Lighting Upgrade Questions

Quote:

---

Read any customer reviews?

---

From what I have read the Fyrlt's are indeed good units But I personally find it hard to justify forking out about a grand for a set of spotties that an errant stone could destroy in a heartbeat or the globe could rattle itself to death on corrugations in the middle of nowhere.
I only drive at night and if I absolutely have to But when I do I want to be able to rely on whatever lighting that I have installed to function 100% and the LED options available are pretty much "Bullet Proof".
If you make sure that your wiring is well fitted/good quality and you put a relay on each of the individual lights the LED's wont let you down even If they have been hit with the odd stone here and there.[bigwhistle]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vern

FYRLYT Driving Lights superior to any HID or LED regardless of price.

---

times 20

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trout1105

From what I have read the Fyrlt's are indeed good units But I personally find it hard to justify forking out about a grand for a set of spotties that an errant stone could destroy in a heartbeat or the globe could rattle itself to death on corrugations in the middle of nowhere.
I only drive at night and if I absolutely have to But when I do I want to be able to rely on whatever lighting that I have installed to function 100% and the LED options available are pretty much "Bullet Proof".
If you make sure that your wiring is well fitted/good quality and you put a relay on each of the individual lights the LED's wont let you down even If they have been hit with the odd stone here and there.[bigwhistle]

---

I run FYRLYT 5000 on three work utes and a set waiting to go on the defender @ $500 a set...I agree extremely hard to justify the price tag of the 9000's and their competitors

Ours have bounced around mine site and bulbs haven't fell out....we did experience the bad batch of lenses but were replaced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trout1105

From what I have read the Fyrlt's are indeed good units But I personally find it hard to justify forking out about a grand for a set of spotties that an errant stone could destroy in a heartbeat or the globe could rattle itself to death on corrugations in the middle of nowhere.
I only drive at night and if I absolutely have to But when I do I want to be able to rely on whatever lighting that I have installed to function 100% and the LED options available are pretty much "Bullet Proof".
If you make sure that your wiring is well fitted/good quality and you put a relay on each of the individual lights the LED's wont let you down even If they have been hit with the odd stone here and there.[bigwhistle]

---

I paid $594 from marks 4wd for the Fyrlts 5000.
They have been in the car since 22/01/2016 and although they have not been used that often, they are still working.
The Headlights H4 though have failed several times, i.e the bulbs failed. Im an old bastard but Ive only ever seen one headlight be destoyed by a stone.

I have driven thousands of K's on the dirt roads/tracks in the Pilbara and the Goldfields and busted windscreens and spotlight lenses are Not that uncommon especially on the roads that are also used by road trains and other big rigs.
I have also had light failures due to the really nasty corrugations many of these types of roads have.
Even if you pull up and let the trucks pass by there is still a chance of a stone strike, It's just part and parcel of travelling these roads unfortunately.
The vehicles that were fitted with the LED spotlights did suffer stone strikes However the lights still functioned perfectly, The Standard halogen types that took a hit were rendered useless.
It is just a personal preference But I prefer the LED options Not because I think that they are a Better light or more powerful than the Fyrlt's, I simply consider that the LED lights are a far more robust and reliable option for remote operation.

Just to be clear here:
I have no personal opinion, positive or negative of the fyrlyts!
My position on their ability or effectiveness is totally neutral.

The points I'm trying to get across here is the misinformation as to what constitutes marketing garbage and science fact.

another piece of critical substandard marketing misinformation masquearding as scientific fact they have on their website, linked to earlier in this thread is the AM report on the health effects on humans from these blue light LEDs.

More illuminating (pun intended) is the response to the AMA report in pdf form:

LRC response to AMA report on the effects of blue light on human vision

a couple of very important points were made, for those that cant' be bothered to read it.

Quote:

---

Summary: Predictions of health consequences from light exposure depend upon an accurate characterization of the physical stimulus as well as the biological response to that stimulus. Without fully defining both the stimulus and the response, nothing meaningful can be stated about the health effects of any light source.

