No announcement yet.

MLED 2.0 is out... thoughts?

  • 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

  • #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.
    Last edited by 430k; January 12th, 2020, 02:24 PM.


    • #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


      • #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?


        • #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.


          • #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.


            • #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.