Printable View
Maybe becauseQuote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
A) It doesnt work
B)Its a misleading gimick to people that don't know it doesnt work
C) Has Escort been honest enough to admit it doesnt work?
and I pose a question to you: Why do people always pick on the V1 (Even though it works great and has proven itself so many times over???)
Thanks for the correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbonzzz
I guess what I meant to say what that for rear radar protection (eg beging stalked by a trooper who is following you), the V1 will always be a champ because of its rear antenna. Other detectors would have to rely on their front antenna for detection.
a) TrueLock does work!!! You push the button 3 times and it locks out a signal...Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip559
b) What gimmick isn’t misleading? All RD's are gimmick’s you can still get a ticket with one.
c) Why admit to something that’s not true? They state clearly what it does and how it works, just not in as much detail as people think they should.
It is taught at a young age to complain and argue and here NO all the time. Most people are negative and see the glass 1/2 full and want everyone to hereabout it, no mater how minuscule the problem is.
People like to focus on the negative, like the 2%chance of getting a ticket with TrueLock, or the 2% chance of ignoring the V1's mind numbing falsies just to find out its a real signal and getting a ticket.
We all need to admit TrueLock works exactly as advertised and start making constructive solutions to Escorts true lock explanation for the people who don’t get it.
i personaly would choose a new BMW 7 seres (9500I) over a Hemi dodge charger (V1) any day.
keep telling yourself Truelock does work! :roll:
GOL tested 2 retail 9500i where it didn't work! One 9500i purchased during the testing event :shock:. So if the detector is on the shelves and it doesn't work as advertised there is a problem
I am glad that the TrueLock works now. How about those USB updates with that international database. :wink:
So you are going to tell me they pressed the mute button 3 times and it did nothing???Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyVOLVOrob
All Escort claims in the primary discription of TrueLock is:
"Its new GPS-powered TrueLock™ feature allows you to simply press the mute button a couple of times and never hear a radar-based automatic door opener or motion sensor again. TRUE.
Our patented design captures the location coordinates and the exact frequency of the signal and stores them in memory" TRUE
Once stored, TrueLock™ will reject these signals, but is intelligent enough to warn you of a new or different signal in that same location. That's right, no more false alarms! TRUE
so whats the problem?
Yes if you have a guy from GOL standing there with a K or X band radar gun and you lock it out it will not alert to it. But how many GOL guys are waking around waiting for 9500I owners? :wink:
Besides who can miss them with there White GOL shirts and waving around prime rib bones. :D
Wow bashing the GOL...Reminds me of Escorts Reps opinions of GOL cause they can't pay the tester to scew the results or use a boosted unitQuote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
HAHAHA Video evidence of retail 9500i not working
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=30142
Defend that :wink:
Just poking fun at GOL. :wink:
Holy c$@p it works! stop saying it doesint. the videos show that trueLock locks out radar (like Escort says). if you are dumb enouf to lock out a source in a high risk area you will get a ticket.
Please refer anyone with questions about true lock to my thread:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtop...245&highlight=
no offense taken :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
Yes, it does LOCK OUT k band signals (which not the same as locking out ONLY false k band signals). I will give that to you. Guess what, I can do the same thing on my V1 or any other detector. Its called disabling k band :)Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thestaton
Was there any S7's in this test, or were the x50/rx65/995/965/995/940's All M4's like in the previous march test?
I would have to assume it was an M4 because the S7's aren’t made anymore. "Brand New Retail, provided by RacerX"Quote:
Originally Posted by ViperDom
All new retail bought within a month or less of the test.
All M4.
this is what distributors, retailers and stores carry for everyone to buy.
Now what to do with all of them... :wink: :D
keep the hot ones, and sell the others on EbayQuote:
Originally Posted by RacerX
distribute the profits back into the GOL.
pretty much my plan. :)
I'm keeping the 9500i and V1, the rest will be available.....but since i can't discuss that here, like so many other things, i'll have to make a thread elsewhere on what detectors are available for acquisition. :)
What build date was the 9500I? I wish GOL tested 3 9500I's than you could sell the best one for top dollar.
