Lightforce 140s for ON and OFF Road??

[AlexJet]

I never said I did not like them, however I do believe using them on the road is eventually going to cause an accident because the amount of glare they have, even on semi-rural roads (say 1 car every 15min). I do not think there is a better light out there for throwing the amount of light they do and they have a great pattern (I have the Eurobeams as well), I have never wanted more light offroad than these provide.

The reason I am thinking about adding a set of lightforce is the fact that I can use them in the snow and fog, and have a decent set of driving lights as well.

My Hella doesn't have glare...I never mention it as it always been leaving very sharp light pattern. When I converted them to HID, they do have some glare now, but very little. Its typical as Halogen and HID bulbs have different arc. LightForces I've seen, give more side glare. I'd use LF as a pencil beam, but for spread light output, Id stick with Hella. May be its just my perspective, but comparing 2 light side by side, I like Hella more for their light output in zones I'm looking for.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Glare for you, or glare for oncoming drivers? I hope you're not leaving your driving lights on with oncoming traffic?

 

[AlexJet]

Glare for you, or glare for oncoming drivers? I hope you're not leaving your driving lights on with oncoming traffic?

Glare for me is close to 0, for others - may be a bit after HID conversion (close to 0 with halogen).
I parked my truck and drove a few times as "oncoming", its not distractive at all.

 

[duner]

Glare for you, or glare for oncoming drivers? I hope you're not leaving your driving lights on with oncoming traffic?

NO I am NOT leaving them on for others... Just if you are coming around a corner and don't anticipate someone coming and don't get the lights off in time, they could loose ALL their night vision (something I want to avoid).

 

[Backroad Explorer]

I have been using Hella 500 Series amber fog light's on my Samurai for about 5 years now. I used to live in Mammoth Lakes,Ca. now in I live in McCall,Idaho and in the heavy snow,fog and rain they are simply wonderful. The low wide fog light pattern helps with the on comming snow and lights up the white fog line and roadside reflector posts very well. I have them wired to my parking light circut so when the snow is heavy I can turn off my headlights keeping all my other running lights on. They definitly help minimize the white light glare from my headlights in the snow and fog :smiley_drive:

 

[off-roader]

Why not try a pair of Hella FF1000's, and tint them the way Hilldweller did his. I'm using them with 100W bulbs, and never had a problem with glare. Though obviously, you have to turn them off when there is oncoming traffic. I wouldn't even think of using them when there is oncoming traffic. Hella 500FF's might work for that, and the beam pattern is a little flatter. Even still... driving lights are not intended to be used with oncoming traffic.

I couldn't recommend the FF1000's over say the 700's or the 500's. The problem with the FF1000's is the mount and type of plastic used. The original mount's plastic would crack very easily with age in comparison to my original Hella 500's (non FF). Hella even provided a superior metal mount which I used and still we've found that now the actual body of the light is what's cracking. These are on lights that have never been hit by branches, debris, etc off road so the failure is purely from simply plastic fatigue.

By comparison the original Hella 500's I have on my rig (about 2 years older than the 1000's) are still going strong and are showing absolutely no signs of fatigue or impending housing/mount failure issues.

I spoke with a Hella rep at a local 4x4 show this past weekend (4 Wheel Parts Expo in San Mateo, CA). He said 'anonymously' that the Hella 1000FF was made using inferior processes, qc, or materials (or a combination of the above) etc. and Hella had been regretting that decision until now.

Interestingly the newer Hella 700FF (same size as the 1000) has reverted to the original Hella 500 mount design and at a mere $80 for a kit, is quite a steal especially with the superior FF reflector design.

And I've never seen the CPF guys talk more trash about lightforce than any other brand.

Are you saying the CPF guys like or dislike the Lightforce brand? Unfortunately I didn't take the time to speak with the Lightforce rep at the local trade show. I guess my mind was kind of made up but now I wish I did hear their side of where they believe their lights are superior.

It is at the printer now, and should hit your mailboxes in the next couple weeks.