---

ie. if the effects of blue light from LED sources is harmful, then so it should be from daylight sources .. so we need to avoid daylight more so than the much lower power levels of LED street lights!

Quote:

---

Summary: Notwithstanding certain sub‐populations that deserve special attention, blue light hazard from In‐Ga‐N LEDs is probably not a concern to the majority of the population in most lighting applications due to human’s natural photophobic response.

---

ie. if you see a very bright point light source, you don't stare at it for 10 seconds! The reference to sub populations they made there were to infants who may be prone to staring at bright lights.

Quote:

---

Summary: In‐Ga‐N LED sources dominated by short wavelengths have greater potential for suppressing the hormone melatonin at
night than sodium ‐ based sources commonly used outdoors. However, the amount and the duration of exposure need to be specified before it can be stated that In‐Ga‐N LED sources affect melatonin suppression at night.

---

My first thought re that AMA report. How many folks are out and about 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for their entire lives! the report is basically bunk on that premise alone.
If your out and about getting your daily 12 hour blue light exposure, then the chances that your out and about to receive another 12 hours of blue light during the night is very slim to nothing at all.

Quote:

---

Summary: Until more is known about the effects of long ‐ wavelength light exposure (amount, spectrum, duration) on circadian disruption, it is inappropriate to single out short ‐ wavelength radiation from In‐Ga‐N LED sources as a causative factor in modern maladies.

---

My thoughts exactly!

Don't confuse marketing misinformation as science fact!

My avoidance of the brand stems only from the above point. I guess this stems from a serious distrust of marketing gurus (from years back when I a friend of mine was one!) :D
If it just so happens that they're using this marketing material in the manner that they do because don't really understand the implications of what they're doing, they could be forgiven .. but you'd at least expect that they'd outsource that job to someone who would have a subjective idea on the topic.

Sorry but I get lost in your posts. From my understanding and what i learnt at trade school, it's not the type of light that strains the eyes, it's the colour spectrum.
Now from the hundreds of thousands of lights i habe installed, in offices, houses, shopping centres, we always gets complaints of eye strain when we have installed 6500kelvin lights (daylight). So across the board we would never install anything higher than 5000k.
From what i know, all led driving lights are 6-6500k, and i know when i turn mine on its bloody horrible, horrible colour, and heaps of glare.
Halogen though is closer to true daylight (4500-5000k), much easier on the eye.

Now i haveno affiliation with fyrlyt, but if you go on there facebook page and read tue reviews from customers, actual posts by the people that bought them, not marketing stuff, you will find that every single person is rapt with them and most have gone from high end led to these. Also a lot a from this forum.

Also, what kelvin are street lights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vern

...
Halogen though is closer to true daylight (4500-5000k), much easier on the eye.

....

---

I'm not 100% sure where you get your info, but:

Wiki on the colour of light

Quote:

---

The Sun closely approximates a black-body radiator. The effective temperature, defined by the total radiative power per square unit, is about 5780 K.^[6] The color temperature of sunlight above the atmosphere is about 5900 K.

---

4500-5000 is a far cry from 5780K ... wouldn't you say.

What you're probably confusing the colour of daylight being 4500-5000K could be the notion that they use to use a standard daylight balanced film value of about 5500K, some used to use 5200K and other's used to use 5000K.

You have to ask yourself, what do you mean my daylight colour?
No such thing exists.
Daylight colour isn't the same everywhere, nor is it the same for the duration of the day.
Blue - hour, golden - hour, midday .. then you need to take into account latitude as well.

There is no one set standard for the colour of daylight.

that value of 5780K is an average.

I think many people are confused about what's actually easier on the eye.
There's a difference between easy on the eye and a subjective preference.

Many people prefer warmer light. I do too. It's much easier on the eye ... except when you have to do something critical, or detailed.

An analogy would be:
Do you prefer a glorious golden sunset, or the harsh reality of an oppressive midday sun?
10 or of 10 people will prefer the sunset light colour. It's warm, gives a feeling of warmth, makes them feel good, etc.

