Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum  

Go Back   Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum > Videos > Video: Police Laser (LIDAR)
Radar Detectors Forum Logon:


Video: Police Laser (LIDAR) Videos related to Police Laser (LIDAR)

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   IP: 71.30.7.49
Old 2008-10-13
steagall1000 steagall1000 is offline
Banned Indefinitely
 
Join Date: 2007 Jul
Location: Homer, Georgia
Posts: 30
steagall1000 is on a distinguished road
Talking Blinder M45, Veil G4, Escort ZR4, Test

We met up with some friends who wanted to test out their New Laser jammers they purchased. I did not shoot any of the HUD shots, so that was not me with the crazy unsteady hand. LOL!! I would like to make a note that the starting point of this test was 2100 feet and on the second run with the subaru STI we shot at the driver side headlight with Veil G4 and got instant punch-through at the 2000 foot mark. The blinder never even went off the whole way down. That was amazing!! The ultralyte is such a low powered gun and it is very difficult for most jammers to pickup at certain distances. The Blinder was a J16 model. The escort was a new ZR4 that was purchased. Both jammers in normal targeting gave you plenty of time to slow down. Our testing was for worse case senarios only. When these jammers are shot at center mass or at the head lights in normal targeting you have time to slow down. The high punch-throughs although concerned me some.

YouTube - Braselton Jammer Fest '08


Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)   IP: 129.22.226.41
Old 2008-10-13
TSi+WRX TSi+WRX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2008 Sep
Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA
Posts: 44
TSi+WRX is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks for sharing that! Neat! Nice filming!

----

OK, here's my questions/comments:

Extreme long-range PTs (i.e. > 2000 ft.) ->

This was actually first documented, IIRC, by thestaton, with some of the earliest Blinder/VEIL videos, which was on his then Evo VIII, as well as a C5 'Vette.

I believe that a part of this problem is reception based - but part, also, in that the LED-based jammers simply do not have the "raw power" needed to provide jamming from such long ranges.

The former concern is easy to analyze: both from what you reported, steagall, as well as from what was evident on the video (where the in-car was, in this case, most helpful in the post-mortem), it's evident that, at times, the V1 was alerting, but the Blinder, not.

At 2000 ft., the beam-width should be around 72 inches. Assuming that the enforcer was targeting even the outermost edge of the front headlight on the "peanut-eye" generation STI (and note here that there is a specific point-weakness here, in that the corner reflector of the front headlight assembly is located right at that area) - or, hell, even the fender bulge at that area - there should still be at least 30 to 36 inches of beamwidth that should have elicited a response from the Blinder mounted at the location chosen..... Yet, we don't see this happening.

The harder part of this analysis is asking why this happened, as well as what can be done to resolve the situation.

To both, I'm afraid, I don't have a good answer.

My first inclination and instinct would be to move the jammer heads up, into the main radiator/grill opening. As the Imprezas of that generation offer excellent aftermarket support, I would recommend going with an aftermarket grill (or take-off OEM), and modifying it to place each of two Blinder heads as far outboard as possible, midline, there.

To this, I would then bring forward the rear two heads, and again either go with aftermarket or OEM take-offs for the fog-light covers, and locate those two Blinder heads there.

However, even then, I am afraid of the residual question of extreme long-range protection, and to this, I can only hope that the real-world instruction of enforcement agencies to limit target engagement to well within 1500 ft. will work in our favor.

To me, the VEIL was "near-useless" at such large/long distances - with such a large beam-spread, although I honestly believe that VEIL worked, without a single doubt in my mind - to cover the specific "point weaknesses" of the headlights, as it simply cannot protect the areas that it does NOT physically cover. With even the smallest diameter of coverage from the beam-spread being nearly 30 inches, it's not hard, at all, to see why VEIL had effectively no effect at such long distances: for even though it was the headlight housing that was specifically targeted, much of the beam-width covered the rest of the vehicle body, areas not addressed by VEIL - making for quick return.

Regardless, addressing the reception issue *should* help a lot, in terms of the former concern.

With the latter concern, I'm honestly not sure what can be done to effect remedial measures - or whether if it is truly even a concern, for, perhaps, as is evident from other tests, the key issue of jammer head placement to optimize reception/coverage may make this a moot point?


TSi+WRX's Sig:- Allen/Usual Suspect "DumboRAT"/One of the Three Stooges

LI Rev.2.8, Ver.7.03 - quad 8.0A-f w/ 8.5 Slim-r
LPP v8.3h(CAN/AU)/10.1s, 2xF/1xR
9500i, Red (4307) w/ZR3
VEIL G4
CR8APL8s, w/LaserShield(F)
Cheetah GPS-Mirror

[ Wifey's FXT -> Bue 8500x50 (Rev.5); LI Rev.2.9, Ver.7.08 - dual 8.5 ]

Me: '05 Legacy 2.5GT Ltd., mildly modified
Wifey: '09 Forester XT, barely modded
Baby-Anna: too short to reach any pedals!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)   IP: 192.251.125.85
Old 2008-10-13
steagall1000 steagall1000 is offline
Banned Indefinitely
 
Join Date: 2007 Jul
Location: Homer, Georgia
Posts: 30
steagall1000 is on a distinguished road
Default Low power versus high

TSi+WRX,

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. Also note the ultralyte is a very low powered gun compared to the stalker or pro Laser III. Also Blinders have a hard time with the ultralytes versus the Pro laser III or Stalkers, in most cases with the J15 and J16 models are a huge improvement from the J11's. 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. 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. 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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)   IP: 76.190.193.28
Old 2008-10-14
TSi+WRX TSi+WRX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2008 Sep
Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA
Posts: 44
TSi+WRX is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steagall1000 View Post
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.

Quote:
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......

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Similarly, Noory, 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.


TSi+WRX's Sig:- Allen/Usual Suspect "DumboRAT"/One of the Three Stooges

LI Rev.2.8, Ver.7.03 - quad 8.0A-f w/ 8.5 Slim-r
LPP v8.3h(CAN/AU)/10.1s, 2xF/1xR
9500i, Red (4307) w/ZR3
VEIL G4
CR8APL8s, w/LaserShield(F)
Cheetah GPS-Mirror

[ Wifey's FXT -> Bue 8500x50 (Rev.5); LI Rev.2.9, Ver.7.08 - dual 8.5 ]

Me: '05 Legacy 2.5GT Ltd., mildly modified
Wifey: '09 Forester XT, barely modded
Baby-Anna: too short to reach any pedals!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blinder Customer #2 Jammer test steagall1000 Laser Jammers 0 2009-05-11 22:18
Blinder M25 & Escort ZR4 on Lexus IS350 steagall1000 Video: Laser Jammer 5 2009-03-12 13:57
Laser Star SCGT Laser Jammers 66 2009-01-26 11:05
New Escort ZR4 vs New Blinder M25 "J15 steagall1000 Video: Police Laser (LIDAR) 0 2008-07-11 22:36
New Blinder "J15" and Lasermask Test steagall1000 Laser Jammers 7 2008-07-10 10:03


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:12.


©2019 SpeedTrapHunter