Food for thought, ZR4 + STI-r Remote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Esoterica

I don't think the arrows are anywhere near the same thing, displaying what direction the signal is being reflected to you from and not necessarily the actual direction its coming from is hardly a rock solid feature, but that I suppose is another debate for another thread someday. And hey, at least for that argument JAZZY will be able to find plenty of examples of it not always working as designed by users in the V1 forum, or, ah, I guess he would probably be for the arrows and wouldn't want to do that huh?

The thing with GPS is it doesn't have to be applied to just one detector, anyone (almost) can add GPS capabilities to their current favorite detector.

I was kind of saving this for my closing argument in all of this discussion, I'm guessing we are done now?

Even if you happened to get a ticket in such an unlikely situation, keep in mind, signing on the bottom of the ticket is not an admission of guilt. You can still go to court and fight such a ticket.

If I got a ticket by any LEO who was operating his radar in close proximity to a second source that was transmitting at that or near that same frequency I would fight that ticket in court in a minute and guarantee I'd win that one by arguing the LEO's radar was picking up interference from a second signal source right there operating at his same frequency and there is no way he was getting an accurate reading of my speed because of this.

Even if they went out and checked after the fact to see the frequency was very close, but not exactly the same they would have no way to prove that due to frequency drift the signal was not exactly the same on that day. I guarantee I would win this in front of the judge and I guarantee that LEO would no longer be using that area to shoot radar at or near the same frequency in the future.

---

What state are you in? Have you ever WENT to court? I'm not saying this would not be a good argument, and I would use it myself, but I highly doubt that this single point would be what the judge would weigh his favor on, you'll have to show documentation on the secondary source. Judge's generally don't care about these issues, and unless you have other information to collaborate your THEORY that the second source caused harmful interference, the judge really isn't going to buy it. You could def. win on an appeal if you showed good evidence that the secondary source could cause harmful interference, but traffic court judge could care less, it's just the way it is.

Trust me, I can argue a point just in case you haven't noticed. I do have some faith in our legal system that the judge isn't just going to be biased to side with the LEO when I can point out reasons why this was a flawed ticket for reasons the LEO likely wasn't even aware of himself. If I do something wrong and know I was in the wrong, I just pay the fine. If I question though the accuracy of what I am being accused of then I am going to fight it, and not make the mistakes most people do by just agreeing to a lowered fine so the legal system can rush you through.

We aren't talking about the usual BS you hear people claim to use in disputing a ticket like the LEO wasn't wearing his hat, or wrote something wrong on the ticket. This is exactly the type of thing that could easily be explained to a judge in a way in which he would understand the problem without the need of in depth technical knowledge. Yet in depth technical knowledge can not disprove that if both devices were operating at the same frequency there is not a high potential for a problem. You're the accused, the responsibility of proving you did wrong lays in their hands. You don't have to prove you were innocent. You'd be a fool to pay a ticket under these circumstances, unless you absolutely knew you were speeding and 100% in the wrong. If you fought it knowing you were in the absolute wrong then you're nothing more than a lier, which is maybe one step better than a thief. To avoid that of course, anytime you drive into a known false area make dam sure you do not look at your speedometer, this way you'll always be able to honestly question your guilt or innocence and not have to lie just to win the case.

So in 7 pages of a thread the likes of a STi-R & ZR4 have been discussed what 3 times?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thestaton

So in 7 pages of a thread the likes of a STi-R & ZR4 have been discussed what 3 times?

---

^ Hey now! Don't be tryin' to bring the discussion back ON topic! :P

----

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RacerX

You pretty much summed it up, we all have our likes and favorites, and wonder why others don't, but it comes down to what someone likes, and what works for them.

---

+1.

I am of the firm belief that any of the top-flight detectors will work just fine for even a typically "spirited" driver, as long as they're willing to use their brain just a little bit. :)

In the end, it's all about the end-user's unique needs as well as unique preferences, that's going to determine what the "best" detector is, for just this one unique user.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Esoterica

I understand where your thinking is coming from on this, but your missing some pieces of this actual hypothetical situation when you come to that conclusion. ...

---

That is a good point that you made - indeed, this would definitely be yet another potential presentation of the hypothetical situation that I proposed, and I do concede that in this particular variant of the hypothetical, no, no other detector would present an advantage, either, and that everyone would've gotten nailed.

Good point.

[quote]And you call yourself a scientist :lol:
I don't believe in super human well calibrated eye balls myself, this is as bad as a mechanic thinking he has a well calibrated elbow when applying a specific torque to a bolt or fastener.

