[ADDONE]

Originally Posted by chris719

This is NOT TRUE.

There is NO SUCH THING as a 1V resistor. Your analogies are just plain WRONG. Work it out on paper please and post it if you think you are somehow correct.

Have a good day, please do not skip your medication in the future.

Awww, come on guys, it's so simple maybe you need a refresher course. It's all ball bearings nowadays.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by chris719

This is NOT TRUE. Not in watts, volts, amps, or "beans".



There is NO SUCH THING as a 1V resistor.

Your analogies are just plain WRONG. Work it out on paper please and post it if you think you are somehow correct.

Have a good day, please do not skip your medication in the future.

Saying "it's not true" is not an argument, you don't seem to grasp that.

And I've already explained to you how Ohm's law invalidates your position. This is straight from wikipedia, since you (for some reason now) do not trust the very links you provided as proof here.

"Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the voltage across the two points. Introducing the constant of proportionality, the resistance,[1] one arrives at the usual mathematical equation that describes this relationship:"

"More specifically, Ohm's law states that the R in this relation is constant, independent of the current."

"Resistors which are in series or in parallel may be grouped together into a single "equivalent resistance" in order to apply Ohm's law in analyzing the circuit."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

Saying "it's not true" is not an argument, you don't seem to grasp that.

And I've already explained to you how Ohm's law invalidates your position. This is straight from wikipedia, since you (for some reason now) do not trust the very links you provided as proof here.

"Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the voltage across the two points. Introducing the constant of proportionality, the resistance,[1] one arrives at the usual mathematical equation that describes this relationship:"

Quoting Ohm's law does not mean you understand it. You have not explained anything.

I already asked you:

Originally Posted by chris719

Please sir, find me a 1V resistor. Or prove that if you have 12W going into a 1W rated resistor you will have 11W leaving it. I am waiting.

Work it out for me then, you can post it in the box.

Anyway, I am going to put you on ignore now to avoid further polluting this thread.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by chris719

Quoting Ohm's law does not mean you understand it. You have not explained anything.

I already asked you:



Work it out for me then, you can post it in the box.

Anyway, I am going to put you on ignore now to avoid further polluting this thread.

That's not a question, that's a demand. And an unjust one at that.

You are making a definitions argument, based on an analogy I made. You're literally expecting me to pass beans through a resistor. It was a god damn simplified analogy to help Poochie understand. Grasp that shit, please.

[Commanderwiggin]

Guy has: {Click "Appreciate" on my post if I was helpful. Thanks!} as signature...yet does not post helpful information.

I guess that's why Poochie has a higher Rep per Post ratio.

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by chris719

You don't understand Ohm's law, I am sorry. Everything you have said is factually incorrect. I don't know what more to say. Welcome to ignore.

No, I am not the one cursing and spreading misinformation.

I told you to ignore that guy, I've been down this road with him many times before, it doesn't matter if you're right, he is not going to let a silly thing like facts get into the way of his argument..

He'll continue to make assumptions and tell himself it's facts, to fit his way of thinking.. It's an endless abyss and it serves to help no one but his fragile ego..


I called this two weeks ago, yet he jumped into a new thread and is still going:

https://www.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...php?p=26564658

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Commanderwiggin

Guy has: {Click "Appreciate" on my post if I was helpful. Thanks!} as signature...yet does not post helpful information.

I guess that's why Poochie has a higher Rep per Post ratio.

Yep. It was pretty clear that Poochie meant put a resistor in shunt to increase the current draw and fake out the bulb check. I don't particularly LIKE that solution either, but it works in theory. Then this guy comes in with his crazy statements that make no sense.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by chris719

Yep. It was pretty clear that Poochie meant put a resistor in shunt to increase the current draw and fake out the bulb check. I don't particularly LIKE that solution either, but it works in theory. Then this guy comes in with his crazy statements that make no sense.

And what crazy statement did I make about adding a resistor to the LED? Poochie's argument was that he is against it because it adds too much heat and adds the potential for a fire.

So I argued that adding a resistor doesn't add a potential for fire because energy isn't destroyed when using a properly sized resistor. That adding a properly sized resistor doesn't risk fire damage because a proper resistor would be rated for the case it's being used in.

