On 12/13/2019 4:34 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:44:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 10:22 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:54:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 7:59 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:15:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.

One of the guys who worked for my wife was polishing lenses as a side
gig. He did mine and I didn't get a year out of them. The sun here
kills anything made of plastic.
If you don't coat them they don't last. I found automotive clearcoat
worked good - and rubbing Armour All on them monthly makes a big
difference too.

Still don't stand up to gravel roads and wind-blown sand, though, worth
anything.

Thankfully we have a lot less gravel roads today and I have not
noticed much sand-blast effect. It does help to touch them up every
year or so though.

Well, we don't have any fewer and won't in my lifetime nor almost
certainly even in grandchildrens'.

Just making them from glass again would solve essentially all the
problem...even if only the outer lens were.

Glass probably isn't suitable because of all the complex shapes used in
today's cars and the way that they are held in. The old sealed beam
units sucked as far as lighting up the road too. Back then, most of the
rest of the world used separate bulbs and lenses that gave brighter light and
put the beam in a more precise shape and location. But they did that
with glass lenses back then, so it wasn't a glass issue, just the US
being stuck on stupid. Today's headlights are far better than the old
ones. But I've seen reviews where how well headlights light up the road
varies significantly between one car and another, even within the same
manufacturer's product line. I would bet that's due to trading off
styling for performance.

I would put a sealed beam, even the old technology incandescent, not
even the halogens, up against any new style with a cloudy lens. There
is absolutely no reason why the current technology lighting could not
be put in a sealed beam. That eliminates cloudy lenses, bad reflectors
and $300-400 proprietary light assemblies. That tiny hit you take in
aerodynamics doesn't come near covering the extra cost over the life
of the car.


You can adjust the price of the light assembly. Mine is $1500.

Well. it was probably $50 to make but they add a little markup for
replacement parts.

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 4:35:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:44:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 10:22 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:54:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 7:59 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:15:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.

One of the guys who worked for my wife was polishing lenses as a side
gig. He did mine and I didn't get a year out of them. The sun here
kills anything made of plastic.
If you don't coat them they don't last. I found automotive clearcoat
worked good - and rubbing Armour All on them monthly makes a big
difference too.

Still don't stand up to gravel roads and wind-blown sand, though, worth
anything.

Thankfully we have a lot less gravel roads today and I have not
noticed much sand-blast effect. It does help to touch them up every
year or so though.

Well, we don't have any fewer and won't in my lifetime nor almost
certainly even in grandchildrens'.

Just making them from glass again would solve essentially all the
problem...even if only the outer lens were.

Glass probably isn't suitable because of all the complex shapes used in
today's cars and the way that they are held in. The old sealed beam
units sucked as far as lighting up the road too. Back then, most of the
rest of the world used separate bulbs and lenses that gave brighter light and
put the beam in a more precise shape and location. But they did that
with glass lenses back then, so it wasn't a glass issue, just the US
being stuck on stupid. Today's headlights are far better than the old
ones. But I've seen reviews where how well headlights light up the road
varies significantly between one car and another, even within the same
manufacturer's product line. I would bet that's due to trading off
styling for performance.

I would put a sealed beam, even the old technology incandescent, not
even the halogens, up against any new style with a cloudy lens. There
is absolutely no reason why the current technology lighting could not
be put in a sealed beam. That eliminates cloudy lenses, bad reflectors
and $300-400 proprietary light assemblies.

The US AFAIK, was the only place that used sealed beams because of govt regulations and they sucked for lighting. As DPB said, you could probably put a glass lens in most of the current cars, just changing that. The alleged bad reflector nonsense was why we had poor lights, that didn't light up the road well, didn't focus the light, while the rest of the world had modern, well focused ones. In Germany they were driving 150 mph on the Autobahn. Here you could not see to safely drive half that speed. Why you want to go backwards, idk.



That tiny hit you take in
aerodynamics doesn't come near covering the extra cost over the life
of the car.

It's not aerodynamics, it's far superior lighting.

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:31:25 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/12/2019 2:52 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:43:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:20:46 -0500, Clare Snyder wrote:


We had a lot of gravel secondary roads back then (and I lost 2
windsheilds inside a month on the Fargo from stones thrown by passing
trucks on PAVED roads) Thr plastic halogen sealed beams by comparison
were virtually bullet-proof - - - and didn't seem to yellow like the
aero headlights do today - must have been different plastic.
I used a cheap lens restorer called Blue Magic on 2 older cars a while back.
The headlights were yellowed and fogged badly. Cleaned right up.
Took about 5 minute a lens. Lenses looked almost brand new.
But some people left reviews that it didn't work.
So it depends on the plastic used in the lens.
It also depends on whether you can read and follow directions - - - -
Apparently it doesn't work for most republicans - -- - -

* That was totally uncalled for Clare . Why did you have to drag
politics into a very civil discussion ?
You mean I can't be like all my American friends????

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:34:47 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:44:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 10:22 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:54:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 7:59 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:15:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.

One of the guys who worked for my wife was polishing lenses as a side
gig. He did mine and I didn't get a year out of them. The sun here
kills anything made of plastic.
If you don't coat them they don't last. I found automotive clearcoat
worked good - and rubbing Armour All on them monthly makes a big
difference too.

Still don't stand up to gravel roads and wind-blown sand, though, worth
anything.

Thankfully we have a lot less gravel roads today and I have not
noticed much sand-blast effect. It does help to touch them up every
year or so though.

Well, we don't have any fewer and won't in my lifetime nor almost
certainly even in grandchildrens'.

Just making them from glass again would solve essentially all the
problem...even if only the outer lens were.

Glass probably isn't suitable because of all the complex shapes used in
today's cars and the way that they are held in. The old sealed beam
units sucked as far as lighting up the road too. Back then, most of the
rest of the world used separate bulbs and lenses that gave brighter light and
put the beam in a more precise shape and location. But they did that
with glass lenses back then, so it wasn't a glass issue, just the US
being stuck on stupid. Today's headlights are far better than the old
ones. But I've seen reviews where how well headlights light up the road
varies significantly between one car and another, even within the same
manufacturer's product line. I would bet that's due to trading off
styling for performance.

I would put a sealed beam, even the old technology incandescent, not
even the halogens, up against any new style with a cloudy lens. There
is absolutely no reason why the current technology lighting could not
be put in a sealed beam. That eliminates cloudy lenses, bad reflectors
and $300-400 proprietary light assemblies. That tiny hit you take in
aerodynamics doesn't come near covering the extra cost over the life
of the car.
No,putting today's lightingin a "sealed beam" would not necessarilly
solve the problem - if the lens of the sealed beam - like many in the
later years, was polycorbonate. - and would not eliminate bad
reflectors either as MANY of the later sealed beam reflectors also
fained - to the point you could actually see through them. What WOULD
work is lead crystal glass lenses - but you would REALLY cry about the
price then. In 1973/74 dollars the euro lamp assembly on my 1967
Peugot 204 was worth $400 to replace --- - - It survived a T-Bone
crash at 30MPH that shortened the car by a full 3 inches and swayed
the front enf over by 6 inches - not a mark on the glass and only a
small dent in the steel reflector which caused a slightly distorted
beam. What is 400 1973 dollars today????????
ANd each headlight weighrd close to 5 lbs. Over 3 anyway.

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:45:45 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/13/2019 4:34 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:44:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 10:22 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:54:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 7:59 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:15:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.

One of the guys who worked for my wife was polishing lenses as a side
gig. He did mine and I didn't get a year out of them. The sun here
kills anything made of plastic.
If you don't coat them they don't last. I found automotive clearcoat
worked good - and rubbing Armour All on them monthly makes a big
difference too.

Still don't stand up to gravel roads and wind-blown sand, though, worth
anything.

Thankfully we have a lot less gravel roads today and I have not
noticed much sand-blast effect. It does help to touch them up every
year or so though.

Well, we don't have any fewer and won't in my lifetime nor almost
certainly even in grandchildrens'.

Just making them from glass again would solve essentially all the
problem...even if only the outer lens were.

Glass probably isn't suitable because of all the complex shapes used in
today's cars and the way that they are held in. The old sealed beam
units sucked as far as lighting up the road too. Back then, most of the
rest of the world used separate bulbs and lenses that gave brighter light and
put the beam in a more precise shape and location. But they did that
with glass lenses back then, so it wasn't a glass issue, just the US
being stuck on stupid. Today's headlights are far better than the old
ones. But I've seen reviews where how well headlights light up the road
varies significantly between one car and another, even within the same
manufacturer's product line. I would bet that's due to trading off
styling for performance.

