jus would like to know if by removing the speed limiter on the 335i will this add mor hp and torqe to my car. i was told this at the dealer

he may only mean that buying the sport pkg raises the limit of the governor

No more HP or Torque. only 170ish top speed.

"only 170ish top speed."

That is way too slow for our high speed EzPass lanes.

or to beat speed cameras

or to beat speed cameras
I'll wait for nm335 ti explain with calculation how fast you have to be going for your plate to be impossible to capture by speed cameras. :stickoutt

I'll wait for nm335 ti explain with calculation how fast you have to be going for your plate to be impossible to capture by speed cameras. :stickoutt

Hello "mryakan":

Well, assuming that the cameras are triggered instantly, and the exposure time is zero (no blur due to movement during the exposure) the speed would have to be high enough to doppler shift the image out of the sensitivity range of the camera.

To be conservative, this would mean (if you were moving away from the camera) that the blue frequencies would be shifted all the way to the red.

Blue - wavelength approx. 400 nm
Red - wavelength approx. 800 nm

frequency = c/lamda

Fb = 300*10^6/400*10^(-9)
Fb = 750 THz

Fr = 300*10^6/800*10^(-9)
Fr = 375 THz

The doppler shift is given by:

Fr = Sqrt((C-V)/(C+V)) * Ft

Fr = frequency received by the observer
Ft = frequency transmitted by the object

In order to shift the highest frequency (blue) down to the lowest (red):

375*10^12 = Sqrt((C-V)/(C+V)) * 750*10^12

Solving:

V=0.6 * C

Where C=speed of light = 300*10^6 m/s

So, your velocity would need to be 0.6 * 300*10^6 = 180*10^6 m/s

This translates to 403 million mph.


And, interesting things happen when we start getting close to "C". For example, to an observer, you are going to get shorter.

Lorentz contraction can be calculated by:

L = Lo/gamma

L = observed length
Lo = actual length
gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-beta)
beta = V^2/C^2

So, for our case:

beta = (0.6 * C)^2/C^2
beta = 0.36

gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-.36)
gamma = 1.25

So, if the length of the 335 is about 12 feet, it will appear to an observer to be only about 9.6 feet.

And, you will get heavier.

If we ignore the complications of transverse vs longitudinal mass, the traditional way to calculate relativistic mass is similar to that for length contraction:

M = gamma * Mo

Mo = rest mass
M = actual mass

So, if we assume that the 335 has a rest mass of 3500 Lbm, the actual mass due to the velocity will be:

1.25 * 3500 = 4375 Lbm.

Now, how about someone telling us how much energy it would take to get the 335 to that velocity?

I'll wait for nm335 ti explain with calculation how fast you have to be going for your plate to be impossible to capture by speed cameras. :stickoutt

Would you look at what you have done! nm335 is probably out of chalk now.

nm335, I think it comes down to the ISO rating of the speed camera. Can you research and get back to us? (I would do it but have no hope of gettting my arms around the math involved) My guess is that somewhere in the triple digits there would be enough blur on the plate.

Would you look at what you have done! nm335 is probably out of chalk now.

nm335, I think it comes down to the ISO rating of the speed camera. Can you research and get back to us? (I would do it but have no hope of gettting my arms around the math involved) My guess is that somewhere in the triple digits there would be enough blur on the plate.

Hello "Jhunter":

Would like to help but that is a bit too far outside my training. Someone must have a photography background that could relate sensitivity, lens focal length, shutter time, and object motion.

However, I am damn certain that moving fast enough to doppler shift the visible spectrum out of range is going to do the job. :)

Unfortunately my US spec 335 is limited so I can not attain the necessary speed to doppler shift the visible spectrum, maybe on the autobahn with a Euro spec 335.

jus would like to know if by removing the speed limiter on the 335i will this add mor hp and torqe to my car. i was told this at the dealer

And I always thought it's the stickers that increased the hp and tq! :stickoutt

Omg. Einstein lives.

And I always thought it's the stickers that increased the hp and tq! :stickoutt


I just got a cold chill as I pictured someone putting an R-Type sticker on their 3 series... right below the //M emblem they got off Ebay.

Hello "mryakan":

Well, assuming that the cameras are triggered instantly, and the exposure time is zero (no blur due to movement during the exposure) the speed would have to be high enough to doppler shift the image out of the sensitivity range of the camera.

To be conservative, this would mean (if you were moving away from the camera) that the blue frequencies would be shifted all the way to the red.

