GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

David's product review thread still exists, in the feedback section where it belongs. Anyone is welcome to take a gander over there and read to their heart's content.

This DIY thread is in the Tech section where it belongs.

Makes sense to me.

Gringo Grande

iTrader: (97)

Hi Rich! Which tech section is the original article hiding in?

I know you have the best interests of the board at heart and I know you enjoy helping other members out. Would you be so kind as to provide a link in this thread for the original thread? I'd be hard pressed to believe that someone as smart as yourself wouldn't see the value and relevancy in doing so.

Thank you in advance!

FFWD_FD

pretty impressive, and a great weekend project while the car is down for the winter.

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

Here you go

https://www.rx7club.com/shops-part-suppliers-vendors-206/theorie-first-production-run-led-taillight-conversion-review-important-information-976420/

I had originally moved it to 'vendors, parts suppliers and shops' but although the thread showed up during a search, that section can't be accessed from the main page. Kind of odd.

Due to that glitch, I just moved it to the 'bad & fugly members' subforum under the Feedback section.

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

Thank you for the helpful feedback. The LEDs used for the center brake lights are LUXEON Rebel automotive LEDs and are considered the de facto standard for premium automotive lighting. Three of them are mounted together by www.luxeonstar.com to make up the component included in the parts list.

Here is a link to details on LUXEON Rebel LEDs:

http://www.philipslumileds.com/produ...bel-automotive

The LEDs are designed specifically for automotive applications such as the center brake lights. From the Phillips website:

http://www.philipslumileds.com/light...otive-lighting

"Philips Lumileds automotive specification LEDs are changing the look and performance of automotive lighting applications. The entire exterior lighting solution set from headlights to signals to brake lights and daytime running lights, can now be optimized for design, efficiency and longevity with our unique automotive lighting solutions."

The viewing angle on each LED (there are three on the component used in the center brake) is 125 degrees with a total angle of 160 degrees. Here is a link to the technical information:

http://www.philipslumileds.com/uploads/265/DS68-pdf

And a technical drawing of the center brake assembly:

http://www.luxeonstar.com/v/vspfiles...-star-base.pdf

You raise the question about the viewing angle of the LEDs and are they appropriate? The short answer is IMO yes, they would exceed the DOT standards. Here are the actual standards:

Stop lamp 15° UP-45° IB 15° UP-45° OB 0.3
15° DOWN-45° IB 15° DOWN-45° OB

What does this mean? The brake lights would be tested using a "light sphere" and the brightness of the light would be measured at multiple points in that sphere, from 15 degrees up and down, to 45 degrees left and right. A total would be calculated from the multiple points and would have to meet a minimum standard. My belief is the lights would pass this standard easily and if not you could turn up the intensity until it passes.

You specifically point out the viewing angle from left to right. First, in person you can't see any degradation in light output from left to right and the viewing angle is much wider than 45 degrees - see the technical info on the LEDs. As you also know the reflectors used in the assemblies have a wider than 45 degree angle so the net result is a beam pattern greater than what is needed. See M104-AMG's observations above as confirmation. Finally, DOT requirements specify that at various angles the lights must meet, in addition to the above TOTAL light output rating, a MINIMUM light output. I am confident what I have done in the redesign will meet these minimum requirements as they are quite low.

To summarize:

1) LEDS used for center brakes are LUXEON Rebel automotive LEDs
2) These are the same LEDs used in many premium automotive lighting applications
3) In person, the viewing angle is quite wide as the design specifications prove and as confirmed by M104-AMG
4) I don't own a light sphere for testing but believe these would pass based on the above. They certainly fix the previous light output issues with my Theorie LED modifications.

You raise the use of "high powered" 5050 SMD LEDs in the brake application. I have stated repeatedly that SMD LEDs are not acceptable for use in braking applications. A review of the datasheets for 5050 SMD confirms this:

http://www.wayjun.com/Datasheet/Led/...0SMD%20LED.pdf

Here is more info:

http://www.wayjun.com/index.php?main...roducts_id=603

First, SMDs are usually used in automotive applications for things like interior lighting. From one 5050 SMD manufacturer's website:

"Applications
Signal & Symbol Indicators.
Illuminations(illuminated advertising & general lighting).
Amusement Machines.
LCD Backlighting.
Indoor & Outdoor Displays.
[bAutomobile Interior Lighting."

