Speed Measurement Labs Test
Client: Beltronics USA, Inc.
Products Evaluated: Bell STi Driver radar
Evaluation Criteria: RF Leakage & Detection by police RDD's
Evaluation Date: 22/10/05
Evaluation Location: El Paso Texas USA
Evaluation Personnel: Carl Fors, SML, Dave Adams E.E., and local law enforcement officers.
Report Date/Number: 31 October 2005/SML0404-11 |
 |
Overview
The FCC (Federal Communications Commission), voiced its concern of radio frequency (RF) leakage by radar detection devices beginning in its notice of 19th July 2002. The FCC furthermore now requires all radar detectors to comply with “unintentional radiators” necessities in several parts of CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 47 and subparts of Part 15 therein. The FCC declared RD's must not surpass energy levels of a field strength of 500 uV/m calculated at 3 meters away from the RD. The FCC further required all RD's be submitted for appraisal of this energy standard. The FCC further insists all radar detectors be labeled as satisfying with the policy. The label should display a FCC ID # of the RD and contain the words “This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference and (2) this device must accept any interference received including interference that may cause undesired operation.” The FCC has time and again stated radar detectors to be a legal device most notably in the FCC’s Public Notice, DA96-2040, issued 9 December 1996. But, this dictate allows states and other federal agencies to consider RD's in their jurisdiction illegal as did the US Department of Transportation - outlawing the use of radar detectors in commercial vehicles from February in 1995. This ban includes 18 wheelers, but does not apply to passenger cars. RD's in cars are illegal only in Virginia, Washington, D.C., and on US military bases.
Beginning in the latter of 1990 a device designed to alert to the presence of an (illegally operated) radar detector was released to law enforcement staff. It was named a radar detector detector, or RDD. Kustom Signals Inc. released this device under the name of VG-2 as it was scanning for RF local oscillator leakage around the 11.55 GHz frequency. Following to the VG-2, the "Spectre" RDD was introduced to the US market by a company called Microstealth Technologies of Australia, known locally as the Stalcar. The Spectre alerted to a wider range of local oscillator frequencies as radar detector manufacturers shifted the frequency of their LO emissions outside of the VG-2 range. A new VG-4 RDD has now entered the market from Hills Country Research of Fredericksburg, TX. The distance at which the RDD’s detected a RD's LO leakage is a assessment of its compliance with the aforementioned FCC requirements for “unintentional radiators.” Several high leakage brands of RD's will interfere with other radar detectors in the opposite lane. The opposite lane radar detector will alert the driver, of a radar presence, but in reality it’s detecting the high leakage signal of the oncoming radar detector.
Radar detectors constantly make every effort to design their detectors to minimize emissions with better shielding. During Speed Measurement Labs yearly RD Test in June, all radar detectors were challenged to all RDDs including the newest versions of the Spectre, the Spectre III. Every radar detector was alerted to by the Spectre III. Some were even alerted to at long distances past 1/4 mile!
Beltronics, Inc. contracted with SML to establish the detectablity of their new STi Driver radar detector. Detectabilty is defined as not emitting any signal complying with the FCC “unintentional radiator” provisions of CFR 47, Part 15 as referred to previously and to being detected by RDDs.
Methodology
As with all SML tests, the standard practice of operating all radar guns and other enforcement equipment by radar/laser certified police officers using the devices in accordance with guidelines of the IACP was applied. The police officers themselves also took down the results of tested products along with riding in the test vehicle with the representatives of the respective radar detector maker as observers. These “ride along” officers are the ones that report to the test vehicle the performance of the tested products. This standard practice eliminates any bias from the results. Beltronics provided Ron Gividen as a representative of their company and he brought the STi Driver sample, unit to the field for testing. The STi Driver is a solid build made with a finely detailed black, metal case. It feels heavy and substantial because it is. You could hit it with a hammer and it would just smile back at you. It’s designed for durability, longevity and the abuse of dropping it out of your SUV on a four wheel camping trip. We were tempted to drag it attached to the bumper of the test vehicle for a mile before putting it into operation. In 20 years of testing radar detectors, we’ve never seen such a solid construction.
Prior to testing for RF leakage, the sample, i.e. Beltronics STi Driver, was tested for reception of normal radar bands from 1/2 and 1/4 mile distances. Orange cones were placed at these locations and distance confirmed using a Kustom Signals Pro Laser III laser gun set to the range mode. This assures accuracy to 1/10th of a foot. A white Ford Taurus was used as a test vehicle and the STi Driver was mounted per the instruction manual of the product Mr. Gividen brought with him. The pavement was dry with an ambient temperature ranging from 57F to 74F. Humidity as reported by National Weather Service Radio was 13%. Testing began at 0900 hrs. and ended at 1500 hrs. The testing location has an elevation of 3,216 feet above sea level and is devoid of any RF signals in the radar bands to be evaluated. A RF sweep was made of the test course prior to testing insuring no competing RF signals were present. During the 1/2 and 1/4 mile test, the sample was exposed to radar guns transmitting on X band at 10.525 GHz, K band at 24.150 GHz, and Ka band at 34.7 GHz. The sample correctly identified each transmitted frequency at each distance cone. For re-verification, other radar detectors were also included in this common distance reception test including a Valentine One and a Whistler 1778 model. All models were also exposed to a Kustom Signals Pro Laser III transmitting at 904 nanometers. When aimed at the detectors, all models correctly reported laser reception.
