Why is BMW putting speed limiters on its cars?

[catchm3ifyoucann]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

No need to apologize. I knew precisely what you meant, I was just clarifying for the good of the forum!

How are things in sunny San Diego? I used to work biotech in LaJolla.

Cheers-mk

Originally Posted by Dave 90TT

Actually just retired from active USMC service, and moved to Colorado. But San Diego is great...except for the taxes, the traffic, and the cost of living...

Better question here is why would either of you leave California especially San Diego... I think theres more injustice in your move then speed limiters

[Mandi90TT]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

Better question here is why would either of you leave California especially San Diego... I think theres more injustice in your move then speed limiters

taxes, politics, cost of living, traffic.

[Dackelone]

Originally Posted by Dave 90TT

At least on the F8x series (M3/4 and M5/6) it does need to be a full ECU tune, not a piggyback to do this. Not sure if the M5/6 ECU has been broken, but the F8x M3/4 has, although it does require the ECU be removed from the engine, and a bench tune done, as opposed to real time tuning. Either way, though, the speed limiter can be removed via ECU tune, but not a piggyback tune.

I don't think that is quite true. A friend of mine who owns a F82 M4 simply coded his V-Max to "off". He is not tuned, but runs the factory DME software. At first, I thought he got a hold of the "M driver's package" coding... but in fact, he simply coded his V-Max off. He can hit almost 300 kph now (295 kph to be exact). But then again he is a master coder - AND he works for BMW AG, so he knows the right guys to "ask" for help on this.

Dackel

[Twixboy]

Originally Posted by shoei

Mirrors on the bmw don't fold out until you hit 21 mph... I'm sure someone reversing has / will run over a child or something...

Wow, I didn't know that (my BMW is old). That sounds dangerous.. now I'm curious why there's no option to change that in the system menu.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

Better question here is why would either of you leave California especially San Diego... I think theres more injustice in your move then speed limiters

Lol

I'm typically field-based and spent about 7-14 days per month there for nearly 18 months. I'm no longer house-broken enough to work in an office with actual people for more than that time period.

It was the best of both worlds. No taxes or crazy RE prices but, leave when it started changing my outlook too much! Traffic is crazy everywhere now.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Dave 90TT

taxes, politics, cost of living, traffic.

I was a lobbyist in a previous life. I have to bathe every time I say it out loud. UGH.



Back to our original scheduled thread.

[Mandi90TT]

Originally Posted by Dackelone

I don't think that is quite true. A friend of mine who owns a F82 M4 simple coded his V-Max to "off". He is not tuned, but runs the factory DME software. At first, I thought he got a hold of the "M driver's package" coding... but in fact, he simply coded his V-Max off. He can hit almost 300 kph now (295 kph to be exact). But then again he is a master coder - AND he works for BMW AG, so he knows the right guys to "ask" for help on this.

Dackel

Couple of things: 1st, the two bolded statements contributed a lot to his being able to do so. Second, that was on a euro-spec M4 (I'm assuming), so there is a bit of a difference. Third, the DME locks after 10 hours of first use. No, not ten hours of use, but ten hours from the first use, thus making it especially difficult for any US owners to do so. However, even folks who have taken European delivery prior to shipping to the US, have not been able to unlock the limiter. So, there is a bit more to it, than just coding out the speed limiter.

There's a number of threads on the F8x forums about folks trying to do this, and the only ones that are known (aside from your friend, and this is the first I've heard of it, and I follow the forums pretty well) to be able to unlock the speed limiter are from an actual ECU flash, rather than just coding it out.

[Schulz]

Speed limiters solve only half the problem. It is lack of proper training that causes most accidents. Training that makes the driver focus on the road and not on his cellphone. If drivers are well trained and pay attention to what they are doing it can reduce the number of accidents drastically.

[Efthreeoh]

I'm so pissed my car can't go 156 MPH. Goddammitt!

[gthal]

OK... stepping on the soap box...

Not really relevant in North America IMO. You get caught doing even close to 150mph and you are in jail in many places. At those speeds, if ANYTHING goes wrong (tire or other mechanical failure, animal, road debris, another vehicle doing something unexpected) and it is catastrophic. No place for that on public roads IMO. So, unless someone is a track junky (and there aren't many tracks you can approach that speed anyway), seems irrelevant to worry about speed limiters that are 150+ mph.

