PDA

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



RedRocket
07-29-2016, 07:52 AM
@Veil Guy -

Re: www.radardetector.net/forums/laser-jammers-general/82584-what-best-out-there-today.html (http://www.radardetector.net/forums/laser-jammers-general/82584-what-best-out-there-today.html) (Post #13....Your statement ~10 lines down)

Question: The PL4 you make reference to -
1. Was that the PL4 that was Owned by "Yellowcab" ?
2. Who were the "Shooters" during the Testing that achieved JTG performance you experienced during the 'sessions' you mention ?
3. Were you one ofr the Shooter's, Observer or Driver ?

I'm surprised w/ your many years of experience that you seem to believe that "Veil" could could be responsible for the performance results you make claim to when Tested against the ProLaser IV. Didn't it seem rather unusual that "Veil" coating would be 'selectively' effective against only a single Lidar gun, but NOT SO against a dozen or more other Lidar guns ?

RedRocket
08-02-2016, 04:34 PM
VG - FYI

I regret to inform you that my former colleagues failed to recognized or understand the ProLaser 4 had a serious flaw when Testing your Veil coating during the Arizona Testing event w/ Radar Roy.

One even offered this statement - "I personally believe this was due to the amount of pulses required by the PL4 to determine a speed reading." This is completely untrue ! When "Yellowcab" retired from the CM community about 1 yr ago, I acquired the Lidar gun from him. The very first time I tried Testing it to insure it operated properly I immediately knew within less than a minute something was wrong. This is a very fast gun to get speed/distance & it wasn't doing so. Also, I could tell from the audio feedback something was amiss. Several minutes later I identified a major flaw...there was considerable misalignment between the H.U.D. "reticle" & the actual IR beam from the transmit lens down range to the target !

During the Testing, I found if I wanted a "lock" onto the Pass. HL @ 1,000ft I had to position the HUD "reticle" slightly above the Driver's corner of the W/S...for the LP I had to maintain the same 'height' at the roof line but place the reticle "dot" ~3ft off to the right of the Driver's side of the car.

Last year 3 days after my Testing the PL4 went back to the O.E.M. for corrective alignment & a Certification of Compliance. It has been working flawlessly since having Tested many,many enthusiasts since.

Veil Guy
08-02-2016, 05:12 PM
VG - FYI

I regret to inform you that my former colleagues failed to recognized or understand the ProLaser 4 had a serious flaw when Testing your Veil coating during the Arizona Testing event w/ Radar Roy.

One even offered this statement - "I personally believe this was due to the amount of pulses required by the PL4 to determine a speed reading." This is completely untrue ! When "Yellowcab" retired from the CM community about 1 yr ago, I acquired the Lidar gun from him. The very first time I tried Testing it to insure it operated properly I immediately knew within less than a minute something was wrong. This is a very fast gun to get speed/distance & it wasn't doing so. Also, I could tell from the audio feedback something was amiss. Several minutes later I identified a major flaw...there was considerable misalignment between the H.U.D. "reticle" & the actual IR beam from the transmit lens down range to the target !

During the Testing, I found if I wanted a "lock" onto the Pass. HL @ 1,000ft I had to position the HUD "reticle" slightly above the Driver's corner of the W/S...for the LP I had to maintain the same 'height' at the roof line but place the reticle "dot" ~3ft off to the right of the Driver's side of the car.

Last year 3 days after my Testing the PL4 went back to the O.E.M. for corrective alignment & a Certification of Compliance. It has been working flawlessly since having Tested many,many enthusiasts since.

No worries RR, it was tested with a PL4 about a year earlier and we ate its lunch then too. But I appreciate your commentary about your former colleagues not recognizing or understanding certain things when they test. Your observations confirm some of my concerns with some (not all) testers. Many individuals expressed concerns about how the laser testing was conducted in AZ; the manufacturer colluding that occurred; the hidden meetings with some manufacturers that were spotted by some before they scattered; the manipulation of certain results or the outright exclusion of them.

Unfortunately Roy was not present at the time as he was conducting the radar portion (quite responsibly, I might add). I fully expected some blow-back for speaking up (and I know you weren't in attendance as most here weren't), but there are a lot of fence riders out there...I'm just not one of them.

