Food for thought, ZR4 + STI-r Remote

[djrams80]

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Man, this is so frustrating! There are a year's worth of sales numbering into the thousands of 9500i's out there, and there are no citations due to Truelock that anyone can point out. Please answer this question for me. Would you, as a user of another RD, press your mute button upon receiving an alert in a known false area if these criteria were met?
1. You know this area well.
2. You drive through the area frequently.
3. You have seen the false alert many times.
4. You have a pretty good idea at approximately where along the route that the false alert happens.

[Lucky225]

YES, but I have the RD in threatmode, and watch it for multiple signals, which even within the 30mhz bandwidth will still show 2 signals if they're different strengths

[djrams80]

YES, but I have the RD in threatmode, and watch it for multiple signals, which even within the 30mhz bandwidth will still show 2 signals if they're different strengths

1 frequency will show up as 1 threat. I'm not sure how far apart the 2 signals have to be for a Bel RD to show 2 threats, but it can't be too close together or any reflection of the original signal would show up as a new threat. So, I believe you would most likely be just as beat in this situation as the 9500i would. I wouldn't be surprised if threat mode didn't use the exact same technology as does Truelock to determine the amount of radar contacts present.

[Esoterica]

Sorry Jim, I'm going to have to get back to your post in a little while, I want to comment on some of the other stuff here first.

First off, who actually cares about "As Advertised"? I don't think we'll find a single person here who will attempt to claim the marketing department at Escort to be overly brilliant or sharp. I think they could have done a far better job of advertising the usefulness of this detector. Forget about what the marketing department at Escort has done or come up with. What's important is what the Engineering department at Escort has come up with, and it expresses some true brilliance on their part.

I said it another post here, I guess I'll repeat it here. For the type of user that lives in a small town and maybe has 2 false areas they need to ever worry about then I don't think paying the extra money for the 9500i is any benefit to them, that is, if this was the only reason they were interested in this particular detector. Certainly there are many more things to the 9500i than just TrueLock, but if this was your only interest in your small town then its pointless to you.

Those of us though who live in large metropolitan areas and have literally hundreds of false sources to deal with every day, then the 9500i's TrueLock feature is as vital for our sanity as air is for life to us. The auto sensitivity mode is just as important to us and when you couple the two together it makes a drive across town far more than just tolerable, it makes it completely silent unless actual police radar is encountered.

So I don't even care if Escorts marketing department told me the thing would also put a pot of coffee on for me in the morning and it turned out to not be true. The usefulness of the TrueLock feature is where the benefit comes from.

I myself do not agree that it does not work as advertised, for me it works even better than advertised. Certainly anyone is free to think of how its advertised as they wish. You have to keep in mind though, advertising is rather limited in the amount of time they have to get your attention and the amount of space on the box they have available to do so in. Anything "advertised" is required to be condensed to the point of almost no use. It would be impossible for them to just advertise the complete usefulness of just this one feature, not to mention all of the other features the 9500i has that no one is claiming concern or problems with. If you forget about how its advertised and just use the feature as you adopt it for your own particular needs then the benefits become clear and the necessity for it becomes even greater.

You also have the option to use Lockout or not, its not like its hard coded into the 9500i and a user would have no way of disabling it. Disabling it is extremely easy if you wanted to use the 9500i like you would any other detector. You'll never do it though, anyone who spends the time being spoiled by no longer having to hear or deal with false alerts is definitely not going to want to disable this feature.

Using it puts you at no more risk than not using it or using any other detector. In fact if you'll read my points in the above post I made you will see how using it, even if the true police radar was locked out in that area will still give you advantages that none of the other detectors will when faced with a true LEO in a known false area.

What does the detector you're using right now do when you encounter actual police radar being used at the same frequency as a false in the same area?

I doubt its ever even happened to you. If it did then why don't I hear anyone complaining about that? There isn't a detector on the market that will tell you there are two different radar sources in the same area operating at the same frequency. People who don't even, or even never have used the 9500i repeatedly complain and comment that this hypothetical situation with TrueLock is such a problem, yet never a peep out of them when their own detectors are even more useless under these same hypothetical and very unlikely conditions. Isn't that ironic?

