In 1940, the American auto industry standardized on the 7-inch circular sealed beam headlight. There were to be two of these hermetically sealed lens-reflector-bulb modules on each vehicle, a system that quickly became enshrined in Federal law as the only type allowed. This standardization solved some significant problems with the previous system of unsealed, non-standardized headlights — some used specialized reflectors, lenses, and bulbs that had no way to be aimed other than a wild guess — but it also put a hard stop to progress in automotive lighting in North America. Technological advancements in the field remained off-limits to American drivers for years — decades — after they became standard equipment for drivers in Europe and elsewhere.
The last few years I've wondered why the US requires the stupid amber front side markers and red rear side markers and now I know. I see a Cord 812 and I admire its beauty and although it'd still be beautiful with those stupid side markers, the cleanness of the design is in part because it doesn't have those stupid-ass regulations. I just wish this article would explain why American turn signal bulbs must be amber in color rather than simply lighting up in amber.
Oh well, I wish we would just adopt the lighting standards of Europe and be done with it.
Maybe by the time Barack Obama's grandchildren are running for office things will change.
For the most part. If memory serves, it's also the cucumber capital of Japan. Hence the home-market ads for the FT-86 featuring Takeichi-kun, the cartoon cucumber whose meteoric rise through the underground drift world has shamed him in the eyes of his school-master.
Funny that you should post this. I was just thinking yesterday how slightly different US regulations prevent manufacturers from selling cars here due to the high cost of meeting and certifying to said regulations.
Are the US emission regulations really that much different than European regulations that some waivers couldn't be granted. This is especially true at a time when the US consumers should be buying smaller cars.
And how about safety regulations? Do we really have more strict safety regulations than Europe? Or are they just "different"?
I just wish this article would explain why American turn signal bulbs must be amber in color rather than simply lighting up in amber.
What? Either that isn't the law or BMW is in violation because the X3 is fitted from the factory with basically what is the Silverstar-style signal bulbs in back...they are amber when illuminated and silver when not.
Quote, originally posted by Fritz27 »
Oh well, I wish we would just adopt the lighting standards of Europe and be done with it.
Agreed...although I will admit that USA side markers are beneficial and when designed as integrated into another lamp cluster or aligned with a trim piece, they don't look all that add-on.
The article probably should have touched on the rear foglamp thing as well. Also, could have touched on the halogen bulbs...while the US and Euro regulations allow replaceable bulbs, not all bulbs are approved as acceptable light sources either although this is changing and worldwide bulbs that meet US and Euro requirements are happening more and more. For example, most Euro bulbs are now allowed in the US except the H4 which must be certified to meet a few extra requirements so the ones that mfrs. believe do meet the requirements are relabelled as 9003/HB2. And 9004 and 9007 bulbs are not ECE approved but 9005 and 9006 bulbs, largely a US-ism from the 1980s and 1990s, are dual approved but never caught on much in Europe.
All in all I'd say take Euro requirements, add in USA side markers (and hope manufacturers integrate them well), throw away the crappy USA bulbs like 9004 and 9007 but keep the others that are decent and dual-approved, and call it a day.
Modified by gti_matt at 9:54 PM 3-5-2008
-Matt 7,001,084 Californians don't want me to have what they have.
Are the US emission regulations really that much different than European regulations that some waivers couldn't be granted. This is especially true at a time when the US consumers should be buying smaller cars.
And how about safety regulations? Do we really have more strict safety regulations than Europe? Or are they just "different"?
It's all just "different". Emissions for example...the US generally doesn't like NOx (symptom of a lean-burn engine) but Europe will usually have higher NOx limits in order to have less HC particulate emissions on a grams-per-mile basis favoring overall lower fuel consumption. As you probably know, emissions is usually made up of HC, CO, and NOx tests and often as one goes up, another goes down so in meeting one you might run afoul of another. So you then have to decide where to balance them out and the US and Europe simply don't have the same balance. But a ECE car that won't meet US requirements is hardly a polluter...it's just a different mix of emissions and one or more in the mix won't meet one of our tests.
As far as safety goes, I know a while back the US had silly requirements that an airbag had to protect an unbelted male of a certain weight. The test IMHO was a bit antiquated since every, or nearly every, state now has mandatory seat belt laws. That "unbelted test" meant large and very powerful airbags. Euro airbags didn't necessarily meet our requirements because their tests were on belted dummies and their airbags as a result could be less powerful for Euro tests but could then not meet USA regulations. This may have changed in more recent years though.