That's awesome! I renewed my subscription yesterday morning and for 2 years this time. I also bought myself a couple of stickers. Now I can't wait for this upcoming issue because I'm currently in the market for aux lighting & your timing couldn't have been better.

When I converted them to HID, they do have some glare now, but very little. Its typical as Halogen and HID bulbs have different arc.

Can you share which Hella's you're running (model & beam)? Also, I've been looking for a write-up on the HID conversion for the Hella 700FF (or maybe their smaller cousin the 500FF) because I heard it doesn't spread light arbitrarily like other lights with bad reflector designs. If you know of an online write-up it would be greatly appreciated.

TIA!
:coffeedrink:

 

[R_Lefebvre]

I haven't had a cracking problem like that with my FF1000's, but I did break one mount. Had to do with the mounting bolt seizing into the nut, so when I tried to remove it, the extreme torque required twisted the bolt and the head retaining feature in the mount broke. I repaired it with a lot of epoxy, glued the bolt right in, and it seems OK so far.

 

[Rattler]

The yellow filters may help. I noticed the ice road truckers run Lightforces.

I noticed them on IRT too. Especially on Lisa's rig.:sombrero:

This is a joke right? Had over 54" of snow fall in the front yard over a week long storm this year.... yep we don't get any snow at all

Hell, you have had more than I have had up here in MI. Then again, my bro-in-law in VA has had more this year.:Wow1:

I have my 140s mounted to the top of my front bumper. They are aligned so that when I have my brights on (Silverstart bulbs too), they fill wher the regular beams are. It seems to be a great setup with the white dispersion lense. The yellows work good too in the wetter weather.

I am hoping to grab a set of 240s sometime this spring to mount up there where they are and mount the 140s outboard from them a bit. I like the newer $$ on 240s.

 

[Hilldweller]

Are you saying the CPF guys like or dislike the Lightforce brand? Unfortunately I didn't take the time to speak with the Lightforce rep at the local trade show. I guess my mind was kind of made up but now I wish I did hear their side of where they believe their lights are superior.

Plenty of chatter about them on CPF:

Not very impressed with Lightforce's marketing or proprietary bulbs. An orange or amber filter does not turn a driving lamp into a "fog" lamp, and blue or green filters are absolutely useless and in most cases illegal.

The Lightfarces are...silly. Those screwy colored snap-on "converter" lenses are a total joke. Credit where it's due, they sure know how to talk-up their stuff and who to give promo lights to, to get the buzz and chatter going about how super great they are. Reality and advertising never did spend much time together!

Somethign there doesn't make sense.
Take 3 lightforce lights - same design, same construction.
140mm, 170mm, 240mm
whilst the 140 has a 75 w bulb, the others both have the larger 100w bulb.
The output of the 240 is quoted at nearly twice that of the 170.
if the reflector is 99.99% (at a guess) and covers the same ARC of the bulb - they should be the same.
Something is missing here (apart from my brains)
Thanx
Paul

Lightfarce tells a lot of lies, what's one more?

Of the brands you mention, I would definitely only get the Hellas. KC's entire light lineup these days is Far-east junk, Lightforce's stuff, while heavily advertised and widely sponsored so as to generate rave reviews, doesn't live up to their breathless hype and is neither ECE nor SAE approved (which can get you in trouble at weigh-and-check stations even if they're not powered up). One or both of these reasons for dismissal also apply to all the rest of the nonbrands (Blitz, Fuego, Bigie, Sirius, Catz, Eagle, the list goes on and on.)

My problems with Lightforce's stuff include:

-The lack of any SAE certification or ECE approval — some or most of their stuff would certainly have no trouble at all meeting either or both technical regulations, and yet they don't bother. "Trust us, they're better than any technical standard requires" just doesn't carry any weight.

-And speaking of weight, lightweight construction doesn't impress me, per se. In extensive testing, my general finding is that thermoplastic materials such as Lightforce lamps use are not nearly as robust as thermoset resin reflectors and glass lenses in the long run.