Why do I come across as being so pattionate about this feature you may wonder? Its because for the amount of daily driving I do, and the amount of both false and actual alerts I recieve daily this capability to me has become something to be very passionate about. For all of the other people out there, who drive daily like I do, I just couldn't stand to see them go without this. It's just like anything else... "would you recommend this to a friend or family member?"... ABSO F-ING LUTELY.

I do not want others to be missing out on this just because of misguidance or misunderstandings. If the other manufacturers best defense is to try to discredit it then everyone loses out. Even those who would never buy this detector benefit from it though, its raised the bar on what the competition needs to come up with in order to stay competitive, all end consumers (you) will benefit from that.

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.

Read my posts above this one, its all explained right there for you, your concern is a non issue. Read my comments in this very post you're reading right now. What happens when this same scenario takes place with the detector you are using right now?

[Esoterica]

YES, but I have the RD in threatmode, and watch it for multiple signals, which even within the 30mhz bandwidth will still show 2 signals if they're different strengths ;)

B.S. it will not, and I seriously doubt you have ever even seen police radar and a false signal operating at the same frequency in the same location.

Your detector has absolutely no way what so ever of distinguishing if its seeing a stronger and weaker source operating at the same frequency in the same area. This is clearly evident by just reading V1 users comments in the V1 forum and how a single signal even will light up both the front AND rear arrows and indicate 2 bogies in the bogey counter. All from a single source that is being reflected back at them at different strengths and from different directions.

Your own detector has absolutely no way to decipher if the second "stronger" signal is a second source or second reflection from the same source which would be at a weaker "strength" based on how far away it was being reflected back at you from.

[Esoterica]

P.S.S.
As far as the USB port and the software issue, yes, all of us 9500i owners are rather frustrated about this still not being available. Keep in mind though, its not like the detector can not be used without it, or having it will in anyway enhance how well the detector works at avoiding speeding tickets.

This would be a point of more relevance if say the detector absolutely would not function at all without being able to use the USB port. Yes, then I'd think most of us would be down right pissed if we opened the box, plugged the thing in and found out we couldn't even use it at all. People still setting around a year after buying it unable to plug it in and use the detector at all.

Fortunately though this is not the case, the detector still works well even without being able to use the USB port at this time to back up all of our stored data.

[Esoterica]

Jim, I want to tell you right off, your an icon in all of this, you clearly know your ****, theres no question or doubt about that, and the way you take your own time to help other people is very admirable. I like to think of myself as also helping people to the best of my own abilities. Its tough to dumb things down to a point that the average person not experienced in a particular field can understand. I struggle with this often and have done so for years. I like to think I've got it down to the point I can express something and it doesn't take a specialist in that field to understand how I'm trying to explain something to them. You've got that same talent and its rare to find.

I hope you never use that talent in a negative way, as an icon comes the responsibility of doing so to serve all in their best interest and understanding. I think this is expected of you in the public eye and maybe you didn't ask for that but you have it and seem to be working hard at keeping it.

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

So we can finally get back to the point in all of this, after hashing out all of the possibilities behind the root of the issue, it's not just me. I have absolutely nothing against the GOL. Some day when I grow up I'd maybe even like to become a GOL member myself.

It's not just me though, it's all current users of the 9500i that question the integrity of the GOL when we see these videos purposely staging an event that does not take place in the real world, or as we have established could take place, but in the same sense is both avoidable and not very likely at all.

It would seem the GOL has made these videos for the wrong reasons and thats the problem I have with it. I'm not new to people publishing exploits just to show the potential is there. It seems clear to me, and others that these particular videos were done in the spirit of nothing more than to disclaim, or display that under some unrealistic conditions you could be smarter than TrueLock. Wow we bow to GOL for being so brilliant that they could stage a scenario showing how advanced radar dectector technology is not worthy of their efforts to disclaim it and how they are so much smarter than a dumb box attached to your windshield you paid $400 for. Impressive for sure, in the spirit of the GOL though why were there not equal comaprrisons made of other detectors operating under these same conditons though.

Maybe we lost something in our thinking of what the GOL attempts to do, I thought you had unbiased reporting through comparison testing and published only the facts. I don't see any comparisons taking place in those videos, you've clearly singled out a particular model that we all know in a similar real world comparison walks away from and destroys other models if a comparison of this same circumstance was made against all detectors. That is unless you now wish to back step and go against what it seems we have come to agreement on here in this discussion.

