I believe all glass are UVB protected, so you are not going to get much of a tan on your left side if the window is closed. However, the side window is not UVA protected so you will get premature skin aging and a higher chance of skin cancer on driver side of your arm and face.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
glass roof - production change (July 2018)?
- Thread starter gzzn
- Start date
I believe all glass are UVB protected, so you are not going to get much of a tan on your left side if the window is closed. However, the side window is not UVA protected so you will get premature skin aging and a higher chance of skin cancer on driver side of your arm and face.
Perry
Active Member
Here is something interesting. This is an IR image from my camera at night of my M3 in my drive way. This is the easiest way to tell between the colored film and not. Note that this is a perfectly dry California morning. I just got delivery of this P3D- on 9/12/18 VIN 994xx and sure enough no colored film on the back -- only on the top. I guess they still have old stock on the top glass. As a side note I have driven on hot days and I feel no heat coming from above.
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
I believe tanning is part of the PUP. Cheap M3s won’t have that feature.
Perry
Active Member
Notice that on the back window you can't see in the car through the top most half which means it blocked the IR light coming from the camera. But on the bottom half of the rear window you can see the inside. Nothing is third party tinted. So my conclusion is that the bottom half of the rear window provides no IR protection. I think the top rear and the top glass do block IR by different methods. As far as UV, I think all the glass blocks against that.
No, you just can't see it because that car hasn't had the lower portion tinted. (You can clearly see that it has been tinted on the white car.)
Someone needs to run this test on glass that has the full IR coating and glass that has the 1/2 coating as well. Is this an app on the phone? I guess the IR camera on my driveway security camera wont be of any use for this right?
Doubtful. Is it a thermal camera? Thermal imaging is LWIR (8-15um). The picture I recognize as NIR photography. NIR (0,75-1,4um) is the spectrum that one cares about, since it makes up a large minority of the sun's energy:
The sun's light energy is 3-5% UV, 42-43% visible, and the rest infrared, with the majority of the infrared energy in the NIR spectrum. So you really want to block NIR if your goal is to keep the car cool.
NIR photos (often colorized with visible spectrum data) look like this:
Defining characteristics of NIR photos is leaves look bright (if it's sunny out), water looks dark, and details are usually crisp because there's plenty of photons to work with.
Longwave (LWIR/thermal) photos look like this:
Defining characteristics are that warm things look bright, many objects look translucent, and images usually look blurry or washed out due to the low number of photons available to the camera.
Last edited:
Perry
Active Member
No this is not an app. This was my home security camera. Night cameras use IR lighting at night so they can illuminate the area with light that the camera sees although human eyes can not see. So it was taken mostly with IR light since my street is visibly very dark. Then I logged into my recorder and grabbed a snap shot from the surveillance video.
Note how the leaves of the bushes to the left are bright pink even though they normally are green with visible light.
Snow Drift
[Off-Road Assist] Activated
Are you certain that your camera is showing you a pure IR image? Most webcams use a combo of visible and IR, so you may be seeing visible light transmitting thru the glass back to your camera. If you can ensure that your cam is only sensitive to IR, then you are absolutely right.
insaneoctane
Well-Known Member
Very helpful photo. While I would conclude that it clearly shows the non-tinted rear window does NOT offer IR rejection, it is uncertain about the rest of the tinted portion. The camera taking this picture is sending IR light from the camera to the vehicle, bouncing/illuminating the vehicle and then returning to the sensor of the camera. The fact that you can see INSIDE the rear of the car is evidence that IR passed through the glass and illuminated the seats before passing again through the glass and to the camera. With the very heavy tinting on the top of the rear glass, we don't know if that is what is diminishing the IR light source or not. In order to illuminate the interior the IR would have to pass through the tinted glass TWICE and with such a heavy Tint, I question the strength of the IR light source. The entire rear glass could still very easily not have any IR reflective coating...
The only reason that the "dark" upper section doesn't show through is because it's broad spectrum and blocks the majority of light in all parts of the spectrum, and there's just not enough light in that image to be able to see through it well. If you look closely (or enhance the contrast), you'll note that you can still see the pillars through the tinted part of the glass.
Last edited:
Perry
Active Member
I don't have any regular lights around my house so the street is dark but not pitch dark. Yes there is some visible light there too but very little. I would say 20% visible and the rest IR.
super20g
Member
Activating the rear defroster still causes horizontal distortion like the old glass, so they didn't replace the back glass in order to fix the rear defroster issue. I thought maybe that was a possibility since they left the roof glass the same.
Exactly what runt8 said. Vehicle window glass has a plastic layer sandwiched between glass layers, and they're all bonded together. This is so that if a window breaks because it's hit with something, the glass doesn't just shatter into a million pieces and rain on everyone inside. Glass is actually part of the "safety cell" of a vehicle, if you can believe that, so there are all sorts of rules and regulations that it needs to comply with. The ANSI organization has a set of standards, the NHTSA has a set they want to see, there's a few federal motor vehicle safety standard sets for auto glass, and so on. Here's a link that lists some of the standards for glazing material (glass) in vehicles eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
Here in the US, the DOT used to ban any kind of films on commercial vehicle windows, but they've reversed that decision because truckers were getting higher rates of skin cancer on their arms and face that were nearest to the side window. Now they are allowed to utilize films that protect against UV, but they are not allowed to tint their windows.
For a newspaper story about this, check out this link from 2013. Does my windshield protect me from the sun? . There's also a reuters article talking about the wide variation of UV protection on side windows from 2016 Car door windows don't stop UV rays | Reuters .
Ultimately, you can go for a long drive on a sunny day without sun screen and see how long it takes to get a sun burn with the windows up. Then go outside with no sun screen and see how long it takes the other arm to burn.
Ran the remote control/camera test on my "full orange" back glass model 3. Could see the IR through the front windshield, not visible through the top glass or through the front part of the back glass, and partially visible through the back part of the back glass. It looks like the consensus is that the IR is rejected the same with the new back glass but I really wish someone without the orange effect could perform the remote control test on their back glass to verify.
I also have the distortion on the back glass and I'm scheduled to have it replaced with the "upgraded version" in the next couple of weeks but would like to verify the IR rejection prior to the replacement. I'm not as concerned about the aesthetics as I am about having less distortion and adequate heat rejection. I'm still a little on the fence about the replacement as the distortion isn't horrible and I don't want to introduce any complications from getting the work done.
I also have the distortion on the back glass and I'm scheduled to have it replaced with the "upgraded version" in the next couple of weeks but would like to verify the IR rejection prior to the replacement. I'm not as concerned about the aesthetics as I am about having less distortion and adequate heat rejection. I'm still a little on the fence about the replacement as the distortion isn't horrible and I don't want to introduce any complications from getting the work done.
Similar threads
