Subaru Forester Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
2016 Outback and WRX CVT
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
I've never done one on an SG - and in so far as I can recall, I haven't seen any in the greater speed-detection countermeasures community, either.

But generally:

You'll want the elements equidistant between all of your vulnerabilities:
- front plate/"center mass"
- headlamps and fogs

Depending on your specifics, you may wish to bias protection towards one area or the other, but since it's a game of averages, usually, the better thing to do is to just set as "ideal compromise." However, like I said, there are specific considerations: for example, particularly with previous-generation LED-based systems, you'll want to stick hard to the "18-inch rule."

In terms of the rear, I hope you've got a good jammer - given the rear profile of the Forester, regardless of chassis vintage, it's a losing battle right from the start. :frown: Unless you've got either a top-flight system or more than enough heads dedicated to that nightmare aspect of the vehicle, I'd just not worry about it, particularly if your area does not see rear-enforcement (which is still very, very rare).

Did you make the purchase already? and if so, what did you get?

The hardware you get will determine the likely most effective mounting/setup configuration - as well as whether you've got a chance, on the rear, at all.
 

·
Registered
2009 Forester XT 4EAT
Joined
·
2,265 Posts
Seems like I saw something on a show where they testeed those and found they really didnt work all that well (possibly at all). :confused:
What brand is it and how many coins did you spend?
 

·
Registered
2016 Outback and WRX CVT
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
Seems like I saw something on a show where they testeed those and found they really didnt work all that well (possibly at all). :confused:
Mythbusters?

I remember that too.
I didn't think they tested the laser jammers... I remember them testing a whole pile of other DIY methods though.
^ Duderotomy's got it - it was home-made methods, and yes, it was as thebeephaha remembered, Mythbusters.

The reason they tested only home-brew methods, the best that we speed-detection countermeasures enthusiasts could figure it, is because testing various retail-market devices would make for a boring show: that the devices would work (to their varying capabilities), and thus wouldn't be very entertaining.

There's a reason why virtually everyone says that testing the best of these active jammers is a tedious process - because repeated "JTFG," (J)am (T)o/(F)rom (G)un episodes makes for tremendously boring and repetitive data collection. :biggrin:

Additionally, most, if not all, IIRC, of the home-brew passive methods that Mythbusters tested were to combat either RADAR or fixed-camera enforcement devices, not LIDAR.

Again, there's a reason for this.

It's because even many home-brew passive LIDAR-countermeasures, such as driving a darker-colored car, keeping one's car relatively dirty, pulling one's front plate, etc., all actually *do* work to some degree - and actually, in some cases, shockingly well.

However, with RADAR and fixed-position enforcement cameras, it's a totally different story.

So far, there has yet to be anyone who's even remotely contested Radar Roy's $50,000 challenge for effective passive RADAR jamming. It just doesn't work well.

Similarly, short of some way of physically obscuring your plate (i.e. various "smart glass" solutions or even the use of a "plate flipper"), there exists virtually no consistently reliable methods of defeating such enforcement devices.

But active LIDAR jamming?

That's actually relatively simple, and holds up to basic scientific principles.

The 1stRadarDetectors website has good basic descriptions of both how a police LIDAR device works, as well as how active laser jammers exploit their working parameters in order to do its trick. I won't direct-link here, because they're (1) not Forum supporters and (2) some of their information is out-dated and is also not without its own inaccuracies and commercial/vested-interest propaganda, but I will say that the basic-science description is a good one for beginners, and that if you're interested in the nuts-and-bolts of why these devices actually do work, it's worth the read.

Now, certainly, there are such devices which work better than others (some devices which not only work exceedingly well on every enforcement device that's currently available in North America (including devices which are no longer approved for use, but which are still in-circulation, and which you may find with very small/poor municipalities), but also even the much more higher-tech and much harder-to-defeat devices that are available to enforcers overseas), but there are also, sadly, such devices which do not work well at all, and which are propped up only via their propangada.

That, however, is another discussion all to itself. :smile:
 

·
Former Foz Dude
2010 WRX STI SE STI 6-speed, yo
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
I've been thinking of this as well. I'd probably get the 4-head system and stuck them all on the front. I'd stick two in the grille (1 near each headlight) and two in the lower bumper opening flanking the license plate. I've yet to ever receive a rear laser hit...
 

