Which jammer tested at April GOL event did the best?

[crazyVOLVOrob]

Now we know the AL had massive punchthroughs but some people fail recognize and remind others that there were much worse punch-throughs than the AL.

So over all which jammer do you feel did the best at this testing event?

Really guys I just want to make sure I am not the only person that has examined the results and averaged the punchthroughs...

Here is the link to the test results for you to examine one more time

[JTW]

Now we know the AL had massive punchthroughs but some people fail recognize and remind others that there were much worse punch-throughs than the AL.

So over all which jammer do you feel did the best at this testing event?

Really guys I just want to make sure I am not the only person that has examined the results and averaged the punchthroughs...

Here is the link to the test results for you to examine one more time

That data is their and AL is the winner for the non-blind manufacturer provided unit test.

The retail unit mouse and I tested showed consistant punches at 400 to 500 feet and that was a retail unit.

Don't sticky up Mouse an my test though. If you're not part of GoL your laser jammer tests aren't as valid I guess...

JTW

[Suf Daddy]

Yeah it was a prototype, but the data on the test runs IMHO showed the AL having better numbers.

I posted this in some thread I can't find a while ago.

G-nite.
-Suf Daddy

[Suf Daddy]

JTW & GoMouse test showed some interesting results, but the formats Vs. GOL were different.
Not a true apples to apples..............
But informative nevertheless.

Made me wonder about retail vs. Proto (no need for Ford to chime in.....someone reads his posts about blind purchases)

The test baselines were different, in format and set up..........
Tripod & install method ( a stereo shop or similar who repositioned the head after the forum input decided the TX head was too far back in the grille...........)
Test runs were different too.

Just pointing out the test conditions...........

-Suf Daddy

<<< S N I P >>>
That data is their and AL is the winner for the non-blind manufacturer provided unit test.

The retail unit mouse and I tested showed consistant punches at 400 to 500 feet and that was a retail unit.

Don't sticky up Mouse an my test though. If you're not part of GoL your laser jammer tests aren't as valid I guess...

JTW

[go.mouse]

Our test was one-head AL7 vs Laser Atlanta. My guess is that having an extra head reduces the punchthrough distance.

[JTW]

JTW & GoMouse test showed some interesting results, but the formats Vs. GOL were different.
Not a true apples to apples..............
But informative nevertheless.

Made me wonder about retail vs. Proto (no need for Ford to chime in.....someone reads his posts about blind purchases)

The test baselines were different, in format and set up..........
Tripod & install method ( a stereo shop or similar who repositioned the head after the forum input decided the TX head was too far back in the grille...........)
Test runs were different too.

Just pointing out the test conditions...........

-Suf Daddy

<<< S N I P >>>
That data is their and AL is the winner for the non-blind manufacturer provided unit test.

The retail unit mouse and I tested showed consistant punches at 400 to 500 feet and that was a retail unit.

Don't sticky up Mouse an my test though. If you're not part of GoL your laser jammer tests aren't as valid I guess...

JTW

If you check out the AL6.0 video it states in the video one transponder should be efficient for a mid sized car. Unless AL is decreasing in performance from rev 6.0 because of production quality control or whatever we stayed within manufacturer claim.

If AL decides to issue a formal statement saying you'll need 2 transponders instead of one for a mid-sized car that would be great because it's obvious the original manufacturer claim is not true.

2 transponders for a an SUV is manufacturer claim. 1 transponder for a mid sized car is manufacturer claim. We should be very concerned about the retail units quality control, yet I don't see anyone making a big deal about it and 500 feet consistant punches IS a big deal.

JTW

[mattvr]

Now we know the AL had massive punchthroughs but some people fail recognize and remind others that there were much worse punch-throughs than the AL.

Even if the AL did "the best" compared to the other Jammers tested, is "the best" acceptable?

JTW and Mouse's test showed consistent punchthrough's at 400-500 feet. I would not want to fork out my cash for a jammer to only "half work" even if the other products on the market could not even work to this standard.

