PDA

View Full Version : What is the best out there today?



deckman
07-14-2016, 02:06 PM
I sold my last Porsche and took off the LI that was mounted. I now own an Aston Martin and just got nailed. I don't want anymore tickets. What is the best solution these days? I think I had 8.4 heads on the LI? I'm not really sure. Thanks.

Qui-Gon
07-18-2016, 07:33 AM
ALP (Antilaser Priority) is the best out there at the present time.

Sent from my LGL44VL using Tapatalk

Veil Guy
07-18-2016, 02:19 PM
As an overall solution, I'll take the HP-905, Veil, Lasershield, the V1 or Redline, and Waze, and not look back. You get a very good defense in depth solution while saving some greenbacks. :)

Qui-Gon
07-18-2016, 04:02 PM
I'll take the HP-905, Veil, Lasershield, the V1 or Redline, and Waze, and not look back. :)

OK then.

Veil Guy
07-18-2016, 05:15 PM
I'll take the HP-905, Veil, Lasershield, the V1 or Redline, and Waze, and not look back. :)

OK then.

I'm entitled to an opinion, aren't I?

Holla
07-18-2016, 05:31 PM
I'll take the HP-905, Veil, Lasershield, the V1 or Redline, and Waze, and not look back. :)

OK then.

I'm entitled to an opinion, aren't I?

Yes you are but at least give the man answers that will benifit him to the fullest and the 905's or LI dont even come remotley close to what the ALP offers in jamming capability--- I do agree with the Redline!
All he needs to be protected from EVERY laser gun is a 3F/2R setup of ALP's, he will not need the others suff IE:Veil, Lasershield,

Veil Guy
07-18-2016, 06:25 PM
I'll take the HP-905, Veil, Lasershield, the V1 or Redline, and Waze, and not look back. :)

OK then.

I'm entitled to an opinion, aren't I?

Yes you are but at least give the man answers that will benifit him to the fullest and the 905's or LI dont even come remotley close to what the ALP offers in jamming capability--- I do agree with the Redline!
All he needs to be protected from EVERY laser gun is a 3F/2R setup of ALP's, he will not need the others suff IE:Veil, Lasershield,

I thought I did, I was suggesting an overall all approach with should prove superior to any one. As capable as the ALPs, they are not perfect. It comes down to percentages:

If the ALP has the ability to jam one or two particular versions of one manufacturers gun over the other jammer companies in certain targeting scenarios, how often does that (has that) happened in the real-world with owners of all of the laser jammers out there?

More importantly, I've also have seen IPTs with all jammers (including the ALP) occur over time due to algo changes from the lidar guns, head alignment issues, any host of situations where things are not 100% effective. What do you say to someone when an IPT occurs? That you can't benefit from other CMs to put into the mix? That one product can do it all? I simply don't agree and that's been my position as far back as I can remember.

How about off-axis shots, overhead shots, dips in the road, etc? I've certainly seen jammers (even the ALPs) have issues jamming in those situations even though such results have not, generally, been published (like the testing the AZ shootout last year).

In all of the driving I have done with such a DiD setup, and I drive very fast most of the time on the highways, I have yet to have that DiD approach fail me. Not once.

Could it happen? I suppose. It just hasn't yet. Also, do we actually know and have tested EVERY single iteration of firmware in existence across all the lidar manufacturers to know how all the jammers do with every one of them? I understand that the ALP is struggling with dealing with at least three firmware versions of the DE. How often they appear in the wild, I can't say.

Finally the general consensus of the ALP owners seems to suggest a quint version (5 heads). That ain't a cheap solution and I would argue that a lesser number of heads and the other components of a DiD approach could offer a greater level of protection across a greater number of different targeting scenarios.

I would tend to agree that the ALP as the sole CM (in a 5 head configuration) would provide a greater level of protection against the several firmware versions of the guns that exist, but I personally don't believe in a single CM approach. Never have and such was the intent of my response.

VG

protias
07-18-2016, 07:33 PM
OP, you don't want to get the Blinder, Veil, or Lasershield. Blinder never gets updates and are not top notch. Veil is well, my mama told me, if you can't say something nice, don't say it at all. There is another radar detector forum out there that has done testing with this stuff and it doesn't protect you. I've tested a Lasershield with a guy in NE and it didn't do anything against my 3 LIDAR guns. Why? Because there are plenty of other things to reflect the LIDAR beam back to the gun. And if I get banned for my response, you'll have to look real hard as to why.


