Printable View
the 9500CI seems very attractive for it's GPS capabilities, but if it's anything like the 9500i, I can't afford getting a true signal locked out. The STI-r looks like a more promising detector reception wise and has super KA band 10 bands selectable on/off. My thinking is the STi-r and the ZR4 or a real jammer like the LI would probably be a better combination. Just some thoughts for those of you putting your money up on pre-order.
In reality, by design its very likely you could get a true signal locked out with the 9500ci and its automatic lock out feature (that the 9500i does not have). I'm sure its going to be a feature you can disable in the settings though. So if you can get over the price of the 9500ci (I can't) then your issue you have with it is actually a non issue entirely.
As far as the 9500i goes, you have been grossly misinformed about it just locking out a true signal. Its 100% impossible for the 9500i to just lock out a true signal, or any signal for that matter.
The only way any signal in the 9500i can be locked out is if you decide and you push the button to lock it out, no if's and's or but's about it. If YOU activate the lockout feature on a true K or X band alert yes YOU (not the detector) will lock it out, even YOU though can't lockout a Ka band alert though so at least YOU would be safe there.
I thank the GOL for spreading so much disinformation on the 9500i lockout feature so its no fault of your own for thinking that, I blame them, wish they would correct that, it severely discredits them.
Esoterica: Please provide a link to the information you have a problem with, and explain in detail why you consider it disinformation, and why you think it severely discredits us!!!
I've seen you mention this multiple times on here, and I would like to get to the bottom of it! We NEVER spread any disinformation about the 9500i!
I eagerly await your reply.
Do the math, if you get the STI-R with ZR4 heads then it will be the same price as the 9500ci, Might as well get the 9500ci and don't use the GPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky225
Jim,Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbonzzz
While I do not take near as strong of a stance as Esoterica, I do believe that the TruLock feature works extremely well and think that it would be almost impossible to completely lock out a true signal. The GOL scenario is absolute worst case and seems extremely unlikely to ever occur in real life. It sure does seem to scare people away from the 9500i, even if that was not the intent. Here is my previous explanation of why:
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
Please let me know if my logic is flawed somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
Everybody keeps saying that the video is an extremely unlikely scenario, but I have to argue that. I encounter situations like that all the time - real LEOs hidden in the barrage of other K band door openers in shopping centers.
And in my experiences, the V1 shows a bogey for the interior and exterior door openers. I'm not trying to "pick a side", but I just don't understand why exactly the GOL video scenario would be unlikely, or 'extremely rare'.
My biggest argument about that is the LEO radar gun's detectable range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabomb9
Is the video of the "true signal being locked out" legit?
I certainly think so.
Is the concern "real?"
Again, I also certainly think so.
What are the chances that would happen, in real life?
Hard to say. I'd venture a guess to say that it would be rather uncommon - but that the possibility certainly cannot be said to not exist (or be so rare as to be nonexistent).
It's all about properly using the "Risk Scenarios" set forward by CJR in his stickied posting about the 9500i ("Tricks and Tips").
The RD is just a tool - even one as "smart" as the 9500i still will require valid end-user inputs to not only optimize its performance, but also in the case of this very unique detector's abilities, to insure that it is not obscuring true threats (which *can* happen).
The "intelligence" of the detector is a double-edged sword - and the end-user must realize this fact, and understand the risks that he/she undertakes when utilizing the advanced features.
What exactly is the "GOL Scenario"?Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
From what I recall, we released several videos which all showed slightly different scenarios. Some showed TruLock "working" as one might hope, while others might indicate some things for an smart operator to be concerned about if he wanted to use the feature wisely.
For someone to pick out only one of these videos and then claim it scared tham away from using the feature and than claim that "GOL is spreading misinformation" is WAY off the mark.
I agree, mostly. Personally, I believe that TruLock "works", at least within within it's design constraints. Sure, people some up with worst case scenarios, but these scenarios are what drivers face in the real-world, and these are the scenarios that get people tickets.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
Maybe not. But again, you choose to ignore all the other videos released at the same time where radar was not operated in a parking lot whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
Sure, in a constant-on scenario facing in your direction, you should definitely detect the radar outside the lockout area. Forward-facing? Might as well forget it. Forward-facing isn't something "special" or new technology either.
Believe me, I would LOVE to be living in a dream world where all radar traps are constant-on and facing my direction. Then I wouldn't have to waste my hard earned $$$ on a high-end detector, I could spend $30 on a Cobra and still be protected. But unfortunately, that just isn't the way it is :cry:
I have seen 4 videos, one in what looks like someone's garage:Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbonzzz
YouTube - Escort 9500i TrueLock Problems
one in the parking lot which i can no longer find, one around a slight curve:
YouTube - Escort 9500i Locking Out Real Police Radar
and one that seemed to curve behind the parking lot which I also can no longer find.
