9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

Printable View

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

08-14-2008, 02:36 PM
RadarKid

Re: 9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJR238

As i have stated and always will TrueLock is reliable if used intelligently and according to the "Risk Scenarios".

:026:

than I retract my original statement......if he owned the 9500i, there's no reason for him to be as FULL OF #%IT as he is!

BTW - TrueLock works EXCELLENT if you never lock out a location. Try it, you'll notice how reliable it is....
08-14-2008, 02:40 PM
CJR238

Re: 9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by €

Agree - frequency blocks are 4-5 MHz and lockout radius has maybe only about 100-200 feets. 9500ci is far more accurate than 9500i/ix.

If this is the case the lock outs would be alerting evry outher day, frequency drift was a problem with 30MHz blocks let alone anything smaller.
Also the radios I believe the ci manual states is 1/2mi. It may not be locking out that particular false for that long but its actively looking for that specific frequency for that 1/2mi radius.
08-14-2008, 02:45 PM
€

Re: 9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJR238

If this is the case the lock outs would be alerting evry outher day, frequency drift was a problem with 30MHz blocks let alone anything smaller.

But I'm almost sure that drift problem lays by detector's side, not source. If 9500ci measures frequency much more precisely, narrower f-blocks have sence.
08-14-2008, 02:49 PM
thestaton

Re: 9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

autolearn on my CI is just amazing. I can't imagine every going back to be honest.
08-14-2008, 03:16 PM
mswlogo

Re: 9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by €

When you lock-out false alert by hand, every frequency which is presented at the area is LockOut-ed right? I'd notice that when 9500ci locks-out automaticaly by AutoLearn feature, frequency/frequencies NEED to be repeted to be stored in memory as false alert, otherwise we get an alert even when storing is in progress.
Has Enybody had similar oservation?

I totally agree.

I HATED locking out manually and I wiped all manual LockOuts when I received the ix upgrade.

AutoLearn constantly corrects the LockOuts too if they suddenly go missing.

This was a big complaint I had with the 9500i. And it could be done offline if they released software for it.

So far I really like the ix, night and day between i and ix. It's even way more quiet even without the lockouts. It must be the under 20mph thing that helps me alot (most falses are in busy slow areas). It's almost too good to be true and I hope it's working ok.

Now I'm even tempted to upgrade my wifes car from 8500 that I drive occasionally. I hate being with out it and I don't like transferring it.

Can't wait for the next upgrade. 9900ixx (EVDO Real time tracking of boggies).
08-14-2008, 05:15 PM
djrams80

Re: 9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

:deal:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadarKid

wow...imagine that DJ.
perhaps thats why YOU with your Ci have such high opinions of the TrueLock reliability and I have to DISAGREE whole-heartedly with it on the 9500i. hmmm?

xox

This opinion was formed well before I bought my 9500ci. Whatever your reasons are for dispising Truelock, the fact is that there are very few that agree with you. Even three members of GOL that were members during the filming of the video which showed Truelock could be beat, are now owners and users of Truelock equipped RDs and use this feature.

To top it off, just this week, there are two examples of why just having Truelock saves you from tickets. This very experienced RD user almost got a ticket because he turned his volume down on his STi due to false alerts:

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...-luck-wow.html

And this also experienced RD user got a ticket because his V1 volume was turned all the way down, I assume to avoid false alerts. Why else would a RD user turn the volume down?:

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...ed-myself.html

Both of these forum members could have easily avoided having to turn down their RD, had their RD been equipped with Truelock. See with Truelock, no false alerts means no reason to ever turn down your RD's volume.

I have a ticket as an example to illustrate my point, while you have no such thing. Truelock saves you tickets and that's a fact. Here's my proof! :deal:
08-14-2008, 06:44 PM
djrams80

Re: 9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by €

Agree - frequency blocks are 4-5 MHz and lockout radius has maybe only about 100-200 feets.

Have you done any testing to prove this? I know the professor has a K band transmitter that has adjustable frequecy control. I'd love to see this tested. Professor, could you do me a favor and purchase a $1600 RD, then spend hours and hours of your valuable time, just so I can know if this 4-5MHz block theory is true? :lol::lol: Then, once you get those results, could you spend another couple of days of your valuable time doing the same thing for X band? :lol::lol: That would be swell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by €

9500ci is far more accurate than 9500i/ix.

My 9500ci definitely seems to agree with your 4-5MHz theory. I was hoping that this would also be incorporated into the 9500ix.
08-14-2008, 06:48 PM
djrams80

Re: 9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJR238

I hope i will be getting a ci soon. Auto sounds nice but i prefer some control even if its limited.

Im starting to feel a bit feeble in my old age.:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJR238

If this is the case the lock outs would be alerting evry outher day, frequency drift was a problem with 30MHz blocks let alone anything smaller.
Also the radios I believe the ci manual states is 1/2mi. It may not be locking out that particular false for that long but its actively looking for that specific frequency for that 1/2mi radius.

Even though I'm apparently full of $h!+, I can assure you that Autolearn works very well. You're going to love it.
08-14-2008, 06:50 PM
lacning74

Re: 9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djrams80

:deal:This opinion was formed well before I bought my 9500ci. Whatever your reasons are for dispising Truelock, the fact is that there are very few that agree with you. Even three members of GOL that were members during the filming of the video which showed Truelock could be beat, are now owners and users of Truelock equipped RDs and use this feature.

To top it off, just this week, there are two examples of why just having Truelock saves you from tickets. This very experienced RD user almost got a ticket because he turned his volume down on his STi due to false alerts:

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...-luck-wow.html

And this also experienced RD user got a ticket because his V1 volume was turned all the way down, I assume to avoid false alerts. Why else would a RD user turn the volume down?:

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...ed-myself.html

Both of these forum members could have easily avoided having to turn down their RD, had their RD been equipped with Truelock. See with Truelock, no false alerts means no reason to ever turn down your RD's volume.

I have a ticket as an example to illustrate my point, while you have no such thing. Truelock saves you tickets and that's a fact. Here's my proof! :deal:

I just sent my 9500i in for the upgrade and when I was driving "naked" today I forgot that I didn't have my 9500i since I'm so used to it being quiet anyway. Now if I had a noisy V1, I would immediately remember that it wasn't there. :)
08-14-2008, 08:01 PM
Arashi666

Re: 9500ci - It's safer to LockOut by Autolearn than by hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by €

Agree - frequency blocks are 4-5 MHz and lockout radius has maybe only about 100-200 feets. 9500ci is far more accurate than 9500i/ix.

but at nearly 3 times the cost it damn well better be worth it, I mean GOD that thing is expensive

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