Laser Mount experience
#16
The Laser Interceptor has an option to wipe the jamming functions from the CPU with a new switch. To reactivate jamming you must reprogram the CPU via the LI communicator program.
@ Eric bumper plug, for laser jamming you are best served by driving like you dont have a laser jammer. A few friends have recently tested the current K40 laser jammer, it didn't work.
@ Eric bumper plug, for laser jamming you are best served by driving like you dont have a laser jammer. A few friends have recently tested the current K40 laser jammer, it didn't work.
Absolutely correct. Since the beam is so narrow (typically under 30"), if your detector goes off, the police already have a lock. On our Stalker LZ1 police Lidar Gun, we can get a lock in about 1 second (unless a good jammer is being used). If countermeasures are used (jammer), then lock time can be from 2 seconds to never depending on the jammer used. Our independent testing concurs with the testing done by GuysofLidar.com - EXCEPT, we have tested a few more then they have. We have also tested the Laser Star and Laser Defense Pro. All of our testing is recent too (within the last 10 months). LI, LDP are still tops at jamming. V1 and Escort are tops in RADAR ONLY. Although we sell the Escort product, we would never send a customer away depending on that alone for serious laser countermeasures. It is awesome at radar though. We do not sell the LI, but do sell the LDP and it is very difficult to get a lock with the LDP.
For municipalities that do not allow laser countermeasures, the LDP and LPP doubles as a parking sensor, and has a manual that states the same (never mentions jamming of any sort). That way if ever questioned, it is only a parking sensor (similar to those used by active cruise and parking on Mercedes and Lexus). Since light can not be regulated by the FCC like radar can, they can not say a thing about it, as the law states that light emitting and receiving devices must accept any and all interference. Too bad those parking sensors happen to operate at the same pulse rate that the lidar guns do....lol
For municipalities that do not allow laser countermeasures, the LDP and LPP doubles as a parking sensor, and has a manual that states the same (never mentions jamming of any sort). That way if ever questioned, it is only a parking sensor (similar to those used by active cruise and parking on Mercedes and Lexus). Since light can not be regulated by the FCC like radar can, they can not say a thing about it, as the law states that light emitting and receiving devices must accept any and all interference. Too bad those parking sensors happen to operate at the same pulse rate that the lidar guns do....lol
#17
Rennlist Member
I've had the K40 for almost a year now. Plenty of cops ,no tickets. I get plenty of advanced notice. I wouldnt trade it for anything.
#18
Basic Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Not too worried. I don't rely on it, but I believe it works just fine.
The key with all of this is situational awareness. Driving more than 5-10 over on city streets or near schools in stupidity. Beyond that, on highway situations, you are more likely to get bounce from Ka or K band than a laser direct hit.
Seen all the literature, well aware of the 'articles and tests'....been with K40 a long time, sticking with it. Laser is quite rare where I do most of my driving too.
I do also have V1 units in my Audi, Cooper and Lexus Rx. : )
The key with all of this is situational awareness. Driving more than 5-10 over on city streets or near schools in stupidity. Beyond that, on highway situations, you are more likely to get bounce from Ka or K band than a laser direct hit.
Seen all the literature, well aware of the 'articles and tests'....been with K40 a long time, sticking with it. Laser is quite rare where I do most of my driving too.
I do also have V1 units in my Audi, Cooper and Lexus Rx. : )
__________________
Eric
Chief Plug Guy
BumperPlugs.com
2022 GT3 Touring
2009 997 Turbo Cab
2018 M2 6sp
Gone but not forgotten
2004 C4S Cabriolet
1999 C2 Cab
Eric
Chief Plug Guy
BumperPlugs.com
2022 GT3 Touring
2009 997 Turbo Cab
2018 M2 6sp
Gone but not forgotten
2004 C4S Cabriolet
1999 C2 Cab
#20
Absolutely correct. Since the beam is so narrow (typically under 30"), if your detector goes off, the police already have a lock. On our Stalker LZ1 police Lidar Gun, we can get a lock in about 1 second (unless a good jammer is being used). If countermeasures are used (jammer), then lock time can be from 2 seconds to never depending on the jammer used. Our independent testing concurs with the testing done by GuysofLidar.com - EXCEPT, we have tested a few more then they have. We have also tested the Laser Star and Laser Defense Pro. All of our testing is recent too (within the last 10 months). LI, LDP are still tops at jamming. V1 and Escort are tops in RADAR ONLY. Although we sell the Escort product, we would never send a customer away depending on that alone for serious laser countermeasures. It is awesome at radar though. We do not sell the LI, but do sell the LDP and it is very difficult to get a lock with the LDP.