-Use of nonstandard bulbs (a significant problem in their halogen lamps; haven't done an extensive survey of which bulbs they're using in their HIDs). A lot of their lamps have used such bizarre choices as obsolete film projector bulbs, which can leave the owner of such a lamp in the lurch when availability becomes a problem. There's no technical reason why these non-automotive bulbs would be preferable in automotive service; it appears to be either an attempt to own the market for replacement bulbs, or "the Lightforce people got a screamin' deal on a boatload of projector bulbs" kind of deal. There are a couple of dozen automotive halogen bulb types, many of which are available in numerous variants (wattage, luminous flux, etc.), and all of which are much more widely available than the odd nonstandard stuff Lightforce has used.

-Strange accessories recommended with hype having no basis in science. The notion is asinine that one can "convert" a driving lamp into a fog lamp by snapping on an amber or yellow plastic cover plate, and it's even more ridiculous to be selling a blue plastic cover plate as "useful in snowy conditions".

I'm just not favorably impressed when a company lies to me. When they tell a few small lies — or medium-to-large ones — I wonder what else they're lying about and why. There are enough suppliers of known/proven/tested/certified/approved-good lamps, made of robust materials, using readily-available bulbs, and without any of the hype and fibbing, that I just don't see a good reason to indulge the likes of lightforce (amongst many others whose marketing plans revolve around similar behavior).

IMO, of course.

I had a long, and rather heated, discussion with a LightFarce rep a few years ago. My thoughts on them is the smaller lights are good if weight is the number 1 concern, they are some what lighter then my Cibie Oscar SCs for example. However I have yet to be convinced that changeing the bulb/reflector relationship and clip on covers is the best solution for different beam patterns. Their claims of better durability may have some basis, however my Cibies have survived a high speed roll over with only a dent in the metal body, I also have doubts over the UV stabilty of the plastic Lightforce bodies. Personally I can't see the value in them, my lights cost me AUD$250 each 11 years ago and still retail, when you can find them, for AUD$300 each. Last time I looked the baby Lightforce was more expensive. It's interesting that pretty much the only people who I see using them here in Australia are the hard core macho 4x4 crowd. Trucks, ralliests and serious users stick with Hella and Cibie.
Oh yeah, just remembered, a local 4x4 magazine tested all the locally available lights a few years ago and commented that all the lightforce lights had very good long range pencil beam but less so spread beam. Interestingly their own 4x4s use Hella and Cibie lights.

 

[flyingwil]

Well having a few sets of LightForce lights, I am very happy with them.

We have a set 170's with the 100w Verticle Filament bulbs on the KJ, and they are too bright to use on the road... I think that oncoming traffic would be really mad at us.

On the truck we have a set of 240's... again, too much light for on road use.

To the OP (duner) I would think that a set of 140's with a lower watt bulb like the GL04, would do the trick for on and off-road use.

To comment on the CPF remarks about the filters, I strongly disagree with those remarks, and doubt they are coming from people who actually use or have used LF lights. If you look at most of the other brand lights, the difference between the pencil/driving lights and the spot/wide lights is the lens itself. The filters provide this feature. I had a friend equate the filters to one he used in Drama in high school, and that is the case with the lightforce filters. As the color and tinting options allow you to dial it in for your condition. I am a fan of the Yellow Combo's, as they seem to have less of what I call the light saber effect in dusty conditions, and gives the width and distance needed. As pictured above the Crystal Blue, does seem to increase the clarity of what you're looking at in front of you, again the combo filter is my favorite.

I think LightForce lights are very similar to Mag-lights, you love 'em or hate 'em. Like the Mag-Lights you can adjust the focal point by twisting the housing, but you need to remember that you are adjusting the focal point, it is not really and adjustable beam. This can widen or shorten the width of the light produced, and aids to suiting the light to the driving conditions. The filters are really the lens, and swapping the filters adjusts the beam.