Yeah, I know everyone in this discussion has amazing skill and experience to do this safely but for 99% of the driving population it's not realistic. My hundreds of track hours have only served to convince me that I would be an idiot to do this myself... now if you are in Germany and it's legal on certain roads, yeah, fine.

Now stepping off the soap box...

[zx10guy]

I wonder if what BMW does for the S1000RR superbike is relevant here. With the S1000RR, there's an added mode called Slick which you have to manually turn on. There's a key plug you have to insert into the a plug harness under the fairings to activate it.

The Slick mode pretty much turns off all or most of the nannies and uses a more aggressive software profile. Making it harder to activate was done intentionally as BMW wanted to make sure you really want that mode turned on. I've ridden the S1000RR in Sport mode at the track and it's a beast already. Can't imagine what Slick mode would bring. And the track school I attend which uses the S1000RR won't let any of the students use Slick mode.

Maybe doing something like this for those who want to eliminate the top speed governor would be a compromise. It one allows the owner to take off the limiter and to absolves the manufacturer from any liability. As if the owner does this, they're doing a conscious effort to remove this "safety" feature and anything that happens as a result is solely the owner's fault.

[Vapiano]

Originally Posted by Dackelone

Note: for ///M cars, IF you go to one of BMW's Driving Schools, after you graduate, you get a code/letter, that any BMW dealer can update your engine SW... this will increase your top speed to 280 kph.

2nd Note:for non M cars... IF you have M-Sport you will also have a little known option code #840 "speed synconation"
l

Sounds like I need to sign up for the driving school. I did the Porsche Sports Driving School this past September and it was epic!

Originally Posted by Dave 90TT

Actually just retired from active USMC service, and moved to Colorado. But San Diego is great...except for the taxes, the traffic, and the cost of living...

Semper Fi Teufelshunde

[Nicholas Bentley]

All the way back in post #8, there was a clipping from a story about a car (a Porsche I think) that went off road in a crash and leveled a maple tree with an eighteen-inch trunk after it had already flew a long way and gone through a pine tree and some cedar trees. I don't know where that story came from, but I respectfully call BS. I've seen cars much heavier and traveling at very high rates of speed wrap around a 8" tree without putting a scratch on the tree. There's no way in hell a car traveling any speed is going through an 18" maple tree unless it's rotten to the core. But anyway, regarding the post, I have no problem personally with a 155 MPH limiter on my car. I will never go that fast anyway unless I take it to the track. Doing that on public highways is dangerous and stupid for many reasons.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Nicholas Bentley

All the way back in post #8, there was a clipping from a story about a car (a Porsche I think) that went off road in a crash and leveled a maple tree with an eighteen-inch trunk after it had already flew a long way and gone through a pine tree and some cedar trees. I don't know where that story came from, but I respectfully call BS. I've seen cars much heavier and traveling at very high rates of speed wrap around a 8" tree without putting a scratch on the tree. There's no way in hell a car traveling any speed is going through an 18" maple tree unless it's rotten to the core. But anyway, regarding the post, I have no problem personally with a 155 MPH limiter on my car. I will never go that fast anyway unless I take it to the track. Doing that on public highways is dangerous and stupid for many reasons.

You are wrong. Google it. It is a VERY old story and is famous. Just like the M5 runway story where 4 kids were killed in the drivers' parent's M5.

What kind of car have you seen this occur? Weight has absolutely nothing to do with proper design and construction. Take a look at YouTube at the high-speed wrecks on the autobahn. A few are in excess of 180 mph.

Next.

