? L E D taillights

Smarten up.
A Sure Power flasher cost me extra. Not only will it keep flashing into infinite resistance it will aurvive a dead short and even reversed polarity.

There is no reason to screw around with resistors

Plug and play except with newer nightmare H.A.L. controlled vehicles.

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
Smarten up.
A Sure Power flasher cost me extra. Not only will it keep flashing into infinite resistance it will aurvive a dead short and even reversed polarity.

There is no reason to screw around with resistors

Plug and play except with newer nightmare H.A.L. controlled vehicles.

As I stated earlier:

"They have specific flashers or you can add in a resister, or they may come with resisters built-in."

Guess I didn't spell it out clearly enough: Specific flashers that will work with LED's.

valhalla360 wrote:
For brake lights in particular, there is one huge advantage going to LED.

Incandescent bulbs light up approximately 0.5 sec after power is applied.
LED light up approximately 0.05 sec after power is applied.

That means the driver behind you gets an extra 0.45 sec to react. May not sound like a lot but even if they still hit you, it will be at a slower speed and therefore should be less serious.

True it's a bit off topic, but you can break it down even further.

At 60mph your car is traveling 88 feet per second. 5260/60=88

At 88 feet per second you are traveling 8.8 feet every tenth of a second. 88/10=8.8ft

Now take the numbers from valhalla360. Even rounding the .45 down to .40 you will travel 35.2 feet in 4 tents of a second. 8.8*.4=35.2 That's more than the length of a standard traffic intersection. So the LED coming on .40 seconds faster than the incandescent will give you an additional 35.2 feet of stopping distance.

the last time I was rear ended, it was due to total negligence of the other driver. that excuse of a brake light coming on quicker, sounds to me more like a reason to convince the wife that, "yes dear, it makes sense to spend $14.99 for a perfectly good bulb whereas the current 99 cent one is perfectly adequate.
the requirement for an eye level brake light is more meaningful than a millisecond faster reaction.
bumpy

opnspaces wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
For brake lights in particular, there is one huge advantage going to LED.

Incandescent bulbs light up approximately 0.5 sec after power is applied.
LED light up approximately 0.05 sec after power is applied.

That means the driver behind you gets an extra 0.45 sec to react. May not sound like a lot but even if they still hit you, it will be at a slower speed and therefore should be less serious.

True it's a bit off topic, but you can break it down even further.

At 60mph your car is traveling 88 feet per second. 5260/60=88

At 88 feet per second you are traveling 8.8 feet every tenth of a second. 88/10=8.8ft

Now take the numbers from valhalla360. Even rounding the .45 down to .40 you will travel 35.2 feet in 4 tents of a second. 8.8*.4=35.2 That's more than the length of a standard traffic intersection. So the LED coming on .40 seconds faster than the incandescent will give you an additional 35.2 feet of stopping distance.

It's a little more complicated as both vehicles are moving (your explanation presumes the braking vehicle light comes on after it's at a full stop).

But if in the original situation, you brake a little too late and would hit at 10mph, moderate braking (10mph/s) for (let's round it to 0.5sec for easy math), would result in a 5mph hit. Run the formula for momentum and that's a lot less impact. In a panic brake (20mph/s), you will come screeching to a halt and maybe barely tap the bumper of the lead vehicle.

No it won't help if the following driver never brakes but how many times in a traffic jam, do you slam on the brakes and barely miss hitting the guy in front of you (or you fail)...an extra few tenths of a second will eliminate a lot of those failures.

Bumpyroad wrote:
the last time I was rear ended, it was due to total negligence of the other driver. that excuse of a brake light coming on quicker, sounds to me more like a reason to convince the wife that, "yes dear, it makes sense to spend $14.99 for a perfectly good bulb whereas the current 99 cent one is perfectly adequate.
the requirement for an eye level brake light is more meaningful than a millisecond faster reaction.
bumpy

Have to disagree with you on that one. Brakes at 3ft height are not appreciably different distance from your eye compared to a light at 4ft height. Plus it's not one or the other.

Complete negligence won't be solved by either.

Cummins12V98 wrote:
This is what I replaced the incandescent units with. I could have simply replaced the lamps with LED's but this was FAR BETTER!

This is what I used on my 1984 Komfort, I can testify that they are super bright.

However, the brightness comes with a cost..

Less life.

Yep, I HAVE had to replace 3 modules out of 4 in less than 5 yrs of very little use compared to what they should last.

I will say though the replacement modules so far have been better in life.

Considering just how expensive these ones are they should outlast the RV life and buying individual replacements is super insanely priced.

I would suggest buying an extra two bay "tail, turn, stop" ASSEMBLIES while you are at it so you have a set of spares to replace any module that quits while on the road.



The two bay costs around $47-$50 and single "replacement" modules can cost $38-$40 each.

You can also buy drop in plug and play replacements if you have the Bargman #84 frame..



Which run $25-$30 each..

You will not find these at your local Walmart so keeping a spare is a wise idea..

valhalla360 wrote:

opnspaces wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
For brake lights in particular, there is one huge advantage going to LED.

Incandescent bulbs light up approximately 0.5 sec after power is applied.
LED light up approximately 0.05 sec after power is applied.

That means the driver behind you gets an extra 0.45 sec to react. May not sound like a lot but even if they still hit you, it will be at a slower speed and therefore should be less serious.

True it's a bit off topic, but you can break it down even further.

At 60mph your car is traveling 88 feet per second. 5260/60=88

At 88 feet per second you are traveling 8.8 feet every tenth of a second. 88/10=8.8ft

Now take the numbers from valhalla360. Even rounding the .45 down to .40 you will travel 35.2 feet in 4 tents of a second. 8.8*.4=35.2 That's more than the length of a standard traffic intersection. So the LED coming on .40 seconds faster than the incandescent will give you an additional 35.2 feet of stopping distance.

It's a little more complicated as both vehicles are moving (your explanation presumes the braking vehicle light comes on after it's at a full stop).

But if in the original situation, you brake a little too late and would hit at 10mph, moderate braking (10mph/s) for (let's round it to 0.5sec for easy math), would result in a 5mph hit. Run the formula for momentum and that's a lot less impact. In a panic brake (20mph/s), you will come screeching to a halt and maybe barely tap the bumper of the lead vehicle.

No it won't help if the following driver never brakes but how many times in a traffic jam, do you slam on the brakes and barely miss hitting the guy in front of you (or you fail)...an extra few tenths of a second will eliminate a lot of those failures.

I agree. People try to imagine things in their real world experiences. And to them milliseconds are just too fast to make a difference. But the numbers don't lie. Even if at 20 mph the .45 second buys you one foot of extra stopping distance (made up number pulled out of the air) that could make the difference between getting out to exchange license and insurance, or continuing on your merry way.

Bumpy the fact is the LED lights are by far easier to see! Example I ride Mororcycle a lot. It’s amazing how much more visible the bikes are with LED’s compared to those who are incandescent.

Bought the tail light kit for a friends YAMAHA because I didn’t want him to get rear ended. Huge improvement.

Bumpyroad wrote:
the last time I was rear ended, it was due to total negligence of the other driver. that excuse of a brake light coming on quicker, sounds to me more like a reason to convince the wife that, "yes dear, it makes sense to spend $14.99 for a perfectly good bulb whereas the current 99 cent one is perfectly adequate.
the requirement for an eye level brake light is more meaningful than a millisecond faster reaction.
bumpy

Do you just sit around and wait to disagree with people? I bet you're a miserable old crusty to be around. EVERY single post I see you on it's like you are fishing for an argument or a chance to be condescending. Eat a snickers dude.