I'll take the HP-905, Veil, Lasershield, the V1 or Redline, and Waze, and not look back. :) OK then. I'm entitled to an opinion, aren't I? Opinions are one thing and facts are another.

Veil Guy
07-19-2016, 07:05 AM
OP, you don't want to get the Blinder, Veil, or Lasershield. Blinder never gets updates and are not top notch. Veil is well, my mama told me, if you can't say something nice, don't say it at all. There is another radar detector forum out there that has done testing with this stuff and it doesn't protect you. I've tested a Lasershield with a guy in NE and it didn't do anything against my 3 LIDAR guns. Why? Because there are plenty of other things to reflect the LIDAR beam back to the gun. And if I get banned for my response, you'll have to look real hard as to why.


I'll take the HP-905, Veil, Lasershield, the V1 or Redline, and Waze, and not look back. :) OK then. I'm entitled to an opinion, aren't I? Opinions are one thing and facts are another.

You are quite right, facts do matter.

Consider the following:

1) With respect to the ALP. By RALETC's own published results at varying tests, it suffered from IPTs from the LTI Truespeed SX. Instant punch throughs are not good things because they happen regardless of the distances shot, even when they are very far away. In yet a previous test, the demonstrated 17 PTs of varying distance. In yet another test, with one vehicle the ALP had 4 PTs when pitted against three different DEs. At the same testing the ALP managed an 82.9%, 69.%, 82.4%, 83.1%, 72%, 66.7%, 66.3% effectiveness respectively, hardly a perfect showing. With one individual's LI setup, it was acknowledged that results were more effective against the guns presented when Veil was added into the mix. So the point is, that while the ALP showed the best in most of these cases (although different cars were used for these tests), it goes to show that its not a foolproof solution and that a defense in depth approach will certainly help. Anyone willing to spend $1500 plus the cost of installation on ONE CM, could certainly improve their overall performance with the inclusion of other "passive" CMs.

2) At the AZ shootout, certain results were not publicly released, one gun was not used because it was found to tear up the ALP and others. There were particularly consistent PTs across all the jammers occurred and different guns, on the test vehicle when it went over a dip in the road, which goes to show that jammers generally have to be dead-on facing toward the gun in a narrow range of off-axis which these tests are conducted, ie; the most favorable for the jammers. As the cosign angles increase either to the side or from overhead, jamming efficiency drops significantly.

3) Certain departments are being trained to specifically target in a manner that can defeat or seriously impact the performance of jammers to the negative. Just don't expect to see those results.

4) These contrived tests aren't representative of the way most targeting is conducted by traffic enforcement today, which in some cases could favor the jammer and in others favor the lidar operator.

5) Certainly the use of a lasershield as the sole CM is not sufficient, given other reflective areas of any given vehicle, namely its headlights and foglights. So adding additional layers of protection can help, clearly. To suggest otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

6) Every encounter that I experienced, every single one was basically a handheld laser gun, some were steadied. Not one occurred with the use of a tripod.

7) You are certainly entitled (as others) to assert that Veil is entirely ineffective, but the facts speak otherwise. I have a series of examples that were just documented the last several weeks in MD where I believe the DE is being used in the mix of lidar enforcement.

The RAW and unedited videos are below and demonstrate beyond any doubt that my company's product can work extremely effectively of actually allowing drivers to avoid speeding tickets using Veil only. And these results weren't accumulated on a Corvette, they happened with a silver BMW 540i and a red Subaru Legacy.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gK4NhVT7F3U/V4V45PCrDFI/AAAAAAAAA6E/bxD6tU5HbSw9uEMlDWaP78mh72Sdat5sACLcB/s400/beating-speeding-tickets-video-collection.jpg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu-3fk33Sv0&list=PLxCvxw5IGj7EhMLlxLBjS2kFzYtZ_Zsd3)

Real-World Stealth Veil Police Laser Encounters: June-July, 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu-3fk33Sv0&list=PLxCvxw5IGj7EhMLlxLBjS2kFzYtZ_Zsd3)

In at least four examples I was speeding and at speeds that would have certainly resulted in healthy speeding tickets: completely surprising ambush at 80 in a 55 zone (an encounter that would have been difficult for a jammer to defeat at the initial time of targeting given the off-axis pointing of the vehicle relative to the operator in both horizontal and vertical directions. The others at 74 in a 55, 70 in a 55, and 45 in a 30.

These encounters were especially lethal because the lidar operator was not in plain view. At least a <500 feet it is likely that the officer would be spotted by an attentive driver. And finally one other encounter initially happened at close range (more off-axis too) and the officer still had to shoot me twice. Any honest unbiased assessment can come to the conclusion that Veil was very effective and allowed me to escape four speeding tickets, more than paying for the $98 dollar investment.

