Talk:Headlamp/Archive 2

AFS, automatic high beam switching
69.65.229.151, it is not okay to remove verifiable and supported information simply because you think it is nonsense. It is also not okay to skew the article to favour particular commercial interests. It's easy to do so even if you don't intend to; keep in mind, in a competitive technological field such as this, every manufacturer claims to be first to market with every innovation. For that reason, company press releases aren't solid ground for supporting first-to-market assertions. Gentex certainly promotes itself very agressively, which is an effective marketing tool, but is also not a sound basis for assertions in Wikipedia. I've just added a great many appropriate refs for the assertions you deleted because you didn't think they were accurate. I've also restored the (verifiable, supported) information regarding automatic beam switching. There is no need to mention Autronic Eye again; it is already discussed in the headlamp history section, and was only one brand of a type of device widely installed by all American automakers from the '50s through the '80s. NHTSA does indeed say that 50% of crashes happen after dark, but that assertion does not belong in this section, where it is a nonsequitur. It is very relevant to the topic of headlamps in general, and so perhaps might go well near the top of the article, but including it in this section smacks of promotion — it's a line frequently included by those who have a financial stake in popularising various items of driver-vision equipment, including automatic beam switching systems.

You have been warned several times on your own talk page not to barge ahead with edits that conform only to your own preferences and opinions, and not to engage in revert wars. Please heed those warnings; you obviously have a great deal of passion and interest in this subject, and it would be a shame if your competitive rather than coöperative editing were to result in your being blocked or banned. Edit summaries saying "take your own advice and discuss on the talk page" are not okay; they are belligerent and since you are the one who wants to make questionable changes, you are the one who needs to seek consensus before making them. Please adjust your tone and manner to be more coöperative. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann T·C 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was you that first began editing without opening any discussion whatsoever, all while repeatedly instructing me to open a discussion, which in itself is acting belligerently or at best unfriendly. However, I am more than happy to enter a discussion.


 * Gentex is first to bring the technology to marketplace. They deserve credit for this achievement. I don't consider it commercial to insert this information in the topic.


 * Also there is nothing illogical about including the NHTSA study. It is perfectly relevant since the whole point of using high beams is to further illuminate the road ahead in order to to make nighttime driving safer.


 * The Autronic Eye is the first automatic headlamp dimmer and consequently the first to bring when discussing earlier systems. You mention I should not make edits that conform only to my own preferences and opinions but the exact same advice applies to you as well.


 * Please review the article history to refresh your recollection that you began the present round of substantial edits to the sections in question. You will need to please stop incorporating commercial links into your edits. If you can support your assertion that Gentex were first to market with a camera-based automatic beam selector with an appropriate 3rd-party source, then there's nothing the matter with making the assertion. The Gentex PR material, however, will not suit, because it is promotional. You will also need to please stop unilaterally deleting relevant, verifiable, supported material from the article. The Rabinow material is directly relevant to the existence and development of automatic beam switching, and even if for some reason you don't like it, it will need to stay unless you can obtain consensus here on the talk page to delete it.


 * I see your point about the Autronic eye. Perhaps it's not such a big deal for it to be mentioned twice in the article; maybe the initial mention can be rephrased to avoid the appearance of repetition.


 * On further reflection, we're better off quoting the meatier portion of that NHTSA item. By quoting the bit stating 50% of fatalities occur after dark, we mislead the reader, who is apt to think that means an equal split between day and night traffic fatalities. The missing part, of course, is that the total vehicle distance travelled in darkness is substantially less than in daytime. Again, this is relevant to the topic of the article and ought to be included, but no matter how much of it we cite, it does not belong in the automatic high beam switching subsection any more than it belongs in the low beam subsection or any other subsection. It belongs in the article's lead, for it contributes materially to the context of why we have headlighting systems — any kind of headlighting system — at all.


 * Please also remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I never noticed to Autronic Eye in the initial section. So I can't really see how I'd rephrase that section.  It's also a faulty assumption to make that a visitor reads the entire article.


 * The 2005 Grand Cherokee was the first vehicle to market with modern auto high beams. This system is supplied by Gentex.  Unless an earlier vehicle is found with this feature then I see no reason why Gentex is unworthy of noting signed 66.XXX IP


 * We're moving closer to working coöperatively rather than combatively, and I'm glad to see that. You provided a good link to an article I didn't know existed (Automatic headlight dimmer), so I moved the Rabinow material there. That article isn't in very good condition, but it'll improve with time and effort.


 * I fear you're still missing an important point: Gentex is noteworthy as the supplier of the first modern automatic beam selector, but using Gentex' own PR materials, whether they're obtained from Gentex directly or via any of the many channels through which such PR materials are redistributed intact (or largely intact) and without commentary or analysis to separate the historical and technical facts from the advertising and promotional hype, is really not good for the article. We need good third-party support for the assertion. I'm sure it exists, and I'll work on finding it. Will you do the same, please? Thanks!