·
Registered
2016 Outback and WRX CVT
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
^ How many heads you need really depends on three factors:

(1) the type (i.e. make/model) of system you have

(2) your forward hardpoints

and

(3) how definitively you wish to shut-down the threat, which needs to be crossed with both your level of willing monetary investment in the jamming system (which in-part wraps back to concern #1) as well as your need for aesthetics or concealment (i.e. legality, theft, etc.) concerns.

To start off, for as dissimilar as your SG and your SH are, the same concerns apply - the jammer system's heads, which encompasses both receiver as well as emitter elements, need to sufficiently cover all "hardpoints," including both the usual dual-primary concerns of lighting elements and center-mass (which is further emphasized if you are required to use a state-mandated front plate), as well as a simple consideration for overall size (i.e. the amount of real-estate the jammer must cover).

In terms of today's popular systems - and here, I'll only include the ones which I believe would be sufficient to meet the specific needs of our Foresters - I'd recommend (in no particular order) either a dual (i.e. 2) head setup of the Laser Interceptor ("standard" variant will be more than sufficient), the Blinder, or the AntiLaser, with the caveat that all need to be of the latest generation/model (previous-generation models of the Blinder, IMveryHO, will require that you have at least 3 heads, if not all 4, dedicated to the frontal aspect of the vehicle - and in this specific case, I would indeed favor your proposed layout, but with the current-generation Blinder, it is quite possible that a two-head setup, installed as noted in my post #3 reply to the OP, could suffice). The Laser Pro Park is also a viable option, but for the SH chassis, I would err on the safe side and use a three-head setup (which will require that you run two control boxes, as each control-box can only accommodate 2 heads, max).

That takes care of the first two concerns, easily.

With the third concern, it's more personal - typically, you'll need "stronger" protection only if the enforcement you most routinely encounter presents you with unfavorable tactical scenarios.

What do I mean?

Well, here in NE-Ohio, for example, we've got State Troopers who will engage, on the open highway, at distances under 700 ft. - and locals who will engage at distances of under 300 ft. This means that if you choose a protective system, you'd better be damned sure that it'll literally work down to "point blank" range, that your setup be at least "effective JTG-capable," if not "true-JTG capable" (what I mean by "true-JTG" is just that - that in actual quantitative testing, the jammer is capable of protecting the target vehicle literally until the vehicle is rolling into the lap of the enforcer; with "effective-JTG," I've introduced this vocabulary to mean that although the device/setup is not capable of achieving "true-JGT" under strict testing scenarios [which, BTW, is *always* a more harsh and more exacting test of the device, a "worst case scenario," if you will], that it should still, based on the variables of any single real-world engagement, allow the vehicle to virtually JTG).

On the other hand, say you live in/near Houston, TX. There, enforcers tend to use the "easy to jam" ProLaser III, and typically do not engage at extreme short distances. In that area, there are plenty of speed-detection countermeasures hobbyists/enthusiasts who report favorable experiences with even the "weakest" of today's legitimate active LIDAR jammers, like the Escort ZR4 (and the defunct ZR3). One good example is erickonphoenix's Blog/website, which details just such.

Does this then mean that you should be like some of us fanatics - like me, for example :redface: : my friends in the community tease me for having enough jamming power to bring down military jets. :lol: :redface:

No, certainly not - and particularly not if you have a show-car and do not wish to junk the front end with several jammer heads, or if you've got legal/usage concerns for such within your area, or if you're simply worried about parking-lot love-taps or, worse, that you park in a less-than-desirable area, and have to worry about theft.

There's some balance to be achieved in all such matters, and a good place to start would be with a true dissection of your needs and wants.

And in that respect, Ken, you're already off to a good start: you've said that you don't think you need rear protection.

If that's the case, then, indeed, all we have to worry about will be the front, and we can better dissect things based solely on forward protection.

Currently, the best I can do is to have you read through this thread on NASIOC:

Laser Jammers??? Other counter measures??? - NASIOC

My screen-name there is LGT+WRX, and I come in on page 4, post #79.

A lot of this information, I'm guessing by your post above, you'll already know - and a lot of it will cover only the basics, and for that I truly apologize. However, for the rest of the readers here, it may prove useful, and I think that you may also be able to glean a few useful bits from some of the posts...or at least I hope so! :redface: :smile:

The only things that need to be adjusted there would be that I've, since about that time, been absent in the speed-detection countermeasures community...sadly, my work and home needs have ramped up rather unexpectedly (how much so? let's see, I've got a set of front brake-pads which I haven't installed, I've got an HID auxiliary light project and an LED-DRL project that's stalled, and I've also got a cat-back system that's still sitting in the garage, too), and I just haven't had time to devote to this hobby. Thus, my information is about three months out-of-date.