I would put a sealed beam, even the old technology incandescent, not
even the halogens, up against any new style with a cloudy lens. There
is absolutely no reason why the current technology lighting could not
be put in a sealed beam. That eliminates cloudy lenses, bad reflectors
and $300-400 proprietary light assemblies. That tiny hit you take in
aerodynamics doesn't come near covering the extra cost over the life
of the car.


You can adjust the price of the light assembly. Mine is $1500.

Well. it was probably $50 to make but they add a little markup for
replacement parts.
I paid $37 each for replacements for my 2003 Taurus and about $42
each for my '96 Ranger. OEM parts were significantly more (about $350
each for the Taurus in today's dollars) Dorman replacements are very
close to OEM in quality and fid at about 10 cents on the dollar - many
chinese imports are even cheaper.

On 12/13/2019 3:59 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/13/2019 1:19 PM, Frank wrote:
On 12/13/2019 1:54 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/13/2019 11:45 AM, Frank wrote:
On 12/12/2019 11:24 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 9:52 AM, wrote:
...

The problem is that the U/V damage goes all the way through the
plastic and polishing only tries to recover the surface.Â* Plastic
will
never be as hard or U/V resistant as glass.

+238.5

I've polished the beegeezus out of the ones on the work
truck...you'd have to take off good fraction of the material it
appears to get rid of the crazing...it's not just a thin surface.

The 300M was almost as bad when traded it off.

It's terrible choice of material for purpose.

--



The plastics used for lenses are generally polycarbonate and
polymethylmethacrylate.Â* PMMA has the best UV resistance.Â* Both have
about the same scratch resistance which can be improved by coatings.
UV resistant coatings and antioxidants help PC the most is it
absorbs and is degraded by UV.

I don't know (and don't really care) what they are...all I know (and
care about) is that they don't last worth crap in operating
conditions where I live and drive.

--

Point is that if properly made they work fine.Â* If you live in a sunny
climate with a lot of grit maybe sand blowing around you are going to
have problems and that include the paint on your car.

Point is "they DON'T work fine" or there wouldn't be all the polishing
kits on sale and complaints, even where there isn't quite such an
environment as here.

As for paint, it also suffers, yes, but not nearly as badly recent years
as did for a few right after the EPA banned nearly everything volatile
the manufacturers had been using.Â* For a while clearcoats out here
almost universally failed within a year or two at the outside...of
course, had one of those fail even while still in the pretty benign TN
conditions altho it took a little longer than that.

--

Don't personally see these problems with my cars. Probably because I
park in the garage all the time. Sunlight is the major enemy of paints
and plastics.

On 12/13/2019 5:08 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:31:25 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/12/2019 2:52 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:43:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:20:46 -0500, Clare Snyder wrote:


We had a lot of gravel secondary roads back then (and I lost 2
windsheilds inside a month on the Fargo from stones thrown by passing
trucks on PAVED roads) Thr plastic halogen sealed beams by comparison
were virtually bullet-proof - - - and didn't seem to yellow like the
aero headlights do today - must have been different plastic.
I used a cheap lens restorer called Blue Magic on 2 older cars a while back.
The headlights were yellowed and fogged badly. Cleaned right up.
Took about 5 minute a lens. Lenses looked almost brand new.
But some people left reviews that it didn't work.
So it depends on the plastic used in the lens.
It also depends on whether you can read and follow directions - - - -
Apparently it doesn't work for most republicans - -- - -
Â* That was totally uncalled for Clare . Why did you have to drag
politics into a very civil discussion ?
You mean I can't be like all my American friends????

That's really lame .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:52:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 4:35:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:44:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 10:22 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:54:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 7:59 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:15:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.

One of the guys who worked for my wife was polishing lenses as a side
gig. He did mine and I didn't get a year out of them. The sun here
kills anything made of plastic.
If you don't coat them they don't last. I found automotive clearcoat
worked good - and rubbing Armour All on them monthly makes a big
difference too.

Still don't stand up to gravel roads and wind-blown sand, though, worth
anything.

Thankfully we have a lot less gravel roads today and I have not
noticed much sand-blast effect. It does help to touch them up every
year or so though.

Well, we don't have any fewer and won't in my lifetime nor almost
certainly even in grandchildrens'.

Just making them from glass again would solve essentially all the
problem...even if only the outer lens were.

Glass probably isn't suitable because of all the complex shapes used in
today's cars and the way that they are held in. The old sealed beam
units sucked as far as lighting up the road too. Back then, most of the
rest of the world used separate bulbs and lenses that gave brighter light and
put the beam in a more precise shape and location. But they did that
with glass lenses back then, so it wasn't a glass issue, just the US
being stuck on stupid. Today's headlights are far better than the old
ones. But I've seen reviews where how well headlights light up the road
varies significantly between one car and another, even within the same
manufacturer's product line. I would bet that's due to trading off
styling for performance.

I would put a sealed beam, even the old technology incandescent, not
even the halogens, up against any new style with a cloudy lens. There
is absolutely no reason why the current technology lighting could not
be put in a sealed beam. That eliminates cloudy lenses, bad reflectors
and $300-400 proprietary light assemblies.

The US AFAIK, was the only place that used sealed beams because of govt regulations and they sucked for lighting. As DPB said, you could probably put a glass lens in most of the current cars, just changing that. The alleged bad reflector nonsense was why we had poor lights, that didn't light up the road well, didn't focus the light, while the rest of the world had modern, well focused ones. In Germany they were driving 150 mph on the Autobahn. Here you could not see to safely drive half that speed. Why you want to go backwards, idk.



That tiny hit you take in
aerodynamics doesn't come near covering the extra cost over the life
of the car.

It's not aerodynamics, it's far superior lighting.


Bull****, all around. A new style foggy light is clearly inferior to
the oldest technology sealed beam that you can just wipe off with a
McDonalds napkin and make like new. They fill the sealed beam with a
noble gas that keeps the reflector from corroding. You also assume
there is no way you can put a modern bulb in a sealed beam. A LED
seems like a natural

As for the current design, it is more about looking cool than actually
being better

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 18:17:14 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:34:47 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:44:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 10:22 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:54:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 7:59 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:15:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.

One of the guys who worked for my wife was polishing lenses as a side
gig. He did mine and I didn't get a year out of them. The sun here
kills anything made of plastic.
If you don't coat them they don't last. I found automotive clearcoat
worked good - and rubbing Armour All on them monthly makes a big
difference too.

Still don't stand up to gravel roads and wind-blown sand, though, worth
anything.

Thankfully we have a lot less gravel roads today and I have not
noticed much sand-blast effect. It does help to touch them up every
year or so though.

Well, we don't have any fewer and won't in my lifetime nor almost
certainly even in grandchildrens'.

Just making them from glass again would solve essentially all the
problem...even if only the outer lens were.

Glass probably isn't suitable because of all the complex shapes used in
today's cars and the way that they are held in. The old sealed beam
units sucked as far as lighting up the road too. Back then, most of the
rest of the world used separate bulbs and lenses that gave brighter light and
put the beam in a more precise shape and location. But they did that
with glass lenses back then, so it wasn't a glass issue, just the US
being stuck on stupid. Today's headlights are far better than the old
ones. But I've seen reviews where how well headlights light up the road
varies significantly between one car and another, even within the same
manufacturer's product line. I would bet that's due to trading off
styling for performance.

I would put a sealed beam, even the old technology incandescent, not
even the halogens, up against any new style with a cloudy lens. There
is absolutely no reason why the current technology lighting could not
be put in a sealed beam. That eliminates cloudy lenses, bad reflectors
and $300-400 proprietary light assemblies. That tiny hit you take in
aerodynamics doesn't come near covering the extra cost over the life
of the car.
No,putting today's lightingin a "sealed beam" would not necessarilly
solve the problem - if the lens of the sealed beam - like many in the
later years, was polycorbonate. - and would not eliminate bad
reflectors either as MANY of the later sealed beam reflectors also
fained - to the point you could actually see through them. What WOULD
work is lead crystal glass lenses - but you would REALLY cry about the
price then. In 1973/74 dollars the euro lamp assembly on my 1967
Peugot 204 was worth $400 to replace --- - - It survived a T-Bone
crash at 30MPH that shortened the car by a full 3 inches and swayed
the front enf over by 6 inches - not a mark on the glass and only a
small dent in the steel reflector which caused a slightly distorted
beam. What is 400 1973 dollars today????????
ANd each headlight weighrd close to 5 lbs. Over 3 anyway.

