How to intrepret different light outputs

[Mullet]

Hi again from dark and starry Bend, Oregon.

So I have a 2016 Jeep Wranger Unlimited which had terrible OEM headlights; I have since upgraded to JW Speaker 8700 Evolution Js, aimed them properly and added JW Speaker Fog Lights. Generally speaking I am pleased with the upgraded headlamps. However, it is very dark here (few streetlights), and I almost hit a herd of Elk on the highway when I was heading to go snowshoeing up by Mt Bachelor before dawn.

So here is the context for my questions:

I'd like a high quality set of auxiliary lighting in order to have more visibility at highway speeds on dark, forested, deserted roads. These roads are generally not super curvy, and my speeds rarely go above 70 mph (it's a Jeep after all). I prefer round lights as oppose to rectangular or square, and I like the idea of lighting that more closely matches the JW Speaker 5000K color temperature as opposed to halogen. I also like the idea of LED lighting given it's suspected longevity, but it's not a deal breaker to me. All the lighting will be used on very deserted roads without traffic, or offroad.

I have looked at the ARB Intensity Lights, and JW Speaker TS4000R, as well as the Hella Rallye 4000 in both LED and HID. I'm less interested in the ARBs because of their cost, so will set those aside for now.

• The JW Speakers have a Candela output of 133,000, and a raw lumen output of 3300
• The Hella Rallye 4000 LEDs I can't seem to find a candela rating for, or even a raw lumen output
• The Hella Rallye 4000 HID I also can't seem to find a candela rating for either, or even a raw lumen output

Now here are my questions:

• How should I think about comparing and contrasting these 3 options given that I can't seem to find an objective way to compare light output?
• Many lighting companies provide a graphic showing the lux versus throw distance. It's difficult for me to determine how to weight these given my objectives. Any advice on this topic is appreciated. These graphics, at least to me, seem more marketing related.
• It seems given that auxiliary lighting relatively light use-cycles due to infrequent utilization, that HID will last a very long time, which diminishes the marginal longevity argument for LEDs. Do you agree?
• A friend says a lightbar on the Jeep provides the best output and coverage. They seem to be unsophisticated and throw a lot of light everywhere, which might make it more difficult to avoid the Elk. How should I consider LED Lightbars?
• Given my objectives, is it better to mount the lights on the roof, or on the front bumper?
• Finally, is there an "obvious" answer among the three lights I am considering given the experience of the forum members?

Thanks everyone. Although I don't post often, I very much enjoy the forum.

Mullet

 

[Bill Idaho]

I started a related thread a few weeks ago about aftermarket driving lights for my 2003 Dodge pickup (not far from you in Caldwell, Idaho, relatively speaking). There is some very good related information in that thread regarding what you are asking. What I have learned is that an LED light "bar" can be unbelievably bright, but they apparently don't throw far. And that isn't a good thing, as having too much light up close negates your long range vision.
I looked pretty hard on the internet for comparison photos of the various light systems, but there does not seem to be a "standard" method of showing how good/bad a particular light works. (One site I went to was a guy showing off his latest set of LED lights---from about 20 feet away from his garage door!?) Personally, I don't like mounting lights on the cowl or above the windshield, as they brighten up the front of the vehicle- causing the same effect I mentioned about the LED light "bars" washing your your long range vision capabilities.
There are people here that have forgotten 10 times more than I will ever know about illumination. I'm sure they'll chime in any minute now.

 

[Mullet]

I started a related thread a few weeks ago about aftermarket driving lights for my 2003 Dodge pickup (not far from you in Caldwell, Idaho, relatively speaking)...

I bought my Jeep from Dennis Dillon Jeep in Caldwell, ID. Beautiful drive, from Caldwell to Bend I must say.

I'm a smart guy, but it's difficult to distill down what will be the best purchase and produce the best results, for sure. I will check out your recommended thread.

There's a lot of uneducated "experts on lights" out there, so I am trying to get to the facts, and avoid the Elk.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

I almost hit a herd of Elk on the highway when I was heading to go snowshoeing up by Mt Bachelor before dawn.

"On the highway" -- the LED "lightbars" are completely out of the question, and you should get real auxiliary high beam lamps instead of the lamps you mentioned. The JW Speaker Model 8710 would be worthwhile.

For general light comparisons, though:

How should I think about comparing and contrasting these 3 options given that I can't seem to find an objective way to compare light output?

You have one, kindof. Source lumens and road lumens are not necessarily related. A lamp can have lower source lumens but higher road lumens than another model lamp due to differences in the optics. They may also simply be quoting the raw lumens for the emitters as stated by the manufacturer and don't state the lumens in the beam itself due to embarassment or simple reliance on the "wow" factor of the raw lumens.

Many lighting companies provide a graphic showing the lux versus throw distance. It's difficult for me to determine how to weight these given my objectives. Any advice on this topic is appreciated. These graphics, at least to me, seem more marketing related.

