Adaptive Driving Beam, Thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,423
Location
IL
It seems to me that ADB systems are too complex. The U.S. Market is pushing them, but so far Government regulations will not allow it.

It only uses 12 LED's, and gives you better light than a fixed high/low optic system. I just don't get the advantage of a spinning mirror and just 12 led's is going to "rock the world"

IMO HID is near perfection, LED a little better, but much more complex, and more costly.
 
It's really not hard to produce glare-free headlights that provide a nice beam pattern, with good color temperature. It's simply too bad that most manufacturers don't do this.

Instead, they rely on ever more expensive technology to accomplish the goal.

I installed some Rigid LED fog lights in my F150. They are wonderful and don't bother a soul, as they are aimed low n wide. Very nice! I'd much rather install aftermarket stuff than rely on the OEM's to get it right.
 
I've got Bixenons on both cars. They were an option, not standard. I think the LEDs are actually cheaper which is why Mercedes went with LEDs as a standard where the HID's were an option before the LEDs. From what I read, the LEDs are actually cheaper than the HIDs and not quite as bright as HID but the cheaper part kicks in. My HIDs had active cornering illumination, headlamp washers and they also auto level so it had a bit more than just HID bulbs.

Mercedes actually has those lights in Europe but because they're not allowed in the US, so they're not on US cars. People keep asking how to enable it, but it wasn't even installed so nothing to enable.
 
I'd love to drive a car with them. There's an excellent video of it somewhere on YouTube showing how they perform... essentially like always having your high beams on, but no glare to oncoming traffic.

Yeah... they're expensive. But I don't buy vehicles for the absolute lowest cost of ownership. I'm sure someone will chime in with "Muh halogens work just fine!" and yes, I agree, mine also work "just fine." But why not improve? My biggest gripe with bi-xenon or bi-halogen projectors is the sharp cut off. ADB bridges the gap between unleashing the sun, and a razor sharp cut off between light and dark.
 
Originally Posted by Vern_in_IL
I just don't get the advantage of a spinning mirror and just 12 led's is going to "rock the world"

IMO HID is near perfection, LED a little better, but much more complex, and more costly.


Even Stevie Wonder can see why adaptive driving beam is being actively developed and pushed by every major player in the industry. Simply stated: headlamps are far from "sufficient" at this point in time. They might appear to be sufficient...but opinions are like stomachs. Everyone's got one.

There's a reason the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has recently jumped into rating headlamps, which has cost them tens of millions of dollars. They tested 82 different vehicles in the first round of testing back in '16, and assuming a very conservative average transaction price of $25,000 per vehicle they bought, that would be over $2 million dollars spent in just vehicles alone. There were a lot of luxury vehicles in the mix from BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc., in that first round of testing, so it's easy that they spent closer to 3 million in just vehicles alone. They also bought 47 different small SUVs and 23 different trucks that same year for more testing, and assuming an average transaction price of $35,000 for the small SUVs and trucks...that's another $2.5 million dollars in vehicle purchases alone. So they spent probably close to $5 million dollars in just acquiring vehicles for the first year of testing in 2016. Even if they sold them all for 80% of the purchase price, that's a big loss, and it's unclear what they do with the vehicles afterward.

The IIHS is not a government entity and has no obligation to provide citizens with any sort of rating. They only do it because they see significant sums of $$$ in pushing for better headlamps and by extension, reduced crash probability and reduced claim frequency. The IIHS isn't rating cars and spanking manufacturers out of the goodness of their heart. They're doing it because they see greater than tens of millions of dollars of benefit/investment return from better headlamp systems. ADB falls under the umbrella of "better headlamp systems." Even without ADB, there is plenty of room for improvement, as the IIHS knows.

HID is overly complex, expensive, and dead in the water. From now on there's going to be two major technologies for forward lighting: halogen and LED. In the medium-term to long-term future: "laser," or more precisely, phosphor-converted lasers.
 
Last edited:
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/toyota/camry-4-door-sedan/2020#headlightshttps

Look at this 3/4 way down under headlights. I have the same car in 18. SXE. When we got this thing coming from Halogen we were blown away. Fantastic in all respects yet these guys find them just OK? I don't know what they must expect excellent is. Someone on the forum said they are pushing for the cornering which some cars are getting now.
Personally it's nothing I need or want being just more complicated stuff to break. One older guy did say he didn't think the same cars LEDs were enough for his night desert driving. It makes me wonder if it's just his eyes or how fast he expects to drive at night.????? One thing we all agree on though, Halogens just plain 🚽SUCK!
One feature I like with mine are the automatic headlights AND the switch to turn them off. They work off the camera spectacular fashion, very hard to fool.
 
