[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by RadarNutt

Ok.. so, this what I get for mouthing off and posting too early in the AM before my 3 shots of espresso.

No, no, not at all, please don't think of it that way!

Let me say that first off, I'd say that I think the LI is probably the best "jammer" on the market, in terms of raw performance.

The points that I was trying to make (and this is just my Personal Opinion here):

1. None of these devices seem to JTG every gun all the time
2. They all have weaknesses
3. It's important when making a buying decision to consider the company, reliability, customer service, etc. - just like buying any other product

And I totally agree with each and every one of those posts.

I don't believe that any product, on-market currently, is perfect. Each one leaves specific areas of either its performance or associated/secondary concerns to-be-desired, and to be improved upon.

Truer words you could not have spoken. Indeed, no current jammer is perfect.

I don't have a video of the off-axis shots. And that was a poor description on my part since I am used to talking about radar more than LIDAR. What I encountered was a test event where an LTI shot a vehicle with a LI unit at 0 degrees axis to the LI and it was JTG. Then the LTI was shot at 5 and 10 degrees off and there was instant PT. I thought that was strange. No one took video at the event, so I can't show any. It was an impromptu session.

No video is necessary - your words are sufficient.

I agree, that would indeed be strange.

It would be interesting, given what was seen of the above two videos that I cited, to know where the shots were targeted.

As demonstrated above, mounting considerations plays a big portion in jamming success - both in terms of LIDAR reception as well as the ability of the outgoing jamming beam successfully getting to the intended threat target.

The various testing groups have all tested some iteration of the various LTI products at their events - the only problem is that none have, to my knowledge, really tested the off-axis scenario, at least not purposefully.

The only data that I can recall ( and you'll have to excuse the pea that I call a brain, which doesn't work all that well ) have come from singular examples as I've cited above - "by-chance" situations. Aside from these, the only other testing that I can think of that would validate the performance of the LI, versus "off-axis" LTI engagements, are the Central-FL group's "overpass"/elevation shots, but those have seen the LI to work extremely well.

To your various points though, I don't know what version of LI it was. I don't know if the LI could have been installed better or not, nor do I know which side the bubbles were on.

Again, no problem - I was just trying to get to the bottom of things, as, certainly, the first-US-run LIs (6.09 box) did seem to have trouble with the Stalker LZ-1 -> to the point where this weakness was exploited by some less-than-scrupulous individuals, despite the fact that said weakness was nowhere near as problematic as it was made out to be.

And I do agree from my own observations with LPP that switching the heads around so that the lens and laser positions are reversed can have a substantial impact on performance. It seems strange, but I have seen that enough times to know it's true.

Agreed.

I also don't understand how just a few inch (or fraction of an inch) difference can translate to such differences in observed jammer performance, but it certainly seems to bear fruit in real-world translation.

I hope that all makes sense. So, I was not trying to slam LI. On the contrary, it IS a very good product. I was trying to say that it's not infallible. Neither is LPP, nor anything else.

No problem at all, I completely see your points, and I agree - foremost with your point of view that nothing is perfect.

And back to the TruSpeed... if I'm right that LPP will natively support it, that does not mean that it's performance can't be improved upon. We'll have to see once someone does some thorough testing on multiple vehicles.

^ Agreed.

I certainly hope that the LPP will fare well against the TruSpeed.

For if what Roy said about the LI's issues with TruSpeed is true, then I certainly hope that, at least until I get the updated LI box, that my LPPs will be a more-than-sufficient stop-gap.

What also stands out in my read of the early postings of the TruSpeed on RD.net is the distinct lack of mention of the two other most popular jammer options - the AL and LPP - versus the TruSpeed. And this, of course, can be interpreted in its own way.

Originally Posted by RadarNutt

Should have added my only diss of LI is 1) I can't keep track of the software updates, etc. ; 2) all the updates say to me that it's still a work in progress... ok, so some people like that but I do not. I prefer to wait and have a single update with a bunch of changes, not a whole bunch of updates. Just reminds me of my PC and Microsloth Windoze too much; and 3) I recall hearing about massive failure rates of new units - at least during the first few batches released into the States. Not sure what is up with that, but it caused me to question reliability (and still does re: longer term).

The first-US-batch suffered weathersealing issues.

Although many made a big deal about this, I honestly don't understand why.

