I thought I read here in a post something about reducing taxes.
VG
Printable View
I thought I read here in a post something about reducing taxes.
VG
To my dismiss it was the only site discussing cms , as an addict i re-registered under another nick.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Only Sarge
I still have a portion of this can , i can re-do the test for the benefit of IRS ...how the money is not absorbed :frusty:
Curmy , it is about reducing your contribution to the TaxMan...just become a believer...voilà. :cheerful:
Quote:
Originally Posted by curmudgeon
I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by curmudgeon
VG based on your experience how would you recommend applying Veil to a vehicle to get the best performance? Vehicle will have jammers but they will not be on. Also NO front plate. Painters tape will be put down on the vehicle paint and all reflective surfaces will be coated with Veil based on your recommendation. This should hopefully represent the best case correct? Awaiting your response.
I think you must utilize the exact instructions for application straight from Bob's website. This is presented to the masses as the application required to get protection. You vary from the published application instructions and you now own the results versus VEIL owning the results. Follow VEILS instruction.
In my humble opinion.
Veil G5 is a water-borne transparent acrylic latex polymer coating that is applied with a foam brush (included). VEIL is easily applied to the most reflective surfaces of your automotive vehicle including its headlights, fog lights, brake lights, directional indicators, and number plate areas.
A single application is sufficient to effectively cover these areas.
Note: Veil G5 can now safely be applied directly to your license/number plate however, we recommend applying Veil to a clear license plate cover as blocking performance tends to improve while be more discreet in appearance. Veil can be thinned with water to allow lighter coatings to be applied either with the brushes provided or with an airbrush. Two light coats tend to perform better than one heavier coat. We’ve experimented and have found that coating the front and the back of a clear plate cover or applying a light coat directly to the plate coupled with a light coating on a plate cover provides potentially better blocking efficiency while being less noticeable to the naked eye.
Publish your results following VEILS application instructions to the letter. VEIL owns those results.
From there you may get a mop and smear the entire front of the car and test.
You own those results.
However I have totally lost any and all understanding of any realized protections of following the VEIL instructions after this exchange.
So I have no idea what it is VEIL is supposed to do anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Only Sarge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veil Guy
I would say that's correct. Would take a picture of the front of your vehicle and let's take a look at it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
VG
Poorly worded on my part. I will clarify. At some point expect a PT is going to happen and depending upon the type and color of the car, its shape, the type of paint that's going to occur at any given distance. That distance whatever it is, is going to be dictated by the parts of the vehicle untreated NOT treated.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Only Sarge
On this last test series with our green civic, PTs happened at further distances when the vehicle's body itself was targeted NOT the headlights. Any lidar gun that tones during targeting in a manner that provides the operator feedback as to how much reflection of its own is being seen by the laser gun, will show this. The LZ1 is I believe the best gun for this sort of feedback. When you target an unveiled vehicle you will get tones. When you target a veiled vehicle those tones significantly drop and often go completely silent until just before a PT is reached.
I believe that Mirage's suggestion that G5 wasn't absorptive enough or it was too glossy and that would be why PTs occur. Let's say the Mirage believes that at five coats he believes G5 is effective at absorbing laser. Ok then, put that on the headlights and target versus using only one or two coats. If the expectation is that performance would substantially improve on any given vehicle, I believe that is a false assumption.
Completely eliminating reflection from the headlights and anything else treated will not prevent PTs occurring. The varing distances will be dictated more by what's left. That's what I was trying to say. I will clarify that.
VG
Well I appreciate the clarity as you had me bumbdoozled there for a minute.
I still think Mirage should follow your instructions per your website. Get the uninformed users experience. The vast majority of users are just going to follow manufacturers instructions and expect advertised results. Are they not?
From there he can/will go further in his testing and try and answer the many variables presented on this forum.
The benchmark should be manufacturer application instructions and the results compared to advertised claims. I think this is the mantra of RALETC firstly.
Yes I agree. I think you found a spelling mistake too. We'll have to correct that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Only Sarge
I would only ask that Mirage start out with baselinung at around 2000 feet. And start his runs from that point. That would help give us an idea how "loud" the test vehicle is. Also where he gets PTs if he gets PTs with his jammers on, I would appreciate seeing those results again with Veil too. We have found that two head systems in the front can become single heads. And three head systems can become 2 head systems. I understand the way the ALPs work that st least 2 heads are needed to defeat advanced DEs. Short of that protection I believe you may be able to get away with a single mounted head in the center with the headlights knocked out of the equation.
If Mirage finds a weakness in our 1st run G5 we will work on improving it.
VG
Since Front Plates are required in more than 31 States (The Majority) I think you should slap a plate on the car to give people an idea of the difference with or without a plate since most people by law will be required to have that extra reflector on their car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BestRadarDetectors
VG
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 Mirage
Précision : rétro paint is designed to reflect back to source from any angle decreasingly up to 80 degrees +/-.
Why is stuff like this not on your own FAQ Pages? http://www.stealthveil.com/faqQuote:
Originally Posted by Veil Guy
Stuff like "If you don't treat the plate you'll be cooked." is stuff that people buying the product need to know when they install G5.
You have plenty of other stuff on your FAQ's which me might start a debate about at another time such as:
Q. Can Veil G5 really outperform laser jammers?
A. Yes, in a growing number of circumstances.
But I dont see anything showing the limitations of G5.
The Public Claims
Imagine driving a vehicle that’s invisible.
You can now with Veil.
