THIS VIDEO WORRIES ME ABOUT TRUELOCK

[LordV]

Where I worry is that a couple places that i know are false when i check them in tech mode it changes frequencies three times and one of them is in the middle of the k band range that a leo uses. This I would assume means if i go to block them out all three would be blocked out.

If you absolutely must get rid of false alerts I guess there is a trade off/ risk to it. Similar to using K band false supression on the V1.

I'd rather just use the mute button on my V1 concealed display.

[BlinderGuy]

It is a big risk that I dont think I'll take much..I still like the 9500i for the range and the mark location setting.

[LordV]

It is a big risk that I dont think I'll take much..I still like the 9500i for the range and the mark location setting.

I'm sure it will serve you well.

[TSi+WRX]

If you absolutely must get rid of false alerts I guess there is a trade off/ risk to it. Similar to using K band false supression on the V1.

Exactly.

It's a known risk trade-off.

This is why it's so imperative for 9500i users to understand not only exactly how the 9500i "thinks" - but also for these users to have an honest appreciation for and well-judged assessment of their true "threat/risk scenario" as CJR so well put forward in his "Tricks and Tips" thread.

Is True-Lock perfect? No.

Can the however rare and improbable, still be possible? Yes.

This is precisely why CJR's "threat assessment" should be required reading for all 9500i users. In the end, it's the end-user's actions that's going to determine whether or not the use of these advanced features will be successful, or will end in disaster.

The same can be said for improper use of the V1's advanced programming.

----------------
Aside:

Honestly, I don't understand why this issue's been brought back up again.

As the first reply post cited, this has been discussed time and again, in great detail.

Until further information is revealed about the inner workings of the 9500i - information that may impact how this area of the 9500i's advanced programming and performance is to be thought of - posts like this should be locked, and the OP referenced to the old discussions to prevent waste of bandwidth.

Note that I'm not targeting mhardy - please don't read it this way.

There's always going to be newcomers to our hobby, and we should welcome them with as much guidance as possible.

However, posts like these serve no purpose except to again stir up a huge mess of....well, a huge mess. It's better, I think, for the newbie to be guided to a reference post or a set of reference threads, rather than try to rehash what's already been "said and done."

[BlinderGuy]

So stop talking about it..I originaly posted and have since moved on...Thanks for all the info..SO SOMEONE CAN DELETE OR LOCK THIS THREAD!!!!

[CJR238]

It's news to me we had an agenda against anyone. We simply report the facts, sorry it hurt your sales. :roll:

Facts! you personally had a huge agenda... What kind of unbiased person makes and pushes videos about something that was already clearley understood by all.

1 Vid fine 2 enough but 5 or more please. Ok Mr. Peterson what ever you say. Your not any better than he was planting that KA gun at your test sight.

All i see is people going way out of there way to discredit something that in the end just needed some simple logic and explanation.

I don't know what your agenda really is but i know what mine is, and it certainly has nothing to do with RD's, sales of them or dealing with petty people that wont let well enough alone.

If you personally have a problem with me or think im not sincere in my intentions PM me and i will clear it up for you.

[CJR238]

Here we go again... :roll:
The videos were to intentionally show the 9500I locking out a supposed real threat. That video specifically was when the 1st 9500I's were made over a year ago.

Bottom line is this: the 9500i ignores a real threat in a locked out zone, ie "does not work as advertised". Granted I was not there to ensure that they (GOL) were really "shooting the gun". But I do feel that they are an honest bunch of fellas unlike other monetarily motivated folks that you read about. Do the newer 9500i's not ignore a real threat in a locked out zone?

The 9500I does not ignore a real threat in a lock out zone unless it fits certain criteria. in the first page you will see what is needed for a real lock out of real radar.

I don't personalty think there original intension was for malice or to discredit, however there is such a thing as beating a dead horse and going way overboard to prove something we all except.

the 9500I's now are slightly different than the ones that 1st came out that were in the 1st video.

[happya$$]

Here we go again... :roll:
The videos were to intentionally show the 9500I locking out a supposed real threat. That video specifically was when the 1st 9500I's were made over a year ago.

Bottom line is this: the 9500i ignores a real threat in a locked out zone, ie "does not work as advertised". Granted I was not there to ensure that they (GOL) were really "shooting the gun". But I do feel that they are an honest bunch of fellas unlike other monetarily motivated folks that you read about. Do the newer 9500i's not ignore a real threat in a locked out zone?

I do have videos of us shooting the radar gun from the other end but PURPOSELY did not post it because this subject has been beaten to death. I can always change my mind though

[CJR238]

Here we go again... :roll:
The videos were to intentionally show the 9500I locking out a supposed real threat. That video specifically was when the 1st 9500I's were made over a year ago.

Bottom line is this: the 9500i ignores a real threat in a locked out zone, ie "does not work as advertised". Granted I was not there to ensure that they (GOL) were really "shooting the gun". But I do feel that they are an honest bunch of fellas unlike other monetarily motivated folks that you read about. Do the newer 9500i's not ignore a real threat in a locked out zone?

I do have videos of us shooting the radar gun from the other end but PURPOSELY did not post it because this subject has been beaten to death. I can always change my mind though

TSi+WRX & my point exactly, we all know what the 9500I's limitations are and are not.

Beaten to death is an understatement...

[MEM-TEK]

The Escort 9500i TrueLock is flawed regardless of how much the Belscort owners like to try and smooth it over with BS.

No it isn't.

Yet if you try to lock out a full strength signal by parking right in front of a door opener, then the 9500i will see a muddy signal from the door opener, causing the 9500i to lock chunks on either side of the door opener frequency. Not only that, the 9500i, due to the extremely strong signal, will set its lockout radius to a full 1/2 mile around the lockout location. I duplicated these results using my K band Gunn oscillator transceiver which is tuned to 24.15MHz.

On the other hand, when I set my K band Gunn oscillator on the roof of my car so that my 9500i only read a signal strength of 3 out of 10 and then locked it out, my 9500i would respond to my K band Gunn oscillator once I was only 1000 feet away from the locked out location and also responded to a city cop running a K band radar gun on 24.15 who had a customer pulled over.

TrueLock works just fine as long as you use it just like Escort shows in their videos and in their animated graphics. Simply lock out the false alert as you are passing by the false alert location, then be sure to drive at least 1 mile past whatever the last location is that you locked out, and then power cycle your 9500i. The driving 1 mile past the last locked out location is important so that the 9500i "saw" the locked out signal rapidly fade away so that it will set the 1/10 mile radius for the last locked out signal(s).

Pretty darned simple, isn't this? Even if a locked out frequency is on the exact same frequency as a police radar gun, then you will get an alert to the police radar gun as long as you are more than 1/10 of a mile from the locked out GPS location.