['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

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.

The ZR4 is their exclusive jammer, but why would someone want to spend $500.00 for a feature just to turn it off? I've also heard that the 9500ci won't even turn on if the ZR4 package isn't installed (what's up with that?). Judging by how Cincinnati Microwave markets their products I'm betting that BEL offers the 9500ci without the ZR4 package BUT then of course you have to worry about those ugly red LED's

I don't think that there's favorable consensus regarding the laser reception capability of Bel products

Well with all due respect for those who don't like them all I can say is I have personal experience where the laser detector in their Pro RX65 saved our butt many times. This was in a car that has no shifter and no Veil, yet the RX65 gave us plenty of time to adjust our speed

Currently, my thinking is that this is part "brightness/light-spill" related

I was thinking along similar lines, only I would relate it to lens design.

To me, "crosstalk" applies to any untoward interactions between two different jammers

Crosstalk is usually related to two separate analog circuits. I cannot find any credible information that applies it to laser based systems, but the main idea is the same

how can *any* real-world testing be properly standardized, given the many confounding factors?

I don't know that it can, which is why we've been doing our own independent testing for the last 24 years There are just too many variables that come into play. At best all you can really do is look for patterns in test results, but then there are the jokers who have their own agenda and want to make a certain product look bad (this has happened to Blinder) so a little bit of common sense comes into play also. In the end it's best to do your own testing but unfortunately this is hard for most to do.

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

You would need to test the same units on the same cars. All cars would need to be the same make/model, one white, one metallic and one black. So you'd test product A on the first car, then product A on the second, then product A on the third. Repeat for all products to establish a pattern. Will you see this kind of testing on-line? Most likely not. Some of the tests that I've seen on-line don't even properly mount the heads (I believe they used velcro in one test). Other tests I've seen run on a white Chrysler 300, my God, they might as well have mounted a sheet of plywood to the front of a car and just tested that Later this year I will be doing my own independent testing as outlined above using the same make/model of 3 cars once I can get my hands on a LI (the tests all need to take place at the same time) but those results most likely won't be released publicly. The point is, and our main concern is, that people are seeing "product A" tested one way on-line and then directly compared the results with someone else testing "product B" on a totally different car, different day, different set-up and then thinking that one product is better than another. This is not how you test products.

No tactical means capable of shifting the advantage to our court should be ignored.

Exactly! And while I never thought I'd see the day when I would recommend for people to by a car 'bra' - that's exactly what people with light colored cars should be doing. We are also looking into a way that we can Veil both the outside and the inside of the headlight surface area.

I truly hope you don't take any of my statements in a negative way

No, don't worry about that I'm just interested in getting at the truth so that we can help others

I hope you also do not mistake my passion for anger

Passion is good, in-fact I count on it