LED Dimming Info Found!

From the Skene website, the description of their dimmer (a PWM unit) has the following info on LED light compatibility. This is the first such site I have seen and the info below is priceless! Lamps that will work with the IQ-275 ought to work with the ezCAN, although there are no guarantees being offered by me or Skene...



IQ-275 Intelligent Lighting Controller (smart dimmer)

Installation is quick and easy, and the controller can be used with almost any motorcycle.
A comprehensive installation guide and all necessary connectors are included.

Note 1: The 2014+ BMW R1200GS with LED headlight option provides no access to the high beam wire, so a separate switch is required to select high beam override and to program the unit. The model with incandescent headlights works normally.

Note 2: Some LEDs have 3 wires rather than 2, where the third wire is a dimmer input. These include :

Denali dual-intensity DX and D2 models
Cyclops Optimus
VisionX Optimus
These lights require a slightly different wiring method and shown here: 3-wire LED

Note 3: While the great majority of aftermarket LED lights can be used with the IQ-275, a few are designed such that they will not operate properly with a dimmer. These include:
Rigid Industries D Series Lamps (D2 and Dually) and SR models. Models manufactured after 7/2013 are no longer able to support the IQ-275 or any other dimmer due to a design change. Other Rigid LEDs work with our controller.
KTM 990 Supermoto Auxiliary LED Light Kit, part number: 62014910033.
Denali D4: While early Denali D4 LED's were fully compatible with the IQ-175 & IQ-275, the current model of this lamp is no longer able to support the IQ-275 or any other dimmer due to a design change. Other Denali LEDs work with our controller.


If anyone finds similar info on other sites, please do advise us all.

Ed, thank you for this excellent information.

More on ezCAN used with Clearwater Lights

See the FAQ section of the ezCAN site:

----
YES, you can. There is absolutely no reason you can’t. We are big fans of Clearwater Lights and could not afford to launch a product like the HEX ezCAN if it was incompatible or harmful to an industry leader like Clearwater Lights. We consulted with the manufacturers of Clearwater Lights’ electronic components and did exhaustive accelerated ageing tests to the equivalent of 5 years of riding …and counting… to make sure you can use the ezCAN with Clearwater Lights – with COMPLETE confidence.

Sadly, we’ve been getting reports of Clearwater Lights reps telling their customers that “…ezCANs can’t be used in conjunction with Clearwater Lights, as it would seem to be working initially, but then, eventually the ezCAN would cause them to fail!” This is just not true. Clearwater manufactures a device that has SOME of the most basic functions of the ezCAN. As a result, it shares SOME of the ezCAN’s market segment. Regrettably, we are now in the position of having to defend ourselves against a much larger company who is conjuring doubt about our product in very vague terms.

As engineers we can only respond as engineers, so here follows the technical low-down of why the HEX ezCAN will NOT harm your Clearwater lights. By the way, we also manufacture the GS-911wifi – the market leading diagnostic tool for BMW Motorcycles – so hopefully that should give us some street cred.

Relax mate, it’s a steady-state frequency
Clearwater Lights, like many other high-end LED lights, use a LED controller chip made by Linear Technology (LT) that has an additional “brightness” control pin. Other good quality LEDs lights use the same (or similar) controller chip but ignore the brightness pin on the controller chip. This is not out of Spec and according to the datasheet of the controller, is a very real and valid implementation of the design. Further, the frequency of the internal current control loop is thousands of multiples higher than the frequency we use to PWM the power to the lights. That means that to the internal LED and LED controller chip this low frequency is as good as ignorable – as we engineers like to refer to it, steady-state.

There are some obvious reasons why Led lights could fail. Failure of electronic components is a reality. Assuming that the LEDs are supplied with the correct voltage and not over-driven, the two most common reasons for failure are the use of inferior components or an inferior design that unnecessarily stresses the electronic components to the point of eventual failure. Very typical are failures of the power capacitors that have to deal with the continuous inrush and ripple currents.

We have a set of Kristas and have evaluated the Clearwater Lights design which seems neither inferior nor do they seem to use inferior passive components.

When you are 100% sure, call the experts anyway.
In order to cover our bases, we contacted one of the LT Field Application Engineers and ran this by him… his response was: “I agree with you, there is no issue with these parts. They are designed to work in a switching environment and it does not matter how you switch them as long as the forward or reverse breakdown voltage ratings of them are not exceeded. They are diodes after all so pretty resilient. There can be voltage spikes when switching, due to inductive parasitics etc which could overvoltage them but that’s an OV problem, not a susceptibility to switching problem.”

5 years of non-stop riding is a very long time.
The theory is the theory. The proof is in the practice! So what we did was to set up an Accelerated Ageing Test. So how do we do this? Well, we spoke to BMW, got their info on what the average mileage is that the average rider puts on a bike – which turns out to be around 2500km/year. In order to work with a worst case scenario, we decided to use 10,000km. Next, we make an assumption of the average speed that the rider averages over those 10,000km and we chose 70km/h. That means after 6 days of continuous use that would equate to the same ON-time of a bike that did 10,000km travelling at an average speed of 70km/h. Now leave them ON for 35 days and you have an accelerated test that equates to 5 years worth of “normal” use.

Now we hear you saying, “But I ride more or less than that and my average speed is X… Well, now that you know how we calculate it, you can plug in your own numbers and find out whether our 35-day test equates to 3 years or 20 years of your riding…

Did we try hard enough to break the Clearwaters?
Naturally, you need to pay good attention to the conditions too. Like any good LED light, then Clearwater lights have temperature compensation. That means the lights will decrease their current draw in order to minimise the power dissipation. In order to create the worst case scenario test, we need to run the lights for the duration of the complete test and the maximum power dissipation. How do we do that? We set the ezCAN brightness to 90% (100% would not have any switching) and then we introduce just the right amount of airflow to keep the lights working at their maximum power level (and we monitor this at a minimum twice daily during the test).

