Food for thought, ZR4 + STI-r Remote

**Lucky225** · 03-03-2008, 05:43 AM

the 9500CI seems very attractive for it's GPS capabilities, but if it's anything like the 9500i, I can't afford getting a true signal locked out. The STI-r looks like a more promising detector reception wise and has super KA band 10 bands selectable on/off. My thinking is the STi-r and the ZR4 or a real jammer like the LI would probably be a better combination. Just some thoughts for those of you putting your money up on pre-order.

**Esoterica** · 03-03-2008, 06:08 AM

In reality, by design its very likely you could get a true signal locked out with the 9500ci and its automatic lock out feature (that the 9500i does not have). I'm sure its going to be a feature you can disable in the settings though. So if you can get over the price of the 9500ci (I can't) then your issue you have with it is actually a non issue entirely.

As far as the 9500i goes, you have been grossly misinformed about it just locking out a true signal. Its 100% impossible for the 9500i to just lock out a true signal, or any signal for that matter.

The only way any signal in the 9500i can be locked out is if you decide and you push the button to lock it out, no if's and's or but's about it. If YOU activate the lockout feature on a true K or X band alert yes YOU (not the detector) will lock it out, even YOU though can't lockout a Ka band alert though so at least YOU would be safe there.

I thank the GOL for spreading so much disinformation on the 9500i lockout feature so its no fault of your own for thinking that, I blame them, wish they would correct that, it severely discredits them.

**jimbonzzz** · 03-03-2008, 08:15 AM

Esoterica: Please provide a link to the information you have a problem with, and explain in detail why you consider it disinformation, and why you think it severely discredits us!!!

I've seen you mention this multiple times on here, and I would like to get to the bottom of it! We NEVER spread any disinformation about the 9500i!

I eagerly await your reply.

**focalcivic** · 03-03-2008, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Lucky225

the 9500CI seems very attractive for it's GPS capabilities, but if it's anything like the 9500i, I can't afford getting a true signal locked out. The STI-r looks like a more promising detector reception wise and has super KA band 10 bands selectable on/off. My thinking is the STi-r and the ZR4 or a real jammer like the LI would probably be a better combination. Just some thoughts for those of you putting your money up on pre-order.

Do the math, if you get the STI-R with ZR4 heads then it will be the same price as the 9500ci, Might as well get the 9500ci and don't use the GPS.

**djrams80** · 03-03-2008, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by jimbonzzz

Esoterica: Please provide a link to the information you have a problem with, and explain in detail why you consider it disinformation, and why you think it severely discredits us!!!

I've seen you mention this multiple times on here, and I would like to get to the bottom of it! We NEVER spread any disinformation about the 9500i!

I eagerly await your reply.

Jim,

While I do not take near as strong of a stance as Esoterica, I do believe that the TruLock feature works extremely well and think that it would be almost impossible to completely lock out a true signal. The GOL scenario is absolute worst case and seems extremely unlikely to ever occur in real life. It sure does seem to scare people away from the 9500i, even if that was not the intent. Here is my previous explanation of why:

Originally Posted by djrams80

Your V1 will show 1 bogey also. Two signals that close together will show up as 1 signal on any RD. All this explaining makes it look like this is a concern. It's not. The TruLock feature works perfectly and is not an issue. People come up with worst case scenarios to try and find fault with it. There is basically no difference between this and muting your RD because it went off at the same place it always does. And, locking out falses is totally voluntary. If the user is scared to use it, they need not.

Originally Posted by djrams80

I still disagree. No one is speeding in the parking lot. Furthermore, the LEO is not monitoring the parking lot. So, the only option left is that someone is speeding past the parking lot. So, let's say the LEO is parked in said parking lot. In this case, the LEO's radar signal will be detectable at a much further distance from the parking lot than the store's door opener. Thusly, the locked out area is only so far from the parking lot while the LEO's radar signal is detectable much further than the locked out area. Therefore the LEO's signal is detected by the 9500i as the user approaches the parking lot and the 9500i alerts since the signal is received outside the locked out area, regardless of frequency. The 9500i does not know where the signal originated from, only where it is detected.

Please let me know if my logic is flawed somewhere.