The one in the garage is totally false from what I've seen in real life. It probably has something to do with the GPS knowing that the RD never left the area or something. The one around a slight curve seems strange also. I think my 9500i must be wwwaaaaaaayyy more sensitive than the one you guys used, because I think mine would have picked that signal up long before the spinning icon on the video. That could be due to the curve in the road and the off-axis position of the radar gun user, who knows? That being said, I'd guess that you guys picked that particular spot because you knew that the frequencies matched and you must have picked a distance just beyond what the 9500i could pick up, so that the 9500i picked up both of the signals at just the same time. That being worst case scenario. I highly doubt that LEO's know the frequency of the gun in their hand, much less the frequency of the false alert. LEO's would have a much tougher time staging this exact scenario you guys did without this information. That being said, this scenario would probably smoke any RD user since most people would mute the false signal that they get every time they pass that exact same spot.
The "misinformation" word never came out of my keyboard, but I have read on several occasions on this board people say that they would never purchase a 9500i because they would be afraid to lock out a true threat. I'd bet they got this idea from the same videos I watched. Hey, I love what GOL does and I personally view their information as the most unbiased on the net and quote it quite often. I particularly think that you Jim know more about any of this stuff than any human alive and appreciate your knowledge. Keep doing what you are doing, but I think that this particular stuff has been slanted in a way such that it makes the Truelock look inneffective, which I believe is not accurate. But hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I can accept that.
Man TSi+WRX you make things so easy for me, X2.
There was an original Video by GOL implying it locked out the hole band that I had been battling for months trying to prove that TrueLock didn’t block out the whole band (seemed like I was the only one). it was realized and tested by jimbonzzz and proved that it didn’t block out the whole band (+-30MHz blocks).
Then the discussion changed to weather the 30MHz block would in fact lock out a real threat after that location was locked (it was obvious at this point to not deliberately lock out a LEO). That’s when the new videos came out, one actually showed it working fine. Yes they were staged but the point was to show it’s possible and that’s why I did my thread.
There is a 0% chance of locking out a real threat in an area not using the same band. However if they do use the same band and same frequency in the same location and the signal isn’t much stronger than the false, sure you could have a problem, is it less than a %10 (if not 0%) chance if you use my TrueLock Tricks and Tips, yes.
So why did the 9500I get so beaten on? I’m not sure, something to do with a big hill and allot of winded old guys climbing it I think. :lol:
It has a small flaw like all RD's, Human error.
I would say you have the same chance of ignoring a threat on another RD in comparison to locking out a real threat.
The 9500I is very smart and gives you awesome tools that can make your dally commute quieter. But we need to remember on the 9500I you choose your lockout scenario not the 9500I so in the end if you don’t use my TrueLock thread as a guide you could have a scenario just like those Videos no matter how small the chance is.
So does the 9500I in expert mode. :wink:Quote:
the V1 shows a bogey for the interior and exterior door openers.
These are the things that need to take place to have a problem with TrueLock:Quote:
but I just don't understand why exactly the GOL video scenario would be unlikely, or 'extremely rare'.
1) Local radar is running in X or K
2) You lock out a location with X or K
3) the location you lock out with X or K happens to be the same 30MHz block the local LEO's are running
4) A LEO is running radar in that same locked out area.
5) His signal is of about the same strength of the false so it doesn’t alert out side the locked out area.
6) and lastly you are speeding in that "High Risk" area.
That’s more variables than what it takes to get a ticket with a RD that has no TrueLock.
Lucky225,Hopefully the 9500ci will give the option of choosing your own TrueLock locations or not.
I forgot to mention 2 other things that I believe the LEO would have a difficult time reproducing in that second scenario:
1. This is probably at the very edge of the lockout radius, meaning that if you were coming from the other direction, you would probably get an alert almost all the way to the radar gun.
2. The radar gun seems to be targeting the traffic at quite an angle and distance from the road, probably causing some cosine error. From my experience, LEO's sit no more that 30ft off the road(usually within 10ft) and direct their radar guns along the path of the road, making them very easy to detect at long range, much longer than any lockout radius.
Ok so i don't want to cause any more problems than already seem to be present between the GOL and estorica, but estorica made a post in another thread as this
"Two microwave signals operating at or near the same frequency in proximity of each other will cancel out. There's no way in the real world a cop would be able to do what they are claiming in that video.
If you watch TV, the Discovery Channel, Myth Busters in particular, they had an episode that they were doing with different Microwave myths. One of the idiots on that show decided he would take the magnetrons out of 2 microwaves and put them all together to make one huge monster microwave. It didn't heat a thing when he had completed it and they had no idea why.
I can tell them why, when you have multiple microwave signals at or near the same freq operating in proximity at the same time they cancel each other out and become useless. On commercial microwave ovens that have multiple magnetron's generating the microwave signal they have to be properly phased (no margin for error) so they do not fire at the same time or overlap each other, otherwise it does nothing but make noise, draw power, heating absolutely nothing. Or in that case the police radar would certainly have to have a garbage reading. It will never happen like they show it in that video. There was never anything Escort needed to fix as a result of that, its a non issue.
