one thing, many components that fit '67 and earlier vehicles also fit '68 and later vehicles, and the law is that any regulated item of vehicle equipment must comply with the regulations if it is physically capable of being installed on a regulated vehicle. There is no provision in the law for exemption phrases and usage conditions like "For Off-Road Use Only" or "For Pre-1967 Cars Only". Some vendors, importers, and manufacturers apply labels to that effect on their products, in the mistaken belief it shields them from legal and civil liability. It does not.

Moreover, some US states and Canadian provinces have their own vehicle equipment codes which contain design, performance, and/or compliance requirements for vehicle lights.

Finally, even if you can figure out a way to zig and zag and duck and dodge your way around the various laws ("Let's see here...my car's a '66, so no Federal requirements, and if I read my state code a particular way that could be considered reasonable, there's no state law against this what I want to put in my car's lights, so I'm gonna do it!"), it's unwise to do so unless you are absolutely (and objectively) sure the lighting devices or modifications you're going to put on your car will give (objective) safety performance at least equal to the original equipment. This really can't be determined by observation because a lot of the aspects of safety performance aren't obvious. You may think your modification is going to improve the performance of the system, and in some respects it might, but in other respects it might well do the opposite. That's why manufacturer certification is important and required. All vehicles come with lighting systems that perform in accord with the requirements. These are based on the idea of standardized signaling so that everyone on the road can immediately determine what the vehicles around him are "saying", without having to stop and think about it. There's a fair amount of flexibility built into the regulations -- some functions like front parking lamps and rear turn signals give a choice of two colors, and there's a range of allowable intensity throughout the regulated visibility angles, for example -- but the limits of that flexibility are established to provide immediately and unambiguously clear messages. It's probably not a problem if someone has to take a second or two to figure out your message on a rural road with only three cars on it and a speed of 30 mph. It's quite another matter at 70 mph on the interstate in heavy traffic.

And then (yes, this really is a lot more complicated than it seems on the surface!) there's the question of mounting. What if you put a standard truck/bus 2" x 6" oblong LED brake/tail/turn light behind the vertical lens of your '66 Valiant, or a standard 4" round unit behind the round lens of your '64 Dart? As long as it's not obstructed and as long as it's mounted facing straight rearward -- not angled up, down, left, or right -- then it'll be fine. Those units, as long as you buy a reputable major brand, are all appropriately tested and certified. But if the LED unit is tilted, even just a little bit, then the light distribution will be wrong; there will be safety-crucial angles from which your brake lights won't be properly visible. Maybe it'll mean the guy in the Honda Civic in the next lane, or maybe it'll be the guy behind you in the tanker semi who doesn't properly see your brake lights as a result. Luck's not worth relying on; vehicle safety lights really need to work all the way correctly.
 
First, let me apologize for my message yesterday. When defending our products I sometimes become overzealous.

I accept your apology with thanks. I understand why you would be proud of products that you put hours, years, heart, soul, and dollars into.

NHTSA does not "certify" or "approve" products. Compliance with NHTSA regulations is based on self-certification by the manufacturer. This means that the manufacturer of regulated equipment must exercise due care in performing whatever tests, studies or calculations are required to satisfy itself that the certified items comply with the regulations. The manufacturer's self-certification is then passed along through the distribution chain. Certification is automatically implied when a product is offered for sale, since the law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, importer, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly selling equipment that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. Certification is also affirmed through marking requirements such as NHTSA's rule that certain lighting equipment be marked "DOT."

This is exactly, precisely what I said.

As you can see, we don't have to send our products to some company to have them tested. Any reasonable person can see our lights are brighter and provide an instant on response time.

Oops...no. You have very completely misunderstood your obligations under the law. The requirement you have to meet is not what you might think any reasonable person can see. The requirement is that the device meet all applicable provisions of FMVSS 108. Those are expressed in terms of intensities, in candela, at test points throughout a range of vertical and horizontal angles. There are other requirements, too, such as intensity ratio between bright and dim modes (3:1 at certain test points, 5:1 at others), intensity maintenance with prolonged illumination (even some of the major-brand LED units for buses and trucks have challenges meeting this one), and others. Safety compliance is not a matter of subjective "Yeah, that looks brighter" or "Yeah, that looks bright enough" opinion. It is an objective yes/no deal which can be determined only by photometric testing on a photogoniometer. If you do not have a photogoniometer, someone who does have one has to do the test.
 
Automobile manufacturers spend a lot of money and effort on meeting the government safety standards. I'm just saying.

