|
|
X2, To embrace technology is not to blindly except it. we must always question technology but never be afraid to use it.Originally Posted by amoney
rose1,
TrueLock is not the only point/advantage of the 9500I Auto mode, voice alert, auto dim, auto volume, speed read out and mark location are very valuable features, and the really good detection range. I have only 4 places locked out with my 9500I and its still real quiet, and i love the added detection range.
Re: Is it really worth it to get a 9500i? Especially for me?
Thats perfectly understood, however (and not to hunt you down stalking and arguing with you over this, sorry but its here, I didn't purposely seek this out).Thank you very much!
For one, just because we come together and test as GOL doesn't mean each of us no longer has our own individual opinions about certain products. And each of us is free to express them, if we weren't then we would be hiding something. Just because one person feels a certain way about a product or feature, doesn't mean that any of the rest of us do, or that GOL as a team as a whole feels that way. I get SO sick of people saying that "GOL says this" or "GOL says that" based on something one member posted on this forum that had nothing to do with GOL.
For two: who from GOL has even commented on TruLock recently, besides myself and TheStaton?
We've made several videos in an attampt to TEST TruLock to see if it performed as advertised, not to try and prove things one way or another. What people see in the videos is exactly what happened, and if they don't like what occured there's nothing we can do about it: we didn't design TruLock.
Anyhow, where was I?
Yes, however,
All individuals should be entitled to their own opinions. In fact, its absolutely critical all of you have differing opinions. After all if all of you always agreed on everything and didn't have a variance of preference or opinion what would be the point of having the collective of minds grouping together? By allowing each person in the GOL to maintain their own personal view point we get a better collection of thought as a result from a wider variance of view points.
Here's where that should end though, these people should not be entitled to just go off and do their own independent testing and then stick the GOL label on these individual findings. When allowed to do this we end up with a single biased person expressing their own intentions and doing so under the name of GOL as a whole.
For anything to be associated to the publics view as being from GOL, it should be from the entire group as a whole, not an individual.
When we see a video that has GOL pasted all over in it we look at this video as if it is coming from everyone in the GOL organization. We are not looking at this as an individual expressing his own specific intentions or preferences.
Reserve the use of "GOL" for only those tests the actual GOL as a whole work on together and come to an agreement of in the findings. I honestly think this will help all of us who enjoy and even count on the GOL findings to be valuable, as well as substantiate the credibility of the group in the publics eye.
Recently doesn't matter, to a new viewer finding the videos their first time even if its old news for you, its recent and brand new news for them. People as you are starting to find are coming out of the woodwork implying TrueLock absolutely does not work and they are getting this impression because its how things are implied in these GOL labeled videos.For two: who from GOL has even commented on TruLock recently, besides myself and TheStaton?
I watch the videos myself and I can't blame them for thinking this, its the impression you are giving people with how the material is being presented. In fact as soon as I got my 9500i I later ran across one of the videos. Had scared me to death of even trying TrueLock, I even emailed Escort asking them about it for reassurance before using it. You would have been doing me a HUGE disservice had I not decided to risk using it, I absolutely love the TrueLock feature, there's no way I could stand having a detector without this, and I almost never had the chance to even find this out because I had confidence in what the GOL was presenting to me.
TrueLock is the ****, that's all there is too it, the people missing out on this because they believe the GOL is telling them it doesn't work and is even dangerous to use are being given a great disservice themselves by the GOL.
Well said.
Yes, there is a logical "fault" with implementation of TrueLock. It certainly -could- lock-out a true LEO signal. There's no debate in that.
However, I feel that this is as much operator-error as it is due to the current design limitations (or what design has been chosen to be implemented by Escort) of this feature of the 9500i.
Instead of blindly locking-out, one MUST properly assess his/her "Risk Scenario," per CJR stickied posting on this very subject.
A detector is just a detector - it's just an instrument, just a tool.
The end-user must be able (and willing) to utilize the tool properly, and to also realistically assess its potential weaknesses (and strengths), to maximize the value of said tool.
