Batteries going flat - a different story to usual

[Guest]

The headlight thing is bonkers.People start putting them on when a cloud passes over the sun.

Here's an example of ridiculousness.Back in the 1970's.During the power cut and oil shortage period,we were issued with petrol coupons but didn't have to use them.Also a lower maximum speed limit was imposed to save oil reserves.

However exactly at the same time a new recommendation or law i can't remember which about driving at night with dipped headlights on at all times.Now how crazy was that at exactly the same time as a general fuel shortage.

The difference nationwide in fuel used between vehicles having or not having headlights on is absolutely massive.

The powers that be at the ministry of power obviously hadn't even consulted any electrical experts or even a lowly motor mechanic who would have quickly informed them of the huge difference ie--alternator load=extra engine power=more fuel used.

Exactly so. Loads of people think that cars generate leccy for nowt. My friend's wagon uses more diesel in hours of darkness than it does in daylight. I am certain that LED tecnology will save fuel in the long term, but for every advantage etc...

 

Edited to add: I had never stopped to consider that the automatic start-stop thing would flatten batteries when in a queue (although fairly obvious.) Given that the alternator/engine will have to work harder afterwards, I wonder how significant the emission reductions are?

Edited December 29, 2011 by Guest

[Pentargon]

A different battery tale.

I got stuck stationary on the M25 .. after not much more than one and half hours we got going again .. amazed at the number of cars that had flat batteries – it was unbelievable, I reckon in the space of two miles there must have been 50 to 60 cars broken down, initially it was like a 20 mph slalom getting through but up the front there were 4 or 5 traffic officers pushing cars off onto the hard shoulder.

Now I know that car batteries are “starter” batteries and behave very differently to “leisure” batteries

I suppose most drivers have no concept of power consumption

Are these just poorly maintained batteries or can this amount of kit kill a starter battery so quickly ?

 

Nice post Jon. You won't get caught out and you have helped a lot of forum mates. You [almost] solved your query youself in the emboldened quote above. I'm talking with my [retired 17yrs] mechanic's hat on when I provide the piece of the jigsaw missed by almost everyone. And you very nearly got it.

 

Starter batteries are designed to provide massive amperage in a short burst to kick the engine into life which kicks the alternator into life which provides ALL electrical needs and tops up the starter battery's charge. These 60? batteries were not FLAT at the moment the 60 drivers tried to re-start. They were below the critical voltage needed to deliver that massive amperage whack. Had the delay lasted a further hour all the same cars would have had the same problem plus another 30 or so. Boats discovered this phenomenon early on and isolated the starter battery from any other electrical device. Cheapskate auto manufactures are paring more and more costs off new cars, whereas they should (years ago) have introduced the leisure battry concept. There is a work-around though I've not done it to mine. Wire your radio so it is live when the key is withdrawn. This allows you to have a vital bit of comms kit for traffic reports etc. with everything else (apart from the car's computer feed) resolutely OFF.

 

edited due to having a Lynne Truss moment.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Pentargon

[bizzard]

Exactly so. Loads of people think that cars generate leccy for nowt. My friend's wagon uses more diesel in hours of darkness than it does in daylight. I am certain that LED tecnology will save fuel in the long term, but for every advantage etc...

I used to spend quite a bit of time explaining and demonstrating to customers the difference by simply letting their engines idle,then turn their headlights on and off to hear how the engines idle speed drops slightly as the alternator adds load on the engine to balance the battery charge,but most i don't think really understood.As indeed a lot of boat owners don't either.

[Robbo]

The headlight thing is bonkers.People start putting them on when a cloud passes over the sun.

Here's an example of ridiculousness.Back in the 1970's.During the power cut and oil shortage period,we were issued with petrol coupons but didn't have to use them.Also a lower maximum speed limit was imposed to save oil reserves.

However exactly at the same time a new recommendation or law i can't remember which about driving at night with dipped headlights on at all times.Now how crazy was that at exactly the same time as a general fuel shortage.

The difference nationwide in fuel used between vehicles having or not having headlights on is absolutely massive.

The powers that be at the ministry of power obviously hadn't even consulted any electrical experts or even a lowly motor mechanic who would have quickly informed them of the huge difference ie--alternator load=extra engine power=more fuel used.

 

I tend to switch the lights on when it just starting to get dusk, mainly because you can easily and quickly be seen by others. For the amount of minute fuel it uses it's worth it and if I really wanted to save fuel I would lower my speed or drive a little smoother.

[Guest]

I tend to switch the lights on when it just starting to get dusk, mainly because you can easily and quickly be seen by others. For the amount of minute fuel it uses it's worth it and if I really wanted to save fuel I would lower my speed or drive a little smoother.

As an ex biker who survived in a world of badly driven rust buckets, I can see the sense in that argument. I think the LED lights that are becoming common will be a big bonus as they are high visibility yet (hopefully) lower power consumption.

