Escort 95000ci Radar Detector and LPP Laser Jammer

[TSi+WRX]

RE: ZR4/"diode"

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

<snip>
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.

All very well put, and very valid.

Indeed, it'll be decisively revealed with a full examination - which, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has yet performed such a dissection (more than likely due to the cost/warranty concerns).

If it is indeed a laser-diode based system - particularly one with the sheer NUMBER/quantity of laser-diodes involved (yet another reason that has led everyone to the conclusion that this is just another LED system, based heavily on the ZR3 configuration) - then its performance is completely distressing and completely disappointing.

Regardless, indeed, both sides of this equation are "only human," and both have been known to make mistakes. We'll have to see which one is at-fault on this one, but I'm still betting heavily on the vocabulary issue. Your Escort contact is most likely sticking to their company/marketing byline by refering to the LEDs as "diodes," which, in all honesty, is technically correct and accurate - it's just that the hobbyist/enthusiast community has chosen to draw a clear line between LED as the accepted acronym for light-emitting-diodes, and to use the word "diode" specifically to refer to laser-diode based jammers.

Unfortunate and inaccurate use of vocabulary - but alas, established.

I'm personally hoping that MEM-TEK's use of "LED" versus "CLED" will catch-on, as that does seem to be more accurate and descriptive.

RE: ZR3

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

Please do.

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.

Not necessarily.

Currently, the hobbyist tests have been through *VERY* experienced hands, and they've been very careful to document head leveling, as they are all very well aware of the leveling issue (the Central-FL group was among the first to conclusively demonstrate, real-world, that leveling is of tremendous importance).

Current ZR4-testing videos, rear, clearly shows that although reception is not a problem, the jammer fails to be able to properly jam as soon as the laser is panned away from the head.

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 do wish you well on your endeavour, but I am definitely not optimistic on this one.... From the current videos, it's clear that one head - particularly only one LED-based head - on the rear is just not enough, and even moreso when it's against the Stalker, which has shown, historically, to be the bane of LED-based jammers (and yes, I'm going to continue to speak of the ZR4 as-such, until it's proven that it is indeed laser-diode based; so far, all evidence points towards LED).

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.

Certainly, and I do agree.

This has been discussed many times on RD.net and in other related communities as well.

To me, there's no problems as long as the conflict-of-interest is declared and noted. I'm involved in biological basic-science research - an area where, without the good graces of the many biotec companies, would suffer greatly from underfunding. To me, good science is just good science, regardless of funding source - as long as the results are real, the data proven, there's no fault.

However, I also understand that this particular industry as well as hobbyist community is rather.....er.....ethically/morally challenged , and that this is not a stringently "peer reviewed" community, and that these factors have led to a situation where, unfortunately, there's a tremendous lack of trust, as well as continued abuse of residual trust.

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

No problem.

But out of curiosity, who provided your quoted/cited "mini-review" above?

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.

I don't think of it that way ->

The V1 has a special place in the countermeasures arsenal due to its unique capabilities. It's design is validated for a specific purpose (complete situational awareness), for a specific user profile (end-filter).

I do not see a reason for Valentine to devote resources to areas already covered by other detectors. Instead, I think they should utilize what capabilities they have towards development of a second product that offers the end-user the ability to fully integrate the detector in-vehicle, akin to the 9500i/9500ci and STi-Driver/STi-R product splits.

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

I don't understand this referece....

My reply to you above was regarding Escort's claim to be able to update database links (which should be easy) as well as firmware (which should be easy for the radar-detector component, but for the Shifter component still puzzles me, unless they've made a true "leap" in their hardware capabilities).

Do you mean in your reply that testers need to document which jammer versions they're using?

If so, they already do. Most of the hobbyist groups are already listing such (including both head as well as control-box, if such is a consideration).

It used to be that you had to ask for this kind of stuff, but that's no longer true. Again, it just shows how much further knowledge-base has advanced in the hobbyist community.

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

Cool.

RE: TPMS

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.

I definitely have my fingers crossed on this one, too.

