tint headlights...reduce laser signature?

[RadarReviews_Net]

Well I decided to try it out and see if it would help. Its a very dark tint that I installed over my headlights on a 2000 Toyota Celica, the lights are somewhat big to me on this car and very reflective. I installed a sheet of tint over the headlights...as the actual covers over them are illegal in texas...im thinking the tint over the headlights I will get away with....but hoping that it will reduce the laser signature on headlight shots on the vehicle, when you look at the lights now its very hard to see....looks very dark.....

anyone think it will help??

Ill try and get before and after pictures up soon.

[delonix]

Of course the only way to know for sure is test and measure, but intuitively it makes sense that it would reduce the IR signature. Mike Valentine Talks about different tints and windscreen in his "Ask Mike" reports. He claims a reduction of 60 - 80% in laser detection.

Ask Mike - Report #2

[RadarReviews_Net]

I should have done one headlight with the tint and one without and tested it without a laser jammer turned on...would be neat to see if it effected the laser gun in anyway...you would think it would help by 100 feet or more....

[TSi+WRX]

As with what our good down-under brother, delonix said, I do think that tinting headlamp units can help a bit.

For the same reason as Mike Valentine pointed out - and delonix reiterated - it is akin to "putting sunglasses on."

However, exactly how much this might help is an unknown....and whether or not it is worth the trade-off in terms of potential lighting-code violations - as well as night-time/dusk/dawn as well as foul-weather safety is point any such user should heartily debate.

The latter, of course, is self-explanatory, but the former bears a bit of examination -

In regard to "how much does this help," let's look at it from a few different perspectives:

In terms of shooting police LIDAR through vehicle greenhouse (i.e. simulating an officer sitting in the vehicle, shooting LIDAR through either his vehicle's windshield or side-glass), our fellow enthusiasts, to a one, have noted that lock time is increased and lock distance is decreased - both significantly - than without vehicle glass interposed between the target vehicle and the LIDAR device.

This, combined with Mike Valentine/Car and Driver magazine's test of vehicle greenhouse glass and LIDAR detection by then-modern detectors, would suggest that LIDAR performance can be significantly hampered by even the most minimal of vehicle greenhouse glass tinting.

Thus, it would make sense that tinting should - even minimally tinted - work.

To further confirm this hobbyist alpinestars did perform some early testing towards this hypothesis, and his results suggested that only HEAVY, near-opaque tinting, as is prevalent on aftermarket "headlamp covers, for show/off-road use only" was really worth the effort - with this being framed in terms of aiding "JTG" performance.

And I think that's the kicker.

The idea of cutting down visible-light transmission certainly *does* bear on IR, however, this is where the specific aim of VEIL - which is an IR-targeted dressing - comes into greater validity.

Yes, it does cut visible light transmission - but even moreso, it specifically targets IR. And I really think that's the important thing.

In terms of the overall picture, though, RR.net and All, I do think that cutting down on visible-light transmission can and well help - but that as with VEIL and other selective/specific hardpoint "dressings," and, to enlarge, ALL passive measures, the resultant level of protection is not only the sum of the measures you've undertaken, but also their synergistic interactions.

For example, RR.net, you've dressed your headlights - but what about the fogs? Yes, they're an unlikely target, and yes, you've got your LaserMask heads sitting right on them (which should facilitate "best-odds" jamming), but let's forget those two factors, and simply look at it this way: IIRC, alpinestars performed some runs versus jimbonzzz's dark-colored late-model TransAm - the noted result, without jammer or passive protection, was that the vehicle provided very little in way of LIDAR return, but that much earlier acquisition was facilitated by specifically targeting the exposed DRL/signals/fogs of this vehicle.

Similarly, look at [i]The VEIL Guy[/b]'s specific targeting of the then-unprotected bare-metal "whip antenna" of happya$$'s Honda Civic.

Remember that there is synergy to be had, and that in order to maximize your setup's potential, you need to systematically address *ALL* such concerns.

However, with a jammer-intensive setup (such as yours) - passive measures can all but go ignored. It'll really only be those cases where your jammer(s) malfunction, or that you've committed the ultimate in operator error (forgetting to turn them on), -OR- for those "once in a blue moon" unlikely situations where *everything* favors the enforcer, that such passive means will come into play.

That, and, of-course, versus specific testing scenarios: i.e. all jammers off, tinted versus un-tinted head/tail lights.

-----

BTW, to specifically address your second question, RR.net -

I don't know how much your tinting may help, on a quantitative basis, when the conclusion is applied across different platforms/different cars.

This is a point that The VEIL Guy recently made: that yes, on your specific vehicle, you're likely to see a not-insignificant before/after improvement, but that to extrapolate that, in a hard core, "you're going to get X ft. of PT protection," statement to others is something that cannot be achieved, simply because so many potential differences exist in terms of vehicle profiles and hardpoints.

At a glance, I would imagine that you'll see upwards of 100 ft. of improvement, on your specific vehicle, without jammers enabled - particularly if you placed heavier tinting over the specific "parking reflector" portions of the lighting, and also if you addressed your front Toyota emblem, as well as the fog lights.

[RadarReviews_Net]

Very nicely said...never thought about the fog lights...I never use them...I can remove those easily

My theory on everything was to put jammers where I wanted the cop to hit me at....kinda like bait.... for example my front plate I had a dual head LPP mounted on each side of the plate, then the laser mask on the top part of the plate in the grill where the toyota symbol was (removed it) then have another laser mask head on the lower bumper right below the plate...so basically 4 heads covering the front plate.... then on the fog lights i have the other two heads to protect headlight shots and fog light shots.... basically everywhere 9 times out of 10 where the cop will shoot I have it covered. On my vehicle profile the headlights are rather large...but to my advantage not a flat surface...more angled lights....which is why I put the tint on it to help more with JTG performance as I figured my headlights are probably where most the shots are coming from local police or the front license plate.

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by RadarReviews_Net

My theory on everything was to put jammers where I wanted the cop to hit me at....kinda like bait....

Exactly! That's exactly how I think, too.

Offer up good bait, but insure best-protection to cover the bait areas.

That should buy more time.