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

[RadarNutt]

This is all very interesting.

I wonder why LI did not make that TruSpeed available for the GOL test, since they seemed to have gone out of their way to make the TP guns available for it.

We need several things, including:
- Someone to hook up a TruSpeed to an oscilloscope. That would be irrefutable evidence of PPS
- The LI's purported reference to the PPS is interesting and perhaps valid. I don't know anything about it and perhaps ought to educate myself on this. But as mentioned a good oscilloscope is irrefutable period.
- We need some organization to test the TS against multiple current products in a comprehensive way. Do they alert to the TS? Do they react to it at all? And if so, how and how effective are they?

The reports I had heard about the TS were pre-production when it was not possible for any testing, so now of course is the time to find out what the real scoop is.

Just a side note about Allen's post above. I don't grasp the point about "rear heads tested in reverse," etc. Any laser jammer should could care less whether the beam is approaching or receding from either head. The algorithms in any given jammer have to work both ways by default. The only reason that could be an issue would be if a device identified a particular head as forward or aft, and only looked for readings in the manner it would expect (i.e. approaching or receding) and ignored others.

By why would anyone limit the capability of their product like that when by default it would handle either approaching or receding?

That's just not a test which has any value IMHO, unless you're testing a product which you have reason to believe "knows" whether a head is forward or aft. Even then, why would you want to do that? What if your customer decides to switch the heads around for their convenience, for whatever reason. Then your prodcut would fail miserably.

So, that test is like saying, "Look we applied the brakes on the test vehicle and it came to a complete stop." Sorry, but I just think that is not a breakthrough. Any jammer product on the market must act the same way.


Regarding the test described above and hearing the LI audibly in the background, testing extreme areas of the vehicle, etc., recall that as we saw from IRCM's old videos, there is often a lag between detection and jamming versus when the audible alert cuts off. So, that is not a reliable way to ascertain detection. To truly know, you need an IR camera.

I'm looking forward to the RR.net tests, where from what I recall they plan to have an IR camera on hand and filming.

Aside from all of my comments, of course it certainly is commendable for the LI team to take a pro-active approach with their product and the new threat. I am simply saying it is premature for everyone to be jumping for joy (LI) or freaking out (everyone else).

There's just not enough info out yet. It's a brand new LIDAR threat. Let's keep at this and see what's what as more people get around to testing various combinations.

If it is truly a new threat and using a unique PPS and/or pulse pattern, then it's going to separate the pack in the laser jammer world period. For instance, I would expect Escort, K40, and all the clones will be the laggards in terms of adoption.

We need to see who (else) steps up to the plate, and when. I don't expect instantaneous action. If LI has done that then good for them and it is commendable in terms of customer service. However, there are obviously a number of logistical factors involved in any company being able to do this - just like many other industries. So, I don't expect that type of service. What I would want as an owner of a different product (i.e. not an LI) is that kind of service within a reasonable amount of time (i.e. before too many TS devices enter into service), and of course as soon as possible.

On another note, does anyone know if the TS guns are being sold outside the U.S.?

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by RadarNutt

I wonder why LI did not make that TruSpeed available for the GOL test, since they seemed to have gone out of their way to make the TP guns available for it.

From what I understand, the TruSpeed in the video I saw was from a confidential source on the other side of the globe, and it was not physically possible to send this particular example "out."

In regard to the one that was procured by Cliff, I am uncertain. From what I know of the timing of the GOL testing (i.e. when it actually occurred), I can say that logistically, it may have presented a problem - but then the specter of "why didn't the LI reps simply bring the unit to the GOL test" comes up, and without being an insider in the LI mother team, I honestly do not know.

We need several things, including:
- Someone to hook up a TruSpeed to an oscilloscope. That would be irrefutable evidence of PPS

I agree. And that's what I was getting to, in my above posts, that no-one has solid and irrefutable proof. No quantitative data.

Ivan's hints are just that - hints - and although he has done nothing but to have earned my trust over the last year (i.e. he responded actively to my request to work the LI's algorithm so that it does not respond to the LPP's parking beams), it is still, when it boils down, only one man's word against another's.

I am sure that as soon as the GOL and other community LIDAR heavies (such as Suf Daddy) gets access to the TruSpeed, they'll do a complete teardown.

- The LI's purported reference to the PPS is interesting and perhaps valid. I don't know anything about it and perhaps ought to educate myself on this.

The basis for the LI's ability to be able to warn its user of the *specific* LIDAR threat faced is a pulsetrain analysis method.

This is demonstrated by SpeedLabs' recently marketed Laser Jammer Tester, which is an IR-led based device that simulates the pulsetrain of unique and individual (but note "overlap" below, and yes, the tester is labeled as such) LIDAR guns ( ref: Radar Detector Tests and Reviews by Guys of LIDAR ).