What was wrong with the Pyrex they used for decades. It was optically
effective and dirt cheap.

On 12/13/2019 5:49 PM, Frank wrote:
On 12/13/2019 3:59 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/13/2019 1:19 PM, Frank wrote:
On 12/13/2019 1:54 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/13/2019 11:45 AM, Frank wrote:
On 12/12/2019 11:24 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 9:52 AM, wrote:
...

The problem is that the U/V damage goes all the way through the
plastic and polishing only tries to recover the surface.Â* Plastic
will
never be as hard or U/V resistant as glass.

+238.5

I've polished the beegeezus out of the ones on the work
truck...you'd have to take off good fraction of the material it
appears to get rid of the crazing...it's not just a thin surface.

The 300M was almost as bad when traded it off.

It's terrible choice of material for purpose.

--



The plastics used for lenses are generally polycarbonate and
polymethylmethacrylate.Â* PMMA has the best UV resistance.Â* Both
have about the same scratch resistance which can be improved by
coatings.
UV resistant coatings and antioxidants help PC the most is it
absorbs and is degraded by UV.

I don't know (and don't really care) what they are...all I know (and
care about) is that they don't last worth crap in operating
conditions where I live and drive.

--

Point is that if properly made they work fine.Â* If you live in a
sunny climate with a lot of grit maybe sand blowing around you are
going to have problems and that include the paint on your car.

Point is "they DON'T work fine" or there wouldn't be all the polishing
kits on sale and complaints, even where there isn't quite such an
environment as here.

As for paint, it also suffers, yes, but not nearly as badly recent
years as did for a few right after the EPA banned nearly everything
volatile the manufacturers had been using.Â* For a while clearcoats out
here almost universally failed within a year or two at the
outside...of course, had one of those fail even while still in the
pretty benign TN conditions altho it took a little longer than that.

--

Don't personally see these problems with my cars.Â* Probably because I
park in the garage all the time.Â* Sunlight is the major enemy of paints
and plastics.

Cars are garaged here, too. You probably live in a much less harsh
climate and may change cars more often, besides...

--

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:56:22 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/13/2019 5:08 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:31:25 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/12/2019 2:52 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:43:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:20:46 -0500, Clare Snyder wrote:


We had a lot of gravel secondary roads back then (and I lost 2
windsheilds inside a month on the Fargo from stones thrown by passing
trucks on PAVED roads) Thr plastic halogen sealed beams by comparison
were virtually bullet-proof - - - and didn't seem to yellow like the
aero headlights do today - must have been different plastic.
I used a cheap lens restorer called Blue Magic on 2 older cars a while back.
The headlights were yellowed and fogged badly. Cleaned right up.
Took about 5 minute a lens. Lenses looked almost brand new.
But some people left reviews that it didn't work.
So it depends on the plastic used in the lens.
It also depends on whether you can read and follow directions - - - -
Apparently it doesn't work for most republicans - -- - -
* That was totally uncalled for Clare . Why did you have to drag
politics into a very civil discussion ?
You mean I can't be like all my American friends????

That's really lame .
So it's OK for you to say "must be a democrat" everytime someone says
something a) stupid or b) something you disagree with but I can't say
you need to read the instructions and Joke about Republicans being
uneducated and unable or unwilling to follow instructions (or
rules)???? Given Trumps main support is from the lower educated sector
of America???
Really now -- - --

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:27:10 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:52:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 4:35:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:44:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 10:22 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:54:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 7:59 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:15:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.

One of the guys who worked for my wife was polishing lenses as a side
gig. He did mine and I didn't get a year out of them. The sun here
kills anything made of plastic.
If you don't coat them they don't last. I found automotive clearcoat
worked good - and rubbing Armour All on them monthly makes a big
difference too.

Still don't stand up to gravel roads and wind-blown sand, though, worth
anything.

Thankfully we have a lot less gravel roads today and I have not
noticed much sand-blast effect. It does help to touch them up every
year or so though.

Well, we don't have any fewer and won't in my lifetime nor almost
certainly even in grandchildrens'.

Just making them from glass again would solve essentially all the
problem...even if only the outer lens were.

Glass probably isn't suitable because of all the complex shapes used in
today's cars and the way that they are held in. The old sealed beam
units sucked as far as lighting up the road too. Back then, most of the
rest of the world used separate bulbs and lenses that gave brighter light and
put the beam in a more precise shape and location. But they did that
with glass lenses back then, so it wasn't a glass issue, just the US
being stuck on stupid. Today's headlights are far better than the old
ones. But I've seen reviews where how well headlights light up the road
varies significantly between one car and another, even within the same
manufacturer's product line. I would bet that's due to trading off
styling for performance.

I would put a sealed beam, even the old technology incandescent, not
even the halogens, up against any new style with a cloudy lens. There
is absolutely no reason why the current technology lighting could not
be put in a sealed beam. That eliminates cloudy lenses, bad reflectors
and $300-400 proprietary light assemblies.

The US AFAIK, was the only place that used sealed beams because of govt regulations and they sucked for lighting. As DPB said, you could probably put a glass lens in most of the current cars, just changing that. The alleged bad reflector nonsense was why we had poor lights, that didn't light up the road well, didn't focus the light, while the rest of the world had modern, well focused ones. In Germany they were driving 150 mph on the Autobahn. Here you could not see to safely drive half that speed. Why you want to go backwards, idk.



That tiny hit you take in
aerodynamics doesn't come near covering the extra cost over the life
of the car.

It's not aerodynamics, it's far superior lighting.


Bull****, all around. A new style foggy light is clearly inferior to
the oldest technology sealed beam that you can just wipe off with a
McDonalds napkin and make like new. They fill the sealed beam with a
noble gas that keeps the reflector from corroding. You also assume
there is no way you can put a modern bulb in a sealed beam. A LED
seems like a natural

As for the current design, it is more about looking cool than actually
being better
Actually, No.
There has never been a sealed beam headlight with the controlled light
pattern and the lumen output of today's headlamp designs - and if
they DID make a "sealed beam" version of today's lights they most
certainly would not be sold for $30 (or less). ANd they WOULD be made
of the same plastic current headlights are made from. The latest
sealed beams didn't even have a "noble gas" fill. The halogen envelope
did - but the rest was just nitrogen or dry air.

On 12/13/2019 7:00 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:56:22 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/13/2019 5:08 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:31:25 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/12/2019 2:52 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:43:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:20:46 -0500, Clare Snyder wrote:


We had a lot of gravel secondary roads back then (and I lost 2
windsheilds inside a month on the Fargo from stones thrown by passing
trucks on PAVED roads) Thr plastic halogen sealed beams by comparison
were virtually bullet-proof - - - and didn't seem to yellow like the
aero headlights do today - must have been different plastic.
I used a cheap lens restorer called Blue Magic on 2 older cars a while back.
The headlights were yellowed and fogged badly. Cleaned right up.
Took about 5 minute a lens. Lenses looked almost brand new.
But some people left reviews that it didn't work.
So it depends on the plastic used in the lens.
It also depends on whether you can read and follow directions - - - -
Apparently it doesn't work for most republicans - -- - -
Â* That was totally uncalled for Clare . Why did you have to drag
politics into a very civil discussion ?
You mean I can't be like all my American friends????
That's really lame .
So it's OK for you to say "must be a democrat" everytime someone says
something a) stupid or b) something you disagree with but I can't say
you need to read the instructions and Joke about Republicans being
uneducated and unable or unwilling to follow instructions (or
rules)???? Given Trumps main support is from the lower educated sector
of America???
Really now -- - --

Â* I can't say I've never done that ,I ain't perfect either .However I
believe the conversations where I may have said something similar
already had a political bent .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:32:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 18:17:14 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:34:47 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:44:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 10:22 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:54:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 7:59 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:15:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.

One of the guys who worked for my wife was polishing lenses as a side
gig. He did mine and I didn't get a year out of them. The sun here
kills anything made of plastic.
If you don't coat them they don't last. I found automotive clearcoat
worked good - and rubbing Armour All on them monthly makes a big
difference too.

