headlights
I come from the world of MIL-STD/MIL-SPEC standards in Navy aircraft aerodynamic and environmental testing. There is a reason that MIL standards were created, specifically mainly uniformity of construction and repeatability in performance.
Exactly. One of the biggest issues currently on the table in the world of automotive lighting regulations (for design, performance, construction, durability, compliance testing, etc.) is that we are now having companies enter the industry, from countries just beginning to have a domestic auto and auto parts industry, without the basic knowledge the first-world suppliers have had for decades. Many of the regulations, particularly the North American regulations, are written with the assumption that anyone seeking to build a headlamp (brake light, turn signal, reflector, whatever) has a basic understanding of the issues involved, and a basic desire to make a good, safe, effective device of at least reasonably good quality. Now we have people building garbage that meets the letter but not the intent of the regulation. We're scrambling to rewrite things much more explicitly.
DOT standardizes and tests products for much the same reasons. Some products meet the standards and some do not.
Yup. And there's at least one other side of that coin, too: as far as the law is concerned, there are only two kinds of headlamps (brake lights, reflectors, turn signals, brake pads, seat belts, whatever): compliant/legal and noncompliant/illegal. Within "compliant/legal" is an enormous range of allowable performance. This makes it easy for the automaker looking to minimize costs: a cheap, just-barely-compliant lamp means they've met their legal obligation. But it makes it harder for he who's trying to compare headlamps, because ten lamps all marked DOT can range in performance from poor to excellent. And the same is true of lamps type-approved with the international ECE (E-code) mark. And because the USA (alone in the world) does not recognize the international ECE regulations, there are lamps that are good and legal, lamps that are bad and legal, lamps that are good and illegal, and lamps that are bad and illegal.
And, most people don't realize that the American regulatory system works on a self-certification basis, not a type-approval basis. There is no such thing as "DOT-approved". DOT does not approve anything. Neither does SAE. The
manufacturer (or importer) of a regulated piece of equipment marks it "DOT" as his certification that the equipment meets the regulation standards. If a pile of twisted metal and dead bodies accumulates and can be traced to a particular piece of equipment,
then DOT might do some testing, and if the equipment is not in fact compliant,
then the manufacturer or importer might be fined. Occasionally that happens; remember the debacle with Chinese tires a few years ago (where the importer said "Too bad, so sad, we're bankrupt so Eff You"). But the odds are slim of getting smacked for selling noncompliant lights, and since there's no pre-test required, it's easy to just mark the lights "DOT" and sell them as "DOT approved". This system worked okeh in the past, but there is a growing mountain of garbage coming in from China and India with unwarranted "DOT" marks (they're equal-opportunity cheaters; they put counterfeit ECE approval marks just as happily :roll:).
Automotive lighting is for safety, just like brakes
Yup. They're safety devices, not toys, not "Look at me and see how cool I am" fashion accessories.
There is nothing like losing your night vision on a dark, twisting, country road.
There's a technical term for aѕѕclowns who run blinding lights. They're called MFFYs. It stands for Me-First-Screw-You.
Your work in developing the relay system for upgrading the lighting capability of our old MoPars is much appreciated. As I hate to reinvent the wheel, I will be purchasing from you one of the kits when my 'Cuda gets near that point in the rebuild.
Gimme a shout, I'll be here!