HID kits for Honda 98 CRV - Are they a good idea?

Page 2 of 3  


Just trying to help. Cataracts are "cloudiness" of the lens, and they definitely cut down on the amount of light that gets to the retina, to the point of opaqueness. My situation might be worse than yours as I also have post-vitreous detachment, in both eyes. The procedure only took thirty minutes to remove the lens and replace with an artificial lens, using only a Valium, and I was awake and could follow directions. The eye is both immobilized and anesthetized, so other than some weird bending of the light as the lens is replaced, there is no discomfort at all. Wore an eye patch (which is why they do them at separate times) for one day, then three types of drops 3x day for two weeks. I could drive and do anything the next day, but my wife drove me home as an added precaution. The only drawbacks (I had none) is possible infection, possible scar tissue, and possible movement of the lense. They have different types of lenses, but Medicare will only pay for the simplest one-focus lens. The multi-focus lens means no glasses are subsequently required, but they focus 60% distance, 40% near, meaning that if you are reading then the print will be clear, but there will be a slight "halo" caused by the 60% far lense. Same thing for viewing a movie in the theater, sharp lines with a small halo, caused by the 40% near-focus lens. I chose the ordinary lense for several reasons. I've worn glasses for so long, and in the army for 26 years, so I am used to them, and in fact, feel "naked" without them. The multi-focus lenses are more expensive, and I would have had to pay for them myself. And the operation is more complex, with much more exact measurements required and little room for error. If there is error then it can be corrected with glasses, but that obviates the rationale for the operation. With the simpler lense it is expected to have correction with glasses, and I have progressives meaning the top part is for far and the bottom part is for near, with a progression in the middle. Back to 20/20 and my depth perception, and night vision, are better. My decision point was when I dropped from 20/20 with glasses to 20/40 with glasses, and could sense the loss of light and increasing cloudiness. I thought if it is coming, better sooner than later. And we went to see a 3-D IMAX movie and I knew the one eye was not seeing as well as the other. Well, that's probably more than anyone wants to know!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"billzz" wrote in message

Just trying to help. Cataracts are "cloudiness" of the lens, and they definitely cut down on the amount of light that gets to the retina, to the point of opaqueness. My situation might be worse than yours as I also have post-vitreous detachment, in both eyes. The procedure only took thirty minutes to remove the lens and replace with an artificial lens, using only a Valium, and I was awake and could follow directions. The eye is both immobilized and anesthetized, so other than some weird bending of the light as the lens is replaced, there is no discomfort at all. Wore an eye patch (which is why they do them at separate times) for one day, then three types of drops 3x day for two weeks. I could drive and do anything the next day, but my wife drove me home as an added precaution. The only drawbacks (I had none) is possible infection, possible scar tissue, and possible movement of the lense. They have different types of lenses, but Medicare will only pay for the simplest one-focus lens. The multi-focus lens means no glasses are subsequently required, but they focus 60% distance, 40% near, meaning that if you are reading then the print will be clear, but there will be a slight "halo" caused by the 60% far lense. Same thing for viewing a movie in the theater, sharp lines with a small halo, caused by the 40% near-focus lens. I chose the ordinary lense for several reasons. I've worn glasses for so long, and in the army for 26 years, so I am used to them, and in fact, feel "naked" without them. The multi-focus lenses are more expensive, and I would have had to pay for them myself. And the operation is more complex, with much more exact measurements required and little room for error. If there is error then it can be corrected with glasses, but that obviates the rationale for the operation. With the simpler lense it is expected to have correction with glasses, and I have progressives meaning the top part is for far and the bottom part is for near, with a progression in the middle. Back to 20/20 and my depth perception, and night vision, are better. My decision point was when I dropped from 20/20 with glasses to 20/40 with glasses, and could sense the loss of light and increasing cloudiness. I thought if it is coming, better sooner than later. And we went to see a 3-D IMAX movie and I knew the one eye was not seeing as well as the other. Well, that's probably more than anyone wants to know!
Thanks so much for your in depth account Billzz.
It sounds like it will not be that tough a deal at all. I will also go with the single focus lens. I agree with your rationale. I don't live where I could see a 3D Imax movie. I am jealous. I would love to see that.
We make do with a large flat screen at home. We watch a new movie each night at 10 PM. We get them all from Netflix.
I imagine some other members of this group got bored with your post. I read it twice. It applies to me. I have noticed that most younger people think they will not got old. Bad eyesight and other infirmities only happen to other people. Wait till they find out that this outcome also has their name on it. Wait till Tegger finds he needs help seeing at night. His attitude will somehow have a whole new perspective. His advice to simply quit driving at night will somehow not apply to himself. The worm always seems to turn.
Michael
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/09/11 21:52, Boomer wrote:

