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/showth...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/showth...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)