Standard LEDs vs. Matrix LEDs

[W1NGE]

I am beginning to think that so now I have to reflect on whether I like the GTS enough to buy one for more than the CT 4S with a spec I like less...

Tricky but I also think there will be a 4S ST soon but the lighting may still be a challenge.

Dare I suggest retrofit (wouldn't recommend)?

Sponsored

 

[f1eng]

Tricky but I also think there will be a 4S ST soon but the lighting may still be a challenge.

Dare I suggest retrofit (wouldn't recommend)?

It is the CT 4S which suits me, so a 4S ST wouldn't be on my radar anyway.

I wouldn't consider a retrofit it would be stupidly expensive (I expect).

I just have to decide whether to cancel my order or not.

 

[W1NGE]

Tricky but I also think there will be a 4S ST soon but the lighting may still be a challenge.

Dare I suggest retrofit (wouldn't recommend)?

It is the CT 4S which suits me, so a 4S ST wouldn't be on my radar anyway.

I wouldn't consider a retrofit it would be stupidly expensive (I expect).

I just have to decide whether to cancel my order or not.

https://content.eu.porsche.com/prod... und Heckleuchten&ac=campaign&ba=Taycan&bt=J1

 

[f1eng]

https://content.eu.porsche.com/prod/pag/tequipment/TeqFinder.nsf/TeqFinder?ReadForm&ma=PCGB (RL)&co=30&sp=1&cati=LP_Hauptscheinwerfer und Heckleuchten&ac=campaign&ba=Taycan&bt=J1

Thanks, pointlessly expensive and blue, so not so good with my Mamba!

I have done a simpler spec based on keeping the car less time which saves £13k but That is so "not me" I am not sure I will go ahead.

 

[W1NGE]

Thanks, pointlessly expensive and blue, so not so good with my Mamba!

I have done a simpler spec based on keeping the car less time which saves £13k but That is so "not me" I am not sure I will go ahead.

I know but ...

 

[gnop1950]

Ok, excluding politics from this then, the only factual information we should be discussing is that matrix headlight functions are illegal in the USA.

I was under the impression that Maxtrix headlight approval was part of the infrastructure bill that has already been passed. The only holdup is that DOT has up to two years to amend the current regulation: https://www.thedrive.com/news/43146...e-to-the-us-thanks-to-the-infrastructure-bill

 

[Pozuelo]

As an example of how hard-headed the US mandated rules are sometimes, take the sealed-beam requirement. When it was enacted it was improving most of the existing headlamps at the time. See https://www.carid.com/articles/brief-history-of-sealed-beam-headlights-in-us.html
However it was around for over 40 years with little improvement to the lighting output or control. Meanwhile, elsewhere many improvements were being made with better bulbs (halogen), better reflector material and finally much better lenses (Some were made with rock-crystal cut by laser)…
There was even a market for replacing OEM with premium headlamps from the best manufacturers which were present in rallying and endurance racing. My first car when in college was a 1978 Caprice which after a week had its lamps replaced by non-homologated Cibie lamps with competition-only H1 and H4 100W halogen bulbs from Osram. So my lamps were suddenly much brighter than anything else out there, but on high-beam, only used with no opposing traffic, they reached 1500 meters. Now you will ask, was I not glaring out oncoming traffic ? The answer is no, as I asked several friends to let me know if they had any glare. They stated they were startled by the amount of light spread by my headlamps in width and depth. I must admit, I was very particular and checked my headlamp alignment with a wall at least once a month to insure proper projection. The shape of the Euro beam is such that no light escapes upwards from the height of the headlamp except to the right of said headlamp.
Back to the topic, I hope government agencies are faster now than before.

 

[gnop1950]

Back to the topic, I hope government agencies are faster now than before.

In the infrastructure bill, the DOT was given a maximum of 2 years to implement the rule change. So 24 months should be the max before implementation to comply with the law. This isn't a controversial change, and they have already identified the international standard to follow in the bill. Most of the time to implement should be in writing the change and the public comment period, 90 days?

