Testing results w/ and w/o TX sensor

[angrypenguin]

It's been about a year since I've looked at ALP testing results since I went ahead and bought one last year.

I can't seem to find testing results for the ALP with and without TX against the Dragoneye. Can someone kindly point me in the right direction?

Many thanks

[BestRadarDetectors]

It's been about a year since I've looked at ALP testing results since I went ahead and bought one last year.

I can't seem to find testing results for the ALP with and without TX against the Dragoneye. Can someone kindly point me in the right direction?

Many thanks

Testing results will still be similar... An ALP 3 Regular Sensor will Jam all guns and a 2 Regular + 1 TX Sensor will also jam all guns. Benefit to the TX is it will offer better off axis and overpass protection being that it has both Horizontal and Vertical transmitters in the new small TX sensor. It also offers users with only 2 rear sensors the option to add a TX giving them similar protection on the rear utilizing only 2 wires.

[angrypenguin]

Testing results will still be similar... An ALP 3 Regular Sensor will Jam all guns and a 2 Regular + 1 TX Sensor will also jam all guns. Benefit to the TX is it will offer better off axis and overpass protection being that it has both Horizontal and Vertical transmitters in the new small TX sensor. It also offers users with only 2 rear sensors the option to add a TX giving them similar protection on the rear utilizing only 2 wires.

Understood. I guess in my case, I'm trying to figure out this exact scenario versus VPR guns:

1) Two regular heads up front
2) Two regular heads + tx

I saw on one of the YouTube videos that ALP dual heads are 70% effective vs VPR guns - but I don't see any test results proving this. It also doesn't specify the type of vehicle. As you know, in my other thread, I'm dealing with a compact/small ish sedan, so not sure if I need to buy a tx head. When I bought the ALPs, a dual head setup for sedans was already sufficient when jamming VPR guns but I can't even find those testing results anymore

I also learned that the tx head is the only head that fires when dealing with a VPR gun like the dragoneye. So now in this case, the advantage of the tx is that there's a third head firing in a vertical direction vs two regular ALP heads with 1 transmitter in each. (so the benefit of a tx head is 1 net additional transmitter in this example)

Non VPR guns are not the concern that I'm trying to deal with. I understand that there's some secrecy needed for some reason (saw on another forum) about ALPs vs VPRs. While I have no reason to be a skeptic and to doubt the SMEs on this board, as a consumer about to drop $550+ CDN for a tx head + gps receiver, I would really like to see some testing results in this regard

Thank you

[angrypenguin]

I did finally find some testing results that I must have used to make my decision to buy the ALP.

http://www.raletc.com/2014-raletc-lidar-shootout-live/

Nissan Maxima, two heads for the ALP and very solid results against VPRs. It'd be great to have a similar test for two ALP heads + 1 tx in the front.

[BestRadarDetectors]

I am sure RALETC and oither testing groups will eventually do their own review. We don't publish our own testing because it would seem bias but I could show you JTG videos all day long but it won't mean anything coming from us.

Not only does TX have additional transmitters it enables the regular two sensors to both become receivers when necessary to offer you double the receiving capability giving you much greater coverage. You really want a receiver within 24" of every target area on your vehicle. When using only 2 sensors only one sensor can receive giving one side of your car a disadvantage being far away from that receiver.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[angrypenguin]

I am sure RALETC and oither testing groups will eventually do their own review. We don't publish our own testing because it would seem bias but I could show you JTG videos all day long but it won't mean anything coming from us.

Not only does TX have additional transmitters it enables the regular two sensors to both become receivers when necessary to offer you double the receiving capability giving you much greater coverage. You really want a receiver within 24" of every target area on your vehicle. When using only 2 sensors only one sensor can receive giving one side of your car a disadvantage being far away from that receiver.


Just learned something new - thank you. I've spent all morning reading up on how this system works so was not aware of this info until now. Thanks

I could have sworn both still receive when they're hit but I can easily test that as I have a laser jammer tester. I can always just point it to one receiver to trigger the system, and then point it to the other I guess. Anyways, not a big deal

I'm really looking forward to RALETCs testing results. ALP dual heads already show pretty good results as per their testing against VPRs. Would be very interesting to see them compare a traditional two head front setup vs two heads + tx.

The reality is that being an attentive driver + using WAZE, I'm already turning my ALPs into receive only 90%+ or more before I get hit with LIDAR. And only about 10% of the hits are with VPR guns.

If there's a drastic improvement between using two ALP heads up front vs two ALP heads + a tx, then absolutely worth the investment. I guess it's hurry up and wait then

PS - I can definitely see the point of using two heads + a tx on a car like a F150 or something, but on a smaller sedan, that's a pretty tough value proposition, but to each their own!

[angrypenguin]

Deleted

[angrypenguin]

Interesting to note

http://radarandlaserforum.com/showthread.php/3663-RALETC-Presents-ALP-vs-DragonEye-Compact-PART-2

When the ALP came out in 2014, they used a 2 head ALP setup on this SUV and it jammed the DE well.

Therefore, definitely very interested to see the test results that I'm looking for above. 2 ALP regular heads vs 2 ALP regular heads + TX in the front.

Perhaps the TX system is overkill? Without testing, as consumers, we won't know!

[BestRadarDetectors]

Interesting to note

http://radarandlaserforum.com/showthread.php/3663-RALETC-Presents-ALP-vs-DragonEye-Compact-PART-2

When the ALP came out in 2014, they used a 2 head ALP setup on this SUV and it jammed the DE well.

Therefore, definitely very interested to see the test results that I'm looking for above. 2 ALP regular heads vs 2 ALP regular heads + TX in the front.