As hinted above by interceptor.tw's comments, there is, unfortunately, "overlap" of potential threats - which is evident due to their shared pulsetrains, for example, the "Marksman and Ultralyte 20/20" voice alert results from the LI "seeing" 125 PPS threats, and the "Jenoptic and Ultralyte" warning results from a 100 PPS threat.

Although the tester is marketed by SpeedLabs, a group with close associations to LI, the tester does present with validation via both the Escort ZR3 and older-generation laser jammers/detectors (which do not alert to the tester's Laser Atlanta Stealth Mode simulation) as well as the new ZR4 and newer-revision detectors (which do alert to Stealth Mode simulation), as well as the current stateside revision of the LPP, which has a unique audible alert tone to distinguish the 100 versus 125 PPS Ultralyte ( this is a unique consideration of the LPP, first given to our EU members, due to their need to be alerted, ASAP, to the Jenoptik device, on the 100 PPS pulsetrain; this is the pulsetrain, shared with the 100 PPS Ultralyte, for which the initial stateside version of the LPP did not effectively jam [ ref: GOL Laser Jammer Shootout, 2007 ] ).

- We need some organization to test the TS against multiple current products in a comprehensive way. Do they alert to the TS? Do they react to it at all? And if so, how and how effective are they?

The reports I had heard about the TS were pre-production when it was not possible for any testing, so now of course is the time to find out what the real scoop is.

Completely agreed to both.

Just a side note about Allen's post above. I don't grasp the point about "rear heads tested in reverse," etc. Any laser jammer should could care less whether the beam is approaching or receding from either head. The algorithms in any given jammer have to work both ways by default. The only reason that could be an issue would be if a device identified a particular head as forward or aft, and only looked for readings in the manner it would expect (i.e. approaching or receding) and ignored others.

By why would anyone limit the capability of their product like that when by default it would handle either approaching or receding?

That's just not a test which has any value IMHO, unless you're testing a product which you have reason to believe "knows" whether a head is forward or aft. Even then, why would you want to do that? What if your customer decides to switch the heads around for their convenience, for whatever reason. Then your prodcut would fail miserably.

So, that test is like saying, "Look we applied the brakes on the test vehicle and it came to a complete stop." Sorry, but I just think that is not a breakthrough. Any jammer product on the market must act the same way.

I simply think that the varied testing methods was just showmanship - it was impressive, but it was just that.

^ But that's just my take, with what little knowledge I have.

There could be a very valid reason for this showmanship, but I myself need to be educated on that.

My rather uneducated suspicion is that, in-particular, the reverse-to-JTG ("reversed JFG") testing is most severe in that it presents the LIDAR gun with an optimal target (rear of vehicle), under conditions which, otherwise unfavorable (target going away from the gun, at-speed), becomes, instead, more favorable. But whether this theory holds any water, I don't know.

What was really impressive, of what I saw, was the handicap they inflicted on the "single rear head" scenario. That, combined with the close range of the shots (given that the TruSpeed is said to have a tighter beam divergence, at 2.5 milliradians, nominal - while all others, so far as I can research, range between 3 to 4), does "prove a point" of their jammer's effectiveness.

Finally, in respect to the forward/rear issue you brought up.

This is something that's, so far, unique of the LI, in terms of laser-diode (CLED) based jammers - it has specific-for-rear-application heads which, using simple optical principles allows for better adaptation to typical rear-enforcement scenarios. Additionally, although the current interface software is only in beta format, the ability to assign the heads to forward versus rear orientation is possible, and that would make it the only CLED jammer capable of directional threat announcement.

Regarding the test described above and hearing the LI audibly in the background, testing extreme areas of the vehicle, etc., recall that as we saw from IRCM's old videos, there is often a lag between detection and jamming versus when the audible alert cuts off. So, that is not a reliable way to ascertain detection. To truly know, you need an IR camera.

I completely agree.

I'm looking forward to the RR.net tests, where from what I recall they plan to have an IR camera on hand and filming.

And I hope that they'll be able to get a TruSpeed, on-loan, too!

Aside from all of my comments, of course it certainly is commendable for the LI team to take a pro-active approach with their product and the new threat. I am simply saying it is premature for everyone to be jumping for joy (LI) or freaking out (everyone else).

There's just not enough info out yet. It's a brand new LIDAR threat. Let's keep at this and see what's what as more people get around to testing various combinations.

If it is truly a new threat and using a unique PPS and/or pulse pattern, then it's going to separate the pack in the laser jammer world period. For instance, I would expect Escort, K40, and all the clones will be the laggards in terms of adoption.

