Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Tonka. on 23 August 2009, 11:50:07
-
I am presently discussing with a friend whether or not his 100watt headlamp bulbs are illegal.
Yes, I know they will probably melt his wiring and dazzle all oncoming vehicles for miles ::)
I have searched for an official site stating the law regarding this but I just seem to come up with hearsay.
Does anybody know where the facts might be on this matter? :y
-
I am presently discussing with a friend whether or not his 100watt headlamp bulbs are illegal.
Yes, I know they will probably melt his wiring and dazzle all oncoming vehicles for miles ::)
I have searched for an official site stating the law regarding this but I just seem to come up with hearsay.
Does anybody know where the facts might be on this matter? :y
Pretty sure 55W is the max for main, anything bigger will have 'not for road use' on the box somewhere! :y
-
If the lamp isn't "E marked" (and a 100W lamp won't be), then it's illegal to use on the road.
-
.......
Yes, I know they will probably melt his wiring and dazzle all oncoming vehicles for miles ::)
.......
I wonder how long he wiring & plastic lenses would last with these? :-? .... http://www.speeding.co.uk/acatalog/Rally_Sport_Bulbs.html
-
Yes, I know they will probably melt his wiring and dazzle all oncoming vehicles for miles ::)
The light output isn't improved by much at all, and some have even reported that the beam definition suffers.
As far as wiring goes, the fuse (in theory) should pop before the wiring gives up. What is more likely to happen is that he will burn out any switches associated with the headlamps.
I'd do a voltage check at the battery (with the engine running at a fast tickover), and do another check at the headlamp to see just how much voltage is being dropped.
-
Thanks guys :y
All your help taken on board ;) 8-)
-
Interesting question Tonka, having looked at these there seems to be a requirement to have an 'E' approval bulb fitted although there seems to be no max output given;
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_1.htm
http://www.ukmot.com/1-2.asp#Text_top
I would imagine however that when the headlight aim was being checked, the intensity of the higher rated bulb would show up on the Lux meter indicating that it wasn't 'E' rated and cause a fail.
Trying to get the relevant values from EEC Directives is another matter however ::) ::) :y
-
Yes, a minimum output of 30w is stated regularly but no maximum :-/
-
I would imagine however that when the headlight aim was being checked, the intensity of the higher rated bulb would show up on the Lux meter indicating that it wasn't 'E' rated and cause a fail.
I think you overestimate the MOT test. ;)
My guess is that there will be more difference in light level from model to model, depending on the efficiency and condition of the reflector and lens than you'll get between a 55 and 100w bulb.
In addition, output from a 100w bulb will diminish quicker than from a standard bulb as it blackens the glass sooner in its' life.
That and the additional voltage drop in the wiring, switches, etc. which will reduce the voltage at the bulb and hence light level.
Bottom line, it's not a great idea for the reasons discussed, an MOT won't pick it up IMHO, but it may be technically illegal and if there's an expensive incident and an insurer is looking for a way out, you are playing straight into their hands by fitting a bulb other than the manufacturer's spec.
Kevin
-
....if there's an expensive incident and an insurer is looking for a way out, you are playing straight into their hands by fitting a bulb other than the manufacturer's spec.
Absolutely :y
I remember getting a quote way back in 98 for an old MKIII Escort that had XR3i alloys fitted.
Bottom line was that unless they were fitted by a "qualified" person (qualified meaning a garage), they wouldn't insure the car at all.
The funny thing was, the alloys made no difference to the cost of the premium.
-
I think you overestimate the MOT test. ;)
My guess is that there will be more difference in light level from model to model, depending on the efficiency and condition of the reflector and lens than you'll get between a 55 and 100w bulb.
In addition, output from a 100w bulb will diminish quicker than from a standard bulb as it blackens the glass sooner in its' life.
That and the additional voltage drop in the wiring, switches, etc. which will reduce the voltage at the bulb and hence light level.
Bottom line, it's not a great idea for the reasons discussed, an MOT won't pick it up IMHO, but it may be technically illegal and if there's an expensive incident and an insurer is looking for a way out, you are playing straight into their hands by fitting a bulb other than the manufacturer's spec.
Kevin
Thank you for that illuminating ;D reply Kevin
I should have stated that I was considering the vehicle test as applied by test stations in Northern Ireland which are of course operated solely by the DVA and have no affliation to any repair facility.