^ +1.
I drove around for the first week or so, with my 9500i, without *any* of my local hot-spots locked-out. Just to see what it could do with the GPS-enabled "Auto" mode.
I live and commute through densely urban areas, with *many* falses.
Even so, the detector was much, much quieter than my Rev5 x50 (on "City loX" *ever* was, and never once compromised protection (i.e. detection). As a matter of fact, on my AM commute segment, where traffic tends to keep road-speeds lower, the detector, even though two spots of rather intense traffic-radar action, didn't make a peep.
Consider the side-benefits of the 9500i's additional features, before you rule it out, completely.
Re: Is it really worth it to get a 9500i? Especially for me?
I agree 100%.Thats perfectly understood, however (and not to hunt you down stalking and arguing with you over this, sorry but its here, I didn't purposely seek this out).Thank you very much!
For one, just because we come together and test as GOL doesn't mean each of us no longer has our own individual opinions about certain products. And each of us is free to express them, if we weren't then we would be hiding something. Just because one person feels a certain way about a product or feature, doesn't mean that any of the rest of us do, or that GOL as a team as a whole feels that way. I get SO sick of people saying that "GOL says this" or "GOL says that" based on something one member posted on this forum that had nothing to do with GOL.
For two: who from GOL has even commented on TruLock recently, besides myself and TheStaton?
We've made several videos in an attampt to TEST TruLock to see if it performed as advertised, not to try and prove things one way or another. What people see in the videos is exactly what happened, and if they don't like what occured there's nothing we can do about it: we didn't design TruLock.
Anyhow, where was I?
Yes, however,
All individuals should be entitled to their own opinions. In fact, its absolutely critical all of you have differing opinions. After all if all of you always agreed on everything and didn't have a variance of preference or opinion what would be the point of having the collective of minds grouping together? By allowing each person in the GOL to maintain their own personal view point we get a better collection of thought as a result from a wider variance of view points.
Here's where that should end though, these people should not be entitled to just go off and do their own independent testing and then stick the GOL label on these individual findings. When allowed to do this we end up with a single biased person expressing their own intentions and doing so under the name of GOL as a whole.
For anything to be associated to the publics view as being from GOL, it should be from the entire group as a whole, not an individual.
When we see a video that has GOL pasted all over in it we look at this video as if it is coming from everyone in the GOL organization. We are not looking at this as an individual expressing his own specific intentions or preferences.
Reserve the use of "GOL" for only those tests the actual GOL as a whole work on together and come to an agreement of in the findings. I honestly think this will help all of us who enjoy and even count on the GOL findings to be valuable, as well as substantiate the credibility of the group in the publics eye.
And thank you for the suggestions, but we're not exactly new at this, and these issues have come up before, so I think we have a pretty good idea of how to run our team.
It would also be a HUGE disservice to hide the fact that TrueLock isn't 100% perfect, and that if an officer is operating radar in a previously locked out location the detector won't alert if the police radar is in the same 30 MHz frequency block as the false.
And for some reason, I get the feeling from your posts that nothing would make you happier than to hide this FACT from the community.
GOL tested TrueLock to see if it worked as advertised, and what you see in the videos is exactly what happened. Sorry, but we're not going to hide them from the community.
Thank you for the clarification and while we have a difference of opinion on the V1's sensitivity and arrows, I agree with your assessment of the 9500i. If the 9500i had the STi's stealth I would have purchased it over the STi as I believe the 9500i is the best "all around" windshield mounted detector.Well that's a totally different story. I said that in my opinion, the v1 isn't worth 3x the price of the pro78 because all it had to offer was maybe a second or so earlier detection time (more sensitive) than the pro78 and directional arrows which in my opinion are not really necessary because as soon as you get an alert, you're going to slow down no matter where it's coming from. The 9500i, however, brings totally new breakthrough technology to rd's with it's integrated gps and features.
