Radar detectors and Active Laser Jammers - WAIT !

[TSi+WRX]

Hey Everyone,

I'm not sure who here knows, but I'm also a confessed "countermeasures" nut when it comes to street-driving. :)

Winky is currently protected with an Escort 8500 x50 (Rev5) combined with an Escort ZR3 Laser Shifter - which is an LED-based active LIDAR jammer - and is topped-off with a LaserShield over her front plate.

Recently, the front jamming emitter heads on the ZR3 finally took a bow (common problem as these units took to market during the period before manufacturers realized that the heads took quite a "weathering," and moisture ingress eventually kills these non weatherproof'ed heads), and I've elected to replace them with the powerful diode-based Laser ProPark (dual-head) for complete frontal protection, while retaining the ZR3's rear head for rear protection.

I've also decided to run replica plates in order to further cut-down on my laser return.

All this, though, I guess is just a long-winded way to introduce my interest in that side-hobby, and to hopefully give myself some "cred" in this area. :)

I just wanted to give a heads-up and let everyone here know that there's some rather cool stuff that's expected to come out in first-quarter 2007 in terms of radar detector and also active laser jammer "tech," and that if you can hold-off on your anticipated radar detector and/or laser jammer purchases, you should try your best to restrain your hand from reaching for the wallet/credit-card.

For example, Escort just released information regarding its "9500i" detector, officially, today at CES. Among other nifty features, the most worthy of-note is the use of GPS to allow end-user "marking" of known false signals (thus virtually eliminating falsing along, say, one's usual commute route), speed-traps, and speed/red-light camera locations.

Other goodies are expected, too, from companies like Blinder, which is supposed to announce their evolutionary/improved active laser jammer units.

If at all possible, I'd recommend for my brothers and sisters here to wait-out their upcoming purchases - not only so that these new products can reach market, but also to give enough time to allow for independent hobbyist testing of these products to confirm their true utility, performance, and value.

:)

[Bu11dogg2]

You read my mind!!! I am in the market for the good stuff (see above) and I wanted to ask a few questions first but it seems you answered them first.

Let me know what you think!

[TSi+WRX]

NP, bruddah, glad to assist! :)

If you can hold-out, hold-out. Escort should release this model very soon, and there's been so much excitement over it in the last two days that it is without a shadow of a doubt that countermeasures enthusiast communities like The Guys of Lidar will test-out the unit extensively, particularly asthe 9500i's advanced and very innovative features are, from the *current* standpoint, may pose some technical and applications challenges.

As such, it'll be worth it to wait until some good, real-world testing has been done to this unit to figure out if it's truly a help, or if you're just better-off staying with a top-flight non- GPS-enabled detector such as the Valentine 1 or BEL/Escort's own x50 and STi-Driver, etc., and pair them up with a proven GPS-based trap/camera alert device, such as either the NavAlert or ActiveStealth.

I'll keep everyone here posted!

:)

[Bu11dogg2]

Thanks man!

[TSi+WRX]

Again, no thanks needed, my friend. :)

-----

Updates -

Finally called Escort today, looks like *new* ZR3 front receiver/emitter heads are $180, EACH.

Repair fee is $85, for both heads. Lead-time for repairs is appx. 2 weeks, exclusive of shipping.

Also, my dual-head LPP arrived yesterday. I'm eager to mount them up. :)

[Drift Monkey]

Good thread. Update us!

[TSi+WRX]

Here's a demonstration by Radar Roy on two of the new GPS-enabled features of the upcoming Escort 9500i radar detector:

TrueLock - by which you can note known false signals, lock their geographic location, and then thus "eliminate" them - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb03ZyjDcJM

"Marking" locations - by which you can note positions-of-interest, such as a known speed-trap, red-light/speed camera location, etc. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSYa2Mh9JF8

Price of this unit is said to be in the $450 range, expected availability as quoted from Escort is late Feb./early March, but they've typically been about a month late on their estimated to-market times.

It's hoped that these units will reach mass-market soon enough for the GOL to properly test actual retail units. Current fears include whether or not the GPS locator will be precise enough - as well as the fuzzy-logic good enough - to allow for distinguishing a well-placed enforcer that is "shielded" by the marked TrueLock location, as well as whether or not the combination of GPS/radar-detector may cause the unit to suffer from overheating issues.

Reportedly, laser and radar detection has not "increased" on this model, as it will still share the current 8500 x50's architecture. This is somewhat of a disappointment, given how much superior the current V1 is in terms of laser (depending on circumstance, this can be said for K and Ka-band radar, too) detection, but from where I stand, as a driver whose daily routine exists 99% of the time within false-radar signal infested, dense city routes, this new offering from Escort is very, very attractive.

If you want to read more about this device first-hand:

http://www.radarroy.com/

That's Radar Roy's blog. The ones of-interest are:

(1) the CES Day 1 report, dated Jan. 9
-and-
(2) the Escort 9500i entry, dated Jan. 8

You'll need to scroll down to read these.

[Bu11dogg2]

Cant wait!

[TSi+WRX]

Update -

Escort is now shipping the initial batch of 9500is from their pre-order!

Looks like they're actually ahead of their typical product-launch time-line this time. :lol:

There should be some hobbyist input soon. I would still advise my fellow LGT brothers and sisters to wait-out until some controlled hobbyist testing - such as the ones organized by [i]GOL[/b] takes place, though. No matter how attractive this unit may seem to individual hobbyists the level of end-user input/knowledge is highly variable, as with any other hobbyist community, so sitting-out until a "known-quantity" group has had their go with the equipment would be wise.

[Bu11dogg2]

tanks for da update mon

[TSi+WRX]

UPDATE -

Preliminary sales of the Escort 9500i have been limited to direct-from-factory orders. This unit should be available, beginning next month, through authorized retailers.

Currently, the community advice is still for all but the most hardcore enthusiast to wait until full commercial introduction, and even then, to perhaps spend the extra few bucks for "extended warranty coverage," due to the relative "newness" of the technology that this unit contains.

So far, there's been no concerns in terms of reliable and speedy GPS lock-up, due to the SirfStarIII GPS chip. However, there's still no definitive word on potential overheat issues, as the weather has been relatively cold, nation-wide. Interference with some aftermarket GPS-nav units as well as aftermarket sat.radio, though, have been noted.

There's also a slight bug in how the point-of-interest marking and TrueLock (which effectively eliminates known falses, such as a drug-store's automatic door opener, by using GPS to mark its location as a false signal) work, as some have reported that it will mark the position going only "one way," and that reversing one's route, on the other side of the street, sometimes leads to a re-appearance of the false, and a need to lock it out a second time. Total number of stored points-of-interest is reportedly 5,000 (five thousand) - a shared total between all marked GPS coordinates in-unit.

So far, the promised user-shared points-of-interest has yet to materialize, but being that the unit is now still effectively in "pre-sale" stage, I think that this is too early to judge, and that there's a good chance that by the time the retail units appear, Escort will have this concern taken care of.

No word yet on other USB-enabled features.

Re-visiting the TrueLock feature, there has been some un-organized/un-official hobbyist testing (i.e. individuals), which has shown that this feature truly does work as-advertised, and will discriminate sufficiently to alert to a second, actual enforcement source, even when it is very, very close in proximity to the locked-out false signal.

Reportedly, the unit is now at nearly V1 levels of sensitivity as well - both for Ka and laser, which remains a shortcoming of the 8500x50.

This looks very promising for those of us who live in heavily urban areas that are densely filled with false-producing non-police radar sources.

More updates as I learn more.

Also, the GOL event is less than a month away. Expect a full update on current jammer and detector technology soon thereafte. :)

[Drift Monkey]

Awesome news...appreciate the update!