 

I agree that the amount of extra fuel used by an individual vehicle might be negligible when using headlights, but if we were to take every motor vehicle in the world it might suddenly be significant. Oil is a finite resource.

 

What happened to dim-dip? That seemed to have the effect of making vehicles visible at nightime in towns, but without burning other drivers retinas out.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Guest

[Robbo]

As an ex biker who survived in a world of badly driven rust buckets, I can see the sense in that argument. I think the LED lights that are becoming common will be a big bonus as they are high visibility yet (hopefully) lower power consumption.

 

I agree that the amount of extra fuel used by an individual vehicle might be negligible when using headlights, but if we were to take every motor vehicle in the world it might suddenly be significant. Oil is a finite resource.

 

If I was a biker I would leave the headlight on all the time, it does make a difference and I do notice as a car driver a single headlight behind me where if you didn't have the headlights on I wouldn't.

 

I don't believe it would be significant, I think the amount of accidents would be reduced and we'll go to another source of fuel before the oil fully runs out. My guess would be Nuclear and Hydrogen for powering cars.

[Guest]

If I was a biker I would leave the headlight on all the time, it does make a difference and I do notice as a car driver a single headlight behind me where if you didn't have the headlights on I wouldn't.

 

I don't believe it would be significant, I think the amount of accidents would be reduced and we'll go to another source of fuel before the oil fully runs out. My guess would be Nuclear and Hydrogen for powering cars.

Yes my headlight was never turned off on any of my bikes (except when not running of course.)

 

I believe that some new cars now have permanent day lights similar to the Volvo idea of many years ago. Again LED technology has enabled hi-viz lighting at low consumption. It makes more sense to me, as headlights are designed to enable the driver to see where he is going, whereas the lower consumption hi-viz lights are designed to be easily seen by others.

 

There was some evidence many years ago from Scandinavian countries suggesting that day lights reduced accidents, but I am unsure of the accuracy of same. Volvo latched onto the idea, and IIRC Saab too.

 

My money is on hydrogen cars.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Guest

[bizzard]

Years ago i remember my old dad moaning and flashing a car coming towards us that had headlights on in a lit up area,as nobody did it,must have forgotten they were on he'd say,wasting his battery,(dynamo days).Shouldn't be driving if people can't see sidelights he'd also say.Some truth in that,that awful unecessary dazzle in a lit up area is probably more dangerous especially with wet roads.

[Robbo]

Yes my headlight was never turned off on any of my bikes (except when not running of course.)

 

I believe that some new cars now have permanent day lights similar to the Volvo idea of many years ago. Again LED technology has enabled hi-viz lighting at low consumption. It makes more sense to me, as headlights are designed to enable the driver to see where he is going, whereas the lower consumption hi-viz lights are designed to be easily seen by others.

 

There was some evidence many years ago from Scandinavian countries suggesting that day lights reduced accidents, but I am unsure of the accuracy of same. Volvo latched onto the idea, and IIRC Saab too.

 

Yep, in those country's where it's darker a good deal of the year the majority of the time you have to have lights on all the time so makers like Volvo that come from that area just build it in, etc. I think the side lights (lights on the side of the car not side lights at the front/rear) is a good idea too, American cars have had them for donkeys...

[Guest]

Years ago i remember my old dad moaning and flashing a car coming towards us that had headlights on in a lit up area,as nobody did it,must have forgotten they were on he'd say,wasting his battery,(dynamo days).Shouldn't be driving if people can't see sidelights he'd also say.Some truth in that,that awful unecessary dazzle in a lit up area is probably more dangerous especially with wet roads.

Rear foglights too. Why do folk turn them on in the rain?? The bloody things play havoc with my eyes at night. Heavy spray on the motorway then fair enough, but in the rain?

 

Still don't understand why dim dip wasn't developed further for lit up areas, but I suppose LED technology will make it pointless now.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Guest

[Robbo]

Years ago i remember my old dad moaning and flashing a car coming towards us that had headlights on in a lit up area,as nobody did it,must have forgotten they were on he'd say,wasting his battery,(dynamo days).Shouldn't be driving if people can't see sidelights he'd also say.Some truth in that,that awful unecessary dazzle in a lit up area is probably more dangerous especially with wet roads.

 

Normal side lights aren't really eye catching these days especially on older cars, may have been in those days when the streets where perhaps not as brightly lit?

[Guest]

Normal side lights aren't really eye catching these days especially on older cars, may have been in those days when the streets where perhaps not as brightly lit?

Another problem arose when people did start to drive on dip beam in towns; If somebody was driving on sidelights ahead of a car on dip beam, the car on sidelights became "invisible."