There are legitimate uses of the beam isoplots, but the marketers may change the scale or use lux numbers that aren't accepted measures like using a .25lux threshold to 'prove' the throw of the lamps, instead of the 1-lux figure that is an actually-meaningful (and for that reason, universally-used) measure.

It seems given that auxiliary lighting relatively light use-cycles due to infrequent utilization, that HID will last a very long time, which diminishes the marginal longevity argument for LEDs. Do you agree?

HID systems use dangerously-high voltages, and the LEDs will be far more proof against vibration than arc-discharge capsules. What will kill the lamps utterly (other than an impact) is degradation of the lens from UV.

A friend says a lightbar on the Jeep provides the best output and coverage. They seem to be unsophisticated and throw a lot of light everywhere, which might make it more difficult to avoid the Elk. How should I consider LED Lightbars?

Consider them to be useful at crawl speeds, but not for road speeds. The same "coverage" (oversaturation of the foreground) that makes seeing what you're climbing easier will make it hard to make out things in the distance.

Given my objectives, is it better to mount the lights on the roof, or on the front bumper?

Is your objective to see a lot of that light bouncing right off your hood? Or is it just to exceed the maximum permitted height of an auxiliary high beam? The roof is not a good location for lights you want to try to see very well by.

Finally, is there an "obvious" answer among the three lights I am considering given the experience of the forum members?

I'd be torn between the JW Speaker and the Hella Rallye 4000 LED (which has a glass lens instead of plastic). The HID is right out.
I'm not an off-roader, though, but I'd pick a light that would be decent for crawls but still have utility on faster trail driving, than having one that's only good for crawling and useless even for 20mph. However, since we're talking about using these on the road, the 8710 is the effective and legal choice for that use.

 

[calflash]

Isn't the 8710 the same light as the TS4000, except that the TS4000 has a pedestal mount? The pedestal mount sure is easier to use for auxiliary lights. And I will second the idea that these are excellent for use on the highway as described in the op.

I don't think the TS4000 are the best choice for off-road use since they have a beam that is wide but not tall. They would definitely need a floody light(s) for the upper part of your view when going up or down hills and trails. Since it it so easy to find a good set of floody lights for wheeling though, the recommendation to put the emphasis on the lights for the highway is a good one IMHO.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Isn't the 8710 the same light as the TS4000, except that the TS4000 has a pedestal mount? The pedestal mount sure is easier to use for auxiliary lights. And I will second the idea that these are excellent for use on the highway as described in the op.

No. Slightly different lighting characteristics between the two (but the information I used to glean this does not necessarily predict the beam shape or performance of either lamp beyond a generalization. Nonetheless, the lamps do have different performance characteristics.

I don't think the TS4000 are the best choice for off-road use since they have a beam that is wide but not tall. They would definitely need a floody light(s) for the upper part of your view when going up or down hills and trails. Since it it so easy to find a good set of floody lights for wheeling though, the recommendation to put the emphasis on the lights for the highway is a good one IMHO.

The TS4000 isn't the better choice for on-road use; the OP clearly states they will be used on road.

Although JW Speaker can't control how the lights are used, they are pretty specific about the purpose of either lamp.

 

[shoop]

I can vouch for the at least quality of the Hella 4000s, I only have the Halogens, but the housings are all metal, and theyre tough SOBs. Especially when you have them mounted on shelving brackets like i do, lmao.

 

[-Virgil-]

Forget raw lumens -- that's a number that's useless except for impressing would-be lamp buyers. All it means is how much light comes off the LEDs themselves, which doesn't tell you anything about how much light comes out of the lamp and reaches the roadway. What percentage of that raw light you get to actually use depends on the efficiency of the optics. The Speaker TS4000's info sheet claims 1440 "effective lumens", which is the amount of light within the beam, and a peak intensity of 133,000 candela. That peak intensity number doesn't tell you anything but the peak intensity. It tells nothing about the distribution of light within the beam. Same with that effective lumens number; it's really not reliable to say "This lamp has higher effective flux and peak intensity than that lamp, so this lamp is better than that lamp".

The Speaker units are quite good and would probably work fine for you. But I think if I were working with your vehicle in your driving conditions, I would get Cibie Super Oscar Wide Beam LEDs. They're rated at 125,000 candela and 1200 lumens in beam, which are both very good numbers. The beam is broad and tall with a well-focused central high intensity zone for long-distance punch down the road, without flooding the foreground with too much light.

I would not mess with the ARB stuff, nor with PIAA or any of the numerous other companies whose stock and trade is promotional BS rather than legitimate optical engineering.

 

[calflash]

Slightly different lighting characteristics between the two... the lamps do have different performance characteristics.

oh...sorry if I have spread bad info. I assumed that they were the same since the product pdf sheets seem to be identical. If you find the specific differences, please share

The TS4000 isn't the better choice for on-road use; the OP clearly states they will be used on road.

Although JW Speaker can't control how the lights are used, they are pretty specific about the purpose of either lamp.