Blue - wavelength approx. 400 nm
Red - wavelength approx. 800 nm

frequency = c/lamda

Fb = 300*10^6/400*10^(-9)
Fb = 750 THz

Fr = 300*10^6/800*10^(-9)
Fr = 375 THz

The doppler shift is given by:

Fr = Sqrt((C-V)/(C+V)) * Ft

Fr = frequency received by the observer
Ft = frequency transmitted by the object

In order to shift the highest frequency (blue) down to the lowest (red):

375*10^12 = Sqrt((C-V)/(C+V)) * 750*10^12

Solving:

V=0.6 * C

Where C=speed of light = 300*10^6 m/s

So, your velocity would need to be 0.6 * 300*10^6 = 180*10^6 m/s

This translates to 403 million mph.


And, interesting things happen when we start getting close to "C". For example, to an observer, you are going to get shorter.

Lorentz contraction can be calculated by:

L = Lo/gamma

L = observed length
Lo = actual length
gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-beta)
beta = V^2/C^2

So, for our case:

beta = (0.6 * C)^2/C^2
beta = 0.36

gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-.36)
gamma = 1.25

So, if the length of the 335 is about 12 feet, it will appear to an observer to be only about 9.6 feet.

And, you will get heavier.

If we ignore the complications of transverse vs longitudinal mass, the traditional way to calculate relativistic mass is similar to that for length contraction:

M = gamma * Mo

Mo = rest mass
M = actual mass

So, if we assume that the 335 has a rest mass of 3500 Lbm, the actual mass due to the velocity will be:

1.25 * 3500 = 4375 Lbm.

Now, how about someone telling us how much energy it would take to get the 335 to that velocity?
lol, I knew I could always count on you for some quantum physics fun I haven't been exposed to since 2nd year in Engineering school. Anyway, I was hoping you'd take into consideration the time it takes to trigger the camera (detect the speed exceeding the speed limit) and then take a picture (shutter lag etc) and see how fast you'd have to be going to be out of the visible range of the camera, but I know that won't be as much fun as the above, at least not for you :D.

Omg. Einstein lives.
and he drives a BMW 335i. I knew it was a mistake taking him out of Germany, otherwise we'd have a 335 that can doppler shift by now (albeit everyone may have been forced to do some kind of salute to start the engine!!!).

Photoblocker for $29.99 works like a champ. My buddy used it on his E46, and I parked right next to him. His plate washed out while mine was plain as day. This was with a 7.1 megapixel Canon. Better living through chemistry :)

Photo blocker has been tested time and time again with no positive results.Every magazine that tested it that i have read gave it a big thumbs down.

Hello "mryakan":

Well, assuming that the cameras are triggered instantly, and the exposure time is zero (no blur due to movement during the exposure) the speed would have to be high enough to doppler shift the image out of the sensitivity range of the camera.

To be conservative, this would mean (if you were moving away from the camera) that the blue frequencies would be shifted all the way to the red.

Blue - wavelength approx. 400 nm
Red - wavelength approx. 800 nm

frequency = c/lamda

Fb = 300*10^6/400*10^(-9)
Fb = 750 THz

Fr = 300*10^6/800*10^(-9)
Fr = 375 THz

The doppler shift is given by:

Fr = Sqrt((C-V)/(C+V)) * Ft

Fr = frequency received by the observer
Ft = frequency transmitted by the object

In order to shift the highest frequency (blue) down to the lowest (red):

375*10^12 = Sqrt((C-V)/(C+V)) * 750*10^12

Solving:

V=0.6 * C

Where C=speed of light = 300*10^6 m/s

So, your velocity would need to be 0.6 * 300*10^6 = 180*10^6 m/s

This translates to 403 million mph.


And, interesting things happen when we start getting close to "C". For example, to an observer, you are going to get shorter.

Lorentz contraction can be calculated by:

L = Lo/gamma

L = observed length
Lo = actual length
gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-beta)
beta = V^2/C^2

So, for our case:

beta = (0.6 * C)^2/C^2
beta = 0.36

gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-.36)
gamma = 1.25

So, if the length of the 335 is about 12 feet, it will appear to an observer to be only about 9.6 feet.

And, you will get heavier.

If we ignore the complications of transverse vs longitudinal mass, the traditional way to calculate relativistic mass is similar to that for length contraction:

M = gamma * Mo

Mo = rest mass
M = actual mass

So, if we assume that the 335 has a rest mass of 3500 Lbm, the actual mass due to the velocity will be:

1.25 * 3500 = 4375 Lbm.