Its a system, of course like anything else you could orchestrate conditions in which it would be shown to be flawed, but you did so in a way that required you to orchestrate situations that were unrealistic. Who's to say it was done with the intent of purposeful bias, or just done to show you could do it? It doesn't even matter, the point is you did it and now thousands of 9500i owners and users are asking WTF because they don;t see this problem being a reality like the GOL videos depict it as being.

My intention was never aimed at discrediting the GOL, it was only to make the point of how important it is that you guys execute more responsibility in what you report and sign the GOL name on.

If you guys put out information that is easily proved to not be realistic, or information that no body in the real world is going to experience the the integrity of everything else you say in not just my eyes, but everyones eyes is left in question.

There are thousands of 9500i owners out there right now who see your videos and question your integrity because they know first hand this is such a non issue. You're the only person I see who claims the intent was not to discredit the TureLock feature. Nobody can watch the videos and walk away from them with any other impression.

In the spirit of GOL, why were these videos not conducted in a comparison test? Why wasn't the V1 and all other detectors placed under and video tape in these same conditions? Why did you guys specifically single out the 9500i and then orchestrate a scenario in which you could leave the viewers of the videos to come to their own conclusion of the system seemingly not being any benefit to anyone and instead being a risk.

You can say this was never the intention, yet all of us viewing it seem to come to a different understanding of what is being presented.

There's my point, if this wasn't your intention like you state, then the videos did not depict this in any remote way. The perception everyone has after watching those videos is that Turelock has major issues, which we both know to be completely false. The further perception people have who actually use TrueLock and find it isn't even remotely as the videos show is that GOL is biased and full of ****.

So all I'm saying is, in the future if you'd like to maintain your reputation as an unbiased and fact reporting organization, do so with some forward and unbiased thought. Report a condition that is of significant risk to people, but don't purposely stage a potential event that is so unlikely to happen its not even worth mention of, this discredits you, believe it or not, if not we would never even be having this conversation now would we?

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

Now you're really reaching for straws with this example. I see your point, but you've now taken a 1 in a billion example to the point of being off the charts with that scenario.

WTF if the LEO is in that area using IO, on the same frequency, and you have it locked out, and he just happened to not use his IO on someone else prior because he was waiting, some how knowing with his crystal ball that he should hold off on that IO because you're coming and he doesn't want to alert you in advance, that he's suddenly going to hold back on using his IO and you are going to speed right into that false locked out area so he can now get you with IO....

Please, you took an impossible to happen scenario and attempted to add even more on top of it just to prove that there could be at least "a" situation in which TrueLock would not help you.

Wow, sure that could happen just like that, I'm sure in Never Never Land, or somewhere, that has to happen everyday for Peter Pan and Tinkerbell.

Come on now, if that were to happen like that, is there any detector known to man that would save you at all? Please if there is I want to know about it, I absolutely have to have one. I travel to Never Never Land not very often, but should I ever plan a trip there I want to make sure I have this detector that protects me from this scenario.

I have a world of respect for you, but can not believe you just went there with that comment. :shock:

[TSi+WRX]

^ It's an "impossible scenario" - one where no detector will save YOU - if YOU are the one being targeted.

However, if the I/O, which falls within the locked-out frequency block, was used to sporadically target vehicles ahead of you (but out-of-sight), it is a situation where a potential save *is* possible with another detector, but could be missed by the 9500i.

---

To me:

The "missed" lock-out scenario is a physical possibility. Likely? Depends on the "density" of the enforcement you face - but overall, as long as you choose to operate the detector's TrueLock feature properly (and minding CJR's "Risk Scenarios"), there should not be such problems.

Any such errors, I don't consider it a fault of the detector - that's just its current physical constraints. Call it a limit of the machine's "resolution," if you will.

Rather, I consider such problems operator error in failing to properly assess the threat/risk scenario.

[djrams80]

^ It's an "impossible scenario" - one where no detector will save YOU - if YOU are the one being targeted.

However, if the I/O, which falls within the locked-out frequency block, was used to sporadically target vehicles ahead of you (but out-of-sight), it is a situation where a potential save *is* possible with another detector, but could be missed by the 9500i.