(shhh, I actually just tossed that comment in there to annoy any lurking LEO's who may be reading this since I can only imagine how much they must hate it when people try to play the "race card")

Hey now, hey now!!!

Just so that you know, I can torque a bolt to precise specs without the use of any advanced tool!!!!

(shhh, I've actually torqued OFF an incredible number of bolts! :lol: :oops:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

This is a valid argument, and I agree - although the percentages are definitely hypothetical, yes, I agree, and have stated many times prior, that the problematic TrueLock situation is one that *can* happen, but is rare.

---

I don't think its as easily stated as this, I think for anyone to make this blanket statement of can happen but rare just isn't even coming close to implying how rare this actually would be. We have an entire and very long thread here that covers in detail ALL of the required factors needed for this to ever possibly take place and when all of this information is entered into the equation and made a blanket statement of its closer to reality to just conclude this would not happen than to claim it as being rare.

---

No, no, I think you read my "rare" wrong.....

When I say *rare*, I do mean *RARE.*

Not "infrequently," not "occasionally," but truly RARE.

Indeed, I understand - that statement is "blanket" in nature, and easy to mis-read, and I agree, it is. Sadly, I think that part of the misread is due to the lack of ability of this medium of communication to convey how I truly feel (emphatic) about this matter, and a part of the limitations of this form of communication.

What I mean to say is that yes, the possibility exists, but the real-world situations in which this "limit of resolution" of the machine may cause such a "missed encounter" is *truly rare*, and would depend on many factors - a "perfect storm," as someone else here once put it - falling into place; factors which not only include the technical difficulties of TrueLock implementation, but also situational, and furthermore, also includes end-user error.

Truly RARE. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thestaton

So in 7 pages of a thread the likes of a STi-R & ZR4 have been discussed what 3 times?

---

OK, I don't see any advantage gained with the STi-R/ZR4 combination over the 9500ci, assuming that the selectable Ka bands will be included on the 9500ci as well. I've seen this feature listed on the 9500ci on one internet ad. Red display maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thestaton

So in 7 pages of a thread the likes of a STi-R & ZR4 have been discussed what 3 times?

---

OK, I don't see any advantage gained with the STi-R/ZR4 combination over the 9500ci, assuming that the selectable Ka bands will be included on the 9500ci as well. I've seen this feature listed on the 9500ci on one internet ad. Red display maybe?

---

I didn't see the feature listed on escort's website, assuming it is a feature of the 9500i, then there is no advantage :D

Escort 9500ci DOES NOT have selectable Ka-band sections.
I verified that info from many reliable sources,including ESCORT.
That makes 9500Ci useless against Radars in Europe.

STi-R is intended for EURO/Azian market and Escort 9500Ci is for NA/CAN market.
And AFAIK none of Escort RDs so far had Ka-narrow option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetalFlame

Escort 9500ci DOES NOT have selectable Ka-band sections.
I verified that info from many reliable sources,including ESCORT.
That makes 9500Ci useless against Radars in Europe.

STi-R is intended for EURO/Azian market and Escort 9500Ci is for NA/CAN market.
And AFAIK none of Escort RDs so far had Ka-narrow option.

---

According to Escort's website, the 9500ci's Ka band operates from 33.4MHz to 36.0 MHz, same as the STi-R. What frequency are the Euro radar guns that you are referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetalFlame

Escort 9500ci DOES NOT have selectable Ka-band sections.
I verified that info from many reliable sources,including ESCORT.
That makes 9500Ci useless against Radars in Europe.

STi-R is intended for EURO/Azian market and Escort 9500Ci is for NA/CAN market.
And AFAIK none of Escort RDs so far had Ka-narrow option.

---

That is correct and selecting a narrow frequency gives the STI-R an advantage over the others since it will not have to sweep other frequencies and waste time doing so. This does not mean that the 9500CI us useless in Europe it just means that it is not the best choice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happya$$

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetalFlame

Escort 9500ci DOES NOT have selectable Ka-band sections.
I verified that info from many reliable sources,including ESCORT.
That makes 9500Ci useless against Radars in Europe.

STi-R is intended for EURO/Azian market and Escort 9500Ci is for NA/CAN market.
And AFAIK none of Escort RDs so far had Ka-narrow option.

---

That is correct

---

Will that make the 9500ci less effective detecting these Euro Ka band radar sources? Nice new sig by the way Happy. Just wondering if my comments have any influence on that? Funny response if so.