If you ever get a chance to travel to Buffalo, I do recommend participating in the CAN/AM jamming fest. In the two times I had attended their event, it was more of a genuine enthusiast gathering, not a manufacturer and retailer love fest. I found Vic ran a great group and didn't carry hidden agendas. His tests reminded me of the simpler times many years ago when testing groups just got together to enjoy the hobby and have some fun. Yes, they were the good old days. :)

Back to one of those earlier tests in NJ, if you'll recall you yourself commented to me that you observed when your vehicle was facing mine which was treated with Veil that your V1 stopped alerting to reflected laser.

Your assertion that Veil was only effective on one gun is also inaccurate. What is effective in your definition? JTG only performance? It's really a matter of degree. When you consider my untreated vehicle was clockable with a DE at 4000 feet and only clockable at somewhere between 900-1000 against that specific gun, I would call it very effective, nearly a 75% reduction. Is it effective enough on the vehicle, in that specific test, for a specific individual? That's a subjective question. Stealth technology has its limitations and the differences one experiences in performance has to do more with what any gun can do with the remaining parts of the vehicle that are NOT treated.

To use the same scenario above, at that NJ test we clocked a guy in a black sweat suite walking nearly 2000 feet away from us. So to get a big silver sedan down to about 1000 feet is no small feat, in my book.

I fully accept that our performance is not sufficient for some that can afford a $2000+ active CM and that's fine. But actives are also NOT infallible and when they fail IPT occurs at ANY distance, even far far away. This doesn't happen with Veil, btw.

In the final analysis RR, what matters most to our development team is how we do in the real-world, not slow-pass dead-on tripod mounted/steadied contrived tests. I mean, real police, real laser usage, real encounters (off-axis, high speed, or overhead flyover shots) when one's driver's licenses is on the line and our last go over the past several weeks against the MD state police we did extremely well.

Here's the collection of experiences (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu-3fk33Sv0&list=PLxCvxw5IGj7EhMLlxLBjS2kFzYtZ_Zsd3) if you hadn't already seen them. What impressed us even more was that these guys have incorporated DESLs into the mix. I didn't observe any DECs, however which is not to say that they're not being deployed.

So please consider this, for a product that runs one 20th the cost and get you this degree of protection is a win any which way you cut it. We're very pleased with our performance in the real-world and the drivers' who actually use it overwhelmingly do as well. We're not perfect, to be sure, but rest assured we're continually working on further research and development in response to some of these newer more difficult to foil (and that also means by active jammers too).

Enough said, I don't want to belabor my points any more. If you were ever to actually use it in the real-world, then I believe we could have a genuine discussion about the pros and cons of passive evasion technology. This one, now, is mostly an academic one.

Hope your Challenger is holding up well for you. My 5 is creeping very close to 300K and still going strong. :)

RedRocket
08-02-2016, 06:07 PM
If you ever get a chance to travel to Buffalo, I do recommend participating in the CAN/AM jamming fest.

Hope your Challenger is holding up well for you. My 5 is creeping very close to 300K and still going strong. :)I've been the Primary guest Shooter for the past 3-4yrs @ the Can/AM event. You may want to think twice about running against me !

My 7yr old ride is still running strong & doesn't burn a drop of oil, I never beat the car & stay on top of maintenence.

Veil Guy
08-02-2016, 07:50 PM
If you ever get a chance to travel to Buffalo, I do recommend participating in the CAN/AM jamming fest.

Hope your Challenger is holding up well for you. My 5 is creeping very close to 300K and still going strong. :)I've been the Primary guest Shooter for the past 3-4yrs @ the Can/AM event. You may want to think twice about running against me !

My 7yr old ride is still running strong & doesn't burn a drop of oil, I never beat the car & stay on top of maintenence.


Didn't know that. They're a great bunch of guys.

I wish I could say the same about my 5, at 289K it consumes about a quart every 3K, which I think considering its age, isn't too bad. I just don't want to part with it, I love the E39s. :)

Qui-Gon
08-03-2016, 09:29 AM
If you ever get a chance to travel to Buffalo, I do recommend participating in the CAN/AM jamming fest.

Hope your Challenger is holding up well for you. My 5 is creeping very close to 300K and still going strong. :)I've been the Primary guest Shooter for the past 3-4yrs @ the Can/AM event. You may want to think twice about running against me !

My 7yr old ride is still running strong & doesn't burn a drop of oil, I never beat the car & stay on top of maintenence.
Nothing planned in the near or distant future. I work overnights and have honestly no energy to run a meet, let alone organize one. Hopefully RR can test my setup next time he's in town.