A couple of more facts:

a) You can expect more improvements of future generations on a number of levels.
b) I stand by my company's product and personally test it in the REAL-WORLD where it really counts, not just in contrived test environments.
c) Many of the Veil haters haven't even used it in the real-world.
d) And in closing, there have been VERY FEW experiences presented by Veil owners or other DiD passive users have actually received tickets using the product.

VG

SaltyinNJ
07-19-2016, 08:55 AM
I sold my last Porsche and took off the LI that was mounted. I now own an Aston Martin and just got nailed. I don't want anymore tickets. What is the best solution these days? I think I had 8.4 heads on the LI? I'm not really sure. Thanks.

deckman and anyone else reading this. Please do not take the advice of someone who has a vested interest in selling the counter measures he mentioned. The best lidar jammer on the market today is simply the ALP. However, the person who recommended the other products lost his ability to sell the ALP, and therefore is "guiding" you in another direction. There are websites that offer real unbiased information based on facts, however this one is NOT one of them. of ALP, however, he does not censor any information on his site, even if it's negative information of his products, which is extremely rare to begin with. He will always give his honest opinion, and will even steer you to another product if it's the best match for you. As for Veil, please read up on it Before putting that stuff on your car.

I suspect I'll be banned and this post edited or deleted, but the truth is the truth.

Veil Guy
07-19-2016, 09:18 AM
SaltyinNJ,

I don't have an ownership interest or a vested financial interest in Blinder or any other CM mfr.

To the contrary, I aided ALP in establishing a relationship with Roy and RB.

Yes, I agree that the ALP appears to be the strongest player at the moment. However, like the LI's, the Drivesmarts, the LPPs, that have come and gone dominance has proven to be transitory.

It's a little known fact, that the ALP has been experiencing jamming issues with (I understand three versions) firmware versions of the DE and (one of them, I understand has NOT been figured out). If you look the testing results you'll see a disclaimer at the bottom that results were withheld by RALETC. Whose interest did that serve? The consumer trying to interpret the results?

References to jamming the Dragon Eye have also been removed for the corporate sites, a concession to this fact. That certainly ties in nicely with AZ shootout test the stopped using one DragonEye because, according to one RALETC member, "they wanted to make the jammers look good." Again, whose interest did that serve? The consumer trying to interpret the results?

So, as good as the ALP is, it appears that it is on the glide path of other products that have come before it, such as the LIs that the OP is interested in discarding.

In so far as tying to the claims of 'guiding':

You may want to wait a little bit. I will have an article soon detailing why at the appropriate time and I expect it going to shake things up again. It's going to be deja vu all over again.

The point I was making is any ONE CM is not infallible. To suggest otherwise is simply untrue. Also Blinder is not sitting (although they do move at a rate of molasses in winter). I also hear suggestions that AL is in fact infringing (at least in part) on their IP here in the US. We'll just see how all this plays out in the coming months and see if anything actually comes from it. I'd hate to see the situation happen again in the US with customers losing support as a result of having to pull-out of the market.

Your assertion that some members don't have financial stakes or vested interests in the sales of the companies' products they promote is also untrue.

The forum that is referred to has had affiliate links for as long as I can remember. Mirage had been making arrangements to become a distributor for Stinger while being a tester, that is until had issues with raising the capital for the buy in.

Other members who review products are affiliates for Amazon and certain manufacturers. This is well known. Not that there is anything wrong with that in and of itself, but to suggest that others have zero financial stake and using that as a basis of selling the notion of independence and unbiased reporting is simply not accurate. The work product and methodology should be allowed to speak for themselves, regardless.

To the extent that such relationships have lead to the hiding of flaws in testing or the sharing of confidential information with another manufacturer IS a serious problem.

With respect to Veil:

What specifically do you have to say about that video collection? For any unbiased viewer who doesn't have an axe to grind, the results are clear. Those results speak for themselves.

To suggest there is no bias on that forum, is also inaccurate. The historical record is there for all to see. And to suggest other forums don't censor posts, publicly ban, silently ban, that politics don't exist, and admins don't' selectively apply certain rules or allow negative tones to those who don't subscribe to the consensus, is also not accurate. I've experienced this (and continue to be subject to it).

One other little known point is that jammers are presented with challenges in the real-world (like when surrounded by other vehicles) that are not represented in these orchestrated tests. Stinger (and others) are apparently experiencing problems in the real-world that don't manifest themselves on test-courses. These situations happen with all jammers, so once again, closed circuit testing with only ONE vehicle approaching does not tell the whole story.