That’s an idea. Certified & tested radar detectors for a premium... if I didn’t have a 9500I already I would be biding on the one you tested.
I believe both where week 22. We where brainstorming on how to do that, maybe a GoL hologram sticker and a certificate of authenticity.Quote:
Originally Posted by CJR238
RMR will put your logos on their website :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by thestaton
Did the brand new retail STi #1 have the 33.8 fix?Quote:
Beltronics STi Driver (#1) - Brand New Retail, provided by RacerX
Beltronics STi Driver (#2) - Personal detector w/33.8 fix, provided by Jerry540i
no #2. Jerry drove from Toronto, to Cincinnati, back to the Cleveland area so we could have an STi with the 33.8 fix. mad props.Quote:
Originally Posted by ES13Raven
See my blogQuote:
Originally Posted by carboncopy
www.radaroy.com
I would say start thinking about sending your units in for a tune up next month
Thanks Roy.Quote:
Originally Posted by radarroy
I originally read your reply out of context ; I saw the words ramp-up and update (close) together and got excited!
Well, perhaps the update will include a change to the ramp-up, if we're lucky, although what the update actually includes is not known at this point, as discussed separately.
I am wondering what changes it will in fact include...
If not, I'll simply stick with my X50 for the time being.
It seems almost everyone (I was in lower upstate NY hiking yesterday) is using 34.7 around here (two different states, 3 different municipalities), with some K and even X (I am in NJ) sprinkled in.
The X50 did a nice job picking them up yesterday (I didn't have the 9500i hooked up since I was using my windshield-mounted GPS at the time - both lighter sockets filled on my adapter).
GOL. What i would like to see in the future is having the forward facing test done consistently where minimal reflection can be obtained from radar - has to be tested on the same location as much as possible. By doing so, you will have consistent results. Good example is the Arizona test and the August tests. Looking at the test site 08/07 of the forward facing location, there is very good chance of reflection coming from trees and electrical posts. :wink:
I believe that a lot of users would buy a rd that performed at the top of the test. There would be more of a sense of reliability and security for the end user.Quote:
Originally Posted by thestaton
**********Quote:
Originally Posted by Azonehits
EDIT: I confused the forward facing tests with the straight line sensitivity tests. Thus my following comments don't make sense regarding the forward facing tests, but do make sense when you realize that I was thinking and talking about the straight line sensitivity tests!
On another note, I thought the the forward facing tests were a pretty realistic setup for my area which always has trees alongside the road.
**********
Hi Azone,
I am inclined to believe that any reflections from the trees and electrical posts could have only marginally affected the test results since the radar from the radar gun itself would be much more powerful than the off-axis reflections. Not only that, my calculated radar detector dBm/cm2 sensitivities do rather closely match the lab sensitivities measured by Michael B. On the other hand, I do think that reflections off of the hoods of the radar vehicle, the radar detector vehicle, and the pavement between the vehicles did slightly affect the tests since some radar horns flare downward whereas other radar horns flare upward. For example, the 9500i with its downward flared upside down mounted M4 horn pretty well trumped the Vectors with their upward flared top side up mounted M4 horns.
I hope that in the future GOL will mount the radar guns inside a long PVC pipe, the inside of which is lined with Eccosorb, to prevent radar from bouncing off of the radar vehicle's hood or off of the pavement between the two vehicles, and to prevent radar from escaping towards the sides and possibly reflecting off of fairly nearby objects along the side of the test course. Likewise, I would like to see each tested radar detector mounted atop a level piece of Eccosorb covered piece of cardboard in order to further prevent the radar detector from seeing radar reflected off of the radar detector vehicle's hood or off of the pavement between the vehicles. I think that this type of test setup would come very close to matching lab measured radar detector sensitivities and would yield extremely accurate results once the distances are converted to dBm/cm2. Obviously just one radar detector would need to be tested by Michael B in the lab so that its lab measured sensitivities could be used to normalize the distance measurements and my dBm/cm2 conversion formulas to the known sensitivity values for that lab tested radar detector. Then my formulas plus GOL's distance measurements will produce extremely accurate dBm/cm2 sensitivity results for all of the other tested radar detectors. How accurate do I think such a test setup could be? I think that the results would be accurate to +/-1 dBm/cm2 or essentially just as good as lab measured sensitivities.
