Originally Posted by Veil Guy
You speak the truth and I really appreciate your input on these matters.
No need to thank me - I'm just glad another Forum/community has been started, to help our fellow motorists and hobbyists.
Another great resource.
Personally, the only evaluation that ultimately means anything to me is what happens in the real-world (ie; will one avoid speeding tickets), that's why I have supported this forum or test radar detectors and other countermeasures in the format that I do (ie; countermeasure vs. traffic enforcement). |
The truth about controlled tests is the testers attempt to defeat the countermeasure to discover and highlight the relative strengths and/or weaknesses of each countermeasure tested.
Officers operating police lidar are merely trying to obtain a speed reading without the expectation of being interfered with. For instance, tripod usage (at least today) is a thing of history (especially with the newer GEN III/IV lidar guns being designed in the manner they are--lighter and much easier to hand-hold than their Gen I or II counterparts). While tripod mounting does go a long way to eliminate targeting variance, which is essential for back to comparisons while maximizing the chances of creating a controlled-test element.
The nature of this kind of targeting is not real-world.
When Steve and I were speed trap hunting recently in Ohio in my silver sedan that only had Veil G4 and the 9500ci, we got one JTG against an LTI Ultralyte and another one with about a 300 foot punchthrough (estimated). When I got tagged twice in the rear in norther Kentucky and I did not receive a speeding ticket, I knew that my rear ZR4 head in combination with Veil on the taillights saved my butt, big time.
In all of these cases, I had plenty of time to safely adjust my speed downward without concern. To me these are the ultimate tests to measure the ultimate utility of these countermeasures
I believe StealthJamal has thoroughly enjoyed the long and reliable service of his Passport ZR3 alone (as he has chosen specifically not to use Veil with his jammer setup). His vehicle was metallic silver, too.
To be clear, I am not denigrating any other countermeasure manufacturer or product. I am merely stating that in the real-world the majority of these products will provide adequate protection and get the job done.
I think that what matters to the majority of people in this hobby, as well as likely the vast majority of motorists and other interested individuals who come to our community (both here and elsewhere) to obtain ideas and seek advice, is "ticket saving" performance.
In this respect, I think that currently, the enthusiast community is a bit too hung-up on "JTG."
Certainly, I well know that in some areas of the US, "true-JTG" performance is not only nice to have, it's actually necessary. I know because I live in an area where I've seen engagements from as low as 300 ft.
Similarly, in some areas, JFG performance is required as well, due to rear-enforcement concerns.
But in the vast majority of the country, enforcement hardware is not "the latest and greatest," and enforcement practices do not require such extremes of protection, and "good enough" is just that, good enough - and will more than guaranty a ticket-free and worry-free driving experience (provided that one's not "hyperspeeding," and, of course, in speaking only of LIDAR).
The rigors of controlled-situation testing is, precisely as you cited, to expose select and specific weakness under nothing less than "worst case" circumstances. The true likelihood of running into such a probing by roadside enforcement is virtually nil.
Yet, the argument that this "once in a blue moon" kind of circumstance is what some are looking to invest against - as well as is exemplified by their local enforcement practices - does remain a valid justification for seeking "the next higher level" of performance.
It really turns me off to see a company, their reps, their customers, or amoral shills attempt to prop up (ie; hype) their products by attacking or displaying the weaknesses (whether real, imagined, or fabricated) of another company's products.
Agreed, and I think I am also among the majority in the community who think that it is not necessary for any company or their representatives to "speak for" or "push" their product, at all.
Instead, from the numerous individual hobbyist testers as well as hobbyist testing groups now formed throughout the community, I truly believe that all that a product has to do to "sell" is to simply demonstrate to the buying public, in the hands of the end-customers, that it performs as one would expect based on its price and advertising claims.
A good product really will, it's now proven in the community, literally sell itself.
