NEW TRUSPEED LASER is OUT! WARNING! Also some thoughts.

[TSi+WRX]

^ So you can document the above, with pictures of both taken apart?

All that's currently known is that there's less beam divergence (suggesting refined optics, which in-turn suggests that the device may make it harder for jammers to receive/notify of the incoming) and that it operates at 905 nm (nominal) versus the typical 904 (albeit current assumptions are that this is not a true technical concern, there yet remains no technical proof that this is the case).

Speculations are that the output is also of less power (which supposedly also makes it harder for the jammer to detect incoming, particularly paired with the "tighter" beam; and this also, secondarily suggests the possibility of refined optics).

There's not even been any independent confirmation, published/posted, of its pulse-rate. We're all thinking that it'll be either the 100 or 125 PPS setup that's been seen of all LTI offerings, but no-one has yet confirmed this for the hobbyist community.

A lot of suppositions and assumptions, but no actual data - not from anyone, so far.

The LI team has already taken photographic proof of a TruSpeed in their possession, as a way to let their users know that the 7.05 revision, soon to be released, is being "worked" to address this new threat.

I would imagine that with your claim above, would mean that, based on your claims above, that you (or LPP-UK/KMPH-UK) also have a TruSpeed physically in-possession, and can document that the optics and circuit-board are at least similar (if not identical, as you suggest above) between the two, as well as provide proof (which currently no-one has, and which all of us LPP users would love to see, particularly given that at least one current LPP die-hard has already expressed his concern of the TruSpeed over at the LPP Support Forums, of KMPH-Canada/LPP-Canada) of the LPP being able to properly address this threat (as-currently-capable of the LPP, versus all other LTI threats)?

I don't mean to sound confrontational with these questions - these are simply true and factual questions, for which there exists no current data to prove your claims.

As a fellow LPP user (2x heads front, 1x rear, with 2 control boxes), I'd personally *love* to see the LPP totally blitz this new threat - as I'm *sure* our other LPP users, here, would love to see, too - but I've yet to see any proof, not even the "picture of a TruSpeed sitting on a LPP box" kind of thing......

You sound very, very confident in your post above, and I would hope, as-such, that my requests here, for solid proof, will bear out to the joy of us LPP users.

[LPP Rep]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

^ So you can document the above, with pictures of both taken apart?

All that's currently known is that there's less beam divergence (suggesting refined optics, which in-turn suggests that the device may make it harder for jammers to receive/notify of the incoming) and that it operates at 905 nm (nominal) versus the typical 904 (albeit current assumptions are that this is not a true technical concern, there yet remains no technical proof that this is the case).

Understood and points well taken.

I see no point in everyone rushing out to acquire one and take it apart. One person is sufficient. If someone already has one, try it and see if what I've said is true (and take pictures to satisfy everyone's curiosity).

Ok... here is the info that I was provided some several months ago, prior to release. Recall that the TS has been delayed at least twice for release, so they had some issues to work out. It is possible this info changed during the last "delay," though I doubt it.

LTI TruSpeed
Max. range 610 meters (<2,000 feet)
Exterior case: polycarbonate plastic, weatherproof and water resistant
Interior housing: aluminum
Beam divergence: 2.5 millirands (same as LTI 200)

As I mentioned before, this is the same emperor in sheep's clothing. Real world experience and testing will bear this out.

The unit is essentially a re-badged LTI 100 unit, with a slightly tighter beam similar to the 200LRB, faster target acquisition, and customized software.

Look at the range. Sound familiar? LTI 100 non LR version. Since the 200 only comes in LRB form now, meet the new non-LR gun.

The TS is designed to compete against the Laser Atlanta (up until TS the cheapest LIDAR units on the market) and most importantly radar units. Look at the average cost for a department of $1850 - $2750 for a dual Ka unit purchased for mounting in a patrol car, or $1200 - $1500 for a new handheld radar unit. The TS has MSRP of $1995 - right in that ballpark and much cheaper than the 200 series.