You've done some pretty neat test setups yourself. To me, this sort of stuff is fun. Azone, I bet you enjoy it too. I for one would love to participate in future GOL tests! GOL, hint, hint? :D
Best Regards,
--Michael
[quote="MEM-TEK"]Quote:
Originally Posted by Azonehits
In the forward facing test, the Decatur K band gun was pointed down the street, and not perpendicular to the road. There would be mininal hood reflection from the radar vehicle. As for the reflection from the hood of the radar detector vehicle, I think you're the only one that keeps flogging that theory. :? I see you (MemTek) keep mentioning it in various posts how horn flaring is designed for hood reflection of radar. I don't know. This theory seems a little far fetched, because no 2 hoods are alike, and no 2 mounting locations are the same (for a given detector). How would the detector manufacturers know what car/truck/SUV you're driving? Plus, this theory assumes that hood reflection somehow is of greater importance that simple signal reception by the detector.Quote:
Hi Azone,
I am inclined to believe that any reflections from the trees and electrical posts could have only marginally affected the test results since the radar from the radar gun itself would be much more powerful than the off-axis reflections. Not only that, my calculated radar detector dBm/cm2 sensitivities do rather closely match the lab sensitivities measured by Michael B. On the other hand, I do think that reflections off of the hoods of the radar vehicle, the radar detector vehicle, and the pavement between the vehicles did slightly affect the tests since some radar horns flare downward whereas other radar horns flare upward. For example, the 9500i with its downward flared upside down mounted M4 horn pretty well trumped the Vectors with their upward flared top side up mounted M4 horns.
The guns are currently mounted inside a box that is completely lined with eccosorb (front, sides and rear). Again with the hood issue...in the real world, wouldn't a police car's radar gun bounce signals off the hood, or off the pavement anyway? The eccosorb is simply used to absorb some of the radar's signal.Quote:
I hope that in the future GOL will mount the radar guns inside a long PVC pipe, the inside of which is lined with Eccosorb, to prevent radar from bouncing off of the radar vehicle's hood or off of the pavement between the two vehicles, and to prevent radar from escaping towards the sides and possibly reflecting off of fairly nearby objects along the side of the test course.
Quote:
Likewise, I would like to see each tested radar detector mounted atop a level piece of Eccosorb covered piece of cardboard in order to further prevent the radar detector from seeing radar reflected off of the radar detector vehicle's hood or off of the pavement between the vehicles. I think that this type of test setup would come very close to matching lab measured radar detector sensitivities and would yield extremely accurate results once the distances are converted to dBm/cm2. Obviously just one radar detector would need to be tested by Michael B in the lab so that its lab measured sensitivities could be used to normalize the distance measurements and my dBm/cm2 conversion formulas to the known sensitivity values for that lab tested radar detector. Then my formulas plus GOL's distance measurements will produce extremely accurate dBm/cm2 sensitivity results for all of the other tested radar detectors. How accurate do I think such a test setup could be? I think that the results would be accurate to +/-1 dBm/cm2 or essentially just as good as lab measured sensitivities.
Once again, Michael B's lab test results are what they are...controlled environment, bench test results. They may or may not correspond to real world tests, or to GOL tests. The GOL tests aren't done to duplicate or validate lab results. The use of eccosorb underneath a detector is in no way a real world test (unless you're driving around with eccosorb in your car :wink:
J/
[quote="jerry540i"]Go Jerry get busy go Jerry get busy :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM-TEK
now thats in idea. :DQuote:
unless you're driving around with eccosorb in your car
oh man I've been waiting for this forever!!!
http://homepage.mac.com/thestaton/pi...lies/jerry.gif
Now on a serious note, I stand behind the forward facing tests and if I had the chance to do it again I wouldn't change a thing.
The test car never changed, nor did the car with the radar unit inside of it. So the variables stayed the same.