Sorry, Michael, I have to disagree: 69 years old, cataract in R/eye removed and clear lens inserted in 2005, cataract in L/eye removed and clear lens inserted in 2007 (after having LASIK on both eyes in 2002). Lately I find I need more light at night, especially on strange roads, so I use the high beams on my 2003 Accord sedan; but *never* into oncoming traffic or vehicles I'm following closely. I do not expect Tegger to change his tune in 20 or so years. I hope you change yours much sooner than that.
Tony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, Michael, I have to disagree: 69 years old, cataract in R/eye removed and clear lens inserted in 2005, cataract in L/eye removed and clear lens inserted in 2007 (after having LASIK on both eyes in 2002). Lately I find I need more light at night, especially on strange roads, so I use the high beams on my 2003 Accord sedan; but *never* into oncoming traffic or vehicles I'm following closely. I do not expect Tegger to change his tune in 20 or so years. I hope you change yours much sooner than that.
Tony
_____________________________________________________
Tony, I don't know if your misunderstood me or not. I do not use my brights at oncoming traffic ever.
I do use my brights when I have no cars in front of me. I dim for cars at side streets or even when they are sitting in their driveway warming up their cars.
I very carefully adjusted the vertical angle of my dims to insure that they did not rise to the level of oncoming traffic windshields.
If I must drive at night I cannot ask my wife to drive. Her vision was damaged when she got T2 diabetes and spent a year in denial. Her night vision is poorer than my own.
So, as I said, I am waiting to see if anyone flashes their lights at me when I have my dim lights selected. Nothing so far. I did run across another vehicle coming at me with what looked like gas discharge bulbs. I say this because of the colour and brightness. He or She had them adjusted so that they did not hit me in the eye. Of course I cannot be sure if it was gas discharge bulbs or not, but sure looked like my own.
Tegger seems to be concerned with the possibility of stray light beams emanating from the headlights because of poor reflector design. This is a possibility that I cannot be sure about. I can only use the "did they flash me because they thought I had my brights on" test.
I do not use my brights out on the highway if I have someone several hundred yards in front of me or just visible. I find that someone following me with their brights on to be irritating even when they are far behind. I figure that someone else would feel the same way and so I do not use my brights in this situation even when I am outside the legal distance where they must be dimmed.
I have had little experience with my new lights since posting here. After I get through several hours of night driving, I will post the outcome.
Michael
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/10/11 15:05, Boomer wrote:

My bad, I thought that was the case (probably my conclusion after reading about stray light blinding oncoming drivers (or words to that effect)).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As an aside, many people have problems with 3-D. We've seen several movies in IMAX 3-D, and they are dark and sometimes disconcerting. We saw Avatar, and then got the BlueRay for our home theater. I much prefer the BlueRay. It is brighter, it is clearer, it is crisper, and one can imagine the 3-D without any straining. They have got a lot to do to make 3-D actually workable. And the fact that there are so many competing systems indicates that they know there is a problem. I'll wait that out, and I am an early adapter to technology (having worked in the field.) I had the first BETAMAX, the first SONY CDP-101, but I have learned to not be the first in some things. I had a contact with DARPA who made the first digital interactive mapping, and the first disc cost $50,000.00 to make. The second disc cost $4.00. Sometimes it is more cost-effective to be second. To make this on-topic, I drove there in my Honda.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As an aside, many people have problems with 3-D. We've seen several movies in IMAX 3-D, and they are dark and sometimes disconcerting. We saw Avatar, and then got the BlueRay for our home theater. I much prefer the BlueRay. It is brighter, it is clearer, it is crisper, and one can imagine the 3-D without any straining. They have got a lot to do to make 3-D actually workable. And the fact that there are so many competing systems indicates that they know there is a problem. I'll wait that out, and I am an early adapter to technology (having worked in the field.) I had the first BETAMAX, the first SONY CDP-101, but I have learned to not be the first in some things. I had a contact with DARPA who made the first digital interactive mapping, and the first disc cost $50,000.00 to make. The second disc cost $4.00. Sometimes it is more cost-effective to be second. To make this on-topic, I drove there in my Honda.
Yes Billzz.
I just read that someone has developed a new 3-D television receiver that does not require the use of glasses. I believe that when a new standard is finally settled upon, it will be one that does not require glasses. I will wait for that product to hit Wal-Mart. I will not be an early adopter.
And yes despite what critics have said about Avatar, my wife and I liked it. We watched it from a regular DVD using up conversion to improve resolution. This increase in resolution is quite pronounced and is good enough for us to preclude using blue-ray. They other problem with blue-ray is that it is more expensive to make copies. We have both a Samsung and a Sony DVD player/up converter. The Samsung is much better at up conversion than the Sony.
If you get your Netflix movies in the morning, make copies, and then mail them back in the afternoon, you wind up having enough movies to watch something new every night. It is a luxury that I would never have thought would be possible years ago.
In the early 80s, I worked at designing video equipment for Showtime. This experience got me a more secure job with the state of Oregon, from where I retired. Looks like you have done a lot of work in the field.
I will drive to Wal-Mart to buy my new 3-D television in my Honda, if I live long enough to see ubiquitous, glasses free, affordable, 3-D televisions.
Was too bad that Betamax lost out to VHS. I am very sensitive to video quality and surely wanted to see Betamax be the standard.
Michael
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your quoting mechanism is broken. My post wasn't quoted but rather looked to be part of your post.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He's using Microsoft Windows Live Mail, a terrible news client.
And he's turned off the insetion of the ">" character when quoting. Why people do this is totally beyond me.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Worse. On the latest client there is no line-leader for quoted material.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What's a "line-leader"?
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The ">". I'm just pointing out that he didn't turn it off but rather it's just not there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see that now. I also see, in the URL he provided, that it appears that one can still download the earlier version of Live Mail, which DOES allow the automatic insertion of the ">" character.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tegger" wrote in message

