Bel GX65 antenna is a new design...

Hi everyone,

I did some digging on the FCC web site. Bel's new GX65 radar detector has an FCC ID of QL4G7GX. Recall that I commented that the GX65's antenna casting appears to be a bit different compared to the standard M4 antenna casting used in the Escort 9500i and other Bel M4 platform radar detectors. I also commented that I suspected that the antenna design is a modified M4 antenna design. Well, now I have some info which seems to back this up.

Here are the test results for the 9500i lab tests for leakage around 12GHz:
http://www.mem-tek.com/radar/Bel_GX6..._emissions.gif

And here are the test results for the new GX65 lab tests for leakage around 12GHz:
http://www.mem-tek.com/radar/Bel_GX6..._emissions.gif

The GX65 has zero measurable 12GHz leakage! The primary LO frequency has been moved to a different frequency. This means that the LO board design within the GX65 is different than the LO board design used in the M4 platform.

:)

Nice find Mem, so what exactly does this mean. Anything good, bad, etc.?

^ I don't know. GOL's radar tests later this year will tell the tale. The first thing which crossed my mind though is that the Spectre might not see a GX65 at all, at least not until the Spectre is redesigned -- again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

^ I don't know. GOL's radar tests later this year will tell the tale. The first thing which crossed my mind though is that the Spectre might not see a GX65 at all, at least not until the Spectre is redesigned -- again!

---

Thats what I was at first thinking, but i saw that it still had an LO emmission so I thought the spectre could detect it. But I think what there trying to do is make it so that Spectre goes out of business (australian company name please, forgot it) Everytime they do this spectre has to update there product which costs money.

but the v1 also is listed as not have any measurable leakage and the spectra can still see it. The spectre must be looking for an emission in another frequency.

Damn I hope it's not better than the 9500ix on Ka ... :(

hussain is the engineer

Nice bit of sleuthing Mem-Tek. Very interesting, to say the least. :cool:

Me thinks that it's time to do some more Spectre tests.

A forum member reported insane K band performance with their GX65 as I recall. Hmm...I wonder what the Ka band performance is like. What if the LO is moved to 1/2 of Ka band instead of roughly 1/3 of Ka band? I'm just guessing and winging it. Maybe Jimbonzzz, The Professor will chime in with some possible thoughts. Anyway, in about two weeks the internal photos will be available on the FCC web site. Then Jimbonzzz can discect the design based on the photos of the LO board.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

A forum member reported insane K band performance with their GX65 as I recall. Hmm...I wonder what the Ka band performance is like. What if the LO is moved to 1/2 of Ka band instead of roughly 1/3 of Ka band? I'm just guessing and winging it. Maybe Jimbonzzz, The Professor will chime in with some possible thoughts. Anyway, in about two weeks the internal photos will be available on the FCC web site. Then Jimbonzzz can discect the design based on the photos of the LO board.

:D

---

I remember the same thing, but yoda happyass said a steak is steak, so an M4 is an M4, but in this case like you said Mem different FCC number.

The different FCC number doesn't bother me. But the fact that the GX65 has no 12GHz emissions like the M4 antenna used in the 9500i, current Vectors and the current RX65, does. This is why I think that the LO board has to be different and that it is either a modified or completely new design. We have to wait until the end of the month for the FCC internal photos to be made public. :(

I think that if it was the same antenna it would have the same FCC ID, the only time they have to change the ID is if they come out with a different one. Remember that it costs money to have the FCC test the device. Why pay to have it tested if it already meets the specs?

Definitely a popcorn moment... :popcorn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

The different FCC number doesn't bother me. But the fact that the GX65 has no 12GHz emissions like the M4 antenna used in the 9500i, current Vectors and the current RX65, does. This is why I think that the LO board has to be different and that it is either a modified or completely new design. We have to wait until the end of the month for the FCC internal photos to be made public. :(

---

Isn't 11.7-12.2GHz the range for KU band? I also think it has to do with the shielding of the GPS board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

Isn't 11.7-12.2GHz the range for KU band?

---

13.400 - 13.500 GHz (Ku band)

I researched that frequency and it comes up as a KU band frequently and referenced to satellites. So I believe the shielding has to do with the GPS more than the end design of the M4 horn.
I bet that frequency coming from the GPS unit can interfere with K detection range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

I researched that frequency and it comes up as a KU band frequently and referenced to satellites. So I believe the shielding has to do with the GPS more than the end design of the M4 horn.
I bet that frequency coming from the GPS unit can interfere with K detection range.

---

If the GPS interferes with K band than they did a good job of shielding it because I get really good range on K band...They do not use a lot of KA in my town so have not had a good KA encounter yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

^ I don't know. GOL's radar tests later this year will tell the tale. The first thing which crossed my mind though is that the Spectre might not see a GX65 at all, at least not until the Spectre is redesigned -- again!