Sent from my LGL44VL using Tapatalk

RedRocket
08-03-2016, 10:53 AM
Didn't know that. They're a great bunch of guys.Most of the "Originals" have moved on to other interests in Life,occasionally a couple of olde hands will show up for a Meet.

But back to the Main topic here, I just want to insure you understand that b/c of the situation w/ the PL4, those Tests in AZ have to be considered totally INVALID. As there is no way now to determine how long the PL4 was in a fault condition,...IMO - ALL historical Tests previously w/ that Lidar gun are now suspect & must be discounted, too !

Veil Guy
08-03-2016, 01:05 PM
Didn't know that. They're a great bunch of guys.Most of the "Originals" have moved on to other interests in Life,occasionally a couple of olde hands will show up for a Meet.

But back to the Main topic here, I just want to insure you understand that b/c of the situation w/ the PL4, those Tests in AZ have to be considered totally INVALID. As there is no way now to determine how long the PL4 was in a fault condition,...IMO - ALL historical Tests previously w/ that Lidar gun are now suspect & must be discounted, too !

Here are some other results for what's its worth.

Result Format: PHL, CM, DHL
Pro III = 804,521,838
Prolite + = 498,792,823
Truspeed 1 = 537,834,1011
Truspeed 2 = 894,773.844
Truspeed S = 145, 436,547
UL LRB = 947, 1153, 653
Stalker XLR = 947, NT, NT
Stalker 1 = 487*. NT, NT (*Note: Stalker was SILENT until PT)
Stalker 2 = 2316*, NT, NT (*Note: range was made on a non-veiled foglight)

Were they ALL faulty? :)

And most importantly, no reasonable individual who doesn't have an axe to grind can deny the results of those videos and at the end of the day, that's where it counts. Everything else is academic.

'Nough said...

RedRocket
08-03-2016, 01:55 PM
Didn't know that. They're a great bunch of guys.Most of the "Originals" have moved on to other interests in Life,occasionally a couple of olde hands will show up for a Meet.

But back to the Main topic here, I just want to insure you understand that b/c of the situation w/ the PL4, those Tests in AZ have to be considered totally INVALID. As there is no way now to determine how long the PL4 was in a fault condition,...IMO - ALL historical Tests previously w/ that Lidar gun are now suspect & must be discounted, too !

Here are some other results for what's its worth.

Result Format: PHL, CM, DHL
Pro III = 804,521,838
Prolite + = 498,792,823
Truspeed 1 = 537,834,1011
Truspeed 2 = 894,773.844
Truspeed S = 145, 436,547
UL LRB = 947, 1153, 653
Stalker XLR = 947, NT, NT
Stalker 1 = 487*. NT, NT (*Note: Stalker was SILENT until PT)
Stalker 2 = 2316*, NT, NT (*Note: range was made on a non-veiled foglight)

Were they ALL faulty? :)

And most importantly, no reasonable individual who doesn't have an axe to grind can deny the results of those videos and at the end of the day, that's where it counts. Everything else is academic.

'Nough said...Well, almost 'nuff said, as in my OP, you havn't I.D.'d the Shooter in your case, either.

Veil Guy
08-03-2016, 03:01 PM
Didn't know that. They're a great bunch of guys.Most of the "Originals" have moved on to other interests in Life,occasionally a couple of olde hands will show up for a Meet.

But back to the Main topic here, I just want to insure you understand that b/c of the situation w/ the PL4, those Tests in AZ have to be considered totally INVALID. As there is no way now to determine how long the PL4 was in a fault condition,...IMO - ALL historical Tests previously w/ that Lidar gun are now suspect & must be discounted, too !

Here are some other results for what's its worth.

Result Format: PHL, CM, DHL
Pro III = 804,521,838
Prolite + = 498,792,823
Truspeed 1 = 537,834,1011
Truspeed 2 = 894,773.844
Truspeed S = 145, 436,547
UL LRB = 947, 1153, 653
Stalker XLR = 947, NT, NT
Stalker 1 = 487*. NT, NT (*Note: Stalker was SILENT until PT)
Stalker 2 = 2316*, NT, NT (*Note: range was made on a non-veiled foglight)

Were they ALL faulty? :)

And most importantly, no reasonable individual who doesn't have an axe to grind can deny the results of those videos and at the end of the day, that's where it counts. Everything else is academic.

