Food for thought, ZR4 + STI-r Remote

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-05-2008, 12:14 AM
Esoterica

I don't see videos, I see other posts, nice reads, we see the birth of urban legends and myths forming right before our eyes in those two threads. I was under the impression you had a newer video showing your bench testing like the other one in question of YOUR's that claims all K band is locked out when Truelock is used on a single freq. Those links are also dated almost a year old, I'm a computer geek, I don't read outdated information, half the point here is to update the information to more realistically reflect reality

But yes, I don't read well, I just like to look at the pictures and then only if they aren't already colored in by someone else before me.

Looks like you don't read too well yourself, did I not say...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Where is this video? Links?

Quote:

Who is doing the distracting and sidestepping now? The issue at hand here here is your false assertions that "GOL is spreading misinformation", not my replies to someone else in this thread!

As for RacerX's Cheetah products and the 9500i: Cheetah doesn't have a radar detector for the US, so there's no way any US cheetah product could serve as a replacement for the 9500i. And if you're making a big stretch and talking about the GPS Mirror, it has countless features that the 9500i doesn't. I really don't see how you can even make a comparison here, except for the fact that both have GPS capabilities, but that is where the similarities end.

I do not want to bring RacerX or Cheetah into this discussion, my only point is that you are claiming CJ is at some type of ulterior motive here from a financial perspective is no different or more or less relevant than RacerX who made one of the videos has his own financial motives.

As far as your request for me to not respond to your replies to someone else in this thread then keep such replies private and in a PM if you don't want them commented on. The point was only that it was a perfect example of just how far you keep trying to side track and add irrelevant comments to the situation in much the same way a lawyer behaves in court while trying to confuse a juror, nice try, but I'm calling you on it for attempting this.

In regards to the Cheetah line, read what I said, not what your trying to twist out of it for the sake of your own argument. Cheetah has a KICK ASS product line, but they do not carry a single item for any owner of a 9500i. The point being, if GOL can discourage people from buying the 9500i then Cheetah would still have products people would want to buy. People buying the 9500i equals NO sales at all for Cheetah, thats a profit loss, its certainly reason enough as to why his friends would purposely do what they could to help him.

The point in case you missed it, its no different than what you were accusing CJ of doing, yet seems to hold stronger implications that there could be a degree of bias in GOL's reporting. Isn't that ironic, the very thing you guys claim so dearly to be against.

I'll give you this much, its impossible to be completely unbiased about anything, try as hard as you like, its impossible. You can not over come embedded, hard coded human nature.

Lets be clear though, and do not quote me out of context on the above statement. I am not trying to imply that Cheetah, RacerX or the GOL has ulterior motives in any way, all I'm doing is using this as an example to make the point its no different than the off the wall comment you directed at CJ. That's it, don't try to read any more into than that.

Quote:

What about the third one you had a problem with, the one where you accused us of doing something "questionable" because the 9500i was alerting under 15 MPH? The one where you didn't realize that the 9500i only suppressed alerts under 15 MPH in AUTO mode?

That is the third one you had a problem with, and that takes care of ALL THREE VIDEOS that you originally posted that you had the biggest problem with, the ones you posted as your best evidence for your claim that "GOL is spreading misinformation"!!!

Not even close, I was attempting to be nice and allow this disagreement to come to a close within a point of some give and take agreement from both sides of it, you however wanted it to continue so like I said, we will. I don't know where we will ever get on this though because obviously both of us are equally stubborn and both of us equally agree that we are right and the other is wrong, but, we'll see what happens.

I think rather than typing it all over once again, my stance on what I think about that third video is best expressed in this post I made while you were making this one I'm replying to now...

http://www.radardetector.net/viewtop...=371257#371257

In summary, it would never happen, nor would it ever cause a problem in the real world, you went out of your way, reaching for something to show and discredit TrueLock, just like you keep going out of your way to confuse the discussion here and attempt to discredit the people responding to you and calling you on it.

Quote:

If you want to continue to make this claim, then you'll have to dig up some new evidence to support it. But if you do, I'm going to question why you didn't consider them problematic enough to post in the first place, and I would DEFINITELY have to question your motives for bringing them up after all your other evidence has been refuted.