 

[Hilldweller]

Blue tint is never beneficial for forward lighting. Filtering out the long light wavelengths alters pupil response rates. Offering the blue filter alone is reason enough to put the Lightforce products on the dubious product list.

We investigated whether cones are the only photosensitive process mediating the photopic pupillary light reflex. New analyses were performed on previously published recordings, focusing on those evoked by the onset of photopically equated short- and long-wavelength stimuli. Comparisons between responses revealed contraction differences that slowly grew to a peak and gradually declined. The late contraction was associated with short wavelengths and appeared mostly at the higher stimulus intensities. We conclude that cones are not the only photoreception process mediating the photopic ON-reflex and infer that melanopsin is another. Melanopsin contributes to the steady-state pupil size in daylight illumination.

http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/bulbs/blue/bad/bad.html

 

[Scott Brady]

Blue tint is never beneficial for forward lighting. Filtering out the long light wavelengths alters pupil response rates. Offering the blue filter alone is reason enough to put the Lightforce products on the dubious product list.
http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/bulbs/blue/bad/bad.html

We go into great detail on blue bulbs and tinting in the article.

However, I would not be so quick to send Lightforce down the river. Their lights did well in our testing (you will see in the controlled sample images and distance measurements) and the 240HID (which was eliminated from the evaluation pool due to reflector size restrictions, but was still tested) is an absolute powerhouse.

As with anything people read on the internet, you should always ask "how did that person form the opinion stated?" Is it as a result of a mob mentality? Subjective testing? Hearsay? Or is it from Empirical testing with controlled variables and repeatability, with the subject evaluated with its peers in exactly the same way?

Some of the comments listed above is the precise reason why Overland Journal goes to momentous effort and expense to test products and put unfiltered results out there for everyone to see and make a decision from.

 

[flyingwil]

Blue tint is never beneficial for forward lighting. Filtering out the long light wavelengths alters pupil response rates. Offering the blue filter alone is reason enough to put the Lightforce products on the dubious product list.



http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/bulbs/blue/bad/bad.html

Nice link.

The crystal blue filters on the LF's produce a white(ish) color, not blue. It is a similar output to a 5000°k HID, and more a clear light between the clear filter and the crystal blue. Using the crystal blue filter on my LF's gives me a whiter light than my PIAA's (which I dislike).

Oh yeah, In that picture it was our first run with the crystal blue filters.

 

[Hilldweller]

As with anything people read on the internet, you should always ask "how did that person form the opinion stated?" Is it as a result of a mob mentality? Subjective testing? Hearsay? Or is it from Empirical testing with controlled variables and repeatability, with the subject evaluated with its peers in exactly the same way?

I'm the senior administrator for a liquid/gas chromatograph & mass spectrometer training lab; some of these bulb manufacturers are my customers.
I'm going to check the roster and see when I'm having our next lightbulb class.

Nice link.

The crystal blue filters on the LF's produce a white(ish) color, not blue. It is a similar output to a 5000°k HID, and more a clear light between the clear filter and the crystal blue. Using the crystal blue filter on my LF's gives me a whiter light than my PIAA's (which I dislike).

Oh yeah, In that picture it was our first run with the crystal blue filters.

A filter is a filter; it works by passively removing certain bits of light, wavelengths here, in certain quantities.
The blue Lightforce filters are removing a bit of red/orange/yellow ---- the ones that Scott's empirical testing has shown to be beneficial for human sight. They leave more of the blues, the ones that keep your pupils open, the ones that humans can't focus well with.
They take away available light; that's intrinsic to the very definition of a filter...

Your rods and cones will be better served by normal white light between 3200 and 4300K; use selective yellow in bad weather.

 

[Scott Brady]

The blue Lightforce filters are removing a bit of red/orange/yellow ---- the ones that Scott's empirical testing has shown to be beneficial for human sight.

WHAT???????

I never said that. I only said that we review tinting in the article - quite disparagingly actually.