SaltyinNJ,
I don't have an ownership interest or a vested financial interest in Blinder or any other CM mfr.
To the contrary, I aided ALP in establishing a relationship with Roy and RB.
Yes, I agree that the ALP appears to be the strongest player at the moment. However, like the LI's, the Drivesmarts, the LPPs, that have come and gone dominance has proven to be transitory.
It's a little known fact, that the ALP has been experiencing jamming issues with (I understand three versions) firmware versions of the DE and (one of them, I understand has NOT been figured out). If you look the testing results you'll see a disclaimer at the bottom that results were withheld by RALETC. Whose interest did that serve? The consumer trying to interpret the results?
References to jamming the Dragon Eye have also been removed for the corporate sites, a concession to this fact. That certainly ties in nicely with AZ shootout test the stopped using one DragonEye because, according to one RALETC member, "they wanted to make the jammers look good." Again, whose interest did that serve? The consumer trying to interpret the results?
So, as good as the ALP is, it appears that it is on the glide path of other products that have come before it, such as the LIs that the OP is interested in discarding.
In so far as tying to the claims of 'guiding':
You may want to wait a little bit. I will have an article soon detailing why at the appropriate time and I expect it going to shake things up again. It's going to be deja vu all over again.
The point I was making is any ONE CM is not infallible. To suggest otherwise is simply untrue. Also Blinder is not sitting (although they do move at a rate of molasses in winter). I also hear suggestions that AL is in fact infringing (at least in part) on their IP here in the US. We'll just see how all this plays out in the coming months and see if anything actually comes from it. I'd hate to see the situation happen again in the US with customers losing support as a result of having to pull-out of the market.
Your assertion that some members don't have financial stakes or vested interests in the sales of the companies' products they promote is also untrue.
The forum that is referred to has had affiliate links for as long as I can remember. Mirage had been making arrangements to become a distributor for Stinger while being a tester, that is until had issues with raising the capital for the buy in.
Other members who review products are affiliates for Amazon and certain manufacturers. This is well known. Not that there is anything wrong with that in and of itself, but to suggest that others have zero financial stake and using that as a basis of selling the notion of independence and unbiased reporting is simply not accurate. The work product and methodology should be allowed to speak for themselves, regardless.
To the extent that such relationships have lead to the hiding of flaws in testing or the sharing of confidential information with another manufacturer IS a serious problem.
With respect to Veil:
What specifically do you have to say about that video collection? For any unbiased viewer who doesn't have an axe to grind, the results are clear. Those results speak for themselves.
To suggest there is no bias on that forum, is also inaccurate. The historical record is there for all to see. And to suggest other forums don't censor posts, publicly ban, silently ban, that politics don't exist, and admins don't' selectively apply certain rules or allow negative tones to those who don't subscribe to the consensus, is also not accurate. I've experienced this (and continue to be subject to it).
One other little known point is that jammers are presented with challenges in the real-world (like when surrounded by other vehicles) that are not represented in these orchestrated tests. Stinger (and others) are apparently experiencing problems in the real-world that don't manifest themselves on test-courses. These situations happen with all jammers, so once again, closed circuit testing with only ONE vehicle approaching does not tell the whole story.
With respect to the Lasershield:
Our tests have proven it to reduce the reflectiveness of plates. But when used alone, the lights will still be huge sources of reflections, which is where the Veil comes in.
There has only been on testing group in history that has demonstrated the effectiveness of combining CMs together, which is unfortunate.
With respect to another passive CM, WAZE:
It is not uncommon for WAZE to out alert every other CM used on my vehicles. I believe it is essential that drivers incorporate that fee app into the defense-in-depth approach.
With respect to an RD:
The V1, Redline, Magnum, Whistler CR93 are very good detectors at detecting laser. While some will discount the need for a good laser detector, I disagree, because I have had real-world experiences where my RD has gone off, when my jammer was incapable of even detecting a laser shot.
A DiD approach reduces the chances that out of alignment heads cause IPTs and can actually reduce the number of heads that are needed in the first place because there is a lesser amount of total reflection with which to contend.
Bottom line, DiD is the way to go, whether Veil is used in the mix or not. To rely on a sole countermeasure is just plain risky. If one is committed to spending thousands of dollars on a single CM, it would make sense to me to re-enforce that investment with other CMs that cost effectively pennies on every dollar invested. That strikes me as common sense.
VG
Bookmarks