[jim1969]

I called Escort the other day about the new unit. According to the sales guy I spoke with the new unit has the same radar/laser ability as my 8500X50.

[TSi+WRX]

^ Uncertain, bruddah. This has been a point of massive debate - here's why:

Depending on who you talk to over at Escort, apparently, the information can vary quite a bit.... :lol: I've had this experience, unfortunately, myself.

"Sales" is notorious for giving either outright wrong or slightly misinformed information. "C/S," while they're excellent on issues of customer service/warranty claims, etc., also both vary in terms of their technical knowledge as well as even how well they can shuttle your question off to the RIGHT technical guy. :lol: Tech-support, depending on the tech, can be quite good.

But back to the question:

There's rampant speculation that the 9500i is based on the 8500x50 platform, but whether there is any truth in this or not, no one, at present, knows FOR SURE.

Also, while there's some who currently claim that their 9500i is either on-par or even slightly faster response/having further range than a current-revision V1, this is still also rather unproven, as there are just as many who claim that their 9500i seems no better than their outgoing x50 (either current-revision or immediate-previous revision).

I would honestly wait until the GOL guys get to test this out on a more quantitative basis before subscribing to either side of the issue, especially as there has been no *official* release of such information from Escort, one way or the other, and also as there's so much conflict with what information that Escort has given out already. :)

-----

UPDATE -

Escort has acknowledged the sat.radio interference bug, and is now also paying shipping for the pre-order owners for returning the product for a free fix (expected time-frame is about a week). :)

A+ for customer service, as this bug was only recently made apparent by the first-batch owners.

[TSi+WRX]

UPDATE -

It's been just announced by the GOL that they will *not* be testing a new Blinder unit, which had been rumored to be nearing completion and had been planned to be tested.

Any Blinder testing will occur with their current retail units.

Unfortunately, it seems that the new Blinder units are now on "indefinite hold."

:(

Good news, though, is that the GOL has secured for its testing just about every reputable laser jammer unit that's out on the market today. This should make things very, very interesting!

[TSi+WRX]

GENERAL UPDATE -

GOL testing is complete, they're compiling the results, which can be expected to be published about a week or so from now.

I'll update again when that happens. :)

I don't have any inside connections, but it's already been mentioned that they did find a surprisingly well-performing "budget" radar/laser detector - so for those of you who are on a budget, this will certainly be of-interest.

----

Update on the 9500i (note that this is NOT connected with GOL testing)....

It seems that there's now some concerns with the TrueLock feature.

Many RD.net Forum members - even those who really wanted the 9500i to do well - have returned their units for a full refund from Escort due to issues of the TrueLock feature apparently not working as-advertised, actually causing the unit to not alert properly.

The current speculation is that the lock-out area may be too big, especially for dense urban conditions and even for many suburban conditions. Effectively, what's happening is that their users are TrueLock'ing the "false"/non-LEO signal from, say, the K-band automatic door-opener of their local drug-store, but that the lock-out area is big enough that it also, at the same time, managed to lock-out a nearby true LEO/enforcement signal.

:eek: :(

There's also speculation, albeit much less so, that the "segments" used to categorize frequencies within each band is also somewhat too big, leading to such issues.

--

Personally:

I'd honestly been looking forward to owning a 9500i ... I love my x50 because of its excellent filtering quality. Using the "lo X" City Mode on my Rev 5 model, driving around the city, it's virtually silent (of-course, I still have to respond to K-band falsing, but that's nowhere near as bad) - and I was looking forward to the 9500i to take this "silence" to the next level.

Unfortunately, based on the current concerns of TrueLock, I am definitely NOT going to purchase the 9500i until they have this issue solved, as my densely populated urban area would present the nightmare scenario of having a true enforcement signal being locked-out. This is particularly problematic for me as several of my local townships favor K-band use.

We'll have to see how Escort responds to this over the coming weeks/months. Currently, although several individuals have already called-in or otherwise voiced their complaints to the manufacturer, Escort's C/S is denying that there is a problem, and has maintained to each caller that "they are the first case" which has arisen.

--

On an unrelated note, I'm adding a second LaserProPark unit to my defenses. :)

I currently sport a LaserProPark unit with two heads - one front, one rear. I also utilize an Escort ZR3 Laser Shifter, paired with passive protection in the form of non-metallic replica plates as well as a LaserShield equipped front plate. Although this should provide more than adequate protection for my LGT and my typical driving habits, we're currently planning a trip down to Atlanta, which is one of the biggest LIDAR-enforcement metro areas in the nation. As such, I decided to simply beef-up my frontal protection to insure best-odds.

The addition of another LPP setup would allow me to run two jammer heads up-front, with a single head on the rear, and give me separate front-vs-rear control.

My front-end should receive "near-certain" JTG protection with this setup.

Of-course, I would still expect PTs at distances of around 500 ft. from the rear, but I figure that if I blitzed-by a rear-enforcement scenario without slowing, I'd have deserved the ticket. ;) :)

[TSi+WRX]

Here's a post, copy-pasted, from the RD.net Forum - I think it presents very well the current "problems" that people are reporting with respect to the TrueLock feature.

This post shows that yes, the TrueLock works as-advertised, but that end-user considerations must be taken very seriously in terms of how the lock-outs are set-up (i.e. keeping in mind the physical "area," whether there are other signals [LEOs, particularly], etc.) - otherwise, you'er risking a ticket.

Read-on, please:


Contrary to what others are saying, the 9500i worked as advertised. My friend and i concluded that it really works. I talked to him about the fuzz on why others are not getting a true lock result. This is not to defend escort or try to embarass others as to why i'm posting this. We just felt we need to say something about it.

Factors affecting true loclout signals.

1. Time of day you lock out the signal.

If you lock out a signal on your way to work, there is most likely a chance that you will not lockout all the signals and you will still get some alerts. Some department stores, grocery stores, pharmacies and etc don't open until 9 a.m. and when you come back in the afternoon or the following day, you get an alert from a lockout area.

If you also lockout a signal after work, ther is also a chance that others sources to be lockout is already turned off and when you go by the next day, you get an alert on the same area

2. Distance from the lockout source.

If you lockout a weak signal, there is a chance that you will not lock out all the signals around if you are too far because other weak signals can be easily blocked by vehicles in front of the source or blocked by a say big truck in front, beside or behind you.

3. Not all K or X band sources where not turned on when you lockout the area.

This is self explanatory and can be contributed to 1 and 2.

4. Caution with lockouting a signal with LEO around the area.

It is very important that you have to be cautious in lockouting a source where LEO can be around and his signal source is also turned on constantly whcih can be picked up by the 9500i.

I myself thought that the 9500i does wonders right away and a good example is when i did my first test where i did not get the results i wanted until FUCCO told me what was wrong.

In a controlled environtment where i had the opportunity to turn off and on an auto door sensor, turned on/off police radar with the 9500i and vice versa proved that the 9500i did work as adverstized. My friend so far had no issues with the lockout feature. That's not to say that he won't get one.

When it comes to multiple signal sources, it will be impossible to lockout all the signals because others are strong and others are weak that they are easily blocked by objects. Remember, most auto door sensors are facing forward and downwards. Add distance to that from where you are locking it out and you'll have some problems acquiring the signal.

One thing for sure is that when you lock out a strong signal, you get 100% lockout. Although i have not used the 9500i for a long time and 2 weeks was too short for me. My friend has his for almost 2 months and had no issues with it except for one area where he lockout the source one morning and came back after work and the 9500i alerted on K band . Found out later that he did not lock out all signals because not all sources where turned on. He unlocked the lockout signal in the area one day while he had a day off around 3 in the afternoon and did a relockout of the area again. This time it has been working flawlessly since then.