My motives? There you go again, I'm guessing you have experienced people in the past who simply just did not like the GOL for what ever reason and have attempted to attack you for no more than this reason.

Can we be clear on something here, I am by no means at this point or any point in the past a GOL hater, in anyway. I don't work for Escort, I don't sell any even remotely related to this industry products, in fact i don't sell anything, I'm an electronics service tech that works on commercial equipment, everything from the automatic door openers that cause so many people their false alerts to very high dollar and computerized commercial microwave ovens. I don't even own stock in Escort. And not every post I've made on this web site has been in support of Escort even. My only motive is that GOL is discrediting themselves in my eyes, and others, outside looking in, when you present people with purposely flawed videos that do not depict reality. How can I or anyone else view those videos knowing perfectly well from first hand experience that there are severe flaws in what they imply, and don't even try to tell any of us that they do not imply anything. In seeing the videos and reading even the old posts you made links for above its very clear that GOL has been against the 9500i from before it was even on the market. To purposely go out of your way to create inaccurate videos to support this is just in very bad taste, and not the type of behavior anyone would expect to see from what we all want to consider a reliable unbiased source.

My only point or motive in any of this, GOL should execute more caution and integrity for any information, written or video that they sign the GOL name to and present to the general public.

Quote:

As a matter of fact, it's a known tactic for police operate in areas where there are false alerts, or speed display signs. Hence the reason for the Expert Meter on the Escorts and the Bogey Counter on the V1.

I absolutely agree with that statement 100%, I see them doing this myself first hand all the time.

Quote:

Because of the doppler shift, the police radar guns are looking for the reflected signal to be a number of Hz or KHz off of the transmitted signal. Anything outside this range is basically ignored.

A number of hertz off the transmitted signal. Does that comment some how make sense to you? It doesn't to me at all, you're trying to imply that police radar is going to be used in a variety of different operating conditions and at a variety of different distances, and its going to predict and with black box magic know exactly what frequency the returned signal is going to be at down to a single hertz, or even 1,000 hertz. That's not even possible for this to happen in the real world. The only way you or anyone would be able to achieve this is in a tightly controlled lab environment. There are too many variables in the real world for that to be possible and police radar unfortunately for all of us is used in the real world, not in a controlled lab.

Quote:

For example, if the officer had a K-Band radar unit at exactly 24.150000000 GHz, in order to interfere with the police radar (stationary), the motion sensor would have to be at 24.150014334 GHz or closer. If you divide the 200 MHz wide K-Band by the 14334 Hz (200000000 / 14334) the chances are 1 in 13953 that a K-Band motion sensor would interfere with police radar. So, EXTREMELY unlikely to occur.

This I can accept, I doubt the police radar is reading the frequency to the accuracy of 9 decimal places, but I could accept both would operate within a limit of being more sensitive than any radar detector is capable of picking a difference up on.

However, its not any more "EXTREMELY unlikely to occur" than the situations depicted in those videos are also as EXTREMELY unlikely to occur.

I think this is further supported by my additional comments in that other thread.

And yes there is plenty here I am interested in learning more on, so thank you. Learning and detailed in depth understanding has been a life long addiction of mine, and often times even a curse.
03-05-2008, 06:47 AM
jimbonzzz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

I don't see videos, I see other posts, nice reads, we see the birth of urban legends and myths forming right before our eyes in those two threads. I was under the impression you had a newer video showing your bench testing like the other one in question of YOUR's that claims all K band is locked out when Truelock is used on a single freq. Those links are also dated almost a year old, I'm a computer geek, I don't read outdated information, half the point here is to update the information to more realistically reflect reality

But yes, I don't read well, I just like to look at the pictures and then only if they aren't already colored in by someone else before me.

Looks like you don't read too well yourself, did I not say...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Where is this video? Links?

The videos are in the very first post in the thread, which I provided direct links to.

