[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

There are only two versions currently available, the 9500ci and the Sti-r. The Sti-r is not the same as the 9500ci without the shifter.

No no, I think we're thinking the same thing, but just have our thoughts crossed-up. What I meant is that the 9500ci shouldn't be thought of as "part exclusive jammer," as that function can be disabled/enabled at-will.

Certainly, the STi-R is not the same as the 9500ci - I think that the two do individually address very different usage-concerns, although I do not necessarily agree with, precisely, the "split" between the different functionalilties.

Indeed, given a moment to reflect upon your previous post (as well as this one, see following), I do agree - there should be more product overlap, but this, I think, may eat into Bel/Escort's bottom-line....perhaps a more modular solution would be better? I honestly don't know.

Yes but that's not the issue. The issue is paying $500.00 for a shifter that may not even be wanted or used. They need to have the 9500ci without the ZR4 package.

^ Agreed. And that's what I meant by my last statement above.

All BEL products are excellent receivers,

I don't think that there's favorable consensus regarding the laser reception capability of Bel products, at all. Looking back on the RD.net Forums, you'll find very, very few who at all praise the stand-alone Bel or Escort detectors (with perhaps the 9500i having started to buck this trend, as of this past year or so) for this aspect of their performance (or rather, lack thereof).

Only the ZR3 (as well as its Bel sister product) have garnered favor as-such.

but that's not why I'd want to spend $500.00 for BELs shifter. Consumers should have to be 'locked' into buying the ZR4 package with the 9500ci.

Again, agreed. Perhaps, indeed, more modularity is the key. In my "outside the industry" view, this may even help increase their revenue, for, as you well said, buyers are not essentially locked into an additional half-a-grand that they may or may not have any want for.

I haven't looked into this yet, but we certainly will in the future. My guess is that the diode based systems will be doing more eliciting to which the LED systems would be responding to, but this is yet to be documented scientifically. In any case I'd be surprised to see different results.

Indeed, some hard data will be good.

Currently, my thinking is that this is part "brightness/light-spill" related (i.e. the unique IR-transparent forward-half configuration of the Blinder heads), and partly "receptor-mediated" - to take a term from my trade (i.e. how the ZR3 was able to pick up the wall-reflection from the LPPs' outgoing, in Ronin's test).

I think that this is multifactorial.

Well before we get off on a tangent, we're using the term 'crosstalk' but I'm not sure that's the correct term for what's happening. However as long as everyone is on the same page and understands what is happening with the laser signals, the term crosstalk will have to do for now When you say "interference-causing" do you mean between the heads?

Ah! Apologies for the loose terminology....part of the problem, as you well pointed out, is that we don't have established vocabulary when we're talking about this.

To me, "crosstalk" applies to any untoward interactions between two different jammers - this can be either electrical (i.e. noise from unprotected lines causing one jammer to fire, in response to another firing, example: this has been noted of Blinder setups) or "optical" (i.e. "light" from one jammer causing another to fire in response, example: parking-beam of LPP eliciting the LI to fire [pre Version 6.14 control-box]).

Although such "base" crosstalk events are worrisome in and of themselves, what worries me more is what's "seen" by the police LIDAR that started the initial jamming sequence (from whichever jammer that "saw" the incoming, first - and I think that this is yet another issue of concern, for as clearly seen through many IR-videos, not all jammers have equivalent receptive capabilities). Error-code generation is a worry (as voiced by the likes of Ivan, no less; so far, however qualitatively, proven not to be a concern any more than any single-jammer setup), but moreso, I worry about whether whatever "interference" the crosstalk generates will negatively impact jamming effectiveness (example: per interceptor.tw's semi-quantitative testing, this seems to be a concern of the Blinder+LI combo).

Unfortunately, as you see above, I really don't have any good ideas of how to best-categorize this vocabulary, either.

Perhaps this is a fault of my ESL-status.

Most of the results shown will not apply to your car so what else would you call it? Far too many variables to call this real testing. The use of Veil will effect the test, as will if the product was applied over 2 months ago. The use of a front plate will effect the outcome by as much of a factor of 4 times, was the paint metallic, waxed/unwaxed, the paints color, was there cosine error, the aerodynamic shape of the front of the car, the area of the headlights, etc. Also there aren't many tests where on the same day the same tester, tests various products at the same time.