And bumpers? You have the Canadians to thank for that actually. Many like to blame the US for 5mph bumpers but we only sort of started that trend. It actually was reversed over a quarter of a century ago for 1983 vehicles. The standard was reduced such that we have 2.5mph bumpers that can permit all the damage they want as long as lights are protected. Canada retained a 8km/h (about 5mph) standard and that's why we still think we have a 5mph standard since Canadian and USA vehicle model lineups overlap quite a bit so many cars built for North America in general will have Canadian-mandated 8 km/h bumpers even in the US.
-Matt 7,001,084 Californians don't want me to have what they have.
actually, my b5.5 05 wagon has no amber colored lighting anywhere. the front headlights have amber bulbs, but are clear. the rears are similar. the side repeaters are clear with amber leds.. all factory. so all are clear and just light up amber.
Quote, originally posted by drdisco »
Perhaps BMW has realized that a dipstick under the hood is not necessary when you have one behind the wheel...
actually, my b5.5 05 wagon has no amber colored lighting anywhere. the front headlights have amber bulbs, but are clear. the rears are similar. the side repeaters are clear with amber leds.. all factory. so all are clear and just light up amber.
Not the pieces in the side bumper (front and rear).
The beams can be shone at a wall and set to the correct vertical and horizontal angles by judging the height of the cutoff and placement of the upstep.[/quote]
Pattern shown here: Left one needs to go out a bit more. I can do the whole diagram and procedure, if needed.
[quote] Traditional American beams don't have a cutoff, so they can't be aimed properly without the use of special aiming machinery.
I was wondering what those nubs were for. Oddly enough, I've never seen a headlight aiming machine anywhere in the US, whereas in Europe, where they don't require to have nubs on the lens, they just use an an _optical_ aiming device, and once a year, in Fall, the car clubs offer free headlight testing and adjusting.
Quote, originally posted by PassSedanGLX »
I MUST GOES FASTAR I AREZ IMPORTENTZ EVERBUDDY OWT OF MY LANE OH **** SPEDE CAMARA BRAKEZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
The beams can be shone at a wall and set to the correct vertical and horizontal angles by judging the height of the cutoff and placement of the upstep.
Pattern shown here: Left one needs to go out a bit more. I can do the whole diagram and procedure, if needed.
actually, my b5.5 05 wagon has no amber colored lighting anywhere. the front headlights have amber bulbs, but are clear. the rears are similar. the side repeaters are clear with amber leds.. all factory. so all are clear and just light up amber.
This? Those littel orange things on the corner are yellow OEM. There are aftermakret clears, but thats not OEM.
Internationally, high beams are allowed to be twice as intense as they are in the U.S.
My current cars have quite good headlights by US standards, but they're still not anywhere near as good as Euro cars. I rented a Mondeo a few years ago in Norway. The low beams are very good, but it is the high beams that are truly impressive:
We'd been driving around all day out in the country/mountains/glaciers and it was gradually getting darker. At sunset I was pleasantly surprised at the low beams' performance after always being underwhelmed with the performance of US Fords' headlight systems. But as it got darker on those empty, unlit country roads, I switched over to the high beams.
Everyone in the car noticed right away. It was like having a full set of KC Daylighters built into the stock headlights.
My current cars have quite good headlights by US standards
Yep they're getting better. I think overall they overap euro low beams by about 80% and it's only the last 20% that differs.
My '00 Eurovan for example had OE Valeo-brand lamps that looked about 80% the same as ECE ones. The lens pattern was a little different but the reflector body was nearly identical, only differing visibly from Euro in having a USA-mandated bubble level and left-right gauge and the parking light hole was not drilled through. Used the near-twin-to-H4 9003 bulb and the beam pattern was quite wide and had a left-side cutoff like Euro too. Only difference was that instead of Euro like this:
____/
It was more like this:
____X
(Cutoff on the left and then a sort of splotch at center and right of center and overall pattern not quite as even as Euro...looked like a sloppy Euro beam.)
-Matt 7,001,084 Californians don't want me to have what they have.
I would much rather have amber in my taillights than sidemarkers.
Oh well, at least my car is new enough to have very good headlights. The low beams have a very defined cut-off line and the headlamp on the left does have a lower cut-off than the lamp on the right.