From escorts sight states:
I just want to point out that TrueLock works exactly as advertised, and just like how videos can be misinterpreted so was there wording."Our patented design captures the location coordinates and the exact frequency of the signal and stores them in memory. 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!"
Its obvious to me by what they said (new or different signal) that the 9500I will only alert at a previous lock out location if the signal is Not the same as the one previously locked out before (new/Different). If it is the same it would lock it out.
I think the point that Esoterica is trying to make and i tried a while back is: TrueLock works as advertised and if you use it intelligently you will have no problems. Why pick on something that when used correctly/intelligently works fine (not that anyone is doing this anymore).
You will even see below the Red radar signal is labeled "Different signal than locked out location"
From escorts sight states:
I just want to point out that TrueLock works exactly as advertised, and just like how videos can be misinterpreted so was there wording."Our patented design captures the location coordinates and the exact frequency of the signal and stores them in memory. 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!"
Its obvious to me by what they said (new or different signal) that the 9500I will only alert at a previous lock out location if the signal is Not the same as the one previously locked out before (new/Different). If it is the same it would lock it out.
I think the point that Esoterica is trying to make and i tried a while back is: TrueLock works as advertised and if you use it intelligently you will have no problems. Why pick on something that when used correctly/intelligently works fine (not that anyone is doing this anymore)
You will even see below the Red radar signal is labeled "Different signal than locked out location"
CJR, just so I'm clear. If I lock out a door sensor that operates at let's say k band 24.150 right, if lets say the next day, a leo is in the same vicinity operating his k band radar which is also at 24.150, will the 9500i lock out the true police radar? Technically, the police radar is not what I locked out the day before so it would be a new signal quite naturally, a lot stronger. Will the 9500i block both signals simultaneously?
Essentially yes, there may be outher factors that will alow it to alert like, being exactly at the same 24.150 there may be interference and prevent an accurate reading for the LEO. Some of the outher factors are that the LEO's radar is stronger so you will pick it up much farther even if it its the same frquancy. the lock out area is about 1/10-1/4mi.From escorts sight states:
I just want to point out that TrueLock works exactly as advertised, and just like how videos can be misinterpreted so was there wording."Our patented design captures the location coordinates and the exact frequency of the signal and stores them in memory. 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!"
Its obvious to me by what they said (new or different signal) that the 9500I will only alert at a previous lock out location if the signal is Not the same as the one previously locked out before (new/Different). If it is the same it would lock it out.
I think the point that Esoterica is trying to make and i tried a while back is: TrueLock works as advertised and if you use it intelligently you will have no problems. Why pick on something that when used correctly/intelligently works fine (not that anyone is doing this anymore)
You will even see below the Red radar signal is labeled "Different signal than locked out location"
CJR, just so I'm clear. If I lock out a door sensor that operates at let's say k band 24.150 right, if lets say the next day, a leo is in the same vicinity operating his k band radar which is also at 24.150, will the 9500i lock out the true police radar?
Escentaly Police radar and Falses are exactly the same, same type of signal but by a different means. Did you read my thread? you may have a lock out point you don’t want to do but the outer 5 your happy with.
Yes it is going to block out a 24.150GHz signal if you have a 24.150GHz signal locked out in that GPS location, that's exactly what it is supposed to do, or I should say, that's exactly what YOU told it to do.
You're trying to think too hard though on finding a fault within a system that those of us using the thing are not experiencing for one thing, such a condition needs to be staged exactly like this to occur before you would ever see it happen.
djrams makes the point in another thread, lets say you drove by that area on day 1 and discovered this 24.150GHz signal false while using ANY radar detector, an X50 a V1, any detector, ok? You now know there is a false signal in that area. The next day you drive by there again and this time there is also your hypothetical 24.150GHz police radar now there in addition to the 24.150GHz false.
What's going to happen in that situation with any other detector in the world? Is say the V1 going to show you multiple bogies operating at the same frequency? No, if it did then the bogey counter is completely useless because it would not be able to detect multiple sources and distinguish that from multiple reflections of a single source if all were at the same frequency.