I also stated that it's hypocritical of him to say adding a resistor is bad because of a potential for fire, but doesn't see disabling the bulb check as bad due to it's increased risk of fire. A risk you agreed on.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by Commanderwiggin

Guy has: {Click "Appreciate" on my post if I was helpful. Thanks!} as signature...yet does not post helpful information.

I guess that's why Poochie has a higher Rep per Post ratio.

So far, both of my concerns on the suggestions Poochie made have been corroborated by another party. So I think I was very much helpful.

[Anthony1s]

Poochie, you're own statement you linked verifies that you have the same understanding of resistors as I do.

"they all have their own individual resistors to regulate the right amount of power.. "

Yet you went on and on telling me otherwise. That inert resistors consumer power.

You don't get to go both ways. I'm sure if I made a million different arguments and reasons in disagreement with each other, I could call back on whichever one turns out to be correct and go "SEE, I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG" too.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Poochie

I told you to ignore that guy, I've been down this road with him many times before, it doesn't matter if you're right, he is not going to let a silly thing like facts get into the way of his argument..

He'll continue to make assumptions and tell himself it's facts, to fit his way of thinking.. It's an endless abyss and it serves to help no one but his fragile ego..


I called this two weeks ago, yet he jumped into a new thread and is still going:

https://www.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...php?p=26564658

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

Like I explained previously, disabling the over voltage protection is dangerous.

Wow, amazing. The check is definitely not overvoltage protection.

LEDs are generally regarded as current controlled devices as you mentioned in that thread. Every LED datasheet contains a curve of the forward current vs relative intensity. The forward current is the parameter which is the closest to being linear in relation to the light output. Here is an example of one which happens to be pretty linear over this small range:



So, since we need to control the amount of light coming out of the LED, how do we do that? We could just vary a voltage assuming there is a fixed resistance in series with the LED. That varies the current and that is how some more basic systems do it. The catch is that most LEDs are still not that linear in terms of light output vs current. They also can suffer from color shift when varying the forward current. Another potential issue is that you may need voltages below the diode forward voltage to get very low currents at any particular series resistance, which won't work because the diode will no longer be forward biased.

To overcome those problems, most LED applications that require good intensity control use PWM. Instead of varying the current, PWM control turns the LED on at a fixed operating point, but for a variable period of time. By adjusting the frequency and duty cycle of the pulses, you end up with more linear control of the brightness, especially at the extremes. Like toggling a light switch on/off rapidly. This is how BMW controls these LEDs I am guessing based on the wires labeled PWM in the harness.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

Yet you went on and on telling me otherwise. That inert resistors consumer power.

I shouldn't reply to you any further, but it was totally obvious that when he said adding a resistor would consume additional power, he meant TO GROUND.

BTW, I don't agree with you. Usually disabling a check like this is the wrong thing to do, but after reviewing this thread and the previous thread, I think it is a safe solution here.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by chris719

Wow, amazing. The check is definitely not overvoltage protection.

LEDs are generally regarded as current controlled devices as you mentioned in that thread. Every LED datasheet contains a curve of the forward current vs relative intensity. The forward current is the parameter which is the closest to being linear in relation to the light output. Here is an example of one which happens to be pretty linear over this small range:



So, since we need to control the amount of light coming out of the LED, how do we do that? We could just vary a voltage assuming there is a fixed resistance in series with the LED. That varies the current and that is how some more basic systems do it. The catch is that most LEDs are still not that linear in terms of light output vs current. They also can suffer from color shift when varying the forward current. Another potential issue is that you may need voltages below the diode forward voltage to get very low currents at any particular series resistance, which won't work because the diode will no longer be forward biased.

To overcome those problems, most LED applications that require good intensity control use PWM. Instead of varying the current, PWM control turns the LED on at a fixed operating point, but for a variable period of time. By adjusting the frequency and duty cycle of the pulses, you end up with more linear control of the brightness, especially at the extremes. Like toggling a light switch on/off rapidly. This is how BMW controls these LEDs I am guessing based on the wires labeled PWM in the harness.