"What you are, is by accident of birth. What I am, I created myself. There are, and have been, thousands of princes; there is only one Beethoven." -- Beethoven
My car's lighting is as near to ECE as to not matter to me as a driver (having experience with ECE sealed-beam replacements). Both my '00 Miata and '02 Protege5 both had VERY sharp cutoffs with the familiar _/_/ pattern. Both cars used freeform reflectors and flat polycarbonate lenses. The Miata uses an HB2/9003 which is marked on the replacement bulb itself as being an H4. The Protege had an H7 low beam and HB3/9005 high beam which are both ECE bulbs (in addition to being allowed by the NHTSA).
They're still "US-spec" in terms of not having city lights, having those bubble levels, and so on, but the lighting is great.
I've owned a few cars with the HB1/9004 garbage lights. I can't believe those were not only legal, but the only game in town from the '80s to the mid-'90s in the US.
Splinter - Team Post-Killing Ninja My decantering is delicate and courageous.
I had to adjust to the cutoff when I mounted my HIDs on my wagon, but now I take it as fact. It's funny to try to drive my Rabbit at night. Even with the fuzzy cutoff, it still is woefully outlit by the HIDs on the wagon. The first time I took it out, I was amazed at how bad sealed beams are. One day, I'll hook up the ECE HIDs for it. One day......
Reliability is relative. Compared to a British roadster, all Volkswagens are reliable.
Passatworld Mrs 1.8T CarDomain Blog Bolt. Recaro recovery, bow headliners, Cabriolet fixin's and other misc hard and soft goods for VWs
Great article Wes. I had genuine ECE HID's on my 20th Anniversary GTi and they were still the best set of headlights I've ever had in a car Mike
"Ferraris are serious cars for serious people who drive around wearing a serious expression. The Gallardo can do serious, too. It has Audi electrics and Audi engineering. But as you careen towards the next bend on a wave of extraordinary sound, half blinded by your own upholstery, you’ll be making the noise of a howler monkey and wishing you were naked" The one and only Jeremy Clarkson
My A3 has the factory Xenon self leveling lamps that also turn with the car. After 8mph the lamps turn with the wheels. Incredible technology that should be on all cars.
Best lights I have ever had a car. Incredibly bright and let you see forever. Though I do know they piss off other drivers because they are so bright. When you turn them on they go through this little dance where they come up and turn right and left to center themselves.
A couple of things though, because Americans prefer red tail lights Audi replaced the amber/red rear lights with all red ones. Kind of stupid if you ask me. I would just as soon be happy with the standard euro ones instead of the solid red ones. It costs money for nothing and drives up the costs of cars to Americanize them.
here's whats going on in the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)
Same as has been going on in WP29 for decades: The whole world except for the US hammers out agreements on technical provisions in vehicle regulations, the US — which attends WP29 but doesn't accede to the agreed-upon regulations — blathers at length about how they want to take an "appropriate leadership role" in worldwide vehicle regulations which means the stupid rest of the world should just adopt US regulations, and Canada gets forcibly dragged along with the US.
I've wondered why the US requires the stupid amber front side markers and red rear side markers
Sidemarker lights & reflectors work. And they work well. They are one of the relatively few pieces of auto lighting the US does better than the international standard (US requires while ECE merely permits, US says amber front & red rear, ECE says amber front and amber rear unless rear is integrated into a combination lamp, in which case amber or red). Yes, if the automaker chooses to do 'em on the cheap, they look chunky and ugly. But there are so many ways to integrate them into the car's styling that design and appearance aren't legitimate objections to the concept of sidemarkers. The last VWs with tacky/tacked-on sidemarkers were the A2 Golf/Jettas, and even those didn't look any more tacked-on than the ECE side turn signal repeaters on the same cars. Your Cord 812 example is...kind of strange. The Cord 812 imagined with sidemarkers? OK, how 'bout the Cord 812 imagined with 5mph bumpers, current-spec side view mirrors, air bags, a collapsible steering column, and all the other stuff cars these days have to have?
Quote, originally posted by Fritz27 »
I wish this article would explain why American turn signal bulbs must be amber in color rather than simply lighting up in amber
Huh? There is no such restriction in American regulations. All the turn signal bulbs that are legal in ECE are also legal in America.
Quote, originally posted by Fritz27 »
Maybe by the time Barack Obama's grandchildren are running for office things will change.
Things may change once GM and Ford have bled enough to be completely irrelevant, but don't count on it. European and Asian automakers tend to start out in the US market with cars built to the international regs and adapted/altered only to the degree necessary to comply with US regs. Amber turn signals, etc. But as these makers increase their market share, they start saying dumb things like "Americans prefer red rear turn signals", which is based on zero data or study at all; it's just PR-speak for "Our beancounters figured out that red ones are cheaper than amber ones, and just as legal", which is instantly recognizeable as GM-think. Proof? Go look what color the rear signals are on most (all?) current VWs in America.
