General bad lights
- Thread starter bravoblue
- Start date
Currently reading:
General bad lights
You're kidding right?
What are you used to driving? An ex WRC?
I find the lights on the bravo perfectly acceptable, and much better than my pervious Marea, which in turn had much, much better lights than say an original Bravo.
What are you used to driving? An ex WRC?
I find the lights on the bravo perfectly acceptable, and much better than my pervious Marea, which in turn had much, much better lights than say an original Bravo.
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
- Messages
- 744
- Points
- 125
Now the dark evenings are here have found out how bad the lights are, have tried upgrading the dipped bulbs to 50% plus but still not good. Can anyone give me any ideas without looking at fitting a hid kit.
Lol you kidding :O
Mine are like twice as good as my focus and as good as the MG!
What setting are they on? They may be on 3, in which case they will be pointing downwards, try it on one.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,017
- Points
- 159
Have to agree with bluebravo, the light on the bravo is rubbish!! I spend most of my driving at some dark "A" road and I never need to used my high beam in my stilo nor my megane, but with the bravo, i need to keep switch them on and off. I drove past another bravo on the M3 the other morning, it was totally dark (5am?) I past him on the fast lane and he was in the middle, then I look at my mirror, amount the 3 lanes of traffic, the Bravo's lights were the darkest (is there such a word??)
I've got a test drive Bravo 1.4 T-Jet 120HP before i got mine - It had standard lights and comparing to the Grande Punto with Philips X-treme Power bulbs - I have to say - I thought that one of the bulbs was gone or the lights were not fully on on Bravo. Problem was that it was a brand new test drive car - they didn't check the lights settings on that car - They were pointing down - the beam was finishing up at around 10meters in front of the car. I got bi-xenon lights on my bravo and there is no comparison to the standard ones - xenon lights are ABSOLUTELY must-have for all yous that drive much in the night times!
That's my advice - first of all try to use Philips X-treme Power bulbs before u change to HIDs - see how they will work for u!
That's my advice - first of all try to use Philips X-treme Power bulbs before u change to HIDs - see how they will work for u!
Now the dark evenings are here have found out how bad the lights are, have tried upgrading the dipped bulbs to 50% plus but still not good. Can anyone give me any ideas without looking at fitting a hid kit.
I have to half aggree....... The bravo lights are worse than my A4 but better than my vaxhaull combo van......When choosing kit to wear for when riding my Motorbike I never skimp on it I always buy the best because its my life im protecting. So I think the lights are just as important as the Brakes , Steering etc etc on the car Because if you cant see then your Buggered
. I will be upgrading the lights after christmas. As i think when its your life and familys life your dealing with I dont mind spending the money.... On HIDs
Maybe you're all driving faster, thus the light doesn't seem to throw far enough? They're the same design essentially with bulb+reflector then focused by a poly-elliptical lense, which have been used on Fiats and other manufacturers since the early 2000s.
Please, tell me you are joking
You do realize how...well, stupid this sounds, don't you?
Last edited:
To be travelling faster than the light coming out of your headlights, you would have to be moving at 67,100,000,000 mph.
Get your bravo remapped by Angel Tuning?
Please, tell me you are joking
No, if you're doing 30 and the light is dropping 80 yards ahead then that's probably enough to give you several seconds of illuminated road.
If your lights were dropping 80 yards ahead and you were doing 80mph then that would only be lighting the road up for the 1 or 2 seconds before your car gets there.
think about it.
I think you should think a bit. You are throwing away the last 100-150 years of science and in fact discovered a completely new physics. If you can prove that, you will instantly get a Noble prize
Do you know what is the distance the light covers in 1-2 seconds so that your car speed can make any difference? Well, you do the math, knowing that it takes 8 minutes for the light to travel from the Sun to the Earth.
Do you know what is the distance the light covers in 1-2 seconds so that your car speed can make any difference? Well, you do the math, knowing that it takes 8 minutes for the light to travel from the Sun to the Earth.
Last edited:
I think you're missing the point hellcat is trying to make. If you're driving around country roads at 30mph and you come accross a bend the light is sufficient that you can react to that bend and steer round it. If you are, on the other hand, doing 80mph the chances of you reacting to it have lessened as you would be upon the bend before being able to react - is that correct hellcat?
I think the lights in the bravo perfectly acceptable, certainly better than the stilo or the grande punto. If your lights are that poor maybe you need to take the car to fiat for realigning the beams.
I think the lights in the bravo perfectly acceptable, certainly better than the stilo or the grande punto. If your lights are that poor maybe you need to take the car to fiat for realigning the beams.
He didn't say anything about country roads, bends and your reaction to them, which is a totally different subject.
What he did say is: that the faster you drive the nearer you see. And the reason being that the light does not have time to go further because you are outrunning part of it with your fast moving car.
If I use his example: if the light drops 80 yards away from you, it will drop 80 yards away no matter if you are moving with 30 mph or 3000 mph. (Well, if you drive with 3000, that will not be exactly true as your brain needs some time to process the information, but the difference will be insignificant; plus brain reaction was not an argument in the original post).
"If your lights were dropping 80 yards ahead and you were doing 80mph then that would only be lighting the road up for the 1 or 2 seconds before your car gets there."
When the car gets there it would already be ages after the lights have lighten up the next portion of 80 yards...
That being said, speed does not affect in any way the distance of your lights, unless you are not driving with the speed mehstg quoted.
What he did say is: that the faster you drive the nearer you see. And the reason being that the light does not have time to go further because you are outrunning part of it with your fast moving car.
If I use his example: if the light drops 80 yards away from you, it will drop 80 yards away no matter if you are moving with 30 mph or 3000 mph. (Well, if you drive with 3000, that will not be exactly true as your brain needs some time to process the information, but the difference will be insignificant; plus brain reaction was not an argument in the original post).
"If your lights were dropping 80 yards ahead and you were doing 80mph then that would only be lighting the road up for the 1 or 2 seconds before your car gets there."
When the car gets there it would already be ages after the lights have lighten up the next portion of 80 yards...
That being said, speed does not affect in any way the distance of your lights, unless you are not driving with the speed mehstg quoted.
Last edited:
No I'm not saying the faster you drive, the nearer you see.
I'm saying the faster you drive, the further you NEED to see. Wing1200a worked it out.
If you can see the same distance with both, when you drive faster it will appear that the lights aren't as good as they're not lighting up as much road as you need to be able to see.
This has nothing to do with the speed of light as for these examples we can treat the light as being infinetly fast.
I'm saying the faster you drive, the further you NEED to see. Wing1200a worked it out.
If you can see the same distance with both, when you drive faster it will appear that the lights aren't as good as they're not lighting up as much road as you need to be able to see.
This has nothing to do with the speed of light as for these examples we can treat the light as being infinetly fast.
Agreed, but it really didn't sound that way in your previous two posts, hence the confusion. Cheers
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,495
- Points
- 455
I understood hellcat's post from the start, it was very clear to me
Of course, if you did go fast enough for the speed of light to be a relevant consideration, there would be a very significant blue shift of reflected light from headlights, so much so that it would be ultra-violet and outside the range of human vision.
That's why the starship enterprise does'nt have headlights. Don't know about Klingon and Romulan ships though!
That's why the starship enterprise does'nt have headlights. Don't know about Klingon and Romulan ships though!
Yeah, yeah, you're all very clever now, after someone did the dirty job of clarifying the case