The net result of course is that the test parameters are rigidly but quite fairly applied. The standard of test equipment used is, naturally, of the highest level.
If I were getting a vehicle tested in Northern Ireland I wouldn't take the chance, but your point about the insurance implications of such a change is very well made. :y
-
I believe the bulbs for the headlight ar 55w/75w
ie 55w diped beam and 75w full beam,
for any extra spotlights its normal for 75w max bulbs to be used.
-
I believe the bulbs for the headlight ar 55w/75w
ie 55w diped beam and 75w full beam,
Standard lamps are 55/60W
-
I believe the bulbs for the headlight ar 55w/75w
ie 55w diped beam and 75w full beam,
Standard lamps are 55/60W
Well I was Close Lol
-
I believe the bulbs for the headlight ar 55w/75w
ie 55w diped beam and 75w full beam,
Standard lamps are 55/60W
Yep, that's the road legal max for cars, vans etc. What they don't tell you is there is no maximum wattage for motorcycles.
If you want to run a 150w main and 100w dip (or whatever)....no problem. :y
(Not sure how well the electrics will cope though :-/)
-
I used to run 100/80 head lamp bulbs and 130w driving lights on my Sunbeam
-
Yes, 100w bulbs are for off road use only, though I used them in a Peugeot 405 for a couple of years.
Used to have a FFR LWB Landrover, 24 volt and a huge alternator....... could supply 110volts iirc Used to have 10 additional spot lights on the front, 6 on the roof rack an 4 on the front Roo Bar all with 100w bulbs in, that would certainly light up a country road, really lovely on a snow covered road..... :y :y :y
Earned the nick name 'Power Gen Kid' for a while :D :D
-
If you want extra light then fit Xenon FILLED bulbs,this does not refer to Xenon DISCHARGE bulbs but rather the GAS inside the Glass bulb-as per HALOGEN(filled) bulbs. The Xenon gas filling allows a higher temperature and hence a thinner element that burns brighter.
British Law limits the Wattage but not the Lumens or Light output.-which strikes me as a bit stupid,just what is the purpose of limiting the wattage?
As long as the wattage is legal you can melt the tarmac!
eddie
-
British Law limits the Wattage but not the Lumens or Light output.-which strikes me as a bit stupid,just what is the purpose of limiting the wattage?
The same purpose as most laws in the UK, because there are a lot of stupid people out there who aren't capable of thinking outside of the box.
-
British Law limits the Wattage but not the Lumens or Light output.-which strikes me as a bit stupid,just what is the purpose of limiting the wattage?
The same purpose as most laws in the UK, because there are a lot of stupid lawmakers out there who aren't capable of thinking .
[/highlight]
:y :y :D ;D
-
British Law limits the Wattage but not the Lumens or Light output.-which strikes me as a bit stupid,just what is the purpose of limiting the wattage?
The same purpose as most laws in the UK, because there are a lot of stupid lawmakers out there who aren't capable of thinking .
[/highlight]
:y :y :D ;D
That as well Albs.
Makes me laugh that Nu Labia introduced just as many "new" laws as what we already had, especially as the existing ones covered every single offence going.
Still, tell the populace that the "new" laws are there for their protection and you can guarantee that most of them will believe it.
-
Stalinism without the abject poverty,give people x-factor and a big TV to watch it on and they dont give a monkeys about anything else.
Celebrity is the opium of the people.
-
Stalinism without the abject poverty,give people x-factor and a big TV to watch it on and they dont give a monkeys about anything else.
Celebrity is the opium of the people.
:y :y you're getting there Albs
-
British Law limits the Wattage but not the Lumens or Light output.-which strikes me as a bit stupid,just what is the purpose of limiting the wattage?
The same purpose as most laws in the UK, because there are a lot of stupid lawmakers out there who aren't capable of thinking .
[/highlight]
:y :y :D ;D
That as well Albs.
Makes me laugh that Nu Labia introduced just as many "new" laws as what we already had, especially as the existing ones covered every single offence going.
Still, tell the populace that the "new" laws are there for their protection and you can guarantee that most of them will believe it.
How very true ;) ;) :y
-
British Law limits the Wattage but not the Lumens or Light output.-which strikes me as a bit stupid,just what is the purpose of limiting the wattage?