I wasn't referring to the warm check Poochie was talking about disabling as over voltage protection, I was talking about the fast blinking being an overvoltage warning, governed by the bulb checks, and an indicator to turn off the blinkers. Thereby being over voltage protection. There are numerous posts of me explaining this that you have someone missed.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

So I argued that adding a resistor doesn't add a potential for fire because energy isn't destroyed when using a properly sized resistor. That adding a properly sized resistor doesn't risk fire damage because a proper resistor would be rated for the case it's being used in.

You need to know the both voltage on the wire and the amount of current you need to sink to stop the nuisance tripping to be able to state that authoritatively. It will definitely increase power dissipation / heat. Whether it is unsafe or not depends on the specifics.

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

I also stated that it's hypocritical of him to say adding a resistor is bad because of a potential for fire, but doesn't see disabling the bulb check as bad due to it's increased risk of fire. A risk you agreed on.

I said I would have to review in this case. I agree that it is normally bad practice to disable safeguards. After review of the info here and in the old M2 thread, I think disabling the bulb check is safe.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by chris719

I shouldn't reply to you any further, but it was totally obvious that when he said adding a resistor would consume additional power, he meant TO GROUND.

BTW, I don't agree with you. Usually disabling a check like this is the wrong thing to do, but after reviewing this thread and the previous thread, I think it is a safe solution here.

Yet you miss a crucial piece of information, that the bulb checks govern the over voltage protection.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

I wasn't referring to the warm check Poochie was talking about disabling as over voltage protection, I was talking about the fast blinking being an overvoltage warning, governed by the bulb checks, and an indicator to turn off the blinkers. Thereby being over voltage protection.

No, that's insane. No one would implement rapid blinking to notify you as a form of overvoltage protection. Overvoltage protection is accomplished with clamping diodes or various other devices. There is no overvoltage to protect against when driving LEDs. The risk is overcurrent.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by chris719

No, that's insane. No one would implement rapid blinking to notify you as a form of overvoltage protection. Overvoltage protection is accomplished with clamping diodes or various other devices. There is no overvoltage to protect against when driving LEDs. The risk is overcurrent.

Completely irrelevant. The indicator of the risk is still governed by the bulb checks.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

Completely irrelevant. The indicator of the risk is still governed by the bulb checks.

Ok, bro.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by PrinceCity

Been reading through all this and I think the only solution at this point is end user data. So I will add and say I've had my bulb checks disabled for a few weeks and had no issue. My car is not on fire. Maybe we should make another thread with a poll in order to easily collect data

I never said it will catch your car on fire. I said it has the potential to. Which others have agree with. I also stated it's better to have the dealership do the repair because of this potential risk, because at least then you are covered by them. As well as it adding to the list in getting a TSB created for it. If people do these half-assed solutions, it's not helpful to anyone else other than forum members who want to code or otherwise modify their cars outside of warranty.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

I never said it will catch your car on fire. I said it has the potential to. Which others have agree with. I also stated it's better to have the dealership do the repair because of this potential risk, because at least then you are covered by them. As well as it adding to the list in getting a TSB created for it. If people do these half-assed solutions, it's not helpful to anyone else other than forum members who want to code or otherwise modify their cars outside of warranty.

I believe this is not an issue with the LED tails. I might agree with you with the halogen bulbs on 2016-2017 M2s where we have evidence of wiring harness degradation.

Here is the reasoning:

1. There are reports of it happening at low mileage and/or right off of the lot. If this is because of the resistance of a connection increasing over time due to heating or some other factor, it probably wouldn't happen with <200 miles on the car.
2. BMW instructions are apparently to code the bulb check off when retrofitting LED tails.
3. Several posters have been using it for months so far with no reported ill effects.
4. Replacing the cluster results in the same thing happening again.
5. The warm check failure mode is to continue to drive the LEDs just with a different pattern. This does nothing to prevent any issues. If it were deemed that serious when BMW did their FMEA, the software would disable the indicator.

If there is any damage, it is going to happen over time given how long and intermittently this failure presents. It is highly unlikely to be a fire hazard.