Also notice how LA recently dropped their prices on the LA3 gun series to just under $2k. Why? Not hard to figure that out. MPH is now selling LA units. Why? Because MPH is old school and finally figured out they needed to sell LIDAR in order to keep up. LA does not sell diddly compared to the other LIDAR manufacturers, and aside from the fact that most LEOs think the LA Type R and S are butt ugly and awkward, most department bean counters have never heard of Laser Atlanta, and Kustom, LTI, and Stalker have their heads so far up the rear ends of the public officials that it's been difficult for LA to make in-roads. So, they needed an established partner in the radar industry... thus a marriage. Struggling radar company + struggling (at least in terms of law enforcement sales) LIDAR manufacturer.

The TS is LTI's way of returning fire as it figured out LA was starting to sell more units because departments did not want to spend $3,000 - $3,500 for an LTI or Pro Laser 3 kit.

This is all about business, not about coming out with new technology and trying to freak out a few hundred enthusiasts. Departments nationwide are being squeezed for cash. Expect to see the other manufacturers coming out with similar products to hit the lower end of the LIDAR market. For example, all those rumors about a new Pro Laser. If they are true, it would not surprise me for us to see a cheaper PL3 or Pro Lite with less functionality. For the same reason.

Anyway, the TS has less functionality than the LTI 200 series, but it also is more like the Pro Laser 3 in some respects. For example, the TS has an inclement weather mode, but no serial port. And the TS looks more "gun like" than the LTI 100/200 series or the old "brick" 20-20 Marksman.

I wouldn't pay any attention to the 905 nm issue. The range on the gallium arsenide lasers all these guns used is 904-905 nm. They are all really 904, but there is some variance. It's not significant for what you're concerned about.

I am not making any claims regarding performance (per LPP). What I am saying is that any jammer on the market which defends against LTI guns should pick this up and work against it.

Of course it makes sense to test it and that needs to be done by everyone. At the same time, there is no need for widespread panic as there are so few of the TS guns in use atm and this is the same as anything else new coming out. It takes time to filter into the market and over a short period of time all the countermeasures will support it (if they don't already).

Regardless of whether or not a particular jammer defends against any new threat by default, of course it may be possible to tweak that defense for better handling. We shall see once we have some data to work with. Even if I could post some videos for you - which I know you'd all love to see - all of us who have been doing this for awhile know that you need more than one test vehicle to come to a good conclusion about a product.

The Cat & Mouse game goes on! :-()

[RadarReviews_Net]

very nicely said I dont see any problems jamming this gun

[TSi+WRX]

Thank you, LPP Rep, for such a comprehensive answer.

Originally Posted by LPP Rep

Ok... here is the info that I was provided some several months ago, prior to release. Recall that the TS has been delayed at least twice for release, so they had some issues to work out. It is possible this info changed during the last "delay," though I doubt it.

LTI TruSpeed
Max. range 610 meters (<2,000 feet)
Exterior case: polycarbonate plastic, weatherproof and water resistant
Interior housing: aluminum
Beam divergence: 2.5 millirands (same as LTI 200)

I'm having a super-hard time digging up the beam-divergence of the 200 model....everything else in their active speed-enforcement lineup (20-20, 100) are all within 3 to 3.5, which was what I'd based my previous commentary on......

Any physical confirmation of the spec-sheet on the 200 ?

I'll also approach other trusted sources (such as Suf Daddy) to see if they can provide data.

As I mentioned before, this is the same emperor in sheep's clothing. Real world experience and testing will bear this out.

Certainly, with respect to the last.

The unit is essentially a re-badged LTI 100 unit, with a slightly tighter beam similar to the 200LRB, faster target acquisition, and customized software.

Again, I'd like to see some concrete confirmation of the 200's beam-divergence figures - but the declared approximate target-acquisition time seems to be within nominal for all of the current LTI instruments... Certainly, I'd imagine that software tweaks would not go without being addressed, given that this is a new product.

Look at the range. Sound familiar? LTI 100 non LR version. Since the 200 only comes in LRB form now, meet the new non-LR gun.