Seems like this is what JTW has been trying to say, but nobody accepts?

[crazyVOLVOrob]

Don't sticky up Mouse an my test though. If you're not part of GoL your laser jammer tests aren't as valid I guess...

JTW

Oh chrish please tell me your results of then you tested the Target LT-400, Lidatek LE-30 Dual, Blinder M45 Prototype, Antilaser 7.0 dual head, and Antilaser 8.3X Twin Diode Prototype dual head. Until then I can't use your results cause i can't compare any jammer to the performance of the LPP on go.mouse car.Taking lab sciences in college you learn that when you set or use different testing conditions different results can be found. DO the exact same test and then I will gladly have those results as well.

That is why I have not posted a link to your results, simply becauase I can not compare apples and oranges. That it not fair. Someone who has taken chemistry would understand the effect of different testing conditions.

Now we know the AL had massive punchthroughs but some people fail recognize and remind others that there were much worse punch-throughs than the AL.

Even if the AL did "the best" compared to the other Jammers tested, is "the best" acceptable?

For some the best is just not good enough. Only going after the top jammer really isn't too effective from a business stand point becuase guess what? Where is the motivation to improve their product? To improve product a company must invest more money into it. And what is the point of spending money when you already have the best jammer. There is none. That is why competition will for the best jammer to work to produce a better jammer or cut prices. You got to love Microeconomics it can explain alot of general reaons on why businesses do that they do and settle for something that "half works" cause the #2, #3 and #4 companys are not improving product...That in turn will force the #1 jammer that only "half works" to fully work. That is why you need to pressure the companies under the #1 spot

[JTW]

Don't sticky up Mouse an my test though. If you're not part of GoL your laser jammer tests aren't as valid I guess...

JTW

Oh chrish please tell me your results of then you tested the Target LT-400, Lidatek LE-30 Dual, Blinder M45 Prototype, Antilaser 7.0 dual head, and Antilaser 8.3X Twin Diode Prototype dual head. Until then I can't use your results cause i can't compare any jammer to the performance of the LPP on go.mouse car.Taking lab sciences in college you learn that when you set or use different testing conditions different results can be found. DO the exact same test and then I will gladly have those results as well.

That is why I have not posted a link to your results, simply becauase I can not compare apples and oranges. That it not fair. Someone who has taken chemistry would understand the effect of different testing conditions.

The GoL test is fun to look at and I appreciate the data, however you're quoting a test with products the consumer may not even be getting! How can you preach the GoL test when the units could be juiced? Mouse's Pro-Park was a retail unit and clearly shows the performance of what is shipping.

If you're interested in protecting the consumers like you say it makes no sense why you wouldn't link to a retail unit test, but instead you link to a test of jammers that are directly from the manufacturer to cherry pick.

That's messed up.

You're hooked on the what is best argument and the public doesn't care what is best when the best is crap in the real world. ARe you going to spend $525.00 on a jammer that gives you 500 foot punches? No.

You're forgetting option D for consumers, to not purchase a jammer based on the fact the money isn't worth the performance.

JTW

[crazyVOLVOrob]

Yay juiced units excuse i love this! If you read word4word the post I am asking which jammer did the best at the april GOL even not which is the best jammer, its a huge difference!!!
Here is the question I asked quoted in 2 forms asked different forms:
1) So over all which jammer do you feel did the best at this testing event?(mind you this one was bolded)
2) Which jammer tested at April GOL event did the best?(subject of thread)

Agains Chris there are different testing conditons and also reminder I am refering to only this event.

Now Chris when you are testing two things you are actually performing the experimental procedure. Now when you want to collect data you want the testing environment and methods of collecting to be as close as possible to each other preferably exactly alike. You do this because without differences on how you collect data will most likely lead to where results don't apply to each other hense this case and this question i am trying to answer "Which jammer tested at April GOL event did the best?"

So was you data collected exactly the same way as the April GOL event? No, it was not there was many differences. So in conclusion your result can not compare wit hthe April GOL event which is what the question refers to.