As expected the Clearwater lights passed the 5-year accelerated ageing test with flying colours!

-------

This is a very interesting piece of info. They are saying that the on/off frequency of their supply of battery power (to cause dimming) is low enough to be not much different from constant power supply. They have obviously taken apart the Clearwater lights and checked the ICs used inside the light housing.

Warning: manufacturers can change designs from time to time, but I am going to assume it is a reasonable to risk to accept that new ICs would react in the same way. I would hope so. No guarantees.

Again, standards would be nice.

Great response. Thanks!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

BMW Triumphant said:

...Clearwater Lights, like many other high-end LED lights, use a LED controller chip made by Linear Technology (LT) ... we contacted one of the LT Field Application Engineers and ran this by him… his response was: “I agree with you, there is no issue with these parts. They are designed to work in a switching environment and it does not matter how you switch them as long as the forward or reverse breakdown voltage ratings of them are not exceeded. They are diodes after all so pretty resilient. There can be voltage spikes when switching, due to inductive parasitics etc which could overvoltage them but that’s an OV problem, not a susceptibility to switching problem.”...

Click to expand...

Ed, thanks for digging this up. It addresses and put to rest (for me at least) the very real concerns and frustrations that Cleearwater's response indentified in another thread created.

Having the manufacturer (Linear Technology) of the controller chip, which Clearwater said would be damaged by the use of an ezCAN, state that the ezCAN will not do any harm, is very reassuring.

I have a pair of Clearwater Darlas with an older CAN-opener (rev. 1.71) that Clearwater have told me (at their booth at Das Rally) wil not work with my RTW, and they will not re-flash it, and require me to buy an entirely new CAN-opener at retail. After my intial investment, to be told that they would not readily, or easily with minor modifications, transfer over my RTW really frustrated me!

Now I can run my Darlas with the ezCAN and get the benefits of their software setup and adjustablility

AlanColes said:

Ed, thanks for digging this up. It addresses and put to rest (for me at least) the very real concerns and frustrations that Cleearwater's response indentified in another thread created.

Having the manufacturer (Linear Technology) of the controller chip, which Clearwater said would be damaged by the use of an ezCAN, state that the ezCAN will not do any harm, is very reassuring.

I have a pair of Clearwater Darlas with an older CAN-opener (rev. 1.71) that Clearwater have told me (at their booth at Das Rally) wil not work with my RTW, and they will not re-flash it, and require me to buy an entirely new CAN-opener at retail. After my intial investment, to be told that they would not readily, or easily with minor modifications, transfer over my RTW really frustrated me!

Now I can run my Darlas with the ezCAN and get the benefits of their software setup and adjustablility

Click to expand...

I am glad I was able to dig it up. I do wonder myself if Hex did enough accelerated testing. According to the FAQ, BMW told them the average Kms for a bike is 2500 km per year. That is not much. Still, the LT guy ought to know his product and the low-frequency argument is appealing...

Still, if it burns out, do let us all know!

I sure hope I am still riding years from now when it burns out!

BMW Triumphant said:

I am glad I was able to dig it up. I do wonder myself if Hex did enough accelerated testing ... According to the FAQ, BMW told them the average Kms for a bike is 2500 km per year. That is not much...

Click to expand...

Well, I think they took what they were given and it fit with what they wanted to (felt they should) do.

As for 2,500 average km/yr/bike, what sometimes gets lost is that this does not represent how many miles/km the riders does. I put approximately 9,000 kms on my RTW last year, but only about 2,500 on the other 5 bikes that I own, so that works out to under 2k per bike. For every rider that puts 20k-30k-40k-50k per year on a single bike there are more folks who have 2-3 bikes and perhaps do 2k-4k total per year, and a whole lot more who have just one bike and only 1k-2k per year.

My feeling is that they were right to expand it out to test for a 10k/yr which is more likely typical of someone who would put driving lights on their bike, etc. Their assumption of an average moving speed of 70km/h is a bit on the low side, but not by too far. My Nav-V shows my average moving speed over 12,174 km to be 84 km/h, but that's with a max of 189 km/h and my riding style which is more spirited than most so I'd think 70-75 should be right for an average. On my R1150RT it was 74 km/h avg.

When they did their testing over 35 days (840 straight hours) and suggested that represented an average 5 years, it actually calcultes out to more like 6 years if my math is correct, but the main point is that it appears they used what are likely fairly reasonable assumptions.

BMW Triumphant said:

...Still, the LT guy ought to know his product and the low-frequency argument is appealing...

Click to expand...

This is where I get my most reassurance. Definitely Clearwater know their stuff, but when they say that the circuit board that LT makes for them will fail if used with the ezCAN, and LT's application engineer contradicts Clearwater and says the ezCAN will be fine with the LT circuit board and that what Clearwater was describing wasn't even a factor, I'll believe the engineer.

When the manufacturer's engineer (of the circuit board that Clearwater said would be the problem) says the ezCAN is okay and won't do any harm, you have to figure, that you'd be safe. THe engineer doesn't have anything to lose by just saying "I don't know", so for the experts regarding the circuit board to say it's fine, that's enough for me.

It's all a bit of a risk, and it really is a shame that we're having to put up with some proprietary stuff that may even be designed to not work with anything else. Those manufacturers are not doing anyone other than themsleves a favour, so I'll support the manufacturers like ezCANs HEX Diagnostics who make products play nicer with others and therefore make my life simplier rather than more complicated.