Originally Posted by steagall1000
I would agree with you on the blinder maybe not pulling enough power, but in recent test on center mass shots no matter how far I shot with the ultralyte I could not get punch-throughs.
Center-mass, I think, should be a base-requirement of any jammer.
It is still, undeniably, *the* spot which enforcers are taught to initially engage, and will remain so, for numerous real-world concerns.
In this, I take after the likes of brothers crazyVOLVOrob
and VEIL Guy
, who has repeatedly cited that in the real world, sufficient performance to allow one to simply slow-to-PSL/reasonable is oftentimes more than good enough to mean all the difference between eating a ticket and, at most, escaping with a dirty glance or garnering a verbal warning.
Certainly, in terms of quantiative testing and in terms of determining the enthusiast's brand of "top-dog," this kind of performance is not only expected, but *demanded* - but when it comes to end-consumer concerns, I think that unless you live in a truly LIDAR-as-the-main-threat area, "JTFG" in an "anywhere on car" manner is truly solely an academic concern.
Yes those high punch-throughs concerned me. If the blinder heads would have been higher in the grill, I don't think the punch-through would have occured.
I honestly don't know - as with your car, the placement of the jammer heads on the "peanut-eye" Imprezas - particularly with the STi's unique body - is a headache in and of itself. The way the fenders bulge, the extra-high hood-scoop, as well as the placement of the corner markers within the headlamp assmebly (including the top-corner cosmetic reflector elements), as you've seen in this case, defeated the current physical setup, and as I presented above, I have residual conscerns - albeit of other areas - should the heads be moved to the upper/main radiator opening/grill.
The light color of this vehicle also does not help......
The Veil was a disappointment. I expected the veil to perform alittle better. I keep hearing that the veil can jam the ultralytes to the gun on some runs. This however i have not seen this yet and this was our first test ever with the veil.
G4 does seem to synergize well with active protection, when it comes to the Ultralytes, from known data.
Similarly, G2, in the past, has been shown to litearally "eat" Stalker - and this is also a trait that seems to have carried over to G4.
However, in terms of "true-JTG," I (1) believe the data from happya$$
's Civic, in the VEIL promotional videos, to be a singular and special case: i.e. that with the additional passive countermeasures efforts taken on that vehicle, in addition to its small physical size/frontal-area, combined with its dark color as well as the methods that happya$$
and VEIL Guy
already employed in order to further reduce its IR signature (addressing the whip antenna, grill badge, etc), it simply presents a setup in which the passive countermeasures used - VEIL and LaserShield - synergized sufficiently with the native "stealth factor" of the vehicle (color/size/hardpoints and hardpoint coverage/etc.) that it was a perfect demonstration of what *could be.*
In the real-world, although I am firmly convinced that VEIL does work, it's my personal opinion that it also cannot be relied upon, time after time, to give "true-JTG" performance, even if it was able to demonstrate such on a singular basis, for although such singular testing certainly demonstrate the powerful effect of such passive measures as VEIL, the possibility of the innumerable and varied circumstances of each unique encounter could well swing things in favor of the enforcer, leading to a PT.
Do I believe that VEIL-effected saves and "JTGs" are possible?
Yes, I certainly do - given what you've seen, yourself, steagall
, of various and totally random vehicles returning with delayed lock, error readings, as well as even, occasionally, no reading at all (and knowing full well that the vehicle more than likely did not have either any passive nor active countermeasures), I think it is more than likely that paying attention to passive measures can well produce "saves" in and of themselves, as well as drastically enhance the effectiveness of any other passive and/or active countermeasure(s), and also help protect against the very real - and totally inevitable - "once in a blue moon" unexpected and unaccounted-for PT.
Can the veil improve close range performance shots with a blinder, "YES" on Long range, maybe but if I'm the shooter your doomed!!! We did hold the gun on the head lights on a few very steady runs and from 2000 feet with veil only we got punch-through at 1425 feet. The problem is even if you aim for the head lights, your beam is still hitting the bumper at that long range.
I honestly don't think it's so much the shooter, as it is both the physical circumstances, as well as just plain luck.
It's not that I don't think well of your LIDAR skills/marksmanship. Rather, it's just that with any typical roadside enforcement action, the LIDAR operator is using the unit in a hand-held manner, stabilized perhaps with the help of his vehicle's bodywork. In tracking a moving target at-distance, it's inevitable that, even just by accident, he might snag a headlight or fog-light - or even body-fender, the vehicle greenhouse (if this is not already his SOP) or roofline, or even the external rearview mirror housing (which, as of today's trends in being body-colored and/or incorporate lighting elements and/or may even be chromed, makes for a great little target).
And just as you re-stated above to what I pointed out in the previous post, the physic of the situation is also undeniable - at that distance, the beamwidth/divergence is just too large for the passive protective measure of VEIL'ing the headlights to sufficiently cover. Again, as I cited previous, not only will the beam, even targeted at the far outboard corner of the headlight, encompass the headlight itself, but at a nominal radius of 30 inches, it will extend well BEYOND the headlight housing, inboard, which then, by logic, extends the beam past the protective coverage of the VEIL, which is LIMITED TO THE SURFACE THAT IT IS BONDED TO.
[ Aside: And towards this effect is where I'm somewhat disappointed in the performance, instead of the Blinder - for if indeed the PT was elicited at such distances, the beam-spread of the incoming LIDAR threat should have also encompassed the Blinder head (and if not, then it is a fault of the installer, for violating Blinder's specific jammer head mounting/spacing recommendations; to this end, I also advise the vehicle owner to check on which side his receiving diodes are placed, within each head) and thus allowed the Blinder, the active protective measure, to be able to shield it at such distances.
Chalk that one up to "luck," if you will, but I will also say that it is simply "Murphy's Law" of such engagements.
Similarly, look at the physical circumstances of this particular testing.
The two hills - do they have anything to do with where each vehicle was seeing PT?
In one of the earliest of the CFL group's tests, it was shown that just about every vehicle at that test, regardless of jammer used, was experiencing PT precisely at one point in the test course, where the roadway took a slight dip - and that, in-turn, caused many of the less-than-well-optimized (i.e. not true-leveled) setups to experience PT at precisely that point.
, when he utilized a single-front-LPP setup, with the jammer mounted just below the front plate, saw PT from a LA SpeedLaser III, with ensuing ticket, as his vehicle entered a slight dip in the roadway, with the enforcers shooting from an overpass, at less than 300 ft. (with the geometry of the setup thus exceeding the vertical divergence of the LPP's emitter diode).
I honestly don't think that either the Blinder setup nor the VEIL were "failures" in this test.
If anything, I believe that the testing was more indicative of various "worst-case" scenarios than anything else, and that the vehicle owner's setup should be plenty effective enough in a real-world manner.
I believe that the testing, in this case, simply showed the weaknesses inherent in the system-setup pairing, with data which then should be used in optimizing ( use the words "test and tune" with the owner of the STi, that'll be in his native "tuner-lingo" vocabulary
) his setup, which, in this case, should rest chiefly on optimizing his forward ACTIVE protection, via relocation and, preferably, addition of forward Blinder heads.
The "peanut eye" STi's shape - and the fact that it's white - makes it a unique, and a difficult, target to protect.