Major benefits of driving with Veil G5:
Reduces the targeting range of all police lasers, making it harder to obtain your speed
Helps prevent your plate from being identified by IR photo enforcement and ALPR systems
Protects your headlights from long-term UV damage and oxidation
The application instructions to achieve the claims.
How do I apply Veil G5 to my vehicle?
Veil G5 is a water-borne transparent acrylic latex polymer coating that is applied with a foam brush (included). VEIL is easily applied to the most reflective surfaces of your automotive vehicle including its headlights, fog lights, brake lights, directional indicators, and number plate areas.
A single application is sufficient to effectively cover these areas.
And for the record I want me one of them invisible vehicles. My wifes girlfriends tell her when they see my truck at WhatABurger......I get in trouble.
I actually must have skipped over the painters tape comment... I cant believe he is going to tape the whole front end of his Camaro with tape and then put G5 over the whole front end for testing. That is pretty crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty
in Europe the white highly retro-reflective plate is so much reflective, that even if I shoot from angle bugger that 45 degree by a toy, red laser I have my whole hand back lighted in red.
VL, will it be possible to paint the plate with new generation of Veil.
Whats more, the plate in Europe must be not cover (require by law).
http://www.germancarblog.com/uploade...era-777162.jpg
Not only is it crazy, but for G5 to perform acceptably only with tape all over the front end of the car is not acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BestRadarDetectors
Of course I do not speak for Mirage......I would suspect the man (Mirage) is showing both ends of the spectrum. Extreme on the low end being the manufacturer application instructions and results to the other end of the extreme....and the results.
Is that what he meant? I took that as taping off painted areas. NOT the whole vehicle!Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty
Since G5 can go on paint now, I would suggest to eith tape off certain sections after Veil was conventionally tested. Look at what other areas are hurting you. Rerun them and then determine which portions of the vehicle are the culprit. If the overall performance isn't good, I would say augment the vehicle with jammer heads close to those areas.
VG
I'll look at it again. The site is still a work in progress. We had something like that on the old laser veil site.Quote:
Originally Posted by BestRadarDetectors
If there are those interested in maximizing their odds getting a darker car than a lighter one is better. That applies to using any/all CMs and actually RADAR and shape really can help here too.
When jammers have IPTs that statement is true: After LIs/Blinders starting failing with the DEs.
I'm going to back off here as Sarge suggested. You guys have at it.
VG
That's all I ask for. Show both sides of the spectrum. Not only the worst case. That's the one thing I like about some of RT's meets. Testing out on a lot of different vehicles used by our community. A lot is learned from that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Only Sarge
VG
With respect to marketing claims and truths (or mistruths) consider the following "marketing/sales" language:Quote:
Originally Posted by BestRadarDetectors
Rocky Mountain Radar
The RMR C450 and RMR C430 will scramble all radar and laser signals from police radar or laser gun returning a blocked signal. Thus, making it virtually impossible for police to read your vehicles spped...laser jamming portion cover the front of your vehicle 180 degrees for unbeatable protection...Completely legal in all states...
Here's another gem:
OnTrack Photo Stopper Photo Blocker Spray
The Photot Stopper Spray Reflects photo radar flash. Spray it and make your license plate invisible to cameras. Proven to beat photo radar cameras
How's that for truth in advertising? I believe I recall privately communicating with this vendor on multiple occasions that they were doing our community a real disservice and advised to drop them. Guess we've come a long way from those days...haven't we?
Cheers.
VG
You dont know when to stop digging yourself deeper and deeper. I assume you are referring to a website I purchased 10+ years ago when I bought an electronics company that sold all sorts of electronics and consisted of 20+ websites selling Cameras, TV's, Car Electronics Etc. The difference is when I started to focus on Radar Detectors and dropped the other 20+ websites that I purchased over time I started testing products I sold and dumped all products that did not live up to their claims. I was not a manufacture for RMR or a Manufacture for Ontrack, YOU are the owner of VEIL Corporation and YOU solely are responsible for the claims that you pass on to your customers, distributors and retailers. There is a major difference here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veil Guy
But one issue is that plate covers are illegal in CA, DC, IL, KS, MO, NY, and SC. That's 26.9% of the US population by current estimates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veil Guy
Furthermore, AZ, DE, IN, IA, MA, NJ, NC, OH, TN, TX, and VA outlaw covers if they "obscure visibility", "reduce reflectivity", "are opaque", etc. If we add those to the above total, we get 57.2% of the US population by current estimates.
I still think it's valuable info from a testing perspective. If you're getting PTs because other parts of the car are reflecting, then it's not VG's fault...so long as he includes a notice on the product that you'd better find ways to reduce reflectivity of the parts of the car that aren't covered by Veil. If you want to find out how effective the Veil really is, then you'd run a test with all other parts of the car covered with tape or some other material, but the plate and headlights exposed as usual, then put Veil on and run the test again. The more variables you can eliminate from the equation, the easier it is to figure out how effective Veil really is. Of course, photos of what the headlights and plate look like to the naked eye are also important, so you know whether the application used was really practical.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by awj223
Not the point whose fault it is.....the entire point here with the testing going on right now and all the discussion is simple:Quote:
Originally Posted by awj223
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veil Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty
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 Salty
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 The Only Sarge
We will see. Could be another Dannon Yogurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by awj223
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
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 Salty
Yep, I didn't want to put the stuff on any part of my car, headlights included. Just the license plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by specifics
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
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.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.
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.....
Been out all day with family... The suspense is killing me.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Only Sarge
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.