Still don't stand up to gravel roads and wind-blown sand, though, worth
anything.

Thankfully we have a lot less gravel roads today and I have not
noticed much sand-blast effect. It does help to touch them up every
year or so though.

Well, we don't have any fewer and won't in my lifetime nor almost
certainly even in grandchildrens'.

Just making them from glass again would solve essentially all the
problem...even if only the outer lens were.

Glass probably isn't suitable because of all the complex shapes used in
today's cars and the way that they are held in. The old sealed beam
units sucked as far as lighting up the road too. Back then, most of the
rest of the world used separate bulbs and lenses that gave brighter light and
put the beam in a more precise shape and location. But they did that
with glass lenses back then, so it wasn't a glass issue, just the US
being stuck on stupid. Today's headlights are far better than the old
ones. But I've seen reviews where how well headlights light up the road
varies significantly between one car and another, even within the same
manufacturer's product line. I would bet that's due to trading off
styling for performance.

I would put a sealed beam, even the old technology incandescent, not
even the halogens, up against any new style with a cloudy lens. There
is absolutely no reason why the current technology lighting could not
be put in a sealed beam. That eliminates cloudy lenses, bad reflectors
and $300-400 proprietary light assemblies. That tiny hit you take in
aerodynamics doesn't come near covering the extra cost over the life
of the car.
No,putting today's lightingin a "sealed beam" would not necessarilly
solve the problem - if the lens of the sealed beam - like many in the
later years, was polycorbonate. - and would not eliminate bad
reflectors either as MANY of the later sealed beam reflectors also
fained - to the point you could actually see through them. What WOULD
work is lead crystal glass lenses - but you would REALLY cry about the
price then. In 1973/74 dollars the euro lamp assembly on my 1967
Peugot 204 was worth $400 to replace --- - - It survived a T-Bone
crash at 30MPH that shortened the car by a full 3 inches and swayed
the front enf over by 6 inches - not a mark on the glass and only a
small dent in the steel reflector which caused a slightly distorted
beam. What is 400 1973 dollars today????????
ANd each headlight weighrd close to 5 lbs. Over 3 anyway.

What was wrong with the Pyrex they used for decades. It was optically
effective and dirt cheap.
You could cheap out and use pyrex - but the issue of precision
encapsulation of LED or other high-tech lighting inside a hermetically
sealed glass envelope would still cause issues - and today's lights
are focussed by the reflector design - not by the glass lens.
Part of what makes the light better.
As far as ever manufacturer and model going back to using the same
headlights?????? That one's left the barn - and is NOT coming back.

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:10:55 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/13/2019 7:00 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:56:22 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/13/2019 5:08 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:31:25 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/12/2019 2:52 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:43:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:20:46 -0500, Clare Snyder wrote:


We had a lot of gravel secondary roads back then (and I lost 2
windsheilds inside a month on the Fargo from stones thrown by passing
trucks on PAVED roads) Thr plastic halogen sealed beams by comparison
were virtually bullet-proof - - - and didn't seem to yellow like the
aero headlights do today - must have been different plastic.
I used a cheap lens restorer called Blue Magic on 2 older cars a while back.
The headlights were yellowed and fogged badly. Cleaned right up.
Took about 5 minute a lens. Lenses looked almost brand new.
But some people left reviews that it didn't work.
So it depends on the plastic used in the lens.
It also depends on whether you can read and follow directions - - - -
Apparently it doesn't work for most republicans - -- - -
* That was totally uncalled for Clare . Why did you have to drag
politics into a very civil discussion ?
You mean I can't be like all my American friends????
That's really lame .
So it's OK for you to say "must be a democrat" everytime someone says
something a) stupid or b) something you disagree with but I can't say
you need to read the instructions and Joke about Republicans being
uneducated and unable or unwilling to follow instructions (or
rules)???? Given Trumps main support is from the lower educated sector
of America???
Really now -- - --

* I can't say I've never done that ,I ain't perfect either .However I
believe the conversations where I may have said something similar
already had a political bent .
You can give any discussion a political bent - - and usually do

On 2019-12-13 8:42 p.m., Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:10:55 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/13/2019 7:00 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:56:22 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/13/2019 5:08 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:31:25 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/12/2019 2:52 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:43:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:20:46 -0500, Clare Snyder wrote:


We had a lot of gravel secondary roads back then (and I lost 2
windsheilds inside a month on the Fargo from stones thrown by passing
trucks on PAVED roads) Thr plastic halogen sealed beams by comparison
were virtually bullet-proof - - - and didn't seem to yellow like the
aero headlights do today - must have been different plastic.
I used a cheap lens restorer called Blue Magic on 2 older cars a while back.
The headlights were yellowed and fogged badly. Cleaned right up.
Took about 5 minute a lens. Lenses looked almost brand new.
But some people left reviews that it didn't work.
So it depends on the plastic used in the lens.
It also depends on whether you can read and follow directions - - - -
Apparently it doesn't work for most republicans - -- - -
Â* That was totally uncalled for Clare . Why did you have to drag
politics into a very civil discussion ?
You mean I can't be like all my American friends????
That's really lame .
So it's OK for you to say "must be a democrat" everytime someone says
something a) stupid or b) something you disagree with but I can't say
you need to read the instructions and Joke about Republicans being
uneducated and unable or unwilling to follow instructions (or
rules)???? Given Trumps main support is from the lower educated sector
of America???
Really now -- - --

Â* I can't say I've never done that ,I ain't perfect either .However I
believe the conversations where I may have said something similar
already had a political bent .
You can give any discussion a political bent - - and usually do

i think we should all get bent

On 12/13/2019 9:42 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:10:55 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/13/2019 7:00 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:56:22 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/13/2019 5:08 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:31:25 -0600, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 12/12/2019 2:52 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:43:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:20:46 -0500, Clare Snyder wrote:


We had a lot of gravel secondary roads back then (and I lost 2
windsheilds inside a month on the Fargo from stones thrown by passing
trucks on PAVED roads) Thr plastic halogen sealed beams by comparison
were virtually bullet-proof - - - and didn't seem to yellow like the
aero headlights do today - must have been different plastic.
I used a cheap lens restorer called Blue Magic on 2 older cars a while back.
The headlights were yellowed and fogged badly. Cleaned right up.
Took about 5 minute a lens. Lenses looked almost brand new.
But some people left reviews that it didn't work.
So it depends on the plastic used in the lens.
It also depends on whether you can read and follow directions - - - -
Apparently it doesn't work for most republicans - -- - -
Â* That was totally uncalled for Clare . Why did you have to drag
politics into a very civil discussion ?
You mean I can't be like all my American friends????
That's really lame .
So it's OK for you to say "must be a democrat" everytime someone says
something a) stupid or b) something you disagree with but I can't say
you need to read the instructions and Joke about Republicans being
uneducated and unable or unwilling to follow instructions (or
rules)???? Given Trumps main support is from the lower educated sector
of America???
Really now -- - --
Â* I can't say I've never done that ,I ain't perfect either .However I
believe the conversations where I may have said something similar
already had a political bent .
You can give any discussion a political bent - - and usually do

Â*You actually believe I personally do that ?

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

On 12/13/2019 7:40 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/13/2019 5:49 PM, Frank wrote:
On 12/13/2019 3:59 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/13/2019 1:19 PM, Frank wrote:
On 12/13/2019 1:54 PM, dpb wrote:
On 12/13/2019 11:45 AM, Frank wrote:
On 12/12/2019 11:24 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 9:52 AM, wrote:
...

The problem is that the U/V damage goes all the way through the
plastic and polishing only tries to recover the surface.
Plastic will
never be as hard or U/V resistant as glass.

+238.5

I've polished the beegeezus out of the ones on the work
truck...you'd have to take off good fraction of the material it
appears to get rid of the crazing...it's not just a thin surface.

The 300M was almost as bad when traded it off.

It's terrible choice of material for purpose.

--



The plastics used for lenses are generally polycarbonate and
polymethylmethacrylate.Â* PMMA has the best UV resistance.Â* Both
have about the same scratch resistance which can be improved by
coatings.
UV resistant coatings and antioxidants help PC the most is it
absorbs and is degraded by UV.

I don't know (and don't really care) what they are...all I know
(and care about) is that they don't last worth crap in operating
conditions where I live and drive.

