ATL G5 test

[Veil Guy]

Sorry Bob but is that all you have? No explanation or concern g5 is not working as advertised?

Works just fine. That's my explanation.

VG

[Mirage]

Works just fine. That's my explanation.

VG

Bob this is not helping your cause. People are going to start thinking you are selling magic shoe polish. Without the magic. Do you have any idea what is going on? If not your first production run maybe your last.

[BestRadarDetectors]

Works just fine. That's my explanation.

VG

The issue with G4 and I have not tested G5 yet is that its benefits were had at long range. For example without VEIL being clocked at 3800FT and G4 was able to reduce those ranges almost 50% and could have reduced PT range to lets say 1800ft. If you are on a 1000ft course you will not be able to see any benefit. Again I can only speak of G4 as I have not tested G5 yet.

[Mirage]

The issue with G4 and I have not tested G5 yet is that its benefits were had at long range. For example without VEIL being clocked at 3800FT and G4 was able to reduce those ranges almost 50% and could have reduced PT range to lets say 1800ft. If you are on a 1000ft course you will not be able to see any benefit. Again I can only speak of G4 as I have not tested G5 yet.

If that's the case, from a lidar perspective it will be completely worthless. Most lidar encounters occur at sub 1000ft. I have to say I'm disappointed if it has no effect at all. Even if it is still dark I have a black car and would have used it if it was effective.

[Jaguar]

The issue with G4 and I have not tested G5 yet is that its benefits were had at long range. For example without VEIL being clocked at 3800FT and G4 was able to reduce those ranges almost 50% and could have reduced PT range to lets say 1800ft. If you are on a 1000ft course you will not be able to see any benefit. Again I can only speak of G4 as I have not tested G5 yet.

Yup, at ranges exceeding 2000' I imagine it could help, but heck, at >2000' you might as well be shooting the whole dang car because it's tiny in any viewfinder without an optical zoom! And all in all VG, I wanted it to work. I wanted it to help reduce acquisitions, but I just didn't see any benefit to it. I was going to ask hussein to let me put some on my truck after we tested, but (and I'm not trying to speak for him but...) the results made us both decide we'd be better off without it, knowing the potential for damage to the lights, and how poor it appeared with only two layers.


I will not say however that it is a 'definitive' test, or that conditions were perfect, or any of that. It was fairly fresh on the car and relatively cold outside. That may have affected it, among other things.

I look forward to seeing other testers give it a go.

[ECMExpert]

If that's the case, from a lidar perspective it will be completely worthless. Most lidar encounters occur at sub 1000ft. I have to say I'm disappointed if it has no effect at all. Even if it is still dark I have a black car and would have used it if it was effective.

Yup, at ranges exceeding 2000' I imagine it could help, but heck, at >2000' you might as well be shooting the whole dang car because it's tiny in any viewfinder without an optical zoom! And all in all VG, I wanted it to work. I wanted it to help reduce acquisitions, but I just didn't see any benefit to it. I was going to ask hussein to let me put some on my truck after we tested, but (and I'm not trying to speak for him but...) the results made us both decide we'd be better off without it, knowing the potential for damage to the lights, and how poor it appeared with only two layers.


I will not say however that it is a 'definitive' test, or that conditions were perfect, or any of that. It was fairly fresh on the car and relatively cold outside. That may have affected it, among other things.

I look forward to seeing other testers give it a go.

This all begs the question then: I saw Bobs test back in the November introduction with RR AND IT " appeared" to work on the two C7s.
Was there any testing before or after the introduction of the product to validate the claims that it works. VG, can you chime in here with your own test results??

The good news is that vinegar appears to take it right off....

[OrlNmE]

Yup, at ranges exceeding 2000' I imagine it could help, but heck, at >2000' you might as well be shooting the whole dang car because it's tiny in any viewfinder without an optical zoom! And all in all VG, I wanted it to work. I wanted it to help reduce acquisitions, but I just didn't see any benefit to it. I was going to ask hussein to let me put some on my truck after we tested, but (and I'm not trying to speak for him but...) the results made us both decide we'd be better off without it, knowing the potential for damage to the lights, and how poor it appeared with only two layers.


I will not say however that it is a 'definitive' test, or that conditions were perfect, or any of that. It was fairly fresh on the car and relatively cold outside. That may have affected it, among other things.

I look forward to seeing other testers give it a go.

So there is long term damage to the headlights after using Veil?

Also, if it makes my truck look muddy or dirty I'll just stick with ALP. It's more of a guarantee 99% of the time as oppose to using Veil. If under 2000 feet it punches through, then it's not worth it.

[Veil Guy]

So there is long term damage to the headlights after using Veil?

Also, if it makes my truck look muddy or dirty I'll just stick with ALP. It's more of a guarantee 99% of the time as oppose to using Veil. If under 2000 feet it punches through, then it's not worth it.

The highest level of protection I believe will always be using a variety of CMs in tandem such as a jammer, veil, a good RD, a cover like a SuperProtector, and Waze/EL. Something like this today is about as good as it gets, IMO, coupled of course with very attentive driving (an extremely important component). Last year I made a "bull run" from PA to SW FL in less than 14 without incident doing just this.

[ECMExpert]

The highest level of protection I believe will always be using a variety of CMs in tandem such as a jammer, veil, a good RD, a cover like a SuperProtector, and Waze/EL. Something like this today is about as good as it gets, IMO, coupled of course with very attentive driving (an extremely important component). Last year I made a "bull run" from PA to SW FL in less than 14 without incident doing just this.

I remember that, I passed you on SB 75 in Florida.

Back on topic, let's get this G5 tested some more before drawing ANY conclusions.

[Veil Guy]

I remember that, I passed you on SB 75 in Florida.

Back on topic, let's get this G5 tested some more before drawing ANY conclusions.

Yeah. Expect to be doing another run with the month.

Keep in mind as with the case with any version of Veil, whether it be G2, G4, or G5, apparent performance/effectiveness will ALWAYS be dependent upon the remaining areas of the vehicle that are NOT treated. G5 is "stronger" in its mechanisms than previous versions. However as with any stealth technology/material, your are as only as strong as your weakest link.

For example, let's say you completely remove the headlights and the fog lights, etc from the reflective equation. If something else on the vehicle is being super reflective, then that element is going to contribute to your PTs. That's the reason why Veil will always show best on low(er) profile vehicles and/or darker colored ones than white or silver ones.

I have also come to understand recently that certain headlight designs are particularly troublesome for jammers to overcome (regardless of brand/model) and in such an instance, Veil can go a very long way into mitigating that challenge to the jammer and allow it to do its job more efficiently.

That's why I say it's very simple at the end of the day, a layered defense approach will always be the superior approach.

VG