The 9500i would save the user in this scenario better than any RD on the market other than the V1(which is just slightly more sensitive than the 9500i). The 9500i would not suppress the alert until it reached the lockout area. The 9500i does not know where the alert is originating from, only where it is detected, so it would alert to these I/O threats just like any other RD(better most likely), then would be quiet once it reached the lockout area only if the 2 frequencies were within the same 30 MHz block. The 9500i user would have a HUGE advantage in this scenario, because every other day othe than this one, the 9500i would have been totally silent, then low and behold, today a blip. I know I'd slow the F down!

[jimbonzzz]

Jim, I want to tell you right off, your an icon in all of this, you clearly know your ****, theres no question or doubt about that, and the way you take your own time to help other people is very admirable. I like to think of myself as also helping people to the best of my own abilities. Its tough to dumb things down to a point that the average person not experienced in a particular field can understand. I struggle with this often and have done so for years. I like to think I've got it down to the point I can express something and it doesn't take a specialist in that field to understand how I'm trying to explain something to them. You've got that same talent and its rare to find.

I hope you never use that talent in a negative way, as an icon comes the responsibility of doing so to serve all in their best interest and understanding. I think this is expected of you in the public eye and maybe you didn't ask for that but you have it and seem to be working hard at keeping it.

Thx, I appreciate it...
(But don't worry, I really wasn't going to ban you :wink: )

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

So we can finally get back to the point in all of this, after hashing out all of the possibilities behind the root of the issue, it's not just me. I have absolutely nothing against the GOL. Some day when I grow up I'd maybe even like to become a GOL member myself.

It's not just me though, it's all current users of the 9500i that question the integrity of the GOL when we see these videos purposely staging an event that does not take place in the real world, or as we have established could take place, but in the same sense is both avoidable and not very likely at all.

It would seem the GOL has made these videos for the wrong reasons and thats the problem I have with it. I'm not new to people publishing exploits just to show the potential is there. It seems clear to me, and others that these particular videos were done in the spirit of nothing more than to disclaim, or display that under some unrealistic conditions you could be smarter than TrueLock. Wow we bow to GOL for being so brilliant that they could stage a scenario showing how advanced radar dectector technology is not worthy of their efforts to disclaim it and how they are so much smarter than a dumb box attached to your windshield you paid $400 for. Impressive for sure, in the spirit of the GOL though why were there not equal comaprrisons made of other detectors operating under these same conditons though.

Maybe we lost something in our thinking of what the GOL attempts to do, I thought you had unbiased reporting through comparison testing and published only the facts. I don't see any comparisons taking place in those videos, you've clearly singled out a particular model that we all know in a similar real world comparison walks away from and destroys other models if a comparison of this same circumstance was made against all detectors. That is unless you now wish to back step and go against what it seems we have come to agreement on here in this discussion.

Its a system, of course like anything else you could orchestrate conditions in which it would be shown to be flawed, but you did so in a way that required you to orchestrate situations that were unrealistic. Who's to say it was done with the intent of purposeful bias, or just done to show you could do it? It doesn't even matter, the point is you did it and now thousands of 9500i owners and users are asking WTF because they don;t see this problem being a reality like the GOL videos depict it as being.

My intention was never aimed at discrediting the GOL, it was only to make the point of how important it is that you guys execute more responsibility in what you report and sign the GOL name on.

If you guys put out information that is easily proved to not be realistic, or information that no body in the real world is going to experience the the integrity of everything else you say in not just my eyes, but everyones eyes is left in question.

There are thousands of 9500i owners out there right now who see your videos and question your integrity because they know first hand this is such a non issue. You're the only person I see who claims the intent was not to discredit the TureLock feature. Nobody can watch the videos and walk away from them with any other impression.

In the spirit of GOL, why were these videos not conducted in a comparison test? Why wasn't the V1 and all other detectors placed under and video tape in these same conditions? Why did you guys specifically single out the 9500i and then orchestrate a scenario in which you could leave the viewers of the videos to come to their own conclusion of the system seemingly not being any benefit to anyone and instead being a risk.

You can say this was never the intention, yet all of us viewing it seem to come to a different understanding of what is being presented.