"
and i was wondering if anyone else can confirm that? because if thats true, truelock is amazingly powerfull, and theres a few k bands i want to lockout myself :)
however please don't let me fuel the fire, always keep stuff civil, lifes to short :)
Back to this subject for a sec, the 9500ci and the STi-R use exactly the same RD, Ka band selection and all as far as I know. So by having the STi-R/ZR4 combination is just like having the 9500ci without the ability to lock out signals as far as I can tell, at least according to one company selling the 9500ci on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky225
Its possible for that to happen but very unlikely. Similar to falses drifting and the reason the 9500I uses 30MHz blocks is why that statement wont always work. To have that much interference affecting the real radar the false would need to be the exact same frequency as the LEO’s radar gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayrac
I believe Escort originally stated this too. The chance of a LEO running the same exzact frequency is even more rare then TrueLock locking out a real threat.
If you want PM me your situation and I can give you some options.
Finally got someones attention on this!
Sorry I had to pee you off to get there, but I've been trying to deal with this concern in the public forums here because it keeps coming up, again and again and again and it has me pee'd off.
I'll start with explaining why I consider this dis-information.
This very OP is a perfect example, we keep seeing person after person who does not even use or own the 9500i coming in here and spewing out their mouths that the Lockout feature absolutely does not work. They are convinced that the entire feature of the 9500i is completely flawed and does not work under any condition. They also are 100% convinced that if you have a signal locked out then all actual LEO radar in that area will then also ALWAYS be locked out.
If this was the GOL's intent or not is not for me to say, however, there is no question your presentation, and your outstanding reputation absolutely and directly gives people this direct misconception of the truth that they walk away from watching those video's with.
That type of one sided reporting, with what seems clear to be from obvious intentions of a deliberate false claim is not very responsible. Yes it does in my eyes strongly discredit the GOL when I see it or continue to hear the hundreds of people just like this OP who are convinced, based on their trust of the GOL that TrueLock does not work and will cause you to have actual police radar locked out.
Its just like they say, one bad apple ruins the entire barrel. For me, one deliberate false claim like this ruins any other credibility from all of the other outstanding testing you have done. I can't even help it when I see your other videos now to think there is underlying bias, or a degree of mistrust I have now just because of the taste these 9500i lockout videos leave in my mouth. That's not fair to the GOL as a whole at all, but that is exactly how these video's make me feel. I do not believe you guys have any desire to leave people walking away from your findings with that type of feeling, but you have with me because of this.
Here's the video that just pee's me off the most...
Escort 9500i True Lock being tested by the Guys of Lidar.
I admit, it is not found that I could see on the "official" GOL web site, but its clearly being conducted in the name of the GOL, clearly.
Here's another official unofficial GOL video that right off the start I have to question. He's PARKED in a parking lot picking up a K band false signal.
Hello? Please, anyone who has the 9500i knows first hand it does not alert to a K band signal when traveling under 15 mph. Clearly he had to go out of his way making the 9500i do something it does not even normally do just to make this video...
Guys of Lidar - Testing Escort 9500i True Lock Feature
There's another video on YouTube that does not directly say its from the GOL, but if you review other crap this person has out he definitely implies he is part of the GOL. This is the video that I think CJ was referring to in his post above...
YouTube - Escort 9500i TrueLock Problems
That last one is absolute BS, come on now, would anyone actually think that the engineers at Escort are so stupid they would just allow this to happen during their development stages? Please, that video is obviously and intentional flawed.
There are plenty of other videos with the official unofficial GOL name on them that also claim how the TrueLock does not work.
What I find to be the most ironic in all of this is where are any reports by actual 9500i owners and users in the real world that ever anywhere indicate they have had a single problem or incident of the Truelock feature EVER not working perfectly for them?
There are none I can find anywhere? Isn't that in itself rather odd? The 9500i has been out and in use for over a year now and not a single actual user of it has had any problems or complaints what so ever with Truelock either not working, or locking out actual police radar, ****ing ironic there don't you think?
I use Truelock EXTENSIVELY, and never once have had a problem with it, never once been able to experience or reproduce the claims as presented in these videos. Truelock works perfectly for me, I still get actual LEO alerts when in locked out areas, ALL THE TIME.
How do you explain this?
In my own mind and from using the feature my self, I estimate I have at least 50 locked out falses stored, at least 50, and never a problem. In my own mind, clearly something must be wrong with the videos. If there wasn't, myself, or the thousands of other daily users of the 9500i would be screaming about this being a realistic problem.
Do you hear our silence on the issue? Listen careful, you don't hear a thing, we use the thing everyday and never once see these situations reproduced in the real world.
That is where you are spreading DISinformation. You're implications would leave one to believe that they too should experience these same findings repeatedly, and yet none of us are experiencing this, ever.
Your DISinformation on this subject is having a very negative effect on people, a lot of people, people who see these videos as presented and trust the GOL and just take what they are seeing at face value and assume this must be how it is, despite the reality being this is not how it is.
If the Truelock feature actually did not work as described it would be your absolute responsibility to report such information, we would all expect that much from the GOL. However, this is not the case, at all, ask any actual owner and user of the 9500i what they think of Truelock and they will be like me, absolutely could not live without it, absolutely never had a single problem with it.
