PDA

View Full Version : Ferrari F430 Scuderia Escort 9500ci


Brian@Perf Outfitters
May 21st, 2009, 12:51 PM
Hi Guys,

Check out what we did to this Ferrari F430 Scuderia with the 9500ci system. Enjoy!!

Performance Outfgitters Group Ferrari F430 Scuderia Escort 9500ci Installation (http://www.performanceoutfitters.com/rides%20ferrari%20f430%20scuderia%209500ci.htm)

Brian

REBinc
May 23rd, 2009, 12:35 AM
You know the jammers don't work well behind grills right?

MEM-TEK
May 23rd, 2009, 12:48 PM
Nice installation, but I agree with REBinc. That wire mesh grille will also cause a noticeable performance degradation for the 9500ci's radar antenna. I assume that the antenna also is behind the grille, but I couldn't see it in the photo.

Brian@Perf Outfitters
June 3rd, 2009, 04:24 PM
We have testing tools here and either in front or behind the grill had no adverse effect on range.

Brian

REBinc
June 6th, 2009, 02:42 AM
And I have some testing showing pigs can fly, do you believe me?

CJR238
June 6th, 2009, 11:43 AM
I do, see the pig flying between the two smoke stacks:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Pink_Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg/200px-Pink_Floyd-

Pontiac G8
June 11th, 2009, 06:38 PM
Pigs on the wing!!

;)

superlubricity
June 20th, 2009, 01:44 PM
Page 4 of the 9500ci Installation Manual reads,

"Performance Warning: To get the best performance possible, the mounting location of the radar receiver is critical. Although radar signals will pass through some types of plastic, mounting the
radar receiver so that it has a clear “view” of the road will ensure maximum warning."

EscortRadar
June 22nd, 2009, 05:51 PM
My 9500ci/STi-R antenna is behind a GM plastic nose piece with factory gold metal flake paint. The horn is well in front of any surrounding metal. This is important for off-axis detection. You should not bury the antenna in a tunnel surrounding metal.

The result was a barely detectable decrease in radar sensitivity, and the clean install was well worth it to me.

Pointman
July 10th, 2009, 09:42 AM
I believe the other gents are referring to the laser jammer ability. And yes it is decreased if they are recessed to far into those intake. It's possible the LIDAR gun will acquire a reading on the headlamps before the jammer can activate.

However, if this installer has had a real live LIDAR gun fired at the vehicle and the gun was jammed at effective ranges then I'd say he's in the clear and great job on a perfectly stealth install. It looks fantastic! As does the vehicle it's in!

djrams80
July 10th, 2009, 10:35 AM
My 9500ci/STi-R antenna is behind a GM plastic nose piece with factory gold metal flake paint. The horn is well in front of any surrounding metal. This is important for off-axis detection. You should not bury the antenna in a tunnel surrounding metal.

The result was a barely detectable decrease in radar sensitivity, and the clean install was well worth it to me.And I 100% disagree. We've seen what Escort approved installs perform like. The Veil Guy's install is supposedly Escort Engineer approved and from what I've seen from his Youtube videos, it performs nothing like mine. I mean it's not in the ballpark.

I'm guessing that you probably tested your radar sensitivity against a K band source. If so, it's my opinion that you do not know if your radar sensitvity is as good as it gets, or not. We've found that different bands of radar behave very differently.

I originally installed my 9500ci's radar antenna here. I figured, it's installed behind a little plastic that I can see right through, should be perfect.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/210/radarantennabehindgrillbb3.jpg (http://img166.imageshack.us/i/radarantennabehindgrillbb3.jpg/)

I was all jazzed when I had my new 9500ci installed. I tested it against known X and K band sources and it worked terrific. I knew the sensitivity numbers, so I was expecting it the destroy my V1 when I found some Ka band, but that's not what happened. My V1 was beating my 9500ci on every 34.7 Ka band encounter. My 9500ci was going from no alert to full alert on almost every 34.7 Ka band encounter. Then I ran up against some 35.5Ka band. My V1 got 1.75 miles of detection, while my 9500ci got about 800ft. I was blown away. I knew something was wrong, but I couldn't figure out what it was. I thought maybe interference between the two RDs at first, but that turned out to be wrong.