They simply are not appropriate in brake light applications due to their low light output.

How do we know this from a non-opinion but numbers related perspective? The previous LEDs you used were 3528 style LEDs. Here is their datasheet:

http://www.wayjun.com/Datasheet/Led/...0SMD%20LED.pdf

Now here is the datasheet for the 5050 SMDs:

http://www.wayjun.com/Datasheet/Led/...0SMD%20LED.pdf

Note the brightness or MCD rating of the previous LEDs was 500 MCD. The new 5050 units are much better, coming in at 3500 MCD or an improvement of 7X. Now remember from the previous testing, the brake lights need to be 25X brighter than what you had to be equal to the OEM stock output. So, while 7X is an improvement, it is not bright enough as it would need to be 25X the light output of the originals.

This is not entirely how it would work out though as the above datasheets are for red LEDs, not the incorrect white ones you previously used. To compare apples to apples, I looked up the light output ratings for the white 3528 SMDs and they are 7,000 MCDs. From my testing, we know only 5% of the red light made it through the red lens (it acted as a filter) so we can conclude 350 MCDs of light output from your old light design. So, assuming you are now going to use the correct red 5050 SMDs, you will increase light output from 350 MCDs to 3,500 MCDs, or by a factor of 10X. Thus, you are still very short of the 25X increase needed to be equal to or greater than the stock light output.

Finally, we're now talking MCDs versus the 400 lumens ratings of the LUXEON Rebels I have used. Check out the 5050 SMD datasheet and the white LEDs. They give you the lumens ratings on the 5050 units and it is 16 lumens. This is a far cry from the 400 lumens of the LUXEON LEDs. How many SMDs would be needed to get the light output of the LUXEON assembly I have used? The light output of the RED 5050 SMDs is 3,500 MCD or 1/2 of the 16 lumen output of the white SMDs. So, to equal the 400 lumen output of what I have used, you'd need 50 of the red 5050 SMDs to do the job. Don't think that would fit to well into the center brake area.

Second, the viewing angle on 5050 SMDs is 100 - 120 degrees. The angle on the LUXEON LEDs is 125 degrees. No difference here. And it won't matter how you configure them as the reflector angle comes into play here to funnel the light out.

These are just an inferior methodology compared to LEDs that are specifically intended for brake lighting. Why risk safety on a 13 cent per unit LED when a more appropriate solution exists?

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

No this is not the case. The thread was a product review intended to point out the deficiencies and safety concerns of the Theorie taillight modification. To date, this remains the case. The DIY modifications done by me are in response to offering a safety "fix' to the Theorie modifications and are a continuation of what has now been moved to the 'bad & fugly members' section.

And there are over 48 product reviews contained in the 3rd gen section including this SakeBomb headlight review:

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...product+review

Regarding cost, with discounts, the components would come in at around $300 and it would take about 8 hours (see my previous posts on this) to complete so I would think an appropriate price point would be about $600. I think the $200 increase is well worth it from a quality, light output, and safety perspective. Of course that would be up to whomever would want to commercialize this.

Finally, the iphone might do well under other conditions but for photographing LEDs, it's not good.

Rich, the moderator of this thread set forth specific rules regarding it and any new information to be posted. The thread was to focus on my set of Theorie LED taillights and then any new technical information, including DIY modifications and results. I have fully complied with the mandates and respectfully ask the thread be returned back to its previous 3rd Gen setion location and title and all information be restored into one thread.

theorie

iTrader: (31)

Good to see you've made the tail-light re-design you primary job. I'm sure it's just the photos that make the lights appear dim at the angle.

Though the continued criticisms about my "Version 2" lights is a bit unnecessary. #1 you have never seen my Version 2 design, only a couple of photos I posted before from I finished tweaking them, and #2 you don't know the parts I've used other than the generic title for the LEDs I've used. You can say, "Oh, you can't use those, they'll never work!" but that is called an "opinion," and despite what you told me on the phone about how you've "never been wrong," people can be wrong from time to time. My new Version 2 prototype has proven itself to be quite an improvement from my original design, and I'm happy with the results.

You know David, I only made about 30 sets of the Version 1 tails, and several of them went out of the country. A few more were for show cars that aren't daily driven, two sets were for myself, and a couple of sets for close friends.