We just want to share our experience. One thing we did not do was to try lockling out a source that's close to my mph radar frequency. I was planning to do that last 2 weeks but got tied up preparing for the Alabama state championship match. I'll do it this weekend and i'll post the results.


^ From Azonehits - Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:07 pm (on RD.net) - Post subject: Re: True Lock - Did someone get it to work as advertised?

[TSi+WRX]

Update -

Still awaiting release of new battery of tests by GOL. They've got a lot of data to dissect, so please, have patience. :)

------

REGARDING diode-based active laser jammers, AntiLaser and Laser ProPark.

There is some rather disturbing correlations in the community in seeing that the AntiLaser AL G8 and last-generation LPP made in Croatia (the LPP is currently made in UK) are malfunctioning after about 6-months in-operation.

This has yet to be truly confirmed, but a trusted and respected member of the community is currently trying to compile some true data.

The extent of this potential problem is rather unknown.

[TSi+WRX]

UPDATE!!!!

Guys of LIDAR testing is OUT !!!! :D

http://www.guysoflidar.com/

Click on the "2007 Countermeasures Shootout" to see the results. :)

[TSi+WRX]

Updates regarding countermeasures:



Just wanted to let everyone here know that I'm now confident in the after-purchase follow-up of Laser Pro Park's North-American distributor, specifically, KMPH-Canada/Alex Hsiao (note that I have *not* yet had direct experience with their US-based distributor).

KMPH-CA does have a Stateside presence, and my packages came from a Stateside shipping address as its point-of-origin. I should also note, however, that KMPH-CA may be bowing-out of the Stateside market, to be replaced by the coming US-based distributor, KMPH-US/LPP-US. Exactly when this may happen is currently unknown.

In any case, after Canadian and Australian LPP owners voiced concerns of their respective 100 pulse-per-second UltraLyte issues (inconsistent and early punch-throughs, as demonstrated on the latest Guys of Lidar testing), KMPH-UK stepped up and offered revised firmware that addresses this issue in a relatively reasonable time-frame. From there, KMPH offered its customers (even in the States, where the 100 PPS UL is a near non-concern) who requested this upgrade a *free* firmware update.

I just received my updated-firmware boxes a few days ago, and re-installed (this simply required clipping off the power/negative leads, and re-wiring - for me, and note that I have two control boxes [one front, one rear], this was a 10-minute job) the new hardware.

I am now fully confident that should anything go wrong with my LPPs, KMPH-CA will stand behind the product as much as KMPH-UK.

As for the 100 PPS UL "fix," by all independent hobbyist reports, it seems to work very well.

Although the 100 PPS UL should *not* be in-use Stateside (and that I'm well-protected on this via my ZR3), it is good to know that my LPPs now do not carry this "weakness."

--------

Updates on the highly anticipated Laser Interceptor:

It seems like this unit should become available within the next month or two.
RadarDetector.com , previously owned by the famed "Radar Roy," has now been sold to another party. There's hotly contested back-door rumors as to why this happened, but due to the relationship of the enthusiast-Forum RadarDetectors.net to the .com site, I do *not* anticipate that there would be any trouble with purchases/services from the new commercial body.

Also, as a part of this transition, the US-based distributor of the Laser Interceptor has finally come on-line at RD.net to answer questions and semi-officially address some concerns.

Of course, we still do not know if the production-retail units, once they're truly introduced here in the States, will match-up to their outstanding performance seen at the latest GOL testing.

One item that has popped-up, to the chagrin and anger of many in the community, is that the LI will NOT be offered at its previously-anticipated low, low pricing. The newest cost projection for retail, Stateside, is around $600.

This still comes in at $200 to $300 lower than a comparable dual-head AntiLaser or Laser Pro Park, but this price-hike was the point of some bitter, bitter words between enthusiasts who felt like they had been "promised" a lower price-point by the developer of the LI, who had cited, at the time of the GOL testing, that it would come in at the unheard-of price point of $400 for a dual-head setup.

--------

With regard to the AntiLaser G8, the latest product update is a quad-head enabled control-box.

However, it does seem from various reports that there truly is some kind of quality-control issue that's *still* unresolved. The problem causing at least a fraction of the units to essentially "self destruct" after about 6-months in-service.

So far, it seems like the LPP, which is, by all counts, a "copy" of the AntiLaser (and as-such, typically carries a slight temporal lag between firmware and software updates, when compared to the AL), is enjoying a much more solid build and reliability record - and that this "time bomb" concern is currently not an issue with these UK-built products.

It is unknown, however, if the LPPs will or will not eventually show the defect that is causing the AntiLasers to self-degrade. It is also currently unknown as to exactly what is causing the AntiLaser units to behave the way that they do.

AntiLaser is aware of this issue, and has offered to replace/exchange the jammer units, free-of-charge, for those who see the problem. Nevertheless, overseas shipping continues to be somewhat of a hassle, and it's public knowledge that AntiLaser, who had previously offered owners the option between replacement or refund, is no longer offering the latter choice.

--------

Finally, updating everyone on the Escort 9500i detector....

It does seem that this unit still has some issues with its GPS-enabled TrueLock feature. Various hobbyists and enthusiasts are still trying to figure out exactly why it's not quite functioning as-advertised.

To my fellow LGT brothers and sisters, I'd still advise anyone interested in the 9500i for its GPS-enabled features to wait-out.

Myself? I'm still tempted to get it for just the speed-enabled false-reduction features, but I'm not convinced that an item which is known to contain some bugs isn't also going to be unreliably buggy in another area. :( So, I'm sitting tight.........

[TSi+WRX]

Updating developments regarding the much-anticipated Laser Interceptor ("LI").

The RD.net Forum was just informed today, by Radar Roy, that Elvis, the Stateside distributor for the LI, was recently involved in a motorcycle accident, and is currently hospitalized.

Also, much of the older posts regarding the LI was removed from the Forum - no-one knows why, but I'd speculate it was a simple clean-up procedure, seeing as Elvis was not only the Stateside rep for LI, but also the sole moderator of that Forum. To me, this is a good thing to do, as I have no doubt that the persistent "the LI will be here in another month/two" promises were spurring some thoughts as to whether or not this is all just vapor-ware, as well as the repeated basic-level questionings were getting tiresome.

------

Also, brother PGT is running a group-buy on Laser Pro Park units on .com - good pricing from a trusted source, and I'd recommend to anyone who has been on the fence about getting the LPP to go there, now, and take advantage of this opportunity.

[TSi+WRX]

Updating developments regarding the Laser Interceptor ("LI").

The RD.net Forum was just informed this past week, by Radar Roy, that apparently, the principal(s) behind the LI still has/have not been able to generate the legal notifications that was initially agreed-upon by Roy and themselves as being needed to justify opening the discussion sub-Forum for them, based on legal concerns voiced by Roy at the outset (and for which Roy has limited discussion on both the LPP and AL).

Last info. on the anticipated release-date for the LIs, according to Elvis, the stateside rep of LI, was to be mid-August.

No clue now as to when this may be.

I have not been successful in finding another on-line Forum/d-board with which to openly discuss the LI.

Some members of the community, including members of the GOL who initially were so vocal in their support of the LI and so hopeful that their prodution-retail pieces will test as well as the prototype seen during their testing, have now openly expressed sentiment that they fear the LI - in terms of a US release - may be vaporware. To be quite frank, this is my fear as well.

However, we were all reminded by a fellow enthusiast who cited that this kind of issue also surrounded the initial release of the AL and LPP, and that although, technically, neither product is "legal" for sale in the US (due to supposed/contested patent infringements), both are nevertheless easily available.