Indeed, I had not thought of it from this angle. Framed as-such, it's hard, indeed, not to call such data "anecdotal" and non-quantitative. However, then, how can *any* real-world testing be properly standardized, given the many confounding factors?

Given the factors you've listed, I honestly don't see how everything can be accounted for and standardized - temporal differences alone will make such standardization as you've quoted rather problematic.

Also, does the "tester" have an agenda? I know of several videos on-line where the "tester" does - and so those 'tests' are worthless.

Exactly. This was one of the two primary-concern factors which I cited....it was actually the one I presented, first.

Unfortunatly, in this industry and hobby, there's just too much bad-blood.

These things all play a role on how a shifter works. In order to do real world side-by-side testing you need to tests more than one product at the same time and under the same conditions.

I agree, but I think that's too idealistic.....

You're going to need the same setup (but how to compensate for optimization of one setup, versus the next? and in this respect, is it fair to simply have all the different setups mounted in the exact same locations, on the exact same test-vehicles?), on the same vehicles (but how to control for small variations such as the amount of dust on one vehicle versus the other, or the amount one vehicle may "settle" versus another due to ride-height differences induced by driver, equipment, as well as fuel?), on the same roadways at the same exact time (which runs into the physical problem of synchronicity - the sun won't be at the same angle for all vehicles, nor will the roadway, no matter how wide or similar from side-to-side, be able to accomodate such vehicles all at the same time, and what about the ability to "shoot" each vehicle, at the precise and same time, with the "same" LIDAR, which in and of itself presents calibration/individual-variance issues, not to even mention the potential for the scatter of one to affect the next, which is a documented problem?).

Without true lab/bench testing, under truly "ideal" and variable-controlled setups, "real-world" testing can only be so quantitative and so "non-anecdotal." There's always going to be problems, if you're going to pursue things that far.....

When we see these tests on-line we take them "into account" but on their own we don't rule out products or surmise that one product works better than another purely based on what could easily be skewed videos.

That's exactly my point - we can make certain extrapolations/interpolations based on the "data" presented, but that's all. There's always going to be factors to account for which may bias the test either way, and these factors in and of themselves may be non-intentional oversights, or may be malicious/deceptive in nature.

We don't use Veil to defeat anything on its own, nor do we recommend anyone use the product on its own. However, in each and every case where Veil is used the shifters performance is dramatically increased. When using these types of products you want an 'edge' and that is exactly what Veil gives you. Even if it only adds a couple of hundred feet to your warning, that may be all it takes to keep you from getting tagged. Until someone comes out with a shifter that works 100% of the time, we'll be adding Veil to the mix

Exactly.

And this has been my position all along in this community. If you search the RD.net Forums, you'll see that this is very much something that I believe in, and have advocated.

I'm a strong believer in not only the synergy of passive protection measures in and of themselves, but also the synergy between passive and active protective measures.

To take a line from another of my hobbies/interests, it's a "Circle of Defense." No tactical means capable of shifting the advantage to our court should be ignored.

Agreed! I am only interested in the facts of the matter. Brand names, hype, etc. are meaningless. This is why I'm looking more toward military applications to see how they handle such applications.

^ Agreed. And in this vein......

I truly hope you don't take any of my statements in a negative way - they are not meant as such, and are truly designed only to further spur thought towards solving our collective problems. In much the same way that my current and past bosses/mentors seem, to their non-scientific support staff to always be "arguing" with their fellow academic friends, I hope you also do not mistake my passion for anger, for it is certainly the former, and not the latter, with which I am replying! I truly enjoy your in-depth thinking, and truly do hope that your tests will soon provide us with yet another way to examine our protection measures - in much the same way as IRCMUSA's IR-videos first opened our eyes.

I truly do think that we're after the same ends, as hobbyists/enthusiasts, and hope that this kind of repartee can help stimulate further thoughts on how to make all of us "more invisible."