--

Point is that if properly made they work fine.Â* If you live in a
sunny climate with a lot of grit maybe sand blowing around you are
going to have problems and that include the paint on your car.

Point is "they DON'T work fine" or there wouldn't be all the
polishing kits on sale and complaints, even where there isn't quite
such an environment as here.

As for paint, it also suffers, yes, but not nearly as badly recent
years as did for a few right after the EPA banned nearly everything
volatile the manufacturers had been using.Â* For a while clearcoats
out here almost universally failed within a year or two at the
outside...of course, had one of those fail even while still in the
pretty benign TN conditions altho it took a little longer than that.

--

Don't personally see these problems with my cars.Â* Probably because I
park in the garage all the time.Â* Sunlight is the major enemy of
paints and plastics.

Cars are garaged here, too.Â* You probably live in a much less harsh
climate and may change cars more often, besides...

--

Delaware is not that much different from Tennessee, maybe a little
cooler. I generally drive a car until repair cost exceeds value. We
are seniors and do drive less.

I worked in polymers R&D and for a few years that included auto-body
resins and that included painting. It has been many years and major
pollutant from an auto assembly plant was from the paint shop. I don't
know how new regulations affected the product but if like for us
homeowners it was probably negatively.

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 8:06:52 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:27:10 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:52:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 4:35:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:44:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 13, 2019 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 10:22 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:54:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 7:59 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:15:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.

One of the guys who worked for my wife was polishing lenses as a side
gig. He did mine and I didn't get a year out of them. The sun here
kills anything made of plastic.
If you don't coat them they don't last. I found automotive clearcoat
worked good - and rubbing Armour All on them monthly makes a big
difference too.

Still don't stand up to gravel roads and wind-blown sand, though, worth
anything.

Thankfully we have a lot less gravel roads today and I have not
noticed much sand-blast effect. It does help to touch them up every
year or so though.

Well, we don't have any fewer and won't in my lifetime nor almost
certainly even in grandchildrens'.

Just making them from glass again would solve essentially all the
problem...even if only the outer lens were.

Glass probably isn't suitable because of all the complex shapes used in
today's cars and the way that they are held in. The old sealed beam
units sucked as far as lighting up the road too. Back then, most of the
rest of the world used separate bulbs and lenses that gave brighter light and
put the beam in a more precise shape and location. But they did that
with glass lenses back then, so it wasn't a glass issue, just the US
being stuck on stupid. Today's headlights are far better than the old
ones. But I've seen reviews where how well headlights light up the road
varies significantly between one car and another, even within the same
manufacturer's product line. I would bet that's due to trading off
styling for performance.

I would put a sealed beam, even the old technology incandescent, not
even the halogens, up against any new style with a cloudy lens. There
is absolutely no reason why the current technology lighting could not
be put in a sealed beam. That eliminates cloudy lenses, bad reflectors
and $300-400 proprietary light assemblies.

The US AFAIK, was the only place that used sealed beams because of govt regulations and they sucked for lighting. As DPB said, you could probably put a glass lens in most of the current cars, just changing that. The alleged bad reflector nonsense was why we had poor lights, that didn't light up the road well, didn't focus the light, while the rest of the world had modern, well focused ones. In Germany they were driving 150 mph on the Autobahn.. Here you could not see to safely drive half that speed. Why you want to go backwards, idk.



That tiny hit you take in
aerodynamics doesn't come near covering the extra cost over the life
of the car.

It's not aerodynamics, it's far superior lighting.


Bull****, all around. A new style foggy light is clearly inferior to
the oldest technology sealed beam that you can just wipe off with a
McDonalds napkin and make like new. They fill the sealed beam with a
noble gas that keeps the reflector from corroding. You also assume
there is no way you can put a modern bulb in a sealed beam. A LED
seems like a natural

As for the current design, it is more about looking cool than actually
being better
Actually, No.
There has never been a sealed beam headlight with the controlled light
pattern

+1

and the lumen output of today's headlamp designs - and if
they DID make a "sealed beam" version of today's lights they most
certainly would not be sold for $30 (or less).

+1

ANd they WOULD be made
of the same plastic current headlights are made from.

That's very likely, but like DPB said, they probably could make them
with a glass lens in front too.




The latest
sealed beams didn't even have a "noble gas" fill. The halogen envelope
did - but the rest was just nitrogen or dry air.

+1

The old sealed beams were a cheap, crude light. I agree that today's
lights have the issue of the plastic lenses wearing, but they have
huge advantages over the old sealed beams too.

On 12/14/2019 9:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
....

The old sealed beams were a cheap, crude light. I agree that today's
lights have the issue of the plastic lenses wearing, but they have
huge advantages over the old sealed beams too.

Indeed, if they hadn't thrown away the good part along with the
improvements, it would be _agoodthing_(tm)

There's no really good reason to have to put up with the shoddy plastic
other than it's simpler and cheaper for the manufacturer. They also
probably don't worry about longevity too much in their design decision
process for such--consider it either a consumable or that the original
owner won't keep the vehicle long enough to notice combined with the
fact that the largest majority by far don't have such climate and road
conditions as do here for rural use so don't really care as it would be
designing to more nearly the extreme instead of the mass market.

--

On 12/13/2019 7:12 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
....

You could cheap out and use pyrex - but the issue of precision
encapsulation of LED or other high-tech lighting inside a hermetically
sealed glass envelope would still cause issues - and today's lights
are focussed by the reflector design - not by the glass lens.
....

So seal with the plastic but use a better material for the outer
shield/lens. Can't be too hard a concept.

--

On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 8:16:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.

One of the guys who worked for my wife was polishing lenses as a side
gig. He did mine and I didn't get a year out of them. The sun here
kills anything made of plastic.

Perhaps life in Michigan has its compensations. Plastic does
deteriorate, but not all that quickly.

Last night's meteor shower was a bust for us. 100% sky cover.

Cindy Hamilton

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 10:44:14 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/14/2019 9:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
...

The old sealed beams were a cheap, crude light. I agree that today's
lights have the issue of the plastic lenses wearing, but they have
huge advantages over the old sealed beams too.

Indeed, if they hadn't thrown away the good part along with the
improvements, it would be _agoodthing_(tm)

There's no really good reason to have to put up with the shoddy plastic
other than it's simpler and cheaper for the manufacturer. They also
probably don't worry about longevity too much in their design decision
process for such--consider it either a consumable or that the original
owner won't keep the vehicle long enough to notice combined with the
fact that the largest majority by far don't have such climate and road
conditions as do here for rural use so don't really care as it would be
designing to more nearly the extreme instead of the mass market.

--


The contradiction is that the US had sealed beams because the govt claimed
the design with separate lens, bulb and reflector were prone to degradation,
dirt, misalignment, which would reduce visibility. Yet now they have
open designs with plastic lenses that we all agree do deteriorate and
result in reduced visibility.

On another related note, here in NJ, the DMV used to require all cars to
be tested once a year, through a battery of tests. That included;

checking headlight alignment
driving the car onto a floor skid pad, hitting the brakes and checking force
lifting the front end and trying to rock the wheels by hand
checking windshield wipers, horn
checking for cracks in windshield or other glass

then they added, at a cost of about $400 mil, emissions testing during
the Christie Whitless years, because fed EPA ordered it. That added a
dynamometer that got the car up to highway speed, while the tailpipe
emissions were sampled. It was a disaster, took longer to get working,
cost more, had inspection lines waiting for hours... About two years
after they got it working, EPA went to just using the car's OBD
to hook up to, no dyno anymore, so they tore the $400 mil system
when to the junk yard. Now, you can't tell me that the EPA couldn't
have known that in just a few years OBD would suffice.

And subsequently, using OBD to check emissions compliance is *all*
they test! That's right, you can drive a car in with a blown out
headlight, no horn, wipers don't work, cracked windshield, bad
brakes and as long as it passes the emissions OBD test, you get
a new sticker. New cars are exempt for 5 years. After that you
only have to inspect every two years. And cars older than like
mid 90s don't have to show up at all, because there is no OBD
to connect to.

The headlight alignment might have been a good thing, because here
now you can have them pointed so they blind oncoming drivers and
nothing happens. With the new designs IDK how hard or easy it is
for them to get out of alignment or how much of a problem it is on
the roads. I do occasionally notice a car that appears to have low
beams on and it's interfering with me seeing.

