Originally Posted by WaltBurkett
Thank you for the very comprehensive reply. I am not an expert on these jammers but very much depend on the experts like you to help me decide what would be the best application for my vehicle.
You're most welcome - but please Walt, there's no need to thank me.
I'm but a fellow car-nut, a fellow motorist, a fellow hobbyist, and all that I try to do is to bring forward *all* possible avenues in the exploration of "what to do/buy."
It's a hard decision, based on many different factors - but the final choice is yours, and that's where you
have to decide how to weigh these various issues.
I can only serve as a guide, but whatever decision you make, needs to be right for YOU
. That's all that's important, and the only thing that matters here.
When referencing the GOL results one can not argue with the performance of the LI. The Blinder did have some "burnthrough" issues with the Ultralyte greater than 500 feet. (My threshold for performance) That is what concerned me with the Blinder.
I agree, those issues are concerning - but we need to examine them based on your specific vehicle, and your desired application.
In you proposed setup, your vehicle presents a much better frontal LIDAR profile than either of the two tested vehicles in the GOL
latest (2007 and 2008) tests.
This fact, alone, should confer to your setup much, much more protection.
Add to this fact that in doing their testing, the GOL
was forced to hold the placement of each jammer head in a similar manner (in order to insure fairness across-the-board), this also could have affected the outcome - with your own setup, in being able to best-optimize how to place the jammer heads on your vehicle to cover its specific hardpoint concerns, you will again return with likely a not-insignificant increase in observed jamming performance.
Finally, and most importantly, your proposed setup will be a "M35" - a three-heads up-front - setup. This will allow you to even better optimize jammer head placement, and will likely substantially
increase your overall performance margin.
But don't get me wrong, I like Blinder and have had them on my Previous M3 and current BMW K1200S.
And I feel like, in the face of steagall
's assults, that I need to further reiterate my stance on Blinder, too.
Not only have I repeatedly favored Blinder in the past (my words, in favor of Blinder, can be found all over any
automotive enthusiast Forum on which I've been asked to render opinions regarding speed-detection countermeasures), but it was also upon my recommendation that two fellow car-enthusiasts I know made their purchase of the J15 M25 units.
If I were so supposedly "against"
Blinder, why would I have done so, in either case, steagall
However going forward and knowing that the SRX on my Porsche is not adequate protection I am in the market for the best of the best at this time. Money aside, it seems the LI is the best but longevity may be the greater determinant I should be looking for.
Currently, there is no clear-cut "best."
The LI may be King-of-the-Hill, when it comes to all-around performance and in proving that they are the fastest, when it comes to jumping on new technology and new threats - but in terms of long-term durability and reliability, there's truly not much that could be said about it. Furthermore, it continues to be a grey-market product, and with all due respect to Cliff/C55
's current success (and this comes from me as a true and heartfelt statement, as I have repeatedly publicly congratulated Cliff on not only his proper management of the warranty claims from the initial US batch, but also his current business model) as this product's North-American distributor and sole representative, it is still, rather, a "young upstart."
AntiLaser continues to baffle, with its seeming excellent performance and fast technical updates/response (currently, the all-new G9 is on-market in parts of Europe), but with no thought given to the US market (relying solely on grey-market [in a much darker sense of the word than what LI, with Cliff, has been able to achieve], individual, import of the device), nor with proper follow-up and satisfaction of the continual weathersealing issues that plague the G8. Add to all this the persistent worry about shipping - and yes, I know, it's very unlikely that the package will be checked, detained, and given duties/taxes/brokerage fees, should the right kind of packaging, as well as courier, be chosen, but I also well know, from over 10 years of independent, hobby-level participation in having such small/personal shipments of low-cost goods (from a few dollars, to about $10,000, per individual shipment) cross both oceans, that these issues DO occasionally pop up, and simply cannot be disregarded
- well, you get the picture.....
Laser Pro Park, while having truly established itself here in the US and Canada via its dual-pronged attack, and having now a nearing 2-year time-span that can testify to the product's durability/reliability, seems to not only be just a step down in performance from the LI (to completely discount the AL G9, until more tests of it has been made), and is also priced hundreds of dollars higher. Furthermore, technologically speaking, the LPP is trailing the top contenders by quite a margin, and as a LPP user, this not only disappoints me greatly, but also upsets.
Meanwhile, with the PASS and LaserStar, both remain controversial. The former has seen conflicting testing results (and even then, the "good" is still, yet, nothing stellar), and the latter has seen no trustworthy corroboration of its testing data at all. With the conflict between The Goons
and the GOL
serving as background, currently, all that can be said, in as far as I am concerned, personally
, is that I am completely unwilling
to accept The Goons
's data on the thinly disguised LaserJammerTests marketing ploy, due to their repeated dishonesty and dis-service to the community...but that given the personalities involved, that I am willing to also simply entertain the possibility
that the GOL
data is not an accurate representation of the true performance of this unit. Without more individual hobbyist tests of either of these devices, even given their cost-advantages over the three others listed above, I'm very, very hesitant to make recommendations of them.