---

You will play a key role if the radar test takes place;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

Isn't 11.7-12.2GHz the range for KU band? I also think it has to do with the shielding of the GPS board.

---

Two samples were tested. One sample was a design which did not have a shield over the main circuit board. The other sample had a revised GPS board plus a shield installed over the main circuit board. Both product samples had zero emissions in the 11.7 to 12.2 GHz range.

Mhardy and CJR bring up interesting observations that GPS could interfere with K band. Yet it occurs to me that a 9500i which has a M4 horn performs as well or better than a RX65 with the same M4 horn. Yet this idea has peaked my curiosity. Hmm...I might try making and installing a thin shield between the main board and the GPS board in my 9500i and see if I get any improvement in sensitivity.

MEM-TEK wrote:

Quote:

---

Yet it occurs to me that a 9500i which has a M4 horn performs as well or better than a RX65 with the same M4 horn.

---

Someone on this board once told me that the M4 of the 9500i was somewhat different than that of the Vector/RX/X50. I can't remember who it was, and my Tecate influenced search didn't help me cite this info:o.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aradarnut

MEM-TEK wrote:

Someone on this board once told me that the M4 of the 9500i was somewhat different than that of the Vector/RX/X50. I can't remember who it was, and my Tecate influenced search didn't help me cite this info:o.

---

The one obvious thing is the 9500I has the horn upside down.

I though that it must be different in some way. I mean it practically sticks out of the GX. I hope it has good performance.

Well, today the FCC made the GX65 internal photos public. The GX65's LO board appears to be identical to a M4 LO board. It is even labeled "05FM4090". So, what I can't figure out is why the GX65 antenna doesn't have 12GHz leakage whereas other M4 Bel/Escort M4 platform radar detectors do. The only other thing I can think of is that there has been some sort of change made to the cavities inside the metal horn casting? Recall that I mentioned that the GX65's horn casting does look very slightly different compared to the standard M4 horn casting. Maybe Professor Jimbonzzz can figure this out.

So basically the GX65 has the same detection as the RX-65 but with camera database?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhardy2288

So basically the GX65 has the same detection as the RX-65 but with camera database?

---

logically yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

logically yes.

---

Boy I got screwed...I only bought it because they said it had the same basic design as the 9500i....I had awsome detection with 9500i...:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

Well, today the FCC made the GX65 internal photos public. The GX65's LO board appears to be identical to a M4 LO board. It is even labeled "05FM4090". So, what I can't figure out is why the GX65 antenna doesn't have 12GHz leakage whereas other M4 Bel/Escort M4 platform radar detectors do. The only other thing I can think of is that there has been some sort of change made to the cavities inside the metal horn casting? Recall that I mentioned that the GX65's horn casting does look very slightly different compared to the standard M4 horn casting. Maybe Professor Jimbonzzz can figure this out.

---

The frequency leakage (or lack there of) is from the GPS unit/components.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhardy2288

Boy I got screwed...I only bought it because they said it had the same basic design as the 9500i....I had awsome detection with 9500i...:mad:

---

Well logically it would work as good as the best Bel unit with the M4 horn. But your going to need to tell us, they may have taken some technology from the 9500 and implemented it on the GX65.

also if they were looking to make a better unit i would think they wouldn't just change the letting, they would make a howl new model # like going from 8500 to 9500I not RX60 to GS65.
The I & ix are the same platform/performance and they both have the same number, just the letting has changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

Well logically it would work as good as the best Bel unit with the M4 horn. But your going to need to tell us, they may have taken some technology from the 9500 and implemented it on the GX65.

---

I owned a RX-65 and I thought I was getting a lot better detection but I have not had enough true Leo encounters to be sure...I thought my Kband detection was better but this could have been in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhardy2288

I owned a RX-65 and I thought I was getting a lot better detection but I have not had enough true Leo encounters to be sure...I thought my Kband detection was better but this could have been in my mind.

---

Let us know how it compares, it may take quite a few anticipated tests with KA. But try out some K band false doors.
My guess is it might be slightly better than the RX65, but only because its new and probably has less variance from model to model.

Well, the GX65 may have the same M4 LO board and associated electronics, but the rest of the main circuit board is an entirely new design. Not only that, Bel repositioned the Jupiter 30 GPS chip on a redesigned daughterboard and then added a RF shield between this assembly and the main circuit board. Now, why would they do that unless there was some benefit in implementing this redesign? We all know that somehow the 9500i/9500ix M4 antenna performs better than the M4 antenna used in the X50 and Vectors. Somehow I suspect that the GX65's implementation of the M4 antenna will outperform the 9500i/9500ix. This is just a guess since I suspect that Bel's engineers have focused on reducing RF interference from other parts of the radar detector's circuitry with regards to the antenna. GOL's tests later this year will tell the story one way or another!