Definitely, but again, this is only one measure, and I think that, currently, the critical discussion in the community, based on early rumors, are completely in terms of the beam divergence and power output.

The TS is designed to compete against the Laser Atlanta (up until TS the cheapest LIDAR units on the market) and most importantly radar units. Look at the average cost for a department of $1850 - $2750 for a dual Ka unit purchased for mounting in a patrol car, or $1200 - $1500 for a new handheld radar unit. The TS has MSRP of $1995 - right in that ballpark and much cheaper than the 200 series.

Also notice how LA recently dropped their prices on the LA3 gun series to just under $2k. Why? Not hard to figure that out. MPH is now selling LA units. Why? Because MPH is old school and finally figured out they needed to sell LIDAR in order to keep up. LA does not sell diddly compared to the other LIDAR manufacturers, and aside from the fact that most LEOs think the LA Type R and S are butt ugly and awkward, most department bean counters have never heard of Laser Atlanta, and Kustom, LTI, and Stalker have their heads so far up the rear ends of the public officials that it's been difficult for LA to make in-roads. So, they needed an established partner in the radar industry... thus a marriage. Struggling radar company + struggling (at least in terms of law enforcement sales) LIDAR manufacturer.

The TS is LTI's way of returning fire as it figured out LA was starting to sell more units because departments did not want to spend $3,000 - $3,500 for an LTI or Pro Laser 3 kit.

This is all about business, not about coming out with new technology and trying to freak out a few hundred enthusiasts. Departments nationwide are being squeezed for cash. Expect to see the other manufacturers coming out with similar products to hit the lower end of the LIDAR market. For example, all those rumors about a new Pro Laser. If they are true, it would not surprise me for us to see a cheaper PL3 or Pro Lite with less functionality. For the same reason.

There's no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that the TruSpeed is an economically driven product. I think that the current consensus within the community is the same.

So far, I've seen only a handful - if that - of enthusiast who believe that the TruSpeed is an evolutionary measure at trying to defeat LIDAR speed-detection countermeasures, and to be frank, I don't believe that this is the case.

I wouldn't pay any attention to the 905 nm issue. The range on the gallium arsenide lasers all these guns used is 904-905 nm. They are all really 904, but there is some variance. It's not significant for what you're concerned about.

I am not concerned here, either. The greater community initially cited this as a worry, but quickly dismissed it. Currently, I don't think anyone is really pursuing this as a potential concern - still, this is one that's without physical proof.

I am not making any claims regarding performance (per LPP). What I am saying is that any jammer on the market which defends against LTI guns should pick this up and work against it.

^ If that's the case, then the following, appearing on another thread, should be amended to read as much:

Originally Posted by LPP Rep

Already has and LPP works against it.

^ I think that this statement could be read, easily, as a specific claim of the LPPs performance against the TruSpeed - and not a generalization as you suggested, above.

Of course it makes sense to test it and that needs to be done by everyone. At the same time, there is no need for widespread panic as there are so few of the TS guns in use atm and this is the same as anything else new coming out. It takes time to filter into the market and over a short period of time all the countermeasures will support it (if they don't already).

I agree totally, that there needs to be tests, by all as many enthusiasts as possible, to figure out if there's any worry - and if so, what they truly are.

And yes, I agree, there is some lead-time, yet, to work with. However, at the same time, I think that there should be a preemptive push to defeat upcoming detection devices, rather than to trail-behind in a reactionary manner, which is what the countermeasures community has traditionally done.

It wasn't until the GOL cited the performance deficit of the LPP versus 100 PPS UL - and then the confirmation from members in the community that the 100 PPS UL was *much more* of a threat (in terms of physical use of the unit, and its availability/distribution here in the US) that LPP-UK/KMPH-UK finally reacted to the concern, and offered updates for this market.

To think that we were all vulnerable to such a threat, for such a long time, is, in-retrospect, a disappointment, and I think that every LPP user who went through that time-period would agree with me on that statement.