If Escort is able to integrate such into their current detector lineup, I'd be more than happy to pull out my checkbook.

To this aspect, though, a question ->

How much does individual tire-choice as well as tire-sizing come into play for utilizing TMPS/tire-pressure differences as "warning" that the jammer heads are no longer level?

For example, a 4% difference in tire-pressure on a tall-sidewall, high-pressure fill modern-SUV/truck tire application will differ tremendously, in terms of physical "sag," from the same difference seen with a much-lower-pressure, short (and even moreso, reinforced) sidewall application on a modern sport-sedan - the latter may not even be noticeable, visually.

How does the math work out in this comparison - and is it a reliable measure of head leveling for our jammer applications?

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

to the best of my knowledge, no-one has yet performed such a dissection (more than likely due to the cost/warranty concerns).

All the more incentive for me to do it

Your Escort contact is most likely sticking to their company/marketing byline by refering to the LEDs as "diodes,"

At this point, that is just speculation. Once we know about whether they are diodes or not, we will know if it's just marketing. They may just be telling the truth.

they've been very careful to document head leveling

Front yes, but I haven't seen anyone specifically mention rear head leveling.

the jammer fails to be able to properly jam as soon as the laser is panned away from the head.

If that's the case then it sounds like a bad lens design, but the good news is that it is easy to resolve

particularly only one LED-based head - on the rear is just not enough

Agreed, but while it is housed in one unit, I thought the rear had two (smaller) heads built-in, at least that's the way it appears to be in all of the pictures. I'll have to clarify this with them when I call.

To me, there's no problems as long as the conflict-of-interest is declared and noted.

Yes, as long as they're out in the open about everything then it's not a big issue, but still not as good as if they were completely independent and buying 'off the shelf'.

out of curiosity, who provided your quoted/cited "mini-review" above?

There was a link at the end of the quote

due to its unique capabilities.

Such as...?

Certainly you're not referring to the 'directional' LED's.

Instead, I think they should utilize what capabilities they have towards development of a second product that offers the end-user the ability to fully integrate the detector in-vehicle, akin to the 9500i/9500ci and STi-Driver/STi-R product splits.

If you mean a remote version then yes I'd agree. It's still an old design though and in our tests it did not fair to well.

Do you mean in your reply that testers need to document which jammer versions they're using?

Yes.

If Escort is able to integrate such into their current detector lineup, I'd be more than happy to pull out my checkbook.

I'm not sure of their time table and it may be a ways out, but I should be able to get you a set up later this year at dealer cost if you want.

How much does individual tire-choice as well as tire-sizing come into play for utilizing TMPS/tire-pressure differences as "warning" that the jammer heads are no longer level?

None.

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

while it is housed in one unit, I thought the rear had two (smaller) heads built-in

OK I just clarified this. It IS one head, which begs the question, why didn't they just put two heads in that one housing? They could have easily have made it a little wider and it would at least have given "partial" taillight coverage (depending on the width of the car). Or better still, why not just give the customer two separate heads like they did up front? Sometimes the lack of common sense these engineers show really is frustrating

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

OK I just clarified this. It IS one head, which begs the question, why didn't they just put two heads in that one housing? They could have easily have made it a little wider and it would at least have given "partial" taillight coverage (depending on the width of the car). Or better still, why not just give the customer two separate heads like they did up front? Sometimes the lack of common sense these engineers show really is frustrating

^ Good question - indeed, why not make diverging "diodes" (either LED or laser).

I can see the justification for only one head, mounted above plate - it is, after all, the easiest as well as most common location, and *every* US-legal vehicle will have this mounting position accessible (if not exactly ideal, as on some vehicles, that location may cause excessive shadowing due to rear plate lighting), whereas two separate heads will mean that more thought must be paid to mounting setup, and that not every vehicle has easy placement areas when it comes to that.

Look at the various dual-rear LPP/AL or LI installs, and you'll see what I mean by this.

Some are easy - others are a nightmare.

----

RE: ZR4 - LED or laser-diode?