There's my point, if this wasn't your intention like you state, then the videos did not depict this in any remote way. The perception everyone has after watching those videos is that Turelock has major issues, which we both know to be completely false. The further perception people have who actually use TrueLock and find it isn't even remotely as the videos show is that GOL is biased and full of ****.

So all I'm saying is, in the future if you'd like to maintain your reputation as an unbiased and fact reporting organization, do so with some forward and unbiased thought. Report a condition that is of significant risk to people, but don't purposely stage a potential event that is so unlikely to happen its not even worth mention of, this discredits you, believe it or not, if not we would never even be having this conversation now would we?

I get what you're saying, believe me. It's like someone else once said: though we (GOL) are just regular enthusiasts like everyone else, at some point a line was crossed and people began to hold us to a higher standard. We'll certainly keep that in mind.

But clearly, there was some jumping to conclusions going on here, without knowing all of the facts. It's true that through a set of circumstances beyond our control someone could watch these videos and get some incorrect ideas and perceptions. But if one looks at the facts behind each video (which are in this thread), it is easy to see that they were done in good faith: Were we out to find an "exploit" or "security hole" with TrueLock? NO. Did we purposely orchestrate situations that was unrealistic in an attempt to "discredit" TrueLock? NO. It seems to me that if people would make an effort to learn the background and facts behind something instead of just clicking on YouTube videos and jumping to conclusions, there wouldn't be a problem here. But, I guess sometimes it is just easier for some people to jump to conclusions rather than looking at facts. There's nothing GOL can do about that, except for not publishing anything at all, and that's not going to happen.

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

Now you're really reaching for straws with this example. I see your point, but you've now taken a 1 in a billion example to the point of being off the charts with that scenario.

WTF if the LEO is in that area using IO, on the same frequency, and you have it locked out, and he just happened to not use his IO on someone else prior because he was waiting, some how knowing with his crystal ball that he should hold off on that IO because you're coming and he doesn't want to alert you in advance, that he's suddenly going to hold back on using his IO and you are going to speed right into that false locked out area so he can now get you with IO....

Please, you took an impossible to happen scenario and attempted to add even more on top of it just to prove that there could be at least "a" situation in which TrueLock would not help you.

Wow, sure that could happen just like that, I'm sure in Never Never Land, or somewhere, that has to happen everyday for Peter Pan and Tinkerbell.

Come on now, if that were to happen like that, is there any detector known to man that would save you at all? Please if there is I want to know about it, I absolutely have to have one. I travel to Never Never Land not very often, but should I ever plan a trip there I want to make sure I have this detector that protects me from this scenario.

I have a world of respect for you, but can not believe you just went there with that comment. :shock:

Reaching for straws? Do you really think so?

Overall, it wouldn't be very likely for someone to miss an alert because of TrueLock, and that I don't dispute. But you certainly can't say that it isn't possible. Clearly, the low level of risk is fine for YOU. But for others, that isn't necessarily the case, no matter how remote the possibility is. It only takes ONCE for one of these scenarios to occur to result in a ticket which could have otherwise been prevented.

Once again: Overall, it wouldn't be very likely for someone to miss an alert because of TrueLock, and that I don't dispute. But when you go around trying to hide or purposely downplay the (already small) shortcomings that DO exist with the feature, by stating something that isn't 100% accurate, then YOU'RE the one misleading people.

And again: Overall, it wouldn't be very likely for someone to miss an alert because of TrueLock, and that I don't dispute. But in this case, you repeatedly state that if an officer is operating radar, at the same frequency, in a previously locked out location, that you would detect it outside of the lockout area. That isn't neccessarily the case. The most accurate thing you can say is that in the above situation you *might* detect it before the lockout area.

Instant-on has been around since 1978 as an official feature, and exised in other forms even before that. Forward facing has been around since LONG before that. And the two can be combined with deadly consequences. This is standard stuff: neither is a "new" or "special" operating mode. If you think that these operating modes are rarely used, then you're the one in Never Never Land with Peter Pan and Tinkerbell. I can even say with complete confidence that in some areas these are in fact the primary operating modes. So when you go around trying to make people think that these operating modes are rarely or never used, then YOU are the one spreading misinformation.

You can't believe I went there? Why not, it's very relevant to what you've been telling people, which isn't 100% accurate.