I know radar Roy says it hurts performance, but what do you guys think?

[Z1NONLY]

I think the cable length has more to do with ease of installs.

I'm sure.

I was just saying that it might have other effects too.

[Veil Guy]

Guys,

My understanding of the rear-head mounting issue has to with the idea that the rear head fires (essentially out of phase with the fronts) in an asymmetric fashion and since active jammers employ very specific interference pulse rates that the three heads together might interfere with each others interference/destructive pulse-train.

I believe that is why Roy has made this recommendation, and I believe he proved it out at his test site, some time ago...

Veil Guy

[thestaton]

With the ZR3 it did better with the rear head in the front, and I would assume this is the case for the ZR4 as well.

The rear head is useless in the rear anyhow, so might as well put it to some use.

[TSi+WRX]

With the ZR3 it did better with the rear head in the front, and I would assume this is the case for the ZR4 as well.

That definitely seemed to be the case with the ZR3, but with the ZR4, again, I think that with the current recommendation from more than one individual who has a direct vein into Escort, I'm rather cautious in recommending a similar "enthusiast's mounting."

The out-of-phase/temporal-sync theory does add-up, and has been a topic of cross-talk, er, talks for quite some time now.

I think that both MEM-TEK's theory (and it's not *that* far-fetched, MEM, as I truly think that the unique physical build of the Blinder 0-suffix series heads - which are IR-transparent for their entire forward portion - is what causes so much of its observed cross-talk troubles, when used in conjunction with other jammers, adjacent/nearby) as well as the wire-length theory (the latter has been a cited caution for those looking to extend their LI heads, with the caution coming from the LI team itself) holds water to some degree.

What's really the issue may never be fully known - but I, as well as others here, I think, would love to see some conclusive hobbyist testing of if what Roy and others with a vein into Escort have reported is "actual-truth."

[Z1NONLY]

I have at least one save from my rear shifter.

In testing, as long as the plate is targeted, the ZR3 jamms well.

Because the plate is very reflective and located at center-mass on most cars, LEO's have no reason to aim at any other part of the back of the car. What else is more reflective than a tag?

[Z1NONLY]

Guys,

My understanding of the rear-head mounting issue has to with the idea that the rear head fires (essentially out of phase with the fronts) in an asymmetric fashion ...

Why go through the trouble of designing the front and rear out of phase if it's not simply a byproduct of other factors? (I.e. different components for the different-shape shell on the rear shifter or the need for a longer cable on the rear shifter.)

I just don't think that, after getting all the different jamming algorithms nailed down, one of the engineers said, "Ok guys, now lets figure out how to make the front and rear operate out of phase with each other."

[ahmadr]

I don't think that the cable length has anything to do with it. My guess is that the rear shifter has a much broader emission beam pattern which could conceivably be picked up weakly by the two front shifter heads if the rear shifter head is also installed up front. Possibly the result could be that the two front shifter heads then start trying to shift the weakly detected shifted emissions from the rear shifter when it too is installed up front? This is just a wild guess.

Heck, this post might be the first time I have pegged out my BS meter in quite some time!

Honestly, I think Roy (or was it Veil Guy) was BSed by belscort. The processing is done on the heads on the ZR4, so it's no worse than having two different jammers on a car.

However, IF what Roy/VG/belscort has claimed is indeed true, MEM-TEK's explanation may be the best.

So my flag this time tentatively goes to belscort, but definitely not memtek

[focalcivic]

When Roy did the initial testing with Escort's engineers, they tried all 3 heads up front found no benefit, and I believe a slight issue with running all 3 up front. Escort's engineers never thought of running all 3 up front when designing it in the first place and when Roy mentioned that it was somewhat common with the older Zr3 they seemed surprised.

Here is the quote from Roy's blog:

"
First many users of the ZR3 that I met with in the past also mounted their rear laser jammer to the front figuring if two heads work well, three heads would be even better. In mentioning this to the engineers they related that the two front laser jammers are designed to operate at a different pulse rate than the one rear head and that because of this the front jamming effectiveness could actually decrease if all three heads were placed in the front. Not one to miss a challenge, we actually took some time to test this at our new testing facility and yes, in some situations we did notice a decrease if jamming when all three heads were all placed in the front.
We then explored using splitters on the output of each head allowing us to plug in four jammer heads to the front. At the time Escort’s engineering staff never explored the possibility of a “diehard” laser jammer enthusiast going out buying two ZR4 shifters and installing all four heads to the front in one system and they didn’t know how their hardware/software would perform in such a situation. Again not one to miss a new opportunity we did test this scenario, however for our application we did not notice any significant performance results that we could measure."

[TSi+WRX]

^ That's strange......

Why would a 4-head setup - adding two more FRONT heads, either split or independently controlled via a separate c-box - of the ZR4 *not* return with better results? Wouldn't it be akin to the comparison between a 2-head Blinder, versus a 4-head?

And this also doesn't seem to make sense, from what we know of the function of the single rear-head -> with Cbr and ELVATO's test, using the Stalker, as long as the Stalker's beam is within enough proximity of the jammer head ( "shooting at the head," in our "community speak" ), it'll provide even rear-of-vehicle coverage.

So one would imagine that with more heads, it's harder for the LIDAR beam to not "find" a "target head" within sufficient proximity, right?

So, then, why would a 4-head ZR3, with two sets of front heads being dedicated towards that aspect, with no worries of temporal-mismatch/pulsetrain lag, *not* offer better protection than with 2 heads?

I don't get it.

----

And FWIW, ahmadr and Z1, I agree with your doubts/thoughts.

I just would like to see some independent proof to either confirm or deny what's been reported to Roy and The VEIL Guy, that's all.

[focalcivic]

^ That's strange......

Why would a 4-head setup - adding two more FRONT heads, either split or independently controlled via a separate c-box - of the ZR4 *not* return with better results? Wouldn't it be akin to the comparison between a 2-head Blinder, versus a 4-head?

And this also doesn't seem to make sense, from what we know of the function of the single rear-head -> with Cbr and ELVATO's test, using the Stalker, as long as the Stalker's beam is within enough proximity of the jammer head ( "shooting at the head," in our "community speak" ), it'll provide even rear-of-vehicle coverage.

So one would imagine that with more heads, it's harder for the LIDAR beam to not "find" a "target head" within sufficient proximity, right?

So, then, why would a 4-head ZR3, with two sets of front heads being dedicated towards that aspect, with no worries of temporal-mismatch/pulsetrain lag, *not* offer better protection than with 2 heads?

I don't get it.

----

And FWIW, ahmadr and Z1, I agree with your doubts/thoughts.

I just would like to see some independent proof to either confirm or deny what's been reported to Roy and The VEIL Guy, that's all.

I think it is because the programming for the 3rd head, this is intended for the rear only.