If you want to make a video of the Truelock feature make it a real video, showing how it actually does work. If you can come up with an extreme off the wall example in order to show a potential pitfall it could cause by an uncareful user show it, but explain to people if your not careful in your use you could accidentally lockout a true LEO signal.
This is the type of responsible reporting I would expect from the GOL, not just an intentional attempt to purposely discredit a capability that is clearly not even remotely as flawed as you present it to be.
You think your pissed off because I am calling you on this, trust me, your not half as pissed off as I am over this because of all the people I keep seeing who have the misconception that Lockout does not work based solely on the way in which you are implying such disinformation.
I was doing the ebay math, not MSRP :PQuote:
Originally Posted by focalcivic
OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
It's really too bad this happens, but why do you blame GOL for this???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
There have been absolutely NO false claims about ANY products by GOL. There has been NO one-sided reporting. We only wanted to test determine if the TruLock feature worked as advertised, we never went into it to "prove it one way or another".Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm sorry you feel that way from watching certian videos, but please see my responses below!Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Why does that video "tee you off"? There's absolutely NO reason for it to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
RacerX previously locked out the false alert, and then drove back with the radar operating nearby to see if the 9500i would alert to it. What is the problem with that? Escort advertises right on their site that the 9500i will alert to a signal that uis different than the locked out radar source:
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/5298/tru1cp3.jpg
Our scenario was in fact VERY similar to what they depict.
Again, why does that video "tee you off"? Do you think we intentionally staged the scenario so that the 9500i wouldn't report the police radar? Did you think we drove around to find a gas station with a false alert source that had a frequency that matched the radar gun? Do you think we popped open the gun and hand tuned it to match the gas station? We didn't do either. We found a convenient location to perform the test, and we wanted to see if the 9500i would alert to the radar with a previously locked out signal nearby, and it did not. Evidently, the radar gun happened to be in the same 30 MHz block as the previously-locked-out false alert. I'm sorry if that makes you angry.
Have you read your 9500i Owner's Manual lately? The 9500i only behaves this way (not alerting to K-Band under 15 MPH) in AUTO mode. I know the video is jittery, but you can still tell the 9500i is in HIGHWAY mode, and if you can't, RaxerX actually mentions it at one point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Don't blame GOL because you failed to read your 9500i's Owner's Manual!!!!!!!!!!!
To recap the video: he was in a parking lot, and locked out a K-Band signal. Then he drove up the road to where radar was being operated, to see if the 9500i would alert. I really don't see any problem here.
This video was done as part of an official GOL test, and we released several videos at that time showing some different scenarios:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=30142
I don't understand why you would point out this specific video as being problematic. But if you had actually bothered to read your manual, you wouldn't be making this particular accusation of bias & malice against GOL.
Links?????Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Obviously and intentional flawed? Bullshiit! I made that video MYSELF, on MY test bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
The origninal thread is here:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=25198
To be perfectly clear: I did NOT post that video to YouTube, nor make the comments.
That video was made long before we had ANY technical details on how TruLock worked. I went into it to try and figure out just how it worked, and posted my findings, just like I did in these threads too:
9500i TrueLock testing on the bench - Take II
Escort 9500i SpecDisplay vs Freq Counter
All I can say, is that there was nothing that was "intentionally flawed" about it. At the time, nobody had any idea that the 9500i would lock out past and future signals detected in the same geographical area, and wouldn't quit locking them out until you drove outside the lockout area. That is what happened in my video. Of course, we DO know that now.
I'm sure that Escort would be much happier if everyone just blindly used the feature, without knowing any technical details on how it works. Well sorry, I refuse to do that. I want to know how things work, and I'll do my best to find out. And, I feel like I have contributed a LOT toward the understanding (on this forum) of how TruLock works.
Links???Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
To recap: I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Ummm, where did GOL ever imply that "people would experience the same findings repeatedly"? If people infer things from out videos that were not intended, how is that our fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
We tested the TruLock feature to see if it worked as described, and reported exactly what happened, and you see exactly what happened in the videos. We don't make any claims about "how likely it would be for a cop to be operating radar near a flase alert source" or anything like that. How could we make such a claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
It works as intended, within it's limitations. And what we have reported reflects that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Sorry, but GOL doen't usually make "DEMO" videos. We TEST performance and features to see if they work as advertised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
GOL does not make intentional attempts to purposely discredit capabilities of anything. We simply test capabilities to see if they work as advertised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Clearly, you don't like the results. I'm sorry if you don't like what you see in the videos, but what you see is what happened.
And you're looking to blame GOL for all of this, saying that GOL is somehow responsible for "implying such disinformation?" that TruLock "doesn't work"? Whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
We have done nothing but test TruLock to see if it performs as advertised, and we reported exactly what happened. And if you don't like what happened, there's not much we can do about it.
To sum things up:
1st Video = You just don't like what happened.
2nd Video = You failed to read your operator's manual and understand the 9500i's features, and because of that you think GOL did something "questionable".
3rd Video = Taken WAY out of context.