Currently, the LPP is again on the list of devices which I *will* recommend to others, albeit with a bit of specific reservations based on end-user needs.

And the only other update is that the Blinder-LI lawsuit is still ongoing, and that, as an independent hobbyist, I truly couldn't care less. What I care about is performance and end-customer support, period, and if Blinder is swinging their legal stick to try to edge out the market, then I, as an end-consumer, simply will not look kindly upon that. And while the moral/ethical debate about business tactics and such may grind on my on personal beliefs of honor and trust, all that I am willing to say is that all I know is of what I hear, and in that, I am thus a bystander who is equipped with, at-best, only second-hand information, and thus, I do not feel sufficiently well-knowledged nor well-founded in my facts to render a true opinion that I can sleep with. And in all honesty, one needs to remember that this entire hobby/industry is founded in-part by quite a bit of black-market/gray-market goods, and I only see this lawsuit as something that drains Blinder's reserves, where the money could have better gone towards more product development and research, which would have not only benefited us, the end-consumers, in terms of performance, but also would have proven to us that Blinder is truly after the crown, in a technological sense. Instead, we've got LI who has repeatedly shown that they're able to take things one step further, and faster, in terms of technology and updates. How else am I suppose to view this lawsuit?

So, again, my information may be slightly outdated, but the general mold? you can rest-easy, and know that it's true. :smile:
 

·
Registered
2016 Outback and WRX CVT
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
BTW, my wife's SH, two head LI installed in the bumper vents just under the main grill(e).



Receiver bubbles "out."

Yeah, it works, really well. :wink:



^ RadioShack Project Enclosure, housing switchgear for the Laser Interceptor, plus the typical label-remove/flat-mount of an Escort SmartCord. The actual control-box for the LI resides within the driver's side knee panel. All wires are run so that they're non-permanent - the wife's FXT is a lease - and the switchgear "box" I fashioned is also done with this need for completely clean removal in-mind. :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Thanks guys! Tsi+WRX I remember seeing your install on RD.net.

I haven't bought the laser jammer yet, still doing my research, but most likely will buy a LI dual regular power setup around June, mounted in the front grill, until I have the money to get HP heads in the rear. I have never seen rear laser where I live in MD (except when an Infiniti is behind me :mob: ), but I drive between Ithaca, NY and MD pretty often and am not familiar with the police activity on that route.

I also will be applying VEIL to both front headlights and rear taillights, VEIL + lasershield on the license plates, and will be painting the chrome section of the grille matte black or something of the sort. Do you think this setup would be enough to JTG or should I plan on eventually upgrading to HP heads in the front as well?

If, during the install, the heads are tilted, how would you go about fixing the tilt? The only way I can think of is to use washers as shims under the mounting bracket.
 

·
Registered
2016 Outback and WRX CVT
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
^ :smile: Yep, that's me, I've been an active member of RD.net since mid-late 2006, after my then approx. 3-year-old ZR3 finally gave out, and I started searching for an upgrade. Things were kinda chaotic at the time (with AntiLaser still being dark-gray-market, and the then-Laser Pro Park crew having been just kicked off of RD.net), and I could no longer simply lurk, as I did the years before when deciding on my previous setup - I had to become active, in order to solicit the information I wanted. I'm actually very glad I did so, as there was a whole other level to the hobby/industry that I wouldn't have been aware of, otherwise. :smile:

OK, enough chatter, sorry 'bout that! :redface: Let's get on with your business.

If you're going with an LI setup, you should be just fine with two forward-facing heads, and even without the extra passive protection, you will likely still get "effective JTG" if not "true-JTG."

Yes, the LI is truly that good. :eek:

Would it hurt to have passive protection? Certainly, no, it wouldn't, and if you're able to live with the aesthetic as well as functional shortcomings of VEIL/LaserShield, then by all means, I'd advise that you go for it - I am fond of pointing out that even the best jammers and the most perfect setups can still see, for whatever reason, an "off" day, and that I am a firm believer in what VEIL Guy calls DiD, and which I refer to as the "Complete Circle of Defense," as an homage to Dieter. Nevertheless, speaking purely on a quantitative scale, with a smaller vehicle like the previous-generation Foresters, more than likely, a standard-power LI, dual, won't need any passive help at all.