The same purpose as most laws in the UK, because there are a lot of stupid lawmakers out there who aren't capable of thinking .
[/highlight]
:y :y :D ;D
That as well Albs.
Makes me laugh that Nu Labia introduced just as many "new" laws as what we already had, especially as the existing ones covered every single offence going.
Still, tell the populace that the "new" laws are there for their protection and you can guarantee that most of them will believe it.
Another dumb one is that on a motorcycle a chain guard is no longer a legal requirement. It used to be, but now it's just an advisory.
Also, if a motorcycle headlight has a fitting for a pilot/side light, it has to work, but you cannot legally ride with just a side light and you cannot use it as a parking light.
So, legally you can never use it, but if it's there it has to work. :-?
-
British Law limits the Wattage but not the Lumens or Light output.-which strikes me as a bit stupid,just what is the purpose of limiting the wattage?
The same purpose as most laws in the UK, because there are a lot of stupid lawmakers out there who aren't capable of thinking .
[/highlight]
:y :y :D ;D
That as well Albs.
Makes me laugh that Nu Labia introduced just as many "new" laws as what we already had, especially as the existing ones covered every single offence going.
Still, tell the populace that the "new" laws are there for their protection and you can guarantee that most of them will believe it.
Another dumb one is that on a motorcycle a chain guard is no longer a legal requirement. It used to be, but now it's just an advisory.
Also, if a motorcycle headlight has a fitting for a pilot/side light, it has to work, but you cannot legally ride with just a side light and you cannot use it as a parking light. So, legally you can never use it, but if it's there it has to work. :-?
Really...... :o I have had bikes in the past, and have used this as a parking light.... ::) ::) ::)
-
Me too, but legally you can get done for it.
-
Another dumb one is that on a motorcycle a chain guard is no longer a legal requirement. It used to be, but now it's just an advisory.
A chainguard has only ever been a legal requirement if either the rider (or passenger if the bike can take one) has their feet normally positioned right next to the drive chain.
Also, if a motorcycle headlight has a fitting for a pilot/side light, it has to work, but you cannot legally ride with just a side light and you cannot use it as a parking light.
Any light fitted has to work by law (that has always been the case), but do you have a link to the relevant legislation that says you cannot use a sidelight (by sidelight, I mean the standard 5W pilot lamp) on it's own?
-
Another dumb one is that on a motorcycle a chain guard is no longer a legal requirement. It used to be, but now it's just an advisory.
A chainguard has only ever been a legal requirement if either the rider (or passenger if the bike can take one) has their feet normally positioned right next to the drive chain.
Also, if a motorcycle headlight has a fitting for a pilot/side light, it has to work, but you cannot legally ride with just a side light and you cannot use it as a parking light.
Any light fitted has to work by law (that has always been the case), but do you have a link to the relevant legislation that says you cannot use a sidelight (by sidelight, I mean the standard 5W pilot lamp) on it's own?
On the chainguard issue it used to be a case of it has one or it fails, end of chat. My mate is an MOT examiner and came back from a refresher course last year and mentioned the change in the chain guard law.
On the side light issue, as a motorcycle and accessories retailer, we have some headlights that have side lights and some that don't. If it's there it has to work, if there is no fitting then it's not a problem.
As for the "can't legally use it" dunno, just something I've know all along. Be interesting to see what the actual legislation is.
-
On the chainguard issue it used to be a case of it has one or it fails, end of chat. My mate is an MOT examiner and came back from a refresher course last year and mentioned the change in the chain guard law.
That must be a very recent change then, because my Z1 passed by virtue of removing the rear footpegs
On the side light issue, as a motorcycle and accessories retailer, we have some headlights that have side lights and some that don't. If it's there it has to work, if there is no fitting then it's not a problem.
As for the "can't legally use it" dunno, just something I've know all along. Be interesting to see what the actual legislation is.
I'd be interested in the actual legislation as well, because I never use dipped beam unless it's particularly bad visibility or I'm outside of an urban area.
-
The chain guard to "Advisory Only" is in the last year.
Can't find anything on the side light issue tho. I've just tried searching under "Side light parking motorcycle law great britain" but didn't find anything specific. I'll ask in work tomorrow.
Don't get me wrong, all in favour of relaxing certain laws, just can't work out what brought about the change in the chainguard law.