But give them white cotton to thread through a fine needle at sunset, and watch how unsuccessful they all are at it.
Give them the same cotton and needle at midday though, and it's much easier.

This harsh blue light makes for better acuity when it comes to discernign greater detail.
Harsh light = better detail rendering.
You may not like it(and neither do I), but it's the way light works, shorter wavelengths allow better rendering of fine detail .. ie contrast.
I prefer the warm and good feeling that warm light gives us too. But when i want to see stuff, I much prefer hard white light.

How do I know this. Easy. The hundred or so light bulbs I'vbe installed over the past 20-30 years is nowhere as many light bulbs as you may have, I have recommended to my sister to get some bright harsh midday sun coloured(ie. about 6000K) LEDs in her button shop.
(she owns a button shop, haberdashery, cotton bits and pieces shop, and she does some alterations and stuff like that)

She hates harsh light. Most rooms in my house have 6000K LEDs(except one or two less critical rooms, but that will change one day too) .. she hates my house because of that.
But in her back room, at her shop .. she loves them!
They help her thread those fine needles much better than the warm lights she used to use.
Look into any commercial kitchen, in the prep area they mainly use fluoros or maybe LEDs now. They may use incandescent or halogen lights at the servery table.
Different horses for different purposes.
Kitchen needs detail, for work, bright harsh light will do it every time.
servery needs pleasantness, warm, cosy .. make the customer feel good about the environment type lighting(aka... just like the sunset example earlier).

ps. don't read my posts if you can't stand them, but at least read the science in the wiki links I posted.

pps. quote from the wiki on the colour of daylight:

Quote:

---

Daylight has a spectrum similar to that of a black body with a correlated color temperature of 6500 K (D65 viewing standard)

---

Hmmm , well i think you are going to find that health care professionals from Opthalmologist's to The Cancer Council are going to recommend you wear sunglasses in sunlight to filter the ultraviolet rays ,perhaps they are all wrong.
Your reference to the glare of street signs has nothing to do with colour temp. Your refering to reflect light which is more to do with Lux or
The blue end of the spectrum is glarey because it has a shorter wavelength. The light scatters more the shorter the wavelength.Because it scatters it can make details blurry. This is why the film industry use UV filters especially at higher altitudes. Filtering the UV and blue slightly will sharpen the image.
You also dont agree that CRI plays a role in auto lighting. If you can see though that the higher the CRI or colour depth then the more subtleties in the colour of a scene you will see. This may be the difference in noticing a kangaroo against a background or not. Splitting hairs here but the more small improvements in the right direction can add up to something worth having.
And on 6500k being daylight. Well yes it is an average but the sun is more like 5400. Most would agree 6500 is blue not white. Philips auto bulbs are rated about as good as it gets. What col temp are those? I would think they would be able to make any colour they wanted.
Also you missed my point on the yellow glasses sold for low light conditions. The fact that so many optics manufacturers offer them and that they are recommended for those who spend all day at a computer screen to reduce blue light eye strain would suggest that there is more to it.
Personally i feel that any colour glasses at night will decrease the amount of light getting into my eye and reduce what i can see. BUT.....i received some light yellow lenses free with some cycling glasses and i could see more. I know it just comes down to an increase in contrast but my vision did seem better. This was in the city not out in the bush and i havnt used them since either.
Would love to set up a rig with one housing and several bulbs to try.Most tests i see like this are let down by questionable camera settings. I have a colour temp meter and a lux meter plus the good camera,who has some bulbs and a kangaroo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK83

This harsh blue light makes for better acuity when it comes to discernign greater detail.
Harsh light = better detail rendering.


:

---

Sorry i missed your last post.
I totally disagree when you use the word "blue" in the above.
White , sure but not blue because of the short wavelength . Short wavelength light scatters and is therefore not as sharp as a longer wavelength.Are we off topic yet?? [bigwhistle]