**Jabomb9** · 03-03-2008, 09:17 AM

Everybody keeps saying that the video is an extremely unlikely scenario, but I have to argue that. I encounter situations like that all the time - real LEOs hidden in the barrage of other K band door openers in shopping centers.

And in my experiences, the V1 shows a bogey for the interior and exterior door openers. I'm not trying to "pick a side", but I just don't understand why exactly the GOL video scenario would be unlikely, or 'extremely rare'.

**djrams80** · 03-03-2008, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Jabomb9

Everybody keeps saying that the video is an extremely unlikely scenario, but I have to argue that. I encounter situations like that all the time - real LEOs hidden in the barrage of other K band door openers in shopping centers.

And in my experiences, the V1 shows a bogey for the interior and exterior door openers. I'm not trying to "pick a side", but I just don't understand why exactly the GOL video scenario would be unlikely, or 'extremely rare'.

My biggest argument about that is the LEO radar gun's detectable range.

**TSi+WRX** · 03-03-2008, 09:40 AM

Is the video of the "true signal being locked out" legit?

I certainly think so.

Is the concern "real?"

Again, I also certainly think so.

What are the chances that would happen, in real life?

Hard to say. I'd venture a guess to say that it would be rather uncommon - but that the possibility certainly cannot be said to not exist (or be so rare as to be nonexistent).

It's all about properly using the "Risk Scenarios" set forward by CJR in his stickied posting about the 9500i ("Tricks and Tips").

The RD is just a tool - even one as "smart" as the 9500i still will require valid end-user inputs to not only optimize its performance, but also in the case of this very unique detector's abilities, to insure that it is not obscuring true threats (which *can* happen).

The "intelligence" of the detector is a double-edged sword - and the end-user must realize this fact, and understand the risks that he/she undertakes when utilizing the advanced features.

**jimbonzzz** · 03-03-2008, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by djrams80

The GOL scenario is absolute worst case and seems extremely unlikely to ever occur in real life. It sure does seem to scare people away from the 9500i, even if that was not the intent.

What exactly is the "GOL Scenario"?

From what I recall, we released several videos which all showed slightly different scenarios. Some showed TruLock "working" as one might hope, while others might indicate some things for an smart operator to be concerned about if he wanted to use the feature wisely.

For someone to pick out only one of these videos and then claim it scared tham away from using the feature and than claim that "GOL is spreading misinformation" is WAY off the mark.

Originally Posted by djrams80

Your V1 will show 1 bogey also. Two signals that close together will show up as 1 signal on any RD. All this explaining makes it look like this is a concern. It's not. The TruLock feature works perfectly and is not an issue. People come up with worst case scenarios to try and find fault with it. There is basically no difference between this and muting your RD because it went off at the same place it always does. And, locking out falses is totally voluntary. If the user is scared to use it, they need not.

I agree, mostly. Personally, I believe that TruLock "works", at least within within it's design constraints. Sure, people some up with worst case scenarios, but these scenarios are what drivers face in the real-world, and these are the scenarios that get people tickets.

Originally Posted by djrams80

I still disagree. No one is speeding in the parking lot. Furthermore, the LEO is not monitoring the parking lot. So, the only option left is that someone is speeding past the parking lot. So, let's say the LEO is parked in said parking lot. In this case, the LEO's radar signal will be detectable at a much further distance from the parking lot than the store's door opener. Thusly, the locked out area is only so far from the parking lot while the LEO's radar signal is detectable much further than the locked out area. Therefore the LEO's signal is detected by the 9500i as the user approaches the parking lot and the 9500i alerts since the signal is received outside the locked out area, regardless of frequency. The 9500i does not know where the signal originated from, only where it is detected.

Maybe not. But again, you choose to ignore all the other videos released at the same time where radar was not operated in a parking lot whatsoever.

Sure, in a constant-on scenario facing in your direction, you should definitely detect the radar outside the lockout area. Forward-facing? Might as well forget it. Forward-facing isn't something "special" or new technology either.