What would happen if say you were using an X50 in that same situation, you'd hear the alert, you would remember just yesterday you had a K band false, at that exact frequency in the area. What happens next is in your hands, not the detectors. You're going to either slow down for all falses, which very few if any people do, or your going just continue blasting through that area and get your hypothetical ticket.
How is any detector on the market helping you in that situation? Yet some how having the 9500i locking out that signal in your hypothetical situation is placing you it seems you imply at some level of even greater risk?
It's as if people think the detector should be smarter than the human using it. If you wanted to be safe for any false alert, with any detector, not just the 9500i then you have the option of slowing down in an area where you are receiving a false alert. The benefit with the 9500i is that you still have all options, you just do not have to listen to that false signal alerting you in the area you know contains a false. It's not making you safer or at any higher risk, all its doing is making the drive a lot less tolerable by not being notified at every false signal in town.
If a person lives in a small town with just one or 2 false signals I'd be the first to tell you that you are likely wasting the extra money you would be spending on a 9500i if the Lockout feature was all you were interested in. For the rest of us though who live in large metropolitan areas and have literally hundreds of false signal sources this is a blessing from the god of war for us, well worth every penny spent on it.
Lets get back to your question though, there's plenty more that can be said in answering it. Even if the situation as you present it is even remotely likely to ever happen, which is still extremely slim that you would EVER run into that, but even if it were to happen just like that, there are two additional things your not considering in your thinking.
First, if there are 2 signals operating at or near the same frequency in an area what happens? At first you may think you have no idea, but think harder, you've likely experienced it a hundred or more times first hand. What happens when your listening to your car radio and you reach that point were you are picking up two different radio stations operating on the same channel (frequency)? You get unusable garbage coming out your speakers. What happens when two people on a CB broadcasting on the same channel (frequency) at the same time try talking at the same time? Garbage, they walk all over each other and the received signal is useless to anyone, the sender or the receiver.
So what do you suppose happens in your scenario when a door operator and a police radar are in the same area operating at the same frequency?
Just like anything else broadcasting multiple counts of the same frequency, you'd have to get garbage. If the LEO is picking up garbage on his radar unit because his signal is being walked on by the door operator working on that same frequency how are you proposing this would be of any value for him to do this? Just because its a police signal being sent out doesn't make it possible to create exceptions to a basic principle that two signals can not operate in the same area on the same frequency with out walking on each other.
So, lets think into that further, because that simple answer I hope is understood by everyone. What happens now when one of these signals is considerably stronger than the other, considerably. The strongest signal will in most cases win the battle, it will still suffer some interference, but for simplicity it will win the battle.
So, if the false signal was rather weak like most are, and the police radar signal was strong, like most are, there still is going to be an alert taking place from the 9500i to the police radar. If the police radar was strong enough to over power the false signal you are going to be picking up that signal what? 1 mile, 2 miles, 10 miles down the road in advance, well before you even come close to reaching the locked out GPS area.
Isn't common sense going to come in there at some point and trigger the thought in your head that at two miles out your picking up a steadily growing signal then police radar is likely in use in that area?
It sure would make me think so, I'd already be doing the PSL long before even getting into the lock out area. Am I just suddenly going to speed up now that I've reached the lockout area when I know police radar is obviously suspected already to be in the area?
**** no, so how is this hypothetical situation you present and the GOL videos enforce ever even a likely reality?
It isn't.
I am not trying to find a fault in this unit. I just want it to work as advertised. According to Escort, if there is a NEW radar in the same locked out area, it will alert you. You are saying that it will not alert and that's the way it's supposed to be. Escort says otherwise. I don't know who to believe.Yes it is going to block out a 24.150GHz signal if you have a 24.150GHz signal locked out in that GPS location, that's exactly what it is supposed to do, or I should say, that's exactly what YOU told it to do.