Originally Posted by Driz
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/toyota/camry-4-door-sedan/2020#headlightshttps

Look at this 3/4 way down under headlights. I have the same car in 18. SXE. When we got this thing coming from Halogen we were blown away. Fantastic in all respects yet these guys find them just OK? I don't know what they must expect excellent is. Someone on the forum said they are pushing for the cornering which some cars are getting now.
Personally it's nothing I need or want being just more complicated stuff to break. One older guy did say he didn't think the same cars LEDs were enough for his night desert driving. It makes me wonder if it's just his eyes or how fast he expects to drive at night.????? One thing we all agree on though, Halogens just plain 🚽SUCK!
One feature I like with mine are the automatic headlights AND the switch to turn them off. They work off the camera spectacular fashion, very hard to fool.


IIHS tests them "as is" from the factory, meaning they do not adjust aim at all. In that IIHS headlight test of the Camry, they're likely using the same exact headlight across all trim levels, but the aim isn't the same on all.
 
Originally Posted by Skippy722
In that IIHS headlight test of the Camry, they're likely using the same exact headlight across all trim levels, but the aim isn't the same on all.

Not true.

If you read the IIHS evaluation, you'll see that they rate the trim levels independently, based on the lighting technology. So there are actually 3 headlight ratings for the 2020 Camry.
 
If this is the newer version that switches LEDs off and on instead of the high/low beam option then I like the idea. It gives the driver more visibility ahead while not blinding oncoming or following traffic. They accomplish this by switching off specific LEDs in the array.

I can envision when headlights will have different modes like fog mode, rain mode, etc.
 
Can't come soon enough for me. I am tired of being blinded by frankenstein LED+Halogen headlights and by OEM LED headlights that lack dynamic vertical aim.
 
Originally Posted by Vern_in_IL

...It only uses 12 LED's, and gives you better light than a fixed high/low optic system. I just don't get the advantage of a spinning mirror and just 12 led's is going to "rock the world"


There are many different designs for ADB headlights.
 
Here is the latest ADB headlight design (called PictuureBeam) from OEM supplier Valeo:

https://www.drivingvisionnews.com/dvn-test-drive-valeos-picturebeam-4000-pixels-adb/


Quote
...The PicureBeam system provides a high-resolution (around 4,000 pixels) ADB with light all around the detected vehicles. It brings the function one step closer to being a real glare-free high beam, with a high accuracy in the cutoff position...

...The technology is based on a monolithic LED, developped and produced by CREE, with 3,696 pixels to produce a high definition beam on the whole field. ..

...The module is composed of 4 major components corresponding to the main functions to be addressed:
- Monolithic light source to emit light
- Projection optics to project the light emitted by the source
- Cooling system to evacuate the energy emitted by the source
- Electronic board to drive and power the LED allowing driving each pixel individually....
 
Originally Posted by Kestas
Sounds very complicated and expensive for the privilege of driving a little faster at night.


Wrong. The benefit of ADB isn't allowing one to drive "a little faster at night." It's allowing one to actually drive at normal speeds at night with significantly reduced risk.

As the IIHS found, most headlamp systems are inadequate for driving more than 40 MPH in the dark.

Now, there will probably be a million and one posters chiming in saying they've driven at 70 MPH at night for the last 500 years, but that's about as valid as saying cigarettes don't cause cancer; my dad smoked them and lived to 90.

The simple math of the matter is that current low beam systems don't shine far enough to allow one to come to a stop for obstacles at speeds significantly greater than 40 MPH. ADB can help change this, when implemented well.

A lot of us have been "getting away" with this uncomfortable truth, but it's no different from people "getting away" scot free from driving home after the bar after a few drinks. Yes, you got home safely. But also, yes, your risk of something bad happening was elevated during that period in which you drove home buzzed/drunk.

Whether this benefit outweighs the cost of the system is something I can't even claim to have the answer to. But as with all new technology, the price will only go down. What is indisputable, however, is that good ADB implementations are beneficial. The reason the US has not allowed ADB yet is that early implementations were nothing more than money grabs by automakers. Automakers trotted out immature ADB systems that would randomly high beam people and wanted to charge extra for it. In other words: bait&switch. Bait the consumer with promises of better lighting, and give them a half-baked system.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, HID's are a dead end. All of the development is in LED's because they're semiconductor devices and the envelope on these is constantly being pushed. And LED's give car designers great freedom in styling.

But in the long term it's all moot anyway.

In 50 years external lighting will no longer be necessary because cars will all be self driving.

And 50 years after that, cars will no longer be necessary because either we would simply digitize and transfer our consciousnesses to temporary host bodies at our destinations, or we would no longer exist because global warming.
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted by Dave_Mark
Originally Posted by Kestas
Sounds very complicated and expensive for the privilege of driving a little faster at night.


Wrong. The benefit of ADB isn't allowing one to drive "a little faster at night." It's allowing one to actually drive at normal speeds at night with significantly reduced risk.


Wrong. Anyone who can't drive at normal speeds safely with good old standard incan bulbs, in good condition, shouldn't be driving at night. However normal has everything to do with the conditions.

Since driving safely depends on driving no faster than you can see, it is exactly a matter of driving a little faster at night.