The RDD test began at the completion of the radar gun verification evaluation. The test vehicle containing the detectors began approaching the van containing the RDDs from the 1/4 mile cone at 30 mph. Once detected, the driver was told to stop and the detection distance was recorded by the laser gun in the range mode. The detection distance was re-verified by a second laser reading while the test vehicle was stopped. All detectors were given five runs at four different RDDs including the VG-2, VG-4, Spectre II, and Spectre III. The Spectre III was provided by the police officers as they brought it to the test site. The five detection distances were then averaged. If the test vehicle did not stop immediately when told to do so by the van’s radio operator, that particular run was cancelled and it was run again
Results
The STi Driver was completely invisible to all RDDs down to point blank range with the noses of the test vehicle and the test van touching. It’s the black hole of signal leakage. The only way to detect the Driver is to see it! The other two tested detectors were easily detected by both the Spectre II and the Spectre III.
Detection Distances of Radar Detectors by Make & Distance
- distance reported in feet from the RDD
- ND denotes not detected |
Detector |
VG-2 |
VG-4 |
Spectre II |
Spectre III |
Valentine One |
ND |
ND |
644 ft. |
544 ft. |
Whistler 1788 |
1456 ft. |
155 ft. |
630 ft. |
4655 ft. |
STi Driver |
ND |
ND |
ND |
ND |
As a final test we drove the test vehicle with the STi Driver operational to the front of the test van containing the RDDs to see if we could electronically detect it. We couldn’t. At this close distance the STi Driver actually detected the RF leakage of the Spectre’s while the Spectre units were blind to the presence of the STi Driver.
Conclusion
The field testing confirms the advertising claims of the STi Driver.
The Driver is the only radar detector completely invisible to all radar detector detectors with blistering sensitivity to all radar bands. It did not “key” up other radar detectors attesting to its strict compliance wearing the "white hat" good guy award with FCC regulations regarding “unintentional radiation” of RF signals.
This evaluation was conducted in accordance with accepted police practices for operation of radar and laser speed measurement devices as outlined by the International Association of Chiefs (IACP) and NHTSA.
Police officers observed, reported, and verified the testing procedures.
Attested To This 31th Day of October 2005
FIELD EVALUATION REPORT
BY SPEED MEASUREMENT LABORATORIES, INC.
Evaluated Product: Laser Blinder
Evaluation Date: 8 August 2003
Evaluation Location: Stan Roberts Senior Road, El Paso, TX
Personnel: Sgt. Victor Araiza, El Paso ISD Police, Officer Patrick Linam, El Paso ISD Police, Carl Fors, SML, Dave Adams E.E., SML, Cory Jensen, |
|
SML, Liz Hermida, SML, Torben Andersen, Blinder, Leon Gruner, Blinder,
Conditions: Clear, 92-100 F°
Report Number: SML0803:17
Report Date: 12 August 2003
Certifications: Sgt. Araiza, Officer Linam, and Carl Fors Certified Laser Gun Operators, NHTSA, standard |
Evaluation Methodology:
Blinder produces a laser countermeasure designed to produce no speed readings when it encounters police laser guns. Court president established by New Jersey Superior Court ruling of 1998 (USA), Judge Reginald Stanton, dictates laser may not be used for speed assessment at distances greater than 1,000 feet. Current police training programs also recommend no targeting past this distance as the divergence of the laser gun's 904 nanometer, 3 milliradian, beam would be greater than 36 inches producing a likelihood of erroneous speed readings from adjacent vehicles. All laser guns were operated by either Sgt. Araiza or Officer Linam. No speed assessment equipment, i.e. police radar and/or laser guns are ever operated by SML personnel eliminating any suggestions of testing bias. Both Sgt. Araiza and Officer Linam are certified laser operators. They were instructed to operate the laser guns as they do each day in issuing speeding tickets. The following police laser guns were used during the field evaluation: Kustom Pro Laser III, Stalker LZ-1, Laser Technologies Inc. Ultralyte LR 200, and Laser Atlanta Speed Laser.