This was at the heart of my displeasure of the tone and negativism that pervaded another online forum (one that I was an early supporter of) which subsequently led to my forfeiture of my long-held administrative role and reduced long-term participation. (BTW, I am pleased to see things have improved [there] since those dark days). |
In this instance the forum owner was more interested in having controversy (which he believed drove traffic to his site) than hosting elevated and enlightened mature discussion and debate.
I think that a part of the problem is certainly driven by the vested financial concerns of individuals.
The other part of the problem, I think, is that what exacerbates that condition/concern is the presence of people who are less than morally/ethically "solid," and are more easily swayed by the prospect of personal gain.
Add to this brew the even more unfortunate fact that many of said individuals are also the ones who like to shout the loudest....well, we all saw what became of some rather unfortuante situations, on RD.net.
And undoubtedly, the fact that it is the most well-known and most popular of the online hobbyist Forums certainly serves to not only attract those who are genuinely interested in learning or genuinely interested in helping, but also those who have ulterior motives in mind.
If was for this reason primarily that I set out to create a forum where such rancor was not encouraged and participants are free to express their genuine beliefs without fear of being "thrown under the bus." That's the vision that I had for this forum: to educate and illuminate not to persuade and manipulate. |
Originally Posted by steagall1000
The thing I have learned the most about lidar targeting and jammers is, you can still get toasted. Every jammer has its weak spots. Like for example my lower bumper. My heads are too far away to cover the lower corner of my honda bumper. So if a officer targeted just right within 500 feet, I'm toast.
I honestly don't think that this is a fault of the jammer - inherent - per-se.
Rather, I think that it is more a fault of setup.
Certainly, it can be said that a jammer that doesn't have sufficient capability to fully "cover" the front of X or Y vehicle - when compared to another that can - carries with it an inherent fault, but in all honesty, I simply think that this is more along the lines of the concern being a "technical limitation."
You cite, steagall
, that your setup is incapable of protection the lower corners of your front bumper. Is this with the M25 two-head setup, M35 three-head, or M45 four-head?
I'd be willing to bet that this is either a limitation of the two head setup (more likely) or the three-head (less likely) - and that if you were to bump up to the four-head setup, you'd virtually fully eliminate this concern (at least versus *most* LIDAR devices).
And although I doubt that the following is your case, it has been demonstrated - with not only the Blinder, but also the ZR3/4, the LPP, and even the LI - that failure of proper head placement, as well as maintenance of leveling/aim/cleaning can also cause such concerns. In such a scenario, I believe that the fault is with the end-user, not of the device itself.
I guess the real answer to this is are laser jammers effective in giving you enough time to slow down?? Yes but it depends on different factors and senarios. Can you still get a speeding ticket with a laser jammer?? Absolutely, depending on your setup and if the unit is not installed properly, or it doesn't perform well. So in my opinion jammers are only 70-90% effective. There is no 100% protection from laser. Atleast not yet!
The factors and scenarios, in my opinion, does not only cover "our" end of the equation:
- the car's finish, size, profile, and specific hardpoint configuration
- the utilization of proper/sufficient active and/or passive countermeasures
- the proper placement/setup and maintenance of such countermeasures
- failure to engage/activate the device
- proper function of the jammer (i.e. malfunction)
and the other side:
- the enforcement hardware
- the enforcement setup
- the enforcer's skill
but also terrain/secondary variables:
- over the hill/crest with a setup that's not suited for such
- from-overpass with a setup that's not suited to such
- rear-on from-elevation
- vehicle traversing roadway irregularity, with already compromised aim/leveling/setup
[ Note: of these "terrain" variables, there have been video demonstrations from various groups' testing, as well as first-hand tales, logged for reference on various hobbyist Forums, from various jammer users who've received tickets from unexpected/early PT/burnthrough from such issues.
and also, there's the intangible:
- aka: just blind bad luck for us, and good luck for the enforcer, for WHATEVER reason.
To me, it's much more than just the jammer being effective, on a technical level.
There's many layers to the equation, and failure of ANY of these will readily shift the balance of favor to the other side.
This is why I always say that the odds are not with us. The odds always favor "The House."