Guest bil h Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I've been off air for a while so might have missed any previous info. I drive every day in all weathers with various vehicles including our Rapido 987M. Having witnesed and seen the causes of many accidents I "always" drive using DTL (Day Time Lights) except in brilliant sunlight but "do use them" amongst trees or hazardous areas. DTL are likely to be law in the UK soon I believe, and its heartening to now see many everyday drivers using DTL as the norm. It does puzzle me why they are not used more for it costs nothing and many drivers don't own the car or van anyway so why not? Question...is using DTL detrimental to battery life or by working the battery harder is this beneficial for the exchange of the submerged elements within the system? bil h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I wouldn't have thought it was detrimental as the lights would be taking their power from the alternator. With the battery only acting to smooth the voltage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Hi bil h, Your statement that it 'costs nothing' is in fact incorrect. It is as incorrect as saying that electricity powered vehicles are pollution free and 100% efficient (the difference is the pollution is caused at the power station and the losses are at the power station some of which are as low as 60% efficient). Without going into detail it is a well proven and recognised fact that and I quote from the Laws of Conservation of Energy "energy cannot be made or lost it can only change its form". What this effectively means is that using your lights when it is unnecessary, as would be regarded by most people in this country, means you are using more fuel to power the engine to turn the alternator to produce the electrical energy required to burn in the lights. Therefore you are converting the energy from the fuel into the power for the lights, this can in fact be quite a substantial amount and tests on rear screen heaters being left on in cars show up to 10% reduction in fuel efficiency DTL is using similar amounts of energy not good if you believe the anti pollution lobby. I also hope you are wrong in your assumption that DTL will be brought in in this country as there is no proven justification unlike the more northern and Scandinavion countries, it could also have a detrimental effect in that one of the only remaining means of motorcyclists being more readily seen by otherwise partially blind car drivers would be negated. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bil h Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Basil I'm totaly dumbfounded at your comment that DTL's are unneccessary !! A safe driver respects other road users and positions himself in such a way that he can be easily seen, this includes using dipped headlights when he thinks it good sense. I can only assume you are of younger years than many of us and have never tried to cross the road in half light, driven in thick fog, or seen pedestrians and motorcyclists after they were hit by those who dont care who's in the way!! If you ever get around to assessing crashes you would find that many are caused by not seeing the other vehicle. Motorcyclist were not good at this but are now learning that by using lights helps you to stay alive. As a pedestrian and cyclist and motorcyclist and a one time roller skater it is extreamly dangerous to meet moving vehicles with only parking lights tiurned on. Parking lights are not for general movement, they are for PARKING. You have obviously not had many near misses Basil, perrhaps a few more years and a crash or two may enhance your views that being seen is just as important as seeing oneself. Two examples I offer. In the last year I faced a police car under trees and a fire truck on the wriong side. All with no lights. The bright sunlight under the trees gave off a blue haze that was disguising their blue flashing light. If headlights had been on they would have been more noticeable. Not true I hear someone shout, then I suggest you take a drive along the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia on a hot day. The air is BLUE. My objective is to avoid all hazards, and stay alive!! I shall continue to use DTL when I consider it important to do so. If you ever have to fill in an accident form and were using headlights this will rate you higher on your insurance assessment. TAKE NOTE. I accept your point that it does cost additional fuel etc, (I prefer to stay alive with the additional cost) but my query was related to battery life and is it detrimental to the battery cells or the moveable elements within the battery liquid. I see I'm now listed as a new member (Changed PC's) but be assured I'm rather older than you think and driven all over the world. (many times) The most curtiest drivers were in Hungary. Have fun bil h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Bil h I believe you make assumptions with no actual knowledge, I made no assumptions of your age grouping or of your experience just answered the dogmatic part of your post and to correct a mis-statement on your part!! :'( :'( :'( . In your origional post you were reffering to the possible legally enforced use of daylight dipped headlights, with which I do not agree, but you changed that to fog, rain and other poor daylight conditions in your second. In those circumstances it is encumbant even now on drivers to use their lights, I was reffering to your origional post. With over 45 years of driving under my belt and driving up tp 148000 miles per year towards the end of my working life I believe I have seen a bit but certainly not all, including some horific accidents, what I have seen does not change my origional opinion that in answer to the point on lighting raised by you in your origional post. If you did not want those points discussed you did not need to raise them and could have only asked the question you are now saying your post was about. You are right in one thing though, in all my driving career I have never had to fill in an accident form and I drive in a manner in which I hope never to. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I'm with Basil on this one, i use headlights when visibility starts to fail, but think they are an unneccessary distraction at other times, the amount of times i have slowed and pulled over to left to allow a (what i thought was an emergency) vehicle to pass only to have a Volvo go sailing past. headlights in broad daylight are a waste of time and Energy. I'm no 'youngster' either, and drove for a living for over 30 years. Far better to enforce the laws we already have,and nick a few people who insist on driving with one or more headlights not working AT NIGHT.Now THAT is dangerous. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuwsmith Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I would like to add my vote wholeheartedly to Basil's argument. I have been a motorcyclist for over 50 years. I do use lights but only when I consider it necessary and when visibility is poor. I prefer to wear high visibility clothing and ride with the assumption that I am invisible to all other road users particularly those about to enter the road I am travelling on or to turn right across my path. On the occasions that I do ride with lights on, although I can't be sure how many other road users have seen me as a result of having lights on I know how many haven't and believe me it is quite a few. I have also had people pull out in front of me when having lights on who did see me but later admitted that they thought I had "flashed" them thereby inviting them pull out in front of me! Day time lights also can also be the cause of glare and dazzle particularly by what seems to be a large number of vehicles who in spite of MoT's etc have badly adjusted headlamps, not to mention the selfish and illegal use of "fog lights" in good daylight visibility. I also hope that DTL do not become mandatory. Lights should be used in poor visibilty. road users should LOOK before they manoeuvre and as they drive. And yes driving with lights on does use fuel which will add to global warming etc. A far better solution would be the mandatory use of fluorescent yellow reflective paint for all vehicles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertractorman Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Bas, I commend you on your safe driving, but was a little concerned to read 148000 miles per year, as that would be 405 miles per day of 365 days. If average driving was 9 hours per day, that would be 45mph in terms of speed is this not excessive. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Hi stm, Unfortunately it was not unusual for me to do 700 miles a day towards the end, probably at speeds that I would not wish to admit, and was one of the reasons that I decided to take a redundancy package and early retirement, I'd had enough. It was only the last eighteen or so months, prior to that the norm was around 1000 miles a week. Common for me to do a round trip from the London area to Birmingham, Manchester across to Leeds then Nottingham on the way back down. Dudley, Leicester Loughboro' or Newcastle was a normal day trip, sometimes seven days a week, still it was only for management meetings when I got there and they aren't exactly working are they??? :-S :-S :-S Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertractorman Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Bas, Don't blame you for taking early retirement with that mileage. Would have thought the reason would have been too many Business lunches from 12 to 3 every day. (lol) David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 To be honest that becomes a bit of a bore in the end as well!! Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertractorman Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Bas, I used to do similar running Transport Depots, and used to find I was always happiest on the Motorways if I had a high mileage Driver in front and behind, as people like that can read the road ahead, and be braking before an incident occurs, as you have seen it all happen before and are alert. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bil h Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Thanks for all the comments. Most enjoyable. Stewsmith I think it was who mentioned global warming. Now dont get me going on that one. And apologies to the administator for discussing non M/H matters here or perhaps it is for the M/H owner will sleep warmer. The whole subject of global warming by government is a farce and propagander to raise taxes. They've been hyping everyone up recently, then today they sneak in addional airport taxes, how's that!! A few facts on global warming.........Its been happening since the Thames froze over and before. Remember well the South of England was tropical at one time and we are now returning to a similar state. It is a fact that anyone born after 1936 has little idea of THE TRUTH. I was born in the 1920's and we always had warm summers. There was a slow sliding scale increase in heat until 1939 then along came WWII followed by atom bomb tests. The atmosphere filled with dust and electricaly charged particles. These particles searched around for water mollicules, they then enlarge to 100 times their size and deposited the world with about 50years of wet uncertain weather. (It might be worth a mention here that recent tests with aircraft have been trying