While some members of the community have gone to such lengths as to try to locate fellow enthusiasts, outside of North America, to purchase the LI direct from its European distributor, from what I know, they have not been successful in such attempts. Neither have members who truly live in other countries been successful in obtaining this, the lates version, of the LI.

[Bskey]

Wow.... this confused me sooooo much. Keep us informed as the story unfolds TSi-WRX.

[Dookie]

This is waaaaaay over my head. Cliff notes????

[KA82]

your on here all day, and its not an active forum. just read it

[Bskey]

hahaha...yeah, but the basics and acronyms are confusing to me!

[Dookie]

your on here all day, and its not an active forum. just read it


:bow: YES MASTER ........ you are the great one.

[TSi+WRX]

:lol:

No Cliff Notes available - I'm having diarrhea at the keyboard. :)

[TSi+WRX]

OK, some more stuff that I forgot to include last time! :oops:

----

he AL G8's "6-month time-bomb" issue has supposedly been traced to wire crimping faults. No word if a re-crimp truly will solve the issue over the long run, and I've also been rather unsuccessful in locating further details as to where, exactly, the faulty crimp(s) is/are located.

-----

A lot of concerns regarding the Escort 9500i have been addressed by Escort.

First, regarding ramp-up, although the new firmware revision is still regarded as far from the "perfection" that Escort has achieved with the x50, it's now regarded by most as being "acceptable."

As for the bigger concerns about the GPS-enabled TrueLock feature, the jury is still somewhat split on this issue. While many current 9500i users seem to think that its faults can be traced back to operator error, it is still not known whether if that's truly the sole cause. Regardless, currently, the best advice given is that if you truly wanted to use the TrueLock feature, that you should first verify, via SpecMode and ExpertMode, the EXACT frequency and number of signals present, and insure that there is not - just by coincidence - a true LEO signal in the area at the time you're locking out the falses.

On a personal note, though, I'm still not quite convinced enough to plunk down change for the 9500i......

-----

For those of you looking for a truly "cloaked" detector (i.e. frequent trips into radar-detector banned areas) that is totally vehicle-integrated, Bel has just released photos of its STi-R system. Think of it as an Escort SR7/SRX with an even more easily integrated display and control-gear, and which is totally VG-2 and Spectre proof (just like the stand-alone Bel STi-Driver).

The price-tag for this item is expected to be north of $1200..... http://www.lersoc.com/modules/pnphpbb2/images/smiles/icon_surprised.gif

[Bskey]

hey....that one made some sense....mostly. Thanks TSi!

[TSi+WRX]

:D

Glad to be of-assistance. :)

I know it can be hard for non-hobbyists to keep-up with all of the goings-on with thin the radar-detector (and other speed-dectection countermeasures) world, so I do this as a form of "public service."

[Dookie]

:lol:

No Cliff Notes available - I'm having diarrhea at the keyboard. :)

TSI - Just wanted to give you props for your indepth research!! :tup: For the record, I'm not putting this thread down at all, but instead clowning myself because I have to read this several times just to understand the tech. that's built into these radar detectors. Funny thing is, I can teach you everything you need to know about building a house, but when it comes to this, I'm just :eek: .

+1 for indepth reasearch!

[TSi+WRX]

^ :lol: No problem at all, bro - I was totally laughing along with you guys....like I've said before, I *know* I have a problem with getting diarrhea at the keyboard. :lol:

For me, it really isn't all that much research, since I've been involved in the hobby for a while now (actively, for about 9 months - but I've been a background lurker on RD.net for around 3 years). It's easy for me to keep up with all the new and important stuff, and I thought it would make life easier for the rest of you - who may or may not be countermeasures hobbyists - to get a "digest" of the info., and allow you to better keep-up with what's out there. :)


----------

Oh, and an important update that I totally forgot about -

If anyone here has a BEL STi-Driver, please surf over to the radardetector.net discussion Forums, and hit on the "33.8 fix" threads.

Apparently, if you have an STi, you'll want to send it back in to Bel for a reflash, since the previous firmware managed to generate a rather consistently inconsistent "blind spot" to 33.8 Ka band.

[Dookie]

In your opinnion TSI, what would you say would be the "best bang for the buck" for under $200? I need to invest in one since I commute on the highways daily.

I know for fact that the CHP's use mostly the band radars instead of the lasers, since I got to play with it during my ride along. The motorcycle bikes are equiped with laser guns, and good thing they don't run on the same highway I commute on. Only the cruisers run on this highway due to the speeds of the motorists, it's a death trap for motorcycles.

[SubieChik]

You aren't kidding...here is the same way. If you aren't going 75 or 80 you better move all the way to the left.....most of the time even the people in the right lane are keeping up.

Radar detectors are illegal here in VA....isn't it in most states?? Either way, I would love to have one but don't cops have a way of detecting weather you have one or not?? I wouldn't know.

[TSi+WRX]

Best bang-for buck, in my opinion, would be the Beltronics Vector 955. This "second tier" unit has performance that's right up there with the top-dogs, shown in the recent GOL testing. :)

The Whistler Pro-78 is also a favorite among those who are price-limited from the "top-flight" models, and is very much worthy of consideration as well.

[TSi+WRX]

UPDATE !

New update to the GOL website - new testing done on radar detectors.

The 9500i, apparently, has truly been receiving good-faith re-engineering software and/or firmware fixes by Escort. Its performance, now, is quite startling, and seems to have eclipsed the latest Revision of the x50 by a wide margin.

The issue of audio-warning ramp-up, or lack thereof, has been rumored to have taken the lead spot as the next item to be addressed by Escort.

Concerns regarding TrueLock remains. Although smart end-user use/implementation of this tool should either eliminate or minimize potential mis-identification of a true LEO RADAR threat for a "false," I can't help but feel that for many users - particularly those like me, who live in an area where the enforcers use K-band - this feature still needs some more time for its bugs to be worked out. In the mean time, I highly urge anyone looking at the TrueLock feature as the main buying-point of the 9500i to read RIP238's excellent post in this thread:

http://radarinspector.com/index.php?topic=400.0

Focus, particularly, on reply #4 and his excellently presented 3 "risk scenarios."

Also found interesting on this latest round of GOL testing is further examination of the "second tier" detectors. There are definitely some really cost-effective performers out there, in this tier.

---

With respect to laser jammers, the biggest news is that the latest-generation Laser Interceptor is now available for purchase.

There remains, disappointingly, no stateside retailer/distributor in a true-legal sense. Elvis, as cited above, serves as the stateside "representative," but is not legally empowered (nor responsible) in that capacity. In essence, purchasing from Elvis as LI's stateside distributor is much the same as purchasing an LPP from either of the North-American distributors of that product - a "grey-market" transaction.

Direct-purchase of the LI from its Croatian makers (in much the same way that you would obtain the AntiLaser) remains a viable alternative for those who do not mind the hassles (and potential incurred Customs duties and brokerage fees).

No official reports of this highly anticipated product's effectiveness. No true independent hobbyist testing has yet been done - and we're all looking forward to it.

A bit of a disappointment, unfortunately, stains the introduction of the new Blinder M45/M25 LED-based jammers. There's been several reports now of these units either being outright defective or have not performed up to even the level of the outgoing M40/M20 units.

Whether or not these reports hold true remains yet to be examined in further detail, but the initial round of "evidence," however suspect it may be in terms of origin and intent, does not bode well for Blinder.

Further testing is definitely required.......but for the moment, I would advise my friends here, should they be looking towards an active laser jammer solution, to hold-out until the LI has been independently tested, as well as to see what the fuss is about with the Blinder units.

These resolutions should be just over the horizon, and would be worth the wait.

[2.5sbd]

I use the V1 and removed my front licence plate for laser stealth
The V1 has saved my butt at least 2 time a month.
I am leaving tomorrow for High Point NC from New Jersey so the V1 will get a good test ... I hope thos VA cops don't see it resting on my dash

[TSi+WRX]

Update on the Laser Interceptor.

Current testing done by independent hobbyists and enthusiasts have confirmed that this latest LI iteration - "Generation 5" - is just simply amazing, and bears-out the performance seen with the pre-preduction unit at the '07 GOL Contermeasures Shootout.

This is excellent news.

Rumored street-pricing, obtained from their sole US "representative," Elvis, is somewhere around $650 for a dual jammer-head unit, and $1050 for a quad-head unit.

Of-course, there's no confirmation as of yet of overall durability/reliability, since this revision is so young. However, based on previous generations of the LI, this factor should not prove to be an issue.

Customer-service and follow-up, at this early junction, seems to be very strong.

Still no true independent hobbyist/enthusiast group testing, however. But given the tremendously and overwhelmingly positive feedback from independent hobbyists as unique individuals (some of whom I really do trust), I'd say that this item is a sure-bet.

Aside -> Truth be told, I'm actively saving up for one of these units. It truly bears the promise of total JTG and JFG protection, and its ancillary features (i.e. verbally identifies the threat type) is just "next generation."

---

Improvements continue to be made in an evolutionary manner to the Escort 9500i. Audio warning ramp-up on the latest revision has been made to further emulate that of the x50.

[TSi+WRX]

Been a while - time for another update. :)

First, on a personal note.....

I've now had my Laser Interceptors for a couple of weeks. No testing, of course, since I sadly don't have ready-access to LIDAR equipment (and my current budget situation prevents me from renting such from fellow enthusiasts), but I can give y'all some "first impressions."

Installation was simple as could be. I actually really love the LI's mounting brackets. Holding the unit temporarily in-place via the usual 3M Automotive Trim/Mo(u)lding Tape, the way that the brackets for the LI are constructed, as well as where they go in to the unit body, makes for what I think is the most painfree installation I've encountered, so far.

The heads are small and light, as long as you prep'ed the surfaces properly, mounting with just tape should be viable under all-weather conditions. However, I am a traditionalist when it comes to things like this, and I prefer to hard-mount. :) The flat "tape" wire that trails from each head is also somewhat easier to work with, when routing cable, than the common "round" aspect-ratio counterpart seen with either the AL or LPP.

Whether you'll find the heads to offer easier/more versatile mounting will depend on where you'd like to place the heads, as well as your vehicle's particular external modifications. Using the stock upper/main grill, the LPPs heas can be press-fitted through the outboard slats (illustrated below), and it's just tight enough that a piece of the 3M tape will "permanently" secure it to that location. The LI's heads, with their different dimensions, of course, cannot be mounted in this way.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u259/TSi_WRX/frontjammers2.jpg

^ In the picture above, the LPPs are the yellow highlights embedded in the outer corners of my factory upper/main grill - the LIs (and ZR3) are in the lower grill, off to each side of the plate.

For the rear of the vehicle, however, I would think that the LI's "UltraSlim" heads (specifically sized and optically re-designed for rear-of-vehicle use) would be much better than my current LPP setup, since I can use our rear plate cut-out's "overhang" to space one unit to each side of the vehicle.

In terms of an initial-impression, what is perhaps the most impressive thing is, of course, the voice-interface for warnings. The ability to be able to identify the incoming threat is just outstanding. For me, though, there is a slight issue in terms of the volume of the control-box integrated speaker output - I tend to cruise with the windows either completely or partially open in nearly all weather, and even on highways...since my car does sport aftermarket piping both pre- and post-turbo, there's not inconsiderable interior noise (not to mention wind-noise, when I have the window[s] and/or moonroof open, as I usually do), and this makes the voice warnings rather hard to hear.

However, the audible warning tone/buzzer is unmistakable. No problems there.

Overall build quality seems excellent. The control-box, actually, I would place a notch above the LPP, and the RJ connectors' crimps are also better executed than the LPP/AL.

I will be upgrading with a dual rear (UltraSlim) setup in the near future, once my bank account recovers from the hit of purchasing winter tires and rims. :lol:

-----

Regarding the LI, there unfortunately still has been no official independent hobbyist group testing. However, again, the vast majority of independent hobbyist (individual) testing have proved favorable. Currently, it seems that PTs can only be obtained at shorter distances (< 200 ft.) while the LIDAR device is stabilized on a tripod, and with the incoming shot at extremely unfavorable angles.

-----

With regard to the 9500i, yes, I've now started recommending its purchase to friends/family.

Of course, again, the choice of a detector needs to be a personal one - any and all of the top-flight units will offer exceptional performance, with the only difference being end-user preferences and needs (i.e. the RDD cloaking offered by the Bel STi Driver).

What I mean by the "recommendation" above is that if you'd been looking to get a 9500i, previously, I'd hesitated to recommend it due to certain of its bugs being worked-out, as a new model. Currently, all known "bugs" have been addressed, including the ramp-up concern (reportedly, units with date-codes after 4407 should carry the revised, x50-esque ramp-up scheme). If you've purchased a 9500i prior to the ramp-up fix, Escort will reflash the firmware to deliver the new ramp-up scheme free-of-charge.

TrueLock still remains an issue of end-user risk-assessment and user capability, but I'd now say that it is on the order of, say, advanced programming as well as threat-interpretation (both end-user concerns) on the V1.

There is now also a "blue" version of the 9500i out for purchase, for those of you who are victims of fashion ;) . I don't know if any have hit brick-and-mortar stores yet, but Escort has them for direct-sales.

-----

Other news:

The Bel STi-R is still, as of yet, unavailable for purchase here in the US. However, I've heard of enthusiasts purchasing them from other markets - such as Australia - and importing. It's definitely expensive, and I believe there's also some concerns, now, about laser reception. I think anticipated date of release here, Stateside, is some time after the New Year.

Escort/Bel is reportedly working on an updated Shifter (read: laser jammer). No details.

[TSi+WRX]

First and foremost, Escort introduced the 9500ci - a fully concealed, remote, integrated radar/laser solution - at this year's CES.

This is a next-generation unit set to take the top-dog remote-installed spot from their SR7/SR7+/SRX product, and the ci includes the "intelligent" GPS-enabled features from the 9500i stand-alone unit, plus takes artificial-intelligence a step further in offering active determination of falses, via, in-part, your driving habits as you pass perceived threats (i.e. "falses"). What has everyone drooling, though, is the rumor that the 9500ci may surpass even the vaulted V1 in terms of raw sensitivity. Whether this will prove true remains to be seen (as does Escort's claim of full Spectre immunity for this item).

This "next generation" unit also will include the ZR4 Laser Shifter, which is Escort's replacement for the outgoing ZR3. No-one knows how well this new active laser jammer will perform, but again, speculation has it that untold dollars went into its R&D, and that its performance, for a LED-based jammer, will surpass that of its competitors by a great margin.

All of this leads to the current advice regarding Escort products:

If your local LIDAR threats include only the PL-III and also only see "favorable" enforcement setups, you can very likely score an *excellent* deal on the now-near-defunct ZR3.

And if you're interested in the SR7/SR7+/SRX, you might as well just sit-tight, and wait and see what the 9500ci has to offer.

[ Aside: Escort has retracted their stipulation that you must have these remote-mounted units "custom installed" by an Escort-authorized professional installer. This can not only save you quite a few bucks, but should also help keep bad installers (yes, even professionals can do a horrible job with these installs) out of the loop. ]

-----

In terms of the Blinder products, there's continued debate as to the effectiveness of the M45/35/35 units (current-generation units, replacements for the M40/30/20, which are now defunct) - as in whether or not they are even up-to-par with the old M40/30/20. Unfortunately, for the last set of GOL tests, only the M40/30/20 was available, but things should be clarified by the time of the upcoming test.

Regardless of any performance concerns, it's still without any doubt in anyone's mind that the Blinder company is definitely one of the best when it comes to product warranty and after-sales service. That, combined with the fact that they're one of the only (the other being Escort) truly aboveboard US-based companies engaged in this field, makes them the sole purchase consideration for some individuals.

Currently, if you're looking to buy a Blinder, I'd either save a few bucks and try to source a M40/30/20 unit via secondary sources, or, alternatively, simply sit-tight and await the next round of GOL tests, which should definitively put to-bed the current concerns regarding the M45/35/25.

-----

With regard to the AntiLaser (AL) and Laser Pro Park (LPP) twins, there seemed to be, about 6 months ago, a period of time during which nearly *everyone's* AL (and to a certain extent, also LPP - but by a far smaller number) units were failing.

This was traced to two factory/production concerns - bad wire crimping at the RJ connectors and also defective weathersealing on the exposed jammer/emitter heads.

The products affected carried purchase-dates at or before January, 2007, so this should no longer be a concern of anyone buying new pieces. However, for those of you shopping on the secondary market, be aware of this potential concern, particularly as you likely will not receive full warranty coverage as a second-hand owner.

Currently, if you're seeking an AntiLaser product, you'll still have to make the purchase from overseas. However, for the LPP, there now exists both a Canadian as well as stateside reseller.

Regardless of which way you go between these two products, both the AL and the LPP are now well-established entities, and reports of follow-up service have been excellent. It may cause some of you a bit more lost-sleep, if and when the product shows signs of trouble, since neither of these companies are truly US-based, like Escort and Blinder, but honestly, no-one has reported problems dealing with either AL direct, from Croatia, nor from either of the two North-American (stateside or Canadian) LPP resellers.

In terms of raw jamming power, the AL still seems to have the upper hand - however, on a vehicle of our physical size as well as hardpoint profiles (including the use of a front plate), I would say that two forward-facing heads of either of these two devices will more than sufficiently effect "JTG" of any frontal threat - two heads will "overkill" protection capability. http://legacygt.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

-----

The Laser Interceptor (LI) has now been on-market here in the US for nearly 4 months.

The first batch of jammers (Rev 2.7, Ver. 6.09) shipped to the US and distributed was recently been discovered to have a high potential for defective weathersealing of the external jammer heads.

This issue - stemming from production-line defects - was actually rather pervasive, and the number of affected heads shipped stateside was estimated to be between 60 to 80 percent of that first batch.

The fallout, though, was not realized until just this past month or so, when it seems that the chain-of-command/communication between the US-reseller (whose current status as continued reseller is, well, unknown....) and its Croatian principles seemed disjointed at best, and unavailable at-worst. This disruption/miscommunication led to problems fulfilling replacement of the defective heads (under warranty) for several members of the community - and the final resolution has yet to bear out.

In terms of recommending the LI, I still stick by my original statements - that it holds the best performance *promise*. Again, as I've stated oftentimes before, the units tested in the latest GOL "Shootout" were pre-production prototypes (with the LI developer on-hand, no less, to further tweak performance), and various "independent" tests have seen both extremely positive/confirming results, as well as other results which were not as would have been expected.

Similarly, my recommendations regarding its purchase still bears such cautions as I've issued before - that its stateside purchase is of the grayest shade of gray-market possible: essentially a cash transaction. Sadly, to add to this is now the fallout of the recent customer-service/warranty-service issue, for which I am, as a customer myself (albeit that I seem to have, so far, gotten lucky, in that my units, although of the same batch, seem to not be suffering such problems via the known diagnostic protocol), rather unhappy about......it currently makes me somewhat hesitant to recommend the LI.

To anyone looking to purchase this product, currently, with this year's round of GOL test just over the horizon, I would advise you to simply wait until production-retail results from such comparative testing has been published - and this will also allow you enough time to see exactly how the warranty replacement debacle may (or may not) recover.

-----

This update actually comes at a good time - and I have to thank CTATV on .com for kicking things into gear. http://legacygt.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

Very recently - within the last week or so - we've seen a group of people starting to push onto the market a new active laser jammer going by the name of "LaserStar."

Little is known about this jammer, except for the fact that it is being marketed by the same principles (as well as ancillary characters) who engendered the collective anger of the speed-detections countermeasures community both here stateside as well as in Europe with a former product that failed to meet any of its claims - on an epic proportion.

Combining this fact with the aggressive marketing (many have called their tactics as "SPAMMING") techniques seen on various auto-enthusiast Forums as well as ancillary speed-detections countermeasures Forums (most of the individuals concerned were banned, repeatedly, from the mainstream community Forums), well.....it's hard for me not to say that something does smell fishy.

Although I am reluctant to say anything - either positive or negative - about this product, at this time, I do recommend that anyone interested in this product should approach it with due caution, and that they should fully investigate not only the product history itself, but also the connections of the various principles behind this product, as well as why these individuals are perceived so negatively by so many.

Solely of my personal opinion, at this time, I am very, very leery of both this product as well as the individuals involved in its active sales and marketing.




-----

On another personal note, for anyone who'd like to view my current setup, you can link to this thread:

http://www.radarreviews.net/forums/laser-jammer-reviews-lpp-laser-pro-park/1543-who-has-most-ridiculous-counter-measures.html

Post #10 is my current setup.

:)

I apologize for the dirty exterior - and even dirtier interior. :o

The pictures were taken this winter, and NE-Ohio still has its near-perpetual crusting of roat-treatment which makes car-washes almost worthless. :lol:

As for the interior, I'd usually have given her a dusting before taking pictures for my fellow car-lovers, but as this post was specifically tailored for a speed-detections countermeasures community, I didn't really have that consideration in-mind ( you wouldn't believe how many in that community aren't even remotely interested in cars :confused: - or, for that matter, drive absolute pieces of crap :D - seriously, it's just different loves for different people....after all, how many drivers of $100K+ cars do you know, who use crappy Cobra detectors? ).

:p

[Dookie]

I justed checked out your post #10, and the first thing I notice was the dust on your steering column.:lol:

Great write-up on that forum, and I couldn't believe all the tech. that you guys have done to your cars in regards to radars/lasers. It reminds me of the movie "Cannon Ball Run" with the Japanese team driving the Subaru, and their car was fulll of electronics and gadgets.:lol: :lol:


TSI, just wondering on a set-up like yours what would one expect to pay for a system like that?

[TSi+WRX]

The LI is a wildcard - its price changes based on the Euro exchange. Currently, a dual-head system should ring in at around $650-$675, and around $1200 for a four-head system.

For the LPP, pricing is pretty standard, at $500 for a single-head, and $800 for dual.

Similarly, Escort's pricing is locked as well, with the 9500i at around 450 (for the Red LED unit), and the ZR3 at $350. Although you could get the 9500i at significant discount by going with off-chanel sources, you will abridge Escort's warranty policy, and with the 9500i, I am *very* hesitant to recommend that anyone do this.

[havanisda]

I justed checked out your post #10, and the first thing I notice was the dust on your steering column.:lol:

Great write-up on that forum, and I couldn't believe all the tech. that you guys have done to your cars in regards to radars/lasers. It reminds me of the movie "Cannon Ball Run" with the Japanese team driving the Subaru, and their car was fulll of electronics and gadgets.:lol: :lol:


TSI, just wondering on a set-up like yours what would one expect to pay for a system like that?I saw the Cannonball Run movie at least a 1/2 dozen times. I thought that car was a black Mitsubishi Starion. The team was some HUGE white guy and Jackie Chan in the backseat. Correct me if Im wrong. :)

[Maddie08]

Radar detectors are illegal here in VA....isn't it in most states?? Either way, I would love to have one but don't cops have a way of detecting weather you have one or not?? I wouldn't know.

It's like detecting if you have a AM/FM radio in your car... so, no. Actually as a device, I'm pretty sure, it is basically the same thing. The difference obviously is that a radar detector is tuned to extremely limited frequencies.

And Virginia is an outlier. CT lifted their ban in the 90's, DC has a ban, parts of NJ and parts of NY, but I've heard that's just for vehicles over 10,000 GVW or something. FL is contemplating adding the ban.

[TSi+WRX]

The RDD - or "radar detector detector," is just that - it detects the "leakage" coming from your radar detector.

The Beltronics STi-Driver, which is the only one that's fully cloaked against both VG2 as well as Spectre, has not only various electrical/physical components that are designed to specifically defeat leakage, but is also, to an extent, "armored" against such leakage.

It's still possible to detect the STi, yes - but with current RDD technology, the RDD unit would have to be virtually right up against the STi.

This is why the Beltronics STi-Driver is currently the *ONLY* viable choice for those who live in or must travel routinely thorugh detector-banned areas.

[Dookie]

I saw the Cannonball Run movie at least a 1/2 dozen times. I thought that car was a black Mitsubishi Starion. The team was some HUGE white guy and Jackie Chan in the backseat. Correct me if Im wrong. :)



Your wrong.:p I know my classic movies. It was a Japanese team in a Subaru. Here's a link, since I couldn't cut and Paste it.

Cannonball Run Subaru (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dcannonball%2Brun%2Bmovie%26js %3D1%26ni%3D20%26ei%3Dutf-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26xargs%3D0%26pstart%3D1%26b%3D41&w=250&h=144&imgurl=www.varaces.com%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Ffeatures% 2F4_cr_subaru.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.varaces.com%2Findex.php%3Fop tion%3Dcom_staticxt%26amp%3Bstaticfile%3Dfeature.p hp%3Fid%3D4&size=6.4kB&name=4_cr_subaru.jpg&p=cannonball%20run%20movie&type=JPG&oid=4342ae540b967b0c&no=58&tt=203)

[havanisda]

Maybe I'm thinking of the car in Cannonball Run II. Looks like I found something to do at work. :type:

[Maddie08]

Good to know about RDD's. How many are actually used though? Practically none? Besides a visual scan by a cop pulling up in his Impapa/Crown Vic next to you... ALL of my co-pilots or passengers are always instructed to pull it down from the window when in restricted areas. Or I give in and get better gas mileage....

[havanisda]

Maybe I'm thinking of the car in Cannonball Run II. Looks like I found something to do at work. :type:Cannonball Run was in 1981, the Starion wasn't made yet IIRC so that 1 was the Subie but part 2 was in '84 and it lists Jackie Chan as the Mitsubishi engineer in the credits. :cool:

[TSi+WRX]

Good to know about RDD's. How many are actually used though? Practically none? Besides a visual scan by a cop pulling up in his Impapa/Crown Vic next to you... ALL of my co-pilots or passengers are always instructed to pull it down from the window when in restricted areas. Or I give in and get better gas mileage....

In VA, RDDs are definitely - and routinely - in-use. Expect to see Spectre III, as well as, less often, Spectre IV.

This is why all detector hobbyists will recommend ONLY the Bel STi-Driver in such areas, as no other detector even comes to being Spectre-proof.

In other states and detector-banned areas, the statistics are much, much less known. Also a question among the speed-detections countermeasures community is whether or not in non-detector-banned states/areas, enforcers still utilize RDDs specifically against commercial vehicles, and also in such cases, what hardware they may use.

In terms of our closest neighbor - north of the border - Canada, in detector-banned areas, Spectre III RDD activity is well-documented, and so are the cases where drivers have run afoul of them (similar to what we see in VA-related incidences).

----

In terms of a visual by the enforcers, that's definitely a consideration, however, the proper use of a detector in a banned area covers much more than just visual-identification (of the detector itself) considerations.

Tactical usage concerns also arise.

For example, if you routinely travel in dense traffic patterns, it can be argued that even a "leaky" detector isn't necessary a problem, particularly if you used proper discretion in its mounting (there are many extremely well-hidden mounting solutions possible as well as documented online, some with virtually no compromise to the detectors abilities) as well as in its use (to-add here are also the various "integrated" detector solutions). Yet others have even advocated carrying a "crappy" detector as a backup, just so that when you are pulled-over, you can simply hand-over the "bait/switch" detector (in true-confiscation areas).

Alternatively, even the use of a fully-cloaked detector will demand discretion in terms of driving/evasive tactics. This following quote by The VEIL Guy on his Bel STi-Driver review is a good summation:


For other drivers, realize really astute officers will likely still be able to determine detector usage when your vehicle is targeted by their radar gun if you quickly decelerate (the normal response to an alert) which can be done visually - either by an abrupt drop of your vehicle's front-end under heavy breaking, a rapid decrease in speed readings on the radar gun, or from the rear by observing brake lights or by audio - listening to the rapid decrease in the RADAR's Doppler tone at point of trigger pull.


At any rate, be prepared with a good explanation as to how you "visually spotted" the officer at the same time he/she pulled the trigger of their police radar (http://www.laserveil.com/police/radar/) gun.


[ Note: Above was taken verbatim from the VEIL retail site's review of the STi-Driver. ]



The use of a detector in a detector-banned area is tricky, risky business. It's the next level of the "cat and mouse" that most of us non-commercial-vehicle drivers will never really see nor have extensive experience with.

There are some posts on speed-detection countermeasures enthusiast Forums, such as Radardetector.net , by commercial truckers, which detail the many considerations they have to undertake. It's extremely interesting reading, for those of you who are interested. :) :tup:

[TSi+WRX]

Rear install complete. :tup:

This has been a dream of mine for a while - to "complete" my rear protection. :D

At first, it was more academic than anything....it was something that I wanted to have, just to show-off to my friends. :) But just over the course of the last half-year, solid reports from fellow automotive/driving enthusiasts on my local Subaru-enthusiast Forum began to circulate confirmed sightings of on-ramp mediated rear-enforcement in my local metro area. :o

I started off my rear protection, in-earnest, with a single-head LPP setup. However, I quickly realized that more than one head was necessary back there, and that, at best, my then single rear-head setup, just above the rear plate, was really only capable of assuring rear center-mass/plate protection, and naught else.... My plan was then to add another rear LPP head.

This plan was put on-hold mainly because of the difficulty of rear LPP head placement. It, as well as its AL counterpart, is simply too bulky and too heavy to achieve a rear setup on my vehicle that was, to me, aesthetically acceptable. My rear deck simply did not offer a sufficiently deep recess to cosmetically shield the LPP head's "depth," and while I was willing to compromise with the center-mass, above-plate mounting position (as you can see from my post previous, above), the even shallower overhang depths out to either sides of the plate made this even less aesthetically acceptable - and what's more, the head's heavy weight would make using solely 3M Automotive Trim/Molding tape use impossible, and a bracket even more aesthetically unpleasing.

The LI head's shallow depth (even the standard "Slim" head) as well as its light weight, remedies all these considerations. The UltraSlim head effectively further allows me to optimize mounting position, with Ivan's technical innovation in terms of enhanced off-angle reception giving me even more reason to seek these units to round-out my active defense capabilities. ;D

I originally thought that a rear install would be a piece of cake, as I imagined that I could simply unscrew my rear plate light's lens/housing and snake the LI's wiring through.