Regarding the LED-based jammers, the Escort ZR4 Shifter is, performance-wise, ineffective, until paired with VEIL G4. This, combined with the product's current state of being an "unknown" with regard to absolute durability/reliability (for although such factors are well known of the ZR3, the ZR4's head redesign has already seen more than one case of its units failing, due to water/moisture ingress into the heads, even only weeks after its first introduction).
With the Blinder J15, 5-suffix units, I think that the only real worry I have, now, would be how they will handle "future-proofing" issues While noting that J11 owners have had to ante up the full price of purchase, for the J15, and that this lack of support within the community was what disappointed - and some, violently upset - those of us over at RD.net, who were long-time Blinder proponents, particularly with the TruSpeed still being a performance-threat that, to-date, remains to be proven, it should also be said that both BlinderDude
have acknowledged a new update/upgrade policy for which revisional updates/upgrades can be purchased, at very reasonable prices (akin to those for the LPP and LI "updated" control-boxes). However, as details of the J15/16's performance versus the TruSpeed is not forthcoming here, I hope to log on to the RD.net Forums later today (my personal life has been quite busy as of late), and to read more on this issue, per mhardy
's preliminaries. Similarly, although I very highly and favorably regard this new move by Blinder, for very reasonable-cost upgrades/updates, I cannot but be reminded of the fact that an unspoken honor was broken, between the J11/J15 update, versus what we all saw as simply superb C/S from the now near-long-forgotten Stalker update.
I hear you about a couple or few people having LI head problems but what percentage of total LI sales here in the US is this really a problem? Would Cliff be able to quantify this? Would he? Could I trust his data?
I've always found Cliff to be very forthcoming - however, I doubt that he will have accurate data, in this respect, simply due to the fact that much of the warranty claim (or lack thereof) issue, with the initial US-batch, stemmed from the time that Elvis
was at the helm of LI, stateside, and records were poorly kept.
Without an accurate gauge of how many units were initially sold ( and then perhaps even re-sold, given the constant hobby-equipment/hardware flux that is the automotive enthusiast's curse
), since Cliff did not take-over stateside operations until this May, it would be, in my honest opinion, impossible for him to make any accurate statements in this regard.
All that I know is that from Ivan's postings on RD.net, the estimate of affected heads that were in the initial stateside shipment was guessed to be at around 70%. Based on the number of warranty claim fulfillments that I've seen posted to the LI Forum's "General" page, and of what I know of who has the devices from the first US run (based on open postings on the RD.net Forums, as well as PMs/e-mails from fellow hobbyists either locally or nationally [although I am not, per-se, an active member of the local show/track/street-racing scene, I am somewhat of a known feature, and as-such, often see such contacts), I would say that this was an honest figure, and neither too optimistic nor pessimistic.
With the narrow frontal section of my Porsche, having a 3 head system would or could possibly offer me a one head failure redundancy in that two heads should offer the protection I am looking for. The middle head would be within the 3 foot protection window of both headlights. (My thoughts anyway)
As I reiterated above, this is my precise thinking as well. I'd actually honestly be surprised if you did not see at least
"effective-JTG" performace from this proposed "M35" setup.
Certainly, such a setup should *easily* afford you the necessary critical seconds to slow-to-reasonable/PSL, particularly given your noted driving habits and encounter situations, in your initial posts.
My survival rate against laser thus far has been a great lookout doctrine. Seeing them before they see and employ against you. I guess I finely developed that skill as an F-14 pilot. Speaking of which, "burnthrough" was the term we used when our radar was able to see and shoot a missile against an active jamming fighter or bomber target. |
I do know the time is coming when I do not see the LEO and that is when I will wish I had the best system in place. Thus my search.
How cool! Now I have to steal that terminology from you!
OK, maybe it wasn't so cool, when you were flying.
In any case, I totally agree. I have a very pragmatic - many would say pessimistic - outlook on this entire situation. I see the cards as being stacked very, very much in favor of "The House." The odds are with them, all they need is that one lucky burnthrough in order to ruin my day.
Me, in turn?
I need al the help I can get, to make sure that I go unmolested.
And this is, of course, where I agree with you the most. The biggest and most important factor of all of this is paying attention - situational awareness.
It's always best to (for)see the trap ahead, and to avoid it, instead of having to rely on the countermeasures we've equipped ourselves with.
And it's really only in those impossible-to-avoid situations where, as you said, these investments pay off.
I can tell you one thing I do not like about these systems, at least the Blinder anyway. IRT the installation. I wish the heads had a quick disconnect fitting so changing a head was simple instead of having to un-route the whole wire and then reroute a new one. There are weather proof fittings available for this and weather proof tape could also be used for double protection. (Leon?)
I agree, and believe me, you're not the only one to have thought/complained about this.
The problem, currently debated, is one of not only added expense, but an added potential problem point.
FWIW, though, while I see that side of the argument, I more agree with yours - that such a connection would make things much, much better, overall, particularly given the fact that it has, so far, seemed that NO jammer maker has been able to solve the question of weathersealing on a "permanent" basis (versus, say, automotive headlights and other such "exposed" components).