Ha, take a look at my 96 Breeze headlights, I think a flashlight is brighter....That polycarb lens material is not the best. I like the old glass Sylvania 5 buck headlight for clarity (HID not included) Consumer reports always finds new models that do not meet SAE guidelines on headlight brightness.
 
Actually the "reflector" is the silver painted area at the back of the light assembly. It is silver, not black, to reflect the near 360 degree output of the incadescent bulb towards the lens, which then refracts and diffuses the light in the proper directions.

Yup! The thing moulded into the lens to reflect red light back at the headlamps shining on it is called a "retroreflector" or "reflex".

Here in Manitoba, we are facing a major problem with lighting systems that do not conform to the DOT standards, and it can affect our ability to register, safety, and insure our vehicles for "on-road" use. I doubt that we are the only ones.

Bigtime. Some of the bigger chunks of the problem are "HID kits" installed in halogen headlamps, LED taillamp conversions, and used vehicles imported from Japan. The province of BC retained me to write their vehicle lighting inspection manual not long ago. Big project, big manual, lots of pictures, all with reference to Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, and applicable SAE, ECE, and JIS standards. It's possible I might know one or two things about what I'm talking about here.
redbeard.gif


I am not saying that your product is not better, however, I would be very upset in a litigious way if an insurance claim on my vehicle was denied due to something like this. What you are being told in a technical way is simple "Cover your ***"

That's it exactly. Very simple: the North American system doesn't require pre-approval by a government-accredited lab before you can sell your regulated auto parts. It's up to you as the manufacturer to do whatever-all is necessary to shield yourself from liability arising from the use of your products on the public roads. "Any reasonable person can see they're terrific" will get laughed out of court immediately. Test results objectively demonstrating conformance, on the other hand, will win the day. Cover your aѕѕ!
 
Ha, take a look at my 96 Breeze headlights, I think a flashlight is brighter....That polycarb lens material is not the best. I like the old glass Sylvania 5 buck headlight for clarity (HID not included) Consumer reports always finds new models that do not meet SAE guidelines on headlight brightness.

No, Consumer Reports does not find models that don't meet "SAE guidelines" on headlight brightness. Their headlamp test protocol doesn't (can't) examine headlamps at that level. They do find models that have not-very-good headlight performance according to their test protocol, and they squawk about it. Keep in mind the Federal standard doesn't require good headlights and prohibit bad headlights. It requires compliant headlights and prohibits noncompliant ones. There is certainly too much room in the standard for bad headlamps, and many Chrysler Corp. models of the '90s came equipped with bad (but compliant) headlamps. You are certainly not the only owner of a Cloud car or first-generation LH-car or '96-'00 minivan to wish for the performance of a plain old sealed beam, and your complaint is legitimate; those headlamps on your car are highly unpleasant to drive with -- they are too small for the job they're asked to do, given the (low) level of technology and money put into them. (They can be improved considerably, but that's beside the point of this conversation). But subjective impressions of performance are very misleading. However unpleasant those lamps are to drive with (and they really are, even when new), they do give adequate safety performance. It might be just barely adequate, but it is adequate.

None of this is a sound reason to dismiss the Federal safety standards as irrelevant.
 
I presume that no matter what someone may say or provide, nothing will be to your satisfaction.

Wrong. If you can show me proof that your lamps comply with the safety standards, I'll happily buy 'em for my cars. So far, all you've offered is "Look, they're better, OK? Just trust me, they're better!", and that's just plain not good enough.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who wants to trash and tear down your product. Nothing could be more wrong. The world really needs a legally compliant product of the type you make. The world really doesn't need more noncompliant junk. That's why I'm so wound up: your products are probably either compliant or very easily tweaked to be compliant. You are very likely really close to having a good, legal product. That's why it's so frustrating for you to be taking the dismissive attitude you take towards the laws your product has to comply with.

For your reference, I'll dig up a compliance workup on LED taillamps and post a link after lunch so you (and everyone else) can page through and see what all is tested and how.
 
Ok after reading this post my head is spinning and if Sebastian can do a set for the 72 duster i would be in for a set my self.And i must say Sebastian you sound like you have it under control and dam nice light.the sequential lights on a 72 duster would be one hell of a wow factor.And don't be worried i already talked to my inspection mechanic he say if its brighter it will pass.He tells me in Pa. this will not even be an issue.So when you shipping mine. lol
 
I accept your apology with thanks. I understand why you would be proud of products that you put hours, years, heart, soul, and dollars into.



This is exactly, precisely what I said.