You're trying to think too hard though on finding a fault within a system that those of us using the thing are not experiencing for one thing, such a condition needs to be staged exactly like this to occur before you would ever see it happen.
djrams makes the point in another thread, lets say you drove by that area on day 1 and discovered this 24.150GHz signal false while using ANY radar detector, an X50 a V1, any detector, ok? You now know there is a false signal in that area. The next day you drive by there again and this time there is also your hypothetical 24.150GHz police radar now there in addition to the 24.150GHz false.
What's going to happen in that situation with any other detector in the world? Is say the V1 going to show you multiple bogies operating at the same frequency? No, if it did then the bogey counter is completely useless because it would not be able to detect multiple sources and distinguish that from multiple reflections of a single source if all were at the same frequency.
What would happen if say you were using an X50 in that same situation, you'd hear the alert, you would remember just yesterday you had a K band false, at that exact frequency in the area. What happens next is in your hands, not the detectors. You're going to either slow down for all falses, which very few if any people do, or your going just continue blasting through that area and get your hypothetical ticket.
How is any detector on the market helping you in that situation? Yet some how having the 9500i locking out that signal in your hypothetical situation is placing you it seems you imply at some level of even greater risk?
It's as if people think the detector should be smarter than the human using it. If you wanted to be safe for any false alert, with any detector, not just the 9500i then you have the option of slowing down in an area where you are receiving a false alert. The benefit with the 9500i is that you still have all options, you just do not have to listen to that false signal alerting you in the area you know contains a false. It's not making you safer or at any higher risk, all its doing is making the drive a lot less tolerable by not being notified at every false signal in town.
If a person lives in a small town with just one or 2 false signals I'd be the first to tell you that you are likely wasting the extra money you would be spending on a 9500i if the Lockout feature was all you were interested in. For the rest of us though who live in large metropolitan areas and have literally hundreds of false signal sources this is a blessing from the god of war for us, well worth every penny spent on it.
Lets get back to your question though, there's plenty more that can be said in answering it. Even if the situation as you present it is even remotely likely to ever happen, which is still extremely slim that you would EVER run into that, but even if it were to happen just like that, there are two additional things your not considering in your thinking.
First, if there are 2 signals operating at or near the same frequency in an area what happens? At first you may think you have no idea, but think harder, you've likely experienced it a hundred or more times first hand. What happens when your listening to your car radio and you reach that point were you are picking up two different radio stations operating on the same channel (frequency)? You get unusable garbage coming out your speakers. What happens when two people on a CB broadcasting on the same channel (frequency) at the same time try talking at the same time? Garbage, they walk all over each other and the received signal is useless to anyone, the sender or the receiver.
So what do you suppose happens in your scenario when a door operator and a police radar are in the same area operating at the same frequency?
Just like anything else broadcasting multiple counts of the same frequency, you'd have to get garbage. If the LEO is picking up garbage on his radar unit because his signal is being walked on by the door operator working on that same frequency how are you proposing this would be of any value for him to do this? Just because its a police signal being sent out doesn't make it possible to create exceptions to a basic principle that two signals can not operate in the same area on the same frequency with out walking on each other.
So, lets think into that further, because that simple answer I hope is understood by everyone. What happens now when one of these signals is considerably stronger than the other, considerably. The strongest signal will in most cases win the battle, it will still suffer some interference, but for simplicity it will win the battle.
So, if the false signal was rather weak like most are, and the police radar signal was strong, like most are, there still is going to be an alert taking place from the 9500i to the police radar. If the police radar was strong enough to over power the false signal you are going to be picking up that signal what? 1 mile, 2 miles, 10 miles down the road in advance, well before you even come close to reaching the locked out GPS area.
Isn't common sense going to come in there at some point and trigger the thought in your head that at two miles out your picking up a steadily growing signal then police radar is likely in use in that area?
It sure would make me think so, I'd already be doing the PSL long before even getting into the lock out area. Am I just suddenly going to speed up now that I've reached the lockout area when I know police radar is obviously suspected already to be in the area?
**** no, so how is this hypothetical situation you present and the GOL videos enforce ever even a likely reality?
It isn't.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks