As a representative of a company in this industry, I have to hold myself to a higher standard (as any responsible professional would).
This has long been a sore spot for me and is strong reason for me wanting to part of a forum that would attempt to hold-itself to a higher standard.
That is certainly understandable, and as an outsider looking in, I can both respect that desire, as well as truly say that I applaude you for sticking by your principles.
Quote:
In trying to promote healthy discussion, one must create the circumstances and the environment for such a discussion and an anything goes attitude only serves to undermine that effort.
Thanks for being a part of effort.
Thanks for inviting me.
For me, a healthy, truthful discussion is what it's all about.
I've been blessed in my professional career and schooling in having been mentored by people who believe, true-to-their-heart, that free-exchange of truthful information is the best way to benefit everyone.
I guess they've engrained that into me. Like teacher, like student.
I don't really drive fast all the time, it just that there are times when you want to 'play' a little. Or if on a long trip and I want to set the cruise control at 10-15 over...to flow w/ traffic of course.
These things are quite expensive and I'm just trying to make the right decision for my needs the first time.
I need to post a pic in here somewhere on my grill and back of my car so someone could tell me the best place to mount...that may help in deciding how many heads I need...I'm thinking 4.
Definitely, post-up a sanitized ( i.e. no identifying info. - and be sure to get all the registration stickers, too, if-any! ) picture if you at all can and feel comfortable in doing so.
Each unique vehicle has its own unique concerns (djrams80's, for example, has those two huge fog-lamps, that's not seen on all models of his vehicle), and it's best to address each in such a unique manner.
But honestly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veil Guy
At the risk of sounding like I am self-promoting, which I am not, I believe a good two head system with Veil G4 will provide more than enough protection for considerably less coin.
I have successfully used both a Blinder M20 (two-head) and a Shifter ZR4 (three-head: two front, one rear) with Veil G4 on my difficult to cloak metallic silver bimmer and have had nothing but success.
A two-head laser diode system, would easily fair as well with Veil G4.
One day, I'd be interested to see a one-head laser diode system with Veil G4 on the headlights and fog-lights compared to a two-head system (without Veil).
If you can get away with a plate cover (like a laser shield) then that will only help.
Doing all three of these (whichever model you choose) would provide a combined synergistic performance that would be extremely difficult to top and provide a level of fault-tolerance/redundancy that any one countermeasure alone would not.
I agree with every single piece of advice given above.
If all you want to do, SCGT, is to cruise comfortably on the highway at 10 to 15+ - which is a speed at which most State Troopers (discounting locals) are willing to "close one eye, open one eye" at (old Chinese proverb), honestly, *any* of the reputable two-head systems will do you just fine, given that you pay at least *some* attention to hardware-compatibility (i.e. matching the jammer system to best-suit the most-likely encountered LIDAR devices both in your local area as well as most-often traveled routes; combine the [i]Guys of LIDAR[/b] testing data with the "Local and Regional" sub-Forum data on the RD.net) and engagement practices (again, the "Local and Regional" sub-Forum on RD.net will be your best-bet).
With either the Blinder M25 J16 or Escort ZR4, VEIL is almost a must - as-is the use of LaserShield on your front plate (if you must display such). The synergy there is just too great to ignore.
With the laser-diode based systems, as long as the particular one you choose "handles" the speific devices well, you should not even need the passive aids, but as with Veil Guy, I'm a firm believer in the synergy of passive and active jamming components, and I would still highly recommend it, if neither proves otherwise objectionable to your personal requirements.
My own vehicle utilizes not only active jammers, but also VEIL G4 (not only on the headlights, but also all jammer mounting hardware!) and LaserShield (and even non-"retro-reflective" plates, too, to further decrease LIDAR return).
I believe, strongly, that these protective measures are synergistic - and that the whole is much greater than the sum of the individual parts.
Similar to Veil Guy's advocacy of "Defense in Depth," I subscribe to Dieter's "Complete Circle of Defense."
It's not so much that we're martial wanna-bes or mall-ninjas, but rather, we see these philosophies as very exacting descriptions of our core-beliefs, when it comes to LIDAR-countermeasures:
The other side only needs ONE chance to effect their purpose. One opening in our defense. One chink in the armor. One lapse. One oversight. One little tiny bit of luck.