I will not link directly to the videos, because without the accompanying commentary in the post, they could be easily taken out of context, and as a matter of fact one of them WAS taken out of context when someone posted it on YouTube, and was subsequently used by you to facilitate an attack on GOL for "intentionally spreading misinformation".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Quote:

Who is doing the distracting and sidestepping now? The issue at hand here here is your false assertions that "GOL is spreading misinformation", not my replies to someone else in this thread!

As for RacerX's Cheetah products and the 9500i: Cheetah doesn't have a radar detector for the US, so there's no way any US cheetah product could serve as a replacement for the 9500i. And if you're making a big stretch and talking about the GPS Mirror, it has countless features that the 9500i doesn't. I really don't see how you can even make a comparison here, except for the fact that both have GPS capabilities, but that is where the similarities end.

I do not want to bring RacerX or Cheetah into this discussion, my only point is that you are claiming CJ is at some type of ulterior motive here from a financial perspective is no different or more or less relevant than RacerX who made one of the videos has his own financial motives.

As far as your request for me to not respond to your replies to someone else in this thread then keep such replies private and in a PM if you don't want them commented on. The point was only that it was a perfect example of just how far you keep trying to side track and add irrelevant comments to the situation in much the same way a lawyer behaves in court while trying to confuse a juror, nice try, but I'm calling you on it for attempting this.

In regards to the Cheetah line, read what I said, not what your trying to twist out of it for the sake of your own argument. Cheetah has a KICK ASS product line, but they do not carry a single item for any owner of a 9500i. The point being, if GOL can discourage people from buying the 9500i then Cheetah would still have products people would want to buy. People buying the 9500i equals NO sales at all for Cheetah, thats a profit loss, its certainly reason enough as to why his friends would purposely do what they could to help him.

The point in case you missed it, its no different than what you were accusing CJ of doing, yet seems to hold stronger implications that there could be a degree of bias in GOL's reporting. Isn't that ironic, the very thing you guys claim so dearly to be against.

I'll give you this much, its impossible to be completely unbiased about anything, try as hard as you like, its impossible. You can not over come embedded, hard coded human nature.

Lets be clear though, and do not quote me out of context on the above statement. I am not trying to imply that Cheetah, RacerX or the GOL has ulterior motives in any way, all I'm doing is using this as an example to make the point its no different than the off the wall comment you directed at CJ. That's it, don't try to read any more into than that.

I think if CJR was selling 9500i's, that would be VERY relevant to what he posted to me! And it certainly appeared that was the case. Why should I sit here and argue with someone who is a dealer, when there's no chance I'll ever get anywhere?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Quote:

What about the third one you had a problem with, the one where you accused us of doing something "questionable" because the 9500i was alerting under 15 MPH? The one where you didn't realize that the 9500i only suppressed alerts under 15 MPH in AUTO mode?

That is the third one you had a problem with, and that takes care of ALL THREE VIDEOS that you originally posted that you had the biggest problem with, the ones you posted as your best evidence for your claim that "GOL is spreading misinformation"!!!

Not even close, I was attempting to be nice and allow this disagreement to come to a close within a point of some give and take agreement from both sides of it, you however wanted it to continue so like I said, we will. I don't know where we will ever get on this though because obviously both of us are equally stubborn and both of us equally agree that we are right and the other is wrong, but, we'll see what happens.

I think rather than typing it all over once again, my stance on what I think about that third video is best expressed in this post I made while you were making this one I'm replying to now...

Like I said, I would have liked nothing more than to wrap this whole thing up into a nice little package and move on. But if we had done so, we wouldn't have been doing so on the basis of fact, since only ONE video might have been effected by an issue which may or may not have existed. I like to stick to the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?p=371257#371257

In summary, it would never happen, nor would it ever cause a problem in the real world, you went out of your way, reaching for something to show and discredit TrueLock, just like you keep going out of your way to confuse the discussion here and attempt to discredit the people responding to you and calling you on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Quote:

If you want to continue to make this claim, then you'll have to dig up some new evidence to support it. But if you do, I'm going to question why you didn't consider them problematic enough to post in the first place, and I would DEFINITELY have to question your motives for bringing them up after all your other evidence has been refuted.

My motives? There you go again, I'm guessing you have experienced people in the past who simply just did not like the GOL for what ever reason and have attempted to attack you for no more than this reason.