For municipalities that do not allow laser countermeasures, the LDP and LPP doubles as a parking sensor, and has a manual that states the same (never mentions jamming of any sort). That way if ever questioned, it is only a parking sensor (similar to those used by active cruise and parking on Mercedes and Lexus). Since light can not be regulated by the FCC like radar can, they can not say a thing about it, as the law states that light emitting and receiving devices must accept any and all interference. Too bad those parking sensors happen to operate at the same pulse rate that the lidar guns do....lol
For municipalities that do not allow laser countermeasures, the LDP and LPP doubles as a parking sensor, and has a manual that states the same (never mentions jamming of any sort). That way if ever questioned, it is only a parking sensor (similar to those used by active cruise and parking on Mercedes and Lexus). Since light can not be regulated by the FCC like radar can, they can not say a thing about it, as the law states that light emitting and receiving devices must accept any and all interference. Too bad those parking sensors happen to operate at the same pulse rate that the lidar guns do....lol
Is the HP with two transmitters really necessary for a relatively small frontal footprint like a 997?
Any thoughts?
#21
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL. Home of Florida Man.
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Laser heads in the intakes, or in lower corners of dash/windshield (we have tested this mounting location with very good results against LA and Stalker gun). We would be happy to give you some help, even if we don't sell the product. The reason is this area of customer and installer knowledge is very poor, and the more people we can educate about it the better. Bumperplugs is right…. if you want a pro to do it, look for someone that actually owns a gun and can test installations. Making it extra pretty can be very bad, and some pros are more concerned about pretty than effective.
It IS possible to get a system set up that will jam to within 100 feet (or a little less) to the gun (any gun) - and looks nice. We have been doing it now for about a year. Lots of installs. So far not one reported ticket (knock on wood)
So send me your questions… happy to answer.
It IS possible to get a system set up that will jam to within 100 feet (or a little less) to the gun (any gun) - and looks nice. We have been doing it now for about a year. Lots of installs. So far not one reported ticket (knock on wood)
So send me your questions… happy to answer.
#23
People should be very wary of accepting radar "testing" reported on the internet. I am wary of these tests as many of these web sites accept advertising (or actually sell radar detectors).
One other issue with the V1 is that, although it is well positioned to detect radar (the higher positioned the better), it is in the worst possible position to detect laser. (not that it would be of any concievable help even if it did).
One other issue with the V1 is that, although it is well positioned to detect radar (the higher positioned the better), it is in the worst possible position to detect laser. (not that it would be of any concievable help even if it did).
#24
#25
IMHO - The Escort or its Bel counterpart (same company now) are the best detectors. The Valentine 1 is a great detector too, but frankly they have been resting on the same detector for about 20 years. The GPS lockout of all the false signals in the Escort and camera database is simply a great tool. It is just a shame that Escort can not make a good jammer. I feel stupid just tossing out the laser jamming heads, so I install them on most cars, then install a 'real' jammer in addition to them when the client (or myself) is serious about jamming. Just my .02 - I am an enthusiast and I know this brings about heated debate. I actually own one of the hardest Lidar guns to beat (Stalker LZ1), and am always testing different configurations, as laser is heavily used here in Atlanta.
#26
Rennlist Member
Your logic makes zero sense. My Blinder jams the signal at the same rate regardless if I'm using a Cheetah or if my audio/visual warning indicator is hardwired through the firewall.
The delay if any is only between the jammers CPU and the audible device in the cabin. The jammer has already done it's job regardless if you are using a Cheetah to transmit the audible signal.