:)

;) I just got off the phone with Jack from Beltronics. I specifically asked him if the new gx-65 was immune to the Spectre IV RDD. Since I know they own a spectre IV RDD. He implicated to me that no it is not immune to quote on quote, "Any Spectre R.D.D." It is only immune to the "VG-2 R.D.D." I hope this clears up any possible concerns as to weather this is immune to spectre, He informed me that if Spectre Was a concern that i was to purchase the STiDriver or the 9500ci. So there is your answer It's waste of testing time/money. The only thing that might be different is that it's gps capable he said, and i'm guessing maybe a slight performance increase do to the recasting/redesign of the horn as mem-tek stated. There ya go. ;)


AlPiNe~

:) if its not detectable by spectre III and donwwards il buy it instantly

i´m just waiting for someone to test it against those RDD´s:D

well i was just a bit late :( doesnt matter if it leaks abit like 50ft

DId you even read my post above yours, I just got off the phone with Beltronics the GX-65 isn't immune to "ANY" spectre R.D.D. according to Jack at Beltroincs, these words came from the cat's mouth itself! They own a spectre IV R.D.D. so if they say it's not immune to any of them, it's not immune as they simply didn't care to make it immune.


AlPiNe~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinestars_2002795

DId you even read my post above yours, I just got off the phone with Beltronics the GX-65 isn't immune to "ANY" spectre R.D.D. according to Jack at Beltroincs, these words came from the cat's mouth itself! They own a spectre IV R.D.D. so if they say it's not immune to any of them, it's not immune as they simply didn't care to make it immune.


AlPiNe~

---

->

Quote:

---

well i was just a bit late doesnt matter if it leaks abit like 50ft

---

didnt c ur post dude , it wasnt there when i made my post

No worries it happens man its the forum/computers they have their own minds..


Ya, I was a bit dissapointed that it wasn't immune. Why it's not i don't know? They have the technology readily avaliable to make it immune. Who knows? It would be nice to have a gps enabled unit that is immune. Why they fear combining these two objects who knows. Size maybe? Bulkiness and a need for a total redesign wouldn't be "Cost effective" to the detector manufacturer. Just as it's not totally cost effective for SMS to build a spectre V that would detect the STi Driver, 9500ci, and The STi-R.

Although it is become more cost effective since now instead of one immune unit there are "Three." The more units that become immune the more reason for SMS to upgrade. Maybe this is Bel's reason for not making the GX-65 immune as well? Who knows. It is upsetting though that it's not.

It is only immune to the VG-2. Although I'd like to put that to the test as well, as i have two VG-2's and the X-50 claimed to be immune to the VG-2 and not spectre and I can pick that thing up atleast 25ft away??

A cobra is better at defeating VG-2 unfortunatly.

It is hard to beleive but the cobra upon detection will shut down within one second of alerting to VG-2 R.D.D. I've watched this on multipule cobra detectors. Does this mean i'd be running out to buy a cobra no, their sensitivity to radar bands is horrible, and they are an annoyance to high end users that have STi Drivers that are just purely undetectable. Although there was a R.D.D. that has now just been discussed on this forum in a spot, information from ProudNMAMember about an R.D.D. being tested in VA that can now detect the STi Driver at 500ft. This unit is merely a prototype though, and is not widely accepted by IACP nor in Wide use as far as I know.


AlPiNe~;)

I think Bel/Escort will only offer Stealth capability to their top of their line (read: Premium) RDs. Since they "own" the Stealth market, it doesn't make any business sense to offer it to just any new detector, especially when no competitors exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WK446

I think Bel/Escort will only offer Stealth capability to their top of their line (read: Premium) RDs. Since they "own" the Stealth market, it doesn't make any business sense to offer it to just any new detector, especially when no competitors exist.

---

It makes sense, or the alternative is to tell us that it is not stealth. Few people have RDD and even fewer have Spectre IV.

I will wait for an independent test before I decide if it is detectable or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

Well, the GX65 may have the same M4 LO board and associated electronics, but the rest of the main circuit board is an entirely new design. Not only that, Bel repositioned the Jupiter 30 GPS chip on a redesigned daughterboard and then added a RF shield between this assembly and the main circuit board. Now, why would they do that unless there was some benefit in implementing this redesign? We all know that somehow the 9500i/9500ix M4 antenna performs better than the M4 antenna used in the X50 and Vectors.
:)

---

I would concur with the above, my guess is the less interference the M4 horn gets the better.
I'm wiling to bet the GPS chip was giving off something that intrefered with ether acquisition or filtering for the M4 horn. I'm also wiling to be thats why we saw such a big improvement on lator 9500I's.