YES, we certainly have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Can we be clear on something here, I am by no means at this point or any point in the past a GOL hater, in anyway. I don't work for Escort, I don't sell any even remotely related to this industry products, in fact i don't sell anything, I'm an electronics service tech that works on commercial equipment, everything from the automatic door openers that cause so many people their false alerts to very high dollar and computerized commercial microwave ovens. I don't even own stock in Escort. And not every post I've made on this web site has been in support of Escort even. My only motive is that GOL is discrediting themselves in my eyes, and others, outside looking in, when you present people with purposely flawed videos that do not depict reality. How can I or anyone else view those videos knowing perfectly well from first hand experience that there are severe flaws in what they imply, and don't even try to tell any of us that they do not imply anything. In seeing the videos and reading even the old posts you made links for above its very clear that GOL has been against the 9500i from before it was even on the market. To purposely go out of your way to create inaccurate videos to support this is just in very bad taste, and not the type of behavior anyone would expect to see from what we all want to consider a reliable unbiased source.

My only point or motive in any of this, GOL should execute more caution and integrity for any information, written or video that they sign the GOL name to and present to the general public.

Once again, ALL THREE videos/examples you used as the basis for your argument that GOL is "against TrueLock" were all found to have reasonable explanations, that had nothing to do with GOL being "against" TruLock or GOL "going out of their way to make purposely flawed" vidoes.

Video #1 = Because of some "issue" with early 9500i's

Video #2 = The "bench test" on YouTube taken out of context

Video #2 = The one ehere you accused us of doing somethnig questionable because the 9500i alerted under 15 MPH.

That's all three videos you were using as a basis for your argument!

What is your basis for making this argument now???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Quote:

As a matter of fact, it's a known tactic for police operate in areas where there are false alerts, or speed display signs. Hence the reason for the Expert Meter on the Escorts and the Bogey Counter on the V1.

I absolutely agree with that statement 100%, I see them doing this myself first hand all the time.

Good, I'm glad we can agree on something :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Quote:

Because of the doppler shift, the police radar guns are looking for the reflected signal to be a number of Hz or KHz off of the transmitted signal. Anything outside this range is basically ignored.

A number of hertz off the transmitted signal. Does that comment some how make sense to you? It doesn't to me at all, you're trying to imply that police radar is going to be used in a variety of different operating conditions and at a variety of different distances, and its going to predict and with black box magic know exactly what frequency the returned signal is going to be at down to a single hertz, or even 1,000 hertz.

That's not even possible for this to happen in the real world. The only way you or anyone would be able to achieve this is in a tightly controlled lab environment. There are too many variables in the real world for that to be possible and police radar unfortunately for all of us is used in the real world, not in a controlled lab.

YES, believe it or not, the police radar uses the doppler speed, down to a single hertz, to calculate speed. BUT, this is a much different process than Tech mode in the BEL/Escorts.

Here's how it works:
In the front end of the radar gun is a "doppler transceiver" or "gunn transceiver" that contains a gunn diode and a mixer diode. The gunn diode transmits the radar, which reflects off the target or targets and back to the mixer diode. The mixer diode mixes the reflected signal with the transmitted signal, and the output of the gunn transceiver is the difference in frequency between the two signals, in the case of the example above, the output would be 14334 Hz. This is in the audible range, and where the "doppler audio" on the radar guns is derived from. This is also what is sent to the counter/display circuits, where it is used to calculate speed. In this case, it would be divided by 72 Hz, the doppler shift for K-Band @ 1 MPH: 14334 / 72 = 199 MPH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Quote:

For example, if the officer had a K-Band radar unit at exactly 24.150000000 GHz, in order to interfere with the police radar (stationary), the motion sensor would have to be at 24.150014334 GHz or closer. If you divide the 200 MHz wide K-Band by the 14334 Hz (200000000 / 14334) the chances are 1 in 13953 that a K-Band motion sensor would interfere with police radar. So, EXTREMELY unlikely to occur.