Then, I went on a camping trip to Yosemite. Before I left for that trip, I had my antenna moved to the lower grille, next to my front license plate, with a clear view of the road. On the way there, detection was much better. Now, my 9500ci was beating my V1 on 34.7Ka. It was only a small sampling, but I felt that I was on to something and couldn't wait to test it on the way home. Well, that didn't happen, because some POS squirrel at the campground chewed through my 9500ci's radar antenna cable. I was totally ****ed! I had the replacement antenna mounted in the lower grille, but didn't get a chance to test it because I got on a plane the next day to the GOL event.

At GOL 2008, we tested thestaton's 9500ci mounted behind the grille, against a forward facing Ka band radar gun. It got about 300ft detection. We knew something was wrong, because happya$$'s visor mounted 9500ci was getting like 2500ft detection of the same radar source. Then, we remounted it through the grille and got around 2400ft detection. A dramatic difference!

When I got home from the GOL event, I went directly to my installer and had my 9500ci antenna mounted here and it has smoked ever since. The blanket assumption that plastic does not hinder radar reception has been thoroughly disproven, without a doubt. After what I've seen, I would not mount one of these radar antennas behind anything!

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6139/veilzp8.jpg (http://img208.imageshack.us/i/veilzp8.jpg/)

I believe the other gents are referring to the laser jammer ability. And yes it is decreased if they are recessed to far into those intake. It's possible the LIDAR gun will acquire a reading on the headlamps before the jammer can activate.

However, if this installer has had a real live LIDAR gun fired at the vehicle and the gun was jammed at effective ranges then I'd say he's in the clear and great job on a perfectly stealth install. It looks fantastic! As does the vehicle it's in!This installer didn't test it properly. I guarantee it. I'd bet any amount of money that he pointed some device at it, made it alert and called it good. Professional installers are in the "pretty business". They do that great. But 99% of them have zero idea how to make the install perform properly. This is a perfect example of just that. As usual, the components on the inside of the car are done beautifully. But, also as usual, the components on the outside of the car will be either completely or partially ineffective when needed.

MEM-TEK
July 10th, 2009, 12:01 PM
...This installer didn't test it properly. I guarantee it. I'd bet any amount of money that he pointed some device at it, made it alert and called it good. Professional installers are in the "pretty business". They do that great. But 99% of them have zero idea how to make the install perform properly. This is a perfect example of just that. As usual, the components on the inside of the car are done beautifully. But, also as usual, the components on the outside of the car will be either completely or partially ineffective when needed.

I agree with DJ. The customer should check with us as to where the best mounting locations would be on their car for the Escort remote installed products. And then the customer must specifically tell the installer that no deviation from the customer's desired mounting location for the radar antenna or shifters will be acceptable. Same applies for the cabin installed display and control modules since these items must be both easy to see and since the control module must be easy to reach while the customer is driving.

TSi+WRX
July 10th, 2009, 03:20 PM
^ +1 to both MEM-TEK and djrams80 above.

Also, specifically in terms of the rear jammer head.....is that it, to the right of the 430 badge?

I'm not intimately familiar with the F430 ( wish I were! :o ), but if exhaust/engine heat is seen in that area, please check for functionality after the vehicle has had some hard running. Although I do not recall any mention of such a problem with LED-based jammer heads, heat is noted to be a *severe* problem for laser-diode (CLED) heads of the design of the defunct AL G7/G8 (to include the LPP, PASS, LaserStar, etc.). A fellow enthusiast, in placing his LPP head in a similar location on his Lotus, found that once his muffler canister came up-to-temp, the extracted heated air produced severe performance problems when tested in rear-jamming scenario.

Additionally, with this installation, I would take great care to insure that both direct-to-rear-plate shots, as well as shots to the far off-side tail-lamp cluster (in particular with use of a tighter-divergence LIDAR device, such as the LTI TruSpeed) does not produce unexpected PTs.


However, if this installer has had a real live LIDAR gun fired at the vehicle and the gun was jammed at effective ranges then I'd say he's in the clear and great job on a perfectly stealth install. It looks fantastic! As does the vehicle it's in!

^ I'd want to test with several - one is simply not enough.

Everyone who is a hobbyist/enthusiast knows this, but for the newbies among us, just look at the GOL tests.

