RALETC Official Results of Veil G5 Testing - Part 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veil Guy

Do both. If you don't treat the plate you'll be cooked. The plate will be your weakest link. If you have a plate cover even better. If you can pitch the plate forward a bit pointing it down even better. MUCH better. Retroreflective plates are specifically designed to reflect IR and magnify them several orders of magnitude in reflectivity. Look at stealth holistically. That's the best approach.

VG

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty

I understand your reasoning to doing this for testing purposes, but it's unrealistic to think that anyone would do this in real life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty

I understand what you're saying, but in essence this means Veil has no real world purpose. A LEO will shoot whatever part of the car to get a reading. They don't always just hit the plate or headlights. I don't know anyone who would put Veil on any part of their car besides the plate or headlights. I do understand the purpose of doing it for testing, but unless Veil is put on the whole end of a car, AND it proves to be effective, I don't see why anyone would put it on their car.

---

Sure, but it's important to isolate what you're testing from other external factors. If someone tells me that their wifi disconnects from their access point and they were running a Bluetooth call over cellular at the same time, the first thing I'm going to ask them to do is to switch off the call and see if the same thing happens. If it does, then there's no point in even running a test with the Bluetooth headset because the problem occurs in isolation. Likewise, if you literally cover all reflective parts of the car body and you find zero differences in PT distance with Veil on the headlights vs without, there's no point in even removing the covering and testing further. Something is flawed with the product itself and it's not blocking IR. I believe in always testing the simplest, most isolated scenarios first, because if you can find a fundamental problem with the simple scenario, there's no point in even bothering to do more complex tests (e.g. on different types of cars).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Only Sarge

Not the point whose fault it is.....the entire point here with the testing going on right now and all the discussion is simple:
Does Veil do what it advertises it will do? When applying Veil per the manufacturer specifications does it meet or exceed the claims made on their website.
That's it. Nothing else. "Make your car invisible" with just one coat of veil on the headlights, fog lights, license plate....that is the standard set by Bob's website/ His words not mine.

---

That's just bad/misleading advertising. But most people with common sense would see that this is absurd. By this logic, any car with pop-up headlights and the headlights switched off and no front plate would be completely invisible by default.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awj223

That's just bad/misleading advertising...................

---

We will see. Could be another Dannon Yogurt.
Falsely touting the "clinically" and "scientifically" proven nutritional benefits of the product, Dannon even got a famous spokesperson, Jamie Lee Curtis, for the supposed digestion-regulator. But after a while, some customers didn't buy it.
A class action settlement last year forced Dannon to pay up to $45 million in damages to the consumers that filed the lawsuit and others who said they'd been bamboozled. The company also had to limit its health claims on its products strictly to factual ones.

False advertising is a bad thing. Class Action lawsuits are filed everyday when products are publicly touted to do one thing and fail to do so. Lawyers line up like 12 year olds to a Hannah Montana Concert. All they need are 3 people to claim they have been bamboozled and mislead and Voila.....you have a false advertisement class action lawsuit. Lawyers take these things on contingency.
The term ‘false advertising’, which is also referred to as deceptive advertising, is an illegal action taken by a marketer, manufacturer, or seller of a particular good or service to inaccurately advertise their underlying product. False advertising aims to persuade consumers in purchasing a product through the delivery of false or misleading statements.

And I am not advocating any type of "action"...just stating fact and responding to your comment.
Lets see what Mirage comes back with.

'' I understand what you're saying, but in essence this means Veil has no real world purpose.''

100% agree.
We have Alp , powerfull and sophisticated .

Cant wait to check Mirage & team...real hud results.



For any chrome parts , i would use this , it is inexpensive\durable , it dulls a lot the specular reflection , easy to remove...though only if wife approves the change :devilish:
On paint it turns ugly as well on taillights\headlights.
I did not test on licence plates...anyone would like to do ?
Attachment 3726

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty

I understand what you're saying, but in essence this means Veil has no real world purpose. A LEO will shoot whatever part of the car to get a reading. They don't always just hit the plate or headlights. I don't know anyone who would put Veil on any part of their car besides the plate or headlights. I don't see why anyone would put it on their car.

---

This has been my concern with this type product..... unless a person does not care about their paint/clear coat the only place would be headlights which to me is "part of my car" and that only leaves the front plate which sees like a finger in the hole of the dyke...... I remember when I was first getting into this hobby I thought about getting Veil but gave up that idea like a hot potato because there was no way I was going to be able to effectively protect my interest by covering a plate only..... surly wasn't going to slather it on my Jag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by specifics

This has been my concern with this type product..... unless a person does not care about their paint/clear coat the only place would be headlights which to me is "part of my car" and that only leaves the front plate which sees like a finger in the hole of the dyke...... I remember when I was first getting into this hobby I thought about getting Veil but gave up that idea like a hot potato because there was no way I was going to be able to effectively protect my interest by covering a plate only..... surly wasn't going to slather it on my Jag.

---

Yep, I didn't want to put the stuff on any part of my car, headlights included. Just the license plate.

I really think Veil has lost track of what it should be trying to do. Take this as an example: http://www.stealthveil.com/faq

Quote:

---

How does Veil Protect against headlight UV damage and oxidation damage?

Veil not only absorbs IR but it also absorbs portions of solar UV. Long-term UV light exposure coupled with oxidation often causes the breakdown of the matrix of newer composite plastic headlight housings resulting in the unsightly yellowing, pitting, and clouding of headlights that you will routinely see with vehicles.

When Veil G5 is applied to your headlights, a hardy protective IR, UV, and oxidation barrier is created which will significantly slow this deterioration process.

---

Trying to stop IR and UV at the same time? The problem with that is that visible light is right between IR and UV. It's extremely difficult to come up with a compound that stops both and does not stop what's in the middle (visible light) which is part of the problem we've been seeing with G5 on license plates.

The other problem with trying to stop UV is that Veil is marketed, first and foremost, as a product that stops LiDAR (infrared). For people concerned about yellow headlights, there are other products for that, and they work a lot better than Veil would: http://www.autogeek.net/best-headlight-restoration.html

I've found that applying the same sealant I use for my car's paint to the headlights protects them against UV, and increases the amount of time I can go without having to re-polish the lenses. But paint sealants are supposed to stop UV by design, and don't leave my white car's paint looking dull/washed out/dirty when I apply them because they're not trying to do too much in one single product.

:sleeping:

Guys give Mirage a break here. Not only does he have to apply the product multiple times he has to run the test. document the test, edit the test, publish the test.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Only Sarge

Guys give Mirage a break here. Not only does he have to apply the product multiple times he has to run the test. document the test, edit the test, publish the test.....

---

Been out all day with family... The suspense is killing me.

While we are waiting.....
We did get some film of Mirage in action on the test course today....I'll post up here in a few minutes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ek/failcar.gif