This I can accept, I doubt the police radar is reading the frequency to the accuracy of 9 decimal places, but I could accept both would operate within a limit of being more sensitive than any radar detector is capable of picking a difference up on.

Yes, it IS reading the frequency out to nine decimal places, per my explanation above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

However, its not any more "EXTREMELY unlikely to occur" than the situations depicted in those videos are also as EXTREMELY unlikely to occur.

I think this is further supported by my additional comments in that other thread.

Hmmm, in both cases there has to be police radar operating in the vicinity of a motion sensor. Heres the facts of the matter:

- For TruLock, there are 8 blocks of 30 MHz for K-Band. So, the chances of the 9500i not alerting to K-Band radar at one previously locked out false alert location are about 1 in 8.

- Per the above thread, the chances are 1 in 13953 that a K-Band motion sensor would interfere with police radar

That would certainly indicate that a 9500i not alerting to K-Band radar at one previously locked out false alert location would be many thousands of times more likely than police radar getting interference from a motion sensor.
03-05-2008, 06:55 AM
Loiosh

:hijack: Thread hijack
03-05-2008, 10:33 AM
CJR238

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbonzzz

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJR238

These are the things that need to take place to have a problem with TrueLock:

1) Local radar is running in X or K
2) You lock out a location with X or K
3) the location you lock out with X or K happens to be the same 30MHz block the local LEO's are running
4) A LEO is running radar in that same locked out area.
5) His signal is of about the same strength of the false so it doesn’t alert out side the locked out area.
6) and lastly you are speeding in that "High Risk" area.

That’s more variables than what it takes to get a ticket with a RD that has no TrueLock.

Exactly. So why do you have a problem with our videos, when a smart user wouldn't have a problem regardless if the 9500i reported police radar at a previously locked out location or not?

Just to be clear my concern here, its the perception of over covering/reporting on a potential problem no mater how small it was or not. We have all seen what misinformed or overly informed reporting can do, its not always right and in most cases it make a mountain out of a mole hill. The fact is the % of chance it will happen is about the same as outer statistics of getting a ticket with a RD. There was no reason to lash out and try to change the point of my post or imply i was not smart. Weather I have a friend that sells them or not, it was rude and uncalled for. :?

If the GOL videos were truly to bring out a potential flaw why wasin't there any fancy videos made when the V1 "J'd" out real threats? Or when the STI first filtered out 38.8?

My stance is the over dramatization of TrueLock not working, not that the videos were right or wrong. Everyone knows I was the first to embrace TrueLock for what it is and come up with a logical solution, not bash it or sweep it under the rug.

I will leave this with a final note: If your not part of the solution your part of the problem.
03-05-2008, 10:48 AM
lacning74

I've come to similar conclusions about the chances and have been true-lock happy even in high risk areas for the above reasons especially since I really don't speed in town where I get most of my falses. This detector is so quiet otherwise without true-locking.

I will take my chances and take a hit for the team. If it happens, I will have it on camera at least since I have a it running all the time now. On second thought, that will create mass hysteria worse than the GOL demonstration. :)
03-05-2008, 11:48 AM
<<JAZZY>>

I can't believe that I got banned for nearly a month for doing practically nothing and these jackasses are still here. :?

Fact:

The Escort 9500i does not work as advertised.

It is possible to get a ticket because the features don't work as advertised.

The Escort 9500i still does not have a database.

The Escort 9500i still has a useless USB port that only makes it easier for them to update it but is useless to the consumer.
03-05-2008, 03:24 PM
Esoterica

lacning74, if you can ever get it on video happening under real world circumstances and not staged absolutely post it. If nothing else this would be extremely useful for everyone to see and analyze the exact circumstances need for such a thing to of taken place and would be able to come up with a strategy to defend against such a situation ever actually taking place. The fact of the matter is though, its so unlikely that this would ever happen that I doubt you'll ever even need to worry about getting video of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbonzzz

Hmmm, in both cases there has to be police radar operating in the vicinity of a motion sensor. Heres the facts of the matter:

- For TruLock, there are 8 blocks of 30 MHz for K-Band. So, the chances of the 9500i not alerting to K-Band radar at one previously locked out false alert location are about 1 in 8.