With respect to the Lasershield:

Our tests have proven it to reduce the reflectiveness of plates. But when used alone, the lights will still be huge sources of reflections, which is where the Veil comes in.

There has only been on testing group in history that has demonstrated the effectiveness of combining CMs together, which is unfortunate.

With respect to another passive CM, WAZE:

It is not uncommon for WAZE to out alert every other CM used on my vehicles. I believe it is essential that drivers incorporate that fee app into the defense-in-depth approach.

With respect to an RD:

The V1, Redline, Magnum, Whistler CR93 are very good detectors at detecting laser. While some will discount the need for a good laser detector, I disagree, because I have had real-world experiences where my RD has gone off, when my jammer was incapable of even detecting a laser shot.

A DiD approach reduces the chances that out of alignment heads cause IPTs and can actually reduce the number of heads that are needed in the first place because there is a lesser amount of total reflection with which to contend.

Bottom line, DiD is the way to go, whether Veil is used in the mix or not. To rely on a sole countermeasure is just plain risky. If one is committed to spending thousands of dollars on a single CM, it would make sense to me to re-enforce that investment with other CMs that cost effectively pennies on every dollar invested. That strikes me as common sense.

VG

mirage
07-19-2016, 01:23 PM
Mirage DID attempt to become a distributor for Stinger, that is until he couldn't come up with the bread to afford the buy in.

This statement is completely false. Buy in was never an issue. It was already sitting in an account ready to transfer. I personally chose not to pursue the US/Canadian distributorship purely because we could not agree to terms on the distribution agreement. I cannot get into details as I am bound by NDA, but suffice it to say the risks for me were entirely too high. I consulted several people in the industry that can validate these statements.

Veil Guy
07-19-2016, 02:11 PM
I sold my last Porsche and took off the LI that was mounted. I now own an Aston Martin and just got nailed. I don't want anymore tickets. What is the best solution these days? I think I had 8.4 heads on the LI? I'm not really sure. Thanks.

deckman and anyone else reading this. Please do not take the advice of someone who has a vested interest in selling the counter measures he mentioned. The best lidar jammer on the market today is simply the ALP. However, the person who recommended the other products lost his ability to sell the ALP, and therefore is "guiding" you in another direction. There are websites that offer real unbiased information based on facts, however this one is NOT one of them. As for Veil, please read up on it before putting that stuff on your car.

I suspect I'll be banned and this post edited or deleted, but the truth is the truth.


Salty,

I reviewed your links and here's my take on them.

Vortex's plate treatment was over the top, made the plate look BLACK by a significant over application. Furthermore, the early edition of the first production run of G5 turned out to be heavier in viscosity than was designed and this was due to a mfr variance that was corrected in subsequent runs. We also made good in offering free replacements for a time for those that wanted a more free flowing material and were in fact, entirely transparent and open about that. How many companies do that?

With respect to Mirage's tests on behalf of RALETC, I have always questioned his "testing" methodology and conclusions, which privately he's conceded were more favorable than what was publicly disclosed.

The setup of his Camaro didn't make any sense to me. Blue painters tape on the test vehicle? What was that all about?

The first part of his two-part "test" was done with a makeshift IR camera and taking a laser gun and pointing at a plate cover within inches of the plate. This was ridiculous and made no sense at all, other than perhaps to make Veil look bad. At the time, I gave him the benefit of the doubt as to being inexperienced, but now, I'm not too sure about that.

Instead, if he would have put one coat of the G5 on the plate cover and or a painted surface like a section of an automobile and viewed those things from a good distance under IR illumination, you would have clearly seen (shown) Veil doing what it's designed to do.

I have a series of videos using military grade Gen III night vision device (far exceeding the capability of a commercial or even worse a consumer grade device).

Here's how it's really done:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56L-vYNXhRk

Finally when he did conduct tests as have some others, only a very limited number of guns were used. Interesting that jammer tests conducted are made with 15 or so, but Veil only subject to one or two guns followed with broad conclusions to all gun performances all vehicles all targeting scenarios.

When I had attended a number of their tests, just to name one of the recent guns out there, Veil absolutely kicked butt on the PL4 and yet any subsequent test results are devoid of that gun.

A proper test would include a host of guns, with established baselines with no Veil and then runs made from say 2000 feet, as lasering does happen from such distances as was evident in my latest series of REAL-WORLD police encounters. Only then could you give a more complete picture of how effective Veil or not that CM or DiD approach is on any given vehicle.

