Audi Q5 Lighting Options

According to DVN, the latest Audi Q5 has these available lighting options:

1. "Xenon+" headlamps are standard equipment: HID headlamps with LED DRL.
2. One optional step up: full LED headlamps with dynamic headlight adjustment. Low and high beam, indicators and cornering light all are done with LED technology. Dynamic rear turn indicators sweep from inboard to outboard.
3. A step above that: Matrix LED headlamps to provide the greatest possible illumination of the roadway without dazzling other road users.

Click to expand...

Is option #2 legal in the USA? How is "dynamic headlamp adjustment" implemented?

SubLGT said:

Is option #2:

2. One optional step up: full LED headlamps with dynamic headlight adjustment. Low and high beam, indicators and cornering light all are done with LED technology. Dynamic rear turn indicators sweep from inboard to outboard.

Click to expand...

legal in the USA? How is "dynamic headlamp adjustment" implemented?

Click to expand...

Which part of option #2? Full LED headlamps are legal. Dynamic adjustment is based on vehicle loading and vehicle angle, compensating for uneven loading and acceleration and deceleration. Legal.
Dynamic rear turn indicators (essentially a sequential turn signal) on those cars is annoying because they're red instead of SAE yellow (idiots!) and on reading FMVSS 108 it seems that they're not lighting the multiple compartments "simultaneously", however, no compartments are turned off until the lamp is completely lit. Does that make them legal? I'd say (perhaps 'guess') no, but I'm not the one writing the NHTSA interpretations. FMVSS 108 does say (among many other things): "All light sources providing a turn signal must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal operating control is activated". No ifs, ands, or buts. No exclusions, no dispensations, no "'ceptfers".

Remember: Audi doesn't have to get approval from the NHTSA for their designs, rather Audi simply certify the lamps are legal. Until challenged by the NHTSA, they're ostensibly legal, and Audi will bear the brunt of any legal action that hinges on the lamps being noncompliant. Audi, of course, is not going to ask the NHTSA for an interpretation of FMVSS 108 regarding these turn signals before implementing them, because then they'll be bound by that interpretation if it's not in their favor. So, they take the risk that this will not get challenged in the hopes of wooing people who want turn signals like these. If they're challenged and lose, they'll have to do a recall and bring the vehicles into compliance, and may even be subject to fines.

The US rendition of Audi's sequential turn signal is not the same as the rest-of-the-world setup. The ROTW setup has a basically horizontal(ish) row of amber LED segments that illuminate in an outward direction, away from the centerline of the car, in whichever direction the signal is on. The whole line lights up within 200 milliseconds, then stays lit for roughly a second, then turns off all at once and after a brief all-off period the cycle starts again.

Audi did talk to NHTSA about this; they argued that it should be allowed because the whole signal is lit up within the same amount of time it takes a conventional incandescent bulb to rise up to full intensity, but NHTSA said no (all turn signal light sources must be illuminated simultaneously, plus the turn signal doesn't meet EPLLA/illuminated area until some point during the sequential illumination of segments). So the US Audis have a simple on/off red turn signal in the outer area of the rear lamp plus a horizontal(ish) line of LEDs, red ones, that does the outward-from-center progression starting at the instant the on/off lamp turns on. All the lights turn off at the same time and then the cycle starts again. The on/off light is the official, legal turn signal; the sequential line is an auxiliary light, not regulated beyond the provision that optional lights cannot impair the function of mandatory ones. This is not too different than Ford's setup on the Mustang: the inner chamber is the official turn signal; the middle and outer ones that follow in sequence are auxiliaries. I've seen both Audi setups in action and I don't think the US arrangement is as good as the ROTW setup, even if it were amber in the US (which it isn't).

re: Audi sequential turn signals

I remember seeing a late model Audi (passenger car, not SUV) here in the US with rear turn signals that could best be described as partially sequential. Meaning, the turn signal had two components/compartments, a standard portion that blinked solidly on and off, and a horizontal strip located above that that lit up sequentially in the direction of the indicated turn. So rather than an entire turn signal sweeping sequentially, only the strip portion was sequential - acting like an accent of sorts to the blinking portion. If the strip were not there, the entire lamp assembly would just look like a standard non-sequential turn signal. And I may be remembering this wrong, but even the strip itself wasn't sequential across its entire length - it started with about 1/3 to 1/2 of its length fully lit and then sequenced the remainder.

Edit: I see Virgil beat me to it

-Virgil- said:

Audi did talk to NHTSA about this; they argued that it should be allowed because the whole signal is lit up within the same amount of time it takes a conventional incandescent bulb to rise up to full intensity, but NHTSA said no (all turn signal light sources must be illuminated simultaneously, plus the turn signal doesn't meet EPLLA/illuminated area until some point during the sequential illumination of segments). So the US Audis have a simple on/off red turn signal in the outer area of the rear lamp plus a horizontal(ish) line of LEDs, red ones, that does the outward-from-center progression starting at the instant the on/off lamp turns on. All the lights turn off at the same time and then the cycle starts again.