JW Speaker "markets" the TS4000 as off-road only. I don't think there would be any other way for them to market a light with this beam pattern in the U.S. But it also appears to be designed to meet the ECE standards for a high beam. So, if the state law doesn't require SAE Y lights, wouldn't the owner be able to use the TS4000 for auxiliary high beams if they are mounted appropriately and the lighting would be effective for the described use in op?

Side question: I haven't tried to order it, but is it possible to get the 8710 in U.S.? Last time I tried to order an ECE headlight from JW Speaker, I was shot down in flames

 

[Mullet]

Forget raw lumens -- that's a number that's useless except for impressing would-be lamp buyers. All it means is how much light comes off the LEDs themselves, which doesn't tell you anything about how much light comes out of the lamp and reaches the roadway. What percentage of that raw light you get to actually use depends on the efficiency of the optics. The Speaker TS4000's info sheet claims 1440 "effective lumens", which is the amount of light within the beam, and a peak intensity of 133,000 candela. That peak intensity number doesn't tell you anything but the peak intensity. ...

The Speaker units are quite good and would probably work fine for you. But I think if I were working with your vehicle in your driving conditions, I would get Cibie Super Oscar Wide Beam LEDs. They're rated at 125,000 candela and 1200 lumens in beam, which are both very good numbers. The beam is broad and tall with a well-focused central high intensity zone for long-distance punch down the road, without flooding the foreground with too much light.
.

Great information, and I appreciate the replies. It's one reason I love this forum so much. I still have some outstanding questions on the data behind the Cibie recommendation. I know from reading past threads that Virgil you are a big fan of the Cibie Oscars, but I am trying to understand that without your recommendation, how I might discern that they are good from the data provided.

So my questions are:

• It appears that there is a threshold candela rating that is a reasonable gauge for how a light would perform for my needs, and this seems to be 100,000 and up or thereabouts.
• Secondly, it seems that optics are the key differentiator. Given that, when I compare my Evolution J headlights to the TS4000 Offroad auxiliary lights and Cibie Oscar LEDs, we find the following.

	JW Speaker 8700 headlights	JW Speaker TS4000 Offroad lights	Cibie Super Oscar LED
Candela	61,000 (high beam)	133,000	125,000
Effective Lumens	1150	1440	1200
raw lumens	2600	3300	n/a

Therefore, is it true to say the following?

1. The Cibie and JW Speaker auxiliary lights put out approximately 200% more total light than the current headlights I have on high beam?
2. And given the above, that additional light output from the bulb allows for optics which enable the light to throw a wider and farther beam of effective, useful light beyond that which my current high beams cannot do.
3. My current high beams are limited by DOT standards in terms of beam width and throw and overall pattern. Because of these limitations, and their overall candela output, the auxiliary lights provide a broader field and depth of vision than my JW Speaker high beams provide.
4. The effective lumens are difficult to compare due to the difficulty in measuring a "beam" of light.

Am I reading the tea leaves correctly here? Just trying to understand a little bit of the underlying data that draws us to conclude that these lights are "great lights". It's clear that both the Cibie and JWS in question are likely top contenders. Just trying to understand a bit more as to what makes them so, particularly given the marketing and data provided by the manufacturers.

 

[Echo63]

	JW Speaker 8700 headlights	JW Speaker TS4000 Offroad lights	Cibie Super Oscar LED
Candela	61,000 (high beam)	133,000	125,000
Effective Lumens	1150	1440	1200
raw lumens	2600	3300	n/a

Therefore, is it true to say the following?

1. The Cibie and JW Speaker auxiliary lights put out approximately 200% more total light than the current headlights I have on high beam?
2. And given the above, that additional light output from the bulb allows for optics which enable the light to throw a wider and farther beam of effective, useful light beyond that which my current high beams cannot do.
3. My current high beams are limited by DOT standards in terms of beam width and throw and overall pattern. Because of these limitations, and their overall candela output, the auxiliary lights provide a broader field and depth of vision than my JW Speaker high beams provide.
4. The effective lumens are difficult to compare due to the difficulty in measuring a "beam" of light.

Am I reading the tea leaves correctly here? Just trying to understand a little bit of the underlying data that draws us to conclude that these lights are "great lights". It's clear that both the Cibie and JWS in question are likely top contenders. Just trying to understand a bit more as to what makes them so, particularly given the marketing and data provided by the manufacturers.

lumens is the amount of light coming out of the emitter (think amount of water coming out of a hose)
for X lumens (litres or gallons/min) it can be thrown in a wide fan (low Candela, a nice wide fan of light that doesnt go far) or a tight stream that goes a long way (high candela, tight beam)
candela is measuring how much light is in the hotspot of the beam.

1. no, the cibie has only 50 more lumens than the JW8700, but, its hotspot is a smidge over twice as bright. This results in more reach in the beam.

2. Its still a spotlight, just a wider beam than a pencil beam designed purely for throw.

4. Given a lumen and candela rating, you can make assumptions to beam shape (but automotive headlights have odd beam patterns, that may be slightly off, bit in general, for the same lumens, a higher candela beam will have a smaller spot, and a wider beam pattern will have a lower candela reading.