This will not reflect radar signals back but rather forward and does not make any difference at all. I don't understand why the pavement between the vehicles will make a difference regardless of the flared horns. What makes a difference with forward facing tests is reflection or bounced signal that's suppose to go forward but bounces back because of objects in front of the radar gun. Without this reflections, the distance detected by the RD will be shorter. Even if it bounces from the hood, the radar don't reflect back but rather forward unless the front part of the hood is bent 90 degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM-TEK
Ecosorb was used around the radar antenna to decrease strength of radar intensity and without blocking the front of the PVC pipe even if it was lined with ecosorb, you're talking about miles of testing from point A to point B. In your suggestion, you will still have some amount of reflected signal when objects are in front of a radar gun.
**********Quote:
Originally Posted by thestaton
EDIT: I was confused and was actually thinking and writing about the straight line sensitivity tests rather than the forward facing tests. Personally, I thought that the forward facing tests fairly well match the real world environment where I live in Georgia. Please substitute "straight line sensitivity tests" wherever I wrote "forward facing tests" in my comments below. Hopefully then my comments will make sense!
**********
Hi thestation,
Don't get me wrong! I totally agree that the forward facing tests were extremely well executed and do present actual real world expectations for how each radar detector, when mounted roughly low to mid level on the average car windshield, will perform. Why? Because each radar detector, depending on its inherent upward or downward flared horn design, was either more efficient or less efficient at picking up additional radar reflections off of the test vehicle's hood, and because scatter from real police radar does reflect off of the police vehicle's hood and off of the ground significantly ahead of it. Thus GOL's straight line tests do accurately represent real world straight line performance expectations based on each radar detector's horn design and upon a roughly low to mid level windshield mounting location..
I was merely trying to suggest a modified test setup which would eliminate each radar detector's ability to see any additional reflections off of either vehicle's hood or off the ground in order to get results which would very closely match the raw sensitivities as measured in a lab where great care is generally taken to only allow a radar detector to see just the actual radar beam and not any additional reflections from within the lab. Thus, my test setup ideas merely reflected my desire to accurately measure each radar detector's inherent sensitivity by not allowing any radar detector to gain any benefit of additional radar reflections from the car's hood or from the ground. Obviously a downward flared horn will allow a radar detector to more efficiently detect additional radar reflected off of the vehicle's hood and ground ahead of the vehicle. Yet a radar detector with an upward flared horn can always be pointed somewhat downwards to allow it to more efficiently pick up additional reflections off of the vehicle's hood and thereby boost its sensitivity by about 2dBm.
Nevertheless, I am most pleased with the consistency of my calculated dBm sensitivities based on GOL's straight line tests versus Michael B's lab measured sensitivities. My calculated results mostly agree with Michaal B's lab measured results to within +/-2dBm or better, and this says volumes for how careful GOL was when performing the August straight line sensitivity tests. This high degree of correlation would have not been possible if the GOL straight line tests were significantly flawed in any way. In other words, GOL's August straight line sensitivity tests do represent real world usage conditions, and I consider the results to be carved in stone. :D
**********Quote:
Originally Posted by Azonehits
EDIT: I've been talking about the straight line sensitivity tests rather than the forward facing tests. I was tired and confused. Sorry for the confusion I caused! Below, I am talking about the straight line sensitivity tests. Nevertheless, I think that my example of a downward flared versus an upward flared radar horn do have merit.
**********
No, I am still assuming that Eccosorb would still be used at the front (or back) of the PVC pipe to attenuate the signal to shorten the short test course. I also mentioned that any reflections off of the vehicle hoods and off of the ground only slightly affected the test results. I should add that GOL's test setup does rather accurately reflect real world conditions. I was more interested in the inherent sensitivity of each radar detector without allowing each radar detector to gain any benefit, due to its either upward or downward flared horn design, by also detecting additional reflections off of the vehicle hoods or off of the ground between the two vehicles.