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:05:02 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/14/2019 10:50 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 10:44:14 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/14/2019 9:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
...

The old sealed beams were a cheap, crude light. I agree that today's
lights have the issue of the plastic lenses wearing, but they have
huge advantages over the old sealed beams too.

Indeed, if they hadn't thrown away the good part along with the
improvements, it would be _agoodthing_(tm)

There's no really good reason to have to put up with the shoddy plastic
other than it's simpler and cheaper for the manufacturer. They also
probably don't worry about longevity too much in their design decision
process for such--consider it either a consumable or that the original
owner won't keep the vehicle long enough to notice combined with the
fact that the largest majority by far don't have such climate and road
conditions as do here for rural use so don't really care as it would be
designing to more nearly the extreme instead of the mass market.

--


The contradiction is that the US had sealed beams because the govt claimed
the design with separate lens, bulb and reflector were prone to degradation,
dirt, misalignment, which would reduce visibility. Yet now they have
open designs with plastic lenses that we all agree do deteriorate and
result in reduced visibility.

I really dunno anything about the history of DOT reg's; I'm sure there
were myriad. What's permissible within current I also don't really
know; all I do know is the present population of those with plastic
outer lens soon suck big time owing to the lens degradation no matter
how good they may have been on the showroom floor...


On another related note, here in NJ, the DMV used to require all cars to
be tested once a year, through a battery of tests. That included;

checking headlight alignment
...

The headlight alignment might have been a good thing, because here
now you can have them pointed so they blind oncoming drivers and
nothing happens. With the new designs IDK how hard or easy it is
for them to get out of alignment or how much of a problem it is on
the roads. I do occasionally notice a car that appears to have low
beams on and it's interfering with me seeing.

VA required it when we were there, but left 40 year ago for TN which
never did. Don't know whether VA dropped or not, but it's a nanny-state
mentality, too, so probably not.

KS hasn't since we've been back (now 20 years); whether ever did or not
I don't know but don't think so.

The alignment would definitely be worthwhile; here with the
preponderance of trucks in particular, it's more the rule than the
exception they're aimed too high so with any load they point way too
high. Not to mention all the lifted ones that paid no attention to any
such niceties including braking effectiveness, stability, etc., etc.,
etc., ...

--

Some cars, eg Porsche have lights that dynamically shift in response to
vehicle pitch. If you brake hard, they move up. I think some now also
have lights that move sideways, like if you're turning right, they move
toward the right slightly.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:04:38 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/14/2019 10:50 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 10:44:14 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/14/2019 9:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
...

The old sealed beams were a cheap, crude light. I agree that today's
lights have the issue of the plastic lenses wearing, but they have
huge advantages over the old sealed beams too.

Indeed, if they hadn't thrown away the good part along with the
improvements, it would be _agoodthing_(tm)

There's no really good reason to have to put up with the shoddy plastic
other than it's simpler and cheaper for the manufacturer. They also
probably don't worry about longevity too much in their design decision
process for such--consider it either a consumable or that the original
owner won't keep the vehicle long enough to notice combined with the
fact that the largest majority by far don't have such climate and road
conditions as do here for rural use so don't really care as it would be
designing to more nearly the extreme instead of the mass market.

--


The contradiction is that the US had sealed beams because the govt claimed
the design with separate lens, bulb and reflector were prone to degradation,
dirt, misalignment, which would reduce visibility. Yet now they have
open designs with plastic lenses that we all agree do deteriorate and
result in reduced visibility.

I really dunno anything about the history of DOT reg's; I'm sure there
were myriad. What's permissible within current I also don't really
know; all I do know is the present population of those with plastic
outer lens soon suck big time owing to the lens degradation no matter
how good they may have been on the showroom floor...


On another related note, here in NJ, the DMV used to require all cars to
be tested once a year, through a battery of tests. That included;

checking headlight alignment
...

The headlight alignment might have been a good thing, because here
now you can have them pointed so they blind oncoming drivers and
nothing happens. With the new designs IDK how hard or easy it is
for them to get out of alignment or how much of a problem it is on
the roads. I do occasionally notice a car that appears to have low
beams on and it's interfering with me seeing.

VA required it when we were there, but left 40 year ago for TN which
never did. Don't know whether VA dropped or not, but it's a nanny-state
mentality, too, so probably not.

KS hasn't since we've been back (now 20 years); whether ever did or not
I don't know but don't think so.

The alignment would definitely be worthwhile; here with the
preponderance of trucks in particular, it's more the rule than the
exception they're aimed too high so with any load they point way too
high. Not to mention all the lifted ones that paid no attention to any
such niceties including braking effectiveness, stability, etc., etc.,
etc., ...
On the alignment question --
With a sealed beam headlight lifespan averaging a few years and
needing changing on a regular basis a lot of "unqualified" people
replaced headlights - and with the aiming screws and the retaining
screws in close proximaty MANY headlights got "adjusted" inadvertantly
when the headlights were changed. Also I have seen a LOT of sealed
beams installed upside-down, or 60 or 90 degrees off of where they
should be.

That can't happen with "insert" bulbs in "permanent" headlights -
which is a large part of the reason headlight aim is not the problem
it used to be.

Physical "leveling" type adjusters also could not compensate for the
(relatively uncommon, admittedly) situation where the filament
supports sagged in the unit, throwing the pattern WAY off. There were
a couple brands, over several time periods, that suffered from that
problem - mostly, if I remember correctly, with the "halogen" sealed
beam from Wagner?

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:50:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On another related note, here in NJ, the DMV used to require all cars to
be tested once a year,

Florida had inspection like that too. A democrat governor tossed it.

The predicted spike in accidents and injuries from the ending of
inspections coming from the nanny state people, never happened. A cop
can still stop you if you have some obvious problem with your car and
write a "fix it" ticket but other than that, run what you brung. It
saved the state millions.

There are only a few urban areas that do emission testing in Florida
last I heard, basically scanning for codes. Out here in the red parts
of the state, they don't inspect anything.

On 12/14/2019 2:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:50:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On another related note, here in NJ, the DMV used to require all cars to
be tested once a year,

Florida had inspection like that too. A democrat governor tossed it.

The predicted spike in accidents and injuries from the ending of
inspections coming from the nanny state people, never happened. A cop
can still stop you if you have some obvious problem with your car and
write a "fix it" ticket but other than that, run what you brung. It
saved the state millions.

There are only a few urban areas that do emission testing in Florida
last I heard, basically scanning for codes. Out here in the red parts
of the state, they don't inspect anything.


I've seen where states with no inspection have the same accident rates
as states with. It is a nice income for shops though, opportunity to
cheat too.

When I lived in PA, before they started doing emissions testing the
safety inspection was twice a year. I can tell many stories about
cheating, both by drivers and shops. Today, with a scanner and color
printer you could have a nice business selling fake stickers.

There were four types of shops:
1. The honest shop that did the inspection and gave you honest results.
That was the most rare.
2, The shop that told you things like a drag link, idler arm needed
replacement because most owners had no idea what they were.
3. The shop that took you money and did nothing. You had to stay at
least 20 minutes because that was the state approved time for
inspection. It was not visible from the street if watched.
4. A variation of the above. They put the car on a lift in case they
were being watched. Seems like very car they inspected needed headlight
adjustment, a quick and easy buck.

We had three cars in our house, I took all three to the same shop, two
with know to me defects, but turned out, just a quick headlight
adjustment was all that was needed.

I also used shop 3. I should not say Frank did nothing, he put his foot
on the brake pedal while scraping off the old sticker. Yep, feels good.
Put the new sticker on.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:58:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:50:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



The contradiction is that the US had sealed beams because the govt claimed
the design with separate lens, bulb and reflector were prone to degradation,
dirt, misalignment, which would reduce visibility.

That is all still true and to say they can't enhance the ability of an
industry standard sealed beam instead of that plastic piece of ****
that is model proprietary even among similar cars from the same
manufacturer in the same year is ludicrous. There may be some small
aerodynamic advantage to the new style lights but it is mostly just
"style". I also disagree that they would cost more than $5 if it was
a commodity part that spanned several hundred million cars. The
Chinese would be pounding them out for pennies a unit.
The aerodynamics are significant, and if the Chinese pound them out
for pennies a unit they will have the same problems the aero
headlights do.
The problem is the plastics they are using, not the design. It needs
to be UV resistant, chemical resistant, ozone resistant, high impact
resistant, optically clear and reasonably priced. Oh yes - one more
thing - it needs to be economical and easily molded and fabricated.
Polycorbonate hits every base except UV resistence.
Lucite (acrylic) solves the UV problem but is brittle and gets soft
with heat - high output headlights have melted lucite lens.
Coextruded plastics with acrylic top surface over polycarbonate are an
option - not sure how they would stand up if the acrylic doesn't
filter out the UV.