'Nough said...Well, almost 'nuff said, as in my OP, you havn't I.D.'d the Shooter in your case, either.

You were there. Who was doing the shooting? Was it RR, YC? I don't remember, but it certainly wasn't me.

Look, RR, is this an effort to discredit every good result? I don't get it. I was the driver as I am generally. I wasn't running the tests.

Care to comment on the real-world results? Or do you discount all of them as well? I guess you wish to remain a non-believer. Only if you actually used the product, perhaps you would form a different opinion, but maybe not, you are heavily invested into actives, so I get that.

BTW, be careful what you ask for, I can target jammers in a way that defeats them. You probably already know at least one of the techniques to do so, but let's not talk about this in public. Don't need to educate more LEOs than those that already know. ;)

'Nough said.

RedRocket
08-04-2016, 04:19 AM
You were there. Who was doing the shooting? Was it RR, YC? I don't remember, but it certainly wasn't me.- It wasn't me doing any Shooting, for the last several Meets I've had to be at the start line w/ a bad attitude organizing the the flow of traffic b/c to many times the group is like a bunch of GD women in a coffee klatch running their mouths chit-chatting instead of using some discipline to efficiently completing the task at hand of getting the job done ! From 1600ft away how the hell do I know who the Shooter is & that's why I asked you...YOU were at the Starting Line, not me.

Look, RR, is this an effort to discredit every good result? I don't get it. I was the driver as I am generally. I wasn't running the tests.- what are you talking about, I'm only discounting a single Lidar gun b/c of the out-of-spec condition the PL4 was in !

Care to comment on the real-world results? Or do you discount all of them as well? I guess you wish to remain a non-believer. Only if you actually used the product, perhaps you would form a different opinion, but maybe not, you are heavily invested into actives, so I get that.- I won't comment on the real-world results b/c I don't know who the Shooter was. Actually, for your information I DO use your product (G4) on a Laser Shield LP cover on the Front, so you "don't get that" !

BTW, be careful what you ask for, I can target jammers in a way that defeats them. You probably already know at least one of the techniques to do so, but let's not talk about this in public. Don't need to educate more LEOs than those that already know. ;)- as a VERY experienced Shooter I'm well aware of various methods to do what you hint at.

'Nough said.Lose the chip on your shoulder, you give me attitude like that & you're likely to find you'll be treated the same from people.

SaltyinNJ
08-05-2016, 08:27 AM
You were there. Who was doing the shooting? Was it RR, YC? I don't remember, but it certainly wasn't me.- It wasn't me doing any Shooting, for the last several Meets I've had to be at the start line w/ a bad attitude organizing the the flow of traffic b/c to many times the group is like a bunch of GD women in a coffee klatch running their mouths chit-chatting instead of using some discipline to efficiently completing the task at hand of getting the job done ! From 1600ft away how the hell do I know who the Shooter is & that's why I asked you...YOU were at the Starting Line, not me.

Look, RR, is this an effort to discredit every good result? I don't get it. I was the driver as I am generally. I wasn't running the tests.- what are you talking about, I'm only discounting a single Lidar gun b/c of the out-of-spec condition the PL4 was in !

Care to comment on the real-world results? Or do you discount all of them as well? I guess you wish to remain a non-believer. Only if you actually used the product, perhaps you would form a different opinion, but maybe not, you are heavily invested into actives, so I get that.- I won't comment on the real-world results b/c I don't know who the Shooter was. Actually, for your information I DO use your product (G4) on a Laser Shield LP cover on the Front, so you "don't get that" !

BTW, be careful what you ask for, I can target jammers in a way that defeats them. You probably already know at least one of the techniques to do so, but let's not talk about this in public. Don't need to educate more LEOs than those that already know. ;)- as a VERY experienced Shooter I'm well aware of various methods to do what you hint at.

'Nough said.Lose the chip on your shoulder, you give me attitude like that & you're likely to find you'll be treated the same from people.

I'm assuming this is the meet in NJ where you were getting frustrated at the start line until I took over comms? This is the same meet that VeilGuy left midway through the day without even telling anyone, because he was upset that we weren't testing what he wanted tested, due to having so many member's cars to test. If so, Yellowcab and Mirage were doing the shooting.

