Escort 95000ci Radar Detector and LPP Laser Jammer

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

This should be possible, already.

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. There are many other feature differences. That's why we're hopeful that CES brings us a lot of presents this year

The 9500ci should arrive/be-delivered in Shifter "Receive Only" mode

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.

The ZR4 has already been seen to be an *excellent* LIDAR receiver

All BEL products are excellent receivers, 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.

Is a certain unit more likely to elicit - and another (or the same) more likely to respond?

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.

exactly what kind of cross-talk is being produced?

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?

is this benchtop? or does this play-out in real-world as well?

I don't waste time with bench testing equipment as most people don't drive their cars on a bench All testing is real world and I'm even going to be buying a humidity meter such as this one so that we can start documenting what the humidity was at the time of testing.

I don't think it's as bad as being "anecdotal."

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

Although VEIL works in the same *manner* to each LIDAR threat, the ability of VEIL to *defeat* said threat seems to be highly variable.

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

Whatever this data indicates, I'm eager to know!

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.

[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."

['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

[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!

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

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.

I have a call in to one of their head techs so that I can clear this up. I should know more in an hour or so. On the bright side, I just realized that the 9500ci is NOT made in china, it is made in Canada, so that was nice to see As soon as I talk to Jim I'll let you know what he says about the need to install the ZR4 section with the 9500ci.

['09 Milan]

OK I talked with their head tech Jim and learned a lot of great things. Unfortunately he confirmed that the ZR4 heads need to be installed, but only because the self-diagnostics would pick up that they weren't plugged into the main interface. Also, I thought I read somewhere on this forum that the ZR4 was LED based, but in fact it is a diode based system. He was actually very surprised that people thought it was LED, so that was good to learn. He said when they tested the new ZR4 against the ZR3, the ZR4 was blocking a lot of guns that the ZR3 couldn't. They will also be coming out with an update on June 1st to tweak everything. I mentioned to him that I'm installing tire pressure monitors to make sure that the front heads stay level and he really liked that idea. I also mentioned to him that I was going to custom mount the rear head and when he asked why I told him "because you guys forgot to make yours adjustable" to which he admitted was an issue, and they would look into improving that. We also spent a lot of time discussing the addition of a new 'ZR4-less' 9500ci, and he liked that idea also and said he'd pass it onto the person in charge of approving such an idea. I am confident that they will add this new model for a 2009 CES release and as I told him, people can still go out and buy the ZR4 system and add it to the new model. All in all it was a long conversation and we both learned a lot. Once I install my 9500ci I am planning on meeting with him in person to show him some of the improvements that I'll be making to the stock unit. They could probably add the tire pressure monitor feature for less than 75.00 and have it as a upgrade option, and I am confident that at least a third head could be installed on the same plane as the front two without any interference issues, as well as making dummy head inputs that the interface would accept so that the ZR4 heads wouldn't need to be installed. All in all it was a great conversation and he said that more testing videos for the 9500ci would be released soon

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

Also, I thought I read somewhere on this forum that the ZR4 was LED based, but in fact it is a diode based system. He was actually very surprised that people thought it was LED, so that was good to learn.

This would come as a surprise to all - and I sincerely believe that the technician you spoke to is incorrect.

The ZR4 is not laser-diode based, but rather, (L)ight (E)mitting (D)iode - i.e. LED - based.

This has been discussed repeatedly on RD.net, and I believe that it's been *proven* that the ZR4 uses LEDs, not laser-diodes, and that there are several sales/service staff as well as technical staff within Escort who are not properly utilizing the correct vocabulary/terminology.

He said when they tested the new ZR4 against the ZR3, the ZR4 was blocking a lot of guns that the ZR3 couldn't.

Sadly, this has not proven true in early independent-hobbyist tests.

So far, the Stalker LZ-1 and the UltraLytes are just tearing it apart, both front and rear.

It can even be visualized that the heads are responding via IR-videography, but just that the jamming is insufficient.

They will also be coming out with an update on June 1st to tweak everything.

I certainly hope so!

But how will they be able to effect updating, without the end-users actually disinstalling the heads and sending them in for exchanges, as the heads are microchip controlled (to effect jamming algorithms)?

I mentioned to him that I'm installing tire pressure monitors to make sure that the front heads stay level and he really liked that idea.

Although I think that TMPS can prove useful, I think that the bigger issue simply comes from everyday road-impacts (upon suspension) as well as the repeated jarring of the vehicle body and accessory panels via opening/closing of the hood and trunk (the most proximal mounting areas) as well as even the doors.....

They could probably add the tire pressure monitor feature for less than 75.00 and have it as a upgrade option...

They'd integrate TPMS via the vehicle's onboard?

What about vehicles without TPMS sensors, or aftermarket TPMS systems?

Less than $75? I'll believe that when I see it, physically!

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

This would come as a surprise to all - and I sincerely believe that the technician you spoke to is incorrect.

So you're saying that the head engineer from the manufacturing company doesn't know his own design? Has any of the naysayers from this other forum ever actually studied a schematic of the 9500ci, or is there 'evidence' all anecdotal from one person to the next?

the Stalker LZ-1 and the UltraLytes are just tearing it apart, both front and rear.