I've created some drawings to illustrate the things which I talked about:
http://www.mem-tek.com/radar/radar_h...eflections.gif
In the above drawing, it should be obvious that the more sensitive radar detectors will detect the radar gun much further away and that the more sensitive radar detectors will also be picking up very weak radar reflections off of the pavement. It should also be obvious that less sensitive radar detectors will pick up the radar gun only when they are much closer to the radar gun. Yet, when much closer to the radar gun, the somewhat shielded radar gun's signal may not have diverged downward enough to also reflect off of the ground and thence towards the closer and less sensitive radar detector. Truthfully, I wouldn't expect these scenarios to greatly or even moderately skew GOL's distance measurements. Like I said, I would only expect that the lack of ground reflections when close to the radar gun would only very slightly affect the test results since any ground reflections are quite weak. Regardless, I do enjoy thinking about every possible variable within any testing methodology.
http://www.mem-tek.com/radar/radar_h...lared_horn.gif
This drawing shows how a radar detector with a downward flared radar horn is relatively efficient at seeing additional radar reflections off of the car's hood and off of the ground in front of the car. Note that the ray traced dark orange radar paths undergo very few internal bounces within the downward flared radar horn in order to reach the back of the radar horn where the detection circuitry is located.
http://www.mem-tek.com/radar/radar_h...lared_horn.gif
This drawing shows how a radar detector with an upward flared radar horn is less efficient at seeing additional radar reflections off of the car's hood and off of the ground in front of the car. Note that only the dark orange ray traced path entering at the bottom of the horn reaches the rear of the radar horn without undergoing numerous internal reflections. Now note that the other two dark orange paths undergo multiple reflections within the radar horn and that these reflections steadily increase in angle due to the upward flared radar horn. Finally, note that any radar detector with an upward flared radar horn can be pointed downward to essentially make the horn have a downward flare, allowing a radar detector with an upward flared horn to be much more efficient at additionally detecting radar reflected off of the vehicle's hood and the ground ahead of it.
I wasn't trying to stir up a hornet's nest! I was simply trying to bring up some ideas which I have been thinking about. :)
--Michael
How could this be possible when the radar detector is behind the radar gun in the forward facing test? Plus, you are not just looking at vertical axis bounce but rather a mix of vertical and horizontal bounce which can come from many directions. Think of a circle in front of you since all if not most radar guns have circular antenna's. Imagine how that circle can translate to hundreds of thousands of dots that can scatter as distance increases when it bounces from an object.Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM-TEK
Even if the radar and the radar detector are face to face with each other, have you ever considered the direct line of sight at which the radar detector receives its signal without the reflected or bounced signal from the pavement or hood? Which would you think would travel faster, bounce or reflected signal vs. direct line of sight or straight line? It just makes sense that direct line of sight travels faster than reflected signal.
BTW, i believe there was no ecosorb used during the forward facing test in the Arizona and Ohio test site. Correct me GOL if i'm wrong on this one.
correct. for forward facing you pretty much can't use eccosorb. if the detector even alerted it wouldn't be but around 25 feet.
kind of like cobra on regular tests :)
Hi guys,
I've been confusing the straight line sensitivity tests with the completely separate forward facing tests. Yesterday was a hard day at work, and I was tired when I wrote my posts. My apologies for the confusion I caused.
Please realize that I was thinking and talking about the straight line sensitivity tests even though I mentioned "forward facing". Perhaps then my posts will then make sense. I will edit them, changing "forward facing" to "straight line sensitivity". Again, my apologies for the confusion my posts caused. It must have looked like I was really off my rocker! :lol:
--Michael
it's all good. we all have those days.
Since the Professor is not responding to Mem-Tek's posts I am assuming that Mem-Tek has been technically right on on his last few hundred posts :lol:
I wish that were true! He has responded to a few of them and caught a few mistakes which I've made. Jimbonzzz is "The Professor" and his knowledge continues to blow me away. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by happya$$
I bet you all had thought that I had really lost it, due to my confusion regarding the forward facing tests and the straight line sensitivity tests. Its Halloween! Does anyone have some holiday related comments to describe how "batty" my posts must have seemed due to my confusion?
--Michael
MEM-TEK: you are full of BS!
How's that, happy now? :wink: :lol:
Full of Headless Horseman happy horse sh#t would have been more Halloween like. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbonzzz