hmmmm

 

I like them! it's always hard to say till you seem them in person, but like someone else said, I think they would look pretty sweet on an FD with aggressive exterior mods.

 

Make me an offer No, seriously don't, I like them too much and won't be selling.

I agree the issue with the ones being discussed is they are not diffused and thus look too rice, at least for me.

TurboIIrotary has been working on a very similar design yet one that would work to diffuse the LED lights. So the light would be something like this:



BMW makes the look by using opaque acrylic tubes and "shooting" the light thru with end mounted LEDs. Don't like the BMW lights but I do think this look can be translated to the FD. I've been meaning to retrofit my LEDs on the front of my car to this style but haven't done it yet. As for the brake lights, my thoughts tell me the clear tube approach won't work as you need a good bit of LED power to achieve a stock level or greater of lighting. But I could be wrong here.

You can achieve the same diffused look by simply using the stock red lenses and then using clear acrylic behind it instead of the frosted stuff. See my pic as this is what I did. The advantages to using clear acrylic is you don't loose any light output whereas when you use frosted material, you do. So if turboIIrotary can still use the stock red lenses and then clear material he will be good to go. He knows what he is doing and I am sure he is aware of this.

The final issue with any led taillights is ensuring they are bright enough. Remember the primary purpose is not to look cool, but to warn traffic behind you. Notice all the pics of the LEDs in question are in a darkened room? This makes me feel very uncomfortable about the light output. And the brake lights look pretty dim also and that is in a dark room. Theorie, also note how much light is lost "at angle" on the design - not good.

 

Well I'm pretty sure you proved unequivocally that you can't legally sell modified tail lights from your talks with DOT and NHTSA? I mean that's why we stopped so unfortunately all of this is relegated to the realm of personal improvements on our own cars. Either way, I still very much enjoy designing (especially lighting) even if just for my own car.



I've been working on a somewhat similar (kinda) design as well. It's a difficult proposition though (I think) to add straight lines to the FD as it's pretty curvy/shapley design, and hard lines don't really flow correctly on the FD. Granted that's a personal aesthetic call but I think a lot of care needs to go into the design to avoid these overtly hard lines. I feel that lines and shapes need to be "organic" to look correct in the FD. I personally also hate the individual LED look too, those gotta go!

 

 

I'd definitely prefer them diffused but they can be ok without the diffuser IF:

- there is one more led on the edges to complete the shape so there is no gap
- the turn signal leds are not seen and definitely placed somewhere else, not under the brake lights. A better place could be in the middle of the brake lights

I can't read Japanese but if $154 is the price for the pair, it is fair price.

 

They should settle in the ~$500 range given past auctions.

 

I thought we put this past us. You stopped because the lights were unsafe. I offered a billion times to help or to support a version that had equal to or greater light and the offer still stands.

Forgot to mention this. You had discussed this quite some time ago.

 

Oh boy. Let's not go down a bad path again guys......

On a positive note, sounds like SBG has the go-ahead to improve the lights (thus making them safer) and offer them for sale

 

Unequivocally no. We did not stop because the lights "were not safe". We did however provide an additional bulb to increase brightness for the version 1 users, but the version 2 setups have/had the day time intensity corrected for.

Let's not mince words, we stopped because you contacted NHTSA about us modifying tail lights and put us on the government radar. They then stated (in an email you CC'ed us on) that "no tail lights can be modified under any circumstances, and that doing so violates DOT standards, and they can't be sold" bright or not.

I'm not here to derail this thread, I'm in here because it's about new tail light design aesthetics, form, and function... and I enjoy this stuff. I personally don't hold any animosity and have let it go, so let's both stay on topic and not speak for each other.

-Heath

 

You are 100% correct on this. If SBG offers a product that meets or exceeds the brightness of the stock taillights, you'll have no issues from me.

I've stated this is writing to SBG and have reiterated the commitment many times on this forum.

How about a little cleanup of this thread please so there is no need to respond?

