[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

The ZR4 is their exclusive jammer, but why would someone want to spend $500.00 for a feature just to turn it off?

^ Good point.

But remember, we're treading the thin line of legality/morality/ethics in this hobby - my guess is that some just aren't comfortable going that far, particularly if their local area bans such use.

I've also heard that the 9500ci won't even turn on if the ZR4 package isn't installed (what's up with that?).

Unknown. It could be a "problem" with the way the firmware code was written, that if those particular heads aren't plugged in, it may not pass the start-up hardware check.

RE: Bel's stand-alone detector's laser-reception capabilities ->

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

In the past, I've found even the Rev5 x50's receptive capabilities to be sufficient in terms of real-world engagements - but still, this does not mean that it can be categorized as "excellent receivers" in a more quantitative sense.

The truth of the matter is that the stand-alone laser jammer/"Shifters" from Escort/Bel are in a league totally of their own when it comes to laser reception/detection capabilities, as proven by IR-video, and this alone is a factor which justifies their installation on a vehicle, even if the jammer component is not enabled.

RE: "brightness/light-spill"

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

Certainly so - and I think we're then talking about the same thing, for, for example, the Blinder head (i.e. it's "outer/protective overlens") is essentially the entire forward half of the head body, and this "lens" design, if you will, is something I'm certainly thinking is causing problems to nearby (other) jammer heads.

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

^ Ah, indeed, there's a bit of vocabulary issue/misnomer on my end, then. Without a professional background in electronics/engineering, I am afraid I used such a term too loosely. Indeed, however, the underlying idea is what we're all driving at - the "interference" produced, from one jammer activating, and then eliciting the second to fire in-response.

RE: Testing standardization:

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.

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.

I totally agree.

As it stands, observations based on a "per-case" or "anecdotal" basis, no matter how quantitative each unique case may be to that unique vehicle/setup, can only be extrapolated so far when it comes to applying the same information to any other setup.

Too many confounding factors.

I am definitely looking forward to your tests!