[bizzard]

Yep, in those country's where it's darker a good deal of the year the majority of the time you have to have lights on all the time so makers like Volvo that come from that area just build it in, etc. I think the side lights (lights on the side of the car not side lights at the front/rear) is a good idea too, American cars have had them for donkeys...

The Volvo lights on all the time in this country was a well known in the motor trade big sales gimmick. (The only car with lights on during the day is a VOLVO)In Volvo's eyes in other countries the added safety angle was secondary.

 

The best system in my opinion is to have a small side light bulb in the headlamp unit itself which give a perfectly decent large light in lit up areas and indeed lit the way dimly in none lit up areas if your main headlamps had failed.

[Chalky]

I had never stopped to consider that the automatic start-stop thing would flatten batteries when in a queue (although fairly obvious.) Given that the alternator/engine will have to work harder afterwards, I wonder how significant the emission reductions are?

 

Stop start systems require battery management to stop that happening (well they do if they're designed properly). They also need a lot bigger (read more expensive) battery and also a seriously upgraded starter motor and alternator (sometimes combined into a single unit). There is a reduction in emissions but it very much depends on the drive cycle that the cars being used in. In the industry they are often called mild hybrids and are a stepping stone to full hybridisation and ultimately full electric drive.

 

My money is on hydrogen cars.

 

It'll probably be electric not hydrogen. There's already an electrical distribution network which there isn't for hydrogen. Also hydrogen is expensive and inefficient compared to electric drive. With the way battery technology is developing I think that hydrogen will become a bit of a white elephant.

[Robbo]

It'll probably be electric not hydrogen. There's already an electrical distribution network which there isn't for hydrogen. Also hydrogen is expensive and inefficient compared to electric drive. With the way battery technology is developing I think that hydrogen will become a bit of a white elephant.

 

Although I agree electric cars are the future, Hydrogen will be powering them via the fuel cell. Mainly because I don't believe they will be a major breakthrough in battery or capacitor technology where the fuel cell is here now.

 

One of Nuclear's "waste" product is Hydrogen.

[bizzard]

Normal side lights aren't really eye catching these days especially on older cars, may have been in those days when the streets where perhaps not as brightly lit?

Indeed much much more pleasant to drive at night in those days,nothing like the eye watering general high intensity dazzle of today.

[jonathanA]

The headlight thing is bonkers.People start putting them on when a cloud passes over the sun.

Here's an example of ridiculousness.Back in the 1970's.During the power cut and oil shortage period,we were issued with petrol coupons but didn't have to use them.Also a lower maximum speed limit was imposed to save oil reserves.

However exactly at the same time a new recommendation or law i can't remember which about driving at night with dipped headlights on at all times.Now how crazy was that at exactly the same time as a general fuel shortage.

The difference nationwide in fuel used between vehicles having or not having headlights on is absolutely massive.

The powers that be at the ministry of power obviously hadn't even consulted any electrical experts or even a lowly motor mechanic who would have quickly informed them of the huge difference ie--alternator load=extra engine power=more fuel used.

 

 

No I'm afriad I have to completely disagree - if it was up to me people would not be allowed to 'only' switch on sidelights when moving. I think if its dark enough or worse still if visiblity is reduced by rain/snow/fog why wouldn't you switch your dipped lights on so everyone can see you ? driving on sidelights even in built up areas seems mad to me - switch your damn lights on - sidelights are for parked/stationary only IMHO.

 

I think there are a lot of people (probably older generation like my dad) who think switching their lights on costs money. Whislt we know that electrical load equals current out of alternator equal more work for the engine in reality its pretty insignificant isn't it. the average car these days must be 70-100 Horsepower so two 55W headlighs bulbs are not going to amount to a significant extra load on the engine.

 

I think the 'Switch headlights on at idle test' is of course explained by the fact the engine is ticking over and only producing a fraction of its max output therefore the extra load of lights/heaters etc will be more significant but if you run the engine at say 1500-2000 revs and switch something it makes no difference at all

 

You'll save more money by switching your air conditioning off and emptying all the C**p out of your boot...

 

i think there are still quite a few cars with the dim/dip arrangement i.e if you do switch your sidelights on and the ignition is on the dipped headlights come on at reduced brightness but don't think its a requirement in the uk.

 

I agree about fog lights - the highway code is very clear only to be used were visibilty is reduced to less than 100 metres in rain or falling snow

[Justme]

Add in the tail lights & a 50% efficient alternator (is that about right?) & your looking at 1/2hp extra needed from the engine.

[pearley]

Yes my headlight was never turned off on any of my bikes (except when not running of course.)

 

I believe that some new cars now have permanent day lights similar to the Volvo idea of many years ago. Again LED technology has enabled hi-viz lighting at low consumption. It makes more sense to me, as headlights are designed to enable the driver to see where he is going, whereas the lower consumption hi-viz lights are designed to be easily seen by others.