I would guess there are probably only 15-20 sets out there, and every single one of the owners out there has been contacted directly to tell them that there have been concerns with the brightness. Additionally, all of the owners have already seen all of your criticisms, as I know you have personally contacted many, if not all of them. I hardly think your lengthy "review" thread needs to remain in prolonged bumped status to the point where it has almost become a sticky thread. The Version 1 tail lights have been discontinued and are no longer being produced.

Demanding your "review" thread be merged back with this one seems like it would only get in the way of your excellent DIY. Why continue to beat a dead horse?

There are thousands and thousands of Rx-7s on the road in this country. There are only a maybe 15 or so in this country of those using my Version 1 tail lights, and all of those people have been made aware of brightness concerns. If you are really concerned with tail light safety due to "illegal tail lights" on the road, I'm wondering why you haven't looked into a review of these "Altezza style" tail lights that I see all the time. Not only have I seen these on a good number of Rx-7's, but they are always for sale on eBay and other auto part sites. Certainly there are far more of these "Altezza style" lights out there that we should be worried about, since the NHTSA has said many times that these types of aftermarket tail lights are not legal for use on street cars. http://www.ebay.com/itm/200671768804

I think if you are truly worried about the legality of peoples cars, and the tail light safety issue, you should shift you attacks and criticisms away from this "dead horse" and onto the larger problem in the Rx-7 tail light market.

I would love to see what kind of elaborate "review" you could put together for these babies:



Well, like I said before, keep up the good work with your excellent DIY. I wish I could continue with my own tail light design tinkering but as I said before I wouldn't the NHTSA to call me up now that you've given them my information.

Anyway, I think we should all get back to you DIY. No sense in obsessing over my old design now that it's discontinued.

got_hp

the DIY information is interesting and a good read...

...but not much use to the 95% of people who cannot (or like me, WILL not) spend 8-20? hours of their free time goofing around with leds and a soldering iron.

i have a busy life and i highly value my free time... therefore i would gladly rather purchase a finished working setup like SBG/Theory lights that i can just plug n play, even if it was not as crazy ridiculous bright as this DIY setup.


regarding the original thread, i dont see any logical reason (only personal ones) why david keeps pushing for it to be put back here... in fact, the whole thread could be deleted without hurting anyone.

lets face it, a "review" thread on a product that is NOT FOR SALE anymore and only owned by less than ~30 people is completely useless. it is not serving the community in any way.


it would have been nice to see a constructive collaboration where you offered to help produce an improved version that we could all purchase... oh well.

at least this DIY thread has actual useful information for a small handful of people.

theorie

iTrader: (31)

Actually, David said many times that he wanted to "work together" on a new verison of the lights, but I told him I wasn't interested for reason that don't need to be discussed in this thread.

I think we should try to get this thread back on topic, specifically David's re-design DIY guide, that way the mods don't have to step in again.

David, I'm wondering why you decided to use the Tri-Stars instead of these:
http://www.luxeonstar.com/Red-Luxeon...mbly-s/239.htm

Looks to me like the 40mm rounds would have been a better fit.

Narfle

iTrader: (16)

At the risk of bringing this thread back on topic:

Is there a wide angle LED available similar to the ones David used for the ring centers?

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

You mention the intensity of the brake lights and they look too bright. They are not.

As you know from the information in my thread before it got hacked up, I test everything with a light meter so I am able to objectively adjust the light levels. This is the only way to keep opinion such as what is going on in this thread out of the equation. The current light intensity of the brake lights are just slightly above the level of my previous www.superbrightleds.com bulbs so I am confident the level is good. I have also been behind the lights during the day and at night and the lights are not blinding. And as I point out over and over again, if you think the lights are too bright, then simply adjust them down to any level you wish. What is better than that?

As I said before, the iPhone camera does a really bad job of capturing LED color and intensity, at least for me (I used the auto setting for these pics and videos). See the parking light pics at night I posted up? Do you think the intensity of them is accurately represented by the blinding blurry light captured by the iPhone? I can attest they are nothing like that in person. The are a very nice red and amber color - and not blinding.

