Oouch; this isn't good for passive lidar protection

[ProSpeeder]

I shot some flash pics of my car tonight. Although this isn't a concrete sample of how weak some parts of my car are to lidar it does show how much more reflective the state issue plate is vs the CR8APL8.

On the front end, I'm glad I've got that CR8APL8 to draw fire from my headlights. Those eyes are bug-eyed to say the least. My jammer heads sit 10" either side of the front plate.

Front with the CR8APL8



Rear with the state issue plate. With a smoked plate cover AND veil applied to the cover. Those rear reflectors are pretty gnarly as well. No wonder I had virtually no jams on rear shots last testing session.



We'll see how the rear shots are in testing tomorrow. The veiled plate cover is new.

[TSi+WRX]

Yep, that *always* surprises people - how (visible) light-reflective projector-type lamps are. Of-course, we can't immediately make the jump to say that they're IR-reflective, too, but if it's any indication, then yes, that always catches people by-surprise.

When we don't physically see the reflector elements, we forget that they're there - that, of-course, is *NOT* the case, as those same light-focusing elements do sit behind the projector lens itself.

If you'll give the old posts on RD.net a search, bro, you'll see a '06 STI owner who dressed his projector headlamps with VEIL. The difference is quite amazing.

The lucky thing here is that both the '06 STI as well as your C6 (as well as my Legacy) utilize a protective "overlens" that stands off of the actual projector lens itself. This allows us to "dress" the overlens, without compromising the optics (a function of the actual projector lens itself) too, too much.

On the above-cited STI, to the owner's chagrin, despite having used an identical amount of VEIL ("G2") on the factory projector fog-lamps as he did on the headlamps' "overlens," the fogs remained highly visible-light reflective.

Guess why?

Yep, the fogs (same as my Legacy's) don't utilize such an "overlens." As such, it is much, much harder to cut down on the amount of light passing through.

As you know from our various exchanges both here and on RD.net, I remain very hesitant to employ "G2" VEIL on my personal vehicles on a permanent basis, due to the potential long-term sequela(e) of such application (i.e. "staining" of the polycarbonate "overlens," etc.) as well as aesthetic shortcomings (i.e. "dirty" appearance, visible light-temperature shift as well as lighting output decrease). However, it seems that some concerns might have been addressed - and it would be interesting to see what the new "G4" has to offer.

I'm now seeking replacement headlamps, to "stock," just-in-case the "G4" does not meet my expectations.

------

As for your tail-end....

Here, you've gotta ask yourself how far you want to take things (in terms of parking and roadside safety) - and how far, you think, you can get away with lighting-code infractions in your area.

Look up the username fulcrum on RD.net. A few months ago, he detailed the rear-end modifications he made to his Alfa, which were specifically done to defeat the rear-laser threats that he more routinely faced in his particular country/region.

This was some drastic stuff, and incorporated *ALL* of our past collective speculation/thoughts/theories: translating into not only a brake-light delay circuit (with outright kill-switch), but also complete de-reflectorization of his tail-light elements.

[ProSpeeder]

Man Tizzy, that's great info! Thanks!

Sundays test yielded a few surprises. One of them was the jamming effect to the rear of the C6. True: the C6 gets gnarly punch thru until around 100 ft. After that you had to target the rear reflectors directly until about 300 ft where the whole rear end was jamming. It jammed the PL3 fine as long as I was over 100 ft away. This might explain a couple of rear incursions I've had where I slipped by. Both were well over 100 ft.

[Ovencleaner]

I think I am going to try and find a cheap IR camera.... That would truly be useful for figuring out the best passive protection.

ProSpeeder, check this out!

Take Infrared Pictures With Your Digital Camera - Instructables - DIY, How To, tech

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by ProSpeeder

Man Tizzy, that's great info! Thanks!

NP, bro.

I know you take your driving seriously, but I just didn't know how far you wanted to take things, particularly once they got *really* illegal and/or had potential impacts on true-safety.

Still, since you are among those very few who take driving so seriously, I thought I'd return the courtesy and give you as complete of a picture as I could paint (no pun intended). Hopefully, that will give you some more ideas.

Sundays test yielded a few surprises. One of them was the jamming effect to the rear of the C6. True: the C6 gets gnarly punch thru until around 100 ft. After that you had to target the rear reflectors directly until about 300 ft where the whole rear end was jamming. It jammed the PL3 fine as long as I was over 100 ft away. This might explain a couple of rear incursions I've had where I slipped by. Both were well over 100 ft.

I read those results, and my jaw also dropped.

It's amazing what an "instrument for speed" the C6 seems to be. I almost wonder if minimizing LIDAR return was not an outright design parameter for the engineers on the project!

That's honestly just amazing.

To think of what kind of protection you could get if you took even more drastic passive (or active) steps....

The next best thing, in that case, would be true invisibility!