Be that be an improperly selected jammer (i.e. non-optimal for-encounter hardware/practices), improper setup (misalignment, failure to routinely check leveling and lens cleaning, etc.), improper usage (forgetting to switch-on the jammer), equipment failure, or a dip in the roadway that's combined with an elevated shooting vantage point (i.e. noory's single front LPP, mounted under the front plate, failing to protect him from a Laser Atlanta SpeedLaser III hit, shot from an overpass, at extreme close range [300 ft.], as his vehicle itself nose-down from a severe dip in the roadway at that very point - alternatively, look at the "Officer Fritter Meet" video thread on the RD.net "Videos" sub-Forum, at how Fritter is able to manipulate his physical trap setup, to defeat even the LI, when it's not mounted absolutely perfectly, and to totally decimate the ZR4, even at optimal-placement), or, heck, even just that alignment between the blue-moon and Uranus.
The House has the deck stacked way in their favor.
We should thus do everything possible, to insure that we have best-odds, ourselves.
Is it that rare to get hit from the rear that you wouldn't have one there?
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veil Guy
Yes, I believe it is relatively a rare occurrence depending where you drive.
However, I got tagged once in the rear in Northern Kentucky and I have seen them operate police laser from the rear in NJ.
Like Veil Guy said, currently, in the states, it's a rare practice - but this depends entirely on the specific area in-question.
Cliff, the North American LI distributor, cites a figure of 10%, as the percentage of total LIDAR enforcement, stateside, that's rear-on. Given the proliferation of LIDAR enforcement throughout the country, I'm inclinded to believe this figure.
However, if your specific area sees rear LIDAR use, it then simply falls into this exceptional category, and then you do have to seriously consider the pros and cons of rear coverage.
Me?
Although I rarely -almost never- see such enforcement, per a "daily" basis, I *do* live in an area where rear enforcement isn't really uncommon - i.e. if I just went across-town to shop. As-such, I feel that, for me, having an absolute level of rear protection was worth the dollar-amount trade-off, as well as the busier trunk-line ( as you can see from the previous pictures - yes, part of this willingness to further clutter up my vehicle's rear end comes from the fact that its rear-end is already so visually cluttered and busy ).
In most areas of the US, you'll likely never see this kind of enforcement.
But if you live or commute thorugh such an area where such enforcement is common, well, you'll likely *always* see it in those areas.
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veil Guy
For this reason, I like the third-hear mounting provided by the Shifter ZR4 as it is provided in one system. With the dedicated rear head and Veil G4 on the taillights/plate area, I believe you have a decent chance to successfully defend against a rear hit.
Other laser jammers (multi-head systems) can also be mounted in the rear, but the Shifter ZR4 has a dedicated rear-plate transponder, which I think lends itself to rear mounting easily.
Either steagall or mhardy will have to fill me in, as I am not sure if the Blinder has dedicated rear heads - for some reason, I seem to recall that the Blinder's rear heads are sized differently from the front ones?
For the LPP, AL, PASS, LaserStar, indeed, there's no difference.
With the LI, the rear heads are often purchased as "Slim" units, which gives both better capability to achieving a surface-flush mounting (given the shallower mounting-depths typical of rear-of-vehicle areas), as well as has the advantage, via simple laws of optics, of being able to better "see" shots from extreme angles (at a sacrifice for absolute straight-line range, as most rear-enforcement shots will initiate from closer ranges, and are more likely to be from more extreme angles either horizontally and/or vertically [think elevated, high-to-low feed, on-ramps]). In addition to its specialized physical sizing and optical design, the "Slim" LI heads also come with a specialized mounting plate/bracket, which helps to facilitate rear mounting.
Currently, in as far as I know, only the Escort ZR4 has the ability to visually notify, in a unique fashion, a rear versus front LIDAR hit. This - in as much as the V1's arrows can - does present a distinct tactical advantage to the advanced user, as it can help the experienced driver decide on a proper tactical response (i.e. one that will not result in the tell-tale brake-light engagement).
With the ZR4, it is currently believed that it is only sufficient to "cover" for center-mass/plate-area (i.e. where it's mounted) shots at closer ranges (i.e. < 300 ft.). This seems to be a limitation of its jamming output, as it has been seen that the unit is easily capable of receiving (alerting and responding with a jamming [effective or not] output) incoming shots in a manner that is just as impressive as its forward heads' (note that the ZR4, like the ZR3 before it, is among the BEST "receivers" of *any* of the laser jammers available today), and is well-documented by many hobbyist videos of this device (some in IR format, no less).
Thus, if, on your vehicle, where you mount your rear head is either far away from true-center-mass and/or is far displaced from other rear hardpoints, the ZR4 may offer only limited protection (i.e. it has been seen that even the mighty LI cannot compensate for sheer "real-estate" concerns - some have tried putting their rear LI heads in the low rear diffuser cut-outs of various BMWs, and all have presented with various PT concerns).