Any solid data to back this up? From the data that I see here and here that is not the case. BTW-please note the difference a cars color makes in the test results. Also, not to get off on a tangent but the 9500ci was recently tested against the V1, and in every single case it ate the V1 up, although that is not surprising but was entertaining to see

But how will they be able to effect updating, without the end-users actually disinstalling the heads and sending them in for exchanges

You don't need to send hardware in for firmware/software updates. See here

I think that the bigger issue simply comes from everyday road-impacts (upon suspension) as well as the repeated jarring of the vehicle body and accessory panels via opening/closing of the hood and trunk

I've already got that covered. Once the heads are set up, if they deviate in either direction the driver will be notified.

They'd integrate TPMS via the vehicle's onboard?

Easily. The sensors take less than 20 minutes to install per tire and can be performed at nearly any tire shop. Fortunately my new car will have these built-in from the factory, but anyone can add them to any car.

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

So you're saying that the head engineer from the manufacturing company doesn't know his own design? Has any of the naysayers from this other forum ever actually studied a schematic of the 9500ci, or is there 'evidence' all anecdotal from one person to the next?

No schematic, but it's from the likes of Jimbonzzz, and even RadarRoy, who was among the very, very few who were allowed early access to the ZR4, as well as participated in the product's development, have confirmed this (look at Roy's Blog, dated April 28th, and you'll see that he refers to it as an LED-based system; similarly, in his YouTube overview of the ZR4 [

YouTube - Escort Shifter ZR4 Laser Jammer

] at time-markings 4:38 to 4:48, he cites again that the ZR4 is LED-based).

I truly think that this is a case of mistaken nomenclature/crossed vocabulary (and has even been called marketing propaganda).

Yes, it's "diode," but it's a (L)ight (E)mitting (D)iode, versus laser-diode.

When the RD.net Forums return, I will try to search-up the pertinent posts.

Also, out of curiosity - try calling your contact back, and ask him about the ZR3, and whether that's also "diode-based."

Any solid data to back this up? From the data that I see here and here that is not the case. BTW-please note the difference a cars color makes in the test results.

^ The data I'm citing is from the Central-Florida enthusiast group.

Although a later re-test, after having even more carefully leveled the heads, did show the ZR4 to perform better in terms of frontal protection, it still was very disappointing in terms of rear protection.

Yes, there's a difference in terms of the cars - and also the testing situation.

The Central-Florida group's testing scenario was much more vigorous, and was specifically focused to try to "force" a PT, which is on-par with most enthusiasts' "testing goals."

Also, while I have absolutely *NO* reason to doubt Roy's word, it is undeniable that he is financially vested in this system doing well - in this manner in and of itself, I place more trust with the Central-FL guys.

Also, I believe that the CT-area enthusiast group has also tested the ZR4 (but maybe not....as the person who was to meet-up with the group of testers failed to make the meet on-time, I don't know if there was another ZR4 present). I'll again have to search this up on RD.net, when it comes back.

Also, not to get off on a tangent but the 9500ci was recently tested against the V1, and in every single case it ate the V1 up, although that is not surprising but was entertaining to see

I'd love to see this data, linky, please?

This was long rumored to be something that the 9500ci was going to take home the prize on. It'll be interesting to see where the 9500ci actually edged-out the V1.

Still, given that the two detectors satisfy distinctly different markets (there's still no easy way to conceal the V1, and it is still "visible" by Spectre), I don't see this as an apples-to-apples comparison.

I do see that this is a potential bragging-point for Escort adherents, but even so, the comparison is not nearly as valid as it would be for a 9500i -to- V1 pairing.

You don't need to send hardware in for firmware/software updates. See here

^ I see that it does mention firmware!

I can only imagine that they'd managed to effect some kind of link between the microchip in the jammer heads with the central control-box - otherwise, that would not be possible.

Definitely eager to see if this will apply to the Shifters' capabilities.

I've already got that covered. Once the heads are set up, if they deviate in either direction the driver will be notified.

An onboard sensor to that effect would be most cool!

If it's able to actually sense and calibrate to "actual level" (instead of relying on the car's body, or the surface which it's parked on as a reference point), that would be even better. Even with the most careful manual leveling, the latter concern - that the car's not resting on a true-level surface - is still a big problem, currently.

Easily. The sensors take less than 20 minutes to install per tire and can be performed at nearly any tire shop. Fortunately my new car will have these built-in from the factory, but anyone can add them to any car.

^ I know that, I'm a car-nut, remember?

But how will Escort be able to implement this at such minimal cost as you've cited?

Even the cheapest aftermarket systems out there come in at well over $150 for a full system, and at greater than $ 25 per sensor (with the need for at least 4).....

If Escort is able to bring TPMS at that price, with integration to their detectors, they'd have an amazing market presence.