Quote, originally posted by Spockcat »
Are the US emission regulations really that much different than European regulations
No. US Federal emissions standards, like US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, are frequently described (by the regulators, parroted by the press) as "the most stringent in the world", or at least "more stringent" than those of the EU or Japan. It sounds good, and it gives a warm fuzzy to Americans who would like to consider their regulations and standards the best in the world (and it sounds even better to those who rely on technical standards as non-tariff trade barriers). The problem is it's not accurate as stated and commonly understood. There is a very significant window of overlap between the EU and US emissions standards, but because the test protocols are radically different, there are noncompliances in both directions. That is, there are vehicles that pass the US certification tests but fail the EU approval tests, and there are vehicles that pass the EU approval tests but fail the US certification tests. For the most part, this does not indicate that EU vehicles are permitted to emit more of any particular pollutant, or more pollution in general, than US vehicles. It is simply down to significant differences in test protocol. The obvious next question, of course, is why test protocol differences should prevent automakers from producing vehicles clean enough to pass both tests. The answer is that the calibrations and configurations needed to meet one specific test protocol often run a vehicle afoul of the other test protocol. Emission certification (US) or approval (EU) tests cannot possibly cover every last combination of engine speed, load, vehicle speed, atmospheric pressure, etc., so the protocols consist of test conditions representative of common operational modes. This is where the differences come in: What is considered "representative" and what is considered "common" depends largely on who is writing the test protocol, and the regulatory philosophy behind it. For that reason, it is essentially impossible to compare US vs. EU emissions standards and arrive at a cogent assertion that one or the other standard is significantly more or less stringent.
But even if we were to assume for the purpose of debate that the two test protocols were identical and the EU and US standards differed from each other only in that the EU standards permitted a higher level of pollution to issue from each vehicle's tailpipe, the EU average road vehicle fuel economy is roughly double that of the US. This means they burn roughly half the fuel per distance unit travelled. Even if the US tailpipe emission standard were twice as stringent as the EU standard (which is nowhere near realistic even for our hypothetical thought exercise here), the questions remain: Is it better or worse to have the pollution come from the process of extracting, transporting, refining, and distributing oil rather than from a vehicle tailpipe? And, is a slightly more permissive tailpipe emission standard acceptable or perhaps even desirable if it means significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions? Regulatory philosophy is not so simple as it seems on first glance.
Quote, originally posted by GTI_Matt »
The article probably should have touched on the rear foglamp thing as well.
I bet they weren't mentioned for lack of space in the article. Well-designed and properly-used rear fogs are lifesavers. The switching would have to be a lot more automatic and/or idiotproof for America, though ("Ah dunno whut this here switchamacallit controls, but ah musta paid fer it, so goldurn it, ah'm agonna turn it awn! Ahyuck!" and variants of the same lamebrained behavior all across the land)
Quote, originally posted by someguy123 »
(picture of export-spec Cadillac)
Yeah, but "Americans prefer red rear turn signals", remember? (my ballot must've gotten lost in the mail, so I didn't get to vote on that question...did you?)
GM bìtches and moans that ECE regulations are impossible to comply with (this is another one of those "can't be done" loads of BS like compliance with tight emissions and fuel economy and safety regs...the US makers swear it's impossible while the Europeans and Japanese quietly and efficiently go about doing it), but cars like the one you show prove they know how to do it; it obviously can be done. Don't get me wrong, though, some of GM's European-spec cars have been fugly to the max. Cheap, thrown-together, hacked, haӀfassed Euro conversions with low-quality, low-performance components. Grudging adaptation to non-domestic regs can be done in both directions...
If these companies had any brains they would adopt the world regulations and be done with it. Its so ridiculous. Do they not realize if there stuff was standardized with the rest of the world they might stand a chance selling it? Like duh.
Now dont get me started on why we dont use Metric and the rest of the world does
Those are side markers not turn signals. They only have to reflect light - they don't require bulbs (although some have them on the front).
US & Canadian regulations require front amber and red rear sidemarker lights and reflectors. It's not either/or. The light and reflector functions can be combined into the same device, and/or with various other functions (parking lamps, etc.) or they can be completely separate, but each and every vehicle first sold since 1/1/70 has been required to have both the reflectors and the lights.