Perhaps the TX system is overkill? Without testing, as consumers, we won't know!DragonEye has changed its operating methods many times and guns from 2014 operate nothing like new guns in 2017.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[angrypenguin]

DragonEye has changed its operating methods many times and guns from 2014 operate nothing like new guns in 2017.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Just going to throw this out there (only mean this respectfully)

If that's the case, then there has not been any information available to us as consumers because organizations like RALETC haven't published testing information to support or deny the claim that DE guns have changed between 2014 and 2017 which has resulted in efficacy changes with CM; and even if that is verifyable, then now we, as consumers, have no idea how two head ALP setups fare vs these type of 2017 VLPR guns, let alone a two head + 1 tx head setup.

I know you probably have far more connections than any of us do but would respectfully request that you pass on a message to the testing gurus to begin publishing some information so consumers can make educated choices.

Right now from what I read on here and on other forums it's very much a "buy a tx head if you want effective protection against DE" - without testing, however impartial it may be, consumers like me who are evidenced based buyers will not just hand over our money :)

I can only speak for myself but I remember back in the 90s when RMR had huge marketing campaigns that showed how their RDs could jam radar...they simply said "believe us!" and people bought it. Many of us on these forums were smart enough to see some proof, and thus bought CMs that work. I feel that right now we're at an impasse because there simply isn't published information to help us consumers make educated decisions about how best to fight DE.

Whether or not two heads is sufficient, and if not, what do the improvements look like with the new tx head? e.g. PT at 1500 feet with two heads now is a full JTG with two heads + tx (as a pure example. I'm making up these numbers of course)

[BestRadarDetectors]

Just going to throw this out there (only mean this respectfully)

If that's the case, then there has not been any information available to us as consumers because organizations like RALETC haven't published testing information to support or deny the claim that DE guns have changed between 2014 and 2017 which has resulted in efficacy changes with CM; and even if that is verifyable, then now we, as consumers, have no idea how two head ALP setups fare vs these type of 2017 VLPR guns, let alone a two head + 1 tx head setup.

I know you probably have far more connections than any of us do but would respectfully request that you pass on a message to the testing gurus to begin publishing some information so consumers can make educated choices.

Right now from what I read on here and on other forums it's very much a "buy a tx head if you want effective protection against DE" - without testing, however impartial it may be, consumers like me who are evidenced based buyers will not just hand over our money :)

I can only speak for myself but I remember back in the 90s when RMR had huge marketing campaigns that showed how their RDs could jam radar...they simply said "believe us!" and people bought it. Many of us on these forums were smart enough to see some proof, and thus bought CMs that work. I feel that right now we're at an impasse because there simply isn't published information to help us consumers make educated decisions about how best to fight DE.

Whether or not two heads is sufficient, and if not, what are the improvements with the new tx head?We are not RALETC, If you have questions for them then you should direct it towards them. They do have their own website. Even mentioning ALP & RMR in the same sentence is insulting. There is lots of research and testing out there if you spend some time and look for it. Our reputation also speaks for itself.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[angrypenguin]

We are not RALETC, If you have questions for them then you should direct it towards them. They do have their own website. Even mentioning ALP & RMR in the same sentence is insulting. There is lots of research and testing out there if you spend some time and look for it. Our reputation also speaks for itself.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Sorry meant no disrespect as I mentioned the word "respectfully" a few times.

Just looking for said testing results and there doesn't appear to be many, if any out there since 2014 to address these basic questions.

[V1Jockey]

I tested my dual setup last year with Alex from KMPH in Vancouver, and against his 2016 DE I was JTG on CM but PT on headlights around 1300'. This year, with the addition of a TX head and against a newer 2017 DE the same car is JTG period. Google their website and check out the video section. I'm a satisfied customer.

[studio1930]

I plan on testing my setup with and without a TX against a DEC in a hilly and overpass scenario which is the type of protection I am looking for from the TX. Just haven't found the time yet.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[angrypenguin]

So I just did my own testing with the help of a veteran of this forum! :). Dual standard ALP with the new tx head in the middle.

While I'm still investigating the results, I can say that the tx head did not perform as I expected (not saying good or bad here). I'm in the process of trying to figure out things, but I'm not going to post exactly what went well or what went not so well (if any) Once my findings are complete, and if I feel that it is worth sharing with the public, then I'll post about it.

I will say this: I encourage people to test their own setups to know what works and what needs to be tweaked in their setups (potentially).

Assumptions may well get you in trouble!

[nuclearlaser]

So I just did my own testing with the help of a veteran of this forum! :). Dual standard ALP with the new tx head in the middle.

While I'm still investigating the results, I can say that the tx head did not perform as I expected (not saying good or bad here). I'm in the process of trying to figure out things, but I'm not going to post exactly what went well or what went not so well (if any) Once my findings are complete, and if I feel that it is worth sharing with the public, then I'll post about it.

I will say this: I encourage people to test their own setups to know what works and what needs to be tweaked in their setups (potentially).

Assumptions may well get you in trouble!
In this test that did not perform as expected for you, what are the distances you tested at for the sensors, F1 and F2, and the distance between F1 and TX? PM me if you do not want to post. I have a setup on my vehicle I am curious about before buying one of these TX sensors. Thanks.

[angrypenguin]

26" end to end.
IIRC 12.5" from bubble of ALP head to TX

[BurchSung]

Hi...i am a new user here. As per my knowledge an ALP 3 Regular Sensor will Jam all guns and a 2 Regular + 1 TX Sensor will also jam all guns. Benefit to the TX is it will offer better off axis and overpass protection being that it has both Horizontal and Vertical transmitters in the new small TX sensor. It also offers users with only 2 rear sensors the option to add a TX giving them similar protection on the rear utilizing only 2 wires.

percentage calculator (http://percentagescalculator.com/)