Should you pursue the High-Power offering?

Current data seems to suggest that the HP units only seem to come into their own on truly "industrial" vehicles, and that on standard passenger vehicles, there seems to be a paradoxical -decrease- in protective capability. Why this is so, no-one really knows, but some have speculated that it may be due to a higher electrical draw demanded by the HP's added emitters, which may overly tax a typical passenger vehicle's charging system and actually not allow the jammer to function to its full potential (this would thus suggest that why the HP works so well on industrial vehicles is due to their extra-load/redundant charging systems, as well as reflect why standard systems seem to do so well for even the largest of common passenger vehicles, including large SUVs and trucks). But again, that's only speculation.

Regardless of the speculation, though, I tend to simply trust Cliff (the only Authorized stateside LI vendor) - he's never steered a customer of his wrong, and he's known for not pushing products just so that he can make an extra few bucks...he's always recommended the standard setup for vehicles of our typical size and shapes, and I truly think that you'll be more than happy with them. Save the HP budget for rear heads, if you truly want them. :wink:

And that brings us to your question of rear protection.

With the LI, I think that if you used their "Slim" designed-for-rear-use heads, on a standard system, provided that you play around with optimization of head placement a bit (which you'll be able to do if you enlist the help of your area enthusiats - there's a strong contingent along your corridor of travel, and I would highly recommend that you get together with them for some live testing/optimization of your system, especially if you're pursuing rear protection, as, theoretically, that will be tough, on this vehicle).

Will the HP setup, in this case, help? Again, that's an unknown, as not only is the former concern one that's yet to be resolved, but also because a part of the problem with the rear of our Foresters (regardless of generation/vintage) is that it just has sooooooooo much real-estate. Given such a large area to cover, I almost think it might be better to, instead of pursuing the HP variant - which will limit you to still only two heads - that you divert those funds into another LI setup, so that you can perhaps place a head (or even two) up near the rear roofline, to insure best-coverage. A big part of the jamming game is reception, a "theory" back in the earlier part of this decade that was proven true by the efforts of IRCMUSA. Given larger real-estate, there's a part of the enthusiast/hobbyist crowd, of which I do follow, which thinks that there may be value in simply having more heads.

With respect to properly aligning the heads, yes, your best bet is to shim. Truly anything be used, and you're limited only to your imagination, and the materials at-hand. :smile: :wink:
 

·
Former Foz Dude
2010 WRX STI SE STI 6-speed, yo
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
I'm on radardetector.net as well... I've done quite a bit of research on the jammers and trying to figure out which brand to get (Blinder M47, LI - if I can find...). I see most can interface with the Cheetah wireless kit which I plan to get eventually as well...

I keep dragging my feet on getting something since my area uses so little laser right now... Right now both my wife and I have V1's in our FXTs...

Also, having a flat black car now kind of helps... :biggrin::icon_razz:
 

·
Registered
2016 Outback and WRX CVT
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
^ Awesome! You're on RD.net, and that's the right place to be. :smile:

"Finding" the LI is easy. Go to Cliff, and only Cliff. Due to the electrical complexities of these devices, having someone who will honor the warranty - especially someone who does such an awesome job with customer-service, both pre- and post-sale - is invaluable.

The Laser Interceptor Forums is at the following URL:

Laser Interceptor - Index

Blinder also has a great network of reputable vendors/retailers. I'd either go with Radar Roy's consult outfit, RadarBusters (although RR is no longer head of the business, he is a consultant with this aspect of NetShops, and I believe that he can still net Forum members discount codes for merchandise) or BuyRadarDetectors.com, which has ties with VEIL Guy. Alternatively, I would feel just as easy and at-peace going with one of the RD.net Forumites who maintains a Blinder resale outfit - just be sure you check their Forum "reputation" before you do so (i.e. the infamous steagall1000).

Regarding Cheetah compatibility, I know that the Blinder units are a definite go, but I am not certain about the LI. IIRC, there's definitely a voice-warning compatibility issue, but I don't really know about the wireless aspect...like I said, I've been out of the loop for a few months, which, in this hobby, is like eternity. :redface:

I *really* like the Cheetah products, though. I've got the GPS-Mirror in my car, and I've got the wife's FXT pre-wired for the unit so that I can just take it down and switch-over, when we go on road-trips in her vehicle. I'm a firm believer in the active-safety contribution that their products can give. Cheetah's customer-support is also just simply amazing - on-par with that of Cliff's over at LI.