To-wit, it took Escort a year to figure out how to properly weatherseal the ZR3 - and guess what? now, over a half-decade later, with the introduction of the ZR4, they again are seeing the exact same problems.

I don't understand why everyone fostered such ills towards the LI, but completely forgot about the same of the Escort.

At the same time, it also seemed that everyone forgot about the *continuing* weathersealing issues with the AL G8, or the fact that the first "North American" release LPP heads - then dating to their original Croatian manufacture, before being truly UK products - also suffered such problems.

One of my LPP heads (out of two, from that first batch) saw that problem.

Neither of my two LI heads, also of the problematic batch, saw any concerns, yet.

And as for the updates?

I agree, they're coming fast-and-furious, and although I do understand the frustration many have regarding such, it again goes back to the question of "what would you like" ->

Do you want the industry to lag, as it has done so for years, on the basis of being responsive/reactive to end-user complaints (i.e. that "I'm seeing poor performance to X or Y threat, please address the issue) - or do you want to see more proactive (still, reactive, based on simply the nature of this game) measures?

As I've mentioned in the TruSpeed thread, it wasn't until the GOL cited the performance deficit of the LPP versus 100 PPS UL - and then the confirmation from members in the community that the 100 PPS UL was *much more* of a threat (in terms of physical use of the unit, and its availability/distribution here in the US), that LPP-UK/KMPH-UK finally reacted to the concern, and offered updates for our market.

To think that we were all vulnerable to such a threat, for such a long time, is, in-retrospect, a disappointment, and I think that every LPP user who went through that time-period would agree with me on that statement.

Yes, LPP did respond properly and quickly to address this concern, once it became known and became such a hot topic of debate and outcry - but given the retrospective view of the FULL situation, was that truly acceptable? and could that have been improved upon via proactive/preemptive action?

That, I think, is the question - as well as the issue here.

And I don't mean to single-out LPP as the target. Rather, it's just that the above case perfectly exemplifies the issue of "new threats" and the need for proper and timely updates.

This applies to any and all jammer makers.

Escort is probably the worst of the bunch, when it comes to this track-record, as the ZR3 has been on-market for over a half-decade, and is just now seeing its first evolutionary upgrade.

At the same time, the Blinder J11/J15 issue also weighs heavy in the community, too, as a "reaction" issue, and has caused many of Blinder's most ardent supporters to now either privately or publicly denounce the way that they've handled this situation.

How long should we wait - that's the question.

And btw, I don't read these forums all the time so I am not up on what's what on any given day with the LI or whatever. I just like to skim them periodically and occassionally chime in. I have a life and I'm not 15 years old with nothing else to do during the summer.

No no, that's totally understood.

And in this vein, I hope that some of my observations above, given the history of these products, can further help you (and others here) put things in-perspective.

A couple of other comments...

Blinder.... I hear the M25/M45 have some awful water problems - that is leaking and ruining heads. Especially in cooler climates where the epoxy appears to be contracting and expanding in the winter months, allowing holes to develop where water gets in and shorts out the heads. What are these made in China now? Probably.

Wow - I wasn't aware of that! That's certainly something that does *not* make me happy.....

Escort.... would some people get a clue and realize that "LED" includes the word "diode" in it. Thus technically the ZR4 IS a "diode" jammer, but it is of course not a "laser diode" jammer. I cannot believe even Escorts' engineers seem to have been brain-washed by the marketing department. K40 has the same problem. Oh, I forgot! K40 is just a marketing company.

I that's the problem - no, not that we here in the community needs a clue, but rather, that Escort's engineers seem to have, as you said, been brainwashed by their corporate-line.

Indeed, we're all well aware that LEDs are just that - "Light Emitting Diodes." However, based on current community conventions, the words "diode-based jammer" translates exclusively into LASER-diode based jammers.

And although it could be said that we reap what we sow, and that the aforementioned engineer was correct in what he insisted, and that we should correct our nomenclature (not to say that we shouldn't - I believe we should, and I am, and have been, of the opinion that MEM-TEK's suggestion of "CLED" is a very good one) this is unfortunately *NOT* the case, as, plainly, the engineer referenced balked at the idea that we, the enthusiast community, would think that the ZR4 was LED based, and not diode-based. The way he framed this last statement of ridicule clearly suggests that he himself understood well what we were referring to.