We need to see who (else) steps up to the plate, and when. I don't expect instantaneous action. If LI has done that then good for them and it is commendable in terms of customer service. However, there are obviously a number of logistical factors involved in any company being able to do this - just like many other industries. So, I don't expect that type of service. What I would want as an owner of a different product (i.e. not an LI) is that kind of service within a reasonable amount of time (i.e. before too many TS devices enter into service), and of course as soon as possible.

I agree on all points, except the last.

The purpose of my report is to simply bring forward the information that I have been privileged to be able to see. It is, without doubt, preliminary, and also due to its confidential nature, many aspects of the testing cannot be questioned nor "confirmed."

As you said, the only thing that can be said now is a word of congratulation - a "bravo, good job," if you will - for the LI team in their proactive effort. But outside of that, everything is still very much up in the air.

I keep reiterating this - my purpose for these posts --->

It's not to promote the LI, nor to bash the LPP (nor any other jammer).

Rather, it is to simply point out that a paradigm shift needs to occur in this industry.

We've always been the beta-testers. And the market's always - and by necessity - been reactionary.

The former needs to be done away with.

And the latter, although it is not able to be overcome - simply due to the nature of the game - should be something that sees the typical delays that we have seen, in the past, be drastically cut-down, and also for a change to be made in that the industry side of it should not require a public outcry before the product is made better (i.e. the Blinder J11 to J15 debacle).

And it is this last point that I think I take the other direction to your thinking, RN.

You say that you don't expect - but rather want - the industry to step-up their game.

I say that I *expect* it, and I say that all members of our community should *expect* it as well.

Yes, the countermeasures game is always going to be reactionary, but the reaction should not be one to the outcries of the community, as we've seen recently with Blinder, and as we've seen with the 100 PPS UL threat and LPP - but instead should be driven by the jammer makers' desire to be the best.

On another note, does anyone know if the TS guns are being sold outside the U.S.?

^ Good point - unknown.....

------

PS: jimbonzzz agreed with your points, RN, regarding the wording of their statements on the last GOL testing, when I brought it up for examination on the thread that happya$$ authored on RD.net.

Jim went ahead and made some changes to the bodytext, to make sure that even novice readers will understand that the Traffipatrol products are not stateside items.

[TSi+WRX]

OK, right now, I'm kinda worried -

CFL 6 vid thread - Radar Detector Jammer Forum

Central FL group, testing gathering #6.

Neither the AL G8 nor the PASS put up any fight at all, when it came to the TruSpeed.

I've asked the CFL group to confirm of the LPP's performance, but so far, no word.

Given the genetics/lineage of the LPP, this has me worried.

Really worried.

[TSi+WRX]

I've just been informed that the LPP was not at the test.

Currently inquiring as to the revision number of the AL G8.

[CJR238]

I'm almost positive i was targeted by a True Speed gun from a CT state trooper the outer day. My 9500I went off like a champ, plus i was lucky there was heavy traffic.

[TSi+WRX]

I've been able to confirm that the AL G8 present at CFL#6 is a 17.01A firmware revision.

This revision utilizes the same programming codes as the 8.3/10.1 - non-"100 PPS UL enabled" LPP (current LPPs sold in the North-American market are either badged "100 PPS UL-enabled" or, alternatively, are called "CAN/AU" models, to denote the same ability to "handle" the 100 PPS UL).

Historically, the 17.01 variant of the AL G8 is the very model which is rumored, in the community, to be the basis of the LPP, and this rumor further corresponds, again historically, with the split between AL and LPP.

I am currently trying to confirm the difference between the CAN-AU/100 PPS UL enabled 8.3/10.1 revision of the LPP, versus the pre- CAN/AU/100 PPS UL update model.

-----

Currently, I suspect that there is absolutely no difference between the two, aside from the ability of the former to properly jam the 100 PPS UL.

The reason for this is because if you will all recall, the 100 PPS UL algorithm was originally divorced from certain subsets of LPPs, due to, at the time, fear of tripping the Jenoptik LaserPatrol's jam-codes, which also operates at this pulse-rate.

This is also the reason why upon encountering a 100 PPS UL, the CAN/AU-box LPP will sound a different alert, which is designed with the above Jenoptik in-mind, so that users of the LPP in those affected markets can quickly disengage their LPP after taking proper remedial action, so as to hopefully not run afoul of the Jenoptik's jam-code.

My feelings here, though, are purely speculative, for the time-being, and will need to await further confirmation.

[TSi+WRX]

The plot thickens.....

The AL G7 also had the same programming parameters as the "non-100 PPS enabled" LPP, 8.3/10.1 revision.