Veil Guy
08-05-2016, 02:13 PM
You were there. Who was doing the shooting? Was it RR, YC? I don't remember, but it certainly wasn't me.- It wasn't me doing any Shooting, for the last several Meets I've had to be at the start line w/ a bad attitude organizing the the flow of traffic b/c to many times the group is like a bunch of GD women in a coffee klatch running their mouths chit-chatting instead of using some discipline to efficiently completing the task at hand of getting the job done ! From 1600ft away how the hell do I know who the Shooter is & that's why I asked you...YOU were at the Starting Line, not me.

Look, RR, is this an effort to discredit every good result? I don't get it. I was the driver as I am generally. I wasn't running the tests.- what are you talking about, I'm only discounting a single Lidar gun b/c of the out-of-spec condition the PL4 was in !

Care to comment on the real-world results? Or do you discount all of them as well? I guess you wish to remain a non-believer. Only if you actually used the product, perhaps you would form a different opinion, but maybe not, you are heavily invested into actives, so I get that.- I won't comment on the real-world results b/c I don't know who the Shooter was. Actually, for your information I DO use your product (G4) on a Laser Shield LP cover on the Front, so you "don't get that" !

BTW, be careful what you ask for, I can target jammers in a way that defeats them. You probably already know at least one of the techniques to do so, but let's not talk about this in public. Don't need to educate more LEOs than those that already know. ;)- as a VERY experienced Shooter I'm well aware of various methods to do what you hint at.

'Nough said.Lose the chip on your shoulder, you give me attitude like that & you're likely to find you'll be treated the same from people.

I'm assuming this is the meet in NJ where you were getting frustrated at the start line until I took over comms? This is the same meet that VeilGuy left midway through the day without even telling anyone, because he was upset that we weren't testing what he wanted tested, due to having so many member's cars to test. If so, Yellowcab and Mirage were doing the shooting.

Actually Salty, there were a couple and I am not sure this meet (that I HAD to leave early for an evening engagement, btw), was the actual one, I believe there could have been another a little earlier, but it's been awhile so you may be right. But in any event, I believe YC was at least the shooter in either case. Being the driver, I am not sure, but it sounds right, what you said.

CliftonParkGMan
08-26-2016, 09:37 PM
VG - FYI

I regret to inform you that my former colleagues failed to recognized or understand the ProLaser 4 had a serious flaw when Testing your Veil coating during the Arizona Testing event w/ Radar Roy.

One even offered this statement - "I personally believe this was due to the amount of pulses required by the PL4 to determine a speed reading." This is completely untrue ! When "Yellowcab" retired from the CM community about 1 yr ago, I acquired the Lidar gun from him. The very first time I tried Testing it to insure it operated properly I immediately knew within less than a minute something was wrong. This is a very fast gun to get speed/distance & it wasn't doing so. Also, I could tell from the audio feedback something was amiss. Several minutes later I identified a major flaw...there was considerable misalignment between the H.U.D. "reticle" & the actual IR beam from the transmit lens down range to the target !

During the Testing, I found if I wanted a "lock" onto the Pass. HL @ 1,000ft I had to position the HUD "reticle" slightly above the Driver's corner of the W/S...for the LP I had to maintain the same 'height' at the roof line but place the reticle "dot" ~3ft off to the right of the Driver's side of the car.

Last year 3 days after my Testing the PL4 went back to the O.E.M. for corrective alignment & a Certification of Compliance. It has been working flawlessly since having Tested many,many enthusiasts since.

No worries RR, it was tested with a PL4 about a year earlier and we ate its lunch then too. But I appreciate your commentary about your former colleagues not recognizing or understanding certain things when they test. Your observations confirm some of my concerns with some (not all) testers. Many individuals expressed concerns about how the laser testing was conducted in AZ; the manufacturer colluding that occurred; the hidden meetings with some manufacturers that were spotted by some before they scattered; the manipulation of certain results or the outright exclusion of them.

Unfortunately Roy was not present at the time as he was conducting the radar portion (quite responsibly, I might add). I fully expected some blow-back for speaking up (and I know you weren't in attendance as most here weren't), but there are a lot of fence riders out there...I'm just not one of them.