Boric glass or lead crystal hit all the bases except price (and weight
which I did not mention).

Not much else out there.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:50:03 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:58:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:50:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



The contradiction is that the US had sealed beams because the govt claimed
the design with separate lens, bulb and reflector were prone to degradation,
dirt, misalignment, which would reduce visibility.

That is all still true and to say they can't enhance the ability of an
industry standard sealed beam instead of that plastic piece of ****
that is model proprietary even among similar cars from the same
manufacturer in the same year is ludicrous. There may be some small
aerodynamic advantage to the new style lights but it is mostly just
"style". I also disagree that they would cost more than $5 if it was
a commodity part that spanned several hundred million cars. The
Chinese would be pounding them out for pennies a unit.


The aerodynamics are significant

Define significant. 0.5% difference in MPG on the interstate? Most
driving is 30-40 MPH around town and aerodynamics are insignificant at
that speed.

and if the Chinese pound them out
for pennies a unit they will have the same problems the aero
headlights do.

If they used a common, simple shape, they could be Pyrex again. Tough,
scratch resistant and UV immune.

Then you go on and make that case.

The problem is the plastics they are using, not the design. It needs
to be UV resistant, chemical resistant, ozone resistant, high impact
resistant, optically clear and reasonably priced. Oh yes - one more
thing - it needs to be economical and easily molded and fabricated.
Polycorbonate hits every base except UV resistence.
Lucite (acrylic) solves the UV problem but is brittle and gets soft
with heat - high output headlights have melted lucite lens.
Coextruded plastics with acrylic top surface over polycarbonate are an
option - not sure how they would stand up if the acrylic doesn't
filter out the UV.

Boric glass or lead crystal hit all the bases except price (and weight
which I did not mention).

Not much else out there.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:57:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:50:03 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:58:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:50:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



The contradiction is that the US had sealed beams because the govt claimed
the design with separate lens, bulb and reflector were prone to degradation,
dirt, misalignment, which would reduce visibility.

That is all still true and to say they can't enhance the ability of an
industry standard sealed beam instead of that plastic piece of ****
that is model proprietary even among similar cars from the same
manufacturer in the same year is ludicrous. There may be some small
aerodynamic advantage to the new style lights but it is mostly just
"style". I also disagree that they would cost more than $5 if it was
a commodity part that spanned several hundred million cars. The
Chinese would be pounding them out for pennies a unit.


The aerodynamics are significant

Define significant. 0.5% difference in MPG on the interstate? Most
driving is 30-40 MPH around town and aerodynamics are insignificant at
that speed.

and if the Chinese pound them out
for pennies a unit they will have the same problems the aero
headlights do.

If they used a common, simple shape, they could be Pyrex again. Tough,
scratch resistant and UV immune.

Then you go on and make that case.

The problem is the plastics they are using, not the design. It needs
to be UV resistant, chemical resistant, ozone resistant, high impact
resistant, optically clear and reasonably priced. Oh yes - one more
thing - it needs to be economical and easily molded and fabricated.
Polycorbonate hits every base except UV resistence.
Lucite (acrylic) solves the UV problem but is brittle and gets soft
with heat - high output headlights have melted lucite lens.
Coextruded plastics with acrylic top surface over polycarbonate are an
option - not sure how they would stand up if the acrylic doesn't
filter out the UV.

Boric glass or lead crystal hit all the bases except price (and weight
which I did not mention).

Not much else out there.
They could be pyrex today too - it would just add a few lbs and a
couple hundred bucks to the MSRP

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 22:02:44 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:57:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:50:03 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:58:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:50:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



The contradiction is that the US had sealed beams because the govt claimed
the design with separate lens, bulb and reflector were prone to degradation,
dirt, misalignment, which would reduce visibility.

That is all still true and to say they can't enhance the ability of an
industry standard sealed beam instead of that plastic piece of ****
that is model proprietary even among similar cars from the same
manufacturer in the same year is ludicrous. There may be some small
aerodynamic advantage to the new style lights but it is mostly just
"style". I also disagree that they would cost more than $5 if it was
a commodity part that spanned several hundred million cars. The
Chinese would be pounding them out for pennies a unit.


The aerodynamics are significant

Define significant. 0.5% difference in MPG on the interstate? Most
driving is 30-40 MPH around town and aerodynamics are insignificant at
that speed.

and if the Chinese pound them out
for pennies a unit they will have the same problems the aero
headlights do.

If they used a common, simple shape, they could be Pyrex again. Tough,
scratch resistant and UV immune.

Then you go on and make that case.

The problem is the plastics they are using, not the design. It needs
to be UV resistant, chemical resistant, ozone resistant, high impact
resistant, optically clear and reasonably priced. Oh yes - one more
thing - it needs to be economical and easily molded and fabricated.
Polycorbonate hits every base except UV resistence.
Lucite (acrylic) solves the UV problem but is brittle and gets soft
with heat - high output headlights have melted lucite lens.
Coextruded plastics with acrylic top surface over polycarbonate are an
option - not sure how they would stand up if the acrylic doesn't
filter out the UV.

Boric glass or lead crystal hit all the bases except price (and weight
which I did not mention).

Not much else out there.
They could be pyrex today too - it would just add a few lbs and a
couple hundred bucks to the MSRP

I doubt a simple sealed beam weighs as much as that whole head light
assembly but if it did add a pound or so, who cares. They take on a
couple pounds at Burger King and nobody cares.

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 2:13:50 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 22:02:44 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:57:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:50:03 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:58:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:50:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



The contradiction is that the US had sealed beams because the govt claimed
the design with separate lens, bulb and reflector were prone to degradation,
dirt, misalignment, which would reduce visibility.

That is all still true and to say they can't enhance the ability of an
industry standard sealed beam instead of that plastic piece of ****
that is model proprietary even among similar cars from the same
manufacturer in the same year is ludicrous. There may be some small
aerodynamic advantage to the new style lights but it is mostly just
"style". I also disagree that they would cost more than $5 if it was
a commodity part that spanned several hundred million cars. The
Chinese would be pounding them out for pennies a unit.


The aerodynamics are significant

Define significant. 0.5% difference in MPG on the interstate? Most
driving is 30-40 MPH around town and aerodynamics are insignificant at
that speed.

and if the Chinese pound them out
for pennies a unit they will have the same problems the aero
headlights do.

If they used a common, simple shape, they could be Pyrex again. Tough,
scratch resistant and UV immune.

Then you go on and make that case.

The problem is the plastics they are using, not the design. It needs
to be UV resistant, chemical resistant, ozone resistant, high impact
resistant, optically clear and reasonably priced. Oh yes - one more
thing - it needs to be economical and easily molded and fabricated.
Polycorbonate hits every base except UV resistence.
Lucite (acrylic) solves the UV problem but is brittle and gets soft
with heat - high output headlights have melted lucite lens.
Coextruded plastics with acrylic top surface over polycarbonate are an
option - not sure how they would stand up if the acrylic doesn't
filter out the UV.

Boric glass or lead crystal hit all the bases except price (and weight
which I did not mention).

Not much else out there.
They could be pyrex today too - it would just add a few lbs and a
couple hundred bucks to the MSRP

I doubt a simple sealed beam weighs as much as that whole head light
assembly but if it did add a pound or so, who cares. They take on a
couple pounds at Burger King and nobody cares.

The govt cares. There are CAFE regulations that have to be met. Or has Trump repealed them too in his quest for smoke stacks spewing coal smoke?

On 12/15/2019 2:12 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 22:02:44 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:57:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:50:03 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:58:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:50:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


The contradiction is that the US had sealed beams because the govt claimed
the design with separate lens, bulb and reflector were prone to degradation,
dirt, misalignment, which would reduce visibility.
That is all still true and to say they can't enhance the ability of an
industry standard sealed beam instead of that plastic piece of ****
that is model proprietary even among similar cars from the same
manufacturer in the same year is ludicrous. There may be some small
aerodynamic advantage to the new style lights but it is mostly just
"style". I also disagree that they would cost more than $5 if it was
a commodity part that spanned several hundred million cars. The
Chinese would be pounding them out for pennies a unit.