 * Please note that the "less than 25% of the time" link you provided was a less-specific, less-illustrative link to the same UMTRI study already present with a fully-detailed link; there's no need to refer to the same study twice to support the same assertion twice.


 * Onward and upward! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad everything worked out, however since the the main headlight dimmer article has been added I now agree there is no reason to mention Cadillac's Autronic eye again in the subsection of the headlamp article. And thanks for keeping a discussion going.69.XX

AFS
in your own link: http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/opel-adaptive-front-lights.htm it says Opel brought the to market in 2003, not 2002

Furthermore, it's impossible for European makes to begin selling the system in 2002 since ECE regulations had to be changed to accommodate AFS. http://media.gm.com:8221/intl/opel/en/news/pr_old/pressrelease_1439.htm

Toyota began selling the Harrier in Japan in early Feb 2003 with optional AFS. So in reality the Denso link about Toyota bringing AFS to the marketplace first is most likely correct. It's my opinion that those who bring a new and widely used technology first to marketplace deserve special mention.

And nowhere is there is any mention of Audi, your own link points to a 2006 model. So far no link indicates Audi offered the system in 2003 certainly not in 2002.

It is my belief that incorrect information and in the case of Audi likely false information has no place in the article.

International English
brought to light this article's inclusion of both U.S. and international English spellings. Per WP:ENGVAR, either variant is acceptable on Wikipedia, but only one or the other should be used in any given article (with the obvious exception of pull quotes and names). Given the predominant use of international spelling (e.g. "centreline", "centre", etc.), I have finished the IP editor's start on changing "color" to "colour". As far as I can tell from a brief scan, this article now uses international English uniformly. If anyone spots an instance of U.S. English spelling or usage, please change it or point it out here on the talk page. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 21:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarised source
Psikxas, the section you added to this article has been removed, for it appeared to be another attempt to advertise Kärheim, a non-notable company you seem to have an interest in. The assertion you made was redundant, and the source you used to support it was crudely plagiarised, apparently in another of your ongoing efforts to promote Kärheim: the name "Kärheim" was spliced into the text of the report, but although the plagiarized report is claimed to come from Aristotle Univerity of Thessaloniki in 2008, in fact it was done by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001. Whoever plagiarized the report did not change the text referring to the experimentation having been carried out at facilities in Schenectady, New York — a strange location for a study carried out by a university in Greece. The legitimate, real version of the research is here on RPI's site. It can be read in HTML form here. The plagiarized study is also the only document in its directory, and its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when you placed it in the article. You have been repeatedly pointed at Wikipedia's policies and protocols, and you have been repeatedly asked and told to stop violating them. Please heed these directives. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Headlamp styling in the United States, 1940-1983
The section is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't explain the rationale behind what seem to outsiders like extremely restrictive headlight regulations. Most of the regulations seem bizarre and arbitrary. Was there a safety argument behind these regulations (some investigatory report, maybe) or was the intention to discourage imports, particularly from Europe? It would be helpful and interesting if a suitable expert editor could expand this section. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Leveling systems regulations
The regulation stipulates a more stringent version of this antiglare measure for vehicles equipped with headlamp bulbs producing more than 2,000 lumens, such as xenon headlamps; such vehicles must be equipped with headlamp self-levelling systems that sense the vehicle's degree of squat due to cargo load and road inclination, and automatically adjust the headlamps' vertical aim to keep the beam correctly oriented without any action required by the driver.

Totally disagree. ECE №48 talks this: 6.2.6.2. Headlamp levelling device 6.2.6.2.1. In the case where a headlamp levelling device is necessary to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 6.2.6.1.1. and 6.2.6.1.2., the device shall be automatic. 6.2.6.2.2. However, devices which are adjusted manually, either continuously or non-continuously, shall be permitted, provided they have a stop position at which the lamps can be returned to the initial inclination defined in paragraph 6.2.6.1.1. by means of the usual adjusting screws or similar means. These manually adjustable devices must be operable from the driver's seat. Continually adjustable devices must have reference marks indicating the loading conditions that require adjustment of the dipped-beam. The number of positions on devices which are not continuously adjustable must be such as to ensure compliance with the range of values prescribed in paragraph 6.2.6.1.2. in all the loading conditions defined in Annex 5. For these devices also, the loading conditions of Annex 5 that require adjustment of the dipped-beam shall be clearly marked near the control of the device (see Annex 8). 6.2.6.2.3. In the event of a failure of devices described in paragraphs 6.2.6.2.1. and 6.2.6.2.2., the dipped-beam shall not assume a position in which the dip is less than it was at the time when the failure of the device occurred

