Although it is actually difficult to find truly independent and informed reviews (one was essentially suppressed) or open discussion concerning K40 products in general, beyond the reviews already mentioned above, Craig did perform a comprehensive/documented laser countermeasure review , conducted several years ago (don't go by the article date of 2008, it was actually conducted during July of 2005) on the then current laser jammer models (along with Veil G2).
If you are going with the 9500ci, I would recommend using the built-in "laser shifting" ability of it (coupled with Veil G4 for maximum effect). I personally wouldn't count on an older diffuser technology against the latest Gen III or Gen IV police lasers.
Here are some video runs that were made shortly after the release of Veil G4 and Shifter ZR4 (which is the same as the shifting capability of your new 9500ci):
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hqF5m6X_9wc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hqF5m6X_9wc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wclxb2y8gHE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wclxb2y8gHE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
These two types of laser countermeasures (one passive & one active), do very well together.
Veil Guy :driver:
PS: Randy, now that you stepped up to some serious protection, welcome to the club. :)
PPS: Once you get it installed, be sure to GPS mark the gator crossings on the Tamiami Trail :) :)
However, on the grander scheme of things, I think that such an effort is self-defeating.
To an extent, these active/passive-safety as well as convenience systems are there for a reason. And while the "driver" in me says that the convenience features such as active cruise are un-necessary, and that the nanny systems such as lane-departure warning is for the driving feeble :p , I also cannot help but see the other side of the equation - that they do make thing safer, overall (even the latter, one cannot always say that accidents can be avoided, for, simply, they are accidental in nature...try as we might, we're still human, and there *is* still a possibility, however remote and however hard we try to avoid it, that we will stray out of our lane-of-travel, unintentionally), and furthermore, that some such systems, such as Infiniti's "Preview Braking System," truly are the next evolution, and really will only do good, in a street-driving sense.
This is a hard one to call - and I think it *needs* to be up to the specific end-owner to decide what side of the equation he/she may fall on, and to then undertake modifications (either to the vehicle's features or to that of the countermeasures hardware), albeit with FULL knowledge of what the implications may be.
(1) I would hope that the Escort (Bel) would not be far behind, given already that they have already implemented the capability to lock-out laser falses with TrueLock.
(2) I do not know of the capabilities of such defeats from AntiLaser - I do not recall any specific testing of this, for its G9.
There have been more than one multiple-LIDAR-countermeasures user who've mentioned that the more up-to-date/revision-"happy" devices such as the Laser Interceptor can be counted on to give the least falsing possible, and this is an observation which I will agree with.
Some of these individuals have gone so far as to not to respond to their LASER alerts until the LI warns - and while I can see the practical value of this, it is not a practice that I agree with.
While I fear LASER less than instant-on RADAR, I nevertheless see it as a high enough risk, akin to Ka-band in terms of the "risk scale," that it *MUST* be responded to each and every time, regardless. To ignore such a threat, regardless of which countermeasure is reporting/alerting, is to expose oneself to a high tremendously degree of risk.
This is particularly true with the LI, given that it does not "instantaneously" warn of the LIDAR threat, but instead, "returns fire" even before it starts to audibly alert.
Also, this is dangerous given the fact that the V1 and the Escort ZR3/4 are such excellent detectors, and could have potentially seen a threat well before the threat is realized "on-vehicle," before the vehicle is actually painted.
However, I disagree with the fact that this is something that one should "get used to."
It's akin to saying that one should "get used to" Ka-band falsing - it's simply not tactically sound.
To me, this is a weakness/technical limitation of the countermeasure device that should be addressed either by the end-user or, better-yet, by the manufacturer.
In having the noise-floor so high, it can only lead to one thing - "detector desensitization," which is a cardinal sin of detector usage.
In having repeatedly inoculated the end-user to such false-alerts, the device causes one to not only doubt the veracity of its alerts, but to also increase user-latency in taking the proper action to ALWAYS, at such alert, to reduce speed as quickly and as safely as possible.
The window-of-opportunity for a successful jam, temporally/distance-covered, is small. One should not have to second-guess one's countermeasures.
In so much as we appreciate the Escort/Bel products for seeking ways to reduce falsing via advanced filtering - and often use this very characteristic of the device to counter the points made by the V1 - we should *NOT*, as end-users (or even "fans") of the Escort marque somehow come to the defense of the ZR3/4's propensity for false-alerting, but instead should demand better of the manufacturer, to address this most concerning, and most dangerous, problem.
To clarify, I did not say that one should get used to it, I merely stated that one inevitably does get used to it (as you yourself just indicated, that you can essentially predict when such things may happen). ;)
This is really much like the situation one has when driving with a sensitive (and less heavily filtered) V1. After a short time, it's pretty easy to discern the difference between a genuine X and K source versus a door opener.
...And while I agree with your assessment of new driver enhancement technology (at least in theory) I have been concerned about its actual execution. For instance, using 24.1Ghz transponders for ACC/LD systems (for cost savings) creates the very dangers that these systems purport to mitigate (by creating interference to drivers of RDs) potentially creating the very hazards they're designed to eliminate. The same goes for LIDAR-based systems. Better to have the frequency of K band sufficiently moved out of the way of RD reception tolerances or using 77 Ghz systems like Mercedes Distronic systems (but, they're more expensive to produce than cheap 24Ghz K-band transponders).
The other concern I have about these systems is that they have the potential to allow for further driver disconnectiveness from actually driving. Sure ABS/ADS systems have a place, but (I'm sure you'd agree) these systems shouldn't be a substitute for good driver skill/attentiveness (:eyescan:) and could these systems facilitate the further decline/erosion of drivers abilities/attentiveness? Has the use of the calculator undermined many people's ability to actually do math in their heads? I suppose so...
<embed src="http://videos.streetfire.net/vidiac.swf?video=28f05bd2-534f-4825-8180-9b5801370da1" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" width="428" height="352">
We could learn a thing or two from our Finnish friends (courtesy of the best darn show on the tele:TopGear)
A simplier approach may be just to eliminate/reduce multi-media enhanced iDrive-like systems (for key functions) and staying off the darn cell phone while driving.
:offtopic: Please forgive my straying a bit off topic, with my philosophical :ranting2:.
Veil Guy :driver:
I just think that we as end-users of Escort's products - whose express mission is to quiet, as much as possible, false alerts, and thus lower the noise threshold - should ask for better, ask for more.
Given that the technology already exists (both the LI and the Whistler products are capable of such), hopefully, we won't have to wait long.
And FWIW, I totally agree.
The first thing to do would be to move away from "mobile entertainment," and the second, to effect better driver education and continued learning.
At the same time, I think that the engineers of these devices also need to think, just as you said, about their actual real-world execution, more - for it is hard for me to imagine that someone, among the rank-and-file, would not have noticed the unintended side-effect of these systems.
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32.|