 

There was some evidence many years ago from Scandinavian countries suggesting that day lights reduced accidents, but I am unsure of the accuracy of same. Volvo latched onto the idea, and IIRC Saab too.

 

My money is on hydrogen cars.

From the AA website

 

As a result of European legislation adopted in 2008 dedicated daytime running lights (DRL) have been required on all new types of passenger cars and small delivery vans since February 2011. Trucks and buses will follow from August 2012.

[bizzard]

No I'm afriad I have to completely disagree - if it was up to me people would not be allowed to 'only' switch on sidelights when moving. I think if its dark enough or worse still if visiblity is reduced by rain/snow/fog why wouldn't you switch your dipped lights on so everyone can see you ? driving on sidelights even in built up areas seems mad to me - switch your damn lights on - sidelights are for parked/stationary only IMHO.

 

I think there are a lot of people (probably older generation like my dad) who think switching their lights on costs money. Whislt we know that electrical load equals current out of alternator equal more work for the engine in reality its pretty insignificant isn't it. the average car these days must be 70-100 Horsepower so two 55W headlighs bulbs are not going to amount to a significant extra load on the engine.

 

I think the 'Switch headlights on at idle test' is of course explained by the fact the engine is ticking over and only producing a fraction of its max output therefore the extra load of lights/heaters etc will be more significant but if you run the engine at say 1500-2000 revs and switch something it makes no difference at all

 

You'll save more money by switching your air conditioning off and emptying all the C**p out of your boot...

 

i think there are still quite a few cars with the dim/dip arrangement i.e if you do switch your sidelights on and the ignition is on the dipped headlights come on at reduced brightness but don't think its a requirement in the uk.

 

I agree about fog lights - the highway code is very clear only to be used were visibilty is reduced to less than 100 metres in rain or falling snow

I don't really want to be forced to be half blinded by other vehicles headlights in a well lit area,as there are just as important things to look out for like pedestrians and cyclists ect. And 120 watts of headlamp electricity ''insignificant''!! The engine revs make no difference the load is still there.

[Timleech]

Rear foglights too. Why do folk turn them on in the rain?? The bloody things play havoc with my eyes at night. Heavy spray on the motorway then fair enough, but in the rain?

 

Still don't understand why dim dip wasn't developed further for lit up areas, but I suppose LED technology will make it pointless now.

 

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to use rear foglights other than in 'fog' or similar.

I also hate them being misused, but not as much as I hate the awful discharge headlamps, I reckon they are a serious danger to other road users! May be OK on straight & level roads, but not on the sort of winding & undulating roads we have around here.

Ban them I say!!

:angry:

Tim

[Chalky]

I don't really want to be forced to be half blinded by other vehicles headlights in a well lit area,as there are just as important things to look out for like pedestrians and cyclists ect. And 120 watts of headlamp electricity ''insignificant''!! The engine revs make no difference the load is still there.

 

On a modern car 120 watts is minor. Some audio systems draw over 1kW on standard builds. Top spec cars often have alternators in excess of 200A which are water cooled. These regulate on voltage like a traditional alternator but they can also regulate the current and consequently the torque required to drive them, so the load can be dynamicall changed as required. On some hybrids and REEVs (Range Extended Electric Vehicles) the alternators are 50kW machines at 300 - 400V!

[bizzard]

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to use rear foglights other than in 'fog' or similar.

I also hate them being misused, but not as much as I hate the awful discharge headlamps, I reckon they are a serious danger to other road users! May be OK on straight & level roads, but not on the sort of winding & undulating roads we have around here.

Ban them I say!!

:angry:

Tim

Indeed as a lot of people have them permanently turned on,these are usually the cars with the baby on board sign on the back,it makes it difficult to tell whether or not its the brakes that have been applied or they've stuck on, apart from the dazzle on nights of good visibility.

[bizzard]

On a modern car 120 watts is minor. Some audio systems draw over 1kW on standard builds. Top spec cars often have alternators in excess of 200A which are water cooled. These regulate on voltage like a traditional alternator but they can also regulate the current and consequently the torque required to drive them, so the load can be dynamicall changed as required. On some hybrids and REEVs (Range Extended Electric Vehicles) the alternators are 50kW machines at 300 - 400V!

Its not minor when suddenly millions of vehicles are forced to switch em on when not really needed like happened in i think the 1974 power and oil crisis.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to use rear foglights other than in 'fog' or similar.

I also hate them being misused, but not as much as I hate the awful discharge headlamps, I reckon they are a serious danger to other road users! May be OK on straight & level roads, but not on the sort of winding & undulating roads we have around here.

Ban them I say!!

:angry:

Tim

Fog or falling snow used to be the rule, but not sure now. Around where I live they switch the rear foglight on from October through 'till April.

 

I take it they are the "blue" headlights?