 |
Officers are trained to aim laser guns at front license plates as the plates provide an excellent retro-reflective surface. Laser needs a flat reflective surface to be effective and can not be aimed at windshields. In the absence of a front license plate, as is the case in seventeen states, officers aim the laser at the headlights of the target vehicle. |
| As is the case with all SML field evaluations, only white mid-sized cars are used as target vehicles. This is the most difficult scenario for laser countermeasures as white is the most reflective color and easily targetable by laser compared to non-reflective black vehicles. Optical physics dictates white reflects all colors, while black absorbs all colors including police laser gun emissions. |
 |
Cones were placed on the test course at distances of 1,000 and 500 feet. The test vehicle approached each cone at two different speeds, i.e. 30 mph and then 60 mph. This approximates laser being used in the city and then the highway J setting. Speed is important in defeating laser guns. |
The longer the laser beam remains on the target vehicle the greater chance of a speed reading. The slower 30 mph should yield more speed readings. All laser guns were operated in the constant tracking mode compared to the single shot mode. This is the typical operational methodology used by police agencies as the constant tracking mode shows fluctuations in target vehicle speeds and further substantiates the legality of "visual tracking history" which is necessary for thorough and legal speed assessment. |
| The vehicle containing the Blinder approached each cone and counted down via a two way commercial radio when it arrived at each cone. The officer then fired the laser. There were two tries at each speed and each aiming point, i.e. first the license plate and then the passenger headlight. Laser guns were operated outside the base vehicle on the shoulder of the same lane as the test/target vehicle. |
 |
The test vehicle was first targeted from the front and then from the rear going away from the laser guns. Rear targeting with police laser is rare. Combining front and rear aiming of all four laser guns, Blinder was exposed to 120 laser encounters. Blinder was also exposed to Laser Atlanta's Speed Laser set in the Stealth mode. This mode claims it can not be jammed. For field testing purposes Blinder's transponders were not concealed in the vehicle's front cowling or rear bumper assembly. This mounting neither enhanced nor diminished the normal placement performance. Blinder consists of two front and two rear mounted transponders. Under actual usage, Blinder's transponders would be concealed to avoid recognition.
Results: One of the four laser guns inform the operator if the laser gun is being jammed. Stalker produce jamming codes of E-6 accordingly.
However, these codes can be produced by other outside influences such as direct sun light and road mirages and are often ignored by operators. E 1 code means insufficient data. Jamming efficiency is reported in three forms, i.e. JTG meaning Jam To Gun, J meaning Jam, and N meaning no jamming occurred. JTG further means the laser countermeasure jammed the laser gun from the point of first encounter, 500 and 1000 foot cone, to the laser gun's position. J means countermeasure jammed the laser gun but uncloaked at some distance as is reported as J (210).
The countermeasure jammed the laser gun but uncloaked at 210 feet. Note rear results reported as J or N as Blinder could not JTG going away from gun. Blinder notifies driver with in cabin speaker.
Summary: Laser Blinder during its 120 encounters with four laser guns with different aiming points, different speeds, from the front and the rear of the target vehicle failed to jam only four times out of the 120 encounters resulting in a jamming efficiency percentage of 97%. Noted speed reception distances were averaged between the two tries in each category.
Based on the field performance of Laser Blinder, it is awarded Speed Measurement Laboratories Inc. "Performance Certification" as it performed as advertised in jamming all police laser guns.
This "Performance Certification" is awarded for one year from the date of this report. It is confirmed all police laser guns were operated by certified police officers in accordance with standards established by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, and operational guidelines set forth by NHTSA. All laser guns used during the field evaluation are certified by the IACP as they appear on its web site of www.iacp.org
The results were witnessed by the attending police officers, SML staff, and representatives of Laser Blinder.
Speed Measurement Laboratories Inc. neither condones nor condemns the use of the products it field evaluates. The results of this field evaluation should not be construed as an endorsement of the product, but as a factual representation of the product's performance. Products were evaluated under ideal testing conditions and individual performance may vary. SML's "Performance Certification" logo is a trademark of Speed Measurement Laboratories, Inc. and may not be used, duplicated, nor reproduced without the expressed, written permission of the company as covered by the copyright law of the United States.
Results Attested To:
Carl Fors. B.S.
President
Speed Measurement Laboratories, Inc.
FCC Licensee RS Radiolocation KNNN392
Certified Radar/Laser Instructor/LES
CF/rd
file
SML Report #0308:17
The Guys of Lidar are one of the most respected, unbiased [read: not paid by a manufacturer to conduct a test of their product] group of radar detector & laser jammer testers in the USA.
Each year the group of enthusiasts meet and test different products for the purpose of measuring the performance of different models against one another.
They do not charge manufacturers to attend with their products (as SML do) nor are they paid by a manufacture (as does / did at one stage) the other main radar detector reviewer in the US.
In July of 2008, the Guys of Lidar conducted their annual laser jammer test, which was their second year of testing the Laser Interceptor
Here is the Guys of Lidar's July 2008 laser jammer test results:
Here is the Guys of Lidar's March 2007 laser jammer test results:
DelonixRadar conducts our own radar detector and laser jammer tests, to verify claims made by all radar and laser manufacturers. We own a vast array of test equipment including 3 lidar guns, K and Ka-band radar guns, as well as a Spectre IV+ radar detector detector.
Here were the results from our November 2008 laser jammer test:
Key for results tabled below:
- Figures represent time in seconds jammed before a speed reading was obtained.
- Jammer successfully jammed lidar gun for 4 or more seconds = green
- Jammer jammed lidar gun between 2 & 4 seconds = orange
- Jammer jammed lidar gun for less than 2 seconds = red
- Instant punch through (jammer had no effect) = IPT
- Not detected by the jammer = ND
|
Sold Out 
We are so confident you will be absolutely delighted with your experience with us that we offer a 30-day Money Back Guarantee. If you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, then simply return it. It's that simple...