- Per the above thread, the chances are 1 in 13953 that a K-Band motion sensor would interfere with police radar

That would certainly indicate that a 9500i not alerting to K-Band radar at one previously locked out false alert location would be many thousands of times more likely than police radar getting interference from a motion sensor.

No, no, no, no, Its not just that simple, your only factoring in conditions that could only be reproduced in a controlled lab environment, and per just one of my points in the disagreement. It is possible to have the interference take place, not likely, but absolutely possible. I'll leave it at that and be content with your answer. However there are still too many perfectly correlated events that would have to take place before you can say there's a 1 in 8 chance Truelock would fail you. The person would have to be speeding in the first place, many have indicated that their false locations are in non speeding areas only. The reason they use truelock is removal of the annoying false alert. I'm not that fortunate myself, I admit, I do have false alerts locked out in high speed areas, however these false alerts are K or X band and in areas where only Ka band radar is in use. I have absolutely no fear what so ever of speeding through these false alert locations with X or K band blocks locked out in them. I do have the one area I mentioned before that has a K false I've locked 3 times on, and County LEO K band radar in use, which I always get an alert on.

According to your math, since I have 3 blocks already locked out in that area I'm actually running a 1 in 5 chance of having the K band signal locked out there, I'll for the sake of argument agree with you 100% on this.

There is a problem with this still though, when the LEO is present operating K band radar I pick up the alert a full 2 miles before ever even entering the locked out location. I then know he is around, even if he was operating on the same exact frequency as the false (which we know is almost impossible per your own statement of the police radar needing to be accurate to the place of 9 decimal points). Since I know a full 2 miles in advance before even entering this false location there is absolutely no chance I would be speeding when I know active police radar is in use in that area. That places the likelihood of TrueLock ever actually failing me to be far greater than 1 in a billion or higher, not 1 in 8 or even 1 in 5.

Truelock, in actuality, is going to help me in the above situation. I'll be able to see right away, even at just 100 feet of picking up the police radar before entering my Truelock location that my icon is not spinning and I have now a K band alert. If I didn't have Truelock and were using any other detector I would not, nor anyone else, be paying attention to just this 100 foot difference, or even 10 foot difference, you would see the K alert and just assume its the known false. With Turelock, I'd see the K alert 100 feet (in actuality much further) even before seeing the spinning icon and know right away something was wrong.

Quote:

I can't believe than I got banned for nearly a month for doing practically nothing and these jackasses are still here.

Because I don't agree with Jim on a technical aspect I'm a jackass and should be banned? I seriously doubt that is the solution to getting this misconception of TrueLock straightened out. I have no idea what you were banned for, but I would hardly think it was anything due to discussing anything like this that is a relevant point from both sides of the disagreement.

It's not like we're fighting, or both ready to take our shirts off and go at it, we just don't agree or see eye to eye on one specific topic.
03-05-2008, 04:04 PM
jimbonzzz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbonzzz

Hmmm, in both cases there has to be police radar operating in the vicinity of a motion sensor. Heres the facts of the matter:

- For TruLock, there are 8 blocks of 30 MHz for K-Band. So, the chances of the 9500i not alerting to K-Band radar at one previously locked out false alert location are about 1 in 8.

- Per the above thread, the chances are 1 in 13953 that a K-Band motion sensor would interfere with police radar

That would certainly indicate that a 9500i not alerting to K-Band radar at one previously locked out false alert location would be many thousands of times more likely than police radar getting interference from a motion sensor.

No, no, no, no, Its not just that simple, your only factoring in conditions that could only be reproduced in a controlled lab environment, and per just one of my points in the disagreement. It is possible to have the interference take place, not likely, but absolutely possible. I'll leave it at that and be content with your answer. However there are still too many perfectly correlated events that would have to take place before you can say there's a 1 in 8 chance Truelock would fail you. The person would have to be speeding in the first place, many have indicated that their false locations are in non speeding areas only. The reason they use truelock is removal of the annoying false alert. I'm not that fortunate myself, I admit, I do have false alerts locked out in high speed areas, however these false alerts are K or X band and in areas where only Ka band radar is in use. I have absolutely no fear what so ever of speeding through these false alert locations with X or K band blocks locked out in them. I do have the one area I mentioned before that has a K false I've locked 3 times on, and County LEO K band radar in use, which I always get an alert on.