Jim
Jim, are you implying that Racer X had no idea what the frequency of each of the K band signals was before the test?Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbonzzz
To be honest, I don't know whether he did or not. This video was made during our March 2007 test, and a small group went into town to make this video while I was back at the test site.Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
But whether he knew the freqs or not, in March 2007 the 9500i was VERY new, and all we had to go on was Escort's advertising, and that was the scenario we wanted to duplicate, in order to see if the feature worked as advertised:
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/5298/tru1cp3.jpg
We had no idea about "segments" used for TruLock until my bench testing three months later:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=25185
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=25754
Jim
Jimbonzzz,
Speaking of segments and the STi-R's ability to turn off specific Ka band segments, I think you should test a standard STi to see how its frequency displays drift relative to the actual spectrum analyzer Ka frequency. This would be good info to know when turning off Ka segments since one should account for the fact that the STi-R's displayed frequency likely is only fairly accurate for one particular Ka frequency which probably is centered somewhere around 34.7 Ka. What do you think?
Sure, I could do that. But I no longer have my STI (I sold it last December to help buy Christmas presents :lol: ) so someone would have to send me one...Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM-TEK
Alrighty. I'm your man. Send me an email and we will work out the shipping arrangements.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbonzzz
OK, fair enough. Racer X and the 2 other people in that video, if you read this, did you know the frequency of the store door opener and the radar gun before you setup the scenario in that video?Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbonzzz
Why do you keep asking for links? I gave you links, all other links can be found directly on the same page.
If the one video you admit to knowing is a mistake and flawed then why do you still have it out there in circulation?
Bull Sheet as well, you were not "just reporting your findings", you were clearly and purposely trying to make video's that specifically claim TrueLock does not work. Its unmistakable in just viewing any of them, its unmistakable in just reading your above response. Your intent was not to test the feature and simply report your findings, it was a deliberate effort to punch holes in it. You had to go out of your way to create situations that no one else after a year being on the market is experiencing. Thats rather remarkable don't you think? How your findings could be so drasticaly different than so many other peoples after an entire year and thousands of users?
I'll back my saying this up by once again standing by the simple fact that if "your findings" were so incredibly accurate then why is it no one else is having a single one of the problems you are claiming to exist in all of these videos?
All of these videos show TrueLock not working, worse they show Truelock not detecting actual LEO radar. Please, are you calling everyone that uses the 9500i complete idiots to our faces? We use the thing every day and none of us are ever seeing anything remotely like "your findings".
Maybe all of the people out there using 9500i's, who far out number your video's, are just experiencing a freak coincidence that their own first hand experiences in no way what so ever replicates "your findings".
I think you need to take the time to redo your testing on TrueLock, clearly there seems to be a very obvious problem with your repeated findings that imply it does not work. There was something wrong with your testing, maybe there was something wrong with the 9500i you were using, but for those tests to be of any value to anyone other than the marketing department at Valentine then the findings you had should have more closely resembled those of the thousands of other people using the thing in the real world who oddly seem to have completely different results.
What's even more screwed up is the direct implication in most of those videos don't even claim that a person could accidentally (fault of their own) lock out actual LEO radar, they instead directly indicate that when you lock out a single k band signal that ALL K band alerts are locked out at ANY frequency. This is absolutely positively not true, we all see alerts almost everyday, at least I do, where I am in a locked out area and the new alert still always manages to come past the Lockout and alert me. In watching your own repeated testing though, how can this at all be possible? If I were to watch your videos, your "test results", I would have to come to the conclusion that there's no way this should be possible, yet oddly, as I said already, I see it work all the time.
Come on, give people credit for having some common sense. You're "findings and testing" is like showing people you have taken Red and Yellow paint, mixed them together to some how get blue paint out of it. However when everyone else at home mixes Red and Yellow paint they repeatedly seem to come up with Orange.
Just tell me how can it be possible that your test results which seem so simple and clear, are not being repeated by the thousands of users at home?
Clearly, some of us would be having actual experiences that more closely match your own reported findings. Who is botching things up here? All of the thousands of 9500i users who are not experiencing this, or the handful of people conducting the tests?
No fault of the GOL's huh?
Funny, I didn't notice anyone but the GOL showing repeated videos to make the claim you are. How people interpret the videos is based in large part of how you, the GOL present the content.
When people are coming up with the claim that "TrueLock does not work" they are coming here after watching the GOL video's, not from first hand experience. Those of us with first hand experience not only know it works, but how well it works.
Those of us with first hand repeated experience are certainly not having our completely contradictory findings to your "test" results just so we can say the GOL findings are wrong.
For the GOL to be considered a reliable resource then people in the real world should experience results very like, or even close to, your findings. Clearly, in this case, this is not whats happening, we are experiencing the complete opposite of your findings.
With so many people who are not you experiencing first hand the complete opposite of your findings there clearly has got to be something wrong with your TrueLock test results. I don't think anyone is capable of not questioning you on it when they are seeing such an extreme opposite action take place.
And P.S.
Thank you by the way Jim for taking the time and frustration to address this.
I see your starting to see what we are talking about though when we say so many people are coming up with this impression due exclusively to the GOL videos out there...
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtop...=370697#370697
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think there is one example of a 9500i user ever stating on this message board(or anywhere else for that matter) that they received a citation because of using Truelock, yet the first time it was tested on video, it would have failed the user. You have to admit, it does seem kind of odd.
Wlell, when you refer to "another video on YouTube" and "Plenty of other videos", how the heck am I supposed to know what you are talking about without a link???Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Since you were not able to provide links to these mysterious vidoes, all we can do is assume that they don't exist and you were making them up to try and further your point.
It wasn't "flawed": It depicted the 9500i working as it was designed to, we just didn't know that at the time. It was part of a learning process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
And I couldn't remove it from YouTube if I wanted to: I wasn't the one who put it there.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but unfortunately you are incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
And we don't make any "claims" in our videos. We simply test and present our results exactly as they happen, and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
And we don't have "findings". We simply test and present our results exactly as they happen, and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Yeah we've all heard this one before "there must have been something wrong with your detector". But the fact of the matter is, all of our videos depict the 9500i behaving as designed, within it's limitations. If you don't like the way it behaves, there's nothing we can do about it: we didn't design TruLock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
We make NO such direct implications. We simply test and present our results exactly as they happen, and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Should we give people credit who fail to read their operator's manual for a radar detector they own and praise repeatedly, then accuse GOL of doing something questionable because they don't understand how a feature works? (Someone who doesn't own up for this, completely ignores it, and not even offer an apology to GOL?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Sorry, but I don't think we can give people any credit until they read their manual :lol:
Both can be true, depending on the specific circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
If they were truly being repeated in the same manner, they would have some of the same results we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
We don't make any "claims" in our videos. We simply test and present our results exactly as they happen, and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
You're welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, and I'm sorry you have taken away so many incorrect assumptions regaring GOL & TrueLock.
First off, GOL doesn't make "claims", we don't have "findings" and we don't make "implications" about TrueLock. We simply tested it and presented our results exactly as they happen, and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. I'm sure you still think I'm full of it. But the bottom line here is that we set out to test TruLock to see if it worked as advertised. It is advertised to work like this:
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/5298/tru1cp3.jpg
So that is how we have tested it, several times.
I'm happy that you and many others are having success with your detectors. But just because you are, doesn't mean that the GOL videos are biased or fake, or that GOL is spreading misinformation. Let me ask you this: how often during real-world driving, do you and the other 9500i users encounter police operating radar in the vicinity of a previously locked out false alert? Probably not very often, if EVER. And that's a good thing. But that's also why you and others are not seeing the same things that are in the GOL videos!!!
COULD you encounter police operating radar in the vicinity of a previously locked out false alert? Definitely. And I can guarantee you that if you DID experience it frequently enough, you would most definitely experience the same things that have occured in our videos.
Escort advertises that if you do encounter police radar at a previously locked out false alert location, the 9500i will alert to the police radar. Does it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, it depends on the frequencies of the false alert and the police radar. We have a good general idea of how TruLock works, so per your above example, sometimes Red and Yellow paint will mix to make Blue and sometimes Red and Yellow paint will mix to make Orange.
Consider the following:
1. We cannot say "the 9500i will always alert to police operating K-Band radar at a location with a previously locked out false alert"
2. We cannot say that "the 9500i will never alert to police operating K-Band radar at a location with a previously locked out false alert"
And that is the bottom line, period.
Jim
Actually I've seen it rather often, I can't speak for other people because I don't think other people drive on a day to day basis nearly as much as I do. I often spend as many as 12 hours a day just driving in a variety of different conditions of both city and highway, in numerous different jurisdictions and even in different states, on a daily basis. I average at least 4-6 confirmed positive LEO alerts a day, often times more, but on average 4-6 a day. In reading from many other people around here it seems many people might see one actual alert a week, maybe even a month.Quote:
how often during real-world driving, do you and the other 9500i users encounter police operating radar in the vicinity of a previously locked out false alert? Probably not very often, if EVER. And that's a good thing. But that's also why you and others are not seeing the same things that are in the GOL videos!!!
I have one spot in specific I often drive where there is a cell/radio tower that I have a locked out K false on, in fact, I have 3 locked out K falses on it because the frequency drifts so bad on it that I have had to lock it out three separate times before finally getting it to silence. Its on a county road and in an area that is under shoulder widening construction so there is a County LEO who regularly sets there with K band radar (City and State here all use only Ka band, but our county cops use K).
When he is there I always get an alert, when he's not there all I get is a spinning icon.
Just the fact that I've had to lock the drift out 3 times is the equiv to 3 separate incidents right there is it not, or do you not consider this since the original freq wasn't always present? Its still 3 separate K band frequencies locked out in that area in memory though, the LEO makes a 4th and it always alerts.
Does this prove anything though?
Yes it does, it proves that locking out a K band false does not lock out the entire band as the videos I have seen, and provided you links for are claiming. Call it what ever you want, it still means the same. the videos are showing that if you lock out a single K false you lock out the entire K band. That's your video's showing that, thats the narration explaining that, no need for any interpretation of what your showing in the videos, the entire K band freq is locked out, not the block, the entire band is what GOL is claiming.
That's total BS and you and I both know it.