Same as has been going on in WP29 for decades: The whole world except for the US hammers out agreements on technical provisions in vehicle regulations, the US — which attends WP29 but doesn't accede to the agreed-upon regulations — blathers at length about how they want to take an "appropriate leadership role" in worldwide vehicle regulations which means the stupid rest of the world should just adopt US regulations, and Canada gets forcibly dragged along with the US.
I'm glad you understand that the US IS the pinnacle of automotive development in the world - too bad the other countries haven't figured that one out yet because EVERYONE wants to drive a new Chevy Cobalt or an H3 because they're simply the best designed and build cars - period.
US & Canadian regulations require front amber and red rear sidemarker lights and reflectors. It's not either/or. The light and reflector functions can be combined into the same device, and/or with various other functions (parking lamps, etc.) or they can be completely separate, but each and every vehicle first sold since 1/1/70 has been required to have both the reflectors and the lights.
yes, my point was regarding the function of the side markers - that they only need to reflect not light-up.
A couple of things though, because Americans prefer red tail lights Audi replaced the amber/red rear lights with all red ones. Kind of stupid if you ask me.
Do Americans actually prefer red rear turn signals, or did the vehicle manufacturer decide to save a few cents by not having a different color, while seeing that it will not make much of a difference for most American drivers based on the assumption that American drivers mostly do not use turn signals anyway?
Do Americans actually prefer red rear turn signals, or did the vehicle manufacturer decide to save a few cents by not having a different color, while seeing that it will not make much of a difference for most American drivers based on the assumption that American drivers mostly do not use turn signals anyway?
At least in the case of the Jetta V/Rabbit, the answer is the latter. Meeting the US's single-color standards allowed the use of cheaper rear lamps and cheaper wiring looms.
As far as safety goes, I know a while back the US had silly requirements that an airbag had to protect an unbelted male of a certain weight. The test IMHO was a bit antiquated since every, or nearly every, state now has mandatory seat belt laws.
When airbags were first mandated actual seat belt use was very low throughout the US. Congress decided they wanted to protect people who were too stupid to protect themselves. Therefore, the airbags were required to offer protection to a large, unbelted occupant.
Quote, originally posted by gti_matt »
And bumpers?
Bumpers are not really a safety requirement, per se. They're more an economic loss prevention requirement. As IIHS testing has shown, many modern cars have poor bumper designs that may still permit thousands of dollars in damage as a result of minor, low-speed impacts. However, as you have noted, bumper requirements are also effected by these harmonization issues.
Quote, originally posted by tincanman99 »
If these companies had any brains they would adopt the world regulations and be done with it. Its so ridiculous. Do they not realize if there stuff was standardized with the rest of the world they might stand a chance selling it?
Wow. That's a really simplistic and misguided view of the issues at hand.
Wow. That's a really simplistic and misguided view of the issues at hand.
I'm not sure why you'd say that. In general the regulations for the construction and sale of cars is becoming quite similar in many many ways. Lighting is just one example of how the US has loosened up it's regulations to conform to what the rest of the world has had for a while. For many many years to europeans sold cars without cats, and legally, that was fine. However, like the US, many european countries are moving towards strictor emissions laws. Some of the details are different, but the overall effect seems to be heading in the same direct for both the US and EU. I think whether you like it or not, automotive regulations between the countries is becoming more and more similar. Which of course, is a good thing.
Tom Current: 94 SLC; 08 XF LTD-6 spd Previous:06 GTI, 99.5 Jetta, 85 jetta coupe (x2), 93 Fox
I'm not sure why you'd say that. I think whether you like it or not, automotive regulations between the countries is becoming more and more similar. Which of course, is a good thing.
I'm not against international harmonization, per se. However, it's naive to think that it's the vehicle manufacturers themselves who refuse to "adopt the world regulations." Of course they recognize the economic advantage to having 1 set of regulations, 1 head lamp design, etc. It isn't a matter of simply adopting global regulations (if they existed).
Great idea for an article, guys. One of my pet peeves about headlights is the horrible single lense and dual-fillament setups that have been used on many cars here, as opposed to the much more effective dual headlight setups (separate lenses for hi and low beams). Ford, IMHO, is the worst offender. Good luck seeing anything with the high beams on in some of their cars from a few years ago.
You can accuse a person of just about anything and get away with it, as long as you don't call them a lousy lover or bad driver. -Sir Jackie Stewart
For advertising information Click Here
What? Either that isn't the law or BMW is in violation because the X3 is fitted from the factory with basically what is the Silverstar-style signal bulbs in back...they are amber when illuminated and silver when not.
(my ballot must've gotten lost in the mail, so I didn't get to vote on that question...did you?)