The aerodynamics are significant
Define significant. 0.5% difference in MPG on the interstate? Most
driving is 30-40 MPH around town and aerodynamics are insignificant at
that speed.

and if the Chinese pound them out
for pennies a unit they will have the same problems the aero
headlights do.
If they used a common, simple shape, they could be Pyrex again. Tough,
scratch resistant and UV immune.

Then you go on and make that case.

The problem is the plastics they are using, not the design. It needs
to be UV resistant, chemical resistant, ozone resistant, high impact
resistant, optically clear and reasonably priced. Oh yes - one more
thing - it needs to be economical and easily molded and fabricated.
Polycorbonate hits every base except UV resistence.
Lucite (acrylic) solves the UV problem but is brittle and gets soft
with heat - high output headlights have melted lucite lens.
Coextruded plastics with acrylic top surface over polycarbonate are an
option - not sure how they would stand up if the acrylic doesn't
filter out the UV.

Boric glass or lead crystal hit all the bases except price (and weight
which I did not mention).

Not much else out there.
They could be pyrex today too - it would just add a few lbs and a
couple hundred bucks to the MSRP
I doubt a simple sealed beam weighs as much as that whole head light
assembly but if it did add a pound or so, who cares. They take on a
couple pounds at Burger King and nobody cares.


True but on a "car" like the Yaris, you'd have to beef-up the front suspension to handle the extra weight of glass headlights.

On 12/15/2019 5:09 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 2:13:50 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 22:02:44 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:
....

I doubt a simple sealed beam weighs as much as that whole head light
assembly but if it did add a pound or so, who cares. They take on a
couple pounds at Burger King and nobody cares.

The govt cares. There are CAFE regulations that have to be met. Or has Trump repealed them too...

We could only hope...

--

On 12/14/2019 2:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/14/2019 2:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:50:03 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On another related note, here in NJ, the DMV used to require all cars to
be tested once a year,

Florida had inspection like that too. A democrat governor tossed it.

The predicted spike in accidents and injuries from the ending of
inspections coming from the nanny state people, never happened. A cop
can still stop you if you have some obvious problem with your car and
write a "fix it" ticket but other than that, run what you brung.Â* It
saved the state millions.

There are only a few urban areas that do emission testing in Florida
last I heard, basically scanning for codes. Out here in the red parts
of the state, they don't inspect anything.


I've seen where states with no inspection have the same accident rates
as states with.Â* It is a nice income for shops though, opportunity to
cheat too.

When I lived in PA, before they started doing emissions testing the
safety inspection was twice a year.Â* I can tell many stories about
cheating, both by drivers and shops.Â* Today, with a scanner and color
printer you could have a nice business selling fake stickers.

There were four types of shops:
1. The honest shop that did the inspection and gave you honest results.
That was the most rare.
2,Â* The shop that told you things like a drag link, idler arm needed
replacement because most owners had no idea what they were.
3.Â* The shop that took you money and did nothing.Â* You had to stay at
least 20 minutes because that was the state approved time for
inspection.Â* It was not visible from the street if watched.
4.Â* A variation of the above.Â* They put the car on a lift in case they
were being watched.Â* Seems like very car they inspected needed headlight
adjustment, a quick and easy buck.

We had three cars in our house,Â* I took all three to the same shop, two
with know to me defects, but turned out, just a quick headlight
adjustment was all that was needed.

I also used shop 3.Â* I should not say Frank did nothing, he put his foot
on the brake pedal while scraping off the old sticker.Â* Yep, feels good.
Â*Put the new sticker on.

Living in DE I know PA inspection is a PITA. Many on the PA border that
might have moved from DE will maintain the DE license to avoid this crap.

We have a state inspection which does not have to be done on a new car
for 5 years and then every 2 years thereafter.

Inspections do not improve accident rates but they will remove junk off
the road like one I saw years ago where the guy had cut the roof off a
car to make it truck like. It was a piece of junk.

On 12/15/2019 7:52 AM, Frank wrote:
....

Inspections do not improve accident rates but they will remove junk off
the road like one I saw years ago where the guy had cut the roof off a
car to make it truck like.Â* It was a piece of junk.

What's the basis for calling it "junk"? It might well pass inspection
irrespective of appearance.

It's his vehicle, can do as pleases as long as it will stop and avoid me
with adequate handling.

--

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 00:39:58 -0500,
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:33:39 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.
On the other hand it's been YEARS since I've had a stone through a
headlight - which used to be a very common occurrence - and they are a
lot cheaper than the old lead crystal aerodynamic headlights the
europeans used in the seventies - - - - -

I think I only had one broken sealed beam in well over a million miles
of driving my old cars. I really don't even remember that many burning
out. If it did, it was a 5 minute fix for about $5. They sold the
sealed beams in drug stores and 7-11s.

I've never had a broken or burned out sealed beam except when I wanted
to upgrade some car and I put in halogen because they were brighter.
They burned out in 2 years (and I put the old non-halogen back in).
These were an early design and perhaps they are better now.

On 12/13/2019 7:12 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:32:14 -0500, wrote:
....

What was wrong with the Pyrex they used for decades. It was optically
effective and dirt cheap.
You could cheap out and use pyrex - but the issue of precision
encapsulation of LED or other high-tech lighting inside a hermetically
sealed glass envelope would still cause issues - and today's lights
are focussed by the reflector design - not by the glass lens.
Part of what makes the light better.
As far as ever manufacturer and model going back to using the same
headlights?????? That one's left the barn - and is NOT coming back.


https://www.carid.com/articles/brief-history-of-sealed-beam-headlights-in-us.html

I wasn't aware the proscription went back to as early as does--1940.

Certainly the cost differential for borosilicate glass would be minimal
owing to material cost; particularly if there were some standardization
required again. We're back to the plethora of customized vehicle/model
dependent replacements that caused the mandate to begin with.

--

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 11:17:54 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 00:39:58 -0500,
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:33:39 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:04:46 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/11/2019 12:55 AM, micky wrote:
...

I read an article yesterday about changing the whole light assembly,
with lens, when the lens is so cloudy it doesn't light up the road well
enough.
...

The switch from glass to plastic was a terrible move...just to save a
few ounces and maybe a few pennies.

With gravel roads it's impossible to keep any clear more than a year or
so. The UV damage is also a pita.

I've had very little luck with the polishing kits.
On the other hand it's been YEARS since I've had a stone through a
headlight - which used to be a very common occurrence - and they are a
lot cheaper than the old lead crystal aerodynamic headlights the
europeans used in the seventies - - - - -

I think I only had one broken sealed beam in well over a million miles
of driving my old cars. I really don't even remember that many burning
out. If it did, it was a 5 minute fix for about $5. They sold the
sealed beams in drug stores and 7-11s.

I've never had a broken or burned out sealed beam except when I wanted
to upgrade some car and I put in halogen because they were brighter.
They burned out in 2 years (and I put the old non-halogen back in).
These were an early design and perhaps they are better now.

The halogen bulbs that go into the open design are worse, in my experience.
I used halogen sealed beams, they were fine. The halogen bulbs for the
BMW here last about a year, maybe two if you're lucky.

On 12/15/2019 11:41 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12/13/2019 7:12 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:32:14 -0500, wrote:
...

What was wrong with the Pyrex they used for decades. It was optically
effective and dirt cheap.
Â* You could cheap out and use pyrex - but the issue of precision
encapsulation of LED or other high-tech lighting inside a hermetically
sealed glass envelope would still cause issues - and today's lights
are focussed by the reflector design - not by the glass lens.
Part of what makes the light better.
Â* As far as ever manufacturer and model going back to using the same
headlights?????? That one's left the barn - and is NOT coming back.


https://www.carid.com/articles/brief-history-of-sealed-beam-headlights-in-us.html


I wasn't aware the proscription went back to as early as does--1940.

Certainly the cost differential for borosilicate glass would be minimal
owing to material cost; particularly if there were some standardization
required again.Â* We're back to the plethora of customized vehicle/model
dependent replacements that caused the mandate to begin with.

--
But you still have weight. Car makers are fighting for ounces these
days so you won't find an extra couple of pounds of glass. Once the
Green New Deal gets going we'll be driving electric scooters with a
canvas shell.