Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MLED 2.0 is out... thoughts?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MLED 2.0 is out... thoughts?

    Still have this ****ing night sky background in the text box.......

    Anyway 2.0 looks really promising. They really did their homework

    https://www.theretrofitsource.com/bi-led-morimoto-m-led-2-headlight-projectors.html


  • #2
    Finally, got their hands on some LucidShape!

    A 70,000 cd peak low beam, even after assuming a 15% absorption by the cover lens, that's a 60,000 cd low beam peak, very impressive.

    Main concern is manufacturing precision. The Chinese aren't known for that.

    Other concern is lumen maintenance.

    The high beam isn't more powerful than a good bi-xenon at only ~90,000 cd; I've seen bi-xenon units top 110,000 cd. Legal limit is 75,000 though, so still better than OEM, and I wonder how the width is on the high; xenon easily creams LED in terms of width even in dedicated high-beam lamps, much less optically compromised bi-LED lamps.

    Example: LED high beam rated at 120,000 cd; Xenon high beam rated at 112,500 cd.

    https://www.off-road-light.ru/images...07-560-721.jpg

    https://www.off-road-light.ru/images...11-002-001.jpg
    Last edited by 430k; January 12th, 2020, 01:24 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Manufacturing precision concern is mainly matter of how it can be controlled. Any manufacturing process eject certain % of out of specification batch, but it is sorted before being sold to make sure product in market circulation to satisfy desired specification.

      It is monitored carefully to contain output level to be stay within 5% tolerance.
      Main component which can affect output quality is reflector quality, assembling accuracy and output tolerance of LED chip itself.

      Reflector is thermo plastic high precision molded, quality of reflective finish improved so much more compare to original M-LED.


      HML3 emitter itself has 7% output range within selected highest outputting BIN batch. HML3 is not OEM selected emitters in general, but it carries same JESD22-A101 steady state high temp and humidity bias life test quality as many other OEM LED manufacture refer to.
      Only distinctive difference I can see is how BIN resolution difference present.
      Tier 1 OEM LED manufacture set BIN parameter much more strict, usually BIN by 3% range tolerance, such as Luxeon, Oslon LEDs,
      So technically, there are more choice in terms of emitter BIN strictness.
      But when you consider how those tier 1 suppliers leadtime/MOQ impact against selective market of retrofitting industry, I would say it was very much fair effort of balancing most reasonable performance satisfying emitter selection overall in my opinion.

      Heatsink is designed and calculated to contain LED temp raise within 55C. At 45C ambient temp, it still contain under 100C
      at typical room temp amb temp situation, targeting below 85C is indicating similar lumen maintenance curve to be expected as any other standard LED light source.
      Heatsink has unique air flow guide to aid higher exhaust flow velocity. Velocity is not critical single matter that affect how thermal control works,,too fast air flow fail to exchange heat etc,, but it can be too long and too much to explain,,let's simply say,, it has good thermal management!!!


      About high beam, MLED2.0 has much higher low and high beam beam intensity contrast compare to other single source Bi-LED projector.
      It is true some HID projector or dedicated high beam optics carries very high beam intensity, which exceed 100,000cd.

      Beam intensity impact of course how long range it can reach, but at the same time, distribution balance really is the key how our eyes can receive such benefit.

      It also is heavily based on personal preference as well, how you like to see your illumination.

      Please take a look at below image. It can enlighten some information I believe.
      This is not to tell which is better, which is correct,, just a character difference!!

      hi comp ref grey by Yoshi, on Flickr

      Top is sample HID projector high beam. It carries higher Cd reading and hot spot is extremely strong tight focus right above HV point, which is ideal logic. And has strong vertical spread at center axis.
      Bottom is MLED2.0 It also carries strong center focus but it is bit more spread

      At this point, most of beam quality impression is done by "impression" by ,, I heard this way, I like how it looks, for me, this is better.
      They both present similar cd reading and position of peak intensity also similar.

      Shape of peak spot, shape and size of hot spot, size and shape of foreground illumination, all start kicking in now.
      Notice sample HID projector has bigger mid range hot spot. Peak hot spot is nice and tight, but it does have bigger mid range hotspot.


      By the way, foreground illumination is not defined by,, Where is foreground limiter line cutting off, kind of definition.
      It defined by proportion of beam intensity gradient.