The really complex thing is that the LPP "spawned" right at around the time of the AL G7/G8 transition.

[Qrr]

I agree most of us our guilty of the "I want it yesterday" complex. Partly perhaps due to our country's materialistic nature

It is not so much about toying but money ....here the cost of a ticket is killing the weathiest of wallet ....
+ the points lost .....
+ high speed can give you a criminal case .....

It is a matter of having a top dog for
agressive enforcement ....

the proof is in the pudding.

We all look for it .

[TSi+WRX]

I wanted to cross-post the following here, as there's been so much claimed here, from LPP Rep, of the LPP's capabilities against the TruSpeed - and that as a long-time user and proponent of the LPP, I feel that it is very important that this concern be examined fully.

----

I was posting to another thread here ( How many head units for a large SUV? ), when it reminded me of this continuing concern, for us LPP users and long-time proponents.

It's now well-known that the pre-100 PPS UL-"fix" variant of the LPP will not properly detect nor jam the LTI TruSpeed.

The CFL hobbyist group on RD.net has demonstrated and recorded this, very conclusively, and there have been two very public independent hobbyist "conversions," from the LPP to the LI, on RD.net, to say the least.

The original thread on the Canadian LPP Support Forums, authored by fellow LPP user, long-time proponent of the LPP, and a well-known enthusiast davekr, not only offers detailed chronology of our woes, but furthermore provides the necessary outlink ( page 4, post 5, by, again, fellow LPP user and long-time proponent, and again a noted enthusiast as well, the horn13 ) to the CFL group's video, in the RD.net post referenced above, also offers, from go.mouse, the KMPH-Canada/LPP-Canada representative, an honest and candid admission of KMPH-UK/LPP-UK's efforts, and I quote:

Originally Posted by go.mouse

A software solution is currently being worked on.

- which, if one were to read this statement in-context, would suggest that, indeed, even the current, 100-PPS UL "fix"-enabled LPP - what is officially known as the v8.3 CAN/AU, aka "100 PPS capable" - will *NOT* provide the LPP user with any appreciable level of TruSpeed protection.



----

Anyone who knows me in this community knows that I've been an LPP user since 2006, and that I have spent my good money on not one, but two, control-boxes, with three total heads, to protect my vehicle.

Furthermore, anyone who knows me knows just as well that I'm a truly independent hobbyist. I have no ties to anyone in this industry or hobby. I pay full retail for all of my countermeasures. To the powers that be, I'm just another anonymous consumer.

My goal with this post, and the posts before it, on this Forum as well as all others (as you can see by reading *any* of my such posts), is neither to discredit LPP/KMPH, nor, specifically, LPP Rep and DMI-Sport here.

It is simply to bring forward what we know of to be the truth of the case and to highlight our collective concern and desire for LPP/KMPH to properly address this issue for those of us who are their customers - and to make sure that other consumers here, as well as newcomers to the community, are well-aware of this issue.

There is now nowhere to hide from this issue. There is now no way to, anymore, "debate" this issue based on assumptions and suppositions.

There are now others in the community who have the TruSpeed in-hand, and have tested the previous-iteration (non-100 PPS Ultralyte enabled) LPP against the device, and have reported failure.

There is now admission from within the LPP organization that a "software solution is currently being worked on" to combat this new threat.

The problem is real. It exists. And we are all awaiting, eagerly, as LPP users, resolution.

[the horn13]

As always, an excellent post.

My 2 cents on this topic................and as painful as it is I am taking a quote from JTW's blog

Most people don't know Laser Pro Park was originally manufacturered and engineered by Anti-Laser. Anti-Laser made an agreement with Kris and Andy at Laser Pro Park to OEM manufacturer jammers for them, just as long as LPP didn't violate any of the terms and conditions of the OEM contract.

Ever since the break up from Anti-Laser, Laser Pro Park has consistanty been behind the times. They now lack any sort of engineering skills because they essentially lost the engineers who were helping them. For example, Laser Pro Park said they were coming out with a 4-head control box over a year ago!!! How hard is it to make a fucking 4-head control box people?! Laser Pro Park said they had one being made......we're still waiting and it's been over a year. The point I'm trying to make is Laser Pro Park doesn't have the ability to upgrade against any future threats. They don't have the capacity to make any hardware improvements, and quite honestly Kris and Andy and impossible to get ahold of on the phone when you need support.

Laser Pro Park works well against the current lidar guns IN THE USA ONLY, but when it comes to anything new in the future Laser Pro Park is the last company you want upgrading your system.

Keep in mind you'll be shit out of luck with Laser Pro Park if any sort of updates are needed to combat a new threat.

I am really starting to question if JTW and his "Crew" are possibly correct.