to replicate this by dropping similar particles into clouds) In recent years all the 'wartime dust' has been used up and we are now back on track to the original gentle warming slope from the 1930's There does appears to be a sudden rise in temperature now but if you draw an angled line from 1939 to 2007 then flatten off the 50 years I mentioned you will see that there has to be a large jump in temperature at this moment 2006-7 to correspond with the original line. So.............. sorry folks there 'aint no extra carbon emmitions you're being asked to pay for its just hype to wind yoiu all up and tax you more. If there were no fuel driven transport vehicles the world would still get hotter. Hope you all enjoyed that, there's more. Sorry if you're flying this year. bil h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I dislike day time lights just about as much as I dislike High mounted / super bright LED stop lamps. Both dazzle, especially the hi tech blue head lights. If it is past "lighting up time" or its heavy rain requiring the wipers to be on continuous then for me that is the time to put day time lights on. Otherwise they hurt the eye balls. Has't anyone noticed that when dazzled by these lights it makes it harder to judge distance? I must go and get some more carbide for my lights! C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I think the point about daytime running lights is that they increase visibility of vehicles to almost all other road uesrs, including pedestrians. There is a big debate about them in the US as well, and several European countries, (not all in Northern Europe) have either made them mandatory, or are flirting with them.However, dipped headlamps they should not be, for all the reasons stated above. Hella produce a specific lamp for daytime running. The wattage is only around 15W, and the reflector is designed to enhance visibility while minimising dazzle. They are wired across the ignition and the headlamp circuit, so that they illuminate when the engine is started, but without bringing on all the other vehicle lights, but go off when the vehicle headlamps (but not parking lights) are switched on. These need to be low mounted for best effect, which presently contravenes our UK Construction and Use requirements but, given a change to the regs, they would at least keep all the "Chavs", with their foggies on all the time, in order. I think they could be quite a good safety measure if properly done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel E Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Clive, as ever (well, mostly!), you are right. In terms of lighting, the most dangerous drivers on the road are those who: - leave their lights OFF despite appalling motorway spray or fog, etc.,. In the pre-Christmas days of dense fog, it was astonishing how many were driving with no lights - no problem for them but they are virtually invisible to other road users. - leave their high intensity rear lights on when they simply dazzle other drivers. Fine, put them on in dense spray or fog conditions on the open road, but for heavens sake turn them off in nose-to-tail town traffic when they simply ruin the vision of following drivers. To use them legitimately in nose-to-tail conditions would require fog so dense that driving should be impossible anyway! Rant over! ======================== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel E Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Basil, You are, of course, quite correct in indicating that 'lights on' means extra watts used and that this must come from the engine and therefore involve extra fuel. In practice, with the efficiency of modern alternators, and the size of them fitted to modern vans, the extra fuel usage is, in my experience almost undetectable. Driving round Norway, Finland and the Baltic States with both aircon and lights on, (and hills) my average was identical to that achieved without the lights across Poland and Germany, where I was driving at the same speeds as in Scandinavia, and also mostly on the flat. ==== Mel E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Hi Mel, I don't dispute what you feel you found Mel, but at the end of the day if you burn a Watt (or 1Joule/sec) then you have to produce 1Joule for each second it is being burnt, that is physics and indisputable, improved efficiency of alternators will give little improvement whatsoever in fact where I have said that 1J will require 1J to be expended for simplicity, once the frictional losses and engine inefficiencies are taken into account you will actually have to burn more J to make the one J required. The fact is in scientific tests carried out in particular with rear screen heaters, which has lead to having fixed timers introduced on them to turn them off, it was found that a significant amount of energy was wasted when they were left turned on. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 With a typical motorhome diesel engine turning out say 130 BHP at full chat and probably using only 10% of it cruising thats 13HP & 746 watts/HP = as near as makes no difference 10 Kw. Four 15 watt bulbs (60 watts) with an alternator efficiency of say 60% is only about 100 watts. This being roughly one percent of the engine output when cruising. I would say this is negligable and under varing driving conditions un measureable. For instance the additional power taken when driving on a damp road (to extrude the water out from under the tyres) would be much more than this. If you need to be concerned about the additional cost of fuel to run these lights then perhaps you should have a word with Gordon Brown first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hol Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Hi