[Nicholas Bentley]

Well, perhaps I don't know how to search Google properly, but maybe you can show me the 18" thick tree that any car knocked down. A healthy tree that size is incredibly strong and heavy (much heavier than the heaviest car). It has to be to hold up all that weight and not blow over in a strong storm. Google "car hit tree" for example and look at the really small trees and the considerable damage done to the cars that hit them. Look at the small tree (8" maybe) that the "Paul Walker/Roger Rodas" Porsche hit. I still don't buy it just because it's a old and famous story. People exaggerate and over time the stories become exorbitant. A 6" tree may have turned into an 18" tree. I could be wrong as you said, but I need to see real evidence instead of reading a story with no photographic evidence before I'll believe that one. Anyway, I have personally seen 2 car wrecks involving trees. One of them was when I was in high school (back in the 80's) which involved two of my closest friends who were killed when their 1968 Camaro ran off the road and hit a 12" diameter oak tree head on. The car then stood straight up and wrapped itself around the tree like someone made a chicken wrap out of the car body. The police estimated it hit the tree at around 170 MPH (it wasn't stock obviously). I'm pissed at them to this day for being so stupid to drive that fast on public highways. Luckily the tree was there, because directly behind it was the bedroom of a small child in a house not 15' from the tree. The second time was when I was working as a volunteer firefighter in my early 20's. A 69 Dodge Charger did a head on with a 10" oak tree with similar results. It was going at least 150 MPH by estimates. Those two personal experiences plus tons of pics of cars highly damaged by small trees with little damage kind of distorts my world view. Prove me wrong and I'll admit it happily. Your turn.

[SakhirM4]

This was the first documented M4 crash (20 year old in Germany) - hit a tree and I think the tree won.

[MKSixer]

Please read the excerpt again, more closely.

I read this story in either C and D or R and T a long time ago. I searched again and found it on Reenlist both when I posted a copy of the account and when I found it just now. It took a total of 2 minutes.

Another comment on the reference cars that you used as 'proof' that this could not happen: The cars built in that time era can be driven through by the cars of that day, 1990, or currently. There is no contest in structural integrity.

Lastly, with enough KE, the 928 could easily drive through the tree. This is the same principle behind the depleted uranium penetrators which are used by various military organizations for tank munitions. The amount of energy carried by the vehicle as imparted by it's speed is important, not ones belief in what, 'may' happen.

I'm sorry about the loss of your friends. I lost my cousin in a motorcycle accident when we were teenagers. You never forget.

Cheers-mk

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

See below:

From a magazine excerpt...

A fifteen-year old California boy who stole and crashed a 1987 Porsche 928S later told an officer, "I had it as fast as it would go, and I wasn't letting off." The officer estimated the car was traveling "about 200 mph" at the time of the accident. When the Porsche left the road, it flew 65 to 75 yards, knocked down a pine tree, sliced neatly through two mature cedar trees - ten feet above the ground - and concluded it's flight by leveling a maple tree with an eighteen-inch trunk. Examining the wreckage, a reporter for the Anne Arundel County Sun spotted the nearby remains of a compact-disc player and the Bon Jovi CD Slippery When Wet, whose last track is "Wild in the Streets."

You can't make this crap up!

Cheers-mk

Yes, you can make this crap up. I went to the website you mentioned because it did not seem plausible and I was bored. Turns out your Car and Driver reference is a guy with a screen name of caranddriver, not the magazine.

Having the unfortunate personal experience of going head on into a tree at 65 mph after flying through the air myself I can tell you for sure that the tree won; hardly a scratch on it.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Nicholas Bentley

Well, perhaps I don't know how to search Google properly, but maybe you can show me the 18" thick tree that any car knocked down. A healthy tree that size is incredibly strong and heavy (much heavier than the heaviest car). It has to be to hold up all that weight and not blow over in a strong storm. Google "car hit tree" for example and look at the really small trees and the considerable damage done to the cars that hit them. Look at the small tree (8" maybe) that the "Paul Walker/Roger Rodas" Porsche hit. I still don't buy it just because it's a old and famous story. People exaggerate and over time the stories become exorbitant. A 6" tree may have turned into an 18" tree. I could be wrong as you said, but I need to see real evidence instead of reading a story with no photographic evidence before I'll believe that one. Anyway, I have personally seen 2 car wrecks involving trees. One of them was when I was in high school (back in the 80's) which involved two of my closest friends who were killed when their 1968 Camaro ran off the road and hit a 12" diameter oak tree head on. The car then stood straight up and wrapped itself around the tree like someone made a chicken wrap out of the car body. The police estimated it hit the tree at around 170 MPH (it wasn't stock obviously). I'm pissed at them to this day for being so stupid to drive that fast on public highways. Luckily the tree was there, because directly behind it was the bedroom of a small child in a house not 15' from the tree. The second time was when I was working as a volunteer firefighter in my early 20's. A 69 Dodge Charger did a head on with a 10" oak tree with similar results. It was going at least 150 MPH by estimates. Those two personal experiences plus tons of pics of cars highly damaged by small trees with little damage kind of distorts my world view. Prove me wrong and I'll admit it happily. Your turn.