#27
IMHO - The Escort or its Bel counterpart (same company now) are the best detectors. The Valentine 1 is a great detector too, but frankly they have been resting on the same detector for about 20 years. The GPS lockout of all the false signals in the Escort and camera database is simply a great tool. It is just a shame that Escort can not make a good jammer. I feel stupid just tossing out the laser jamming heads, so I install them on most cars, then install a 'real' jammer in addition to them when the client (or myself) is serious about jamming. Just my .02 - I am an enthusiast and I know this brings about heated debate. I actually own one of the hardest Lidar guns to beat (Stalker LZ1), and am always testing different configurations, as laser is heavily used here in Atlanta.
#28
For the front of a 997, regular LI heads are excellent. I recommend HP heads only for vertical installations. The power of the regular LI heads is more than sufficient or any car. The difference between the regular and HP heads is that the HPs have a second set of laser diodes that are vertically polarized (when the heads are mounted in a horizontal position) in addition to the diode that is found in the regular heads that are horizontally polarized. What does this mean? The beam coming out of a regular LI head is wider than it is taller. Adding the vertically polarized heads gives you greater vertical protection, not for your vehicle, but the vertical position of the person shooting laser. When mounting the HP heads vertically, this helps you for horizontal shooter protection. The weakness of most laser jammer installations is not the power of the jammer, but the ability of the jammer to see the LIDAR beam. This is why it is most important to position the jammer heads so they can adequately see the LIDAR beam. More heads on a car positioned correctly, the better the jammer has the ability to see the laser beam. Friends of mine tested a BMW 5 series today with an LI dual mounted in the lower bumper, which usually resulted in poor performance. The testing of this car resulted in similar results. They then added a third head mounted inside the car behind the windshield which greatly improved results. Whhere would I recommend to install laser jammers on the front of a 997? Sticking out of the lateral grills, mounted as high as possible slightly protruding from the grill bubble out to permit a greater view of the road, a third head mounted either to top of the front license plate or if no p,ate tha in the midline of the car to the top of the middle grrill, also slightly protruding.
#29
Radar/laser detectors, laser "jammers" generate a lot of controversy. The reason for this, I beleive, is that there is a disconnect between real world performance and B.S. "testing" that is done by so-called independant labs many of whom have a hidden agenda, sell a particular product or somehow profit by hawking a particular brand.
There is another issue here: The implication is that the detector that has greater range is the "better" one. This may not be true e.g., it is generally the case that improving the sensitivity of a device comes at the expence of specificity. A detector of greater range may also generate more false alarms the net effect of which might be for the user to ignore legitimate threats. My theory as to why so many people on RL with the V1 have reported being ticketed by radar is paritally based upon these considerations. A detector of greater range may also identify threats so remote as to be inconsequential.
I have a very pragmatic approach to detectors/"jammers." I only ask of them that they perform well in the real world. I don't care what the "range" of the device is but merely does it help me avoid getting ticketed.
There is another issue here: The implication is that the detector that has greater range is the "better" one. This may not be true e.g., it is generally the case that improving the sensitivity of a device comes at the expence of specificity. A detector of greater range may also generate more false alarms the net effect of which might be for the user to ignore legitimate threats. My theory as to why so many people on RL with the V1 have reported being ticketed by radar is paritally based upon these considerations. A detector of greater range may also identify threats so remote as to be inconsequential.
I have a very pragmatic approach to detectors/"jammers." I only ask of them that they perform well in the real world. I don't care what the "range" of the device is but merely does it help me avoid getting ticketed.
#30
There is another issue here: The implication is that the detector that has greater range is the "better" one. This may not be true e.g., it is generally the case that improving the sensitivity of a device comes at the expence of specificity. A detector of greater range may also generate more false alarms the net effect of which might be for the user to ignore legitimate threats. My theory as to why so many people on RL with the V1 have reported being ticketed by radar is paritally based upon these considerations. A detector of greater range may also identify threats so remote as to be inconsequential.
.
.