P.S. As an interesting aside there are still a number of places in the US where there are no car inspections, I live in one. While they can pull you over and do an on-the-spot emissions inspection, in the 40 years I've lived in my current area I've never had to take my car in for any sort of inspection, even my 18-year-old Acura MDX .

 

[McgR]

Tricky but I also think there will be a 4S ST soon but the lighting may still be a challenge.

Dare I suggest retrofit (wouldn't recommend)?

I Belgium it is offered as a tequipment option op the Porsche website.but probably not available for the next months.

 

[gnop1950]

I Belgium it is offered as a tequipment option op the Porsche website.but probably not available for the next months.

My Porsche SA believes they will be offered as an addon in the US at some point. But if/when/how much is unknown. If the cost is excessive, then a reason to trade-in upgrade once they are approved for use?

 

[whitex]

In the infrastructure bill, the DOT was given a maximum of 2 years to implement the rule change. So 24 months should be the max before implementation to comply with the law. This isn't a controversial change, and they have already identified the international standard to follow in the bill. Most of the time to implement should be in writing the change and the public comment period, 90 days?

Are you sure the bill says they must approve the matrix headlights? I thought it was to study it and based on the outcome implement changes. If the bill already concluded they must become legal, no public comment period is needed as it would not change the congress conclusion. And if that is the case, why 2 years? Has the US government been hiring people so incompetent, that they need 2 years to write a few changes based on some other country's homologation rules?

 

[whitex]

I was under the impression that Maxtrix headlight approval was part of the infrastructure bill that has already been passed. The only holdup is that DOT has up to two years to amend the current regulation: https://www.thedrive.com/news/43146...e-to-the-us-thanks-to-the-infrastructure-bill

I don't think it's passed yet, and I don't think the bill says they must make the matrix headlights legal, bu5 rather to look into (study?) changing the old headlights rules and make changes accordingly. I could be wrong, but if the bill says "they shall be legal", why 2 years?

 

[gnop1950]

Are you sure the bill says they must approve the matrix headlights? I thought it was to study it and based on the outcome implement changes. If the bill already concluded they must become legal, no public comment period is needed as it would not change the congress conclusion. And if that is the case, why 2 years? Has the US government been hiring people so incompetent, that they need 2 years to write a few changes based on some other country's homologation rules?

I didn't read the entire bill, but here is the quote from the article I linked:
https://www.thedrive.com/news/43146...e-to-the-us-thanks-to-the-infrastructure-bill

The text that enables this change is relatively straightforward. Under section 24212 of the bill, which is appropriately titled "HEADLAMPS," it's stated that "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending Standard 108"—that's the transportation regulation pertaining to headlight design. The bill states that this section of the code should be amended "to allow for the use on vehicles of adaptive driving beam headlamp systems." In a nutshell, once H.R.3684 gets passed, the transportation secretary has two years to make adaptive headlights a thing in the United States.

Since it states a final rule I made the assumption that they'd have to issue a preliminary rule and open it to public comment prior to issuing the final rule.

P.S.
They refer to the https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3069_202103/ standard. And the bill has already been passed and signed into law. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/15/bill-signed-h-r-3684/

 

[whitex]

I didn't read the entire bill, but here is the quote from the article I linked:

You quoted it, the bill says to change rule 108 to make it more current. It doesn't say what the changes must be. Matrix headlights are just a speculation by the journalists. Possible? Sure. Guaranteed? I don't think so.

 

[gnop1950]

You quoted it, the bill says to change rule 108 to make it more current. It doesn't say what the changes must be. Matrix headlights are just a speculation by the journalists. Possible? Sure. Guaranteed? I don't think so.

I don't think you read the entire article or even the parts I quoted. Matrix headlights are just a method of implementing adaptive headlights and the bill says the rule must be changed: "to allow for the use on vehicles of adaptive driving beam headlamp systems." They even cite the J3069_202103 standard when discussing adaptive driving beam headlamps. It doesn't sound like speculation at all, but feel free to doubt if you must.

Oh, and once again the bill has already been signed into law so we'll know for sure within 24 months

Sponsored