If you ever get a chance to travel to Buffalo, I do recommend participating in the CAN/AM jamming fest. In the two times I had attended their event, it was more of a genuine enthusiast gathering, not a manufacturer and retailer love fest. I found Vic ran a great group and didn't carry hidden agendas. His tests reminded me of the simpler times many years ago when testing groups just got together to enjoy the hobby and have some fun. Yes, they were the good old days. :)

Back to one of those earlier tests in NJ, if you'll recall you yourself commented to me that you observed when your vehicle was facing mine which was treated with Veil that your V1 stopped alerting to reflected laser.

Your assertion that Veil was only effective on one gun is also inaccurate. What is effective in your definition? JTG only performance? It's really a matter of degree. When you consider my untreated vehicle was clockable with a DE at 4000 feet and only clockable at somewhere between 900-1000 against that specific gun, I would call it very effective, nearly a 75% reduction. Is it effective enough on the vehicle, in that specific test, for a specific individual? That's a subjective question. Stealth technology has its limitations and the differences one experiences in performance has to do more with what any gun can do with the remaining parts of the vehicle that are NOT treated.

To use the same scenario above, at that NJ test we clocked a guy in a black sweat suite walking nearly 2000 feet away from us. So to get a big silver sedan down to about 1000 feet is no small feat, in my book.

I fully accept that our performance is not sufficient for some that can afford a $2000+ active CM and that's fine. But actives are also NOT infallible and when they fail IPT occurs at ANY distance, even far far away. This doesn't happen with Veil, btw.

In the final analysis RR, what matters most to our development team is how we do in the real-world, not slow-pass dead-on tripod mounted/steadied contrived tests. I mean, real police, real laser usage, real encounters (off-axis, high speed, or overhead flyover shots) when one's driver's licenses is on the line and our last go over the past several weeks against the MD state police we did extremely well.

Here's the collection of experiences (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu-3fk33Sv0&list=PLxCvxw5IGj7EhMLlxLBjS2kFzYtZ_Zsd3) if you hadn't already seen them. What impressed us even more was that these guys have incorporated DESLs into the mix. I didn't observe any DECs, however which is not to say that they're not being deployed.

So please consider this, for a product that runs one 20th the cost and get you this degree of protection is a win any which way you cut it. We're very pleased with our performance in the real-world and the drivers' who actually use it overwhelmingly do as well. We're not perfect, to be sure, but rest assured we're continually working on further research and development in response to some of these newer more difficult to foil (and that also means by active jammers too).

Enough said, I don't want to belabor my points any more. If you were ever to actually use it in the real-world, then I believe we could have a genuine discussion about the pros and cons of passive evasion technology. This one, now, is mostly an academic one.

Hope your Challenger is holding up well for you. My 5 is creeping very close to 300K and still going strong. :)

Veil Guy - I have to say I have been using Veil since the primitive "shifters" and still use Veil with my ALP's even though I tested my setup with no punch though. I do it exactly for the reasons you articulated they do help in "real world" LEO LIDAR enforcement situations. Many of the newer LEO's don't have the training or experience of the original operators.

The one thing that I know is true in every time I have tested with Veil is that the reflective nature of headlights and chrome logos is reduced buying a second or two. In the real world LEO's who can't lock on right away move on to the next potential violator. I used to put it on my Front Plate when I lived in a 2 plate state as well. I will continue to keep Veil as part of my arsenal.

Veil Guy
08-28-2016, 03:17 PM
VG - FYI

I regret to inform you that my former colleagues failed to recognized or understand the ProLaser 4 had a serious flaw when Testing your Veil coating during the Arizona Testing event w/ Radar Roy.

One even offered this statement - "I personally believe this was due to the amount of pulses required by the PL4 to determine a speed reading." This is completely untrue ! When "Yellowcab" retired from the CM community about 1 yr ago, I acquired the Lidar gun from him. The very first time I tried Testing it to insure it operated properly I immediately knew within less than a minute something was wrong. This is a very fast gun to get speed/distance & it wasn't doing so. Also, I could tell from the audio feedback something was amiss. Several minutes later I identified a major flaw...there was considerable misalignment between the H.U.D. "reticle" & the actual IR beam from the transmit lens down range to the target !

During the Testing, I found if I wanted a "lock" onto the Pass. HL @ 1,000ft I had to position the HUD "reticle" slightly above the Driver's corner of the W/S...for the LP I had to maintain the same 'height' at the roof line but place the reticle "dot" ~3ft off to the right of the Driver's side of the car.

Last year 3 days after my Testing the PL4 went back to the O.E.M. for corrective alignment & a Certification of Compliance. It has been working flawlessly since having Tested many,many enthusiasts since.