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

it's from the likes of Jimbonzzz, and even RadarRoy, who was among the very, very few who were allowed early access to the ZR4, as well as participated in the product's development, have confirmed this

I don't know Jimbonzzz, but radar roy has been incorrect before and I do not use him as a source. For example, he says that Cincinnati Microwave is a subsidiary of Escort, but this is not true either. It's just the opposite, Escort is a subsidiary of Cincinnati Microwave, and BELtronics owns 60% of Cincinnati Microwave, so don't believe everything these people say as if it's gospel. They are human and they can easily make mistakes. Also you should keep in mind that radar roy has some sort of a controlling interest in the RD.net forum, so consider the source Short of seeing the schematic, I will (at least for the time being) rely on the one person who wrote the schematic for the product, and he says it's diode based. I'll know more in a month or two when I get the product in my hands and I can reverse engineer... er... I mean examine it myself

I truly think that this is a case of mistaken nomenclature/crossed vocabulary

Anything is possible but I don't see how it can be mistaken as I spoke to him for around 10 minutes talking about nothing but this subject. He was very adamant about it being diode based and asked me where I heard that it was LED based. When I told him "on the net" he laughed and said "where there you go, the internet is not a reliable source for information". Short of a schematic I'll need to get one of these puppies in my hands to know who is correct, but I do see the head engineer as a much more reliable source than those people on that other forum.

out of curiosity - try calling your contact back, and ask him about the ZR3, and whether that's also "diode-based."

He already mentioned it is not in the same conversation, but I have to speak with him next week about another technical issue so I can ask again

did show the ZR4 to perform better in terms of frontal protection, it still was very disappointing in terms of rear protection.

That's because the boneheads that designed the rear system never gave it a swivel mount. I'm betting that every single rear head installed from a 9500ci is installed incorrectly because of this. Laser works in a very specific way, and if it's not pointing level then it's performance is going to be terrible. I am redesigning the rear mount for my 9500ci to address this issue. Why they would think that the laser would work differently "just because" it is mounted in the back of the car is beyond me, but I can tell you that the laser will function the same as it does in the front heads and just be pointing in a different direction.

I have absolutely *NO* reason to doubt Roy's word, it is undeniable that he is financially vested in this system doing well

Another reason why I don't trust what he always says. He gets many 'perks' from the company and there is no way that those perks won't skew his reviews. This is the main reason why every single unit that I test comes directly of the shelf of a retail store. Sure it would cost me a lot less and be easier if I just had these companies ship me one of their units for testing, but I do NOT want them to tweak anything before I get it in my hands. I want to see what every other person that buys these units see, and review accordingly. It's the only fair way to do it.

I'd love to see this data, linky, please?

Many radar detector enthusiasts consider the V1 the baseline, which all radar detectors should be measured; therefore I began my review by hanging a Valentine 1 radar detector (version 3.864) on my pickup’s windshield.

My first “real life” encounter was on a desolate stretch of a divided four lane highway, north of Buckeye Arizona. The 9500ci first alerted Ka then flashed my speed of 67 mph. A few seconds later the V1 began its alert. As I rounded a sharp bend on the highway I spotted a Buckeye PD black and white vehicle parked in the turnout lane.

My second encounter was in the city of Glendale in a densely populated business/residential area early in the morning. The 9500ci alerted K band and displayed my speed of 51 mph and again a few moments later the V1 alerted. During this initial alert I was concerned that this was a false as I had a clear view of the road ahead, but as I approached the next intersection a Maricopa County Sheriff’s patrol vehicle came into view pulling up to a stop sign at a 90 degree angle from my approach.

Most “low end and mid level” detectors would had failed during both of these “extreme off axis” encounters, but both the V1 and 9500ci performed very well, with the 9500ci having a slight edge.

The most dramatic difference between the V1 and the 9500ci was the increased number of false alerts that the Valentine One alerted to over the 9500ci. The ratio was almost 5 to 1 and once the 9500ci automatically registered the false bogies with its GPS Truelock, the ratio decreased to 5 to 0! link

This was not the review that I mentioned above. That review I will relocate for you and post the link in this thread, hopefully sometime today or tomorrow, as time permits

This was long rumored to be something that the 9500ci was going to take home the prize on.

It's a no brainer really as the v1 is old tech and the 9500ci is current state of the art. It's like comparing a model T to a Corvette. Valentine needs to get off their butts and come out with a more up to date product.

Definitely eager to see if this will apply to the Shifters' capabilities.

Yes, and the reviewers need to start listing which version they are testing.

If it's able to actually sense and calibrate to "actual level" (instead of relying on the car's body, or the surface which it's parked on as a reference point), that would be even better.

Yes, actual level, plus last night I designed another system that will allow drivers to turn off their jammers (once they adjust to legal speed) without adding any additional equipment to their cars (except for my new circuit) and they would have almost immediate reaction time. I'll be testing it in a few months just as soon as my sequential turn signal circuit is finished, but it should work flawlessly and I really like the fact that it keeps the car looking completely 'factory' and is immediately accessible to the driver and is only a simple three wire install

Even the cheapest aftermarket systems out there come in at well over $150 for a full system

150.00 retail = 90.00-100.00 dealer cost, which would equate to around 50.00-60.00 manufactures cost (depending on where they have it manufactured). I am confident they can meet this price point IF they really wanted to. I will know more in a few months as I am contacting several manufactures directly.