      High Comp d by Yoshi, on Flickr


      When projected on the road, mid range of HID projector land on much much closer to driver and peak road illumination impression is created at -9.5degree
      MLED 2.0 creates peak illumination at -4.9 degree
      ( this number changes widely how high your headlamp housing positions, aiming of the lamp)

      This is an example of peak intensity of beam center not always benefit how you conceive distance reaching impression.
      Yes it is true and higher beam intensity is reaching farther, but due to other factor in illumination balance, it not always shines the best at where do you want to see.

      It also does not mean HID projector is under performing tho. It will have better view evaporation prevention.
      As I am repeating, just a beam character difference.

      Distance throw also not single critical matter to evaluate beam quality.

      User should understand single aspect of illumination character does not define what is better or not. It has so much different aspect of subject to be spoken.

      What it means from this chart is

      HID sample has much larger zone and volume impression. Natural gradient illumination effect towards distance.
      HID projector sourced by very ample over 3,000lm light source.
      =natural strong illumination impression
      =less view evaporation at cut off

      MLED2.0 focus at distance view, gradual transition to wide range of illuminated area, that covers very wide view
      = Strong ability to cut into long range illumination with controlled gentle gradient foreground beam impression
      = Smooth transition to gives wide flood illumination effect


      Here is split view
      High Comp gd by Yoshi, on Flickr



      Since this is thread for MLED2.0, below is another chart that describe beam character
      M9 by Yoshi, on Flickr


      It is ultimately, users preference, how do you like your beam pattern is.
      It is important not to pin point discuss about single aspect of beam distribution. it is all about the balance and preference.


      MLED2.0 design took long and wide range of consideration for sure.

      I would like to see more feedback from many users, real on road impression

      Comment


      • #4
        Good points, it's easy to forget that the ECE reference numbers are just peak intensities with no context on where that peak may be.

        What did the IIHS test simulator rate the MLED 2.0 as? Good?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 430k View Post
          Good points, it's easy to forget that the ECE reference numbers are just peak intensities with no context on where that peak may be.

          What did the IIHS test simulator rate the MLED 2.0 as? Good?
          No IIHS simulaiton available, but as far as FMVSS LB2V goes, it satisfy all parameter except,, 2 aspect which was purposely ignored.
          = so it will not pass LB2V specification due to

          1. Not enough controlled illumination ( often refereed as squirrel finder) above cut off center.
          2. 0.86D 3.5L point to be too bright ( some large dip down area seen slightly left to the elbow point )

          It had been designed of course, to be able to proof it can meet requirement, but chosen not to pursue.
          Simply because, vast majority of user very much prefer about how sharp, smooth and colorful the cut off can be. And such functional design tend to be considered not desired for specific interest here.

          Again,, yes it is of course possible to make it to comply such glare control, above cut off illumination level.
          But product must be LOVED by users, who are looking for very specific preference.


          What I can say is,, many user's preference is packed in MLED2.0 as much as it can packed!!!

          Threaded shaft center axis now align to lens center axis.
          Width had been boosted much more than original M-LED
          I seen so many comments, LED projector never can have width and intensity, but it is possible to work with both.
          More Low and Hi beam contrast
          Carefully controlled foreground illumination gradient, transition.
          Intense distance reaching beam strength.
          It has some colors too.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm curious, what is the "sample HID projector" you're comparing the MLED 2.0 to in the above charts?

            You mention HML3 chip, interesting, I believe that the CrystaLux G11 bulb uses a similar "LatticeBright" chip, the HGL3.

            I'll be curious as to what the community thinks about these projectors. Objectively, they look great, but subjective impressions often don't agree with objective reality.

            Comment


            • #7
              The HML3 is a larger higher flux version of the HGL3 essentially. The die region is 2mm x 6.3mm versus 1.4mm x 4.5mm.
              www.automotiveLEDresearch.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by evo77 View Post
                The HML3 is a larger higher flux version of the HGL3 essentially. The die region is 2mm x 6.3mm versus 1.4mm x 4.5mm.
                Any thoughts on this retro kit? I am considering this over a traditional HID retro but am somewhat skeptical of the HML-3 and it's quality/longevity. I'd much rather a user-replaceable LED unit (it'd be cool to see some high CRI units in something like this) - but I can see the appeal of an all-in-one units for retrofitters, I guess. It's just that when it dies you'll have to crack 'em back open and swap the whole unit - which makes the point somewhat moot for enthusiasts, since they're always cracking 'em open for the latest and greatest anyway.

                At this point and time, is LED tech up to the task for headlamp usage? Are we there yet?