On your completely unrelated note, I can definitively help you with the question of the legality of a 3 rotor in the US. It is legal to have one installed in the car to the extent that it is no different than what most all of do on the forum and that is modify our cars. This is contrary to what most believe to be the case but this comes straight from my attorneys on the matter, Van Ness Feldman (http://www.vnf.com/practices-MobileS...egulation.html). Because of a perceived threat to me, I have retained them should the need arise. Van Ness Feldman represents many OEM car manufacturers on emissions issues, including Mazda which is pretty cool.

In any event, my attorney, Andrea Campbell, is an expert on state and EPA emissions issues. As an aside, Andrea recently had to go to CA to the ports to allow Mazda to send over several cars for Sevenstock. Anyway, the good news for all of us 3 rotor owners is we are fine and not at any more risk than any other person who would modify the emissions system on a car. Be certain your car won't be seized and crushed. I know CA has special laws in addition to what applies to me and on those regulations I am not knowledgable and didn't discuss with Andrea. I also don't know about other states except FL where I am registered, and I know FL has no regulations.

What does this mean? First, DOT doesn't care about importing the engine. There are several ways to legally import the engine into the US. From an EPA perspective, the engine is "non-comforming" as it was never sold here in the US (although there might be some wiggle room here as MazdaSpeed did sell 3 rotor crate engines for a period of time). You can install a non-conforming engine into an FD but then EPA is concerned about the resulting emissions from the car. Will it be more than is was previously? If so then you might be subject to a $2,500 fine and that is the extent of it. I could cure this by installing emissions equipment like high flow catbacks and could successfully argue the car has been updated and better than before, thus avoiding a potential fine. But two loopholes exist for customers like me. First, if I reasonably believe the car to be fine then that is the end of it. I sign a statement and the EPA moves on. Second even if something were to come up, it would be the shop that performed the conversion that would have the issue as my conversion was sold to me as street legal. So, it is possible Pettit Racing would be on the hook for the $2,500 fine which would be assessed to them for tampering with the exhaust system on the car.

So, the conversion is legal but the resulting emissions might not be. This puts me back to the statement that the 3 rotor conversion is no different than any 2 rotor owner that has altered the emissions systems on the car. And finally, it is the shops that perform the swapping out of emissions equipment that are most at risk, as a $2,500 fine could be levied against them for each car they have worked on where they have altered the emissions equipment. But as a practical matter, the EPA simply doesn't have the time for stuff like this.

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

I didn't bring up your "Version 2", you did. In fact, it is only you that keeps raising the issue. You also specifically brought up the use of 5050 SMD LEDs:

See all the technical data I have provided on why these won't work. You say you are pleased with the light output so why not test them and report back on the light output? Or if you'd like send them to me and I'll test them just like I have with everything else.

I have two of these in my workshop and this is what I was originally going to use. Testing however confirmed they are way too bright and will literally blind you. If you think the current ones are bright, the 7 led stars are 700 lumens versus the 400 of the ones on the parts list. I know they can be turned down but they are $25 more per unit so there is no reason to spend more when you hare to turn the light output down anyway.

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

These are wide angle LEDs. Sorry the pics don't seem to reflect that but they are. Here is a link to the technical spec sheet on the LEDs:

http://www.philipslumileds.com/uploads/265/DS68-pdf

Note the viewing angle is 125 degrees on the red-amber units. This by far exceeds the DOT requirements of 45 degrees. I'd say trust me on this but also see M104-AMG's comments as he has seen these in person:

"Even the "turned-down" turn-signal lights are bright and in your face at ALL angles"

Also know these are the same LEDs used in most OEM applications. Of course the center reflector for the brake LEDs will control the angle of the light output but it is also greater than 45 degrees.

Also see the technical specs on the LEDs I used for the parking lights:

http://www.wayjun.com/Datasheet/Led/...0SMD%20LED.pdf

These are 120 degree units, a slightly less viewing angle than the center brake LEDs.

So, the center brake light LEDs have a wide viewing angle than the parking lights.

Summary, use them with confidence.

BizarroTerl

The 3-Rotor is not legal for licensing in CA. In a nutshell engine swaps require the replacement engine be the same age or newer, same class (IE no truck engine in a passenger car), and have all the original smog related equipment installed and functioning. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the engine has to have met CA smog requirements in the original vehicle. CARB approved engine swaps are allowed, IE the GM EROD engine.

Sorry for getting slightly OT.

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

^ no problems. CA laws are much different so I was not comfortable commenting on that.

unreal-icarus

iTrader: (1)

thanks for the writeup. Your taillights look amazing!