:smile:

I'm also jealous that you're able to use the V1. :smile:

I've been tempted to get one, many, many times - but the reason I've been on Escorts the past decade or so is a simple one: I live in an area where I need the extra filtering.

I've also been further tempted to incorporate the Cheetah Detector Interface with a V1, to see if that can give me enough sanity during daily driving, but to an extent, the way my local enforcement goes, that actually brings up, potentially, a bigger hole in my protection than I am willing to have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Wow, Tsi+WRX that was a lot of great information, thanks for the writeup! I don't have the funds to do another LI setup in the rear yet but it's definitely something to think about. I had never heard about the point about the HP heads potentially being less effective on standard passenger vehicles, that's quite interesting. Does this depend on where you tap in for power (speaking of which, where did you tap for power) or is it simply because the electrical system on a passenger car can't keep up with the HP heads? I just heard about the Cheetah products about a week ago so I'll do some research on them...they sound interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Jeez, there is a WEALTH of information on RD.net, I could spend a week on it just reading. It is kind of annoying that I can't look at thumbnails yet since I don't have 15 posts though (reading is enough for now...there's so much information). Looks like I'll be getting a CB radio setup, GPS module for my BB, and perhaps a SpeedCheetah as well. Oh boy.

What exactly does Cheetah do, does it just alert the driver when the driver approaches a speed/red-light camera that is in its database? Who maintains the database?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Just ordered CB radio/antenna, VEIL, LaserShield, and a GPS module for my BlackBerry for Trapster :biggrin::biggrin:
 

·
Registered
2016 Outback and WRX CVT
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
Just ordered CB radio/antenna, VEIL, LaserShield, and a GPS module for my BlackBerry for Trapster :biggrin::biggrin:
^ Whoa, happy shopping! :smile:

To get the best out of your CB, scour the RD.net sub-Forums for both CB-lingo (unless you're a trucker, yourself, or have had such interactions in the past) and etiquette.

For the VEIL and LaserShield, remember, they're "point defenses." Since you're already searching there, you'll see my analogy of those items as, effectively, shields that cover a select portion of your body from, say, incoming arrows. :wink: That's essentially a very accurate description. Know what they can, and cannot, do. :smile:

For Trapster, remember that it's biggest and greatest capability is in the live-reporting of active traps. It's shortcoming, unfortunately, is also "community based," in that there's much less filtering on its information. Thus, marked locations may or may not be accurate, and threats may be nonexistent or may be more threatening than what is marked - essentially, this is where the Cheetah products come in to their own.

Looks like I'll be getting a CB radio setup, GPS module for my BB, and perhaps a SpeedCheetah as well. Oh boy.

What exactly does Cheetah do, does it just alert the driver when the driver approaches a speed/red-light camera that is in its database? Who maintains the database?
The Cheetah products basically are dedicated fixed-threat announcers, taking advantage of GPS technology to "smartly" forewarn you of such hazards.

Unlike most GPS-based POI programs for various nav/phone devices, the Cheetah products are capable of processing direction-of-travel and how that may affect threat presentation.

If you live or commute through fixed-camera threat areas, the Cheetah products and others like it (i.e. NavAlert, as well as the integrated-with-detector products from Cobra and Escort) can be a big bonus, both in terms of keeping you out of trouble with the law, as well as actually enhancing your true safety by notifying you of such monitored areas, which, thanks to the all-too-human way in which many of us react upon seeing signs of such "Red Light Camera Monitored Intersection" or the like, do present as statistical blips in terms of accidents, too.

The Cheetah database is proprietary, named Trinity. SpeedCheetah's fanatical principles maintains the database to near-perfection, and responds very rapidly to user-reported changes, but only after authenticated/vouched verification, which is what makes their database so much more trustworthy than that of those maintained by the community at-large. Trinity is so highly regarded in the industry that Escort/Bel licenses its base use as their own proprietary Defender Database.

Jeez, there is a WEALTH of information on RD.net, I could spend a week on it just reading. It is kind of annoying that I can't look at thumbnails yet since I don't have 15 posts though (reading is enough for now...there's so much information).
Yep.

Like the old saying goes, it's like drinking from a fire hose.