Speaking even of the limited example of ONLY the 2008 jammer testing, look at, say, the performance of the ZR4 against, say, the ProLaser III or LaserAtlanta, versus, say, either the Stalker LZ1 or the Marksman.

Although one should always test with the most common enforcement device that's found in their local or otherwise most traveled area, it should be more comprehensive, if at all possible!

EscortRadar
July 10th, 2009, 06:01 PM
djrams80,
I understand and am aware of your experience, and appreciate your concern. We blanketly state to mount everything in the open with an unobstructed view. Our training videos also demonstrate proper installation.

Installers, and importantly their customers, sometimes have their minds set as to where they would rather install it though. As long as they are aware of the performance hit then there is nothing we can do. If and when we get complaints from a customer about an improperly installed system, we take action. Ultimately it is our brand name on our products and we definitely want to make sure the customer is happy with their very expensive purchase.

Re: my personal install. My install has been real world tested and "bench" tested against every frequency of police radar on and off axis and shows very little difference in sensitivity. Many people successfully install this way with great results. Maybe the partial obstruction of your particular grill had an effect? I'm not sure, but I know that mine works excellently where it has been for a very long time (long before release) with tens of thousands of miles on it.

TSi+WRX
July 10th, 2009, 10:24 PM
djrams80,
Installers, and importantly their customers, sometimes have their minds set as to where they would rather install it though. As long as they are aware of the performance hit then there is nothing we can do. If and when we get complaints from a customer about an improperly installed system, we take action. Ultimately it is our brand name on our products and we definitely want to make sure the customer is happy with their very expensive purchase.

Although I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, there's a catch.

The installer.

Although one cannot expect the knowledge-base of each unique customer to be up-to-par, we can and should expect this of the installers.

How many of these installers actually take the time to explain not only the nuances, but the actual critical-concern issues?

How many of these installers actually UNDERSTAND, themselves, such critical issues?

How many are willing to take the battle to the customer, to a degree - at the risk of the customer either getting somewhat annoyed to perhaps taking his/her business elsewhere - to press for a more appropriate install, rather than one which will just look good and score points at the local car-show, but offer relatively little real-world usefulness?


Re: my personal install. My install has been real world tested and "bench" tested against every frequency of police radar on and off axis and shows very little difference in sensitivity. Many people successfully install this way with great results. Maybe the partial obstruction of your particular grill had an effect? I'm not sure, but I know that mine works excellently where it has been for a very long time (long before release) with tens of thousands of miles on it.

I truly think that this has more to do with specific-car issues, than anything else.

To the best of my recall, this was something that was first brought to-light from the 2008 GOL Laser Jammer testing, during which happya$$ and thestaton made cross-observations of their unique/individual 9500ci setups, with the former's 9500ci significantly out-performing the latter's.

REF:
http://www.radardetector.net/forums/escort/37055-attn-9500ci-owners-you-need-read-thread.html

What's important here, I feel, is not only the dramatic real-world example seen from these two enthusiasts' personal setups, but also the detail given in, specifically, four follow-up posts (chronologically listed):

First, that of MetalFlame's analysis, on page 2, post #14, which lists some of the varying INDIVIDUAL factors.

And second, that of MEM-TEK's illustrated follow-up, on page 3, post #24.

Third, that of what I cross-referenced of VEIL Guy, via the SpeedTrapHunter.net Forums, where I quoted his reply, in my own follow-up post to the above thread, on page 3, post #29.

Fourth, of MEM-TEK's technical analysis of VEIL-Guy's hypotheses, in reply to my post - this would be post #30, the last post on page 3 of that thread.

djrams80
July 10th, 2009, 10:34 PM
Re: my personal install. My install has been real world tested and "bench" tested against every frequency of police radar on and off axis and shows very little difference in sensitivity. Many people successfully install this way with great results. Maybe the partial obstruction of your particular grill had an effect? I'm not sure, but I know that mine works excellently where it has been for a very long time (long before release) with tens of thousands of miles on it.My bad! Didn't think of that. Working for Escort obviously allows certain advantages, like being able to put your 9500ci through the gambit. I wonder what the science is behind why your obstructed installation doesn't hinder performance, like the others I've seen. Is there any chance you could ask one of the engineers(if you don't know already) why whatever material you have between your radar antenna and the road, does not hinder performance? I'd also love to see pictures of how your radar antenna is mounted, so as not to have a noticeable effect on sensitivity.