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

All the more incentive for me to do it

At this point, that is just speculation. Once we know about whether they are diodes or not, we will know if it's just marketing. They may just be telling the truth.

All agreed.

It's currently a waiting game, until someone can provide definitive data.

I've even cross-posted this question on RD.net, so far, no one has a conclusive answer.

Front yes, but I haven't seen anyone specifically mention rear head leveling.

This would be just too common-sense to skip. Besides, it's been talked about more than once, on not only RD.net, but also the LPP and LI Forums, too.

C55 specifically mentions (as his C63 screen-name) on the LI Forums that his rear heads fell out of level from his previous week's many business trips and the involvement of the rear trunk.

Similarly, Cbr did mention the performance of his ZR4 being noticeably better - particularly at the rear - on the second testing set, when more attention was paid to leveling.

RE: rear ZR4's inability to jam, as soon as the incoming is "panned" to an area farther away from its own physical location (i.e. center-mass/rear-plate)

If that's the case then it sounds like a bad lens design...

Trust me, this is an issue - look at any of the IR-videos that the CFL-group has done to document the rear-ZR4 jamming runs. It's easily apparent.

So far, it's known that it's not a receiver problem. The rear ZR4 does respond to the incoming beam - that's easily seen in the IR-videos - no matter where on the rear of the vehicle the incident laser "spot" appears. But it seems that there's some problem with jamming "output."

RE: the niche that the V1 occupies in our community

Such as...?

Certainly you're not referring to the 'directional' LED's.

Yes, this is indeed one such area where the V1 has an uncontested advantage.

Others include the total lack of filtering and its polar opposite - extreme filtering/programmability, and also the raw sensitivity of the unit to both RADAR as well as LIDAR, both of which still stand uncontested in terms of stand-alone, in-vehicle detectors.

If you mean a remote version then yes I'd agree. It's still an old design though and in our tests it did not fair to well.

Some tests will say that it does exceptionally well - others won't. The varied factors of each individual testing - including end-unit production-variability differences (which has been seen many times) - will affect such results tremendously.

RE: testers documenting jammer versions:

Yes.

In this case, I think you're simply not quite up-to-date on your videos - either that, or not following the Forum discussions that are associated with them. Like I said before, not only are such concerns now routinely documented, but even the firmware of the LIDAR gun itself, as well as calibrations, are discussed.

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

I can see the justification for only one head, mounted above plate - it is, after all, the easiest as well as most common location

Yes it is. I was thinking about this today and the only other options for mounting in the rear would be on either side of the 3rd brake light and under the car, because there is no 'grill area' in the rear of a car. Then I realized that they couldn't even mount them by the 3rd brake light because the heads would be shooting the drivers behind your car, so it would be dangerous. That leaves only under the car, and some cars would have exhaust issues, so these companies really don't have many options for the rear. I think I have designed a way for the rear of the car to be more 'dampened' and there for harder for the laser to get a reading, but I have to have it tested.

it's been talked about more than once, on not only RD.net, but also the LPP and LI Forums

On the forums yes, but I was referring to the videos.

this is indeed one such area where the V1 has an uncontested advantage.

To me that is no advantage. I really couldn't care less what side of the street the radar is. I only care about being warned about the fact that there is radar ahead as soon as possible, and the 9500ci is the best at this.

Some tests will say that it does exceptionally well - others won't.

I'm not suggesting that it doesn't do well, it does, BUT not any better than a RX65, and the RX65 costs a LOT less The v1 sells mostly on hype. It's like those people who buy a $10.00 loaf of bread because it 'must' be better since it cost more

either that, or not following the Forum discussions that are associated with them.

Most likely. There simply isn't enough time in the day to do everything

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

..Then I realized that they couldn't even mount them by the 3rd brake light because the heads would be shooting the drivers behind your car, so it would be dangerous.

And if mounted in-vehicle, the rear windscreen would defeat much of the outgoing beams' capability.

Furthermore, in many vehicles, the CHMSL is rather far away from the rear plate, and may be too upwardly biased in terms of rear "center-of-mass," too.

Problematic, indeed.

RE: information that's on Forums but not on videos.....