If I currently owned an M2C I would investigate. If you're such an electronics wizard, ohm out the wiring harness connections and look at the LED drive signal on a scope.

[Anthony1s]

I believe this is not an issue with the LED tails. I might agree with you with the halogen bulbs on 2016-2017 M2s where we have evidence of wiring harness degradation.

LED tail lights have this issue, so saying it's not an issue with the tail lights... I don't get. Unless you're trying to say it's an issue upstream of the tail lights. I also have no idea where you're getting that there is evidence of wiring harness degradation. Please link a source to that. Because all I've ever seen was someone say their was corrosion on the bulb socket from condensation.

Here is the reasoning:

1. There are reports of it happening at low mileage and/or right off of the lot. If this is because of the resistance of a connection increasing over time due to heating or some other factor, it probably wouldn't happen with <200 miles on the car.

#1 and #4 are contradicting observations. You can't say "Why are people experiencing this immediately after purchase", while also saying "it happens over time after replacing the parts." You can draw an opinion based on one or the other, not both.


2. BMW instructions are apparently to code the bulb check off when retrofitting LED tails.

"apparently" but I believe that is an incorrect comprehension of the documentation referenced. The document Poochie was reading was from a 2007-2009 3 series which also required a FRM module replacement when retrofitting LED bulbs sans coding. Which, we don't know the differences between these vehicles and their LED tail lights from 10 years ago. So I wouldn't base giving advise off of documents so old. But also it states nothing about disabling the cold and warm bulb check, that is an assumption Poochie made. And goes on to say if the FRM module isn't replaced, the tail lights would flicker. Which is not the symptom of the M2. I assume this is the old documentation he was reading that also said BMW pulses LEDs with extra current to check their status. Because that would cause flickering. However, that is not a symptom of our M2, so seems totally unreliable for him to take advice based off of that 10+ year old writing.

He also provided another image in that post, but hasn't responded to me when I asked for a source of it so I could research further.

https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...4&postcount=76


3. Several posters have been using it for months so far with no reported ill effects.

anecdotal evidence is not sound evidence

4. Replacing the cluster results in the same thing happening again.

again, contradicting your previous claim.

5. The warm check failure mode is to continue to drive the LEDs just with a different pattern. This does nothing to prevent any issues. If it were deemed that serious when BMW did their FMEA, the software would disable the indicator.

my statement of the rapid flashing is that it does do something to prevent issues. The rapid flashing is an indicator telling the driver to turn off the blinkers to prevent damage.

If there is any damage, it is going to happen over time given how long and intermittently this failure presents. It is highly unlikely to be a fire hazard.

Well, that's another thing to take into consideration. The people who have disabled their bulb checks and haven't reported issues, were they also ones who had parts previously replaced by BMW? If so, we won't see affects for a little bit.

And this is why I have such a problem with the gaslighting and you guys taking my words out of context. NOT ONCE DID I SAID IT WILL CATCH YOUR CAR ON FIRE. I SAID THERE WAS A RISK TO MELTING WIRES. When people take what I say and exaggerate it to make me look like an idiot, it further muddies the conversation, because the lie about what I actually said is repeated so much that people believe it.

If I currently owned an M2C I would investigate. If you're such an electronics wizard, ohm out the wiring harness connections and look at the LED drive signal on a scope

not once did I say I was an electronics wizard or have the skills to figure out the root causes of this. I've shied away from looking into this myself because of that and have instead opted to work with dealerships to get a TSB created for everyone to benefit from. Unlike Poochie, who has been recommending solutions for a car configuration he doesn't even have nor can test because of his extensive lighting modifications. I've just been looking up and correcting poochie when he said questionable things, because there is a risk he is aware of and isn't disclosing when he recommends solutions on this. Everything I've stated to correct him still has been correct and you haven't proven otherwise.

[Al Bundy's Dodge]

Decided to resurrect this fun thread...

Anyway, was due for an oil change so I decided to undo the coding to turn back on the rear signal warming check. Naturally both sides failed before taking her in for an oil change.

Anyway, they are replacing the REM claiming the fault was found there.

Will post updates