                The output is impressive, sure (seems to beat out the common 35w HID projector options I was looking at9), and theoretically the LEDs should outlast a typical high quality HID bulb, but I want to be objective in what I'm getting myself into if I end up going with this set.

                I've been reading through your previous posts and really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and research.
                Last edited by Drift Monkey; January 19th, 2020, 02:27 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Drift Monkey View Post

                  Any thoughts on this retro kit? I am considering this over a traditional HID retro but am somewhat skeptical of the HML-3 and it's quality/longevity. I'd much rather a user-replaceable LED unit (it'd be cool to see some high CRI units in something like this) - but I can see the appeal of an all-in-one units for retrofitters, I guess. It's just that when it dies you'll have to crack 'em back open and swap the whole unit - which makes the point somewhat moot for enthusiasts, since they're always cracking 'em open for the latest and greatest anyway.

                  At this point and time, is LED tech up to the task for headlamp usage? Are we there yet?

                  The output is impressive, sure (seems to beat out the common 35w HID projector options I was looking at9), and theoretically the LEDs should outlast a typical high quality HID bulb, but I want to be objective in what I'm getting myself into if I end up going with this set.

                  I've been reading through your previous posts and really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and research.

                  HML3 had been studied showing strong reliability over course of many different product line ups.
                  Such as PJX projector, which also had been using HML3 emitters, I hardly hear failure reported due to HML3 causes.

                  Of course during the course of MLED2.0 development, competing product are well studied, having confidence HML3 to be most suitable emitter selection.

                  HML3 are so widely used nowadays, including thermally very much insufficient designed cheap knock off LED bulbs too unfortunately.. I am afraid,, I must say such unreasonably over driven poorly designed product making HML3's repetition down.

                  LED's life is hugely rely on thermal management.
                  For example,, like cheap Chinese knock off LED bulb, without any proper consideration to handle such huge powered HML3, then regardless of emitter selection,, it will fail. Even Nichia, Osram or Luxeon tier 1 most strict torture test passed LEDs will still fail if heat is not managed properly.

                  MLED2.0 has very strong thermal management design. Heatsink had been optimized to handle.


                  It is true, IF LED projector system failed, then replacement will take entire re-retro work.
                  But worry about HML3 itself to make evaluation based on other poorly designed LED bulb product is not fair judgement.
                  and,, for example,,, if HID projector's solenoid failed, stuck,, then replacement will be system level.
                  MLED2.0 carries more electronics parts, product life is determined by life expectancy of weakest link of the parts list within product, so chances of long term failure can not be said smaller than more simple system like HID projector.
                  Yet, each component are carefully selected and product is reasonably having confidence on long term reliability.
                  Components selection, material selection also went through lots of research, comparing many other competing product, and make sure MLED2.0 to carry best parts selections.


                  However, if you are comparing MLED2.0 against user-replaceable LED solutions, all potential long term concern shall not possibly weigh any more than performance compromise are will experience with LED bulbs.

                  No LED bulb will possibly perform like MLED2.0 projector.

                  There is huge misunderstanding/lack of understanding in this community peak intensity does not translated to better lighting.
                  Optics can boast 3 times the candela reading at hot spot, yet, it can display horrible unbalanced beam distribution to compromise true distance, balanced vision. ( I am working on making more documentation to share for those who are interested in studying together for better lighting!)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by upashi View Post


                    HML3 had been studied showing strong reliability over course of many different product line ups.
                    Such as PJX projector, which also had been using HML3 emitters, I hardly hear failure reported due to HML3 causes.

                    Of course during the course of MLED2.0 development, competing product are well studied, having confidence HML3 to be most suitable emitter selection.

                    HML3 are so widely used nowadays, including thermally very much insufficient designed cheap knock off LED bulbs too unfortunately.. I am afraid,, I must say such unreasonably over driven poorly designed product making HML3's repetition down.

                    LED's life is hugely rely on thermal management.
                    For example,, like cheap Chinese knock off LED bulb, without any proper consideration to handle such huge powered HML3, then regardless of emitter selection,, it will fail. Even Nichia, Osram or Luxeon tier 1 most strict torture test passed LEDs will still fail if heat is not managed properly.

                    MLED2.0 has very strong thermal management design. Heatsink had been optimized to handle.