Believe me, I would LOVE to be living in a dream world where all radar traps are constant-on and facing my direction. Then I wouldn't have to waste my hard earned $$$ on a high-end detector, I could spend $30 on a Cobra and still be protected. But unfortunately, that just isn't the way it is :cry:

**djrams80** · 03-03-2008, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by jimbonzzz

Originally Posted by djrams80

The GOL scenario is absolute worst case and seems extremely unlikely to ever occur in real life. It sure does seem to scare people away from the 9500i, even if that was not the intent.

What exactly is the "GOL Scenario"?

From what I recall, we released several videos which all showed slightly different scenarios. Some showed TruLock "working" as one might hope, while others might indicate some things for an smart operator to be concerned about if he wanted to use the feature wisely.

For someone to pick out only one of these videos and then claim it scared tham away from using the feature and than claim that "GOL is spreading misinformation" is WAY off the mark.

Originally Posted by djrams80

Your V1 will show 1 bogey also. Two signals that close together will show up as 1 signal on any RD. All this explaining makes it look like this is a concern. It's not. The TruLock feature works perfectly and is not an issue. People come up with worst case scenarios to try and find fault with it. There is basically no difference between this and muting your RD because it went off at the same place it always does. And, locking out falses is totally voluntary. If the user is scared to use it, they need not.

I agree, mostly. Personally, I believe that TruLock "works", at least within within it's design constraints. Sure, people some up with worst case scenarios, but these scenarios are what drivers face in the real-world, and these are the scenarios that get people tickets.

Originally Posted by djrams80

I still disagree. No one is speeding in the parking lot. Furthermore, the LEO is not monitoring the parking lot. So, the only option left is that someone is speeding past the parking lot. So, let's say the LEO is parked in said parking lot. In this case, the LEO's radar signal will be detectable at a much further distance from the parking lot than the store's door opener. Thusly, the locked out area is only so far from the parking lot while the LEO's radar signal is detectable much further than the locked out area. Therefore the LEO's signal is detected by the 9500i as the user approaches the parking lot and the 9500i alerts since the signal is received outside the locked out area, regardless of frequency. The 9500i does not know where the signal originated from, only where it is detected.

Maybe not. But again, you choose to ignore all the other videos released at the same time where radar was not operated in a parking lot whatsoever.

Sure, in a constant-on scenario facing in your direction, you should definitely detect the radar outside the lockout area. Forward-facing? Might as well forget it. Forward-facing isn't something "special" or new technology either.

Believe me, I would LOVE to be living in a dream world where all radar traps are constant-on and facing my direction. Then I wouldn't have to waste my hard earned $$$ on a high-end detector, I could spend $30 on a Cobra and still be protected. But unfortunately, that just isn't the way it is :cry:

I have seen 4 videos, one in what looks like someone's garage:
YouTube - Escort 9500i TrueLock Problems
one in the parking lot which i can no longer find, one around a slight curve:
YouTube - Escort 9500i Locking Out Real Police Radar
and one that seemed to curve behind the parking lot which I also can no longer find.

The one in the garage is totally false from what I've seen in real life. It probably has something to do with the GPS knowing that the RD never left the area or something. The one around a slight curve seems strange also. I think my 9500i must be wwwaaaaaaayyy more sensitive than the one you guys used, because I think mine would have picked that signal up long before the spinning icon on the video. That could be due to the curve in the road and the off-axis position of the radar gun user, who knows? That being said, I'd guess that you guys picked that particular spot because you knew that the frequencies matched and you must have picked a distance just beyond what the 9500i could pick up, so that the 9500i picked up both of the signals at just the same time. That being worst case scenario. I highly doubt that LEO's know the frequency of the gun in their hand, much less the frequency of the false alert. LEO's would have a much tougher time staging this exact scenario you guys did without this information. That being said, this scenario would probably smoke any RD user since most people would mute the false signal that they get every time they pass that exact same spot.

The "misinformation" word never came out of my keyboard, but I have read on several occasions on this board people say that they would never purchase a 9500i because they would be afraid to lock out a true threat. I'd bet they got this idea from the same videos I watched. Hey, I love what GOL does and I personally view their information as the most unbiased on the net and quote it quite often. I particularly think that you Jim know more about any of this stuff than any human alive and appreciate your knowledge. Keep doing what you are doing, but I think that this particular stuff has been slanted in a way such that it makes the Truelock look inneffective, which I believe is not accurate. But hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I can accept that.