Admittedly, my statements are based on only three examples, mine, thestaton's and The Veil Guy's. My install looked completely harmless, yet had a massive reduction is Ka sensitivity. thestaton's 9500ci radar antenna was installed behind a thin piece of solid plastic, that had a slight curve to it. It also looked harmless with similar Ka band sensitivity reduction, maybe worse. I've never seen The Veil Guy's install personally, but at 2:30 of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaBO5kqBOrE), we are told it is mounted low, behind the front bumper cover. The Ka band sensitivity reduction I've seen in his videos looks very similar to the Ka band performance reduction I had with my initial botched installation.

TSi+WRX
July 10th, 2009, 10:58 PM
I wonder what the science is behind why your obstructed installation doesn't hinder performance, like the others I've seen. Is there any chance you could ask one of the engineers(if you don't know already) why whatever material you have between your radar antenna and the road, does not hinder performance? I'd also love to see pictures of how your radar antenna is mounted, so as not to have a noticeable effect on sensitivity.

+1.

Let's get to the root of the issue, so that we can all benefit! :)

EscortRadar
July 13th, 2009, 06:28 PM
My bad! Didn't think of that. Working for Escort obviously allows certain advantages, like being able to put your 9500ci through the gambit. I wonder what the science is behind why your obstructed installation doesn't hinder performance, like the others I've seen. Is there any chance you could ask one of the engineers(if you don't know already) why whatever material you have between your radar antenna and the road, does not hinder performance? I'd also love to see pictures of how your radar antenna is mounted, so as not to have a noticeable effect on sensitivity.

Admittedly, my statements are based on only three examples, mine, thestaton's and The Veil Guy's. My install looked completely harmless, yet had a massive reduction is Ka sensitivity. thestaton's 9500ci radar antenna was installed behind a thin piece of solid plastic, that had a slight curve to it. It also looked harmless with similar Ka band sensitivity reduction, maybe worse. I've never seen The Veil Guy's install personally, but at 2:30 of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaBO5kqBOrE), we are told it is mounted low, behind the front bumper cover. The Ka band sensitivity reduction I've seen in his videos looks very similar to the Ka band performance reduction I had with my initial botched installation.

I think MEM-TEK was on to something with his various materials test video. It probably has more to do with the obstruction not entirely covering the receiver horn (like mine) and a grill obviously does not (like yours). I am also assuming that your grill does not have a metal component to it.

My test bed is my daily driver, a 99 Olds Intrigue. Attached is a stock image. The receiver is behind the pointed nose which is a plastic material. Notice this car has no grill whatsoever so my install options were very limited. One nice side effect is that the receiver still looks brand new other than a little dust ;)

I will ask someone in engineering about your findings, a reply may take a few days so please be patient.

MEM-TEK
July 13th, 2009, 07:45 PM
Yeah, consistently thick plastic materials seem to have hardly any effect on radar transmission through them. Yet oddly shaped plastic objects, plastic grills or plastic with stepped thicknesses do have a noticeable effect on radar transmission. So my new general rule of thumb is that it is perfectly fine to mount behind plastic as long as the plastic has a consistent thickness. It doesn't even matter if the plastic is somewhat curved as long as the material has consistent thickness.

MyEscort8MyV1
July 16th, 2009, 09:36 PM
We have testing tools here
Brian, could you be a little more specific as to what the "testing tools" are (make and model)?

Love the car. A little disappointed with the way the USB was handled though. Thank you for sharing all of your hard work with all of us :)

Well, that didn't happen, because some POS squirrel at the campground chewed through my 9500ci's radar antenna cable.
LOL :D When I read that I immediately had visions of the movie Caddyshack and its gopher :D

The blanket assumption that plastic does not hinder radar reception has been thoroughly disproven
Not true.