 

Hey Heath, long time no talk buddy. Couldn't you declare them as "off-road" use only like a lot of the shops do in Japan for their headlights? Thus not leaving any responsibility on your or SBG to violate any US laws.

 

^ I can answer that. It's a "no". Headlights and taillights are exempt from the "off road use only" label because they are safety equipment. Doesn't matter if the seller uses this label, DOT requirements still apply and the headlights and taillights must meet standards. Manufacturers are completely responsible regardless of the label.

Even though they are illegal, the reality is NHSTA has very little interest unless an accident occurs or a complaint is filed. They are busy trying to keep illegal stuff from entering the country.

 

Then please stop derailing it and stay on topic.

 

If something is untrue, stated publicly, and is in regards to our business... I'll defend it


Back on topic... one of the issues I see with the diffused light as the sole point source is reaching a high enough intensity since the surface area of the diffused sections is rather small. It would be possible to side-light a diffused tube similar to the BMW etc designs, however they use additional surface area in the lamp to display braking and turning typically.

I've seen some violations of that principle though such as on some new audi's where the turn signal is a thin LED strip in the bumper above an oil cooler or similar duct. I didn't see their turn signal (oncoming) since the surface area was so small (peripheral vision is really good at picking up large movements and occurrences, but fine details are lost in non-foveated vision). I just remember thinking, "wow, I really had a hard time noticing that thin but bright strip... that's really dangerous"

My personal thought is, braking should be displayed with a large surface area, parking/driving lights are acceptable if thinner (assuming proper intensity of course).
-Heath

 

^ Based on your communication, it's your perception of the issue versus reality. I'll accept that and not respond.

On topic - I agree with Heath that for brakes, the larger (and brighter) the surface area, the better. As I recall the DOT standards speak about a minimum surface area but I don't remember what it is.

There are a bunch of cars going to the "strip" look so the requirements must be met by this type of design. Could be cool.

 

So is anyone going to make something similar to these (with diffuser, without in your face turn signals) for the RX7?

Btw I like the lines of the brake light LEDs or layout in the OP's pic. Looks sharp and suits Mazda's KODO design language.

 

A couple of us have been working on different versions. Mine will be for personal use unless i can find someone to manufacture the boards and solder the leds for me.

 

wow....I love them!!!

 

Same . When we did the v2 prototypes we ran into the issue of prototypes vs production, which was basically the requirement for mass volumes of boards to be produced (in the hundreds). Even making the boards in large quantities, the LED's still get hand soldered which isn't a practical proposition for a marketed product... or they have to be produced in a 3rd world factory where they can afford to hire cheap labor . It's really something that needs to be contracted to be done for you realistically (2-4 points per LED x however many LED's + plus resisters, etc... no small feat). Higher power LED's will require less soldering but come with their own problems such as light dispersion, heat sinks, etc.

A few one off's for personal use is not easy but doable, but making them available comes with a litany of challenges from a manufacturing point of view. Then there's the issue of having to modify stock housings... very messy proposition indeed

 

Seriously - i'll front some cash to whoever can get a run of these made (DAN I'm looking at you).

These NEED to happen for all of us. Bye bye Kouki lights!

 

Well, I have been playing around this week with acrylic rod based LED technologies. In other words, trying to get the look posted in the pics above. I have had some success but have found out I am using too good (optically clear) of an acrylic rod. With what I have, the light shoots out the end instead of being dispersed through the rod and lighting it up. Who knew?

Anyway, in doing this I've run across another technology that seems to fit the bill for the project. Will keep it under wraps for now until I can test it, but I think it is more promising. Should get the test pieces in a few days and we will see.

 

David - if you need a backer to mass produce these, get in contact.

 

meh...

 

You have to run slits in the rod if you look closely at Alpsta photos you can see them.

I think I know what you are talking about and if we are thinking the same it does work the only concern of mine is how bright they will be.

Also you can run superflux really close together and set them back from the stock diffuser and it creates a smooth pattern.

David if you are still interested in making sequential tails I found a nice microcontroller just pm me and I will send you a link.