All the links to the videos are right there on the same page as the links I have provided you, they're GOL's videos, are you telling me your unaware of your own videos.Quote:
Since you were not able to provide links to these mysterious videos, all we can do is assume that they don't exist and you were making them up to try and further your point.
But certainly, please feel free to say I am making it all up, makes no difference, everyone else still see's them, not sure who you think your fooling with that comment.
You guys are just hobbyist, I can appreciate that, I've been a hobbyist in computer security groups for several years myself so I can relate to what you guys are about.
You know though, in computer security, and I use this as an example only because its a similar situation which I am familiar with, its over whelmed with people trying to stand out in the crowd and report some great new security hole they have spent months uncovering. It carries a degree of heightened respect among your peers to be able to report a great finding and present it to the world as your own marvelous discovery.
I believe this holds true in other aspects where thinking minds gather to share thoughts, medical discoveries, astronomy, etc...
There is always though the individuals who come up with what they believe to be just extraordinary findings and rush to file their report before their peers only to have it completely picked apart and discredited. The reason that more often than not happens is because their findings will typically require such a specific set of unrealistic circumstances to occur that the reality of it being even worth mention becomes ridiculous.
They are only fooling the fools who do not know better when their peers find just cause to reject such magnificent findings, it discredits them grossly when they attempt to pursue such things and carry them to a lower understanding level of listeners just so they may be heard and find that praise they sought.
Yes: it proves that your officers radar is not in one of the three frequency blocks that you previously locked out. If he was, you would get the spinning icon, and no alert from your 9500i. And in many similar situations, this is exactly what would have happenened, depending on the frequency of the radar gun and the false alert source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
GOL isn't "claiming" anything. And "GOL" certainly never claimed that locking out a false will lock out the entire K-Band. But if you want to continue to repeatedly take different videos out of context in order to further you point, I suppose there's nothing I can do about it :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Even though I replied to your problems with specific videos, in detail, it seems that you won't ever be satisfied until we say that GOL is "against" TrueLock! Sorry, not going to happen, because we have no reason to be "against" features.
Not to mention that one of your original "problems" with one of our videos was due to the fact that you failed to read your 9500i's operator's manual and understand it's features :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:
No, that is you taking things WAY out of context in an attempt to make your point. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I'm very aware of our own videos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
OK, where are the links to the videos you are referring to in this quote:
You said this in the same thread as the links you aready posted, meaning that you are referring to other videos in addition to the videos you already posted. Where are the links to these videos?Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
So far, in your original post and subsequent posts, you still have not even provided one single link to these additional videos! :oops: This speaks volumes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
That is very interesting. Too bad it has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand.
For christ sake my only reason for making the post was to point out that perhaps the Ka selectable feature would be more desirable than GPS feature that is prone to flaw with it's 30mhz gaps, what a can of worms I unleashed lol.
Lucky, I'm sorry we hijacked your thread. :oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky225
Per the above, you sound like you are well informed about how TrueLock works with it's 30 MHz blocks.
So, it seems pretty clear to me that you didn't post this thread thinking that TrueLock "just didn't work" or "locked out the entire K band" from watching GOL videos, as Esoterica would have everyone believe :lol:
True, but he did say:Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbonzzz
which he could have only gotten from the GOL videos, since there are exactly zero examples of this happening in the "real world" on a nonstaged event. Is it possible for the Truelock system to fail. Yes. It's possible. Does it happen. No. It does not happen. Yet, newbie after newbie(not Lucky225 really with over 1000 posts) comes in to this forum, fearing a technology that has never failed anyone at anytime as far as I know, quoting GOL videos, yet GOL takes no responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky225
Hmmmm, I guess it's too far fetched to think that perhaps someone actually understands how TrueLock works along with it's limitations. I guess there's absolutely no way he could have learned that TrueLock uses 30 MHz blocks (even though he actually mentioned it!) and understands that if a police radar signal falls within a locked out block there is no alert. Yep, I guess that isn't possible at all, so it must be those darn GOL videos :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
That is exactly my point, I do not want to lock out a K band signal and take the risk that an officer in my jurisdiction has a gun that falls in that 30mhz band, that was ALL I was pointing out, it is a concern for me, even if it is a rare occurance that will most likely never happen in the "real world"Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbonzzz
EDIT:
GPS for false alerts sounds good, I just would not trust it, I'd rather the GPS technology be used to store my true speed 30 seconds-2 minutes prior to detection of a signal with location and speed tracking to be used as evidence, that's where I see GPS really having an advantage, tho the speed trap location marking is also great and a part of the 9500i already.
That’s exactly what Escort mentioned in there patent for the 9500I/ci.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky225
THANK YOU RacerX!
I think you just solved the mystery for all of us about the videos with this one single statement you made in another thread...
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtop...=370995#370995
If this is true, and I do trust what you are saying on this, then that does explain what we are seeing in the video's perfectly and why all of us with new and up to date 9500i's are absolutely not seeing the same exact results as all these GOL videos are depicting.Quote:
Originally Posted by RacerX
I accept that answer and it does clearly explain why both sides are so determined in this disagreement, because both sides are absolutely correct. When GOL tested TrueLock your findings displayed that the entire K band block was being blocked out because this was happening in your early testing.