Yes, LPP did respond properly and quickly to address this concern, once it became known - but given the retrospective view of the FULL situation, was that truly acceptable? and could that have been improved upon via proactive/preemptive action?

That, I think, is the question - as well as the issue here.

And I don't mean to single-out LPP as the target. Rather, it's just that the above case perfectly exemplifies the issue of "new threats."

This applies to any and all jammer makers.

Escort is probably the worst of the bunch, when it comes to this track-record, as the ZR3 has been on-market for over a half-decade, and is just now seeing its first evolutionary upgrade. At the same time, the Blinder J11/J15 issue also weighs heavy in the community, too, as a "reaction" issue.

How long should we wait, that's the question and it wraps well into your conclusion here:

Regardless of whether or not a particular jammer defends against any new threat by default, of course it may be possible to tweak that defense for better handling. We shall see once we have some data to work with. Even if I could post some videos for you - which I know you'd all love to see - all of us who have been doing this for awhile know that you need more than one test vehicle to come to a good conclusion about a product.

The Cat & Mouse game goes on! :-()

Exactly, there are a lot of considerations, and, as you've said to-finish, it's a continuing cat-and-mouse game, and it's the very nature of this game that we need to worry about, when it comes to countermeasures.

The jammer industry, by its very nature, is necessarily a "reactive" one. Countermeasures cannot be successfully formulated until a target has presented itself to counter against.

But at the same time, how quickly should we expect results? How quickly should we expect our products to be updated, to provide adequate protection?

^ I think that's the real question - should a community outcry be necessary in order to receive action from the jammer maker?

Or should the jammer maker jump to prove that their product is worthy of the consideration and hard-earned money of their customers, by demonstrating its worth against the newest and the best, as soon as it is available?

[ahmadr]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

Currently, I don't think anyone is really pursuing this as a potential concern - still, this is one that's without physical proof.

The proof is in the transmission wavelength curves of the diodes (and the recieving curves of the receivers)

e.g. http://catalog.osram-os.com/catalogu...00a3dd000100b6


This specific item is much more clear than for example the LED / LD status of the ZR4. Please stop it

[TSi+WRX]

^ OK, bro, gotta put that one in English for me.

Remember, I took "Physics for Poets," as an undergrad.

If I'm reading this correctly, the curves say that this pretty much should be a non-issue, right?

Also, isn't the current thought that regardless of the supposed "905 nm" nominal output wavelength, it won't matter, as the LI is capable of jamming many European LIDAR devices, which are well into the 950 nm range, and beyond, correct?

[Ovencleaner]

Ivan of LI over at RD.net has just stated the guns pulse rate is in the KHZ range....

1000+ PPS.

Keep in mind that most jammers will not jam the TraffiPatrol XR, which is an extremely high fixed pulse rate

I wonder which jammers will be able to handle it?

So far, only one (LI) has been proved to jam high pulse rates. AntiLaser, Laser Star, and Blinder all claim too, however.

[RadarReviews_Net]

here is a video on it:

YouTube - LTI 20/20 TruSpeed

[RadarNutt]

Originally Posted by ahmadr

The proof is in the transmission wavelength curves of the diodes (and the recieving curves of the receivers)

e.g. http://catalog.osram-os.com/catalogu...00a3dd000100b6


This specific item is much more clear than for example the LED / LD status of the ZR4. Please stop it

Hmm. Ok, so I'm not a braniac... so, for us cerebrally challenged folk, are you saying this is the laser used by the TruSpeed? Because the doc you attached shows a 100 pps device if I am reading it correctly.

Regardless, please explain your post in more detail - i.e. what is your point?

Thanks.

[RadarNutt]

Originally Posted by RadarReviews_Net

here is a video on it:

Geezus. "Look ma... so easy, a monkey can do it."

I suppose they decided they should move the buttons to the back of the unit instead of the side and change them to symbols, for the officers who can't read???

Nice to see the dumbing down of consumer electronics has moved into law enforcement. Not.

I'll bet that whole back end has to be replaced if one button stops working (versus pop in/out a rubber button on the other LTI units).