But stick with it, take it easy - when I started back in the community in '06, after having taken some 4 years or so "off," I literally lurked and read for something like 2 months, before making my first post (back then, there wasn't that stupid 15-posts minimum). Even so, I still made a very, very "green" first post there. :biggrin:

There's indeed *a lot* of good information, but there's also quite a bit of noise to filter, too. Kinda like searching for things via NASIOC.

You've gotta take the good with the bad.

Wow, Tsi+WRX that was a lot of great information, thanks for the writeup!
No need to thank me - just glad to help our little community here. :smile:

Although the speed-detection countermeasures hobbyist/enthusiast community is filled with good people, the industry, sadly, is one that is often backstabbing and untrustworthy (with the exception of a few noted individuals). As I've said elsewhere, my aim in being present on various Subaru Forums is to help shield my fellow Subaru lovers from the "badness" that's in the undertow of the speed-detection countermeasures world: to help my fellow Scooby enthusiasts spend their money more wisely.

I don't have the funds to do another LI setup in the rear yet but it's definitely something to think about. I had never heard about the point about the HP heads potentially being less effective on standard passenger vehicles, that's quite interesting. Does this depend on where you tap in for power (speaking of which, where did you tap for power) or is it simply because the electrical system on a passenger car can't keep up with the HP heads?
Honestly, I don't know - it's a theory posed by some in the community with electrical/engineering backgrounds, and I'm merely repeating it, as it, currently, without testing, at least sounds plausible. For whatever reason, that bit of paradox exists - we've seen the a dual-head standard system protect even full-sized SUVs and trucks, providing true-JTG performance, and we've also seen the HP variant kick-butt on both ultra-large RVs and various industrial vehicles (from the extreme tall-roofline of various European "delivery vans" to the wide behemoth that's typical of Stateside "flatbed" industrial trucks). Yet, we've seen HPs present with "holes" on average-sized passenger vehicles. :shrug:

Certainly, having good, clean power source and ground is necessary.

Since I support so much gadgetry, I've tapped a hard-line directly through the firewall, via an existing grommet, to the battery. :icon_redface:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
^ Whoa, happy shopping! :smile:

To get the best out of your CB, scour the RD.net sub-Forums for both CB-lingo (unless you're a trucker, yourself, or have had such interactions in the past) and etiquette.

For the VEIL and LaserShield, remember, they're "point defenses." Since you're already searching there, you'll see my analogy of those items as, effectively, shields that cover a select portion of your body from, say, incoming arrows. :wink: That's essentially a very accurate description. Know what they can, and cannot, do. :smile:

For Trapster, remember that it's biggest and greatest capability is in the live-reporting of active traps. It's shortcoming, unfortunately, is also "community based," in that there's much less filtering on its information. Thus, marked locations may or may not be accurate, and threats may be nonexistent or may be more threatening than what is marked - essentially, this is where the Cheetah products come in to their own.



The Cheetah products basically are dedicated fixed-threat announcers, taking advantage of GPS technology to "smartly" forewarn you of such hazards.

Unlike most GPS-based POI programs for various nav/phone devices, the Cheetah products are capable of processing direction-of-travel and how that may affect threat presentation.

If you live or commute through fixed-camera threat areas, the Cheetah products and others like it (i.e. NavAlert, as well as the integrated-with-detector products from Cobra and Escort) can be a big bonus, both in terms of keeping you out of trouble with the law, as well as actually enhancing your true safety by notifying you of such monitored areas, which, thanks to the all-too-human way in which many of us react upon seeing signs of such "Red Light Camera Monitored Intersection" or the like, do present as statistical blips in terms of accidents, too.

The Cheetah database is proprietary, named Trinity. SpeedCheetah's fanatical principles maintains the database to near-perfection, and responds very rapidly to user-reported changes, but only after authenticated/vouched verification, which is what makes their database so much more trustworthy than that of those maintained by the community at-large. Trinity is so highly regarded in the industry that Escort/Bel licenses its base use as their own proprietary Defender Database.



Yep.

Like the old saying goes, it's like drinking from a fire hose.

But stick with it, take it easy - when I started back in the community in '06, after having taken some 4 years or so "off," I literally lurked and read for something like 2 months, before making my first post (back then, there wasn't that stupid 15-posts minimum). Even so, I still made a very, very "green" first post there. :biggrin:

There's indeed *a lot* of good information, but there's also quite a bit of noise to filter, too. Kinda like searching for things via NASIOC.