-
The chainguard law is a load of old 'dangle berries' anyway, because unless you ride a bike that makes the same horsepower as the starter motor on a proper bike - there is no way the chain can flex enough to cause any damage if it breaks.
-
On the chainguard issue it used to be a case of it has one or it fails, end of chat. My mate is an MOT examiner and came back from a refresher course last year and mentioned the change in the chain guard law.
That must be a very recent change then, because my Z1 passed by virtue of removing the rear footpegsOn the side light issue, as a motorcycle and accessories retailer, we have some headlights that have side lights and some that don't. If it's there it has to work, if there is no fitting then it's not a problem.
As for the "can't legally use it" dunno, just something I've know all along. Be interesting to see what the actual legislation is.
I'd be interested in the actual legislation as well, because I never use dipped beam unless it's particularly bad visibility or I'm outside of an urban area.
If it passed very recently you want to tell them next time that it is now an "Advisory" and not a fail. Mirrors is another one, there is no option on the MOT to fail for no mirrors. I was looking at the MOT programme at my mates garage last Wednesday.
-
If it passed very recently you want to tell them next time that it is now an "Advisory" and not a fail.
To be honest, I'm not going to tell my MOT tester f**k all.
The main reason being that while he gets a bit uppity on crap like chainguards, he quite happily passes a Harris works pipe and a number plate that only Superman could read.
Mirrors is another one, there is no option on the MOT to fail for no mirrors. I was looking at the MOT programme at my mates garage last Wednesday.
Mirrors?
Mirrors?
Why would you want a mirror when god gave you the ability to turn your neck through 140 degrees minimum? ;D
-
The chainguard law is a load of old 'dangle berries' anyway, because unless you ride a bike that makes the same horsepower as the starter motor on a proper bike - there is no way the chain can flex enough to cause any damage if it breaks.
Not sure what you mean there. I had a chain break on a GSXR1100 and I was fortunate it only bent the clutch pushrod. If it had wrapped around the front sprocket it would have smashed the engine casing to smitherenes, not that a chain guard would have made a difference.
As I was waiting for the RAC to arrive, a kid pulled up on a pushbike, with my chain draped over his handlebars. He'd seen it fly off and land in the middle of a field.
-
If it passed very recently you want to tell them next time that it is now an "Advisory" and not a fail.
To be honest, I'm not going to tell my MOT tester f**k all.
The main reason being that while he gets a bit uppity on crap like chainguards, he quite happily passes a Harris works pipe and a number plate that only Superman could read.
Mirrors is another one, there is no option on the MOT to fail for no mirrors. I was looking at the MOT programme at my mates garage last Wednesday.
Mirrors?
Mirrors?
Why would you want a mirror when god gave you the ability to turn your neck through 140 degrees minimum? ;D
God moves in mysterious ways. The law makers...even more mysterious. Some MOT centres will try to fail for no mirrors. If they're fitted but cracked etc...take 'em off. Can't fail then :y
-
Not sure what you mean there. I had a chain break on a GSXR1100 and I was fortunate it only bent the clutch pushrod. If it had wrapped around the front sprocket it would have smashed the engine casing to smitherenes, not that a chain guard would have made a difference.
You are absolutely right, a chainguard wouldn't have made any odds.
Mainly because the sprocket cover would have absorbed all the energy, and secondly because it simply isn't possible for even a middle of the road 520 section chain (which only a skinflint fits to an 11) to damage you when it does break up because it can't flex that far.
-
Well, a 520 would be ok...until you tried using more than half throttle :D
Doubt you'd get 520 to fit anyway, as there wouldn't be sprockets to match that would fit the wheel.
-
Doubt you'd get 520 to fit anyway, as there wouldn't be sprockets to match that would fit the wheel.
520 was a bit of a generalisation, but IIRC they only use a 530 section as standard.
Some MOT centres will try to fail for no mirrors. If they're fitted but cracked etc...take 'em off. Can't fail then :y
My local MOT tester is younger than my bike, he doesn't have a clue what laws are applicable sometimes ;D
-
Couldn't remember, had to look it up:
Suzuki GSX-R1100 L,M,WN
1990 to 1992
Front Sprocket: JTF 440.15
Rear Sprocket: JTR 827.48
Recommended Chain: : 532 / 118 links
530 is a conversion option, and is what we supply most of the time :y
http://www.jtsprockets.com/52.0.html