On the forums yes, but I was referring to the videos.

Most likely. There simply isn't enough time in the day to do everything

Ain't that the truth! I feel the same way, too.

Unfortunately, it seems that, currently, it's not yet in-fashion to include such vital stats in, say, a preview screen or a "credits" roll. I hope that this will change in the near future.

Currently, it's more "hey, here's our discussion thread, and these are the video outlinks - go look at the vids, but know that the pertinent discussion is here!"

If you can, I'd highly recommend that you also join the RadarDetector.net website, as it is much more highly trafficked, and is where a lot of these discussions take-place.

RE: V1's directional indications -
To me that is no advantage. I really couldn't care less what side of the street the radar is. I only care about being warned about the fact that there is radar ahead as soon as possible, and the 9500ci is the best at this.

But in terms of rear-enforcement scenarios, the ability to either just pull off the highway for a short rest (and let the enforcer get ahead of you) or to put the pedal down further and essentially "out-pace" the approaching (but not yet visual) enforcer would be something that lends tremendous tactical value.

I guess we just see things a little differently on this, that's all.

I'm not suggesting that it doesn't do well, it does, BUT not any better than a RX65, and the RX65 costs a LOT less The v1 sells mostly on hype. It's like those people who buy a $10.00 loaf of bread because it 'must' be better since it cost more

"Better?"

No, I don't necessarily think that *any* of what can be considered "top-flight" detectors is day-and-night better than the other. In the real-world, even second-tier detectors will do very well in the hands of capable users and careful drivers.

I simply believe that the choice of detectors - with today's technology as well as enabled features, should remain an end-user preference issue, rather than be examined strictly based on the raw-numbers data.

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

Problematic, indeed.

Yeah currently there aren't many cars where there would be no problems. I may be buying one of those 'Smart Cars' that are coming out now (it will be my toy vehicle as we'll as the one for basic city driving, as they get 45-60 MPG) and I noticed that the car is only around 5 feet wide. This is one car where one head might be enough to cover the entire car Another option that I'm considering is to fiberglass the heads into the rear spoiler of the car. Add that to the license plate head and three heads should cover the rear of most cars. I'm working on some other ideas too but the rear is definitely the hardest part of the install to get right.

it's not yet in-fashion to include such vital stats in, say, a preview screen or a "credits" roll. I hope that this will change in the near future.

So do I. That's a good idea to include them in the credits roll, or the opening splash screen. Hope they start picking up on your idea

I don't necessarily think that *any* of what can be considered "top-flight" detectors is day-and-night better than the other. In the real-world, even second-tier detectors will do very well in the hands of capable users and careful drivers.

Exactly. That's my whole point. Why pay so much more for the hyped up v1 when other detectors actually work just as good (or better)? I don't need a gimmicky Christmas tree display on my radar detector, I need it to warn me as soon as possible that there is radar in the area. The 9500ci does this better than any other unit. The main problem with the 9500ci is the shifter heads, which brings us full circle to why BEL/Escort needs desperately to come out with a model that is ZR4 shifter head-less. Then people can buy whichever heads they feel are the best.

[TSi+WRX]

RE: rear-head issues....

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

Yeah currently there aren't many cars where there would be no problems. I may be buying one of those 'Smart Cars' that are coming out now (it will be my toy vehicle as we'll as the one for basic city driving, as they get 45-60 MPG) and I noticed that the car is only around 5 feet wide. This is one car where one head might be enough to cover the entire car Another option that I'm considering is to fiberglass the heads into the rear spoiler of the car. Add that to the license plate head and three heads should cover the rear of most cars. I'm working on some other ideas too but the rear is definitely the hardest part of the install to get right.

What I don't quite understand, yet, is why on Cbr's setup, the rear head, even when leveled, did not provide nearly the same level of protection that was seen with djrams's setup.

The former was tested by the CFL group, the latter by RacerX. Both parties are experienced hands.

The former's vehicle is a silver late-model VW Rabbit, the latter a red late-model Ford Mustang.

On the latter, center-mass protection was shown to be better than with the former, and with the Mustang, it was also seen that only the outer aspects of the tail-lights had problems, and it's this latter concern that really gets me....since the 'Stang is much wider (by anywhere between 5 to 10 inches, depending on how you read the spec sheets of each vehicle).

Given the rather flat rear profile of both vehicles, and that neither is really much favored or disadvantaged with regard to LIDAR reflectivity as based solely on vehicle color I wonder why the disparity?

Exactly. That's my whole point. Why pay so much more for the hyped up v1 when other detectors actually work just as good (or better)?

I don't really think that the V1 is too much hyped. Escort/Bel has just as much marketing presence....and in terms of adherents and fanboys in the community, both have their devotees.

I don't need a gimmicky Christmas tree display on my radar detector, I need it to warn me as soon as possible that there is radar in the area.

It's funny that you mention the former, as many often think of the Bel/Escort units as being more "gimmicky" in their displays. Individual perception, I think.

As for the latter, I think there's a difference there ->

The V1, unfiltered, will alert to anything and everything - leaving the end user as the end and final filter.

The Escort/Bel products, using advanced algorithms for filtering, takes more out of this particular equation.

Again, different strokes for different folks. Both can have their own unique advantages and disadvantages.

The 9500ci does this better than any other unit.

^ Ah, but again, apples-to-oranges.

The 9500ci is an integrated, remote-mount solution. The V1 is an in-vehicle stand alone.

I truly think that if a comparison is made, it needs to be remote/integrated versus the same, or in-vehicle versus the same (i.e. 9500i and V1).

After all, "even" the SR7's raw detection capabilities was a give-and-take with the V1. Unless the 9500ci has taken a backwards step, here, it should do nothing but improve upon the SR7.

['09 Milan]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

Given the rather flat rear profile of both vehicles, and that neither is really much favored or disadvantaged with regard to LIDAR reflectivity as based solely on vehicle color I wonder why the disparity?

You mentioned it was a late model VW, do you know exactly which year?

many often think of the Bel/Escort units as being more "gimmicky" in their displays.

I can't think of anything on the BEL displays that could be misinterpreted as gimmicky. Quite the contrary, their displays give the driver really useful information, like the exact frequency that you're being scanned with. Maybe they are talking about the lower end models? Like you said, different strokes for different folks

The 9500ci is an integrated, remote-mount solution. The V1 is an in-vehicle stand alone.

Exactly! Remotes will always be better simply because of detector placement, but that begs the question: why in all of it's LONG 16 year existence has the v1 never been offered as a remote? Valentine is way behind the curve, and this is yet another area.

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by '09 Milan

You mentioned it was a late model VW, do you know exactly which year?

I'll pop back on RD.net to ask that question of the vehicle owner. Unfortunately, my knowledge-pool of VWs is quite shallow.

I can't think of anything on the BEL displays that could be misinterpreted as gimmicky. Quite the contrary, their displays give the driver really useful information, like the exact frequency that you're being scanned with. Maybe they are talking about the lower end models? Like you said, different strokes for different folks

Not necessarily of the BELs, but of the Escort line, many have complained that, for example, the "scanning dots" is rather gimmicky (I personally like it, as some have had experiences where the visualized "freezing" of the dot along its usual route translated to something being physically wrong with the detector).

Indeed, it's very much different strokes for different folks. Some like the informational display of the Bel/Escorts (Tech/SpecMode), others prefer the more "analog" interaction of the V1.

Exactly! Remotes will always be better simply because of detector placement, but that begs the question: why in all of it's LONG 16 year existence has the v1 never been offered as a remote? Valentine is way behind the curve, and this is yet another area.

^ Indeed, it very much does.

Both this, as well as what you'd cited - the V1's even more dated display (and here, even the Bel/Escort units "lose out" to the now commonplace OLEDs that's found on many higher-end vehicle electronics) - and also the V1's lack of sufficient shielding for the Spectre, are indeed the chief points of complaint among many V1 users, and are voiced/admitted by all but the most die-hard of V1 "Zombies."