There is not "significantly reduced risk". Either you can see in time to stop so it is no risk factor, or you can't and were driving too fast for conditions. There is no "normal speed" unless you are stating that you feel compelled to drive at exactly the speed limit no matter what the conditions are. I do accept that this is how many drivers think, and feel they shouldn't be driving. You give them a little better headlights and they just drive faster still.

In any case, there is not a need for better headlights, rather better driver education and more strict ticketing for operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner (or include not maintaining their headlight lenses in good condition) if not outright exceeding the speed limit.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Dave9
Wrong. Anyone who can't drive at normal speeds safely with good old standard incan bulbs, in good condition, shouldn't be driving at night. However normal has everything to do with the conditions.

Do you also think we should bring back good old standard incan household light bulbs because, after all, they were good enough....

Originally Posted by Dave9
There is not "significantly reduced risk". Either you can see in time to stop so it is no risk factor, or you can't and were driving too fast for conditions. There is no "normal speed" unless you are stating that you feel compelled to drive at exactly the speed limit no matter what the conditions are. I do accept that this is how many drivers think, and feel they shouldn't be driving. You give them a little better headlights and they just drive faster still.

In any case, there is not a need for better headlights, rather better driver education and more strict ticketing for operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner (or include not maintaining their headlight lenses in good condition) if not outright exceeding the speed limit.

It's nice that you feel this way but reality differs from your feelings.

It would also be nice if all risk were black and white like you describe (zero risk or total risk). But the world doesn't work that way. There are shades of gray, increasing and decreasing probabilities, certain likelihoods for given conditions all which result in accidents in some circumstances and near misses in others.
I'll trust the actuaries at the insurance companies (I know, I know....many here won't) that if they're spending tens of millions of dollars on headlight testing and improvement, it has a pretty good chance of improving their bottom line and, ultimately, the safety and well-being of the general public.
Don't get me wrong, driver education and personal accountability are important factors, but if they can improve the technology and decrease the risk, I'm all for it.
 
Originally Posted by Dave9
Originally Posted by Dave_Mark
Originally Posted by Kestas
Sounds very complicated and expensive for the privilege of driving a little faster at night.


Wrong. The benefit of ADB isn't allowing one to drive "a little faster at night." It's allowing one to actually drive at normal speeds at night with significantly reduced risk.


Wrong. Anyone who can't drive at normal speeds safely with good old standard incan bulbs, in good condition, shouldn't be driving at night. However normal has everything to do with the conditions.

Since driving safely depends on driving no faster than you can see, it is exactly a matter of driving a little faster at night.


The simple fact is that state-of-the-art US low beam headlamps create 5 lux of illumination at 200 feet on the left side of the road. This is well-documented by the IIHS. I suggest you take a look at their website to better inform yourself. Remember, this is with correctly-aimed, state-of-the-art headlamps, all in brand new condition. In other words, a unicorn.

No one is stopping from 65 MPH in a mere 200 feet in a normal car. This is a simple fact from driver's ed. To stop within 200 feet, one would need to be traveling at 40 MPH, max. And much, much lower if they're driving an older car with sun-damaged lenses, old bulbs, and lamps that weren't aimed since it left the factory, 15 years ago. Not to mention that factory aiming is a complete joke; factory aiming is less reliable than an Alfa.

Most of us, myself included, are arguably driving too fast for our lamps--when was the last time you consistently drove under 40 MPH on a rural road at night? The fact of the matter is that most of us get away with it most of the time. The ones who don't get away with it end up blaming deer that "jumped out" at the last minute or something like that. And since we have insurance, it's no harm, no foul, and we don't bother to think twice about exactly how fast our lamps allow us to drive.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Dave9
Originally Posted by Dave_Mark
Originally Posted by Kestas
Sounds very complicated and expensive for the privilege of driving a little faster at night.


Wrong. The benefit of ADB isn't allowing one to drive "a little faster at night." It's allowing one to actually drive at normal speeds at night with significantly reduced risk.


Wrong. Anyone who can't drive at normal speeds safely with good old standard incan bulbs, in good condition, shouldn't be driving at night. However normal has everything to do with the conditions.

Since driving safely depends on driving no faster than you can see, it is exactly a matter of driving a little faster at night.

There is not "significantly reduced risk". Either you can see in time to stop so it is no risk factor, or you can't and were driving too fast for conditions. There is no "normal speed" unless you are stating that you feel compelled to drive at exactly the speed limit no matter what the conditions are. I do accept that this is how many drivers think, and feel they shouldn't be driving. You give them a little better headlights and they just drive faster still.

In any case, there is not a need for better headlights, rather better driver education and more strict ticketing for operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner (or include not maintaining their headlight lenses in good condition) if not outright exceeding the speed limit.


Using that same logic, there's no need for advanced safety features like traction control, ABS, stability control, highly engineered chassis that are both strong and designed to dissipate energy in a crash, multi stage airbags etc etc.

If my headlights gave me that extra 1-3 seconds down the road to react to anything, whether I'm going 40 down a country road or 70 down the highway, how could you argue that that is a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top