Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Legality,

JVP was pretty much spot on the money. ADR's apply to 'new market' vehicles before first being sold.

What applies after this is the NVS - "National Vehicle Standards". In relation to lighting, pretty much an ADR duplicate.

Defect action would be on the basis of causing the compliant lamps to no longer be compliant.

Automotiove lamps must reach certain photometric performance criteria as outlined in ADR and World Standards, once a lamp has been 'tested' by an authorised testing agent, the lamp is given world compliance approval - the 'markings' you see on the lens of all automotive lamps. Compliance ceases once you bugger around with the lamp photometric performance, basically speaking 'brightness'.

Now at law, IF a crash happens on say a freeway under heavy fog (or in clear) and you have your taillights 'smoked' etc - and a person is seriously injured or killed by running into you, whilst generally speaking, the rear car is typically considered 'at fault', your 'contributory' actions can result in increased proportional blame, or blame directly being apportioned to you.

You could face even more severe consequence, or goal.

Whatever you do, just use a bit of commonsense, leave the rear red reflex reflectors alone, the rear fog that sort of thing. personally though, I'd not mess about with rear lighting, EXCEPT to buy compliant 'different' aftermarket taillights, see those markings again; "E marks" for a hint as to a lamps legality.

yeh but its still tinting the lights. wether its bulb or LED, your still changing the amount of light that gets put out through the lense...

but if its emmiting more then wat it originally did...wats the problem?

isnt that wat modifications are?

there will probably be a standard for bulbs and a standard for LED's, if the light that get put out of either falls below that standard, then it will be illigal.

but hey i might be wrong, why dont you go ask Department of transport?? :blush:

CJ

the best thing and most unique characteristic of a skyline is the red stove tops... tinting em black is like a stripper getting a boob job to reduce her bust size.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...