                    It is true, IF LED projector system failed, then replacement will take entire re-retro work.
                    But worry about HML3 itself to make evaluation based on other poorly designed LED bulb product is not fair judgement.
                    and,, for example,,, if HID projector's solenoid failed, stuck,, then replacement will be system level.
                    MLED2.0 carries more electronics parts, product life is determined by life expectancy of weakest link of the parts list within product, so chances of long term failure can not be said smaller than more simple system like HID projector.
                    Yet, each component are carefully selected and product is reasonably having confidence on long term reliability.
                    Components selection, material selection also went through lots of research, comparing many other competing product, and make sure MLED2.0 to carry best parts selections.


                    However, if you are comparing MLED2.0 against user-replaceable LED solutions, all potential long term concern shall not possibly weigh any more than performance compromise are will experience with LED bulbs.

                    No LED bulb will possibly perform like MLED2.0 projector.

                    There is huge misunderstanding/lack of understanding in this community peak intensity does not translated to better lighting.
                    Optics can boast 3 times the candela reading at hot spot, yet, it can display horrible unbalanced beam distribution to compromise true distance, balanced vision. ( I am working on making more documentation to share for those who are interested in studying together for better lighting!)
                    Interesting, and good to know the HML3 seems to have a good track record, despite ending up in crappy brand bulbs. The PJX seems to suffer from too much foreground bleed, something I'm hoping these don't have.

                    The weak link in the thermal management seems to be the fan - if that fails for whatever reason, that would lead to premature failure - unless the chipset is intelligent enough to reduce output down to where passive heating is enough to suffice.

                    Nah, I wouldn't consider plug-and-play options over something like this - I simply meant a properly positioned projector setup in which you could somehow slide in different LED chipsets. I'm not a big fan on this unit's 6000k temp, but might be willing to deal with it if the reliability is there.

                    The stuff I've seen so far on them is and .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      wow,,, watching that guy taking a part of MLED2.0,, he handles each parts so rough lol makes me nervous just watching it.

                      Fan is 5,500rpm high flow fan. It is louder one compare to 1.0, but that is how fan is built for.

                      It does not have thermal shut down to reduce brightness for LED in case of fan dies. If fan dies, LED dies.
                      Attempt of saving LED IF fan dies still require open up lamp to re-work, also, thermal damage to LED itself is irreversible. It rather have strong fan that assure better cooling to prolong LED life was more reasonable choice.

                      Of course, fan specification is to be used in "enclosed headlamp housing" tho, it should not be run in dusty condition like fan portion exposed to engine room or exposure to water splash etc.


                      Foreground illumination on 2.0 is actually much larger than 1.0.
                      HOWEVER,,, this is very hard concept to explain here,,,
                      size of the foreground illumination does not determine what foreground illumination is.
                      For example,, making strict foreground limiter does not do any practical improvement for distance view other than receive impression of contrast gain of lighted area, which also not the single factor to be linked to distance view.

                      Unless entire beam pattern is designed properly, hot spot to foreground illumination intensity spread curve is designed properly, physically cut out foreground really won't do much.
                      In other word, as long as gradient is designed properly, regardless of the size of the foreground illumination, it still will not conflict distance view at all.

                      2.0 is designed to be adopted with many different application, some will be installed to taller vehicle, that immediate illumination is desired ( again, it does not mean conflicting distance view) for those which has less height, are will not be viewed by driver likely, no ill effect.

                      It just have massive large beam pattern.

                      Hot spot shape, size and intensity is calculated numerous times, to set most desired and versatile as possible.
                      Gradient of beam intensity curve is one of the most considered aspect during the development.
                      As I posted earlier in thread, simply having higher candela reading at peak spot does not mean it has better distance view.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by upashi View Post
                        wow,,, watching that guy taking a part of MLED2.0,, he handles each parts so rough lol makes me nervous just watching it.

                        Fan is 5,500rpm high flow fan. It is louder one compare to 1.0, but that is how fan is built for.

                        It does not have thermal shut down to reduce brightness for LED in case of fan dies. If fan dies, LED dies.
                        Attempt of saving LED IF fan dies still require open up lamp to re-work, also, thermal damage to LED itself is irreversible. It rather have strong fan that assure better cooling to prolong LED life was more reasonable choice.

                        Of course, fan specification is to be used in "enclosed headlamp housing" tho, it should not be run in dusty condition like fan portion exposed to engine room or exposure to water splash etc.


                        Foreground illumination on 2.0 is actually much larger than 1.0.
                        HOWEVER,,, this is very hard concept to explain here,,,
                        size of the foreground illumination does not determine what foreground illumination is.
                        For example,, making strict foreground limiter does not do any practical improvement for distance view other than receive impression of contrast gain of lighted area, which also not the single factor to be linked to distance view.