We likely then have you guys to thank for Escort obviously since correcting this issue, thus the reason no one is experiencing this same problem anymore and would have reason to think your videos were purposely staged. Clearly we all can see just from your one simple post that this was not the case and it was a real issue with early 9500i's.
Unless someone is buying a very old 9500i (eBay) they will never see this problem take place since Escort has corrected it. This also would mean that it is a false statement by other members of this website when they imply "the only fix out for the 9500i is the ramp up fix". Clearly there is a TrueLock fix that prevents old 9500i's from locking out the entire band.
Again, thank you RacaerX, that has certainly come as a relief to me in trusting and maintaining my confidence in the GOL as a whole. I certainly feel much better now in knowing you guys are not what looked to be purposely skewing your reportings.
Jim,
You wanted an apology from me "for not reading my owners manual", truest me, I've read my owners manual front to back, back to front numerous times and quote out of it here often. I did know that, just wasn't thinking about it. I guess it is of minor importance though to point out, none of us (that I can reference) using 9500i's use City or Highway mode on our detectors in the real world. Its pointless for us to do so, we use them in Auto mode and the primary reason we do so is because Auto mode works very well for us, and it eliminates these false alerts you get when in a shopping center parking lot, as the video was displaying. Yes, I was wrong about that one sentence out of all of the paragraphs of other comments I had made.
If I could further express to you why we are not happy about all of this in the first place though, its because of all the people we keep seeing who have the same ideas as what was started in this very thread, ideas based on outdated videos of an issue that no longer exists. I fully understand that it is not the responsibility of the GOL in any way to update the reports on TrueLock to reflect how current users are going to experience it from a marketing for Escort perspective. Yet, for those of us here who are not associated with Escort in any way and just trying to help other users out with our own time we sure could use your help by releasing more up to date information on TrueLock the next time you guys happen to be doing any testing. Having to deal with what we perceived to of been in accurate, now only outdated information was beginning to become very frustrating for us. It was never a case of "we just didn't like your findings", it was we just were not seeing real world results that even remotely represented your findings, now we know why.
Believe me, I would like nothing more than to wrap this whole thing up in a nice little package like that. It would be very convenient to just place the blame on Escort and move on. But unfortunately we just can't do that.
Of course I have no reason to doubt what RacerX indicated, he was one of the first with a 9500i, and I'm sure he saw enough scenarios that would make him believe that is the case. But even if what he indicated is true, it would only have affected ONE video that we made: the one made in March 2007 with the gas station that you sais "teed you off the most".
But, it really doesn't have any affect on the following two videos you had a problem with:
1. My bench test video three months later was performed on a 9500i that did not lock out the entire K-Band, and only locked out segments (and I still have that 9500i if there is any doubt!)
Are you still blaming GOL for "spreading misinformation" with this one, even though I explained to you the premise behind it, linked to the original thread, and explained the fact that I didn't post it up on YouTube with the comments and have no way to take it down?
2. Our later batch of videos in August 2007 was performed on a 9500i that did not lock out the entire K-Band, and only locked out segments. One of these was the one where he was parked in a parking lot, and you said we did something "questionable" since the 9500i was alerting under 15 MPH...
Are you still blaming GOL for "spreading misinformation" with this one? I hope not, clearly we didn't do anything "questionable" to make the STi alert under 15 MPH.
Not sure if you caught it or not, but the original poster relates above that his fear of using TrueLock is 100% based on factual data on how the 9500i operates, not on GOL videos, even though you took the opportunity to blame us for it in your first reply to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
I know you love your TrueLock, and probably find it very difficult to believe that someone might choose not to use it after knowing the factual data on how it operates. But it certainly happens, and you can't blame GOL for that.
And there might be a total of ONE video of a 9500i with an issue (whether an issue actually existed or not). And the same thing could easily occur on a brand new 9500i (with no "issue"), provided the frequencies of the false source and the radar gun fell into the same block.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
We HAVE. All videos that we did after the "gas station video" used 9500i's that definitely did not lock out the entire band, including my batch of bench test videos in May 2007 and the batch videos we did in August 2007 showing several different scenarios.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Yes, you WERE wrong. But you didn't just make a wrong statement: you in fact used it as a basis to attempt to attack our credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoterica
Unbelievable!
The biggest thing that bothers me is GOL making that many videos of True Lock not working. Its like there trying to totally disprove the technology and focus on what it cant do 10% of the time and ignore what it can do 90% of the time.
These are the things that need to take place to have a problem with TrueLock:
1) Local radar is running in X or K
2) You lock out a location with X or K
3) the location you lock out with X or K happens to be the same 30MHz block the local LEO's are running
4) A LEO is running radar in that same locked out area.
5) His signal is of about the same strength of the false so it doesn’t alert out side the locked out area.
6) and lastly you are speeding in that "High Risk" area.
That’s more variables than what it takes to get a ticket with a RD that has no TrueLock. So why isn’t there a tone of videos showing how a V1 can J out a real threat? Or a cobra missing one because of insensitivity?