Click to expand...

You know, I saw a Q4 like that but thought maybe the Q5 had forgone that real turn signal and tried to go all "swoop". That was one annoying car to be behind, not least because it had red turn signals instead of SAE Yellow. Idiots!

Also, I hadn't realized they did talk to the NHTSA but that explains why they used the "real" signal and added that toy.

Does a sequential turn signal (like the one in the European market Audi Q5) have a proven safety advantage over a conventional turn signal?

SubLGT said:

Does a sequential turn signal (like the one in the European market Audi Q5) have a proven safety advantage over a conventional turn signal?

Click to expand...

To be "proven" requires studies. I did a very quick search for such studies and didn't turn anything up from UMTRI or the NHTSA.
Sequential turn signals in their various implementations are somewhat rare, and to be more scientific it'd have to contain a lot of data from very similar model cars that don't have such turn signalling (like when comparing the effect of red rear vs. yellow rear turn signals).

I'd say that at least here, no.

Alaric's got it right (again). OEMs in Europe, with cheerleading by Audi, are pushing the idea that sequential turn signals are safer, but there's no data supporting that claim. The best that exists so far is static studies showing that observers more quickly and accurately identify the direction a car is signaling if its signals are sequential instead of the regular on/off type. If that effect is real and significant, does it translate to reduced frequency and/or severity of crashes? We don't know. If it does, does that benefit persist once the novelty effect wears off? We don't know. If so, what happens to the benefit when drivers see a "sea" of sequential turn signals with some on/off signals mixed in, rather than the other way around? We don't know. The only way to answer this is with actual crash-involvement data that is gathered and processed carefully to exclude all confounding factors. That kind of data is extremely difficult to get, because there are usually confounding factors. Everything has to be the same except the one difference we're looking at. It's not good enough that we compare cars with on/off signals to cars with sequential signals. The cars have to be the same size, shape, and design, and the turn signals have to be the same size, shape, position, and intensity. Otherwise the data's no good. Take a look (p 5-6) at how aggressively NHTSA pared down the vehicles they looked at when they were studying whether amber turn signals work better than red ones.

It's also kind of "shady" how sequential turn signals became legalized in Europe...it's definitely not the case that it was studied and determined that they were probably better and so they were allowed.

-Virgil- said:

If so, what happens to the benefit when drivers see a "sea" of sequential turn signals with some on/off signals mixed in, rather than the other way around? We don't know.

Click to expand...

And this is what's really annoying about those "pulsing" CHMSL pieces of crap. They're annoying. In a traffic jam with several? Wow, yeah, no. Please, no. But I see more and more and the makers and installers hope that proliferation eventually means acceptance.

Everything has to be the same except the one difference we're looking at. It's not good enough that we compare cars with on/off signals to cars with sequential signals. The cars have to be the same size, shape, and design, and the turn signals have to be the same size, shape, position, and intensity. Otherwise the data's no good. Take a look (p 5-6) at how aggressively NHTSA pared down the vehicles they looked at when they were studying whether amber turn signals work better than red ones.

Click to expand...

That was a study that came to mind when I saw SubLGT's question. It was extremely rigorous, and the methodology both reduced the amount of data yet increased the quality of the data. It definitely was not a slap-dash "I think it's great, lemme fudge the numbers to match my hypothesis" thing. The very kind of rigor that the PIAA fanboys HATE.

-Virgil- said:

but NHTSA said no (all turn signal light sources must be illuminated simultaneously, plus the turn signal doesn't meet EPLLA/illuminated area until some point during the sequential illumination of segments).

Click to expand...

I know this thread is about the Audi Q5 but this begs the question of how ambulances and some other emergency vehicles are getting around this requirement. I've been behind numerous ambulances and they also have sequential turn signals but they do not have a primary and secondary blinker like the mustang or the Audi. The only blinker they have is the sequential one that lights up in the shape of an arrow pointing in the direction they intend to go. Are emergency vehicles not required to follow the same basic lighting regulations as non-emergency vehicles?

Here is a video that demonstrates the sequential blinkers I've seen in action. Start at the 7:30 mark.

Magio said:

begs the question

Click to expand...

*raises

Are emergency vehicles not required to follow the same basic lighting regulations as non-emergency vehicles?

Click to expand...

If the vehicles are owned by the State, maybe not. Many of these emergency vehicles belong to private companies or NGOs, though, and shouldn't be granted the same exemptions.

Then there's the problem of the vehicles being overly lit by all the beacons and strobes and flashers and whatnots. As one report says, "emergency vehicles present a particular and intermittent hazard to the general road user and a best practice for their use needs to be developed that is evidence-based."