BryanDowns

iTrader: (2)

David,

Would you be so nice as to go through and fix all of the dead pictures in the post? I bought some of the materials and will be starting on this soon. I'm sure I can do it without all the pictures, but it would be nice to have them

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

^The pics seemed to have been lost when the thread was split. I'd like the mods to put it all back together and have requested that. Waiting.

If I need to reload it all, then I have to wait until I head back to FL in a week. I have them on my iMac there and didn't put them in the "Cloud" as I didn't know they would get messed up.

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

The best I have for now in my Mobile Me Gallery are the metal templates:

http://gallery.me.com/david.hayes#10...&bgcolor=black

http://gallery.me.com/david.hayes#10...&bgcolor=black

http://gallery.me.com/david.hayes#10...&bgcolor=black

Print these out and they should be full size.

rcracer_tx

iTrader: (1)

Damnit, now I need to go find a set of used taillights to modify as my "winter project"... Gotta love our wonderful money pits

TinMan09

iTrader: (9)

Damn david, fantastic write up. I would love to do this one day, but all of this was pretty much jibberish to me lol. Guess ill be sticking with plain 99 specs for a while. I'd also like to throw in there how i hate how someone jumped into the thread trying to be sneaky and start ****.

BryanDowns

iTrader: (2)

I'm on my way







David,

How many of the "turn signal" and "Brake light reflectors" do I need to cut out?

From what I can tell on quantity:

4 - Brake light back plate
4 - Brake light outer rings
2 - Turn signal outer rings
?? - Brake light reflectors
?? - Turn signal

Thanks again!

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

Awesome work Bryan! Look forward to your comments on the process and the results.

To answer your questions, you need the following total for the set of lights:

4 - Brake light back plates
4 - Brake light outer rings
4 - Brake light reflectors

2 - Turn signal back plates
2 - Turn signal outer rings
2 - Turn signal reflectors

The difference in the outer rings for the brakes and the turn signals is the size and the shape. The brake lights are 80mm units and the turn signals are 75 mm units. What I did was to first cut out the 80 mm and 75 mm acrylic rings and then shape the metal rings around them to ensure they would slide into the outer ring once it was riveted. The parking light assemblies you made also need to slide into the back of the assembly where the acrylic ring goes in the front and the back plate fits over the parking lights to make one unit.

I see you have glued in the backplates first which is opposite of what I did - I saved them for last. I guess you can put in everything from the front, starting with the parking lights and then the acrylic ring and the brake reflector. But to do this you'll need to form the reflector to fit into the acrylic ring on the front and then the inside of the parking light LED assembly you made. Should work but for me it was easier to leave the back plate off to cut and form all the components and to then work from the front acrylic ring back. Make sense?

For the turn signals, because the metal rings are 75 mms, the parking light assemblies will not slide into the 75mm rings. You'll need to put them on the back of the ring and glue/metal tape in place. The SMD LEDs will fit into the metal ring and the plastic of the units will form a cap over the back of the ring and you'll then put the metal back plate over this.

Make sure to silicone all the capacitor joints on the back of the parking LED SMD units before trying to slide them in. They are live and if they touch metal, they'll short out. This is important and learn from my mistakes

Finally, do you see how thin the supplied wiring is on the parking light rings? I would definitely replace this with something thicker.

I don't know if you were a Therorie LED conversion customer, but if not, you'll need to do some plastic molding on the turn signal plastics. See my post on that. If you are a Theorie customer, then you might need to do some trimming on the turn signal plastics to get everything to fit. It's snug as it is so I did some trimming on the right side but the left fit in with some massaging.

Keep up the good work and post up pics/questions as you go along!

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

not everyone knows about this but, in california each year there is a limited amount of "specialty built titles" handed out for custom built projects that do not have to meet california safety crash test standards. these are deemed as hand built vehicles but cannot be built primarily with factory manufactured parts.

with that sort of title i can imagine the 20B might be legitimized.

problem is it is difficult to meet all the criteria and even harder to get on the list for one of the titles.

there is also hybrid conversion vehicles, i'm not sure about engine requirements but you could run a car on E85 and should qualify it as a hybrid.

Ruler_Mark

iTrader: (16)

or just wait a bit and import a full cosmos and be 100% street legal under the 25 year excemption