Now, how about someone telling us how much energy it would take to get the 335 to that velocity?
Interesting but on Top Gear they beat a speed camera at like 150mph
You can watch it on youtube

170 mph

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ph-qv4gYAE8

170 mph

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ph-qv4gYAE8
So the big question now, can the 335 do it? I bet nm335 will pull out his clak and board and start calculating that maximum theoretical speed of the 335i (unless he's done it already). :D

So the big question now, can the 335 do it? I bet nm335 will pull out his clak and board and start calculating that maximum theoretical speed of the 335i (unless he's done it already). :D

Hello "mryakan":

Did it earlier. Here it is again (perhaps with some minor changes):

This is the equation I use to calculate the HP versus speed due to air resistance. There are other factors to be considered such as the rolling resistance but these are less important at high speeds. Can not ignore them but less important.

In MKS units:

Power = (A/2) * (Cd) * (D) * (v^3)

A = vehicle cross section area in m^2
Cd = drag coefficient and is dimensionless
D = density of air in kg/m^2
v = velocity in m/s

Calculated power is in watts.

If we convert to HP, square feet, and MPH and use sea level air density of 1.29 kg/m^2 we get:

HP = A * Cd * v^3 * (7.179 * 10^(-6))

A = vehicle cross section area in ft^2
Cd = drag coefficient and is dimensionless
v = velocity in mph


The HP is rear wheel HP, not crank. This can be plugged into a spread sheet. I do not have the exact values, but with Cd = 0.30 and A = 24 ft^2 we get:

160 mph requires 212 HP
165 moh requires 232 HP
170 mph requires 254 HP
175 mph requires 277 HP
180 mph requires 301 HP

The cubic relationship of the equation means speed gets really expensive fast. There are (of course) other factors but the air resistance is the dominant factor.

170 mph

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ph-qv4gYAE8
yep but it's all in England and they might use different cameras and all... all in all I bet it is not 400 mph in the staties.

yep but it's all in England and they might use different cameras and all... all in all I bet it is not 400 mph in the staties.

Hello "Vikingus":

I really would not bet on the speed of photography.

For empiric support, I refer you to mythbusters.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/03/episode_73_beating_the_speed_camera_exploding_patc hes.html

It's pretty much impossible to beat them by speed alone. Hover, your initial assumption is the crux of the matter; the cameras are not triggered instantaneously, and the radar / light trigger apparatus, mechanical nature of the shutter, etc., would make the speed necessary much less than relativistic speeds (I assume your calculations are more for humor though :) From the Mythbusters episode and revisit they could do it with a 300 mph supercar IIRC.

Hello "mryakan":

Did it earlier. Here it is again (perhaps with some minor changes):

This is the equation I use to calculate the HP versus speed due to air resistance. There are other factors to be considered such as the rolling resistance but these are less important at high speeds. Can not ignore them but less important.

In MKS units:

Power = (A/2) * (Cd) * (D) * (v^3)

A = vehicle cross section area in m^2
Cd = drag coefficient and is dimensionless
D = density of air in kg/m^2
v = velocity in m/s

Calculated power is in watts.

If we convert to HP, square feet, and MPH and use sea level air density of 1.29 kg/m^2 we get:

HP = A * Cd * v^3 * (7.179 * 10^(-6))

A = vehicle cross section area in ft^2
Cd = drag coefficient and is dimensionless
v = velocity in mph


The HP is rear wheel HP, not crank. This can be plugged into a spread sheet. I do not have the exact values, but with Cd = 0.30 and A = 24 ft^2 we get:

160 mph requires 212 HP
165 moh requires 232 HP
170 mph requires 254 HP
175 mph requires 277 HP
180 mph requires 301 HP

The cubic relationship of the equation means speed gets really expensive fast. There are (of course) other factors but the air resistance is the dominant factor.
What did the Dynos say the 335 was making at the wheels? I think it can do it.

For empiric support, I refer you to mythbusters.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/03/episode_73_beating_the_speed_camera_exploding_patc hes.html

It's pretty much impossible to beat them by speed alone. Hover, your initial assumption is the crux of the matter; the cameras are not triggered instantaneously, and the radar / light trigger apparatus, mechanical nature of the shutter, etc., would make the speed necessary much less than relativistic speeds (I assume your calculations are more for humor though :) From the Mythbusters episode and revisit they could do it with a 300 mph supercar IIRC.

Hello "neapolitan":

Of course I was joking about the doppler light shift. Not that the math was incorrect though!

Too many unknowns to make a real world determination on shutter speed and delay. Also, consider the exposure time. If it is too long, the movement will blur the image. Again, too many unknowns to make a prediction.

I really need to research polarizer covers for the plate.

(Where is Brewster when you need him, and just what is his angle anyway?)

Hello "Vikingus":

I really would not bet on the speed of photography.
hehe point taken :eek:

What did the Dynos say the 335 was making at the wheels? I think it can do it.

Hello "mryakan":

Back at the house and able to run all the variables, based on numerical integration using a cubic spline interpolation and 4th order Runge Kutta methods (damn, I sound like a cone head) using dyno charts published by others, the computer says that the 335i sedan with the step can make 174.6 mph and it would take 143.1 seconds and the distance travelled would be 32,558 feet.

Now, I really don't think that I have a firm handle on the time or the distance at these extremes because of numerical error but I think the 175ish is likely in the ball park.

I really need to brush up on possible symplectic integration techniques to make this more accurate.

Since you folks did not "reflect" badly on me for the "Brewster" joke, I won't bring up Hamilton and his dynamic sense of humor.

Hello "mryakan":

Back at the house and able to run all the variables, based on numerical integration using a cubic spline interpolation and 4th order Runge Kutta methods (damn, I sound like a cone head) using dyno charts published by others, the computer says that the 335i sedan with the step can make 174.6 mph and it would take 143.1 seconds and the distance travelled would be 32,558 feet.

Now, I really don't think that I have a firm handle on the time or the distance at these extremes because of numerical error but I think the 175ish is likely in the ball park.

I really need to brush up on possible symplectic integration techniques to make this more accurate.

Since you folks did not "reflect" badly on me for the "Brewster" joke, I won't bring up Hamilton and his dynamic sense of humor.



Like I said, 170ish mph

Like I said, 170ish mph

Hello "Blue330i2006":

Yup.

However it is a bit more satisfying to be able to do the chalk work.

Now, let's talk about my friend's Bently and the claimed 195 mph top speed. He promises that we can try this on I-25 North when we both have some spare time (and a bit of spare cash for bail if we get caught.)

It is a really nice looking Bently! Considering he picked up a bank teller (female) a little over 1/3 his age during our last business meeting, I might be driving the wrong car. But then we are both really old. What the hell do I know?

Hello "Blue330i2006":

Yup.

However it is a bit more satisfying to be able to do the chalk work.

Now, let's talk about my friend's Bently and the claimed 195 mph top speed. He promises that we can try this on I-25 North when we both have some spare time (and a bit of spare cash for bail if we get caught.)

It is a really nice looking Bently! Considering he picked up a bank teller (female) a little over 1/3 his age during our last business meeting, I might be driving the wrong car. But then we are both really old. What the hell do I know?

When that bank teller gets through with him, you might need to use that chalk to outline his body after he croaks from a heart attack brought on by hyper-arousal. I kid, I kid. I'm a kidder, you know.

:lol

Hello "Blue330i2006":

Yup.

However it is a bit more satisfying to be able to do the chalk work.

Now, let's talk about my friend's Bently and the claimed 195 mph top speed. He promises that we can try this on I-25 North when we both have some spare time (and a bit of spare cash for bail if we get caught.)

It is a really nice looking Bently! Considering he picked up a bank teller (female) a little over 1/3 his age during our last business meeting, I might be driving the wrong car. But then we are both really old. What the hell do I know?
Well with this new V pill, you guys might have a chance, but doesn't hurt to bring your heart rate up driving such cars before doing anything more exciting :alright.

Now my question for you is, how does Silicone or Saline react to high altitude? favorably I hope ;)

^gross

Hello "Blue330i2006":

Yup.

However it is a bit more satisfying to be able to do the chalk work.

Now, let's talk about my friend's Bently and the claimed 195 mph top speed. He promises that we can try this on I-25 North when we both have some spare time (and a bit of spare cash for bail if we get caught.)

It is a really nice looking Bently! Considering he picked up a bank teller (female) a little over 1/3 his age during our last business meeting, I might be driving the wrong car. But then we are both really old. What the hell do I know?

I quit doing the "chalk work" the day I finished my Masters. Now, most can be done in my head to the standard of close enough "for govt work".

Have fun with the Bently. It is fun running a good car that can handle it, at warp speed. Be careful and watch the skies also!!

yes, the calculations prove Jeremy Clarkson is wrong:alright