Everyone, A very interesting subject. I have read other discussions about this problem ( Can't remember where ! ), but the objections seem to be NOT about additional costs, but the effect of increased polution. There have, apparently, been studies that claim this would be a very real problem, if DTL was introduced in the UK. Whilst the effect of one motorhome might be hardly measurable, consider literally millions of vehicles and it would certainly become very measurable. With the current focus on environmental polution, this is one augument that might prevent it becoming law. Personally, I drive approx 30,000 miles per year, and I don't consider DTL is required ( I am now in my sixties ). I agree with Clive regarding " High Level" brake lights. Happy Camping, Mike Hol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Clive - 2007-01-14 10:39 PM With a typical motorhome diesel engine turning out say 130 BHP at full chat and probably using only 10% of it cruising thats 13HP & 746 watts/HP = as near as makes no difference 10 Kw. Four 15 watt bulbs (60 watts) with an alternator efficiency of say 60% is only about 100 watts. This being roughly one percent of the engine output when cruising. Hi Clive, I'm afraid you have drastically underestimated here. If DTL is introduced you will have to use dipped headlights until they re introduce the dim/dip system of the 70's (the last time they thought of bringing this in) on new cars, which of course will not help all the old vehicles on the road anyway. You have also only counted four 15 watt bulbs, fine for most cars, but don’t all motorhomes of average size also have side marker position lights, some over a certain size having several amber ones down the side every metre or so. Therefore your calculation should read four x 15 watt = 60 watts plus two side markers two by 10 watts = 20+60= 80 plus two dipped headlights two x 55 =110+80 = 190 using your 60% alternator efficiency add 76 watts, call it 75 therefore =265 watts or two and a half times your estimate of power used. Not sure what you are saying about cruising output that makes no sense, irrespective of whether the vehicle is cruising or going full chat, the fact is you are using 265 Joules every second those lights are in use or 265 x 60 or 15900 per minute or 15900 x60 954000 per hour or if you like 954 kJoules of energy every hour all the time the lights are on, that is not insignificant. Why do you think all vehicles use more fuel in the winter than they do in the summer, its not all longer warming up times? As Mike Hol has said, his comments with which I agree, the investigations into the extra use of energy caused by the use of equipment on vehicles shows that a rear screen heater which on a modern vehicle is rated at somewhere between 90 and 130 watts causes as near as makes no difference a 10% increase in fuel used, with the lights we are talking about double that amount of energy being used how that equates to fuel consumption I have not seen any figures for. So using that known 10% figure and with an average motorhome doing say 25 to 30 mpg that only makes a difference of 2.5 to 3 mpg and could be construed as insignificant but if you consider that in rough terms every 10 gallons you are using 1 gallon more than you need to. If Gordon Brown was to slap 42p per gallon, approx 10p/ litre, tax on fuel most people would be up in arms. Even using your incorrect 1% would be equivalent to Gordon putting 4.2p per gallon, approx 1p/ litre on fuel that puts it a bit more into perspective I believe. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Hi Bil, to answer your question, no using DTL will not adversely affect your battery becausee the power to run the lights will be coming from the alternator and not the battery. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bil h Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 D Sometimes I think I'm 'with it' but most times no!........Some interesting comments out there never-the-less. Don't take the "Carbon emition" hype too seriously folks. How can one believe anything after the 'weapons of M/D' fiasco, they got the oil, now they want us to pay for air that surrounds us!! bil h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 bil h - 2007-01-16 12:54 AM Don't take the "Carbon emition" hype too seriously folks. How can one believe anything after the 'weapons of M/D' fiasco, they got the oil, now they want us to pay for air that surrounds us!! bil h bil h, On this we do agree, it is just another way to control the masses with the 'Green Lobby' coming out winning which ever way it goes, for the first time they must be laughing all the way to the bank. When you say about WMD, it seems anyone who can confuse the PM and Cabinet with their outpourings get listened too, another one you can add is the damp squid 'Millenium Bug' that cost untold millions of government money filtched from you and me and moved into private coffers. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel E Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Basil, My Renault Master certainly did not lose 2.5 to 3 mpg in Norway and Finland with dipped headlights on all the time. In fact, as Clive suggests, I did see a noticeable loss of mpg on wet roads (about 2 mpg) and when driving into a head wind (up to 4 mpg). Conversely, I managed around 34mpg with a strong tail wind. Overall average over 13,500 miles since new is 30.1 mpg, but that includes the running-in period; current running average is 31.7 mpg. Both are based on total fuel in and total miles driven, whereas conditon averages (rain, wind, etc., are based on the fuel computer, which tends to under-estimate slightly. Mel E ==== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.