According to your math, since I have 3 blocks already locked out in that area I'm actually running a 1 in 5 chance of having the K band signal locked out there, I'll for the sake of argument agree with you 100% on this.

There is a problem with this still though, when the LEO is present operating K band radar I pick up the alert a full 2 miles before ever even entering the locked out location. I then know he is around, even if he was operating on the same exact frequency as the false (which we know is almost impossible per your own statement of the police radar needing to be accurate to the place of 9 decimal points). Since I know a full 2 miles in advance before even entering this false location there is absolutely no chance I would be speeding when I know active police radar is in use in that area. That places the likelihood of TrueLock ever actually failing me to be far greater than 1 in a billion or higher, not 1 in 8 or even 1 in 5.

Truelock, in actuality, is going to help me in the above situation. I'll be able to see right away, even at just 100 feet of picking up the police radar before entering my Truelock location that my icon is not spinning and I have now a K band alert. If I didn't have Truelock and were using any other detector I would not, nor anyone else, be paying attention to just this 100 foot difference, or even 10 foot difference, you would see the K alert and just assume its the known false. With Turelock, I'd see the K alert 100 feet (in actuality much further) even before seeing the spinning icon and know right away something was wrong.

I really don't dispute any of that at all, most of it sounds pretty reasonable, if was smart about how they use TrueLock.

The ONLY thing I have a problem with here is your notion that "GOL is intentionally spreading misinformation".

But I will throw something out here, as food for thought:

If you're expecting to detect an officer before reaching the lockout zone, you're going on the assumption that he's using constant-on (or using instant-on but not very well) and facing in your direction. And of course some officers will still do this, in some areas there's "plenty of fish in the sea" and he can still "make his quota" without even trying. But is this the ONLY way they operate? Definitely not. For example, you would be hard-pressed to detect a forward-facing officer before the lockout zone.
But if you're only worried about being protected against an officer using constant-on and facing your direction, then I guess you're all set :wink:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoterica

Quote:

I can't believe than I got banned for nearly a month for doing practically nothing and these jackasses are still here.

Because I don't agree with Jim on a technical aspect I'm a jackass and should be banned? I seriously doubt that is the solution to getting this misconception of TrueLock straightened out. I have no idea what you were banned for, but I would hardly think it was anything due to discussing anything like this that is a relevant point from both sides of the disagreement.

It's not like we're fighting, or both ready to take our shirts off and go at it, we just don't agree or see eye to eye on one specific topic.

If I was going to ban Esoterica, I would have done it several pages ago :lol: Sure, we are in an enthusiastic discussion that has gotten heated at times, but that is part of what this board is for, and I would like to think that we're hashing some things out. There's no major rule violations going on, and if there was I would be just as guilty as he is.
03-05-2008, 04:18 PM
djrams80

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<JAZZY>>

I can't believe that I got banned for nearly a month for doing practically nothing and these jackasses are still here. :?

Fact:

The Escort 9500i does not work as advertised.

Wrong, the 9500i works exactly as advertised, as least as far as the Truelock feature is concerned, which is what this thread has turned into. I have all of the false alarms in my local area locked out, EVERY ONE OF THEM! My 9500i does not make a single sound unless there is a LEO running radar or I happen run into a mobile speed trailer, which are 34.7Ka band in my local area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<JAZZY>>

It is possible to get a ticket because the features don't work as advertised.

This I agree with, it is physically possible. That being said, it would have to take, what I would consider, the "perfect storm" of events to cause this, that being:

1) Both the LEO's radar gun frequency and the locked out false alert frequency have to fall within the same 30MHz block as per Jimbonzzz's research. There is only a 12.5% chance of even this part being true.
2) The LEO's radar signal must not be able to be detected by the 9500i before the user reaches the locked out signal's GPS radius. The Truelock radius is much smaller than the 9500i's detectable range in almost all situations.
3) The LEO would have to within or just outside the opposite side of the Truelock radius for him to be able to aquire the user's speed without the 9500i alerting to the new signal.