I found his reference. Its a guy who calls himself caranddriver as a screen name, not the magazine. Just more made up stuff on the internet.

From personal experience and looking at car/tree encounters, I agree with you that there is no car at any speed that is going to level an 18" maple tree.

Maybe someone with the screen name roadandtrack will chime in and correct us

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

I found his reference. Its a guy who calls himself caranddriver as a screen name, not the magazine. Just more made up stuff on the internet.

From personal experience and looking at car/tree encounters, I agree with you that there is no car at any speed that is going to level an 18" maple tree.

Maybe someone with the screen name roadandtrack will chime in and correct us

Ok.

I READ this first in C and D OR R and T a Loooooonnnggggg time ago and the memory was triggered when I read post number 3 in this thread. I got it off Rennslist. Not from the person who has the screen name caranddriver. Additionally, I didn't participate in auto forums until Feb of 2011. I am not a member of Rennlist. I REMEMBERED reading it in one of those two mags and attempted to reference the report. This was the first reference I found.

Wow. Please read.

If necessary I can dust off my physics, look up the respective densities of the trees mentioned in the report, compute the amount of energy contained in a 1500kg object moving at approximately 80 m/s with an impact area of approximately 50 sq cm on a fixed object (the tree).

And please understand..except in the most dense of materials, there is more 'space' in a 'solid' material than actual material. Additionally, when extreme velocities and energy levels are involved, materials become plastic and as they say, 'almost anything goes'. This is how you end up with 2x4s penetrating trees during hurricanes and/or tornados.

Cheers-mk

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Ok.

I READ this first in C and D OR R and T a Loooooonnnggggg time ago and the memory was triggered when I read post number 3 in this thread. I got it off Rennslist. Not from the person who has the screen name caranddriver. Additionally, I didn't participate in auto forums until Feb of 2011. I am not a member of Rennlist. I REMEMBERED reading it in one of those two mags and attempted to reference the report. This was the first reference I found.

Wow. Please read.

If necessary I can dust off my physics, look up the respective densities of the trees mentioned in the report, compute the amount of energy contained in a 1500kg object moving at approximately 80 m/s with an impact area of approximately 50 sq cm on a fixed object (the tree).

And please understand..except in the most dense of materials, there is more 'space' in a 'solid' material than actual material. Additionally, when extreme velocities and energy levels are involved, materials become plastic and as they say, 'almost anything goes'. This is how you end up with 2x4s penetrating trees during hurricanes and/or tornados.

Cheers-mk

Give it a rest.

[Mandi90TT]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Ok.

I READ this first in C and D OR R and T a Loooooonnnggggg time ago and the memory was triggered when I read post number 3 in this thread. I got it off Rennslist. Not from the person who has the screen name caranddriver. Additionally, I didn't participate in auto forums until Feb of 2011. I am not a member of Rennlist. I REMEMBERED reading it in one of those two mags and attempted to reference the report. This was the first reference I found.

Wow. Please read.

If necessary I can dust off my physics, look up the respective densities of the trees mentioned in the report, compute the amount of energy contained in a 1500kg object moving at approximately 80 m/s with an impact area of approximately 50 sq cm on a fixed object (the tree).

And please understand..except in the most dense of materials, there is more 'space' in a 'solid' material than actual material. Additionally, when extreme velocities and energy levels are involved, materials become plastic and as they say, 'almost anything goes'. This is how you end up with 2x4s penetrating trees during hurricanes and/or tornados.

Cheers-mk

I always enjoy watching/reading when people on the internet (or in person, even better then) refuse to admit they are wrong, and instead double down and make themselves look even more foolish.