You've gotta take the good with the bad.



No need to thank me - just glad to help our little community here. :smile:

Although the speed-detection countermeasures hobbyist/enthusiast community is filled with good people, the industry, sadly, is one that is often backstabbing and untrustworthy (with the exception of a few noted individuals). As I've said elsewhere, my aim in being present on various Subaru Forums is to help shield my fellow Subaru lovers from the "badness" that's in the undertow of the speed-detection countermeasures world: to help my fellow Scooby enthusiasts spend their money more wisely.



Honestly, I don't know - it's a theory posed by some in the community with electrical/engineering backgrounds, and I'm merely repeating it, as it, currently, without testing, at least sounds plausible. For whatever reason, that bit of paradox exists - we've seen the a dual-head standard system protect even full-sized SUVs and trucks, providing true-JTG performance, and we've also seen the HP variant kick-butt on both ultra-large RVs and various industrial vehicles (from the extreme tall-roofline of various European "delivery vans" to the wide behemoth that's typical of Stateside "flatbed" industrial trucks). Yet, we've seen HPs present with "holes" on average-sized passenger vehicles. :shrug:

Certainly, having good, clean power source and ground is necessary.

Since I support so much gadgetry, I've tapped a hard-line directly through the firewall, via an existing grommet, to the battery. :icon_redface:
What exactly is "true JTG" vs "effective JTG"? Also, I was thinking about my antenna setup...I need it to be easily removable for the garage, as the CB will only be used on long trips. I want to have the antenna mounted on the roof, with the coaxial coming out of the top of the lift gate. Would it be possible to put a coaxial coupler by the headliner, so I wouldn't have to tear through my interior each time to remove the antenna, or would that affect receiving/transmitting quality? I'm quite excited for the CB setup :biggrin:
 

·
Registered
2016 Outback and WRX CVT
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
^ Sadly, I am a total CB-idiot. :redface: I have no experience in that realm, and thus cannot serve as your guide. :frown:


----


"True JTG" is the quantitative ability of the jammer to achieve JTG under rigorous testing conditions.

While current testing methodology is not yet truly quantitative, it's the best that anyone has yet to come up with, and is virtually standardized across the spectrum of various individual as well as group hobbyists/enthusiasts.

Set up as-such, it's a worse-case scenario of a well-trained (if not also steady-handed) enthusiast "LASing" you all the way in, from the farthest reaches of the designated test-course to when the vehicle is virtually point-blank, this achieving "true JTG."

"True JTG" is a measure of the device's optimal setup, assuming worst-scenario threat, but threat which is also at the same time optimal as it is test-course controlled. It is also, critically, a one time measure, applicable only to said test.

"Virtual JTG," on the other hand, is a more practical, real-world, definition.

Take a look at the 2009 Laser Jammer Test by the Guys of LIDAR:

Look at the chart for the performance of the Laser Pro Park (LPP).

Disregard the Traffipatrol rows, as well as the Laser Atlanta rows. The former does not apply to us as we are stateside, and the latter, if you'll recall from my previous posts, is an area where the LPP specifically has a known issue. Both of these bits will confound our discussion here, so for the time being, just ignore them. :smile:

With those rows out of the way, you'll see a cluster of "yellows" in the LPP's performance data.

If you look back at their 2007 testing data, you'll find the same kind of observation noted for the LPP.

Does this mean that the LPP is an inadequate device?

In my view, no, it does not.

Why?

Because the PTs - the (P)unch (T)hroughs, for those who are just joining our conversation and not familiar with the terminology, it's the point at which the LIDAR literally "punches through" the "shield" offered by the active jamming device, so to speak - all take place at a relatively consistent distance.

Similarly, look at the 2008 performance of the LI. Two such sets of holes were noted.

"Effective JTG" thus takes on two real-world meanings:

(1) That you know the approximate weaknesses of your system, and know that its performance, up to distance X with hardware Y, is virtually guaranteed to be JTG. As long as your local/routine threats do not abridge those critical X and Y, then you're "effectively JTG" on every encounter.

(2) That in the real-world, variability can cause one tested device - even the best, let's say, the LI - to not achieve "true JTG," but rather, to have observed very consistent and very low-distance PTs. Thus, effectively, you're virtually guaranteed of JTG performance, roadside.

:smile:
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top