If you are intent on using this device, I would, as with Veil Guy's suggestion, undertake further passive means to protect your rear hardpoints (specifically the tail-lights, especially the SAE/DOT mandated rear reflector elements, but also including the CHMSL, particularly if externally mounted).
A two head system, particularly for an LED-based jammer, may be of extra benefit, in being able to cover more real-estate, and to be able to achieve better spacing between the rear-of-vehicle's awful hardpoints.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGT
I like being able to mount it on the plate, but believe the STI Remote already has a piece mounted on the rear plate.
Again, please check the configuration of the Bel STi-R.
I do *not* believe that it comes, standard, with jammer heads, only the single front RADAR and LIDAR *receiver* element.
I believe that the ZR4 Laser Shifter (jammer) is an extra-cost add-on.
And yes, the ZR4 is a factory "three-head" system, with one head dedicated for the rear, with its specialized rear-plate mounting (typically, at the top of the plate - but be careful that this does not obstruct rear-plate lighting) setup.
OK, so after all that, I'm going to inject some of my own biases, SCGT.
Rear-protection....that's a touchy issue for me.
No, seriously -
Look at the rear of any vehicle, versus the front.
The rear profile is typically much more upright, with, many times, even more trimwork, and also contains not only the same big reflective lighting elements as their forward-facing counterpart, but also includes an additional CHMSL unit, and furthermore adds, oftentimes, even *more* reflector elements.
And there's that rear plate, which, unfortunately, you just cannot do without.
Look at these pictures of mine, which were taken to illustrate the rear fog-light setup that I rigged for both my vehicle and my wife's (I'm also a vehicle-lighting enthusiast....a *long* time ago, I actually managed to win a small award from the SAE, on such a project; I take my vehicle-lighting, and lighting-safety, very seriously) --->
^ Rear of my wife's 2005 WRX sedan, picture taken without photoflash.
^ Picture of the same, with flash. Note how her rear plate just lights-up!
^ My 2005 Legacy sedan, without photoflash. Note that my tail-lights are covered with an aesthetic ClearGuard "smoked" cover, with clear oval holes over much of the red-by-sight areas, and also a completely clear hole in the central reverse-light and turn-signal area.
^ My car, with flash. Note how the tail-light reflectors (just below the center reverse-light and turn-signal areas) are highlighted by the flash - and that's DESPITE the "smoked" film in this area, which offers complete coverage (with no holes). Note also how my issue registration stickers light-up, too.
[ Huh, I wonder why my rear plate doesn't light up? ]
- Yes, I know, I "smeared" these plates to sanitize them for personal information, but trust me, for the way which I altered the plates, I did not alter them much, in terms of how much light you see is reflected.
The plate is really that big of a hazard to us, in terms of light-return.
This all adds up to make the rear of the vehicle - any vehicle - a "worst-case" scenario, and that's not even counting things like SUVs and trucks, for which, especially of the larger variant, have a very big beltline-to-greenhouse ratio, nor does it take into account those cases where the rear plate is located virtually at the bottom/bumper-line, while the rest of the hardpoints are located well above the beltline.
To me, for the rear, it's either go all-out, balls-out, or go home.
Yes, this undoubtedly has a lot to do with the fact that I *can* see rear-enforcement in my area, and the fact that my locals sometimes prefer to engage from extremely close ranges, as well as the fact that virtually ALL kinds of hardware is seen around here.
To me, for the rear, it's either "true-JFG" (i.e. jamming "from" gun, from point-blank -to- infinity) or nothing - and I think that in examining my rear setup, you can see that's true.
But is this level of protection necessary?
I honestly don't know, and in all truthfulness, I can see both sides of this debate.
Part of me believes that anything less than all-out "true-JFG" performance is just false security - that having "some" level of rear protection may cause some drivers to become, at times, more lax in their driving practices, to perhaps take a chance (or simply forget/overlook/be distracted enough to) and blow-through a blind overpass, on-ramp, or berm, and thus put themselves in great danger, whereas if they didn't have *any* level of rear protection, they'd remember to slow down to check such problem scenarios.
But the other part of me also thinks, very practically, that having at least *some* rear protection is better than having none, and that the likelihood of seeing a true point-blank initialized rear-enforcement scenario is near-nil, and that in the real-world, the use of even a single rear-head, LED-based, jammer setup may be all that's needed to effect a "save."
In all honesty, I'm *very* divided on this very serious issue.
) picture if you at all can and feel comfortable in doing so.
).
Linear Mode