He's using Microsoft Windows Live Mail, a terrible news client.
And he's turned off the insetion of the ">" character when quoting. Why people do this is totally beyond me.
--
Tegger


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

There's nothing to stop you from adding the ">" characters yourself, you know. You've already chosen to override Live Mail's default top-posting, so what's another running-fix?

As is your insistence on installing headlights that dazzle other drivers.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He also doesn't seem to be aware that a double dash is a .sig delimiter and any decent newsreader will chop off anything beyond that in a reply.
Much like mine has done.
Windows doesn't make a news reader. They just claim that whatever crap they're pushing out as their freebie mail reader is also a newsreader.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I do not know about newsreaders but your end note on dogs is about my golden retriever, who loves me, and my wife, and our son, and our grandsons, but let the next door dog show up and it is some romping fun in the snow, and we are forgotten. What do dogs want? Other dogs. I got that from a really great book entitled, "The Hidden Life of Dogs," by a sociologist, who knew nothing about dogs and had to dog- sit, and the dog got away, and she followed on her bike, and wrote down what the dog did. Now she owns many dogs, and quit to write about dogs. Someone wrote that you are not a human being until you are loved by a dog.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<irrelavance snipped>

True. We brought Cody home last year after Toby died. Our first puppy in six years. Remember 99% of the stuff. 1% cost us a bunch of money. (hint for those who have never had a puppy: they have two teething periods)
Check out "PPuppy Kisses Are Good for the Soul"
Our last four have been/are Pembroke Welsh Corgis
--

- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
At the final end, have you still installed the HID kit in your CRV?
In my country it must be some sort of height compensation when you load the car. This must be automatically. I have also bought myself a kit but on the other hand I find the original lights on a CRV 2003 model to be good, in fact better then many cars. Therefore I havent installed the kit yet.
_q7hp.737835$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-01.dc.easynews.com ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_vista-networking/how-to-reply-correctly-to-postings-in-newsgroups/ba8b442a-ba68-4c33-8a96-3dd5b4851c04
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes,
My kit is still installed and working perfectly. The original lights are really OK. It is just that I have cataracts in both eyes. I am 68 years old. The severity of the cataracts do not qualify for surgery at this point. In a few years I may yet get the surgery. The Xenon gas discharge lamps supply enough extra light for me to see much better on the road at night. Others here have posted that I should simply stop driving at night. A good idea if it were always practical. I avoid night driving most of the time. When those who blasted me over this get old and face the same infirmities of age their whole attitude will change. So easy to throw stones at old people. You do need to be very careful about what kit you buy. Many do not have dimmers. Some are not even waterproof. Mine are waterproof and have a solenoid installed to go between dim and bright. My headlights needed to be realigned after installation. The beams were too high. All in all I think this is a very worthwhile upgrade for the headlights. The kit cost me $100. I am beginning to see others now on the road with these lights installed. They may be new vehicles where the xenon lamps were stock or retrofits like mine. I have no problem with my vision when these vehicles go by. I certainly do notice them though. Like I said before, some here think these new lights will be a catastrophe on the road. Probably the same minds that thought horseless carriages were a total menace to society.
Michael
"K.I.Farstad" wrote in message
At the final end, have you still installed the HID kit in your CRV?
In my country it must be some sort of height compensation when you load the car. This must be automatically. I have also bought myself a kit but on the other hand I find the original lights on a CRV 2003 model to be good, in fact better then many cars. Therefore I havent installed the kit yet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.