                        Unless entire beam pattern is designed properly, hot spot to foreground illumination intensity spread curve is designed properly, physically cut out foreground really won't do much.
                        In other word, as long as gradient is designed properly, regardless of the size of the foreground illumination, it still will not conflict distance view at all.

                        2.0 is designed to be adopted with many different application, some will be installed to taller vehicle, that immediate illumination is desired ( again, it does not mean conflicting distance view) for those which has less height, are will not be viewed by driver likely, no ill effect.

                        It just have massive large beam pattern.

                        Hot spot shape, size and intensity is calculated numerous times, to set most desired and versatile as possible.
                        Gradient of beam intensity curve is one of the most considered aspect during the development.
                        As I posted earlier in thread, simply having higher candela reading at peak spot does not mean it has better distance view.

                        Yeah, just gotta hope the fan is robust enough for a long-life duty cycle. Thanks for all the info!

                        What you're saying makes sense to me, as long as the projector is tuned correctly for distance gradient, all should be well no matter the perceived foreground illumination. This setup, for me, would be going in a taller vehicle, so perhaps it could work?

                        I guess my questions are just to help me investigate whether to give these a try, or stick to a traditional G5-R type HID setup. I'm weighing the pros and cons and the choice is not easy so far lol.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          In the video, he says "this is gonna tell us the full story" when he refers to comparing the "brightness" between both projectors. But then he measures the peak light output about 6 inches away? :FACEPALM: The full story is in the beam distribution which can't be measured with torn down projectors on a table.


                          I've got the MLED 2.0 and I've had some brief time with it. So far from what I can tell its quite impressive. The G5R projector w/Osram NB Lasers & Denso ballast was my top performer with nothing even close. That may now have changed. As soon as I have more time I can begin my full evaluation.
                          www.automotiveLEDresearch.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by evo77 View Post
                            In the video, he says "this is gonna tell us the full story" when he refers to comparing the "brightness" between both projectors. But then he measures the peak light output about 6 inches away? :FACEPALM: The full story is in the beam distribution which can't be measured with torn down projectors on a table.


                            I've got the MLED 2.0 and I've had some brief time with it. So far from what I can tell its quite impressive. The G5R projector w/Osram NB Lasers & Denso ballast was my top performer with nothing even close. That may now have changed. As soon as I have more time I can begin my full evaluation.

                            He actually seemingly measured them measured them at two slightly different distances too, the new one is measured slightly further away by my estimation. Either way, he did say this was just a "raw" reading, but you're right, this basically tells us nothing. What stood out to me was the updated design of the reflector bowls, they seemed to have made a big difference for the width of the beam.

                            Looking forward to your testing!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by upashi View Post

                              No IIHS simulaiton available, but as far as FMVSS LB2V goes, it satisfy all parameter except,, 2 aspect which was purposely ignored.
                              = so it will not pass LB2V specification due to

                              1. Not enough controlled illumination ( often refereed as squirrel finder) above cut off center.
                              2. 0.86D 3.5L point to be too bright ( some large dip down area seen slightly left to the elbow point )

                              It had been designed of course, to be able to proof it can meet requirement, but chosen not to pursue.
                              Simply because, vast majority of user very much prefer about how sharp, smooth and colorful the cut off can be. And such functional design tend to be considered not desired for specific interest here.

                              Again,, yes it is of course possible to make it to comply such glare control, above cut off illumination level.
                              But product must be LOVED by users, who are looking for very specific preference.
                              Any good way to add squirrel finder on these?

                              Also does the heat sink and fan push much air to the front around or in front of the lens? I'm concerned about icing of the headlight housing due to the low wattage and low IR emittance in comparison to halogens. I'm devising a ~30w headlight housing heater (the difference in wattage between the halogens and the m-led 2.0) that is thermostatically controlled and driven off a relay that takes input from fog lights (because presumably if those are on, there should be precipitation) to control both fogging inside the housing and icing outside the housing. I don't even know if this is going to be an issue but I do a lot of night mountain pass driving and would really like to avoid that first experience of stopping to clear my housings on the side of an unlit mountain pass in a blizzard.

                              This is my first retrofit and I'm pretty excited about the beam pattern on these. However, the issues of icing and fogging of the lenses due to the low wattage presents a new engineering challenge. I've already purchased the projectors and OEM style projector headlamp housings to put them in. I'm not looking to add much in the way of halos or anything fancy, I just want something super functional.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X