Roof Rack lighting options ???

Antichrist

Expedition Leader
I think what many of us who travel on tight trails need is actually Worklights, but those aren't "cool" so...
Ha! Too right.
Luckily I've never worried about the coolness factor so just use tractor floods. They throw light far enough for the speeds I drive. They are cheap (around $30) so if they get broken it's not a big loss. They are cheap so not too likely to get stolen. After all, they aren't cool, why steal them?
http://www.farmhomesupplycenter.com/Tractor-Lite/M/B000DZ9M7O.htm
316kWA38vOL._SL160_.jpg


To cut down on hood glare, I have heard of some people running black electric tape at the bottom/corners of the lenses to block off light shining.
These were popular in the 70's, but I don't see them much anymore. Not cool I guess. ;)
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/KCC-7302
kcc-7302_w_m.jpg
 
Last edited:

UNI

Adventurer
I run tractor work lights on the both sides of my Jeep rack and they work great.

2766018140100746432S600x600Q85.jpg


2505730410100746432S600x600Q85.jpg
 
Last edited:

FLYFISHEXPERT

LivingOverland.com
I am running a pair of 100W IPF 968s on the roof basket. Here are the pics from the driver's seat:
Low Beams:
DSCF6686.jpg


High Beams:
DSCF6687.jpg


High with IPFs:
DSCF6689.jpg


Notice the lack of glare on the hood. The lights sit just behind the sunroof.

I ran the wires up the A-Pillar behind the weather striping to the center of the the rear driver-side door.
 

ntsqd

Heretic Car Camper
If 200' is the outer limit of your lighting needs I'm wondering why bother to put them on the roof at all? I'm assuming that the 200' requirement is due to trees. The whole point of a high mounting is to get the light further out ahead of you. I'd think that for 200' that you could easily do that with a top of front bumper location and avoid smacking the lights (be they cheap or not) with tree limbs (not to mention not adding them to your frontal area).

For up high I've found that the so-called "Euro" or Driving" beam is a better option than the pencil beam. The range is very close, but the Euro/Driving beam has much more lateral light distribution.

My personal RoT: The closer the light is intended to illuminate, the lower it gets mounted.
 

FLYFISHEXPERT

LivingOverland.com
...The whole point of a high mounting is to get the light further out ahead of you.
My personal RoT: The closer the light is intended to illuminate, the lower it gets mounted.

X2. I originally had my IPFs on the bumper, but moved them to the top for better distance. I spend quite a bit of time in the desert and the lights on the roof just work better for me. Having the lights on top better illuminate the 'low spots' in the rough road.

Also, in my experience, if you are going slow in the woods having low lights are fine. If you are going fast in open areas, lights up high are better.

Just my two cents.
 

R_Lefebvre

Expedition Leader
If 200' is the outer limit of your lighting needs I'm wondering why bother to put them on the roof at all? I'm assuming that the 200' requirement is due to trees. The whole point of a high mounting is to get the light further out ahead of you. I'd think that for 200' that you could easily do that with a top of front bumper location and avoid smacking the lights (be they cheap or not) with tree limbs (not to mention not adding them to your frontal area).

For up high I've found that the so-called "Euro" or Driving" beam is a better option than the pencil beam. The range is very close, but the Euro/Driving beam has much more lateral light distribution.

My personal RoT: The closer the light is intended to illuminate, the lower it gets mounted.

When mounted up top, and projecting downward, the light fills "holes" that are left by low-mounted lighting. The low mounted lights leave a shadow behind any high points on the trail. When the lights are higher than your eyeballs, it projects down and fills the hole. This allows you to determine how deep the holes are, or what might be in them, before you get too close.

The only disadvantages I've seen are the risk of damage from trees, glare on the hood and windshield, and glare from atmospheric conditions. All are manageable.

Glare on the hood and windshield is easily controlled by shields such as Antichris posted, or by moving the lights back from the edge of the roof a bit, which is what I did. I have zero glare.

Glare from atmospheric conditions is easily controlled by turning them off if required, and leaving you no worse off than if you didn't have them.

Damage from trees...well... I haven't had a problem yet, but some people can break anything so... <shrug>
 

ntsqd

Heretic Car Camper
Interesting, I want those shadows created by projections on the ground. It gives them definition. Without the shadows they can be misleading as to how big they are.
The hardest time of the day to drive in the desert is the middle 1/4 of the day. Even the 12" tall rocks can look flat and bland.

Just another example of different topography requiring different approaches.
 

AlexJet

Explorer
I'd recommend going with 2 driving in the middle and 2 fogs a side.
I have 5 Hella 500 on the roof (3 driving and 2 fogs). Driving are great for high distance lighting while side fogs give me great visibility on the front corners. In my perspective this is the best option. Unless you do high speed desert racing where I'd recommend going 4 driving as you drive fast and need as much light as possible far upfront of you.

ARBbumpers0105.jpg


ARBBumpers1.jpg
 

ntsqd

Heretic Car Camper
Even in desert racing you need peripheral lighting or you're racing in a "tunnel". And that's darned difficult to do.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,529
Messages
2,875,555
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top