This was not to be....

Instead, my car's configuration, in this area, was effectively a one-piece mold, to effect best weathersealing.

According to my vehicle's service manual, in order to access this panel, I had to remove the trunk's interior liner/cover, as well the trunk's external trim panel, called the "trunk garnish," before I could access the plate light assembly. :o

Disassembly below:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u259/TSi_WRX/TrunkTrim.jpg

^ Trunk liner, with my self-made plate frame (to accommodate my LPP head as well as ZR3 rear head positioning) as well as the nylon fasteners (both rust-proof - which is important in the US's "Rust Belt" - as well as non LIDAR-reflective) on top. The 10 mm bolts were used to affix, along with trim clips, the trunk lid "garnish" that I'll detail in later pictures.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u259/TSi_WRX/TrunkInside.jpg

^ That's the inside of my trunk, with the trunk liner removed. Red highlight of my rear ZR3 head, and the yellow highlights encircle the wires for both my rear LPP as well as ZR3 heads.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u259/TSi_WRX/GarnishPanel1.jpg

^ This picture shows the "Garnish Panel" coming off my trunk's rear face. The two green circles are where the 10 mm bolts previously mentioned is used to secure this panel (these bolts are usually covered by the rear plate, which goes into the four holes that surround it), and the green rectangle highlights where I've started to pull this panel apart (it's held, primarily, via plastic body-clips). Yellow highlight is my solo rear LPP head, and the red highlight is, yep, the left-side LI head! ;D

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u259/TSi_WRX/GarnishPanel2.jpg

^ This picture gives more detail to the left side area, where my fingers are spreading the outer garnish plate from the underlying metal trunk face. There are two red highlight circles in this picture - one is the left side LI head, the other is the wire trailing from this head, which, at that time, I've yet to tuck in between the garnish and the trunk skin. The rear LPP head is yellow highlighted for orientation/reference.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u259/TSi_WRX/PanelThruPlacement.jpg

^ Further detail in this area, showing how the head's wiring is going down and behind the garnish panel, as opposed to my less-detailed LPP/ZR3 head install, for which the wiring was "external" (and thus hidden only by my license plate).

The wiring slack was removed, the panel re-connected (it's buffered by foam liner, so the wiring won't be crushed), and the inside-trunk trim/carpeting replaced, routing the wires down each rear hinge arm, into the rear parcel shelf surround, and into the cabin via the trunk pass-through.

The final result?

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u259/TSi_WRX/rearcomplete.jpg

Red highlights are the new UltraSlim LI heads.

Both LI heads are true-level (bubble-zero), and point straight down-road.

:D

Thanks again to Elvis, for getting these to me so quickly, and for providing me with such good service, yet again (I also went through Elvis for my initial LI purchase.

---

Note that I also purchased from Elvis the latest control-box Rev.2.8, Ver.7.03, and is utilizing this with my vehicle's now quad-LI setup.

Despite Ivan's repeated reassurances, I do confess to still being somewhat, er...., cautious?, with the potential LZ-1 issues of the first-run US batch control-boxes (2.7/6.09), as I was also an early-adopter. I just decided to go ahead and do this as a temporary step to "cover my ass," until the LI team releases the end-user enabled firmware upgrade capability.

I now have the "Sun Interference Alert" disabled, and, it's good to note here, that Ivan has made-good on his promise, and is truly updating the LI on a regular basis.

With the latest control-box, I was surprised to see that my LPP's "parking beams" no longer trip it to fire in-response. Ivan apparently eliminated this cross-talk issue, after myself and others brought it to his attention! :tup:

Anyway....I plan to save up a bit of cash here and there, and to mount my other control box, with more LI heads, to my wife's next vehicle, for which she's due to update her lease in April, 2009.

[ Again, for the setup both inside as well as on the front of my vehicle, please visit: http://www.radarreviews.net/forums/6794-post10.html . And in my wife's WRX: http://www.radarreviews.net/forums/6795-post11.html . Also, my current rear-view mirror area, which has changed since the former cited post, to include a Cheetah GPS-Mirror: http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u259/TSi_WRX/cheetahmirror.jpg ]


--------------

I'll revisit this thread in the next couple of days, to again update the community on the current goings-on interms of radar detectors and laser jammers. :)

[TSi+WRX]

Oh, and yes, those are my new JDM tails. :) With JinsuPower/ClearGuard "clear stacked ovals" overlays.

The left housing has been retrofitted with not only the proper incandescent (21W, single-element [7440]) rear-fog setup, but also a DIY LED-based setup to-supplement, too.

The reverse-lights are 18W ERD halogens.

More details on my rear-fog "quest" :lol: : http://www.legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31502&highlight=rear+fog

[KA82]

tint effects the radar detectors correct?>

meaning if the rear window is tinted, the radar dectecor can/may have problems with warning us.

[ih8vtec13]

Wow you really want to conceal what you are doing with your Winky TSI :lol:

[TSi+WRX]

Wow you really want to conceal what you are doing with your Winky TSI :lol:

^ The most ironic part of all this is that I truly rarely speed on local surface streets, which is, like, 99% of my normal driving during any week of the year. :lol:

--

tint effects the radar detectors correct?>

meaning if the rear window is tinted, the radar dectecor can/may have problems with warning us.

Depends.

Metallic tints have been reported to decrease RADAR detection range as well as affect things like the "arrows" on the V1, but this has come under debate more recently, as tinting materials have evolved.

As for "athermic" windows, yes, those will SEVERELY impact any and all in-cabin stand-alone radar detectors.

With respect to LASER sensitivity, any and all tints can and will cut down on reception somewhat.

[ih8vtec13]

If you rarely speed why going nuts on not getting cought?

[TSi+WRX]

^ It's a hobby for me. :)

And besides, I do like to let my happy foot get happy on the happy pedal, on the open highway. :lol: And that's where most of these countermeasures come into play.

Locally, it's just not worth speeding. There's just too many enforcers, and I go through so many areas that I personally feel I shouldn't speed through (yes, I know, it's a personal moral/ethical call) during my commute that, well, it's just easier not to speed.

I play a game with myself, basically - to see if I spot the enforcer first, or if my detector does.

:)

---

Also, bro, don't get too caught-up in seeing this as "not getting caught."

There's plenty of unfair ticketing going on - revenue generation.

This is my way of combating such.

I run a constantly updated list of speed-traps on the Cleveland Metro-East suburbs on the RD.net discussion Forum community. These are what I feel are truly un-necessary for public safety (both in terms of their "venues," as well as how enforcement is conducted), and that's why I post them - to let everyone know that these are "revenue generating" spots.

A sudden drop to 35 MPH from 50, without any other true reason on the roadway? If I spot an enforcer, I'll let everyone know.

An industrial area that's plastered with an unreasonable 25 limit, and the enforcers hunt? I again let everyone know.

But if I spot an enforcer sitting out in the open in a School Zone or camped out in a neighborhood's four-way stop area or restricted traffic hours area, for example, I don't post those - since it's my personal belief that those caught under such circumstances truly do deserve their tickets, as they're taking shortcuts which otherwise truly endangers innocents.

I know, I'm treading a fine line here, and what I consider to be moral/ethical may not be so for another person - brother sebberry on .com, for example, doesn't share my view of detectors or jammers.

I'm not debating such, and I'm not trying to impose such values on anyone else. I think, really, that's why seb and I actually get along and respect each other - because we recognize that it's each other's values, and we don't try to impose one on the other. :)

I am simply posting according to my own set of beliefs - that's all. :)

[Mitch]

great thread. Keep fighting the good fight.

[havanisda]

http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/05/Camo-Lambo-resized.jpg
Don't need no steenkin radar detector.