The characteristics of a laser light beam is much different than that of a radio signal. You can mount a radar head much differently than a LIDAR head. After all, radar stands for Radio Detection and Ranging. The key word here is ‘radio’. Lets not forget the whole principle behind how radar works, by sending very long wavelength radiation (electromagnetic wave) through the air and then detecting it again after it bounces off a remote target. Radar works like sonar. Unlike LIDAR, Radar can pass through objects (plastic, polymeric composite materials, glass, even your own body). If it couldn’t then non-remote style detectors wouldn’t work. Radar is more concerned with the dielectric of the material. Objects made out of low dielectrics like hydrocarbons, plastics, and fiberglass are not a problem for Radar. However anything metaled would block the radar signal. Ask yourself why does a radar detector have a highway and city setting? It effects how the unit detects the signals. In a city with tall buildings we’ve all seen reception issues at one time or another. Modern day detectors are usually better suited to get around this, but the signal still bounces off of buildings. If I’m not mistaken your Mustangs grill (beautiful car by the way) is not 1/16th of a inch thick, it’s closer to 1/2” or more, and that is more than enough area for the radar signal to bounce off of. As MEM-TEK has already mentioned, solid plastic objects do not have this problem. Why? Because the radar signal can’t ‘bounce’ inside of a solid plastic object, so it simply passes right through it. On a cars grill like yours however there is more reflective surfaces for the signal to reflect off of. I'm more than willing to bet that it wasn't the plastic that caused your problem, but the shape of the plastic, in this case a webbed grill. If it had been a solid plastic grill you wouldn't have had any problems. In other words, this isn't a 'material' issue, it's a 'reflectivity' issue. Look up what most radomes are made out of and you'll see it's generally plastic and fiberglass. Car alarms use Proximity Sensors which also work off of radar, and guess what, their cases are also made out of solid plastic ;)

Professional installers are in the "pretty business".
Not true. Their bosses however, may be ;) All of the places that I have ever worked for wanted to see a certain amount of cars completed everyday. All of the cars that I've ever worked on 'on the side' were always more enjoyable to do, because you didn't have any of these time restraints and could do the job right.

EscortRadar
July 17th, 2009, 01:10 PM
An excellent description of radar reflectivity MyEscort8MyV1, thanks for posting it and for joining the Escort Radar forum!

MyEscort8MyV1
July 17th, 2009, 07:32 PM
An excellent description of radar reflectivity MyEscort8MyV1, thanks for posting it and for joining the Escort Radar forum!
Thank you EscortRadar for the nice compliment. Appreciate it :)

I think that djrams80 would have had better luck mounting as you did, or notching the grille out to 1/16th of an inch (which is less work than removing the bumper cover on a Mustang). That would have reduced reflections to nill. To help clarify your mounting I have posted a better angle of the 98-02 Oldsmobile Intrigue. That car has few options for mounting. I have also requested that MEM-TEK test a flat piece of bumper material in the appropriate thread, but unless he is close by a bone-yard then it will be hard for him to obtain one. Perhaps someone who has access to a small (6") piece of FLAT rubberized bumper material could send it to him for testing. Then he could test it with and without the painted surface. Paint over .005" has been known to reduce radar reception. The average paint thickness varies greatly from car manufacture to manufacture, but I'd say that average is around 8.0 Mil. Moderate polishing will remove approximately 0.03 Mil of paint. A fiberglass fascia would be what would work best. That's what the aeronautics industry uses. Not to digress bit it would be great if whatever product replaced the 9500ci had a removable lens for all of the heads :)

MEM-TEK
July 18th, 2009, 01:37 PM
...Not to digress bit it would be great if whatever product replaced the 9500ci had a removable lens for all of the heads :)

Heck, that is a great idea to incorporate on the present 9500ci and STi-R antennas. Keep the "bubble" cylindrical condenser lenses which are built into the front of the remote antenna's case, but add a thin snap-on cover which features zero power meniscus lenses. That way the snap-on cover can be replaced whenever road debris strikes the protective snap-on cover instead of the road debris hitting the remote antenna's case. A super thin 1/16" strip of foam rubber could be used between the antenna case and the snap-on replaceable cover. The purpose of the thin foam rubber strip is to remove the air gap between the snap-on cover and roughly preserve the refractive index of the transmission boundaries between the back side of the snap-on cover and the front of the antenna housing, and to provide some impact resistance between the snap-on cover and the front of the antenna housing.

Anyway, just a thought for what its worth.