Here's a recent real-world example of that:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVEekDsuGmk

The anti Veil bias continues to be evident in so many posts on the other forums almost exclusively from those most connected or heavily invested in their laser jammers or manufacturers of choice (big surprise). There have even been posts/video where actual customers of Veil clearly showing the effectiveness of Veil in reducing targeting range and yet those results were criticized and attempted to be discredited for any host of reasons.

One final point, placing more importance on performance of products on closed-course contrived tests courses instead of how the products work in the real-world is flawed, IMO. Because is fails to acknowledge that there is more than one side to the story and fails to paint a more complete overall picture.

The same is true for close-course radar tests. In the final analysis, what happens in the real-world against real police enforcement is where it really counts. Everything else is academic. It's the equivalent of the tail wagging the dog.

I didn't want to make this thread about the relative effectiveness of Veil or suggest one jammer over the other. The ALP is a solid choice, it's just not infallible. It was to draw attention to the fact that a defense-in-depth approach will always be superior, whether the ALP, LI, 905, Shifter Pro is the choice and I apologize to the reader if my tone came off as too defensive. I am passionate about stealth technology.

VG

Veil Guy
07-19-2016, 02:34 PM
Mirage DID attempt to become a distributor for Stinger, that is until he couldn't come up with the bread to afford the buy in.

This statement is completely false. Buy in was never an issue. It was already sitting in an account ready to transfer. I personally chose not to pursue the US/Canadian distributorship purely because we could not agree to terms on the distribution agreement. I cannot get into details as I am bound by NDA, but suffice it to say the risks for me were entirely too high. I consulted several people in the industry that can validate these statements.


The way I heard it was different and that explanation came directly from you (you know the individuals who you talked to or who have known the arrangements since the AZ shootout) and I've confirmed it with someone who's known.

But I'll even concede your point because it doesn't really matter anyway. What matters, in my view, is that you did either have one, current have one, or had planned to, and you are not alone, meaning that there is indeed a direct financial connected or some sort of vest interest in certain manufacturers over others. At the very least, the optics of that is not good, especially when coupled with the narrative put forth by some that there are not. Just be transparent about it.

Early in this year, Roy also told me that you (senior member of RALETC) had shared some privileged information that you had either learned or was shared to you by representatives of ALP with Stinger--information that was considered proprietary (ie; techniques that made them especially unique or had given them an advantage over others). My understanding is that they weren't happy about that. And you know what, I don't blame them. Engaging in sharing information with a competitor of theirs to their detriment? You speak of some sort of NDA, did you ask permission from ALP to do such a thing? Again, from what I heard, the answer was no.

The whole thing is rotten from top to bottom, so I can't help but shake my head in amazement how some of you guys (certainly not all of you) try to pan some of the narratives you do. It works both ways...that's why you should at least understand while there are those (quiet as some may be) that don't trust your work product.

This sort of thing has played out any number of times in the past from any number of so called "independent" testing groups.
Realize, you guys are the third generation of the community that Roy and RadarBusters was instrumental in creating more than 12 years ago right here on very forum. In my testing experiences there has only been one group that I had the pleasure in participating a couple times that played it straight with its readers and that's been the CAN/AM testing group. I sincerely hope in any future meets they will continue in their established tradition and not get too close to any one retailer or manufacturer because that's were the wheels begin to come off the wagon.

I know I have been at times a polarizing figure, but understand me, my nature it to identify with those like Nigel Farage, Trump (despite his over-the-top rhetoric), Bernie Sanders, Gary Webb, or Carl Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Each of these individuals speak out against the "establishment." I've never been (for better or for worse) the kind to "go along, to get along." It's just my nature.

It's just not my outspoken positions of some of these testing groups or the politics of any given forum, but if those who can recall, I've stood alone (at least for a time) calling Escort out for the early Max product. That wasn't easy to do either and also went against the early online consensus at the time of the Max's introduction.

In so far as the risks you refer to, well that's what it is to be commercially engaged in this industry either as inventor, manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer. Perhaps you have gotten a glimpse into what it is to try to make a livelihood in this industry. It's not fun and games and it certainly is different when you are on the other side of forum participation as a commercial entity, particularly if certain public positions come at the expense of your "brand." If other forum members (especially the most ardent critics) could really appreciate what we the companies face, perhaps, individuals would think twice before punching the keys or clicking their mouses from the comfort of their homes.

RadarBusters
07-20-2016, 10:33 AM
Varying viewpoints expressed and thread has gone off topic. Closing thread.