No worries RR, it was tested with a PL4 about a year earlier and we ate its lunch then too. But I appreciate your commentary about your former colleagues not recognizing or understanding certain things when they test. Your observations confirm some of my concerns with some (not all) testers. Many individuals expressed concerns about how the laser testing was conducted in AZ; the manufacturer colluding that occurred; the hidden meetings with some manufacturers that were spotted by some before they scattered; the manipulation of certain results or the outright exclusion of them.

Unfortunately Roy was not present at the time as he was conducting the radar portion (quite responsibly, I might add). I fully expected some blow-back for speaking up (and I know you weren't in attendance as most here weren't), but there are a lot of fence riders out there...I'm just not one of them.

If you ever get a chance to travel to Buffalo, I do recommend participating in the CAN/AM jamming fest. In the two times I had attended their event, it was more of a genuine enthusiast gathering, not a manufacturer and retailer love fest. I found Vic ran a great group and didn't carry hidden agendas. His tests reminded me of the simpler times many years ago when testing groups just got together to enjoy the hobby and have some fun. Yes, they were the good old days. :)

Back to one of those earlier tests in NJ, if you'll recall you yourself commented to me that you observed when your vehicle was facing mine which was treated with Veil that your V1 stopped alerting to reflected laser.

Your assertion that Veil was only effective on one gun is also inaccurate. What is effective in your definition? JTG only performance? It's really a matter of degree. When you consider my untreated vehicle was clockable with a DE at 4000 feet and only clockable at somewhere between 900-1000 against that specific gun, I would call it very effective, nearly a 75% reduction. Is it effective enough on the vehicle, in that specific test, for a specific individual? That's a subjective question. Stealth technology has its limitations and the differences one experiences in performance has to do more with what any gun can do with the remaining parts of the vehicle that are NOT treated.

To use the same scenario above, at that NJ test we clocked a guy in a black sweat suite walking nearly 2000 feet away from us. So to get a big silver sedan down to about 1000 feet is no small feat, in my book.

I fully accept that our performance is not sufficient for some that can afford a $2000+ active CM and that's fine. But actives are also NOT infallible and when they fail IPT occurs at ANY distance, even far far away. This doesn't happen with Veil, btw.

In the final analysis RR, what matters most to our development team is how we do in the real-world, not slow-pass dead-on tripod mounted/steadied contrived tests. I mean, real police, real laser usage, real encounters (off-axis, high speed, or overhead flyover shots) when one's driver's licenses is on the line and our last go over the past several weeks against the MD state police we did extremely well.

Here's the collection of experiences (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu-3fk33Sv0&list=PLxCvxw5IGj7EhMLlxLBjS2kFzYtZ_Zsd3) if you hadn't already seen them. What impressed us even more was that these guys have incorporated DESLs into the mix. I didn't observe any DECs, however which is not to say that they're not being deployed.

So please consider this, for a product that runs one 20th the cost and get you this degree of protection is a win any which way you cut it. We're very pleased with our performance in the real-world and the drivers' who actually use it overwhelmingly do as well. We're not perfect, to be sure, but rest assured we're continually working on further research and development in response to some of these newer more difficult to foil (and that also means by active jammers too).

Enough said, I don't want to belabor my points any more. If you were ever to actually use it in the real-world, then I believe we could have a genuine discussion about the pros and cons of passive evasion technology. This one, now, is mostly an academic one.

Hope your Challenger is holding up well for you. My 5 is creeping very close to 300K and still going strong. :)

Veil Guy - I have to say I have been using Veil since the primitive "shifters" and still use Veil with my ALP's even though I tested my setup with no punch though. I do it exactly for the reasons you articulated they do help in "real world" LEO LIDAR enforcement situations. Many of the newer LEO's don't have the training or experience of the original operators.

The one thing that I know is true in every time I have tested with Veil is that the reflective nature of headlights and chrome logos is reduced buying a second or two. In the real world LEO's who can't lock on right away move on to the next potential violator. I used to put it on my Front Plate when I lived in a 2 plate state as well. I will continue to keep Veil as part of my arsenal.

Wow. It's so refreshing to hear from those that actually use Veil in the real-world and can appreciate its benefits. The vast vast majority of Veil detractors have never even used the product.

Thanks for your honest and unbiased commentary, it's greatly appreciated! :thumbsup:

VG