Oops...no. You have very completely misunderstood your obligations under the law. The requirement you have to meet is not what you might think any reasonable person can see. The requirement is that the device meet all applicable provisions of FMVSS 108. Those are expressed in terms of intensities, in candela, at test points throughout a range of vertical and horizontal angles. There are other requirements, too, such as intensity ratio between bright and dim modes (3:1 at certain test points, 5:1 at others), intensity maintenance with prolonged illumination (even some of the major-brand LED units for buses and trucks have challenges meeting this one), and others. Safety compliance is not a matter of subjective "Yeah, that looks brighter" or "Yeah, that looks bright enough" opinion. It is an objective yes/no deal which can be determined only by photometric testing on a photogoniometer. If you do not have a photogoniometer, someone who does have one has to do the test.


The test procedure was done in accordance with the SAE (J 575) testing protocol designed for rear lighting on passenger vehicles and performed numerous times to ensure repeatability and accuracy.
 

Attachments

  • led.jpg
    85.8 KB · Views: 361
do you make these for other vehicles... i dont really care what the regulation for them is! I have a 69 plymouth satellite and would love to get a set!
 
do you make these for other vehicles... i dont really care what the regulation for them is! I have a 69 plymouth satellite and would love to get a set!

My current list of first to be released light kits include the following:
1968-69 Satellite/Road Runner
1968-70 Charger
1969, 1971-74 Dart
1970-74 Challenger
1970-74 Cuda
1967,1969 barracuda

Working on 1967-68 Dart, 1968 barracuda, 1970 Road Runner. We are also looking at all the requests we are getting and will determine what can develop and when we can release them.
 
The test procedure was done in accordance with the SAE (J 575) testing protocol designed for rear lighting on passenger vehicles and performed numerous times to ensure repeatability and accuracy.

This what you're showing is a graph of the rise time of the light from "off" to "lit". That's not part of the compliance testing requirement. It appears to use 80cd as the "DOT requirement" line. 80cd is the minimum required intensity for a stop lamp (or a red rear turn signal) at the H/V test point. There are numerous other test points not covered by this graph, and intensity ratio requirements, and many others you don't appear to be aware of or care about.
 
Complete compliance testing data for LED vehicle lamps looks like this (MS Excel format). A compliance report looks like this (this PDF shows noncompliance of a halogen headlamp that's been equipped with an "HID kit", vs. compliance when it's equipped with the correct halogen bulb).
 
This what you're showing is a graph of the rise time of the light from "off" to "lit". That's not part of the compliance testing requirement. It appears to use 80cd as the "DOT requirement" line. 80cd is the minimum required intensity for a stop lamp (or a red rear turn signal) at the H/V test point. There are numerous other test points not covered by this graph, and intensity ratio requirements, and many others you don't appear to be aware of or care about.


I showed you one simple instance of our lights, in response for your insistence that the lights were not as bright as the originals. Several years ago, we had performed photo-metrics at various heights and distances as recommended by the SAE. In all instances our LED panels had met and exceeded all requirements. To further validate our lights we also tested for vibration and moisture.

I'm very confused as to what where you are leading to with all this.
If you would like to further discuss anything else you may contact me. [email protected] 1-856-719-9989 USA
 
Dan
I gather that from the information you have posted this is your profession. That is great and the information is overwhelming. For that I say thanks.

To the rest:
Here is what I feel; if someone wants them great buy them. If you feel the need to wait for some company to do what Dan has shown that is great also. I would say just buy them or don't, it is great to be an American and have that choice.
 
My current list of first to be released light kits include the following:
1968-69 Satellite/Road Runner
1968-70 Charger
1969, 1971-74 Dart
1970-74 Challenger
1970-74 Cuda
1967,1969 barracuda

Working on 1967-68 Dart, 1968 barracuda, 1970 Road Runner. We are also looking at all the requests we are getting and will determine what can develop and when we can release them.

Mine is a station wagon.... i dont suppose there is any chance i could get something to work?
 
Dan
I gather that from the information you have posted this is your profession. That is great and the information is overwhelming. For that I say thanks.

To the rest:
Here is what I feel; if someone wants them great buy them. If you feel the need to wait for some company to do what Dan has shown that is great also. I would say just buy them or don't, it is great to be an American and have that choice.

Yup!
 
My current list of first to be released light kits include the following:
1968-69 Satellite/Road Runner
1968-70 Charger
1969, 1971-74 Dart
1970-74 Challenger
1970-74 Cuda
1967,1969 barracuda

Working on 1967-68 Dart, 1968 barracuda, 1970 Road Runner. We are also looking at all the requests we are getting and will determine what can develop and when we can release them.

Well, here's a request for a 71-72 Demon light kit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
-
Back
Top