Help petition the ban on HIDs.

[TheMAN]

was that really necessary? that arguement has already gone through and dealt with already... kicking dead horse just makes you the asshole

This is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard...

 

[Lost_Conception]

Screw this, give me some HID's

I will blind you all.

Focus mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[TheMAN]

you hit it on the spot there... a petition like that will NOT hold in court at all... as much as I don't agree with many of NHTSA's policies, their efforts against HID retrofitting are supported by me... they have scientific evidence that NONE of the retrofit kits on the market today will be able to comply with FMVSS 108... if I were the judge, will I take that as stronger evidence or some petition made by angry consumers because they said it "retrofitting is fine"?

b_real45,

It's not necessarily that the halogen headlamp housings are poorly designed, it's the fact that they were designed to work ONLY with halogen lamps. Not only is the LCL (light center length) different between the halogen and HID lamps, but the orientation of the actual light source is different resulting in a misalignment with the reflective surfaces/elements within the headlight housing.


You obviously have much research to do in this area.


Your argument of "unbanning" one thing because you can't have 1000 other things banned doesn't hold water and is outright rediculous.


Lastly, to nitpick, if you are planning to submit a petition, you're going to need a lot more than 5 one or two lined paragraphs. You'll need to provide definitive PROOF to back your claim and argument. It all comes back down to the research thing (funny how that works).

 

[TheMAN]

1.) I never said the housing is poorly designed. The whole "HID kit" is a poor design. They need to design it with a full housing that can spread the correct beam pattern.

they already did... there's those Sylvania kits that include housings, balasts, and capsules... I don't consider them retrofit kits but conversion kits

2.) Yes that line was ridiculous. At that point I wasn't trying to be serious.. I am pointing out how ridiculous the whole thread is.

no comment

3.) To nitpik, I didn't submit a petition.. the petition was submitted/started by someone else and at the time already had 3+ thousand signatures.

the fact that you were flamed is because of the presentation of your first post of this thread... you didn't use the resources to research on the topic and just blindly added your name to the petition... that was a poor exercise of free speech, imo

4.) I have been doing research and I usually do research before I do something. The thing is that I feel like there shouldn't be a ban on it. I feel that it should be the owner's/user's discretion.. I actually feel that HID retrofits can provide more light without causing damage to people.. even though it is not "DOT approved." That is just my opinion from my own experiences. K thanks.

as I said already, you didn't use the resources to the fullest to research... you still do not appear to understand the fundamentals of arc discharge lighting... your feelings of "owner's/user's discretion" has no merit... by this logic someone can smoke weed and feel it is justified while everyone else knows its bad... and again, you do not appear to understand the fundamentals of HIDs... in what way to you feel that HID retrofitting cannot cause harm? arc discharge lighting have a VERY different and unique light center length and based on current technology, it's IMPOSSIBLE to make it behave the same way a conventional filament based light source would (in otherwords, retrofitting IMPOSSIBLE)... if you HAVE read my post in "HIDs in depth" CAREFULLY and UNDERSTAND it, you will see how weak your arguements are... if you have no basic understanding of physics, you need to learn that too... and back to the light center length... as I said ALREADY, because of how it is different, and the light flux being different, the hot spot as well as many other mathematically precise points of the beam pattern WILL change.. some will be too bright, some will be too dim... all of this accounts for non-compliance to the safety standards... if you think DOT is strict with lighting, you have much to learn... they are in fact very lax on their standards and have NOT done anything for the longest time on the HID retrofit issue... they finally HAVE done it because of growing number of complaints on HID glare.... tackling HID retrofitting is one of the first of many steps against the glare issues... if you think this HID retrofitting "contreversy" is a US only thing, you're wrong... HID retrofitting is ILLEGAL ANYWHERE in the world... DOT does NOT control anything outside of the United States... the UN does

and to nitpick, there is no such thing as "DOT approved"... they do not have an inhouse approval system... they set the standards and make manufacturers use private/independant testing facilities to test for compliancy and certification
and part of WHY we are in such a mess with lighting/vehicle equipment legality is because of this method NHTSA chose to adopt... it is completely opposite in Europe..... NOTHING is allowed to be sold until it passes in-house government tests (following UN standards)... in America you can get away with saying it is "DOT certified" by simply not even sending the products to get tested



I'm done with this thread... everything that needed to be said has been said

 

[70]

was that really necessary? that arguement has already gone through and dealt with already... kicking dead horse just makes you the asshole

Yeah, well, I would have said it earlier if I had seen it earlier.

And quit your cryin' too.