If and only if all of the above criteria is met, then the Truelock could fail the user of the 9500i. The 9500i has been on the market for a year now and is one of the most popular RD's on the market, yet even the naysayers cannot come up with even one example of ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME, having been let down by this feature and having received a speeding citation! NOT ONE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<JAZZY>>

The Escort 9500i still does not have a database.

This point is true of the 9500i and every other RD on the market. However, I agree that Escort has been slow in implementing this feature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<JAZZY>>

The Escort 9500i still has a useless USB port that only makes it easier for them to update it but is useless to the consumer.

This point is true. I agree that Escort has been slow in implementing this feature also.

In summary, the 9500i is the most advanced windshield mounted RD on the market today. In my local area, it has never failed to notify me of any possible threats and it almost never makes a sound other that. Once programmed, it stays quiet when there is a false alert and notifies the user when there is a real threat. There are no nonstaged examples of anything other than this. It is also extremely quiet with no user programming as compared to other RD's with similar sensitivity. Any research will reveal that the testimonial I have given above closely resembles that of the general 9500i using public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbonzzz

Yes, the chances of locking something out IS small, and that's a fact.
03-05-2008, 05:28 PM
Lucky225

Quote:

Originally Posted by djrams80

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<JAZZY>>

I can't believe that I got banned for nearly a month for doing practically nothing and these jackasses are still here. :?

Fact:

The Escort 9500i does not work as advertised.

Wrong, the 9500i works exactly as advertised, as least as far as the Truelock feature is concerned, which is what this thread has turned into. I have all of the false alarms in my local area locked out, EVERY ONE OF THEM! My 9500i does not make a single sound unless there is a LEO running radar or I happen run into a mobile speed trailer, which are 34.7Ka band in my local area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<JAZZY>>

It is possible to get a ticket because the features don't work as advertised.

This I agree with, it is physically possible. That being said, it would have to take, what I would consider, the "perfect storm" of events to cause this, that being:

1) Both the LEO's radar gun frequency and the locked out false alert frequency have to fall within the same 30MHz block as per Jimbonzzz's research. There is only a 12.5% chance of even this part being true.
2) The LEO's radar signal must not be able to be detected by the 9500i before the user reaches the locked out signal's GPS radius. The Truelock radius is much smaller than the 9500i's detectable range in almost all situations.
3) The LEO would have to within or just outside the opposite side of the Truelock radius for him to be able to aquire the user's speed without the 9500i alerting to the new signal.

If and only if all of the above criteria is met, then the Truelock could fail the user of the 9500i. The 9500i has been on the market for a year now and is one of the most popular RD's on the market, yet even the naysayers cannot come up with even one example of ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME, having been let down by this feature and having received a speeding citation! NOT ONE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<JAZZY>>

The Escort 9500i still does not have a database.

This point is true of the 9500i and every other RD on the market. However, I agree that Escort has been slow in implementing this feature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<JAZZY>>

The Escort 9500i still has a useless USB port that only makes it easier for them to update it but is useless to the consumer.

This point is true. I agree that Escort has been slow in implementing this feature also.

In summary, the 9500i is the most advanced windshield mounted RD on the market today. In my local area, it has never failed to notify me of any possible threats and it almost never makes a sound other that. Once programmed, it stays quiet when there is a false alert and notifies the user when there is a real threat. There are no nonstaged examples of anything other than this. It is also extremely quiet with no user programming as compared to other RD's with similar sensitivity. Any research will reveal that the testimonial I have given above closely resembles that of the general 9500i using public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbonzzz

Yes, the chances of locking something out IS small, and that's a fact.

And those leo's just happen to be running a radar that is out of the 30mhz bandwidth, what happens when they switch to a gun that is within the same bandwidth? Yes it works as advertised, so long as the leo isn't running radar within the 30mhz bandwidth that is locked out, chances of which may be low, but is this really a chance you're willing to rely on? Perhaps for most users this is a reasonable and acceptable risk for the paranoid like me, it is not.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page