So manual levelling devices are allowed! Moreover, there are no one word "2000" lumens! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.167.249 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't read the right part of ECE Reg &#8470; 48. Look at 6.2.9, which states Dipped-beam headlamps with a light source having an objective luminous flux which exceeds 2,000 lumen shall only be installed in conjunction with the installation of headlamp cleaning device(s) according to Regulation No. 45. 8/ In addition, with respect to vertical inclination, the provisions of paragraph 6.2.6.2.2. above shall not be applied. The referenced 6.2.6.2.2 is the paragraph that says manual levellers are OK, so when 6.2.9 says 6.2.6.2.2 doesn't apply to headlamps with dipped (low) beam light source over 2,000 lumens, it means automatic levellers are required if a levelling system is needed to meet the aim-maintenance requirements of 6.2.6.1.1 and 6.2.6.1.2 (i.e., if the car hasn't got a self-levelling suspension system that is precise and accurate enough to keep the headlamps pointed correctly). 17:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

DRL regulations
Please check the DRL countries.

I put question marks near Romania, since at least until 2004 when I last drove there myself, there was no such DRL requirement. Actually a car with DRL on would look suspicious and would probably be pulled over way more often by cops. Not sure if the EU mandated anything since 2007, but sure as hell old cars (pre-2004) still drive there and still have no DRLs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.68.10 (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

plz update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Headlight_lens_optics_schematic.png
Can you add the mask, between the lense and the lamp ?

To not disrupt optics, the lamp is planted as receiver in satelite dish - all light emitting backwards into reflector, not forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.155.243 (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Birmingham invention 1908
This is sourced from The Eventful Century book ISBN: 0-276-42259-7 and varoius other websites. Old Bess (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Er…grand, but rather than saying so here on the talk page, you need to support your assertion in the article itself. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Er.. Ok! Old Bess (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fanks. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Motorcycles
I made a few minor edits to deal with the applicability of various lighting regulations to two-wheeled vehicles. ECE Regulation No. 48, in particular, does not apply to motorbikes (see section 1. "Scope" thereof). Also, the reference given in the HID "Disadvantages" section was (a) unavailable for some reason ("Sep 6, 2011 - On Sep 3rd (just before the long labor day weekend), WebCite went down due to a hardware failure. While we are restoring the database from our backups, no new snapshots can be made, and old snapshots may be temporarily unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.") and (b) probably inappropriate as it was a page from a Hella automotive lighting products catalogue extolling the virtues of genuine Hella products, and did not directly support the statements in the article, so I replaced it with a direct link to Regulation No. 48. I'm not familiar with WebCite, but is there an advantage to using it rather than a direct citation? JZH (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now looked into WebCite, and whilst I can now see the utility of using it as a back-up, the error I experienced today is a very good illustration of why the original citation should always be kept visible, perhaps. JZH (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoah, pard! Your clarification with regard to motorcycles is a good and valuable addition, but I can't agree with your change to the ref in the section about HID retrofitment. You've (incorrectly) guessed at what it might contain based on its publisher and summarily decided it's not a suitable ref without having read it. That's not okeh. A copy of that ref is here; I think if you will read it you'll see it's hardly the sell sheet you assume it to be—it is a legitimate, well-supported assertion of legal and technical fact regarding the issues surrounding retrofitment of HID bulbs and ballasts in headlamps not designed for them. As to WebCite, I've been using it for years and this is the first time I've seen an outage. It seems the outage is temporary, so let's have a little patience. The reason for preferring WebCite (or other similar) snapshots rather than original URLs is that original URLs are subject to link rot; snapshots are not.


 * Back to the subject of motorcycle headlamps: I see a need for discussion of some of the adaptive motorcycle headlighting systems that have been developed and are being commercialised. BMW's recent introduction merits discussion—have you seen it? It's quite fancy!—and we might also want to discuss the system developed and patented by Koito in the late '80s, but never (to my knowledge) commercialised; see here. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, WebCite is down again as I type this ("routine maintenance" this time). Nice idea, but really, I think relying 100% on Webcite to be up (or your links are all dead) is a mistake.
 * Anyway, as for the Hella doc, I did not guess about anything. I am quite familiar with Daniel Stern's Web site, and knew where to find his "original" copy (hmmm...potential copyright issues?).  Not only that, but I also found where he had got it, which was, as I had said, a Hella automotive lighting products catalogue.  If you read the cited reference to the end, you will find the words, "Completely legal, on the other hand, is the retrofitting of xenon headlights such as the ones available from Hella as complete sets (type-approved twin headlights, headlamp levelling device and headlight cleaning system) – with the well-known advantages...[etc.]"  Yes, it does cite some allegedly applicable German regulations, but if that information is as complete as what they had said about ECE Reg. 48 (i.e., they missed the part about it being completely inapplicable to motorcycles), I'm not sure I would consider it a particularly reliable source.  The current Hella catalogue contains a similar page with additional language (which I have cited directly on the High Intensity Discharge page).  I'm no Wikipedia expert, but is it even appropriate to reference a third party's copy of another party's source?  JZH (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)